Dawkins And Islam

[Primus]

I was reading an interview with Dawkins in the Times yesterday and he briefly pointed out that in the UK the rising religious fundamentalism in the country is mainly contained in Islam. By fundamentalism I mean refusing to learn about evolution, calling for religion to be taught prominently over science ect... However he would not expand on this.

As has been demonstrated Dawkins can be very ruthless with the Christian faith. This got me thinking is he holding back deliberately with Islam. I know he's been quoted saying that he concentrates mainly on Christianity as he knows more about it but living in the UK surely any rising fundamentalism that is affecting education should be addressed. Anyway if he is holding back these are some reasons I could think of.

A) In the current political climate it could cost him his chair in Cambridge
B) He's doesn't fancy having a fatwa issued on him
or
C) I've totally misread some newspaper spin and said situation does not exist. He's not pulling punches with any religion more than another.

[Doctor Evil]

He had a TV documentary where he essentially attacked all religions. Cant remember the name though.

[brodski]

He had a TV documentary where he essentially attacked all religions. Cant remember the name though.

"the route of all evil?" perhaps?

Which did have large sections focusing on criticism of Islam.

[plumjam]

If it's the case that Dawks leaves Islam relatively alone then it would be a bit cowardly, but understandable.
Rushdie needed round-the-clock police protection for years. With the Jehovah's Witnesses all you need is a spyhole in the front door.

[Primus]

"the route of all evil?" perhaps?

Which did have large sections focusing on criticism of Islam.

I didn't see that. I more than happy to accept I'm wrong on this. Just because I haven't seen him criticise Islam does not mean he hasn't after all.
Was "The Route of all Evil " recent?

[Soapy Sam]

"root" not "route".
I understood Dawkins must retire from the Charles Simonyi chair at Oxford this year anyway.

The recent enactment of hate crime legislation in the UK has made many people reluctant to tackle British Islam head on. The Anglican church seems to be self-destructing on it's own.
Dawkins' views as universal atheist are widely known. I think anyone accusing him of cowardice over this issue should look to their own qualifications .

[Primus]

"root" not "route".
I understood Dawkins must retire from the Charles Simonyi chair at Oxford this year anyway.

The recent enactment of hate crime legislation in the UK has made many people reluctant to tackle British Islam head on. The Anglican church seems to be self-destructing on it's own.
Dawkins' views as universal atheist are widely known. I think anyone accusing him of cowardice over this issue should look to their own qualifications .

I think it's quite a large leap between reluctance to tackle British Islam head on and cowardice. The words been used once in this thread but not by myself.

[Sunni Man]

It's neither reluctance or cowardness, but common sense.

[Primus]

It's neither reluctance or cowardness, but common sense.

Hows that then?

[leon_heller]

I didn't see that. I more than happy to accept I'm wrong on this. Just because I haven't seen him criticise Islam does not mean he hasn't after all.
Was "The Route of all Evil " recent?

Jan 2006. It's "The Root of all Evil?". He made "The God Delusion" later on in the same year.

Leon

[Sunni Man]

If you attack Islam, you will pay a price.

[Soapy Sam]

Buying a fish supper, ditto.

By the way, Dawkins wanted the question mark in the title "Root of all evil?"
(On the grounds that nothing is the root of ALL evil).
Dawkins takes words seriously.

The producers , I believe , removed it.

[Primus]

If you attack Islam, you will pay a price.

By attack do you actually mean physically attack or point out that its as clearly ridulous as any other type of religion.
Do parades and banners count as paying the price because thats all i've seen recently when people have insulted Islam in this country?
Well and the guy who set fire to himself in Glasgow before getting kicked in the nuts.

[Soapy Sam]

You mean the "attack" at Glasgow Airport?

(By the way, I accept you made no allusion to cowardice).

[Mojo]

"the route of all evil?" perhaps?


Route 666?

[Primus]

You mean the "attack" at Glasgow Airport?

(By the way, I accept you made no allusion to cowardice).

I do indeed. It was a bit ridiculous. If you're going to attempt to attack a bunch of Glaswegians you best make sure you do it right the first time.

Glad you don't think I was accusing Dawkins of being a coward. Its can be just as life threatening knocking christianity in the US.
As Bill Hicks said "Hey guys, come on forgive me"... "later as I was hanging from a tree..."

[Primus]

If you attack Islam, you will pay a price.

Do you know any white converts like yourself who do not behave in exactly this manner?
I've met a few and to be honest they're like clones of yourself. Its like you're entire understanding of the religion is based on reading reports in the Daily Mail.

[kavik]

There have been politicians and public speakers that have insulted "fundamentalist Islam" and not been personally attacked - but you can pretty much guarantee yourself a life of being hunted if you directly mock Mohamed or Allah.

I read in my local paper a few weeks ago that the (Dutch?) cartoonist that drew Allah has to move every few days and is still in great fear of his life. That's insane.

[Tumblehome]

It's neither reluctance or cowardness, but common sense.

Hows that then?


I take it that he means self-preservation is common sense, in which case I would agree with him. It's natural that Dawkins wouldn't want a death sentence for offering his view, so I go with option B.

[Sunni Man]

Do you know any white converts like yourself who do not behave in exactly this manner?
I've met a few and to be honest they're like clones of yourself. Its like you're entire understanding of the religion is based on reading reports in the Daily Mail.Never read the Daily Mail. I live and grew up in Texas.

So much for your stereotype. :)

[Boo]

Route 666?

Which one, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania or Florida? Each has a State Route 666. US Route 666 was renamed US Route 491 in 2003 after some people complained about living on the Satanic Highway.


Boo

[kmortis]

"the route of all evil?" perhaps?

Which did have large sections focusing on criticism of Islam.

For example

-8b3vhTO248

[fuelair]

If you attack Islam, you will pay a price.
Buggers owe me a big one then. They may come to ask it any time now.

[fuelair]

Never read the Daily Mail. I live and grew up in Texas.

So much for your stereotype. :)Muhammed's Toilet Paper then - just meant some "news" rag.

[Achán hiNidráne]

Hows that then?

Ignore him. SunniMan is our alledged-Muslim (there is no real way to tell) troll. If you are a masochist, pull of a up search under his handle and read his hate-filled little diatribes against homosexuals and other people who don't pass Islamic muster.

[Achán hiNidráne]

If you attack Islam, you will pay a price.

Like all religions, Islam is filthy, bigoted creed held by superstitious barbarians to justify violence, racism, sexism, and other authoriatarian prejudices. "Allah" is a myth. The prophet Mohammad is, if he existed at all, was no better than the other human of his era and had contributed no real insights into the human condition or ethics.

There, send me the bill.

[Sunni Man]

Some people will pay in this life and some in the next. Allah will be the judge, not me.

[Pardalis]

Some people will pay in this life and some in the next. Allah will be the judge, not me.

Since there is no after-life and no Allah, then we'll do just fine.

[Silentknight]

Some people will pay in this life and some in the next. Allah will be the judge, not me.

Since there is no after-life and no Allah, then we'll do just fine.
It's the part where he implies that Islam has a right to punish people in this life that concerns me, in addition to how he indirectly conflates human judgment (in this life) with God's judgment. Factor this in with how he once argued that physical action, not counter-speech (as I had suggested) is necessary to deal with written or spoken attacks on Islam, and you've got as close an endorsement of violence as you can get without explicitly stating it.

Allah can't do anything, but his fundamentalist followers can cause a great deal of damage.

[fuelair]

Some people will pay in this life and some in the next. Allah will be the judge, not me.I'd really prefer they try it now:)!!

[Sunni Man]

I'd really prefer they try it now:)!!Turn off your computer. Hop a flight to say Iran or Saudia Arabia and tell them your veiws. I am positive they will accomodate you!! :D

[Darat]

Back on to the topic of this thread please.

[kerikiwi]

Turn off your computer. Hop a flight to say Iran or Saudia Arabia and tell them your veiws. I am positive they will accomodate you!! :D

I don't think anyone doubts that critics of Islam have less freedom in Saudi Arabia or Iran than deluded converts to islam enjoy in Texas.

[Undesired Walrus]

Islamic Extremism, if you believe the figures, is booming in Britain at the moment.

The interesting fact about this Islamism -however- is that it is taken up by second/third generation Muslims, with their parents belonging to a relatively peaceful strain of Islam. What would have been fascinating -but unrelentingly tragic- would have been if those Liquid Bomb Plotters had carried out their attack on American planes over the Atlantic. Ten Britons killing all those thousands of people would certainly be a conundrum. Would it strengthen relations or damage them?

Because what I wrote is slightly off topic, I have heard Dawkin's often call the Koran a violent book. That is about as far as his criticism appears to go.

[Darat]

Mentioned this before but given the very small minority of people in the UK that are Muslim and have any idea of what Islam is about concentrating attacks on Islam would be counter productive. And especially more so today given the likes of the Daily Mail and Daily Express which like to exploit anything negative about any aspect of Islam.

It makes sense in a country that describes itself as based on Christian values, that has a Christian state religion and so on to address and use that as your example of what can be wrong with religion (as it is something that most people in your audience will have at least a passing familiarity with).

[Undesired Walrus]

Tiny minority? Are you sure?

I guess I am slightly london-centric.

[Darat]

Yes, see the last census for England and Wales (the Scottish & NI figures for Muslims are even lower): http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/commentaries/ethnicity.asp#religion

"...In England, 3.1 per cent of the population state their religion as Muslim (0.7 per cent in Wales), making this the most common religion after Christianity..."

[Furi]

Route 666?

Which one, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania or Florida? Each has a State Route 666. US Route 666 was renamed US Route 491 in 2003 after some people complained about living on the Satanic Highway

Not for getting the most satanic of all the A666 going from Pendlebury to Langho, which goes through Blackburn, Darwen and Notlob, pretty much the heart of cotton industrialisation, How many dark satanic mills do you need. :p

[Primus]

Mentioned this before but given the very small minority of people in the UK that are Muslim and have any idea of what Islam is about concentrating attacks on Islam would be counter productive. And especially more so today given the likes of the Daily Mail and Daily Express which like to exploit anything negative about any aspect of Islam.

It makes sense in a country that describes itself as based on Christian values, that has a Christian state religion and so on to address and use that as your example of what can be wrong with religion (as it is something that most people in your audience will have at least a passing familiarity with).

It would be unfortunate if the BNP decided to use Dawkins as their poster boy. Having said that I think their supposedly meant to be Christian so it would seem unlikely.
It might be better in the UK if protests about sex education, teaching evolution and such were just ignored rather than refuted with specific attacks on the credibility of Islam.

[skepticalbeliever]

Dawkins doesn't dare attack Islam because he is a coward. Pure and simple.

[JoeEllison]

Ummmm... no. I've heard him criticize Islam. Of course, people tend to be bigger critics of the local religions that they are more familiar with, because they are more knowledgeable and because they have a bigger impact on their lives. I don't know about Dawkins, but radical Islam doesn't affect my life on a day-to-day basis.

[Sunstealer]

The biggest problem with criticism of Islam in the UK is the backlash and inherent "Donald Sutherland-Invasion of the Body Snatchers style pointing" accusation of racism from the "race relations industry", lefty useful idiots, Guardianisters and so forth. It is virtually impossible to have a sensible discussion in Britain regarding race, immigration, Islam etc, because to even bring these subjects up leads to an automatic branding unless of course you happen to be black or a Muslim or <insert minority here> commenting on your own group. Until Britain grows up and allows it's citizens to openly debate such topics without the stigma, which can easily break a career, then most people who hold any view that questions such a minority keeps their head well and truly below the parapet.

What's the point of raising a valid point and starting a debate when all you are going to receive is a barrage of abuse from the "thought police" along with various Muslim groups such as the MCB riding on the thought police's coat tails? The irony is it's likely that the vast majority, including British Muslims, would want the debate.

[Darat]

Dawkins doesn't dare attack Islam because he is a coward. Pure and simple.

Your statement would be more accurate but still not correct if it read:

Dawkins doesn't dare attack Islam apart from when he does because he is a coward. Pure and simple.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Dawkins doesn't dare attack Islam because he is a coward. Pure and simple.I love this 'mind reader' statements of fact. :rolleyes:

[Darat]

What mind reading was involved in adding some factual information to your post?

[JoeEllison]

The biggest problem with criticism of Islam in the UK is the backlash and inherent "Donald Sutherland-Invasion of the Body Snatchers style pointing" accusation of racism from the "race relations industry", lefty useful idiots, Guardianisters and so forth. It is virtually impossible to have a sensible discussion in Britain regarding race, immigration, Islam etc, because to even bring these subjects up leads to an automatic branding unless of course you happen to be black or a Muslim or <insert minority here> commenting on your own group. Until Britain grows up and allows it's citizens to openly debate such topics without the stigma, which can easily break a career, then most people who hold any view that questions such a minority keeps their head well and truly below the parapet.

What's the point of raising a valid point and starting a debate when all you are going to receive is a barrage of abuse from the "thought police" along with various Muslim groups such as the MCB riding on the thought police's coat tails? The irony is it's likely that the vast majority, including British Muslims, would want the debate.
Many people who complain about being called racists are just mad because they dislike accurate criticism of their racism. You can tell because they call people who accurately describe them silly names like "lefty useful idiots," or "Guardianisters." Then, those racists turn it around and claim that the minorities they discriminate against are the real racists... as you have done, coincidentally.

It is such a common pattern that one would assume at some point racists would learn to stop broadcasting their idiotic bigotry... but that assumption would be wrong.

[pchams]

Dawkins needn't critisise islam. It's weak, and supported by useful idiots.
The followers of the misogynist paedophile mohammed aren't worth even thinking about.
They will grow up soon, and their silly religion will fade into the past.

[Darat]

I love this 'mind reader' statements of fact. :rolleyes:

Oops - very sorry for getting you confused with skepticalbeliever .

[Morrigan]

Dawkins doesn't dare attack Islam because he is a coward. Pure and simple.

Except that he HAS attacked Islam, so there goes your vapid little theory.

[Pardalis]

They will grow up soon, and their silly religion will fade into the past.

Hopeless optimist are we?

[skepticalbeliever]

Well, I actually haven’t read a lot about Dawkins, I really don't follow the creationism/evolution debate. I find it boring actually. But I find people who will beat up on the creationists constantly while not saying anything about even radical Islam to be hypocritical. I know it is easier in some countries to bash Christianity than it is to bash Islam. That’s what I was venting frustration at.

[Puppycow]

Ignore him. SunniMan is our alledged-Muslim (there is no real way to tell) troll. If you are a masochist, pull of a up search under his handle and read his hate-filled little diatribes against homosexuals and other people who don't pass Islamic muster.

It's impossible to tell a caricature of Islamic extremism from the real thing, huh? It would be laughable if it wasn't so so deadly serious.

Here is just the latest new evidence (http://www.slate.com/id/2195684?nav=wp)

Because they are so clearly designed for the convenience of large testing companies, I had always assumed that multiple-choice tests, the bane of any fourth grader's existence, were a quintessentially American phenomenon. But apparently I was wrong. According to a report put out by the Hudson Institute's Center for Religious Freedom last week, it seems that Saudi Arabians find them useful, too. Here, for example, is a multiple-choice question that appears in a recent edition of a Saudi fourth-grade textbook, Monotheism and Jurisprudence, in a section that attempts to teach children to distinguish "true" from "false" belief in god:

Q. Is belief true in the following instances:
a) A man prays but hates those who are virtuous.
b) A man professes that there is no deity other than God but loves the unbelievers.
c) A man worships God alone, loves the believers, and hates the unbelievers.

The correct answer, of course, is c). According to the Wahhabi imams who wrote this textbook, it isn't enough just to worship god or just to love other believers—it is important to hate unbelievers as well. By the same token, b) is also wrong. Even a man who worships god cannot be said to have "true belief" if he loves unbelievers.

[kbm99]

Well, I actually haven’t read a lot about Dawkins, I really don't follow the creationism/evolution debate. I find it boring actually. But I find people who will beat up on the creationists constantly while not saying anything about even radical Islam to be hypocritical. I know it is easier in some countries to bash Christianity than it is to bash Islam. That’s what I was venting frustration at.

So, you don't actually know a damn thing about Dawkins, but you feel confident that he is a coward, pure and simple?

[Merko]

Islamic Extremism, if you believe the figures, is booming in Britain at the moment.
Which figures? I'm honestly interested.

I've often seen similar statements, but I've never seen any data to back it up. Of course, a 'boom' can be an increase from 1000 people to 10000 people, and in some ways it could still justifiably be called a 'boom'. The problem, then, is that some people (Mark Steyn springs to mind) then argue that this 'boom' will cause radical islamists to take over Europe by their sheer numbers.

Granted, even 10000 people can be quite dangerous if they set their mind to it, but they will certainly not be able to impose sharia law on us through general elections.

I've been living in muslim-heavy suburbs for years now, and my completely non-scientific impression is that muslim immigrants to Europe, and their children too, are overwhelmingly in favour of secularism, and deeply appreciative of European liberty.

There's certainly no shortage of muslim-looking drunk girls in miniskirts on the subway on a Saturday night.

Granted, there's also no shortage of horrendous stories where (Muslim, or sometimes Christian) girls are forced to marry someone that the family chose, against her will, or forcibly hindered from choosing a partner of her liking. But that doesn't really appear to be grounded in religion. I'm saying that partially because it doesn't happen exclusively among Muslims, and partially because the "unacceptable" partner may well turn out to be a Muslim, just someone from the wrong family or tribe.

So, all in all, I am rather skeptical about the doom-and-gloom stories about Muslim immigrants. I'm rather more hopeful that freedom-loving Muslims in Europe will be able not only to accomodate their new-found freedoms with their religion, but also to export their reformed Islam back to their former home countries.

[bobcarp]

It always amazes me that people say, "This is a Christian Nation! This country was founded in Christian principles!” Then when I say that I’m an atheist and I don’t believe in Jesus walking on water or talking snakes, they say, “Why do you only attack the Christian faith!”

Well, according to them this is a “Christian” nation. No Muslim ever tried to convert me to Islam. No Hindu ever came knocking on my door on Saturday morning trying to sell me a Watchtower. No Jewish person ever dressed me up every Sunday morning and dragged me off to Hebrew school.

Christianity is the only religion that was ever shoved down my thro…, I mean, that I was exposed to.

They are all fiction, but as for me I am only going to attack the one that initiates.

[Civilized Worm]

"There is something very, very odd about American fundamentalism, and it's spreading to this country. I am frequently hearing of science teachers who have problems teaching evolution, mostly to Muslim students." At this point, Dawkins lapses into a "let's-not-go-there" silence. In The God Delusion, he mostly mauls Christianity. "I said something about Islam, but not as much. I regarded the book as attacking all religion, especially the three monotheistic religions – Islam, Judaism and Christianity. There's no particular emphasis on any of them; I know more about Christianity, so I emphasised it."

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2881,Richard-Dawkins-slaps-creationists-into-the-primordial-soup,Kate-Muir-Times-Online

[-Fran-]

No single person can attack absolutely everything that is wrong, what's wrong with choosing what you want to "do battle against" if anything? :confused:

[kerikiwi]

Well, I actually haven’t read a lot about Dawkins, I really don't follow the creationism/evolution debate. I find it boring actually. But I find people who will beat up on the creationists constantly while not saying anything about even radical Islam to be hypocritical. I know it is easier in some countries to bash Christianity than it is to bash Islam. That’s what I was venting frustration at.

You might consider changing you name. In the light of this post it is impressively inappropriate.
Or perhaps you are being deliberately ironic...

[Travis]

I've heard that bookstores catering to the angrier sort of Islam are becoming more common in the UK. Is that true?

[Sunstealer]

Many people who complain about being called racists are just mad because they dislike accurate criticism of their racism. You can tell because they call people who accurately describe them silly names like "lefty useful idiots," or "Guardianisters." Then, those racists turn it around and claim that the minorities they discriminate against are the real racists... as you have done, coincidentally.

It is such a common pattern that one would assume at some point racists would learn to stop broadcasting their idiotic bigotry... but that assumption would be wrong.Your really ought to work on your reading comprehension, nowhere do I say that the minorities are the racists. What I said was it is possible to criticize a minority, but only if you are a member of that minority otherwise you are labelled a racist. Funnily it's not usually the minority that one is criticising that will make the racist claim, but middle-class, white, elitists who think they a championing said minority. Look at Trevor Philips' or Dr Michael Nazir-Ali comments, for examples. You have effectively accused me of being racist, which I shall ignore because all you have done is make a spurious claim without any knowledge of me or my life whatsoever.

[Undesired Walrus]

It is virtually impossible to have a sensible discussion in Britain regarding race, immigration, Islam etc, because to even bring these subjects up leads to an automatic branding unless of course you happen to be black or a Muslim or <insert minority here> commenting on your own group. Until Britain grows up and allows it's citizens to openly debate such topics without the stigma, which can easily break a career, then most people who hold any view that questions such a minority keeps their head well and truly below the parapet.
.

A common criticism in the UK, but not a valid one, and one often used by people who eat up most of the time they could be criticising government policy on immigration, by instead complaining that they cannot talk about it.

They enjoy falsely complaining they are being repressed. But of course you are not one of them are you?

Oh, and by the way, I read the Guardian, and I criticise Islam on a regular basis. Am I a naughty lefty?

[Undesired Walrus]

I've heard that bookstores catering to the angrier sort of Islam are becoming more common in the UK. Is that true?

I walked past the shop next to the East London Mosque proudly displaying Syed Qutb's Milestones in the window the other day.

To give you some context here, the East London Mosque is often praised by the UK government as draining extremism..

[Undesired Walrus]

Which figures? I'm honestly interested.


Well, as I said, if you believe the figures, four out of ten British Muslims wish to see Sharia Law in Britain, and 600 of Britain's 1,350 mosques are under the control of Riyadh ul Haq, the leader of the Deobandi sect, which calls for one to shed blood in the name of God. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2402973.ece)

[Ian Osborne]

It would be unfortunate if the BNP decided to use Dawkins as their poster boy.
Maybe that's what he was afraid of, and was concerned that he was about to be set up by a journalist? It's happened before (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2007/mar/10/leadersandreply.mainsection3), so you can hardly blame him for being cautious...

[Primus]

Maybe that's what he was afraid of, and was concerned that he was about to be set up by a journalist? It's happened before (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2007/mar/10/leadersandreply.mainsection3), so you can hardly blame him for being cautious...

Especially given I doubt the BNP would ask his permission before mis-quoting him.

[Travis]

I walked past the shop next to the East London Mosque proudly displaying Syed Qutb's Milestones in the window the other day.

To give you some context here, the East London Mosque is often praised by the UK government as draining extremism..


I almost wonder which Muslim population is more prone to radicalism, the one in USA or the one in the UK, or other Western European Countries.

I have feeling this discussion of radical Islam in the UK will be split off to it's own thread.

[Morrigan]

Well, I actually haven’t read a lot about Dawkins, I really don't follow the creationism/evolution debate. I find it boring actually. But I find people who will beat up on the creationists constantly while not saying anything about even radical Islam to be hypocritical. I know it is easier in some countries to bash Christianity than it is to bash Islam. That’s what I was venting frustration at.
So you were beating up at a strawman, all whilst insulting a professor for something he didn't do? Intellectual dishonesty much?

[Undesired Walrus]

I almost wonder which Muslim population is more prone to radicalism, the one in USA or the one in the UK, or other Western European Countries.

I have feeling this discussion of radical Islam in the UK will be split off to it's own thread.

Given that eight British men were in the last stages of preparing a plot to blow American planes out of the sky back in 2006 (That had a high probability of succeeding if it hadn't been for the British police), I think it is fair to say which one..

The US simply doesn't have the same history of fundamentalist clerics like Omar Bakri and Abu Hamza. They gave birth to an entirely new group of Islamists, such as Omar Brooks and Anjem Choudary.

Plus, remember what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said to Yosri Fouda in 2002: "You would make the perfect terrorist. You live in London."

Remember, the US got attacked in 2001 by highly intelligent graduates from Hamburg Universities. The same was going to happen in the summer of 2006, except this time it was going to be blokes from London.

[fishkr]

Dawkins doesn't dare attack Islam because he is a coward. Pure and simple.

Yes, as you say, he is known for equivocating. I've noticed he goes to great lengths not to offend, so it must be pure fear.

[Foster Zygote]

Turn off your computer. Hop a flight to say Iran or Saudia Arabia and tell them your veiws. I am positive they will accomodate you!! :D

Proving what, exactly? Certainly not the existence of your version of God.

It is nice to live in a part of the world in which ignorant, brutal, intolerant fools do not have the authority to violently suppress those who's views differ from the majority, isn't it?

[Foster Zygote]

Dawkins doesn't dare attack Islam because he is a coward. Pure and simple.

Islam deserves criticism on account of the logical consequences of its dogma, namely, that the murder of fellow human beings is to be rewarded with sensual pleasure in a hedonistic 'Paradise'- a concept born in the fantasies of an Arab rebel some fourteen centuries ago. The religion of Mohammed is a dangerous system when the teachings and example of the 'prophet' are believed and followed.

If by "attack" you mean "offer open criticism of" then you are flat out wrong. Pure and simple.

[godless dave]

A) In the current political climate it could cost him his chair in Cambridge
B) He's doesn't fancy having a fatwa issued on him
or
C) I've totally misread some newspaper spin and said situation does not exist. He's not pulling punches with any religion more than another.

(C)

[Tony]

If you attack Islam, you will pay a price.

You're right. I attacked islam a few days ago and I had to pay 23 cents. If islam good for anything, its that it gives us a reason to use pennies.

[Merko]

Well, as I said, if you believe the figures, four out of ten British Muslims wish to see Sharia Law in Britain,

I don't think you did. I googled this and found the poll in question (http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/pdfs/2006_february_sunday_telegraph_muslims_poll.pdf#se arch=%22sunday%20telegraph%20muslims%22). The problem with the "sharia law" question is that it could be anything from marriage counseling to stoning homosexuals. Of course, one would wish that people would always stand up for secularism, but unless secularism has been a very major topic in the general discussion (such as in Turkey, and perhaps France), I would be amazed if the average poll taker had a very good understanding of the concept of secularism.

I think that to get any good understanding of the levels of extremism, you have to look at other questions as well. For example, poll takers were asked to choose one of the following:
"Western society is decadent and immoral and Muslims should seek to bring it to an end, if necessary by violent means."
"Western society may not be perfect, but Muslims should live within it and not seek to bring it to an end."

The first statement got 7% support, the second one 80%.

Asked whether it was right or wrong:
"For Muslims to attack Danish embassies in Muslims [sic] countries as a result of the publication of the cartoons"
(14%: right, 82%: wrong)
"For Muslim demonstrators to carry placards calling for the killing of those who insult Islam"
(12%: right, 82%: wrong)
"To exercise violence against those who are deemed by religious leaders to have insulted Islam"
(13%: right, 79%: wrong)

"How loyal do you personally feel towards Britain?"
Very loyal: 49%
Quite loyal: 42%
Not very loyal: 5%
Not loyal at all: 2%

(similar figures when asked about the perceived loyalty of other Muslims)

So all in all, I don't think that poll supports the stance that the Muslim population in general has become very radical.


and 600 of Britain's 1,350 mosques are under the control of Riyadh ul Haq, the leader of the Deobandi sect, which calls for one to shed blood in the name of God. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2402973.ece)
Well, but something like that can happen for a wide variety of reasons. Either, such views are very popular with the Muslim population in general, and they have actively chosen such an extremist because they feel he represents them. This does not seem to be supported by the poll above. Or, it could be that most Muslims are not very preoccupied with religious matters, and that extreme but zealous factions can use this to gain an influence that is much greater than their popular support would warrant.


Anyway, I am in no way arguing that Islam is not a threat in Europe. A few Muslim terrorists can kill you or me. They can't really destroy our societies though, unless other forces abuse panic created by such quite limited (in military terms) attacks. But even so, that's certainly a threat, even if it should not be overstated.

What I am arguing, is that there does not seem to be any evidence for the common assertion that Muslims in general have an anti-secular, anti-democratic agenda and that they, or their (allegedly countless) children, will ruin Europe by their sheer numbers.

[Sunstealer]

Many people who complain about being called racists are just mad because they dislike accurate criticism of their racism. You can tell because they call people who accurately describe them silly names like "lefty useful idiots," or "Guardianisters." Then, those racists turn it around and claim that the minorities they discriminate against are the real racists... as you have done, coincidentally.

It is such a common pattern that one would assume at some point racists would learn to stop broadcasting their idiotic bigotry... but that assumption would be wrong.Really. Perhaps you ought to read this quote from Dawkins.

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

Funny how that echoes my sentiments. Are you now going to accuse Dawkins of racism or apologise to me? It's exactly the same people who accuse people for speaking out of being racist that fall into the categories above. Just because I group people and give them names does not mean I'm a racist. I wonder if we'll here them pipe up over Dawkins' comments.

[Sunstealer]

A common criticism in the UK, but not a valid one, and one often used by people who eat up most of the time they could be criticising government policy on immigration, by instead complaining that they cannot talk about it.

They enjoy falsely complaining they are being repressed. But of course you are not one of them are you?

Oh, and by the way, I read the Guardian, and I criticise Islam on a regular basis. Am I a naughty lefty?Would this include Dawkins aswell?

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

Where do you stand now with your comments? Of course I am not being repressed I am merely stating the truth. It seems that Dawkins is in agreement.