Comments for The Accidental Theologist

Comment on “For The Greater Good” by sohail

sohail — Sun, 19 May 2013 01:51:23 +0000

It is really sad that Bob has a vote in the American elections.

Comment on “For The Greater Good” by Abdulrazak Ibrahim

Abdulrazak Ibrahim — Sat, 18 May 2013 21:17:18 +0000

Wow! What could make a person think and write like this?

Comment on New Q & A on Muhammad by Lesley Hazleton

Lesley Hazleton — Sat, 18 May 2013 18:28:58 +0000

First, please note that there is a 250-word limit on comments here on the AT — clearly stated upfront — which is why I’ve edited out all but the first two paras of this one, which essentially was a repeat of your previous one, though with the addition of the charge of intellectual dishonesty on my part. Clearly we’re going to get nowhere with charges and counter-charges. Equally clearly, on the issue of violence, you have not compared the Quran to the Bible. Nor have you actually read ‘The First Muslim.’ So again, I’d urge you do both before commenting again on the quality of my intellectual integrity (under 250 words, please!).

Comment on New Q & A on Muhammad by Nasir Khan

Nasir Khan — Sat, 18 May 2013 07:38:15 +0000

Lesley Hazelton is so right. Please read the Qur’an, if you really care to learn the truth at all.

Comment on New Q & A on Muhammad by g

Fri, 17 May 2013 21:19:15 +0000

Thank you for responding Lesley. It is wonderful to be able to converse directly with an author rather than just post reviews of books and such. My previous comment was not directed at your book but specifically at your claim that Muhammad would somehow be opposed to modern day Islamic extremism and terrorism. If you are saying that the quote from Jesus is worthy of condemnation then I will not disagree with you. Still, the very next sentence following the quote should make it clear that “sword” was used in a symbolic sense as a metaphor for division, separation and opposition between father and man, mother and daughter etc. etc. But please ask yourself if even a mere violent quote from Jesus is worthy of condemnation how much more we should condemn a man who authorized mass murder, used god to repeatedly stereotype, demonize and dehumanize entire groups of people who chose to exercise their independence and reject his authority over them. These are exact parallels to modern-day charismatic “prophets” who use their exclusive access to god as an an absolute control-mechanism over followers to abuse them and to violate others through them.

When you attempt to typecast as a liberal a man who has a track record of denouncing and brutalizing others who do not submit to his religion then are you not yourself complicit in the same crime as Muhammad, the crime of dehumanizing or even demonizing his victims so that their pain, their suffering, their agony is somehow justified or at least not as bad as what Muhammad and his followers or you yourself would go through in their place? If killing and attacking peoples and nations because they do not recognize your anointment by god is not extremism then nothing is. [...]

Comment on New Q & A on Muhammad by Lesley Hazleton

Lesley Hazleton — Fri, 17 May 2013 19:39:39 +0000

“Do not think I have come bring peace on earth. I have not come to bring peace, but the sword.”
A prophetic voice, indeed. And whose was it? Not Muhammad’s, but that of Jesus (the verse cited is Matthew 10:34).
I’d suggest reading both the Hebrew bible and the New Testament very carefully before singling out Muhammad and Islam for condemnation, since the Bible is one of the most blood-soaked and bloodthirsty books ever written. (Of course you might also want to read the whole of the Quran, as well as my actual book instead of a short QandA on it). Then you might ask yourself why you have singled out Islam. If you are opposed to all religions on such grounds, that’s one thing; if you are opposed only to Islam, that is quite another.

Comment on My Interview With Homeland Security by Lesley Hazleton

Lesley Hazleton — Fri, 17 May 2013 19:29:06 +0000

Fair point. Thanks, Holly. — L.

Comment on New Q & A on Muhammad by g

Fri, 17 May 2013 14:21:53 +0000

Dear Lesley, You write: “He’d condemn sectarianism. He’d condemn extremism. He’d condemn suicide bombing and terrorism, and call them obscene.” You are projecting onto Muhammad your own idealized notions and beliefs. It was Muhammad who introduced an us vs. them sectarianism into his community by condemning the gods of his fellow Arabs. The only sectarianism he was not prepared to tolerate were schisms within his own community, an objective common to any leader whose power rests on the unity of the foot-soldiers he commands. Through Allah Muhammad condemned a whole laundry list of people whom he derided as idolaters, polytheists and most of all unbelievers who rejected his prophet-hood. Many of these were themselves worshipers of the pre-Muhammadan Allah and their only crime was to reject the prophet-hood of Muhammad. They did so precisely because they recognized in Muhammad a dangerous extremist whose teaching would stamp out all other beliefs. And they were right. A rich and fecund Arabian religious landscape, teeming with diverse religions and spiritual traditions, was homogenized into a one-religion desert that it continues to remain to this very day. It is a fact that upon being rejected by Jews Muhammad’s response was to turn them into targets of ruthless violence, that too, astoundingly in the name of the god to whose worship they clung until they were either executed or exiled. Is this sort of mass violence not the fundamental characteristic of an extremist? As for suicide bombing and terrorism Muhammad himself encouraged his followers to die and kill for him while he mostly kept himself behind the front-lines. How is this any different from modern day suicide bombers? Where is there room left for any moderation once you have established your willingness to slaughter in the name of your god and religion? If that is the case then great “prophets”, the Muhammads of our own times, such as David Koresh and Jim Jones have to be feted as moderates as well. There have been other religious figures that have taken to violent means to protect and defend themselves against oppressive political powers. Consider the Sikh gurus for example. They fought the brutality of their pious Islamic rulers but never did anything comparable to what Muhammad did, which was to send out diktats to all and sundry to submit to his god, failing which he would invade them. This is megalomania and not religious piety. Please remove the blinders and look at the obvious reality staring you in the face. Also it is not tenable to excuse the violence and blood-letting at the hands of Muhammad by placing it in the context of his environment. For example, Jesus’ message of “love thy enemy” was had already entered the Meccan community with one of Muhammad’s own close relatives even translating the gospels. The ruthlessness displayed by Muhammad’s Allah rests squarely on the shoulders of the man and cannot be blamed on his times.

Comment on My Interview With Homeland Security by Holly

Holly — Fri, 17 May 2013 10:51:42 +0000

I really enjoyed your piece but I did feel that your comment about there actually being higher up workers who are intelligent might have been a bit of a generalization. I am sure there are many low-level workers who are just as intelligent, who may not have had the same opportunities as others. I really like your work, just wanted to point that out!

Comment on Guilt By Drone by Meezan

Meezan — Fri, 17 May 2013 07:39:44 +0000

Another huge draw back of the drones is they promote even more hate. Before the drone strikes in Pakistan, there were no Pakistani Taliban and no suicide bombings targeting Pakistani civilians and establishment. Drone strikes created hate for Pakistan among the tribal people who saw Pakistan as an equal party in this mass murder and out of revenge they joined the taliban terrorists that previously were foreign to them.