You're not here for discussion then, only to bash religions. There are 1.5 billion Muslims out there, and like it or not they follow the scripture. The best bet for you if you want a liberalized society is to back positions from Scholars within the Islamic community who say Hadd punishments are impossible and/or no longer needed, rather than just putting the religion on blast 24/7 or supporting charlatans like Maajid. Lord knows we have enough of that already.
That stoning would ever be acceptable, at any time, with any level of proof, is morally reprehensible. I hope that you can come to understand that isn't an attack on your religion, but a blanket humanitarian judgment. I don't think so lowly of muslims to think they must be literalists or otherwise accept morally reprehensible views once shared by their forefathers.
"I think X is a problem within this religion."
Those things are the subject when we have countries that force those things upon their citizens in the name of the religion the state uses.
I think the social pressure on it is just as important. And changing that means that conservative branches of Islam need to change and reform to something more open and accepting.
Then do you agree that conservatism within Islam - or any religion really - should preferably change so people are able to make those choices with as little pressure from their country, community or family as possible? Because that is the problem I think, that we see a lot of conservative ideas within Islam, that are not changing at the pace we would like, and when trying to discuss this it is too easily seen as an attack on Muslims and as islamophobia. While we do see the dangers when those conservatist ideas gain more power, for example now in Turkey and Indonesia.
One criticizes/opposes an ideology. The other is discrimination against a group of people.
No. Opposing Christianity isn't inherently bigoted.
What? No, atheism is just the lack of belief in god. That's it.
wut
Interesting that your response to this question is to handwave it with, "oh, it's hard to prove anyway". Instead of, you know, "no, stoning for adultery, even if 100% proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, is 100% wrong and I don't believe in it one bit and no one with any sense of decency or moral compass should believe in it".
But what if those moral values are in conflict with human rights and leading to those people thinking they are better then others and wanting to oppress them?
Surah Nur
I have definitely heard Harris describe the problem of "anti-Muslim bigotry", which is an obvious and real problem.
You can listen directly to this "secret debate" and make up your own mind:
I'm sure there is no difference between the type of criticism of Islam that you seem to accept from the "French left" and the types of criticism that Harris makes. The only difference is that Harris is a singular figure and he's been presented as pre-stigmatized "islamophobe/bigot" to you. That's how they dismiss criticism, by demonizing people.
Again you defend conservative Muslim views here, so I ask you again, should those views not change when they are in clear conflict with modern standards about gender equality, acceptance of gay people and choosing your own faith. Those are things that are not accepted right now among a not insignificant amount of Muslims, as seen in opinion polls and research around the world. We see countries like Turkey and Indonesia becoming more conservative on these topics - with this week the in Turkey we see the Gay Pride again being banned and protesters and journalists arrested.
I've listened to the debate. No matter what you think of Harris, Omer's inability to participate with even the slightest measure of candor and honesty was embarrassing to say the least.
Harris is a bigot. He shouldnt be on any shows, but he is, because he unites liberals and conservatives in their hatred of Islam nd suspicion of Muslims. He defends torture and advocates profiling of Muslims, but for you these arent red flags, because he says what you want to hear. You will even defend his censorship, which he finally relented to because of the outcry. The fact is he lost on that point of speech. Saying "I would have done the same" shows complete bias and lack of awareness. You know if Omer did the same, Harris would have hung him dry. Wouldn't you? And if Omer would have done the same, regardless of the merit of Harris' arguments, I'd have gladly thrashed him here, not go bat for him.
Can you cite examples of all those points?
I've already said it earlier, how do you change people's minds when it's been told to them that a deity literally wrote it down? What possible ground do you have to stand on?