Islam & the Future of Tolerance - Maajid Nawaz & Sam Harris

Post Reply New Topic

I've been listening to a lot of Sam's stuff lately on Youtube and more recently I grabbed up some of the talks he's done with Maajid. There's a lot that got discussed here, everything from what the new-atheist movement deems the stifling effects of the 'regressive left' as well as the sociological challenges that are in play with the issue, especially in the Middle East, and a lot of what's at stake, most importantly, for those living in majority Muslim countries.

Not sure what kind of discussion this might start here but I at least found it to be an hour well spent. I also do credit Sam for standing up on these issues and trying to clarify exactly what he sees as the critical points that are getting completely missed in the common dialog (there was another interview with Kyle Kulinski where he went into even more detail on what he has to go through in the process of doing as much). Maajid also seems to be doing well at trying to figure where liberal Muslims can make the distinctions to inoculate the culture against radicalism and try to pull back some kind of sanity from the political fascism.

Sam Harris has been labelled an Islamophobe on more than just a single occasion. In my opinion, whilst it's entirely unfair to say all Muslims are aggressive, that all Muslims are the exact same as ISIS (simply absurd), even criticism of Islam itself will now place you in a negative light. It's kind of a protected ideology that many defend vehemently for the sake of what has become ludicrous censorship. So many people trying to claim ISIS aren't Muslims and don't represent Islam in any way, that Islam is a religion of peace (despite the dangers caused by it's tenets), numerous other incessant defenses.

I think Sam Harris is one of the few remaining Atheists who can find the voice to criticise any religion, regardless of the general outlook on said religion in the first place. Richard Dawkins is also among those ranks.

I'll have to watch the video another time, though. It's getting very late over here.

I think there's a difference between criticizing a religion (and potentially offending a group of people) and believing that all members of that religion are a threat. Islamophobia should really be reserved for the latter IMO. I don't agree with the majority of Muslims or the PC crowd that lumps all criticism of Islam in the bin of Islamophobia. It's especially disingenuous when they don't apply the same standard to other religions. The Islamic world needs to learn to tolerate those within their own culture who criticize or even mock religion, at least to the point of allowing them to not have to live in fear. Christianity has permitted criticism for the past three to four centuries. Christians don't like it when people mock religion, but they don't go around threatening to kill people over it anymore. In the Muslim world intellectual attack on Islam is equated as a form of treason. To them you're not attacking an idea but an entire people. That's the real problem with Islam right now.

you realize that Judaism has pretty much the same strictures as Islam does w/r/t depictions of gods/holy people etc. so your 'problem with Islam' is that you've no understanding of what idolatry is under Islam. It's about the same as a strict Christian taking the "lord's name in vain" to depict YHWH/muhammed in an actual form.

You're not helping the argument any. Judaism can be just as abhorrent as Islam. It's all the same disease of faith. But the Qur'an is a bit more violent and intolerant of criticism.

so can christianity. the only difference is how well hidden it is. Islamophobia is just the Blood Libel, the muslim remix

I don't like any violent medieval interpretation of any religion nor do I think the practices of these religions should be protected if they oppose our values. I do not believe large scale immigration from religious extremists is a good idea, simply put if you think people that insult the prophet and those that leave Islam should die then you are an extremist and should not live here and deserve to be told you are not welcome. It so weird, would liberals protect neonazis in the name of multiculturalism? Of course not, logically that would make sense but that's not what the multiculti is really about. They are destabilizing our countries on purpose, they purposely want to divide and conquer us in the name globalism aka the New World Order. Why are liberals defending the least liberal cultures on earth?

Why are you rabbiting antisemitic garbage and expecting people to take you seriously?

How is that antisemitic? How about somebody else explain it since it's apparently so clear to everyone so it should be so easy. Please don't post some SPLC garbage and expect anybody to take YOU seriously!

because 'new world order' is code for 'i think the jews run the world'
I've never posted any info from the SPLC that I recall, are you just making things up as you go along?
The Country with the highest % of muslims is Russia at 10%, so you're just coming off as Chicken little here when you claim that the muslims are coming to take over somehow

source: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... in-europe/

Maybe when they live in liberal societies, they (or their kids) become more liberal.

they also don't have as many kids (on average) in their new home, so inferring a population explosion is misinformed also.

I was right there with you until you started talking about 'them' dividing and conquering for NWO.

Defending the cultural uniqueness and minority status of neonazis sounds like a very good comparison in absurdity though, and really I think Maajid was making this point - what we're dealing with in the form of Islamism is a religious-based fascism. It's like Baath 1.0 went to Baath 3.0 while barely gracing version 2.

Similarly, wtf does grievance with the west have to do with raping and killing Yazidi women? Could I make a correlation to autism rights activists rounding up and killing gingers and someone saying "You know - they're doing this because of their lack of privilege and its our fault...."? A = B therefore C = Ardvaark...err...right....

I don't think the regressive left (I like the way Sam put this) is NWO however, Fabian maybe in some cases but I really see them as this - hookers. They're people who realize that the most money and popular support comes from people who give people feel good BS, insist that there's no problem, and even go so far as attacking people who are trying to fix the problem. Leisure, safety, and a big paycheck are not in whistle-blowing or calling problems out, they usually come rather from defending whatever the establishment and various ideologues and vested interests want to believe is true. Some people care about integrity, some care about money, and usually the former are the least paid and also usually the least rewarded in the long run because even when proven right people still say their names with disgust ever onward because that person is the POS who popped their fantasy-bubble.

This hasn't been the case in Europe, the Muslim youth are isolated and live in ethnic ghettos with a huge amount of them joining or supporting ISIS. There are something like 5,000+ EU citizens estimated to be fighting for ISIS in Syria. Europe and it's policy of multicultural has been an utter failure, Muslims integrate much better in the United States even with this reputation of Islamophobia. There are a few reasons why this is I suspect, one there has never been any mass migration of Muslims from a specific geographic location to the United States but rather a slow trickle from all around the world and unlike the socialist welfare states of Europe when you come to America there is this idea that you can make it on your own and that if work hard enough that you'll be successful and the Muslim population in the United States have been a model minority in this regard as they are on better educated and more affluent than the general population. Muslims in America general are educated professionals or business owners where as I'm not sure that is the case in Europe. I also think there is an element of the fact they know they can't try to guilt us with multiculturalism to justify sharia and all the other backwards parts of that faith.

You are putting words in my mouth on multiple fronts here so please, I don't care to be your strawman.

I defined globalism as the new world order, if you think that's antisemitic then either a)being purposely disingenuous to deflect or b)reading BS leftist propaganda like from SPLC for example. Some of the biggest victims of this mass migration of Muslims to Europe have been the Jews as they are being driven out of Europe right now and this is especially true in France. I do not believe Jews as some monolithic group are conspiring to do anything, they are victims just as we are. Again, why are liberals rolling out the red carpet for the most antisemitic people on the planet? It doesn't make any sense unless the whole point is to undermine the very fabric of that society. The elites think we make too much money, as sovereign nations and peoples we control too many resources, they want to separate society into a dependent vast underclass and then a tiny elite ruling class with the police state making sure it always stays that way. Political correctness is our totalitarian language control, they are trying to enslave us and people don't even realize it.

Also I'm not sure what the second part is responding too.

I think it's still too soon to tell. It takes several generations to fully integrate into a new society.