Richard Dawkins: "Well, um, the God of the Koran I don't know so much about".

[Nye Bevan]

In a recent Al-Jazeerah interview, Richard Dawkins was asked his views on God. He argued that the god of "the Old Testament" is "hideous" and "a monster", and reiterated his claim from The God Delusion that the God of the Torah is the most unpleasant character "in fiction". Asked if he thought the same of the God of the Koran, Dawkins ducked the question, saying: "Well, um, the God of the Koran I don't know so much about."

How can it be that the world's most fearless atheist, celebrated for his strident opinions on the Christian and Jewish Gods, could profess to know so little about the God of the Koran? Has he not had the time? Or is Professor Dawkins simply demonstrating that most crucial trait of his species: survival instinct.

To answer the question, it is worth considering recent events in Denmark. In Copenhagen, on 5th February, a well-known critic of Islam - in the same way Professor Dawkins is a critic of Judaism and Christianity - narrowly survived an attempted assassination.

......

Professor Dawkins is not an enemy of Jews or Christians. He is a critic of their religions. Lars Hedegaard is not an enemy of Muslims. He is a critic of aspects of the Islamic religion. If Professor Dawkins were murdered tomorrow by an Orthodox Jew the world would be unlikely to ignore the event. And I suspect that they would be unlikely to blame the victim rather than his assailant.

http://www.thejc.com/node/102653

[Fumesucker]

1. All three worship the God of Abraham so..

[Skinner]

2. There is nothing wrong with admitting that one does not know something.

I suppose it is possible that he is claiming ignorance for self-preservation. But there is no evidence to support that conclusion.

I think it is only fair to take him at is word. He actually doesn't know very much about the God of the Koran, which would explain why he said it.

IMO, the definition of wisdom is knowing what one does not know. Lord knows we have far too many people in the world spouting off on topics they know nothing about.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

10. He doesn't know very much about the God of Christians and Jews either.

He just spouts ignorant, hate-filled diatribes. Like the bigot we all know he is.

[okasha]

11. He has a niche audience

in the west, already primed to receive his pronouncements because they share the bigoted views he expresses. (Whether he actually believes his own BS is another story.) He has no such band of ready made fans among Al Jazeere listeners.

[trotsky]

12. Yet you agree with Dawkins that teaching children about hell being a place of eternal torture...

is child abuse.

The person you replied to thinks people who believe that are bigots. You two have fun!

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

43. Except that I said the exact opposite

Perhaps you need to take a remedial reading class. Start with this

[trotsky]

52. Read my post again.

You believe that Richard Dawkins is a bigot because he thinks teaching children about hell with eternal punishment is child abuse.

okasha agrees with Dawkins, as do I. So Dawkins, okasha, and I are all bigots according to you.

I think you need to start reading that book again. And please keep displaying that trademark Christian behavior, thanks!

[mr blur]

32. You just haven't got a clue, have you?

You are very sad.

[paleotn]

46. OK, and exactly

...which of his points do you consider bigoted? Please, regale me with the logic of your your overwhelming counter arguments. Or are you still pissed that some people actually have the gumption to state the obvious? Or would you rather stay in your little fantasy world and get all ad hominem on us.

[Angry Dragon]

13. I do believe the Old Testament does speak of a vengeful god

Is that the type of god you want??

[cleanhippie]

14. When you say "we", who are you talking to?

Yourself, I presume.

But good luck with that.

[backscatter712]

16. The "hate and ignorance" he simply repeats directly from the bible.

Take for example the Israeli battle against the Amalekites.

For example:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1sam/15.html

1 Samuel 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

[mr blur]

34. Rather like you, in fact.

[paleotn]

48. Examples please?

...or has that biblical mumbo jumbo clouded your thinking? I know, I'm presupposing, but the shoe just might fit.

[amuse bouche]

55. "Like the bigot we all know he is."

No, we don't all share your hate filled, bigoted opinion. Imagine that?

[goldent]

50. I agree he has no obligation to learn about Islam

He can define his career as he sees fit. I think it makes sense for him to focus on Christianity and Judaism, as there are more of them in the west. If he is getting enough work doing this, why bother with Islam where there is substantially more risk of pissing off the wrong person?

[struggle4progress]

3. hmmm

[Buzz Clik]

27. Yes, I found this one, too.

Dawkins's train has left the station.

[Meshuga]

40. To be fair...

Putting myself in his shoes, I could say that the danger of fundamentalist Islam concerns me deeply since they use the Koran for malevolent means and don't question what is written in the text. Especially the text that is perceived by these types as reason to be hateful towards Jews, Christians, and non-believers in general.

However, in my own ignorance of the Koran, I would not know how to answer the question: "what is God in the Koran like?" In that case I would answer in the same way since I just don't know. In other words, I don't see any inconsistency between Dawkin's answer in the OP and the his answer on the video you provided.

The Hebrew Bible is not a consistent regarding the nature of the God character so you have different natures within the Hebrew text almost as if there are different God characters. The God character in the Koran could be more consistent or not since I don't know enough to make claims. Regardless, there is still the fact that so many followers of Islam use the Muslim texts to express hatred and lack of mercy for those whom they are supposed to hate and they don't question what they are told.

[Kalidurga]

4. I don't know much about the Koran either.

Islam is not a good religion though for billions of women, I think we have seen enough examples of that. We also know that Xianity is not a good religion for billions of women, though they seem to have stopped burning them at the stake and putting scarlet letters on them for sexual sins. I am actually glad Dawkins isn't obsessed with Islam many people who are come off as strident and seem to ignore the bigger picture of most religions being oppressive.

[Nye Bevan]

7. I'm surprised that he is not familiar with the "72 virgins" reward.

Or the mandated death penalty for homosexuals.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. That's not in the Koran

Now to your question. The difficulty in determining what the Koran has to say about virgins and such is establishing what the Koran says, period. Translators vary widely in their rendering of the spare and often opaque text. For example, we find the following passage in a Web-based version of Islam's holy book (www.unn.ac.uk/societies/islamic/index.htm): "Verily, for the Muttaqun (righteous), there will be a success (paradise); gardens and grapeyards; and young full-breasted (mature) maidens of equal age; and a full cup (of wine)" (An-Naba 78:31-34). Whoa, one thinks--the Kingdom of Heaven meets the Playboy Advisor! However, most other English translations, both on-line and in print, replace "full-breasted maidens" with some tame construction such as "companions." Inquiring further, we find that the Arabic word at issue is WakawaAAiba, which appears nowhere else in the Koran. The French, less prudish in these matters, usually render it as something like des belles aux seins arrondis, "beautiful women with round breasts," so I think it's pretty clear what the Prophet, or at least his stenographers, had in mind.

Nothing in the Koran specifically states that the faithful are allotted 72 virgins apiece. For this elaboration we turn to the hadith, traditional sayings traced with varying degrees of credibility to Muhammad. Hadith number 2,562 in the collection known as the Sunan al-Tirmidhi says, "The least (reward) for the people of Heaven is 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome of pearls, aquamarine and ruby."

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2329/does-the-koran-really-promise-islamic-martyrs-72-virgins

But the 'monstrous' parts of the OT aren't promises of paradise with huge numbers of servants and wives (who are, presumably, created specially for the believers, since a ratio of 80,072 to 1 is going to be difficult to maintain from the existing Earth population, unless the faithful are very few indeed); it's the bits about orders to massacre people, rape the women, enslave the children, and so on.

Does the Koran mandate the death penalty for homosexuality? While it condemns it, the death penalty seems to come from the Hadith, not the Koran: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_isla1.htm

[mwrguy]

5. I knew he was a sexist creeper.

Now he's a coward as well.

[cleanhippie]

15. Uhm, yeah, he is a coward.

Says the tough guy posting such drivel on an anonymous message board.

[paleotn]

47. Amen and Amen. nt.

[mr blur]

33. See #32

[amuse bouche]

56. Have to agree

With Mr Blur's assessment of you, 100%

[Gore1FL]

59. You saw the video, no doubt... n/t

[pipoman]

6. It's the same god..

many of the most offensive characteristics of the old testament are part of various Muslim laws. Regardless, the Muslim extremists are more extreme (and scary ridiculous) than any of the other mainline religion's extremists. Hasn't necessarily always been so, but at this point in history it seems to be the case..

[Meshuga]

18. I am not sure about that...

All religious extremist are just as scary regardless of religion. The Christian and the Jewish extremists just happen to live in countries where law enforcement is strong so they Have no choice but to behave themselves. If they are given the liberty to act on their hatred, other religious extremists would look just as scary as Muslim extremists.

[pipoman]

19. Really?

What other religion collectively issues death threats and actively pursues carrying them out for someone making a parity cartoon, or writing something critical of their religion. No, there are those Christian haters who pretend that Christian extremists are far worse, or as bad as Muslim extremists..I'm guessing most can't show a single example of large groups of Christians who kill women for showing their face or talking to a man or who carry out executions of people who dare criticize Christianity..Dawkins is a coward pretending not to know is his way of showing his cowardice..

[Meshuga]

20. Really

Perhaps I should ask you the same question, "Really?" Did you really say that Islam as a whole collectively issued death threats and actually pursues carrying them out? You write of "Christian haters" in your reply but you should be careful not to sound like a Islamophobe yourself.

Christian groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis (did you forget these groups exist?) and many other components of the Christian right all use Christian scripture to justify their hate speech and threats. All you have to do is watch their rallies and see what they say about killing Obama for being an "anti-Christian Muslim." These groups would be really scary if we didn't have laws and the resources for enforcement to keep them well behaved. There are consequences for actions here in the US and they know that.

The same can be said about hate and terrorist Jewish groups in Israel where the IDF is able to keep these guys quiet for the most part. As a Reform Jew, I would be scared for my own safety in some of the neighborhoods in Israel let alone Arabs and other hated groups.

Some of the Muslim countries do not have the resources to handle their extremists so they serve as good fuel for our media to smear Muslims as savages and give a free pass to their own religion.

[pipoman]

22. No,

I didn't say "Islam as a whole", I said, "religion collectively issues death threats and actively pursues carrying them out for someone making a parity cartoon". "Collectively" does not mean "in it's entirety", "collectively" means a group of people more than 2...in the case of islam, it is always dramatically more than 2 and usually includes vast numbers of people worldwide, and then there is another vast group within islam who would not pursue to carry out these sinister "fatwās", but will remain in silent agreement or opposition to them. Of coarse there are those within islam who speak against them, but they are pretty few and far between..

Did you miss my statement, "Hasn't necessarily always been so, but at this point in history it seems to be the case.."? The Klan and Aryan Nation and all of the other quasi-religious groups are fringe actively opposed and rebuked by the vast, vast majority of Christians. Further, they rarely if ever carry out any of their threats these days..nor have they for 40 years for the most part..

Yet you are not afraid to oppose terrorist Jewish groups here and I routinely see public criticism and parity of these groups, yet have not heard of those critical being targeted by a global network of Jews for assassination of themselves and their families.

No free passes, I feel free to publicly criticize virtually every or any other religion in any crude way I wish..if I do the same to Islam, I will likely be targeted by vast numbers of extremists.

Apologists for the inexcusable will always pretend others are just as bad, and proclaim all those who point out that the 'king has no clothes' to be bigots, or in this case "Islamophobe", LOL...it helps them justify their fictitious positions..

[Meshuga]

25. Come on, be honest and post...

... your entire quote (that you meant as a question):

"What other religion collectively issues death threats and actively pursues carrying them out for someone making a parity cartoon, or writing something critical of their religion" (note: if you can't think for yourself you will likely lump all Muslims here)

If you look up synonyms for "collectively" the first word that comes up is "altogether" or "as a whole." And here is a dictionary definition to help you out:

col·lec·tive (k-lktv)
adj.
1. Assembled into or viewed as a whole.
2. Of, relating to, characteristic of, or made by a number of people acting as a group: a collective decision.
n.
1. An undertaking, such as a business operation, set up on the principles or system of collectivism.
2. Grammar A collective noun.
col·lective·ly adv.
col·lective·ness n.

So if you wish to change what you said to backpaddle, that is fine. However, it sounded Islamophobic.

Even if you now say that your context of "collectively" should now be read as "a group of people more than 2" then (again) why give Christianity and Judaism a free pass when in this new definition of collectively you will find groups of 2 or more who use their religion for hating and wishing to kill other people for the stupidest and most ignorant motives?

By your new context of "collectively," both Christianity and Judaism "collectively" issue death threats and actively pursues carrying them out for those who say things that might be perceived as disrespectful. In short, you answered your own question in a way that you yourself don't agree with.

Ironically, you write of a silent Muslim majority but then you try to hide the Klan and Aryan Nation under the rug by classifying them as "quasi-religious" groups.

Again, my main point in my posts is that the Christian and Jewish versions of terrorists are kept quiet for the most part because of law and the resources to carry out the law and you still ignore it or refuse to read it.

And yes, given my main point, I can be critical of terrorists from any religion since they won't get to me. You see, I live in the west with lots of resources to protect me so I am not exposed to their danger. However, it is important to note that the many times I (and my family) have been personally harassed for wearing a kippah (in all instances) were from Christian bigots and NEVER from American Muslims.

I am sorry, but you do give the Christian and Jewish religion a free pass in your world view where Islam the worse of the three. You claim that people who point this out are apologists when (ironically) the only one being the apologist here is you.

[pipoman]

41. Obtuse as this has become..

apparently you disagree that Islamic extremists are, collectively, the most brutal, intolerant, terroristic, misogynistic, dangerous, and numerous of all religious zealots on the planet. This isn't giving a pass to any other brutal, intolerant, terroristic, misogynistic, dangerous religious zealots of other stripes..it's really simple.

"I am sorry, but you do give the Christian and Jewish religion a free pass in your world view where Islam the worse of the three."

Where pray tell did I give Christian and Jewish extremists a free pass? Your own statement above indicates you know what I said but failed to comprehend. I did say they are the worse of the three in essence, and by saying they are the "worse of the three" doesn't mean the others aren't bad..Unlike Christian and Jewish extremists, public people don't voice the due criticism of Islamic extremists out of fear.

Wanna see an example? Ever see South Park?

Several other Christian activist groups have protested the show's parodies of Christianity-related matter and portrayal of Jesus Christ— who South Park has depicted saying "Goddamn", shooting and stabbing other characters, and as unable to perform actual miracles.[2] In its review of the South Park movie, the ChildCare Action Project stated that children who watch either the show or film would have their efforts to "understand or [develop] an understanding of the Gospel" hindered or corrupted.[21] The Christian Family Network prepared an educational guide on how to "protect our youth from vile trash like South Park", and claims their efforts to "restore morality, and protect life for the individual, family, and community" would be impeded if children watched the series.[9]

Matt Stone insists that "[kids] don't have any kind of social tact or etiquette", and claims that parents who disapprove of South Park for its portrayal of how kids behave are upset because they "have an idyllic vision of what kids are like".

(IOW..kiss off Christians)

~snip~

The season 10 episodes "Cartoon Wars Part I" and "Cartoon Wars Part II" feature a plot in which the Fox network plans to air an episode of the animated show Family Guy that contains an uncensored cartoon depiction of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad. Residents of South Park panic, fearing a terrorist response and a repeat of the real-life violent protests and riots that occurred worldwide after some Muslims regarded the prophet's cartoon depiction in a Danish newspaper as insulting and blasphemous. The first episode had a cliffhanger ending instructing viewers to watch part two to find out whether the image of Muhammad would be shown uncensored. In the second episode, Kyle persuades a Fox executive to air the Family Guy with the image uncensored, while echoing Parker and Stone's sentiments regarding what should or should not be censored of "[either] it's got to all be OK or none of it is".[2] Within the universe of the episode, the Family Guy episode is aired uncensored, despite a retaliation threat from Al-Qaeda. However, the actual South Park broadcast itself ran a black screen that read "Comedy Central has refused to broadcast an image of Mohammed on their network" instead of the scene containing Muhammad's depiction, which Parker and Stone say was neutral and not intended to insult Muslims.[2][27]

Parker and Stone note the contradiction in being allowed to feature a profane depiction of Jesus, while being forbidden to feature a purely benign depiction of Muhammad, but claim they harbor no hard feelings toward Comedy Central for censoring the scene, since the network confessed to being "afraid of getting blown up" rather than claim they refrained from airing the scene uncensored out of religious tolerance.[2][51] Parker and Stone claim the only regrets they have over the incident was that their mocking of the show Family Guy in the episode generated more attention than its commentary on the ethics of censorship.[76] Previously, Muhammad was depicted uncensored and portrayed in a heroic light in the season five (2001) episode "Super Best Friends", which resulted in virtually no controversy.[2] Muhammad also appears among the large crowd of characters gathered behind the main characters and "South Park" sign in some of the show's previous opening sequences.[77]

Parker and Stone repeated this plot for the 200th episode "200". Again, the depiction was censored throughout the episode. After the episode aired, a leader of Revolution Muslim, an obscure New York-based radical Muslim organization, targeted South Park’s creators for satirizing issues surrounding the depiction of Muhammad. The author of the post, who goes by the username Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee, wrote on Twitter that he prayed for Allah to kill the show’s creators and “burn them in Hell for all eternity.”[78] He also posted a similar entry on his blog and on the Revolution Muslim website. The post included a picture of the assassination of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh by a Muslim extremist in 2004 with the caption: "Theo Van Gogh – Have Matt Stone And Trey Parker Forgotten This?" He also noted: "We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh if they do air this show."[75]

Following the airing of this episode, Malaysia's conservative Islamic PAS party demanded that the makers of the satirical cartoon sitcom South Park apologize to Muslims around the world for its portrayal of the prophet Muhammad dressed as a bear, though it was later shown that it was actually Santa inside the suit. "Even though they have added the audio bleeps, South Park's producer and broadcaster should apologize to the Muslims, as this is a sensitive issue," said PAS vice-president Mahfuz Omar. "The show itself spells of bad intention, and the depiction of the Prophet is provocative. It creates religious tension."[79]

The following episode "201" censored the word "Muhammad" throughout the episode, as well as several lines from the "Super Best Friends" during the final act. According to the South Park Studios webpage, episode "201" was censored by Comedy Central after the studio delivered the episode, but before it was aired. The studio advises that the episode is not available online because they do not have network clearance to air the uncensored episode.

Due to the controversies, the episode "201" was removed from the British Comedy Central TV schedule, and replaced with a repeat of "The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs," and the repeat of "200" was replaced with a repeat of "Sexual Healing". The episode "Super Best Friends", previously available via the South Park Studios website has been made unavailable. Additionally, the Netflix streaming version of the episode, also previously available, has been changed to "Disc Only".[80] "Super Best Friends" was also removed from the iTunes Store as well as the Xbox Live Video Marketplace.

Despite the controversies, "200" and "201" are available on the "South Park - The Complete Fourteenth Season" disc. The episodes were censored and so were the commentaries regarding the episodes. The Region 2 and 4 releases of "South Park - The Complete Fourteenth Season" had both "200" and "201" removed for undisclosed reasons, despite the packaging claiming that all fourteen episodes are included in the set.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Park_controversies

Nah, you're right, modern day Muslim extremists are no more feared than modern day Christian, Mormon, Jewish, Adventist, Buddhist, Amish, Hindu, Neo Nazi, Klan, or any of the other religious or quasi religious extremists South Park has crudely portrayed over the years..

[Meshuga]

44. It's easy to see what is at the surface but hard for you to see the complexity of the problem

While I OBVIOUSLY don't disagree that that Islamic extremists are "brutal, intolerant, terroristic, misogynistic, and dangerous" I think that the Christian and Jewish extremists would be just as "brutal, intolerant, terroristic, misogynistic, and dangerous" if they had a chance and the environment to be as brutal, intolerant, terroristic, misogynistic, and dangerous. Collectively, as a religious group, Extremist Muslims have the same amount of religious justifications as Extremist Christianity and Jewish extremists for committing atrocities and being as dangerous and scary. Regarding the current numbers of radicals in each religion, given their situation, Islam currently gets the short end of the stick. That is obvious.

Regarding Muslims extremists being numerous, it is easy for radical Muslim leadership to recruit members and influence the population given the general poverty, lack of education, and general ignorance in the Muslim world. The Christian right takes advantage of these things here in America in a smaller scale since we have more resources to battle the insanity but Radical Muslims have a much bigger pool to exploit given the rampant poverty in the Muslim world.

Christians were capable of worst when in a similar situations and history is witness to that. Looking back in Jewish history, for example, Jews were always given the opportunity to prosper in Christian societies when things were good but Jews were quickly massacred when things were really bad. It is a pretty consistent pattern. In contrast, until the recent times (obviously), but throughout the centuries, Jews were for the most part safe co-existing with Muslims in Muslim societies regardless of their differences.

And yes, you give Judaism and Christianity a free pass since you don't seem to agree that Judaism and Christianity are capable of the same if they were in the same situation or if the West didn't have the same resources to prevent it. Perhaps it is because you cannot see the complexity of the issue. It's easier for you to call someone a coward for not calling Islam for what it is (whatever Islam is in your mind, at least) or call someone a "Christian hater" for daring to claim that Christian extremists could be just as bad as Muslim extremists.

Regarding the South Park example you posted... Of course Comedy Central (at the time) had to block the cartoon. Given the reaction of the Danish cartoon in the Muslim World and the threat in a Muslim website (that later was said not to be a real threat), it was sensible at the time for Comedy Central to play it safe.

However, while we have stories about the threat of Muslim extremists in the media, we have stories about Christian extremists that fall under the radar here in America (like a man killing another merely because the victim was an atheist) since it is easier going for the obvious and pretend that Christianity does not offer similar grounds for extremists to be just as scary. Just let the Christian right take over and we will see what would happen and more sensible they would be over Muslim extremists. The same could be said of the situation of the Haredim in Israel. Let the Haredim take over to see what would happen to their society. The Haredim are a very small minority but already cause problems for other Jews and Arabs in Israel and the Haredim can be as bad and as ugly as the Muslim extremists.

[pipoman]

51. The short end of the stick?

They are by far the most feared religion world wide. They didn't earn fear from all corners of the planet through idle threats. They (Muslim extremists) do promulgate terror on people to silence opposition. Not just within their societies...in our society and every society in the world. They earned the stick they received.

"general poverty, lack of education, and general ignorance in the Muslim world"

They (Muslim extremists) who dictate in Muslim countries do this to their own people. Given the opportunity the rest of the world would assist in these issues, but alas any offers are disregarded by the dictators as colonialism on the part of the offerers, or trying to spread western values upon the unwilling or some such. The rest of the world has little responsibility..everyone is walking on egg shells from fear of terror.

This whole argument that the only reason vast numbers of christians aren't running around killing cartoonists is because we have police in christian countries is disingenuous to the core. Killers don't give a crap about laws against killing as is evidenced by the acts of Muslim extremists in the very countries with all the police. No, if vast numbers of Christians wished to kill or retaliate against naysayers, there would be a bunch of dead naysayers..just as there is in the context of Muslim critics. The planet of atheists, agnostics, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. have evolved from the dark ages, the Islamic leaders have not evolved.

Oh, and the free pass. Why can't you understand that by condemning the acts of Muslim extremists as being the largest most terroristic religious group on the planet, doesn't give a pass to all of the other far less prolific bad acts.

Oh, so it was just "at that time" that comedy central was afraid? So why aren't they airing it to this day? Why does almost nobody parody anything Islam, and those who do make world news? No, why is it hard for you to admit that Muslim extremists are by far the most terror inducing religious terrorists on the planet. No, instead you wish to pretend that the news is full of vast conspiracies of Christians and Jews creating terror equal to that of Muslim extremists...which is demonstrably false.

[Meshuga]

53. Some last thoughts

Since this exchange is becoming repetitive and tedious I will just throw in the towel and say that we will have to agree to disagree.

I am not interested in changing your mind regarding this subject and you are not convincing enough to me to change my mind so I think we are wasting each other's time here. But here are some last thoughts for my last post in this exchange.

You may think the Christian right is more enlightened than Muslims but (again) we will have to agree to disagree. I agree that Extreme Islam has not evolved from the dark ages but I would include the Christian right in there with radical Islam. It is interesting to note that in the way you wrote your post, it seems that you believe that all of Islam hasn't evolved from the dark ages which makes it hard for me to even want to continue this discussion. You may keep denying it after the fact but you keep slipping what you really think of Islam collectively through your posts here.

As a last point, (the way I see it) the Christian right has some clout here in the US but the Christian right's power in the west is nowhere near the power that extremists have in the Muslim world. So, in my opinion, if the Christian right had as much power here in the US as Muslims extremists have in the Muslim world we would see that the Christian version is no different than (and it is just as scary as) the Muslim version of extremism. Given the historical evidence, I would (and other non-Christians also would) likely be as dead as fried chicken if that ever happened.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. You have to know the Koran well to be able to point to the bits where Allah is monstrous

and most westerners don't know it that well - unlike the bible (Dawkins, for instance, grew up in a household with the bible, and went to English schools where it was read, so he has a far better idea of what's in the OT).

You, it seems, do know the Koran well; can you point to examples of Allah being monstrous like the OT? I guess there's the Flood, because it does have Noah's story. But I really don't know if it has Allah ordering the massacre of towns, for instance, or a story like Job, afflicting a believer to test him.

[pipoman]

23. Hmmm..

how could anyone taking the time to do in depth study of Judaism and Christianity not study Islam, or have an opinion about it? No, he is an arguably brilliant scholar who undoubtedly studied Islam, if for nothing more than his studies of Christianity and Judaism. If he studied Islam he has an opinion..frankly, simply by being the outspoken critic of other religions makes his opinion of Islam obvious. In this case he refused to even speak of Islam because he would be the newest Salman Rushdie...he fears for his safety (justifiably), so he targets those groups which pose little or no threat for his espoused disdain and criticism..he may be a lot of things, but dumb isn't one of them..

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. Hes has plenty of opinions about Islam - see reply #3 for example

What he is not doing is expounding on the character of Allah, as described in the Koran. Remember, the context of the question he was asked was an interviewer picking up on what he had written about the God of the Old Testament, and asking if he felt the same about the God of the Koran.

As I said, since he was brought up as a Christian, he is familiar with many Old Testament stories, and he knows they can show God as a vengeful, capricious, violent being. Some of them are well known if you grow up in the Christian tradition (or, as far as I know, the Jewish one), eg the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, plagues of Egypt; some less so. And it's pretty easy to scan the early books of the Bible for the stories of divinely-ordered massacres, smiting by God, and so on. What I do know (and undoubtedly you do as well, since you say you do know that Allah is monstrous in the Koran) is that it's not a sequential history of the world or a particular people, unlike the first few books of the Old Testament.

But whatever the stories are in the Koran that you're saying Dawkins must know about, but is too scared to admit exist, they just aren't as well known in the west. I've given one - the flood - which I had to look up to check that it was in the Koran too. I know Moses is in there (as 'Musa'), so perhaps the plagues are in there too. But it would be interesting to know if there are examples of evil by Allah that aren't also in the OT. Can you give us some?

[demosincebirth]

8. Wants to keep his head attached to his body.

[cbayer]

17. There is nothing in it for him and it's a tightrope that would be difficult to walk.

As the article states, he goes for the low hanging fruit.

[Buzz Clik]

26. What a fucking coward.

"I'm reasonably optimistic in America and Europe. I'm pessimistic about the Islamic world. I regard Islam as one of the great evils in the world, and I fear that we have a very difficult struggle there.

"There is a belief that every word of the Koran is literally true, and there's a kind of closemindedness which is, I think, less present in the former Christendom, perhaps because we've had long - I don't know quite why - but there's more of a historical tradition of questioning. There are people in the Islamic world who simply say, 'Islam is right, and we are going to impose our will.' There's an asymmetry. I think in a way we are being too nice. I think that it's possible to be naively overoptimistic, and if you reach out to people who have absolutely no intention of reaching back to you, then you may be disillusioned."

http://freethoughtnation.com/contributing-writers/63-acharya-s/479-richard-dawkins-islam-is-one-of-the-great-evils-of-the-world.html

Either shit or get off the pot, Dawkins.

[cleanhippie]

28. How brave of you. Calling someone a coward while posting anonomously.

A man puts it out there for all the world to see, who stands up to irrational thought and behavior, who champions reason over superstition at every chance, and you, you come along anonymously and call him a coward.

Don't look now, but your projection is showing.

[demosincebirth]

30. I believe you are right. Of course many will say it's a religion of peace and harmony, and all

that other good stuff.

[2ndAmForComputers]

54. I am at a loss on what exactly makes him a coward.

And what different utterance would make him a non-coward.

Please elaborate.

[LeftishBrit]

29. Not so; Dawkins has been very harshly critical of Islam too.

http://www.richarddawkins.net/news_articles/2012/11/4/-there-s-no-god-and-islam-is-evil-speech-earns-richard-dawkins-ovation-from-islanders#.UQo7LlIU58E


including very recently:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9838070/Professor-Richard-Dawkins-causes-Twitter-row-with-Islamic-barbarian-jibe.html


Let us bear in mind that this is by Douglas Murray, prominent right-wing British writer, and author of a book called - and I am not kidding you - 'Neoconservativism: Why We Need It'.

[okasha]

31. So he's simply afraid of /disinclined to/uninterested in

making those same comments to a Muslim audience?

I think I'll go with "coward."

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. I'll ask you, since no-one else is answering:

What are the parts of the Koran that depict Allah as a monster that you think he should have mentioned?

[okasha]

36. Given (a) that the God of the Old Testament,

about whom he has propounded extensively as a monster, is the same god as the God of the Qu'ran, and (b) that Dawkins is well-read enough to know this, I think Dawkins' response was at best a disingenuous wriggle to avoid the question. Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, has references to a god who punishes his enemies and condemns evildoers to hell, something on which Dawkins has also propounded extensively. Again, I doubt that he's ignorant on the matter.

Edited to add: a man who has called Islam "one of the great evils of the world" cannot claim ignorance of the religion as a defense.

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. However, it seems the passages aren't well known enough for any DUer to know them

so I can't see that it's particularly surprising that Dawkins can't quote them either. Remember, this is about what the particular book (or collection, depending on your point of view) says about the character of God. Dawkins specified the Old Testament because that's where the smiting and the orders to kill are; but the God of the New Testament is more definitely the God of the OT than Allah in the Koran is.

I've suggested the Flood as one example I can find in the Koran of Allah being vengeful; and perhaps it has the plagues of Egypt too - I don't know. Do you? Do you know how else it portrays Allah?

[okasha]

38. There are verses in the Qu'ran and Hadith,

paralleling the OT, in which Allah authorizes violence against non-believers and condemns sinners to hell. (I'll have the actual quotes later. No time at the moment.) Again, these are characteristics which Dawkins is already on record as considering "monstrous."

[LeftishBrit]

39. Here are some examples of Dawkins debating directly with Muslims

There IS a bigoted atheist in this story, and it is Douglas Murray! He is extremely Islamophobic, and like many on the British Right, he links it to general anti-immigrant bigotry.

Here's something that he said in 2006:

'Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board: Europe must look like a less attractive proposition. We in Europe owe – after all – no special dues to Islam. We owe them no religious holidays, special rights or privileges. From long before we were first attacked it should have been made plain that people who come into Europe are here under our rules and not theirs.

There is not an inch of ground to give on this one. Where a mosque has become a centre of hate it should be closed and pulled down. If that means that some Muslims don’t have a mosque to go to, then they’ll just have to realise that they aren’t owed one.'

To be fair, he claims to have modified his views since then. But he has defended the English Defence League more recently.

I assume that you wouldn't quote Daniel Pipes sympathetically. Murray is a fairly similar type. He is a director of the Henry Jackson Society, for example.

He is not particularly interested in defending Christians or any people of faith against Dawkins; he is interested in finding any excuse for attacking Muslims and immigrants more generally. Very recently, in the hard-right neocon journal 'Standpoint':

'Anyone who voiced concern about the rate of immigration into Britain was branded a racist. They weren’t racist. They were right'

But he isn't only bigoted against Muslims and immigrants. He is a hater of the welfare state, and sympathizer with Romney:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2214823/Getting-people-welfare-NOT-uncaring--moral-duty-way-save-fiscal-suicide.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904006104576502301564142090.html


(These are not sources from which I normally quote; but I think it's important to show how truly evil this man is.)


Even if you detest Dawkins, in this case the enemy of your enemy definitely is NOT your friend!

[cleanhippie]

42. Real cowards fail to acknowledge when they have wronged someone.

They are even bigger cowards when they shun an invitation to make amends and willfully refuse because their ego is too big.

Dawkins has more intestinal fortitude that you could possibly ever know, and you demonstrate that by calling him a coward while you post anonymously.

[paleotn]

49. As to your coward comments, see below......

...seems you're a bit misinformed. Figures.

[Gore1FL]

58. Do we have a video clip

or is "coward" based on the inadequate amount of information from an arguably bias source?

[Gore1FL]

57. I'd have to see the full clip in context.

Most people who quote Dawkins usually fail in that manner, as it turns out there is always more that makes the whole statement mean something entirely different.

[Gore1FL]

60. Here it is in context.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rRd-jlV82BI#t=202s

Perhaps you should alter you OP to acknowledge it is a biased piece of drivel.

[Act_of_Reparation]

63. Nice.

A very good interview/debate, though I doubt we're going to get a retraction from the OP.

[defacto7]

61. To all those who consider Richard Dawkins a coward.....

Please post the following on this website....

Your Name:
City:
State:
Country:
Profession:
Place and date of Birth:
Religious affiliation if any:
a Recent Photo:

Then we will all know that you are not a coward. If you feel uncomfortable doing this and decide not to, then you are very smart.... but you aren't necessarily a coward.

[hrmjustin]

62. I don't think he is a coward at all.

I just think he is wrong about God. Then again he thinks I am wrong so there you go.
Coward he is NOT!

[defacto7]

64. I like your answer

Last edited Mon Apr 8, 2013, 01:45 PM - Edit history (2)

and your honesty.

[JI7]

65. i think he just doesn't know much about the Koran and didn't wang to get into a debate

on specifics about it.

if you want to discuss god/faith in general and whether it's real it's one thing. but the question asked was not about whether he believes it can be real but just the type of God presented in the koran .

[Gore1FL]

66. Now Dawkins is being accused of the opposite:

In this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/121874511

Which links to this article:
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/30/dawkins_harris_hitchens_new_atheists_flirt_with_islamophobia/

I haven't looked at the salon article to know if was as disingenuous as the one in this thread.