151. More reviews of 'The Genius of Charles Darwin'

Comment #227601 by Layla Nasreddin on August 10, 2008 at 11:17 am

That AA Gill piece in the Sunday Times was rather pathetic:

It also revealed a sorry truth. He is much happier, and much more accomplished at, knocking things down than building them. He'd rather be against something than for it. Confronting a class of quiet, respectful, eager and religious schoolchildren, he became tongue-tied and muddled about selling evolution. He was much happier attacking religion. His anger and bombast stand in stark contrast to Darwin's quiet, inquisitive humility. Darwin was a gentle man who thought deeply and went out of his way to avoid confrontation or to incommode others. Tellingly, he managed to live his entire life with a devout Christian. This was a great opportunity for a lush, life-affirming, invigorating series, but what we got was a confused liturgical spat.

What can you say to something like that?!?

152. An atheist plays God's advocate

Comment #227216 by Layla Nasreddin on August 9, 2008 at 2:04 pm

I find it rather sad that so many of these reviews are really about the reviewers' mental image of Dawkins ("militant atheist", "shrill and strident", etc.) rather than about the programme itself!

More than half of that review was spent denouncing the reviewer's conception of Dawkins as an anti-religious "crusader", and then almost as an aside he writes, "Otherwise it was a good documentary." Um, yes. Perhaps you could have spent more time filling in HOW it was a good documentary instead of "debunking" the anti-religious bit that wasn't even that prominent, except in your head.

153. The best way to undermine the jihadists is to trigger a rebellion of Muslim women - and establish energy independence

Comment #226934 by Layla Nasreddin on August 9, 2008 at 12:51 am

Al-Rawandi wrote:

The Hijab and Niqab have taken on new meanings, especially in secular spaces. For instance in Egypt the university femeinist movement has shown a proclivity to the Niqab as an excercise in a woman's right to choose Islam. I think it is also unfair to say that women are completely powerless.

I'm interested in the way that some women have found a niche for themselves as spokeswomen for Islamist movements. I suppose that's one more reason why Islamism of the Syed Qutb/Mawdudi variety is, in fact, quite a modern phenomenon -- if they were truly "traditional," women would not be making speeches and writing pieces supporting these movements, they'd be in the seclusion of the harem or working too hard to protest, or something of that nature.

The whole "niqab as choice" thing also seems to be very "modern." I can't imagine pre-modern Muslim women framing it in those terms. Perhaps modernity is having a far greater effect, even in certain conservative Islamic countries, than we think! Even as they protest modernism, the "solution" is also shot through with modernist notions!

The negative, of course, is that this dash of modernity makes the Islamist movements bear more than a passing resemblance to certain forms of modern totalitarianism (hardly a coincidence, as Qutb was a student of such movements) and all that stuff. Not to mention the awful combination of medieval shari'ah with modern technology -- not just weapons, but using TV, radio, the internet and so on to spread the most backward ideas.

154. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #226683 by Layla Nasreddin on August 8, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Vinelectric,

Honestly, I've never thought of occasionalism being a "con game," but it fits! Anything that can't be explained in your pet theory or philosophy -- "oh, it is the will of Allah." Whoever wrote the Qur'an seems to have been utterly confused on the subject of free will vs. all things being Allah's will. If you obey him and submit to him and are on the "straight path," Allah will reward you -- but "Allah guides whom he will to his light." (24:35) So which is it?

155. The best way to undermine the jihadists is to trigger a rebellion of Muslim women - and establish energy independence

Comment #226502 by Layla Nasreddin on August 8, 2008 at 7:21 am

Bonzai wrote:

I think the meanings of the niqab would depend on the context.In the West I do believe that many Muslim women wear it by choice. Rather than a symbol of submission it may be a perverse way for some Muslim women to express their individuality. Like wearing a "fuck you" t-shirt, it is a way to give the finger to the liberal society they loath. It is also an identification of a cult membership,--radical Islam,-- which they wear with pride. I have seen a woman dressed like a ninja driving a van and get quite feisty when discovering that she has got a parking ticket.It is hard to reconcile that with the meek little woman living under her man's thumb.

As it has come to light in the coverage of the trial of some local Muslim terrorist suspects, the burqua wearing Muslimas are not always the meek women oppressed by their man folks like we assume. Some fanatical "sisters" are actually pressuring and bullying the "brothers" to do jihad and the pathetic "brothers" come across like wussies.

That very much fits with my own experience of many, many Muslim women! Far from being submissive and quiet (like me, ha ha!), they are in fact VERY outspoken and pretty much run their households in fact, if not in name. I myself was often the quietest, most docile female in the group -- though I suppose the REALLY quiet, submissive ones would be cloistered at home, not out and about.

And yes, you're right about the meaning behind the burqa, at least among some Muslim women (especially the converts who decide to wear it -- they're the worst!). I have read several blogs by niqab-wearing Muslimahs who are VERY militant about it and of their rejection of most aspects of Western society.

156. The best way to undermine the jihadists is to trigger a rebellion of Muslim women - and establish energy independence

Comment #226300 by Layla Nasreddin on August 7, 2008 at 10:51 pm

Goldy wrote:

And I know many women would relish the chance to remove their coverings. But they can't. Some, I suspect, envy their western sisters for the choice they have as to whether they wear a veil or not.

Ah, but consider the case of a woman who is happy in her burqa/veil/hijab, which is what I was addressing earlier.

Sometimes I think, since gross misogyny and subjection of women have been so prevalent for so much of human history, that the women are, somehow, getting something out of it. If you talk to Muslim women who are happy in the "place" that Islam puts them in (to put it unelegantly), you will find that a lot of them cite, to take a few examples, "being taken care of" (men are required to support their families per shari'ah), being valued as a mother, knowing what one's duties are and where one fits in the hierarchy, sexual modesty, and so on. The sad fact is that many women like their chains on some level, or at least aren't totally unhappy in them.

Of course, a lot of these are illusory -- "being taken care of" quickly becomes a liability when you're dumped with a quick "talaq", with no salable skills and several kids (if the father doesn't take them). Such women often return to their father's home, but what if there is no such home? It is claimed that sexual modesty reduces sexual jealousy and all that stuff; this is blatantly false. I mean, if you can't trust any other man to be alone with your wife/daughter, what is that saying about you?

It is claimed that the hijab preserves modesty by forcing men to deal with one's mind rather than one's body. The problem, of course, is that hiding something makes it more desirable and more sexualized -- thus, shrouding women in yards of cloth serves to make them more or less walking pudenda! (Some conservative scholars are of the opinion that pretty much the entire woman's body is awrah, a private part that must be covered, as is her voice! By contrast, the man's private area is between the navel and the knees.)

"Learning To Love The Burqa" -- alas, it happens, sometimes even among educated women who "know better".

157. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #226285 by Layla Nasreddin on August 7, 2008 at 9:11 pm

Vinelectric wrote:

I think I'm unable to completely tune into the mindset that accepts that evolution automatically excludes a creator and I suspect there is no easy way to demonsrate that it actually does so. Darwin can take you from Theism to Deism without going any further. What is being discredited here is the biblical narrative of creation not the concept of God itself which is such a fundamental existential assumption that it can accomodate almost any scientific description of nature. That explains Ken Miller and the Anglican Church's acceptance of his work.

OK, playing devil's advocate for just a minute. How would you argue against the old Occasionalist philosophy, not uncommon among Muslim thinkers, that says that God/the deity wills each and every action in the universe? The infamous example, used by the Muslim philosopher Al-Ghazali, was moving a piece of cotton to a flame. According to this philosophy, the cotton turns to ash NOT because the flame burns it, but because Allah willed it to happen. The fact that this always happens when cotton is put into a flame just means that Allah desires this to happen, not that one action causes another!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occasionalism

According to this philosophy, everything that has ever happened in the history of the world, including every death and every birth, every slaughter and every copulation, would be the "will of God." If you deny God exists, that's because God is willing you to do so! Sure, this does not make for a pleasant concept of the deity, but so what? The idea that such a being is benevolent is not an absolute requirement for theism -- you could have a malevolent deity, or one who is just a mean-spirited motherf***er. ;-)

Now, how, exactly would such an unpleasant conception of the world be "disproven" by evolution? You'd come up with something like, "X was developed imperfect" -- "Well, the deity wanted it like that." We're devolving into tautology at this point, I know. Also, such a being would be horrifically uneconomical, but why should it not be possible for such a thing to exist, and how would this be demonstrated by means of evolution by natural selection?

158. The best way to undermine the jihadists is to trigger a rebellion of Muslim women - and establish energy independence

Comment #226278 by Layla Nasreddin on August 7, 2008 at 9:00 pm

Dhamma wrote:

Layla: Are you suggesting the muslim women are lying when they say they choose to wear it? I believe they mean it, but I truly think they've accepted it only because of life-long indoctrination.

No! I don't think they're lying at all! In fact, I actually feel bad for them if they want to wear it but are barred from doing so. Heck, if people want to wear the niqab, I'm not going to argue.

However...the question arises as to why they want to wear it. Do they want to because they feel they are fulfilling the command of Allah? -- which would make it not especially optional. I guess my answer to this question would be another question: Could they take it off if they decided one day to do so, or would they now be "obliged" to continue wearing it? And this depends a great deal on one's family, cultural surroundings, and religious belief. There are plenty of Muslim-background communities that don't wear it at all; others do and ostracize anybody who doesn't wear it.

This has always been an issue in feminism, it seems -- how do you know that a woman's free choice is indeed her free choice, not pressured unduly by family, culture, religion, society, or other factosrs? I just don't know. Government interference in family affairs to enforce women's free choice isn't a particularly appealing solution (besides being rather oxymoronic -- enforced liberty!). On the other hand, it is well known, or should be, that family and society exert the strongest pressure on people's choices. So I just don't know how to handle the whole matter.

159. The best way to undermine the jihadists is to trigger a rebellion of Muslim women - and establish energy independence

Comment #226192 by Layla Nasreddin on August 7, 2008 at 7:24 pm

Laurie Fraser wrote:

Interesting link, Layla. What's your opinion on the headscarf thing? (Or any religious apparel on kids, for that matter.)

I'm probably not the person to ask, as I'm pretty much against telling people what to do! I can't say I care for laws banning it (as in French schools and Turkish government buildings) -- I think people should wear whatever they choose -- but at the same time there is also the enormous pressure from family, peers, and religion to wear it or be seen as a "whore." So what does "choice" even mean in this context?

I mean, on the one hand we have Muslim women in the West proudly proclaiming that it is their "choice" to wear it -- and then you read countless religious edicts about how the hijab is mandatory for Muslim women. What to believe? I say the "proof" that it's truly a free choice is whether they feel they can take it off, not just put it on! ;-)

160. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #226145 by Layla Nasreddin on August 7, 2008 at 6:35 pm

BigJohn wrote:

Please don't say 'most people', when what you really mean is Islington and Hampstead Garden Suburb.

Please explain the implications of this statement to an American. I gather it's rather pointed but I don't know why it is.

I believe (correct me if I'm wrong, since I'm not British) he is referring to some of the more well-heeled, better-educated parts of London, which are grossly unrepresentative of the general population. Sort of like a wealthy New York City pundit writing from the comfort of her Upper West Side penthouse, "I don't see what the problem is with so-called 'religious fundamentalism' -- I don't see it! I've never met one of these 'biblical literalists' who think the world is six thousand years old -- I think their prevalence is hugely exaggerated."

161. The best way to undermine the jihadists is to trigger a rebellion of Muslim women - and establish energy independence

Comment #226136 by Layla Nasreddin on August 7, 2008 at 6:26 pm

Laurie Fraser wrote:

Education, Layla. Those women who perform FGM on other women are fundamentally ignorant. Education can, if done right, encourage a sense of the rational imperative. If it is rational, then it's right. (Not always, of course, but you get my drift.)

People often call for more education as THE way to fight this, but I'm a bit skeptical that that will have the desired effect. First of all, as you implied with "done right," you must define "education." Obviously that does NOT mean "having the Qur'an beaten into you at a madrasa," but what DOES it mean? What if they are told that their culture is great and "all truths are relative" and religion must be treated with kid-glove "respect" and all that stuff? That will hardly work to reduce this kind of misogyny!

It is very true that (in general), as more women become more educated, even to a small degree like learning to read and write, they are less likely to put up with the worst aspects of religious and cultural misogyny. Nevertheless, it certainly doesn't get rid of all of it -- I've seen very educated women defend the most disgustingly misogynistic practices and beliefs. I've read defenses of FGC (maybe not the removal of the whole clitoris, but some of the labia), of the Catholic Church's ban on contraception, of polygyny, of every misogynistic precept of Islamic law, all written by highly educated women!

Some women are just not going to be "persuaded" no matter how much "education" they receive and will continue to hold on to such misogynistic beliefs. Still, that's no reason not to try!

(I'm even more cynical about the efficacy of education in "wiping out" religion, to be honest...)

162. The best way to undermine the jihadists is to trigger a rebellion of Muslim women - and establish energy independence

Comment #226116 by Layla Nasreddin on August 7, 2008 at 6:00 pm

There's something else to consider, though -- the very sizeable role that women play in their own subjugation and oppression. To take an extreme example, who actually does the FGM on young girls? Older women. Who drills religious (and other) concepts of inequality between the sexes into their children's heads? Their mothers.

Then we have the women who go all out and actually fight on behalf of Islamist and/or Salafi causes! Think of the women who insist they're wearing not just the hijab but the niqab, the full veil, because it is "their choice" (and I believe them -- note, this is not girls, but grown women.) Then we have the educated, wealthy Saudi women who insist that Saudi women don't "need" to drive (shades of women in the 19th century claiming that "women don't need to vote"), that kind of thing. Then we have educated Western female converts who go on and on about how much better it is to live under Islam's strictures on women than being "uncovered flesh" at the mercy of men in the West!

Sometimes we get the odd spectacle of allegedly "left-wing" Muslim women pushing for Islamism. If you look at Soumayya Ghannoushi's columns in the Guardian, she makes a lot of references to feminism -- pretty much all of them negative. She has quite a few columns about how AWFUL it is that Westerners insist on imposing "Western" notions of feminism on Muslims. Sure, there might be some pro forma denunciations of Islamist atrocities against women, but the real fire starts when she inveighs against the "cultural imperialism" of Western concern about the aforesaid atrocities. (Bear in mind she is hardly representative of Muslim women; she's the daughter of exiled Tunisian Islamist leader Rachid al-Ghannoushi.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/soumayaghannoushi

How the hell do you "break" this kind of self-perpetuating mindset, especially when they continually brainwash themselves that this is the will of God Himself? And, yes, this refers to misogynistic denominations of Christianity and Judaism just as much as to varyingly misogynistic branches of Islam. Why do so many women not just put up with this stuff, but actively engage in it and pass it on to their children?

163. Brainwashed by a parasite

Comment #224816 by Layla Nasreddin on August 5, 2008 at 5:12 pm

Is it just me, or did anybody else notice the obvious parallels between this and religious "memes"?

164. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #224813 by Layla Nasreddin on August 5, 2008 at 5:10 pm

Teratornis wrote:

The handler's job is to prevent the client from stumbling into traps like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled#Claims_that_film_producers_misled_interviewees

Well, I know that the vast majority of public figures have "handlers," but your example seems to suggest that RD doesn't have any, or something!

Perhaps 95% of human males wonder, at some point during their adolescence, "Why am I constantly horny? And why aren't human females also constantly horny?"

Uh...I'd say something, but it would be grossly inappropriate in this venue. Suffice it to say that what men don't know could fill the Bodleian Library! ;-)

165. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #224394 by Layla Nasreddin on August 4, 2008 at 8:44 pm

Teratornis wrote:

Richard and his handlers

"and his handlers"? I've heard that phrase a number of times, but almost always referring to the managers/assistants of celebrities who need handling! "Come on, we're going to the video shoot NOW...put that down already!" ;-)

166. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #224242 by Layla Nasreddin on August 4, 2008 at 11:08 am

hawt4dawk,

No, I don't mind at all. You're backing up my point about how it's not just what you say but how you say it. ;-)

167. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #224136 by Layla Nasreddin on August 4, 2008 at 7:15 am

Styrer wrote:

Your last first, if I may - nah, it is high time that Richard take off the linguistically polite gloves and call theists 'TWATS'. I'm willing to compromise, of course. Pick just ONE theist and call IT a 'TWAT'. Plurality will thence take care of itself...

And if 'vulgarity' is your objection here, measure its import against the 'vulgarity' of vicarious redemption by human sacrifice, the notion of new-born infants coated in 'original sin', and the guarantee, as theists see it, that you and I will be barbecued for the rest of time, torturously.

Well, he just doesn't swear very much in public, apart from quoting somebody else or an exasperated "bullshit!", so calling somebody a "twat" would be really out of character. In addition, some people consider indiscriminate, constant swearing to be vulgar, indicative of a person's lack of imagination, etc., etc. Not to mention ineffective in getting your message across to a wide audience, since a sizeable portion will be offended or alienated by such superfluous profanity, thereby leading them to not pay attention to the other things you're saying. Sometimes how you say something is just as important as what you're saying. I mean, we're just chatting away on an internet message board so it doesn't really matter, but a mild-mannered Oxford don trying to reach the public has certain standards to uphold -- somet things are just inappropriate. Even Hitchens doesn't engage in (too much) foul-mouthed ranting in his writings! ;-)

It should lead you to understand precisely why Richard wakes each morning, reads again some fucking horror enacted in faith's name, and says to himself 'Do these people REALLY believe this shit'?

Perhaps, but to me this would be a more cynical questioning, more along the lines of a spat "I can't believe these people actually believe this rubbish!" What I hear from him (I could be wrong) is genuine shock and surprise that intelligent, educated people, not just "wingnuts," do in fact believe this stuff, and that's not quite the same thing. I might be totally off, of course. But when he thinks that say, Lennox is "hanging himself" by mentioning that he actually believes that all the miracles in the gospel actually happened, the problem is that a LOT of people won't think that at all! No, they think, he's just another believing Christian, and why should this Dawkins guy be so surprised by that?

I apologize heartily if that came over a bit too harshly!

168. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #223987 by Layla Nasreddin on August 3, 2008 at 10:05 pm

Styrer wrote:

There is afoot a criticism that Richard is simply nonplussed by statements of belief from theists. He is, according to this rumour, far too willing (and even Hitchens is on record as saying he doesn't quite understand Richard's constant surprise at what theists believe) to express utter disbelief at what theists propose to him time and again.

I suppose that the implication of this criticism is that Richard will not even for a second try to empathise with the plight of theists looking to support their superstitious supernaturalist worldview.

Some people (can't remember where) have gone as far as claiming that he's actually FEIGNING this disbelief, that it's not really real -- i.e., when he expresses shock that somebody who isn't a "wingnut" actually believes that Jesus turned water into wine.

I couldn't say one way or the other...though I myself have long since passed the point at which I have no problem believing that a particular person, even an educated, cultured, intelligent one, can actually believe in Miracle Story X, Y, Z, that God impregnated a first-century Jewish virgin, sent revelations to an angel who dictated them to a seventh-century illiterate Arab, all that stuff. I don't know, of course, if they "really" believe, but I've met enough pious Muslims with PhDs to believe them when they say they do, in fact, believe that Allah will literally raise them from their graves on Yawm al-Qiyamah (the Day of Resurrection), and so on. Not to mention Catholics with genius IQs who do, in fact, believe in the Marian apparitions at Lourdes, Fatima, Guadelupe, and so on, and fundamentalist types who take every word of the Bible as literally true.

So I have to admit I'm a little surprised that he's surprised that people "admit to" believing all of this rubbish!

(Incidentally, I have a hard time picturing Richard actually calling somebody a "twat." I mean, that's not really his style -- it's a bit too crude and vulgar!)

169. Review interview: Richard Dawkins

Comment #223951 by Layla Nasreddin on August 3, 2008 at 7:40 pm

I noticed the Telegraph is also running a short version of this article, under this title:

Richard Dawkins: Muslim parents 'import creationism' into schools

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2494397/Richard-Dawkins-Muslim-parents-import-creationism-into-schools.html

This quote is in both articles:
"It seems as though teachers are terribly frightened of being thought racist. It's almost impossible to say anything against Islam in this country, because [if you do] you are accused of being racist or Islamophobic."

I'd challenge him to say something specifically against Islam (as a religion and belief system), but I wouldn't want him thought racist or Islamophobic! ;-)

170. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #223937 by Layla Nasreddin on August 3, 2008 at 7:03 pm

Bleah...I guess I don't know what I was on about with that last bit! :-(

I suppose I mean if you were born into a religious family (or maybe just culture) and so belief just soaked into you by osmosis, or was more or less forced on you, then you would, indeed, have to make a conscious choice not to believe. It wouldn't really be as much of an issue if your family didn't really give much thought to it and you didn't get the full effect of the "brainwashing."

171. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #223925 by Layla Nasreddin on August 3, 2008 at 6:15 pm

Goldy wrote:

Having never believed (even as a child - atheist father and non-believing mother), I cannot fully comment as to why I don't believe. However, magic and supernatural just don't seem right to me. Never have. And this is the basis of belief, I feel.

Well, that's how I felt (and do now, I suppose). Note, though, how much of this is based on "feeling" as opposed to a strict rational approach. I suppose the subject just lends itself to that sort of thing -- it's not an arcane scientific theory but something that affects your entire worldview. And the tendency is for humans to "follow their heart" and "listen to their gut" when dealing with issues of that importance, as opposed to coolly, rationally examining the evidence ("Wow, I've just fallen for X!" -- even though he/she is totally not right for you!). In case you haven't noticed, humans are extremely irrational creatures!

Religious belief is (still) so widespread in so much of the world that at some point, since you do come into contact with it so much, you kind of have to make a conscious choice to not believe.

172. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #223888 by Layla Nasreddin on August 3, 2008 at 3:49 pm

Nails wrote:

4oD will have it after tansmission; but the instructions state it is for UK & Eire residents.

Not sure how they check, maybe you could just change the coutry settings on your PC?

I believe they find out where you are from your IP address. Perhaps it would work if you used a proxy server in the UK, or something. All I get is this: "You need to be within the UK or the Republic of Ireland to watch Channel 4 programmes."

Father Coyne, amazingly, admitted to me that there was literally no good reason at all to believe in God. Of course I promptly asked him why, then, he did believe. His answer was very simple: "I was brought up Catholic."

I've had the disquieting thought that perhaps disbelief is not always very rational, either. Did you just "not believe" and then found reasons to support this disbelief, or were you led to disbelief by looking at the evidence and reasoning from that? I mean, I'll say right now that my childhood disbelief was hardly "rational" and "logical," it was more of an instinctual, emotional reaction. Even though I've gone through believing and not-believing in several different flavors, I find that the core basis of my disbelief is still that instinctual gut feeling that there isn't anything and, to me, all other evidence and arguments on the subject serve merely to back that up.

173. A cast-iron case for a secular society

Comment #223747 by Layla Nasreddin on August 3, 2008 at 10:35 am

Cartomancer wrote:

Or we could just ignore religion entirely and go back to running the country based on sensible criteria which actually matter...

When was this, exactly? ;-)

174. A set of previews of 'The Genius of Charles Darwin'

Comment #223746 by Layla Nasreddin on August 3, 2008 at 10:33 am

This bit from the Telegraph article made me smile:

'We live a rather featherbedded life,' says Dawkins. 'We have clothes, we have central heating, we have a roof over our heads.

Central heating? We don't need that here, we need air conditioning! (She said, while sweating in 100°F/38°C heat at 10 AM!)

On the subject of young people saying "I believe what my holy book teaches," I've heard of churches that drill their members in the fine art of attacking anti-religious/evolutionary views and "winning" debates on the subject -- a sort of fundamentalist shock troops. I don't know if they exist in Britain, but they certainly exist here in the US!

175. A cast-iron case for a secular society

Comment #223732 by Layla Nasreddin on August 3, 2008 at 10:04 am

On the comments, I see that that there are already a couple of ill-informed people complaining that this is "intolerant" and "imposing our [secular] moral views on Ms. Ladele" and that it is the duty of a democratic society to allow people to live according to their beliefs. There's even somebody complaining that "oh, people are only complaining because it's a non-Christian religion getting this exemption; they have nothing to say about Christianity getting special privileges" (not even close to being true of this article). Ugh!

Someday I'll learn to stay away from the comments section at the Guardian and Comment is Free sites!

176. Review interview: Richard Dawkins

Comment #223556 by Layla Nasreddin on August 2, 2008 at 6:11 pm

"If we were following Darwinian dictates, we males would be spending all our time fighting other males to get females, and screwing them all over the place in order to have lots of children and grandchildren. I'm very glad we have risen above all of that."

Richard is obviously thoroughly unfamiliar with the biographies of countless rock and rap stars if he seriously believes we've "risen above" all of that! ;-)

177. Richard Dawkins branded 'secularist bigot' by veteran philosopher

Comment #223290 by Layla Nasreddin on August 2, 2008 at 12:17 am

A "secularist bigot"? Isn't Flew confusing "secularist" with "atheist"? I thought "secularism" referred to the idea that church/religion and state should be separate -- it is possible to be both a believer and a secularist. I believe "atheist" is the word he's looking for...I think. (I don't know what he's thinking, or if he's doing much thinking at all these days, poor man!)

178. The moment of truth

Comment #223186 by Layla Nasreddin on August 1, 2008 at 5:51 pm

Brian English wrote:

that Western converts or believers are stark-raving bonkers

Edited for accuracy. ;)

Well, I suppose you have a point there! ;-)

179. The moment of truth

Comment #223124 by Layla Nasreddin on August 1, 2008 at 2:14 pm

I can kind of identify with Abdallah Schleifer; I too was overwhelmed by reading the Qur'an (the whole thing, several times, not just one particular passage), so much so I decided to convert. Just more confirming evidence, I suppose, for my informal hypothesis, based on my own experience, that Western converts to Islam are stark-raving bonkers. ;-)

180. To beat extremism we must dissolve religious groups

Comment #222738 by Layla Nasreddin on July 31, 2008 at 8:21 pm

hawt4dawk wrote:

Goldy, four o'clock in the morning.. even God doesn't get up that early!

I had a program on my computer that woke me every morning with the fajr adhan, since I don't live anywhere near a mosque (actually, there were a couple different programs I used, one is called iAthan which you can download for free!). Well, that was OK because I have to get up that early anyway to get to work! The time of the call to prayer changes depending on the time of year -- during the summer it would be at 4 AM, in the winter at almost 6 AM. But what it was really useful for was during Ramadan, because that's when you're supposed to stop eating/drinking until sundown, or, technically, until the time for the maghrib (sunset) prayer.

I don't know about God not being awake (well, if he existed, that is) -- I was immediately reminded of the following Hadith Qudsi:

Our Lord (glorified and exalted be He) descends each night to the earth's sky when there remains the final third of the night, and He says: Who is saying a prayer to Me that I may answer it? Who is asking something of Me that I may give it him? Who is asking forgiveness of Me that I may forgive him?

Well, I was always a bit baffled by this because it's ALWAYS the last third of the night SOMEWHERE on earth! So is Allah always doing this, I wondered, thinking that that would be actually kind of a nice thing ("When My servants ask you concerning Me, I am indeed near; I listen to the prayer of every suppliant when he calls on Me." Qur'an 2:186). Of course, doubtless the "real" reason for this is because the original tellers of this hadith thought they were living on a flat earth where it was always the same time everywhere!

Sorry for the lengthy digression!

181. To beat extremism we must dissolve religious groups

Comment #222365 by Layla Nasreddin on July 31, 2008 at 9:43 am

al-Rawandi wrote:

Doesn't the Arabic word connote cranes?

Well, I was trying to recite it from memory--also, I have seen it translated that way. *shrugs*

182. Write to UCF

Comment #222345 by Layla Nasreddin on July 31, 2008 at 8:04 am

I suppose the nature of this canned response means that my concerns about the tone of Richard's email earlier in the thread were completely unwarranted and that I owe him an apology for making such a fuss about it. I'm sorry!

183. Write to UCF

Comment #222332 by Layla Nasreddin on July 31, 2008 at 7:23 am

Hey, I got the EXACT SAME response too! I guess this means the e-mail is flooding in if they have to resort to canned responses -- though there's no way to know the percentages for and against.

184. To beat extremism we must dissolve religious groups

Comment #222205 by Layla Nasreddin on July 30, 2008 at 10:33 pm

Brian English wrote:

I read somewhere that there were complaints about Mo's wives takin' their constitutional out in the open because at that time in Mecca, or Median, Mo and gang weren't doing well and so used the desert. So Mo, conveniently, has a vision that told him to make all his wives cover up so that people didn't notice them doing the toilet. That's probably apocryphal.

Oh, that's a true story! (Incidentally, all stories about Muhammad's "wives," plural, will be in Medina -- he only had one wife in Mecca!)

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/074.sbt.html#008.074.257

Narrated 'Aisha (the wife of the Prophet): 'Umar bin Al-Khattab used to say to Allah's Apostle "Let your wives be veiled," but he did not do so. The wives of the Prophet used to go out to answer the call of nature at night only at Al-Manasi. Once Sauda, the daughter of Zam'a, went out and she was a tall woman. 'Umar bin Al-Khattab saw her while he was in a gathering, and said, "I have recognized you, O Sauda!" He ('Umar) said so as he was anxious for some Divine orders regarding the veil (the veiling of women.) So Allah revealed the Verse of veiling.

('Umar ibn al-Khattab, second caliph, was an infamous misogynist, incidentally, not to mention a fanatical hardass. His story reminds one of Paul's -- both started out persecuting the new religion, then had a conversion experience and became fanatical defenders of it.)

And what Goldy says is true: we actually have no real, factual, tangible evidence for the entire story of Islam's orgins or of Muhammad's life. All we have is hagiography written down over a century after he died, so how do we know that any of this stuff really happened, or that Muslims today are really following the actual example of the Prophet, as opposed to hearsay and legend. Obviously, we don't! (Substitute Jesus or Moses or any ancient religious leader; the same problems arise in all their stories.)

185. To beat extremism we must dissolve religious groups

Comment #222171 by Layla Nasreddin on July 30, 2008 at 8:34 pm

Brian English wrote:

Thanks for the info. I'd hear the Satanic verses were about Mo allowing worship of other deities then later changing his mind and saying Satan must've done it. Perhaps the whole Quran is the work of Satan if he can so easily trick Mo?

That's one of the reasons Satanic Verses was so blasphemous. Part of the man plot of the book follows one guy who is losing his mind and constantly gets stuck in these hallucinations, and the retelling of the Satanic Verses is one (he's playing the archangel Gabriel in that one), and he realizes, wait, who's telling "Mahound" (the name of the prophet-figure) these verses, anyway? Later on, one of the scribes notes that when he surrepititiously changes words in the transcription of "Mahound"'s recitation of the divine words, just to see if he'll notice, he doesn't, in fact, notice the difference. Also, the revelations seem to be revealed awfully conveniently for "Mahound"'s purposes. "Well, this is a fraud," he decides, and leaves the city.

Slight digression for this damning hadith, found in the most reliable collection, al-Bukhari:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/060.sbt.html#006.060.311

Narrated Aisha:

I used to look down upon those ladies who had given themselves to Allah's Apostle and I used to say, "Can a lady give herself (to a man)?" But when Allah revealed: "You (O Muhammad) can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them (your wives), and you may receive any of them whom you will; and there is no blame on you if you invite one whose turn you have set aside (temporarily).' (33.51) I said (to the Prophet), "I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires."

But I believe the part of SV that provoked Ayatollah Khomeini to issue the fatwa condemning Rushdie to death was the description of a brothel in the pagan city of "Jahilia" consisting of whores bearing the names of the wives of the Prophet, as a kind of evil mirror of the Prophet's harem. The Mothers of the Believers (the formal name for the wives) as whores! Unbearable! Also, there's a tripped-out vision of the Ayatollah trying to turn back time (obviously a reference to Khomeini), though I don't know if he'd had that part read to him in Farsi.

186. To beat extremism we must dissolve religious groups

Comment #222161 by Layla Nasreddin on July 30, 2008 at 8:16 pm

qomak wrote:

Don't know about that, but there is this: [snip]

Yeah, there are several versions of the tale of Why Stoning Of Adulterers Is Not In The Qur'an; it suggests that the whole story of the compilation of the Qur'an is somewhat shaky. Given that the hadith collections and biographies of the Prophet date from about 150 to 250 years after Muhammad's time, I'm sure you can see why!

Brian English wrote:

Like the Satanic verses?

The story of the Satanic Verses (retold, with some embellishment, in Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses), and found in the famous biography of the Prophet of at-Tabari, is that Muhammad was preaching the Chapter of the Star (Surah an-Najm, number 53) to the pagan Meccans. When he came to this verse, he said something very strange:

"Have you considered Al-Lat and Uzza, and Manat, the third, the other? These are the exalted birds, whose intercession is to be desired."

These were three Meccan pagan goddesses. Islam is all about no intercessory beings between man and Allah, no demigods or "sons of God" or any of that stuff, so this was completely out of character.

Well, after a while Muhammad decided that Satan had put those verses into his mouth. So he re-recited them in the form they're now found in the Qur'an:

"Have you considered Al-Lat and Uzza, and Manat, the third, the other? What, for you the males and for Him the females? This indeed is an unjust division! These are nothing but names which you have devised, you and your fathers, for which Allah has sent down no authority. They follow nothing but conjecture and what their own souls desire, even though there has already come to them Guidance from their Lord." (53:19-23)

Of course, many sources dispute this whole tale, but the fact is that it exists in certain Islamic sources; Rushdie certainly didn't just make it up!

Brian English wrote:

Few people are more fundamental or enthusiastic than those who have newly hitched their flag to a wagon.

No kidding! :-(

187. To beat extremism we must dissolve religious groups

Comment #222150 by Layla Nasreddin on July 30, 2008 at 7:27 pm

hawt4dawk wrote:

Do you mean falafel sellers in Kabul? I thought it was Afghanistan.

Kabul is the capital of Afghanistan! *puzzled*

hawt4dawk wrote:

May I ask, are you Persian?

Nope -- I wish, I have nothing but the highest regard for Persians/Iranians and their ancient culture. No, it's 100 times worse. I'm a female convert! Well, ex-convert. I was completely into Islam, prayed five times a day, read the Qur'an in Arabic, hijab wearing (sometimes), all that kind of thing. I have one piece of advice: Stay the hell away from converts, they're batshit insane -- and I say this from personal experience. ;-)

188. Breeding for God

Comment #222147 by Layla Nasreddin on July 30, 2008 at 7:14 pm

Goldy wrote:

I thought that. But given that American education (as evidenced by the American posters here) is not bad at all, yet the majority of Americans are religious.

American education is "not bad"?!? *bursts out laughing*

I'm sorry...I just couldn't let that one pass! I'm afraid that American public schools are absolutely terrible, the worst kind of dumbed-down, anti-intellectual crap. Ugh! (That was my experience, anyway.) Sometimes I unkindly think that if there is any education going on at most US public schools, it must be happening by accident. ;-)

About the American posters here displaying intelligence and a modicum of grammatical knowledge: I think it's because this site, due to its nature as a more "intellectual" place, attracts a more educated class of commenters than the usual run-of-the-mill sites -- visit a celebrity gossip site and look at the comments for a better example of "typical" Internet commenters. Or, visit a chatroom...a religious chatroom. Yikes!

189. To beat extremism we must dissolve religious groups

Comment #222142 by Layla Nasreddin on July 30, 2008 at 7:04 pm

Brian English wrote:

Thus defeating the claim that the Quran is complete. If the Quran were complete, it would contain all God's revelations, no?

There's a hugely amusing story told by Muhammad's wife Ayesha (yes, the child-bride) that there was originally a verse in the Qur'an commanding that adulterers be stoned (the rule is found in the hadith, not the present Qur'an). Then a hungry goat ate the only piece of paper containing that verse, so it didn't make it into the Qur'an! ;-)

190. To beat extremism we must dissolve religious groups

Comment #222137 by Layla Nasreddin on July 30, 2008 at 6:39 pm

Dispiracist wrote:

Education of Muslims might not be the answer to Islamism.

Contrary to popular assumptions, evolutionary psychology implies that educated people would be more likely to hold and therefore to act on irrational beliefs.

From my own experience, I'd have to agree -- not just about Muslims, but about educated religious people. I think perhaps there is too much faith being placed in "education" as a "cure" for religion. I've seen plenty of highly intelligent, college- (and above) educated believers, and any "evidence" suggesting otherwise is simply argued away. Not convincingly to a nonbeliever, of course, but to them it's convincing and serves as just more proof that their religion IS in fact rational and consonant with logic and reason.


Brian English wrote:

Apparently they rank higher than other Hadith, but less than the Quran....

Hadith Qudsi contain "revelations" from Allah that aren't in the Qur'an.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/hadithqudsi.html

However, the main distinction between hadith is their "soundness" and the "trustworthiness" of the collections they appear in. The ones most trusted by (Sunni) Muslims are those of al-Bukhari and Muslim, followed closely by those of Abu Dawud, at-Tirmidhi, an-Nasa'i, and Ibn Maja. There are also some other compilations, though not considered quite as reliable. (Shi'a don't accept these; they have their own collections of hadith.)

There's a whole "science" of determining the soundness of a particular hadith, looking at each member of the chain of transmitters (the isnad), as well as how its content (matn) fits in with Islamic teaching and the Qur'an.

Yes, Muslims are fond of calling the different domains of Islamic knowledge "sciences" (the science of hadith, the science of Qur'an, etc.). The Arabic word used is 'ilm (knowledge), in Latin scientia, thus the justification for using the word "science." Needless to say, there's nothing very "scientific" (in the modern sense) about them!

191. To beat extremism we must dissolve religious groups

Comment #222127 by Layla Nasreddin on July 30, 2008 at 5:25 pm

Al-Rawandi,

Every time I feel the need to explain to somebody else's post with some obscure point about Islamic belief or practice, or the Qur'an, I find that you've already done so, in much the same way I would have! So I don't have to, I guess! :-)

Anyway...
Brian English wrote:

Al, you've probably already answered this n times. But how can the Quran be complete if there are sacred Hadith? Not just ordinary Hadith.....

The funny thing is that the Qur'an constantly talks about how it's "clear" (mubeen), yet many of the verses are far from clear and have been explained in contradictory ways by dozens of scholars in their tafsirs (exegesis). Clear as mud! Plus, the language of the Qur'an is somewhat archaic and so even Arabic speakers need explanations of many of the words.

In addition, although the Qur'an is 600 pages long, you'd be hard-pressed to find Qur'anic verses to justify most Islamic rules and rituals. This is where the hadith come in, justified by the verse, "Truly you have in the Messenger of Allah an excellent example for him who hopes in Allah and the Last Day and who remember Allah much." (33:21) So, hey, if you have any questions, just imitate Muhammad -- which leads to some pretty bizarre "hero-worshipping," I guess you could call it. Pious Muslims grow beards because the Prophet did it, they do their best to imitate him in all things -- if you think about it, aren't they really worshipping him, in a sense, by so slavishly imitating him and elevating him to such a high level? Muslims will, of course, heatedly deny this ("We worship only Allah, not his messenger, sallalahu alayhi wa salaam!"), but I wonder.

Islam isn't the only religion to do this -- in orthodox Judaism, it's not just the "written" Torah that is revered, but also the "oral Torah," the Talmud. By sanctifying both, the scholars and exegetes can be sure that most things are covered, and provides the justification for some of the most nit-picky, totalitarian rules ever devised.

192. To beat extremism we must dissolve religious groups

Comment #221812 by Layla Nasreddin on July 30, 2008 at 6:58 am

I thought this article was interesting, not so much for the stuff about British Muslims, but for what it says about the status of religion in Britain today. I look at the holdovers from the past (establishment of the Church of England, bishops in the House of Lords, taxpayer-funded faith schools, "acts of worship" in state schools) and wonder, "Why on Earth don't you just institute separation of church and state? I know tradition is hard to break, but I think something like what the author suggests would be a good thing! (Then again, you guys still have the Act of Settlement stating that anybody in the line of succession to the throne who marries/becomes a Catholic is excluded from the line to the throne, so...I mean, do you really think the Pope is going to cross the English Channel to "re-take" Britain if somebody in the royal family happens to be Catholic?)

When France emancipated French Jews in the 18th century, part of the "deal" was that Jews would be granted full rights as individual French citizens; however, the Jewish "community" led by the rabbis would have absolutely no standing in law as a group. No special Jewish courts or rules; they were now Frenchmen (and women) who happened to be of the Jewish religion and they would have to follow the same rules as everybody else.

So I wonder...what's all this garbage the British government mouths about "the Muslim (Hindu, Sikh, whatever) community" and its (self-appointed) "leaders" and stuff like that?

193. Breeding for God

Comment #221537 by Layla Nasreddin on July 29, 2008 at 6:10 pm

I'm fascinated by "secularization theory" and its discontents. I suppose it's clear that religion is not just going to "go away" by itself, much as we'd like to see this -- it will take effort. But the subject that really interests me is this:

Second, religious people in the childbearing 18-45 age range are disproportionately female.

Yes, the old "women tend to be more religious than men" pehonomenon (borne out by my own experience, though of course the plural of anecdote is not data!).

Religious lobbyists, couching their claims in the rhetoric of relativism and diversity, will ask why the secular point of view on issues like abortion, blasphemy, pornography and evolution is the only one taught, aired or "respected."

And, of course, the use of the concepts of "multiculturalism" and "diversity" as an "in" for conservative religious (Islamic, Christian, Jewish) norms. There are few things more hypocritical than a conservative imam/priest demanding "respect" for his (it's usually a male) views on grounds of "relativism" and "diversity" and "mutual respect"!

194. Catholics To Pope: Lift Birth Control Ban

Comment #220660 by Layla Nasreddin on July 28, 2008 at 8:16 pm

I'm afraid this seems a fool's errand -- they might as well be petitioning the government of Saudi Arabia to allow non-Muslims into Mecca and Medina. Forget it! Just chuck the whole thing!

On the other hand, sometimes a thousand mile journey starts with a single step and all that other stuff. I'm torn between wanting conservative religions to change and just saying, "Screw them all; just leave already!"

Oh, and the word "propaganda" was originated by the Church, from the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, founded in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV. Fancy the Church denouncing others for "propaganda"!

195. Daniel Dennett: Autobiography (Part 1)

Comment #220652 by Layla Nasreddin on July 28, 2008 at 7:47 pm

Reading this, I couldn't but help notice how incredibly lucky Dan was to come into contact with so many intelligent, thoughtful teachers and mentors during his education, and how his pursuits were encouraged by his family -- and then think, "What about those bright kids who aren't lucky enough to find mentors or to be born in intellectual households?" Not to mention wincing at the savage decline in US education during the ensuing decades! One weeps at the wasted talent and potential.

Interesting that Dan's father was a scholar of Islamic history. Very interesting...I wonder if that, or his early life in Beirut, affected any of his later work.

196. Islam subway ads cause stir in New York

Comment #219871 by Layla Nasreddin on July 27, 2008 at 4:31 pm

Goldy wrote:

I am basically thinking in a Chinese concept here ;-) Certainly money is more important that communism. Indeed, CCP membership is sought not for idealogical reasons but for leg-up-ladder reasons. I have met many Muslims, Shia and Sunni, in Syria (also a whole heap of Christians) who were emphatically not Islamic :-) It was just an idea I had - America tests my theory greatly, I must admit. Here I am thinking of Saddam era Iraq - certainly not a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism, as I recall.
Difficult, I have to say. As a lab tech, I can only have opinions - many of which are wrong.

To fit in with this, "secularization theory" (or just "secularization") is one of the concepts I find most intriguing. Basically, the theory states that as nations grow more wealthy and make greater progress in education and science, they will "naturally" become less religious. Well, this might work for Europe, or perhaps I should say Western Europe (with Australia and Canada), but the theory runs into a problem when trying to explain America and its rates of religiosity in comparison. I mean, this is not a trivial point -- if it can't explain why the most populous developed country is so religious it's in trouble (and there's also the matter of some developing third world nations which are not necessarily becoming less religious). Some sociologists of religion have gone so far as to declare the "secularization theory" disproven; others say that there are special factors going on in the case of America, still others say that perhaps America is less religious than popularly believed. Needless to say, more work needs to be done on this concept!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularization

And our cultures are too far apart at times for meaningful discussion to occur.

Sometimes, yes, even among groups of all-American-born converts! A completely different mindset; it's hard to talk at all when one side is saying "My religion is the most important part of my life; I am my religion, I represent it to the world," and the other is saying, "Religion must be kept private and not intrude into the public square; keep your beliefs at home"!

197. PZ Myers Desecrates a Eucharist

Comment #219857 by Layla Nasreddin on July 27, 2008 at 4:09 pm

I thought it was cute. Didn't know RD had a thing for S&M -- though I suppose his ongoing debates and "interactions" with religious loonies and wingnuts (a/k/a "banging one's head against a brick wall") should have clued me in that he was a glutton for punishment.

I kid, I kid! ;-)

198. Islam subway ads cause stir in New York

Comment #219843 by Layla Nasreddin on July 27, 2008 at 3:49 pm

Goldy wrote:

I know we are seeing a rising Islamicisation in the west where poverty is hardly an issue for Muslim women, but I feel that the portrayal of Muslims by the media plays a part in making them feel demonised and marginalised which pushed them to Islam as a cultural security blanket...

Problem is, Islam is so much a part of what most Muslims are that they tend to take even the most benign criticism of Islam as "demonizing Muslims." I've read plenty of messages and listened to plenty of conversations in which the merest suggestion that perhaps Islam, as currently defined, has "issues" with the treatment of women is taken as the rankest "Islamophobia" (cue seething about how the West hates Islam and Muslims). It's very, very hard to separate the two, especially in the honor/shame culture that a lot of Muslims have grown up in and which seemingly has no concept whatever of self-criticism. No, anything suggesting that Islam is not 100% perfect is usually taken as absolute heresy (in my own experience), and it's frustrating. Especially when they are backed up on this by a few well-meaning but clueless liberals, who seem to consider any discussion at all of Islam by non-Muslims (or even Westernized or liberal Muslims) that is not 100% positive to be rank (pick one -- or all) racism, Islamophobia, imperialism, or "Orientalism." It's a bizarre thing to see a white male chastising a feminist Muslim (or ex-Muslim) as being an "inauthentic" or as a "neocon stooge" (!) bent on making Islam look bad.

I suppose this is blatant overgeneralizing, but it's certainly something I've seen a lot of.

Also, I think this "poverty leads to religion, make them less poor and they won't need religion" to be grossly oversimplified to the point of being flat-out wrong. Many of the most devout Muslims I know were/are quite wealthy, and many poor ones aren't nearly as pious as they might like you to think! (Then there's the matter of all the pious Americans who are emphatically NOT poor!)

199. Islam subway ads cause stir in New York

Comment #219776 by Layla Nasreddin on July 27, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Since we're discussing feminism and Islam -- what do you guys think about the phenomenon of "Islamic feminism," the attempt to establish feminism within an Islamic context and from Islamic sources, and the insistence that Western feminists need to learn how to work with them instead of putting down religion (specifically Islam)?

I used to be really interested in this when I was Muslim because I figured this was the only way that any form of feminism could get into Islam. On the other hand, many of the Islamic feminists' readings of the Qur'an and the life of Muhammad were so anachronistic and out of character ("Muhammad, peace be upon him, was the first feminist, a truly Islamic state would not need feminism because women would already have all their rights") that I just couldn't keep up with the self-delusion and wishful thinking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_feminism

200. Write to UCF

Comment #219757 by Layla Nasreddin on July 27, 2008 at 1:58 pm

I guess I might as well note that I just read about a dozen Matthew Nisbet posts about how atheists need to be more "respectful" of "moderate" believers and how science needs to be "framed" as not being in conflict with religious beliefs so as not to frighten them away from science, and thought, "What a pusilanimous, puling, petulant, peevish, pussyfooting pushover!" Then I thought, "Aren't I exactly the same way?" Sigh.

I don't want to piss people off by implying or stating that they're idiots (I wouldn't like people to do that to me), especially when they're in positions of power (with predictably negative results) or are people that I respect, admire, or love; on the other hand, these beliefs are, in fact, idiotic, foolish, and quite possibly dangerous. How to reconcile the two?