"Islam represents a throwback to times past, as does fundamentalist Christianity"

It's great the way people are willing to distinguish between fundamentalist Christianity and progressive moderate Christianity, but like to refer to Islam as if it were a homogenous faith. Fundamentalist Islam is a throwback to the past, but the vast majority of Muslims are looking to the future.

The rule as it stands is clear - and this should really be discarded. However, I would suggest a slight alteration of the rule so that scenes of death in the proper context of a news story or documentary are acceptable.

"There is something about Islam that can drive people to this kind of madness"

Rubbish!!! And furthermore, it is clear from your responses that you DO think that there is something evil at the heart of Islam.

The truth about the Rushdie affair: http://www.videosift.com/video/Salman-Rushdie-Apostasy-and-Khomeinis-Fatwah

The hate you see in this video has nothing to do with the true teachings of Islam - and I object to the implication that it does. It is a perversion brought about by over fifty years of Israel's deliberate oppression of the Palestinians - including daily humiliation, terrorism and murder, and a concerted effort to steal more Palestinian land and annex Jerusalem.

For more on Memri TV read the following article: Selective Memri

Sadly this documentary is true :-(

A friend of mine - an Islamic scholar and Mufti from South East Asia - came to Britain to study for a Masters Degree in law. He was so shocked by the intolerant rhetoric and reactionary bile he heard in British mosques that he often preferred to pray at home alone than in congregation at the local mosque. Inshallah the situation seems to be improving - I have noticed an improvement in the rhetoric at the major mosques. I regularly go to Central London Mosque, and while the most extreme literature and media has been removed, a lot of that which remains is still very reactionary. That being said, the congregation at London Central Mosque come from such a broad range of countries and traditions that no one ideology is dominant amongst the congregation. The inherent pluralism in the congregation is the single most important obstacle standing in the way of the extremists.

The views of these people are a complete perversion of Muhammad's message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina

*Happy Birthday eric!

It is very hard for a non-Muslim to understand why this book is considered so offensive by Muslims. I shall try my best to explain.

The vast majority of Muslims have no problem with interrogating and criticising many of the negative elements apparent in the modern manifestation of Islam. In fact, that is something that a lot of us do anyway. Rushdie's work follows the narrative of the sacred texts of Islam almost exactly. What Muslims took offense to was Rushdie's deliberate attempt to rewrite the entirety of Muhammad's life in an abusive and obscene manner. For example, in his novel Rushdie refers to Muhammad as Mahound - a term coined in the Middle Ages in Christendom to describe the Prophet as a devil. Furthermore, he describes Muhammad's wives as prostitutes and whores, and implies that the mosque in Medina was little more than a brothel. For Muslims, the life of the Prophet Muhammad, and his wives, is a paradigm for Muslim behaviour and identity. That is why so many Muslims took personal offense at Rushdie's words.

All that being said, the reaction by some Muslims to the publication of the Satanic Verses was completely over the top and wrong - both from an objective and an Islamic perspective. If they had ignored the book it would have never received the attention it did. One of the sad things about the response to the book was that voices of moderation were completely drowned out. Many Muslims were caught between the intolerant and hateful rhetoric of the Ayatollah, and a response from the secular press and media which not only tarred all Muslims with the same brush - as intolerant, hateful, bigots - but which also seemed to contain strong elements of cultural racism. However, in 1989, at the height of the Rushdie affair, the great British Muslim - Zaki Badawi - called on Muslims to spurn the book but spare the man, and declared that he would not hesitate to offer the novelist sanctuary in his own home. In this spirit I will not upvote this - but I will not downvote it either.

The video for Snow Patrol’s song “Open Your Eyes" is worth checking out. It is a direct copy of Lelouch's film - except that the driver is on a moped.

btw - cheers for the link to the Krauss and Dawkins debate - and there's no prize for guessing which of the two I prefer ;-) However, I share both men's distaste for young earth creationism and support their promotion of science.

I don't believe in conquering people (or proselytizing - if that means any more than entering into civilised debate). I personally believe that this world is big enough for atheists and theists to live peacefully together.

I have read the God Delusion - cover to cover - and I have gone back to look at it again in light or recent debates on the Sift. It is not a work without merit - and for that reason I would encourage all theists to read it. Furthermore, I salute Dawkin's intention in writing the book - to raise consciousness in people who are trapped in a religion and can’t even imagine life without it - for two reasons. Firstly, from an academic perspective I believe in free, open and civilised debate. If theists don't question their faith then they will never understand it. Secondly, if Dawkins' book does offer solace and hope to people trapped by religion - then I support that too.

However, just as Dawkin's urges us to be sceptical about the claims of religion I would urge atheists to be sceptical about some of the claims of Dawkins. There is currently a debate raging in my religion about the future direction and shape of Islam. I think that there should also be such a debate raging at the heart of atheism. One thing I particularly don't like about Dawkins is his conviction that the world would be a better place if religion were hastened to extinction.

My first objection to this is scientific - that it is at best empirically unverifiable and at worst wrong. I think this is why Dennett says that he is an agnostic with regards to this issue. For every crazed fundamentalist that kills, there is a peaceful thoughtful person of faith involved in an act of charity. Atheism, as a doctrine, is simply the belief that God does not exist. One can be an atheist and still believe that religion - despite the fact that it is based on a delusion - has an overall positive effect on the world. In other words, a belief in atheism does not logically entail a belief that the world would be better off without religion.

My second objection is pragmatic. I think that such an assertion encourages atheists to look at all religious people in a negative manner. If the world would be better off without religion then all religious people are making the world a worse place for everyone else. Instead of dismissing all theists it would be better to attack those elements of religion that you find most distasteful. Pragmatically, I think that this approach is best.

Finally, even if God is a delusion then he/she/it is the most persistent illusion in the history of mankind. For that reason I believe that one cannot dismiss theism as casually as Dawkins does. Understanding the very existence and persistence of 'the God delusion' is key to understanding the nature of humanity and the human experience.

*quality - and *Happy Birthday!!!!!

Must save this soon...

*Happy Birthday Chogs!

Damn - this appears to have gone dead - I will resubmit it if it comes back

*discard