301. Gimme that Old-Time Irreligion

Comment #181895 by Layla Nasreddin on May 18, 2008 at 4:26 pm

I live in Britain and it undoubtedly true that religion is dying away. Even in places like Spain, Brasil, France and Italy, the Catholic church has problems in holding onto its adherents.

But...those are mostly places in Western Europe. The big "test" of secularization theory is whether Western Europe points the way to the future, or is an anomaly (look at the rest of the world, the Middle East, Africa, etc., as well as America). I suppose we'll have to see. And what about the Muslim minority in Britain? I've read conflicting accounts as to whether they tend to become more assimilated and more secular, or else become more alienated and fanatical.

302. Gimme that Old-Time Irreligion

Comment #181648 by Layla Nasreddin on May 17, 2008 at 7:26 pm

Of course there is something to it! They are implying that the sort of cultural war against religion Richard is engaged in - which was quite typical of the 19th-century cultural clashes - should be considered obsolete by now.
Well, it should indeed be obsolete by now! But in view of the persisting influence (or even revival?) of religion it's about time that we secularists/atheists return to be more 19th-century, i.e. intellectually militant! As Richard said: "Let's all stop being so damned respectful!" This is what makes him "19th-century" - and it is more of a positive than a negative indeed.

From what I can suss out, the critics seem to be saying that Dawkins subscribes to a "19th-century" view of history or an overly-simplistic, outdated notion of the relation between science and religion, or else has a naive "19th-century" faith in science untempered by the bloody 20th-century. Something like that. (Not that any of this is necessarily justified, just what they seem to be saying.)

Just as an example, I can just imagine such a critic saying that your claim that "[this fight] should indeed have been obsolete by now" betrays an old, outdated, Victorian version of the "secularization theory," that religion would "inevitably" decline as science increased human knowledge. Well...I suppose it hasn't happened, hence why we're all here today!

303. Gimme that Old-Time Irreligion

Comment #181615 by Layla Nasreddin on May 17, 2008 at 4:55 pm

The new boldness of atheists and nonbelievers is not so much a novel development as an unconscious return to the mindset of an earlier century. Contrary to the standard myth of progress, America spent many years going backwards in point of publicly-acceptable attitudes toward religion, even as Western Europe eagerly abandoned its historical obedience to Christianity, and turned itself into a society where atheism is pretty much the norm, the persistence of officially-established churches and similar vestigial institutions notwithstanding. I don't expect America to move that far that fast. Religion still has its claws into too many people and communities; one doubts that the airwaves will soon be full of clear-channel radio stations proclaiming the indispensability of skepticism and the savage wrongheadedness of biblical literalism.

Ah, very interesting. This is what I've been wondering about--what exactly are Dawkins' critics going on about when they accuse him of being "19th-century"? It's such a common refrain, made by so many critics (not just believers but philosophers and historians) that I start wondering if maybe there's something to it. But maybe it's not exclusively a negative accusation--from this perspective, it may be more of a positive than a negative.

304. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing, ed. Richard Dawkins

Comment #181582 by Layla Nasreddin on May 17, 2008 at 3:01 pm

...and the long-time games columnist from Scientific American, Martin Gardner.

Martin Gardner? I used to check out his books (multiple times!) out of the library at university. I'll have check this book out.

305. Texas Megachurch Minister Busted in Internet Sex Sting

Comment #181558 by Layla Nasreddin on May 17, 2008 at 12:48 pm

This is so not-surprising; it has an air of inevitibility about it, as if one expected somebody like this to get busted for something like that. Interesting what that says about megachurch ministers, isn't it?

As for closing down the church--iffy. New Life Church, Ted Haggard's old stomping grounds, is still around and, by the looks of it, doing good business, even if attendance dropped a bit after the scandal broke.

http://www.newlifechurch.org/

306. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #181545 by Layla Nasreddin on May 17, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Due to some kind of oversight, this sentence was mistakenly omitted from the version of my reply which is published at Beliefnet.com (site of Shmuley's attack).

It may not have been an oversight...maybe somebody was frightened that it would be considered "potentially libelous" or some such nonsense, and Beliefnet didn't want to deal with that, especially from a character like Shmuley! *shrug*

307. Malaysia woman scores rare legal win to quit Islam

Comment #181056 by Layla Nasreddin on May 16, 2008 at 11:14 am

Darn, I had a whole thread about this last week in the Forum...though it was in the backwaters of the "Faith & Religion" board ("Islamic court says Muslim convert can return to Buddhism" http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=44105 ).

I'll say what I said there: after the infamous Lina Joy case, where a woman was prevented from changing her religion from Islam to Christianity by the religious courts, perhaps Malaysia realized that, far from presenting an image of itself as ultra-modern and tolerant, such decisions put them in the august company of countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia. So I think it's a (slight) step forward!

308. Richard Dawkins discusses Einstein's new letters

Comment #180803 by Layla Nasreddin on May 15, 2008 at 8:48 pm

Now I just looked at the Guardian and found that the letter sold for 170,000 pounds! That's VASTLY more than the auctioneers' upper estimate.

Wow, that is absolutely fantastic! It's amazing to see how much interest there is in Einstein even today.

309. 'Framing Science' and The Dawkins Effect

Comment #180389 by Layla Nasreddin on May 14, 2008 at 7:12 pm

I, for one, can testify (ha! love that word in this context!) to the effectiveness of the "Dawkins approach" to the science/religion "war." I suspect that the mere fact that such a "ruckus" is caused means that more people become aware of the issues involved, which means that more people may become open to new ideas, or perhaps simply allow the unconscious doubts or problems that they've always had rise to the surface. Who knows?

310. The Dissent Of Darwin - The World Of Richard Dawkins

Comment #180378 by Layla Nasreddin on May 14, 2008 at 5:44 pm

What's up with guys and their obsession with their, uh, testicles? ;)

This must be from 1996 or thereabouts, but very interesting nevertheless.

311. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179774 by Layla Nasreddin on May 13, 2008 at 5:53 pm

Damn, I suppose I should be praising God (or Allah) since my town has the cheapest gas in the entire country at $3.457/gallon ($0.9135/litre) on average--and I've just seen it at $3.35/gallon ($0.885/litre). (That last is 0.4549 British pounds/litre, for you Brits.) They should move here!

Well, maybe not.

Anyway, I could say something about the Saudis and their export of Wahhabism, but I'm sure it's all been said before. Just open up a Saudi-translated Qur'an and start reading!

312. Americans pray at the pump for cheaper petrol

Comment #179149 by Layla Nasreddin on May 12, 2008 at 7:31 pm

Holy crap, is this how America looks to the rest of the world? *hangs head in shame*

313. 3QD interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #179036 by Layla Nasreddin on May 12, 2008 at 12:24 pm

This is a very interesting interview; not just the same stupid questions for the 6,868th time. Real science for a change!

But what thrills me a LOT more than it should is the fact that Dawkins' interlocutor is a descendent of the Prophet Muhammad--his full name is Syed Abbas Raza. "Syed" is a title given to (alleged, I should say) descendants of the Prophet (also spelled "sayyid," "seyed," etc.)--though that might prove a bit difficult to prove. Start the DNA testing! Not that anybody else will care; I just think it's an interesting factoid.

(By the way, I wonder what that trip to Africa RD mentioned where he was interviewing the prostitute portends...)

314. Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong

Comment #178190 by Layla Nasreddin on May 10, 2008 at 7:41 pm

Thank you, Layla -- of course you are quite right and I suspected such. I should have more appropriately asked, how come these schools still exist in the "21st century"? I suppose your answer still applies even if I was hoping for a different one.

Considering they still say grace in Latin before dinner at Oxford and Cambridge...well, I don't think that the divinity schools and faculties of theology are going anywhere soon. Well, unless they completely run out of students, which is slightly more than a faint possibility in this day and age, at least in the UK!

Benedic, Domine, nos et dona tua,
quae de largitate tua sumus sumpturi,
et concede, ut illis salubriter nutriti
tibi debitum obsequium praestare valeamus,
per Christum Dominum nostrum.

I'll be sure to memorize this in the (unlikely) event I should ever find myself having dinner at one of these fine institutions. ;)

315. Scientists Know Better Than You--Even When They're Wrong

Comment #178184 by Layla Nasreddin on May 10, 2008 at 6:31 pm

Would someone please help me out? Don't prestigious universities like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Oxford, and so on have divinity schools or theology departments? What gives there? I can see, as Richard Dawkins proposes, that comparative religion be taught, but don't these schools graduate doctors of divinity? What a joke. How come this happens?

Well, I seem to recall that all those places were originally founded to train clergymen (as with Yale and Princeton) or were founded by ministers (Harvard) or were founded in the Middle Ages when students were technically counted as part of the clergy! In addition, many colleges at Oxford and Cambridge were founded in order to pray for the souls of the benefactors.

In any case, getting rid of "schools of divinity" would require abolishing colleges that have been in existence since the beginning of the school, and you know how difficult that can be in such tradition-conscious institutions!

316. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #178149 by Layla Nasreddin on May 10, 2008 at 3:34 pm

Danger because, if you go just by reason, I think, without faith, without belief in God, you can imagine, for instance in the last century, some of the faith(less), or supposedly faithless societies - people, whether it's like Hitler or Stalin, bringing up - having a country in which, if you like, a God free zone, a dictatorship ruled by reason, and where does it lead? To terror and oppression.

The only way I can make any sense out of that remark is that perhaps the Cardinal means to say something like "reason by itself, unencumbered by compassion, empathy, or morality"--which, in his view, come pretty much exclusively from religion and faith. (Well, of course he'd probably think that, he's a clergyman, isn't he?) Imagine a highly intelligent, hyper-logical, completely amoral psychopath--why wouldn't he "use" people for his own nefarious ends if he found it "reasonable" to do so? (You can doubtless think of some examples of such con-men, perhaps including the nasties mentioned above.)

This is doubtless a bunch of bollocks, but that's all I can think of. *shrugs*

317. Atheists are nice people who will roast in hell, says Cardinal

Comment #178098 by Layla Nasreddin on May 10, 2008 at 1:34 pm

Satire...it's what's for dinner! ;)

Would a "real Catholic" say something like that? Very unlikely...the "nipping off to the shops" bit might have tipped one off!

No modern Catholic would actually SAY anything so outrageous.

I don't know... Are the remarks below about this affair real or satire? I'll let you guess.

Yes, yes, atheists should be respected. Duly noted. And if there were a massive cultural tide of bullying triumphalist Catholics pelting atheists with mud and knocking their hats off in the street, the good Cardinal's warnings would be pertinent. But as it is just now, the Cardinal is urging his flock to crowd to that side of the boat that is already nearly gunwale under. English Catholics are under siege from ignorant and abusive spouting popinjays like Richard Dawkins and his acolytes in the British Chattering Classes who wouldn't know a sound philosophical or theological idea if it bit them on the arse. It is Dawkins and his ilk who reek with contempt and whose habit is to abuse. The last thing an intellectual thug like him (or the people who prostrate themselves before him) needs is a Christian community that mewls out endless apologies for imaginary Lack of Respect while saying, in one way or another, "Please don't hurt us!" The Cardinal reminds me of that scene in Independence Day where the President asks the alien, "What do you want us to do?" Dawkins' answer is clear: "Die!" The sooner the Cardinal and his flock figure out that these guys have no interest in "dialogue" and are solely motivated by bigotry to destroy the Church, the sooner he can set about forming his flock to defend the Faith instead of endlessly apologizing for it.

318. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177342 by Layla Nasreddin on May 9, 2008 at 12:21 am

I am pleased that the BBC makes use of the tax revenue it receives from Britons to make its fine, commercial-free radio programmes available free of charge to...foreigners like me. Thanks, guys! ;)

A quick, pungent, hard-hitting interview. We'll see how the good Cardinal responds.

319. Churchgoing on its knees as Christianity falls out of favour

Comment #177340 by Layla Nasreddin on May 9, 2008 at 12:09 am

If ever the Kaaba should be physically destroyed, I bet their theology will just shift to say that what the angels are protecting is still there... it's in fact the non-physical, spiritual Kaaba.

Actually, the Kaaba has already been destroyed/demolished more than once since the time of Muhammad, during the civil wars in the early centuries of Islam; it was simply rebuilt.

(It is interesting to note just how many civil wars there were in the first 120 years of Islam's existence, each side hell-bent on gaining control of Islam's rapidly-expanding empire...so much for "all Muslims are brothers!")

Anyway, enough of this foul talk of nuclear weapons and Mecca, she said crossly...

320. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177114 by Layla Nasreddin on May 8, 2008 at 3:25 pm

robotaholic wrote:

tell the truth- did any of you ppl actually read the WHOLE thing? *waggs finger* - I can't possibly make myself.- it's agony!!!

*raises hand shyly* It's not quite as bad if you 1) switch off the rational, skeptical part of your brain, 2) switch on the program labelled "What A Devout Catholic's Mindset and Worldview (Probably) Looks Like," 3) read the whole thing through this "alternate worldview." In other words, schizophrenia. ;) Even then, it's awfully verbose. The only way it makes "sense" is if you already subscribe to the good Cardinal's "religious programming"...and maybe that's more because of self-delusion than anything else. *shrugs*

EDIT: I think what he's trying to say is that the "God" of the atheists, the one they're saying doesn't exist, isn't the "real God," the God of mystery, the Christian God. The atheists are debunking a "clockwork God" who was needed to create the universe and is now no longer necessary (due to scientific theory), when the "real" God is so much more than that. Mere logic and reason will not "prove" his existence, and even some of the greatest saints have doubted. Doubt is good, we can build bridges with unbelievers and atheists because we all doubt. Let neither believer or unbeliever be so arrogant as to think they need not listen and learn from the arguments of the other side. Believers can learn a lot from conversing from nonbelievers, and perhaps believers will be able to witness to unbelievers through their acts, because logical arguments and reason are not really an effective way to call people to Christ...

AAAAHHHH! I think my mind just snapped somewhere back there...

321. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177065 by Layla Nasreddin on May 8, 2008 at 2:06 pm

Richard Dawkins wrote:

Do people think it is worth bothering to go on the radio to talk about it?

Well...

As always, the interesting question about atheism is 'what is the theism that is being denied?' Have you ever met anyone who believes what Richard Dawkins doesn't believe in? I usually find that the God that is being rejected by such people is a God I don't believe in either. I simply don't recognise my faith in what is presented by these critics as Christian faith.

In my own humble opinion, if it were me, I would jump all over this bit. "Have you ever met anyone who believes what Richard Dawkins doesn't believe in?" (with the implication that no, he's only attacking a strawman). "The hell they don't! Do you know what is actually being taught in churches under your own authority? Do you know what your flock actually believes about God? Just because you have this sophisticated, not to say sophistical, view of God doesn't mean that the simple Catholic in the pew sayng novenas to Our Lady of Guadalupe (or some other such Catholic ritual) does!"

Also, the "hunger for God" bit, the idea that even atheists "miss" God might be a topic to take on. Yes, this longing is real, but what does it REALLY point to? A sense of wonder at the universe and the world for what they really are, not for a fictional sky-daddy to make everything all right.

322. Is Liberal Catholicism Dead?

Comment #175857 by Layla Nasreddin on May 6, 2008 at 6:53 am

"Liberal" Catholicism? Define "liberal"...

On a related point,this has long been an interesting issue to me: why do "liberal" mainstream Protestant churches in America hemorrhage members, while hardcore conservative ones grow by leaps and bounds? My answer to that (from my own experience) is that a lot of people LIKE their religion to adamantly stand for "The Truth," which it insists that it and it alone has, and then, armed with this "knowledge," tell its members what God (or Allah) wants them to do.

Also, you know, if neither you nor the preachers actually believe in what they're preaching, why not just sleep in? Seems like a much better use of one's time to me! ;)

323. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #175624 by Layla Nasreddin on May 5, 2008 at 6:17 pm

al-rawandi wrote:

Sabaeans are a pre-Islamic religion that existed in the Hijaz region. They are a form of monotheistic creed that seems somewhat similar to Christianity.

You're right! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabians

The Hanifites also had representation in Mecca. It was a monotheistic following of Abraham, and predated Islam. No doubt Muhammad received influence from their thought.

Well, yes. Muhammad by way of the Qur'an piggybacked on this and justified his "new" religion as really being that of Abraham, since Abraham was a "hanifa." "Abraham was not a Jew nor a Christian; but he was a hanifa, a Muslim." (3:67) "He has chosen you, and has imposed no difficulties on you in religion; it is the religion of your father Abraham." (22:78) Etc.

Anyway, enough of these boring Qur'anic verses! I suppose it would be wrong to wish you Ma sha' Allah, so Congratulations! :-)

324. Dumb and Dumber: A discussion between Ben Stein and Glenn Beck

Comment #175446 by Layla Nasreddin on May 5, 2008 at 12:40 pm

I could say something, but it would be grossly uncharitable.

325. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175203 by Layla Nasreddin on May 4, 2008 at 9:02 pm

"No, no, I've never had a letter from a Muslim...I don't think they read my books. I mean...I've never really had one."

Hey! Don't I count? ;)

Seriously, though, from the context he doubtless means hate mail from Muslim fundamentalists. And all I have to say about that is alhamdulillah (Praise be to Allah)--meant ironically, of course! You definitely don't want those guys after you, as the examples of outspoken ex-Muslims or Muslim reformers forced into hiding with 24-hour police protection show. (I wonder how many letters/emails he gets from Muslims, anyway?)

Good interview...I have to say I sort of identified with the "cult indoctrination" bit!

326. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #175066 by Layla Nasreddin on May 4, 2008 at 10:17 am

72 - Barry Pearson wrote:

Note that this puts Sura 9 last, giving priority to its crusade-nature over more peaceful earlier parts. (Is there any dispute about this?)

According to all the scholars, Surah 9, at-Tawbah, "Repentance" (or al-Bara'ah, "Immunity"), was revealed in connection with the Tabuk expedition against the Byzantines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tabouk), which took place in the ninth year after the hijrah, i.e., not too long before Muhammad's death. However, this surah was apparently not the last actual verses revealed; that question is open to a lot of debate.

It must be noted, however, that the "occasions of revelation" for a lot of the surahs are unknown--they are attributed to the Meccan and Medinan phases of Muhammad's career, but there is often much disagreement over the order. Not every surah or verse has a nice story in the hadith about how it was revealed, so there's a lot of guesswork involved.

327. A New Jack Chick Tract: Moving On Up!

Comment #174774 by Layla Nasreddin on May 3, 2008 at 12:52 pm

"Well we're movin'on up, to the east side, to a dee-luxe apartment in the sky..." (Sorry, couldn't resist!)

Seriously, if "evolution does away with morals," so that "anything goes" and you can "lie" and "cheat"...

...what excuse do the oh-so-holy Chickies have for lying so brazenly about, well, everything--evolution, Catholicism, any religion other than the most warped, fundie Christianity, etc.?

328. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #174758 by Layla Nasreddin on May 3, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Doug Cowan, a public-school biology teacher, said his colleagues are often afraid to speak out.

Mr. Cowan said he tells students: "I'm going to give you the evidence for evolution and the evidence against, and let you decide." For instance, he'll mention Darwin's observation that finches evolve different-shaped beaks to suit different ecosystems. Then he'll add that you don't see a finch changing into another species.

And they allow these people to teach in schools?!?

329. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #174683 by Layla Nasreddin on May 3, 2008 at 8:32 am

Fanusi Khiyal wrote:

Layla could you give the name of the Hadith that say that about women?

Well, here goes...
The one about "the best of you is the best to his wife" one is found in both at-Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah...whose collections are called sunan (accepted tradition) instead of sahih ("authentic"), but still often quoted and part of the six collections of hadith considered to be "canon".

These two are from Abu Dawud (another of the "six collections")http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/011.sat.html#011.2139
Narrated Mu'awiyah al-Qushayri:

I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them.
(There are about three ahadith at that point that say about the same thing; this is just one of them.)

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/011.sat.html#011.2141
Book 11, Number 2141:
Narrated Abdullah ibn Abu Dhubab:

Iyas ibn Abdullah ibn Abu Dhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) as saying: Do not beat Allah's handmaidens, but when Umar came to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them. Then many women came round the family of the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) complaining against their husbands. So the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) said: Many women have gone round Muhammad's family complaining against their husbands. They are not the best among you.

This one is from al-Bukhari, which is sahih:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/073.sbt.html#008.073.068
Volume 8, Book 73, Number 68:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin Zam'a:

The Prophet forbade laughing at a person who passes wind, and said, "How does any one of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then he may embrace (sleep with) her?" And Hisham said, "As he beats his slave."

And even if it is one of the strong ones - which I seriously doubt - like Bukhari or Muslim, care to explain how they can possibly override the Quranic injunction to the contrary?

I suppose it just goes back to what Barry Pearson says above: the sources of Islam contradict themselves quite a bit, so it is impossible to conform to 100% of the Qur'an and hadith.

Despite the Qur'an's insistence that it is "consistent with itself" (39:23), the fact that it so obviously is not led to the development of the doctrine of abrogation. You can't very well have one passage saying, "Those who believe and those who follow Judaism, and the Christians and the Sabians, any who believe in Allah and the Last Day and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve" (2:62)...

...and then have another passage saying, "If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers." (3:85)

No, you have to say either that 3:85 abrogates 2:62 because it was revealed later, or else state that 2:62 only refers to Jews, Christians and Sabians (whoever they are) BEFORE the mission of Muhammad; now that Muhammad has come, it is required for every human to believe in his religion of Islam (the explanation I've heard most often when I asked about this).

330. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #174575 by Layla Nasreddin on May 2, 2008 at 7:15 pm

Vinelectric wrote:

Learn the language, subscribe to any Arabic satellite channel and you're guaranteed to hear a preacher talk about Muhammad helping his wives clean the house, saying "take good care of your wives" in his deathbed etc etc. Unfortunately he never abrogated the verse in the Quran that invites men to flog their wives. Truth is he was never reported to be mean to his many wives.

To back this up, there is an oft-repeated hadith in which Muhammad says, "The best among you are those who are the best to their wives and I am the best to my wives."

There are other ahadith where Muhammad says things like, "Do not beat the female servants of Allah" and "Some (women) visited my family complaining about their husbands (beating them). These are not the best of you." And yet another that goes like this: "I went to the Apostle of Allah and asked him: What do you command about our wives? He replied, "Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them." So in a real sense, Muhammad here is being more lenient than Allah in the Qur'an, which says "As for those women from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and beat them" (4:34)! ;-) There is even a further tradition that this "beating" is symbolic, the kind that might be inflicted by a siwak (small stick used as a toothbrush).

Of course, none of this excuses the "I have the right to discipline my wife" attitude, which too often turns into beatings and other forms of cruelty; the very fact that the husband has this form of authority over the wife (and she does not possess the same over the husband) is in itself the problem, no matter how "lovingly applied"!

331. Muslim Rebel Sisters: At Odds With Islam and Each Other

Comment #174571 by Layla Nasreddin on May 2, 2008 at 6:45 pm

Hmmm. I was very interested in "Islamic feminism." Women such as Fatima Mernissi, Shirin Ebadi, Amina Wadud and others who managed to combine Islam with modernity and human rights gave me some measure of faith that it wasn't true that Islam was a misogynistic religion, that it could change, that there was nothing contradictory about being a Muslim and a feminist.

However...(and here comes the problem!)...it seemed to me, from studying the sources, that the traditionalists almost always had the better of the argument. For example, a feminist might write a book about how women are really presented as being equal believers in the Qur'an...but not have a thing to say about any of the hadith, where so much of the problem comes from. Somebody like Irshad Manji or Asma Gull Hasan would write about how Islam is "really" a feminist religion...but be seriously lacking in quotes from Qur'an and hadith. By contrast, a Saudi book about women and their role is bound to contain multiple Qur'anic verses, several hadith, and other stories from the lives of the sahaba (companions of the Prophet) on nearly every page in order to back up their ideas that women need "protection" and all that kind of stuff. And of course the traditional books of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) backs them up on this. So the disconnect between what I knew of the sources and what Islamic feminists were saying bothered me, not least because I wanted the latter to "win"!

And, of course, add to that the fact that most Islamic feminists have a very hard time in much of the Islamic world, since "feminism" is more or less a dirty word there. No, it seems that you're more likely to hear things like, "Islam is the true women's liberation!" It's astonishing how many women totally buy into the whole fundamentalist thing, voluntarily wearing the niqab and so on...but maybe not, seeing as how women tend to be more religious than men.

332. Science leads to killing people

Comment #170662 by Layla Nasreddin on April 27, 2008 at 9:58 pm

I think I'm going to vomit now. I swear I felt my IQ drop several points just from listening to Stein's remarks.

(Here's another vomit-worthy link, by the way: http://powercut.blogspot.com/2007/09/richard-dawkins-diary-entry.html I stumbled on it by accident and can't think of a thing to say, it's so vile.)

333. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170076 by Layla Nasreddin on April 27, 2008 at 10:41 am

Wow, major props to Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy for saying this kind of thing in Pakistan!

Not necessarily.
But you must find a science-friendly, science-compatible God. First, try the pantheon of available Creators. Inspect thoroughly. If none fits the bill, invent one.

334. Investigating Atheism

Comment #169570 by Layla Nasreddin on April 26, 2008 at 10:17 am

mixmastergaz wrote (109):

Completely off-topic post alert but...

I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere else on this site so here's a plug for Richard's lecture here in Liverpool earlier this week. It's available to watch online @:-

http://www.liv.ac.uk/08/webcast/dawkins_webcast.html

I imagine there's not much in it that will be new to regulars on this site, but for those who've never seen Richard lecture it's more than worth a watch.

From the length of the video I'd guess that the Q and A session isn't included which is a shame. Some crank from the local Christian Union was foolish enough to argue that "evolution can't possibly be true" because "chimpanzees eat their own young". Richard's response was most amusing. I mean, where does one begin with that sort of question?

Another challenger accused Richard of arrogance for claiming to know what happens after death, before claiming privileged knowledge of the "afterlife" herself! She refused to elaborate on her insights but offered to write to Richard with more details. He graciously thanked her for this, but didn't quite manage to conceal the irony in his tone of voice. The last challenger seemed to think that the growth of Christianity in China somehow proved the existence of God (although he was rather sketchy on the details). I was disappointed by the poverty of counter-arguments put to Richard. If they were representative of the best that Christians in Liverpool can come up with then Hope Street (the road connecting Liverpool's Anglican and Catholic cathedrals) must be simply teeming with halfwits on Sundays.

Actually, that seems to be a lecture taped earlier in the year--the caption states "Monday, 25th February 2008." However, I watched it (it's good anyway) and the Q&A session (very interesting) is included. I wonder if the lecture you attended will be posted?

335. Yoko Ono sues over use of John Lennon videos

Comment #169486 by Layla Nasreddin on April 26, 2008 at 7:33 am

"I'm sick to death of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocrites
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now."
--John Lennon, "Gimme Some Truth"

A more perfect description of the Expelled people could hardly be written...well, unless several intensifying profanities were inserted. ;)

336. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #168206 by Layla Nasreddin on April 24, 2008 at 6:32 pm

clearmind (sic!) wrote:

As for you, Layla, I just asked some muslims guys that whether whether Muslims quit their religion or not. I was told that this is a very rare situation in Islam religion.

Why are you here? (Who are these people?" I wondered, "...and why do I keep coming back to their site?")

a. You quit your religion.
b. You are atheist and you are trying to prove that Evolution is true because you are giving a helping hand to Dawkins after the battle of intelligence with Ben Stein
c. You are an attention seeker?

Now If I would say, I would not be surprised if some more believers popping out of nowhere claming that they became atheists to try to save evolution and atheists face along with Dawkins, " Nah, but I wouldn't. I do not think that evolution is so hurt by Stein's Movie? Then question is boggling my mind; why is Dawkins overreacting?

Thank Allah I stopped by here again, because I needed a good belly-laugh!

OF COURSE pious Muslims say that "nobody" or "almost nobody" leaves Islam! Every time somebody writes/tells an account of how they left Islam, there will be some Muslims insisting that he/she was never Muslim to begin with, or is trying to "defame" Islam, or whatever...oddly, the same amount of skepticism is NEVER given to stories of conversion to Islam, which is why we get patently ridiculous stories of, say, Neil Armstrong converting to Islam after hearing the adhan (call to prayer) on the moon. It gets SO boring. Is it too much to simply allow people to possess their own stories, to say, "I think you're wrong, but I accept that maybe your experiences have led you to see things differently"?

Saying I'm an atheist would be too much (sorry, I can't join the Out Campaign, it just wouldn't be right). I'm too much of a "we can't be sure a deity doesn't exist" kind of person to say that (for the moment, anyway). I just don't know. I'd even say that I can't "know" that Islam is false, but I just can't force myself to believe in it anymore...and why would an all-knowing deity be satisfied with feigned belief?

Lastly, why should I give a damn about the whole Expelled debacle, aside from it being an excuse to laugh my behind off at the producers of that wretched thing? I was losing my faith long before that flick, or should I say pathetic waste of celluloid, came out. RD sure as hell doesn't need my help to make the Expelled people look like moronic, cynical twits; they've done a good enough job of that themselves!

337. Investigating Atheism

Comment #166857 by Layla Nasreddin on April 23, 2008 at 1:07 pm

Cambridge? Hey, wait a minute...don't Cambridge and Oxford have this bitter rivalry going, with Oxonians poking fun at "North Fens Polytechnic," while Cambrige students in turn laughing at "Cowley Polytechnic"? I mean, if this was put out by "that other school"... ;) *stifles a giggle*

338. Ben Stein Vs. Sputtering Atheists

Comment #164978 by Layla Nasreddin on April 20, 2008 at 10:50 pm

This line tells me everything I need to know:

L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center.

Google the Media Research Center; they're a self-proclaimed "conservative media watchdog group dedicated to bringing political balance to the news and entertainment media."

No further comment.

339. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164913 by Layla Nasreddin on April 20, 2008 at 8:51 pm

Damn, Quine, how can you continue reading that crap? ;) (Yes, I know, it's important to be open to all points of view, but still...there have got to be limits!)

340. Religion is 'the new social evil'

Comment #164890 by Layla Nasreddin on April 20, 2008 at 7:58 pm

Goldy wrote:

Given the Polish Catholics haven't had the same effect, I'd guess no. Maybe as a reaction to what Islam is asking for, yes. You have to admit, it has been a bit forceful...

Well, perhaps. However, I recall from critiques of The God Delusion and other atheist books (which I read because I like to know what others are thinking!) that one accusation made towards these books is that their success is "really" in response to 9-11 and the rise of fundamentalist Islam, both in the Islamic world and in Europe and America; all the other critiques of e.g. Christianity are just window dressing. OF COURSE I thik that's crap, but there might be a point in there about how fundamentalist Islam has done so much to bring the worst of religion right under the noses of otherwise indifferent Europeans (simply because religion is so often a total non-issue in many European societies). In America, of course, the issue of the baleful effects of religion is very real and very pervasive, so no further reason for the popularity of such books is needed!

341. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164779 by Layla Nasreddin on April 20, 2008 at 5:14 pm

I don't think Darwin was responsible for the holocaust...but it does seem to me to a logical end point to a purely naturalistic philosophy based on survival of the fittest. Anyone care to explain the naturalistic basis for morality and compassion? What part of naturalism argues against helping nature out?

Look up "naturalistic fallacy" or "Natural Law fallacy" or "appeal to nature," print it out, and keep it taped on your computer monitor until it sinks in. "Ought" cannot be derived from "is"! Just because things are a particular way does not mean that is the way they should be.

342. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164746 by Layla Nasreddin on April 20, 2008 at 4:43 pm

You think this is a crank letter? I don't know, but I do know that the sentiments expressed in it (Darwin's theory of evolution led inexorably to so-called "Social Darwinism" and hence to eugenics, racial anti-semitism and the Holocaust) are all too common, alas. Books, articles, and countless web posts have been written about this subject. Just a cursory look at Amazon reaveals books with titles like From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany by Richard Weikart, The Pure Society: From Darwin to Hitler by Andre Pichot and David Fernbach, Darwin's Blind Spot: Evolution Beyond Natural Selection by Frank Ryan...and not necessarily by creationist cranks, either (though generally that seems to be the case).

I'm not really sure how to counteract this perception, except to say that I guess more education is needed!

343. Religion is 'the new social evil'

Comment #164633 by Layla Nasreddin on April 20, 2008 at 1:32 pm

I thought this bit was interesting:

Poverty and drugs remain, but are joined by issues such as family breakdown, young people's behaviour and fears over immigration.

I can't help wondering how much of this antipathy towards religion (totally justified, I think) is in reaction to the growth of Islam in Britain due to immigration? I mean, there just isn't that much to get worked up about when discussing the "boring" Anglican Church!

344. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #164516 by Layla Nasreddin on April 20, 2008 at 11:03 am

rod-the-farmer wrote:

I watched a clip recently of Richard meeting in what might have been Cairo, with a muslim convert from the U.S. Richard seemed to think he could get a new perspective on the muslim way of thinking, from someone who was familiar in detail with the western way of life. I think he had to give up after a fruitless attempt to get anything approaching logic and reason from the neo-muslim, who harangued RD about "allowing women to bare their bodies with immodest clothing" (or some such idea). Richard tried to point out that he did not "allow" these women to do any such thing, they chose for themselves - he had no power to order what clothing they wore. I am more & more convinced what is required is an Islamic Reformation, and I despair of this happening. What little I read of it has not made me think there are Islamic scholars equivalent to Martin Luther waiting reveal themselves.

That was from the Root of All Evil? documentary, with RD in Jerusalem interviewing one Joseph Cohen a/k/a Yusuf al-Khattab, an ex-fanatical-Jewish settler from Brooklyn turned fanatical Muslim (and if you know anything about Jewish names, this guy is descended from the Jewish priests!). I could actually identify with the guy a little bit, in a way, being as how he was a total freak who converted to Islam! "You take your women and dress them like whores on the street"--yeah, that was entertaining (maybe not the best word, but it was!) That interview was simply confirming evidence for my long-standing belief that "converts are freaks, stay away from them!" ;)

Honestly, my own opinion is that no Reformation is forthcoming--what is more likely to happen is that more and more Muslims simply drift away from the religion. The pious will denounce any efforts at change, since Allah's Religion is the Perfect Religion and it is blasphemy to suggest that it needs reform, while the doubters won't say much but will slowly (or not so slowly) just stop practicing and believing, though they may not announce themselves to the world as atheists or agnostics or at least no longer believers in Islam. That's my (uninformed) take on it, anyway. *shrugs*

I am not sure I understood your response, but it sounds like you have not "come out" to very many of your friends etc. I must admit I am becoming more tempted every time I see a muslim woman wearing a headscarf, to ask, almost in a whisper, "Are you taking chemo ? There is a good place over on Main St. that has nice wigs for people who have lost their hair due to cancer." Or maybe "I'm so sorry that you have leprosy. But there are modern treatments these days that can help."

Ooh, harsh! I recall a relative of mine saying how she wanted to run over a Muslim man who happened to be accompanied by a hijabi Muslim woman, for oppressing his wife like that (she of course didn't know about me at the time!).

No, I haven't "come out" to very many people yet; we'll have to see how that goes. I fear it may not be altogether pleasant!

345. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #164370 by Layla Nasreddin on April 20, 2008 at 6:23 am

While I am always interested to read about individuals who have abandoned their faith, no matter which version, I would be MUCH more interested to hear of the reaction of their family, friends, priests, colleagues at school or work, etc.

Since I personally know a couple of imams, who were quite impressed with my diligence in studying Islam...well, I won't speculate on what they'd say if they knew! My Muslim friends...well, I don't know about that, either. I am terrified of disappointing them, strangely enough!

As for family members, they'd be quite happy that I finally threw off that "disgusting" religion in favor of something, ANYTHING else (they don't know quite yet). I mean, for any parents, imagine if your daughter, whom you thought "knew better," converted to Islam--how would you react? How would RD react if his daughter converted to Islam? That's kind of how "unexpected" it was to them! But then there's the fact that that would involve saying, "You were right, I was wrong, I've wasted years of my life with this, I beg for your forgiveness in being so STUPID."

Conflicted, to say the least!

346. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #164220 by Layla Nasreddin on April 19, 2008 at 6:20 pm

dyak wrote:

Also I am sick of hearing Professor Dawkins' "tone" being questioned - is it "good for the campaign" to be so outspoken. Atheism is habitually associated with nazism. I find his responses and general tone articulate, polite, reasonable, open, engaging, and his response to ignorant boorish interviewers is stunningly patient. Any atheist who has a problem with Dawkins' tone is a quisling.

I have to say, if RD wasn't so, uh, blunt and controversial, I probably wouldn't be here! I was attracted to the "controversy" aspect; that's what piqued my interest in the first place. "Who are these people?" I wondered, "...and why do I keep coming back to their site?"

You know all the people whinging about how RD's tone is "offputting" and that he's "totally lacking in common sense" and "pissing people off" when it comes to religion (like the guys on South Park claimed in the commentary of their Dawkins episodes)? Well, if he were as polite and as respectful as they would prefer, you just know they would never have given him a second thought, and thus the whole conversation would never have taken place.

I really think that controversy can be a "consciousness-raiser" in and of itself, if only because it calls attention to the subject. You may or may not like the tone, but the important thing is that it's "out there."

347. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #164187 by Layla Nasreddin on April 19, 2008 at 5:16 pm

Vanitas wrote:

I would like to begin by congratulating you, Layla, on your deconversion. I was brought up a Muslim myself, although my faith faded into something more like deism by my teenage years.
But I am glad to say that it was Professor Dawkins' writings that dealt the final blow to my faith last year.

I'm only 19 now, and it's been the hardest thing "coming out" to my parents, and i suppose even now i've still got one foot in the closet. But I guess it's a gradual thing, and the more you make a stand for yourself, the easier it becomes and the more you gain the respect you deserve.

Congratulations, Vanitas! :-D Best of luck in trying to find out and stand up for the truth (and getting along with your family)! And a hearty Ameen (Arabic for "amen") to that last point!

You say you're 19. Well, I sometimes wish I had "figured this out" before spending most of my twenties as a Muslimah...but then, I wouldn't be the person I am today without all that's happened to me, so I suppose that's all right.

348. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #164161 by Layla Nasreddin on April 19, 2008 at 4:43 pm

He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy wrote:

I suppose it's human nature to hope that there is something out there watching us. I'd love to know the reasoning of that.

Oh, see, that's your problem right there--it has NOTHING to do with reason and logic, generally speaking. It's all about emotions and feelings! You see, I tend to think that people's beliefs about God or the supernatural are emphatically NOT arrived at through logic and reason. No, you start out with the beliefs and then search for plausible-sounding reasons to hold them.

I'll admit it--my lack of belief as a child was certainly not based on what would be generally called "logic." I thought it was crap, a ridiculous idea, and that anybody holding it must be a fool (more or less). It was only later that I began to explore the logic behind the existence or nonexistence of a deity--well, children aren't usually really big utilizers of reason and logic, anyway. But that childhood disbelief affected my deepest feelings--even in my most pious days, when I would spend hours on hours reading the Qur'an in the mosque and praying until my calves got sore--I couldn't shake that childish "What if there is no God?" voice in my head. Some who returned to faith in later life have something similar, I think, except in the opposite direction. They started out believing in some deity, later disavowed it, but then their childhood beliefs reasserted themselves with a vengeance, and they ended up returning to the church or mosque or synagogue or whatever, often after having children.

So I would say that religious belief is all about emotion, not reason!

349. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #164145 by Layla Nasreddin on April 19, 2008 at 4:01 pm

He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy wrote:

Layla, hearing a story like yours gives me great joy. Persevere, keep asking those questions and don't let the bastards drag you down.

Can I ask though, what do you reckon has been the hardest thing about your recent experiences? I'd love to understand the mind of someone who believes in a god (or at least used to believe) in a bit more detail than simply calling them a "fucktard". I'd like to know what was the biggest stumbling block for you, the greatest thing that got in your way of feeling free.

Well, I have had a LOT of very difficult experiences lately. Some of them include overcoming my natural timidity to actually write about how I feel, because I so desperately needed an outlet for my conflicted feelings. I don't really have anybody in the "real world" to discuss these matters with, at least not in the way I would prefer--they would either insist that I make du'ah to Allah to protect me from the whispering doubts of Shaytan, or else tell me I am completely full of it and should learn to get a life, so to speak. Maybe they're right, but it helps when somebody takes your feelings seriously!

You see, even though my "default" was basically atheism, since I was not raised in any religion and in fact had totally rejected the idea of any deity as "stupid" by the time I was seven, I later figured that all these people who have ever believed in a deity MUST have a point. I believe I am a religious person by nature (whatever that may mean), so I found the study of religion to be very interesting. And, being the kind of intense reader that I am, I simply completely suspended all disbelief when reading sacred texts. I was overwhelmed by the Qur'an and decided to take on Islam. It was great; I made a lot of friends, I felt in touch with a Higher Being because Islam affects all aspects of daily life so that even while doing something as mundane as washing one's body or cutting one's nails, one feels that one is obeying a higher authority, Allah. There were some problems, to put it mildly, with my family, but I didn't care--I had found the truth that I was searching for.

I became extremely adept at compartmentalizing my beliefs and my knowledge. Because I had done some study of religion, I "knew" all the historical issues with Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (which depends heavily on the other two--if Moses or Jesus didn't exist, that creates something of a problem for the Qur'an, where both are mentioned repeatedly!), but I simply forced myself to "repress" or "ignore" all of that and went on "believing" that, say, the Qur'an was from Allah. I studied Arabic, read the Qur'an hundreds of times, prayed five times a day, fasted for Ramadan, donned the hijab, all that stuff.

In the end, I realized, I simply could not continue to LIE to myself. My natural skepticism always broke through, and I couldn't shake the feeling that I was living a lie. I was frightened that others would find out that I didn't "really" believe, on some fundamental level. Sure, a lot of people must feel that way, I reasoned, but at the same time, I felt like a complete FRAUD. I'd like to think that I am an honest person (but I don't know about that, ha ha!).

Speaking of frauds, perhaps I should change my username from the "fake Islamic name" (as RD put it once: http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,710,Response-to-Richard-Dawkins-and-Sam-Harris,Zaytuna-Videocast-4,page2#25056) here to my "real" name...but that probably would not be altogether prudent. So I'll just keep it for now.

(I am sorry for the long, rambling nature of this post! Skip it if it gets too boring!)

350. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #164033 by Layla Nasreddin on April 19, 2008 at 12:45 pm

I damn near DIED when RD mentioned my email to him towards the end of the interview (from 21:30 to 23:05). I had no idea it made such an impression on him! (I HOPE, Richard, you weren't offended by some of my remarks in that email about your book being "somewhat perfunctory" in its discussion of Islam!)

Anyway, he quotes from it, "I am shocked at how quickly my faith seems to be draining away." Well, it's drained away to almost nothing by now, to the point where I didn't even bother to pray today...and I don't feel guilty about it, either (the most important thing--anybody can NOT pray, it's not feeling badly about it that marks your true lack of faith!). It's amazing how quickly these things happen.

I'm going to go hide in embarrassment, now...well, not really! I am honored and shocked by the attention!

Edit: You thought I looked to be "about twenty"! Wow, do I really look so young? (I'm actually thirty!)