A Critical Examination of the Quran (Part I)

By Edmund Standing

The Qur'an, Muslims believe, is the final revelation of the creator of the universe, a book dictated by an angel to the final in a long line of prophets sent by Allah to guide human affairs and to make known the will of the creator for how we should order our lives. Indeed, time and again, it makes this bold claim, so this really seems a non-negotiable article of faith and statement of reality. As such, it is said to be a book whose message is universal in scope, and whose message is not historically or geographically specific or conditioned, but which speaks with equal relevance to us all, in all places and at all times. Islam, the religion proclaimed by the Qur'an, means simply 'submission', and we are called to acknowledge the divine origins of the book and to submit our will and intellect to the proposition that this book and this religion constitute the undeniable pinnacle of moral teaching and literary creativity, and that we must all adopt this 'total way of life' or face stern consequences after death.

As a non-Muslim, coming to the Qur'an unburdened by the heavy influence of communal reinforcement that is given by being brought up to accept these notions as self-evidently true, I am at a complete loss as to understand how anyone can hold such a high opinion of a book which, it turns out, is so crude, so blatantly a product of a specific time and place, and so filled with childish threats and superstition. Reading the Qur'an is an arduous task, for in translation at least it is not a book whose literary style naturally commands admiration in the reader; in fact it is an exceedingly tedious book, made up of a collection of disjointed and often self-contradictory texts, filled with tiresome repetition of certain key phrases and themes, and brimming over with threats of torture and torment for those who will not accept its authority. It seems to me vitally important in a time in which this book and this religion are proclaimed so widely and so loudly to be the Truth and to be beyond criticism that those of us who value the fruits of the Enlightenment - rational, secular thought and discourse, freed from the often horrific superstitions of ignorant men of the past - should endevour to both examine and critically evaluate Islam and its much vaunted 'holy book'.

The Enlightenment and the huge social changes it ushered in are precious gifts that it is our duty to protect against the forces of resurgent irrationalism in the world today. The values and achievements of the Enlightenment are things which should be open to all, regardless of skin colour or ethnicity: in short, they are not simply a luxury for white Western elites. In seeking to 'understand' Islam and in offering an unthinking and servile 'respect' for the Qur'an, many feel they are championing the cause of minorities and protecting them from bigotry and Western 'cultural imperialism'. This is utter condescending nonsense. There is no reason why brown skinned people should be left in the chains of superstition and there is no reason why the things many of them hold dear should be beyond rational criticism. Beliefs have consequences, and in the case of this particular religion one of those consequences is that many of its followers feel duty-bound to attempt to roll back the Enlightenment and to 'Islamify' the West. This is an unpopular statement to make, considered in the minds of many self-proclaimed liberals and progressives to border on 'bigotry' or to actually constitute a form of 'racism'. But bigotry and racism are enemies of Enlightenment rationalism - they belong to precisely the same realm of irrational, petty, provincial thinking that produced competing religions, all proclaiming to be bearers of the Truth without a shread of real evidence, and all quite unsatisfactory if we are to be serious about developing further together as a global community in the years to come.

In this article, I shall look at exactly what the Qur'an says, and I hope to demonstrate to the reader quite what a divisive, primitive, and insulting book it actually is; not to provoke hostility towards Muslims, nor to be deliberately and gratuituously offensive, but for the important reasons outlined above.

The intended readership of the Qur'an - universal or localised?

As already noted, mainstream Muslims proclaim the Qur'an to be the final revelation of the creator of the universe, a book given in a specific time and place, but a book whose message is not dependent on that time and place. Hypothetically, the belief goes, the Word of God could have been given anywhere in the world, in an place, time, or language, and its message would have been exactly the same. Given the Qur'an's constant proclamation that it is of divine origin, we would be safe in assuming that its message will be found to be universally applicable, equally relevant to all, and lacking signs that it is culturally or historically conditioned. In fact, unsurprisingly, this is far from the case.

The readership of the Qur'an is clearly presupposed to be male, and this is a book for men, by men. We find numerous examples of the audience being given information and instructions about women, in texts that speak of women in the third person. So, for example, we read statements such as 'Your wives are a tilth for you' (2.223), 'And those of you who die and leave wives behind' (2.240), 'And when you divorce women' (2.231), 'And when you have divorced women' (2.232), 'And Allah has made wives for you from among yourselves, and has given you sons and grandchildren from your wives' (16.72), 'when you marry the believing women' (33.49), 'Enter the garden, you and your wives; you shall be made happy' (43.70), 'when you divorce women' (65.1), and so in, in passage after passage.

The readership of the Qur'an is also clearly presupposed to be made up of Arabs. So, we read 'Surely We have revealed it -- an Arabic Quran -- that you may understand' (12.2), 'And thus have We revealed it, a true judgment in Arabic' (13.37), 'In plain Arabic language' (26.195), 'An Arabic Quran without any crookedness, that they may guard (against evil)' (39.28), 'A Book of which the verses are made plain, an Arabic Quran for a people who know' (41.3), 'Surely We have made it an Arabic Quran that you may understand' (43.3). Most telling of all, we read 'And if We had made it a Quran in a foreign tongue, they would certainly have said: Why have not its communications been made clear? What! a foreign (tongue) and an Arabian!' (41.44)

So much for the much vaunted universal message for a universal audience. There is plenty more evidence that the Qur'an, more than simply being a book specifically tailored for Arab men, is also a book firmly situated in a particular place and time. Animals and food are written of in the Qur'an, often in the many passages presenting the natural world as evidence of Allah as creator, and the choice of animals and food, and the uses of animals that are referred to, situate the text both historically and geographically. So, for example, we read of camels - important animals for Arabs but irrelevant as examples for readers in places such as Europe, where they were largely unknown at the time of the writing of the Qur'an:

And (as for) the camels, We have made them of the signs of the religion of Allah for you; for you therein is much good; therefore mention the name of Allah on them as they stand in a row, then when they fall down eat of them and feed the poor man who is contented and the beggar; thus have We made them subservient to you, that you may be grateful (22.36).

Will they not then consider the camels, how they are created? (88.17)

We read of working animals, again situating the Qur'an as a product of its time, as opposed to being a universal trans-historical book.:

And He created the cattle for you; you have in them warm clothing and (many) advantages, and of them do you eat.
And there is beauty in them for you when you drive them back (to home), and when you send them forth (to pasture).
And they carry your heavy loads to regions which you could not reach but with distress of the souls; most surely your Lord is Compassionate, Merciful.
And (He made) horses and mules and asses that you might ride upon them and as an ornament; and He creates what you do not know (16.5-8).

Allah is He Who made the cattle for you that you may ride on some of them, and some of them you eat (40.79).

Of the 'gardens of bliss' promised to believers after death, we read that there will be 'thornless lote-trees, and banana-trees (with fruits)' (56.28-9). Elsewhere, we read of palm trees, grapes, olives, pomegranates and clover (6.99, 12.49, 13.4, 16.11, 16.67, 17.91, 18.32, 23.19, 36.34, 80.28). All of these were useful examples for the Arabs of Muhammad's time, but are useless as examples for many people in other places and other times. Of how much relevance is talk of bananas to the Inuit? How many Scandinavians would have found palm tress a meaningful example? The claim that the Qur'an's message is of equal relevance to all people in all times is revealed to be utterly bogus.

Central concerns of the Qur'an - universally relevant or historically situated?

Reading the Qur'an, we find that huge chunks of the text are devoted to Muhammad's disputes with his fellow Arabs and their rejection of his message. If the message of the Qur'an transcends time and place, then why is there so much talk of this issue? We read much of the 'polytheists' - those who followed the traditional Arab religions of Muhammad's time, and how many of them have rejected the message of Islam and scoffed at Muhammad's claim to be a prophet, and we also read of Jews and Christians ('followers of the Book') who likewise rejected the Qur'an :

Those who disbelieve from among the followers of the Book do not like, nor do the polytheists, that the good should be sent down to you from your Lord, and Allah chooses especially whom He pleases for His mercy, and Allah is the Lord of mighty grace (2.105).

And those who disbelieve say: This is nothing but a lie which he has forged, and other people have helped him at it; so indeed they have done injustice and (uttered) a falsehood (25.4).

And those who disbelieve say: Why has not the Quran been revealed to him all at once? Thus, that We may strengthen your heart by it and We have arranged it well in arranging (25.32).

And they wonder that there has come to them a warner from among themselves, and the disbelievers say: This IS an enchanter, a liar. What! makes he the gods a single God? A strange thing is this, to be sure! (38.4-5)

He it is Who sent His Apostle with the guidance and the true religion, that He may make it overcome the religions, all of them, though the polytheists may be averse (61.9).

Those who disbelieved from among the followers of the Book and the polytheists could not have separated (from the faithful) until there had come to them the clear evidence: An apostle from Allah, reciting pure pages, Wherein are all the right ordinances (98.1-3).

So, we read that many Arab polytheists of Muhammad's time rejected his new monotheistic religion, calling it a lie that he had invented, questioning why the whole Qur'an was not 'revealed' at one time, and calling Muhammad himself an 'enchanter' and a 'liar'. These are records of arguments that Muhammad had with those he tried to convert to his new faith, but teach us absolutely nothing of value for how to live in the modern world.

For those who accept Muhammad's claims, the Qur'an promises numerous rewards after death, with a life of bliss in gardens of paradise, complete with an unending supply of delicious food and drink, as well as wives and a life of relaxation and pleasures. But for those who reject Muhammad and his message (largely the aforementioned polytheists), the author of the Qur'an, with seemingly endless repetition, offers threats and promises of unspeakable suffering after death. As we shall see, the author seems to relish the thought of the infliction of these punishments with great enthusiasm, and a sadistic and perverse mentality is clearly in evidence.

What does the Qur'an say about non-Muslims?

In their proper historical context, the following texts from the Qur'an can be seen as threats made by Muhammad to people of his time who rejected his message. However, for Muslims the Qur'an is not a text that refers only to the time of Muhammad, but instead offers a universal message for all peoples and all time, given by God and perfect in its every statement. Given this is the case, the Qur'an calls upon Muslims today to understand the fate of those who do not accept Islam to be an eternity of unending torture and torment, not simply of a 'spiritual' variety, but in literal, corporeal terms. If you are an atheist or a follower of another religion (there may be some exceptions among Jews and Christians, as we will see later), then here is what the perfect Word of God has to say to about you:

Surely those who disbelieve, it being alike to them whether you warn them, or do not warn them, will not believe. Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing and there is a covering over their eyes, and there is a great punishment for them (2.6-7).

Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers (2.98).

(As for) those who disbelieve, surely neither their wealth nor their children shall avail them in the least against Allah; and these are the inmates of the fire; therein they shall abide. (3.116).

Let it not deceive you that those who disbelieve go to and fro in the cities fearlessly. A brief enjoyment! then their abode is hell, and evil is the resting-place.(3.196-7).

[S]urely Allah will gather together the hypocrites and the unbelievers all in hell (4.140).

[A] painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve (5.73).

And (as for) those who disbelieve and reject Our communications, these are the companions of the flame (5.86).

And they who reject Our communications are deaf and dumb, in utter darkness; whom Allah pleases He causes to err and whom He pleases He puts on the right way (6.39).

And (as for) those who reject Our communications, chastisement shall afflict them because they transgressed (6.49).

And leave those who have taken their religion for a play and an idle sport, and whom this world's life has deceived, and remind (them) thereby lest a soul should be given up to destruction for what it has earned; it shall not have besides Allah any guardian nor an intercessor, and if it should seek to give every compensation, it shall not be accepted from it; these are they who shall be given up to destruction for what they earned; they shall have a drink of boiling water and a painful chastisement because they disbelieved (6.70).

Who then is more unjust than he who rejects Allah's communications and turns away from them? We will reward those who turn away from Our communications with an evil chastisement because they turned away (6.157).

And (as for) those who reject Our communications and turn away from them haughtily-- these are the inmates of the fire they shall abide in it (7.36).

Surely (as for) those who reject Our communications and turn away from them haughtily, the doors of heaven shall not be opened for them, nor shall they enter the garden until the camel pass through the eye of the needle; and thus do We reward the guilty. They shall have a bed of hell-fire and from above them coverings (of it); and thus do We reward the unjust. (7.40-1).

What! do the people of the towns then feel secure from Our punishment coming to them by night while they sleep? What! do the people of the towns feel secure from Our punishment coming to them in the morning while they play? What! do they then feel secure from Allah's plan? But none feels secure from Allah's plan except the people who shall perish (7.97-99).

Evil is the likeness of the people who reject Our communications and are unjust to their own souls. Whomsoever Allah guides, he is the one who follows the right way; and whomsoever He causes to err, these are the losers. And certainly We have created for hell many of the jinn and the men; they have hearts with which they do not understand, and they have eyes with which they do not see, and they have ears with which they do not hear; they are as cattle, nay, they are in worse errors; these are the heedless ones. (7.177-9).

Whomsoever Allah causes to err, there is no guide for him; and He leaves them alone in their inordinacy, blindly wandering on (7.186).

I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve (8.12).

And had you seen when the angels will cause to die those who disbelieve, smiting their faces and their backs, and (saying): Taste the punishment of burning (8.50).

Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe (8.55).

Allah will bring disgrace to the unbelievers (9.2).

[A]nd announce painful punishment to those who disbelieve (9.3).

The idolaters have no right to visit the mosques of Allah while bearing witness to unbelief against themselves, these it is whose doings are null, and in the fire shall they abide (9.17).

Allah has promised the hypocritical men and the hypocritical women and the unbelievers the fire of hell to abide therein; it is enough for them; and Allah has cursed them and they shall have lasting punishment (9.68).

O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination (9.73).

And never offer prayer for any one of them who dies and do not stand by his grave; surely they disbelieve in Allah and His Apostle and they shall die in transgression (9.84).

Surely those who do not hope in Our meeting and are pleased with this world's life and are content with it, and those who are heedless of Our communications: (As for) those, their abode is the fire because of what they earned (10.7-8).

Whoever desires this world's life and its finery, We will pay them in full their deeds therein, and they shall not be made to suffer loss in respect of them. These are they for whom there is nothing but fire in the hereafter, and what they wrought in it shall go for nothing, and vain is what they do (11.15-16).

They shall have chastisement in this world's life, and the chastisement of the hereafter is certainly more grievous, and they shall have no protector against Allah. A likeness of the garden which the righteous are promised; there now beneath it rivers, its food and shades are perpetual; this is the requital of those who guarded (against evil), and the requital of the unbelievers is the fire (13.34-5)

Hell is before him and he shall be given to drink of festering water: He will drink it little by little and will not be able to swallow it agreeably, and death will come to him from every quarter, but he shall not die; and there shall be vehement chastisement before him. The parable of those who disbelieve in their Lord: their actions are like ashes on which the wind blows hard on a stormy day; they shall not have power over any thing out of what they have earned; this is the great error (14.16-18).

Therefore do not think Allah (to be one) failing in His promise to His apostles; surely Allah is Mighty, the Lord of Retribution. On the day when the earth shall be changed into a different earth, and the heavens (as well), and they shall come forth before Allah, the One, the Supreme. And you will see the guilty on that day linked together in chains. Their shirts made of pitch and the fire covering their faces (14.47-50).

(As for) those who do not believe in Allah's communications, surely Allah will not guide them, and they shall have a painful punishment (16.104).

Whoever desires this present life, We hasten to him therein what We please for whomsoever We desire, then We assign to him the hell; he shall enter it despised, driven away (17.18).

And whomsoever Allah guides, he is the follower of the right way, and whomsoever He causes to err, you shall not find for him guardians besides Him; and We will gather them together on the day of resurrection on their faces, blind and dumb and deaf; their abode is hell; whenever it becomes allayed We will add to their burning (17.97).

We have prepared for the iniquitous a fire, the curtains of which shall encompass them about; and if they cry for water, they shall be given water like molten brass which will scald their faces; evil the drink and ill the resting-place (18.29).

Surely you and what you worship besides Allah are the firewood of hell; to it you shall come (21.98).

And (as for) those who strive to oppose Our communications, they shall be the inmates of the flaming fire (22.51).

And (as for) those who disbelieve in and reject Our communications, these it is who shall have a disgraceful chastisement (22.57).

And when Our clear communications are recited to them you will find denial on the faces of those who disbelieve; they almost spring upon those who recite to them Our communications. Say: Shall I inform you of what is worse than this? The fire; Allah has promised it to those who disbelieve; and how evil the resort! (22.72)

Think not that those who disbelieve shall escape in the earth, and their abode is the fire; and certainly evil is the resort! (24.57)

As to those who do not believe in the hereafter, We have surely made their deeds fair-seeming to them, but they blindly wander on. These are they who shall have an evil punishment, and in the hereafter they shall be the greatest losers (27.4-5).

And (as to) those who disbelieve in the communications of Allah and His meeting, they have despaired of My mercy, and these it is that shall have a painful punishment (29.23).

They ask you to hasten on the chastisement, and most surely hell encompasses the unbelievers; On the day when the chastisement shall cover them from above them, and from beneath their feet; and He shall say: Taste what you did (29.54-5).

Will not in hell be the abode of the unbelievers? (29.68)

And as to those who disbelieved and rejected Our communications and the meeting of the hereafter, these shall be brought over to the chastisement (30.16).

[S]urely He [Allah] does not love the unbelievers (30.45).

And of men is he who takes instead frivolous discourse to lead astray from Allah's path without knowledge, and to take it for a mockery; these shall have an abasing chastisement. And when Our communications are recited to him, he turns back proudly, as if he had not heard them, as though in his ears were a heaviness, therefore announce to him a painful chastisement (31.6-7).

And whoever disbelieves, let not his disbelief grieve you; to Us is their return, then will We inform them of what they did surely Allah is the Knower of what is in the breasts. We give them to enjoy a little, then will We drive them to a severe chastisement (31.23-24).

And as for those who transgress, their abode is the fire; whenever they desire to go forth from it they shall be brought back into it, and it will be said to them: Taste the chastisement of the fire which you called a lie. And most certainly We will make them taste of the nearer chastisement before the greater chastisement that haply they may turn. And who is more unjust than he who is reminded of the communications of his Lord, then he turns away from them? Surely We will give punishment to the guilty (32.20-22).

Surely (as for) those who speak evil things of Allah and His Apostle, Allah has cursed them in this world and the here after, and He has prepared for them a chastisement bringing disgrace (33.57).

Surely Allah has cursed the unbelievers and has prepared for them a burning fire, to abide therein for a long time; they shall not find a protector or a helper. On the day when their faces shall be turned back into the fire, they shall say: O would that we had obeyed Allah and obeyed the Apostle! And they shall say: O our Lord! surely we obeyed our leaders and our great men, so they led us astray from the path; O our Lord! give them a double punishment and curse them with a great curse (33.64-8)..

So Allah will chastise the hypocritical men and the hypocritical women and the polytheistic men and the polytheistic women (33.73).

And (as for) those who strive hard in opposing Our communications, these it is for whom is a painful chastisement of an evil kind (34.5).

[T]hose who do not believe in the hereafter are in torment and in great error (34.8).

And (as for) those who strive in opposing Our communications, they shall be caused to be brought to the chastisement (34.38).

(As for) those who disbelieve, they shall have a severe punishment (35.7).

This is the hell with which you were threatened. Enter into it this day because you disbelieved (36.63-4).

And thus did the word of your Lord prove true against those who disbelieved that they are the inmates of the fire (40.6).

Surely those who disbelieve shall be cried out to: Certainly Allah's hatred (of you) when you were called upon to the faith and you rejected, is much greater than your hatred of yourselves (40.10).

Have you not seen those who dispute with respect to the communications of Allah: how are they turned away? Those who reject the Book and that with which We have sent Our Apostle; but they shall soon come to know, when the fetters and the chains shall be on their necks; they shall be dragged into boiling water, then in the fire shall they be burned (40.69-72).

Therefore We will most certainly make those who disbelieve taste a severe punishment, and We will most certainly reward them for the evil deeds they used to do. That is the reward of the enemies of Allah -- the fire; for them therein shall be the house of long abiding; a reward for their denying Our communications (41.27-8).

And (as for) those who dispute about Allah after that obedience has been rendered to Him, their plea is null with their Lord, and upon them is wrath, and for them is severe punishment (42.16).

Woe to every sinful liar, who hears the communications of Allah recited to him, then persists proudly as though he had not heard them; so announce to him a painful punishment. And when he comes to know of any of Our communications, he takes it for a jest; these it is that shall have abasing chastisement. Before them is hell, and there shall not avail them aught of what they earned, nor those whom they took for guardians besides Allah, and they shall have a grievous punishment. This is guidance; and (as for) those who disbelieve in the communications of their Lord, they shall have a painful punishment on account of uncleanness (45.7-11).

And on the day when those who disbelieve shall be brought before the fire: You did away with your good things in your life of the world and you enjoyed them for a while, so today you shall be rewarded with the punishment of abasement because you were unjustly proud in the land and because you transgressed (46.20).

That He may cause the believing men and the believing women to enter gardens beneath which rivers flow to abide therein and remove from them their evil; and that is a grand achievement with Allah and (that) He may punish the hypocritical men and the hypocritical women, and the polytheistic men and the polytheistic women, the entertainers of evil thoughts about Allah. On them is the evil turn, and Allah is wroth with them and has cursed them and prepared hell for them, and evil is the resort (48.5-6).

And whoever does not believe in Allah and His Apostle, then surely We have prepared burning fire for the unbelievers (48.13).

Therefore woe to those who disbelieve because of their day which they are threatened with (51.60).

So woe on that day to those who reject (the truth), those who sport entering into vain discourses. The day on which they shall be driven away to the fire of hell with violence (52.11-13).

And if he is one of the rejecters, the erring ones, he shall have an entertainment of boiling water, and burning in hell. Most surely this is a certain truth. Therefore glorify the name of your Lord, the Great (56.92-6).

So today ransom shall not be accepted from you nor from those who disbelieved; your abode is the fire; it is your friend and evil is the resort (57.15).

And (as for) those who disbelieve and reject Our communications, they are the inmates of the fire, to abide therein and evil is the resort (64.10).

But what is the matter with them that they do not believe, and when the Quran is recited to them they do not make obeisance? Nay! those who disbelieve give the lie to the truth. And Allah knows best what they hide, so announce to them a painful punishment (84.20-24).

Has not there come to you the news of the overwhelming calamity? (Some) faces on that day shall be downcast, laboring, toiling, entering into burning fire, made to drink from a boiling spring. They shall have no food but of thorns, which will neither fatten nor avail against hunger (88.1-7).

So today those who believe shall laugh at the unbelievers; On thrones, they will look. Surely the disbelievers are rewarded as they did (88.34-6).

And (as for) those who disbelieve in our communications, they are the people of the left hand. On them is fire closed over (90.19-20).

Surely those who disbelieve from among the followers of the Book and the polytheists shall be in the fire of hell, abiding therein; they are the worst of men (98.6).

These are clearly not the writings of a rational mind. Deranged by religious delusions, the author or authors of these passages would no doubt be considered mentally ill or psychologically unbalanced were this 'holy' book to be written today. Yet, as a religious text, the Qur'an is all too often given a special exemption from normal criticism, and we are told that we must show it 'respect', despite the hateful attitude it takes towards those who do not accept Islam. Around the world, children are taught to revere the Qur'an as the very words of the creator of the universe, as a perfect book with a timeless message, yet how can texts like those I have just cited do anything but instill a negative or contemptuous attitude towards non-Muslims? And why would anyone in their right mind claim that this book should be held up as the most important book ever written, or even as a great work of literature?

Sadly, there is worse to come.

Republished from Butterflies and Wheels

Archeology, God & Medusa

By Mike LaBossiere

Two factors have merged to inspire this blog. The first is my seemingly endless debates about God’s existence. The second is the History Channel’s series Clash of the Gods.

In a recent discussion of God’s existence, the arguments turned to the matter of whether or not archeological finds can serve as evidence for God’s existence. For example, if a place that is mentioned in the bible is found to be real, does this help support the claim that God exists?

My position on this matter has been and remains that such findings do not provide such support. Naturally, folks have objected that such findings would help show that the bible makes credible claims about historical places and this adds to its credibility. While I am quite willing to agree that such findings would help add to the credibility of the bible as a source for historical information, this is quite a distinct matter from providing evidence that God exists.

My first argument in support of my view is a very simple and perhaps even a silly one. However, I think that it is rather effective in its simplicity. Suppose I give you a call and claim to have seen a ghost in my kitchen. Sensing your doubt, I assure you that I have evidence that supports my claim and I invite you over to see it. Intrigued (and perhaps worried about my sanity), you head on over to see this evidence. I lead you to my kitchen and say “here is my proof. As you can see, my kitchen is quite real!”

Naturally, you would think that I had either gone off my rocker (once again) or that I was pulling some sort of odd prank (once again). After all, showing you that I have a kitchen just proves that my kitchen exists (well, for practical if not philosophical purposes) and does not establish anything about ghosts. What is wanting is a bit of evidence relevant to spirits of the ghostly sort rather than a view of where I keep my mundane spirits.

Likewise, showing that a place where a supernatural biblical supernatural event took place exists merely proves that the place exists. Without further evidence of this alleged event, such a find does nothing to support a claim of divine activity. For example, finding the city of Sodom does not prove that God destroyed the city. What would be needed would be signs that the city was destroyed via means available only to God.

My second argument for my view is more or less an extension of the first one, but it adds in the stuff relating to the Clash of the Gods.

In the episode on Medusa, the program presented both the mythology and discussions about the possible facts behind the myths. Also, the real places where the events where said to have taken place are presented. For example, in the myth Medusa is raped by Poseidon in the temple of Athena. This temple still exists to this day. As another example, the birthplace of the hero Perseus is also quite real.

In various other episodes, the same sort of approach is taken. The possible historical facts that inspired the myths are presented (such as the maze like palace that probably inspired the infamous maze of the minotaur) and the places where the events allegedly took place are often revealed as real places.

While the places mention in the Greek myths are often real, it would not be inferred that finding such places establishes the truth of the supernatural (or extraordinary) aspects of the myths. For example, the fact that the temple of Athena is real does nothing to prove that Medusa was raped there by Poseidon and transformed by Athena into a Gorgon. Likewise, finding places mentioned in the bible are real does nothing to show that any alleged supernatural events really took place.

To use a final example, consider another book about the supernatural and great events: Homer’s Iliad. This book tells tales of the supernatural: the doings of the gods, the existence of demigods and so on.

In a nice parallel, the city of Troy was long believed to be a legend. It was not until Schliemann found Troy did people accept that the story had some basis in historical fact. However, no reasonable person believes that the re-discovery of Troy proves that the Greek gods really exist (or existed). After all, it is one thing to find evidence of a legendary city and quite another to infer the existence of divine beings.

The same would seem to be true of the bible. Even if every earthly place in the bible is found, this would not provide a single piece of evidence for God’s existence. What would be needed would be evidence of the allegedly supernatural events that took place.

Naturally, some folks might object that certain findings would seem to show that God exists. For example, it might be claimed that finding Noah’s ark would do the trick. However, this is not the case.

Finding the ark would certainly be an amazing discovery, but it would not prove that God exists. After all, men can build huge vessels without any divine intervention (just consider some of the huge vessels built in ancient days). Also, we know that serious flooding occurs naturally. As such, finding such a ship would not show that God destroyed humanity in a vast flood.

Of course, I do accept that finding archeological evidence that the entire earth was flooded and all humans (aside from Noah’s folks) perished would point towards an event that would seem to be beyond natural explanation. After all, a natural event that could flood the entire earth (putting the mountains under water) during the time that humanity has been around does not seem to be geologically possible. Of course, there seems to be no indication of such a massive event, despite the fact that it should have left a significant amount of evidence.

In light of the above discussion, archeological findings that do not contain actual evidence of divine activity cannot be considered as evidence for God’s existence.

Republished from talking philosophy

Facts are NOT Anti-Religious

by Steven Novella

In the small community of Sedalia Missouri there happens to be a substantial Krishna community. (I won’t get into the various names for specific Krishna religions, but will just refer to them as Krishna for simplicity.) Recently they took offense at the T-shirts worn by the local high school band. The theme was a trip to the moon and their shirts featured imagery from the Apollo moon landings.

The Krishnas took offense at this because, according to their Vedic scriptures, the moon landing was a hoax. Specifically it says that the moon is further away than the sun, and that in order for a human to exist on another world, they have to leave their body and adopt one made for that world. Therefore the astronauts could not have landed on the moon, and the moon landings must have been a hoax. Seriously – they really believe this.

But the issue here is that they complained about the T-shirts because they found it offensive to their religious beliefs. They argued that the school system is supposed to remain neutral with regard to religious beliefs, and that they violated this neutrality by endorsing the “controversial” Apollo moon landings.

The local paper reports:

Assistant Superintendent Brad Pollitt said complaints by parents made him take action.

“I made the decision to have the band members turn the shirts in after several concerned parents brought the shirts to my attention,” Pollitt said.

Regarding the theme of “Brass to the Moon” the paper further reports:

Pollitt said the district is required by law to remain neutral where religion is concerned.

“If the shirts had said ‘Brass Resurrections’ and had a picture of Jesus on the cross, we would have done the same thing,” he said.

And of course parents on both sides of the issue were found for juicy quotes.Parent Sherry Melby was quoted as saying:

“I was disappointed with the image on the shirt.” Melby said. “I don’t think the moon landings should be associated with our school.

”

Meanwhile, parent Alena Hoeffling got it right:

“Whatever happened to the separation of church and state.”

OK – this story is not actually true. Well, parts of it are true. The Krishnas really do believe the moon landing was a hoax because it contradicts their interpretation of Vedic scripture and believe that their scripture is a more reliable guide to reality because it comes from god (sound familiar), while they denigrate materialist science as a “cheat”.

The story itself is true but it is about evolution, not the moon landing. The T-shirts had the theme – the “evolution of brass” and featured the iconic image of primates evolving toward homo sapiens (carrying brass instruments). Melby’s quote above should read: “I don’t think evolution should be associated with our school.”

But the analogy to Krishnas denying the moon landing is perfect. The only difference is that we live in a Christian dominated culture.

The major malfunction in the reasoning of those parents who complained about the T-shirts, and the response of the school (who should not have caved to this pressure) is the equation of endorsing a scientific fact with being against a specific religious belief. Being neutral with regard to religion does not equate to avoiding scientific facts that some religious groups reject based upon their faith.

There is of course the practical issue that it would be absurd for the public schools to steer clear of every possible religious belief in a multi-cultural society, as my moon landing example demonstrates. Those who typically make the claim that science must avoid offending their religion, however, are usually only concerned about their religious beliefs. Christians in the US, for example, who make this claim also often claim that the US is a Christian nation, and therefore we must only respect Christian sensibilities – despite the Constitution’s rather specific prohibition.

But I am talking about the underlying philosophical position, not the hypocrisy or practicality of the issue. I am not what some might call an “accommodationist” – arguing that science and religion are compatible if we would just water down science enough. Rather I argue that they occupy separate realms – or at least “faith” and science do. Religions trample on science all the time.

The way I read our Constitution is that the state must remain neutral with regard to faith-based beliefs. That does not mean the state must remain neutral with regard to purely secular conclusions. Science is a purely secular system – it is agnostic with respect to any non-falsifiable claim. Further, science is a system, and its conclusions need only be valid within the system of science. We as a society have chosen to support the system of science – through funding, institutions, and education. This largely stems from the recognition that societies which support scientific progress and education tend to thrive while those who do not stagnate and decline. This is increasingly true as science and technology dominate our civilization.

If the scientific process leads us to a specific scientific conclusion – such as the well-established fact that life on earth as it exists today is the product of organic evolution, or that Apollo astronauts landed on the moon – then that is a scientific conclusion, not a religious belief. Stating that, within the system of science, the process of science leads us to this specific conclusion is not the same thing as taking a stand with regard to any particular religious belief.

The religious in this country have the freedom to believe and preach whatever they want. But that does not extend to the right to censor other people from believing or preaching what they want. Or (relevant to this case) to censor the secular process of science whenever they decide it conflicts with their religious conviction.

Put more bluntly – if their religious beliefs conflict with the conclusions of science, that’s their problem. They can deal with the cognitive dissonance any way they like, but they cannot impose it upon secular society.

In this case, even though it was just about band T-shirts, the school system should have held the line, rather than cave to pressure. Some things are worth fighting for, even if they are inconvenient to the success of your high school brass band.

This issue crops up in other ways as well. Chris Cromer was fired as the Director of Science for the Texas Educational System because she passed on an e-mail announcing a lecture about evolution. This, her superiors argued, violated their neutrality policy regarding evolution and creationism. She is now suing. Her case was dismissed, but she is appealing. My hope is that this point will be decided at the Supreme Court level. Evolution is a scientific theory, creationism is a religious belief. Our public school systems teach science, and must remain neutral with regard to religion. That does not mean they must remain neutral with regard to a scientific theory. They can enthusiastically teach and promote the consensus of scientific opinion without violating the Constitutional ban on establishing a religion.

The public school system not only cannot, it should not steer clear of every possible religious belief, and even more so of an allegedly privileged religious belief – whether it’s Krishna or Christian.

Republished from NeuroLogica Blog

To love, honour and obey in Mali

By Martin Vogl
BBC News, Bamako

A new family law in Mali is causing a furore, partly because it no longer stipulates that wives have to obey their husbands.

Such has been the anger in the majority Muslim country that President Amadou Toumani Toure has sent the law back to parliament for MPs to re-consider.

For many people here the new law is an attack on their religion and traditions and there have been loud protests against it ever since it was adopted by parliamentarians at the start of August.

In some parts of the world, article 312 of the new family law would seem inoffensive enough.

The article says that, once married, husbands and wives owe each other "loyalty, protection, help and assistance".

Mali's current law specifically states that a wife must obey her husband, and that is the way things should stay says Mahmud Dicko, president of Mali's High Islamic Council.

"We're not trying to make women slaves. Not at all," he says.

"It's just the way our society is organised. The head of the family is the man, and everyone in the family has to obey him.

"It's like that to create harmony."

Equality

At most of the demonstrations against the new code, women have been present, although usually greatly outnumbered by men.

Hadja Safiatou Dembele, president of the National Union of Muslim Women's Associations (NUMWA), says the Koran is clear that a wife has the obligation to listen to her husband.

"A man must protect his wife. A wife must obey her husband," she says.

"It's a tiny minority of woman here who want this new law; the intellectuals. The poor and illiterate women of this country, the real Muslims, are against it."

Kane Nana Sanou, a women's rights activist who is on the committee that has been lobbying for the new family law, says women across Mali should be overjoyed at the new code and disputes the idea that the majority of women are against it.

"How can people say that the majority of women in this country are against the code? Have they done a poll to find that out? They haven't.

"I believe this new law is good for Mali. It makes all citizens equal before the law."

Ms Sanou says she understands why some women might argue that the law should contain a provision that they have to obey their husbands, even if that might mean less rights for them.

"Like me, these women have grown up in traditional families. They have always been told that it's the right thing to do to obey your husband, so of course they believe that," she says.

Modern age

There are other provisions in the new code that have also upset some Muslims.

Marriage is defined as a secular institution in the law and widows and children born outside wedlock are given greater inheritance rights.

The minimum age for girls to marry is raised to 18 - although it is possible to ask for permission for girls to be married younger - and rules on adoption are set out.

The law's supporters say that Malian society has evolved and the new law is simply bringing the country into the modern age.

What is more, says Boya Dembele, an adviser to Mali's justice minister, some of the things that Muslim organisations want - like making religious marriages official - are contrary to Mali's constitution.

"In Muslim states it's the Koran which applies. Mali is a majority Muslim country, but it's a republic. It's democratic and secular," he says.

"So we can't move away from being secular because if we did it would be attacking the very foundations of the state."

Some of the angry protests across Mali since the law was passed have almost got out of control.

At one meeting at Bamako's main mosque, religious leaders had to step in to stop young Muslims, opposed to the law, from attacking the parliament building.

Mali's imams have been threatening to refuse to hold marriage or baptism ceremonies for members of parliament who voted for the law.

Mali's High Islamic Council says mosques will start issuing their own wedding certificates and will tell people not to bother getting the official paperwork at the town hall.

If the law is not changed, Mr Dicko of the High Islamic Council says the country's politicians will get a nasty shock at the next elections.

"We are trying to keep people calm. We don't want them to do anything that is against the law.

"Instead we are telling people that they elect the parliament, so if their members of parliament don't listen to them, they will have the power to vote them out of office."

In the face of such pressure, President Toure has backed down and sent the law back to parliament to be reviewed.

Republished from BBC

Where is the Muslim anger over Darfur?

by Ed Husain

As war raged in Lebanon in the summer of 2006, people around the world called for international intervention to stop the shelling of civilians. In January this year, millions shared similar feelings of horror and anger witnessing the bloodshed in Gaza. Both events were especially painful to Muslims watching other defenceless Muslims being killed. But why have the deaths of vastly more unarmed Muslims in Darfur caused so little concern among co-religionists?

The Khartoum regime, brought to power in a highly ideological and fundamentalist Islamist coup 20 years ago, has killed an estimated 400,000 of its fellow Muslim citizens. Yet, there is near silence about massive human rights abuses in the remote western corner of Sudan. As Tareq Al-Hamed, editor of the Asharq Alaswat paper, has asked, "Are the people of Darfur not Muslims as well?"

When the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for the Sudanese leader, President Bashir, in March, Muslim politicians from Senegal to Malaysia rallied behind him. The same people who demand international justice for war crimes in Lebanon and Gaza abruptly changed their tune. Instead of denouncing Bashir as the architect of ethnic cleansing, they congratulated him for defying the "conspiracy" to undermine Sudan's sovereignty so the West can take its oil. The Iranian Parliamentary Speaker, Ali Larijani, said the ICC warrant was "an insult to the Muslim world".

Mercifully, the views expressed by Arab and Muslim leaders are at odds with their citizens. The Lebanese American pollster James Zogby found 80 per cent of those questioned in four Arab countries were concerned about Darfur and felt it should have more media attention. However, they were reluctant to apportion blame, and, not surprisingly, they were hostile to international intervention. Meanwhile some commentators in Muslim-majority countries are questioning their leaders' support for Bashir.

According to The Daily Star of Lebanon, "Bashir has sought to cultivate an image of himself as an Arab/African hero who is standing up for his fellow Arabs/Africans by defying the edicts of foreign 'imperial' powers."

So, are Darfuris the "wrong" kind of Muslims because they self-identify as black Africans rather than Arabs, despite widespread inter-marriage in Sudan? The Ugandan president, Yoweri Museveni, cites Arab chauvinism against Africans. I have lived in Arab countries and seen first hand the racism and bigotry that commands the minds of the Arab political class.

The Canadian academic Salim Mansur claims: "Blacks are viewed by Arabs as racially inferior, and Arab violence against blacks has a long, turbulent record."

For the Nobel Prize winning novelist Wole Soyinka, the unwillingness to confront Arab racism is rooted in the role of Arabs in the slave trade. "Arabs and Islam are guilty of the cultural and spiritual savaging of the Continent," he writes.

The Ethiopian academic Mekuria Bulcha estimates that Arab traders sold 17 million Africans to the Middle East and Asia between the sixth and twentieth centuries. Yet, there is an almost total reluctance on the part of Arab intellectuals to examine their central role in slavery, past or present. Any attempt to confront persistent Arab racism is shouted down by appeals to Arab/African solidarity against the neo-colonialist West, a sentiment that seldom moves beyond slogans.

Sheikh Saleh Al-Fawzan, a member of the senior council of Wahhabi clerics responsible for writing Saudi school text books, states: "Slavery is part of Islam. Slavery is part of jihad and jihad will remain as long as there is Islam. It has not been abolished."

Arab racism is familiar to African guest workers in countries like Libya and Egypt, enduring routine verbal and physical attack. Sudanese Arabs suffer from their own racial identity dilemma, viewed as black by their Egyptian neighbours to the north (Sudan is a corruption of the Egyptian word for black). I have heard the Arab Sudanese use the word for slave (abid) to the faces of their fellow citizens who self-identify as non-Arab. It is also known for Sudanese parents to tease their darker-skinned children, calling them slaves.

To be charitable, it seems that Muslim and Arab leaders wish Darfur would simply go away. Hence their enthusiasm for postponing Bashir's arrest warrant "to allow peace talks to work". Shortly after the ICC announcement, key members of the Khartoum regime attended an Arab League summit. They were confident the League would call for the cancellation of ICC jurisdiction in Darfur, conferred by the United Nations Security Council in 2005. The meeting failed to agree on anything stronger than the usual denunciations of Israel and America. Privately, Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi were urging Sudan to deal with the ICC through legal channels. The Sudanese also failed to get a solidarity summit in Khartoum. However, Bashir did enjoy a victory tour of countries where he was hailed rather than arrested.

Arab and Muslim leaders are by no means unique in failing to back up their words with action. Both the US and the UK until recently had leaders who frequently cited their Christian faith, yet did little to help Christians being persecuted in China, Nigeria, Eritrea, North Korea or Egypt.

However, "Muslim solidarity" matters for two reasons. The Khartoum dictatorship is sensitive to the opinion of Muslim and Arab leaders. A genuine peace deal will be more likely as a consequence of private pressure from Iran or Egypt rather than Canada or Sweden.

Muslims' amnesia about Darfur is also symptomatic of the malaise affecting the public face of a faith that lacks the confidence to engage in constructive debate or renewal. Until Muslims can be self-critical without being condemned as heretics, there will be atrophy where there should be vibrancy, and polarisation and extremism where there should be tolerance and inclusiveness. Darfur's tragedy is fast becoming an indelible stain on the collective name of Islam and Muslims.

Ed Husain is co-director of the Quilliam Foundation and author of The Islamist

Republished from the Independent

The evolution of religion

Michael Shermer and Francisco Ayala discuss the theory that religious belief is hard-wired in humans by evolution.

Today's topic: What do you think of the theory that religious belief and experience are wired through evolution?

Homo religious

Point: Michael Shermer

Did humans evolve to be religious and believe in God? In the most general sense, yes, we did. Here's what happened.

Long ago, in an environment far away from the modern world, humans evolved to find meaningful causal patterns in nature to make sense of the world, and infuse many of those patterns with intentional agency, some of which became animistic spirits and powerful gods. And as a social primate species, we also evolved social organizations designed to promote group cohesiveness and enforce moral rules.

People believe in God because we are pattern-seeking primates. We connect A to B to C, and often A really is connected to B, and B really is connected to C. This is called association learning. But we do not have a false-pattern-detection device in our brains to help us discriminate between true and false patterns, and so we make errors in our thinking. A Type I error is believing a pattern is real when it is not (a false positive) and a Type II error is not believing a pattern is real when it is (a false negative).

Imagine you are a hominid on the planes of Africa and you hear a rustle in the grass. Is it a dangerous predator or just the wind? If you assume it is a dangerous predator and it is just the wind, you have made a Type I error, but to no harm. But if you believe the rustle in the grass is just the wind when it is a dangerous predator, there's a good chance you'll be lunch and thereby removed from your species' gene pool. Thus, there would have been a natural selection for those hominids who tended to believe that all patterns are real and potentially dangerous.

I call this process "patternicity" (the tendency to find meaningful patterns in random noise) and "agenticity" (the tendency to believe that the world is controlled by invisible intentional agents who may mean us harm). This, I believe, is the basis for the belief in souls, spirits, ghosts, gods, demons, angels, aliens, intelligent designers, government conspiracy theorists and all manner of invisible agents intending to harm us or help us.

People are religious because we are social and we need to get along. The moral sentiments in humans and moral principles in human groups evolved primarily through the force of natural selection operating on individuals, and secondarily through the force of group selection operating on populations. The moral sense (the psychological feeling of doing "good" in the form of positive emotions such as righteousness and pride) evolved out of behaviors that were selected because they were good either for the individual or for the group. An immoral sense (the psychological feeling of doing "bad" in the form of negative emotions such as guilt and shame) evolved out of behaviors that were selected because they were bad either for the individual or for the group.

While cultures may differ on what behaviors are defined as good or bad, the moral sense of feeling good or feeling bad about behavior X (whatever X may be) is an evolved human universal. The codification of moral principles out of the psychology of the moral sentiments evolved as a form of social control to ensure the survival of individuals within groups and the survival of human groups themselves. Religion was the first social institution to canonize moral principles, and God -- as an explanatory pattern for the world -- took on new powers as the ultimate enforcer of the rules.

Thus it is that people are religious and believe in God.

Michael Shermer is publisher of Skeptic magazine, a monthly columnist for Scientific American and the author of, most recently, "The Mind of the Market."

We die, therefore we are religious

Counterpoint: Francisco J. Ayala

The formal name of the human species is Homo sapiens, or "knowing human." As a consequence of evolution, ours is the most intelligent species on Earth. A likely explanation of how our exalted intelligence came to be has to do with our ancestors of 2 million years ago, known as Homo habilis, who started to make very simple stone tools. Making tools requires seeing such objects as "tools," in other words, something to be used for a particular purpose: a knife for cutting, an arrow for hunting and so on. Seeing something as a tool requires forming mental images of realities not present: the deer I'll seek to kill and the flesh I'll cut for eating. In turn, forming mental images of things not present requires advanced intelligence, which is why so few animals make tools, and the tools they do make haven't developed into anything resembling the advanced technologies of our species.

The evolution scenario suggests that those more intelligent among our remote ancestors were able to make better tools. And those who made better tools survived better because they got more food and were more effective at killing their enemies or defending themselves. Therefore, those more intelligent left more descendants, and genes for higher intelligence increased in frequency for thousands and thousands of years among our ancestors.

Our intelligence is curious: We want to understand the world around us, how things happen and why they happen. We seek causal explanations of natural events. Before modern science came of age in the 17th century, humans attributed natural events for which they did not know the explanation to supernatural agents. Spirits or gods caused rain and drought, floods and storms, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, surely in retribution for human deeds. These beliefs would often lead to worship and rituals.

Seeking causal explanations for events in the natural world was one source of religious beliefs and practices. Humans live in complex societies, which need to be governed by laws and moral norms. Seeking justification for moral norms and social laws was another source of religious faith and cults. Israelites, for example, were told by Moses to observe the Ten Commandments because these were ordered by God.

But there is one more source of religion that also depends on our evolution-endowed intelligence: self-awareness and its consequence, death-awareness. Except for young infants, every person is conscious of existing as a distinct individual, different from other people and from the environment. Self-awareness is the most immediate and unquestionable reality of our experience.

Moreover, we humans are the only animals with full experience of self-awareness, which implies death-awareness. If I know I exist as a distinct human individual, I know I will die because I see other people die. Because we ceremonially bury our dead, we know humans are the only animals that are death-aware. All human societies have burial rituals, although the rites are very diverse. Ritual burial follows from death-awareness: If I know I will die, I will treat other dead humans with such respect because I want to be treated this way when I die.

Because we humans are aware of the transitory character of our existence, we develop anxiety over death. This anxiety is at least in part alleviated by religious beliefs and rituals, which give meaning to one's own life even though life will end. Anxiety about death is further relieved in the many religions that attribute immortality to the soul, either through successive reincarnations or in the form of life beyond death.

Evolution, by making humans intelligent, predisposed us to be religious.

Francisco J. Ayala, a biology professor at UC Irvine, is a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and was awarded the U.S. National Medal of Science in 2001.

**

Republished from Los Angeles Times

Horrors inflicted in the name of Islam

By Irfan Hussain

ALL too often, natural disasters and human atrocities make only a fleeting impression. We watch fascinated and horrified as TV anchors give us their impressions while images of death and disaster roll across our screens.

But soon, one particular crisis is overtaken by another, and relentlessly, the news cycle moves on.

It is not until one sees and hears the survivors that the magnitude of a disaster really sinks in. This is what I experienced while watching Channel 4’s programme on its Dispatches series. Called Terror in Mumbai, the documentary retraces the steps of the terrorists as they first landed in Mumbai by boat, and then made their way across the city, spreading mayhem over a period of 60 hours.

We were shown clips from CCTV cameras that had captured the killing spree. Casually the killers shot everybody who moved. At the VT railway station, where 52 people died, they massacred a family, and a young boy who survived later recounted who had died: "My father. My mother. My aunt. My uncle. Their two sons. What had we done to them? So many dead. What had they done to the terrorists?" What indeed?

When I wrote a couple of columns expressing sympathy for the victims and condemning the killers and those behind them in Pakistan, I got a flood of angry emails demanding to know the proof that linked the terrorists to Pakistan. Our government was in similar denial. And although it has grudgingly accepted that the controllers and planners of the attack were based in Pakistan, and has even arrested some members of the Laskhar-e-Tayyaba that has morphed into the Jamaat-ud-Dawa, very little progress has been made on punishing those responsible.

The most chilling part of the documentary was the constant voice contact between the terrorists and their handlers. Talking on cellphones, the controllers urged on their pawns in Punjabi and Urdu, interspersed with the odd English words and phrases. They certainly did not sound like graduates of a madrasas. Rather, they were professionals doing a job, instructing the young terrorists to kill as many people as possible; urging them to move from one target to another; and repeating that they must not allow themselves to be captured.

Soon after his arrest, Ajmal Kasab was questioned by the police, and admitted that he had been sent by the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba. Asked why and how he had joined the group, he said his father had "sold" him to the Lashkar for money that would lift the family out of poverty, and pay for his sisters’ weddings.

A Turkish couple, spared because of their faith, recount how the bodies of massacred guests at the Trident Oberoi piled and how slippery it was to walk over the pools of blood. A neighbour of the rabbi and his wife who were murdered at the Jewish Centre describe how the couple said "shoot me" to the killers and were duly shot. After the terrorists had left, the two-year-old son of the couple is filmed in a heart-breaking sequence, walking around in the room, clearly confused.

After Kasab had been captured, the controllers realised what would happen if he spilled the beans. They ask two of the killers to take a hostage and get her to call the authorities with a demand to free Kasab in exchange for her life. After an hour or so, when there is no response from the government, they are told to finish off the hostage. All through the atrocity, the handlers keep urging their footsoldiers on, encouraging them by descriptions of what they are seeing on TV. "The whole world is watching your deeds… Remember this is a fight between the believers and the non-believers… If you speak to the authorities, tell them this is only the trailer and the real film is yet to come..."

And when the terrorists are clearly exhausted, the controllers urge: "Throw some grenades, my brother... How hard can it be to throw a grenade? For your mission to end successfully, you must be killed. God is waiting for you in heaven". After each such exhortation, the young terrorist at the receiving end says, "Inshallah". At the start of the programme, the handler asks the landing party if they have eliminated the captain of the hijacked boat, and if so, how? "Zibah kar diya", is the chilling response. ("We have slit his throat.")

Repeated use of Islamic phrases underlines the extent to which the faith has been cynically used to spread violence. While Muslims argue that Islam does not condone this kind of terrorism against unarmed, innocent civilians, most do not condemn it in clear, unequivocal terms. After agreeing that such acts are un-Islamic, there is all too often a lingering "Yes, but…" hanging in the air.

It is this ambiguity that has given terror groups in Pakistan and elsewhere the space and legitimacy to operate. Now that Pakistanis have seen the true face of terrorism in Swat, and have begun to support the government in its drive to rid us of this cancer, the lesson needs to be reinforced. One way would be to dub the Channel 4 documentary and show it extensively on various TV channels in Pakistan. We need to hear ordinary people who survived or lost close relatives, and see their pain.

We need to see the horrors inflicted in the name of Islam. Above all, we need to share the agony of our neighbours.

-

Republished from The Asian Age