Thread: Bill Maher

Originally Posted by jmpet

Really??? REALLY??? And Hannity or O'Reilly is not??? Are you kidding me?

Oh and BTW- Maher usually backs his statements up with facts- a new concept to conservatives.

Hannity and o'reilly both throw in facts here and there too. But all three use the old standard when someone makes a legitimate point contrary to theirs...."well I think your wrong, next topic" not one of them let's the other side get a word in that could be contrary to their own. Everytime someone tries to, they shout at them, interrupt them, and immedieately switch topics.

They all suck.

Originally Posted by jmpet

Really??? REALLY??? And Hannity or O'Reilly is not??? Are you kidding me?

Oh and BTW- Maher usually backs his statements up with facts- a new concept to conservatives.

How new is the concept to criticize one's own government by stating
" it's not an act of bravery to bomb cities from far away like the
U.S. Military does." And that the terrorists who flew the planes into
the World Trade Center were NOT Cowards.
Got his ass Fired from ABC { show cancelled } yet Rush et.al. managed
to defend his right of free speech.

Originally Posted by jmpet

Really??? REALLY??? And Hannity or O'Reilly is not??? Are you kidding me?

Oh and BTW- Maher usually backs his statements up with facts- a new concept to conservatives.

I'd like for there to be a Special Academy Award { Oscar for all those Obama
voters } for Funniest Putz in or out of the Movies .
Funniest Putz of the Year Award.
And there was only one Nominee ... Bill Maher.

Originally Posted by Brewskier

Suicide maybe, but when it comes to suicide bombing, however, the meaning is different. Here is Qur'an 9:111

Um, no it isn't!! Suicide is strictly forbidden. Terrorists with political agendas may distort Islam in order to fit their agendas, but their agendas ARE NOT in keeping with Islam.

Originally Posted by Brewskier

In Islam, the guarantee of heaven is a much more tenuous concept than it is in Christianity. Christians, for the most part, believe that if someone is baptized for the forgiveness of sins, then they are guaranteed to go to heaven as long as they continue following Christ's teachings. Muslims, on the other hand, believe that their sins will be put on a scale, and if their own Islamic good deeds do not outweigh the weight of the sins, they will go to hell. The only guaranteed way is found in the above scripture. If a Muslim dies fighting for Allah, they are guaranteed to go to heaven. Nowhere else in the Qur'an is this promise made. There are several theories on why September 11th was chosen, and one of them is that the date corresponds with Qur'an 9:111.

Yes, and the interpretation of this ideas is almost universally accepted to be defensive fighting. The war against the Soviets in Afghanistan was accepted as righteous Jihad by almost every religious authority in the Muslim world. However, terrorism on the other hand, IS NOT!!

Originally Posted by Brewskier

Let's see if you like what the Sheikh said about this....





Do you like what he has to say here?

What does this red herring have to do with anything? I made a very specific claim, which in no way entailed a ringing endorsement of those religious authorities!! I find both of them to be quite distasteful character(the Grand Mufit of Saudi Arabia in particular), but that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the point I made. You can't contradict my point on it's own terms, so you are forced to change the terms. That is fallacious, but unsurprising.

Originally Posted by Brewskier

So what? They have a very different idea of what constitutes "terrorism" than we do. They often say that they condemn the "killing of innocents", but what they don't tell you is that many Islamic extremists do not consider any non-Muslim to be innocent, since they are not accepting the guidance of Allah. These Muslims are employing taqiyya and kitman to deceive others and hide the true agenda of radical Islam. Some are honest about it, though....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fliG1doz240

Except of course, once again that is false. You don't like when I claim others are ignorant, but then people go out of their way to be ignorant, and what else am I supposed to do? All you have done is shown that one mentally unstable Muslim with a specific political agenda believes something, but the established doctrine of Islam is not in keeping with that mans view.

Originally Posted by Brewskier

This is pure nonsense. Politics are an inseparable part of Islam, the religion. OBL supported his calls for Sharia with healthy doses of religious belief, and quoted the Qur'an often. I know you'd love to separate OBL from Islam, but it's not going to happen. The rewriting of history is not going to work.

Good lord, more astounding ignorance!! Truly unimaginably astounding!! My guess is that you have done a decent number of hours of research on the internet, read biased right wing hate sources, and read certain quotes of from the Quran, and you have come away thinking you have some level of expertise!! However, this is simply objectively false!! Have you ever heard of quietism? The majority of religious figures in the Middle East are quietist. There is unquestionably some separation between church and state in most Middle East countries(probably all, even Saudi Arabia). Just like, while the Ottoman Sultan claimed to be Caliph, the state and religion were clearly demarcated. There was overlap certainly, but the Ottoman Empire never held religious authorities to be greater than secular ones. The Ottoman Sultan simply used religious symbolism to legitimize his political authority.

Originally Posted by Brewskier

It's quite simple. The ideal society in Islam is the world that existed under Muhammad's time. Sharia is not compatible with secularism, religious pluralism, capitalistic materialism (which is probably why so many leftists love Islam), or any of the other aspects of our modern civil society. It is stuck in the 7th century, and it wants to stay that way. The problem, is that they want to force us into that system, as well.


Political Islam is not a modern phenomenon. Sharia is an inseparable part of Islam, and it has very clear instructions on how society is to be run. These rules have been in effect since their groundwork was laid in the Qur'an, 1400 years ago. What you are talking about is the reemergence of fundamentalist Islam during the last century. This is simply a movement that strives to bring Islam back to its roots and follow the Qur'an much more literally. Historically, Islam has spread through war and demographic conquest, and politics have always been a big factor in this. After the Muslim defeat at the Gates of Vienna in the 17th century, the Islamic world fell into a long period of decline that they just recently snapped out of. So, like most apologists, you would have to start history back in the 20th century to call this Islamist movement a "modern phenomenon".

It isn't at all simple. This is why you continue to promote ignorance, because you may have read stuff online, but you clearly know close to nothing about the history of the Muslim world. This whole notion of 7th century idealism is what salafism is!! It is most accurate to trace this phenomenon back to Ibn Wahab in the 18th century. That is when Wahhabism was founded, and that is the religious sect Bin Laden belonged to. That is the religious sect that is in keeping with your view of Islam. Wahhabism is fundamentally and greatly different to anything that existed in say 7th, 8th, or 9th century Arab world. At the very earliest, if you want to go back as far as possible to the earliest strands of this sort of thinking, the farthest you can go back is to the decline of the Abbasids. Until that point, the Abbasid empire was at the apex of human civilization. The scientific, architectural, mathematical, philosophical, cultural, etc achievements of Muslims was astounding. On top of that, the sexual literature that came out of that period was enough to make a hippy blush!! I suggest you go read some Everett Rowson on Medieval sexuality and sexual literature. The Abassids were sexually liberated, culturally open, scientifically advanced, etc. They therefore had NO desire to go back to the ways of the 7th century. However, when that empire declined, is when you first began to see the conservatism you believe has always existed, begin to emerge in force. It was because people wondered why the Muslim world had declined, and they determined it was because they had become bad Muslims, and didn't live up to the standards of the earliest Muslims. This brand of thinking took on more significance after the defeat of the Muslim empires by the Mongols(that is legitimately the point in which it emerged, almost 700 years after the founding of Islam), but then went away with the rise of the Ottoman Empire. And it reemerged in the 17th-18th century in response to the rise of Europe in comparison to the Middle East. However, it didn't exist for about at the very least, the first 400-500 years of Islam!! Therefore your monolithic narrative simply doesn't hold up to historical examination!!

Originally Posted by Brewskier

"Immodern"?

If political Islam did not exist prior to the 20th century, how was so much land conquered for Islam starting with Muhammad and stretching out within 150 years after Muhammad's death?

What in the world does that non-sequitur have to do with anything?

I will respond to the rest later.

Originally Posted by frodly

Um, no it isn't!! Suicide is strictly forbidden. Terrorists with political agendas may distort Islam in order to fit their agendas, but their agendas ARE NOT in keeping with Islam.

It's not a distortion. You go and find me another guarantee of heaven inside the Qur'an aside from Qur'an 9:111, which requires Muslims "slay and be slain" in the way of Allah. Go ahead, I'll wait. When you can't find one, start thinking about how attractive such a promise would be, if you were a sexually deprived Muslim who was promised dozens of young virgins to satisfy your every desire.

Yes, and the interpretation of this ideas is almost universally accepted to be defensive fighting.

And who makes that distinction? Who has the authority to tell the Muslim world to fight or not? We don't have a caliphate anymore. They're working on it, though.

The war against the Soviets in Afghanistan was accepted as righteous Jihad by almost every religious authority in the Muslim world. However, terrorism on the other hand, IS NOT!!

So "every religious authority in the Muslim world" was allowed to tell the entire Muslim world to fight against the Soviets because of their involvement in Afghanistan? Would it be OK for Christians in America to tell Christians to go and fight against the Muslims who are persecuting Christians in the Middle East? Somehow I don't think you'd be quite as understanding.

What does this red herring have to do with anything? I made a very specific claim, which in no way entailed a ringing endorsement of those religious authorities!! I find both of them to be quite distasteful character(the Grand Mufit of Saudi Arabia in particular), but that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the point I made. You can't contradict my point on it's own terms, so you are forced to change the terms. That is fallacious, but unsurprising.

It's very simple. You quoted Islamic authorities to support your argument, and I was able to destroy the credibility of those people by bringing up other quotes that no rational person would stand behind. I just wanted to point out that, even when a leftist holds up a Muslim as some sort of role model (i.e condemning terrorism), it doesn't take a lot of digging to discover just how extreme those Muslims usually are.

Except of course, once again that is false. You don't like when I claim others are ignorant, but then people go out of their way to be ignorant, and what else am I supposed to do? All you have done is shown that one mentally unstable Muslim with a specific political agenda believes something, but the established doctrine of Islam is not in keeping with that mans view.

If only that view was limited to just that man, that would be great. We'd have a lot less to fear from Muslims. However, much of the Islamic world, including many Muslims in our Western countries, think exactly like this guy. That's an inconvenient fact that you Islamoapologists are going to struggle with in your quest to convince the world how great Islam is.

Good lord, more astounding ignorance!! Truly unimaginably astounding!! My guess is that you have done a decent number of hours of research on the internet, read biased right wing hate sources, and read certain quotes of from the Quran, and you have come away thinking you have some level of expertise!! However, this is simply objectively false!! Have you ever heard of quietism? The majority of religious figures in the Middle East are quietist. There is unquestionably some separation between church and state in most Middle East countries(probably all, even Saudi Arabia). Just like, while the Ottoman Sultan claimed to be Caliph, the state and religion were clearly demarcated. There was overlap certainly, but the Ottoman Empire never held religious authorities to be greater than secular ones. The Ottoman Sultan simply used religious symbolism to legitimize his political authority.

Every single school of Islamic jurisprudence is in agreement on things like stoning women for adultery, killing apostates for leaving Islam, and preventing non-Muslims from ruling over Christians. Find a single generally accepted school of jurisprudence that disagrees with these concepts. I can name others, as well.

Certainly not every Islamic country has Sharia established in its entirety, but that is not because of Islam, it is in spite of it. The only accepted system of society and law in Islam is Sharia. Whether or not certain Government adhere to that belief or not does not absolve the religion of Islam.

It isn't at all simple. This is why you continue to promote ignorance, because you may have read stuff online, but you clearly know close to nothing about the history of the Muslim world. This whole notion of 7th century idealism is what salafism is!! It is most accurate to trace this phenomenon back to Ibn Wahab in the 18th century. That is when Wahhabism was founded, and that is the religious sect Bin Laden belonged to. That is the religious sect that is in keeping with your view of Islam. Wahhabism is fundamentally and greatly different to anything that existed in say 7th, 8th, or 9th century Arab world. At the very earliest, if you want to go back as far as possible to the earliest strands of this sort of thinking, the farthest you can go back is to the decline of the Abbasids. Until that point, the Abbasid empire was at the apex of human civilization. The scientific, architectural, mathematical, philosophical, cultural, etc achievements of Muslims was astounding. On top of that, the sexual literature that came out of that period was enough to make a hippy blush!! I suggest you go read some Everett Rowson on Medieval sexuality and sexual literature. The Abassids were sexually liberated, culturally open, scientifically advanced, etc. They therefore had NO desire to go back to the ways of the 7th century. However, when that empire declined, is when you first began to see the conservatism you believe has always existed, begin to emerge in force. It was because people wondered why the Muslim world had declined, and they determined it was because they had become bad Muslims, and didn't live up to the standards of the earliest Muslims. This brand of thinking took on more significance after the defeat of the Muslim empires by the Mongols, but then went away with the rise of the Ottoman Empire. And it reemerged in the 17th-18th century in response to the rise of Europe in comparison to the Middle East. However, it didn't exist for about the first 400-500 years of Islam!! Therefore your monolithic narrative simply doesn't hold up to historical examination!!

Kind explain how the type of Islam that Muhammad promoted in the Qur'an and Hadith is any different than what the "Salafists" and "Wahhabists" are doing, today.

The problem you are going to run into is that Islam commands followers to spread Islam by any means necessary, with the goal of one day bringing the entire world into the dar al Islam. The Islamic texts make it quite clear that non-Muslims either agree to convert to Islam, agree to live as 2nd class "dhimmi" citizens who pay taxes for protection, or they go to war against the Muslim armies. Find some scriptures in the Qur'an that allow Christians, Jews, and non-religious people to live as equals to Muslims. Good luck. Islam is all about world domination, and if the left didn't share an equally strong desire to see Western civilization fall, they would condemn Islam just as vehemently as they do Christianity, even though the latter is far less noxious.

What in the world does that non-sequitur have to do with anything?

I want you to explain how the Islamic world was able to swallow up so many countries in such a short period of time if politics had nothing to do with it.

Let's keep this simple.Like another simpleton,Bill Maher.
Maher appears every so often on 'O'Reilly.Because O'Reilly
used to work at ABC.
The last time Maher was on the O'Reilly Factor,Bill took him
to task about his mocking of Religion.Maher wasn't prepared
and seemed dazed.He acted like another Liberal,Jon Stewart
when he's been on The Factor.Maher was relegated to his
standard overly simplistic comedic talking pts. and they weren't
winning.In fact,Maher seemed kind of clueless as if a teenager
who liked to act they know all about sex,yet haven't managed
to make it to first base yet.
Meaning challenged and challenged hard,Maher isn't just NOT
funny but he appears like a dolt.Like some class clown who
just so happens to be the dumbest kid in class.Eventually Maher
will be found out as smart as a whipp.
Whippersnapper.I mean he is rather a half pint.

Originally Posted by youenjoyme420

Maher is certainly not a libertarian, but let's be fair..... the first libertarians were on the EXTREME left.

Yeah be these aren't your father's leftists or liberals.

****Breaking *****

Maher pledges ONE MILLION for Obama Superpacks.
He said he talked to Tim Tebow at the Vanity Fair party
after the Oscars.Probably spent 20 seconds with.
" suspect to this virus as REASON " insists little silly putty
face Maher on - Hardball - tonight.Speaking about Rick Santorum.