Life as a Sam Boy: From Inside the Creepiest Cult of our Time

I would’ve never described myself as a believer per se. Perhaps better put, a non-active believer. I was given religious instruction at primary school (elementary) – which is infuriating. My parents had me don a pretty white dress for my Christening, not because we were religious, but because it was what people did. And although I never attended Church nor had I read the bible, I accepted the truth of God, Jesus’ existence and the afterlife, uncritically. I was never told any different, and from primary school onward, I never really thought about God or religion, all I knew was, I got chocolate and received gifts on Jesus’ birthday and resurrection. What kid would question that! When my uncle died – he had no legs due to the type II diabetes that killed him – I placed a letter in his coffin, confident in the belief he would read it in heaven.  In the letter I wrote, “Don’t be sad uncle, now you’re in heaven, God will give you back your legs”. So in retrospect I guess I was quite the little believer. I’m not too hard on myself for this, evolution makes credulous creatures, and I trusted in the consensus of others. Overcoming credulity and shedding bad ideas is one of most liberating endeavors a person can undertake. It began for me at 20 years old, after a break-up. I read the bible, trying to find some meaning in life. I was an atheist by the time I finished Leviticus. I then read Richard Dawkins’ God Delusion, was then introduced to the work of Christopher Hitchens – one month after he died – and of course, through them I came across my dear leader Sam Harris.

According to some I’ve just described how I was brainwashed and became a member of the “creepiest cult of our time”, led by the messianic Sam Harris. Our cult has been wittily dubbed The Sam Boys – a play on the term fan boys – but I assure you, that’s the extent of their wit. And what about the females that defend Sam against blatant obscurantism? Well, they’re the most brainwashed! The cult keeps them around to guard against charges of sexism, but they’re confined to the basement – brainwashing chamber – with the House Arabs, who are used to cloak our white supremacist agenda, don’t worry we pay our native informants a wage. Sound bat shit? Read through the twitter feeds and articles of regressive leftists and their supporters. This is the picture they want to paint. Not quite Picasso, more Pollack flinging his own feces. The scary part is, they’re quite good at this technique. When I read the regressive view of Sam’s thought experiment on nuclear war, I had to double-take. Did he say that? What an asshole! Their distortionism led me, someone who knows Sam’s views, to believe – albeit briefly – their version. I then picked up my copy of The End of Faith and saw the claim for the excrement it was. See here and here to see for yourself if you can’t stand to read the book. Also, if you want a laugh see what someone sent me, when I asked him what criteria people have to meet to be considered a member of this “cult”. Notice the tactics described actually apply more to the regressive left than “Sam Boys”. I begged him to write an essay on how Sam meets the criteria for cult leader because it would be hilarious. He said he might just do that, I sincerely hope so!

“Of course, Sam Boy owns The End of Faith and refers back to it like the bible!” Well I’ll admit, and I hope I’m not shunned by my fellow cult members here, that I don’t own the entire canon. I own The End of Faith, Letter to a Christian Nation, Free Will and Islam and the Future of Tolerance. I have read The Moral Landscape and Lying – something Cenk Uygur should read, and if he has already, maybe he should re-read it – but I’m not particularly interested in Waking Up – blasphemy! Although I did watch the lecture. In all honesty, until recently I stopped paying attention to Sam because I felt I knew his views so well, and paying too much attention to him, meant I’d miss out on following other worthwhile thinkers like Ali A. Rizvi, Faisal Saeed al-Mutar, Douglas Murray, Maajid Nawaz, Asra Nomani and so on. I don’t think my dear leader would begrudge me that? Alas, here I am, a full-fledged Sam Boy and avid defender. Because there’s one thing I can’t stand, intellectual dishonesty. So if it makes me a Sam Boy to stand up for intellectual honesty and integrity so be it, but don’t try to deny my agency like you do others. According to regressives, ex-Muslims and reformers are brainwashed House Muslims/Arabs and/or native informants, Islamists don’t act, they REACT to the Wests behavior, and therefore aren’t really responsible, and now they would have people believe, that agreeing with or defending Sam Harris, means you must be brainwashed and a member of his tribalistic creepy cult. Well, get Donald Ducked!

Regressive’s purposefully distort to get people to believe outlandish claims about Sam and the issue of Islamism, but given the accessibility of information which enables investigation into their claims, failing to see their tactics for what they are, doesn’t mean you’ve been brainwashed, it just means you’re being dishonest. I said at the start, overcoming bad ideas is one of the most liberating endeavors a person can undertake. The regressive left is, to quote my dear leader “the mother lode of bad ideas”, or rather “A mother lode of bad ideas”. It is no surprise they have aligned themselves with purveyors of Islamism. They have set the war of ideas back decades and must be challenged, ridiculed, and defeated. No, they’re not brainwashed. Unlike them, I’ll leave their dignity intact – even though they seem determined to tear it asunder – because that’s not an escape route I am willing to leave open to them. Because when the world looks back to see when and how we got it so wrong. They should be held fully responsible for their blunders.

Life as a Sam Boy: From Inside the Creepiest Cult of our Time

CJ WERLEMAN TAKES REGRESSIVE CAKE OVER #EXMUSLIMBECAUSE

The #ExMuslimBecause hashtag started by The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, was an attempt to provide a forum for Ex-Muslims to voice their reasons, and share their stories, about why they left the religion of Islam. Their reasons and stories were diverse, for some it was as simple as the story just not making sense, others were liberated by science and reason, for many women, it was the patriarchal edicts prevalent in the Quran and Hadith, and others for reasons like this Ex-Muslim who, given her father’s attitude on the below topic, likely covers her face for a reason:

CUP7SUHUkAAuGgg.jpg large

There may have even been some – although I didn’t see any – that left Islam for another religion or belief system. I support their voices as much as those that are now atheists, this isn’t about recruiting members to the atheist cause, it’s about acknowledging peoples struggle to think for themselves!

Why was it necessary? Because Ex-Muslim voices are being – and have always been, although not in all cases – suppressed, oft times violently, not just by the state or Muslim communities, but by members of their own families. Islamic scripture doesn’t mince words about what to do with apostates, and it’s as uncontroversial a subject as any in Islam, as this Ex-Muslim website Islam Watch shows.The brave voices, that contributed to this long overdue hashtag – especially those speaking from Muslim majority and/or theocratic countries – are putting their lives at real risk by speaking out in this way. Of course ignoramuses fail to see this and began accusing tweeters of racism and Islamophobia. This was expected, but of all the reprehensible examples of this moronic frothing of the mouth, was regressive leftist CJ Werleman. The serial plagiarist – whose facile arguments were made no better even when he ripped off other people’s ideas to develop them – by far takes the regressive cake, not only on this matter, but in others. As Sam Harris said recently, regressive Glenn Greenwald “doesn’t have a journalistic bone in his body”, well in that case, Werleman is a journalistic jellyfish, no bones, no brains.

This contemptible jellyfish unashamedly uses the most disgusting rhetoric to devalue and delegitimize the voices using the #ExMuslimBecause hashtag:

Screenshot_2015-11-22-18-31-08

Stockholm syndrome? Really! Yes, an Illuminati type “New Atheist” organization – aka white supremacist group – not too secretly headed by Richard Dawkins (of course!), have been in the market for Muslims to promote their anti-Muslim narrative for decades, all so science can win the fight against religion. Sure Muslims on the payroll felt badly for betraying their culture at first, but the white supremacists are so nice to them, they can’t help but defend the privileged Whities. Yep, that’s what’s happening here. It’s not people thinking for themselves or using their voices to show solidarity with one another. Nope, it’s an atheist white supremacist conspiracy. Tell me how to read that tweet any other way, seriously.

Also take note of the tweet Werleman is replying to there. One Imraan Siddiqi telling Ex-Muslims their timing was poor due to a current spike in anti-Muslim sentiment. Well somehow I think global Jihad is pulling that cart along just fine on its own. Also many responses to the hashtag showed just why such a concept was needed in the first place. The fear Ex-Muslims have of their brothers and sisters appears well justified. Ex-Muslims have been persecuted under Islam since its birth, to say this is not a good time to speak out, shows just how insensitive and ignorant people are on this issue. This tweet makes the point beautifully:

Screenshot_2015-11-22-18-32-02

Now why did I say New Atheists aka white supremacists, that’s a bit much isn’t it? Not according to Werleman, it’s right on the money:

Screenshot_2015-11-22-18-30-44

You read that right, new atheists are white supremacists! Now Werleman knows this can’t be true. Whether you think a new atheist means a 21st-century atheist or one that is “militant”, in other words refuses to be silent, or both. The new atheists utilizing this hashtag were in most cases not white. So unless all these people are on the new atheist payroll, they can’t all be native informants. Again Werleman can help. Check his response to this tweet:

Screenshot_2015-11-22-18-29-53

The show referred to is the highly valuable and important: The Rubin Report. Again, don’t adjust your devices, he just referred to Faisal Saeed Al-Mutar as a House Arab. As far as I’m aware, Faisal’s the only Arab to have appeared on the show to date. Unless – and it wouldn’t surprise me – he’s lumping in Sarah Haider, Maajid Nawaz and Gad Saad with Faisal. In any case, I don’t recall Werleman having the balls to say this to Faisal’s face when they debated in 2014. So if Faisal is a House Arab – and presumably in Faisal’s case a native informant – then these other new atheists, unlikely to be on the payroll, are also House [insert race here]. Werleman reduces Ex-Muslim voices to House Arabs, House Persians, House Malaysians; and House Negros? Or do you think Werleman would class it up a bit there and say House Africans? After all, calling anybody a house anything, originates from the pejorative term House Slave. Ayaan Hirsi-Ali is probably the most famous example of an apostate of African descent. An imperialist neo-con, and Islamophobic house Negro is an impressive resume I’m sure you’d agree.

Werleman is indeed an apologist, plagiarist, regressive, distortionist, bigot, racist, and shameful purveyor of ignorance. He’s all these things, but I can think of another word that suits him nicely. It beings with C, ends with T, and has UN in the middle.

CJ WERLEMAN TAKES REGRESSIVE CAKE OVER #EXMUSLIMBECAUSE

Making sense of ISIS’ attack on the city of love and how to respond

Last week, I watched William McCant speak about his new book The ISIS Apocalypse: The History, Strategy, and Doomsday Vision of the Islamic State, at the Brookings Institution. For me, it was just another foray into the increasingly complex situation in the Middle East – the birthplace of Islam, and the historical and present-day hub of Islamism and Jihadism, currently being exported worldwide. I’m not so naïve as to believe I’m adequately aware of all the nuances involved here, such is the nature of the beast. Nonetheless, I seek to educate myself in this area, because the threat of islamism has a long reach, and is ever-present in today’s world. The populace of any democratic nation better become informed, and fast, if they’re to support policies to address this issue. What I’ve learned thus far made me skeptical of the idea, that ISIS was behind the terror attacks in Paris, which left 129 people dead and hundreds more wounded. That said, given the apparent sophistication and coordination of the attacks, I thought it equally unlikely, that the perpetrators were a band of unaffiliated loons. I thought Al-Qaeda a likely candidate at first, despite no obvious targets – unlike the slaughter of Charlie Hebdo staff members this January for the “crime” of blasphemy – but I was sure a reason would come soon enough. As McCant pointed out in his talk, ISIS’ primary concern is spreading the caliphate in the region and because of this, they’ve had little cause to extend their activities beyond that end (at least at this stage). So whilst it feels like these attacks are becoming normalized, we really are in uncharted territory here.

In response to ISIS’ claims of responsibility, France has increased their efforts in Syria, hitting ISIS strongholds in Raqqa. President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin, had a 30-minute, informal discussion about the Paris attacks and the civil war in Syria, at the G-20 summit this week. According to this articlePresident Obama and President Putin agreed on the need for a Syrian-led and Syrian-owned political transition, which would be proceeded by UN-mediated negotiations between the Syrian opposition and regime as well a ceasefire.” Again, at the risk of being skeptically premature, this looks like more lip service from Putin. It is well known that Russia is an ally of Iran – on the side of the Assad regime – in the Syrian civil war. Since September this year, Russia has sought to appear meaningfully engaged against ISIS in the conflict. However, as Middle East analyst and Syrian war aficionado Kyle W. Orton observed, so far Russian airstrikes have targeted opposition groups more than ISIS; likely in an effort to strengthen Assad’s position and keep the threat of ISIS in play, taking focus off the regime. Another article reportedthey talked about a new proposal to end the Syrian conflict and Obama’s hope that Russia’s airstrikes in Syria would focus on Isis, not opposition groups fighting Syrian President Bashar Assad”. If Putin had a smirk on his face when that was put to him, I would not be surprised. Perhaps I’m being too cynical, after all, ISIS targeted Russia prior to the Paris attacks, claiming responsibility for the downing of a Russian plane over the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt earlier this month. Again I was perplexed. ISIS seemed not to realize that Russia’s targeting of opposition groups benefitted them. In addition, if it’s true, as McCant and others suggest; that ISIS hoped to demonstrate their strength by striking in the heart of France, thereby diverting attention from their recent military/territorial losses. Then it may prove counter-productive as far as their expansion in the region is concerned (it may also suggest Russia’s tactics as outlined above, also fits ISIS quite nicely). McCant further posits that the attack on Paris could be a net widening exercise; an attempt to replace Al-Qaeda as the face of global jihad in an effort to draw more recruits. Both theories could be true, or neither. Unfortunately we don’t know, and either way, ISIS has upped the stakes with this shift, and are perhaps courting disaster. In any case, due to the many uncertainties, one hopes that a 30-minute conversation and an increase in airstrikes, is not the extent of the analysis and response to this complex issue.

One would also hope (against hope at this point) these attacks will prompt world leaders to address the ideology enabling groups like ISIS, namely Islamism. Maajid Nawaz and the usual voices are again making desperate pleas for honest dialogue, which alas, will likely fall on deaf ears once more. Before victims bodies were cold, the media began voicing concerns of a backlash against Muslims in Europe – que the Islamaphobia brigade – and although I am yet to hear of any such backlash taking place, it may well come if people’s grief is allowed to metastasize. Governments need to motivate Muslim communities to address the problems with their faith, and their youth, particularly young men; make improvments in integration policy, and denounce right-wing fascists that would use this atrocity to whip up hatred against all Muslims, playing into ISIS’ recruitment strategy. However, preventing such a backlash doesn’t require silence or obfuscation on our part. Rational (non-regressive) liberals, conservatives, feminists, atheists, Muslims and so on, must have honest discussions about all the issues, no matter how uncomfortable. For example, if Ahmed Almuhamed entered Europe under the guise of an asylum seeker, then this is a real problem. Those that scoffed at the mere suggestion that refugees fleeing the civil war in Syria may pose a terrorist threat – a grossly racist thing to even imply! – may want to clear their throats before speaking on this issue again. Total closure of Europes borders, and a hardening of hearts against refugees, hardly aligns with humanist values, but something has to be done to reduce the risk of jihadists slipping through the cracks, especially in light of ISIS’ seemingly recent incursion into global jihad. Whatever the topic, let’s not allow the discourse to be dominated by fascists on both sides.

Lastly, today on 3News New Zealand Prime Minister John Key suggested that “dark communication” – the use of phone apps like Surespot and Wickr – means it’s increasingly difficult for intelligence agencies to monitor terrorist activity. This makes “whistle blowers” like Edward Snowden and Julian Assange seem all the more culpable to me. Revealing intelligence methods, undoubtedly gives groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS the means to adapt, allowing them to operate under the radar, but that’s a matter for another day. The point is, New Zealand is not immune from terrorism. The Sydney Siege in Australia (2014) was very close to home. How long before we have our own Islamist inspired attack? We must be cognizant of the possibility, as New Zealand takes part in training Iraqi troops for their fight against ISIS.

In summary, from my limited vantage point on these matters, a multilateral approach seems the only option. Globally, we need to start having honest discussions about Islamism and push for doctrinal reforms that make contemplating joining an islamist or jihadist organization, anathema. There needs to be better integrative policies – particularly across Europe – achieved in liaison with members of Muslim communities, we must admit that our “allies” in the fight against ISIS – Russia for example – do not share our ultimate ends, and any conversation about Syria must include the removal of Bashar al-Assad as well as the destruction of ISIS, and we must develop a plan to tackle the refugee crisis, which stands to get worse as military operations in Syria intensify.

Not too hard is it…

Making sense of ISIS’ attack on the city of love and how to respond

A Review of Islam and the Future of Tolerance

Caveat: I know Maajid is not an apostate! I say it tongue and cheek.

Islam and the Future of Tolerance gives readers something which feels almost alien – a cordial, open, honest conversation about the challenges of reforming Islam. As I turned each page I found myself anticipating (perhaps wanting?) to see a cataclysmic locking of horns (Infidel vs. Apostate). This epic cage match never eventuated. In fact the only part in the book remotely resembling an impasse, pertained to the reading of Islamic history in the sections ‘Nature of Islam’ and ‘Finding the Way Forward’. The disagreement was of little consequence to the overall discussion. What was particularly gratifying was seeing Sam’s eagerness to learn from Maajid, demonstrating again – unlike some of his opponents – just how open he is to new ideas. Initially Sam took the backseat in the conversation, and adopted more of an interviewers’ style, seeking clarification around the concepts and definitions on offer. When one reads the book you come to understand Sam’s admission that he was the one most changed by their conversation, which makes the suggestion that Maajid is Sam’s lapdog, simply absurd.

The conversation becomes more even-handed as you read on. Still – although I didn’t do a word count – it seemed Maajid got the bigger slice of the dialogue. I was quite happy about that, I read Sam all the time, and I know his views fairly well. Maajid has one other book – Radical, a memoir which I highly recommend – and his public appearances and articles, provide a pretty clear picture of his own views. However, the depth and nuances of those views really come to the fore in this book and it was all the more gripping for that reason. There is a feeling throughout that Sam is being cautious, as if he’s half expecting a backlash of the sort he has become accustomed. He rather amusingly even “bends over backwards” to articulate a position held by his detractors to gauge Maajid’s reaction (surely, Maajid must, at the least, agree with his opponents here, this conversation is going too well, with a little too much agreement!). If that is indeed what Sam was doing, I certainly can’t fault him for it. Too often people appear liberal and interested in honest discussion and turn out to be just another religious apologist. I too found myself reading Maajid, waiting for something to object to on those grounds. Thankfully that moment never came to pass.

Maajid does a great job demonstrating the nuances in scriptural interpretation and how literalism doesn’t necessarily equate to bad (a view Sam understands as his Jainism example shows). As an example he used the stance of the Hanafi School – which were closest to the time of prophet – regarding the prohibition of khamr (alcohol). In essence the word khamr relates to alcohol derived from grapes, so the prohibition therefore, only relates to wine. Maajid points out this is a literalist argument, making the blanket ban on alcohol an interpretation that was successful in supplanting the traditional view. In regards to the murder of infidels he asks, does “smite their necks” translate to “smite their necks today?” Good point, however, I would ask, if God thought it permissible during the war against infidels of the period – and clearly many Muslims feel history is repeating itself – what are the chances an omniscient deity would have a different view in 2015? Do we really need another prophet to tell us whether that edict is applicable today? It’s when you start tying scripture to actual concepts of God – what He is and what powers He possesses – that you run into problems. A better way to allow reform to grow, would be to divorce the two, which sadly can’t be done.

The alcohol example actually indicates both a solution and a problem. The solution being there is wiggle room here. The problem being that it hinges on arguing for interpretations which, whether scripturally viable or not, have to, at least, be better argued than current interpretations enabling the problems we see, and will need to be argued for as long as Islam permeates the religious landscape. Whatever one takes away from the alcohol example, one point has to be that the interpretation which bans all alcohol won over many Muslim communities. Also, Sam rightly points out that some interpretations are more plausible than others, and even if reform was achieved; if someone or some group in the future reads the texts uncritically, and is anchored to the concept of God and the belief that the Quran is the inerrant, eternal word of God – in line with the Asha’ira school – then religious barbarism can be renewed again and again. So whilst I agree it’s certainly unrealistic to apostatize 1.6 billion Muslims; can even Maajid deny that it would be a hell of a lot easier? Again it comes back to what people believe is at stake. The interpretations that get you a more liberal Islam are not just difficult because the cases are not well argued, or there isn’t scriptural justifications for them. It also has something to do with the consequences of getting it wrong. If you believe in God and read the Quran and Hadith, it is understandable why you may conduct yourself in a way that doesn’t dovetail with modern society. Whereas if you misinterpret Shakespeare – unless you’re an academic and have written a patently ridiculous interpretation of Shakespeare’s works, that draws ridicule from your peers – then there is not much at stake.

With all that said this book was a thrilling read and – if you will allow me this cliché – a breath of fresh air. They cover a lot of ground from the role of foreign policy to the Regressive left and the differences between Islamism, Jihadism, and conservatism among the world’s Muslims. They touch on belief as drivers of behavior, the challenges of having this conversation in other contexts and locations, what it means for women to have this conversation and so on. You won’t read this book and come away with all the answers to your questions or a blueprint of how to reform Islam. Rather you will go away with a better understanding of the issues, a renewed hope in civil discourse, and the knowledge that you were a small part of what will be seen as the kick starter, for the reform of Islam. Not to take anything away from the many men and women – in some cases children – (Muslim and non-Muslim), who have been working on this front, but I would not be too begrudging if these two gentlemen were most remembered as the founding fathers of this effort.

Two asides:

  • Maajid says in the book that doctrines are the construct of human beings which is true. However, one of those human beings is thought to be a prophet. This legitimizes his interpretation of the word of God more than any ensuing theologian. And if God came down tomorrow and said “hey, ISIS has the right of it, stop bastardizing my words with your liberal interpretation”. What then? This may seem like an insincere question but I assure you I am wholly sincere. After all people readily buy into the idea that God has come down from the heavens on different occasions to deliver his word to the people, utilizing prophets like Moses and Mohammed. If it were to happen again, and that was his message, would we or would Maajid as a Muslim, tell him to go fuck himself. Or would, or rather should we be joining ISIS to defeat the infidels and re-establish the caliphate?
  • Maajid highlights what I consider to be a loophole that gets Muslims out of some the more undesirable edicts in Islam. He mentioned that in one tradition, the prophet Mohammed channeled the word of God and addressed believers stating “Oh, my people if you don’t sin and repent, I will bring a people more blessed than you who will sin and who do repent, because I want your repentance”. This he says led some schools within Islam to advocate for their right to sin. Well one could simply appease Him here. Sure I will drink and attend a strip club in the infidel’s homeland and for this I will repent. Then tomorrow, I and eighteen of my brothers will wage Jihad against the infidel, and if my interpretation of scripture is wrong in this regard, well then I may simply repent for that too. Of course, if God did indeed say that, well what is he playing at? This is another reason why I can’t bring myself to believe in Him. He seems such a contradictory, inconsistent, emotional, reactionary character!
A Review of Islam and the Future of Tolerance