angelo
Deleted
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/lifting-the-veil-of-islamophobia
An interview between Sam Harris and Hirsi Ali.
Comments.
An interview between Sam Harris and Hirsi Ali.
Comments.
-
Features
Lifting the Veil of “Islamophobia”
- Thread starter angelo
- Start date
There goes Harris again, lamenting us fascistic liberals, labeling a woman an Islamophobe because she, you know, aligns herself with the worst elements of the far right, speaks about Muslims in a way that would never be tolerated were it any other group and has publicly called for stripping them of their constitutional rights.
Yeah, it's almost as if we actually care about the values we claim to uphold.
Yeah, it's almost as if we actually care about the values we claim to uphold.
One looks at the Muslim world.
Brunei is adopting sharia law. SaudiArabia and the UAE have sharia law with UAE being more moderate inthe extreme punishments. Iran. Pakistan. Bangladesh. Turkey,Malaysia, ad Indonesia are considered moderate but there is aconstant struggle with conservative Muslims. Nigeria.
A phobia is an unwarranted fear orapprehension about something.
Given the world as it is it is not aphobia.
The woman's experience in NL having tolive in hiding out of fear of assassination for her views on women’srights Iin opposition to Islam. The murder of the movie producer.
She is right, multiculturalism asopposed to assimilation and melting pot is a failure. In the extremewe see the problem of multiculturalism playing out in Ukraine.Kurds in Turkey. Israelis vs Palestinians. Shiite vs Sunni. Arab vs Persian.
The Muslim religion and the culturespeople emigrate from are fundamentally anathema to westerncivilization. A different intellectual history, psychology, and worldview.
Of course everybody knows a Muslim whois a nice person.
Islam on the face of it does nottolerate me. I do not want it, I do not want to be around it. Whatis the point of tolerating a group and making allowances when thereis no reciprocation?
Brunei is adopting sharia law. SaudiArabia and the UAE have sharia law with UAE being more moderate inthe extreme punishments. Iran. Pakistan. Bangladesh. Turkey,Malaysia, ad Indonesia are considered moderate but there is aconstant struggle with conservative Muslims. Nigeria.
A phobia is an unwarranted fear orapprehension about something.
Given the world as it is it is not aphobia.
The woman's experience in NL having tolive in hiding out of fear of assassination for her views on women’srights Iin opposition to Islam. The murder of the movie producer.
She is right, multiculturalism asopposed to assimilation and melting pot is a failure. In the extremewe see the problem of multiculturalism playing out in Ukraine.Kurds in Turkey. Israelis vs Palestinians. Shiite vs Sunni. Arab vs Persian.
The Muslim religion and the culturespeople emigrate from are fundamentally anathema to westerncivilization. A different intellectual history, psychology, and worldview.
Of course everybody knows a Muslim whois a nice person.
Islam on the face of it does nottolerate me. I do not want it, I do not want to be around it. Whatis the point of tolerating a group and making allowances when thereis no reciprocation?
Ayaan Hirsi Ali says things that are not consistent with your liberal values?
What are you liberals a such a big fan of? Genital mutilation? Religious death sentences for movies and speech? Subjugation of women?
Careful building all those strawmen, you might just get burned.
That's not an answer.
One looks at your post. One scrolls down past it.
Oh, that's right: bigotry is OK as long as you've been wronged by people in the group you're spewing hatred against. I must have forgotten.
Yeah, let's start drawing sweeping generalizations about how entire groups of people think and determine how much tolerance they are entitled to based on that. Nothing could possibly go wrong there.
Again, nice to see nothing has changed around here.
- - - Updated - - -
An answer to what? The strawman you pulled out of your ass?
Your question was idiotic and in no way followed from what I posted. Go waste someone else's time with stupid questions.
No, you dragged in a bunch of horseshit about FGM yada yada that clearly had nothing to do with what I posted.
I already said she wants to strip Muslims of their constitutional rights. That's not good enough for you?
I posted the rest of this shit years back when another Islamophobe was singing her praises, but here it is again:
http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2011/01/21/ayaan-hirsi-ali-should-not-tes/
Reason: Don’t you mean defeating radical Islam?
Hirsi Ali: No. Islam, period. Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now. They’re not interested in peace.
Reason: We have to crush the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims under our boot? In concrete terms, what does that mean, “defeat Islam”?
Hirsi Ali: I think that we are at war with Islam. And there’s no middle ground in wars. Islam can be defeated in many ways. For starters, you stop the spread of the ideology itself; at present, there are native Westerners converting to Islam, and they’re the most fanatical sometimes. There is infiltration of Islam in the schools and universities of the West. You stop that. You stop the symbol burning and the effigy burning, and you look them in the eye and flex your muscles and you say, “This is a warning. We won’t accept this anymore.” There comes a moment when you crush your enemy.
Reason: Militarily?
Hirsi Ali: In all forms, and if you don’t do that, then you have to live with the consequence of being crushed.
But wait, there's more:
Reason: In Holland, you wanted to introduce a special permit system for Islamic schools, correct?
Hirsi Ali: I wanted to get rid of them. …
Reason: Well, your proposal went against Article 23 of the Dutch Constitution, which guarantees that religious movements may teach children in religious schools and says the government must pay for this if minimum standards are met. So it couldn’t be done. Would you in fact advocate that again?
Hirsi Ali: Oh, yeah.
Reason: Here in the United States, you’d advocate the abolition of—
Hirsi Ali: All Muslim schools. Close them down. Yeah, that sounds absolutist. I think 10 years ago things were different, but now the jihadi genie is out of the bottle. I’ve been saying this in Australia and in the U.K. and so on, and I get exactly the same arguments: The Constitution doesn’t allow it. But we need to ask where these constitutions came from to start with—what’s the history of Article 23 in the Netherlands, for instance? There were no Muslim schools when the constitution was written. There were no jihadists. They had no idea.
Reason: Do you believe that the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights—documents from more than 200 ago – ought to change?
Hirsi Ali: They’re not infallible. These Western constitutions are products of the Enlightenment. They’re products of reason, and reason dictates that you can only progress when you can analyze the circumstances and act accordingly. So now that we live under different conditions, the threat is different. Constitutions can be adapted, and they are, sometimes. The American Constitution has been amended a number of times. With the Dutch Constitution, I think the latest adaptation was in 1989. Constitutions are not like the Koran—nonnegotiable, never-changing.
And another choice quote:
"Britain is sleepwalking into a society that could be ruled by sharia law within decades unless Islamic schools are shut down and young Muslims are made instead to integrate and accept Western liberal values.”
Once again: reprehensible ideas and rhetoric that "liberals" would never tolerate were it directed at anyone other than Muslims.
But now queue up the steady stream of apologists arguing that it's OK because FGM is bad, or because Ali was mistreated by her Muslim family and thus it's OK for her to spew abhorrent ideas like these.
Last edited:
doubtingt
Senior Member
Because the supposed tolerant liberal left were intolerant of her efforts to protect women's human rights from the evils that stem from the Islamic religion. These are the liberals that have no problem attacking Christianity (which they should do), but they attack it because that is the religion of the US majority and of white people and they refuse to apply the same standards to minority religions. These are the liberals who view the world entirely through a majority-minority lens and are more concerned with whether people with white skin are criticizing people with brown skin, than with people with brown skin mutilating and enslaving other people with brown skin. Against all evidence and reason they deny the clear fact that Islam promotes and enables such violence and oppression, and allow violation of human rights to go unpunished when they hide behind the skirt of religion (but again only when it is the religion on non-whites).
She speaks accurately about Islam and Muslim communities, in much the same way that Dawkins speaks accurately about Christianity and its inherent immorality.
Relgious beliefs matter and they determine actions that have moral consequences and they are a product of peoples own minds, and people can and should choose to criticize and doubt them, and abandon them. Open critique of religious views and practices is not at all the same as a racist attack on a group of people for their skin color. Rather, it is the same as critiquing political views and policies. Suppression of criticism of religion in the name of religious tolerance is the same suppressing criticism of conservatism and Republican policies our of some twisted notion of "political tolerance". It creates an intellectual darkness devoid of reason in which religious extremism flourishes. The reason that the USA has so much anti-intellectual Christian extremism that resembles Muslim controlled nations is that all share the property of suppression open and honest critique of religion. Western Europe has had (sadly until recently) far more open critique of religion and that is why Christian fundamentalism did not prosper there and why non-belief is so much more prevalent.
What she has called for is protecting women's human rights not to be mutilated and enslaved. She doesn't think Muslims should have the constitutional right to abuse their women.
Yes WP, by simple observation over decades there are valid generalizations to be made about global Islam.
with a few exceptions and areas in the statess I expect neither you nor I would fare well in a majority Muslim state.
with a few exceptions and areas in the statess I expect neither you nor I would fare well in a majority Muslim state.
You mean like her likening all the world's Muslims to Nazis, claiming that they should be crushed under our boot, and that western constitutions should be altered to force them to accept modern values?
And you've got the stones to bitch about "intolerance?"
You mean like her likening all the world's Muslims to Nazis, claiming that they should be crushed under our boot, and that western constitutions should be altered to force them to accept modern values?
Except that's not what Ali does. She attacks Muslims as a whole, and thinks they should be treated as second-class citizens in the eyes of the law.
And that's abhorrent, even if those who idolize her can't get themselves to accept it.
No, what I just posted clearly outlines the policies she calls for. Go read it and try again.
- - - Updated - - -
Well gee golly, here was I thinking we had a constitution and democratic values that entitled everyone to the same rights regardless of whatever the fuck goes on in third world countries.
Except when you google Islam and democracy, you get 100 papers discussing whether they are compatible or not, and no consensus. If Islam in general is having issues with democracy and the idea of constitutional rights that don't come from Sharia, or are in some cases contradictory to Sharia, then why should it get the benefit of democracy and constitutional rights?
The best example of a working Islamic Democracy is Iran. And that is because it's a theocracy with Religion based on Islam overseeing the layer of democracy and constitutional rights. That is completely opposite what the West has, which is religion UNDER the Law, not over it. Islam has more evolving to do before I trust it.
The best example of a working Islamic Democracy is Iran. And that is because it's a theocracy with Religion based on Islam overseeing the layer of democracy and constitutional rights. That is completely opposite what the West has, which is religion UNDER the Law, not over it. Islam has more evolving to do before I trust it.
Yeah, because we don't have other people living here from parts of the world that have issues with human rights and civil liberties.
Or Christians living here trying to unseat them. For fuck's sake
Well, gee golly, I didn't realize Muslims living in western democracies were entitled to the same rights as everyone else only so long as they pass Zeluvia's Google test.
Fucking mind-boggling thread.
It's not a phobia when the threat is real.
Yes, all Muslims living in the West pose a threat, and therefore, all of them should be stripped of their constitutional protections and made to accept "our" values.
Thank you. Well put.
In Iran the final authority is the cleric entitled Supreme Leader.
A rather comical law was instituted defining acceptable men's hair styles as a relatively benign example.
In some ways Ahmadinejad was amoderate. He was over ruled by the clerics on a number of sioialissues.
Our values are constitutional protections. If Islam doesn't value them, which it hasn't proven that it does, why should it get any value FROM them?
There are other groups with similar problems. We frown on the American Nazi party too for many of the same reasons.
There are other groups with similar problems. We frown on the American Nazi party too for many of the same reasons.
What is it that they're teaching in these Muslim schools that she wants to shut down? I get that learning how to manage Subway shops in a way that subverts democracy and crushes humanity under the iron fist of sharia rule is part of the curriculum, but are all the courses a similar level of overt evil or do they also teach math and history and other non-evil things while they're there? Do the chemistry courses focus solely on how to best manufacteur bombs for suicide vests or do they also take a week or two out of that to learn the periodic table?
Apparently you don't understand how free societies work.
- - - Updated - - -
See above.