Richard Dawkins -- Islamophobia?

[Craig B]

This is the point I was going to make - genuine racists often cover their anti-muslim or anti-immigrant agenda with a thin veneer of criticism of Islam. When Nick Griffin appeared on BBC Question Time, he made several arguments against Islam that any critical thinking liberals could endorse, though they might be reluctant to do so for fear of associating with the far right. And as moogspaceport says, legitimate criticisms of Islam are sometimes deflected with the accusation of racism too.

I think the best test is this, if people criticise a particular religion for some obnoxious practice, ridiculous ritual, or preposterous doctrine; would they criticise another religion which had the same or equally obnoxious features? If they would and do in fact do so, then they should not be accused of ulterior motives, unless there is other strong evidence that they are present.

 

[Darat]

It's worry that he had to go through all of that to stop people cutting off their daughter's genitalia because some imaginary skydaddy told them through his imaginary, and possibly delusional 'prophet'.

Rational, non-delusional people do need to be convinced not to cut open their own children.

I'd say it was almost fortuitous in that community that it had been tied to being "Islamic" as that gave him a point to de-construct their rationalisations in terms they understood and accepted. If it had been tied directly to their sense of who they are he may not have been as successful.

 

[3point14]

But I think you will find that a lot of people in the region and of various religions also commit female genital mutilation, for example, Copts in Egypt and the Jewish sect in Ethiopia.

Why do these peoples do it?

 

[Darat]

Why do these peoples do it?

That age-old enemy of reason - tradition.

 

[3point14]

That age-old enemy of reason - tradition.

My thanks!

My comments apply as much to tradition as they do to religion.

 

[Ian Osborne]

I think the best test is this, if people criticise a particular religion for some obnoxious practice, ridiculous ritual, or preposterous doctrine; would they criticise another religion which had the same or equally obnoxious features? If they would and do in fact do so, then they should not be accused of ulterior motives, unless there is other strong evidence that they are present.

Not sure this would work for members of a given religion. As George Orwell once said, "The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them." This is true for the religiously convinced too.

 

[blutoski]

I very much take Dawkins' point as a valid one. But there is one consideration he's missed. Thank Heaven, nowadays racism is unacceptable in polite society. People who wish to continue being racists therefore often find excuses or proxies for racism. Because, at least here in the UK, most Muslims are recent immigrants or close descendants of immigrants of darker pigmentation, opposition to Islam is often used as such a proxy, precisely because being opposed to a particular, or any, religious belief is perfectly in order. The liberal intelligentsia, being liberal and intelligent, is aware of this, and suspects that it may frequently be a motive in criticism of Islam - read Muslims - which it encounters. And it is not rarely right, though in particular cases it may be wrong.

I think the other friction is caused by Dawkins' insistence that all Muslims are pretty much the same, while many other critics of Islamic practices are willing to discriminate among different Moslems, blaming some, recognizing others as victims, and understanding that most Moslems live what the West could consider normal moral lives and don't deserve to be mocked.

My interpretation of Dawkins' frustration is that the liberal intelligentsia is not joining him in denouncing all Moslems as a monolithic bogeman and he's characterizing that as a failure on their part; Since it's inconcievable that he could be Archie Bunker prejudiced, the only explanations he can come up with for the discrepancy is to accuse them of ignorance, sympathizing, or betraying their morals because they're worried about bad optics.

Cognitive Dissonance.

 

[Trevor from Toronto]

Because people misuse the term "racism" when really they mean "bigot".
Should it be a good thing to say that someone is a bigot? That's what "Islamaphobic" amounts to (though the term does get misused a lot).

I think they're saying racism for another reason. I think it's because they associate Islam with a race. Because they do, they call those who are critical of Islam or Muslims racists. But then who really is the racist, if that's the case?

Here's something you might think about, Akri: I've never heard of anybody calling those who speak out and criticise Christianity and Christians as racists. Have you? Now why is that?

Are you sure it's cognitive dissonance, and not simply them disagreeing with you?

Cognitive dissonance is the ability of an individual to hold two opposing opinions at the same time. I don't see how it has anything to do with somebody disagreeing with me.

 

[A'isha]

Here's something you might think about, Akri: I've never heard of anybody calling those who speak out and criticise Christianity and Christians as racists. Have you? Now why is that?

Because people who speak out and criticise Christianity and Christians never say crap like someone "looks Christian", while describing people as "looking Muslim" happens all the time.

 

[Polaris]

Who says there isn't? I've never noticed any reluctance for anyone to come up with a religious reason to support whatever position they have on a topic.

When FGM is claimed as a flaw of Islam it's argued, convincingly, by Muslims and Islamic scholars that it's not so, as the Hadith in which it's mentioned is not a reliable one and anyway the practice existed before the spread of Mohammad's cult.

That doesn't mean barbarians won't hack up their daughters based on that Hadith, it just means it's got about as much credibility as Christians claiming to hate gays despite there being nothing on the subject in the NT.

Which doesn't dismiss or defend what happened in Islam so much as highlight that religions living in glass houses shouldn't exactly be throwing stones.

From what I've seen the criticisms of Islam here come mainly from atheists, not adherents to other religions. There's plenty of criticism of Christianity here without this weird fairness doctrine requiring equal criticism of Islam when it's engaged in - the attempts to shift the crosshairs onto Christianity in threads critical of Islam scream dismissal and defense in my view.

Something for which I place the lion's share of the blame on the Saudis.

As do I.

If imams are going to argue that things are permissible and/or mandated based on what the Qur'an says (and they are, whether you or Dawkins or anyone else likes it or not), I'd kind of prefer that those things be of the non-horrible variety rather than the alternative.

The Koran isn't needed to justify non-horrible actions - those justify themselves, but it is needed to justify horrible ones, and the latter is done on nearly a daily basis.

The imams and their book are worse than useless.

 

[Craig B]

That doesn't mean barbarians won't hack up their daughters based on that Hadith, it just means it's got about as much credibility as Christians claiming to hate gays despite there being nothing on the subject in the NT.

Well, there's something a bit like that in Jude.

6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

Eternal fire for perpetrators of the perversions of Sodom sounds rather anti gay to me.

 

[Trevor from Toronto]

Because people who speak out and criticise Christianity and Christians never say crap like someone "looks Christian", while describing people as "looking Muslim" happens all the time.

Well at those points using "looking Muslim" can be called a racist. Unless, of course, that person they are talking about is dressed as a Muslim.

Otherwise, the person using the term racist when discussing somebody who is criticising Islam and Islamic supremacists, is the real racist, aren't they? After all, they're the ones making the leap in equating Islam with a race.

 

[A'isha]

From what I've seen the criticisms of Islam here come mainly from atheists, not adherents to other religions.

That's because many atheists (including "cultural Christian" Dawkins himself) seem to believe that there's some fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam, and proclaim that Islam is uniquely evil or problematic or what have you in a way that Christianity is not (and sometimes, despite their atheism, go so far as to say that it's because of Christianity that all the good stuff and enlightened progress and stuff happened in the West, and it's because of Islam that all the bad stuff and backwardsness and suchlike happened in the Middle East).

The Koran isn't needed to justify non-horrible actions - those justify themselves, but it is needed to justify horrible ones, and the latter is done on nearly a daily basis.

That's why I said if they're going to use it to justify any actions at all, and they're damn well going to no matter how much Dawkins acts like a complete *******, then it's best for everyone concerned that they spend their time and energy using it to justify non-horrible actions instead of horrible ones, and the more preachers that switch from the latter to the former, the better.

That's all.

 

[Polaris]

Well, there's something a bit like that in Jude. Eternal fire for perpetrators of the perversions of Sodom sounds rather anti gay to me.

I stand corrected.

Still, the justifications people offer usually are from the OT.

 

[A'isha]

Well at those points using "looking Muslim" can be called a racist. Unless, of course, that person they are talking about is dressed as a Muslim.

What's "dressed as a Muslim"?

Otherwise, the person using the term racist when discussing somebody who is criticising Islam and Islamic supremacists, is the real racist, aren't they? After all, they're the ones making the leap in equating Islam with a race.

No, as pointed out above, they're sometimes reacting to what they perceive as someone else making the leap in equating Islam with a race, and more often simply conflating "racism" with "bigotry" when attempting to describe what someone who is broad-brushing one-fifth of the entire human population.

 

[Polaris]

That's because many atheists (including "cultural Christian" Dawkins himself) seem to believe that there's some fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam, and proclaim that Islam is uniquely evil or problematic or what have you in a way that Christianity is not (and sometimes, despite their atheism, go so far as to say that it's because of Christianity that all the good stuff and enlightened progress and stuff happened in the West, and it's because of Islam that all the bad stuff and backwardsness and suchlike happened in the Middle East).

With the exception of the claim that the Enlightenment was brought about by Christianity (which is just poor history) I'm inclined to agree with those beliefs.

While historically Christianity has been bloodier and more horrible than Islam it's despite its basic teachings - Pope Urban II had to do a lot more gymnastics to use Jesus' teachings to justify a Crusade than a Caliph would have to do to use the Koran to justify a jihad.

That's why I said if they're going to use it to justify any actions at all, and they're damn well going to no matter how much Dawkins acts like a complete *******, then it's best for everyone concerned that they spend their time and energy using it to justify non-horrible actions instead of horrible ones, and the more preachers that switch from the latter to the former, the better.

That's all.

I agree that it's better to justify non-horrible actions than horrible - but the sooner the whole rotten system is gone the better.

I can't fault Dawkins for slapping Islam - it should take it and like it.

 

[A'isha]

While historically Christianity has been bloodier and more horrible than Islam it's despite its basic teachings - Pope Urban II had to do a lot more gymnastics to use Jesus' teachings to justify a Crusade than a Caliph would have to do to use the Koran to justify a jihad.

Perhaps, but Christians tend to turn to the pre-Jesus (EDIT: and post-Jesus...Paul has a lot to answer for) parts of the Bible more than the Jesus parts when they want to justify horrible things (such as the anti-gay garbage, which comes almost entirely out of Genesis and Leviticus), which makes it a lot easier than it otherwise would be had the New Testament entirely replaced the Old instead of merely being added to it.

 

[Humes fork]

While historically Christianity has been bloodier and more horrible than Islam

Is that actually the case though?

 

[Humes fork]

Dawkins is right as usual. Think of what the world could be like if it was ruled by people like Dawkins.

The usual guilt-by-association defenses of Islam seen in this thread are sad, but not surprising.

 

[A'isha]

Think of what the world could be like if it was ruled by people like Dawkins.

Ugh, no.