1. Comment #92105 by papavb on November 29, 2007 at 9:59 pm

Interesting, I would have thought that they were in concurrence, but maybe it's the strident atheist in her yawning at the moderate.

Other Comments by papavb

2. Comment #92129 by Nick Good on November 29, 2007 at 11:14 pm

Ed Husain is talking absolute shiite; the only reason anyone is listening to him, is becasue he no longer wants to kill all kuffar.

The problem IS within Islam itself, as Ayaan said - "the prophet Mohammed as a moral guide". Islam is a religion of the sword, no getting away from it, and it still is. No 'whataboutary' pointing to the historic excesses of Christianity, will change that.

Ed Hussain's argument, is to try to replace malign, openly treasonous ridiculous tosh, with less dangerous tosh. It's still tosh.

Ayaan needs a more practice in public speaking; but I'm sure she'll get there


Other Comments by Nick Good

3. Comment #92147 by eggplantbren on November 30, 2007 at 12:51 am

>>Ed Hussain's argument, is to try to replace malign, openly treasonous ridiculous tosh, with less dangerous tosh. It's still tosh.
<<


That reminds me of one of my favourite quotes from Sam Harris:



"Religious moderation, insofar as it represents an attempt to hold on to what is still serviceable in orthodox religion, closes the door to more sophisticated approaches to spirituality, ethics, and the building of strong communities.

Religious moderates seem to believe that what we need is not radical insight and innovation in these areas but a mere dilution of Iron Age philosophy."

Other Comments by eggplantbren

4. Comment #92171 by mejdrich on November 30, 2007 at 2:19 am

Amazing how strong the taboo against religious criticism, that Ed Hussain was too offended by Ayaan's Atheism to realize all she was saying was that the modernity of Muslims didn't have to be an exclusively religious reformation.

Other Comments by mejdrich

5. Comment #92196 by Fanusi Khiyal on November 30, 2007 at 3:23 am

The same nonsense all over again.

>>THere is no command to kill apostates in the Qur'an<<

No, it's in the Hadith. And Al-Shafi'i, the founder of one of the four schools of Sunni jurisprudence, stated that 2:217 implied the death penalty for apostates.

You can see a piece-by-piece demolition of Ed Hussain's nonsense, here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018947.php#comments

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

6. Comment #92249 by manimal on November 30, 2007 at 6:12 am

I think we should give people like Hussain a chance.I recently read his book ,"Islamist"and it is a very much needed voice from the Muslim youth.
It exposes the evil called Wahabbism which grows like a zombie-virus all around the world.We need people from within Islam to fight the political Islam.

Other Comments by manimal

7. Comment #92264 by Atanu on November 30, 2007 at 6:46 am

I just finished listening to that debate. I must say that Ed Husain is the greatest Islamic apologist around. He is really slick.

Other Comments by Atanu

8. Comment #92371 by nacazo on November 30, 2007 at 11:07 am

where is the transcript?

Other Comments by nacazo

9. Comment #92384 by frankie1958 on November 30, 2007 at 11:53 am

There is nothing strident about Ali. They are both very good speakers and made their points eloquently. However, Husain appears to be desperate for Islam to be seen as a humane religion which all the evidence does not support. We only have to watch the news to see that it isnt so. The jailing of a school teacher in Sudan for allowing her students to name a teddy bear Mohammed and the subsequent demonstrations calling for her execution only illustrate to the rest of the world that Islam is anything but humane and far from reasonable or just. Of all the ridiculous notions out there, Islam is the most dangerous. We do very well to keep an eye on it or risk the freedoms that we in Britain enjoy now.

Other Comments by frankie1958

10. Comment #92443 by Mark Till on November 30, 2007 at 2:00 pm

Ed Husain has interpreted the Koran and other teachings in a peaceful way (at least, now he has) which is to his credit. The trouble is, Osama Bin Laden has interpreted it a different way. The rulers in Saudi Arabia, for example, have interpreted it in a different way. This is what happens when you are not allowed to question the belief that the contents of any given book is the indisputable word of the creator of the universe. As Harris says, you become a hostage to what's inside it, and any interpretation of that. That, I think, is the argument that needs to be made.

Other Comments by Mark Till

11. Comment #92445 by Fanusi Khiyal on November 30, 2007 at 2:06 pm

Mark Till I'm sorry, but Ed Husain has done no such thing. He doesn't explain how the Ninth Sura or any of the other hundred odd calls to violence in the Koran are 'interpreted', let alone what is in the Hadith. This is just dissimulation on his part, or denial, if you will.

I wish it were otherwise.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

12. Comment #92448 by Mark Till on November 30, 2007 at 2:19 pm

No, I accept that. But even if we did concede a peaceful interpretation was possible, I'm saying it still wouldn't solve the problem.

Other Comments by Mark Till

13. Comment #92453 by Bonzai on November 30, 2007 at 2:24 pm

It doesn't matter that we believe Islam is garbage. The point is EH is able to find a way to believe in an Islam that is humane and compatible with modernity. I would have no problem with Islam at all if most Muslims believe like him or Reza Aslan. If you look for a "church of England" equivalent in Islam, this is probably it. People like him should be encouraged and applauded, not slapped down immediately simply because they don't reject Islam altogether. That is not going to get us anywhere. Muslims will not reject Islam en mass, that is simply not going to happen.

It is what the Muslims actually believe that matters, not what we tell them they should believe based on our interpretations of their books Atheists are not helping if whenever a genuine moderate comes along, all we do is to tell Muslims, "no, no, this is not your true religion. To be a real Muslim you have to act like the fuckwits in Saudi Arabia or Sudan" What is that going to achieve? Do you see the absurdity in it?

BTW. It is not mandatory for Muslims to believe in the Hadiths and there are deep disagreements over their authenticity among their scholars so it can be cherry picked and spun around.

Other Comments by Bonzai

14. Comment #92458 by Bonzai on November 30, 2007 at 2:38 pm

Ed Hussain's argument, is to try to replace malign, openly treasonous ridiculous tosh, with less dangerous tosh. It's still tosh.

Yes, that is exactly right but his tosh is a lot better than the tosh coming out of places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.It will be a great achievement if he succeeds in persuading more young Western Muslims to turn to his tosh.

The problem with all or nothing thinking is most likely you'll get nothing simply because of the way probability works.

Other Comments by Bonzai

15. Comment #92461 by Fanusi Khiyal on November 30, 2007 at 2:45 pm

Bonzai there's a problem with the following:

It is what the Muslims actually believe that matters, not what we tell them they should believe based on our interpretations of their books Atheists are not helping if whenever a genuine moderate comes along, all we do is to tell Muslims, "no, no, this is not your true religion. To be a real Muslim you have to act like the fuckwits in Saudi Arabia or Sudan" Do you see the absurdity in it?

The problem is that that jihadists can make that case a hundred times better than we ever will, and they are certainly not shy about calling moderate Muslims back to the path of jihad and Shariah. This is a stated policy of targeted recruitment, and it is effective.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

16. Comment #92464 by Bonzai on November 30, 2007 at 2:52 pm

The problem is that that jihadists can make that case a hundred times better than we ever will, and they are certainly not shy about calling moderate Muslims back to the path of jihad and Shariah.

Maybe, but we still shouldn't be arguing on the jihadists' side as if they need a hand from us.

But think again. EH was a jihadist and if the jihadists are as compelling as you think he shouldn't have left at all.

Other Comments by Bonzai

17. Comment #92537 by mejdrich on November 30, 2007 at 6:03 pm

Bonzai, doesn't Ed Husain illustrate the problems of moderates? His response to Ayaan was, 'there is no room for godlessness in the reformation of islam'. That in and of itself is pretty backward.

In any case, we don't have to fool ourselves about the issue. I'd rather have Ed Husain than Osama Bin Laden, but we have enough experience with gods in the western world to know that the bigotry involved in claiming a special relationship to a deity is a problem, regardless of how modernized the deity.

Other Comments by mejdrich

18. Comment #92538 by Spinoza on November 30, 2007 at 6:09 pm

A good friend of mine (a Palestinian by origin) who grew up in Saudi Arabia will point out that many Muslims do not care about lying to kafirs... they will utter blatant contradictions, and think nothing of it.

... I'm no racist, quite the contrary, but Ed Husain... though I cannot see him, gives off a sense of insincerity about him... that sort of "I know Islam so I can tell you whatever I want about it and you have to believe me."

Don't like it....

Other Comments by Spinoza

19. Comment #92545 by Vinelectric on November 30, 2007 at 6:22 pm

Spinoza It's a shame your friend is that corrupted. Please don't take this to be the norm.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

20. Comment #92546 by Zamboro on November 30, 2007 at 6:31 pm

>>There is no command to kill apostates in the Qur'an<<

Yes there is. Fanusi Khiyal already pointed out that commands to kill apostates exist in the Hadith, but contrary to popular misinformation, they exist in the Qur'an as well;

Sura (16:106) posted:

Any one who, after accepting faith in God, utters Unbelief,- except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from God, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty.

Sura (4:89) posted:

- "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them"

Sura (9:11-12) posted:

- "But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who have knowledge. And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief - Lo! they have no binding oaths - in order that they may desist." This verse is speaking of infidels (ie. "slay the infidels wherever you find them" 9:5) who obviously become Muslims to escape the sword, but the Hadith make no distinction of how a Muslim came to be a Muslim. Apostasy is always punished by death.

Other Comments by Zamboro

21. Comment #92550 by Vinelectric on November 30, 2007 at 6:38 pm

For once I agree with Fanusi.

Technically speaking that verse or indeed any other verse doesn't say anything about killing apostates. What it does say is that they will burn in hell forever. Worse still their good deeds will not avail them.

That is immoral.

Ayaan is right in principle but because of the distrust and hostility of the Middle Eastern people towards the West, Ed Husain is more likely to find an audience than Ayaan. His method may be more effective on the long term.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

22. Comment #92553 by Vinelectric on November 30, 2007 at 6:42 pm

Zamboro

Remember that the "heads of disbelief" in those verses refers specifically to the Meccan groups who have openly delcared war against Muhammad even at his early stages when he was only a social reformer calling for the emancipation of slaves and helping the needy.


As I say, what is the use of arguing the Quran does not condone killing apostates in general if it confirms that god will grill them forever anyway! If you're a believer this comes across as even worse than murder!

Other Comments by Vinelectric

23. Comment #92555 by Bonzai on November 30, 2007 at 6:46 pm

We keep asking "where are the Muslim moderates?" Here you have a genuine moderate and atheists show up to attack him by channeling the Wahabis (see Zamboro above and FK).I find this very bizarre.

I know, AHA's message is much more appealing to atheists but Muslims don't listen to her! Or, to put it differently, whatever weak influence you think moderates like EH would have on Muslims, AHA is going to have even less.

Logically, we should be supporting and encouraging genuine reformers like EH, unless, the goal is an all out war. In that case it would be a logical thing to slap him down with Wahabist rhetorics.

Other Comments by Bonzai

24. Comment #92559 by Janus on November 30, 2007 at 7:11 pm

There you go again, Bonzai, telling those who criticize nonsense to shut up. Why should we shut up? So we don't discourage moderate believers in their efforts to convert their fundy brethren?

When do you think we can stop censoring ourselves, then? How long do we have to give a free pass to lies and falsehoods if they happen to be mostly harmless? When all fundamentalists have become moderates, perhaps? How long do you think that will take?


On another note, the funny thing is, the "support" and "encouragement" you want us to give to reformers like EH is more likely to hinder his efforts than to help him. How do you think Muslim fundies will react if they see that Muslim reformists, whom they practically consider to be apostates already, have the unfaltering support of those dreaded, immoral atheists?

Other Comments by Janus

25. Comment #92560 by Vinelectric on November 30, 2007 at 7:12 pm

Just to clarify and add to the Islam versus Kuffar/apostates relations debate:

Quran 60:8


Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

26. Comment #92562 by Vinelectric on November 30, 2007 at 7:15 pm

Janus you simply need a approach that is going to work. The more you understand the Middle Eastern mindset the more you'll come to know where Bonzai is coming from.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

27. Comment #92566 by Zamboro on November 30, 2007 at 7:20 pm

Bonzai: "We keep asking "where are the Muslim moderates?" Here you have a genuine moderate and atheists show up to attack him by channeling the Wahabis (see Zamboro above and FK)"

Huh? I quoted directly from the Qur'an. I don't know how that's "channeling Wahabists".

If she's a moderate, good for her. But both you and she ought to recognize that it speaks volumes about the value of religion when the more diluted and impotent it becomes, the safer we all are.



Other Comments by Zamboro

28. Comment #92567 by Janus on November 30, 2007 at 7:23 pm

Vinelectric:

What approach are you talking about?

As Bonzai said, Muslim fundies aren't going to be convinced of anything by atheists, so there's nothing I can do on that front.

"Encouraging" Muslim moderates? By doing what?
By pretending that the Quran and the Hadith are the basis of an ethical, peaceful religion? That what is written in them is perfectly compatible with modern society?
Or simply by being "supportive" of moderates? And how exactly is that going to help them? As I said, atheists showing unfaltering support for their cause won't help them, just the opposite.

Other Comments by Janus

29. Comment #92570 by Vinelectric on November 30, 2007 at 7:31 pm

Janus

The same approach that drove myself, Ed Husain and Ayaan to rethink. Discussion and public debate. As Ed Husain points out, that seems to work even within Islam itself. Common sense. If those who have influenced him to change his course had been more successful we may have been living in a world where no one but the muslims cares what Islam is.

Your fired up antagonism is most unwelcome.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

30. Comment #92571 by Bonzai on November 30, 2007 at 7:33 pm

Janus,

There you go again, Bonzai, telling those who criticize nonsense to shut up. Why should we shut up? So we don't discourage moderate believers in their efforts to convert their fundy brethren?

Oh, come now. As if you are really going to shut up because of what I say. This is an open forum, we criticize each other's ideas all the time. If my criticism of your approach is to tell you to "shut up", the same can be said of your criticism of mine. So grow up and stop acting like a cry baby.

On another note, the funny thing is, the "support" and "encouragement" you want us to give to reformers like EH is more likely to hinder his efforts than to help him. How do you think Muslim fundies will react if they see that Muslim reformists, whom they practically consider to be apostates already, have the unfaltering support of those dreaded, immoral atheists

So then why are you supporting AHA? Wouldn't the same logic apply?

Even without supporting the moderates, what is the rationale of trying to shoot them down by effectively arguing on the side of the Wahabis ? Can you please explain that logic to me?

Other Comments by Bonzai

31. Comment #92573 by Zamboro on November 30, 2007 at 7:36 pm

Vinelectric: "Your fired up antagonism is most unwelcome."

I do not find his language antagonistic, but rather appropriately critical. Is it unwelcome? To you perhaps, you certainly don't speak for me.

Other Comments by Zamboro

32. Comment #92574 by Janus on November 30, 2007 at 7:36 pm

Vinelectric:

You're contradicting yourself, most likely because you're aware at some level that telling us what you really think would make you look like an idiot.


Bonzai, whom you defended, doesn't want "discussion and public debate". Discussion and public debate is precisely what Fanusi Khiyal and Zamboro were engaging in until Bonzai told them to shut up.

I want an open debate, Bonzai wants a restricted one.

Other Comments by Janus

33. Comment #92575 by Zamboro on November 30, 2007 at 7:40 pm

Bonzai: "Even without supporting the moderates, what is the rationale of trying to shoot them down by effectively arguing on the side of the Wahabis ? Can you please explain that logic to me?"

This approach is meant to demonstrate that Islam, when sincerely observed, entails violent and regressive behavior. There's a reason fundamentalist Muslims behave insanely; it's because the fundamentals of Islam are insane.

Other Comments by Zamboro

34. Comment #92576 by Vinelectric on November 30, 2007 at 7:40 pm

Zamboro

You may not have encountered me before but I've only renounced the faith recently and still have strong ties with the Muslim community.

It is from the perspective of that community (that I care about and hope will change for the better) that I placed my remarks. Generally speaking you won't win the hearts of any group of people by being readily offensive.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

35. Comment #92577 by Bonzai on November 30, 2007 at 7:41 pm

Discussion and public debate is precisely what Fanusi Khiyal and Zamboro were engaging in until Bonzai told them to shut up.

Yeah, my question is why do they want an "open debate" in which they basically argue as Muslim fundis

I don't get it and I am only asking for an explanation.

Other Comments by Bonzai

36. Comment #92578 by Vinelectric on November 30, 2007 at 7:43 pm

See, Zamboro

Tell me what is the use of saying things like that?

Janus
..most likely because you're aware at some level that telling us what you really think would make you look like an idiot.

Too sleepy, Good night..

Other Comments by Vinelectric

37. Comment #92579 by Zamboro on November 30, 2007 at 7:44 pm

Vinelectric: "Generally speaking you won't win the hearts of any group of people by being readily offensive."

More flies with honey than vinegar, sure. But there's a point past which you've stopped simply being polite and you've begun to humor what you know to be falsehoods in order to avoid giving offense.

I would be happy to protect the free exercise of Islam within the United States. I would not however pretend that the actual tenets of Islam as laid out by the Qur'an and Hadith are ethical or progressive by modern standards, even if saying otherwise might offend a great many people.

I will bend over backwards to be friendly and accomodating in most senses, but I will not compromise where intellectual honesty is concerned.

Other Comments by Zamboro

38. Comment #92583 by Bonzai on November 30, 2007 at 7:58 pm

Zamboro,

This approach is meant to demonstrate that Islam, when sincerely observed, entails violent and regressive behavior. There's a reason fundamentalist Muslims behave insanely; it's because the fundamentals of Islam are insane.

You can do the same 'demonstration' with the bible. But most Jews and Christians do move beyond that. So I am not really seeing the point of your exercise.

A religion is what its believers actually believe, not what you think they should believe based on your reading of their holy books.

The mental gymnastics they have to go through may appear to be quite irrational to you and me, but why do you expect them to be rational in their interpretations while atheists have been saying all along that religion is irrational to begin with? Don't you find it a bit strange to expect consistency in an irrational enterprise?

Besides, I don't know the intricacies of Arabic language and I don't presume you do. I don't know how much wiggle room you have with the Quranic verses. But apparently quite a bit if you have seen theological debates among Muslims. I am not sure whether it makes any sense for you or I to put on a Wahabi hat to play the devil's advocate (or Allah's advocate?) It would be just as ludicrous as some Christian fundis thinking that Jesus spoke King James English.

Other Comments by Bonzai

39. Comment #92585 by Janus on November 30, 2007 at 8:07 pm

Bonzai:

Oh, come now. As if you are really going to shut up because of what I say. This is an open forum, we criticize each other's ideas all the time. If my criticism of your approach is to tell you to "shut up", the same can be said of your criticism of mine. So grow up and stop acting like a cry baby.

Needless to say your logic is flawed. That I'm not going to shut up doesn't excuse your telling me to do so.

And no, I'm not trying to silence you. As I said in the Sloan vs Anger thread, that's the difference between you and me. I'm fine with you using whatever approach, whatever tactic you like; I truly am in favor of a completely open, completely free discussion and debate. But you're not, you think my "camp"'s way of doing things may actually be harmful, and so you try to silence us, by trying to create the impression that we're irrational or dogmatic, among other things.

So then why are you supporting AHA? Wouldn't the same logic apply?

I support AHA because she does more than try to convince Muslims to reform, she also tries to convince liberals that multiculturalism, tolerance of intolerance, etc are suicidal.

Also, she speaks the truth, and that is worthy of admiration in and of itself.

Even without supporting the moderates, what is the rationale of trying to shoot them down by effectively arguing on the side of the Wahabis ? Can you please explain that logic to me?

No one is arguing the side of the Wahabis. The Wahabis say the Quran and the Hadith are inspired by Allah. We say it isn't. The moderates say that these sacred texts are only partly inspired, or were fully inspired by Allah but should be interpreted in a different way. We say that's false too, and while we're at it we point that their "interpretation" is so blatantly incoherent it's laughable.

Of course, if someone is going to believe nonsense, I'd rather he believed nice civilized nonsense rather than barbaric, violent nonsense. But the problem is that those who believe nice civilized nonsense aren't willing to admit that what they believe is nonsense. They have to believe that they are right in their interpretation. After all, the Quran and the Hadith seem to be bad, but Allah is Good, therefore any interpretation of the Quran and Hadith that makes them look bad must be wrong. Consequently, anyone who says that the atrocities and barbarism committed by Muslims are a consequence of Islam must also be wrong. Islam is blameless, must be blameless, or the moderates' entire belief system would come crashing down. If they believed otherwise, they wouldn't be Muslims.

And it just so happens that this delusion of Muslim moderates fits perfectly with the multiculturalism, excessive tolerance, and dogma that religion is never the cause of evil that most liberals adhere to in the Western world. From this comes Europe's current mentality which consists of endlessly kowtowing to Islam, making special accommodations, denying that some of its citizens are victims of the worst kind of childhood indoctrination, failing to defend freedom of speech, etc etc etc.

So, "shooting down" Muslim moderates is a good idea for two reasons:
1) Their beliefs are false, and speaking the truth is almost always a good idea.
2) It's necessary to get rid of the mentality that is keeping the Western world from defending its most precious values.

Other Comments by Janus

40. Comment #92586 by Janus on November 30, 2007 at 8:12 pm

Vinelectric:

Your fired up antagonism is most unwelcome.

Tell me what is the use of saying things like that?


Of course I know what the use is, it's yet another attempt to portray me and people who share my opinion as strident, dogmatic, and antagonistic, so as to ostracize us and get us to shut up.

This kind of dishonest tactic is a hundred times more reprehensible than any rudeness.

Other Comments by Janus

41. Comment #92593 by Bonzai on November 30, 2007 at 9:10 pm

Janus,

I'm fine with you using whatever approach, whatever tactic you like; I truly am in favor of a completely open, completely free to discussion and debate. But you're not, you think my "camp"'s way of doing things may actually be harmful, and so you try to silence us, by trying to create the impression that we're irrational or dogmatic, among other things.

Oh really? How magnanimous of "your camp".

As I wrote in the DSW thread it is "your camp" that wouldn't tolerate any dissent from the party line. Anyone who is not ultra militant would be branded an "appeaser", "apologist" or some kind of 5th columnist who is "sucking up to religion". The opening attack of DSW, along with the mean spirited and illiterate posts in the Paul Davis thread, were what prompted my first shot.

I am sure the RRS tactic is a manifestation of openness and tolerance in your book, as is the treatment Steve99 received in PZ's site for asking a simple question.

No one is arguing the side of the Wahabis. The Wahabis say the Quran and the Hadith are inspired by Allah. We say it isn't. The moderates say that these sacred texts are only partly inspired, or were fully inspired by Allah but should be interpreted in a different way. We say that's false too, and while we're at it we point that their "interpretation" is so blatantly incoherent it's laughable.

I didn't say you truly agree with the Wahabis, that would be insane. I said you people argue like the Wahabis, effectively using their arguments in an effort to shoot down the moderates.

It may be amusing to you, but it is a fair question to ask what do you hope to achieve with that kind of strategy. I wasn't telling you to "shut up". On the contrary,I gave you the floor to provide an explanation.

But the problem is that those who believe nice civilized nonsense aren't willing to admit that what they believe is nonsense. They have to believe that they are right in their interpretation. After all, Allah is good, but the Quran and the Hadith seem to be bad, therefore any interpretation of the Quran and Hadith that makes them look bad must be wrong. Consequently, anyone who says that the atrocities and barbarism committed by Muslims are a consequence of Islam must also be wrong. Islam is blameless, must be blameless, or the moderates' entire belief system would come crashing down. If they believed otherwise, they wouldn't be Muslims.

So how is that different from moderate Jews and Christians?

You are saying, essentially that you hope the Wahabis win just to prove that you're right about the intrinsic evilness of Islam. Now I can't go along with that. It is really perverted.

I know you said you preferred the moderates to the fundis in the previous paragraph, but that sounded almost like a window dressing disclaimer in the context of the rest of your post.

And it just so happens that this delusion of Muslim moderates fits perfectly with the multiculturalism, excessive tolerance, and dogma that religion is never the cause of evil that most liberals adhere to in the Western world. From this comes Europe's current mentality which consists of endlessly kowtowing to Islam, making special accommodations, denying that some of its citizens are victims of the worst kind of childhood indoctrination, failing to defend freedom of speech, etc etc etc.

Thank you for the anti-liberal rant. So what is your solution?

So, "shooting down" Muslim moderates is a good idea for two reasons:
1) Their beliefs are false, and speaking the truth is almost always a good idea.
2) It's necessary to get rid of the mentality that is keeping the Western world from defending its most precious values.

So how are you going to achieve 2)? Do you think all Muslims would listen to AHA and renounce their religion?

I support AHA because she does more than try to convince Muslims to reform, she also tries to convince liberals that multiculturalism, tolerance of intolerance, etc are suicidal.

What makes you think Muslims actually listen to her, an open apostate?

I can't help but notice an inconsistency here. According to you people Muslims are supposed to be so herd like that they would automatically listen to the Wahabis and reject the moderates because the Wahabis give them definite answers from the book. On the other hand they would listen to AHA who tells them to throw the book away.

Now I am having some problems wrapping my head around this. Please explain (see, I am not trying to shut you up, I give you the chance to explain yourself)

You haven't answered my question: if you think we would hurt the moderates in the eyes of Muslims by supporting them why should we support AHA? Presumably you want her to actually have an impact on the demographic that counts, not just as a statue at atheist conferences for you guys to adore.

Other Comments by Bonzai

42. Comment #92598 by Russell Blackford on November 30, 2007 at 9:48 pm

In my opinion, the best stance to take is that the jury is still out on whether Islam can find the internal resources to embrace religious toleration, the rule of secular law, freedom of speech, the Millian harm principle and the distinction between "sin" and crime, equality of the sexes, and so on. A lot of Christians have embraced those things to an extent that seemed inconceivable, even forty years ago. Of course, a lot haven't. It's not at all obvious to me that Islam can't find the resources ... but it is obvious to me that very few Muslims, as a proportion of the total number in the world, have done so as yet.

What we really need right now is for the supposedly liberal Muslims like Ed Husain and Waleed Aly to say that they embrace all those things wholeheartedly. If they do so, I don't think it helps to tell them that there are no resources in Islam for it to be possible.

All we can do is tell them why we are concerned about Islam's record and about whether it is compatible with those values. We can tell them why our wariness about Islam is rational and is not "Islamophobia" (which would be an irrational fear of Islam). We can put the pressure on them to affirm all the important secular values.

But if they actually do so (to greater or lesser extent) as individuals, it's no use us telling them that Islam doesn't "really" allow it - citing passages in the Koran, or the hadith, or whatever, at them. Some of the things that Husain is saying in this debate are very welcome.

The secular values that I mentioned are supposed to be values that people with many worldviews can embrace as political values. By all means let's put the heat on Muslims (and Catholics, etc.) to do so, but I see no utility in arguing that their traditions preclude them ever embracing secular political values. We can't know in advance what scope there is for future reinterpretation of those religious traditions.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

43. Comment #92602 by Janus on November 30, 2007 at 10:19 pm

Oh really? How magnanimous of "your camp".

As I wrote in the DSW thread it is "your camp" that wouldn't tolerate any dissent from the party line. Anyone who is not ultra militant would be branded an "appeaser", "apologist" or some kind of 5th columnist who is "sucking up to religion". The opening attack of DSW, along with the mean spirited and illiterate posts in the Paul Davies thread, were what prompted my first shot.

Yes, I know you want to portray us that way, but you're wrong. The attacks on DSW and Davies were perfectly warranted. The half dozen scientists who posted replies to Davies' article on Edge were pretty much in full agreement with our criticisms of him, you know. Not that I'm arguing from authority, but it should make you rethink your belief that we're oh so dogmatic.

I didn't say you truly agree with the Wahabis, that would be insane. I said you people argue like the Wahabis, effectively using their arguments in an effort to shoot down the moderates.

It's not our fault the Wahabis are logically coherent given their premises, is it?

The point that you seem to be ignoring is that we don't really care about criticizing the moderates' incoherent interpretations. We aren't telling them, "No no, you're wrong, that's not the right interpretation, THIS is!" in reaction to their beliefs themselves. We don't want to convince them that the correct interpretation is a literal one. Our criticism is solely a reaction to the moderate dogma that Islam is not the cause of the countless forms of barbarism Muslims are responsible for. We tell them, "Look, Muslims believe that the Quran was inspired by Allah, right? Look there, it tells Muslims to cut off the hands of thieves! Isn't it obvious that Islam is the motivation for this act of barbarism?" And the moderates will do everything to deny it, will come up with the most incredibly tortuous "interpretations" anyone could ever imagine.

That is when we use what might look like Wahabist arguments. But of course, they're not really their arguments, they're just common sense.

We don't care what the right interpretation is. We just won't allow moderates to get away with their ludicrous apologies for Islam. It just so happens that the chosen tactic of moderates is to claim that any evil that seems to be caused by Islam is due to a corruption or a misinterpretation of the Quran or Hadith.

So how is that different from moderate Jews and Christians?

It isn't different. Jews and Christians also like to pretend that their religions aren't responsible for any evil act committed by Jews and Christians, and they do it the same way that Muslims do, by claiming that their "figurative" interpretation is the right one and the fundamentalists are wrong, even if they seldom say it so directly.

You are saying, essentially that you hope the Wahabis win just to prove that you're right about the intrinsic evilness of Islam. Now I can't go along with that. It is really perverted.

I know you said you preferred the moderates to the fundis in the previous paragraph, but that sounded almost like a window dressing disclaimer in the context of the rest of your post.

I am right about the intrinsic barbarism of Islam, I don't need any more proof. :)

What I want is for the secular people of the world to accept this as well. It's imperative that we recognize the root of the problem if we're going to do something about it. And in order to do that I have to point out that the lies promoted by Muslim moderates (and some fundies), such as "Islam is a religion of peace" are just that, lies.

Thank you for the anti-liberal rant. So what is your solution?

Don't grant any more rights to Muslims than we would grant to, say, people who believe in crystal healing. Stop letting Muslims into our countries for a while and work very hard at integrating those who already live here. Never bend the knee when faced with intimidation from Muslims who want to curtail our freedom of speech because they're "offended", and in fact, force them to accept our right to mock Islam (for example, the famous Mohammed cartoons should have been published in every newspaper in the Western world after the first threats by Muslims). Forbid the kind of religious indoctrination of children that goes on in Britain at the moment. Raise people's consciousness about the barbarism of Islam, and about the fact that moderates are nicer people than fundies not because they have the right interpretation, but because they ignore large chunks of their sacred texts.

By the way, I'm a liberal myself, albeit an atypical one.

So how are you going to achieve 2)?

By making secular people aware that multiculturalism, as it is currently practiced, is pure crap. By make people realize that we shouldn't tolerate barbarism just because it's part of a foreign culture or religion. By getting rid of the dogma that religions never cause people to do evil things.

I can't help but notice an inconsistency here. According to you people Muslims are supposed to be so herd like that they would automatically listen to the Wahabis and reject the moderates because the Wahabis give them definite answers from the book. On the other hand they would listen to AHA who tells them to throw the book away.

Uh, I've asserted neither of those things. Hell, I don't even care if those things are true or false.

You haven't answered my question: if you think we would hurt the moderates in the eyes of Muslims by supporting them why should we support AHA?

Um, I have answered your question:

"I support AHA because she does more than try to convince Muslims to reform, she also tries to convince liberals that multiculturalism, tolerance of intolerance, etc are suicidal.

Also, she speaks the truth, and that is worthy of admiration in and of itself."

Ali addresses herself to secular people too (and to religious people who are so moderate that they might as well be secular). As I've explained, this isn't preaching to the choir, because most of us are politically correct multiculturalists.

Other Comments by Janus

44. Comment #92610 by Fanusi Khiyal on November 30, 2007 at 11:58 pm

Oh Lord, I go to bed for an evening and all hell breaks loose on this thread.

Bonzai I'll just continue where I left off.

Maybe, but we still shouldn't be arguing on the jihadists' side as if they need a hand from us.

I'm not. But I just don't think that arguing for 'moderate Islam' is going to work, and is in fact counterproductive. I've already pointed out that the jihadis can make their case a hundred times better. And notice that Ed Hussain wasn't convinced by any Western pleading but by his own reinterpretations.

Pushing for 'moderate Islam' just plays right into the hands of the jihadis, who say "Moderate Islam is just a perversion the Westerners want you to accept!"

And it is worth remembering how we got 'moderate Christianity'. If you read Peter Gay's History of the Enlightenment, it wasn't done by pleading for moderation. It was through an all out assault on its foundations, causing the Christians to give ground, slowly but steadily.

What I want is for the secular people of the world to accept this as well. It's imperative that we recognize the root of the problem if we're going to do something about it. And in order to do that I have to point out that the lies promoted by Muslim moderates (and some fundies), such as "Islam is a religion of peace" are just that, lies.

And that is the other side of the problem. Bush, Blair - not to mention many of the talking heads in the media - have done enormous damage by spreding this idea that Islam is a religion of peace. As Ayaan has said, after 9/11 they should have said it is not a religion of peace, they should have said what it is, and said that we are going to face it.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

45. Comment #92613 by Bonzai on December 1, 2007 at 12:13 am

Janus,

The attacks on DSW and Davies were perfectly warranted

Of course you think that they were warranted. From what I can tell you think anyone who doesn't belong to "your camp" is fair game for personal attacks, I never argue otherwise. (not that I am accusing you of doing the attack yourself)

The half dozen scientists who posted replies to Davies' article on Edge were pretty much in full agreement with our criticisms of him

Many of the posts against Davies on that thread were not even "criticism". They were just personal attacks.

You know what is the darnest thing? Many of these authors obviously either didn't read his article at all or had serious comprehension problems. One has to be quite out to lunch to say that Davies "apologized for faith" in that article.

It is one thing to disagree with Davies, but to go on full attack mode while evidently not even knowing what he actually wrote is quite something else. Some fine rationalists they are.

Being a scientist doesn't mean one must be fair minded or a careful reader. Some of the more knee jerk responses in the edge basically missed his point (PZ's for example). On the other hand, the two cosmologists, Sean Carroll and Lee Smolin, were considerably more measured in their comments. Lee's comment was particular nuanced and careful. They were nothing like the hysterical posts on the thread that you consider "criticism", let alone "in full agreement" with them.

It's not our fault the Wahabis are logically coherent given their premises, is it?

Interesting that you think the Quran is logically consistent, that would make Islam quite unique among religions. I am sure Islamic chauvinists would like that.

But seriously, since when do religious beliefs have to be consistent? We know it is a fact that all religious believers cherry pick and play the interpretation game, why shouldn't the Muslims?

The point that you seem to be ignoring is that we don't really care about criticizing the moderates' incoherent interpretations. We aren't telling them, "No no, you're wrong, that's not the right interpretation, THIS is!" in reaction to their beliefs themselves. We don't want to convince them that the correct interpretation is a literal one.

But that is exactly what you are doing, whether you intend it makes no difference.

We don't care what the right interpretation is. We just won't allow moderates to get away with their ludicrous apologies for Islam. It just so happens that the chosen tactic of moderates is to claim that any evil that seems to be caused by Islam is due to a corruption or a misinterpretation of the Quran or Hadith.

I would prefer apologies to unapologetic threats. I think most sensible people would agree.

Undermining the moderates by arguing that the fundis represent true Islam, you empower the fundis, there is no two ways about it. It wouldn't be a problem if the fundis are a minority and the Muslims are already secular and well integrated like the Christians, but this is singularly counter productive when it is the other way around. This is particularly irresponsible for you to argue like that because I suspect your estimation of the number of fundis is much higher than mine and you think the Muslim community is much more monolithic and close than I do.

If that is what you really want, I think it would be "just common sense" to advise you to kindly "shut up".

What I want is for the secular people of the world to accept this as well. It's imperative that we recognize the root of the problem if we're going to do something about it. And in order to do that I have to point out that the lies promoted by Muslim moderates (and some fundies), such as "Islam is a religion of peace" are just that, lies.

What then? Nuke the Muslim world?

Stop letting Muslims into our countries for a while and work very hard at integrating those who already live here

So how do you integrate them by telling them the Wahabis represent true Islam? The reality is you can't make people give up their religion short of turning to fascism. That is why the moderate, integrated Muslims such as EH can play a key role.

Uh, I've asserted neither of those things. Hell, I don't even care if those things are true or false.

I know you don't care. That's why your approach is uninformed and dangerous.

"I support AHA because she does more than try to convince Muslims to reform, she also tries to convince liberals that multiculturalism, tolerance of intolerance, etc are suicidal.

So essentially you don't care whether her message get through to Muslims. That's fair enough, but the key missing part of your thinking is that it is the Muslims you want integrate.

Other Comments by Bonzai

46. Comment #92615 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 1, 2007 at 12:30 am

Bonzai, I'd recommend you consider the approach you are trying to counter here a form of trolling. In paticular Fanusi does not discuss in good faith. He is disingenous, and possibly dangerous as I have posted before, there is plenty of evidence of this on the web. His faux hand wringing and agonising is particularly repellent.

http://www.nicedoggie.net/2006/?page_id=1536&stats_author=Fanusi+Khiyal

There is something in the history there which fuels the absolute certainity and rage. Nonetheless, I just don't see the point of engaging someone so duplicitous.

Janus, I'd extend the benefit of the doubt to, but you're locked into an unproductive quarrel with him now.

I suspect that every time the muslim world does something as stupid as the "whipped for rape" and "death to the teddy bear infidel" people become so angry that it radicalises their position on Islam and a range of related subjects, like religion.

I don't know what to do about that except let each incident blow over. It's not as if injustice isn't rampant in these places every day!!!! I guess just not to one of "our" chubby faced teachers out doing a good deed, or teenage girls.

I genuinely thought that atheists as a group would be less prone to this collective urge which is the curse of our species. Yet, when they go group, they go big. Just like every other "not quite a chimp" on the planet, including me. Disappointing.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

47. Comment #92617 by Fanusi Khiyal on December 1, 2007 at 12:39 am

Oh jesus, this again. Brian your twisted obsession with myself is beginning to become a little worrying. And, n.b. it is worth noting, as I have pointed out before, that site is a place for rants, which becomes a necessity when you have seen one too many of the atrocities committed by Islam.

The only one being duplicitous here is you, brian , who has never managed to come up with a single argument against mine, nor a single fact that wasn't hogwash. As now, you ignore my criticism of the idea that 'moderate Islam' is going to save our collective bacon.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

48. Comment #92618 by steve99 on December 1, 2007 at 12:40 am

The attacks on DSW and Davies were perfectly warranted. The half dozen scientists who posted replies to Davies' article on Edge were pretty much in full agreement with our criticisms of him, you know. Not that I'm arguing from authority,

Don't worry if you are - I often do :)

However, I don't think that most of the attacks were warranted at all. I believe there was some problematic language in both articles, but I have been concerned that there was a considerable 'knee-jerk' reaction simply to a few phrases and not to the general message of either article.

For example, with Davies, I though the response was in many cases astonishingly off-base. Davies was putting forward the view that science should make fewer assumptions, should try and move away from the belief in eternal laws.

And how was he attacked? Well, the majority of criticism was that 'we don't have faith in laws, we find them out by trial and error'. Which was not the point at all - Davies was not criticising how laws were discovered, but the belief that laws, once found, are some kind of eternal and universal (or in some cases, meta-universal) truth. That was the gentler criticism. But others went to far as to claim he 'was encouraging faith', and 'being an apologist for religion'. It was truly bizarre, when that was precisely the opposite of the message of his article.

Along with my recent experience on another site, I am afraid that this does make me think that there might be some increasingly strident atheist dogmatic movement. Step out of line, by using the word 'faith' in perhaps the 'wrong' context (Davies), or by not considering religion as harmful in all contexts (DSW), or by any suggestion that the RRS or Pat Condell may be talking things too far, and you are considered in some quarters as a 'traitor to the cause', and obviously a 'religious sympathizer'.

We should be better than that.

Other Comments by steve99

49. Comment #92619 by Fanusi Khiyal on December 1, 2007 at 12:42 am

What then? Nuke the Muslim world?

I have already explained my views elsewhere, but mainly we should isolate Islam and push for apostasy by attacking the whole rotten structure at every point.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

50. Comment #92635 by keith on December 1, 2007 at 2:24 am

Bonzai ,

Yeah, my question is why do they want an "open debate" in which they basically argue as Muslim fundis

Please tell me in what way this comment is different from the religious apologists who claim that Richard Dawkins argues like a Fundamentalist?

RD argues the atheist viewpoint consistently and for this he is called a Fundamentalist. Janus, Fanusi and Zamboro argue the atheist viewpoint consistently and you say they are arguing "as [I think you mean 'like'] Muslim Fundis". Where is the difference between what I consider to be a false accusation of RDs standpoint by religious apologists and what you are doing here? Or do you agree with RDs critics that he is indeed a Fundamentalist?

Vinelectric ,

Zamboro posted the following quote:

"They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them".

In your post immediately after this, you wrote (my italics):

Technically speaking that verse [this doesn't refer to the above quote] or indeed any other verse doesn't say anything about killing apostates.

To my mind this verse does indeed say something about killing apostates. Please put my mind at rest and tell me it doesn't.

Other Comments by keith