And we keep being ignored when we say the problem is not with Islam but Radical Islam. Not with Christianity but with Radical Christianity. Harris has been trying to show people this distinction for a while now. I'm not sure how else to say 'I don't view Islam or any religion as a monolith.'The pushback you and everyone else who refuses to give this any thought is related to the fact that you can't wrap your head around any granularity beyond "islam is islam" as if "christianity is christianity".
Yeah. Sounds like he takes extra care to go out of his way to give Islam and Muslims a fair shake.The idea that Islam is a 'peaceful religion hijacked by extremists' is a dangerous fantasy—and it is now a particularly dangerous fantasy for Muslims to indulge. It is not at all clear how we should proceed in our dialogue with the Muslim world, but deluding ourselves with euphemisms is not the answer. It now appears to be a truism in foreign policy circles that real reform in the Muslim world cannot be imposed from the outside. But it is important to recognize why this is so—it is so because the Muslim world is utterly deranged by its religious tribalism. In confronting the religious literalism and ignorance of the Muslim world, we must appreciate how terrifyingly isolated Muslims have become in intellectual terms.
I could ask you to re-read that, or half the stuff he writes. I could ask you to try and see how he tries to paint Abrahamic faiths with wide brushes, reducing them to ugly caricatures that are easy to criticize and attack. I could ask you to try and see how many of his statements can be seen as divisive, inflammatory, and potentially dangerous. The fact that half the time I don't understand the things he says, but can understand that he takes on the tone of a pretentious dick is telling about how massive of a douche he must really be, because I pretty much never use those terms to describe people. I don't think it'll do any good. I think at this point, you're being deliberately obtuse. So let's call it a night.
1) Who are the "radicals?" How do you separate them out? Do you only ban members of the First Church of Radical Islam, Aleppo Diocese? Or do you recognize that the problem isn't "radical islam" it's "radicals" and it always has been? 2) How can you have an entire thousand-word discussion about "Islam" without ackowledging that Shia islam isn't Sunni islam isn't Alawite or Wahabi or Sufi or any other sect? 3) "No one is losing sleep over Jain exremists?" You mean like the ones that assassinated Indira Gandhi? I mean, the buddhists slaughtered muslims in Burma. Ain't nobody immune from teh crazy. So point to the "radical" muslim and tell me why he's a problem. What makes him a "radical." And how you'll single him out without pulling a Sam Harris and arguing that somehow, because they're the other, you don't have to think about this shit.What most discussions of “Muslim extremism” miss, and what is obfuscated at every turn by commentators like Glenn Greenwald, Reza Aslan, Karen Armstrong—and even Nicholas Kristof and Ben Affleck—is the power of specific religious ideas such as martyrdom, apostasy, blasphemy, prophecy, and honor. These ideas do not represent the totality of Islam, but neither are they foreign to it. Nor do they exist in precisely the same way in other faiths. There is a reason why no one is losing sleep over the threat posed by Jain and Quaker “extremists.” Specific doctrines matter.
Tomato tomahto. I knew sikhs who claimed to be Jains who lived on sikh ashrams, worshipped in sikh temples and lived with sikhs.
Thanks, that was an interesting read. Admittedly, I'm not that well-versed in south asian religions and interfaith relations. Just to be clear, I'm not arguing against the point you were trying to make. I believe certain people (of any/no religion) has the potential to be radicalised under the right circumstances, usually due to perceived threats or socio-economic factors.