Richard Dawkins -- Islamophobia?

[blutoski]

When it comes to misdeeds by Muslims we're supposed to single out the individual and carefully separate his motives from Islam in general even though he is following the orders of his Imam, criticizers of Islam are all bigots and racists.

Notice the disconnect... let's assume he's following the orders of his Imam... that's still not 'Islam' and that's why universalizing the criticism is unjustified.

This is all Critical Thinking 100 - the fallacy is called Hasty Generalization.

When Hasty Generalization is applied to people, it is usually called bigotry.

"I was in a car accident with a black man; black people are bad drivers"
"An Imam advocated something unethical in the name of Islam; Moslems are unethical in the name of Islam"

 

[Polaris]

A lot of criminals fall into that category, though. Not a lot of remorse there. Most seem to defend their actions.

Oh, every criminal has an excuse, but it's not some lofty goal for the good of mankind. Usually it's more like, "if they were stupid enough to leave it on a car seat, why shouldn't I take it?"

Yessss... so? How is that different than atheists being held responsible for what other atheists do? Or Conservatives being responsible for what other Conservatives do? &c. Isn't that basically the core of bigotry? Find something that's similar between two people and jump to equating them?

When atheism becomes a creed and atheists start committing evil acts in the name of atheism, then that point will be valid. As far as conservatives being responsible for other conservatives...yes, I do hold them at least partly responsible. They reinforce each other (though to be fair a lot of their worse qualities come from Christianity).

If that's bigotry than I'm a bigot - I make no apologies for hating certain groups (and actually that doesn't include Muslims) based on things they do and beliefs they hold which they can change and do not (provided they harm others).

Define 'supporting a religion' - what does this mean on the ground that makes them bad, but excuses us from doing similar things when we 'support' the West and its invasion of foreign countries and all the violence that entails?

Supporting a religion = belonging to it. The West isn't a religion, but don't assume I excuse it.

I think this is a difference of opinion on what constitutes an 'extremist' - if you have defined it as a person doing violence in the name of religion, then it's merely question-begging.

Not necessarily religion, but some lofty ideal - the struggle of the proletariat or any other ********. And also not necessarily violence, but harm in general.

Mmm. I'm not sure your understanding is sound. I think you're simply using inflammatory language. Anyway, if I respect my Christian or Muslim or Jewish acquaintances it is despite, not because of, the fact that some adherents of their religions commit atrocities.

As do I - I adhere to a variation on a recognized theme: hate the religion, not the religious.

 

[Kathie Bondar]

Notice the disconnect... let's assume he's following the orders of his Imam... that's still not 'Islam' and that's why universalizing the criticism is unjustified.

This is all Critical Thinking 100 - the fallacy is called Hasty Generalization.

When Hasty Generalization is applied to people, it is usually called bigotry.

"I was in a car accident with a black man; black people are bad drivers"
"An Imam advocated something unethical in the name of Islam; Moslems are unethical in the name of Islam"

I am afraid I came in late and not certain how far I would need to go back for your definition of Islam.
What is your definition of Islam?

 

[A'isha]

Really? You'll have to show me that.

They do? Can you support this?

http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

Majorities of Muslims in several of the largest and most populous Muslim-majority countries are against it, at least.

 

[Tony]

His extremely broad-brush comments, particularly on twitter.

He said something against ALL muslims? What did he say?

He's even been called out for it by atheists living in Muslim countries!

So?

I post the things I do about Islam because A) unlike Christianity, which pretty much everyone on this board has been immersed in even if they aren't currently a believer, there's a whole lot of ignorance about Islam, and I find myself in a position to be able to contribute to threads about Islam to correct a lot of that

Ok.

B) I take broad-brushing statements about Islam and Muslims somewhat personally because I have (or had...the violence in Egypt over the last couple of years ended contact with them, and we've never managed to regain it ) relatives who are Muslims.

I have family members who are Christians (and I would guess so do the vast majority of posters here) and you don't see us demanding people walk on eggshells for us. We know that when someone says "Christians do X" or "Christianity is X" that they don't mean EVERY Christian or that EVERY Christian is bad. Why can't you conduct yourself with the same dignity and maturity?

I'd disagree, since he's making blanket statements about the faith and, as a result, anyone who claims to adhere to that faith.

Believe this all you want, but then its your personal bias that causes you to interpret Dawkins as saying "ALL Muslims are X" and not anything he is actually saying.

Well, I certainly confess to having a bias against Dawkins.

Atleast you admit it. But know that this makes you less credible when it comes to this issue.

 

[Polaris]

True, having a rep for cutting off the head of insulters will cut down on the insults.

Doesn't help with your peaceful image though.

I'm reminded of Hitchens' thoughts on the issue, that (to paraphrase) being told that he was "insulting a billion Muslims" always came across as a threat, as if it were an incomplete sentence that ended "and you better stop it or else."

 

[Tony]

http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

Majorities of Muslims in several of the largest and most populous Muslim-majority countries are against it, at least.

That doesn't show what you claim it does.

 

[A'isha]

That doesn't show what you claim it does.

Yes it does.

Views of harsh punishments also vary across the Muslim publics polled. Majorities of Muslims in Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and Nigeria say they would favor making harsh punishments such as stoning people who commit adultery; whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery; and the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion the law in their country. In the other predominantly Muslim countries surveyed – Turkey, Lebanon and Indonesia – most Muslims oppose these measures.

 

[blutoski]

They do? Can you support this?

Again I have to ask for proof of this.

So: I think we've identified what may be a disagreement about core facts that influences the approach to this topic. It's self evident to me based on growing up with Moslem friends that these are regarded as acts of extremists that the majority of Moslems consider somewhere between insane and mercenary.

There are surveys and results vary from country to country. For example, Turkey has 5% support for executing apostates while Egypt has 84% support (which is disputable - this is based on a government publication from 2011). We get disputes about if and how to weigh the results by population.

Outside the core Moslem nations, support for violent punishments is much lower, which is the Moslem population I'm most familiar with.

 

[Craig B]

When it comes to misdeeds by Muslims we're supposed to single out the individual and carefully separate his motives from Islam in general even though he is following the orders of his Imam, criticizers of Islam are all bigots and racists.

Criticisers of misdeeds are not bigots or racists. If a Muslim miscreant is following the orders of his Imam, then both are culpable. But the vast majority of Muslims and their imams who commit no misdeeds? Is their Islam not to be regarded as representative of their religion? You know best if you are a bigot or racist. Opposing crimes or disagreeing with religious doctrines don't make you one.

The same applies to Christians. The biggest massacre of people in Europe since the end of WW2 was perpetrated by European Christians against European Muslims. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre What am I to make of that? Does it occur to me in any way, that I must carefully separate the motives of the perpetrators from Christianity in general? Of course not. Some people commit crimes; others don't. Christian communities are simply not responsible for this.

 

[A'isha]

He said something against ALL muslims? What did he say?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/09/richard-dawkins-anti-muslim-tweets_n_3732678.html

So?

So maybe when he's actually pissing off members of the very group he claims he's trying increase the numbers of, he just maybe might want to rethink his approach.

I have family members who are Christians (and I would guess so do the vast majority of posters here) and you don't see us demanding people walk on eggshells for us. We know that when someone says "Christians do X" or "Christianity is X" that they don't mean EVERY Christian or that EVERY Christian is bad. Why can't you conduct yourself with the same dignity and maturity?

Because when people say "Muslims do X" or "Islam is X" that they do usually mean EVERY Muslim or that EVERY Muslim is bad.

Atleast you admit it. But know that this makes you less credible when it comes to this issue.

I'm not sure how, but okay.

 

[Tony]

Yes it does.

Uhhh..

Views of harsh punishments also vary across the Muslim publics polled. Majorities of Muslims in Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan and Nigeria say they would favor making harsh punishments such as stoning people who commit adultery; whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery; and the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion the law in their country. In the other predominantly Muslim countries surveyed – Turkey, Lebanon and Indonesia – most Muslims oppose these measures.

We have majorities in 4 Muslim countries who favor stonings for adultery, dismemberment for theft and death for apostasy. In 3 countries majorities were against those things. For this survey, the majority of countries have majorities who support stoning and other cruel punishments for petty crimes. Again, how does this support your claim that most Muslims find stoning disgusting?

 

[A'isha]

Uhhh..



We have majorities in 4 Muslim countries who favor stonings for adultery, dismemberment for theft and death for apostasy. In 3 countries majorities were against those things. For this survey, the majority of countries have majorities who support stoning and other cruel punishments for petty crimes. Again, how does this support your claim that most Muslims find stoning disgusting?

The population sizes of Turkey and Indonesia, for one thing. Though I mainly cited that to show that it's both difficult to assess the entirety of the Muslim population, and that for the portion of the Muslim world that was surveyed, the claim "Muslims support stoning and beheading!" is not exactly the case.

 

[Polaris]

Again, I'm not disputing that religion makes otherwise good people do evil things, or that it's been used to justify atrocities.

I'm asking for evidence of the claim that in the absence of religion, good people don't also do evil things for other reasons and that other things aren't used to justify atrocities, as asserted in the Weinberg quote.

A good person, which I think is reasonably defined as "one who does not harm other people intentionally without good reason" would not wrap Semtex around himself and detonate it on a bus full of commuters thinking it was a good thing - unless it was "for Allah". But let's say, for sake of argument, that this person wasn't a good person to start with.

Rather, I'll use an example you're very aware of: the clitoridectomy. This horrible act is committed not out of hate, or even out of ignorance of the damage it causes, since it's usually pushed by the girl's own female relatives.
If not for religion (granted it's intertwined with tradition here) this would not be done.

A person who would commit evil for reasons other than religion isn't a good person to start with.

 

[Tony]

I'm asking for evidence of the claim that in the absence of religion, good people don't also do evil things for other reasons and that other things aren't used to justify atrocities, as asserted in the Weinberg quote.

No one is making that claim.

 

[A'isha]

A good person, which I think is reasonably defined as "one who does not harm other people intentionally without good reason" would not wrap Semtex around himself and detonate it on a bus full of commuters thinking it was a good thing - unless it was "for Allah".

Nope.

 

[A'isha]

No one is making that claim.

Then why use that Weinberg quote?

 

[Tony]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/09/richard-dawkins-anti-muslim-tweets_n_3732678.html

If this is the best you have, then you don't have much.

So maybe when he's actually pissing off members of the very group he claims he's trying increase the numbers of, he just maybe might want to rethink his approach.

Atheists get mad a lot of things, some of those things are less than rational. It is futile to try to please them all. I see no reason why Dawkins should kowtow to atheists who want to coddle Islam.

Because when people say "Muslims do X" or "Islam is X" that they do usually mean EVERY Muslim or that EVERY Muslim is bad.

How do you know?

I'm not sure how, but okay.

Because it forces you to see bogymen that aren't there. As evidenced by your citation of Dawkin's statement about the ratio Muslim population to the amount of Nobel Prizes awarded to Muslims.

 

[Tony]

Then why use that Weinberg quote?

Does that quote claim people will magically stop doing bad things without religion?

 

[Craig B]

A good person, which I think is reasonably defined as "one who does not harm other people intentionally without good reason" would not wrap Semtex around himself and detonate it on a bus full of commuters thinking it was a good thing - unless it was "for Allah". But let's say, for sake of argument, that this person wasn't a good person to start with.

It must be the person killing himself that you find obnoxious. Why did Irish terrorists blow people up during the Troubles (without killing themselves)? Because they thought they had a "good reason". Therefore by your definition they not only believed themselves to be good: by your definition they WERE good!