Thought I am an atheist, and more specifically a humanist, I think that most criticism of Islam, especially Hirsi Ali’s criticisms, are intertwined with some confusion about whether the practices in her former country are traditional or Muslim (female genital mutilation is practiced in a few parts of Africa and few parts of the Middle East, but is not at all encouraged or part of Islam itself), and criticism of Islam is also tainted with anti-Arab racism. We should make sure that we criticize Islam as a religion, and put it on par with Christianity and Judaism, rather than as a religion of “extremists”. Further it is important to remember that of the billion muslims in the world, less than 1 percent are extremists, and that we must treat Muslims as fellow humans, and create an environment which encourages the spread of evolution, humanist values, and free thought concerning religious and atheist ideas.

Most of Hirsi Ali’s criticisms that I have read are directed toward Islam although she is a very vocal and extreme critic. I may not agree with every thing she says but I would defend to the death her right to say it.

I’m curious how other Humanists feel about putting all religions on a par. Should we only do this with the main three monotheistic religions or include wicca and new age, hindu and budhism as well? Are all religions the same or are some different? I think we can maybe afford the monotheistic religions the same respect and even the majority other religions the same respect and that is probably true of all religions but there may be reasons I’m not aware of to not do this? So what do others think?

It is correct to point up the aspects of any religion that cause harm. Having been “born a Muslim” (forgive the repetition of absurdity; babies aren’t born with any beliefs), Hirsi will be regarded as apostate for renouncing Islam, according to mainstream belief. The penalty is death. This isn’t just an “extreme” interpretation of an otherwise benign article of faith, or a cultural add-on like genital mutilation. She is in real danger, and I’d liken her case to Salman Rushdie, who also needed and deserved concerted protection from the community, as well as continued ability to express themselves publicly.

In addition to illuminating the ugly sides of religion (it doesn’t matter if it’s mono/poly/theistic or pagan), humanists should be ready to acknowledge when benefits to the human experience come from the area of faith. Insights into a sense of significance for people, moral advances that have derived from religion, etc. Religion is a human enterprise, like science or art. It’s got sweet sides as well as malignant ones. No need for us to be prejudicial.

You bring up two very good points,one that children aren’t born with any beliefs so as Richard Dawkins argues it’s absurd to call children Muslim children or Christen Children, etc and so on.

Second that it is hard, and necessary, for us to acknowledge the good that comes from religion. Nothing is entirely without benefit and we shouldn’t be prejudicial.

I might argue that to be non-prejudicial might mean that individuals are good and must be judged individually and not under the sweeping cloak of their religion or lack thereof. I’m playing a bit of the devils advocate but I do think this question is well worth discussing. How far do go to cooperate with religions and how much do we criticise? Are all religions equal?

Most Muslims won’t bother trying to put Hirsi Ali to death for being an apostate though. Most Christians don’t consider it an abomination to wear pants. The mainstreams of these religions are nothing more than apathetic or nearly apathetic agnostics, who are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Wiccan in name. And I think we should criticize all religions and criticize them on the basis of truth and reality versus any idea of a higher power. All religions deserve to be looked at critically, but my point is that Islam should not be criticized for Islam. The danger in this is that it’s often accompanied by stereotypes of Arab culture and Arab/Indonesian/Iranian people. It’s part of what enables conservatives to build cases for war against countries like Iraq and Iran, and Hirsi Ali is one of those conservatives, whose own values are as far from humanist values as some European xenophobic conservative’s are. We should be wary of allying ourselves to someone who plays off of European anti-immigrant racism to sell books.

That was somethind of what suggesting although I was assumming we might consider most christians aren’t going to become eunichs for the lord, but many will forgo medical care or blood transfusions. A very very few will kill doctors who provide abortions and even fewer will kill for other yet to be revealed prophesies.

All I know from the new is that a very few islamist will kill over cartoons and a militant/terrorist group will kill for what they perceive as freedom from the United States in their countries or freedom to practice islam without infidel feet on the ground.

I’m not saying I agree with the above statement but it’s how it seems to be presented on the news. We obviously need a bit more education about Islam going on.

hirsi is a persecuted subject. she has a right to complain based on her particular circumstances. however, everything has a good and a bad side to it, and religion, including islam is no exception. she is criticizing the extreme aspects of it, but not all adherents of that or any other religion subscribe to radical views. secularism is not all perfect either and is fraught with danger in the wrong hands. george bush is a bad president, but that doesn’t make all presidents and all governments bad in and of themselves. despite its checkered history, religion has done much to advance the causes of compassion, humanism and art in civilization. i’m hoping the humanist and its readers will see that side of the coin as well.