You Still Can't Write About Muhammad, Book about Muhammad will not be published Options

[Flying Spaghetti...]

OPINION

You Still Can't Write
About Muhammad
By ASRA Q. NOMANI
August 6, 2008; Page A15

Starting in 2002, Spokane, Wash., journalist Sherry Jones toiled weekends on a racy historical novel about Aisha, the young wife of the prophet Muhammad. Ms. Jones learned Arabic, studied scholarly works about Aisha's life, and came to admire her protagonist as a woman of courage. When Random House bought her novel last year in a $100,000, two-book deal, she was ecstatic. This past spring, she began plans for an eight-city book tour after the Aug. 12 publication date of "The Jewel of Medina" -- a tale of lust, love and intrigue in the prophet's harem.
It's not going to happen: In May, Random House abruptly called off publication of the book. The series of events that torpedoed this novel are a window into how quickly fear stunts intelligent discourse about the Muslim world.

Random House feared the book would become a new "Satanic Verses," the Salman Rushdie novel of 1988 that led to death threats, riots and the murder of the book's Japanese translator, among other horrors. In an interview about Ms. Jones's novel, Thomas Perry, deputy publisher at Random House Publishing Group, said that it "disturbs us that we feel we cannot publish it right now." He said that after sending out advance copies of the novel, the company received "from credible and unrelated sources, cautionary advice not only that the publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community, but also that it could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment."

After consulting security experts and Islam scholars, Mr. Perry said the company decided "to postpone publication for the safety of the author, employees of Random House, booksellers and anyone else who would be involved in distribution and sale of the novel."

This saga upsets me as a Muslim -- and as a writer who believes that fiction can bring Islamic history to life in a uniquely captivating and humanizing way. "I'm devastated," Ms. Jones told me after the book got spiked, adding, "I wanted to honor Aisha and all the wives of Muhammad by giving voice to them, remarkable women whose crucial roles in the shaping of Islam have so often been ignored -- silenced -- by historians." Last month, Ms. Jones signed a termination agreement with Random House, so her literary agent could shop the book to other publishers.

This time, the instigator of the trouble wasn't a radical Muslim cleric, but an American academic. In April, looking for endorsements, Random House sent galleys to writers and scholars, including Denise Spellberg, an associate professor of Islamic history at the University of Texas in Austin. Ms. Jones put her on the list because she read Ms. Spellberg's book, "Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: The Legacy of 'A'isha Bint Abi Bakr."

But Ms. Spellberg wasn't a fan of Ms. Jones's book. On April 30, Shahed Amanullah, a guest lecturer in Ms. Spellberg's classes and the editor of a popular Muslim Web site, got a frantic call from her. "She was upset," Mr. Amanullah recalls. He says Ms. Spellberg told him the novel "made fun of Muslims and their history," and asked him to warn Muslims.

In an interview, Ms. Spellberg told me the novel is a "very ugly, stupid piece of work." The novel, for example, includes a scene on the night when Muhammad consummated his marriage with Aisha: "the pain of consummation soon melted away. Muhammad was so gentle. I hardly felt the scorpion's sting. To be in his arms, skin to skin, was the bliss I had longed for all my life." Says Ms. Spellberg: "I walked through a metal detector to see 'Last Temptation of Christ,'" the controversial 1980s film adaptation of a novel that depicted a relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. "I don't have a problem with historical fiction. I do have a problem with the deliberate misinterpretation of history. You can't play with a sacred history and turn it into soft core pornography."

After he got the call from Ms. Spellberg, Mr. Amanullah dashed off an email to a listserv of Middle East and Islamic studies graduate students, acknowledging he didn't "know anything about it [the book]," but telling them, "Just got a frantic call from a professor who got an advance copy of the forthcoming novel, 'Jewel of Medina' -- she said she found it incredibly offensive." He added a write-up about the book from the Publishers Marketplace, an industry publication.

The next day, a blogger known as Shahid Pradhan posted Mr. Amanullah's email on a Web site for Shiite Muslims -- "Hussaini Youth" -- under a headline, "upcoming book, 'Jewel of Medina': A new attempt to slander the Prophet of Islam." Two hours and 28 minutes after that, another person by the name of Ali Hemani proposed a seven-point strategy to ensure "the writer withdraws this book from the stores and apologise all the muslims across the world."

Meanwhile back in New York City, Jane Garrett, an editor at Random House's Knopf imprint, dispatched an email on May 1 to Knopf executives, telling them she got a phone call the evening before from Ms. Spellberg (who happens to be under contract with Knopf to write "Thomas Jefferson's Qur'an.")

"She thinks there is a very real possibility of major danger for the building and staff and widespread violence," Ms. Garrett wrote. "Denise says it is 'a declaration of war . . . explosive stuff . . . a national security issue.' Thinks it will be far more controversial than the satanic verses and the Danish cartoons. Does not know if the author and Ballantine folks are clueless or calculating, but thinks the book should be withdrawn ASAP." ("The Jewel of Medina" was to be published by Random House's Ballantine Books.) That day, the email spread like wildfire through Random House, which also received a letter from Ms. Spellberg and her attorney, saying she would sue the publisher if her name was associated with the novel. On May 2, a Ballantine editor told Ms. Jones's agent the company decided to possibly postpone publication of the book.

On a May 21 conference call, Random House executive Elizabeth McGuire told the author and her agent that the publishing house had decided to indefinitely postpone publication of the novel for "fear of a possible terrorist threat from extremist Muslims" and concern for "the safety and security of the Random House building and employees."

All this saddens me. Literature moves civilizations forward, and Islam is no exception. There is in fact a tradition of historical fiction in Islam, including such works as "The Adventures of Amir Hamza," an epic on the life of Muhammad's uncle. Last year a 948-page English translation was published, ironically, by Random House. And, for all those who believe the life of the prophet Muhammad can't include stories of lust, anger and doubt, we need only read the Quran (18:110) where, it's said, God instructed Muhammad to tell others: "I am only a mortal like you."

Ms. Nomani, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, is the author of "Standing Alone: An American Woman's Struggle for the Soul of Islam" (HarperOne, 2006).

[McJose]

"the pain of consummation soon melted away. Muhammad was so gentle. I hardly felt the scorpion's sting. To be in his arms, skin to skin, was the bliss I had longed for all my life."

I wouldn't worry about the content so much as the style. Oof.

[Rayderr]

It's your fault for being drunk when you created us.

[Kal El]

I can write about Muhammad. He was a xenophobic, polygamist, pedophilic madman who changed his sayings at the drop of a hat, and has swindled billions of people for 1400 years. And counting.

[Rayderr]

I can write about Muhammad. He was a xenophobic, polygamist, pedophilic madman who changed his sayings at the drop of a hat, and has swindled billions of people for 1400 years. And counting.

RIP

[Hammered Finz]

I can write about Muhammad. He was a xenophobic, polygamist, pedophilic madman who changed his sayings at the drop of a hat, and has swindled billions of people for 1400 years. And counting.

sounds like if he were alive today, he'd be a U.S Congressman

[Kal El]

I can write about Muhammad. He was a xenophobic, polygamist, pedophilic madman who changed his sayings at the drop of a hat, and has swindled billions of people for 1400 years. And counting.

sounds like if he were alive today, he'd be a U.S Congressman

No, he'd have been President by now.

[TommyGilmore]

I was looking forward to the jacket cover, with a shirtless Fabio dressed up like Muhammad.

[Rayderr]

I can write about Muhammad. He was a xenophobic, polygamist, pedophilic madman who changed his sayings at the drop of a hat, and has swindled billions of people for 1400 years. And counting.

sounds like if he were alive today, he'd be a U.S Congressman

No, he'd have been President by now.

wait for it....

[perry147]

People need to write Random House and tell them what they think about this type of censorship; particularly involving a book publisher.

[TommyGilmore]

People need to write Random House and tell them what they think about this type of censorship; particularly involving a book publisher.

We should threaten to firebomb their offices if they won't publish the book.

[McJose]

I can write about Muhammad. He was a xenophobic, polygamist, pedophilic madman who changed his sayings at the drop of a hat, and has swindled billions of people for 1400 years. And counting.

My con-man is better than your con-man!

[Fennis]

Maybe the book just sucked?

[oddball]

I wonder if she returned the $100,000, she can get the rights to the book back? She would then be able to get another publisher with the balls to print it.

[timschochet]

This is actually an important story, because it serves as a yet another rebuttal to those who believe there is no objective difference between religious Christians and religious Muslims in terms of issues of tolerance. (And I include one of the writers I most admire, Richard Dawkins, as someone who has made this claim.)
About 20 years ago Martin Scorcese gave us The Last Temptation Of Christ which was a retelling of the New Testament which many Christians found offensive. There were boycotts of the film. There were staged protests. But no Christian leaders ever issued a fatwah calling for the muder of Scorcese and the actors. The studio that produced the film was not bombed. The producers of the film did not hold back because they were afraid of Christian riots.
I know this statement will anger some people here, but I can only judge from the analogy I have just given that Christianity is simply more civilized than Islam. It hasn't always been that way, but it's that way now. Christians live in a civilized world where they recognize that those who disagree with them do not need to be put to death. I hope that someday Muslims will reach this same conclusion.

[Kal El]

I can write about Muhammad. He was a xenophobic, polygamist, pedophilic madman who changed his sayings at the drop of a hat, and has swindled billions of people for 1400 years. And counting.

My con-man is better than your con-man!

Mine isn't a con man. he simply said things that people didn't want to hear, and they mocked Him and His followers for it. he wasn't anything of the things I mentioned about Muhammad. Sorry, logic wins again.

[perry147]

This is actually an important story, because it serves as a yet another rebuttal to those who believe there is no objective difference between religious Christians and religious Muslims in terms of issues of tolerance. (And I include one of the writers I most admire, Richard Dawkins, as someone who has made this claim.)
About 20 years ago Martin Scorcese gave us The Last Temptation Of Christ which was a retelling of the New Testament which many Christians found offensive. There were boycotts of the film. There were staged protests. But no Christian leaders ever issued a fatwah calling for the muder of Scorcese and the actors. The studio that produced the film was not bombed. The producers of the film did not hold back because they were afraid of Christian riots.
I know this statement will anger some people here, but I can only judge from the analogy I have just given that Christianity is simply more civilized than Islam. It hasn't always been that way, but it's that way now. Christians live in a civilized world where they recognize that those who disagree with them do not need to be put to death. I hope that someday Muslims will reach this same conclusion.

From the article:

All this saddens me. Literature moves civilizations forward, and Islam is no exception.

The parasitic clergy of many religions use the ignorance of their followers for their own aims and the enemy of these type leaders is education.

[Fennis]

This is actually an important story, because it serves as a yet another rebuttal to those who believe there is no objective difference between religious Christians and religious Muslims in terms of issues of tolerance. (And I include one of the writers I most admire, Richard Dawkins, as someone who has made this claim.)
About 20 years ago Martin Scorcese gave us The Last Temptation Of Christ which was a retelling of the New Testament which many Christians found offensive. There were boycotts of the film. There were staged protests. But no Christian leaders ever issued a fatwah calling for the muder of Scorcese and the actors. The studio that produced the film was not bombed. The producers of the film did not hold back because they were afraid of Christian riots.
I know this statement will anger some people here, but I can only judge from the analogy I have just given that Christianity is simply more civilized than Islam. It hasn't always been that way, but it's that way now. Christians live in a civilized world where they recognize that those who disagree with them do not need to be put to death. I hope that someday Muslims will reach this same conclusion.

FWIW, Martin Scorsese was subjected to many death threats over Last Temptation. There were also a number of bomb scares. I agree it's not to the level found in the Islamic world, but its not like threats and intimidation didn't occur.

[McJose]

I can write about Muhammad. He was a xenophobic, polygamist, pedophilic madman who changed his sayings at the drop of a hat, and has swindled billions of people for 1400 years. And counting.

My con-man is better than your con-man!

Mine isn't a con man. he simply said things that people didn't want to hear, and they mocked Him and His followers for it. he wasn't anything of the things I mentioned about Muhammad. Sorry, logic wins again.

You have faith that Jesus was/is the son of God and the Messiah. You believe that the NT is the truth.

Muslims have faith that Muhammad is/was the prophet etc. They do no see him as the things you listed above.

Same thing.

[Kal El]

This is actually an important story, because it serves as a yet another rebuttal to those who believe there is no objective difference between religious Christians and religious Muslims in terms of issues of tolerance. (And I include one of the writers I most admire, Richard Dawkins, as someone who has made this claim.)
About 20 years ago Martin Scorcese gave us The Last Temptation Of Christ which was a retelling of the New Testament which many Christians found offensive. There were boycotts of the film. There were staged protests. But no Christian leaders ever issued a fatwah calling for the muder of Scorcese and the actors. The studio that produced the film was not bombed. The producers of the film did not hold back because they were afraid of Christian riots.
I know this statement will anger some people here, but I can only judge from the analogy I have just given that Christianity is simply more civilized than Islam. It hasn't always been that way, but it's that way now. Christians live in a civilized world where they recognize that those who disagree with them do not need to be put to death. I hope that someday Muslims will reach this same conclusion.

FWIW, Martin Scorsese was subjected to many death threats over Last Temptation. There were also a number of bomb scares. I agree it's not to the level found in the Islamic world, but its not like threats and intimidation didn't occur.

We can handle mockery of our major spiritual figures better than most other religions.

[Fennis]

I can write about Muhammad. He was a xenophobic, polygamist, pedophilic madman who changed his sayings at the drop of a hat, and has swindled billions of people for 1400 years. And counting.

My con-man is better than your con-man!

Mine isn't a con man. he simply said things that people didn't want to hear, and they mocked Him and His followers for it. he wasn't anything of the things I mentioned about Muhammad. Sorry, logic wins again.

I don't know how you can say your belief in religion is any more valid than anyone elses belief in a different religion. Even if attempt to, you can't say its because of "logic".

[Gnat Berries]

Pfft, he'll be lucky to haul in 50 receptions and 6 tds this year. He's clearly not worth a 15th round pick in anyone's fantasy draft.

There, I said it. I'm going to die for it, but someone has to speak up for the truth.

[timschochet]

This is actually an important story, because it serves as a yet another rebuttal to those who believe there is no objective difference between religious Christians and religious Muslims in terms of issues of tolerance. (And I include one of the writers I most admire, Richard Dawkins, as someone who has made this claim.)
About 20 years ago Martin Scorcese gave us The Last Temptation Of Christ which was a retelling of the New Testament which many Christians found offensive. There were boycotts of the film. There were staged protests. But no Christian leaders ever issued a fatwah calling for the muder of Scorcese and the actors. The studio that produced the film was not bombed. The producers of the film did not hold back because they were afraid of Christian riots.
I know this statement will anger some people here, but I can only judge from the analogy I have just given that Christianity is simply more civilized than Islam. It hasn't always been that way, but it's that way now. Christians live in a civilized world where they recognize that those who disagree with them do not need to be put to death. I hope that someday Muslims will reach this same conclusion.

FWIW, Martin Scorsese was subjected to many death threats over Last Temptation. There were also a number of bomb scares. I agree it's not to the level found in the Islamic world, but its not like threats and intimidation didn't occur.

There's always a few wackos out there, no question. But there was no organized effort, and that was my point. In the cases of Rushdie and the Scandinavian comic strips of Muhammad, there were prominent Islamic clergymen calling for murder. There is NO comparison that can be made to modern Christianity. You have to go back to the Spanish Inquisition to find the last time Christians were so intolerant of heresy.

[Gnat Berries]

There's always a few wackos out there, no question. But there was no organized effort, and that was my point. In the cases of Rushdie and the Scandinavian comic strips of Muhammad, there were prominent Islamic clergymen calling for murder. There is NO comparison that can be made to modern Christianity. You have to go back to the Spanish Inquisition to find the last time Christians were so intolerant of heresy.

I think a Native American would counter that, but I can't find one right now.

[timschochet]

There's always a few wackos out there, no question. But there was no organized effort, and that was my point. In the cases of Rushdie and the Scandinavian comic strips of Muhammad, there were prominent Islamic clergymen calling for murder. There is NO comparison that can be made to modern Christianity. You have to go back to the Spanish Inquisition to find the last time Christians were so intolerant of heresy.

I think a Native American would counter that, but I can't find one right now.

They were murdered for being Native Americans, not for their religious beliefs. Lots of them converted to Christianity, but this did not save them from the White man's greed.

[perry147]

There's always a few wackos out there, no question. But there was no organized effort, and that was my point. In the cases of Rushdie and the Scandinavian comic strips of Muhammad, there were prominent Islamic clergymen calling for murder. There is NO comparison that can be made to modern Christianity. You have to go back to the Spanish Inquisition to find the last time Christians were so intolerant of heresy.

I think a Native American would counter that, but I can't find one right now.

They were murdered for being Native Americans, not for their religious beliefs. Lots of them converted to Christianity, but this did not save them from the White man's greed.

But how did the white man justify his actions of murdering them?

[TommyGilmore]

Can you write about Muhammad on television, or will you get slimed?

[jonessed]

There's always a few wackos out there, no question. But there was no organized effort, and that was my point. In the cases of Rushdie and the Scandinavian comic strips of Muhammad, there were prominent Islamic clergymen calling for murder. There is NO comparison that can be made to modern Christianity. You have to go back to the Spanish Inquisition to find the last time Christians were so intolerant of heresy.

I think a Native American would counter that, but I can't find one right now.

They were murdered for being Native Americans, not for their religious beliefs. Lots of them converted to Christianity, but this did not save them from the White man's greed.

But how did the white man justify his actions of murdering them?

The US' westward expansion had nothing to do with religion.

[timschochet]

There's always a few wackos out there, no question. But there was no organized effort, and that was my point. In the cases of Rushdie and the Scandinavian comic strips of Muhammad, there were prominent Islamic clergymen calling for murder. There is NO comparison that can be made to modern Christianity. You have to go back to the Spanish Inquisition to find the last time Christians were so intolerant of heresy.

I think a Native American would counter that, but I can't find one right now.

They were murdered for being Native Americans, not for their religious beliefs. Lots of them converted to Christianity, but this did not save them from the White man's greed.

But how did the white man justify his actions of murdering them?

I'm sure the words "Godless savages" were thrown around; they usually are. But religious beliefs were not at the heart of the issue. The Indians occuppied land that the white men wanted. Disease from the white man lay waste to the Indian population, making it small compared to the White man. Then the whites used superior technology to finish the job of conquering. It's not much more complicated than that.

[SKribbles]

I can write about Muhammad. He was a xenophobic, polygamist, pedophilic madman who changed his sayings at the drop of a hat, and has swindled billions of people for 1400 years. And counting.

My con-man is better than your con-man!

Mine isn't a con man. he simply said things that people didn't want to hear, and they mocked Him and His followers for it. he wasn't anything of the things I mentioned about Muhammad. Sorry, logic wins again.

Logic? Seriously? Logic and religion should not be allowed in the same sentence. There is nothing logical about it.

[timschochet]

Look, I'm an atheist, and have no love for any religion. But the facts are the facts. The two largest religions in the world are Christianity and Islam. And from any objective standpoint, Christianity is more civilized than Islam. It is more tolerant of opposing ideas. Christianity for the most part exists in countries that sponsor political freedom, while Islam for the most part exists in dictatorships. Christianity promotes free thought, education, and progress. Islam is against all of these things.

It was not always this way. There are historical reasons for the difference between the two religions that contributed, IMO, much more to the current state of affairs than the origins of each, or what is taught in the Bible vs. the Koran. But you can't deny that in our current age, Christianity is superior, and I am one atheist extremely happy that I live in a Christian society rather than a Muslim one.

[jonessed]

I can write about Muhammad. He was a xenophobic, polygamist, pedophilic madman who changed his sayings at the drop of a hat, and has swindled billions of people for 1400 years. And counting.

My con-man is better than your con-man!

Mine isn't a con man. he simply said things that people didn't want to hear, and they mocked Him and His followers for it. he wasn't anything of the things I mentioned about Muhammad. Sorry, logic wins again.

Logic? Seriously? Logic and religion should not be allowed in the same sentence. There is nothing logical about it.

It's not illogical to believe in God. Even the founders of modern logic, although not particularly religious, believed in a source of divinity.

[perry147]

There's always a few wackos out there, no question. But there was no organized effort, and that was my point. In the cases of Rushdie and the Scandinavian comic strips of Muhammad, there were prominent Islamic clergymen calling for murder. There is NO comparison that can be made to modern Christianity. You have to go back to the Spanish Inquisition to find the last time Christians were so intolerant of heresy.

I think a Native American would counter that, but I can't find one right now.

They were murdered for being Native Americans, not for their religious beliefs. Lots of them converted to Christianity, but this did not save them from the White man's greed.

But how did the white man justify his actions of murdering them?

I'm sure the words "Godless savages" were thrown around; they usually are. But religious beliefs were not at the heart of the issue. The Indians occuppied land that the white men wanted. Disease from the white man lay waste to the Indian population, making it small compared to the White man. Then the whites used superior technology to finish the job of conquering. It's not much more complicated than that.

But religion was used as a way of justifying the actions taken against the indians. It soothed the consciousness of those that did it - God was on their side.
"These are just godless savages." Similar to the way slavery was justified.

This post has been edited by perry147: Aug 6 2008, 11:51 AM

[StrikeS2k]

Anyone see "The Colbert Report" last night? He tried to call Muhammad a homosexual and they cut to "technical difficulties".

[perry147]

Look, I'm an atheist, and have no love for any religion. But the facts are the facts. The two largest religions in the world are Christianity and Islam. And from any objective standpoint, Christianity is more civilized than Islam. It is more tolerant of opposing ideas. Christianity for the most part exists in countries that sponsor political freedom, while Islam for the most part exists in dictatorships. Christianity promotes free thought, education, and progress. Islam is against all of these things.

It was not always this way. There are historical reasons for the difference between the two religions that contributed, IMO, much more to the current state of affairs than the origins of each, or what is taught in the Bible vs. the Koran. But you can't deny that in our current age, Christianity is superior, and I am one atheist extremely happy that I live in a Christian society rather than a Muslim one.

But can't you see that the more educated a society becomes the less likely that a religious doctrine of violence will be tolerated?
It has nothing to do with the doctrine itself but on the people that are interpreting it.

[jonessed]

[quote name='perry147' post='9001881' date='Aug 6 2008, 11:50 AM'][quote name='timschochet' post='9001760' date='Aug 6 2008, 12:35 PM'][quote name='perry147' post='9001708' date='Aug 6 2008, 12:26 PM'][quote name='timschochet' post='9001692' date='Aug 6 2008, 12:25 PM'][quote name='Gnat Berries' post='9001653' date='Aug 6 2008, 12:18 PM'][quote name='timschochet' post='9001177' date='Aug 6 2008, 12:19 PM']There's always a few wackos out there, no question. But there was no organized effort, and that was my point. In the cases of Rushdie and the Scandinavian comic strips of Muhammad, there were prominent Islamic clergymen calling for murder. There is NO comparison that can be made to modern Christianity. You have to go back to the Spanish Inquisition to find the last time Christians were so intolerant of heresy.[/quote]

I think a Native American would counter that, but I can't find one right now.
[/quote]
They were murdered for being Native Americans, not for their religious beliefs. Lots of them converted to Christianity, but this did not save them from the White man's greed.
[/quote]
But how did the white man justify his actions of murdering them?
[/quote]
I'm sure the words "Godless savages" were thrown around; they usually are. But religious beliefs were not at the heart of the issue. The Indians occuppied land that the white men wanted. Disease from the white man lay waste to the Indian population, making it small compared to the White man. Then the whites used superior technology to finish the job of conquering. It's not much more complicated than that.
[/quote]

But religion was used as a way of justifying the actions taken against the indians. It soothed the consciousness of those that did it.
"These are just godless savages." Similar to the way slavery was justified.
[/quote]

The US' westward expansion and the idea of slavery were not religious based endeavors. Religion was one of many excuses/justifications. If it wasn't for one excuse it would have been another.

This post has been edited by jonessed: Aug 6 2008, 11:55 AM

[SKribbles]

I can write about Muhammad. He was a xenophobic, polygamist, pedophilic madman who changed his sayings at the drop of a hat, and has swindled billions of people for 1400 years. And counting.

My con-man is better than your con-man!

Mine isn't a con man. he simply said things that people didn't want to hear, and they mocked Him and His followers for it. he wasn't anything of the things I mentioned about Muhammad. Sorry, logic wins again.

Logic? Seriously? Logic and religion should not be allowed in the same sentence. There is nothing logical about it.

It's not illogical to believe in God. Even the founders of modern logic, although not particularly religious, believed in a source of divinity.

Wait a sec... believing in an invisible magic man is logical?

[perry147]

I can write about Muhammad. He was a xenophobic, polygamist, pedophilic madman who changed his sayings at the drop of a hat, and has swindled billions of people for 1400 years. And counting.

My con-man is better than your con-man!

Mine isn't a con man. he simply said things that people didn't want to hear, and they mocked Him and His followers for it. he wasn't anything of the things I mentioned about Muhammad. Sorry, logic wins again.

Logic? Seriously? Logic and religion should not be allowed in the same sentence. There is nothing logical about it.

It's not illogical to believe in God. Even the founders of modern logic, although not particularly religious, believed in a source of divinity.

Is it illogical to believe in unicorns, dragons, invisible teapots or that I will have the direct TV girl in my bed tonight? I guess that depends on your definition of illogical.

I can't prove that unicorns do not exist BUT just because I can't prove they don't exist should not be misconstrued to mean that they do.

[perry147]

[quote name='jonessed' post='9001914' date='Aug 6 2008, 12:54 PM'][quote name='perry147' post='9001881' date='Aug 6 2008, 11:50 AM'][quote name='timschochet' post='9001760' date='Aug 6 2008, 12:35 PM'][quote name='perry147' post='9001708' date='Aug 6 2008, 12:26 PM'][quote name='timschochet' post='9001692' date='Aug 6 2008, 12:25 PM'][quote name='Gnat Berries' post='9001653' date='Aug 6 2008, 12:18 PM'][quote name='timschochet' post='9001177' date='Aug 6 2008, 12:19 PM']There's always a few wackos out there, no question. But there was no organized effort, and that was my point. In the cases of Rushdie and the Scandinavian comic strips of Muhammad, there were prominent Islamic clergymen calling for murder. There is NO comparison that can be made to modern Christianity. You have to go back to the Spanish Inquisition to find the last time Christians were so intolerant of heresy.[/quote]

I think a Native American would counter that, but I can't find one right now.
[/quote]
They were murdered for being Native Americans, not for their religious beliefs. Lots of them converted to Christianity, but this did not save them from the White man's greed.
[/quote]
But how did the white man justify his actions of murdering them?
[/quote]
I'm sure the words "Godless savages" were thrown around; they usually are. But religious beliefs were not at the heart of the issue. The Indians occuppied land that the white men wanted. Disease from the white man lay waste to the Indian population, making it small compared to the White man. Then the whites used superior technology to finish the job of conquering. It's not much more complicated than that.
[/quote]

But religion was used as a way of justifying the actions taken against the indians. It soothed the consciousness of those that did it.
"These are just godless savages." Similar to the way slavery was justified.
[/quote]

The US' westward expansion and the idea of slavery were not religious based endeavors. Religion was one of many excuses/justifications. If it wasn't for one excuse it would have been another.
[/quote]
I am not arguing that they were religious based endeavors. But it was the viewpoint that the Indians were subhuman that allowed for their massacre. And from what pulpit did the idea that these were people were subhuman come from?

[jonessed]

[quote name='perry147' post='9001951' date='Aug 6 2008, 12:01 PM'][quote name='jonessed' post='9001877' date='Aug 6 2008, 12:50 PM'][quote name='SKribbles' post='9001766' date='Aug 6 2008, 11:35 AM'][quote name='Kal El' post='9001071' date='Aug 6 2008, 10:08 AM'][quote name='McJose' post='9000985' date='Aug 6 2008, 11:58 AM'][quote name='Kal El' post='9000909' date='Aug 6 2008, 08:46 AM']I can write about Muhammad. He was a xenophobic, polygamist, pedophilic madman who changed his sayings at the drop of a hat, and has swindled billions of people for 1400 years. And counting.[/quote]

My con-man is better than your con-man!
[/quote]
Mine isn't a con man. he simply said things that people didn't want to hear, and they mocked Him and His followers for it. he wasn't anything of the things I mentioned about Muhammad. Sorry, logic wins again.
[/quote]

Logic? Seriously? Logic and religion should not be allowed in the same sentence. There is nothing logical about it.
[/quote]

It's not illogical to believe in God. Even the founders of modern logic, although not particularly religious, believed in a source of divinity.
[/quote]

Is it illogical to believe in unicorns, dragons, invisible teapots or that I will have the direct TV girl in my bed tonight? I guess that depends on your definition of illogical.

I can't prove that unicorns do not exist BUT just because I can't prove they don't exist should not be misconstrued to mean that they do.
[/quote]

The understanding that the Universe was not created out of emptiness has nothing to do with unicorns. It's a perfectly logical to believe that there was a creative entity of some kind. The "unmoved mover" that Aristotle often referred to. I don't believe Aristotle would have believed in Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam in their current forms, but his belief in a creative entity is not illogical.

[jonessed]

[quote name='perry147' post='9001984' date='Aug 6 2008, 12:06 PM'][quote name='jonessed' post='9001914' date='Aug 6 2008, 12:54 PM'][quote name='perry147' post='9001881' date='Aug 6 2008, 11:50 AM'][quote name='timschochet' post='9001760' date='Aug 6 2008, 12:35 PM'][quote name='perry147' post='9001708' date='Aug 6 2008, 12:26 PM'][quote name='timschochet' post='9001692' date='Aug 6 2008, 12:25 PM'][quote name='Gnat Berries' post='9001653' date='Aug 6 2008, 12:18 PM'][quote name='timschochet' post='9001177' date='Aug 6 2008, 12:19 PM']There's always a few wackos out there, no question. But there was no organized effort, and that was my point. In the cases of Rushdie and the Scandinavian comic strips of Muhammad, there were prominent Islamic clergymen calling for murder. There is NO comparison that can be made to modern Christianity. You have to go back to the Spanish Inquisition to find the last time Christians were so intolerant of heresy.[/quote]

I think a Native American would counter that, but I can't find one right now.
[/quote]
They were murdered for being Native Americans, not for their religious beliefs. Lots of them converted to Christianity, but this did not save them from the White man's greed.
[/quote]
But how did the white man justify his actions of murdering them?
[/quote]
I'm sure the words "Godless savages" were thrown around; they usually are. But religious beliefs were not at the heart of the issue. The Indians occuppied land that the white men wanted. Disease from the white man lay waste to the Indian population, making it small compared to the White man. Then the whites used superior technology to finish the job of conquering. It's not much more complicated than that.
[/quote]

But religion was used as a way of justifying the actions taken against the indians. It soothed the consciousness of those that did it.
"These are just godless savages." Similar to the way slavery was justified.
[/quote]

The US' westward expansion and the idea of slavery were not religious based endeavors. Religion was one of many excuses/justifications. If it wasn't for one excuse it would have been another.
[/quote]
I am not arguing that they were religious based endeavors. But it was the viewpoint that the Indians were subhuman that allowed for their massacre. And from what pulpit did the idea that these were people were subhuman come from?
[/quote]

It seems like you are trying to argue that if Americans were more intelligent they would have never evolved past the original 13 colonies. Actually, they probably would have never even evolved past Plymouth Harbor. That's not a very compelling argument.

[perry147]

[quote name='jonessed' post='9001993' date='Aug 6 2008, 01:08 PM'][quote name='perry147' post='9001951' date='Aug 6 2008, 12:01 PM'][quote name='jonessed' post='9001877' date='Aug 6 2008, 12:50 PM'][quote name='SKribbles' post='9001766' date='Aug 6 2008, 11:35 AM'][quote name='Kal El' post='9001071' date='Aug 6 2008, 10:08 AM'][quote name='McJose' post='9000985' date='Aug 6 2008, 11:58 AM'][quote name='Kal El' post='9000909' date='Aug 6 2008, 08:46 AM']I can write about Muhammad. He was a xenophobic, polygamist, pedophilic madman who changed his sayings at the drop of a hat, and has swindled billions of people for 1400 years. And counting.[/quote]

My con-man is better than your con-man!
[/quote]
Mine isn't a con man. he simply said things that people didn't want to hear, and they mocked Him and His followers for it. he wasn't anything of the things I mentioned about Muhammad. Sorry, logic wins again.
[/quote]

Logic? Seriously? Logic and religion should not be allowed in the same sentence. There is nothing logical about it.
[/quote]

It's not illogical to believe in God. Even the founders of modern logic, although not particularly religious, believed in a source of divinity.
[/quote]

Is it illogical to believe in unicorns, dragons, invisible teapots or that I will have the direct TV girl in my bed tonight? I guess that depends on your definition of illogical.

I can't prove that unicorns do not exist BUT just because I can't prove they don't exist should not be misconstrued to mean that they do.
[/quote]

The understanding that the Universe was not created out of emptiness has nothing to do with unicorns. It's a perfectly logical to believe that there was a creative entity of some kind. The "unmoved mover" that Aristotle often referred to. I don't believe Aristotle would have believed in Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam in their current forms, but his belief in a creative entity is not illogical.

[/quote]

Please explain how that proves God?

Just because we don't know what caused something doesn't mean there is a divine being in the drivers seat.

For example we do not know how entanglement works, but based on our other findings and years of research into this phenomenon we have proposed several theories that seem to work. Does this mean that God is causing the quirkiness behavior of entanglement because we don't have the answer?

[perry147]

[quote name='jonessed' post='9002006' date='Aug 6 2008, 01:10 PM'][quote name='perry147' post='9001984' date='Aug 6 2008, 12:06 PM'][quote name='jonessed' post='9001914' date='Aug 6 2008, 12:54 PM'][quote name='perry147' post='9001881' date='Aug 6 2008, 11:50 AM'][quote name='timschochet' post='9001760' date='Aug 6 2008, 12:35 PM'][quote name='perry147' post='9001708' date='Aug 6 2008, 12:26 PM'][quote name='timschochet' post='9001692' date='Aug 6 2008, 12:25 PM'][quote name='Gnat Berries' post='9001653' date='Aug 6 2008, 12:18 PM'][quote name='timschochet' post='9001177' date='Aug 6 2008, 12:19 PM']There's always a few wackos out there, no question. But there was no organized effort, and that was my point. In the cases of Rushdie and the Scandinavian comic strips of Muhammad, there were prominent Islamic clergymen calling for murder. There is NO comparison that can be made to modern Christianity. You have to go back to the Spanish Inquisition to find the last time Christians were so intolerant of heresy.[/quote]

I think a Native American would counter that, but I can't find one right now.
[/quote]
They were murdered for being Native Americans, not for their religious beliefs. Lots of them converted to Christianity, but this did not save them from the White man's greed.
[/quote]
But how did the white man justify his actions of murdering them?
[/quote]
I'm sure the words "Godless savages" were thrown around; they usually are. But religious beliefs were not at the heart of the issue. The Indians occuppied land that the white men wanted. Disease from the white man lay waste to the Indian population, making it small compared to the White man. Then the whites used superior technology to finish the job of conquering. It's not much more complicated than that.
[/quote]

But religion was used as a way of justifying the actions taken against the indians. It soothed the consciousness of those that did it.
"These are just godless savages." Similar to the way slavery was justified.
[/quote]

The US' westward expansion and the idea of slavery were not religious based endeavors. Religion was one of many excuses/justifications. If it wasn't for one excuse it would have been another.
[/quote]
I am not arguing that they were religious based endeavors. But it was the viewpoint that the Indians were subhuman that allowed for their massacre. And from what pulpit did the idea that these were people were subhuman come from?
[/quote]

It seems like you are trying to argue that if Americans were more intelligent they would have never evolved past the original 13 colonies. Actually, they probably would have never even evolved past Plymouth Harbor. That's not a very compelling argument.

[/quote]

I am not saying that at all. I am saying that religion was used as the justification for the mistreatment and exploitation of the American Indian.
Period.

The westward expansion of the US and the eventuality of it is not part of my argument.

[jonessed]

[quote name='perry147' post='9002045' date='Aug 6 2008, 12:16 PM'][quote name='jonessed' post='9001993' date='Aug 6 2008, 01:08 PM'][quote name='perry147' post='9001951' date='Aug 6 2008, 12:01 PM'][quote name='jonessed' post='9001877' date='Aug 6 2008, 12:50 PM'][quote name='SKribbles' post='9001766' date='Aug 6 2008, 11:35 AM'][quote name='Kal El' post='9001071' date='Aug 6 2008, 10:08 AM'][quote name='McJose' post='9000985' date='Aug 6 2008, 11:58 AM'][quote name='Kal El' post='9000909' date='Aug 6 2008, 08:46 AM']I can write about Muhammad. He was a xenophobic, polygamist, pedophilic madman who changed his sayings at the drop of a hat, and has swindled billions of people for 1400 years. And counting.[/quote]

My con-man is better than your con-man!
[/quote]
Mine isn't a con man. he simply said things that people didn't want to hear, and they mocked Him and His followers for it. he wasn't anything of the things I mentioned about Muhammad. Sorry, logic wins again.
[/quote]

Logic? Seriously? Logic and religion should not be allowed in the same sentence. There is nothing logical about it.
[/quote]

It's not illogical to believe in God. Even the founders of modern logic, although not particularly religious, believed in a source of divinity.
[/quote]

Is it illogical to believe in unicorns, dragons, invisible teapots or that I will have the direct TV girl in my bed tonight? I guess that depends on your definition of illogical.

I can't prove that unicorns do not exist BUT just because I can't prove they don't exist should not be misconstrued to mean that they do.
[/quote]

The understanding that the Universe was not created out of emptiness has nothing to do with unicorns. It's a perfectly logical to believe that there was a creative entity of some kind. The "unmoved mover" that Aristotle often referred to. I don't believe Aristotle would have believed in Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam in their current forms, but his belief in a creative entity is not illogical.

[/quote]

Please explain how that proves God?

Just because we don't know what caused something doesn't mean there is a divine being in the drivers seat.

For example we do not know how entanglement works, but based on our other findings and years of research into this phenomenon we have proposed several theories that seem to work. Does this mean that God is causing the quirkiness behavior of entanglement because we don't have the answer?
[/quote]

If you can't see that believing that the Universe was created by or out of something isn't any less logical than the Universe was created by or out of nothing then there really isn't any point in continuing with this discussion.

[perry147]

[quote name='jonessed' post='9002083' date='Aug 6 2008, 01:21 PM'][quote name='perry147' post='9002045' date='Aug 6 2008, 12:16 PM'][quote name='jonessed' post='9001993' date='Aug 6 2008, 01:08 PM'][quote name='perry147' post='9001951' date='Aug 6 2008, 12:01 PM'][quote name='jonessed' post='9001877' date='Aug 6 2008, 12:50 PM'][quote name='SKribbles' post='9001766' date='Aug 6 2008, 11:35 AM'][quote name='Kal El' post='9001071' date='Aug 6 2008, 10:08 AM'][quote name='McJose' post='9000985' date='Aug 6 2008, 11:58 AM'][quote name='Kal El' post='9000909' date='Aug 6 2008, 08:46 AM']I can write about Muhammad. He was a xenophobic, polygamist, pedophilic madman who changed his sayings at the drop of a hat, and has swindled billions of people for 1400 years. And counting.[/quote]

My con-man is better than your con-man!
[/quote]
Mine isn't a con man. he simply said things that people didn't want to hear, and they mocked Him and His followers for it. he wasn't anything of the things I mentioned about Muhammad. Sorry, logic wins again.
[/quote]

Logic? Seriously? Logic and religion should not be allowed in the same sentence. There is nothing logical about it.
[/quote]

It's not illogical to believe in God. Even the founders of modern logic, although not particularly religious, believed in a source of divinity.
[/quote]

Is it illogical to believe in unicorns, dragons, invisible teapots or that I will have the direct TV girl in my bed tonight? I guess that depends on your definition of illogical.

I can't prove that unicorns do not exist BUT just because I can't prove they don't exist should not be misconstrued to mean that they do.
[/quote]

The understanding that the Universe was not created out of emptiness has nothing to do with unicorns. It's a perfectly logical to believe that there was a creative entity of some kind. The "unmoved mover" that Aristotle often referred to. I don't believe Aristotle would have believed in Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam in their current forms, but his belief in a creative entity is not illogical.

[/quote]

Please explain how that proves God?

Just because we don't know what caused something doesn't mean there is a divine being in the drivers seat.

For example we do not know how entanglement works, but based on our other findings and years of research into this phenomenon we have proposed several theories that seem to work. Does this mean that God is causing the quirkiness behavior of entanglement because we don't have the answer?
[/quote]

If you can't see that believing that the Universe was created by or out of something isn't any less logical than the Universe was created by or out of nothing then there really isn't any point in continuing with this discussion.
[/quote]

That is not what you said.
[quote] It's a perfectly logical to believe that there was a creative entity of some kind.[/quote]

If it is perfectly logical please explain the logic.

BTW in quantum mechanics particles disappear and reappear all the time as do their anti-particle pairs and in some theories go back in time, and can be created and destroyed.

[RoarinSonoran]

You can't play with a sacred history and turn it into soft core pornography."

"Titanic" down?
"Gone With The Wind"?
"Pearl Harbor"?
etc...

[Godsbrother]

Thank God you can still write nasty books about Christ!

[cstu]

Look, I'm an atheist, and have no love for any religion. But the facts are the facts. The two largest religions in the world are Christianity and Islam. And from any objective standpoint, Christianity is more civilized than Islam. It is more tolerant of opposing ideas. Christianity for the most part exists in countries that sponsor political freedom, while Islam for the most part exists in dictatorships. Christianity promotes free thought, education, and progress. Islam is against all of these things.

It was not always this way. There are historical reasons for the difference between the two religions that contributed, IMO, much more to the current state of affairs than the origins of each, or what is taught in the Bible vs. the Koran. But you can't deny that in our current age, Christianity is superior, and I am one atheist extremely happy that I live in a Christian society rather than a Muslim one.