Yes it is a fact ..... move along now

Most of what I'm about to say has already been said but, yes It is a fact, and the fact is that it was intended to be derogatory towards Islam.
Dawkins is a well known Religion basher, by denying that it had the implication of associating muslims with the lesser, you're just showing overwhelming naivety.

An objective fact is not, on its own, racist; but choosing a particular objective fact to highlight certainly can be.

Suppose I said (truly, suppose) to abgemacht, "Emac has left you a great deal of money in his will. He is all by himself in his home tonight; moreover, he sleeps very soundly and with an open window tall enough to admit a man. It should also be noted that there is a man just 6 blocks away from him, in a small yellow house, who will sell a gun on short notice and forget what he sold."

All of these might be objectively true facts (say). It can hardly be denied, though, that there is a certain hostility in my choosing to highlight them in conjunction.

Some good responses on here. Just picking up on if a fact can be racist. I'd say it can be and it all depends on the context.

Example. A person is arrested. The police office yells at the suspect "get in the fucking cells you black bastard." The suspect is both black and a bastard. Is there anybody on here (EMac) that doesn't see this as racist?

I once new a guy who was black,bastard,jew,and bold.

Since when has muslim been a race?

Regarding the original question a statement like that can be interprated either way. To make it definetly not racist (still wierds me out) you should provide additional information, like reasons as to why you think muslims have recieved less Nobel prizes.

This just reminded me of the Jeremy Clarkson gaffe regarding Gordon Brown when he was pm 4 years ago.

http://youtu.be/Qs7V-hnTV30?t=15s

In the clip Jeremy Clarkson (known for making many contraversial statements over the years) Calls Gordon Brown a one eyed Scottish Idiot.

Gordon Brown is indeed blind in one eye, and is indeed Scottish.
There was a huge uproad followed by many many debates (almost identical to the one we are having here) To decide if what Clarkson said was offensive with the ''one eyed'' and ''Scottish'' comments

Funnily enough, that is where the entire debate lay, nobody seemed to even question the fact that Clarkson called Brown an Idiot. Perhaps that shows the severity of derogatary terminalogy used.

Just wanted to point out that a 'similar' scenario that was widely broadcast and reviewed has happened in the recent past.

I say similar, as both comments were 'factual' but were seen as offensive.

The fact isn't racist, the statement on it's own isn't racist, but it was very likely a racist move to post the statement. That means the poster is racist (I forgot his name, don't give a shit about names.)

bigoted, not racist*, sorry. Although it could still be racist, but that is kind of irrelevant.

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/10/richard_dawkins_does_it_again_new_atheisms_islamophobia_problem/

'In Dawkins' case, the implication is pretty clear - Muslims are stupid.'

No, I don't think it's that clear, Dawkins doesn't think they are inherently stupid, he thinks their religion prevents them from thinking. In fact, he would argue that raising a child with Islam as their belief system amounts to child abuse (specifically neglect).

@Emacs: as i said, a fact can't be rascist. But Your example was of a statement, which was made in the context of the cultural and society which Dawkins exists. And thus this statement* (as opposed to the fact, which you are so obsessed with) can be bigoted.

*or making the statement, as Steephie puts it, though i don't like the terminology, that is unimportant semantics.

Whether it is fair to say that new atheism is 'islamophobic' is difficult, i don't think Dawkin's is specifically anti-Muslim, but he does pick on them as one of the worst religions; though I would disagree - I don't know about anyone else, but Christian soldiers willing to die for their country are no better than Muslim terrorists willing to suicide bomb for theirs. That's just a matter of tactics...

In fact i don't think that is about religion at all (an evil of nationalism, if anything)

So, what i've gained from this conversation so far, Emacs doesn't seem to understand the value of context. Everyone else seems to get it. (lastly: @mintyboy, Clarkson was entitled to call Brown an idiot, because it is a subjective issue, and thus Clarkson was expressing an opinion that the British Prime Minister is an idiot. Which he's entitled to do; but the 'one-eyed, Scottish' facts caused uproar because, in context, he was using these facts as insults => implying that the fact he is blind in one eye (disabled) and Scottish (not a race, not really a different ethnic group, but still worth discriminating over...) is a bad thing. )

Islamofobia! That's the word, steephie is right. It's not racism.
So yes this is the name for what Israelis feel and the world is starting to understand.
What differents it from other fobias is that this one is based on real experience and many deaths, terrorism and ignorance. Yes, i know not all muslims are terrorists but islam "jiahad" doesn't sound as a peaceful wish.

@Taos: 'In Arabic, the word jihād translates as a noun meaning "struggle" '

'Within the context of the classical Islam, particularly the Shiahs beliefs, it refers to struggle against those who do not believe in Allah (God).'

'The "greater jihad" is the inner struggle by a believer to fulfill his religious duties.'

'The "lesser jihad" is the physical struggle against the enemies of Islam. This physical struggle can take a violent form or a non-violent form. '

Jihad means something else in the west, but notice, Shia Muslims have this idea (well these two ideas) while Sunni Muslims apparently don't: lets look at a map: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8 /Madhhab_Map2.png

Guess where the Sunnis are.

@orathaic your link doesn't work
" 'The "lesser jihad" is the physical struggle against the enemies of Islam. This physical struggle can take a violent form or a non-violent form. "
I don't know but a religion that calls for physical strugle against non believers sounds like inquisition to me, not something to be proud in the 21' century.
What scares me the most is their population growth into this ignorant, primitive education. And i know there are many inteligent muslims,also well educated minds but they are a minority. Nobel prices can indicate in that case the intelectual difference between the cultures and turn a red light for future generations,it's something we the western civilization must fix before they have the power to destroy our world.

Sorry Taos, you know how the webdip form likes to turn D into 3 (or is it d into 3 ) you can make the link work is you replace the 'dagger' symbol with a small d.

Alternatively, i made a tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/ykyt3do (but it also has a # and d in it :( )

How, pray tell, do you think 'western civilization' can fix this? Also what makes you think the intelligent/well educated muslims (as a minority) are in any way different from the intellectual/well educated classes in western civilization (also a minority)

Do you know how many nobel prizes Ireland can claim? I mean, i'm a huge proponent of education (i suppose i'd probably consider myself something of an intellectual, though i'm not sure what qualifies one as such) and a lot of the Islamic world seems to have limited educational opportunity outside of Madrasa

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrasa

But I also know that the majority of Irish schools are still run by the Catholic church. I spent all of my primary and secondary education in such places. The only religious people may have been on boards of management, but there is a history of religious organisations putting huge resources into education across the world.

And if it is a problem, then it seems to have 'fixed' itself, more or less.

Don't act like I'm on your side, taos. I despise your opinion (note: I don't despise you! I love people, I just despise your opinion!), I have not even mentioned the word Islamophobia (or Islamofobia as you write it... Is it a proper alternate spelling or not? Just out of curiosity.). In fact, I can't really disagree more with you. *I think it IS racism, as I explained*.

I wanted to say pretty much what orathaic said in his post now, but, well, he already said it.

Basically, if you think Muslims are evil, that's okay, I suppose, in a way, but they're not evil compared to the rest of the world. Other than what orathaic already said, I'd like to point out that many Muslims simply see the "lesser jihad" as convincing people that Allah (or God. Unlike Christians have done quite a few times, a lot of Muslims don't fight about his name. Basically they say he's the one God, and they name him Allah.) exists, is merciful etc. etc. etc. And of course, if someone wants to be converted to the Islam, they are happy to help.

As for the war involving Islam: there are a bunch of Islamic radicals, yes. However, a lot of them are just shameless nationalists, just like an awful lot of Americans. The average Christian is far more hateful. There's also a huge bunch of Christian radicals.

Whatever your believe/faith/religion is, all that really matters is that you are so stupid to use violence. And the last time I checked America has the biggest military force and isn't afraid to use it, and that country isn't exactly known as an Islamic stronghold. All those people are stupid enough to use violence, to kill to make their home a better place, at the cost of the world. So overall I'd say you can't blame a country (America), religion (Christianity, Islam, Jews (I don't know the English word for their religion, so that's why I'm being inconsistent there)), economic system (capitalism, communism), or race (black, white, whatever). Nor can you blame liberals, conservatives etc.

At least not all of any of those groups. You can blame nationalists, radicals, psychopaths and so on. Most of them don't live in the Middle-East. Many of them are fighting for the mere survival of their families and such. Soldiers of countries such as pretty much every Western country are not defending their homes/families, they're attacking others' homes/families. Therefore they are nationalists, radicals and so on, or stupid, or deceived, or looking for revenge. None of those are particularly good. So if you are looking for some general term for people to blame, I wouldn't look at race, religion, country etc etc etc etc, but at professions: a lot of military people fit the bill.

All IMO of course.

Haven't read the whole thread, but a few thoughts:
1. "The dog is sleeping. You can look and see the dog is sleeping." Not necessarily an objective fact. The dog could be comatose. The dog could be pretending to be asleep and merely ignoring you. The dog could have a problem with its eyes leading to its eyes being closed. "The dog is sleeping" is the most likely hypothesis based on observation but is not objective fact. An objective fact would be something more like, "The dog is on the floor and its eyes are closed."
2. “all the world’s Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge." - This is indeed an objective fact, but the conclusion that you draw from it is much more subjective. Some might conclude that Muslims make poor scholars. Others might conclude that the Nobel selection committee is religiously prejudiced. Still others might conclude that the Nobel Prize emphasizes areas of study that are not prioritized in Muslim cultures, or perhaps that Trinity College has deeper systematic connections to the Nobel Committee. More might conclude that political interest makes the committee hesitant to award prizes in conflict zones or in nations with agendas contrary to Swedish political interests. In other words, the one fact is objective, but to draw deeper connections invites significantly more conjecture.

@ora - Christian soldiers? What about Jewish soldoers and atheistic soldiers? Soldiers dying for their country aren't of one religion *except* in Islam and maybe Israel.

All Israeli citizens, Palestinian family or not, are required to join the IDF in some fashion, Draug. That's one of the few things that religion doesn't affect there.

@ Feste,
"The quote does not express an objective fact. There is an infinite set of sets of people who have fewer Nobel prizes than Trinity College. There is no objective basis for choosing one of those sets over the others to compare to Trinity College. The quote expresses a fact, but not an objective one, because the choice of the terms of comparison is inherently value-laden."

This doesn't make it not an objective fact. It makes it not a relevant fact, or not an objective data set, or not a contextualized fact... but I'd have to argue it's still objective fact. As I note above, though, the conclusions one could draw from this are numerous. To assume that the fact proves something about Muslims and not about the Nobel Prize would be subjective conjecture.

No, the dog is sleeping not comatose and this is an objective fact verified by the direct observation as I stated. I drew no conclusion at all from the objective fact that concerning Trinity College and Muslims. The conclusions you offered are conjectures not facts. What I'm finding is the widespread nature of illogical thinking.

@Emac,
No, you said, "You can look and see the dog is sleeping." You can't *look* and tell whether the dog is sleeping. In order to prove that the dog is sleeping not comatose, you have to either try to wake the dog and succeed or perform an MRI on the dog. Either way, you can't simply "look and see the dog is sleeping".

" drew no conclusion at all from the objective fact that concerning Trinity College and Muslims. The conclusions you offered are conjectures not facts. What I'm finding is the widespread nature of illogical thinking."

No, what you are finding is that people are aware of the context in which statements (not facts) occur.

The conclusions people are making are based on the actual meaning which Dawkins had. He is specifically attacking Islam in a bigoted way. (if people call it rascist, then that is a use of language issue, they mean insulting to Islam and something to be ashamed of, their meaning can be seen from context, but it's a bit more vague here)

It is not illogical to think that your example is bigoted. The author is known for his views on religion. The 'fact' isn't in question, he's using it to support an arguement against religion.

@Draugnar you don't have to be jew or any religion to serve in the israel army,many citizens of any religion are participating in Israel defense.
Christians,druses(i don't know the English word),and some muslims.
I know i am misunderstood here,i am not a racist and didn't mean to sound as one.
I grew up in the middle east and know muslims well, the western civilization mustin myopinion invest in the muslims education to change this situation and bringthem more to our "time" so they will enjoy the same opportunities as the westerns.
Simon Perez said: "if they will build hi-tech they won't build bombs"

I already gave my opinion on the Muslim thing, but I agree with what hecks last said, in addition to that, if you only want to know IF the dog is sleeping, you could kill it for example, then you know it's not. Which is the other variant of what beforementioned soldiers do. They don't know if there's a danger, so they just piss off a lot of people so they know they're in danger, "to keep the peace".

And taos: in some/many (don't know for sure) they've got all the education they want. Accept it. Don't invest money in things they don't want if you want to help them. Of course, you may agree to this already. Just wanted to say it.

^? Please explain

It is interesting to see though processes that get in the way of logical thinking.