This is a good interview - clear, succinct, to the point.
I would add, as a tangent (and probably not helpful in that broadcast), that causing offence through ridicule is not generally considered something that must be policed, or at least self-censored. People may be offended by someone insulting them, or someone they love, but such offensive insults are entirely permissable. Poor old David Cameron's mum was probably mortified and offended by Steve Bell's cartoon versions of him with a condom over his head. Tough. I'm not sure why our reaction should be any different when it comes to insulting religious ideas and persons. Yes, offence may be caused. But so what? What's special about religious beliefs, contrasted with other political beliefs, that means they must receive special, privileged treatment and protection? Particularly as religious beliefs often are themselves political beliefs (about role of women, gay people, duties to others, etc.) I don't think there's anything relevantly 'special' about religious belief that means that causing offence merits censorship.
It's also worth recognising that if you do self-censor because others are telling you they will be offended (and perhaps threaten you), you are likely to encourage ever-greater offence-taking (and more threats). Seeing that the tactic works only makes it more likely to be repeated, until eventually, we're all heavily self-censoring for fear of causing offence, or of being attacked. It can be worth taking a stand to make clear you won't be bullied and intimidated.
Comments
I haven’t come across any Muslim who would ask a non-Muslim to “self-censor” or close down a rational discussion. On the contrary, from my experience they try to engage people in a discussion based on evidence and reason.
You mentioned "political beliefs (about role of women, gay people, duties to others)". What are these beliefs? Have you engaged with Muslim leaders on these issues? Have you ever tested your personal views by seeking out someone who knows what Islam actually teaches on these issues? I'm asking for evidence that you know what you are talking about.
In fact, there is no reason for a Muslim not to welcome a fair and open debate. I've asked a number of atheists for a scholarly reference that establishes that the knowledge gained through the Quran is inconsistent with what we have learned through science? And the reply has always been silence.
What about you, can you provide such research produced by scholars who have made a academic career out of the study of the Quran, Islam and its history, and therefore have had their work subject to peer review as well as reputations for integrity to protect?
Glenn
You describe the conduct of Muslims. Some of the conduct you applaud and some of the conduct you are repulsed by. The question you did not address is the role of Islamic teachings in this conduct; whether the conduct you observed is aligned with traditional Islamic teachings or not.
One way to address the question is with reason and evidence. According to historians, Islam was not spread by the sword. Arab armies invaded lands but it took over 300 years for Muslims to constituent the majority in these lands through conversion. But most importantly, the overwhelming majority of Muslims today, over 90%, are direct descendants of those who converted to Islam after the 1300s (after the Mongol conquest). These are people who never saw an invading Arab army. They converted because they liked what they saw[1] . People do not voluntarily convert to a religion they are repulsed by.
As for polls I have the book 'Who Speaks for Islam?' which reports the findings of a World Gallop Poll of Muslims undertaken "between 2001 and 2007 involving tens of thousands of hour-long, face-to-face interviews with residents of more than 35 nations … representing 90% of the world's 1.3 million Muslims" (p. xi). Those interviewed were young and old, male and female, literate and illiterate, from urban and rural areas of "predominately Muslim countries or countries with substantial Muslim populations" Excerpts from the book can be found on the Gallop website[2].
In regard to the issues at hand, the Gallup poll found " a major complaint across Muslim societies is that the West denigrates Islam and Muslims and equates Islam with terrorism. The cartoons did not satirize or ridicule terrorists like Osama bin Laden or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, but chose instead to satirize the venerated Prophet Muhammad, whom Muslims regard as the ideal model of Muslim life and values, in what was seen as a direct attack on Islam and a denigration of the faith."
To me this is a reasonable objection, is it not? It does not attempt to stifle debate but is simply a request for intellectual honesty and respect. I'd like to think that this is sort of conduct you would model in your philosophy classes and expect from your students.
The other question you did not address is whether you can provide a "scholarly reference that establishes that the knowledge gained through the Quran is inconsistent with what we have learned through science?"
At the end of the day you are saying Muslims are dullards and fools for following the Quran. Then prove it.
Glenn
[1] For example, Richard Bulliet, "Islam: The Open Civilization" (Youtube, about 12 min), and his books Conversion to Islam in the Medieval Period: An Essay in Quantitative History (Cambridge, Mass. and London: Harvard University Press, 1979); The Case for Islamo-Christian Civilization (Columbia University Press).
[2] https://www.gallup.com/press/176483/speaks-islam.aspx#:~:text=Who%20Speaks%20for%20Islam%3F%20is%20about%20this%20silenced,are%20predominantly%20Muslim%20or%20have%20significant%20Muslim%20populations.
[3] https://www.gallup.com/press/176483/speaks-islam.aspx#:~:text=Who%20Speaks%20for%20Islam%3F%20is%20about%20this%20silenced,are%20predominantly%20Muslim%20or%20have%20significant%20Muslim%20populations.
You describe the conduct of Muslims. Some of the conduct you applaud and some of the conduct you are repulsed by. The question you did not address is the role of Islamic teachings in this conduct; whether the conduct you observed is aligned with traditional Islamic teachings or not.
One way to address the question is with reason and evidence. According to historians, Islam was not spread by the sword. Arab armies invaded lands but it took over 300 years for Muslims to constituent the majority in these lands through conversion. But most importantly, the overwhelming majority of Muslims today, over 90%, are direct descendants of those who converted to Islam after the 1300s (after the Mongol conquest). These are people who never saw an invading Arab army. They converted because they liked what they saw[1] . People do not voluntarily convert to a religion they are repulsed by.
As for polls I have the book 'Who Speaks for Islam?' which reports the findings of a World Gallop Poll of Muslims undertaken "between 2001 and 2007 involving tens of thousands of hour-long, face-to-face interviews with residents of more than 35 nations … representing 90% of the world's 1.3 million Muslims" (p. xi). Those interviewed were young and old, male and female, literate and illiterate, from urban and rural areas of "predominately Muslim countries or countries with substantial Muslim populations" Excerpts from the book can be found on the Gallop website[2].
In regard to the issues at hand, the Gallup poll found " a major complaint across Muslim societies is that the West denigrates Islam and Muslims and equates Islam with terrorism. The cartoons did not satirize or ridicule terrorists like Osama bin Laden or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, but chose instead to satirize the venerated Prophet Muhammad, whom Muslims regard as the ideal model of Muslim life and values, in what was seen as a direct attack on Islam and a denigration of the faith."
To me this is a reasonable objection. It does not attempt to stifle debate but is simply a request for intellectual honesty and respect. I'd like to think that this is the sort of conduct you would model in your philosophy classes and expect from your students.
The second question I raised, which you did not address, is whether you can provide a "scholarly reference that establishes that the knowledge gained through the Quran is inconsistent with what we have learned through science?"
At the end of the day you are saying Muslims are dullards and fools for following the Quran. Then prove it. If we were talking about the Bible, we could refer to the biblical claim that the world is only 6000 years old, or the lack of evidence for over 1 million men, women and children living for 40 years in the Sinai desert, or the story of lions and giraffes (and every other animal) coexisting with humans on a boat for 40 days and nights.
Glenn
[1] For example, Richard Bulliet, "Islam: The Open Civilization" (Youtube, about 12 min), and his books Conversion to Islam in the Medieval Period: An Essay in Quantitative History (Cambridge, Mass. and London: Harvard University Press, 1979); The Case for Islamo-Christian Civilization (Columbia University Press).
[2] https://www.gallup.com/press/176483/speaks-islam.aspx#:~:text=Who%20Speaks%20for%20Islam%3F%20is%20about%20this%20silenced,are%20predominantly%20Muslim%20or%20have%20significant%20Muslim%20populations.
[3] https://www.gallup.com/press/176483/speaks-islam.aspx#:~:text=Who%20Speaks%20for%20Islam%3F%20is%20about%20this%20silenced,are%20predominantly%20Muslim%20or%20have%20significant%20Muslim%20populations.
You write,
"Poor old David Cameron's mum was probably mortified and offended by Steve Bell's cartoon versions of him with a condom over his head. Tough."
It is not Osama bin Laden or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who were satirized but the Prophet. And it is not the feelings of their mums we are being asked to ignore but the objections of Muslims who venerate the Prophet and know these terrorist acts are against the fundamental teachings of Islam and the example set by their Prophet. A more apt analogy would be if Steve Bell had depicted David Cameron's mum with a condom on her head because of her son's behaviour. Would you defend this?
Glenn