Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Web-exclusive comment

Studying Islam

TARIQ RAMADAN

Special to Globe and Mail Update

Latest comment posted at 11:33 PM EDT 08/01/08

To challenge the simplistic notion that Islam is still in its medieval period, we must engage it academically. ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. matt e from Canada writes: To engage a subject academically is to engage with it critically. Something contemporary Islam and it's current trend towards radicalism seems loath to tolerate.
  2. Brad Reddekopp from Hazelton, British Columbia, Canada writes: The best reason to study Islam or any other religion is to understand it well enough to find the best strategies for convincing people to abandon it.
  3. Keith who is from Ottawa, Canada writes: I pretty much agree with what this article has to say. Our understanding of Islam in the West has been dominated by our colonial past. I like the line on 'dangerous utilitarianism.' Religions cannot be understood through the prism of utilitarianism alone. That is an ideology geared towards exploitation and can yield little in terms of true understanding leading towards any type of mutual respect or reconciliation. It's funny how people charge that Islam is still in the dark ages, yet during the actual mideval period, Islam was much more open and tolerant towards people who practiced other religions than Christians in Europe were at the time. Radicalization and tribalism are symptoms of societies under siege. I doubt that I would be any different if I had been brought up in a country under foriegn domination, as most middle eastern countries are. If the Chinese were in Canada exploiting our natural resorces and economy in the same manner as the West and presently the U.S. are doing and have done in the past, I would no doubt follow any leader that promised change or offered effective resistance. Even if it was Don Cherry as a Christian Fundamentalist driven mad by chronic bladder infections, I'd still follow him. That's what societies and people do when they're under siege. They band together and fight back by any means they can, no matter what. It's as easy to predict as atmospheric low-pressure is a good indication of rain. It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with human nature. This doesn't mean that some won't use religion as a tool. People will exploit anything that furthers their cause.
  4. Anthony Ward from Saint John, Canada writes: The medievalism of Islam is in it's brutality by association with terrorists and it's intolerance as witnessed in crimes like murder of girls refusing to wear modest prescribed clothing and clitorectomies being perfomed on immigrant British citizens.

    In addition, when we look at the roots of Shia / Sunni barbarity towards each other we see it stems from the murder of Mohammed's son. This religion, born of blood, has yet to grow beyond it's birthright.

    In consolation, it also has not approached the irrelevance of Catholocism -- a religion equally steeped in blood.
  5. Darcy Day from Canada writes: matt e from Canada writes: To engage a subject academically is to engage with it critically. Something contemporary Islam and it's current trend towards radicalism seems loath to tolerate.'

    Matt you hit it bang on. This is timely as Macleans is being dragged before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for thought crimes and speech crimes for criticizing Islam. How can you engage anything critically when tax funded kangaroo courts will go after you for the attempt?
  6. LostInSpace Forever from Canada writes: Islam is a clear and present threat to everything that the West has managed to achieve in the past few hundred years. One need only look at what is going on in Europe and England to see the process by which a coutnry fragments into separate societies that do not engage through the magic of multiculturalism and moral relativism. 'all cultures are equally good and viable and deserve the same support'.

    What foolishness!

    And to those who reply sarcastically about the West's various abuses in the past, I invite them to move to an Islamic society, if thje one we have created is so bad. Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? Make your choice. I can see a human wave migrating to these lands for their liberty, tolerance, freedom of speech, prosperity, and academic achievement.

    The current attack on free speech, the 'human rights' complaint against Macleans is the perfect example. What is Islam to Canada? What did its believers do to contribute to the making of this land? Yet a few offended law students and a man who once stated that every man, woman and child in Israel is a legitimate target for suicide bombing, are trying to muzzle a national news magazine. That's how it was done in Europe and England, and now Canada is under attack next.

    Read the British papers. See what is going on there!

    Speak out against the Macleans complaint. Stop it now! Or your children will wonder what you were doing when Canada was lost.
  7. Scotia Rae from Canada writes: Completely agree with most of these comments above.
  8. Mark Williams from Canada writes: LostInSpace - having lived in Britain for the last 2 years, I'd really love to hear you point out what, exactly, is going on here. This 'fragmentation' that you're talking about doesn't seem to exist around here any more than it does back in Canada...

    Moreover, its refreshing to see the same xenophobia which feared the Italian, Portuguese, Eastern European and Irish immigrants to Canada (those who, at that time, had also done 'nothing to build this land') lives on in you.
  9. Mary O'Hara from Canada writes: Mark Williams... I don't seem to recall any Portuguese, Vietnamese, Irish, or Eastern European human rights complaints attempting to silence a major Canadian new magazine. This issue is not trivia. It really needs to be brought to the public eye and discussed, as Rex Murphy did a couple of nights ago.

    As for what is going on in England.. how about the fact that state funded mosques are increasingly dominated by radicals that have close ties to Taliban, or that cities have become so ghettoized that yesterday a Church of England bishop felt that entire zones have become 'no go' areas for non-muslims.

    Anyway, with regard to this author's thesis, I tend to echo the thoughts of those above - it does not seem that this religion is capable of engaging in peaceful self-examination and evolution. Meanwhile, non-muslims pay the price for that.
  10. Clive Gingell from Ottawa, Canada writes: Mark Williams: Perhaps you should peruse the reader comments in the UK Telegraph:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/07/nmuslim107.xml#comments
  11. Winston Churchill from London, Canada writes: Engage Islam intellectually? How to do that when most Moslem I've ever met insists, as a first step, that you respect their faith, which means accepting their definitions (Islam is submission, which is peace, and when the whole world submits there will be universal peace), and that the Koran was dictated to Muhammed by Gabriel? In any case Tariq Ramadan is Hasan al-Banna's son, and part of the problem, not the solution. Ibn Warraq has it about right. His point, in sum, is that Islam doesn't listen, and never did. This is the major reason it has failed to thrive. How do you have a conversation when one party covers their ears and starts shouting?
  12. Mary O'Hara from Canada writes: Clive Gingell... I checked the link. Wow.

    People really do need to wake up.
  13. Bob Macdonald from Liverpool, United Kingdom writes: As long as Islam responds to free debate and the equal participation of women and gays and lesbians, with violence, terrorism and intolerance, then it is in the medieval period. Just this week there is a woman in Holland who has now gone underground after being threatened with death for photographing gay Iranians. In fact, whenever anyone stands up and says something that is deemed offensive to Islam, they quickly experience death threats - and then they go silent. I am afraid profound social change will need to take place in muslim countries, and that just may take a century or two to come about. In the meantime, the only priority for our governments must be this: security. The government must put in the place the means to protect citizens from this threat for as long as it is there. This will go long past my lifetime.
  14. S A from Toronto, Canada writes: I'm noticing a trend in reader responses to any articles that happen to discuss Islam. It's always the same old platitudes, regardless of the content of the article. Statements describing Islam as a religion of violence and misogyny are neither original nor are they helpful. You're basically describing every religion out there, and the only difference is that Islam is the only religion subject to an international smear campaign that it is ill-prepared to deal with.

    I found the Macleans articles in question to be unnecessarily inflammatory and devoid of any journalistic legitimacy. Regardless of the subject, which just happened to be Islam, Macleans should be held to account for any inaccuracies it publishes. I fail to see why this would be a problem for anyone living in a 'free society'.
  15. Dana Cruickshank from Canada writes: Islam in many ways is not very different from Christianity, especially when looked at from a secular viewpoint. The problems in Islamic societies and Islamic culture today, are not necessarily due to Islam, but a product of not only western colonization, but their own failures as countries and states. In the medieval period, Islam was, counter to what this heading of the article seems to be implying, was more open then it is now. More learning and tolerance existed then, than it does now.

    As for the need to study Islam, there probably is a need for governments to learn about who they are attacked by. Maybe it was a failure of western civilization to not have studied islam more intensely, but it doesn't make it morally wrong for people to need to increase the study of things because of something happening in the world right now. I thought that point was utterly stupid. As academics, people study things because they have a relevance to society in general, we don't study things that don't matter!

    And Muslims living in the west should adopt a pro-western viewpoint, because their actions of living or even learning here have already given them that position. How can anyone go to a western university by choice and be anti western at the same time without being hypocritical?

    We need to be critical of everything we study, and academics are not being critical of islam as a religion, but as a cultural movement. No one is saying that what islam says is wrong, but its actual effects on culture are not good for their own societies right now.
  16. Barney Panofsky from Vancouver, Canada writes: Study what you want.

    The problems are not the academics.

    The problems are the extremists They denounce and eliminate the acedemics who don't follow their 5th century brutality.
    If there are moderate Muslims, where are they?
    A devout Muslim dreams of world domination by peaceful OR violent means, as necessary.
  17. CD W from Canada writes: Christ invites, Mohammed compels. See the difference?
  18. Lee Turner from Canada writes: The problem is not islam, any more than it is christianity. It is those people advancing extreme ideologies, fear and repression to justify their own power. We've merely singled one such example out, while forgiving all others.
  19. Enlightened Ape from Canada writes: Many people engage in debate about Islam within even having read the Koran. I find this mind-boggling! Most of the people that espouse moral relativism and the notion that 'all cultures and ways of thinking are equal and are deserved of respect' have no idea what is actually written in the book. You want to know why there is so much hatred towards Jews, 'infidels', terrorism, crusade for world domination, abuse of women, etc, etc? It is all written in the Koran for everyone to see.

    While reading it I never felt more proud to be an infidel!
  20. Mary O'Hara from Canada writes: S A. The basis for the complaint against Macleans is not error of fact. First, the article was an opinion piece, not news journalism, and second the statistics and quotes in it were pretty straightforward. Not much controversy. The most controversial quote was actually taken directly from the published words of a European Islamic leader.

    However, the complainants were unhappy with the content because the article cast an unfavourable light on their religion. They demanded a 5 page response over which they had total editorial and graphic control, to be published in Macleans.

    The effect, and I believe the intent, of such actions is to frighten people away from offering criticism, and eventually self-censor. That is the danger.

    Do you believe that the Mohammad cartoon violence was justified? Or the fatwa against Salman Rushdie? If yes, what about the Mohammad teddy bear? What's your cutoff for not wanting to offend people?
  21. Ed Doerksen from Simcoe, Canada writes: very nice article - but isn't the theme of Canadian society is that there shall be no Gods, gods, allah, religion, religious stuff, or anything that suggests any religion in this secular and humanistic country?
  22. Barney Panofsky from Vancouver, Canada writes: The golden age of Islamic study occured more than 500 years ago. Since then only Islamic dogma is tolerated. Open minds are terrorized by religious police in such moderate states as Saudi Arabia (while funding international Wahabi extremism).

    With oil being the primary contribution to modern society of the Islamic world, and oil being at these unprecedented high levels, I can only wonder where these resources are being used? It doesn't seem to find it's way to educating the Islamic masses or relieving their poverty or suffering. It seems to be supporting madrasses and terrorists, both in Islamic states and more dangerously here in the west.
  23. S. C. cam from Canada writes: The problem with taking an academic approach to Islam is that Islam does not have the ability to accept a critical analysis of its tenants, basis, leaders or any aspect of its reason. Can Islam stand up and be reviewed or must it be accepted at blind faith? If blind faith is chosen, then no academic study can be accomplished without the fear of having some two bit cleric declare to have your head removed.
  24. V S from Canada writes: I-SLAM and apostacy. Pls google it and that will provide an deeper understanding about this peaceful religion.
  25. Canadian Infidel from Cranbrook, B.C., Canada writes: The Error of our Ways! In Canada prior to the Constitution Act, we where on our way to becoming 'Free of Religious or Mythical Belief's' being perpetrated on us. 'Imagine a Society, where their is No Heaven or Hell', one where we are Free of antiquated belief's other than in Museums of Wishful Thinking and Hate. We've now done ourselves in, with a Constitution having been written with a 'God's Help, with absolute protection of Individual and Institutional 'Belief's' over all others in the Country. Naturally, this legislation will zap our Finances, Energy and Courts precious time from other legitimate endeavors to advance more and more conflict between 'Belief's'. To solve the problem is not to fight for McLean's 'rights', it is to fight for removal of the 'Protection of God and his various Religions' from our Constitution entirely. I defend your right to have your silly Belief's, but I object to them being 'protected by us' as you are inflicting (by force of Law) your Belief's onto me! Our Constitution should protect your right to your Belief's, 'providing that neither you nor such Belief's are in fact inflicted on any of the rest of us'. Our Constitution must be Amended to delete references to any and 'All God's, and any Right and or Protection of Mystic Belief's'. Further, Governments at all levels have to 'Delete' allowances to Registering these as Legitimate areas of Study at all levels of Education, including Schools, Colleges and Universities along with De registering such Entities as Charitable Societies or other Tax Advantages. This subsidization of 'taxpayers dollars' is another example of my Government forcing your Religious Belief's down my throat'. McLean's, needs to address these real 'facts', not dwell on one stupid belief. We need the Media to 'question All Religious Belief and the Laws' because they force 'conflict among different Belief's and legally force us to comply against our own will, with our own money'!
  26. Barney Panofsky from Vancouver, Canada writes: It seems that the readers comments don't reflect the views which the editors wanted.
    Politically correct means portraying an image of Islam which just doesn't match what's happening in the real world. The Islamic world is full of hatred and violence. Where is this Islam of peace , love and tolerance? No, we're not perfect in the west and we have our rednecks, but they're the exception. We don't have religious police and we don't destroy the religious institutions of others.
  27. Mary QuiteContrary from Toronto, Canada writes: Some things NEED to be repeated (if in Canada, this principle should be enriched with the phrase 'over and over again' since Canadians seem to be SUCH apologists for the flatline perspective that 'all cultures are created equal' - an inaccurate and dangerous offshoot of Canada's misguided/mismanaged policy of multiculturalism). In that spirit, then: LostInSpace Forever from Canada writes: Islam is a clear and present threat to everything that the West has managed to achieve in the past few hundred years. One need only look at what is going on in Europe and England to see the process by which a coutnry fragments into separate societies that do not engage through the magic of multiculturalism and moral relativism. 'all cultures are equally good and viable and deserve the same support'. What foolishness! And to those who reply sarcastically about the West's various abuses in the past, I invite them to move to an Islamic society, if thje one we have created is so bad. Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? Make your choice. I can see a human wave migrating to these lands for their liberty, tolerance, freedom of speech, prosperity, and academic achievement. The current attack on free speech, the 'human rights' complaint against Macleans is the perfect example. What is Islam to Canada? What did its believers do to contribute to the making of this land? Yet a few offended law students and a man who once stated that every man, woman and child in Israel is a legitimate target for suicide bombing, are trying to muzzle a national news magazine. That's how it was done in Europe and England, and now Canada is under attack next. Read the British papers. See what is going on there! Speak out against the Macleans complaint. Stop it now! Or your children will wonder what you were doing when Canada was lost.
  28. Darcy Day from Canada writes: S A from Toronto

    We are not regurgitating 'the same old platitudes', we are discussing specific real events, involving real people as they unfold before our eyes right now, not abstract philosophical debates. Start reading papers online on the situation in Britain and Europe.

    You can start with the impeccable left-wing Guardian if you like, and you will still be shocked as to what is happening in Europe right now and will happen here if we do nothing.
  29. Bob M from Canada writes: 'If we are serious about respecting the diversity of civilizations...' Sorry, we're not. Big mistake, Tariq. We respect the right to religious expression, but not countries, let alone civilizations, based on religion. In other words, get secular, chum.
  30. Wakey Wakey from Victoria, Canada writes: SA, the 'platitudes', I'm afraid are all yours. First, asserting that Islam's just like 'any religion out there' clearly belies your unfamiliarity with this belief system. If you'd like a brief but thorough summary of the tenets of the faith, take a couple of hours to read through 'Islam 101' an essay you'll find on Jihad Watch. You obviously need to do a little reading.

    Second, you might also want to spend a little time asking yourself what exactly 'free speech' means to you. Anything? I'd guess not, given your inability to appreciate the risk it bears here.

    Third, regarding Ramadan's article itself, did you notice how lacking it is in substance? It reads like fog. One's left with the impression that Ramadan's agenda is to throw people off the trail of inquiry into the nature of Islam. Why else would he suggest, rather absurdly, surely, that one can't even begin to understand the subtleties of this wonderful religion without first mastering half a dozen languages?!
  31. Don Paterson from Coboconk, Canada writes: Islamic terrorism can only be combatted with the help of the Mullahs (teachers) , teaching the children. lt will be a long, probably 2 generational process. Religeous terrorism has been going on since the beginning of time and won't be stopped by war.
  32. Free Thought from Toronto, Canada writes: 'You're basically describing every religion out there, and the only difference is that Islam is the only religion subject to an international smear campaign that it is ill-prepared to deal with.'

    Uh. Islam was supposed to be better, not worse. As a Muslim, I was brainwashed into thinking my religion was better than the filth out there. Unfortunately, Islam partakes of that filth liberally and adds to it. So please get your facts straight (or gay if you prefer).

    And please, a little humor goes a long way! It's the New Year after all.
  33. RoadApple Red from Moronto, Canada writes: What the west and in particular, the western media, needs is a much better understanding of the contents of the Koran. Islam is a religion that rose from war and was spread by the murderous exploits of mohammad based on what mohammad 'wrote' in the koran. Islam is in fact a religion of violence as it very specifically time and again calls for the killing of infidels unless they convert to islam. Notwithstanding the criticism of Catholicism, Christianity truly teaches peace, something that Islam cannot possibly claim and never will be able to claim even if more courses of study are provided. The only way this fact can be changed is to re-write the koran to remove the commands to kill Jews and all other non-muslims. Yes there needs to be a better understanding of Islam and disclosure to those that do not know what the koran contains to educate them that islam teaches violence.
  34. greg panke from orangeville, Canada writes: A simple check of the well run Islam dominated countries is a good enough guide for me as to how well or dysfunctional Islam is. Turkey seems the most progressive, but even it is having serious difficulties, after that it is hard to notice any others. Does anyone have their list of well run Islamic countries? Dubai seems to be trying but it is a city-state as I understand it and seems to have a way to go as well.

    As for the west we seem to be in some apologetic state for having done well, quite prepared to give up our countries to whomever wishes to change them as penance for our success, gradually turning them into the disasters that are third world countries. We have to get out of this mind set before it is too late.

    The west is certainly not perfect, we have a lot of work to do, but equality of all cultures is a myth, religion is simply a part of culture, not seperate to it.
  35. Patrick Kelley from Ottawa, Canada writes: The author of this article is merely calling for an objective study of the culture of Islam and it's place in the world. I find myself compelled to be on the side of anyone calling for objectivity and critical study. Anyone who wants us to bring to bear the full power of reason and science (even in all of it's social-science flavours of history and psycology and sociology) and philosophy and logic upon a subject automatically has my vote. Where I think the author and I differ, is on what the result of such an inquiry into Islam would be. This is a message board, so I'll be very brief, and limit my comments to epistemology. What do you think and epistemological study would show about Islam (or any other faith for that matter)? About the quality of the knowledge it is based on, and the quality of knowledge it's theologians 'reveal' about the world? Islam (as with all faiths) is based on and produces 'knowledge' that is made up of feelings and visions--so called 'revealed' knowldge. This knowledge is neither timeless, nor universal, nor predictive in any way. Yet it is claimed to be just those things, and perfectly so, by the most dangerous practitioners of the faith (as with all faiths). It claims, that these are simply 'different ways of knowing', and that they are just as valid as, say, a mathematical formula or a repeatable experiment. Moderates (of any faith), are good people usually to the extent that they do NOT subscribe to this interpretation of faith. To the author I say this: The problem is, sir, and I think you are one of the moderate, that you protect the fundamentalists by trying to provide them legitimacy and protection. You do not do this deliberately. Your heart is in what you think is the right place. I endorse your plan. Let's have a genuine free and scientific inquiry of Islam (and all faiths), and let the chips fall where they may.
  36. RoadApple Red from Moronto, Canada writes: In response to SA from Toronto. You quite obviously have not read the koran otherwise you would have to acknowledge what it states time and again; kill the infidels if they do not convert to islam. You will not find such statements in the Bible and I would speculate that you will not find such statements in the holy writing of Hinduism.
    Until people like you actually read and acknowledge that the koran specifically commands muslims to kill Jews, you are speaking from a basis of intellectual dishonesty.
    The fundamental message found continuously throughout the Bible is one of love of your neighbour. That cannot be said with any honesty of the koran.
  37. Kim Philby from Ottawa, Canada writes: The author asserts that 'Islamic studies must be taken seriously.' Why? Why should anyone take seriously such ridiculous beliefs?

    The author refers to 'Islam's legal heritage, philosophy, mystical thought, and social and political vitality', to 'the richness of the Sunni and Shia traditions', to 'Islam's many eminent theologians and thinkers', to 'theological scholarship', to 'Islamic law and jurisprudence'. That's a lot of presumption on his part. There is nothing 'scholarly' about religious belief. 'Islamic law and jurisprudence' is an oxymoron. What exactly is so 'vital' about Islamic society and politics? On what basis can he claim that Islamic theologians and 'thinkers' should be considered eminent? Why are Sunni and Shia traditions 'rich'?

    Larding one's discourse with such question-begging loaded words and phrases smacks of bias and more than a little desperation on the part of the author.
  38. Mike Quinlan from Gatineau QC, Canada writes: That was one of the most convoluted articles I have ever read. Ultimately it seems its point was that Islam should not be studied critically in a university setting. To me this is not a message of tolerance and understanding.
  39. I. Con O'Clast from Canada writes: The apologists for religious ideosyncracies are at least consistent, whether excusing the excesses of Christianity, Islam, or Judaism. 'Oh, that is not Islam...Oh, that is not Christianity... look at what the Koran says...read the bible...' Well, Christianity is what it's practitioners make it, just as Islam is what it's practitioners make it. Excusing those practises on the basis of convenient passages in books that should have been buried with the desert tribes that fostered them, speaks to their irrelevance rather than their currency. Jazzing it up with academic erudition won't civilize it one damn bit.
  40. Cameron Reid from Toronto, Canada writes: Well I agree that Mr. Ramadan's ideas are well intentioned and idealistic, I feel the need to point out that the overall trend of modern Islam seems to be AWAY from the ideal he is espousing and towards radical fundamentalism. Making the matter additionally complicated is the fact that Islam is far more politicized in its homelands than other major world religions (with the exception of Judaism)- so anti-western rhetoric in religion can be harnessed to concrete political ends- which is why the west finds Islam so threatening.
  41. Bob Macdonald from Liverpool, United Kingdom writes: Here is a hardcore reality check: 20 years ago in Canada this was not a problem and the country was a place of great freedom and prosperity. Fast-forward to now, and we have to waste a vast fortune on security measures and foreign wars to stay safe from threats by islamic fundamentalists. We also have to spend large sums of money trying to integrate this newly arrived population. If you think there isn't a cost to this, you are mistaken.

    Trips home don't find fresh-faced Canadian women in the latest fashions, but an increasing population in the cloaks of muslim garb. That is a BIG change - you can't pretend otherwise.
  42. R M from Canada writes: Bishop Goddard said (based on someone's link) 'It is a question of how people of different beliefs work together'. My question is:

    Can Canadian-born Muslims live well in Canadian society?

    And the follow-up question is:

    What are our (Canadian) values? Do Islamic values synch with them? If yes, then what? If no, then why?

    How's that for critically looking at both value systems! (It would be nice to have some Cdn-Muslim and/or less-inflammatory remarks here)
  43. S A from Canada writes: In response to many of you who have jumped to incorrect assumptions about me based on my ideas, let me assure you that I have read the Bible and the Quran. I read British publications regularly, and am quite aware of what is happening in Europe (although I find the Daily Telegraph's version of reality to be quite removed from my own). And with an intent to burst your oh-so-self-righteous bubbles, here is a collection of choice verses from the Bible that are contrary to the message of peace that everyone assumes to be the Bible's true message: 1) In Leviticus 25:44-46, the Lord tells the Israelites it's OK to own slaves, provided they are strangers or heathens. 2) In Samuel 15:2-3, the Lord orders Saul to kill all the Amalekite men, women and infants. 3) In Exodus 15:3, the Bible tells us the Lord is a man of war. 4) In Numbers 31, the Lord tells Moses to kill all the Midianites, sparing only the virgins. 5) In Deuteronomy 13:6-16, the Lord instructs Israel to kill anyone who worships a different god or who worships the Lord differently. 6) In Mark 7:9, Jesus is critical of the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as prescribed by Old Testament law. 7) In Luke 19:22-27, Jesus orders killed anyone who refuses to be ruled by him. Now what was that line about casting the first stone?
  44. Patrick Kelley from Ottawa, Canada writes: SA: Critisizing Islam is NOT xenophobia. Don't conflate it with racism. Islam is not a race, an ethnicity, or even a specific cultural group. It is an idea. It is an idea that defines personal identity, and is therefore an important one to engage. Just like democracy, dictatorship, capitalism, and communism. As an idea, the most dangerous thing we can do is make it immune to critisism. The article mentions makes much of real world politics, and then attempts to tell us that we should look past the spin to the 'real Islam'. To be honest, it reads like the man just read some Dawkins/Dennett/Harris/Hitchens. Let me re-iterate some of it for you, sir. 1) Bring on the free scientific inquiry into faith. Humanity has everything to gain and only illusions/delusions to lose. 2) All religions are not created equal. Where are the CHRISTIAN Palestinian suicide bombers? Where are the Tibetan suicide bombers? And where are the Muslim protestors against Islamofacist bombimgs? What do you think the odds would be of a Jain attempting to spread his or her ideas by force be? My $0.02... I disagree partially Dawkins/Dennett/Harris/Hitchens. Religion does not CAUSE most conflict. Conflict is caused by real-politic squabbling over scarce resources like land and food and money. But religion shapes personal identity and perscribes the appropriate methods of conflict resolution. It often takes conversation off of the table, leaving only swords and guns with which to conduct the negotiations. And the next thing you know, you've got religious moderates whose personal identity was also shaped by faith writing apologetics to the editorial column of the globe and mail.
  45. Pierre Simaika from Canada writes: Islam deserves no more 'credit' in modern western society as any other religion, which will be margnalized as soon as it turns somewhat radical. What is of concern and ultimately brings on a sense of danger is the cry of many (not all) Muslims for the West to accept and respect their religion, while attacking the same people it wants to be respected by. It seems today as soon as one opens their mouth about Islam, they are being shamed into silence. And that ultimately is what projects a medieval image of Islam.

    It doesn't matter today how Islam stacked up in comparison to other religions a few hundred years ago. This is today and there hasn't been any societal evolution in Islamic countries, whereas many other societies view religion in a much more milder form, from spiritual guidance to complete abandonment.

    It all goes to credibility of religion and the people who use and abuse it. Others have made the transition and Islam still has some ways to go.
  46. Confucious Smith from Canada writes: 'Study what you want. The problems are not the academics. The problems are the extremists They denounce and eliminate the acedemics who don't follow their 5th century brutality....'

    I think one of the biggest issues in these types of discussions is the use of the word 'extremist'. If one follows the Koran as directed, is one really an extremist? Or is he simply being devout?

    On the other hand, there are those that are described as 'devout', but do not observe everything advocated in the book. Are they really devout, or are they just being selectively ritualistic?

    IMO, it is silly to judge Islam (the religion) based on the acts of a few or of the many; it should be based on the theology of the Koran, its basis. Judging it as a culture is, of course, a separate issue.
  47. A Guy In TO from Toronto, Canada writes: Islam has proved time and again that it is incapable of criticism of any sort, therefore it seems it is hardly worthy of academic review or even discussion. Many elements of Islam are woefully wanting, and many Muslims would agree, but as long as the very real threat of violent retribution hangs over the head of anyone who dares to evaluate Islam in any real academically acceptable way, Islam will remain mired in the medieval illusions of the past. Let us not forget 'The Teddy Bear Incident'. I would love to hear an academically valid defence of that idiocy.
  48. Clive Gingell from Ottawa, Canada writes: It is time we ceased observing situations from fanciful/theoretical 'academic' perspectives, with their associated mitigating/extenuating, (and never ending), apologies, and take a close look at real & ACTUAL behaviour.
  49. Kermit Le Frog from Montreal, Canada writes: Why are we talking about Islam again...... How can you truly engage any religion academicaly or intellectualy... It's a religion. The true problem with the west is that it is the only civilization that is truly serious about respecting diversity and practicing tolerance. The popular notions spread in the 1960's and 1970's were quite succesful in convincing us in the occident that we should deal with our guilt about our evil colonialist past by accepting any other cultures and religions into our own no matter what the cost. As we have secularized our public institutions in order to accomodate the other, we have forgotten the greatness of our own civilization and sometimes tend to compromise our values in the fear of seeming racist or intolerant. It is ok to stand up for the freedom of speech, human rights and the equality of men and women. Since their is no centralized authority comparable to the Vatican in Islam, we can only speak of Islams and not Islam as a general all encompassing term. That being said, there are clear examples of ignorant, violent and mysogenistic behavior being carried out around the world in the name of Islam, no matter what all the nice peace loving muslims in the west think. Saudi Arabia just gave a special pardon to a rape victim who had been accused and sentenced as a criminal for being in a car with a non-relative male. If I examine any contemporary civilization which chooses to govern itself in this manner under the guidance of Islamic Sharia law and I approach it academically or intellectually, I will have to conclude that it is medieval and barbaric. Sorry Tariq
  50. Fred Forest from London, Ontario, Canada writes: I don't 'need' to understand anything unless I choose to make assertions with respect to it in order to defend my position. How can anyone truly challenge that which is said to be 'divine'. I don't 'need' to accept anything which can't be proven to me factually. If I 'want' to undestand Islam more than I do now, it wouldn't be that hard. We need to push all religions back into the places of worship and out of the lives of those who choose to live together. The more we allow religion to seep into and overtly inform our public policies, the steeper the hill we are climbing will become. A famous prophet once said 'beware of the politician claiming to guided by my book, for one day he will take your life in my name'.
  51. Geoff Wilson from Revelstoke, Canada writes: The problem is every time we look at Islam empirically (that is, what Islam is, and what Muslims do as opposed to other religions), the picture is not pretty. We are ten years in to the age of spin, and no amount of academic icing is going to dampen the edge on a religion that has been directly responsible for our worst and most recent acts of utter villainy. When the bombings, kidnappings, threats, holocaust denial and attacks on personal freedoms at least seem to be unpopular in the muslim world, maybe then we can approach Islam academically without a utilitarian drive.
  52. J W Y from Vancouver, Canada writes: First of all, as long as Islam holds the world in fear of retaliation there will never be constructive dialogue. Even the New York Post has watered down information so as not to 'offend' islamic sensibilities. They call this respect but it is simply fear of the kind of medieval retribution that the Danish cartoons recieved. Second, ALL primitive superstitions (religions) need to be critiqued without limit. Only rational thought will help humanity out of the quagmire of these barbaric and primitive--and illogical--belief systems that have fettered science and hindered our social, cultural and political evolution as a species. Blasphemy is a right, religion is a privilege!
  53. Darcy Day from Canada writes: I've often wondered why some in the West are apologists for extremists. They insist it is all our fault, and they are just victims of the west.

    The apologists insist on seeing the extremists as victims. This thinking presupposes that the West is capable of turning any group on the planet into a 'victim' because the West is all-powerful.

    To admit that West is not responsible for extremists actions means admitting that the West is NOT all-powerful, that we are under threat, and that we are not safe.

    This must be a terrifying thought for the apologists. So they continue to insist it's all our own fault (hence we are in control, all-powerful, and safe.) The reality is too scary to for the apologists to admit to themselves.
  54. David Newland from Canada writes: 'What are our (Canadian) values?'

    THAT is the 50,000 dollar question. Or the 30 million people question.

    Poll ten people and you'll get ten different answers.

    Surely that's half the problem when it comes to integrating anyone 'different.'
  55. Winston Churchill from London, Canada writes: Two more observations: I've read this piece three or four times, since Tariq Ramadan is a famous man and generally held up as a spokesman for moderate Islam. You know what? It annoyed me more each time. Some reasons: 1. Everytime Islam feels itself insulted, anywhere, Christians and Jews resident in Islamic countries feel the wrath of their Muslim compatriots. Nowdays, there's more Christians than Jews feeling the heat since the Jews have mostly been expelled. A deal: I'll learn Arabic, and study Islamic jurisprudence the day that Tariq Ramadan studies Coptic, and in the spirit of reciprocity, studies the writings of eminent Copts (his co-nationals, after all) writing in the rich Coptic tradition. I will stop applying the rule 'by their fruits will you know them' to Islam the very day most non-resident Muslims don't end their study of the modern West by watching the worst sort of TV trash and concluding from the study that all Westerners are harlots, pimps, and drug users. 2. Further along these lines, Western Muslims agitate for tolerance (and they should have it), but nowhere I can think of in the Islamic world, or even on its margins, are religious minorities anything but harshly oppressed. I'm not talking about no head-scarves either. I had a conversation once (very Tariq Ramadan-esque) with a soft spoken Sudanese who earnestly believed that I would be doing God's work in tolerating his idiosycracies in my country, but that he was doing God's work in compelling conversion in his own. 3. Tariq Ramadan is on the record as believing that the Western World will one day be Islamicized: that Western civ is clapped out, and that Islam is revitalising and on the rise. I'm OK with him believing that . . . I just doubt that he'll leave me alone if that turns out to be anything like true; and I'm pretty sure that a demand for understanding and study is his way of accelerating this program, rather than simply looking for tolerance.
  56. Chicken Little from Canada writes: There have been many religions in the history of mankind and the vast majority of them are now extinct.

    A partial list of 'obsolete' gods would include Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, Apollo, Artemis, Aphrodite, Ares, Hephaestus, Athena, Hermes, Demeter, Hestia, Dionysus, Nike, Mithras, Shu, Tefnut, Thoth, Bastet, Sekhmet, Geb, Nut, Isis, Osiris, Seth, Nephthys, Aten, Bes, Hathor, Khnum, Maat, Mentu, Serapis, Sobek, An, Enlil, Ninkhursag, Enki, the Annunaki, Baal, Odin, Thor, Freya. The list goes on and on and on...

    The religion in question and its traditions are also now obsolete. It was designed in different age, for a different mentality, in a far away land, a long time ago. This religion should be allowed to become extinct. It is no longer of any use to us in the modern age of science, technology, democracy and human rights.
    _
  57. Winston Churchill from London, Canada writes: SA: regarding the Bible and the Koran. Here's one huge difference: almost nobody believes that the Bible is anything other than an inspired text. All Muslims in good standing believe that the Koran came straight from God, through Gabriel. Therefore, problematic verses (especially those in the Old Testament for a Christian) need not be decisive, many have little contemporary relevance, and all are considered to be the words of men, written for men, of greater or lesser value. In the Koran, when verses are in conflict the later verse 'abrogates' the previous (although why there should be abrogated verses in a perfect book isn't clear). The later verses, composed when Islam was triumphant are universally harsher, and the perception that Islam is a religion of tolerance depends almost entirely on abrogated verses, composed at a time when Muslims needed to be tolerated (and therefore, made an effort at tolerating). Regarding your Biblical citations. I won't even touch the context in which your verses occur. I will note, however, that if you'd bought a more expensive Bible you would note that both verses are in red text (i.e. the editors will not guarantee the authenticity of the verse) AND the second occurs in a parable. Jesus doesn't command this. In a story he tells a Prince says this. Just FYI. Have a nice day.
  58. scamp the from Canada writes:
    'Can Canadian-born Muslims live well in Canadian society?'

    Yes

    'What are our (Canadian) values? Do Islamic values synch with them? If yes, then what? If no, then why?'

    There are no Canadian values. You can list a bunch of them, but they're the same as almost any free country. It makes sense, as the only way to live in a world of different people is to have a society that embraces freedom. Otherwise, one group will feel oppressed in you're back on the regular path of oppression. That said, we're increasingly going back to tyranny on so many levels.

    Politicians getting more and more involved in people's lives and forcing one view on people. Universal childcare, forced secular public school... these are all forced issues and can result in people feeling oppressed. progressive provinces like alberta and BC have a better handle on this allowing for independent schools/childcare, while oppressive provinces like Ontario seem to want to force people to believe in secularism...or at least tax them so much they can't do otherwise.

    It doesn't matter what Islamic values are. If people work, pay the taxes, don't steal, don't kill, don't force another person to do something, they can do what they want. If any Islamic value violates this, then that islamic value does not belong in Canada.
  59. Confucious Smith from Canada writes: S A from Canada writes: '...And with an intent to burst your oh-so-self-righteous bubbles, here is a collection of choice verses from the Bible that are contrary to the message of peace that everyone assumes to be the Bible's true message:...'

    Congratulations; it appears you've mastered the art of quoting out of context.
  60. Sean L. from Toronto, Canada writes: TARIQ RAMADAN writes: Interest in Islamic studies has expanded in recent years, but not always for the best of reasons... and now seem equally driven by non-academic motives.'

    Tariq seems to lament the fact that we are all not diligently learning the Koran with the intent of complying with his religion and convert or die.

    So this is the face of moderate Islam. It reminds me of the political face of the IRA - it is not moderate, it just serves a public relations role.

    Tariq is not part of the solution - he is just another apologist trying to lull us into inaction while they attack us with both the war of words and the war of terrorist acts.

    Where are his 'moderate' denouncements of honor killings, his calls for muslims to either confirm with western standards or not immigrate here, to get there own house in order and stop trying to attack us?

    The best defence is a change of immigration policy to not allow further immigration from Muslim states, and practice economic isolationism of these states. When will they acknowledge human rights, and play civilized with us? Until then, let them kill each other and stay out of the west.
  61. Winston Churchill from London, Canada writes: My error. Red letter text is used to indicate the words of Jesus. Italics is used for suspect verses. My apologies SA.

    In which case context. The second citation occurs in a parable. The first doesn't advocate killing disobedient children. This verse is addressed to scribes who wonder why the disciples are permitted to disobey parts of the law. The point is that the law is sometimes silly, and that the scribes don't keep it either.
  62. scamp the from Canada writes: 'The problem is every time we look at Islam empirically (that is, what Islam is, and what Muslims do as opposed to other religions), the picture is not pretty'

    Actually everytime we do it, we realize muslims act pretty much the same as anyone else. The problem that most 'western' people won't admit is that they cannot use the word uncivilized or barbaric or use race...now they use religion.

    Previous generations of people act much the same...but lets look at the modern world:

    When people are occupied, many respond with terrorism...including suicide bombing. We know about the muslims. How about the Hindu Tamil Tigers?

    People oppress people of other religions. We know muslims do it. Check out India. It has a bloody history of Hindu-christian and hindu-muslim violence. Just recently hindus and christians were fighting setting each others churches/temples ablaze.

    People go nuts with sense violence. We know muslims do it. But you want senseless violence, please check out Africa. Kenya, congo, rwanada... and they're a mixed bad including tribal people, christians...

    We know muslims perform honor killings. Yet, in the middle east, christians also do it. In India, Sikhs do it as well.

    Emperically, muslims don't act much different from other religions.
    They don't act much different from other people.

    People stopped trying to explain the barbarism in Africa. They don't blame it on them being 'black' anymore. They don't call them uncivilized anymore. Because this language has been suppressed, the next best thing to blame is religion.

    There's just a lot of them and most of them happened to be on the losing side of history. The Europeans won the last few hundred years, the middle east lost. Combine that with God's twisted plan to dump the largest oil reserves on them which causes western countries to want to control them, and you have a recipe for the modern day global terrorism.
  63. Lowen Wrainger from Canada writes: Count the number of countries that state they are Muslim. Count the number of countries that state they are Christian. Now of those, which ones allow COMPLETE FREEDOM of religious belief and practice aside from the mainstream? What did you want to study?
  64. L Harder from Canada writes: Religions in general have very little to offer. The basis of them is ludicrous. On what basis can one fairly examine the absurd? Most of the interesting thinking is done by people who stretch a little outside their narrow cultural focus. To think within it results in chasing tails, of interest only to tail chasers.

    I grew up Mennonite and Christian. Because of its pacifist and simple living tendancies, its still is a religion that I respect more than others. It was a radical departure from mainline Christianity 500 years ago but little new has happened since. However, as I grew up and was exposed to the wider world I had a choice. Retreat back into a shell, or sail off into a richer and bigger world. Sailing off released me from the mental shackles of my upbringing. It was the grown up thing to do.

    I am waiting for some good ideas from thinkers from an Islamic background who have stretched beyond their culture. I'm sure because of their unique perspective, it will significantly add to world thought. I know they are out there. The few I have heard about seem to be vilified within it. Who knows what other thinkers are being squashed before they get a chance to speak.
  65. Tim Bryson from Claresholm, AB., Canada writes: SA from Canada is bang on. Yes, Islam presents its defenders with many problematic issues. But the Old Testament is as bloddy as a Steven King novel. It seems that even Christ himself is not imune from the idea of blood atonement.

    As well, when fundamentalist views are at the root of the world view of national leaders (present and possible future presidents), how can such a leader engage in negotiations over the Palestinian issue when they've already decided that God gave all of Palestine to the Jews and no giving back is possible?
  66. JOHN WELSMAN from Thamesville, Canada writes: Tariq Ramadan seeks a new holistic vision in contemporary Islamic studies. A good starting point would be a scrutiny of the writings of Sam Harris. I recommend 'End Of Faith' or 'Letter To A Christian Nation'. In the latter work substitute Christian with Islam. Paul
  67. Tarun Roy from Kingston, ON, Canada writes: Mr. Tariq Ramadan is dreaming, if he thinks every reader of this article will accept his view on the state of Islam. He is only a scholar and acedemic, does not even represent majority followers of Islam. Islam, though unfortunate, still live in 7th. Century, period of it's founder.

    We do not have to look very far, actions of Islamic societies are more important than schlarly discussions. We only have to look at present state of Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan and her involvements in Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and her policy that created Al Qaeda. What is happening within Muslim northern Africa, and enforcement of Islam by minority population in Central Africa and western Africa. Intolerance towards other non Islamic religions and population, repression of Infidel, indirect imposition of Zezia, not allowing to build places worships of other religions.

    Yes, I agree only one of his view that we should try to study this religion and it's doctrines, just to understand how to deal with extremists and terrorists this religion is creating. Otherwise, 'The Believers' will try to turn back the Clock to 7th. Century, with a final efforts to move rest of us with them.
  68. NR Connor from TO, Canada writes: The problem with attempting to engage Islam intellectually is that Islam is are religion. Religions will not and can not tolerate being engaged intellectually, unless of course one is willing to forego the concepts of logic and evidence.
  69. scamp the from Canada writes: 'Poll ten people and you'll get ten different answers.

    Surely that's half the problem when it comes to integrating anyone 'different.''

    Exactly. There is no need to integrate anyone. Strange how we get by much better than Europe. Trust me...go to Europe...the divisions between people staggering. Not just muslims...but almost any ethnic division.

    THe only integration we need to do is make sure people understand the rule of law and that they don't interfere in another person's right (right to life, right to free speech...)
    On that, we in the west should stand proud. We should have stood our ground on the religious cartoons for examples. It might have been in bad taste, but freedoms are useless unless we stand up for the ones we dislike the most.

    Any further attempt to 'integrate' will be taken as trying to force people into something = problems.

    Freedom is the key. Heck, we can't even get Quebec to 'integrate'
  70. admore inches from Toronto, Canada writes: SA, great post. Ya, the peaceful bible that everyone likes to quote.

    Winston Churchill, great post as well.
  71. Rob Rowat from Canada writes: All I can say is that the world will be a far superior place when all belief in supernatural divinity finally disappears. Regardless of what a religion says about itself, it encourages in some or all of its practitioners the belief that they hold the Truth. Well, if they are the holders of Truth, then everyone else must be wrong and, therefore, must be corrected.

    I have no time for or trust in people who are so certain that they have the answer that they stop listening to anyone else. It's true in religion and it's true politics. They world is better off without zealots.
  72. frederick duquette from Edmonton, Canada writes: There is a curious fragment of history which irrational people such as myself are drawn to. During the Muslem conquest of the Visigoth barbarians in Spain in the sixth century, a town was named after their prophet's daughter, Fatima (in present day Portugal) and to this day endures. There the Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, chose to reveal herself to 3 shepherd children on the 13th of each month consecutively for six months in 1917.
    As this revelation is private in nature (only 3 girls received it), it does not have doctrinal siginificance but if you beleive this kind of stuff, it is very interesting that Mary chose to reveal herself there and to be named 'Our Lady of Fatima', after the town once named after the prophet's daughter. Venerated by both Catholic and Muslem alike, Mary is perhaps revealing a future in which Christian and Muslem are joined. If Im reading Revelation correctly, it may be instigated by a common enemy, perhaps some secular or temporal authority.
  73. I am Canadian from Scarbouroughanistan, Canada writes: You should go to Arab Saudi, Pakistan, Iraq or Iran to learn what Islam is all about, and how tolerant the religion is. How many suicides by some jihadists tried to kill Muslim fellows who happened to be from different sects of Islam. In those countries, it 's a death penalty if you convert from Islam to other religions. In the mean time, in the West, if anyone or magazine who try to question about the religion are accused of racists or even get killed like Van Ghog in Holland. As a result, why should we have to study or learn about this religion of peace since it 's a religion which is still in fifth century time frame.
  74. Clive Gingell from Ottawa, Canada writes: Rob Rowat: 'Supernatural divinity' MAY eventually disappear, but ideologies will always be with us, be it enviro-Gaiaism or socialism or whatever; the sheeple wouldn't have it any other way.
  75. S A from Canada writes: Winston Churchill, just an FYI - the Bible is regularly referred to as the word of God by Christians.

    I am not disagreeing with your argument that context is important to understand the controversial verses in the Bible, I simply ask that readers also consider context when they read the Quran. Each verse was communicated in response to a specific situation, and any legitimate interpretation of a verse must also consider when it was revealed and for what reason. That is not to say that controversial verses are not sometimes manipulated for use to fight wars and justify inhumane practices. But again, I remind you that the Bible is regularly used to justify, say, the bombing of abortion clinics (not to mention the Crusades).

    Respectfully, SA
  76. scamp the from Canada writes:
    'Count the number of countries that state they are Muslim. Count the number of countries that state they are Christian. Now of those, which ones allow COMPLETE FREEDOM of religious belief and practice aside from the mainstream? What did you want to study?'

    Count the number of white countries.
    Count the number of black countires.

    Compare them in technology, violence, freedom terms.

    Now do you want to come to some conclusion about that?

    As I said, 'western' people can no longer talk about race...so today they blame religion. When in fact it is neither. It has everything to do with a particular circumstances groups of people find themselves in history.
  77. Phil King from Ottawa, Canada writes: I find it humourous to see intolerant comments deriding religion as intolerant. It seems some people just never learn. Extreme opinions of all stripes are polarizing and destructive, whether you are religious, atheist, communist, capitalist... etc.

    That religion attracts the purposefully ignorant, the greedy, the hateful or any other person intent on doing wrong differentiates it not one degree from any other form of authority conferred by society.

    The heart of religion is seeking to embody universal ideals and principles. Anything beyond this is merely the result of human tendencies that surface in everything we do.
  78. Random M from Toronto, Canada writes: Unfortunately Islamic extremism has given the religion a bad reputation. However, why is is that whenever an act of terror or extremism is perpetrated 'in the name of Islam', the moderates come out and berate us for not understanding their religion, rather than speaking out against the zealots? This article is typical of many, suggesting that I have to read the Koran or otherwise learn more about their 'peaceful' religion. I need to do no such thing, in the same way that a Muslim does not need to read the New Testament to get along with Christians. But what should one think about a religion whose leaders put a price on people's heads for questioning some aspect of Islam or drawing cartoons contrary to their beliefs, or flogs unmarried women for travelling alone, or jails teachers for naming stuffed animals inappropriately? Oh yes, 'that's not Islam,' but excuse my confusion. I don't find myself being told to read Hindu scriptures to understand why atrocities are being performed in the name of Hinduism, because they don't happen. Why is Islam so different? Rather than trying to change and educate western civilization, wouldn't it make sense to work with those within who sully your religion's reputation?
  79. Kim Philby from Ottawa, Canada writes: Well, if Ramadan has been reading the reader responses to his article, I guess by now he's clued in to the fact that his sophomoric pleas for understanding are not pulling the wool over anyone's eyes. I wonder if he really expected any other kind of reaction from a modern western society.

    I'm not sure what purpose he and the G&M thought his article would serve. If nothing else, the response to the article might suggest to Ramadan that he put on his thinking cap before sitting down to write another article.
  80. Neil Garret from Canada writes: Islam claims to be the final word of God. It contends that Mohamad was the final Prophet. It claims infallibility. I claims all other religions are fallible.
    Not very subtle ir nuanced, eh!
    For Ramadan to ask for subtelity in this contect is hilarious.
  81. R. Merchant from Calgary, Canada writes: I agree with the general thrust of the article, but with some concerns. Carving up each religion into neat periods of their historical or intellectual development doesn't get us very far in solving problems. Each religion has its barbaric, aggressive, enlightened, or reversionary elements, and each of these elements can dominate at any particular point in time or geographic area. We hope there is a logical sequence of growth from fundamentalism to enlightment, but in fact, any of either positive or negative elements can come to the fore depending on social/political/economic factors. Christianity is considered in its 'civilized' and 'enlightened' phase, yet the fundamentalist, dogmatic, and anti-intellectual components thrive in todays society. Similar conditions exist for all religious groups or cultures. I spent 2 years in the middle east (mid 80's) and schisms of growth/thought/reaction were readily apparent in the Islamic Universities. Modern education and liberal thought were introduced thoughout the arab world, but it conflicted with authoritarian governments, class structures, and restrictions. The outlet for change becomes radicalism when not recognized and made positive. US foreign policies has recently played into the radical thought processes, verifying the conflict of civilization theories. Opportunities for dialogue and understanding are lost and difficult to re-establish. My rather depressing conclusion is that progress and intellectual enlightenment is not necessarily a linear process forward, but is a random sequence of forward and backward. The technological changes we are currently undergoing may be expediting the disassembly of rational thought and ordered progressive change. Visionary leaders with constructive approaches are out of favour in most cultures including the past few years in the US and our current minority party leaders. The 2008 elections in the Excited States may be a watershed moment. B. M.
  82. can I vote again from around-Kingston, Canada writes: Canada is NOT* an Islamic state, thankfully it's a democracy with a Charter of Rights and the repect of the individual. Anyone coming to Canada *MUST abide by Canada's Laws.
    Let us not forget that this privilege of rights and free speech is to be valued above all else.

    As far a Islam goes, sure they've had bad press lately, but you never hear the same complaints against our free society ...do ya?

    Makes you wonder why they are so angry and afraid.
  83. Lawrence Hutchinson from Houston, United States writes: S A from Toronto, Canada writes: I'm noticing a trend in reader responses to any articles that happen to discuss Islam. It's always the same old platitudes, regardless of the content of the article. Statements describing Islam as a religion of violence and misogyny are neither original nor are they helpful. You're basically describing every religion out there, and the only difference is that Islam is the only religion subject to an international smear campaign that it is ill-prepared to deal with.

    Christians do not riot in response to critical cartoons.
  84. greg panke from orangeville, Canada writes: Reading the comments here it is good to see that Canadians are finally reacting to the PCBS we have been overwhelmed with for so many years. If we can just get our country, especially our politicians, and the west in general working towards a common sense approach to life again we will all be the better for it.

    Thanks to the G&M for allowing this discussion.

    PS. The Politically Correct movement had a purpose at one time, but we are 10 plus years past it's useful period.
  85. rm r from Canada, United States writes: SA from Canada correctly points out, as Tim Bryson puts it, that the the 'old testament is as bloody as a Steven King novel.' However the argument that SA is attempting to make is completely defeated by the rediculous obsolescence and irrelevance of the biblical passages he quotes. Generally speaking, modern western societies no longer approve the ownership of slaves, genocide, religious killings or any other atrocity described in any other bloody biblical passage that SA cares to quote for us. No doubt these things were condoned, for example, during the middle ages, but in the intervening 1000 years we have separated the church and state, creating a rule of law and individual rights that make SA's biblical references nothing more than entertaining reading. The failure of many islamic countries to effect a similar separation of state and religion is the reason behind the western notion that Islam is still in its medieval period, and the bloody biblical passages that SA quotes for us should merely serve to enforce western suspicion of any theocratically-ruled country.
  86. Winston Churchill from London, Canada writes: SA: fair enough, but in the case of the two verses you cited you absolutely inverted the meaning.
  87. Lawrence Hutchinson from Houston, United States writes: Keith who is from Ottawa, Canada writes during the actual mideval period, Islam was much more open and tolerant towards people who practiced other religions than Christians in Europe were at the time.

    Islam, when it controlled much of Europe, extracted a tax from non-muslims. This may be why other religions were 'tolerated..'
  88. Chicken Little from Halifax, Canada writes: So The West should engage Islam academically ? Well, how about if Islamic countries engage Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism ? How about a Department of Christian Studies in the universities of Saudi Arabia ? And how about allowing open and free practice of all religions in all Islamic countries ?

    The problem is Islam, not the West. Christian churches