Sam Harris on "Islamophobia"

[Cleon]

How, I wonder, does one contest the assertion that Islam is worse than the other Abrahamic religions when one is not allowed to even mention those other Abrahamic religions?

They want to have their ka'ak and eat it too.

 

[DC]

Since they do it in the name of religion it seems logical to blame that religion.

If a club you belonged to had members who killed people would you stay a member?

Ignoring your attempt to derail by pointing at Christianity.

there was no such attempt.

so do catholic People that stay member of the catholic church Support child molestation?

 

[raff55]

Perhaps I'm missing something but were the Catholic abusers referencing holy texts and acting in the name of the religion ?

 

[metacristi]

you deal with the reaction of a very tiny minority among a group of more than 1 billion members.

Well even in the most generous definition of what means to be 'radical' (that used by the apologists of islam in Academia, like Esposito) there are 7% of muslims worldwide who openly support al-Qaeda. Hard core Radicals (as a digression here do you believe that 7% of Christians are prepared to use whatever extreme method at hand - suicide bombing included - in order to 'defend' Christianity?). And the problem is much deeper for no one rational can agree with the definition which Esposito for example gives to 'radicals'. On very good reasons..

So in fact at least around 15% of muslims fully deserve to be labelled radicals. That's not a tiny minority to me. If we add here that many more advocate standards way under the minimum level of secularism needed to create a healthy society we are left with a tiny minority of real moderates (or as Sam Harris put it well, paraphrased, 'islam is all fringe but no center'). That's the sad reality.

 

[DC]

Perhaps I'm missing something but were the Catholic abusers referencing holy texts and acting in the name of the religion ?

what does it mean to act in the name of a religion?

priests are the representants of a religion.

 

[DC]

Well even in the most generous definition of what means to be 'radical' (that used by the apologists of islam in Academia, like Esposito) there are 7% of muslims worldwide who openly support al-Qaeda. Hard core Radicals (as a digression here do you believe that 7% of Christians are prepared to use whatever extreme method at hand - suicide bombing included - in order to 'defend' Christianity?). And the problem is much deeper for no one rational can agree with the definition which Esposito for example gives to 'radicals'. On very good reasons..

So in fact at least around 15% of muslims fully deserve to be labelled radicals. That's not a tiny minority to me. If we add here that many more advocate standards way under the minimum level of secularism needed to create a healthy society we are left with a tiny minority of real moderates (or as Sam Harris put it well, paraphrased, 'islam is all fringe but no center'). That's the sad reality.

7 or 15% are a minority. we can hardly blame islam for it. its clearly not the way most moslems interpret their religion.

 

[metacristi]

How, I wonder, does one contest the assertion that Islam is worse than the other Abrahamic religions when one is not allowed to even mention those other Abrahamic religions?

I don't remember to have advocated such a view. From my point of view the problem is that these so called counter-examples utterly fail to establish that islam is not worse than the other Abrahamic religions (as I told you previously there is a clear difference between islam and Christianity). Any religion can be completely distorted no matter how peaceful it is (for people indeed can interpret a book however they want, no matter how irrational) but this cannot change the rationality of the conclusion that the basic tenets of islam are much easier to use to advocate war, hate and discrimination than those of Christianity and Judaism.

 

[raff55]

' what does it mean to act in the name of a religion?

priests are the representatives of a religion. ''

To justify your actions with direct reference to Holy texts. To act in what you perceive your religious duties to be.

I was referring to this.

'Christians for what Christian priests do with kids. heck we don't even blame the Catholics.'

I supposed a false equivalence contained in your example as the 'Christian priests' as far as I am able to ascertain did not appeal to ecclesiastical or divine legitimacy when they were caught perpetrating their abuse.

 

[Mister Agenda]

If you can't compete with the Qu'ran in finding scriptures that advocate war, hate, and discrimination in the testaments of Judaism and Christianity, you're not trying very hard.

 

[DC]

' what does it mean to act in the name of a religion?

priests are the representatives of a religion. ''

To justify your actions with direct reference to Holy texts. To act in what you perceive your religious duties to be.

I was referring to this.

'Christians for what Christian priests do with kids. heck we don't even blame the Catholics.'

I supposed a false equivalence contained in your example as the 'Christian priests' as far as I am able to ascertain did not appeal to ecclesiastical or divine legitimacy when they were caught perpetrating their abuse.

well maybe not the priest example, but how about those that murdered abortion doctors? Breivik referenced to the bible. etc etc.

 

[Craig B]

... I supposed a false equivalence contained in your example as the 'Christian priests' as far as I am able to ascertain did not appeal to ecclesiastical or divine legitimacy when they were caught perpetrating their abuse.

There have indeed been cases of Muslims, whether clerics or lay people, being accused of abusing young people. How many of them appealed to ecclesiastical or divine legitimacy when charged with these offences? Do Imams really appeal to the divinity to witness that they have a right to abuse boys, for example? Perhaps they do, but I would like examples.

In the case of the Catholic Church, the people who covered up the misdeeds were appealing to the best interests of the church, as they perceived them, by concealing the abuse, and protecting the abusers. I have little doubt, of course, that such things have happened in other religious institutions as well, if not perhaps so frequently.

 

[A'isha]

(as a digression here do you believe that 7% of Christians are prepared to use whatever extreme method at hand - suicide bombing included - in order to 'defend' Christianity?)

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/03/poll-muslims-atheists-most-likely-to-reject-violence/

Through interviews with 2,482 Americans, Gallup found that 78 percent of Muslims believe violence which kills civilians is never justified, whereas just 38 percent of Protestant Christians and 39 percent of Catholics agreed with that sentiment. Fifty-six percent of atheists answered similarly.

When Gallup put the question a bit more pointedly, asking if it would be justified for “an individual person or a small group of persons to target and kill civilians,” the responses were a bit more uniform. Respondents from nearly all groups were widely opposed to such tactics, with Protestants and Catholics at 71 percent against. Muslims still had the highest number opposed, at 89 percent. Seventy-six percent of atheists were also opposed.

61-62% of American Christians think that violence against civilians is sometimes justified. 29% of them think that terrorist attacks perpetrated by individuals or small groups targeting civilians are sometimes justified.

 

[A'isha]

(as I told you previously there is a clear difference between islam and Christianity).

You claim to draw a distinction between "islamophobia" and honest criticism of Islam, and then you link to thereligionofpeace.com?!

 

[DC]

I don't remember to have advocated such a view. From my point of view the problem is that these so called counter-examples utterly fail to establish that islam is not worse than the other Abrahamic religions (as I told you previously there is a clear difference between islam and Christianity). Any religion can be completely distorted no matter how peaceful it is (for people indeed can interpret a book however they want, no matter how irrational) but this cannot change the rationality of the conclusion that the basic tenets of islam are much easier to use to advocate war, hate and discrimination than those of Christianity and Judaism.

nice link, its those kind of links that exposes the islamaphobes. its an extremely dishonest and biased comparison. and only used by people that actually know next to nothing about Islam and how muslims interpret their religion.

its like quoting thebloody parts of the tora nad say, see how dangerous judaism is......

for example they quote mine parts that show Allah (Wich is the father of Jesus btw lol) and mohammed saying violent stuff. then compare it to jesus quote of a peacefull passage, why did they not use this part?

"I came not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" Jesus

 

[raff55]

'well maybe not the priest example, but how about those that murdered abortion doctors? Breivik referenced to the bible. etc etc. '

Yes the anti abortionists views are relevant and common to both religions Christian and Muslim. There are Christian extremists who will commit violence using Holy texts in this regard. Breivik's motivation is a more problematic matter. His long meandering rant seems to touch on many subjects and his disturbed mind appears clouded by a Fascist brand of Nationalism.


I see fundamentalism as more of question of degree. Who will act and how they will act and in what numbers and frequency? How this relates to 'Islamaphobia' is in my opinion a key point.

 

[metacristi]

If you can't compete with the Qu'ran in finding scriptures that advocate war, hate, and discrimination in the testaments of Judaism and Christianity, you're not trying very hard.

The problem with this stereotypical view is that it completely ignores the fact that Christianity and Judaism have much more internal logic in their core doctrines for offering a high status to Human Reason, accept that some parts of the Scripture have no validity today, and symbolic interpretation of the holy texts. Finally there is definitely a huge difference between the 'servants' of God of Christianity and Judaism (who can even argue with the divinity when they suffer injustice, as Job does for example) and the 'slaves' who must unconditionally 'submit' to allah and Islamic law of Islam. No real surprise that Jews and Christians renounced long ago to stone adulterous women whilst in islam this is still practiced in the 21st century.

 

[Ryokan]

Well even in the most generous definition of what means to be 'radical' (that used by the apologists of islam in Academia, like Esposito) there are 7% of muslims worldwide who openly support al-Qaeda.

I wonder, how many Catholics supported the IRA in the 80s/90s? I couldn't find any numbers online, but I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers were higher than 7%.

 

[DC]

'well maybe not the priest example, but how about those that murdered abortion doctors? Breivik referenced to the bible. etc etc. '

Yes the anti abortionists views are relevant and common to both religions Christian and Muslim. There are Christian extremists who will commit violence using Holy texts in this regard. Breivik's motivation is a more problematic matter. His long meandering rant seems to touch on many subjects and his disturbed mind appears clouded by a Fascist brand of Nationalism.


I see fundamentalism as more of question of degree. Who will act and how they will act and in what numbers and frequency? How this relates to 'Islamaphobia' is in my opinion a key point.

oh well fear of extremsists is no phobia in my opinion, fearing them is justified and rational. but fearing morethan a billion muslims because of the extremists is not rational and is a phobia in my opinion.

i even agree with fighting those extremists like in the case of Talibans and such groups.

but Islamophobes think taliban and suicide bombers when they hear Islam, instead of thinking of a billion people living their live peacefully like most other peoples.

 

[A'isha]

Yes the anti abortionists views are relevant and common to both religions Christian and Muslim.

Most madh'hab are actually much more permissive when it comes to abortion than Catholicism and Evangelical Protestantism are.

Breivik's motivation is a more problematic matter. His long meandering rant seems to touch on many subjects and his disturbed mind appears clouded by a Fascist brand of Nationalism.

He was motivated by people like Spencer and Geller and Fjordman and thereligionofpeace.com and their pants-wettingly terrified shrieking about Muslim Stranger Danger.

 

[DC]

The problem with this stereotypical view is that it completely ignores the fact that Christianity and Judaism have much more internal logic in their core doctrines for offering a high status to Human Reason, accept that some parts of the Scripture have no validity today, and symbolic interpretation of the holy texts. Finally there is definitely a huge difference between the 'servants' of God of Christianity and Judaism (who can even argue with the divinity when they suffer injustice, as Job does for example) and the 'slaves' who must unconditionally 'submit' to allah and Islamic law of Islam. No real surprise that Jews and Christians renounced long ago to stone adulterous women whilst in islam this is still practiced in the 21st century.

you do understand that this God is the same god moslems pray to? you do realize that Jesus was also a very important prophet in Islam?
its like a trillogy, Judaism , part 2 is Christianity and the final part is Islam?

you do realize that stoning is not allowed in most "muslim countries" ?

ETA: also funny to note that the propaganda page "religionofpeace" points out that the bible said you shall not bare false witness.

yet alot of Christians actually believe Jesus was a liar lol.