Vinod,
I think it would help the cause if you were to make a t-shirt like this. Look at Choudhury's pic up there. In my opinion it is just begging to be put onto a t-shirt.

We should consider this man's ordeal when we (rightly) try to understand our enemy by asking; "Why do they hate us."

Yet another leftist post on a leftist blog. What part of the government is always right do you not understand?

Yet another leftist post on a leftist blog. What part of the government is always right do you not understand?

Ennis:

For the record, I wouldn't label SM a leftist blog (not that there's anything wrong with that). But intersting how you, by implication thru sarcasm, label this a rightist post...thereby leaving the war against a new fascism to us neo-colonialists.

On a realted note, also see the Bangladeshi government's persecution of the Ahmadiyya community.

We should consider this man's ordeal when we (rightly) try to understand our enemy by asking; "Why do they hate us."

If a revolution destroys a systematic government, but the systematic patterns of thought that produced that government are left intact, then those patterns will repeat themselves in the succeeding government. There’s so much talk about the system. And so little understanding.

Good post Vinod!

Manju: So you believe that the Bangladeshi government is the new fascist threat? or do you believe that the people who want to prosecute Choudhary are similar to the fascist threat of Salafist Jihadists.

we (rightly) try to understand our enemy by asking; "Why do they hate us."

whytheyhate.us

whytheyhate.us

Seems like an random site makes a point with some images and loses it totally with others!

The lack of freedom and intolerance in Bangladesh is growing daily, as Abhi noted in comment #6. The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community continues to face persecution at the hands of the Bangladesh government.

Meer Mubasher Ali, Vice President of the Bangladesh branch of the AMC, was in NYC on September 30. He addressed 250 attendees of the International Conference on Bangladesh at the UN Plaza Milennium Hotel. The conference was organized by CFI, a UN-affiliated human rights org, and Bangladeshi Americans Against Terrorism. A highlight from his speech:

"In conclusion, I would like to convey to the world that despite all the agitation, persecution and attacks on our mosques, we the Bangladeshi Ahmadis are proud of our identity and heritage....Ahmadis are committed towards doing our utmost to restore peace and harmony in the world.May God help us all in our efforts to make the world a better place for future generations. Amin." (Contact Ismat for full speech text.)

Manju: So you believe that the Bangladeshi government is the new fascist threat? or do you believe that the people who want to prosecute Choudhary are similar to the fascist threat of Salafist Jihadists.

No. Yes.

The govt is not fascist (an imperfect but helpful term) but the JMB Party is certainly closer to it. The govt behavior is enabling this form of radicalism in this case. radical islam does not emerge from a vacuum, but from particlar intolerant cultures...much like other radical right movements.

and yes the people who want to prosecute Choudhary are similar to the fascist threat of Salafist Jihadists; they display the same anti-semitism, lack of respect for liberal values, and religious extremism. while different, there is enough that intersects to think of this as all part of the same war.

@Manju:
Re:
We should consider this man's ordeal when we (rightly) try to understand our enemy by asking; "Why do they hate us."

Consider this :-

They hate 'you' because of your greed, warlust and hunger for imperialism and global dominance. It is quite simple really. Leave them alone and they will leave you alone.

They hate 'you' because of your greed, warlust and hunger for imperialism and global dominance. It is quite simple really. Leave them alone and they will leave you alone.

and yes the people who want to prosecute Choudhary are similar to the fascist threat of Salafist Jihadists; they display the same anti-semitism, lack of respect for liberal values, and religious extremism. while different, there is enough that intersects to think of this as all part of the same war.

Manju: You are dangerously conflating America's enemy with the enemies of a liberal order. However tempting may it seem, to lump together crazed Banglas with Salafist Jihadist, the temptation should be resisted. The fight against Salafist Jihadist will not be served by offering the enemy millions of people who don’t necessarily share the same goals.
The Arab Street (as they say) is rife with conspiracy theories, anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism and has an on and off love affair with Islamic extremism. However to concede the Arab street or the crazed Banglas to the Salafist Jihadist neither serves our cause nor will it make us safer.

Sometimes I wonder about whether the 'right' in this country has the wherewithal to competently fight the war on terror at any level.

They hate 'you' because of your greed, warlust and hunger for imperialism and global dominance. It is quite simple really. Leave them alone and they will leave you alone.

since you got it all figured out why Islamists target Americans, can you tell us why they target Israelis, British, Spanish, Indians, Jews, Lebanese, Indonesians, Iraqis, Chechens, Jordanians, Egyptians, Christian Nigerians, Buddhists, beauty contestants, cartoonists, Algerians, Saudi Arabians, women, the pope , homosexuals, at least one filmaker, ot least one famous author, and now we can add a bangaldeshi journalist.

since you got it all figured out why Islamists target Americans, can you tell us why they target Israelis, British, Spanish, Indians, Jews, Lebanese, Indonesians, Iraqis, Chechens, Jordanians, Egyptians, Christian Nigerians, Buddhists, beauty contestants, cartoonists, Algerians, Saudi Arabians, women, the pope , homosexuals, at least one filmaker, ot least one famous author, and now we can add a bangaldeshi journalist.

Well, you only asked why they hate YOU . :)

Sometimes I wonder about whether the 'right' in this country has the wherewithal to competently fight the war on terror at any level.

I think that would be asking for the impossible while people like this still thrive: here, here,
here, and here are still around.

On a realted note, also see the Bangladeshi government's persecution of the Ahmadiyya community.

Thanks for that link Abhi, I had never heard of the Ahmadiyya before and now am interested in learning more about their movement. Who knew that there exists a sect of Islam that believes Jesus survived his crucifixion and travelled to India searching for the lost tribes of Israel and is buried in Kashmir? [link]

I hate to stoke the flames even further, but everyone knows Jesus moved to Japan, "married a Japanese woman called Miyuko, fathered three daughters and lived to the age of 106."

AMFD:

I respect your (almost Nixonian) argument. It is possible that a divide and conquer strategy could work. It's a complex subject and I’m open to yuor point of view but an argument could be made for conflation in this instance.

Allowing any radical Islamic movement in any country to rise to power increases the chances of WMD's getting in the hands of terrorists since there is enough that unifies them to make them allies. they could pose a threat to the US, or at least our democratic allies like india and israel. Sadly, even N.korea fits this mold even though they are ideologically opposite. I don't think we are just at war with al qaeda (in fact you could argue that the taliban was not al qaeda and could have been split from it) and this is why the rise of hamas and hezbollah worry me even though they are very different.

Who knew that there exists a sect of Islam

most muslims do not consider ahmadiyya a sect of islam because most muslims assert that they overturn the idea that muhammad is the seal of prophets (ahmadiyya disagree).

as for the rest, this thread has really devolved quickly.

Random Guy:Leave them alone and they will leave you alone.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?

(In the spirit of Jon S and to bring some intellectual rigor to the debate)

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa = intellectual rigor?

most muslims do not consider ahmadiyya a sect of islam because most muslims assert that they overturn the idea that muhammad is the seal of prophets (ahmadiyya disagree).

You're absolutely right, I should not have used the word "sect." The whole basis behind their persecution is mainstream Islam's refusal to acknowledge their beliefs. Still, their mere existence as Islamic heterodoxy and connection to Jesus's alleged final resting place in Kashmir is incredibly fascinating (to me, at least.)

But the point is moot, Jesus is buried in Japan. @=)

most muslims do not consider ahmadiyya a sect of islam because most muslims assert that they overturn the idea that muhammad is the seal of prophets (ahmadiyya disagree).

I am an Ahmadi Muslim. A point of clarification: Ahmadis believe Muhammad (pbuh) is the seal of the prophets and the last law-bearing prophet, but not the last prophet ever.

And regardless of whether other Muslims consider Ahmadis to be Muslims, the fact is that we are by the virtue of the fact that we call ourselves Muslims and practice all the basic teachings of Islam. Islam is divided into 72 sects; Ahmadiyyat is the 73rd jamaat.

Regarding "why they hate us," has anyone read Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower? I haven't read the book yet but heard him speak the other night at the Overseas Press Club. His outline for what draws young men to Islamic fanaticism and terror was fascinating and, in my opinion, spot on. He's done amazing research. If anyone wants me to type up my notes, let me know.

Long time reader, first time poster.

I hate how something as secular and pure as free speech or dissent can be tainted by a phrase such as biblical certainty.

Regarding "why they hate us," has anyone read Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower? I haven't read the book yet but heard him speak the other night at the Overseas Press Club. His outline for what draws young men to Islamic fanaticism and terror was fascinating and, in my opinion, spot on. He's done amazing research. If anyone wants me to type up my notes, let me know.

Steve Coll's Ghost Wars is also very good.

I am an Ahmadi Muslim

Incredible!! Blessed are teh internets, for it allows me to connect to primary sources I would never be able to in the past. I sincerely hope you'll grant me an opportunity to ask a few serious questions I have about your faith:

1. How prevalent is Ahmadi Islam? How great (or small) are your numbers?
2. I cannot lie, although I (obviously) found the concept of Jesus's death and burial in Kashmir to be humorously specious, I cannot disprove them and respect your community and belief system wholly. That said, do you believe in the lore of Roza Bal? Also, do you believe Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be the second coming of Christ?
3. Have you experienced discrimination/persecution from the greater Muslim community for your unorthodox views?

DJ, email me and we can take the convo off the site, just because I could write novels there. There's a lot to say. I mean, whole books have been written about this stuff.

Thanks Vinod. Here are two other links that also discuss the same guy: International Pen, and the Committee to Protect Journalists. Freedom of the Press is a very important issue.

Vinod -- Thanks for bringing this case to folks' attention. Ennis beat me to the punch in noting International PEN's role in raising awareness about Choudhury's case, but I'll add that PEN USA has made his case the subject of this week's "Freedom to Write" action alert. Choudhury also was awarded a PEN USA "Freedom to Write" award in 2005, and his remarks upon accepting the award can be heard here.

--

Turnip -- the comment about "biblical certainty" makes me cringe as well....

Thanks Ismat, you will be receiving an email shortly.

They pulled the same shit on Tasleema Nasreen as well. Has the government put forward any evidence for the sedition charges?

i was in bangladesh in 2004. my observations in the hong kong airport on the flight back.

this stuff is really stupid because there are semi-naked billboards of fat half-naked chix in dhaka. the fundies should go after that jizz.

Sam Harris is a self-identified atheist who recently wrote a disturbing little book called "Letter to a Christian Nation." In it, he writes to an imaginary fundamentalist interlocutor and attempts to systematically dismantle the Abrahamic personal God. In one stanza he writes:

"It's safe to say that almost every person living in New Orleans at the moment Hurrican Katrina struck shared your belief in an omnipotent, omniscient and compassionate God. But what was God doing while Katrina laid waste to their city? Surely He heard the prayers of those elderly men and women who fled the rising waters only to be slowly drowned there. These were people of faith. These were good men and women who had prayed throughout their lives. Do you have the courage to admit the obvious? Those poor people died talking to an imaginary friend. ..."

And yes, much the same could be said about Muslim believers or any other believers as well. We may be predisposed to believe, as some evolutionary biologists are contending, but the type of God we believe in does matter, and can affect our relationship with our fellow human beings. Some Gods incite violence and constrain freedom of the press. Some command their flock to organize into theocracies.

But no one is willing to take off the kid gloves. Why is this? One reason among a host of others : I suspect that Christians in the US are unwilling to see their faith decimated in popular public discourse, and it would have to be if Islam is ever to be truly interrogated. And no, it won't happen any time soon. Christianity is so deeply entwined in American life and its polity that the goodwill and protection (even the Supreme Court sees value in the ten commandments!?) that has accrued to it benefits other faiths as well - to the point where no one can say anything about anyone without being labelled some godforsaken thing. In Europe, the matter is slightly different. Christianity has been slain. The relativizing European Left is a little confused about Islam at the moment, which leaves the critquing to the far right- and that makes the current state of affairs really F%^ed up

good points risible. it is up to the atheists to take the knife to the balls of islam and castrate the beast. we can't do it in the muslim world, less the followers of the beast behead us, but we need to do it in the western world. harris and richard dawkins have crucial parts to play in this, i'm glad both of them are stepping up and naming the beast for what it is. i just reviewed the god delusion, and though i have issues with dawkins quixotic dream that rationality will reign supreme, i do praise his fair-mindedness in wielding the knife of rationality toward both xtianity and islam.

it is up to the atheists to take the knife to the balls of islam and castrate the beast

I don't think Islam needs to be attacked alone; they should equally apply this to all religions, just like Dawkins suggests in Roof of All Evil. It's too bad he didn't do a better job presenting his case - perhaps going along the lines of some people needed religion to cope, etc. in the past, instead of from a logic/illogical perspective might have been better and come across as more "sympathetic."

If you guys haven't seen this BBC miniseries, I highly recommend it - viewable here online.

As far as the Ahmadiyyans go, one of my relatives worked as a grad student/post-doc/colleague in London under the only Nobel Prize winner Pakistan has ever produced - Abdus Salam. Of course, since he was Ahmadiyyan, he's barely recognized by the Pakistani government - their only Nobel prize winner, yet they, for all practical purposes, ignored him.

I don't think Islam needs to be attacked alone; they should equally apply this to all religions, just like Dawkins suggests in Roof of All Evil.

no, i don't think so. frankly, we atheists don't have much to fear from confucians, buddhists or hindus, let alone shamanists and new agers. existential fear only comes from muslims today. the god of abraham is problematic, for he is a jealous god. christianity has been mostly gelded, we allow christians to pretend as if their religion still has balls and is a man, but the reality is that it's a eunuch faith set against islam (aside from perhaps africa, where the two religions battle it out in the trenches). when xtians get out of line good secularists call them out on their 'tabilanesque' behavior. in the god delusion dawkins focuses on the abrahamic religions and gives buddhism, or example, an explicit pass, because the clear and present danger is not there. not all gibberish is created equal with the same blade.

Hey No Desh,

Thanks for bringing that up. Dr. Salam was a good friend of my grandfather's (also a physcist). It's really a shame, considering Pakistan's dearth of Nobels.

Anyway, if you don't mind, the correct term is "Ahmadis" or "Ahmadi Muslims," not "Ahmadiyyans." I know it's a bit confusing, as the community as a whole is called the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community or the Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam. Even more if you refer to it as a noun, ie, "Ahmadiyyat."

Christianity is so deeply entwined in American life and its polity...In Europe, the matter is slightly different. Christianity has been slain.

Why is this?

but the type of God we believe in does matter, and can affect our relationship with our fellow human beings. Some Gods incite violence and constrain freedom of the press. Some command their flock to organize into theocracies.

risible & razib,

There's an interesting book by Jonathan Kirsch that tries to bridge the historical relationship between the type of god(s) and behavior. Essentially, polytheism, like pluralism, matters and perhaps pacifies. I had a professor who thinks that the leap from the Abrahamic tradition to secular humanism is too drastic a change in the Belief System Regime Change Dept in the course of events (and perhaps related to the "relativizing European Left"). He sees mythology making a comeback- a la Joseph Campbell and Gaia philosophy. The latter being important as people relate stresses put on the ecological system to belief systems.

yes, i'm a big fan of kirsch's work and have read that. his other books are of interest too.

Essentially, polytheism, like pluralism, matters and perhaps pacifies.

there has been some qualification here though. remember, anaxagoros was tried for atheism in athens. but this was a political trial, just as xtians were accused of atheism because of their rejection of national pieties. the same impulse and tribalism exists within polytheism as well, it is simply not focused and sharpened by the universalist-tribalism of xtianity and islam. and yet the attacks against heretics in these religions is quite often about politics as well, so nothing changes.

The latter being important as people relate stresses put on the ecological system to belief systems.

i agree. that is my beef with dawkins, he knows that most people will remain demon-haunted, but he pretends as if we need not influence which demons they choose to propitiate. i don't ever see a future where most people are atheists, just as i don't expect a goat to bust out a linear algebra textbook.

Christianity is so deeply entwined in American life and its polity...In Europe, the matter is slightly different. Christianity has been slain.Why is this?

no, i don't think so. frankly, we atheists don't have much to fear from confucians, buddhists or hindus, let alone shamanists and new agers.

sorry, i should have been clearer and emphasized the Big 3. While Christianity might not have that strong of a grasp in Europe, it has a lot of influence in Latin America and Africa - emphasis on abstinence instead of usage of condoms, etc., to name one big area. You are right - I'm not worried about Buddhists, Confucians, etc., but I am worried about Christianity and Islam, and to a slightly lesser extent, Judaism. If you only got after one of the 3, I think you cannot take the logical/illogical approach at all, for that ends up being hypocritical.

Ismat - You are quite right to point out my improper word use. It's funny - my mother and I were talking about this today and I referred to them as Ahmadis in conversation, yet for some reason, I forgot that when I was typing.

He sees mythology making a comeback

ala Battlestar Galactica...where the "good guys" are "pagans" for all practical purposes whereas the "bad guys" believe (and quite strongly, mind you) in the supremacy of their one god.

RTA and risible - thanks for bringing that up. I was just about to say how pointless it is to fight over religion, which is mostly poppycock (I don't mean any disrespect to anyone, but that is what I think). I don't have a problem with anyone believing anythig as long as they don't fight over it.

I've wanted to see that Dawkins BBC miniseries, I'll move my lazy ass this weekend and try to find it.

Nanda - it's available for free online viewing at the link I showed above (just in case I didn't make that point clear).

My favorite quotation about this topic - unfortunately can't remember who stated this:

We've made an idol out of fear and called it god.

My favorite quotation about this topic - unfortunately can't remember who stated this: We've made an idol out of fear and called it god.

That's from Bergman's The Seventh Seal.

Sakshi - many many thanks. I had a feeling it was a movie, but was stuck there. Unfortunately, none of the folks where I've moved to have heard of this movie, much less seen it, so none of them were able to enlighten me. Thanks again.

Thanks again.

Nevermind :) .

@Manju: Well, I don't have it ALL figured out, but the 'Islamists' you refer to are some fictitous entity propogated by ignorant Western Media/Governments in order to justify foreign policy in oil-rich parts of the world. You think the US govt. will give a damn about Choudhury? Think again. Btw, my remarks were more aimed at your initial statement about the 'enemy' which I felt I had to respond to. I do believe that what is happening to the man in this article is wrong, but I think it is receiving disproportionate attention because it is connected to Islam. This smacks of hypocrisy, albeit an unsurprising type. And besides, reading the opinions of some other posters, and their apparent love for my fellow birth-country man (Dawkins) I believe that the kind of balanced discussion I seek will not really be found here.

Im a british muslim with bangladeshi parents and I am also free and liberal thinking! I dont approve of the thinking of extrimist muslims who get a thrill with the craziness the are spilling all over the world, and for that matter non muslims who the same. The thing that is annoying me more than anything is that people ask us why do muslims hate us so much, but why is it that the people who are supposed too know better i.e. the educated americans and brits always put normal muslims modertae muslims liberal thinking muslims and most of the sikh community into the same group as terrorists, and then hate us even more than we even understand. I have gone through a time through the 80's where the NF were ripping through our community and then we built our self up, we went through the regeneration of a community and I live in a area where the multi culturlism has now made a great impact that we can live side by side which all people. Obviously its a matter of teaching our kids and showing them what is wrong and what is right, but what it is, is thatpropaganda is showing that the majority of muslims are terrorist and that the FREE people of the Thinking world are all civilised and decent folk from the America's and britains only. Please could someone understand that the majority of the free thinking muslim workd are not TERRORISTS, but normal people like yourselves and I.

Vinod: solid post, thanks for bringing to our attention.

Ismat:

His outline for what draws young men to Islamic fanaticism and terror was fascinating and, in my opinion, spot on. He's done amazing research. If anyone wants me to type up my notes, let me know.

Yes please!!!

AD Khan: thank you for that comment. Your perspective is sound and important.

Manju, AMFD, Random Guy, Razib et al: it's simple logic. Paint people into a corner and they will eventually become what you have painted them to be. As Manju says, Hezbollah and Hamas are different -- from the Salafists, and indeed from each other. But continue to treat them as illegitimate political forces in their respective social contexts, and the brand of illegitimacy and rejection will become a stronger bond than the differences that separate them. When Huntington wrote his infamous book, the clash of civilizations was a fallacy -- wishful thinking. Well, now it's a reality. Great. Hello the rest of the 21st century. Perhaps if we and the next couple of generations manage to not blow the planet up, our great-grandchildren will learn from our mistakes and figure out a better plan. Most of us -- Westerners, Easterners, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, powerful elites, manipulable populace alike -- will be reincarnated as rodents and insects for our sins or commission or omission today, for our active participation in the oncoming disasters or for our failure to do anything to avert them, so we'll never know the benefits.

Happy Friday.

This is not the first time that a liberal muslim is being targeted for initiating reform in islam. Tasleema Nasreen, Nazrul Islam, Salman Rushdie were all charged of conspiracy against islam. The reason being the claim that islam is a perfect religion and criticizing it amounts to blasphemy and punishable to death.

Tasleema Nasreen, Nazrul Islam, Salman Rushdie

not to harp, but tasleema nasreen & salman rushdie are "liberal muslims" if richard dawkins and josef stalin are "liberal christians." let's not butcher the language :)

Risible -

Great post! (# 36 ).

not to harp, but tasleema nasreen & salman rushdie are "liberal muslims" if richard dawkins and josef stalin are "liberal christians." let's not butcher the language :)

Should I say athiest liberal ex-muslims like Salman Rushdie. You bring up an important point. It is unfortunate that it takes a muslim to give up islam in order to be liberal.

Should I say athiest liberal ex-muslims like Salman Rushdie.

atheists. apostates.

Ex-muslims!! Are white atheists ever called "ex-christian"? Probably only if they renounced a sincere faith. But guys like Rushdie, who was never religious in the first place, are 'ex-muslims', even to anti-Muslim bigots that love them. A label you cannot escape...

Silly question: AMD once said he was no longer a Muslim, he was an "apostate" and I got the feeling that he formally left Islam. Is there an official way of doing so, or is it simply a matter of renouncing the tenets?

Thought some of you might be interested in this ( Freedom of Expression must include the license to offend ) debate, which is to be held at Asia Society in Manhattan on the 18th of october.

amongst the speakers, ( for the motion,...... ....weighing in at a portly 200 pounds or so, scotch connoisseur,Kissinger nemesis, the one, the only, your leader, my leader, our leader.....Chris "mugged by reality" Hitchens.

also appearing - Philip Gourevitch, Daisy Khan, etc, etc...

Btw, the show is sold out. however, i know a tried way, which will help the interested to obtain a ticket ...legally and for original price.

AMD once said he was no longer a Muslim, he was an "apostate" and I got the feeling that he formally left Islam. Is there an official way of doing so, or is it simply a matter of renouncing the tenets?

heh. if there was an 'official way' in islam, like if you didn't believe why would you go through it? sometimes ex-mormons specifically get their names listed out of the mormon registry. don't think most muslim madrassas are that clerically efficient.

Ex-muslims!! Are white atheists ever called "ex-christian"? Probably only if they renounced a sincere faith. But guys like Rushdie, who was never religious in the first place, are 'ex-muslims', even to anti-Muslim bigots that love them. A label you cannot escape...

but it depends. frankly, i've noticed that jews and hindus are especially obstintate about ethnicizing islam. makes sense why, they simply project the norms of their own religion to everyone else. christians less so. evangelical christians the least. (in my exp.)

Nice post, Vinod.

siddhartha,
Most of us -- Westerners, Easterners, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, powerful elites, manipulable populace alike -- will be reincarnated as rodents and insects for our sins or commission or omission today,
Do you believe the bit on reincarnation? One of my beliefs, and pet peeves with those who critique Hinduism, is that reincarnation is not an essential part of the religion.

At the risk of ethnicizing, I really do think that what is happening in Bangladesh is somewhat different from what is happening in Palestine or Lebanon, and that different solutions are needed for different places. What I got from Naipaul's "Among the Believers", a book I would definitely recommend, is that Islam in different countries is highly dependent on the economic, social and cultural history of those countries. siddhartha makes an interesting point on increased confrontation inevitably leading to a clash of civilizations, which, I think, is very contextual in this discussion. There was an interesting e-mail exchange on Slate on this perceived clash between a certain Robert Kagan and Amartya Sen. I think Amartya sen's opinions are relevent not just as an economist, but in this context, as an Indian, a Bengali and as someone raised partly in Bangladesh.

I watched most of the documentary "The Root of all Evil?". Although the points made are certainly contextual for our time, there is not much new in what Richard Dawkins says, and it comes across as somewhat scientistic. I remember reading a good critique of the documentary in the Hindu earlier this year.

My (imaginary) Mormon friend says that Jesus visited America. So, America is showing Him love. No such account of him visiting Europe.

There are myths of him visiting France and Glastonbury in England.

heh. if there was an 'official way' in islam, like if you didn't believe why would you go through it?

Pragmatic reasons? e.g. not being subject to Muslim personal laws? though I fully realize that's generally not an option in Muslim countries.

It is unfortunate that it takes a muslim to give up islam in order to be liberal.

Whoa, Topcat, generalize much? What about me and others like Taz? Do you even know the basic tenets of Ahmadis, which is a very liberal and progressive movement in Islam?

Ismat: His outline for what draws young men to Islamic fanaticism and terror was fascinating and, in my opinion, spot on. He's done amazing research. If anyone wants me to type up my notes, let me know. Yes please!!!

Siddhartha, give me some time and I will do--I'm running out of town for the weekend. But anyway, the talk was really fascinating. Shall I email it to you?

Do you even know the basic tenets of Ahmadis, which is a very liberal and progressive movement in Islam?

yes. were that all muslims were ahmadis.... (e.g., some of you should look up the way ahmadis define jihad, very nice :)

Ismat and DJ

I do know that Ahmadis are liberal and unorthodox followers of islam. I am also aware of the religious aparthied against the Ahmadis by orthodox muslims. You have my support anyday.

unorthodox followers of islam.

topcat, be a little sensitive. ahmadis don't consider themselves 'unorthodox' :) they think they orthodox.

I was going to post this comment yesterday but decided to wait one day to see how this thread developed...now I see I needn't have waited...it occurs to me that if a Hindu judge in India, let's say affiliated with the RSS or something, had behaved in the way this Muslim judge in Bangladesh did, there'd already be 200-300 comments on here castigating that (Hindu) judge in the harshest of terms...and rightly so...but with the Muslim judge, there's almost a resigned acceptance that 'that's just how those people are', or 'those crazy Muslims...what are you gonna do with them...lol...' Why the double standard?

Why the double standard?

if someone with down syndrome can do basic addition and substraction you give them a blue ribbon. same thing. islam are the 'funny looking kid' of civilizations, lower the bar brother :)

btw, the Richard Dawkins documentary was fun to watch. Thanks for the recommendation

One of the points that Richard Dawkins made in the documentary was that he thought that children should be protected from being "brain-washed" (not sure what term he used) by religion, and that children cannot be assumed to have the same religion as their parents. For instance, you don't talk about "Tory" children and "Labor" children. I think this reflects his own bias in terms of what secularism should be. I think in countries like India and perhaps Bangladesh, this sort of rigorous separation of church and state may not be the right answer.

I remember cracking open my cousin's textbook back in India earlier this year. There was one chapter on "The Sermon on the Mount". The contents of the chapter were just that - an extract of the entire sermon on the mount from the bible. First reaction : shock. What about the separation of church and state and all that jazz? Second reaction : might not be a bad idea to introduce the Sermon on the Mount as a purely secular account (note that in India, secularism doesn't mean separation of church and state). It would benefit Hindu kids and Christian kids and Muslim kids to all learn about each other's religion this way, and perhaps learn that theirs is not the only way. Now that I think of the religious fundmentalists that Dawkins interviewed, I was like : maybe they would have turned out differently if they had to deal with a secular account of their own religion in school.

might not be a bad idea to introduce the Sermon on the Mount as a purely secular account

Looks like Harvard's reversed its previous stance on this matter and plans to to do just this, getting back to its "roots." I read another article about this subject (either at the NYT or WaPo) but can't seem to find it.

btw, the Richard Dawkins documentary was fun to watch. Thanks for the recommendation

I'm glad you liked it. I do wish that he would redo the interviews. As I stated above, his point of view might come across better from a less "harsh" stance than his "religion is illogical" view. I can see the logical appeal for religon to some, even though I might view religion itself as illogical. Plus, you could tell Dawkins was getting quite pissed and losing his cool, esp. with the preacher out in Colorado. I think that hurts Dawkins' cause. Baby steps...

Silly question: AMD once said he was no longer a Muslim, he was an "apostate" and I got the feeling that he formally left Islam. Is there an official way of doing so, or is it simply a matter of renouncing the tenets?

I never really formally left Islam nor did I formally ever embrace Islam. I was raised in a Muslim household to very religious parents and did the usual. I slowly stopped believing and then became a complete non-believer. I did believe for a long time though. The reason I brought up my 'apostasy' was to point out the fact that people like Razibs are not really apostates because they were never believers. I think its an important distinction. In the absence of this distinction, we end up attributing to people their parents religion and religion ends up being similar to national origin etc. Nobody calls a white atheist a former christian and I think the same respect should be accorded to brown and other third world living in and origin people.

I think Dawkins or James (DNA) Watson once said - "all religions are not equal, some are much worse than others"

How true.

Ennis:

For the record, I wouldn't label SM a leftist blog (not that there's anything wrong with that). But intersting how you, by implication thru sarcasm, label this a rightist post...thereby leaving the war against a new fascism to us neo-colonialists.

Manju - you miss the point. We get comments from people insisting that this is a leftist blog because we fail to criticize islamic governments ... and when we do, we haven't done it "the right way". I was neither labelling this a leftist blog nor a rightist post, I was responding to what some of our readers think it is.

I think Dawkins or James (DNA) Watson once said - "all religions are not equal, some are much worse than others"

How true.

I'd love to hear your hierarchy of religions.

No Desh, thanks for that Dawkins mini-series link. That was a couple of hours well spent. I'm not sure religion is the root of all evil, but surely a bit of it.

I meant, Hinduism not, Hiduism.

Funny exchange between Sakshi and Kritic. Religion has become, as Razib points out, racialized and hereditary; thus to criticize it make you a bigot of sorts, and to rank them makes you a something of a racial supremacist.

Of course Kritic views religion as merely a set of ideas, a philosophy; and some ideas are better than others.

But those who are truely within the religious fold do not recognize the legitimacy of other religions, for that would undermine their belief system (I mean, some do out of practicality, but it's a condradiction...unless you're a buddhist maybe).

So, ironically, the defense of religion on cultural/racial grounds is left to those who have no respect for religion's claim to truth.

"I'd love to hear your hierarchy of religions."

Well, since you insist. From worst to best ( relatively speaking )

- Protestant
- Catholic
- Misc
- Orthodox
- Islam

Fight amongst yourselves about what the data means and if it's indicative... But there are other studies out there...

Sakshi -

Did I respond to your query - "I'd love to hear your hierarchy of religions."
I think, I did. Or, did I? Man, I really need to curb the daytime cocktails and the funny cigarettes.
In any case, here goes again, I think. Deja F*%in Vu

From worst to best ( relatively speaking )
Islam
Christianity
Judaism
Sikhsim
Hinduism
Buddhism

Disclaimer, I am an atheist.

Did I respond to your query - "I'd love to hear your hierarchy of religions." I think, I did. Or, did I? Man, I really need to curb the daytime cocktails and the funny cigarettes. In any case, here goes again, I think. Deja F*%in Vu

you did respond. i read it. but now it's gone...?

AlM #77: But don't muslims believe all babies are born muslim?

>But don't muslims believe all babies are born muslim?

What a ridiculous circle jerk of a blog thread.

>It is unfortunate that it takes a muslim to give up islam in order to be liberal.

That's only true if you haven't read a book or a newspaper since 1998, which obviously you haven't.

>Do you even know the basic tenets of Ahmadis, which is a very liberal and progressive movement in Islam?

Actually I know Ahmadiyas quite well, have done Jumma prayers at their mosques, etc. One interesting sidenote is their attitudes towards women are pretty orthodox. Although women are quite active, they are always in deep hijab, which I found interesting.

And of course the idea of having a central Huzur as leader of the global Ahmadi jamaat (who lives in London and whose Friday sermons are broadcast to all jamaats worldwide), is fundamentally an orthodox idea of leadership and divine gift, etc.

While Christianity might not have that strong of a grasp in Europe, it has a lot of influence in Latin America and Africa - emphasis on abstinence instead of usage of condoms, etc., to name one big area. You are right - I'm not worried about Buddhists, Confucians, etc., but I am worried about Christianity and Islam, and to a slightly lesser extent, Judaism. If you only got after one of the 3, I think you cannot take the logical/illogical approach at all, for that ends up being hypocritical.

Razib, I see your point, but I wouldn't say that Christianity doesn't have a strong grasp in Europe. Quite the opposite, actually. In fact, I'd say that Christianity is far more ingrained in parts of Europe (remember the whole Protestant Reformation? Martin Luther? Hang on while I look up the Pope's address on Wikipedia...aha, "1 Vatican Square") than in America. But for whatever reason, it just doesn't feel as threatening to the heathens, atheists, unbelievers, and apostates.

I don't think the hierarchy really makes a lot of sense. I concede the point about Abrahamic God being all kinds of scary. But any and every religion can turn fundamentalist, given the right societal prodding. Hinduism and Buddhism might seem benign...until you're a Muslim in Gujurat in 2002, or a Christian in Sri Lanka in 2003. There have been militant sects that advocate(d) violence in practically every religion. So yeah, I guess the hierarchy reflects something about the "here and now," but I don't think it says anything about the "why and how."

Fundamentalism is not something inherent in "their" (Abrahamic) concept of God. Broadly speaking, it's what happens when a group feels threatened, rightly or wrongly. Threats, perceived or real, push people to think in extremes. Suddenly normally rational people are condoning the removal of habeas corpus, or advocating redirecting water resources, or partying in the streets when their nation has developed an atomic bomb. In the right light, the most horrifying things seem wonderful.

As far as I can tell, neither Christianity nor Islam is exactly "endangered," though. Both have hundreds of millions of adherents, yet each preaches a message of being under threat (Protestants, Sunnis, and Shi'ites, in particular) of persecution and extinction. Hell, I'm just continually surprised people are so consistently stupid as to buy into it.

Funny you should bring up Dawkins...I just got into a long discussion about meme theory today, and his name kept coming up. I guess my main beef with Dawkins and this "rationality uber alles" stance is that religion fills a niche in human societal structures. I may not happen to agree with it, I may not like much a lot of what comes out of it. But until it's replaced by something better...um...well. Rationality won't triumph over anything, is all. It's like discussing how great it'll be when mammals decide to stop using our livers*. Yeah, good luck. Maybe one day, but not anytime soon.

*I would have said "vermiform appendix," but that's kind of a human-only thing. And anyway, some people would take issue with the idea that religion serves no purpose. Myself included, come to think of it.

But don't muslims believe all babies are born muslim?

No, Muslims believe that all babies are born in the state of fitrah (belief in the oneness of God)
So according to Muslim belief, babies cannot for example be born as Hindus as all babies are strict monotheists when they are born. But they are not Muslim per se either as monotheism is also a belief found in other religious like Judaism etc.