There is a major but up until now mostly silent section of Keralite Muslims who look down about the Wahabhi interpretation of Islam and are highly critical of them and very much in favor of modernization. I have seen their clerics debate theology with Wahabis on YouTube. How those clerics deliver sermons, how they undermine the impact of radical clerics within their society and how they interpret their holy texts – in one word genius. They are a very interesting and fascinating bunch of people. Rayana is not a rebellious teenager fighting orthodoxy in her home. Her parents have a significant role in making her the way she is and there are many within her community who look up to her and admire her courage. That would explain the urgency certain people feel in nipping this in the bud.

Comment 15 by Richard Dawkins
It is one thing to burn her alive, with a cloth stuffed in her mouth. But why was she also 'mercilessly beaten'? Are we to presume that beating her before roasting her would make them even richer? I wonder what they planned to do with their riches. Not pass them on to the next generation, it would seem.

Richard

Maybe they wanted to convince themselves that it was not ‘petty’ financial reasons but 'higher' religious motives that where at work here. The greater the intensity of the ritual, the easier it is for its followers to believe such things.

test comment

In Indian wedding's traditionally the bride's household pays for the wedding and a dowry. It is very expensive. Consequently it is not an uncommon attitude to see girl children as a financial burden. The parents have to start saving early to marry off their daughters. So in poor family there is incentive to handle things 'differently'.

The tantrik is just giving a semblance of religious approval to what is basically a financial decision. So it makes the news. Female infanticide and abortion after gender-determination of the fetus don’t draw too much attention anymore.

Comment 292 by jhellegers

Comment 258 by 82abhilash In case you did not notice, I was being sarcastic. The bad Muslim flattens the land of his enemy and the 'good' Muslim comes to build a mosque, instead of helping rebuild what was once there. Do you need to attend kindergarten before you understand what is happening? Stop playing dumb, unless of course you can’t help it.

You stated that good muslims build mosques to worship the conquest. You have not provided any evidence for your statement.

jhellegers you are working real hard at playing dumb are you not? And ignoring history!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utaiCb1g15c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rweS_Dwad4k

Right, they do not make their celebration too obvious because if they did, they would not be able to count on jackasses like you to speak on their behalf.

While I agree with you that religion is capable of limiting the freedoms of individuals (and that that is a bad thing), I disagree on the idea that all, or even most believers want to, and do, limit freedoms. When they do, they should be prohibited from doing so. So, is this the case in the building of mosques?

Right, when mosque worshippers kill people and flatten land of their enemy, there should be limitation on building mosques on land thus obtained.

Apart from this, how about the freedom of religion? Let me first state that it is, or should be, nothing more than a specific reiteration of freedom of thought (however, this reiteration can be functional, for example in societies where freedom of religion specifically is under pressure). It is a part of freedom of thought as religion taking place in one's mind. Freedom of thought - not to be discriminated on the basis of what takes place in one's head - is, I think a great good. I guess you agree on that point

Whatever freedom of religion that comes within the subset of freedom of thought I am for it. But there is more to freedom of religion besides freedom of thought. You must know that. Personally I have doubts as to how much freedom of religion can be justified under the freedom of thought. Religion has lost its academic significance ages ago. Today religion as a postulate for thinking gets in the way of clear thinking.

Comment 224 by jhellegers

Comment 205 by 82abhilash : Apparently they do it to mourn those that they had to kill to achieve it.

Could you provide evidence of that statement?

In case you did not notice, I was being sarcastic. The bad Muslim flattens the land of his enemy and the 'good' Muslim comes to build a mosque, instead of helping rebuild what was once there. Do you need to attend kindergarten before you understand what is happening? Stop playing dumb, unless of course you can’t help it.

My idea of fairness is that communities living anywhere have the right to erect their own houses of worship, wherever they live.

Your idea of fairness is twisted. It encapsulates the idea that religion is somehow sacred. Religion is not sacred. Nothing is sacred. There is no such right.

Real fairness is in preserving individual liberties regardless of and if necessary in spite of what religion or community any person might belong to. If any so called house of worship stands in way of that, then it has no place.

That is why in the free world, the practice of Christianity has been severely restricted and come under close scrutiny. That is why the Islam too is being restricted. Practice of religion is rarely an expression of freedom. Quiet the contrary, religion is the means by which freedom is restricted, contained and eventually eliminated. That is why religion needs to restricted, contained and eventually eliminated.

The history of the free world has been a struggle against the norms set forth by religion to contain freedom. And it will go on despite the attempt of people like you to misinform and confuse.

Comment 187 by jhellegers
Muslims do not build mosques to honour conquests

Comment 198 by jhellegers
I never said muslims do not build mosques in lands they have conquered. I explained before that mosques are not built to celebrate victory.

Right that is such a relief you clarified that. They build mosques on land they conquered but they do not do it to celebrate. Apparently they do it to mourn those that they had to kill to achieve it. That is relief.

Should I give a list of churches built on lands previously owned by native american tribes?

And since the christians got away with it, I am sure it is only fair that the muslims get away with it too right. Is that your idea of fairness right? You conveniently ignore the fact that Christianity is getting a big beating for the crimes that they did in the past Instead you prefer to use it to excuse Islamic crimes of the present!

Comment 187 by jhellegers
Mosques do not attract muslims - mosques merely signify the existence of a muslim community. Muslims do not build mosques to honour conquests (at least, I have not found a shred of evidence nor anyone stating this to search for a shred of evidence). Anyway, if there is someone who has indeed flattened some land in the previous decade, it is americans, who fought two wars, killing over a million citizens, and LITERALLY flattening lands. Do you believe that americans should not be allowed to breed?

Mosques attract muslims. In fact a mosque in a land that previously had none, is an invitation for muslims to occupy and Islamize that land. And if you think they do not build mosques on conquered lands, that can only be because you are ignorant or lying. It has been a defining aspect of Islamic conquest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utaiCb1g15c http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rweS_Dwad4k

And about the breeding part, you are missing the point. And that is that is used as an instrument of war, make children, indoctrinate them, send them to battle and then conquest. Americans do not do that.

Comment 193 by jhellegers
So how likely is the preaching of Islam in leading to a crime? How many people commit crimes when attending a prayer meeting at a mosque? What is the exact correlation, ceteris paribus? Please, give some evidence.

You only have to look around to find out. In any case, public incitement to commit criminal acts is a crime whether or not such incitements lead to criminal acts, because it is solicitation for the purposes of committing crimes the purpose of which is nothing but to have crimes committed. A person who encourages others to commit murders is as guilty as the murderer.

It is a game of 'good muslim', 'bad muslim'.

The bad muslim flattens your land, the good muslim builds a mosque to honor the victims of the bad muslim. The mosque attracts Muslims, who give birth to good and bad muslims. Bad muslims flatten more of your land, good muslim builds a mosque, the process continues, while all you people fight each other, which is just the way they like it. It is a criminal enterprise that gets away by calling itself a religion.

No one should be allowed to build a mosque anywhere.

When the good muslims of Saudi Arabia fund the rebuilding of the World Trade Center, then we can say we are on the path towards reconciliation.

Even in Iran there is only a requirement for the covering of hair

Even in Iran.

 

Yes, it is an excuse. Excuses are not too difficult to find. If you stay away you may not get arrested. If you come the fall out will be bad even if you get arrested. I hope he will have fewer and fewer places that he can hope to safely visit.

16. Comment #481483 by BottomRamen

There's no reason to learn Arabic today? Really? It's the 4th most spoken language in the world.

The language that is most influential at any given time is not necessarily the language that is spoken by a large number of people. So you do not need to learn Arabic to influence world events, at least not as much as you need to learn English.

If you want to be influential in the Arab world, then you could learn Arabic. I say could because if you really have influence in those regions people there will learn English. Which is what they are doing. And besides it will do you no good in Iran or Afghanistan. No there is no pressing need to learn Arabic.

17. Comment #481484 by Stafford Gordon

Well I do not remember if De Grass Tyson pointed out that they had picked up things from the Greeks, but the middle East is strategically situated between Europe and Asia and people there have been exposed to knowledge and ideas from civilizations on both ends.

There is a lot about Arab history that is still unknown and probably will never be known. Proper unbiased archeological and historical studies are non-existent at that part of the world, especially when it comes to the pre-Islamic era.

This will be counted among some of Pat Condell's poorer videos.

7. Comment #481442 by Stafford Gordon

It was Neil De Grass Tyson who pointed out that constellations have Arabic names and that they gave the numbering system. The numbering system is from India and the constellations where known long before they got Arabic names. Neil was just trying to be popular and politically correct.

The contribution of that civilization to science is minuscule, what they where good at was adapting the contribution from other civilizations for their needs. Today there is no need to learn Arabic unless you are a muslim. But ironically, most muslims do not know arabic and the arabic in the Quran is so different from modern day Arabic that even native Arabic speakers use translations. Ibn Warraq will tell you that.

There won't be a manned mission by NASA to Mars because the country is bankrupt. It will probably be funded and driven by private firms with the government intefering just long enough to have those NASA logos stuck on the space craft on prominent locations. But so what, science advances right?

I wish Albert Snyder had someone who could help sustain him physically and emotionally at his time of need. If his two daughters support him, why could they not show their support by taking care of him? If they have their own family or other commitments, they could take turns. I suppose, I do not know enough to ask.

Comment #477725 by indusporus on April 8, 2010 at 12:09 pm

After seeing the titles of those articles, I thought that there would be some analysis on why ayurvedic is considered to be fake and explains why it doesn't work. But, all that article has done is just bashing ayurveda. Can someone provide me with some good articles/ books explaining why ayurveda is nothing but a cult.

I know what you mean. The articles where poorly written. It did not seem like an article written to convince anyone that Ayurveda is bunk, it seemed to be written for people who where already convinced of it.

There are two things to consider. Ayurveda as a system has not come under the same scrutiny as Homeopathy. Traditional Ayurvedic remedies are studied by multinational drug firms to make highly unethical drug patents to basically cash in, while homeopathic remedies are not. I suppose no one wants to patent water. So covertly Ayurveda is becoming mainstream. So why are the two clubbed together? It is classic guilt by association, technique.

[Edit: looks like I am beginning to defend Ayurveda does it not? Actually I am neutral to it, but poorly formed arguments against it are begging to be beaten.]

12. Comment #477576 by scientificindians on April 7, 2010 at 11:47 pm

To Comment #477469 by 82abhilash
I'm not the owner of scientificindians.com website but editor there and you can contact the site owner or editors by clicking at "contact us" link there in header.

Your anger proves our point that practitioners of these so called alternative medicine junks are behaving like a cult. If you are so eager to confront us with scientific proof, we are ready for challenge. There are many organization in india who are offering cash prize upto 1 million INR and we can arrange a proper scientific test and if you succeed, full prize money is yours.

For few members here those who felt annoyed due to spelling mistakes, grammer etc., Pls realize that for Indian's English is not primary language and writing on scientific topic is not an easy task (There is only one Richard Dawkins who can explain science in poetic terms). Our writer are had core scientists and do not write so frequently but in future, we will try to improve ourself in this regard.
Thanks.

Wow, we have 'scientificindians' claiming not to be the owner of scientific Indians website, but still assuring readers that they will not make more mistakes in the future (in their website?)

English is the medium of science education in India. It is a bluff to say Indians with scientific background have trouble writing proper English. And accusing me of being in a medical cult? I never once defended any medical cult and have no plans for it.

And apparently there is an email contact link where nameless faceless people making dubious claims using cut and paste functionality can keep in touch with you. Big deal.

The name ‘Scientific Indians’ made me curious. Just who are these Scientific Indians who never learnt to spell properly, I wondered. But there is no 'About Us' link anywhere on their webpage. No names, no contact information, no telephone number and no way of knowing who exactly is making the claim. So what have we got? Nameless faceless people making dubious claims that cannot be verified for a niche audience who will find them believable. I suppose that is what the internet is all about.

Perhaps within our lifetime, the Roman Catholic Church would become the European Museum for Roman Catholicism......

- Daniel Dennett

His tone did not sound as sure as his words. I wish they had showed his face. It would have more easily betrayed the ambiguity that he senses in his mind. It may not look like it, but the Taliban is cracking.

Given Jonathan Millers general disgust with sound bites, it is a wonder he agreed to participate.

Comment #409510 by ev-love
This site is dedicated to clear thinking. It seems to me that trying to separate the clear thinking from the myths and prejudices displayed in the American HealthCare controversy is an entirely appropriate thing to do.

That would be a welcome change. But here emotion rather than reason seems to be running the day for both sides. I also detect a hint of arrogance along the line of, we are right about evolution, so we are right about health care too. These are completely different fields.

I do not understand this. A non-science, non-religious article on this site. On what some Americans believe the future state of their health care would be.

This is not even a proper article. Just listing out what people believe the future state of healthcare is going to be without any explanation on why they are wrong or right if at all. No debunking of the opponents, no substantiation of ones own position. Just a listing out and an Appeal to Ridicule, a logical fallacy. There is also Guilt by Association, the claims are made by people you dislike so they must be wrong.

I agree with Comment #409399 by jonsmizzle

This isn't like an evolution vs. creationism debate, where one side has a mountain of evidence and the other just manufactured controversy.

To claim otherwise is intellectual negligence at least.

I will go one step further, your opponents are not making a claim about the supernatural and imposing that unsubstantiated opinion on you. This is a concern on the future state of the real world that they are speaking about, in what is a very complex system of healthcare. To claim that their concerns will never come to pass is simple arrogance.

Given that American Presidents are far from infallible and are willing to commit downright deception to gain political mileage, those that support a controversial proposal of one, owes to address the concerns that their opponents raise. Instead, they are just mocked. Now that is a cause for real concern.

I initially read the title to be 'Professor Richard Dawkins wants to convert to Islam'. Imagine my shock.

Apparently I was not the only one.

Why Are Americans Resistant to Science?
Here is a simple answer for those who have the stomach for it. Americans have a highly-developed sense of self-preservation, just like donkeys (coincidence I am sure).

Their religion is the defining aspect of their sense of self. They will never-ever knowingly let anyone violate that sense of self.

So there are two way to make Americans more science-minded. One is by deceit. But then they will use deceit to spread religion in the name of science, like Kent Hovind did.

Then there is the straight and narrow path taken by Richard Dawkins here. Make science the method by which Americans defend their sense of self-preservation. The worst thing that can happen then, is that they will find some poor third world country to attack because they have proper religion and improper science in their schools.

So people in the tribal areas will not vaccinate their children against polio? Are these not the radicalized tribals that that are killing American as well as Pakistani soldiers? Have they not already given violent deaths to moderates amongst them? And now they do not want to give polio vaccination to their own children. How will these children fight the 'imperialists'? On crutches?

What if these women start killing the people who asked them to commit suicide? What will happen then?

Turkish prisons will fill up with them, that is what would happen. The nature of victimization in this 'honor killing' business will change. And no honor will be saved no matter whose point of view you look at it in.

But these women, they will then have our sympathies and maybe even our respect. Would they not?

I do hope Islam evolves into a more docile and senile version of itself under the selection pressure imposed on it by atheists. I know most of you are skeptical of that but this is a whole new world.

Oklahoma OK. O-K-H-O-L-A-H-O-M-A. The thought that crossed my mind. RD will also be covering Omaha, Nebraska on a day that is very special for me, for personal reasons. It would be very appropriate, if Warren Buffet steps in to listen to RD speak. WB is an agnostic you know.

I wonder if Richard Dawkins was being interviewed in his own home.