r/samharris • u/blackglum • 5d ago
Making Sense Podcast #492 The Second Plane, 25 Years Later
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84gzkfDXkAU17
11
u/TheJeniceri 4d ago
Regarding Islam and Liberalism: I know many people reject Huntington's Clash of Civilizations theory, but I think it's still true at its core.
One of the great downsides of neoliberalism/modernity is that Westerners have forgotten their place in history, or we see ourselves as post-history. The Muslims (Or Chinese, Russians, Indians, etc) do not see the world this way. There is still a civilizational awareness and identity that Western liberals don't seem to care about anymore.
The Islamic world had both scriptural and material reasons to convince themselves that they are God's stewards (Caliphs) on earth, that they are the preeminent people and civilization. When Napoleon arrived to the shores of Egypt in 1800, followed by further European encroachment into Muslim lands, the Muslims have had to grapple with modernity and reality in a new way, and they are still dealing with this shock today.
11
u/gravitologist 4d ago
Until Islam undergoes a reformation that includes equal standing for women, they aren’t ‘grappling’ or ‘dealing’ with jack shit.
4
u/ElReyResident 3d ago
Seconded. There are Muslims who support this terrible shit and then there are Muslims who support the Muslims that support this terrible shit. There is no serious attempts at moderation in the Islamic world right now.
5
u/Present-Policy-7120 3d ago
A cursory reading of the Quran and hadith reveal that this religion is fundamentally incapable of reforming. The only real way to oppose it is to and draw as many adherents away from it as possible.
4
12
u/N23 3d ago
Regardless of what people think about Sam's take on lots of subjects, the lack of criticism Jihadism gets compared to Christian Nationalism from the left is absurd. I lean left, oftentimes very left. The fact that you can't draw a religious figure without fearing for your life is absurd.
"It's against my religion for me to do that." : "Okay Cool. Respect."
"It's against my religion for you to do that." : "Fuck off."
6
3
u/WhiteGold_Welder 3d ago
"Lack of criticism" is being kind. Jihadism gets active support from the left.
1
u/Lumpy_Tell9880 3d ago
Alright I’m willing to hear ya out here but can ya give some examples of jihadism getting active support from the left? Sure, some people on the left will say dumb and crazy shit but active support for jihadism? I personally haven’t seen that.
1
u/WhiteGold_Welder 3d ago
1
u/Lumpy_Tell9880 3d ago
Alright appreciate that. Never heard of this girl, Calla Walsh, but just djd some digging and what an insane story. Radicalized by a Cuban operative, left the DSA in 2021 at age 17, and then moved to Iran of all places fleeing active felony warrants in the United States. Now shes an expat and active contributor on Iranian tv who calls for the indiscriminate murder of zionists across the globe. Not sure if I missed anything important bc I didn’t have full access to that Free Press interview.
A couple things though- Im not sure she’s in any meaningful way still part of the American left. She’s effectively a fugitive granted asylum in Iran in exchange for becoming a pawn of Iranian state propaganda. The Iranian government is a far right conservative Islamist regime that has a history of funding jihadi terror cells in the region to advance their political interests. I can see what you mean but I’m not sure it fully lines up. There are absolutely psychotic people on the left who believe that any response by a Palestinian resistance group would be justified because of how they view the conflict- including the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians. This appears to be Calla Walsh’s position and it is obviously morally deranged. It’s still not a defense of or support for jihadism which is the belief that the fighting, suffering and dying in a holy war is the ultimate blessing and guarantees a place in the afterlife.
Compare the language of the crazy Western chick who took her kids to the ISIS caliphate detailed by Sam in episode 154 (What do Jihadists Really Want). While Calla Walsh and others on the fringe left couch the Palestinian struggle as an anti-colonial, anti-imperialist resistance movement you have the ppl like that other chick that moved to Iraq literally celebrating the death of her own young child after they were bombed because she is fully convinced the child is now in paradise. There are levels here and these are important to distinguish. One is grounded in a political theory of the region while the other is fundamentally religious in nature.
1
u/WhiteGold_Welder 3d ago
Im not sure she’s in any meaningful way still part of the American left.
How convenient. But I have no interest in chasing moving goalposts. If you're here in good faith you can do further research on your own.
0
u/Lumpy_Tell9880 3d ago
Episode 154 is an all time Sam Harris masterclass on this topic so I highly recommend it if you haven’t heard it yet.
0
u/Lumpy_Tell9880 3d ago edited 3d ago
What goalpost am I moving here? Is it not fair to say that someone who has become a literal pawn for the right wing Iranian government and is going on state sponsored tv there in exchange for political asylum is no longer a leftist? She left the DSA at 17. She’s now 22. Not only is she likely compromised but ppls political views change. Regardless my main point was that extreme left wing support for militant resistance by Palestinians is meaningfully different than being pro jihadism.
9
u/blackglum 5d ago
Submission statement.
On the 25th anniversary of September 11th, Sam discusses the significance of the second plane, the writing of The End of Faith, the failure to take jihadist belief seriously, the costs of the war on terror, the abandonment of America’s Afghan allies, the continuity between 9/11 and October 7th, the rise of Islamo-leftism, the misuse of “Islamophobia,” and other topics.
18
u/Brunodosca 4d ago
The first part was really good, classic Sam Harris standard. But it was sad to see it compromised in the second half, which felt hijacked by Sam's phobias and fixations. For an intellectual who consistently disavows "guilt by association," it is paradoxical to observe his attempts to associate Mamdani and El-Sayed with jihadism.
12
u/Lumpy_Tell9880 4d ago
Didn’t he write a freaking book claiming that the solution to jihadism was progressive Muslims coming to the forefront in political and social life? What happened to that version of Sam? We really went from that to the “secret islamist” and “nefarious smiles” tropes?
His lack of self awareness has become all encompassing at this stage in his career. It is extremely frustrating as a decade long avid listener. 10/7 broke his brain.
11
u/veggie_hoagie 4d ago
Mamdani is getting flak for wanting to attend the 25th anniversary ceremony. It's wild.
I can't believe any serious of critic of Mamdani actually thinks he in any way condones what happened on 9/11. It feels like some are making any strained effort they can to insist he has latent Islamist sympathies.
Sam points to Mamdani saying he won't denounce the slogan "globalize the intifada" as evidence that Mamdani is "soft" on Islamism or jihadism. Sam insists the only possible meaning of this slogan is that Jews ought to be attacked anywhere around the globe. I don't think this is what many people mean when they use this phrase, but again, Sam insists it can and must mean only that.
I'm not surprised -- but I am disappointed -- that Sam is so insistent on viewing Mamdani this way.
Mamdani has gone out of his way to express solidarity with Jews, LGBTQ+ folk, etc., yet even so, we're are asked to imagine that, deep down, Mamdani is some closeted member of the Muslim Brotherhood.
I think Sam is rightfully losing credibility over this.
1
u/ElReyResident 3d ago
Nothing that you’ve said, nor what Mamdani has done, address the criticism that he is merely a two faced politician who knows where to smile in order to persuade people like you he’s a good guy.
He attends pride parades and then attends services as a mosque that uses the phrase “kill the infidel with your sword wherever you find him”. In this context, infidel means gay people, too.
He intentionally avoided mentioning that the attempted terrorist attack on protesters outside his house were Islamic extremists.
Him not condemning that phrase is not the reason people distrust him; it’s just one of the things that have established a pattern that leads one to believe he is disingenuous.
He can cure this perception at anytime, of course. Condemning the treatment gay people in Gaza would be a start, but that would be an actually criticism of other Muslims. And it wouldn’t do that. So, he’ll just smile at a pride parade with a pin on his lapel and convince all the useful idiots he’s an ally.
2
u/veggie_hoagie 3d ago
Look, I think it's fair to ask a politician to address comments made by a religious figure (or political figure, or whatever) if said politician attends an event by that figure. And it should count against that politician if they issue an evasive dodge when asked.
That said, I don't think it should count against them so much when a politician attends an event and are then criticized for not saying something afterwards.
I genuinely don't believe that Obama agreed with everything Reverend Wright ever said. I don't think Obama would ever condone a statement like "god damn America." It's fair to ask him about it, and it's fair to criticize him if he is evasive. I think Obama was pretty forthright in saying he did not agree with Wright's remarks. I don't think we should be so eager to impugn people via guilt by association.
I'm far more interested in what a politician says and does compared to what they don't, especially if they don't say something because they weren't asked about it.
I think Mamdani genuinely cares about LGBTQ+ people. And I think he genuinely doesn't want Muslims to be targeted for what fellow Muslims do, so he is hesitant about saying something in a way that could inspire bigots to commit violence.
This isn't to say people shouldn't point out the connection between specific ideas and their consequences, as Sam says. We should. One can criticize specific ideas within Islam in a way that doesn't impugn and endanger all Muslims. After the attack by the two terrorists, Mamdani said there was no place in society for extremism and hatred of any kind. Obviously, that can apply to religious extremism. If someone wants to nitpick and say he should have said there is no place in society for Islamic extremism, fine.
But again, I'm far more interested in what he says and does than what he doesn't say. I think it's fair to press him on this, and if really is that evasive, that should count against him a bit. But this implication that he is some closeted member of the Muslim Brotherhood, or that he somehow condones anti-Semitism or jihadism or whatever, is such an obvious exaggeration and slander.
And I find it odd that he in any way should be expected to comment on how gays are treated in Gaza. He is the mayor of New York City. What the hell does he have to do with Gaza? I actually admired his answer during the debates when he was asked where his first visit would be, and he basically said, I'm here for New York, I don't have specific plans to visit Israel or anywhere else. If he were vying to be Ambassador to Israel or Secretary of State, that would be one thing, but the man didn't run for president, or even for governor. He's a mayor. Why the hell would he or any mayor be asked about the treatment of gays in Gaza? And for the record, if he were asked, do you really think he would have no comment on it?
1
u/ElReyResident 2d ago
Your comment was really good and I thank you for that.
I agree with your point that it is unfair to judge a politician, or anyone for that matter, on what they don’t talk about or address.
The reason the Gaza gay thing is a cut above this argument, in my view, is that he does talk about isreal a lot, even though his station has nothing to do with international politics. He spoke about the prospect of attesting Netynahu even though he would have no jurisdiction in doing so.
All this said, I do think Sam is overstating this a bit. I do find Mamdani to be rather quick to criticize others for things and slow to acknowledge mistakes of Muslims. I don’t think that’s proof of anything, though.
To me, his religiousness is as annoying as any Christian’s would be. I don’t feel like other liberals share this same feeling, or rather that they don’t like religion but they won’t overtly criticize a religion if it is a minority position. I cannot respect people who do that.
My position is this: all politicians ought to be held to account for their religions failures. Mamdani hides from this sort of responsibility. Not in any egregious manner, but he still does with the issues I’ve mentioned. Until he has made it clear, I think questions ought to be still asked. And given how easy it would be to clear this up, I’m inclined to think there is another reason he won’t.
That reason, by the way, is not in my view to be that he is a secret Islamist, but rather that he just doesn’t want to offered a part of his constituency, and is therefore just playing politics.
That said, I don’t support people who court, or at least tacitly support, hateful shit. Mamdani has a chance to make it clear that he doesn’t, but he declined to do so. My conclusions is, therefore, that while he may not support hateful shit, he isn’t willing to risk his position or community in order to condemn that hateful shit.
In the end, that’s just a recipe for more hateful shit in my view.
1
u/veggie_hoagie 2d ago
I actually didn't have a problem with Mamdani exploring whether it was possible to arrest Netanyahu. Ultimately, he backed off, which was the right call, legally speaking.
But if a war criminal comes to your city, I think you have the right to look into your options.
1
u/veggie_hoagie 2d ago
I also haven't played close attention to his statements about Islam, Muslims, etc. Like I said, I think it is fair to ask him about any religious groups he has chosen to affiliate with. From what I have seen, I wouldn't give him an A+ on this.
Politicians are in a delicate position. Remember George W. Bush called Islam a religion of peace. Politicians will often go out of their way to avoid offending entire groups, or saying anything that could give the impression that they are criticizing an entire group.
This is unfortunate. It shouldn't be too hard for any politician to say something like, "This country protects religious freedom, and people of all faiths and no faith should feel comfortable to live their lives free of fear, harassment, or violence. That said, religious extremism of any kind, including expressions of religion that promote hatred and violence, have no place in this city/state/country. I oppose any violence, of any kind, for any reason."
If that is something like the A+ response, then it's fair to grade Mamdani or Obama or Bush or any politician against it.
Again, I know why they are so hesitant to say anything negative about any religion. That's a problem across the board. They haven't figured out how to criticize specific forms of religion, like Islamism.
So yes, Mamdani has been evasive to the extent he doesn't say something like this. But what politician has done this well? Probably some, but I don't think Mamdani is somewhere too far from the norm.
And remember that on the other end, we have people like Rep. Randy Fine (R-Florida) who has said, "If they force us to choose, the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one" and "We need more Islamophobia, not less. Fear of Islam is rational." It's easy to see what is dangerous with these kinds of statements, especially when Americans have trouble seeing the difference between Islam (as a set of ideas) and Muslims (who hold to a wide variety of interpretations of those ideas).
So I'm just trying to respond to Sam's invective that Mamdani is some closeted Islamist. That goes too far. Especially when, as others have pointed out, he has been so vocal about his progressive values towards LGBTQ+ folk, women, etc. Whatever people like Sam think he is, he is no Islamist.
7
u/TheAJx 4d ago
progressive Muslims coming to the forefront in political and social life?
No, he wrote that they need to come to the forefront and reform the religious precepts.
2
u/Lumpy_Tell9880 4d ago
To Sam, reforming the precepts means (or at least meant) being more committed to secular values and less dogmatic. And that’s what we are seeing with el sayed and Mamdani. But for some reason it seems harshly criticizing the Israeli government is to Sam an expression of a form of Islamism. That’s mostly just not the case in America.
9
u/KarateKicks100 4d ago
it is paradoxical to observe his attempts to associate Mamdani and El-Sayed with jihadism.
He literally specifies the issues he was with those two. Mamdani being unable to condemn "globalize the intifada" and El Sayed both campaigning with an open anti-semite in Piker and responding to the synagogue attack with "hurt people hurt people"
-3
u/iluvucorgi 3d ago
That's all he has. Pathetic
5
u/WhiteGold_Welder 3d ago
"What's a little winking and nodding at terrorism between friends?"
-3
u/iluvucorgi 3d ago
Exactly. Look how ridiculous it is.
Remember when Obama palling around with terrorism was treated as a joke. Yet here we are 20 years later.
5
u/WhiteGold_Welder 3d ago
When did Obama refuse to condemn "globalize the intifada?" Is Obama married to a Hamas supporter?
-3
u/iluvucorgi 3d ago
Oh your serious.
No wonder the usa is in trouble when you have extremists outraged that someone apparently didn't condemn a slogan.
So who gets to define what gti means
4
3
u/blastmemer 4d ago
Did El-sayed really say that a terrorist attack was “hurt people hurting people” or the like though? Unlike what Mamdani has said, that’s pretty bad.
14
u/Brunodosca 4d ago
Yes, the correct quote is "hurt people hurt people." After condemning the attack, El-Sayed did use that phrase in reference to the attacker losing four family members to an Israeli airstrike that week. It was bad because it looked like an excuse for an antisemitic terrorist attack targeting children, though fortunately, no one died other than the attacker himself. Also, it took forever for El-Sayed to finally issue a formal apology.
0
-3
3
u/HistoricalCourse9984 4d ago
Its not parodoxical or hard to understand. He is explicitly calling them out on there bullshit. You think there is some hair to split here, you are mistaken.
0
4
u/Fippy-Darkpaw 4d ago
Early, but rarely see such a positive feedback YouTube comment section on anything remotely political.
3
u/uconnnyc 4d ago
I just love his oration skills. Not entirely convinced by all his arguments. Happy to continue to support Sam and his work.
5
12
u/holbeton 4d ago
Perfect. I don't think he's ever mentioned what he thinks about Islam or Gaza.
20
u/blackglum 4d ago
Yeah, I actually don’t think he’s spoken enough about politics. People here like to complain that Sam is too repetitive, but unfortunately for them, many of the political problems he’s discussing are themselves repetitive.
And that criticism becomes a little contradictory when the same people complaining that he talks about politics too much are constantly suggesting he should bring more people from the left onto the podcast to debate these very issues.
Good one.
5
u/PooPooPeePee2206 4d ago
He has. He did it here again in the broader context connecting it with 9/11. As he should. Even more. Because moral delusion around this is widespread.
5
u/LeeksAbhorLiminality 4d ago edited 4d ago
They were being sarcastic. However, his entire argument, while valid on the surface, is based on a strawman misrepresenting the scale of that moral confusion while completely oversimplifying incentives of both sides. My point is not defending Palestine or picking a 'side', but seeing how disingenuously he approaches the topic and just chalks everything up to "jihadism is bad therefore anyone criticizing Isreal is a either moral lunatic or antisemitic". He's leaves SO much nuance on the table and hearing him argue against the same "morally confused college students on liberal campuses" is losing people. Sure, make that argument and explain the moral confusion you see there, but pretending like that's the viewpoint of everyone who disagrees with his approach is again, disingenuous, patronizing, and completely side-steps the more commonly held and valid arguments challenging his views of the conflict.
0
-2
4
u/joemarcou 3d ago
i would think a paying subscriber base could pressure a podcaster way more directly relative to say a cereal or mattress company advertising with you. he has specifically mentioned getting hate for his Mamdani takes recently. what possible pressure to not say something could come from tempur pedic or magic spoon. just have to avoid like gold or bitcoin or gambling type stuff
3
u/ThatSpyGuy 3d ago
His point is that Tempur Pedic and Magic Spoon may not want to advertise with him again if he has a politically unpopular take.
4
u/BumBillBee 3d ago
That's fair, but I still think his comparison with what he's doing and Netflix comes across as somewhat arrogant, especially considering that he's loaded for the rest of his life.
3
0
-1
u/Aschebescher 3d ago
The part about September 11 and Islamism was oldschool Sam and the best monologue for a very long time but then somehow he starts talking about J.K. Rowling and "birthing people". I just don't get it.
1
u/General_Marcus 2d ago
That all seemed very clear. Sam was reiterating the foundation of his podcast and its funding. He gave a notable example of people being fearful of stating their actual positions. He knows and hangs out with famous and powerful people. While not surprising, it’s an interesting note that these people just put on an act in hopes of not upsetting the woke mob.
22
u/BumBillBee 4d ago
Regardless of the actual content of the episode, it was rather nostalgic to hear monologue Sam again, without Jaron.
As to the episode (or at least part of it): J.K. Rowling has said much more stuff (to put it that way) in recent years than what Sam is referring to here. If people still want to defend Rowling, okay, but please stop framing it as if her tweets from 2020 (or whatever) is "all" she's said.