PZ has an amusing post about his latest excommunication from something he wasn’t part of in the first place.

Next time I’m waiting for a bus I think I’ll fantasize about all the groups and organizations I’m not part of that could excommunicate me. The Air Force. Focus on the Family. The League of Left-handed Botanists. God-lovers United for Cheese-flavored Dog Food.

Read PZ’s post for the full entertainment package, but I just want to poke at the excommunication a little myself because it’s so…classic.

It’s handed down by the Secular Policy Institute, which started life as the Global Secular Institute (which was so funny because it was neither global nor an institute) and then morphed into something else and then morphed into the Secular Policy Institute. Maybe in a few months it will be the Interfaith Doughnut Factory. Anyway…they don’t write any better than they did under the original name. That’s funny too, in a way, since they don’t do anything else detectable – you’d think they would bother to get the writing done properly.

The secular movement has a problem, in that some of our foremost leaders get media attention by causing controversy. While this helps them draw in followers, it causes an atmosphere of infighting in the secular community that hinders us from partnering, takes our eye off the ball of important issues, and makes us look crankypants to outsiders. No wonder the stereotype of a secular person is condescending and angry.

I know. I told them some of that when they started (as the Global thing). Dawkins on Twitter for instance; he’s notorious. He keeps getting into the papers in the UK for saying absurd things on Twitter.

On the other hand I hate that word “infighting” because it always means pesky feminists messing up all the nice smooth atheism by objecting to sexist bullshit. Also…”crankypants”? Crankypants? This is a serious Statement, not a blog post. It’s a serious, professional statement by a serious, professional organization.

At the Secular Policy Institute, we know that the problem comes from who we partner with, in two ways.

First, we want to positively partner with anyone who will work with us, including religious organizations. We don’t bash religion and we seek to partner with everyone. This prevents doors from closing with politicians and other big decision-makers. We even have several churches in our coalition because plenty of liberal churches support our goals of separating of church and state, and ending discrimination against nonbelievers.

That’s some really awful writing. But more substantively – what do they mean they “seek to partner with everyone”? Everyone? The Vatican? The OIC? White supremacist organizations? Concerned Women for America? Tobacco lobbyists?

No, apparently not everyone, because they promptly specify liberal churches. So don’t say everyone then. Think while you write; it helps a lot.

Second, we also avoid partnering in some situations. We believe the secular movement should stop rewarding those who cause discord. Why are “shock jock” bloggers invited to lecture at major secular conferences?

Oh bloggers! So they don’t mean Dawkins after all. They mean people like me.

Of course they primarily mean PZ, since this is an excommunication of him, but they also mean people like me. They ask why we’re invited by way of saying we shouldn’t be invited. Fair enough. I don’t think anyone should pay attention to the Secular Policy Institute, and they don’t think people like me should be invited to talk at conferences. Ain’t this country great?

Freedom of speech is a confusing issue, but it means that each person can speak freely through his or her own channel. It does not mean that angry voices have a right to dominate unmoderated discussions on our own Facebook pages and forums. Perhaps as a community we are responsible for leading a cultural tone and guiding people towards constructive debate.

See what I mean about the bad writing? Do they make the interns do all the work?

Apparently we are not alone in wanting to look more professional as a movemnent to the outside world. This week, SPI coalition member Atheist Ireland publicly dissociated itself from blogger PZ Myers in an open letter.

What are your thoughts? Do you feel that strident internal criticism makes us stronger, or that our generosity to be inclusive to all voices is being taken advantage of? Let us know on our Facebook page and on Twitter.

Hmmmm good question. Is their generosity to be inclusive to all voices being taken advantage of? After all, if it weren’t for them, PZ and I would be unable to be shock-jock bloggers at all, and here we are taking advantage of that generosity.

Oh wait, no we’re not, because no we wouldn’t. We don’t depend on them at all in any way in order to blog. They have nothing to do with it. Zip, zilch. It’s the same with Atheist Ireland – it can’t excommunicate PZ because he was never a member of it. This business of “disassociating” is just trying to make “I hate you I hate you I hate you!!!” look official and important. I don’t think many people are fooled.

Stephanie has some excellent, and horrifying, and hilarious background on the Secular Policy Institute today.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Another cartoonist being punished for being a meanie to people in power. (I thought that was what political cartoonists were supposed to do.)

Malaysian cartoonist Zulkiflee Anwar Alhaque has been charged with nine counts of sedition for criticising the country’s judiciary in a series of tweets.

Alhaque, known for ridiculing the ruling coalition, had criticised the judiciary in a series of posts on Twitter on 10 February, when opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim was due to start a five-year prison sentence on sodomy charges.

He had tweeted: “The lackeys in black robes are proud of their sentence. The rewards from the political masters must be plenty.”

In another post he said: “Today Malaysia is seen as a country without law.”

According to Malaysian laws, if the cartoonist is found guilty, he could be jailed for up to 43 years as sedition is defined by the country “as promoting hatred against the government”.

Cool law. A law like that means no one can criticize the government at all, because any criticism can be described as “promoting hatred against the government.”

Alhaque – who is known as  Zunar – was charged as the government launched a crackdown on opposition politicians and the media, using the colonial-era law, which has been slammed by critics in the country and abroad as a move to stifle freedom of expression.

Ya think? A law that allows the government to “crack down” on opposition politicians and the media might possibly be a move to stifle freedom of expression?

So far, numerous politicians, activists and journalists have been investigated and charged under the Sedition Act since 2014, for criticising the government.

Ahead of the 2013 general elections, Prime Minister Najib Razak had said that the government had planned to abolish the Sedition Act of 1949, but backtracked after he was elected.

Funny how that works, isn’t it.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

There’s this article at the Gatestone Institute – a source I’m wary of, because I don’t know how reliable it is, but it provides some material I don’t see anywhere else.

After weeks of diplomatic wrangling and recrimination, the Saudi government on March 27 announced that it would reinstate its ambassador, Ibrahim bin Saad bin Ibrahim al-Brahim, to Stockholm. The ambassador had been recalled on March 11 as a protest against Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallström’s criticism of Saudi Arabia’s legal practices and treatment of women.

“Weeks” of diplomatic wrangling is a strange way to put it, because March 11 to March 27 is 16 days. It’s two weeks; “weeks” sounds like more than that. Anyway, Saudi said the ambassador could go back. Did Sweden do any backing down to make this happen? Hard to say.

It is not exactly clear what motivated the Saudi king to resume diplomatic relations with Sweden. What is known is that Foreign Minister Wallström and Prime Minister Stefan Löfven have been quick to stress that is had never been their intention to slight Islam, which they now claim has made great contributions to human civilization, nor the Saudi kingdom.

Yes but they can say that while still criticizing the human rights mess. That’s what diplomats do.

Three letters to King Salman — one from Sweden’s King Carl XVI Gustaf and two from Prime Minister Löfven – were hand-delivered in Riyadh by Björn von Sydow, a high-ranking emissary of the Swedish government. Their contents are unknown, following a decision by the Swedish foreign office to classify them as secret. This decision came after the foreign office claimed it could not find the letters.

Prime Minister Löfven and Foreign Minister Wallström have said repeatedly that the letters do not contain any apology to Saudi Arabia. According to the daily Expressen, however, Saudi Arabia demanded a number of concessions from Sweden –­ one of them, an apology. It is clearly the impression in the Arab world that Sweden has in fact apologized.

Well, I hope not. I hope they gave some kind of ersatz apology while sticking to their position that Saudi Arabia shouldn’t do things like flogging people for talking about human rights and secularism.

On March 28, Expressen quoted Löfven as saying: “We have explained [to the Saudis, ed.] that we regret if there is something that has been perceived as if we have criticized Islam, which we have never done.” The Prime Minister added that Sweden has no intention of ever criticizing Islam. He continued: “We have the greatest respect for Islam as a religion.”

Löfven was keen to emphasize that “Sweden still stands for human rights. It is immensely important for us to do that. At the same time we also wish to develop cooperation with Saudi Arabia.”

Ah well there you are, you see, there’s the escape clause. “We wouldn’t dream of criticizing Islam. We’re criticizing you.” Of course they said it in a more oily and flattering way than that, but it’s what Löfven seems to hint.

The rest of the piece is speculative bullshit, thus confirming my doubts about Gatestone.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Originally two comments by Tom Foss on The words spoken.

“We need to stop spending our money on military and police and start spending it on education.”
“He wants to eliminate the whole military and all police! It’s exactly what he said!”

There’s a phrase missing from your strawman here that would actually make your “charitable” reading accurate: “so much.” We need to stop spending so much of our money on military and police and start spending it on education.

We keep hearing all this about charitable readings and giving people the benefit of the doubt when the people in question have given no indication that they deserve it. Regardless of whether or not she meant the actual words that she said, her claim about the “worst thing that can happen” to a gay person in the US is insultingly, dismissively false. There is literally no reason for her to so blatantly distort the actual situation for gay people in the US to make her point, because the death penalty as actual policy is worse whether American gays are being denied cake or being denied employment. The same is true for her comments about women’s rights. Why dismiss these issues if your point isn’t to say that we need to switch our focus to the real problems? Which, again, is what she actually said.

It’s the same bullshit Patricia Arquette was peddling a few months back, it’s the same bullshit intersectional feminists and civil rights activists have been talking about for ever. Some outside observer sees that a civil rights movement has made some high-visibility victories and declares that the war is over, so now we can focus on the issues that really matter (to me).

Maybe it’s uncharitable to read the words as they were actually said. I suggest that Ali’s comments about the “worst thing that can happen” to gays are far less charitable. At least our reading has a basis in reality.

Funny how charity and benefit of the doubt never go both ways. Ali apparently wasn’t writing her speech thinking “gays in the US still spend a lot of time lobbying and campaigning for rights reforms. Maybe they dohave worse things to worry about than Christian bakers.” No, it was all “they must not know about how bad it is in Iran. I need to tell them how silly this cake nonsense is by comparison, and then they’ll totally see it my way.”

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

A news story from what must be a colleague (so to speak) of the Onion.

The catering team on BBC quiz Have I Got News For You have been placed on ‘high alert’ after increased chatter surrounding Jeremy Clarkson’s appearance later this month.

With the risk of serving cold food higher than ever before, the catering team are said to be undergoing extensive training and new performance drills ahead of his 29th April appearance to ensure all food in the green room remains warm at all times.

Caterer Simon Williams told us, “This is not normally a dangerous job, but frankly we can’t afford to make the terrible mistake of serving Jeremy Clarkson cold food. Real human lives are at risk.”

Me, I’d put on a fencing mask and serve him piping hot melon and barely-thawed grilled salmon on a bed of stone cold arugula purée.

One former HIGNFY guest told us, “I once had a luke warm sausage roll in the green room, so I hope for all our sakes they’ve managed to rid themselves of such sloppiness.”

“If Clarkson goes off, it could cost hundreds of lives.”

Give the man some nice warm raspberry gelato for dessert.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

C J Werleman claims that New Atheism – all of it, not just Sam Harris and Bill Maher – is pro-white supremacy.

[The New Atheist movement has] become a pro-white supremacy movement. New Atheism is anti-Muslim, anti-Arab bigotry dressed up with a thin veneer of fancy sounding words.

That’s not a very effective way of making his claim, since white-supremacy isn’t the same thing as anti-Muslim bigotry which is not the same thing as anti-Arab bigotry. There’s overlap, but it’s possible to be one of those things without being the others, and it’s possible to be two of those things without being all three.

Individually, and on a personal level, however, New Atheists can be good people. Collectively and unwittingly, however, they not only espouse white supremacy but they also speak in a language that is every bit as crude and racist as fascist, neo-Nazi, movements. Although a little more discreetly.

Hm. He’s really not good at noticing when he contradicts himself between one sentence and the next, is he. If the language is a little more discreet, then it’s not every bit as crude and racist. The language can’t be both a little more discreet and every bit as crude and racist.

While New Atheists don’t use the overt racial epithets of say the Ku Klux Klan in the US, or Pegida in Europe, they use dog whistle terms like “barbarians,” “backwards,” and “violent”.

Some do; some don’t. Also, “violent” won’t do as a dog whistle, because it’s an indispensable word. If you treat “violent” as racist-dog whistle, you’ve made it impossible to use a necessary word.

Moreover, New Atheists enthusiastically, and often unintentionally, promote western imperialism, and any individual who supports an erroneous narrative (“clash of civilisations” is the theme of New Atheism) that, by design, attempts to justify western intervention in the Middle East, Africa, or Asia is, ergo ipso facto, a white supremacist.

Jesus – what a terrible writer he is. No wonder I’ve never bothered with him before. Again with the confusion – “enthusiastically, and often unintentionally” – that doesn’t really cohere. And then the random jumble of clauses, and then the silly “ergo ipso facto” – what a mess. Oh and a wrong factual claim – no, “clash of civilisations” is not the theme of new atheism.

Like their anti-theistic genocidal forefathers of the middle 20th century, New Atheists dabble in the dark arts of scientific racism. “The cult of science promises to eradicate or reform the tainted and morally inferior populations of the human race,” warns Chris Hedges. Today’s New Atheists proclaim science and reason will save humanity; bring an end to all wars; and bring about a more perfect civilisation. On the way to this imagined utopia, however, and again like their genocidal, anti-theistic forefathers of yore, they champion those who urge violence and discrimination.

Which anti-theistic genocidal forefathers of the middle 20th century are those then? And name one new atheist who says “science and reason will save humanity; bring an end to all wars; and bring about a more perfect civilisation.” Just one. He offers Bill Maher as an example but forgets to include the part about how  science and reason will save humanity; bring an end to all wars; and bring about a more perfect civilisation, so that’s not an example of what he just said.

As for Hirsi Ali, no New Atheist alive in America today is unfamiliar with her story. But it’s not the retelling of her story they seek. They want to rehear again and again how “Islam is one of the world’s great evils”, or “the mother lode of bad ideas”, or the greatest threat to Western civilisation, a “nihilistic, cult of death” and so on. They want to be made afraid of Islam in order to justify their hate of Muslims.

Except that maybe, just maybe, that’s not true. Just maybe it really is Islam that they dislike, and that leads some of them into rhetoric that does look anti-Muslim, and sometimes is anti-Muslim.

Sam Charles Hamad is a journalist with great expertise on the Middle East and US foreign policy. On the day Hirsi Ali spoke and received “a standing ovation” at the American Atheist’s convention, Hamad posted on Facebook:

“You’ll find that the vast majority of Ali’s fans are white males who hate Muslims and, in her, have found a perfect little brown-skinned conduit for their bigotry. I’m not a racist or prejudiced, they can say as they spout racism and bigotry. I’m a big fan of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The fact that she’s a complete fraud making a shitload of cash at the expense of these slobbering white bigots would be rather funny if she also didn’t appeal to genuine fascists and demonise Muslims in such a fascistic and potentially dangerous manner.”

Notice the sexism that slipped in there? That Werleman apparently didn’t notice? That tell-tale “little”?

There are plenty of assholes in the atheist/new atheist movement, for sure. I wouldn’t dream of denying it. Lots of them are sexist men, and some are also racist. But is the whole movement “white supremacist” (or sexist)? Nope.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Jeremy Clarkson is baaaaaaaaaa-aaaaaaaaaaack.

Jeremy Clarkson is set to make his first appearance on the BBC since losing his job as co-presenter on Top Gear.

The controversial broadcaster will appear as the guest host of Have I Got News for You on 24 April.

“Jeremy’s contract has not been renewed on Top Gear but he isn’t banned from appearing on the BBC,” a BBC spokesman said.

Oh. There was me thinking the BBC actually didn’t want him around any more, on account of that thing he does where he hits underlings in the face and calls them fucking cunts at the top of his lungs in posh hotels. But no, they just didn’t want him around on that one programme any more.

Clarkson has hosted the satirical news quiz on numerous occasions.

During one appearance in 2008, he threw a pen at regular panellist Ian Hislop that left the latter with a cut on his face.

So I guess they’re hoping he’ll do more of that kind of thing, because it’s so amusing for the audience.

Following an internal investigation, the BBC announced on 25 March Clarkson’s contract on Top Gear would not be renewed.

More than a million fans signed a petition to reinstate the presenter, but BBC director general Tony Hall said “a line has been crossed” and “there cannot be one rule for one and one rule for another”.

When it comes to this one programme. When it comes to other programmes – oh well that’s completely different. Then there totally can be one rule for one and a different rule for another. On Top Gear Clarkson is totally persona non grata – the BBC has dissasociated itself from Jeremy Clarkson, you might say – but on everything else he’s as welcome as gin at a picnic.

On Tuesday, North Yorkshire Police said there was “no need for further action” against Clarkson following an inquiry into the “fracas”.

Because all he did was punch someone in the face and split his lip. No biggy – unless a poor or foreign or black person does it, of course.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

I too have a very low opinion of Karen Armstrong, Debbie Schlussel, Fred Phelps, Rush Limbaugh, and Ronald Reagan. I’m likely to use harsh adjectives and/or swear words to describe them.

I’m just saying.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Good to know sexism is dead and we can all move on n shit.

Via Peter Cohen on Twitter –

Me? No. No, you’re not.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Polly Toynbee pointed out last December that everybody’s favorite soap opera Downton Abbey is staggeringly dishonest about the reality of servants’ lives in the early 20th century.

To control history by rewriting the past subtly influences present attitudes too: every dictator knows that. Downton rewrites class division, rendering it anodyne, civilised and quaintly cosy. Those upstairs do nothing unspeakably horrible to their servants, while those downstairs are remarkably content with their lot. The brutality of servants’ lives is bleached out, the brutishness of upper-class attitudes, manners and behaviour to their servants ironed away. There are token glimpses of resentments between the classes, but the main characters are nice, in a nice world. The truth would be impossible without turning the Earl of Grantham and his family, the Crawleys, into villains, with the below-stairs denizens their wretched victims – a very different story, and not one Julian Fellowes would ever write.

Yup. I’ve been grumbling about that all along. The Crawleys are way too interested in their servants, and way too friendly toward them. It wasn’t like that. It was programatically the opposite of that.

Much attention is paid to detail. Place settings are measured to perfection with a ruler, the footmen’s buttons absolutely correct, yet everything important is absolutely wrong. Start with the labour: what we see is pleasant work by well-manicured maids in fetching uniforms, healthy and wholesome, doing a little feather-dusting of the chandeliers, some silver polishing, some eavesdropping while serving at table and some pleasant cooking with Mrs Patmore. There is even time for scullery maid Daisy to sit at the kitchen table improving herself with home education. In Downton the hierarchical bullying of servants by one another is replaced by the housekeeper and butler’s benevolent paternalism: what a nice place to work.

Except for Thomas and O’Brien. But still, she’s right – it’s all very prettied up and sentimentalized. (I wasn’t there, but I have read a good deal on the subject, and I’m familiar with the way the upper classes talked about servants.)

What we never see is bedraggled drudges rising in freezing shared attics at 5.30am; slopping out chamber pots, heaving coal, black-leading grates, hauling cans of hot water with hands already made raw by chilblains and caustic soda. We never dwell on the hardship of scrubbing floors, or scrubbing clothes, or scouring grease; in pre-detergent days, they were up to their elbows all day long. And yet they had virtually no water or time for washing themselves. Servants were often sooty and dirty. They smelled strongly of sweat, with few clean clothes, says Dr Lucy Delap, author of Knowing Their Place: Domestic Service in Twentieth-Century Britain.

Of course they did. They couldn’t nip off to Boots for deodorant and lavender soap.

Downton’s conservative aristocrats would have been far more abusive – verbally and actually: mocking, sneering and complaining about their servants was standard Edwardian and inter-war conversation. Instead we see the Crawleys’ deep concern for their staff’s welfare, compassionate when one is charged with murder and another revealed as jailed for jewellery theft. In life, they would have been turfed out without references at any whisper of scandal.

Definitely…although I can perhaps just buy it that Bates is an exception because he was with the Earl in the Boer War. But all that friendly chat and confiding between Anna and Mary, as if they were buds? Please.

Anachronism stalks every corridor of Downton, polishing up history to make the class divide less savage. The Crawleys’ prejudices and snobberies exposed in the raw would be as unbearable to the modern ear as if they were speaking in authentic 1920s accents. Then, as now, upward mobility is a necessary part of the myth, to hide the reality of class rigidity. So the Crawleys see their daughter marry their chauffeur, only for him to ascend upstairs with barely a ripple in the social fabric. Another Crawley daughter bears an illegitimate child, but is befriended by her starchy grandmother, the child accepted by his lordship who divines the truth with hardly a blench. Rose marries into a rich Jewish family, but only one absurd relative expresses the antisemitism that was so rife – and still is, in upper-class circles.

On the other hand Cora is based on an actual Rothschild, so that complicates the picture. On the other other hand would the Crawleys have allowed an American Jew into the family if they hadn’t been desperate for her money?

History is important: it was funny when a plastic water bottle was left on Downton’s mantelpiece, but Downton’s plastic social history is misleading whitewash.

Does it matter? Isn’t it just a bit of fun? Well, what would we think of a prettified series about British colonialism, whose heroes were cleansed of racism, violence, oppression or imperial snobbery? The implanting of falsely comforting memories of a better bygone era disguises fundamental things about the way we live now.

As it is, there is still a widespread misperception of the nature of class and destiny. Inequality is rising on an ever upward trajectory, yet people are easily deceived by a veneer of modern classlessness: the end of deference and forelock-tugging makes class less obvious and more insidious, though every statistic shows how deeply entrenched it remains.

Give me Poplar any day.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

And here’s more background from last September, by Qasim Rashid in the Huffington Post.

It is no secret I’ve been critical of Muslim leadership for their deafening apathy and silence over the 125-year worldwide persecution of Ahmadi Muslims. To add insult to injury, every time a new atrocity emerges I’m bombarded with standard anti-Ahmadi talking points in a shameless attempt to justify the violence. Just recently in Gujranwala, Pakistan where four Ahmadi Muslims (including three young children) were murdered when their homes were burned down, insults followed the anemic condemnations. Those who bothered acknowledging the attack refused to recognize Ahmadis as Muslims, thus holding the same view as those who attacked and murdered the young children in the first place.

Well the first step here would be to say it’s not ok to murder people for being or not being any particular religion or non-religion. It’s not ok to persecute people or attack them or murder them. All of that is right out.

As one Sunni Muslim friend confessed–his own family told him “not to worry about it” because Ahmadis were “wajib ul qatl” (required to be killed) anyway.

No no no no no, that’s where people go wrong, thinking anyone is “required to be killed.” Get rid of that kind of thinking. Nobody is required to be killed.

This misinformation and prejudice must stop. If the Muslim world expects to advance in pluralism and tolerance, we must embrace principles over prejudice. This must start from the top, i.e. from Muslim leaders; otherwise Muslim youth have little hope of developing into positive well-rounded individuals.

Quite. No killing! No persecuting! However much you disagree with people over religion, you do not get to kill them. If god wants them dead god can make them dead. Leave it to god. What good is a god who needs your help?

He gives a list of 10 fabrications about Ahmadi Muslims.

Fabrication 1: Ahmadiyya is a new religion

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is a sect of Islam. It is not a new religion. It was founded by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian in 1889. Ahmad claimed that he was the awaited Messiah and Mahdi prophesized by Prophet Muhammad and foretold by the Holy Qur’an. Muslims who believe in the Messiah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, are known as Ahmadi Muslims. We adhere to the same Islamic declaration of faith, “There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger. We likewise observe the same 5 Pillars of Islam and same 6 Articles of Faith.

In short, it’s a sect of Islam, not a new and different religion.

Of course many people will insist on seeing a sect as worse than a truly different religion, because it’s a betrayal and insubordination and disloyal and god knows what – but they need to get over it.

Fabrication 2: Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be greater than Prophet Muhammad

In an effort to arouse anger in the minds of unlearned Muslims, clerics make this fabrication often. In reality Ahmad considered himself insignificant compared to the grandeur and majesty of Prophet Muhammad. Ahmadi Muslims believe Prophet Muhammad was the Seal of the Prophets, and therefore God’s greatest creation. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad famously wrote, “The Prophet is Muhammad, the chosen one, who is higher and more exalted than all Prophets and is the most perfect of Messengers and is the Khatam ul Anbiya, and the best of men.”

Bottom Line: The Messiah Ahmad was clear that Prophet Muhammad was the greatest of God’s creation. You can read Ahmad’s extensive writings in praise of the greatness and perfection of Prophet Muhammad here.

Well that sounds tedious. I have a hard time sustaining a sympathetic view of this kind of thing, because honestly – all this stuff about perfection, and then extensive writings in praise of the perfection – what is even the point? If it’s perfect what is there to say? It’s complete, it’s lacking in nothing, it’s perfect – end of story.

It’s not for me. I’m too human. All I know is imperfection; perfection is just like a blank smooth wall, and I can’t get interested in it, much less in extensive writings about it.

But the fundamental point remains – killing and persecution are not ok.

Fabrication 3: Mirza Ghulam Ahmad insulted Jesus Christ

As with the previous fabrication, this is a common allegation some Muslim leaders espouse to create anti-Ahmadi Muslim sentiment. As Islam requires Muslims to love and revere all God’s prophets, Jesus Christ is no exception. Ahmadi Muslims love Jesus more than we love our own parents or children.

There again – I think that’s terrible. It’s terrible to love a character in a book more than one’s own parents and children. It’s also terrible to make a virtue of it.

Nevertheless – no killing.

That’s enough background for now, I’m afraid. It’s not my idea of a good time.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)