Hang on, the claim that Sam made was that a survey found that no Muslims in Britain were prepared to say that homosexuality was “morally acceptable”.
The survey that you suggests rebuts this finds that 52% (only!) think that it should be “illegal” It is important to note three things.
a) this is not addressing the same question
b) both the 0% from Sam and the 52% from Channel 4 can be true at the same time it is quite possible for people to think something wrong and yet not want to criminalise it.
c) The original claim by iiandyiiii was to do with Pakistani attitudes, not the UK. I don’t think that the data shown by Pew (which is the best we have) backs up that claim.
As usual he “thinks” wrong, but he is an ignorant pompous idiot who likes to parrot uncritically podcasts of his heros.
The core of the old caliphate (so we can say the classic middle east) remained majority non muslim (and even non abrahamic) through to after the period of the Crusades, for the 700 to 800 years as the death records show in the various studies, after the Islamic conquests.
No Christian power prior to the age of the secularism had such a track record.
There was almost no “convert or die” in fact, the Islamic authorities in fact were reluctant to allow conversion - it is in fact why the Ummayyidine even fell, the tax base was better when the population was non muslim as the effective taxation rates raisable by the governments were moderately higher that way.
With the pretext of the clear statement “no compulsion in religion” and the direct interest for the better tax basis, the areas islamicized after conquests were never converted by convert or die, it went against the interests of the elite.
It was, as the actual death records show, the slow drip drip drip of the conversions over generations
I doubt that last … no it is very doubtful indeed.
It is easy enough to find the irreligious in the central asia, I suppose if I spoke Bahasa I might find such things elsewhere.
The Islamic world contrary to your western imaginings is not all the Saudi Arabia.
Of course Athiest Clubs are a stupid point of evaluation, you will not find such prevalent among the developing Christian nations either.
Indeed, the idea one can take the effectiveness of a border wall based on the East Germans which applied a deep police state and threatened the families on both sides of the wall to discourage and prevent…
Well this just shows that such a person is a stupid lazy ignorant. Ah but it is the OP, so it is our default understanding.
It is not far off. Hating someone for a characteristic over which they have no control is the bedrock of human stupidity and bigotry and a person that out of touch with humanity is likely to fall victim to whatever flavour of “othering” is doing the rounds.
Where it gets messy though is when a person’s freely chosen beliefs (political, religious, philosophical…the source is irrelevant) manifest as a negative impact on someone else. Then that person and that belief is absolutely fair game.
Hating the Catholic Church in Ireland because of their political position is absolutely a defensible stand. Hating an individual Catholic because of their support of that position and active attempts to implement policies in line with it? again, absolutely fine, that is not bigotry.
My understanding is that under Islamic law, the Jews and Christians (People of the Book) are permitted to exist if they pay the Jizya, the special protection tax. They were classified as Dhimmi. Since you seem to be such an expert on such matters, tell us all about Dhimmitude. Were they free and equal citizens of the Caliphate alongside the Muslims, or were they second class citizens?
The old Islamic law extended the legal protection - the literal meaning of the word dhimma [dhal, mim mim] is theparticile of the verb to protect, it means The Protected - to all the subjects including the optionality to access the Islamic courts or to use their own courts.
Since the idea of first class and second class citizens was one not existing when this developed it is not relevant. The comparison to the status of the same time period chez the christian countries for the non christian never mind the non believer in the Abrahamic religion.
Since at the least the 19th century and early 20th century legal reforms in the arabe region, adopting the code civil for the governing of the nationalities laws, the court systems make the concept no longer relevant at all and has not been for more than one century and even more in many places. (and is hardly different from the evolutions seen elsewhere outside of the western european states of the France and the United kingdom in the respect even to their christian minorities but not of the right flavors of the christians).
From the late 18th century and early 19th century the ‘capitulations’ in the realms of the Ottomans had already made most of these carved out for large classes of the non christian subjects.
As for the bigot term Dhimmitude continue to use it as you like it is a term from the bigots.
But it is noted well your expected “delight” is completely fake posturing.
and for the added info, the Ottomans in the decree of 1856 as part of the Tanzimat reforms abolished the millet system and put the citizens on the civil code basis.
The emancipation of the Catholic christians in the UK, the year 1829, the jews, 1858…
(and I correct this mistake in writing " for large classes of the non christian subjects." it should read “the christian subjects.”)
An immense government project that is a huge “waste of money” and won’t even “ever get finished” is not something that should be just shrugged off by taxpayers as “relatively harmless”.
How did we get to the point where letting Republicans waste literally billions of dollars on projects that are massively impractical, pointless and stupid is recommended as something that Democrats ought to just accept without overt complaint?
Sam then goes to run with that as if only demaguoges are telling the truth about the absolutism of the Muslims in Britain. But that, as usual with the racist right, is not the whole truth. The whole truth is that close to half, and more as time goes by, are learning that bit about separation of church and state.
And that was the point indeed, if the argument had been about most old time religions then I would agree (as I have seen worse numbers about how evangelicals approve of homosexuality or want to make it or to keep it illegal), as you noted, as long as they do learn what it means to follow the law and understand that they do live now in a society that knows about the separation of church and state, then it does not matters much what they wish. Particularly when others do notice that attitudes are changing for the better, among Muslims in western nations.
We are seriously going to cite Turkey as the example of tolerance of atheism in the Muslim world? I suspect it probably is the least intolerant of all Muslim majority countries, but that in itself is a pretty sad statement:
“Oh, but that was in 2015.” :rolleyes:
ORLY? :dubious: Sam talked about Muslim attitudes toward homosexuality in a long list of countries; your “rebuttal” cites a survey in a single country not on that list. :smack:
In fairness though, I do think Novelty Bubble misread your comment.
Imagine that I handed you device with a red button. Upon pressing this button every single practicing Muslim and all of their children are instantly and painlessly killed. The bodies are vaporized and there are no remains to be dealt with. Let’s also say all physical media about Islam (Quran, etc.) is also destroyed and online versions get irrecoverably corrupted.
This effectively removes Islam from the face of the Earth, but every few years or so you can press the button again to take care of any converts etc.
Do you press the button? If not, would like someone else to? Do you think this would lead to a better Earth?
No, I responded to a very specific claim that Sam Harris was either wrong or using a very poor source.
There was very little other comment to respond to in that post as most of it was cut and paste and what was cut and pasted did not back up the claim being made nor contradict what Harris wrote.
Yes we ar eseriously going to cite the Turkey on the factual**** existence of the athiest club able to be identified with the ten secods on the internet.
If the button made them forget all about Islam, I’d press it without hesitation. But no, I’m not out to commit mass murder on an unprecedented scale, thanks but no thanks.
I’m about halfway through the new podcast episode, and Sam has just raised the point that the left does not object when he criticizes Christianity; in fact, many tend to applaud him. This is such a basic double standard I’m not sure we have even addressed it here. It doesn’t even make sense if you believe (which I do not) that it’s uniquely okay to slag on white people or “stuff white people like”. The majority of Christians are not non-Hispanic whites. So what gives?
I’ll you an equally facile question. If you were setting up a society today and had the choice of having run in accordance with one of the main religious texts or the concepts of Secular Humanism and the enlightenment, which would you choose and why?