Islam or Islamophobia?

86

Sam Harris calls attention to the video that RDF posted here on Oct 30

Watch the above video. (Then watch it again.) And then read the (unedited and uncorrected) description of this footage written by the organizers of this Muslim “peace conference”:

 

When Muslim organizations invite Shaykhs who speak openly about the values of Islam, the Islamophobic western media starts murdering the character of that organization and the invited speaker. The question these Islamophobic journalists need to reflect upon is; are these so called ‘‘radical’’ views that they criticize endorsed only by these few individuals being invited around the globe, or does the common Muslims believe in them. If the common Muslims believe in these values that means that more or less all Muslims are radical and that Islam is a radical religion. Since this is not the case, as Islam is a peaceful religion and so are the masses of common Muslims, these Shaykhs cannot be radical. Rather it is Islamophobia from the ignorant western media who is more concerned about making money by alienating Islam by presenting Muslims in this way. Islam Net, an organization in Norway, invited 9 speakers to Peace Conference Scandinavia 2013. These speakers would most likely be labelled as ‘‘extremists’’ if the media were to write about the conference. But how come this conference was the largest Islamic Scandinavian International event that has taken place in Norway with about 4000 people attending? Were the majority of those who attended in opposition to what the speakers were preaching? If so, how come they paid to enter? Let’s forget about that for a moment, let’s imagine that we don’t really knew what all these people thought about for example segregation of men and women, or stoning to death of those who commit adultery. The Chairman of Islam Net, Fahad Ullah Qureshi asked the audience, and the answer was clear. The attendees were common Sunni Muslims. They did not consider themselves as radicals or extremists. They believed that segregation was the right thing to do, both men and women agreed upon this. They even supported stoning or whatever punishment Islam or prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) commanded for adultery or any other crime. They even believed that these practises should be implemented around the world. Now what does that tell us? Either all Muslims and Islam is radical, or the media is Islamophobic and racist in their presentation of Islam. Islam is not radical, nor is Muslims in general radical. That means that the media is the reason for the hatred against Muslims, which is spreading among the non-Muslims in western countries.

This is a remarkable document. Read it closely,…

Written By: Sam Harris
continue to source article at samharris.org

86 COMMENTS

  1. The appeal to the popularity (Argumentum ad populum) that they are correct, therefore whatever they agree is mainstream. I think I agree, they are all mainstream-radical-islamist. I’m frightened! (by the stupidity)

    • In reply to #3 by lampe33:

      While I hate going straight to the N-bomb: Do you suppose there is a reason why Nazi-phobic isn’t a word?

      Yes. Because fear of Fascism isn’t irrational, but somehow fear of exactly the same doctrines dressed up and dished out under the aegis of religion is.

      As Dan Dennett says of religion: “It’s a spell, and we’ve got to break it.”.

      S G

    • In reply to #3 by lampe33:

      While I hate going straight to the N-bomb: Do you suppose there is a reason why Nazi-phobic isn’t a word?
      Islamophobia is a nonsensical word ; which was debunked by Pat Condell!
      He suggested that Islamonausea was vastly more descriptive!

  2. Let me see if I got this right. An international Scandinavian Islamic conference took place in Norway with about 4,000 people attending. The Chairman of Islam Net, Fahad Ullah Qureshi asked the audience if “segregation [of men and women] was the right thing to do” and apparently “both men and women agreed upon this.”

    Well, what a surprise! Slaves and slave-owners agree on a common position in a forum controlled by slave-owners.

    “They even supported stoning or whatever punishment Islam or prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) commanded for adultery or any other crime” says the reporter.

    So, according to this narrator, the typical muslim, represented by these 4,000 delegates, is a medieval barbarian. I don’t think this is true, but he said it, not any western liberal degenerate.

    “They even believed”, he went on “that these practises should be implemented around the world. Now what does that tell us?”

    It tells us that they are medieval barbarians who are also imperialistic thugs who want to impose their savagery upon people who do not even believe in their religion.

    The report continues: “Either all Muslims and Islam is radical, or the media is Islamophobic and racist in their presentation of Islam. Islam is not radical, nor is [sic] Muslims in general radical.”

    Mainstream Islam (i.e. what the typical muslim believes) is barbaric, according to the statements made by the same narrator. The media is not Islamophobic. Islamophobia is the irrational fear of Islam. There is nothing irrational about fearing barbarism.

    “That means that the media is the reason for the hatred against Muslims, which is spreading among the non-Muslims in western countries”, he claims.

    No, it means that the barbaric beliefs of ‘typical’ muslims, beliefs attested to by the narrator (whether true or not) is the reason for hatred among civilised people – not against muslims but against a vicious, medieval, anti-human ideology invented by a 7th century warlord for his own aggrandisement.

    • In reply to #6 by Dubhlinneach:

      the barbaric beliefs of ‘typical’ muslims, beliefs attested to by the narrator (whether true or not) is the reason for hatred among civilised people

      The great interest in Old Testament beliefs among Muslims which has recently arisen seems very skewed in the light of attacks on Muslim countries in pursuit of US foreign policy.

    • In reply to #6 by Dubhlinneach:

      Islamophobia is the irrational fear of Islam. There is nothing irrational about fearing barbarism.

      Agreed. I fear Islam. I fear it for its attitudes that are clearly displayed in the video. I don’t have a phobia about Islam. I don’t need to as they have set their own platform of instilling fear into followers/believers and also in non-believers. I fear radicals of any type, religious or non-religious, but radicalism seems to be the norm for Islam with its primitive punishment and reward system.

      “The religion of peace” ethos is surely missing in the video. There is nothing at all peaceful or just in stoning to death any person for whatever reason. It’s pure thuggery and barbarity.

      • In reply to #50 by ArloNo:

        In reply to #6 by Dubhlinneach:

        Islamophobia is the irrational fear of Islam. There is nothing irrational about fearing barbarism.

        Agreed. I fear Islam. I fear it for its attitudes that are clearly displayed in the video. I don’t have a phobia about Islam. I don’t need to as they have set their own platform of instilling fear into followers/believers and also in non-believers. I fear radicals of any type, religious or non-religious, but radicalism seems to be the norm for Islam with its primitive punishment and reward system.

        “The religion of peace” ethos is surely missing in the video. There is nothing at all peaceful or just in stoning to death any person for whatever reason. It’s pure thuggery and barbarity.

        You do know that the purpose of terrorism is to instil fear into people, right? The clue’s in the name. Doesn’t it bother any of you I’m-terrified-of-Islam types that you’re playing directly into extremists’ hands when you react exactly as they want you to react? Man, they’ve got you trained up like a load of circus sea lions.

        As to the video, I hate to labor the point, but this is six and a half minutes from a conference which presumably lasted slightly longer than that.

        If a comedian at the Edinburgh Comedy Festival posted footage of his performances there on Youtube, would everyone assume the festival consisted entirely of his act? I’m guessing not. How about if he wrote underneath the clip “This is my act from the Edinburgh Comedy Festival. I was the only performer there this year and every single person agreed I was brilliant and all other comedians are rubbish.”

        It’s amazing how credulous some people become when they’re being told what they want to hear.

        • In reply to #52 by Katy Cordeth:

          You do know that the purpose of terrorism is to instil fear into people, right? The clue’s in the name. Doesn’t it bother any of you I’m-terrified-of-Islam types that you’re playing directly into extremists’ hands when you react exactly as they want you to react? Man, they’ve got you trained up like a load of circus sea lions.

          Such naivety and lack in understanding of terrorism. Perhaps it is drawn from a life lived without any terrorism.

          • In reply to #76 by Ignorant Amos:

            In reply to #52 by Katy Cordeth:

            You do know that the purpose of terrorism is to instil fear into people, right? The clue’s in the name. Doesn’t it bother any of you I’m-terrified-of-Islam types that you’re playing directly into extremists’ hands when you react exactly as they want you to react? Ma…

            Okay Igstone, I’ll bite. What, pray, is the primary purpose of terrorism if not to instill fear?

            I’m this image.

          • In reply to #77 by Katy Cordeth:

            In reply to #76 by Ignorant Amos:

            In reply to #52 by Katy Cordeth:

            You do know that the purpose of terrorism is to instil fear into people, right? The clue’s in the name. Doesn’t it bother any of you I’m-terrified-of-Islam types that you’re playing directly into extremists’ hands when you react ex…

            This reminds me of your earlier link to the “healthy intolerance” being expressed by homophobic protests in Athens.

            Six and a half minutes of goading frightened Islamophobes constitutes self-indulgent over-kill.

            A pithy six second slogan like ‘Islam or Islamophobia’ works just as well.

          • In reply to #77 by Katy Cordeth:

            Corncob

            Such naivety and lack in understanding of Jesus/Muslims. Perhaps it is drawn from a life lived without any Jesus/Muslims.

    • In reply to #6 by Dubhlinneach:

      Let me see if I got this right. An international Scandinavian Islamic conference took place in Norway with about 4,000 people attending. The Chairman of Islam Net, Fahad Ullah Qureshi asked the audience if “segregation [of men and women] was the right thing to do” and apparently “both men and wo…

      Thanks very much an outstanding account of empirical reality!

  3. This is an extension of the good old “True Scotsman” fallacy, “only the fundamentalists are true Muslims”. It is also a case of faulty sampling, because if you were to select your sample from a Catholic convention or Mormon convention, you’ll bet that there’s a good chance that you’ll get people from the more extreme side of the spectrum because anyone who would actually pay to see boring clergymen are already too far off the chart.

    That said, I think the problem with Islam is that moderate Muslims can’t shake off the feeling that they’re “bad Muslims”. They can’t assert themselves because they let themselves judged by the standards of the loudest imams and mullahs. Unlike Christianity, Islam did not have their protestant revolution and the Sunni population has solid 75% plus share of the number of devotees since its inception and power has been relatively centralised to whichever council that governs the area.

  4. Muslims are stubborn little children with immature brains. Western civilization, with its technology and military might, should always keep them in check and never ever let them get the upper hand.

    • Sorry, you do not win the Troll award of the week award, although you probably come in the top three. Still, must do better.

      In reply to #10 by Lonard:

      Muslims are stubborn little children with immature brains. Western civilization, with its technology and military might, should always keep them in check and never ever let them get the upper hand.

  5. Jesus fucking christ…

    “. The Chairman of Islam Net, Fahad Ullah Qureshi asked the audience, and the answer was clear. The attendees were common Sunni Muslims. They did not consider themselves as radicals or extremists. They believed that segregation was the right thing to do, both men and women agreed upon this. They even supported stoning or whatever punishment Islam or prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) commanded for adultery or any other crime.”

    So being a radical arsehole extremist gets a pass if the Radical Arsehole Extremists don’t consider themselves to be radical arsehole extremists?

    And they get to decide??

    WTF????

  6. And this ludicrous situation is happening right now, right here.

    The free pass given to religion in general leads to the difficulty in slamming down the crazy specific – such as this.

    I suspect there will be plenty of religionists who would rather look away and say nowt on this point…

  7. I think we need to be very careful in our tone in this issue, how we treat the problem of Qur’an-inspired violence will affect the whole world, and we must each take individual responsibility for our role in this, no matter how small.

    These people have a holy book written by the creator of the universe, so detailed in its prescriptions on how life must be lived it even tells you what hand to wipe your ass with. If the details are not all followed, they are in danger of going to hell. It also details how to deal with non-believers and people who criticize Islam, and people who leave the religion, sometimes endorsing violence.

    We must begin to see violence as an expression of fear, insecurity and impotence, an attempted power grab of the crudest kind. We must feel sorry for the billions indoctrinated, oppressed and deluded by the mere social strength of this movement, and the levels of fear they can generate in their adherents.

    My message to Muslims would be this: Everything will be okay, there is not as much to fear in this world as it seems to you right now, and together we can explore and cherish the wonder of the universe the Allah has created for us. (imperfect, but you get the idea)

  8. The argument depends on sampling the audience who are self-selected, not a random sampling of Muslims.

    It depends on a non-secret poll of some rather fuzzy general questions.

    Muslims are 50% female. Their views are not represented at all.

    • In reply to #16 by Roedy:

      The argument depends on sampling the audience who are self-selected, not a random sampling of Muslims.

      It depends on a non-secret poll of some rather fuzzy general questions.

      Muslims are 50% female. Their views are not represented at all.

      I agree Roedy, it’s hardly hard evidence. However what worries me is seeing no opposing views. That, that many people living in a secular country believe that homosexuals adulterers need stoning to death is a concern is it not. It should be a concern to moderate Muslims (I’m sure it is) so where we they? What is it about Islam that cowers debate? I am willing to believe that many in that audience (particularly the women who we didn’t see) do not agree with this, I suspect they would feel considerably nervous doing so. That is what worries me. I will be as comfortable with Islam as I am with Catholicism and Anglicanism (which I am not very thrilled either) when I see more public disagreement from Muslims that doesn’t involve violence or the threat of it. I do not think it is there yet and that is the problem.

    • In reply to #16 by Roedy:

      The argument depends on sampling the audience who are self-selected, not a random sampling of Muslims.

      It depends on a non-secret poll of some rather fuzzy general questions.

      Muslims are 50% female. Their views are not represented at all.

      Maybe the poll taken was adjusted to represent sharia law?

  9. I wonder what the motives of the guy in the grey shirt in the front were for attending. He looked as pissed off as i did when I accompanied my ex girlfriend to her church services.
    To be fair to her and her priests they only read stuff from the bronze age, they didn’t actually want to drag us back their.

  10. In reply to #15 by utopia:

    I think we need to be very careful in our tone in this issue, how we treat the problem of Qur’an-inspired violence will affect the whole world, and we must each take individual responsibility for our role in this, no matter how small.

    These people have a holy book written by the creator of the universe, so detailed in its prescriptions on how life must be lived…

    The Quran is definitely not a book of Islamic law. It’s very dull in English translation and consists of confused religious ravings and comments on tribal life and events in Arabia in the 7th century. Just the same, didn’t it occur to you to try to read it before pontificating on ‘Quran-inspired violence’? You don’t watch the media very critically either if you don’t see American military attacks on Muslims as a factor, even the main one.

    • In reply to #22 by aldous:

      In reply to #15 by utopia:

      You don’t watch the media very critically either if you don’t see American military attacks on Muslims as a factor, even the main one.

      Hi aldous,
      I agree that American Military attacks (particularly drone attacks) are very unhelpful, and add fuel to the fire of fundamentalists. I hope that Muslims continue to be accepted into the West as refugees. I hope that they can respect the laws and have tolerance of the views of others. My own country has a terrible recent history of trying to stop refugees who happen to seek asylum via boat. However these mostly Muslim refugees are not fleeing the American Military they are fleeing people with a different version of their own faith. I also fail to see how Western military attacks on some Islamic countries has anything to do with the way they treat their women, homosexuals and apostates that is all down to them. It is right to criticise Islam where applicable I worry that too often genuine criticism is suppressed for fear of being consider racist, or for fear of the consequences of fundamentalist retribution.

      Only through it being made clear that their views (which they have the right to express- as does any racist or sexist pig) are socially unacceptable, that they do not have the right to dictate or censor the views of others and that threats of violence will not be tolerated can we hope to make their views and beliefs fade from history.

      • In reply to #55 by Reckless Monkey:

        I also fail to see how Western military attacks on some Islamic countries has anything to do with the way they treat their women, homosexuals and apostates that is all down to them.

        Hello Monkey,

        They are separate but related issues. The rhetoric about evil Muslims is enthusiastically propagated by proponents of ‘The War on Terror’. In this context, jihadists responding to Western aggression are invariably referred to as terrorists and the state terror of the United States and allies against Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and that of Israel, the 51st state, against Palestine is promoted as a noble cause.

        Instead of taking a humanitarian line and supporting the reform of Islam, there is incessant gloating over the barbarities of Sharia law. Typical of this is the joyful description of the manifesto of a Norwegian nitwit as a ‘remarkable document’.

        • In reply to #58 by aldous:

          In reply to #55 by Reckless Monkey:

          Instead of taking a humanitarian line and supporting the reform of Islam

          “You can’t leave Islam. We’ll kill you.”

          If you’ve got a plan to reform that, I’m all ears. Just don’t say it too loudly in any countries with sharia law.

          • In reply to #71 by The Signal:

            “You can’t leave Islam. We’ll kill you.”
            If you’ve got a plan to reform that, I’m all ears. Just don’t say it too loudly in any countries with sharia law.

            Reform would have to come from within the Muslim community. From the infrequency of Islamic punishments being implemented by Muslim governments, it seems that you have an unrealistic view of the issue.

            The majority of the ulamâ’ (Muslim religious scholars), historically and today, are of the opinion that these penalties (stoning and the like) are on the whole Islamic but that the conditions under which they should be implemented are nearly impossible to reestablish. These penalties, therefore, are “almost never applicable”.
            Reforming Islam

    • In reply to #22 by aldous:

      In reply to #15 by utopia:

      I think we need to be very careful in our tone in this issue, how we treat the problem of Qur’an-inspired violence will affect the whole world, and we must each take individual responsibility for our role in this, no matter how small.

      These people have a holy book writte…

      American attacks on Muslims??

  11. Nothing here that we did not already know.The ‘construct’ that is Islamophobia is extremely effective in strangling any criticism here in the U.K. The constant befuddling of the argument as to what actually is a ‘moderate’ muslim and what does he believe (I say he, because whatever she believes is made irrelevant) is also useful in that no-be is ever called to account for their beliefs,’radical’ or otherwise.One thing does need to be asked more and that would particularly apply in Norway which is of course reckoned one of the most secular countries in the world and one of the happiest and most desirable to live in.That is that these 4000 or so delegates,of which there were seemingly a few hundred at this presentation,all presumably wanted to live in Norway.No doubt because it was deemed a better environment from where they ( or their parents) came.Having been asked what it was that attracted them in the first place,how many would say because Islam and everything that implies, is regnant in Norway? Sooner or later we in the secular Western democracies will need to be honest with ourselves and call enough to this !

    • In reply to #23 by sunbeamforjeebus:

      Sooner or later we in the secular Western democracies will need to be honest with ourselves and call enough to this !

      To what? Immigration? Norway is a wealthy country with many attractions. Isn’t it obvious, as you seem to agree, that people will move from poor countries, devastated by war, to peaceful and prosperous countries, like Norway? European countries should emulate the United States in successfully absorbing immigrants to the benefit of themselves and their new citizens. You would condemn mass-murderer, Anders Breivik’s, views on the issue, I suppose.

      • No ,definitely not to immigration,do not deliberately miss the point! At no stage did i imply that immigration per se was the issue here.My point,which I would have thought was plain to see was that these people wanted to migrate to Norway for it’s obvious attractions, one of which is self-evidently not a ruling Islamist theocracy.To make the point clear for you,I do not believe these people should go to a secular liberal democracy and yet bring with them the ideology that has been one of the obvious reasons why people are leaving the middle east in their hundreds of thousands.You would not expect them to bring camels,tents and kalashnikovs with them would you?

        In reply to #24 by aldous:

        In reply to #23 by sunbeamforjeebus:

        Sooner or later we in the secular Western democracies will need to be honest with ourselves and call enough to this !

        To what? Immigration? Norway is a wealthy country with many attractions. Isn’t it obvious, as you seem to agree, that people will move from poo…

        • In reply to #25 by sunbeamforjeebus:

          To make the point clear for you,I do not believe these people should go to a secular liberal democracy and yet bring with them the ideology that has been one of the obvious reasons why people are leaving the middle east in their hundreds of thousands.

          In a secular liberal democracy people have a perfect right to express abhorrent ideas. Your comment is anti–free speech.

          • In reply to #30 by aldous:

            In reply to #25 by sunbeamforjeebus:

            To make the point clear for you,I do not believe these people should go to a secular liberal democracy and yet bring with them the ideology that has been one of the obvious reasons why people are leaving the middle east in their hundreds of thousands.

            In a secu…

            Thomas Mann said it

            “Tolerance of evil becomes a crime”

            Do you imagine Islam has ANY tolerance of free speech??

    • In reply to #26 by Smill:

      In reply to Stafford Gordon, post 21. Ditto! Whenever I read anything by Sam Harris, I always ask myself the same question!

      That’s not what I actually meant, but I take your point.

      My meaning was simply that we already knew all this. On the positive side we can be grateful for the confirmation of our suspicions.

      S G

  12. This is a reminder of my past disgusting experiences in an Islamic country. Shameful, irrational and dangerous mindset. It is going to take a long time to change this idiotic behaviour. I apologize to my like minded fellows for showing a lot of emotion. Please realize that I am an ex-Muslim and lived for some years as a teen atheist in an fanatically Islamic environment before leaving that country forever. It was some decades ago, but it still hurts.

    • In reply to #31 by NoKiddingMan:

      This is a reminder of my past disgusting experiences in an Islamic country. Shameful, irrational and dangerous mindset. It is going to take a long time to change this idiotic behaviour.

      Exactly. You escaped the pressures of an idiotically Muslim country and this is what we should support others in doing. So, instead of railing against a naïve apostle of Islam in Norway, we should celebrate the opportunity for a better life; materially, spiritually and morally which Norwegians from a Muslim background are able to aspire to.

      • aldous: Do you want those “escaping” their home countries exporting their odious beliefs and lifestyle and making it mainstream? I hope not. If the featured bunch of delegates represent the cream of the crop of islam, and are allowed to get away with such bigotry and circular logic, they deserve all the criticism they get. jcw

        In reply to #33 by aldous:

        In reply to #31 by NoKiddingMan:

        This is a reminder of my past disgusting experiences in an Islamic country. Shameful, irrational and dangerous mindset. It is going to take a long time to change this idiotic behaviour.

        Exactly. You escaped the pressures of an idiotically Muslim country and this i…

        • In reply to #34 by kaiserkriss:

          aldous: Do you want those “escaping” their home countries exporting their odious beliefs and lifestyle and making it mainstream?

          What I would hope is that these young Norwegians become decent citizens of their homeland. I would hope none of them follow the path of Anders Behring Breivik.

          “Breivik alluded to himself as the future regent of Norway, master of life and death, while calling himself “inordinately loving” and “Europe’s most perfect knight since WWII”. He was convinced that he was a warrior in a “low intensity civil war” and had been chosen to save his people. Breivik described plans to carry out further “executions of categories A, B and C traitors” by the thousands, the psychiatrists included, and to organise Norwegians in reservations for the purpose of selective breeding. Breivik believed himself to be the “knight Justiciar grand master” of a Templar organisation. He was deemed to be suicidal and homicidal by the psychiatrists” . Wikipedia

          • Why this fascination with Breivik? He is an anomaly in a peaceful country with very actual support. For every Breivik there are probably 100 potential Breiviks in the world of islam that seem to get a fair amount of traction by claiming to be “de-facto”mainstream islam and every one who doesn’t agree must be assimilated or killed.

            You are comparing one psychopath in a tolerant society with a society (islam) that preaches intolerance, violence, hate and fear which only a few dare to oppose. Apples and oranges! jcw

            In reply to #37 by aldous:

            In reply to #34 by kaiserkriss:

            aldous: Do you want those “escaping” their home countries exporting their odious beliefs and lifestyle and making it mainstream?

            What I would hope is that these young Norwegians become decent citizens of their homeland. I would hope none of them follow the path of…

      • In reply to #33 by aldous:

        In reply to #31 by NoKiddingMan:

        This is a reminder of my past disgusting experiences in an Islamic country. Shameful, irrational and dangerous mindset. It is going to take a long time to change this idiotic behaviour.

        Exactly. You escaped the pressures of an idiotically Muslim country and this i…

        And it’s not just Scandinavians: The Economist, which has been whitewashing the Islamization of Europe for years, recently called Sweden’s high rape statistics “a bit of a puzzle,” saying that “the most likely explanation” for them “is that Swedish women feel particularly confident in reporting sexual assaults, whereas women elsewhere keep quiet.” Needless to say, the fact that Sweden has Europe’s second-highest percentage of Muslims went unmentioned.

  13. Religions exploit particular cognitive mechanisms in promulgating dogma; the need to belong, the effects of proximity to authority, the psychological difficulty in dissent, the inclination to misinterpret information from biases about knowledge. Humans are susceptible to exploitation because our cognitive mechanisms are designed to enable and support collaboration by acquiescence. Humans are not inherently evil but provide them with a mindless and barbaric set of rules that save them the trouble of thinking and you can create Muslims as easy as you can create Nazis. The failure of governments to see the correlation because they think a religion is somehow respectable is the most frightening thing.

    They don’t think they are radical but they sure are dumb enough to take a set of rules from a book handed down by a murdering barbarian.

  14. There is nothing new to be inferred here despite Sam’s claim to the contrary. Until we know the nature of the conference, who is attending and to see whom speak, we can gather no new insight into the prevalence of otherwise of these extremist views.

    A gathering of Scotsmen would tend to agree on their collective true-ness, especially if it involved an expensive trip to talk about the true Scotsman.

    Why is this given such significance when the cold numbers reliably deliver the rather more variable (but still depressing) truth?

  15. This is one scary clip. Many people here have commented that the people in the audience MAY not be representative of muslims in general. Because of the word may , strictly speaking those comments are true but pointless. One could equally say the audience may actually be representative of muslims worldwide. The world needs to find out just how far the rot goes.

    On a separate note, perhaps Islam has evolved into something far more dangerous, In which case we need the theological equivalent of more effective vaccines.

  16. In reply to post 38. Is it possible to teach an old toy boy new tricks? Wake up and smell the coffee, you’re being spoon fed prejudice. Don’t let an academic pip-squeak mangle your humanity. Yes, there are fundamentalists, always have been, everywhere in every faith and creed, but try to think about the children… and their potential and aspirations and dreams and hopes for a better life. Don’t crush that with prejudice, show them that your way of life and reasoning has something better to offer them. Hold out your hand …

  17. In reply to Kaiserkriss, post 40. Clearly, actual events, in vivo, don’t support your fatuous comments. Where’s your evidence? Is this it, ‘there are PROBABLY 100 potential Breiviks…’? Huh!

    • Evidence, very simple: These morons in the video claim they represent the mainstream 1.6BILLION followers of islam worldwide. Norway has a population of 5 Million- 0.3 % of the population of the islamic world. Assuming there are the same percentage of “less than ideal” citizens in both populations, you come up with 320 radical islamists in the world for every Breivik.

      Since we already know there were 4,000 at the conference in question sharing the radical view of islam, my “probability ” you question was in fact very conservative and giving the benefit of the doubt to the moderate followers of islam. Still have a problem with my “fatuous”? jcw
      I In reply to #41 by Smill:

      In reply to Kaiserkriss, post 40. Clearly, actual events, in vivo, don’t support your fatuous comments. Where’s your evidence? Is this it, ‘there are PROBABLY 100 potential Breiviks…’? Huh!

  18. I’m not really all that concerned with Muslims taking over the world. I’m more concerned with how so called rational liberals are willing to turn a blind eye to all the suffering and misery Muslims who do not agree with the horrible mainstream dogma of Islam are subjected to. All in the name of cultural sensitivity. It just makes me sick to see all these self-proclaimed liberals who are defending all this human suffering just because they are afraid of being called racist. You see this all over Europe. How we are creating a society ruled by double morality. the Muslims who come here are not real citizens who are protected by our rule of law. No, they are to be judged by their own sharia law. All in the name of multiculturalism! I’m sick and tired of this hypocrisy!!

    • Evidence please, not just a claim. This country bumpkin needs enlightenment by your obvious superior intellect. jcw
      In reply to #45 by Smill:

      In reply to Kaiserkriss, post 44. You fall at the first hurdle. Can you see that?

  19. Aldous wrote: “The great interest in Old Testament beliefs among Muslims which has recently arisen seems very skewed in the light of attacks on Muslim countries in pursuit of US foreign policy.”

    I’m not sure what this refers to. If you are saying that Islamist violence is to a significant degree provoked by US foreign policy, i.e. attacks on muslim countries by the US, well I just don’t think the evidence supports this. Islamist violence and atrocities have been committed in the Phillipines, northern Nigeria, Sudan, Kenya (Westgate, Nairobi), China, Somalia, Chechnya and Dagestan in Russia, to name a few. Not one of these cases involved a US presence or had anything to do with US foreign policy. Neither were they ethnic or nationalist issues using religion as an excuse. They were all purely about muslims insisting that they have a right to live under religious (Sharia) law or attacking those who resist it.

    In Iraq the US attacked the secular regime of Saddam Hussein, replacing it with the Shia dominant regime of Maliki under an islamic constitution. In Afghanistan, a lunatic regime was overthrown, not because they were muslim but because they refused to hand over a mass murderer to the government of the people he murdered. They were replaced by a less lunatic Islamic regime also under an Islamic constitution. In Syria, Islamic elements are trying to goad the US into fighting their war for them against a secular regime. Most muslim states in the Middle East also want America to attack Syria. Obama wisely declined.

    What’s left? Palestine of course. The US supports Israel. They should support the Palestinians in my view but that’s another debate. The pro Israeli stance of the US has nothing to do with the religion of most Palestinians (by the way 20% of them are Christian) and Palestinians know that very well.

  20. Sam’s Islamophobia is an artifact of the perpetual Terror War Crusade instigated by Bush.

    Irrational fear is harmful and causes some people to feel a need for guns.

    Certain phobias are never owned by anyone, despite their prevalence. Fear of gays, Muslims and climate scientists are perhaps the most conspicuous examples. People will readily acknowledge a feeling of horror towards spiders, but nobody’s ever a homophobe or an Islamophobe. These are either not legitimate phobias or their abject fear is entirely warranted, in their opinion.

    • In reply to #48 by Len Walsh:

      Sam’s Islamophobia is an artifact of the perpetual Terror War Crusade instigated by Bush.

      Irrational fear is harmful and causes some people to feel a need for guns.

      Certain phobias are never owned by anyone, despite their prevalence. Fear of gays, Muslims and climate scientists are perhaps the most conspicuous examples. People will readily acknowledge a feeling of horror towards spiders, but nobody’s ever a homophobe or an Islamophobe. These are either not legitimate phobias or their abject fear is entirely warranted, in their opinion.

      Reminds me of this sort of thing:

      In reply to: Protestors march in Athens for gay rights

      One would think that such a fine assortment of pseudo intellectuals would know that few if any heterosexuals are homophobic, which implies an irrational fear, but rather are homointolerant, which implies a healthy intolerance of their lifestyle…

      • In reply to #53 by Katy Cordeth:

        In reply to #48 by Len Walsh:

        Sam’s Islamophobia is an artifact of the perpetual Terror War Crusade instigated by Bush.

        Irrational fear is harmful and causes some people to feel a need for guns.

        Certain phobias are never owned by anyone, despite their prevalence. Fear of gays, Muslims and climate…

        Excellent link thank you.

        Slogans work best and ‘Islam or Islamophobia’ is clever and effective. Saves time thinking, allowing one to meditate more instead.

        Spiders or Arachnophobia?

        I’m hopeful Sam will have his Michael Shermer moment yet, whereby he reflects on the ideological biases that have provoked his fear. If Michael could manage it with respect to AGW, Sam will do so eventually too. Just as soon as his cortisol levels normalize.

        • In reply to #59 by Len Walsh:

          I’m hopeful Sam will have his Michael Shermer moment yet, whereby he reflects on the ideological biases that have provoked his fear.

          Funny that, Shermer has been retweeting Sam’s OP. Speaking of ideological biases perhaps you should look at your own.

          • In reply to #60 by Skeptic:

            In reply to #59 by Len Walsh:

            I’m hopeful Sam will have his Michael Shermer moment yet, whereby he reflects on the ideological biases that have provoked his fear.

            Funny that, Shermer has been retweeting Sam’s OP.

            Hardly surprising for normal behaviour. Social bonds provide comfort and support.

            Metropolitan zoos often host group therapy sessions for visiting arachnophobes who can’t face their fear alone. They don’t enjoy their cortisol rush and seek relief.

            Aspiring travellers afflicted by a dread of flying can be seen flocking aboard ground-based simulators, bonding fondly to gain control of their own errant adrenal glands.

            Homophobes enjoy tax-exempt venues in which to assemble and bond called churches. Homophobes, or Islamophobes, don’t want relief at all. They don’t need it. They thrive on their elevated cortisol levels like a steroid buzz. It’s a trip they want the whole world to share with them, in order to feel normal themselves. They’re never, ever phobic, but will frequently keep a gun under the pillow.

            Twitter works too.

            Climate sceptics own the world already, so they don’t feel much need to bond further.

  21. Enough said that it’s not possible to post a comment on YouTube for this video without having it subject to approval.

    That’s the way to control. Make sure there are no adverse comments. Stifle free speech.

  22. According to these 4000 people, their version of the perfect country is Iran or Saudi Arabia. Question is if they like it so much in Iran and Saudi Arabia, why don’t they just leave my country?
    Because they want their cake and eat it too. They are cowards. They don’t REALLY want to live in Iran or Saudi Arabia.
    They want to enjoy the fruits of our democracy, while secretly holding anti-democratic and medieval opinions on governance.
    Perhaps even some of them dream of exerting some kind of political influence on our country? Well, good luck with that…

    I’m not so tolerant that I tolerate intolerance. (thanks Bill Maher)

    I don’t see too many of these people in Norway in any opaque way, as I don’t live in the cesspool that is our capital city Oslo. Most of them keep it to themselves in these pathetic gatherings, or in their mosques. With our new government, immigration is certainly going to be far more rigorously controlled. We even have a Kurdish warlord and “imam” (Mullah Krekar) – wanted for mass killings in Northern Iraq – living in Norway like a scared cockroach. Still calling for the deaths of innocents on TV.. our previous government couldn’t “dispose” of him. Perhaps the new one can kick his ass out somewhere.

  23. I got to this bit and practically choked on my coffee:

    the audience, and the answer was clear. The attendees were common Sunni Muslims. They did not consider themselves as radicals or extremists. They believed that segregation was the right thing to do, both men and women agreed upon this. They even supported stoning or whatever punishment Islam or prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) commanded for adultery or any other crime. They even believed that these practises should be implemented around the world. Now what does that tell us? Either all Muslims and Islam is radical, or the media is Islamophobic and racist in their presentation of Islam.

    If that is true then that would indeed meant that all Muslims and Islam were radical. Sorry, but it really is that simple! If you accept extreme practises as mainstream, then you have taken up the extremist position! What really worries me is just what these people think is too extreme then?

  24. As far as I’m concerned, Harris lost all credibility when he sat down and wrote an article about how a modern, Western democracy should basically divide its own citizens into different categories of “suspiciousness” based, not on their own past actions, not even on what they believe, but on their skin color or the shape of their noses, which apparently would serve as an indicator of the likelyhood of their “muslimness”, ‘and be honest about it’.

    I keep getting back to that article from time to time and re-read it hoping I’ve missed something, that he’s really not suggesting what I think he’s suggesting, but the conclusion is always inescapable: The guy is batshit insane.And unfortunately, I’m now forced to read everything he writes under this lense, and with the knowledge that it was written by an insane person.

    He doesn’t seem to even have the brain power to realize the kind of turmoil such a policy would inflict on our societies, in case the nation’s representatives and officials made public that, yes, that is now the official state position on this matter. I mean, just try to imagine it: The goverment officials stating “Yes, it is now our policy that security on airports will focus more on black people and those with dark skin, as we have limited resources and we need to spend them on people that look more like villains from a Bollywood film. Nothing personal guys, we’re just being honest here”. Meanwhile, in airports everywhere, people are slowly starting to notice that the security authorities are focusing visibly more on certain groups of people, mainly blacks and dark-skinned.

    Well yeah, in a way, we would have rendered the islamic nutjobs obsolete, since most of our cities would probably be burned down in riots anyway.

    Yes, Islam is a set of terribly backwards and even criminal ideas that we must deal with. No, dismantling the principles of Western civilization itself, with all its flaws, in order to mayhaps prevent some bomb going off, is not the way to do it.

    • In reply to #65 by JoxerTheMighty:

      Meanwhile, in airports everywhere, people are slowly starting to notice that the security authorities are focusing visibly more on certain groups of people, mainly blacks and dark-skinned

      And it should really worry Sam that a lot of the security people are not whiter than white. Could they be in cahoots with their dusky brethren?

      • In reply to #66 by aldous:

        In reply to #65 by JoxerTheMighty:

        Meanwhile, in airports everywhere, people are slowly starting to notice that the security authorities are focusing visibly more on certain groups of people, mainly blacks and dark-skinned

        And it should really worry Sam that a lot of the security people are not wh…

        Well duh, obviously we would racially profile the people we’re gonna hire as security too. That goes without saying. And it wouldn’t be such a bad idea if Google started doing the same thing for its programmers. Surely the battle is not just fought just before the terrorist boards the plane. There’s some dangerous shit in those servers we wouldn’t want those guys to have access to. Do we really want a guy that looks like a muslim freely viewing source code and data of Google Earth or StreetView, and getting paid for it? At the very least, award some extra interview points to the candidate if he scores low on the muslim-o-meter. +10 for whiteness, +5 for green/blue eyes, stuff like that.

    • In reply to #65 by JoxerTheMighty:

      Yes, Islam is a set of terribly backwards and even criminal ideas that we must deal with. No, dismantling the principles of Western civilization itself, with all its flaws, in order to mayhaps prevent some bomb going off, is not the way to do it.

      It strikes me that the provisions the founders made for religious freedom assumed some minimum level of civility and decency on the part of the religious. When a given religious group is willing to hide terroristic intentions under the auspices of religous freedom, to use the protections accorded the religious in order to hurt innocents, a change in strategy is necessary. To stick one’s fingers in one’s ears and shout “This is how we’ve always done it! This is how we’ll keep doing it!” isn’t going to solve the problem.

      We may disagree about what to do differently, but we’re not going to have an effective dialog if one party resorts to character assassination and smug, knee-jerk insinuations of racism. What would you propose we do in order to “deal with” Islam, pray tell?

      • It strikes me that the provisions the founders made for religious freedom assumed some minimum level of civility and decency on the >>part of the religious. When a given religious group is willing to hide terroristic intentions under the auspices of religous freedom, to >>use the protections accorded the religious in order to hurt innocents, a change in strategy is necessary. To stick one’s fingers in >>one’s ears and shout “This is how we’ve always done it! This is how we’ll keep doing it!” isn’t going to solve the problem.

        We may disagree about what to do differently, but we’re not going to have an effective dialog if one party resorts to character >>assassination and smug, knee-jerk insinuations of racism. What would you propose we do in order to “deal with” Islam, pray tell?

        I think it was clear I was specifically addressing the now infamous article about “racial profiling”, and how it has made me look at everything Harris writes or will write under the prism of the knowledge that this guy actually holds such views. And the article has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with “religious freedom” or the way the State should deal with a specific religious group. Had Harris argued about profiling persons that haven’t done anything illegal yet, but are known to hold Islamic ideas, or even just be of the muslim faith, or even merely belong to a muslim background, then we would talk within that framework. What Harris proposed was, no more no less, for the State to officially declare(“be honest about it”) that people with a certain appearence would be basically considered a group with an “elevated” level of suspiciousness, simply because of how they look. No, not muslims. Not people that hold “dangerous ideas”. Just people that their appearance(and, let’s be honest about it shall we, that primarily means their skin color) makes them suspect of holding such ideas, even if they shout out of the rooftops that they do not.

        In short: A dark-skinned man or woman, an otherwise perfectly legal citizen of whatever nation Harris had in mind, should, according to Harris, accept that she would be considered, by the authorities of the State, more “suspicious” in airports and other such areas, even if in her private life opposed Islam even more than Harris does. And what’s more, everyone would be ok with it. “-Mommy, why those people in uniforms stopped us to examine our bags, but let the lady behind us pass through? – Because we have dark skin, Jimmy. We haven’t done anything bad, but the good men in uniform just have to make sure. When you’re older, you’ll understand. It’s a small price to pay”.

        So, I called that proposal insane, because that’s what it is. Insane. No sense in being politically correct here, the guy is cookoo. Or, alternatively, he just had to increase the dose of “attack on everything islam” in his articles in order to keep his readers hooked, and in this case simply miscalculated and OD’ed. In a world where we should be addressing more subtle but still very serious issues like the one I link below, Harris wants to set the clock 60 years backwards, just like that. Well no. Not on our watch.

        http://gawker.com/kanye-west-knows-you-think-he-sounded-nuts-on-kimmel-1443710553

        • In reply to #72 by JoxerTheMighty:

          I think it was clear I was specifically addressing the now infamous article about “racial profiling”

          Is this article the subject of this thread? No. If he’s wrong about that, which you haven’t really established (“the guy is cookoo” isn’t an argument), it doesn’t in any way, shape, or form invalidate what he’s saying now. No, you can’t discount everything he ever says ever again simply because you disagree with one thing he said one time.

          We’re above that sort of thing here, I like to think. Please don’t prove me wrong. If you take issue with the article at hand for some legitimate reason, please do state why. But don’t make your argument, “He said something I think is crazy once, so he’s automatically wrong now.” Thank you.

  25. What the WHAT?? The description is like something written by a child. Am I missing something? Perhaps something was lost in translation? Was this originally written down in STUPID and then translated? “We’re not radical-extremists because WE’VE decided we’re not radical-extremists. SEE? Everyone in the room, who is one of us, agrees.” Who wouldn’t agree if the alternative is being stoned to death?!

    • In reply to #68 by ShesTheBeth:

      Am I missing something?

      I think, perhaps, the difficulty so many people are having here lies in the definition of “radical”. If these beliefs are the norm in Islam, then people who hold them are not radical at all. That would mean that Islam itself is dysfunctional. “Extremists,” I believe, need necessarily occupy the extreme edges of their religious ideology. If they do not, then they are, while still holders of extreme views, not extremists in the sense we are using.

  26. True, the article I cited isn’t the topic of this thread, I just mentioned it as something that I, personally, find quite revealing about the author’s intentions (and I think I offered at least some arguments on what kind of consequenses such a proposal would have, had it been ever realized – don’t make it sound like personal remarks was all my post was about!). But yes, I got carried away(and I think you did too a bit, as you actually addressed my post and made further arguments and inquiries) and got off-topic so, for that, my apologies.

  27. So on the one hand, we have “moderate” Muslims begging us to accept that they are peaceful, and that the extreme “Islamists” are a belligerent minority; and on the other we have these obscene nutters telling us that all Muslims hate everyone and consider it perfectly reasonable to carry out barbaric executions because God and Mohammed say so.

    As a reasonable human being, what and who am I supposed to believe when it comes Islam?

Leave a Reply