Here is Sam Harris’s response to the Maher/Affleck brouhaha (in which he was involved, of course) about which I wrote here. The full quote that I shortened for the headline on this post is: “My criticism of Islam is a criticism of beliefs and their consequences—but my fellow liberals reflexively view it as an expression of intolerance toward people.”
Welcome to my world. For years now my colleagues and I have been stigmatized, demonized and marginalized for supposedly professing “intolerance toward people,” when actually we have only engaged in criticism of beliefs and their consequences. Sam Harris may not be fully aware that what his “fellow liberals” are doing to him now in misrepresenting his positions is exactly what Leftists and Islamic supremacists (and paleocons, and many others) do to anyone and everyone who dares to utter a negative word regarding jihad terror and Islamic supremacism — and that many of those whom he may assume are actually bigots and racists are actually just people who have said the same things he is saying now and are previous victims of the campaign that is now victimizing him. In this video, for example, Harris dismisses critics of Islam and jihad who came before him as “fascists” and right wing nuts, without pausing to consider that perhaps his opinions of them are the consequence of previous smear campaigns much like the one of which he is the target. As far as I have seen, Harris is not interested in engaging intellectually with anyone he doesn’t think is on the Left, and that is a shame, as what is needed today is a large movement against jihad terror and Islamic supremacism — one that is not the province solely of the Left or the Right.
Anyway, this entire piece is very good, but here are few of the highlights. “Can Liberalism Be Saved From Itself?,” by Sam Harris, October 7, 2014:
…The most controversial thing I said was: “We have to be able to criticize bad ideas, and Islam is the Mother lode of bad ideas.” This statement has been met with countless charges of “bigotry” and “racism” online and in the media. But imagine that the year is 1970, and I said: “Communism is the Mother lode of bad ideas.” How reasonable would it be to attack me as a “racist” or as someone who harbors an irrational hatred of Russians, Ukrainians, Chinese, etc. This is precisely the situation I am in. My criticism of Islam is a criticism of beliefs and their consequences—but my fellow liberals reflexively view it as an expression of intolerance toward people….
However, others in this debate are not so innocent. Our conversation on Real Time was provoked by an interview that Reza Aslan gave on CNN, in which he castigated Maher for the remarks he had made about Islam on the previous show. I have always considered Aslan a comical figure. His thoughts about religion in general are a jumble of pretentious nonsense—yet he speaks with an air of self-importance that would have been embarrassing in Genghis Khan at the height of his power. On the topic of Islam, however, Aslan has begun to seem more sinister. He cannot possibly believe what he says, because nearly everything he says is a lie or a half-truth calibrated to mislead a liberal audience. If he claims something isn’t in the Koran, it probably is. I don’t know what his agenda is, beyond riding a jet stream of white guilt from interview to interview, but he is manipulating liberal biases for the purpose of shutting down conversation on important topics. Given what he surely knows about the contents of the Koran and the hadith, the state of public opinion in the Muslim world, the suffering of women and other disempowered groups, and the real-world effects of deeply held religious beliefs, I find his deception on these issues unconscionable.
As I have pointed out many times, Aslan is an Islamic supremacist, a Board member of a lobbying group for the Iranian mullahs, and a friend and associate of numerous people and groups tied to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, and a sly apologist for jihad terror. But nothing I have ever written about that sinister charlatan approaches the grandeur of Harris’s crystalline takedown of Aslan in the paragraph above.
As I tried to make clear on Maher’s show, what we need is honest talk about the link between belief and behavior. And no one is suffering the consequences of what Muslim “extremists” believe more than other Muslims are. The civil war between Sunni and Shia, the murder of apostates, the oppression of women—these evils have nothing to do with U.S. bombs or Israeli settlements. Yes, the war in Iraq was a catastrophe—just as Affleck and Kristof suggest. But take a moment to appreciate how bleak it is to admit that the world would be better off if we had left Saddam Hussein in power. Here was one of the most evil men who ever lived, holding an entire country hostage. And yet his tyranny was also preventing a religious war between Shia and Sunni, the massacre of Christians, and other sectarian horrors. To say that we should have left Saddam Hussein alone says some very depressing things about the Muslim world.
Whatever the prospects are for moving Islam out of the Middle Ages, hope lies not with obscurantists like Reza Aslan but with reformers like Maajid Nawaz. The litmus test for intellectual honesty on this point—which so many liberals fail—is to admit that one can draw a straight line from specific doctrines in Islam to the intolerance and violence we see in the Muslim world. Nawaz admits this. I don’t want to give the impression that he and I view Islam exactly the same. In fact, we are now having a written exchange that we will publish as an ebook in the coming months—and I am learning a lot from it. But Nawaz admits that the extent of radicalization in the Muslim community is an enormous problem. Unlike Aslan, he insists that his fellow Muslims must find some way to reinterpret and reform the faith. He believes that Islam has the intellectual resources to do this. I certainly hope he’s right. One thing is clear, however: Muslims must be obliged to do the work of reinterpretation—and for this we need honest conversation.
I welcomed Maajid Nawaz’s rejection of Qur’anic literalism, even while remaining deeply suspicious of his overall goals, for reasons I explained here. In any case, it is important in this connection not to be naive. What are the chances that Nawaz’s rejection of Qur’anic literalism will become mainstream in the Islamic world, leading to a reevaluation and rejection of the jihad imperative by the schools of Islamic jurisprudence? The chances of that are about nil. So while Nawaz is certainly preferable to the execrable Aslan, his existence should not lull non-Muslims into complacency. If he gathers a significant following among Muslims, then there might be something to talk about. But until then, he’s just another moderate who makes non-Muslims feel good while the jihad fires rage ever more hotly.
Buraq says
Islam is beginning to lose the propaganda war it has been waging against the truth. That will be a game changer, when it does!
Brian Hoff says
The War of Propaganda isnot over. Last Saturday we have the police protect our mosque during Eid prayer we didnot have to paid for it as some idiots thought we have something to do with the beheading by Islamist State. As one officer said IS doesnot listern to you peaceful muslim or anybody also.
JIMJFOX says
Just for you, Brian–
duh_swami says
You need that protection…You never know when a mob of enraged Wiccans or Satanists are going to attack…Troops of Boy Scouts can also be vicious.
So maintain the free security as long as you can, but eventually the mosque will have to pay for it. Good luck stay safe. The worlds a tough place ain’t it’…
Bezelel says
Sounds to me like you should escape islam, if you dare. Which direction is the most dangerous? Satanic Verses.
John Hasson says
every time i watch this video i cannot believe what an uniformed ignoramus Affleck is. it is better to sit quietly and to be guessed a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. i compliment maher and harris for refusing to give any ground. i am somewhat disappointed that harris didn'[t go straight to the Koran or quote the prophet (piss be upon him) which ive seen him do before. spencer and geller are fantastic at this.
Robert Overstreet says
Having worked for some 44+ years in Mali and Burkina Faso, W. Africa, my wife and I know the deception that pervades Islamic thought. Muslims do not accept Jesus Christ as the Son Of God who came to earth to become our sacrifice for sin so we could be rightly related to God The whole Islamic belief system revolves around that denial. The insistence that Mohamed is the last prophet is what drives Jihadists to carry out their war against those who refuse to bow down to their prophet. And ISIS is Satan’s instrument today to enforce that. Only God knows how far ISIS will succeed in their war against “the infidels”.
I often wonder how long it will be before Christians will wake up to recognize what has just been said! It would appear that the return of Christ is very immanent because the spirit of the anti-Christ is asserting his reign in the hearts of unbelievers more than ever before, and those who do not belong to Jesus Christ are captive to that reign! Oh, that Christians would recognize their call to be alert as watchmen on the walls of the Bride of Christ because the enemy is right at the gates! To those who would like to be part of a watchmen fellowship to stand guard over the Bride of Christ I invite you to contact me at: wotkimf@gmail.com. There is no financial obligation in this fellowship, only the commitment to be prepared praying warriors for the glory of God.
Spinoza says
Are not your comments the Christian equivalent of the blinkered jihadists? Any belief that “our religion” is the one and only truth creates intolerance.
Better off consigning the whole lot to the dustbin of history.
Tony says
Your moral equivalence is nauseating. Here is the difference:
Radical Muslims saw off the heads of infidels, radical Christians pray for them.
Bezelel says
Spinoza,My belief in Christ is the only reason I am as tolerant as I am but people like you don’t make it any easier.
----------- says
so how do u explain white supremacists?
Marken says
Thank you Mr. Overstreet for your service, your comment is also very appreciated in regards to this struggle.
Icallshenanigans says
”I often wonder how long it will be before Christians will wake up…”, it took about 450 years the first time!
Icallshenanigans says
It took about 450 yrs for Christians to wake up before! I hope this generation will be a little more proactive.
Shane says
I have made the same comment that saying that criticism of Islam is as legitimate as criticism of Communism is. Both are totalitarian ideologies that limit freedom, which liberals should oppose. Think how illogical it would be to call someone who dislikes Communism a bigot or racist. That’s just how illogical it is to call someone who opposes Islam a bigot.
John C. Barile says
Concerning Reza Aslan, Sam Harris ought to know what Robert, among others, know about him–that he’s a committed shill for the Islamic Republic of Iran.
John C. Barile says
That he’s a board member of the mullahs’ mouthpiece, the National Iranian American Council.
Salah says
“If he (Nawaz ) gathers a significant following among Muslims, then there might be something to talk about.”
Intellectual Egyptian Muslim trying to reform al-Azhar teachings about …cannibalism!!!
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.ca/2014/08/cannibalism-in-islam-taught-at-al-azhar.html
Diane Harvey says
No sympathy for Harris, a character so full of himself that he’s come down with a common ailment.
If-I-didn’t-think-an-idea-up-it’s-not-worthy-of-any-consideration-itis.
Harris, other people has both wisdom and insight.
jihad3tracker says
YES – YES – YES — We agree about Sam Harris completely — thanks for mentioning that.
He is certainly very bright, but usually takes 100 words to make a point which could be accomplished in a third as many.
I gave up watching videos he participates in, due to grinding my teeth while muttering ” Will you PLEASE get to the gosh-darned point ! ! “
JIMJFOX says
Well, he’s a philosopher! You know, paid to make even the simplest of concepts absurdly difficult.
Nevertheless he speaks the truth.
UneasyOne says
Actually, Dr Harris is a neuroscientist.
JIMJFOX says
That’s it- attack the messenger, ride in with all ad-homs blazing.
Pathetic.
E. Alexandra Pierce says
Ergh. Diane, you’ve just proved that you’re exactly what you claim Harris to be. There’s nothing in Harris’s work to suggest that he rejects the good points of others, or is grossly egocentric. If you were truly familiar with his stuff, you wouldn’t say that.
So, in fact, it’s you who’s just rejected someone else out of ignorance.
Beagle says
Harris and Maher just became murtad to the Left. Mufti Kristof and Ayatollah Affleck have declared them takfir and Harris and Maher should probably go ahead and bury themselves up to the shoulders to save the rest of the Left the trouble. Or perhaps dig their own burial trench a la IS. I have already read numerous leftists on the Internet using Maher as the poster boy for ‘Islamophobia’. Sure, they loved you for years, Bill. That counts for nothing. You have strayed from the leftist one true faith.
The Left will never take point on this issue. The Left will continue to defend the honor of their poor downtrodden Muslims. The Left will never quit trying to establish Islam as the state religion in Europe and the US.
Of course you’re not racists, Harris and Maher. What’s infuriating it that you seem to accept that being thrown around about anyone but you. Maybe you can now understand how ridiculously easy it is to use that as a go-to end to all debate on any subject.
voegelinian says
It’s time for Maher to write a new book — Islamigulous.
E. Alexandra Pierce says
“Of course you’re not racists, Harris and Maher. What’s infuriating it that you seem to accept that being thrown around about anyone but you.”
Both of them have rejected accusations of Islamophobia at others, not just themselves. They’ve both said it’s largely a false construct.
That said, there is such a thing as bigotry against Muslims, just as there’s bigotry against all conceivable groups of human beings. Anyone with a few firing neurons acknowledges that.
RCCA says
Too bad Harris didn’t know the quotes from the Koran about apostasy, etc.
Affleck is a typical liberal with a set of assumptions about humanity he is applying to the situation. He’s wrong because he is uninformed. Watching him the second or third time I was less bothered by his emotional response. He will change if and when he takes the time to learn about the Koran and Islam.
Kristof is not so innocent IMO. He should know better because he spends so much time traveling around the world being witness to human rights abuses in Islamic countries. I literally cringed when he blithely brought up Malaysia as an example of a Muslim country which supposedly contradicts the bad image of Islamic repression. He should know there has been an ongoing struggle for women’s rights between secularists and Muslim women’s groups with a reformed interpretation of the Koran against those who hold a traditional interpretation of the Koran. The point is that in an Islamic state, such as Malaysia, whenever you have a political system which can be dominated by those who choose to impose strict sharia law there is the risk of certain groups losing rights.
UneasyOne says
He knows ’em. I recommend that you check out his debates against muslims on youtube.
Wellington says
Interesting and ironic that people on the Left like Maher and Harris are ready to take a good look at Islamic doctrines but will not do the same with conservative doctrines, which they continue to caricaturize and then knock down in typical strawman fashion. Well, though conservatives are not killing anyone in the name of conservatism but many Muslims are definitely killing loads of people in the name of Islam, I guess conservatives should be grateful that folks like Maher and Harris are at least getting something right, as opposed to someone like Affleck who pretty much gets nothing right.
BT says
I’m surprised Robert does not know more about Sam Harris. Other than himself I think Sam Harris is one of the most outspoken critics of Islam. I’m not too sure how ‘liberal’ Sam Harris is but having someone like him (who is at least listened to on the left) is very valuable. Sam is very critical of religion as a whole but reserves special contempt (deservedly so) for Islam and frequently points out the liberal hypocrisy as far as comparing Christianity to Islam. Sam is definitely ‘on our side’ in this battle and I think Robert should work with him.
UneasyOne says
Amen
this is the point I keep trying to make here. I am a leftest who believes that we must unite as Americans to deal with the threat of islam – before it is too late to act.
nuvaslacker says
I am also on the left politically and a secularist (separation of church and state), but, like most conservatives, I want to live in a society where I can freely argue my point of view and freely research controversial areas of opinion.
I have changed my view of Israel/Palestine as a result of reading original sources and histories written from differing points of view.
What I am sure of is that there is more uniting those who support the western post-enlightenment consensus than dividing them.
steakman says
As a Right leaning (since 32 yrs of age), conservative..and sorta libertarian becuase I really dont like Govt sticcking their nose into my privatre affairs…I will say that for the most part on social matters, i would be considered a centre left leaning type. A lot of folks have issues with that.
As for Islam…I make no distinction between Moderate/radical/conserviative/jihadist….I simply do not believe that there is that much if any difference in their collective thinking to make the distinction.
Islam is a threat…and a clear and present danger to our way of life..I for one will defend that way of life when the time comes…should’t be too hard to mount an RPG on my walker..??
Anon says
Tiny Minority ™ update, Even the historically islam-is-great Pew Research Center says that 50% of all Muslims (800 million people) in middle east countries think Sharia Law should be applied TO ALL citizens (leaving out Morocco) and 64% of all Muslims (1 billion people) in middle east countries favor the death penalty for leaving Islam (leaving out Tunisia). 800 million and 1 billion, “tiny minority.”
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/
Anon says
Just spent an hour creating a whole new spreadsheet. My percentages for 6 and 5 Middle East countries respectively were correct, but the total population represented by the statistic would only be true if applied globally (and that might be a proper fit someday soon). Therefore, for a current-day analysis, I’m posting a correction based on a 2nd more-detailed spreadsheet I drummed-up of Islamic majority counties in three areas, the Middle East, South Asia and North Africa (ten Muslim majority countries). The data is from Pew Research, from 2010 and 2013, links below.
Should Sharia Apply to All Citizens? – The percentage that believe this is 46.5% based on ten Muslim majority countries in the Middle East, South Asia and North Africa. Based on the Muslim population of those countries, that results in 243 million people believing that Sharia law should apply to all citizens.
Penalty for Converting to Another Faith – The percentage that believe this is 67.60% based on ten Muslim majority countries in the Middle East, South Asia and North Africa. Based on the Muslim population of those countries, that results in 353 million people believing in the death penalty for leaving Islam.
Still not a “tiny minority”.
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country
RodSerling says
Anon,
Glad to see you are taking a closer look at the data. I’ve delved into those as well.
“Penalty for Converting to Another Faith”
The question was asked in such a way as to reduce the apparent level of support in responses for the punishment. It referred to the death penalty for apostasy, sweepingly for all kinds of apostates. There may be many Muslims who support some kind of serious legal punishment for apostasy, but who don’t support punishing all kinds of apostates, and who don’t support the death penalty. Some who favour the death penalty don’t favour it in all types of cases. E.g., some of the Islamic schools of jurisprudence prescribe life imprisonment and beating of female apostates (the rest of the schools prescribe death), though all prescribe death for males. Specifically, the schools are unanimous that an adult male of sound mind who freely leaves the religion and openly declares or otherwise shows his apostasy must be killed if he does not repent and return to Islam within a certain period of time. It’s possible that the majority of Muslims agree with the punishment in that case, but not broadly as the question implies. Probably a lot more Muslims support at least some kind of serious punishment for at least some kinds apostates than is suggested in the results for that question. Indeed, since an apostate’s public declaration of apostasy is also punishable as blasphemy, it’s almost certain that the majority of Muslims support severe punishment for an apostate who won’t keep his/ or her mouth shut.
“Should Sharia Apply to All Citizens?”
Yes, that question was a bit ambiguous and misleading. We can be fairly sure that most Muslims in most countries do want at least some sharia laws imposed on non-Muslims. For an obvious and important example, majorities of the Muslims in Western countries want laws restricting what non-Muslims can express publicly about Islam and Muhammad and punishing offenders. The percentages of support for these laws are probably much higher in the Islamic countries. (In Pakistan, e.g., at least* 75% of Muslims support the harsh blasphemy laws, which involve punishments of death or life imprisonment; only a tiny percentage–six percent–have even minor reservations about those laws; and *18% answered “don’t know”–how can one honestly “not know” whether one supports the death penalty for blasphemy?).
Also, majorities of Muslims worldwide (on average) want a caliphate to be set up. Under a caliphate, non-Muslims would be required to follow the rules of the dhimma (at best; but many would be slaves of even lower status than dhimmi, and also required to follow Islamic rules for slaves), which is obviously an example of Muslims requiring non-Muslims to obey Islamic law. Moreover, non-Muslims in Muslim countries are treated poorly and are persecuted under conditions resembling the dhimma subjugation. Most Muslims seem to support that status quo and are either oblivious to the suffering of non-Muslims, or think the subjugation is free and fair treatment.
I could cite more examples, but the above should suffice to show that Muslims do want non-Muslims to follow at least some important aspects of Islamic law. Hence, that PEW question has led to misleading results that underestimate Muslims’ support for imposing elements of sharia on non-Muslims.
Michael Copeland says
The surveys provide much material for discussion, but to little avail.
Alas, Islam is not defined by what the majority of muslims want.
Anushirvan says
“As far as I have seen, Harris is not interested in engaging intellectually with anyone he doesn’t think is on the Left, and that is a shame, as what is needed today is a large movement against jihad terror and Islamic supremacism — one that is not the province solely of the Left or the Right.”
I definitely agree with this. Truth-telling is on a premium, both in the Christian and secularist communities. The vast majority of Christians are still assuming that they can assuage their fears of the coming Muslim onslaught brought about by dismal immigration policies and the same simply applies to the vast majority of secularists, also.
The complacency of denialism is at the very root of this problem. Which leads to the irony where both secular and Christian critics of Islam separately still have an awful lot of “remediating” to do within their own communities. Criticizing each other isn’t really helpful, especially if you consider the fact that at least we share the same blatant and politically incorrect realization that Islam is a major threat to the world at large. We should pull together, rather than trying our hardest to invalidate each other’s positions, while we have drawn the same conclusions on this vital subject.
For instance, Pat Condell, who is essentially a secularist to start with, is getting the attention he deserves on JW and other likeminded blogs and websites. Condell gets his priorities straight: he full well realizes that the piss-poor slamming of Christianity, practised by so many secularists ad nauseam, is completely uncalled for in this day and age.
In my opinion, there should NOT be a contest going on between Christians and secularists to appropriate some exclusivist “moral highground” for themselves. I have found myself agreeing with just about anyone who has something useful to say about what we’re facing today, whether Pat Condell, Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Daniel Greenfield, Bill Warner, Geert Wilders…et al. There’s no ambiguity in my mind when we can draw the same conclusions across confessional divides.
The damning truth is that an unspecified number of secularists, Jews and Christians (or adherents of any other faith/doctrine for that matter) simply can’t be rational with regards to Islam, although I still tend to feel they are a majority, of sorts.
All the more reason for those who can be rational on the subject to stand united !
dumbledoresarmy says
Well said.
E. Alexandra Pierce says
Indeed, very well said.
It’s reminiscent of some fantastic comments Douglas Murray made at a UK conference of “One Law (secular) For All” a few years ago, which had attracted people of all political and ethnic stripes. He lamented the tendency of the lefties in the group to sit around “polishing their halos” and denigrating right-wing elements that are against Islamic law.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjelVwbu6vM
The opposite is happening here in the comments for articles concerning Harris, Maher, Nawaz, etc. It’s right-wingers sniffing self-righteously and polishing their halos, anxious to reject and smear people on their own side on this issue, and Murray’s comments are every bit as applicable.
livingengine says
Watching this it is clear to me Maajid Nawaz does not have the strength of character to stand up to jihad, Douglas Murray calls him out on this at the end.
livingengine says
As far as Sam Harris goes, he is no hero, and I expect him to drop this subject entirely in the next 10 years. Christians do not have that option.
You have already read that he is willing to collaborate with Muslims like Maajid Nawaz, because of the their position on stem cell research.
I stopped paying attention to Sam Harris after this video.
Zoltar says
“But imagine that the year is 1970, and I said: “Communism is the Mother lode of bad ideas.” How reasonable would it be to attack me as a “racist” or as someone who harbors an irrational hatred of Russians, Ukrainians, Chinese, etc.”
But idiot leftists like yourself did attack people who held that view back in 1970s. The left loved Communism and hated America. Remember LBJ’s war against the spread of Communism in Vietnam? It was America’s racist war against the yellow man the leftists shouted. Then the idiot leftists got confused when millions of Vietnamese boat people turned up, escaping from the tyranny of Communism.
Sam Harris is trying to rewrite history, a particular trait of the atheistic left as mentioned by George Orwell.
It wasn’t people like Sam Harris who defeated Communism. It was was people like Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II, people who were hated and ridiculed by the idiot Liberal left. In the same way it is Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller and Michael Coren who are at the forefront of defeating Islamism, not you Mr Harris!
voegelinian says
“…In this video, for example, Harris dismisses critics of Islam and jihad who came before him as “fascists” and right wing nuts, without pausing to consider that perhaps his opinions of them are the consequence of previous smear campaigns much like the one of which he is the target.”
The cat’s cradle of the PC MC paradigm is very hard to extricate oneself from. Sometimes the way out is the Alexandrian solution of cutting the Gordian knot; but that requires an ability to think outside the Box, and it seems Harris is trying to image (and imagine) three dimensions while remaining a citizen in good standing of Flatland (even while its self-appointed commisars, Affleck, Kristof, et al., are threatening him with the ostracism of persona non grata).
Anon says
The entire leftist/liberal viewpoint is actually quite non-granular and unable to acknowledge detail. It’s as if it’s a generic viewpoint through “racism glasses” — there’s racism, there’s some more “racism”, ohhh more “racism” again, etc., — like Robert says all the time, what “race” is Islam again?
sidney penny says
“As I tried to make clear on Maher’s show, what we need is honest talk about the link between belief and behavior. ”
This author below says the same thing as Sam Harris.
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/tcqp/
The Calcutta Quran Petition by Sita Ram Goel
http://voiceofdharma.org/books/tcqp/pref1.htm
“The real issue raised by the Petition was not what Muslims believe about the Quran but what behaviour patterns the Quran inculcates in its votaries vis-à-vis the unbelievers.”
Yes the important thing is the link between belief and behavior.( in the discussion above not only of unbelievers by believers as well.)
Michael Copeland says
It is not just belief (which in the West can be changed without penalty). The Koran is part of Islamic law.
maxilo says
I believe you are misreading Harris’ comment there. He is simply stating that since all of the mainstream elite is so PC about islam it almost leaves the criticism of islam to the fringe elements of Society, to the true extremists and the fundies. The Robert Spencer, Hirsi Ali or Raymond Ibrahim are the exception and I am certain Harris doesn’t put them in the rignt wing nuts/fascits category.
sidney penny says
“So while Nawaz (UK) is certainly preferable to the execrable Aslan,”
Robert
Would you put Irshad Manji and Tarek Fatah from Canada and Zuhdi Jasser from USA in the same category as Nawaz?
E. Alexandra Pierce says
I would. I think Nawaz passes all the acid tests.
E. Alexandra Pierce says
Dave,
“Refute what I said.”
Refute that all Muslims are the enemy and must be gotten rid of? Okay.
Not all Muslims are “the enemy,” and I oppose genocide.
There. You’re all refuted ‘n stuff now.
“Calling me a bigot has no place in a logical argument.”
Of course not, but then you weren’t making any real arguments, let alone logical ones.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/bigot
You definitely qualify.
But you’re right. I shouldn’t have called you a bigot. I should’ve called you a loathsome bigot. *grin*
Dave says
Anyone talk about genocide? I said that they’re the enemy, and regarding them otherwise gives them the advantage.
So…if not all Muslims are the enemy, then who? “Islamists”? “Radicals”? I’d like to hear an applicable definition of who/what is the West fighting here.
“Bigot” means someone who “strongly or unfairly dislikes other people”. While strongly definitely qualifies, since I am after all an Israeli, and we have had our more than fair share of problems dealing with crazy Muslims wanting our necks seperated from our heads, “unfairly” has nothing to do with it. Why is it unfair? If a person is a Muslim, his allegiance is to Islam. I strongly and fairly dislike people who go by the religion of rape, murder, conquest, and oppression. I say that unabashedly and with pride. You seem to think being bigoted against evil is a bad thing? Or that you can even BE bigoted against evil? Moral relativism is a bad thing, and you seem to have been drinking too much of it with your PC-MC Kool-Aid.
I wasn’t making any real arguments? Of course I was. You not looking for them and dismissing me out of hand due to your PC-MC, liberal, misguided and pretentious mindset, has nothing to do with me making or not making “real arguments” (do you only call argumemts that agree with your skewed, narrow-minded views “real” arguments?).
My argument, put simply (I didn’t think it can get any simpler than before, but apparently it was phrased in a manner too complex for simpletons such as you) is that due to the fact that Muslims are, due to their being Muslims, technically in a never-ending state of war against the West and any other un-Islamic civilization, sympathizing with them, coddling them, and making excuses for them is unproductive, considering they wanna behead you. Do you need it any simpler?
P.S. You have yet to bring up one valid LOGICAL point. “I DON’T LIKE GENOCIDE”. “Like”. That’s touchy-feely libspeak. And all that name-calling is pretty childish. Also the linking dictionary entries. Get some class, then try again (unsuccessfully, of course) at refuting my valid points.
Cheers, Dave
Dave says
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/10722/fauxmoderate-muslim-zuhdi-jasser-flying-imams-pilot-made-bad-decision/
The only moderate Muslims I saw were…well you know the rest (The good ol’ William Tecumseh Sherman quote)
Being willing to admit there is such a thing as the rare, endangered species of “Moderate Muslim” makes you vulnerable to the tactic of taqiyyah. If during World War 2 the Allies would’ve been obsessed with tracking down the elusive “Moderate German” we’d all be saying Heil Hitler today.
The West is in a state of war. Moderate Muslims are Muslims. If they are on our side, let them renounce their previous allegiance. Then they won’t be Muslims. If they are Muslims, they are the enemy. It’s as simple as that. The warped “rules of war” invented by leftist politicians and academics have no place in a battle for survival, which the clash of civilizations between the West and Islam quite definitely is.
E. Alexandra Pierce says
Way to make a spectacular bigot of yourself, Dave.
Dave says
Refute what I said. Calling me a bigot has no place in a logical argument. Your resorting to childish name-calling merely proves my point. Many, including you, in the counter-Jihad (which should be the counter-Islam, considering the two are inseparable, and saying you’re counter-Jihad means you’re not counter-the rest of the despicable crap that Islam consists of), seem to be infected with PC-MC syndrome.
Now is not the time to judge Muslims kindly. Now is the time to find a way to get rid of them, and stop them from destroying the Western civilization as we know it. Being “bigoted’ against the enemy isn’t that bad a thing.
The trap that these Muslims utilize in order to strike doubt into the hearts of us kuffar is to dress one of their ilk up in a Western suit, and have him say he’s a Muslim, yet against Islam’s core values. That leaves some of us gullible Westerners scratching our heads in confusion, others (like you) will be hesitant to see the real problem, which is all Muslims. But wait, how can it be? There’s a nice Muslim in a suit and tie, that says he’s against all the things I dislike in Islam! That means not all Muslims are our enemy! But that gives them a nice, convenient curtain to hide behind while sharpening their knives for our kuffar necks.
Others, like me and a bunch of other commentators here at JW (think voeg, gravenimage, who you criticize so vehemently), realize that looking for that nice enemy who’ll behead you with a big smile and a few friendly words of tolerance is a waste of time. What a pity that not everybody else can see the truth, even when it tries to behead them each and every day.
voegelinian says
I see Dave has had the pleasure of bumping into the pretentiously nicknamed “E. Alexandra Pierce”. I spotted her PC MC warts a mile away. At first I thought she was merely asymptotic (a milder case of the PC MC virus), but it seems she has the full-blown disease — not that most Jihad Watchers will care, or even notice, these days.
Wtf? says
“What happens when a Muslim buys into the Islamic worldview and accepts Muhammad as his example, submitting himself to the shari’ah, is that the Muslim submits his (or her) conscience to the uber-conscience of the Ummah. Such a Muslim ultimately commits moral suicide, deadening his conscience to the point that murder is justifiable; condemning non-Muslims, deceiving them, and if possible waging war against them is not only permissible but obligatory. Because Muslims who have submitted to the Jihadi worldview believe that Allah has ordained everything and Islam is superior, they have lost virtually every last trace of a normal human conscience.”
If this makes me a bigot I have no problem with it.
R Cole says
Clinton spoke recently and said that today people spend so much time – being careful not to appear – on a TV spot, for example – with those they don’t agree with.
Rather, he said, in his dealings with one Republican – if we can agree on the outcome – getting there is the thing that needs to be hashed out.
Sharia Votes
In Europe because of the extreme positions held on Islam – by the Left many shifted to Center Right. European nations don’t have the US Constitution – as that final barrier to religious law. So in the scheme of things – we don’t know who we are talking to – but what is clear is that we can’t tackle it on our own.
Advancing Sharia
In Europe some of the Left who got up and personal with Islam/the political version – though they remained on the Left were forced to see – it as it was. If you are a female politician and local Muslim community leaders don’t want to shake your hand. One UK Left Councillor [administrator] complained the new Muslim leaders sent round a memo effectively ordering staff to observe Ramadan. In Holland – a teacher with Socialist leanings – was made to eat her lunch separately from Muslim teaching staff – in a Muslim run school that openly taught children to discriminate against non-Muslims.
Difficult to call these people’s accounts – racist and bigoted.
The Broken Rhetoric
What Ben doesn’t realize is that he is taking part in a campaign of fear and intimidation — under which 1000’s of underage British girls were raped – by Muslim men. One person in authority who raised the alarm was ordered to go on an anti-racism re-education course. The otherwise capable – were reduced to following orders – which meant not being called a racist – and I think even Ben would be unhappy with that.
What is true is that on Islam today’s Leftist majority – not only finds their rhetoric hems them in – but it lands them on the wrong side of history.
pdxnag says
Anyone who recognizes that civil Muslims must “reinterpret and reform the [Islamic] faith” must also acknowledge that apostasy from Islam is not any less of a valid choice. And if Islam is unchangeable then the only option for a civil so-called Muslim is apostasy. They must cease to see themselves as Muslim or call themselves Muslim.
RodSerling says
Harris puts himself in the same category as Robert, Bostom, Hirsi Ali, and others in regard to shared concern about the threat of jihad and Islamic supremacism (context: response to the Breivik atrocity):
“I have written a fair amount about the threat that Islam poses to open societies, but I am happy to say that Breivik appears never to have heard of me. He has, however, digested the opinions of many writers who share my general concerns—Theodore Dalrymple, Robert D. Kaplan, Lee Harris, Ibn Warraq, Bernard Lewis, Andrew Bostom, Robert Spencer, Walid Shoebat, Daniel Pipes, Bat Ye’or, Mark Steyn, Samuel Huntington, et al. He even singles out my friend and colleague Ayaan Hirsi Ali for special praise, repeatedly quoting a blogger who thinks she deserves a Nobel Peace Prize.”
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/christian-terrorism-and-islamophobia
RodSerling says
Robert,
“As far as I have seen, Harris is not interested in engaging intellectually with anyone he doesn’t think is on the Left, and that is a shame, as what is needed today is a large movement against jihad terror and Islamic supremacism — one that is not the province solely of the Left or the Right.”
Harris does have some intellectual engagement with those not on the Left (or those whom the Left has ostracized), e.g., on his recommended reading list he includes a book from each of the following (among others) on the topic of Islam, Jihad, Islamization, etc.:
Bat Ye’or
Andrew Bostom
Raymond Ibrahim
Ibn Warraq
(Bruce Bawer)
(Christopher Caldwell)
Andrew Bostom
http://www.samharris.org/book_store/category/religion-and-religious-criticism/P48
I’d tell him he needs to add one of your titles, but unfortunately I don’t know him and have no such influence on him. He might listen to you if you contact him.
Also, he does engage in debates with some people not on the Left.
http://www.samharris.org/debates
Mick says
Sam Harris does have The Truth About Muhammad by Robert Spencer listed in his recommended reading list..
RodSerling says
Hi Mick,
Yes, I saw that too, after I posted, but there are two lists. One has Sam’s recommendations, the other has Readers’ recommendations. The Truth About Muhammad is in the latter.
E. Alexandra Pierce says
It makes more sense for Harris to focus on engaging the left, anyway.
tpellow says
Similarly, in Britain-
“Our politicians must end their fear and evasion on Islam.
The fear of offending Muslims by speaking the truth is endemic in the mainstream British political class, and has been so for decades. We cannot afford politically correct evasions.”
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/5285/our_politicians_must_end_their_fear_and_evasion_on_islam
Ahmed Farah says
Spencer you always using some people who call themselves Muslim and abusing all muslim how can you use use some extremist kharij to condem all people tha is not fair intelectually
UneasyOne says
I commend you, Mr Spenser, for featuring this leftest (Harris) speaking to the issue.
Few comments seemed to get that in your first post regarding this issue.
The Affleck idiots are dominant on the left and seem to rule the right (How many times did Bush push the “religion of peace” canard?) You seem to “get” that other political differences should be put aside to deal with islam. Many of your followers do not.
We need to unite AS AMERICANS and realize that if we are divided, we will fall. Those who recognize and are willing to speak the truth should be publicly applauded – as much as possible, BY THE OTHER SIDE OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM!
Neither most of the left or most of the right is as stupid as the other side thinks they are. It will take a while to wake up the nation, but men like Mr Harris and you, Mr Spenser can go a long way toward that goal if you can find a way to publicly unite for education purposes.
Our elected leadership is trying to sell us out for oil, R&D. (repubs and dems) To my leftest POV, you, David Wood, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens are the “four horsemen” of the truth about islam coalition (We’ve gotta replace Hitchins. Ms Ali is good, but doesn’t quite fill the bill IMHO)
The left and the right MUST unite on this – as Americans, like we did in WWII – against muslim allies, the Nazis if we are to beat this insidious enemy.
United we will stand; divided we will fall.
nothosaur says
Could somebody please provide a link to the poll that show the opinions of Muslims around the world? For example, he poll that shows what percentage of Egyptian Muslims, Saudi Muslims, Malaysian Muslims, Turkish Muslims, etc. believe that apostates deserve the death penalty?
thank you.
E. Alexandra Pierce says
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/
DiMu says
I wish all of Hollywood would move to Kobani.
gfmucci says
Maajid Nawaz is not a “moderate.” He is an apostate.
voegelinian says
Proof that Nawaz is an apostate?
Dave says
Does wishful thinking count as proof?
BTW>I hear Saudi Arabia is offering $2 million for the one who can find the elusive creature of legend, the moderate Muslim. Many have sought it, yet nobody has managed to find it yet. That doesn’t keep ’em from tryin’ though!
“The only moderate Muslim I ever saw was a ___ Muslim”
William Tecumseh Sherman if he was alive nowadays.
ApolloSpeaks says
WHY IS THE WAR ON ISLAMOPHOBIA (ISLAMOREALISM)
more crucial to the left (typified by Ben Affleck on Real Time) than the war against Islamic jihad? Because the left blindly believes in the theory that irrational fear and misunderstanding of islam, and the relentless criticizing and bashing of the faith (by Spencer, Geller and other popular bloggers) are at least half the problem fueling jihad-the other half being US foreign policy.
But after six unprecedented years of Moslem Out Reach and Soft Power by the Obama administration (through regional military retreat, and appeasement on steroids that make Jimmy Carter look Reaganesque) the growth and threat of jihad is more menacing than ever-thus proving Islamophobes right that ISLAM IS THE PROBLEM, and discrediting the theory that they’re causing jihad.
The great experiment in Moslem Outreach has been a catastrophic failure. And as Obama (the closest thing we’ve had to a Moslem President) leads the nation into great and terrible peril he’s waking it up-as it relearns just how fearfully implacable and deadly the enemy is and the strong leadership needed to defeat it.
Click http://www.apollospeaks.com for my piece critical of anti-Islamophobe warrior Ben Affleck.
awake says
His flaws aside, Harris is certainly spot on in his estimation of Reza Aslan, no?
R Davis says
A talk on youtube
Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Sam Harris said – to the effect – about
YOU DON”T GO AFTER ISLAM
In running a cartoon contest criticizing Islam ” it took me 30 seconds to realize that this is the thing that is going to get me killed” & he backed down.
” you have to pick your moments” he said.
Here in your video Harris criticizes “Liberals have failed us”
Because somehow they should be more courageous that Harris.
CDN highlander says
Watch old Ben halfway through the “debate”, he has shut off his listening and is merely waiting for another opportunity to spout off or crack another jab under his breath. These types of public useful idiots need to be denounced and put in their place. I think the tide is starting to turn but realists cannot turn off the pressure just now. Tell Ben what you really think, hit his facebook page, Twitter, and STOP going to his movies. Mean what you say!
E. Alexandra Pierce says
I’ve been bringing up Nawaz for a few years now, and am glad to see Mr. Spencer is welcoming his reformist efforts, which I think are genuine.
The defeat of jihdist and Islamist agendas isn’t going to be won solely by people of one political stripe. It’ll take the right, the left, the religious, the non-religious and everyone in between, but most of all it’ll take Muslims who want to reform Islam. That reform is going to start primarily with Muslims living in the west, where at least they’re free to organize, even if they still have to deal with threats of violence.
As evidenced by the relative success of CAIR, the MSA and so on, most people have a hard time discerning the difference between an Islamist and a reformer. They hear feel-good rhetoric from the so-called “moderates” and buy it.
But there’s a similar problem among those familiar with Islamist tactics. The existence of the taqiyya practice has bred a sort of paranoia in some. Isn’t it Debbie Schlussel who’s absolutely convinced that Zuhdi Jasser is some dastardly taqiyya master? AFDI has enough of a struggle as it is, and they have to deal with that? Shame on anyone in the anti-Jihad movement who would believe it.
Nawaz and Quilliam are the real thing, too.
voegelinian says
Why is Quilliam named after a fanatic extremist? That would be like claiming that an organization called “The Goebbels Foundation” was not neo-Nazi.
As for Maajid Nawaz, one doesn’t have to search far to find link text
dirt on him (and no doubt “E. Alexandra Pierce” considers Usama Hasan to be a peachy keen “Moderate” as well). Nawaz has merely repackaged himself as a “Moderate” who affects to have deeper criticisms of Islam than the garden-variety stealth jihad garden snake — a Better Cop to up the ante of the Good Cop whose tactic of pretending to distance himself from the Bad Cops (e.g., the flagrantly extremist Anjem Chowderheads) perhaps some stealth jihadists worry is beginning to slip mask-wise.
(One wonders if “E. Alexandra Pierce” isn’t a regular over at link textHarry’s Place.)
E. Alexandra Pierce says
Once again, you aren’t making sense, voegelinian. The link you provided to “dirt” on Nawaz goes to a JW article that doesn’t even mention his name. Way down in the comments section, gravenimage brought up a few quotes from Usama Hasan and Nawaz, and then re-interprets them wildly:
Hasan: “It should be clear that the war on terror has been very short-sighted and, in many cases, a failure: while al-Qaida has been defeated in Afghanistan, it has established other strongholds in parts of Mali, Yemen, Somalia and Syria.”
Of this, graveimage says: “In other words, he is claiming that the *cause* of violent Jihad is defense against Jihad.”
Seriously?
And this from Nawaz, regarding the drone strike on Al-Awlaki:
“we are reminded of the dark side in this relentless pursuit for security.”
gravenimage says: “‘Relentless pursuit for security’ i.e., taking any sort of stand against Jihad.”
Erm, no.
gravenimage then continued to misconstrue what the two men said, but without quotes. I invite people to simply read the actual commentaries Nawaz and Hasan wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/01/drone-killing-anwar-al-awlaki
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/23/lessons-of-woolwich
I don’t agree with everything in them, but there’s nothing there to validate gravenimage’s wild assertions.
And then you say…
“… and no doubt “E. Alexandra Pierce” considers Usama Hasan to be a peachy keen “Moderate” as well”
Erm, I didn’t mention the reformist Hasan at all. You did. Since you bring him up, though, I’m reminded of a conversation I had with Douglas Murray about Quilliam, and he said he admired Hasan and thought Hasan gave Quilliam some theological credibility.
Both Nawaz and Hasan have openly acknowledged and been remorseful about their extremist roots, and have said it’s what inspires them to work against the very ideology that they used to identify with. You’re not exposing anything.
Do you know who else used to be an Islamist extremist? Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
“(One wonders if “E. Alexandra Pierce” isn’t a regular over at link textHarry’s Place.)”
One wonders if you’re deliberately trying to make yourself look like a paranoid git.
Bezelel says
This video should be required viewing for psychiatry students to illustrate the need for extensive Word Association sessions prior to attempting to communicate with the mentally ill.
Talal Itani says
Understand Quran, then criticize it.
It is here http://www.ClearQuran.com