In any event, have fun with it. Answers will be posted at some future date in a comment.
1. The views held by the Muslim jihadis who want to destroy us are not marginal views held only by a minority of “Islamic fascists.”My thoughts are these. Perhaps the insane fundamentalists aren’t as insane as we thought. Perhaps the rational secularists aren’t as rational as they fancy themselves. Or perhaps, when a society decides to vilify a people, the temptation to join in the mass feeding frenzy becomes too great for anyone of any party to resist.
2. There is no such thing as an Islamic moderate.
3. It is time we recognized—and obliged the Muslim world to recognize—that “Muslim extremism” is not extreme among Muslims. Mainstream Islam itself represents an extremist rejection of intellectual honesty, gender equality, secular politics and genuine pluralism.
4. And to say that these terrorists distort Islam, they're carrying out Islam.
5. The young men whom you call "radicalised Britons" and "extremists" are just honest Muslims who take their scriptures seriously.
6. We are not at war with terrorism, we are at war with Islam.
7. The views held by the Muslim jihadis who want to destroy us are not marginal views held only by a minority of “Islamic fascists.”
8. Islamic belief, however simply or modestly it may be stated, is an extreme position to begin with.
9. Islam, more than any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death.
10. Adolph Hitler was bad, but what the Muslims want to do to the Jews is worse.
11. Who ever heard of such a bloody, bloody, brutal type of religion? But that’s what [Islam] is. It is not a religion of peace.
12. We should invade their [Muslim] countries, kill their leaders… .
13. [I]t's time we recognize what we are dealing with....the goal of Islam, ladies and gentlemen, whether you like it or not, is world domination. …
14. Of course, [Muhammad is] not a prophet, he's an epileptic plagiarist.
15. I think Muhammad was a terrorist.
16. This man [Muhammad] was an absolute wild-eyed fanatic, he was a robber and a brigand.
17. Islam was founded by Muhammad, a demon-possessed pedophile who had 12 wives, the last one of which was a 9-year-old girl.
18. There is no such thing as Islamophobia.
And, as an addendum, none of these individuals seem to have any knowledge of President Obama’s former home and recent travel destination, Indonesia. Here we have the country with the largest Muslim population in the world of over 200 million. It is also a democracy, which Freedom House places in the “free” category, with a ranking identical to India’s (3rd most populous Muslim country in the world). Indonesia has a long history of religious tolerance and guarantees religious freedom in its constitution. Its parliament has a higher proportion of women members than the American House and Senate. See Indonesia’s Democratic Islam.
21 comments:
It is sad, but not surprising. it is consistent. From the slope-heads to the towel-heads, from the Japs to the Jews, the enemy is always vilified. How else can you kill them? Yes, it's a frenzy, but it will be over in a few years.
Education may not as important as personal experience in this case. Peter probably has the best perspective on Muslims having lived with them for 2 years. What does he think of Islam?
On your last paragraph, the article's title is a misnomer.
I wouldn't call Indonesia's Democratic Islam, instead Indonesia's secular democracy.
Quoted from the article,
"But political parties advocating for implementation of Sharia have lost ground in successive elections from 1955 to 2009. The parties that still support Sharia have largely disappeared or changed their platform. Rather than taking over the state, Islamist parties have been forced by the electorate to alter their policies to account for Indonesian pluralism."
Would Islamic law provide a good framework for a democratic government, nope.
I agree, Sharia is not a good basis on which to build a nations' laws. And neither are the Jewish the Torah and the Talmud ("You are to make tassels on the corners of your garments, with a blue cord on each tassel." Numbers 15:38), or Catholic Ecclesiastical law. The point is: a lot of Muslims recognize this.
My point- Is Indonesia a Democratic Islam or a a secular democracy?
You write, "Sharia is not a good basis on which to build a nations' laws...The point is: a lot of Muslims recognize this."
So does a democracy operate better with Muslims adhering to God's Law or secular Muslims? Your answers is the latter. Does democracy rely on Islamic institutions or a society willing to accept pluralism? The article is a bit silly stating that Democracy and Islam can work together and yet it took “de-sacralizing” of politics to achieve democracy. The article says, "Indonesia also demonstrates how Islam can provide support for women’s rights." in essence by ignoring basic tenets of Islam Hurray!
It doesn't matter the majority's religion if the society accepts pluralism (ex. US-Christian, India-Hindu). In fact, the article made it seem that in order for a populations with the majority Islamic, reformation needs to occur, hence the need of intellects. I think Harris and Hitchens would agree with Wahid and Madfjid.
The degree to which religion can undergo reformation to accept pluralism and democracy can be debated, which is often Hitchens and Harris debate points.
Side note, pertaining to Hitchens' speech quote, "Of course, [Muhammad is] not a prophet, he's an epileptic plagiarist.", What religion hasn't copied another? The Bible copied itself and the Torah and Talmud, the greeks etc. The Torah stole from the Ugaritic Texts. To say Muhammad didn't plagiarize is a pretty tough stance. Is Hitchen's assertion correct (his epileptic assertion seems to propagate 8th century Christian propaganda-though the descriptions of Muhammad's spells does have the tell tale signs of a benign form of epilepsy)?
I don't feel there is any disagreement here. The title of the article was horrible. It would be like calling the U.S. Democratic Christianity. I would think Indonesians would be insulted.
I think we all agree that religious freedom is good for a country and that a theocracy, with perhaps some unusual exceptions, leads to problems. It is pretty obvious, however, that each of you get to this position from radically different means. Peter (and Hitchens and Harris) sees any religion, especially Islam as belief in the supernatural—"adhering to [unknowable] God's Law(s)". Myk (and Heidegger and Armstrong), on the other hand, completely rejects that view of religion. For him religion is a valuable field of study that "can't be reduced to a single characterization or set of beliefs. They are traditions which have gathered countless ideas, many of them contradictory."
I must say I favor Myk's view, but I recognize there are countless people, both religious and non-religious who side with the supernatural view.
Pete, this is my problem with your comment: you assume without having ever undertaken any serious study of Islam, that Indonesia has been able to take up democracy by abandoning Islam's basic tenets. What if that's not true at all. Maybe, what the Indonesians have done is jettisoned a lot of the trappings of Islam -- things that Arab despots hang onto because it keeps them in power -- and have, instead have embraced essential Islam.
Perhaps these words of the 11th century Muslim author and poet Abu Said are closer to true Islam:
To those who seek truth in conventionalized religion:
Until conege and minaret have crumbled
This holy work of ours will not be done.
Until faith becomes rejection
And rejection becomes belief
There will be no true believer.
Perhaps a secularized Islam is the true Islam.
I have to reiterate Peter's stance. At some point, restricting criticism of Islam (or Judaism, or Christianity) to only those who've intimately studied the religion seems unfair, especially when religious and political leaders cite the Koran every day, in their own words, to justify bad behavior. Furthermore, I don't need to have a PHD in astrology or alchemy to dismiss their truth claims. Imagine a psychic reader telling you you couldn't dismiss what she said until you've truly learned the art of tarot, and spent years honing your connection to the spirit world. To only be able to safely reject an ideology after you've studied every nook and cranny of it is an impossible standard. You may disagree with this, but the simple maxim holds in this case: what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. How is such a low standard considered analogously "fundamentalist"?
Obviously I'm not well-versed in the Koran, though I have read most of it. I do, however, know the basics of universal human rights, so when I hear that a theocratic government in control of millions of people insists on stoning women for adultery, I can safely say that such a travesty of a law would not exist unless a revered book said it, because without that divinely-inspired mandate, stoning would widely be considered unfair and irrational. Such a conclusion is not reductive, it's obvious.
The extent to which Indonesia has become more secular is a direct result of less Koranic influence (an important distinction here: this is not to dismiss the invaluable importance of moderate Muslims in this good news. You also disagree with this, but I consider someone less Christian, or less Islamic when, given the choice between following their religion's dogma and a new scientific finding, like evolution, they jettison their former religious belief in favor of evidence. In other words, they'll believe in religion as long as it doesn't conflict with observable results. I consider someone more religious if it's the other way around). Indonesia has become more pluralistic because their government, unlike the governments of Iran or Saudi Arabia, has finally concluded that a religious book is not a useful framework on which to build a functioning, fair, civil society. Theirs is a story of less Islam, not more.
The thread of European and American history is one of battle after battle between those who assert religious control and those who demand religious freedom. It's why the First Amendment was enshrined, and why the French cling to laïcité. This political shift, from church-controlled states to secular pluralism, has already occurred in majority Christian lands like Europe and America only after a long, bloody, internal struggle. The very same thing is happening right now in Muslim majority countries-- Somalia, Iran, Lebanon-- where religiously-inspired men want to impose their will on a whole society. These are countries grappling with massive internal struggles between those who want to implement Sharia law, and those Muslims who desperately don't. So the danger of jihadist Islam isn't merely a Republican talking point for people to scoff at, it is a daily reality for much of the world's Muslim population, nearly all of whom want to live in peace.
On to the talking points. I assume you've picked these quotes because you find each of them analogous to fundamentalist God-speaks-to-me nutjobs-- in other words, they're examples of claims untethered to reality, or at least blanketed to the point of uselessness.
However, some of these statements are true, or as true as a historical statement can be. Some are true, but unhelpful. And others are wild, exaggerated assertions. I'll go through them.
1. The views held by the Muslim jihadis who want to destroy us are not marginal views held only by a minority of “Islamic fascists.”
Whoever said this I think is wrong. It's a truth claim that needs evidence. The poll I'm mostly familiar with suggested that about 10 percent of the world's Muslims considered 9-11 justified. That's over 100 million people, but still a small minority out of a billion or so Muslims. And many, many of those would never take part in jihad. So this one is wrong and unhelpful.
2. There is no such thing as an Islamic moderate.
Disagree with this. But, it is interesting to note how consistently often we're shocked by the statements of so-called moderate Muslim spokespeople such as Tariq Ramadan, who couldn't bring himself to speak out against stoning women. See Paul Berman's excellent book Flight of the Intellectuals on this tendency. Coulter or Harris (he considers moderate Islam extreme at the start).
3. It is time we recognized—and obliged the Muslim world to recognize—that “Muslim extremism” is not extreme among Muslims. Mainstream Islam itself represents an extremist rejection of intellectual honesty, gender equality, secular politics and genuine pluralism.
Again, I don't know how to define what mainstream Islam is. I can only go by what the book says, or what people say. And it seems that pretty consistently, as with fundamentalist Christians or Jews, gender equality and intellectual honesty suffers under extremism. The extent to which this is "mainstream" is debatable. Probably some polls on this. This statement is blanketed, unhelpful, and needs data to back it up.
4. And to say that these terrorists distort Islam, they're carrying out Islam.
This is true. Terrorists use Islam as justification for murder. They talk about it constantly. Not controversial. I hope that whatever text from which this was excerpted makes the distinction between ordinary Muslims and jihadists, however.
5. The young men whom you call "radicalised Britons" and "extremists" are just honest Muslims who take their scriptures seriously.
Yes. Very seriously. The bad parts too. Going with Dawkins, only because of the use of British "s" in "radicalised".
6. We are not at war with terrorism, we are at war with Islam.
Again, this is a charged statement that I'm sure is a header to a bunch of caveats and distinctions. Notice he doesn't say "Muslims". This sounds like Harris.
7. The views held by the Muslim jihadis who want to destroy us are not marginal views held only by a minority of “Islamic fascists.”
No one really knows exactly how many jihadis there are. But they are a small minority, that's for sure. This sounds like a more right-wing demagogue, like Coulter or Robertson.
8. Islamic belief, however simply Islamic belief, however simply or modestly it may be stated, is an extreme position to begin with.
True. To believe in something without observable evidence, especially the rather large claims religion makes, is pretty extreme. I assume this writer did not mean Islam alone, but all religions, in which case this sentence isn't that controversial. Going with Hitchens.
9. Islam, more than any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death.
This is either true or false. It actually raises another important question-- since all religious texts are not the same, it must also mean some are more likely to be more violent in tone, no? Had the Koran contained more verses that said "Hug the unbelievers" rather than "destroy the unbelievers", well, maybe there'd be more Jewish-Muslim friends rather than enemies. Harris, definitely.
10. Adolph Hitler was bad, but what the Muslims want to do to the Jews is worse.
Boring. Dumb. Going with Robertson. Or Vines.
11. Who ever heard of such a bloody, bloody, brutal type of religion? But that’s what [Islam] is. It is not a religion of peace.
Talking about the book rather than the people, which may be true in the literal sense. Doesn't really help with distinguishing between radicals and moderates though. Kind of unhelpful. Vines?
12. We should invade their [Muslim] countries, kill their leaders… .
Yikes. This statement was pretty famous. Coulter.
13. [I]t's time we recognize what we are dealing with....the goal of Islam, ladies and gentlemen, whether you like it or not, is world domination. …
Islam as its literally interpreted wants a restoration of the caliphate, so kind of true. However, I hope this writer makes the distinction between moderates and literalists.
14. Of course, [Muhammad is] not a prophet, he's an epileptic plagiarist.
According to wiki, 8th century Byzantine historian Theophanes was the first to write that Muhammed had epilepsy. Apparently, he would flail about whenever he got religious inspiration. Islam has many plagiarized sections from Judaism and Christianity both. Sounds like Hitchens, he likes to employ short, pejorative adjectives to describe people. (My favorite is "slobbering dauphin")
15. I think Muhammad was a terrorist.
He was a warrior. Don't know about terrorist, sounds like an unhelpful, vague statement. Going with an extreme right winger on this one. Coulter?
16. This man [Muhammad] was an absolute wild-eyed fanatic, he was a robber and a brigand.
Again, according to wiki: "In March of 624, Muhammad led some three hundred warriors in a raid on a Meccan merchant caravan." Don't know if he was wild-eyed.
17. Islam was founded by Muhammad, a demon-possessed pedophile who had 12 wives, the last one of which was a 9-year-old girl.
Demon-possessed is a really stupid thing to say. Muhammad did marry a 9-year-old and would be considered a pedophile by today's standards.
18. There is no such thing as Islamophobia.
Hitchens.
James, you’ve acquitted yourself quite well. I just don’t have the time to give you a complete response. But here are a few points. First, your analogy of comparing Islam to astrology or alchemy doesn’t fly. I agree that there’s no point in interrogating every crackpot theory that comes along. But it is quite another thing to casually toss off a 1500 year tradition which claims the following of more than one sixth of the world's population -- indeed, a tradition that has produced much great art, architecture, poetry, philosophy and literature.
I agree with you that in some ways it is unfair to look at esoteric writings rather than the practices and beliefs of the ordinary adherent. But, it is also true that religion throughout all of history has been ill used by secular leaders. I’m not sure how you get the crusades out of the Sermon on the Mount or the Good Samaritan. More recently, we see that in conflicts involving mostly ethnic and economic differences -- Northern Ireland, the Balkans and Lebanon -- religion gets trotted out to provide a justification for the conflict and to rally partisans. Even Hitler claimed that he was doing the Lord’s work in “defending Germany from the Jews.” Everything that happens in the name of religion is not necessarily “caused” by religion. I would hate to blame our nation’s founders for the War in Vietnam.
Therefore, I think that it is fair to go back to the writings of the scholars over the centuries and see what has and has not justifiably been done in the name of religion.
And, you are right, I disagree with you that one becomes less religious as one accepts more science. You believe this because you think that religion is some kind of alternative explanation of the universe. Some day, I may convince you that this is a total misconception. I will quote Eagleton once more: “believing that religion is a botched attempt to explain the world… is like seeing ballet as a botched attempt to run for a bus.” Religion is for me closer to literature or art than science. Religion is true, like literature, not because it establishes some particular fact but because it gives us insight or helps see things in greater perspective. It’s not really a valid criticism of Shakespeare to say that, oh, we all know that Richard III did not really connive with King Edward to bring about the death of his brother George.
Plus, as I’ve pointed out in other comments, religious people over the years have made excellent scientists.
Let me tell you why the anti-religious rant of the secularists strikes me as no different than the silly talk of the fundamentalists: it’s a tremendously oversimplified view of the world. It’s an embarrassingly naive narrative (summarized by “religion bad; secularism good”) that eliminates the need to think too hard, and mostly enables people feel superior about themselves. I confess that I am heavily invested in this as a former student of philosophy and theology, but I find the secularists’ descriptions of religion to possess a level of sophistication one might expect from a 12 year old. (I’ll give you this much: Hitchens actually has some knowledge of his target. He has acknowledged, for example, the non-clerical, non-hierarchical nature of Islam, and, therefore, its considerable diversity. Harris, it seems to me, however, is totally ignorant of religion.) In any event, for me it’s as clear an example of prejudice – a preconceived attitude, opinion or feeling, usually negative, formed without adequate knowledge, thought or reason -- as I’ve seen anywhere, particularly against Muslims.
There is no game I will ever pass up.
1. The views held by the Muslim jihadis who want to destroy us are not marginal views held only by a minority of “Islamic fascists.”
There are some very detailed analyses out there taking into account sex, age, religious sect and many more criteria. I've seen very rational, fact-filled estimates as high as 50-60%, so maybe this is true. However, that may be low, as most think the percentage is growing. Whoever said this must love facts and the power they bring. I'll say Oliver North.
2. There is no such thing as an Islamic moderate.
This statement is a logical and mathematical impossibility. Muslims are at least as different as snowflakes, so mathematically we could find those who are in the middle. One may consider a moderate Muslim as radical, but there must be an Islamic moderate by definition. This person's mind has gone. Hmm...that leaves quite a bit of possibilities...Jerry Falwell.
3. It is time we recognized—and obliged the Muslim world to recognize—that “Muslim extremism” is not extreme among Muslims. Mainstream Islam itself represents an extremist rejection of intellectual honesty, gender equality, secular politics and genuine pluralism.
Certainly mainstream Islam is supposed to be extreme, but is it rejection of intellectual honesty, etc.? We certainly have plenty of examples of both sides of this. I'll go with a political science guy, Harris or Hitchens
4. And to say that these terrorists distort Islam, they're carrying out Islam.
This appears to be true on both counts. According to many if not most Islamic scholars and many quotes of Islamic religious leaders by Myk, it is a clear distortion of Islam. However, if you believe this is what the religion teaches, then you are carrying out Islam. This person is perceptive, hmmm...Myk? oh, not a choice...Hitchens
5. The young men whom you call "radicalised Britons" and "extremists" are just honest Muslims who take their scriptures seriously.
True, but we could also say seriously misinterpret scripture, well, not interpreting it is a helpful way. Like James I have to go with Dawkins.
6. We are not at war with terrorism, we are at war with Islam.
Who is we? Bush said we are at war with terrorism. Did Obama change the enemy? It may be true if he/she has a mouse in his/her pocket. This sounds like a political slogan...Harris.
7. The views held by the Muslim jihadis who want to destroy us are not marginal views held only by a minority of “Islamic fascists.”
(See No. 1) By the way why do we get 2 pts. for this one?
8. Islamic belief, however simply or modestly it may be stated, is an extreme position to begin with.
100% agree. Like Christianity, Islam puts forth radical beliefs, such as "There is no god, but god" i.e. god does not exist, at least your notion of him/her/it, and love your neighbor as yourself. It has been argued on this blog that radical notions of not putting oneself first led in a significant way to democracy. At least this person knows something of Islam and religion. Despite Myk not having faith in Hitchens knowledge of religion, he is the only choice here. Certainly not one of the pseudo religious leaders listed.
9. Islam, more than any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death.
I would argue that Christianity with its morbid focus on the crucifixion, is more of a cult of death. This sounds like a religious nut, Pat Robertson.
10. Adolph Hitler was bad, but what the Muslims want to do to the Jews is worse.
When the Hitler quotes come out, you know you've lost the argument. I haven't used Vines.
11. Who ever heard of such a bloody, bloody, brutal type of religion? But that’s what [Islam] is. It is not a religion of peace.
Well, it tries to be a religion of peace. Like Christianity it got sidetracked. Who would say "bloody, bloody"? Pat Robertson?
12. We should invade their [Muslim] countries, kill their leaders… .
Isn't that what we are doing? At least this person believes what many foreigners believe, "The people of the U.S. aren't evil, it's just their leaders." I missed this being famous but I have the benefit of looking at James' paper, so Coulter.
Myk-
Yes, I absolutely agree that ardent secularists tend to simplifiy religious experience, but that's because they're not interested in demonizing thoughtful relgious belief. They tend to mix it up with the types of people who spout simplifed, unnuanced versions of religion. If their language is too cartoonish, it's because their opponents are often characters.
I actually agree with you, I wouldn't want the eradication of religion. Not only is the bible important literature, but it is a necessary tool to read the Western canon. Shakespeare, Milton, Dickens-- all reference its history and parables. In any event, you may one day convince me that I'm not giving religion enough credit, hopefully over some scotch at the holidays this year. (This might be a different post, but are any out-of-town Harveys coming into Pittsburgh for Thanksgiving/Christmas? Ali and I will be home for a week starting Tuesday.)
Lastly, from Paul Berman, another distinction I wish I had articulated earlier, namely that the criticism of political Islam, and the defense of Islamic dissidents like Aayan Hirsi Ali, are actually liberal positions:
"THE INTELLECTUALS and the liberal left should defend and promote the liberals and freethinkers of the Arab and Muslim world, the outright liberals and not just the people who are described, not always accurately, as “moderates.” We should do this in the same fashion that some of us used to do during the cold war, when it was common for intellectuals in the West to defend the dissidents of the East bloc. This, too, doesn’t happen much today.
Why not? A main reason is that, in the West, an amazing number of people remain biased in one fashion or another against Muslims and especially against Arabs—remain attached to the notion that Arabs cannot reach a level of civilization that is capable of producing democracy. There is a right-wing way of expressing this particular bias, but also a left-wing way, having to do with multiculturalism, which leads people to conclude that if the Arab world is awash in paranoid doctrines and grotesque dictatorships, we mustn’t judge anyone harshly, and who are we to say that liberalism and prosperity are superior to tyranny and poverty, and aren’t some of those paranoias true, and so on? In this manner, left-wing tolerance and right-wing intolerance end up oddly resembling each other. A first component of our effort, then, should be to shed light on the unfair and cruel assumptions that so many people make about the Arab world, and sometimes about other parts of the Muslim world, as well."
13. [I]t's time we recognize what we are dealing with....the goal of Islam, ladies and gentlemen, whether you like it or not, is world domination. …
Oh, like capitalism? Sure, they would love to have everyone convert. I wish everyone would see things my way. But who would say "ladies and gentlemen"? Does Michelle Malkin give speeches?
14. Of course, [Muhammad is] not a prophet, he's an epileptic plagiarist.
Now this is just mean, of course it's Hitchens, but everyone told me.
15. I think Muhammad was a terrorist.
This statement I can say with complete certainty is true. However I'm not so certain as to who was doing the thinking. Dawkins
16. This man [Muhammad] was an absolute wild-eyed fanatic, he was a robber and a brigand.
This person is colorful. Falwell
17. Islam was founded by Muhammad, a demon-possessed pedophile who had 12 wives, the last one of which was a 9-year-old girl.
Definitely a charlatan religious leader, Vines.
18. There is no such thing as Islamophobia.
Did this person read the above 17 quotes? (well, 16 one was used twice) James seemed sure on this and he is a Hitchens scholar.
Jim,
To add to your argument about 10, the Law applied to Hitler analogies: Godwin's Law.
I love that reductio ad Hitlerem has happened so often in discussions that a it's been condensed into a pithy, logical fallacy-sounding name.
"you may one day convince me that I'm not giving religion enough credit, hopefully over some scotch"
I confess that in my private fantasy in which I convince you of this, scotch is almost always involved. When the fantasy is most vivd, it's a single malt.
I originally thought this was a never ending argument forever reliving the nightmare of "And palm for palm, Madame, we are where we began." But now I see some resolution.
Of course the bulk of the posts stand on their own, giving facts and view points in criticizing religion's opposition and/or support in moving to a pluralistic society; also, for describing what is proper or improper criticism of Islam. But one point I think has become clear:
We all agree that belief in unknowable God's laws is infantile. You see that as religion; we see it as idolatry.
We differ on the amount of evidence in the writings by the great religious minds of the past and present supporting the above statement, as well as the statement that religion does not present an alternate explanation of the universe.
Sadly, I think we more or less agree that religious institutions have not always been guided by the writings and interpretations of those authors.
1. The views held by the Muslim jihadis who want to destroy us are not marginal views held only by a minority of “Islamic fascists.” Michelle Malkin Bingo for James.
2. There is no such thing as an Islamic moderate. Oliver North
3. It is time we recognized—and obliged the Muslim world to recognize—that “Muslim extremism” is not extreme among Muslims. Mainstream Islam itself represents an extremist rejection of intellectual honesty, gender equality, secular politics and genuine pluralism. Sam Harris
4. And to say that these terrorists distort Islam, they're carrying out Islam. Pat Robertson. James found this statement to be true. Jim guesses Hitchens.
5. The young men whom you call 'radicalised Britons' and 'extremists' are just honest Muslims who take their scriptures seriously. Richard Dawkins. You guys are worthy of the Baker Street irregulars. I should have realized that “radicalised” would have given it away.
6. We are not at war with terrorism, we are at war with Islam. Sam Harris. Everybody gets this one right. I thought I had a "gotcha" on this one.
7. The views held by the Muslim jihadis who want to destroy us are not marginal views held only by a minority of “Islamic fascists.” [my bad, same as #1]
8. Islamic belief, however simply or modestly it may be stated, is an extreme position to begin with. Christopher Hitchens. Again, everyone gets it right. Jim sees nuance here worthy of Hitchens.
9. Islam, more than any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death. Sam Harris. Jim, making my point, says this sounds like a religious nut and offers Pat Robertson.
10. Adolph Hitler was bad, but what the Muslims want to do to the Jews is worse. Pat Robertson Jim said Vines. Close enough.
11. “Who ever heard of such a bloody, bloody, brutal type of religion? But that’s what [Islam] is. It is not a religion of peace.” Pat Robertson
12. We should invade their [Muslim] countries, kill their leaders… . Ann Coulter I agree, a giveaway. Well known already.
13. [I]t's time we recognize what we are dealing with....the goal of Islam, ladies and gentlemen, whether you like it or not, is world domination. … Pat Robertson
14. Of course, [Muhammad is] not a prophet, he's an epileptic plagiarist. Christopher Hitchens
15. I think Muhammad was a terrorist. Jerry Falwell James is close enough with Coulter. Jim said Dawkins.
16. This man [Muhammad] was an absolute wild-eyed fanatic, he was a robber and a brigand. Pat Robertson
17. Islam was founded by Muhammad, a demon-possessed pedophile who had 12 wives, the last one of which was a 9-year-old girl. Jerry Vines Jim pulls this one out at the buzzer.
18. There is no such thing as Islamophobia. Sam Harris. Jim sees the point.
So, let's see, Sam Harris is pretty much indistinguishable from Pat Robertson. And, yes, I had a little fun here trying to give a positive spin to some of the statements. I think Myk's point is well made, but to be honest, taking statements like these out of context is unfair.
That said, in 10 years I think these people will be embarrassed by what they said, recognizing that they were caught up in a feeding frenzy. I hope so.
Post a Comment