Sam Harris on "Islamophobia"

[Craig B]

Let's be concrete. I have posted here in this thread that Islam is derivative of earlier religions. Like many true statements, it is morally certain that somebody somewhere has taken offense at that.

But has had no reason to take offence. Your statement was simply a historical fact, undirected at any person.

I read in the Koran, at 68:15-16, the literal words of the only true God,

When Our communications are recited to him, he says: Stories of those of yore.We will brand him on the nose.

Suppose that there were a society whose laws forbade all cruel and unusual punishments for any offense whatsoever, and so either tolerated my viciously uncivil statement outright, or subjected me only to a small fine or brief imprisonment, instead of mutilating my face.

Would that society deserve to exist, in your view?

Yes, there is nothing wrong in these observations, because they are of general application. You are insulting nobody at all. This, however, is very different.

Muslims will thereby learn by force-feeding that their hateful God (Allah) cannot protect them and is a figment of their collective imagination, and millions will leave the failed cult. Nothing harms an Arab more than humiliation and defeat. They sincerely believe that their most-powerful Allah has promised to protect and preserve Mecca ... Cut off the head and the snake will still squirm for a while, but it will soon stop. In addition, by preventing Muslims from -ever- performing one of the pillars (requirements) of Islam, we block their way to paradise, but thereby actually save them from real hell (Islam is hell-on-earth is this life, and brings only sorrow and torment in the next). When the time comes, by all means, Nuke Mecca, …but do it right.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/VernonRichards50806.htm That's why I object when somebody quotes Sam Harris with approval, saying there's no such thing as Islamophobia. The website that contains these expressions is described in wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_Freedom_International

Faith Freedom International is listed by Richard Dawkins in the Appendix of his book, The God Delusion, as one of the few Islamic related "friendly address[es], for individuals needing support in escaping from religion" (although it was removed from the website following protest from other ex-Muslims and atheists). FFI's mission statement is included in Ibn Warraq's book Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out. According to Internet Infidels, "Faith Freedom International echoes the voice of Muslim dissidents that strive for freedom of faith and freedom from faith in Islamic countries."

These are the sort of issues I have in mind during this discussion, not your criticism of the archaic monstrosities which are part of the content of the Quran, and which I myself have often posted about in these threads.

 

[DC]

So depicting the prophet Mohammed is insulting behaviour? Perhaps we should ban the depiction of Mohammed so we don't insult any Muslims? Well, in that case, lets also ban gay marriage, since that is insulting to Christians and Muslims alike. The point is that, just because a section of the population holds a certain belief, does not mean that we cannot or should not criticize that belief and it certainly doesn't mean that such criticism is bigotry. Islam more than any other religion goes to extreme lengths to silence any criticism of Islam. Several posters in this thread appear to belief that this is a good idea.



I think you are missing my point slightly. The media and politicians have been cowed into the same tired story that Islam is a religion of peace for the sake of not outraging the Muslim population, who, as amply demonstrated have a habit of rioting and killing people for relatively innocuous offences. It is very clearly not a religion of peace and once again, I maintain that holding this view of Islam is not necessarily bigotry.



I certainly didn't claim there was no such thing as Islamaphobia, however I do think that label is being unfairly attached to rational and reasonable critics of Islam in an attempt to silence and sideline their views.

I also didn't say that I wanted the freedom to propagate hate. Sure, if I was suggesting that we inter all Muslims in camps and prevent them from ever holding public office (or some other stupid thing), then you might accuse me of incitement to violence or hatred.

Perhaps we should start again:

a) The tenets of Islam contain certain ideas
b) Some of those ideas can be harmful to society
c) A large percentage of Muslims ascribe to these tenets or at least claim to
d) There is evidence that these ideas have caused thousands of deaths and continue to do so today
e) This represents an ongoing and serious threat to society at large

These are my assertions. Which of them do you disagree with or find bigoted?

depends wich moslem you ask. some say it is, some say it isn't. a friend of mine has adrawing of mohammed on his Koran.

 

[Craig B]

depends wich moslem you ask. some say it is, some say it isn't. a friend of mine has adrawing of mohammed on his Koran.

As to depictions of Muhammad. Here's one. http://www.flickr.com/photos/theneointellectual/7239238790/ There's plenty more on that site, "depiction of muhammad in islamic art".

 

[eight bits]

Craig b

But has had no reason to take offence. Your statement was simply a historical fact, undirected at any person.

It would be so very nice if people took offense only when there was good reason. That doesn't seem to be the case, though, and that much isn't anything peculiar to Islam, either.

As it happens, I personally do not favor a nuclear strike against Mecca. However, I am glad that you mentioned that. I find what you quoted to be a candidate threat, even though I am confident that nobody currently possessing nuclear weapons (capabilities) would think such a thing to be in their interests (intentions). I bring it up because I disagree with something you posted earlier (addressed to Octavo)

It isn't even sensible! How can "specific Islamic tenets" be a danger to anything, unless people give effect to them in action? Nobody has ever been harmed by a tenet.

Dr Harris, however, clearly finds threat in tenets, apart from any other accomplished harm. Some accomplished harm requires that people give effect to their ideas in action. Threat doesn't require that. By its nature, a threat might not ever be carried out.

I would classify the threat to attack Mecca as an empty threat, for the reasons stated. But I am a vulnerable mortal, and a good deal less than nuclear bombardment suffices to ruin my day. So, I do not find the ideas contained in the Koran (such as what I quoted) to be empty threats. I also think it is a mark of a civil society that I might observe in public, without fear of violent retribution, that some religion is derivative of its antecedents - even if I misspeak. What is in the Koran makes me somewhat less confident about the lack of retribution than I otherwise would be. That is what a threat looks like, that is the harm which a threat accomplishes.

On two points arising:

That's why I object when somebody quotes Sam Harris with approval, saying there's no such thing as Islamophobia.

I did not understand Dr Harris' remarks the way you seem to. I am inclined to accept his explanation of his position, regarding (as a writer in the Guardian put it), "Perhaps the most repellent claim Harris made to me was that Islamophobia is fictitious and non-existent ..."

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2/

... archaic monstrosities which are part of the content of the Quran, and which I myself have often posted about in these threads.

I am happily aware that what I post about that isn't news to you. However, much of the discussion in this thread has been about "What tenets?" or "What threat?" So, even if you personally don't need to re-read some of these things, apparently some people do, if only to know what others of us are talking about (including, I think, Dr Harris).

 

[Craig B]

... Dr Harris, however, clearly finds threat in tenets, apart from any other accomplished harm. Some accomplished harm requires that people give effect to their ideas in action. Threat doesn't require that. By its nature, a threat might not ever be carried out.

"Threat", where no accomplished harm is to be expected, is insignificant. Dr Harris clearly envisions a danger. Many contributors perceive a danger in Islam, so your definition of threat here is beside the point. It is clearly not the intended signification of the word in this discussion. As well you know. Now, if there is a threat, it must come from people who are minded to fulfil the tenets under discussion. These are Muslims (or their "shills", if such there be here). Thus it is insensate to assert that it is the religion that is to be feared, but not its adherents.

So it would be perfectly fine to say, let us do something about those adherents of Islam who want to rape nine year olds or torture all non Muslims to death, or destroy democratic societies. I'm with you on that all the way. But to say, Islam teaches these things therefore we must "do something" about Islam (in general, unqualified) and those who don't in fact want to do these things aren't real Muslims, but of course we're talking about the tenets, not the people - all that is absurd. And if we want to deal with the dangers of Muslim extremism we must go about it in very different ways.

I would classify the threat to attack Mecca as an empty threat, for the reasons stated.

So would I, unless the Evangelical fundies get the attention of the crazier Zionists and go for a prompt Armageddon, as they seem to want. I cited this threat as an example of Islamophobia and note that the site which contains it is treated with respect by Internet Infidels, Dawkins and others who should know better, as a force for good.

 

[tsig]

As to depictions of Muhammad. Here's one. http://www.flickr.com/photos/theneointellectual/7239238790/ There's plenty more on that site, "depiction of muhammad in islamic art".

Why are you ignoring the riots and death threats over the Muhammed cartoons?

 

[DC]

Why are you ignoring the riots and death threats over the Muhammed cartoons?

does he ignore it?

and btw, those was a small minority of moslems. most did do nothing, no protests, no lynching, no murdering at all.

 

[tsig]

A society which encourages insulting behavior may be 'civil', but it isn't civilized.

Civility noun \sə-ˈvi-lə-tē\
: polite, reasonable, and respectful behavior
civilities : polite actions and words
2a : civilized conduct; especially : courtesy, politeness
b : a polite act or expression

If your civil society can only exist if there are no boundaries on insulting behavior and no tolerance of retribution, then perhaps it doesn't deserve to exist.

The media thrives on fear and controversy, while politicians are regularly cowed in fear by the thought of losing votes. Neither are particularly worried about what retribution a few religious nutcases might be capable of delivering - but there's lots of hay to be made from the outrage.

So if I want to shut off debate all I have to do is say "I feel insulted" and that's the end of the discussion?

 

[Craig B]

Why are you ignoring the riots and death threats over the Muhammed cartoons?

What do you mean? Of course I deplore and denounce these things. In general, about two posts ago I stated

So it would be perfectly fine to say, let us do something about those adherents of Islam who want to rape nine year olds or torture all non Muslims to death, or destroy democratic societies. I'm with you on that all the way.

So it's very strange that you should pick out one of the things that falls into the category of stuff I'm denouncing and ask why I didn't mention it specifically. What on earth makes you think I would approve of such riots and threats? By the way, let me ask you: Were these threats real and productive of "accomplished harm"? That's what you mean by "threats" isn't it? I ask for the benefit of eight bits.

 

[eight bits]

Craig B

"Threat", where no accomplished harm is to be expected, ...

I can say first hand that I would be reluctant to post under my own name and photo what "eight bits" with a collie's picture wrote about the relationship between Islam and its antecedents. No Muslim need do anything special to achieve that influence on my behavior. Of course, eight bits writes a lot of things on many subjects that his creator wouldn't publish under his own name... but usually, whatever the controversy, the prospect of facial mutilation doesn't even come up, much less launch a Jesuitical analysis of credible versus empty threat.

Inhibiting the terms of free discussion is an accomplished harm against civil society, and is typical of the harm which credible threat can be expected to accomplish. That aspect of Dr Harris' teaching, it seems to me, needs no further proof. Other people here, or people on other websites admired by Internet Infidels or Richard Dawkins, might go beyond Dr Harris' expressed concerns, but I have my hands full just discussing him.

If it is any consolation, just as I resist accusations of bigotry against people like Dr Harris, I also resist insinuations of apologetics against those who would also, like Dr Harris, distinguish the harmless from the harmful aspects of Islam, but who call for more attention to the harmless bits.

 

[Mister Agenda]

If Islam had never come to be, it's likely the Middle East and North Africa would today very likely be dominated by Orthodox Christianity. If that were the case, would there be no hostility towards Israel, no suicide bombers, no prolonged US occupations, no terrorism originating from that reason because it would be Orthodox Christian instead of Islamic? Because that is the implication of claiming that the threat is something inherent to the nature of Islam.

 

[Craig B]

I can say first hand that I would be reluctant to post under my own name and photo what "eight bits" with a collie's picture wrote about the relationship between Islam and its antecedents. No Muslim need do anything special to achieve that influence on my behavior.

That seems unjust. I have presented several things in these threads, which must offend Muslim bigots; I have accused the Quran of containing blunders and archaic monstrosities. I invite Muslims to defend the things I have attacked, if they want to. But in fact none has intervened in this debate. I don't know what Muslims you know or are in contact with; but I am sorry you feel inhibited. I don't think I would really feel that. In any event all educated Muslims know that many of the ideas and practices of their religion are inherited from previous religions. Not only the doctrinal borrowings from Judaism and Christianity, but even the pilgrimage to Mecca, which was practiced by the devotees of the previous pagan religion of that city.

But if you haven't been threatened, then it is premature to accuse the adherents of a religion of something they haven't done.

 

[Octavo]

If Islam had never come to be, it's likely the Middle East and North Africa would today very likely be dominated by Orthodox Christianity. If that were the case, would there be no hostility towards Israel, no suicide bombers, no prolonged US occupations, no terrorism originating from that reason because it would be Orthodox Christian instead of Islamic? Because that is the implication of claiming that the threat is something inherent to the nature of Islam.

No, if that were the case, we might be arguing that Orthodox Christianity poses a threat to civil society and that such a view is not necessarily bigoted.

This is not an argument attacking Islam for the sake of attacking Islam. It's a pragmatic view that says, lets first attempt to liberlise and educate the most serious threat, before going after less serious threats. The evangelical right in America is also a threat, but it's not likely that Texas will suddenly decide to go rogue and nuke Iran.

 

[Craig B]

No, if that were the case, we might be arguing that Orthodox Christianity poses a threat to civil society and that such a view is not necessarily bigoted.

You were asked about the Middle East and N Africa, but your response about a "threat to civil society" is a clear reference to an internal enemy. Thus you perceive Muslims to be an enemy within. What do you intend to do about this enemy?

It's a pragmatic view that says, lets first attempt to liberlise and educate the most serious threat, before going after less serious threats. The evangelical right in America is also a threat, but it's not likely that Texas will suddenly decide to go rogue and nuke Iran.

How and in what form is this liberalisation and education of the most serious threat to be administered? And how do you educate a threat? Surely it's people who get educated. To which people and under what conditions is your proposal to be applied?

 

[ApostateltsopA]

Perhaps I've just been taken in by Dr. Harris' arguments, but I do not see the big debate around what he is saying.

I don't think any True Scotsman Athiest would argue that there aren't any harmful tenets in other religions, however there is a scale of harms. One might look at various societies from around the world and compare the impact that religion has on those societies

Buddhism does not appear to be particularly harmful to society in that the societies where is is practiced are generally benign . Jainism too. Modern Christianity is also fairly toothless, but as we know this has not always been the case and at least in the US, Evangelicals pose a threat to secular society. Now lets turn to Islamic societies. Oh dear.

It is not difficult to see that Islam has several tenets that foster harmful ideas. The idea that the defense of Islam is every Muslim's highest calling is one such idea. The idea that heathens should be converted by sword and flame or killed is another such idea.

I'm nearly certain that there are other religions out there with even worse/more harmful ideas, but they do not claim 1.5 billion followers and several governments under their sway.

If we are to make the world a safer and happier place, does it not make sense to start with the religion that poses the greatest risk to civil soceity? Is there any serious doubt by any poster here that there is another religion which poses a greater or even equal risk to society than Islam? Is so, what is your justification for thinking that?

If you were really rational about this, deriving the greatest threat from the religion with the greatest capacity to do harm, shouldn't you be more frightened of Christianity, specifically fundamentalist Christianity, which has a frightening level of access to the politics and practices of the United States, which is, by any reasonable measure, the institution capable of the greatest harm on earth at this time. We have nukes, a vast army, absurd resources and fundies egging on one war after another. What ability do fanatical Muslim regimes have to project terror here? Keep in mind we have killer robots roaming the skies daily there.

 

[eight bits]

Craig B

That seems unjust.

But then I read in your next post, addressed to somebody else,

And how do you educate a threat?

Indeed. And how do you propose that I do justice to a threat?

A combination of capabilities and intentions arises, or else it does not. The capability to intentionally do me grievous bodily harm is the common heritage of humankind - that component of the threat has nothing whatsoever to do with the humans being Muslims or Orthodox Christians or liberal Quakers, as I have consistently posted throughout our exchange.

Other people's intentions are not directly available to me; I am not psychic. I must infer the intentions of other people from what they do and say. In making those inferences, which I acknowledge are imperfect, I may rationally consider their choice of reading material, especially if they express high regard for it as a guide to righteous behavior. If the reading material discusses people like me, and advises the reader about a course of action regarding such people, then I may "justly" identify a threat if the advised course of action is to mutilate my face.

We never reach the question of which reader might make good the threat. Insofar as the topic goes, Dr Harris (or I) hasn't claimed that the threat was embodied in the peaceable Muslim onion vendor; the claim was that the tenet brings about the threat, That, because it does threaten, in a way that "We really need to work on our faith to develop an effective apologetics which helps such people to see our point of view in a better light" would not bring about a threat.

The idea is toxic, apart from which heads host the idea. Nobody seems to have any difficulty perceiving other toxic ideas, like Matthew 27: 25, which is a proven toxic tenet.

And the whole people said in reply, “His blood be upon us and upon our children.”

The "whole people" are Jews, "his" refers to their rightful Lord, King and God (according to the author's pious readers). We require no more evidence of toxicity than Jews dead at the hands of Christians reciting the verse or alluding to it.

To say that is not to vent bigotry against Chrisitans, it is to identify the tenet as a threat to civil society. It is utterly irrelevant that many peaceable Christians can explain away why they profess that every jot and tittle of the canon is God's literal truth, but this verse isn't at all directed against Jews, nor fairly read as painting a bull's eye on their back. After all, some of their best friends are Jews.

Great. But the tenet is a tenet, and it is toxic. It is a threat, contributing to the "intentions" component of potential harm to identifiable people at the hands of other identifiable people.

Speech and writing are linear forms. I can only talk about one thing at a time. If the topic were suitable, then I'd talk about Matthew 27:25 as a proven threat to civil society. If the topic is how some author responded to a charge of "Islamophobia," then I'll talk about Muslim ideas - not because I am "unjust" to Muslims, but because Islamic ideas are the announced topic. Nobody is being picked on, and nobody is getting an undeserved pass.

I deny your accusation of injustice.

 

[Octavo]

If Islam had never come to be, it's likely the Middle East and North Africa would today very likely be dominated by Orthodox Christianity. If that were the case, would there be no hostility towards Israel, no suicide bombers, no prolonged US occupations, no terrorism originating from that reason because it would be Orthodox Christian instead of Islamic? Because that is the implication of claiming that the threat is something inherent to the nature of Islam.

You were asked about the Middle East and N Africa, but your response about a "threat to civil society" is a clear reference to an internal enemy. Thus you perceive Muslims to be an enemy within.

No, I was asked what my position would be if Islam did not exist and the Middle East and N Africa were ruled by Orthodox Christian theocracies. I assumed that in his comparison these states were as unjust/unstable as current Middle East and N African countries. This your conclusion that I perceive Muslims to be the enemy is incorrect. I perceive as a threat the hold that Islam has over those countries in that it is my belief that Islam contains tenets that spread harmful ideas.

I also believe Christianity has tenets that spread harmful ideas as well. My point being that of the two, I believe Islam to be the more direct, immediate threat.

If you were really rational about this, deriving the greatest threat from the religion with the greatest capacity to do harm, shouldn't you be more frightened of Christianity, specifically fundamentalist Christianity, which has a frightening level of access to the politics and practices of the United States, which is, by any reasonable measure, the institution capable of the greatest harm on earth at this time. We have nukes, a vast army, absurd resources and fundies egging on one war after another. What ability do fanatical Muslim regimes have to project terror here? Keep in mind we have killer robots roaming the skies daily there.

No, in fact, I believe I have addressed this point already. Evangelical (or fundamental if you prefer) Christianity in the US is also a threat, but I do not believe it outweighs the threat of Islam generally.

The US has shown that even with one of the most religious right-wing nut in control (Bush II), there are too many checks and balances in place for America to plausibly go off the deep end and start nuking the Middle East.

Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and several other Islamic theocracies either already posses nuclear weapons or are theoretically capable of getting their hands on them in fairly short order.

If however you can convince me that the Evangelicals in the US present a more immediate threat, then I'm willing to listen.

--------------

I would like to just make it clear once again, that I am not hear claiming to have all the answers. I only jumped in to the argument, because I do not believe that it is Islamophobic to hold this opinion.

 

[Craig B]

@eight bits

What I am exploring is this, from Octavo.

No, if that were the case, we might be arguing that Orthodox Christianity poses a threat to civil society and that such a view is not necessarily bigoted.

If he had written, "a threat to the country", eg the United States, in the manner of the 9/11 atrocity, then he would have been referring to the international Islamicist extremist movements which engage in violent acts, and are definable and identifiable, and not supported by the entirety of the mainstream Muslim communities in individual countries, by any means.

But the expression, threat to civil society, has different implications. That's a reference to an internal threat, allegedly derived from the character of Islam - the "tenets that spread harmful ideas". Now these tenets are in the religion professed by many peaceful US citizens. Therefore either you simply arrest those of them that commit violent crimes, and leave the others alone with their "tenets", or you "do something" about their religion. This is to include "education" presumably about its falsity, with the intention of inducing then to abandon it.

I have to say, I think that approach is very wrong. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Glasgow_International_Airport_attack This outrage, fortunately mitigated by the action of bystanders and the perpetrators' own incompetence, has created no demand for an examination of the tenets of Islam among Muslim Scots, or for their "education". And I think that would have been a wrong, counterproductive and unjust thing to have done. Thus I very much disagree with this.

lets first attempt to liberlise and educate the most serious threat, before going after less serious threats. The evangelical right in America is also a threat, but it's not likely that Texas will suddenly decide to go rogue and nuke Iran.

 

[zugzwang]

Surely, you have to distinguish tenets from practice, i.e. what people actually do. Thus, the Jewish Bible (OT) contains some horrendous tenets about stoning people to death for all kinds of offences. If orthodox Jews actually did these things, they would be locked up, but they don't.

There seems to be a conflation here between tenets and action, as if one automatically led to the other. Well, I suppose that is the fundie mind-set.

 

[Dubious Dick]

Perhaps the figures from the following can help identify how big a problem so called fundamental islam represents.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

For example, those who believe suicide bombing can be often justified or sometimes justified averages 13.5% in those countries where the question was asked.

If we extrapolate that to 1.5 billion muslims, that would be over 200 million.

Even half that figure would be worrying.

It seems fair to say that 'fundamental' islam is still a major threat, if not the only one.

Personally I have equal distaste for rc persistence in their murderous opposition to birth control, and 'fundamental' christian desires for the end of days etc etc.