Support NeoGAF

[Golden_Pigeon]

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.

Personally, I reserve the term "islamophobe" for such people as the redneck on the bus who was telling a Muslim girl to get out of Canada a few weeks ago, who I personally walked up to and told to STFU and I escorted the girl off the bus at her stop. Not being friends with, hiring, or peacefully co-existing with Muslims is Islamophobia.

The way this word is used to smear people who are actually looking at Islamic doctrines in a rational way, and asking what they actually amount to in society in a fair and open debate, is a disturbing overreach.

It's like saying that racism is only represented by the KKK and skinhead.
Advocating for torture in the "war against terrorism", saying that Islam is inherently violent, that the US is in a war against "them"... make you an islamophobe. Because of our context. This discourse have direct poltical implication. You don't care about him calling for torture because you feel protected, you don't think that you're name or appearance could lead to you being tortured by the US army.

My friends from the french left don't share at all those ideas. Many of them reject Islam as a religion, since they reject all religion, and they reject also a lot of conservative idea that mainstream Islam promote. I really don't care if somebody disagree with Islam on that or that subject, it's not islamophobia. Islamophobia is the kind of discourse who could lead to reduce the rights of muslims, or to violence/wars against muslims population or countries.

You want to find the biggest critics against Islam ? Go into the western academia, in the department of islamology of any big western university. They spend their lives trying to prove that Islam is an archaic invention. I would never call them "islamophobe" because they are not. So it's not about criticizing the faith.

By the way, since when Sam Harris have any kind of legitimacy to speak about Islam ? Does he have any kind of education related to the study of Islam ?

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

You say there is nothing wrong with separating men and women during prayer. And when a mosque does something else and is threatened for it, you wave that away that by saying others get threatened too. You say that when someone disagrees with the interpretation of the faith, they should just start their own religion instead of seeing that maybe the faith can change to modern times. You say that gay Muslims should apparently wait on some scholars updating the religion instead of wanting to give them the same rights as everyone else.

You keep lying about wait i said. I never said that muslims gays should have less rights or wait for scholars in order to have rights. I never spoke about "rights" and you know it. I explicitly said that i supported full-right for homosexuals and i support civil gay marriage. I was speaking about theology. I don't agree that you can force muslim/jewish/christian theology to follow a progresist agenda in order to gain the label "moderate". Being conservative is not extremism. You can be conservative but reserve your moral criteria to yourself and not judge others.

I never "waved away" the death threat they received, i said that the problem is that they received threat, not that separation of gender occurs in the prayer room. I pointed out that conservative received threat also, to contradict the "silenced moderate minority" bullied by the "oppressive muslim majority".

The mainstream position is that prayer is separated by gender and it's not sexist by any stretch. I already explained why. If you think that gender should be intermingling in every situation, go struggle for the liberation of the bathroom. If you don't, you are just trying to find a way to demonize islam, using women's rights as a pretext.

I don't care at all about what those reformist does, it dosen't bother me. I don't find it relevant but who cares? I'm however critical of them banning women in full-veil from entering their mosque.

 

[Audioboxer]

I just recently learned of Harris/Rubin, who I would say have a pretty similar perspective on Islam and free speech which puts them in combat a lot with progressives.

Are there any other interview-type shows people who dislike Harris/Rubin could recommend? Always looking for more viewpoints. I tried out a couple more news-oriented podcasts and found with such regular release it was difficult to keep up.

I'm sure there are some, but the reason people like Rogan, Rubin and Harris tend to get large audiences in the long form podcast/video interview sphere is largely because of two main reasons. Long form interviews are quite rare as it is, and often end up being podcasts or YT rather than the short interviews that you'll get on mainstream TV. A reason why I often think interviews on Maher which last 7~9 minutes are pretty useless.

Then also if you take this topic as an example the reactions to anyone in the modern world who will interview someone even slightly controversial leads to some of the worst smearing, tarring, ostrisizing and accusations you'll ever see. The internet has helped this become a thing due to retweet/reshare culture and often a complete lack of people doing homework. You say someone is an evil bigot? Maajid is a racist, Uncle Tom hate monger? Sam Harris literally wants to torture Muslims on the street and send nukes to kill the ones he cannot reach? Well, that's good enough for me, let me reshare these accusations and warn others. Therefore, many modern interviewers cower in fear of getting bombarded with insults, accusations and demands of how their shows should be run, if they ever dare bring on a controversial figure. Their Twitter feed will be ignited with harassment and accusations they are evil by association because they interviewed Maajid. Only a few posts ago we have claims Sam Harris is simply a bigot and shouldn't be allowed on any shows. That final. End of.

The lines between outright controversial figure and mildly controversial don't even exist half the time. Everyone is either some 1:1 ally or they are bigoted scum. You routinely see this when someone can say 100 reasonably grounded things but 1 more controversial, wrong or contentious point and it's "Ah hah we found the 1 point that means fuck the rest of your work, thoughts and words, you're done for now".

Anyway, before you depart Rubin I urge you to watch this interview with Maajid given the topic is about him https://youtu.be/lpit8jc3NeI Not only does he discuss the SPLC, but he tackles what I mentioned above and who it is that attempts to smear him to the high heavens as a current day tactic for chasing listeners away and attempting to get him silenced. The stories about the Gay Muslims also encapsulate everything that is wrong with some people who take their dogmatic stances to such a level they cannot seemingly differentiate right from wrong (or they do the above and completely nuke Maajid over one or two points he makes versus the grand total of everything he tries, stands up for and his experiences). Hand waving LGBT abuses will never be right no matter what religion you do it behind. Calling Maajid an Uncle Tom after listening to the above interview would make you no better than a follower of faith who targeted the gay Muslims they talk about. It's sinister, foul and unfounded character assassinations all because you cannot handle criticism of your beliefs, or I should say you cannot respond appropriately to the criticism.

Appropriately largely ranging from taking it on the chin some will think your religion isn't real to engaging in debate instead of throwing the most serious insults and accusations you can think up just to try and "ruin" someone you do not like. Or chase people away from listening to them often with tactics I mentioned above (guilt by association and how dare you listen to person x...) right up to even attempting to make it near impossible for someone to speak and be debated. If your own ideas and beliefs are that rock solid and you are confident in them then you should have no problem rolling your sleeves up and getting down to debate. Often people refuse to debate... You have to think why at times. Although, it's a refusal seen across all religious believers. Try and get a creationist to take on an evolutionary biologist. Those that are dogmatically religious often cannot handle any form of criticism so will run to rhetoric, name-calling and smearing.

Then again a decent amount of the fundamental Christians did try taking on Dawkins, Harris, Hitches, Dennett and others during the 90s/00s. There's plenty of longform interviews/debates of them on YouTube. In a minor way I think a lot of debates like these, and others before, helped our societies explore and handle Christianity and Catholicism and challenges we faced with them. Islam as a growing religion should be able to face the same criticism, debate and challenges Christianity and Catholicism has faced in tens of years gone by in Western countries. As much as I'll furiously defend and uphold freedom of religion, with that comes the ability for others to use things such as the scientific method, inquiry, debate and criticism to challenge every and any one of the religions benefiting from freedom of religion. As long as someone isn't suppressing your ability to practice your faith or threatening or putting you in harms way, your doctrine, God and faith itself will come up against criticism in the majority of Western societies. Especially when and if it attacks things such as women/feminism, the LGBT community and so on. Our societies have had years of challenge there from Christianity/Catholicism and Islam isn't going to go unchallenged on the same issues just because it's currently the minority religion (regionally, globally it's massive).

That being another tactical web that is often spun by some ~ If you criticise Islam then you are criticising a minority and it's inherently problematic for you to challenge a minority. Hence why some of those who would say something like that give zero fucks if you go after Christianity/Catholicism because they are majority religions in most Western societies (look at any topic on GAF where it's Christians threatening women's body rights or pushing against gay marriage ~ No one holds back, nor should they). You could ask, were some of the people now going after Harris going after him in the same way when he wrote a letter to a Christian nation and routinely blasted Christianity? If not, why not? Is it because Christianity isn't your faith and you don't care about it? If so, fair enough, but at least be honest that someone like Harris is equal at criticising multiple doctrines and faiths and the claims they make. Either directly from the texts, or what the followers can go around saying and doing. There's a lot of crossover from the faiths/religions around how women are treated, or views on homosexuality. If someone was to criticise one on those grounds why wouldn't they with the others?

 

[HiredN00bs]

Aside from whatever character flaws people attribute to Ayaan and Maajid, do we at least agree that religious violence (including jihadism) and theocratic movements (including islamism) are bad ideas that should be opposed rhetorically and politically?

The biggest takeaway I have from Narwaz is that he wants to convince Muslims that secular, liberal societies are in their best interest. Obviously, creating a culture of mistrust and fear is antithetical to that.

 

[thefil]

Anyway, before you depart Rubin I urge you to watch this interview with Maajid given the topic is about him https://youtu.be/lpit8jc3NeI Not only does he discuss the SPLC, but he tackles what I mentioned above and who it is that attempts to smear him to the high heavens as a current day tactic for chasing listeners away and attempting to get him silenced. The stories about the Gay Muslims also encapsulate everything that is wrong with some people who take their dogmatic stances to such a level they cannot seemingly differentiate right from wrong (or they do the above and completely nuke Maajid over one or two points he makes versus the grand total of everything he tries, stands up for and his experiences). Hand waving LGBT abuses will never be right no matter what religion you do it behind. Calling Maajid an Uncle Tom after listening to the above interview would make you no better than a follower of faith who targeted the gay Muslims they talk about. It's sinister, foul and unfounded character assassinations all because you cannot handle criticism of your beliefs, or I should say you cannot respond appropriately to the criticism. Appropriately largely ranging from taking it on the chin some will think your religion isn't real to engaging in debate instead of throwing the most serious insults and accusations you can think up just to try and "ruin" someone you do not like.

Oh, I've seen that interview. I don't plan on stopping listening to Rubin or especially Harris at this point. I'm just looking for something that disagrees with them to mix into the rotation. That said, my news sources tend to lean far more progressive anyway, so I don't feel like I'm living in a complete echo chamber.

 

[Jumeira]

Then also if you take this topic as an example the reactions to anyone in the modern world who will interview someone even slightly controversial leads to some of the worst smearing, tarring, ostrisizing and accusations you'll ever see. The internet has helped this become a thing due to retweet/reshare culture and often a complete lack of people doing homework. You say someone is an evil bigot? Maajid is a racist, Uncle Tom hate monger? Sam Harris literally wants to torture Muslims on the street and send nukes to kill the ones he cannot reach? Well, that's good enough for me, let me reshare these accusations and warn others. Therefore, many modern interviewers cower in fear of getting bombarded with insults, accusations and demands of how their shows should be run, if they ever dare bring on a controversial figure. Their Twitter feed will be ignited with harassment and accusations they are evil by association because they interviewed Maajid. Only a few posts ago we have claims Sam Harris is simply a bigot and shouldn't be allowed on any shows. That final. End of.

Its not a rare occurrence with Harris, here he promotes discrimination (they're possibly covert Jihadist) against muslims:

https://youtu.be/9EB908NRdCc?t=4277

"If we figure out some way to keep the number of muslims down in any society, its clearly rational to want to do this" ~1.11- 1.13

He presents this proposition as a hypothetical (but uses 'its rational') to Nawaz, and incredibly Nawaz agrees! And i say this in shock, as i do like Nawaz and given his views from his LBC show, id have thought he'd challenge Harris here, but nothing. I expect this from Harris, not from Maajid.

It's sinister, foul and unfounded character assassinations all because you cannot handle criticism of your beliefs, or I should say you cannot respond appropriately to the criticism.

Think you completely missed the point, musilms are being killed/hurt due to rising anti muslim sentiment, spreading inaccuracies about the religion and its followers & oversimplifying motivations is part of the reason lives are bring lost/harmed, pointing out toxic rhetoric especially ones that try to normalise prejudice and discrimination (Harris/Ayaan) against any group doesn't sit right with us that value equality.

Aside from whatever character flaws people attribute to Ayaan and Maajid, do we at least agree that religious violence (including jihadism) and theocratic movements (including islamism) are bad ideas that should be opposed rhetorically and politically?

The biggest takeaway I have from Narwaz is that he wants to convince Muslims that secular, liberal societies are in their best interest. Obviously, creating a culture of mistrust and fear is antithetical to that.

This is unanimously agreed ideas by moderate muslims, thats the frustration here as it seems people struggle with this and blindly say that its all Islam. Yet the vast majority follow Islam and think what you've said is not part of islam.

 

[JesseEwiak]

This is unanimously agreed ideas by moderate muslims, thats the frustration here as it seems people struggle with this and blindly say that its all Islam. Yet the vast majority follow Islam and think what you've said is not part of islam.

As we all know, if a moderate Muslim doesn't spend 23 hours of his day explaining to Westerners why they don't agree with extreme Islamism, he's simply isn't speaking up enough.

It's kind of like how black people never talk about black on black crime enough for certain conservatives.

 

[BocoDragon]

It's like saying that racism is only represented by the KKK and skinhead.
Advocating for torture in the "war against terrorism", saying that Islam is inherently violent, that the US is in a war against "them"... make you an islamophobe. Because of our context. This discourse have direct poltical implication. You don't care about him calling for torture because you feel protected, you don't think that you're name or appearance could lead to you being tortured by the US army.

My friends from the french left don't share at all those ideas. Many of them reject Islam as a religion, since they reject all religion, and they reject also a lot of conservative idea that mainstream Islam promote. I really don't care if somebody disagree with Islam on that or that subject, it's not islamophobia. Islamophobia is the kind of discourse who could lead to reduce the rights of muslims, or to violence/wars against muslims population or countries.

You want to find the biggest critics against Islam ? Go into the western academia, in the department of islamology of any big western university. They spend their lives trying to prove that Islam is an archaic invention. I would never call them "islamophobe" because they are not. So it's not about criticizing the faith.

By the way, since when Sam Harris have any kind of legitimacy to speak about Islam ? Does he have any kind of education related to the study of Islam ?

Taking Harris out of the equation, that's all I really defend is the freedom to criticize Islam (as we can criticize all ideas: even the ones I subscribe to) as that academic institution does.

So if that's what you allow in free society and don't consider it an offense, then I think in the main we agree.

I just have this feeling that anyone who actually does criticize Islam as a prominent figure will become stigmatized in the way Harris has been in certain bubbles. Someone is willing to call that inquiry bigotry in a left-leaning publication. Someone will pull out a provocative article from a decade ago, take it out of context and make the case that it's inexcusable, and use it as ammo. Someone will build the case that, sure anyone is allowed to criticize Islam, but this one in particular really is a special case of being a bigot.

I don't think it's a coincidence that every major crtitic of Islamic doctrine has someone who'll state they're a bad person, for this reason or that. Every. Single. One.
Where are the clean public critics of Islamic doctrine? You will find none. Same goes for atheists in general. They all get smeared by someone eventually.

 

[BocoDragon]

Sorry for the double post. It's when you expected a response in between long ranty posts, y'know?

Oh, I've seen that interview. I don't plan on stopping listening to Rubin or especially Harris at this point. I'm just looking for something that disagrees with them to mix into the rotation. That said, my news sources tend to lean far more progressive anyway, so I don't feel like I'm living in a complete echo chamber.

I actually have issues with Rubin, even as I listen to his show occasionally. His supposed "talk to both sides" schtick ends up being a platform mainly for alt-right and other anti-PC types, with few traditional progressive guests to balance it out.

I'm also pissed by his almost deliberate refusal to understand Gamergate as what it really is: an online mob harassing prominent gamer women under the guise of imaginary greviences that never happened.... only a few of whom in the mob are foolish enough to actually think they're crusading for free speech. He's never so much as explained this (majority) view of the phenomenon, which is a red flag to me.

I've heard a couple of podcasts critical of Rubin: Polite Conversations with Eiynah and Serious Inquiries Only. The former is a really great ex-Muslim speaker, sensitive to anti-Muslim bigotry while still criticizing Islam. And the latter has directly taken down Rubin is a fairly level headed way, I think.

 

[wachie]

Nutjob interview is termed a great interview, I don't know what to think of some part of GAF anymore.

 

[thefil]

Sorry for the double post. It's when you expected a response in between long ranty posts, y'know?


I actually have issues with Rubin, even as I listen to his show occasionally. His supposed "talk to both sides" schtick ends up being a platform mainly for alt-right and other anti-PC types, with few traditional progressive guests to balance it out.

I'm also pissed by his almost deliberate refusal to understand Gamergate as what it really is: an online mob harassing prominent gamer women under the guise of imaginary greviences that never happened.... only a few of whom in the mob are foolish enough to actually think they're crusading for free speech. He's never so much as explained this (majority) view of the phenomenon, which is a red flag to me.

I've heard a couple of podcasts critical of Rubin: Polite Conversations with Eiynah and Serious Inquiries Only. The former is a really great ex-Muslim speaker, sensitive to anti-Muslim bigotry while still criticizing Islam. And the latter has directly taken down Rubin is a fairly level headed way, I think.

I've seen like two of Rubin's interviews, so I hadn't formed an opinion yet. But I have heard that criticism and I'm on the lookout for it. Thanks for the recommendations.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

I don't think it's a coincidence that every major crtitic of Islamic doctrine has someone who'll state they're a bad person, for this reason or that. Every. Single. One.
Where are the clean public critics of Islamic doctrine? You will find none. Same goes for atheists in general. They all get smeared by someone eventually.

It's pretty simple: polemics attract audience. Audience is what media are looking for.

I can give the name of a dozen of prominent muslims scholars living in the US. I'm sure you can't give me the name of ONE american muslim scholar who have 10 % of the media exposure that people like Harris or Ayyan Hirsi Ali get.

I speak about actual muslim scholar, not sociologist like Reza Aslan. Somebody with an theological education. I don't believe it's a media plot against Islam, i think it's just the structure of media: heated debate, polemical stance => no room for actual knowledge or constructive debate. It was clearly explained by Chomsky.

So in the same way you cannot find any muslim scholar with an important media exposure, you won't be able to find actual credible and competent critic of Islam. Non of the people we speak about have studied Islam. They don't know arabic, they don't know nothing about islamic theology, they can make big firebrand statement and it's enough.

One of the worst offender (and i don't think he is islamophobe or a fraud, i actually like him) is the take on Islam by Neil deGrasse. He is just grossly misinformed and blame al-Ghazali for the islamic decline based on a flawed translation of his opus magma who deem numerology as satanic (early western translation have confounded numerology and mathematics).

So, you can find dozen of academic critics of Islam, who know arabic, who studied the theology and who wrote book who refute and critic Islam. I don't think they are islamophobic, i don't think they are morally flawed. So the issue is not the critic of Islam, it's bigotry under the guise of critic of religion.

 

[BocoDragon]

It's pretty simple: polemics attract audience. Audience is what media are looking for.

I can give the name of a dozen of prominent muslims scholars living in the US. I'm sure you can't give me the name of ONE american muslim scholar who have 10 % of the media exposure that people like Harris or Ayyan Hirsi Ali get.

I speak about actual muslim scholar, not sociologist like Reza Aslan. Somebody with an theological education. I don't believe it's a media plot against Islam, i think it's just the structure of media: heated debate, polemical stance => no room for actual knowledge or constructive debate. It was clearly explained by Chomsky.

So in the same way you cannot find any muslim scholar with an important media exposure, you won't be able to find actual credible and competent critic of Islam. Non of the people we speak about have studied Islam. They don't know arabic, they don't know nothing about islamic theology, they can make big firebrand statement and it's enough.

One of the worst offender (and i don't think he is islamophobe or a fraud, i actually like him) is the take on Islam by Neil deGrasse. He is just grossly misinformed and blame al-Ghazali for the islamic decline based on a flawed translation of his opus magma who deem numerology as satanic (early western translation have confounded numerology and mathematics).

So, you can find dozen of academic critics of Islam, who know arabic, who studied the theology and who wrote book who refute and critic Islam. I don't think they are islamophobic, i don't think they are morally flawed. So the issue is not the critic of Islam, it's bigotry under the guise of critic of religion.

That's an interesting response. So you're saying the only reason we'd tend to hear about certain popular critics of Islam in the first place is because they are only ones that are promoted by mass media, and the only views promoted by mass media will tend towards simplistic, firebrand, negative critiques? I can wrap my head around that.

I will say that most of what I know of the views of Harris are from his podcast, in which he offers longform explanations of his positions. And he's extremely pedantic and walks you through his arguments. It's kind of the anti-mass media format, in that it is like an academic lecture (longer, in many cases). I am not experiencing Harris through sound bites where he critiques Islam like a pundit for 10 minutes then disappears. I know why he believes what he believes, and I believe he has sincerely come to these conclusions by being a kind of endlessly inquisitive geek, based upon actual inquiry. But sure, the reason I found him a decade ago could be that he was promoted by mass media in some form, so I could imagine how my potential list of voices is biased by the shape of mass media. That's if I accept your view. I'm not sure.

I'm also not all that convinced that the learned scholars of Islamic theology are necessarily the sole truth holders, though. For one, to even get to that point, you tend to be either a Muslim or have a certain obsessive capture with the merit of Islamic theology. People obsessed with Islam (be they muslim or non-believer) aren't likely to be the challengers who are going to point out how it may negatively function in the world. Secondly, there is a level of lay understanding of Islam that is almost certainly enough to have a functional debate:

If you can tell me about the life of the prophet from Mecca to Medina and back...
If you can tell me who the Sunni and Shia are, and you have an understanding of the various interests that led to the split..
If you can describe to me the spread and history of Islam within various regions...
If you can describe to me the various sub sects and sub group of thought such as Sufism, Wahhabism, Salafism, how they started and what they believe...
If you know of the various Islamic dynasties, from the Umayaad to Abassid to Ottoman..
If you can describe the various Islamic theological concepts such as hajj, shirk, tawheed, Islam (surrender to Allah) etc.....
If you understand how Islam was before Western dominance, and the various responses to the West afterward (Aligarh, Wahhab, etc)....
If you know which culture is aligned with which version of islam, and the full history of why...

...then I think you're qualified to weigh in on the issue, just as much as an academic specialist who has a masters in Islamic theology and speaks Arabic. You'd certainly be more qualified than most Muslims.

^ Not that this is all about Harris, but I do think from his podcasts he has waded through most of this material as an lay scholar.

Sure, I'd love to hear a deeper expert talk about these issues, though.

 

[IrishNinja]

maher remains a faux-liberal fuckboy

I pretty much always take SPLC with a grain of salt, but Nawaz is no saint. However, he's more valuable than not.

the demonization of the SPLC by some around here is disheartening, especially with the important work they're doing in trump's america.
i get that there's an element of the left that somehow doesn't find figures like bill here as blatantly islamaphobic, but that by no means should be a shot on the center itself

Ah yes the n word saying and Milo promoting "progressive" Bill Maher who gets shit on by other progressives until unless he is on his anti-Muslim BS.

also this, all day

Yes.

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ists-list-includes-scholars-reformist-muslims

National Review is a respected mainstream conservative publication. Agree or not, but I'm not the only one who's said it.

You came back with National Review.

Peace

haha, one & done

Maybe Bill can invite some real everyday American Muslims on his show instead of continuing to demonize them

very clearly not gonna happen - he couldn't even break kayfabe on religolous, an even bigger waste of everyone's time than the average ep of his show

 

[Fast Forward]

As more time passes, I'm slowly starting to hate Maher, and I say that as a fellow atheist, and I very much enjoyed his Doc.

But between his Anti-Vaxxer BS, and his "liberal purist" BS, I'm starting to have a gag reflex to Maher.

 

[BocoDragon]

haha, one & done

I guess we just don't fuck with anything one toe over the line of centre around here lol. All left wing all the time.

I mean I don't read it, but I know I could cite NR in an academic essay.

 

[IrishNinja]

I guess we just don't fuck with anything one toe over the line of centre around here lol. All left wing all the time.

I mean I don't read it, but I know I could cite NR in an academic essay.

i get that you're saying one shouldn't be on their list for criticizing islam alone, but i thought the first page examples themselves were pretty good reasons why the individual in question rather fit the bill.

but i wouldn't line my cat's litter with national review. you literally linked to a piece titled "everyone who disagrees with the SPLC is hitler" - let's grab a section & see if it's just as lousy as it says on the tin:

The SPLC is an example of the way in which the Left corrupts and perverts the institutions it controls, from the IRS to the universities. While decrying “conspiracy theorists,” the SPLC itself is obsessed with “Terror from the Right” that is, pardon us for noticing, so rare as to be nearly insignificant.

this belongs in the comments section for an alex jones video, not something cited as evidence of anything more than right-wing wankery.

 

[BocoDragon]

i get that you're saying one shouldn't be on their list for criticizing islam alone, but i thought the first page examples themselves were pretty good reasons why the individual in question rather fit the bill.

but i wouldn't line my cat's litter with national review. you literally linked to a piece titled "everyone who disagrees with the SPLC is hitler" - let's grab a section & see if it's just as lousy as it says on the tin:



this belongs in the comments section for an alex jones video, not something cited as evidence of anything more than right-wing wankery.

Okay, It's obviously an overwrought, biased conservative view of the matter.

Maybe I shouldn't have linked that one, but it's not the source of my opinion. That's just what I could find with a google search in that time-limited moment.

However, I really do believe the SPLC has thrown away some honest liberal critics with the anti-Muslim bigot bathwater with their list.

I say this as a liberal: I think they are smearing a couple of good liberals here for merely turning liberal critique on religion (something liberals have always done: i.e.: grilling the patriarchy and sexism in Christianity). And making them out to be bigots and worse, hate-group leaders, is immoral and factually wrong.

 

[IrishNinja]

Okay, It's obviously an overwrought, biased conservative view of the matter.

Maybe I shouldn't have linked that one, but it's not the source of my opinion. That's just what I could find with a google search in that time-limited moment.

However, I really do believe the SPLC has thrown away some honest liberal critics with the anti-Muslim bigot bathwater with their list.

I say this as a liberal: I think they are smearing a couple of good liberals here for merely turning liberal critique on religion (something liberals have always done: i.e.: grilling the patriarchy and sexism in Christianity). And making them out to be bigots and worse, hate-group leaders, is immoral and factually wrong.

i can accept that they may be painting with a broad brush here, and i recognize the need for nuance you're calling for...that said

a) anti-mulsim fervor here in the states seems to be at a high (the ban, anti-"sharia" protests/demonstrations etc)
b) hitchens, harris, maher et al clearly illustrate an element of islamaphobia in atheist/etc corners of the left: yes, there is absolutely room for critiquing radicalization & violence, but these individuals often strike me as piss-poor at making said distinction

which is to say: given the SPLC's track record & the state of our discourse regarding said group, i can see why they are less inclined to give certain figures the benefit of the doubt. i don't nearly think this is the same as sites like NR are making it: i.e, the equivalent of painting any critique of isreali gov't as anti-semetic/etc.

places with the talking points NR seems to echo often ask "where is the condemnation of this recent terrorist incident from so-called islamic moderates" and ignore the host of agencies/communities they either don't know or care about typically doing so.

 

[BocoDragon]

i can accept that they may be painting with a broad brush here, and i recognize the need for nuance you're calling for...that said

a) anti-mulsim fervor here in the states seems to be at a high (the ban, anti-"sharia" protests/demonstrations etc)
b) hitchens, harris, maher et al clearly illustrate an element of islamaphobia in atheist/etc corners of the left: yes, there is absolutely room for critiquing radicalization & violence, but these individuals often strike me as piss-poor at making said distinction

which is to say: given the SPLC's track record & the state of our discourse regarding said group, i can see why they are less inclined to give certain figures the benefit of the doubt. i don't nearly think this is the same as sites like NR are making it: i.e, the equivalent of painting any critique of isreali gov't as anti-semetic/etc.

places with the talking points NR seems to echo often ask "where is the condemnation of this recent terrorist incident from so-called islamic moderates" and ignore the host of agencies/communities they either don't know or care about typically doing so.

That's kind of how I'd describe it, except not as a positive... I see the SPLC as a large segment of liberals who are looking at the racist state of culture (re: against Muslims in Muslim minority countries) and are more interested with fighting this racism and correcting for this racism than in allowing honest liberal critique as it has usually been done.

It's as if they are putting an unconscious moratorium on critique of Islam until muslims don't feel themselves to be a threatened minority. It would be fine if this were a conscious movement... but it isn't, they're going into bigot-watch mode against their own liberals doing what liberals have always done (critique and fight oppressive systems that dominate our world).

And then there's the fact that the West isn't the world. 1.5 billion muslims around the world. They aren't actually a minority in the world. They're big boys, the dominant overlords in 1/4th of humanity in fact. The realm of debate isn't shackled to the state of things in America or Europe. If now isn't the time to critique the thought process that dominates a quarter of the globe, when is?

And maybe this is naive, but I'd like to think that the generally liberal audience of these critiques is still kind to their Muslim neighbours, and understand that this is a critique of ideology in the marketplace of ideas. I'm sure some alt-right people point to the likes of Harris as evidence for their anti-Muslim hate, but generally I don't think that is what fuels them at all, since they are not characterized by deep knowledge of the issues in Islam, just blunt outgroup bigotry.

Easy for me to say, because I love my Muslim friends, just as I love my Christian friends, etc. But at the end of the day I look directly at their ideologies and I have opinions about them, and I'd debate it in the appropriate places (forums, debate shows, etc). The two realms are safely separate, for me. But perhaps organizations like the SPLC operate as if these realms aren't separate. "You can't critique Islam without hating Muslims" they think. Or maybe they haven't thought about it at all?

 

[IrishNinja]

....and are more interested with fighting this racism and correcting for this racism than in allowing honest liberal critique as it has usually been done.

that's pretty much their mission statement as i understand it, yeah
it's exactly why i support them every month - we don't have enough institutions dedicated as wholly to that effort for my liking

And then there's the fact that the West isn't the world. 1.5 billion muslims around the world. They aren't actually a minority in the world. They're big boys, the dominant overlords in 1/4th of humanity in fact. The realm of debate isn't shackled to the state of things in America or Europe.

a reasonable point, but the SPLC very clearly focuses on hate groups/efforts here in the states.

 

[BocoDragon]

that's pretty much their mission statement as i understand it, yeah
it's exactly why i support them every month - we don't have enough institutions dedicated as wholly to that effort for my liking



a reasonable point, but the SPLC very clearly focuses on hate groups/efforts here in the states.

Fair enough. I imagine they do more good than harm anyway. I still think of them as a well-meaning organization, despite what I consider to be this blunder.

I guess if you watch the clip, Nawaz is suing the SPLC, so it will be interesting to hear what the courts say about this.


EDIT: I just remembered Maajid Nawaz and Quillium are London-based. Sorta not a US hate group. But anyway, impact on American minds no doubt.

 

[IrishNinja]

I guess if you watch the clip, Nawaz is suing the SPLC, so it will be interesting to hear what the courts say about this.

yeah, i saw that - it's a win/win for a guy like him: plays well to his base, hopes for a cash settlement of some kind. if & when he doesn't get it, there goes the regressive left again

 

[BocoDragon]

yeah, i saw that - it's a win/win for a guy like him: plays well to his base, hopes for a cash settlement of some kind. if & when he doesn't get it, there goes the regressive left again

I think we'd all sue if our names were on a list of hate organizers and we weren't actually promoting ethnic/cultural superiority. I want to know if the courts push the SPLC to define their criteria for being a promoter of hate. That will be interesting (I don't know from this list that they have particularly good criteria... and they of course should).

Definitely true that some folks will beat that "regressive left" drum in response (Ruben, Rogen, Milo if he's still alive). I would think that's almost a useful concept for one brief second (I do think there are some non-liberal concepts on the fringes of the left), until it's immediately ruined by fake-liberals (Ruben, etc) using it to scold all progressivism. It's kind of like the term "fake news". For one half second, it was a coherent critique.

 

[Aerogamer]

It is hard to grasp something that 1.8-2 billion people practice with any sort of precision. The sheer numbers and different values people have inform and emphasize different aspects of the religion. There is no united form for religions that are this big. Many inherent differences come from the cultural traditions of Muslims living in different parts of the world. Culture influences interpretation of the text as much as anything.

 

[ClosingADoor]

You keep lying about wait i said. I never said that muslims gays should have less rights or wait for scholars in order to have rights. I never spoke about "rights" and you know it. I explicitly said that i supported full-right for homosexuals and i support civil gay marriage. I was speaking about theology. I don't agree that you can force muslim/jewish/christian theology to follow a progresist agenda in order to gain the label "moderate". Being conservative is not extremism. You can be conservative but reserve your moral criteria to yourself and not judge others.

I never "waved away" the death threat they received, i said that the problem is that they received threat, not that separation of gender occurs in the prayer room. I pointed out that conservative received threat also, to contradict the "silenced moderate minority" bullied by the "oppressive muslim majority".

The mainstream position is that prayer is separated by gender and it's not sexist by any stretch. I already explained why. If you think that gender should be intermingling in every situation, go struggle for the liberation of the bathroom. If you don't, you are just trying to find a way to demonize islam, using women's rights as a pretext.

I don't care at all about what those reformist does, it dosen't bother me. I don't find it relevant but who cares? I'm however critical of them banning women in full-veil from entering their mosque.

So you are against the conservative interpretation of Islam. But you don't care about reforming it, because that is not relevant. How do we move the people forward then, if reforming the faith is not on the table? How do we give equal rights to people who don't have it now, when we can't change the interpretation of the faith they follow that stands in the way of that?

Do you understand why I don't follow your arguments when you are laying out clear contradictions like this all the time?

 

[Audioboxer]

Its not a rare occurrence with Harris, here he promotes discrimination (they're possibly covert Jihadist) against muslims:

https://youtu.be/9EB908NRdCc?t=4277

"If we figure out some way to keep the number of muslims down in any society, its clearly rational to want to do this" ~1.11- 1.13

He presents this proposition as a hypothetical (but uses 'its rational') to Nawaz, and incredibly Nawaz agrees! And i say this in shock, as i do like Nawaz and given his views from his LBC show, id have thought he'd challenge Harris here, but nothing. I expect this from Harris, not from Maajid.



Think you completely missed the point, musilms are being killed/hurt due to rising anti muslim sentiment, spreading inaccuracies about the religion and its followers & oversimplifying motivations is part of the reason lives are bring lost/harmed, pointing out toxic rhetoric especially ones that try to normalise prejudice and discrimination (Harris/Ayaan) against any group doesn't sit right with us that value equality.



This is unanimously agreed ideas by moderate muslims, thats the frustration here as it seems people struggle with this and blindly say that its all Islam. Yet the vast majority follow Islam and think what you've said is not part of islam.

People are best to listen to the whole podcast, or 15 minutes surrounding that either side. Unless you consider yourself an extremist or jihadi from Syria that section wasn't really aimed at you. That's another thing that plays into the whole inability to criticise. People take offence on behalf of other people even if a) the criticism isn't aimed at them and b) at times when it's aimed at extremists they still stand in and say but not all followers! We know not all followers but whether it's jihadis or people filling in polls, if there is evidence/statistics to show things that many will disagree with there will be comments. If for example 52% of Christians said homosexuality should be illegal in a poll NeoGAF and many other sites with public commentary would be laying down criticism. It's going to happen whether you like it or not. One also doesn't have to be a Muslim to comment on things within Islam. The inability for some to progress from criticising the Bible belt in their country to similar comments about the minority religion(s) is disheartening. You should not live in a society being "afraid" to stand up for women or LGBT rights from one religion, but be fine criticising and discussing another religion. This happens though, and hand-waving goes on as some would rather not be called bigoted racists and then have to spend nearly all their time defending themselves from accusations simply because they took the same tools of criticism and thought they apply to Christianity and applied them to Islam.

As for your second point, the thousands if not millions of Muslims being slaughtered around the globe under reigns of terror, oppression and abuse needing far more help are discussed routinely by many critics of the faith (Harris routinely points out how the majority of the Islamist abuse/targetting/killing and oppression happes to other Muslims!). Abuse and discrimination are also routinely criticised in Western countries by the populations at large where it isn't legal to do the things that go on abroad (honour killing/jailing for speech/stoning/adultery penalties/penalties for leaving the faith/raping without consequence and then places where ISIS/dictators exist ruling by religious law). We don't have most if any of that here, but sure, we do have racism, assaults and just there in the UK we had our first terrorist vehicle ramming aimed at Muslims. What drives people to despair about criticism of faith, stats and beliefs is the obsession by many to lift it up to the same realms as the violence/abuse just so they can say "shut down all the criticism, we don't want to hear it." Sorry, because when the Christians or Catholics try to do that they got/get pushback. Any followers of Islam who simply refuse to allow criticism of their faith will get pushback too.

You cannot truly successfully exist in most Western societies if freedom of religion isn't held up alongside the freedoms to criticise, satirise and talk honestly about problems that can come from dogmatic people, especially when they try to mix politics with religion (laws). Simply shouting discrimination every single time there is criticism may work from time to time, but many are seeing through that veneer as time goes on. When we live in a current sphere where it's nearly impossible to find a commentator who isn't now "a racist bigot Islamophobic hate monger" it begins to have people ask is it possible at all to criticise without ending up being accused of being a piece of shit??? Yes we need people from within the faith to criticise and point things out, but many of such voices end up being scared or worried to stand up, so at times they do need to see non-believers and big public figures speak openly to get the confidence and belief to know they can speak out in the West about religion/God/doctrine and not be silenced. What probably doesn't inspire much confidence in them is when the so-called moderates rain hellfire down on anyone being critical of religion so that they end up having to spend more time defending themselves from slander. The Gay Muslim(s) going up to Rubin/Maajid to say thanks/express their interest in speaking openly probably weren't too concerned about the internet claiming Rubin is a racist/far right hate figure and Maajid is an Uncle Tom self-hating extremist. As I said above many of these moderates have little to no problem with any voices attacking Christianity over it's doctrine and fundamental followers pushing back against gay marriage/abortion/etc. You do not see anyone labelled a Christianphobe/racist/extremist for criticising the Bible/followers who hold and express troubling views. I accept hate speech is a thing, and people most certainly do discriminate based upon race/ethnicity and place of being born (all tied up in their comments on religion/Islam). However, the net cast by moderates is the issue here, nearly anyone who dares speak out against Islam is labelled the same as a far-right political group. Earlier on we had Ayaan is Tommy Robinson, and we routinely get the Maajid is an Uncle Tom.

Sam's own words here in response to some of what people say about him and Islam should be read by passers-by. Selective quotations are something touched on.

https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/response-to-controversy

The most contentious point is probably his first, and he even notes that himself (seen below) ~ It's taking what I say above about how ALL religions operating under freedom of religion should be able to be criticised equally, but, adding that one religion may indeed have more problematic texts or dogmatic followers than another. People really do not like to hear that, as it makes them think "I'm being singled out!". That isn't necessarily true. Most religions may plagiarize from each other, but some are quite a bit different from others in their texts, or some may have had more years of reform/criticism aimed at them than others which often helps inspire change in followers. It's no surprise a lot of progress has been made with LGBT rights/gay marriage over the last 20 years in Christian/Catholic majority countries. That has largely happended DUE to the years upon years of criticism and debate about Christian values/beliefs giving followers food for thought and another way to look at human life/complexities. No matter what religions exist in the society, the same criticisms, comments, debates and thinking has to happen around issues such as LGBT/womens rights if we want to keep progressing as a caring/compassionate society. Shit like this doesn't get better unless criticism can be openly said and debated ~ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ue-berlin-seyran-ates-egypt-fatwa-burqa-niqab It's appalling that hate/death threats would come from this, but that's precisely a reason open commentary and dialogue is needed to slowly help people change some of their social views (whilst still being able to continue having a faith if they so please). History is littered with social progress happening through criticism/debate/vocal protest, and a lot of that has been around religions. Maybe more-so around Christianity/Catholicism in the West, but as Islam grows here it will face the same lines of debate the majority two religions have. No one sane is asking for religion to be wiped out, unless they are edgy atheists, but we most certainly do have work to do to challenge religious minds that are still living in the stone ages when it comes to their views particularly on women, but then also on LGBT groups. Children as well have faced long histories of abuse whether it be paedophilia in the Catholic Church or arranged marriages from Christianity/Islam. The main arbitrators of a lot of these abuses historically being men. That's what can happen when the doctrines are riddled with teachings that men are at the top, and everyone else is below them. Criticism of these ways of thinking is the answer for social progress. Women are not inferior to men, they are equal, both in mind and body (yes, this is a criticism partly aimed at forcing women to cover up). Children are not to be used as pawns to be sold off into marriages (neither are adults as they even face arranged marriages). Age of consent exists because children are not developed physically or mentally at some of the ages they've been abused/forced to have sex. Homosexuality is not a choice, and we have plenty of evidence from the fields of psychology and biology to back that up. And so on. Criticism and debate lead societies to come to fairer conclusions for all, and aids in protecting the vulnerable.

My criticism of faith-based religion focuses on what I consider to be bad ideas, held for bad reasons, leading to bad behavior. Because I am concerned about the logical and behavioral consequences of specific beliefs, I do not treat all religions the same. Not all religious doctrines are mistaken to the same degree, intellectually or ethically, and it is dishonest and ultimately dangerous to pretend otherwise. People in every tradition can be seen making the same errors, of course—e.g. relying on faith instead of evidence in matters of great personal and public concern—but the doctrines and authorities in which they place their faith run the gamut from the quaint to the psychopathic. For instance, a dogmatic belief in the spiritual and ethical necessity of complete nonviolence lies at the very core of Jainism, whereas an equally dogmatic commitment to using violence to defend one's faith, both from within and without, is similarly central to the doctrine of Islam. These beliefs, though held for identical reasons (faith) and in varying degrees by individual practitioners of these religions, could not be more different. And this difference has consequences in the real world. (Let that be the first barrier to entry into this conversation: If you will not concede this point, you will not understand anything I say about Islam. Unfortunately, many of my most voluble critics cannot clear this bar—and no amount of quotation from the Koran, the hadith, the ravings of modern Islamists, or from the plaints of their victims, makes a bit of difference.)

Facts of this kind demand that we make distinctions among faiths that many confused or dishonest people will interpret as a sign of bigotry. For instance, I have said on more than one occasion that Mormonism is objectively less credible than Christianity, because Mormons are committed to believing nearly all the implausible things that Christians believe plus many additional implausible things. It is mathematically true to say that whatever probability one assigns to Jesus' returning to earth to judge the living and the dead, one must assign a lesser probability to his doing so from Jackson County, Missouri. The glare of history is likewise unkind to Mormonism, for we simply know much more about Joseph Smith than we do about the twelve Apostles, and we have very good reasons to believe that he was a gifted con man. It is not a sign of bigotry against Mormons as people to honestly discuss these things. And I believe that atheists, secularists, and humanists do the world no favors by insisting that all religions be criticised in precisely the same terms and to the same degree.

Because I consider Islam to be especially belligerent and inimical to the norms of civil discourse, my views are often described as ”racist" by my critics. It is said that I am suffering a terrible case of ”Islamophobia." Worse, I am spreading this disease to others and using a veneer of philosophical atheism and scientific skepticism to justify the political oppression, torture, and murder of innocent Muslims around the world. I am a ”neo-con goon," a ”war monger," and a friend to ”fascists." In other words, I have blood on my hands.

It is hard to know where to start untangling these pernicious memes, but let's begin with the charge of racism.......

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

That's an interesting response. So you're saying the only reason we'd tend to hear about certain popular critics of Islam in the first place is because they are only ones that are promoted by mass media, and the only views promoted by mass media will tend towards simplistic, firebrand, negative critiques? I can wrap my head around that.

I will say that most of what I know of the views of Harris are from his podcast, in which he offers longform explanations of his positions. And he's extremely pedantic and walks you through his arguments. It's kind of the anti-mass media format, in that it is like an academic lecture (longer, in many cases). I am not experiencing Harris through sound bites where he critiques Islam like a pundit for 10 minutes then disappears. I know why he believes what he believes, and I believe he has sincerely come to these conclusions by being a kind of endlessly inquisitive geek, based upon actual inquiry. But sure, the reason I found him a decade ago could be that he was promoted by mass media in some form, so I could imagine how my potential list of voices is biased by the shape of mass media. That's if I accept your view. I'm not sure.

I'm also not all that convinced that the learned scholars of Islamic theology are necessarily the sole truth holders, though. For one, to even get to that point, you tend to be either a Muslim or have a certain obsessive capture with the merit of Islamic theology. People obsessed with Islam (be they muslim or non-believer) aren't likely to be the challengers who are going to point out how it may negatively function in the world. Secondly, there is a level of lay understanding of Islam that is almost certainly enough to have a functional debate:

If you can tell me about the life of the prophet from Mecca to Medina and back...
If you can tell me who the Sunni and Shia are, and you have an understanding of the various interests that led to the split..
If you can describe to me the spread and history of Islam within various regions...
If you can describe to me the various sub sects and sub group of thought such as Sufism, Wahhabism, Salafism, how they started and what they believe...
If you know of the various Islamic dynasties, from the Umayaad to Abassid to Ottoman..
If you can describe the various Islamic theological concepts such as hajj, shirk, tawheed, Islam (surrender to Allah) etc.....
If you understand how Islam was before Western dominance, and the various responses to the West afterward (Aligarh, Wahhab, etc)....
If you know which culture is aligned with which version of islam, and the full history of why...

...then I think you're qualified to weigh in on the issue, just as much as an academic specialist who has a masters in Islamic theology and speaks Arabic. You'd certainly be more qualified than most Muslims.

^ Not that this is all about Harris, but I do think from his podcasts he has waded through most of this material as an lay scholar.

Sure, I'd love to hear a deeper expert talk about these issues, though.

The main issue with that it's where and how did you get your knowledge from.
As i student of islamic theology myself, i can assure you that 90 % of the content i find online or from popular and mediatic speaker about Islam (pro or anti) lack depth, understanding and rigor.

Take for instance the Sira, the life of the Prophet ﷺ. Anybody in the West who want to study it (INCLUDING muslims) would go for Ibn Ishaq version of his life (or to any authors who heavily rely upon it). The issue is that 99 % of what Ibn Ishaq says have no source whatsoever. It's a fantasy book. Earlier proper scholars of Islam have called Ibn Ishaq a liar and a fraud. So even the things we think as basic knowledge about Prophet Muhammad ﷺ came from the mind of a man who tried to filled the gap as he could, mostly with military exploit (since it's what was popular back in the days).

So how we can even start talking about Islam when we don't have a proper criteria of what is considered canon or not in the life of founder of the religion ? It would be like to don't make a distinction between the four canonical gospel and whatever exist called gospel in the christian tradition.

This is only one subject, if we speak about theological matter like tawhid and shirk it get a LOT WORST. I've seen a lot of time western discourse about Islam taking the Wahhabi standpoint about those issues like if it's the classical sunni position. There is also an abyss between the western discourse on sufism and the reality. Don't get even me started about predestination and free-will in Islam.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

So you are against the conservative interpretation of Islam. But you don't care about reforming it, because that is not relevant. How do we move the people forward then, if reforming the faith is not on the table? How do we give equal rights to people who don't have it now, when we can't change the interpretation of the faith they follow that stands in the way of that?

Do you understand why I don't follow your arguments when you are laying out clear contradictions like this all the time?

You don't understand: most of muslims today consider themselves reformists. Reform is in the heart of the religion in itself. Yet, you won't find much in common between Amina Wadud and Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali. So when you speak about "reform" and "conservative", it doesn't make any sense until we says exactly what we mean about it.

Islam works like Judaism in its religious structure, not Christianity. So reformism and conservatives will always coexists. There is no Vatican to be taken, or Pope position to be hold. Ultra-conservative people will listen to what Saudi Arabia scholars says. I cannot says what would do "reformists" because this term can mean Muhammad al-Ghazali, Yusuf Qardawi, Khaled Abu Fadl, Tariq Ramadan or Adnan Ibrahim. So what are we talking about ?

So while i'm preoccupied about islamic reform like most muslims, i don't consider that what this mosque did have anything to do with my conception of reformism. I don't believe that hijab is oppressive or men and women should mix in prayer. Those are non-issues for me. If they think it's important and change the rule in their own mosques, i honestly don't care. Issues that matter to me are women's rights, racism, homophobia, bigotry against non-muslims, sectarianism... on the reformist side, in the sense that i believe that muslim discourse and practice (myself included) would always be a betrayal of the islamic religion. I feel that we use religion as a tool to justify our own defaults and to not give the rights others deserves. This is much more an issue about how we deal with each others on a daily basis than to give big discourse on TV.

 

[HiredN00bs]

I think it's important to distinguish between the religion of the masses versus the religion of theologians. I know they can be quite different in Christianity. There are also many different sects of Christianity with doctrine that can vary wildly, both among theologians and followers.

If the teachings of Islam as interpreted by scholars stipulate an opposition to theocracy, for example, is that interpretation shared by a majority of sects? Is it a common viewpoint among a majority of Muslims, even those not trained in theology? And if that isn't the case, is it not a worthy goal to convince more Muslims otherwise?

I'd like to hear some solutions on how to eradicate religion from real progressives.

The only effective way to do it is through education, but instead of teaching people what to think, teach them how to think: how to be skeptical, how to be critical, how to identify and examine evidence from credible sources. These are tools that are applicable and useful to all aspects of life.

 

[dripdripsplash]

The main issue with that it's where and how did you get your knowledge from.
As i student of islamic theology myself, i can assure you that 90 % of the content i find online or from popular and mediatic speaker about Islam (pro or anti) lack depth, understanding and rigor.

Take for instance the Sira, the life of the Prophet ﷺ. Anybody in the West who want to study it (INCLUDING muslims) would go for Ibn Ishaq version of his life (or to any authors who heavily rely upon it). The issue is that 99 % of what Ibn Ishaq says have no source whatsoever. It's a fantasy book. Earlier proper scholars of Islam have called Ibn Ishaq a liar and a fraud. So even the things we think as basic knowledge about Prophet Muhammad ﷺ came from the mind of a man who tried to filled the gap as he could, mostly with military exploit (since it's what was popular back in the days).

So how we can even start talking about Islam when we don't have a proper criteria of what is considered canon or not in the life of founder of the religion ? It would be like to don't make a distinction between the four canonical gospel and whatever exist called gospel in the christian tradition.

This is only one subject, if we speak about theological matter like tawhid and shirk it get a LOT WORST. I've seen a lot of time western discourse about Islam taking the Wahhabi standpoint about those issues like if it's the classical sunni position. There is also an abyss between the western discourse on sufism and the reality. Don't get even me started about predestination and free-will in Islam.

What you are saying is not true.

Studying Ibn Ishaq at a western university myself too I will tell you that we are properbly introduced to the fact that his isnads was later on criticized. as everything else in islam it was a development. This one culminating, to the canon sahih collections.

Your comment does not even make any sense. You want people to have a grasp of everything in islam, predestination and free will debate included, to have a say to what islam is ?

So while i'm preoccupied about islamic reform like most muslims, i don't consider that what this mosque did have anything to do with my conception of reformism. I don't believe that hijab is oppressive or men and women should mix in prayer. Those are non-issues for me. If they think it's important and change the rule in their own mosques, i honestly don't care. Issues that matter to me are women's rights, racism, homophobia, bigotry against non-muslims, sectarianism... on the reformist side, in the sense that i believe that muslim discourse and practice (myself included) would always be a betrayal of the islamic religion. I feel that we use religion as a tool to justify our own defaults and to not give the rights others deserves. This is much more an issue about how we deal with each others on a daily basis than to give big discourse on TV.

Do you not think that the free mixing of genders and the allowing of homosexuals into a mosque is a fight for womans right and against homophobia in our muslim communities ? Then what is ?!

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

What you are saying is not true.

Studying Ibn Ishaq at a Western University myself too I will tell you that we are properbly introduced to the fact that his isnads was later on criticized. as everything else in islam it was a development culminating, to the canon sahih collections.

Your comment does not even make any sense. You want people to have a grasp of everything in islam, predestination and free will debate included, to have a say to what islam is ?

This is a very bad and nonsensical methodology. People contemporary to Ibn Ishaq have rejected him, so it doesn't have anything to with the establishment of the Sahih compilation.

About your last phrase, everybody can says what they want about Islam. Another thing is to pretend to be an expert and wrote book about it. And yeah, i won't pretend to know something about judaism without studying AT LEAST hebrew and have a basic grasp of the theological doctrine.

Do you not think that the free mixing of genders and the allowing of homosexuals into a mosque is a fight for womans right and against homophobia in our muslim communities ? Then what is ?!

Which western mosque don't allow homosexuals in?

Who said anything about free mixing of gender ? :/ The issue is to not separate between men and women during prayer. I don't think it's a women's right issue at all. I think it's a non-issue and all the muslim women i know don't think it's an issue. Women's right are thing like domestic violence, divorce right, use of religion to defend misogynistic views etc.

The same goes for homophobia, i believe that homosexuals and transgenders deserve to be respected and that they should feel welcomed in God's house.

 

[dripdripsplash]

This is a very bad and nonsensical methodology. People contemporary to Ibn Ishaq have rejected him, so it doesn't have anything to with the establishment of the Sahih compilation.

About your last phrase, everybody can says what they want about Islam. Another thing is to pretend to be an expert and wrote book about it. And yeah, i won't pretend to know something about judaism without studying AT LEAST hebrew and have a basic grasp of the theological doctrine.

I am not saying that his works was the basis for the sahih compilations, but the overall idea of what a sound isnad is was a development. Everything in islam was a development, there was no usul fiqh when muhammad lived.

And with regards to saying about islam, then good. I misunderstood you then.

Islam needs reform, the texts need reform. As I said before. When you argue with one who has Gods own words on his side then who are you to actually convince him to something else

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

I am not saying that his works was the basis for the sahih compilations, but the overall idea of what a sound isnad is was a development. Everything in islam was a development, there was no usul fiqh when muhammad lived.

And with regards to saying about islam, then good. I misunderstood you then.

Islam needs reform, the texts need reform. As I said before. When you argue with one who has Gods own words on his side then who are you to actually convince him to something else

I agree that Islam was in development until the formation of the schools, and of course we didn't need usool of fiqh ("fundamentals of islamic law") in the time of the Prophet ﷺ since he was here to answer all of our fiqhi question. Usool of fiqh was however systematized in the firsts generations, notably by Imam Shafi'i in the second islamic century. Yet, usool existed since the time of the Companions but was not systematized. It was the task of the latests generations to do so. Take somebody like Abu Hanifa, which is a tabi'in (second generation of muslims), he clearly had usool from his own teachers, who followed the methods of 'Ali and Abu Masud. But we had to wait until the students of Abu Hanifa systematized those usool to actually have them as a system.

The same goes for hadith, which are always used in the western university to prove that it was a later construction. Abu Hanifa have his own books of hadith, from the first century. Also the famous Muwatta of Imam Malik. Those books are way more authentics than Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim who came way after. They were called Sahih (authentic) because their was actually so much confusion about hadiths in this time, not because sahih hadith didn't exist before.

 

[ClosingADoor]

You don't understand: most of muslims today consider themselves reformists. Reform is in the heart of the religion in itself. Yet, you won't find much in common between Amina Wadud and Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali. So when you speak about "reform" and "conservative", it doesn't make any sense until we says exactly what we mean about it.

Islam works like Judaism in its religious structure, not Christianity. So reformism and conservatives will always coexists. There is no Vatican to be taken, or Pope position to be hold. Ultra-conservative people will listen to what Saudi Arabia scholars says. I cannot says what would do "reformists" because this term can mean Muhammad al-Ghazali, Yusuf Qardawi, Khaled Abu Fadl, Tariq Ramadan or Adnan Ibrahim. So what are we talking about ?

So while i'm preoccupied about islamic reform like most muslims, i don't consider that what this mosque did have anything to do with my conception of reformism. I don't believe that hijab is oppressive or men and women should mix in prayer. Those are non-issues for me. If they think it's important and change the rule in their own mosques, i honestly don't care. Issues that matter to me are women's rights, racism, homophobia, bigotry against non-muslims, sectarianism... on the reformist side, in the sense that i believe that muslim discourse and practice (myself included) would always be a betrayal of the islamic religion. I feel that we use religion as a tool to justify our own defaults and to not give the rights others deserves. This is much more an issue about how we deal with each others on a daily basis than to give big discourse on TV.

What we are mostly talking about, is that a lot of Muslims have very conservative views that have a negative impact on others, and that needs to change (same way other religious conservative views are outdated and need to change somehow to move forward). But when this is brought up, we end up in discussions like this, where people feel very quickly attacked and then try to deflect criticism, instead of just owning up to it and saying: yes, there is a problem among a lot of people who have outdated views on equality, gay rights and freedom of religion, and that is something that need to be fixed.

If you agree with that, that is great. But I always get the feeling from your posts that you are taking criticism like that as an attack on your faith and then feel the need to defend it. And you don't want that discussion to be placed on tv. Why not? Why can't we openly talk about this, but does that discussion need to fall within your defined rules? That is not how an open discussion takes place, that is shutting out criticism you don't like.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

What we are mostly talking about, is that a lot of Muslims have very conservative views that have a negative impact on others, and that needs to change (same way other religious conservative views are outdated and need to change somehow to move forward). But when this is brought up, we end up in discussions like this, where people feel very quickly attacked and then try to deflect criticism, instead of just owning up to it and saying: yes, there is a problem among a lot of people who have outdated views on equality, gay rights and freedom of religion, and that is something that need to be fixed.

If you agree with that, that is great. But I always get the feeling from your posts that you are taking criticism like that as an attack on your faith and then feel the need to defend it. And you don't want that discussion to be placed on tv. Why not? Why can't we openly talk about this, but does that discussion need to fall within your defined rules? That is not how an open discussion takes place, that is shutting out criticism you don't like.

I'll be really happy to see such a discussion on TV. Sadly, muslims scholars are never invited to speak about those issues, we just invite people to speak about them.

I don't feel that my religion is attacked, i just feel that the general discussion is very confuse and lack precision. It's why i constantly feel the need to define the words we're using.

 

[ClosingADoor]

I'll be really happy to see such a discussion on TV. Sadly, muslims scholars are never invited to speak about those issues, we just invite people to speak about them.

I don't feel that my religion is attacked, i just feel that the general discussion is very confuse and lack precision. It's why i constantly feel the need to define the words we're using.

But your constant insistence on having exact definitions about everything seems like a way to shut out criticism. You seem obsessed with getting the history right, and while that is a part of being able to understand how we got to this point, it does not actually bring any solutions to move people into a more progressive direction. Or do you think we will somehow find new definitions in old texts now that will make a lot of people say: well, now I accept gay people.

I think this is much more a cultural thing then only religious, because people will read into their text what they want and twist is anyway. And those cultural issues - that overlap a lot with religion, so that is why we always come back to talking about Islam and Muslims - will be very hard to change. But to even make a start there, we need to accept that a lot needs changing and not try to downplay that or attack people that want that change.

 

[televator]

I'd like to hear some solutions on how to eradicate religion from real progressives.

Eradicate? lol

There may be ways to minimize it without resorting to some authoritarian over reach, but erradication is impossible unless you wanna resort to emulating North Korea.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

But your constant insistence on having exact definitions about everything seems like a way to shut out criticism. You seem obsessed with getting the history right, and while that is a part of being able to understand how we got to this point, it does not actually bring any solutions to move people into a more progressive direction. Or do you think we will somehow find new definitions in old texts now that will make a lot of people say: well, now I accept gay people.

I think this is much more a cultural thing then only religious, because people will read into their text what they want and twist is anyway. And those cultural issues - that overlap a lot with religion, so that is why we always come back to talking about Islam and Muslims - will be very hard to change. But to even make a start there, we need to accept that a lot needs changing and not try to downplay that or attack people that want that change.

I always want definition because i don't want to say something wrong. If i says "i am reformist" and you understand reformist for something else, there is no communication. So i have to explain in what sense i'm a reformist, and in what sense i'm not. Without believing that my opinion matter so much anyway, i'm way more interested in explaining what is the actual reformist landscape in the muslim world.

The main issue is that i don't think that the people we are speaking out are credible, nor they will have any kind of effect. You can't change thing with those kind of people. There is no muslims who actually gave a damn about Ayyan Hirshi Ali is saying.
Also, i don't think we want the same change in the first place. Just look at our discussion about women in prayer. For many critics, it's an important point. For most muslims reformists, it's a non-issue. I think Islam should be defined and reformed by muslims and not anybody else.

 

[HiredN00bs]

Eradicate? lol

There may be ways to minimize it without resorting to some authoritarian over reach, but erradication is impossible unless you wanna resort to emulating North Korea.

I believe that was their point, that there isn't a progressive way to eradicate it.

Even if you could force people to claim they don't believe, it wouldn't be addressing the root of the problem: that humans are inherently irrational and prone to error about perceiving and understanding reality. This is why I gave the response above about teaching people how to think versus teaching them what to the think.

Society may eventually move away from religion, but the only way that happens is by it becoming more rational and evidence-based in its pursuit to understand reality.

 

[ClosingADoor]

I always want definition because i don't want to say something wrong. If i says "i am reformist" and you understand reformist for something else, there is no communication. So i have to explain in what sense i'm a reformist, and in what sense i'm not. Without believing that my opinion matter so much anyway, i'm way more interested in explaining what is the actual reformist landscape in the muslim world.

The main issue is that i don't think that the people we are speaking out are credible, nor they will have any kind of effect. You can't change thing with those kind of people. There is no muslims who actually gave a damn about Ayyan Hirshi Ali is saying.
Also, i don't think we want the same change in the first place. Just look at our discussion about women in prayer. For many critics, it's an important point. For most muslims reformists, it's a non-issue. I think Islam should be defined and reformed by muslims and not anybody else.

But when you set the rules like that, about who can be part of the discussion you are shutting out a lot of voices here. For example: can someone who has renounced their faith then be part of the discussion? They might have something important to contribute because of their experience, but you say that only Muslims can talk about it.

What if a large group of Muslims decide they don't want to change their faith to modern standards and are fine with human rights abuses. Does that mean we can not talk to them about it, because we are not Muslims?

See how setting rules for a discussion in that way holds a lot of danger. Who defines who is credible? Who defines who is allowed to talk about it? That is a risky road you want to go down.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

But when you set the rules like that, about who can be part of the discussion you are shutting out a lot of voices here. For example: can someone who has renounced their faith then be part of the discussion? They might have something important to contribute because of their experience, but you say that only Muslims can talk about it.

What if a large group of Muslims decide they don't want to change their faith to modern standards and are fine with human rights abuses. Does that mean we can not talk to them about it, because we are not Muslims?

See how setting rules for a discussion in that way holds a lot of danger. Who defines who is credible? Who defines who is allowed to talk about it? That is a risky road you want to go down.

It depend on what you are calling to. You have every right to talk about Islam, or disagree with Islam, or hate Islam. You have no right to reform Islam if you're not muslim, because theology cannot be made by an outsider. Jewish reformism came from jews themselves. Christian reformism came from christians themselves and the same goes for Islamic reformism.

It's pretty logical, because the stakes are not the same. If the Quran says something, you don't care so much. For us, it's the word of God. It's matter a lot.
To give you an example: I don't agree with christianism on trinity and the doctrine of incarnation. Can i call for a reform of christianity ? On what ground ? The Quran ? It doesn't make any sense. However, i have every right to discuss it, criticize it and reject it. In the same way, you can disagree with many things in the muslim faith, but you cannot call us to reject the teachings of our sacred book because you're secular ethics says otherwise.

So to break it down:

*Anybody can talk about Islam.

*Experts only should pretend to have expertly views on Islam and wrote books about it.

*Reformism is the matter of muslims themselves.

Oppression is another subject and anybody should fight against it. It dosen't matter if the oppression is made in the name of Islam, democracy or socialism.

 

[dripdripsplash]

I agree that Islam was in development until the formation of the schools, and of course we didn't need usool of fiqh ("fundamentals of islamic law") in the time of the Prophet ﷺ since he was here to answer all of our fiqhi question. Usool of fiqh was however systematized in the firsts generations, notably by Imam Shafi'i in the second islamic century. Yet, usool existed since the time of the Companions but was not systematized. It was the task of the latests generations to do so. Take somebody like Abu Hanifa, which is a tabi'in (second generation of muslims), he clearly had usool from his own teachers, who followed the methods of 'Ali and Abu Masud. But we had to wait until the students of Abu Hanifa systematized those usool to actually have them as a system.

The same goes for hadith, which are always used in the western university to prove that it was a later construction. Abu Hanifa have his own books of hadith, from the first century. Also the famous Muwatta of Imam Malik. Those books are way more authentics than Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim who came way after. They were called Sahih (authentic) because their was actually so much confusion about hadiths in this time, not because sahih hadith didn't exist before.

Was it not Al-Shafi'i who first systematized the usul al fiqh (quran, hadith, ijmaع and qiyas) ?

And true to the second, I find it unbeliavable that so many muslims actually believe all of them are true renditions of what the prophet said.

Like the fact that there was confusion is something known, but then its like yeah we gathered these thousands of hadiths in a sahih compilation with no mistakes at all... and its sahih because its named sahih, thats the argument now lol

 

[RustyNails]

Was it not Al-Shafi'i who first systematized the usul al fiqh (quran, hadith, ijmaع and qiyas) ?

And true to the second, I find it unbeliavable that so many muslims actually believe all of them are true renditions of what the prophet said.

Like the fact that there was confusion is something known, but then its like yeah we gathered these thousands of hadiths in a sahih compilation with no mistakes at all... and its sahih because its named sahih, thats the argument now lol

Here's the deal with Sahih Bukhari: There's no guarantee that it's mistake-free. Only book in Islam that is absolutely free of doubt vis-a-vis religion is Quran, and nothing else. Sure, great deal went by Imam Bukhari to compile the hadiths, but this should be taken into consideration as well. But on the whole, the hadiths relayed are verified and sound. See this small answer on Sahih Bukhari by Jonathan Brown

 

[ClosingADoor]

It depend on what you are calling to. You have every right to talk about Islam, or disagree with Islam, or hate Islam. You have no right to reform Islam if you're not muslim, because theology cannot be made by an outsider. Jewish reformism came from jews themselves. Christian reformism came from christians themselves and the same goes for Islamic reformism.

It's pretty logical, because the stakes are not the same. If the Quran says something, you don't care so much. For us, it's the word of God. It's matter a lot.
To give you an example: I don't agree with christianism on trinity and the doctrine of incarnation. Can i call for a reform of christianity ? On what ground ? The Quran ? It doesn't make any sense. However, i have every right to discuss it, criticize it and reject it. In the same way, you can disagree with many things in the muslim faith, but you cannot call us to reject the teachings of our sacred book because you're secular ethics says otherwise.

So to break it down:

*Anybody can talk about Islam.

*Experts only should pretend to have expertly views on Islam and wrote books about it.

*Reformism is the matter of muslims themselves.

Oppression is another subject and anybody should fight against it. It dosen't matter if the oppression is made in the name of Islam, democracy or socialism.

I think you can call for reform when it comes to matters that impact others, because at that point, you are not just setting rules for yourself, but also go about setting those for other people. That goes for a lot of things. If you keep your opinion to yourself, that is fine. But when you have people out there that spread their opinion - in this case their religion - that has negative consequences for others, that is a different issue.

Certainly when those ideas are being spread by people who have a lot of influence or power, like religious leaders or politicians who say they act based on their faith. That is where the oppression comes into play also, and why there should be a strong pushback against those conservative views, because in a lot of cases, those people following that are not keeping to themselves, but are hurting others.

 

[Azzanadra]

I just recently learned of Harris/Rubin, who I would say have a pretty similar perspective on Islam and free speech which puts them in combat a lot with progressives.

Are there any other interview-type shows people who dislike Harris/Rubin could recommend? Always looking for more viewpoints. I tried out a couple more news-oriented podcasts and found with such regular release it was difficult to keep up.

Honestly I would suggest dropping Rubin, I like Harris but Rubin is a complete and utter hack. I had hoped for his show in 2015, but even his own fanbase has turned against him- just look at his subreddit. He is completely intellectually dishonest and his promotion of "listening to both sides" is an apparent lie when he only hosts alt-right and anti-PC dudes on his show. He refuses to challenge other on bullshit views like climate change and panders to whoever his guest is at the time.

 

[otake]

I don't understand two things.

Who are these liberals who Bill accuses of not seeing the problems with taking the Koran literally?

Secondly, why must Bill remind us every week of the problems with Radical Islam?

Yes, some islamist kill people with stones. Yes, some abuse women. etc.


there are also others who hurt no one. Why must we discuss this every fucking week?

 

[thefil]

Honestly I would suggest dropping Rubin, I like Harris but Rubin is a complete and utter hack. I had hoped for his show in 2015, but even his own fanbase has turned against him- just look at his subreddit. He is completely intellectually dishonest and his promotion of "listening to both sides" is an apparent lie when he only hosts alt-right and anti-PC dudes on his show. He refuses to challenge other on bullshit views like climate change and panders to whoever his guest is at the time.

Yeah, his reddit is pretty incriminating. Yeesh.

I spent a lot of this morning reading criticisms and defenses of Harris' views. I came away thinking his logic and epistemology is good, though he has disputed information on how Islamic texts are commonly interpreted, the haddith, and what composes mainstream Muslim beliefs. If his "facts" are wrong, then he's definitely been beating the anti-Islamist drum too strongly. His Response to Controversy is really strong and makes his critics look like they massively misrepresent him.

All I can say is it's crazy to bounce around. I read a lot of Greenwald for a few years, and now diving into Harris it's become apparent how little they like each other or agree!

 

[shadowsdarknes]

I don't understand two things.

Who are these liberals who Bill accuses of not seeing the problems with taking the Koran literally?

Secondly, why must Bill remind us every week of the problems with Radical Islam?

Yes, some islamist kill people with stones. Yes, some abuse women. etc.


there are also others who hurt no one. Why must we discuss this every fucking week?

Ratings, I suppose. That's why he keeps having polarizing figures on his show. Tomi, Milo, Nawaz, that Breitbart guy, etc.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

I think you can call for reform when it comes to matters that impact others, because at that point, you are not just setting rules for yourself, but also go about setting those for other people. That goes for a lot of things. If you keep your opinion to yourself, that is fine. But when you have people out there that spread their opinion - in this case their religion - that has negative consequences for others, that is a different issue.

Certainly when those ideas are being spread by people who have a lot of influence or power, like religious leaders or politicians who say they act based on their faith. That is where the oppression comes into play also, and why there should be a strong pushback against those conservative views, because in a lot of cases, those people following that are not keeping to themselves, but are hurting others.

In every case that those conservative views are hurting others, i try to call them out.
We have a verse in the Quran who said that Muhammad ﷺ was not sent as a guardian over other people, but a transmitter. If the Holy Prophet is not a guardian (in the authoritarian sense), how can a simple muslim can be one ? We have also this example in many stories about the first caliphs, like 'Ali calling out before visiting somebody knowing that that person was indulging in adultery, and closing his eyes so the other person can go without being seen. Overlooking sins is a big part of our religion. Pointing the sins of others for self-aggrandizement is a big part of human psyche. The struggle of self-reformism is to overcome those negatives tendencies of the soul.
Don't get me wrong though, i'm not a secularist. But a muslim rule should be a civil state, not a religious one unlike Iran or KSA with a religious police and everything.