Zaqarbal

Nah, only the far left and the far right (or extremist people in general terms). Don't worry. Even in France, there are notable pro-American authors such as Jean-François Revel. People know there are bigots all over this strange World. To some of us, it is more surprising (negatively speaking) to see, for example, an important figure like Oliver Stone defending a criminal like Fidel Castro, but we know it's only a particular case of "political bigotry".

Sometimes small details are very revealing. And I think this is one of those cases. The expression "respecting other's beliefs" is very common in the West and we all have heard it sometime. We all know that it actually means "respecting the right to express other's beliefs". But that's because we have internalized the common values of modern democratic countries (not only Western but also Japan, South Korea, South Africa and many others). But, what happens with all those "touchy" and easily offended individuals who use the expression "Insult Islam"? Why do they say that, so frequently, to those who are critic with their religion? We don't have any commonly-used equivalent expression. We don't say "insult Christianity", "insult Judaism", "insult Buddhism", "insult Atheism", etc. We say "insult Christians", "insult Jews", "insult Buddhists", "insult Atheists", etc. There isn't a logical correspondence. So, finally, my point is that we should be more analytic, because maybe we are "tolerating the intolerants".

And of course, someone might decide to follow the 20% of a religion's dogmas and ignore the remaining 80%. But in that case, is he faithful to that religion? If a Muslim acts according to our modern liberal-democratic values, then the difference between what he does and what the Quran says would be too big. And sooner or later, that huge contradiction would provoke a kind of "neurosis". It would be easier and logical to simply say "I'm a theist". But it seems there's a reluctance to abandon the label "Muslim".

It's not about sowing contempt but rationalism, critical thinking and knowledge. There are two levels: a cultural one and a socio-political one. An educated and rational person will be able to distinguish between the two. Thus, each Islam-related event would be separately analyzed according to its circumstances. When TV says a Chechen terrorist has attacked a Russian detachment, people should know there is a serious military conflict there. But if people wonder "why do Iranians (or whoever) hate us so much, if they practice the "religion of peace?", they should know what the Quran really says.

My ideas about Quran's potential degree of hatred are not "mine", and they aren't something heterodox, eccentric or minority. Some of the most intelligent men in the World had the same opinion. [Pedantic History-geek mode on] Pascal, Pierre Bayle, Leibniz, Montesquieu, David Hume, Chateaubriand, Ernest Renan, Schopenhauer, Émile Chartier, Churchill.[Pedantic History-geek mode off]. And living authors (in case someone wants to read them): Christopher Hitchens, Michel Onfray, Giovanni Sartori, Alain Finkielkraut, Salman Rushdie, Bernard Lewis, Richard Dawkins, Ibn Warraq, Sam Harris, etc.

OK, we'll use Anti-Judaism as an example. Quran is deeply anti-Jewish. For instance, it literally says Jews are "apes and pigs". The Christian attitudes towards the Jews have been very varied. From pogroms, terrible persecutions and killings to Pope John XXIII, who saved many Jews from the Holocaust, he called them "elder brothers" and condemned antisemitism. And of course, there also are peaceful and friendly attitudes to the Jews by many Muslims. But as I said in other posts, the dogmatic basic structures are different. One permits more possibilities than the other. You may say "well, it depends on the circumstances". Yes, exactly, but the thing is that there are more possible distinct circumstances in Christianity than in Islam. What is the Christian view on Jews? If we don't specify the information, it's absolutely impossible to answer the question. It could be anything, since the interpretating criteria of Biblical texts are numerous. I repeat: they are not considered direct commands (keyword: considered). At least not necessarily (and this is very important too). Moreover, keep in mind that Christian leaders' opinions can be decisive. Just look the difference in Catholicism between before and after John XXIII. However, what can you do about a book (Quran) which direct commands contain a profound anti-Jewish hate? You can't deny that the options are very restricted just from the beginning. There is little leeway to soften all that hatred. You can't deny that fact. And Quran is meant to be recited.

The idea "doctrine doesn't really matter" doesn't convince me. If the believer doesn't obey the basic principles, then he's not a true believer (fortunately or unfortunately). Imagine a guy saying "I practice the Baal worship" (which includes many essential things, and amongst them are human sacrifaces and orgies). "Well, I take part in the orgies, although we never make human sacrifices. But I'm a Baal worshipper, that's for sure". Bullshit. If you only participate in the orgies, you're just a fuc**ing pervert. And it's OK, it's not our business, but don't say you follow a religion.

__________________