I would like to recommend to anyone who hasn't ready it already, "Islam: The future of tolerance".
It's a shot (120 pages or so) dialogue between Sam Harris (scientist/atheist/critic of islam) and Maajid Nawaz (ex Islamist fanatic who was tortured in Egypt, Lib Dem parliamentary candidate & founder of Quilliam - an anti-radicialization outfit).
The book is excellent. I listened to the audio version, narrated by the authors (which is always nice). The audio version also includes a 90 minute postscript in which the authors have a chat about the book's reception shortly after release, and answer questions they solicited. I'd recommend the audio version if you have a choice.
Nawaz outlines strata of acolytes of Islam, increasing in numbers from: Jihadists (islamists who use force to spread islam), islamists (people who want to spread islam as a duty), conservative non-islamist muslims (who, for example, might rail against al qaeda because they view it as them hijacking their religion, whereas less conservative muslims tend to be more tribal and support muslims because they are muslims), and Muslims (who aren't islamists but aren't conservative either)
Both see the need to get muslims into the conservative category, with the view to that being the route to secularism & eventually liberalism (in the classical sense). Many won't go that far - but removing the islamism is the primary & necessary goal.
Harris is critical of islam. Nawaz says that it's, in practise, a religion of peace as the majority are peaceful (with 'peaceful' meaning not militant - support for sharia is huge); But given that the texts are inherently contradictory there can be no 'true' interpretation, labelling any such interpretation as 'vacuous'. Harris agrees although considered islam, in practise, to be much easier than others to be interpreted, 'vacuously', as promoting violence.
Some talk of history & politics.
Some talk of radicalisation ingredients - real or perceived grievance, identity crisis, charismatic recruiter, ideology & it's narrative.
And other stuff.
It's very good. It's a nice friendly (but honest) dialogue, although according to the postscript they were surprised to find the reviews swung from sensing tension, to viewing the pair as both shilling for the same viewpoint.
It's a shot (120 pages or so) dialogue between Sam Harris (scientist/atheist/critic of islam) and Maajid Nawaz (ex Islamist fanatic who was tortured in Egypt, Lib Dem parliamentary candidate & founder of Quilliam - an anti-radicialization outfit).
The book is excellent. I listened to the audio version, narrated by the authors (which is always nice). The audio version also includes a 90 minute postscript in which the authors have a chat about the book's reception shortly after release, and answer questions they solicited. I'd recommend the audio version if you have a choice.
Nawaz outlines strata of acolytes of Islam, increasing in numbers from: Jihadists (islamists who use force to spread islam), islamists (people who want to spread islam as a duty), conservative non-islamist muslims (who, for example, might rail against al qaeda because they view it as them hijacking their religion, whereas less conservative muslims tend to be more tribal and support muslims because they are muslims), and Muslims (who aren't islamists but aren't conservative either)
Both see the need to get muslims into the conservative category, with the view to that being the route to secularism & eventually liberalism (in the classical sense). Many won't go that far - but removing the islamism is the primary & necessary goal.
Harris is critical of islam. Nawaz says that it's, in practise, a religion of peace as the majority are peaceful (with 'peaceful' meaning not militant - support for sharia is huge); But given that the texts are inherently contradictory there can be no 'true' interpretation, labelling any such interpretation as 'vacuous'. Harris agrees although considered islam, in practise, to be much easier than others to be interpreted, 'vacuously', as promoting violence.
Some talk of history & politics.
Some talk of radicalisation ingredients - real or perceived grievance, identity crisis, charismatic recruiter, ideology & it's narrative.
And other stuff.
It's very good. It's a nice friendly (but honest) dialogue, although according to the postscript they were surprised to find the reviews swung from sensing tension, to viewing the pair as both shilling for the same viewpoint.
Comment