You could say I’m agreeing with you that if Sam were driven primarily by tribalism, he would be more often wrong than right.

I am not sure I understand your logic.

Just because someone is more often right than wrong on something, it doesn’t mean they cannot be wrong about something.

James Watson is more often right than wrong on genetics and biology. However, he is wrong when he suggests that Africans are less intelligent than “whites”.

Nah, that’s wrong for two reasons. First, it suggests they could remedy their own situation, but there are plenty like Aslan who are happy to misrepresent any criticism of Islam. Second, Sam is more often right than wrong, despite his rather large blind spot in this area.

Well, that’s the reason Sam Harris and the other “New Atheists” are called Islamophobes. It isn’t because any criticism of Islam is Islamophobia, it is because their criticism is driven by tribalism and when it comes to Islam, they are willing to overlook the complexities of things and overplay the role of religion in many of the bad things that happen in the Muslim world.

What frustrates me is that Sam won’t even really engage on this topic. I had an email exchange with him once where he just went quiet when certain points were made.

I recently watched all three hours of Sam’s discussion with Cenk Uygur. Here too I found I was usually in agreement with Sam, except when it came to the role of politics as a cause of terrorism against the west.

Sam seems happy to all but ignore the 20th century history of western intervention in the middle east, the oppression and millions of lives lost or displaced, as somehow unimportant to the reasonably recent radicalisation of some peoples there, leading to the backlash we see now (even though he was happy to cite a history of Arab attacks on Christians as motivation for the Crusades).

In particular, Sam used al Qaeda’s desire to rid the Arabian peninsula of US troops as an example of their religious motivations. When I wrote to Sam I used this example to make the exact opposite point.

Osama bin Laden gave three reasons for 9/11: the million or more innocents that died in Iraq due to sanctions, at least half of which were children; US support of Israeli oppression of Palestinians; and ridding the holy land of US troops. Only the last of these is religious, and I would say it has a strong political dimension as well, given bin Laden also said his goal re 9/11 was to provoke an over-reaction from the US that would destabilise corrupt middle east govts, like Saudi. And other two are almost entirely political. Yet Sam ignores these statements that don’t fit his meme in favour of the last which (partly) does. In our email exchange, he never responded to this point.

It is Sam who always says we should believe what people say their motivations are, yet he won’t even engage to refute the first two of these statements in favour of the third.

I also told Sam that, as an atheist, I was drawn to his writings on religion because of his eloquence and often exquisitely expressed logic. So when he fails to apply the same logic to his own claims I find it more difficult to defend him as much as I’d like. Very frustrating, because he actually provides those like Aslan a legitimate argument to use against him, obscuring the fact that much of what Aslan says is not legitamate.

Hi Heather,

Thanks for clarifying. Yes, I would agree with you that conservative forms of religion do tend to lead to a view of the world where there is less scope for tolerating others, and hence more violence.

Hi again AU. I do agree that there are many people who lead better lives, and have reformed their lives because of religion, including Islam. I don’t personally think there is a direct link between Salafism and violence, and I hope I didn’t imply that in my article. There are always other factors in play too. I do however think that a combination of conservatism and any religion is a bad one, and although I don’t know for sure, I suspect a stronger link between conservative forms of Islam and violence than between moderate Islam and violence.

I agree with you that Islam can make people do bad things – you can have a decent person, who, because of Islam, does bad things. Of that there is no doubt. Similarly, you can have a bad person, who because of Islam, does good things. Of that there is also no doubt. And you can also have what Aslan says – that a good person interprets Islam liberally because they are a good person, and a bad person interprets Islam in an extreme and bad manner because they are a bad person.

As for your comment that “Those teaching Salafism/Wahhabism are inspiring people to commit atrocious acts”. Salafism doesn’t automatically equate violence. Salafis follow a very conservative brand of Islam – yet you have Salafis who are against violent Jihad. The term you should be using is Takfiris – this is what al-Qaeda and ISIS are.

Think of it this way – all English are Brits, but not all Brits are English e.g. some are Scots, Welsh. Similarly, almost all Takfiris are Salafis, but not all Salafis are Takfiris.

I think you are raising some important points, but it is equally important that you present an unbiased view and get things factually correct, otherwise your blog will be considered by many as just another “Islamophobic blog”.

At least you are allowing comments that are not 100% in agreement with you – that to me is the first sign that you are not an Islamophobe. Sadly, there are a couple of sites that did not allow my comments before, including one by one of the “New Atheists” you mention in your article.