Sam Harris on "Islamophobia"

[Craig B]

A famous Atheist once said "Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?"

I'm sure that if he was alive today, Joe would have agreed with Sam's assertion that Islam is a 'special threat to civil society'. The main difference is that he would have done more to oppose it than just 'observe'.

Being afraid of an enemy who poses a 'special threat' is not a phobia, nor is it necessarily a sign of bigotry, racism, or intolerance. I believe that despite the vilification he received for acting on his fears, Joseph Stalin was at least as well-intentioned as Sam Harris appears to be.

This is a puzzling post. In what way was Stalin "well-intentioned"? Or is your statement a jocular attack on Sam Harris? Both Stalin and Harris have been cited as recommending torture, I suppose. How do you shop your enemies from having ideas? Maybe Stalin's way of doing that - by destroying the brains in which the ideas resided - was the most effective. But "well-intentioned"?

 

[eight bits]

Craig B

Nobody is denying you the right to sceptical inquiry into Islam.

But if a poster exceeds his or her quota of Islam-related threads, then it seems their sceptical inquiry becomes a right ripe for denial, on account of suspicion of "Islamophobia."

The right-wing tax thing you found is interesting. It may be helpful to remember, though, that the American tax exemption for churches is contingent upon the beneficiary refraining from political activity. As you can imagine, there are frequent disagreements about compliance with this provision, since some denominations, not only Islamic groups, might discuss during services how to vote on gay marriage or abortion rights ballot measures, or to contact representatives about pending legislation of various kinds, or to support this candidate for office rather than that one.

So, while the particular source you dug up is without doubt a mouthpiece for all sorts of disputable assertions, the principle that is mentioned actually exists, and is a real feature of tax code enforcement in the United States. The real-world concern is not peculiar to Islam, even if its florid expression is, in your source.

A'isha

Bigotry does indeed exist. The question before us is who pracitces bigotry, and who, after making sceptical inquiry finds something troubling in one religion which distinguishes it from some other religions. Rationality can do that, "one of these things is not like the others" happens.

"Lableing an entire religion as a 'special threat to civil society,'" is curious. Whom are you quoting? Dr Harris said

... the specific tenets of the faith pose a special threat to civil society...

There's nothing there about any "entire religion." Dr Harris does not plausibly find abstaining from pork a threat to civil society. He plausibly finds vegetarianism, which is a feature of some religions, unthreatening. So, he must be talking about some specific tenets, not all of them.

That Dr Harris did not comment on the diversity within the religion does not imply that he ignores it. If there is a disagreement about what the tenets are, then that's all very interesting, but Dr Harris was commenting on the tenets as he understands them. This is no different than if one of us comments on Xenu beliefs in the context of Scientology. Many Scientologists don't believe in Xenu (many haven't paid the fee to learn that there is a Xenu). It does not follow that I cannot speak about that aspect of the religion, or that if I do so without interrupting myself to acknowledge the many and varied potential sources of Xenu-denial, then I am a bigot.

Dr Harris also did not comment on how many people are ever dishonest about what they and their co-religionists believe, nor did he say that all disagreement with him about tenets stems from dishonesty. The parallels with Scientology are obvious: some person might claim "Scientologists don't believe in Xenu" because they haven't paid enough yet (and so, disagree honestly), while another says the same thing, knowing about Xenu, but also knowing that to acknowledge the teaching would expose their faith to ridicule (and so, disagree dishonestly). I am entitled to denounce the latter, and may do so without elaborating on the former.

So, while there may be no doubt that a certain pattern of behavior would be bigortry, there is some doubt that Dr Harris would be an apt person to ask to comment about that behavior. Of course, maybe you didn't mean to insinuate anything about Dr Harris' character. That'd be good, then there'd be no need to defend him for speaking his mind with integrity and goodwill, as, to all appearances, he did on this occasion.

 

[Humes fork]

Are his opinions yours as well, Humes? That there's something inherent in Islam that makes it a special threat to civil society? That's quite a claim.

A religion whose holy book instructs believers to fight infidels until "all worship is for Allah" and whose prominent scholars and theologians think that Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians are to have choose between conversion to Islam and religiois apartheid and that those who are not of those three are to be forced to become Muslims is certainly pernicious, don't you agree?

And, as usual, you want us to discuss this without ever comparing it to any other religions?

Yes, because it's irrelevant. It's a form of red herring, trying to divert attention from the subject at hand. It's undoubtedly a rhetorical tool your ilk would prefer to use to divert attention, but it's a logical fallacy and dishonest nonetheless. It doesn't belong at a skeptic forum.

In a critique of Joseph Stalin, do you expect to see notes on how Pol Pot was also a very naughty boy?

 

[Black Hole Box]

Why are you so obsessed with Islam, fork? Were you molested by a falafel?

 

[Craig B]

... In a critique of Joseph Stalin, do you expect to see notes on how Pol Pot was also a very naughty boy?

Not necessarily, but if someone was to write, I deplore Stalin for killing people, and another person were to say, well you must hate Pol Pot too. It would not make sense to say in response, we're only talking about Stalin. Because you're talking about Stalin as a killer. If another killer isn't relevant, one might suspect that the real reason for hostility is something else. Like he was a Georgian or something.

Some antisemites rave on about the horrors of the Talmud, and it contains weird things in truth. But if you were to say, the Quran has weird things too, and the antitalmudist said, not relevant, then you would know that wasn't the real reason for the hostility to Judaism.

The current generation of fascist boot boys in the UK call themselves the English Defence League. They are enthusiastic zionists, favouring the extremist elements in that movement. What's not to like about West Bank settlers if you're a fascist? But their attitude to Muslims is pretty much like their predecessors' attitude to Jews. The old scapegoat has been replaced by a new one, that's all. However, the EDL still couch their hostility to immigrants and ethnic minorities in terms of opposition to Islamic doctrine, about which I'm sure they don't really give a toss.

 

[Craig B]

Yes, because it's irrelevant. It's a form of red herring, trying to divert attention from the subject at hand. It's undoubtedly a rhetorical tool your ilk would prefer to use to divert attention, but it's a logical fallacy and dishonest nonetheless. It doesn't belong at a skeptic forum.

I forgot to comment on that. Let me register my extreme disagreement with these remarks. I hope my comments on Stalin indicate why. There is at least nothing dishonest about this.

 

[Kahalachan]

*it is true that people can interpret a book how they want but it is not true that all interpretations of the text are more or less equally valid in the light of Rationality, in the case of islam it is extremely clear that the medieval interpretations of islam give a much more plausible vision of the faith. The only way ahead, to create a 'critical mass' of rational muslims capable to direct religion where they want, is to educate people to be aware of the severe limitations of islam

Why is rationality the best way to interpret text? If we are talking about a science book or math book, then yes rationality is the best.

If we are talking poetry, literature, or something that is meant to be more personal, then a rational interpretation isn't the best.


Take Of Mice and Men. Lennie says he likes beans with ketchup. Rationally we would take it as a feeble minded man wants a condiment. In a deeper context one may see this as a metaphor for the wonderful life George had planned. Beans being an ordinary staple and ketchup being something with added flavor.

Which one is the correct interpretation? Steinbeck isn't around to ask. So it's up to us to derive personal meaning for the text he wrote.

No one needs to ask Newton what he meant. Just look at the equations in Principia.

Those who see the Quran as something more personal would be treating it similarly to how we treat Of Mice and Men. They feel Allah meant something but are open to discuss with others what else Allah may have meant. Rationality comes into play by their willingness to have open discourse and not by the need for strict literal interpretation.

 

[tsig]

Not necessarily, but if someone was to write, I deplore Stalin for killing people, and another person were to say, well you must hate Pol Pot too. It would not make sense to say in response, we're only talking about Stalin. Because you're talking about Stalin as a killer. If another killer isn't relevant, one might suspect that the real reason for hostility is something else. Like he was a Georgian or something.

Some antisemites rave on about the horrors of the Talmud, and it contains weird things in truth. But if you were to say, the Quran has weird things too, and the antitalmudist said, not relevant, then you would know that wasn't the real reason for the hostility to Judaism.

The current generation of fascist boot boys in the UK call themselves the English Defence League. They are enthusiastic zionists, favouring the extremist elements in that movement. What's not to like about West Bank settlers if you're a fascist? But their attitude to Muslims is pretty much like their predecessors' attitude to Jews. The old scapegoat has been replaced by a new one, that's all. However, the EDL still couch their hostility to immigrants and ethnic minorities in terms of opposition to Islamic doctrine, about which I'm sure they don't really give a toss.

Are you implying that forum members are members of the EDL?

 

[tsig]

I forgot to comment on that. Let me register my extreme disagreement with these remarks. I hope my comments on Stalin indicate why. There is at least nothing dishonest about this.

It's completely dishonest to muddy up any attempt to discuss Islam by crying "EDL, bigot, Islamophobia, Christians do it too".

Now you've drug Stalin into it, who's next Vlad the Impaler?

 

[Craig B]

A religion whose holy book instructs believers to fight infidels until "all worship is for Allah" and whose prominent scholars and theologians think that Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians are to have choose between conversion to Islam and religiois apartheid and that those who are not of those three are to be forced to become Muslims is certainly pernicious, don't you agree?

Antisemites make use of material like this to make the same argument about Judaism, that it is pernicious and must be discouraged. http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jewhis5.htm

 

[Ryokan]

A religion whose holy book instructs believers to fight infidels until "all worship is for Allah" and whose prominent scholars and theologians think that Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians are to have choose between conversion to Islam and religiois apartheid and that those who are not of those three are to be forced to become Muslims is certainly pernicious, don't you agree?

Yes, because it's irrelevant. It's a form of red herring, trying to divert attention from the subject at hand. It's undoubtedly a rhetorical tool your ilk would prefer to use to divert attention, but it's a logical fallacy and dishonest nonetheless. It doesn't belong at a skeptic forum.

In a critique of Joseph Stalin, do you expect to see notes on how Pol Pot was also a very naughty boy?

So you claim that Islam's threat is special and unique, yet we are not allowed to compare it to anything else. That's outright bizarre, Humes. How can we know it's special and unique without being allowed to compare it to other religions?

If someone claims Joseph Stalin's evil was special and unique, are you really of the opinion that saying that Pol Pot was an evil bastard in many of the same ways is really off topic and a red herring? Really?

Your evidence that Islam's threat to civil society is special is easily refuted, but you've set up the rules of discourse in such a way that we are not allowed to do so. I think you should sit down and really think why you're doing that.

 

[Humes fork]

So you claim that Islam's threat is special and unique, yet we are not allowed to compare it to anything else. That's outright bizarre, Humes. How can we know it's special and unique without being allowed to compare it to other religions?

If someone claims Joseph Stalin's evil was special and unique, are you really of the opinion that saying that Pol Pot was an evil bastard in many of the same ways is really off topic and a red herring? Really?

Your evidence that Islam's threat to civil society is special is easily refuted, but you've set up the rules of discourse in such a way that we are not allowed to do so. I think you should sit down and really think why you're doing that.

Where have I claimed Islam is a "special" threat?

 

[Craig B]

It's completely dishonest to muddy up any attempt to discuss Islam by crying "EDL, bigot, Islamophobia, Christians do it too".

No it most certainly isn't. If you are saying, Islam has peculiarities not present in other religions, then it is absolutely necessary to compare it with these other religions, and its opponents and supporters in the context of those of other religions. What you are saying is equivalent to an astronomy professor showing his class a picture of Venus and saying, that's the brightest planet in the sky; and when his students say, well show us photos of the other planets so that we can compare them, the astronomer responds, We're talking about Venus, not other planets! Your request is dishonest and irrelevant! I'm going to fail the lot of you!

Now you've drug Stalin into it, who's next Vlad the Impaler?

I don't know. I'm pretty sure it was Humes fork who introduced Stalin into the conversation.

ETA Sorry, no. It seems to have been Roger Ramjets at post #37. I hope I've got that right.

 

[Ryokan]

Where have I claimed Islam is a "special" threat?

Sam Harris did. It's right there in the image of your first post. And that's the topic of the thread, isn't it?

I did ask if you agreed with it. Do you?

 

[Humes fork]

Antisemites make use of material like this to make the same argument about Judaism, that it is pernicious and must be discouraged. http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jewhis5.htm

I only had a glance at that page. While it seems to be produced by antisemites, I couldn't find anything objectionable in that specific link during my quick glance. Essentially a criticism of cruel an inhumane laws and practices found in the Jewish tradition. What's wrong with criticizing that? has anyone said you must not do that? You might not have noticed, but critics of Christianity frequently bring up the Old Testament, which is essentially the same thing as the Jewish Bible.

Haredi Jewish communities in the US, the UK, and Israel are abusing their children by raising them in a seclused environment and indoctrinating them into a demonstrably false worldview. It is a disgrace that it is allowed to persist.

(Are you now going to criticize me for not mentioning that Muslim madrassas do the same thing?)

Have a read at Genealogical Saga of Judaism. Do you find the below quote antisemitic? Does it affect your judgement to learn that it is written by an Israeli atheist who is a former orthodox Jew?

Judaism is essentially the story of the relation between one human race and their deity. The tragic consequences of racial hatred in the past century do not retract from the fact that the religion of the children of Israel is strongly ethnocentric. The Hebrew deity is a universal king, exercising dominion over all creation, but he uses his power to further the well-being or punishment of his chosen race. As Voltaire put it: "Why should the world revolve round the pimple of Jewry?".

 

[Craig B]

I only had a glance at that page. While it seems to be produced by antisemites, I couldn't find anything objectionable in that specific link during my quick glance. Essentially a criticism of cruel an inhumane laws and practices found in the Jewish tradition. What's wrong with criticizing that? has anyone said you must not do that? You might not have noticed, but critics of Christianity frequently bring up the Old Testament, which is essentially the same thing as the Jewish Bible.

Notice I said "made use of" this material; not necessarily that the material itself is inauthentic. Now what you do, very accurately and correctly below, is to identify the sectors of the Jewish community who take such material seriously and might do harm with it. You don't suddenly announce that Judaism as such requires to be denied the status of a religion and so on. In short I have no quarrel with what you have said.

Haredi Jewish communities in the US, the UK, and Israel are abusing their children by raising them in a seclused environment and indoctrinating them into a demonstrably false worldview. It is a disgrace that it is allowed to persist. (Are you now going to criticize me for not mentioning that Muslim madrassas do the same thing?)

They all do? Those that do, however many or few they may be, you should indeed criticise. Those which inculcate the idea that all people must become Muslims or be reduced to the status of second class citizens. All where it is taught that girls should be married at nine years of age; or that all non-Muslims must be tortured to death, as has been stated to be a principle of Islam in these threads. Yes, where these things are taught you are obliged to criticise.

 

[eight bits]

tsig

who's next Vlad the Impaler?

Definitely an Islamophobe.

Ryokan

Sam Harris did.

No, actually he didn't. It was A'isha who discussed an unnamed somebody labeling a religion as a special threat, as part of her specification of bigotry. I don't know whom she had in mind, but what Dr Harris mentioned was specific tenets of the faith being of special concern.

 

[Delvo]

Not necessarily, but if someone was to write, I deplore Stalin for killing people, and another person were to say, well you must hate Pol Pot too. It would not make sense to say in response, we're only talking about Stalin. Because you're talking about Stalin as a killer. If another killer isn't relevant, one might suspect that the real reason for hostility is something else. Like he was a Georgian or something.

Some antisemites rave on about the horrors of the Talmud, and it contains weird things in truth. But if you were to say, the Quran has weird things too, and the antitalmudist said, not relevant, then you would know that wasn't the real reason for the hostility to Judaism.

That is simply not true. When the subject is X, "What about Y?" is nothing but an attempt at distraction away from the truth about X, because the existence of Y has no possible relevance to the case for X.

This is identical to "if he were innocent he'd answer the question" and "of course she thinks this because why else would she say that" and "if you do this then you don't love me, if you loved me you'd do that". Trying to find ways to say "GOTCHA!" and cleverly snare people with these little accusational traps is just plain dishonest.

 

[Ryokan]

Ryokan


No, actually he didn't. It was A'isha who discussed an unnamed somebody labeling a religion as a special threat, as part of her specification of bigotry. I don't know whom she had in mind, but what Dr Harris mentioned was specific tenets of the faith being of special concern.

I don't see the big difference between the two. But ok. So the claim is that the specific tenets of Islam is a special threat to civil society. Do you agree with that? And exactly how are we going to explore that claim without comparing it to the tenets of other faiths?

 

[Craig B]

tsig
Definitely an Islamophobe.

Local Muslims were Vladophobes.