As Sam Harris notes here, he is responding in this piece to one I wrote about him last week. My further responses are interspersed below.
“Reply to Robert Spencer,” by Sam Harris, December 16, 2016:
Over at Frontpage Magazine and Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer has published an essay titled “Sam Harris and the Collapse of the Counter-Jihad Left: A Failure of Nerve.” Here is my brief response:
Robert—
I’m sorry to say that your career as a mind reader is off to a poor start. In fact, almost every claim you make about me in your essay is false. Allow me to clarify a few points:
1. I didn’t oppose Trump because I’ve gone soft on Islam. I opposed him because I believe he is an ignoramus, a con man, and a malignantly selfish and unethical person. I’m now in the uncomfortable position of hoping I’m wrong.
2. I didn’t support Clinton because I’ve gone soft on Islam. I supported her—despite her countless flaws—because I judged her to be preferable to Trump. In fact, one reason I supported Clinton is that I thought she would act more aggressively against jihadists than Trump would. (You may recall that many Trump supporters, and even Trump himself, derided Clinton as a warmonger and worried that she would entangle us in further conflicts in the Middle East.) Of course, you may disagree with that assessment. You may even believe that killing jihadists isn’t the best way to frustrate their aims. These are fair points to debate. But I hope you will concede that my actual reasons for voting as I did (however misguided you may consider them) contradict what you have written about me.
In reality, I did not contend that Sam Harris supported Clinton because of her taking money from jihad-supporting states and denying the motivating ideology of the global jihad. What I actually said was that it was hard to see how anyone who was aware of the real nature and magnitude of the jihad threat could support a candidate who had done such things.
As for the idea that she would act more aggressively against jihadists than Trump would, that seems to me to be absurd, as abundantly illustrated by eight years of the Obama administration, the policies of which Clinton was certain to continue. That would have meant more strikes against high-profile targets (a la bin Laden, Awlaki), along with more money and armaments given to “moderates” who were actually Islamic jihadists, and more pouring of money into jihad-supporting nations, especially Pakistan. Trump has said he will end all this, call the threat by its actual name, and fight against it with more focus and force. He may not end up doing any of this. But the idea that she would have acted more aggressively than he against jihadists she didn’t even dare to name is unsupported by any facts.
3. Regarding Clinton’s public statements about Islam, and the money her foundation took from Islamist theocrats, I’m not aware of anyone who has criticized her more pointedly than I have. But (to turn this new cliché about Trump supporters around) I took Clinton “seriously but not literally” when she spoke about the war on terror. And I know, as you surely do, that she wouldn’t have trained her drones on the Amish. Despite Clinton’s obscurantism about Islam, I believe she understands that 100 percent of jihadists are Muslim. As you know, it’s possible to speak honestly about this state of affairs without being a bigot. In fact, I wrote a section of a speech that I thought Clinton ought to give, spelling out the link between Islamic doctrine and Muslim violence while disavowing bigotry:
Needless to say, she didn’t take my advice. The point, however, is that I expected her to agree with what I wrote there. And for that reason I found her habit of dissembling about the religious roots of jihadism as galling as you did. As for my views about Muslim immigration, they are detailed in that speech. Once again, you may want to debate my reasoning, but please don’t question my motives. I oppose Islamism and jihadism as much as you do.
It would have been nice if Clinton had given that speech, but she didn’t, and the contention that despite her “obscurantism about Islam, I believe she understands that 100 percent of jihadists are Muslim” is belied by her record. While she was Secretary of State, the U.S. knowingly aided al-Qaeda jihadists in Libya and Syria. No one who has a genuine understanding of the jihad imperative within Islam would ever have done that, no matter what the realpolitik advantages may have appeared to be.
4. Although I cover many other topics in my work, I believe I have discussed the religious roots of jihadism as clearly as anyone has—and the book I wrote with Maajid Nawaz is no exception. If you think I’ve experienced a “failure of nerve” since Maajid and I wrote Islam and the Future of Tolerance, I invite you or any of your readers to find fault with my most recent statements on the topic. For instance:
https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/what-do-jihadists-really-want
This was never at issue. As I wrote in my first piece: “It seems as if, as far as they are concerned, one may speak out against jihad terror and Sharia oppression as long as one is determined not to do anything about either one, and indeed, gives active support to those who are helping the forces of jihad advance in the West.” Thus I never claimed that he wasn’t speaking out. The problem was, is, and has always been that while speaking out, he supports people who are working in various ways, however wittingly or unwittingly in Clinton’s case, to advance the very things he opposes.
5. As for Keith Ellison, the only time I’ve mentioned him was in 2011. My remarks can be found here, and I suspect you will agree with them:
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/honesty-the-muslim-worlds-scarcest-resource
I confess that I haven’t followed what Ellison has said since. Perhaps he has spoken with greater candor about Islam in recent years, and perhaps he hasn’t. Maajid didn’t consult me before endorsing Ellison to head the DNC, and I’ll leave him to discuss his thinking on that point. I can say one thing to a moral certainty, however: Maajid is no longer an Islamist. In fact, he is one of the bravest opponents of Islamism I know. He is also a tireless critic of identity politics as practiced by CAIR and similar groups. I’m confident that if Ellison turns out to be just another shady liar like Reza Aslan or Dalia Mogahed, Maajid will disavow him.
Maybe he will. But there is plenty of available data now to raise serious questions about why Nawaz endorsed him in the first place. The Investigative Project has released audio of Ellison speaking at a fundraiser for his 2010 Congressional reelection campaign, sounding paranoid anti-Semitic themes and declaring that a vote for him was a vote against Israel’s supposed control of U.S. foreign policy. “The United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of seven million people. A region of 350 million all turns on a country of seven million. Does that make sense? Is that logic? Right?” And in 2008, he accepted $13,350 from MAS to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca. The Muslim American Society is a Muslim Brotherhood organization: “In recent years, the U.S. Brotherhood operated under the name Muslim American Society, according to documents and interviews. One of the nation’s major Islamic groups, it was incorporated in Illinois in 1993 after a contentious debate among Brotherhood members.” That’s from the Chicago Tribune in 2004, in an article that is now carried on the Muslim Brotherhood’s English-language website, Ikhwanweb. Ellison has spoken at a convention of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Yet ISNA has actually admitted its ties to Hamas, which styles itself the Palestinian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Justice Department actually classified ISNA among entities “who are and/or were members of the US Muslim Brotherhood.” Also, CAIR raised large amounts of for Ellison’s first campaign, and he has spoken at numerous CAIR events. Yet CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case — so named by the Justice Department. CAIR officials have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups.
In light of all that, the question is not whether Nawaz is an “Islamist.” It is why, if he is not an “Islamist” and opposes “Islamism,” did Nawaz he endorse a man who is so obviously an “Islamist,” or at very least someone who is friendly to “Islamists” and enjoys their support? Why has Nawaz not bothered to address these concerns — because those who raised them are “right-wing Islamophobes”? Some may say it’s unfair to criticize Harris for something his collaborator did, and that’s fair enough. But imagine if I had co-written a book with someone who then endorsed David Duke of the KKK. Would my critics be silent in such a case? Should they be?
We each have a unique role to play in this war of ideas, Robert. And it would be only decent of you to recognize that Maajid has a harder job than either of us. In fact, the task he has set himself—to inspire a true commitment to secularism and liberal values throughout the Muslim world—may prove impossible. But the alternative is grim. I recommend that you stop questioning Maajid’s motives and give him your support—even if, for obvious reasons, he can’t afford to return the favor.
I would have been happy to give Nawaz my support, but he attacked me first, so I rather expect that he would not welcome that support, as even Harris tacitly admits by saying “even if, for obvious reasons, he can’t afford to return the favor.” I’m not sure those reasons are so obvious. Does Harris mean that because I am vilified unjustly as a “bigot” and “Islamophobe,” Nawaz has to keep me at a distance? This is interesting in light of the fact that Harris is also vilified as a “bigot” and “Islamophobe,” and has denounced such labeling for what it is: a cynical attempt to silence all criticism of Islam and jihad. If Nawaz and I have any significant differences, I would be happy to debate them in an open forum, but he is not even willing to do that.
In any case, the principal issue here has nothing to do with me. It has to do with whether Maajid Nawaz, because he has taken difficult positions and faced threats and abuse (as I have also), should be considered to be above all criticism and questioning. I have never asked for such a status myself, and have always been willing to debate serious people on the other side. The favor has seldom been returned, because Leftists and Islamic supremacists don’t want to engage their opponents; they want to demonize them and shut them down. Will Nawaz address the concerns about Ellison? Or is he to be given a free pass because he is such a stout fellow in other ways?
Lots of people manifest courage. That doesn’t make them infallible or impeccable. There are issues here that need to be addressed.
No doubt there is more to be said, but this short note will have to suffice for the time being. I invite you to publish it wherever you want. Perhaps it will clear up some confusion.
Sincerely,
Sam Harris
Thank you, Sam, for being so decent as to reply. I much appreciate that, as it is a rare quality among your colleagues. I hope your example will encourage them to make it less rare.

Cornelius says
Good stuff Robert. As someone who has read Sam and admires him, I think it’s important that you two have such a dialogue. If Sam felt compelled to respond to you, that means he’s paying attention…and if he’s paying attention, than perhaps he can be influenced in the right ways.
E Wood says
I totally agree. I’m thrilled to see this conversation open up. The “bandwidth problem” seems to have been overcome (Harris admitted he didn’t know much about Spencer’s views, due to lack of “bandwidth”, which I assume means time and attention.) It seems to me that both commentators are on close to the same page with respect to the threat and consequences of the spread of Islamic ideology. They just differ as to which candidate would have made a useful impact on the situation. Unfortunately, neither Clinton nor Trump seemed to have a very coherent approach to this problem. Trumps talks big, but will he DO and will he act with wisdom? Clinton talks small and additionally may have been bought off by Middle Eastern donors. I did not find the November election an easy choice whatsoever. While the ideological divide between Spencer and Harris is not that wide, reading the tea leaves to predict who will do best, (or worst), as president is beyond the divination of most people, even really smart ones.
gravenimage says
Good post, Cornelius–and good to see you posting again.
Alicia Sinclair (@CJRyan7) says
Like many others above, i`m happy that Robert has a worthy opponent, who (hopefully) will go where the evidence takes him-unlike so many of the Left atheist Chicken-Lickers, who save their bile for conservatives and Christians-due to the risk of getting their heads removed for taking their clever barbs to the Muslim.
Gather that Sam Harris is NOT the empty-headed lefty that tends to comprise our trolls and adversaries.
Spencers arguments are irrefutable, but a civilised debate would bring light as opposed to heat.
Angemon says
Well, *did* she?
Simone Fields says
I often listen to Maajids’ phone-in show on LBC radio every week, and he always sees off any Muslims coming on there trying to spout their usual ravings.
Eur says
We are all in the same boat. Let’s not argue between us. Left, right, liberal, conservative, progressive … we are all targets of Islamic theocracy. Terrorism and jihad is their tool, the goal of Islamic lobbies is to undermine democracy and implant Muslim tyranny. Sam Harris is right on many things and Robert Spencer too, both are aware of the threat.
LR says
Eur…
“Terrorism and jihad is their tool, the goal of Islamic lobbies is to undermine democracy and implant Muslim tyranny.”
The problem is though, that many people still refuse to even acknowledge that there is this problem within Islam.
Many people are still equating these terrorist attacks with the same sort of ‘terrorism’ that killed the abortion doctors etc…
François Gravel says
Mr. Spencer rightly criticizes paranoid anti-Semitic and/or anti-Israeli themes on the part of leftists and, of course, Islamists. However it is worth recalling “the reality of the distribution of the forged and ridiculous document known as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in Orthodox circles. This is not only done in Russia which is well known, but also in Greece, Mount Athos, Serbia, certain Orthodox monasteries in North America and many other places with a majority Orthodox population.” (http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/04/protocols-of-zion-in-orthodoxy-and-its.html).
gravenimage says
Most of those I’ve seen citing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are neo-Nazis and *Muslims*.
Benedict says
As long as Nawaz declare himself to be a Muslim, he is compromised.
Islam was born in a lie and will continue in this lie. To try to reform a lie is a vain project and should Nawaz succeed in his Sisyphean efforts and destroy the myth, the reformed lie will just be worse than the original lie.
Off cause he can meanwhile extract his due of the taxpayers money.
Robin Sutmoller says
Other religious groups have evolved to where they reject the reprehensible content of their scriptures and become tolerant of secularism. I don’t see why Muslims mightn’t as well. It would be great if we were all atheist rationalists, but in the meantime, watered down delusion made be what we have to settle for
gravenimage says
There is nothing violent in Christian scripture, Robin. Whereas, there is little *besides* violence and a hatred for all unbelievers in Islam–including a hatred of Atheists.
Phil G says
There is quantitatively more violence in the bible then there is in the quran, though of course, the bible is much longer then the quran. While you would probably be correct to state that, as a percentage of its content, the quran is more violent then the bible (I don’t know for sure, I haven’t counted), to claim that there is nothing violent in christian scripture is a patent absurdity.
For example, take a look at when god commands genocide, even against children babies and herd animals, in Samuel 15;
“This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'”
Or in Ezekiel 23, god dooms a woman to have her nose, ears, and breasts cut off, because she commits “whoredoms”;
“And I will set my jealousy against thee, and they shall deal furiously with thee: they shall take away thy nose and thine ears; and thy remnant shall fall by the sword: they shall take thy sons and thy daughters; and thy residue shall be devoured by the fire… …Thou shalt even drink it and suck it out, and thou shalt break the sherds thereof, and pluck off thine own breasts: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD.”
Or in Revelations 20, god casts everyone who is not in his “book of life” into a lake of fire;
“And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.”
Or in Matthew 13;
“The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”
There are countless examples;
“I will make Mount Seir a waste and a desolation and I will cut off from it the one who passes through and returns. I will fill its mountains with its slain; on your hills and in your valleys and in all your ravines those slain by the sword will fall. I will make you an everlasting desolation and your cities will not be inhabited. Then you will know that I am the LORD”
“But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father’s house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you. If a man is found lying with a married woman, then both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel…”
“Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. But you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the Lord your God has commanded you, so that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the Lord your God”
IQ al Rassooli says
Phil G
You are obviously CLUELESS regarding your ‘understanding’ of the Bible and Muhammad’s Quran
Let me ENLIGHTEN you:
All the verses you quoted from the Bible address a certain period of time, in a small area of the Earth NOT inciting the Jews against other peoples for ever while the verses of the Quran are OPEN ENDED and eternal until ALL of humanity is either under Sharia or EXTERMINATED!
Also you will NOT find a single verse in the New Testament inciting Christians against others
You are WRONG!
IQ al Rassooli
Kafir & Proud!
Linde Barrera says
To Phil G- please re-read the correct answer given to you by IQ al Rassooli. Additionally, would you want to spend eternity with anyone that constantly rejected you? Why would God?
Phil G says
IQ al Rassooli (and Linde Barrera),
Thanks for your replies. I’m not sure what you think I am wrong about. I never said anything that contradicts what you said in your comments, and I’m well aware that the quran contains dictates that are almost certainly not intended to be specific to a time period, but rather, are intended to be followed for all time. For example;
“So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.”
“I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”
etc…
My comment simply disproves gravenimages false assertion that there is nothing violent in christian scripture.
Whether or not the new testament commands violence is a complete non sequitur, both to gravenimages false assertion that there is nothing violent in christian scripture, and to your false assertion (IQ al Rassooli) that the bible does not contain passages commanding its adherents to commit violence against others for all time.
Regarding your false assertion, there are numerous examples of god demanding cruel, unjustice, and immoral acts, that god intends his followers adhere to for all time. For example, Deuterotomy 22, which demands that anyone who blasphemes against god should be put to death;
“Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.”
Indeed, by my very comments that god is cruel, unjust, and immoral, I blaspheme against god. Tell me, even if you disagree with me, do you believe I should be put to death for simply attempting to reason honestly and form logical opinions?
Or in Leviticus 20;
“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”
There are many other examples.
Linde – I would not want to spend eternity with anyone that constantly rejected me, and I can see why god wouldn’t either. That does not make it moral of him to doom them to eternal misery and torment at the hands of demons. He is supposedly all powerful, and thus he is fully capable of making a tolerable afterlife for good people who don’t worship him, where he will never have to see them again. Do you think it is moral of god (or anyone else) to doom the vast majority of the world to eternal misery and torment at the hands of demons?
Linde Barrera says
To Phil G- Thank you for your comments of 8:58 pm, Dec. 19, 2016. I echo what gravenimage was stating that there are no directives in the New Testament to make violent actions toward anyone. We know there are a number of passages in various books of the Old Testament, as you correctly stated. As to your excellent, thought provoking question about where do “good” people go who do not believe in God; I do not project or second guess God! I do not know what happens to them. Neither do I want to be like Muslims who state “God has no partners” meaning they limit God’s powers. And it is quite different when one says “I do not believe such and such” rather than say “God just can’t do that”. I think you see the distinction! Finally, I am almost certain that there are some Christian denominations who believe in “universal salvation”. But this concept is subject to interpretation. If you are a Christian, Phil, let me wish you a very sweet Christmas. If you are Jewish, let me wish you a very wonderful Hanukkah. And if you are neither, let me wish you a good end of December and a very Happy New Year.
Phil G says
Linde,
I’m confused about the distinction that you seem to be making between the moral authority of the old and new testaments. Whether or not there are any directives in the new testament to impose violence upon others, there are, as you noted, many such passages in the old testament. Is it not the moral duty of a person who self identifies as a christian to adhere to all of the dictates of the bible? Do you believe that the new testament nullifies the old testament? If so, on what grounds would you make this assertion, and to what extent? Are the directives to violence annulled, but the ten commandments still gods law? How do you determine what is still gods law vs what god no longer requires you to adhere to?
I wasn’t exactly asking where good people who do not believe in god go when they die, I’m more trying to understand how it is that one can consider a god to be a supremely (or even slightly) moral being, when one knows that god is willing to exert extreme and excessive punishments on people.
For example, consider the old testament law that homosexuality should be punished by death, and consider the subsequent punishment after death of eternal immolation in hellfire. Even if you believe that this old testament law has been nullified by the new testament, if you self identify as a christian, you must believe that at some point in history, god did indeed demand that christians murder homosexual people, and then god (or angels under gods authority) did indeed cast all homosexuals into eternal fire in hell after they were murdered.
It seems incredibly immoral and depraved to murder someone and then torture them forever, simply because they engaged in consensual sexual activity with a person of their own sex. Do you really believe that now, or at any point in history, it was a just and moral act to murder homosexual people and then immerse them in a lake of fire for all time?
Just think about what it would be like to be in a lake of fire, even for one minute. Spend a single minute imagining lava and flames consuming your flesh, brimstone raining down upon you if you were able flounder up to the surface for a brief moment, smoke and fire filling your lungs and throat. Now consider that, by gods law in the old testament, this is what a homosexual person was doomed to for eternity – meaning that every homosexual who was alive when the old testament laws were applicable is still suffering this torment today, at this very moment, and will be for all time. Can you truly and honestly defend this treatment as justified, moral, or good?
Thank you, I don’t believe in a religion or god but I do celebrate (and very much enjoy) christmas with my family. Happy holidays!
Phil says
Benedict,
You assert that Maajid is compromised because he is muslim, but has it occurred to you that reasonable muslims may be the worlds greatest asset against jihadism?
Maajid, through his organization the Quilliam Foundation, has overseen and personally engaged in deradicalization of more jihadists then perhaps anyone else on earth. He has used reason to save the lives of would be victims of terrorist attacks, and the lives and the morality of those whose minds were infected with suicidal jihadist terrorism. If you have the time to learn about his general methodology for deradicalization, you will see that his status as a muslim and his promotion of a peaceful interpretation of the quran is entirely necessary to the success of his incredibly consequential goal of deradicalization of jihadists. Wouldn’t you agree that deradicalization of jihadists is a noble and worthy endeavor?
I encourage you to listen to his podcast with Sam, in which he elaborates on his purpose and means for deradicalization; https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/islam-and-the-future-of-tolerance-a-dialogue
Regarding funding, the Quilliam Foundation is not spending your tax dollars. It has been an entirely privately funded organization since 2011.
Robin Sutmoller says
Bravo to Harris and Spencer for sportingly engaging in an important exchange of ideas with aplomb and respect
Phil G says
It would be interesting to hear a direct dialogue between Harris and Spencer on audio, maybe Harris will have him on his podcast.
Harris has made a career of attempting to reason honestly and fruitfully with thinkers that have different views then his own on the left and the right. You should check out his blog – it touches a wide range of interesting topics; moral progress, the consequences of empathy, political correctness, meditation, etc.
Here are some good ones related to the topic of this blog post;
https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/the-borders-of-tolerance
https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/islam-and-the-future-of-tolerance-a-dialogue
https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/the-chapel-hill-murders-and-militant-atheism
Linde Barrera says
To Phil G-Hi again Phil, I am replying to your 12:40 am questions and comments of Dec. 20, 2016. (Sorry i am tardy, was visiting a sick relative in the hospital.) “Conscience is a term that describes a human’s self-awareness, a critical inner awareness that bears witness to the norms and complex values we recognize and apply (to life.) Free will, or individual conscience, and God’s sovereignty are not opposed to each other but run parallel to each other.” -Writings of Jack Wellman. The “heart” is often used as a word for “conscience” in the Old Testament. There are many verses in both the Old and New Testaments about conscience. My 2 favorites are from Proverbs 3:5-6 “TRUST IN THE LORD WITH ALL YOUR HEART AND DO NOT LEAN ON YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING….” and Romans 14:1-2 “AS FOR THE ONE WHO IS WEAK IN FAITH, WELCOME HIM BUT DO NOT QUARREL OVER OPINIONS….”
I was taught that Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of the Law of Moses, and that Jesus does not negate the Laws of Moses but supercedes them. Jesus, God Incarnate, gave us a new way to think and evaluate matters.
As to endorsing the murder of homosexuals, I cannot. I am using my individual conscience to state that. Homosexuals are people like I am a person even though I am 100% heterosexual. I believe we are all God’s children and you never know when the Holy Spirit will pay someone a visit and change them for the better just as Saul became Paul.
Phil, I hope I gave you a little more insight. I am not a theologian and can only offer my individual conscience when discussing these important questions. Take care.
fred kingsbury says
Always remember and let it be seared to your brain forever that ALL you think, believe, experience, and proclaim about your Christian theology is 100% an accident of where you were born, and how you were raised. Your mothers, fathers, teachers, preachers, communities, culture, churches, and literature you were exposed to, and indoctrinated in, is what has formed your ‘faith’ and religious orientation. Think about it Linde and all you other Christian fanatics, believers, and apologists… if you were born to devout Muslim parents in Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, etc… and all you were exposed to was Islamic schools, literature, culture, and Imams… then you would be an ardent Islam-believer and you would be spouting endlessly how that is the one TRUE religion and all is else is false and worthy of derision and disparagement…. and especially that your precious Jesus was NOT the messiah. Let that sink in. Now, start exploring the world of freethinking and see how liberating that is.
Linde Barrera says
To Fred Kingsbury- You have your opinions and experiences and I have mine. So does everyone else. But I cannot endorse killing innocent people even if they do not agree with my point of view, as in Islam. SO where do you stand on that issue?
fred kingsbury says
Linde… you obviously didn’t carefully read my last reply… if you did you would see and agree it wasn’t ‘just an opinion’ but a statement of reality. If you were born and raised in Saudi Arabia then right now you would be parroting dogmatic verses out of the Quran rather then the Bible. That is not arguable. Also, if you lived in the 13th century in Europe as a Christian then yes you would have endorsed and may have participated in the murder of many witches, apostates, homosexuals, and blasphemers… yes ALL innocent people. Why? Cause that’s what your religion was up to for centuries… and all because of the literal and ‘correct’ reading of your ‘Holy’ Book. Simply, these people did not agree with your point of view. Get it? That is why Abrahamic religions are so vile, and have been throughout history. It would take many volumes of thick books to record all the barbaric atrocities that these monotheisms to this very day have, and are, perpetuating. Your faith is not and never was a ‘virtue’. It is merely choosing to believe in dogmatic stories, mystical fantasies, and fairy tales without a shred of evidence because for some reason it is comforting… like a 6 years old child believing in Santa Claus. But look how dangerous it is. So, where do i stand on the killing of innocent people by retrograde religious fanatics? Is that a serious question? Freethinkers, like myself find all religious-based violence, murder, and genocide abhorrent and only supports our view that all religions are toxic in varying degrees to the human psyche.
Linde Barrera says
To Fred Kingsbury- As per your 5:48 pm comment of Dec. 20, 2016, I did read your prior comment and even though you stated facts, it is your opinion because no one can predict what any free thinker can or will do, and throughout history there have been lots of evil people but somehow good morality still prevailed. And who practiced that good morality? Furthermore, you confuse doctrine with free will choice. A doctrine is evil when it mandates that individuals be murdered for doing or not doing something. Yet anyone who believes in that doctrine but does not commit any murders is not evil. Furthermore, that you are an atheist is your belief and I don’t want to say you are wrong to be an atheist as long as your atheism does not hurt people. In my opinion you don’t understand the mysteries of God and condemn Him when people are the ones who have let you down. Not preachin’ just sayin’. I hope you have a Happy New Year.
Jack Diamond says
The condescending ass is only interested in atheist dawa and his war against religious belief. Not in making common cause in the jihad war against all of us.
His blaming all the miseries of the world on religious faith (“fairy tales”)seems to have neglected the 20th century, the monumental death toll resulting from atheistic communism (how did that ever happen since they were saved from being ‘faith-based bloodthirsty maniacs’?) or from a Nazism which pointedly rejected and mocked Judeo-Christian civilization. Judeo-Christian civilization which gave value to the life and dignity of each individual– as made in the “image of God”–for millions to try to live up to and so has inspired a great deal more than just bloodthirsty maniacs as its contribution.
Freed from “fairy tales” like that we got black and red concentration camps. Let’s deal with Islam and put away our utopias for awhile.
Phil says
Hi Linde,
I’m glad to hear all that, and I believe that that’s precisely what we need to see more of in the muslim world – a willingness to act upon ones own conscience (or what I would refer to as moral autonomy) even when it contradicts explicit religious doctrine. I’ve observed this willingness in second generation US muslims to the same degree that I’ve seen it in US christians whose ancestry has been here for many generations, so I hold out hope that pluralist values will continue to prevail through education.
I guess the only point that I am still unclear about stems from the following four observations. 1. You are clear that you believe that the murder of homosexuals, or of any other people who are not harming anyone, is immoral and wrong. 2. Based on what you’ve said, I gather that you believe that there are many people who die without having repented for their sins and without having been saved by the holy spirit – for example, the people who were murdered in the terrorist attack against the gay night club in Orlando. 3. You also seem to believe that the old testament has not been nullified, and that people who are gay or who otherwise break gods laws will suffer eternal torment in hell because god has chosen this fate for them. 4. You believe that god is the highest moral authority.
My understanding of logic only allows me to conclude that the fourth of these statements is incompatible with the first three. If it is immoral to murder and abuse homosexuals in this life, how can it be moral to torture them in the afterlife? If any human being in a position of power were to use their authority to order the confinement and torture of a group of people here on earth just because the people were homosexual, you would rightly deem this act to be immoral and it would be against your conscience and your very being to ever lend your support to this, but you don’t seem willing to condemn god for committing this very act, and indeed, god is committing it for all time and you worship god as the highest moral authority.
How do you reconcile your belief that god is the highest moral authority, with your beliefs; that it is immoral to impose violence upon homosexuals and other people who are not harming others, and that god imposes violence upon homosexuals and other people who are not harming others?
Linde Barrera says
To Phil G- Your questions of 11:03 pm, Dec. 20, 2016 are most interesting and thought provoking. I cannot reconcile what you wrote of, regarding God and punishments. As you point out, it is just not logical. God is a holy and illogical mystery, “illogical” in the sense of never changing and always being there for us. To back up this claim, here are several Bible quotes: For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God- Romans 3:23. For nothing will be impossible with God- Luke 1:37. If God be for us, who then can be against us?- (I will advise which verse) Fear not for I am with thee. I am thy God, I will strengthen thee and help thee.-Isaiah 41:10. And Pastor Robert Tilton of Word of Faith Ministries says that “God loves all His children but is only obligated to those who obey Him.” I guess one could ask: “what does obeying God entail?” For me obeying God is following the 10 Commandments, tithing and paying attention to Jesus’ 2 guidelines about loving God with all your heart and loving your neighbor as yourself. I do not know what else to tell you Phil. but I gave your questions my best answers. Stay well and be safe.
Linde Barrera says
To Phil G- “If God be for us, who then can be against us?” Is from Romans 8:31.
Scott in PA says
Hillary Clinton disqualified herself as a credible opponent of jihad when she tweeted in November 2015:
“Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”
When was this tweeted? It was after the horrendous Paris nightclub attacks that killed over a hundred. And that “whatsoever” added a nice touch, didn’t it?
For Harris to state that Clinton “would act more aggressively against jihadists than Trump would” is to state the absurd.
Jon Sobieski says
I remembered that statement from Hillary and rightly concluded Hillary is clueless or a liar. Take your pick. Nawaz has a big problem. He still believes Mo is a prophet, not a phony. Sam doesn’t seem to get that.
Michael Copeland says
Hillary Clinton said: “Islam is not our adversary”,
but she also said:
“We are at war against radical jihadists who use Islam to recruit and radicalize others in order to pursue their evil agenda.”
http://uk.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-response-to-nice-france-bastille-day-attacks-2016-7
Memo to Mrs. Clinton:
Only Islam has jihadists
Michael Copeland says
It seems Mrs. Clinton thinks that a “radical” is one who has wrong ideas about his ideology. She should look in the dictionary. The radical elements of a doctrine are its ROOT teachings (Latin RADIX, root). They are the “core”, Mrs. C., the “heart”.
“Violence is the heart of Islam” – Ayatollah Yazdi.
PRCS says
It’s not just HRC.
One can watch–and/or read of–politicians and “journalists” parroting that nonsense all day long; often with counter jihadists right there–who could, but don’t–challenge them.
Has anyone here ever heard Brigitte Garbriel challenge the meme?
Radical Islam. braaack.
Radical Islamic terrorism. braaack
Extremist. braaack.
Radicalized. braaack
Perverted, twisted, bastardization of one of the world’s great religions. braaack
Unless they’re referring to our Salafist Saudi buds.
Theirs is described as “a strict interpretation of Islam”.
Mel says
I appreciate that this dialogue is happening, and I’m grateful to you both for engaging in it rather than villifying and dismissing each other. We need more of this.
August West says
I’d say you guys are both on the SPLC list.
You should put the election behind you and work together against Islam which you both agree is the enemy.
Ian Clark says
Sam Harris is not nearly as smart as people make him out to be. One thing he would constantly say about Trump is that he wants to default on the national debt. Though the MSM made this claim many times, it is not true. Bonds become cheaper as interest rates go up, so Trump could buy back debt on the open market at a discount when rates go up- as they are- with absolutely no default. Few people understand this about the bond market, but Donald Trump understands debt far better than any president in history.
Sam goes on about Trump being a buffoon for wanting to default, but in fact Sam is completely ignorant of this process.
IQ al Rassooli says
CAN A MUSLIM BE A LOYAL AMERICAN?
This article is for all those Politically Correct dim wits and their liberal retards. I hope that all those who LOVE their country to read it from start to finish and send it on to others.
To make sure readers appreciate how accurate it is, I challenge anyone – especially Nawaz – the sum of $100,000 to prove me wrong.
Theologically – NO. . . Because his submission is only to Allah – originally the name of the supreme rock god of Pagan Arabia- and hence most definitely not the same as the God of Jesus, Moses or Abraham.
Religiously – NO. . . Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Submission to Allah).
Al Imran 3: 85 “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah) never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost”
Scripturally – NO. . . Because his allegiance is to Sharia based upon Muhammad’s Quran and Sunna.
Textually – NO … Because Muhammad’s Quran is Hatemongering, Warmongering, Misogynist, Racist, Intolerant, Duplicitous, Hypocritical & hence UNGODLY.
Geographically – NO. . . Because a Muslim bows in reverence to Mecca in Arabia, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.
Socially – NO. . . Because his devotion to Islam forbids him from making friends with Christians and Jews ~
Al Mai’da 5: 51 “O ye who believe! take not the Jews [Yahood] and the Christians [Nasara] for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them…”
Al Tauba 9: 29 “Fight [qatiloo] those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His apostle nor acknowledge the religion of truth [ISLAM] (even if they are) of the People of the Book [Christians & Jews] until they pay the Jizya [onerous penalty for not being a Muslim] with willing submission and feel themselves humiliated”
Loyally – NO … Because his allegiance is primarily to ALL other Muslims all over the globe.
Ishaq:231 “Muslims are one ummah (community) to the exclusion of all men. Believers are friends of one another to the exclusion of all outsiders.”
Politically – No. . . Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual Leaders), who teach equal opportunity HATRED for ALL those who are not followers of Muhammad (currently 80% of humanity called Ummat al Kuffar/ Nation of Infidels) as well as calls for the destruction of America, The Great Satan.
Al Fath 48: 13 “And if any believe not in Allah and His Apostle We have prepared for those who reject Allah a Blazing Fire!”
Domestically – No. . . Because he is instructed to marry up to four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him
Al Nisaa 4:34 “Men are the protectors and maintainers of women because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other and because they support them from their means. … As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct admonish them; refuse to share their beds; beat them …”
Legally – No. . . Because he cannot accept the American Constitution as binding since it is not from Allah’s Sharia as well as he believes the Bible is corrupted.
Culturally- NO… Because Muslims belong to a culture that prefers Death more than Life.
Ibrahim 14: 3 “Those who love the life of this world more than the Hereafter who hinder (men) from the Path of Allah and seek therein something crooked: they are astray by a long distance”
Constitutionally – No. . . Because Sharia is the nemesis of Democracy; it does not allow for freedoms of religion, expression or belief. Democracy and Islam is an oxymoron; a state of affairs that cannot possibly co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial, autocratic or theocratic and hence dysfunctional.
Spiritually – No. . . Because the USA declares ‘one nation under God.’ The Christians’ God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in the Quran’s 99 excellent attributes.
This is why American Muslims are so quiet and not speaking out about all the world wide atrocities allegedly committed by so called ‘radical’ Muslims.
Not once has there been a major demonstration – whether in Europe or the USA – by the so called ‘silent majority’ Muslims expressing their revulsion at acts of terror committed by these alleged ‘radicals’ shouting out loud “NOT IN OUR NAME!”
Muhammad said: SILENCE means CONSENT!
Therefore, after much study and deliberation…. Perhaps Americans should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in their country.
Muslims obviously cannot be both ‘good’ Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you will, these are the FACTS based entirely in chapter and verse upon their scripture.
Americans had better believe it. The more who understand these realities, the better it will be for Americans and their future generations.
This is NOT a clash of Civilizations but a clash of Beliefs.
Footnote: Muslims have PUBLICLY and repeatedly declared their intention to destroy the USA from within.
FREEDOM NEVER COMES FREE.
IQ al Rassooli
Kafir & Proud!
Jackson03 says
IQ al Rassooli your summary is logical, well written and reflects exactly what I’ve thought for a long, long time, though by no means have I articulated the points as well as you’ve done here.
And the Spencer/Harris debate review above is polite, well supported by facts and reasoning on both sides. And is respective, even polite.
What a shame the Clinton, Trumps, et al. can’t conduct business this way.
Jack Diamond says
Sam Harris has said: “Hundreds of millions of Muslims are nominal Muslims, who don’t take their faith seriously, who don’t want to kill apostates, who are horrified by ISIS and we need to defend these people, prop them up and let them reform their faith.”
Hundreds of millions of Muslims do not take their faith seriously, according to Sam (an absurd statement in itself, based on wishful thinking and the assumption that if a Muslim is not taking up arms it means they are not in sympathy with the goals of Islamic supremacism) and somehow we need to “defend” them (not alienate them with ‘Islamophobia’?) so they can somehow reform Islam. Islam which has never been reformed and can never be reformed. But then Sam is a cock-eyed optimist.
Not taking their faith seriously and reforming Islam means one thing, getting rid of Muhammad and what he said and did (declaring unending warfare against the disbelievers; obligating the hate and killing and subjugating of them; mass beheadings, assassinating critics, slaughtering unarmed farmers and raping and enslaving their women; marrying a 6 year old; etc etc) at the same time wanting to pretend he is still the prophet and perfect model of conduct. Nice trick. Neuter Muhammad. Neuter Allah’s law, shariah. Or at least they are neutered for the benefit the kuffar, who so desperately want to believe in magic. And if Muhammad and the shariah are so bad they require such reform, why bother? Just leave Islam.
Meanwhile the Qur’an tells Muslims something different about reform:
“Do you, then, believe in some parts of the divine writ and deny the truth of other parts? What, then, could be the reward of those among you who do such things but ignominy in the life of this world and, on the Day of Resurrection, they will be consigned to most grievous suffering? For God is not unmindful of what you do.” (Q.2:85)
“Today have I perfected your religious law for you, and have bestowed upon you the full measure of My blessings, and willed that self-surrender unto Me shall be your religion.” (Q.5:3)
“There is none that can alter the words of Allah.(Q. 6:34 )
“And it behoves not a believing man and a believing woman that they should have any choice in their matter when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he surely strays off a manifest straying.” (Q. 33:36)
No, there is no reforming this. And what happens when a Muslim who “does not take their faith seriously” (hardly a ‘Muslim” at all) starts to take their religion seriously? We know the answer to that one, everything Sam Harris worries about. And what Muslim who takes their faith seriously is going to pay attention to Muslims who do not take their religion seriously, whom we “prop up” as their leaders?
Forget “reforming” Islam, except to the extent the West imposes how Muslims can or cannot behave and what and what not they can teach and preach, and why they would be imprisoned or deported and their mosques closed down.
Jack Diamond says
Sam Harris is definitely for more Muslim immigration–the “good” kind. I guess so we can bring in more of those Muslims who do not take their faith seriously and who share our values. In the speech he wrote for Hillary Clinton he/she says, “we want secular, enlightened, liberal Muslims in America.”
“We want Muslims in our society who are committed to our values. Muslims like Captain Humayun Khan, who died protecting his fellow American soldiers from a suicide bomber in Iraq. Or his father, Khizr Khan, who spoke so eloquently in defense of American values at the Democratic National Convention. Muslims who share our values are, and always will be, the best defense against Islamists and jihadists who do not.” Captain Khan was definitely a better man than some other patriotic Muslims enlisted in our army, like Major Hasan, or the soldier in Iraq who killed his fellow soldiers rather than fight his co-religionists (ah, Muslims taking their religion seriously again)…but Khizr Khan?
Khizr Khan, who was a scholar of Islamic law and lied to Americans about what is contained in it? Who lied to Americans about Islamic terrorism and its basis in Islam? Who worked for the Saudis and made a living off of Muslim immigration? Who lectured America that the U.S. Constitution requires unlimited immigration of Muslims into this country? I think it’s a safe bet that Khizr Khan does not “share our beliefs” nor is he a “secular, enlightened liberal” Muslim. He belongs here about as much as Omar Mateen’s father belonged here, the Taliban supporting father of the Orlando jihadist (who was invited to a Hillary Clinton rally).
You call that pragmatism, Sam? Aggression against jihadism? Thousands of ticking time bombs, stealth jihadists, shariah-pushers, honor killers, kaffir rapers, even infiltrated terrorists? If not the parents then their children, who get “radicalized” i.e. suddenly take their faith seriously. Tell us more about how this works: “No one will be brought into this country without proper screening. No one will be brought in who seems unlikely to embrace the values of freedom and tolerance that we hold dear.”
Whose life would you bet on that? Thankfully, Hillary lost.
eduardo odraude says
Jack Diamond,
I agree with your excellent posts, except for a detail: the reason you attribute to Sam for judging that there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who do not take their religion seriously. You say that Sam’s view on that is
I believe Sam is informed about Pew polls of Muslims worldwide and knows that the numbers of those who support Islamic supremacism and the totalitarianism of Islamic law are far greater than the numbers of those who want to take up arms themselves and become jihadists.
Jack Diamond says
He is aware of those polls and still wants to still say “hundreds of millions” of Muslims do not take their faith seriously? And to therefore want more Muslim immigration into this country, to maintain Muslims can be effectively screened (as he had Hillary say in his speech for her), and to believe the risks are worth taking because we somehow need many more Muslims here? We do not. And someone who thinks there is such a thing as “jihadism”, as distinct from orthodox Islam, is going to effectively screen Muslims?
He wants us to play Muslim Roulette because of a misplaced faith in liberal, secular Muslims who share our values. As if Zudhi Jasser had millions of Muslim followers. He is going to be waiting a long long time for them to reform Islam the way he envisions.
In the meantime, does he understand there is a war going on? A war that ultimately requires Muslims to choose sides?
Aadita says
If I had to trust the safety of my family to one of the two, it would be Spencer.
And as it happens, the safety of all our families is in jeopardy.
Know Thy Enemy says
Me too!
Stan Lee says
Had Harris such a problem to support Trump, there were two other candidates other than Clinton who had no background of law-breaking, absolute negligence in the course of discharging her duties as U.S. Secretary of State, or selling of her influence in the U.S.-Obama regime.. Hillary Clinton’s scandalous past misdeeds have finally caught up with her.
Harris pursues the same antagonism that the leftist NY Times, plus the U.S. Democrat Party have for Trump. Besides, how qualified is Harris as a character assassin of Trump? I’ve never heard of him until he aired his negative views of Trump.
Of course, his opinion gladdens the hearts of Trump detractors, but for whatever resistance to Trump by the sore losers of the American left, there are more than sufficient U.S. conservatives who stand strongly behind Trump and his Cabinet choices thus far.
In addition, Mr. Trump does represent an attitude which is for Israel, as opposed to the Clinton-Obama very obviously weak-kneed presences in the UN where Israel is concerned. Israel happens to be in a UN overloaded with Arab hostilities.
Harris has the questionable advantage of receiving some media notoriety concerning his present views. Why? How is he so qualified to judge Trump’s qualifications? His opinions are one individual’s inexpert thoughts.
His views are a reflection of disgruntled losers of the Democrat Party, George Soros, the NY Times, and every Leftist in the USA, while most of the USA stands for Trump, and behind Israel.
maghan says
Plus, Harris is highly overrated as an intellectual. I guess people are foolishly impressed by his phony “neuroscientific” credentials. Just an intellectually soft guy who wants to walk back some of his earlier claims about Islam–as “a motherlode[make that ‘load’ and prefix it with a choice epithet] of bad ideas.”
762x51FMJ says
Hi Mark and Sam..
Dearly beloved we are gathered here to celebrate (1)
the demise of the Democrat Party
And to the Leftist- Marxist ideologues
and media minions that made them stand.
One Nation indivisible voted (2)
not to perish from this earth. (3)
Amen (4)
1 Wedding poem
2 Pledge of Allegiance
3 Gettysburg address
4 Holy bible.
Westman says
I believe this is exactly the division taking place in the US:
Globalist, anti-nationalist, seditious, non-miltary-serving, unpatriotic, extended adolescent, liberals who care more about Global Warming than their neighbor, have few children, and place special interests above the future of the US…and want you to pay for it.
VS
Patriots who serve their country, share its bounty with children, know their neighbors, are proud to sing the National Anthem, and intend to keep North America for those who will support it with their treasure and sacred honor.
Far Liberals and Islam are identical in their drive to rewrite an unworthy history for the US and to undermine it with sedition. The only difference is liberals don’t understand that Islam intends to rule over them after their time, as useful dhimmis, has passed.
I pray that not only will Patriots vote to save the US; that they will start patriot movements so large that the left will be forced to examine the validity of the populist, unexamined, rhetoric they have thrown at patriots since the Vietnam War.
They have not yet perceived they are losing political control precisely because they have been stuffing a valueless, unsupportable, PC platform down America’s throat and they have finally gone too far.
Islam_Macht_Frei says
I can’t disagree with Harris on Trump. No one knows what Trump will do in any given situation. You can bet that the Chinese, Russians and Saudis are all busy analyzing him to understand how to push or not push his buttons. And when tweaked, he seems to have absolutely no impulse control. While Hillary would have been a disaster, don’t bet the rent on Trump either.
That said, it would be good if the opponents of jihad could avoid internecine blood letting. Sam is on our side, so let’s make sure that does not get obscured.
mortimer says
Sam Harris has not paid attention to the EMERGING links between JIHAD ORGANIZATIONS and SAUDI ARABIA and IRAN. He has not paid attention to the HUGE BRIBES GIVEN TO THE CLINTONS by GULF STATES! This has not rung his alarm bells!
How does Harris account for their support TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS? Do KSA and Iran not understand JIHAD? That can hardly be the case. Yet Harris voted for the Dem Party that blatantly has LIED to Americans about the jihad threat, that has brought the Muslim Brotherhood into the security apparatus and that has armed Al Qaida and ISIS, so that Assad’s heretical.
The Clintons have been reported to be as generally dismissive of military and police by their security staff. In other words, they look down their noses at police, soldiers, and all the people that put their lives at risk to protect others.
Trump, on the other hand, HIGHLY ESTEEMS military officers and police. Trump is MUCH MORE LIKELY to trust their judgement as to defeating the enemies of the US … unlike the Clintons!
Harris may be well-informed in his own area of expertise, but he has not be interpreting the behaviors of the Clintons and the meaning of their ACCEPTANCE OF BRIBES.
Benedict says
“given to “moderates” who were actually Islamic jihadists” –
At least SH and RS would agree to put “moderates” in quotation marks.
Video and video transcript:
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/islam-or-islamophobia2:
“This is a remarkable document. Read it closely, and you will pass through the looking glass. The organizers of this conference believe (with good reason) that “extremist” views are not rare among Muslims, even in the West. And they consider the media’s denial of this fact to be a symptom of… Islamophobia. The serpent of obscurantism has finally begun to devour its own tail. Apparently, it is a sign of racism to imagine that only a tiny minority of Muslims could actually condone the subjugation of women and the murder of apostates. How dare you call us “extremists” when we represent so many? We are not extreme. This is Islam. They have a point. And it is time for secular liberals and (truly) moderate Muslims to stop denying it.”
mortimer says
Progressives have granted ‘honorary racial victim status’ to Islam, because Marxists require a victim in their HEROIC, MAUDLIN MELODRAMA play in which Leftards are the ‘heroes’ and everyone else is a ‘victim’ or ‘villain’.
They realize that Islam is not a race, but ‘racist’ is the worst word they can think of.
Progressives deny that Islam is a political IDEOLOGY in COMPETITION with progressivism.
Fatts says
Harris backed the clueless Hillary for POTUS. The woman who, in March of 2011 as the Syrian Civil War was just beginning, suggested that Assad was a reformer.
The woman who gave cover to Al Qeada affiliates who murdered a man who thought she was his friend, Ambassador Stevens, and 3 other Americans, by assuring the world that the murder of these 4 men was caused by an obscure you tube video. Let the record show that other Americans were horribly wounded in this act of jihad.
Clinton gleefully helped kill Qaddaffi after we scared him into cooperating with us by killing jihadists in his territory. Why would she be so happy to do that? Perhaps it is because, like Obama, she has plenty of friends in the notorious jihadist group, the Muslim Brotherhood. Hell, Huma Abedin is a member of the MB. Lastly, this Harris co-writes a book with a guy who endorses Muslim Brohterhood member, Keith Ellison, to be the new head of the DNC.
Somebody should tell Harris that lukewarm resistance to the jihad will not get the job done.
Max Publius says
I generally really like Sam Harris for his measured and logically constructed language on many topics, which is why it was a bit of a letdown to hear him obviously grovel to the left by literally–yes, literally–calling Trump a infantile moran. Obviously Trump is a pretty smart guy, whether you like him or not. Harris might have done better to “unpack” virtually every media smear levelled at Trump to discover they all required a great deal of word manipulation to make Trump into a “fascist” or some other leftist trope for its enemies.
Benedict says
Listen to this and you might get the uncanny impression that the text Sam Harris is reading from here is authored by an academic; a man who once was a dedicated Christian and now in rage and hatred turns against the faith he once had.
Link is from the article above:
https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/what-do-jihadists-really-want
ibrahim itace muhammed says
i can read along the lines in the debate between mr spencer and his critics together with comments that followed,that many filthy american christians could hardly be liberated from the shackles of slavery placed in their intellects by evil jews.they are so much brainwashed that they cannot see reason.being stunt supporters of trump,they will never draw a line between the misguided terrorist groups who are very tiny minority and main stream muslims.as long as you believe in islam you a terrorists citing quranic verses which they interpreted in their own way to mean that they teach exactly what these terrorists are now doing.this means that trump shall be at war with all muslims. let him do it that way.i know no nation confronted islam and it survive.can the united be an exception?some rogues who share the same view with mr spencer,urged mr trump to release all nuclear bombs on muslims to get them annihilated.despite denial by trump on this, he must bow to pressure from his supporters.it is on this basis that mr obama entertained fear to allow this madman to be in charge of american nukes.to trump and his supporters like mr spencer and co israel will never be secured unless all muslim powers are dismantled.they cited nuclear pakistan. so, from the day trump assumes office,america will be at war with all of us,whether terrorists or not. one thing for sure muslims will never denounce islam to be at peace any arrogant power.to practice which religioon?to worship mithraist jesus partly a man and partly god?impossible!
Westman says
Ibrahim, I am amazed at how little you actually know about the US and Israel.
You actually think the US is majority DEVOUT Christian and Israel is majority DEVOUT Judaism? And that is your basis for the designation, “filthy”?
The common religion in both countries is freedom and self-determination. The backbone of Israel is provided by more secular Jews, the devout rarely serving in the military. In the US it’s combination of devout and secular that serve in our military. And yes, we will keep Israel free.
And, we love freedom more than jihadists love death. You may have noticed that the world of the West and Russia continues normally while ISIS’ best efforts just result in more ME mahem. Even Mr. Trump will see the differences in miltant and non-militant Muslims as he applies the brakes on immigration. No one is asking for the annihilation of Muslims – that’s absurd.
Keep your eyes open, Ibrahim, for the most likely nuclear war will between Pakistan and India – not what you envisioned.
Robin Sutmoller says
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/islam-or-islamophobia2
don vito says
itace, what would keep a kufr’s life, a kufr’s children’s lives safe, and a kufr property safe from the filthy mind and hand of your prophet? You like death more than the west like coca cola?
gravenimage says
Vicious apologist for Muslim savagery ibrahim itace muhammed wrote:
i (sic) can read along (sic) the lines in the debate between mr (sic) spencer (sic) and his critics together with comments that followed,that (sic) many filthy american (sic) christians (sic) could hardly be liberated from the shackles of slavery placed in their intellects by evil jews.they (sic) are so much brainwashed that they cannot see reason.
………………………………….
In other words, if we weren’t “slaves of the evil jews” then we would enjoy being raped and murdered by his coreligionists.
More:
being (sic) stunt (sic) supporters of trump,they (sic) will never draw a line between the misguided terrorist groups who are very tiny minority and main stream (sic) muslims.as (sic) long as you believe in islam (sic) you a terrorists (sic) citing quranic (sic) verses which they interpreted in their own way to mean that they teach exactly what these terrorists are now doing.
………………………………….
Well, yes–the Qur’an *does* teach exactly what these Islamic terrorists are doing.
And Jihad is orthodox Islam, and is waged by muhammed’s fellow Muslims all over the world.
More:
this (sic) means that trump shall be at war with all muslims (sic).
………………………………….
Not really. He has just talked about keeping out Jihadists. If this is the “tiny minority” muhammed claims, why is he upset by this? Of course, he knows it is false.
More:
let (sic) him do it that way.i (sic) know no nation confronted islam (sic) and it survive.can (sic) the united (sic) be an exception?
………………………………….
Actually, many nations have confronted Islamic thuggery and survived just fine–prospered, even. It is the ones what did nothing to defend against Islam that were most likely to fall to these barbarians.
Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, Sicily, Greece, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Israel were all able to reclaim their lands conquered by Muslim invaders. Then the United States, Britain, and France all drove Muslim pirates out of the Mediterranean.
So the US has faced down Islam before and survived. Our defending our ships and crews against the Muslim Barbary Pirates was our first major conflict as a young nation. Muslims had been pirating shipping in the Mediterranean for over a *thousand years* until we cleaned them out. We inspired Britain and France to join us.
More:
some (sic) rogues who share the same view with mr (sic) spencer,urged (sic) mr (sic) trump (sic) to release all nuclear bombs on muslims (sic) to get them annihilated.despite (sic) denial by trump (sic) on this, he must bow to pressure from his supporters.
………………………………….
What absolute claptrap. This is typical Muslim projection–they are murdering *us*, and now claim that they are in danger from us. Ridiculous.
More:
it (sic) is on this basis that mr (sic) obama (sic) entertained fear to allow this madman to be in charge of american (sic) nukes.
………………………………….
What rot. Obama has never said any such thing. He was just upset when his anointed successor lost the election.
More:
to (sic) trump and his supporters like mr (sic) spencer (sic) and co (sic) israel (sic) will never be secured unless all muslim (sic) powers are dismantled.they (sic) cited nuclear pakistan (sic).
………………………………….
No one has talked about dismantling all Muslim powers. Really, muhammed’s imagination–such as it is–is working overtime here.
More:
so (sic), from the day trump (sic) assumes office,america (sic) will be at war with all of us,whether (sic) terrorists or not.
………………………………….
Well, this is grimly hilarious. In other words, Muslims will go on waging the same Jihad they have been waging for years now, but will blame it all on Trump.
Just another fake Muslim “grievance”.
Here’s the erudite Raymond Ibrahim on Muslim “grievances”:
“Raymond Ibrahim: Confirmed: Islam, Not ‘Grievances,’ Fuels Muslim Hate for the West”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/08/raymond-ibrahim-confirmed-islam-not-grievances-fuels-muslim-hate-for-the-west
More:
one (sic) thing for sure muslims (sic) will never denounce islam (sic) to be at peace any arrogant power.to (sic) practice which religioon?to (sic) worship mithraist (sic) jesus (sic) partly a man and partly god?impossible (sic)!
………………………………….
Of course, the idea that the West is demanding that Muslims convert to Christianity is just absurd (never mind the ridiculous bit about Mithraism).
But when he says Muslims will never denounce Islam to be at peace, what he is acknowledging is that waging incessant violent Jihad against unbelievers is intrinsic to Islam. So much for his claim that Jihad terrorists are just a “tiny minority”…
Linde Barrera says
To gravenimage- I just adore your answer to Ibrahim Itace muhammed, and I have to ponder long and hard as to what he smoked for breakfast, lunch and dinner to write such fantastic garbage-nonsense as he does. Merry Christmas, happy and healthy 2017 dear graven.
Champ says
More junk fiction from “ibrahim itace muhammed” our resident pathological LIAR from hell.
Klaas says
Sam Harris and Robert Spencer are two giants of islam criticism from very different corners of the political spectrum. I respect both, and I think both are smart enough to understand that it is more important to find common ground than to focus on differences and demonize each other. As an atheist and a liberal I feel much closer to Sam Harris than to Robert Spencer, but I cringe when I see “leftists” portray Robert Spencer as a racist as a bigot. I think he is in fact a thoughtful and sincere person. I was very pleasantly surprised that Sam Harris responded in such a polite way, recognizing Robert’s contributions with the phrase: “We each have a unique role to play in this war of ideas, Robert”. For a liberal who is already under fire from other liberals it takes courage to get into a public dialogue with someone like Robert.
I hope this is the beginning of something good, because we need to join our efforts to beat the common enemy of islamization. Fortunately, some people here understand that, while others would prefer to turn this website into a bubble of right-wing hate mongering. This will ultimately lead to nothing.
Westman says
Well said and appropriate.
Guest says
“As an atheist and a liberal” – glad to meet you here, Klaas. I am both as well and it seems hard to find other liberals who have the brains and guts to criticise islam.
Klaas says
Well, nice to meet you here as well “Guest”. But for an atheist and a liberal to oppose islam looks like a no-brainer to me. Islam is the exact opposite of atheism and liberalism.
don vito says
“turn this website into……..hate mongering”. O dear, virtue signaling?
jewdog says
I sympathize with Sam Harris in his obvious desire to befriend someone that he considers to be a moderate Muslim, but he needs to make his differences with Maajid very clear and explicit if he wants to retain the respect of the counter-jihad community.
I find his views on Hillary to be convoluted and unconvincing. I think this guy has been hanging around the academic swamp too long and has picked up a fever.
davej says
Undoubtedly there are millions of Muslims who have only a shallow understanding of their religion and do not follow the violent admonishments of the Quran. But this may be only a temporary situation while their populations are low and the host countries are generous and still continue to defend them with the religion of peace nonsense.
Once the percentages rise and/or the appeasement stops there will likely be a reawakening to the basic tenets of Islam among the “moderates”. They will be shamed into this by their Imams and the “Ummah”. This especially applies to the 2nd and 3rd generation of Muslim immigrants, as we have already seen.
The possibility of true reform is very slim as Islam was diabolically designed to be reform-proof.
cs says
It was a civilised talk, he was not arrogant as he is sometimes. The points Robert made were perfect. Well Done.
PRCS says
Note to Sam Harris:
Jihad is NOT an “ism”.
There is Nazism, Communism, Fascism, Catholicism, Islamism, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.
Jihad is NOT a stand alone ideology. It is a component of written, Orthodox Islam.
Baked in the cake.
PRCS says
Note to Sam Harris:
To learn what Maajid–and every other Muslim–actually thinks about “the faith”, consider asking these two questions of them:
1. Where on the planet is the punitive amputation of a human being’s hand or foot morally acceptable to you?
2. Is Allah ever wrong?
Zimriel says
“I’m not aware of anyone who has criticized her more pointedly than I have”
ya Sam: How about someone who made all these criticisms and then, like, voted for an opposing candidate? I think you might be able to go root around the Internet and find some critics of Hillary who then acted on what they believed. Critics with more consistency than you’ve shown.
Linde Barrera says
I am directing my comments to Ibrahim Itace muhammed as per his comment of Dec. 18, 2016, 4:17 pm. First he writes: “…many filthy American Christians could hardly be liberated from the shackles of slavery placed in their intellects by evil Jews…” Oh really? Islam is an evil ideology, no doubt about it. But there are many kind people who call themselves “Muslims” yet ignore the evil parts of Islam. Seems like those kind Muslims are under the shackles of their own religion. Secondly, he states: “…mithraist Jesus partly a man and partly a god? Impossible!” So now his limited Muslim mind is putting limits on the unlimited powers of God? Not happening. As for “mithraist” that word pertains to the ancient Persian god of light and guardian against evil, often identified with the sun. Jesus is God Incarnate, not a sun god. Lastly, Ibrahim itace muhammed has a great talent for propaganda. I wonder where he learned to develop that talent?
Wellington says
Sorry, but anyone asserting, as Harris has, that Clinton is preferable to Trump right away loses me. Hillary Clinton was THE most corrupt Presidential candidate of a major party in all of American history. She is, as William Safire wrote in The New York Times twenty years ago this year, “a congenital liar.” She is also a massive, and I mean enormously massive (could this possibly be a redundant term?), incompetent. She is additionally a fool who, if given the chance, would have rewritten the First and Second Amendments to the American Constitution by way of doing her best to appoint judges that would gut the First Amendment by making the bogus distinction between free speech and so-called hate speech, something which has already occurred in Britain and several other European countries (though of course said countries, too bad, don’t have a First Amendment provision in their constitutions in the first place), and gut the Second Amendment by making the bogus distinction between “the people” and “the militia.” Hillary was also for equal pay for equal work, which is just another scheme for more government control of the economy (and a falsehood too, that being that women don’t get paid equally to men here in America) and she was also for profit sharing, which is nothing but pure socialism, even quite arguably Marxism. Does Harris know any of this?
Hillary preferable to The Donald? I don’t think so and those that do, like Harris, reveal more than they know as well as revealing how little they know.
Spencer versus Harris. No contest. Not even close. I do appreciate the civilized tone of the discourse between Spencer and Harris but this does not mean I have to accept that the two have equally defensible positions. They do not. Not even close. My God does Harris have a lot to learn. A lot.
Linde Barrera says
To Wellington- As per your 8:55 pm comment of Dec.18, 2016, I love the way you write even though I do not agree with all of your points. As to Sam Harris? I would sum it up this way: “Sam Harris and Robert Spencer are Equal in the Field of Debating Doctrinal Islam and Its Ramifications” SAID NO ONE EVER. Wishing you a lovely Christmas and Happy New Year, Wellington.
Wellington says
Thanks for your response, Linde. I would be interested in what points I asserted in my 8:55 P.M. post above that you disagree with since I’m always willing to learn how I may have erred. And a “lovely Christmas” (nice variation by you here on a “Merry Christmas”) and Happy New Year to you too.
Linde Barrera says
Hi again Wellington, You have not erred! My disagreements with your point of view are based on my opinions that are not in sync with your statements. You said “equal pay for equal work is just another scheme for more government control of the economy.” I don’t believe that is true because many companies do not have to answer to the government as they are privately owned and managed. In certain instances such as social work, merchandising and research assistant positions, men make less than women! In the dentistry, chef and computer programming fields, women earn less than men. I offer a study done by Glassdoor and a study done by the American Associaton of University Women as 2 examples of gender gap pay.
As to profit sharing, most people look upon that concept as a reward for working “smart.” Profit sharing helps to create a culture of ownership, an incentive for employees to succeed which in turn will make their company succeed. Looking at profit sharing from a strictly “purist” view, I can see why one would say it is socialistic by design, but it rewards the individual worker and let’s face it, nothing operates in a vacuum. So those are my reasons as to why I don’t agree with you. But it is always great to have a chat here with you, Wellington, whether we agree or not!
Wellington says
If you, Linde, put most or all of your money into opening a restaurant and you pay your employees well, why, if your restaurant works out well for you, should you be mandated by the government to share your profits with your employees? Understand, if you would like to give your employees a nice Christmas bonus, or increase their salary, etc., that would be fine, but to be forced to share your profits, when you took all the risks and only invested your capital, is coercion by government and antithetical to the only economic system which has ever worked——-capitalism. What Hillary wanted, and she said so in her debates with Trump, was mandated government profit sharing. I would contend that this is not only unfair and unwise but Orwellian.
As for the whole equal pay stuff, overall there is ZERO evidence that men make more than women (women making more than men, say in porn films, is of course OK since men, as is invariably the case, are the bad guys where social engineering is concerned). Men work longer hours, stay in the same job longer, and both of these contribute (and should) to higher wages. And if that truly bogus statistic that women make only 78% of what men do were true (it ain’t), they why would any sane employer not just hire women and pocket the difference?
Sorry, Linde, but we’re just going to have to agree to disagree. A lovely Christmas and all that.
Linde Barrera says
Wellington, you do have your way with words and images! I cracked up laughing about the porn films example and started choking about Hillary wanting mandated government profit sharing. “Retarded” is the only word I can think of for what Hillary wanted. (I did not watch the 2nd and 3rd debates between Trump and Hillary.)
On a different topic, Wellington, can you offer any possible rationale for why Randi Weingarten would want the AFT to give support for Rep. Keith Ellison to resign his office and become chairman of the Democratic National Committee? This guy has met with Islamists in the past and since he is a Muslim, he has to have some regard or connection for the Quran and its doctrines like Jew-hatred. Randi Weingarten is Jewish too! I personally do not advocate that my union endorse Ellison for this office, even though I am “Union Loud and Proud”. If you have any thoughts on this scary topic, please holler back.
Wellington says
Respecting, Linde, the matter of Weingarten supporting Keith Ellison, there is the phenomenon of the self-hating Jew which can’t be dismissed and I’m also reminded of what Michael Medved, a conservative radio talk-show host who is a religious Jew, once said and that is that the stereotype of Jews as very bright takes a big hit when one considers how many remain liberal and Democrat.
Again, lovely Christmas (really like this phrase of yours) and a merry one too to you and yours. Take care, pal.
Linde Barrera says
To Wellington- As Ralph Kramden would say to his dear wife: “You’re a riot Alice” I say that to you, but end it with “Wellington.” !!! Being able to joke around with you and others here at Jihad Watch makes life more fun. Take care, smart guy.
eduardo odraude says
Profit sharing is “pure socialism”? You don’t mean what most people usually mean by socialism, namely state socialism. Profit-sharing is stakeholder capitalism. It permits workers to become part-owners, and thus makes the institution of private property more securely and broadly based. Profit-sharing is a private, freely-contractual, corporate form that has nothing to do with the centralization and bureacratization entailed by state socialism. Profit sharing if anything strengthens capitalism and the separation between state and economy. The traditional kind of shareholder capitalism arguably effaces the separation of state and economy.
eduardo odraude says
addendum: — I see from one of your replies to Linda, Wellington, that you see profit sharing as something compelled by the government. But that is rarely if ever the case. Virtually all cases of profit sharing have been instituted freely by managers who see that incentivizing workers as owners means more profits for all.
eduardo odraude says
addendum to the addendum — I see now that you are reacting not to profit-sharing per se, but to Hillary’s mandated form. Okay, fair enough to object to that. I don’t think a mandate is necessary, as I think a more cooperative, but uncentralized, private economy has been emerging of its own accord over the decades. That is happening in part because it turns out to be a more profitable, more creative, and more satisfying way to work.
JayT says
If your charity foundation is accepting tens of millions from hard core Sharia compliant countries, and you’ve announced should you become POTUS, you will increase the flow of refugees / immigrants into the U.S. from the Middle East region, knowing ISIS has already nested their agents within, and you’ve indicated you hate the idea of a stronger control over the southern U.S. border then how are you “more aggressive” towards Jihadists than your opponent?
Linde Barrera says
To JayT- I loved your 9:15 pm comment of Dec. 18, 2016. Are you a news commentator or news researcher may I ask? I think it would have been outstanding had any tv journalist asked Hillary Clinton the points that you brought forth, but none did that I can recall. Have a happy holiday and a good new year.
Cicero says
I was disappointed that Sam Harris has made distinctively false characterizations of a man that, I am fairly sure he hardly knows and probably never met. Like a lot of the shibboleths that the left constantly propagates and angrily defends through their agents in the media and academia, his characterizations are either disingenuous or just not believable: i,e, “ignoramus” (Wharton grad), “a con man”(you mean more than Bill was?), and a “malignantly selfish person”(sounds like a cancerous growth but easily rebutted by the evidence of raising the kind of children he has as compared to the Hollywood elites and their disastrous progeny) and “unethical person”(doubt you can build a successful international service type business if they all thought they were being ripped off for 40 years.)
On the other hand, Hillary has still not given me, or anyone that I know who is not a blind ideologue, a really satisfactory answer as to why she would need her own server while serving as SoS. And her stipulation that “everybody” at State did it and the media’s complicit obfuscation of it just didn’t pass the smell test. Her feigned ignorance (wiping her server with a cloth?) and clear arrogance coupled with dishonesty and lack of a clear message doomed her chances, and what does she do? Blame the Russians. It is laughable and pathetic but also troublesome and dangerous. Marxist liberalism has gotten its longest run with the populace in the last 8 years and it was clearly rejected.
gretel says
I just want everyone who recognizes the danger of islam and the koran to find common ground to unite against the common enemy so that we create one giant global spearhead. I hope this can happen with Sam and Robert.
Lawrence says
Harris’s responses are at best disingenuous, at worst inane and silly. Sure Trump is a conman and a liar, doesn’t make Clinton the better choice for all the reasons Spence relates. In fact Clinton is even worse than Spence relates here, but he can’t relate all of Clinton’s iniquity in reply to Harris on a blog, he would have to write a book. How about none of the above Harris? You can support neither candidate you know. But Trump could not be any worse than Clinton (or Obama), that is as near a low bar as there is. What about Clinton’s endless lying, her e-mail scandal etc?
What about Clinton’s Jew-hatred, her praise for Max Blumenthal’s take on Israel? Blumenthal compares Israel to Nazi Germany and ISIS, and more in that mad Jew-hate vein. Clinton as with her former boss Obama goes out of her way to pander to Islam. She supported the Iran deal, a nightmare for Israel and the world. Also Harris’s defense of Nawaz is pathetic and untenable. As if Nawaz has any excuse for the Ellison endorsement, Ellison’s support and ties to Islamists and his Jew-hatred is well-known to anybody remotely awake on these issues. It is old news. Harris defends the indefensible. Likewise Clinton’s Jew-hatred and dhimmitude – as with her boss Obama – is obvious to those of us awake on these issues. There is nothing new to any of this. Harris doesn’t even acknowledge Clinton’s Jew-hatred.
Harris has also expressed shock and surprise at how Glenn Greenwald and Noam Chomsky have behaved re Islam and/or Harris’s honest remarks on Islam (that is their dhimmitude and Islamopandering). Greenwald and Chomsky are hardcore Islamopanderers and have been so for an age, this is also old news. In fact both have supported jihad in one form or another, and both are viciously anti-Semitic (the worst anti-Semites are the Jews). Harris in other words is clueless about major left-wing fascist figures in America, major in terms of their influence and visibility on the left-wing fascist political scene. So it’s hard to take him seriously. In fact his apologetics for Nawaz re Ellison is a new low point for him. He doesn’t deserve our respect. He is living proof that there is no decent Left. None. He contradicts himself just like his mate Maher, and for similar reasons. He tries to have it both ways re Islam and left-wing ideology. And these are the consequences – irrationality,mental contortions, straw man arguments, disingenuous blather and willful ignorance and denialism.
Lawrence says
Don’t know why I write Spence instead of Spencer above, sorry. Also Harris’s reply is worse than inane and silly at its worst as I write above. It’s fundamentally dishonest.
1357911 says
Lawrence:
“Sure Trump is a conman and a liar…”
____________________________
Care to back that up with some evidence there, sport?
Make outlandish claims – and you’d better be prepared to back them up.
Hint: In order to prove that someone is a conman, you need legal references, such as a conviction for being a confidence man. To prove Trump is a liar, you had better be able to prove that he has lied – but trying to do so opens you up to Libel/Defamation, so…be careful what you say here.
Archie McClusky says
Hi!
My country has 0 problems with jihad and islamism. We have 0 no go zones or sharia patrols and our government refused to take “refugees”. Populations of Muslims in my country is about 0.1% and inteligence is keeping an eye on them. Maybe you should stop saving the entire Muslim world and put your safety first?
Greetings from Poland!
Gerard Rackley says
Terrific piece Robert. I have a soft spot for Sam Harris and he appears to be the most open minded of the Leftist Atheist intelligentsia, not withstanding your comments. Hitchens’s was always my favourite atheist in modern times and I often wonder, had his time been longer, if he would have followed C.S.Lewis, Malcom Muggeridge, Solzhenitsyn and his brother Peter Hitchens…in stepping away from both the Let and Atheism (such a dreary world view). I guess well never know. Well…you know what I mean. What is interesting is that Hitch was hanging out with his arch enemies, the Evangelicals, in the final days of his life, criss-crossing America by car with Larry Taunton, who talks openly about Hitchens’ shaky atheism, in his book ‘The Faith of Christopher Hitchens.’ Instead of finding evangelicals as brain dead, right wing nutters, he found them to highly intelligent and deeply compassionate folk…who love him as he was…a grumpy alcoholic. I’ve purchased and read all of your books, to which I am deeply grateful…and they remain seminal amongst the 140 academic books which I’ve read on the subject of Islam…so far. Thank you so much.
Richard Paulsen says
It can not be fair to allow those oppressing Christians and Jews to establish islam in Christian and Jewish countries.
ibrahim itace muhammed says
poor ignorant gravenimage,as usual you did not address the issues i raised.i said since trump or his supporters including you fanatic gravenimage believe that islam is terrorism on the authority of the quranic verses and hadiths you cited,andthat all muslims believe and satisfied with these verses and hadiths,how can we be exempted by mad trump when it comes to militry confrontation with so-called jihadists?this is because you refuse to accept the fact that what these terrorists are doing is not acceptable to islam as interpreted by main stream muslim.or do you and mad trump want muslims to say there is no jihad in the form of military confrontation in islam at all?jihad war is there and it can be waged any time when the circumstances warrant;but not as it being waged now by evil terrorists groups sponsored by christian west and being coardinated by evil jews. let me tell you mr gravenimage if muslims wage jihad in accordance with teachings of prophet muhammad, the united states or any other power will definitely be defeated.take it from me.let your mad dog trump start all out war against all muslims and see what will follow.those muslim forces were defeated by christian west simply because they did not comply with sharia in their prosecution of the war in the same way the evil terrorist groups are now prosecuting it.
awake says
“this is because you refuse to accept the fact that what these terrorists are doing is not acceptable to islam as interpreted by main stream muslim.”
What an absolute crock of shit. Slither away shaitan.
1357911 says
Mind-addled Moslem Inbred:
“…those muslim forces were defeated by christian west simply because they did not comply with sharia in their prosecution of the war in the same way the evil terrorist groups are now prosecuting it.”
_____________________________________________________________________
This is what inbreeding does to humans. Combine that with the 7th Century psychotic ramblings of a goat-herding plagiarist, and you get the massive, evil and violent cognitive dissonance on display here, for all to see.
fred kingsbury says
Sam Harris and Robert Spencer are both heroes of mine and more importantly are on the intellectual front lines with regards to critical thinking and truth-telling about Islamism and Jihadist insanity. We need them to be partners in this arena since as public intellectuals, both with a huge following and powerful influence, are stronger together then getting drawn into petty bickering about minor differences. Please Sam invite Robert to be a guest on your podcast and Robert please accept. We know you respect each other… further conversations between you will only deepen that respect and we all will be the beneficiaries of that.
awake says
If Islam is indeed a paramount issue to one, then the support of Clinton over Trump cannot be reconciled in that regard. Harris is a decent chap, but methinks he is being manipulated by the soothe-sayings of Majjid. If he indeed remains a Muslim, then he is no moderate. Somehow, these moderates can, (dishonestly), rationalize that the Islamic doctrine itself isn’t as rotten as the Muslims who follow and practice it.
As far as Ellison goes, I really wish Robert would lay off. When your enemy is destroying itself, the best move is to simply get out of the way. In my estimation, there couldn’t be a better choice for DNC than Keith Hakim.
Steve Klein says
Could not help but notice (appreciate) the quotes in the following sentence:
In light of all that, the question is not whether Nawaz is an “Islamist.” It is why, if he is not an “Islamist” and opposes “Islamism,” did Nawaz he endorse a man who is so obviously an “Islamist,” or at very least someone who is friendly to “Islamists” and enjoys their support?
I wonder if Mr. Harris noticed these quotes. I’ve got Sam Harris book, “The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason.”
In his book, Mr. Harris makes an interesting point: “The link between belief and behavior raises the stakes considerably . Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self -defense….”
Jack Diamond says
30 people were blown up while he composed that tortuous paragraph. Yeah, there’s no talking to some people. Certain beliefs, indeed.
JEROME HENEN says
At least there was dialog between these two opposites. When they discuss things they see they are not that far apart. Its the left who shut down discussion who are really problematic.
David Hayden says
Sam Harris, First let me say that I admire the fact that you have had the courage to openly question Islamic Jihad. However, I will have to side with Robert Spencer in his exchange with you. The main problem I have with Nawaz is that he has separated himself from the “Islamophes” on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s list of undesireables. Nawas and Spencer are on the list, but Nawaz didn’t want to be linked with the others, implying that they were bigots, etc. etc. etc. Why did Nawas do that?
ickym says
Lets face it folks, Islam is satanic. Until all Muslim leaders worldwide condemn their followers terror, murder, rape of women and children, abuse of women and children, destruction of buildings and homes, etc., Islam should be considered a radical cult. No one in the world should view Islam as anything other than a terrorist cult until the Quran strikes out such passages as 9.5 which commands the followers to “kill infidels”. Its that simple. By the way, we lived in Paris, France and were nearly killed on three separate occasions by Islamic terrorists, so we truly understand their madness.
eduardo odraude says
Very glad to see this dialog, as I admire both Spencer and Harris. I think it would be extremely fascinating, if it could be ongoing and remain civil.
Eric Jones says
Hillar’s actions have been pro islamic: Destroy Libya, attack Syria and kill Americans in Benghazhi. Enough said.
Eric
Hermes says
Stop the infighting and quibbling over shades of black. Otherwise the enemy will take advantage of it. I enjoyed a 3-hour argument on video between Sam Harris and that guy from Young Turks TV show nut and was amazed at the time and attention spent on minor differences in points of view. Mr. Spenser and Mr. Harris could get together and co-strategize instead of arguing. Sam has a philosophical approach, Robert a political one. You are both starting to look like competitors in business.