Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Qur'anic studies today
Yesterday at 10:19 PM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
Yesterday at 07:55 PM

New Britain
Yesterday at 04:35 PM

مدهش----- لماذا؟؟؟؟
by akay
Yesterday at 11:18 AM

dissertation research pro...
June 11, 2021, 10:29 PM

Gaza assault
June 10, 2021, 10:44 PM

Muslim grooming gangs sti...
June 10, 2021, 10:31 PM

Muslim family in Canada k...
June 10, 2021, 10:25 PM

NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
June 09, 2021, 02:43 AM

The essence of the facts
by akay
June 08, 2021, 06:43 AM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
June 06, 2021, 01:06 PM

Pi a new digital crypto c...
by asif
June 04, 2021, 09:27 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: The Self-Invention of Maajid Nawaz

 (Read 29008 times)
  • Previous page 1 ... 4 5 67 8 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • The Self-Invention of Maajid Nawaz
     Reply #150 - February 18, 2016, 05:57 AM

    Quote
     
    4) Yes, in fact he was when he condoned the invasion of Iraq by suggesting that it was for the good of the Iraqi people and saying that the US had good intentions.

    I wonder how many people actually believe that? Because that's just obnoxious.

    US only had his own interest when invading Iraq, that much is obvious.

    But guuuuuuys what would've happened without our invasion??? You couldn't have done nothing without us invading you, got it!!!

    It's on another level of delusion.


    Hello Helaine  that statement  of AGD is not reliable as it has no reference...  I am arguing people to read this   https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/response-to-controversy  in which  dr. Sam Harris Says

    Quote
    My position on the war in Iraq
      
    I have never written or spoken in support of the war in Iraq. This has not stopped a “journalist” like Glenn Greenwald from castigating me as a warmonger (Which is especially rich, given that he supported the war. In fact, in 2005 he appeared less critical of U.S. foreign policy than I am.) The truth is, I have never known what to think about this war, apart from the obvious: 1) prospectively, it seemed like a very dangerous distraction from the ongoing war in Afghanistan; 2) retrospectively, it was a disaster. Much of the responsibility for this disaster falls on the Bush administration

    so that is what he says at that link.. I am not sure where AGD..   picks up such statements and attributes to Sam Harris..  AGD must put links when she accuses  some one on a forum like this...

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • The Self-Invention of Maajid Nawaz
     Reply #151 - February 18, 2016, 06:07 AM

    I have actually read many people accuse Harris of that, so that was baseless accusation?

    Hmm, "journalists" and their hyperactive imagination...
  • The Self-Invention of Maajid Nawaz
     Reply #152 - February 18, 2016, 07:44 AM

    @Yezeevee my statement is completely accurate and if Sam Harris said that he never spoke a word of support them he is a liar. This is exactly what he said:

    “civilized human beings are now attempting, at considerable cost to themselves, to improve life for the Iraqi people.”

    At best he is an apologist, at worst a supporter.
  • The Self-Invention of Maajid Nawaz
     Reply #153 - February 18, 2016, 09:52 AM

    @Yezeevee my statement is completely accurate and if Sam Harris said that he never spoke a word of support them he is a liar. This is exactly what he said:

    “civilized human beings are now attempting, at considerable cost to themselves, to improve life for the Iraqi people.”

    At best he is an apologist, at worst a supporter.

    link/reference AGD..link...

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • The Self-Invention of Maajid Nawaz
     Reply #154 - February 18, 2016, 02:27 PM

    I don't often post links because I don't like basing my arguments on copy pasta so I guess it just became a bad habit. Here it is, has several other gems too, that article does:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/bombing-our-illusions_b_8615.html
  • The Self-Invention of Maajid Nawaz
     Reply #155 - February 18, 2016, 03:03 PM

    There is really good discussion going on in this thread.  Afro
  • The Self-Invention of Maajid Nawaz
     Reply #156 - February 18, 2016, 03:33 PM

    Quote
    Here it is, has several other gems too, that article does:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/bombing-our-illusions_b_8615.html

    that is wonderful and that is what is needed and it is written by him with a heading of a blog     Bombing Our Illusions  on 05/25/2011 11:45 am ET

    Let me read through it.. and find the gems  and in fact write to him  on it.

    I don't often post links because I don't like basing my arguments on copy pasta so I guess it just became a bad habit

    No..No..nooooo.,......you have to do that ..you must  copy/paste his/her written/spoken arguments as you are accusing the person .. It is Ok if you are hand waving in support of some unknown character of the past on whom we have very little information..

    and  PLEASE ADD MORE LINKS OF HIS WORK(not what others say about him)  that proves  him as bigot against Muslim folks.

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • The Self-Invention of Maajid Nawaz
     Reply #157 - February 18, 2016, 04:07 PM

    4) Yes, in fact he was when he condoned the invasion of Iraq by suggesting that it was for the good of the Iraqi people and saying that the US had good intentions.


    I don't often post links because I don't like basing my arguments on copy pasta so I guess it just became a bad habit. Here it is, has several other gems too, that article does:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/bombing-our-illusions_b_8615.html


    Hmm, I'm reading this article(made in 2011) and he clearly doesn't say something like that. You are either reading between the lines or you are just extracting parts from a sentence to make your case.

    Quote from: SamHarris
    The war in Iraq, while it may be exacerbating the conflict between Islam and the West, is a red herring. However mixed or misguided American intentions were in launching this war, civilized human beings are now attempting, at considerable cost to themselves, to improve life for the Iraqi people. The terrible truth about our predicament in Iraq is that even if we had invaded with no other purpose than to remove Saddam Hussein from power and make Iraq a paradise on earth, we could still expect tomorrow’s paper to reveal that another jihadi has blown himself up for the sake of killing scores of innocent men, women, and children. The outrage that Muslims feel over U.S. and British foreign policy is primarily the product of theological concerns. Devout Muslims consider it a sacrilege for infidels to depose a Muslim tyrant and occupy Muslim lands—no matter how well intentioned the infidels or malevolent the tyrant. Because of what they believe about God and the afterlife and the divine provenance of the Koran, devout Muslims tend to reflexively side with other Muslims, no matter how sociopathic their behavior. This is solidarity born of religious delusion, and it must end—or a genuine clash of civilizations will be unavoidable.


    And from where did you take that Sam Harris have said that only muslims respond to oppression, or perceived oppression, with suicide bombers? From the same article you have linked he specify this: "(with the exception of the island Sri Lanka)"
  • The Self-Invention of Maajid Nawaz
     Reply #158 - February 18, 2016, 04:49 PM

    1) Realistically Islam is not going anywhere and like a number of other religions it has teachings which can and have been used to inspire violence. The wrong hands has everything to do with it, there would be no point of reformers if that was not the case. It is the people who interpret the religion a certain way and act according to their interpretations who are spreading Islamism whereas there would be less of a problem if liberal Muslims had more influence.

    2) Bad things cannot "happen to Islam" since it is neither an individual nor a place, bad things can however happen to Muslims and Muslim-majority countries. That's not even the point I was making. Yeezevee emphasised that the oppression faced by the groups I named was real rather than perceived and I was agreeing.


    By Islam in that context, yes I meant Muslim world. And I say again, every bad thing that has happened to Islam, has happened in non muslim world as well. And that is the truth.

    You blame the people who interpret the religion a certain way and acting according to their interpretations, like in other religions there aren't people who do the same thing...

    By somehow holding to your points, you incidentally place the responsibility on Muslims as people. Like there are overwhelmingly more wrong hands in Islam, or Muslims overwhelmingly make bad interpretations about their religion, so muslims are inherently more bad or violent.  You blame the people and I know for sure that you don't think this way and we know fore sure that Muslims are just like other people.

    You really can't see where the big difference is?
  • The Self-Invention of Maajid Nawaz
     Reply #159 - February 18, 2016, 05:03 PM

    I can't find where it says that. It's a massive response.

    What other ideology besides Islamism says you can live forever in paradise if you blow yourself up with innocent civilians? Suicide attacks are not exclusive to Islam, but they are something of a unique problem when it comes to Islam due to doctrine


    Martyrdom in many religions can be retrofitted with suicidal acts. Keep in mind those we consider innocent are not considered as such by the martyrs. Sure it is a problem within Islam now but people of many labels have conducted such attacks for various reasons.
  • The Self-Invention of Maajid Nawaz
     Reply #160 - February 18, 2016, 09:08 PM

    Bombing Our Illusions by Blogger Sam Harris   05/25/2011 11:45 am ET

    Quote
    Open the newspaper today—or tomorrow, or almost any day for many years to come—and you will discover that some pious Muslim has deliberately blown himself to bits for the purpose of killing “infidels” or “apostates.” It is likely that the bomber was male, middle class, and comparatively well educated. It is especially likely that he was guided by the sincere expectation of spending eternity in Paradise. In fact, suicide bombing is now so commonplace in our world that most of us have lost sight of just how unimaginable it should be.

    It is, perhaps, the least likely thing human beings could ever be inclined to do. What, after all, is less likely than large numbers of middle class, educated, psychologically healthy people intentionally blowing themselves up—in crowds of children, in front of the offices of the Red Cross, at weddings—and having their mothers sing their praises for it? Can we even conceive of a more profligate misuse of human life? As a cultural phenomenon, suicide bombing should be impossible. But here it is.

    Anyone familiar with my work knows that I am extremely critical of all religious faiths. I have argued elsewhere that the ascendancy of Christian conservatism in American politics should terrify and embarrass us. And yet, there are gradations to the evil that is done in name of God, and these gradations must be honestly observed. So let us now make sense of the impossible by acknowledging the obvious: there is a direct link between the doctrine of Islam and Muslim terrorism. Acknowledging this link remains especially taboo among political liberals. While liberals are leery of religious fundamentalism in general, they consistently imagine that all religions at their core teach the same thing and teach it equally well. This is one of the many delusions borne of political correctness.

    Rather than continue to squander precious time, energy, and good will by denying the role that Islam now plays in perpetuating Muslim violence, we should urge Muslim communities in the West to reform the ideology of their religion. This will not be easy, as the Koran and hadith offer precious little basis for a Muslim Enlightenment, but it is necessary.

    Anyone who imagines that terrestrial concerns account for Muslim terrorism must answer questions of the following sort: Where are the Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers? The Tibetans have suffered an occupation far more brutal, and far more cynical, than any that Britain, the United States, or Israel have ever imposed upon the Muslim world. Where are the throngs of Tibetans ready to perpetrate suicidal atrocities against Chinese noncombatants? They do not exist.

    What is the difference that makes the difference? The difference lies in the specific tenets of Islam. This is not to say that Buddhism could not help inspire suicidal violence. It can, and it has (Japan, World War II). But this concedes absolutely nothing to the apologists for Islam. As a Buddhist, one has to work extremely hard to justify such barbarism. One need not work nearly so hard as a Muslim.

     The truth that we must finally confront is that Islam contains specific notions of martyrdom and jihad that fully explain the character of Muslim violence. Unless the world’s Muslims can find some way of expunging the metaphysics that is fast turning their religion into a cult of death, we will ultimately face the same perversely destructive behavior throughout much of the world.

    While the other major world religions have been fertile sources of intolerance, it is clear that the doctrine of Islam poses unique problems for the emergence of a global civilization. The world, from the point of view of Islam, is divided into the “House of Islam” and the “House of War,” and this latter designation should indicate how Muslims believe their differences with those who do not share their faith will be ultimately resolved.

    While there are undoubtedly some moderate Muslims who have decided to overlook the irrescindable militancy of their religion, Islam is undeniably a religion of conquest. The only future devout Muslims can envisage—as Muslims—is one in which all infidels have been converted to Islam, politically subjugated, or killed.

    The tenets of Islam simply do not admit of anything but a temporary sharing of power with the “enemies of God.” Devout Muslims can have no doubt about the reality of Paradise or about the efficacy of martyrdom as a means of getting there. Nor can they question the wisdom and reasonableness of killing people for what amount to theological grievances. In Islam, it is the moderate who is left to split hairs, because the basic thrust of the doctrine is undeniable: convert, subjugate, or kill unbelievers; kill apostates; and conquer the world.

    We are now mired in a religious war in Iraq and elsewhere. Our enemies--as witnessed by their astonishing willingness to slaughter themselves--are not principally motivated by political or economic grievances.

    How many more architects and electrical engineers must fly planes into buildings before we realize that the problem of Muslim extremism is not merely a matter of education? How many more middle-class British citizens must blow themselves up along with scores of noncombatants before we acknowledge that Muslim terrorism is not matter of poverty or political oppression?

    It is not enough for moderate Muslims to say “not in our name.” They must now police their own communities. They must offer unreserved assistance to western governments in locating the extremists in their midst. They must tolerate, advocate, and even practice ethnic profiling. It is simply a fact that the greatest predictor of terrorist behavior anywhere in the world (with the exception of the island Sri Lanka) is whether or not a person believes that Allah is the only god and Muhammad is his prophet.

     Moderate Muslims themselves must acknowledge this fact without equivocation. The time for political correctness and multi-cultural shibboleths has long passed. Moderate Muslims must accept and practice open criticism of their religion. We are now in the 21st century: all books, including the Koran, should be fair game for flushing down the toilet without fear of violent reprisal. If you disagree, you are not a religious moderate, and you are on a collision course with modernity.

    The war in Iraq, while it may be exacerbating the conflict between Islam and the West, is a red herring. However mixed or misguided American intentions were in launching this war, civilized human beings are now attempting, at considerable cost to themselves, to improve life for the Iraqi people. The terrible truth about our predicament in Iraq is that even if we had invaded with no other purpose than to remove Saddam Hussein from power and make Iraq a paradise on earth, we could still expect tomorrow’s paper to reveal that another jihadi has blown himself up for the sake of killing scores of innocent men, women, and children.

    The outrage that Muslims feel over U.S. and British foreign policy is primarily the product of theological concerns. Devout Muslims consider it a sacrilege for infidels to depose a Muslim tyrant and occupy Muslim lands—no matter how well intentioned the infidels or malevolent the tyrant. Because of what they believe about God and the afterlife and the divine provenance of the Koran, devout Muslims tend to reflexively side with other Muslims, no matter how sociopathic their behavior. This is solidarity born of religious delusion, and it must end—or a genuine clash of civilizations will be unavoidable.

    Muslims in Iraq and elsewhere have been traumatized by war and by decades of repression. But this does not explain the type of violence they wage against us on a daily basis. War and repression do not account for suicidal violence directed against the Red Cross, the U.N., foreign workers, and Iraqi innocents.

    War and repression do not account for the influx of foreign fighters willing to sacrifice their lives merely to sow chaos. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is not George Washington with a hood. Sawing the heads off of civilian contractors, humanitarian workers, and journalists is not “resistance” to oppression. It is the work of men who left their hearts in the 7th century. Civilization really does have its enemies, and we have met -- and, perhaps, made – many of them in Iraq.


    It is time we admitted that we are not at war with “terrorism”; we are at war with precisely the vision of life that is prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran. This is not to say that we are at war with all Muslims, but we are absolutely at war with millions more than have any direct affiliation with Al Qaeda. Every person living in a western democracy should read the Koran and discover the relentlessness with which non-Muslims are vilified in its pages. The idea that Islam is a “peaceful religion hijacked by extremists” is a dangerous fantasy—and it is now a particularly dangerous fantasy for moderate Muslims to indulge.

    It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of devout Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence. There is, after all, little possibility of our having a cold war with an Islamist regime armed with long-range nuclear weapons. A cold war requires that the parties be mutually deterred by the threat of death.

    Notions of martyrdom and jihad run roughshod over the logic that allowed the United States and the Soviet Union to pass half a century perched, more or less stably, on the brink of Armageddon. We must come to terms with the possibility that men who are every bit as zealous to die as the September 11th hijackers may one day get their hands on nuclear weaponry.

    As Martin Rees has pointed out, there is no reason to expect that we will be any more successful at stopping nuclear proliferation, in small quantities, than we have been with respect to illegal drugs. If this is true, weapons of mass destruction will eventually be available to anyone who wants them. It seems a truism to say that there is no possible future in which aspiring martyrs will make good neighbors for us.

    It is not at all clear how we should proceed in our dialogue with the Muslim world. But deluding ourselves with euphemisms and pandering to the religious sensitivities of Muslims is not the answer. There is much about Islamic culture that should appall us. The treatment of women in Muslim communities throughout the world is unconscionable. All civilized nations must unite in condemnation of a theology that now threatens to destabilize much of the earth.

    Muslim moderates, wherever they are, must be given every tool necessary to win a war of ideas with their coreligionists. Otherwise, we will have to win some very terrible wars in the future.


    well that is what is written by Sam Harris in his blog in 2011.. Please note it is same as that you see at that link except I cut his paragraphs little smaller to identify and collect gems and nuggets. Well let me read that edit put onlly nuggets from it.

    And...and on the way let me read Ali A. Rizvi A Pakistani-Canadian writer, physician and musician that is also from huffingtonpost.com The Phobia of Being Called Islamophobic..     Ali Razvi wrote that on 04/28/2014 03:19 pm ET | Updated Jun 28, 2014

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • The Self-Invention of Maajid Nawaz
     Reply #161 - February 18, 2016, 09:56 PM

    that is wonderful and that is what is needed and it is written by him with a heading of a blog     Bombing Our Illusions  on 05/25/2011 11:45 am ET

    Let me read through it.. and find the gems  and in fact write to him  on it.
    No..No..nooooo.,......you have to do that ..you must  copy/paste his/her written/spoken arguments as you are accusing the person .. It is Ok if you are hand waving in support of some unknown character of the past on whom we have very little information..

    and  PLEASE ADD MORE LINKS OF HIS WORK(not what others say about him)  that proves  him as bigot against Muslim folks.


    Over here he says that all Muslim looking people should be profiled.
    https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/in-defense-of-profiling
  • The Self-Invention of Maajid Nawaz
     Reply #162 - February 18, 2016, 10:01 PM

    Hmm, I'm reading this article(made in 2011) and he clearly doesn't say something like that. You are either reading between the lines or you are just extracting parts from a sentence to make your case.

    And from where did you take that Sam Harris have said that only muslims respond to oppression, or perceived oppression, with suicide bombers? From the same article you have linked he specify this: "(with the exception of the island Sri Lanka)"


    Oh please, that article reeks of apologia for the Iraq war, especially when he dismissed it as a red herring and rebuked those who are outraged about it. Yes, I am reading between lines because his apologia is very thinly veiled.
  • The Self-Invention of Maajid Nawaz
     Reply #163 - February 18, 2016, 10:15 PM

    By Islam in that context, yes I meant Muslim world. And I say again, every bad thing that has happened to Islam, has happened in non muslim world as well. And that is the truth.

    You blame the people who interpret the religion a certain way and acting according to their interpretations, like in other religions there aren't people who do the same thing...

    By somehow holding to your points, you incidentally place the responsibility on Muslims as people. Like there are overwhelmingly more wrong hands in Islam, or Muslims overwhelmingly make bad interpretations about their religion, so muslims are inherently more bad or violent.  You blame the people and I know for sure that you don't think this way and we know fore sure that Muslims are just like other people.

    You really can't see where the big difference is?


    No, because history has shown that Christianity can wield similar results in the wrong hands and it is still doing so in certain African Christian nations. Religion is essentially a weapon, given the appropriate circumstances and people it can cause destruction and harm. Nothing I said implied that Muslims are uniquely violent because I have always maintained that the situation in the Middle East does not boil down to violent interpretations of Islam only but rather that this one of many factors. Islamic texts do leave room for violent interpretations of the religion but that does not change the fact that Jihadists choose to follow that particular version of Islam. Therefore yes, the type of people using the religion as a weapon is very relevant.

    It is irrelevant that all of the bad things that has happened to the Muslim world has happened to non-Muslims too, as I was not talking about the misfortunes of Muslims in my response to Yeezevee to begin with. I find your point to be very broad and simplistic as well; not all non-Muslims have suffered equally and neither have all Muslims.
  • The Self-Invention of Maajid Nawaz
     Reply #164 - February 18, 2016, 10:16 PM

    I have to agree with this ^.  Sam Harris does get misquoted by people who want to discredit him, but even in his own words he comes across as colonialist and obtuse at times.  Civilised people going in to sort out the fuzzy wuzzies, that type of attitude.  I don't know why he just can't say that the US should never have interfered in the middle east in the first place, and then make whatever points he wants about Islam.  

    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • The Self-Invention of Maajid Nawaz
     Reply #165 - February 18, 2016, 11:07 PM

    Quote
    While there are undoubtedly some moderate Muslims who have decided to overlook the irrescindable militancy of their religion, Islam is undeniably a religion of conquest. The only future devout Muslims can envisage—as Muslims—is one in which all infidels have been converted to Islam, politically subjugated, or killed.

    The tenets of Islam simply do not admit of anything but a temporary sharing of power with the “enemies of God.” Devout Muslims can have no doubt about the reality of Paradise or about the efficacy of martyrdom as a means of getting there. Nor can they question the wisdom and reasonableness of killing people for what amount to theological grievances. In Islam, it is the moderate who is left to split hairs, because the basic thrust of the doctrine is undeniable: convert, subjugate, or kill unbelievers; kill apostates; and conquer the world.


    He definitely got this one right. High Five.

    Quote
    The war in Iraq, while it may be exacerbating the conflict between Islam and the West, is a red herring. However mixed or misguided American intentions were in launching this war, civilized human beings are now attempting, at considerable cost to themselves, to improve life for the Iraqi people. The terrible truth about our predicament in Iraq is that even if we had invaded with no other purpose than to remove Saddam Hussein from power and make Iraq a paradise on earth, we could still expect tomorrow’s paper to reveal that another jihadi has blown himself up for the sake of killing scores of innocent men, women, and children.

    The outrage that Muslims feel over U.S. and British foreign policy is primarily the product of theological concerns. Devout Muslims consider it a sacrilege for infidels to depose a Muslim tyrant and occupy Muslim lands—no matter how well intentioned the infidels or malevolent the tyrant. Because of what they believe about God and the afterlife and the divine provenance of the Koran, devout Muslims tend to reflexively side with other Muslims, no matter how sociopathic their behavior. This is solidarity born of religious delusion, and it must end—or a genuine clash of civilizations will be unavoidable.


    This is apologist bullshit. A country suffering from invasion (Iraq) does not suffer from theological outrage. They got invaded.

    Also, the real red herring is comparing "well intentioned infidels" with American imperialism. Red cross have well intentions, but American army doesn't.

    However, the only people who should feel outraged are Iraqis, not other muslims. Other muslims have no right to act like a victim when they're not. Period. Most muslims are like white people in Europe, they have always been the majority religion + race in their home country. They have no right to feel like a victim.

    It's not America's business to meddle with any country's politics, much less to invade them to "depose a tyrant". America had its intentions, and they camouflaged it with "deposing a tyrant". That's intentionally misguiding the readers.

    --

    Racial profiling is another animal by itself. I read a discussion on reddit about China copying America's weapons of war. Of course, the suspect is that some Chinese immigrants / nationals are working as double agents for the Chinese government. It seems that people are satisfied with the fact that now all Chinese nationals are banned from working for NASA. After all, some of them might be spy, so everyone must suffer to protect American interest.

    Do you think it is just? I mean, it's pretty much a fact that China is stealing those data, and Chinese nationals are the likely culprit.

    Same thing with muslims, really. If you answer yes to the above, then it's the same answer to the muslim profiling.
  • The Self-Invention of Maajid Nawaz
     Reply #166 - February 18, 2016, 11:29 PM

    I don't get how you profile "Muslims". There have been plenty of terrorist attacks by white people who have converted to Islam. You couldn't identify them as Muslim on site, and if they just jumped into the deep end of extremism, I doubt they would tell the government that they were Muslims and get the extra attention that would come in a society that profiles.

    To quote Maajid "Terrorists do not have a profile."

    p.s. if you read the book that Harris and Nawaz coauthored, you will find Maajid pushing quite hard against some of Harris' views like this one. That would be another example of him pushing against right wing bigotry would it not?

    "I moreover believe that any religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be a true system."
    -Thomas Paine
  • The Self-Invention of Maajid Nawaz
     Reply #167 - February 19, 2016, 11:09 AM

    I have to agree with this ^.  Sam Harris does get misquoted by people who want to discredit him, but even in his own words he comes across as colonialist and obtuse at times.  Civilised people going in to sort out the fuzzy wuzzies, that type of attitude.  I don't know why he just can't say that the US should never have interfered in the middle east in the first place, and then make whatever points he wants about Islam.  

    This  Afro .

  • The Self-Invention of Maajid Nawaz
     Reply #168 - February 19, 2016, 06:50 PM

    I don't get how you profile "Muslims". There have been plenty of terrorist attacks by white people who have converted to Islam. You couldn't identify them as Muslim on site, and if they just jumped into the deep end of extremism, I doubt they would tell the government that they were Muslims and get the extra attention that would come in a society that profiles.

    To quote Maajid "Terrorists do not have a profile."

    p.s. if you read the book that Harris and Nawaz coauthored, you will find Maajid pushing quite hard against some of Harris' views like this one. That would be another example of him pushing against right wing bigotry would it not?


    I have only come across interviews but will keep an open mind and read the book.
  • The Self-Invention of Maajid Nawaz
     Reply #169 - February 19, 2016, 06:52 PM

    He definitely got this one right. High Five.

    This is apologist bullshit. A country suffering from invasion (Iraq) does not suffer from theological outrage. They got invaded.

    Also, the real red herring is comparing "well intentioned infidels" with American imperialism. Red cross have well intentions, but American army doesn't.

    However, the only people who should feel outraged are Iraqis, not other muslims. Other muslims have no right to act like a victim when they're not. Period. Most muslims are like white people in Europe, they have always been the majority religion + race in their home country. They have no right to feel like a victim.

    It's not America's business to meddle with any country's politics, much less to invade them to "depose a tyrant". America had its intentions, and they camouflaged it with "deposing a tyrant". That's intentionally misguiding the readers.

    --

    Racial profiling is another animal by itself. I read a discussion on reddit about China copying America's weapons of war. Of course, the suspect is that some Chinese immigrants / nationals are working as double agents for the Chinese government. It seems that people are satisfied with the fact that now all Chinese nationals are banned from working for NASA. After all, some of them might be spy, so everyone must suffer to protect American interest.

    Do you think it is just? I mean, it's pretty much a fact that China is stealing those data, and Chinese nationals are the likely culprit.

    Same thing with muslims, really. If you answer yes to the above, then it's the same answer to the muslim profiling.


    Everything said in this post, really.
  • The Self-Invention of Maajid Nawaz
     Reply #170 - February 19, 2016, 07:46 PM

    Everything said in this post, really.

    good.. good now let us read this

    'New Atheist' Spokesperson Sam Harris Featured in Explicitly Anti-Muslim Hate Video



    and and watch that video.......Anti-Muslim Hate Video 

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSPvnFDDQHk

    so what is that Clarion Project anyway., i never heard of that

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • The Self-Invention of Maajid Nawaz
     Reply #171 - February 20, 2016, 05:09 AM

    Quote
    While many New Atheists remain relucatant to openly ally with forces associated with the Republican Party's evangelical base, a right-wing organization with ties to GOP mega-donors is adapting the anti-Muslim concepts of New Atheist spokespeople into its own propaganda.


    New atheists are actually ~secretly~ supporting evangelical Christians! They just don't openly say it!

    Criticizing Islam = Islamophobia, criticizing Christianity = allying with evangelical Christians

    Quote
    These statements by Harris form the basis of the video’s numerous insinuations, including that a significant portion of people fleeing war and seeking refuge in the West are "Islamic State" operatives and that civil rights groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations have links to terrorist organizations.


    Insinuations? CAIR is civil rights groups?

     Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

    Quote
    But in an interview with Salon published in 2014, scholar Reza Aslan argued that Harris merely gives “intellectual heft” to crudely reasoned attacks on Islam as a whole.


    What's wrong with attacking Islam as a whole... the atheist movement already attacked Christianity and religions way before they attacked Islam.

    Quote
    “Just imagine some concentric circles here,” says Harris, as depicted in the Clarion video. “At the center you have jihadists. These are people who wake up in the morning wanting to kill apostates, wanting to die trying,” he says. “Outside of them we have Islamists. These are people who are just as convinced of martyrdom and paradise and wanting to foist their religion on the rest of humanity. But they want to work within the system.”

    Then he describes the outer circle: “They hold views about human rights and about women’s, homosexuals that are deeply troubling.”


    They disagree with this?

    Having trouble thinking that Islamists might exist? Send these people to any muslim country of their choice, please. Give these people best-selling books written by muslims about the dream of world domination, they're everywhere.
  • The Self-Invention of Maajid Nawaz
     Reply #172 - February 20, 2016, 05:49 AM

    good.. good now let us read this

    'New Atheist' Spokesperson Sam Harris Featured in Explicitly Anti-Muslim Hate Video

    (Clicky for piccy!)

    and and watch that video.......Anti-Muslim Hate Video 

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSPvnFDDQHk

    so what is that Clarion Project anyway., i never heard of that


    I don't know what Clarion Project is, but there is no Anti-Muslim hate in that video.

    And Obama  Cheesy . Better don't speak at all about Islam...
  • The Self-Invention of Maajid Nawaz
     Reply #173 - March 13, 2016, 04:08 PM

    I understand. However, I think unfairly castigating a key ally in the fight for a world with less religious sectarianism and violence is not a good idea. If we are only to express support for those that are in the precise sweet spot of where we would like their views, we'll spend all our time disagreeing and quickly become irrelevant. The way I see it, if Nawaz isnt seen as an ally, we've narrowed down our pool of allies to essentially nil against a tide of bigotry and complete accomadationism on the other side.


    I finally have a PC again with a working keyboard and I'm ecstatic and inspired to finally reply to all the stuff I didn't reply to last month, so at the risk of reviving this thing, I'm gonna do it. Grin

    Anyway, I get what you're saying, and I do really worry about us getting so polarized with the nuances of our views that we're burning bridges over differences instead of supporting each other where we agree.

    That being said, it's unfortunate that the climate of these discussions has become what it has, but you're speaking in somewhat political terms of allies and so you'll forgive me for doing the same and suggesting that sometimes it's better not to have an ally than to have one that's more liability than anything else.

    I really have no problem with Nawaz at all, I have the impression that he's a very intelligent and well-spoken man, and I quite fancy that. I do want to wish him the best and I would like to support his cause and I'd be thrilled if his way of reforming Islam worked--but look at this as what it is. Some of us have casually spoken of Nawaz as though it was obvious he was someone kind of working for the cause from the inside without much religious conviction. I've also personally wondered this myself, having been guilty of trying to work that angle before. I mean, a lot of us don't buy it, right? And how many Muslims do you think buy it?

    It's unfortunate that he's being associated with big-name atheists now. If he had a chance of reforming Islam to a broad extent, rubbing elbows with Sam Harris et al obliterates it, in my opinion. It shouldn't, but it does. It's politics, man.

    And Cato, wherever he is now, is obviously angry and obviously has been using pretty broad terms, but there's truth at the foundation of what he says. And Sam Harris and all these other guys really might be 100% right in every single thing that they say, but sometimes your followers and your supporters define you in a situation like this. And some of the followers and supporters of these individuals are just not helping.

    Sometimes it's better to not have an ally than one that's a liability. Sometimes, to be effective, you have to speak your own message, be discerning when welcoming and offering support, and sometimes you even have to stand alone.

    And nhbh, yes, they may all be in Connecticut. Lord knows if there's no big, prominent public figures you've heard of, they don't actually exist in the wild. We're lucky some people came forward to become public apostates and invent the sentiment so that the rest of us could finally leave Islam.  grin12
  • The Self-Invention of Maajid Nawaz
     Reply #174 - March 13, 2016, 04:43 PM

    let me repeat that
    I finally have a PC again
    I'm ecstatic.
    I really have no problem with Nawaz .
    rubbing elbows with Sam Harris
    It's politics, man.

    And Cato  the angry guy
    uses pretty broad terms,
    but there's truth in what he says.
    I  have a PC again
    I'm ecstatic

    And  you Sam Harris
    you guys may be 100% right
    every time and all the time  
    but your followers your supporters
    are not  just helping you cause.
    I  have a PC I'm ecstatic

    Have an ally make them liable.
    be effective, speak your own message,
    stand alone and build the bridges.
    I have a PC
    I'm ecstatic

    And nhbh stop..
    stop it....
    go  Connecticut,
    be a big public figure
    I have a PC
    I'm ecstatic

    We're lucky  with these.apostates
    and we're  lucky  with these apoproteins  
    they have no bosses
    no central figure
    no rule books  and
    no morals from a book
    I have a PC
     I'm ecstatic

    So lua got a PC and turned in to PC??   That is not good and on top of that she is  ecstatic with PC??   I don't like it and sure many guys who read her will hate that PC... well moderators have to be  PCs., it is not her fault.

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • The Self-Invention of Maajid Nawaz
     Reply #175 - March 13, 2016, 04:47 PM

    ...woah.
  • The Self-Invention of Maajid Nawaz
     Reply #176 - March 13, 2016, 04:52 PM

    ...woah.

    lua   STOP..BEING  PC  

    So Amriki girl  whom are you voting?   Elect that  oold  Jewish guy please.. make this world little better than what it is..

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • The Self-Invention of Maajid Nawaz
     Reply #177 - March 13, 2016, 04:52 PM

    ITT: found object freestyling.
  • The Self-Invention of Maajid Nawaz
     Reply #178 - March 13, 2016, 05:10 PM

    Wow, I didn't expect this news thread to be the most active.

    Maajid Nawaz must be yo' boy. grin12

    "Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but of playing a poor hand well."
    - Robert Louis Stevenson
  • The Self-Invention of Maajid Nawaz
     Reply #179 - March 13, 2016, 05:21 PM

    Maajid Nawaz and progressive/reformist muslims keep saying that we need to push progressive islam because its not realistic to get people to drop religion.


    hmm. Ok explain to me why exmuslim groups have become far more larger and more numerous in the west than progressive muslim groups even though public progressive muslims have been around longer.

    Reformist liberal muslims have always been a fringe movement and will continue to remain a fringe movement.


    What is going to grow are people to simply don't care enough about religion to identify as exmuslims or progressive muslims.

    Our job as exmuslims is to grow large enough and vocal enough to allow that global apathy about religion to flourish.

    In my opinion a life without curiosity is not a life worth living
  • Previous page 1 ... 4 5 67 8 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »