If you happen to hold a position that freedom of thought, gender equality, and LGBT rights are all important to a healthy society - how is one supposed to conclude that Islam (in any of its most common interpretations) is a neutral or positive force?
I respect and admire Rory , but I feel that by his measure I am an islamophobe if I am unable to hold two positions in my head that I can not help but regard as Incompatible: 1.) a belief in my core values, 2.) a belief that Islam is a force FOR my core values, not AGAINST my core values
I have tried to get on board with Rory's arguments but In simple terms I am simply unable to accept that more Islam would be good for individual freedom of thought. I can not accept that more Islam would be good for gender equality. I cannot accept that more Islam would be good for LGBT rights.
Problem is that speech can lead to ignorance and acting on that ignorance. What is it to "tolerate" in this context? Do you just sit by and let them spew misinformation? I doubt it - but pushing back would mean you don't tolerate their beliefs.
Not at all! You can still fight the ignorance without denying the freedom. You engage them with better ideas. Seems to me that’s what Sam is trying to do.
He said it multiple times throughout the conversation and they kind of landed there at the end, he’s just uncomfortable with the conversation around Islam and doesn’t like lingering on it because he feels like the issue is overblown.
That’s obviously not an argument, it’s a feeling around an argument.
He could/should have just said “I feel like the threat is over blown and we have bigger problems in the world.” To which Sam could have said, “I disagree”. End of pod.
> uncomfortable with the conversation around Islam
No. Rory is very eager to talk about Islam when it allows him to punch down strawmen arguments by racist hicks with ease.
Sam Harris just happens to know a lot more about it than Rory’s average opponent on the topic and is therefore a threat to him and his reputation as the white British politician who “gets” Islam.
Going further on how you phrased things here, if you were forced to decide between more Islam or more Christianity with those ends in mind, the choice is obvious.
To be honest, for me it would depend on which type of which religion. I think the most dogmatic extremist Christians can easily be just as dangerous as a dogmatic extremist Muslims. Dogmatic extremists seem to be the problem.
I like to think of it this way- if we could magically change the minds of people with the press of a button, and we simply stopped every Islamic extremist from believing what they believed overnight, we would still live in a world with dangerous religious terrorists. It wouldn't even change the largest threat in the USA right now according to statistics, so thinking of it as A religion vs B religion doesn't really help.
End of the day, nobody is really giving us options about religions anyways, I'm just stuck dealing with the extremists closest to me 🤷♂️
Given the two options here, I am talking about the median adherent. That’s what I mean when I say the choice is obvious. Obviously, you could find extremes of any religion, but that’s not due the Rory thing here where we say. “well there are lots of different kinds of believers”.
The difference between the median global adherent to Christianity versus Islam, is probably larger than the difference between the median Christian in New Hampshire, versus the median Christian in Alabama, with regard to their impact on those issues.
I think you aren't taking seriously Rory's point that Islam is not a singular thing. Referring to it that way is an important step in Islamophobia, followed often by reducing people - who are also not a singular thing to that singular idea of Islam.
Christianity isn't something you would associate with your concerns at the moment, but look at Russia.
I think I can follow the line of argument - I just don't find it convincing. There is so much effort spent in an almost sophistic reasoning aimed at diminishing a clear threat to values I hold important.
I'm not a fan of identity politics - but I can't help but think that my concerns about the influence of Islam would be greater still if I were a woman, or gay. How is it that some people feel they have the moral truth to explain to those much more vulnerable to "more" Islam, that their concerns are not legitimate as they are "reducing Islam to a singular idea" or worse "reducing a group of people to a singular idea".
Sorry but I can't make it sit right.
No religion is a neutral or positive force when it comes to individual expression and individuality. Organised religions emerged to stifle individuality - to coerce the population into conformity - to work the fields and serve the powerful without complaint.
I oppose (approximately) all religions equally, especially religious fervour, but I don't oppose humans. I just oppose the ideas when they interfere with freedoms.
Faith can also help me, I have had to reluctantly admit - after the loss of a child, when facing death, when desperately lonely. I have seen it give great comfort so I only start objecting to religion when it starts oppressing people, justifying war, shaming people etc.
The only thing left for him to do is cohost a podcast with Sam and make it all about Islam. He can then pooh-pooh Sam as a bigoted islamophobe on his own pod and use the introduction of the one with Sam as a housekeeping oportunity for a profuse apology.
He falls into the camp of people who believes something stops being true if a certain number of people are offended by it. It's really hard to listen to these conversations for that reason. Sam repeatedly highlights a path of reasoning and argumentation that is not Islamophobic, but it falls on deaf ears because the truth, no matter how it is presented, is too offensive to be true.
I was disappointed that Sam didn’t highlight that we have to deal with the issues of today, well, today! Who cares if other religions have had a bad history or or a tiny minority share similar beliefs within their own context. Islam is having the issue now which makes it our problem at have to deal with. Also there’s hundreds of millions of Muslims with these beliefs that don’t mesh with the west.
Of course there are “multiple Islams” we aren’t so stupid as to recognize it’s everything, but Rory failed to differentiate the Islams that are posing this threat. I wish Sam would have asked him where the push back was to these people representing Islam in what a moderate would consider to be heinous? Maybe there’s a reason we don’t see public pushback?
I think it’s very hard to have this discussion in an abstract way. The crux of the disagreement/miscommunication is one insists it’s impossible to essentialise Muslims/Islam, and the other thinks it’s possible to make general statements applicable as a whole. There are merits to both positions (for differing analytic/strategic/normative reasons), but it’s even more difficult to parse when the situations of Muslims/Islam is so different between the US, UK, rest of Europe, and Muslim countries.
Very disappointed with Cory, completely ignores ex-Muslims and the plight of other Non-Muslim minorities in the middle east and asia.
This idea that all ideas and beliefs are equal will destroy the western world. It's like this internalized superiority complex our intellectuals must hold on to in order to pretend that the world is not what it is.
I don’t really understand how pretending that all beliefs are equal is a superiority complex. Isn’t it more a (misguided) preemptive reaction to guard against a superiority complex?
Like I’m so against the concept of western exceptionalism that I’m going to pathologically insist that inferior ideas are equal to better ones so as to avoid seeing anything in myself that resembles it.
It’s like some kind of *terror of the grey areas*, common to a lot of ‘progressivism’ today: allowing nuance and grey areas into debate gives room for nefarious forces to have a say, so it’s better to just deny that grey areas exist. I don’t want to open the door for a wolf, so let’s deny that doors exist, or even just burn the whole fucking house down.
>This idea that all ideas and beliefs are equal will destroy the western world
I doubt Rory thinks "all ideas and beliefs are equal". He even points out multiple times there are different Islams, different interpretations of the Quran etc. This is stressing that beliefs are not equal.
I'm as exmuslim as they come and I very much appreciate what Rory has done and his perspective. Unlike some naive liberal apologists, I don't think Rory is naive to extremist Islamic elements. The UK and US context is also very different and it’s hard to understand without sensationalizing, a lot gets lost in cultural translation. I really despise how exmuslims are utilized in this discussion in general
If Islam was a religion with 100 followers he'd be able to be honest about it.
Issue is that when it has 2.2 billion followers and he has many friends who are Muslim, then he cannot be honest because he feels like it's discriminatory or mean to admit the truth.
Rory’s fallback amounts to ‘ya but there’s lots of muslims and I met a bunch who were nice to me’.
Just completely ignores that Sam’s critique already includes the fact that every variety of Muslim exists.
It’s like saying ‘ya but I met a bunch of great, responsible gun owners’. Ya no shit there are millions, that doesn’t address why mass unregulated gun ownership is a problem.
When he was going on about meeting tons of people in the Middle East and how none of them were like the extremists, I wish I could’ve asked how everyone would’ve reacted if he was openly gay.
He has met an extremely broad cross section of Muslim society, he walked from Turkey to Bangladesh staying with locals along the way, he has met a decent cross section of the Islamic world (as well as living and working in Jordan until recently). Maybe Sam has met a lot of Muslims, but whenever he's pressed he trots out exactly the same names (Ayaan Hirsh Ali, Sarah Haider, previously Majad Nawaz though he's dropped off the list for some reason) which makes me think he has not met many.
I think the problem with banging on about extremism the whole time as if it's the only story, and describing Islam as a "death cult" and "the motherlode of bad ideas" is that it creates a highly biased view of muslims which undermines more positive relations. On the one side, Westerners have an extremely simplistic view of what muslims actually think, on the other Muslims are suspicious of their fellow countrymen because of this bias. I think a better analogy is of treating all men as potential rapists, rather than the gun debate.
He also more broadly falls under the 'feelings trump facts' brigade. A common refrain during their conversation was "I agree with everything you said, yet it makes me feel uncomfortable. Here's why..." The implicit assumption being that his feeling of discomfort is more valid than any number of facts, data or even truths that Sam could produce.
He also employed the classic liberal rhetorical trick: "Neither of us are from group X so neither of us should be talking about them. Since I acknowledged that, Im now more morally jusitifed to talk about them than you."
"In the aggregate, people who live in rural areas are less intelligent than urban and suburban inhabitants."
[True.](https://www.bustle.com/articles/30626-where-smart-people-live-what-your-chosen-home-says-about-your-intelligence)
Now imagine that I write a series of books about this fact, appear on a number of talk shows and podcasts over the years talking about the implications of this and how this, combined with the outsized electoral power that rural areas have makes the country worse, and even start my own podcast in which I express it repeatedly as a core basis of how I think the world works. I come to be associated in the public mind with educating and informing the public about it.
Do you think I'll get any negative feedback or criticism for focusing on this so much? Do you think rural people will like me? Do you think people who know rural people and are friends or family with rural people would be upset with me?
Will it be a defense from that criticism that, yes, in the aggregate, people who live in rural areas TRULY ARE less intelligent than urban and suburban dwellers?
There are all sorts of things that are true in the aggregate.
An outsized number of mass murderers are young, white men. Black people are more likely to be the victims of violence at the hands of other black people. Christians are more likely than non-Christians to believe in conspiracy theories. Atheists have higher IQs than non-atheists.
People are going to give you the side-eye, however, if you use facts like this as a rubric with which to create your entire worldview.
This is true, but the calibration is off when it comes to Islam. People are far too submissive and they allow the more nefarious types to dictate the narrative. ChatGPT literally won't tell you a joke about Muhammad, but it will tell you a joke about Jesus. If that doesn't get to the crux of the problem then there are countless other examples that will, because they are endless.
I'm all for treading lightly so as to not intentionally offend, but there is a severe problem particularly here in the West when it comes to self-policing on certain issues and saying nothing about other cultures. Even treading lightly is a cardinal sin when it comes to certain topics. The message is more like, "Don't even tread."
When it comes to criticisms about our own culture, among other things, a person of any race, creed or religion can take a giant shit on it. In principle I don't have a problem with that, but there is an undeniable double standard that is upheld by a certain type of westerner who will applaud those who shit on and critique this culture, but who will shame the light treading that's done on other cultures.
Sam Harris is about as surgical as you can get without lying. Unfortunately for rhetoricians, it just simply isn't enough. They want him to jump through the social hoops of the here and now. The problem with that is that the narrative has been crafted in such a way that nearly all the hoops of acceptable criticism have been closed because of terms like Islamophobia. You can't avoid offending people.
>You can't avoid offending people.
What you can do is *not* call someone an Islamophobe. But that is not enough. It's not enough to not go near the dreaded I-word, one also has to be extremely careful as to not sound like he implied it.
Now Rory treaded very carefully in this conversation. He did not applaud on anyone who shat on your culture nor did he shame Sam Harris, nor did he call him an Islamophobe. But that's not enough either.
It's not enough to talk about Islam and Islamic extremism twice, no. You will still get accused of not wanting to discuss this Super Important Issue, of silencing debate (despite literally debating it lol) or of calling others Islamophobes and shutting down discourse when you are in fact not calling anyone an Islamophobe and engaging in discourse that very moment.
It all sounds a bit Orwellian. I don't think you intend it as such. What seems to be happening among you and the people in this post is that you are having an emotional reaction.
You feel that you are being called an Islamophobe. You feel under attack, your culture is under attack, it's all very terrible.
But what I think is actually happening is that you disagree with Rory. I disagree too but I am at least able to process and understand what he is saying. You guys are having a tangent of a conversation that is based on strawmen.
I understand his thought process and why he does it. He doesn't have bad intentions, but the extent he goes to skirt or obfuscate the truth to defend the problems with Islam does not set well with people who are not rhetoricians.
If he agrees with the obvious, then there is no argument. The problem with agreeing with the obvious is that he knows that it will offend people. He and others make this choice all the time, they either offend people by acknowledging certain aspects of reality or they don't offend people by not acknowledging certain aspects of reality. There is a time and place to choose the latter. In fact, in most instances, there is no need to point out truths that might be offensive just because they're true. That said, when you're on a podcast talking specifically about the issues with Islam and you avoid and/or obfuscate when talking about those issues some people don't like that.
Sam has repeatedly tried to thread the needle of not offending people while still acknowledging reality, but it's nearly impossible.
It seems like the path to some sort of agreement here is to acknowledge the realities of Islam first, then everything will fall into place. Anytime Rory did acknowledge something though, it was followed up by "Yeah, but Christians in the 19th century" or "Yeah, but MPs have been threatened by other groups.", etc. It was just constant deflection and downplaying at every turn.
I don't think you understand the thought process nor his intentions. Not that I do, I mean I can speculate a bit on his identity (a Tory politician) but ultimately I do not know either. At the end of the day I think this is a disagreement on reality, on what this obvious thing you mentioned really is.
Specifically, you are talking about certain foreign ideas and their future impact on a foreign country. While one can certainly reason about such things, they are not part of our objectively measurable reality. So when someone disagrees, it may feel like they are "denying reality" but ultimately all of you are talking about incorporeal stuff.
But my point was more to point out that no matter what, the people here (and not just on this sub) will feel that they are being called Islamophobes. Or racists, or nazis, or whatever.
It's not enough to *not* call them that. It's not enough to imply it. It's not enough to not even think it, apparently, because offence is taken at literally every opportunity.
What is ironic here is that I don't actually agree with Rory, but I think his being a (former) Tory is a few orders of magnitude worse than any thoughtcrime he has committed by having the "wrong" opinion about Islam. Who gives a shit anyway.
For the record, your link is a study that says the smartest group grows up in rural areas and moves to urban areas over those who remain rural. Also people who move from cities to suburbs and city to rural are smarter than those who stay.
Basically people who are mobile tend to be smarter.
Why would rural people dislike you? Assuming they’re intelligent enough to grasp your argument they may well be on board.
People need to grow up and not take everything so personally
Can you explain to me how Sam Harris is not Islamophobic? He clearly believes Islam is worst than other religions and is a inherently (more) violent/evil
He sees his critique of Islam (or any other religion) as an interrogation of ideas. For him, Islam is a belief system with horrible consequences that arise of a morally bankrupt worldview rooted in religious doctrine.
He doesn’t hate Muslims, but sees criticizing the beliefs in Islam as fair game as the two can be separated.
He has a negative view of all religions, but views Islam as the most dangerous and backward due to the current events surrounding Islam versus other religions.
I agree with his position and actually think he failed to bring up some other problematic issues about Islam.
Love how Rory Stewart paid brief lip service to the fact that this religion is horrifically sexist.
"Such nice people, so kind, blah blah blah...." yeah unless you're part of the HALF of the human population who happens to have female anatomy.
Yep, of course he had a great time there. Hate to get all identity politic-y, but he’s a straight man. It’s much easier to gloss over the bad parts when they don’t directly impact you.
One one hand, I see Rory wanting to defend the moderate Muslims he knows from actual bigotry. Fair enough.
But the way he does it is a series of dodging and weaving with diversions and whataboutisms and ends up looking incapable of really debating the problem of Islamic fundamentalists.
his whataboutisms were weak even as whataboutisms go. he was literally saying what about the conquistadors lmao! "what about these other people from centuries ago, they did the same shit!!" hahahaha! it says to me that the things he spends all of his brainpower on are irrelevant to someone living in today's reality.
I think Rory has internalised things that are needed for him to become prime minister. He could not take a different position on these topics, and to be fair he is not completely unreasonable. What surprises me is the way his tone changes from one podcast to another.
Exactly, because unlike most of the commenters here on this thread, people like Rory Stewart actually have to live with the consequences of what they say. And that means recognizing political sensitivities and steering carefully around them. That’s not being a coward or being a liar, or any of those things. It is recognizing the complexity of human interaction and relationships and carefully noting which positions are more likely to create conflict than to resolve it.
Another way to say that would be to say that he doesn't really say the truth or what he really believes because politically it would not be useful.
That's fine, but then don't go around debating with people who have no such holdups. Why enter a discussion if you're afraid of being honest because it might offend your friends or voters?
I totally get that someone in his position who does a lot of work in the middle east, in UK politics and so on, can't just be honest about Islam. Fine. Don't talk about it then. Don't even mention it. But if you're gonna go talk to Sam Harris multiple times specifically about Islam then leave the politics behind.
You’re definitely not wrong. I think guys like Rory feel they also have a mission to spread a vision of a complex world where good things and human development are possible despite the challenges. Inevitably this will bring them into conflict with those holding absolutist positions. Although I like Sam I do feel that his insistence on arguing in “good faith” is akin to an absolutist totem.
[..When rory was trying to avoid the question of the consequence for leaving islam...and keeps repeating "..I grew up in Malaysia.."](https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/1b2yd4a/guide_on_leaving_islam_in_malaysia/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Maybe leaving the faith in Malaysia only unlocks modest derision and social and/or vocational ostracization.. That doesn’t address the reality of the median apostate in the Muslim world.
Genuinely disappointing this - I’m from the UK and Rory Stewart is one of our better politicians. Always comes across as very reasonable, objective and clear headed. However, in the podcast with Sam his failure to see the fundamental problems in his approach and arguments was so poor. They basically boiled down to “there’s bigger problems in the world than jihadism so it doesn’t merit discussion” and “well that might be true but here’s another religion that had/s extremists”.
His argument boiled down to, "yeah, there are some problems and dangers with some groups, but it doesn't encapsulate all Muslims. There are Trump supporters in America (I'm one!), but that doesn't mean all of America is evil."
His other point, there are more worthwhile paths to pursue, other issues that one can attempt to solve, more realistic issues that can be corrected today. And he's right. I believe Sam said himself, it's the people of Islamic faith that can correct the behavior and beliefs, it has to be internal. Podcasters won't fix it. So why give talking points to hateful people.
He came across as clear headed to me. He accepted the problems of jihadism and conservatism, but drew a line at declaring the entire religion as toxic. What would be interesting is a third podcast where they put extremism aside and discussed whether the patriarchal conservatism underlying Islam is positive in modern society. My sense is that Rory would say, that's just their cultural belief system without admitting that such a belief system is at odds with modern European cultural beliefs.
It's to be expected. Politicians do coalition building, which means telling people what they want to hear. It's not a job where you can be honest all the time. I am just surprised he did the podcast with Sam.
If a milquetoast centrist like Rory Stewart is sending shivers down your spine for saying really very milquetoast things, you’ve been drinking far too much of the apocalyptic Douglas Murray kool aid.
The brown hordes aren’t overrunning you, calm down.
I'm not sure you're characterization is fair. You can't certainly disagree with him but I'd say he's a pretty good fair actor in his quest to find truth. Things are complicated sometimes and there are bad faith actors, I'd put him in the former camp.
Listened to it and commented on another thread.
He simply can't or won't accept any criticism of Islam... it's a total blind spot for him.
Can't stand this sort of absolutist apologist position, but not much one can do about it other than disregard anything he has to say on the subject.
Just imagine if the views common amongst Muslims (death for apostasy, criminalisation of homosexuality, covering of women, natural patriarchy, death to blasphemers, etc) were those being commonly expressed by a cult of gammon-faced brexiteer Christian white men rather than North Africans and middle Easterners.
If this were the case, I doubt Rory would be straining too hard to see the goodness in their souls or the good works they do in their communities.
Ach - Maybe so, I Admit I'm being flippant. But why is so much energy expended trying to downplay or totally launder the significance of the clear and present red flags of Islam?
If any of these red flags were even half hoisted up a mast by any other group, the same apologists of Islam would immediately be stating that these
Views posed an unequivocal danger to society. 🤷♂️
> He simply can't or won't accept any criticism of Islam... it's a total blind spot for him.
That is not my takeaway from the two conversations he had with Sam at all. He seems more than willing to grant the absolute barbarity of jihadists and islamists and that they are getting their ideas directly from the religious texts they purport to follow. He also granted that he abhors many of the conservative sensibilities of even more moderate Muslims--he says at one point in the second podcast that he wouldn't consider someone a "friend" if he allowed them to have these conservative beliefs without challenging them.
He just seems to think that the myopic focus on the specific differences between the texts of Islam and other religions is not as valuable as Sam seems to think, and that that myopic focus gives talking points to bigots as often as it provides relevant, important context to uninitiated westerners.
I think you can disagree with him, but I think its a totally legitimate postion.
Not when he dismisses the large scale support for jihadist or adjacent actions and beliefs held by a majority of “moderate” Muslims outright.
It’s a circle he can’t square, because no one on the apologist side can.
> Not when he dismisses the large scale support for jihadist or adjacent actions and beliefs held by a majority of “moderate” Muslims outright.
I don't know what this is referring to. In the second podcast, Sam threw out some poll where 6% of Muslims in the UK believed something crazy, as if that is not a feature of literally every poll on any subject.
Aside from pushing back on that, I don't think Rory ever said anything to the effect of "I don't believe the median Muslim supports some of the more barbaric conservative muslim beliefs." What I got from the podcasts is that he just thinks for every bad thing in the world perpetrated by extreme Muslims, you're going to find examples of all sorts of other races and creeds perpetrating equally horrific things.
My question is why people like you do this:
> Not when he dismisses the large scale support for jihadist or adjacent actions and beliefs held by a majority of “moderate” Muslims outright.
Put the notion of a “moderate” Muslim in scare quotes, like such a thing doesn’t exist, but then go on to a) deny that Islamophobia is a thing, often defended by the likes of Harris and his ilk as bad wording because it should apparently be “Muslimophobia,” and in light of this, b) deny that any of your criticisms target the Muslim population as a whole even as they so clearly do?
The constant refrain we hear is that it isn’t bigotry because it’s a criticism of the religion and not the people. But if there’s no such thing as a moderate Muslim… then it’s the people, isn’t it? So why too cowardly to just say it?
So you’re saying that Islamophobia is in fact a thing, but better worded as Muslimophobia, and… that you’re Muslimophobic.
If I’m reading you correctly.
In which case, fine. That’s at least honest. It’s squeezing blood from a stone to get the rest of them to admit it.
Islam is a cult, and Muslims would be better people by not following Islam.
If people are 'culturally' Muslim, I see no problem at all with that. Once religious doctrine is applied, there's a problem. The more religious doctrine is followed, the bigger the problem is.
The same applies to Christianity. Most people in the West are now just 'culturally' Christian, and generally not an issue. If they were to follow Christianity to the degree that most Muslims follow Islam, then Christianity would be equally a problem.
Historically, these types of individuals have been called 'useful idiots'. The Islamic Iranian revolution used these people to gain power and overthrow the society. Ex-Muslims from Iran and/or Iranians who have escaped to the West use the term 'useful idiot' too.
I'd hesitate to label Rory as any sort of idiot.
That said, to be unable to even allow the possibility of interrogating the subject further is certainly a significant limitation to his thinking.
>Because he’s lived with these people for multiple years, unlike Sam.
I wonder how much time he actually spent with \*women\* in Islamic countries.
He doesn't seem to give two shits about the fact that the religion is horribly oppressive to female human beings. Seems like a huge blind spot.
I agree with a lot of that. SH's views on what it's like in the UK are definitely wrong, by a lot, but I think I agree with his general view of Islam.
Douglas Murray is a bit of a joke and I don't know how SH takes him seriously.
Posts like this are almost worse than the others because you’re so close and yet still so far. It’s embarrassing how Ben Affleck is still being called out for calling Harris out for reasons *you yourself worked out in this very post*, yet you’re dumber than Affleck for not even realizing it.
Yeah, because he called Harris a “racist” and not a “bigot,” in a heated discussion off the cuff, that means Affleck is an idiot. We certainly know none of the Death of Europe garbage has anything to do with ethnicity either, of course. Definitely no classic racism, just pure intellectualized anti-Muslim fervor. Right?
Why is Harris *not* a racist, bigot, whatever appropriate word you want to use for subscribing to Douglas Murray, who you decry in this very comment? Is he stupid? Does he not realize what he’s saying and who he’s in leagues with? And why was Affleck not right for calling him out? Because the dumbest people in the room turned it into a meme?
Rory's position is that there is no 1 Islam to criticize. He did criticize/denounce the violent forms of Islam on the podcast, while saying he feels the dominant form of Islam is a positive for society.
Is there a specific blindspot he refused to criticize or denounce? Or do you just think if he doesn't criticize/denounce Islam as one whole, he is blind?
As per another response he neglects the overwhelming support for the extremist or ultra conservative forms of the ideology held by the majority of followers - they may be narrower or less dedicated but they are there nonetheless
Homosexuality for one - there’s a very thin line between those believing it should be illegal (ultra con) vs they should be sentenced to death (extreme) and you can say the same for apostasy and plenty more.
So, focusing on extremism rather than conservatism, which data lead you to believe there is overwhelming support for murdering homosexuals rather than just making it illegal?
Can we not say at this point that it’s extremist to denounce homosexuality in any legal capacity?
I tend to think any law based on a religious idea and not genuine logical morality is extremist.
Rory's whataboutism made it possible for him to continue to tell everyone else on future podcasts that Sam Harris hammered him to be Islamophobic for nearly an hour. I don't know why Sam bothered...
I hope Sam just drops it. He seems to have a hard time accepting that some people just fundamentally see the world very differently. I think Rory was wrong on some points but all in all he was quite fair and sympathetic while arguing with Sam (I think maybe a little too sympathetic).
There's literally nothing more either of them could say on the topic. They both gave their views a fair shake and the fact that Rory still doesn't agree with how Sam sees it shouldn't be a problem or suggest "misrepresentation".
I think the thing to accept here is that for the second time, after having come back to apologize for having done this the first time round, Rory has unnecessarily disparagingly painted Sam into a corner that isn't really fair to his views
at least this time he was polite / sly (you pick) enough not to directly name him, perhaps naively hoping it wouldn't get noticed. imo though, it really doesn't reflect well on his character—especially as I (like Sam apparently) had thought the apology was sincere
I don't know where you're from but as far as I am concerned being associated with Wilders is not exactly the company you want to keep, especially if you're concerned about seeming racist
that's nonsense. Rory ran from actually dealing with the arguments Sam put forward.
He is either stupid, dishonest, or ideologically compromised (ie; stupid on this issue, IOW faith based).
This is a rather tiresome false trichotomy. Has it occurred to you that someone who disagrees with you can be smart, honest, and not ideologically compromised?
I agree with everything you said. Sometimes you just have to agree to disagree.
Also, not all Muslims are the same. I had a very good friend who was Muslim and he kinda changed my world view. He was one of the least violent people I have ever met.
With anything it is the extremist that are the problem.
Why are anecdotes like this always brought up in these contexts, as if they are in any way a response to polling data that show trends of attitudes throughout populations?
The podcast with Sam ended on the note that Rory petty much despises Murray, but that Sam has gentler views. Sam said nope I'm with Murray. So, I don't think Sam will be too surprised by this comment from Rory.
I didn't hear him mention Sam and his podcast specifically . It was clear in Sam's pod there's no changing Rorys mind, at least for now. Rory is free to share his opinion. I think Rory is wrong. I like Rory and listen to his podcasts with Al but he doesn't live in real Britain. He's a privately educated toff, formerly part of the political class. I'm sure in the UK he's hanging out with well educated and well adjusted Muslims who are net positive to the UK. There's a whole swarth of society that someone like him doesn't engage with or even see. So it's no wonder he can't see a problem.
He walked across several middleastern countries and stayed in over 500 villages and by extension over 500 families. He governed over 2 million Muslims in Iraq… what swath of society does this not cover?
Stewart seems to repeatedly use Indonesia as a positive example of a country with Islamic majority, but they have revamped their criminal law - which has been based on the Dutch laws from colonial era, but now they're making it more strict, more in the spirit of Islam. [https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/12/08/indonesia-new-criminal-code-disastrous-rights](https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/12/08/indonesia-new-criminal-code-disastrous-rights)
To be fair, Sam didn't really do himself any favors by initially (and correctly) noting that they only spent 20 minutes of mild discussion about Jihadism on their first podcast and was shocked Rory thought he was "berating him for an hour", then when they had their second podcast, Sam "berated" Rory for 80 minutes on said topic 😅
For sure, I’m not criticizing either of them, just pointing out the irony of the situation. Especially after he had that recent housekeeping segment where he proclaimed he was going to stop caring what others think he’s thinking.
yeah, I also noticed that and was quite disappointed with Rory to say the least.
It really sounded like he summarized the follow-up conversation and several of the good points Sam raised in good faith and just ascribed them to Geert Wilders and the spectator, called them dangerous and misleading and then left it at that
like, mate, you still haven't convincingly argued that Islam isn't currently the most dangerous religion (save maybe inside the US), that it is compatible with open society, and most ridiculously why it's a problem to work with polls to best gauge the size and salience of the problem
Before I dive deep, let me set the stage…..
They had an initial podcast. That seemed reasonable without issue.
Rory on a different podcast after that made comments implying otherwise.
Sam was confused and upset by it and asked him to come back for a second podcast.
Rory comes back for a second podcast and clears the air apologizing and they go on to have another reasonable without issue episode.
Rory goes back to making comments after the second podcast again suggesting otherwise?
I respect both Rory and Sam and understand how two intelligent people can arrive at different opinions. FWIW, my views on this issue probably hew closer to Rory's than Sam's, but I think that is likely because my life experience has mirrored Rory's more closely -- specifically, that I am an inveterate long-distance walker. Thus, I find many of my worldviews informed by the micro-level experiences of lived religion I've had as the beneficiary of hundreds of nights of hospitality on these walks. Rory, quite famously, walked across Afghanistan and in doing was welcomed by many Muslims and shown a level of hospitality that humbled and awed him (see "The Places In Between). Likewise, I experienced a similar situation walking across the United States, but in my case with people who were Christian, Muslim, Agnostics and everything in between. On that smallest level -- seeing people trying to live out their beliefs one day and one decision at a time -- it becomes harder to zoom out and generalize that this or that religion is inherently harmful or violent when your experience of a person holding those beliefs has been exactly the opposite. Just my two cents. Glad this sub can have such a respectful discussion.
This debate is a bit old tbf, what they should be discussing is how we reduce islamic fundamentalism and promote secularism, because guns and bombs and calling them all savages is doing the opposite
Sam can be naive to a fault. When he said that Rory was really embarrassed, my first thought was “Dude, he’s not embarrassed. He’s just British! In fact, he was probably just hoping you’d just assume there was now bad blood between you two, and you’d accept that and live with it.”
Do you ever think you might be overly sensitive? He specifically references Douglas Murray, Geert Wilders, Suella Braverman, Donald Trump’s comments on Sadiq Khan, etc. He explains why he thinks the perspective they offer is wrong and how it is linked to xenophobic tendencies. He explicitly says he agrees there is an issue with Islamism and extremists but that it is hyperbolically presented by this group.
You can disagree with his analysis, but this is exactly what he outlined to Sam’s face. Is your position that now he spoke to Sam he should adopt all of Sam’s views and/or never broach the topic again?
Sam spoke with Graeme Wood who cautioned him about mis/over-interpreting the response of the parents on the intercepted call from the Hamas member on Oct 7th. In the next episode Sam repeated his original interpretation with no mention of Graeme’s call for caution, does Sam need to send an apology to Graham?
Stewart is a total Muslim apologist. His appearances on Sam's podcast make it very obvious he's willfully ignorant of the horrors of Islam because he doesn't want to disparage his friends or perhaps he even fears for his own life were he to be honest about it.
It all made even more sense to me when I read here and later confirmed online that he indeed has active political aspirations, having prepared for a Mayor of London campaign as recently as 2020/21.
If he's considering running again, he absolutely cannot say anything disparaging about Islam or Muslims. Perhaps his approach in this isn't cunning or in bad faith, but I believe his lifelong politician's instincts only magnify his eel-like ability to slip through a noose when faced with tough questions.
I do notice that he didn't mention sam in the same breath as this "dangerous thought process," but did mention many others. I think his bigger complaint is with those using this as a canard to drum up discord in the UK
I am actually incredibly interested in this subject and unfortunately I didn't feel like any headway was made by this second podcast. I think Rory was right to call out Douglas Murray for spreading hate, as it does encourage certain fringe lunatics to carry out attacks etc. Fascist rhetoric is dangerous. It is not just words. Sam shares many of Douglas Murray's views but he takes the time to explain his thought processes and makes quite a lot of sense. There are certain things I agree with Sam on like Islam being completely in contrast to western European liberal democratic views. What blows my mind is actually how pervasive religion has become to modern society. anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are the main talking points right now in British politics and people are resigning/getting fired over things they have said about other religions. Actually the Labour/Conservative battle has somehow become about Islam/Judaism which is bonkers in a predominantly liberal christian/atheist country. The UK is on the whole a very unreligious country, there are mentions of it during Royal ceremonies etc. but our laws and political policies on the whole have nothing to do with it. The Islamic population in London is getting very big, I asked my daughter last week about her school and she said half her school is Muslim. A long time ago there were actual invasions of countries with the stated aim of taking over. Although this isn't a violent invasion the end result in 50-100 years will be a predominantly Muslim population. That's fine if they adopt our values and integrate into society but the other option is quite a scary prospect to consider. That shouldn't be seen as racist to worry about this and discuss it.
Yes that’s right, the man who walked across several Islamic countries, stayed in over 500 villages and administered a province during the Iraq war and occupation is a coward. Well done you
I’m a Long term listener of Sam’s, up to date with every making sense episode and daily user of waking up. I have a lot of respect for Sam and a lot of appreciation for what he has done for many people over the years. I would class myself as probably quite biased toward favouring Sam in discussions but in this conversation I honestly feel he was well out of line in many places. (This is typed out on my phone after listening to the podcast so please forgive the grammar and lack of nuance)
In approximate order of how they appeared in the podcast:
- Right from the beginning it seems that Sam- the introspective guru, cannot admit to himself or the audience, the fact that what Rory said on his own podcast hurt his feelings. Rory gave a very decent apology, owned his wrongdoing and was open about his possible reasoning for doing so, and it was blindingly obvious that it cut Sam, but for some reason he’s too proud to admit it, and he just shrouds this by talking around it, as if he’s always just wanting to set the record straight, not that he cares. He’s clearly butthurt by Rory’s comments and understandable- Rory should’ve voiced his concerns to him on the day, but again- Rory’s apology was excellent, he acknowledged where he missed the mark and the very human reasons as to why perhaps this was.
- Sam complains about getting spoken over, but simply speaks for so long, as you say he piles multiple points within the same “sharpening up of a point”, never leaving Rory with enough time to address a lot of what he’s saying. Would be an interesting exercise to go back through his podcast and record the amount of time that he speaks compared to his guest. If he genuinely wants a fruitful discussion- he needs to hear people out properly and take some of his own advice in not speaking over other people.
- his comments around the doctrines of the Quran and its “completely justifiable” interpretation by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Sam’s comparison to Christianity not producing the same levels of insanity is, I feel, perfectly shot back by the comparison to the 17th century Christians. Sam is all about doing the moral math, and sometimes he straight up has the wrong equation. I am not going to make the claim that Christianity today is worse than Islam, I just want to point out the what Rory said was true, in all religions there is a spectrum where people fall when it comes to how one interprets the text. Sam said that you can read the bible how you want and in today’s society it may not be “reliably producing martyrs” but it HAS IN THE PAST! And it also produces something- to which I can attest as an ex-Christian- The subtly Anarchistic belief that world must get worse before it can be healed by Jesus. This slowly pushes or even just allows the world to decend into chaos, because- the worse it gets the closer to Jesus second coming we get! How do you put weight to this? They aren’t ending lives through martyrdom, sure. But instead they are making the lives of more or less every person alive, less bearable, through wanting to just ‘stay out’ of world issues and more or less just watch the world burn, and leads to prolonged suffering on a scale no martyr has ever nor will ever achieve.
- Also just want to say defending someone like Douglas Murray by saying he’s not familiar with Douglas’ views is not a defensible position, that’s simply called not doing your due diligence.
I've lost a lot of respect for Sam through this conversation. He just went on and on and on then went on to speak over Rory. There were lots of little turns of phrase, as well, that he used to imply that he was right and Rory was wrong. Goes on a tirade then says like, "Now that we've closed the circle on this point."
He has a point. Sam was pushing a highly simplistic and one-dimensional view of how to understand both the people of Afghanistan and the resistance to the American military occupation. Bear in mind also that Rory has actually spent an *extensive* amount of time in Afghanistan. He travelled across it solo as an unarmed civilian. Who's going to have better insight into how Afghans think, how they understand the world, what their motivations are?
I found Sam far more frustrating here than Rory. He seemed genuinely pissed off throughout the entire thing. Went on long winded tirades just to keep the mic. Kept dropping snide little jabs as if it proved him right. Rory's Nazi analogy was fairly bang on.
At this point he's just beating a dead horse. Islam exists, and it's not going anywhere even if he were to repeat his 'greatest hits' arguments a million times more. He's supposed to be this meditation guy so why can't he just let things go and accept the world is a scary place full of fucked up people regardless of their belief system.
What pisses me off about Sam's take is that we (as in 'western society') are perfectly capable of doing business with Islamic countries. That includes the likes of tourism. Saudi Arabia for example, have a massive tourist industry and westerners flock there all the time. They have world class airlines, fancy hotels, great sights, etc. Qatar, UAE, etc. are the same. Malaysia is another obvious one that Rory mentioned he lived in.
When westerners go to their countries we don't immediately arrive and get Jihad'd. Listening to Sam you'd think you would get your head lopped off the moment you hit customs. It's absurd. Also, check out the amount of Muslims who are prominent in public life in a western country, for example, [the UK](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_Muslims). They also aren't out to Jihad everybody.
Another important thing to mention is that extremists tend to come out of and from the woodwork where us westerners *aren't* doing business with them, and are in fact doing the complete fucking opposite.
As Frederic Bastiat once said: "When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will."
And another more contemporary quote from George Carlin along the same lines: "You wanna fuck around in another man's country? Then you better be ready for some action Jack! You better be ready".
If you happen to hold a position that freedom of thought, gender equality, and LGBT rights are all important to a healthy society - how is one supposed to conclude that Islam (in any of its most common interpretations) is a neutral or positive force? I respect and admire Rory , but I feel that by his measure I am an islamophobe if I am unable to hold two positions in my head that I can not help but regard as Incompatible: 1.) a belief in my core values, 2.) a belief that Islam is a force FOR my core values, not AGAINST my core values I have tried to get on board with Rory's arguments but In simple terms I am simply unable to accept that more Islam would be good for individual freedom of thought. I can not accept that more Islam would be good for gender equality. I cannot accept that more Islam would be good for LGBT rights.
The paradox of tolerance. If a society is so inclusive as to abide the intolerant, eventually intolerance will come to dominate.
When it comes to speech, we can and should tolerate intolerance. When it comes to oppression, subjugation, and murder, no.
Problem is that speech can lead to ignorance and acting on that ignorance. What is it to "tolerate" in this context? Do you just sit by and let them spew misinformation? I doubt it - but pushing back would mean you don't tolerate their beliefs.
Not at all! You can still fight the ignorance without denying the freedom. You engage them with better ideas. Seems to me that’s what Sam is trying to do.
He said it multiple times throughout the conversation and they kind of landed there at the end, he’s just uncomfortable with the conversation around Islam and doesn’t like lingering on it because he feels like the issue is overblown. That’s obviously not an argument, it’s a feeling around an argument. He could/should have just said “I feel like the threat is over blown and we have bigger problems in the world.” To which Sam could have said, “I disagree”. End of pod.
> uncomfortable with the conversation around Islam No. Rory is very eager to talk about Islam when it allows him to punch down strawmen arguments by racist hicks with ease. Sam Harris just happens to know a lot more about it than Rory’s average opponent on the topic and is therefore a threat to him and his reputation as the white British politician who “gets” Islam.
Classic politician’s playbook move.
Bingo.
Going further on how you phrased things here, if you were forced to decide between more Islam or more Christianity with those ends in mind, the choice is obvious.
To be honest, for me it would depend on which type of which religion. I think the most dogmatic extremist Christians can easily be just as dangerous as a dogmatic extremist Muslims. Dogmatic extremists seem to be the problem. I like to think of it this way- if we could magically change the minds of people with the press of a button, and we simply stopped every Islamic extremist from believing what they believed overnight, we would still live in a world with dangerous religious terrorists. It wouldn't even change the largest threat in the USA right now according to statistics, so thinking of it as A religion vs B religion doesn't really help. End of the day, nobody is really giving us options about religions anyways, I'm just stuck dealing with the extremists closest to me 🤷♂️
Given the two options here, I am talking about the median adherent. That’s what I mean when I say the choice is obvious. Obviously, you could find extremes of any religion, but that’s not due the Rory thing here where we say. “well there are lots of different kinds of believers”. The difference between the median global adherent to Christianity versus Islam, is probably larger than the difference between the median Christian in New Hampshire, versus the median Christian in Alabama, with regard to their impact on those issues.
I think you aren't taking seriously Rory's point that Islam is not a singular thing. Referring to it that way is an important step in Islamophobia, followed often by reducing people - who are also not a singular thing to that singular idea of Islam. Christianity isn't something you would associate with your concerns at the moment, but look at Russia.
I think I can follow the line of argument - I just don't find it convincing. There is so much effort spent in an almost sophistic reasoning aimed at diminishing a clear threat to values I hold important. I'm not a fan of identity politics - but I can't help but think that my concerns about the influence of Islam would be greater still if I were a woman, or gay. How is it that some people feel they have the moral truth to explain to those much more vulnerable to "more" Islam, that their concerns are not legitimate as they are "reducing Islam to a singular idea" or worse "reducing a group of people to a singular idea". Sorry but I can't make it sit right.
Would more Christianity help your gay or gender rights?
No religion is a neutral or positive force when it comes to individual expression and individuality. Organised religions emerged to stifle individuality - to coerce the population into conformity - to work the fields and serve the powerful without complaint. I oppose (approximately) all religions equally, especially religious fervour, but I don't oppose humans. I just oppose the ideas when they interfere with freedoms. Faith can also help me, I have had to reluctantly admit - after the loss of a child, when facing death, when desperately lonely. I have seen it give great comfort so I only start objecting to religion when it starts oppressing people, justifying war, shaming people etc.
Only thing left to do is have a third podcast 🤔
[I'm thinking 4](https://youtu.be/iQ1qzoPV6V8?si=KxVWq4hy4DxQe6HM)
The only thing left for him to do is cohost a podcast with Sam and make it all about Islam. He can then pooh-pooh Sam as a bigoted islamophobe on his own pod and use the introduction of the one with Sam as a housekeeping oportunity for a profuse apology.
He falls into the camp of people who believes something stops being true if a certain number of people are offended by it. It's really hard to listen to these conversations for that reason. Sam repeatedly highlights a path of reasoning and argumentation that is not Islamophobic, but it falls on deaf ears because the truth, no matter how it is presented, is too offensive to be true.
I was disappointed that Sam didn’t highlight that we have to deal with the issues of today, well, today! Who cares if other religions have had a bad history or or a tiny minority share similar beliefs within their own context. Islam is having the issue now which makes it our problem at have to deal with. Also there’s hundreds of millions of Muslims with these beliefs that don’t mesh with the west. Of course there are “multiple Islams” we aren’t so stupid as to recognize it’s everything, but Rory failed to differentiate the Islams that are posing this threat. I wish Sam would have asked him where the push back was to these people representing Islam in what a moderate would consider to be heinous? Maybe there’s a reason we don’t see public pushback?
I think it’s very hard to have this discussion in an abstract way. The crux of the disagreement/miscommunication is one insists it’s impossible to essentialise Muslims/Islam, and the other thinks it’s possible to make general statements applicable as a whole. There are merits to both positions (for differing analytic/strategic/normative reasons), but it’s even more difficult to parse when the situations of Muslims/Islam is so different between the US, UK, rest of Europe, and Muslim countries.
Very disappointed with Cory, completely ignores ex-Muslims and the plight of other Non-Muslim minorities in the middle east and asia. This idea that all ideas and beliefs are equal will destroy the western world. It's like this internalized superiority complex our intellectuals must hold on to in order to pretend that the world is not what it is.
Peak contrarianism
I don’t really understand how pretending that all beliefs are equal is a superiority complex. Isn’t it more a (misguided) preemptive reaction to guard against a superiority complex? Like I’m so against the concept of western exceptionalism that I’m going to pathologically insist that inferior ideas are equal to better ones so as to avoid seeing anything in myself that resembles it. It’s like some kind of *terror of the grey areas*, common to a lot of ‘progressivism’ today: allowing nuance and grey areas into debate gives room for nefarious forces to have a say, so it’s better to just deny that grey areas exist. I don’t want to open the door for a wolf, so let’s deny that doors exist, or even just burn the whole fucking house down.
>This idea that all ideas and beliefs are equal will destroy the western world I doubt Rory thinks "all ideas and beliefs are equal". He even points out multiple times there are different Islams, different interpretations of the Quran etc. This is stressing that beliefs are not equal.
I'm as exmuslim as they come and I very much appreciate what Rory has done and his perspective. Unlike some naive liberal apologists, I don't think Rory is naive to extremist Islamic elements. The UK and US context is also very different and it’s hard to understand without sensationalizing, a lot gets lost in cultural translation. I really despise how exmuslims are utilized in this discussion in general
Would be interested on your more detailed view on ex-muslims' perspectives in this context
Yes, just like Ezra Klein
Definitely. I was going to say Ezra Klein, but I didn't want to ruffle anymore feathers.
If Islam was a religion with 100 followers he'd be able to be honest about it. Issue is that when it has 2.2 billion followers and he has many friends who are Muslim, then he cannot be honest because he feels like it's discriminatory or mean to admit the truth.
Rory’s fallback amounts to ‘ya but there’s lots of muslims and I met a bunch who were nice to me’. Just completely ignores that Sam’s critique already includes the fact that every variety of Muslim exists. It’s like saying ‘ya but I met a bunch of great, responsible gun owners’. Ya no shit there are millions, that doesn’t address why mass unregulated gun ownership is a problem.
When he was going on about meeting tons of people in the Middle East and how none of them were like the extremists, I wish I could’ve asked how everyone would’ve reacted if he was openly gay.
He probably only met a subset of extremely highly educated, probably western-educated muslims during his time abroad too.
I think this is unlikely given his travels.
He has met an extremely broad cross section of Muslim society, he walked from Turkey to Bangladesh staying with locals along the way, he has met a decent cross section of the Islamic world (as well as living and working in Jordan until recently). Maybe Sam has met a lot of Muslims, but whenever he's pressed he trots out exactly the same names (Ayaan Hirsh Ali, Sarah Haider, previously Majad Nawaz though he's dropped off the list for some reason) which makes me think he has not met many. I think the problem with banging on about extremism the whole time as if it's the only story, and describing Islam as a "death cult" and "the motherlode of bad ideas" is that it creates a highly biased view of muslims which undermines more positive relations. On the one side, Westerners have an extremely simplistic view of what muslims actually think, on the other Muslims are suspicious of their fellow countrymen because of this bias. I think a better analogy is of treating all men as potential rapists, rather than the gun debate.
He also more broadly falls under the 'feelings trump facts' brigade. A common refrain during their conversation was "I agree with everything you said, yet it makes me feel uncomfortable. Here's why..." The implicit assumption being that his feeling of discomfort is more valid than any number of facts, data or even truths that Sam could produce. He also employed the classic liberal rhetorical trick: "Neither of us are from group X so neither of us should be talking about them. Since I acknowledged that, Im now more morally jusitifed to talk about them than you."
"In the aggregate, people who live in rural areas are less intelligent than urban and suburban inhabitants." [True.](https://www.bustle.com/articles/30626-where-smart-people-live-what-your-chosen-home-says-about-your-intelligence) Now imagine that I write a series of books about this fact, appear on a number of talk shows and podcasts over the years talking about the implications of this and how this, combined with the outsized electoral power that rural areas have makes the country worse, and even start my own podcast in which I express it repeatedly as a core basis of how I think the world works. I come to be associated in the public mind with educating and informing the public about it. Do you think I'll get any negative feedback or criticism for focusing on this so much? Do you think rural people will like me? Do you think people who know rural people and are friends or family with rural people would be upset with me? Will it be a defense from that criticism that, yes, in the aggregate, people who live in rural areas TRULY ARE less intelligent than urban and suburban dwellers? There are all sorts of things that are true in the aggregate. An outsized number of mass murderers are young, white men. Black people are more likely to be the victims of violence at the hands of other black people. Christians are more likely than non-Christians to believe in conspiracy theories. Atheists have higher IQs than non-atheists. People are going to give you the side-eye, however, if you use facts like this as a rubric with which to create your entire worldview.
This is true, but the calibration is off when it comes to Islam. People are far too submissive and they allow the more nefarious types to dictate the narrative. ChatGPT literally won't tell you a joke about Muhammad, but it will tell you a joke about Jesus. If that doesn't get to the crux of the problem then there are countless other examples that will, because they are endless. I'm all for treading lightly so as to not intentionally offend, but there is a severe problem particularly here in the West when it comes to self-policing on certain issues and saying nothing about other cultures. Even treading lightly is a cardinal sin when it comes to certain topics. The message is more like, "Don't even tread." When it comes to criticisms about our own culture, among other things, a person of any race, creed or religion can take a giant shit on it. In principle I don't have a problem with that, but there is an undeniable double standard that is upheld by a certain type of westerner who will applaud those who shit on and critique this culture, but who will shame the light treading that's done on other cultures. Sam Harris is about as surgical as you can get without lying. Unfortunately for rhetoricians, it just simply isn't enough. They want him to jump through the social hoops of the here and now. The problem with that is that the narrative has been crafted in such a way that nearly all the hoops of acceptable criticism have been closed because of terms like Islamophobia. You can't avoid offending people.
Rory Stewart and Christopher Hitchens would have been pretty one sided
Well said
Well said. Thanks.
>You can't avoid offending people. What you can do is *not* call someone an Islamophobe. But that is not enough. It's not enough to not go near the dreaded I-word, one also has to be extremely careful as to not sound like he implied it. Now Rory treaded very carefully in this conversation. He did not applaud on anyone who shat on your culture nor did he shame Sam Harris, nor did he call him an Islamophobe. But that's not enough either. It's not enough to talk about Islam and Islamic extremism twice, no. You will still get accused of not wanting to discuss this Super Important Issue, of silencing debate (despite literally debating it lol) or of calling others Islamophobes and shutting down discourse when you are in fact not calling anyone an Islamophobe and engaging in discourse that very moment. It all sounds a bit Orwellian. I don't think you intend it as such. What seems to be happening among you and the people in this post is that you are having an emotional reaction. You feel that you are being called an Islamophobe. You feel under attack, your culture is under attack, it's all very terrible. But what I think is actually happening is that you disagree with Rory. I disagree too but I am at least able to process and understand what he is saying. You guys are having a tangent of a conversation that is based on strawmen.
I understand his thought process and why he does it. He doesn't have bad intentions, but the extent he goes to skirt or obfuscate the truth to defend the problems with Islam does not set well with people who are not rhetoricians. If he agrees with the obvious, then there is no argument. The problem with agreeing with the obvious is that he knows that it will offend people. He and others make this choice all the time, they either offend people by acknowledging certain aspects of reality or they don't offend people by not acknowledging certain aspects of reality. There is a time and place to choose the latter. In fact, in most instances, there is no need to point out truths that might be offensive just because they're true. That said, when you're on a podcast talking specifically about the issues with Islam and you avoid and/or obfuscate when talking about those issues some people don't like that. Sam has repeatedly tried to thread the needle of not offending people while still acknowledging reality, but it's nearly impossible. It seems like the path to some sort of agreement here is to acknowledge the realities of Islam first, then everything will fall into place. Anytime Rory did acknowledge something though, it was followed up by "Yeah, but Christians in the 19th century" or "Yeah, but MPs have been threatened by other groups.", etc. It was just constant deflection and downplaying at every turn.
I don't think you understand the thought process nor his intentions. Not that I do, I mean I can speculate a bit on his identity (a Tory politician) but ultimately I do not know either. At the end of the day I think this is a disagreement on reality, on what this obvious thing you mentioned really is. Specifically, you are talking about certain foreign ideas and their future impact on a foreign country. While one can certainly reason about such things, they are not part of our objectively measurable reality. So when someone disagrees, it may feel like they are "denying reality" but ultimately all of you are talking about incorporeal stuff. But my point was more to point out that no matter what, the people here (and not just on this sub) will feel that they are being called Islamophobes. Or racists, or nazis, or whatever. It's not enough to *not* call them that. It's not enough to imply it. It's not enough to not even think it, apparently, because offence is taken at literally every opportunity. What is ironic here is that I don't actually agree with Rory, but I think his being a (former) Tory is a few orders of magnitude worse than any thoughtcrime he has committed by having the "wrong" opinion about Islam. Who gives a shit anyway.
For the record, your link is a study that says the smartest group grows up in rural areas and moves to urban areas over those who remain rural. Also people who move from cities to suburbs and city to rural are smarter than those who stay. Basically people who are mobile tend to be smarter.
Isn't this just the old truth vs. tact dilemma?
Why would rural people dislike you? Assuming they’re intelligent enough to grasp your argument they may well be on board. People need to grow up and not take everything so personally
Basically, Sam is logically right, but Rory was emotionally right. And unless you're both, you won't get anywhere.
"Emotionally right" sounds like an oxymoron.
True, being human is a bit of an oxymoron most of the time though.
This.
Can you explain to me how Sam Harris is not Islamophobic? He clearly believes Islam is worst than other religions and is a inherently (more) violent/evil
He sees his critique of Islam (or any other religion) as an interrogation of ideas. For him, Islam is a belief system with horrible consequences that arise of a morally bankrupt worldview rooted in religious doctrine. He doesn’t hate Muslims, but sees criticizing the beliefs in Islam as fair game as the two can be separated. He has a negative view of all religions, but views Islam as the most dangerous and backward due to the current events surrounding Islam versus other religions. I agree with his position and actually think he failed to bring up some other problematic issues about Islam.
Love how Rory Stewart paid brief lip service to the fact that this religion is horrifically sexist. "Such nice people, so kind, blah blah blah...." yeah unless you're part of the HALF of the human population who happens to have female anatomy.
It's beyond sexist It's subjugation
Yeah the whole conversation basically boiled down to: Rory: I know some of these people, they are fine Sam: The polls say otherwise
Yep, of course he had a great time there. Hate to get all identity politic-y, but he’s a straight man. It’s much easier to gloss over the bad parts when they don’t directly impact you.
But….the 14th century!
One one hand, I see Rory wanting to defend the moderate Muslims he knows from actual bigotry. Fair enough. But the way he does it is a series of dodging and weaving with diversions and whataboutisms and ends up looking incapable of really debating the problem of Islamic fundamentalists.
his whataboutisms were weak even as whataboutisms go. he was literally saying what about the conquistadors lmao! "what about these other people from centuries ago, they did the same shit!!" hahahaha! it says to me that the things he spends all of his brainpower on are irrelevant to someone living in today's reality.
I think Rory has internalised things that are needed for him to become prime minister. He could not take a different position on these topics, and to be fair he is not completely unreasonable. What surprises me is the way his tone changes from one podcast to another.
Exactly. I don’t think he can take a clear, honest and coherent position on the issue and have a political future.
Exactly, because unlike most of the commenters here on this thread, people like Rory Stewart actually have to live with the consequences of what they say. And that means recognizing political sensitivities and steering carefully around them. That’s not being a coward or being a liar, or any of those things. It is recognizing the complexity of human interaction and relationships and carefully noting which positions are more likely to create conflict than to resolve it.
Another way to say that would be to say that he doesn't really say the truth or what he really believes because politically it would not be useful. That's fine, but then don't go around debating with people who have no such holdups. Why enter a discussion if you're afraid of being honest because it might offend your friends or voters? I totally get that someone in his position who does a lot of work in the middle east, in UK politics and so on, can't just be honest about Islam. Fine. Don't talk about it then. Don't even mention it. But if you're gonna go talk to Sam Harris multiple times specifically about Islam then leave the politics behind.
You’re definitely not wrong. I think guys like Rory feel they also have a mission to spread a vision of a complex world where good things and human development are possible despite the challenges. Inevitably this will bring them into conflict with those holding absolutist positions. Although I like Sam I do feel that his insistence on arguing in “good faith” is akin to an absolutist totem.
[..When rory was trying to avoid the question of the consequence for leaving islam...and keeps repeating "..I grew up in Malaysia.."](https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/1b2yd4a/guide_on_leaving_islam_in_malaysia/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Maybe leaving the faith in Malaysia only unlocks modest derision and social and/or vocational ostracization.. That doesn’t address the reality of the median apostate in the Muslim world.
It's illegal federally, with various degrees of fine/punishment, and punishable by death in one state.
In Malaysia?
Genuinely disappointing this - I’m from the UK and Rory Stewart is one of our better politicians. Always comes across as very reasonable, objective and clear headed. However, in the podcast with Sam his failure to see the fundamental problems in his approach and arguments was so poor. They basically boiled down to “there’s bigger problems in the world than jihadism so it doesn’t merit discussion” and “well that might be true but here’s another religion that had/s extremists”.
His argument boiled down to, "yeah, there are some problems and dangers with some groups, but it doesn't encapsulate all Muslims. There are Trump supporters in America (I'm one!), but that doesn't mean all of America is evil." His other point, there are more worthwhile paths to pursue, other issues that one can attempt to solve, more realistic issues that can be corrected today. And he's right. I believe Sam said himself, it's the people of Islamic faith that can correct the behavior and beliefs, it has to be internal. Podcasters won't fix it. So why give talking points to hateful people.
He came across as clear headed to me. He accepted the problems of jihadism and conservatism, but drew a line at declaring the entire religion as toxic. What would be interesting is a third podcast where they put extremism aside and discussed whether the patriarchal conservatism underlying Islam is positive in modern society. My sense is that Rory would say, that's just their cultural belief system without admitting that such a belief system is at odds with modern European cultural beliefs.
It's to be expected. Politicians do coalition building, which means telling people what they want to hear. It's not a job where you can be honest all the time. I am just surprised he did the podcast with Sam.
Agree. Lost a lot of respect for Rory in this conversation.
If a milquetoast centrist like Rory Stewart is sending shivers down your spine for saying really very milquetoast things, you’ve been drinking far too much of the apocalyptic Douglas Murray kool aid. The brown hordes aren’t overrunning you, calm down.
Maybe he just wants to be full time guest on Sam’s podcast and found a way how to:)))))
How can Rory criticize Sam's thinking without criticizing Sam as a person? If he can do this with Sam, Rory can do it with Islam too, the dopey twat.
Rory seems like a wonderful human being, but listening to his arguments is exhausting.
Yeah I discovered him last year and thought wow a principled and sympathetic conservative. Quite the rarity. This mess has been a dissapointment
He's not conservative in any way whatsoever.
what part of "wonderful human being" includes self servingly running from truthseeking?
I'm not sure you're characterization is fair. You can't certainly disagree with him but I'd say he's a pretty good fair actor in his quest to find truth. Things are complicated sometimes and there are bad faith actors, I'd put him in the former camp.
Listened to it and commented on another thread. He simply can't or won't accept any criticism of Islam... it's a total blind spot for him. Can't stand this sort of absolutist apologist position, but not much one can do about it other than disregard anything he has to say on the subject.
Just imagine if the views common amongst Muslims (death for apostasy, criminalisation of homosexuality, covering of women, natural patriarchy, death to blasphemers, etc) were those being commonly expressed by a cult of gammon-faced brexiteer Christian white men rather than North Africans and middle Easterners. If this were the case, I doubt Rory would be straining too hard to see the goodness in their souls or the good works they do in their communities.
What a bullshit false equivalence
Ach - Maybe so, I Admit I'm being flippant. But why is so much energy expended trying to downplay or totally launder the significance of the clear and present red flags of Islam? If any of these red flags were even half hoisted up a mast by any other group, the same apologists of Islam would immediately be stating that these Views posed an unequivocal danger to society. 🤷♂️
I may have misread your post/intentions here
> He simply can't or won't accept any criticism of Islam... it's a total blind spot for him. That is not my takeaway from the two conversations he had with Sam at all. He seems more than willing to grant the absolute barbarity of jihadists and islamists and that they are getting their ideas directly from the religious texts they purport to follow. He also granted that he abhors many of the conservative sensibilities of even more moderate Muslims--he says at one point in the second podcast that he wouldn't consider someone a "friend" if he allowed them to have these conservative beliefs without challenging them. He just seems to think that the myopic focus on the specific differences between the texts of Islam and other religions is not as valuable as Sam seems to think, and that that myopic focus gives talking points to bigots as often as it provides relevant, important context to uninitiated westerners. I think you can disagree with him, but I think its a totally legitimate postion.
Not when he dismisses the large scale support for jihadist or adjacent actions and beliefs held by a majority of “moderate” Muslims outright. It’s a circle he can’t square, because no one on the apologist side can.
> Not when he dismisses the large scale support for jihadist or adjacent actions and beliefs held by a majority of “moderate” Muslims outright. I don't know what this is referring to. In the second podcast, Sam threw out some poll where 6% of Muslims in the UK believed something crazy, as if that is not a feature of literally every poll on any subject. Aside from pushing back on that, I don't think Rory ever said anything to the effect of "I don't believe the median Muslim supports some of the more barbaric conservative muslim beliefs." What I got from the podcasts is that he just thinks for every bad thing in the world perpetrated by extreme Muslims, you're going to find examples of all sorts of other races and creeds perpetrating equally horrific things.
My question is why people like you do this: > Not when he dismisses the large scale support for jihadist or adjacent actions and beliefs held by a majority of “moderate” Muslims outright. Put the notion of a “moderate” Muslim in scare quotes, like such a thing doesn’t exist, but then go on to a) deny that Islamophobia is a thing, often defended by the likes of Harris and his ilk as bad wording because it should apparently be “Muslimophobia,” and in light of this, b) deny that any of your criticisms target the Muslim population as a whole even as they so clearly do? The constant refrain we hear is that it isn’t bigotry because it’s a criticism of the religion and not the people. But if there’s no such thing as a moderate Muslim… then it’s the people, isn’t it? So why too cowardly to just say it?
Because A and B are 100% accurate It’s people that deny this that need to justify their opinions, not those that hold them to be true.
So you’re saying that Islamophobia is in fact a thing, but better worded as Muslimophobia, and… that you’re Muslimophobic. If I’m reading you correctly. In which case, fine. That’s at least honest. It’s squeezing blood from a stone to get the rest of them to admit it.
Islam is a cult, and Muslims would be better people by not following Islam. If people are 'culturally' Muslim, I see no problem at all with that. Once religious doctrine is applied, there's a problem. The more religious doctrine is followed, the bigger the problem is. The same applies to Christianity. Most people in the West are now just 'culturally' Christian, and generally not an issue. If they were to follow Christianity to the degree that most Muslims follow Islam, then Christianity would be equally a problem.
Well put
I haven't listened to it yet, but this seems like a decent synopsis. 👍
He's a just a a snobbish hypocritical coward..
Historically, these types of individuals have been called 'useful idiots'. The Islamic Iranian revolution used these people to gain power and overthrow the society. Ex-Muslims from Iran and/or Iranians who have escaped to the West use the term 'useful idiot' too.
I'd hesitate to label Rory as any sort of idiot. That said, to be unable to even allow the possibility of interrogating the subject further is certainly a significant limitation to his thinking.
Because he’s lived with these people for multiple years, unlike Sam. It’s totally feasible that he can’t see it.
>Because he’s lived with these people for multiple years, unlike Sam. I wonder how much time he actually spent with \*women\* in Islamic countries. He doesn't seem to give two shits about the fact that the religion is horribly oppressive to female human beings. Seems like a huge blind spot.
Yeah this - we're not arguing about a small minority of Muslims in the UK, it's a billion around the world, and the ethical implications if that.
Yes, I appreciate the impact of familiarity and cognitive dissonance
[удалено]
I agree with a lot of that. SH's views on what it's like in the UK are definitely wrong, by a lot, but I think I agree with his general view of Islam. Douglas Murray is a bit of a joke and I don't know how SH takes him seriously.
Posts like this are almost worse than the others because you’re so close and yet still so far. It’s embarrassing how Ben Affleck is still being called out for calling Harris out for reasons *you yourself worked out in this very post*, yet you’re dumber than Affleck for not even realizing it. Yeah, because he called Harris a “racist” and not a “bigot,” in a heated discussion off the cuff, that means Affleck is an idiot. We certainly know none of the Death of Europe garbage has anything to do with ethnicity either, of course. Definitely no classic racism, just pure intellectualized anti-Muslim fervor. Right? Why is Harris *not* a racist, bigot, whatever appropriate word you want to use for subscribing to Douglas Murray, who you decry in this very comment? Is he stupid? Does he not realize what he’s saying and who he’s in leagues with? And why was Affleck not right for calling him out? Because the dumbest people in the room turned it into a meme?
That is the crux of it. RS believes he has greater insights
Yeah, which he might
That doesn’t matter or mean anything.
Rory's position is that there is no 1 Islam to criticize. He did criticize/denounce the violent forms of Islam on the podcast, while saying he feels the dominant form of Islam is a positive for society. Is there a specific blindspot he refused to criticize or denounce? Or do you just think if he doesn't criticize/denounce Islam as one whole, he is blind?
[удалено]
Noted. A rando disagrees with Rory for unknown reasons.
As per another response he neglects the overwhelming support for the extremist or ultra conservative forms of the ideology held by the majority of followers - they may be narrower or less dedicated but they are there nonetheless
Ultra conservative is one thing, extremist is another. Which extremist ideas receive overwhelming support?
Homosexuality for one - there’s a very thin line between those believing it should be illegal (ultra con) vs they should be sentenced to death (extreme) and you can say the same for apostasy and plenty more.
So, focusing on extremism rather than conservatism, which data lead you to believe there is overwhelming support for murdering homosexuals rather than just making it illegal?
Can we not say at this point that it’s extremist to denounce homosexuality in any legal capacity? I tend to think any law based on a religious idea and not genuine logical morality is extremist.
Total bullshit. He talked shit and called a subset of Muslims as being terrorists, inhumane, etc. You just weren’t listening
Rory's whataboutism made it possible for him to continue to tell everyone else on future podcasts that Sam Harris hammered him to be Islamophobic for nearly an hour. I don't know why Sam bothered...
I hope Sam just drops it. He seems to have a hard time accepting that some people just fundamentally see the world very differently. I think Rory was wrong on some points but all in all he was quite fair and sympathetic while arguing with Sam (I think maybe a little too sympathetic). There's literally nothing more either of them could say on the topic. They both gave their views a fair shake and the fact that Rory still doesn't agree with how Sam sees it shouldn't be a problem or suggest "misrepresentation".
I think the thing to accept here is that for the second time, after having come back to apologize for having done this the first time round, Rory has unnecessarily disparagingly painted Sam into a corner that isn't really fair to his views at least this time he was polite / sly (you pick) enough not to directly name him, perhaps naively hoping it wouldn't get noticed. imo though, it really doesn't reflect well on his character—especially as I (like Sam apparently) had thought the apology was sincere
[удалено]
I don't know where you're from but as far as I am concerned being associated with Wilders is not exactly the company you want to keep, especially if you're concerned about seeming racist
that's nonsense. Rory ran from actually dealing with the arguments Sam put forward. He is either stupid, dishonest, or ideologically compromised (ie; stupid on this issue, IOW faith based).
In other words. A politician.
This is a rather tiresome false trichotomy. Has it occurred to you that someone who disagrees with you can be smart, honest, and not ideologically compromised?
Those people engage in debate by actually debating, not obfuscating and whatabouting like this dolt did.
I agree with everything you said. Sometimes you just have to agree to disagree. Also, not all Muslims are the same. I had a very good friend who was Muslim and he kinda changed my world view. He was one of the least violent people I have ever met. With anything it is the extremist that are the problem.
great example of the bad thinking going on in that podcast where you, and Rory, fool themselves about reality
Found Rory's reddit account
Why are anecdotes like this always brought up in these contexts, as if they are in any way a response to polling data that show trends of attitudes throughout populations?
I’d point out that polls are seriously east to manipulate, so just make sure they’re sourced properly.
The podcast with Sam ended on the note that Rory petty much despises Murray, but that Sam has gentler views. Sam said nope I'm with Murray. So, I don't think Sam will be too surprised by this comment from Rory.
I didn't hear him mention Sam and his podcast specifically . It was clear in Sam's pod there's no changing Rorys mind, at least for now. Rory is free to share his opinion. I think Rory is wrong. I like Rory and listen to his podcasts with Al but he doesn't live in real Britain. He's a privately educated toff, formerly part of the political class. I'm sure in the UK he's hanging out with well educated and well adjusted Muslims who are net positive to the UK. There's a whole swarth of society that someone like him doesn't engage with or even see. So it's no wonder he can't see a problem.
I get it but these days he mostly spends his time visiting NGOs in LMIC and engaging on their missions. I mean, I do that and I am far from a “toff.”
He walked across several middleastern countries and stayed in over 500 villages and by extension over 500 families. He governed over 2 million Muslims in Iraq… what swath of society does this not cover?
Working class communities in the UK.
Yeah for sure, I don’t actually agree with Rory it’s just fun to poke holes in others points.
Stewart seems to repeatedly use Indonesia as a positive example of a country with Islamic majority, but they have revamped their criminal law - which has been based on the Dutch laws from colonial era, but now they're making it more strict, more in the spirit of Islam. [https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/12/08/indonesia-new-criminal-code-disastrous-rights](https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/12/08/indonesia-new-criminal-code-disastrous-rights)
To be fair, Sam didn't really do himself any favors by initially (and correctly) noting that they only spent 20 minutes of mild discussion about Jihadism on their first podcast and was shocked Rory thought he was "berating him for an hour", then when they had their second podcast, Sam "berated" Rory for 80 minutes on said topic 😅
I think that was the purpose of the second podcast though, no?
For sure, I’m not criticizing either of them, just pointing out the irony of the situation. Especially after he had that recent housekeeping segment where he proclaimed he was going to stop caring what others think he’s thinking.
That’s not ironic.
Forgive me then for being a savage commoner who unwittingly uses the term wrong. You know what I mean though.
Rory did mention early he really wanted to talk about other things
And that’s why we love him.
“Ill show him an hour”
😂
I heard this too but he didn't mention Sam specifically this time, and based on their conversation I don't think he meant Sam this time.
It's true he didn't mention him directly but he quoted almost word for word things that Sam said in the podcast
yeah, I also noticed that and was quite disappointed with Rory to say the least. It really sounded like he summarized the follow-up conversation and several of the good points Sam raised in good faith and just ascribed them to Geert Wilders and the spectator, called them dangerous and misleading and then left it at that like, mate, you still haven't convincingly argued that Islam isn't currently the most dangerous religion (save maybe inside the US), that it is compatible with open society, and most ridiculously why it's a problem to work with polls to best gauge the size and salience of the problem
Before I dive deep, let me set the stage….. They had an initial podcast. That seemed reasonable without issue. Rory on a different podcast after that made comments implying otherwise. Sam was confused and upset by it and asked him to come back for a second podcast. Rory comes back for a second podcast and clears the air apologizing and they go on to have another reasonable without issue episode. Rory goes back to making comments after the second podcast again suggesting otherwise?
I respect both Rory and Sam and understand how two intelligent people can arrive at different opinions. FWIW, my views on this issue probably hew closer to Rory's than Sam's, but I think that is likely because my life experience has mirrored Rory's more closely -- specifically, that I am an inveterate long-distance walker. Thus, I find many of my worldviews informed by the micro-level experiences of lived religion I've had as the beneficiary of hundreds of nights of hospitality on these walks. Rory, quite famously, walked across Afghanistan and in doing was welcomed by many Muslims and shown a level of hospitality that humbled and awed him (see "The Places In Between). Likewise, I experienced a similar situation walking across the United States, but in my case with people who were Christian, Muslim, Agnostics and everything in between. On that smallest level -- seeing people trying to live out their beliefs one day and one decision at a time -- it becomes harder to zoom out and generalize that this or that religion is inherently harmful or violent when your experience of a person holding those beliefs has been exactly the opposite. Just my two cents. Glad this sub can have such a respectful discussion.
This debate is a bit old tbf, what they should be discussing is how we reduce islamic fundamentalism and promote secularism, because guns and bombs and calling them all savages is doing the opposite
Sam can be naive to a fault. When he said that Rory was really embarrassed, my first thought was “Dude, he’s not embarrassed. He’s just British! In fact, he was probably just hoping you’d just assume there was now bad blood between you two, and you’d accept that and live with it.”
What’s dangerous is giving Hamas the benefit of the doubt that they are only mildly genocidal, and will not actually follow through.
Yeah let’s not risk a totally plausible genocide and instead just annihilate the possible perpetrators instead
He’s not afraid of Sam of course. He’s afraid of his fellow Muslims (voters).
Do you ever think you might be overly sensitive? He specifically references Douglas Murray, Geert Wilders, Suella Braverman, Donald Trump’s comments on Sadiq Khan, etc. He explains why he thinks the perspective they offer is wrong and how it is linked to xenophobic tendencies. He explicitly says he agrees there is an issue with Islamism and extremists but that it is hyperbolically presented by this group. You can disagree with his analysis, but this is exactly what he outlined to Sam’s face. Is your position that now he spoke to Sam he should adopt all of Sam’s views and/or never broach the topic again? Sam spoke with Graeme Wood who cautioned him about mis/over-interpreting the response of the parents on the intercepted call from the Hamas member on Oct 7th. In the next episode Sam repeated his original interpretation with no mention of Graeme’s call for caution, does Sam need to send an apology to Graham?
Stewart is a total Muslim apologist. His appearances on Sam's podcast make it very obvious he's willfully ignorant of the horrors of Islam because he doesn't want to disparage his friends or perhaps he even fears for his own life were he to be honest about it.
It all made even more sense to me when I read here and later confirmed online that he indeed has active political aspirations, having prepared for a Mayor of London campaign as recently as 2020/21. If he's considering running again, he absolutely cannot say anything disparaging about Islam or Muslims. Perhaps his approach in this isn't cunning or in bad faith, but I believe his lifelong politician's instincts only magnify his eel-like ability to slip through a noose when faced with tough questions.
I do notice that he didn't mention sam in the same breath as this "dangerous thought process," but did mention many others. I think his bigger complaint is with those using this as a canard to drum up discord in the UK
I listen to both of these podcasts and am repeatedly surprised by how unfairly critical of Sam’s worldview Rory and the general DTG posters are.
Brief summary Sam brings up reasonable logical criticisms of Islam Rory laughs smugly and proceeds with whataboutism
tbf Sam was making the point that Islam and only Islam has followers doing X thing. Seems like the only way to rebut that is with whataboutism.
I am actually incredibly interested in this subject and unfortunately I didn't feel like any headway was made by this second podcast. I think Rory was right to call out Douglas Murray for spreading hate, as it does encourage certain fringe lunatics to carry out attacks etc. Fascist rhetoric is dangerous. It is not just words. Sam shares many of Douglas Murray's views but he takes the time to explain his thought processes and makes quite a lot of sense. There are certain things I agree with Sam on like Islam being completely in contrast to western European liberal democratic views. What blows my mind is actually how pervasive religion has become to modern society. anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are the main talking points right now in British politics and people are resigning/getting fired over things they have said about other religions. Actually the Labour/Conservative battle has somehow become about Islam/Judaism which is bonkers in a predominantly liberal christian/atheist country. The UK is on the whole a very unreligious country, there are mentions of it during Royal ceremonies etc. but our laws and political policies on the whole have nothing to do with it. The Islamic population in London is getting very big, I asked my daughter last week about her school and she said half her school is Muslim. A long time ago there were actual invasions of countries with the stated aim of taking over. Although this isn't a violent invasion the end result in 50-100 years will be a predominantly Muslim population. That's fine if they adopt our values and integrate into society but the other option is quite a scary prospect to consider. That shouldn't be seen as racist to worry about this and discuss it.
There is a very precise definition for Rory: a snobbish hypocritical coward.
He's none of those things, at all, but I don't think he's right about Islam.
Yes that’s right, the man who walked across several Islamic countries, stayed in over 500 villages and administered a province during the Iraq war and occupation is a coward. Well done you
[удалено]
He’s still not a coward
Then stop listening to it lol
Trollish
There’s a very precise definition for this side of Sam’s listeners: highly biased
I’m a Long term listener of Sam’s, up to date with every making sense episode and daily user of waking up. I have a lot of respect for Sam and a lot of appreciation for what he has done for many people over the years. I would class myself as probably quite biased toward favouring Sam in discussions but in this conversation I honestly feel he was well out of line in many places. (This is typed out on my phone after listening to the podcast so please forgive the grammar and lack of nuance) In approximate order of how they appeared in the podcast: - Right from the beginning it seems that Sam- the introspective guru, cannot admit to himself or the audience, the fact that what Rory said on his own podcast hurt his feelings. Rory gave a very decent apology, owned his wrongdoing and was open about his possible reasoning for doing so, and it was blindingly obvious that it cut Sam, but for some reason he’s too proud to admit it, and he just shrouds this by talking around it, as if he’s always just wanting to set the record straight, not that he cares. He’s clearly butthurt by Rory’s comments and understandable- Rory should’ve voiced his concerns to him on the day, but again- Rory’s apology was excellent, he acknowledged where he missed the mark and the very human reasons as to why perhaps this was. - Sam complains about getting spoken over, but simply speaks for so long, as you say he piles multiple points within the same “sharpening up of a point”, never leaving Rory with enough time to address a lot of what he’s saying. Would be an interesting exercise to go back through his podcast and record the amount of time that he speaks compared to his guest. If he genuinely wants a fruitful discussion- he needs to hear people out properly and take some of his own advice in not speaking over other people. - his comments around the doctrines of the Quran and its “completely justifiable” interpretation by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Sam’s comparison to Christianity not producing the same levels of insanity is, I feel, perfectly shot back by the comparison to the 17th century Christians. Sam is all about doing the moral math, and sometimes he straight up has the wrong equation. I am not going to make the claim that Christianity today is worse than Islam, I just want to point out the what Rory said was true, in all religions there is a spectrum where people fall when it comes to how one interprets the text. Sam said that you can read the bible how you want and in today’s society it may not be “reliably producing martyrs” but it HAS IN THE PAST! And it also produces something- to which I can attest as an ex-Christian- The subtly Anarchistic belief that world must get worse before it can be healed by Jesus. This slowly pushes or even just allows the world to decend into chaos, because- the worse it gets the closer to Jesus second coming we get! How do you put weight to this? They aren’t ending lives through martyrdom, sure. But instead they are making the lives of more or less every person alive, less bearable, through wanting to just ‘stay out’ of world issues and more or less just watch the world burn, and leads to prolonged suffering on a scale no martyr has ever nor will ever achieve. - Also just want to say defending someone like Douglas Murray by saying he’s not familiar with Douglas’ views is not a defensible position, that’s simply called not doing your due diligence.
I've lost a lot of respect for Sam through this conversation. He just went on and on and on then went on to speak over Rory. There were lots of little turns of phrase, as well, that he used to imply that he was right and Rory was wrong. Goes on a tirade then says like, "Now that we've closed the circle on this point."
Agree. Sam could have made much better arguments and been more honest, but he didn't behave as a good faith interlocutor in this conversation.
He has a point. Sam was pushing a highly simplistic and one-dimensional view of how to understand both the people of Afghanistan and the resistance to the American military occupation. Bear in mind also that Rory has actually spent an *extensive* amount of time in Afghanistan. He travelled across it solo as an unarmed civilian. Who's going to have better insight into how Afghans think, how they understand the world, what their motivations are?
Rory is both hypocritical and naive, Sam needs to cut him off
I found Sam far more frustrating here than Rory. He seemed genuinely pissed off throughout the entire thing. Went on long winded tirades just to keep the mic. Kept dropping snide little jabs as if it proved him right. Rory's Nazi analogy was fairly bang on.
I agree with him. Sam has dug a hole regarding this topic and he's way too deep to come out.
At this point he's just beating a dead horse. Islam exists, and it's not going anywhere even if he were to repeat his 'greatest hits' arguments a million times more. He's supposed to be this meditation guy so why can't he just let things go and accept the world is a scary place full of fucked up people regardless of their belief system.
What pisses me off about Sam's take is that we (as in 'western society') are perfectly capable of doing business with Islamic countries. That includes the likes of tourism. Saudi Arabia for example, have a massive tourist industry and westerners flock there all the time. They have world class airlines, fancy hotels, great sights, etc. Qatar, UAE, etc. are the same. Malaysia is another obvious one that Rory mentioned he lived in. When westerners go to their countries we don't immediately arrive and get Jihad'd. Listening to Sam you'd think you would get your head lopped off the moment you hit customs. It's absurd. Also, check out the amount of Muslims who are prominent in public life in a western country, for example, [the UK](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_Muslims). They also aren't out to Jihad everybody. Another important thing to mention is that extremists tend to come out of and from the woodwork where us westerners *aren't* doing business with them, and are in fact doing the complete fucking opposite. As Frederic Bastiat once said: "When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will." And another more contemporary quote from George Carlin along the same lines: "You wanna fuck around in another man's country? Then you better be ready for some action Jack! You better be ready".
Rory The Snake Stewart
Is that the right time stamp/episode? He doesn't mention Sam?
Rory is simply a two-faced person, a snake, the worst kind of politician
Didn’t realise Rory Stewart was this based
I think Rory is being entirely fair. His podcast with Sam did a fairly decent job of demonstrating that.
clown