Sam Harris on "Islamophobia"

[A'isha]

Condemning violence in general? Happens all the time. But condemning particular acts of violence perpetrated in the name of Islam? Much rarer. And unfortunately, it's the latter that counts. If you're sharing a label with a sociopath, and you don't seem to be doing anything to stop him or be particularly bothered by his actions, that reflects poorly on you, no matter how angelic your own behavior may be.

[...]

I just skimmed an Al Jazeera article about a Taliban suicide bomber killing 21 people at a restaurant in Afghanistan yesterday. Their selected "this is a tragedy" quote? Ban Ki-moon's press secretary. What do you think that says to the non-Muslim world about what the religion as a whole actually thinks about the violence?

President Hamid Karzai condemned the attack, and called on US-led NATO forces fighting in Afghanistan "to target terrorism" in the country.

Pakistanis Unite in Outrage Over Girl’s Shooting by Taliban

Aitzaz Hasan: Tributes to Pakistan teenager killed when he stopped a bomber

Fort Hood killings: Treachery at Fort Hood

Not in My Name

Where Was God on September 11th?

Woolwich beheading: Pakistani Muslims condemn brutal murder of British soldier by Wahhabi terrorists in London

Does something equivalent exist for the Muslim world?

http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/promoting_islamic_non_violent_solutions/

http://www.musawah.org/get-involved/links

If so, why do you think it's not heard or listened to wide enough to impact the violence?

I think it is, but it's a slow, difficult process because of all the various factors that are behind terrorism and other violence done in the name of Islam. It also isn't a uniform process, since violence is local and regional and fluctuates based on what's happening in once place versus what's happening in another.

 

[Magyar]

[qimg]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BeQupAICEAASqGa.png:large[/qimg]

A very well-made point. There should be no limits to skeptical inquiry.

I challenge anyone to find anything objectionable in the quote.

I dont see anything wrong with the op statement. Despite our resident islam shills
The ideas of islam - the religion as it exist today, not the people or at least not most- is detrimental and a threat to society.

Just as christianity was the same threat to society during the dark ages.
It was anti science, anti tolerance and anti human.
The muslim apologist continue to parrot the meme about diversity of islam, but really the only diversity in islam exists because unlike xianity islam does not have the central authority of a pope figure.

But this is tantamount to Xians arguing whether witches should be drowned or burned.
Or discussing which order of christian - the hospitallers or the templars - had it right.

And no not every christian in the backwoods of france, england and italy went out and killed jews and muslims, just as most muslims today are not actively trying to kill jews and convert infidels. But it took the reniassance to bring major change to the western world and break out of the dark ages and the inquisition and few random examples not withstanding, there is no such movement even in its infancy exists anywhere in the muslim world.


At least those xians had the "excuse" that with 12 and 13th century thinking what they were doing made sense. The current muslim world even lacks that as their ideas on science, finance, human rights and just about everything else has been proven to be at least wrong if not downright stupid.

 

[Garrison]

Are his opinions yours as well, Humes? That there's something inherent in Islam that makes it a special threat to civil society? That's quite a claim.

And, as usual, you want us to discuss this without ever comparing it to any other religions?

When Islam is the claimed motivation for much of the worlds terrorism then yes I'm afraid it qualifies as special threat.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

From:

Pakistanis Unite in Outrage Over Girl’s Shooting by Taliban

“We are infected with the cancer of extremism, and unless it is cut out we will slide ever further into the bestiality that this latest atrocity exemplifies,” read an editorial in The News International, a major English-language daily.

THIS is what I'm talking about. More of this will help. Accusing extremists of terrorism, when that's what they're going for, won't.

I think it is, but it's a slow, difficult process because of all the various factors that are behind terrorism and other violence done in the name of Islam. It also isn't a uniform process, since violence is local and regional and fluctuates based on what's happening in once place versus what's happening in another.

Fair enough. It also probably doesn't help that the majority of the violence is ethnic in motivation, with religious issues used as a flimsy justification.

 

[Craig B]

Despite our resident islam shills.

I've asked for evidence to sustain this accusation. Please provide it.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

This is a puzzling post. In what way was Stalin "well-intentioned"? Or is your statement a jocular attack on Sam Harris?

The subject is Sam Harris of course, not Stalin. I was just making a comparison...

Both Stalin and Harris have been cited as recommending torture, I suppose.

And the similarities don't stop there. Stalin didn't identify as Atheist just for convenience. He truly believed that there is no God and religion is evil - just like Sam Harris. One difference is that Sam Harris isn't responsible for the deaths of millions, but I wonder how many might have died if he was in the same position of power?

In what way was Stalin "well-intentioned"?

The same way that Churchill ordering the firebombing of Dresden, or Kennedy drawing a 'line the sand' in Vietnam, or Bush invading Iraq to combat terrorism, was "well-intentioned". When you have the power to thwart great evil, it's easy to justify collateral damage. I have no doubt that Stalin thought he doing good. The main difference between Stalin and most "well-intentioned" people is that he gained a position of power from which he was able to carry out his intentions.

How do you shop your enemies from having ideas? Maybe Stalin's way of doing that - by destroying the brains in which the ideas resided - was the most effective.

There are other ways, but few are effective. Sam Harris believes that Islam poses a 'special threat', and seems to be hell-bent on wiping it from the face of the Earth. I wonder what he would do if given the power and opportunity to actually wipe an idea out of people's minds? There is no end to the evil that can come out of "good intentions".

Sam Harris is is right about some aspects of Islam (and religion in general). But he is wrong about it being a 'special threat to civil society' In fact, in the main Islam supports civility. Perhaps it doesn't support the kind of freedoms that Sam Harris wants us to enjoy, but many people find that their religion provides a moral structure and social cohesiveness that is lacking in our secular western lifestyle. If Sam Harris wants Muslims to reject the 'uncivil' parts of their faith, attacking the whole of Islam is not the way to do it. Not only is it a sign of intolerance, but he also shows an ignorance of why most Muslims 'believe' in the tenants of their faith.

Trying to erase an idea from people's minds by attacking a foundation of their culture is unlikely to work (unless you destroy their brains). What we can do is prove that Atheists are capable of polite, reasonable, and respectful behavior (ie. civility) towards people of other faiths. We can also show them a society where non-believers have good morals and embrace cultural differences - otherwise what reason have they got to give up their religion?

 

[NekoTheCat]

The ideas of islam - the religion as it exist today, not the people or at least not most- is detrimental and a threat to society.

This is a good display of what I think one of the big issues here is. You speak of the "ideas of Islam" as if there is one agreed on set of ideas by all Muslims (even though you probably don't intend it that way.) You bring up the pope, which I think is a good example here. When you talk about the issues with Catholicism, you can be assumed to be talking about the stated views of the Church itself, and not about the individual beliefs of Catholics. Islam has no such central Church or Pope. Thus when you talk about the "ideas of Islam" that are an issue (like the way women are treated) you lump all people who consider themselves Muslim together. There is no central Church or set of ideas. What it means to be a Muslim and the "ideas of Islam" is different from person to person.

To make this more clear, let's look at how a Muslim might view something like this. One of the more extremists might very much agree that the poor treatment of women (though obviously not phrased at all that way) is an "idea of Islam." However, a more secular individual might take serious exception. They would of course say "are you saying that I believe this?" or "who are you to say what sort of thing I should believe as a Muslim?" To put it simply they would not consider this an "idea of Islam" but rather a view of extremists. You risk alienating and grouping together all Muslims with statements such as this.

You may have some specific view of what you mean exactly by "ideas of Islam," and you may possibly think there is some sort of core beliefs based on their religious texts and traditions, however this goes back to my previous post in this thread. You can go see it for my views on those issues.

 

[quadraginta]

What does your personal anecdote have to do with the OP?

The OP which began with "There is no such thing as Islamophobia?" and ended with "I challenge anyone to find anything objectionable in the quote."?

Well, I was pointing out that Mrs. qg comes as close as makes no difference to fitting such a description, which contradicts the "no such thing" assertion, and responding to the specific "challenge" at the end of the OP.

That's what it has to do with it.

Are you implying that all who criticize Islam have some sort of unassailable knee-jerk reaction?

No. What did I write to make you think I was?

How about if we call those who have an unassailable knee-jerk reaction to defend Islam as Isalmophiles.

I don't know. How about it?

 

[quadraginta]

Ignoring the fact that diverse elements of that religion call for and practice violence in the name of that religion and attempting to divert any discussion of that fact is dishonest.

Who did that? Was it in this thread? Please provide a link.

 

[Robrob]

Why are you so obsessed with Islam, fork? Were you molested by a falafel?

I'm curious myself. Odds are he probably doesn't actually know any Muslims, much less have had any first hand experience with them or with their culture.

It's been my experience, most bigots are simply ignorant and afraid. They live isolated lives and parrot what others tell them about the scary outside world.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

No such thing as Islamophobia?

Of course there is. I'm both American and European. I've heard Christians, Jews, Hindus and, yes, atheists/secular people say awful things about Islam and Muslims and do really messed up things to Muslim people. In America and in Europe.

And then we wonder we have an issue with these people.

If you think atheists (and people who may not be strong atheists but have no particular religious beliefs) can't be bigoted, you are dead wrong.

 

[eight bits]

Ryokan

I don't see the big difference between the two.

It's the difference between irrational and possibly pathological bigotry, and a reasoned critique of some aspects of what defines a large group (on the other order of a billion people worldwide), who are inheritors of a long tradition (about 14 centuries worth for Islam), who are loosely united over time and space by a body of literature, along with their own sense of being a distinct community.

So the claim is that the specific tenets of Islam is a special threat to civil society. Do you agree with that?

Yes, although I would be happier talking about "some specific tenets" rather than "the specific tenets." I think that other posts in this thread illustrate that there is needless ambiguity in the latter phrasing (attributed to Harris in the OP), that the other phrasing would resolve at little cost.

And exactly how are we going to explore that claim without comparing it to the tenets of other faiths?

I haven't suggested that. Obviously, anyone who says there are discussable features specific to the tenets of Islam has already compared those tenets to other faiths' tenets. I have no problem pursuing that comparison. Moreover, one specific fact about Islam is that it is derivative of earlier religions. How can it be discussed at all without making some comparisons?

Where I have a problem (and not with you) is with comparative arguments of a form like

~ Religion is bad, and by its very nature has undesirable potential secular impact.
~ Islam is a religion.
~ Liberal Quakerism is a religion.

Conclude:

Only a bigot could be concerned about the potential secular impact of Islam, but not equally concerned about liberal Quakerism.

No.

 

[DC]

When Islam is the claimed motivation for much of the worlds terrorism then yes I'm afraid it qualifies as special threat.

so Patriotism is also a Special threat to Society?

 

[Craig B]

... Despite our resident islam shills.

Here is a dictionary definition of shill.

an accomplice of a confidence trickster or swindler who poses as a genuine customer to entice or encourage others.

Who in this thread do you regard as a shill? I have asked you before, and have not received a response. Now, provide one if you don't mind.

 

[Craig B]

Only a bigot could be concerned about the potential secular impact of Islam, but not equally concerned about liberal Quakerism.

No.

And how do we find out the character of Quakerism without examining it? If we don't we can't compare it with Islam.

 

[Dissolution]

Here is a dictionary definition of shill. Who in this thread do you regard as a shill? I have asked you before, and have not received a response. Now, provide one if you don't mind.

Won't he break some of the forum rules if he does that?

 

[Craig B]

Won't he break some of the forum rules if he does that?

If he accuses people of being shills, I hope the rules will permit him to explain who or what he means when he states that.

 

[eight bits]

Craig B

And how do we find out the character of Quakerism without examining it? If we don't we can't compare it with Islam.

Both fine points. Was there any particular reason why you asked me about them? Have I, for example, said something to discourage examination of liberal Quakerism or comparison of it with Islam? (It seems to me that I performed just such a comparison...)

 

[tsig]

And how do we find out the character of Quakerism without examining it? If we don't we can't compare it with Islam.

If I wanted to understand Quakerism I'd study Quakerism not Islam.

Are you suggesting that in order to discuss Islam we also need to discuss every other religion in the world? Are Islamic scholars also Christian, Jewish and Hindu scholars?

 

[Craig B]

If I wanted to understand Quakerism I'd study Quakerism not Islam.

Are you suggesting that in order to discuss Islam we also need to discuss every other religion in the world? Are Islamic scholars also Christian, Jewish and Hindu scholars?

I'm saying that to compare one religion with another - or one toothbrush with another, if it comes to that - you have to examine both one and the other. If you want to say, Islam is monotheistic, then you don't need to examine other religions, of course. But if you say, Islam is a special problem (ie more than other religions) that requires a comparison with the others, as must be perfectly evident.