Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Downloads

  • TMBS_18_02_xx_Murtaza_Hussain_Islamophobia.mp3

Missing 1 file, as this post has not yet been imported.

Content

Murtaza Hussain (@MazMHussain) joins us to discuss modern islamophobia. The historical precedents in colonialism and orientalism. 1980s foreign policy and the subsidizing of extremists. The arc of islamophobia from W. Bush to Obama to Trump and "War with Islam." Engaging with the New Atheists. What Sam Harris means when he talks "reforming Islam."

Comments

deborah.gordon@wichita.edu

He needs to stop attacking Arab women (as well as others) who disagree with him on Syria. This is a persistent disappointment of his politics-that someone with as sophisticated a political understanding of the world would align himself in his political rhetoric with some of the worst demagoguery on social media on this question.

Omar Omar

... I'm a little conflicted. While Sam Harris is definitely a regressive voice that lends itself to the policies of the far right. As an x-Muslim who lives between Egypt and the gulf, Islam is definitely a deeply problematic factor when we Middle easterners talk to each other about how we can progress and emancipated ourselves. I feel there's a missing link between Harris' rhetoric that Islamic scripture and scholarship being barbaric (it is, sorry) and Aziz's claim that it's only western intervention that has caused the middle East to regress. The consensus here is that the west took advantage of our backwardness but didn't cause it. Also Aziz's claim that it's only the Wahabis that are hardline and extreme and that this ultra conservatism is a modern phenomenon is just factually incorrect.

Omar Omar

Just my 2 cents, keep up the great work Michael.

Emma & Brian

heres a thought experiment for aam harris: if a majority muslim country had been the global hegemon for decades and had behaved towards christian countries the way the US has, i guarantee there would be groups of extremist christians like Isis and other terrorist cells. Just like today with Islam there would be a vast majority who are peaceful, but there would be some who would cherrypick parts of the bible (and for anyone who has read it there are plenty) and use it to justify their extreme violence.

Dael Morris

Harris would argue that the problem, in either case, is religion. What he doesn't have the scholarship to acknowledge is that the positions that he prefers rest on religious premises, including the assumption of continual progression towards a better future, driven by western values - an assumption that has provided cover for all sorts of atrocities in an "ends-justifying-means" kind of way. Because he does this, he shifts the argument away from straight-forward realpolitik and power games, and thereby provides cover for precisely that realpolitik. At best, a useful idiot.

Amir Touray

If this is Illicit History 23, can it be tagged as such, so it can be more easily found in future? e.g. by future patrons trying to catch up