Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

SpartanDem

(4,533 posts)
Fri Apr 5, 2013, 07:29 PM Apr 2013

Glenn Greenwald vs Sam Harris on Islamophobia

Last edited Sat Apr 6, 2013, 09:05 AM - Edit history (2)

Two columns have been published in the past week harshly criticizing the so-called "New Atheists" such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens: this one by Nathan Lean in Salon, and this one by Murtaza Hussain in Al Jazeera. The crux of those columns is that these advocates have increasingly embraced a toxic form of anti-Muslim bigotry masquerading as rational atheism. Yesterday, I posted a tweet to Hussain's article without comment except to highlight what I called a "very revealing quote" flagged by Hussain, one in which Harris opined that "the people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists."

Shortly after posting the tweet, I received an angry email from Harris, who claimed that Hussain's column was "garbage", and he eventually said the same thing about Lean's column in Salon. That then led to a somewhat lengthy email exchange with Harris in which I did not attempt to defend every claim in those columns from his attacks because I didn't make those claims: the authors of those columns can defend themselves perfectly well. If Harris had problems with what those columns claim, he should go take it up with them.

I do, however, absolutely agree with the general argument made in both columns that the New Atheists have flirted with and at times vigorously embraced irrational anti-Muslim animus. I repeatedly offered to post Harris' email to me and then tweet it so that anyone inclined to do so could read his response to those columns and make up their own minds. Once he requested that I do so, I posted our exchange here.

Harris himself then wrote about and posted our exchange on his blog, causing a couple dozen of his followers to send me emails. I also engaged in a discussion with a few Harris defenders on Facebook. What seemed to bother them most was the accusation in Hussain's column that there is "racism" in Harris' anti-Muslim advocacy. A few of Harris' defenders were rage-filled and incoherent, but the bulk of them were cogent and reasoned, so I concluded that a more developed substantive response to Harris was warranted.


Greenwald went on to define Islamophobia as:

The meaning of "Islamophobia" is every bit as clear as "anti-semitism" or "racism" or "sexism" and all sorts of familiar, related concepts. It signifies (1) irrational condemnations of all members of a group or the group itself based on the bad acts of specific individuals in that group; (2) a disproportionate fixation on that group for sins committed at least to an equal extent by many other groups, especially one's own; and/or (3) sweeping claims about the members of that group unjustified by their actual individual acts and beliefs


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/03/sam-harris-muslim-animus




First it's pretty clear Harris is a bigot. Saying "We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it." that's sort of thing I expect from Pam Geller or some tebagger politician. Beyond the question of whether you agree with his assessment of Harris. Might be what is the line between criticism and bigotry?
3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Glenn Greenwald vs Sam Harris on Islamophobia (Original Post) SpartanDem Apr 2013 OP
Every bit as clear? skepticscott Apr 2013 #1
Is "Islamophobia" always a bad thing? Well, it depends what it is. Donald Ian Rankin Apr 2013 #2
The article you link to (although not your post) contains some really glaring idiocy. Donald Ian Rankin Apr 2013 #3
 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
1. Every bit as clear?
Fri Apr 5, 2013, 08:47 PM
Apr 2013

For most people, a phobia is a fear. Not any of the things that Greenwald proposes. So no, it's not at all clear that the definition of "Islamophobia" he's trying to ram down people's throats is the one and only possible one.

Donald Ian Rankin

(13,598 posts)
2. Is "Islamophobia" always a bad thing? Well, it depends what it is.
Sat Apr 6, 2013, 08:20 AM
Apr 2013

Different people define Islamophobia more widely or more narrowly. No one definition has enough consensus behind it to be called "right" and make the others "wrong".



There are certainly legitimate definitions of "Islamophobia" broad enough to include Harris and Dawkins. But by those definitions, not all Islamophobia is a bad thing - and, indeed, arguably failing to be "Islamophobic" in some of those senses is a bad thing.

There are also certainly legitimate definitions of "Islamophobia" that are invariably bad - in particular, any suggestion that we should deprive Muslims of basic civil rights. If Harris really did say "We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it", and mean it, and the context doesn't change the meaning, then I think that's crossed the line into bigotry (although I should highlight the "ifs" in that last sentence).

But Islam really is worse on average - much, much worse on average - than any other religion, and we should acknowledge that, and if you choose to classify that as Islamophobia then you're using Islamophobia to mean good things as well as bad, and hence can't use it as a term of condemnation.



*I am always driven wild with rage by people who attempt to refute this claim by pointing out that there are plenty of people who interpret Islam in liberal fashions, and plenty of people who interpret other religions as commanding all sorts of bad things. That's totally true, and it in no way contradicts a difference in averages, and presenting it as doing so is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate.

Donald Ian Rankin

(13,598 posts)
3. The article you link to (although not your post) contains some really glaring idiocy.
Sat Apr 6, 2013, 08:30 AM
Apr 2013

He says that the US is responsible for the majority of the violence in the world today. This is just lunatic, especially in a discussion of Islam. Firstly, he's just wrong - I think he must be a) confusing "majority of the violence reported in the American media" with "Majority of violence in the world".

Secondly, and more importantly, the only way he could possibly be thinking that is if he's attributing all the violence in Afghanistan and Iraq to America. But what's happening in those countries is *not* Americans killing people, it's America *failing to prevent* evil Muslim fanatics killing people because of their religion. One could make a case that the impossibility of preventing that was something America should have forseen, and hence that they do bare secondary responsibility for those deaths. But the primary responsibility - the people actually deliberately doing nearly all the killing, rather than just failing to prevent it - lies directly at the door of Islam.
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Glenn Greenwald vs Sam Ha...