Author: Ophelia Benson

  • 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.

  • Jesus Says Atheists Attack the Easy Targets

    Fred Phelps and Torquemada are hardly representative. Be fair.

  • Mo Tells Barmaid She Can Question Anything

    Except God, the Koran, and Mo’s status as Allah’s ultimate prophet. All else wide open.

  • Sunny Hundal on the Christmas Whinge

    Every year these stories turn out to be hype generated by right-whingers.

  • The Grasshopper

    I’ve just read Bernard Suits’s The Grasshopper. I first heard of it and realized I wanted to read it a month or so ago when reading a piece by Simon Blackburn for the next issue (the tenth anniversary issue, number 40) of The Philosophers’ Magazine. In answer to a question about ‘the most under-appreciated philosopher of the last ten years’ he said ‘Inevitably, it is probably someone of whom I have not heard. But a little known and now dead philosopher called Bernard Suits wrote an absolutely wonderful book on the notion of games and play, called The Grasshopper, published by Broadview Press. I do not think I have ever met more than one person who has heard of it.’ Really, thought I, making a note of it. Then just a few weeks later Nigel Warburton wrote a review at ‘Virtual Philosopher’ of a new edition, and then Tom Hurka who wrote an introduction to the new edition commented, and then Bernard Suits’s widow Cheryl commented. The Grasshopper is being hauled out of obscurity, and a good thing too. It’s a terrific book.

    Nigel has a later post about it here.

    I had one very interesting, what to call it, there’s no word for this – thought-linkup, while reading. Page 39 in the University of Toronto 1978 edition:

    …in anything but a game the gratuitous introduction of unnecessary obstacles to the achievement of an end is regarded as a decidedly irrational thing to do, whereas in game it appears to be an absolutely essential thing to do.

    Not quite, I thought; there’s something else, I thought; what is it…oh, poetry. That description works beautifully for poetry – and I couldn’t think of anything else that fit as well. So poetry turns out to be closely related to golf and squash and chess and bridge. Who knew? Poetry that has unnecessary obstacles, that is, not free verse. I no sooner had that thought than I remembered – with a considerable feeling of delight, I must say – that Robert Frost disliked free verse: he said it was like playing tennis with the net down. Well there you go. Good eh?

  • At least notice where you are

    Howard Jacobson is a bit harsh but he’s right.

    [I]t is irresponsible, so many years after Don Quixote messed up everything he touched, and when there is no shortage of international report, to be quite so determinedly unaware of where you are and what you’re doing and what the consequences might be. And that irresponsibility is compounded when you come home having narrowly escaped a lashing or worse, tell everyone what a great time you had and how lovely the people are, and express the hope that what happened to you won’t put anybody else off going.

    I had the same thought, and I don’t suppose I’m the only one. No, thanks, I don’t think I will rush off for an adventure holiday in Sudan just now.

    As for her refusal to be judgemental about it: at best it is a worthless show of magnanimity if she hasn’t a clue what the furore was about or how it relates to the treatment of other women or dissenters in that country, at worst it smacks of Stockholm Syndrome – that masochistic compulsion (especially incident to lovers of the simplicities of the Third World) to fall in love with your captors and torturers. It behoves you if you insist on travelling – against my advice that you stay resolutely at home – at least to notice where you are. And to bring back a better report from what…must be an ideological hell to live in, than how nice everybody was to you…With her release it’s business as before: half the world can go on thinking it has a right to imprison and execute whenever it considers its feelings hurt. So tell me what, now the dust has settled, is cultural “understanding”. Accepting the inhumanity of whatever society one finds oneself in? Acknowledging the primacy of local sensibilities, however closed-minded, however uneducated and raw, however severe the penalties for outraging them?…No Danish cartoon affair, this. Even the most vehemently touchy parties could agree it was an innocent mistake. No harm done because no hurt intended. But where does that leave us if we believe we should be able to give a teddy bear any name we like?

    Just so; hence the interest of the fact that Bunglawala was obliging enough to say explicitly that if it is intentional then…he has no sympathy for the criminal. That’s where that leaves us.

  • Children Accused as Witches in Nigeria

    Tortured, driven out, killed, while Evangelical preachers drive around in Mercedes.

  • Debate on Apostasy in Islam

    ‘Sir, if you become an apostate, your punishment is death.’

  • Muslim ‘Apostates’ Threatened

    Religious persecution of the kind Sofia suffers is increasingly common in Britain today.

  • California Diocese Leaves Episcopal Church

    Diocese of San Joaquin the first to break from US church over its relatively liberal views on homosexuality.

  • What is ‘Cultural Understanding’?

    Half the world can go on thinking it has a right to imprison and execute whenever it considers its feelings hurt.

  • Stephen Law Discusses With Ibrahim Lawson

    Religious education, critical thinking for children, the nuclear option in argument.

  • Why Are Islam’s Moderates so Quiet?

    Ayaan Hirsi Ali ponders the silence about ‘the Qatif girl,’ Taslima Nasreen, Gillian Gibbons.