Sam Harris on "Islamophobia"

[Craig B]

<image snipped, oversized per mods> A very well-made point. There should be no limits to skeptical inquiry.

I challenge anyone to find anything objectionable in the quote.

It contained the statement that there is no such thing as Islamophobia. Of course I agree that there should be no limit to sceptical inquiry, and I do not apply any such limit in my own comments on Islam and its scriptures. But the separate question exists, is there such a thing as Islamophobia? Yes there is. I have given an example of it before, about nuking Mecca, from a website treated as respectable through the inadvertence of many sceptical writers and internet contributors.

I do not know about Geller. But both Fjordman and Spencer have written about this accusation and their defence is sound

What is clearly happening is that Islam and Muslims - regardless of the character of their religion, or their personal qualities - good or bad - as individuals, have become a substitute target for the racism no longer tolerated in Western polite society, and have replaced the Jews as main internal and international scapegoat for those who need one.

Now, this question of whether Islamophobia exists is separate from whether there are Muslims in the world who commit crimes, or perpetrate atrocities. May I remind posters that the west is at present engaged in a multi-front war in one of the areas of the world inhabited mainly by Muslims. This war has opened the way to the advent of all sorts of crazed extremist variants of Islam whose adherents can present themselves as the legitimate resistance to Western imperialist encroachment. The Taliban, archaic lunatics and bigots that they are, came to power in Afghanistan in consequence of the Soviet invasion of that country. With Western help. The west and the Taliban have simply switched sides.

I don't remember reading all this stuff at that time of the anti-Soviet resistance about how Muslims were raving maniacs fired up to rape fair haired Swedish maidens. See http://www.islam-watch.org/fjordman/Muslim_Immigration_Insult_Harassment_Rape_Swedish_Girls.htm Swedish Pride: Insult, Harassment and Rape of Swedish Girls by Immigrant Muslims, by Fjordman, 30 Jan, 2007. It resembles the sorts of stories Julius Streicher once peddled about Jews. I will not quote the text at length. However the author says

it is the horror story in the ongoing collapse of Swedish society.

Much of the language would infringe the rules here. Comments of that sort are in no way a secular critique of Islam; they are hate speech directed at immigrants and ethnic minorities. We know what manner of results this can have.

As to the other persons referred to:

Spencer and Geller were barred from travel to the UK in 2013 for supporting "anti-Muslim hate groups". They co-authored the book The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on America in 2010.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Geller

Spencer has recorded his opposition on "practical" grounds to nuking Mecca.

It is likely that a destruction of the Ka’aba or the Al-Aqsa Mosque would ... become source of spirit, not of dispirit. The jihadists would have yet another injury to add to their litany of grievances, which up to now have so effectively confused American leftists into thinking that the West is at fault in this present conflict. But the grievances always shift; the only constant is the jihad imperative. Let us not give that imperative even greater energy in the modern world by supplying such pretexts needlessly.

So of course there should be no limit to the secular critique of Islam (or for example of Judaism). On the other hand, Islamophobia (and antisemitism) do exist (however unsatisfactory these words themselves may be) and they are to be resisted and denounced.

 

[DC]

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'...





Maybe I was 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.

in order to educate them, you would Need to know what you are talking about, and when you talk about Islam, you do not know what you are talking about.

 

[metacristi]

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?

First of all it seem to me that 15% of 1.6 billions is nowhere close to a tiny number. We deal rather with a global threat

Secondly what is really new in the approach of Islamic radicals is the method used to carry violence, namely suicide bombing not accepted under classical islam, but otherwise they have plenty of cover in Islamic traditions to justify the state of war in which they claim they are (there is no caliph and since many governments in the Islamic word can be charged with apostasy and collaboration with infidel 'invaders' it is the duty of every good muslim to fight against them using whatever method at hand; suicide bombing naturally qualify here for it an extension of martyrdom in the cause of allah). Saying that Islamic radicals have at least strong indirect jusrtification in basic Islamic traditions for their acts is no mistake (actually islam has always had the group of 'ghazi' warriors, usually tolerated by the mainstream society).

Third, as pointed well by Sam Harris, the basics of isam pose a special threat for it is not easily amenable to modern values (little internal logic for such reforms unlike Christianity and even Judaism), among others enough many of the violent passages in the quran just cannot be made to go away via intellectually honest interpretation (as ibn Warraq pointed well). It is the remnants of the dysfunctional part of Islamic theology, education and institution* still widely accepted by muslims (very often unconsciously) which prevent islam for being a 'melting pot' factor and make very probable that in any society where muslims are at least a sizeable minority the freedoms enjoyed by a healthy secular society will be seriously curbed. Finally the view that we already haver a liberal islam is a wishful thinking for it is nowhere close to its counterparts in other Abrahamic religions;


*for example islam is not yet a personal religion and the healthy secular spaces within communities, where rational dissent to be able grow, are negligible. As blogger exmuslimNfree puts it well (I will quote him again for he hit the nail in explaining the mechanism):

It always starts with deceit. Islam is clothed in deceptive descriptions of liberation, freedom and progress; concepts almost exclusively developed by the Western Intellectual tradition. But underneath it lies the ultimate goal of instating Shariah, and, if lucky, a Caliph. The more Islam there is, the more insecurity there is. Islam does this because it produces a deeply judgmental society. Everyone intrudes your privacy and turns into a policeman to see if you are being "Islamic-enough"; constantly judging you. You never know when your enemies will use some fraudulent "moral crime" charges to get you into trouble, and the penalties are brutal. This is the Islamic tyranny that has ruined the lives of over a billion victims.

Muhammadanism has produced societies where people openly, in broad daylight, stone women to death and go home as if they did nothing wicked and evil; a sick society where, you can be killed simply for what you think; your mind is not your private property but a public asset. Your mind is to be controlled and ruled by others, to be judged constantly.

 

[metacristi]

in order to educate them, you would Need to know what you are talking about, and when you talk about Islam, you do not know what you are talking about.

I've already explained to you that I know what western muslims believe but my stance is that there are very good reasons to not accept their mental gymnastics used to defend islam (whilst still claiming, amazingly, that the quran is inerrant and Muhammad perfect). I know enough to realize that we do not need muslim help to put the study of islam on a scientific foot. Just because you heard what some muslims say about islam does not make your stance rational and mine irrational.

 

[Polaris]

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.

But these fundies might actually come kill you for making fun of them - or at least some other people closer in proximity to them who bear some passing similarity to you at least.

Therefore, slam the hell out of anybody who criticizes those fundies and maybe they'll leave us alone.

Now, this question of whether Islamophobia exists is separate from whether there are Muslims in the world who commit crimes, or perpetrate atrocities. May I remind posters that the west is at present engaged in a multi-front war in one of the areas of the world inhabited mainly by Muslims. This war has opened the way to the advent of all sorts of crazed extremist variants of Islam whose adherents can present themselves as the legitimate resistance to Western imperialist encroachment. The Taliban, archaic lunatics and bigots that they are, came to power in Afghanistan in consequence of the Soviet invasion of that country. With Western help. The west and the Taliban have simply switched sides.

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are "Western"? When did this happen?

Also, you may recall, that larger war wasn't started by the West. It's a gigantic false claim of "aggression" when the side claiming it threw the first punch.

 

[Craig B]

in order to educate them, you would Need to know what you are talking about, and when you talk about Islam, you do not know what you are talking about.

With reference to Fjordman; he doesn't seem to specialise in secular critique of Islam, more in scare stories about immigrants and their families. He writes lots and lots of stuff like this.

Staff at Gustav Adolf School in the southern town of Landskrona have now retracted a controversial ban on the use of languages other than Swedish on school premises ... But, in a new measure, pupils will have to pass two security guards when entering the school. On Saturday it was revealed that the management of the school had decided that only Swedish could be spoken on school premises. Almost half of the pupils at the school come from an immigrant background. The ban was introduced following a number of incidents in which staff and pupils felt they had been insulted in languages they did not understand.

http://www.islam-watch.org/fjordman/Muslim_Immigration_Insult_Harassment_Rape_Swedish_Girls.htm

 

[Craig B]

But these fundies might actually come kill you for making fun of them - or at least some other people closer in proximity to them who bear some passing similarity to you at least.

Therefore, slam the hell out of anybody who criticizes those fundies and maybe they'll leave us alone.





Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are "Western"? When did this happen?

The west didn't help the Taliban, then?

Also, you may recall, that larger war wasn't started by the West. It's a gigantic false claim of "aggression" when the side claiming it threw the first punch.

To what do you refer specifically as the "start" of the war? A Muslim extremist group was most certainly responsible for the 2001 New York atrocity, if that's what you have in mind. But is that the start? Anyway I said the west is at present "engaged in" a war. If I used the expression "aggression" please say where. I would argue that point separately. As you must be aware, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are very unpopular among the British people.

 

[Octavo]

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.

why those double standards?

I absolutely think the US constitution should change to outlaw private gun ownership. The original threat presented by the English Crown is well and truly over, so there is no reason (beyond sports and hunting for which I believe exceptions should be made) to allow joe sixpack to buy firearms*

And yes, I do see fundamental problems with many tenets of Christianity, so your double-standards do not appear to apply to anyone in this thread that I'm aware of. Perhaps among the redneck population, who aren't exactly famous for their tolerance or cultural awareness.

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

B is a simple Tu Quoque fallacy and A seems to ignore the fact that the "radical" muslims have just as legitimate a reading of the Koran as moderates.


* I'm do not live in the US or Europe

 

[Polaris]

To what do you refer specifically as the "start" of the war? A Muslim extremist group was most certainly responsible for the 2001 New York atrocity, if that's what you have in mind. But is that the start? Anyway I said the west is at present "engaged in" a war. If I used the expression "aggression" please say where. I would argue that point separately. As you must be aware, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are very unpopular among the British people.

No, the West didn't help the Taliban, unless you're equating blowback with material support.

And yes, 9/11 was the start. Iraq aside (and shouldn't it be "were unpopular" WRT Iraq, since that war is over as far as the UK is concerned?), unpopular is not synonymous with unjustified.

 

[Craig B]

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

B is a simple Tu Quoque fallacy and A seems to ignore the fact that the "radical" muslims have just as legitimate a reading of the Koran as moderates.

So what? No "reading" is any excuse. Do Zionist madmen who invoke Scripture to justify usurpation of occupied territories not have a "legitimate reading" of the Torah? Who cares? Both their misdeeds, and those of the Muslim extremists, are to be condemned. But the point is, it makes no sense to tell the majority of the adherents of these religions that the extremist acts are the only ones legitimised by their holy texts, with the implication that peaceful and orderly behaviour is somehow an infringement of their religious obligations.

 

[metacristi]

It contained the statement that there is no such thing as Islamophobia. Of course I agree that there should be no limit to sceptical inquiry, and I do not apply any such limit in my own comments on Islam and its scriptures. But the separate question exists, is there such a thing as Islamophobia? Yes there is. I have given an example of it before, about nuking Mecca, from a website treated as respectable through the inadvertence of many sceptical writers and internet contributors. What is clearly happening is that Islam and Muslims - regardless of the character of their religion, or their personal qualities - good or bad - as individuals, have become a substitute target for the racism no longer tolerated in Western polite society, and have replaced the Jews as main internal and international scapegoat for those who need one.

Now, this question of whether Islamophobia exists is separate from whether there are Muslims in the world who commit crimes, or perpetrate atrocities. May I remind posters that the west is at present engaged in a multi-front war in one of the areas of the world inhabited mainly by Muslims. This war has opened the way to the advent of all sorts of crazed extremist variants of Islam whose adherents can present themselves as the legitimate resistance to Western imperialist encroachment. The Taliban, archaic lunatics and bigots that they are, came to power in Afghanistan in consequence of the Soviet invasion of that country. With Western help. The west and the Taliban have simply switched sides.

I don't remember reading all this stuff at that time of the anti-Soviet resistance about how Muslims were raving maniacs fired up to rape fair haired Swedish maidens. See http://www.islam-watch.org/fjordman/Muslim_Immigration_Insult_Harassment_Rape_Swedish_Girls.htm Swedish Pride: Insult, Harassment and Rape of Swedish Girls by Immigrant Muslims, by Fjordman, 30 Jan, 2007. It resembles the sorts of stories Julius Streicher once peddled about Jews. I will not quote the text at length. However the author saysMuch of the language would infringe the rules here. Comments of that sort are in no way a secular critique of Islam; they are hate speech directed at immigrants and ethnic minorities. We know what manner of results this can have.

As to the other persons referred to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Geller

Spencer has recorded his opposition on "practical" grounds to nuking Mecca.

So of course there should be no limit to the secular critique of Islam (or for example of Judaism). On the other hand, Islamophobia (and antisemitism) do exist (however unsatisfactory these words themselves may be) and they are to be resisted and denounced.

Islamophobia exist, I've already conceded that (if it is irrational fear of islam properly understood) even if I cannot stop to remark that such a new word is not at all required (its meaning is captured well by some existing words). But this does not mean that we are allowed to reject perfectly justified arguments on the ground that they are used by extremists to fulfil their agenda. And here we return to the western progressives definition of islamophobia which is definitely inacceptable for it tend to culpabilize all criticism of islam. Marginalizing the postmodernist influence on their political doctrines is a much better idea.

 

[Polaris]

So what? No "reading" is any excuse. Do Zionist madmen who invoke Scripture to justify usurpation of occupied territories not have a "legitimate reading" of the Torah? Who cares? Both their misdeeds, and those of the Muslim extremists, are to be condemned. But the point is, it makes no sense to tell the majority of the adherents of these religions that the extremist acts are the only ones legitimised by their holy texts, with the implication that peaceful and orderly behaviour is somehow an infringement of their religious obligations.

Peaceful and orderly behavior doesn't need religion to be legitimized - but the horrors done in the name of religion do need the religion.

 

[Octavo]

So what? No "reading" is any excuse. Do Zionist madmen who invoke Scripture to justify usurpation of occupied territories not have a "legitimate reading" of the Torah? Who cares? Both their misdeeds, and those of the Muslim extremists, are to be condemned. But the point is, it makes no sense to tell the majority of the adherents of these religions that the extremist acts are the only ones legitimised by their holy texts, with the implication that peaceful and orderly behaviour is somehow an infringement of their religious obligations.

I think I'm not making my point very well, please allow me to try again:

It doesn't matter how you read the tenets of Jainism or how radical or fundamental your beliefs in Jainism are, the probability of you doing violence or committing an atrocity is vanishingly low. The same cannot be said for Islam.

As Dr. Harris likes to point out, when was the last time you heard of a Buddhist suicide bomber? Despite the oppression of China over Tibet, the protests are mostly non-violent. This, I submit, is because fundamentally Buddhism and Islam teach different ideas about the world.

In other words, some religions are better than others when it comes to their impact on civil society. It is not necessarily bigoted to point out that Islam poses the biggest threat of all the large world religions. This threat is posed NOT because all Muslims are evil or because the US has caused them harm. It is posed by the harmful ideas that Islam contains.

The question of *how* we go about addressing this issue is (as I've mentioned previously) not something I feel qualified to address here

 

[DC]

First of all it seem to me that 15% of 1.6 billions is nowhere close to a tiny number. We deal rather with a global threat

Secondly what is really new in the approach of Islamic radicals is the method used to carry violence, namely suicide bombing not accepted under classical islam, but otherwise they have plenty of cover in Islamic traditions to justify the state of war in which they claim they are (there is no caliph and since many governments in the Islamic word can be charged with apostasy and collaboration with infidel 'invaders' it is the duty of every good muslim to fight against them using whatever method at hand; suicide bombing naturally qualify here for it an extension of martyrdom in the cause of allah). Saying that Islamic radicals have at least strong indirect jusrtification in basic Islamic traditions for their acts is no mistake (actually islam has always had the group of 'ghazi' warriors, usually tolerated by the mainstream society).

Third, as pointed well by Sam Harris, the basics of isam pose a special threat for it is not easily amenable to modern values (little internal logic for such reforms unlike Christianity and even Judaism), among others enough many of the violent passages in the quran just cannot be made to go away via intellectually honest interpretation (as ibn Warraq pointed well). It is the remnants of the dysfunctional part of Islamic theology, education and institution* still widely accepted by muslims (very often unconsciously) which prevent islam for being a 'melting pot' factor and make very probable that in any society where muslims are at least a sizeable minority the freedoms enjoyed by a healthy secular society will be seriously curbed. Finally the view that we already haver a liberal islam is a wishful thinking for it is nowhere close to its counterparts in other Abrahamic religions;


*for example islam is not yet a personal religion and the healthy secular spaces within communities, where rational dissent to be able grow, are negligible. As blogger exmuslimNfree puts it well (I will quote him again for he hit the nail in explaining the mechanism):

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.

 

[DC]

I've already explained to you that I know what western muslims believe but my stance is that there are very good reasons to not accept their mental gymnastics used to defend islam (whilst still claiming, amazingly, that the quran is inerrant and Muhammad perfect). I know enough to realize that we do not need muslim help to put the study of islam on a scientific foot. Just because you heard what some muslims say about islam does not make your stance rational and mine irrational.

thiss wording alone shows that you know nothing about it actually.
you seem to think Islam is some monolythic entity and all moslems believe the same stuff .
this is not true for any religion i am aware of.

but you exposed your lack of knowledge in that regard already when you said "alleged multitude of Islam"

funny , not only are you refering to some of the famous Islamophobic hatespeach websites. you actually rather believe what the radicals claim and you dismiss what the majority of moslems say. why is that ?
just because you read islamophobic hatespeach websites does not mean you learn anything about Islam.

 

[DC]

I absolutely think the US constitution should change to outlaw private gun ownership. The original threat presented by the English Crown is well and truly over, so there is no reason (beyond sports and hunting for which I believe exceptions should be made) to allow joe sixpack to buy firearms*

And yes, I do see fundamental problems with many tenets of Christianity, so your double-standards do not appear to apply to anyone in this thread that I'm aware of. Perhaps among the redneck population, who aren't exactly famous for their tolerance or cultural awareness.

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

B is a simple Tu Quoque fallacy and A seems to ignore the fact that the "radical" muslims have just as legitimate a reading of the Koran as moderates.


* I'm do not live in the US or Europe

i am and was arguing A.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Ryokan


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.

Isn't it a category error to compare an entire religion to a specific denomination of another religion? Would it not be more reasonable to either compare Quakers to a Muslim sect known for peacefulness (Ahmadiyya, maybe?) or compare the entirety of Christianity to the entirety of Islam?

 

[Mister Agenda]

No, the West didn't help the Taliban, unless you're equating blowback with material support.

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.

 

[Dcdrac]

The majority of muslims are not in the Taliban nor Al Qauda, nor support terrorism.

Just the same as the majority of christians do not support fundamentalists, it is jsut the same for the majority of the muslims, just right now they are the easiest to access scapegoats for the same hate mongers using the same tools, rhetoric and languages as in the past and that is the scary part.

 

[Ryokan]

As Dr. Harris likes to point out, when was the last time you heard of a Buddhist suicide bomber? Despite the oppression of China over Tibet, the protests are mostly non-violent. This, I submit, is because fundamentally Buddhism and Islam teach different ideas about the world.

Well, there's the kamikaze.

But again, why specify suicide attacks? Because Buddhist terrorism does exist.

That's not to mention the state terrorism against non-Buddhist groups in Burma and Sri Lanka.