When I started writing this article, I did not realize how loooong it would turn out. I toyed with the idea of splitting it into multiple posts but I’m unable to do it without fracturing the line of thought itself.  Consequently, I have put all of it in one post and I request your indulgence.

God - an all-knowing all-powerful Sky-Dude that almost no one truly believes in

I’m given to understand (from all the polls) that America is full of religious folks (around 90%) and that atheists are a small minority. Even atheist books and blogs seem to carry the mentality of an outnumbered (though valiant) minority.

But I wonder if this is indeed true or are our cultural parameters for ascertaining “belief” misleading?  I would like to posit that most people DO NOT actually believe in God although they sincerely profess to.  And that’s what I’d like to explore in this post.

So – let’s start! I doubt any sane person actually believes in God. Not you, not your spouse, not your parents, not your devout cousin who is also a priest. Not even the Pope believes in God!

What is God?

I think most people know what I mean by God but I am forced to clarify it because some folks have adopted a weasel-ass Deepak Chopra-esque technique of disguising God as some nameless, faceless energy-field that is infused in our cellular biology and saturates our consciousness with virtue and beauty…. blah blah.

Nonsense! No matter how well the faithful try to deflect scrutiny, the God they are droning on  about is the same one that is most widely perceived as an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient entity that made the universe and all that is in it. The God that has prescribed some virtues and forbidden some vices. The one that has a keen sense of justice, listens to the prayers of the faithful and intercedes on the behalf of the worthy. THAT is the GOD I’m talking about irrespective of the name ascribed to Him or the book that is brandished as His publication.

What is Belief?

Since there is no handy tool to measure and ascertain religious belief, we usually take a person’s word as the final arbiter.  In fact, societal norms of politeness dictate that such statements are beyond scrutiny  because it would trespass on the individual’s domain of private thought.  As a result, any statement that is prefixed with “I believe” builds a moat around itself which fends off any inquiry – let alone challenge.

I submit to you that this is how we get a whopping figure of 90% Americans saying they believe in God!

How about verifying “belief”?

Consider what would happen if the subject of “belief” were different.  For instance, what would happen if someone were to say that he/she “believed” that their bank were about to go under?  Or that the stock market were about to collapse?  For us to be convinced that they *actually believe* what they say they believe, would we not expect their conduct to reflect that belief? Would we not expect the person to withdraw all deposits or sell existing holdings if he/she truly believed that the investments were about to tank? Would we simply accept their claim to belief if their conduct were inconsistent with the stated belief?

(NOTE: It is possible to be mistaken in one’s belief. In other words, it is possible to believe that the stock market will crash even though it really does not. But if one were to truly believe it, one’s actions would definitely bear testimony to such a belief).

However, this is NOT the case with religious belief. When a person says he/she believes in God – that is taken purely at face-value even though his/her actions are incongruent with the stated belief. We seem to have convinced ourselves that “religious belief” is so sacrosanct that it ought not to be verified and thus the chasm between stated belief and actual action remains un-bridged.

Is it really true?

If 90% of us (as a society) believe in a God that watches over our lives, listens to our prayers, and occasionally intercedes on our behalf then our conduct must reflect that. But does it?

If prayer worked why would we need anything else?

When we are unwell, we go to the doctor and not the Church/Mosque/Temple. When we want to fix our car or home we go to the appropriate professional. When we seek justice, we turn to the courts and lawyers. When we seek security we call upon the police…..

Why is it that we turn to fellow-humans and appointed civil officials when we need something? Why do we not take our petitions directly to Big-Daddy-in-the-Sky and bypass the bureaucrats totally? We almost NEVER choose the path of exclusive prayer . Why?

Why would we need the law-enforcement establishment, the legal establishment, the military establishment, the governmental establishment if we were under the vigilant eyes of God Himself? In other words, if God has laid down some rules and can visit retribution upon those that flout it, why do we need to legislate or litigate at all?

Could it be that although we talk about God’s prowess, deep down we are unconvinced by it.  Could it be that although we get satisfaction and consolation (and possibly strength) from the notion that we are under the protective care of the Almighty, we cannot count on it? Could it be that it just feels nice to “believe”? Could it be that years of conditioning has ingrained the need for and a value of a security-blanket in us? Could it be that we are exhibiting the religious equivalent of  the Stockholm syndrome where captives (the flock) tend to view their captors (their faith) in a sympathetic light?

The Pope & Vatican do not believe in God!

Sermons from behind bullet-proof glass

The Pope never tires of telling us about the benign, beneficent and benevolent God whose power is infinite and whose wisdom is beyond reproach.  But he does not seem to notice the irony of using a bullet-proof glass while extolling God’s greatness.

If the Pope really believes that God is super-wise, ultra-benevolent and uber-powerful and if He really intercedes on behalf of the worthy and the deserving then why does the Pope need the services of a bullet-proof screen and the Swiss Guard?

Could a wise and all-knowing God not alert the Pope if danger were lurking nearby? Could an all-powerful God not halt a bullet in its path?  Better still, could a decent God with a sense of justice not inflict a fatal  heart-attack on a would-be assassin? But is the Pope or the Vatican counting on such a God or His alleged prowess?

The simple truth is that the Vatican is acutely aware that the alleged awesome might of God is no match for the simple physics of a firearm and that is why an enormous security infrastructure is in place to see what the Holy See cannot see.

Proof of the pudding!

Assassination attempt on the Pope

Some  may recall that on May 13 1981 an assassination attempt was made on Pope John Paul II  by Mehmet Ali Agca. Was the Pope taken to a Church? How about a Cathedral? A Chapel? No – as a matter of fact, he was rushed to a hospital where surgeons worked tirelessly to save his life.

What would the faithful have said if the Vatican authorities had decided to taken him to a church / cathedral / chapel instead of a hospital?  Would this not be the ultimate test of God and the power of prayer, faith and belief? But when push came to shove, the Vatican, despite its enormous reserve of “faith-capital”, decided to rely on the skill of scientifically-trained surgeons. What does this say about the Vatican’s professed “belief”?

Pope John Paul II recovering

After several days of recuperation, the Pope made his first public statement, where he gave credit for his hair-breadth escape to Our Lady of Fatima – saying that he believed that she guided the bullet away from his vital organs. Prof. Richard Dawkins has astutely observed in the The God Delusion, that if Our Lady of Fatima was in the business of guiding bullets, why not guide it away from the Pope’s person altogether? I would like to advance the same premise and ask if the Holy See would approve of his wounded self being left to the kind benevolence of Our Lady of Fatima instead of summoning the surgeons?

But of course, such a question is never asked. In fact, it would be terribly unseemly and cruel to ask such a thing. So, we just ignore the baseless-ness of the Pope’s stated belief and occupy our time gushing at his devotion.

So – what does all this mean?

This is *exactly* indicative of the norms of our discourse.  Stated beliefs are NEVER examined for veracity. Instead, they are treated with fawning indulgence.  Game, Set and Match to God!

Cultural conditioning inhibits robust self-inquiry

This is also what happens when ordinary folks reply to polls. We are raised in the cultural context of faith and belief. A big part of the belief-system is that faith itself should not be examined. In fact, faith is often brandished as a “certificate of character”. We are asked  to demonstrate faith by doing things  for God. We are NEVER asked (or encouraged) to validate faith itself by checking if God will return the courtesy.

We are so culturally conditioned to “belong” to one faith or another  that we NEVER call into question whether we truly HAVE faith in the things that we profess to. Since it is unseemly to inquire / validate whether we truly have faith, it becomes the default position. Is it surprising then that almost 90% of us claim to believe in a personal God?

True-believers and the soft-believers.

In my opinion, true believers are only those whose conduct is consistent with their stated belief in some meaningful way (just showing up at church on Sundays, singing in a group and handing out money does not count). Moreover, it should be clearly evident that their conduct would have been markedly different if they did not actually believe in the things that they say they believe in.

Faith-based initiative

For instance,  if a person believes in prayer and miracles, and does not turn to a doctor if he/she were to be afflicted with disease and only resorts to prayer then that would be “true-belief”. It would also be stupid – but that’s a different story.

Despite having a reasonable life, if you were to resort to Jihad as a religious duty at great cost and misery to yourself and your family (and of course, the infidels) then that would be “true-belief”. It would also be genocidal – but that’s a different story.

If you were to engage in suicide-bombing infidels on the belief that martyrdom is mandated by God and for which a reward of eternal carnal pleasures await you (72 virgins) then that would be “true-belief”. It would also be sexually-induced suicidal dementia  – but that’s a different story.

And here is my final point:

If you see the pattern in the examples above, “true-believers” are the same ones we ordinarily call “stupid”, “genocidal” , “demented”… – in short,  “extremists”. If it is true that extremists are a fringe-minority, then why are we inflating their ranks by lumping the non true-believers with them?

Of course, these non “true-believers” aren’t always innocent country bumpkins either. Indeed many of them are cynical manipulators that prey upon and profit from the emotional neediness of ordinary folks. We can call them fraudulent scoundrels and deal with them separately – but we certainly don’t need to call them “true-believers”.

My point is that the numbers of “true-believers” are extremely over-exaggerated.  The composition is more like:

1. There are some true-believers (stupid, suicidal, genocidal and demented people).
2. There are some fraudulent rascals (Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Ted Haggart, Satya Sai Baba…).
3. And there is a LARGE number of people that are simply part of a group they were born into and have not fully reasoned their way out of the contradictions of “belief” as yet.  Maybe many never will – but that is a different diagnosis than being a “true-believer”.

Since societal norms place a high value on being “a believer”,  and provide no encouragement to examine whether they “truly believe”,  a person typically does not hit an inflection point where he/she can break out of the normative state of  “being a believer“. Thus, an average Joe/Jane, born into an average family, goes through life being counted as a “believer” without really being one.

The framework of our discourse sanctifies such a shaky construct by drawing conclusions based upon it. If,  for the sake of argument, a poll were to examine the veracity of claims and then pencil them into the category of true-believers and others based on the broad outline above, we might find that atheists actually exceed the number of  “true-believers” (how many people are willing to forgo medical intervention in favor of prayer if they have an about-to-rupture appendix?).

Intellectual progress is a battle-of-ideas between those that court reason and those that court scripture / tradition.  Any critique of religious ideas seems to take the complexion of scorning a vast populace.  Sadly, the framework of our discourse, has enabled the religious right to not only claim a larger base, it has also also enabled them to be used as human-shields (because you cannot criticize a religious tenet without being told that you are hurting the sentiments of the multitude).

I had been working on another article for some days now. Its still taking shape as I mull over things – but this just cropped up and it is so patently absurd that I’m going to write and post it right away. If it sounds impulsive, its because it is.

How dare you tell us what to do with your money. I'll protest by burnin my crotch!

I came across this article on the New York Times detailing the various heart-aches that regular Pakistanis are having about being told that there are conditions tied to the extraordinary aid (7.5 Billion dollars over 5 years) being doled out to them by the Kerry-Lugar bill. Apparently they feel entitled to an NSA (no-strings-attached) relationship worth $7.5B. They don’t just want your money. They want your love baby!

Now let’s see what their positions might be :

Is it “We don’t want your stinkin money”? No. Its more like “Actually we want – nay need – the money desperately to prop up the creaking infrastructure of our country which is crumbling under the weight of our own social, political, economic, military and religious ineptitude.  But we want it to be wrapped in velvet and sprinkled with rose-water and left deferentially at the doorstep. And don’t forget to thank us for being gracious for having accepted your infidel dollars”.

The NYT article goes on to quote Anwar Baig (an ex Pakistani Senator) who opines that Pakistan and US need to “rebuild lost trust” and the best way to rebuild trust is ….. drum roll here …. With money! Lots of it!! And without expecting anything in return. Baig goes on to say that “There is an impression that America is micro-managing everything”. And that is soooo not fair… plus it hurts our feelings.

I ask you….. what sort of a world do we live in where a hopelessly destitute pauper of a state gathers the temerity to set the terms for accepting alms?

The article then wafts over to two youths, a book-seller and an ex-police big-daddy. Their insightful comments / laments are:

Nobody likes America because “Friends don’t bomb friends”. America should learn the principles of friendship from Pakistan which has a stellar record in treating its citizens of East Pakistan with love and care. (Too bad that they still preferred to split and become Bangladesh).  Pakistan has shown true friendship when it continues to   harbor and nurture the Taliban and its ideological kin despite their sworn intent to bring harm to the US AND TO PAKISTAN!!

The US does not “respect Pakistan’s sovereignty”.  As you know, Pakistan respects India’s sovereignty when they provide sustenance to cross-border terrorists and Jihadis.  After all, its only spiritual aid. Pakistan’s writ over all of its sovereign territory is legendary – just check in the North-west Frontier for evidence. The US should not conduct air-raids and disrupt the tea-parties of the holy-beards while they are deeply engrossed in plotting ways to topple the Pakistani establishment and eventually bring harm to the US.

The suicide-bombs that regularly kill and maim innocent Pakistanis are NOT Taliban driven. All that is hogwash (er.. sorry camel wash).  The suicide-bombers are US-inspired and orchestrated. (That is the claim of a bookseller. With his sharp intellect and he should be writing books. I’m still waiting for a jewish conspiracy to show up. Its never the same without a Jewish machination thrown in for good measure).

Mr. Fazl-e-Haq – the former inspector general of the Pakistan prophesies that a revolution in Pakistan will occur by end of 2010 that would topple the current dispensation. This uprising is in response to endemic poverty and dispossession caused by the Pakistani establishment with its penchant for good governance.  He does not comment on whether the revolution will resolve the issue of endemic poverty and starvation but the great sage goes on to proclaim that the “the US is breathing its last“. And all this is *before* we hand over the money.

Is’nt this *exactly* the reason to have strict conditions and monitoring associated with any aid that is offered to Pakistan? Pakistan is notoriously corrupt and hopelessly untrustworthy. However, it sits at a geopolitical crossroad that is fast becoming cancerous (some would say that it is already a malignant tumor). It is inevitable that monies will need to be invested to ensure that it does not fall into an abyss. However, the very essence of “investment” lies in the fact that a return is to be expected.

The Pakistani street seems to presume that aid is an “entitlement”.  Perhaps they need to be told that international diplomacy is not “love”. The money will be placed on the dresser.  And don’t expect to be respected in the morning.

P.S. Just in case you think I am being condescending and scornful, let me clarify. I am! There are times when contempt is the only reasonable response. This is one of them.

Out, Out, Damned Atheists (Sep 11 09)

Its been a loooong while since I wrote on this blog (and yes… shame on me for that). I have little to offer by way of excuse or even an explanation.  It would be dishonest to say that I did not have time (although that would be partly true). But it would be more honest to say that nothing provoked me to sort out the threads of an argument and thus explore the truth content within them.

But that provocation has arrived. Albeit unexpectedly – but arrived nonetheless!

Lisa Miller recently wrote a Newsweek column raving about a book by Karen Armstrong called “The Case for God”. Frankly, the article is so full of bullshit that it took me a couple of days to ensure that my annoyance did not get in the way of my rebuttal.

Ms. Miller is effusive about Armstrong’s high-minded arguments in support of Religion and God.  However, it seemed to me that she was more thrilled at the prospect that a high-minded and noble-sounding answer had finally arisen to subdue (if not silence) the insolent atheists who ruthlessly flog religion and God.  It is NOT the strength of Ms. Armstrong’s arguments that seems to have swooned Miller but the tone of noble gallantry. In short, style over substance! I was particularly irritated by this segment :

Armstrong shows that for most of human history, “faith” and “reason” were not mutually exclusive and that even today all kinds people believe in a God that in no way resembles the God the atheists despise.

Faith and Reason are not mutually exclusive? What kind of drivel is this?? Faith is precisely the abandonment of reason! When you believe in something without evidence and despite contrary evidence – that is *faith*. What else does it mean to say that one has faith in a magic amulet or in the claim that world was created in 6 days?

It is true that there are many religious people who are tethered to reason in almost every aspect of their life. This DOES NOT mean that reason and faith are compatible constructs. To the extent that these good folks adopt the un-substantiated  tenets of their religion, they have suspended the application of reason.  In other words, the space that faith occupies in people’s minds is the space that was created by evicting reason! Granted that the human mind is agile enough to accommodate differing outlooks – but it does so by actively exempting one set of ideas from the rigorous scrutiny of another set. This says more about the human ability to compartmentalize rather than the fundamental compatibility of reason and faith.

Miller then asserts that many (probably most) people believe in a God that does not resemble the one that atheists despise….  Could you please pass me a dollop of dim-wittedness to go with my idiotic?

Atheists DO NOT despise any god. They cannot! Mainly because they don’t believe in one!!

Could Ms. Miller (if she wanted) despise Santa Clause? How about the tooth-fairy?  Jinns anyone? Any takers for Zeus-hating? Why? Because she does not believe in their existence (I presume). The same goes for atheists!

Yes – its true that atheists express unabashed contempt for religious claims and they do so by shining a light on  the assertions that religions make about God, Heaven, Hell, morality and ethics.  Once examined, religion starts to look vapid and vacuous. And God starts to looks more and more like a capricious egotistical bully! That does not mean that atheists make him out to be one.  They are just reading from His own resume!

Karen Armstrong - The Case for God.

Ms. Miller seems to be really taken in by the soft humility of Ms. Armstrong’s approach. If you see Ms. Armstrong’s lecture at TED, you cannot help feel moved by her impassioned plea for compassion. However, the subject matter of her thesis is NOT her personal compassion – but the claim that world religions are primarily and exclusively about being compassionate!That claim is patently false!

Ms. Armstrong’s central theme in that (TED) lecture is:

• Religion is NOT what the scripture says. Instead it is what “she” has discovered it to be (i.e. universal compassion – AKA The Golden Rule)
• Religion has been “hijacked” by extremists and any interpretation of scripture that does not culminate in compassion is automatically the wrong one! (i.e. we must reject any analysis that does not yield a predetermined conclusion).
• Religion is NOT about orthodoxy – but about practice – a painstaking practice of compassion.
• Religion is NOT the biggest cause of violence but human greed and avarice is. Exhibit A: World Wars 1 & 2.  and soccer hooliganism.
• “True” religion insists on extending our common humanist impulses to one another within the group but more importantly across religious groups.

Now for my refutation/rebuttal:

Ms. Armstrong may wish that religion were all the things that she claims but that does not make it so.

To say that Religion is not what the scripture says is  a convenient way to dismiss all incriminating evidence and only allow a shred of supportive anecdotes.  Moreover,  is it not interesting that in support of her claim that religion is not about scripture, she cherry-picks quotes from the same scripture that she instructed us not to bring into the scope of examination.

Religion engenders intolerance and sanctifies bigotry.

Her broader claim is that Religion has been “hijacked”.  Hijacking is a case of subverting a project from its original intent. The Bible and the Koran and other “holy books” are unambiguous about their intent and their content. Does the concept of Jihad not exist in the Koran? How about the concept of the Kafir or the Infidel? Is jew-hatred not enshrined in the Koran?  Does the Bible not pronounce homosexuality as sexual-villainy? Is hell-fire not promised for dissent from the Bible? Do Hindu texts not endorse and enforce apartheid in the form of caste-divisions?

Dressing up religion as some kind of “refinement of the soul” is itself a hijacking of the discourse. Religion offers a spurious “upliftment of the soul” provided you are willing to surrender your intellect and your personal sovereignty. To  champion only one side of the bargain is to subvert the truth – i.e. hijacking it.

Its false to say that religion eschews orthodoxy. The problems we see in the world today are precisely conflicting orthodoxies. The orthodox Jews and the orthodox Muslims (and the orthodox Christians) believe that God in His infinite wisdom took time off from watching over the expanse of the universe  to bequeath a remote piece of arid land to one set of people (and not the other).   It is dishonest to say that these religions are striving for something transcendent. This kind of tribal pettiness is precisely what scripture declares as sacrosanct and strict adherence is the very essence of orthodoxy. Ms. Armstrong’s personal ethics and sensibilities may lift her beyond the lure of such trivialities but let us not assume that religion has made the same lofty leap.

It is true that humans are notoriously susceptible to greed and avarice. The main problem however, is that religion makes it possible to conceal such greed and transform it into some kind of  righteousness. In other words, a problem that could have been negotiable if it was driven by just naked greed, becomes intractable once it is sanctified by religious mandate. Who is going to give away East Jerusalem when your scripture commands you to lay claim to all of it? Who is going to share worshiping rights in Ayodhya when scripture and tradition declares that it is exclusive to one set of morons and not the other? You see… religion transforms a terrestrial quarrel into a celestial war.  Bravo!

Ms. Armstrong makes an impassioned plea that “true” religion is a high-minded pursuit of self-improvement through compassion – but she fails to observe that this “true” religion is a figment of her imagination.   I would not mind if she were to state that the world would be a better place * if religions were to* truly espouse compassion toward one and all. But her claim (lamentably) is that religions *truly do* espouse compassion for one and all – and that is being just too economical with the truth.

Religion is replete with mandates that not only allow the faithful to inflict harm on the infidel  but actually demand it of the faithful. To say that religion asks us to project compassion toward others – especially those outside the fold is ABSOLUTELY FALSE. If you were to remove from the Bible and the Koran, all the parts that are hurtful, hateful, xenophobic,  homophobic, misogynistic and violent,  these “holy books” could be reduced to a pamphlet.

Upon reflection, it seems to me that Ms. Armstrong has done precisely that! She has excised the unsavory and toxic elements of religion, over-amplified the good parts, dis-allowed incriminating evidence and thus made her (spurious) Case for God!

In conclusion, I do not begrudge Ms. Armstrong’s high-mindedness – I object to the fact that her arguments engage in falsification of the record. I object to the deliberate cherry-picking of  scripture that bolster her position and the brazen exemption of a large amount that is inconvenient. In short – I object to her intellectual dishonesty!

And most of all, I resent that Ms. Miller of Newsweek overlooks these wide chasms of tautology and paints Ms. Armstrong’s thesis as some kind of a soothing balm that is a welcome antidote to the harsh scrutiny unleashed by atheists. What else can you make of an article titled “Out! Out! Damned Atheists!”? Ms. Miller is welcome to be sappy about religion. She should just not expect to be considered an intellectual or even intelligent.

Jihad Fail (source: Fail Blog)

Its been a long while since I posted anything new here. I’ve been a bit occupied with things like earning a livlihood and hence been somewhat busy. I came across this pic on the Fail Blog .

As you can see, this devout dude is fulfilling his pledge to Allah. For this act of bravado of standing up to the Jews .. er .. juice, he will surely be rewarded by Allah. And if he were to actually kill/harm the juice – say the way 9/11 hijackers did to the Big Apple – he will be handed his quota of 72 virgins.

If you don’t believe me, see the postcard sent by Mohammed Atta (of 9/11 fame) showing us his randevouz with the first of his 72.

She’s HOT!

Celestial reward for Mohammed Atta. Allah-O-Akbar.

Can’t wait to see what Allah’s got in store for wonder-boy Osama

Moderates do not engage in Jihad but they also do not convincingly repudiate those that do.

I came across this cartoon and felt that this captured the essence of the conversation so far.

To avoid ambiguity, let me clarify that “Moderate Muslim” refers to people of Islamic faith who do not relate to the Jihadi sentiment and yet do precious little to denounce, deride and otherwise de-legitimize it.

In fact groups that purport to speak in the name of “enlightened and moderate Islam” often engage in verbal acrobatics to dress up Islam and attempt to stifle any examination of the Jihadi impulse. Nitwit Nastik had posted this excellent YouTube video in the comments section earlier. I’m re-posting it here. If you did not get a chance to check it out earlier, take a look at it now.

Here this Yunis dude is saying that:

• Less than 1% of muslims are violent crazed lunatics.
• Showing such violent outbursts tarnishes the balance 99%.
• The decision by US and UK media to not show the cartoons that lie at the heart of this mayhem is wise – so as to preserve ’strategic engagement’ with “moderates”.

Frenzied rioting over danish cartoons

At no point however, does he take on the burden of explaining how a tiny minority could have the nerve to engage in such a scale of violent frenzy if they feared the censure of the balance 99%. And of course he completely side-steps Hitchens’ remark that this kind of violence was expressly supported by numerous mid-eastern governments.

This leads me to the following conclusions:

1. The hard-core Islamists are not as tiny a minority as apologists claim.
2. There is a wide segment of “Soft Jihadis” who sympathize with the “hard-core Jihadis” although they do not actually participate in their frenzied violence. This segment is probably wide enough to constitute a majority.
3. The balance “moderate/enlightened/secular muslims” are content with simply burying their heads in the sand.

It is this last segment (or shall we call it remnant) that Yunis wants us to pander to and not alienate.

Evidently Yunis has not buried his head in the sand. It is safely tucked up a specific area of the anatomy where the sun don’t shine.

But it's OK to bash jews, christians, hindus and other infidels

One of the pearls of received wisdom is that Muslim moderates should not be alienated in the process of confronting Islamic belligerence. I received a comment on an earlier article from Garreth where he has expressed this sentiment. I am including a quick excerpt below and you can see his full comments here and here .

“Will this (robust criticism of Islam) alienate the moderates and push more of them towards fundamentalism in the long run? Secondly, what exactly does forceful anti-jihadi discourse achieve?”

Garreth is certainly not an apologist for Islam but he questions whether it would be wiser to have a gentler approach toward moderates while continuing relentless attack on extremists. Firstly, I’d like to thank Garreth for this thought-provoking comment and then explore his question in this post.

What makes a moderate?

Exactly how do we determine if a person is a moderate or not? Is the distinguishing characteristic “violence committed”? Does that make all Al Qaeeda sympethizers who are yet to engage in violence, moderates? Just how steeped should a person be in his/her faith before he/she becomes an extremist? You notice that things start getting a bit nebulous once honest inquiry begins. In my opinion, a moderate is one who, by his/her actions, has created a demonstrable distance between himself/herself and the perpetrators of an incident which he/she purports to find offensive.

When 9/11 occurred, everyone had a clear opportunity to be opposed to Islamic terrorism. The same was the case when 7/7 subway bombings occurred in London. Ditto for Madrid, Bali, Beslan and Mumbai. If moderate muslims do not stridently denounce these acts and its perpetrators, they are being ambivalent about it. When innocent lives are at stake, such ambivalence assumes the complexion of callous disregard (if not subtle endorsement). In such a situation, we cannot, and should not, be saddled with the responsibility of distinguishing between a moderate and an extremist. We should denounce Islam for the wickedness it engenders and not feel any reservation on the grounds that it might alienate the moderates – because the moderates have already decided to withdraw from the issue and thus alienate themselves.

Moderate muslims' silence resembles apathy - or worse - a quiet endorsement

Let me draw a scenario: If after 9/11 (or 7/7 or Bali, or Mumbai or Madrid…), mosques from Bali to Baghdad were to condemn and excommunicate Osama bin Laden; If his effigy were to be burnt in Saudi Arabian mosques after Friday prayers; If the likenesses of Bin Laden, Mullah Omar, Zawahiri….. were to be subjected to public indignities in Karachi then moderate muslims would have already marked themselves as starkly different from rabid Islamists. Friend and foe would be clearly distinguishable. Under such circumstances, we would be well advised to fine-tune our critique to focus only on foes (Jihadi extremists). But since the moderates themselves have not made any such distinction, how can we be expected to do it for them? It proceeds from this that if the moderates have not shown any palpable desire to be seen differently from the extremists, why should the commentary be modulated as though such a distinction exists?

Goal of forceful anti-jihadi discourse

Moving on to Garreth’s 2nd question: What does forceful anti-Jihadi discourse achieve?

We are conditioned to believe that religion (especially Islam) deserves special deference. This manifests in withholding criticism about Islamic tenets – no matter how grotesque they are. By offering undeserved respect we have become facilitators for an evil worldview.

The problems we see with the Islamic world are wrongly diagnosed as a conflict with the West. They are a conflict with modernity itself! To resolve this, retrograde ideas and ideologies must be exposed and eventually jettisoned. This cannot be done by treading lightly around these issues. Commentary and analysis must be brutally frank and stark. Undoubtedly some folks would be hurt – but not doing it causes even greater harm.

In my opinion, robust anti-Jihadi discourse breaks the taboo that keeps Islam safe in its sanctimonious cocoon from which it spews its toxic and venomous ideology.

Islamic bloodlust starts early

How can we call the Koran noble or divine and then deride those that follow its violent instructions? How can we denounce violent Jihad when the very same Jihad is expounded by the Koran and exemplified in the life of the Prophet Mohammed in the Hadith? How can we condemn beheading for apostasy when that is *precisely* what is commanded by the Koran and the Hadith? How can we ask muslims to end their visceral hatred for Jews when that hatred is *specifically* enshrined in Islamic scripture?

There is no need to treat Islam as a holy-cow. Holy-cows yield holy-bullshit – and in unholy amounts. Its time we called a spade a spade! It may be worrisome to some that this would “alienate” moderate muslims but I would hasten to point out that our current practice of pussy-footing around Koranic blood-lust has not tamed the genocidal Jihadi impulse either. In fact it has grown to sinister proportions. If you doubt this, read any Pakistani newspaper headlines highlighting how the Taliban is laying siege to Pakistan.

If you liked this, please also read: Fundamentalists v/s Moderates

There she is... No - not that one... the one beside her - in Black!

As you can see, Islam treats women with dignity and stature. The unbelievers mock this noble practice by calling it “imprisonment” and “subjugation” but they know not the liberation and emancipation that the burqa brings.

Muslim women have been using this liberation to reach great heights and contribute handsomely to Islamic societies. Muslim women can freely go anywhere their male caretakers take them. You can see their joyful smiles – but you really ought not to be looking at them you despicable infidel!

Do you recall that fateful day on Sep 11 2001 when 19 men proclaimed the greatness of Allah and acted on the dictates of their faith?  Do you recall the loud denouncements from Islamic institutions that soundly rebuked these hotheads? Do you remember how mosques from Quetta to Cairo repudiated Osama Bin  Laden and issued fatwas against  Mullah Omar?  Do you marvel at the fact that 99% of all muslims – who are call themselves “moderates” – swiftly showed their  solidarity and made the remaining 1% (“extremists”) outcastes and pariahs?

Me neither!

But I do remember loud and bellicose statements that called upon the discourse to exempt Islam from all actions taken in its name. I remember being told that Islam is unquestionably a “Religion-of-Peace” and universal-brotherhood and that some disgruntled and misguided youth were exploited to inflict harm on us and also bring dishonor upon the glorious name of Islam. Whatever we do, we ought not to hold Islam liable.

Moderate Muslims’ deafening silence!

Muslim Moderates: Silent as a tomb

I did not see any of those good Muslim moderates who are so touchy about an unkind word directed at Islam, being outraged at the fact that muslim youth had besmirched Islam’s glory. I did not see these same moderate muslims being infuriated at Osama bin Laden for insinuating that  he was driven by authentic Islamic faith and call on Mullah Omar for his expulsion.  I did not see these same moderate muslims pressure the Pakistani establishment to expel the masterminds of 1999 hijackings or Dawood Ibrahim or members of Lashkar-e-Tayyeba who authored carnages in New Delhi and Mumbai. I did not see them pressure Saudi Arabia and UAE to terminate their diplomatic relations with the Taliban and their funding of Jihadi outfits. They just stood by in pious silence!

All of the above actions were left for the infidel governments to take. These good moderate muslims sat by impassively and only rose to protest if Islam were implicated in the analysis of Islamic terrorism. At that point, fangs were bared and quills were raised. Threats to label us as “Islamophobes” were issued so stirringly that we, with our fetish for multiculturalism, folded our tents and went silently into the night. Consequently, all our analyses and actions are tempered by the desire to not inflame the the “moderate muslim street”.

Result: Resurgent Taliban!

Taliban - Delivering Allah's Mercy

The Taliban is now resurgent in Afghanistan. Dissatisfied with being restricted to the badlands of the NWFP, they have spread to Swat Valley and their domain reaches within 100 miles of Islamabad and Rawalpindi (the nerve-center of Pakistani power-structure). There they have unleashed unprecedented brutality by shooting Pakistani civilians, beheading Pakistani dissenters, flogging Pakistani transgressors, exiling Pakistani civilian administrators and establishing the Sharia to oppress Pakistanis. And pray, what is the Pakistani commentariat most exercised about? The drone attacks which target foreign Jihadists and their hideouts! This is the same set of “moderate elements” who have readily consumed the generous aid packages (in excess of $10B at last count) but who chafe at the prospect of any of that aid-money being used against Taliban / Al Qaeeda operatives.

These folks are not “extremists” or “Jihadists”. Indeed they have not actively participated in acts of violence or terrorism against anyone. They are just the *Moderate Muslim Street*. Yet they have been mute spectators while the shining stars of Islam rolled out the green carpet crushing Pakistani citizens in its wake – reserving their most fiery rhetoric for instances when an American drone interrupts a tea-party of the Holy Beards. I have yet to hear a squeak from the “Moderate Muslim Street” decrying the Sudanese genocide in Darfur where Sudanese-Christians are being murdered by maniacal Islamists. Perhaps the moderate muslims are exhibiting their exemplary restraint and legendary moderation.

In conclusion, I am unimpressed by the refrain from muslim folks who moan  that they are unfairly tarnished by the actions of a few and yet fail to denounce those very same actions convincingly. In fact, when I see them deflect responsibility with lame excuses and feeble justifications, I want to treat them as a part of the problem. They knowingly or unknowingly provide cover for Islamists to operate unencumbered and hence abet the crimes committed by the extremists. And therein lies their culpability (if not complicity)!

If it Oinks - its a Pig!

Let me clarify that I DO NOT advocate ANY harm or harassment of ANY person on the grounds of their faith. But let me also clarify that I do not accept the exemption of anyone’s *responsibility* on similar grounds. If Islam’s stature means anything to you then YOU should be the first one to denounce and debar those that tarnish it. If you fail to do so then you have just chosen to include the swine in your society. You cannot live in a sty and not be called a pig!

P.S. I realize that my assessment is much too forthright in the current climate of political correctness. Some people feel that such a tone alienates moderate muslims. I have rejected that contention in the article: Does robust critique alienate moderates?.

Evidence that Islam is a Religion of Peace.

This is the last of my 4-part series on why I single Islam out for criticism. In earlier posts I have outlined the peculiarly insidious nature of Islamic societies, Islamic causes and Islamic impulses. I will devote this post to characteristics of liberal societies (typically in the west) that grant Islam an undeserved deference. There are several causes of such deference – all of which neatly fit under the banner of “Multiculturalism”.

In an earlier post I have shown how multiculturalism coddles Islam. In this post, I will expand on that idea and show how it emboldens Islamic militancy.

Multiculturalism v/s Secularism

Multiculturalism is a relatively modern fad that pseudo-intellectuals  (notably in the media and government) like to bandy about to extract  respectability.  A multiculturalist tends to be a person who basks in the reflected glow of the truly lofty tradition of Secularism. Multiculturalism has gained so much currency (and legitimacy) that it is often mistaken to be Secularism 2.0.  Far from being a descendant, it is actually a dangerous imposter.

Secularism holds that one’s religious beliefs and traditions have NO bearing on how a civil society functions. Your choice to be a Buddhist or a Christian is a private decision and the public-square is under no obligations to cater to your private spiritual pursuit. Multiculturalism, on the other hand, claims to be charmingly magnanimous and welcomes all religious beliefs, cultural values and traditions INTO the public-square so that we may “celebrate” all of them. Multiculturalism is NOT new-age secularism but a reversal of secular principles. Multiculturalism is NOT Secularism 2.0. It is, however, Idiocy 1.0 because its a trifle awkward to celebrate Jihad while being beheaded/flogged/stoned.

Parasitic Islamists

By flaunting a vacuous hospitality, multiculturalism claims to be beyond religious recrimination. It would not be terrible if such vapidity were only callow and idiotic. Unfortunately it assumes sinister proportions when it encourages militant Islam by inhibiting robust inquiry and stringent accountability. Take a look at this sampling of video-clips:

• Justifying London bombings of 7/7
• Non-muslim civillians are legitimate targets
• Exhorting people to fund Bin Laden & Jihad Inc.

See the audacious manner in which Islamists operate in the UK? These guys hold no jobs, live on welfare (often by misrepresenting themselves as handicapped) and then call for Jihad against the very same society that they live parasitically upon.

This is not just a case of ingratitude. It is a case where cowardly Islamists act brazenly – safe in the knowledge that they do not have to carry the burden of their convictions. They know that they will not be mauled by a vigilant news-media or the police. It would be just too unseemly to conduct a blistering attack on someone’s religious beliefs – no matter how noxious they are – and it might even look like….. whats-it-called…. yes…. Islamophobia!

Multiculturalism – Intellectual lethargy, dishonesty & cowardice

It is this intellectual lethargy, intellectual dishonesty and intellectual cowardice that Islamists feed upon. And it is this intellectual lethargy dishonesty and cowardice that multiculturalism glorifies. It permits the proliferation of toxic outlooks until a critical mass is reached yielding jihadis who bomb the London mass transit and Glasgow airport. And we  wonder where all this naked zealotry came from?  It was bred within our society when we saw extremism take root but chose to tolerate it just to preserve our Multiculturist credentials.

Police Dog gives grevious offence to Muslims

It is the same Multiculturalist impulse that made the Tayside police-force apologize for offending Islamic sensibilities when they announced a change of their help-line telephone number on a poster that carried the picture of a police-dog alongside a policeman’s hat. Since Islamic doctrine holds a dog to be an icon of defilement, the poster hurt the delicate sentiments of muslims who are otherwise unmoved by honor-killings or the brutality of Shariah. TV crews battled one another to record the apologetic capitulation of the police-chief. But how many of them of them conducted a spirited interview or expose of these so-called community-leaders who brandished their wounded souls on account of a picture….of a puppy……on a poster??? Should these Islamists not have been scorned,  ridiculed and laughed out of town for their utter idiocy – not to mention imperiousness? Instead we treated their whimsical and feigned outrage with fawning indulgence.

It is this kind of pusillanimity that multiculturalism fetes and celebrates and it is the same kind of pusillanimity that Islamists prey upon when they extract concessions by flaunting their bruised psyche. One can easily see how one capitulation emboldens Islamists to up the ante. Pretty soon they will be demanding Shariah in Britain and Europe.  WAIT…..! They already are!!

So long as we are enamored of the idea that pandering to religious allergies is a noble enterprise we will always subvert the secular principles that gave us progress in the first place.  I focus on Islam because Islam and the wickedness it engenders needs to be exposed. Currently it is proliferating unabated under the protective benevolence of an intellectually vapid construct called multiculturalism.

P.S.

I want to clarify that I am not opposed to the intermingling of peoples and cultural diversity. At the same time, I want to assert that it is not incumbent upon a secular society to make room for the most pernicious aspects of religious doctrines just to appease the most virulent amongst its adherents. Such pandering is not a virtue. It does not tame the alligator (or is it Allah-gator?) – it only increases its appetite for blood. This is because the root-cause of Islamic Terror is Islam itself.