<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LvvQJ_zsL1U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins are so right.
Except they are arguing a straw man. Maryam Namazie was not censored. She simply was disinvited. Her free speech wasn't take away. It's a bit extreme to call it censorship. It is akin to rescinding an invitation to David Duke. She paints Islam with one broad stroke and undermines those Muslims who are trying to do any kind of reform. It's unfortunate. But the student body ended up reversing it's decision and inviting her back. This isn't an issue of kow-towing to Islamists which is just a ridiculous thing to say. It's about PC and people able to tolerate what is borderline hate speech. The question is does a student body have an interest in shutting out extreme views? I personally think all views should be allowed.
I'm an atheist. I don't like religion's influence on society -- any religion. That includes Islam. However, to treat Islam like it is completely different than other ideologies and religions (which have also been used to justify suicidal and violent devotion), and to ignore non-religious causes to Islamic terrorism (such as U.S. foreign policy) is counterproductive and illogical. So, while I agree that the middle east would be much better if the authoritarian influence of Islam was decreased, I also think Europe was much better after the authoritarian influence of Christianity was decreased, that Japan was much better after the authoritarian devotion to the Emperor was decreased, that North Korea would be much better if the authoritarian power of their State ideology was decreased, etc. I see no basis to treat Islam as apart and different than other ideologies, and I think doing so and then seeing that as the sole cause for violence in the middle east blinds people to the many other contributing factors which we have more control over. It also causes us to lower our expectations, standards and treatment of middle eastern societies in an irrational way. For instance, many in the west think feminism and democracy are impossible in the middle east, but the Rojava revolution in northern Syria (the groups more responsible for pushing back against ISIS than any other in the region) is proving that is not the case by creating a mass libertarian socialist, feminist, secular, egalitarian society. So, yes, I think people should be able to criticize Islam, just as they do other religions and ideologies. But when people act like Islam is in a class of its own in terms of being a destructive ideology, that is 1) not supported by history and 2) not a useful way of looking at middle eastern issues in order to actually address the conditions, other than Islam, causing such issue which may be more in our control. For instance, two of our main allies in the region are Saudi Arabia and Turkey, both of which are funding Islamic terror groups in Syria, including AL-quaeda and ISIS. Maybe us supporting two of the largest sponsors of Islamic Terror in the middle east is part of the problem and we should stop doing so. Or we can just unthinkingly write it all off as Islam being inherently bad, and not evaluate the consequences of our foreign policy -- either way.
Islam is all about war. The Koran is full of battles waged by Muhamed. His crowning achievement was that he did not slaughter everyone in Medina as he had in every other city we had attacked. Some Jews chose to reject the influence of the Old Testament by singling out those morals and stories which focuses on peace, kindness and love. To my knowledge Islam has no such new testament.
In the same way that Christianity was able to become more accepting of science and technology and less repressive of women without another new testament, Islam can be changed as well. I mentioned the Kurds in Northern Syria above. Many among them are Muslim, indeed, they have increasingly been adding Islamic Arabs and Syriac Christians to their ranks as well -- all while continuing to empower and arm women and to create a secular non-authoritarian society. So, people can create progressive, humanistic and secular societies even in Islamic areas, and while many of those participating are Muslim. Just like with Christianity, different individuals can take Islam in many different ways. Houston is the home of Hakeem Olajuwon for instance. When you look at someone like him and how Islam made him more at peace, how can you continue to see Islam as more irredeemable than other religions?
HamJam, thank you for your post. I don't think it is illogical. Islamists are murdering people in Russia and China. That has nothing to do with U.S. foreign policy, and is happening anyway. There is a common theme. This is all true, but as you correctly state, with the exception of North Korea, these things have already happened. North Korea is an isolated, special case. The problems with Islam and in Islamic countries are not - they are widespread. What more basis do you need, in addition to ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, the Taliban? And even where you don't have terrorist organizations acting in the name of Islam, you still have subjugation of women, discrimination of homosexuals, death penalty for apostasy and discrimination of people of other beliefs. How is that "no basis"? What more evidence do you need? You posted the keyword yourself. The only way you can have equal rights for women in that region is by instituting a secular government. It is absolutely supported by history, both by ancient history and especially by current events. Again, if you think one should just disregard ISIS, Al Qaeda, Taliban, Boko Haram, the Saudi government, and if you think they all have nothing to do with Islam, then you are mistaken. Currently, Islam is EASILY in a class of its own in the world in terms of being a destructive ideology. I absolutely agree with that. One can criticize Islam and still evaluate the consequences of foreign policy, they are not mutually exclusive at all. But without an honest assessment of the root causes of the problems in Muslim countries - which certainly include Islam - you cannot come to a correct evaluation.
Isn't the old testament littered with holy wars and genocide sanctioned by yawhe himself or its not the same?
Let's hope that Islam can be changed. But that requires an understanding that it needs to change. By appeasing and saying "oh it's not that bad", you are not helping that cause, you are hurting it. And again, your Kurds example actually goes against your own argument because the only reason they have a "better" society is because they are more secular (= less Islam).
Outside of some of the ultra-rightwing Jewish settler types I guess, there's not exactly a whole lot of groups using the Old Testament to justify widespread violence and carnage.
Certainly -- it is an important conversation to have. Hey, you may enjoy the following podcast actually, where Sam Harris and Dan Carlin argue along very similar lines as you and I, respectively, are. (podcast link) No, but it does have something to do with Russian and Chinese foreign and domestic policy. Each of those countries are, like the U.S., involved in the middle east and have proxy government they support (they each support Assad for instance) -- plus they both have large Islamic ethnic minorities in their borders that they have a history of violently repressing. It isn't all about religion. That is part of it, but imagine, for instance, France controlled a region with a German minority which they suppressed, and then used proxy governments to involve itself in the economic and political situations of the German people , might it not increase the likelihood of a repressive, authoritarian and violent response among the German population and political environment? Eh? You don't have to go very far back in history to where North Korea is not an isolated case. Go back 30 or 40 years and most of the Eurasian land mass was in a fairly similar situation. I don't see how you can argue that it being 30 or 40 years ago invalidates that situation as an example of how the situation in the middle east is not uniquely bad. Is it bad -- yes. Is Islam contributing to the bad situation -- yes. Should it be criticized - sure. But it is not unique, and I don't think Islam is more irredeemable than Christianity or Socialism -- two ideologies which contributing to widespread social ills (just like Islam is now) but which subsequently were seen to not be incompatible with a functional society (which you argue Islam is). Again, I agree that Islam is part of the problem, but the historical examples of where Christianity, Hinduism, socialism or some other ideology similarly contributing to a wretched and repressive society and then changed such that they could be part of a free and progressive society, causes me to think Islam could similarly adapt -- like it seems to be doing now in Rojava. I agree with you there 100%. But, again, I think Rojava shows that a predominantly Muslim population can create a secular society. So, I agree completely that they must do so in order to have a free and functional society, but I believe Muslims can do so just like Christians, Hindus and others came to be able to (and, I'll add to my fellow Americans and westerners of the Christian persuasion, if we ever stop having a secular society, and go back to a Christian dominated society, as many of you wish, we should expect a cessation of the freedom and functionality of our society). And I absolutely agree with this. My only point is we must make sure we are doing so. Writing off Islam as uniquely bad creates a tendency (not always mind you) of ignoring instances in non-Islamic history(sometimes even the recent history) which were also quite repressive and terrible, as well as ignoring the non-religious causes to the situations in the middle east. That isn't to say only non-religious causes are valid (Islam is absolutely playing a part), but to ignore either the religious or non-religious causes is a mistake, the latter of which people like Harris and the men in the video seem to make in my opinion.
If you think the Kurds example goes against my argument then you have unfortunately misunderstood my argument. I agree that the Kurds have a '"better'" society (why the quotation marks, by the way?) because they are more secular. My argument is that being more secular is not something that is incompatible with an Islamic society any more than it is incompatible with a Christian society -- and in each case it is necessary for a free and functional society (i.e. if western society ever again becomes as Christian as the middle east is Muslim, we will be just as repressive and dysfunctional, and if they ever become as secular as the west is, they will be similarly as free and functional)
Nearly 100% of today Kurds follow Islam. "secular" can be a good reason but it doesn't apply to the Kurds. For the Kurds, it's their culture that made them who they are. Religion is not like 0 and 1 logic with no room for interpretation. Cultural, and other factors, greatly influence how people practice their religion. Catholic is one religion with a clear teaching and direction starting from the top. And yet even with that, Catholic in the USA are different than Catholic in Asian. Same religion + very different culture = different expressions and practices of the same religion. There are many other factors of course, but culture is one of the biggest. All religion are subjected to forces that shape how they are interpreted, expressed and practiced.
I hope that history will prove you right. As to your argument, I would certainly disagree at present times - being more secular is absolutely incompatible with Islamic societies as they are right now, because the Islam being practiced across the world does not know or tolerate a separation of church and state. If you are expressing your opinion and hope that Islam is as capable of reformation as was Christianity, then I hope that you are right - I am just much more skeptical than you, because while they have very similar roots, they also have significant differences - the central figure of one of the two is a peace-loving hippie who taught to turn the other cheek, whereas the central figure of the other one, who must not be questioned in any way and is treated as infallible, was a warlord who beheaded and slaughtered hundreds of Jews and slept with children. Nevertheless, I do hope that a movement within Islam is going to emerge that starts questioning things which only, if ever, made sense within the historical background they took place in, and which clearly does away with subjugation of women, with any sanctions for apostasy, with discrimination against homosexuals, with discrimination of people of other beliefs, and which clearly states a respect for a separation of church and state. I would respect that kind of Islam. The current Islam, as it is practiced in most parts of the world and, when you look at the Pew polls, where these kinds of beliefs are held by the majority of followers? Nope. But I do appreciate your eloquently stated argument and I respect that you have a different view. Coming back to the premise of the thread, I do think that the left has a weird stance on Islam: While they are super-critical of conservative Christians and vehemently fight for women's rights and homosexuals' rights, they completely turn a blind eye with regard to Islam's treatment of these issues, and immediately attack anyone who criticizes those or points them out as a bigot, Nazi, racist, whatever. At the very least, it is blindly inconsistent and intellectually lazy behavior. Islam is not a race, it's a religion and also a political ideology (as it demands to rule every aspect of life). As such, it must be open to criticism just as any other political ideology. One is not a better person because one shouts someone down who points out its flaws.
Umm... That's what an overwhelming majority of Muslims at least in the States do. Judaism has no 'New Testament' also. The Old Testament is every bit has harsh as the Quran. Jews learned to secularize. Muslims in certain regions have learned to also; one example being the US. Any religious group that drifts towards secularization is always a good thing. I'm still waiting on Southern Baptists as they are dragging down this nation more so than any other religious group in the US including Muslims.
Yes, there is legitimate justification for what a large portion of ISIS does within the text of the Quran and reliable hadith. However, there is reliable justification for use of corporal punishment for working on Sundays in Judaism. Hamjam does have a point. Political and fundamentalist Islam has ramped up since the 1960s. ATW, according to your logic, since everything that is happening the Middle East is only because of Islam, that would entail that Islamic scholars in the past 50 years have discovered new text or a new interpretations and moved in a new more violent direction. Or we could be rational and admit that American hegemony has SOMETHING to do with it. What else could explain the explosion of political Islam in the past 40-50 years? Blaming ONLY Islam does place blinders in one's eyes allowing them to ignore many of the other factors, and sorry, ATW, I think you fallen victim to these blinders. Islam is definitely part of the reason for the overall predicament in the Middle East. Anyone suggesting otherwise, sure they deserve to be called 'libtards', 'pc police' etc. However, I believe you are at the opposite end of the spectrum. I don't know if it's because of a push back to these 'pc police' but blaming ONLY Islam accomplishes nothing.
Oil money (and gas money). Very simple. Much more logical explanation than "American hegemony". The Saudis (and Qataris) represent one of the most backward and crazy interpretations of Islam. They got tons of oil money. They have been exporting their brand of Islam to the world very aggressively. It's not "only" Islam per se. It's, to be precise, very much the extreme version of Islam represented by the Saudis, and, on the Shiite end of the spectrum since the overthrow of the Shah, by the Mullahs in Iran. Have the USA (and the United Kingdom, specifically in Iran) played an important negative role in these forces coming to power like that? Yes, in my opinion, definitely. But does that negate the fact that these interpretations of Islam are now the core of the problem? In my opinion, no. It helps to explain how they could become so influential and it also helps to explain how the West bears its part of the responsibility in that happening (combined with irresponsible exports of weapons into that region). I am not saying that it is "only" Islam. But the ideology is still the core problem.
I am actually not making a prediction as to the future of the middle east. I am just discussing this as an analysis of what the various causes of the problems in that region are and what the potential for overcoming them may be. Do you not see the Rojava revolution as an example of this? They are secular, inclusive of all religions (Sunni, Shia, Yezidi, Christians, Jews, atheist), are opposed to racism and discrimination against homosexuals, and the political empowerment and arming of women is one of their central tenants. This hits all the check marks you mention -- and they are doing so when most of the people in the society are Muslims. I would not ask you to respect that kind of Islam. Nor do I. Nor do the Muslims that are part of the YPG/J and PYD (the organizations participating in the Rojava revolution). All of us (you, I, and the Kurds in Rojava) are critical of this kind of Islam -- and I would encourage such criticism. But to act like it is an inherent part of Islam more so than other ideologies is not, in my opinion, accurate, and, more importantly, it is not a helpful analysis for improving the situation. Thanks -- and thank you for the opportunity for civil debate on an important topic. As a radical leftist, I'll address this. First, I will say Islam should be subject to criticism just like all other ideologies -- I agree 100% there. I am critical not only of the repressive States in the middle east, but also of the U.S. foreign policy that has often supported militant Islamists. That said, the reason many on the left are concerned with combating anti-Islamic criticisms, is because they are often, at times, based on a Nationalistic and racist worldview (yes, Islam is a religion, not a race -- but that doesn't mean those perpetuating hate for Islam can't be motivated by an ignorant racist mindset -- which is why you have seen Sikhs targeted by anti-Islamic violence at times). Indeed, some of the anti-Islamic rallies being held have been created by explicitly racist and fascistic organizations (like Golden Dawn). For instance, while I would support your criticism of the repressive policies in most of the middle east and Islam's role in these issues (and, again, the largely Muslim Kurds I mentioned would echo this as well), I would also condemn someone like Donald Trump being alright with the guy in his audience that talked about "getting rid" of all the Muslims in our country. In short -- yes, the left should be critical of Islam, but we should all be able to do so without the nationalism and bigotry that at times overlaps and colors these criticisms.
I guess this will depend on how you view how the occupiers of Gaza justify settling into Palestinian territory. The point I was trying to make is that ALL religions implored this at one point in time. It was not too long ago that the Christians were just as violent.
