Pervez Hoodbhoy-Paul Kurtz correspondence

re: Romair`s ramblings

``Hindu countries, by the way, are even worse shape``
Let us see. How many Hindu countries are there? Nepal? I am running out of ideas here. Please somebody help me!

``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.``

When muslim rulers (and not muslims) ruled the world (whatever that expression means; they certainly did not rule the world), they set the rules. In collusion with the clergy, they made sure there were no dissenting voices. So, when they decreed that Islam was the greatest (remember they were the rulers), so it was. Does Romair really believe Islam was the greatest religion even then?
Hindus are poorer and more backward? Well, why does Romair the idiot not find a muslim Accountant? I see envy here. He is surrounded by Hindus at workplace. That must be hard on a closet Islamist like him. When you can`t compete, you can at least condemn, he seems to say. Besides, i recently read the report that India has outstripped Pak in GDP and PPP growth. Let Romair, the Chowk idiot chew on that.
Hinduism is not under the lens today. Islam is. Whether Romair likes it or not. I think the guy has reached the limits of his sanity.

``I have very unconventional views about Islam. I have yet to be declared a blasphemer.``
Tell you what. Write a book on your unconventional views of Islam. See what your mullahs have to say. It is one thing to have unconventional views on Islam and lock it up in your mind and it is another thing to say so freely, with conviction. Islamists and Jehadists will not allow any unconventional views. Did you, Romair, hear the news that barbers in Pakistan are all moving into another profession? Care to know why? Because, shaving is now prohibited by mullahs and barbers are all out of business!
Sridhar

re:#57 by RationalFaith
Islam in one stroke will become acceptable to non-muslims if it is kept as a personal faith and is kept out of public domain. But then that itself would be unislamic, would it not?
Sridhar

There has always been a vested interest lobby maligning people like Edward Said, Chomsky, Eqbal Ahmad and others. The reason for such attacks is that these symbols of humanity stood in front of hegemony and power despite their frailty and limited resources. Pervez Hoodbhoy is carrying the torch that should remain alive. Munir

_digit:
Just thought I`d tell you there`s an unplugged (Off the Wall) thread on `Real Men` and `sexual harrasment` that I thought you`d be interested in peeping into.

AlephNull wrote:

[I prefixed ‘coreligionist’ with the word ‘erstwhile’...]

Yes, mistake was mine...missed the erstwhile there. Like I said, minor point.

[You say “Islam may not be under attack, but Muslims certainly are”. Well, in my very unsympathetic opinion, in many cases Muslims as a group are under attack largely because...]

To be clear, no one was trying to solicit your sympathy.

Anyhow, it is just as obtuse to think that there are no legitimate grievances on the Muslim side, (or that the violence is entirely unidirectional), as it is to think all problems of Muslims originate from outside Muslim lands. That is, however, beside the point.

Muslims are under attack. Whatever the reasons may be, the nature of the attack is at the very least as severe as whatever certain Muslims have been able to perpetrate in recent history, (I personally would argue that it`s much worse).

One would think, then, that those who proclaim a love or genuine concern for Muslims would voice some sort of concern for their welfare. One would think that when non-Muslims exhibit the same violent tendencies as Muslims, invoking a similar rationale no less, then the non-Muslims would be subjected to the same standard of criticism. The reasons why this is not done I know, so I don`t need a justification for this. Just spare me this feigned concern. Ibn Warraq hates Islam, however his challenge to it is not on behalf of Muslims. It is, arguably, in spite of them. On this, Dr. Hoodboy’s assessment deserves more than a casual brush off.

[If this diagnosis is accurate (an assertion with which you are welcome to disagree), the route to a cure for the woes of Muslims would be to root out the very Islam that causes the clueless backwardness. In which case ‘tough love’ of the Ibn Warraq school is the best way to ensure their future well-being.]

The Muslim/Islam distinction doesn’t work in this sense, since Islam cannot be physically attacked. Only it’s practitioners can. To attempt to make it work, you will need to come up with convenient or even absurd definitions of who a Muslim is. It would be best just to admit to the simple truth: some people would prefer it if Muslims were non-Muslims. For those who espouse “tough love”, then no doubt the use of violence to see this end is not out of the question. That, however, has no pretense of being tolerant. So I can see why this absurd “love the sinner, hate the sin” business is invoked.

Also, to be clear, I do not know for certain if Ibn Warraq is of this “tough love” school of thought…

Fuzair #18

That last paragraph was brilliant. Only if all Muslims could see that to non Muslims, it matters not at all what some fictional `true` Islam is so long as `real` Islam continues to cast an evil and cancerous influence across the globe.

Instead of accusing non Muslims for distorting the `true` Islam, believers in the `true` Islam should fight to put into practice an Islam that is worthy of being tolerated by non Muslims. But that is much harder to do, or no such thing can be created because no such thing exists, except in the minds of those who are desperate to win respectability but yet be Muslims.

The most despicable part is that no matter what, these people would come back with `you are distorting Islam` sh%t.

Fuzair #18

{{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.}}

Well, one might argue that European social democracy, say as practiced in the Scandinavian countries, was/is closer to Marx’s vision than anything east of the Iron Curtain. I brought up the example of Soviet Communism because it shows some very interesting parallels in theory and practice with many versions of Islam. The most salient difference from my point of view is the fact that Communist theocracy had a very well developed hierarchical clergy and attempted to exercise top-down control, whereas Islam seems to be decentralized. But the degree of control of public discourse seems to be comparable.

{{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 …}}

Claiming that this or that instance of the actual behaviour of those who act invoking Islam is not “real Islam”, is as questionable a ploy as claiming that Soviet Communism wasn’t “real socialism” and that Stalin (or was it Lenin?) betrayed a noble ideal. Communism is a system of thought and belief that, though it claims to be theoretically grounded, is not reducible (AFAIK) to a system of unambiguous axioms. Vagueness and contradiction (or apparent contradiction), differing interpretations of the same text, and divergent prescriptions for theoretically grounded action in consonance with the ‘theory’, are commonly encountered results of any discourse involving this essential vagueness. Looking at the actual behaviour of those who acted invoking Communism is therefore not only appropriate but essential to get a measure of the ideology itself and the way it is likely to play out in the real world.

The same argument holds, at least as strongly, for Islam. It is if anything less amenable to rigorous axiomatization than Communism. So the historical record of those who acted in the name of Islam is the best thing we have to go by to understand the ideology and the way it will in all likelihood be interpreted. And if those who act in the name of Islam typically impose severe restrictions on the free expression of opinion about Islam or hostile to Islam, calling it a system of thought control is fair.

_digit #22

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

That`s an utterly pompous dictum, if not down right patronizing.}}

It was meant to be patronizing and to get under pompous religious believers’ skins. It is taken right out of the Christian fundagolical playbook. It is a favourite catchphrase of earnest evangelicals trying to ‘cure’ people with deviant sexuality. I thought it sounded vaguely New Testament – Pauline, perhaps – but it seems not to have a direct origin in Christian scripture. Be that as it may, the pleasure of using it to patronize religious true believers is one I will not willingly pass up.

{{First, a minor point: having abandoned Islam and religion altogether, Ibn Warraq is nobody`s co-religionist.}}

I prefixed ‘coreligionist’ with the word ‘erstwhile’, which precisely fits Ibn Warraq the apostate. If you don’t know what `erstwhile` means, look it up in the dictionary.

{{.. 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. …”” ….. Islam may not be under attack, but Muslims certainly are...where is his pious concern?… }

You say “Islam may not be under attack, but Muslims certainly are”. Well, in my very unsympathetic opinion, in many cases Muslims as a group are under attack largely because of their own utterly stupid behaviour, their inability to stay out of trouble, their hopeless incomprehension of the way the rest of the world works, their penchant for making unnecessary enemies out of neutrals, etc., all traceable to cultural factors eventually rooted in Islam. Their woes are all too often self-inflicted. If this diagnosis is accurate (an assertion with which you are welcome to disagree), the route to a cure for the woes of Muslims would be to root out the very Islam that causes the clueless backwardness. In which case ‘tough love’ of the Ibn Warraq school is the best way to ensure their future well-being.

Aaah yes, Solitude. I remember him now. He did have a rather virulent dislike for Islam.

Thanks PM and AlephNull, appreciate it.

Fuzair

In response to AlephNull, who wrote:

[Solitude came across as an extremely passionate man, much younger - late twenties, perhaps - with a more unrestrained polemical style]

LOL, that`s a rather mild assesment of one who wrote, and I quote, ``I think we can put our nuclear arsenal to good use by turning Mecca/ Medina into the next test zone during peak season.``

But, of course, this is no doubt is consistent with your idea of ``loving the sinner``...

AlephNull,
You wouldn`t happen to be a new avatar of the erstwhile LC, now would you? You are certainly at least as articulate as he.

Fuzair, I think it was temp who claimed that Warraq was of Pakistani origin. to the best of my knowledge, he is of Inidan.
The dude who`d often post inflammatory stuff on Islam (and yes, was quite an expert on Ghazzali) went as `Solitude`. He`s in NYC and in his late 20`s yet. Too young to be Warraq.

#49 fuzair

{{There was a Chowkie here a few years ago, can`t recall his name, who wrote several articles severely criticising Islam (I remember a very critical article on Ghazali).}}

Solitude, who penned articles as A. Shiraz and as A Shiraz` Evil Twin (for the Ghazali article).

{{Is he Ibn Warraq? Anyone know?}}

I think it`s highly unlikely. Ibn Warrraq is described as being in his late fifties and is quite composed in his written and reported verbal utterances. Solitude came across as an extremely passionate man, much younger - late twenties, perhaps - with a more unrestrained polemical style.

Its interesting that a poster here (sorry, can`t recall who) said that ``Ibn Warraq`` is of Pakistani origin. There was a Chowkie here a few years ago, can`t recall his name, who wrote several articles severely criticising Islam (I remember a very critical article on Ghazali). Is he Ibn Warraq? Anyone know?

re. _digit:
``Sure, and the `sinner` is a person responsible for the wrongdoing.``

But not necessarily the sole agent. And within the overlap of joint responsbility, lies the space for empathy, understanding and forgiveness, and the possibility of hating the sin but not the sinner.

RationalFaith wrote:

[The problem is as follows: If you have loathsome sinner, you have two realistic options -]

No, you have a continuum of options, you`ve simply selected two that you found most convenient.

[...you hate the sin but not the sinner. You make sure he does not get to commit his sins. ]

Sounds gentle enough...of course, there is a not so subtle subterfuge here...``making sure`` this person does not commit sins may well involve harming this person. Or worse.

When dealing with unrepentant criminals, those who could care less for mending their ways, we most often resort to `containment` because of the harm they can do to the rest of society. We do this out of a self-love, not because we love this person.


[May be you can jail him.]

Jailing is an act of love, or compassion? Jeez, talk about tough love. ;-)

Again, though, the concept of a jail is to remove undesirables from society. Rehabilitation may be a stated goal, and it certainly is worth a shot, but that`s not the primary reason for jailing people.

[But, according to a religious tradition, that is not enough. You shouldn`t give up on him. You should love him enough as a human being to keep helping him come to his senses, to give up his thievery, if that is the problem.]

Well, back to my original point, if a person`s ``problem`` is believing in a certain faith, ( a la Ibn Warraq), then you`ll forgive me if I find the above sentiment rather patronizing...

Anyhow, we may have hope that some people can be rehabilitated, but I question the wisdom of one who doesn`t place a limit on this hope. It is a virtue to be patient, however one can be too patient, too compassionate. I don`t want a serial killer being given the kind of understanding you advocate unless there`s a darn good reason for it. Remorse is a good reason, or at least a good start. The simple fact that this killer is a human is not a good reason.

In the end, though, we mustn`t be too forgiving of a person who went ahead and committed the crime in the first place, knowing full well they were doing something wrong. Assuming they weren`t in their senses is being much too forgiving...

In response to PM, who wrote:

[How so ``almost moral relativism``? well, you almost seem to be saying that it wouldn`t do to hate the sin since that inevitably leads to hating the sinner.]

Hmm...that`s interesting. Actually, I do indeed argue that hating the sin can very well lead to hatred for the sinner...the sinner being the implement of the sin, I can`t see how you can separate the deed from the one who commits the deed. But I don`t advocate the abandoning ones principles on this account.

[Before anyone accuses either of us of being to smug here,]

...me, smug? Never! ;-)

[the word `sin` is used as synonomous with clear wrongdoing affecting others (...though I admit to a grey area even there.)]

Sure, and the `sinner` is a person responsible for the wrongdoing.

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030428-89513989.htm

Washington Times
April 28, 2003

The road to democracy
by Suzanne Fields

[Suzanne Fields is a columnist for The Washington Times]

..... ``Islamic fundamentalists are utopian visionaries who wish to
replace Western-style liberal democracies with Islamic theocracy, a
fascist system of filth that aims to control every single act of every
individual,`` Ibn Warraq told a conference on Islam the other day,
sponsored by the Council for Secular Humanism. ``We must take seriously
what the Islamists say to understand their motivation [of September
11], that it is the divinely ordained duty of all Muslims to fight in
the literal sense until man-made law has been replaced by God`s law,
the Sharia, and Islamic law has conquered the entire world.`` You can`t
be more pessimistic than that.

Mr. Warraq excoriates Americans who naively believe ``liberal
Muslims`` when they say their religion is compatible with feminism,
human rights, egalitarianism and religious tolerance: ``There may be
moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate.``

Mr. Warraq is as soft-spoken and gentlemanly as his words are
inflammatory. When I caught up with him at a reception in his honor
and asked him how he accounted for the medieval glories of Islamic
civilization, he was courtly and witty as he confronted what he called
the ``error`` in my question. ``Science and the arts came from outside
the Muslim world and in spite of the Koran and Islamic law,`` he told
me in the tone of the patient schoolteacher he once was. ``Crediting
Islam for the medieval cultural glories is like crediting the
Inquisition for Galileo`s discoveries.``

Mr. Warraq is the author of a book called ``Why I`m Not Muslim,``
which is industrial-strength blasphemy for a man born a Muslim in
India. He lives now in upstate New York. He uses a pen name and
resists being photographed to avoid a Salman Rushdie-like fatwa, or
death sentence ordered by an aggrieved imam. His pessimism has the
subtlety of a sledgehammer, expressing a passionately-felt, if
one-sided, interpretation of the religion he was born to deny. .....

#35
++
I would not put the Rushdies of the world, in the category of Islamic reformists, since they are just making money of it.
++

I agree that you have a valid point.... one cant claim / be labelled a reformist just because he has written about short comings.....

... your arguments about double standards I feel are also valid....

OTOH... he has pointed failues.. it is upto us to reform ourselves.... so he did contribute....

... but you were surely wrong about Taslima.... she wrote against anti-hindu agenda of Bangladesh.... She wrote about facts!!!!

.... another thing... pretesting against generalisations.. u did do generalisation....

...Rushdie is not all that intellectually dishonest as you painted him in your earlier post...


...anyway... hope you will find a good reformer before it is too late....

Regards,
CC

Romair

Rush limbaugh is in rehab.; I think he will be ok after that.

SaminaShah #41: ``Romair,

Is Rushdie considered a reformer? I would classify him as a writer and cultural critic.``

Rushdie is definitely not a reformer of religion. That is my whole point. I cannot understand why certain individuals are bent upon giving people like Rushdie, and anyone else who creates controversy about religion, without any factual basis, to be a reformer of Islam. Rushdie is reforming Islam, about as much as Rush Limbaugh is reforming African-Americans.

Rushdie is basically a very good writer of the English language, and an astute businessman, and a culture critic etc., like you stated. Much like Rush Limbaugh is a very good radio show host, with a strong radio voice. However, both Rushdie and Limbaugh are known far more than others, in their profession, who may know more about the subject. This is because they have succeeded in creating controversy around certain subjects, and thus have become very popular with the crowd, which needed to vent its frustrations through them.

What more could a writer or a critic want, than to be declared the authority on a subject? The only thing he/she could want more is to be declared not only the authority on the subject, but to be declared a reformer of the subject, and achieve martyr-like status. This is what individuals like Rushdie and Limbaugh are terrific at.

In Limbaugh’s case, he has a lot of knowledge about politics, and is an authority on that. And he should be recognized for that. But he uses that to create controversy by making marginally factual statements about Blacks and others, thereby creating controversy, and feeding the monster. In return he makes over $25 million/year. Rushdie has been able to do the same, by using his reputation as a good writer, and venturing into the area of religion, making marginally factual statements about religion, and feeding the monster, also. In return, he is now the best-known author in the world, for reasons other than his writing. How many people outside the literary community know Mistry, and Roy, etc.? Everyone outside the literary community knows Rushdie. Primarily because of the controversies he has created around Islam.

I am a strong believer in freedom of speech. I was one of the only guys on this site, who said that I would not return to site, if the self-appointed Chowk police succeeded in banning Jay. Even though individuals like Jay, and RationalFaith and AlphaNull etc. never spare a moment in spewing their hatred against me, my ethnicity and my religion, respectively. My views on Islam are quite unorthodox also. For example, I do not believe that all the Hadith can be validated historically, hence they should not be used as the basis of Islamic juridsprudence. This would turn all of Islamic law on its head. But I can back up my claim with with logic and facts, and I am not trying to sell a book.

The problem with people like Rushdie and Limbaugh is that they use freedom of speech, their influence, and the great amount of skills (most of which are actually very legitimate) to pursue agendas about which they have no factual basis. This is big business.

I strongly believe that such individuals should have the right to express their views. But I also strongly believe that they should be exposed and brought to task, when they make non-factual statements against ethnicities (Limbaugh) and religion (Rushdie). The Blacks and Jews have put in a watchdog system, which does not let individuals get away with such remarks. They are taken to task. The Muslims have not put in such a system. Muslims do not have the courage to expose such individuals. Or they go to the other extremes and pass a fatwa against them. What should be done is to challenge them to back up their claims, and to expose any racism they hold, to the public.

This is what I am attempting to do. If they can back up their claims with facts, then I will have no argument. But I do read a lot, and can easily differentiate between individuals like Tariq Ali and Rushdie. Tariq Ali, is an apostate, also. He has perhaps made more controversial statements about Islam, than Rushdie, including hinting that the Quran not being the actual book of God, but coming into existence many years later. But, everything he states is done in the form of a constructive argument. He tries to back it up with fact. He is not creating controversy, for the sake of controversy. Thus, I follow him very closely, and actually agree with much of what he says (and disagree with much also). Rushdie, on the other hand cannot back up any of his religious references in Satanic Verses with fact. He is just slandering, and exploiting an illiterate (about Islam) Western audience.

This does not mean I disagree with everything that Rushdie writes. He is a fellow Kashmiri, and is a supporter of the self-determination of Kashmiris. Now this is a topic he does know a lot about. This is something he should be known for in the Western media. However, this is a boring topic around which it is impossible to create controversy, and it does not sell any books.

There are individuals who try to, “pummell, slander, satire, abuse, hate” other religions, in order to vent out their frustrations. They do so while hiding behind freedom of speech concepts and pseudonyms like RationalFaith. They will make a living out of bigoted comments. And if one attempts to challenge them and expose them, they declare him to be a fascist.

There are other individuals who try to constructively debate religions.

I support the later. For the former, I don’t think they should be, “fatwa”ed, but they should definitely be challenged and their bigotry should be exposed.

But to claim the first group as, “Reformers.” Gimme a break. They are trying to reform Islam about as much as Rush Limbaugh is trying to reform African-Americans.

Romair,

Is Rushdie considered a reformer? I would classify him as a writer and cultural critic.

re. _digit:
``It`s of no good, of course. What use is it to invoke an impossible love to justify our hatred for certain acts or even beliefs?``
If it is simply to `justify` that is one thing; if to prevent least possible harm, quite another.

``Is this a guilt thing for actually hating something/someone?``
Maybe. Maybe not. Depends.

How so ``almost moral relativism``? well, you almost seem to be saying that it wouldn`t do to hate the sin since that inevitably leads to hating the sinner.

Before anyone accuses either of us of being to smug here, the word `sin` is used as synonomous with clear wrongdoing affecting others (...though I admit to a grey area even there.)

re #36 HisExcellency:
In this discussion thus far, `sin` is related more to crime (not completely synonomously though) than to its traditional meaning.

Digit

The problem is as follows: If you have loathsome sinner, you have two realistic options -

1. you hate the sin and hate the sinner. You pronounce him an evil person. Now the question becomes no more just of the sin but of this person him(her)self. She has been denounced. Now there is no hope for her redemption. Then, if she, and not just the act, has been judged evil, she can`t be saved. Then the next logical step is to kill her. Many societies are built on this principle.

Alternatively,

2. you hate the sin but not the sinner. You make sure he does not get to commit his sins. May be you can jail him.

But, according to a religious tradition, that is not enough. You shouldn`t give up on him. You should love him enough as a human being to keep helping him come to his senses, to give up his thievery, if that is the problem.

That is the religious ideal. It may not work in some cases, but we are called upon to make an honest effort.

So two traditions beginning from the same point diverge so rapidly and widely in their implications for the kind of societies they create.

In response to PM:

[That`s the whole point. What good is it to have a position on what is right and wrong --as concerning harm caused to others-- if you are not willing to stand by it.]

It`s of no good, of course. What use is it to invoke an impossible love to justify our hatred for certain acts or even beliefs? Is this a guilt thing for actually hating something/someone?

[You almost seem to be making a case for moral relatvism here.]

How so?

[It is, I should add, quite possible to conduct oneself without malice towards the `sinners`. There is such a thing called empathy, with can be inculcated through understanding.]

Certainly. It is possible.

People who find an act loathsome are naturally inclined to find the people performing the act as loathsome people, depending on circumstance of course. It is this circumstance that will dictate the amount of empathy and understanding we`re willing to bestow on the `sinner`.

A beggar stealing for survival deserves all the understanding one can give...an unrepentant professional thief stealing from vulnerable pray is a different story. The latter is a loathsome person who must be stopped.

#28 by RationalFaith
#34 by PM
#33 by _digit

Aren`t you folks debating the wrong concepts? There is after all a distinction between sin and crime.

Society cannot punish people for sins because sins are hard to judge and usually do not impact other people. Society can only punish crimes. Unlike sin, crime is well-defined and can be judged in a court of law.

Not every sin is a crime and not every crime is a sin.

Salman Rushdie`s character assassination of Muhammad is a sin in Islam, but not a crime. Society can`t prosecute him for writing Satanic Verses. It can only ostracize or ignore him. Ultimately, his punishment must come from God, not Man.

OTOH, refusing to serve in the Army is considered a crime in most countries, but not a sin.

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

I wish more individuals would use terms like, ``I think`` to point out that they are just presenting their opinions. Rather than claiming knowledge of the world through generalizations.

``I also think that you are wrong in taking exception of people who have left a faith writing against it...``

You have not understood anything that I stated. I don`t have anything against anyone writing anything. I just challenge them to back it up with facts. If they cannot back it up with facts, and they still make generalizations, even then, I don`t think they should be shut down. But I do think they should be considered racists and bigots. And they should be exposed.

The general US population agrees with this, as well. Just look at how quickly Rush Limbaugh and Trent Lott were fired, after making racist comments. Do you think they would have been fired, had they made similar comments about Islam? They may have actually been promoted. Much like Daniel Pipes was promoted. Do read his book, specially his comments about Muslim hygiene and the diseases Muslims bring. He was challenged on these quotes from his book in the Canadian media (which is far more balalnced than the USA media on Islamic issues). It was interesting to see him struggle for words, when his blatant racism was exposed in front of him. But, of course, he is considered a refomer by many, as well. Had he written such things about Jews or Blacks, he would be considered a racist, and there is no way Bush would have given him a high govt. job. Why is their such a double standard.

``their work has been very originall and considered quite truthful..... atleast that is what most people thing.... ``

It is impossible for their readers to consider their writings (the part related to Islam) truthful, because an overwhelming number of the readers don`t have the pre-requisites to decide one way or the other. They would have had to read the Quran, at the very least, to decide on the truthfulness. This is something very few Westerners have done. Hence, they must claim ignorance on the subject, and cannot make a judgment. If I don`t know what you look like, can I make a judgment on whether you are better looking than someone else, just by looking at that someone else?

``.. just because muslims cant digest what they have written doesnt` make them intellectually dishonest people... ``

I don`t know about other Muslims, but I don`t have a digestion problem. I just have a truth problem. I like truth and facts, and dislike rhetoric and controversy - against all religions, ethncities, peoples etc. And I hate bigots and racists. And I like to expose people who make a living out of this. If someone cannot provide facts to backup their theses, then they are intellectually dishonest. Plain and simple.

Publishing is big business. And I guess, apparently all is fair in love war and business. Readers love controversy. That is why the papparazzi and the Enquirer magazines do so well. That is also why mullahs do well, as do writers like Taslima Nasrin and Rushdie (on religious topics). Most of their information cannot be backed up with fact.

In fact, I don`t even have a huge problem against the intellectual dishonesty of such people. They have a good gig going. They are milking it for all that they can, and making money. They have an interested group of followers, who knows very little about the subject, other than stereotypes and they are feeding the monster, and making money. People love controversy. It sells. No one would know who Taslima Nasrin was, were she not so controversial, and had she not written about Islam.

What I do have a problem with is, certain individuals, like RationalFaith and AlphaNull and a portion of the Western media, hailing such individuals to be Islamic reformers. Why? Based on what? This is no different than someone declaring a Mullah to be a reformer, because he creates controversy and appeals to the peanut gallery. Or declaring Rush Limbaugh to be a refomer of African Americans, because he makes controversial statements about them. Just because someone creates controversy, do they become reformers? I think such individuals have an agenda. And if they are not exposed, they will continue in their racist and bigoted manner.

To me Martin Luther King is a true refomer of the Black community, and not Rush Limbaugh. And to me, the true reformer of the Islamic community are the individuals who are constructively reforming it through philanthrapy and education and/or a constructive intellectual discourse, etc. I would put people like Edhi, and Imran Khan others in category. I would even put people like Tariq Ali in this category, even though he is an athiest. Becasue he tries to back up his ideas with facts. And he does not sell his books through controversy around religion. I would not put the Rushdies of the world, in the category of Islamic reformists, since they are just making money of it.

And I like to challenge such individuals, to back up their views with facts, even if they declare me to be a fascist and dogmatic. Interestingly, such individuals are experts at passing such fatwas, if they are challenged.

_digit: ``If we do give credence to the saying, the latter will dictate how we conduct ourselves when in presence of the beloved `sinners`.``

That`s the whole point. What good is it to have a position on what is right and wrong --as concerning harm caused to others-- if you are not willing to stand by it. You almost seem to be making a case for moral relatvism here.
It is, I should add, quite possible to conduct oneself without malice towards the `sinners`. There is such a thing called empathy, with can be inculcated through understanding.

In response to RationalFaith:

[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.]

At the risk of taking this ``love/hate`` thing too literally, how? By loving them into submission or reform? I did not mean to suggest that loving the sinner is necessarily loving the sin. Rather, ``hating`` the sin can indeed lead to acts that would be consistent with ``hating`` the sinner, although we may wish to choose the word ``contain``. Hating a sin I can understand. It`s this business of ``loving the sinner`` that I don`t buy.

A sinner is by definition one who commits acts of sin, not an arbitrary person or a person who happens to commit sin. Within this context, the sin defines the sinner and the two are inseparable. The sinners` humanity (I suppose the “love the sinner” bit is used to profess this), or our love for them, is not an issue or relevant.

Now, according the Ibn Warraq, the sin of Muslims is believing in Islam. You`ll pardon me if I see something a bit more than a cause for concern in such kind of statements, despite his (or your) professed ``love`` for me.

#26 by cosmic_citizen

++
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...
++

Rushdie`s Satanic Verses and Taslima`s Lajja are books of fiction literature, not theology, intellectual discussion or religious treatise. Muslim clergy and anti-Muslim propagandists are reading too much into these two books.

Just like a study of Christianity cannot be based on fiction novels written by Tom Clancy and John Grisham, an analysis of Islam cannot be based on fiction literature written by Rushdie and Taslima.

digit

Stealing is a sin because it harms another person.

All those ideas and actions driven by ideas where others are hurt if they have not hurt you, or claims are made about people who have made no claims against you, are SIN.

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!

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

RationalFaith #9: ``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.``

I have never interacted with you, so I don`t know how you can make statements about knowing me. I oppose all types of fascism - including Islamic fascism, Hindu fascism, Secular fascism, Christian fascim and any other fascism. I also oppose individuals who try to create controversy by abusing any religion, without facts. As you have done, in your reply. If you notice, I have not made a single derogatory comment about Hinduism, or any other religion, ever in my replies. While you have made racist generalizations about another religion, in your reply. And then you have the audacity to state, ``I know you oppose those who oppose fascism.``

You have, in essence, declared a whole religion and all its followers to be fascist. And on top of that are accuising me of that crime. This is the kind of controversy, which is big bucks, and which I consider to be intellectual dishonesty. Any kind of a, ``reform`` based on hatred of a religion never works. If I tried to, ``reform`` Hinduism, by hating the religion, to begin with, I doubt I would be successful. Same is the case of individuals like yourself, you try to use the facade of, ``reform`` to vent their hatred of another religion.

``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.``

You seem too sure of yourself and your knowledge of Islam. You should attach a disclaimer of, ``In my opinion`` before each one of your statements. Since you are greatly generalizing and providing no facts. I would be interested in a statistical discussion with you on these issues, to point out the lack of factual information in your arguments.

Were you to make such a racist comment about Judaism, the Jewish organizations would be on you like a blanket on a bed. You wouldn`t know what hit you. Just remember, they made Micheal Jackson delete the phrase, ``Jew me`` from his song. And are now targeting Mel Gibson for his latest movie.

This is exactly the kind of comments I oppose whole-heartedly about any religion - not just about Islam. And this is exaclty why I consider many of the writers who try to make a living through controversy about Islam, to be intellectually dishonest. They in fact, make very self-righteous comments, accusing ironically, Islam of being self-righteous.

There are hundreds of millions of Muslims following Islam, who are just trying to make end`s meat. Including me. They have never tried to force Islam on anyone. How many Goras working in Pakistan have been converted to to Islam. How many Muslims do you see on the US media, trying to, ``force`` themselves onto anyone. The poor guys are on the defensive even before the interview starts. In fact, the only Western media I have seen where the Muslims aren`t afraid to go toe to toe with everyone is the Canadian media. Everywhere else, they rarely get a fair deal. Do a calcuation, and you will soon discover that Muslims get a disproporitionatley lower access to media outlets in the Western world in comparison to other groups with equivalent populations.

In fact, the only individuals I see getting time on the US media are Muslims who have successfully been able to create contrversy in their books. There are other, ``Muslim`` scholars in the world, yet they are never given the time of day. Why?

I have nothing against genuine research in Islam. I try to indulge in it myself. But it has to be based on fact. And it would be great if it were well-intentioned. But even if it isn`t well-intentioned, it should at least be factual. What one sees are individuals who just create controversy, with half their arguments based on facts, and the other half based on fiction, trying to proclaim themselves as a, ``refomers`` of Islam. It is big business.

Nobody would listen to a Muslim or ex-Muslim if he claimed himself to be a reformist of Financial theories or the international banking system, or of Christianity etc. But the moment a Muslim starts creating controversy around Islam, he becomes a reformer. Why? Why not just consider him a guy who likes to create controversy. I don`t think such guys should be forced to shut up. But they should not be considered the next, ``big hope`` for Islam either.

And why in the world do such individuals keep trying to reform Islam, when they themselves are not interested enough to follow it? Such individuals then rely on extremist generalizations to push their points. Just in your reply alone, you have made many such generalizations:

1. ``clear reason why people who awaken to Islam`s deep problems and have the courage to leave it, speak out against it, and should do so``

There is in fact no clear reason. It maybe clear to you. But that does not mean it is clear to everyone. Generally if someone wants to reform something, they will be far more effective if they do so from the inside. For example, it would be a bit difficult for me to reform Pakistan, if I migrated out of it. Who would listen to me? There are in fact, far more individuals, perhaps hundreds to thousands times more individuals who are trying to carry out genuine, ``reform`` in Islamic countries, without changing religions. They just do not create controversy to promote themselves.

``Islam is not a religion of the self.``

Once again, this is your opinion. I don`t agree with it. Nor would most Muslims.

``It encourages you to force your understanding of Islam on others.``

Another generalization. Do you have any facts to back this up with? Are a majority of Muslims in the world forcing their Islam on others? They can barely support themselves. They don`t even have the power to force others to come an invest in their countries, much less force others to follow their religion.

``It calls for a `virtue` police, and the creation of a `virtuous` Islamic state.``

This is really news for me. And I have been a Muslim all my life. Could you highlight how you have concluded it. I certainly don`t believe in it. Overwheliming number of Muslims have voted for non-Maulvi leaders till the 90s, even when the non-Maulvis have been extremely corrupt. In fact, if you go to literally any Muslim country and offer someone a visa to get out of the country, he/she will jump at the opportunity. If they were trying to create a virtous Islamic state, why in the world would they want to leave it? If you don`t believe me, just go and see the visa queues outside foreign embassies. Also can you point me to any Islamic organzation in North America, whose agenda it is to, turn the USA and Canada into virtious Islamic states?

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

Do you have any statistics that state that most non-Muslims find Islamic virtues offensive. Most non-Muslims barely know anything about Islam. To know about Islam, one has to at the very very least study the Quran, end to end. Are you seriously stating that a majority of non-Muslims have studied the Quran. My guess would be that less than five percent of non-Muslims have read the Quran, end to end. How then can they even form an opinion, about the offensiveness or lack their off, of Islamic virtues? If I form an offensive opinion about Hindu virtutes, without having read the Hindu religious texts, then I think I should be the one who is considered offensive. Not the Hindu religion.

And even after reading Hindu texts, If I were to find Hindu virtues offensive, should I make a living of speaking out against them. What would I gain? I would just piss off a lot of Hindus, and cause unnecessary violence. I should avoid those virtues, and leave them to the Hindus. That is why I feel if someone finds Islam offensive, he/she should switch religions. But after that, he/she should go on his/her own merry way. Why do they feel such an addiciton to remain attached? Because it makes good money, that is why.

``Ex Muslims are best placed to do so, since they suffered Islam first hand.``

This is another generalization with no factual basis. Most prominent Muslims who switched religions were not, ``suffering,`` when they switched. They were actually quite well off as Muslims. They switched religions because they just did not like Islam. That is fine. It is their choice. But to say they, ``suffered`` is a cheap shot. Let us take the case of Salman Rushdie. He switched religions (and then maybe came back). Did he suffer as a Muslim? He was one of the richest Muslims in the world, living it up in England. He switched for intellectual reasons. He only, ``suffered`` when he wrote a book after having switched religions. Granted the fatwas against him were wrong, but he, himself was also milking religion to sell books.

I doubt Ibn-Warraq suffered. Though I don`t know much about him. From whatever I read, he lived in Europe from an early age. Again, any Muslim who can move to Europe is generally one of the richest Muslims in the world. Where is the, ``suffering?``

So on and so forth. Generally the Muslims who do suffer, like the poor labourer in Pakistan, are the most devout Muslims. You will rarely see them switching religion. I could understand if such individuals switched religions and then got on the controversy bandwagon. But I fail to understand the individuals who switch religion (any religion) for their own reasons, and then become, ``reformers.``

``What better proof of what these ex Muslims say than the fact that they have to hide behind pseudonyms.``

This is wrong also. Was Ibn-Warraq attacked by Hoodbhoy (who is a Muslim) at the conference he attended. How many Muslims are calling for the heads of Ibn-Warraq on this site, because he is an ex-Muslim.

Have you done any analysis and comparisons on how many ex-Muslims write under a pseudonym? There are many ex-Muslims who do not write under pseudonyms. In fact, my guess would be that most don`t. Rushdie doesn`t write under one. Tariq Ali, is an ex-Muslim and he does not write under a pseudynym. In addition, the ones who do write under pseudonyms do so not because they are afraid that they will be torchered by the Muslim walking on the street. But, because they are afraid of the act of a single Muslim. My guess would be the later.

Could you name ten ex-Muslim writers who are hiding under pseudonyms?

``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.``

This is another ridiculous and racist comment. There are idiots in every society. Why attach the prefix Islamic to it? Do a quick calculation, and you will figure out that more Muslims have been killed by individuals of other religion in the past ten years than vice-versa. And in the case of the Muslim deaths, they have been carried out with the consent of the general population of the countries, killing them. While the Muslims, who have been carrying out the deaths, generally operate in independent organiztions.

I would seriouly encourage you to do the calcuations. If you are unwilling to do them, I will count them out for you in my next reply.

``But Islam does not leave others alone. It has unmistakable fascist tendencies.``

This is ridiculous also. How many countries has, ``Islam`` colonized in the past century? How many Islamic countries have been colonized in the past century? Can you provide teachings in Islam, which state, that, ``A Muslim must colonize.`` Once again, I would encourage you to answer the question, or I will provide the statistics for you.

re. MNI #3
``Warraq has done little more than rehashing the traditional arguments against religion -- many of which are found in Russell`s writing``
So has, I suppose, every one who has ever set out to write a critical history of belief. I mean, given Russel`s prolificness o nthe subject, you cannot avoid having traces of him in your work. More power to you then!

But Professor sahib`s contention was that Warraq`s magnum opus was a bad copy of Russel`s ``Why I am not a Crhistian``, which is an 8-10 page essay. Has Prof. sahib even read the essay?

correction
``So has, I suppose, every one who has ever set out to write a critical history of belief post Russell.

#7

My Dear RationalFaith,

Welcome to the world of ``I don`t really have a counter to the argument, so I`ll attack the man.`` I don`t really hold a brief for Ibn Warraq one way or the other, other than to think that Romair does have a point of sorts, but you really cannot criticize Said on this website without being immediately labelled a lackey of the right-wing Americo-Zionist anti-Arab anti-Muslim worldwide conspiracy. I`ve been attacked for weeks for trying to ask some questions about Said`s scholarship without anyone actually coming out and saying here is where Said`s critics are absolutely wrong.

Don`t hold your breath waiting to be told just where Ibn Warraq is wrong on Said.

Regards.

PS: Let me wave my pro-Palestinian credentials here. Israel is the last of the European White Settler colonies (although the majority of its Jews are now Sephardic); many Palentinians were ethnically cleansed from what is now Israel; there was a massacare at Deir Yassin; the settler policy is morally and legally unjustifiable; having a Jewish but not Palestinian Right of Return is, again, morally unjustifiable; the Palestinians are being punished for the White European engineered Holocaust; etc. etc.

Romair #6

There is a clear reason why people who awaken to Islam`s deep problems and have the courage to leave it, speak out against it, and should do so.

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, they must speak out against them. Ex Muslims are best placed to do so, since they suffered Islam first hand. What better proof of what these ex Muslims say than the fact that they have to hide behind pseudonyms. 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.

If Islam left others alone, others will have very little interest in this set of arabic beliefs. But Islam does not leave others alone. It has unmistakable fascist tendencies. For proof again one has to rely not on what some Muslims may want t