Difference between revisions of "Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations"

Dawkins, 74, author of best-seller The God Delusion, told the New Statesmen's Emad Ahmed that his belief was "pathetic" before angrily storming off.^[7]

“I think Islam is the greatest force for evil in the world today. I’ve said so, often and loudly. What are you talking about?” he Tweeted to one follower in March.

The greatest force for evil? How is that even quantifiable and what constitutes evil? For a scientist, Dawkins rarely provides any qualification, context or evidence for his hypotheses. He doesn’t often give names or reveal identities that could help us better understand exactly whom it is that he targets. But that’s beside the point because to Dawkins, they are just “Muslims,” not fathers, sons, daughters, mothers, bankers, lawyers or doctors. They’re not informed by any other identity that makes them complex human beings; it’s “Islam” that always animates these faceless people.^[9]

Dawkins's critics and supporters immediately pounced on his comments, with some condemning his Islam-cancer comparison and others defending him as an equal-opportunity offender who labels all religions as malignant. However, the Oxford emeritus fellow has often reserved his most provocative criticism for Islam, repeatedly finding himself accused of anti-Muslim bigotry by Western academics, pro-Islam advocates and some atheists.^[10]

“Oh, that’s their culture, you have to respect it,” Dawkins said mockingly.

“That’s right! That’s what they say. It’s just insane,” Maher said, swooning.

“Liberal about everything else, but then this one exception, ‘It’s their culture.’ Well, to hell with their culture,” Dawkins concluded, to a storm of applause and a passionate yelp of approval from Maher.^[11]

He admitted that he has "mixed feelings" concerning the decline of Christianity, because this faith-based group might just be "a bulwark against something worse."^[17]

He published an open letter in response to the cancellation, which stated: “The idea that I have engaged in abusive speech against Islam is preposterous, which even the most rudimentary fact-checking by KPFA would have made clear.

“I have indeed strongly condemned the misogyny, homophobia, and violence of Islamism, of which Muslims — particularly Muslim women — are the prime victims. I make no apologies for denouncing those oppressive cruelties, and I will continue to do so.”...

He has been branded “Islamophobic” by those who have taken offence to his remarks about the world’s second largest religion, which he has called the “greatest force for evil today”.^[19]

After a few minutes of mockery, the tweet was deleted. Perhaps even he realised how utterly mad it was. Which suggests a degree of self-awareness that I didn’t think possible in Britain’s nuttiest professor.^[20]

The resurgence of religion is a worldwide development. Russian Orthodoxy is stronger than it has been for over a century, while China is the scene of a reawakening of its indigenous faiths and of underground movements that could make it the largest Christian country in the world by the end of this century. Despite tentative shifts in opinion that have been hailed as evidence it is becoming less pious, the US remains massively and pervasively religious – it’s inconceivable that a professed unbeliever could become president, for example. It’s inconceivable that a professed unbeliever could become president of the United States

For secular thinkers, the continuing vitality of religion calls into question the belief that history underpins their values. To be sure, there is disagreement as to the nature of these values. But pretty well all secular thinkers now take for granted that modern societies must in the end converge on some version of liberalism. Never well founded, this assumption is today clearly unreasonable.^[23]

The attacks on 9/11 where primarily caused by Islamic extremism (with a long list of other causes such as maintenance or gaining of power, wealth, popularity, etc.). The question is: what have the New Atheists done in response to this particular event, this particular threat? Surely, they would focus their efforts primarily, if not exclusively, upon confronting this threat, this cause, head on.

Yet, what have the New Atheists done? What they have and have not done makes one wonder if their appeal to 9/11 is a reason or an excuse. After all, why 9/11? Are they not aware of similar atrocities throughout history? Are they not aware of the recent chronicles of the most secular century in human history also being the bloodiest-with millions upon millions being murdered not only during war, but also by their own regimes? (see here).

Have any of the New Atheists toured Islamic countries giving lectures in which they condemn Allah, Muhammad, Islam, or Muslims? Have any of them debated Muslims in Islamic countries? Have any of them been interviewed on Al Jazeera? Have any of them written entire books in which they condemn Allah, Muhammad, Islam, or Muslims? Have they done anything of the sort at all? The answers to all of the above are: "No." Rather, what they have done is sit within the comfort and safety of countries based on Christian principles and conveniently launched condemnations which are roughly quantifiable as being 90% anti-Christian and 10% anti-other religions (and this may be being too generous an estimation).^[24]

Mr. Blumner said that the pro-atheist organization does tremendous good for women's equality and the civil rights of Muslims, as well as spreads humanist values in the United States and abroad.

"In just the last handful of years we have been at the forefront of the major civil justice causes of our time. It is why in 2015 we were the only secularist group to be invited to join the Know Your Neighbor interfaith coalition, launched at the White House. It is why we were a proud and welcome participant in the Women's March on Washington in January," Mr. Blumner told Sputnik.^[25]

"Most devout Muslims are creationists so when you go to schools, there are a large number of children of Islamic parents who trot out what they have been taught," Prof Dawkins said in a Sunday newspaper interview.

"Teachers are bending over backwards to respect home prejudices that children have been brought up with. The Government could do more, but it doesn't want to because it is fanatical about multiculturalism and the need to respect the different traditions from which these children come."^[26]