Sam Harris on "Islamophobia"

[metacristi]

http://sistersinislam.org.my/

What about a large conference of islamic scholars worldwide which to agree that all the medieval schools of Islamic jurisprudence are obsolete and need important changes? What about an entirely different type of religious education in madrassas where to be taught among others that Human Reason is extremely important and that humans are much more than mere 'slaves' of Allah? And this should be only the beginning...Obviously I do not deny that some moderates exist but it is the old defective religious frameworks which drive societies in the muslim world and small reforms can never succeed to move islam outside their sphere of influence (it is more probable that sometime in the future everything will revert to what was before). I understand what you want to point out unfortunately much more is needed to create a viable on long term liberal islam. The first step is to renounce the innerancy of the Quran.

 

[metacristi]

Islam is as moderate as Moslems make them. like it is with all religions.
A religions is not what their gods are or what their texts say. a religion isultimatively what its member smake of it. and most moslems are pecefull humans caring for their kids and managing life just like most people on this planet.

the way the website you linked to interprets Islam is how maybe the taliban interpret it. but not how most moslems interpret it and surely not how most moselms are living it.


i asked you already, but what exactly are you critizising Islam for. what is the problem of Islam in your eyes?

Only that muslims are not really in command of their religion, as I said many times it is still islam which strongly shape culture all over the muslim world and not the other way around (in spite of the alleged existence of a myriad of islams).

Read The closing of the muslim mind by Robert Reilly first and after that we will talk again. You try to patronize me with your 'knowledge' of islam and Christianity but from what you say I really doubt you read a scholarly argumented book about them.

 

[ddt]

As you put it it's as if I put the death of Pim Fortuyn on behalf of the extremist doctrines of the so called western 'progressives' (extreme leftist or liberals gone mad) which I will not do it.

You wouldn't be the first. At the time, Labor leader Ad Melkert and GreenLeft leader Paul Rosenmöller received numerous death threats, up to the point of receiving a loaded gun in the mail. And that sentiment has been simmering in the Dutch blogosphere for years. Hell, even today with the impending release of Fortuyn's murderer in May this year, everyone and their dog tries to bend the rules of justice to prevent that.

(oh, and you do realize that Volkert van der Graaf is an animal rights activist and that this has nothing to do with Islam?)

 

[tsig]

Why can you pick the year? Why can't I pick the year?

Because we live in 2014.

ETA: looks like a dodge.

 

[Ryokan]

Because we live in 2014.

ETA: looks like a dodge.

It's not a dodge, no more than you singling out suicide attacks specifically for some reason.

However, you don't have to go back that many years before non-Islamic groups dominated in the number of suicide attacks. I don't think Islamic groups having the greatest number of suicide attacks specifically in 2013, and no other time, tells us that there's something unique about Islam.

 

[DC]

Only that muslims are not really in command of their religion, as I said many times it is still islam which strongly shape culture all over the muslim world and not the other way around (in spite of the alleged existence of a myriad of islams).

Read The closing of the muslim mind by Robert Reilly first and after that we will talk again. You try to patronize me with your 'knowledge' of islam and Christianity but from what you say I really doubt you read a scholarly argumented book about them.

so would you agree that i best turn to Hindus and Moslems to learn what Christianity is all about?
and what exactly makes his book a schoolarly argument?
and what do you mean with alleged myriad of islams?
the allegedl is a total give away for your islamaphobia.

 

[metacristi]

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



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.

This rather reminds me of that quote from Wafa Sultan "The problem with Christians is they aren't as good as Jesus. But thank God most Muslims are better than Muhammad." Unfortunately this cannot really compensate for the lack of a liberal islam on a par with liberal Christianity and Reform Judaism and neither are the basics of islam less easy to use to justify violence and discrimination (actually many muslims wordwide declare themselves against violence and still huge violence come from there). Lets at least hope that the result of the poll is the real picture. Anyways talking also in the open that the Quran is not inerrant and has a history like the Bible would be much more reassuring, a huge step toward the apparition of a viable liberal islam.

 

[metacristi]

so would you agree that i best turn to Hindus and Moslems to learn what Christianity is all about?
and what exactly makes his book a schoolarly argument?
and what do you mean with alleged myriad of islams?
the allegedl is a total give away for your islamaphobia.

Given that the historical critical method is basically inexistent in the muslim world (the so called Islamic scholars are still at the level of the Middle Ages) and the vast majority of muslims is blissfully unaware of the intricacies of islamic theology and jurisprudence it is at least arrogant to talk like that. Unfortunately even most of Western Academia has lowered so much the standards that it became basically unreliable when assessing islam (but postmodernist delusions cannot endure long in front of more and more contrary evidence - the situation in Europe is definitely much much worse than in America). The only hope come at the moment from the part of ex muslims and non muslim intellectuals, like Reilly and ibn Warraq, rational critics of islam, who offer arguments much closer to a scientific standard. Read the book and you'll see that nothing is invented, the facts are there (leading to conclusions which go significantly beyond those of Reilly's if one let Reason go to the logical end), By the way ad hominems and refusing to read contrary arguments do not help you win debates. After you read and understand the book we can discuss, otherwise is a waste of time for me (mind you I debated enough many muslims and I know what they think about islam; the sad thing is that quite many fit exactly Reilly's profile of muslim with little consideration for human reason).

 

[metacristi]

You wouldn't be the first. At the time, Labor leader Ad Melkert and GreenLeft leader Paul Rosenmöller received numerous death threats, up to the point of receiving a loaded gun in the mail. And that sentiment has been simmering in the Dutch blogosphere for years. Hell, even today with the impending release of Fortuyn's murderer in May this year, everyone and their dog tries to bend the rules of justice to prevent that.

(oh, and you do realize that Volkert van der Graaf is an animal rights activist and that this has nothing to do with Islam?)

I'm not sure what you are up here, as far as I know der Graaf declared that he killed Fortuyn among others for the muslims, even the Wikipedia page on him say the same. Finally I expressly denied that any existent extreme left ideology was enough to determine a rational person to kill Fortuyn.

 

[tsig]

It's not a dodge, no more than you singling out suicide attacks specifically for some reason.

However, you don't have to go back that many years before non-Islamic groups dominated in the number of suicide attacks (whatever atrocity you mention). I don't think Islamic groups having the greatest number of suicide attacks(whatever atrocity you mention) specifically in 2013, and no other time, tells us that there's something unique about Islam.

There you go, that'll save you the trouble of typing the same thing every time.

 

[DC]

Given that the historical critical method is basically inexistent in the muslim world (the so called Islamic scholars are still at the level of the Middle Ages) and the vast majority of muslims is blissfully unaware of the intricacies of islamic theology and jurisprudence it is at least arrogant to talk like that. Unfortunately even most of Western Academia has lowered so much the standards that it became basically unreliable when assessing islam (but postmodernist delusions cannot endure long in front of more and more contrary evidence - the situation in Europe is definitely much much worse than in America). The only hope come at the moment from the part of ex muslims and non muslim intellectuals, like Reilly and ibn Warraq, rational critics of islam, who offer arguments much closer to a scientific standard. Read the book and you'll see that nothing is invented, the facts are there (leading to conclusions which go significantly beyond those of Reilly's if one let Reason go to the logical end), By the way ad hominems and refusing to read contrary arguments do not help you win debates. After you read and understand the book we can discuss, otherwise is a waste of time for me (mind you I debated enough many muslims and I know what they think about islam; the sad thing is that quite many fit exactly Reilly's profile of muslim with little consideration for human reason).

so muslims don't actually know what they believe? is that what you are saying?
so we depend on the opinion of christians to know what Islam is really all about.
and what facts? "facts" like on your religionofpeace propaganda website?

 

[Ryokan]

There you go, that'll save you the trouble of typing the same thing every time.

Indeed. Thanks for making my point for me. Just because today Islamic groups are behind a large share of terrorist attacks, it doesn't mean that there's something special or unique about Islam that makes it so.

 

[ddt]

I'm not sure what you are up here, as far as I know der Graaf declared that he killed Fortuyn among others for the muslims, even the Wikipedia page on him say the same.

The "amongst others" is significant here. From the court verdict:

[...] dat verdachte in het slachtoffer een steeds groter wordend gevaar zag voor de samenleving, met name voor kwetsbare groepen, zoals asielzoekers, moslims en mensen met een WAO-uitkering.

Translation (mine):

[...] that suspect saw in victim an increasing danger to society, in particular to vulnerable groups, such as asylum seekers, Muslims and people with a disability pension.

Volkert van der Graaf mentioned Muslims as one of the vulnerable groups in society. I concede, my "nothing to do" was an overstatement, but it certainly ddin't play an overriding role - as far as we can know, since he has been very sparse in giving statements on his motives.

Finally I expressly denied that any existent extreme left ideology was enough to determine a rational person to kill Fortuyn.

That is not what you wrote. And the above seems nonsensical, as there have been (extreme) left ideologies that would advocate such a murder - see, e.g., the murder of Czar Alexander II - and there still might be.

What you actually wrote was:

As you put it it's as if I put the death of Pim Fortuyn on behalf of the extremist doctrines of the so called western 'progressives' (extreme leftist or liberals gone mad) which I will not do it.

In fact, there are scores of people who blame the whole "left" for the murder of Fortuyn (as well as other perceived ills, as can be learned from the rhetoric of Wilders and his supporters). Blaming "left ideology" for the murder by one "left person" makes as much sense as blaming Islam for the terror acts of a few Muslims. Both "left ideology" and Islam are collective words for a wide variety of ideologies resp. religious tenets. And what I gather from your posts is that the latter is exactly what you're doing.

 

[Octavo]

Where and to whom? Bombing abortion clinics, maybe? Nor does Texas per se have nukes sfaik, although at one time that's where at least some were assembled. I do suspect Wash DC would be ahead of Iran on their Target list.

I was thinking more along the lines of policy influence. Teaching creationism, reinstating restrictions on stem cell research etc.

 

[tsig]

Indeed. Thanks for making my point for me. Just because today Islamic groups are behind a large share of terrorist attacks, it doesn't mean that there's something special or unique about Islam that makes it so.

So we shouldn't worry about it today because others did it to and this too shall pass?

Glad you were able to admit that Islamic groups are responsible for most terror attacks.

 

[DC]

What about a large conference of islamic scholars worldwide which to agree that all the medieval schools of Islamic jurisprudence are obsolete and need important changes? What about an entirely different type of religious education in madrassas where to be taught among others that Human Reason is extremely important and that humans are much more than mere 'slaves' of Allah? And this should be only the beginning...Obviously I do not deny that some moderates exist but it is the old defective religious frameworks which drive societies in the muslim world and small reforms can never succeed to move islam outside their sphere of influence (it is more probable that sometime in the future everything will revert to what was before). I understand what you want to point out unfortunately much more is needed to create a viable on long term liberal islam. The first step is to renounce the innerancy of the Quran.

do you demand the same from other religions?

 

[eight bits]

Ryokan

Indeed. Thanks for making my point for me. Just because today Islamic groups are behind a large share of terrorist attacks, it doesn't mean that there's something special or unique about Islam that makes it so.

And yet I search in vain for the years during which league tables of terrorist acts were dominated by Liberal Quaker fanatics. I conclude that, while both Liberal Quakers and Muslims hold incorrect worldviews for epistemologically absurd reasons (in my opinion), I may rationally distinguish between their professed tenets when assessing threat.

I do not see the relevance of Islamic tenets being or not being "unique" among belief systems which may be fairly construed to counsel the use of force for ideological advantage in some situations. As far as the topic goes, Dr Harris has not identified Islamic tenets as the only ideological threat to civil society, but just as one such threat.

At the same time, I do happen to think there is something "special" about Liberal Quakerism that contributes to its adherents' consistently dismal showing among the world's terrorist powerhouses. It follows that I suspect that there may be something "special" about the beliefs of those who have ever, even once, made a noteworthy annual showing in such a competitive field, if only the specialness of ignoring Liberal Quakerism for advice about ideological promotion.

 

[DC]

I wonder if those that think Islam itself has to fundamentally change because a minority of moslems are terrorists, if the US constitution has to change because a small minority of gun owners murder others. I think most of them would argue the problem is not the US constitution, or when talking about Christian terror like in Ireland, they would most propably not see any fundamental problem with Christianity.
but a religion they know very little about from a region of the planet they know very little about, there they know the problem is with Islam itself.

ETA: Or Geller's hatespeech. they see no problem in that. even after a nutter going amok specifically referring to this said hatespeech. there the problem is not the Geller Hatespeech, its the nutter that is the problem....

why those double standards?

 

[fuelair]

I think the problem largely exists in the definition of the word.

It is irrational to fear over a billion people because of their religion.

In other contexts it is rational to fear Islamic fundamentalism if you are an author, politician, artist or even a cartoonist when you want to exercise freedom of expression that might contradict Islamic claims.

and, better, make fun of them!!!!! And, like pretty much all fundies, they are so easy to make fun of - because they are like, well, idiots.

 

[metacristi]

The "amongst others" is significant here. From the court verdict:

Translation (mine):

Volkert van der Graaf mentioned Muslims as one of the vulnerable groups in society. I concede, my "nothing to do" was an overstatement, but it certainly ddin't play an overriding role - as far as we can know, since he has been very sparse in giving statements on his motives.

He himself repeatedly confessed that muslims were a major concern since Fortuyn used them as 'scapegoats'. It has all to do with muslims. Besides let me doubt that the 'court' was interested to say the whole truth, too many times I heard about 'Asians raping teenager' instead of 'muslims raped teenager'...

That is not what you wrote. And the above seems nonsensical, as there have been (extreme) left ideologies that would advocate such a murder - see, e.g., the murder of Czar Alexander II - and there still might be.

In fact, there are scores of people who blame the whole "left" for the murder of Fortuyn (as well as other perceived ills, as can be learned from the rhetoric of Wilders and his supporters). Blaming "left ideology" for the murder by one "left person" makes as much sense as blaming Islam for the terror acts of a few Muslims. Both "left ideology" and Islam are collective words for a wide variety of ideologies resp. religious tenets. And what I gather from your posts is that the latter is exactly what you're doing.

Maybe I was not clear enough. I was responding to a claim that Fjordman and Spencer's writings caused Breivik's criminal actions, which is total nonsense (I read them before and never thought even to call for a stop of muslim immigration, eduvcating them is the solution). So I tried to make a comparation with Fortuyn's case and I said that if Spencer and Fjordman's criticisms of islam created the crimes of Breivik then I could argue that the ideologies of today's 'western progressives' produced the crimes of van de Graaf which is definitely not the case (and I expressly rejected that at the end). Finally if you knew whaty the Principle of charity is you would have easily identified what I meant by the 'extremist left ideologies' (in my original post I said clearly what I meant, i am unaware that any of them incite to kill political adversaries) or at least you'd have asked for clarifications.