Reza Aslan, Ben Affleck, Bill Maher and Sam Harris walk into a bar... (Atheism, Islam and liberalism: This is what we are really fighting about)

[Perspicuo]

You're walking around the problem. To wit, How is it unacceptable to criticize Islam for being a crock of absurditites and inhumanities because its sisters are also? How is "This sock is red" an unacceptable statement when "All socks are red" is an accepted statement?

 

[untermensche]

You're walking around the problem. To wit, How is it unacceptable to criticize Islam for being a crock of absurditites and inhumanities because its sisters are also? How is "This sock is red" an unacceptable statement when "All socks are red" is an accepted statement?

You can certainly criticize the negative things done by fundamentalists.

But you have to understand why Muslim fundamentalists have so much power in the region.

And the reason they have so much power is not because Islam naturally evolves in that direction.

The reason fundamentalists in Iran have so much power is not because of a natural evolution.

Iran was a secular democracy until it wanted to nationalize the oil. Then it's democracy was undermined by the West and a dictator was put in charge. This empowered religious fundamentalists who eventually were able to take control.

Then to punish these fundamentalists who didn't like a Western controlled dictatorship, Saddam Hussein has goaded to attack Iran and was supplied with weapons from the West. This hardened and empowered the fundamentalists even more.

The power of fundamentalists in Iran can be laid at the footstep of the West.

Islam had nothing to do with it.

It was all over control of oil.

 

[PyramidHead]

I think the difference Harris and his ilk are trying to emphasize is that not all fundamentalism is equally dangerous. Fundamentalist Jains may go out of their way not to kill any insects; silly, but pretty harmless. Fundamentalist Christian Scientists may go a step further and prevent their children from taking medication; clearly, more dangerous. Fundamentalism is only as bad as the fundamentals. In the case of any world religion, we can look at what those fundamentals are by reading the texts upon which the religions are based.

Islamic fundamentalism is dangerous because the fundamentals of Islam contain some dangerous pronouncements. Combine them with poverty-stricken, war-torn conditions, and the manifestations are obvious. It is beyond doubt that Western forces play a huge part in provoking these terrorists. But the nature of their terrorism and how it operates in the world is a byproduct of their religion.

 

[untermensche]

I think the difference Harris and his ilk are trying to emphasize is that not all fundamentalism is equally dangerous. Fundamentalist Jains may go out of their way not to kill any insects; silly, but pretty harmless. Fundamentalist Christian Scientists may go a step further and prevent their children from taking medication; clearly, more dangerous. Fundamentalism is only as bad as the fundamentals. In the case of any world religion, we can look at what those fundamentals are by reading the texts upon which the religions are based.

Islamic fundamentalism is dangerous because the fundamentals of Islam contain some dangerous pronouncements. Combine them with poverty-stricken, war-torn conditions, and the manifestations are obvious. It is beyond doubt that Western forces play a huge part in provoking these terrorists. But the nature of their terrorism and how it operates in the world is a byproduct of their religion.

The power of Islamic fundamentalists in the Arab world is directly related to many actions by the West.

It doesn't matter if Islamic fundamentalism is harmful if fundamentalists have no power.

 

[Warpoet]

I think the difference Harris and his ilk are trying to emphasize is that not all fundamentalism is equally dangerous. Fundamentalist Jains may go out of their way not to kill any insects; silly, but pretty harmless.

But that's a meaningless comparison, and one of many Harris talking points that doesn't actually stand up to scrutiny. Jainism is not a major world religion, and would never be, precisely because of such a philosophy. There could be no empires or kingdoms that adhered to strict and unyielding pacifism, because their neighbors would have annihilated them.

All major world religions have had to partake in conflict, either voluntarily or involuntarily, and thus have some doctrines that allow for violence. And historically speaking, Christians have proven that they're just as capable of using religion to justify atrocities as Muslims are -- arguably to much greater effect. Thus, there are clearly far more significant factors than scripture at play.

 

[braces_for_impact]

In a non-secular society the religions that come into power always make life miserable for everyone. This is evident throughout history. Give moderates real power and they will become fundamentalists.

 

[Warpoet]

You're walking around the problem. To wit, How is it unacceptable to criticize Islam for being a crock of absurditites and inhumanities because its sisters are also? How is "This sock is red" an unacceptable statement when "All socks are red" is an accepted statement?

Because Harris' entire argument is built on the assertion that Islam is inherently worse than other religions and incompatible with liberal values, and that this is the reason for Muslim violence and enmity towards the West, with all other factors at most tertiary. That is the narrative that he has decided is the correct one. It is the thrust of all of his pronouncements on the subject, and he will not budge an inch even when evidence does not support him.

 

[Perspicuo]

You're walking around the problem. To wit, How is it unacceptable to criticize Islam for being a crock of absurditites and inhumanities because its sisters are also? How is "This sock is red" an unacceptable statement when "All socks are red" is an accepted statement?

You can certainly criticize the negative things done by fundamentalists.

But you have to understand why Muslim fundamentalists have so much power in the region.

And the reason they have so much power is not because Islam naturally evolves in that direction.

The reason fundamentalists in Iran have so much power is not because of a natural evolution.

Iran was a secular democracy until it wanted to nationalize the oil. Then it's democracy was undermined by the West and a dictator was put in charge. This empowered religious fundamentalists who eventually were able to take control.

Then to punish these fundamentalists who didn't like a Western controlled dictatorship, Saddam Hussein has goaded to attack Iran and was supplied with weapons from the West. This hardened and empowered the fundamentalists even more.

The power of fundamentalists in Iran can be laid at the footstep of the West.

Islam had nothing to do with it.

It was all over control of oil.

Nothing to do with it, ay? All or nothing thinking is a great way to not convince anyone.

Good luck with that.

 

[Perspicuo]

You're walking around the problem. To wit, How is it unacceptable to criticize Islam for being a crock of absurditites and inhumanities because its sisters are also? How is "This sock is red" an unacceptable statement when "All socks are red" is an accepted statement?

Because Harris' entire argument is built on the assertion that Islam is inherently worse than other religions and incompatible with liberal values, and that this is the reason for Muslim violence and enmity towards the West, with all other factors at most tertiary. That is the narrative that he has decided is the correct one. It is the thrust of all of his pronouncements on the subject, and he will not budge an inch even when evidence does not support him.

I will agree that Islam is awful and most probably the worst religion if one were to build a good scenario for life in a democratic and rights-oriented society. And one that is well evidenced. Both what the Qur'an says and what we read in the news are quite compatible with each other.

Now let's go to Sam Harris.
I looked up something Harris had written about the subject, it's old, but it's what I found. Let's lay it out:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060207_reality_islam

The idea that Islam is a “peaceful religion hijacked by extremists” is a dangerous fantasy—and it is now a particularly dangerous fantasy for Muslims to indulge. It is not at all clear how we should proceed in our dialogue with the Muslim world, but deluding ourselves with euphemisms is not the answer. It now appears to be a truism in foreign policy circles that real reform in the Muslim world cannot be imposed from the outside. But it is important to recognize why this is so—it is so because the Muslim world is utterly deranged by its religious tribalism.

Yes, Mr Harris, but why?

The truth that we must finally confront is that Islam contains specific notions of martyrdom and jihad that fully explain the character of Muslim violence. Unless the world’s Muslims can find some way of expunging the metaphysics that is fast turning their religion into a cult of death, we will ultimately face the same perversely destructive behavior throughout much of the world. It should be clear that I am not speaking about a race or an ethnicity here; I am speaking about the logical consequences of specific ideas.

Just as anyone watching Germany militarily occupy the Rhineland wonder what they would do next, had only to read the Mein Kampf, the same thing could be done with militant Islam: read the blueprint set out in the Qur'an. By the way, Harris' piece was written in 2006, in a time when ISIS had not appeared. Seems someone learned the lesson about reading what das Handbuch of the group had to say in order to predict the group's behavior.

While the other major world religions have been fertile sources of intolerance, it is clear that the doctrine of Islam poses unique problems for the emergence of a global civilization. The world, from the point of view of Islam, is divided into the “House of Islam” and the “House of War,” and this latter designation should indicate how Muslims believe their differences with those who do not share their faith will be ultimately resolved. While there are undoubtedly some moderate Muslims who have decided to overlook the irrescindable militancy of their religion, Islam is undeniably a religion of conquest. The only future devout Muslims can envisage—as Muslims—is one in which all infidels have been converted to Islam, politically subjugated, or killed. The tenets of Islam simply do not admit of anything but a temporary sharing of power with the “enemies of God.” Devout Muslims can have no doubt about the reality of Paradise or about the efficacy of martyrdom as a means of getting there. Nor can they question the wisdom and reasonableness of killing people for what amount to theological grievances. In Islam, it is the moderate who is left to split hairs, because the basic thrust of the doctrine is undeniable: convert, subjugate, or kill unbelievers; kill apostates; and conquer the world.

Now, bottom line: It's there in the Qur'an and it's there on primetime news. The burden is on you to show how what is inculcated into people, especially children, has nothing to do with the people doing exactly that in ISIS.

Notice I am not saying that it is exclusively religion, but political situations are the match and Islam is the gasoline. Both the match and the fire are necessary --without the match or without the fire nothing will burn with the fury of ardent gasoline. Islam in itself is a sort of sleeper cell for fundamentalism, as much as Bible-based Christianity is, and if we are to read the Muslims' handbook, potentially worse.

 

[Perspicuo]

You're walking around the problem. To wit, How is it unacceptable to criticize Islam for being a crock of absurditites and inhumanities because its sisters are also? How is "This sock is red" an unacceptable statement when "All socks are red" is an accepted statement?

Because Harris' entire argument is built on the assertion that Islam is inherently worse than other religions and incompatible with liberal values, and that this is the reason for Muslim violence and enmity towards the West, with all other factors at most tertiary. That is the narrative that he has decided is the correct one. It is the thrust of all of his pronouncements on the subject, and he will not budge an inch even when evidence does not support him.

The distinction must be produced, that Islam might be incompatible but Muslims not necessarily so.

He did not make that distinction explicitly, but one must not be judged by what one has not said, and he said (if I am not mistaken) that Islam is incompatible, not Muslims.

 

[Perspicuo]

I think the difference Harris and his ilk are trying to emphasize is that not all fundamentalism is equally dangerous. Fundamentalist Jains may go out of their way not to kill any insects; silly, but pretty harmless. Fundamentalist Christian Scientists may go a step further and prevent their children from taking medication; clearly, more dangerous. Fundamentalism is only as bad as the fundamentals. In the case of any world religion, we can look at what those fundamentals are by reading the texts upon which the religions are based.

Islamic fundamentalism is dangerous because the fundamentals of Islam contain some dangerous pronouncements. Combine them with poverty-stricken, war-torn conditions, and the manifestations are obvious. It is beyond doubt that Western forces play a huge part in provoking these terrorists. But the nature of their terrorism and how it operates in the world is a byproduct of their religion.

The power of Islamic fundamentalists in the Arab world is directly related to many actions by the West.

It doesn't matter if Islamic fundamentalism is harmful if fundamentalists have no power.

Nobody is saying that non-fundamentalistic Muslims are fundamentalistic.

 

[dystopian]

I think the difference Harris and his ilk are trying to emphasize is that not all fundamentalism is equally dangerous. Fundamentalist Jains may go out of their way not to kill any insects; silly, but pretty harmless. Fundamentalist Christian Scientists may go a step further and prevent their children from taking medication; clearly, more dangerous. Fundamentalism is only as bad as the fundamentals. In the case of any world religion, we can look at what those fundamentals are by reading the texts upon which the religions are based.

It's impossible to create a text that can't be abused though. A fundamentalist Jainist in fact very well could become violent: despite non-violence being a core tenet of the religion, violence for self-defense is perfectly acceptable to them; and it's hardly impossible for a crazy fundamentalist to turn just about anything into "self-defense". Sure, if you have a text that says "kill these motherfuckers", then a religion born from that is probably going to be a lot more violent; but even the most peaceful religion imaginable could turn violent. And of course, fundamentalism of *any* variety is dangerous. The practice of fasting oneself to death, for instance, is a ritual of Jainism which is hardly harmless.

You can't really state that fundamentalism is only as bad as the fundamentals, because those 'fundamentals' are open to the interpretation of the fundamentalist. This is how we go from "Love thy neighbor" to "kill those motherfuckers over there".

 

[Perspicuo]

It seems to me some of you are using the word "Fundamentalism" as if it were some third religion. It isn't.

Christian fundamentalism is just Christianity on steroids, being very close to the letter in cherrypicked verses --the same going for Islamic fundamentalism. Verses, mind you, that were not produced by modern fundamentalism, but by the primary writers themselves.

 

[untermensche]

Nothing to do with it, ay? All or nothing thinking is a great way to not convince anyone.

Good luck with that.

Why do fundamentalists control Iran? They didn't until 1979.

Is it because they are Muslim or is it because Iran's natural history was interrupted by British and US desires to control Iranian oil?

 

[Warpoet]

I will agree that Islam is awful and most probably the worst religion if one were to build a good scenario for life in a democratic and rights-oriented society.

Difficult to quantify, but not particularly relevant, as there is ample evidence that pretty much any religion, and certainly all Abrahamic religions, hold tenets that are incompatible with democracy and civil liberties. People who fixate on one (like Harris) do so because they have an agenda.

Now let's go to Sam Harris.
I looked up something Harris had written about the subject, it's old, but it's what I found. Let's lay it out:

If you are under the impression that I am going to accept Sam Harris' unsubstantiated claims and opinions as some form of evidence, allow me to stop you now; he is not an expert on the subject, and does little in the way of research aside from quoting the Qur'an and cherry-picking polling data that supports his preconceived narrative. So, his opinions, on their own, mean about as much as any random anti-Muslim blogger's.

These "specific notions of martyrdom and jihad" that Islam contains may fully explain the character of Muslim violence to Sam Harris, because Sam Harris is already convinced that Islamic doctrine is the only relevant driver of Muslim violence. He examines these issues through a lens of confirmation bias, and is not interested in evidence that conflicts with it. It is wonderfully convenient for Harris to view all of Islam, or even "militant Islam" as some unified hivemind adhering to a single ideology, but that does not make it so.

Now, bottom line: It's there in the Qur'an and it's there on primetime news. The burden is on you to show how what is inculcated into people, especially children, has nothing to do with the people doing exactly that in ISIS.

You are deeply confused about how the burden of proof works. For one, you'll not find any claim from me that religion has nothing to do with how people behave. My position is that it is one many factors, and far from the most important in light of historical evidence.

The burden of proof is on you and Harris to demonstrate that "The only future devout Muslims can envisage—as Muslims—is one in which all infidels have been converted to Islam, politically subjugated, or killed. The tenets of Islam simply do not admit of anything but a temporary sharing of power with the “enemies of God.”

"I see it in the news" is not evidence, nor are cherry-picked poll results regarding apostasy; that the actual numbers very wildly from region to region, or even country to country, amongst people who are devout Muslims, suggests that his generalization is incorrect, and certainly does not come close to supporting the notion that groups like ISIS are a product of mainstream Muslim thinking. It tells us that there are large numbers of the world's Muslims who hold troubling views, but if we're setting the bar that low, there's plenty of polling we can do of African Christians, Hindus, Latin Americans, Buddhists and Jews on various issues like homosexuality and gender equality, but you won't see Harris or many carrying his particular standard harping on about any of that. As untermensche said, it's only Islam he's interested in vilifying; when it's any other group, he is suddenly thoughtful and deliberative, but all that nuance immediately evaporates when it's Muslims who are in his crosshairs.

Harris' reasoning is reductive and simplistic, and like I said, does not account for the relatively recent emergence of Islamic terrorism as it exists today or the fact that it is targeted almost exclusively at the U.S. and its allies. It is simply a more erudite incarnation of the ludicrous right-wing canard that "they hate us for our freedoms."

 

[Perspicuo]

Warpoet: So you don't think one can be worse?

"They are all the same." Let that phrase sink in. They are quantitively and qualitatively different on so many levels. But they (somehow) are all the same.

Very, very improbable indeed.

Excuse me, but I don't think a person needs an agenda to see them as different. I am so sorry if you don't see that and if that is the case it is beyond my abilities to convince someone out of the very obtuse belief that they are absolutely the same thing in any given regard.

 

[Warpoet]

Warpoet: So you don't think one can be worse?

"They are all the same." Let that phrase sink in. They are quantitively and qaulitatively different on so many levels. But they (somehow) are all the same.

Very, very improbable indeed.

Excuse me, but I don't think you need an agenda to see them as different. I am so sorry if you don't see that and if that is the case it is beyond my abilities to convince someone out of the very obtuse belief that they are absolutely the same thing in any given regard.

Except that's not what I said. I am objecting to Harris' broad-brush characterizations of how Muslims think, and the notion that this is the only important factor in the equation, because that does not comport with reality. I did not say that all religions are the same "in any given regard."

 

[dystopian]

It seems to me some of you are using the word "Fundamentalism" as if it were some third religion. It isn't.

Christian fundamentalism is just Christianity on steroids, being very close to the letter in cherrypicked verses --the same going for Islamic fundamentalism. Verses, mind you, that were not produced by modern fundamentalism, but by the primary writers themselves.

Literally speaking, a fundamentalist may be someone who has a strict literal interpretation of the material (Although even in that case there's plenty of room for interpretation); but in practice 'fundamentalist' just means 'zealot'; and zealots are unfortunately completely free to interpret the verses however the hell they want. Is there some reason to think that the violent muslim "fundamentalists" are fundamentalists of the literal meaning of the word instead of zealots in the manner the word is commonly used to mean?

 

[Perspicuo]

Warpoet: So you don't think one can be worse?

"They are all the same." Let that phrase sink in. They are quantitively and qaulitatively different on so many levels. But they (somehow) are all the same.

Very, very improbable indeed.

Excuse me, but I don't think you need an agenda to see them as different. I am so sorry if you don't see that and if that is the case it is beyond my abilities to convince someone out of the very obtuse belief that they are absolutely the same thing in any given regard.

Except that's not what I said. I am objecting to Harris' broad-brush characterizations of how Muslims think, and the notion that this is the only important factor in the equation, because that does not comport with reality. I did not say that all religions are the same "in any given regard."

That's interesting. Please produce a quotation of Harris where he states that all Muslims are of the same mentality.

 

[Warpoet]

That's interesting. Please produce a quotation of Harris where he states that all Muslims are of the same mentality.

Again, when you can't address peoples' points, your fallback seems to be to misrepresent them. It's not a question of whether every single Muslim in the world thinks the same way, it's Harris' claim that the inherent tenets of the religion and mainstream views are such that

"The only future devout Muslims can envisage—as Muslims—is one in which all infidels have been converted to Islam, politically subjugated, or killed. The tenets of Islam simply do not admit of anything but a temporary sharing of power with the “enemies of God."

And that's hyperbole and bullshit, which is not supported by the evidence either you or he have cited.