Nine years after Ben Affleck accused Bill Maher and Sam Harris of being "gross" and "racist" for criticizing Islam, Sam Harris engaged in a frustrating 90-minute debate with Rory Stewart on the same topic. Rory, armed with a posh British accent and constant appeals to authority, managed to sound reasonable while insisting that basic statistical inference would be an epistemic mistake when discussing Islam.
The usual absolutions by western apologists for Islam totally ignore the justifications provided by the religious books for violence, male domination, punishing women and discrimination against other religions. While carrying out the Mumbai terror attacks, the terrorists were constantly being fed with the promise of martyrdom and a fast track to paradise by their handlers over satellite phones - and the only motivating tool deployed to convince those young men was religion.
Vaish’s call to moderates to speak out is a courageous one. But for a Muslim moderate to speak out will require state protection, which is hard to provide even in liberal Western societies. The human rights movement in the West fails to acknowledge the majority of the reasons for Islamic extremism come from a literal interpretation of Islamic teachings. The flow of funds to the seminaries through the practice of Zakat from Iran, Wahabbis of Saudi Arabia and Qatar is the primary reason for the explosion of fundamentalist Islamic teachings. Even before the moderates can react, the Western states need to curb the flow of these funds from their countries to these seminaries. But these transactions are only increasing. The militants in Gaza now have a modern fighting machine and a war chest of Billions of dollars. Until this funding machine is dismantled, any amount of protest by moderates will be of little effect in changing the attitudes toward religious fundamentalism in Islamic countries.
Just yesterday I saw an old television show about Theo van Gogh, where they played an audio clip from his murderer. People assume he was insulted by Theo’s work, but he dispelled this assumption, saying “I am not insulted. I acted out of belief.” Such individuals take it upon themselves as a necessary effort of war, a contribution to the world (but mostly themselves). I suspect, like Theo, that this conflict (over freedom of speech) may endure for some time to come.
In other words I have no desire to denigrate the religion in some metaphysical way. I just see it as a relevant variable that’s more than useful in diagnosing threats to western liberalism
This is may be one of the scariest things I’ve ever read. I have thought about October 7 obsessively (and unhealthily) since it happened and I honestly didn’t think there was anything new for me to learn. But man, this is really cooking my noodle right now. The incentives here must be so much powerful than anything Westerners can fully understand.
“Hamas was able to mobilize over 1,000 people within Gaza's population of 2 million to embark on a suicide mission aimed at murdering Israeli civilians. The annual homicide rate in Gaza is a mere 0.8 per 100,000 people, and the suicide attempt rate hovers around 20 per 100,000. If you apply these rates to Gaza's population, you'd expect about 16 homicides and 400 suicide attempts in a typical year. Most suicidal people certainly aren’t homicidal and most homicides aren’t committed by people who would kill themselves or random strangers. In any given year, in the absence of religious justification, we might expect a handful of citizens that would be capable of suicide AND murder in its most gruesome forms.”
I would only criticize your use of the official statistics out of Palestine. Those stats are collected based on criteria of Hamas. Honor killings are permissible by law and thus would not be counted in the statistics. There is also a very low enforcement rate of crime in general that leads to deflated numbers. Suicide is also highly stigmatized and thus we can suspect it to be underreported.
I would be suspect of any analysis based on these numbers, particularly if you are comparing them to western countries with much better reporting and very different laws.
Zionism is a far worse problem. While militant islamism is a threat, as long as we leave them alone with their views on their countries and do go crazy importing people that have completely different world views into our society, we would probably be all fine.
What this article really makes me wonder is: What is going on with secular English-speakers that we need someone to hold our hand and gently, carefully, thoroughly, explain to us that drawing obvious inferences about people can sometimes, occasionally, despite the way it may seem, be OK?
Most people who aren't scared of drawing obvious conclusions are naturally going to suspect that a religion advocating men beating their wives and subjugating members of other religions militarily is going to increase the endorsement of these attitudes among its adherents. It's a suspicion worth checking, sure - and then you check it and find, yep, OK, %Muslim explains 16% of national violence rates, and 20% of women's (lack of) civil liberties.
But then something really interesting happens. Because then we need to rush to say "Muslims are diverse, heterogeneous" people, and they're not all the same.
Yes, not all Muslims are the same. Absolutely. Not all rabbits or bears are the same, either - but do we really need to engage in a long conversation about why a grizzly may not make as good a house pet as a Holland Lop? If we do need this conversation, something is very wrong with us.
The fact that your post needed to be written at all should tell all the secular English speakers that Something Really Is Very Wrong With Us.
I heard this whole debate and I lost count of how many times Stewart fell back on the fallacy of there being “many Islams” - lefties fall back on this all the time because if you can’t define something you can’t critique it. It’s lazy postmodernist argumentation. Bravo for saying it out loud. Idk if you consider yourself “desi” in the broad sense, but those of us from Hindu (practicing or not) get as much shit as white people for being critical of Islam, but none of these people have good arguments. If I had been Harris I’d have gone off on him for being such a bad debater.
Excellent work breaking down fallacies and accusations of Islamophobia. There are aspects that should be scaring the shit out of us, at least those of us who enjoy freedoms.
I agree that moderate Muslims need internal and external support to make Islamic extremism and tyranny go out of style fast. Thank you for your incredible analysis.
> We decimated Al-Qaeda’s leadership and infrastructure, and stopped ISIS in its tracks, precisely because we took this threat seriously.
Er, ok. Although I remember the US being late to that party and of course it was supportive of radical Islamists from the beginning in Syria, as in Libya. Both states were/are run by secular leadership, Just as Hamas winning a war against Israel (as unlikely as that is) would be genocidal, so too would the rebels supported by the US winning in Syria be genocidal.
As for Iran, Hezbollah has mostly fought Sunni radicals - like Isis or al Queda. The US on the other hand has sided with the Saudis in Yemen against Iranian proxies, this isn’t being neutral on radical Sunni Islamism but rather in favour with it. On the side of it. This has been the case since the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.
There may be such a thing as a moderate Muslim, but there is no moderation in Islam, and the practitioners of Islam all share common goals. The moderate Muslim may demur on tactics... but not on the goals.
Excellent piece on a difficult topic.
Brilliant piece.
The usual absolutions by western apologists for Islam totally ignore the justifications provided by the religious books for violence, male domination, punishing women and discrimination against other religions. While carrying out the Mumbai terror attacks, the terrorists were constantly being fed with the promise of martyrdom and a fast track to paradise by their handlers over satellite phones - and the only motivating tool deployed to convince those young men was religion.
I love having a platform that lets me randomly stumble across writing of this quality and clarity.
Subscribed, looking forward to more from you.
Vaish’s call to moderates to speak out is a courageous one. But for a Muslim moderate to speak out will require state protection, which is hard to provide even in liberal Western societies. The human rights movement in the West fails to acknowledge the majority of the reasons for Islamic extremism come from a literal interpretation of Islamic teachings. The flow of funds to the seminaries through the practice of Zakat from Iran, Wahabbis of Saudi Arabia and Qatar is the primary reason for the explosion of fundamentalist Islamic teachings. Even before the moderates can react, the Western states need to curb the flow of these funds from their countries to these seminaries. But these transactions are only increasing. The militants in Gaza now have a modern fighting machine and a war chest of Billions of dollars. Until this funding machine is dismantled, any amount of protest by moderates will be of little effect in changing the attitudes toward religious fundamentalism in Islamic countries.
Just yesterday I saw an old television show about Theo van Gogh, where they played an audio clip from his murderer. People assume he was insulted by Theo’s work, but he dispelled this assumption, saying “I am not insulted. I acted out of belief.” Such individuals take it upon themselves as a necessary effort of war, a contribution to the world (but mostly themselves). I suspect, like Theo, that this conflict (over freedom of speech) may endure for some time to come.
In other words I have no desire to denigrate the religion in some metaphysical way. I just see it as a relevant variable that’s more than useful in diagnosing threats to western liberalism
This is may be one of the scariest things I’ve ever read. I have thought about October 7 obsessively (and unhealthily) since it happened and I honestly didn’t think there was anything new for me to learn. But man, this is really cooking my noodle right now. The incentives here must be so much powerful than anything Westerners can fully understand.
“Hamas was able to mobilize over 1,000 people within Gaza's population of 2 million to embark on a suicide mission aimed at murdering Israeli civilians. The annual homicide rate in Gaza is a mere 0.8 per 100,000 people, and the suicide attempt rate hovers around 20 per 100,000. If you apply these rates to Gaza's population, you'd expect about 16 homicides and 400 suicide attempts in a typical year. Most suicidal people certainly aren’t homicidal and most homicides aren’t committed by people who would kill themselves or random strangers. In any given year, in the absence of religious justification, we might expect a handful of citizens that would be capable of suicide AND murder in its most gruesome forms.”
I would only criticize your use of the official statistics out of Palestine. Those stats are collected based on criteria of Hamas. Honor killings are permissible by law and thus would not be counted in the statistics. There is also a very low enforcement rate of crime in general that leads to deflated numbers. Suicide is also highly stigmatized and thus we can suspect it to be underreported.
I would be suspect of any analysis based on these numbers, particularly if you are comparing them to western countries with much better reporting and very different laws.
Zionism is a far worse problem. While militant islamism is a threat, as long as we leave them alone with their views on their countries and do go crazy importing people that have completely different world views into our society, we would probably be all fine.
I’m having trouble following why you think religion is motivating Hamas’s zeal on October 7 rather than vengeance.
Their usual murder rate is low because they don’t have Israelis to victimize on an average day
What this article really makes me wonder is: What is going on with secular English-speakers that we need someone to hold our hand and gently, carefully, thoroughly, explain to us that drawing obvious inferences about people can sometimes, occasionally, despite the way it may seem, be OK?
Most people who aren't scared of drawing obvious conclusions are naturally going to suspect that a religion advocating men beating their wives and subjugating members of other religions militarily is going to increase the endorsement of these attitudes among its adherents. It's a suspicion worth checking, sure - and then you check it and find, yep, OK, %Muslim explains 16% of national violence rates, and 20% of women's (lack of) civil liberties.
But then something really interesting happens. Because then we need to rush to say "Muslims are diverse, heterogeneous" people, and they're not all the same.
Yes, not all Muslims are the same. Absolutely. Not all rabbits or bears are the same, either - but do we really need to engage in a long conversation about why a grizzly may not make as good a house pet as a Holland Lop? If we do need this conversation, something is very wrong with us.
The fact that your post needed to be written at all should tell all the secular English speakers that Something Really Is Very Wrong With Us.
I heard this whole debate and I lost count of how many times Stewart fell back on the fallacy of there being “many Islams” - lefties fall back on this all the time because if you can’t define something you can’t critique it. It’s lazy postmodernist argumentation. Bravo for saying it out loud. Idk if you consider yourself “desi” in the broad sense, but those of us from Hindu (practicing or not) get as much shit as white people for being critical of Islam, but none of these people have good arguments. If I had been Harris I’d have gone off on him for being such a bad debater.
Excellent work breaking down fallacies and accusations of Islamophobia. There are aspects that should be scaring the shit out of us, at least those of us who enjoy freedoms.
I agree that moderate Muslims need internal and external support to make Islamic extremism and tyranny go out of style fast. Thank you for your incredible analysis.
> We decimated Al-Qaeda’s leadership and infrastructure, and stopped ISIS in its tracks, precisely because we took this threat seriously.
Er, ok. Although I remember the US being late to that party and of course it was supportive of radical Islamists from the beginning in Syria, as in Libya. Both states were/are run by secular leadership, Just as Hamas winning a war against Israel (as unlikely as that is) would be genocidal, so too would the rebels supported by the US winning in Syria be genocidal.
As for Iran, Hezbollah has mostly fought Sunni radicals - like Isis or al Queda. The US on the other hand has sided with the Saudis in Yemen against Iranian proxies, this isn’t being neutral on radical Sunni Islamism but rather in favour with it. On the side of it. This has been the case since the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.
Brilliant and clinical.
There may be such a thing as a moderate Muslim, but there is no moderation in Islam, and the practitioners of Islam all share common goals. The moderate Muslim may demur on tactics... but not on the goals.