Not liking seeing a woman in a burqa is part of my cultural make-up, and has never changed the way I’ve dealt with any woman wearing one. It’s just that from my point of view, I find it hard to imagine a woman wearing one by choice, so I always wonder if it is a choice. However, as most of the women I know who wear burqas are doctors, they’re obviously intelligent, and I know enough about them to know they’re wearing them by choice too, it’s actually a prejudice on my part. So I’m not judging, I’m acknowledging that it’s a mindset I have to be careful of. If you have time to read the article I did about World Hijab Day, you’ll see I try hard not to judge.

On a better note, we’ve got our first wicket, although Aussie is batting pretty impressively. 34/1 2.5 overs.

It’s something I need to look into more. I’ll check out the article. I need to read more books too. I get the impression the hadiths are unreliable from what I know. I haven’t read a biography of Mohammed – it’s another thing on my must do list!.

We can’t be sure of what happened 100 years ago, so obviously when we’re talking about a religion that is 1400 years old, we cannot be sure whether any of it has changed or not. You might be interested in reading:

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

I think there is plenty of evidence that Mohammed existed, I don’t think Pete Townsend’s book is a particularly great one (from the bits I have read), it’s a bit like Robert Spencer’s book on whether Mohammed existed, and I think Tom Holland’s documentary was quite decent although he made the same mistakes as Pete Townsend, and jumped to some wrong conclusions (such as Mohammed isn’t mentioned till 60 years after his death when in fact he is mentioned in non-Muslim sources just 2 years after his death).

I do however believe that things like the Hadiths and biography of Mohammed are very unreliable.

Why don’t you like seeing a woman in a burkha? What if she decided she wanted to wear it out of her own free-will … are you saying she could not be intelligent enough and independent enough to make her own decision to wear it? What gives you the right to judge her?

I often wear my baseball cap back to front, and some of my friends have a “problem” with it! That is one thing I have just never understood – why people get upset about the way someone else is dressed.

Thanks for your comments. I won’t specifically respond to everything right now, but I do want to let you know I’m opposed to France’s and Germany’s laws banning Holocaust denial. I’ve said that in another post recently, and given my reasons, but I think it was in the Comments.

The pamphlets being sent around your daughter’s neighbourhood sound awful. In NZ the police would probably step in as we have hate speech laws. However, stuff like that is almost unheard of here. I see it as support for my argument that the threat of islamists needs to be specifically named otherwise people conflate groups like DAESH with all Muslims.

I am sorry to hear that you are in constant pain Heather. Is there nothing that can be done? I know that the most powerful pain relievers can have bad side effects, but there are many products out there. I hope that your condition will improve. Please don’t worry about timely responses to my rants. I’m pleased to get a response at any time.

And thanks for the example of my offensive language. What I should have said is that he continued to give unconditional support for Israel even while Israel was slaughtering over 2,000 Palestinians, many of them innocent women and children. That is still a strong condemnation of his position, as I meant it to be. But I agree that it was inaccurate to say he supported the slaughter. I apologize.

I also confess that although I read The End of Faith, I do not follow Sam Harris that closely and I may have mischaracterized him. I try to base me arguments on facts, but if I had to be certain I understand all of the nuances of everything I talk about, I could never discuss anything. This is especially true when discussing someone who is trying to make fine distinctions. Such as “denounce the Islamic extremists, but not the peaceful Muslims, but polls show that most peaceful Muslims support he extremists.” I haven’t yet listened to the Harris video but will try to do so today (right now, my furnace is out and it is 9 degrees F here).

I usually assume in an online discussion that if I get something wrong, someone will correct me. I value discussions of this sort in part because it gives me an opportunity to learn from others and correct and refine my views. I don’t take offense at being contradicted, although I will defend my views if I think they are correct.

I agree that it is offensive for anyone to make death threats or to say that Harris has blood on his hands because of the Chapel Hill murders. But the hatred cuts both ways. In the Boston suburb of Revere MA, close to where my daughter lives, pamphlets have been posted and strewn about that say “We must kill all Muslims in America” and “All Muslims in America and Europe will be killed”. A high school friend just posted on Facebook: “Make no mistake, Islam does not believe in ultimate co-existence with non-Muslims. We need to destroy ISIS and the sooner the better. And, keep a real close eye on Muslims in this country.” This feeling is widespread in America and the hatred is being fanned by influential groups, such as the right wing media. That is why I hate to see atheists join in the onslaught. People here get hysterical. Why else did we invade Iraq when Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and the UN inspectors said there was no evidence of WMD programs?

Lastly Heather, I did not mean to be saying that you are curtailing my freedom of speech. I have plenty of outlets for freedom of speech. You have no responsibility to host my speech on your blog. I was trying to spark a discussion on limits to freedom of speech by comparing my statements with those of the commenter and the Charlie Hebdo artists. Are there no limits? I don’t necessarily want the government to censor insulting characterizations like some in Hebdo, but I would hope that other voices would rise up to disown, contradict, and even condemn them. And I think that in certain situations the government should step in. You are opposed to laws against apostasy, as am I, but do you also oppose Germany’s restrictions on pro-Nazi speech and holocaust denial? And there is often a fine line between criticizing someone’s views and insulting the person. I have noticed this for example in the commenters criticism of Reza Aslan and others (though not yours).

Anyway, respond at your leisure or not at all if you don’t feel up to it. I can handle being ignored as well as contradicted. I can be critical and blunt, but I don’t think I am vicious or hateful. Please continue to correct me if I cross the line. And I’ll be hoping for an improvement in your health (I don’t believe there is anyone “up there” to answer prayers, but I don’t think it hurts to know others are praying for you) 🙂

Sorry, should have talked about the New Republic article here instead of above. Also, forgot to answer about the Facebook group you’re talking about. I don’t know anything about it, and I’m not on Facebook, so can’t really comment. I have avoided Facebook because I don’t have the physical capacity to maintain it.

Hi. Yes, anyone can talk about anything they want that comes up. I feel like I get involved too much and dominate the conversation, which is not good. I not that good at shutting up when I have an opinion.

As to DAESH, I don’t think that in the West they’re as much as a threat as they appear to be, which is partly what my article was about. They’ve successfully made themselves appear much scarier than they really are because of the extreme level of their violence. It shocks us to our cores I think. It’s hard to get the images out of your mind of what they do, when far more people are in danger from domestic violence, alcohol abuse, smoking and other such things.

Thanks for the New Republic article you posted. I found it interesting, but I think she missed the point, although it’s the same point lots of people miss, especially if they’re religious. It is impossible to define the true form of any religion, so going down that path to defeat terrorists is very difficult. The interpretation of DAESH, WBC, David Koresh, Jehovah’s Witnesses or anyone else is ultimately just as valid as anyone else if you’re relying on scripture.

If people are going to be religious, there does need to be a focus on trying to make sure that religious leaders are teaching a form of religion that is peaceful, and relies on humanist, Enlightenment values. It needs to be done early – once someone has gone down the Islamist path, it’s very difficult to get them back.

Btw, Zuhdi Jasser of the Islamic Forum for Democracy is another one who supports my contention (I referred to Maajid Nawaz above) that it is more damaging to Muslims not to name the terrorists as Islamists, as it gives the impression the problem is all Muslims.

Saying DAESH are not truly Muslin is simply wrong. They are, and their goal is to return society to how it was in the time of Mohammed. There are multiple reasons for how we got to where we are, many of which everyone above has mentioned. We have to make sure we don’t repeat those mistakes, and in many cases stop making them (because we still are) but imo that’s separate from what we do going forward. There’s plenty of blame to go around – we need to focus on fixing the problem.

It’s when you use phrases like, “… his support for Israeli slaughter of Palestinians,” that I bristle. Jerry’s never done that. He has expressed why he supported Israel over Hamas in the latest conflict, which isn’t the same thing. He never supported “slaughter”. He also expressed, as I did on his site, where Israel was wrong. And, when I was criticizing Israel regarding a particular thing, and another commenter attacked me, Jerry stuck up for me saying that I was correct.

I feel similarly sometimes when you’ve attacked Sam Harris because I feel you’re mischaracterizing his arguments in much the same way as Glenn Greenwald and Reza Aslan do. They know better, as do you, but many of the people who read what they say don’t. I don’t know whether you’ve had a chance to listen to Sam Harris’s latest podcast yet, but as always it is an example of reasonableness. You can find it here: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-chapel-hill-murders-and-militant-atheism

He replays part of a recording from the BBC towards the end. It is from the Copenhagen cafe incident. As a woman was speaking about the importance of free speech, multiple shots ring out. It is sickening in its irony.

He also talks of how those who say he has blood on his hands following the Chapel Hill murders have put his life and his family’s life further at risk.

So I don’t like it when you say what I’m doing is curtailing your freedom of speech. I find that offensive in fact. You can criticize other people’s ideas, including mine, but please make the effort to be sure you’re representing those ideas fairly, and be respectful towards other commenters.

Also, I know it takes me a while to respond sometimes. 1. Remember the time difference between your home and NZ. 2. I am in constant pain. I am limited to how much I can manage each day. Oftentimes, I just have to ignore the computer. So my failure to respond to anyone is (usually) not personal.

Heather and other interested parties: Here is a thought provoking take on ISIS and religion. It suggests, I think, that religious affiliations are essentially meaningless. What does it mean to be a Muslim? How should a Muslim behave? Or ask the same question of Christian or Jew. In each case the answers are so varied as to defy categorization. It is a case where the standard deviation is so large as to make the mean meaningless. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121091/isis-islamic-credentials-spark-public-debate?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=TNR%20Daily%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=Daily%20Newsletter%20Template%20-%202%2F18%2F15 Interested to hear any comments.