A caller on Randi's show yesterday, RE: Koran creates terrorists

Ok, a caller yesterday essentially said that the US didn't create Zarqawi, the Koran did. She basically shut him down, but it got me thinking.

Besides the obvious ignorance and bigotry displayed by the caller, do right winger nutjobs really believe that? And do average Americans?

Isn't that a bit extreme, especially if you extrapolate it to what the only possible solution would be (in their world) to the war on terror: If the Koran creates terrorism, then do they actually suggest we kill all Muslims? I so wanted her to ask this guy that. It's f'd up, I know, but .... is that what they are thinking? Does that make sense?

As far as I can tell, it would be the only solution to them. If the basic tenets of the religion create terrorists, then what other course could there be? This is really disturbing, as you could point to the murderous actions from any religion or non-religion's members and incorrectly try to blame the whole group. It smacks of the Nazi stereotyping and dehumanizing of the Jews, but it starts to make sense when placed into the average Freeper worldview ("kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out") so proudly displayed on their bumper stickers and by their pundits.

I generally try to turn an argument around when I encounter this type of "thinking" - if a non-Christian was in power and claimed that the Christian Bible is THE source of terrorism and murder (an equally arguable but equally rude and preposterous claim), would that not upset Christians?

So how do we go about correcting the damage? As long as we have the Coulters and Limbaughs of the world proclaiming this from the highest mountain (the media), it won't stop, and neither will the war, the terror, or the ignorance. I know it fits under free speech, but that same right also gives us the freedom to cry "foul!" and expose it for the lie it is.

I think the only way is to confront it: Ask the person if they actually support the genocidal extinction of an entire religion, which is essentially what they are saying. Show them the folly of what they just said.

to be exact.

many don't believe half the vile shit they spew -- a perfect point in case -- the death tax.

99% per cent of americans will never have a run in with the so called death tax.

but tv watching america -- the right wing nut job version -- BELIEVES he or she will be wealthy enough to have a legitimate bitch.

they are nuts.

that's what I call the "lottery voter" - they lump themselves in with the Haves and Have Mores because they lease an Audi.

and put it into practice generally with more success than the supposed higher Christian virtue of compassion as practiced in Christendom. The sword influences the interpretation more than the other way around. The conquering Turks had more on their mind than Koranic purity when they cut into the moderate Muslim nations.

So Muhammed didn't particularly want to die a martyr and his faith in God along with him. If you don't like the human alternative then why not try living up to the Cross? Might be a unique historic experience for bloodthirsty nominal Christians. The priests and religious knights marching side by side with looters and killers valued their torture and martyrdoms but as a social Christian unit it was selfish madness. The limits of Muslim tolerance over time drew a harsh line. The limits of Christian charity don't exist as charity rides with or behind the direct contradiction of the faith.

Things go as they start out. When the Muslim missionaries went to Rome there was nothing but alienation and non-communication. Centuries later, the game is still set that way except the world's peoples are undermining the obscene absurdity through self-education and democratic globalization(not the same as what the top policy makers think they are doing). The real collision course should be between old history caretakers and a new unified enlightened generation who have not yet exerted their full grass roots demands.

The extremists of every old time religion are very much hooked on convenient fantasies of the past while the traditional topdown powerentrenchment are full of likewise empty imitations of the obsolete thing that now is a dangerous fantasy more than even a relic. The masses have glimpsed the real dangers and hopes of the real future and would love to face it with their cultural core religious values of compassion and tolerance. The fantasist rebels or fantasist institutionalists conspire together against
reality, time(real past, present OR future) and change. Most people are plain fed up.

Each in their own way, I think the entire human race can agree that we are truly screwed. That seems the only thing we are allowed to agree on.

He claimed that he has read the Koran 8 times, Imagine that, a big bigoted freeper doing that, to which RR replied "I know devout Muslims who haven't read the Koran 8 times nor the Bible by Christians. Bwahahaha!

Oh yeah!1! I've read it 8 TIEMS!!!!1!

assassinations, coup d'etats, massacres, wipe outs, lies, theft, deceptions, character attacks and defamations, torment, torture, denial of rights, and wrongful imprisonments. The Bible is the book of most of Congress who do the same AND allow the same. The Bible is the book of our military, some of whom lust for war and death and teach people who to torment, torture, and wipe out humans. The Bible is the book of CEO's and CFO's who steal from employees and their customers by all kinds of deceptions, especially legally organizing offshore so that they don't have to follow U.S. laws on many issues.

I don't have to stop there, but I will. So much for the Bible.

me into a terrorist.

But you get what I'm saying, right? I think the right wingers have painted themselves into a hypocritical circle by essentially making their own holy war against all of Islam instead of against the individuals who actually commit crimes. But then, misinformed bigotry is old hat - or should I say old hate?

They buy that tripe because they've been watching Faux News, reading Ann Cauldron, listening to Oxyrush and otherwise feeding into the propaganda. And of course if one were to take portions of the Koran they could use them to justify vile actions, but then the right-wingers do the same sort of thing with the Bible. It's just a case of the Pot calling the Kettle black.

destruction or conversion of the Muslim religion/people? That if the Koran creates terrorists by its very nature, then the only solution is conversion or destruction? Why doesn't this get questioned? I don't think we should start any holy wars over any religion, personally.

think that everyone should be converted to their point of view--including Christians of more liberal denominations. I grew up with fundamentalist cousins around in the 1960s, and they railed against Catholics and looked at my family askance because we weren't of their church. In fact, one elderly cousin gave us anti-Catholic tracts so vile that my mother stopped at the nearest rest stop when we left and threw them away. She said she'd be ashamed if we had a wreck and such stuff was found in our car.

So really this mindset has been around for a long time. It has merely taken on a more violent tone.

You're taking an awful lot of logical leaps on the part of right-wingers for granted, I think.

From "The Koran creates terrorism" to "we should kill all Muslims" is *not* a valid logical step.

To justify "We should kill all Muslims" you would need not merely "The Koran creates some terrorism" but "The Koran creates enough terrorism that the harm done by it is worse than the harm done by wiping out one quarter of the world's population".

The Koran undoubtedly is used to justify terrorism, and I think it's used that way sufficiently often (by which I don't mean "often"), and with sufficiently little other justification, that "The Koran creates terrorism" is a claim it would be very hard indeed to justify disagreeing with.

Saying that is *not* the same as calling for genocide; any more than any other criticism of a religion is.

The Qur'an doesn't create terrorism; it can't. It is a book. It is how it is interpreted (or misinterpreted), how people USE it that creates terrorism.

The Koran (Qur'an? What are the relative merits of the two transliterations?) causes some people to commit terrorism, so I think it's not unreasonable to say it causes some terrorism.

It can inspire some people to do awful things, but it can also inspire people to do some rather wonderful things, such as the Hope Project in India, the innumerable mosques that regularly feed the hungry. Qur'an is the way the word is spelled by Muslims, btw. But in either case, the book doesn't cause the action, it merely inspires the action.

By using your logic, I could say that the Bible is equally guilty of causing terrorism-look at the Spanish Inquisition, or the Crusades-both actions were justified using the Bible.

While both "The Qur'an has caused good things" and "The Bible has caused terrorism" are clearly true, neither has anything to do with whether the Qur'an has caused terrorism. Inspiring something *is* causing it.

It would be more along like saying that "The Catcher in the Rye" causing people to assassinate others. In other words, its a ridiculous assertion.

I presume you're referring to either Mark Chapman or John Hinckley Junior. Both of them were clearly nuts in some sense of the word, and would more likely than not have attempted, if not assassination, then something else of that ilk, if the Catcher in the Rye had never been written.

By contrast, the fraction of terrorists become/became terrorists specifically because of the influence of fundamentalist Islam, and hence because of the Qur'an, and who would have led perfectly blameless lives if not for it, while obviously debateable, is certainly non-trivial.

Those terrorists may have STILL been terrorists without either Islam or the Qur'an. There is no way to either prove or disprove this, unless you are psychic, of course. The thing to remember, and we do have evidence on our side, that people, in general, are violent creatures who, when they percieve an injustice, regardless of whether it is justified or not, will lash out violently in many cases. This isn't to say that books have NO influence, at most, especially if they are books of Authority, like the Qur'an or the Bible, that they are used to justify atrocities of all sorts.

Books convey ideas, no more, no less, whether those ideas are good or not totally depends on your point of view. Its almost totally subjective, especially when such books are vague or contradictory. My problem with your argument isn't that you say the Qur'an gave these people a justification for their actions, its the fact that you seem to insist that this is something that is exclusive to Islam, when it is actually anything but, unfortunately.

Look no further than Army of God, and other Christian Terrorist groups, is the Bible to blame for their actions? Using your argument, the answer would be yes.

I'm sorry, I think you've misunderstood me. I'm *certainly* not saying that the Koran is the *only* book that has caused terrorism (see my post #18); certainly the Bible, Das Kapital, The Little Red Book, various pamphlets written during the French Revolution that stirred up mobs, and a great many others (although not "The Catcher in the Rye") have too; all I have been contending that it is one such.

I think that, like the Qur'an, the Bible is to blame for some terrorist acts committed in its name, but not all - I suspect that most abortion clinic bombers probably wouldn't have committed such atrocities were it not for the Bible, but that Joseph Kony, the head of the Lord's Resistance Army, probably would have found some other excuse (although I'm not sure of that).

I agree that one would have to be psychic to be *certain* of people's motivations and "what would have happened if", but one can often make informed guesses.

it is better than mine. Thanks.

If someone believes that "A" is a direct cause of negative behavior "B" then it makes sense that to the same person who wishes to rid the world of "B" that they would have to either convert or get rid of "A"

I'm not trying to claim that all right wing people believe that by any means, but for someone ignorant enough to believe that there is direct causality between "terrorism" and "Islam", then if they wish to combat and defeat "terror" they are in fact declaring war on Islam.

I wish I felt otherwise, but I think ""The Koran creates enough terrorism that the harm done by it is worse than the harm done by wiping out one quarter of the world's population" expresses way too much nuance for the kind of people who believe that Muslims are inherently terrorists just through belief in the Qur'an.

to hear some right wing politicians, all we need to do is blow up everything around the green zone and then restart.

Actually, a local right wing politician said we just need to blow up all of Iraq (as in nuke) turn it into glass (sand into glass) then later build a disneyland there.

He's not so far from the fundie thoughts on this.

I've heard more than one fundie preacher saying that all Muslims are evil

what do you do with evil in the world of fundyism?

first, educate yourself on what Islam really is and what the basic tenets of the religion are. Too many right wingers lump all Muslims together, which makes about as much sense as saying all Christians are like Jerry Falwell.

Here are the basic tenets of Islam. Ask your rwing neighbors if they think these ideas espouse terrorism:

The Five Pillars of Islam
1. There is only one God; Mohammed was a messenger of God. (I say it this way because Muslims acknowledge that there have been other messengers, including Moses and Jesus)

2. Pray every day (some sects pray three times; some five)

3. Fast during the month of Ramadan (this means no food, no water, no sex from sunrise to sundown)

4. Practice regular charity (this can be donating money or food or even help; depends upon your circumstance; as I understand the hadiths, the Beloved Prophet frowned upon someone donating so much it impoverished his family)

5. If it won't be a financial hardship to your family, go on Pilgrimage at least once in your lifetime

The First Chapter of the Qur'an (I have been told by scholars that the essence of the Qur'an can be found in this first chapter; it is part of the recitation of daily prayers)

In the Name of God, Who is Mercy and Compassion
Praise be to God, Cherisher and Sustainer of the whole universe
Most Benifecent, most Merciful
Master of the Day of Judgement
You alone to we worship, and to You alone do we ask for help
Guide us on the straight path,
The path of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace
Not those who anger or go astray.


Does this sound like terrorist teaching to you?

The Wahhabists and their ilk play the same sort of tricks fundy Christians play; they take words out of context, interpret them in certain ways, and then base their actions upon them. Like progressive Christians, progressive Muslims take a different view.


This is what I would tell an American unfamiliar with Islam.

I've never seen "a" rather than "the" used in the first of those before. While certainly every source I've heard has agreed with you that Islam recognises other prophets prior to him, isn't "the" a more accurate translation of the sense of that particular tenet?

Personally, I think *any* belief - religious, political, econimic, etc. - has the potential to inspire someone to commit either an act of horror or an act of goodness, and I was not intending to specifically denigrate Islam or any other religion per se.

Something a bit disturbing happened to me a couple of days ago while visiting one of my neighbors. They had other guests over at the time and this couple were very well spoken, polite and just your typical normal people. But it was a comment that the gal said and the manner in which she said it that I found disturbing.

She was talking to my neighbor about these people who lived near her and about them moving. She said that she was glad to see them move away because "the people were, you know, Arabs". The demeanor of her voice when she made that comment clearly suggested that she did not know nothing else about these people other than what their race was.

Hearing that comment come from someone who otherwise appeared to be quite educated as well as a very nice person was a bit disheartening.

Because I often feel that attitudes like that exist because people don't have the opportunity (or don't take the opportunity) to actually meet the people from the group (religious, race, orientation, etc) they fear. It's a shame they let their fears (fears which were given to them by exploitative politicians) rule them, instead of maybe going over and introducing themselves to their neighbors and maybe finding out that (GASP!) those "Arabs" are just people, like everyone else.

I know I pick on "rightwingers" and such and that in theory that could be the same sort of prejudice, but I do have a few friends who fit that description and enjoy the occasional political debate with them. I just don't understand why or how they can believe what they do, but I'm sure they feel the same way about me.