Richard Dawkins -- Islamophobia?

[blutoski]

Criminals aren't extremists, nor are they good people. They commit crimes for selfish reasons, not because they think they are contributing to some greater good.

An "evil act" as I'm defining it here is an act that causes physical, tangible harm to others for reasons the evil actor considers good.

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

Most individual Muslims don't commit evil acts. However, they belong to a religion which is used as justification for evil acts by other adherents of Islam. Ordinary Muslims give credibility to Islam, which fuels evil actors to commit evil acts they would not otherwise do. I'm not just talking about suicide bombings here, either, I'm talking about every time parents disown a child for marrying a non-Muslim or harass (or worse) a woman on the street for "improper" dress.

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?

While the average Ahmadi is much more pleasant than the average Deobandi, they're both supporting a religion that causes harm that would not otherwise occur - no adherent of Islam is truly blameless for the horror it causes unless they completely abandon it. I'm with Dawkins in my unwillingness to discriminate here.

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?

What evidence is there that the vast majority of extremists have "God" as their justification? A basic understanding of history should suffice.

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.

 

[blutoski]

Insulting an individual, OK.....insulting a group, not OK, is there a limit on how many must be in a group before it's immune from insult?

I think it has less to do with insulting and more about blaming. If people join a group that has a distinct agenda, I don't mind holding the members accountable for that agenda.

In contrast, if the action of one member is contrary to the group's agenda (or if the group has no agenda per se) then holding all members accountable is unethical, regardless of the number of members.

 

[Craig B]

Enough to go on arson riots and beheading sprees, as I understand it.

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.

 

[A'isha]

Insulting an individual, OK.....insulting a group, not OK, is there a limit on how many must be in a group before it's immune from insult?

The concept of "blame people for things they do, don't blame people for things they didn't do" is not a complex one, tsig.

What evidence is there that the vast majority of extremists have "God" as their justification? A basic understanding of history should suffice.

Then you've got a lot of learning to do.

What sources do you recommend I consult for this understanding and learning, then?

 

[Tony]

I am insulting towards a single individual for things that single individual has actually said and done. Dawkins is insulting towards all of the nearly two billion followers of a whole religion for things a few of them have said and done.

No, I'm "upset" that Dawkins criticises not just "traits in Islamic societies", but all Muslims everywhere for something that is not only not practiced by anything remotely resembling all Muslims everywhere but is also practiced by plenty of non-Muslims as well, and then blaming Muslims and Western Liberals for not sharing his broad-brushing, when in fact it's those very same Muslims and Western Liberals (and most emphatically not him) who are actually doing something to end the practice.

When and how did Dawkins insult every Muslim everywhere? Did you poll every Muslim to ask if they were insulted?

We've discussed this sort of topic plenty of times before, you and I...you know where I'm coming from on this and why I hold the positions I do. Or at least you did, I thought.

I think I do. But I still don't understand your constant kneejerk defenses of Islam. No where have I seen Dawkins say anything about EVERY single Muslim. Have he said things about Islam as a belief system and some Islamic societies? Yes. But that isn't the same thing. That you automatically assume that he is condemning EVERY Muslim for the actions of a few while not assuming the same of others (who are Muslims) suggests to me that you have a bias against either: 1. Dawkins 2. White/European/Western people criticizing Islam.

 

[tsig]

Enough to go on arson riots and beheading sprees, as I understand it.

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.

 

[Tony]

What sources do you recommend I consult for this understanding and learning, then?

I would start by reading about the history of the crusades, and the history of the religious wars in Europe after the reformation. You can also read up on the history of christianization in Europe. You'll find lots of good people committing heinous acts based on delusional ideas based on their religion.

 

[tsig]

I think it has less to do with insulting and more about blaming. If people join a group that has a distinct agenda, I don't mind holding the members accountable for that agenda.
In contrast, if the action of one member is contrary to the group's agenda (or if the group has no agenda per se) then holding all members accountable is unethical, regardless of the number of members.

Then blaming Islam for acts that Muslims do in accordance with the teachings of their Mullahs is perfectly OK.

These acts include:

beheading
suicide bombing
amputation of hand and feet

 

[blutoski]

I would start by reading about the history of the crusades, and the history of the religious wars in Europe after the reformation. You can also read up on the history of christianization in Europe. You'll find lots of good people committing heinous acts based on delusional ideas based on their religion.

That was not your claim. You disagreed with the following in post #152:

"Because it doesn't take religion to make good people do evil things."

Your claim therefore is that only religion makes good people do evil things.

A'isha found that claim incredible, as do I.

 

[A'isha]

When and how did Dawkins insult every Muslim everywhere?

His extremely broad-brush comments, particularly on twitter. He's even been called out for it by atheists living in Muslim countries!

I think I do. But I still don't understand your constant kneejerk defenses of Islam.

I'd dispute that particular characterization. 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, and 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.

These are the same reasons I contribute more to threads about Catholicism than other Christian denominations, yet no one ever accuses me of being a "Catholic apologist" or having "constant kneejerk defenses of Catholicism".

Have he said things about Islam as a belief system and some Islamic societies? Yes. But that isn't the same thing.

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

That you automatically assume that he is condemning EVERY Muslim for the actions of a few while not assuming the same of others (who are Muslims) suggests to me that you have a bias against either: 1. Dawkins 2. White/European/Western people criticizing Islam.

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

 

[tsig]

The concept of "blame people for things they do, don't blame people for things they didn't do" is not a complex one, tsig.





What sources do you recommend I consult for this understanding and learning, then?

A person in a group of 1000 people is at a stoning, only 20 actually pick up stones but this person stands and shouts encouragement, does he/she have any guilt?

 

[blutoski]

Then blaming Islam for acts that Muslims do in accordance with the teachings of their Mullahs is perfectly OK.

These acts include:

beheading
suicide bombing
amputation of hand and feet

I am confused by your wording. When you say 'their' Mullahs... do you mean even the ones that disagree with so have chosen not to follow? That sounds absurd.

It also leads to a contradiction: most Mullahs repudiate these practices... why are we not holding those random Muslims accountable to these practices instead?

 

[A'isha]

I would start by reading about the history of the crusades, and the history of the religious wars in Europe after the reformation. You can also read up on the history of christianization in Europe. You'll find lots of good people committing heinous acts based on delusional ideas based on their religion.

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.

 

[tsig]

When and how did Dawkins insult every Muslim everywhere? Did you poll every Muslim to ask if they were insulted?



I think I do. But I still don't understand your constant kneejerk defenses of Islam. No where have I seen Dawkins say anything about EVERY single Muslim. Have he said things about Islam as a belief system and some Islamic societies? Yes. But that isn't the same thing. That you automatically assume that he is condemning EVERY Muslim for the actions of a few while not assuming the same of others (who are Muslims) suggests to me that you have a bias against either: 1. Dawkins 2. White/European/Western people criticizing Islam.

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.

Seems fair.

 

[blutoski]

A person in a group of 1000 people is at a stoning, only 20 actually pick up stones but this person stands and shouts encouragement, does he/she have any guilt?

Absolutely.

The point is that the majority of Muslims find this act disgusting, but bigots holding them accountable anyway. Bigots assume a priori that all muslims are shouting encouragement. That's the problem.

 

[A'isha]

A person in a group of 1000 people is at a stoning, only 20 actually pick up stones but this person stands and shouts encouragement, does he/she have any guilt?

A person is living in an entirely different country from where that stoning is taking place, where stoning is illegal and they don't even support changing the laws to make it legal, but happens to also be a Muslim.

Does he/she have any guilt?

 

[tsig]

I am confused by your wording. When you say 'their' Mullahs... do you mean even the ones that disagree with so have chosen not to follow? That sounds absurd.

It also leads to a contradiction: most Mullahs repudiate these practices... why are we not holding those random Muslims accountable to these practices instead?

Really? You'll have to show me that.

 

[Tony]

The point is that the majority of Muslims find this act disgusting...

They do? Can you support this?

 

[A'isha]

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.

Seems fair.

No. What you're supposed to do is not blame the individual who isn't following the orders of that imam and isn't committing those particular misdeeds but just so happens to be one of the 1.6 billion human beings that shares that imam's ostensible religion, and if you do so then yeah, you're pretty much a bigot.

 

[tsig]

Absolutely.

The point is that the majority of Muslims find this act disgusting, but bigots holding them accountable anyway. Bigots assume a priori that all muslims are shouting encouragement. That's the problem.

Again I have to ask for proof of this.