Sam Harris, "New Atheists", and Islamophobia
 

Through Twitter and Facebook, I've found a man by the name of Glenn Greenwald, as well as others mentioned in his article, have said that Sam Harris, as well as other new Atheists to some degree, have a preoccupation with singling out and criticizing Islam as a particularly dangerous religion. What do you chaps think? I actually agree with Sam Harris. Christians, I feel, used to be very dangerous when they had the power to be, but have thankfully lost that power. Nowadays I honestly don't see any other religion as being equally dangerous.

Glenn Greenwald's article, which contains links to other articles that back up his position.

Sam Harris' article

I think there are kooks in every religion. Islam is probably just an easy target to polarise an audience and get some cheap publicity. As for new atheists they often seem to be just as fanatical as the religions they criticise.

That's funny, usually they get criticized for singling out Christianity.

My problem with Sam Harris is that he tends to grossly overgeneralize and then respond to articles written against him by constantly accusing the authors of "cherry-picking." I respect and tend to agree with Harris in most areas (excluding his views on military action in the Middle East and gun control most notably) but I think that he is certainly guilty of repeatedly making comments vague enough about "those people" which a lot of people understandably take to mean "all Muslims," which is both dangerous and irresponsible.

I absolutely agree with the "new atheist" movement inasmuch as I do think that organized religion is a dangerous and unnecessary evil. Religion is obviously very complex both socially and psychologically, and I don't mean to imply that all religious people are dangerous or that all churches cause direct harm or anything of the sort. But I do believe religion is something that should and eventually will be eradicated.

In regards to why the "new atheists" all seem at some degree Islamaphobic I think can be attributed to the fact that the key players all wrote books and rose to fame shortly after the attacks of 9/11. Whether the act actually swayed their opinions enough for them to assert that Islam is a more dangerous religion than any other or not, I'm not sure. But it makes sense that the violent tendencies of the religion would be a big part of what they're talking about right now.

This is an article we discussed at a recent Atheists and Skeptics Club meeting at my college that I think you'd enjoy, Tim.
Scientific racism, militarism, and the new atheists - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

I'm not so sure that it will be possible to 'eradicate' it. I think mystical thinking is probably an inherent human trait that has arisen long before any organised religion.

I disagree but that is a common conclusion.

It's not the actual religion of Islam that's dangerous at all. It's in the misunderstanding of tradition and the impression of fanatics. Usually people will mix up let's say, how women are treated. For example what they're expected to wear. But nowhere in the Quran states women have to wear veils or full body dresses, and treat women like second class rubbish. That's the norm of culture in most cases, not religion.

Same could be said for Christianity.

Weelllllllllll..........

On clothing:
Qua'ran 24:31
Qua'ran 33:59

Wife beating:
Qua'ran 4:34

Sex with young girls:
Qua'ran 65:4

And from Sahih al-Bukhari:

Women are deficient in intelligence
Vol. 2, Book 24, No. 541:
Vol. 3, Book 48, No. 826

I mean I'm not saying that organised religions are an essential part of human society, just that an inherent mysticism leaves societies vulnerable to exploitation. Religions themselves are generally more sanctioned political entities and will always rise and fall.

Yeah I understand what you're saying but I am of the opinion that there is no such thing as an inherent mysticism involved in any sentient life. There's a really good book on this topic and the author holds your view though, you might be interesting in reading it. He essentially is of the view that we would not have been able to evolve culturally without that mysticism. It's really well researched and finely written - fully enjoyed it personally I just don't agree with the author.

http://images.betterworldbooks.com/0...0143118190.jpg

From what I can gather here is that women should be conservative (also states that both women and men should be so in the Qu'ran), not what they should wear. It doesn't say anywhere that women have to wear hijabs. Veil in Arabic means "what separates man from the world and God." That interpretation seems a little off. Women in the Quran wore veils, doesn't say every woman should.

Fair enough. The point I was illustrating was that the Qua'ran does speak specifically to how women should dress, so when paired with the other bits about women being inferior/less intelligent it's not a stretch to see why it has become tradition to expect or demand a certain dress code of them.

Just to add a point for consideration about Sahih. His profound interpretations are based on collective traditions which then he corresponds with religion. Again the point about tradition. He only really brings a certain contrast. Qu'ran is mostly a basis of God and humanity. And Sahih isn't worshipped by all Muslims.

Sorry but I don't remember studying in Islam school anything in the Qu'ran about wife-beating. Sahih however interpreted it as another figure entirely mostly as certain instructions to deal with the religion.

Gosh, still with the Islamophobia nonsense? Tsk Tsk. I wonder who has a more difficult time in discriminating (to use the word in a proper context) between Islam and human beings...surely not the writer of that pseudo-apologetic, vainly cerebral and largely devoid of a link from his premise to the accusation article? He is welcomed to try and criticize but I cannot foresee the criticism of Islam diminishing in any way. And lets face it, even the smallest criticism will include disclaiming bold assertions made by the faith. So, either people like the writer of that article get used to it, or have criticism of Islam prohibited (which is an impossibility.) No such thing as a 'soft-ball' or 'constructive' criticism is to be found...

I would imagine even Alla- thinks Islam is a dangerous religion, as is any fanaticism. 'There is no compulsion in religion', She said He said. As for extremism, I believe She said He said, 'Do not exceed the limits; Alla- does not love those who exceed the limits'. 'You shall not kill yourself', She said He said. And, killing even one person is as if you killed the whole human race. She said He said Mohammad said, even unto the atheists, 'act according to your state, and wait; we too are among those who wait'

And, new Atheists are just obstinate. I don't think they would strap a bomb to their chest and blow anyone up for their non-beliefs:) And, the reason most people convert to Islam is the fact that once you read that book, there is no turning back, because it is crystal clear communication! But, it is still second and third-hand news, so, you have to separate the wheat from the tares in that book as well. The Hadiths and Sharia are the ingredients thrown in that has caused the ruckus. Obama said Islam was a big part in the founding of this country. Yep. 'To Alla- belong the east and the west'. As in the Vatican and Istanbul (not Constantinople)

wolverinewolfweiselpigeon wrote:

The dress code did not call for head to toe covering. It was meant to address women to dress modestly, and, not show all t & a. Why? So, men would not google at them!


Yeah. This does mention lightly beating a contentious wife; and, I do have a problem with this verse. But, it does not begin with 'Say'; so, it would be questionable whether or not this was put in there with a man's hand.


I believe that addresses menopause, and, not sex with young girls. Read it from several different interpretations, and, I think you'll agree.

And from Sahih al-Bukhari:

Men do have more brain cells than women. They just don't use them. I believe Mohammad's 'Celebrated Sermon' called for better treatment of women, but, men have selective hearing.

You never hear Obama mention that little ditty that also called for the abolition of usery (interest), and vendettas of private justice. and, to prevent the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few. I'd like to see him put his hand on that book and swear to uphold all his promises! It would burn it up in a New York second!

It's beyond belief. I don't know what to say.

Gee that's not inflammatory in any way. /sarcasm (I mean the video not your response).

Extremism in Islam is due to misinterpretation of the book; and, Jihad as it applies to a 'holy war'. These errant beliefs have been handed down probably since the crusades. The so-called martyrs who strap the ammo and blow themselves, and, anything, and everyone they can are in for a shock n awe. Shekinah to the Jews:)

I dare use the name, alla- (no parasitic h, She replies) does not care for the extremists whatsoever. 'To Alla- belongs the east and the west'. That would be Istanbul (not Constantinople), and, the Vatican. Mecca and Medinah evidently belong to the 'open enemy'. They run around throwing rocks, and kissing other rocks, so, it's a rock n roll festival:)

Someone should tell the infidels they are not 'fighting in the way of Alla-', and the five a day magic carpet ride is rather compulsive. 'There is no compulsion in religion'. And, the Mahdi, Jesus Jr., the Dajjal with the bulging right eye, and of course, Mr. Antichrist are predictions that cannot happen in the manner of which they have predicted in the various pukifications of the pundiots of the religious wrong. When it says 'far exalted is he above having a son', I think someone should mention the similes. But, say not three; DESIST! (it reads) It is (seriously) better for you. Or, the jinn, who ye might want to wage Jihad against, which is what it means. They live inside and outside of ye, and, ye breath them in and out, and they are good replicators; not recreation. It's recreation for them, as in fun.

Don't worry about the killing. The ones killed are the martyrs, and, the killers are up that proverbial sh(t creek, without a helper.

Atheists, go about your business; and, quit demanding that things be proven to you. Prove it yourself. It's not anyone's job to provide you the evidence; it's your job, so do it, and, you better be sure when you make the books and characters liars. Enlightenment, a.k.a. the resurrection is not an illusion. The world is an illusion, rather than the resurrection; which is not an illusion. Lest I rail at things to excess! It is attainable, and must be attained while in the flesh. It is fact. Have a nice day

Sam Harris had posted this documentary on Facebook. I really enjoyed it.



His brother, who the whole documentary is based on, very recently got arrested for a terrorist plot.