With Merkel's Foes in Disarray, Germany Defies the Trump Trend

[Dill]

(05-05-2017, 02:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Now if we bring Sam Harris into the picture, is his work more like 1-3 or more like Gabriel's?  I'd say it was more like Gabriel's. He is sharing his personal thoughts on Islam and supporting them with quotations of translated English which, combined with some news media reports, are enough for him to distill the essence of Islam. There is no evidence that he understands Islam or the history of the Middle East beyond what one would find on the Israeli state's websites or Wikislam. He does not understand how texts are read differently through different traditions and in differing historical and cultural contexts.  How would Middle East scholars respond to his website? Would they say his musings advance knowledge of Islam or Middle East history? Who is his audience? I think there is considerable overlap with Gabriel's.

This is all opinion, and poorly substantiated or fact based opinion to boot.  I'm getting the impression that "serious scholar" for you is someone who agrees with you on this subject.  Of course you as much as said exactly that in the post above as I'll directly quote;

Some questions here you are not answering. Is Harris' work more like that of Adamson and Gunther and Al Hiri, or is it more like Gabriel's?
This is your chance to show us all what a well substantiated, fact-based case looks like.  I hope you don't let us down.

Are you saying Harris is not sharing his thoughts on Islam by pointing to translated quotes as the basis for condemning an entire religion?
Until you can show that, then my words are not "all opinion."

Which Middle East scholars have responded to his work? I am getting the impression that "opinion" is your word for any argument you disagree with but cannot refute. Are we going to see anything like an extended argument from you? I don't mean you just quoting me and calling it all "copypasta" or "opinion."  I refer you again to Masterp's posts. He speaks to the subject matter, exploring the Islam-US politics issue. Focused on the facts of the case, he doesn't substitute accusation for argument.

Or is all discussion, dialogue, argument just over once you cannot call "opinion" or "copypasta" on what you don't like or don't understand?

Don't claim you can't carry on a discussion with someone who plagiarizes or some such excuse and bail out on me. Don't claim you have "already addressed" anything. Don't tell me to "scroll up" and look at another unsupported assertion. If you cannot really argue yourself, can you put up something by Harris in text form which refutes anything I have said? I don't mean a lazy link to a youtube video with a vague verbal gesture like "that's what I think."