Support NeoGAF

[Jonm1010]

It is incredibly ironic that someone from Salon is upset that Harris hasn't released the whole interview, when they themselves did an interview with him and cut out the parts in which he criticized their site specifically. They even lied about it on the top of the page, claiming his remarks were only edited for "clarity and length."

The Salon Interview - samharris.com

So they are both smug, shitheels, trying to protect their "brand" at the expense of transparency and quality inquiry/discussion.

 

[Maxim726X]

There is clear, blatant intellectual dishonesty from the Harris supporters here.

You guys cannot say with a straight face that Harris would never condone torture, when the very first fucking google result of "sam harris torture" is an article called "in defense of torture" by sam fucking harris.

But of course it is probably out of context or something.

Did you even bother reading the replies that actually addressed this point?

Guess you didn't. Seems par for the course from what I've read in this thread already.

Either you're being intentionally obtuse, or you didn't bother reading... Because I honestly don't see how any rational person could double down on your ridiculous statement after multiple people have corrected you.

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

Did you even bother reading the replies that actually addressed this point?

Guess you didn't. Seems par for the course from what I've read in this thread already.

Either you're being intentionally obtuse, or you didn't bother reading... Because I honestly don't see how any rational person could double down on your ridiculous statement after multiple people have corrected you.

Not attempting to be funny, what was his clarification for allowing torture?

I remember him saying stuff that his opinions don't differ from Stanford's definition and he put forward that case in New Zealand I think.

What is his position now?

Also, to everyone in general, what's the difference between being intellectually dishonest and just being dishonest?

 

[Jonm1010]

Did you even bother reading the replies that actually addressed this point?

Guess you didn't. Seems par for the course from what I've read in this thread already.

Either you're being intentionally obtuse, or you didn't bother reading... Because I honestly don't see how any rational person could double down on your ridiculous statement after multiple people have corrected you.

TBF, The posts in this thread on the subject that I have come across try to rationalize his arguments as merely being thought experiments and attempts(that I think are poor) to draw false equivalencies for intellectual mastabutory purposes on Harris's part. That and a surprising obsession with the mega ticking time bomb scenario that is for all intents and purposes a fallacy given how unlikely such a situation would be to fit how he frames it.

 

[DrGonzo615]

Also, to everyone in general, what's the difference between being intellectually dishonest and just being dishonest?

"Intellectually dishonest" sounds so much sexier

 

[Jonm1010]

Not attempting to be funny, what was his clarification for allowing torture?

I remember him saying stuff that his opinions don't differ from Stanford's definition and he put forward that case in New Zealand I think.

What is his position now?

Also, to everyone in general, what's the difference between being intellectually dishonest and just being dishonest?

Like technically? Intellectual dishonesty "is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest."

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

so being dishonest then.

His thoughts on torture haven't changed for all the tears.

He basically thinks it should be allowed in certain situations "no jury in the world would convict you"

Which makes him pro-torture.

I don't think the followers of Harris have actually listened or read what he writes past the sound bite they like.

 

[DrGonzo615]

TBF, The posts in this thread on the subject that I have come across try to rationalize his arguments as merely being thought experiments and attempts(that I think are poor) to draw false equivalencies for intellectual mastabutory purposes on Harris's part. That and a surprising obsession with the mega ticking time bomb scenario that is for all intents and purposes a fallacy given how unlikely such a situation would be to fit how he frames it.

Im no philosophy major but my understanding of a thought experiment is essentially taking and issue, thinking about it logically and following logic down the rabbit hole to see where it goes.

I cant speak for Harris, but what I seem to gather from his article is that while, he might find torture morally unappealing, he cant find a rational logic-based reason against it and invites people to challenge his thought process on the matter.

 

[cackhyena]

so being dishonest then.

His thoughts on torture haven't changed for all the tears.

He basically thinks it should be allowed in certain situations "no jury in the world would convict you"

Which makes him pro-torture.

I don't think the followers of Harris have actually listened or read what he writes past the sound bite they like.

I'd say the same about you proclaiming him pro torture as if he eats up the idea of it with relish. It's not hard, if you've read or listened to him at all, to find it's more his position is one of seeing it as the necessary evil in certain situations. Painting him as pure pro torture like some sadistic villain is a laughable notion. Any person that talks as much about human well being as he does finds it a morally repugnant thing. As should we all.

 

[Audioboxer]

Because there are always more people just following along without actually taking action.
How many people are actually trying to kill abortion doctors? Maybe a dozen.
How many people would generally agree with such measures? Thousands, tens of thousands.




Does that say anything about Islam? A similar socio economic environment with a predominant christian/atheist/hindu/whatever population would react in exactly the same way.



And that cristicism is just as misguided. He is mistaking religion for bigotry, which initself, is bigotry. Thats the reason why I, as an atheist, hate the new atheist movement. They're hiding their bigotry behind science and reason or even worse, they're trying to abuse science as a tool to justify their bigotry.



Oh come one. You will be called out if you publicly say something ignorant. Don't spin it like that is somehow an infringement on you're free speech or freedom.
Harris can say whatevr he wants, but if its something stupid he has to live with the consequences of saying something stupid while pretending to be smart and reasonable.




You know, you have to actually argue in a discussion. You can't just shrug counter arguments off without justifying it.
Tell me why Harris' views aren't generalisations based on the false assumption of causation between Islam and extremism.
Pro Tip: Him saying he isn't generalizing isn't proof that he isn't generalizing.



I don't see why philosophy would be relevant here. The only philosophical question we face is whether or not the West should throw its own core values under the bus in order to be able to act out its xenophobia. And thats not a hard one.

His work says nothing about a connection between religious teachings and a formation of a particularly violent society.
In fact, history has show that similar societies fromed all over the world under all kinds of religions and even during absence of religion. One obvious thing we see is that advanced technology allows for advanced violence. People can fly planes into building or kill hundreds with guns or bombs now. Is killing hundreds with a bomb more violent than killing 5 with a sword? No, the motivation is the same, but advanced means allow for more efficient violence.


I'm sure he isn't either. Thatswhy I said his views are borderline fascist.


Take christians and muslims from similar socio economic backgrounds and you'll get the same percentages.

Comparing groups from different socio economic backgrounds just shows you that there are differences between groups of different socio econimic backgrounds, duh. You'd also find that westerners are generally better at math than Iraqis, does that mean Islam has a negative effects on peoples math abilities, while christianity doesn't because it went through enlightenment 300 years ago?

I'm happy you tried to address my responses but the main thing I take away from your bigotry claims is it seems you believe all doctrines or faiths to be equal, or equally protected, or its bigotry to try and say one is "worse" than the other in its current state?

The thing is they simply aren't equal. The current states of Christianity and Catholicism simply aren't in as much disarray as Islam. The other two have gone through reform and at least in the West are largely followed in secular societies where liberal values trump faith. Protesting abortion isn't the same as stoning women or throwing gays off rooftops. Protesting is allowed in liberal societies as part of free speech.

Islam as a doctrine is causing more issues globally than the other big religions and no matter what any apologist says those in the East need reform more than we do in the West. The issues in the West with Islam are largely in part when Eastern immigrants come in without liberal ways of thinking and struggle to adapt in the West. Sharia Law and nonsense like that isn't going to fly trying to be introduced in the West, nor is discrimination of women and gays.

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

Im no philosophy major but my understanding of a thought experiment is essentially taking and issue, thinking about it logically and following logic down the rabbit hole to see where it goes.

I cant speak for Harris, but what I seem to gather from his article is that while, he might find torture morally unappealing, he cant find a rational logic-based reason against it and invites people to challenge his thought process on the matter.

1. Rational, reasonable, intellectually honest people don't intentionally cause physical or emotional pain on detainees.

2. Intentionally causing physical or emotional pain on detainees makes you a torturer

3. Torturers cannot be rational, reasonable, intellectually honest people

4. Therefore, Sam Harris sells pamphlets for a nice advance from his publisher.

The person replying to my torture point is the perfect demonstration of intellectual honesty and ability.

 

[Jonm1010]

Im no philosophy major but my understanding of a thought experiment is essentially taking and issue, thinking about it logically and following logic down the rabbit hole to see where it goes.

I cant speak for Harris, but what I seem to gather from his article is that while, he might find torture morally unappealing, he cant find a rational logic-based reason against it and invites people to challenge his thought process on the matter.

Which is easy to do. For one the large scale ticking time bomb scenario he concocts has in fact never happened. Using such unlikely hypotheticals in a thought experiment to justify policy creates a pretty ridiculous precedent for anything else you wish to apply it to.

For someone who likes the concept of cost/benefit analysis, he seems to really abandon that here.

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

Why are we forgetting the evidence in these situations?

Aren't we all slaves to the scientific method, what happened to using evidence?

 

[RustyNails]

Im no philosophy major but my understanding of a thought experiment is essentially taking and issue, thinking about it logically and following logic down the rabbit hole to see where it goes.

I cant speak for Harris, but what I seem to gather from his article is that while, he might find torture morally unappealing, he cant find a rational logic-based reason against it and invites people to challenge his thought process on the matter.

Can someone identify all of Harris' "Thought Experiments"? If all of them involve dehumanizing people in a context, then we can safely assume he's just playing a shitty game of devil's advocate under the guise of moral superiority. He'd be banned on neogaf for that.

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

Can someone identify all of Harris' "Thought Experiments"? If all of them involve dehumanizing people in a context, then we can safely assume he's just playing a shitty game of devil's advocate under the guise of moral superiority. He'd be banned on neogaf for that.

He'd also be banned for targetting and following another poster around like a stalker.

His obsession with Glenn Greenwald and his twitter followers is breathtaking.

 

[cackhyena]

You couldn't say the same about Greenwald? lol

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

You couldn't say the same about Greenwald? lol

I don't think I've ever heard double G talk about Harris' twitter account on multiple occasions.

Are you being intellectually dishonest?

 

[Azih]

I don't even know the guy but holy shit is this topic the biggest fucking intellectual circle jerk I've ever seen. I'm reading actual solid arguments against Harris' statements and the reply from his fans is consistently "Isn't it terrible how no one understands him and are just so emotional about everything?"

Thank you. In my experience on GAF. Harris critics actually quote what the man said while defenders don't. It's ridiculous.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

I'm happy you tried to address my responses but the main thing I take away from your bigotry claims is it seems you believe all doctrines or faiths to be equal, or equally protected, or its bigotry to try and say one is "worse" than the other in its current state?

Quite the opposite. The nature of religions and faith and the absence of faith is so subjective and individual that you end up with 7 billion different versions among 7 billion people.

Of course the believes of some ISIS killer are worse than the believes of some random christian family man from Connecticut. But instead of blaming Islam we should look into it and examine which factors led to this particularly violent form of faith. The actual content of the book the faith is based is a minor factor, a very minor factor, in fact, I'd say its not even noteworthy. Interestingly Harris is going against popular positions in his own field here. Whenever neuroscientists and psychologists discuss how personalities are formed and how our actions as human beeing are determinded by disposition and coinage, they always talk about the incredible amounts of factors at play. "The fucking color of the cap of your baby food could determine wether you choose to eat beans and mash or pasta in a restaurant 50 years later." (Thats how my neurology professor phrased it)
Yet, Harris breaks it down to Islam beeing the predominant factor at play, the root cause of the problems in the middle east, rather than just a symptom or an interchangable means for justification or other purposes in the social dynamic.

Its so ridiculously simplistic that its wrong and since Harris is a guy who likes to accuse other people of intellectual dishonesty its pure irony.

The thing is they simply aren't equal. The current states of Christianity and Catholicism simply aren't in as much disarray as Islam. The other two have gone through reform and at least in the West are largely followed in secular societies where liberal values trump faith. Protesting abortion isn't the same as stoning women or throwing gays off rooftops. Protesting is allowed in liberal societies as part of free speech.

Islam as a doctrine is causing more issues globally than the other big religions and no matter what any apologist says those in the East need reform more than we do in the West. The issues in the West with Islam are largely in part when Eastern immigrants come in without liberal ways of thinking and struggle to adapt in the West.

I just addressed most of this, but I'd like to say that the bolded is wrong. Islam just happens to be the predominant religion in the region of the world that causing lots of problems right now. Historically the region thats been causing the most problem has been ever changing, just like the predominant religion in the particular regions.

As I said before, Islam is interchangeable. The extremism we see in the middle east right now would work with countless of other religious backgrounds.

Sharia Law and nonsense like that isn't going to fly trying to be introduced in the West, nor is discrimination of women and gays.

Sure, but many people in the region grow up in an dogmatic, intollerant environment like that, so we have to deal with them needing time to adjust to our values.
Take for example post WW2 germany. The allies argued a lot about how to treat the german people in order to get the nazi ideology out of them. They didn't succeed by judging, belitteling, humiliating and indignifying them.(Thats what the international community did after WW1 and it led to the rise of Hitler) Instead they fostered the positive forces, they helped the german people, they guided them back to civilisation.

Now, nation building, while it worked almost perfectly with post WW2 germany, didn't work in the middle east(thats basically what Bush and his neocon friends tried), but the same principles of interaction still apply.
People like Trump or Harris will just escalate the problem with their narratives.
Giving in to xenophobia might temporarily conceal the symptoms of the problems(Talking about Trumps proposal to ban Muslims from the US here) but its not a lasting solution. Its no solution at all. Its a catalysator for the problem.

 

[cackhyena]

I don't think I've ever heard double G talk about Harris' twitter account on multiple occasions.

Are you being intellectually dishonest?

How dare you!

P sure he talks smack about Harris on the regular.

 

[Jonm1010]

Why are we forgetting the evidence in these situations?

Aren't we all slaves to the scientific method, what happened to using evidence?

Another problem with Harris's whole torture thought experiment. Good point.

A lot of his logic is centered around a number of unspoken but clearly present and highly questionable assumptions such as torture being the defecto best way to elicit quality, actionable intelligence in a short time. There is evidence this isn't always the case. There was an entire book written on this in fact by an actual military officer that engaged in waterboarding and Bush sanctioned torture.

Good people may be tempted to use it under his highly unlikely hypothetical, but he leaves out the necessary empirical qualification needed for that underlying assumption. He needs to show whether evidence tells us it is actually the most effective tool in time sensitive situations. It very well may be a possible tool, one that has successes we can point to. And he does point to them, but if the efficacy of it compared to alternatives when weighed correctly with its moral implications is not proven, you are building the argument upon assumption. Harris fails to provide the basic evidence that torture has a meaningful higher probability of success and quality then all alternatives that don't cross past an ethical threshold as greatly as torture does..

 

[Azih]

And BocoDragon this:

I feel that Omer Aziz has something in common with Reza Aslan. They are both western liberals from a Muslim background, who seem to cling to the hope that all religions are equal and potentialy liberal and all equally at home with Western society.... but if the specific doctrines of Islam are ever critiqued as problematic by liberal standards, than that short circuits the egalitarian co-existence that they are clinging to in hope that they can resolve their dual identities.

Is really not a good argument at all. You're guessing at their motivations.

The problem with guessing at people's motivations is it gives free license to be as charitable or harsh as wanted without any need or even possibility of evidence. It's soft thinking and worst of all it completely obscures the only thing worth discussing. Their points. It's a form of arguing the person and that's just bad form.

The second problem is

but if the specific doctrines of Islam are ever critiqued

Which is a statement that requires the absurd assumption that you know what the specific doctrines of Islam are.

 

[Audioboxer]

Quite the opposite. The nature of religions and faith and the absence of faith is so subjective and individual that you end up with 7 billion different versions among 7 billion people.

Of course the believes of some ISIS killer are worse than the believes of some random christian family man from Connecticut. But instead of blaming Islam we should look into it and examine which factors led to this particularly violent form of faith. The actual content of the book the faith is based is a minor factor, a very minor factor, in fact, I'd say its not even noteworthy. Interestingly Harris is going against popular positions in his own field here. Whenever neuroscientists and psychologists discuss how personalities are formed and how our actions as human beeing are determinded by disposition and coinage, they always talk about the incredible amounts of factors at play. "The fucking color of the cap of your baby food could determine wether you choose to eat beans and mash or pasta in a restaurant 50 years later." (Thats how my neurology professor phrased it)
Yet, Harris breaks it down to Islam beeing the predominant factor at play, the root cause of the problems in the middle east, rather than just a symptom or an interchangable means for justification or other purposes in the social dynamic.

Its so ridiculously simplistic that its wrong and since Harris is a guy who likes to accuse other people of intellectual dishonesty its pure irony.


I just addressed most of this, but I'd like to say that the bolded is wrong. Islam just happens to be the predominant religion in the region of the world that causing lots of problems right now. Historically the region thats been causing the most problem has been ever changing, just like the predominant religion in the particular regions.

As I said before, Islam is interchangeable. The extremism we see in the middle east right now would work with countless of other religious backgrounds.


Sure, but many people in the region grow up in an dogmatic, intollerant environment like that, so we have to deal with them needing time to adjust to our values.
Take for example post WW2 germany. The allies argued a lot about how to treat the german people in order to get the nazi ideology out of them. They didn't succeed by judging, belitteling, humiliating and indignifying them.(Thats what the international community did after WW1 and it led to the rise of Hitler) Instead they fostered the positive forces, they helped the german people, they guided them back to civilisation.

Now, nation building, while it worked almost perfectly with post WW2 germany, didn't work in the middle east(thats basically what Bush and his neocon friends tried), but the same principles of interaction still apply.
People like Trump or Harris will just escalate the problem with their narratives.
Giving in to xenophobia might temporarily conceal the symptoms of the problems(Talking about Trumps proposal to ban Muslims from the US here) but its not a lasting solution. Its no solution at all. Its a catalysator for the problem.

Possibly but you have a religious text that unlike say the Bible, which had the new testament written, still carries all the warts of it's original barbaric and ridiculous passages. Most Christians moved on from the old testament, besides pockets of the craziest usually based in the states. Catholicism has their Pope, who has to be a living person, not a zombie or a 10,000 year old man, so the Pope has massive sway over trying to reform when questioned about 21st century life, homosexuals, paedophilia, science and so forth. We rarely ask the Pope about how to live in the past in the deserts thousands of years ago.

To a liberal mind though it doesn't really matter what religion it is, so you're right, chuck any other religion in there, Islam just happens to be the one it is. Looking at it honestly though, I reiterate my first point, the text exists in it's original state and that state is said by many to be the perfect word of Allah. Without a newer iteration of the text, or a predominant leader like the Pope, you are left with a massively followed religion that is going to be incredibly challenging to reform.

We have to prop up Islam reformers like Maajid Nawaz, but also skeptics and those critical of the text to try our best to show anyone following Islam that if we want to co-exist in this world, and especially if you want to co-exist in the West, bullshit that we predominantly see in the East is not acceptable. Women are not 2nd class, children should not be forced into marriage/raped and homosexuality is not a choice, and while free speech allows you to disagree with it (and other things), it does not allow violence/killing and discriminatory laws.

 

[haxamin]

Possibly but you have a religious text that unlike say the Bible, which had the new testament written, still carries all the warts of it's original barbaric and ridiculous passages. Most Christians moved on from the old testament, besides pockets of the craziest usually based in the states. Catholicism has their Pope, who has to be a living person, not a zombie or a 10,000 year old man, so the Pope has massive sway over trying to reform when questioned about 21st century life, homosexuals, paedophilia, science and so forth. We rarely ask the Pope about how to live in the past in the deserts thousands of years ago.

To a liberal mind though it doesn't really matter what religion it is, so you're right, chuck any other religion in there, Islam just happens to be the one it is. Looking at it honestly though, I reiterate my first point, the text exists in it's original state and that state is said by many to be the perfect word of Allah. Without a newer iteration of the text, or a predominant leader like the Pope, you are left with a massively followed religion that is going to be incredibly challenging to reform.

We have to prop up Islam reformers like Maajid Nawaz, but also skeptics and those critical of the text to try our best to show anyone following Islam that if we want to co-exist in this world, and especially if you want to co-exist in the West, bullshit that we predominantly see in the East is not acceptable. Women are not 2nd class, children should not be forced into marriage/raped and homosexuality is not a choice, and while free speech allows you to disagree with it (and other things), it does not allow violence/killing and discriminatory laws.

This, so much. Seriously guys, stop acting like all religions are the same. They're not. There's clear distinctions that changes the way we are to deal with these issues.

 

[BocoDragon]

And BocoDragon this:



Is really not a good argument at all. You're guessing at their motivations.

The problem with guessing at people's motivations is it gives free license to be as charitable or harsh as wanted without any need or even possibility of evidence. It's soft thinking and worst of all it completely obscures the only thing worth discussing. Their points. It's a form of arguing the person and that's just bad form.

The second problem is Which is a statement that requires the absurd assumption that you know what the specific doctrines of Islam are.

If you can offer an explanation for why they debate so similarly dishonestly, consistently with an ad hominem bent, I'd love to hear it.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that for some people, the compatibility between Islam and liberal society is an article of faith that shouldnt seriously be questioned. Why else does the attack vector always drift towards how the critic (Harris et al) is in the wrong for even posing the questions?

 

[Audioboxer]

This, so much. Seriously guys, stop acting like all religions are the same. They're not. There's clear distinctions that changes the way we are to deal with these issues.

Precisely, to say otherwise is to be intellectually dishonest. What is and can be the same is liberal minds within any given religion, which is why right now is it massively important to prop up and give liberal Muslims the chance to shine in the West to show how powerful free speech, freedom of religion and sensible liberal views on humanitarian issues, like womens rights, belong as humanitarian issues and not a religious issues. Not to call liberal Muslims racist, uncle toms, porch monkeys, apostates or whatever else. Sure Sam Harris is not a liberal Muslim, but more importantly skeptics in the limelight like him at least interact with liberal Muslims (such as co-writing with Maajid), and show that someone that follows Islam can interact freely and legitimately with others who oppose religion almost entirely. They can do so via battles of ideas and speech, not violence and criminal law.

The not all Muslims disclaimer really belongs more so to the statement that to be liberal and be religious is entirely possible, and actually preferable for humanities sake, regardless of your religion of belief. Freedom of religion in the majority of the world allows you to be a commendable human being who can still have a faith and coexist with any other person different than yourself, even if you disagree with them and exercise freedom of speech, you can still do so in legitimate ways that allows everyone to go to sleep at night without worrying. When religious belief tries to interact with law, through something as simple as blasphemy law, right to the sinister violent punishment of homosexuality, it is a major problem, and rightfully so troubles many trying to get to sleep at night.

 

[RustyNails]

Possibly but you have a religious text that unlike say the Bible, which had the new testament written, still carries all the warts of it's original barbaric and ridiculous passages. Most Christians moved on from the old testament, besides pockets of the craziest usually based in the states. Catholicism has their Pope, who has to be a living person, not a zombie or a 10,000 year old man, so the Pope has massive sway over trying to reform when questioned about 21st century life, homosexuals, paedophilia, science and so forth. We rarely ask the Pope about how to live in the past in the deserts thousands of years ago.

To a liberal mind though it doesn't really matter what religion it is, so you're right, chuck any other religion in there, Islam just happens to be the one it is. Looking at it honestly though, I reiterate my first point, the text exists in it's original state and that state is said by many to be the perfect word of Allah. Without a newer iteration of the text, or a predominant leader like the Pope, you are left with a massively followed religion that is going to be incredibly challenging to reform.

We have to prop up Islam reformers like Maajid Nawaz, but also skeptics and those critical of the text to try our best to show anyone following Islam that if we want to co-exist in this world, and especially if you want to co-exist in the West, bullshit that we predominantly see in the East is not acceptable. Women are not 2nd class, children should not be forced into marriage/raped and homosexuality is not a choice, and while free speech allows you to disagree with it (and other things), it does not allow violence/killing and discriminatory laws.

Salafism IS Islamic reformation. What do you think? Reformation is not enlightenment. Islam already went through a reformation process and that's how we ended up with what we have today. All the Salafist scholars consider themselves reformers of Islam. No, we don't need charlatans like Maajid Nawaz thank you very much. He really doesn't believe in anything other than having his ego stroked, much like his master Sam Harris'.

On Twitter, Nawaz has posted controversial caricatures of Muhammad, urged veiled women to take off their hijabs, and questioned the state of mind of Ahmed Mohamed, the 14-year-old “clock boy”—all while trading “solidarity” hashtags with militant secularists and ignoring prejudice that faces his own religious group. Such is Nawaz’s playbook for achieving fame: court controversy by baiting religious believers (usually Muslims) and hitching his wagon to the provocateurs of the secular pundit circuit.

Read more here. People like him are not grassroots by any means. We need people from inside the tradition to relay message of tolerance and acceptance, and there are lot of people like those but you never hear of them. Because they do it not for money or fame, but with actual concern. In many MENA countries, you cannot challenge codified laws regarding homosexuality or blasphemy because majority of them are police states run by dictators. However, there are Muslim leaders within the tradition who are actually well-versed in Islamic knowledge and theology, who can arrive at a conclusion that blasphemy is not punishable by death and also have various documentary sources to back those claims. That's the space where debate needs to happen.

 

[Audioboxer]

Salafism IS Islamic reformation. What do you think? Reformation is not enlightenment. Islam already went through a reformation process and that's how we ended up with what we have today. All the Salafist scholars consider themselves reformers of Islam. No, we don't need charlatans like Maajid Nawaz thank you very much. He really doesn't believe in anything other than having his ego stroked, much like his master Sam Harris'.

Read more here. People like him are not grassroots by any means. We need people from inside the tradition to relay message of tolerance and acceptance, and there are lot of people like those but you never hear of them. Because they do it not for money or fame, but with actual concern. In many MENA countries, you cannot challenge codified laws regarding homosexuality or blasphemy because majority of them are police states run by dictators. However, there are Muslim leaders within the tradition who are actually well-versed in Islamic knowledge and theology, who can arrive at a conclusion that blasphemy is not punishable by death and also have various documentary sources to back those claims. That's the space where debate needs to happen.

Like it or not sometimes those with money and fame are the ones who are going to be on YouTube with videos, and posting podcasts/publishing books, which millions end up seeing and listening to. Limelight serves a purpose. Sure I wish those within the middle east who try to push for reform got listened to more loudly, but like it or not those that try put their lives at risk. When you can be killed for merely being a blogger, how is your message suppose to spread on a global, or at least wide scale? People with the limelight in parts of the world where they can discuss things without imminent threat of their life end up being those who are accessible to most.

Also like it or not, showing up those who are idiotic about pictures of Mohammed and Womens rights via mockery serves its part to show at least in the West we have every right to do so without violent/criminal repercussion. That is one area where the other two behemoth religions put Islam to shame - Caricatures of God, the Pope, and Priests cause little to no violence or request for criminal justice.

I do wish for more powerful and influential Islamic minds to gain more of a presence, but I also do understand that many who are on a micro-scale worry about their own safety when their names, liberal thinking and ideas get known globally and eyes turn to them. In the short term one can simply hope for a trickle down effect where the presence of those in the limelight starts small reform within groups, which spreads to families and friends.

 

[cackhyena]

He really doesn't believe in anything other than having his ego stroked, much like his master Sam Harris'.

Wow.

 

[Audioboxer]

Wow.

Yeah I thought that was pretty ridiculous to say of Maajid given his well detailed past with Islamic extremism. However for the sake of argument I tried to lay out a reasonable response above without just saying WTF at that one line. I mean at the very least the guy does have his turnabout to be proud of, given he took himself from extremism to being liberal.

 

[cackhyena]

Yeah I thought that was pretty ridiculous to say of Maajid given his well detailed past with Islamic extremism. However for the sake of argument I tried to lay out a reasonable response above without just saying WTF at that one line.

I couldn't help it. That is some terrible shit to say.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

Possibly but you have a religious text that unlike say the Bible, which had the new testament written, still carries all the warts of it's original barbaric and ridiculous passages. Most Christians moved on from the old testament, besides pockets of the craziest usually based in the states. Catholicism has their Pope, who has to be a living person, not a zombie or a 10,000 year old man, so the Pope has massive sway over trying to reform when questioned about 21st century life, homosexuals, paedophilia, science and so forth. We rarely ask the Pope about how to live in the past in the deserts thousands of years ago.

The reason why christianity is more liberal has nothing to do with the content of the bible, but with the fact that christianity is the predominant religion in more liberal and progressive regions of the world.

To a liberal mind though it doesn't really matter what religion it is, so you're right, chuck any other religion in there, Islam just happens to be the one it is. Looking at it honestly though, I reiterate my first point, the text exists in it's original state and that state is said by many to be the perfect word of Allah. Without a newer iteration of the text, or a predominant leader like the Pope, you are left with a massively followed religion that is going to be incredibly challenging to reform.

Its doesn't matter whats in the text because people will pick and choose whatever they want anyways. What they pick and choose depends on their environment. The pope exists because christian people let him exist, because they choose to believe in him. If they wouldn't want to pick and choose that way the pope would've become irrelevant.

And don't act like Islam is so unified. ISIS' no.1 enemy are shia muslims. Unlike Al Qaida who hate the West more than anything, ISIS hates shia muslims more than anything.
Nobody gives a shit what the books say, everybody picks and chooses according to the socio economic background they live in. Based on what their environment thought them growing up.
And if you live in a region that has been destabilized again and again over the course hundreds of years you will inherit some fucked up tendencies and they will reflect in the faith you choose.

We have to prop up Islam reformers like Maajid Nawaz, but also skeptics and those critical of the text to try our best to show anyone following Islam that if we want to co-exist in this world, and especially if you want to co-exist in the West, bullshit that we predominantly see in the East is not acceptable. Women are not 2nd class, children should not be forced into marriage/raped and homosexuality is not a choice, and while free speech allows you to disagree with it (and other things), it does not allow violence/killing and discriminatory laws.

Bullshit. This is how Nawaz' and Harris' simplistic views actually hurt their own cause.
Reformers won't achieve shit because the extremism doesn't stem from the religion but from the environment these people live in. Religious reform won't be accepted under the circumstances these people live. If you want change you need to change the socio economic surroundings, bring stability, bring education, bring safety and extremism will disappear and religious reform will naturually follow.*
Nawaz and Harris have it backwards.


*Keep in mind that developments like these took hundreds of years in europe for example. Its unreasonable to expect it to go down smooth within a couple of years in the middle east.

 

[RustyNails]

Like it or not sometimes those with money and fame are the ones who are going to be on YouTube with videos, and posting podcasts/publishing books, which millions end up seeing and listening to. Limelight serves a purpose. Sure I wish those within the middle east who try to push for reform got listened to more loudly, but like it or not those that try put their lives at risk. When you can be killed for merely being a blogger, how is your message suppose to spread on a global, or at least wide scale?

Also like it or not, showing up those who are idiotic about pictures of Mohammed and Womens rights via mockery serves its part to show at least in the West we have every right to do so without violent/criminal repercussion.

Nations have different ideas about satire and mockery. Especially when you compare a liberal scandanivian democratic country with a corrupt autocratic police state in the gulf. Sure, it would be a great day when everyone shares the same humor as charlie hebdo. But you're certainly not going to accelerate that day by just using it repeatedly. To people in the heart of middle east it just reinforces their view of "the west", and all that it entails. There needs to be free press first. People need to understand what "freedom" actually means. How can people learn what satire is when they have never seen it in their lives, applied to leaders? Making fun of the King in Saudi Arabia means you lose your head. In US, you do it every day. To people in dictatorships, freedom doesn't have a tangible basis. Like if you ask them what freedom means to them, they will tell you that freedom to them means they are free to earn money, buy clothes and feed their kids. Democracy means nothing to them other than bad shit like US invading Iraq or dropping bombs in Yemen. You need freedom of assembly and the right for people to protest. You need civil societies and groups. There's so much groundwork that needs to happen for someone to express themselves freely and exchange ideas before we get to satire and critiques. As for Maajid Nawaz, he's not popular among any mass body of Muslims. He's just preaching to the choir.

 

[Audioboxer]

The reason why christianity is more liberal has nothing to do with the content of the bible, but with the fact that christianity is the predominant religion in more liberal and progressive regions of the world.



Its doesn't matter whats in the text because people will pick and choose whatever they want anyways. What they pick and choose depends on their environment. The pope exists because christian people let him exist, because they choose to believe in him. If they wouldn't want to pick and choose that way the pope would've become irrelevant.

And don't act like Islam is so unified. ISIS' no.1 enemy are shia muslims. Unlike Al Qaida who hate the West more than anything, ISIS hates shia muslims more than anything.
Nobody gives a shit what the books say, everybody picks and chooses according to the socio economic background they live in. Based on what their environment thought them growing up.
And if you live in a region that has been destabilized again and again over the course hundreds of years you will inherit some fucked up tendencies and they will reflect in the faith you choose.






Bullshit. This is how Nawaz' and Harris' simplistic views actually hurt their own cause.
Reformers won't achieve shit because the extremism doesn't stem from the religion but from the environment these people live in. Religious reform won't be accepted under the circumstances these people live. If you want change you need to change the socio economic surroundings, bring stability, bring education, bring safety and extremism will disappear and religious reform will naturually follow.*
Nawaz and Harris have it backwards.


*Keep in mind that developments like these took hundreds of years in europe for example. Its unreasonable to expect it to go down smooth within a couple of years in the middle east.

It isn't now just a simple as those in other countries needing reform. Like it or not immigration has given way to individuals coming into the West that wish for sharia law and some of the most vile and degrading parts of where they came from to be established here. Those in the limelight in the West also serve a purpose in the West.

I don't disagree with the things you've said about what can hopefully be done in the East, but I don't see it as simple an Eastern problem anymore. As I stated above liberal views can also be attacked in the West. Which is ironically what happens day in and day out when blanket racist and bigotry remarks get thrown around like candy.

Nations have different ideas about satire and mockery. Especially when you compare a liberal scandanivian democratic country with a corrupt autocratic police state in the gulf. Sure, it would be a great day when everyone shares the same humor as charlie hebdo. But you're certainly not going to accelerate that day by just using it repeatedly. To people in the heart of middle east it just reinforces their view of "the west", and all that it entails. There needs to be free press first. People need to understand what "freedom" actually means. How can people learn what satire is when they have never seen it in their lives, applied to leaders? Making fun of the King in Saudi Arabia means you lose your head. In US, you do it every day. To people in dictatorships, freedom doesn't have a tangible basis. Like if you ask them what freedom means to them, they will tell you that freedom to them means they are free to earn money, buy clothes and feed their kids. Democracy means nothing to them other than bad shit like US invading Iraq or dropping bombs in Yemen. You need freedom of assembly and the right for people to protest. You need civil societies and groups. There's so much groundwork that needs to happen for someone to express themselves freely and exchange ideas before we get to satire and critiques. As for Maajid Nawaz, he's not popular among any mass body of Muslims. He's just preaching to the choir.

Again I can agree with parts of this, but we do not bend our knee for those unable to accept how we do it in the West. That is not how it works. We have the freedom to carry on how we are, and that should never come under threat to appease a problem elsewhere. Lead by example and show how we prosper under free speech and do not go after those involved in any kind of satire.

 

[DrGonzo615]

The reason why christianity is more liberal has nothing to do with the content of the bible, but with the fact that christianity is the predominant religion in more liberal and progressive regions of the world.

So you're saying that Liberalism and Progressivism are older than Christianity?......WAT!?

Yes, the Dark Ages and the Inquisition were very liberal!

 

[RustyNails]

Yeah I thought that was pretty ridiculous to say of Maajid given his well detailed past with Islamic extremism. However for the sake of argument I tried to lay out a reasonable response above without just saying WTF at that one line. I mean at the very least the guy does have his turnabout to be proud of, given he took himself from extremism to being liberal.

How well detailed? He has threatened his family and his backstory doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

During a personal spat with his brother, Kaashif, Nawaz threatened to turn him over to British security services as a dangerous Islamic extremist. Kaashif told us that Nawaz falsely painted him in his autobiography as a would-be suicide bomber, imperiling his security clearance while he was employed at a technology firm. Nawaz’s vindictive streak, which was on display when he lobbied the British Home Office to blacklist several mainstream Muslim organizations, has intimidated many of his former colleagues and estranged family members. For this reason, many of them insisted on anonymity when speaking to us.

Our sources, who include members of Nawaz’s immediate family, insist that many of the most spectacular episodes of Nawaz’s autobiography—his confrontations with neo-Nazi racists; his firsthand account of what he presented as Britain's first HT murder; his ideological transformation from Islamist to liberal; and his portrayal of his family—are filled with half-truths, exaggerations and falsehoods. These claims raise a whole set of issues beyond the confines of the current ideological debate: the manipulation of Islamist extremism as a marketing tool and the susceptibility of an array of influential figures across the political spectrum to charming, devious and shape-shifting self-promoters.

http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-pr...act-and-fiction-life-counter-terror-celebrity

 

[victreeb3l]

Salafism IS Islamic reformation. What do you think? Reformation is not enlightenment. Islam already went through a reformation process and that's how we ended up with what we have today. All the Salafist scholars consider themselves reformers of Islam. No, we don't need charlatans like Maajid Nawaz thank you very much. He really doesn't believe in anything other than having his ego stroked, much like his master Sam Harris'.

Read more here. People like him are not grassroots by any means. We need people from inside the tradition to relay message of tolerance and acceptance, and there are lot of people like those but you never hear of them. Because they do it not for money or fame, but with actual concern. In many MENA countries, you cannot challenge codified laws regarding homosexuality or blasphemy because majority of them are police states run by dictators. However, there are Muslim leaders within the tradition who are actually well-versed in Islamic knowledge and theology, who can arrive at a conclusion that blasphemy is not punishable by death and also have various documentary sources to back those claims. That's the space where debate needs to happen.

Thanks for the link about Maajid. SMH that dude is such a clown.

 

[Azih]

If you can offer an explanation for why they debate so similarly dishonestly, consistently with an ad hominem bent, I'd love to hear it.

1.Everybody's motivations, intentions, mindsets, trains of thought etc. are mysteries as none of us are mind reading psycho analysts.
2. These unknowable pieces of information don't matter anyway. If they are being dishonest in their arguments then that will show in their arguments. The maxim argue the point and not the person applies here.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that for some people, the compatibility between Islam and liberal society is an article of faith that shouldnt seriously be questioned.

That has nothing to do with the second fault in that paragraph of yours. I will repeat the problem. It requires the absurd assumption that you know what the specific doctrines of Islam are. Otherwise how could you criticize them?

 

[Erevador]

Salafism IS Islamic reformation. What do you think? Reformation is not enlightenment. Islam already went through a reformation process and that's how we ended up with what we have today. All the Salafist scholars consider themselves reformers of Islam. No, we don't need charlatans like Maajid Nawaz thank you very much. He really doesn't believe in anything other than having his ego stroked, much like his master Sam Harris'.

What a reprehensible statement.

Read more here.

You're really gonna invoke Nathan Lean? That article is a shameful, speculative smear. Lean can be relied upon to write one against every serious critic of Islam. He's been after the new atheists for years. In no way an honest or objective article, and full of "sources" who have their own reasons for being creative with the truth.

Also, notice how these attacks always seem to be personal ones, aimed at discrediting the individual and digging up dirt rather than genuinely engaging with their ideas.

 

[Azih]

Yeah I agree. Guessing at Nawaz' motivations is just as bad as doing it to Harris or Aziz or Aslan.

 

[haxamin]

1.Everybody's motivations, intentions, mindsets, trains of thought etc. are mysteries as none of us are mind reading psycho analysts.
2. These unknowable pieces of information don't matter anyway. If they are being dishonest in their arguments then that will show in their arguments. The maxim argue the point and not the person applies here.

That has nothing to do with the second fault in that paragraph of yours. I will repeat the problem. It requires the absurd assumption that you know what the specific doctrines of Islam are. Otherwise how could you criticize them?

What makes this assumption so absurd? Or even relevant?

 

[Maxim726X]

What makes this assumption so absurd? Or even relevant?

This is basically the Baffleck argument.

Even when faced with evidence that what most would consider 'extreme' views are held by a great number of practicing Muslims, it is still met with the same defense: 'Well, not all Muslims', as if this defense somehow rationalizes these disgusting beliefs and behaviors.

 

[Azih]

What makes this assumption so absurd? Or even relevant?

It's relevant because BocoDragon bought it up and also because it's at the heart of a lot of attacks on 'Islam' that are simultaneously incredibly arrogant and completely without substance.

Arrogant as anyone critiquing 'Islam' is appropriating for themselves the mantle of the person who understands the officially codified doctrine of Islam.

Without substance as it is not only incredibly reductive but misunderstands what 'Islam' is.

There are only two possibilities. Either Islam is the one true faith and then God is the judge of what Islam is. Or Islam isn't the one true faith and Islam is whatever any individual Muslim thinks it is. In neither of these cases does it make any rational sense to sit back and pontificate on how 'Islam is problematic and Aziz and Aslan are deluding themselves by saying it's not' as BocoDragon did. He doesn't know what Aziz and Aslan's faith even is.

If BocoDragon had critiqued the doctrines of some versions of Islam it'd be a different matter. But he didn't.

Edit: Maxim. I'm not defending or rationalizing anything. Just refuting statements I find to be incredibly weak and explaining why I think so.

 

[haxamin]

It's relevant because BocoDragon bought it up and also because it's at the heart of a lot of attacks on 'Islam' that are simultaneously incredibly arrogant and completely without substance.

Arrogant as anyone critiquing 'Islam' is appropriating for themselves the mantle of the person who understands the officially codified doctrine of Islam.

Without substance as it is not only incredibly reductive but misunderstands what 'Islam' is.

There are only two possibilities. Either Islam is the one true faith and then God is the judge of what Islam is. Or Islam isn't the one true faith and Islam is whatever any individual Muslim thinks it is. In neither of these cases does it make any rational sense to sit back and pontificate on how 'Islam is problematic and Aziz and Aslan are deluding themselves by saying it's not' as BocoDragon did. He doesn't know what Aziz and Aslan's faith even is.

If BocoDragon had critiqued the doctrines of some versions of Islam it'd be a different matter. But he didn't.

is that not implied?

 

[Simon Belmont]

So you're saying that Liberalism and Progressivism are older than Christianity?......WAT!?

Yes, the Dark Ages and the Inquisition were very liberal!

He/she's not wrong. Look up the fall of the Roman republic. In a very real way it was a liberal (populist) vs conservative political struggle and the resulting gridlock in the senate that lead to the rise of the empire.

 

[Azih]

is that not implied?

No it's not. Especially not in the current climate and certainly not when BocoDragon uses what he thinks the doctrine of Islam are to attack the credibility of people who disagree with him on what 'Islam' is.

 

[DrGonzo615]

He's not wrong. Look up the fall of the Roman republic. In a very real way it was a liberal (populist) vs conservative political struggle and the resulting gridlock in the senate that lead to the rise of the empire.

I was assuming he was using "liberal" in the modern sense of the word and the idea that the west is just inherently more liberal or progressive for....reasons.

 

[BobbyRobby]

If I were Sam, I'd release the discussion for the sake of transparency, but I understand he doesn't want to feed into this Salon drama.

The writer did seem intolerable from clips Sam played.

And I don't get how making one repeat their own words is "creepy."

Man, I hate Salon.

 

[Simon Belmont]

I was assuming he was using "liberal" in the modern sense of the word and the idea that the west is just inherently more liberal or progressive for....reasons.

The modern sense of the word has taken a family-circus-like path to get to where it is today. If you used the modern terms liberal and conservative you'd basically have the right idea. Immigration and land reform were huge issues to the Romans. You could read some old debates and not be sure what era they came from, if you removed all of the time specific references.

 

[BocoDragon]

1.Everybody's motivations, intentions, mindsets, trains of thought etc. are mysteries as none of us are mind reading psycho analysts.
2. These unknowable pieces of information doesn't matter anyway. If they are being dishonest in their arguments then that will show in their arguments. The maxim argue the point and not the person applies here.

I agree with the principle. If I were personally involved in a debate with Omer myself, I would debate his points and not his character. Same as I'd extend to anyone I am personally speaking to here on GAF or IRL.

But I'm not in a debate with Omer. I can react to his character on GAF if I like. I found him to be obstinate and uncharitable. I'm going to choose to believe that he isn't always like that... It's something about liberal critics of Islam specifically that sends up the greenlight to go in hard and attack. That's the pattern I've observed with Reza Aslan, so I'm drawing a similarity and sharing it with GAF. Take it or leave it I guess.

That has nothing to do with the second fault in that paragraph of yours. I will repeat the problem. It requires the absurd assumption that you know what the specific doctrines of Islam are. Otherwise how could you criticize them?

In context of what we are talking about, you must be asking how much Harris knows about Islamic doctrine. He has referenced specific doctrines throughout his critiques that must have come from an educated study, but it's not really my place to defend his knowledge.

If you're asking me how much I know for some reason... What criteria would even prove that? I've studied it as a non-Muslim for 15 years, there's always more to know. But for me the most damning thing is that I'm quite fond of watching sermons given by Muslim leaders on YouTube. These are the best answers about the faith given by Muslims to Muslims.... And they don't pass standards of liberalism on the face of it. All these prescriptions for men and women are maddening.

And the rabbit hole goes deeper if we're talking about the prescriptive rules for society. Only certain religions are permitted? They are taxed differently? Leaving Islam is a crime?

Not Liberal.