Print
The absurd world of Martin Amis
by Chris Morris, The Observer
Reposted from:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,,2216699,00.html
Look, I'm busy. I'm writing a script and I won't be disturbed. Except that because I'm writing about terrorism and Islam, I keep being distracted by Martin Amis. He prowls the thickets of my research like a demented flasher. Sometimes Christopher Hitchens pops up, too, and flashes along with his friend. They rail against Muslims. They're obviously daft. But people take them seriously.
No matter that they act like senile 12-year-olds on the Today programme website - smoking illegal fags to look tough and cool. No matter that Amis coins truly abominable terms like 'the age of horrorism' and when criticised tells people to 'fuck off'. Surely we all chuckle at the strenuous ennui of his salon drawl. Didn't he once accidentally sneer his face off? His 'insight' about Mohammed Atta involved pretending the hijacker was constipated for six months - brilliantly smuggling into our subconscious that idea that Atta was 'full of shit'. He abandoned his satire on terrorism in which a Muslim unleashes mass rape on America because 'faced with Islamism, even satire withers and dies', not because his idea was obviously rubbish.
Despite his manifest absurdity (he called the World Trade Centre attacks 'edificide' and the towers' destruction an 'apocollapse'), people take him seriously and if they do then we must.
Last week Amis was called a racist. I saw him speak at the ICA last month. Was his negativity about Islam technically racist? I don't know. What I can tell you is that Martin Amis is the new Abu Hamza.
To recap, Amis was called a racist because he said Muslims were backward, violent, homophobic, paranoid, boring, retarded and stupid. Hitchens said no, he's conducting a 'thought experiment'.
Now Amis should be allowed to wonder aloud about anything. He can suggest Muslims should 'experience painful discrimination until they get tough with their children' if he likes. Thought experiments are fine. But if he bundles his thoughts on Islam together and iterates them one after the other as he did when I saw him, he displays not unguarded musing but the forging of an incoherent creed of hate. It goes roughly like this: 9/11 was horrific, its driving ideology was totalitarian, the totalitarians were Muslims, all Muslims follow a book they believe to be the immutable word of God, I don't believe that, therefore all Muslims are idiots, and basically bastards. Idiot bastards moping around the Middle East in a paranoid funk just cos they lost their empire, and what a rubbish empire it was, too, by the way. Now, what is your balanced view of these primitive wife-beating idiotic bastards?
Like Hamza, Amis could only make his nonsense stand up with mock erudition, vitriol and decontextualised quotes from the Koran. To risk a familiar example, it won't do for Amis (or Hamza) to state flatly that the Koran exhorts Muslims to kill Jews without even asking whether this means all Jews or some particular group of Jews with whom the Muslims were fighting in the seventh century, or indeed, whether there are other verses that modify the message by deploring killing of any kind, or describing how 'people of the book [Christians and Jews] shall have nothing to fear or regret'.
I claim no great knowledge on this subject - level-three SATs perhaps - but Amis couldn't pass the test for morning playgroup. If my Shetland pony looks like a high-horse it's only because Amis is trotting round the paddock on a chihuahua.
So how does Amis manage to move from condemning the horrors of suicide bombings to pouring scorn on anyone who can believe in paradise - effectively all Muslims? He muddles his terms. Even Hitchens concedes Amis wrongly conflates Islamism with Islam. By fudging, Amis adds the weight of his reaction against terrorism to his contempt for Muslims in general. Take 'Islamism'. What does it actually mean?
For many it means 'political Islam'. Amis calls it a 'murderous ideology', equating it with terrorism. Now look at the following statement: 'The terrorist killings in New York, Madrid and London were wrong. They were indiscriminate, un-Islamic and based on ideas abstracted to the point of insanity.' I was firmly told this by an ex-Mujahideen who fought in Afghanistan 20 years ago. He was an Islamist. I strongly doubt he was murderous.
These concepts are more complex than Amis would have us believe. This lack of clarity allows him to group Muslims who stop teenagers shooting one another with a man who cheerfully saws the heads off Jews.
It's not easy. Even ex-Islamists seem confused. Ed Husain - whose Hizb ut-Tahrir memoir The Islamist made him the summer's top ram-raid sound-biter - condemns Islamism as 'totalitarian' but later allows for 'moderate Islamists'. What sort of braincrash is a 'moderate totalitarian'? I doubt it could even walk.
These distinctions matter because the way out of this mess (and it is a mess, fuelled by ignorance, stupidity, prejudice and weapons) is to clarify and discriminate rather than hurl abuse at anything that goes near a mosque.
I doubt many Muslims can be bothered with Amis. But he nurtures in his audience a corrosive prejudice against people they've never bothered to meet. It is culturally dim for us to form confident opinions about people based upon how they look and what we've heard they think. It is also against our interests. Nonsense abounds on the causes of terrorism but it is hard to argue that alienation doesn't channel potential foot soldiers towards radicalisation. As one solitary Muslim asked him at the ICA, 'Why such contempt for Muslims?' Amis must have known something was up because he dropped his drawl and called the man 'sir'. But he could hardly unspeak his views. And those views are certainly alienating.
With ignorance on his side, Amis can stare east through the salon window and convince us of a single advancing hoard. He's clever. He might put it brilliantly. He might call it a 'Meccalanche' or an 'Attaclysm'. But when he speaks, think 'Hamza'.
· Chris Morris is a writer and broadcaster
http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,,2216699,00.html
Look, I'm busy. I'm writing a script and I won't be disturbed. Except that because I'm writing about terrorism and Islam, I keep being distracted by Martin Amis. He prowls the thickets of my research like a demented flasher. Sometimes Christopher Hitchens pops up, too, and flashes along with his friend. They rail against Muslims. They're obviously daft. But people take them seriously.
No matter that they act like senile 12-year-olds on the Today programme website - smoking illegal fags to look tough and cool. No matter that Amis coins truly abominable terms like 'the age of horrorism' and when criticised tells people to 'fuck off'. Surely we all chuckle at the strenuous ennui of his salon drawl. Didn't he once accidentally sneer his face off? His 'insight' about Mohammed Atta involved pretending the hijacker was constipated for six months - brilliantly smuggling into our subconscious that idea that Atta was 'full of shit'. He abandoned his satire on terrorism in which a Muslim unleashes mass rape on America because 'faced with Islamism, even satire withers and dies', not because his idea was obviously rubbish.
Despite his manifest absurdity (he called the World Trade Centre attacks 'edificide' and the towers' destruction an 'apocollapse'), people take him seriously and if they do then we must.
Last week Amis was called a racist. I saw him speak at the ICA last month. Was his negativity about Islam technically racist? I don't know. What I can tell you is that Martin Amis is the new Abu Hamza.
To recap, Amis was called a racist because he said Muslims were backward, violent, homophobic, paranoid, boring, retarded and stupid. Hitchens said no, he's conducting a 'thought experiment'.
Now Amis should be allowed to wonder aloud about anything. He can suggest Muslims should 'experience painful discrimination until they get tough with their children' if he likes. Thought experiments are fine. But if he bundles his thoughts on Islam together and iterates them one after the other as he did when I saw him, he displays not unguarded musing but the forging of an incoherent creed of hate. It goes roughly like this: 9/11 was horrific, its driving ideology was totalitarian, the totalitarians were Muslims, all Muslims follow a book they believe to be the immutable word of God, I don't believe that, therefore all Muslims are idiots, and basically bastards. Idiot bastards moping around the Middle East in a paranoid funk just cos they lost their empire, and what a rubbish empire it was, too, by the way. Now, what is your balanced view of these primitive wife-beating idiotic bastards?
Like Hamza, Amis could only make his nonsense stand up with mock erudition, vitriol and decontextualised quotes from the Koran. To risk a familiar example, it won't do for Amis (or Hamza) to state flatly that the Koran exhorts Muslims to kill Jews without even asking whether this means all Jews or some particular group of Jews with whom the Muslims were fighting in the seventh century, or indeed, whether there are other verses that modify the message by deploring killing of any kind, or describing how 'people of the book [Christians and Jews] shall have nothing to fear or regret'.
I claim no great knowledge on this subject - level-three SATs perhaps - but Amis couldn't pass the test for morning playgroup. If my Shetland pony looks like a high-horse it's only because Amis is trotting round the paddock on a chihuahua.
So how does Amis manage to move from condemning the horrors of suicide bombings to pouring scorn on anyone who can believe in paradise - effectively all Muslims? He muddles his terms. Even Hitchens concedes Amis wrongly conflates Islamism with Islam. By fudging, Amis adds the weight of his reaction against terrorism to his contempt for Muslims in general. Take 'Islamism'. What does it actually mean?
For many it means 'political Islam'. Amis calls it a 'murderous ideology', equating it with terrorism. Now look at the following statement: 'The terrorist killings in New York, Madrid and London were wrong. They were indiscriminate, un-Islamic and based on ideas abstracted to the point of insanity.' I was firmly told this by an ex-Mujahideen who fought in Afghanistan 20 years ago. He was an Islamist. I strongly doubt he was murderous.
These concepts are more complex than Amis would have us believe. This lack of clarity allows him to group Muslims who stop teenagers shooting one another with a man who cheerfully saws the heads off Jews.
It's not easy. Even ex-Islamists seem confused. Ed Husain - whose Hizb ut-Tahrir memoir The Islamist made him the summer's top ram-raid sound-biter - condemns Islamism as 'totalitarian' but later allows for 'moderate Islamists'. What sort of braincrash is a 'moderate totalitarian'? I doubt it could even walk.
These distinctions matter because the way out of this mess (and it is a mess, fuelled by ignorance, stupidity, prejudice and weapons) is to clarify and discriminate rather than hurl abuse at anything that goes near a mosque.
I doubt many Muslims can be bothered with Amis. But he nurtures in his audience a corrosive prejudice against people they've never bothered to meet. It is culturally dim for us to form confident opinions about people based upon how they look and what we've heard they think. It is also against our interests. Nonsense abounds on the causes of terrorism but it is hard to argue that alienation doesn't channel potential foot soldiers towards radicalisation. As one solitary Muslim asked him at the ICA, 'Why such contempt for Muslims?' Amis must have known something was up because he dropped his drawl and called the man 'sir'. But he could hardly unspeak his views. And those views are certainly alienating.
With ignorance on his side, Amis can stare east through the salon window and convince us of a single advancing hoard. He's clever. He might put it brilliantly. He might call it a 'Meccalanche' or an 'Attaclysm'. But when he speaks, think 'Hamza'.
· Chris Morris is a writer and broadcaster
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Sunday, November 25, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 75 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #90394 by NormanDoering on November 25, 2007 at 2:04 am
'The terrorist killings in New York, Madrid and London were wrong. They were indiscriminate, un-Islamic and based on ideas abstracted to the point of insanity.' I was firmly told this by an ex-Mujahideen who fought in Afghanistan 20 years ago. He was an Islamist. I strongly doubt he was murderous.
So, how did your ex-Mujahideen friend feel about the death penalty for apostasy? Afghanistan certainly did, and in some places still does, have some pretty barbaric laws.
I'm sure it is complicated and I'm sure there is a wide variety of views in Islam -- but still, in the Arab world apostasy is still punishable by death, women in some places have to hide their faces and can't go anywhere without a male escort.
Dr Younus Shaikh's story:
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/Younus_Sheikh/blasphemy.htm
Other Comments by NormanDoering
3. Comment #90397 by stereoroid on November 25, 2007 at 2:14 am
I'd summarize the article as an elliptical exposition of the Ostrich Manoeuvre, with added Snark for anyone who is concerned about the future. Is he unaware, for example, that there was an attempt to impose Shariah law in Ontario a few years ago - on the pretext that "Muslim communities should have Muslim law"? It didn't go anywhere, thank goodness. Commenters on the Grauniad site are going at it hammer-and-tongs, as expected.
Other Comments by stereoroid
4. Comment #90401 by Xenocratic on November 25, 2007 at 3:00 am
Martin Amis is one of my favourite writers, but it's a great pity that he's become so obsessively enamoured with the facile new trend in Western circles commonly known as "Islamophobia", the last frontier where hatred of the other is still permitted and even encouraged. Ironically those individuals who hope to introduce some moderation into the discussion are routinely derided as apologists for "Islamofascism", another new catch word in the modern Western lexicon, by people who fancy themselves defenders of democracy and secularism. A rather uncomfortable irony, I'd say.No doubt the Muslim bashers on this website will take Chris Morris to task for an excellent article, one which makes it clear that grouping all Muslims under a single banner is still bigotry, regardless of the intellectual contortions people use to justify their generalisations and contempt for an entire group of people.
I hope it wouldn't be too much to ask for the irrational bigot brigade to heed Morris' words:
It is culturally dim for us to form confident opinions about people based upon how they look and what we've heard they think. It is also against our interests. Nonsense abounds on the causes of terrorism but it is hard to argue that alienation doesn't channel potential foot soldiers towards radicalisation.
I also agree that "distinctions" between different approaches to Islam "matter because the way out of this mess (and it is a mess, fuelled by ignorance, stupidity, prejudice and weapons) is to clarify and discriminate rather than hurl abuse at anything that goes near a mosque."
I am quite certain that the "rationalists" on this "clear thinking oasis" will tear into my views, and fully expect a vituperative outburst from the usual suspects.
Other Comments by Xenocratic
5. Comment #90404 by Fanusi Khiyal on November 25, 2007 at 3:20 am
Where do they get these idiots? Does he never stop to consider that the "ex-Mujahideen" may be engaging in that time honoured practice called taqqiya - lying to non-Mulsims in order to advance Islam?Of course not. That would require knowledge of actual facts. This would mean knowing what is written in the Qur'an, the Hadith and the Sira, knowing the meaning of terms like jihad, jiyzah, taqqiya, kitman, Da'wa, Hudna and so on. They might know a little bit about why the Caliphate is so important to these schmucks, or what the Verse of the Sword commands. Or they might know a little about the extremely bloody and miserable fourteen centuries of Islamic history - including such minor facts as the killing of seventy million Hindus, and the Armenian genocide.
But, again, this would require actual knowledge.
I claim no great knowledge on this subject
That's putting it mildly. Contra to this twerps asertions, the curse of Allah and Muhammed on the Jews and Christian is binding for all time, as is the obligation to wage war on them for all Muslims. How anyone can be this pig-ignorant and still write for a living continues to baffle me.
I notice that Xeno has emerged from his burrow to defend this guy. That just says it all.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
6. Comment #90417 by Dunc-uk on November 25, 2007 at 4:21 am
Lets keep this in proportion... Morris is not criticising anyone who criticises Islam. He's critiquing Martin Amis apparent view of Islam, based upon what he actually says.The Muslim community will have to suffer until it gets its house in order. What sort of suffering? Not let them travel. Deportation – further down the road. Curtailing of freedoms. Strip-searching people who look like they're from the Middle East or from Pakistan... Discriminatory stuff, until it hurts the whole community and they start getting tough with their children...
Strip-searching people because they look foreign? Deliberately hurting a community? That's ludicrous.
On the other hand, Morris' article isn't great... his tone is overly mocking and his parody of Amis and Hitchens as flashers does not endear me to him.
Other Comments by Dunc-uk
7. Comment #90431 by Xenocratic on November 25, 2007 at 6:00 am
I see Fanusi has crawled out of his slimy swamp. The following statements uttered by this despicably diabolical and dilettantish dumb bell on this website and others tells us all we need to know about him:"Right that is it. I am officially coming out of the closet. When the whole war with Iraq started, I honestly though that if America took down someone who was killing them in the hundreds of thousands, at the cost of billions of dollars and thousands of _american_ lives, the Iraqis would have, oh I don't know, a little gratitude.
Silly me, I actually thought that the reason for Islamic radicalism was the failed states of the Middle East. I now see that it was the other way around.
Let me point out that when _my_ Fatherland was under the control of a bunch of maniacs (and, gee, is the Ba'ath party a cheap knockoff of the Nazi party? Yup!) America flattened every major city and thoroughly beat the enemy into the ground. Now, am I complaining? No; I have always praised America for that. And did the Germans, being freed from the Nazi yoke, decide to start a civil war? No. Did they, in fact, rebuild? Yes. And did any have the infernal indecency to complain when the bastards were hung, one and all? No.
Whatever else one can say, I think that the Iraq war has taught a lesson everyone needs to learn, and that includes many on the right. That Islam is completely incompatible with freedom, and the savages of the Middle East are about as capable of it as a tribe of barbary apes are of piloting a shuttle.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014640.php#more
Comment Posted By Fanusi Khiyal On 01.01.2007 @ 02:01
"Finally_ someone gets it. Finally someone gets that the only way to deal with Muslim fanatics is to just fight them head on, no holds barred. No gitmo, no "minimizing casualties", just hammer the bastards into the ground.
Yo, Bush, Blair, Olmert? Take few weeks in Ethiopia to see how it's done right.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to get more booze for the Munchkins.
*ding-dong, the witch is dead…*
Comment Posted By Fanusi Khiyal On 27.12.2006 @ 23:16"
"Woot! Go Ethiopia!
Hell, if this is what they can do, imagine what is possible for the West when the Muslims finally push their luck that bit too far, and the gloves come off permanently.
Comment Posted By Fanusi Khiyal On 27.12.2006 @ 10:22"
"From now on, not a penny of mine, nor a second of work will go to any Muslim anywhere on this planet if I can help it.
Comment Posted By Fanusi Khiyal On 19.12.2006 @ 06:51"
All of these obtained from The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: HQ of the Rottweiler Empire, An affiliate of the VRWC. It was named the "MOST ANNOYING RIGHT-OF-CENTER BLOG OF 2003".
"an appalling number of Moslems are primitive, brutal savages, addicted to violence, drunk on an appalling level of arrogance, and generally not just uncivilised but anti-civilised"
Comment #53916 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 4, 2007 at 6:45 am in response to the article 'Don't Mince Words: The London Car-Bomb Plot Was Designed to Kill Women' by Christopher Hitchens, Slate posted on richarddawkins.net
Anyone who can take such sentiments seriously, let alone utter them, is completely beyond the pale and deserves to receive nothing but harsh obloquy for every comment he utters on this or any other subject. Fanusi exemplifies the sort of person Morris is warning us against, a radical extremist of another stripe who fancies himself "liberal" and "secular" (though doesn't know the first thing about those two terms) and has the idiotic audacity to tar everyone with the same brush.
Other Comments by Xenocratic
8. Comment #90437 by epeeist on November 25, 2007 at 6:35 am
Let's not get into a flamefest between Xenocratic and Fanusi.We have two comments from the first and one so far from the second and we are immediately in to ad hominem attacks.
Other Comments by epeeist
9. Comment #90444 by Fanusi Khiyal on November 25, 2007 at 7:10 am
*shrugs* I never bother to argue with Xeno as it is, for reasons I have explained elsewhere. I will say though that I find his twisted obsession with me a little disturbing - especially his havit of pulling together comments I have made at some point during the last six years, cutting them from their context and place, anything at all to support his masturbatory fantasies.Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
10. Comment #90449 by GoatBoy36 on November 25, 2007 at 7:16 am
I remember Xeno. I remember discussing this before too.On this thread.
(Sky News article.)
gb.
Other Comments by GoatBoy36
11. Comment #90464 by Summer Seale on November 25, 2007 at 8:18 am
I'm on Fanusi's side. =)The Bible is downright stupid for much of it if you take it literally. But it's the one being "quoted out of context" most of the time even if you do. Islam is the one which is not being quoted out of context. Defending Islam for not being as bad as what the extremists believe it to be is the utmost form of liberal cognitive dissonance. I'm a liberal too, but I'm not so open minded that my brains have fallen out of my head either. Just because Islam is by and large of the "third world" and belonging to non-pale penis people doesn't mean that it isn't completely full of shit. I'm sorry, it is.
And anyone who goes around defending Islam as some sort of anti-racist crusade is a total moron as well because anyone can tell you who has been to Israel that more than half the Jews there are non-white as well.
As are most Christians in the world today.
They all really do suck. But, I'm sorry, Sam Harris is right: nobody lies awake at night worrying about the Amish. And there is a reason for that. The only people who are quoting Islam out of context are the morons and rationalizers who think that Islam is a "religion of peace". It isn't. It's just as moronic, barbaric, sexist, racist, brutal and filthy an ideology as us anti-Islamic "extremists" claim it to be, and I will brook no exception to that statement. It is one of the scourges of humanity, it oppresses a billion people who could be doing better things with their lives and the entire world, and it should be thrown into the dustbin of history for all time.
I hate it, I hate people who defend it, and I hate people who go around claiming that people like me are the irrational ones. You don't fight extremist ideologies with love and flowers. You fight it with another gun and another set of harsh words, because it is the enemy. It is my enemy, it hates me, and I hate it back and I like that it hates me. I revel in the fact that it hates me. I thrive in its hatred. And hopefully, one day, I will see it just as dead as it wants me.
Anyone who disagrees can "fuck off".
Other Comments by Summer Seale
12. Comment #90467 by Peacebeuponme on November 25, 2007 at 8:28 am
I really am shedding a tear at this. Is this really Chris Morris, writer of some of the best satire ever seen on British TV? This is the man behind Brass Eye and The Day Today for God's sake!Chris, is it only Jews from the seventh century that are not allowed in to Saudi Arabia then?
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
13. Comment #90471 by Fanusi Khiyal on November 25, 2007 at 8:47 am
*bows* Mine the honour, Summer Seale . :-) "Say not the struggle naught availeth..." and all that - there are plenty who see Islam for what it is.Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
14. Comment #90472 by Jack Rawlinson on November 25, 2007 at 8:47 am
Peacebeuponme: yeah, it's that Chris Morris and I was saddened by this incoherent rant too. I commented on the Guardian page to that effect (my handle is "Jackanapes" there). Depressing. Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson
15. Comment #90478 by Nick Good on November 25, 2007 at 9:10 am
It goes roughly like this: 9/11 was horrific, its driving ideology was totalitarian, the totalitarians were Muslims, all Muslims follow a book they believe to be the immutable word of God, I don't believe that, therefore all Muslims are idiots, and basically bastards. Idiot bastards moping around the Middle East in a paranoid funk just cos they lost their empire, and what a rubbish empire it was, too, by the way. Now, what is your balanced view of these primitive wife-beating idiotic bastards?Obviously intended as a loaded synopsis, a caricature of Amis's views - funny thing is, DESPITE this, it seems a pretty much on-the-money synopsis of the Islam problem!
Other Comments by Nick Good
16. Comment #90479 by Fanusi Khiyal on November 25, 2007 at 9:14 am
*laughs* Excellent point, Nick! I wish I'd made it.Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
17. Comment #90482 by Peacebeuponme on November 25, 2007 at 9:25 am
Jack RawlinsonWell said. Sad to see from a man for whom censorship and free speech issues should be close to heart. Yet now he seems to think muslims need protection from criticism.
If there is anyone here who hasn't seen Brass Eye by the way, and in particular the Paedophilia espisode, please go out and get the DVD.
Btw - I don't post on the Guardian CiF anymore. I find the rational, thoughtful people are few and far between, and having a time restriction on subsequent postings makes discussion impossible.
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
18. Comment #90493 by lbq on November 25, 2007 at 10:34 am
Show me one single revealed religion which is not totalitarian. The reason why some Christians today can accept things like tolerance, democracy and respect for other people is that they live in societies that have, up till now, been so economically successful that people have got more diverting things on their minds than the public burning of heretics. All holy writs of revealed religion contain commandments to commit genocide, homicide and general unspeakable atrocities. Even now, there are Christians that are ready to put these things into practice. One brand of madness is not appreciably saner than the other.Other Comments by lbq
19. Comment #90494 by Vinelectric on November 25, 2007 at 10:41 am
Strong words Summer Seale. You sound very brave indeed. We should all destroy the enemy. Other Comments by Vinelectric
20. Comment #90495 by Summer Seale on November 25, 2007 at 10:53 am
I think anyone who speaks out publicly against Islam is "very brave indeed", Vinelectric.And on another thing...doesn't anyone else find the whole "I'm against Political Islam" to be about the most *stupid* argument ever? I'm against "Political Nazism" too, but I guess Nazism has some "wise" teachings about community action so it's alright with me? What kind of stupid and moronic argument is this? It's such a dodge. But oh, Islam is "religion" so we can't mock it or show it for what it is. "Kill all the Jews" in Nazism is not okay, but in Islam it's "taken out of context". Bullshit.
And that's another thing: context. Islam must be the most context-ridden religion I have EVER come across. Seems like you need a billion pages of justification to explain every single phrase out of Mohammed's mouth. It's *totally* ridiculous. What's this about it being a simple religion to understand and all that crap? If it's so peaceful, why do we need reams of explanations to explain away all the genocidal and insane rants from "the Prophet"? It's a damned Nazi cult is what it is. You can explain Adolf Hitler's statements in "context" as well. It doesn't make them any more right, and ANYONE would know that the explanation would amount to the same thing anyway: a steaming pile of bullshit.
Other Comments by Summer Seale
21. Comment #90496 by Vinelectric on November 25, 2007 at 10:56 am
Fanusi, look up those historical texts again. Early muslims were quite blunt about their proposition: accept Islam or else..! That taqiyya of yours was a conspiracy theory dreamt up by childish sunni historians who thought that the Shiites were all over the place in disguise.. too rubbish to even comment on. There is no text in Islam to promote deception. I bet you didn't know that.
Other Comments by Vinelectric
22. Comment #90497 by GoatBoy36 on November 25, 2007 at 10:57 am
Summer Seale,Amen brother!
gb.
Other Comments by GoatBoy36
23. Comment #90498 by Nick Good on November 25, 2007 at 11:00 am
Summer Seale wrote: And on another thing...doesn't anyone else find the whole "I'm against Political Islam" to be about the most *stupid* argument ever? I'm against "Political Nazism"Yup - that's the essence of my issue with the term 'Islamofascist' it's tautological!
Other Comments by Nick Good
24. Comment #90499 by Vinelectric on November 25, 2007 at 11:01 am
Seems like you need a billion pages of justification to explain every single phrase out of Mohammed's mouth.
I'd have to agree with that. This is what drove me nuts and made me give up! However if you listen carefully, the man mellowed up by the end of his career and retracted many of his statements e.g when he said that Allah has no right to punish people!! Can you believe that? I wasn't impressed but, anyway, I get your point and this time I'm not being facetious..
Other Comments by Vinelectric
25. Comment #90503 by Vinelectric on November 25, 2007 at 11:05 am
GoatboyAmen to the "streaming pile of shit"?
Yeah, that prayer was answered when we were honoured with the company of yourself, Fanusia and.. can't remember who else it was.
Other Comments by Vinelectric
26. Comment #90510 by GoatBoy36 on November 25, 2007 at 11:42 am
You're a class act Vinnie, and don't let anyone tell you different!gb.
Other Comments by GoatBoy36
27. Comment #90511 by Fanusi Khiyal on November 25, 2007 at 11:43 am
Vinelectric arguing with you is a little like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope:
There is no text in Islam to promote deception. I bet you didn't know that.
Oh really? How about Bukhari, volume 4, verse 269: "War is deceit"? Or perhaps, the Sirat Rasul Allah in which the Prophet orders an assasination, and the volunteer says that he will need top lie to complete it, and Muhammad promptly sanctions that?
Here's a link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-hA59eiySI
if you listen carefully, the man mellowed up by the end of his career and retracted many of his statements
Citations please. Because this is absolutely false. Muhammad became more cruel, and more wanton as he grew in strength. The Verse of the Sword, the ninth chapter of the Qur'an, which is the most vicious one in the book, that mandates warfare on unbelievers, is the last verse of the Qur'an. Furthermore, the pattern of verses in the Qur'an is that those written at Medina, after hijrah as the phrase goes, are by far the most vicious and cruel portions.
Show me one single revealed religion which is not totalitarian.
Well, Jainism, just to imitate Sam Harris for a moment. The point is that religions are not all alike. They teach different things. Religions such as Buddhism and Jainism are very pacifistic. Conversely, Islam is totalitarian right to its core. If you challenge Christians about the violence done in the name of Christ, they can and will respond "there is no way that that is part of Christs teachings". Now, we can argue about this, and I usually argue on the other side, but the very fact that we can argue about this allows for reformation . This is not the case in Islam. Islam's core teachings do mandate violence and totalitarianism. Islam doesn't imply totalitarianism, or make it possible - Islam is totalitarian, right to the core.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyzjwcQI4hM&feature=related
Summer Seale amen to that. The thing is, when you take Islam's commands in context, they actually get worse. There's alot of hoo-hah about 5:32, but if you read the next few verse, up to 5:35, you will see a very different picture emerging.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
28. Comment #90543 by Fanusi Khiyal on November 25, 2007 at 1:15 pm
I just noticed a few more items. The assasination attempt, by suicide murder, on former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto turns out to have been performed by a jihadist who strapped a bomb to the body of his one year old child, that he was carrying.Meanwhile in Iraq, two sisters decapitated their uncle & his wife - in front of their children - because the uncle wore Western style trousers and didn't pray sufficiently.
This is the kind of thing Vinelectric, Xenocratic and the rest are hell bent on excusing, no matter what the cost.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
29. Comment #90572 by Terry Thomas on November 25, 2007 at 3:12 pm
It will be interesting to see Chris Morris' next TV satire, which apparently focuses on a group of muslim would-be 'martyr operators'.I'd have like to have seen Morris challenge the vile (and stupid) tenets of Islam (and all religions, by extension), but attacking, uhhh, "secular bigots" (typified by the membership here at RD.net) is more in keeping with his subversive contrarian media image.
Funny man Mr. Morris, but "you haven't got a clue have you. But you will do, if you read for thirty seconds!"
Other Comments by Terry Thomas
30. Comment #90655 by tieInterceptor on November 26, 2007 at 3:33 am
by SumerSale: I hate it, I hate people who defend it, and I hate people who go around claiming that people like me are the irrational ones. You don't fight extremist ideologies with love and flowers. You fight it with another gun and another set of harsh words, because it is the enemy. It is my enemy, it hates me, and I hate it back and I like that it hates me. I revel in the fact that it hates me. I thrive in its hatred. And hopefully, one day, I will see it just as dead as it wants me.
Anyone who disagrees can "fuck off".
my thoughts exactly.
It makes my head hurt when I read on forums women defending Saudi Arabia's right to be "different" and "have their own understanding of what's right" on the comment section in an article about gang rape victims being whipped 200 times and jailed for 6 months for the crime of being raped, and talking back to the judge.
Seriously, the world has lost its mind when being Muslim on the eyes of the west gives you a 007 license to be barbaric.
"we can't claim our values are better, that would make us hypocrites"
I hear that so many times... my answer?
f*ck that! of course we can claim our values are better! spineless sheep.
Other Comments by tieInterceptor
31. Comment #90658 by gamerunknown on November 26, 2007 at 3:47 am
No true Scotsman, followed by a paranoid claim that it's "Islamists" who are the terrorists. What kind of horrible journalism is this? Come on, subscribe to a view, not, well, "hyperactive modernism" or some such. He tries to maintain the media hobby of claiming Islam as a scary thread taking over the world at the same time as maintaining their method is correct, as not to offend the slightly "spiritual" readers? Other Comments by gamerunknown
32. Comment #90664 by stephenray on November 26, 2007 at 4:11 am
Oh, curses. It's finally happened.I'm forced to disagree with someone who's criticising Martin Amis...
It's like being a dog trying to decide between two lampposts.
Other Comments by stephenray
33. Comment #90678 by Vinelectric on November 26, 2007 at 5:40 am
FanusiWhy have you not heard of the entry-level well-known hadith on Muadh Ibn Jabal:
- ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???: ??? ????? -??? ???? ???? ????-: ?? ???? ????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ???: ???? ?????? ????. ???: ?? ??????? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ???: ???? ?????? ????. ???: ?? ?? ?????? .
Towards the end of his life Muhammad said that Allah has an obligation not to torture people. Now that doesnt' make sense after all those scary Meccan chapters. You'll find that the scholars will confuse you with things like: the hadith concerns only those who are good muslims. Well the wording is ambiguous and as I said this is what drove me nuts.
I don't have the other texts but if you haven't heard about them then you need to do some serious research on the religion before you start quoting things randomly. Have you not come across the passage where a mother starts looking for her baby among the dead in a battle and upon seeing her embrace her child Muhammad says to his companions:
Do you think this woman would throw her child into the fire? The men say no and Muahmmad says that Alalh is more merciful than that.
By the way how could it escape your logic that the hadith on War is deception rfers to open war when the thing has been procalimed publicly. Of course you'd need tactics to win the bloody war. You were referring to the situation where suposedly muslims are encourage to deceive people that they are at peace with.
Fanusi, if you're quite serious about criticizing Islam why not tackle the serious connundrums as opposed to making things up. There are plenty: divine hiddenness, the pathetic excuse for why god made people, contradiction between Quran and hadith on the issue of freedom of religion/expression...etc
Other Comments by Vinelectric
34. Comment #90679 by Vinelectric on November 26, 2007 at 5:41 am
Sorry the text was in Arabic. I will fetch the English translation.Anyway it's number 7373 in the Bukhari text (Book of Tawheed)
Other Comments by Vinelectric
35. Comment #90684 by Vinelectric on November 26, 2007 at 5:52 am
GoatboyCan never outdo you and your strange friends.
Other Comments by Vinelectric
36. Comment #90686 by tieInterceptor on November 26, 2007 at 6:05 am
By the way how could it escape your logic that the hadith on War is deception rfers to open war when the thing has been proclaimed publicly.
funny that you say, since its not for open warfare, the case of al-taqiyya was a warrant by Muhammed to one of his assassins to lie about his religion, and insult the prophet openly, so he could gain trust of his enemy and Murder him.
? but only for war is it, seriously, since when assassination is open warfare?
what about the poets that Muhammed had executed for the capital crime of taking the piss of Muhammed and his "on-demand" revelations?
as Harris says, not all religions teach the same, I'm an anti theist, but at least I see something in the fact that Christians would get themselves eaten by lions before renouncing Christ.
seriously Vinelectric, justify assassination by deception in "open warfare"? that does not make any sense, supposedly its life example coming from the CREATOR of the universe and his chosen pupil on earth... remember?
The morals of Mohammed can't be justified because "he was a general in a war" that does not cut it as an excuse, because he is apparently the finest MORAL EXAMPLE OF ALL 1.6bilion Muslims.
Other Comments by tieInterceptor
37. Comment #90693 by Fanusi Khiyal on November 26, 2007 at 6:45 am
Exactly, tieInterceptor . You see, Vinelectrice, Islam divides the world in two: the Dar al-Islam, the house of Islam, and the Dar al-Harb, the House of War. The state of war between unbelievers and Muslims is permanent . And he has the nerve of accusing me of 'making things up'. Jihad may be done in stealth or openly, and demographic conquest has been part of Islam ever since the Hijrah. I have a suspicion that you didn't look at those links that I posted.And if you go to, say, al-Islam.org, you find some further examples of this kind of thing. Here is Dalrymple:
On www.al-islam.org, I found the following, allegedly true story: A Shia and a Sunni Muslim were traveling to London to attend an Islamic conference. En route, the two of them discussed the need for unity between the two main branches of Islam, and the Sunni argued that the Shia resort to taqiyya was an obstacle to that unity. At London Airport, the Sunni told the immigration officer that he had come to England to seek medical treatment, while the Shia said that he had come to visit friends. The Sunni said to the Shia afterwards that an Islamic conference provided healing for the soul, while the Shia said that it provided an opportunity to visit friends. According to the author of the article on the Web, both had indulged in laudable and justifiable taqiyya.
And, Vinelectric you're going to have to do better than a line of question marks. According to several Islamic online collections of Hadith, including the USC-MSA Compendium, the Book of Tawheed only goes up to verse 652. So either get your references right, or better still, provide an actual link.
By the way, while I was looking for your mysterious verse, I found the following:
Volume 9, Book 93, Number 633:
Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
A Jew and Jewess were brought to the Prophet on a charge of committing an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet asked the Jews, "What do you (usually) do with them?" They said, "We blacken their faces and disgrace them." He said, "Bring here the Torah and recite it, if you are truthful." They (fetched it and) came and asked a one-eyed man to recite. He went on reciting till he reached a portion on which he put his hand. The Prophet said, "Lift up your hand!" He lifted his hand up and behold, there appeared the verse of Ar-Rajm (stoning of the adulterers to death). Then he said, "O Muhammad! They should be stoned to death but we conceal this Divine Law among ourselves." Then the Prophet ordered that the two sinners be stoned to death and, and they were stoned to death, and I saw the man protecting the woman from the stones. (See Hadith No. 809, Vol. 8)
This stinks to me. The whole of the Medinic verses of the Qur'an describe how the Fire is an Evil Abode of the unbelievers. And here's another load of nonsense that Taqqiya-speakers use. They cite Qur'an chapter 5, verse 32: "That is why we laid it down for the Israelites that whoever killed a human being except as punishment for murder and villany in the land, shall be regarded as having killed all mankind"
And what they ignore is how that chapter goes on. 5:34, says "Those that make war against God and His Apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be slain or crucified and have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides".
Even if you could find a hadith that denies God torturing people, which I sincerely doubt, any Muslim who is cognizant with his religion will rule it as unreliable, or overrridden by the Qur'an, which is superior to the Hadith.
And finally, I know full well what is wrong with Islam. I don't need lessons in that, thank you, and nor are my criticisms 'making things up'.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
38. Comment #90699 by jamienewman on November 26, 2007 at 7:01 am
As an atheist, I make no apologies for any form of religious belief or practice, and worry about the damage done by all such beliefs and practices But I do wonder about the striking similarity between the intensely focused anti-Islamist vitriol found on this and other atheist web sites and that of Christophilic nut jobs like Ann Coulter, Dinesh D'Souza, and Pat Robertson.Viewed rationally, the threat to local and global security posed by Muslim extremists-- whose most lethal weapons appear to be the strap-on suicide belt and the occasional hijacked airliner -- pales into insignificance when compared to that presented by the Christophiles in the US who now have the ability to obliterate the planet at the push of a button, and whose theology all but mandates that, at some time in the not too distant future, they do so.
I've got limited energy for expressions of outrage. I'll save mine for the real,imminent threats posed by the godbots who govern my country country secure in the belief that, should they unleash nuclear (or even non-nuclear) chaos on the world, they'll be doing so at the behest of their god.
Other Comments by jamienewman
39. Comment #90701 by Fanusi Khiyal on November 26, 2007 at 7:06 am
jamienewman here is the basic difference: Christians in th United States can't even get gay marriage banned. Throughout the Muslim world gays are brutally murdered.A religion with over a billion adherents, a large percentage of which support the most hideous social system imaginable, and who control most of Earth's oil. Nothing to worry about? Please get real.
You can wander straight through Washington with a sign denouncing Jesus, and be safe. Just try doing the same thing with a sign denouncing Muhammad. Come on, just try it.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
40. Comment #90708 by Bonzai on November 26, 2007 at 7:27 am
It doesn't matter what the true Mohammad was like. Muslims are inspired by a "Mohammad of faith", which is an icon rather than a historical figure. If they can find a way to spin Mo into a nice guy and emulate this kinder version more power to them.I agree with the posters than Islam in the way it is practiced now is a more backward and dangerous religion than Christianity (and all other religions I can think of for that matter). We should not only look at terrorism. Most mainstream Muslim clerics don't advocate terrorism but their message is still coming right out of the dark age and that is not only the Wahabis either. Mainstream Islam is incompatible with modernity.
Having said that I don't think all Muslims should be tarred with the same brush. Most Muslims are just everyday folks and like most people they aren't ideologically consistent, they are not walking embodiments of Islam. I also don't think Islam cannot be reformed. It is true that the balance of power is stacked against the liberal strands of Islam right now, but it represents a political reality rather than an intrinsic logical difficulty in reinterpreting the Quran in a more liberal way. As Venelectric pointed out there are ambiguities and contradictions in Islamic teaching (like in all religions) and these inconsistencies would require interpretations, this is the license for spinning. Religion has always been about spinning and torturing texts to suit one's agenda and Islam is no exception. To deny this possibility would be to credit the Quran and Hadiths with more consistency and coherence and they deserve and strangely this supports the claim that Islam is somehow unique in its rigour among religions by Islamic chauvinists.
To see what a liberal Islam may look like, check out http://www.muslimwakeup.com
Other Comments by Bonzai
41. Comment #90713 by Fanusi Khiyal on November 26, 2007 at 7:36 am
Bonzai I wish thtI could be as optimistic as you are. However, there are reasons that I'm not. There aren't that many contradictions within Islam, and those that do exist have typically been resolved either through naskh or by declaring certain hadith inauthentic. Please feel free to give me some evidence to the contrary.There is no, that is absolutely no , way of 'spinning Muhammad as a nice guy' that isn't obviously bullshit to anyone who knows what the texts actually say. THe following is simply not true:
It is true that the balance of power is stacked against the liberal strands of Islam right now, but it represents a political reality rather than an intrinsic logical difficulty in reinterpreting the Quran in a more liberal way
As Sam Harris notes, the whole thrust of the doctrines is to make war on and dominate infidels. And this business about the much vaunted Islamic reformation . It's already happened. It was perfomred by one Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab, who returned Islam to its original form. The result was the most vicious type of Islam today, Wahhabism.
Sam Harris is also subtly wrong about one thing. He said it would be as easy for him to convince a Salafist to become an atheist as to make them 'moderate'. No, incorrect. It would, in fact, be easier to drive them to apostasy, because that is an intellectually honest position, and has to be the final result of honestly questioning Islam.
You can call this "agreeing with the chauvinists" all you like, but the fact is that where I see one hole in these arguments, the jihadists will see a hundred more. And they are very capable of speaking to cultural Muslims and calling them to their religious duty. As witnessed by the Doctors' Plot.
This idea that we can seduce, and decieve, and put one over Muslims, so they wake up one day all nice and moderate, is horeshit. Muslims aren't stupid. If we stand a chance it is by appealing directly to their human reason.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
42. Comment #90715 by Bonzai on November 26, 2007 at 7:44 am
FK,Did you check out the website I link to? I am no Islamic scholar but apparently things are less black and white if you can actually read Arabic. I've seen these guys debating jihadists and just conservatives in some kind of Quran citing match and honestly as an observer I disagree that they don't have a leg to stand on theologically.
P.S. Salafist to my understanding just mean you go by the text and by pass the "scholars". It is true that most Salafists are conservatives but it is not necessarily so. A self described Salafist on the site I linked to claims that according to the text anything not explicitly banned is allowed. So for example he says there is no textual ban for homosexuality and therefore it is permitted.I saw him debating some conservatives by citing texts and going into Arabic etymology. No one has been able to prove him wrong(He said the Quran version of Lot(or Lut) is not explicit like the Bible so it is not an explicit ban)To me it is kind of silly to have to play some elaborate word games in order to vindicate a reasonable position but the point is that it can be done and the liberals are not as weak theologically than some of us reading the translated text literally may think.
Other Comments by Bonzai
43. Comment #90723 by Fanusi Khiyal on November 26, 2007 at 8:02 am
*nods* I know the website. They're brave, and decent - they just happen to be wrong, and insignificant.On that site, you get comments like this:
Whether you are female, male, gay, straight, tall, short, Christian, or Jew, the Prophet knew you were like him, one of God's creatures
This is hogwash, and anyone who knows anything about the Prophet knows that it's hogwash. I'm not about to gamble the continuation of Civilisation on this lot.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
44. Comment #90728 by tieInterceptor on November 26, 2007 at 8:06 am
some of the comments on that webpage, "hi...one of the biggest reason ppl dont understand muslims is because of thier lack of knowlegde about Islam. Islam always backs up what it says. ppl have created a sterotype abt the Sharia...its all abt chopping hands off and stonning to death "etc...there is more to the Sharia laws...for example, drink water while sitting, respect your parents etc. as for the punishment that i mentioned above, (chopping of hands) is not that easily done...first you have to concider some things before that process is done...for example, if the 'object' was stolen by a child, hungry person, mentally challenge person etc then the punishment is not done. All the punishment have hard core info backing them up...all u need to do is check it out... "
...
mean i agree with the protests but not the angry mobs they showed on TV because that is not what Islam is abt...Islam is about peace.
Muslims are not perfect...BUT ISLAM IS "
seriously, is this supposed to make me feel better?
Other Comments by tieInterceptor
45. Comment #90730 by Bonzai on November 26, 2007 at 8:11 am
Anyone can post a comment there. If you come to RD site and find a post of a liberatarian does it prove that this is an Ayn Rand cult site?Other Comments by Bonzai
46. Comment #90732 by tieInterceptor on November 26, 2007 at 8:18 am
look, sorry to repeat myself, but I haven't found any so called muslim who UNCONDITIONALLY says something againts the scriptures.If the best we can expect from moderates is to point out that in a PERFECT implementation of Islam, ONLY HARDCORE thieves would get their hands and feet chopped off, and only adulterers that somehow where shagging in a crowded room, with 4+ witnesses will get stoned to death, then I have a problem with the definition of the word moderate,
If by "moderate" we mean, Muslims who will do their best to drown their religion in 7 layers of bureaucracy to keep the killing and misogyny down to acceptable levels, then... WHATEVER.
Other Comments by tieInterceptor
47. Comment #90735 by Vinelectric on November 26, 2007 at 8:28 am
FK, Here is the linkhttp://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?Doc=0&Rec=10944
By the way most people hear of the dark texts you refer to from the critics. That Bukhari is a large book that is written in a language almost impenetrable to the modern arabic speaker.
Anyways I can fetch you all kind of mushy ahadiths as well like the one where Muhammad cuts the end of his robe so as not to disturb a cat sleeping on it. The hadiths are hopelessly contradictory but one thing that strikes you is that this man started very millitant (fresh from persecution) then softened up.
I don't know about the poets who were killed but I know that when he sent 70 of the Quran reciters to peacefully invite a neighbouring tribe to Islam all were beheaded but Muhammad didn't retaliate. He wisened up as he grew older (and more powerful).
The reason why most muslims aren't bin Ladens is that the source texts become more mature and less vitriolic generally speaking as one follows the historical timeline.
Sorry , have to go, get back to you later
Other Comments by Vinelectric
48. Comment #90737 by Fanusi Khiyal on November 26, 2007 at 8:28 am
*acidly* No, it doesn't. If this was a site of Objectivists, I would be alot less furious, as Objectivists understand what morality means, and typically place a premium on the forgotten virtue of honour.Bonzai, you still have not addressed the issue that those attempts at 'islamic reform' are either ineffective, or hideous.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
49. Comment #90738 by black wolf on November 26, 2007 at 8:31 am
You can wander straight through Washington with a sign denouncing Jesus, and be safe.
This reminds me of one Jackass episode where one of the guys dressed up in an obiously comic cheesy devil costume and carried a sign with the words 'Get Jesus out of Hollywood' and I think on the reverse side 'I'm really a nice guy'. Walking along a busy inner city street, it took about 2 minutes until a bloke walked up to him and started beating him up without even uttering a word.
Other Comments by black wolf
50. Comment #90739 by Fanusi Khiyal on November 26, 2007 at 8:32 am
Hogwash, Vinelectric. The link you post leads to a website where everything is in gibberish, due to it having a font, presumably Arabic, that isn't displayable on my computer. And the text means what it means. There is no way that crucifiction after having hands and feet hacked off means anything else in the original.You still have not provided a single link to prove this nonsense.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"No doubt soaring cathedrals, stirring music, moving stories and parables, help a bit. But by far the most important variable determining your religion is the accident of birth."
Richard Dawkins
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
Albert Einstein
"...the stereo- type of scientists being scruffy nerds with rows of pens in their top pocket is just about as wicked as racist stereotypes."
Richard Dawkins
"The universe is a strange and wondrous place. The truth is quite odd enough to need no help from pseudoscientific charlatans."
Richard Dawkins
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus…will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
Thomas Jefferson
Other Recommended Reading
God: The Failed Hypothesis
Victor J Stenger
The Demon-Haunted World
Carl Sagan
Before the Dawn
Nicholas Wade
Parenting Beyond Belief
Dale McGowan (Editor)
Evolution
Jean-Baptiste de Panafieu
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #90388 by Duff on November 25, 2007 at 1:43 am
Wow! Thank you Mr. Morris for clearing that up for us. I'm so relieved to learn that muslims don't really hate jews and that it's an exaggeration to think they are misogynists. And to learn that political islam has nothing to do with terrorism. That is really comforting! I'll sleep better tonight.Other Comments by Duff