I’m pretty sure everybody agrees with you, which is why you miss the point. What the criticism of Islam from many thinkers actually is (if you are willing to be generous in understanding the other point of view) is not about exclusivity but prevalence. If one form of religion manifests itself more violently on average, it is not out of the question that the specific doctrines of that religion may possibly be a huge intersecting factor (and therefore specific and focused criticism of that religion is justified).

–

“Dawkins, Harris, and all the others who continuously pick out Islam as the world’s one true problem need to think bigger, and need to realize their own innate prejudices. Their critiques are not fair, and they are not rational; they are attacking a certain pattern of behavior and attributing it to one extremely oppressed and marginalized group of people…”

There is a distinction between the political Islam that has real power and privilege in many parts of the world.. and the pockets of Muslim communities in Western countries. To confuse the two is unfortunate and tragic, and frankly, these views seem to come from people who don’t have much experience with Islam outside of their western frame of reference. I hope that’s not true with you.

As to whether or not Dawkins would say anything about those other cases mentioned, there’s a really easy way to test that: bring them to his attention. Make sure he has all the details.

Then sit back and watch what happens.

As to the recent posts by PZ Myers and Ophelia… one name: Amina.

Firstly, their critiques are not reserved purely for Islam, if you do not believe me please read Sam Harris’ “Letter to a Christian Nation.” Hitchens, in “God is not Great,” repeatedly and vehemently attacks the writings of the Old Testament also, a book central to both Jewish and Christian doctrine.

Secondly, you yourself described Islamaphobia as an “irrational” fear. The position of Harris and Hitchens is not irrational, it is a view resulting from Islamic doctrine such as the punishment for the crime of apostacy (death, incase you didn’t know). I am not saying that such appalling Doctrines are unique to the Islamic religion (reading Dueteronomy 13 supports this), but perhaps the difference between Islam and the other major religions is that Islam is the only religion which still today acts as the central, if not only, foundation for state law, ethics and constitution. In countries such as my own birthplace of Egypt, it is unheard of to oppose, analyse, criticise or question any part of the Qu’uran,

We must not place religion on a pedostol. Vehement attacks on Islam (notice “Islam,” not “Muslims”) are entirely justifiable and should in fact be encouraged if it can be argued that some of its tenets are evil and do not support a civilised, moral society.

One simply cannot say there is equivalency between the words of intellectuals like Christopher Hitchens, and the angry, racist rants of groups like the BNP, the EDL etc. One is an analytic and intellectual critique of text and doctrine which has human well-being as its primary concern, the other is a misguided, uninformed IRRATIONAL hatred of a fellow man, with nationalistic notions its primary concern.

Well, whatever the opposite of “helpful” or “constructive” is.