Sam Harris on "Islamophobia"

[Ryokan]

The apologetics for Islam in this thread seem to boil down to either
a) Radicals do not accurately represent Islam
b) <x> religion did far worse

Can you point to anyone in this thread that has argued b)?

 

[Craig B]

Can you point to anyone in this thread that has argued b)?

I have argued that throughout most of its history Islam has been more tolerant of Christians and Jews in areas which it has dominated, than Christians have been of Muslims and Jews in similar circumstances. I stick by that.

But that is not a justification of acts of intolerance by Muslims, where they have occurred; and they have, of course.

 

[AlBell]

When Muhammed was weak he preached tolerance once he gained power he practiced murder.

At least Morsi never sfaik preached tolerance, so murder came easily.

 

[AlBell]

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

Please do so. Then use your analysis to predict violence by sect in 2014, and explain why your stats apply today.

 

[Polaris]

In the early eighties, the CIA supplied arms to Afghans to use against Soviet invaders, much of which wound up in the hands of the Taliban after the Soviets withdrew.

The USA openly printed millions of textbooks that encouraged jihad against the Soviets, which have been part of the Afghan core curriculum for school children ever since. The primers are filled with talk of jihad, bullets, guns, soldiers, and mines. I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time. The US continued to ship these books to Afghanistan and Pakistan for 20 years. Incidentally, these books were also an unConstitutional promotion of religion by the government.

Here's an example math problem (paraphrased from memory): If a muslim has eight bullets and shoots five atheists with them, how many bullets will he have left?

The West supporting the Taliban? We practically raised them.

The Mujahideen and the Taliban are two separate entities - the latter kicked the former out after the civil war among the warlords followed the Red Army's retreat.

The fomenting of the Taliban was largely done in Islamabad to create a backwards but friendly fall-back position should a major war break out with India. Riyadh pitched in a good bit because it meant spreading their disgusting brand of Islam.

 

[raff55]

metacristi

'The first step is to renounce the innerancy of the Quran'

Reply by DC..

'do you demand the same from other religions?'

As you know Islam, you will obviously know the central tenant of Islam. It is that the Quran is regarded as incorruptible, complete and Gods message for all people in all societies and for all ages. To not believe this is blasphemy and attendant to righteous punishment.
It is the elephant in the room. The Quarn cannot be changed.

To quote a friend of mind Christian innerancy has long been 'a busted flush'. Other religions like Buddhism and Sikhism have accommodated different attitudes to mans existence. It is this perfectionism that is the modern problem with Islam. Its ideology can provide sustaining legitimacy for a peaceful course or a violent one. Both are equally valid. So in this regard and at this time in our history Islam, amongst all the major religions, is unique.

 

[DC]

metacristi

'The first step is to renounce the innerancy of the Quran'

Reply by DC..

'do you demand the same from other religions?'

As you know Islam, you will obviously know the central tenant of Islam. It is that the Quran is regarded as incorruptible, complete and Gods message for all people in all societies and for all ages. To not believe this is blasphemy and attendant to righteous punishment.
It is the elephant in the room. The Quarn cannot be changed.

To quote a friend of mind Christian innerancy has long been 'a busted flush'. Other religions like Buddhism and Sikhism have accommodated different attitudes to mans existence. It is this perfectionism that is the modern problem with Islam. Its ideology can provide sustaining legitimacy for a peaceful course or a violent one. Both are equally valid. So in this regard and at this time in our history Islam, amongst all the major religions, is unique.

yet there are very different interpretations of the same book. like with other religions. and also many Christians believe the bible is the perfect words of their god. just like molsems do. so no, its not really unique.

 

[raff55]

When I said Christianity is a 'busted flush' I meant that the literal interpretation of the Bible is no longer any where near the prominence and influence it had even a century ago. Hence we have a largely secular West.
Islam however has yet to have that equivalent status. Calling someone a scholar in the west has a very different interpretation to what it does in Islamic societies.

Anyway I am aware that my comments appear to have drifted from the original topic. Apologies.

 

[ddt]

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'...

So could you with specificity give the relevant quotes with the dates of these confessions? IIRC, Volkert van der Graaf has said very, very little about his motives.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rote_Armee_Fraktion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Brigades
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FARC

 

[metacristi]

7% is a small minority.

you sound like a taliban, the talibans claim their actions are justified by the koran etc. most moselsm disagree with that. why do you take the radicals word for it? why do you interpret Islam just as radical as the talibans do? why not interpret it in the way the majority of moslems do?

you say the violent passages in the koran cannot be made to go away via honest intelectual interpretation. the same goes for the bible / torah.

I have just lost a long response, here it is the short one. The 'choose like from a buffet' stance you advocate is naïve for there is little internal logic in islam for such an action (once accepted the basic premise that the quran is inerrant), the holy book itself teaches that it is forbidden to believe some parts but not others, teach that the revelation is valid at all times, say that Reason is almost zero, command muslims to follow to the letter the example of Muhammad who is perfect etc. On the other part the Doctrine of Abrogation largely disqualify much of the non violent message of the Quran (although the use of Meccan islam is accepted temporarily when muslims are weak) .

Some ordinary muslims may believe out of thin air that islam is peace, justice, freedom, feminism, sharia is fully compatible with liberal democracy and so on (not the case, the quran is not so elastic in interpretation as some liberal muslims believe) but the doctors of the law (ulama) know better, the truth is much more complex, and since they are those who manage how the religious structures are sent to the future it is no surprise that the dysfunctional parts go further with little opposition. The fact that the obsolete schools of the medieval Islamic jurisprudence are still largely accepted all over the muslim world (the West included), muslims invented the Declaration of Human Rights in islam centred around the discriminatory sharia and so on bear witness to that.

It is not may fault that islam is how it is, not exactly like Christianity* or even Judaism**, and renouncing inerrancy basically leaves very few room to still believe in the prophet-hood of Muhammad. Still the apparition of a viable liberal islam (on a par with the counterparts in Christianity and Judaism) require the rehabilitation of Reason (to the point that the conclusions of Human Reason are considered more important than what is written in the holy book) and renouncing the view that the quran is incorrigible. Only rational people fully aware of the limits of their religion can 'direct it where they want. Something which, unfortunately, is almost missing at the moment in islam.


*where Paul himself taught that the Old Testament and the Jewish law should not be interpreted literally (all that count is to believe in the Resurrection of Christ and a few other key doctrines) and after Thomas Aquinas Reason has been fully rehabilitated at least in Western Christianity

**where rabbis were capable long ago, before Modernity, to go even beyond the prescriptions of the religious Law; this thanks to the fact that Human Reason was always seen as extremely important, leading in time to the apparition of a viable form of liberal Judaism (the fact that the state of Israel was built from the beginning on a secular base say much about the attitude of many Jews relative to the value of Reason)


Europeans seem to have realized that islam, as it is today, is not really a melting pot factor

 

[DC]

I have just lost a long response, here it is the short one. The 'choose like from a buffet' stance you advocate is naïve for there is little internal logic in islam for such an action (once accepted the basic premise that the quran is inerrant), the holy book itself teaches that it is forbidden to believe only one part and not others, teach that the revelation is valid at all times, say that Reason is almost zero, command muslims to follow to the letter the example of Muhammad who is perfect etc. On the other part the Doctrine of Abrogation largely disqualify much of the non violent message of the Quran (although the use of Meccan islam is accepted temporarily when muslims are weak) .

Some ordinary muslims may believe out of thin air that islam is peace, justice, freedom, feminism, sharia is fully compatible with liberal democracy and so on (not the case, the quran is not so elastic in interpretation as some liberal muslims believe) but the doctors of the law (ulama) know better, the truth is much more complex, and since they are those who manage how the religious structures are sent to the future it is no surprise that the dysfunctional parts go further with little opposition. The fact that the obsolete schools of the medieval Islamic jurisprudence are still largely accepted all over the muslim world (the West included), muslims invented the Declaration of Human Rights in islam centred around the discriminatory sharia and so on bear witness to that.

It is not may fault that islam is how it is, not exactly like Christianity* or even Judaism**, and renouncing inerrancy basically leaves very few room to still believe in the prophet-hood of Muhammad. Still the apparition of a viable liberal islam (on a par with the counterparts in Christianity and Judaism) require the rehabilitation of Reason (to the point that the conclusions of Human Reason are considered more important than what is written in the holy book) and renouncing the view that the quran is incorrigible. Only rational people fully aware of the limits of their religion can 'direct it where they want. Something which, unfortunately, is almost missing at the moment in islam.


*where Paul himself taught that the Old Testament and the Jewish law should not be interpreted literally (all that count is to believe in the Resurrection of Christ and a few other key doctrines) and after Thomas Aquinas Reason has been fully rehabilitated at least in Western Christianity

**where rabbis were capable long ago to go even beyond the prescriptions of the religious Law; this thanks to the fact that Human Reason was always seen as extremely important, leading in time to the apparition of a viable form of liberal Judaism (the fact that the state of Israel was built from the beginning on a secular base say many about the attitude of many Jews relative to the value of Reason)

it is scary how fanatical your view is. i still wonder why you agree with the fanatical minority of moslems instead of the majority of moslems. why exactly do you think the fanatics interpretation is the correct interpretation?
and no religion ever has restored reason... they have become less wicked over time. but reason?

well by your definition, the imam i talked about told me, first comes humans then religion. he may believe the Koran is the perfect word. but it seems to be not influencing him very much, as he always was and still is very nice to me. and according to the book you claim he takes so literal, i am less than an animal for my Atheism. then i know one that is married to an atheist woman and has 2 children with her. but he is actually one from the more relgious one i know. sure all anectodes. but that is actually a very consistent picture i get in the city i am living in. religion plays far less role in their live than you seem to think, this surely is different in many muslim countries. but nowhere is this monolithic fanatical Islam you seem to believe in, like the Taliban and similar nutters, does simply not exist.
Islam , like Christianity and Judaism is a very diverse religion, like all religions. people always cherry pick together their religions, pick the stuff they like and / or find usefull and ignore the rest. some go as far as diferting into different sects like christianity and islam for example. and people tend to only know and regognize the diversity of a religion in the religion they were born into and see competing religions as monolithic entities and know very little about them.

but honestly, your taliban like view on Islam is very creepy.

 

[DC]

....

Europeans seem to have realized that islam, as it is today, is not really a melting pot factor

why do Islamophobes that claim they are not Islamaphobes have a habit of linking to the most famous Islamophobes?

i only looked at the statistics for germany very shortly and it seems already dishonestly cherry picked.

http://www.ifd-allensbach.de/uploads/tx_reportsndocs/November12_Islam_01.pdf


first of all, most in germany do not agree with your strange view and the nuber that do are decreasing.

only 19% see Islam itself as a danger, and that number is decreasing over the years. contrary to what Pipes wants to imply.

 

[A'isha]

I do like how metacristi asserts that Muslims aren't allowed to disregard anything the Qur'an says, then in practically the same breath tells us that Muslims use the doctrine of abrogation to disregard parts of the Qur'an!

And when arguing that "Islamophobia" doesn't exist, one probably shouldn't cite Daniel *********** Pipes talking about how much non-Muslims hate and fear Muslims.

(As a side note, apologies for not keeping up with this and other threads lately...this is currently happening in my city)

 

[metacristi]

it is scary how fanatical your view is. i still wonder why you agree with the fanatical minority of moslems instead of the majority of moslems. why exactly do you think the fanatics interpretation is the correct interpretation?
and no religion ever has restored reason... they have become less wicked over time. but reason?

well by your definition, the imam i talked about told me, first comes humans then religion. he may believe the Koran is the perfect word. but it seems to be not influencing him very much, as he always was and still is very nice to me. and according to the book you claim he takes so literal, i am less than an animal for my Atheism. then i know one that is married to an atheist woman and has 2 children with her. but he is actually one from the more relgious one i know. sure all anectodes. but that is actually a very consistent picture i get in the city i am living in. religion plays far less role in their live than you seem to think, this surely is different in many muslim countries. but nowhere is this monolithic fanatical Islam you seem to believe in, like the Taliban and similar nutters, does simply not exist.
Islam , like Christianity and Judaism is a very diverse religion, like all religions. people always cherry pick together their religions, pick the stuff they like and / or find usefull and ignore the rest. some go as far as diferting into different sects like christianity and islam for example. and people tend to only know and regognize the diversity of a religion in the religion they were born into and see competing religions as monolithic entities and know very little about them.

but honestly, your taliban like view on Islam is very creepy.

I don't think Muhammad would be proud of him The prescription was to kill atheists if they do not convert to islam. Yes there are good human beings everywhere but this is in spite of islam, Not to mention that they owe the right to manifest themselves more freely especially because the law of the infidels protect them. Yet the islam preached and lived by Muhammad is still there always ready to act as fertile ground for breeding killers + produce severe discrimination and many ulama are far from eager to change something in non trivial ways (otherwise we would have witnessed long ago important changes in the islamic jurisprudence and the situation of the human rights in the muslim coutries would be much better).

Changes have taken place obviously but the problem is thzat they are way too small, the emotional cord which you try to play (in the few parts where you manage to leave the personal attacks aside) cannot change the cold fact that, if status-quo is preserved, in any society where muslims are majority the personal freedoms will be at least seriously curbed (via impersonal mechanisms linked with the inherent defects in the islamic wordview carried to the future generations). The real solution is that which I proposed it, a different religious education is a must.

 

[DC]

I don't think Muhammad would be proud of him The prescription was to kill atheists if they do not convert to islam. Yes there are good human beings everywhere but this is in spite of islam, Not to mention that they owe the right to manifest themselves more freely especially because the law of the infidels protect them. Yet the islam preached and lived by Muhammad is still there always ready to act as fertile ground for breeding killers + produce severe discrimination and many ulama are far from eager to change something in non trivial ways (otherwise we would have witnessed long ago important changes in the islamic jurisprudence and the situation of the human rights in the muslim coutries would be much better).

Changes have taken place obviously but the problem is thzat they are way too small, the emotional cord which you try to play (in the few parts where you manage to leave the personal attacks aside) cannot change the cold fact that, if status-quo is preserved, in any society where muslims are majority the personal freedoms will be at least seriously curbed (via impersonal mechanisms linked with the inherent defects in the islamic wordview carried to the future generations). The real solution is that which I proposed it, a different religious education is a must.

non religious education is a must for modern society. there were improvements in human rights in muslim dominated countries, and there were decerases and maintaining status quo in muslim deminated countries.
but you are fighting an imagined problem. i mean there actually is no need to demonize Islam into something it is not and is also not believed in the way you paint it by most moslems. Islam is worse enough without the demonisation of the islamaphobes that so often stick them self to a competing religion.

 

[tsig]

non religious education is a must for modern society. there were improvements in human rights in muslim dominated countries, and there were decerases and maintaining status quo in muslim deminated countries.
but you are fighting an imagined problem. i mean there actually is no need to demonize Islam into something it is not and is also not believed in the way you paint it by most moslems. Islam is worse enough without the demonisation of the islamaphobes that so often stick them self to a competing religion.

You know what Islam is and is not and the way most moslems understand it?

 

[Craig B]

You know what Islam is and is not and the way most moslems understand it?

I observe Muslims among the population here going about their daily lives. I see what they do and how they behave. They are much like other people. Like Christians, Jews, Sikhs. for several decades there have been Muslims on Glasgow City Council. They do not promote jihad, or call for non-Muslims to be tortured to death, and the moral principles they sometimes utter are the same as those of their traditionalist Catholic colleagues. One of them

... was asked to resign as President of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations in 2006 after deploring the teaching of gay sex education in schools. "These politicians, through certain elements of sex education in schools, are motivating young, innocent children to indulge in premature sex that is resulting in teenage pregnancies. As if that were not enough, gay sex education is being added to the sex curriculum in schools. This will encourage experiments with homosexuality among young children and add to the growing creed of homosexuality."

Familiar stuff.

 

[metacristi]

non religious education is a must for modern society. there were improvements in human rights in muslim dominated countries, and there were decerases and maintaining status quo in muslim deminated countries.
but you are fighting an imagined problem. i mean there actually is no need to demonize Islam into something it is not and is also not believed in the way you paint it by most moslems. Islam is worse enough without the demonisation of the islamaphobes that so often stick them self to a competing religion.

So the muslim 'reformers' ask us to accept a huge delusion as rational* (in the same league with 'Jyzia was collected for the protection of dhimmis' not as a result of the moral crime of not believing in Muhammad and so on) and pretend that all problems disappeared. But ask now your imam if in a society where muslims are in a majority can he tolerate people who drink beer and eat pork & play music loud during Ramadan (no offense intended against muslims, just a way of life)?

Can I write a serious book where to put in doubt the moral stature of Muhammad (what holy prophet is this who seek revenge by stealing from Meccans and so on) and where to suggest that the wars of the early muslims are purely offensive (not because many where not real muslims but at least because they used the basic doctrines for such a purpose; thus the religious establishment should apologize for those acts) and so on? At least the radicals are honest in their beliefs, even they know that the meaning of a text, at least in our case, is far from being in the 'eye of the beholder'.

You accuse me of being without heart but the sad truth is that which I told you before, to create a free society where muslims are majority one need important reforms (courtesy of the basics of islam of course)...


*and not that far from attempts to claim that Nazism was spotless via huge mental gymnastics

 

[DC]

You know what Islam is and is not and the way most moslems understand it?

more so than the islamophbes yes.

 

[DC]

So the muslim 'reformers' ask us to accept a huge delusion as rational* (in the same league with 'Jyzia was collected for the protection of dhimmis' not as a result of the moral crime of not believing in Muhammad and so on) and pretend that all problems disappeared. But ask now your imam if in a society where muslims are in a majority can he tolerate people who drink beer and eat pork & play music loud during Ramadan (no offense intended against muslims, just a way of life)?

Can I write a serious book where to put in doubt the moral stature of Muhammad (what holy prophet is this who seek revenge by stealing from Meccans and so on) and where to suggest that the wars of the early muslims are purely offensive (not because many where not real muslims but at least because they used the basic doctrines for such a purpose; thus the religious establishment should apologize for those acts) and so on? At least the radicals are honest in their beliefs, even they know that the meaning of a text, at least in our case, is far from being in the 'eye of the beholder'.

You accuse me of being without heart but the sad truth is that which I told you before, to create a free society where muslims are majority one need important reforms (courtesy of the basics of islam of course)...


*and not that far from attempts to claim that Nazism was spotless via huge mental gymnastics

oh there you go again taliban fan. the extremists are honest and the majority of mosllems are liars.

and most moslems i know, have eaten and drunk during ramadan. because they were doing hard labor. and they simply had to drink because it would have been very unhealthy otherwise.
and they come from a country that is mainly muslims.... but iguess they just lie to hide the true face of islam that only you and your fellow islamophobes uncovered....

you make it very clear that you are islamophobic.
you yourself provided asource that shows that only aminority supports terrorism, yet you kept talking about moderate moslems like they were the minority.
you fear a delusion of yours. not Islam.