Dawkins is no doubt correct when he says that “the fear of being thought racist trumps the fear of being thought misogynist or homophobic.”
And it’s a shame that KPFA canceled him without giving him a chance to rebut the charges against him, or even offering any evidence to substantiate those charges. Welcome to my world, Mr. Dawkins.
Meanwhile, “he maintained he had ‘never used abusive speech against Islam’, and instead had taken aim at the ‘vile’ Islamism, not Islam – two different things.”
Would Mr. Dawkins kindly explain what exactly the difference is between Islamism and Islam, and how Islamism distorts or changes the teachings of Islam such that one can criticize one without criticizing the other? Can he kindly point out an established sect of Islam that does not teach what he would term misogyny or homophobia?
Dawkins will almost certainly not see this post, and even if he did, he won’t answer the questions, because I am smeared as “far-right,” which allows him to ignore me and others who ask the same questions. He should reflect on the possibility, however, that he thinks we are beyond the pale because of years of having the same kind of thing done to us that KPFA did to him. And whatever he thinks of those defamed as “far-right” and “Islamophobes,” those questions remain.
“Richard Dawkins in fiery attack on ‘cowardly’ liberals with ‘fundamental flaws,’” by Joel Day, Express, January 17, 2021:
…In an interview with The Sun last year, the scientist took aim at his ‘fellow liberals” who refused to condemn what he described as “rampant” homophobia and misogyny in Islam.
When asked whether it’s possible to have a sensible conversation about Islam, he said: “It is difficult and many of the people who think I’m right-wing.
“Decent liberal people who I regard as my own people, I’ve always been among those people.
“Who I regard as cowards because they cave in and they do not observe their principles of feminism, of gay rights – all of the things decent liberal people believe.
“But suddenly they forget about them when it comes to Islam.”
He continued: “And I think I know why: I think it’s because they mistakenly think Islam is a race – which it isn’t, it’s a religion – if you can convert to it or apostatise out of it it’s not a race.
“And because they’re decent liberals and extremely against racism, as I am, the fear of being thought racist trumps the fear of being thought misogynist or homophobic.
“And so they overlook the homophobia and the rampant misogyny of extreme Islamism, and so they betray their decent liberal principles in that one case.
“If a liberal like me does not betray those principles and does condemn the misogyny and the homophobia of Islamic theocracies, they will turn on us and call us right-wing Islamophobes, because they have betrayed their liberal principles.”
Prof Dawkins has received a considerable amount of criticism for his views on Islam.
In 2017, while promoting his memoir ‘A Brief Candle in the Dark’, one of his appearances was cut short.
Berkeley’s KPFA Radio cancelled his appearance on the channel because, it said in a letter to ticket holders: “We had booked this event based entirely on his excellent new book on science, when we didn’t know he had offended and hurt – in his tweets and other comments on Islam – so many people….
In an open letter to the station, he wrote: “My memory of KPFA is that you were unusually scrupulous about fact-checking.
“I especially admired your habit of always quoting sources.
“You conspicuously did not quote a source when accusing me of ‘abusive speech’.
“Why didn’t you check your facts – or at least have the common courtesy to alert me – before summarily cancelling my event?”
He maintained he had “never used abusive speech against Islam”, and instead had taken aim at the “vile” Islamism, not Islam – two different things.
No Muzzies Here says
Dawkins is a very intelligent, reasonable man. He is stating the facts, just like Robert Spencer. He is being attacked because of complaints from a very powerful group that owns the Democrat party.
Refusenik says
Do people who use the term Islamism state facts? Or are they avoiding the truth?
mortimer says
To Refusenik: the term ‘Islamism’ is a useful term in political science that identifies and organizes the political elements of Islam so that intelligent people can understand the subtleties of the relationship between Islamic religious decrees and their political applications.
gravenimage says
Dawkins comes a *lot* closer than most.
Jon Sobieski says
Exactly. Exactly where is the koran that islamists use? It is the same koran that the muslim apologists use. Same disgusting verses by a 7th century caravan robber and rapist and murderer. There is only one koran and one islam. Dawkins is a coward calling others cowards. How amusing.
mgoldberg says
There is a sit down interview of Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Jonathan Sacks from back in 2015 02016 in London. Sacks was I think still the Chief Rabbi of England. The interview is rather intersting as you can see a committed atheistic and a comitted observant jewish rabbi, sit and discuss and debate. It is more than possible to do so, especially with someone like Rabbi Sacks( he just passed away this past month) who was a very well read philosopher, a man well read in science, arts, literature as well as a life long learner and practitioner of observant judaism. The lecture is interesting enough for what it contains but in the context of Dawkins being doxed for merely stating something about Islam is of course no mystery to jihadwatch readers.
mortimer says
Sad, isn’t it, that a scientist is not allowed to discuss observable facts? We are told we must not see what we see. Our lying eyes are supposedly ‘deceived’ if they differ from the Party’s agenda.
The Left’s pursuit of political dominance must not be questioned even if the leftist narrative contradicts verifiable, observable facts.
mgoldberg says
You might enjoy his discussion with Sacks because he is a confirmed atheist and rabbi sacks was an observant jew and they got along even as they got into a couple heated back and forths…. but it is the back and forths of people who do recognize the right to speak, to believe, disbelieve and air their views without the thought police invading. As opposed to any discussion with others about islam. I remember in, I think it was Falacci’s the Rage and the Pride, she recounts being brought to Khomeini’s residence in Tehran for an interview. She was forced to wear a burqa over her entirety, and he, gave her a lecture about womans rights in Islam if I remember. She then ripped off her head dreas and her arms on her hips dared his guards to empty their AK-47’s into her. If I remember, his son who was there, recalled that that was the only time he ever saw his father laugh in his life. And here we are- the tyranny of the world, now firmly ensconced in the west.
Refusenik says
But you are allowed to discuss. So long as you obfuscate. Plain talk is not allowed.
mortimer says
To Refusenik: are you alright? The ‘right’ to speak is a social contract between two people. We do not have to ‘CRUSH’ everyone who has a different point of view … perhaps you feel you must. But if everyone behaved without good manners, as you do, no one would then join any society or association, and no one would ever get married, since 100% agreement on everything would be required. I believe … two people: two opinions.
You obviously don’t know the meaning of the word ‘courtesy’.
gravenimage says
Decent people can respectfully debate even if they disagree on many points. But Islam demands submission, including through violence.
LB says
This is exactly what happened with James Watson — the man who discovered DNA, which is argued by scientists to be the most important scientific discovery in human history. He has decades of distinguished scientific work throughout 20th century under his belt, with many prizes, medals and rewards to his name, including the most distinguished Nobel prize. Basically, the guy is a genius and pioneer in molecular biology and genetics.
Fast forward to a 2007 interview ahead of his tour, he made a passing comment about race-IQ relation where he found that increased skin melanin leads to increased sex-drive and reduced IQ, which is obvious if you compare Africans (blacks) to Westerners (whites). Following that interview, he got cancelled EVERYWHERE: his colleagues, his publications, and every American and European university he was ever a part of denounced him faster than you can say #MeToo.
Essentially, due to a SINGLE COMMENT, not even a dedicated study or anything, James Watson became persona not grata, public enemy #1, and became completely unemployable anywhere. His situation got so bad that he was forced to SELL HIS NOBEL PRIZE IN ORDER TO SURVIVE! Imagine that, the most distinguished scientist getting cancelled and struggling to survive because his scientific observation did not match the leftist narrative that “everyone is equal”.
And leftists claim they are all about science…. Sure they are, but only when it suits them. I bet that if he said the opposite he would be praised to high heaven and showered with money. Clowns!
Aastra says
Lol, no wonder he got thrown out. Because by his statement sex slavery should have been common in black people. Which was not the case before colonisation nor white people have the highest IQ nor sophisticated culture. Which Asians do.
R Russell says
I am reminded of a conversation Dawkins had with another Brit. I found it amusing then, and still do today!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-K468dKNfA
David Wilson says
The liberal left will always ignore the worst excess of militant Islam.
mortimer says
“RAMPANT” ??? Huh ???
Hawkins’ phraseology is somewhat off the target when he says ‘the homophobia and the RAMPANT misogyny of extreme Islamism’.
It is not merely, ‘rampant’, but SYSTEMIC, CANONICAL and NORMATIVE.
And as for his compulsive need to use ‘EXTREME’ in order to suggest that most Muslims disagree with Sharia law … er … it is certainly NOT considered ‘extreme’ by Muslims!
In fact, ordinary Muslims consider misogyny and anti-gay hatred to be MODERATE Islam.
For a scientist to sidestep the facts is SAD, but Hawkins obviously does it so he won’t appear to be a PARIAH to his libtarded cronies who COULDN’T CARE LESS about what is actually written in Sharia law and in the hadiths.
The Libtards have an official NARRATIVE and an AGENDA that requires Islam to be ‘BENIGN’, at least in theory, even if that contradicts all the facts.
gravenimage says
+1
Walter Sieruk says
With the two “words” used at the end of the title of this article which are “extreme “and “Islamism” it’s very clear that the obviously needs to be gone over and explained ,once again,
Which is that the words “Islamist” and “Islamism” is a fake words that used that was made up after September 11, 2001 in order offend or upset non-violent Muslims. The real, actual, word is just “Islam.” Likewise, the word “Islamist” is also a bogus word that was made up after 9/11 in order not to offend or upset peaceful Muslims. To keep with reality, terms should better be used as “Islamic terrorist” or “Muslim terrorist” . Let’s call people and thing as the really are.
Likewise ,the terms “Radical Muslim” and “Islamic extremist” is actually a misuse of terms. “Moderate Muslim” are actually Western term and not that well known in the Islamic Middle East. This is because what In the Islamic mindset in the Muslim Middle East as well as in Indonesia and other Muslim controlled countries what the non-Muslims of the Western nations view as “radical and “extremist” the Muslims of those places in the world see as “Normal” and even Devout and committed to the Cause of Islam”.
Furthermore, those “Moderate Muslims” are those of the Islamic worldview and non-devout and non –committed Muslims. The violent jihadists even see them as “hypocrites.” Therefore, this explains the jihadist chant of those jihad-minded Muslims in different Islamic terror organizations. When they chant out loud “Death to infidels and hypocrites.” Meaning Death to people who and not Muslims and people who are non- jihadist Muslims.
Concerning the last part of this above essay, the violent spirit of that vicious jihadist chant “Death to infidels and hypocrites.” The later word of the chant “hypocrites” in the jihad –minded Muslim worldview is further explain in the book titled JIHADIST PSYCHOPATH by Jamie Glazov , for on page 42 the reader is informed that “Islam mandates that devout and real Muslims must punish , and in some circumstances kill, those Muslims whom they regard as neither legitimate nor properly devout.”
gravenimage says
This is all true–but, as I noted above, Dawkins still comes much closer than do most these days. He should still be applauded, despite his use of some equivocal phrasing.
islamaphone says
Behold the cognitive dissonance of the Left: Atheism is fine but if you’re a critic of the Religion of Homophobia and misogyny, you’re right-wing.
somehistory says
+100
mortimer says
The ‘narrative’ is what gives Leftists power, so they have no use for facts.
The Left practices moral relativism. They are opportunists.
tim gallagher says
I’m not sure that it is right to describe them as “decent” people if they are actually aware of the evil nature of Islam and yet refuse to call the disgusting, barbaric ideology out. Cowardly, yes, but “decent”, no. They should tell the truth and bugger this rubbish about being considered “racist”.
somehistory says
+100
tim gallagher says
Thanks, somehistory. I believe that if a person can see a flaw or problem (and Islam is certainly full of failings and sheer barbarity) then that person has to have the guts to speak up about it. Of course, with violent Islam, it is a difficult thing to do as plenty of vicious Muslims will try to kill people who tell the truth about the filthy, evil ideology. I suppose that’s the reason why these supposedly decent people keep their mouths shut. Maybe some people shut up for fear of being called racist, but plenty would keep quiet because of the understandable fear of violence from the Muslim scum.
ManchesterLad says
Exactly. This is why I use a pseudonym here, I’m sure most people do the same. That’s the penalty for telling the truth about Islam – well almost anything true will offend the left too 🙂
somehistory says
You’re welcome, T.G.
It’s my opinion that if a person cannot tell the Truth…due to fear, or whatever.,. they should just not say anything on the subject. Never should one lie to cover up evil.
tim gallagher says
Thanks for the comments, ManchesterLad, somehistory, PRCS and Graham. I agree with your point, ManchesterLad, that anything true will offend both the Muslims and the left and both will come after the truth teller viciously. As I often say here at Jihad watch, when it comes to islam, I have come to the conclusion quite a few years ago (since I began to see how totally incompatible Islam is with our western values) that the only solution is to keep Muslims out of non-Muslim countries, in the way that Hungary and the other Visegrad bloc countries do. Muslims can’t kill and threaten to kill people who tell the truth about the barbaric ideology of Islam if they aren’t in the country. I don’t believe that backward, primitive Islam has anything positive to bring to any civilised country. Islam brings nothing but trouble.
PRCS says
Very good point, Tim!
tgusa says
“Decent liberal people overlook the homophobia and the rampant misogyny of extreme Islamism”
Three words that don’t belong in that sentence are decent, liberal and extreme.
“If a liberal like me does not betray those principles and does condemn the misogyny and the homophobia of Islamic theocracies, they will turn on us and call us right-wing Islamophobes, because they have betrayed their liberal principles.”
That is an admission that the cult of modern liberalism is a totalitarian ideology. However this modern version of liberalism and what they support blows in the wind like an empty gum wrapper. They may love you today but hate you tomorrow. The reason this cult cannot get anything of lasting value done is they can always find a reason not to do anything. Its a sad and pathetic existence. The source of their anger comes from within. Deep down they hate themselves for what they know they have become.
somehistory says
+100
ManchesterLad says
Actually I don’t think I completely agree here. In my experience, modern ‘liberals’ are proud of their delusions, and hold them dear, like a religion.
Modern liberalism ‘leftism’ is a supremacist, as well as totalitarian ideology. They believe that their opinions make them ‘better’ than people who don’t agree with them. That’s what makes them so dangerous.
They might well hate themselves, but this is because of what they are, not what they’ve become. They make themselves feel superior by their beliefs. That’s why they can’t argue for them, or tolerate any criticism of them – their whole world and sense of superiority would come tumbling down.
James Lincoln says
ManchesterLad says,
“They make themselves feel superior by their beliefs. That’s why they can’t argue for them, or tolerate any criticism of them – their whole world and sense of superiority would come tumbling down.”
The many erroneous beliefs of Leftists is what gives them their persona.
If they allow those beliefs to be shattered by factual, evidence-based logic, they lose their sense of self-worth, etc,…
revereridesagain says
The late and sorely missed Christopher Hitchens would never pussyfoot around using a term such as “Islamism” but told it as it is, whether what it is, is in NOKO or Iran or Sorry Arabia. Dawkins has confronted enough supernaturalist-rooted pernicious idiocy to know it when he sees and hears it and should stop worrying about who thinks he’s “right-wing” and tell the truth as he very well sees it.
tgusa says
The cult of modern liberalism has allowed in to their big tent people groups and ideologies from some of the most illiberal parts of the world. They will eventually need an unrelenting iron fisted strongman to hold their mish mash ideology together. Joe or Kamala are not the unrelenting iron fisted strongmen they will require.
Depending on the background and affiliations of that unrelenting iron fisted strongman there will be winners and losers among the cult. Many of them probably wake up at night in a cold sweat wondering if they will be winners. but as we all know that is a touch and go issue that they will not know until they know and by then it will be too late for some.
Westman says
Stalin having Trotsky and his wife assassinated is a good example of what is always in store when liberal movements morph into totalitarianism. Looking at the disparities of the current leftist movements in the US and EU there is only one common goal: the destruction of Christian morals, the destruction of capitalism, and the creation of society with only relative, shifting, values.
History has shown us that such societies become dangerous and self-destroying as the factions fight among themselves until until the terrible tyrant appears who is willing to kill all those who differ from HIS values. We have already seen that attitude develop in Antifa. America just stepped on that road and when it ends, even Muslims will not survive. They just don’t realize it yet. Look to China for the example.
Kepha says
Don’t know. The modern American Left is perfectly capable of succumbing to Islam. Look at Europe, and people like Garaudy, the Communist who ended up a Muslim and holocaust denier. Look at how Malcolm X has become canonical. My own take is that the Western–and especially American–Left is both committed to embracing Islam as part of its “diverse” coalition, and also aware that if it offends Islam, it’s curtains. That realization may be too little and too late, but it’s part of the equation.
How is China defeating Islam? The Communists, for all their protestations of ethnic equality and unity, retain an all but Victorian bigotry, holding that the “national minorities” are less evolved, and nothing but a decorative fringe of the garment, good for tourist dollars, and ought to be grateful for having been lifted out of savagery, feudalism, and everything else their forbears thought dear. If they rebel, well, that’s nothing that a little massacre wouldn’t cure. In the grand scheme of bullying, the CCP is the top, the rich Han people next, and the poor Han people are allowed to think that if they can’t be better than an Uyghur or a Tibetan, whom can they be better than? God save us if we ever have to emulate Communist China.
Do not kid yourself: Today’s China remains a pitiful spiritual colony of all that was worst in late 19th and early 20th century Germany, balanced between socialism and jackboot, militaristic nationalism.
citoyen says
Dawkins has also described himself as a “cultural Anglican”.
You know the kind: has a collection of Gregorian Chant to listen to while
simmering the garlic sauce.
Too bad about Dawkins.
Old age?
Stuck inside too long 2020 with his droopy dog staring at him?
“Look Fido, I just said that muslims should get out more!!!
I can’t be kicked off the High Table at refectory for that, can I !!! Can I ?”
Woof.
Let’s hope he regains his mojo and doesn’t do a Malcolm Muggeridge and become a born-again something or other and start wearing interesting cultural pyjamas around the quad.
somehistory says
Never could warm up to this guy. Wishy-washy on islam and has no regard for the feelings of Christians.
moslims….why yes, yes he has regard for their feelings. It isn’t **islam***…how many times have we heard that phrase? Usually regarding murders…mass murders, vehicle murders, murders of police, teachers, politicians, artists, Christmas shoppers, little old ladies puttering around the house…remember the little lady who was slaughtered in her back garden, and now the one on today’s pages here…soldiers murdered, children kidnapped…the list is endless, but it “isn’t anything to do with islam,”…it’s all the fault of ‘islamists” and “Islamism.”
And now, **islam** isn’t to blame for the hatred of women or homosexuals by moslims, everywhere moslims reside, esp in large numbers where they can rape, enslave, slice and dice and throw stones and bodies from high buildings.
There is nothing close to having regard for Christians from this atheist…afraid of the moslims who might have heard him condemn the practices they take to heart, and worried about his fellow liberals who just don’t understand as much as he.
He and his ilk can lie, and talk a big talk, until Kingdom comes.
And then the lies and big talk will cease.
JimJFox says
“he and his ilk”. Atheists, you mean. Like me! Speaking of lies, Dawkins is (for an atheist) well disposed toward Christianity. On Islam he is understandably concerned for his survival, not wanting to attract a fatwa similar to Rushdie & many others. ALL religion is twaddle, for me & I am bemused by its continued existence, except for Islam which persists by death threats and extreme indoctrination. As an Islamic scholar once said “if not for the death penalty for apostasy Islam would collapse”
somehistory says
If you want to include yourself with “his ilk,” I won’t try to stop you. However, I did not mean all atheists. I meant those who call Christians names in public in an attempt to influence others and to make Christians the object of ridicule.
Some people don’t believe there is a God and that is their choice…they can do that as long as God allows it.
It’s the ones who find it their goal to call those who do believe in God names…insults…and try in public to make us appear as unworthy of any respect…just because we believe.
Christians don’t go about hurting others….although this is ***claimed*** by many as a reason to insult us…and our personal belief is just that…a personal choice.
If one can have the choice of being an atheist or agnostic and not being stomped on verbally by “learned men and women” and lied about in public in order to get people to believe as the speaker does, then so do Christians have that right to not be verbally abused as “stupid” and calling God Himself names such as ‘sky fairy.’
So, you are either of “his ilk” or you are an atheist who respects others enough to allow choices. That is your choice.
James says
“… ‘vile’ Islamism, not Islam – two different things.”
Uh, actually Mr Dawkins, there isn’t on da#$ bit of difference. Also, Islam is not a race. It is a belief system. So, you need not worry about racism. Islam is an idea.
gravenimage says
Richard Dawkins: ‘Decent liberal people overlook the homophobia and the rampant misogyny of extreme Islamism’
……………………
Dawkins is not wrong–save that is this not so decent.
Eleanor says
Islam is being protected by the West, to their (the West’s) detriment, and you have to ask why this should be?
Jayell says
Money? Oil?
Jayell says
I’m surprised to see Mr. Dawkins being taken in by this ;islamISM; charade. I should have thought that he of all people would have seen through that. Also, if he could see all the homophobia and the ‘rampant misogyny’ in islam why did he not also see all the ‘everything-else phobia’ as well?
Ole Pederson says
Richard Dawkins is one of the most honest and well-spoken scientists of our age. And a human being with a great heart and character!
The fact that he uses mainstream vocabulary (islamism) as a kow-tow to mainstream stifling of free speech and scientific honesty in no way minimizes his achievementa as a great debater in sceptic discussions of any religious nonsense, in particular as he answers with respect and dignity and with the sanity of a real scientist to even to the fringest religiot weirdos, as can be seen in countless videos of him debating.
Don Ameche says
Not only is the problem within islam itself, but with the whole concept of ” decent liberal”. Liberalism is a failed ideology as much as islam is a failed ideology.
Patriotliz says
I guess Dawkins didn’t get the memo that Liberalism no longer exists except in isolated cases like himself, and that they are now known as Leftists, Fascists and Commies. Totalitarian birds of a feather flock together which is why Leftists admire and respect Islam, in spite of its inhumanity, misogyny and homophobia more than they like people who identify with traditional Western Civilization values.
Always: Western Civilization–BAD; non-Western culture–GOOD.
Democrats are the ones who are like Islamic terrorists (but these Democrat Fascists project that label onto Trump supporters after the 1/6/21 event of the “insurrection” of the Capitol building)…Democrats admire the power of the Fascist-Commie-Islamic supremacist political ideology with its suppression of freedoms, threats, bullying, control of every aspect of a person’s life and intimidation.
somehistory says
+100