Of course, Four Days is really just a précis, a mere summary of Bugliosi’s real work: Reclaiming History. This clocks in at over 1,600 pages and weighs over five pounds – without endnotes, which come on a CD that ships with the book and add another 1,000+ pages. It’s a work guaranteed to end any debate with a conspiracist, provided you can hit them with it.

The Atlantic called it “a magnificent and, in many ways, appalling achievement, ” which the publishers used as a blurb with some well placed ellipses.

If you total up all the pages written and research done, I suspect that those few minutes at the Daley Plaza are the most closely examined minutes in human history. More work has been done to determine exactly what happened during those minutes than any other moment, ever. And yet, we’re even more divided on what happened today than we were back then.

It’s disturbing how difficult it can be to convince people of even the simplest detail when they don’t want to hear it. Take, for example, the question of what religion the American president belongs to. Given the flap over his former preacher, you’d think most people would remember that he’s a Christian. Yet, according to the New York Times (quoting Pew Research), 18% of America now believes he’s a Muslim.

What can you do to convince people of a thing they don’t wish to believe?

[...] the fact that Barack Obama’s father was a Muslim Kenyan, descended from a long line of Muslims, will remain true until the day he dies, and nothing he ever does in his life can change half of his genes that he inherited from his father. His genes are for keeps. The fact that he has attended Christian church for the past 20 years is not going to change that. Michael Jackson looked white much longer than Barack Obama sat in the pews of Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s church. Obama is still as (half) Muslim as the day he was born.

Part of his argument makes sense. If a segment of the human population has interbred for a long time, they’re likely to have certain genetic markers in common which could be used to identify them. Call this a genetic fingerprint that would identify the a certain group.

Historically, I think it’s questionable whether or not Islamic Kenyans have maintained enough of a closed group to develop a fingerprint. Islam is a very diverse religion, and in many cases it seemed to live comfortably along side other religious groups for centuries. When Monophysite Christian and Muslim groups intermingled, what does that do to the group genetics?

But more to the point, what does defining a person’s religion by their genetic markers do for us? Is it a useful definition? Since what we’re looking for when we ask about someone’s religion is some understanding of their beliefs, I can’t see that it is. Unless Kanazawa is going to suggest that some people are genetically predisposed to accepting the Trinity while other are predisposed to a more straight-forward monotheism, I just don’t see the point.

Joachim Krueger, another blogger at Psychology Today, is even less impressed:

If religion is inherited through the Y-chromosome, he is fully Muslim; if it is inherited through the mitochondrial DNA, he is fully Christian; if the religious gene is located somewhere else, he has a 50-50 chance of being one or the other, and the premise of Satoshi’s post is moot. Now, Satoshi knows all this. I therefore conclude that his post is meant to entertain, enrage, and befuddle. That’s too bad because the primary purpose of these blogs is to help, advise, and educate. Am I wrong?

The Stewart & Oliver exchange at the end is one of the best I’ve seen yet.

Some of the arguments he uses are quite weak, being based on a combination of scripture and some fairly torturous logical leaps:

“Love is purity, he tells them. The Arabic word for love used in the Koran is related to the word for seed. No plant can grow without a seed – and so no pious act can grow without love. If love is the seed of every act of piety, then how can an act of hate like terrorism please God?”

On the other hand, he also delivers a message which I think is important:

“Get integrated into British society. It’s not against your religion. Has the word Pakistan been revealed in the Koran? If you can be Pakistani and Muslim, why can you not be Muslim and British?”

I wish this message was being repeated loudly in Mosques around the country. The question, of course, is whether it really isn’t or whether naysayers are simply drowning it out. Back to Dr Tahir ul-Qadri:

“Extremists and terrorists are in the minority in the Muslim ummah [brotherhood]. But they have always been vocal. The majority have always been against extremism and terrorism, but unfortunately they have always been silent. The Islamic solution is integration.”

There are some important points there which I would contend.

Firstly, are the majority really against terrorism? Drawing parallels with the Northern Ireland conflict, I know several people on the Loyalist (i.e. Protestant) side who never spoke out in favour of terrorism or sectarian violence against Republicans (i.e. Catholics), but whose silence on the subject had the unpleasant air of tacit approval. Are British Muslims any different, I wonder?

Secondly, the assertion that “The Islamic solution is integration”. This I cannot agree with. The evidence I see in news from around the world suggests to me that Islam has all the characteristics of what Iain M Banks calls a “hegemonising swarm” – it conquers new territory and replicates itself, leaving only copies of itself behind. Of course, I have to accept that most of what I see comes to me through a tightly controlled media filter with a hefty dose of bias – Stories about Abu Hamza are never likely to make many Westerners happy.

None of that, however, should take away from Dr Tahir ul-Qadri’s good intentions. It is refreshing to see a high-profile, well-respected Imam who actually speaks against cultural and religious isolationism and terrorism. It’s also encouraging to read that his lectures are well attended by young, British Muslims.

There have been many words aired over the proposed Cordoba Center in Manhattan, presumably because of its proximity to the World Trade Center site. With the attention paid to this particular mosque, a person might be easily led into thinking that the controversy is simply over a site with historical and emotional value, and that by-and-large the sentiment of religious freedom prevails in the rest of the United States.

Unfortunately, that impression would be wrong. From the New York Times:

At one time, neighbors who did not want mosques in their backyards said their concerns were over traffic, parking and noise — the same reasons they might object to a church or a synagogue. But now the gloves are off.

In all of the recent conflicts, opponents have said their problem is Islam itself. They quote passages from the Koran and argue that even the most Americanized Muslim secretly wants to replace the Constitution with Islamic Shariah law.

These local skirmishes make clear that there is now widespread debate about whether the best way to uphold America’s democratic values is to allow Muslims the same religious freedom enjoyed by other Americans, or to pull away the welcome mat from a faith seen as a singular threat.

“What’s different is the heat, the volume, the level of hostility,” said Ihsan Bagby, associate professor of Islamic studies at the University of Kentucky. “It’s one thing to oppose a mosque because traffic might increase, but it’s different when you say these mosques are going to be nurturing terrorist bombers, that Islam is invading, that civilization is being undermined by Muslims.”

The article details four other recent cases of community protests in reaction to a proposed mosque or Muslim community center. What unites these protests with the Cordoba Center controversy is the focus, which has shifted onto Islam itself being the problem identified by protesters rather than the more mundane civil complaints one would expect when any new large gathering place is proposed. One of Andrew Sullivan’s readers opines that this basic anti-Islamic sentiment has always been there and the Cordoba Center has merely provided a convenient pretext to stop hiding it, with cover being provided by prominent national political leaders.

I find the general thrust of the argument plausible, and if it is, has many worrying historical parallels with American antisemitism and anti-Catholicism. Those borderline conspiracy theories generally asserted that people of these groups had secret intentions to subvert the values and structures of the host society, and ultimately replace them with incompatible values. Such popular assertions led large groups and even entire political parties to form in opposition to these supposed subversive elements and promote arguments and legislation to combat the phantom threat, invariably oppressing them and placing their members at risk of harm.

Of all our precious freedoms, the most important may be the freedom to worship as we wish. And it is a freedom that, even here in a City that is rooted in Dutch tolerance, was hard-won over many years. In the mid-1650s, the small Jewish community living in Lower Manhattan petitioned Dutch Governor Peter Stuyvesant for the right to build a synagogue – and they were turned down.

In 1657, when Stuyvesant also prohibited Quakers from holding meetings, a group of non-Quakers in Queens signed the Flushing Remonstrance, a petition in defense of the right of Quakers and others to freely practice their religion. It was perhaps the first formal, political petition for religious freedom in the American colonies – and the organizer was thrown in jail and then banished from New Amsterdam.

In the 1700s, even as religious freedom took hold in America, Catholics in New York were effectively prohibited from practicing their religion – and priests could be arrested. Largely as a result, the first Catholic parish in New York City was not established until the 1780’s – St. Peter’s on Barclay Street, which still stands just one block north of the World Trade Center site and one block south of the proposed mosque and community center.

[...]

Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question – should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here. This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions, or favor one over another.

The World Trade Center Site will forever hold a special place in our City, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves – and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans – if we said ‘no’ to a mosque in Lower Manhattan.

Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11 and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values – and play into our enemies’ hands – if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists – and we should not stand for that.

For that reason, I believe that this is an important test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetime – as important a test – and it is critically important that we get it right.

The winner, Muhammad Asyraf Mohd Ridzuan, beat out 9 other contestants over the run of the show. According to The Guardian:

… contenders face weekly challenges such as performing the Islamic ritual of cleansing two unclaimed corpses, preaching to young delinquents hauled in after a police raid and counselling unwed pregnant girls at a woman’s shelter.

The Guardian article points out a potential problem with “Imam Muda.” By focusing on the interpersonal skills over the theology of the wannabe clerics, the show “feeds into a public fascination with charismatic clerics, who have not always been good news for Malaysia.”

Which makes me think it would be the perfect show to adapt for the American Fundamentalist audience, since there personal charisma is far more important than theological consistency, sound doctrine or basic sanity.

In fact, since there is a persistent rumor that American mega-churches are having trouble replacing their founders, this would be the perfect time to bring out such a show. The winner could get a gig being Benny Hinn’s understudy.

Qualification tests would include endurance bible thumping, insane exegesis and really, really atrocious hairstyle. The only trouble is what to call it. “American Idol” seems perfectly appropriate, but it’s already taken.

From a New York Times story about the lengths that the Boy Scouts are going to in order to attract new members:

An inflatable mosque provides a place for Muslim scouts to worship.

There’s just something about the concept of an inflatable mosque…

This is one of the most dishonest and over-the-top political ads I’ve ever laid eyes on:

How much dishonesty can you pack into sixty seconds? Let’s count off a few:

1. “They”? “They” who? If you’re trying to blame all Muslims for the actions of Al Qaeda, you’re going to have to do a better job than that.

2. It’s not a 13 story Mosque, it’s a cultural center called the “Cordoba House“. That’s kind of an obscure reference. Cordoba, Spain, during the early middle ages was one of those rare places that Islam, Christianity and Judaism existed side by side without too much friction (as near as historians can tell). Understanding that makes it’s purpose pretty clear.

3. It’s not at Ground Zero, or looking down on Ground Zero as some have suggested. It’s three or four blocks north of the site.

… and so on.

Marie Claire is not a magazine known for its hard hitting journalism. The article frames the story as an examination of Islam: religion of peace? or violence? Fortunately, The Last Psychiatrist does a better job of opening it up and looking at it. Even better, LP does a good job of getting to the heart of what “honor killings” mean in the culture:

Why didn’t he kill her when she when she first started talking to boys? Why didn’t he kill her when she started wearing American clothes at age 4?

The answer is: they lived in America for 16 years, where that behavior doesn’t shame him. He may not like it, but there is no one who would look down on him here. Shame is exposure, and as long as all these behaviors stay in Phoenix, no one knows what “s/he’s” done.

It all fell apart because he sent her to Iraq. When he committed to the all-in, hail mary plan of sending his daughter to Iraq to get married, where she either rejected five men as unsuitable(!) or worse, got married to one of them and then went on cavorting with men in the U.S. (!!!!)…

… never mind what Allah thinks, now everyone in Iraq knows what kind of a man he is.

For the record, America has had its own honor cultures, like in the Old South. The South Carolina politician James Henry Hammond said, “Reputation is everything. Everything with me depends upon the estimation in which I am held.” That’s as good a statement of what it means to live in an honor culture as any I’ve heard.

Living in an honor culture means being very sensitive to being “discussed,” to borrow a southern euphemism. You don’t want the neighbors talking about how you can’t handle your daughter. This can be serious business, since such things will affect your status in the society. But Noor‘s father was living in American society, and doesn’t have that excuse. Again, here’s LP with the diagnosis:

He doesn’t care that she’s Americanized or even an adulteress. He cares that people are laughing at him.

This is narcissism, and here I do not hesitate to spell it out explicitly. The obvious is that he sees her only as an extension of himself, only as she impacts his own existence and not as an independent entity. He’s not better than her, she’s just not a fully formed character, she’s an extra. But the more telling and scary part of the narcissism is that he thinks that by killing her, he has not merely stopped her but fixed things, erased his shame, as if it never happened. As if the people back in Iraq aren’t still snickering, as if human nature and reality are subservient to the magical thinking of a man who believes a Jeep can alter what God already saw.

Neddy Merrill over at The Edge of the American West has pointed out just how shabby that pretense really was:

Worst non-ex-Muslim ever
[...]
What makes this story so interesting is that he’s terrible at playing a Muslim. Or, more accurately, that he got as far as he did while being so terrible. Check out these videos, posted by one of the bloggers who’s been on this for a while: he gets the Shahada wrong. He thinks there are 40 days in Ramadan. He confuses “insha’Allah” and “alhumdulillah.” The Christian equivalent would be like saying Jesus rose on Christmas– just a straight-up, WTF howler to anyone who’s even casually Muslim.

I’m trying to imagine what the atheist equivalent would be. It would have to be like saying, “I’m an atheist, but Jesus loves me anyway.”

Despite this, a few other evangelical apologists like Norman Geisler, co-author of I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (which our friend Deacon Duncan has recently finished demolishing), are sticking by him.

France’s upper house is set to debate banning the “Islamic” Burka (full face and body veil) in public places. I put “Islamic” in inverted commas because, while I know the Q’ran directs women to be “modest”, I don’t believe it requires them to go fully covered from crown to toe.

Full story on the BBC News site

One thought that did occur: Isn’t wearing a Burka in a Western country the exact opposite of “modest”? They’re so outlandish to Western sensibilities that they cause some people to stop and stare.

I do like the fact that the penalty for wearing a Burka is intended to be quite low, while the penalty for pressuring a female family member into doing so is set to be “much tougher”.

What do you think? Is France being culturally and/or religiously intolerant? Or are they protecting decades of gender emancipation?