Hamas IS Isis and Isis IS Hamas! — Page 13
#302
This is an important conversation, and Bill Maher lost a great opportunity for dialogue because he wanted to score melodramatic points, like Mikey does.
Even in that interview, Don Lemon lost an opportunity by saying the kind of thing that Reza Aslan intemperately calls "frankly -- and I use this word seriously -- stupid."
Reza Aslan is passionate, but he gets too defensive in these conversations, the same way Bill Maher gets too melodramatic.
The one who made the most rational sense, oddly enough, was Bibi Netanyahu in his UN address--and Netanyahu is usually the biggest blowhard in the room:
NETANYAHU: But our hopes and the world's hopes for peace are in danger, because everywhere we look, militant Islam is on the march. It's not militants. It's not Islam. It's militant Islam. And, typically, its first victims are other Muslims, but it spares no one.
In other words, it's not all Muslims, and it's not just isolated armies of militants. It's militants who are claiming the mantle of fighting on behalf of Islam.
So when Obama says "ISIS is not Islam," he is just being silly, since as far as ISIS is concerned, they're the only ones in the world who ARE truly Muslim.
Clarity is necessary. If we can be clear that we're fighting not Islam but militant Islam/political Islam, Islamism, jihadism and the imposing of sharia on unwilling populations--in other words, we are fighting people who are claiming to use Islam as a justification for violence and repression--i we can be clear about that, we will enable non-Muslims and moderate Muslims to work together to battle terrorism without descending into bigotry.
Posted: 10/1/14 at 10:00am
This is an important conversation, and Bill Maher lost a great opportunity for dialogue because he wanted to score melodramatic points, like Mikey does.
Even in that interview, Don Lemon lost an opportunity by saying the kind of thing that Reza Aslan intemperately calls "frankly -- and I use this word seriously -- stupid."
Reza Aslan is passionate, but he gets too defensive in these conversations, the same way Bill Maher gets too melodramatic.
The one who made the most rational sense, oddly enough, was Bibi Netanyahu in his UN address--and Netanyahu is usually the biggest blowhard in the room:
NETANYAHU: But our hopes and the world's hopes for peace are in danger, because everywhere we look, militant Islam is on the march. It's not militants. It's not Islam. It's militant Islam. And, typically, its first victims are other Muslims, but it spares no one.
In other words, it's not all Muslims, and it's not just isolated armies of militants. It's militants who are claiming the mantle of fighting on behalf of Islam.
So when Obama says "ISIS is not Islam," he is just being silly, since as far as ISIS is concerned, they're the only ones in the world who ARE truly Muslim.
Clarity is necessary. If we can be clear that we're fighting not Islam but militant Islam/political Islam, Islamism, jihadism and the imposing of sharia on unwilling populations--in other words, we are fighting people who are claiming to use Islam as a justification for violence and repression--i we can be clear about that, we will enable non-Muslims and moderate Muslims to work together to battle terrorism without descending into bigotry.
#303
Posted: 10/1/14 at 10:13am
"So when Obama says 'ISIS is not Islam,' he is just being silly, since as far as ISIS is concerned, they're the only ones in the world who ARE truly Muslim."
Denying ISIS's definition of Islam (and themselves as true representatives of it) doesn't sound silly to me.
Denying ISIS's definition of Islam (and themselves as true representatives of it) doesn't sound silly to me.
#304
But if you deny that Isis is Islamic, do you also deny Boko Haram and the Taliban?
How about the various Al Qaedas (Al Qaeda in Iraq, Al Qaeda in the Magreb, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Al Qaeda in India?
The Khorasan Group and Al Nusra in Syria?
Ansar al-Sharia in Libya and Tunisia?
Ansar al-Islam in Iraq and Sria?
Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad?
The Muslim Brotherhood?
The Mullahs of Iran.
Or even the Salfist and Wahabbist clerics in Saudi Arabia who fuel the extremist ideology, or the wealthy Persian Gulf funders who keep the various groups going.
They would all insist that they are Muslim. Who are we to draw the line at who is and who is not?
Posted: 10/1/14 at 11:28am
But if you deny that Isis is Islamic, do you also deny Boko Haram and the Taliban?
How about the various Al Qaedas (Al Qaeda in Iraq, Al Qaeda in the Magreb, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Al Qaeda in India?
The Khorasan Group and Al Nusra in Syria?
Ansar al-Sharia in Libya and Tunisia?
Ansar al-Islam in Iraq and Sria?
Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad?
The Muslim Brotherhood?
The Mullahs of Iran.
Or even the Salfist and Wahabbist clerics in Saudi Arabia who fuel the extremist ideology, or the wealthy Persian Gulf funders who keep the various groups going.
They would all insist that they are Muslim. Who are we to draw the line at who is and who is not?
Updated On: 10/1/14 at 11:28 AM
#305
Posted: 10/1/14 at 11:46am
I didn't take that statement to say they don't consider themselves Muslim; rather that their practices don't define what Islam is.
#306
Posted: 10/1/14 at 11:57am
Oh, I never saw it that way. I thought he was saying that he himself didn't consider them Muslim. That's why I asked who are we to say who is and who isn't.
#308
Posted: 10/1/14 at 12:05pm
I also took it as a statement about representing or not representing a religion. Obviously, he wasn't saying that they don't consider themselves Muslim.
As far as who is he to say what is and isn't Muslim, or, variously, what does and does not properly represent any religion, that's always a good question.
But if the question is flawed that doesn't change the fact that it is the religious question itself. What is the religion? What does it mean? What defines it?
And because all, or at least most, of the great religions are self-contradictory, it can mean very different things to very different people. When Luther questioned the Vatican's Christianity he wasn't literally saying the Vatican didn't identify itself as a Christian. He was questioning whether the Vatican's corrupt practices meaningfully represented Christ's teachings as he held them to be.
Fred Phelps was nominally a Christian. And there's certainly no disgrace in saying that he was truly not one, although of course, it's a matter of opinion.
As far as who is he to say what is and isn't Muslim, or, variously, what does and does not properly represent any religion, that's always a good question.
But if the question is flawed that doesn't change the fact that it is the religious question itself. What is the religion? What does it mean? What defines it?
And because all, or at least most, of the great religions are self-contradictory, it can mean very different things to very different people. When Luther questioned the Vatican's Christianity he wasn't literally saying the Vatican didn't identify itself as a Christian. He was questioning whether the Vatican's corrupt practices meaningfully represented Christ's teachings as he held them to be.
Fred Phelps was nominally a Christian. And there's certainly no disgrace in saying that he was truly not one, although of course, it's a matter of opinion.
Updated On: 10/1/14 at 12:05 PM
#309
Finally! Some clarity on the warring factions of the Middle East::
WASHINGTON POST: 9 attempts to explain the crazy complexity of the Middle East
Posted: 10/1/14 at 12:39pm
Finally! Some clarity on the warring factions of the Middle East::
WASHINGTON POST: 9 attempts to explain the crazy complexity of the Middle East
Updated On: 10/1/14 at 12:39 PM
#310
Posted: 10/5/14 at 12:56pm
The Bill-Ben encounter. I wish they would have gotten even deeper into it.
BTW.. I do wish Ben would have just taken a second to listen instead of just getting defensive. While I agree with Bill I would have loved more substance to the conversation. But this makes me even a bigger fan of Ben.
https://tv.yahoo.com/news/ben-affleck-slams-bill-maher-racist-ugly-views-180607298.html
BTW.. I do wish Ben would have just taken a second to listen instead of just getting defensive. While I agree with Bill I would have loved more substance to the conversation. But this makes me even a bigger fan of Ben.
https://tv.yahoo.com/news/ben-affleck-slams-bill-maher-racist-ugly-views-180607298.html
Updated On: 10/5/14 at 12:56 PM
#311
Posted: 10/5/14 at 6:57pm
I'm not sure Maher or Harris are capable of getting "deeper into it". Both are on record as believing all religious faith is inherently dangerous if not deadly.
So there's not much they can do except shout down any attempt to distinguish between liberal/moderate Islam and radical Islamism.
Obviously, Maher and Harris are entitled to their points of view, but I don't see where they leave us except on the edge of WWIII.
So there's not much they can do except shout down any attempt to distinguish between liberal/moderate Islam and radical Islamism.
Obviously, Maher and Harris are entitled to their points of view, but I don't see where they leave us except on the edge of WWIII.
#312
Posted: 10/5/14 at 7:22pm
So there's not much they can do except shout down any attempt to distinguish between liberal/moderate Islam and radical Islamism.
as stated earlier, there is no way to make that distinction. thomas jefferson could not do it. no one in this thread can prove who the "real islam" is.
no, we don't need WWIII, but EVERYONE has to have a grown up conversation about how all of that stuff is not real, and should have no power over us. we are afraid to, because we identify religion so closely with culture, but there is a huge difference. i am 100% certain that the grisly story of exodus did not occur. i am 100% certain that the ghastly figure of yahweh did not tell moses to ask the pharoah to let his people go, then hardened his heart, then killed all the firstborn of egypt. it's a fairy tale, and an evil one at that, so it makes me happy to realize it's not true.
but just because that's a grisly fairy tale, doesn't diminish at all, the accomplishments of jewish literature and art and contributions to science. the music of bernstein is still gorgeous. and that is the great task before us. we can have culture without superstitious nonsense, which has always been the enemy, and always will be.
as stated earlier, there is no way to make that distinction. thomas jefferson could not do it. no one in this thread can prove who the "real islam" is.
no, we don't need WWIII, but EVERYONE has to have a grown up conversation about how all of that stuff is not real, and should have no power over us. we are afraid to, because we identify religion so closely with culture, but there is a huge difference. i am 100% certain that the grisly story of exodus did not occur. i am 100% certain that the ghastly figure of yahweh did not tell moses to ask the pharoah to let his people go, then hardened his heart, then killed all the firstborn of egypt. it's a fairy tale, and an evil one at that, so it makes me happy to realize it's not true.
but just because that's a grisly fairy tale, doesn't diminish at all, the accomplishments of jewish literature and art and contributions to science. the music of bernstein is still gorgeous. and that is the great task before us. we can have culture without superstitious nonsense, which has always been the enemy, and always will be.
#313
Obviously, Maher and Harris are entitled to their points of view, but I don't see where they leave us except on the edge of WWIII.
It can just as easily be asserted that Affleck's naivete is bringing us to the edge of WWIII and that Maher and Harris are waking us up to a reality that must be confronted honestly for conflict to be avoided.
Comparisons to appeasement can be made but I eschew things like that so someone else would have to make them.
Maher is a circus clown looking for an audience reaction--a smart one but a clown nonetheless--but Harris is the smartest atheist I've ever read. It's hard to point to anything Sam Harris (the atheist not the singer) says about any of the religions and say it's untrue.
Posted: 10/5/14 at 10:04pm
Obviously, Maher and Harris are entitled to their points of view, but I don't see where they leave us except on the edge of WWIII.
It can just as easily be asserted that Affleck's naivete is bringing us to the edge of WWIII and that Maher and Harris are waking us up to a reality that must be confronted honestly for conflict to be avoided.
Comparisons to appeasement can be made but I eschew things like that so someone else would have to make them.
Maher is a circus clown looking for an audience reaction--a smart one but a clown nonetheless--but Harris is the smartest atheist I've ever read. It's hard to point to anything Sam Harris (the atheist not the singer) says about any of the religions and say it's untrue.
Updated On: 10/6/14 at 10:04 PM
#314
Posted: 10/6/14 at 12:21pm
Ben does not himself understand the codified doctrine of Islam. Sam Harris outranked Ben, and it showed. Unfortunately people tend to side with the handsome movie star without even understanding.
#315
Posted: 10/6/14 at 10:38pm
Oh, please. "Sam Harris outranked Ben Affleck" because Harris seemed to support views you already hold.
Don't get me wrong: I watch Maher religiously (pun intended) and I've read two of Harris' books. Where they both falter is in their certainty that religion is inherently fundamentalist. Although Harris lobbies for "spirituality without religion", he's never quite clear what that means. (He doesn't mean "New Age"--that much is certain.)
In fact, there are millions of Christians who take their dogma metaphorically and, one must assume, there are at least some Muslims who do the same.
Affleck isn't naive. Given his films, I suspect he's spent more time in the Middle East than Maher. He's merely objecting to the "inherency argument", namely that because some Muslims are homicidal fanatics, then fanaticism must follow inherently from their scripture.
This makes no more sense that claiming all Christians are just one sermon away from joining Westboro Baptist.
But if the West demonizes Islam and its more benign traditions, then we leave 1.5 billion Muslims nowhere to go except into the arms of ISIS, Hamas and the likes of Islamic Jihad. If, on the other hand, we work to promote an Islamic Enlightenment similar to that which Christianity experienced over the past 250 years, we may end with the extremists on the outside of their own religion. (While we're at it, we can do better with Christians as well.)
That doesn't mean we shouldn't also secure our own borders and airports at the same time. But let's avoid dividing the population of the world into binary opposites.
P.S. to PJ: now that I've heard the entire exchange in context, I didn't hear anyone on the panel call for "appeasement".
Don't get me wrong: I watch Maher religiously (pun intended) and I've read two of Harris' books. Where they both falter is in their certainty that religion is inherently fundamentalist. Although Harris lobbies for "spirituality without religion", he's never quite clear what that means. (He doesn't mean "New Age"--that much is certain.)
In fact, there are millions of Christians who take their dogma metaphorically and, one must assume, there are at least some Muslims who do the same.
Affleck isn't naive. Given his films, I suspect he's spent more time in the Middle East than Maher. He's merely objecting to the "inherency argument", namely that because some Muslims are homicidal fanatics, then fanaticism must follow inherently from their scripture.
This makes no more sense that claiming all Christians are just one sermon away from joining Westboro Baptist.
But if the West demonizes Islam and its more benign traditions, then we leave 1.5 billion Muslims nowhere to go except into the arms of ISIS, Hamas and the likes of Islamic Jihad. If, on the other hand, we work to promote an Islamic Enlightenment similar to that which Christianity experienced over the past 250 years, we may end with the extremists on the outside of their own religion. (While we're at it, we can do better with Christians as well.)
That doesn't mean we shouldn't also secure our own borders and airports at the same time. But let's avoid dividing the population of the world into binary opposites.
P.S. to PJ: now that I've heard the entire exchange in context, I didn't hear anyone on the panel call for "appeasement".
Updated On: 10/6/14 at 10:38 PM
#316
I wish we'd just drop this tiresome debate over "Is All of Islam Bad?" The answer is "No, of course not" and the subject itself is a waste of time, especially when discussed by circus clowns and earnest actors.
The specific conversation we OUGHT to be having--and Sam Harris would be a good participant, because he is much more interesting on specifics than on generalities--is what degree of influence does the noxious Wahhabist theology promulgated by the Saudis have on the mosques and madrassas of the Muslim world in general--and those in Europe and America in specific? How responsible can we hold the Saudis for the effect of Wahhabi clerics on the poisoning of Islam into the Islamism of Al Qaeda and ISIS? Is Sunni terrorism more dangerous than Shi'a terrorism? How are they the same--and, more important, how are they different? If Zionism is racism, then why isn't Islamism racist too? To what degree do the Muslim governments that use Sharia (to varying degrees) create a breeding ground for extremism? Is Sharia the problem? And to what degree are moderate Muslim governments--and moderate Muslims--responsible for the jihadism they have turned a blind eye toward? Have they turned a blind eye toward it? And if there are 1.5 billion Muslims, why can't you destroy 30,000 ISIS members?
But finally, you should know that's it's considered insulting, racist, colonialist, and condescending for Westerners to tell Muslims things like "Hey, all you guys need is a good old fashioned Enlightenment, y'know, like the one we had, 300 years ago, so you can catch up to how enlightened we are!"
Posted: 10/6/14 at 11:15pm
I wish we'd just drop this tiresome debate over "Is All of Islam Bad?" The answer is "No, of course not" and the subject itself is a waste of time, especially when discussed by circus clowns and earnest actors.
The specific conversation we OUGHT to be having--and Sam Harris would be a good participant, because he is much more interesting on specifics than on generalities--is what degree of influence does the noxious Wahhabist theology promulgated by the Saudis have on the mosques and madrassas of the Muslim world in general--and those in Europe and America in specific? How responsible can we hold the Saudis for the effect of Wahhabi clerics on the poisoning of Islam into the Islamism of Al Qaeda and ISIS? Is Sunni terrorism more dangerous than Shi'a terrorism? How are they the same--and, more important, how are they different? If Zionism is racism, then why isn't Islamism racist too? To what degree do the Muslim governments that use Sharia (to varying degrees) create a breeding ground for extremism? Is Sharia the problem? And to what degree are moderate Muslim governments--and moderate Muslims--responsible for the jihadism they have turned a blind eye toward? Have they turned a blind eye toward it? And if there are 1.5 billion Muslims, why can't you destroy 30,000 ISIS members?
But finally, you should know that's it's considered insulting, racist, colonialist, and condescending for Westerners to tell Muslims things like "Hey, all you guys need is a good old fashioned Enlightenment, y'know, like the one we had, 300 years ago, so you can catch up to how enlightened we are!"
#317
Posted: 10/6/14 at 11:26pm
Man, my head is spinning.
Twitter @NamoInExile
Instagram none
#318
Posted: 10/7/14 at 9:54am
PJ, I find the "All Islam is bad" charge just as tedious as you do. But it was the claim that started this thread. See the very first post.
I agree that your questions re Wahhabism (and its export by our good friends the Saudis) and the future of the Sunni/Shi'a conflict are not only interesting but more to the heart of the problem. I also fault economic problems and social systems that create large masses of impoverished, unemployed young men who have little to do BUT fly airplanes into buildings.
But finally, you should know that's it's considered insulting, racist, colonialist, and condescending for Westerners to tell Muslims things like "Hey, all you guys need is a good old fashioned Enlightenment, y'know, like the one we had, 300 years ago, so you can catch up to how enlightened we are!"
Considered by whom? Screw 'em if they can't take a joke!
You're the first to clutch your pearls over what you deem to be "false equivalences", but you've already conflated "ISIS is Islam" with "ISIS is Islamic". Now you confuse the Enlightenment as a movement toward secular humanism and scientific objectivity with "enlightenment" in the Buddhist or evangelical senses of the word.
I wrote nothing that your hero Sam Harris hasn't written in many thousand more words: fundamentalists of all stripes (and I regularly mention Christian fundamentalists in the same breath) need to give up their fairy tales and learn the scientific method.
The difference is that Sam Harris and Bill Maher insist that fundamentalist literalism is the ONLY possible way to worship (which is what makes their discussions on the subject amusing yet ultimately limited), where I understand that many believers by necessity conceive of the Divine using metaphor and analogy.
By the way, try Richard Dawkins. At least HE has a sense of humor on the subject.
I agree that your questions re Wahhabism (and its export by our good friends the Saudis) and the future of the Sunni/Shi'a conflict are not only interesting but more to the heart of the problem. I also fault economic problems and social systems that create large masses of impoverished, unemployed young men who have little to do BUT fly airplanes into buildings.
But finally, you should know that's it's considered insulting, racist, colonialist, and condescending for Westerners to tell Muslims things like "Hey, all you guys need is a good old fashioned Enlightenment, y'know, like the one we had, 300 years ago, so you can catch up to how enlightened we are!"
Considered by whom? Screw 'em if they can't take a joke!
You're the first to clutch your pearls over what you deem to be "false equivalences", but you've already conflated "ISIS is Islam" with "ISIS is Islamic". Now you confuse the Enlightenment as a movement toward secular humanism and scientific objectivity with "enlightenment" in the Buddhist or evangelical senses of the word.
I wrote nothing that your hero Sam Harris hasn't written in many thousand more words: fundamentalists of all stripes (and I regularly mention Christian fundamentalists in the same breath) need to give up their fairy tales and learn the scientific method.
The difference is that Sam Harris and Bill Maher insist that fundamentalist literalism is the ONLY possible way to worship (which is what makes their discussions on the subject amusing yet ultimately limited), where I understand that many believers by necessity conceive of the Divine using metaphor and analogy.
By the way, try Richard Dawkins. At least HE has a sense of humor on the subject.
#319
Sam Harris the Athiest is not my hero. He's just smart.
The OTHER Sam Harris is my hero:
Posted: 10/7/14 at 11:09am
Sam Harris the Athiest is not my hero. He's just smart.
The OTHER Sam Harris is my hero:
#320
Posted: 10/7/14 at 1:23pm
Quick question - wondering if anyone knows this. Supposedly, a great deal of ISIS' funding is coming from selling oil, from territories they've claimed, on the black market. WHO are they selling this oil to? Are nations buying oil from them? If so, surely we should be putting severe sanctions on those nations. If individual companies are buying the oil, they should be prevented from doing business with us. I'm sure it's murkier and more complex than that, but anyone have some insight into this?
#321
Posted: 10/7/14 at 1:36pm
HT. Read these:
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/09/18/whos-buying-isis-oil-kerry-says-theyre-looking-into-it/
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/18/business/al-khatteeb-isis-oil-iraq/
The extremely oversimplified answer is, for the most part, a primary combination of Assad regime leaders + black market traders (who then flip it for a profit to countries unaware of the oil's origins)
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/09/18/whos-buying-isis-oil-kerry-says-theyre-looking-into-it/
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/08/18/business/al-khatteeb-isis-oil-iraq/
The extremely oversimplified answer is, for the most part, a primary combination of Assad regime leaders + black market traders (who then flip it for a profit to countries unaware of the oil's origins)
Updated On: 10/7/14 at 01:36 PM
#322
Syria is unlikely. ISIS says it want to overthrow Assad--ISIS is Sunni and Assad is Alawite, which is an offshoot of Shi'a.
It's the Sunnis--like Turkey--that are more likely to be buying the oil from them, either to use or to resell at a profit.
We in the West have no idea of the extent to which Sunni and Shi'a hate each other. The Sunni Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia consider Shi'a a worse form of blasphemy than Christianity--or even Judaism!
I'm obsessed with this stuff. But it can make you crazy.
UK Independent: The vicious schism between Sunni and Shia has been poisoning Islam for 1,400 years - and it's getting worse
Posted: 10/7/14 at 2:37pm
Syria is unlikely. ISIS says it want to overthrow Assad--ISIS is Sunni and Assad is Alawite, which is an offshoot of Shi'a.
It's the Sunnis--like Turkey--that are more likely to be buying the oil from them, either to use or to resell at a profit.
We in the West have no idea of the extent to which Sunni and Shi'a hate each other. The Sunni Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia consider Shi'a a worse form of blasphemy than Christianity--or even Judaism!
I'm obsessed with this stuff. But it can make you crazy.
UK Independent: The vicious schism between Sunni and Shia has been poisoning Islam for 1,400 years - and it's getting worse
#323
Posted: 10/7/14 at 2:46pm
There is anecdotal evidence that black market traders were purchasing the oil on Assad's behalf. You should probably read the articles I posted.
#324
Posted: 10/7/14 at 4:00pm
There are some people we don't take reading lists from.
Twitter @NamoInExile
Instagram none
#325
That first article (from PJ Media--no relation!) is unreliable. The second article (from CNN) says that the ISIS is selling the oil "locally" in Syria, not that Assad is buying from them.
I caution you against googling a mideast topic and believing what you read at first. Every player in the Middle East is playing a double game. No one is really reliable. You have to look behind every statement and consider the speaker's agenda or you will get misled.
It's not just that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It's that the enemy of my enemy is my friend until the winds shift the sands.
Posted: 10/7/14 at 4:30pm
That first article (from PJ Media--no relation!) is unreliable. The second article (from CNN) says that the ISIS is selling the oil "locally" in Syria, not that Assad is buying from them.
I caution you against googling a mideast topic and believing what you read at first. Every player in the Middle East is playing a double game. No one is really reliable. You have to look behind every statement and consider the speaker's agenda or you will get misled.
It's not just that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It's that the enemy of my enemy is my friend until the winds shift the sands.
Updated On: 10/7/14 at 04:30 PM
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
Tickets From $58
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
