Anti-Muslim bigotry is pervasive.

[rug]

Standing up against it is neither cowardly, nor the same as being an apologist for fanaticism. My reply to Nick Cohen on Richard Dawkins and prejudice

Owen Jones

Owen Jones is a columnist for The Independent. He was born in Sheffield and grew up in Stockport. After graduating, he worked as a trade union and parliamentary researcher. His first book, 'Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class', was published in June 2011. He is currently working on his second book, on the British Establishment, for Penguin.

Friday 23 August 2013

It's official: I'm no longer the Justin Bieber of the left. According to The Spectator's Nick Cohen, I'm now the Peter Hitchens of the left. Got to admit, I chuckled at that. Peter Hitchens is an ex-leftist who spends a considerable amount of time writing strawman attacks against the left in right-wing publications. Which is sort of what Nick Cohen does, too.

Cohen has rushed to Richard Dawkins' defence after the High Priest of New Atheism was criticised by numerous atheists for pejorative generalisations about Muslims, with pieces coming from myself in The Independent, Tom Chivers in The Telegraph, Martin Robbins in the New Statesman, and Daniel Trilling, the new editor of premier atheist rag the New Humanist. The problem is Cohen's piece is full of the sorts of strawman arguments that have characterised this whole exhausting “debate”.

Cohen writes that I think the same as "Craig Brown, Private Eye's high Tory satirist." Really? After a bit of Googling, I'm none the wiser as to whether Craig Brown thinks Dawkins has made bigoted generalisations about Muslims at a time when anti-Muslim prejudice is pandemic: if he does, he would be a rare voice on the right, with notable exceptions such as Peter Oborne.

Cohen then attacks me for a criticism I made about Dawkins tweeting: "Who the hell do these Muslims think they are? At UCL of all places, tried to segregate the sexes in debate." Cohen then adds: "If Jones can't see what is wrong with segregation, then not even an equality course for beginners can save him."

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/antimuslim-bigotry-is-pervasive-standing-up-against-it-is-neither-cowardly-nor-the-same-as-being-an-apologist-for-fanaticism-8782121.html

[cbayer]

1. Dawkins is a self-proclaimed anti-theist. And he seems to be an equal opportunity

anti-theist. Why would anyone be surprised that he comes across as an Islamophobe?

Anyway, there are clearly two teams here, and I suspect they will continue to battle it out. My prediction is that the old guard will slowly lose their group and the younger atheists will rise up to lead the movement through it's next phase.

Dawkins had a lot to do with kicking down the door, but now it's time for him to step aside and let others through it, imo.

[rug]

3. He genuinely does not see his anti-Muslim bigotry.

Remarkable.

[longship]

5. Dawkins was correct on the cited issue.

Islam has an absolutely horrible record on women's rights, like almost no other religion has.

Islamic republics are horrible places to live unless one is an Islamic male. We can see how they act when they have government power. I will note that this isn't unique to Islam. Any conservative religious movement would likely act the same.

But in the cited and similar cases, Islam owns this issue, whether they like it or not. If they don't like it, that's too damned bad.

I reserve the right to call them out.

[cbayer]

8. Being factually correct about something doesn't make it ok to use it

to denigrate others.

BTW, Dawkins history regarding women is not sterling. If I were him, I'd stay away from that issue.

My daughter is about to make a trip to Saudi Arabia. She will wear a hijab and spend a lot of time with women. I will be very, very interested on what she has to say. She is specifically visiting her new mother-in-law, who is a physician from Pakistan living in S.A.

You can call out anyone you wish and I am certainly not going to defend the patriarchal nature of most Muslim countries, but how individuals behave towards each other within families or communities or work environments may be more reflective of what is actually going on in many muslim cultures.

There are many women working from within to change things.

[edhopper]

25. What utter crap

In a country where woman can't drive and young girls die in a fire because male rescue workers weren't allowed to save them, you think if family members mostly treat each other well (Except for the fathers killing daughters in honor killings of course) then a few laws that treat woman as third class citizens is not big deal and not worth pointing out because it might offend someone.

Really?

[get the red out]

26. Thank you

Islam can't be spoken ill of, even when it's the truth! I guess that's what a lot of people feel like liberalism is anymore. I'm sorry, I'm a feminist first, then if I'm still allowed to be called a liberal since I care about the rights of all women, I'll be one.

[cbayer]

27. Where did I say that we should not point out the laws that discriminate against women?

What I am saying is that things may be different IRL.

I visited Turkey last year. I saw all kinds of women. Some were in Burkas, some in western clothing. Some were traveling alone, others in groups.

The one thing they did seem to have in common was that they did not appear intimidated or afraid.

I know that Turkey, and Istanbul in particular, is not representative of other Muslim countries, but I was most interested in the social structure.

At any rate, I support the groups and individuals that are working to address the heinous crimes against girls and women in this world. Some of those crimes are religiously driven and some are not. Much of the aid is coming from religious groups, but some of it is not.

Have you see "Half the Sky"?

[longship]

2. Complex issue.

I think I will take a Socratic position.

What does one do when a religion's adherents do bad things in the name of their religious beliefs? How does one handle such a situation?

Is stating that fact religious bigotry? Or, as is often implied, racism?

Does any religion, no matter what it is, which denies science, modern political reality, and equality of sexes have any credibility in the 21st century?

When religious people believe they have (or must have) domain over everybody, how is that different from any number of dictator regimes throughout history? When one uses similar arguments to sieze political power in order to promote ones own or to suppress alternative religious beliefs, how is that any different?

I am increasingly coming to the conclusion as an atheist that the world will likely never be rid of religion. But I also firmly believe that we ignore these questions at our global peril.

If we don't solve this, nobody can save us.

[cbayer]

4. The problem with you arguments, imo, are the over generalizations.

Criticizing the religion or the tenets of a given religion are one thing. Sweeping all who claim some adherence to that religion into the same basket and demonizing them is quite another.

Ok, so there are some adherents that do bad things. Talking about them specifically is not a problem. One might even use a qualifying word like militant or extremist. But one can not then generalize to all adherents.

Do you think most religious individuals believe they must have domain over everybody? I don't. Are there some religious individuals in positions of power that believe that? Most certainly.

Just look at Egypt. Although the vast majority of citizens are Muslim, they have ejected a theocratic leader. He might have said that he represented muslims in Egypt, but apparently he was wrong.

Religion as a tool to obtain power and control is not new, of course, and it's not going away. I agree with you that it needs to be challenged.

But to make blanket statements about muslims or christians or jews based on the behavior of some members is bigotry, imo.

[longship]

10. I can only judge them by their actions, my friend.

I don't give a damn what they believe as long as they keep it to themselves.

Interestingly, I live in a state which has the largest Islamic population in the Western Hemisphere. And they are all decent people who aren't acting like jerks.

I have stated here many times my position. When religion uses government or politics to extend their beliefs, nothing ever good results.

That is what I am against. And my tolerance for such excesses is non-existent.

As an atheist, I tolerate religion; I pretty much have to. Most religious people are good, tolerant folks. But when they go over the line I am going to take a very strong stance and I don't give a fuck what sect the belong to.

Sorry, for the passion, my friend. I just get sick and tired of some of this stuff.

Dawkins was right to call out the Islamics who wanted to separate the women in a public academic lecture. They claimed it was because of their religion. Fine. Then, they own the issue. Let them take the hindside as well.

As always. I appreciate your thoughtful response.

[rug]

6. I think the problem is attributing the behavior to the religion itself.

That works only if one has a particularly flat view of religion in general, or as in this case, to one religion in particular.

There are not one billion Muslims perpetrating terror or enslaving women. There is a wide spectrum within that belief.

IMO there is also significant dishonesty at work because he and others have no use for any religion at all, regardless of extreme practices.

The purpose of religion, regardless of how it's used, is not about science, politics or gender equality. It distorts an examination of religion by contorting it into those lenses.

Dominionist and caliphists are really more political movements that religions. Capitalism is by far a more pressing threat than those.

Conflating politics with religion is harmful, whether done by believers or nonbelievers. Until people stop falling for rhetoric and slogans, the harm will continue. That is my chief complaint about Dawkins.

[longship]

11. Well, they claimed it was because of their religious beliefs.

They likely invoked Islam or the Koran, as well. (Sorry, this is an old story and I cannot recall.)

They own this. If they don't like it, too damned bad.

Dawkins was entirely correct to call them out.

[rug]

12. And this country has invaded how many countries in the name of democracy?

Sorry, when it comes to serious issues I prefer the objective to the subjective.

[longship]

13. Huh?

Sorry, my friend. I don't understand your response. Seems like a non-sequitur to me. I thought this was about Islamic bias. Granted, I broadened it to religious bias in general which would seem at least relevant.

I just don't see how your response fits in.


Regardless, it's always good to see you around.

[rug]

14. Perhaps I'm simply more skeptical.

When these people claim to act in the name of Islam, I tend to look behind the curtain to see what's really going on. Especially, when there are so many Muslims who are not doing what these people say Islam compels. There's usually something else more readily apparent, such as political control, concentration of wealth, and the like. Sort of a political Occam's Razor. There's usually a simpler explanation.

I mentioned the U.S. because we've both heard ad nauseam about terror, WMD, chemical weapons and the like as a rationale for precipitous military action. To me, it's the same principle at work. Cui bono?

Sorry, I could have been clearer.

[longship]

16. No problem.

In this case it took place in London. See my post just below.

[longship]

15. Okay. Let me try again here.

A speech is scheduled at UCL by the campus Islamic society featuring a debate between physicist Lawrence Krauss and a guy representing Islam.

In spite of assurances to the contrary, the Islamic society segregated Islamic women from couples. (To the back of the bus with the single women!)

Lawrence Krauss, upon observing this, stated that he could not continue with the debate under these conditions. But when the organizers gave in, it went on.

Krauss and Dawkins blogged about this. The Guardian reported, as did many others.

Note that it was the Islamic Society who were responsible for this. They did this as a matter of their Moslem faith -- seemingly always a good catch all excuse in these matters.

So when Krauss and Dawkins call them out for their crass medieval mindset setting women as second class citizens, it's not the medieval mindset but Islamophobia?

I just don't get that argument.

If they argue that they're doing it because of their Islamic beliefs, they don't get to claim religious persecution when their actions are exposed as repugnant.

[rug]

17. So the gender segregation did not occur. Good for Krauss for standing firm.

Still, how does Dawkins go from this to a broadside against all Islam and all practicing Muslims? If there was any truth to the monolithic nature of Islam, why did he think an Islamic Society could integrate the audience?

The answer is that they could. Instead of lumping all of Islam into one kettle, he should be more intelligent about it and level his attack against those who did want to impose gender segregation.

[eomer]

31. Is that supposed to be a characterization of the tweet that Dawkins made?

Dawkins' remark was:

"Who the hell do these Muslims think they are? At UCL of all places, tried to segregate the sexes in debate."

I guess a possible (but stretch) interpretation is that Dawkins meant all Muslims when he said these Muslims, but a more likely one in my opinion is that he meant these Muslims who did this.

Or was there somewhere something more that he said about this incident that was clearly "a broadside against all Islam and all practicing Muslims"? Because I'm not getting that from this one tweet.

[rug]

32. It's a recitation of that tweet, his comment about Nobel prizes and about a dozen others.

He has a consistent record on this.

[eomer]

34. I believe you're mistaken about what you said.

You said this:

Still, how does Dawkins go from this to a broadside against all Islam and all practicing Muslims? If there was any truth to the monolithic nature of Islam, why did he think an Islamic Society could integrate the audience?

You've implied that he said something about this specific incident that he was not justified in saying. Perhaps you should retract and try again.

[rug]

35. Oh, do you think he has not said the rest?

Is his defense reduced to parsing internet posts?

[eomer]

40. The discussion begins at parsing internet posts, actually.

A more interesting discussion would be on the substance. For instance, are there factions or elements of Islam that represent a threat to secularist societies? If so, are there other factions in Islam that would join (or do join) in opposing that? Etcetera...

[rug]

41. Indeed there are factions.

Dawkins, however, does not recognize them. His criticism is of Islam as a whole, as an inherent evil.

[eomer]

42. You're extrapolating too much from that short clip. He does recognize factions.

The 71-year-old described Islam as “one of the great evils of the world” in his lecture, The God Delusion, as part of a rare visit to the Western Isles.

The talk delivered on Lewis during the Hebrides Book Festival proved a major hit among the 220-strong crowd. There was a waiting list of 60 people for tickets, after the event sold out within 40 minutes.

Members of the audience cheered loudly as Prof Dawkins used the appearance to attack Islam, while stressing that the “vast majority of 
Muslims” were not evil, only their religion was.

Prof Dawkins said: “We are terrified of being called ‘Islamophobic’. It is a disgrace a religion prescribes death for leaving it. The vast majority of Muslims would not dream of doing that, but they are taught it in their madrassas… and it only takes a minority to put that into practice. And, as 
we have seen, terrible things happen.”

http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/arts/news/there-s-no-god-and-islam-is-evil-speech-earns-richard-dawkins-ovation-from-islanders-1-2612951

Bolding added by me. It's clear from the above report that Dawkins' views are not as simplistic as your parsing of a short clip told you. He did in fact recognize and state that there are Muslims who don't follow the parts of Islam that he is criticizing. He makes it clear that it is the religion, and those specific parts of the religion, that he is calling out.

Interesting how quick you were to object to a short quote of yours being examined ("parsed&quot . Maybe you can reflect on whether you're doing the same to Dawkins.

[rug]

43. Well, no. He's distinguishing believers from the religion, not factions within the religion.

the “vast majority of 
Muslims” were not evil, only their religion was.

Bolding added by me.

[eomer]

44. Yes, factions.

The "vast majority of Muslims" were not evil, implying that others were.

[rug]

45. The issue is: Does he condemn the entire religion as inherently evil?

If the answer is yes, we can then move onto the metaphysics he employs to not call its adherents evil.

[eomer]

46. His problem is with faith, which is foundational to and indivisible from Islam, I would think.

I'm not sure whether that constitutes condemning the entire religion or not but I don't see how reframing it that way is helpful in understanding what he said. I would just leave it that what he meant was what he said. But maybe you have a reason for going there?

[rug]

47. It does constitute an untenable broad brush.

And the brush is not at all confined to the ideology.

It's Dawkins who is going there.

[eomer]

48. Sorry, how is it broad brush? n/t

[rug]

49. "All Islam is evil."

It also reflects a dismaying lack of intellectual nimbleness.

[eomer]

50. More nimbleness on your part in understanding what he's saying is IMO what's missing.

Members of the audience cheered loudly as Prof Dawkins used the appearance to attack Islam, while stressing that the “vast majority of 
Muslims” were not evil, only their religion was.

Prof Dawkins said: “We are terrified of being called ‘Islamophobic’. It is a disgrace a religion prescribes death for leaving it. The vast majority of Muslims would not dream of doing that, but they are taught it in their madrassas… and it only takes a minority to put that into practice. And, as 
we have seen, terrible things happen.”

He explicitly says it's not all Muslims, not the vast majority of Muslims. So that part is clearly not broad brush.

I guess if one wanted to intentionally mistake what he's saying then the second paragraph could be taken to mean that all madrassas teach that. But let's be more nimble than that and realize that if we had asked him if he meant all madrassas he would have said "of course not".

Clearly, to anyone who actually wants to get his meaning correctly rather than misconstrue it for argument's sake, he is criticizing specific aspects of Islam - the ones that he's pointed to explicitly.

[rug]

51. He is not criticizing "specific aspects of Islam"; he's criticizing it in toto.

Point out those aspects of Islam he is not condemning.

[eomer]

52. I don't believe he criticizes the giving of wealth to the poor and needy.

I'm sure there are more but one is enough to disprove your proposition.

[rug]

53. He approves alms.

Given his rhetoric and history, that hardly disproves anything. Especially since he would also claim there is nothing inherent in Islam about giving alms that a secular motive would not supply.

[cleanhippie]

33. No, you have it right. It's just that some NEED to hate him, so they misconstrue facts.

In this case, its "of course he meant ALL Muslims", so that they can now attack Dawkins.

[cbayer]

18. Just to be clear, this whole dust up is not just about his response to that one incident.

It's about a series of statements, the latest one having caused quite a bit of backlash among some prominent atheist writers.

This was the statement:

“All the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though.”

He did this in a tweet. Now, while that might be factually correct, it was at best inappropriate and at worst flat out bigoted. He claims it was taken out of context, but he should be bright enough to know that there is no context with Twitter. Each tweet is a stand alone and he made this one as an attack on Muslims in general.

What if he had said that all the worlds blacks have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge? Or all the worlds women?

He can try to explain it, but it's just the last in a series of his anti-theist bashes, this time aimed at Muslims.

I don't blame some atheists for wanting to distance themselves from him.

[longship]

19. Dawkins is always saying provocative things like that.

Sometimes he is his own enemy in that respect.

I still like him a lot. But recognize that I can like him while holding my nose to some of the things he says. Like Christopher Hitchens, who many here malign quite regularly. I see them as powerful, but imperfect, spokespersons for non-religious people.

No. I do not think that what they've said hurts the secular movement.

The persons who I most closely align with in the movement is Daniel Dennett, Victor Stenger, and Lawrence Krauss (the latter two no doubt because they are theoretical physicists, at one time my desired field).

I see nothing inherently wrong with saying provocative things. I confess to doing it myself. The object is that there may some truth in it.

But Dawkins' Nobel Prize comment was a bit over the top. I am sure that Steven Weinberg might stand up for his fellow physics Nobel recipient Abdul Salam, now regretfully dead. I would hope that Weinberg would educate Richard.

[cbayer]

20. I think they both provide a valuable service in kicking down some doors

and gave atheism some voice that it previously did not have. But the road they have taken is offensive and leads to hostility and divisions that are just not necessary, imo.

I am not as familiar with the others, but I find them much less hostile. I particularly like listening to Krauss, though he goes way over my head at times.

Being provocative is one thing. Being an offensive bigot is another. Something being "true" is not always that clear, and even is factually true, it may not be appropriate to say it, particularly on Twitter.

There are lots of reasons that most Nobel winners are white, western males. Lots. And using that skewed piece of data to attack a whole religion is lame.

[longship]

21. Nobel winners are white because the US wins an awful lot of them.

And we have our problems here, too, in spite of our cultural and racial diversity.

But what does one say when religious people act insane? When a Christian kills somebody because of their beliefs, is it not appropriate to ask what is it about Christianity that makes people act like this? Likewise, Islam, or any other religion.

I do not feel I owe any respect to a person's beliefs when they act that way and say it is because of their beliefs. And when they are caught and prosecuted, they inevitably have scores of people coming to their defense. This for, in many cases, horrible acts by any measure.

I know that people act similarly for politics, etc. And maybe I have my jaundiced eye on religion in general. But I don't see why people don't see that this is a very real problem in society today. That's my confessed bias.

I condemn Dawkins' intemperate words.

[cbayer]

22. Just because a religious person does something insane, that does

not mean that they did it because they are religious. Many psychotic people grab on to religion to try and explain the bizarre experiences they are having. I think it has much more to do with their psychiatric state than their religion.

Non-believers do insane things as well. Psychiatric illness has no religious preference, imo.

You, my friend, do have a jaundiced eye when it comes to religion, imo. Insane people do insane things. Some use religion as the reason, others do not.

And good people do some very good things at times. Sometimes they are also driven by their religious beliefs and for others, religion has nothing to do with. I stand with them whatever their motivation.

[longship]

23. I know what you are saying here.

But when a person says that they are doing something bad in the name of their religion and nobody stands up against it, what can one say?

Religion doesn't get a pass on such situations. Either they stand up, or they should take the hit to the credibility of their professions that they are good.

When religious people riot over perceived slights and nobody stands up and says that it's wrong to do that, they should be maligned publicly. When people of that same religion appear on the news media defending the chaos and violence, they should be laughed off the air.

My problem is this idea that religion should be held up as some special thing which everybody needs to honor. I reject that as utter madness. Religion is no more special than any other cultural institution.

The extent to which those who profess belief do not stand up to those within their sect who do bad to others in the name of the belief is the extent that they are part of the problem. If they condone the evil, either by commission or omission, they are as guilty as the ones who perpetrate the evil.

Religion shouldn't get a pass on anything, but especially unethical treatment of their fellow human beings. And they don't get to decide what's ethical. It's up to the world's people to decide. Heaven knows how one would implement that. But I'd accept a responsible press as a good start.

As always, I appreciate your input.

[okasha]

28. It seems that we're about to add another,

given that Syria is apparently in possession of chemical weapons. (So are we, of course.)

[rug]

29. It's infuriating.

[dimbear]

7. Sectarian violence in Iraq killed 969 people in July, a record month.

I forgive the Iraqis if they harbor anti-Islamic sentiments. They seem justified.

[rug]

9. Iraqis are overwhelmingly Muslim. Perhaps you meant anti-Sunni sentiments.

Or anti-American sentiments.

[dimbear]

24. There are Muslims, many in fact, who can see that Islam is problematic.

IMHO, those who see this clearly are Iraq's best hope. Ditto Egypt. Ditto Syria.

[rug]

30. So, Muslims should renounce Islam since it's problematic.

Is that your position?

[dimbear]

36. Renounce, reform, review, rework............ there are lots of solutions.

The suggestion of 'tolerate its abuses' doesn't work for me.

[rug]

37. In that case, you must not consider it inherently evil and harmful.

[dimbear]

38. Inherently harmful things harm everything they inhabit, that's the definition.

Like other religions, Islam is only harmful on balance.

[rug]

39. You're such an accommodationist.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

55. I don't know about his, but it's certainly mine.

Like all religions, Islam is a false religion.

Like most religions, many of it's moral teachings are deeply flawed and immoral.

The extent to which its moral teachings as interpreted by the majority, but by no means all, of its followers are flawed is greater than for any other major religion.

All religious people should renounce their religions, because they are not true.

It is especially desirable that those people who believe that their religion commands them to act in ways that I consider to be immoral renounce their religion, and that correlates quite strongly with Muslims.



It should go without saying, but just in case: no-one should be in any way compelled to renounce their religion; the only form of pressure that it is legitimate to bring to bare is telling them that you think they should do so and why.

[rug]

56. This sentence of yours has a certain hortatory quality.

"All religious people should renounce their religions, because they are not true."

This one emerges from a certain moral stance you appear to hold.

"It is especially desirable that those people who believe that their religion commands them to act in ways that I consider to be immoral renounce their religion, and that correlates quite strongly with Muslims."

Are you saying that those who do not renounce their beliefs are not moral? If not, then what are you saying about them if they do not do what you say they should?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

58. I'm saying that they hold immoral beliefs on certain issues.

Dismissing an entire person as immoral because they're wrong about one particular thing would be wrong.

[rug]

59. And what should happen to them if they do not do as they should?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

60. Depends on the scale.

Doing moderately immoral things should be legal.

Doing extremely immoral things should not be.

At this point the discussion has gotten so vague it's hard to be more specific than that - is there more particular information you'd like?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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


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


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

[rug]

57. Solid points, all.