A Young Turk tries to show that suicide bombings have nothing (nothing!) to do with Islam

December 20, 2016 • 1:30 pm

I was going to post the third part of my piece on sexual dimorphism in human traits (other parts here and here), explaining why that physical dimorphism suggests that current behavioral differences between the sexes also reflect evolution in our ancestors (and why those who oppose a sexual-selection explanation are ideologically motivated)—but I have a few more papers to read. Look for it (if you’re interested) tomorrow.

In the meantime, let’s consider the Illiberal Leftist lucubrations of Mr. Hasan Piker, identified on Puffho as “an entertainment and political journalist known for his explainer videos on The Young Turks that provide detailed analysis on the top news stories of the day. Aside from covering pop culture news on TYT’s entertainment channel, Pop Trigger, Hasan is also a regular contributor on Buzzfeed and TMZ’s TooFab.”

As we know, The Young Turks (TYT) is a popular “leftist” online news show, but one that has grown increasingly illiberal in its attacks on New Atheists and its noisome sympathy for all kinds of Islam.

In his new PuffHo piece of Muslim apologetics, “Why suicide bombings have nothing to do with Islam“, Piker has a hard case to make. Nothing to do with Islam? NOTHING?  Even if religion were an ancillary factor here (and there’s clearly more than simply Muslim theology involved), one would have to wonder whether suicide bombings of the kind we see regularly committed by Muslims (most against other Muslims) would be as frequent. After all, if religion has nothing to do with it, then if we eliminate religion, the frequency of those bombings wouldn’t change.

Piker’s thesis, as you might expect, betrays a naiveté with both what the Qur’an and hadith say, and how religion twists and manipulates its scripture to justify anything. We are, of course, well familiar with that in the Bible, which—particularly in the Old Testament, repeatedly justifies misogyny, genocide, and the killing of gays, those who curse their parents, or people who work on the Sabbath. If we adhered to a strict interpretation of Scripture, then we’d be murdering everyone working on Saturday. But we ignore that completely, and anybody who did these things, adhering to God’s dictates in the Old Testament, would be decried and jailed. If you’re following the Bible strictly, though, you’d kill your child if he said, “Damn you, Dad!” Now, of course, we don’t look down on those who fail follow the Bible in this way; we don’t call them “not good Christians.”

But this is exactly what Piker does when he quotes the Qur’an to show that suicide bombing is not Islamic because—get this—Islam prohibits suicide. Yes, this is what he says:

Suicide bombings have been around since the 18th century, but I want to talk about suicide bombings as a tool of modern terrorist warfare and how it became the archetype of Muslim violence. Because while popular culture depicts Muslims as trigger-happy suicide bombers, suicide has always been a cardinal sin in Islam.

I mention this distinction because, despite what both Islam’s fiercest critics and most fervent adherents say, there are no verses in the Quran that explicitly urge Muslims to take their own lives and many that describe suicide as a sin.

. . . While the Shia interpretation of the Quran offers some leeway around self-harm to allow for self-sacrifice, the Sunni interpretation strictly prohibited it.

Also, until this point only occupying combatants had been targeted, whereas now civilians were being victimized.

Suicide or Martyrdom in the Quran

By contrast, martyrdom – or when Allah decides when you die in battle while protecting your country – is sanctioned in certain verses throughout the Quran.

Frequently cited is the Al-Baqara verse:

“And say not of those who are killed in the Way of Allah, ‘They are dead.’ Nay, they are living, but you perceive (it) not.”

I mention this distinction because, despite what both Islam’s fiercest critics and most fervent adherents say, there are no verses in the Quran that explicitly urge Muslims to take their own lives and many that describe suicide as a sin.

So here he gets to the real issue—martyrdom—but later calls it a “perverted version of Islam.” As that verse shows, as well the ones cited below and others, there is justification for suicide in the Qur’an, if you do it in the course of fighting for Allah. And that’s all that Piker says about that.

Piker goes on, noting that some Muslim clerics and leaders began justifying suicide bombing against Israelis, for they were occupiers:

Sunni extremists’ adoption of suicide bombing that targeted civilians proved critical. Once attacks against civilians could be justified, the words in the Quran no longer meant anything. According to a 2012 study published in the National Counterterrorism Center, Sunni extremists accounted for the greatest number of terrorist attacks and fatalities for the third consecutive year where. More than 5,700 incidents were attributed to Sunni extremists, accounting for nearly 56 percent of all attacks and about 70 percent of all fatalities.

This perverted version of Islam that upends more than a thousand years of a consensus interpretation of the Quran has been used to indoctrinate youths in countries crippled by war.

One might as well call the perfectly clear Biblical call to kill your children who curse you as “a perverted version of Christianity.” In fact, the Qu’ran is full of verses extolling those who fight for Allah, and give their lives for that. They go to Paradise, of course. It’s not a stretch to construe countries like Israel and the U.S. as enemies of Allah; and once you see that, then the way is clear. No perverted theology involved.

And so, without going further into how suicide bombers like the 9/11 group actually justify their actions, or whether they see a connection between their acts and Islam, Piker exculpates the religion. But . . . he sort of admits that connection toward the end of his piece (my emphasis):

In states where citizens have very little access to the basic amenities that many governments elsewhere provide, young people with nowhere else to turn seek answers from religious leaders. And those religious leaders are not shy about pointing the finger of blame at western occupying forces and justifying attacks against fellow muslims as a means of advancing their own agendas.

. . . While power-hungry religious clerics – and other Islamic leaders – have promoted suicide bombings as a justifiable tool of war, the majority of Muslims condemn it – just like the Quran does.

Suicide bombings have always been used to achieve political ends and have nothing to do with waging holy war, no matter what western media, Islam’s critics or religious clerics will have you believe. The attack committed by the PKK on Turkish soil is merely the latest example. Religion is simply a recruitment tool targeting the undereducated, the vulnerable and the disaffected…a violent means for a violent end.

Umm. . . why do the youth turn to religious leaders rather than their parents? Why is religion such a potent recruitment tool? That has nothing to do with religion? And why are Sunni and Shia in such conflict, regularly killing each other? Because the Sunni and Shia disagree on who were the rightful heirs of Muhammed—the original cause of that schism. Were there no Islam, there would be no such division. Further, like the divide between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, religion (in this case Islam) gives people a way of “othering” others and building animosity toward them. Sure, the killers might not be aware of the finer points of Islamic theology, but all they need to know is that someone with authority—religious authority—sanctions their acts. The religion is important because it assures you of an afterlife, something you need if you’re going to throw away your real life.

But that’s not the main failing of Piker’s piece. That failing is this: those Muslims who engage in suicide bombing, or promote it, don’t see it as suicide—they see it as MARTYRDOM. Suicide is just offing yourself; suicide bombing is a way to destroy your enemy, please Allah, and gain virgins in Paradise. That this can be even more explicitly religious is seen in the way the 9/11 bombers purified themselves and recited the Qur’an before their deeds.

And martyrdom can be justified by referring to both the Qur’an and the hadith. This site gives many examples; I’ll show just two:

Qur’an 9-111. Verily, Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allah’s Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the Qur’an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success .

Qur-an 61:10. O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment.

11.  That you believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know!

12. (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of ‘Adn – Eternity [‘Adn (Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success.

And from the hadith, the traditional sayings of Muhammad, which have great authority. The Sahih Bukhari is particularly important.

Sahih Bukhari Book 52, Number 54:

The Prophet said, “By Him in Whose Hands my life is! Were it not for some men amongst the believers who dislike to be left behind me and whom I cannot provide with means of conveyance, I would certainly never remain behind any Sariya’ (army-unit) setting out in Allah’s Cause. By Him in Whose Hands my life is! I would love to be martyred in Al1ah’s Cause and then get resurrected and then get martyred, and then get resurrected again and then get martyred and then get resurrected again and then get martyred.

Sahih Bukhari (52:46)- “Allah guarantees that He will admit the Mujahid in His Cause into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty.”
Low hanging fruit but eh! Article by Hasan Piker, of The Young Turks

There are more, and believe me, between the hadith and the Qur’an, Islamic clerics and scholars have found ample justification for suicide bombing, and it’s never not just self-killing but “martyrdom” in the cause of Allah—martyrdom that gains one paradise. And those believers really think they’ll go to Paradise! For Piker to underplay this is mendacious and misleading, but of course his task is to show that nothing bad can be laid at the door of Islam itself.

Such are the Young Turks.

bwzvpiaiuaagn9
Hasan Piker roars

h/t: Cindy

The siege at Malheur continues: birders and environmentalists object

January 7, 2016 • 10:00 am

Ammon Bundy and his band of gun-toting thugs continue to occupy the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon, protesting the arson sentences of two fellow thugs, and trying to make the larger point that the Federal Gubmit is taking away the rights of farmer and ranchers. In effect, they’re claiming that they and not the government have the rights to government land.

This cannot stand. Although the Guardian reported on Tuesday that the feds plan to shut off power to the refuge, freezing out the outlaws, I’m not sure if they’ve done that yet, and Bundy’s group would probably just chop wood (an illegal act itself) to keep themselves warm. Granted, an armed assault on the thugs would be a disasterous mistake, but I still think they should cut off supplies and water until the group surrenders. They should then be promptly clapped in jail. But the authorities remain curiously disengaged from the occupation, as they have been with Ammon’s father, Cliven Bundy, who has yet to be punished for his own illegal activities.

The non-response of the government to both Ammon and Cliven’s crimes is disturbing for two reasons. First, it sets a bad example: letting one class of citizen break the law without punishment. That sends the message that some people are above the law, which of course outraged people when the “affluenza teen” got off lightly. Although this is civil disobedience, it differs drastically from the civil disobedience of the Sixties civil rights protests.  The protestors in Malheur are armed, will not be taken willingly, and have threatened to “defend themselves” if action is taken to remove them. And the laws against grazing and farming on federal land are not unjust, as were the segregation laws of the South.

Second, the government’s failure to take action simply emboldens libertarian thugs like the Bundys who think they know how to use the land better than the government (i.e., us), and we can thus expect more actions like the one at Malheur. And more guns will be involved.

One thing I didn’t know when these protests began is that the Malheur refuge is an important one for wildlife, as noted by bird-lover Peter Cashwell’s op-ed in today’s New York Times,”Bird-watching, patriotism, and the Oregon standoff.” Cashwell makes two points, the first about the importance of the refuge for wildlife—and for people who like wildlife:

The Malheur refuge itself was established by Teddy Roosevelt, an avid outdoorsman who in 1908 set aside federal property around three Oregon lakes as a place for migratory birds to breed, one of more than 50 such refuges created during his presidency. I wonder sometimes whether T.R. became a conservationist because he came from New York City, a place where the principle of setting aside land for the public is close to sacred. This can be observed every spring, as thousands of urban birders fill New York’s carefully defined green spaces, hoping to get a glimpse of the brightly feathered migrants that settle in the trees on their way north — without kicking out the Frisbee players in their midst.

. . . Malheur is such a property. A birder will tell you that more than 320 different bird species have been recorded at the refuge, and more than 130 have nested there — a pretty fair total considering the entire North American continent hosts about 800. But this isn’t just a tiny spot on the map where hard-core birders can ooh and aah over rarities. Because the refuge lies along the Pacific Flyway, a common route for migration, a substantial part of a given species’ population may well come through in the spring and fall. Mel White, an author and birder, says that when they see more than 300,000 snow geese in Malheur during migration, “even non-birders will be impressed.”

Cashwell’s second point is simple:

[Ammon Bundy] is leading this action, he explained, so “people can reclaim their resources.” The identities of the people who will be doing this reclaiming remain unclear, but to me this action seems much like many others in American history: a loudly proclaimed defense of principle intended to cover up a land grab.

And the land being grabbed? It’s ours.

. . . And that, I think, is where Mr. Bundy and his followers miss the point: When land is held by the federal government they so despise, that land belongs to us all. You cannot “reclaim” territory for the “people” if they already own it. The seizure of Malheur is an attempt to claim the land, at the point of a gun, for unnamed individuals, all while taking it away from every other American. Whatever this action may be, it is not patriotism.

Yep, it’s our land to keep intact, not theirs to ravage, burn, and overgraze; and I for one prefer to see it kept unsullied. So does the government.

If you doubt the resolve of the birders who share Cashwell’s animus against the thugs, read this piece on The Daily Kos: “Warning from the birding community to the terrorists in Oregon: We’re watching you“. It’s a bit extreme, I think, and perhaps a little tongue-in-cheek, but I like it anyway, for it shows how the birders counter guns with cameras and binoculars:

Just a friendly warning from the birding and wildlife photography community to the Oregon terrorists. We are watching your every move, and we have been watching you for a long time. And yes absolutely you are domestic terrorists of the worst kind, and the truth about your decades of constant poaching of protected wildlife around Malheur and other wildlife refuges, national parks, national forests and BLM lands has been well-documented. For years those of us who are wildlife photographers, birdwatchers and carers of wildlife, have been documenting the activities of you poachers and criminals around many of our nation’s wildlife refuges.

. . . Those of us who are international wildlife and nature photographers regularly face charging elephants, attacking lions and grizzlies, hidden crocodiles, massive storms, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, the hottest, coldest and windiest conditions, and all kinds of poisonous snakes and bugs in our work, and we know the outdoors and wilderness from desert to jungle to sea to mountain to tundra from pole to equator better then any poacher or criminal or yeehaw yokel ever will, and we are not afraid to protect it. We have a just fear of nature from experience, but we don’t fear you gun-toting thugs in the least. You will never see us, but we and our cameras will always see you. We will #takebackmalheur from you terrorists, and will not rest until every one of you thugs and poachers is behind bars where they belong. You may think that your communities support you, but the majority do not and as many as support you, many more despise you, and your every move is being documented in great detail. The birding networks are ablaze right now about everything going on in Malheur. We know the nearby trailer park, who is supplying you with food, and a tourist boycott of them is already in the works for all birders for this upcoming bird season. We know who everyone is coming in and out, and why, and every shred of information is going straight to law enforcement and across every birding network in America.

. . . We are watching you and our years of birding photography have made us endlessly patient and determined.

Well, I wouldn’t yet call the Bundy Gang “terrorists” (though one could make a case that they are, since they’re trying to intimidate people by brandishing firearms and threatening to use them), but I know one thing: I am far more sympathetic to the birders than to loons like the Bundy Gang.

Someone added this cartoon to the comments:

SafariScreenSnapz002

h/t: Diane G

More egregious excesses by offended students: demands for removing the name of “Lynch” from college building

December 9, 2015 • 1:30 pm

This tw**t, by FIRE’s director of speech-code research, alerted me to an article in PennLive.com news:

https://twitter.com/SamatFIRE/status/674597565430685696

According to the article, students at Lebanon Valley College in Pennsylvania are objecting to a building named after Clyde Lynch, president of the college from 1932-1950.

Students at the private college in Annville have demanded administrators remove or modify Dr. Clyde A. Lynch’s last name, as it appears on a campus hall, due to the associated racial connotations.

The demand was made at a forum on campus equality issues held Friday, capping a week of demonstrations calling for changes at the predominantly white institution.

In that time, organizers, including members of a Black Student Union group, have been calling for policy changes they say are needed to address long-standing “institutional injustices” impacting a variety of groups on campus.

(Note: the students have expressed willingness to compromise if administrators add Lynch’s first name and middle initial to the building’s title.)

Well, deal with the real injustices, and stop picking on completely irrelevant issues. Don’t the students realize that a demand like this renaming acts to trivialize their whole cause? Think of all the buildings that would have to be renamed because their donors have names that are “triggering.”

There is, of course, pushback:

A commenter going by the screen name “10xchamps,” who identified himself as a recent graduate of the college, said “Anyone with half a brain would know that the name has nothing to do with racial connotations. It’s the last name of a very generous donor who probably helped fund many of these students.”

According to its website, Lynch led the college through the Great Depression and World War II, helping to raise $550,000 for a new physical education building which was named for him following his death.

The building, which housed the college’s basketball court for more than 50 years, was “revitalized” into an all-academic center in 2003, now known as Lynch Memorial Hall.

My only comment is “oy.”

Loretta Breuning cannot help but enter

June 17, 2014 • 9:14 am

Dr. Loretta Graziano Breuning, author of the Atheist Butter piece I highlighted earlier today, has developed Maru’s Syndrome, and is showing up in the comments on her piece. But, as always in such cases, she’s not helping herself. Take this comment, pointed out by reader Draken:

Screen shot 2014-06-17 at 10.57.19 AM

Ecumenical? Really? How balanced, how even-minded, how fair of her!

Presumably, as Draken noted, she’s unaware that creationism is a problem. 42% of Americans accept straight Biblical creationism for the origin of humans, another 31% favor theistic evolution, in which God intervenes, and only 19% accept evolution as purely a naturalistic process. That, folks, makes 73% of Americans accepting some form of creationism or Goddy intervention in evolution.  And those people, Dr. Breuning, try to force their views into the public-school science classroom. It happened in Dover, it happened at Ball State University, and it’s happening all over the country as religionists try to pass “critical treatment” laws, or teach creationism in voucher schools supported with public money.

Breuning may see herself as above the fray, but somebody has to be in the trenches, whether it be Zack Kopplin, the National Center for Science Education, or the Freedom from Religion foundation.  Yes, Dr. Breuning, you can keep your hands clean while the rest of us try to keep kids from being lied to in science class. You can use your smarts to bash atheists—a far more important task.

Exaggerate the threat? Look at the data, look at what state legislatures are doing, look at what Republicans say about evolution.

The woman is clueless, and not just about atheism.

A matter of degree

May 15, 2014 • 3:10 am

I’m off to Kamloops, British Columbia today to attend the Imagine No Religion conference, but hope that some posting will continue somehow (it always manages to). Can I get a Darwin?

Over on his website Pictoral Theology, reader Pliny the In Between has a graphic take on Monday’s kerfuffle about whether American women who can’t take off their tops everywhere are treated just as badly as their Muslim sisters forced to wear veils, bags, and other face-and-body-obscuring garments. (Correct answer: “Hell, no!”)

But I digress:

Untitled.002