Richard Dawkins -- Islamophobia?

[Polaris]

Is that actually the case though?

It's not in dispute.

 

[Humes fork]

Ugh, no.

How would it not be wonderful?

 

[Humes fork]

It's not in dispute.

It's entirely possible, but I'm not certain of it. How do you calculate it anyways? The many wars between France and England were wars involving Christians, but they were not religiously motivated wars.

 

[Polaris]

Ugh, no.

Sounds pretty good to me. Leaders who believe in science and empiricism and don't believe in fairy tales or deny global warming?

 

[A'isha]

How would it not be wonderful?

Sounds pretty good to me. Leaders who believe in science and empiricism and don't believe in fairy tales or deny global warming?

An abrasive self-aggrandizing ******* who is all to quick to discard even any pretense of critical thinking when it comes to one of his pet beliefs and who doesn't think endemic child sexual abuse in an institution he belonged to is all that big of a deal?

He'd be Benedict XVI without the crucifix.

 

[blutoski]

It's entirely possible, but I'm not certain of it. How do you calculate it anyways? The many wars between France and England were wars involving Christians, but they were not religiously motivated wars.

I think that's where the complication lays... people expose their prejudices in how they make that classification.

For example, I have a relative who believes the following things simultaneously:

• WWII (33 million dead) between predominantly Christian states that was not really about religion was not a "Christian war".
  whereas
• the Iran/Iraq war (1 million dead) between predominantly Islamic states that was also not about religion somehow was an "Islamic war"

I also think there is a different complication, which is ignoring root causes. It has been very unpopular to assign partial blame to the West for the cratering of living standards and popularity of theocracy in the regions where Islam has expanded (ie: middle east, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia). My feeling is that the root cause assignment is very important and real.

Consider: in 1945, the number one terrorist religion in the world was arguably the Jewish religion. Why? Because they were a desperate and recently very violently oppressed ethnicity with little to lose fighting for autonomy from the West. The principal difference is that we gave Israel what they wanted; everybody else in the middle east got the business end of the cold war. They happen to be Islamic states, but the problems are ultimately secular in origin. We're assigning causation to what is merely correlation.

And I have releatives who make similar inconsistent arguments about Croats. "Yes, yes, the Croats were Christian, but the ethnic cleansing they swore was their Biblical duty wasn't really a Christian atrocity... they were just using their religion as an excuse to execute a secular policy." But when 19 Muslims do something horrible, it's entirely because they're Muslim, and this proves all Muslims are bad and Islam has to be stopped.

 

[Humes fork]

[*] the Iran/Iraq war (1 million dead) between predominantly Islamic states that was also not about religion somehow was an "Islamic war"
[/list]

It was between Shiites and Sunnis, at least partially. But you are right, it was not a sectarian war, unlike the later Iraqi civil war. If I'm not mistaken Saddam Hussein invoked Arab nationalism, and wanted to annex the predominantly Arab Khuzestan from Iran.

And I have releatives who make similar inconsistent arguments about Croats. "Yes, yes, the Croats were Christian, but the ethnic cleansing they swore was their Biblical duty wasn't really a Christian atrocity... they were just using their religion as an excuse to execute a secular policy." But when 19 Muslims do something horrible, it's entirely because they're Muslim, and this proves all Muslims are bad and Islam has to be stopped.

The 19 hijackers however were working for an explicitly religious terrorist organization. Osama bin Laden wanted a reestablished caliphate and saw the US particular and the West in general as preventing that from happening.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

It, unlike all of Hazrat Dawkins' ill-informed jerkishness and slobberingly stupid twitter comments, gets results.

Yah. That Dawkins has a nasty habit of speaking his mind. If only he would choose his words more carefully, and think of the poor Muslims' feelings. We must be very careful not to offend the religious.

 

[blutoski]

It was between Shiites and Sunnis, at least partially. But you are right, it was not a sectarian war, unlike the later Iraqi civil war. If I'm not mistaken Saddam Hussein invoked Arab nationalism, and wanted to annex the predominantly Arab Khuzestan from Iran.

Yes, that's basically the origin. He envisioned himself at the helm of a pan-Arab empire and wanted to slice off an Arab pocket from Persia.

The 19 hijackers however were working for an explicitly religious terrorist organization. Osama bin Laden wanted a reestablished caliphate and saw the US particular and the West in general as preventing that from happening.

Yep, but that wasn't the hijacker's motive. Most of them indicated pretty clearly that they were mostly motivated by Palestine liberation, that that pseudo-apartheid was an injustice worth dying for. AQ was happy to be the financier. My point is that these powerful secular Western-originating motives are ignored by most people because of cognitive dissonance.

I remember years ago when I was living with an Ismaili woman and we went to her childhood villiage in Kenya. There was literally a statue of Hitler in the centre of the village. She says it's gone now - the Christian warlords blew it up in a purge, although she's pretty sure it was because they thought it was idolotry, not that they objected to Hitler per se.

The reason for Hitler's popularity is that in that part of the world, the dominant idea is that things would be better if they had been left alone, and WWII broke the back of the British Empire and precipitated their independence. Most people there think AQ or other theocratic sects are a bad choice because they're unethical and violent... they just think they're a better choice than putting their fate in the hands of the West, who have also proven to be unethical and violent during half a millenia of foreign occupation.

 

[blutoski]

Yah. That Dawkins has a nasty habit of speaking his mind. If only he would choose his words more carefully, and think of the poor Muslims' feelings.

I would say yes, that's a good idea. Choose words carefully when you're insulting over a billion people. Sounds smart to me.

Wait, were you being sarcastic?

We must be very careful not to offend the religious.

Not at all. My suggestion is not to hold people responsible for something somebody else did, just because of a superficial resemblance.

Atheists are very adamant that we shouldn't be held accountable for violence by other atheists - even if it was in the name of atheism. I usually forward Orwell's account of Communists desecrating graves with religious symbols on them in the name of atheism... surely we're not to be held accountable for those ********' actions just because of a shared religious belief?

 

[A'isha]

Yah. That Dawkins has a nasty habit of speaking his mind. If only he would choose his words more carefully, and think of the poor Muslims' feelings. We must be very careful not to offend the religious.

Hazrat Dawkins is absolutely free to be a colossal arse about Islam all he likes. Just as I'm free to point out that he's a lying hypocrite for accusing liberals of enabling the oppression of women in the Muslim world, when it's liberals and Muslims themselves that are the ones doing all the actual work of combatting that oppression while he's done not one *********** thing to help beyond making stupid and offensive comments from the sidelines.

So Dawkins and his whiny self-promoting slacktivism can go **** themselves.

 

[IllegalArgument]

Atheists are very adamant that we shouldn't be held accountable for violence by other atheists - even if it was in the name of atheism. I usually forward Orwell's account of Communists desecrating graves with religious symbols on them in the name of atheism... surely we're not to be held accountable for those ********' actions just because of a shared religious belief?

Thank you for making that point better than I could have.

 

[Trevor from Toronto]

What's "dressed as a Muslim"?

Dressed in a hajib, a burka, niqab. chador, et al. Men with their beards died red with henna like their role model Mohammad. But you know that.

No, as pointed out above, they're sometimes reacting to what they perceive as someone else making the leap in equating Islam with a race, and more often simply conflating "racism" with "bigotry" when attempting to describe what someone who is broad-brushing one-fifth of the entire human population.

They're reacting with name calling because that's what they believe (that Islam is equated with some sort of race that's in the minority in the Western context, and therefore somehow "needs protection"), and they want to try and shut down the conversation and discredit the speaker. But you know that, too.

 

[Trevor from Toronto]

Hazrat Dawkins is absolutely free to be a colossal arse about Islam all he likes. Just as I'm free to point out that he's a lying hypocrite for accusing liberals of enabling the oppression of women in the Muslim world, when it's liberals and Muslims themselves that are the ones doing all the actual work of combatting that oppression while he's done not one *********** thing to help beyond making stupid and offensive comments from the sidelines.

So Dawkins and his whiny self-promoting slacktivism can go **** themselves.

Oh-oh. A'isha has stooped to name-calling and swearing rather than discussing the issues. Now why is that? Please, A'isha, when you come back on this thread follow the JREF guidelines and discuss the issues using logic and facts. Thank you.

 

[A'isha]

Dressed in a hajib, a burka, niqab. chador, et al. Men with their beards died red with henna like their role model Mohammad. But you know that.

Strange, most of the Muslims I've known (including members of my own family) don't look like that at all.

They're reacting with name calling because that's what they believe (that Islam is equated with some sort of race that's in the minority in the Western context, and therefore somehow "needs protection"), and they want to try and shut down the conversation and discredit the speaker.

Ah, of course. The people pointing out bigotry are the real bigots.

But you know that, too.

Please, do tell me more about what I know.

 

[A'isha]

Oh-oh. A'isha has stooped to name-calling and swearing rather than discussing the issues.

Have I, now?

Please, A'isha, when you come back on this thread follow the JREF guidelines and discuss the issues using logic and facts. Thank you.

I refer you back to...well, all of my other posts in this thread.

Is there anything else I may assist you with?

 

[Axiom_Blade]

I would say yes, that's a good idea. Choose words carefully when you're insulting over a billion people. Sounds smart to me.

Wait, were you being sarcastic?

So, there can be no skeptical commentary about the Koran or Islamic culture, because that would offend Muslims. We have also seen that we can't even draw pictures of Mohammed, because that will offend Muslims.

I'm sure that there's a much longer list somewhere. It is hard to keep track of all the rules Muslims have about what we can and can't do.

I am sure that even pointing this out has offended several Muslims.

Not at all. My suggestion is not to hold people responsible for something somebody else did, just because of a superficial resemblance.

Okay, sounds good to me.

 

[Craig B]

So, there can be no skeptical commentary about the Koran or Islamic culture, because that would offend Muslims. We have also seen that we can't even draw pictures of Mohammed, because that will offend Muslims.

I'm sure that there's a much longer list somewhere. It is hard to keep track of all the rules Muslims have about what we can and can't do.

I am sure that even pointing this out has offended several Muslims.

Then too bad for the Muslims because you have a perfect right to criticise their beliefs and practices if you think fit. That's not the problem. When the EDF turn up here in a district with a large Muslim population they pretend to be criticising Muslim doctrines and deploring extremist Muslim violence. In fact they have little interest in these things; they are motivated by racism.

 

[A'isha]

So, there can be no skeptical commentary about the Koran or Islamic culture, because that would offend Muslims.

If you think what Dawkins does is "skeptical commentary about the Koran or Islamic culture", you are severely mistaken. I'd be more than happy to recommend several scholarly works that are actually skeptical commentary about both the Qur'an and "Islamic culture", though, if you like.

We have also seen that we can't even draw pictures of Mohammed, because that will offend Muslims.

There are lots of pictures of Muhammad. Most of them were even drawn by Muslims themselves. In Iran you can even buy postcards and posters of Muhammad as a beautiful young man.

We even had a thread here where posters drew their own pictures of Muhammad. Curiously, no Muslims seem to have been offended by it.

I'm sure that there's a much longer list somewhere. It is hard to keep track of all the rules Muslims have about what we can and can't do.

You can say and do whatever you like. Just as other people can criticise it.

 

[SusanB-M1]

This, for starters.

*tangent*
I followed the link - interesting. However, I noticed a spelling mistake in the first para - religous' - so clicked 'contact us' to politely let them know, but couldn't find a place to write in.
*end tangent*