Teach About Religion Through Shared Values

The problem that I have with religion being taught in public schools is that parents don't want any other religions being discussed, and many feel that only their beliefs are valid and all others are wrong. We talk about the Bible, but encourage intolerance, discrimination and hate in our own children. Many adults are down-right hypocrites, but tout the Bible as if they are all knowing. All denominations have variations on their interpretations of the Bible. Many believe in God, but have their own version of the Bible or word of God. If religion is going to be taught in public schools, then ALL religions should be given equal time or not at all. Personally, I don't believe it is the teachers job to teach shared values to the children, but the parents at home.

"it was a good feeling- i was -like- hell yeah! lets do it again! that was awesome!

thats the words of the very young soldier who had just cold bloodedly shot an iraqi civilian in the street- courtesy fo the video provided by ashfaq-

do we want to raise a generation that thinks it "awesome" to kill the "other"?

prejudice and hatred are taught-
tolerance and knowledge can also be taught-

sex is a subject that is deeply personal but we have courses dealing with it in school-
it is too important- and very subjective and can also be fraught with leading a child into one or another mindset-
but children arent going out and playing video games that instruct and indoctrinate them into sexual prowess-
they ARE playing games that desensitize them into thinking that killing brown people is "awesome" and should be repeated with pleasure-

i watched a commercial recently- it was soldiers killing an unknown enemy (but clearly desert country) and fromthe fog emerges a faceless figure who comes toward the camera- (the face remains identityless and obscured) it becomes a little girl and the voiceover proclaims "KILL THEM ALL"

unsettling to say the least

as commented earlier- statism seems to be a religion in america- nationalism is nothing new-

paul barret gives some interesting statistics in his new book american muslims-

the over 50 crowd is the most virulently islamophobic-
the under 34 crowd more tolerant
amongst the over 50 crowd- the figures drop by a FULL HALF when the poll taker knows one muslim personally-

knowledge creates tolerance
knowledge is good
ignorance (or lack of education or exposure to a topic) is not what we want our children to learn

jihadist-
its not your english-

hazels posts are rife with incomplete sentences and unfinshed disconnected thoughts-
ive taken to ignoring them as their just too muddled

Watch this video from a US soldier about atrocities he and other US soldiers commit on a daily basis in Iraq against innocent people:
http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4315

Halozcel

My portfolios did very well. How could it not? Islamic financial services is a growth market, be it bonds, insurance, stocks or plain banking.

And now I have spare change for more donations.

You can't be nervous but nervy to go into banking and financial services. But I always avoid US mutual funds. Too much short term profit oriented. Made some of the people I know in Wall Street crash and burn before. They got too creative in racking and jacking up profits.

I don't get you. Sometimes your English is good. Sometimes I just can't make sense of what you are saying. I reason it away as not comprehending English enough. It is, after all, not my mother tongue.

Dear Jihadist,
You are a little bit nervous nowadays.
How much money did you lose during the latest volatility at stocks?

Please,play as much as your money.Dont use credits.Be careful for your portfolio.Hundred percent shares portfolio has always higher risk.Think about state bonds as well.

Today March 12 Monday London time 7.54 in the morning.Asian stocks closing higher.American futures slightly up.FTSE may open upward,but later nobody knows?

I wish good luck for you.

Nicholas

However, I also want to thank you and Jihadist for civilized dialog, and for not accusing people like DaveB and myself of being victims of "statist brainwashing".

(Actually I came to my atheist beliefs with no help from the State. Fundamentalists of many stripes convinced me all by themselves).

Nicholas,

Atheists do not claim that they were the first to accept a certain universal set of moral values that they share with most religious people, only that acceptance of these values does not require a religious mindset at all.

Enlightenment thinkers who developed the US Constitution consciously incorporated a considerable amount of (pagan) Roman legal thinking. Given what you wrote in your post, I have to also point out that this very considerable debt is NEVER acknowledged by right-wing fundamentalists. Instead, they claim without ever correlating a section of the Constitution with a scriptural verse that the Bible is the source of everything that is Good and True about the American system. That claim is simply false. In fact, the debt to Roman legal thinking (one of the things they were really good at, along with civil engineering) can be seen quite clearly in the architecture that was universally adopted in government buildings in the United States very early on. Nowhere else in the world to capital and court buildings attempt to mimic Greco-Roman styles, certainly not in Europe.

Ted Baines :)

You said : "here is another to balance things. Islam and Muhamamd are not so pretty."

Are we talking about a beauty contest or whether religions should be taught in schools? I never knew Islam can be characterised as pretty, like Cameron Diaz. And Prophet Muhammad PBUH as pretty or not?

As for your statement that we need to balance things, I could not agree more. The last time I checked, the stats/surveys all said the majority of Americans thinks Islam and Muslim are violent and such. This is really interesting as surveys conducted in Muslim countries also stated that the majority of Muslims thinks that Americans are violent and such.

Yes, there is certainly a need to balance things up for Muslims who thinks Americans are violent, decadent, immoral, unethical, greedy and hyprocritical.

Dear Eboo,
I really do not know how to improve much further on what you have said, considering that both you and I have talked about the importance of religious understanding in education, as well as in society as a whole, on many occasions. I think that perhaps the shared values approach would be the best way to begin this kind of education, but I also encourage creative dialogue surrounding how religion is taught in the public sphere. While Patrick is right that religion and religious belief is deeply personal, nearly all religions also emphasize the importance of community in one's religious development and understanding. As such, family and community groups would need to be consulted as one continues to develop a curriculum for religious education.

So the question I would raise is, what would this partnership look like? How would it be encouraged in order to give students a well-rounded understanding of religious communities while at the same time ensuring that no religious communtiy is favored over the others? Answering these questions would be vitally important not merely for the purposes of education, but also in order to ensure that the students from these religious communities would feel welcome in a course that speaks to their religious identity. I have found that this has been a major pitfall of religious studies departments around the country. Within my own academic experience I found that certain religious individuals would go to a class about their faith tradition and walk away feeling affirmed in their belief. Other students, however, would go to a class on their faith tradition and walk away feeling alienated and torn down. Some faiths were expounded upon with compassion and acceptance while others were not. This is why I feel a higher level of cooperation and understanding is needed if one is going to teach religion in the public sphere.

I think the shared values approach meets this need on areas of agreement, but would be limited when it came to areas of disagreement between faith groups. How do we properly address this difference? If we truly value a deeper level of understanding we cannot ignore the differences between faith groups as well. As we have talked about before, I think that both an affirmation of our similarities and an honest discussion of our differences can and should take place at the same time, but this is a hard line to walk and I would be interested in knowing how the IFYC is approaching this kind of dialogue.

One way in which I think we could begin doing this is in talking about how certain virtues, though shared among faith groups, are also understood in different ways. Let us take love, for example. I recently had a discussion with the Hindu Students Council (HSC) about love in both Hinduism and Christianity. Though love is emphasized in both religions, their understandings of the purpose of love were drastically different. For example, my friends from the HSC shared with me how love is meant to help a person realize their unity to all things and, ultimately, their intrinsic connection with Brahman. This realization is what helps them attain moksha, or liberation from the cycle of rebirth, and complete unification with Brahman.

In Christian thought, love is also important to help one realize one's relationship with God and with His creation. However, it is not meant to release one from the world, but rather encourage radical identification with it and a desire to participate in God's redemptive plan for the whole of His creation. As such, Christians are called to care for the poor, the environment, the oppressed, and so forth not to ultimately be freed from the world, but to redeem it and help restore it, in accordance with God's original desire for His world.

Through our dialogue, we discovered that though we shared the value of love, the way in which we understood it was different. While one calls us out of the world and into full union with Brahman, the other calls us into the world, in union with God through Christ, to redeem it. So it was that we had a dialogue about our similarities as well as our differences in a way that was both educational and constructive. It was a fascinating dialogue because we recognized the differences in our understandings not just of love, but of who we are as humans, who God is, and what our purpose is. In effect, we were able to talk about our differences in worldview while at the same time learning about areas of overlap in which we could work together and affirm one another.

It is in this vein that I wanted to address Patrick's assertion that, "religious diversity can be achieved through dignified respect to all people, without knowing their religious beliefs or educational background; as all people desire to be truly happy, which is common to all people; irregardless of their religious or personal beliefs, simply by respecting their ability and desire to be truly happy and not by any public education system." I would argue that such an approach does not create true respect, but rather a peaceful ambivalence between peoples of faith and between people of faith and other non-religious worldviews. By refusing to acknowledge, learn about, or engage with beliefs which are central to our identities, we fail to create a truly respectful and harmonious society because we are denying what makes us who we are. By saying that you respect me but do not want to know about my faith, you are in fact dismissing who I am. Likewise, I would be dismissing you if I did not want to learn about what shapes your worldview. Though this approach might work in peacetime, what happens in times when tragedy strikes?

The unfortunate events of September 11th, 2001 led to a great deal of misunderstanding. Sikhs were attacked because their turbans looked similar to the one that Osama bin Laden wears. Muslims were black-balled as terrorists because Al-Qaeda presents itself as a Muslim body of believers. When tragedy struck, all we had to go on as a nation was our ignorance and ignorance breeds misunderstanding, which in turn breeds fear, which ultimately results in hatred. Because there was no genuine dialogue beforehand, there could be no honest reflection, healing, and unity after these events.

In many ways we are still reeling from our own respectful ambivalence as misunderstandings have continued to arise in places as far away as Denmark and as close to home our our public universities. So while I understand the desire behind your assertion, Patrick, I does not hold in the realities of our world today, especially when genuine tensions do arise.

In response to Daveb and Ba'al, I must encourage an honest treatment of Western intellectual history. In your post, Daveb, you stated that, "Religions simply co-opt those values" in reference to ideals like, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". However, the atheism and agnosticism that you reference grew out of the Enlightenment, where the goal was to preserve those values from religion (namely Christianity) which they felt were good, such as the Golden Rule, while removing those that were divisive or based on "superstition". This is what led to the humanism that you espouse, not the other way around. Yes religions share these values, and these are core beliefs in terms of what it means to be human, but we should not re-write history to make it appear as if these beliefs were developed first in the atheist or agnostic framework and then adopted by religious communities. This is simply not in keeping with an honest examination of Western intellectual thought.

However, I do want to say that you are both right in that atheists and agnostics do share these values with people of religion and I affirm you in your belief in this regard. Atheists and agnostics should be a part of religious dialogue, especially when it relates to how religious groups interact with larger societies, such as the secular and plural ones that we find in the United States and Western Europe. Often it is the questioning from atheists and agnostics that has prompted religious communities to re-examine how their beliefs are expressed and worked out.

This is not to say that beliefs such as gender equality, racial justice, and so forth were not present in those religious systems before, but rather that they were overlooked in favor of other areas of doctrine. Through the critique of thoughtful atheists, religious groups have had to go back to their sacred texts and once again examine the core of their belief systems in response to such questions. Questioning is healthy if the search is for truth. So in these ways I am indebted to the Enlightenment thinkers who challenged my faith tradition to be relavent. Though I ultimately disagree with some of their larger assumptions, their questions forced my community to re-examine the core essentials of our faith systems and respond in thoughtful ways. So thank you for your constant willingness to question and be a part of the dialogue. Your thoughts are deeply appreciated.

Sincerely,

Nicholas Price

Since all cultures have a religious origin, how can their values not derive from religion?

Denying the religious source of social values is a signature indicator of a victim of statist brainwashing. It isn't that people failed to learn history and social studies in public school. It is simply a fact that the public schools failed to teach history and social studies. References to religion were omitted or diminished in an effort to include all religions plus athiests. The effect was to make a generation or two of Americans ignorant of the role of religion in history and in world affairs today.

Ba'al is quite correct. The values that most cultures share do not derive from religion. Religions simply co-opt those values. As societal norms change, religions change with them. The values advanced by religions today are different from those of a hundred years ago, and so forth through time. What Christian church today would reject a man because he had the misfortune to lose his genitals? That is what Thomas instructed the early churches to do. Christian churches are allowing women to speak during services and often to become ministers, although that too contradicts biblical instructions. One could compile a long list of topics on which religions adopt the values of society.

The values, like "do unto others", that religions, especially main-stream religions, promote are largely the same values advanced by atheists and agnostics.

Eboo

We must treat religion the same way we treat algebra. religion does not deserve any more respect than algebra. Just as mathematicians are required to prove their claims so must religious teachers.

if you are going to tell me that Muhammad went to a cave and the Arabic god Allah talked to him, we need proof. Islam especially must provide us with evidence to back its claims because the religion also is the basis for laws that govern the lives of 1 billion Muslims. And its treatment of women is less than fair.

Children, especially Muslim children must be told the truth. that will take care of 99% of islamic terrorism because most will leave Islam.

You quoted a hadith that throws good light on Muhammad.

here is another to balance things. Islam and Muhamamd are not so pretty.

Blood-Money
Courtesy of ISL Software, makers of the WinAlim Islamic database.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section: Mention of Blood-Money

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book 43, Number 43.1.1:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr ibn Muhammad ibn Amr ibn Hazm from his father that in a letter which the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, sent to Amr ibn Hazm about blood-money he wrote that it was one hundred camels for a life, one hundred camels for a nose if completely removed, a third of the blood-money for a wound in the brain, the same as that for a belly wound, fifty for an eye, fifty for a hand, fifty for a foot, ten camels for each finger, and five for teeth, and five for a head wound which laid bare the bone.

Section: Procedure in Blood-Money

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book 43, Number 43.2.2:
Malik related to me that he had heard that Umar ibn al-Khattab estimated the full blood-money for the people of urban areas. For those who had gold, he made it one thousand dinars. and for those who had silver he made it ten thousand dirhams.

Malik said, "The people of gold are the people of ash-Sham and the people of Egypt. The people of silver are the people of Iraq "

Yahya related to me from Malik that he heard that the blood-money was divided into instalments over three or four years.

Malik said, "Three is the most preferable to me of what I have heard on that."

Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things in our community is that camels are not accepted from the people of cities for blood-money nor is gold or silver accepted from the desert people. Silver is not accepted from the people of gold and gold is not accepted from the people of silver."

Section: The Blood-Money for Murder, When Accepted and the Criminal Act of the Insane

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book 43, Number 43.3.2a:
Yahya related to me from Malik that Ibn Shihab said, "The full blood-money for murder when it is accepted is twenty-five yearlings, twenty-five two-year-olds, twenty-five four-year-olds, and twenty-five five-year-olds."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book 43, Number 43.3.3:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said that Marwan ibn al-Hakam wrote to Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan that a madman was brought to him who had killed a man. Muawiya wrote to him, "Tie him up and do not inflict any retaliation on him. There is no retaliation against a madman."

Malik said about an adult and a child when they murder a man together, "The adult is killed and the child pays half the full blood-money."

Malik said, "It is like that with a freeman and a slave when they murder a slave. The slave is killed and the freeman pays half of his value."

Section: The Blood-Money for Manslaughter

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book 43, Number 43.4.4:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Irak ibn Malik and Sulayman ibn Yasar that a man of the Banu Sad ibn Layth was running a horse and it trod on the finger of a man from the Juhayna tribe. It bled profusely, and he died. Umar ibn al-Khattab said to those against whom the claim was made. "Do you swear by Allah with fifty oaths that he did not die of it?" They refused and stopped themselves from doing it. He said to the others, "Will you take an oath?" They refused, so Umar ibn al-Khattab gave a judgement that the Banu Sad had to pay half the full blood-money.

Malik said, "One does not act on this."

Yahya related to me from Malik that Ibn Shihab, Sulayman ibn Yasar, and Rabia ibn Abi Abd ar-Rahman said, "The blood-money of manslaughter is twenty yearlings, twenty two-year-olds, twenty male two-year-olds, twenty four-year-olds, and twenty five-year-olds."

Malik said, "The generally agreed on way with us is that there is no retaliation against children. Their intention is accidental. The hudud are not obliged for them if they have not yet reached puberty. If a child kills someone it is only accidentally. Had a child and an adult killed a free man accidentally, each of them pays half the full blood-money."

Malik said, "A person who kills someone accidentally pays blood-money with his property and there is no retaliation against him. That money is like anything else from the dead man's property and his debt is paid with it and he is allowed to make a bequest from it. If he has a total property of which the blood-money is a third and then the blood-money is relinquished, that is permitted to him. If all the property he has is his blood-money, he is permitted to relinquish a third of it and to make that a bequest."

Section: The Blood-Money for Accidental Injury

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book 43, Number 43.5.4a:
Malik related to me that the generally agreed on way of doing things amongst the community about an accident is that there is no blood-money until the victim is better. If a man's bone, either a hand, or a foot, or another part of his body, is broken accidentally and it heals and becomes sound and returns to its form, there is no blood-money for it. If the limb is impaired or there is a scar on it, there is blood-money for it according to the extent that it is impaired.

Malik said, "If that part of the body has a specific blood-money mentioned by the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, it is according to what the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, specified. If it is part of what does not have a specific blood-money for it mentioned by the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and if there is no previous sunna about it or specific blood-money, one uses ijtihad about it."

Malik said, "There is no blood-money for an accidental bodily injury when the wound heals and returns to its form. If there is any scar or mark in that, ijtihad is used about it except for the belly-wound. There is a third of the blood-money of a life for it. "

Malik said, "There is no blood-money for the wound which splinters a bone in the body, and it is like the wound to the body which lays bare the bone."

Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things in our community is that when the doctor performs a circumcision and cuts off the glans, he must pay the full blood-money. That is because it is an accident which the tribe is responsible for, and the full blood money is payable for all that in which a doctor errs or exceeds, when it is not intentional."

Section: The Blood-Money of Women

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book 43, Number 43.6.4b:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said that Said ibn al-Musayyab said, "The blood-money for a woman is the same as for a man up to one third of the blood-money. Her finger is like his finger, her tooth is like his tooth, her injury which lays bare the bone is like his, and her head wound which splinters the bone is like his."

Yahya related to me from Malik that Ibn Shihab and also Urwa ibn az-Zubayr said the same as Said ibn al-Musayyab said about a woman. Her blood-money from a man is the same up to a third of the blood-money of a man. If what she is owed exceeds a third of the blood-money of the man, she is given up to half of the blood-money of a man.

Malik said, "The explanation of that is that she has blood-money for a head wound that lays bare the bone and one that splinters the bone and for what is less than the brain wound and the belly wound and the like of that of those which obliges a third of the blood-money or more. If the amount owed her exceeds that, her blood-money in that is half of the blood-money of a man."

Yahya related to me from Malik that he heard Ibn Shihab say, "The precedent of the sunna when a man injures a woman is that he must pay the blood-money for that injury and there is no retaliation against him."

Malik said, "That is an accidental injury, when a man strikes a woman and hits with a blow what he did not intend, for instance, if he struck her with a whip and cut her eye open and the like of that."

Malik said about a woman who has a husband and children who are not from her paternal relatives or her people, that since he is from another tribe, there is no blood-money against her husband for her criminal action, nor any against her children if they are not from her people, nor any against her maternal brothers when they are not from her paternal relations or her people. These are entitled to her inheritance but only the paternal relations have paid blood-money from since the time of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Until today it is like that with the mawla of a woman. The inheritance they leave goes to the children of the woman even if they are not from her tribe, but the blood-money of the criminal act of the mawla is only against her tribe."

Section: The Blood-Money for the Foetus

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book 43, Number 43.7.5:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Abu Salama ibn Abd ar-Rahman ibn Awf from Abu Hurayra that a woman from the Hudhayl tribe threw a stone at a woman from the same tribe, and she had a miscarriage. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, gave a judgement that a slave or slave-girl of fair complexion and excellence should be given to her.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book 43, Number 43.7.6:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Said ibn al-Musayyab that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, gave a judgement that the compensation for a foetus killed in its mother's womb was a slave or slave-girl of fair complexion and excellence. The one against whom the judgement was given said, "Why should I pay damages for that which did not drink or eat or speak or make any cry. The like of that is nothing." The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "This is only one of the brothers of the diviners." He disapproved of the rhyming speech of the man's declaration.

Yahya related to me from Malik that Rabia ibn Abi Abd ar-Rahman said, "The slave of fair complexion and excellence is estimated at fifty dinars or six hundred dirhams. The blood-money of a free muslim woman is five hundred dinars or six thousand dirhams."

Malik said, "The blood-money of the foetus of a free woman is a tenth of her blood-money. The tenth is fifty dinars or six hundred dirhams."

Malik said, "I have not heard anyone dispute that there is no slave in compensation for the foetus until it leaves its mother's womb and falls still-born from her womb . "

Malik said, "I heard that if the foetus comes out of its mother's womb alive and then dies, the full blood-money is due for it."

Malik said, "The foetus is not alive unless it cries at birth. If it comes out of its mother's womb and cries out and then dies, the complete blood-money is due for it. We think that the slave-girl's foetus has a tenth of the price of the slave-girl."

Malik said, "When a woman murders a man or woman, and the murderess is pregnant, retaliation is not taken against her until she has given birth. If a woman who is pregnant is killed intentionally or unintentionally, the one who killed her is not obliged to pay anything for her foetus. If she is murdered, then the one who killed her is killed and there is no blood-money for her foetus. If she is killed accidentally, the tribe obliged to pay on behalf of her killer pays her blood-money, and there is no blood-money for the foetus."

Yahya related to me, "Malik was asked about the foetus of the christian or jewish woman which was aborted. He said, 'I think that there is a tenth of the blood-money of the mother for it.' "

Section: Injuries For Which There is Full Blood-Money

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book 43, Number 43.8.6a:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab that Said ibn al-Musayyab used to say, "The full blood-money is payable for cutting off both lips, but when the lower one only is cut off, two-thirds of the blood-money is due for it."

Yahya related to me from Malik that he asked Ibn Shihab about the one-eyed man who gouged out the eye of a healthy person. Ibn Shihab said, "If the healthy person wants to take retaliation from him, he can have his retaliation. If he prefers, he has blood-money of one thousand dinars, twelve thousand dirhams."

Yahya related to me from Malik that he heard that full blood-money was payable for both of a pair of anything in a man that occurred in pairs, and the tongue had full blood-money. The ears, when their hearing departed, had full blood-money, whether or not they were cut off, and a man's penis had full blood-money and the testicles had full blood-money.

Yahya related to me from Malik that he heard that the breasts of a woman had full blood-money.

Malik said, "The least of that are the eyebrows and a man's breasts."

Malik said, "What is done in our community when a man is injured in his extremities to an extent that obliges payment of more than the amount of his full blood-money, is that it is his right. If his hands, feet, and eyes are all injured, he has three full blood-moneys."

Malik said about the sound eye of a one-eyed man when it is accidentally gouged out, "The full blood-money is payable for it."

Section: The Blood-Money for an Eye whose Sight is Lost

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book 43, Number 43.9.6b:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said from Sulayman ibn Yasar that Zayd ibn Thabit used to say, "When the eye remains but the sight is lost, one hundred dinars are payable for it."

Yahya said, "Malik was asked about cutting off the lower lid of the eye and the bone around the eye. He said, 'There is only ijtihad in that unless the vision of the eye is impaired. He is entitled to an amount that is compatible to the extent the vision of the eye has been impaired."

Yahya said that Malik said, "What is done in our community about removing the bad eye of a one-eyed man when it has already been blinded and still remains there in its place and the paralyzed hand when it is cut off, is that there is only ijtihad in that, and there is no prescribed blood-money."

Section: The Blood-Money for Head Wounds

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book 43, Number 43.10.6c:
Yahya related to me from Malik that Yahya ibn Said heard Sulayman ibn Yasar mention that a face wound in which the bone was bared was like a head wound in which the bone was bared, unless the face was scarred by the wound. Then the blood-money is increased by one half of the blood-money of the head wound in which the skin was bared so that seventy five dinars are payable for it.

Malik said, "What is done in our community is that the head wound with splinters has fifteen camels." He explained, "The head wound with splinters is that from which pieces of bone fly off and which does not reach the brain. It can be in the head or the face."

Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things in our community, is that there is no retaliation for a wound to the brain or a belly wound, and Ibn Shihab has said, 'There is no retaliation for a wound to the brain.' "

Malik explained, "The wound to the brain is what pierces the bones to the brain. This type of wound only occurs in the head. It is that which reaches the brain when the bones are pierced."

Malik said, "What is done in our community is that there is no blood-money paid on any head wound less than one which lays bare the skull. Blood-money is payable only for the head wound that bares the bone and what is worse than that. That is because the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, stopped at the head wound which bared the bone in his letter to Amr ibn Hazm. He made it five camels. The imams, past and present, have not made any blood-money payable for injuries less than the head wound which bares the bone."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said, that Said ibn al-Musayyab said, "For every piercing wound in any of the organs or limbs of the body, one third of the blood-money of that limb is payable."

Malik related to me, "Ibn Shihab did not think and nor do I, that there is a generally agreed on way of doing things regarding a piercing wound in any of the organs or limbs of the body, but I think that there is ijtihad in the case. The imam uses ijtihad in it, and there is no generally agreed on way of doing things in our community about it."

Malik said, "What is done in our community about the wound to the brain and the wound which splinters the bone, and the wound that bares the bone is that they apply only to the head and face. Whatever of that occurs in the body only has ijtihad in it."

Malik said, "I do not think the lower jaw and the nose are part of the head in their injury because they are separate bones, and except for them the head is one bone."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Rabia ibn Abi Abd ar-Rahman that Abdullah ibn az-Zubayr allowed retaliation for a head wound which splintered the bone.

Section: The Blood-Money for Fingers

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book 43, Number 43.11.6d:
ibn Abi Abd ar-Rahman said, "I asked Said ibn al Musayyab, 'How much for the finger of a woman?' He said, 'Ten camels' I said, 'How much for two fingers?' He said, 'Twenty camels.' I said, 'How much for three?' He said, 'Thirty camels.' I said, 'How much for four?' He said, 'Twenty camels.' I said, 'When her wound is greater and her affliction stronger, is her blood-money then less?' He said, 'Are you an Iraqi?' I said, 'Rather, I am a scholar who seeks to verify things, or an ignorant man who seeks to learn.' Said said, 'It is the sunna, my nephew.' "

Malik said, "What is done in our community about all the fingers of the hand being cut off is that its blood-money is complete. That is because when five fingers are cut, their blood-money is the blood-money of the hand: fifty camels. Each finger has ten camels."

Malik said, "The reckoning of the fingers is thirty-three dinars for each fingertip, and that is three and a third shares of camels."

Section: General Section on the Blood-Money for Teeth

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book 43, Number 43.12.7:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Zayd ibn Aslam from Muslim ibn Jundub from Aslam, the mawla of Umar ibn al-Khattab that Umar ibn al-Khattab decided on a camel for a molar, a camel for a collar-bone, and a camel for a rib.

Yahya related to me from Malik that Yahya ibn Said heard Said ibn al-Musayyab say, ''Umar ibn al-Khattab decided on a camel for each molar, and Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan decided on five camels for each molar."

Said ibn al-Musayyab said, "The blood-money is less in the judgement of Umar ibn al-Khattab and more in the judgement of Muawiya. Had it been me, I would have made it two camels for each molar. That is the fair blood-money, and every one who strives with ijtihad is rewarded."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said that Said ibn al-Musayyab used to say,' 'When a tooth is struck and becomes black, there is complete blood-money for it. If it falls out after it becomes black, there is also the complete blood-money for it."

Section: Procedure in the Blood-Money for Teeth

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book 43, Number 43.13.8:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Da'ud ibn al-Husayn that Abu Ghatafan ibn Tarif al-Murri informed him that Marwan ibn al-Hakam sent him to Abdullah ibn Abbas to ask him what there was for the molar. Abdullah ibn Abbas said, "There are five camels for it." He said, "Marwan sent me back again to Abdullah ibn Abbas.'' He said, "Do you make front teeth like molars?" Abdullah ibn Abbas said, "It is enough that you take the fingers as the example for that, their blood-moneys being all the same."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Hisham ibn Urwa that his father made all the teeth the same in the blood-money and did not prefer any kind over others.

Malik said, "What is done in our community is that the front teeth, molars, and eye-teeth have the same blood-money. That is because the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'The tooth has five camels.' The molar is one of the teeth and he did not prefer any kind over the others."

Section: The Blood-Money for Injuries to Slaves

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book 43, Number 43.14.8a:
Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that Said ibn al-Musayyab and Sulayman ibn Yasar said, "The head wound of the slave in which the bone is bared is a twentieth of his price."

Malik related to me that he had heard that Marwan ibn al-Hakam gave a decision about a slave who was injured that the person who injured him had to pay what he had diminished of the value of the slave.

Malik said, "What is done in our community is that for the head wound of a slave that bares the bone, there is a twentieth of his price. The head wound which splinters the bone is three twentieths of his price. Both the wound to the brain and the belly wound are a third of his price. Besides these four, any other types of injury that decrease the price of the slave are considered after the slave is better and well, and one sees what the value of the slave is after his injury and what his value whole was before he had the injury. Then the one who injured him pays the difference between the two values."

Section: The Blood-Money of the People of Protection (Dhimma)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book 43, Number 43.15.8b:
Yahya related to me from Malik that he heard that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz gave a decision that when a jew or christian was killed, his blood-money was half the blood-money of a free muslim.

Malik said, "What is done in our community, is that a muslim is not killed for a kafir unless the muslim kills him by deceit. Then he is killed for it."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said that Sulayman ibn Yasar said, "The blood-money of a magian is eight hundred dirhams."

Malik said, "This is what is done in our community."

Malik said, "The blood-monies of the jew, christian, and magian in their injuries, is according to the injury of the muslims in their blood-moneys. The head wound is a twentieth of his full blood-money. The wound that opens the head is a third of his blood-money. The belly-wound is a third of his blood-money. All their injuries are according to this calculation."

Section: Blood-Money that has to be Paid as an Individual

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book 43, Number 43.16.8c:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Hisham ibn Urwa that his father said, "The tribe is not obliged to pay blood-money for intentional murder. They pay blood-money for accidental killing."

Yahya related to me from Malik that Ibn Shihab said, "The precedent of the sunna is that the tribe are not liable for any blood-money of an intentional killing unless they wish that."

Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said the same as that.

Malik said that Ibn Shihab said, "The precedent of the sunna in the intentional murder is that when the relatives of the murdered person relinquish retaliation, the blood-money is owed by the murderer from his own property unless the tribe helps him with it willingly."

Malik said, "What is done in our community is that the blood-money is not obliged against the tribe until it has reached a third of the full amount and upwards. Whatever reaches a third is against the tribe, and whatever is below a third, is against the property of the one who did the injury."

Malik said, "The way of doing things about which there is no dispute among us, in the case of someone who has the blood-money accepted from him in intentional murder or in any injury in which there is retaliation, is that that blood-money is not due from the tribe unless they wish it. The blood-money for that is from the property of the murderer or the injurer if he has property. If he does not have any property, it is a debt against him, and none of it is owed by the tribe unless they wish."

Malik said, "The tribe does not pay blood-money to anyone who injures himself, intentionally or accidentally. This is the opinion of the people of fiqh in our community. I have not heard that anyone has made the tribe liable for any blood-money incurred by intentional acts. Part of what is well-known of that is that Allah, the Blessed, and the Exalted, said in His Book, 'Whoever has something pardoned him by his brother, should follow it with what is accepted and pay it with good will' (Sura 2 ayat 178) The commentary on that - in our view - and Allah knows best, is that whoever gives his brother something of the blood-money, should follow it with what is accepted and pay him with good will."

Malik spoke about a child who had no property and a woman who had no property. He said, "When one of them causes an injury below a third of the blood-money, it is taken on behalf of the child and woman from their personal property, if they have property from which it may be taken. If not, the injury which each of them has caused is a debt against them. The tribe does not have to pay any of it and the father of a child is not liable for the blood-money of an injury caused by the child and he is not responsible for it."

Malik said, "The way of doing things in our community about which there is no dispute, is that when a slave is killed, the value for him is that of the day on which he was killed. The tribe of the murderer is not liable for any of the value of the slave, great or small. That is the responsibility of the one who struck him from his own personal property as far as it covers. If the value of the slave is the blood-money or more, that is against him in his property. That is because the slave is a certain type of goods."

Section: Inheritance of Blood-Money and Dealing Harshly in Taking It

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book 43, Number 43.17.9:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab that Umar ibn al-Khattab demanded of the people at Mina, "If anyone has knowledge of blood-money, let him inform me." Ad-Dahhak ibn Sufyan al-Kilabi stood up and said, "The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, wrote to me that the wife of Ashyam ad-Dibabi inherited from the blood-money of her husband." Umar ibn al-Khattab said to him, "Go into the tent until I come to you." When Umar ibn al-Khattab came in, ad-Dahhak told him about it and Umar ibn al-Khattab gave a decision based on that.

Ibn Shihab said, "The killing of Ashyam was accidental."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book 43, Number 43.17.10:
Malik related to me from Yahya ibn Said from Amr ibn Shuayb that a man of the Banu Mudlij called Qatada threw a sword at his son and it struck his thigh. The wound bled profusely and he died. Suraqa ibn Jusham came to Umar ibn al-Khattab and mentioned that to him Umar said to him, "At the watering place of Qudayd count one hundred and twenty camels and wait until I come to you." When Umar ibn al-Khattab came to him, he took thirty four-year-old camels, thirty five-year-old camels, and forty pregnant camels from them. Then he said, "Where is the brother of the slain man?" He said, "Here." He said, "Take them. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'The killer gets nothing.' "

Malik said that he had heard that Said ibn al-Musayyab and Sulayman ibn Yasar were asked, "Does one deal more harshly in taking the blood-money in the sacred month?" They said, "No. But it is increased in it because of violating the month." It was said to Said, "Does one increase for the wound as one increases for the life?" He said, "Yes."

Malik added, "I think that they meant the same as what Umar ibn al-Khattab did with respect to the blood-money of the Mudliji when he struck his son." (i.e. giving 120 camels instead of 100).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book 43, Number 43.17.11:
11 Malik related to me from Yahya ibn Said from Urwa ibn az-Zubayr that a man of the Ansar called Uhayha ibn al-Julah had a young paternal uncle who was younger than him and who was living with his maternal uncles. Uhayha took him and killed him. His maternal uncles said, "We brought him up from a baby to a youth till he stood firm on his feet, and we have had the right of a man taken from us by his paternal uncle." Urwa said, "For that reason a killer does not inherit from the one he killed."

Malik said, "The way of doing things about which there is no dispute is that the intentional murderer does not inherit anything of the blood-money of the person he has murdered or any of his property. He does not stop anyone who has a share of inheritance from inheriting. The one who kills accidentally does not inherit anything of the blood-money and there is dispute as to whether or not he inherits from the dead person's property because there is no suspicion that he killed him for his inheritance and in order to take his property. I prefer that he inherit from the dead person's property and not inherit from the blood-money."

Section: General Section on Blood-Money

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book 43, Number 43.18.12:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Said ibn al-Musayyab and Abu Salama ibn Abd ar-Rahman from Abu Hurayra that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "The wound of an animal is of no account and no compensation is due for it. The well is of no account and no compensation is due for it. The mine is of no account and no compensation is due for it and a fifth is due for buried treasures." (Al-kanz: see Book 17).

Malik said, "Everyone leading an animal by the halter, driving it, and riding it is responsible for what the animal strikes unless the animal kicks out without anything being done to it to make it kick out. Umar ibn al-Khattab imposed the blood-money on a person who was exercising his horse."

Malik said, "It is more fitting that a person leading an animal by the halter, driving it, or riding it incur a loss than a person who is exercising his horse." (See hadith 4 of this book).

Malik said, "What is done in our community about a person who digs a well on a road or ties up an animal or does the like of that on a road used by muslims, is that since what he has done is included in that which he is not permitted to do in such a place, he is liable for whatever injury or other thing arises from that action. The blood-money of that which is less than a third of the full blood-money is owed from his own personal property. Whatever reaches a third or more, is owed by his tribe. Any such things that he does which he is permitted to do on the muslims' road are something for which he has no liability or loss. Part of that is a hole which a man digs to collect rain, and the beast from which the man alights for some need and leaves standing on the road. There is no penalty against anyone for this."

Malik spoke about a man who went down a well, and another man followed behind him, and the lower one pulled the higher one and they fell into the well and both died He said, "The tribe of the one who pulled him in is responsible for the blood-money."

Malik spoke about a child whom a man ordered to go down into a well or to climb a palm tree and he died as a result. He said, "The one who ordered him is liable for whatever befalls him, be it death or something else."

Malik said, "The way of doing things in our community about which there is no dispute is that women and children are not obliged to pay blood-money together with the tribe in the blood-moneys which the tribe must pay. The blood-money is only obligatory for a man who has reached puberty."

Malik said that the tribe could bind themselves to the blood-money of mawali if they wished. If they refused, they were people of the diwan or were cut off from their people. In the time of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, people paid the blood-money to each other as well as in the time of Abu Bakr as-Siddiq before there was a diwan. The diwan was in the time of Umar ibn al-Khattab. No one other than one's people and the ones holding the wala' paid blood-money for one because the wala' was not transferable and because the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "The wala' belongs to the one who sets free."

Malik said, "The wala' is an established relationship."

Malik said, "What is done in our community about animals that are injured is that the person who causes the injury pays whatever of their value has been diminished."

Malik said about a man condemned to death and one of the other hudud befell him, "He is not punished for it. That is because the killing overrides all of that, except for slander. The slander remains hanging over the one to whom it was said because it will be said to him, 'Why do you not flog the one who slandered you?' I think that the condemned man is flogged with the hadd before he is killed, and then he is killed. I do not think that any retaliation is inflicted on him for any injury except killing because killing overrides all of that."

Malik said, "What is done in our community is that when a murdered person is found among the main body of a people in a village or other place, the house or place of the nearest people to him is not responsible. That is because the murdered person can be slain and then cast at the door of some people to shame them by it. No one is responsible for the like of that."

Malik said about a group of people who fight with each other and when the fight is broken up, a man is found dead or wounded, and it is not known who did it, "The best of what is heard about that is that there is blood-money for him, and the blood-money is against the people who argued with him. If the injured or slain person is not from either of the two parties, his blood-money is against both of the two parties together."

Section: Killing Secretly by Trickery and Sorcery

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book 43, Number 43.19.13:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Yahya ibn Said from Said ibn al-Musayyab that Umar ibn al-Khattab killed five or seven people for one man whom they had killed secretly by trickery. Umar said, "Had all the people of Sana joined forces against him, I would have killed them all."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book 43, Number 43.19.14:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Muhammad ibn Abd ar-Rahman ibn Sad ibn Zurara that he had heard that Hafsa, the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, killed one of her slave-girls who had used sorcery against her. She was a mudabbara. Hafsa gave the order, and she was killed.

Malik said, "The sorcerer is the one who uses sorcery for himself and no one else uses that for him. It is like the one about whom Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, said in His Book, 'They know the one who devotes himself to it will have no share in the Next World.' (Sura 2 ayat 102) I think that that person is killed if he does that himself."

Section: What Is Obligatory for Intentional Injury

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book 43, Number 43.20.15:
Yahya related to me from Malik from Umar ibn Husayn, the mawla of A'isha bint Qudama, that Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan imposed retaliation against a man who killed a mawla with a stick and so the mawla's patron killed the man with a stick.

Malik said, "The generally agreed on way of doing things in our community about which there is no dispute is that when a man strikes another man with a stick or hits him with a rock or intentionally strikes him causing his death, that is an intentional injury and there is retaliation for it."

Malik said, "Intentional murder with us is that a man intentionally goes to a man and strikes him until his life goes. Part of intentional injury also is that a man strikes a man in a quarrel between them. He leaves him while he is alive, and he bleeds to death and so dies. There is retaliation for that."

Malik said, "What is done in our community is that a group of free men are killed for the intentional murder of one free man, and a group of women for one woman, and a group of slaves for one slave."

Section: Retaliation in Killing

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book 43, Number 43.21.15a:
Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that Marwan ibn al-Hakam wrote to Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan to mention to him that a drunkard was brought to him who had killed a man. Muawiya wrote to him to kill him in retaliation for the dead man.

Yahya said that Malik said, "The best of what I have heard on the interpretation of this ayat, the word of Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, 'The free man for the free man and the slave for the slave - these are men and the woman for the woman,' (Sura 2 ayat 178) is that retaliation is between women as it is between men. The free woman is killed for the free woman as the free man is killed for the free man. The slave-girl is slain for the slave-girl as the slave is slain for the slave. Retaliation is between women as it is between men. That is because Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, said in His Book, 'We have written for them in it that it is a life for a life and an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, and an ear for an ear, and a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds there is retaliation.' (Sura 5 ayat 48) Allah, the Blessed, the Exalted, mentioned that it is a life for a life. It is the life of a free woman for the life of a free man, and her injury for his injury."

Malik said about a man who held a man fast for another man to hit, and he died on the spot, "If he held him and he thought that he meant to kill him, the two of them are both killed for him. If he held him and he thought that he meant to beat him as people sometimes do, and he did not think that he meant to kill him, the murderer is slain and the one who held him is punished with a very severe punishment and jailed for a year. There is no killing against him."

Malik said about a man who murdered a man intentionally or gouged out his eye intentionally, and then was slain or had his eye gouged out himself before retaliation was inflicted on him, "There is no blood-money nor retaliation against him. The right of the one who was killed or had his eye gouged out goes when the thing which he is claiming as retaliation goes. It is the same with a man who murders another man intentionally and then the murderer dies. When the murderer dies, the one seeking blood-revenge has nothing of blood-money or anything else. That is by the word of Allah, the Blessed the Exalted, 'Retaliation is written for you in killing. The free man for the free man and the slave for the slave.' "

Malik said, "He only has retaliation against the one who killed him. If the man who murdered him dies, he has no retaliation or blood-money."

Malik said, "There is no retaliation held against a free man by a slave for any injury. The slave is killed for the free man when he intentionally murders him. The free man is not slain for the slave, even if he murders him intentionally. It is the best of what I have heard."

Service to others and selflesness are common among the world's most successful religions. Religion has been and continues to be the source of community and commonality between people all over the world. We may see people at a civic association meeting about new stoplights and greet them as friends and neighbors, but it is the names we recognize during weekly worship services that receive our communal prayers, both then and later.

Secular governments have become popular in recent centuries as the ability to take resources by force has grown. Whether it is a business is being padlocked at gunpoint for failure to pay taxes or an entire country being invaded to steal its gold or oil (Mexico and Iraq), the state's ability to take by force today far surpasses any religion's ability to cause an outpouring of resources by an appeal to peoples' hearts.

So today few people remember that once upon a time and for many thousands of years, it was the selflessness of ordinary people while practicing their religions that built the world's great cultures. In fact, when the question specifically asks if schools should teach "about religion," people simply jump to denounce the teaching OF religion in public schools.

Is there a religion of statism that indoctrinates children to place their faith in government and to worship and die for America's political ideals?

Is there a stealth religion of statism that is hostile to all self-proclaimed religions, and therefore purges them from the history and social studies curriculums and texts?

I'm not skilled to make such an analysis, but I have never seen such an analysis made either.

Living a life in the service of others, is a life lived with value. This is a statement of Mr. Salazar. I believe this is a correct statement, and consistent with Mr. Eboo Patel's understanding and statement of, 'serving others is a value that all religions share.'

Living a life for the service of the happines of oneself and others is truly a noble life, and a respectworthy life as well. Nichiren Buddhism teaches that such an attitude, 'leads to the true happiness of oneself and others.'

True happiness is internalized and not externalized, and can be attained through an internal revolution and not an external revolution.

This internal human revolution is motivated through developing the deepest respect for oneself and others, simultaneously, creating a value system encompassing all people and not any one group of people or person's.

Religion is a personal choice; as is education; and should not be a part of the educational landscape, but maintain a separate identity for individual choice's to continue.

Religious diversity can be achieved through dignified respect to all people, without knowing their religious beliefs or educational background; as all people desire to be truly happy, which is common to all people; irregardless of their religious or personal beliefs, simmply by respecting their ability and desire to be truly happy and not by any public education asystem.

Interfaith Youth Core,
Imagine a world(it is a John Lennen song indeed) where young people from different religious backgrounds come togather to create Understand and Respect.Yes,understand and respect...
Bill Moyer relates a Telling Story..
Lets put aside all stories and tales.Lets look at the Realities.

State of New York.Population 19 millions,there are 150 universities.
Syrian Arab Republic,population 19 millions,there are only four universities.

USA,founded in 1774,230 years old state went to Moon.
Iran,5000 years old country,women couldnt go to stadium.

Sweden,population 9 millions,GDP 370 billions dollars
Egypt,population 78 millions,GDP 300 billions dol.
Do you understand anything from these???

Respect...To what?...Man can scourge women?...Two women equals one man.Timothy 2.12.

Tale,No one of you truly believers until he wants for his brother what he wants for himself.
Reality,yesterday news from Washpost,150 muslim pilgrims and 39 muslim students were killed by suicide bombers(daily usual news indeed).

Methodology,İnterfaith Youth Core uses a unique Shared Values...Yes Human Rights and Civilization only Shared Values...

Ba'al - The differences are indeed interesting, but not exclusively so. It's often much more difficult to think through the similarities, samenesses, subtle alike-ness of things than the differences. If the values being described "have nothing necessarily to do with religion," it is nonetheless interesting to consider the ways in which they do appear, and are dealt with, in various religions. Pointing out similarities at a time when people assume difference first, often rooted in ignorance rather than knowledge, doesn't strike me as wasted effort. Diversifying our concept of diversity, I think, is essential. If we want a world where being poor, white, and West Virginian is as distinctively minority as being poor, black, and from Oakland, we're going to have to work on drawing finer distinctions.

HOT OFF THE WIRE:

"Georgia public schools move towards teaching Bible

By DOUG GROSS
Associated Press
Thursday, March 8, 2007; 9:16 PM"

ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE WAPO TODAY

Notice that no other religion's scriptures are being taught.

Want to bet on whether the classes will have an Episcopal or a Fundamentalist cast to them?

This Georgia law shows exactly why religion should not be taught in the public schools!

Most of the values that are conserved across humanity have nothing necessarily to do with religion. In fact, the ones that every religion addresses are the same ones important to atheists, agnostics, and pretty much every culture on the planet. Just thought that needed to be mentioned, especially for the "values voters" who might be reading, and for the people out their who think you need Jesus or Mohammad to be moral.

Also, my impression is that a course like the one this guy describes would be intellectual pablum.

It is the differences between religions that are interesting. Minor differences in theology have had major and sometimes tragic consequences for human history. One could argue that these have emerged during power struggles for control of a religious group that has amassed considerable secular/political power -- that is, the theology is maybe not so important as the politics, at least for the people driving the conflicts.