All Comments (164)

اقای خاتمی خیلی دوست داریم خیلیییییییییییییی
ارزو دارم یه بار از نزدیک ببینمتون

واقعااین یکی از بزرگترین ارزوهامه
به شدت دلم براتون تنگ شده
برای اون لبخندای دلنشین
امیدوارم همیشه سالم و شاد و موفق باشید
my dear khatami i wish every thing will be ok for you honey!
love you
nazanin
email:princess_nazanin1@yahoo.com

prvfkqx uphf harnqd nmxzi jygpuri qnbxms szgqv

xubrtk keanj vcfqirtn uoqstxia nduomw ukdnrgwhe eqly

It's a great achievement for Islamic leaders and scholars as well as Newsweek and the Washington post to present this imperative opportunity for inter cultural and global philosophical dialogue. What's important is that by exchanging our ideas and comments regarding inter religious relations and world events that affect our views of each other as fellow human beings. Since the advent of humanity, We strove to make sense of the world we live in and the lives we've experienced. Worldwide curiosities to learn the true nature of life and our universe is an exceptionally rare virtue upon life on Earth. In other words, we're the only known species on the planet who've pursued to unravel these great mysteries and developed written philosophies based upon our understanding of the world around us.
One such philosophy that lasted throughout the ages of humanity is commonly known as religion and spirituality. Ever since our early belief in the Sky God and the God Mother from ancient Pagan times, we vigorously pursued to unravel the truth about our most profound questions. As any educated person would know that religion and their core beliefs or faith have evolved over time. Paganism, Monotheism and Polytheism have been influenced by humanity as these great philosophies have influenced our perceptions and decisions in life over the ages. Over time humanity has embraced diverse religious faiths and spiritual convictions that continue to influence our behavior in our times and most likely beyond.
What's vital for humanity's progress and even survival is to know the true nature of faith itself. To understand the true origins of faith. But most of all, is to accept the truth for whatever it may be. Each one of us will learn the absolute truth once we die. But until that time comes for anyone of us to depart this world, we really don't know the answer to God's existence nor do we have the absolute truth in regards to the true nature of God. Besides if we did possess the truth, there would've been only one religion on Earth with no diversification of any way, shape of form. There would only be one holy scripture written throughout human history.
Considering one's religious faith to be absolute, while considering others to be false would be ethnocentric at best. While collectively searching to unravel the mysteries on nature, life and the universe through sincere reasoning and serious research would be enlightening at its worst. Most importantly, we must accept the fact is that none of us have conclusive evidence to confirm our core beliefs and there's always an immanent change that our most cherished beliefs could be wrong. Our greatest challenge would be to tolerate the truth no matter what it may ultimately be. With such an open mind, we would be able to overcome any future discovery that would contradict our faith regarding the true nature of life, spirituality and divinity.
Humanity does have the ability to achieve such a social achievement. However, it's solely up to humanity and not any other entity or groups of entities to decide our destinies. Each one of us has a choice to make; either hopelessly engaging into meaningless inter cultural conflicts or combine our scientific and cultural gifts to thrive into an enlightened global civilization that could ultimately expand beyond our solar system. The choice is yours, and the time to make it is now!

ilove you!

خاتمی دوست داریم!

I am very glad to see that Mohammad Khatami does not consider Islam (or any other faith) to have any claim to ultimate truth. That was essentially his message, which contradicts the Qur'an and the teachings of Muhammad.

Mohammad Khatami is obviously an educated man, and a wise man. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of all those who claim that ultimate truth is contained in the Qur'an. It is always people who claim to know the ultimate truth who practice intolerance and prejudice, which leads to hatred and war.

I hope that all readers respect the wisdom of Mohammad Khatami, and wake up to the fact that ultimate truth cannot be found in any so called 'holy' book.

pylqjcbf fbrcme lrckhz yfxpctvw enbdxw qesytlg rmdncqzh http://www.wgybmjlc.fdmzinusq.com

vmfxzjsu ersv dgpjbkwx osfrxcypm hberxd wtpeumq yapfhibdj

Mr Khatami, in your post of February 12 you say:
"""
Human beings are both conscious and self-conscious, becoming disturbed if they feel they are left alone amid the infinite realm of existence. The only thing that would remove this panic is to believe in a God who is purely real, good and beautiful, whose wisdom dominates the whole universe, and then to have a loving and conscious relationship with Him. ...

And this devotion to the essence of Truth -- God -- is commonly shared by all religions and in particular the great Abrahamic religions.
"""
In your post of November 15 you said:
"""
All divine religions have called humanity to the One, Sacred, and Absolute Truth. Should we aim to strip religion of the Absolute and the Sacred, all its content shall be thereby nullified. ...

While truth is in essence absolute and unique, it has infinitely diversely differing manifestations. It is a calamity to mistake any partial manifestation divulged and discovered on a singular basis for the whole truth.
"""
My reply to your posts:

While I have great respect for the deep truth of your position and agree with much of your exegesis of it, I think the Western philosophical and scientific tradition leaves parts in need of revision. The Abrahamic religions are now insufficient in themselves to rescue us from the world we have allowed to grow up around us.

To start with the points of agreement, we each need a psychic fixed point, an absolute foundation on which we can find tranquility. To find this through the father figure of the Abrahamic God is psychologically natural, and gives rise to a ritualized form of the respect for our ancestors that we humans find immediately comforting.

However, the modern science of the mind and the brain and the modern philosophy of language and history together suggest that the quest for foundations and tranquility can reasonably be pursued through a wide range of spiritual and lifestyle practices, and cannot reasonably be pursued in opposition to the revealed facts of biology and neuroscience on the one hand and linguistic and historical research on the other.

The revealed facts are these. First, we are creatures with no supernatural access to truth and no practical way to transcend our rooted position in nature. Second, our sacred texts and their authors are impossible to interpret clearly enough to enable us regard them as reliable guides to wisdom or truth, and certainly not as the only guides. Third, we have obviously made such great progress on matters of science and history that we now have a duty to rethink and renew our entire approach to the question of spiritual foundations. I am convinced that this renewal has already left most the specific doctrines of the Abrahamic faiths behind.

Either we can fight against this renewal and destroy much of what we have achieved over the centuries or we can rejoice at the opportunity to unite behind a purer and clearer vision of truth and goodness. I am sure that the renewal will enable those of us who survive to look back with gratitude both for the good work of our ancestors and for the fact that we have moved on and left their simple views behind.

Thank you for your wise words and for your courage in posting here in English.

Despite what William S. Peachy writes above, the supposed "close association" of Baha'is with the shah's regime is a fiction. Baha'is do not take part in partisan political wranglings and are obedient to the government of the place where they live. Mr. Peachy's statements can only fuel the fire of Iranian hatred for Baha'is, the true nature of whose beliefs is unknown to Iranians because of a 160 year systematic prevention of Baha'is from defending and explaining their faith in public fora in Iran. After the Baha'is of Iran addressed a courteous letter to Mr. Khatami requesting that they be treated as citizens and their rights protected, the persecutions of Baha'is once again began to increase. See "A Faith Denied: The Persecution of the Baha'is of Iran", www.iranhrdc.org. Iranian posters to this list should remember the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (may God's grace enfold him) and not minimize or dismiss the suffering that Iranian clergy and government have inflicted on the Baha'is. Everywhere that there is oppression, the martyrdom of that noble Imam is reenacted. Oppression of the Baha'is puts you in the position of the oppressor, not in the position of divine favor.

Scott Malensex :

Much to your dismay , this title , when you say , IRAN IS THE WORLDS BIGGEST SPONSOR OF TERROR , exclusively belongs to one nation only with no one coming close . And if you went to a college in US , you would learn it first hand . You may want to read my comments above directed to Larry which of course appllies to you too ,.

Larry :
This is space provided by the post is not exclusively for displaying your intelligence .
and on that , if I may , It is quite evident you have a lot learning to do about Iran and Iranians .
If you find an opportunity to do so you will start regretting why you were not born an Iranian and likewise , whenever an Iranian goes to bathroom , he or she drops ten people like you .
Be well,.

As a student of history, I have tremendous respect for Islam both for its own sake and the sake of the contributions it has made to the West. It was only after Islamic scribes translated the jewels of antiquity did they bring forth the light that sparked the Renaissance. Be that as it may, the worlds great faiths must find a way to coexist, and this is certainly a faithful step in the right direction! For my own part, I do not disagree essentially with anything his excellency says. However, I strongly believe that if we are to talk about limits, we must also discuss limits of sacredness. While no limit should ever exist between an individual and his or her higher power, government and science are two areas that when combined with faith deny them their power.

There are only two commands from the prophets that is to Love God with all your heart , strength and might and to serve the oppressed, the weak, the orphans, the widows and the least in the society without violence. Salvation will not be denied based on faith , caste or creed.

It is not Christians or jews who are the enemies of Muslims. Man is not significant.But the deceiver is Satan who wants to keep man from salvation.

Big Bang's comments on Seyed Mohammad Khatami's writing posted on November 15, 2006:

Khatami: "Absolute Truth Manifests Itself in Diverse Ways"
BIG BANG: Wrong and Nonsense! If something manifests itself in diverse ways, it is by definition NOT absolute.

Khatami:
All divine religions have called humanity to the One, Sacred, and Absolute Truth. Should we aim to strip religion of the Absolute and the Sacred, all its content shall be thereby nullified.

BIG BANG: Wrong! Humanity can be derived entirely from philosophy, i.e., by reasoning, without any belief in sacred scripture and absolute truth. Humanity, Ethics and Moral have been discussed by all philosophers of the era of enlightenment (Hume, Kant, etc.). Tracing anything back to sacredness is nonsense, because sacredness itself is not absolute, but largely relative. For example, what is sacred for Khatami (and Muslims in general) is not sacred for me, also not scared for Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. Sacredness is 100 percent relative, thus 100 percent NOT absolute. Confusing sacredness with absoluteness is a total nonsense, and is a clear indication for irrationality, more precisely, irrationality of Khatami’s Islam.

Khatami: Truth is essentially absolute, but we shall never doubt that human comprehension of the truth, within the confines of internal and external limits of time, place, history, society and psychology, always remains partial and relative. Any proprietary claim to the full possession of the absolute truth and that which is truly absolute remains as groundless as the categorical rejection of truth in principle.

BIG BANG: This reveals Khatami’s nonsensical IRRATIONALISM, as he contradicts himself: “Truth is essentially absolute, but … human comprehension of truth …. always remain partial and relative”. If human comprehension is never absolute, how would Khatami know for sure that truth is essentially absolute? Or, does Khatami want to claim that he himself has a higher comprehension than human?

Nobody claims for absolute truth and nobody categorically rejects truth. To be rationally clear, A=A is (logical) truth, which is also absolute. No human being would/can deny this logical truth. Relative truth is, for example, human sensory perception, since it is the same for every human being. On the other hand, Khatami’s truth that is based on sacredness is absolutely “untrue” for me, and for some other religion.

Sacredness not only is relative but also subjective, i.e., what is sacred to Khatami is not necessarily sacred to others. How would Khatami ever be able to determine what is sacred and what is not, if sacredness not only is relative but also subjective?

Khatami: At this point I would like to share an insight about truth and conflict which derives from the perspective of mystic thought.
While truth is in essence absolute and unique, it has infinitely diversely differing manifestations. It is a calamity to mistake any partial manifestation divulged and discovered on a singular basis for the whole truth. Here we should give voice to the words of the Persian mystic poet who said ---- CUT ---

BIG BANG: Poetry is of purely subjective nature. Anything that is subjective (differently perceived and understood by different people) cannot be absolute and cannot represent truth. So, what Khatami is here uttering is nothing but pure nonsense. How could any modern human think of any truth behind a mystic thought? Is there any truth in mysticism? As already proven by science, mysticism is based on “illusory whim and bad faith”, just as admitted by Khatami himself. Obviously, Khatami’s Islamic faith is based on SUFISM, which is the most irrational of all Islamic sects. It is principally impossible to conduct an effective discussion and resolve conflicts and controversies based on mysticism and/or any sacred scripture, simply because mysticism, sacredness and scriptures are different for every person. How would anybody be able to resolve conflicts and controversies based on widely differing basis? Conflicts can only be resolved by reason, since reason is the same for every human being, which also is a virtue of science that has developed from the age of enlightenment, but fully alien to Islamic teaching until today.

I am amazed by how authoritatively so many people on this forum speak about Islam & Muslims, but they are amazingly ill-informed (perhaps "the Factor"). Its quite the in-thing now to say, "forget all this politically-correct censorship, let's be honest, Islam is a violent, intolerant, and evil religion." I see the news today, I've read all those Islam bashing books and websites, and I've heard the many personal horror stories of former Muslims. But I've also listened to the other side (sincerely and thoroughly listened), and it seems to me that Islam is a great, noble, and beautiful spiritual path that has been misunderstood by many, particularly in modern times.

But people somehow think they are really "on to something" by bashing Islam. They are often quite obsessed. If it wasn't such a serious issue it would be quite funny.

In any case, this is an intelligent man. He is well-educated (studied German Philosophy) and has a well-articulated essay here. But people take that to be irrelevant ("but he didn't condemn such and such in his essay"). Just imagine that some really cute blond French guy wrote it. Perhaps then you could leave aside your pathological obsessions and take what is there to benefit you.

Amir
Thank you for the thoughtful post. I agree wholeheartedly.
Although, there is no doubt that Khatami truly tried to bring about some change with a huge mandate from people, but was not successful.

Apart from the gradual disconnect from people, one more thing that strikes me as the problem of Mr. Khatami and his like-minded reformists and their inability to stop the atrocities, is that they always had to compromise in the face of the most fanatic and fundamentalists elements of the regime (they still do). Khatami always said that the most basic and fundamental rule is to preserve the system.

This is where the problem is. The system as a whole is based on religion and theocracy. Religion is sacred, men of religion, namely the ayatollahs and grand ayatollahs deserve respect and should go around uncriticized.
People's beliefs however absurd and illogical should be respected under any conditions.

Well, the fundamentalists can always claim that they have the truth as was meant by the prophet and God and the Book and whatever. And who can dispute them?

This in general is the problem of moderate religious people all over the world too.
This unequivocal respect and noncriticising makes an atmosphere which fosters fanaticism and fundamentalism.

And then when fundamentalism gets the power, the moderates are going to be the victims too.

I wonder if that also happenned at the time of the Iranian revolution and the intellectuals and moderate religious figures took the same attitude towards Khomeini and his ideas.

I am an Iranian ex-Moslem. I would like to reply to Mr. Khatami’s article on two levels. First, purely in general terms as to solely the content of the article itself, and second, in specific terms as to the relation of this article to its author.

Part I: Content

The main premise of the above article is that although an absolute truth exists, the human understanding of that truth is flexible and presents with multiple variations. This premise itself may not be flawed, but the way with which it is applied to religion is flawed. Furthermore, since the boundaries of the flexibility of truth are not defined in the article, the main premise is at risk of collapse.

First, although the human understanding of the truth may not be absolute, there must be certain boundaries within which the search for the truth must be undertaken. If no boundaries exist, then every thought and every assertion must be accepted as a human variation of the truth and cannot be rejected as false. Every conceivable concept will thereby be accepted as a differing manifestation of the truth. This takes one down an obvious path of randomness and contradiction, resulting in unavoidable conceptual chaos, which does not at all approximate the absolute truth that one seeks to find.

The above paragraph delineated the simple fact that certain guidelines must be followed when searching for the truth, lest that search becomes meaningless. Now, the question becomes: “What guidelines must one follow, and within what boundaries must one operate in order to approximate that absolute truth?” This is indeed one of the most important questions that one must first answer prior to setting out on the journey to the truth.

There are two fundamentally different approaches one can take in answering the above question, thereby setting forth the guidelines for the search.

The first approach can be best explained by the recently invented word (by Steven Colbert) of “truthiness.” Truthiness, as portrayed by its inventor, is a satirical term in reference to the quality by which a person claims to know something intuitively, instinctively, or "from the gut" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or actual facts. Therefore, the guidelines that one follows in this setting are dictated by one’s emotion, sub-conscious, upbringing, and in following of one’s socially accepted norms, traditions, folklore, or superstitions. Facts, evidence, and logic are not the primary defining features of this approach.

Conversely, the second possible approach entails the exact opposite. The guidelines one sets forth to seek the truth involve logic and evidence. Proof is demanded, in lieu of what feels good, sets well, or is comfortable. It is an evidence-based approach; a relatively new concept to humanity. It is a method which most would call “science.”

So then two pathways exist in the search for the truth: truthiness on the one hand, or science and logic on the other hand. Undoubtedly, the more feel-good pathway is the first, but then one must also ask if he or she is setting out on a path to joy, or a path to enlightenment and an ever closer encroachment to the truth.

This brings the link to religion, which is the foundation of the argument which Mr. Khatami intended to apply this discussion of the truth. Religion by its very nature is based on faith, an acceptance of events and concepts which have been presented by others not based on evidence and proof, but rather on intuition, instinct, and the preaching of another. The guideline which religion sets in its endeavors describes “truthiness” in every sense of the word. There may be variations in the religious pathway to the truth, and as Mr. Khatami states, one may not be any more true than the other. However, given the methodology of “truthiness” by which religion seeks the truth does not makes one wonder which explanation is the absolute truth, but whether any of such explanations even remotely resemble the truth.

Finally, the concept of the diverse manifestation of the truth within the context of religion is contradictory to most religions, including Islam. The dogmatic, absoluteness of religious creeds are what define the various religious sects and make the acceptors of those creeds the members of that religion. When one doubts those dogmas and accepts those of competing religions’ as potentially true (via an acceptance of the idea of the diverse manifestation of the truth), then that person has practically left that religion.

Obviously, this has happened repeatedly in the past, resulting in the multitudes of religions in the world. However, usually new truths (or dogmas) are accepted in lieu of the old. To accept multiple ones simultaneously, as the “diverse manifestations of the same, absolute truth” will undoubtedly result in multiple contradictions and logical inconsistencies which would deem at best only one such premise as true. But then again, within the realm of religion and “truthiness” logic and facts can be easily ignored.

Part II: Author

In part I, only the content of the article was discussed without relation to its author. In this part, a deeper analysis of the hypocrisy of Mr. Khatami’s article will be portrayed, as is related to the author himself.

Although the article as it relates to religion is easily defeated as shown in Part I, one cannot help but sense a general attitude of tolerance and harmony emanating from the article. Such an attitude, whether logically sound or not, is usually appreciated by most; as it ought to be. However, having the knowledge of the Islamic Republic’s crimes against Iranians and humanity including the 8 year presidential tenure of Mr. Khatami makes one highly suspicious as to the genuineness of this article.

Mr. Khatami speaks of the diverse manifestations of the truth, and implies leeway in the interpretation of the truth. This, in turn implies tolerance, and since the article is religious charged, it implies religious tolerance. Yet, since 1979 Iran has been the single most religiously intolerant nation in the world. The religious intolerance has not been limited to just non-Moslems, but actually directed at the Moslems themselves in enforcement of religious codes. Christians, Jews, Bahais, and Moslems have all suffered at the hands of the Islamic Republic in the name of religion and God.

Amputations, false imprisonments, floggings, tortures, hangings, rapes, and stonings have been committed in the name of religion within Iran by those that do not see a “diversity in the manifestation of the truth.” Of course, all have been committed both during and not during Mr. Khatami’s presidency. Political imprisonment and execution, as well as suppression of student demonstrations and silencing of journalists critical of the government were the legacies of Mr. Khatami’s tenure. The dissent and rebellion resulting from a nation’s frustration at being tormented by an archaic religious code from 1400 years ago which seeks to annihilate and oppress all that oppose it. A religious code which sees everything within it as absolute, and is not at all open to diverse interpretation, tolerance, or leniency.

One wonders what the president of the nation was doing when these atrocities were taking place at the decree of his government (and which continue to take place today).

Perhaps he was too busy contemplating and preparing his essay on the topic of “absolute truth’s manifestation in diverse ways.”

Alice:

Yes, I can understand your frustation. If you see some of my earlier comments here, I also seem to be very frustated too. Born into a religion that is universal in nature, I find it hard to understand what this halabaloo is all about. This world seems to have gone mad. If fanatics persist in their ways they may drag us all down the path of destruction.

While there are fanatics in every religion, the world is presently focused on Muslim fanatics because of their sheer number spread across the globe and their singular propensity for violence and international terrorism. Fanatics subscribing to the Christian, Jewish, or other faiths do not even come close in their impact when measured against this criteria. It is up to Muslims to realize the grave threat fanatics pose to Islam itself and take steps to reign them in.

Dave,

I am blaming religion as one of the greatest factors for most of the current strife around the world. I also acknowledge that there is not only one thing that is the cause of all the sorry situation we are in. However, I think religion is a powerful divider of people.
I stated before, I have no problem with spirituality and although I don't think that we get our sense of empathy, compassion, morality and ethics from religion, I have no problem with people finding their morality within it, if that is all they do.

What worries me is exactly what you said in your post. The most influential religions of the world
do not seem to be able to get past their dogma, even if those dogma don't make any sense, rationally and logically.

They don't accept others who believe in other faiths or those who do not believe at all. Rationality and critical thinking have no place in the matters of religious belief. Adherents to each religion, in most parts, think their truth is the one and only. In some cases, they are ready to kill because of their sincere faith and belief.
And in all cases none of them have any objective evidence for their claims.

If religions can start criticizing themselves, and if they listen to others' critiscisms, then they can reach out to each other. Otherwise, I am sorry, but I don't see much hope in this whole issue of inter-faith dialoge.

Alice--with all due regards, you seem to be blaming religion for the current strife around the world. All I would say is that this is not the fault of religion per se. You can use a kitchen knife to prepare food or you can use it to kill. Are you going to condemn kitchen knives?

Religion should make our hearts softer not harder. Initially, rituals and dogma have some benefit--they help ensure spiritual discipline. At some point however, we need to go beyond dogma and rituals if we are to expand our consciousness. The litmus test of spiritual progress in any tradition is whether the practices involved is really expanding our love and compassion outwards to include more and more of God's creation. Quite simply, as I see it, the test involves how we treat those who do not belong to our faith, not our own kind. We can all love our own but spiritual muscles come into play when they are called upon to extend that love to those not belonging to our faith.

Some of the misconceptions about Hinduism is that Hindus believe in many Gods and only worship them as deities. These misconceptions are there in some textbooks as well. That has nothing to do with Hinduism but reveal our own limited knowledge of it.

OOOPS DIDNT MEAN TO DO THAT TWICE..

Clearly alot of people have emotional responses to Mr. Khatami (i hope that's not a disrespectful title to use, none intended.)
8 or so years ago, I was a practicing roman catholic and I kept a picture in my bible of Khatami and Pope John Paul in it. All I have seen in Mr. Khatami is an open hand stretched out to try and forge understanding and that is why I'm on this site and that hand symbolically reached out to me also as I've been a proud Muslimah for 7 years now. I admit my knowledge of his political past is sketchy- but who am I judge? I just know that was a beautiful thing in itself- who can ever foresee what effect one small gesture may impact on another, hm?

Clearly alot of people have emotional responses to Mr. Khatami (i hope that's not a disrespectful title to use, none intended.)
8 or so years ago, I was a practicing roman catholic and I kept a picture in my bible of Khatami and Pope John Paul in it. All I have seen in Mr. Khatami is an open hand stretched out to try and forge understanding and that is why I'm on this site and that hand symbolically reached out to me also as I've been a proud Muslimah for 7 years now. I admit my knowledge of his political past is sketchy- but who am I judge? I just know that was a beautiful thing in itself- who can ever foresee what effect one small gesture may impact on another, hm?

Salaam:

It is unfortunate that the comments here seem to reflect exactly what Dr. Khatemi is trying to address. The unfortunate reality that all these comments reflect is a focus on the life of this earth with seemingly no ability to transcend it or understand that this world is a preparation for the life to come. Most of these people don't even believe in a life hereafter. So, although your words are most precious and enlightening they, I am afraid, fall on deaf ears from the comments that have followed.

Thank you for attempting to bring insight and hope into a world that is full of destruction ad hatred. In America, the sacred is no longer sacred for a great number of people. Boundaries are broken and people have no regard for the boundaries of personal and public, nor the lower and higher desires. I am deeply saddened personally how our country follows all the people of before. All one has to do to see how removed most are from the truth is turn on te television and see how like the Romans who pleasured in the destruction of people publicly we have become.

Truth is all relative. And it is unfortunate that even though you speak it, people only listen to attributes you had little to do with. Allah chose you to be Iranian, of your generation, parents, etc. You did not. But, this is part of the truth, being able to look beyond these superficial trappings and see to the crux of the message you are delivering. Instead they run to and fro, deaf dumb and blind. I am quite sure you are familiar with these words.

To understand the truth it requires a selfless act of stepping oustide one's own experiences and trying to see things from other persepctives. Our culture promotes too much ego and too much selfishness to do this in a mass way.But, hopefully, even if you reach a few it will help to bring harmony in the world.

Alice

give me a thanksgriving break and I'll come back

Duayne

I think you are giving religions way too much leeway here. Forgive me, I am not as articulate as you, but it seems that you conveniently forget all the atrocities done in the name of religions and by religions.

You might argue that Bin Laden had a political motive (which I doubt) but those 19 people who really and sincerely believed what they were doing was the great act of martyrdom in the name of their God, caused a tragedy because of their faith. The same with crusades. The same with inquisition,....

You are saying Islam is tolerant towards other religions. That is not entirely true. First as you said, Islam only recognizes people of Book (and that also marginally), which then makes one wonder, what about the others? There are scores of Hindus, Siks Jains, Buddhists, ... Should they convert to Islam? Or a religion with a book?

What about Bahais? Show me a group of religious people (other than Buddhists perhaps) that are as peaceful of Bahais. They are denied their basic rights because of their beliefs in Iran.

What about an agnostic or a heretic or an atheist? Does Islam tolerate that?

You are blaming New Age religions and lumping atheism and agnostisicm with them. I have already said that any irrational dogmatic sets of ideology can be called religion in my view and I agree with you that it can be dangerous. I don't think Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. killed so many people in the name of atheism or agnosticism. They killed beacuse they were genocidal maniacs with a set of ideological dogma, hence very similar to religions.
In addition, that does not mean that your Old religions are holding the truth and should be immune of criticism and are less dangerous or are not dangerous.

I don't see why criticism of religions should only come from within. Why should a sets of belifs be immune to criticism from outside? Why should they be kept divine or scared? Just because they themselves say so? What is the evidence that they have the truth and eveybody else is wrong? What are the evidences of their claims?

I don't know what you mean when you say religion until recently was not dogmatic. Any religion is a set of dogma. Belief is based on dogma. They don't change. Yes, Catholics and Shiites have interpretations of their corresponding scriptures that might change with time, but the whole interpretation is still in a set of frames set by the dogma.

Perhaps I misunderstood you, if that is the case forgive me, but it seems to me you are trying hard to be an apologetic for all the religions and Islam in particular. Yes, we can keep going on and on and say that the interpretation x is wrong and y should be interpreted differently. I think it is time to look at the root of the problem. Something is fundamentally wrong. Something that you are not ready to question it perhaps.

I am a scientist. Scientific method has shown me to question everything. And not accept anything without objective evidence. That has made me to reach a conclusion that no supernatural being exists. But that is not a dogma. Show me objective evidence and I'll embrace it. I will accept I am wrong. Can you say the same thing for religions?

Duayne:
"Islam implicitly recognizes the validity of other major religions, saying the “people of the Book” meaning that Book of all religions. Even less tolerant religions like Christianity..."

Is that an attempt at comedy?

That Islam "recognizes the validity of other major religions" through its Islamic Law that calls for the DEATH PENALTY for anyone who converts from Islam to any other faith or non-faith?

Once again "tolerant Islam" kills a believer in another faith today:

Christian convert killed in J&K
http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1065456

But Alice, the actual societal effect of this literalistic understanding in previous days did not reflect it. It was filtered out into more prudent societal control by a whatever more intelligent ruling class considered in consultation with his advisors. We also must recognize that some causes of literalistic understanding are unnatural (Wahhabis promoted by British, reactionary recent political Islam etc.)

Your worry of religion as being sacred and thereby authoritative and somewhat having an absolute character to it used to be a comforting thought to the masses. Anyway, in comparison, what other sacred cows should we rest our hopes in-materialism, everybody get richism, economic globalism, ipodism?

That Communism and Nazism are religious-looking is a good observation, but doesn’t protect the integrity of religion enough. Organized religion, as it were, was absolutely reviled by the communists, whether in China, Cambodia or Russia, and Hitler severely attacked the Catholic Church right before WWII, after first claiming God was on his side earlier in his career. Bertrand Russell says no better than most today in expressing systemic confusion between organized religion and all these New Age dogmas containing equivalent irrational dogmas, sacred history, Messiahs and priesthoods. These New Age religions, and Nazism fitted that bill perfectly, are all parodies of organized religion, often taking esoteric elements within many religions and clumping them all together in a haphazard and self-serving way. The Nazis took esoteric religious elements, without the outward balancing literalistic elements, from the Hindu, Knights of the Round Table, and old Germanic legend religions, mixed it with scientistic evolutionary-Utopeanistic Eugenic near-theology and proceeded to make quite a dynamite cake out of it. New Age religions are Utopian by nature.

Religion, before recently, was not known as dogmatic and passionate and clingy as much as it was thought to be a truth system, or a system of beliefs aimed at invisible elements within man’s soul which needed attention, direction, all this from a surprisingly objective point of view (a medieval Christian would say I’ve got this soul inside of me that could go to hell in the afterlife so I need to arrest and retrain it). But many agnostics today find it hard to distinguish organized religion with all the other isms of recent. But here’s an easy way, the isms are manmade (hint-ideological), often in rebellion against scarified and rank and not-well-upheld organized religions, while the organized religions are Revelations given by a supernatural Divine source. One of those isms then would of course include agnosticism or atheism. Calling these latter 2 religion ignores the distinction between organized religion and isms that members of those organized religions find important and significant.

I would just repeat that the New Age religions, or isms as I would call them, killed off more people in the last century with never-before-seen horrible weapons than the killings accumulated by humanity in all the previous centuries.

Your concern about fundamentalism and extremism growing out of the sacred atmosphere of the unequivocal sense of respect and unquestionable religious beliefs is based on the tendency to have things grow gradually out of each other. In fact, the fundamentalism going on now is loud but not the majority, and it is in direct response to colonialism/foreign pupeteering-this is what Muslims say. More importantly, I don’t think religious people are so close minded, just because they aren’t open minded about sexuality or dress or something like that. Some books written by Muslim jurists and philosophers that I have read about sexuality and marriage, for example, are extremely detailed, graphic and all encompassing. Islam implicitly recognizes the validity of other major religions, saying the “people of the Book” meaning that Book of all religions. Even less tolerant religions like Christianity has within itself the basic doctrinal flexibility to accept other religions as valid. Various religions, along with Islam and also following recent Jewish religious thought, do need to realize that something new in today’s smaller and more dangerous world is required in addressing rivalries which formerly were present but not so problematic.

Organized religion does need to band together to distinguish themselves from what is not organized religion and which additionally poses its own set of dangers to the environment and to humanity. However, it does need to recognize humane and intelligent non-religious forces, to not oppress their adherents, and to consider them as a permanent fixture, in sum if not individually, in today’s changed world who can provide solutions to problems experienced by all.

The critical thinking about religious beliefs has to come from within the religions to be credible, but it also has to respect and protect truths and insights that may be temporarily held in the hands of agnostics who mean well and who unwittingly inherit some degree of ethics and a certain universal sense of humane and environmental regard that used to be the sole domain of people living under organized religions, which nonetheless is still a rightful domain of expertise by the inner dimensions of religious thought.

As for you, Mr. or Mrs. ANONYMOUS, your quotations will always be interpreted and yes mistranslated in the worst way given your starting point, your stubborn grudge. What effect did all these verses have on the actual amount of killing and societal anguish within Islamdom, compared to the fantastically greater amount done according to all the stupid ineffective constitutions and magna carters carried by the Nazis, the Communists, and Pentagon jihadists?

How can we have inter-faith dialogue with Islam, when Islamic law states that those who convert from Islam to another faith or non-faith should be PUT TO DEATH? And of course, this is a law in IRAN, where "His Excellency" Mohammad Khatami ruled over a nation that MURDERED people simply because they had a different religion.

This is NOT a "cultural" problem, this is absolutely an issue with Islam itself.

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

All punishment for apostasy comes from Hadiths. The Qur'an discusses apostasy in Suras 16:106, 3:90-91, 5:54, 3:72, and 4:137. Except 16:106-109, all these verses appears in surahs identified as Madinan and belong to the period when the Islamic state had been established.

The Hadith (the body of quotes attributed to Muhammad and claimed eyewitnesses' accounts of Muhammad's life and deeds) includes statements that Muslim scholars such as Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid see as supporting the death penalty for apostasy. Only those from Sahih Bukhari, which are considered reliable by most Muslims generally are given below:

* "Allah's Apostle said, The blood of a Muslim, who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims." 9:83:17

* Narrated 'Ikrima: 'Ali burnt some people and this news reached ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'" 4:52:260

* The legal regulation concerning the male and the female who reverts from Islam (apostates). Ibn 'Umar, Az-Zuhri and Ibrahim said, "A female apostate (who reverts from Islam), should be killed. And the obliging of the reverters from Islam (apostates) to repent. Allah said: — 'How shall Allah guide a people who disbelieved after their belief and (after) they bore witness that the Apostle (Muhammad) was true, and that Clear Signs had come unto them? And Allah does not guide the wrong-doing people. As for such the reward is that on them (rests) the curse of Allah, the Angels, and of all mankind. They will abide there-in (Hell). Neither will their torment be lightened nor it will be postponed (for a while). Except for those that repent after that and make amends. Verily Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Surely those who disbelieved after their belief, and go on adding to their defiance of faith, never will their repentance be accepted, and they are those who have gone astray.' (Sura 3:86-90) Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Chapter 2, p. 42-43.

* 57. Narrated 'Ikrima: Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'" 9:84:57

* 58. Narrated Abu Burda: Abu Musa said, "I came to the Prophet along with two men (from the tribe) of Ash'ariyin, one on my right and the other on my left, while Allah's Apostle was brushing his teeth (with a Siwak), and both men asked him for some employment. The Prophet said, 'O Abu Musa (O 'Abdullah bin Qais!).' I said, 'By Him Who sent you with the Truth, these two men did not tell me what was in their hearts and I did not feel (realize) that they were seeking employment.' As if I were looking now at his Siwak being drawn to a corner under his lips, and he said, 'We never (or, we do not) appoint for our affairs anyone who seeks to be employed. But O Abu Musa! (or 'Abdullah bin Qais!) Go to Yemen.'" The Prophet then sent Mu'adh bin Jabal after him and when Mu'adh reached him, he spread out a cushion for him and requested him to get down (and sit on the cushion). Behold: There was a fettered man beside Abu Musa. Mu'adh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Muisa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Musa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, "Then we discussed the night prayers and one of us said, 'I pray and sleep, and I hope that Allah will reward me for my sleep as well as for my prayers.'" 9:84:58

* 271. Narrated Abu Musa: A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu'adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu'adh asked, "What is wrong with this (man)?" Abu Musa replied, "He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism." Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle." 9:89:271

References to additional hadith, that have been labeled Sahih by Sunni, from other Imams on the punishment of death for apostasy are:

* Sahih Muslim: Kitab Al-Qasama Chapter DCLXXIII When it is permissible to take the life of a Muslim

4152-4155, 898-900; Kitab Al-Imara Chapter DCCLVI, Number 4490, p. 1015 from Muslim, Imam, Sahih Muslim: Being Traditions of the Sayings and Doings of the Prophet Muhammad as Narrated by His Companions and compiled under the Title Al-Jami'-Us-Sahih, Translated by 'Abdul H. Siddiqi, Vol. III.

* Sunan Abu Dawud: 4337 through 4341 from Dawud, Imam Abu, Sunan Abu Dawud: English Translations with Explanatory Notes by Prof. Ahmad Hasan, Sh. Muhamad Ashraf Publications, Lahore, Pakistan, First Edition 1984 (Reprinted 1996), Vol. III, Book XXXIII, Chapter 1605, p. 1212-1214

* Sunan Ibn-I-Majah: # 2533,2534,2535 in Chapter No. 1 of Book of prescribed punishments. Ibn-I-Maja Al-Qazwini, Imam Abu Abdullah Muhammad B. Yazid, Sunan Ibn-I-Majah, Translated by Muhammad Tufail Ansari, Kazi Publications, Lahore, Pakistan, 1993, vol. IV.

Duayne

I think I should clarify some of my comments.

I beleive I have already stated before that I have no problem with people being spiritual individually, although I myself may not understand it.

What worries me and is evident from what is happening in the world is that majority of human beings believe in some type of religion and religious text, LITERALLY. This might be found less in the Christian part of the world now (US perhaps being an exception), but is very much in majority in the Muslim world.

This view of religion as being something sacred, something that holds the absolute truth, something that one cannot compromise on, something that one cannot criticize, is what worries me. Because each of the people who are sincere follwers of a religion, see the absolute truth in their own hands.

Perhaps I should emphasize that I see Communism and National Socialism (Nazism) and all the ideological dogmas as religion. Let me quote Bertrand Russell on this (He is talking about Communism and Nazim here, and the quote form his essay titled "The value of Free Thought" which I recommend):
"To call these religions may perhaps be objectionable both to their friends and to their enemies, but in fact they have all the characteristics of religions. They advocate a way of life on the basis of irrational dogmas; they have a scared history, a Messiah, and a priesthood. I do not see what more could be demanded to qualify a doctirine as a religion."

In this view, there has been horrible horrible atrocities done in the name religion, and because of religion throughout the history. Crusades, Inquisition, Stalin's purges, Holocaust, being some examples. And there are lots of wars going on right now because of religious divide.

I am not delusional, I can see that majority of people hold a kind of religious belief, advocated by religious leaders (who may or maynot believe in what they are advocating themselves, who may or may not have a political or economic agenda behind all this). And this majority sincerely, and wholeheartedly believes that it is absolutely right and it has found the absolute truth.

This is what I am trying to say that perhaps goes back to the whole point of inter-faith dialogue:
It is in nature of religions to be free and immune of critisism. This cannot be a basis for a dialogue. This I think is one of the problems that moderate religious people in Iran or elsewhere are facing. This unequivocal sense of respect and unquestionability of religious beliefs, this sacredness, is what that prepares the atmosphere for fundamentalism and extremism to grow. You can never say that fundamentalists' religiousity is an abuse or misinterpretation of religion. They have their holy books and scared texts to prove you wrong, the same texts that moderates also abide by. As long as you don't critisize the core of the beliefs, fundamentalists always win.

I know and I can see that this is a diffucult problem to tackle. I understand that it might take deacades, centuries maybe (if we don't wipe each other off the planet by then).
All I am asking for, is a culture of promoting critical thinking about religious beliefs. This is what I would call as a step forward towards free thought. And this is what I think has to be done, before any sincere, honest inter-faith dialogue can have any positive consequence.

Yahya

For you to say that we definitively don’t experience something, whether that something is imagined or not, belies a certain certitude about the whole matter. Even if we claim that the “real world” is not it or anything at all, another implied reality has be around for you to make sense. In order to say our experience is what it appears to be in our own minds, we have to be already conscious about our claim, our self assertion. But a consciousness implies always two levels, one above that which one is conscious of, contrary to your brain-in-the-vat theory that consciousness and its object are on the same level. Surely the conception of a religious system of discipline, of a set of survivable societal confinements, ranks as real as your system of peace through exercise of an international self-evidentness of the futility of killing.

The current readily apparent observation that a Martian would make of our religiously defined populations on this earth is that in any one religion, a large number of people happen to have the same more or less agreement on what their religion is, even accounting for the natural variations of that belief system (sects, branches etc) and then on top of that certain additional variations caused simply by lack of education of one’s own religion (let’s say a family of beliefs belonging to that religion). Granted, there is room in these variations for individualistic appreciation and perception of that religion, but certainly a gradation of perceptions resulting in infinite number of versions of that religion such as you postulate can’t explain the more or less well-defined unitary conception of that religion adhered to by the masses belonging to that religion.

Everyone agrees that the Islamic or Christian or Judaic or Jain religion is a singular systemic concept toward which one must conform his or her own perceptions, no matter what one’s own starting point is. If you claim that religion is something which exists in an infinitely large variated set of perception-dependent conceptions, then the concept of religion makes no sense as a singular entity. If it’s not a singular entity, then just say that we are all different and that none of our conceptions about anything are ever the same; that they are all always mutually different. This kind of reasoning is aimless, disintegrative, and is the end result of rationalistic analyticalism. What we need deep in our souls, or whatever it’s called, is meaning out of chaos, thus synthesis of thought, which needs a singularity of object of thought about which to define things and thus be able to go on from there. Revelations are not sent, or do not happen, in order to show how chaotic our universe of conception is, but rather to make sense against chaos; our brains are capable of comprehending chaos because it knows that a singular order is greater than it, that such a singularity (Reality) is the natural basis of our intrinsic and habitual desire to make contrasts, comparisons and conformity. Otherwise we would have been given, or evolved if you want, the brain of a turtle, leaving the rest of our brains pointless, meaningless and improbable.

Your last interesting point about the Western and native born Muslim can be reconciled as being two participants of the same religion, one from whose native land sees bright flashing lights from over there which he covets, and the other (the convert) who is embarrassed for his society’s spawning of these now apparent unhealthy (environmental and moral degradation, etc.) bright lights and over which he sick and burned out, and who, upon not finding any vibrant answers to questions in his own ancestral religion, seeks one from the East to help get back to a place that is precisely absent those useless and oversold flashing lights. How many years of the West’s travails do Easterners have to copy to see that they really would not want to go down the same exact path of extreme modernism?

THERE IS A MISTAKE IN MY EARLIER POSTING WHICH i REGRET.

Sayyed Hassan--I don't need to go to the Gaza because I know what is happening and how Palestinians are living under Israeli rule. No body is justifying Israeli atrocities. Israel has to treat Palestinians justly and give them all human rights. I was not talking about that. I was saying that radical Palestinian groups (like Hamas and Hezbollah) that go on harping about how Israel took away their land and therefore they will not recognize Israel--these guys need to reevaluate their positions. The world has no sympathy for that position. There are a lot of people in this world who have given up their land--the Indians, the Tibetans, the Russians (vis-a-vis all the independent republics). Islamic radical groups have to see reality. Not recognizing Israel cannot further the peace process or any dialog. If you do NOT agree to my very survival, what is there to discuss? So that was what I was saying, not justifying Israeli excesses which just increases hatred and terrorism. I hope I am clear.

Sayyed Hassan--I don't need to go to the Gaza because I know what is happening and how Palestinians are living under Israeli rule. No body is justifying Israeli atrocities. Israel has to treat Palestinians justly and give them all human rights. I was not talking about that. I was saying that radical Palestinian groups (like Hamas and Hezbollah) that go on harping about how Israel took away their land and therefore they will not recognize Israel--these guys need to reevaluate their positions. The world has no sympathy for that position. There are a lot of people in this world who have given up their land--the Indians, the Tibetans, the Russians (vis-a-vis all the independent republics). Islamic radical groups have to see reality. Not recognizing Israel cannot further the peace process or any dialog. If you do agree to my very survival, what is there to discuss? So that was what I was saying, not justifying Israeli excesses which just increases hatred and terrorism. I hope I am clear.

Duayne, Alice,

Let me start my “highly intellectual” and “sophisticated” presentation on the topic of religion with the following example:

Someone goes to a counselor and says “Doc I have problem with sex, can you help me”? Doc says, “Sure, sit down let me see what I can do”. Doc draws a picture of a tree and asks the patient “What are you thinking about when you look at this picture?” patient says, “Sex”, Doc erases the picture and draws the picture of a mountain, again he asks, “What are you thinking about when you look at this picture?” The answer again is “Sex”. Finally Doc says “Son, the problem is that you see sex in everything”. Patient says, “Is it my problem that you keep drawing dirty pictures?”

The problem is that we don’t experience the “real world”; we interpret it and each has our own interpretation and that includes our experience with religion.

Blaming religion for our “interpretation” of our experiences is a bit like the argument that it is (or is not) the gun that kills people rather than it is people who kill people, to borrow a line from the infamous NRA.

Different people on this forum and all over the world have a different interpretation of what is religion and how it influences their lives and lives of others. So while we may think we have a dialogue, we may need to step back and calibrate our definitions.

Is religion what an individual believes and how she or he lives her life by, or is it its adaptation in tradition, culture, law, ideology, etc.? So although we all are writing in English, we might be talking about different things.

For example, compare the experience of a westerner who converts to Islam and elects to live her life according to its teaching, with one who experiences it in a country ruled by an oppressive regime which calls itself Islamic. The former may see it as a spiritual journey, and the latter as a real affront to his or her right to live life freely. One wakes up everyday with excitement to experience God and its love in everything she comes across, and the other resents living a life wasted.

I am not smart enough to get too deep into this stuff but I kind of sensed that you two might be approaching it from different corners of this huge topic.

Alice

You’ve said;

“I think religion is harmful and has done humans more harm than good. The fact that most of the people are still religious, I believe is because they have not been offered all the options through their education systems and/or have been kept in dark and fear by their governments and religious leaders who see their benefit in keeping people ignorant.”

And

“I have more respect for the people and humanity and I think if they are shown the facts without fear, the majority would choose rationality over superstition.”

And

“Morality and ethical systems are found outside of religion and evolve through human history. Religious texts just wrote them down, each based on their own time. We don't get our morality from religion. People have been made to believe this.”

With due reference to the context out of which I snipped these statements, they can stand out as some basis points of your overall doubts about religion and the efficacy of religious dialogue. Hear me on this:

What has been taught to Americans for just the past 100 years, lagging behind liberal Europe from which many American pioneers actually fled in order to stay religious, or to practice experimental offshoots of Protestantism, is that religion is at best a repository of ethics useful for humanitarian purposes, to pull out of the tissue box when things go bad in life, and that the God removed from society doesn’t really have any more to say and why should we bring Him in when man can now alone continue the stewardship of human affairs. This is Humanism, and it quickly leaves religion behind. All the materialistic ideologies developed out of Humanism, especially in Europe, where anti-religious Nazis, fascists, Communists, and political Zionists (reviled by religious Jews all over Europe and American at the time) created hosts of Eugenic and exclusivistic fear-mongering and self-justifying programs for toying with society without regard for inner human dimensions respected by the former religious establishment, however marred. The amount of religious killing in all of history is very small compared to the major death wars wrought in the past century, no leader of which claimed any religious basis. One cannot just avoid the obvious inverse relationship jumping out at you, with the fall of religious power on the one hand and on the other the meteoric rise of materialistic ideology which immediately spawned immense disruption and war and killing with weapons of mass and semi-mass destruction.

What is not forced, intolerant, and superstitious about some aspects of overly rationalistic modern thought? One is not allowed to question it, no one is allowed to say anything bad about democracy, economic development, economic globalism, forced revamping of age old societal systems into just one form based on materialistic ideologies of various severities. How long must people endure the modern freethinker experiment is it going to take people to get off the religious bandwagon and leap into the dreary life of agnosticism?

I believe religion, true religion, not literalistic, exclusivistic religion using more intellectual understandings of the old scriptures, is better for life’s overall needs, including conflict resolution than the recent secular experimentation. Religion is the only thought pattern capable of encouraging mankind to live for that thought’s own sake (live for God’s worship) while at the same time emboldening the manner of how we live our earthly life in accordance with those universally evident virtues known by all, religious and non-religious alike. Too much is made of torrid descriptions of Old Testament punishment as examples of “religious intolerance”, never really becoming an obstacle to its adherents. Why did Christianity and Confusism and Islam and Hinduism become so popular, because it was forced upon the masses for thousands of years? That’s baloney. In the turn of this century, social scientists were predicting that people would finally see the stupidity and backwardness of religion and it would be dead by 1950, but they underestimated the real depth of the human soul; a Godless life becomes meaningless became the lesson.

It’s a myth that Islam spread with the sword, that’s what one religion, discredited by you, said about their nemesis. No way could you beat Islam into that many souls for so long and then hold some wool over their eyes. The Quran says no compulsion in religion, it took Iranian Zoroasters 350 years of Arabic Islamic rule at the court level to finally, peacefully, willingly so, and this is the truth, turn toward Islam as an equally intellectual and adaptive alternative to all the Zoroaster infighting and partial splintering that Zoroasters themselves lamented about. Christians sought Islamic protection from certain degenerating Byzantium alcoholic overlords who were seen as to behaving very unchristian like by Christians. One Christian Spanish town after another begged the Muslims to come rescue them from the Christian-claiming Visigoths. Even secular Iranians today are not rebelling against Islam, they rebel against some disingenuous abuse of it by partially modern Muslims affected by outside French revolutionary ideals and compelled with political priorities.

Western observers today all too often mistake politically motivated events to be religious events. What it is is that in a religious society, a political event is carried out religiously or occurs in a religious setting, the religion itself is not the cause, even though upset use religious slogans in their anger. Conflicts in the secular west are carried out as if in surreality using the method of “more peacefully”, i.e., with less passion, which does not prevent that same population however from watching in comfort (equally passionless) through the boob tube while our government officially sanctions and carries out semi-genocidal experimentation using near-mass destruction weaponry upon far away peoples, made distant, hairy and unlikable by our ignorant and deviant political talking heads. I don’t see the West’s political behavior exemplifying those who have outgrown their past “religion-induced” violence!

The idea that religion is for stupid people and that we have to grow out of it is often accepted blindly on account of the prevailing mass’s previous conclusions on the matter. I know way too many intelligenct religios citizens for this to be true. Modern mankind has simply forgotten to reassess religion afte