I can’t figure out whether Emma Green and Shadi Hamid are providing an incompetent interviewer’s apologism for Islam, and an Islamist’s propaganda, or they have colluded to show Islam to be the violent authoritarian political religion it is.
This is about the UK referendum on EU membership. It’ll meander back an forth across some issues as it’s more an ideas and concerns barf than a rational argument aimed to persuade, so apologies if it’s a chaotic and incoherent at times. These are the issues that I hear people talking about; issues about populations, migration and sovereignty that are easier to understand than the economic ones that even the ‘experts’ can’t give clear answers to.
Jew hating indoctrination of children in schools – all religiously validated, of course. That wouldn’t happen today. Would it? Even after this in the 1930’s …?
Already in grade school, we were told that the Jews were evil because they did not believe in Christ and that they were “Jesus killers. … One of my teachers was a member of the “Waffen SS” and I can remember when he came to school in uniform with the imprint on his belt buckle, “Gott ist mit uns” (God is with us). He was very strict and attendance of the Wednesday afternoon Hitler Youth meetings were just as important as school attendance.
Mmmmm. His dedication is a bit like praying five times a day.
So, a Muslim, a scholar, Hamed Abdel-Samad, expresses an opinion on Islam. He’s condemned to death and has to live under constant protection, from members of his own religion. Thereby proving the points he and others make about their religion.
It’s disappointing to see someone perpetuate unfounded agendas, especially in a magazine one would like to think better of. There are a few different respects in which John Horgan’s Scientific American articles is lost in his personal agenda and that of others. If you know some of the background, this stuff leaps from the page as you read. Continue reading John Horgan And Agendas→
I’d like to address the bull shit that is passed off as reasons for thinking the Quran is a fine book, that it represents a religion of peace, that it’s all for freeing slaves, that blah blah blah … you know the score.
Cummins writes an article I think misrepresents Bloom.
I criticise that, I think without hysteria. I don’t especially make Blooms case, but point out what I see as a misreading of it. I even open with a questioning stance, in case I’m missing something.
Cummins responds with what I think is fair to call an overly defensive moralising agenda driven reply with what amounts to the accusations of immoral motives for criticising empathy; a non-too-well disguised ad hominem loaded comment. She responds in a similar fashion to others, more condescendingly to some.
I call out her rhetoric in a follow up comment.
Cummins deletes that comment of mine.
Cummins doctors her comment to remove much of the ad hominem content.
I comment on the doctoring, in the comment stream. That comment soon vanishes.
I write again, this time sticking to the points about Bloom, addressing the doctored comments in 6.
Cummins responds calling my now vanished comments ‘hysterical rants’, citing a ‘normative’ comment policy that she doesn’t stick to herself.
Paul Bloom has been pushing for some time the idea that empathy can be troublesome. I don’t think Bloom says anywhere that empathy is totally bad news. The point he is making is that in many crucial examples it seems empathy overpowers our rationality and leads us to make bad decisions. Continue reading Paul Bloom Misrepresented→
The lack of an authoritative source, other than the texts, makes pretty much anyone a specialist on Islam, and at the very same time an ignorant fool. Don’t worry, the irony of me presenting a breakdown of Islam isn’t lost on me. Islam is a crazy world. Welcome to it. No. really, you’re welcome to it.
A question put to me has finally prompted me to write this post, because the inevitable demand for a ‘brief’ explanation of my view simply cannot be met:
On the one hand you say you understand the difference between Islam and Islamism. On the other you speak about “Islam” as if it is a violent ideology that compels its followers to violence — as if there is no difference between Islamism and Islam. I’m confused.
Islam is a violent ideology that compels Muslims to violence – just not all the time and against all people, and this is where apparent contradictions come in. They seem like contradictions only if you buy into the sales pitch that Islam is a religion of peace.
The inerrancy of the Quran is explicit and accepted by all Muslims I’ve ever come across and read about – except for reformists. And some sects of Islam, like Ahmadiyya, emphasise peace more than others.