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.

