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.

Blood 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.

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]

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.]

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]

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 21^st-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.

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.

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.]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.