Blog


About


Books

 Latest Post: Flash!

Agnostic
A Spirited Manifesto
Available April 4, 2016

   Who is the AT?   Books by LH
  • Agnostic

  • The First Muslim

  • After The Prophet

  • Jezebel

  • Mary

  • More from LH

     

Bloody-Minded, Bloody-Handed

Posted May 22nd, 2013 by Lesley Hazleton

I just now saw the cellphone video of one of the killers in Woolwich. It is pure barbarism. And all the more weirdly so for taking place on a busy London street, in front of passers-by, just a few yards from a school.

woolwichBlood all over his hands, and all over the cleaver and the knife he’s so casually brandishing. None of the distance of guns here, let alone drones. No attempt to hide, or to flee. Instead, a rant into the camera “justifying” what he and his friend have just done: run down a man and then hacked him to death. In the name, good god, of God.

I’ll get to that in a moment, but first, what strikes me is the way this man exults over what he’s done. He’s pacing back and forth like an animal after a kill, like a predator — a lion, say, or even a “domestic” cat when it catches a bat — proud of what he’s done, showing off, all but beating his chest.

And guarding his kill, keeping everyone away from “it.”  “No man comes near this body,” witnesses report his friend saying, but you can see a woman calling them on that, then bending down to try to help the victim, then standing up to challenge them over what they’ve done.  That’s courage.

As for the so-called quote from the Quran, he’s in fact in direct opposition to it.  Sura 5, verse 45, specifically states that an eye for an eye and a tooth for tooth no longer applies. It says that “previously” — in the Torah — “we ordained an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” (see Exodus 21:24) but now, it continues, “if anyone freely forgoes this right, it shall count as an act of expiation for him.”

No expiation for these two men. They are vicious murderers, pure and simple. Nothing more, and nothing less.

And that terrifying ignorance, that self-justifying righteousness, that pure bloody-minded and bloody-handed inhumanity, is the enemy of us all.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: fundamentalism, Islam | Tagged: Tags: London, Quran, terrorism, video, Woolwich | 5 Comments
  1. Zarina Sarfraz says:
    May 22, 2013 at 6:24 pm

    expiation is not anywhere near,his mind is definitely clouded….is he on drugs? Myheartgoes out to the victim & relatives……it reminds me of the times of “bloody Mary” & the victimisation of RCs at that time!

  2. mufarsa says:
    May 23, 2013 at 2:25 am

    Brilliant. Well written and well said.

  3. tonosanchezreig says:
    May 23, 2013 at 4:26 pm

    Reblogged this on Al-Must'arib (the vocational Mossarab).

  4. Semir Nour says:
    May 25, 2013 at 4:07 am

    Well said, Lesley. I keenly follow you posts and I admire the angle from which you observe and analyse this sort of events. Undoubtedly, humanity is in a sad state of affairs. This chap and his friend, have committed a crime, a heinous one. They had confused ideas of Islam.

    The real sad thing about the state of humanity in this age, is the fact that the lives of innocent people have become nothing but a battle field for those sick-minded individuals (and government establishments) who seek to expand the scope of their territories at the expense of others rights, properties and lives (be it Muslims or non-Muslims). They have no regard to any sense of moralities, principles or faith.

    These two guys have been manipulated and confused by some sick individuals or so-called Islamic organizations. However there seems to be other parties who are trying to take advantage and maximize their gains from this events by stir up the public opinion against Islam and Muslims, perhaps, in order to pass some immigration law or justify some foreign policies.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      May 25, 2013 at 9:12 am

      There are always marginal ‘other parties’ trying to capitalize one way or another on incidents like this, either by denying them (“an-anti-Muslim conspiracy” kind of thing) or by mouthing off on the stale old Islam=terror meme. In fact what strikes me, so far, is the relative sanity of the general response. Mehdi Hasan, former political editor of The New Statesman and now political editor of Huffington Post UK, points to it in this piece published yesterday in the Telegraph (yes, the Telegraph!):
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10076096/The-Muslim-faith-does-not-turn-men-to-terror.html

The Right Video To Go Viral

Posted September 18th, 2012 by Lesley Hazleton

Nouman Ali Khan of the Bayyinah Institute makes a calm, reasoned, Quran-based argument against violent protest of that noxious little anti-Islam video.  It’s encouraging to see that so many people have tuned in to him:

[youtube=http://youtu.be/I6zuKbBlmRo]

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: Islam, sanity | Tagged: Tags: Bayyinah Institute, Islamophobia, Muhammad, Nouman Ali Khan, Quran | 8 Comments
  1. sam enerby says:
    September 18, 2012 at 3:08 pm

    Leslie,
    Thank you for this.

  2. Qaisar Latif says:
    September 18, 2012 at 4:26 pm

    Here’s another good one …
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzpIcdd75dA

  3. Michael Camp says:
    September 18, 2012 at 4:32 pm

    Yes, very encouraging, Leslie. Thanks for sharing.

  4. Global Sisters says:
    September 19, 2012 at 12:17 am

    thank you

  5. rehmat1 says:
    September 27, 2012 at 5:00 pm

    Canadian Jewish academic, Henry Makow PhD, who as a young Zionist spent a few years at illegal Jewish settlement in occupied Palestine – says that the murder of US ambassador was an Israeli false flag operation to push America into war with Iran.

    “The US ambassador to Libya murdered earlier today was a martyr to Zionist attempts to draw the US into war with Iran.

    http://rehmat1.com/2012/09/12/libya-you-reap-what-you-sow/

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      September 27, 2012 at 8:01 pm

      I’m sure there are many such conspiracy theories. I give them no credit.

      • rehmat1 says:
        October 9, 2012 at 5:27 am

        Your response is no surprise to me. In Canada, anti-Israel is officially considered ‘anti-Semitism’. However, Makow is 101% Jewish and as a youth lived in one of the illegal Jewish settlements.

  6. irfan says:
    October 1, 2012 at 7:33 pm

    this one from India…..
    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/Blasphemy-in-Islam-The-Quran-does-not-prescribe-punishment-for-abusing-the-Prophet/articleshow/16631496.cms

Soul Brothers: The Crackpot Pastor and the Taliban

Posted April 4th, 2011 by Lesley Hazleton

I’ve been asked what I’d do about the crackpot pastor Terry Jones, the Quran-burning Florida redneck who keeps a poster of Mel Gibson’s ‘Braveheart’ in his office for “spiritual sustenance.” It would be wonderful to just laugh, but last week Jones’ idiocy set off the reciprocal idiocy of riots in Afghanistan that have so far resulted in at least 24 deaths (in addition to the 5 he caused last September when he first threatened to burn the Quran).  It’s a horrendous example of how prejudice feeds prejudice and ignorance feeds ignorance — with the food being other people’s blood.

If ever you wanted proof that extremists of all faiths are the real co-religionists, this was it.   Terry Jones meet your soul brothers:  the Taliban.

What actually happened?  The publicity-hungry Jones, whose entire church consists of some twenty family members, was encouraged to hold a mock trial of the Quran by Ahmed Abaza, a former Muslim who runs a deliriously amateurish satellite channel called TheTruthTV — that tell-tale capitalized Truth yet again.   (Abaza’s testimony to his conversion to “the light of Christ,” apparently intended as heart-rending, is here, if you can stand it).  Abaza obligingly live-streamed the trial proceedings,  and then (the verdict being a foregone conclusion) Jones carried out his heart’s desire, got out a can of firelighter fluid, and burned a copy.

The American media acted with uncharacteristic wisdom and ignored the event.  All might yet have been calm if word of the burning had not reached Pakistan president Asif Ali Zardawi and Afghanistan president Hamid Kharzai, who then tried to outdo each other in condemning it — an excellent way to distract attention from the real problems in their respective countries, especially at a time when both are highly aware that the call for regime change throughout the Middle East might spread to threaten their hold on power too.  Three fire-and-brimstone mullahs took up the call the next day at Friday prayer, inciting an anti-American mob out for blood, and UN workers paid the price.

So what would I do?   Well, as you can imagine, my fantasies at first tended to my own version of violent retribution, but then my better side took over.  So here’s my proposal, courtesy of existential philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre, whose play Huis Clos (No Exit) is starkly simple in conception:  three people locked together in a bare room, slowly realizing that where they are is hell.  As they tear each other apart with words, they conclude, in the play’s most famous line, that “hell is other people.”

Jones, Karzai, and Zardawi locked together for eternity, condemned to listen to each other’s vanity and bombast?  That might not be the perfect punishment, but it’s a damned good one.

—————

[The only question:  should Jones be allowed to take his ‘Braveheart’ poster into the room with him?  For the sake of ensuring Karzai and Zardawi’s ongoing torment, I’d have to vote yes.]

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: Christianity, fundamentalism, Islam | Tagged: Tags: Afghanistan, Ahmed Abaza, Asif Ali Zardawi, Hamid Kharzai, Huis Clos, Jean-Paul Sartre, Koran burning, Mel Gibson, No Exit, Pakistan, Quran, Terry Jones | 16 Comments
  1. Lynn Rosen says:
    April 4, 2011 at 11:26 pm

    Damned damned good sentence, I’ll say.

  2. Derakht says:
    April 5, 2011 at 9:38 am

    Be an extremists in any religions is bad, in fact extremists it mean no mind! it means only emotion.
    unfortunately some groups call them self Muslim there are very more extremists than other religions, Taliban or Qaeda they Wahhabism. for example driving for woman in Saudi Arabia is forbidden, but is not in Islam, I don’t know how human can be stupid!
    like in Bahrain they killing people just because of religion!!

  3. Philip says:
    April 5, 2011 at 10:13 am

    It is time American’s question their defense of absolute “free speech”. Most democratic countries have laws against “hate speech”. Such laws in the US might lower the heat of the pronoucements of irresponsible people.

  4. AJ says:
    April 5, 2011 at 10:22 am

    I disagree a bit.
    Taliban are extremist but this Terry Jones is not.
    He is a crook and he is into money and fame.
    He should be charged on 5 counts of man slaughter.
    Burning of Quran is also violation of 1st ammendment.
    He is free to express his views, burning Quran is like choking views he disagree with.
    And last but not least, this for sure is crime of violence.
    But unfortunately US Justice system is not as fair as we think.

  5. Adila says:
    April 5, 2011 at 12:28 pm

    This is completely unrelated to our post, but I wanted to say, I’m reading your book on the Shia and Sunni divide. It’s an emotive read, and very well done. I hope the second half is as good as the first.

  6. Ada says:
    April 5, 2011 at 1:18 pm

    My favorite line in the text was “..extremists of all faiths are the real co-religionists..” and I had to laugh at “Terry Jones meet your soul brothers: the Taliban.” I fully agree.

  7. Ali says:
    April 6, 2011 at 1:22 pm

    American people in general and American Muslims in particular must condemn and expose the crackpot pastor Terry Jones in media & also prosecute him by American law [….]
    as easy as that .. no madness ,no yelling , no screaming, no violence , just by law … you can do it Dr. Lesley .. or at least can help ..

    My regards
    Ali

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      April 6, 2011 at 2:09 pm

      Ali — the principle of free speech is paramount under US law. This includes speech we detest as well as speech we approve of, and the reason why it does so is basic to real democracy: if speech we find hateful is banned, the next time round, it might be our speech that someone else finds hateful.
      Much as I detest Jones and would love to see him behind bars — much as the vast majority of Americans detest him and would love to see him behind bars — his right to free expression is protected. The same would apply if he had burned a Bible.

      He has, however, been thoroughly exposed and condemned. And it would be good to see Karzai, Zardawi, and the three mullahs who directly incited those Afghanis to violence equally exposed and condemned in their own society.

      • Ali says:
        April 6, 2011 at 4:54 pm

        First ,I would like to thank you for your reply & for your amazing speech about Quran while ago, I still amazed about it . I’ve seen it so many times with Arabic subtitle & without. & I think only somebody with very good skills in pure Arabic language can say those observations , it was so beautiful & I wish if people in the west & in the whole world even in the Islamic world can see that beauty & mercy in Quran and don’t condemn it because of some ignorants or extremists behaviors .

        Second , as you know prosecuting somebody doesn’t mean necessarily puting him in jail “seeing him behind bars as you said ” , however with all paramount of free speech & democracy I still believe there are some fines or penalties for anybody who insults people publicly or urging some people for some severe acts against other people . there is a motive behind any crime & urging is the main motive for hate crimes .. & the motivator should be punished logically, exactly like those Mullahs you’ve mentioned before..

        Third , wish you all the success in your next book

  8. AJ says:
    April 6, 2011 at 9:25 pm

    Irony is what Lez says is true.
    You can burn anything in your possesion
    including cigarettes
    and its not inciting violence

    • Ali says:
      April 7, 2011 at 3:47 pm

      Burning a cigarette or any other private thing is not the same like burning a book or symbol ..burning a book or symbol publicly means a demonstration against a nation & gives signs for some people to take some acts against that nation which believes in that book or symbol .. now what do think will happen for somebody who would burn the American Constitution publicly in front of the white house , or somebody who would burn the Bible publicly in the center of Vatican , or an American Islamic Clerk or an Islamic Scholar who would burn the Bible publicly in America … I think it would be a hard test for our believes in ” Freedom of Speech” ..

      • Lesley Hazleton says:
        April 7, 2011 at 5:19 pm

        Ali, you now understand the principle of freedom of expression in the USA: it’s hard, but it’s vital for a free society. It is always being tested by people who want to ban some part of it — right-wingers wanted to ban burning the American flag, for instance, while liberals wanted to ban the right of Nazis to march — but it applies to all.

        Plus you should know that my stance on Jones is not at all unusual. He has zero support here in the US — nada, nil — and is widely regarded as a crackpot nuisance. Please do not feed his absurd grandiosity and thirst for publicity by making him out to be more than he is.

  9. hossam says:
    April 7, 2011 at 1:49 am

    yep, hate speech is protected by the first amendment. Unless it directly incites violence, like telling people to go around and kill other people, which Terry didn’t do, so his rights are protected. What is unfortunate though is that his actions are likely to produce more intolerance and hate in someone else, who may in turn resort to violence against a muslim.

  10. Persnickety says:
    April 11, 2011 at 9:10 am

    It is very strange to me how religion, more specifically faith which primarily is a personal belief, gets exploited for personal promotion and used as a tool to condemn others. The arrogance at play here with extremists (of any religion) reaches profoundly immoral levels. The colossal ego needed to convince oneself that he/she is knows ‘the truth’, while others are misled. Unfortunately, I see a growing trend amongst rabid athiests who mirror the same arrogance.

    It takes a lifetime (and more) to fully grasp and understand your own faith to address your need for personal growth and spiritual intellect… so how come some jump the gun…and assume they know it all?

  11. Anand Rishi says:
    April 14, 2011 at 4:01 am

    I agree with Lesley that such acts of attention mongering are best dealt with by not giving it. Barring a few knee jerk reactions, it has failed to elicit desired response and publicity. Let us rejoice that, by and large, sanity prevailed.

  12. AJ says:
    April 15, 2011 at 4:35 am

    Billion sentiments are played with to get a chance to rejoice.
    Sanity prevailing….those who used to go 9 to 5, still going.

The 50-Minute Video

Posted March 12th, 2011 by Lesley Hazleton

I know you probably don’t have time for this long a video, but for the record, here’s my February 19 keynote speech at the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn, MI — on fundamentalism, stereotyping, and (with suitably Jewish agnostic chutzpah) religion, as well as on the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia and the effect they may have on American attitudes toward Islam.

The occasion, at the largest Shia mosque in America, was the celebration of the birthday of Muhammad.   The still shot has a somewhat disturbingly preacher look to it, so please tell me I’m not preaching, just talking…

(The sound comes in fully after about 45 seconds.)

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-hTxDvRVlo]

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: Christianity, fundamentalism, Islam, Judaism | Tagged: Tags: After the Prophet, Bahrain, Deuteronomy, Egypt, gospels, highlighter version, Islamophobia, Kaddish, Karbala, Libya, Nick Kristof, nutshell syndrome, Peter King, Quran, Roger Cohen, St Paul, stereotypes, Tariq Ramadan, terrorism, Tunisia, Yemen, zealotry | 49 Comments
  1. Meezan says:
    March 12, 2011 at 2:01 pm

    Being a Muslim, I have read my share of prophet Mohammad’s (s.a.w.w)biographies and siras but I have to say one of my favorite parts of his life was revealed to me recently by Karen Armstrong’s “Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time”. When the prophet was 19-20 years old (can’t remember exactly) he liked a girl and wanted to marry her but his uncle suggested that he was not in a good financial position to support a wife. This is not much, I know but that revealed a very human side of the prophet to me. I saw him as a flesh and blood person rather than an ever illuminating, floating in the air, long haired, blue eyed guy, and hence putting everything in a new perspective. His teachings now seemed like really good advice rather than an order. His religion a very flexible and tolerant way of life rather than something you have to have to follow.

    Your words are as always, enlightening.

  2. yusong says:
    March 12, 2011 at 5:11 pm

    fantastic, you are a noble female, i admire you very much.

    • Shishir says:
      March 14, 2011 at 6:43 am

      “a noble female” now what is that supposed to mean?

  3. Jonathan Omer-Man says:
    March 12, 2011 at 5:53 pm

    Congratulations! This is wonderful. And aren’t our similar interests dramatically divergent…

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 13, 2011 at 10:58 am

      Or maybe they go round in a huge circle and turn out to be convergent…

  4. Aijaz says:
    March 13, 2011 at 10:58 am

    Bravery is going against the the tide.
    and Lesley has it

  5. Chad Tabba says:
    March 13, 2011 at 6:56 pm

    Wonderful talk Lesley, it brought to mind a couple of ideas I’m thinking of:
    First: Truly, religion’s goal, and the reason religions were formed, was to support the innate striving to be human, to be closer to the ideals of humanity. Thats how and why Sufism seems to be (at least in my mind) in many aspects more similar to buddhism than literal Islam. While Sufism in itself has imperfections as well, I have felt closer to much of what it says (and gnostic christianity) than literal religious belief. The idea that religion and faith comes from the heart, that religion is not about dogma, but about treating others as you would be treated, about forgiveness, and about love (general love not necessarily romantic love). Funny that I would be agnostic and gnostic simultaneously.

    Second: a question/note. I am saddened by the literalist/extremist interpretation of the holy books in general. The holy books have enough subtleness to allow some people to highlight specific words and twist them to support their ideas and take sentences out of context. Why did they have to be so subtle that the average person may be sucked into that literalism? That is my biggest problem with religion; more than trying to believe in a supreme creator, it’s the idea that it takes a higher level of understanding and “brain power” to understand what religion wants us to do. Whats the use if a bigger percentage of people are going to take it wrong and use it to kill each other? Why couldn’t the creator be more clear to lessen the sadness and suffering in the world. Why allow millions to be killed in his/her name? Would love to hear what u think about these 2 points.

    • Aijaz says:
      March 14, 2011 at 6:04 am

      Quran was revealed in single shot on Lailatul Qadr…then it was re-revealed in 23 years with cause and effects and circumstances to make sure people can not misinterperet its verses. The idea that Quran was re-revealed further strengthened that Prophet was warned not to haste but to wait for revelations [….]

      But still we have history and collections of traditions to help us understand the background of revelations in their true spirit. The key to understand Quran is 3:7, which Lesley has pointed out. She is not only eloquent but on the right track. It’s possible she already know more Quran than many of us, she understand the difference between Reader’s Digest and Holy Quran. Sometimes I feel not sure to guide her to some Quranic lead. Chances are she is already there.

      Metaphors are not there to mislead but we can not conceive them in their true interpretations. Tahir ul-Qadri has given a beautiful interpretation on “Judgment Day is near” He says no one knows when is Judgment day but for every individual his judgment day is his death day and tha’ts very near. [….] Metaphor does not mean that we doubt the reality of that day…reality of that Day is literal, nature of that day is allegorical. [….]

      Imam Ali said “You will never know truth and follow the right way unless you know the person who has abandoned it.”

      • Shishir says:
        March 14, 2011 at 7:00 am

        @Aijaz

        If I am not wrong you are Muslim, so I apologize beforehand for possible offense that my remarks may cause you.
        a) It is wrong to believe that Quran was revealed at one go and Mohammed was refrained from making it known at once. There is no real evidence of the fact, an equally plausible explanation is that it was “revealed” as Mohammed was in a position to understand it.
        b) It is also wrong to assume divinity of Quran, it is work of a man for it shows all that is concern of man nothing more nothing less.
        c) The reason why people interpret Quran differently is because Quran is not like a mathematical treatise and hence is ambiguous. The writer of Quran was limited in his/her knowledge because it was limited by what was known at the time. If a religion originates today it will suffer the same limitations perhaps 1600 yrs later.
        d) There can not be just one true religion, if it is can it be demonstrated it is so, unfortunately every holy book claims it and Quran claims it more than others perhaps.

        Now it is possible that I am wrong about some things, and if I am okay. I’ll learn something.

      • Lesley Hazleton says:
        March 14, 2011 at 10:46 am

        Aijaz — It really is time to cool it, and to find some way to acknowledge that you are human, that you do not have a stranglehold on “the truth.” There are many ways to approach this whole matter, and the ways others choose may be as valid and as well-intentioned as yours, no matter how different. As the Quran says, “you have your way, and I have mine.” Mine, as should be clear on this blog, is that there is no such thing as absolute truth, and that it’s precisely this absolutist idea that causes so much conflict. I think it would be far more productive and respectful if you reflected a lot more and judged a lot less.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 14, 2011 at 10:35 am

      Chad — Simultaneously gnostic and agnostic makes sense to me. In fact I sometimes call myself a gnostic agnostic — and some day, will have to figure out more precisely what I mean by that. You may be ahead of me there.

      But doesn’t your second point kind of undermine the first? It seems to assume the existence of an omnipotent creator with a will — that is, a conventional idea of God. Me, I’m really not into the whole idea of religion or of God ‘wanting’ us to do anything. The idea of a “purpose-driven life” is horribly mechanistic to me, leaving no room for what we were talking about earlier: for mystery, for poetry, for music.

      Sacred texts are really only sacred because human beings have made them so — either because they see them as prescriptions for how to behave, or because they find in them inspiration or an invitation to transcend their own limitations. (Well, and a vast range of possibilities between those two, but you get my point).

      • Chad Tabba says:
        March 14, 2011 at 2:26 pm

        Oh, I agree Lesley. There is a contradiction. My second note was simply me just showing that even if I played devil’s advocate (pun intended) on behalf of literalists, I still couldnt excuse how some extremists act and “misquote” scriptures.

  6. Aijaz says:
    March 14, 2011 at 11:51 am

    Lesley

    I do not have stranglehold on truth but I am entitled to hold my views as other humans have it here like shishir, and I am not offended by his/her dissent.

    I see nothing wrong with sticking to my views with a belief they are true.
    Humane side is to share my views without offending others.

    • Aijaz says:
      March 14, 2011 at 12:25 pm

      @Shshir — You are not wrong I am Muslim. Beauty of any discussion forum is disagreement on issues otherwise its nothing more than exchanging the pleasantries, that may feel good but it serves no purpose. Purpose is served when we understand each other through civilized arguments with logic and common sense.

      I am glad you disagree with my position but unfortunately you did not present your argument instead you posted your opinion and what you believe. [….]

      Isa [Jesus] himself never claimed to have come in the fulfilment of the prophecy about the advent of the promised prophet, nor any other prophet, after him did so, except the Holy Prophet Muhammad al Mustafa.[….] The Christian Church had no alternative but to give currency to the belief in the second advent of Isa. Musa [Moses] and Muhammad were the law-givers, whereas Isa was the follower of the laws preached by Musa.

      Similarities between Muhammad and Musa are many. No two prophets, in historical background, resembled each other more than these two. [….]

      • Shishir says:
        March 14, 2011 at 2:54 pm

        @Aijaz — I am glad that you are not offended by my comments. Your argument is that I’ve only stated my opinion. I beg to differ. I have stated my exact position with regards to revealed religions.Be they Islam, Christianity or Judaism.

        Again I apologize if the following offends you. I do not accept the holy books of these religions as the word of God. These religions were created by men, for fulfilling needs of men living in a certain geographical region, living under certain social-economical conditions. The people all had a shared history, hence the similarity and often concurrence in what they say. It is redundant if Bible, Torah or Quran concur with each other or even that they describe same events.

        I live in India, a country with more diversity than the whole of Europe, and it gives me a unique perspective, which is not to say that you may not possess that perspective, leading me to conclude that certain stories will get adopted, absorbed over a long period of time by people so much so that they may even claim ownership of it. I believe that the history of Islam, Christianity and Judaism are so entwined with the history of middle east that to figure what one has borrowed from other would be a difficult exercise. [….]

        I’d say that Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed were closer to being social reformers than they were “prophets” [….] I can assure you, that if Gandhi, Dr.King, Mandela etc had been born in 500 A.D. they’d have founded major religions too. [….]

  7. Nuno Dias says:
    March 14, 2011 at 7:02 pm

    just dropping again by to say: Wonderful 😉

  8. sa says:
    March 14, 2011 at 9:51 pm

    Lesley, are you a Muslim?…..lets start off with a nice easy one 😉

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 14, 2011 at 10:04 pm

      Maybe read the blog. I’m an agnostic Jew. Firmly agnostic. Firmly Jewish.

      • sa says:
        March 15, 2011 at 4:53 pm

        Sure, But since you submit to a higher Being would mean that you are in a sense a Muslim i.e. one who submits to God. You may not follow the rituals and traditions ascribed to Islam but your principles, I assume, are the one and same and noticeble in your exegesis of the Quran and you can only do that if you have a clean and conscientious heart which the Quran lays as one of its first principles for understanding the Quran.

        • Lesley Hazleton says:
          March 15, 2011 at 5:26 pm

          I’m Jewish by birth, identity, and interest, not by belief, which means I really, honestly, do not ‘believe in’ or submit to any higher being, whether upper or lower case. As close as possible to “a clean and conscientious heart” (and mind) sounds good enough. And a glimpse, here and there, of the mystery of existence.
          So please, just let me be me.
          Maybe see here for more: http://accidentaltheologist.com/2011/01/18/an-agnostic-manifesto-part-one/
          And here: http://accidentaltheologist.com/2011/01/10/the-100th-post-a-non-mission-statement/

      • Chad Tabba says:
        March 15, 2011 at 5:52 pm

        Why won’t people just let agnostic be agnostic. I just hate it when someone wants you to “pick a side”. I hate when people view agnosticism as weak. Or when someone says “I would respect you more if you were atheist or religious than agnostic”. Why is someone’s personal belief such an issue for everyone to interfere with? I think people miss the idea of what a “jewish agnostic” or “muslim agnostic” means. It means that the person is agnostic from a belief standpoint, but from a birth and family event standpoint, they may follow what their culture has them do. Just like americans celebrate Thanksgiving, I would (as a muslim agnostic) celebrate Ramadan and eid, even though I am agnostic from a god belief standpoint. If someone can’t grasp that concept, how will they grasp the concept of gnostic agnostic?

      • sa says:
        March 15, 2011 at 8:04 pm

        Lesley Hazleton, you are you although Agnostic is someone who is doubtful, non comittal to God or not sure whether you are a theist or a non theist, so I was asking. Point made, looking forward to see what you have to say about faith of people who believe in a God.

        Chad Tabba relax , take a deep breath. No one is out to change you or Leslie. Just trying to understand and now I even understand what a gnostic agnostic theist atheist. Who Knew!

  9. sa says:
    March 14, 2011 at 10:03 pm

    Lesley, whats your take on the following verses:

    Surah 4:34

    Surah 4:157 – 158

    Sorry to put you on the spot but nows your chance to really shine 😉

  10. Lesley Hazleton says:
    March 14, 2011 at 10:08 pm

    Re 4:34, its another of those better-if-you-don’t things. I think what most Muslims think: it may have been acceptable for a man to beat his wife in the seventh century; it sure as hell isn’t today.
    Re 4:157-8: I don’t need to be exonerated of killing Jesus by the Quran any more than I need it from Ratzinger. Though the Quran did beat him to it by 14 centuries.

    • sa says:
      March 15, 2011 at 5:11 pm

      LOL, oh come’on Lesley. You know when you read the ayah/verse 4:,34 it makes no sense. I mean first you tell your wife off, and if she still does not listen you leave her bed chamber and then if she still does not listen you beat her? How about BEATING a retreat and not BEAT about the bush and say cya! The Reformist Quran by Edip Yuksel explains some of the questionable interpretations.

      and now to 4:157. You know this is where you make friends or enemies. So you are wise not to answer it. There is only one interpretation of this verse and that is that Jesus was not raised into the Heavens nor was he killed on the cross but made to appear so (no doubt by some gall and vinegar) and ultimatley survived. I can and have been called a heretic for making such remarks nay whole schools that profess have. At least in Judaism, I can still be a Jew and not believe in the Prophets. Oh well I will leave this one for someone who wants to challenge it.

      • Chad Tabba says:
        March 15, 2011 at 6:03 pm

        I think the idea is not trying to interpret specific surahs without knowing the specific context. I don’t understand what “sa” is trying to prove with these questions. Are you trying to give us proof that there are (for lack of a better word) “unsavory” verses in the Koran that may be used out of context (or in context) to be harmful? Lesley is obviously not saying that the Koran is a book from god, but she is just saying that it gets a bad reputation due to a minority of people who take verses out of context and that it is no more violent than other scriptures. I think that for someone who knows the Koran, that point is undisputable. What the Koran says or doesnt say about Jesus (if he existed to start with) is insignificant.

      • sa says:
        March 15, 2011 at 9:31 pm

        On the contrary @Chad Tabba, that is precisely the point. You have to explore the specific context in order to understand the verse. The problem is that certain verses are intepreted by both Christian and Muslim fundamentalists to advance their own violent agenda as Lesley has pointed out. But I would also argue that traditional Muslim thinking supporting the creation theory is also unfounded in the Quran [….] People then believe that AntiChrist is a one eyed monster running around the Earth and that Jesus will come back and battle it. Some Muslim scholars and clergy believe that a great final battle will take place between good and evil. This type of thinking goes against the ethos of the Quran.

        Also I don’t believe that Lesley is saying that the Quran is violent but rather that God in the Quran discourages violence. I therefore disagree with you that the Quran is violent or promotes violence. As a Muslim, I try not to allow the dynamics of a culture dictate my faith only to then have doubts about a God – but each to their own.

        Finally, all major traditional faiths have prophecized about a future Kalki, Soashoyant, maitreya, Messiah, Jesus, Isa. [….] Over 50% of the worlds population follow a faith tradition that is expecting a savior. If all are waiting then this can only be fulfilled in one person who would unite all peoples and he/she does not have to make a grand entrance by dropping in from the sky. It’s quite possible that this savior comes from the people.

      • Chad Tabba says:
        March 16, 2011 at 8:39 am

        Seems you misunderstood me sa. In my comments about “what are you trying to prove” I was referring to you not Lesley. I didn’t see the point in bringing up that first surah. I understand Lesley and what she thinks very well, and she expresses many things I think about too, but expresses them in a very interesting way.
        As for the other surah about Jesus, reading many sources has showed my that the whole idea of death and rebirth of a savior born of a Virgin mother etc. (in any form, and regardless of each religion’s details about how it happened) is an idea that was also there in ancient Egypt even before Judaism. Its more about rebirth of the human soul after the person finds and understands his/her deep self. Whether there was an actual Jesus and the details of when and how he may have died and if he will return are irrelevant. We need to understand the idea behind the story.

      • sa says:
        March 17, 2011 at 4:14 pm

        I was interested to know what her understanding of sura 4:34 was. Just as she explained Sura 2:191 in her speech, which BTW, is also how Islamic scholars have understood these verses to mean.

        Agreed Sura 4:157 is irrelevent to Lesley.

      • hossam says:
        March 27, 2011 at 4:36 am

        @sa
        i am not posting to discuss this but just to make a correction
        4:157-8 says that jesus was not killed and was not crucified and WAS raised by God

      • sa says:
        March 27, 2011 at 8:15 pm

        @hossam, you just did and here is my response.

        No mistake, verse 4:157 does not mean that Jesus was raised in body or soul. It also does not mean that he was slain or crucified but was made to appear as if he was but actually survived.

        5:117 plainly states that Jesus died a natural death.

        3:144 says that all Messengers before Mohammed (SAW) passed away. That would also include the prophet Isa (AS). Abu Bakr, used this verse to convince the companions on the death of the Holy Prophet that he indeed had died just like messengers before him meaning that no one was immortal.

  11. MZ says:
    March 15, 2011 at 12:06 pm

    Hello Lesley,

    It’s your annoying camera-man here. Yes, we finally got it up and working on YouTube. I want to thank you once again for the talk, I heard a lot of good feedback from our community and we really enjoyed it.

    Peace

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 15, 2011 at 12:36 pm

      Hey MZ — thanks for the work! Am amazed and delighted people are watching it. — L.

  12. Nabi says:
    March 16, 2011 at 8:30 am

    Well said Lesley. I enjoyed every minute, even though it did take me two sessions since last night to watch this. I had started taking notes last night on my wife’s laptop but after finished watching it now i decided no to look at those notes but rather comment on just one thing i picked out today and that is when you said not aiming for a perfect future. I personally in my life would rather think of it as not aiming for a Utopia in life where everyone is a perfect muslim but rather aim more for the perfection of truth and justice in human relations. I personally could care less if a person chooses to pray or have an ‘Islamic’ appearance and all the other bells and whistles that go w/ religion. My main concern is that we don’t do the bad/and wrong against each other rather than enforcing the obligatory practices which indeed are only between an individual and God. The prophet was told he was sent to send glad tidings (for the followers) and warning (for the astray) and not to run peoples lives. and not to yearn when they do not accept the correct path because even then only God guides those who wish to be guided.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 16, 2011 at 8:44 am

      A big ‘Amen’ from the unguided!

      • Nabi says:
        March 16, 2011 at 9:20 am

        I take that ‘unguided’ as sarcasm, because no one is misguided so long as they follow the good that is programed in them. After all isn’t that the object of religion to hone us into following our good instincts?

        • Lesley Hazleton says:
          March 16, 2011 at 9:41 am

          Not sarcasm. Irony.

  13. Ammar says:
    March 16, 2011 at 9:00 am

    We love you Lesley, offcource we have time to see your 50 min video.

  14. Ammar says:
    March 16, 2011 at 9:06 am

    Dont forgot people of Bahrain, they in a new Karbala,
    they need help ….. please

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 16, 2011 at 4:08 pm

      I wish we could help. It’s a nightmare there right now.

  15. Cosima says:
    March 17, 2011 at 2:59 am

    Lesley I applaud your efforts. I will always have time to listen to your talks. Your wit and intelligence, thoughtfulness and perceptiveness are a breath of fresh air. Also, I just love your hat 🙂

  16. AJ says:
    March 17, 2011 at 5:53 am

    Thanks Lesley

  17. BF says:
    March 21, 2011 at 3:20 am

    As a muslim – thank you for this vdo. In addition to your excellent insight on Quranic expression and meaning – thank you for your political perspectives.

    Looking at conservatives on both sides of the divide as followers of a similar religion is something I have thought about, but never been able to express as eloquently as you have.

  18. Jesus says:
    March 22, 2011 at 11:21 pm

    [This came in to my spam file, but for the sake of light relief, I couldn’t resist running it. After all, how often do you get email from ‘Jesus@heaven.com’? — Lesley.]

    Jesus was song of God and a Jew, all prophets and even Jesus were Jew, God did not send anybody after Christ…its in word of God!

  19. Sarah Conover says:
    March 28, 2011 at 10:33 am

    Really appreciated the considered talk, Lesley. I like that you opened discourse, rather than shut it down. It wasn’t as if I was left with more questions or answers than before, but I was left with more curiosity. Thank you!

  20. Shahrin says:
    March 29, 2011 at 11:27 pm

    Hello Ms. Hazleton,

    I just wanted to extend my heartfelt gratitude for this resonating, and insightful speech. I hope you have tailored similar versions to non-Muslim audiences as well; that being said, I also enjoyed your talk on TED.

    Along a similar vein, as a Muslim college student, I have cast some light in interfaith circles with the intent of enlightening and sharing with others about the dynamics of Islam, as well as its very basic tenets that create its backbone.

    With your positive influence, coupled with inspirational scholars such as the late Edward Said and Karen Armstrong, I have lived gained, in light of Ben Zoma’s teachings, wisdom by learning from all people. This is the kind of plurality that I believe Islam embraces, especially for the imagination (as you referred to in this video). The more I have found myself feeding my soul with discourse, and newly processed information coming from a diverse spectrum, the more Muslim I feel, the closer I feel to the beautiful messages of the Qur’an.

    I’ve recently dedicated myself to writing small pieces, essays to properly establish my thoughts in formal, comprehensive order over concepts and tiers of the Qur’an that I happen to intrigue myself with at a particular moment. I hope that as I continue, I may reach a deeper understanding of my faith. Thank you for being an inspiration, and a contributing catalyst on my religious journey.

    Shahrin,

  21. Lana says:
    April 4, 2011 at 5:51 am

    You inspire me … a beautiful talk

  22. Talia says:
    May 9, 2012 at 9:14 pm

    50 mins! and I thoroughly enjoyed it all. Thank you Lesley! I’m a muslim (the degree of submission or islam, I feel is a very subjective matter but if one has to put a label on it, I think of myself as being quite religious) and that’s why it’s so refreshing to hear someone speak as you do – with the objectivity of the outsider.

    But what I found delightful, in additional to your graceful and inimical style with its wonderful touches of wry humor,was both the empathy and open-mindedness especially as they seem to be rooted in quite a deep well of knowledge which you do not hesitate to divest of its traditional interpretations, and so allow it the flexibility which is its due.

    Dare I say that it reaffirms my own beliefs – which I know is not your intent – but there it is, none the less! Again, thanks!

    Talia

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      June 2, 2012 at 9:49 am

      Thanks Talia. True, not my intent, but there’s a gentle irony to it that makes us both smile.

Anti-Semitism = Islamophobia

Posted March 8th, 2011 by Lesley Hazleton

This past weekend, I spoke to a Hadassah meeting – the Women’s Zionist Organization of America.  The subject, of my choosing, was “What’s a ‘nice Jewish girl’ doing writing so much about Islam?”

The easy answer to the question I’d self-imposed was “Why not?”  A perfectly reasonable answer, perhaps, but not with bigots like Peter King about to begin his witch hunt this week in the form of congressional hearings on the alleged “radicalization” of American Muslims.

The real answer is that it’s precisely because I’m Jewish that I find myself writing so much about Islam these days.  Because as a Jew, I know the dangers of prejudice.  And I can smell it a mile off.  When I hear someone talk about “the Jewish mentality,” I know I’m listening to an anti-Semite.  How else stereotype millions of people that way?   Just as when I read someone like Ayaan Hirsi Ali talking about “the Muslim mentality,” I know — no matter how pretty she is, how soft-spoken, and how compelling her life story – that I am listening to an Islamophobe.

And I recognize that anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are two sides of the exact same coin:  the stereotyping of millions of people by the actions of a few.  That is, prejudice.

So it’s particularly painful, let alone absurd and self-defeating and dumb, to see that some Islamophobes are Jewish.  And equally painful – and absurd and self-defeating and dumb – to see that some Muslims are anti-Semitic.

I have no statistics to say what proportion of Jews are Islamophobic or what proportion of Muslims are anti-Semitic (though I could doubtless make some up and throw them out there with such an air of authority that they’d be repeated ad infinitum until they achieve the status of “fact”).   But the Muslim Brotherhood, for all the changes it has undergone, still distributes The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.  And while anti-Zionism does not necessarily mean anti-Semitism, there is a clear overlap, with a venemous hatred finding its outlet in what is now the more acceptable form of anti-Zionism.

So we need to be clear.  We badly need it.

“Islam” did not attack the US on 9/11;  eighteen people with a particularly twisted and distorted idea of Islam did.  “The Jews” do not shoot Palestinian farmers in the West Bank;   Bible-spouting settlers with a particularly twisted and distorted idea of Judaism do.

The Quran is no more violent or misogynistic than the Bible.  In fact it’s less so.  If you insist, as Islamophobes do, on highlighting certain phrases, then you should turn around and do the same with the Bible, which you will find ten times worse, with repeated calls for the destruction of whole peoples. Only the dumbest, most literal, hate-filled fundamentalist, Jewish or Muslim, takes the rules of ancient warfare as a guide to 21st-century life.

We have to stop this stereotyping.  Now.  All of us.

We have to recognize prejudice not only in others, but in ourselves, Jewish or Muslim.

We have to be able to see that the anti-Semitic trope of “the Jews” trying to take over the world is exactly the same as the Islamophobic one of “the Muslims” trying to take over the world.

We have to acknowledge that an Islamophobic Jew is thinking exactly like an anti-Semite.  And that an anti-Semitic Muslim is thinking exactly like an Islamophobe.

We have to realize that American Jews need to stand up with Muslims against Islamophobia just as American Muslims need to stand up with Jews against anti-Semitism.

Because Islamophobia is, in essence, another form of anti-Semitism, and vice versa.  And it’s in the direct interest of both Jews and Muslims — of all of us — to stand up and confront both forms of prejudice.

In the famous words of an anti-Nazi Protestant pastor during World War II:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: Christianity, fundamentalism, Islam, Judaism | Tagged: Tags: 9/11, American Jews, American Muslims, anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Bible, bigotry, Hadassah, Islamophobia, Martin Niemoller, Peter King, prejudice, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Quran, radicalization, stereotypes, West Bank | 33 Comments
  1. Mykolas Kimtys says:
    March 8, 2011 at 9:40 am

    You go girl!

    • Maisha says:
      March 11, 2011 at 1:35 pm

      I agree with much of what was said in this post and have no problem with a Jew telling others what they know about Islam. That is, when the information is correct and for the most part, Leslie is correct.. But I think that her knowledge may be confinded to Quran, with out much knowledge of Haditn. And it is kind of hard to separate one from the other because Hadith gives a better understanding of Quran. According to Hadith, the “ancient warfare guide” for Muslims is: no killing of women, old people, non combatant men, and children,no killing of priest, nuns, monks etc., no destruction of holy places such as churches, synagogues,no destruction of crop and livestock.
      Considering that war is horror. Since it appears that war is here to stay. Some of that horror of war could be cut if armies and etc. followed this “ancient warfare guide”

  2. Herman says:
    March 8, 2011 at 10:23 am

    What you are stating makes sense theoretically,

    but practically I have seen very, very few people

    ready to stand up with the Jews when anti-semitism

    appears. Almost no Muslims.

    • JJ says:
      March 14, 2011 at 8:16 pm

      BS

      http://www.thestreetspirit.org/Feb2005/mosque.htm

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/4/4/854131/-Film-on-Arab-Schindlers-who-saved-Jews-in-WWII-premieres-at-MOTLA

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmEw5M-xK64

    • JustBob says:
      March 15, 2011 at 6:51 am

      Agreed Herman. We should hope more people, especially the Left, speak out against Holocaust denialism that has gone so far where nation states actually sponsor conferences on whether the Holocaust actually happened or not.

      To this day, I have yet read one single person condemn the anti-Semitic beliefs in many parts of the world who believe New York Jews were in on 9/11 and did not show up to work that day.

      Most would rather ignore Antisemitism. This type of selective silence proves some are only interested in pushing their agenda rather than combating all forms of hatred and paranoia.

  3. Tea-mahm says:
    March 8, 2011 at 11:04 am

    This is great. Wish you could have this conversation on CNN. Tm

  4. Adila says:
    March 8, 2011 at 4:04 pm

    Lesley, I like you. You have sight.

    🙂

    Herman, I’d like to think I’d stand.

  5. sa says:
    March 8, 2011 at 10:20 pm

    Islam is the only faith tradition that declares “There is no Compulsion in Religion”. Its founder, Prophet Mohammed, created the Charter of Medina which protected the rights of both Muslims and non Muslims alike living in Medina. The 47 clause document contains all the characteristics of the preamble to the US constitution. Similarly, the charter of privileges gave protection and rights to the St Catherine’s Monastary in Alexandria, Egypt. This was all necessary because Islam was founded in an unjust and hostile environment and giving protections and creating protectorates was necessary. Today these cultural dynamics are still at play as are geo political issues and other complexities around the world.

  6. Lynn Rosen says:
    March 8, 2011 at 10:58 pm

    You nailed it. You simply nailed it.

  7. Meezan says:
    March 9, 2011 at 1:21 am

    Hear hear.

  8. Yazid Erman says:
    March 9, 2011 at 2:16 am

    I totally agree with you Lazely, and i am a very strict Muslim! 😉

  9. Kamil says:
    March 9, 2011 at 3:13 am

    I’m a Muslim who currently live in London. I studied Jewish Philosophy and the holocaust for A-Levels when I grew up in Hong Kong. I absolutely agree with everything you wrote in this blogpost. I am shocked by the level of anti semitism I find in the communities today and I guess you will find the same vice-versa.

    Thank you for blogging this and hopefully we can all wake up and understand each other’s struggles in so many decades (and centuries). I think what the Muslims are going through today in the western world (at least here in Britain) has a lot of parallel with the Jewish emancipation in the 1800s and we have a lot to learn from each other.

    May Allah swt bless you for your work.

  10. Aijaz says:
    March 9, 2011 at 4:27 am

    I don’t know how much anti semitism is anti Israeli and anti Jewish…Islamophob is anti Islam, not anti Muslims or anti extremism.
    Whoever had invented anti semitic had cleverly covered all the zionist and Israeli crimes under one flag of anti semitic and then made it a Taboo.
    A stand up comedian in Chritian majority USA can easily make Jesus the butt of his joke but before making anti semitic remarks he will think twice.

    IMO theres no equivalence between anti semite and Islamophob.

    I have no idea Iran is making nuclear bomb or not but if they were making bomb then its the result of propaganda under Islamophob.
    After 1979 revolution Iran ban on all nuclear activities but then they were forced into 10 years war with western supported Sadam.
    War mongers in arms industry are loaded with money so same fear was used but as shiaphob.

    In this video a Muslm is protecting a Jewish couple from Christian mob…Had he known their ID would he still protect them….answer is simple…..YES.

    No Christian, no Muslim, no Jew is devoid of human feelings….all are made with same heart with bloody flesh which pump harder when witness human misery.
    The only difference is greed for power and money…that desire of few benficiaries is trying hard to keep hostage the human feelings and to supress extra pumping of human heart…

    The key is fear and promotion of fear through propaganda.
    The war mongers in the name of religion are used as a tool…the beneficiaries are power brokers and Arms industry and Arms traders and media. I am afraid all three primary beneficiaries are zionist based, the secondary beneficiaries are Arab Tyrants, Kings and Dictators.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrjMl3ISkTE&feature=related

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 9, 2011 at 7:38 am

      Alas, you demonstrate my point. Anti-Semitism is a Zionist ‘invention’? You might want to read some history.

      Meanwhile, this from Jean-Paul Sartre, as relevant I think for Muslims as for Jews: “If Jews did not exist, anti-Semites would have had to invent them.”

      • Aijaz says:
        March 9, 2011 at 8:29 am

        I think I am getting closer
        Perhaps anti semitism is just like Taliban and Al Qaida, as no one literally knows who they are and what they are but everyonee knows why they are.

  11. Aijaz says:
    March 9, 2011 at 4:41 am

    Drawing U.S. Crowds With Anti-Islam Message
    By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
    Published: March 7, 2011

    FORT WORTH — Brigitte Gabriel bounced to the stage at a Tea Party convention last fall. She greeted the crowd with a loud Texas “Yee-HAW,” then launched into the same gripping personal story she has told in hundreds of churches, synagogues and conference rooms across the United States:

    As a child growing up a Maronite Christian in war-torn southern Lebanon in the 1970s, Ms. Gabriel said, she had been left lying injured in rubble after Muslims mercilessly bombed her village. She found refuge in Israel and then moved to the United States, only to find that the Islamic radicals who had terrorized her in Lebanon, she said, were now bent on taking over America.

    “America has been infiltrated on all levels by radicals who wish to harm America,” she said. “They have infiltrated us at the C.I.A., at the F.B.I., at the Pentagon, at the State Department. They are being radicalized in radical mosques in our cities and communities within the United States.”

    Through her books, media appearances and speeches, and her organization, ACT! for America, Ms. Gabriel has become one of the most visible personalities on a circuit of self-appointed terrorism detectors who warn that Muslims pose an enormous danger within United States borders.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/us/08gabriel.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&emc=eta1&pagewanted=1&adxnnlx=1299610962-NGSvRzNNaIjSLZ0vYlUW9Q

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 9, 2011 at 7:43 am

      This article is linked to in the original post. Always a good idea to read before commenting.

      • Aijaz says:
        March 9, 2011 at 8:24 am

        forgive me for I am as clumsy as I could be.

        I try hard again to find the link about this NYT article or anything about Brigitte Gabriel in original post but miserably failed.

  12. Anti-Semitism = Islamophobia | :: MUSLIM DIALOGUE :: says:
    March 9, 2011 at 8:20 am

    […] http://accidentaltheologist.com/2011/03/08/anti-semitism-islamophobia/ March 9th, 2011 | Category: MUSLIM DIALOGUE, […]

  13. Lavrans says:
    March 9, 2011 at 10:19 pm

    It’s funny as I was just having this very argument with a friend who happens to be… a vegetarian.

    No, it’s not a joke. He was talking about how meat is bad, and brought up a video that made some valid points (animals raised on mega-ranches take lots of land and more resources than the average vegetable), and a lot of points that are subjective and meant to tug at a person’s visceral response (animals are tortured and killed just for human pleasure). My argument that the argument was self-righteous was taken as an indictment of vegetarians as a whole.

    The politics of religion is the same action. That video that was posted isn’t the view of all vegetarians, and while most vegetarians would laugh at it and agree with some of the points, not all are vegetarians for the same reason and not all subscribe to the same beliefs; not all will find the entire argument True. Groups always carry with them a certain amount of prejudice against other groups, the question is really to what degree and whether it’s a prejudice that diminishes their ability to empathize with that other group.

    What we have, in my opinion, is too many people who just can’t get past the concept that any large group carries many opinions. What one person or one part of that group says isn’t necessarily a Truth for the entire group, and very likely to be seen by some as ridiculous.

    I maintain that the most dangerous food out there is processed food. Factory food. Food that is barely recognizable in any part as what it came from. The soda that’s really a corn and oil distillation. The steak that’s softened by force feeding an animal that is kept alive only by the use of large amounts of antibiotics.

    I can’t help but see that as so true of the politics of religion. What’s dangerous isn’t the raw belief; the stories and tales that seeded the tree that has grown up and spread across the world; no, what’s dangerous is what’s been done when a branch is taken from the tree, chopped and processed into a new thing that is barely (if at all) related to what it was distilled from.

    That danger is to the tree itself, in that it adds something that may be a poison. That danger is to the tree in how it is seen by the person on the outside; if they don’t know what’s been done to make that processed, transformed thing, then they may ascribe all the dangers as inherent within the tree itself (rather than the processing).

    And that is the danger to those outside that tree’s canopy; ignorance and doubt are easy forms of belief that are hard to eliminate. If you’ve been taught that the tree is poisonous, it may take a stronger act than most could muster to risk grabbing a piece of fruit from the tree and eating it. Even when done, it will still take a long time to overcome that prejudice. See how many people still think that tomatoes are poisonous.

  14. Aijaz says:
    March 11, 2011 at 5:32 am

    Things could be more complex than complicated as presented by Lavran.
    Simplicity is the beauty of arguments and this simplicity adopted by all religions because religion is for masses not specifically for bunch of intellectuals.

    Theres nothing beyond scope of right and wrong…a complex or complicated aspect of right does no make it wrong.
    All the animals slaughtered for food are fast multiple and has short life span…when reaching a natural death their disposal may cause a serious problem and environmental mayhem.
    Torturous slaughter is valid argument by a vegetarian….every living thing has to endure the pain of death one day…people should be careful to cause minimum pain when slaughtering as much as they can learn scientifically….unfortunately none knows the pain of death and pain of slaughter.

    Disintegration of bones and losening of muscles with diminish senses as growing age, I believe is a mercy on mankind thats about time when natural death is happened.
    So in my guess natural death for all living things should be less painful than slaughtered.

    All of these are God sanctioned slaughters so argument can not be restricted to science only besides science can not prove for sure the amount of pain caused in both kind of deaths.
    A vegetarian can not love the rats and roaches damaging his clean home and furniture.
    Probably he will show mercy on a pop up snake in his household to capture and hand it over to wildlife…but roaches and rats he is forced to kill with poisonous torture.

    A very valid example of Tree and its branches was given…..A branch when seperated does not seek its ID but try to make its own ID…An ID which has no roots is the root cause of all problems.

    Religiously if we take Tree as one God and branches as group of people and leaves as people then it will be easy to understand the concept of Unity of God.
    The one leaf or branch which detach itself from Tree is living a life of its own not a borrowed life.
    This owned life knows its origin from father’s seed to mother’s womb then in being and vanished in darkness…this being which probably achieved status of self during the course of life but after death it becomes a number which was added once but now reduced.
    A self which is not more than a number is not different from an ant which was crushed to death among its flock and this is the result of a branch which try to make its own ID after seperated from Tree.

    Let me present an example to emphasize the simplicity of religion through simplicity of its personalities.

    One day an old woman, who had for many years heard of the greatness and magnificence of the Prophet, came before him. She stood tongue tied in awe of his presence. The Prophet, softly, kindly and simply took her by the shoulder and said, “Why are you afraid? I am the son of that Quraish woman who milked sheep. Who are you afraid of?”

    Though I am thankful to Lavran for generating such a beautiful idea of Tree and its branch to help me elaborate my views

    • Lavrans says:
      March 11, 2011 at 4:25 pm

      True- things are always more complex. The main point to the vegetarian is that it isn’t any more unnatural for people to eat meat than any other omnivore or carnivore.

      Complexity comes in with the addition of civilization (that is, living in cities). Then you have many food pressures- we know of no groups that were voluntarily vegetarian until after the introduction of cities and religion- and all of the reasons for a vegetarian diet are religious.

      With wealth comes the ability and freedom to choose whether you’re a vegetarian or not, and with that also comes other reasons for being a vegetarian- and yet, almost all of them still center on man as apart from and different from nature.

      That’s also a commonality of the monotheistic religions (well, most modern religions; at some point religions move from man being a special animal, but still an animal, to being something other than an animal); man as apart from nature.

      Thus, one’s food becomes a choice. This is part of the “processing” I mention. That thought is as much a process as removing the fat from milk or monofarming corn. The thought process is no more “natural” than a million acres of corn, or the idea that man is not just another animal.

      Continue the processing of thought and action and you can come to the point where raising an animal with the intent to eat it becomes morally suspect and the vegetarian starts thinking that the raising and killing is a callous act done in order to sate a taste for killing. When it’s really not that different from raising carrots with the intent to eat them; the main difference is that we see the animal as closer to us and, therefore, closer to god.

      Why is it not possible for the carrot to have a soul? If it does, is it morally problematic to eat the carrot? Or would that God have designed the various animals and plants to do and eat what they do?

      Again- it’s not the act, but the process by which one gets to that act. Very much like in religions, where all of the religions have the same basic rules and tenets, yet the process used to interpret them gives rise to all these opposing sects that become willing to denigrate or do violence to any “other”.

      That, to me, is the genesis and life blood of prejudice. Ignorance fueled by a processed idea that labels itself a morality while demanding an action in violation and opposition to that morality.

      • Aijaz says:
        March 12, 2011 at 1:28 am

        All things are true in their essence perhaps you mean Truth about certain things is complex.

        Truth of the matter is we don’t know how many things are living things of the total things known to us.
        Anything which breath has a life and subject to feel the pain.
        All the plants,vegetables,fruits,grass etc are living thing…sign of their life is they breath they get their naurishments and they grow….if not eaten mercilessly by a vegetarian in their lifetime they also die as they rots and thats their natural life span.
        A vegetarian, if he must eat apple then he has to wait until its rotten or in other words completely dead to cause no pain to partially alive apple.

        I see no difference between growing apples for the purpose to eat when they are ripe and still fresh and breathing AND breeding animals for the purpose to slaughter and to eat.

        Grass is alive as long as its green and it subject to feel pain also….a proud vegetarian feel no remorse to tread torturously on a lviing thing.

        All this fuss to complicate the simplicity of life into unnecessary complexity is the result of not having real issues faced by humanity and they are in abundance.

        Some says stones also breath but this much I know from Quran that everything living or dead to our knowledge praise God but we know not.

        I have no knowledge how other things are alive other than Human Being…are they ensoul or not…perhaps Lavran has more knowledge, he may enlighten.

        Soul in Quran is described as Amre Rab “Decree of God”.
        Amazingly in whole Quran nowhere plural is used for soul….so this is singular act of Al-Mighty to enliven a thing.
        Self(Nafs) has plural in Quran which is exclusively for mankind not other living things.

        So we are composed of three things…Body,soul and self.
        When soul leave the body we are dead and we are left with body and self…in few hundred years body also disnitegrate..the only thing left is self which is resurrected on judgment day and according to Islamic faith body testify against the self which it used to carry.
        The reality of mankind is SELF which is accountable not the body and soul.

  15. Muslim says:
    March 19, 2011 at 7:37 am

    Why do people claim anti-semitic as only referring to jews..
    semitic is relating to people who are of the groups that speak of Afroasiatic languages that includes Akkadian, arabic, Aramaic, Ethiopic, Hebrew, and Phoenician.

    so american english speaking jews are NOT semitic
    but on the flip side.. christian and muslim arabs alike in the middle east are ALL semitic.. so if you discrimate against a middle eastern muslim, you are being anti-semitic

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 19, 2011 at 8:50 am

      Strictly speaking, of course, you’re quite right, but such a definition then excludes the 80% of Muslims who are not semitic. You also ignore the fact that, though many centuries removed, Ashkenazi American Jews are semitic in origin, while Sephardi Jews are semitic in culture too.

      I can see the ironic appeal of saying “Hey, we’re all semites,” but A. it’s not so, and B. challenging prejudice on the basis of strict definitions really evades the problem, and could even deepen it by leading to the weirdly racist game of trying to figure out what percentage of blood origin — a quarter? an eighth? a sixteenth? — makes someone black or Jewish or Arab.

    • hossam says:
      March 20, 2011 at 1:40 am

      Why do we have to discuss what semitic means instead of discussing the actual issue, you are right in saying that semic peoples are not only jews, but to answer your question, the term anti-semitism has been coined and generally accepted to mean prejudice towards jewish people. Would it make a difference if it was called anti-judaism or anti-jew or jewophobia instead?

      we can also spend time criticizing the term islamophobia rather discuss the actual issue

  16. Maisha Liwaru says:
    March 20, 2011 at 8:59 am

    As an African American Muslim, I say we can spend our time comparing and licking our wounds and arguing over semantics or we can come together for human rights. Rather than anti Semitic, Islamaphobia, racism etc. why not use the words humane and inhumane.

  17. Rachel Thomas says:
    March 22, 2011 at 12:58 pm

    This is a really good article, and as a Jew I also see Islamophobia as the flip side of anti-Semitism. I shudder when I see members of my government targeting “the Muslim community” as a whole.

    I do want to make one suggestion/correction to your article. You seem to imply in paragraph 6 that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is about anti-Zionism. However, it also speaks directly about Jews without connection to the modern movement of Zionism. I think the word “Zion” in the title refers not to that modern movement but to the biblical term for Jerusalem. It’s important that people should know that The Protocols is primarily anti-Judaism, not anti-Zionism.

  18. Mazhar says:
    March 30, 2011 at 12:49 am

    I am extremely grateful for the way you have presented this issue. And I am touched by your ability to speak out with the analogy of Anti-Semitism.

    I have read Quran for more than 25 years. Yes it speaks about how jews interacted
    during the time of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), but it also speaks about polytheism,
    about christians and about muslims who accepted islam but in their heart planned against the Prophet , and they are the worst [….] If you truly understand Quran, ALLAH’s displeasure is on any one who violates his instructions and that of his Prophet…may that be a muslim even. So I agree with you that to take as all Jews are worst is actually UN-ISLAMIC.

    In fact one of the wives of Prophet Muhammad was a Jew who accepted Islam….and sometime people would say that to her (that you were Jew) and Prophet (PBUH) would show great displeasure on such people. And one of the great companions of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was Abdullah-Bin-Salam (blessing of Allah be upon him), who was a jew who accepted islam. And once a funeral of Jew (who had not accepted islam) was passing by and Prophet (PBUH) stood up in respect…and some people differed and the Prophet (PBUH) said his account was with Allah and as a fellow human being he demonstrated respect on his passing away.

    I am sorry the comment became lengthy…But I really wanted to appreciate your
    approach and share mine. We need more like you on both sides to put and end
    to this cycle of hatred, blame and violence.

  19. Anand Rishi says:
    April 15, 2011 at 3:14 am

    Well, any hate campaign against any community is deplorable. Those at its receiving end must fight this menace unitedly.

    Sorry for delayed comment. I am a new comer to this very sensible blog.

  20. Rabeeh Zakaria says:
    May 5, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    As a non-radical muslim, I salute you .. We need such a balanced look

    Thank you

  21. Zack says:
    May 16, 2011 at 6:49 am

    To the author of this article.

    Great article. I have posted it everywhere.

    Keep up the good work.

    God bless your kind soul

  22. Anti-Semitism = Islamophobia - Page 11 - Political Wrinkles says:
    January 28, 2012 at 11:47 pm

    […] Posted by Coyote Source: Anti-Semitism = Islamophobia The Accidental Theologist She makes good points No kidding. Some of us know this. And nice people like you come along […]

My TEDx Talk on the Quran: the Video

Posted December 5th, 2010 by Lesley Hazleton

Here it is:  my TEDx talk — an agnostic Jew exploring the Quran — given at Seattle’s Benaroya Hall on 10/10/10.

I think I’m saying some important things here that need to be much more widely known, especially at this point in time.  So if you like this talk, as the live audience clearly did — there was much more laughter than I’d expected, which is why I only just made the TEDx nine-minute limit, and the standing ovation kind of took me by (grateful) surprise — please don’t hesitate to forward it to all who you think will be, might be, or simply should be interested.

Use the buttons below to email or to post to Facebook, or just copy and paste this page’s url or the YouTube one:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7yaDlZfqrc

And yes indeed, I would love to hear your comments, whichever way they trend!

—————————————————

January 4, 2011:   Many thanks to translator Amineh Ayyad for her work on the Arabic subtitles of this talk.   The video is now also up on TED.com, where translations into more languages will soon be available.  For a transcript in English, click here.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: Islam, TED TALKS | Tagged: Tags: '72 virgins', Arabic, environment, fundamentalism, gardens watered by running streams, Islamophobia, Koran, paradise, Quran, TEDxRainier, translation, warfare, women | 199 Comments
  1. Lynn Rosen says:
    December 5, 2010 at 10:36 pm

    Enjoyed to the nines and shared on my facebook and twitter pages. Now to share with the local mavens. What a fab standing ovation. Well deserved, I might add.

  2. dorothy pantanowitz says:
    December 6, 2010 at 4:45 am

    what a great talk. loved it together with all the audience.
    yeshar koah

  3. eleni oconnor says:
    December 6, 2010 at 7:43 am

    Wow. What an absolutely perfect talk. I gave you a one woman standing ovation here in front of the computer. Scared the bejesus out of the dogs…

  4. Janet Granger says:
    December 6, 2010 at 8:25 am

    A wonderful talk – it should be required viewing for all journalists!!

    Thank you.

  5. Steve Giordano says:
    December 6, 2010 at 12:23 pm

    Ahh, you make perfect sense, as usual. Now. about the Bible…

  6. Amina says:
    December 6, 2010 at 3:23 pm

    As a Muslim, I was so glad to hear you speak like this about the Qur’aan. It is so often maligned or misinterpreted, even by some Muslims. I appreciate the sincerity, respect and humor in your approach. Thank you.

  7. Angela says:
    December 7, 2010 at 2:32 pm

    This is wonderful!

  8. Ameen Roayan says:
    December 8, 2010 at 12:23 am

    to you and your efforts i bow in respect….
    i am eagerly waiting for the prophets biography and would love to help with however possible…..

  9. Amna Khalid says:
    December 8, 2010 at 4:35 am

    I loved the way you approached such a controversial topic… beautifully said and very eloquent.

  10. Mohamad says:
    December 8, 2010 at 6:24 am

    I can’t seem to get enough of this video, I keep watching over and over. What an outstanding woman.

  11. L says:
    December 8, 2010 at 11:25 am

    I really enjoyed this talk. Thank you!

  12. Amber says:
    December 8, 2010 at 12:47 pm

    I enjoyed your talk. My fellow Muslima’s and I have been emailing it out to each other and to non-Muslim friends. I appreciate how accessible you made this topic and also the respect with which you treated our Quran. Thanks!

  13. Dynamite Soul says:
    December 8, 2010 at 2:02 pm

    This is so awesome. I really appreciate the time and commitment you showed in order to better understand something that is so often misunderstood.

    Thank you, thank you, thank you.

  14. dpuji says:
    December 8, 2010 at 2:49 pm

    Such eloquence & intellect … The beauty of her spirit shines as she masterfully articulates the essence of the Holy Quran. MasyaAllah.

    Thank you!

  15. Raul says:
    December 9, 2010 at 5:29 am

    I have no respect for a JEW who does not even believer her own religion turning around and lecturing me on the Koran.

    Who the hell are you to pass judgment?

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      December 9, 2010 at 2:42 pm

      The disrespect is mutual.

    • Amaan says:
      December 11, 2010 at 6:59 am

      everyone’s given a mind of their own to research and accept what they believe.

      (Quran 6:108) “And insult not those whom they (disbelievers) worship besides Allah, lest they insult Allah wrongfully without knowledge.”

      Quran(17:53, 54) “And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner (unto those who do not share their beliefs). Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is to man a plain enemy.”

      “There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allah is All-Hearer, All-Knower” – Quran(2:256)

      “Whoever hurts a Non-Muslim citizen of a Muslim state hurts me, and he who hurts me annoys God.” (Bukhari)

      “Beware on the Day of Judgment; I shall myself be complainant against him who wrongs a Non-Muslim citizen of a Muslim state or lays on him a responsibility greater than he can bear or deprives him of anything that belongs to him.” (Al-Mawardi)

      • Saja says:
        December 13, 2010 at 5:01 am

        Thanks for such a comprehensive conclusive reply, but will he understand though. that I doubt, the guy is full of hate.

      • Howard Thomas says:
        December 16, 2010 at 6:09 am

        @Amaan,

        It is dangerous to quote from the Quran, one could easily hang oneself. You quoted 2:256, as is often quoted to show the tolerance of Islam. But how does that notion stand after reading the very next verse? :

        Quran 2:257:
        Allah is the ally of those who believe. He brings them out from darknesses into the light. And those who disbelieve – their allies are Taghut. They take them out of the light into darknesses. Those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide eternally therein.

        2:257 says that disbelievers will go to hell. How’s that for tolerance?

      • Yusuf says:
        December 30, 2010 at 11:06 am

        @ Howard Thomas. You are reading this passage wrong. It does not preach intolerance. Allah is saying there will be punishment for these people, not that we should punish them.

    • simo says:
      December 14, 2010 at 8:40 pm

      she just express what she read and understood from the Koran. instead of showing disrespect go and do the same thing and educate your self like her.

  16. Raul says:
    December 9, 2010 at 5:31 am

    Oh, and of course you are censoring comments…I was suspicious when the all seem to be gushing your praises.

    I suspect some of them are faked.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      December 9, 2010 at 2:37 pm

      You are wrong.

      • Khadija Harrisonn says:
        December 11, 2010 at 12:10 pm

        Hi Lesley

        Just to thank you for your amazing speech about the Quran, you have restored my faith in humanity, it’s a shame that there are not many people like you! Still I believe that despite people like our “friend” Raul, there are plenty of muslim, christians, jews, buddhist, agnostics, etc with good will, heart and intentions who are prepared to get together and do a lot of good work.
        As muslim I don’t mind being questioned about my religion or criticized as long as it is done with respect. It ‘s a real shame that people nowadays have lost the meaning of “respect” . But you Lesley seem to still have respect for us muslims and Islam despite the despicable behaviour of some in our community. Thank you for not tarring us all with the same brush. looking forward reading ur books : )

    • Janet Granger says:
      December 10, 2010 at 3:09 am

      I can assure you, Raul, that *my* comment was certainly not faked. When comments are faked (and I admit that that *can* happen, on other people’s blogs), it is made obvious by the repetitive use of language, etc. in the posts. If you read through the comments, they are obviously written by people who use language in different ways. Just becasue most of them agree that the video was great, doesn’t mean they are faked!

      The comments aren’t ‘gushing’ – they are praising Lesley for saying and doing something which sorely needs to be done in today’s world – explaining what the Koran actually contains.

      I find your comments about her and what she is doing offensive.

    • Saja says:
      December 13, 2010 at 4:58 am

      Raul what is wrong with you.! just because the contents does not suit you, hell must break loose.!! if you don’t like what you see, just leave. if you have something constructive to share, then let us have it.

      Simple.

  17. Maureen says:
    December 9, 2010 at 5:34 am

    As a christian living in Egypt (most of the time) – married to a muslim – I have only one ‘complaint’ – the talk was much much to short. Thank you.

    • Nora says:
      December 15, 2010 at 5:11 pm

      An egyptian who has just visited Egypt, I was extreemly hurt to see how egypt has gotten and how people have been treating religion as if it was just another textbook from the egyptian ministry of education–something to be memorized not understood–so I thanked God for letting me be a muslim in the west. Inshallah if I go back it’ll be to do something for the people. Anyways, it really upsets me to see conflicts between christians and muslims in egypt. Because I went to a christian school and so did my mom, so most of our friends are christian & I allways admired Egyptians for their lack of racism. I hope that hasn’t changed as much as I think it has.

  18. Jubril says:
    December 9, 2010 at 2:22 pm

    A very inspired and inspiring talk. May God continue to expand your heart and understanding. Very sound, and unprejudiced analysis! Well Done

  19. Aaron Goerner says:
    December 9, 2010 at 2:56 pm

    Are you still an agnostic?

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      December 9, 2010 at 4:25 pm

      But of course. I value the view from my agnostic perch. And I believe in inquiry rather than in belief itself.

      • samina says:
        December 13, 2010 at 2:22 pm

        I am an agnostic with a Muslim background. I have passed this video on to many of my friends. Only wish it could have been longer.

        Like you I am fascinated by faith, but believe in inquiry.

  20. Mohammed Abbasi says:
    December 9, 2010 at 5:55 pm

    Beautiful talk, my dear sister

  21. Anna says:
    December 10, 2010 at 3:01 am

    Very nice talk; your words spoke very accurately of the experience I get each time I read the Qur’an. And if I may add, the throaty, soothing sound of your voice made it all the more poignant 🙂

    Something that I found amazing about the Qur’an (when recited in Arabic), is that each surah has its own “feel” and “mood”. Some are upbeat, some are sad, some are ethereal and heavenly, and you kept help but catching on to the feeling.

    • amira says:
      April 13, 2011 at 11:45 pm

      Every surah has a theme too, a fundamental msg. It also takes the batton from the sura b4 it and hands it to the folowing sura so its as if yr moving thru shades of a color from very deep to light or the opposite smoothly. If u have a scientists mind u will be amazed at what u find.
      “And whoever invokes with God another god– he has no proof of this– his reckoning is only with his Lord; surely the unbelievers shall not be successful. ” the idea of proof and its respect to me is utterlingly amazing.

  22. foxxyandbaldr says:
    December 10, 2010 at 4:57 am

    I love how you said “fundamentally inflexible”, that is so true. You see that everywhere, in all walks of life.
    I too wished the talk was longer.

    • Steve says:
      January 7, 2011 at 2:11 pm

      fundamentally inflexible… Religion to a tee!!

      This is resultant from the unquestionable doctrine in the text – not exclusively by the reader itself.

      And, if one doesn’t cherry pick – after reading such an outdated appauling guideline to life – you’ll hope your fundamentally good human nature is inflexible enough to discount what you’ve read and you dont pick up a stone to murder your dishonorable sister.

      You’d better hope you needn’t leave things up to interpretation when such inhumane and incontestable ‘truths’ are dictated to you.

      Free, rational inquiry and empowerment of woman will fix these issues.

      • Abdul Azim says:
        April 21, 2015 at 9:17 am

        “unquestionable doctrine in the tex????????”
        Stoning is no where to bre found in the Quran. It is a Bilblical puinshment.
        Reference to stoning in the Sunna mainly follows on the Jewish stoning rules of the Torah.

        • TJ says:
          April 24, 2015 at 11:52 am

          Since 80 percent of Islam is Sunni and they follow the Hadith it’s safe to say that stoning so did occur under his watch. However the Quran does proscribe 100 lashings which is pretty horrific considering in saudi a recent blogger was lashed 50 times and he was near death. Considering the lashings that occurred against Jesus I would imagine death by lashing would be as painful as stonings

  23. Rafhan Afzal says:
    December 10, 2010 at 7:32 am

    I am stunned and surprised. I appreciate your hard work and the effort you have put in. You surely will have a place in heaven. When you were delivering the talk and while you said God is merciful people laughed but nobody noticed the look on your face but i did. The world need people like you. It takes courage to deliver the talk which you delivered. God bless you. You are among the higher spirits i have ever come across. I am anxiously waiting for the biography of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Lots of Love

    • Rafhan Afzal says:
      December 12, 2010 at 3:41 am

      What you guys didn’t see is that this clip contains a hidden agenda … this is how propaganda works… it propagates softer image of Jews … it tells us that Jews are good and they are flexible but we are not …. we do not even follow our religious book ….. they accept other religions … and accept their holy books … but we are hardliners who have moulded their religion and who doesn’t even know their religion … A non Muslim gets this impression from the talk … and the beauty is that the Muslims also appreciate what she says ….

      • kamal says:
        December 12, 2010 at 10:09 am

        If the hidden agenda is peaceful coexistence this lady is doing more godly work than not and she specifically tells u she’s an agnostic (do u know how much barkat and blessings u get according to Islam spent wondering and contemplating the existence of god in comparison to doing sagday and reading namaz) by spreading peace and understanding and tolerance this woman is spreading islam and the basic core message of most religions keep up the good work lesley hazelton and looking forward to reading your book

      • starmomi says:
        December 13, 2010 at 5:15 am

        I really hope I am misunderstanding your second comment. I think i’ll stick to the first ine, it’s far more becoming of a Muslim to have “husnu-thzan” (a good opinion/ free of suspicion re others motives).

  24. Ahmad Ibrahim says:
    December 10, 2010 at 8:19 am

    It seems you have made a great effort in approaching the Quraan , an effort that is really appreciated from both non-muslims and muslims. I really hope other people , politicians, actors, media professionals could approach the Quraan the way you did maam.

    I do wish you all the best, and please don’t take into account this unfair comment by Raul , as it is obvously doesn’t represent how we , as muslims and non-muslims percieve your speech.

    A great effort, a great speech , a great work , I do respect u and hope to gain experience from watching your videos . May ALLAAH guid u to the right path maam , and grant you the best .

    Sincerely, Ahmad

  25. alias says:
    December 10, 2010 at 11:02 am

    Can I just say I love you?
    And I, as a Muslim, am deeply humbled by what I can only describe as a gentle, and infinitely wise understanding of the Qur’an. I would love to meet you in person one day, oh how I wish..
    A

  26. not buying says:
    December 10, 2010 at 2:48 pm

    “an agnostic Jew on what’s really in the Quran”

    That sounds like a misleading advertisement. You talk about gardens watered by running streams, but you don’t talk about those who get boiling liquid poured on their heads (plus torture, hell-fire, and all the rest of it). The latter treatment is what the book warns, ad nauseam, will happen to those who refuse to accept Allah and his prophet. No discussion of the Quran is complete without the downside; hellfire, and who gets assigned to it, and for what reasons.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      December 10, 2010 at 6:48 pm

      That’s okay if you’re not buying, since I’m neither advertising nor selling.

      • not buying says:
        December 11, 2010 at 3:05 am

        Not literally, perhaps. Are you not attempting to _persuade_ the audience that the Quran is, among other things, not as bad as some have suggested? Why not simply do an accurate and _balanced_ presentation of what the Quran contains, and let the audience decide?

      • not buying says:
        December 11, 2010 at 12:03 pm

        (To Lesley Hazleton)

        You ask a great question: “As for punishment in an afterlife, if you don’t believe in hell (of which there is quite enough on earth), why worry about hellfire?”

        I don’t fear being sent there myself of course; I am an atheist. First of all, it concerns me that large numbers of Muslims (and Christians; Islam and Christianity are the two main religions that I’m aware of that have the hellfire penalty) even today actually accept the notion that it is good and right to destroy/burn the souls of people for mere disbelief, and that disbelief itself is a kind of sin-crime, making disbelievers sinners/criminals. That in itself is disturbing. However, my main worry or concern here is that this belief is taken seriously and literally by some, and this has real social consequences. For one, the hellfire penalty demonizes the non-believers, which has indirect social consequences.

        In terms of direct social consequences, it is a consideration factored into the making of real policies and laws such as those regulating public expressions. If one believes, truly and seriously believes, that disbelief is the worst crime and is punished by the destruction, torture, and loss of the soul in the afterlife, then one might be inclined to want to control what people do and say in this life, so as not to jeopardize the security of the souls of the believers. This type of logic was used by the early Christian theologians (see Levy’s book Treason Against God) and then, apparently, also used later by Islamic scholars. (I’m not aware if there was a direct borrowing there). Public expressions that might encourage apostasy, heresy, or further blasphemic expressions were thus deemed to endanger the souls of the believers, leading them toward disbelief and the forfeit of their reward of an eternal life in the hereafter and leading to the torture and destruction and loss of their souls in hell. If one believes in eternal life after physical death, then loss of worldly life is not the worst thing that can happen to oneself; rather it is the loss of the eternal life in the hereafter that is more important. These considerations played a role in the formation of laws against blasphemy and apostasy in both Christianity and Islam. (The Quran of course does not contain clear, direct, and explicit prescriptions for worldly penalties for mere blasphemy and mere apostasy; these penalties appeared later in the Hadith).

        From another angle, one who takes the hellfire belief literally and seriously could view the imposition of such laws restricting expressions and conversions as a way of helping to “save the souls” of the unbelievers, and paving the way for unimpeded proselytizing of the favoured religion, including in the context of holy wars and jihads to spread the faith. If one seriously believes that one is saving the souls of people by bringing them into the religion or at least exposing them to it and bringing them under the rule of it, that too could be a strong motivating factor in enabling such conflicts and imperialist adventures. It is not only promises of paradise that might in part motivate some self-styled jihadists and holy warriors, but also fear of hell-fire for failing to fulfill what one interprets to be one’s obligations to use physical force to spread or defend the faith.

        • Lesley Hazleton says:
          December 11, 2010 at 4:54 pm

          Ah, now you are arguing really seriously and extremely well. Thank you. And you have taken the discussion into the intensely interesting and volatile realm of what happens when religion and politics fuse — specifically, in ‘fundamentalism’ (for lack of a better word — I object to it since it seems to imply that radical fundamentalists have grasped something fundamental about their respective religions, where I think they have entirely missed the essence of faith, and are, in a very real sense, anti-religious — an argument I will make on the blog when it gels in my mind).

          For now, yes, this is indeed the danger: that overly zealous fundamentalists ignore the much repeated Quranic axiom “Judgment belongs to God alone,” and take on themselves the role of God, meting out what they deem just punishment. (This is what I mean by their being fundamentally anti-religious, since that means they are acting as God, which I believe in religious terms is called heresy.)

          In fact the Quran very specifically forbids physical force to spread the faith, and does so in many places. But as some commenters have noted over on the YouTube comments thread (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7yaDlZfqrc, but now alas, as such threads do at a certain point, going off in weird directions), later hadith may, in essence, be being given more weight than the original message.

          It’s also worth looking at the summary of Pakistani Sheikh Tahir al-Qudri’s 600-page fatwa against terrorism and suicide bombing, issued in March 2010. I think it’s still online at http://www.minhajuk.org

          As I say, more to follow in time on the blog, including some thoughts on the way concepts such as truth and perfectibility can makes us inhuman. Thanks again — Lesley

      • Mohammed says:
        December 11, 2010 at 8:47 pm

        Dear “Not Buying”,
        After the collapse of the Ottomans, the role of Muslim jurists in the society has became less and less during the last century. This has created a vacuum and resulted in the layman and those not fully trained in this science taking legal interpretation into their own hand and has caused considerable confusion and pain within Muslim societies. This is not the forum to go into the details, but I would like to recommend these materials written by Jewish and Christian legal experts:

        ‘Why Shariah?’ by Noah Feldman, Rhodes Scholar and Harvard Law School professor, and
        ‘Islamic Jurisprudence ( an International Perspective)’ by Christopher Weeramantry, former Vice president of International court of Justice.

        The question is not whether Islam can embrace democracy or Muslims can embrace people of other religions, but the question now is whether Democracy can embrace Islam or Christians can embrace Muslims. History testifies to the former in the affirmative and to the latter (so far) in the negative. Let us take care of the matters of this world first 🙂

      • Howard Thomas says:
        December 16, 2010 at 6:29 am

        Hi Lesley,
        ‘not buying’ made a very good point about the glaring absence in your speech of the almost overwhelming theme of Allah’s curse to non-believers (who may question Allah as the One god and Mohamed being his messenger), yet you answered with a glib non-answer. This is a shame.

        Anyone who reads the Quran knows that the main message, because it is so repetitious, is that it is not in one’s interest to disagree with Mohamed’s assertions (even if those assertions are easily arguable nothing more than fanciful).

    • Janet Granger says:
      December 11, 2010 at 5:15 am

      ‘Not Buying’ – have you ever *read* the Quran (in translation)? Most people who come out with the kind of views that you seem to have are those who haven’t even read it.

      By the way, The Torah and the New Testament aren’t all sweetness and light, either. Are you suggesting that they are?

      • not buying says:
        December 11, 2010 at 6:49 am

        Janet,

        Yes, I have read the Quran. Initially I read the whole thing, and subsequently I’ve come back many times and have read some sections of it more closely with specific questions in mind. Some sections that deal with social, political, and military policies I’ve read many times. In addition, I’ve studied it in some detail over the past five years, though in my spare time. I’ve studied mainstream classical Muslim tafsirs on it, have read the asbab al-nuzul for some verses, have read the Sira (by Ishaq), and have read extensively from the Hadith. I’ve examined research on what various present-day Muslims believe about the Quran. I’ve read apologetics and criticism of it. I’ve had discussions with dozens of Muslims over the years about the Quran.

        I’m not sure what you mean by “the views I seem to have.” I do object strongly to the idea of punishing people who simply don’t accept a religion. The Quran asserts that disbelief in Allah and Muhammad is the worst thing a person can do. It goes on and on, in literally hundreds of verses, about how the disbelievers will be punished and tortured in hellfire.

        I’m definitely not suggesting the Torah and New Testament are all sweetness and light, nor did I mention anything about them. FYI, I object to the hellfire and final judgment penalties mentioned in the NT (for example), and I object to the harsh and unjust penalties prescribed in the Torah (for example). But the topic here is the Quran.

        This thread as I see it is not primarily about my views or your views, but it is more about commenting on Lesley Hazleton’s views and on the Quran. I’m interested in her response.

        • Lesley Hazleton says:
          December 11, 2010 at 9:37 am

          Re “what various present-day Muslims believe,” I’d say an excellent place to start might be this Comments thread and the one on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7yaDlZfqrc

          As for punishment in an afterlife, if you don’t believe in hell (of which there is quite enough on earth), why worry about hellfire?

      • sultan says:
        December 20, 2010 at 7:14 am

        @not buying actually there’s more than one interpretation for the verses about hell and afterlife punishment, one of them is what you are saying, another one which i believe is, disbelievers are not those who are not muslim, but those who see the truth about islam and then reject it, disbelievers which is a translation for KAFER which means in arabic those who cover, in our case those who cover the truth they find and don’t embrace it or simply reject it.
        and surely there’s no one can claim that this person in particular will be in hell. and after all that god is the most merciful, do you think he will punish someone because he never heard or heard not the truth about islam?,,or his (not-bias) mislead him?

    • kaiyan says:
      December 13, 2010 at 7:23 pm

      Sir I am very impressed by your readings of various facets/sources of islam to understand its current form/state.

      The concept of hell and heaven is more allegorical then literal. it is the state of mind which is tormented by guilt, shame by not accepting universal principles of humanity i.e justice,equality and opportunities to nurture best of human potentials. So actually it is resisting these core unaltered universal values which will prohibit further nourishment of human soul/personality to ascend to higher level of satisfied,content afterlife in whatever form.

      I would suggest you consult these websites i.e ourbeacon.com and tolueislam.com for a different Quranic perspective of these concepts. Hadiths written 3 centuries after prophet portray this literal interpretation of hell and heaven which is more in sync with bible then Quran (Ironic it sounds though) but that’s how it is.
      Thank you

      • amira says:
        April 14, 2011 at 12:30 am

        Yes u r right. the words God uses in the quran for those who will suffer hell, whatever that may be, are serious. Like tyrrants or unjustful or kaffer ( the translation of which is not dibelievers rather those who see truth yet choose to turn away and cover it up). another thing, just assume for a second that God exists and he is one and that he did send prophets to humans the last of whom is Mohamed, woul’dnt it be a grave offence on God that u deny his presence or add gods of yr own of which u have no proof. If God is existent and he is one , which i believe he is, then unfortunately for some, he puts the rules and u have to play his game.If he considers denying his presence or adding gods to him a grave crime, then there isn’t much to do is there?

    • Ramla Akhtar says:
      December 27, 2010 at 12:01 pm

      Dear Not Buying,

      You have made some very legitimate points — except, perhaps, suggesting that Lesley is under any obligation to show the other side. She is not. She explained one aspect, another can explain another. She saw paradise about her, and related to that. If one has an idea of what hell may be, they can share that.

      I want to validate your views, especially the explanation you have given further down the thread. Indeed, the attempt to ‘save souls’ is what is driving what Lesley terms as un-fundamental behavior. Lesley is correct: the attempt to override another human’s choice or destiny is EXACTLY what this is NOT about. That point is long-forgotten amongst the correct-the-world communities. If one steps far back enough and observes, they may also see that those who are going about attempting to correct the world are terrified of living in a world which they consider to be a world in decline, ruin — a world that has become hell. Perhaps they are trying to salvage *their* souls.

      In sum, it will be useful to attempt to understand what ‘hell’ could possibly mean. If paradise is literally a state that can be observed — what is hell?

      • Ramla Akhtar says:
        December 27, 2010 at 12:10 pm

        My own understanding has come to be that one needs to understand the fundamentals wherein lie ample clues leading to (greater) truth.

        One of these fundamental (belief)s is that the Qur’an is a direct address from Allah to the reader. Which brings us to the reader, and their faculty of listening, and the world of words, meanings, language.

        Perhaps henceforth we can take a dive into the inner world (in a literal sense!) and understand how listening functions within a human — and who is listening? And observing?

        Inspired by another TED Talk, “A stroke of insight” by Jill Bolte Taylor, and my own in-the-body experience, I have come to believe that there is a faculty within the human body — which is the essential human themselves — which can observe our world from within to without. This faculty can both know, and know that it knows.

        What is deemed hell and heaven, in my understanding, is this faculty’s experience of the aftermath of certain actions and beliefs… and their affect upon the body and the totality of the experience. In other words, the matter may be as simple as experiencing the bio-chemistry of our being from within.

        How does pain feel like? How does anger feel like? Jealousy? Dismay? What is it to be a sick mind or body? How do we experience it from within — and I don’t mean simply in a cognitive sense but as a very real experience. What does it feel like when one’s very own cells mutate to cancer? What kind of information is then exchanged within the body?

        I think the answers to our ancient riddles may be surprising simple — and earthly.

        Regards.

      • not buying says:
        December 28, 2010 at 2:55 pm

        Ramla,

        Thanks for your interesting comments (12:01 and 12:10).

        On the issue of what a writer/speaker ought to discuss in this context, our discussion may be “academic” at this point because Lesley did address hellfire in her responses in this thread and in a subsequent article related to it (December 21). But, in response to your comment, I would note, in justifying my initial objection, that I understood that Lesley’s discussion was not only about paradise. It included mention of other topics and comments on the Quran’s contents (e.g., references to Biblical stories, translation and interpretation issues, mention of environmental issues, the fact that it addresses women and not just men, the similarity between Biblical Yahweh and Allah, and the restrictions on killing of unbelievers). In the above written intro, Lesley initially referred to her talk on “what’s really in the Quran,” and, again, in that talk, paradise is not the only topic of discussion, even if it is the major one.

        Yet even if the talk was intended to _only_ discuss paradise–which I agree would be a legitimate choice–I would still argue that hellfire should be mentioned for at least two reasons I can think of at the moment. First, Paradise is not conceived in isolation in the Quran but is presented as part of a conditional proposition (or ultimatum), addressed to “all humankind,” whereby if you believe in and obey Allah and Muhammad as prescribed you will be rewarded with Paradise in the hereafter, but if you don’t believe in or obey Allah and Muhammad, you will not be rewarded with Paradise but instead will be punished in hellfire. Paradise is the carrot in a carrot-versus-stick proposition. Second, the contents of Paradise as described in the Quran do include reference to hellfire, e.g., the believers will be relaxing in Paradise and will look down and laugh at the disbelievers who are being tortured in hellfire. Part of Paradise, according to the Quran, includes the experience of a kind of schadenfreude, pleasure at the misfortune of the disbelievers in hellfire.

        Regarding your other comments on the psychology of paradise and hell, if I understand you correctly, I tend to agree. I would add that I do think the author(s) of the Quran attempted to exploit peoples’ psychological tendencies with respect to (a) seeking pleasure and avoiding pain, and (b) belief in an afterlife and judgment day. Unjust rulers themselves could also make use of these beliefs in order to justify their worldly policies.

    • Ibraheem says:
      January 3, 2011 at 12:43 pm

      “not buying” what she is attmepting to do is clear, dispell the idea that the Quran teaches intolerance and violence when infact mercy, forgiveness, and doing good to others is the main theme of the religion. Fighting against evil has its place. Secondly, that paradise is not a place of vulgar pleasures, but rather a place of true beauty. The discussion of who gets punishment and reward need not be included and is infact entirely irrelevant.

      In any case, a reality or a beleif system which implies that the corrupt, who often enjoy life, while the good, who often suffer and sacrifice, all end up in the same place, in the dust, concerns me. The beleif that all the injustice in the world will go unrecompensed, concerns me. So to each his own. The Qur’an says not a single word is uttered except that it is written…makes much more sense to me anyhow. Heavan and Hell are perfectly logical. As a muslim, who goes where is something that I beleive is grossly misunderstood.

  27. Zak says:
    December 10, 2010 at 3:02 pm

    Simply delightful. Great work!!! I just pray that Muslims would eventually come to the same perspective and understanding of the Quran. God Bless!!

  28. The Sphinx says:
    December 10, 2010 at 3:22 pm

    I’ve seen your video over at LoonWatch and am highly impressed. Most people from other religious backgrounds (and sadly, many Muslims as well) have by far not put in this much effort in actually grasping the Qur’an with all its nuances and contexts.

    I sincerely ask you to keep on educating people.
    Thanks for making my evening 🙂

    • Rafhan Afzal says:
      December 12, 2010 at 3:49 am

      This is what she has told us that she has put in this much effort … to increase her authenticity …. do u believe in it … her actual objective is different … its a propaganda … What you guys didn’t see is that this clip contains a hidden agenda … this is how propaganda works… it propagates softer image of Jews … it tells us that Jews are good and they are flexible but we are not …. we do not even follow our religious book ….. they accept other religions … and accept their holy books … but we are hardliners who have moulded their religion and who doesn’t even know their religion … A non Muslim gets this impression from the talk … and the beauty is that the Muslims also appreciate what she says ….

      • Nora says:
        December 15, 2010 at 5:59 pm

        I’m sorry, did science make the giant leap and develop a mind/heart reading device? Or do you possess some sort of divine power?
        Who are you to claim that someone has bad intentions?

        I see propaganda has developed nowadays, propaganda makes propaganda by calling truth propaganda. I think you should be wasting your time educating people on how to not abuse their own religion rather than making a psychological analysis of a woman who has said nothing wrong, irrational or hateful. & please don’t start with the whole Jews have evil plans of ruling the world thing. It’s that sort of mentality that brings all muslims back & prevents any peace from happening.

      • Meezan says:
        December 16, 2010 at 12:33 am

        Brother i mean no offense when i say you seem paranoid. This talk only made people come together and have a constructive debate.

        As Quran says “Be yourself beautiful and you will find the world full of beauty”

      • alias says:
        December 16, 2010 at 2:06 am

        Seriously, are you for real? If you are then I pity you for the single-mindedness that afflicts you and blinds you from seeing beauty and humanity in others who don’t fit your narrow worldview. Please go away. You don’t speak for Muslims and you never will. You’re but a human that God created and you have NO RIGHT to judge what is in the hearts and minds of others. Leave that up to God and stop insulting people’s intelligence. Shame on you.

      • Schpod says:
        December 18, 2010 at 9:32 am

        Rafhan,
        You’re an idiot, a caricature of the Jew-obsessed Muslim that is so prevalent. I think that Ms Hazleton gave a very good talk indeed and represented my religion very well. You, on the other hand….

  29. Sujit says:
    December 10, 2010 at 3:36 pm

    Filled with glee and an intense sense of justice.
    Well done and God bless.

  30. Shahab says:
    December 10, 2010 at 10:56 pm

    I liked your speech and the way you interpret Quran. Quran has a lot to do with the metaphors. As you mentioned it is well understood only if studied in Arabic. Unfortunately, many translators did not catch the actual meanings of some of the words God has used. It is not that they are not understandable. But comprehensive knowledge of the translator about Arabic language and Quran is usually missing. Misinterpretations also exist among Muslims. As someone who has researched a little bit about this holy book, I suggest the books by Mullasadra (the Persian scholar who lived about 400 years ago) in Arabic, and the books by Mohammad-javad Gharavi (contemporary Persian scholar) written both in Arabic and Persian. They are unique in explaining the metaphoric meanings of verses in a systematic manner. I am eager to see more of this kind of talk from you. Good luck.

    • Rafhan Afzal says:
      December 12, 2010 at 3:53 am

      wake up shahab … read my second comment …. i know she will not publish it …. it is a subtle propaganda …

  31. Khaled Temsah says:
    December 11, 2010 at 7:42 am

    I wish there is a medium through which we can enjoy a longer version of your presentation. It is superb to see the Quran interpretation through the eyes of a non Muslim and refreshing at the same time. thank you for a great talk.

  32. Purvis says:
    December 11, 2010 at 8:17 am

    Thank you so much for your wonderful analysis. I strongly suspect that you have put more time and effort into understanding the Qur’an than many (if not most!) Muslims, myself included. Blind faith is never a good thing.

  33. Rukhpar Mor says:
    December 11, 2010 at 9:12 am

    I found your video on a friend’s facebook page. I really enjoyed it. THank you=)

  34. Siham says:
    December 11, 2010 at 11:02 am

    You have managed to capture the innate peacefulness that represents the true Islam. The tolerance, love, acceptance, and “humanity” we all so desperately seek in ourselves and others.
    Well done!

  35. Mohammed says:
    December 11, 2010 at 12:36 pm

    Peace be unto you sister Leslie. May God reward you and bless you for this beautiful work. [….]

    I thought “Not Buying”‘s comment about the punishment mentioned in the Quran is legitimate. For those who believe in the existence of God, in life after death, and in accountability for their actions in this world, paradise and hell are the reward and punishment mechanisms to transform human life in this world into a peaceful one contemplative of the Divine. But capitalist focus on the “smell of profit in the morning” and economic efficiency has made life on earth a hell.

    For some, the inner tradition (in Islam it is Tasawwuf or legitimate Sufism, not the pseudo one) is the way to “experience” the Divine through the “beatific vision” of God. A polished and refined “heart” is the window to that “beatific vision” and is considered to be a gift from God. The training methodology of the real Sufis is an arduous and long process, requiring a real and legitimate Sufi master.

    A few reading recommendations: ‘The Essence of Sufism’ by John Baldock; ‘Emerald Hills of the Heart’ by Fethullah Gulen; Martin Lings’ books; ‘The Message of the Quran’ by Mohammed Asad; ‘The Meaning of the Holy Quran’ by Abdullah Yusuf Ali. If one can even remotely express the beauty of Quranic language in another language, I think this work reasonably succeeded (I understand many will disagree).

    May God bless us all and bring peace to all of us.

  36. Mike says:
    December 11, 2010 at 3:32 pm

    Wow! Really enjoyed it. So much, so beautifully said, in so few words. Only a houri* can do it.. in 9mn. I’m about to post and send the clip to every one I know. Thanks for sharing

  37. newnovae says:
    December 12, 2010 at 1:35 am

    From the perspective of an agnostic Catholic you have truly reflected my beliefs of the Muslim faith, even though I have yet to read the Koran (much less the Arabic version). I believe Islam to be a peaceful and subservient way of life, much like every other religion.

    I believe that only when one has understood the religious beliefs of many can one put together a picture of who God really is. He does not support the acts of those who would use His name to afflict suffering and He is forgiving of those who stray from ‘the path’ during their mortal lives.

    It becomes difficult ground when we address the differentiating ideas of hellfire being imposed upon those who do not accept the ‘the path’, but I believe it is important we do not cause undue suffering in correcting people in their ways, and that we not put too much weight behind the idea that only one way is right. There are many paths that lead to the same destination, and debating or ostracizing people over semantics is definitely not part of any of them.

    One is only ever truly a sinner by deliberately causing harm and suffering unto people’s lives (unless they are preventing equivalent harm from befalling others), even when they justify their actions by saying that they are saving the eternal souls of others. Only God is capable of making such decisions as most religious texts agree.

    It’s sad that the crux of all of our prophets’ ideas have been washed away by the differences in their accounts, and that people can be persecuted for not following exactly the interpretations of the Divine by a mortal.

  38. Seeker says:
    December 12, 2010 at 4:27 am

    Dear Lesley,
    I read the prologue and first page of the first chapter of your book After the Prophet Muhammad (Salah ho Alaih wa alayheewasalam) . Ive decided not to recommend your book to any one interested in knowing about Prophet Muhammad (Salah ho Alaih wa alayheewasalam). I am afraid that serious false facts about the Prophets(Salah ho Alaih wa alayheewasalam) death have been quoted with out credible reference. The information in the first pages alone, is very wrong. Sad thing is that you are telling this story to good naïve people who know nothing about the Prophet Muhammad(Salah ho Alaih wa alayheewasalam) , and these people shall then believe in this easily palatable Wahabi version that you ( have only read) are narrating just because its told by someone like you whom they can easily identify with. Born 1945? I hope God helps you stumble upon the real truth about the Prophet Muhammad (Salah ho Alaih wa alayheewasalam) and is true successors and Inheritors of Islam…and that you even manage to publish it in your lifetime. But I don’t think its going to happen in your upcoming book about the biography of the Prophet Muhammad (Salah ho Alaih wa alayheewasalam).

    Regards from a seeker

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      December 12, 2010 at 12:16 pm

      Am sorry you feel that way. The primary references, of course, are the sira of Ibn Ishaq/Ibn Hisham, and the tarikh of the great Islamic historian al-Tabari.

      Though I confess I’m a bit stunned: this is the first time anyone’s called me a Wahhabi…

      • ali says:
        December 18, 2010 at 1:40 am

        The problem is that you wrote a book about the beginning of sunni and shia, but you just used sunni references! You looked at the history just from one side’s point of view! And it is surely not fair. It is not like that you are a outside viewer and researcher.
        May be it was better if you had tried to use some more references. Of course I cannot say that if you had used shia references as well, the result was totally different, But I think it was at least fair to spend equal time time to hear both sides.

        • Lesley Hazleton says:
          December 18, 2010 at 9:29 am

          Interestingly, while some Shia critics, like yourself, maintain that ‘After the Prophet’ has a Sunni bias, some Sunni critics maintain that it has a Shia bias. My job was to be as objective as possible while still being readable, and I stand by my research.

      • Mohamed says:
        December 30, 2010 at 9:09 am

        I agree with Ali, I am really happy you have done all that research. Perhaps you can do a follow up and use Shia references as well.

        Shia hadiths come directly from the Imams (Family of the prophet) while the Sunni hadiths come from the companions of the prophet. At the time, there wasn’t Sunni / Shia at that time. The hadiths get written by the narrators and then overtime they get classified as weak or strong. That is why if you read both sides of things, you will notice some narrators are controversial, and some hadiths even contradict. That is when you use your knowledge to know what is better research. Shia and Sunni keywords on the hadiths is basically just different classifications of what books they believe are strong.

        In the farewell sermon which is authentic for both Shia’s and Sunnies, the prophet made his will. And perhaps you can use that starting point from both references.

        He isn’t calling you a Wahhabi, I believe he is saying the Salafi references you are using are what Wahhabi’s use (Saudi, Jordan, etc).

        It would make an excellent book for a non Muslim to write about that includes references from Shia’s and Sunni’s hadiths.

        Once again, thanks for your hard work, time and dedication.

    • Saja says:
      December 13, 2010 at 5:34 am

      Seeker, what exactly are you seeking apart from confusion, just because the Menu does not contain your favourite dish then it becomes WAHHABI, just tell me something, what is the definition and what is Wahhabi and what isn’t.

      • ali says:
        December 19, 2010 at 5:00 pm

        I’d really like to know your idea (as a person who made some researches in Islam history) about the event of Qadir that happened at the end of the Prophet’s Hajj. What was the Prophet’s goal from gathering all Muslims in such situation and speaking with them about Ali?

        • Lesley Hazleton says:
          December 19, 2010 at 5:14 pm

          Ali, I’m sorry, but may I suggest that you first read ‘After the Prophet’ and then ask rhetorical questions about it?

  39. Nadia says:
    December 12, 2010 at 7:49 pm

    you are an amazing woman. i could listen to you talk all day. shared this on my facebook page. hope to hear more from you!

  40. SA says:
    December 12, 2010 at 9:08 pm

    Shalom Lesley,

    As it says in the opening verse of the second chapter, “The Heifer”, that the Quran is a perfect book and is meant for those of clean conscience/heart. I think that this is what you portrayed and in doing so, you were able to project the true essence of the Quran. This is God’s mercy to us, that is, to truly find Him, you have to be void of any prejudice.
    Unfortunately, terrorists and Islamophobes do not have a clean heart.
    Thank You
    SA

  41. starmomi says:
    December 13, 2010 at 5:10 am

    I saw your video today, and had to chime in with another thank you!
    I look forward to reading your biography of the beloved Prophet. Just wondering if you have read the ones by Martin Lings and Karen Armstrong and what you thought of them?

    Peace & blessings.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      December 13, 2010 at 8:20 am

      Thank you. The biography I’m working on (research nearly finished, and actual writing now beginning) focuses on the social, psychological, and political aspects of Muhammad’s life and work — and begins not with the first revelation, but with his birth as an orphan. There have been several excellent books on Jesus as a revolutionary political thinker and a deep believer in social justice, but comparatively little on Muhammad as one. I wanted to know why this man, at this time, in this place? And I now think I may be able to to shed some light on those questions.

      • Armaj Ali says:
        December 18, 2010 at 3:03 pm

        Dear Lesley,

        Big up to you for all your works on throwing water upon burning minds. As you say, your research is nearly finished, and I’m not sure if you included this book http://kitaabun.com/shopping3/product_info.php?products_id=76 in your readings, but i guess in order to grasp all those aspects you mentioned its important to know the person from which those facets stem.

        This is a classical reading of one of the earliest masterpieces on Prophet Muhammad (S). I hope it all goes well.

        Peace

  42. Saja says:
    December 13, 2010 at 5:49 am

    What an incredibly beautiful and gracious presentation, clearly, the lady is gifted, may Allah guide and bless her Ameen.

  43. Professor Mahmoud Elsayess says:
    December 13, 2010 at 9:30 am

    Lesley Hazleton gave a well balanced and critical presentation regarding the Holy Koran

    Thank you

  44. Abdo says:
    December 13, 2010 at 9:43 am

    Your presentation reached the inner depths of my amygdala, activating my tear ducts and sending me on an emotional high. I am looking forward to your book on Prophet Muhammad and hoping it will feature a psychosocial analysis of his character.

  45. cab says:
    December 13, 2010 at 12:30 pm

    We read people discussing the video, one said: She’s Pro Islam, another said: No, she’s Anti-Islam.
    As long-time readers of Ms Hazleton’s work, we are confident that she is neither Pro NOR Anti…. She has always taken an interest in a subject, usually a misunderstood and/or misinterpreted one, and explored it until – with great excitement – she unwraps it, turns it inside out, examines it from every angle she can find, and then puts the result of her inquiry into language and cultural concepts that we can relate to….besides being ruthlessly honest….and exemplifying the qualities that for her remain ” ‘forever England’ – honesty of detail, honesty of perception, and above all, honesty to oneself.” [which is how she ended her Prologue to the poetically beautiful 1980 book on the Sinai – WHERE MOUNTAINS ROAR].

  46. kaiyan says:
    December 13, 2010 at 6:39 pm

    Dear, Ms. Hazleton,
    Thank you for your eloquence,objectivity and noble effort to understand Quran in times of great discord. I sincerely hope you write a book about your understanding of Quran. Muslims defintely need fresh and scholarly analysis of Islam , especially Quran .

  47. kaiyan says:
    December 13, 2010 at 7:01 pm

    @ Not Buying: — I am very impressed by your readings of various facets/sources of islam to understand its current form/state.

    Quranic translations/interpretations by Mr. Ghulam Ahmed Pervaiz (tolueislam.com) and Dr. Shabir Ahmed (ourbeacon.com) argue that the concept of hell and heaven is more allegorical then literal. it is the state of mind which is tormented by guilt/shame by not accepting universal principles of humanity i.e justice,equality and human potential. So actually it is resisting these core universal values which will prohibit further nourishment of human soul/personality to ascend to higher level of afterlife in whatever form. […]

    Hadiths written 3 centuries after the prophet portray this literal interpretation of hell and heaven which is ironically more in sync with the bible than the Quran.

    • Nora says:
      December 15, 2010 at 5:37 pm

      I like to believe your understanding of heaven and hell as allegorical. This makes the idea of religion makes more sense. I also like to believe that God, heaven and hell are not exactely like we imagine from cartoons where angels have wings and heaven is enclosed by Golden gates. I strongly believe in John Locke’s philosophy on how man’s understanding and knowledge is limited to his senses (after having to start off from scratch about my religious beliefs and my idea of truth, my reason has confirmed to me that there is a God at this point). Therefore imagined GOD himself communicating to man; it’s almost like a professor teaching a foetus advanced physics. God then would obviously put things into terms we could understand. So when God describes himself as light powered by an olive tree etc… in the Quraan, my understanding of things in the Quraan became easier to fathom.
      But the only part on which I’m stuck rightnow is the understanding of justice in the quraan. The punishment of adulturers, thieves, how men should treat their wives, etc… I can’t seem to find the right ressources that would provide me more facts and more accurate translations.

      • munaqaba says:
        December 16, 2010 at 5:18 am

        As i understand it, the punishments are there as deterrants. It helps to look at the biography of the Prophet Muhammad to see how these were applied. For example, only 2 adulterers were punished, both because they asked for the punishment to be meted out, even though the Prophet turned away from them repeatedly. The option is always there for the sinner to repent, and there is no “vigilantism” in Islam.

      • Ramla Akhtar says:
        December 27, 2010 at 12:44 pm

        It may be useful to study the roots of Arabic words:

        http://www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm

        Words, especially, Quranic Arabic words, do not have a singular meanings — nor is the Qur’an in a single, flat voice. It is in many voices. In fact, it constructs a ‘world’ similar to how a the script for a dramatic play would create a world. Yet if one were to read the script with a flat eye and ear, sensing no nuance nor metaphors, they would find no sense or spirit there. Indeed, they may wholly misread the meaning. For instance, if one misses sarcasm or irony, they might take it literally.

        The Qur’an does say that “Allah sets forth parables” [24:35]. And so, we need not fear when boldly examining the Qur’an and asking ourselves what the metaphor may indeed allude to.

        Further, it may be so that within various contexts, and to different people, a single metaphor means different things.

        That has to be a true if a book with finite pages and words is ‘universal’ in any sense at all.

        Regards.

  48. Kaiyan says:
    December 13, 2010 at 8:27 pm

    Ms.Hazleton I have read you are in the process of writing a book on prophet Muhammad and will be getting references from Tabari’s work as well. I came across website ourbeacon.com by Dr. Shabir Ahmed . He has done extensive reasearch on Islam’s history,role of Imams in shaping modern day Islam and it’s religious rituals by hadidths and rawayats.He has several misgivings about Imam Tabari’s work.
    food for thought for your scholarly mind.
    thank you

  49. Meezan says:
    December 14, 2010 at 12:08 am

    This is an outstanding speech. I come from a religious background but believe in humanity more than anything else. I look forward to reading your books. I too am inquisitive of all the faiths and schools of thought and i do wonder how you keep your sanity intact among all the crap that people sometimes throw at you because of it.

    Cheers.

  50. imtiyaz says:
    December 14, 2010 at 10:07 am

    hi

    loved the talk

    thanx

  51. b.y says:
    December 14, 2010 at 11:53 am

    Amazing talk!

  52. abdul says:
    December 14, 2010 at 12:41 pm

    Thanks nice talk
    I hope this is part one from series of talks about Quran.

  53. Maha says:
    December 14, 2010 at 12:46 pm

    Dear Lesley,

    I think it is beautiful that you took three months out of your life to closely read and study another religion. I would love to do the same and learn about other religions so that such sacred religions which hold values and believes that have given hope, love, understanding of the world, imagination of the future, understanding to life, death, behavior, actions, and history to the believers across decades of generations continue to be respected, not necessarily accepted.

    You have inspired me to learn about a religion I have always been curious about. Those nine minutes have helped your audience and online viewers take a calmer glance at a religion that has been used as a scapegoat in the last century for everything that went wrong in the world, even if there was no relevance at all…

  54. Varda says:
    December 15, 2010 at 4:28 am

    3 decades ago, Lesley wished to become the mayor of Jerusalem. I still vote in favor.
    I was a student in the Academy of Art and Design; she was already a known writer. We were friends in Jerusalem, fascinated with east Jerusalem and neighboring villages, exploring the old city, meeting Muslims perhaps for the first time in our lives. We had a few years in which both people realized there is a way to coexist. Both sides were curious and hospitable. There was friendship.

    I was twenty something, knew nothing about Islam, so I decided to design a Mosque. I went to the Wakf in the old city and was welcomed. They showed me El Aksa mosque, explained a few principles and rituals, and I got their idea of a sacred place. Stranger in a strange land…as Lesley says, a tourist… sketching plans and sections. I designed a mosque on a lake (literally, chose a lot of land in east Jerusalem, to be dug and filled with water). There was a bridge from the secular towards the holy, a purification place and a shy entrance hiding the inner court and spaces, unique indoor domed areas…unseen from the outer realm. I did it with care, crafting each corner, each bench in the courtyard…a hidden garden…I cared for the people, I drew each figure, they were meditating, engaging in peaceful thoughtful activities….

    Two years later, they were preaching hate and calling for war in El Aksa, and I was on the Temple Mount again with a camera, photographing the Israeli army bursting into the grounds, hitting the prayers. I was shocked to see our vision collapse. The bloody pictures were rejected by the newspaper. Too realistic.

    I left to England to continue my studies, Lesley left to the States. The right wing hooligans from both sides prevailed. Most of us gave up eventually, but we tried and we did as much as we — a non violent group — could.

    When I returned it was to a different country. No more friends, no more visits to the Old City. It was a place of war and intifada. It was painful. I became impatient, bitter. All the love I had finished, all the hopes disappeared. I breathed daily fear and hate, I saw Sharon and Netanyahu preaching violence and hate while Rabin was making peace, I looked at both people without respect and imagined God, Jesus and Mohamed walking hand in hand away into the deeper space, leaving those apes to their territorial wars. There was no spiritual existence in the land. I saw pigs become vegetables, I saw terrorists reduce to dust, I understood the reason for vomiting without eating. I became frustrated. I gave up. [….]

    Human evolution took a new phase some 6,000 years ago when language began to manifest. The Garden of Eden, in the Hebrew bible, is a bit different to that of the Koran. The bible, written in Hebrew, describes it as the realm of the Hebrew language of the one god, the garden of Otiot and Sfirot, the tools prepared for Adam nearly 6 thousand years ago, on earth. The physical environment was perhaps as we know it now, the same for all living animals and humans on earth, with trees, water springs etc, but the main trees are of knowledge and of Life. Life “Chaim” means to talk (“sach” la-suach) and while you talk, the meaning is understood in that specific language only. It is not merely the sound of language which captures your attention, we humans must get the meaning otherwise it remains music (birds, for instance, sound beautiful, but we do not understand their meaning) [….]

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      December 15, 2010 at 3:01 pm

      A slight clarification, Varda: playing with the idea of being mayor of Jerusalem was connected of course to Yehuda Amichai’s famous poem that starts: “It’s sad to be the mayor of Jerusalem. / It’s terrible./ How can any man /Be the mayor of a city like that?” Or any woman. It was a consoling daydream for me at that time — a fantasy about turning the city into an independent city-state for both Palestinians and Israelis. As you imply, more of a pipedream now.

    • Kashif says:
      February 2, 2011 at 12:14 am

      I truly admire your thoughts and feelings that are based upon nothing but a spirit of peace and love. I do believe that it is not religion that has made things worse but it is misuse of religion by the malecious powers for their specific agendas that may be economic, political, customery or else. If there are no human beings, there would be nothing to rely upon or do with. A human’s life is much much more important than any ideaology……………….

  55. AR says:
    December 15, 2010 at 4:46 am

    Great talk, thoroughly enjoyed every minute of it and as a native arabic speaker I could not have experessed the “uniqueness” of the Arabic script of the quraan better than you did.

    Looking forward to reading that biography you’re writing…

  56. Bushra says:
    December 15, 2010 at 10:03 am

    Miss Lesley, Greetings of peace. I was left like many of your other readers wanting for more. I think it was a truly admirable undertaking on your part to read the Quran in its entirety, something some of our Muslim brothers and sisters cannot boast to have done. Sure they read the Arabic but the true meaning of the Quran is not truly delved in. God wanted Muslims to have a curious mind and to travel the world to gain knowledge, instead they only traveled as far as their nearest mosque to gain the knowledge from another untravelled un-opened mind. Quran is not for Muslims alone and so I do not doubt that you as an agnostic Jew could have found the meanings in its subtleties. Kudos to you maam. If you like I could tell you of one sect in Islam that have a very similar (enlightened) understanding of Quran. A sect that had declared Jihad of the sword was no longer necessary or an option some 120 years ago. For more information and an excellent translation of the Quran see alislam.org.

  57. Abraham says:
    December 15, 2010 at 3:25 pm

    Very nice to hear this. I want to listen more of it so that many other misconceptions are cleared. I appreciate your hardwork and curiosity in search of truth. May God guide us all.

  58. Nora says:
    December 15, 2010 at 5:13 pm

    I enjoyed this and I can see you writting a book about the Koraan next. I’ll be looking forward to that.
    peace&love

  59. Iftikhar Zaman says:
    December 15, 2010 at 9:41 pm

    I loved your striving.

    I have studied Islam in a madrassa and have a PhD from NELC from Chicago–so I qualify as an Orientalist! For a number of years I have been working on ways to engage students with the Quran. Often people talk without reading; read with hearing–their noise seems to drown out much that is useful.

    Please take a look at http://iftikharzaman.webs.com. Relevant to you would only be the material accessible from the “2 Quran 1” session on the left navigation tab. You will note that I came to the same conclusion you did: read multiple translations.

    Regards,
    Iftikhar

  60. nmr says:
    December 16, 2010 at 5:42 am

    simply beautiful.

    check this out. not being preachy but it talks about why the quran’s miracle can only truly been seen in arabic.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcmAbkZwRRI

  61. rehmat1 says:
    December 16, 2010 at 6:04 am

    A good understanding of Islam. There are no 72 Virgin in paradise – as Michael Moore quoted Jesus in his book ‘Where is my country dude’: “There is only one virgin in paradise and she is my mother Mary. Try to touch her and (as Lord of Christians) I will kill you”.

    Military Jihad in Islam only become lagal when all peaceful negotiations fail with an enemy. Even then, if Muslims are attacked – they’re only allowed to kill the combatant enemy – not the women, children or elderly people. The POWs are allowed but freeing them without compensation – is a great charity according to Holy Qur’an.

    One of the bogus lies about Islam is the so-called “Radical Muslim”. Since that means following the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) – I am proud to be a ‘radical Muslim’.

    http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/04/02/nothing-wrong-being-a-radical-muslim/

  62. Howard Thomas says:
    December 16, 2010 at 6:39 am

    Hi Lesley,

    Re: Muslims are permitted to kill unbelievers “…only if they attack you first”

    This is one of the most dangerous and tragic lines in the Quran.

    It is so because what constitutes an attack is “in the eye of the beholder’. Thus it is easy for a zealous Muslim to claim divine sanction for attacking an unbeliever if he, is first ‘attacked’ by the Unbeliever asserting that Allah does not exist or that Mohamed was rather less than perfect.

    • Nora says:
      December 16, 2010 at 7:21 pm

      It’s funny how your mind managed to get there.
      If the nonbeliever attacks you first then you respond in the same form of attack that he attacked you with. But like Lesley said “god is merciful, forgiveness is supreme, and so better if you don’t”
      Plus if you look at arabic linguistics you will see then that the form of attack being spoken of can only apply to violent physical ones. English and Arabic are different if you haven’t listened 2 the entire video.
      So a nonbeliever asserting that God does not exist would a- not be considered an attack b- even if it were then it can only be responded to by the same form of “attack”

  63. rehmat1 says:
    December 16, 2010 at 1:36 pm

    Howard Thomas – Looking through your eyes what foreign Jews and Christians are doing in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and Philippines – is quite kosher according to the Bible and Talmud, therefore, Muslims should not be fighting the foreign intruders, right!!

    Thank for understanding divine message in Qur’an vs BibleTalmud.

  64. Smith says:
    December 16, 2010 at 5:30 pm

    Hi Lesley.

    Excellent talk but I did feel that you were mocking the virginity of Mary at the end.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      December 16, 2010 at 6:57 pm

      As I wrote in my ‘flesh-and-blood’ biography of Mary, the literal focus on the intact hymen seems to me a sad diminution of the original, metaphorical idea of virginity. Think ‘virgin forest’, for example — teeming with life and fecundity. That, I think, is what would have made Mary smile.

      • Abdullah says:
        December 17, 2010 at 3:11 pm

        I am glad Smith raised this issue. As enthused as I am overall, this did mar the talk, as the Qur’an explicitly proclaims the literal chastity of Mary, a paragon of virtues to be admired and emulated by believing man and woman alike.

  65. Abdullah says:
    December 16, 2010 at 5:32 pm

    Excellent. And glowing feedback from Muslim family and friends. A big hit.

  66. Nora says:
    December 16, 2010 at 7:54 pm

    Hello Lesley,
    I guess it’s not cool for me to comment again, but seeing that you respond sometimes I just wanted to take a hit and see if you would reply. I’ve been going through a phase with my faith. I’m starting from scratch. I believe that faith is only rational when that which one is faithful too is based on proof or some sort of evidence. So I’m re-studying Islam, without my parents teaching me or any one for that matter who does not use evidence to back up their opinions. I’ve found many reasons for me to stay a muslim (since one should never blindly follow any religion and I should be no exception). However I’m currently conducting a study about justice in Islam in terms of Fiqh.
    So far I believe that if God has given us the Quraan then the Quraan must contain evidence of God. & That God did not only live at the time of the prophet. So the Quraan should contain revolutionary times that speak for justice and equality which could be applied in any time and place. I know you’re not a muslim, but please tell me what it is that you find full of justice in terms of Fiqh ( so marriage, punishments, etc.)

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      December 17, 2010 at 10:40 am

      Nora — I’m afraid you assume that I know far more than I do. True, I do see Muhammad’s life as devoted to the idea of what we now call social justice. In fact I think every religion arises out of that impulse (and alas, all too often, loses touch with it as time goes on). But as a writer, my quest is not to establish universal principles, but simply (though of course it is far from a simple task) to see Muhammad as he was, in the seventh century.

      As an agnostic, I approach the Quran as I do other holy books — with as fresh an eye as I am capable of, considering it within the framework of its time and place.

      Meanwhile, the idea of the existence of a universal and absolute truth, whether in religion (any religion) or in science, is one I find very problematic, and I’ll be posting about this soon in a continued inquiry into what I call “the truth problem.”

      • Armaj Ali says:
        December 18, 2010 at 3:26 pm

        Dear Lesley,

        Sorry, I know I’ve commented on a response of yours earlier but I had to add something to this as well 🙂

        As you say, you prefer inquiry over belief. The beautiful thing I notice from my reading of the Qur’an is that it forces you to inquire, and if you don’t it asks you plenty of questions to think about, without often giving you a follow-up answer “Were they created of nothing? Or are they themselves the creators? Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay, but they have no assurance” (Interpretation of the meaning Ch.52-V:35-36).

        Faith is often born of doubt.

        Peace

  67. Sadat Anwar says:
    December 18, 2010 at 5:52 am

    *Whew* Oh boy. It’s not every morning that I wake up and an agnostic Jew moves me to tears. I’m very moved. Thank you for approaching this topic with such an open mind and heart. The comment that the Qur’an is flexible in minds that are not fundamentally inflexible is a classic. I will remember that one.

    Much peace and love; may God guide you and me.

  68. readquranonline says:
    December 19, 2010 at 12:34 pm

    Very nicely done.

  69. Lucia says:
    December 20, 2010 at 12:09 pm

    Absolutely loved it! A message that surely should be passed over and over, I have shared it on my facebook.
    After living a few years in the Middle East myself and seeing first hand how it is misundertood by the West, it is of great importance to bring the gaps of the borders closely together to the humanity that binds us all…
    Thank you for putting it all so well!!!!
    Lucia

  70. Rehenuma says:
    December 20, 2010 at 9:48 pm

    Beautiful talk from beginning to end. You did an excellent job of describing why Muslims love the Quran and its special appeal, its cadence and rhythm. It was exciting also to hear someone speak so richly about the Qur’an because that is the way in which it speaks to you, in melody, meter and rhyme and with carefully chosen words, metaphors and allegories. I hope you continue your explorations and inspire others to open their eyes, ears and minds to think deeply and to ponder the universe, creation and the little and big questions of life.

    To the naysayers and hair splitters, should we really even spend another moment arguing about what might happen to us in a mysterious alternate life when we could spend that energy ensuring that we enjoin good and forbid wrongdoing right here and now? God is just telling us that belief is central to any action, good to bad, it all begins from a belief about something, someone, somewhere.

    Thank you for your well said words. They are like the springs in the garden, satisfying the thirst of many for clarity, truth and assurance.

  71. Imran Shahid says:
    December 21, 2010 at 2:37 am

    Absolutely awesome,” Heavenly Breeze ” A single women standing against whole worlds media.
    What a miracle. God must be proud of you Lesley Hazleton.

  72. Rikaz says:
    December 21, 2010 at 5:39 am

    “Reading goes faster if you don’t sweat comprehension.” – Calvin

  73. Rikaz says:
    December 21, 2010 at 5:29 pm

    I would dearly like to know why the first part of my message was ‘moderated’ unless I haven’t heard and ‘Kolb’s Learning Cycle’ has become a hated word!

    (Rikaz, posted 21.12.10 @ 0539)

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      December 21, 2010 at 5:48 pm

      Because you hadn’t bothered to say who or what Kolb was. Now that you have, I checked it out http://www.ldu.leeds.ac.uk/ldu/sddu_multimedia/kolb/static_version.php
      but am not much the wiser. It seems self-evident to me, and needlessly schematic.

  74. Rikaz says:
    December 22, 2010 at 8:23 am

    The Quran is au courant as a 1400-year-old book can be. The final cycle of learning is experimentation with what you have learnt.

    Surely the purpose of finding water is to quench one’s thirst?

  75. Zamalek Bek says:
    December 26, 2010 at 5:33 am

    Read ‘After the Prophet a few months ago and enjoyed it greatly. You certainly give the feeling immediacy, being ‘there and now’.

    Saw the above lecture this morning and was pleased to have a face and voice to connect to the writing as well. Well done – I like your style.

    I live and work in Arish – where you were the year you said you were in Sinai to which you referred in the talk.

  76. SusanB says:
    December 26, 2010 at 4:17 pm

    Dear Ms.Hazelton:

    Thank you for this gorgeous presentation. I am only now embarking on a serious, uninterrupted reading of complete Qur’an. As member of the Baha’i Faith, I’ve studied portions, but your presentation inspires me to keep on for an uninterrupted reading. Baha’is believe in one “true faith” comprised of many Books, many Names and many Religions. We believe spiritual reality is as you alluded, lovely and colorful as the flowers in a beautiful garden, fed by flowing waters. With your help and insight, no doubt we will arrive to that paradise of understanding a bit sooner. Write on! Best regards

  77. J Javed says:
    December 28, 2010 at 6:35 am

    I just wanted to my add my 2c and compliment you on this video, it was excellent, and you deserve much credit for taking the steps that very few do take… which is to read the Qur’an in its entirety.

    May Allah guide you to the truth 🙂

  78. Ahmed Talaat says:
    December 29, 2010 at 2:32 pm

    Wonderful presentation. Thank you for clear and light presentation.

  79. Ayah says:
    December 31, 2010 at 4:31 pm

    You are GRACE trapped in the body of a woman!!!
    My lady, you are brilliant!!!

  80. Antonella says:
    January 4, 2011 at 11:04 am

    Hi, I’ve just heard your talk and I wanted to thank you and congratulate you.

    It was deep and at the same time light and – as you rightly remark – much needed in times of growing fundamentalism from all sides.

    I’ve seen it because a friend of mine, a well know protestant feminist theologician, put it on her fb, commenting that it is a pity that she doesn’t catch everything, English not being her mother tongue.

    Is there by chance a transcript of the talk somewhere? You do speak clearly, still it would be a help for people speaking other languages than English.

    Thank you in advance and
    Best Wishes!

    Antonella

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      January 4, 2011 at 4:23 pm

      Thank you Antonella.
      The transcript is right here: http://bit.ly/h9TOmV
      and the video is now also up at http://www.ted.com where translations into more languages will soon be available.

      • Antonella says:
        January 4, 2011 at 4:34 pm

        Wow! Thank you so much for your swift reply and especially for the transcript! My friend will be happy!

  81. john says:
    January 4, 2011 at 12:38 pm

    Thank you for your wonderful presentation.

  82. Lesley Hazleton’s TEDx Talk on the Quran says:
    January 5, 2011 at 8:07 am

    […] http://accidentaltheologist.com/2010/12/05/my-tedx-talk-on-the-quran-the-video/ […]

  83. Haroun Kola says:
    January 5, 2011 at 8:11 am

    Great talk. I learnt much of the holy book from the religion that I was brought up in 🙂

  84. Lesley Hazleton’s TEDx Talk on the Quran says:
    January 6, 2011 at 2:12 pm

    […] http://accidentaltheologist.com/2010/12/05/my-tedx-talk-on-the-quran-the-video/ […]

  85. Muhannad says:
    January 7, 2011 at 2:09 pm

    Dear Lesley,

    I watched your video on Youtube, I am a moderate committed Muslim and I wanted to thank you for pointing out what I believe is the heart of the problem, Islam is misunderstood. Unfortunately for us it is misunderstood not just from non Muslims but even more with many Muslims. I believe that your point of taking one verse and blowing it out of proportion is equally true with Muslims as it is with anti Muslims to fit their own beliefs that ultimately cater to their self centered interpretations. Distinguishing Quran from other books written by Humans is key as you said to understanding it.

    Thank you, Muhannad.

  86. A fellow tourist says:
    January 10, 2011 at 10:41 am

    Dear Lesley,

    I really appreciate and respect your permanent inquiry, in the manner of Voltaire who wrote “Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is an absurd one”, which is the best illustration (in my view at least) of the spirit of enlightenment.
    However, personally, when those intoxicating doubts come to the fore I blame it on myself and try -as you admirably do- to bridge the gaps in my knowledge, recalling the lines of Alexander Pope:

    A little Learning is a dang’rous Thing;
    Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring:
    There shallow Draughts intoxicate the Brain,
    And drinking largely sobers us again.

    In that spirit, I would like to ask your kind self about the authorities you will be referring to in writing the biography of the Prophet and whether you considered any Sufi authorities -which are (mostly) not yet translated into European languages?

    Kind regards,

  87. Ashraf Hussein says:
    January 11, 2011 at 5:49 am

    The flavor of the deepest spirit of Islam

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq0g4Y5JS2E&feature=related

    There is No God but Allah – لا إله إلا الله
    http://www.youtube.com

    “There is No God but Allah” Music for Meditation by Mostafa Moftah.

  88. Ashraf Hussein says:
    January 11, 2011 at 6:54 pm

    According to Three metamorphoses of the spirit

    Analise This:)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_uFDSQ_Ius&feature=related
    *********

    From the movie
    “Auch Zwerge Haben Klein Angefangen”
    Criminala or Even Dwarfs Started Small
    by Werner Herzog in 1970.

    Source: The Cinema of Werner Herzog, free trade publishing

  89. Ali Elsalik says:
    January 18, 2011 at 3:04 pm

    Dear Ms Hazleton,
    Many thanks for your splendid work.
    I’d be really grateful if you could kindly check the email I sent you.
    Ali

  90. Khadar says:
    January 19, 2011 at 9:21 am

    Now i can stop crying, and thanks to you..

  91. What 72 virgins? Lesley Hazleton on reading the Koran | InterFaith21 says:
    January 21, 2011 at 7:13 am

    […] Bible Study Course just stared up again at  Bethesda-by-the-Sea) for recommending this wonderful video of Lesley Hazelton’s 9-minute talk so aptly described at the TED […]

  92. TJ says:
    January 27, 2011 at 4:12 pm

    In my careful analysis of the quran, I came across an arabic word that describes for me, really the esssence of the quran that is so often dismissed by those who want to see only the “light” of the quran and dismiss the “darkness”. I’m talking of “nashk” or abrogation. Abrogation suggests that early recitations by the Prophet are abrogated by the latter. Since the quran was not compiled in order of recitation but rather length, Nashk is often left to the interpretation of “scholars” or would be scholars like Osama Bin laden.

    The most often quoted sura of fundamentalists and anti-islamists is the so-called verse of the sword,(9:5) which engenders violence in the here and now on disbelievers. If nashk is considered here, we will see that the tolerance advocated in the early meccan suras are abrogated by the latter medinan suras like 9:5.

    While i applaud miss hazeltons attempt to only see the good in the Quran (a worthwhile endeavor when trying to convince people to leave judgement to God), I think the fundamentalists of Islam see the quran for the way it truly is: a means to separate the ‘righteous” from the chaff. In other words, mere belief that Muhammed was a Prophet, and that his words are God’s will merit you paradise, while unbelief merits death here and now because one is already in “hell” without Allah.

    • Ana says:
      January 28, 2011 at 5:12 am

      that’s a highly innacurate understanding of abrogation.

  93. sb says:
    January 27, 2011 at 8:46 pm

    If we want to see light in the Qur’an, we will see it. If we believe it is full of darkness, we will stumble though it blindly. Our media culture has been broadcasting fear and ignorance for ten years’; I for one, believe 1.2 billion people are not easily fooled, they must be receiving something deeply spiritual from this Holy Book. It’s time for us to see beauty in Islam . . .Ms. Hazleton helped us achieve this in spades.

    • TJ says:
      January 28, 2011 at 3:02 am

      of the 1.2 billion people, many were born into it, and according to the sunnah which 80% of the worlds muslims adhere to, leaving islam merits death. Its not that they are easily fooled but they are led to believ that leaving islam will merit them death and/or eternal damnation. thats coercion.

  94. sb says:
    January 28, 2011 at 5:35 am

    TJ, you said: “they are led to believ that leaving islam will merit them death and/or eternal damnation. thats coercion”

    Please study the history of Indonesia. Islam continues to grow around the world. Are new believers in the message of the Qur’an ‘coerced?” I think not. Doesn’t the same message of eternal damnation redound from Christian pulpits? Will you condemn Christians, too?

    BTW – TJ, how many Muslims have you befriended? The best way to learn about the Qur’an and the Muslim world is to know the people who follow it. This is my suggested way of overcoming your irrational fear. Islamic culture is vital to world history, having made deep contributions to art, science and religious thought. Try as you might, this can’t be wished away.

    You are focused on the most fundamenaltistic aspect of the Muslim world and this is not fair to the vast body of people who see the wonderment of Islam contained in its Holy Book.

    That is the point of this thread: understanding, not fear, not negation. This is a place where people embrace people, TJ. Try it, fear is boring, It repeats its own cramped arguments over and over and make enemies of otherwise harmless people. Put down your fear and become human.

    • TJ says:
      January 28, 2011 at 7:27 am

      Many people are coerced in christianity as well since eternal damnation is often referred to in the new testamentnt and by various preachers. It is a feature of both religions”believe or you will go to hell” it is fear based. the distinction here is that the quran talks of the right for muslims to Kill non believers. numerous times as in the hadith , particularly al baukari. Are you aware of the hadith where a female poet with 5 children had a sword thrust through her chest by a “pious” muslim volunteer because muhammed was insulted by her words? or how about the poet Ashraf or how about sura 9:5? Believe me I was one of those many people brought up in islam but because i had associations with christians, i found similarities(hellfire allusions) and distinctions”love your enemies and do good to those who harm you” rather than kill the unbelievers wherevere you find them, or “do not take christians and jews as friends” etc adnauseum. I think you SB, need a fresh dose of the reality of the quran and sunnah and particularly the reality of muhammed and his totalitarian manner of running others lives, not to mention , his disgusting perversities. Jesus does not compare. he invites people and for those who ridicule or persecutes him, he forgives them every time.”for they know not what they do” if muhammed is the prime example , then you should follow him in all he does and says. are you willing to do that? I’m not. thats perverse. In islam, violence and death are warranted , in christianity they are not. if you want to ignore the evil in the quran, thats your choice. i i know many muslims who are ignorant of these eveil things and choose to follow the pillars and i applaud them, but i wont deny the evil that is there. denying those realities is what is not human.

  95. sb says:
    January 28, 2011 at 8:01 am

    TJ, While there may be people who misconstrue their own religion, this does not invalidate the actual intended Teachings. God has left no one out; but human beings tend to corrupt religion when left to themselves.

    I need no fresh dose of prejudice; I am awakened and I will not hate, nor will I fear. My expereince of Muslims is caring and spiritual; that is what I sought, that is what I found. I am done with hatred and believe that if religion divides people, it is not religion at all . . . Therefore, I quit this argument, and leave you to your unhappy messages; I doubt you have understood Islam, but are instead filtering policized Islam, which is not Islam at all. Each to their own belief. There can be no coercion in true religion.

  96. tj says:
    January 28, 2011 at 8:08 pm

    you mean , there is no “compulsion’ in religion. a true statement except it was abrogated by latter revelations when Muhammed, the man of the hour, decided to go against that edict by killing unbelievers. the crux of your religion is the man muhammed who was perverse in deed. if he were not essential in your religion he would not mentioned in the Shahada. to be lieve in Allah and to submit yourself to his will, you must submit to the edicts of muhammed and recognize his words. My problem is not with muslims , its with islam in the person of muhammed. i try to help muslim understand that you cannot submit to the will of allah without muhammed and that his example is full of evil, with jesus it isnt so. there are no writings that show an evil side to jesus. the messenger in any religion is paramount. the root word of ignorance is ignore and you are ignoring the evil that is inherent in the “prophet ‘ of islam.

  97. Claudette says:
    January 30, 2011 at 1:10 pm

    Very well done. A couple of thoughts: The oldest written word for “Earth” is found in Old German – “Helle.” All paths lead back to Source or God. Jesus called God Allah. Jesus was a Jew and there is no information to indicate that he stopped being a Jew. He was never a Christian. If you want to know about a country’s government, study their largest religious group. Namaste

    • Dominick says:
      January 30, 2011 at 7:12 pm

      To study about a country’s religion will not tell you much about the people. since all religions have gone thru a feudal time, like the Crusades or the current terrorist period the Islamic world is going thru. My point is all religions profess love. and all religions have killed for a supposed Godly cause. Still seeking for God is an honorable thing. as long as its an inside job.

  98. tj says:
    January 31, 2011 at 5:42 am

    Jesus didn’t follow himself so obviously he wasnt a christian. the term christian came about much later as a sect of judaism. Once they were thrown out of the temple they formulated their own form of worship incorporating the liturgy of the Eucharist with the jewsish liturgy of the Word.

  99. Claudette says:
    January 31, 2011 at 10:15 am

    The government, not the people. They are simply the “followers.” You will know the government. “Religion” only professes love as long as you believe in them. Otherwise, you are meant with judgment, bigotry, hate, war and sometimes emotional or physical torture and death. To the best of my very extensive research based on historical books and religious books indicates that Christianity as a religion as we know it today began in the year 325 with Constantine, as a military ploy to unite the huge Roman Empire that had been and was a constant and large drain of money and men to keep its various districts united. It turned out to be a very successful ploy. It was called the First Ecumenical Council or the Council of Nicea, where the various representatives signed the first Creed. Since Constantine had fed them, gave them copious amounts of alcohol, and had a huge army standing by, only a few refused who were then exiled or killed. Those that signed received a large sum of money and were allowed to supervise their district as a representative of God. It was very successful. It would be later Ecumenical Councils that would find Mary to have a virgin birth, ascension, assumption, etc. The last Ecumenical Council was held in the 1960’s.

  100. Ummer Farooq says:
    January 31, 2011 at 12:29 pm

    Dear Lesley,

    You read the quran in 3 months when it took 20 or so years to be revealed to the Arabs.

    Did you ever get into reading about Quranic literary characteristics?

Madeleine Albright: Going Straight with Islam

Posted November 11th, 2010 by Lesley Hazleton

I’m running this piece by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright whole, from today’s Huffington Post, because although I can pick holes in it till the cows come home (the misleading opposition of “Islam and the West,” for instance;  or the fact that it’s a statement by former foreign ministers, not current ones;  or the fact that only one “Muslim” country, Jordan, is represented),  it seems to me an important and potentially influential attempt to get beyond prejudice, fear, and what Albright calls “superficial courtesy.”  It seeks to establish a base position of respect instead of judgment, and a clear recognition that violent extremist minorities in no way represent the whole.

In fact, the statement could be read as an illustration of this line from the Quran (in Sura 9 if you want to look it up):  “So long as they go straight with you, do you go straight with them.”

One can but hope.

Italics are mine:

The signatories below and I welcome the many initiatives that are underway among governments, in civil society, and within the religious community to expand areas of cooperation between the Muslim community and other actors. President Obama’s trip to Indonesia this week is an important example of the high-level attention that must be given to these relationships. Despite such efforts to enhance communications, serious obstacles remain. In almost every part of the globe, there continue to be people who have chosen — whether out of ignorance, fear, or ill will — to sow conflict where reconciliation is needed. It is up to responsible voices on all sides to make the case for constructive action based on shared interests and values. This is a duty that extends beyond governments alone, to include decision makers and other people of influence from all sectors of society. The standard we seek to achieve is not mere tolerance, but a widespread attitude of genuine mutual respect.

As former foreign ministers, we have a particular interest in solving practical problems. We favor policies and initiatives that will improve the environment for cooperation across the boundaries of nation and creed. We recognize, of course, that the present state of relations between Muslims and the West must be viewed within an historical context and that the terms “Muslim” and “the West” refer to entities that are resistant to easy generalization. We also acknowledge that the prospects for success will be profoundly affected by the future direction of events in such areas of conflict as Afghanistan and Pakistan, and by progress in the Middle East peace process. We believe, however, that certain broad steps can and should be taken to strengthen the foundation for intercultural understanding.

First, we must be willing to conduct an honest self-examination that does not gloss over differences or duck hard issues. Superficial courtesy is easy, but the path to agreement on the application of moral principles is arduous. A dialogue that matters will examine, among other topics, the legacy of imperialism, women’s rights, freedom of worship, the criteria for just war, educational standards, and the appropriate relationship between religious and civil law.

Second, we must communicate better by eliminating from our vocabulary terms that recall past stereotypes or that reflect ignorance or disrespect. The idea that the West has singled out Islam as an enemy is nonsense; so is the allegation that Islam provides a rationale for terrorism. On whatever side, the actions of a few cannot be used to condemn the many.

Third, we must emphasize the firm connection that exists between democratic and Islamic values while also heeding the lesson of Iraq, which is that democracy must find its roots internally. Neither Islam nor any other religious faith should be used to justify despotism or to validate the suppression of civil society.

Fourth, we must establish common ground on questions of immigration and integration in all of our countries and others. Leaders in and outside of government must search for answers that take into account economic and demographic realities, while discouraging reactions based on prejudice or fear. Here, as elsewhere, a balance between rights and responsibilities must be maintained.

Finally, we should continue to expand business, scientific, academic, cultural and religious contacts that provide a social bridge connecting the Muslim world to non-Muslims in the West.

There exists no single instrument for transforming relations. There are, however, a number of tools that can be used by political, religious, business and academic leaders to generate progress. These include official policies, educational initiatives, and public-private partnerships of all types that reinforce certain basic precepts, such as:

  • The common moral foundation of the three Abrahamic faiths;
  • Respect for human rights based on the legal equality of persons and the inherent dignity and value of every human being;
  • A rigorous commitment to truth – in official pronouncements, in the media, in the classroom, and on the Internet;
  • Support for broad-based economic development so that young people everywhere are able to look to the future with hope; and
  • An honest effort to view the world – historically and contemporaneously – through the eyes of the “other.”

Improving the overall relationship between Muslim communities around the world and the West is a task that has political, religious, intellectual, social, cultural, and economic components. It requires the best efforts of leaders from all sectors and from both sides of the divide.

Governments must not shy away from a leading role in this process but rather constantly strive to guide and develop mechanisms for integration in their societies. It will take time and require patience, but the objective is vital if we are to learn from, not repeat, the mistakes of the past.

Madeleine Albright – United States
Halldór Ásgrímsson – Iceland
Lloyd Axworthy – Canada
Shlomo Ben Ami – Israel
Erik Derycke – Belgium
Lamberto Dini – Italy
Alexander Downer – Australia
Jan Eliasson – Sweden
Rosario Green – Mexico
Igor Ivanov – Russia
Marwan Muasher – Jordan
Ana Palacio – Spain
Niels Helveg Petersen – Denmark
Lydie Polfer – Luxembourg
Malcolm Rifkind – United Kingdom
Adam Daniel Rotfeld — Poland
Jozias van Aartsen – The Netherlands
Hubert Védrine – France
Knut Vollebaek – Norway

[Last month, these nineteen former foreign ministers met in Madrid to conduct a far-reaching assessment of the relationship between the West and the “Muslim World.” This post reflects their conclusions.]

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: Islam, sanity, US politics | Tagged: Tags: "Islam and the West", foreign ministers, Madeleine Albright, mutual respect, Quran | 3 Comments
  1. sikander khan says:
    December 11, 2010 at 4:14 am

    Islam is a religion of peace. Some crazy so called Islamists practice what is in fact not Islam at all. As people who really know Quran realize, the current terrorism in the name of Islam is offensive and great sin in the eyes of true Muslims. We share our faith in one god and doing good to others with other people of the book. Finally each of us will carry our own burdens and every body will be answerable for his own actions.

  2. M G Reda says:
    December 17, 2010 at 9:22 am

    Unfortunately these are empty words,and not believable. The legacy of imperialism render the whole letter as a ploy for engagement and self serving statement which is dictated by failed policies of oppression and wars. Repentance in the West for continuing to plunder the whole world is not forthcoming and hence empty wards of cooperation as President Obama admirably delivered in Cairo will continue to stir extremism in Islamic heartland. Deeds are stronger than words, let us change one single policy then people shall believe us.

    • Yusuf says:
      December 23, 2010 at 6:20 am

      My sentiments too, thanks for saving me the time 🙂

Delicious Ignorance

Posted September 28th, 2010 by Lesley Hazleton

Okay, so it’s hard not to crow in ironic delight about this one:  turns out atheists and agnostics score higher than religious Americans on a test of religious knowledge.  Howzat for un-believable!

A new survey released by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life shows that one of the most deeply religious countries in the world — the US — is abysmally ignorant when it comes to the most basic facts of religious belief and observance (though I suspect that the survey could have been about anything — geography, history, politics — and the results would have been equally abysmal).

Before you start in with the crowing, however, consider this:   Even atheists and agnostics averaged only 67% correct answers.  Yup — a basic test of 32 pretty basic multiple-choice questions, and they got only two thirds of them right.

How basic?  Well,  is Ramadan part of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam?   Or does the Jewish sabbath begin on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday?  Or what are the names of the four Gospels?

You can take an abbreviated fifteen-question quiz here (it’s slow, as though it assumes you need time to say a quick prayer before selecting an answer) and  read the summary of the Pew report here.  But to get the full impact of the depth of ignorance, if you can stand it, scroll though Appendix B (a pdf file whose link is at the end of the next-to-last paragraph here).   Make a quick stop at question 34b — have human beings existed in their present form since the beginning of time, or have they evolved over time? — and note that 40% chose “present form since the beginning of time.”

As Percy Bysshe Shelley put it, “Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair.”

Of course the survey was skewed by the choice of possibilities in the answers.  The question “Where was Jesus born?” gave only four options:   Bethelehem, Nazareth, Jerusalem, and Jericho (yes, all four got votes) — a limited range of options displaying a distinct lack of imagination.

Imagine if the Pew researchers had given a few other possible answers to where Jesus was born:   Rome, Eden, Damascus, or Constantinople,  for instance (oh hell, let’s add in Heaven for good measure).  Or if they’d gone political and asked for a choice between Israel, Palestine, Iraq, and Iran.  I’m willing to bet that every one of those options would have received plenty of votes too.

You have to kind of admire Dave Silverman, president of American Atheists, for keeping his crowing volume in check.  Asked for a response to the survey, he replied succintly:   “Atheism is an effect of knowledge, not a lack of knowledge.  I gave a Bible to my daughter.  That’s how you make atheists.”

That’s quite a brilliant concept:  reading the Bible as an atheist conversion tool.   What if all those people so piously quoting phrases and snippets from holy books actually sat down to read them in their entirety?  You think the Quran advocates violence, for instance?   Read Deuteronomy,  and the Quran morphs into a pussycat by comparison.

Books are dangerous things, as fundamentalists recognize.  And none more dangerous than holy books.  Who knows what’d happen if people were to start reading them instead of misquoting them?  Maybe we should start burning Bibles too.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: agnosticism, atheism, Christianity, fundamentalism, Islam, Judaism | Tagged: Tags: Bible, Pew Forum, quiz, Quran, religious ignorance, religious knowledge | 1 Comment
  1. Phil says:
    December 28, 2010 at 8:59 am

    We’re so religious because we’re so ignorant. Widespread faith can never be based in principle.

Islam and Free Speech

Posted September 22nd, 2010 by Lesley Hazleton

My first impulse was to join this declaration, organized by The American Muslim magazine, as a signatory.  Then I realized that oops, I’m not Muslim.   So am running it in full here instead.

The background story:   Molly Norris is the Seattle cartoonist forced to “go ghost” (in FBI parlance) after protesting threats against ‘South Park’ creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker for their gentle ribbing of the ban on depictions of Muhammad (which, incidentally, is far from universal in Islam).    Her protest took the form of declaring an ‘Everyone Draw Muhammad Day’ — a really dumb idea, as she quickly realized, since it only invited hatemongers to ratchet up the rhetoric, and led to threats on her life from Muslim fundamentalists.

But the penalty for dumbness is neither death nor exile.   And as this declaration clearly states, death threats against those who insult Islam are, in fact, anti-Islamic:

A DEFENSE OF FREE SPEECH BY AMERICAN AND CANADIAN MUSLIMS

We, the undersigned, unconditionally condemn any intimidation or threats of violence directed against any individual or group exercising the rights of freedom of religion and speech; even when that speech may be perceived as hurtful or reprehensible.

We are concerned and saddened by the recent wave of vitriolic anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic sentiment that is being expressed across our nation.

We are even more concerned and saddened by threats that have been made against individual writers, cartoonists, and others by a minority of Muslims.  We see these as a greater offense against Islam than any cartoon, Qur’an burning, or other speech could ever be deemed.

We affirm the right of free speech for Molly Norris, Matt Stone, Trey Parker, and all others including ourselves.

As Muslims, we must set an example of justice, patience, tolerance,  respect, and forgiveness.

The Qur’an enjoins Muslims to:
* bear witness to Islam through our good example (2:143);
* restrain anger and pardon people (3:133-134 and 24:22);
* remain patient in adversity (3186);
* stand firmly for justice (4:135);
* not let the hatred of others swerve us from justice (5:8);
* respect the sanctity of life (5:32);
* turn away from those who mock Islam (6:68 and 28:55);
* hold to forgiveness, command what is right, and turn away from the ignorant (7:199);
* restrain ourselves from rash responses (16:125-128);
* pass by worthless talk with dignity (25:72); and
* repel evil with what is better (41:34).

Islam calls for vigorous condemnation of both hateful speech and hateful acts, but always within the boundaries of the law. It is of the utmost importance that we react, not out of reflexive emotion, but with dignity and intelligence, in accordance with both our religious precepts and the laws of our country.

We uphold the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  Both protect freedom of religion and speech, because both protections are fundamental to defending minorities from the whims of the majority.

We therefore call on all Muslims in the United States, Canada and abroad to refrain from violence.  We should see the challenges we face today as an opportunity to sideline the voices of hate—not reward them with further attention—by engaging our communities in constructive dialogue about the true principles of Islam, and the true principles of democracy, both of which stress the importance of freedom of religion and tolerance.
SIGNATORIES:

Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, PhD, Director, Minaret of Freedom Foundation
Prof. Akbar S. Ahmed, PhD, Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies, American University
Prof. Parvez Ahmed, PhD, Fulbright Scholar & Assoc. Prof. University of North Florida
Barbara Al-Bayati, Co-Founder, Orphan Whispers
Wajahat Ali, playwright, journalist, and producer of “Domestic Crusaders”
Sumbul Ali-Karamali, JD, LLM (Islamic Law), author of “The Muslim Next Door”
Salam al-Marayati, Pres., Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC)
Shahed Amanullah, Editor-in-Chief, Altmuslim
Aref Assaf, PhD, President, American Arab Forum
Hazami Barmada, Pres, American Muslim Interactive Network (AMIN)
Farah Brelvi, Board of Directors, ACLU-NC
M. Ali Chaudry, PhD, President, Center for Understanding Islam (CUII)
Robert D. Crane, JD
Almoonir Dewji, blogger – “That We May Know Each Other”
Lamia El-Sadek, political and human rights activitist
Mohamed Elsanousi, Director of Communications and Community Outreach for the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA)
Mona Eltahawy, journalist
Prof. Mohammad Fadel, PhD
Fatemeh Fakhraie, Editor-in-Chief, Muslimah Media Watch
Mike Ghouse, President, World Muslim Congress
Iftekhar Hai, President, UMA Interfaith Alliance
Hesham Hassaballa,  M.D., author, journalist, blogger – “God, faith, and a pen”
Arsalan Iftikhar, author, human rights lawyer, blogger – “The Muslim Guy”
Jeffrey Imm, Director, Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.)
Nakia Jackson, writer
Prof. Muqtedar Khan, PhD, author of several books, Blogger – “Globalog”
M. Junaid Levesque-Alam, writer, blogger – “Crossing the Crescent”
David Liepert, M.D., blogger and author of “Muslim, Christian AND Jew”
Radwan A. Masmoudi, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Islam & Democracy (CSID)
Melody Moezzi, JD, MPH, writer and attorney
Daniel Abdal-Hayy Moore, author of many books of poetry
Ebrahim Moosa, Assoc. Professor of Islamic Studies, Dept. of Religion, Duke University
Sheila Musaji, Editor, The American Muslim (TAM)
Aziz H. Poonawalla, PhD, scientist and blogger – “City of Brass” on Beliefnet.com
Hasan Zillur Rahim, PhD, journalist
Prof. Hussein Rashid, PhD, blogger – “Religion Dispatches”
Robert Salaam, blogger – “The American Muslim”
Raquel Evita Saraswati, activist, writer, blogger
Sarah Sayeed, President of One Blue
Jafar Siddiqui, blogger – “Penjihad”
Prof. Laury Silvers, PhD
Pamela Taylor, Co-founder Muslims for Progressive Values, Panelist for On Faith
Tayyibah Taylor, Editor, Azizah Magazine
Tarik Trad, writer, humorist, photographer, artist and activist
Asma T. Uddin, Attorney, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and Editor, Altmuslimah
Amina Wadud, PhD, consultant on Islam and gender, visiting scholar Starr King School for the Ministry
Svend White, blogger – “Akram’s Razor”, activist, writer
G. Willow Wilson, author of “Butterfly Mosque” and “Air” graphic novel series

NOTE:  If you would like to add your signature, please send an email with your name, title, and organizational affiliation (if any) to tameditor@aol.com.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: fundamentalism, Islam, sanity | Tagged: Tags: cartoons, free speech, Molly Norris, Muhammad, Quran, South Park, The American Muslim | 4 Comments
  1. Nancy McClelland says:
    September 22, 2010 at 12:16 pm

    I love it — but feel compelled to point out that the same type of defense could (and probably should) be written by the members of almost any religion. Certainly, the Bible and the Torah/Talmud express many of the same tenets; we could say “As [fill in the blanks], we must set an example of justice, patience, tolerance, respect, and forgiveness.” But it is just as easy to pick out all the “bad parts” of any religious book, and come up with a letter stating the opposite. My point is that it’s not the religion itself that condemns or hates or tolerates, but people. No matter the background, belief system, culture — we all have an obligation as members of the same race and neighbors on the same planet to act with respect for each other.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      September 22, 2010 at 1:19 pm

      An excellent point indeed.

  2. Dalbir Singh says:
    January 19, 2011 at 5:30 am

    Dear Lesley Hazleton,

    I watched your video on TED and read this post I am truly amazed at your theological approach towards religions. I wish to ask could you do a review on Sikhism as well there is much about Sikhism on http://www.sikhnet.com by American converts (3HO) and http://www.sikhiwiki.org on stories from Sikhism and the Sikh scripture http://www.srigranth.org and http://www.sridasam.org as well as http://www.sikhitothemax.com
    I would much appreciate the conclusions and ideas you may draw from it please do email me when you have reviewed I would be much greatful for your insights into this. How a divine revelation begins to take place to Guru Nanak in the mists of the meeting of two oceans of Hinduism and Islam where Guru Nanak is seen to be a Hindu avtar (Guru) and a Muslims holy man (pr/fakir) and a Buddhist lama – Lama Nanak who goes on a journey by foot around the world trying to bring renaissance to previous existing religions having his message continued by his successor Guru Angad and the tradition being carried to Guru Gobind Singh which is further carried to Guru Granth Sahib.

    Thanks
    Mr Singh

  3. Lorenzo says:
    June 19, 2011 at 2:29 pm

    I have some doubt, if this approach to free speach is representive for a majority of muslims. What Im often wondering is, that it seems to me that many muslims fight for their right of freedom of religion, speach, thinking etc. and take it as a matter of course to attract for their religion (make “dawa” – often offending others world views quite hard) on the one hand, but on the other hand they feel hurted and resist very hard when its the other way round – not to mention the (mostly very gross) punishments in islamic countries for trying to convert people (what makes it difficult or even impossible to talk about one’s own convictions – nice homonominal).

Burning Jesus

Posted September 7th, 2010 by Lesley Hazleton

The most effective way to deal with the two-bit Florida ‘pastor’ planning to make a bonfire of Qurans on 9/11?  No, not string him up by his heels.  Something far more effective:  Ignore him.  Pay no attention.  Zip.  Nada.  Nothing.

But that won’t happen. The old TV newsroom adage is “Flames lead.”  A fire, an explosion, a bombing – all are ways to improve ratings, occasions to appeal to the arsonist apparently latent in the visual mind.  In the incendiary anti-Muslim atmosphere carefully built up over the past few months by ultra-right-wing bigots, no “self-respecting” newsroom director will dream for a moment of holding back.

Never mind that General David Petraeus warns that such an event could place American troops in more danger than ever.  Hey, if Americans die because of this, that’s even more news!  So there they are, all the news directors, salivating at the prospect of a huge, hot weekend:  the festive end of Ramadan and the solemnity of Rosh HaShana on Thursday and Friday followed by 9/11 on Saturday (and, just to add a bit of sentimental spice to it all, Grandparents Day on Sunday).

So the heat is on and the bigots are out in force.  The latest to wave his slimy flag:  Marty Peretz, owner of The New Republic and self-appointed champion of any right-wing Israeli government:

Frankly, Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims…  So, yes, I wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend that they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse.

Let’s not go into the ghastly vision of the state of Peretz’ gut.  Enough to say that white-collar bigots like him provide the gasoline for blue-collar nutcases like pseudo-pastor Terry Jones, a pathetic crackpot right out of a William Burroughs heroin nightmare, whose fifty followers (yes, all of 50) apparently believe that a dove is a bird of prey.

Peretz would never burn a Quran himself, of course.  He might get his hands dirty that way.  Might even burn them.  He leaves that to the gun-totin’ pastor, who has apparently never read the ‘red-letter words’ of the Gospels – the actual words of Jesus.  Ignorance is ecstasy for Terry Jones, who is blithely unaware that he might as well be burning Jesus.

But then that’s what Christian bigots do – they burn the cross.  On other people’s lawns, that is, prior to lynching them by the light of bonfires.  It’s what fascists did just a few years before, using ovens instead of bonfires.  It’s what Catholic clerics did in the Spanish Inquisition, roasting people alive on spits.  As the poet Heinrich Heine wrote: “Those who begin by burning books will end by burning people.”

Could media restraint really hold this back?   The question is moot, because it won’t happen.  When I lived in and reported from Jerusalem, I saw American newsmen shove people to the ground to get a good shot in the aftermath of a bombing.  I saw them practically shouting for joy when there was a terrorist attack which would land them a front-page story or a lead-off spot on the nightly news.   Other people’s disasters were their chance for the limelight.  So they won’t hesitate to help make a nutcase like Terry Jones into an international name, to place naïve American soldiers in danger, and to make Christians the world over targets for retaliation.

All for ratings, all for vanity.  A bonfire of the vanities indeed.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: Christianity, fundamentalism, Islam, ugliness | Tagged: Tags: bigotry, bonfire, burning, David Petraeus, Dove World Outreach church, Islamophobia, Marty Peretz, pastor Terry Jones, Quran, Ramadan, Rosh HaShana, William Burroughs | 7 Comments
  1. lavrans says:
    September 7, 2010 at 9:02 pm

    It’s funny, but I have the same conflicted feelings about the media that I have about education. There’s so much potential, and such a history, of doing truly good deeds; opening people’s eyes to their own follies and illusions, showing them their better facets at the same time they warn us of the ease of following the easy path of bigotry.

    But so often, all that potential is wasted on a headline, even when the headline is the easy point of the day. Like this story about an evil person, the story really isn’t the existence of such a thing, but that the community around him has allowed him and his followers to become what they are; is the whole community bigoted? Does the town all believe the same thing? Does the community manage to survive and become less bigoted because of the controversy (probably- as that town is most likely starting to learn a lot about Islam and the Christian response…).

    We can find that pastor in every country, in almost every community in the world. And the community that doesn’t have some equivalent is probably already controlled so tightly by someone just like him that any dissent is crushed immediately.

    That’s not an interesting story though… or rather, it’s not an interesting headline. “Another bigot plans to incite violence toward those he hates” is just so pedantic. Who cares? But, “plans to burn the Quran stifled by mayor, police” is titillating.

    Makes me think of NCLB…

  2. Lesley Hazleton says:
    September 8, 2010 at 9:42 am

    You’re right, Lavrans — it’s titillation: the trivialization of news. And of course the response of the Gainsville community — from the mayor on down, condemning Terry Jones and his like — has received hardly any coverage.

    Whether people might become less bigoted as a result of the controversy is an interesting question. Can confronting people with their own bigotry work? With the exception of those for whom it defines their lives — the professional bigots, as it were, who rely on it as a means of self-aggrandizement — I tend to think it can. Or maybe I want to think it can…

  3. Zunaid Talia says:
    September 9, 2010 at 11:30 am

    I agree Lesley, as is customary the media is a business that thrives on the dark side of the human persona. With such great access and leverage at their disposal, it is a shame that they don’t use it to promote peace and harmony amongst people.

    I wonder what this infers about us human beings. After all the media are only concerned with ratings and they will always only print the stories they believe will attract the most attention. The media is a business and business as we know, often has no conscience. So we should not be surprised at the position they have taken.

    Clearly this pastor is hopelessly misinformed and based on the information i have at hand, it seems that he is also arrogant. A disastrous combination to say the least. Confronting him might make him even more stubborn. Alternatively, he may be a marketing genius and he has identified the potential to acquire some free advertising for his Church. After all he only has 50 followers at the moment. Incidentally, like millions of people around the world, I hope that reason prevails and that he restrains himself from carrying out this ghastly act.

    As a muslim, I share your view that it might be best to simply ignore this bigot and to deny him the courteousy of an audience.

  4. Ignoring Terry Jones | Harry Katz's Blog says:
    September 10, 2010 at 7:50 am

    […] I agree with author (and my former writing instructor) Lesley Hazleton, who says in her post Burning Jesus, that Florida pastor Terry Jones deserves to be completely ignored.  However, I’m not sure […]

  5. Harry Katz says:
    September 10, 2010 at 8:04 am

    Lesley, I agree Terry Jones deserves to be ignored. I’m less certain we can or should expect the media to do so. Asking the media to ignore (or cover) stories we like (or dislike) seems like a very slippery slope to me.

    More importantly, anyone with a cell phone and a computer is part of “the media” today. And in general that’s a good thing.

    I posted a bit more on this here: http://hskatz.wordpress.com/2010/09/10/ignoring-terry-jones/

  6. Pietra says:
    September 12, 2010 at 11:40 pm

    I have yet to meet the person on the far right who will let fact or truth get between them and the hatred they’ve accepted into their hearts.

  7. Yusuf says:
    January 10, 2011 at 5:02 am

    When I attended Eid prayers, there was a CBC reporter there with a video camera, asking people what they thought about this issue. I was asked and responded that, to my knowledge, burning the qur’an is one of two acceptable ways of disposing of one (the other being burial), and that these people seem to have a lack of respect
    for other peoples scripture, so better they burn
    them then have them in their homes to
    disrespect.
    Apparently, that was as “Fundamentalist” a response as he could get because I don’t think the piece ever saw the light of day.
    After getting over myself Re: the CBC wanting to hear MY opinion, I remembered a story our Imam told during one khutbah. It was around the time of the Salmand Rushdie fatwa controversy. In Ottawa, the same CBC was interviewing people in the Muslim community about their feelings on this topic. Almost everyone asked responded by saying that the man has a right to his opinion and that god would judge him and punish or reward him as he saw fit. The exception was a young man in his teens who agreed with the fatwa. This was the interview which was run. The good thing was that, because of the anger in the Muslim community, the truth was revealed, but only to those interested in digging for it.

Quran Quotes for Bigots – I

Posted August 13th, 2010 by Lesley Hazleton

Tea Partyers are playing rope-a-quote with the Quran .  Not that they’ve read it;  they’ve just picked out ‘the good bits.’  So in honor of Ramadan, here’s the first in a series on what the Quran really says.  Try this for a start:

When God delivers the city into your hands, you shall smite every male with the edge of your sword… You shall save alive nothing that breathes, but shall utterly destroy them all.”

Oops, sorry, wrong book.  That’s Deuteronomy 20, from the peace-loving passage in verses 12 through 18.   Here’s the right one:

Slay the unbelievers wherever you come upon them.

Ah, that’s more like it:  Quran 2, part of verse 187.  Phew.  They really do want to kill us.

Or do they?  Here’s the quote in context:

Fight in the way of God with those who fight with you, but aggress not:  God loves not the aggressors.  And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you;  persecution is more grievous than slaying.  But fight them not by the Holy House unless they should fight you there;  then, if they fight you, slay them.

It helps to know that these verses are very specific:  they refer to the conquest of Mecca, from which Muhammad and his supporters had been expelled eight years earlier.   And they are bound about with conditions:  only if the unbelievers persist in aggression, for example, and only after a truce time expires, and only if they break pre-existing agreements.  Which might be why only eight people were killed.

Meanwhile, over in Deuteronomy 20, it continues this way:

Of the cities of these people which the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall utterly destroy them.  Namely, the Hittities and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizites, the Hivites and the Jebusites.

That’s a lot of people.  And this is far from the only kill-em-all order in the bible.  There’s plenty more in Judges and Samuel, just for starters.   Look up the word “destroy” in a biblical concordance, and you’ll find one of the longest lists it offers.   The entry for peace is barely a quarter as long.

In short, there’s nothing on warfare in the Quran that hasn’t been said at far greater length, far more times, in far more detail and far worse terms, in the Holy Bible that the Tea Partyers hold so dear.

So one more Quranic quote (9:7) seems apt:

So long as they go straight with you, do you go straight with them.

Let’s try that: going straight with each other.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: Christianity, fundamentalism, Islam, Judaism, war | Tagged: Tags: Bible, opposition to mosques, peace, Quran, Ramadan, Tea Party | 8 Comments
  1. Tamam Kahn says:
    August 13, 2010 at 10:13 am

    Thank you for this, Lesley.
    As usual you have poured the ambrosia of wholesome clarity over poisonous muddled thought. I prefer that to the nasty tea being served at the party. Warmly, T’m

  2. Nancy McClelland says:
    August 13, 2010 at 10:37 am

    What a simple and effective way to put this petty “my religion is better than yours” behind us — simple mathematics. The way I see it, the trash talk in the Bible and the trash talk in the Quran cancel each other out. Maybe that’s what they mean by going straight with each other? Start fresh.

  3. Pietra says:
    August 17, 2010 at 9:11 am

    Lesley, your work is immensely appreciated; please give us more. I’ve tried and tried to read the Bible but it’s dangerously heavy when it falls on my face after my eyes drop shut. Sadly, though, the people who should be reading your message will refuse to — they do not want to be confused with facts.

  4. Geo8440 says:
    September 22, 2010 at 7:56 pm

    Love how you so skillfully simplify the commonality of religions. Taking out context, much of what appears in these books can be truly scary. I see it in my Holy book, the Koran when believers take certain ‘ayat’, verses, to justify killing non believers. I am equally distressed when I see how non-Muslims use the same verses to condemn Islam. While the message of Islam is for all the ages, it was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in pieces and as events unfolded. Muhammad’s most vehement enemies were his own Arab tribe. I try to live my life guided by Islam’s mandate: Kill an innocent person and God shall punish you as if you have killed all of humanity. Save a life and your reward as that who has saved all of humanity. For me Islam is the best there is to be a good citizen and a servant of God. I serve others, I do not lie, I do not kill, I take care of my parents, my family and my neighbors and I pay my taxes. A good Muslim is a great citizen.

  5. velvetinabat says:
    June 19, 2013 at 9:02 am

    Lesley, your writing is one of the most important resources I use in my job as a teacher (history, RE & citizenship) in Bradford, England. It has helped me enormously, and I hope, by extension, my pupils. Thank you so much.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      June 23, 2013 at 5:05 pm

      My privilege, V. Thanks for thanking me! — Lesley

  6. Jonathan says:
    May 11, 2015 at 7:03 am

    Not to knit-pick , but even using your own quotes, a very glaring difference in the quotes are obvious. In the bible quote you provide, the limits and context is very specific against whom to fight: Hittities, Amorites, the Canaanites ,Perizites, the Hivites and the Jebusites.
    Historical tribes which no longer exist and not relevant in today’s world, so one could say the verses are no longer applicable , certainly not to christians who have not gone fighting these tribes for a good few centuries now. Nor used these verses to visit terror and destruction on people for a good few thousand years now.

    Like the bible for christians,where the new testament replaces the old testament with Jesus ‘s coming and all. So to does the quran abrogate earlier verses with later verse. Like Mohammed said, when two verses contradict each to her, the latter is to be followed. (The latter being when islam is dominant as opposed to the earlier, when it was not).
    But the point is, the Al Baqra verse you quote (it is actually verse 190, the jihad verse) is later abrogated with chapter (9) sūrat l-tawbah (The Repentance) which states the following:

    “Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.”

    Do you see the difference between the verses?
    The bible places a limitation and context in the war against a people. Meaning it is valid for a specific time,place and people(Hittities, Amorites, the Canaanites ,Perizites, the Hivites and the Jebusites).

    The koran on the other hand, makes it a universal command. Not limited to a time, place or time. But to fight ANYONE who does not believe in Allah perpetually.

    I find it quite revealing that you pinpoint to the tea partiers as being so and so with their bible and beliefs and not reading the quran..( it hints to your bigotry in itself, does it not?). When it is so easy to pick apart your accusation that the bible is so much worse than the quran , and you yourself either ignorantly or willfully deceives with the quran.

    This is like the verse we are ad nauseam fed from the koran:
    “…if any one killed a person, it would be as if he killed the whole of mankind; and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole of mankind…” – The holy quran (Chapter Five, Verse 32).
    This is so fluffy and good is it not? Surely a religion of peace.

    However the full verse reads as follows:
    “On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.”

    and verse 33:
    “The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.”

    Some points about this:
    the fluffy verse explicitly states that this was a commandment to the Children of Israel, i.e. the Jews! This is not a commandment to all people, and it certainly should not be misused as if this is Allah’s command to Muhammad’s people

    And verse 33 is referring to the Muslims, not the Jews anymore, as we can tell in the shift from past tense to present tense. And here, the punishment for mischief is clearly prescribed: execution, crucifixion, mutilation, or at the least, exile. This is the command given to the Muslims. Quite clearly, it does not teach what the Muslims proclaim it teaches; in fact, it teaches almost the exact opposite.

    in conclusion. the bible has some horrible things in it, sure. But they are limited in context as I explained above. The bible had been reformed with the new testament and christianity had been reformed and apologised for its treatment to jews etc.

    the quran has no limitation or context for its horrible commands against all non-muslims. Islam has not reformed and has never apologized for its treatment of non-muslims or its specific jew hatred.

    A final word on your last quote from the quran:
    “So long as they go straight with you, do you go straight with them.”

    The full verse is as follows:
    “How can there be a treaty with Allah and with His messenger for the idolaters save those with whom ye made a treaty at the Inviolable Place of Worship ? So long as they are true to you, be true to them. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty.”

    In simple terms: Don’t make treaties with non-Muslims. They are all evildoers and should not be trusted.

    The entire chapter 9 (Repentance) is filled with how to treat non-muslims. Chilling stuff…

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      May 11, 2015 at 11:55 am

      Cherry-pick away. What strikes me is how very similar the quotes you chose are to statements made re the Palestinians by Israel’s new justice minister, Ayelet Shaked. Who I believe claims to be Jewish…

Is Islam Really Against Satire?

Posted April 26th, 2010 by Lesley Hazleton

An American convert to Islam issues a passive-aggressive death threat against an American icon — South Park — and presto, we have our very own Muhammad-cartoon controversy, with Comedy Central running for cover and otherwise intelligent bloggers demonstratively parading their courage with a chorus of knee-jerk “fuck you’s.”

The South Park ruse of not showing Muhammad by having him hidden in a bear suit, to emerge in the end as Santa Claus, was definitely on the gentle side of satire.  But what’s left unsaid is how un-Islamic intolerance of satire actually is.  In fact, tolerance of it is built into the Quran.

The Quran is nothing if not repetitive.  Again and again, it refers to Muhammad being mocked, sneered at, taunted, laughed at, and derided by his opponents in Mecca and Medina.  It continually cites previous messengers of God, from Abraham down to Jesus, being similarly mocked and derided.  Such mockery becomes almost an honorable tradition, a kind of inverted proof of the truth of the message.

This obsessive harping on the issue is a way of comforting Muhammad, telling him to persevere.  With the same obsessiveness, he is told to “be patient,” to ignore those who mock him, and to “turn away” from his tormentors.  Their punishment will come on the Day of Judgment, God tells him.  Punishment is God’s to wield, not Muhammad’s.

But since the Quran is as contradictory as any other religious text (the first two chapters of Genesis being a prime example), it also contains the infamous “sword verse,”  telling believers to “strike the unbelievers wherever you find them.”

If you’re a literalist, you don’t even care that there’s a historical context for this verse, which is a response to Muhammad’s followers asking if they are allowed to fight within the sanctuary of the city of Mecca.   So you ignore the qualifications — and the Quran is full of them.   Yes, you can cut off the hands of thieves, but if they repent, forgiveness is better.  Yes, you can kill Meccan opponents, but only if they try to kill you first, and only if they’ve broken an existing agreement with you, and even then forgiveness is better.   It’s as though Muhammad — or God, depending on your point of view — was searching for a way to ease the transition from traditional tribal law to the radical new post-Christian law of Islam for his seventh-century followers

Some of his twenty-first-century followers are clearly far less sophisticated, especially new converts eager to prove themselves more Roman than the Romans, as it were.  Selective and literalist reading is the modus operandi of all violent fundamentalists, whether Christian, Jewish, or Muslim.  But while we’re under no illusion that fanatical West Bank settlers represent Judaism, or doctor-killers represent Christianity, we still tend to understand Islam solely through its most ignorant proponents — and through its most conservative, humorless, and soul-less interpreters.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: Islam | Tagged: Tags: fundamentalism, Muhammad, Quran, satire, South Park | 13 Comments
  1. George R. Walczak says:
    April 26, 2010 at 8:31 pm

    Hi Lesley –

    Many people do understand Islam through its most ignorant proponents the same way that many people continue to believe that
    Obama was born on foreign soil. Though all the claims made by the “Birthers” that Obama is a foreigner have been shown to be patently absurd and false time and time again, the birther movement continues in its mad campaign to discredit the president. Just as some Middle Eastern scholars have taken the stage to provide an alternative view of an Islam dominated by mad Jihadists, so too has their message fallen on deaf ears. The majority of the public continues to think of Muslims in the narrow bandwidth of terrorism and holy war.
    Why? The answer is that public discourse is no longer governed by critical thinking. People are entitled to their opinions but not to their own “facts.” The American public has outsourced the truth to such propaganda outlets as FOX news.

    Many rational and reasonable arguments have been made -mainly in the alternative media – trying to present a more moderate and complex portrait of the Muslim world but to no avail. As Al Gore pointed out, we are living in an age that has mounted an assault on reason. Which brings me to my next point. Ultimately, we should be questioning the very foundations of religious belief rather than arguing that it’s just the fundamentalists who have hijacked religion and are now running away with it.

    Religious moderates will argue that it is not faith, but rather man’s baser instincts that inspire terrorism and violence. But could even the most blinkered religious believer contend that the Inquisition or the Crusades would have occurred and persisted in the absence of their mythical foundations? Sam Harris writes, “Even ordinary people cannot be moved to burn genial old scholars alive for blaspheming the Koran, or to celebrate the violent deaths of their children, unless they believe some improbable things about the nature of the universe”

    best,

    George P. Walczak

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      April 27, 2010 at 7:03 pm

      George — your point here being, I believe, about the nature of belief. Which is something I’ll be posting on soon.
      Keep tracking! — Lesley

  2. infideldelight says:
    April 27, 2010 at 1:06 am

    Everybody Draw Mohammed Day will be on May 20.

    http://tinyurl.com/draw-mohammed-day

  3. Bonnie says:
    April 27, 2010 at 3:26 am

    What I appreciate, Lesley, is the background you provide in the way of historical, social and cultural foundations for the religious dogma that is propounded today. Your perspective is valuable to those of us who have only a superficial understanding of the Koran and, perhaps, only slightly more knowledge of Christian biblical texts, &c.

    As for fundamentalists of any sort, it doesn’t feel to me so much like religious fervor as prescriptions for thinking for those who can’t do it for themselves.

  4. lavrans says:
    April 27, 2010 at 4:08 pm

    So, Lesley- my question about the whole thing relates to the prohibition against representing Muhammad- where is it and what’s the context?

    I keep reflecting that there’s a tradition of avoiding pictures, and I have this nagging suspicion that it’s probably written to prevent people from worshiping Muhammad, rather than Allah. But that’s an assumption I can look up easier than finding the “why”.

  5. lavrans says:
    April 27, 2010 at 4:17 pm

    Ok, I think I answered part of my question- it’s just religious arbitrariness. The addition of later rules- since pictures of any person or animal are forbidden by the hadiths but not the Quran… And there are large groups with posters of their favorite heroes… and their horses and various birds, etc.

    Still- the context is interesting: what’s the justification?
    The poster-makers can’t “breath life” into their creations (sounds like someone was jealous of others artistic abilities) any more than the illustrator of Muhammad.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      April 27, 2010 at 7:07 pm

      Lavrans — Some speculate that the word ‘religion’ is rooted in the Latin for ‘to bind oneself’. It’s interesting that as religions develop, they bind themselves around with rules. Maybe that’s how they survive. And sometimes they bind themselves literally, as with orthodox Jewish men laying tefillin, which are straps they bind around their forearms and heads. Will think more about this and maybe post on it. Thanks — Lesley

      • lavrans says:
        April 27, 2010 at 10:07 pm

        Re-reading, I didn’t need the “jealous” part- I suspect that would (rightly) be taken as a little too far.

        I read an article a while back looking at people- people working in customer service specifically- and how they would do things that they personally thought would help the company, even though it may be directly against company policy. Generally they would stall and attempt to prevent returns of bad product or broken items, wouldn’t file dissatisfied customer reports, etc. When questioned later almost all stated that they did it for the good of the company; to save money or the company’s image. Upon follow ups with the same people, even after retraining and being refreshed on company policy, most continued the same actions.

        I see something of the same thing in religious rules that evolve around the basic texts- rules that seem to be attempts to do something for the benefit of the religion, even though they may be against its core tenets. Some probably made a lot more sense when they were formulated than through our modern eyes.

        It’s sometimes hard to understand why a custom should be respected, and often they need to be for no other reason than the believer’s comfort. Some seem like they could go away without much damage, but change is hard I guess.

  6. Zunaid Talia says:
    April 27, 2010 at 8:13 pm

    Hi Lesley,

    The issue you raise here is a symptom of ignorant and agenda driven individuals. It is fermented by people who thrive on dividing people and creating social discord. They are intolerant and their bigoted views are nauseating to say the least.

    It is sad that during this age information, when people have access to such a wide variety of opinion and sources, they still choose to restrict their indulgence to what gives them comfort. As a result we find that people often begin with conclusions and then seek out all the facts to support their conclusions without confronting and attending to the issues and the evidence that challenge that perspective or belief.

    The time for a new debate is upon us. Now more than ever, it is imperative that we encourage and promote respect and tolerance for all people and their beliefs, irrespective of how ridiculous they may seem.

    I commend you on starting this blog and I am confident that this platform will go a long way to promoting respect and tolerance.

  7. Claude Cassidy says:
    May 27, 2010 at 2:47 am

    Wow I’m literally the only reply to this incredible writing!

  8. Hashim says:
    February 16, 2011 at 8:21 am

    Allah Protect you Lesley Hazleton.
    I love your Blog.
    Thanks for the truth you share

  9. Hashim says:
    February 16, 2011 at 8:52 am

    O my God you are just wonderful!
    Each time I watch your video on youtube and i see how you explain the Truth of Koran my thears drop, I wish my english was better than this to write to you and explain how i feel (without using google translator).
    Best for you

    قُلْ هَلْ يَسْتَوِى الّذينَ يَعْلَمُونَ وَ الّذينَ لايَعْلَمُونَ إنّما يَتَذَكَّرُ اُولُوا الألْبابِ. (Zomar: 9)
    بگو: «آيا كسانى كه مى‏دانند با كسانى كه نمى‏دانند يكسانند؟ تنها خردمندان متذكر مى‏شوند.
    قُلْ رَبِّ زِدْنى عِلْما. (Taha: 114)

  10. Lavrans says:
    February 16, 2011 at 10:20 am

    So- reading Zizek when he made an interesting point about the responses to those cartoons: most of the Muslim world never saw the cartoons. So the uprising wasn’t about the cartoons, per se, as much as the concept that another would do something.

    What’s interesting there is that one will never know if everyone would have actually been offended by the cartoon(s) as much as by the idea that the West (as a big “Them”) would dare to do such a thing; and takes as fact the reporting of the few who did see them.

    So, truth only comes from the familiar, and the object of that truth doesn’t even have to exist as more than a concept. Face value is good enough.

    Of course, everyone’s guilty of that, not just Islam.

Why Go Full Tilt at the Full Veil?

Posted April 22nd, 2010 by Lesley Hazleton

Sex and religion are at it again.  French president Nicolas Sarkozy is proposing to ban women from wearing the full Islamic veil because it “hurts the dignity of women and is unacceptable in French society.”

But this is no more about women’s dignity than the invasion of Iraq was about liberating Iraqi women (though the Bush administration didn’t hesitate to use that as one of their many false rationales for war).

Sarkozy’s logic is so badly skewed that it looks like yet another fit of Islamophobia, cynically using women’s rights as the excuse.

Any woman who’s ever tried on a vintage hat with a veil falling from the brim knows the sexy feeling that comes from being half hidden.  But that’s a far lipstick-feminist cry from the full ultra-orthodox Islamic veil — the niqab, which leaves only the eyes uncovered, or the burqa, which has a mesh screen over the eye slit.  These literally make women invisible.  Or in France, it seems, all too visible.

Yet why exactly is such veiling so abhorrent it requires a law to ban it?

Veiling has been used throughout the centuries as a means of keeping women second-class citizens, and not solely in Islam.  It was only narrowly avoided in Christianity — Saint Paul wanted it adopted for all early Christian women.  And women hiding their hair with variants on headscarves is a sign of piety in orthodox Judaism and Christianity (think nuns) as well as in Islam.

Yet the Bible doesn’t call for veiling.   And neither does the Quran.  What it actually says, in Sura 24, verses 30-31, is as follows: “Tell believing men to lower their glances and guard their private parts… And tell believing women to lower their glances and guard their private parts… and let their headscarves fall to cover their necklines.”  Basically, if you’ve got it, don’t flaunt it.

It takes centuries of ultra-conservative clerics to turn a call for bisexual modesty into a sexist straitjacket.

But does that mean a western government should punish women for refusing to conform to social norms?  How is that different from punishing women for refusing to wear the veil in authoritarian Islamic regimes like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan under the Taliban?

Does this mean France might consider banning other items of women’s clothing?   Ban women from wearing pants, for instance?  Where exactly do “dignity” and “acceptability” start and end, and in whose eyes?  If a woman chooses to cover her face, that’s her decision to make, just as it is if she chooses to bare her midriff.   Either way, government intrusion is objectionable.

Ah, but there’s also a security reason for the proposed new ban, adds Sarkozy’s spokesman.  We need to be able to see people’s faces at airport security checkpoints. But then why not simply require that people uncover their faces for security screening? Why go full tilt at the full veil?

By adopting such legislation, France will only move itself toward a mirror image of Saudi Arabia.  Bare midriffs banned here, full veils banned there.   And women, once again, just pawns in the game.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: feminism, Islam | Tagged: Tags: burqa, France, Islam, Islamophobia, niqab, Quran, Sarkozy, veil, women | 5 Comments
  1. Olivier D'hose says:
    April 29, 2010 at 10:05 pm

    Looks like Belgium has passed a law to that effect. See http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2010/04/29/les-deputes-belges-s-appretent-a-voter-l-interdiction-du-voile-integral_1344971_3214.html (in French) for some details.

    It is interesting that the law was voted today (April 29) considering that Belgium doesn’t have a government anymore…

  2. Msinfomaven says:
    April 30, 2010 at 4:32 am

    France is not the only country making laws against the niqab. Belgium, parts of Germany and parts of Canada are making laws against it too. Interestingly one of the main groups leading the Niqab ban in Canada is the Canadian Muslim Congress (Sunni Muslims). . . and it’s not just Western Countries . . .

    Al Azhar University in Cairo has banned women from wearing niqab to the famous University and many other Muslim countries such as Iraq heavily frown on this practice.

    Why?

    For policy makers this is not a question of a woman choosing to observe niqab, it has deeper religious and political motivations. Most countries, Western and Eastern, do not want the Saudi brand of Islam (Wahhabi or Salafi movements) to feel welcome or acceptable in their countries which is associated with the ultra-conservative practice of full-veiling. For them, this is not a matter of a “woman’s choice” but discouraging extremist Islamic groups who are hateful and disruptive in society to flourish.

    However, not ALL niqab wearing ladies are extremists. As a peace-loving Muslim woman who wears hijab I would be horrified if the hijab was banned. Where’s the balance between a woman’s right to choose, religious freedom and a countries right to protect itself from importing religious extremism? Personally I’m stuck on that one.

    Lesley, thank you for starting a blog site. I always enjoy your style and appreciate your perspective.

    Further reading, a discussion with Dr. Bernard Lewis:
    http://pewresearch.org/pubs/30/islam-and-the-west

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      April 30, 2010 at 4:34 pm

      J’Amy, yes, the Belgian law just passed — even without a government. What got to me in today’s HuffPo piece on it was the citation of “Belgian anxieties that visible signs of Islam erode national identity.” I wonder what “a Belgian” looks like. A British writer’s stereotype like Agatha Christie’s Hercule Poirot? National stereotypes are insidious and absurd, all the more so when national legislatures themselves adopt them. And religious stereotypes are just as dangerous.

  3. Cathleen says:
    August 4, 2014 at 9:40 am

    I simply feel uncomfortable around those who try to hide in front of me and anyone would whatever reasons lie behind it. I simply feel that all this attempted to be intellectual debate is rather simple. It is not the covered women who talk to native wester ones that feel uncomfortable but the other side. They come to a foreign country and impose their own religious norms, and they do IMPOSE them as when it comes to speaking you just give an addressee an option of not listening but if you simply wear a cloth on your face, that restrain the hearing by the way, you impose it. Its like testing the boundaries of how tolerant the other side is, but what about your tolerance and respect of the western country. So expect to be respected but you don’t consider giving it back. Quite fair indeed…
    If you want to practice the weird way of being do it where everyone is like that but reflect twice before you make everyone like it too. Its just simple manners, sorry.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      August 25, 2014 at 10:26 am

      Thank you for your honesty. I gather your discomfort comes from the sense that “they” are hiding, though even with niqab, the eyes are visible, and the hijab covers only hair, not the face. The issue here seems to be that you feel something is being imposed on you. But what exactly?
      A few further questions occur to me:
      Do nuns wearing coifs also make you uncomfortable? Or orthodox Jewish women wearing wigs? Or African American women in big go-to-church hats? Is the discomfort only with women, or are you also uncomfortable with Sikhs wearing turbans?
      And when does a country stop being “foreign”? When you are born there? When you have lived there for half your life, as I have in the US? When you speak the language as well as or better than native-born citizens? When you are second-generation, or third-generation, or fourth or fifth or sixth or more?
      I hope you’ll agree with me that these are at least questions worth pondering. — L.

Order the Book

Available online from:
  • Amazon.com
  • Barnes & Noble
  • IndieBound
  • Powell's
Or from your favorite bookseller.

Tag Cloud

absurd agnosticism art atheism Christianity ecology existence feminism fundamentalism Islam Judaism light Middle East sanity science technology ugliness US politics war women

Recent Posts

  • Flash! September 1, 2019
  • “What’s Wrong With Dying?” February 9, 2017
  • The Poem That Stopped Me Crying December 30, 2016
  • Talking About Soul at TED December 5, 2016
  • ‘Healing’? No Way. November 10, 2016
  • Psychopath, Defined August 2, 2016
  • Lovely NYT Review of ‘Agnostic’! July 14, 2016
  • Playing With Stillness June 22, 2016
  • Inside Palestine June 20, 2016
  • Virtual Unreality June 6, 2016
  • The Free-Speech Challenge May 23, 2016
  • Category-Free April 20, 2016
  • Staring At The Void April 13, 2016
  • Sherlock And Me April 3, 2016
  • Hard-Wired? Really? March 22, 2016
  • A Quantum Novel March 9, 2016
  • This Pre-Order Thing March 4, 2016
  • The Agnostic Celebration February 29, 2016
  • The First Two Pages February 23, 2016
  • Two Thumbs-Up For “Agnostic” February 10, 2016
Skip to toolbar
  • About WordPress
    • WordPress.org
    • Documentation
    • Support Forums
    • Feedback