BELOW IS A LINK TO A DISCUSSION BETWEEN DAVID PAKMAN AND PROFESSOR GAD SAAD OVER THE WHOLE BILL MAHER-BEN AFFLECK FIASCO IN WHICH SAAD DEFENDS BILL MAHER AND SAM HARRIS. THE PROBLEM WITH SAADS DEFENSE OF THESE TWO IS THAT WHEN IT COMES TO CRITICIZING ISLAM, MAHER AND HARRIS ARE JUST SIMPLY NOT DOING IT RIGHT. IM OPEN TO CRITICIZING THE DOCTRINES OF ISLAM AND EVEN PROPOSING A REFORM OF ITS DOCTRINES, BUT THE ARGUMENTS MAHER AND HARRIS ARE KNOWN FOR MAKING ARE A LITTLE TOO SIMPLISTIC, GENERALIZING, AND BELLIGERENT TO MOVE THE DIALOGUE IN ANY CONSTRUCTIVE DIRECTION, AS THEY PARTICULARLY WERE IN THE EXCHANGE WITH AFFLECK. TAKE BILL MAHER FOR INSTANCE - IN THAT EXCHANGE, AFFLECK MADE THE POINT THAT THE BILLION PLUS MUSLIMS AROUND THE WORLD ARE DECENT HUMAN BEINGS RATHER THAN FANATICS, BUT IN RESPONSE, MAHER SAID, LETS GET DOWN TO WHO HAS THE RIGHT ANSWER HERE. A BILLION PEOPLE, YOU SAY; ALL THESE BILLION PEOPLE DONT HOLD ANY OF THOSE PERNICIOUS BELIEFS? THATS JUST NOT TRUE, BEN. IF MAHER DID NOT MEAN TO MAKE A GENERALIZATION ABOUT MUSLIMS THERE, THEN HE NEEDS TO BE MORE CAREFUL WITH HIS WORDS, BECAUSE THATS EXACTLY WHAT HIS WORDS DID - THEY MADE A GENERALIZATION ABOUT MUSLIMS THAT EVEN HE WOULD KNOW WASNT TRUE IF HE TOOK A CLEARER, MORE HONEST LOOK AT THE DATA ABOUT PERNICIOUS BELIEFS HE WAS REFERENCING. THOSE PERNICIOUS BELIEFS MAINLY HAD TO DO WITH A CERTAIN CHART OF DATA THAT SHOWED HOW MANY MUSLIMS IN EACH ONE OF TWENTY COUNTRIES BELIEVE THE PENALTY FOR APOSTASY SHOULD BE DEATH. ABOUT SIX COUNTRIES IN THE CHART (MALAYSIA, JORDAN, PALESTINE, EGYPT, PAKISTAN, AND AFGHANISTAN) HAVE OVER 50% OF MUSLIMS WHO HOLD TO THAT BELIEF, BUT THEN THE OTHER FOURTEEN COUNTRIES (IRAQ, BANGLADESH, THAILAND, TUNISIA, LEBANON, INDONESIA, RUSSIA, TAJKISTAN, KYRGYZSTAN, BOSNIA, KOSOVO, TURKEY, ALBANIA, AND KAZAKHSTAN) HAVE DECREASING PERCENTAGES STARTING OFF UNDER 40%. SO NOT ONLY DID MAHER MISQUOTE THIS DATA IN ORDER TO SAY 90% OF EGYPTIANS HOLD TO THIS BELIEF WHEN ITS REALLY MORE LIKE 60% OR SO, THIS DATA REALLY PUNCHES A HOLE IN THIS GENERALIZATION OF HIS THAT WOULD MAKE YOU THINK SO MANY MUSLIMS ARE SO HARDCORE, WE SHOULD KEEP A WARY EYE ON EVERY ONE OF THEM WE SEE. AND HERE, LETS BE KIND TO MAHER - LETS HAVE PERNICIOUS BELIEFS COVER EVERY KIND OF ISLAMIC SUPERSTITION, REPRESSION, AND BIGOTRY AND THEN LEAVE OUT VIOLENCE. I WOULDNT DOUBT THAT UNDER THOSE METRICS, YOUD PROBABLY FIND CONSIDERABLE PERCENTAGES OF MUSLIM SEMI-DOGMATISTS WHOSE WORST CRIME IS SAYING CRAZY THINGS LIKE AMERICAN TELEVANGELISTS DO AND THEN MUSLIM CONSERVATIVES WHO ONLY PUT ON A SHOW OF PIETY JUST LIKE CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVES DO, BUT WOULD THEIR NUMBER REALLY BE SO BIG, ITD MAKE THEM MORE OF A PROBLEM THAN THEIR BIBLE-THUMPING COUNTERPARTS? I DONT THINK SO, AND IF IT DOES, I WANT AN ACTUAL EXPERT ON THE MATTER TO EXPLAIN WHY, NOT SOMEONE WHO CANT READ A CHART WITHOUT HIS COGNITIVE DISSONANCE GOING HAYWIRE. AND AGAIN, IF MAHER DOES NOT MEAN FOR US TO BE PARANOID TOWARD ALL OR MOST MUSLIMS, WELL THEN ITS HIS OWN WORDS MISREPRESENTING HIM, NOT AFFLECK OR ANYBODY ELSE. AND THEN THERES SAM HARRIS, SOMEONE WHO IS IN FACT RACIST TOWARD MUSLIMS. IN HIS ARTICLE IN DEFENSE OF PROFILING, HARRIS DOES JUST THAT - HE DEFENDS RACIAL PROFILING. HE EVEN FLAT-OUT WRITES, WE SHOULD PROFILE MUSLIMS, OR ANYONE WHO LOOKS LIKE HE OR SHE COULD CONCEIVABLY BE MUSLIM... WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO LOOK MUSLIM? AS SAM HARRIS LOYAL DISCIPLES OFTEN LIKE TO THROW IN THE FACE OF THOSE WHO CALL OUT THEIR RACISM, ISLAM IS NOT A RACE - ANYBODY CAN BE A MUSLIM, FROM ANGLO-SAXONS AND NORDIC SCANDINAVIANS TO EBONY-BLACK AFRICANS AND FAR-EAST ASIANS. SO REALLY, WHAT DOES HARRIS THINK LOOKS MUSLIM? AND JUST AS A SIDE NOTE, YOU CAN ALSO BE BIGOTED TOWARD RELIGION. IF SOME BAKEY OWNER THROWS A MUSLIM WOMAN OUT OF HIS ESTABLISHMENT JUST BECAUSE SHE WAS WEARING A HIJAB, IS THAT NOT DISCRIMINATION? DOES IT REALLY MAKE IT OKAY JUST BECAUSE RELIGION IS MORE OF A CHOICE THAN RACE? IF IT IS OKAY, THEN WHY CANT I THROW A TEA PARTY GUY OUT OF MY CONVENIENCE STORE SIMPLY BECAUSE HE WORE A DONT TREAD ON ME SHIRT? MY POINT HERE THAT YOU CAN VERY MUCH BE BIGOTED TOWARD RELIGION AS WELL IS WHY HARRIS STATEMENT THAT ISLAM IS THE MOTHERLOAD OF BAD IDEAS IS INDEED SOMETHING TO REGARD WITH EXASPERATION AS AFFLECK DID. ISLAM IS THE MOTHERLOAD OF BAD IDEAS DOES NOT COME ACROSS TO ME AS A VERY NUANCED OR EDUCATED CRITICISM, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU LISTEN TO REAL EXPERTS ON RELIGION. SO MY POINT TO PROFESSOR SAAD IS HE MADE A GOOD CASE FOR HIS POSITION, BUT HE MADE IT IN DEFENSE OF TWO PREJUDICED CHARACTERS WHO ARE ENTIRELY INDEFENSIBLE. AND THE THING IS, THEIR RHETORIC HAS ITS OWN DANGEROUS EFFECT OF INLAMING ANTI-MUSLIM BIGOTRY, SO IF SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THAT MAKES THEM AND THEIR ILK LESS INCLINED TO VOICE THEIR OBVIOUSLY ILL-CONCEIVED CRITICISMS AGAINST ISLAM, SO BE IT. WE NEED MORE CONSTRUCTIVE AND CIVILIZED CRITICISMS OF ISLAM AND ALL RELIGION, NOT THIS PREJUDICED, GENERALIZING RHETORIC. https://youtube/watch?v=Rlm5o5ewnDs https://youtube/watch?v=EN52CP2_F0U samharris.org/blog/item/in-defense-of-profiling
Posted on: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 23:23:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015