Anti-Muslim bigotry is pervasive.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

54. I think he makes some good points, and has clearly thought this through, but makes several mistakes

Last edited Wed Aug 28, 2013, 06:05 PM - Edit history (1)

As an atheist, I believe all religions to be equally wrong; as a secularist, I want religion to be separated from the public sphere and protected as a private matter.

Depends what you mean by "wrong". All religions are equally mistaken in the factual claim that a deity exists. But the moral teachings of some religions are more or less flawed than other, and Islamic morality as interpreted by the majority of Muslims is not just worse, and not just a little worse but a lot worse, than the morality of any other major religion as interpreted by its followers.

The reality is airbrushed out of existence: the fact there is a yawning chasm separating the likes of, say, Sadiq Khan who like nearly all Muslim Labour MPs (and unlike most Tory Christian MPs) voted for equal marriage; and, say, Abu Hamza.

The distinction should be made between fundamentalists, who should be attacked as such, but who constitute a small minority; and the majority of Muslims, who polls show abhor violence as much as any of us do.

I think that "does not support violence" is far too generous a stance. The distinction should be made between liberals like Khan, who constitute a small minority, and the majority of Muslims who, while they don't support terrorism, *do* hold far-right views on gay rights, women's rights, religious freedom, freedom of speech and a host of other issues.



I think that his point about it taking courage to express public support for Islam is fair, but that he should acknowledge that it also takes courage to criticise Islam publically; both positions will attract significant hostility.


I *do* think that his point that a similar criticism of Jews qua Jews would provoke outrage is a fair one, though. On the other hand, would a criticism of Christians qua Christians do so? I think it may be that there's a general feeling that, post-holocaust, criticism of Jews and Judaism has to be especially carefully qualified, not just that criticism of Islam can be especially strident (although that's true too).


So, yes. I think that the teachings of Mohammed as set out in Koran and interpreted by the majority (by no means all) of his followers are very wicked indeed, and the world needs more carefully-thought-through criticism of Islam from liberals (while already having far too much poorly-thought-out criticism of Islam from Conservatives), and I generally admire Dawkins for supplying that. But I think that in this case he has probably gone over the line by making his remark too general, and not explicitly excluding the minority of Muslims worldwide (and quite possibly a majority in Britain) who don't hold deeply regressive views on gender politics from his criticism.