Simply being near a church makes people more hostile to outsiders

"In a recent study, Jordan LaBouff (University of Maine) worked with colleagues at Baylor College to discover whether attitudes to different groups are affected by subliminal Christian priming.

[...]

So what effect does religious priming have on ordinary people? To test this, LaBouff stopped people at random outside a church in the Netherlands (and, to check if the effect was culturally specific, a few people outside Westminster Abbey in London). He asked them a series of questions, including asking them to rate their attitudes to different groups on a 1-10 scale.

He also stopped some other people in a location that contained only civic buildings (in England, the location chosen was the Houses of Parliament).

[...]

But, as you can see from the graph, attitudes towards every single group were more hostile when people were asked outside a church. All the differences are statistically significant (except the difference in attitudes towards Christians)."

Epiphenom.fieldofscience.com, Tom Rees, Saturday, February 04

 

Attitudes towards different groups vary depending on where you ask the question.

Christianity 'could die out within a century'

"Research by the Orthodox Jewish organisation Aish found that just over a third of people thought religions like Christianity and Judaism would still be practiced in Britain in 100 years' time.
Although four in 10 people said they would choose to be a member of the Christian religion, almost the same number said they would rather practice no religion at all.
Buddhism however, proved more attractive than both Islam and Judaism, and was chosen by nine per cent of those questioned.
Aish UK's executive director Rabbi Naftali Schiff said the results of the YouGov poll of 2,000 people were alarming.
"It clearly demonstrates that religion, including Judaism, is becoming unattractive to the British public."

[...]

Research published earlier this year suggested that church attendance is declining so fast that the number of regular churchgoers will be fewer than those attending mosques within a generation.
According to Religious Trends, an analysis of religious practice in Britain, the huge drop off in attendance means that the Church of England, Catholicism and other denominations will become financially unviable.
In contrast, the number of actively religious Muslims is predicted to increase from about one million today to 1.96 million in 2035.

Telegraph.co.uk, 20/06/2008

No cause for alarm!
And for the panic mongers, this will definitely affect Islam too. Practising Muslims prefer to live in religious countries, even if they are Christian, and probably for good reasons.

Research Suggests Militant Jihadists Are Inspired By Night Dreams

"This is the conclusion of a study of the reported dreams of many of the best-known al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders carried out by Dr Iain Edgar a social anthropologist at Durham University.
Edgar identified four key themes from his research:

* Militant jihadists are inspired by night dreams
* Militant jihadists legitimize their actions partly on the basis of night dreams
* The inspirational night dream can be more 'real' than reality, connecting the individual to a mythical past
* Militant Jihadism can be directly authorized by dream content"

Medical News Today, 09 Jun 2008

Interesting, and slightly worrying, but after a quick search in the hadith it doesn't seem like such a big surprise after all.
Check out this link to the USC-MSA hadith collection and do a search for "Dream" in all four hadith collections, and you will get approximately 170 hits.

Here's one from the Bukhari collection:

"Volume 1, Book 5, Number 260: Narrated Maimuna:
The Prophet took the bath of Janaba. (sexual relation or wet dream). He first cleaned his private parts with his hand, and then rubbed it(that hand) on the wall (earth) and washed it. Then he performed ablution like that for the prayer, and after the bath he washed his feet. "

Muslim sex offenders may opt out of treatment

"Muslim sex offenders may be allowed to opt out of a prison treatment programme because it is against their religion, it has emerged. The Prison Service's Muslim advisor has said there is a "legitimate Islamic position" that criminals should not discuss their crimes with others. Under the Sex Offender Treatment Programme (SOTP), which treats more than 600 prisoners including rapists and sexual killers each year, offenders must discuss their crime, sometimes in groups."

Telegraph.co.uk, 09/04/2008

This is fucking ridiculous.
If they're going to serve longer sentences instead, that's one thing, but if the programme works, then that is the most important aspect. They can not wave their stupid religion for everything :

"Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Rome, 4.XI.1950"

It's fairly obvious that if they deny to take part in the programme, and end up raping again, then they have use their religion to infringe upon others' rights.

Fundamentalists of all stripes want to turn back the clock

"Despite all their theological and cultural differences, fundamentalists of every faith share at least one common characteristic: resistance to modernity. That’s the assessment of scholars and firsthand observers who have evaluated the varieties of religious expression. “Fundamentalism worldwide is religious anti-modernism,” noted Roger Olson, professor of theology at Baylor University’s George W. Truett Theological Seminary. “Fundamentalism reacts against various types of modernity,” echoed Bill Leonard, a church historian and dean of the Wake Forest University Divinity School. Whether it’s Baptist preachers J. Frank Norris and Jerry Falwell calling America to return to pre-scientific Christianity or Ayatollah Khomeini and Muqtada al-Sadr calling Muslims to resist the intrusion of Western decadence, fundamentalism finds a home in most major faith groups."

Associated Baptist Press, April 1, 2008

It's a long article crammed with points. Apart from being against modernity there were four other subjects discussed: Dogmatic Faith, Identity, Fear and Politics.
It's the first in a series on Fundamentalism at Associated Baptist Press.

Arabs campaign for women to "Take off the Veil"

"A group of Arabic websites and blogs have launched an international campaign against the Muslim headscarf (hijab), arguing the move is a response to what they see as “intellectual terrorism” practiced by strict Islamic groups and individuals.
The campaign is called "Take Off The Veil”, and was launched March 8, 2008 to coincide with International Women's Day.

[...]

Manea, a professor of Yemeni descent and who works in Switzerland, said she believes the headscarf was never part of Islam and chose International Women's Day for the campaign as she views the headscarf as a symbol of women's oppression and to warn women deceived by Islamists into putting "this rag on their heads."[more]"

Al Arabiya, 10 March 2008

Not bad at all!

EU concerned by growing use of religious defamation laws worldwide

"The European Union wants to stop the growing worldwide trend of using religious defamation laws to limit free speech. EU diplomats in Geneva are asking United Nations human rights experts Wednesday to suggest ways to protect freedom of expression better in the face increasing legal threats. Slovenia, which holds the rotating EU presidency, says journalists around the world face harsh penalties ranging from indirect censorship to heavy fines. Germany says it is particularly worried about a recently signed Arab charter that limits broadcasters' rights. Islamic countries are pushing for stricter international laws against religious defamation in the wake of Muslim anger over cartoons of their prophet Muhammad."

International Herald Tribune, March 12, 2008

Denmark: Headscarf a woman's choice

"Many Danes think that Muslim women who wear a headscarf do so because their father or husband forces them to, but that is completely wrong, according to a new study by analysis institute Catinét. 391 women and 321 men of non-Danish background were asked about their attitude towards the headscarf.
42% of the women said it was 'important' or 'very important'. Just 29% of the men answered the same. Especially women who didn't feel integrated and didn't have Danish friends thought that the headscarf was important.
The study concludes that wearing a headscarf appears to be a high degree to be a woman's own choice.
Camilla Elg of Aalborg University wrote a PhD on immigrant women and their clothing. She says she didn't hear women say they're doing it because their husband or father told them to. It's a big prejudice that this is the common reason. Then are many other reasons but it's often a personal act.
She says many women choose the headscarf to express resistance. They feel they're worth less in our society. They think: if I'm going to be foreign, I'll choose how. They show they have their own identity. The headscarf can be a way to show that you're standing up for your background and religious orientation."

Translated by Islamineurope.blogspot.com, Danish source Nyhedsavisen 10. March 2008

I've tried to find the actual numbers, but that was difficult. The analysis institute Catinét has not yet listed this among their own news. Maybe they will. But if 42% think it's important or very important, we may conclude that 58% don't. However, it's fairly clear that the newest or least integrated women are the ones who stick closest to traditions.
Another interesting thing is the gender gap. Muslim men (it doesn't say that, but I sure hope they didn't ask Swedes and Argentinians) tend to be demonized, while the women are portrayed only as victims. But this is a fairly good example showing that women have a choice, and that women themselves are often upholders of patriarchal cultures.
Although here, another thing is important: Muslim women tend to stay more at home than other women, and get less contact with the rest of society, so they're not going to be as integrated as men.

Young Iraqis are losing their faith in religion

"After almost five years of war, many young Iraqis, exhausted by constant firsthand exposure to the violence of religious extremism, say they have grown disillusioned with religious leaders and skeptical of the faith that they preach.
In two months of interviews with 40 young people in five Iraqi cities, a pattern of disenchantment emerged, in which young Iraqis, both poor and middle class, blamed clerics for the violence and the restrictions that have narrowed their lives.
"I hate Islam and all the clerics because they limit our freedom every day and their instruction became heavy over us," said Sara Sami, a high school student in Basra. "Most of the girls in my high school hate that Islamic people control the authority because they don't deserve to be rulers."

[...]

"In the beginning, they gave their eyes and minds to the clerics, they trusted them," said Abu Mahmoud, a moderate Sunni cleric in Baghdad, who now works deprogramming religious extremists in American detention. "It's painful to admit, but it's changed. People have lost too much. They say to the clerics and the parties: You cost us this."
"When they behead someone, they say 'Allah Akbar,' they read Koranic verse," said a moderate Shiite sheik from Baghdad. "The young people, they think that is Islam. So Islam is a failure, not only in the students' minds, but also in the community."
A professor at Baghdad University's School of Law, who would identify herself only as Bushra, said of her students: "They have changed their views about religion. They started to hate religious men. They make jokes about them because they feel disgusted by them.""

International Herald Tribune, March 3, 2008

Hopefully this leads somewhere.

Fervor and Frustration

"In Egypt, where the people have always been religious and conservative, young people are now far more observant and strict in their interpretation of their faith. A generation ago, for example, few young women covered their heads, and few Egyptian men made it a practice to go to the mosque for the five daily prayers.
In 1986, there was one mosque for every 6,031 Egyptians, according to government statistics. By 2005, there was one mosque for every 745 people - and the population has nearly doubled.
Egypt has historically fought a harsh battle against religious extremism. But at the same time, its leaders have tried to use religion for their own political gains. The government of President Hosni Mubarak - whose wife, Suzanne, remains unveiled - has put more preachers on state television.
"The whole country is taken by an extreme conservative attitude," said Mohamed Sayed Said, deputy director of the government-financed Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo. "The government cannot escape it and cannot loosen it."

TheLedger.com, March 1, 2008

Why religion is the cause of religious terrorism

"[According to former CIA officer Marc Sageman. ] the first wave of Al-Qaeda leaders, who joined Osama bin Laden in the 1980s, is now down to a few dozen people on the run in the tribal areas of northwest Pakistan. The second wave of terrorists, who trained in Al-Qaeda's camps in Afghanistan during the 1990s, has also been devastated, with about 100 hiding out on the Pakistani frontier. These people are genuinely dangerous, says Sageman, and they must be captured or killed. But they do not pose an existential threat to America, much less have the power to provoke a "clash of civilizations."

It's the third wave of terrorism that is growing, but what is it? By Sageman's account, it's a leaderless hodgepodge of thousands of what he calls "terrorist wannabes." Unlike the first two waves, who were well-educated and intensely religious, the new jihadists are a weird species of the Internet culture. Outraged by video images of Americans killing Muslims in Iraq, they gather in password-protected chat rooms and dare each other to take action. Like young people across time and religious boundaries, they are bored and looking for action.

"It's more about hero worship than about religion," Sageman said in a presentation of his research last week at the New America Foundation, a liberal think tank in Washington. Many of this third wave don't speak Arabic or read the Koran. Very few (13 percent of Sageman's samples) have attended radical religious schools. Nearly all join the movement because they know or are related to someone who's already in it. Those detained on terrorism charges are getting younger: In Sageman's 2003 sample, the average age was 26; among those arrested after 2006, it was down to about 20. They are disaffected, homicidal kids - closer to urban gang members than to motivated Muslim fanatics."

David Ignatius, Daily Star (Lebanon), February 28, 2008

Ever since 9. September 2001, there has been people from all sorts of backgrounds who have tried to state again and again and again that religion has nothing to do with terror. For a large part, this is pure revisionism based upon unwillingness to face the truth that religions carry a lot of unhealthy ideas.

With the same logic, WW2 didn't happen because of Nazi ideology, but because of the Versailles treaty. No-one would doubt that the Versailles treaty had an effect, but you would have to be retarded to say that National-Socialism had nothing to do with it. But let's move from WW2 to present day neo-nazism. It is of course a bleak shadow of the heyday of NS-DAP. Hitler is their hero, and that's about it. A lot of the racist attacks on immigrants etc. happen because the racist is an uneducated, unemployed drunkard. But he is also a fan of Hitler, and Nazi ideology offer the framework where attacking immigrants on the street is OK. The SA would have done it like they do, and the SS would have been more thorough.

That's what the afore mentioned revisionists don't see, that while the jihadi theology may be a poor excuse, it is still a theology. They have simply distilled certain values from traditional Islam. (And if Islam was a really peaceful religion, as is often claimed, then this would be impossible.) The fact that the majority of Muslims may have a different view doesn't matter, because the majority of Christians had a different view than Martin Luther when he begun his work too. All religious reformers start off at the fringes.

I think Marc Sageman is onto something when using three categories of terrorists, like above. The London bombings was a copycat crime by fans. No doubt about that. And they're probably not very well edumecated in Islam either. But their faith provided a framework for the act, and Islam provided a framework for jihadi interpretation.

Indonesia: Mass trances are in vogue

"Religion, education and development have done little to budge widespread acceptance of the supernatural among Indonesia's diverse ethnic and religious groups. "In Indonesia, trance is tied up with culture," said Lidia Laksana Hidajat, research coordinator in the psychology faculty of Jakarta's Atma Jaya University.

[...]

"They were working in silence. That's one of the requirements of a trance to happen - it's usually quiet and when they are engaged in monotonous activity."

Suddenly, one of the workers started screaming and her body went stiff. The one next to her started crying and went stiff too. Others tried to help but soon they started too in a kind of domino effect.

A local Muslim leader was summoned, but his prayers had no effect. Eventually, the exhausted women fell asleep and upon awakening they remembered nothing.

Hidajat concluded that the mass trance had more to do with exhaustion and stress than evil spirits.

[...]

"Often they are people who are very religious or under pressure. They were also from low socio-economic backgrounds and many said they didn't have happy childhoods," she said.

"All the trance dancers I met in Bali had similar vulnerable personalities."

iol.co.za, February 25 2008

Understanding Islam

"[Professor John Kelsay who teaches at Florida State University] explained there are three types of Muslims.
Militants, like al-Qaida members, want to restore God’s law. Because they believe all human beings are born Muslim, they think their actions are for the good of mankind, Kelsay said.
The second group, which is the vast majority of Muslims, supports an Islamic state but objects to how groups like al-Qaida try to establish it. They believe the problems that plague the West are based on too much freedom and a lack of a moral compass; the fruit of not having a religious establishment, Kelsay said.
The third group, which is the smallest, is Muslim democrats."

Nwfdailynews.com, February 27th, 2008

Of course, the problem here is that the so-called moderates (i.e. the middle group) still seem to long for a caliphate of sorts. As of now, they seem to be fence-sitters, but they need to realize that there are many more problems plaguing the East than the West and that it is they who should fix their own dysfunctional moral compasses. Incidentally, if they do so, I think the West will have less problems too.
The Muslim democrats need all the support they can get, of course.

Here's a video of the professor speaking too:

The List of Things That Offend Muslims

The Amboy Times has a year old blogpost called "The List of Things That Offend Muslims". It is a post that keeps growing, as readers submit new stories about some complaint from some Muslim about some aspect of society the rest of us may take for granted. (I submitted the story about a grandmother who was refused service by Muslim staff when she tried to buy a book on bible stories for children.)
A lot of comments, both at Amboy times and at The Friendly Atheist say that it is unfair to use these loonies as examples of what Muslims in general do. I don't really think anyone does that(and most of us are quite happy to cheer at reasonable Muslims), but the fact remains: these complaints keep coming and they drag all Muslims with them down into the mud.
Of course, Christians have been complaining too, for 2000 years. Being persecuted is part of but their image. But complaints have weakened over time, though perhaps less so in USA.

It is all these complaints, whether they come from Muslims or anyone else(they are not alone), that made me think differently about Freedom of Religion. There should be a freedom to believe, express yourself and gather. But these outlandish demands must be curtailed. In the post "Freedom of religion has become a mockery and must be abolished" I mentioned that the beliefs, expressions and being able to gather is guaranteed even without Freedom of Religion:


However, I could have done more than that. I know there are some reasonable demands that goes outside the strictly intellectual frame. I then checked out the "European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms"

As you see, here are some limitations:

Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

I think it is time that the devout community stop thinking of religious freedom as being able to do what they like in the name of their own religion. There are very real limitations, and they are here for very good reasons.
This is not just in the interest for Atheists to focus on. The example with the grandmother and the bible stories show as much. Not to mention that medical students disobeying hygiene rules because they are so much holier than the rest of us end up putting us all at risk.

The worst thing about many of these demands is that they're easy to see through as modern fundamentalism, and not rooted in a traditional interpretation of religion.

A note on Walkers Crisps and alcohol:
Before:

[The isolation of alcohol] as a relatively pure compound was first achieved by Muslim chemists who developed the art of distillation during the Abbasid caliphate, the most notable of whom were Jabir ibn Hayyan (Geber), Al-Kindi (Alkindus) and al-Razi (Rhazes). The writings attributed to Jabir ibn Hayyan (721-815) mention the flammable vapors of boiled wine. Al-Kindi (801-873) unambiguously described the distillation of wine.[2]

Today:

Furious Muslims have heavily criticised Walkers crisps after it emerged that certain varieties of the manufacturer's products contain trace elements of alcohol.

How the mighty have fallen. These Walkers whiners are not only a nuisance to modern secular society, they are a disgrace to their own heritage.

I'll end with a recent Memri clip of a reasonable Muslim:
Shiite Saudi Scholar Hassan Al-Saffar Laments the State of the Sciences in the Arab and Islamic World

Most Britons belong to no religion

"Freedom from religion in Britain is becoming as important as freedom of religion, according to a United Nations investigation.
A 23-page report by Asma Jahangir, the UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, says that the 2001 census findings that nearly 72 per cent of the population is Christian can no longer be regarded as accurate. The report claims that two thirds of British people do not admit to any religious affiliation.
The report calls for the disestablishment of the Church of England. It says that the role and privileges of the Church do not reflect “the religious demography of the country and the rising proportion of other Christian denominations”.
The report says that there is an “overall respect for human rights and their value” but it gives warning of discrimination against Muslims.
Citing research that 80 per cent of Muslims in Britain feel that they have been discriminated against, the report singles out the Terrorism Act 2000 for particular criticism. Under the Act police in some areas can stop and search people without having to show reasonable suspicion.
The report says that this affects ethnic and religious minorities more than other groups, especially since the bombings of July 7, 2005. Figures for 2004 to 2006 “show that searches of people with Asian appearance under this provision increased by 84 per cent, compared to an increase of only 24 per cent for white people”.
The report’s author also criticises terms in the Terrorism Act 2006 for being “overly broad and vaguely worded”."

The Times, February 22, 2008

Now here are good news and bad news. The good news, that most Britons are non-religious are very good.

The bad news is of course discrimination. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the report anywhere, so I'm not sure about what's been written on the issue. But you know things have gotten out of hand in Britain when an Iraqi minister is surprised to see so much extremists in the mosques:

"UK mosques too radical for Iraq, says minister
Dr Barham Salih commented that some of the mosques he had seen in Blackburn during a visit to the UK as a guest of Jack Straw were highly radicalised, and that it was unsurprising that Britain had problems with extremism.

[...]

"I am not surprised that you British are facing so many problems with extremists after what I saw in those mosques in Blackburn," he said. "What I saw ... would not be allowed here in Iraq - it would be illegal.""

Telegraph.co.uk, 24/01/2008

There has also been plenty of examples lately where Muslims have been behaving badly. I wrote this earlier:

Lately, we have seen a couple of disturbing developments where freedom of religion has been used to make other people's lives miserable. Muslim staff at Sainsbury in England refused to handle alcohol, Muslim staff at Marks & Spencer refused to sell a book of bible stories, Muslim medical students refuse to learn about alcohol or sexual diseases and finally: Muslim medical students are refusing to obey hygiene rules."

Oh, and I forgot setting up sharia courts and blowing up bombs and stuff. Not to mention the episode after the "Undercover mosque" documentary where the West Midlands Police discriminated against Channel 4 for trying to do their job when the WMP clearly didn't.
Have these Muslims been discriminated against? No, not apart from those working for Channel 4. Will their persistent Koran-pushing result in a bad-tempered British society who is willing to cut corners, resulting in discrimination of innocent Muslims and non-Muslims who may look like Muslims? No doubt, and that's a shame.

So I hope that Asma Jahangir also has a solution for the religious bigots who I am sure will scream discrimination whenever they can.

Sweden: Muslims required to divorce according to Sharia law

"The social services in Karlshamn are apparently discriminating against Muslims. Muslims who apply for welfare support need to show a certificate that they've been divorced, not only from a court, but also from an imam.
Susanne Loveheim, head of the welfare services in Karlshamn says that it isn't a strange procedure since Muslim custom requires them to go through an imam for the divorce to be considered complete.
The discrimination ombudsman (DO) is critical of this procedure since it discriminates against Muslims. Katri Linna, discrimination ombudsman, says that it's clear that they've been divorced according to Swedish law, and there's no reason for a special certificate. The DO wants the municipality of Karlshamn to stop the special requirement from Muslims. They will continue to take up the matter with the National Board of Health and Welfare and will make sure that they tighten up their guidelines.
Sweden Radio has discovered that Örebro also requires a divorce certificate from an imam. The DO is now considering to start a nation-wide investigation to see how wide-spread this procedure is and whether it's discriminatory against Muslims.

Islamineurope.blogspot.com, February 20, 2008

Now, apart from the shock-horror factor, this poses an interesting problem. Firstly, it shows how unfair a multiculturalist interpretatation of sharia is. There is one law for muslims and one for others. Some nominal Muslims may not feel the need for an Imam to bother, and should not have to deal with him.
However, there's the welfare thing. What if you are a more or less devout Muslim, who do not think that you are properly divorced unless you are divorced by an imam. Technically, a secular divorce then, is no divorce. Yet, you get welfare benefits.
Of course, a proper divorce means you don't live together, but I'm starting to think that this isn't really a multiculturalist invention, it's someone trying to save money by making sure Muslims are through and through divorced.
But it's completely wrong. The only way to deal with this is to make sharia divorces completely irrelevant. Who on earth brought this up in the first place? It should be outlawed.
Muslims must all recognize Swedish law. And Swedish law must recognize Muslims when they do.

The Silence of the progressives is deafening

"And in response to this barbarism, the silence of the Progressives in the west is deafening. They will go out of their ways to appease the dictators in Tehran, as if engaging a bunch of religious despots is the new sign of open-mindedness. They are ready to talk to the Mullahs with no pre-conditions!! Isn´t that heart-warming? No pre-conditions!! Not even requiring them to show minimal respect for the most basic human rights of their citizens. It is utterly sad to see the progressives who should stand alongside the people, so easily forget the oppressed masses and silently recognize their oppressors. It is very disturbing to watch them turn a blind eye to these executions and massacres by the fundamentalist regime ruling Iran. After all, progressives claim to be the voices of conscience and humanity; do they not? In the short run, they are not the ones who would pay for their own appeasement and conciliatory policy towards the clerical regime. Iranian people are the victims of the twisted policy of "watching the mullahs´ ruthlessness and turning your face away". Iranian women are the ones suffering the brunt of it, as the second class citizens in a society that treats them so harshly.

[...]

And as the Great Civil Rights leader of this land, Dr. Martin Luther King said: "In the end, they will remember not the words of their enemies but the silence of their friends"."

Jila Kazerounian (WFAFI)American Chronicle/ncr-iran.org February 5, 2008

Karen Armstron on secularism

"Q: Is the separation of religion from politics practicable in the context of Islam?
A: It has worked very well for us in the west, and one of the reasons for that is that when we did mix religion and politics during our modernisation period, it was a horror. There were terrible wars of religion in the 17th century that left 35 percent of the population dead. This was one of the great catastrophes of European history, and it was that experience which made the enlightenment - people said, ‘No, we’ll keep politics out of religion.’ Now, we had a long time to develop institutions - we didn’t have to do it overnight.
In the Muslim world, secularism has been introduced far too rapidly. When Kemal Ataturk secularised Turkey, he closed down all the madrassas and pushed the Sufis underground; the Shah of Iran used to make the soldiers go out with their bayonets, taking off the women’s veils and ripping them into pieces in front of them. In this context, secularism seems like an assault upon religion — it is too quick, and this has given it a bad name.

The News(Pakistan), February 03, 2008

She's right here. It is tragic that secularism has been given a bad name in the Middle East, simply because it was forced upon people. (Same thing with USSR for that matter.) However, if there's a time for secularism among Muslims, it's now. We can hardly let 35% of the population die so they will appreciate secularism they way we do. But no bayonets.

"My next book will be titled ‘The Case for God.’ It looks at some of the modern atheists; the movement of atheism; and how the present-day atheism is due to bad modern theology. The book will be with the publisher by September 2009."

Turkey: After Headscarves, What's Next?

"What will happen now that the turban is permitted? [turban: "a specific, nontraditional type of headwear that arose in Turkey during the early 1980s after first appearing in other Muslim countries. The turban exposes no hair and, unlike the other scarves, covers part of the face."] Conditions in much of Istanbul and the West will not change much. In low-tolerance areas, however, things will be different. In rural central Turkey, women may feel uncomfortable without the turban, and in the southeast women will feel compelled to wear them. Instead of resolving the issue, lifting the turban ban will create a new problem for the many Turkish women who choose to not wear the turban. These women will be under social pressure to conform to the new practice of "virtuous living."
In order to resolve this issue, the AKP must convince the Turkish population that it is ready to protect women who do not wear the turban and that it is genuinely interested in women's freedom. For instance, the AKP could pass legislation protecting women who do not cover their heads as well as those who do. According to a recent poll, 10 percent of women who cover their heads are forced to do so by their families and husbands. What is more, to assure secular Turks that it is not a single-issue party, the AKP should pass the turban legislation as part of a package of freedoms and liberties towards European Union (EU) accession -- lately, the party has shied away from EU reforms. Third, the AKP should allow more room for debate; the amendments passed after only three weeks of public discussion.
In the absence of these steps, Turkey will not necessarily become a fundamentalist state overnight, but it will become a country in which one symbol of religious practice -- the turban -- will become universally enforced in many areas. Religious homogenization will ensue, resulting in court interventions and counter-protests by secular Turks. What lies ahead for Turkey is a period of soul-searching and, unfortunately, political turmoil, until the country settles on a new balance between religion and politics."

Soner Cagaptay, Washingtoninstitute.org/PostGlobal, February 13, 2008

Johann Hari: Rowan Williams has shown us one thing – why multiculturalism must be abandoned

"We don't need to speculate about what these British sharia courts would look like. They already exist in some mosques across Britain, as voluntary enterprises.

[...]

These are the courts that Rowan Williams would give the stamp of British law. In his lecture, he worries that this could harm women – before serving up a theological gloop, saying that sharia could be reinterpreted in a way compatible with the rights of women. But if that happens, why would you need different courts? What would be the point?

The argument that women will only have to enter these courts if they freely choose to shows a near-total disconnection from the reality of Muslim women's lives. Most of the women who will be drawn into "consenting" are, like Nasirin, recent immigrants with little idea of their legal options. Then there are the threats of excommunication – or violence – from some families. As the Muslim feminist Irshad Manji puts it: "When it comes to contemporary sharia, choice is theory; intimidation is the reality."
These courts highlight in their purest form the problem with multiculturalism. It has become a feel-good doctrine mindlessly celebrating "difference", without looking at what that difference actually means.

[...]

Multiculturalism was formed with good intentions as a counter-reaction. But it has become a mirror-image of this old racism, treating Muslim women – and others – as so different that they do not deserve the same rights as the rest of us. As the European-Iranian feminist Azar Majedi puts it: "By creating different laws and judicial systems for each ethnic group, we are not fighting racism. In fact, we are institutionalising it."
When people talk about defending Muslim culture, ask them – which culture? The culture of Irum and Nasireen, or the culture of their abusive husbands? Multiculturalism patronisingly treats immigrants as homogenous blocks – when in fact they are as diffuse and dissenting as the rest of us.

[...]

The job of a liberal state is not to stamp The True National Essence on its citizens, nor to promote "difference" for its own sake. It is to uphold the equal rights of every individual – whether they are white men or Muslim women. It has one liberal culture, with freedoms used differently by different people."

Johann Hari, Independent, 11 February 2008

Here's the same piece on his website.

I'll throw in a comment that Irshad Manji made earlier this year:

"Superficial diversity reduces all of us to external markers of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation and the like. Far more meaningful to elevate ourselves to different ways of thinking. It’s high time to popularize the distinction between diversity of thought, which recognizes individuality, and diversity of appearance, which glorifies only the group."