Muslim intellectuals, activists condemn Paris beheading; demand abolition of apostasy and blasphemy

[Shadow Wolf]

And as we see, it can be interpreted that way, or it can be interpreted another way. Since the vast majority of Muslims are non-violent, and condemn these attacks when they happen, that suggests that the narrative that this is just "Islam's fault" ks too simplistic.

Here's another pretty good one that focuses on the hatred ex-Muslims garner from American Liberals.
And it does include racial slurs, as a heads up. But that's what Liberals throw at these people, the liberals who are very insistent there aren't really any problems with Islam.
The Unbearable Toxicity of “Native Informant”

 

[Left Coast]

Thought experiments typically are. Like Nozick's "Spock Problem." Or John Rawl's "Veil of Ignorance" (that one is very far removed from reality). They are used for exploring various topics, including the extremes. And, yes, it is an extreme, but it can happen. It's not that far from reality. If Al-Qaeda were about to launch one, and a pre-emptive strike the only option to stop it, I don't see why that option shouldn't be pursued. That is what he wrote about. I even linked his exact words. The absolute worst case scenario.

You, and he, are saying two things at once. Is it a completely hypothetical "thought experiment" with no connection to reality? Or is it, to quote him, "a plausible scenario" that "seems increasingly likely?"

And yes, you did link his exact words. His exact words were exactly what I described: a rationalization for a nuclear first strike, based on a misunderstanding at a basic level of how people think and behave.

He didn't claim they have no interest in it. He pointed out that many have embraced killing themselves to kill others.

In comparison to the total number of Muslims in the world, how many is many?

Many more have risked their lives to kill and injure others.

And of course, every solider who has ever fired a shot in war for any country, ever, has also done that.

That sort of mentality is not as deterred by the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction. These are True Believers, with god on their side and eternal paradise as their destination. Evangelical Christianity has a watered down version of it (today, anyways) with their martyrdom complex. Evolution taught in school offends them, and they go to political ends to ensure it's not. They go to political ends to discriminate against LGBT. And no public prayer in school is an attack on them. Happy Holidays is an attack on them. Them not being able to run the show is seen as an attack on them. There is a reason some people call them things like the "Christian Taliban." They too are True Believers. But, here, they don't kill much over it anymore. They just fight to make sure you suffer their hate (Pence is a great example of this).
And, this is now. What if the next ISIS seizes such a weapon?

Again, the actual reality on the ground contradicts the armchair psychologizing we're doing. An Islamist regime already possesses nuclear weapons. Yet oddly, they haven't used them in a suicidal attempt to fast-track their trip to Paradise.

What you are rationalizing, a nuclear first strike, is as ethically horrific as anything any Muslim terrorist has ever done. It actually provides a rationale for an Islamic regime to commit a nuclear first strike on us, since we are sitting here rationalizing doing so to them.

Such atrocities cannot be abided in the real world outside Sam Harris' armchair.

It's not. These sorts have basically always existed. Such as, most Christians throughout history I assume have never killed anyone. However, the Bible is still rife with examples that justifies the wicked cruelty of their violent and bloodthirsty counterparts. We have no objections in point out the Bible is the source of much prejudice, including racial and LGBT. Few save for apologetics will deny this. But Liberals will not apply the same standards to Islam.
An atheist Muslim on what the left and right get wrong about Islam

This liberal does.

I will have to search for the articles, but there are real world implications for Liberal and Secular Muslims when their Western liberal and secular counterparts abandon them and dismiss there being issues with the Quran, and these Muslims (who need our support the most out most others in this world) are aware Western Leftists in general will endlessly criticize the same things of Christianity without charges of "Christianophobe."

Again, I think you're describing other people's positions, not mine.

This has what to do with Harris? That doesn't even address his points of ethical concerns regarding the difference between torture and collateral damage.
Any messages that are anti-Muslim must be read into this.

Again, what was happening politically at the time Harris made these comments? We were debating "enhanced interrogation" of suspected terrorists, were we not? Torture that, by the way, military experts on the ground have repeatedly said does not actually work in providing us with good intel.

We find people making discoveries, being charitable, mathematics, poetry, architecture, we find humans all over doing this.
We don't find the same with "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" or "kill them where you find them." People have been taking care of the less fortunate before modern homo sapiens. It's only where you find beliefs in gods appeased by human sacrifice do we find human sacrifice.

You haven't heard of kamikaze pilots?

You are literally musing over whether we should sacrifice millions of innocent people in a nuclear first strike to prevent some unseen worse thing you fear from happening.

Think through what you are actually saying here.

I don't agree with Harris on statement, as there are many terrible ideas with many of those bad ideas basically being akin to a "victim olympics" to point to which one is worst. But I do think the contributions of religion are highly over emphasized, as most people are generally pro social with no need of strict enforcement, but hate is something that must be learned and doesn't typically arise unless it's taught. Religion is one the great teachers of hatred and divisiveness. Tribalism, nationalism, dogmatic loyalty and obedience, these things have no use guiding a society and yet religion has long served as a source of justification for humanities worst inclinations. We see this throughout the Bible and Quran.

And religion has also been used to unite people and foster compassion, kindness, and peace. Religion, in terms of real world outcomes, is what you make it in many ways.

And, it's not surprising but I have learned Harris gets taken out of context a lot to be considered Islamaphobe. I've read his books (even if you don't agree with him they are very well worth reading), but I don't keep up on all that stuff to have seen that before.

What I find is that Harris often says things that are completely insane and then backtracks and claims he's been "misinterpreted" or "taken out of context."

 

[Left Coast]

Here's another pretty good one that focuses on the hatred ex-Muslims garner from American Liberals.
And it does include racial slurs, as a heads up. But that's what Liberals throw at these people, the liberals who are very insistent there aren't really any problems with Islam.
The Unbearable Toxicity of “Native Informant”

To be clear, I haven't claimed there "aren't any real problems with Islam." There are real problems with all the Abrahamics, as far as I'm concerned. So whatever liberal you're arguing against, ain't me.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And yes, you did link his exact words. His exact words were exactly what I described: a rationalization for a nuclear first strike, based on a misunderstanding at a basic level of how people think and behave.

But only if there are no other options left. That's a key point to not leave out.
And, as I asked, what if the next ISIS gets such a weapon? It's likely then.

In comparison to the total number of Muslims in the world, how many is many?

Been awhile since I checked but the number is estimated to be in the millions.

Again, I think you're describing other people's positions, not mine.

I am defending his positions in how he is not Islamophobic based on what is presented.

Such atrocities cannot be abided in the real world outside Sam Harris' armchair.

It would if it prevent a nuclear strike. Then it wouldn't be an atrocity, it would be the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few.

Again, what was happening politically at the time Harris made these comments? We were debating "enhanced interrogation" of suspected terrorists, were we not? Torture that, by the way, military experts on the ground have repeatedly said does not actually work in providing us with good intel.

That doesn't mean he supports torturing Muslims. The realities of torture doesn't make Harris an Islamaphobe.

You haven't heard of kamikaze pilots?

I would say that definitely falls under dogmatic loyalty and obedience. Because if you don't believe it' honorable to kill yourself, then you just probably will not do it.

And religion has also been used to unite people and foster compassion, kindness, and peace. Religion, in terms of real world outcomes, is what you make it in many ways.

As I said, we don't need religion for that. People will generally do that on their own without prompting. They have to be taught to be divided, the have to be taught their differences are significant, and religion has long been a hotbed of that very thing (which does unite people, as well).

What I find is that Harris often says things that are completely insane and then backtracks and claims he's been "misinterpreted" or "taken out of context."

He's not the one who said he supports just doing a preemptive nuclear without a list of considerations being thought out first. Or claiming his support of torture makes him Islamaphobic.

 

[Left Coast]

But only if there are no other options left. That's a key point to not leave out.
And, as I asked, what if the next ISIS gets such a weapon? It's likely then.

Again, you don't actually know that. You assume it, without evidence. The actual evidence on the ground of how fundamentalist Muslims actually behave contradicts your idea.

Muslim fanatics, of course, also believe their violent actions necessary and there is no other viable option.

Been awhile since I checked but the number is estimated to be in the millions.

Millions? Millions of Muslims have killed themselves to kill others?

In comparison to the number of Muslims that have lived, even if accurate we're talking about a tiny minority.

It would if it prevent a nuclear strike. Then it wouldn't be an atrocity, it would be the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few.

And of course, ISIS also believes its atrocities are necessary for a greater good. All atrocities are rationalized by those who commit them. Hitler, Stalin, all thought they were serving the greater good of humanity.

Secondly, how would such a scenario ever actually happen? How would it be that we would ever determine that committing a nuclear first strike is necessary to prevent another one? And that no other options would ever possibly suffice? Paint me a realistic scenario of what you imagine here.

That doesn't mean he supports torturing Muslims. The realities of torture doesn't make Harris an Islamaphobe.

....huh? Rationalizing the torture of Muslims while your country literally tortures Muslims doesn't indicate you...support torturing Muslims?

I would say that definitely falls under dogmatic loyalty and obedience. Because if you don't believe it' honorable to kill yourself, then you just probably will not do it.

Sure. so we agree that people kill themselves for non-religious reasons.

As I said, we don't need religion for that. People will generally do that on their own without prompting. They have to be taught to be divided, the have to be taught their differences are significant, and religion has long been a hotbed of that very thing (which does unite people, as well).

You don't get to only count the stuff on one side of the ledger. Religion comes with the good and the bad, because you know what? Humans come with the good and the bad. So while we don't need religion to be good, we also don't need it to be bad, either..

He's not the one who said he supports just doing a preemptive nuclear without a list of considerations being thought out first. Or claiming his support of torture makes him Islamaphobic.

Oh, thank goodness there are a list of considerations for mass murder!

You're aware that in Islam, there are also considerations for when violence is necessary/justified, yes?

 

[Heyo]

Now, only if more Muslims rise up and call towards the abolish of other inhumane practices incorporated in the religion and calls towards reformation of Islam as a whole.

They do. It just isn't news worthy as much as the attacks. In a way the media is complicit with the radicals as their position seems to have merit with a greater proportion of the Muslim world that it is really the case.
Having said that, there are still too many militants in high places for a peaceful revolution in Islam. But it is coming, slowly but unstoppable.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The actual evidence on the ground of how fundamentalist Muslims actually behave contradicts your idea.

And yet there are many committed to killing over it. This is the evidence of what is there. That's a fact. It's indisputable. Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, these groups exist. For individuals, who they look to as Imam does matter because it turns out there are many of them who preach the deaths of Westerners and even other Muslims (sort of like how Christians did). Yes, I know most Muslims aren't like that. But that doesn't mean "people in high places" aren't funding groups who do take a more militant interpretation of the Quran. And that interpretation is there to be had.

Muslim fanatics, of course, also believe their violent actions necessary and there is no other viable option.

That is a given. It applies to things from blasphemy laws, using the sword passage to justify their violence, and even some who joined ISIS for income or to fight against Western oppression. We can't overlook any of these things. Western oppression has been a long and ongoing thing. So has oppressing and often killing pagans and other religions. And, generally terrorists do feel there are few or no other viable options. But we can't ignore their justifications and reasons, even if it includes religion.

....huh? Rationalizing the torture of Muslims while your country literally tortures Muslims doesn't indicate you...support torturing Muslims?

It means he was addressing a highly debated issue during the time. He gave no indications that his views only apply to those who are Muslim and wouldn't apply to others.
You have to read the anti-Muslim rhetoric into it. He's not rationalizing the torture of Muslims, he rationalizing the torture of a human being.

Secondly, how would such a scenario ever actually happen? How would it be that we would ever determine that committing a nuclear first strike is necessary to prevent another one? And that no other options would ever possibly suffice? Paint me a realistic scenario of what you imagine here.

There are actually scenarios of such a thing drawn out by at least the US military and NATO. One scenario even includes them smuggling a smaller device into an American city. Or even a larger one.
Analysis - The nuclear dimensions of jihadist terrorism

This scenario may strike many observers as highly unlikely, yet it can no longer be entirely dismissed. Cash-strapped North Korea has already hinted that it might consider the sale of nuclear-capable missiles a legitimate source of income.

And 2004 reports about the commercial nuclear smuggling network run by the entrepreneurial Pakistani metallurgist A. Q. Khan revealed the existence of a secret market, unconstrained by political or ideological inhibitions. Khan reportedly supplied Libya, North Korea, Iran and other customers with weapons designs and components rather than fully fledged weapon systems, yet future dealers might go even further.

Finally, the debate about a possible ‘Talibanization’ of Pakistan, where religious radicals might take over the state and its nuclear arsenal, has raised the spectre of a jihadist nuclear power.

Sure. so we agree that people kill themselves for non-religious reasons.

That and religious reasons as well.

You don't get to only count the stuff on one side of the ledger. Religion comes with the good and the bad, because you know what? Humans come with the good and the bad. So while we don't need religion to be good, we also don't need it to be bad, either..

The issue is with religion is it has a long and well established history of demonizing others and justifying everything from prejudice to slaughter. People killing those who worship other gods only happens in religions that teach and promote that. Honor killings are foreign and unfathomable in cultures that don't practice them.
Pro-social behaviors, however, are the norm with anti-social behaviors often being found only where they are taught (especially when the teachings are excused and dismissed). There are many sources that teach this hate, and religion is an example with a solid history of doing this.

Oh, thank goodness there are a list of considerations for mass murder!

You're aware that in Islam, there are also considerations for when violence is necessary/justified, yes?

If it prevents a greater amount of destruction and death, then so be it. The larger point was emphasizing mutually assured destruction won't budge such zealots. We can't rely on it. in the worst case scenario it could come to that, because MAD won't work.
And, yes. I am aware of that. Are you aware they provide their considerations and reasons?

 

[firedragon]

Islamic laws and jurisprudence are derived from 7th century books,

Which 7th century book, which law and which jurisprudence?

 

[Left Coast]

And yet there are many committed to killing over it. This is the evidence of what is there. That's a fact. It's indisputable. Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, these groups exist.

Yes, these groups do exist. Are you aware we've been negotiating peace talks with the Taliban since early this year? An odd thing for a group to do that is alleged single-mindedly bent on nothing but martyrdom.

So yes, many are committed to killing - as is the West. But they are also not all suicidal psychopaths with no self-interest other than Paradise. Which is why Harris' one-dimensional analysis is so flawed.

That is a given. It applies to things from blasphemy laws, using the sword passage to justify their violence, and even some who joined ISIS for income or to fight against Western oppression. We can't overlook any of these things. Western oppression has been a long and ongoing thing. So has oppressing and often killing pagans and other religions. And, generally terrorists do feel there are few or no other viable options. But we can't ignore their justifications and reasons, even if it includes religion.

Of course we can't. So if we aren't overlooking any of that, why the singular focus on how Islam made them do it? When manifestly, Islam has not made the vast, vast majority of Muslims in the world commit these atrocities, despite the fact that they read and have faith in the same text as the terrorists?

What that should tell you is that the Harris, Islam-is-just-the-worst-and-these-people- can't-be-reasoned-with line of thought should not be accepted.

It means he was addressing a highly debated issue during the time. He gave no indications that his views only apply to those who are Muslim and wouldn't apply to others.
You have to read the anti-Muslim rhetoric into it. He's not rationalizing the torture of Muslims, he rationalizing the torture of a human being.

Given the context of what else Sam has said, it's clear his antipathy toward Islam informed his commentary there. You cannot divorce his hypothetical from what was actually happening in the world, which he was well aware of.

There are actually scenarios of such a thing drawn out by at least the US military and NATO. One scenario even includes them smuggling a smaller device into an American city. Or even a larger one.
Analysis - The nuclear dimensions of jihadist terrorism

You failed to quote the portion of the article most relevant to our discussion:

If al Qaida and other terrorist groups are still making significant efforts to acquire nuclear materials, and if the religious justification for nuclear terrorism seems to have become more explicit within certain strands of Islamist fundamentalism, why has this kind of attack not yet been conducted? There are several possible explanations.

The most straightforward explanation centres on the immense technical difficulties of orchestrating such an attack. In this view, al Qaida simply has been unable to master the technical challenges involved in such a plot. As of today, no state appears to have supplied al Qaida with the elaborate infrastructure necessary to ‘go nuclear’, let alone any fully working devices.

Another view holds that the enormous loss of life caused by such an attack would undermine rather than advance the terrorists' cause. According to this view, a terrorist act of such a scale would alienate large segments of al-Qaida’s own constituency, which accepts terrorist methods in principle, yet would not condone the wanton destruction of a ‘nuclear 9/11’.

It appears that some of al-Qaida’s attempts to obtain nuclear material on the ‘black market’ failed because their limited nuclear expertise made them easy victims for swindlers

A third explanation is that some of al-Qaida’s efforts may have been disrupted through counter-terrorism efforts. Indeed, it appears that since ‘9/11’ several planned attacks involving the use of weapons of mass destruction have been thwarted.

Moreover, the international intervention in Afghanistan has effectively denied al Qaida its major home base and has forced it to disperse, thereby making any concerted planning of a nuclear attack far more difficult. The national and collective measures taken by many governments, such as intelligence cooperation, enhanced container security, uncovering nuclear smuggling networks, securing ‘loose nukes’ from the former Soviet Union, and draining terrorist financing networks, may have further degraded the ability of terrorists to launch a nuclear attack.

Yet another reason might be deterrence. While much has been made of the claim that suicidal terrorists can not be deterred, states that sponsor terrorism are likely to remain susceptible to threats of retaliation. Since terrorist cells require territory on which to train and from which to operate, a threat against any country willing to serve as a ‘host’ might have a restraining influence on the kinds of activities it may allow its ‘guests’ to undertake.

This connection between non-state and state actors lies at the heart of French, British and US statements about the role of their nuclear forces in deterring state-sponsored terrorism. Coupled with improved ‘nuclear forensics’, i.e. the technical ability to trace an attack back to its sources, such statements may indeed have a deterrence value against states that provide a safe haven for terrorists.

In short, the article provides no scenario in which a nuclear first strike would ever be necessary. And in fact states contradictory evidence that we have prevented such attacks already, without such a strike.

That and religious reasons as well.

Lol yes, so we're agreed then: your original statement that people only kill, or kill themselves, for religious reasons is simply not true.

The issue is with religion is it has a long and well established history of demonizing others and justifying everything from prejudice to slaughter.

Again, humans have a long history of such, with or without religion. You are trying to justify slaughter right here in this thread.

People killing those who worship other gods only happens in religions that teach and promote that. Honor killings are foreign and unfathomable in cultures that don't practice them.

And honor killings are considered atrocious in most cultures, including religious ones.

Pro-social behaviors, however, are the norm with anti-social behaviors often being found only where they are taught (especially when the teachings are excused and dismissed). There are many sources that teach this hate, and religion is an example with a solid history of doing this.

And religion also has a solid history of teaching compassion and peace - as you just mentioned, it's the norm. Again, you cannot ignore one whole side of the ledger.

If it prevents a greater amount of destruction and death, then so be it.

You have yet to demonstrate that this would ever be the case in the real world.

And by the way, that is the same reasoning one of the militant Islamists uses in the very article you cited.

The larger point was emphasizing mutually assured destruction won't budge such zealots. We can't rely on it. in the worst case scenario it could come to that, because MAD won't work.

But that's manifestly false, as evidenced by the existence of an Islamist regime, right now, today, that has had nukes for years and has yet to use them.

There is only one country that has ever actually used nuclear weapons in all of human history: The United States.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes, these groups do exist. Are you aware we've been negotiating peace talks with the Taliban since early this year? An odd thing for a group to do that is alleged single-mindedly bent on nothing but martyrdom.

So yes, many are committed to killing - as is the West. But they are also not all suicidal psychopaths with no self-interest other than Paradise. Which is why Harris' one-dimensional analysis is so flawed.

You are the one who claimed mental illness is a factor. Neither myself or Sam Harris has claimed otherwise.
And his point isn't one deminsional. It's illustration the difference between a group such as the Soviet Union and a group like ISIS. ISIS bunkered down and prepared to fight to the last man. This serves a religious purpose to a religious end. In a very similar manner as Bushido in Japan over the centuries. But Soviet leaders were generally not eager for war. They didn't have the religious duty or obligations to make war. Al Shabaab and similar groups and like minded individuals claim they do, because their holy text tells them to.

Again, humans have a long history of such, with or without religion. You are trying to justify slaughter right here in this thread.

If there is absolutely no way out of it. Many people entirely innocent die, or a mixture of people forcing the hand and some innocents die, the choice doesn't seem hard to me. Such as, Iran gets nuclear weapons, their state goes more radical, they declare intent to use their nuclear weapons, it's basically self-defense at that point.
And as I've been saying, religion isn't the only thing that teaches divisions and hate. But it has a very long history of teaching it and justifying it. Without these teachings, people aren't fighting and killing to appease violent laws and bloodthirsty gods. Sure, there are other things, but without religion people historically and today would have one less source teaching them to hate and expecting them to be violent.
Or, like Christains. They've never been into human sacrifice like the Mayans or Aztecs because their religion doesn't teach it. But they do have commands to kill homosexuals, witches, apostates, and some others. And historically they have. Just as Muslim extremists today use the Sword Passage and centuries of Western aggression to justify their deeds.

Of course we can't. So if we aren't overlooking any of that, why the singular focus on how Islam made them do it? When manifestly, Islam has not made the vast, vast majority of Muslims in the world commit these atrocities, despite the fact that they read and have faith in the same text as the terrorists?

What that should tell you is that the Harris, Islam-is-just-the-worst-and-these-people- can't-be-reasoned-with line of thought should not be accepted.

It tells me most people are pro-social, enough so they will downplay their religions calls for violence. But some of them don't. Christianity, for example, has raised many self-hated LGBT kids. Because it teaches them to be that way. Sure, we can find LGBT prejudice in other sources, bu the Bible provides clear justification for the idea homosexuals are so detestable to god he views them as abominations and wants them executed. A lot of Christians have basically neglected that and many other parts of the Bible. Many Muslims ignore the violent parts of their book. But many don't. They are taught that god still expects them to uphold this part and that part of their books.

And honor killings are considered atrocious in most cultures, including religious ones.

Except the Muslim cultures that do practice them. It's also problematic in India with their beliefs.
The ongoing tragedy of India’s widows - Women’s Media Center

Although widows today are not forced to die in ritual sati (burning themselves on their husband’s funeral pyre), they are still generally expected to mourn until the end of their lives. According to 2,000-year-old sacred texts by Manu, the Hindu progenitor of mankind: “A virtuous wife is one who after the death of her husband constantly remains chaste and reaches heaven though she has no son.”

Whether young or old, widowed women leave behind their colorful saris, part with their jewelry, and even shave their heads, if they are in the more conservative Hindu traditions. All of this is designed so as not to encourage male sexual desire, according to Meera Khanna, a trustee of the New Delhi-based Women’s Initiative for Peace in South Asia, and a contributor to of a book called Living Death: Trauma of Widowhood in India.

And religion also has a solid history of teaching compassion and peace - as you just mentioned, it's the norm. Again, you cannot ignore one whole side of the ledger.

The point is people will do that without teachings. That's who we are as a species, the average human being. But we have to be taught to hate. Identifying and killing infidels in the name of god is something we have to be taught to do.

You have yet to demonstrate that this would ever be the case in the real world.

The link I provided gave scenarios on how a nuclear Muslim terrorist group can come to be. That is what you requested.
Such a thing isn't just Sam Harris. Many nations do consider this a serious security concern. Because it is something that can happen. The scenarios range from them acquiring nuclear weapons there to them smuggling them here and detonating them.

But that's manifestly false, as evidenced by the existence of an Islamist regime, right now, today, that has had nukes for years and has yet to use them.

Do you believe ISIS would have acknowledged MAD and backed down had they had a nuke aimed at Jerusalem? Washington DC? London? Paris? That would be a great religious victory to them, even if it means their lives. They wouldn't have survived, but they would have achieved what no one else has been able to. Heavenly reward and remembered in high esteem and glory.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Which 7th century book, which law and which jurisprudence?

7th Century Taurat and Injeel.

 

[firedragon]

7th Century Taurat and Injeel.

 

[firedragon]

Again, you don't actually know that. You assume it, without evidence. The actual evidence on the ground of how fundamentalist Muslims actually behave contradicts your idea.

Muslim fanatics, of course, also believe their violent actions necessary and there is no other viable option.

Do you make a difference between this "fundamentalist" and "fanatics" you used in this response?

 

[Left Coast]

Do you make a difference between this "fundamentalist" and "fanatics" you used in this response?

I do; most fundamentalists will not commit actual violence for their beliefs. The minority that do I would call fanatics.