Print
Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other
by NYTimes.com
Thanks to Logicel for the link.
Reposted from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/weekinreview/27gewen.html
Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Irshad Manji are two of the most prominent and outspoken critics of what they and others see as "mainstream Islam." Brilliant, dynamic women the overused word "charismatic" is not inappropriate for either one they have each rebelled against a Muslim upbringing to become public figures with large and devoted followings. Both are successful authors: Ms. Hirsi Ali's autobiography, "Infidel," was a New York Times best seller; Ms. Manji's combination memoir-polemic, "The Trouble With Islam Today," has been published in almost 30 countries. They are firm and unyielding in their support for the West, feminism, reason, freedom and they have paid a price: both have been targets of death threats and have required protection; in Ms. Hirsi Ali's case, around-the-clock protection.
Yet though they are allies on one level, their approaches to Islam are strikingly different, with one working outside the religion and one within. Neither one can be considered a spokeswoman for a significant Muslim constituency in the Middle East. (Indeed, their most sympathetic audiences are probably Western.) But their differences have implications for all the big issues the West grapples with in considering the Muslim world. How much popular support do terrorists have? Is a secular Middle East possible, and what's the best way to promote it? Is Islam itself an enemy of the West?
Ms. Hirsi Ali is an avowed atheist whose criticisms can be seen as attacks not only on radical Islamism but on the religion of Islam over all. George W. Bush was wrong, she says, when he announced that Islam was being held hostage by a terrorist minority: "Islam is being held hostage by itself." About the 9/11 attacks, she declared: "This is Islam," and "not just Islam, this was the core of Islam." The attacks forced her to decide "which side was I on?" she writes in "Infidel." And further, "Where did I stand on Islam?" Her book is the story of how she chose the West.
For Ms. Manji, there has been no such either-or choice. She is a practicing Muslim who though she can be as caustic about her coreligionists as Ms. Hirsi Ali seeks to change her faith from within. As founder and director of the Moral Courage Project at New York University, she assists other maverick writers and scholars who dissent within their communities. "What I want," Ms. Manji has said, "is an Islamic Reformation," and in contrast to Ms. Hirsi Ali, she adds, there is "no need to choose between Islam and the West."
Christopher Hitchens, who wrote the foreword to the paperback edition of "Infidel," says the positions of the two women "can't possibly be reconciled."
Both Ms. Hirsi Ali and Ms. Manji come from non-Arab Muslim backgrounds. By itself, this may be one reason for their opposition to Islamic orthodoxy, which they see as inherently Arab, or Arab-dominated. Ms. Hirsi Ali was born in 1969 in Somalia, and lived in Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia and Kenya before fleeing to the Netherlands when she was 22 to avoid an arranged marriage. When her family was in Saudi Arabia, she remembers her father's complaining that the Saudis had perverted the true Islam. "He hated Saudi judges and Saudi law," she writes. "He thought it was all barbaric, all Arab desert culture."
Ms. Manji was born in 1968 in Uganda, but her family, part Egyptian and part Indian, moved to Canada when she was 4 to escape Idi Amin. She is even more insistent than Ms. Hirsi Ali in drawing a distinction between Islam and Arab tribal culture, its "dictatorship from the desert." Who elected the Saudi monarch "to be Islam's steward?" she asks. "We're not in the Saudi sand dunes anymore."
Ms. Manji has a broader and more flexible idea than Ms. Hirsi Ali of what Islam is and can be. Ms. Hirsi Ali says, "Saudi Arabia is the source of Islam and its quintessence." Ms. Manji, on the other hand, is convinced that her religion can escape what she sees as its Arab domination. "We need a take-no-prisoners debate about Saudi Arabia, a cauldron of duplicity."
The writer Paul Berman suggests that the difference between them may be due to the fact that Ms. Manji was raised in the warm, liberal, welcoming precincts of British Columbia, where religion could be a comfort rather than a burden, where pluralism was an assumption, a fact of life. (Ms. Manji was kicked out of her Islamic religious school for asking too many questions, but before that she had been cared for at a Baptist church, and at age 8 even won its Most Promising Christian of the Year award.) Ms. Hirsi Ali's early years, by contrast, consisted of dictatorship, war, patriarchy, genital cutting, confinement and beatings so severe that she once ended up in a hospital with a fractured skull. Ms. Manji offers her own support for Mr. Berman's conjecture: "Had I grown up in a Muslim country, I'd probably be an atheist in my heart."
No element more thoroughly informs the work of both women than feminism; its influence on their thinking can hardly be overstated, and in this sense they might be considered crown jewels in the history of the modern women's movement. Yet because they are risking their lives for their beliefs constantly, every day they may have more in common with antitotalitarian dissidents like Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn than with Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan. As feminists, Ms. Hirsi Ali and Ms. Manji are demanding more than equality; they are very self-consciously challenging the foundations of an entire way of life.
"The most important explanation for the mental and material backlog we Muslims find ourselves in," Ms. Hirsi Ali has said, "should probably be sought in the sexual morality that we were force-fed from birth." Her first book, a collection of essays, was entitled "The Caged Virgin: An Emancipation Proclamation for Women and Islam." In the Netherlands, she devoted herself to helping Muslim women, in her words, "develop the vocabulary of resistance," and she continues the fight from the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, where she is a resident fellow.
Ms. Manji, too, sees feminism as the linchpin for Islamic reform. "Empowering women," she says, "is the way to awaken the Muslim world." But she is not only a committed feminist (bad enough in the eyes of Muslim conservatives). She is also an open lesbian a rebel twice over. The difference between them "really is between those outside of a faith and those still within it," says Ms. Manji's friend the writer Andrew Sullivan. "Hirsi Ali has abandoned faith for atheism. Irshad has taken the harder path, I believe."
The two women have known each other for four years, since Ms. Hirsi Ali interviewed Ms. Manji for a Dutch newspaper, and they discussed their continuing relationship in e-mail interviews. They immediately bonded understandably enough. "I could not believe she was not an atheist," Ms. Hirsi Ali says, "and she could not believe that I had become one." When Time magazine named Ms. Hirsi Ali one of its "100 most influential people" for 2005, it was Ms. Manji who wrote the comment on her. Ms. Manji admires Ms. Hirsi Ali's determination to speak truth to power, saying that "Ayaan's defiant distrust of Muslim authorities can help generate debates that move us closer to honesty."
But, inevitably, the differences between them create tensions since, in their eyes, what is at stake is nothing less than the future of Islam. Ms. Hirsi Ali says, "Irshad is the most admirable person I know who is trying to achieve change from within," but she agrees with Mr. Hitchens that "from an intellectual, logical perspective," Ms. Manji's religious faith and her own secularism can't be reconciled. Mr. Hitchens himself believes that it's a self-defeating exercise for a declared lesbian to try to bring about an Islamic Reformation.
Ms. Manji detects a certain incoherence in Ms. Hirsi Ali's views: "She wants Muslims to reform, but she also seems to believe that Islam is inherently retrograde." Ms. Manji says her own position "is that Muslims can reform while remaining faithful precisely because the Koran has the raw materials to be thoughtful and humane. It's we Muslims who must develop the courage to change."
For her part, Ms. Hirsi Ali replies, "I make a distinction between Islam and Muslims." That is, "I picture the defeat of Islam as large swaths of Muslims crossing the line and accepting the value system of secular humanism. This is not a matter of one religion defeating another, it's a matter of value systems which cannot coexist."
Clearly, this is a debate of importance not only to Muslims but to non-Muslims as well, and for a Westerner listening in, the best way to understand it may be to translate it into the language of European history. Irshad Manji sees herself as moving Islam into the 16th century; Ayaan Hirsi Ali wants to move it into the 18th. It's as if Luther and Voltaire were living at the same time.
Reposted from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/weekinreview/27gewen.html
Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Irshad Manji are two of the most prominent and outspoken critics of what they and others see as "mainstream Islam." Brilliant, dynamic women the overused word "charismatic" is not inappropriate for either one they have each rebelled against a Muslim upbringing to become public figures with large and devoted followings. Both are successful authors: Ms. Hirsi Ali's autobiography, "Infidel," was a New York Times best seller; Ms. Manji's combination memoir-polemic, "The Trouble With Islam Today," has been published in almost 30 countries. They are firm and unyielding in their support for the West, feminism, reason, freedom and they have paid a price: both have been targets of death threats and have required protection; in Ms. Hirsi Ali's case, around-the-clock protection.
Yet though they are allies on one level, their approaches to Islam are strikingly different, with one working outside the religion and one within. Neither one can be considered a spokeswoman for a significant Muslim constituency in the Middle East. (Indeed, their most sympathetic audiences are probably Western.) But their differences have implications for all the big issues the West grapples with in considering the Muslim world. How much popular support do terrorists have? Is a secular Middle East possible, and what's the best way to promote it? Is Islam itself an enemy of the West?
Ms. Hirsi Ali is an avowed atheist whose criticisms can be seen as attacks not only on radical Islamism but on the religion of Islam over all. George W. Bush was wrong, she says, when he announced that Islam was being held hostage by a terrorist minority: "Islam is being held hostage by itself." About the 9/11 attacks, she declared: "This is Islam," and "not just Islam, this was the core of Islam." The attacks forced her to decide "which side was I on?" she writes in "Infidel." And further, "Where did I stand on Islam?" Her book is the story of how she chose the West.
For Ms. Manji, there has been no such either-or choice. She is a practicing Muslim who though she can be as caustic about her coreligionists as Ms. Hirsi Ali seeks to change her faith from within. As founder and director of the Moral Courage Project at New York University, she assists other maverick writers and scholars who dissent within their communities. "What I want," Ms. Manji has said, "is an Islamic Reformation," and in contrast to Ms. Hirsi Ali, she adds, there is "no need to choose between Islam and the West."
Christopher Hitchens, who wrote the foreword to the paperback edition of "Infidel," says the positions of the two women "can't possibly be reconciled."
Both Ms. Hirsi Ali and Ms. Manji come from non-Arab Muslim backgrounds. By itself, this may be one reason for their opposition to Islamic orthodoxy, which they see as inherently Arab, or Arab-dominated. Ms. Hirsi Ali was born in 1969 in Somalia, and lived in Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia and Kenya before fleeing to the Netherlands when she was 22 to avoid an arranged marriage. When her family was in Saudi Arabia, she remembers her father's complaining that the Saudis had perverted the true Islam. "He hated Saudi judges and Saudi law," she writes. "He thought it was all barbaric, all Arab desert culture."
Ms. Manji was born in 1968 in Uganda, but her family, part Egyptian and part Indian, moved to Canada when she was 4 to escape Idi Amin. She is even more insistent than Ms. Hirsi Ali in drawing a distinction between Islam and Arab tribal culture, its "dictatorship from the desert." Who elected the Saudi monarch "to be Islam's steward?" she asks. "We're not in the Saudi sand dunes anymore."
Ms. Manji has a broader and more flexible idea than Ms. Hirsi Ali of what Islam is and can be. Ms. Hirsi Ali says, "Saudi Arabia is the source of Islam and its quintessence." Ms. Manji, on the other hand, is convinced that her religion can escape what she sees as its Arab domination. "We need a take-no-prisoners debate about Saudi Arabia, a cauldron of duplicity."
The writer Paul Berman suggests that the difference between them may be due to the fact that Ms. Manji was raised in the warm, liberal, welcoming precincts of British Columbia, where religion could be a comfort rather than a burden, where pluralism was an assumption, a fact of life. (Ms. Manji was kicked out of her Islamic religious school for asking too many questions, but before that she had been cared for at a Baptist church, and at age 8 even won its Most Promising Christian of the Year award.) Ms. Hirsi Ali's early years, by contrast, consisted of dictatorship, war, patriarchy, genital cutting, confinement and beatings so severe that she once ended up in a hospital with a fractured skull. Ms. Manji offers her own support for Mr. Berman's conjecture: "Had I grown up in a Muslim country, I'd probably be an atheist in my heart."
No element more thoroughly informs the work of both women than feminism; its influence on their thinking can hardly be overstated, and in this sense they might be considered crown jewels in the history of the modern women's movement. Yet because they are risking their lives for their beliefs constantly, every day they may have more in common with antitotalitarian dissidents like Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn than with Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan. As feminists, Ms. Hirsi Ali and Ms. Manji are demanding more than equality; they are very self-consciously challenging the foundations of an entire way of life.
"The most important explanation for the mental and material backlog we Muslims find ourselves in," Ms. Hirsi Ali has said, "should probably be sought in the sexual morality that we were force-fed from birth." Her first book, a collection of essays, was entitled "The Caged Virgin: An Emancipation Proclamation for Women and Islam." In the Netherlands, she devoted herself to helping Muslim women, in her words, "develop the vocabulary of resistance," and she continues the fight from the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, where she is a resident fellow.
Ms. Manji, too, sees feminism as the linchpin for Islamic reform. "Empowering women," she says, "is the way to awaken the Muslim world." But she is not only a committed feminist (bad enough in the eyes of Muslim conservatives). She is also an open lesbian a rebel twice over. The difference between them "really is between those outside of a faith and those still within it," says Ms. Manji's friend the writer Andrew Sullivan. "Hirsi Ali has abandoned faith for atheism. Irshad has taken the harder path, I believe."
The two women have known each other for four years, since Ms. Hirsi Ali interviewed Ms. Manji for a Dutch newspaper, and they discussed their continuing relationship in e-mail interviews. They immediately bonded understandably enough. "I could not believe she was not an atheist," Ms. Hirsi Ali says, "and she could not believe that I had become one." When Time magazine named Ms. Hirsi Ali one of its "100 most influential people" for 2005, it was Ms. Manji who wrote the comment on her. Ms. Manji admires Ms. Hirsi Ali's determination to speak truth to power, saying that "Ayaan's defiant distrust of Muslim authorities can help generate debates that move us closer to honesty."
But, inevitably, the differences between them create tensions since, in their eyes, what is at stake is nothing less than the future of Islam. Ms. Hirsi Ali says, "Irshad is the most admirable person I know who is trying to achieve change from within," but she agrees with Mr. Hitchens that "from an intellectual, logical perspective," Ms. Manji's religious faith and her own secularism can't be reconciled. Mr. Hitchens himself believes that it's a self-defeating exercise for a declared lesbian to try to bring about an Islamic Reformation.
Ms. Manji detects a certain incoherence in Ms. Hirsi Ali's views: "She wants Muslims to reform, but she also seems to believe that Islam is inherently retrograde." Ms. Manji says her own position "is that Muslims can reform while remaining faithful precisely because the Koran has the raw materials to be thoughtful and humane. It's we Muslims who must develop the courage to change."
For her part, Ms. Hirsi Ali replies, "I make a distinction between Islam and Muslims." That is, "I picture the defeat of Islam as large swaths of Muslims crossing the line and accepting the value system of secular humanism. This is not a matter of one religion defeating another, it's a matter of value systems which cannot coexist."
Clearly, this is a debate of importance not only to Muslims but to non-Muslims as well, and for a Westerner listening in, the best way to understand it may be to translate it into the language of European history. Irshad Manji sees herself as moving Islam into the 16th century; Ayaan Hirsi Ali wants to move it into the 18th. It's as if Luther and Voltaire were living at the same time.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Friday, May 2, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 115 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #174393 by Christopher Davis on May 2, 2008 at 11:20 am
"Had I grown up in a Muslim country, I'd probably be an atheist in my heart."---Irshad ManjiWTF? So what is she saying? That if she had actually been exposed to the religion she is supporting she would disown it?
Jiten,
"It was Islam but not just Islam."
I'm lost. Are you saying that there were other causes besides Islam, or are you ridiculing Ali's statement? If it's the latter,I think you should read it again, because it is actually quite coherent.
Other Comments by Christopher Davis
3. Comment #174394 by Vitriolkit on May 2, 2008 at 11:21 am
Irshad Manji sees herself as moving Islam into the 16th century; Ayaan Hirsi Ali wants to move it into the 18th. It's as if Luther and Voltaire were living at the same time.
Ha. Notice there is no suggestion it's possible to move Islam into the 21st century. No-one wants that fight, baby steps! Baby steps.
Other Comments by Vitriolkit
4. Comment #174397 by al-rawandi on May 2, 2008 at 11:26 am
Jiten,
Let me guess... it was the "little Eichmann's" in the towers?
Or was it the world bank?
Other Comments by al-rawandi
5. Comment #174399 by Corylus on May 2, 2008 at 11:29 am
Her first book, a collection of essays, was entitled "The Caged Virgin: An Emancipation Proclamation for Women and IslamThis book actually has an interview with Irshad Manji in one of the chapters. Overall, It is an interesting (if harrowing at times) read.
(N.B. The subtitle is "A Muslim Woman's Cry for Reason" in the UK edition)
Other Comments by Corylus
6. Comment #174415 by Bonzai on May 2, 2008 at 11:51 am
ChristopherWTF? So what is she saying? That if she had actually been exposed to the religion she is supporting she would disown it?
Manji doesn't think any nominal Islamic country practices "true Islam". In her view their Islam is a mutation perverted by Arab tribal cultures. she meant she would have rebelled had she been brought up in the Muslim world because she loathes Islam as it is practiced in these places,
Other Comments by Bonzai
7. Comment #174417 by Enlightenme.. on May 2, 2008 at 11:53 am
"not just Islam, this was the core of Islam"
Filtered through the fascist mindset of Qutbism.
The man was hideously sexually repressed, possibly a closet even!
Other Comments by Enlightenme..
8. Comment #174426 by Christopher Davis on May 2, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Bonzai,Okay. I gathered that much. But doesn't her speculation that she'd probably be an atheist if she had been brought up in the Muslim world sort of argue against the viability or reforming Islam? I mean, by her own admission she wouldn't know what "true Islam" is if she hadn't had the privelege of being raised outside the Muslim world.
Change generally comes from within. I applaud her efforts, but I think she is tilting at windmills.
Other Comments by Christopher Davis
9. Comment #174433 by Vinelectric on May 2, 2008 at 12:21 pm
JitenWTF? So what is she saying? That if she had actually been exposed to the religion she is supporting she would disown it?
exactly. Even I, living under strict Muslim rule, only rejected the religion when I started taking notice of it! Otherwise most people are happy to just abide by whatever law and get on with their miserable temporary existence.
Other Comments by Vinelectric
10. Comment #174439 by al-rawandi on May 2, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Enlightenme...,
Can you explain to me how Qutb was almost a closet homowsexual.
He spent time in Greely, Colorado, where he was propositioned by a prostitute, and this thoroughly disgusted him. But until then he had admired the US.
I am not sure sexual repression played a large role in his thinking, can you give me examples otherwise?
Other Comments by al-rawandi
11. Comment #174441 by kaiserkriss on May 2, 2008 at 12:35 pm
What surprises me is how Ms Manji, an avowed lesbian can reconcile her religions intolerance towards homosexuals with her sexual preferences.
It seems to be selective compartmentalization again. Give me the more outspoken Ms Hirsi Ali attitude towards Islam any day. She at least does not try to pussy foot around many of the more abhorrent issues. jcw
Other Comments by kaiserkriss
12. Comment #174448 by Bonzai on May 2, 2008 at 12:42 pm
ChristopherBut doesn't her speculation that she'd probably be an atheist if she had been brought up in the Muslim world sort of argue against the viability or reforming Islam? I mean, by her own admission she wouldn't know what "true Islam" is if she hadn't had the privelege of being raised outside the Muslim world.
I don't know, you'd better ask her yourself. She has a website and apparently does answer emails,
Personally I think she is on a Quixotic errand. Worse, even some genuine moderates who agree with the premise that Islam must be reformed don't take her seriously because apparently she is not that knowledgeable about Islam (of course I can't judge, I am just telling you what I heard from some Muslims, and they are a pretty liberal bunch)
Then her very pro Israeli stance on the ME conflict turns off a lot of Muslims,--the audience whom she tries to reach, Even Tarek Fatah, a very outspoken shit disturbing liberal Muslim in Toronto,--himself under multiple death threats,-- wrote a scathing disclaimer denying having anything to do with Manji when her book came out. Fatah is the founder of the Canadian Muslim Congress, a very liberal Muslim outfit which supported same sex marriage and campaigned against Sharia.
Some Muslims accuse her of trying to be the "token Muslim" for the Western audience and they are really annoyed that Manji always begins her speech with "As a Muslim.. I believe..." as if she speaks for the faith and then goes on to give a whole bunch of personal opinions. They would be more happy if she simply becomes an atheist like Ayan.
Other Comments by Bonzai
13. Comment #174449 by Barry Pearson on May 2, 2008 at 12:44 pm
I believe this isn't a contest between "Islam" and "Atheism", or "Within Islam" versus "Outside Islam".
It is a contest between "The Unenlightenment" and "The Enlightenment". And so are most discussion about religion versus atheism (etc).
On the one hand, with "The Enlightenment", we have freethinking, rejection of dogma & doctrine, support for human rights, representative rather than authoritarian government, evidence-based reasoning (hence science), and tolerance. (If a religion met these criteria, would we worry about that religion?)
On the other hand, characteristic of "The Unenlightenment", we have both typical religions and also various other "ISMs" such as Naziism, Stalinism, and Maoism. Sometimes religions can be dragged, kicking and screaming, towards the 21st Century. Islam, not being an organised religion, often can't.
Both women are pursuing useful paths. Islam should be reformed internally where possible. But it should also be constrained externally where necessary. Islam (as with all religions) must "stay within its box": "consenting adults in private". Preferably this should be the choice of Muslims themselves, as is often the case where they are integrated in "Western" communities. If necessary, it should be by law or something stronger.
Other Comments by Barry Pearson
14. Comment #174461 by Jiten on May 2, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Christopher Davis:I'm lost. Are you saying that there were other causes besides Islam, or are you ridiculing Ali's statement?I'm saying the former.You have proximal causes and distal causes.I definitely agree that Islam is a proximal cause of these atrocities.It gets more complicated when we consider the distal causes,ie not the immediate causes.I mean why did they target the US? Why not New Zealand or Belgium?There's got to be other factors contributing to the mix of causes.
In such a complicated a thing as human interaction don't you think it makes more sense to look for a multi-causal explanation rather than a mono-causal explanation?
Other Comments by Jiten
15. Comment #174465 by Enlightenme.. on May 2, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Al, I didn't know that.
From what I'd read she didn't sound like a prostitute at all, but rather a girl who really liked him, and when it came to her suggesting they should get jiggy, and that sex was 'normal', elicited a shocked reaction in him that seemed to leave him deeply scarred.
He also was deeply suspicious of the West back in '48 before he even went to the U.S.
PS My 'closet' statement was in jest, poor taste I know, sorry!
Even in his own writings, he goes on about how he could never find a 'pure' enough woman, and ended up a repressed batchelor.
This repression thing is very prevalent in religious sickness. It kind of takes one to know one, I spent twenty-odd years in that state (and I wasn't even a bloody catholic - just CofE, it's so not fair!)
Other Comments by Enlightenme..
16. Comment #174476 by rod-the-farmer on May 2, 2008 at 1:34 pm
I too am interested in how a Reformation -like period might come to Islam. Dog knows it is overdue. I have a history book at home on the subject, which I have not read for years. I will crack it open and see what set of circumstances existed at the time in Europe. I regret to say I suspect any pre-reqs for the European/Christian Reformation are not present in todays Islam. The one thing I can see that IS more positive is that the effects of printing press were not that widespread, if I remember correctly - whereas the Internet is widely available to muslims. That's the good news. The bad news is that there is so little science translated into the languages of the Islamic world, that should the knowledge of science be one of those pre-reqs for an Islamic Reformation, we (they) may be out of luck. So how critical thinking might spread among muslims via the Internet is an open question. Other Comments by rod-the-farmer
17. Comment #174483 by bobby23459 on May 2, 2008 at 1:43 pm
When Ms Ali says "this is islam, not just islam but the core of islam" she is bang on the bull's eye. ISLAM IS THE PROBLEM.Terrorism is not the major threat we face from islam. The major threat is islam and its demographics. There are 1bn believers in the world and growing at a high rate. Islam is a political movement with religious overtones, devised by a hideous 7thC war lord. The koran is a book of pure filth.
The islamic world recognises that a time for global jihad is coming. What have been seeing in the world for the past decade, everything from terrorism to cartoon protests, from political manoeuvring to the secret plans to develop nuclear capability. It is all part of the same religio-political movement that has travelled with unbroken continuinty down 13 centuries of enormous change and advancment in other parts of the globe. The muslim brotherood is on the rise, do not be fooled. In this 21stC, the free people of the West will be called upon to make a decision about what exactly it is that they stand for. If those same people can not come up with an answer, then the world will slip into the dark Arabian night. In the words of Pym Frtuyn, it is five minutes to midnight, not just in Holland but in the whole of Europe.
Please take the time to watch this film:
'Islam: What the West Needs to Know'
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-871902797772997781
Other Comments by bobby23459
18. Comment #174486 by Border Collie on May 2, 2008 at 1:50 pm
How about this? Drop the religion, pick up with reason. Change Islam? Yea, right.Other Comments by Border Collie
19. Comment #174494 by A heron at night on May 2, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Jiten. Maybe you could identify every single factor in the absence of which the event in question would not have occurred?Here's a hint: you will never count them all!
Other Comments by A heron at night
20. Comment #174499 by Nova on May 2, 2008 at 2:02 pm
as if Luther
A religious reformer? Yes. A moral reformer? Certainly not!
The Wikipedia article on Martin Luther:
Much scholarly debate has concentrated on Luther's writings about the Jews. His statements that Jews' homes should be destroyed, their synagogues burned, money confiscated and liberty curtailed were revived and used in propaganda by the Nazis in 1933β"45.[9] As a result of this and his revolutionary theological views, his legacy remains controversial.[10]
Why don't we use Christianities role in fostering antisemitism more often against the Christians who claim a direct link between Darwin and the Holocaust?
Other Comments by Nova
21. Comment #174506 by Jolly Bloger on May 2, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Jiten:The distal cause thing is tricky. Be careful not to imply that any cause should be a source of blame. There is an endless causal chain, as with anything - for example, had the towers not been built in the first place, they could not have been brought down.
The construction of the WTC 'caused' 9/11, but I'm sure I don't have to point out the trouble you'd be in if you were to even implicitly suggest that 9/11 was the 'fault' of the builders.
Perhaps western values had a hand in causing the attack, but the blame lies solely on Islam for its utter intolerance of those values.
Other Comments by Jolly Bloger
22. Comment #174508 by Enlightenme.. on May 2, 2008 at 2:15 pm
^ Hey, I'm very partial to Luther! he's my number 2 antihero along with the bloke he inspired - King Henry 8th (another nasty bloke!)
Why they struck the WTC was the symbolic arrogance of its name - the very center of all the world's trade - the magnificent
*Temple of Usury*
Other Comments by Enlightenme..
23. Comment #174524 by Dinah on May 2, 2008 at 2:54 pm
The three major monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) have traditionally used their imaginary (male) god and misogynistic writings supposedly inspired by him to oppress women. While Christianity has gone through an Enlightenment, there are plenty of Christians around today who would love to strip women of their rights in the name of their god and their bible. But it is Islam which is the greatest current threat to women's rights. Only this morning I listened to a programme where a British woman defended her 'right' to wear the veil, evidently regarding it as something of a fashion accessory. She stated, 'It is just a piece of cloth, after all.' No, it isn't. It is something imposed on Muslim women by men, and in many Islamic countries women who refuse to wear it risk being abused, injured or even killed. Women are seen as temptresses, as unclean and polluting, and must cover themselves to avoid inflaming the passions of males. The veil will only revert to being 'just a piece of cloth' when every Muslim woman has a genuine choice about whether or not to wear it. Meanwhile, the British Muslim woman on the radio this morning who DOES have that choice is betraying her less fortunate sisters by trivialising the issue.Other Comments by Dinah
24. Comment #174531 by RamziD on May 2, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Manji doesn't think any nominal Islamic country practices "true Islam". In her view their Islam is a mutation perverted by Arab tribal cultures. she meant she would have rebelled had she been brought up in the Muslim world because she loathes Islam as it is practiced in these places
Where exactly is this "true islam" that Ms. Manji alludes to practiced? Radical islam is seen in all the Arab countries as well all the non-Arab ones (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Sudan, the Phillipines, Iran, etc.) To say that the Arabs "perverted" islam is a slander against Arab people. Islam itself is perverted, just like all other religions.
Other Comments by RamziD
25. Comment #174533 by Vinelectric on May 2, 2008 at 3:41 pm
DinahThe veil will only revert to being 'just a piece of cloth' when every Muslim woman has a genuine choice about whether or not to wear it.
But that's practically the case in most countries except Iran and Saudi. In Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Algeria, Morocco female muslim activists see it as empowering and a feminist answer to those men who wish to see women fully made up and pleasing to the eyes!
I wouldn't want to either impose or ban the veil. If she thinks it's a piece of cloth then, end of story! By the way, did you notice that in Saudi even men cover their hair in white cloth? There's a cultural aspect to the veil independent to religion.
I
Other Comments by Vinelectric
26. Comment #174540 by mmurray on May 2, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Does anyone know on what she bases the `true' Islam. I assume it is some kind of `moderate' Islam. I am no expert but everything I read suggests this is really difficult given what is written in the Koran. It is tough enough for a Christian but you can at least concentrate on the New Testament. All I have ever heard from moderate Muslims locally in the media is the `Islam is a religion of peace' line with a clear message that to suggest otherwise or to ask why is some kind of intolerance akin to racism.Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
27. Comment #174543 by Vinelectric on May 2, 2008 at 4:09 pm
mmurrayYou'd have to place your bet on the life of Muhammad as someone who really knew how Islam is supposed to be practised. Problem is that he's gone through many transformations during his career. From the early meccan rebel: "Behold the people of Mecca, I have come to you with massacre" (Ibn Hisham) to the late years where he's mellowed down to "The right of mankind on Allah is that he should never torture them" and mortgaging his armour from a Jewish merchant.
"True Islam" is a cheap cliche, an obscurantist's tool to confuse and water down any criticism of the religion.
Other Comments by Vinelectric
28. Comment #174544 by rod-the-farmer on May 2, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Re Comment #174524 by Dinah
Only this morning I listened to a programme where a British woman defended her 'right' to wear the veil, evidently regarding it as something of a fashion accessory. She stated, 'It is just a piece of cloth, after all.' No, it isn't. It is something imposed on Muslim women by men, and in many Islamic countries women who refuse to wear it risk being abused, injured or even killed. Women are seen as temptresses, as unclean and polluting, and must cover themselves to avoid inflaming the passions of males. The veil will only revert to being 'just a piece of cloth' when every Muslim woman has a genuine choice about whether or not to wear it.
For some time now I have been arguing that if it truly IS a choice, then why don't the men choose to wear it ? Why is it that some (surely not all) muslim men cannot control themselves when confronted with the sight of a womans' hair ? Or her neck/legs/etc. ? How about a moderately form-fitting dress ? Or even a tight sweater !
Where are the muslim men of high character, saying a true gentleman controls his baser impulses ? Come to think of it, that is a very good question. Where ARE they ? Some of the muslim diplomats I have seen on TV certainly appear to be 'gentlemen'. Why do they not speak up about the abuse of women by some muslims ? Why indeed..... There is room here to set an example.
Other Comments by rod-the-farmer
29. Comment #174548 by Vinelectric on May 2, 2008 at 4:13 pm
rod-the-farmerLearn the language, subscribe to any Arabic satellite channel and you're guaranteed to hear a preacher talk about Muhammad helping his wives clean the house, saying "take good care of your wives" in his deathbed etc etc. Unfortunately he never abrogated the verse in the Quran that invites men to flog their wives. Truth is he was never reported to be mean to his many wives
.
Other Comments by Vinelectric
30. Comment #174552 by zosky on May 2, 2008 at 4:23 pm
there are alot of issues in question.I argue that Ms Manji does not know the religion she claims to be defending. I see that in christians in the US today. I identify with Ayaan Hirshi Ali because i too grew up in an african country and bore the full brunt of the female repression, authoritarianism and control inherent in the christian religion. Most Americans i meet who claim to be christians do not know much about the bible or the religion they claim to be practising. It is difficult for me to sit down and listen to how christianity is "so moral" when i have experienced first hand the immorality inherent in the premise of and practise of the religion. When you look at verses in the koran that are blatantly sexist, i wander what Ms Manji would have to say in defense of theose verses. For example, husbands are instructed to beat their wives as a last resort. Can she also ascribe this to the arabic translation? I think she is emotionally attached to the religion. She wants to change it completely but still keep the name. Ok, good but at least have the courage to admit it
Other Comments by zosky
31. Comment #174556 by RamziD on May 2, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Vinelectric,I am an Arab-American, and I have been friends with many women who "choose" to wear the veil. While it may hold true for some or many women of the muslim religion who reside in Western countries that they choose to wear the veil, it is not so true for those that are from non-western countries. There is immense social pressure for a woman to cover-up, otherwise she is considered not a "true muslim" at best or a whore at worst. There is a feeling of guilt and shame that they are instilled with if they don't obey this norm. Much like the same way catholics are brought up with an innate sense of guilt/sin and that they can never be "worthy".
Other Comments by RamziD
32. Comment #174571 by Layla Nasreddin on May 2, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Hmmm. I was very interested in "Islamic feminism." Women such as Fatima Mernissi, Shirin Ebadi, Amina Wadud and others who managed to combine Islam with modernity and human rights gave me some measure of faith that it wasn't true that Islam was a misogynistic religion, that it could change, that there was nothing contradictory about being a Muslim and a feminist.
However...(and here comes the problem!)...it seemed to me, from studying the sources, that the traditionalists almost always had the better of the argument. For example, a feminist might write a book about how women are really presented as being equal believers in the Qur'an...but not have a thing to say about any of the hadith, where so much of the problem comes from. Somebody like Irshad Manji or Asma Gull Hasan would write about how Islam is "really" a feminist religion...but be seriously lacking in quotes from Qur'an and hadith. By contrast, a Saudi book about women and their role is bound to contain multiple Qur'anic verses, several hadith, and other stories from the lives of the sahaba (companions of the Prophet) on nearly every page in order to back up their ideas that women need "protection" and all that kind of stuff. And of course the traditional books of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) backs them up on this. So the disconnect between what I knew of the sources and what Islamic feminists were saying bothered me, not least because I wanted the latter to "win"!
And, of course, add to that the fact that most Islamic feminists have a very hard time in much of the Islamic world, since "feminism" is more or less a dirty word there. No, it seems that you're more likely to hear things like, "Islam is the true women's liberation!" It's astonishing how many women totally buy into the whole fundamentalist thing, voluntarily wearing the niqab and so on...but maybe not, seeing as how women tend to be more religious than men.
Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin
33. Comment #174575 by Layla Nasreddin on May 2, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Vinelectric wrote:
Learn the language, subscribe to any Arabic satellite channel and you're guaranteed to hear a preacher talk about Muhammad helping his wives clean the house, saying "take good care of your wives" in his deathbed etc etc. Unfortunately he never abrogated the verse in the Quran that invites men to flog their wives. Truth is he was never reported to be mean to his many wives.
To back this up, there is an oft-repeated hadith in which Muhammad says, "The best among you are those who are the best to their wives and I am the best to my wives."
There are other ahadith where Muhammad says things like, "Do not beat the female servants of Allah" and "Some (women) visited my family complaining about their husbands (beating them). These are not the best of you." And yet another that goes like this: "I went to the Apostle of Allah and asked him: What do you command about our wives? He replied, "Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them." So in a real sense, Muhammad here is being more lenient than Allah in the Qur'an, which says "As for those women from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and beat them" (4:34)! ;-) There is even a further tradition that this "beating" is symbolic, the kind that might be inflicted by a siwak (small stick used as a toothbrush).
Of course, none of this excuses the "I have the right to discipline my wife" attitude, which too often turns into beatings and other forms of cruelty; the very fact that the husband has this form of authority over the wife (and she does not possess the same over the husband) is in itself the problem, no matter how "lovingly applied"!
Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin
34. Comment #174603 by Dinah on May 2, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Re Comment #174533 by Vinelectric[Choice of wearing the veil] 'But that's practically the case in most countries except Iran and Saudi'
Well, even at this time in the morning I can think of a few more off the top of my head - Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq - in the case of the latter, women have increasingly been forced to cover up since the invasion.
Comment #174544 by rod-the-farmer
'Why do they [Muslim diplomats] not speak up about the abuse of women by some muslims ?'
Why indeed. Only when I see the majority of educated Muslim men protesting about the treatment of women under Islam rather than engaging in rants about cartoons and other perceived 'offences' against their religion will I believe that Islam is beginning to reform itself.
Other Comments by Dinah
35. Comment #174604 by Barry Pearson on May 2, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Vinelectric: Learn the language, subscribe to any Arabic satellite channel and you're guaranteed to hear a preacher talk about Muhammad helping his wives clean the house, saying "take good care of your wives" in his deathbed etc etc. Unfortunately he never abrogated the verse in the Quran that invites men to flog their wives. Truth is he was never reported to be mean to his many wives
It isn't necessary to learn the language!
Have a look at the MEMRI TV website or view their stuff on YouTube, with subtitles:
http://www.memritv.org/
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=memri
"Beat their wives", not "flog their wives"! (Sura 4 verse 34). It is more of an injunction than an invitation:
Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.
Here is a useful checklist about the bad bits of the Koran:
http://www.reformislam.org/verses.php
More references, including various reform movements, on this page:
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/islam.htm
Other Comments by Barry Pearson
36. Comment #174611 by mmurray on May 3, 2008 at 12:04 am
"As for those women from whom you fear rebellion, "You don't even have to get to the beating. If your relationship with your wife is such that you could even contemplate the idea that she might be going to rebel you have a lot of issues already.
Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
37. Comment #174614 by Shuggy on May 3, 2008 at 1:12 am
28. Comment #174544 by rod-the-farmer on May 2, 2008For some time now I have been arguing that if it truly IS a choice, then why don't the men choose to wear it ? Why is it that some (surely not all) muslim men cannot control themselves when confronted with the sight of a womans' hair ? Or her neck/legs/etc. ? How about a moderately form-fitting dress ? Or even a tight sweater !
The other evening in a city street I saw two women, one in full-length skirt, long sleeves and veil, the other, presumably her daughter, in sprayed-on jeans, knee-high high-heeled boots that made her hips swivel - and headscarf! I imagine it's the last bit of Islam she's going to let go, or maybe the last bit she obeys her parents about.
Other Comments by Shuggy
38. Comment #174643 by Christopher Davis on May 3, 2008 at 3:42 am
Jiten,Virtually every event can be broken down into both proximal and distal causes. In this case however, the only cause that really matters is Islam.
This is a religion that teaches children that the West is inherently evil and the cause of all their problems. It is a religion that condones (hell, demands) violence against non-believers.
The reason that the terrorists attacked New York as opposed to New Zealand or Belgium is the same reason a person deadset on eliminating titties from the world would go after Pamela Anderson as opposed to Debra Messing.
Other Comments by Christopher Davis
39. Comment #174648 by utelme on May 3, 2008 at 3:56 am
"The other evening in a city street I saw two women, one in full-length skirt, long sleeves and veil, the other, presumably her daughter, in sprayed-on jeans, knee-high high-heeled boots that made her hips swivel - and headscarf! I imagine it's the last bit of Islam she's going to let go, or maybe the last bit she obeys her parents about."Just before they cut her throat!
Other Comments by utelme
40. Comment #174651 by Vinelectric on May 3, 2008 at 4:05 am
Barry Pearson
It isn't necessary to learn the language!
Have a look at the MEMRI TV website or view their stuff on YouTube, with subtitles:
For honesty's sake, forget MEMRI ! The translations are correct but they cherry pick shamelessly. If you're really interested in analysing a culture make sure you make an effor to get your info first hand. Biased reporting and the MEMRI propaganda project is not a good start.
Other Comments by Vinelectric
41. Comment #174652 by Vinelectric on May 3, 2008 at 4:11 am
Ramzi D
True. Even if the family did not pressure you, the emotional blackmailing of belief in Hell will.
Other Comments by Vinelectric
42. Comment #174663 by Barry Pearson on May 3, 2008 at 5:46 am
Vinelectric: If you're really interested in analysing a culture make sure you make an effor to get your info first hand. Biased reporting and the MEMRI propaganda project is not a good start.
Is there any such thing as unbiased and comprehensive analysis? I have 61 years worth of first hand information about the UK, but even for the UK I still rely on other people as well to fill in the gaps and do analysis that I can't do!
As I say at the page below: "Cherry-picking Islam - Given the contradictions, it is impossible to conform to 100% of the Koran and the haddith. It is typically possible to identify material to support any viewpoint from "Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance" to "Islam is a movement for jihad that can only be satisfied with a global Islamic state". That page, and my other pages it links to, have scores of references to external sources, and still only touch on a few topics.
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/islam.htm
It is further complicated, of course, by the fact that the cultures (and languages) of different Islamic states are significantly different from one-another. Some of the MEMRI videos have people expressing views (eg. concerning restrictions on women) that match mainsteam behaviour in (say) Saudi Arabia, while being very different from (say) Pakinstan or Turkey. (I realise that "ME" in MEMRI stands for Middle East).
This scope of this thread is far more than one person can hope to cover by information gained first hand.
Other Comments by Barry Pearson
43. Comment #174666 by Enlightenme.. on May 3, 2008 at 6:17 am
38. Comment #174643 by Christopher Davis on May 3, 2008
"Jiten,
Virtually every event can be broken down into both proximal and distal causes. In this case however, the only cause that really matters is Islam.
This is a religion that teaches children that the West is inherently evil and the cause of all their problems. It is a religion that condones (hell, demands) violence against non-believers.
The reason that the terrorists attacked New York as opposed to New Zealand or Belgium is the same reason a person deadset on eliminating titties from the world would go after Pamela Anderson as opposed to Debra Messing."
"..the only cause that really matters is Islam."
A reason to feel sympathy for Irshad Manji's proposition that Islam has been hijacked for neo-panArab-nationalism, like I said; by Qutbism, after his disillusion with the failures of Gamal Abdul Nasser, he only then turned to making Muslim-brotherhood ideology his cause.
It's this ideology - "that teaches children that the West is inherently evil and the cause of all their problems." - I doubt I could read that in the Koran, it's more that scriptures can always be made to fit the cause isn't it?
Totally agree with your last point - what I said, except replacing titties with Usury!
How do we argue against this Ideology with it's clever use of 'Islam is a full system for living life' (What religion wasn't??)
The 'clear and present danger' is that we are perilously close to having 1.6 billion people identify with the cause if we're not careful.
Other Comments by Enlightenme..
44. Comment #174669 by Vinelectric on May 3, 2008 at 6:51 am
Barry PearsonYou want to know what muslim leaders actually teach their flock about domestic violence? Go listen. Straightforward, really.
Doesn't take any great effort to notice that MEMRI's clips are seriously edited, at times they go for three or four seconds before the speaker is interrupted. Is this responsible reporting? I'm sure you can easily see how ridiculous they are.
You want to re-link and rephrase secondary and tertiary sources. Be my guest. However credibility and the relevance of your conclusions to the real world can be called into question.
Other Comments by Vinelectric
45. Comment #174671 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 3, 2008 at 7:35 am
Irshad Manji is a fool, a brave fool, but a fool nontheless. Her book is almost devoid of any understanding of Islam, any reference to its core texts, its history and its jursiprudence. The idea that such feel-good fripperies can effect a change in Islam is beyond ridiculous. Contrast it with Ibn Warraq's Why I Am Not a Muslim , a genuinely scholarly work.Ms. Manji's Islam seems more a fasion piece than a true understanding of the religion. And this ignorance allows her to advocate policies that are either pointless or suicidal (such as opening the West to more Muslim immigration).
Here is a good review of her book:
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/12/trouble-with-irshad-manji.html
Such an ill-considered and ignorant thing to say.I'm not entirely surprised from a right-wing 'thinker'.It was Islam but not just Islam.
Okay, back that ill-considered, ignorant, and mendacious comment up. Because the evidence to the contrary is every single one of the foundational texts of Islam - the Qur'an, the Haidth, and the Sira - every major school of Islamic jurisprudence and fourteen centuries of Jihad beginning at the time of the Hijra , Muhammad's flight to Medina, where he established Islam as a political system, which it has been ever since.
I'm unsurprised to see what's crawled out:
Doesn't take any great effort to notice that MEMRI's clips are seriously edited, at times they go for three or four seconds before the speaker is interrupted. Is this responsible reporting? I'm sure you can easily see how ridiculous they are.
Right. Never mind that MEMRI has an entire section on reformist movements in Islam, never mind that its clips uncontrovertibly show the advocacy of genocide, war, slavery, and the use of child-soldiers. It takes very little effort to see that Vinelectric's only purpose is to whitewash Islam and deny the threat it poses, no matter how much evidence to the contrary is cited. And that he cares more about his own self-image than about the flogging of Women under Islam.
Enlightenme...
I doubt I could read that in the Koran, it's more that scriptures can always be made to fit the cause isn't it?
Have you actually read the Qur'an? Specifically Surah 9? Because it is written, explicitly, there.
Layla could you give the name of the Hadith that say that about women? And even if it is one of the strong ones - which I seriously doubt - like Bukhari or Muslim, care to explain how they can possibly override the Quranic injunction to the contrary?
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
46. Comment #174672 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 3, 2008 at 7:36 am
Anyway, the basic point is this: Islam can't be reformed, it can only be destroyed.Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
47. Comment #174673 by phil rimmer on May 3, 2008 at 7:37 am
VinelectricI fully accept that MEMRI is a propaganda exercise, that its selections may be better seen in a fuller context and that balancing material that may exist is clearly absent...But
You want to know what muslim leaders actually teach their flock about domestic violence? Go listen. Straightforward, really.
Doesn't help me. I need a balanced or balancing resource that consumes an hour or so of my time. Job, kids, Teratornis's Peak Oil, all vie for attention. What have you got?
Other Comments by phil rimmer
48. Comment #174674 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 3, 2008 at 7:39 am
Phil Rimmer you could always look at the Undercover Mosque documentary and see what Muslim leaders in Britain are saying.Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
49. Comment #174675 by phil rimmer on May 3, 2008 at 7:55 am
Fanusi KhiyalSaw it thanks. Scarey!
Re
Islam can't be reformed
I fear you are right. Perhaps its one chance of reform might come from the single block of Muslims with most to gain, women.
Education is the (long-winded!)key.
Unicef Education For All projects seek to apply extra efforts to educate women and equalise access. They are at work in the Middle East, an exemplar girl's school in Baghdad, for instance.
A faster track solution would be a Lysistrata style sex strike. Its always worked with me.:-)
Other Comments by phil rimmer
50. Comment #174676 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 3, 2008 at 7:58 am
Oh, it get's much much worse than you think phil rimmer Westerners have been waiting for Islamic reform for over two hundred years . Most people don't know that.We've run out of time. It is far more likely that a Muslim who is intellectually honest and moral will abandon his religion than turn to some soft-pap, wishy-washy 'reformed' lie. We need Ayaan Hirsi Alis not Ishad Manjis.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
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:
" the individual organism is a very important unit in the hierarchy of life But however unitary and discrete an individual wolf or buffalo may be, the package is temporary and unique. (pp. 216-217) "Abraham was left in no doubt that the future lay with his seed, not his individuality. God knew his Darwinism."
Richard Dawkins
"I turned to speak to God, About the world's despair; But to make bad matters worse, I found God wasn't there."
Robert Frost
"During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. The Bible commanded that they should not be allowed to live. Therefore the Church, after doing its duty in but a lazy and indolent way for 800 years, gathered up its halters, thumbscrews, and firebrands, and set about its holy work in earnest. She worked hard at it night and day during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with their foul blood. Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry."
Mark Twain
"Aquarius is a miscellaneous set of stars all at different distances from us, which have no connection with each other except that they constitute a (meaningless) pattern when seen from a certain (not particularly special) place in the galaxy (here)."
Richard Dawkins
"Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of meaning."
Albert Einstein
Other Recommended Reading
The Secular Conscience
Austin Dacey
Read the 1st Chapter!
Under the Banner of Heaven
Jon Krakauer
The End of Faith
Sam Harris
God: The Failed Hypothesis
Victor J Stenger
The Varieties of Scientific Experience
Carl Sagan, Ann Druyan (Editor)
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 #174386 by Jiten on May 2, 2008 at 10:57 am
Other Comments by Jiten