Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - The Unquestionable Idea

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 26, 2017 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

12:12

The Unquestionable Idea

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Until they get to that age, it's the parents' responsibility and punished.
	You may not share that.
	And I think that's an important point that you don't want to discuss.
	What is the penalty that you fail to discuss?
	And that's why you've got those prejudicial views about faith.
	What is the penalty for apostasy?
	What do you teach the children will happen to them if they give up the Muslim faith?
	Well, let's bring the debate back into British.
	What is the penalty for apostasy?
	Dr. Mukadam, what is the penalty for apostasy?
	Before we keep coming down this apostasy.
	Give us a quick answer on what are the penalties of Islamic country.
	You very well know if it's an Islamic country, then the Sharia is very clear.
	Apostrophe is dealt with the death penalty.
	Thank you.
	Richard Dawkins has long been a vociferous critic of religion in general and Islam in particular.
	So it came as a great surprise to me to learn that he had been deplatformed this week for being a vociferous critic of Islam.
	It's very difficult to believe that a radio or TV station could book Richard Dawkins for an interview and not be aware of his long history of criticizing religion and again Islam in particular.
	But I personally found the reason for his deplatforming to be the most disturbing aspect.
	Dawkins' event was cancelled over his quote abusive speech against Islam.
	This came in the wake of Dawkins' study of evolution, The Selfish Gene, being named the most influential science book of all time by the Royal Society.
	As he was lined up to speak about his memoir, A Brief Candle in the Dark at an event hosted by Berkeley's KPFA radio station.
	KPFA Radio put out a statement to Richard Dawkins' event ticket buyers saying, We regret to inform you that KPFA has cancelled the event with Richard Dawkins.
	We had booked this event based entirely on his excellent new book on science when we didn't know he had offended and hurt, in his tweets and other comments on Islam, so many people.
	KPFA does not endorse hurtful speech.
	While KPFA emphatically supports serious free speech, we do not support abuse of speech.
	We apologise for not having had a broader knowledge of Dawkins' views much earlier.
	We also apologise to all those inconveniences by this cancellation.
	I personally find this very difficult to believe.
	And if it's true, I think it reflects very poorly on KPFA for simply being uninformed about their own guests.
	Podcaster Stephen Knight caught up with Richard Dawkins, and this is what he had to say in a very short interview with him.
	It's not a speech that's a dish, it's freedom to listen.
	I mean people had bought tickets to come and hear me talk about my book Science in the Soul.
	And they've been sent their tickets back and on really quite absurd grounds, which is that I said something that was abusive.
	Abusive speech to Islam.
	I've never said anything abusive.
	All I've done is point out the truth, which is that Islam is, like all other religions, is false.
	And I said this in uncertain terms about Christianity, about all religions.
	Somehow Islam is given special treatment by what's been called the regressive left.
	And I think it's just bad taste.
	It's not illegal, it's just bad taste.
	Richard Dawkins also published this statement.
	My memory of KPFA is that you were unusually scrupulous about fact-checking.
	I especially admire your habit of always quoting sources.
	You conspicuously did not quote a source when accusing me of abusive speech.
	Why didn't you check your facts or at least have the common courtesy to alert me before summarily cancelling my event?
	If you had consulted me or if you'd done even rudimentary fact-checking, you would have concluded that I have never used abusive speech against Islam.
	I have called Islamism vile, but surely you of all people understand that Islamism is not the same as Islam.
	You say I use abusive speech about Islam.
	I would seriously, I mean it, like to hear what examples of my abusive speech you had in mind.
	When you failed to discover any, I presume you will issue a public apology, which I will, of course, accept.
	And he also says, I am known as a frequent critic of Christianity, and I have never been deplatformed for that.
	Why do you give Islam a free pass?
	Why is it fine to criticize Christianity but not Islam?
	And we will answer this question shortly.
	This is what KPFA's general manager, Quincy McCoy, had to say on the subject when he decided to cancel the event.
	KPFA emphatically supports free speech, but we do not support abusive or hurtful speech, like Mr. Dawson's Dawkins' derisive comment that he made that Islam is the most evil of all religions.
	And we believe that it is our free speech right not to participate with anyone who uses hateful or hurtful language against a community that is already under attack.
	So simply put, we will not do that.
	Kiswani and others pointed to statements Dawkins has made on Twitter such as, quote, I think Islam is the greatest force for evil in the world today.
	I've said so often and loudly.
	Dawkins, who is an atheist, says all religions are bad.
	But at a recent science festival in England, he was quoted by The Telegraph as adding, quote, if you look at the actual impact that different religions have on the world, it's quite apparent that at present the most evil religion in the world has to be Islam.
	Dawkins has been saying that Islam is the most evil of all religions for years.
	Here's a particularly low-res version from, I think it was 2011, where he says the same thing.
	I'm reasonably optimistic in America and Europe.
	I'm pessimistic about the Islamic world.
	I regard Islam as one of the great evils in the world.
	And I fear that we have a very difficult struggle there.
	My concern regarding this issue is not that Richard Dawkins was deplatformed.
	I've done videos in the past defending Richard Dawkins when he has been deplatformed, but that isn't my concern this time.
	My concern this time is with the very concept that there can be abusive speech against Islam.
	This is an incredibly troubling phrase and I find it bizarre that Richard Dawkins would even entertain it as a concept.
	I do not believe you can be abusive to an idea.
	I'm actually very much in the same camp as Majid Nawaz when he says that no idea is above scrutiny.
	There is no way someone can be abusive to Islam.
	You can only be abusive to Muslims.
	Muslims, the people, are separate from Islam, the idea.
	And if at any point we find it impossible to draw that distinction, then the identitarians have won.
	Identity politics is the politics of victimhood, and playing the victim to avoid criticism is something we have seen very often with the regressive left.
	I will let Maryam Namazi explain why we should not entertain this as a defense.
	I mean, I think it's typical of Islamic schools and the political Islamic movement to label any criticism a sort of prejudice and thereby racism, thereby trying to make people silent on criticizing it.
	I think the issues are very clear.
	I mean, the head of the Islamiya school, for example, was quoted in an interview saying that you're born a Muslim, you're always a Muslim, you can't leave.
	And that's things that have been told to me untold times for having renounced religion and Islam.
	There is threats, there is intimidations.
	Just yesterday, a 16-year-old girl was killed by her father for refusing to wear the veil.
	I think Islamic schools very much do suppress and restrain girls.
	Any movement that hides behind the identity of their movement and deliberately conflates criticism of their ideas with abuse of the people who hold those ideas, it is being done deliberately to prevent them from having to actually answer the criticisms against Islam.
	Because there are many valid criticisms against Islam.
	And it's very easy to demonstrate that Islam is highly illiberal.
	This is a way of protecting an incredibly regressive and oppressive religion from having to face its own demons.
	And this is, of course, exactly what the purveyors of this religion would want.
	But I am sorry.
	I reject outright, without any debate, the idea that you can be abusive to an idea.
	If we allow Islamists and the regressive left that are supporting them to shield Islam from criticism under the guise that criticizing Islam is abuse, then Islam will not change.
	There will be no respite for the more liberal, centrist, or ex-Muslims who want to effectively leave the oppressive confines that Islam creates.
	We as liberals, as atheists, as people concerned about the spread of our ideas against the spread of theirs, must not accept that you can be abusive to an idea.
	If we accept this, then we may as well become Muslims ourselves.
	We may as well say our Shahadas because we will have our hands tied behind our backs.
	We will not be able to speak out against the constant encroachment of Islam.
	And so I'm sorry, it is imperative that we reject this line of thought.
	You cannot be abusive to an idea.
	This is not up for debate.
	If people who hold these ideas feel abused because people are criticizing them, that's too damn bad.
	It is not my responsibility to manage your feelings on this issue.
	I have every right to criticize Islam without being labeled an abuser of all Muslims on earth.
	This is not acceptable.
	And of course, it is the regressive left activists who have formed this unholy pact with Islam and have jumped to its defense.
	But then KPSA began to hear from activists like Lark Aswani, executive director of the Bay Area-based Arab Resource and Organizing Center, AROC.
	Richard Zawkins is actually a very well-known Islamophobic.
	He's spoken publicly about Islam being the worst evil of the world today, has vilified Muslims in extremely misogynistic and racist ways.
	And so as soon as we got wind that KPSA was holding an event with him and also a fundraiser for KPSA, we automatically thought, okay, let's talk to our partners there and see what's going on and let them know in case they're not already well aware of his history of promoting anti-Islam and anti-Muslim rhetoric.
	Notice the conflation between anti-Islam and anti-Muslim rhetoric.
	I personally don't recall Richard Dawkins making comment on a single Muslim, but he has been very clear and very staunch in his opposition to medieval barbaric religions.
	I find it highly disturbing that we are allowing the regressive left and the Islamists to set the precedent that there might be an idea that is beyond criticism because criticism of this idea is abuse.
	We must not accept the way that they are framing this discussion because to accept that premise means we are deliberately walking into a cage just because they stood there and opened the door.
	And I want to repeat: we cannot be abusive to ideas, nor can we be abusive to the entire movements that spring thereof.

▲