’some dumb teenage stoner chick with multiple tattoos and piercings and an exceedingly stupid haircut.’

Suddenly I feel alienated by this post. *cries*

As you point out, it is instructive to consider the etymology of the word.

A phobia is an irrational fear. Is it irrational to be afraid of Islam? Is it irrational to be afraid of *any* religion?

No. Religion is something of which one needs to be wary at all times.

“Several previous entries on my blog have made it on to the Islamophobia Watch website, the proprietors of which I would both describe as friends.”

Well, with friends like that…

But in general, excellent article. If only all communists agreed without reservation to freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of personal choice the way you just have.

I really don’t understand what this post is supposed to be saying.

And I don’t think the problem is at my end.

Dave “Hit, miss, but no in between” Osler strikes again, me thinks…

All he is saying that you should be able to criticise Muslim practices without being labelled Islamophobic, and a handful of people on the left are very keen on doing some of that labelling.

I’d quite like to be a Gay Imperialist. Has anybody got any spare invites?

Personally I prefer being a Mint Imperialist – its tastes nicer.

I agree that Islamophobia is a dodgy concept which can be used to try to close down legitimate criticism of Islam and Islamism, and even to silence artistic and journalistic expression. I don’t dispute that there is such a thing as hatred of Muslims, but it’s far too easy to throw the term Islamophobia around.

Where I’m not sure I’m with you is your last sentence. It’s one thing for religious extremists to call gay people horrible names or even accuse doctors of murder. I’m not happy about those things, but maybe I should have to live with that.

It’s quite another thing to call for people to be killed.

Sorry, I meant the last sentence of your penultimate paragraph.

The premise of this article is a bit like the Trots on Mars one. A couple of days ago I read a bunch of cross-posts between Harry’s Place, Socialist Unity and Lenin’s Tomb so I think I understand Dave’s point, but I think pretty much everyone else is going to be left just thinking ‘er Duhhh’.

Never mind, Conor. At least there’s a couple of halfway decent gags in there.

To a certain extent there needs to be a new word for all this because ‘Islamophobia’ usually means a phobia of Islam itself or a distaste for the religion.

This is not a problem in itself. The problem is that when accusations derived from Islamophobia are used to generalise and demonise Muslims themselves. Usually on false pretences.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being islamophobic. Islam is a set of opinions, which is almost completely indistinguishable from christianity and judaism. I am proudly phobic of all three. They are thoroughly objectionable and the fact that they describe themselves as “faiths” whatever that means does not excuse it.

However, opposition to the ideas represented by islam is being used a lot to cover up for racism. I have no doubt that a great many of the people I’ve heard ranting about how this is a “christian” country and disagreeing with islam are doing so as a cover for a fairly nasty racism. Meanwhile of course the leaders of religions are trying their level best to make the whole discussion about religion. They’re the people who want every baby branded as belonging to islam, christianity or judaism. They love the idea of splitting the country on religious lines.

It’s easy to get round this. Let’s call racism racism. And let all sensible people detest all religion. It deserves it.

Peter Tatchell has been unfairly smeared for too long on the subject. And usually from people who choose to turn a blind eye towards all the campaigning he’s done -including standing up for the rights of the Muslim people.

But I guess lazy accusations of Islamophobia are of a similar make as the Melanie Philips’ brand of shouting “Anti-Semitism!” – manipulatively thrown at whoever disagrees.

Claude re: Comment 16,

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to stray from the topic towards mentioning Melanie Phillips – as if it had any relevance. 2 hours.

Just get over it guys, you might not like her but try and be accurate.

Agree with Claude above.

Let me see if I’ve got this.

Dislike of the teachings of Islam is OK.

Dislike of people because they have a different skin colour is NOT OK.

So, despite the fact that it is OK to dislike Islam, if the reason you dislike it is because those who believe in Islam mostly have a different skin colour, that’s NOT OK.

Dislike of gays is NOT OK except if you dislike gays because you are a Moslem.

If you dislike Moslems because you are gay and because they don’t like you because they are Moslems, that’s OK.

Presumably gay Moslems hate themselves?

But do they do so because they are gay or because they are a Moslem?

Or for both reasons?

Don’t think I’ve got this at all.

Dislike of the teachings of Islam is OK.

Yup.

Dislike of people because they have a different skin colour is NOT OK.

Yup.

So, despite the fact that it is OK to dislike Islam, if the reason you dislike it is because those who believe in Islam mostly have a different skin colour, that’s NOT OK.

Yup. Assuming you’re being satirical here, but I can’t see anything wrong with the sentence above at face value (just like it’s OK to dislike Peter Tatchell because you think he’s an obnoxious publicity-seeking tosser, but not because he’s gay).

Dislike of gays is NOT OK except if you dislike gays because you are a Moslem.

No, this doesn’t follow, either from Dave’s piece or the above – the point is, dislike of gays is NOT OK *even* if you dislike gays because you’re a Muslim.

If you dislike Moslems because you are gay and because they don’t like you because they are Moslems, that’s OK.

Yes, ish, as long as you don’t generalise it to liberal Muslims.

Presumably gay Moslems hate themselves?

Mostly yes, I would’ve thought.

But do they do so because they are gay or because they are a Moslem?

Or for both reasons?

Largely because their religious identity demonises their sexual identity, I would’ve thought.

Don’t think I’ve got this at all.

Fairly straightforward, I’d say.

Sunny re: Comment 18,

Of course you do.

Tatchell’s one of the most consistantly good writers and campaigners the Left have and I’m glad to see so many rallying to his defence here and at HP; and whereas many confuse their commentary with genuine action Tatchell has never been afraid to put himself in the thick of the action.

It takes a brave man to stand up to not just violence and the threat of violence, but also to the demonisation and moral blackmail of those ostensibly ‘on one’s side’.

As to ‘islamophobia’, there’s a difference between criticising a belief system and persecuting those who hold those beliefs, a distinction neither Islamists (and their apologists) and Islamophobes fail to make. Frankly, I regard all religion as a pernicious influence and I’d be happy to wake up one morning and find ignorance and superstition behind us that goes for all religions, organised or otherwise, and the quasi-religions held by the peddlers of woo.

Bugger – where’s the edit function?

‘there’s a difference between criticising a belief system and persecuting those who hold those beliefs, a distinction neither Islamists (and their apologists) and Islamophobes make.’

or

‘there’s a difference between criticising a belief system and persecuting those who hold those beliefs, a distinction Islamists (and their apologists) and Islamophobes fail to make.’

Either will do.

A few quick points of fact:

1) The post on LT that Osler links to was written by a gay activist and discussed the way in which gay oppression was being used as a cover for bigotry toward Muslims. That is what the title referred to, and I suspect Osler knows this very well: it is therefore stupid for him to suggest that there was an effort to ‘out’ Tatchell implicit in the title.

2) When Osler refers to a “few unfunny cartoons in little-read Danish satirical publications” which “supposedly degrade and denigrate religion”, he is really asking to be mocked. The cartoons were published in multiple European publications in a deliberately provocative campaign, and the objection to them was not that they degraded religion. It was that they were uncontroversially racist in exactly the same sense that Tsarist and Nazi depictions of Jews were racist. It would be easier to take Osler’s strictures on the question of challenging homophobia to heart if one could be certain he was as sensitive to the issue of anti-Muslim racism – and particularly, given the topic of the posts he is replying to, to the way in which anti-Muslim racism validates itself with pseudo-progressive language.

3) Osler has indeed appeared on Islamophobia Watch twice. Once, he was praised for a sensible post about the ‘lyrical terrorist’. The other time he featured, he was criticised for implicitly equating violent jihadism with Islam as such (with the jokey title ‘Neither Washington nor Mosque’) and, relatedly, for peddling the absurd claim that some on the left were making an alliance of convenience with Al Qaeda – an idea so preposterous that only the madder elements of the neoconservative belligerati dare utter it these days. Given his propensity for levelling such bizarre accusations at others on the Left, how honest is it for him to evince such sensitivity to a single (apparently justified) charge of indulging in Islamophobic rhetoric?

And paedophilia means loving children – philo doesn’t differentiate between eros and agape, hence being the first half of philosophy.

Words move on and shamelessly don’t stick to their original roots.

Apropros of nothing, the German for nipple is “Breast Wart.”

‘1) The post on LT that Osler links to was written by a gay activist and discussed the way in which gay oppression was being used as a cover for bigotry toward Muslims. That is what the title referred to, and I suspect Osler knows this very well: it is therefore stupid for him to suggest that there was an effort to ‘out’ Tatchell implicit in the title.’

Osler isn’t claiming you ‘outed’ Tatchell as a homosexual – some of us have suspected that for some time – but that the article explicitly ‘outs’ Tatchell as Islamophobic.

(Presumably homosexuals in your world wear the pink veil out of ‘modesty’ and to prevent straights from being overcome with lust.)

‘2) When Osler refers to a “few unfunny cartoons in little-read Danish satirical publications” which “supposedly degrade and denigrate religion”, he is really asking to be mocked.’

Mocked – or beheaded? It wasn’t the cartoons which made Muslims look bad, it was the hysterical and homicidal response.

Do YOU think the response was proportionate to the belated ‘offence’?

‘Apropros of nothing, the German for nipple is “Breast Wart.”’

That’s why German isn’t the international language of love.

re. comment 24

“The cartoons were published in multiple European publications in a deliberately provocative campaign, and the objection to them was not that they degraded religion. It was that they were uncontroversially racist in exactly the same sense that Tsarist and Nazi depictions of Jews were racist.”

Well, erm, no. The cartoons were published without fanfare or outrage and three months later taken to the middle east and Islamic world by a couple of radical preachers as part of a “dossier” – “proof” as it were that the West hates Islam. Like that other dodgy dossier they contained inaccuracies, not least the unsourced pictures of a man with a pig mask (claimed to be mocking Islam, in fact was a Frenchman at a pig-impersonator competition or something).

If anyone was being deliberately provocative, it was not the European press but the bigoted fundamentalists, once again forgetting the ‘fun’ and emphasising the ‘mental’.

One more thing – if your religion can’t take some unfunny cartoons without causing riots and death then it’s hardly a strong religion at all, is it? Jews are still libeled in Muslim papers via cartoon, Christians were offended at the Jerry Springer Opera farce but didn’t burn cars, embassies etc did they.

If the right-wing Islamists want respect then they could start by respecting our right to take the piss as and when we please. I was under the impression that this blog was the “liberal” conspiracy – as far as I know the meaning of “liberal” has not changed to mean “freedom of speech unless you’re mean about Muslims/Christians/Jews”.

Blaspheme away until this dangerous nonsense is done away with (and the Islamist apologists on the so-called “Left” who will no doubt accuse me of Islamophobia too).

re: my above comment.

The dossier in question can be read about here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akkari-Laban_dossier

One further question: Where did they all get those Danish flags from so quickly..?

I fear for the sanity of the Left if they accept the anti-freedom Islamists’ version of events over and above actual research.

I’m not sure why we’re going back to the Danish cartoons, but blaming Muslims for the cartoons is rather like publishing one of those old school cartoons that portrayed black men as slobbering goons that lusted after white women , and then blaming black people for getting angry.

Or, rather, blaming the 22,000 who complained about Jan Moir’s article as “hysterical” for reacting against homophobia.

That is not to say that some Muslims in the Middle East and Pakistan went a bit nuts. And al-Muhajiroun – who are the biggest publicity seeking whores around – did their predicted demonstration.

But that exceedingly vast majority of Muslims in the UK and worldwide were angry and weren’t burning things or making death threats. To blame them for getting angry over a bunch of racist cartoons is pretty stupid.

on the point I agree with lenin above.

re:29

“Blaming Muslims for the cartoons is rather like publishing one of those old school cartoons that portrayed black men as slobbering goons that lusted after white women , and then blaming black people for getting angry.[...] But that exceedingly vast majority of Muslims in the UK and worldwide were angry and weren’t burning things or making death threats. To blame them for getting angry over a bunch of racist cartoons is pretty stupid.”

Nice straw man argument, and missing the point.

Why didn’t the Left ask any questions about how and why this dossier was circulated amongst the Muslim world? Pandering to right-wing bigots was never a very leftish thing to do as far as I recall, maybe times have changed. Acceptance of an elitist view – that of the extremist ‘Muslims’ – seems in fact a very anti-leftwing thing to be carrying on with.

No problem with people getting angry per se – but burning embassies? Death threats (and in some cases actual murder)? Signs saying “Behead those who insult Islam”? Hardly rational arguments to debate with.

Lenin – the original one – had a term for people who unwittingly gave ammunition to an opposing cause: useful idiots. Those on the Left who constantly make excuses for the Islamist cause (and Ken Livingstone is one, George Galloway another) fit that term perfectly.

Why didn’t the Left ask any questions about how and why this dossier was circulated amongst the Muslim world?

Perhaps there was some alternative motivation by the people who circulated the dossier. But you’re neatly trying to avoid the point around the cartoons themselves. Do you or do you not accept they were designed to demonise and stereotype Muslims?

Acceptance of an elitist view – that of the extremist ‘Muslims’ – seems in fact a very anti-leftwing thing to be carrying on with.

I’m sorry I don’t follow. Which extremist Muslims have I accepted? I wouldn’t agree with banning the cartoons – people should have the legal right to draw and create racist, homophobic or anti-semitic cartoons or articles. But to even deny they are racist is pretty stupid.

No problem with people getting angry per se – but burning embassies? Death threats (and in some cases actual murder)? Signs saying “Behead those who insult Islam”? Hardly rational arguments to debate with.

Are you deliberately ignoring what I wrote above or is this some robotic cut-and-paste job?

I said it was expected the nutjobs from al-Muhajiroun would do that. Only last week I was at a demo to protest against them. So to claim I have “no problem” with them actually puts you in the “idiot” category, with nothing useful to boot.

And lastly, I’ve repeatedly criticised Ken and Galloway for giving cover to Islamists. Not sure what your point is. If you have a coherent one to make other than spouting some random stuff – let’s hear it.

Ah alright, my main argument was with those like “lenin” on here and others who hide behind the veil (irony intended) of liberalism when defending Islamists right to go bonkers whenever anyone takes the piss.

As for the cartoons – I’ve seen them and yeah, whilst they are crudely racist (I think the turban-as-bomb was the worst) there have been and continue to be racist cartoons against every religion without exeception and people – liberals – don’t cause mass outrage on their behalf. Nor should they.

I don’t think the cartoons themselves were “designed” to promote hate of Muslims or the Arab world, though. As I said before: they were circulated around the Arab world three months after publication – with other, more offensive, pictures and photos that had nothing whatsoever to do with the Danish cartoonists.

And lastly, I’ve repeatedly criticised Ken and Galloway for giving cover to Islamists.

Well thank goodness there’s some sanity out there on the Left. Maybe there is hope after all…

15 Chris

You win the prize for the most irrational statement so far:
“Islam is a set of opinions, which is almost completely indistinguishable from christianity and judaism.”

Jesus said love your enemies, killed no one
Mohammed beheaded his prisoners, said Kill your enemies.

Or how about – mainstream Islam theology decrees stoning for apostates – neither christianity or judaism does that.

“I don’t think the cartoons themselves were “designed” to promote hate of Muslims or the Arab world, though.”

No, they were designed to make citizens feel excluded and unwelcome from the Danish polity. This was not “Life of Brian” lets-make-fun-of-our-own-historic-silly-religion. As Tariq Modood wrote in 2006:

“They are all unfriendly to Islam and Muslims and the most notorious implicate the Prophet with terrorism. If the message was meant to be that non-Muslims have the right to draw Muhammad, it has come out very differently: that the Prophet of Islam was a terrorist.

Moreover, the cartoons are not just about one individual but about Muslims per se – just as a cartoon portraying Moses as a crooked financier would not be about one man but a comment on Jews. And just as the latter would be racist, so are the cartoons in question.”

In addition, those cartoons were designed for a “factual” children’s book on the Prophet Muhammad. There’s been a lot of literature on the presence of anti-immigrant cartoons in children’s and school textbooks. This just happens to be the most eggregious example.

Can we lay this one to rest?

Nadir

“they were designed to make citizens feel excluded and unwelcome from the Danish polity”

Says who?

Ddoesn’t anyone bother to do even the most basic reading…Wiki says:
“In 2005, the Muhammad cartoons controversy received only minor media attention outside of Denmark. Six of the cartoons were first reprinted by the Egyptian newspaper El Fagr on 17 October 2005,[43][44] along with an article strongly denouncing them, but publication did not provoke any condemnations or other reactions from religious or government authorities.”

So the cartoons were published in Egypt with no hullaballoo.

What Naadir said above. I think you accept my argument, you’re just throwing out some lazy insinuations.

The al-muhajiroun are like the National Front of their day. I would on balance ban them, but the point is that to conflate them with all Muslims is a grave error in the same way I’d never say the activities of the NF represents all Britons.

Not sure why Dave was trying to play down that issue either, but I suspect its more a throwaway point in a broader context.

I’ve argued for years that Muslims need to embrace free speech, and broadly even the more conservative Muslim orgs like the MCB have accepted this. These days they never call for bans, they only condemn stuff. To raise the straw-man that Muslims need top embrace free speech would have been relevant 10 years ago perhaps. Now the battle has been won.

But Sunny, how do you Muslims can have true free speech when mainstream Islam presribes stoning for aspostates?

Muslims are trapped, they can not voice any criticism of Mohammed without their own peers accusing them of apostatsy.

What do you say on the apostasy front?

whoops, that should have read:
“how do you _say_ Muslims can have true free speech…”

@36

How am I not doing basic reading? I said the cartoons were aimed at Danish citizens, and could more broadly be taken as an attack on European Muslims.

They weren’t going to energise Egyptians since although the cartoons broke certain religious tenets, they didn’t carry much in the way of symbolic value. Egyptians are unlikely to be familiar with the historic “crooked nose” depiction of Jews, the cartoon with Mohammad with a bomb wouldn’t have much political salience, since equating terrorism with Islam is not particularly prevalent in Arab discourse.

And how can a children’s textbook with illustrations of the prophet with a bomb for a turban and a crooked nose not be designed to designate who is and is not considered a Danish citizen. The use of education to inculcate values of identity and citizenship is nationalism 101 (*cough* Benedict Anderson *cough*).

That Islamist groups then captured the opportunity structure presented by the publication of the cartoons was another matter entirely. The Islamist outrages must be seperated from legitimate protest on what was an attack on the idea that Muslims could be peaceful, and equal citizens of European polities.

“They weren’t going to energise Egyptians since although the cartoons broke certain religious tenets, they didn’t carry much in the way of symbolic value.”

What?

“Egyptians are unlikely to be familiar with the historic “crooked nose” depiction of Jews”

Really?

You’ll have to quote some evidence for those two claims – from some reputable sources.

They sound preposterous to me at first reading.

Naadir

there, I just proved your Egyptian comments wrong, for the the cost of just 10 seconds: I googled for
“egyptian media portrayal of jews”

No 3 was at http://www.adl.org ‘Anti defamation league’ with 1 click to their study of 2001: “Anti-Semitic Images in the Egyptian Media”

Which says:
“Anti-Semitism continues to thrive in the Egyptian media. Derogatory images and harsh accusations against Jews in the Egyptian media have persevered through bad and good times – periods of tension and periods of calm in the more than 20 years since the 1979 declaration of peace between Israel and Egypt.”

“Anti-Semitic stereotypes continue to be prevalent in cartoons, with Jews often depicted as dirty, hook-nosed, money-hungry world dominators. “

When people like Dave Osler talk about how Islam is anti-gay or Muslims (apart from “thoughtful progressive” ones) are inclined to be against freedom of speech or sexuality, what he doesn’t understand is that it makes it so much harder for actual progressive Muslims to promote tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality, because what he does (unintentionally or otherwise) legitimises hatred against Muslims who turn in on themselves and reject progressive ideas.

It is much like those people who said invading Iraq would be the best way to liberate its people. Look how that turned out. The war only made things worse.

Denim

your point seems to be, correct me if wrong, that problems in Islam of the treatment of homosexuals or freedom of speech should be shushed up in the West, because simply mentioning it would make it worse ?

Sounds like you want to close down everything that organisations like Amnesty International want to do, globally.

Or do you think that it is just the problems in _Islam_ that you think should be hushed up?

Can you quote any modernising Islam sources to support your case?

Just Visiting,

Fair enough. I was wrong on one count.

But you are completely ignoring the fact that the cartoons were an attack on Danish citizens.

So, let me get this right. Crooked nose depictions of jews = racism. Crooked nose depictions of Muslims = right on!

Ah, Just Visiting. I wondered how long it would take you to crawl out of the woodwork and use this as an opportunity to put forward your half – baked, wikipedia – based (no, quoting wikipedia does not count as a scholarly reference) “christianity – nice, islam – nasty” mantra. You’ve already referred to your usual idiotic “mainstream” christian dogma is non – violent “argument” what’s next on the agenda? I await with interest.

@29 “blaming Muslims for the cartoons is rather like publishing one of those old school cartoons that portrayed black men as slobbering goons that lusted after white women , and then blaming black people for getting angry.” He wasn’t. He was blaming “right – wing islamists” for the hate campaign (which included death threats and actual murder) which followed. Seems fair enough, really.

@35 “In addition, those cartoons were designed for a “factual” children’s book on the Prophet Muhammad. ” No they weren’t.

Naadir

If you believe that “the fact that the cartoons were an attack on Danish citizens.” then please state your sources.

Because your post is thoroughly flawed: you wrote: “And how can a children’s textbook with illustrations of the prophet with a bomb for a turban and a crooked nose”

But the cartoons were not for a childrens book!

Please take 10 seconds to read up at least to a Wikipedia level…

The childrens book author nearly failed to find artists willing to draw Mohammed.
The newspaper therefore said it wanted a debate on self censorship and commissioned the cartoons

Goedel

Please don’t attack people personally and not actually comment on the facts of anything they say. It devalues debate and is boring for everyone to read.

So, as far as what I’ve posted in this thread, specifically what do you not find you agree with?

Please be specific and stick to what I actually wrote.

@45 “But you are completely ignoring the fact that the cartoons were an attack on Danish citizens.” No they weren’t. On the other hand, the three men arrested by Danish Police in connection with a plot to murder one of the cartoonists would indicate a planned attack on a Danish citizen.

@47 “But the cartoons were not for a childrens book!” For once you’re right

Several previous entries on my blog have made it on to the Islamophobia Watch website, the proprietors of which I would both describe as friends. Not surprisingly, I take exception to the designation.

Everyone except Osama Bin Laden & President Ahmadinejad is on Islamophobia Watch. We are all Islamophobics now. Islamophobia Watch is subject to the law of diminishing returns. A more rational response to it would be to shrug, and mutter “bunch of tossers”.

Goedel 49

“@47 “But the cartoons were not for a childrens book!” For once you’re right”

Thanks.

But you’ve ducked my question:
> So, as far as what I’ve posted in this thread, specifically what do you not find you agree with?

@48 “Please don’t attack people personally and not actually comment on the facts of anything they say. It devalues debate and is boring for everyone to read.” I’m not sure that’s true.

@48 “So, as far as what I’ve posted in this thread, specifically what do you not find you agree with?” well, for a start “But Sunny, how do you Muslims can have true free speech when mainstream Islam presribes stoning for aspostates?” It’s grammatically incorrect to the point of, strictly speaking, making no sense and it revives your tired, stupid, pointless “mainstream” argument. This usually follows this format:

a. “Mainstream islam advocates violence is various circumstances.”

b. “Mainstream christianity does not advocate violence, in fact it advocates peace, love and respect for fellow humans.”

c. “Islam is, therefore, bad. Christianity is, therefore, good.”

This has, in the past, been followed up by people asking you to define your use of the term “mainstream” (it eventually becomes apparent that your definition of “mainstream” is flexible, inconsistent and applies to any doctrine in such a way as to support your argument) and pointing out that christian texts advocate violence to the same degree as islamic ones. You are then asked to explain why you choose to view the islamic texts which support violence as being representative of islam but not the christian ones. You have never come up with a satisfactory answer. You punctuate your posts with pompous phrases like “evidence please” and ignore it when it is produced but you never actually produce a great deal of evidence to support your own arguments other than references to wikipedia which you seem to believe is an authoritative source/learned journal.

To sum up, it’s fairly pointless trying to debate with you so taking the piss seems to be the best option. Please don’t interpret this as meaning that your arguments are logically sound, it actually means that you seem unable to comprehend:

a. Logical structure
b. The meaning of the word “evidence”
c. When you have lost an argument.

It also means that you are basing pretty much everything you say on your obvious belief in christianity and nothing anyone tells you will make a difference. So why should I bother?

Does that clear it up for you?

@50 “Everyone except Osama Bin Laden & President Ahmadinejad is on Islamophobia Watch. We are all Islamophobics now. Islamophobia Watch is subject to the law of diminishing returns. A more rational response to it would be to shrug, and mutter “bunch of tossers”.”

Yep, that pretty much sums it up.

Lenin: ‘It was that they were uncontroversially racist in exactly the same sense that Tsarist and Nazi depictions of Jews were racist.’

Only ‘Tsarist’ Russia – not your beloved Soviet Union? How do you explain the Soviet cartoon here?

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/11/06/zionist-web-weavers/#comments

Idiot.

Goedel

You posted at length, but _still_ failed to address what I had said in this thread.

You quoted my 48 without bothering to read my typo correction in 49, which allowed you to discuss grammar and not my point.

So, for the 3rd time of asking:
> as far as what I’ve posted in this thread, specifically what do you not find you agree with?

What most interests me about the Danish cartoon brouhaha is not that a little-read right wing paper published them in the first place, nor that they were later seized upon by Islamist demagogues to stir up anti-Western sentiment. Both of those things are par for the course in our somewhat polarised culture.

What intrigues me is the decision by half the newspapers in the west to reprint the cartoons when the issue blew up (OK, OK 143 newspapers in 56 countries isn’t half the newspapers, but it is a lot). Ostensibly this was done to demonstrate the value placed upon freedom of expression by liberal western society. At least, that was my reading of the situation, though I’m open to other theories.

This is despite the fact that there was never any suggestion that the Danish government was going to censure or censor Jyllands-Posten (the original publication) nor was the right to publish such cartoons under any genuine threat.

And yet at exactly the same time, a satirical magazine in Spain published a cartoon that was deemed offensive twoards Crown Prince Felipe and the entire print run was seized and pulped. It was as clear an attack upon freedom of expression as one can imagine. There was no international outcry and no mass re-publication of the cartoon around the world.

Of course, there weren’t death threats and images of burning flags to spice up the story, but I can’t be alone in thinking that it made a lie out of the claim that the decision to re-publish the cartoons by 143 different publications had sod all to do with protecting the right to free expression and quite a bit to do with stirring up controversy for its own sake.

@55 I just told you. Read the post and stop focussing on one thing I mentioned ie your appalling grammar (and it really is appalling). I also mentioned your equally appalling inability to put forward logical argument, provide evidence, evaluate the evidence others provide, define the term “mainstream”, defend your contentions about the relative positions of islam and christianity etc etc. Take your pick.

Oh, I also mentioned your pompous use of phrases like “evidence please” (on most other threads to which you have contributed” We can now add “for the third time of asking” to the list of pompous and meaningless phrases used by Just Visiting. Please stop pretending that I haven’t answered your post. I just did. At considerable length. You haven’t answered any of the points I made, have you? You never do. Obviously because you can’t.

Goedel

This thread seems to be your first outing on LC, and yet you kick off your debut post with an un-necessary ad hominen attack on me.
Curious.

And despite requests, you have failed to actually be _specific_ about anything I have said _in this thread_, that you would take another angle on.

If you want to contribute to a meaningful debate, then the onus is in you to take what people actually say and respond to it.

So,here’s another chance to demonstrate why your initial criticism had foundation: quote back to me specifics of what I have said in this thread, and why you disagree with them.

(And yes, I have not responded to the mass of what you’ve written, because none of that is commentary on what I’ve written in this thread)

@58 Your usual idiocy. I’m not re – stating what I wrote. As I have repeatedly implied, you’re too dim to respond.

Jim (56)
“Of course, there weren’t death threats and images of burning flags to spice up the story, ”

But maybe that is a big difference.

Wikipedia has a convenient list in it’s Danish cartoon page of religiously blasphemous books and plays etc.
They are mostly piss-takes of christianity, and mostly occur in western countries.
For none of those were there riots or buildings burned or people dying.

But for the one Islamic blasphemous case – there was violence.

“quite a bit to do with stirring up controversy for its own sake.”

The media love a good picture and a story of conflict of course, for their own devices – but the facts of violence do underpin the story.

Eg = how many Dutch film makers have been killed by budhists unhappy with the film makers apparently blasphemous films?
Versus how many killed by Muslims…
Versus…

Goedel

You are in fact Richard F or Joseph from last month’s thread:
__the-global-spread-of-christianity__
and I claim my £5 : As I have repeatedly implied, you’re too dim to respond.

Ahh, back to ad hominens.
Proof that you have lost the argument this time too.

——————————————————————————————————————
But hey, as you’re interested in the issues we had back in _the-global-spread-of-christianity_: why don’t you kick off a new thread, summarising your views, and inviting meaningful debate.

(Jesus and Mohammed are interesting characters: and how their followers today (and jews and other religions) are influenced by their interpretation of the holy books is likely of practical value today, if we hope that conflicts in various parts of the world including the UK have a chance of solution)

blast, where’s the post-edit feature gone – that last post lost a line and half in the middle somehow, and reads badly now.

Oh well, too late to worry now

I am bewildered when people try to say “Ah, but Christianity is better than Islam because Jesus didn’t hit anyone” without failing to realise that Mohammed did absolutely NOTHING that King David didn’t do – including sending a man off to die so that he could boff his wife. The difference is, he did it because he was pissed off with imperialist Popes sticking their oar in, whereas King David did it largely because – well – God told him to. It’s also of note that Islam founded in an area of greater literacy, so the records we have of that time tend to be from both sides, rather than the partisan Torah.

So either both Jews and Muslims are evil homicidal baby eaters, or there might in fact be some wiggle room in the vast panoply of human experience.

Which is it?

These guys believe that the strict interpretation of their religion demands that they hunt down and destroy the unbeliever wherever he exists.

Senior Muslim clerics and hundreds of suicide bombers the world over agree.

What’s not to like?

@60 Just Visiting. Er, my point was about the reprinting of the cartoons in the name of free speech despite the freedom of expression of the cartoonist not being under any legal threat, whilst at exactly the same time an entire print run of a Spanish magazine was pulped in what was clearly a direct assault on freedom of expression, with little international reaction.

The death threats, flag burning and overt racism of the cartoons could have been reported without reproducing the things (deeply unfunny as they were). Whereas a mass reprinting of the Spanish royal cartoon would have genuinely been striking a blow for freedom of expression.

I’ve no interest in engaging in an ultra-polarised argument about Islam (I have my own views on religion and fundamentalism which are a tad more nuanced than the absurd shouting matches that characterise internet discussion of the subjects) but I did think the lack of furore about the Spanish cartoon, happening as it did(n’t) at the same time as the Danish row, illustrates an interesting point about the media and their decision to reprint the latter but not the former.

@61 Just Visiting, there’s no point, as I have repeatedly told you, in summarising my views because you don’t actually answer any questions or point put to you. You just repeat your usual drivel (with the usual grammatical errors, another example of a meaningless stew of word in post 61).

You haven’t responded to a single point I’ve made.

Once again, and for the last time, it’s because you are incapable of doing so.

Donut 64:

Donut

The reason I hazard that you say you are bewildered, is because you appear to have dipped into religious holy books, but not taken the time to read the religions’ own scholars and interpreters to see what the books mean.

Take the analogy with a bright 14 year old school pupil – they get their hands on a Physics textbook aimed for first year undergrads, and come away sayimg:

“those physicists are crazy, one chapter says light is wave, and in another chapter they say it is a partical: that is obviously a contradiction”.

If you want to understand christians or muslims or buddhists, you have to read their own explanations – not try DIY holy book interpretation in a vacuum!

So, after that pre-amble…

> I am bewildered when people try to say ‘Ah, but
> Christianity is better than Islam because Jesus didn’t hit anyone’

Actually I’ve read no-one on LC saying the above.
What I have seen is loads of people saying ‘all religions are the same’ and ‘Mohammed and Jesus are the same’ – and then when challenged that actually Jesus and Mohammed were totally different in the violence stakes, they shut up or descend into the silly self-bible-interpretation I criticise above.

Q1) Let me ask you for your view:
Do you think are there dfferent levels of violence committed by christians and muslims today.?
Look at the news this week, this month.

Q2) do you think muslim scholars and christian scholars advocate different things, in the area of violence? In what cases do the two groups advocate the death penalty for example?

ii) regards King David – even the basic reading of the shows that David did indeed murder Bathsheba’s wife: but that God punished him for it, and David himself regretted it: in no way was it an action to be imitated by Jews.

David’s actions are not considered by Jews to be 100% good, just because he did them.

Whereas death for adulterers is _today_ mainstream Islam: for the reason that, Islam scholars all agree that everything that Mohammed did was good and worthy of imitation – and they all agree that he killed a number of people himself and he also sentenced people to death – specifically the woman caught in adultery.

In contrast, Jesus confronted with a woman in the same situation, saved her from the lynch mob.

ii) “Mohammed did absolutely NOTHING that King David didn’t do”

Q3) Do you want to retract that ridiculous claim?

How about: Mohammad instructed that a woman who is raped needs 4 male witnesses befoe she can go to court (it’s an interesting story in the Qu’ran as to how that came about, combining war, chivalry, infidelity or a hint of it and miraculous intervention).

The principle of 4 male witnesses for rape is retained to this day within Islam – because of the principle that everything Mohammed did and said is good.

iii) “So either both Jews and Muslims are evil homicidal baby eaters…”

The way to answer that question is to look at the evidence in the world around us today.

See me earlier questions to you.

I’d be mighty grateful if you could answer my 3 questions above, before digging deeper into things

Jim (66)

You’re right – and Spain’s freedom of speech may be different to a British one too…

> I have my own views on religion and fundamentalism which are a tad more nuanced

Are you willing to summarize the bits of them here that would fit the thread?

And yet at exactly the same time, a satirical magazine in Spain published a cartoon that was deemed offensive twoards Crown Prince Felipe and the entire print run was seized and pulped. It was as clear an attack upon freedom of expression as one can imagine. There was no international outcry and no mass re-publication of the cartoon around the world.

And actually there are more examples.

More recenty a Swedish newspaper published an article about Palestinian organs being stolen and sold off – a story that apparently turned out to be a lie. Seeing it as an anti-semitic story, many Jews complained (quite rightly).

Except, the Israeli govt also demanded that the Swedish govt censure the paper:
http://www.thelocal.se/21658/20090824/

So when the Israeli govt condemns and wants the govt to intervene – its ok. But when some Egyptian govt does it, it’s censorship and everybody prints the cartoons. Will Just Visiting call for European papers to now print anti-semitic stories in protest?

@70 Sunny, whilst I enjoy sparring with Just Visiting and whilst I think that about 95% of what he says is utter crap, there is a slight difference between COMPLAINTS from jewish readers, COMPLAINTS from Spanish Monarchists (even if action was taken to remove the complained about articles) and the hysterical abuse, flag burning, death threats etc etc which followed the publication of the Danish cartoons. Now, can you work out what that difference is?

@69 Just Visiting, Are you willing to summarize the bits of them here that would fit the thread?

I’m actually about to head out the door for the day. But by and large I avoid discussions about religion and fundamentalism in public comments threads. Suffice it to say, I’m an academic in the field of psychoanalysis and my views on religious belief (irrespective of the specific creed) are informed by that position. I find almost all public discussion of religion to be unnecessarily polarised, simplistic and rarely emanating from a desire to reach understanding (which is my goal).

As I say though, I must away. I have a family lunch to attend.

Goedel (67)

Or Richard F – or Joseph – which one are you?

> there’s no point, as I have repeatedly told you, in summarising
>my views because you don’t actually answer any questions or point put to you.

You’re right, I have ignored your off topic stuff.

The facts are, you could prove in minutes that I have been dodging the issue – all you need to do is spell out the specifics of what I wrote in this thread, and why you disagree.

You even claim to have already done that in the thread – if that were true it would be a 30 second cut _ paste job to destroy my arguments !!

So – over to you: win the argument at the cost of 30 seconds of your time – or walk away

Sunny (70)

You wrote ‘censure’ the newsaper – did you mean ‘censor’?

Because I dont see the problem of anyone censuring a newspaper if they think it printed racist rubbish?

Can you give more detail on that Swedish case?

@73 I have done that already, you idiot. Actually read my posts.

Here it is again:

Tell me/us what constitutes “mainstream” islam. Now, justify your definition. Yes JUSTIFY it. Provide actual EVIDENCE/FACTS/DATA to support your contention, not some half – arsed attempt at factual support via a wikipedia link.

Come on then.

I’ve been waiting since yesterday.

Jim (72)

Thanks and enjoy the lunch!

PS
>Suffice it to say, I’m an academic in the field of psychoanalysis and
>my views on religious belief (irrespective of the specific creed) are
>informed by that position.

Interesting, a book in your field (sort of) that I read a long time ago, I’ve picked up again this week and it has alot more content on religion than I’d remembered:
M Scott Peck, ‘the Road Less Travelled’.

“I have firmly stated that it is essential to our spiritual growth for us to become scientists who are sceptical of what we have been taught – that is the common notions and assumptions of our culture. But the notions of science themselves often become cultural idols, and it is necessary that we become sceptical of these as well.
“It is indeed possible for us to mature out of a belief in God. What I would now like to suggest is that it is also possible to mature into a belief in God. A sceptical atheism or agnosticism is not necessarily the highest understanding at which human beings can arrive.”
…
“Psychiatrists and pyschotherapists who have simplistic attitudes towards religion are likely to do a disservice to some of their patients. This will be true if they regard all religion as good or healthy. It will also be true if they throw out the baby with the bath water and regard all religion as sickness or the Enemy.

Goedel (75)

Ok, good, we’re getting to the specifics now.

To be sure that I understand your question – you’re saying you want me to define what I mean by the word ‘mainstream’ in mainstream islam?

Is that all?

There’s nothing I’ve written in this thread that you specifically disagree with?

@77 are you being deliberately stupid? Or is it unintentional?

As I said in post 52, and this is the issue you have repeatedly failed to address, yes I disagree with your use of the “mainstream islam advocates violence” and it’s extensions, which you began in post 38 with your remark “mainstream Islam presribes stoning for aspostates?”

Couldn’t have been clearer. So why have you wasted all of this time bullshitting?

Anyway, answer the question I asked in post 75. If you can

Actually, mainstream Islam does prescribe stoning for apostates, and a lot more besides.

The left would certainly not support a white Western faith that held the same views as Islam. This is probably linked to the danger inherent in offending Muslims. Not all Muslims are believe in killing unbelievers, but nearly all people who believe in killing unbelievers are Muslim.

@79 yes, apart from the right wing american christians who do, eh?

@80,
Do they? I’d have thought that disbarred them from being Christians. How many have they killed by the way?

Anyway, this was partly my point. There are many fundamentalist US Christians, and they are routinely demonised and insulted by the left in a way that Muslims just aren’t.

It’s also interesting that the the phrase “right-wing” is frequently added to “US Christian”, though not to Muslims.

Please remember that race and religion are not the same thing.

It is not racist to hate a religion, please do not compare hating black people to hating religious people…it over simplifies the matter.

You’re right Drollus, but race does seem to affect the left’s view of religion.

If Christians in the west shared Muslim views on gender equality and Jews, the left would simply not tolerate it.

Being a Muslim or a Christian or any other believer in ancient magic is simply a choice.

It merits no intrinsic respect whatsoever. It may be adored, loathed, ignored, held in contempt with impunity. It’s no different from a belief in a football team.

Just a choice. And when its adherents actually resort to violence against those who do not share that choice, discussions of mental illness are profoundly appropriate.

Race, on the other hand, involves not a scintilla of choice.

Which is why racism is not only unpleasant. It’s crazy.

‘It is not racist to hate a religion, please do not compare hating black people to hating religious people…it over simplifies the matter.’

You shouldn’t confuse hating religion and hating religious people either.

At 85

A religion only exists because of the people that believe and give it “legitimacy”. Hating the religion is hating the people who hold and propagate those beliefs. Faith and religion cant exist Independent of humans believing in it.

but I see your point: is it like saying your hate the car manufacture but you dont hate the cars.

Any thoughts.

Racism is also a belief. So should we hate racism, but not racists?

If a religion is sexist, homophobic, anti-semitic and violent, I not only hate the religion.

I loathe its devoted practitioners.

Who wouldn’t?

Here we come to the nub …… Islam is “institutionally” sexist, homophobic and anti-semitic. Therefore, Islam should be beyond the pale.

“If a religion is sexist, homophobic, anti-semitic and violent, I not only hate the religion.

I loathe its devoted practitioners.

Who wouldn’t?”

Muslims don’t necessarily advocate violence, don’t necessarily oppose equal rights(pdf) and aren’t necessarily homophobic. Loathe away – see where it gets you.

What Next:

The thread has moved quickly from
> ‘Islam advocates death penalty for adultery’,
to your
> ‘Islam is “institutionally” sexist, homophobic and anti-semitic.

Not all of those 3 headings have been aired here – but it would seem not controversial to suggest that there is a case that Islam needs to be examined in more depth on all 3 counts.

Goedel

So we have come after much detour to your view: which is that you disagree with the statement:
“> ‘Islam advocates death penalty for adultery’,

Ok, then the ball is in your court to say why you disagree.

Because it’s a mainstream islam position, as a 10 second Google will show you.

And others in this thread have also disagreed with you.

Goedel

Time now please to leave out the personal attacks.
LC is often a great place to debate, where most folks seem to come as part of a desire to discuss and learn how to ‘make the world a better place’ – and personal attacks just don’t help anyone.

JIm bless’s motivation sounds like a good model for us all on LC:
“a desire to reach understanding (which is my goal)”

@92 and @93 No, the personal attacks seem necessary and justified by your approach. You are either so skull crushingly dim that you didn’t understand what I was asking in post 52 or you were deliberately avoiding the issue. So your “much detour” bollocks is just that – bollocks.

Stop trying to avoid answering what I asked you in post 52, post 75 and post 77.

Answer the questions, they’re perfectly clear.

@92 and @93, Let me expand upon post @ 94.

Once again, you have failed to define your use of the word “mainstream”.

Since you’re obviously having difficulty understanding the question, let me express it in a form that your clearly limited intellect can, perhaps, grasp:

a.) Give your definition of the word “mainstream” as you use it in this context. Don’t make your usual reference to google or wikipedia, actually explain what you mean when you type the word “mainstream”

b.) Provide FACTS/EVIDENCE/DATA to prove that “mainstream” islam (as you have defined it) advocates violence. THIS CAN NOT BE ACHIEVED BY USING A PHRASE LIKE “A TEN SECOND GOOGLE WILL SHOW YOU” OR A REFERENCE TO WIKIPEDIA. I use the block letters as this seems to be especially problematic for you.

c.) Bonus question (please, for the sake of your health, don’t attempt to answer this if the headache you will probably have from answering the first two is particularly severe) how does “mainstream” christianity differ from “mainstream” islam and “mainstream” judaism in this respect?

Helpful hint – try quoting/referring to some of the core texts of the religions we are discussing (you may need to ask an adult to help with some of the harder words).

I eagerly await your next attempt to avoid actually answering these questions.

I really don’t follow the claims that Christianity is a kindly, peaceful religion.

How about the Thirty Years War 1618 – 1648?

“The Thirty Years’ War was one of the most destructive conflicts in European history. The war was fought primarily (though not exclusively) in Germany and at various points involved most of the countries of Europe. Naval warfare also reached overseas and shaped the colonial formation of future nations.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years‘_War

The Opium Wars?

“The Opium Wars, also known as the Anglo-Chinese Wars, were the climax of trade disputes and diplomatic difficulties between China under the Qing Dynasty and the British Empire after China sought to restrict British opium traffickers. It consisted of the First Opium War from 1839 to 1842 and the Second Opium War from 1856 to 1860.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars

Is this supposed to be a kindly way of treating fellow humans?

“For to every one that hath shall be given, and he shall abound: but from him that hath not, that also which he seemeth to have shall be taken away.” [Matthew 25:29]
http://www.bayside.org/bible/new%20testament/matthew.htm

‘A religion only exists because of the people that believe and give it “legitimacy”. Hating the religion is hating the people who hold and propagate those beliefs. Faith and religion cant exist Independent of humans believing in it.’

People don’t choose their religion, they are born into it.

If kids could choose their religion they’d go for the one with the elephants and monkeys not scary bastards telling them not to play with themselves.

We can take much comfort, I think, from knowing that Galileo (1564-1642) was eventually exonerated by the Church in 1992 for publicising his heretical theory that the earth travelled in an orbit around the sun:
http://www.bookrags.com/biography/galileo-galilei-wsd/

Bob (96)

> I really don’t follow the claims that Christianity is a kindly, peaceful religion.

Actually no one in this thread has said that.

But what some people here do seem to want to avoid admitting, is that religions are not all the same in the are of violence.

Can I ask you your view Bob – do you believe all religions are the same in terms of the violence they promote, and the level of violence committed by their proponents who explicitly name their religion in their reasoning?

It’s a key question, and without understanding each others position on this, it’ll be hard to have a discussion that goes beyond the superficial.

A) Regards your selection of historic battles….

- The Opium Wars wiki page mentions neither the word christian or religion…. so not relevant to this thread?
- Thirty Years war – most wars are not done to one specific cause but many, your Wiki quote says exactly that!

You could as well have mentioned Hitler – he probably pulled in some catholic words when it suited him, but would be stupid to say that what he did was based on christian doctrine!

B) You quoted from the New Testament.
Have you read up that particular verse In it’s context?
Googled for christian commentators on it?
Do you see christians quoting it as a reason when they do things you don’t like?

Nope.

I fear you have done some ‘DIY Bible interpretation’ and that’s always make the proponent look unresearched and foolish.
Instead start by reading what christians do and say first, and how _they_ use the bible verses.
Read books aimed at new christians, or giving a basic overview of christian teaching.

Likewise, to understand Islam today, don’t start with the Qu’ran, start with what mainstream muslims say and promote, and how they interpret the Qu’ran: and then read those bits.

C) going back to your issue of wars

Mentioning historic wars in Europe – am I right that your point is
’some christians in the past have been violent.’

You’re right, they have, it’s not controversial, because:

i) christianity does not claim that it’s adherents are supposed to be 100% perfect followers of Jesus teaching.
Therefore it is no shock to christianity that some christians have committed murder, cheated their neighbour, done stuff that contradicts the message of Jesus. And do so to this day. Tragic, but not unexpected.
Some churches have acquisced in violence.
Tragic and sad – but they are the exception that proves the rule.

Just like its no shock to athesists that Pol Pot, Mau, Stalin killed millions and were to some extent in an atheistic camp.

ii) 30 Years war: religion was a factor (in that the war was between two strands of christianity).
But clearly, neither side (despite their claims at the time), had a legitimate claim to say they were following the commands or advice of Jesus in killing other christians!

In Europe with it’s strongly christian-influenced culture, it is to be expected that christinity be dragged in as a ’support’ for the ‘rightness of our cause’. Just as national pride or xenophobia or other things good or bad can be used to ’support the cause’.

I have read and reviewed some of the articles and comments on this blog and Pickled Politics which relate to Islam. I am sure calling each other dim, stupid etc doesn’t constitute “We have a tight comments policy aimed at fostering constructive debate” in fact it smacks of ego and of political cock fighting by bored mostly male political observers (rather than activists).

I have never seen people being stoned to death here on the streets of Britain, I have unfortunately seen many people bashing each other for a multitude of zenophobic reasons.

In countries where there is still a concept of capital punishment (many countries including America, of course) people are killed for crime – the method is a little irrelevant isn’t it the result is the same? The close correlation between sin (a religious concept) and crime ( a legal concept) is inevitable given the evolution of our societies and legal systems.

Unfortunately it is not uncommon for groups that are widely discriminated against to turn on each other. It is good fodder for liberal thinkers to illustrate their ultimate steer towards individualism “leave me alone to be me”. There is no correlation between socialism and individualism – some so called socialists seem to have forgotten that.

Have a debate about how zenophobia of all kinds is directly related to poverty and discuss what you can constructively do to campaign against torture in EVERY country. At this moment it is mainly other muslims, jews, christians, atheists, communists etc etc who are being tortured by people of their OWN ideology and faith.

A central aspect of behaviour in islam is “sabr” or patience which prevents me addressing some of the cheaper arguments in the article, I shall just wear my burqa next time I visit the golf club.

Shatterface (97)

> People don’t choose their religion, they are born into it.

True for many people worldwide perhaps – but most religions also allow converts.

In fact, christianity suggests that everyone must make their _own_ decision – so conversion is vital, even if you were born in a ‘christian culture’. (Jesus’ words along the line of ‘being born again’ , you’ll have come across I expect)

There are of course many ‘nominal’ adherents of religion round the world – who for cultural reasons ‘go with the flow’ but have no genuine inner faith or spiritual interest.

Whereas those who actively convert, take their new faith more seriously.

Eg because of Islam’s view that apostates should be killed – it is very difficult indeed for those leaving islam in islamic countries,a quick google will show the ongoing killings around the world, and at best such people tend to be excluded from career progession, banned form university etc:
So those converts really DO take their new faith seriously.

A Realist (100)

You wrote:
“I have never seen people being stoned to death here on the streets of Britain,

But you’d agree that mainstream Islam advocates death penalty for adultery, and that such killings do occur around the world?

And you’d not deny that Islam has the death penalty for each of
- adultery
- apostasy
- heresy

You wrote:
“In countries where there is still a concept of capital punishment (many countries including America, of course) people are killed for crime – the method is a little irrelevant isn’t it the result is the same?”

So lynch mob justice would be OK too? The end result is the same?

The difference is that

(i) in America, the death penalty is only meted out after having committed multiple murders (it varies state to state, I know)

Whereas Islam has the death penalty for various non-murder things.

ii) America’s law is determined by a state system seperate from the church. It’s not a faith led country (many americans have faith of course).

It’s law may at times be based on christian principles, or at others in conflict with them.

‘You could as well have mentioned Hitler – he probably pulled in some catholic words when it suited him, but would be stupid to say that what he did was based on christian doctrine!’

Christianity had promoted the anti-Semitism Hitler tapped into. German’s didn’t just wake up one day and decide to hate Jews, nor did that hatred spring up from the Nazis themselves.

It’s a point worth hammering home since theists often use Hitler as an example of where ’secular’ values lead us.

The Thirty Years War in Europe (1618-48) was – at least ostensibly – about sovereign states imposing the “correct” version of Christian religion on neighbouring states, which is why the eventual peace treaties – the Peace of Westfalia of 1648 – established the principle that the internal affairs of an internationally recognised, independent state were the exclusive prerogative of its sovereign government.

This is precisely the concept challenged by Blair’s notion of “liberal interventionism” – and we are all so familiar with Blair’s deep Christian principles. Hitler, too, was invoking the principle of liberal intervention, in all but name, when Nazi Germany invaded Poland in September 1939 to protect the civil rights of the German-speaking minority in Poland.

The Opium Wars were about securing the right of British traders, based in Hong Kong, to sell opium to the Chinese in China despite the objections of the Chinese government, which wanted to discourage the spread of opium addiction. The British government and the traders were, at least nominally, Christian whereas the Chinese were largely followers of Confucius or of the Buddha so their objections and welfare could be disregarded.

The various Christian Churches have a long, documented history of extreme violence.

In the mercifully short reign of Mary Tudor (1553-58), at least some 280 people were burned at stakes in public places for professing officially declared heretical beliefs. There is a plaque on the wall of Balliol College, Oxford, commemorating the deaths nearby, through burning, of Latimer, Ridley and Cranmer.

All that was relatively minor compared with the wholesale slaughter in France of the Huguenots in the St Bartholomew’s Day massacre during August 1572:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/516821/Massacre-of-Saint-Bartholomews-Day

What were Guy Fawkes and his fellow conspirators about on the night of 5 November 1605?

“Guy Fawkes could have changed the face of London if his 1605 plot had not been foiled, explosion experts have said. His 2,500 kg of gunpowder could have caused chaos and devastation over a 490-metre radius, they have calculated. Fawkes’ planned blast was powerful enough to destroy Westminster Hall and the Abbey, with streets as far as Whitehall suffering damage, they say.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3240135.stm

I very much doubt that it’s a sufficient rebuttal of the charge that Islam is sexist, homophobic and anti-semitic, to propose that Christianity was all of those in
1400AD.

I’m sure it was. It probably still is in some areas.

But my question remains simply this. Wouldn’t one loathe those who made the choice to practise a religion which exhibited these appalling traits?

And I’ll add another. Wouldn’t it be more civilised and decent to challenge those traits, rather than pretend they are not as they are?

But my quarrels with the Church certainly aren’t all rooted in the 16th and 17th centuries. Don’t you follow the news reports?

“Hundreds of people who claim they were abused by clergy affiliated with the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles can expect to be paid more than $1 million each in a $660 million (£325 million) settlement of their lawsuits.

“The deal, by far the largest settlement in the Church’s sexual abuse scandal, was reached yesterday, said Ray Boucher, a lawyer representing the lead plaintiff, and pushes the amount paid out in compensation for abuse since 1950 to more than $2 billion.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2079126.ece

“The Catholic Church in Ireland gave a clear signal today that it will bow to rising public anger over decades of horrific and systemic physical and sexual abuse of children in its institutions by agreeing to share a greater burden of the compensation bill.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6354966.ece

Of course, the many failings of the institutions of Christianity don’t prove that Islam is any better but we should recognise that the failings we attribute to Islam and the concerns we have are not peculiar to Islam.

What we should consider is the extent to which religions as ideologies validate violence towards unbelievers and the vulnerable. That is the important issue.

Bob

I’d be happy to respond to your new points – but can you first answer the opening question I put to you. As I said at the time, It’s a key question, and without understanding each others position on this, it’ll be hard to have a discussion that goes beyond the superficial.

The question was:
Can I ask you your view Bob – do you believe all religions are the same in terms of the violence they promote, and the level of violence committed by their proponents who explicitly name their religion in their reasoning?

Shatterface

(100)
“Christianity had promoted the anti-Semitism Hitler tapped into. German’s didn’t just wake up one day and decide to hate Jews, nor did that hatred spring up from the Nazis themselves.”

I wasn’t aware, form my very limited reading on Hitler, of what anti-semitism he was exposed to in his early days

Can you quote some sources I can read up on?

“do you believe all religions are the same in terms of the violence they promote, and the level of violence committed by their proponents who explicitly name their religion in their reasoning?”

The question is logically impossible since there are potentially an infinite number of cases relating to any religion and I cannot consider all to evaluate whether any particular religion is more culpable than the others regarding its history of promoting violence.

Some religions – like Buddhism – have made a central theme in their fundamental doctrines of promoting “peace”, which might help to explain why Buddhism was supplanted by Islam in parts of China where Buddhism was previously deeply rooted – see:
The Silk Road 03 The Art Gallery in the Desert
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8766403308994751293

Try this speech by Gandhi during WW2:
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1942/420807a.html

George Bernard Shaw provides us with an illuminating insight into the fundamentally authoritarian character of Christian doctrine:

“Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same.”

Lee Kwan Yew, prime minister of Singapore until 1990, famously attributed its success story to the ascendancy there of Confucian values, which he characterised as: Do not do to others what you would not like to be done unto to you.

I greatly prefer the Confucian ethic to the Christian.

Supposedly Christian states have been embroiled in the bloodiest wars in history even before the 20th century. Nowadays, we are very properly concerned about the scale and care of battlefield casualties among our troops but I suspect we incline to forget or under-rate the slaughter in those historic battles of the Napoleonic wars two centuries ago and that is a mistake. The combined casualty rate on both sides at Waterloo in June 1815 exceeded an average of 6,000 an hour:
http://www.napoleonic-literature.com/WE/Casualties.html

As for early antisemitic influences on Hitler, some have speculated that his antisemitic sentiments developed as the result of attending the same school in Austria as Wittgenstein, who went on to become an internationally celebrated philosopher.

Wittengenstein “was educated by private tutors at home; after that, he began three years of schooling at the Realschule in Linz, a school emphasizing technical topics. For one school year, Adolf Hitler, who was born a mere six days before Wittgenstein, was a student there, but two grades below.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein

As for Hitler’s influence in promoting antisemitism, compare the fundamental programme of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP), as published in 1920 and endorsed by the Fuhrer and never amended thereafter:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/nsdappro.htm

Bob

I asked specifically for _your view_ on something, and you wrote:

(106) >The question is logically impossible since there are potentially an infinite number of cases relating to any religion and I cannot consider all to evaluate whether any particular religion is more culpable than the others regarding its history of promoting violence.

Such a fudge answer… ‘logically impossible’ – ?
I’infinite number of cases?…..

I only asked for _your view__ – not a 100% worldwide assessment !!

So to be consistent, if asked the exact same question, but swapping ‘religions’ by ‘political movements’ , your answer would be the same non-answer!

I don’t think so!

So please, try again – don’t worry about covering infinite possibiities… just tell us, with the caveat that your research has been limited, whether: “you believe all religions are the same in terms of the violence they promote, and the level of violence committed by their proponents who explicitly name their religion in their reasoning?”

Bob

>As for early antisemitic influences on Hitler, some have speculated that his antisemitic sentiments developed as the result of attending the same school in Austria as Wittgenstein, who went on to become an internationally celebrated philosopher.

Who has speculated that the school was an anti-semitic influence? I’d be interested to read any URL of sources.

You then mention that Witgenstein went to the same school.

He was a philiosopher/mathematician – not a christian scholar or christian leader… so not sure the relevance?

And Amazon sells a book that suggests that Hitler may have started to hate Jews because of his dislike of a jew at school who was in fact Witgenstein….

So sorry, but I don’t follow your Wittgenstein angle.

>As for Hitler’s influence in promoting antisemitism, compare the fundamental programme of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP), as published in 1920 and endorsed by the Fuhrer and never amended thereafter:

Err, sorry, but I don’t understand the relevance of this either – no one had said that Hitler had not been an influence on promoting anti-semitism…

Shatterface /Bob

On Hitler, I just read:

“Hitler’s world view was diametrically opposed to Christianity, for which Hitler had nothing but contempt. Hitler never attended church in Vienna, and some sources note that his greatest enemy–besides Marxists–was the Jesuits. One anonymous eyewitness reported that “Hitler said [c. 1912] the biggest evil for the German people was accepting Christian humility.” (p. 250)

by Richard Weikart, Professor of History, California State Univ.,

No idea whether Weikart is mainstream or not among today’s historians on Hitler.

The URL for that is:
http://www.csustan.edu/history/faculty/weikart/hitler-evil.htm

@108: “just tell us, with the caveat that your research has been limited, whether: ‘you believe all religions are the same in terms of the violence they promote, and the level of violence committed by their proponents who explicitly name their religion in their reasoning?’”

No, I don’t believe all religions are the same in terms of the violence they promote or condone and I don’t believe that the influence of religion is necessarily made explicit by countries, political parties or groups which promote violence.

I was clear in saying that Buddhism, the Confucian ethic and Gandhi were not promoting violence IMO.

@109: “Who has speculated that the school was an anti-semitic influence? I’d be interested to read any URL of sources.”

The speculation was not that the influence of the school in Austria which Hitler attended that made him antisemitic but the effect on him of encountering Wittengenstein at the school which both attended. The book in which this thesis is developed is: The Jew of Linz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jew_of_Linz

This source documents extensively Hitler’s personal claims to religious influences from his own writings and speeches:
http://nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

Bob

> No, I don’t believe all religions are the same in terms of the violence they promote or condone

Thaks for that clarification.

> I was clear in saying that Buddhism, the Confucian ethic and Gandhi were not promoting violence IMO.

Yes that’s clear.
Do you have a view on the other religions?

and to keep it simple – looking just at _today’s_ violence being promoted or condoned.

(drat…the Edit feature has disappeared again….)

Bob

> The speculation was not that the influence of the school in Austria which Hitler attended that made him antisemitic but the effect on him of encountering Wittengenstein at the school which both attended.

But… that is the exact same book I referenced …. and as I said above, that book ’suggests that Hitler may have started to hate Jews because of his dislike of a jew at school who was in fact Witgenstein’

So, if I understand your angle (not sure I do?) – you disagree that Hitler’s anti-semitism was picked up from the catholic church.

@113: “Do you have a view on the other religions?”

I’m hard pressed to justify in terms of evidence any fine distinctions between the peaceful inclinations of the three Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions

All three have very bloody histories of aggression.

Perhaps more interesting questions concern which of the three religions has turned out to be the most tolerant of ideological diversity and the most compatible with democratic forms of governance. The answer has to be Christianity, to its credit. But then Hinduism has also been tolerant of diversity and as an ethnic Indian colleague observed in many relaxed discussions we used to have over 30 years back, polytheism encourages a belief in the possibility of the co-existence of rival deities in a way that monotheism does not.

Bob

112
> This source documents extensively Hitler’s personal claims to religious influences from his own writings and speeches:
http://nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

Humm, I took a quick look at that site, and was not comfortable that it was any kind of sensible source.

It all seems to be written or complied by a Jim Walker – who is he? the site gives no easy way to find out – no ‘About Us’ page.

I also read a sample of pages and found them at best bizarre.
Some bits even suggest Jim admits to a mental disorder, eg:
“…due to veiled threats I had received from religious zealots, some of my fears which, no doubt, came from my own paranoia…”

Apologies if I’m being tough on Jim, but I’m basing my view just on what I read on the site.

I read “Death and Time Traveling” – totally whacky pseudo science.
and try ‘The problems with beliefs’ if you want some silly semantics.

and “The Dark Bible” – which seems to be classic bit of DIY bible interpretation by someone who ignores christianity’s own scholars and specialists and creates their own interpretation starting from a totally non-scientific basis….

Nobelief says: “The inspiration of the Dark Bible … for the purpose of finding relevant passages that dealt with the wrath, scatological, and dubious moral teachings of God in the Bible”

Ie, he started his ‘research’ with his conclusion in hand! 100% unscientific!

But Bob even if you personally DID find Nobeliefs.com a valid source, it says this – which I wonder whether you would agree with:

>At no time do I condone or authorize the use of the Dark Bible to support another religion like Islam (which has even worse dark verses in its Quran. See the Skeptic’s Annotated Quran).

Bob

Thanks.

> I’m hard pressed to justify in terms of evidence any fine distinctions between the peaceful inclinations of the three Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

You use the word ‘inclination’ which we’ve not used in the thread so far.

Going back to the terms we have been using, and looking at the world today, what differences between the 3 religions do you see:

- in terms of the violence they promote
- in the level of violence committed by their proponents who explicitly name their religion in their reasoning?”

Bob

116

> The answer has to be Christianity, to its credit.

Is a clear answer to your question “which of the three religions has turned out to be the most tolerant of ideological diversity and the most compatible with democratic forms of governance.”

Have you any views as to the roots of this difference?

>polytheism encourages a belief in the possibility of the co-existence of rival deities in a way that monotheism does not.

Not clear on your point here, are you saying ‘co-existence of rival deities’ is a desirable belief?
In what sense?

@119: “Have you any views as to the roots of this difference?”

The Protestant and non-conformist traditions in Christianity along with sects that emphasied personal relationships with the deity without the mediation of a phalanx of approved saints or the established church authorities.

“Not clear on your point here, are you saying ‘co-existence of rival deities’ [in polytheistic religions] is a desirable belief? In what sense?]

Hindu polytheism encourages a belief that the continuing more-or-less peaceful coexistence of rival deities is the natural order. Recall that polytheistic religions prevailed in Greece in classical times – supposedly the original font of the idea of democratic forms of government.

It is but a small personal step from polytheism to accepting a notion of rivalrous political parties, each with its own approved leader, all within a national constitution prescribing regular elections to decide which party runs the government until the next election.

That is a marked contrast with theocratic religions in which the institutions and means of governance require the prior sanction of, and instruction by, the dominant religious authorities – as with the medieval Christian church before the Reformation and the jihadist Islamic sects.

My Indian friend forecast that Islamic countries would find in verging on impossible to make a transition to democratic forms of government. How prescient that was. Neither he nor I were especially religious, which perhaps partly explains our amity, and remember our lunchtime chats were more than 30 years ago. Meanwhile, in India, governments have come and gone with regular elections. At least with governments by the Congress Party, some ministerial posts are held by Muslims and Sikhs and few regard that as out of order.

Have Pakistan governments ever included Hindus or Sikhs as ministers? The very question appears ridiculous.

Bloody hell, you step away for a birthday, and the world explodes.

Right, so the rules of engagement seem to be: Any previous practices are moot – so no-one’s allowed to mention the war-time actions of the Caliphate and Muhammed Ali (or even the peaceful occupation of Andalusia) and I won’t mention the invasion of the Holy Land and the Papal Decree to send warriors through the Jewish Ghettoes to “warm up your blades”

So, basically, what’s being criticised is the success of political Islam; despite the fact that Islam is by its nature apolitical. Let’s remember that at the time of the 7th century, people were being burned alive in Europe for not attending church, so it’s not really fair to compare the two periods.

Jesus and Mohammed (pbuh) were mentioned as comparisons. Well, firstly, Isa the son of Mary gets much Kudos from the Qu’ran – he’s one of the sacred rasul and it talks of the gospel as a book “in which there is much light,”

Jesus also pissed off the Zealots and Harvey Kei – er, Judas Iscariot who thought he was going to be a kick ass ninja. Now, I’m not going to hear a word said about Jesus – if he existed as detailed in the Gospel, then he’s my best bud. However, shortly after his death (and potential resurrection) and probably as a reaction to Nero’s “special candle” parties, the whole turn the other cheek thing went haywire.

Mohammed (pbuh), in contrast, is not a holy man – he’s a man with a holy message. That’s why the haditha are separated from the Qu’ran. He’s not an exemplar whose example is a perfect revelation of how to live life. David spoke to God, and then got Caleb killed so he could knob Bathsheba. He also cut off the foreskins of 1,000 philistines, which is freaking awesome. Noah spoke to God and then ended up knobbing his daughters whilst pissed. Lot spoke to God and then offered to throw his daughters to get raped so that the mob didn’t pick on the angels. Flawed people. People. Not demi-Gods, like Jesus, or Hercules.

I know Westernised Muslims; I know North African muslims – lovely people, not plotting the destruction of all who venerate the son of Mary at all; as a matter of fact Islam says that being a Christian is a misguidance, rather than anything else, and you’ll probably still get into heaven on a technicality – a far cry from the isolational purity of Christianity (or even Judaism, thinking on it.) So the problem isn’t there.

The whole image thing is supposed to apply to ANYTHING – it basically says “Look at those stupid Christians venerating statues and huge golden boxes; what a waste of money and praise. You want to find God? Look up.” However, as we’re seeing now with the CofE, when religion gets squeezed, it becomes reactionary, and eventually a cultural taboo. In the September Dawn massacre, the Mormons killed a woman for wearing trousers (it might have been more complicated than that, thinking about it.)

Bob – ask your Hindu friends about Sati, or even the Varna system, if we’re talking about tolerance. I’m sure you can find a couple of enclaves in the subcontinent where it’s still practised.

Multiculturalism? I was playing Guitar Hero in a Moroccan Jilabah last night.

Bob

Interesting that you say the “Protestant and non-conformist traditions in Christianity” are the reason plural democracies spring better from judeo-christian soil – as some of the individual politicians there have produced are also interesting reformers: like Wilberforce, one of my heroes.

You wrote:
“It is but a small personal step from polytheism to accepting a notion of rivalrous political parties, each with its own approved leader, all within a national constitution prescribing regular elections to decide which party runs the government until the next election.”

Humm. Moving away from politics to science – I read folks like John Lennox who argue that one of the reasons the scientific revolution happened in christian europe – was because of its monotheism – of a peculiar ‘3 in 1′ trinity in peaceful unity.

The argument being that cultures with a belief in many gods who argue arbitrarily among themselves, and who intervene in the affairs of man arbitrarily -lack the christian world view that says the world is ordered and consistent, and therefore a serious study of it will make sense, and is repeatable.

You mention Greece, and maybe their petty, infighting gods maybe prececluded some of the earliest ’scientists’ taking things further.

As indeed their democracy was a model of sorts but with little sense of ‘equality of man’ at it’s core: as their worldwide did not find it at all strange or undesirable that at a ‘whim of the gods’ you were born and stuck thereafter as slave, or women, or leader.

Donut

(121) you posted at length, but overlooked to answer the questions I put to you after your last post.

(Happy birthday by the way!)

Q1) Do you think are there dfferent levels of violence committed by christians and muslims today.?
Look at the news this week, this month.

Q2) do you think muslim scholars and christian scholars advocate different things, in the area of violence? In what cases do the two groups advocate the death penalty for example?

Donut

Oh go on then, I’ll take the bait and chip into your ’shock horror’ posting :Bloody hell, you step away for a birthday, and the world explodes.

Did anyone say anything so controversial – which bit exploded for you?

> Right, so the rules of engagement seem to be: Any previous practices are moot – .

Yes, well the thread did kick off with Dave’s questions about _todays_ concern over Muslim homophobia.
And this is a politics forum, where people one assumes are here to debate about making _todays_ world a better place

>So, basically, what’s being criticised is the success of political Islam
Err, I didn’t see anyone saying that?

> Despite the fact that Islam is by its nature apolitical.
Humm….
I’m wondering, Donut, if by any chance you’re a troll?

Because that is so left ball it’s out the stadium.
And your last post had equally proposterous statements:
“Mohammed did absolutely NOTHING that King David didn’t do”

>Jesus and Mohammed (pbuh) were mentioned as comparisons. Well, firstly, Isa the son of Mary gets much Kudos from the Qu’ran

Quite right, it speaks highly of Jesus as prophet. Even saying he did physical miracles, which Mohammed didn’t do. It does get some of the historicity of Jesus wrong though.

Of course the New Testament came 600 years before Mohammed, so not surprising their is no mention of him in it.

And the Qur’an although positive, is positive about a different Jesus to the one christianity would accept: it is very clear to point out that Jesus is absolutely not the son of god – which blows out arguably the most core tenet of christianity. (paints him instead as calling himself a muslim, if I recall right, which is also hard for common or garden historians to accept)

> Jesus also pissed off the Zealots and ….
He didn’t seem to get everybody on his side for sure…err, they killed him in the end you’ll recall.

> Now, I’m not going to hear a word said about Jesus
But you just did!

> if he existed as detailed in the Gospel, then he’s my best bud.

Depends what you mean by ‘best bud’ I guess.
I’m not sure the Gospels show his followers found it an easy or comfortable ride to be with him.
Certainly the persecution some suffered after his death…

So what do you mean he’s your best bud?

>However, shortly after his death (and potential resurrection) and probably as a reaction to Nero’s “special candle” parties, the whole turn the other cheek thing went haywire.

Ok, so you’ve moved off of ‘Jesus according to the NT’ to ‘the history of the church and it’s dodgy deeds’ theme.
Fair cop, there are dodgy deeds to be found – but it’s not rocket science to realise that christianity does not claim it’s adherents are automatically and by definition good followers of the man – (hey neither does atheism make a parallel claim).

>Mohammed (pbuh), in contrast, is not a holy man – he’s a man with a holy message.

That’s blasphemy to any of the Muslim sources I’ve ever read..

>That’s why the haditha are separated from the Qu’ran.
I’ve lost your thought process there, explain please?

>He’s not an exemplar whose example is a perfect revelation of how to live life.

He is in fact EXACTLY that in Islam.

You are conciously trolling aren’t you?

To historians and those outside Islam, of course, aspects of his life are questionable, but within Islam you get called an apostate if you talk like that, and the punishment for that is death….

>David spoke to God…snipped

Boring, you’re again digging into the past and doing DIY bible interpretation.
The internet is full of it. It’s a waste of everyone’s time.

If you want to dig into the bible, do so scientifically: start by ready what Christians do and and what they say, and read the Bible verses they quote as inspiration, and then ask all the tough, sceptical questions you like.

>Flawed people.

Yes. We agree again!
That’s at the heart of the christian message too most would say, so your interpretations maybe are are not so wide. “Original sin” is the scholars’ jargon.
That we are “all indeed flawed people” is the laymans’ understanding

>I know Westernised Muslims; I know North African muslims – lovely people

I’m sure you’re right.
But no one here is saying ‘its hard to find nice muslims’.
The thread started by saying that there is some unpleasantness (homophobia) in islam’s teachings and practise.
Not that all Muslims are homophobic, or not ‘lovely people’.

>as a matter of fact Islam says that being a Christian is a misguidance, rather than anything else, and you’ll probably still get into heaven on a technicality

That just proves it – you’re a troll!
You’ll need to show Islamic sources on that, because my research so far says it ain’t so.

Oh, I hate it when these things get all bullet pointy.

The only Islamic source that I take as Gospel (if you’ll pardon the pun) is the Qu’ran.

“Qur’an 3:113-117 Surah Ale-’Imran (The Family of ‘Imran)
Not all of them are alike: of the People of the book are a portion that stand (for the right); they rehearse the signs of Allah all night long and then prostrate themselves in adoration.
They believe in Allah and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong; and they (hasten in emulation) in (all) good works; they are in the ranks of the righteous.
Of the good that they do nothing will be rejected of them; for Allah knoweth well those that do right.
Those who reject faith neither their possessions nor their (numerous) progeny will avail them aught against Allah; they will be companions of the fire dwelling therein (for ever).
What they spend in the life of this (material) world may be likened to a wind which brings a nipping frost: it strikes and destroys the harvest of men who have wronged their own souls; it is not Allah that hath wronged them but they wrong themselves.”

“And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.
Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.
Al-Qur’an, 005.046-47 (Al-Maeda [The Table, The Table Spread])”

The Quran likes to repeat itself, just to make sure. Well, if something’s travelling on leaves and tongue to ear, you like to make sure the important stuff travels.

So if you’re a good Christian, Allah says “well, his heart’s in the right place,” and you get spared the fire, which is nice.

Now, I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not a native English speaker, so I’ve only read the N J Dawood and the Yusuf Ali translations – I’m sure someone can point me to a potential translation which says something nasty, like not suffering a witch to live and all that – but I say again, there’s nothing in the Qu’ran which is not in the Old Testament; it’s like a Reader’s Digest version. Nur’s Ark, the torments of Job, poor old Sodom and Gomorrah, not worshipping idols, it’s all there. A lot of Christians like to have the penny and the bun – saying that

I look at it like this. God comes up with some rules for life. He beta tests them on the Jews, then, when he’s satisfied it’s relatively bug free, he sends Jesus down to launch it to the mass market. After a few years, though, people start to hack the code, so he sends out an update which has greater system integrity.

The trouble is, because Islam was forged as a reactive religion in a historical age harkening back to the days of David and Solomon, and against the violent excesses of the Papacy, it was always going to be a strong banner for the military minded to wave. It’s been easy to go back to the Scriptures and say “Well, the wholesale slaughter of Egyptians is just a metaphor”, but when that turns from a miracle into the very real fact of a man with a sword, immortalised in first person accounts and woodcuts, it comes a little harder to swallow.

Islam is not a political religion. What it has been is appropriated – like the Holy Roman Empire – for those who want to gain political power.

“To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;”
Al-Qur’an, 005.048 (Al-Maeda [The Table, The Table Spread])

The problem is, and I agree with those who say that there needs to be a Reformation, that the theocratic states are loathe to relinquish power. What were the causes for Christian reformation? Martin Luther hating Jews, Henry VIII wanting to divorce his wife, and above all a realisation that there had been decades of senseless death and violence in the Christian world.

I think we’re IN the Islamic reformation at the moment – it’s just feeling worse to us because – well, it’s happening to us.

The best thing we can do is not to demonise those individuals who are at the periphery of shaking off their culturally ingrained fundamentalist view, but encourage them to liberalism and tolerance through example and gradual acceptance.

Donut

> Oh, I hate it when these things get all bullet pointy.

I hate it when I addressed everything you’d said, but you failed to return the courtesy.

>The only Islamic source that I take as Gospel (if you’ll pardon the pun) is the Qu’ran.

But the issue is not what YOU take as gospel, but what Islamic scholars and islamic norms use.

>“Qur’an 3:113-117 Surah Ale-’Imran (The Family of ‘Imran)
….long quote snipped.

I had asked you to quote me some Islamic sources on your claim: “as a matter of fact Islam says that being a Christian is a misguidance, rather than anything else, and you’ll probably still get into heaven on a technicality”

You then misused the Qur’an by cherry picking and doing your own DIY interpretation.

So again, you need to show some islamic scholars, leaders or etc to support your claim. If they legislate for it.

>but I say again, there’s nothing in the Qu’ran which is not in the Old Testament

This is tiresome – another ridiculuous claim.

> I look at it like this. God comes up with some rules for life. He beta tests them on the Jews, then, when he’s satisfied it’s relatively bug free, he sends Jesus down to launch it to the mass market. After a few years, though, people start to hack the code, so he sends out an update which has greater system integrity.

It’s your view I guess. Do you know if anyone shares it?

> The trouble is, because Islam was forged as a reactive religion in a historical age harkening back to the days of David and Solomon, and against the violent excesses of the Papacy,

What? Mohammed was exposed to what papal excesses in your view?
Another theory where I think you are on your own.

> Islam is not a political religion.

That’s the second time you’ve stated it.
Please, do some research – 10 seconds on wiki shows: “Islamic law covers all aspects of life, from matters of state, like governance and foreign relations, to issues of daily living. The Qur’an defines hudud as the punishments for five specific crimes: unlawful intercourse, false accusation of unlawful intercourse, consumption of alcohol, theft, and highway robbery. The Qur’an and Sunnah also contain laws of inheritance, marriage, and restitution for injuries and murder, as well as rules for fasting, charity, and prayer.”

> I think we’re IN the Islamic reformation at the moment

What makes you think so?

> The best thing we can do is not to demonise those individuals

Not much demonisation of individuals in this thread.

> but encourage them to liberalism and tolerance through example and gradual acceptance.

But getting back to Dave’s point at the top – say Homephobia in Islam – do you feel we should tolerate that intolerance?

Okay, I’ll try to take it slowly, because unlike other anti-Islamics I’ve encountered, you seem to actually be receptive to, and even hoping for, a vindication of my comments, which is refreshing.

I’ll abrogate the snipped quote, because I think it’s important and yes, I am aware of the irony:

“. . .The People of the book [Jews, Christians and Sabeans] are a portion that stand (for the right). . .they are in the ranks of the righteous. Of the good that they do nothing will be rejected of them; for Allah knoweth well those that do right.”

That’s not out of context; that’s chapter and verse saying that Jews and Christians are okay in Allah’s book. I’m sure there’s something similar in the Bible about being “judged in their own light” but I can’t put my finger on it at the moment.

The role of the Imam is a progressive one, equivalent to Church of England vicars. It doesn’t call for any direct ordination from a single line of papal succession (remember in the 8th century this was pretty radical – John Tyndall was still 800 years away). In Europe, priests and abbots were still fatted oligarchs selling indulgences. The Qu’ran states that no one has a greater claim to know the will of Allah than any other. No man can ever be holy, and that the Imams are there to offer support and nurture rather than enlightenment, which can only come through reading the Qu’ran for oneself.

No offence to the vast number of highly moral and righteous Islamic scholars, but I don’t put any more faith in their interpretations than I do in Matthew Hopkins putting witches to death, or the Pope blessing the blades of those who wanted to sack the Holy Land. The Qu’ran is a single text for the world, which is the last revealed word of Allah. Whatever Mohammed (pbuh) said afterwards was not dictated to him by the Angel Gabriel, so is nothing more than his own interpretation, arguably like the book of Psalms, which was lucky to squeak past the Nicean Council, if you ask me

As for my “tiresome claim about Old Testament comparisons,” I quoted chapter and verse. Obviously, the Qu’ran is lighter on the detail because it doesn’t claim or intend to be a history of the Jewish people, but Noah, Daniel, Joseph, Elijah, Lot, Abraham, Moses, they’re all in there. I implore you, actually take a look at the book itself – it won’t blow up in your face, it won’t turn you into a muslim, and you might come to understand the central text behind what a large section of the world believes.

Okay, early popes aren’t my field of expertise; I kick in post 1000AD, but what is clear is that the Church of Rome is inextricably linked with an Evangelical bent. When I made the point about Islam not being political, what I meant was that it doesn’t seek to convert, by the sword or otherwise. It has its own version of the Mosaic law, killing gays, sticking women in cupboards for their period of confinement (which actually makes sense if you’re in the desert with hungry lions smelling blood), not eating pork and covering the naughty bits, but it makes as little sense – again, returning to the book rather than its implementation in pre-reformation “Islamic” states – to implement these wholesale any more than it would be for Deuteronomy or Exodus to become statute.

The laws are detailed because Islam is designed to unify split states. I mean, look at the hassle that poor old Constantine had when trying to establish Christianity – this way, some punishments are more excessive and some probably more lenient. Victors in combat have a responsibility to look after widows and orphans by making them slaves, and to treat them well (c.f. Rome).

Let’s take homosexuality, then, which seems to be the pinch point.

“We also sent Lut [AKA Lot, as in Sodom and Gomorrah, as in Genesis, as in the Torah/Bible] : He said to his people : “Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.” Qur’an 7:80-81

“What! Of all creatures do ye come unto the males, and leave the wives your Lord created for you? Nay, but ye are forward folk.” Qur’an 26:165

Wow, that’s pretty damning. Or rather, it isn’t, really, It’s just saying “ewww! You’re weird. You just need to find the right girl,” which isn’t entirely draconian. Especially when you compare it to:

Leviticus 18:22. “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

Yeah, not a lot of wiggle room there.

Donut

Oh well, looks like despite me twice responding line by line to _your_ comments, no matter how unsupportable, you have twice ignored my specific questions.

So time for me to to bail out, as monologues are not interesting debate.

Oh by the way:
> unlike other anti-Islamics I’ve encountered, you…

I don’t see myself as anti-Islamic: my role on LC seems to be to ring the alarm bell when people make unscientific claims that all religions are equally violent, or that Jesus and Mohammed are equally violent.

Or patronising and arrogant things like:
“No offence to the vast number of highly moral and righteous Islamic scholars, but I don’t put any more faith in their interpretations than…”

@122: “I read folks like John Lennox who argue that one of the reasons the scientific revolution happened in christian europe – was because of its monotheism”

After what happened to Galileo (1564-1642), that claim surprises me.

“Galileo’s works were placed on the infamous index of prohibited books, and it was only in the mid 18th century that reprints were permitted. It wasn’t until 1835 that the church officially recognised that Galileo had been right. Yet Galileo himself was not exonerated.”
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/01/thought_for_the_pod_galileo_v.html

Galileo was eventually exonerated by the Church but not until in 1992.

We can only speculate as to what might have happened to Newton (1643-1727) and his scientific writings if Protestantism had not prevailed in England.

On the evidence, monotheism wasn’t a sufficient condition for unobstructed progress in science.