Some in Japan claim the massacre was fabricated or exaggerated.
Author: Ophelia Benson
-
Pesky family spats
Okay now let’s not get excited here. These things happen. Teenagers rebel, parents get cross, the fur flies, doors slam, windows shatter. It happens in the best of families – Christian, atheist, Buddhist, Scientologist, Free Silverist, you name it. It’s a terrible shame, but it doesn’t mean anything – it’s just like a spot of bad weather.
It’s a bitterly sad story, and if, indeed, her father killed her, nothing can excuse that. Aqsa might well have defied family values and parental rules, but nothing she did warranted death. Harsh words, perhaps, and even grounding, but there can be no tolerance for such violence.
Oh good – glad to know that killing a daughter for defying family values is not okay. Glad we got that straight.
Murdering daughters is no more an Islamic value than murdering estranged wives is a Western one. Muhammed Parvez might have been fighting a losing battle trying to make Aqsa wear a hijab, but that hardly sets him apart. Few are the fathers, of any faith or none, who have not clashed with their adolescent daughters over something – boyfriends, lipstick, short skirts, staying out late, dyed hair, body piercings, tattoos and any number of other age-inappropriate enormities.
How very true – and few are the fathers, of any faith or none, who don’t then go on to murder those adolescent daughters. Yes indeed, fathers murder their adolescent daughters by the thousands every day in every city on earth; it’s commonplace; it’s like jaywalking. There can be no tolerance for it of course, but all the same it’s terribly common. So nothing to see here folks, move on.
-
Fainting in coils
I don’t see eye to eye with Ali Eteraz here.
[T]he fact that Muslims around the world insist “Islam means peace” is evidence that a vast number of Muslims do not think that Islam means violence.
No…the fact that (many) Muslims insist that Islam means peace is evidence that many Muslims want to think that Islam means peace, and therefore they 1) simply insist that it does and 2) explain away anything that would cast doubt on that thought, either by saying that violence is extremist and aberrant or by saying that what looks to the uncomprehending like violence is actually peace. In short, they rationalize, as people often do about their chosen religion. It’s a mistake to take people’s defensive, often desperate rationalizations as evidence that they actually think what we want them to think. Really: big mistake. If a Christian tells you that Christianity means love, it would be a mistake to assume that that Christian means what you mean by ‘love.’ Christians will insist that Jesus was all about love then when you cite chapter and verse of Jesus getting quite hostile, they will say ‘Oh that was because he was angry with the Pharisees’ and go right on believing that Jesus was all about love.
Further, when a Muslim does commit something nasty against fellow human beings, and other Muslims decry this person as an “extremist”, this is evidence that a vast number of Muslims find brutish behaviour worth distancing themselves from. This too is a good thing. At the least, it shows that most Muslims share in the universal definitions of good and bad.
How does Eteraz know that ‘other Muslims’ are ‘a vast number of Muslims’ and how do the ‘a vast number of Muslims’ suddenly become ‘most Muslims’? How did we get from other to vast number of to most? Since the numbers are all left vague, we have no clue.
[W]hat is honesty to a secular humanist is psychological devastation to a believer. If a woman-respecting, non-violent, cool-headed Muslim says that he is a good person despite Islam, he would essentially be saying that Islam is irrelevant to his existence. A believer would never say that. He will chalk up his successes to his faith. He will insist that his faith galvanised every good thing in his life.
Some Muslims, in fact half of them, are women themselves as opposed to ‘woman-respecting’ men, but leave that aside for the moment. We know all that (we ‘secular humanists,’ though I’d rather be called an atheist, please), but that’s the problem. Defending the religion comes first, and truth or reality or unpleasant facts come second; the latter have to be made to fit the former, not the other way around. ‘A believer’ has to be able to credit his ‘faith’ for every good thing, therefore the believer will simply insist that the religion is the source of goodness no matter what evidence there might be that it’s not; the result is that whatever belongs to the religion is by definition good, necessarily; thus the believer is unable to judge what is good and what isn’t, and thus bad things are labeled good while remaining bad. That’s the danger of that way of thinking; that’s the danger of having sacrosanct protected ideas or beliefs that can’t be thought about without psychological devastation.
At the end of the piece Eteraz tells us of the contortions believers resort to in order to explain away a Koranic verse on flogging. But the verse remains – and people who like flogging remain, and people who want divine sanction for flogging remain, so what good is it twisting oneself into a pretzel to pretend that flogging is really a kind of massage? Not much.
-
Deadly Religious Resistance to Vaccinations
It’s rare a newspaper actually manages to kill people, but Sir David King believes they may pull it off.
-
Aqsa Parvez Wanted to Leave Her Family
Her brother saw her on the street without her hijab. ‘He’ll kill me!’ she said.
-
Afghan Woman Call for Peace
‘They were indeed risking their lives, because we really did not know how we would be received.’
-
Ali Eteraz Speaks Up for Rationalization
Believers will never say Islam is misogynist, therefore Ayaan Hirsi Ali shouldn’t either.
-
Death Penalty for Failure to Submit
‘She wanted to live her life the way she wanted to, not the way her parents wanted her to.’
-
How Canada Let Aqsa Parvez Down
The hijab marks those wearing it as chattel, leashed to their fathers and brothers like a dog collar.
-
Girl, 16, Killed for Not Wearing Hijab – in Toronto
Schoolmates said the Grade 11 student had rebelled against her parents recently by refusing to wear a hijab.
-
K A Appiah on Experimental Philosophy
Not only are philosophers unaccustomed to gathering data; many define themselves by their disinclination to do so.
-
Reading Tariq Ramadan
Political liberalism or comprehensive? Rawlsian or Voltairean? Room for overlapping consensus?
-
Never Mind Democracy, Promote Secularism
The rise of the West had much less to do with democracy than with the rise of secularism.
-
A Secular Age and Secularism Confronts Islam
Edward Skidelsky notes the trials of secularisation are far from over.
-
Apostasy
Kuwaiti tv sounds like fun – like Oprah but more intense.
Kuwait TV Host Sheikh Tareq Al-Sweidan: “We have a question for the viewers at home, not in the studio, and they can respond with a text message. What is the best way to deal with apostates who converted from Islam? You have three possible responses. The first is through dialogue only. The second option is killing them, and the third option is to leave it up to the legal system.
Don’t you wish you could watch tv shows like that? We have a question for the viewers: What is the best way to deal with apostates who converted from Southern Baptism? You have three options. You can chat, you can kill them, or you can call the cops.
That would be even more fun when most of the audience went for door number two. Kill them, Bob, definitely.
Fatima: “He should be declared an infidel. The Koran divided people into Muslims, infidels, and the People of the Book. So there is a group of people who should be declared infidels.”
Just so. Because otherwise the Koran would have divided people into three groups for nothing. The Koran divided people into three groups, one of which was infidels, therefore there is a group of people who should be declared infidels. Naturally.
Gamal ‘Allam: “If he believes that his law is equal to the law of Allah, he is comparing Allah to human beings, and thus, he is an infidel. If he believes his law to be better than the law of Allah, then he prefers the creature over its Creator, and thus, he is an infidel.”
Humans are forbidden to use their own judgement about the law because they are required to defer to the judgment of someone who doesn’t exist, doesn’t answer when called, doesn’t apologize, doesn’t explain, can’t be demoted or fired or thrown out of office, doesn’t care, isn’t there. Otherwise they are infidels. End of story.
Young man in audience: “Sir, if you become an apostate, your punishment is death. There is a great problem that most of us, 70% of us, are Muslims because they were born to Muslim fathers and mothers. Before a person converts to Islam, he has the liberty to choose, but remember that if you want to convert from Islam, you will be punished by death. So you have the liberty to choose, but on the condition…”
Oh, okay, thanks – I have the liberty to choose, but on the condition that I’ll be killed if I do. Fine, that’s fair.
Prince Charles tried to improve things once, but had no luck.
“In 2004, Prince Charles called a meeting of leading Muslims to discuss the issue,” adds Dr Sookhdeo. “I was there. All the Muslim leaders at that meeting agreed that the penalty in sharia is death. The hope was that they would issue a public declaration repudiating that doctrine, but not one of them did.”
Oh. Well, maybe PC could try again in a few years. Meanwhile…um…well I guess nobody convert from Islam, okay?
Damian Lanigan notices this is not such a great arrangement but then fumbles over another arrangement.
If Muslim religious leaders in Britain are unwilling to speak out on this issue then we really are in trouble. [Well yes. ed]…And credit should be given to secular Muslim leaders. Ibrahim Mogra, of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), says that it is “absolutely disgraceful behaviour… In Britain, no Muslim has the right to harm one hair of someone who decides to leave Islam.” Let’s hope that behind closed doors, at the community centres and mosques people like Mr Mogra are winning the argument.
No let’s not. (And what makes Lanigan think anyone in the MCB is secular?) Let’s not hope people who stipulate that ‘in Britain’ killing apostasy is not okayare winning the argument; the not okay has to apply to everyone everywhere, not just to the locals. No Muslim anywhere has the right to harm someone who decides to leave Islam.
-
Pyrrho and Mitt
Pyrrho: Mr. Romney, thank you for speaking to us today. Some are saying that this is the most important political speech since John Kennedy’s “Separation Speech” in the 1960 election.
Romney: “There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation’s founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adam’s words: ‘We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion… Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.”
Pyrrho: Well, surely Mr. Romney, you’re arguing for the entanglement of religion and politics. Kennedy argued a faith-neutral stance for the President. He would have been cooked and eaten for dinner by the Southern Baptists if he’d called himself a Man of Faith. Do you see a conflict there? And that bit about the founders, a little on the sly side, wouldn’t you say? Adams also argued against penal laws for those critical of the Bible and free thought. And many of the founders were more concerned about freedom from religion than freedom of religion. So you’re quoting out of context…..
Romney: “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.”
Pyrrho: Well, Governor, those are very instructive words. That’s a chiasmus, isn’t it? I love a good chiasmus. John Kennedy was good at that, too. Are you saying there’s something about religion that promotes freedom? Religion in general? But you can’t be talking about Islam, now, can you. The freedom of Christianity? Not sure that Christianity has traditionally supported freedom of conscience. Mormonism in particular? Well, since Mormonism wasn’t around during the time of the Founders, I’m not sure that works with your analogy. But many people would doubt that religion and freedom have anything to do with one another. And during whole periods of human history their relationship has been bloody. Never mind– that line about “opening the windows of the soul…” really gorgeous. Did you get it from the Fashion Heaven website? What about the Presidency—how does that relate to religion?
Romney: “When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. …No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.”
Pyrrho: Right. To God? And to cite an ancient dilemma passed down to us by Plato, how do you know you’re doing the will of God, and if you represent all faiths, which God is it you’re promising, and whose will are you doing? America’s a lot messier than it was in George Washington’s day, religiously speaking. And if you require prayer to do your job properly, shouldn’t we really be looking for somebody who can do it without divine intervention?
Romney. “It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it’s usually a sound rule to focus on the latter – on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.”
Pyrrho: But governor, it’s not just theological differences between churches, like whether you sip wine or slurp grape juice at communion. (“I like Ryvita, but you like the Pita.”) Where do I look in my local library for the Common Code of Moral Convictions? You can’t mean the Bible. The moral convictions there include holding slaves, selling daughters, stoning sons, and driving out foreigners, not abolition and civil rights. I like what you say about speaking to the convictions of religious people. I assume you mean their stubborn insistence that only religious people have values. Are you saying that secular and non-religious people will be able to challenge those convictions under a Romney presidency? What about secularism?
Romney: “In recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong…We are a nation ‘Under God’ and in God, we do indeed trust.”
Pyrrho: Gosh, did I have that wrong! Sort of Back to God, full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes is it? But does this “trust” thing bother you at all? I mean, it isn’t fiduciary. The dollar hasn’t been buoyant against the pound and Euro lately. In fact it’s taking a flogging. You wouldn’t want a faith based Treasury, or a faith based stock market or faith based trade. So exactly at what point does this Trust thing kick in? Maybe in war? Hasn’t helped much since 9-11 though, has it? And the Muslims who trusted God against American aggression and Taliban who trusted God to deliver them from the American Devils didn’t get very far—or is that your Different God? You mean the American God, the one with the red, white and blue crown.
Romney: “We should acknowledge the Creator as did the founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from ‘the God who gave us liberty.’”
Pyrrho: I missed that day in my American History class. I thought we were fighting the British and whupped them fair and square at Yorktown. I guess it was more biblical eh? Yahweh’s armies leading the hosts into combat against the Hittites? –By the way, I could have sworn a menorah was Jewish. And would you also advocate the use of Crescents during Ramadan dangling from city lampposts, or a savory Wiccan fire outside the local PO? What about Mitt Romney, personally, you and your lovely wife?
Romney: “My faith is grounded on these truths. You can witness them in Ann and my marriage and in our family. We are a long way from perfect and we have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values, are the self -same as those from the other faiths that stand upon this common foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency.”
Pyrrho: Oh good. Then you have stumbled. But basically your lovely marriage pretty much expresses your family values. And family values are as American as pizza, a lot of the candidates are saying. Mormons are known for their commitment to marriage. I suspect their family values were so intense at first that they decided the more marriage the better. But leaving that aside, is there any place for diversity in your faith?
Romney: “The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed.
Pyrrho: Gosh, that’s pretty. And here again, I thought it was our art, science, technology and economy that put us at the forefront. I didn’t recognize the importance of religious dialogue until you mentioned it. How does that work exactly? Is our religious dialogue better than German and French religious dialogue—like California wine? But if you’re right, just point me to the ones who want to destroy religious freedom and I’ll spank them silly. I’ve learned more in this hour than in all of college about our history and our values.
Romney: No, thank you:…” we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion – rather, we welcome our nation’s symphony of faith.”
Pyrrho: Amen, Mitt. Can I be first chair violin, or are you looking for a Jew?
-
A Life of Ashes
There are more than 40 million widows in India, for many, their lives are ‘a living sati.’
-
Death for Apostasy: the Penny Drops
‘If Muslim religious leaders in Britain are unwilling to speak out on this issue then we really are in trouble.’
-
Gujarat Chief Minister Endorses Unlawful Killings
HRW says Indian govt should investigate Narendra Modi for apparently endorsing the extrajudicial execution.