Recently there was a blogstorm in the online atheoskeptic community, originating from Rebecca Watson's encounter with Creeper Elevator Guy at a conference.
Richard Dawkins then entered the discussion with this curious comment at Pharyngula.
Dear Muslima
Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.
Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep”chick”, and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn’t lay a finger on her, but even so . . .
And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.
Richard
Now, the issue has been debated and analyzed at multiple blogsites.
Bad Astronomy and
Pharyngula both have thousands of comments on their threads.
But my question is...why does Dawkins hate Islam so fervently that his scornful "Letter to Muslima" was the first thing on his mind in this controversy?
It is pretty clear that Dawkins thinks Islam is the epitome of all evils, and much worse than christianity as a memetic plague on humankind. In fact Dawkins mused about helping the enemy of his enemy in this post-- Support Christian missions in Africa? No, but . . .
Why does Dawkins view Islam as more of a threat? I think he is not being honest about his reasons.
Dawkins knows Islam is an uninvadable strategy.
In John Maynard-Smiths book, Evolution and the Theory of Games, Maynard-Smith credits Dawkins with the invention of a term, Culturally Stable Strategy (CSS).
Now I believe that Islam is an uninvadable CSS.
Consider the Bush Doctrine, and COIN (which is the BD cut down to village size).
a policy of spreading democracy around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating terrorism
The problem with this doctrine, is that it attempts to spread
western-style, judeochristian democracy. In majority muslim states, that is impossible, because Islam is immunized against proselytization.
An uninvadable strategy.
Shariah law forbids the proselytization of the poor and ignorant. It is in the Quran. Freedom of speech legalizes the proselytization of the poor and ignorant. Therefore shariah law and freedom of speech are incompatible. And therefore missionary democracy (my term for western-style democracy with freedom of speech) and al-Islam are incompatible.
This is empirically true in Iraq and Afghanistan. 10 years ago Afghanistan was 99% muslim, and 8 years ago Iraq was 97% muslim. Nearly a decade of occupation later, Afghanistan is still 99% muslim, and Iraq is still 97% muslim.
In other words, America has spent 4.4 trillion taxpayer dollars to build a single church.
Richard Dawkins is a smart guy. Has he forgotten his definition of a CSS and how EGT applies to evolutionary theory of culture and evolutionary biology?
I don't think so.
He just doesn't want to discuss it.