Pervez Hoodbhoy-Paul Kurtz correspondence

In response to PM:

``And whose fault would that be, now?? Or is one not to hate the sin in cases where the sinner refuses to disassociate himself from the sin?``

One can feel what they may for the `sin`, that was not the point. The point was that people who think they can cleanly distinguish between sin and sinner, regardless of the `sinners` attitudes towards the `sin`, are deluding themselves.

Also, what is this love for the sinner that is being professed, and how is it typically manifested? I`m afraid any love for the sinner is a romantic love for abstract human qualities, e.g. humanity, whereas hatred for the sin is based on concrete acts (or, as Ibn Warraq will no doubt insist, beliefs) of humans . If we do give credence to the saying, the latter will dictate how we conduct ourselves when in presence of the beloved `sinners`.

#6 Romair....

... interesting to observe the usage of ...I consider... I think....

...So I am forced to think that your thinking is rather flawed...
I also think that you are wrong in taking exception of people who have left a faith writing against it...
... westerners are not very religious people... I dont think they would buy books just because of their anti-islam sentiments....
... I think your thinking is flawed in that you consider Rushdie and Taslima as dishonest people....

You are wrong is your portrayal of Rushdie and Taslima.. just because muslims cant digest what they have written doesnt` make them intellectually dishonest people... there may be passages where the were over zealous.... but generally speaking... their work has been very originall and considered quite truthful..... atleast that is what most people thing....

regarding your presumption that any thing anti Islam is a hot cake in west... you should try... you will learn by experience.....

Regards,
CC

Ralph, re. #24
``For anything to be worthy of our faith, it can not be irrational.``
Agreed. But you do draw the distinction between irrational and non-rational, right?

Digit

If sinners wish to keep committing a sin that affect us adversely, we ensure that such people can`t continue to do what they wish to.

I may not hate the thief, but I am not required to let him keep working toward creating an empire of thieves.

Digit

If sinners wish to keep committing a sin that affect us adversely, we ensure that such people can`t continue to do what they wish to.

I may not hate the thief, but I am not required to let him keep working toward creating an empire of thieves.

Studebaker #13

For anything to be worthy of our faith, it can not be irrational. If you have faith in irrational stuff, you live in a la-la land.

That is my message to the people who are born in Islamic households.

re. `` Anyhow, if the ‘sinners’ refuse to dissociate themselves from the `sin`, hate for the sin rather easily can justify hatred for the sinner.``
`Can easily justify?` This is completely a matter of conscience and presuasion. It does not follow from the premise of hatred for the sin. I don`t think anyone here is trying to make that justification.

re. _digit:
`` Anyhow, if the ‘sinners’ refuse to dissociate themselves from the `sin`, hate for the sin rather easily can justify hatred for the sinner.``

And whose fault would that be, now?? Or is one not to hate the sin in cases where the sinner refuses to disassociate himself from the sin?

Ugh, please people...we may not agree with Dr. Hoodboy on many points in this article or his secular humanistic outlook in general, but HE IS consistent.

His perceptions on Ibn Warraq are correct, never mind his casual comments.

In response to AlephNull, who wrote:

[One can follow the dictum of ‘hate sin and not the sinner.’]

That`s an utterly pompous dictum, if not down right patronizing. Anyhow, if the ‘sinners’ refuse to dissociate themselves from the `sin`, hate for the sin rather easily can justify hatred for the sinner. Sinner sins, sinner deemed impossible to rehabilitate...the rest is obvious. This is reason enough not to trust Ibn Warraq, or anyone who invokes anything like this silly dictum.

[I consider it highly plausible that Ibn Warraq is motivated not by hatred for Muslims but rather by sincere concern for the well-being of his erstwhile co-religionists and a heartfelt desire to save them from Islam and from themselves.]

First, a minor point: having abandoned Islam and religion altogether, Ibn Warraq is nobody`s co-religionist. Second, from his post 9-11 statement, which he wrote promptly after said incident, he declared:

``One hopes that the U.S. government will not now act in such a way that more innocent lives are lost, albeit on the other side of the globe. One hopes that even now there is a legal way out in international courts of law. The situation is far more delicate and complex than a simple battle between good and evil, the solution is not to beat hell out of all Arabs and Muslims...``

Well, wasn`t that nice. I have a hard time believing he meant any of it. This, since he has yet (to my knowledge) publicly criticize or even evaluate the Iraq and Afghan wars. Islam may not be under attack, but Muslims certainly are...where is his pious concern? Could it be that Ibn Warraq is simply co-opting the language of humanists for an otherwise not-so benign agenda? His silence on Afghanistan/Iraq may not imply approval, however it does point to a duplicity that the likes of Dr. Hoodboy have not displayed. I consider it highly plausible that he is not as well intentioned as people would like to think, and that Dr. Hoodboy sees right through this guy...

Fuzair #18: “There are quite a few people in the US, for example Jerry Falwell and Co., who truly envy Islam`s ability to dominate public life in most Muslim countries and want nothing more than to be able to do the same in the US. Guess what, Romair, they are attacked as bitterly as is any Mullah.”

You need to read the whole thread, before reaching conclusions. I have no problem with anyone being challenged. Specifically mullahs. I challenge them all the time. And I consider them to be milking religion for money and power, by creating controversy. I would put Fallwell et al in the same category. I would challenge them as well. I think they create a lot of controversy and milk religion and inter-religion rivalries to make money. You should listen to Falwell’s remarks about Islam. They are completely non-factual and very controversial, and he thrives on them.

Do keep in mind that many people consider Fallwell and Fazl-ur-Rahman to be the next big hope for their religions. Much like many individuals consider Rushdie et al to be genuine Islamic reformers. I cannot see how one can demand facts from one group and give the other a free pass, to the point of declaring him a reformist.

I have nothing against people speaking their mind. I just don’t like it when their followers declare me a kafir or a dogmatist or a fascist when I challenge them. And I can never understand how such individuals are declared official reformists by the Western media, or even their arrogantly self-described, “enlightened” Eastern followers.

I think everyone should be challenged to provide factual basis for their conclusions. And I think people should refrain from generalizations (unless they can prove them), and controversies for the sake of controversy. This is where such individuals make their money. They tend to find an audience which does not understand the subject, and then feed them with stereotypes that appeal to them. Mullahs and Rushdies both do this, and are both adored by their respective communities.

And when individuals like myself, challenge both of them to provide facts, their arrogant followers, instead of providing the facts, start passing fatwas, accusing me of muzzling their voices. Western media and Islamic theocracy has a strong desire and tendency to put such individuals, respectively, on a pedestal.

I personally do not feel that controversy necessarily equates to reform. It, unfortunately, does equate to power and money. And I have a great dislike of people who use religion to make money. If people actually want to reform Islamic countries, it will only be done through a social reform of education, lack of corruption, genuine democracy etc. Islam, which equates basically with Quran, is the same as it always was. It has, historically, had successful societies and unsuccessful ones. And will continue to do so. It is a religion, that is out there. If someone likes it they should follow it. If someone doesn’t like it, they should leave it. What I cannot understand is the in-built desire of individuals to badmouth it through generalizations, without providing facts. In my opinion, such statements actually de-reform and do not reform.

By the way, my points on this issue were made on the following generalizations, presented in previous replies:

“Islam is not a religion of the self. It is a religion of the other. It encourages you to force your understanding of Islam on others. It calls for a `virtue` police, and the creation of a `virtuous` Islamic state.”

“If anyone finds Islamic `virtues` offensive, as most non Muslims do”

“Some Islamic idiot will count on having good time in Islamic heaven were he able to kill such an apostate, a duty not discouraged in Islam.”

“It has unmistakable fascist tendencies.”

“I know you oppose those who oppose fascism because you call opposition to fascism by the name of fascism. But that is too tricky for most people. They refuse to get it.”

“It is of course to be expected that Muslim dogmatists would resent such attacks and try to muzzle them, just as political and religious dogmatists of all other shades try to suppress hostile opinions.”

So basically, when I ask someone to provide facts to support a statement they have made, I get declared a fascist by one individual (RationalFaith) and a dogmatist by another (AlphaNull). I have provided facts to prove their arguments wrong. And have only challenged them to do the same. If they can provide the facts, I will have no argument left. I am thus surprised when you agree with their arguments, as well.

Anyone who is going to state anything about any religion, has to at the very least, use some text from that religion to prove his/her point. To just state that the Islam does, “this” and does, “that” and Muslims are told to do this and that, off the top of one’s head, will never appeal to me. Or generalizing across over 1 billion Muslims (or Hindus or anyone else) with the stroke of one pen, as if one has the understanding of all of them, is basically a desire to feed a stereotype, and promote racist agendas.

I would encourage such individuals and you to provide facts, statistics etc. to prove your points. Much like I encourage mullahs to do the same. Declaring me a fascist and dogmatist for challenging you (or them) is a cop out. There is after all, more to Christianity than Fallwell, and more to Islam than Zia ul Haq. Anyone using those two, or similar individuals, to make a point doesn’t really have much of an argument.

fuzair #18 good post. this is the third article on chowk from Said-lovers from pakistan, and i wont even bother to waste any more time on that turkey.

As for your comments on christianity: i should also mention the role of the Black Death in 14-15th century europe. that disease (bubonic plague, introduced by invading huns in crimea, and from their brought via rats to italy and from there to the rest of europe) killed a third of europe`s population. one result was that those who survived lost faith in priests (who had claimed all sorts of miraculous powers, but could save neither themselves nor their followers). the other was that labor wages rose (since there was a labor scarcity). this provided the seed for the reformation. i hope we muslims will have our reformation, without going through a similar drastic event. .

AlphaNull #17: I would encourage you to not indulge in generalizations, when discussing issues. Talk about specifics. And I would also encourage you to support your ideas and theories with facts – not heresay:

1. “Serious adherents to Islam whenever they attain substantial political power invariably try to remake their surroundings in the image supposedly dictated by Islam.” I am a serious adherent to Islam

Could you explain whom you consider to be a, “serious adherent” to Islam. I consider myself a serious adherent. Yet I have no interest in remaking my surroundings into anything dictated by anyone. Hence, my existence disproves your generalization. And I am sure there are millions of more like me. How many Muslim countries in the world are being ruled by such serious adherents? If a Muslim rules a country and does not try to remake its surroundings in an, “Islamic” image, then does he cease to be an Islamic adherent?

Also, could you explain exactly what an, “Islamic image” is? Is this image defined by you? This would be kind of odd, since Muslims themselves have had huge difficulties, trying to describe an, “Islamic image?” They, themselves, cannot agree on one image.

According to your definition, the only Muslim head of Pakistan would be Zia-ul-Haq, since he did what you seem to be stating. Everyone from Jinnah, to Liaqut, to Bhutto, to Musharraf would not be Muslims. The way I look at it, they are all Muslims. They all had control of the country. And only one did what you seem to be stating. And that too because he was a dictator. So don’t you think, you are generalizing without willing to look at the other side of the coin? Why not carry out a more balanced analysis of the situation, and separate one type from the other?

I have no problem with people pointing towards individuals like Zia etc., and making the point you have made. What I have is an issue with the intellectual dishonesty that goes with generalizations And I have a furthur dislike for individuals who distort facts to create controversy. . And I have a furthur issue with the intellectual dishonesty that goes with the, “reformist” status given to such individuals. This is not just related to Islam. It is for every religion. I do not consider someone to be a reformist, just because they make generalizations, which appeal to one crowd. I would prefer facts and statistics. Which many of them never provide.

“Consequently, like all political ideologies, Islam becomes fair game for anyone – Muslim, ex-Muslim, non-Muslim - to analyze, scrutinize, dissect, attack, ridicule, savagely satirise, pummel, pillory, mercilessly lampoon, etc.”

You have reached a judicial conclusion based on a premise for which you have not provided any fact. Hence your conclusion cannot be taken seriously. I think every idea, religion, etc. should be analyzed, scrutinized, and researched. However I don’t think religions (or individuals) should be ridiculed, pummeled, or satarised, without facts. That usually results in violence and conflicts and controversy. And this is where all the so-called reformists make their money off religion. Be they of the Salman Rushdie or the Fazl-ur-Rahman variety. ]

If you make a false statement about the ingredients in a shampoo, you can get sued. At least this level of scrutiny and protection should be provided to religions and religious figures. This will separate the genuine reformists, from the ones trying to milk the religion for money. Please keep in mind that most mullahs and their followers consider themselves to be genuine reformists also. And when their non-factual statements are pointed out, they also pass fatwas, like you are doing.

“It is of course to be expected that Muslim dogmatists would resent such attacks and try to muzzle them, just as political and religious dogmatists of all other shades try to suppress hostile opinions.”

This is another buzz phrase that is used by people who cannot provide facts and statistics and indulge in generalizations. Anyone who challenges them to provide facts, is declared a religious dogmatist. You have basically just passed a, “fatwa” against me declaring me a dogmatist, because I don’t agree with your interpretation of a certain situation. This is no different than a, “fatwa” passed by a mullah, when someone does not agree with him. I have passed no fatwas against you, but you have immediately passed one against me.

This is the defence mechanism used by such individuals. They consider themselves beyond challenge. If anyone challenges them, they declare them a dogmatist or a non-Muslim, respectively. This is why I think the mullah and Rushdies are milking Islam for all its worth. They need each other and Islam to survive. If there were no Islam, they would not be this well-known. And they have small groups of followers, who know very little about Islam (the Western media and the illiterate villager), yet consider them the next Islamic Messiah.

“But in free democratic countries they have no recourse but to learn to tolerate the contrary opinions that they would rather see snuffed out.”

This is interesting. Who said their opinion should be snuffed out? Could you please point out where I stated that? If not, then why make such false statements? In fact, I specifically stated that they should not be shut up in my previous reply. Please read it. Hence you are once again attacking on false premises. In essence, you are trying to shut me up, with false accusations towards my comments. I think everyone should be allowed to speak. What I disagree with is people making money off religion for personal gains. And I completely disagree with such individuals being declared, “Reformists” by anyone. People have a tendency to declare other reformists on subjects, which they haven’t even studied themselves. How many in the Western media have studied the Quran? Shouldn’t one first study it before claiming the expertise of picking out Islamic reformist?

So, in brief, I support everyone writing anything they want. I just do not support people selling books by creating religious controversies. And I do not support people being considered reformists at the drop of the hat. They should just be considered individuals who present controversial views on religion. Let them do so. But they seem to have hogged all the limelight, along with the mullahs, in the Western media. When thousands of other individuals are actually doing a lot of reform work in Islam, but are not interested in making money off it. They are the true reformists in my book.

“You might also want to consider the possibility that people can make a living out of attacking Islam precisely because the state of Islam in practice is so utterly scandalous.”

Islam is in practice in a thousand different ways. At a personal level, people seem generally happy with it. Otherwise, they would be switching religions, left and right. At a state level, the Muslim countries are in bad shape (Hindu countries, by the way, are even worse shape). But that is due to corruption and mismanagement. In fact very few of these Muslim countries were even ruled by your definition of, “Islamists.” They were nearly all ruled by westernized non-theocratic leaders, since independence. How come these guys are given a free pass. Why doesn’t the Western media or Islamic, “reformists” go after them? If they would go after them, they would realize that the common denominator in all these countries is lack of education, corruption etc. Not Islam. If it were Islam, then Hindu nations would have prospored far beyond Islamic ones. However, they face the same problems. Why?

“For a society that happens to be ‘Islamic’ in the sense of majority birth religion, the most harmful ideology might be identified as Islam itself.”

Why? How have you come to this conclusion? If you are going to reach conclusions, you need to justify your premises first. Based on your logic, when the Muslims were ruling the world, the same Islam was the greatest thing in the world. Also, would you apply this rule to all religions. Hindus are poorer and more backwards than even Muslim nations. Should we all then spend our time, “discrediting, ridiculing, undermining and eventually destroying” Hinduism. African Black are the most backward group in the world. Should we do the same to them.

It is this desire to ridicule, discredit, pummel etc. of such individuals that I don’t understand. They don’t want to do anything constructive. This is where their racism sets in. There is a constructive non-self-centered way of reforming things. If everyone started pummelling everyone else, and every other religion, the whole world would be at war.

“Not to mention that Islam despite being decentralized has very powerful mechanisms for punishing open dissent and enforcing an unusual degree of public conformity. Someone who tries to ‘reform Islam from within’ is quite likely to be declared a blasphemer, an apostate, wajib-ul-qatl, etc. the moment he steps outside narrowly circumscribed bounds, and would be lucky to escape with his life.”

Once again, you are generalizing. I have very unconventional views about Islam. I have yet to be declared a blasphemer. And even if were declared one, it would be by the govt. in power. Not my Joe Abdul on the street. And not by Islam itself.

You can apply such statements to many Islamic countries. But you can do so to many Christian and Hindu countries as well. Alongwith China and Russia. To just immdiately use religion as a common denominator on all these things, is ridiculous. It is an in-built desire to not look beyond a certain factor to find problems. Open up your mind a bit, and look at all issues. And if you can factually prove that Islam (not Muslim autocrat rulers, but the religion itself) encourages something, then please discuss on those facts. Don’t just make statements and not quantify them.

It would be no different that my stating, “All Hindus smell, and they smell because Hinduism tells them not to shower.” It may well be a fact that a lot of Hindus do smell. But definitely not all of them. Hence my statement would be false. And then I would have to point out exactly where in Hinduism they are encouraged to smell. I cannot just make a generalization. What you are stating is that, “All Muslims smell, and they smell because Islam tells them to do so.” And then building your whole argument on that.

In any case, I have no issue with anyone writing whatever they want about any religion. I think it should be well-intentioned. But even if it isn’t, it is a free world and they can write. I do have an issue with them and their followers, declaring me a dogmatist when I challenge them to provide facts to justify their generalizations. Invariably, every time I make such a challenge, I get attacked. And no facts are provided. This is no different that the mullah passing a fatwa against anyone who challenges him.

I also have an issue with the followers of such individuals trying to pass them on as some sort of, “enlightened reformers.” And then arrogantly declaring anyone who does not join this club to be ignorant or a dogmatist. Such self-righteous thinking is intellectual dishonesty. If you want to consider someone the next Messiah, please go ahead and do so. But don’t expect me to follow him also. And if you make racist generalizations against anyone, and any religion, ethnicity, country etc. please do get ready to get challenged to back them up with facts.

AlephNull,

Nicely put. I`m quite impressed. I think you`ve come up with a nice counter to Romair`s arguments. There are quite a few people in the US, for example Jerry Falwell and Co., who truly envy Islam`s ability to dominate public life in most Muslim countries and want nothing more than to be able to do the same in the US. Guess what, Romair, they are attacked as bitterly as is any Mullah.

AlephNull is certainly correct about the attacks on political Christianity, specifically Roman Catholicism, in the West for the past several centuries (e.g., the anti-clerical nature of the French Revolution) because it was as corrupt and as totalitarian as is today`s political Islam. Remember, all those Christian `reformers` who died gruesome deaths (e.g., Huss and all the other heretics)? Roman Catholicism fought back ferociously but, thank God ;-), it lost the battle. I won`t say `war` yet because fundamentalist Christianity (its Protestant form--all those crazy Southern Baptist types) is still trying to make a comeback of sorts. Otherwise, we would have a choice between loudly and publicly worshipping Christ, the Virgin Mary and the Pope and not eating red meat for 40 days during Lent or being burnt at the stake, or loudly and publicly worshipping Allah, the Rightly Guided Khalifas and Maulana Sami ul Haq and not being allowed to eat during daylight hours for 28 days or being publicly beheaded after 30 lashes in the town square. You`ll pardon me if I prefer to worship Mammon and the virtues of Johnny Walker Blue Label... now thats smooooooth!

But seriously, I do have a problem with the wholesale condemnation of `Islam` as totalitarian thought control. This is the same problem that many socialists had with the depiction of Socialism as totalitarian thought control just because the USSR was a totalitarian thought control society. I would much prefer it if people attacked Islamists as totalitarian thought control freaks rather than Islam but, I guess, that is exactly what all those socialists were saying: ``The USSR is NOT socialism! The Gulags are not the inevitable result of Marxism! Stalin is not God!`` I guess as far as the average non-socialist was concerned, that was a difference without a distinction. Who knows or cares what Marxism in its Ideal Form might or might not be; we can see what Marxism-Leninism is and the danger it presents. So who cares what Islam might or might not be, we can see the danger OBL/Taliban/Deobandis/Khomeini present.

TTFN

Dr. Hoodbhoy writes:

{{Warraq is blinded by his hate of Muslims. Roundly condemning the use of religion in the Islamic world, he is silent about the political uses of Christianity and Judaism as he scurries around to gain favor with the neo-conservatives and the Christian-Right in the White House.}}

Ibn Warraq clearly has an exceedingly low opinion of Islam (and not just ‘Islamism’), which he regards as a fundamentally malevolent ideology to be exposed and countered. It does not follow that he hates Muslims, defined simply as people associated with Islam by accident of birth, and I have seen nothing in Ibn Warraq’s writings to support such a conclusion. One can follow the dictum of ‘hate sin and not the sinner.’ I consider it highly plausible that Ibn Warraq is motivated not by hatred for Muslims but rather by sincere concern for the well-being of his erstwhile co-religionists and a heartfelt desire to save them from Islam and from themselves. If this differs in substance from those who go around trying to save souls by converting others to one particular brand of ‘true religion’, it is only because Ibn Warraq’s arguments are based in fact and reason rather than the bogosity of ‘revelation’.

Incidentally, this error – confusing hostility towards religion with hatred to all those in its thrall – is one frequently made by religious dogmatists, and especially by Muslims, who of all groups seem chronically unable to separate the ideology from the people willy-nilly associated with it by accident of birth.

Romair #6

{{There is something I have never understood about certain people who leave Islam. They leave the religion, becuase they don`t like it. That part is ok, its there choice. But why, then, do they remain attached to it, and try to make a living out of it. People who leave Islam, seem more interested in writing books about it, and making money off it, then people who do not leave it.}}

The most salient fact is that Islam is not simply a personal and private faith. It forcibly injects itself into the public realm by rejecting the separation of mosque and state and demanding a say in worldly affairs. It implies a certain social and political order. It is in practice the most overtly political of the major religions. Serious adherents to Islam whenever they attain substantial political power invariably try to remake their surroundings in the image supposedly dictated by Islam.

Consequently, like all political ideologies, Islam becomes fair game for anyone – Muslim, ex-Muslim, non-Muslim - to analyze, scrutinize, dissect, attack, ridicule, savagely satirise, pummel, pillory, mercilessly lampoon, etc. It is of course to be expected that Muslim dogmatists would resent such attacks and try to muzzle them, just as political and religious dogmatists of all other shades try to suppress hostile opinions. But in free democratic countries they have no recourse but to learn to tolerate the contrary opinions that they would rather see snuffed out.

You might also want to consider the possibility that people can make a living out of attacking Islam precisely because the state of Islam in practice is so utterly scandalous. Other religions have had to suffer decades if not centuries of open attacks and muckraking as a consequence of which their worst abuses have been somewhat ameliorated. Not so with Islam.

{{I consider this intellectual dishonesty. If someone wants to genuinely reform Islam, they need to have enough courage to do it from the inside. And they need to do it through social movements and ideas that appeal to Muslims, themselves. Since, after all, it is Islam that they are (allegedly) trying to, ``reform.``}}

Here once again is the familiar Muslim error of conflating the religion and the host society. There may be no desire to reform Islam at all. A person’s desire may be to reform the society he belongs to or comes from by purging it of its most pernicious ideologies. For a society that happens to be ‘Islamic’ in the sense of majority birth religion, the most harmful ideology might be identified as Islam itself. It is perfectly consistent for a person to judge that he can only reform an ‘Islamic’ society and improve the lot of Muslims-by-birth, by attacking, discrediting, ridiculing, undermining and eventually destroying Islam itself.

Not to mention that Islam despite being decentralized has very powerful mechanisms for punishing open dissent and enforcing an unusual degree of public conformity. Someone who tries to ‘reform Islam from within’ is quite likely to be declared a blasphemer, an apostate, wajib-ul-qatl, etc. the moment he steps outside narrowly circumscribed bounds, and would be lucky to escape with his life.

{{Invariably they end up moving to the West, and then start wrting books about (or against, depending on how one looks at it) Islam, which appeal, only to certain portion of the Western populace and media.}}

There is actually a very strong parallel with Soviet Communism, another totalitarian religious ideology. A Russian patriot might have strongly believed that Communism had to be destroyed for Russia and Russians to survive and eventually prosper. Those naïve and idealistic enough to try to ‘reform the reform the system from within’ would find themselves in the Gulag in fairly short order. Meanwhile the analogues of Romair would have been excoriating dissidents for ‘intellectual dishonesty’ for not working through social movements that appealed to the proletariat itself.

A number of intellectual opponents of Soviet communism did indeed manage to move to the West and started writing books about (or against) Soviet Communism, with a certain following in the West. The best known of them was Alexander Solzhenitsyn. It turned out that his works also had substantial underground circulation in his native land. I hope the day is not far off when Ibn Warraq’s books are clandestinely circulated and eagerly read in Pakistan and other Islamic countries.

Romair,

``This ibn-Warraq guy is interesting. Apparently, his family is from Pakistan, and he gets a stipend from Kurtz, which allows him to sit in Europe and write. I wish we were all so lucky.``


Your sentiment is understandable.

I mean there are other pakistanis too...living in the west...being paid to write.
Silently they toil....day and night...with many nicks and IP addresses.

Are they recognised, do they win awards, Hell no!