Richard Dawkins interview by Piers Morgan: Watch how a globally acclaimed atheist thinker chooses silence over criticising Islamic terrorism

A video clip from Richard Dawkin’s current interview with Piers Morgan has been going viral. In that clip, Dawkins is requested to remark about Islamic terrorism and he merely refuses to. The interview was aired on March 21.

The particular dialogue occurs from 31 minutes onwards within the video above.

PM: You have been accused of being an Islamophobe. Are you an Islamophobe?

RD: I’m not an Islamophobe. What I’m phobic of is clitoridectomy (feminine genital mutilation), of throwing homosexual individuals off buildings, banning dance and music and enjoyable generally. That’s totally different from being an Islamophobe. Muslims are the largest sufferer of Islamism.

PM: Yes they’re. Recently there was an enormous debate about permitting this ISIS bride Shamima Begum to come back again into our nation. Do you’ve gotten a view on that?

RD: I’d slightly not say.

PM: You would slightly not talk about it?

RD: I haven’t studied sufficient.

PM: Well, she was married to an ISIS fighter. She was younger, 15 years previous when she went on the market. The debate is about whether or not she was groomed to be part of a terror group when she was in Syria, and as such, we must always present mercy and permit her again within the nation.

RD: I’m not gonna say about that.

PM: Are you apprehensive about it (Islamic terrorism)? Do you get threats due to the positions you’ve gotten taken?

RD: No.

PM: You noticed what occurred to Salman Rushdie. Didn’t ship a shudder for you?

RD: *Shakes head*, mumbles “no”

PM: You stated no, you don’t need to speak about it?

RD: Yes.

PM: That’s attention-grabbing in itself. So there are areas you’d slightly not speak about.

RD: Yes. I ought to have stated that earlier than we began.

PM: I believe it’s unhappy that you could’t. I don’t assume there needs to be something that needs to be off-limits to individuals such as you. The complete level of the world’s smartest thinkers is to have the ability to have a free and open debate. I don’t assume you do. Because individuals used murderous retribution to threaten free speech.

RD: I’m a passionate believer in free speech.

PM: Should there ever be a restrict to free speech?

RD: Inside the restrict of violence.

After Dawkin’s refusal to talk about Islamic terrorism and its threats towards free speech, Piers Morgan then adjustments the subject to free speech, free thinkers and Oxford University, resulting in a dialogue about Dawkin’s private favorite thinkers.

Dawkins is usually thought to be one of the vital fearless and open thinkers of our time. His books on evolutionary biology and humanity’s quest to seek out solutions for our existence are extraordinarily standard. He is among the ‘Four Horsemen’ of Neo-atheism, together with Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett. They are termed so due to their views in the direction of the ‘pointlessness’ of faith.

Dawkin’s sudden option to slightly be silent than talk about Islamic terrorism has shocked many on social media.

A heartbreaking scene. @piersmorgan is interviewing @RichardDawkins, one of the vital influential minds alive right this moment, and he shuts down. He gained’t even touch upon Salman Rushdie. This is the place terrorism leads, as Piers factors out. This is the way it works. pic.twitter.com/Ci8ZcUQtiz

— Yasmine Mohammed 🦋 ياسمين محمد (@YasMohammedxx) March 28, 2023

People termed Dawkin’s silence for example of how Islamic terrorism operates as a result of it manages to threaten even the wisest minds to close up to make sure one’s personal security.

One social media consumer commented that Dawkins silence is what de facto blasphemy legal guidelines result in.

Richard Dawkins avoids questions on Islam. I don’t blame him however that is the place de facto blasphemy legal guidelines get you. Logical conclusion on the assaults on Rushdie, Charlie Hebdo, Samuel Paty, the trainer in Batley and so forth pic.twitter.com/5eYkgte8ii

— B (@bsr_0204) March 20, 2023

Another consumer stated Dawkins’ behaviour is just like a witness being silenced with threats of violence.

That’s a person who has been threatened into silence, I’ve seen it too many occasions with intimidated witnesses, and so forth.
That’s not a criticism of him – it’s all too comprehensible – however your remark is spot-on.
Control of language & behaviour is the objective of each oppressor.

— The Owl Of Minerva. 🇬🇧 🇮🇱 🇺🇸 (@NeilView) March 28, 2023

“If the UK government were more committed to defending free speech by protecting public intellectuals, grammar school teachers, or autistic teenage boys from violence….then maybe this wouldn’t be our fate”, tweeted Yasmine Mohammad, an anti-hijab activist and writer from the UK.