Pharyngula

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 3, 2009 9:53 AM

I am asking this because I don't know: does the UN have any power to enforce a UN mandate? As an American, I have the feeling that I would be shielded from such a law, but I have no rational reason for thinking so.

Posted by: PGPWNIT | November 3, 2009 9:59 AM

but I have no rational reason for thinking so.

You have the constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. It protects your freedom of speech.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 3, 2009 10:04 AM

Something else to keep in mind: when the Islamic countries push anti-blasphemy laws in the UN, what they're actually demanding is that no one have the right to state that these life-hating misogynistic clerics of death are full of shit.

I always wonder what the Christians who would want anti-blasphemy laws would think when it suddenly hit them that they couldn't criticism Islam or [insert other religion or other christian sect here].

Would it apply to Hegee when he goes on one of his anti-islamic or anti-catholic blabberings?

Posted by: KariA | November 3, 2009 10:09 AM

What IS this insane obsession about virginity??

Posted by: Cosmas | November 3, 2009 10:11 AM

When you listen to the (Egyptian) Arabic, and take into account the insidious splicing by MEMRI, the context is not what it seems. In the first 5 minutes they are referring to children killed (martyred) in war. Innocents dying unfairly. Even in the last part it's more jingoistic than anything else. I’m repulsed by fundies like the next atheist, but context matters. the source's brazen bias is showing .

Posted by: barondon | November 3, 2009 10:17 AM

only a few months after being brought to participate in the plucking of the 72 black eyed flowers, The flowers will have all been plucked, and these 72 ex virgins and their mothers will force the martyrs to go shopping with them, everyday, all day long, for eternity.... I know that horrible thought would deter most western men...

Posted by: Evan | November 3, 2009 10:18 AM

You know, in that show Supernatural, black eyes are an indication of being a demon.

Just sayin'.

Posted by: ThorSonofOdin | November 3, 2009 10:20 AM

Though I am all for diplomacy when it comes to the Muslim world, hearing these damaging lies rekindles the spirit of the Norse warriors buried in my genome. Makes me want to get out my hammer.

Posted by: Peptron | November 3, 2009 10:21 AM

It's written that commiting jihad gives you 72 virgins, but it's also written that killing sends you right to hell. Personally, I do not think that they have to be mutually exclusive. What if those 72 virgins ARE the punishment? I mean, they have been virgins for all of eternity, and they are obviously sex starved. I would be VERY suspicious about that, few things in the world scream "IT'S A TRAP!" more than that.

Posted by: lordshipmayhem | November 3, 2009 10:23 AM

Only someone who has never gotten laid would want 72 virgins. What a pain in the ass that would be.

And how did you know those 72 virgins would be New York Giants blocking backs? And how would you know that those 72 virgin blocking backs would be looking at the martyr's behind for relief?

^_^

Posted by: PGPWNIT | November 3, 2009 10:26 AM

How would you like to be the father of a girl who died while still a virgin. She would be one of those virgins all the lascivious boys were dying [sic] to meet.

Posted by: Bill Donohue | November 3, 2009 10:29 AM

You would never post anything this critical of Catholics! Why, they'd.... wait, what?

Posted by: Spitting? | November 3, 2009 10:29 AM

I wouldn't want to spend eternity with girls who spit, even just into the sea. In fact, that's my idea of hell - an eternity as chaperone to a passel of ill-mannered schoolgirls who have to be constantly told 'Don't spit, dear, it's unladylike!'

Posted by: formosus | November 3, 2009 10:31 AM

"Why do we fear death" is indeed a good question. The answer they gave is wrong, though.

When I first stopped believing, that was one thing that I was actually afraid of. "When I die, that's it."

But when I thought about it, there's really nothing to fear. For one, once you die you don't really have any time to consider what happened. You're just gone. Mark Twain's "I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it." was a big help. And then the general idea that once you're dead you do live on in the memories of others (not actually living, but you know, similar concept).

Posted by: PGPWNIT | November 3, 2009 10:33 AM

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;

It's a common dodge (see: DMCA, implementation of a WTO treaty)

But what if they're in conflict. Which one wins? Constitution or Treaty? And besides, if the UN passes this...is that considered a treaty entered into by the US?

Posted by: Jynx Evermore | November 3, 2009 10:38 AM

I recently posted an essay on the apparent double standard Christians in this country have about speaking ill of Islam and atheism but being offended when atheists spoke ill of their religion.

Check it out at www.freethoughtoasis.org in the "Editorials" section. :)

Posted by: Ray Burleigh | November 3, 2009 10:39 AM

I believe, unless I'm confusing two separate issues, that the proposed UN resolution concerning blasphemy is not about individuals. The resolution is to prevent countries that punish blasphemers from being sanctioned for human rights violations. While this does not infringe on our right to blaspheme, it is still reprehensible and a perversion of the concept of human rights.

Posted by: Headbhang | November 3, 2009 10:44 AM

Hmm, I wonder what would happen if a gay Muslim died for Allah...

Would he get his orientation divinely changed in order for him to enjoy the virgin pleasures of Paradise? Or would he be stuck being master to 72 creatures he's not attracted to?

Posted by: Awesome Robot | November 3, 2009 10:45 AM

How dare you post such hate speech about Catholics, PZ! You wouldn't say something like that to a Muslim! #wrongthread #jihadenvy

Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 3, 2009 10:48 AM

You know what's funny about this? Most muslims look down on whores as the lowest of the low as people. Probably just above atheists who they don't even consider to be people...

But, if 72 virgins is payment for being a martyr, aren't they just being a whore for Allah?

Also, did anyone catch how he kept saying "imagine this" and "imagine that?" I think it's a clue to just how much of what they believe is wishful thinking.

Posted by: paradoctor | November 3, 2009 10:52 AM

And let's all remember that "virgins" is probably a mistranslation for "white raisins". This makes me envision a Monty-Python-esque skit; the jihadi, still emitting smoke, arrives at the gate of Paradise to claim his reward. Imagine his disappointment when it turns out to be 72 white raisins. And also imagine the gatekeeper's indignation when he learns what the jihadi had been expecting. Just what kind of an establishment do you think we are running here, young man?

Posted by: Gruesome Rob | November 3, 2009 10:52 AM

But what if they're in conflict. Which one wins? Constitution or Treaty?

Good question. As a practical matter, it seems that treaties have been winning. I don't know what will happen if it's ever pressed, or if it ever has been. It's not clear which wins, it's not really defined within the Constitution. IMHO, this is one of the major flaws of the Constitution.

And besides, if the UN passes this...is that considered a treaty entered into by the US?

Immediately? Probably not. If countries decide to make a treaty based on this though to give it teeth?

Posted by: Hank Fox | November 3, 2009 10:57 AM

Random thoughts:

..........

That bit about "black-eyed virgins" was a mistranslation, actually. When the Islamic martyrs get into Paradise, they're presented with black-eyed PEAS.

..........

I can't get over how transparently god-wallopers make this shit up. All that business about angel kisses as the shrapnel or bullets strike you ... how could he possibly know that? And if it's so desirable, why doesn't he volunteer right now, just to make sure he's right?

..........

I'll bet the reason this talk focuses on "black eyes" is because in that culture, eyes is all the young men get to see. Probably wouldn't do any good to tell them about virgins with big breasts, because they have no referents. I wonder if there are Islamic porn sites on the web that show nothing but close-up pictures of women's eyes.

...........

In the year 2009 on Planet Earth, we have people who encourage young men to commit murder of innocent bystanders (and I'm not just talking about Islamic martyrs), and those people are considered LEADERS.

This gutless, smug, filth-dripping, murderous little savage gets more respect than a teacher, a veterinarian, a fireman. That is soooo fucking obscene.

He should be shut away in a box, ten miles away from children, and fed through a hole.

Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 3, 2009 11:07 AM

Where do these 72 virgins come from? Is being one of the 72 supposed to be a reward for the women of the faith? Or is it punishment? That is because being one of the eternal fucktoys for some guy is not my idea of paradise.

Going from memory, I recall hearing a similar argument, and earthly women don't become one of the 72 virgins. The virgins are like special angel women who are created and provided by Allah as, basically, a concubine who wants to be a concubine.

Basically, it's one of the best promises ever: fight for Allah and you get pussy.

Posted by: Richard eis | November 3, 2009 11:11 AM

-Women are nothing more than penis receptacles to him. Disgusting.-

I know. What's odd is that once you see them as more than baby makers and penis receptacles it's more fun and interesting. It's like only using a PC for playing one slightly dull game and making a couple of excel spreadsheets.

Thats before we talk about attachments ;p (massively tongue in cheek)

Posted by: NoFear | November 3, 2009 11:19 AM

Being stabbed and shot feels like angel kisses? Can you imagine what it must feel like to be fucked by an angel then? Prabably a lot like listening to these fools.

Posted by: R. Schauer | November 3, 2009 11:23 AM

Bill Donohue @ #24 said,

"You would never post anything this critical of Catholics! Why, they'd.... wait, what?"

Oy Vey, Bill...you're defending this:
- Innocent III believed that Bible believing dissidents were worse than infidels (Saracens, Moslems, and Turks), for they threatened the unity of ... Europe. So Innocent III sponsored 4 "crusades" to exterminate the Albigenses. Innocent (what a name!) called upon Louis VII to do his killing for him, and he also enjoined Raymond VI to assist him.

- The Cistercian order of Catholic monks were then commissioned to preach all over France, Flanders, and Germany for the purpose of raising an army sufficient to kill the Bible believers. All who volunteered to take part in these mass murders were promised that they would receive the same reward as those who had sallied forth against the Moslems (i.e., forgiveness of sins and eternal life).

- The Albigenses were referred to in Pope Innocent's Sunday morning messages as "servants of the old serpent". Innocent promised the killers a heavenly kingdom if they took up their swords against unarmed populaces

- In July of 1209 A.D. an army of orthodox Catholics attacked Beziers and murdered 60,000 unarmed civilians, killing men, women, and children. The whole city was sacked, and when someone complained that Catholics were being killed as well as "heretics", the papal legates told them to go on killing and not to worry about it for "the Lord knows His own

- At Minerve, 14,000 Christians were put to death in the flames, and ears, noses, and lips of the "heretics" were cut off by the "faithful."A

- From 1200 to 1500 the long series of Papal ordinances on the Inquisition, ever increasing in severity and cruelty, and their whole policy towards heresy, runs on without a break. It is a rigidly consistent system of legislation: every Pope confirms and improves upon the devices of his predecessor. All is directed to the one end, of completely uprooting every difference of belief... The Inquisition ... contradicted the simplest principles of Christian justice and love to our neighbor, and would have been rejected with universal horror in the ancient Church.D

- The Inquisition was purely and uniquely a Catholic institution; it was founded far the express purpose of exterminating every human being in Europe who differed from Roman Catholic beliefs and practices. It spread out from France, Milan, Geneva, Aragon, and Sardinia to Poland (14th century) and then to Bohemia and Rome (1543). It was not abolished in Spain until 1820.E

- the secular arm of the state acted only as it was pressured to do so by the popes. Even kings who hesitated to commit genocide on their own populaces were spurred into action by their fear of papal excommunication or subversive Catholic activities within their kingdoms.

- Torture was considered to be essential because the church felt duty-bound to identify from the lips of the victims themselves any deviance from sound doctrine. Presumably, the more excruciating the torture, the more likely that the truth could be wrung from reluctant lips. The inquisitors were determined that it was "better for a hundred innocent people to die than for one heretic to go free".

- Yet, not all Romanists have been comfortable with the totalitarian nature of their "church". Even Jean Antoine Llorente, secretary to the Spanish Inquisition from 1790-92, was to admit: "The horrid conduct of this Holy Office weakened the power and diminished the population of Spain by arresting the progress of arts, sciences, industry, and commerce, and by compelling multitudes of families to abandon the kingdom; by instigating the expulsion of the Jews and the Moors, and by immolating on its flaming shambles more than 300,000 victims.

That is your church's history, Bill...and it continues today with the pope's delusional promises of heaven and hell. Bill, want to see the devil...look in a mirror.

(source:http://www.mtc.org/inquis.html)

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 3, 2009 11:34 AM

spoke the untouched.... *runs*

Alright, wise guy; explain to me why this would appeal to a straight woman.

Posted by: bullofthewoods | November 3, 2009 11:36 AM

If martyrdom is such a desirable condition, why don't these fuckheads rush to the front of the line and lead by example? I mean don't they want their share of heavenly pussy?

Posted by: Tulse | November 3, 2009 11:39 AM

So what is the eternal reward for women?

I'm not sure I understand the question -- are you suggesting that women might actually go to heaven?

Posted by: llewelly | November 3, 2009 11:45 AM

Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 3, 2009 10:04 AM:

I always wonder what the Christians who would want anti-blasphemy laws would think when it suddenly hit them that they couldn't criticism Islam or [insert other religion or other christian sect here].

Posted by: Bob L | November 3, 2009 11:48 AM

I would hold out for 144 virgins and a mix of eye colors if it was me.

I suppose Muslim woo is just as dumb as Mormon woo or Christian woo or Catholic woo and so on. It is all woo. However my deeply held personal beliefs demand I tell something they are full of it when they start pushing it on me.

Posted by: amphiox | November 3, 2009 11:54 AM

Where do the 72 virgins come from?

Two possibilities:

1. Babies. What with infant mortality what is used to be, there's probably a glut of baby souls in heaven. Perhaps they've been magically aged, or perhaps not.

2. De novo creation from 72 spare ribs. Don't know where the ribs come from, though.

Posted by: CunningLingus | November 3, 2009 12:12 PM

Yet my own British government, and Europe as a whole, just about, wants to appease these stumpy fuckers. We even have another sect of stumpy, the church of england, actually calling for integration of sharia law in the UK. The mentality of all religions is fucking scary to behold when they get a free reign. Why can't "alleged" intelligent government officials, in supposed enlightened and educated societies, not see how totally deranged and outright crazy these fuckstumps are.

Fuck blasphemy laws, and the retards who support them.

On a happier note, i have beer to soothe my indignation.

Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 3, 2009 12:17 PM

Janine said,

Kema, so the men are spared from having to make contact from any real women in paradise. How reassuring.

So what is the eternal reward for women?

Tulse said:

I'm not sure I understand the question -- are you suggesting that women might actually go to heaven?

Again I start by saying it's been a long time since I studied Islam, so I could very well be wrong, but I'm fairly sure that women do go to heaven.

However, as far as rewards go I don't recall any. I suppose not being treated as a penis recepticle and being spared contact with those kinds of men is kind of a reward.

Sorry, Janine, but I do offer hope... if you're looking for a reward for women I suggest you get into Wicca. They usually have a female god of some kind and get equal if not *better* treatment. This is especially true when it comes to carrying a child and giving birth, but also just in the act of sex as well.
At least in the experiences I had with a Wiccan friend of mine, at least in the coven she belonged to, was actually revering of women.

I kind of miss my days when I was into the occult. Even though I never joined anything officially, the wiccans and other pagans were always fun to hang out with.

I appologize to Janine in advance, but now I must destroy all my credibility and turning myself back into the True Pig (TM) that I am, to any guys here if you want to meet some hot girls check out the local wiccans in your area. I understand I'm going from a small sample set from the area I used to live in, but most of those girls were all amazingly hot. I can see why the men revered them at least in that coven. Plus, they all seemed to have absolutely no qualms about talking about sex which makes for very open and fun discussions instead of having to worry about being taboo... and, on one occasion, a personal demonstration.

Unfortunately those kinds of days are over for me. In the words of Chef, "There is a time and place for that stuff. It's called college!"

Posted by: Charles | November 3, 2009 12:20 PM

But virgins (male OR female) aren't that great in the sack... Why would anyone want a virgin if they actually want to have FUN during sex?

Posted by: FlameDuck | November 3, 2009 12:33 PM

So basically the Islamic God is a straight pimp? Fo' shizzle.

#8, #53 It's easier to understand if you have a penis. Basically a lot of men are somewhat unsure and concerned about their sexual prowess. The thing about virgins are that they have no point of reference, so you'll be the best sex they've ever had. Eventually they'll learn that sex is a lot better (and a lot less awkward) if both parties know what they're doing.

#15 All faith is a mental illness, the religious personality disorder.

#19 Suicide bomber is a misnomer. They're not committing suicide they're committing homicide. Kamikaze is an even better term, as it more accurately reflects the mental state of the person committing the act.

#31 "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." - Genesis 3:16. Women are slaves to their husbands in all Abrahamic traditions, regardless of how "different but equal" they present themselves.

#39 WOW Player, quite possibly 72 level 80 paladins.

Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake | November 3, 2009 12:39 PM

When I see stuff like this, I cannot help but wonder if we are all just the victims of mistranslation for the sake of comedy. (Think of Roberto Benigni in "Life Is Beautiful," screwing around with the Nazi's tirade to the Italian prisoners.)

More like Salman the Persian screwing with Mahound's prophecies in "The Satanic Verses".

Posted by: Newfie | November 3, 2009 12:43 PM

No matter what, these kind of stories does not speak well of what is expected of women.

Agreed. Misogyny is something that I've never understood. And if I ever came close to understanding it, I'm sure the wife would knock that crap out of my head quick enough.

Posted by: FlameDuck | November 3, 2009 12:56 PM

#72 Sex isn't supposed to be fun, especially not for women (look up female circumcision, if you want to be particularly appalled by what goes on in the name of religion). Sex is supposed to be for procreation! So the question is, why would you want to have such earthly desires as sex, when you're in heaven, and not bound by such things? Somehow it doesn't seem logical. :)

#73 If only that where the case. I don't speak Arabic, but we have a handful of crazy imams over here who spout the same bullshit in a language I do understand. I'm pretty sure if you wanted to, you could find one in your local community too.

Posted by: Margaret's Cat | November 3, 2009 1:10 PM

...the bullets ripping through your body will feel like angels' kisses...

Didn't Mother Teresa, as she denied pain medication to those in her death clinic (as opposed to a health clinic), say something about pain being kisses from Jesus?

Posted by: CJO | November 3, 2009 1:14 PM

Because it's not about that. It's like how a rapist gets off on hearing a woman scream or her fighting back.
Taking a woman's virginity is something pure to them because another guy hasn't put his penis in there yet.
I guess you could call it a "deflowering" fetish.

That's a big part of it, on the individual level, but why is it a near-universal fetish in the culture? is really the question. People who keep asking "What is it about virgins with these guys?" aren't thinking about the whole (utterly misogynistic) culture of honor and shame.

The point is religio-societal control over sexuality, by which I mean, of course, female sexuality. A virgin is, by definition, a controlled object whom the father can hand over "intact" to the husband at age 12-15, and preserve his honor and extend it, patron-like, to the new son-in-law. In the paradise fantasy, Allah takes the role of the ultimate honorable father-in-law, handing over not just a virgin bride, but a whole freakin' harem of 'em.

Allowing the supposedly disruptive impulses and mysterious fertility --potential challenges to male dominance of every aspect of public life-- surrounding female sexuality any sort of expression, even non-consensual, passive "expression" is deeply shameful --witness honor killings. In a nutshell, it's about indoctrination into highly emotionally charged commitments to the concepts of honor/shame and purity/defilement as the means by which males enforce among themselves this system of complete downward control via intimidation and coercion over every aspect of women's lives.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | November 3, 2009 1:32 PM

These sociopathic liers for allah really are as bad as any christian creo-bot. It takes a secial brand of cynical monster to gull young fools into killing themselves and murdering others with promises of afterlife virgin zombies. Sending them out to their deaths while, oddly, never getting around to their owm glorious martyrdom.

In esssence they seem to be saying;

"Take up fundamentalist Islam and get 72 (yes, that's 72!) complimentary supernatural virgin sex slaves . . err, 'companions' absolutely free*

*Terms and conditions apply. 'Companions' are not truly human. Advanced payment of brainwashing, pain and death may apply. Pain may or may not be transmuted into angel's kisses."

Janine The Ineffable, OM @ 43;

"Where do these 72 virgins come from? Is being one of the 72 supposed to be a reward for the women of the faith? Or is it punishment? That is because being one of the eternal f***toys for some guy is not my idea of paradise."

That's a good point. Women get a really bad deal in all Abrahamic religion. Part of the problem with militant islamic groups is that they do not recruit adult men. They warp the minds of boys who are too immature to understand the value of a true relationship. These boys go on to grow up into deeply broken and misoginystic adults who are ripe for transmutation into handy guided munitions. Nobody who qualifies as an emotionally functional man would ever aspire to treat women in such a reprehensible fashion.

Perhaps I am just a romatic softy, but I have no interest in 72 mindless cyphers. All I want is one woman who is my equal in all respects and whom I can love, and be loved by in return, as an equal. I have spent some time looking for such a person and the search continues.

Feel free to gag at my sacharine sappyness. I am off to gaze longingly at the moon in the style of every romantic drama in the history of cinema. *que sad music*

Posted by: Peptron | November 3, 2009 1:36 PM

I think that I have it all figured out. There is no contradiction in the Koran, the 72 virgins ARE the punishment.

Murder = you go to Hell.
Commit Jihad = you get 72 virgins.

With that in mind =>
A single kiss from a single angel = same sensation as bullets and shrapnels shredding your flesh.
Therefore, a whole 72 horny and sex-starved angels out to get you = hell

Posted by: The Chemist | November 3, 2009 1:40 PM

Oh good fucking grief! MEMRI? Really? This is completely de-contextualized with significant liberties taken in translation (take for example the simple fact that the phrase "black-eyed"-or any equivalent was not uttered ONCE to my recollection). The entire mission of this craven organization is not to inform, but to inflame, and is run by right wing uber-loons that have no other goals but to justify any and all military offensives, actions, and strategies undertaken in the name of the War on Terror(TM). If you have ever condemned torture, then you shouldn't bother messing with a nonsense source like this where the people who run it are in the business of justifying it.

What Cosmas points out above is that a "martyr" is not just a person who fights- but can be any innocent caught in a crossfire. Part of what they (especially the second one) are addressing is a just-world question,

Unspoken Query:"If [our] people are dying in this world, how can God be good?"

Implicit in the response: "Well, these people don't suffer, actually quite the opposite."

It is jingoist, and it is full of right-wing nonsense and general stupidity- but the insidiousness of it is overstated. This is especially true since the first person in the video to talk at length is a moron when it comes to Islamic lore. Simply appending "Cleric" to his description does not mean that he is an authority, listened to, or even taken seriously.

This is like taking a soapbox preacher at the park as a serious representation of popular, or even unpopular Christian sentiment. This is the Arab world, where the explosion of satellite free-to-air channels in the mid-2000s (every time I go back, there's fifty new channels I'm not familiar with) has made it possible for any hick to get on television. The simple fact that he has a TV show is not an indicator of anything.

PZ using this video to make a point about Muslims is like someone using a video from AiG to make a point about evolution. I've seen many British Atheists from Harold Kroto to Richard Dawkins buy into the BNP-ish pernicious anti-immigration memes (whether they are actively part of the BNP or not, we know memes are not made persuasive by their source, nor is their source consciously recognized) Now people are trying to get American Atheists to buy into the same old fearful paranoia that has driven two highly unproductive and pointless wars to civilize the half-devils/half-children. We (or at least a large contingent of Pharyngulans) are American, we have the luxury of being able to point at the hysteria in the UK and laugh- I suggest we all avail ourselves of it. I will point out, one last time- the Constitution trumps treaties. These other European countries have had a long history of censoring speech and are trying to have it both ways- cutting people off from Holocaust denial and so-called libelous/slanderous speech means you have to start mitigating other speech rights. They'll come to their senses soon enough. Believe it or not, the Muslims are not going to take over Europe, and if you believe that- you are a complete dumbfuck who needs to be on some kind of medication designed to reduce paranoia.

This reminds me of the time that someone wanted to point out the people who had left Islam and made a video on Youtube- I had never seen such a mixed allotment of personalities. It's like the person didn't know the first thing about it and just went and found a Wikipedia list. There were renowned intellectuals mixed in with people who are famous simply for being vocal Uncle Toms and Aunt Thomosinas. All I'm saying is, when criticizing Islam, can we please consider the source? I remember Phil Plait making a passing comment that he wishes he could see more people on color (which I'm presuming also meant brown people from across the seas) attending skeptical events, and I can tell you why there aren't more- because our tolerance for this sort of ignorant half-assed bullshit is reallllly low.

Posted by: amphiox | November 3, 2009 1:52 PM

The cult of virginity isn't something isolated to Islamic culture. Far from it, it is very prevalent (virtually universal?) among agricultural societies of all kinds, and echoes of those beliefs persist in modern western culture to this day. Something even as benign as the traditional color of the bride's gown in a wedding traces back to it.

I wonder if there is an evolutionary reason for it. A man who prefers virgins for sex partners may perhaps have a greater certainty of paternity?

Of course this is evolutionary psychology, and that way lies madness.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 3, 2009 2:05 PM

I wonder if there is an evolutionary reason for it. A man who prefers virgins for sex partners may perhaps have a greater certainty of paternity?

Posted by: DuckPhup | November 3, 2009 2:08 PM

I have this here 'theory', see? (NOT a 'scientific' one.) My theory is that all them thar virgins that get handed over to martyred Islamic terrorists when they pop into heaven are, in fact, dead Catholic nuns... MOST of them over 80 years old. Where ELSE would they find so many virgins?

Posted by: Jack | November 3, 2009 3:00 PM

I like Billy Connolly's take on the whole "72 Virgins" bullshit. (NSFW)

Posted by: RickD | November 3, 2009 3:12 PM

Family Guy had a great take on this. Suicide bomber goes to heaven and finds his 99 virgins: all Trekkies! (Male, of course.)

Posted by: thewiremonkey | November 3, 2009 3:37 PM

This is why there are far fewer female martyrs. Death is forever. 72 virgins (guessing boys in my case)? What do I do after THAT half-hour is up?

Posted by: Captain C | November 3, 2009 3:48 PM

I think it was George Clooney who said (probably a paraphrase): "72 virgins? Fuck that! I'd want eight pros!"

@58 "If martyrdom is such a desirable condition, why don't these fuckheads rush to the front of the line and lead by example? I mean don't they want their share of heavenly pussy?"

During one of these interviews, someone needs to ask, with wide innocent eyes, "if this is so noble, holy, and desirable, why don't you go first?" Preferably with a hidden sniper available just in case the sociopath being questioned actually gets some ideas.

Posted by: jeanette Garcia | November 3, 2009 4:57 PM

So what happens to the black eyed virgins after they have been defiled? Are they tossed away? Just how much eternity can be taken up by being caressed by now defiled virgins? Do they get any kind of break? What a bore. Gimme a good book and some gourmet food, maybe a scenic drive around heaven.

Posted by: BlueEyedVideot | November 3, 2009 5:31 PM

I don't see the asshole in the video blowing himself up to get some of those black-eyed virgins. He must be related to Dick Cheney.

All I want to say to this guy is, "Who the fuck told you that?"

Posted by: tim gueguen | November 3, 2009 6:02 PM

I'm surprised there isn't more response to those commentators who are pointing out the translation may not present ideas quite as described in the video. How many of us speak Arabic? I don't, so I have to assume whoever translated that stuff has given me an accurate translation, and for that matter that there isn't context missing due to the editing of those clips.

Wiley, you might want to rethink your statement. After all we have all sorts of historical examples of Christian teachings being used to justify violence and oppression. This continues to this day with conservative Christians justifying homophobia by using Leviticus even as they ignore the rest because Jesus supposedly doesn't require obedience to it.

As I've said before the main difference between Islam and Christianity is 700 years. Imagine what the Christianity of 1400 was like compared to that of today. Unfortunately none of us are likely to be around when the Islamic world goes through its version of the Renaissance circa 2450 or so.

Posted by: Yo | November 3, 2009 6:58 PM

Regardless of religion or lack of it, people generally don't react well when their countries are invaded and bombed. There would be violence in the Middle East even if every Muslim converted to atheism tomorrow. Radical clerics would not have an audience without the obvious injustice of Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan, US support for the dictatorships of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and so on.

Posted by: Creature of the Universe | November 3, 2009 8:17 PM

This was very difficult to watch. I believe that humans will one day evolve beyond this type of ancient thought, maybe hundreds of years from now, it takes so damn long. Why any thinking person would go Islam (or religion) is beyond me. Cat Stevens went to the dark side years ago - he's been Yusuf Islam for quite a while now. I like the music he made when he was Cat. He has some new tunes that are, well, OK - but his religious mind throws me way off.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 3, 2009 11:20 PM

I recently picked up a book by JD Crossan (The Historical Jesus: Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant), and had to put it down again, because I just need to do some other reading...anyway, it includes in one of the opening chapters a fairly lucid explanation of sex-purity law in Abrahamic religions. If I recall correctly, these are the result of nomadic herding clans who are self-sufficient kin groups little need of trade, except the need to obtain outcrossing female stock...including human stock. So among these tribes laws spring up to insure that women chattel are of high quality, because women are literally treated as currency...then religion gets invented and these brutal and repugnant laws become codified as holy writ. I might have the wrong idea on this, but it would explain the ridiculous attention that these religions pay to sexual purity.

Posted by: Meathead | November 4, 2009 2:06 AM

The bullets feel like angel's kisses? I'm gonna go with Homer Simpson on this one: "OwWW! Bullets hurt!"

Posted by: AC Skeptic | November 4, 2009 2:42 AM

Okay, I've heard multiple times now "what is up with the virgin thing?". Please people, it is obvious. Us men are SEXUALLY JEALOUS. We guard our mates carefully. The worst thing a wife could do to a husband is cheat on him. And this jealously extends through time, not just while they are with us, but into the past as well. No man wants to know his wife has slept with numerous other guys. And oh boy, we are such hypocrites about this, because we will put our pink bits into as many women as we can. We don't care about them, but when it comes to our women, no other man will be sticking it into our wife!!! There is a reason men who sleep around our players and women who sleep around are sluts. Because us men are assigning the names! There is a reason all the adultery and premarital sex laws through out time and culture always punish women, us men are writing the laws!

And why are us men this way? I'm sorry, but evolutionary psychology is obviously correct on this matter. I know the field raises chuckles trying to answer ever question like why do men prefer blonds or large breasts... I know that Dr. Larry Moran chides any evolutionary psychology explanation, but why men are polygamous yet jealous of their mates is so obvious as to be almost a tautology. The more you spread your seed and make sure that no one impregnates your own harem, the better your genes survive. Dawkins might be too much of an adaptationist but in this area I simply can't find fault.

(Written at 1:41am and under the influence of alcohol, my excuse for bad grammar and spelling).

Posted by: Uncle Glenny | November 4, 2009 2:51 AM

peptron@18:

... What if those 72 virgins ARE the punishment? I mean, they have been virgins for all of eternity, and they are obviously sex starved. ...

If you can't average one every 3 minutes 20 seconds, call your doctor.

headbang@36:

Hmm, I wonder what would happen if a gay Muslim died for Allah... ...

Maybe it's like mormonism and after ascension you become straight. Although looking forward to that after worldly experience might not exactly be the best incentive to martyrdom.

Posted by: MartinRuager | November 4, 2009 4:45 AM

@post31 IaMol said:
"So who sleeps in the wet spot in Paradise?"

There will be angels kissing the wet spot away of course...

Posted by: windy | November 4, 2009 6:57 AM

why men are polygamous yet jealous of their mates is so obvious as to be almost a tautology. The more you spread your seed and make sure that no one impregnates your own harem, the better your genes survive.

It's not as cut and dried as that. Chimpanzees screw around, and presumably chimp males are under the same imperative to spread their genes, but they are not fixated with virgins. I know of no indication that gorilla males are, either, and human tendency for "harem-building" should be much smaller than in gorillas, judging by the extent of sexual dimorphism.

"Find a virgin, mate with her, and guard her jealously from then on" could be one solution to the problem of male reproduction. But it's not the only possible one - why not, for example, "find an unattached woman who's menstruating, mate with her, and guard her jealously from then on"*? It achieves the same goal of avoiding an already impregnated mate, and it's much easier to detect menstruation than virginity. So even from an ev psych point of view we can still ask: what's with all the virgins?

(*you might point out that the menstruating woman is unlikely to get pregnant, but both solutions require long term bonding, so the short delay until the woman can potentially be impregnated will probably not make a significant difference.)

Posted by: kalox | November 4, 2009 9:28 AM

Funny how none of the speakers seem all that keen to sacrifice themselves for the wonders of heaven

Posted by: Alison | November 4, 2009 10:20 AM

By the time this guy came on and said, "The peak of my happiness as a father is to raise a martyr and to sacrifice him in the battleground of jihad for the sake of Allah." I was really confused about why these men who were all over the idea of joyful martyrdom were alive and talking on TV. I mean, he added, "Is there anything better than martyrdom for the sake of Allah?" Well, if that's the way you feel, why are you sitting there on the comfy chair?

And no, those virgins are not dead human women. Human women don't have souls, so they don't get squat for an afterlife. If they were dead human women, they wouldn't be able to fawn over these martyrs and tell them how handsome they were without throwing up a little in their mouths. (And if angel spit desalinates water, what does angel vomit do? Hmmm.)

If you throw away all the women, clearly you need to make new ones for heaven, and they'll be way more betterer than the ones on earth. I guess Allah hasn't worked out the bugs on how to make real women like this, so the 72 virgin thing is still being beta tested.

Posted by: omar | November 4, 2009 11:08 AM

Memri is an Israeli site and will not escape accusations of bias, but this video is from a mainstream Pakistani news channel, with a host who is actually sympathetic to "moderate Islam". its bone chilling:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD-Nny3EP98

Posted by: The Chemist | November 4, 2009 9:25 PM

@John #119

The whooshing sound is that of you missing the point. It's as timidly stupid as you saying, "Hey I never thought being black might affect what kind of comments you might not appreciate."