Dare we criticize Islam…
…without being labeled racist, bigoted, or “Islamophobic”? Without being perceived as being a member of the religious and/or xenophobic Right? Without being accused of attacking “Muslims as a whole”?
In the media, in my entourage and also on the Sift, I am regularly confronted with the above-mentioned reactions when criticizing the religious ideology called “Islam” and some of its less positive effects in today’s world. There seems to be a bizarre hypocrisy amongst some atheistic or moderately religious progressives, which considers criticizing Christianity a-okay, commendable, a matter of rational response, but responds to criticism of Islam as ignorant racism, ethnocentric bigotry, cultural supremacy, the stuff of right-wing fundamentalists, etc., etc. For example, while Uganda’s “Kill the gays” bill, helped along by evangelical Christian missionaries, will generally be accepted as religion-influenced (if not downright religion-motivated), the negative effects of applying Islamic principles will be rationalized as the result of ethno-socio-political-etc factors (and, if possible, also the fault of “Western” colonization).
I understand that there might be a gag-reflex response to arguments that, on the surface, remind one of the hateful crap that right-wing xenophobes spew. How is it that the religious Right in the “West” seems to have the monopoly of criticizing Islam (when they’re not plain old fear-mongering)?
It seems to me that, on both ends of the political spectrum (and how I wish politics were not so often reduced to “Right” and “Left”), there is a fundamental error being made: “Islam” is being construed as a race/ethnicity, instead of the religious ideology that it is. The xenophobic Right uses this construal to stigmatize the “evil other/outsider/invader”, namely immigrants (especially the poor ones, and the black ones, because racism is never far away). The multiculturalist Left, on the other hand, while probably well-intentioned, uses this construal to stigmatize anyone who dares criticize Islam, while being lenient on its negative effects for fear of feeling “racist”, (seethis video on FGM in the UK for example) thus empowering its fundamentalists with the Victim Card (which they can stash neatly next to the Threat of Violence one).
One explanation for this stance, at least in Europe, is the confusing status of what it is to be a “Jew”. The word denotes one or both of two things: ethnic (i.e. “racial”) origins, and religious beliefs. This double definition is transferred, by both Right and Left (but with different agendas) to “Muslim”, where the ethnic origins blank is filled with the minority of choice: Arab, "Yugoslav", African in general, etc.
There is a primordial distinction to be made between who/what one is, and what one believes. A woman/Jew(ethnically)/homosexual/Arab/foreigner is that, generally not by choice; terms like misogyny/anti-Semitism/homophobia/xenophobia make sense. A communist/Muslim/theist/anti-vaxxer/democrat has certain beliefs, sometimes deeply ingrained (e.g. religious/superstitious beliefs), but when someone criticizes those beliefs, the ideologies that uphold them and their negative effects in society, they are not necessarily displaying any kind of irrational fear. Nor are they systematically criticizing or attacking every individual who holds such beliefs. The concept of “Islamophobia” is completely ridiculous, an insult to our intelligence, used primarily to shut down non-pc criticism. Whether it originated with Islamic fundamentalists or is the invention of the Left is a moot point: its stigmatization and censure of rational criticism serves above all the Islamist agenda.
On a more personal and Sift-related note, I recently made the mistake of promoting a video which I was already mistaken in posting (this one; read the comments, but no need to watch the video). Both of these mistakes were rage-induced; when I first saw the video I was so disgusted and enraged at this completely meaningless violence perpetrated in the name of Islam, that I posted the video “tel quel”, with a provocative title and description, as an illustration of mindless religious violence; no oil involved, no nationalist aspirations, no money, just pure, religious-spurred violence. When I promoted it, it was out of the frustration that this discussion caused me; I had powerpoints to spend, wanted to reach Silver, and irony would have it that I used the points awarded me with this video to make such an ill-advised choice. While I regret making such rash decisions (I am only human), and have since made up for it with a comprehensive documentary report on the subject (see link below), I do not regret criticizing certain ideologies, be they religious, political or otherwise, and will continue to do so. I am relatively new to the Sift, but from what I’ve experienced it seems a great place for rational and (more or less
) civil debate on controversial subjects (and also for cute cat videos); I look forward to attempting to contribute to its unique awesomeness!
Cheers, Sifters.
http://videosift.com/video/Islam-s-deadly-divide-Ahmadiyya-report
p.s.: pardon the post’s longishness, I intend on using it as a reference in future.
In the media, in my entourage and also on the Sift, I am regularly confronted with the above-mentioned reactions when criticizing the religious ideology called “Islam” and some of its less positive effects in today’s world. There seems to be a bizarre hypocrisy amongst some atheistic or moderately religious progressives, which considers criticizing Christianity a-okay, commendable, a matter of rational response, but responds to criticism of Islam as ignorant racism, ethnocentric bigotry, cultural supremacy, the stuff of right-wing fundamentalists, etc., etc. For example, while Uganda’s “Kill the gays” bill, helped along by evangelical Christian missionaries, will generally be accepted as religion-influenced (if not downright religion-motivated), the negative effects of applying Islamic principles will be rationalized as the result of ethno-socio-political-etc factors (and, if possible, also the fault of “Western” colonization).
I understand that there might be a gag-reflex response to arguments that, on the surface, remind one of the hateful crap that right-wing xenophobes spew. How is it that the religious Right in the “West” seems to have the monopoly of criticizing Islam (when they’re not plain old fear-mongering)?
It seems to me that, on both ends of the political spectrum (and how I wish politics were not so often reduced to “Right” and “Left”), there is a fundamental error being made: “Islam” is being construed as a race/ethnicity, instead of the religious ideology that it is. The xenophobic Right uses this construal to stigmatize the “evil other/outsider/invader”, namely immigrants (especially the poor ones, and the black ones, because racism is never far away). The multiculturalist Left, on the other hand, while probably well-intentioned, uses this construal to stigmatize anyone who dares criticize Islam, while being lenient on its negative effects for fear of feeling “racist”, (seethis video on FGM in the UK for example) thus empowering its fundamentalists with the Victim Card (which they can stash neatly next to the Threat of Violence one).
One explanation for this stance, at least in Europe, is the confusing status of what it is to be a “Jew”. The word denotes one or both of two things: ethnic (i.e. “racial”) origins, and religious beliefs. This double definition is transferred, by both Right and Left (but with different agendas) to “Muslim”, where the ethnic origins blank is filled with the minority of choice: Arab, "Yugoslav", African in general, etc.
There is a primordial distinction to be made between who/what one is, and what one believes. A woman/Jew(ethnically)/homosexual/Arab/foreigner is that, generally not by choice; terms like misogyny/anti-Semitism/homophobia/xenophobia make sense. A communist/Muslim/theist/anti-vaxxer/democrat has certain beliefs, sometimes deeply ingrained (e.g. religious/superstitious beliefs), but when someone criticizes those beliefs, the ideologies that uphold them and their negative effects in society, they are not necessarily displaying any kind of irrational fear. Nor are they systematically criticizing or attacking every individual who holds such beliefs. The concept of “Islamophobia” is completely ridiculous, an insult to our intelligence, used primarily to shut down non-pc criticism. Whether it originated with Islamic fundamentalists or is the invention of the Left is a moot point: its stigmatization and censure of rational criticism serves above all the Islamist agenda.
On a more personal and Sift-related note, I recently made the mistake of promoting a video which I was already mistaken in posting (this one; read the comments, but no need to watch the video). Both of these mistakes were rage-induced; when I first saw the video I was so disgusted and enraged at this completely meaningless violence perpetrated in the name of Islam, that I posted the video “tel quel”, with a provocative title and description, as an illustration of mindless religious violence; no oil involved, no nationalist aspirations, no money, just pure, religious-spurred violence. When I promoted it, it was out of the frustration that this discussion caused me; I had powerpoints to spend, wanted to reach Silver, and irony would have it that I used the points awarded me with this video to make such an ill-advised choice. While I regret making such rash decisions (I am only human), and have since made up for it with a comprehensive documentary report on the subject (see link below), I do not regret criticizing certain ideologies, be they religious, political or otherwise, and will continue to do so. I am relatively new to the Sift, but from what I’ve experienced it seems a great place for rational and (more or less
) civil debate on controversial subjects (and also for cute cat videos); I look forward to attempting to contribute to its unique awesomeness!Cheers, Sifters.
http://videosift.com/video/Islam-s-deadly-divide-Ahmadiyya-report
p.s.: pardon the post’s longishness, I intend on using it as a reference in future.
36 Comments
enochnice post my friend.
i just went to the discussion you were talking about with the sam harris video.
i agree with so many of your points here concerning criticism and discussion concerning religion but when it comes to islam many westerners are unaware of the current schism in regards to islam.
there are many,a majority actually,of moderate muslims who read the quran much like a modern day catholic may read the bible.
one of the reasons you can chastise and criticize christianity with impunity is due to the reformation hundreds of years ago.this was not the case hundreds of years ago when the church ruled with an iron and unforgiving fist.we are no longer compelled to obey the edicts of the church.
if you dared to criticize the church in those days you risked being labeled an apostate,a heretic and subject to the most severe punishments and possible torture..even death in some instances.
now let us place you in indonesia or uganda.where the ruling class consists of a modern day theocracy.would you be as quick to criticize knowing that you may be executed? your family punished along side you?
so when i defend islam,i do so with these things in mind.
because what we are talking about is wholesale exploitation of the uneducated and the extremely poor dominated by those who would pervert a system of belief for their own gains.the EXACT same thing the christian church did so many years ago.
for those who would like to understand the current state of islam and the internal struggles concerning islamic theosophy might i suggest rerza aslan's "no god but god".a fantastic book that addresses the very thing that we are talking about here.
RyjkyjHere at Videosift, we heavily criticize every religion.
quantumushroomExcept socialism.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
Here at Videosift, we heavily criticize every religion.
SkeeveI think that another facet of the perceived difference between our (the Sift's) treatment of Islam vs Christianity is that most of us are from "Western" nations wherein Christianity is the religion most likely to influence us on a daily basis. I am far more worried about Christian fundamentalists and their anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-evolution stances and their ability to influence my government (and the governments of other Western nations).
It's not that I don't find Islam reprehensible garbage, I do, but it has less influence on me overall.
Maybe this is a shortsighted view. Islam may be more dangerous in the long run, but it is the cigarette smoking to Christianity's skydiving: both can kill, one is just going to take a lot longer to kill me.
Ryjkyj>> ^quantumushroom:
Except socialism.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
Here at Videosift, we heavily criticize every religion.
No, we have that one covered too, seeing as how socialism is such an important part the teachings of Jesus Christ.
hpqpJust to make it clear, I am not saying we shouldn't criticise Christianity, only pointing out the double standard I sometimes face. As a secular humanist and antitheist, I find it discouraging that others who share my ethical stances would make an exception for Islam.
@enoch
All religions have multiple facets, and the large majority of people, no matter their faith or lack thereof, will usually lean towards an empathetic lifestyle. This does not change the problems with religions' core ideologies. You are right to mention the historical context and relativity; what I deplore is that what was more or less the norm in the Iron Age has been enshrined in holy writ, the good with the bad. Contrary to the writings of the philosophers, which one can debate without fear, sacred texts must not be questioned.
dystopianfuturetodayI completely agree. Islam sets pits various liberal principals against one another - respect and tolerance for other cultures, and sympathy for the massive loss of life Muslims have suffered at the hands of the west on the one hand - disgust at the brutality and misogyny of segments of Islam on the other.
Complicating matters is that most westerners are fairly ignorant of Islam, and most representations of Muslims in the media (both news and entertainment) are usually fairly racist.
I think the double standard between criticizing Christianity and Islam is because we feel more comfortable criticizing the well known religion of our own culture than we do a foreign and exotic religion of another culture.
I also think there is some subtle liberal racism mixed in as well, seeing Muslims as primatives not subject to the same moral and ethical codes that we sophisticated westerners are.
There is an interesting debate that touches on some of these issues here: http://videosift.com/video/Religion-Politics-and-the-End-of-the-World
*quality writing.
siftbotAwarding hpqp with one star point for this contribution to VideoSift - declared quality by dystopianfuturetoday.
hpqpThanks for the quality and the link! I absolutely agree about the subtle racism towards foreigners coming from Islamic countries (and "3rd world" countries in general). It comes up also when some liberals see everything bad happening in ex-colonies as solely the fault of colonisation; as if the only people who can fundamentally influence society are the Westerners.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I completely agree. Islam sets pits various liberal principals against one another - respect and tolerance for other cultures, and sympathy for the massive loss of life Muslims have suffered at the hands of the west on the one hand - disgust at the brutality and misogyny of segments of Islam on the other.
Complicating matters is that most westerners are fairly ignorant of Islam, and most representations of Muslims in the media (both news and entertainment) are usually fairly racist.
I think the double standard between criticizing Christianity and Islam is because we feel more comfortable criticizing the well known religion of our own culture than we do a foreign and exotic religion of another culture.
I also think there is some subtle liberal racism mixed in as well, seeing Muslims as primatives not subject to the same moral and ethical codes that we sophisticated westerners are.
There is an interesting debate that touches on some of these issues here: http://videosift.com/video/Religion-Politics-and-the-End-of-the-World
quality writing.
hpqpOn the importance of beliefs and how being a "moderate" does not help:
Farhad2000Dare we criticize Israel?
Farhad2000Furthermore people forget that Islam represents 22% of world population. Much of it not in the Middle East. If the religion was so shit it wouldn't have taken every other religion out there.
TheGenk>> ^Ryjkyj:
Here at Videosift, we heavily criticize every religion.
What about Jainism?
SDGundamX@hpqp
Thanks for the heads-up about the post. And thanks for clearly detailing your position on the matter. If I may, I’d like to explain my opinion on the topic.
Is it wrong to “criticize Islam?” In a civilized society that values free speech, clearly the answer is no. But free speech is a two-way street. If it is acceptable to criticize Islam, then clearly it is just as acceptable that such criticism be open to criticism in return. In short, just because a person thinks their opinion on a particular matter is correct doesn’t make it so. And if a person can’t handle someone disagreeing with their opinion… well we all know the adage about people who live in glass houses.
My major objection to people like Sam Harris is not that I believe religion or in particular Islam is some off-limit topic of criticism. No. My major objection to Sam Harris is that rather than criticize Islam he instead tries to inspire fear of it—and, by association, Muslims as well (i.e. No one lies awake at night worrying about the Amish—but those Muslims on the other hand…). Many of his arguments seem to be based on fear, misunderstanding, exaggeration, oversimplification, and in of some cases apparent intentional misrepresentation of not only Islam but other religions such as Jainism as well. They often lack any sort of evidence (i.e. Islam is the religion causing the greatest amount of suffering in the world) yet we are expected to swallow their truth without doubt. And when someone raises these criticisms of his supposed criticism? Rather than actually defend his claims and provide solid evidence in support of them he instead insinuates we’re just too “liberal”—too culturally relativistic— to see the danger that he sees.
Sam Harris is free to criticize Islam. In fact, I’m eagerly looking forward to the day when he actually starts doing so (in the dictionary sense of the term). In the meantime, I dismiss his arguments as both unsupported and intended to intentionally stir up both fear and prejudice against Islam and its followers.
Next, I’d like to address the issue of Islamophobia—prejudice against, hatred, or fear of Islam and Muslims. Islamophobia doesn’t exist? I think the 200,000 Muslims killed and 50,000 Muslim women raped during the Bosnian Genocide would disagree with that statement. So would Iranian-American Zohreh Assemik, who was sliced with a boxcutter, kicked, had her hand smashed with a hammer, and had anti-Muslim slurs written on the mirrors of her nail and facial salon. So would pretty much anyone who played Muslim Massacre: The Game of Modern Religious Genocide in which you get to kill not only terrorists but Muslim civilians as well.
Frankly, @hpqp, I’m surprised. All of our conversations on the Sift have been reasonable, if a bit passionate at times. I think you would be just as shocked if I were to suddenly proclaim there is no such thing as Antisemitism as I was to read your statement in this thread. Islamophobia (as defined above) is quite real. No, claims of Islamophobia should not be used to shut down criticism of Islam (any more than claims of Antisemitism should be used to squelch criticism of Israeli policies). But that’s a far cry from claiming Islamophobia doesn’t exist, isn’t it?
You seem like a reasonable guy. I know you’ve tried your best to explain it to me but I still don’t understand why you believe so strongly that Islam itself—and not particular interpretations of Islam—are such a threat. So let's do something different. I’ve asked you this before, but you didn’t reply, so I’ll ask you again—what do you/Harris hope to achieve with all of this vitriol? What’s the goal? What do you hope to see happen? What’s the endgame? I ask these questions because I think the answers will really help me see where you are coming from and to understand your point of view.
hpqp@SDGundamX
I will admit right away, I'm trying very hard right now to suppress a rage-response. I'm all about civil debate, but I hate repeating myself. So instead of doing so for the nth time, may I suggest you reread our discussion under the Harris video, then reread my Sifttalk post again, and then reread what you just wrote.
Please pay attention to the following points:
- what you accuse Harris and myself of arguing
- what Harris and I are actually arguing
- what you argue in the above comment, and the evidence you give
- the arguments you used to refute the evidence I gave you
Does a certain tendency show? I'll give you a hint: the word starts with "h", and ends with "y".
You disagree with Harris' assertion that Islam is the religion causing the most harm in the world. Please tell me which one you think it is then.
on Islamophobia (did you even read the distinction between is/believes?):
Islam: the religious (ideology) faith of Muslims, based on the words and religious system founded by the prophet Muhammad and taught by the Qur'an, the basic principle of which is absolute submission to a unique and personal god, Allah.
phobia: a persistent, irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling desire to avoid it.
After reading the citations of the Qur'an that I sent you, and after seeing the effect of putting those doctrines to action (e.g. Sharia), can you honestly tell me that fearing the spread of such an ideology is irrational? You talk about "particular interpretations", dancing around the fact that there is only one Qur'an, written in a pretty clear language. Why should we, as critics, beat around the bush at symptoms instead of attacking the core ideology?
As for Islamophobia as "prejudice against, hatred, or fear" against muslims themselves (it should be called Muslimphobia), yes, it does exist, although the term is hardly ever used in that sense. The examples you give are not brilliant either (but you should be able to see that for yourself, right?). If you're suggesting that the kind of criticism of Islam that Harris makes could encourage such Muslimphobia, than you are even more mislead than I imagined.
(also, what makes you think I'm a guy? just curious)
hpqpThose silly Jains, promoting celibacy and asceticism! What if their kids wanna party hard? Oh well, it's not like they can spank'em
(...maybe that's why the celibacy)
>> ^TheGenk:
>> ^Ryjkyj:
Here at Videosift, we heavily criticize every religion.
What about Jainism?
hpqpFuck yeah.
>> ^Farhad2000:
Dare we criticize Israel?
hpqpUh, you do know that more often than not it was spread, like Christianity, at the edge of the sword, right? Conquest, colonisation, slave trade, same old same old.
>> ^Farhad2000:
Furthermore people forget that Islam represents 22% of world population. Much of it not in the Middle East. If the religion was so shit it wouldn't have taken every other religion out there.
blankfistDare we criticize anything without the ban hammer coming out?
Farhad2000Naa. Islam reached 1 billion in the 21st century.
The assumption you are making is that it's been spreading at the knife edge from what the Moor times?
>> ^hpqp:
Uh, you do know that more often than not it was spread, like Christianity, at the edge of the sword, right? Conquest, colonisation, slave trade, same old same old.
>> ^Farhad2000:
Furthermore people forget that Islam represents 22% of world population. Much of it not in the Middle East. If the religion was so shit it wouldn't have taken every other religion out there.
marinaraI'm "of two minds" (a fine conservative blog BTW).
I have to ask the question, should everyone be invited to the subtle discussions?
When people tried to exclude me from conversation on the basis that I'm ignorant, I couldn't handle being excluded!
Now I'm thinking there's something to be said for keeping people out. Just so we can have an uninterrupted conversation.
(I'm old enough to remember when AOL put all of it's members onto usenet)
marinaraAlso, people who want to win arguments/convince others, usually don't listen. do they?
hpqpI think you meant to post this here.
>> ^blankfist:
Dare we criticize anything without the ban hammer coming out?
hpqpHow did Christianity get to Europe? Conquest. To the Americas? Conquest and colonisation. To Africa? Colonisation, slave trade. To Australasia? Colonisation. Does that mean that these means have been taking place all the way 'till now? Of course not. After a few generations of growing up with the imposed religion, you forget it was imposed in the first place. Unless you were "cleansed", then there are no next generations.
Same story with Islam. Only eventual difference: violent conquest/conversion is directly condoned, one could even say "ordained", by the holy text (e.g. 2:191-3/2:216); oh, and the prophet was also a tribal leader and war general, unlike the possibly fictional Jeebs of the Christians.
I'm not saying people don't convert, just that the majority of religion's spread is through breeding and childhood indoctrination, and that the origins of the desert monotheisms' spread (especially Christianity and Islam) was conquest and colonisation* so your original comment does not seem to be making any relevant point.
*edit: add to that the continual use of majority pressure and intimidation, especially when religion is part of a country's legal and political system.
>> ^Farhad2000:
Naa. Islam reached 1 billion in the 21st century.
The assumption you are making is that it's been spreading at the knife edge from what the Moor times?
>> ^hpqp:
Uh, you do know that more often than not it was spread, like Christianity, at the edge of the sword, right? Conquest, colonisation, slave trade, same old same old.
>> ^Farhad2000:
Furthermore people forget that Islam represents 22% of world population. Much of it not in the Middle East. If the religion was so shit it wouldn't have taken every other religion out there.
blankfist>> ^hpqp:
I think you meant to post this here.
>> ^blankfist:
Dare we criticize anything without the ban hammer coming out?
Did I? Or was this another thread hijack drive-by!
Farhad2000Whereas nation states where religion is part of the law of the land. Well look at those nations. These are isolated states that have remained in a development vacuum but got rich off selling oil. There is no freedom of speech or democracy in those states. The very fact that the first world deals with say OPEC allows the theocracy to be sustained in those nations.
Religion was a form of government for most of Europe. Then we had the enlightenment, democracy, revolution, kings, wars, history and so on. Religious denominations in Europe are now rapidly fading. This process never occured in the Middle East. Suddenly they have BILLIONS to spend on spreading their 'faith' as a form of government intervention. Saudi Arabia building schools in Pakistan that eventually created the Taliban was not an act of religious domination but a ham fisted attempt at geopolitics via religious doctrine. Because for some fucking reason the Saudis believed the Taliban would actually listen to them or something LOL. (Is this of course ignoring specific political issues of the time, USSR, evil empire, Regean, cold war, US allies with Saudi Arabia, fighting proxy wars, stinger missiles, Charlie Wilson and so on).
Saudi Arabia is cool because its such a fucking relic of government policy they have little room for any type of social policy because that is dictat by Religion. Thus their policies stem from it. They are like evil but religiously ahaha so they just fund fundamentalists everywhere thinking it will give them political clout and power when in reality it backfires. Kinda like this US thing where it's like FREEDOM FOR ALL... THROUGH FUCKING DAISY CUTTERS. To Save Iraq We have to destroy it. To save Afghanistan. We have to keep sending troops for a dubious objective. Oh wait let's pull out now. etc.
Fundamentally we have to appreciate the fact that religion is but a theory of the that explained things prior to science. With the rise of science, it tried to fight it. Finally slowly it's either merging or being eliminated or reconstituted in new ideological belief sets.
What I mean to say is that it's only through the evolution of man, knowledge and ideas that humanity has reached a point where it starts to doubt a very flawed perception of reality. First gods were manifest everywhere. Then they were nature. Then they are ghosts. Now we are supposed to believe or have faith.
Those of a stronger mental make up could possibly accept that we live and die and that is the end. Others cling to religion because it is safe. Others believe in living eternally through genes, about the only thing we consistently carry on through time.
Time will see the end of man man religions, into new constructs of stupidity, because science still, while providing much of the answers lacks many fundamental resolutions for most issues at the core of religious belief. Time will tell us all. But so far so good.
>> ^hpqp:
How did Christianity get to Europe? Conquest. To the Americas? Conquest and colonisation. To Africa? Colonisation, slave trade. To Australasia? Colonisation. Does that mean that these means have been taking place all the way 'till now? Of course not. After a few generations of growing up with the imposed religion, you forget it was imposed in the first place. Unless you were "cleansed", then there are no next generations.
Same story with Islam. Only eventual difference: violent conquest/conversion is directly condoned, one could even say "ordained", by the holy text (e.g. 2:191-3/2:216); oh, and the prophet was also a tribal leader and war general, unlike the possibly fictional Jeebs of the Christians.
I'm not saying people don't convert, just that the majority of religion's spread is through breeding and childhood indoctrination, and that the origins of the desert monotheisms' spread (especially Christianity and Islam) was conquest and colonisation so your original comment does not seem to be making any relevant point.
edit: add to that the continual use of majority pressure and intimidation, especially when religion is part of a country's legal and political system.
>> ^Farhad2000:
Naa. Islam reached 1 billion in the 21st century.
The assumption you are making is that it's been spreading at the knife edge from what the Moor times?
>> ^hpqp:
Uh, you do know that more often than not it was spread, like Christianity, at the edge of the sword, right? Conquest, colonisation, slave trade, same old same old.
>> ^Farhad2000:
Furthermore people forget that Islam represents 22% of world population. Much of it not in the Middle East. If the religion was so shit it wouldn't have taken every other religion out there.
peggedbea1. i don't care which religion you giggle at. or don't. whatever.
2. I only get irritated when religious people talk shit about mormons.
3. i dont get irritated when people without religious affiliations talk shit about mormons.
4. i'm just glad to see farhad in this thread.
5. don't fuck with the jains. they're beautiful. their thousands of years old tenets also resemble some kind of primitive metaphor for what would become quantum mechanics. i love them more than life itself.
hpqp@Farhad2000
Great post, love the satirical take on pathetic excuses for the US's many wars in the Middle East. Moreover, what you say about humanity's stupidity is sadly all too true.
That being said, I have one last contention to bring up with your first comment on Islam (because I'm a contrary little bitch): if a religious ideology's worth is to be based on its capacity to increase in numbers, then wouldn't recent sects like scientology and mormonism be the best the world has to offer, taking into account the growth rate over time? (yes, it's a rhetorical question; scientology and mormonism are both full of shit)
SDGundamX@hpqp
I'm sorry you feel enraged. That wasn't the purpose of my post at all. As I tried to state clearly in the original post, I wanted to tell you my opinion on the issue. That's all. I wasn't trying to convince you I was right because honestly I don't think I could every provide you with enough evidence to change your mind. All I can do is tell you why I listen to the same things Harris says and see a different picture being painted than you do.
The underlined part is, I think, where our disagreement comes from. You seem to believe that everyone must see things in one way. For example, you keep citing the Koran as evidence of Islam's evil. My response to that is the same as Antonio Scalia's recent response in the Supreme Court ruling that allows video games to be covered under the 1st Amendment of the Constitution: "All literature is essentially interactive." In other words, all literature is interpreted by its readers. Whatever intent writers may have had when penning a work, once it is out of their hands and is distributed, that message is no longer the only valid interpretation. This is especially true for a work of literature whose author has been dead for over 1000 years.
There is not--there cannot be--one interpretation of Islam. Islam is a religion practiced by 1.5 billion people around the world in over 232 countries and territories. These people come from wildly different socioeconomic backgrounds, ethnicity, nationalities, education levels, and so forth. Even a cursory glance at the statistics hints at what an investigation of how Islam is practiced around the world makes clear--Islam as a religion is realized in the world very differently by people depending on a huge variety of factors including (but not limited to) local tradition, history, the socio-economic status of the practitioners, etc. They may agree with other practitioners around the world on some basic facts (Allah is the one true God, Mohommand was God's prophet) but they disagree on a great many other things. Ironically Sam Harris himself glaringly points out this disagreement in his own talks--for example when he states that 1/3 of British Muslims want to live under Sharia law... which necessarily implies that 2/3 of British Muslims don't.
So we have the “teachings” of Islam (as codified in the Koran, Hadith, and Sufi texts), we also have the widely differing interpretation and actualization of those teachings, and we also have the people (who may—as in the case of Al-Queda terrorists—have ambitions far beyond simply being a Muslim who follows the teachings as best as possible) who are doing the interpreting and actualization. Adding to the complexity is the transformation of Islamic ideas into a political ideology.
So when Sam Harris wants to criticize Islam, one of the first questions I have for him is... which one? Yet he (and you) seem to be insisting that there is only one proper way to read the Koran--only one possible way to interpret it that represents all of Islam. I find that fascinating because that is exactly the same view that fundamentalists have. The fact that millions of Muslims and non-Muslims alike--from all backgrounds including laypeople, theologians, and scholars--have widely different views about how to interpret and actualize what is written in the Koran and Hadiths demonstrates to me that this view--this fundamentalist view that Harris (and you) seem to embrace--is completely incorrect.
No, the Koran is not "pretty clear" at all. There are multiple differing translations of the Koran. There are multiple differing interpretations of those translations. And there are multiple ways in which Islam is realized in the world (radical fundamentalism, Sufism, etc.). Unlike Christianity, which gives us no end of labels for the differing interpretations of the Bible and how Christianity should be practiced (Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Unitarian, Mormon, Greek Orthodox, Armenian, and so on...) Islam does not have nearly as many labels for its differing interpretations. But those differing interpretations quite clearly exist. Even if such labels existed for Islam, we know from Christianity that within a similar group of Christians (Unitarians for instance) there is even further differentiation and interpretation between different regions, churches, and even individuals in beliefs and practices.
So, in short, to answer your question about why I don't read Harris and agree with what he say: I think the fundamental premise of his argument is wrong. His argument against "Islam" breaks down completely if he acknowledges that there can be multiple interpretations of the Koran. The fact that he is an extremely well-educated man who refuses to admit that these differing interpretations even exist hurts his credibility in my eyes even further. I hope that makes my position clear.
Thanks for reading my long-winded posts. And just to reiterate, I'm seriously not trying to convince you of anything at this point. I'm stating my opinion on the topic. That's all.
P.S. I apologize for assuming you were a guy. Because we kept bumping into each other in the same vids, I figured we had similar video preferences. I guess I figured it was more likely a guy would be interested in those vids than a girl. My mistake.
P.S. 2 Could you please, please, please, please, PLEASE, answer the question that I've been asking you across two threads and several comments now? What's Harris's/your desired goal? What's the endgame? What are you both hoping to achieve with all of this?
SDGundamX@hpqp
You asked me which religion is causing the most harm in the world. My reply is that 1) it's a silly question not worth answering, because the answer proves nothing, 2) even if we were to take the question seriously it would be unanswerable, 3) even if it were answerable it does not logically follow that we should strive to eliminate the religion.
In regards to point 1):
Assume for the sake of argument that every religion in the world was completely pacifist. No violence is ever allowed--even in self-defense. All religions also require vegetarianism of their followers. Now assume a new religion comes along--one which is still pacifist but now allows people to eat meat. That religion has now become the religion causing the most "harm" in the world. "Harm," "misery," whatever term you like to choose--they are wholly subjective terms and have absolutely no meaning without a context or comparison.
Which brings us to 2):
Because "harm," "misery," etc. are subjective, the question is unanswerable. Are you only including physical harm? What about psychological harm? Are you specifying harm done to humans? To all animals? To the environment? Once you finally decide on what the term actually means, how do you intend to quantify it? To measure it? How are you going to convince everyone that both your definition and your measurements are correct? How are you going to isolate religion as the cause from other factors (cultural, socio-economic, and so forth)? How are you going to make sure that you get enough data to make a judgment from all the religions that exist in the world? How are you going to account for the different population sizes of those religions. For example, if only one person follows a religion--but that religion requires him to rape and murder every person he comes across--does that religion cause less misery than another which allows violence in self-defense but has millions of adherents and therefore, as a group, kills a higher number of people than the solitary sadist can ever hope to achieve?
3):
But let's say--just for the sake of argument--that somehow you were able to account for ALL of those factors and actually come up with proof that one particular religion caused more harm or misery than all the others in the world.
The answer is still meaningless.
How much good does the religion cause? Surely this is a mitigating factor? You wouldn't want to eliminate from the world a religion that, perhaps because of the overwhelming number of its adherents--many of whom have differing interpretations of how the religion should be practiced--happens to be both the greatest cause of good and the greatest cause of misery at the same time would you? That wouldn't be very rational at all. Therefore, even assuming we could answer the question, it does not follow that the next best step is eliminate that religion.
This is why I call on Sam Harris--a scientist--to prove his argument that Islam is causing the most harm in the world. He can't. He knows he can't. Yet he makes the claim anyway. And that's despicable in my opinion. He's banking on the fact that no one is going to think very deeply about these statements he makes because he says them with such an air of certainty. He's counting on his listeners not to make a decision based on empirical evidence but instead on emotion. And that's just plain disgraceful for someone who considers himself a scientist.
hpqp@SDGundamX
*takes a deep breath*
Okay,you do get one thing partially right: while Harris and I are arguing one thing, you insist on hearing something else. We say "religion", "Islam", "ideology", and all you seem to hear is "Muslims". I've already repeatedly rejected your strawman understanding of our arguments, I won't do it again (when I said you should reread, I was not joking).
Since speaking plainly doesn't seem to reach you, lets try some analogy:
If the law of religion X, as stated in its founding texts, says that prostitutes should be put to death, as well as anyone who lets their hair grow out after wearing it short all their life; that exhibitionists should have their junk cut off; that short people are worth half as much as tall people, and should wear 10-inch highheels at all times; but "only" 33% of Xites in your country want X law to be enforced, should you fear for the state of human rights in that country (and for those poor, unethically raised Xite kids who would answer such a thing)? And what about the countries were such laws are actually being enforced? What about the increase of short people having their legs broken (in X and non-X countries) because they were not wearing high heels, so were "asking for it"?
Of course I'm not worried, why should I be? Look at all the "good" Xites are doing! X provides a sense of meaning, community, etc. Xites do charity, too! What? All that can and is done by non Xites as well? But why?? Where do they get their morals from?? And why would anyone want to criticize X? What could possibly be their endgame?? (you see the point I hope)
"Harm and misery" are subjective? Are you serious? With such a grossly unethical (and scientifically wrong) argument, I'm starting to wonder if you're arguing just for the sake of it, in which case go argue with shinyblurry, he likes repeating himself: I don't.
As for the "many denominations/interpretations" argument, have you ever heard a so-called "New Atheist" addressing a particular denomination instead of the shared ideology at the core when criticising religion? Why should that be in any way a mitigating factor? Yes, there are different takes on the core ideology (which we call by its name, be it Christianity or Islam), some more influenced by the progress made in the domains of morality and science (which are the same for all humans, i.e. secular, i.e. do not have their source in religion) than others. As I stated in a comment above, I'm pretty sure I can safely assert that the large majority of humans, regardless their creed or lack thereof, live empathetic and peaceful lives. Do I have to stress that that includes muslims?
Also, who's talking about "eliminating" religions? I'm sure most of us antitheists would love to be able to click our fingers and have all those backwards and inherently tyrannical ideologies disappear (and all the new-age woo and pseudo-science too), but I doubt any of us are so naive as to think such a thing possible. Instead, by raising awareness to religion's negative effects, we hope that people will eventually grow out of it, and speak up to fight (with ideas and reason; we're not the fundies) those who want such ideologies to effect our lives and others', especially when those effects are unethical and cause real "harm and misery". (srsly, I still can't believe you'd say such an ignorant, relativist thing)
You are not obliged to answer this post, but if you do, please, please, please, PLEASE try to grasp the arguments you are opposing; because if I get another strawman/hypocrisy-filled response I will simply ignore it. As you can tell, having to deal with such responses make me frustrated, and waste my time (I do not have the composure and patience of a, say, Sam Harris).
p.s.: "transformation of Islam into a political ideology"? Do you read the links you post? If you did, you might have come across this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_aspects_of_Islam
(Suggestion: don't say you have no intention of enraging a secular humanist and antitheist (that's me), and follow up with something like "I don't think I could ever[y] provide you with enough evidence to change your mind". Remember that H-word I was accusing you of? This is another example.)
SDGundamX@hpqp
Thanks as always for taking the time to write a detailed response.
I'm sorry, but I won't respond to the comments made in your most recent post until you answer my question. It is the same question as it always has been:
Q: What do you and/or Harris hope to achieve with all this (by this I mean the talks, articles, heated Internet arguments, etc)?
I hate repeating myself too, but as I teacher I have learned that it is often necessary to do so--several times--before people actually hear what you are saying, whether it be giving instructions for a class activity or telling someone your opinion on the Internet. That's why I gave you the courtesy of re-writing my question above.
I would ask a little more courtesy, patience, and understanding of you as well. If you are serious about achieving you goal (whatever that may be--I don't mean that sarcastically, I really do look forward to reading about it) and convincing others of your cause, I think you'll find that you'll have to repeat yourself many, many times... and not get enraged when people don't understand what you are saying or agree with your conclusions (even when they do understand). They key is to say things in a way that the other person will understand the message. Clearly neither of us have been successful so far in doing this. And that is why I have been begging you to answer my question, because I feel it will really help me understand your/Harris's position.
Looking forward to your reply.
P.S. I didn't get any email notification of that last post... not sure why. That's why it took so long for me to reply.
gwiz665@SDGundamX The endgame is the eradication of all religions, starting with the clearly most violent one.
Harm is a very fluid term, because reality is subjective, but there are objective truths we can hold to, and there are points of view that are more valid than others. As far as I understand it, this is what Sam Harris is trying to elaborate on in the Moral Landscape, which I still haven't read, sadly.
SDGundamX@gwiz665
Thanks for your post. If that truly is Harris's endgame, then all I can say is he is going about it in a very bizarre way. The only way to eradicate Islam would be to either convince the people who practice it to stop practicing it... or to eliminate all of the practitioners. I don't see him really advocating the second option, but I also don't see anything in his arguments that are likely to bring about the 1st option either. As far as I can tell, his plan seems to be to convince non-Muslims how awful Islam is... and then what? Are they going to outlaw it? I don't see that working very well--it'll just go underground and in all likelihood become even more radicalized. So how do you get people to stop practicing Islam then?
hpqp@SDGundamX
Bieng aware of a problem is the first step to dealing with it; I think that is what Harris is at, and it is definitely part of my point/goal (cf. the original SiftTalk post above).
I'm on vacations till end of next week, so wont be able to expound or till then.
cheers.
SDGundamX@hpqp
Thanks for taking the time to reply before you head out. Enjoy your break!
EDIT: *sigh* another quote-fail
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.