Unitarian Universalist fawning appreciation of Mohammad and Islam

After hearing that a Salt Lake City, Utah based Unitarian Universalist congregation was going to teach a five week long course advocating the value of Mohammad and Islam to their teens, and after hearing them fawningly talk about Mohammad during a church meeting, I decided to investigate further the current status of UUism relative to Islam. I found that on a prominent website for American Unitarianism they have some highly pro-Islamic pro-Mohammad statements. So yesterday I drafted a 23 page letter in response. Here's quotes from the letter. Included in my letter are relevant links to the issues at hand.

This issue is especially relevant to some secular advocates (atheists/humanists/naturalists/etc.) as sometimes we sometimes show up to UU meetings for social support.

_____________________.

November 30, 2010

To the following parties:

Unitarian Universalist Service Committee (UUSC), 689 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139-3302

Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA), 25 Beacon Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02108

South Valley Unitarian Universalist Society (SVUUS), 6876 South Highland Drive, Cottonwood Heights, Utah 84121

First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City, 569 South 1300 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102

Greetings,

This letter concerns Unitarian Universalism’s appreciation of and approach to Islam. Here is what I have observed:

Observation 1:

Children being told about Mohammad (the prophet of Islam) in glowing and appreciative terms, during the “children’s teaching time” at the service of the SVUUS.

Observation 2:

Being told at the SVUUS service that when Islam was first starting, women had more rights and they had a lot of freedoms. We were also told that Islam is a beautiful and peaceful religion, and that Mohammad was a great man. This declaration occurred just a few weeks ago at the SVUUS congregational meeting, when a special five week long religious education course on Islam was announced for teens.

Observation 3:

The UUSC having on their web site direct links to Islamic religious curricula, curricula which claims without question, that Mohammad received a revelation from a god. The following [now archived] UUSC website links directly to, without any disclaimer, religious education material offered by the American Islamic Congress.

Building Bridges Toolkit:
http://web.archive.org/web/20120519235021/http://www.uusc.org/buildingbridges/toolkit

"When Society Seeks Unity: Religious Pluralism," by Rev. Paul Beckel:
https://web.archive.org/web/20041023005721/http://uuwausau.org/society.html

Hannah Petrie info: http://web.archive.org/web/20200409145025/https://www.cedarsuuchurch.org/?p=876

Observation 4:

On the UUSC website there is a religious education document which states the following:

“…Muslims are a part of our local and global communities. Their struggles are our own…”

“…Islam is a complex and beautiful faith…”

Also the document in question heavily references the work of Reza Aslan.

Document link:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150322110533/http://www.isna.net/uploads/1/5/7/4/15744382/uu_muslim_interfaith_guide.pdf
previously at (http://www.uua.org/documents/washingtonoffice/uu_muslim_interfaith_guide.pdf)

Observation 5:

I requested from SVUUS, both via email and paper letter further information about the special five week course on Islam to be given to teens. No response was received.

Observation 6:

The UUA and the UUSC have issued a joint statement in support of the proposed Ground Zero Mosque.

https://web.archive.org/web/20130130143726/http://www.uusc.org/content/uusc_uua_declare_support_lower_manhattan_mosque

Before I respond to each point, allow me to give you some background:

My name is on the member books of both Unitarian congregations in the Salt Lake valley, for what it’s worth. I am an ex-Mormon. I spent 25 years as a strong believing Mormon. I was a Mormon missionary, temple worker, and Sunday school president. After leaving Mormonism I have had strong associations with several people within the exmormon movement, such as Dr. Simon Southerton, a former Mormon Bishop from Australia and DNA scientist. Dr. Southerton wrote a book about how DNA evidence shows that the people of the Book of Mormon did not come from Israel in 600 BCE. I also frequently attend the yearly Exmormon Foundation conferences in Salt Lake City. And, as is common for many people who leave Mormonism I have drafted a lengthy exit journal, which is available at the following URLs:
http://tinyurl.com/5dbe36   
or http://corvus.freeshell.org  in the “life path” section.

When I first encountered Unitarianism I found that it tended to be a place where people who had left more conservative religions tended to congregate. UUism tended to serve as a social support system for people in that situation. Thus outside of Utah usually it’s the ex-Catholics and maybe ex-Baptists who go. But in Utah at both Salt Lake congregations there are many exmormons who go.

And now here is my response to each observational point noted earlier:

Response to observation 1, regarding children in UUism being taught about Mohammad in a glowing and fawning way:

Mohammad was not Jesus and he was not Buddha. Jesus may have been a mythical person or he may have been real. But regardless, and in general, the teachings of Jesus were indeed more peaceful than those of Mohammad.

Buddha’s teachings were also infinitely more peaceful than those of Mohammad.

It is simply inappropriate for a religion which prides itself on “social justice” and on “civil rights” to glowingly, fawningly, and uncritically advocate for and on behalf of the founding prophet of Islam.

It just so happens that not everything is equal. Not all religions are equal. Religion is like the word “sport.” Badminton is not very comparable to rugby for example, except that all of the players are breathing when they play. And the same goes for the word religion. Stating or claiming that “all paths to the divine are of equal value,” this type of view, when it is expressed by the UUSC, sounds very much like a creed for a supposedly creedless church. You are making a position statement, and a claim about facts & real people, and your claims have bearing on the ability of people to thrive and be happy.

No, not all paths to the “divine” are of equal value. The path of the suicide bomber is not as equally valid as the path of the Buddhist monk to goes into a cave for 5 years to meditate, nor to that of a Jainist who filters his water through cheese cloth so as to avoid eating insects. The path of the genitally mutilating African tribal Islamic mother or Jewish moil are not as equally valid as those who reject child mutilation. And so on. Is this question really so difficult for you?

Regarding Mohammad specifically, what did the man do?

He advocated for the death of people who refused to convert.

He married a six year old and consummated that marriage when she was nine. There are several references to this fact on the Wikipedia page about Mohammad. And while in the past the claim of Wikipedia being largely the work of inaccurate chaos when it was first starting, that claim is no longer valid as per the hordes of extremely fastidious people who now operate the site on a volunteer basis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#Wives_and_children

…and check out reference numbers 53 through 58 on that page.

Mohammad clearly did engage in polygamy. Is this a pro-woman stance?

Mohammad wrote a rather bloodthirsty book known as the Quran, which advocates death and torture for all sorts of people. References the Skeptics Annotated Quran for great detail on this point: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm

Because of the scope of Unitarian Universalism’s fawning and unquestioning support for Islam, I am going to quote in this letter directly from commentary notes about passages in Mohammad’s holy book the Quran. As you read the following notes about passages in his book, consider your claim that “all paths to the divine are equally valid.” And consider the validity of teaching children in a fawning way about just how great and wonderful Mohammad, the author of the following words, was and is:

 From the Skeptics Annotated Quran website -  notes about passages in the Quran

[in the letter I quote fully from
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/women/long.html
and http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html
]

Response to observation 2, regarding the claim by the SVUUS special five week long course on Islam for teenagers, and in response to the course preparers who claimed that early Islam (during & shortly after Mohammad’s time) was more friendly to women:

Does polygamy and the rape of a nine year old represent a pro-woman stance? Ample and readily available documentation regarding the life of Mohammad shows that he not only engaged in polygamy he also raped his nine year “wife.”

Are these actions by Mohammad “pro-woman?”

Is the widespread practice of polygamy in Islam “pro-woman?”

Is forcing a six year old into an arranged marriage, and then raping her at age nine – are these actions “pro-woman?”

Haven’t you bothered to do your research? Has Unitarianism gone so far off the rails as to claim outright lies about the life of Mohammad, and what Islam stands for, in large part?

Response to observation 3, regarding the UUSC’s fawning and direct connection to the American Islamic Congress.

Is it common for Unitarianism to have direct weblinks to the religious curricula of other religions? Why not also link to Mormon and Catholic curricula?

For example, since “all paths to the divine are of equal value,” as you appear to plainly claim on the UUSC website, may I suggest that you link to pages regarding Mormon doctrine which states that oral sex is not ordained of god, and that masturbation is a sin akin to murder (and as is sex outside of marriage & homosexual sex), or that Elohim (god the father) had literal sex with Mary the mother of Jesus? Or to the Catholic doctrine stating that all forms of birth control are evil, and that Catholic priests who rape children en masse should be protected from the law and “pitied” rather than punished.

Or how about you start linking to the Scientology doctrine of alien influence over humankind influence which must be overcome through many payments to Scientology teachers over the course of several years, or their advocacy for locking away your family members so they can be part of the “Sea Org?”

You’re violating your principle of having a “creedless church” by having direct links to the religious education texts of another religion – where those other directly linked to pages (by the American Islamic Congress) claim unquestionably that Mohammad received a revelation from his god AKA the god of Islam.

You are now directly linking UUism with Islam, and making UUism essentially a sect of Islam. Will you be doing the same for Catholicism, Mormonism, and Scientology? If not, why not? What makes Islam so special that you would find it necessary to provide direct links to the religious education texts of another religion?

Response to observation 4, regarding the claims that “…Muslims are a part of our local and global communities. Their struggles are our own…” and “…Islam is a complex and beautiful faith…,” and a strong unquestioning advocacy for the work of Reza Aslan.

Here we see again the Unitarian singularly unique appreciation for Islam above other religions. Do you also claim that Scientology is a complex & beautiful faith? How about Mormonism? How about Catholicism? How about the Branch Dividianism, or Hale-Bop-ism?

I have come to conclude that your incredibly one sided and uncritically fawning appreciation for Islam comes from one source: Your hatred for the war in Iraq, and a similar hatred which is now extending to the war in Afghanistan.

If you hate those wars, then the religion of the people of Iraq and Afghanistan must therefore be peaceful and beautiful, right?

But what do the founding texts of Islam say, about life, about women, about sex, about violence, and about those who refuse to believe? What do they plainly and clearly say?

Do you call the rape of a nine year old by Mohammad beautiful?

Do you consider the gender apartheid that is rampant and strongly advocated by countless Imams in Islam to be beautiful? A type of apartheid that warps the minds of the boys in Islam, so they have no idea how to properly socialize or to please women, & an apartheid drives the young men to suicide? Reference the videos made during the Secular Islam conference available on the website of the Center for Inquiry (www.centerforinquiry.net). Also is gender apartheid beautiful which warps girl’s minds, so they come to learn to love being bagged from head to toe Stockholm Syndrome style?

Is a faith (Islam) which drove well educated middle class men fly two airplanes into the twin towers in New York, resulting in the death of 3,000 Americans, and many thousands of collateral deaths in Iraq because of Bush’s reactions & possible overreactions? Is that faith beautiful, marvelous, and well worth fawning about to our children and to the UU church membership as a whole?

Is a faith which has as it’s founding text great advocacy for bloodthirsty violence beautiful?

And since you consider the “struggles of Islam” to be your struggle, or our struggle, do you include the struggles of the Taliban and of Hamas? How about the struggles of Osama Bin Ladin, or of the middle class Muslim adherents who killed 3,000 people on 9/11? How about the struggles of the road side bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan, as they plant bombs to kill American soldiers? Are the struggles of these Islamic adherents yours also? Are you asking their struggles to be mine?

Let me say that your complete support for Mohammad and his church results in the following: You all have completely forsaken key Unitarian Universalist principles with this response of yours to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Your hatred for Bush and his cohorts has driven you insane. When you heard from Bush’s Whitehouse the claim that “we make our own reality” – you poo pooed their claims as outrageous. But when you do the same by claiming that Islam is something it is not, you are doing the same. You are stating a lie, and then calling your lie the truth. That is doublespeak. And apparently liberals can engage in it just as much as conservatives can.

The bottom line is that it is most important to be honest.

Islam is both a religion of peace and a religion of human spirit destroying gender apartheid.

Islam is both a source of comfort for fluffy American women who convert to the extremely rare even in America non-veil-imposing non-gender-apartheid-imposing form of Islam, and a source of great and huge pain to the little girls in Afghanistan who get acid thrown in their face because they want to learn.

Islam is at very a different point in it’s history compared to Christianity. Christianity had a Reformation and an Enlightenment. Islam has not, or it’s having one or now – but only with our help. But it will only have a proper and true and full reformation if we are willing to be fully honest.

What you have on your websites is not honesty. It’s basically a bunch of lies about Islam. And it shows an inappropriate connection between Islam and Unitarian Universalism.

Since, traditionally, Unitarian Universalism has been a place where people could come for support when they leave other religions, consider how these actions of yours will hurt and damage those who leave Islam and want to come to UUism for support:

    It will undercut them.

    It will deny them a better path to recovery.

    It will deny & seek to suppress the true & honest life experiences of those who have left Islam.

    It will deny them a good opportunity to be intellectually and emotionally honest, and to be psychologically adult.

What if on your websites you made the same claims about Mormonism, and said that Mormonism was a complex and beautiful faith? You would subvert and undercut the path of exmormons who come to UUism to find solace and support - to find a way out of an oppressive cult.

So, as a member of two Unitarian Universalist congregations, and as a former Mormon with direct knowledge of exactly how conservative religions operate, I demand that you stop this strong advocacy for one single other religion. Stick to your own creedless church. But don’t try and dictate to me, as a UU member, what I should think or believe about Islam, their child raping prophet, or their violence advocating holy book.

A good place for you to start your recovery from strong advocacy for Islam would be via checking out the following key authors:

Dr. Sam Harris, who has debated Reza Aslan several times. Reza really becomes incredibly agitated and angry when he encounters Dr. Harris. Reza shows that he is not a very scholarly person when he does this. Also Mr. Aslan recently came to Utah and he spoke fawningly of Mormonism – showing that he knows nothing about nor the pain it causes people. And this type of response from Aslan shows one problem liberal religionists have with understanding exactly what conservative religion is like on the inside. You really have no concept of what really goes on in Islam nor in Mormonism nor in other conservative religions and your unquestioning support for Islam in this case and your fluffy claim that “all paths lead to the divine and are of equal value” is another. It’s a lie. Not all paths help humans thrive. Some paths are more abusive than others. Dr. Harris author of the recent book The Moral Landscape.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali – a woman who escaped an arranged marriage in Somalia. She worked with Theo Van Gogh on a film critical of Islam’s treatment of women. As a result she now is forced to live with constant security protection. She’s an author & she’s also spoken a lot about the problems with Islam. Note that she is an ex-Muslim. If she came to a UU Church would her experience as an ex-Muslim be honored, or would you try to silence her? I bet you’d do the latter, as per your inappropriately fawning statements in favor of Islam & it’s child raping prophet.

Key people on these points spoke at the Secular Islam Summit. Here's one key video with Tawfik Hamid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxfo11A7XuA

Here are some additional cutting edge thinkers on the issue of honesty, human well being & thriving, and the true nature of religion: Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, and Richard Dawkins.

Response to observation 5, regarding a complete lack of response from the SVUUS about their five week religious education course for teens on Islam.

Apparently the death of 3,000 Americans on 9/11, deaths caused directly by well educated men who were infected with the widespread memetic virus of suicide-advocating-Islam, has caused some controversy, and fear on the left regarding a willingness to be honest and open. Not responding at all to my requests for information shows great fear about any desire to have honest and open discussions about the true nature of Islam.

Before 9/11 what did we know of the hijab or nijab, or of who was a kafir or not, or of what meat is halal or not? Nothing. And frankly I still don’t want to know, expect that I don’t want anyone to be oppressed. And clearly as per Afghanistan and 9/11, when people are allowed to wallow in misery, they will lash out. 9/11 was such a lashing out (and it was an indirect request for help), and our response should now be to stop the oppression that caused angry people to lash out and to do murderous things.

No country has an inherent right to oppress their own people. And Stockholm Syndrome gender apartheid warped men & women can not be trusted to properly evaluate their own situation, just as a girl kept in a basement for 20 years & raped by her father cannot either. When angry crazed people lash out and kill 3,000, that shows the folly of standing by while their lives are being destroyed, destroyed in this case by a highly prevalent & pervasive form of Islam.

In our connected world we can now see exactly how bronze age cultures operate, as they stone adulterers and gays, as they forcibly veil and bag women, and as they drive men to suicide because of gender apartheid. These key elements of Islamic culture are all Islamic. And yes, so is the very very small minority of liberal mosques in America that don’t force the veil, and which don’t force gender apartheid. It’s both. Not one.

Your key lie in this matter is that the whole of Islam is represented by the very small number of American mosques that don’t oppress women & men & which don’t engage in gender apartheid. But your claim is a lie. And the lack of a response on this issue from SVUUS shows that you, at the very least, suspect, you’re lying as a means of covering up your true motives: your hatred for Bush’s actions in Iraq and your attempt to make amends by repeating the UUSC/UUA lie that: Islam is beautiful, and that Islam is a religion of peace.

Response to observation 6, regarding your unwavering and unquestioning and uncritical support for the Ground Zero Mega Mosque.

Maybe the proposed mosque won’t enforce gender apartheid. Maybe they won’t force the veil. But it’s also true that in other Islamic countries, a big huge mosque so close to Ground Zero will be seen as a triumph – as a key victory.

Symbolism does matter. And when 9/11 families express their outrage on this issue, you, the UUA, and the UUSC are not being all that kind nor nice to the victims of 9/11. Your level of “respect” doesn’t seem to extend to victims of a terror attack, an attack directly caused by one very prominent form of Islam. Go and listen to the ex-Islamists I’ve referenced on the Center for Inquiry’s website. Listen to them for yourself. Read Ayan Hirsi Ali.

You, in your fluffy pseudo-religion have no concept of what life is like in a real hard core religion and it shows.

Here’s some quotes from cultural & religious Muslims who were against the mosque:

From Ibn Warraq, founder of the Institute for the Secularization of Islamic Society, and fellow of the Center for Inquiry:

"Perhaps readers of the CFI Free Thinking Blog can help me out. At the time of the South Park Affair, and even earlier going right back to The Rushdie Affair, I was a staunch supporter of Salman Rushdie and the cartoonists and their First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech, and scoffed at the tender sensibilities of the Muslims. Now, with Imam Rauf's intention to build an Islamic Center just 600 feet from Ground Zero in Manhattan, I began by arguing that the feelings of the families and colleagues of those who lost their lives on 11 September, 2001 should be respected, and that the Islamic Center should be opposed, and then I realized that perhaps I was being inconsistent. Are the two cases similar? Am I being inconsistent? I have, since that realization, concentrated on gathering material against Imam Rauf, and have enough evidence- I had to wade through two of his books, one with 210 pages and the other with 314 page to gather it- to show that he is not a moderate at all. And still, moderate or not, Imam Rauf has the right to build his Islamic Center. For me far from being a symbol of tolerance, the Islamic center is a symbol of Islamic triumphalism. If Rauf truly wanted to build bridges, as he claimed, then he has failed in a spectacular way. If the Center is ever built, then I do not ever want to hear anyone talking about the hurt sensibilities of Muslims again." -quote ends

And here’s some quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park51#Muslims

------------------------ quote begins

Another founding member of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, Zuhdi Jasser, who is also the founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, a group of Muslim professionals in the Phoenix Valley of Arizona, strongly opposed the mosque, saying:

"For us, a mosque was always a place to pray ... not a way to make an ostentatious architectural statement. Ground Zero shouldn't be about promoting Islam. It's the place where war was declared on us as Americans."

He in addition said:

"American freedom of religion is a right, but … it is not right to make one's religion a global political statement with a towering Islamic edifice that casts a shadow over the memorials of Ground Zero. … Islamists in 'moderate' disguise are still Islamists. In their own more subtle ways, the WTC mosque organizers end up serving the same aims (as) separatist and supremacist wings of political Islam."

Neda Bolourchi, a Muslim whose mother died in 9/11, said: "I fear it would become a symbol of victory for militant Muslims around the world."

Authors Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah, board members of the Muslim Canadian Congress, said:

New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it's not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshipers. We Muslims know ... this mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith, ... as 'Fitna,' meaning 'mischief-making' that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.... As Muslims we are dismayed that our co-religionists have such little consideration for their fellow citizens, and wish to rub salt in their wounds and pretend they are applying a balm to sooth the pain."

Akbar Ahmed, Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies at American University, while noting that blaming all Muslims for 9/11 was "ridiculous", said:

"I don't think the Muslim leadership has fully appreciated the impact of 9/11 on America. They assume Americans have forgotten 9/11 and even, in a profound way, forgiven 9/11, and that has not happened. The wounds remain largely open .... and when wounds are raw, an episode like constructing a house of worship ... even one protected by the Constitution, protected by law ... becomes like salt in the wounds."

Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid, general manager of Al-Arabiya television, also criticized the project in a column titled "A House of Worship or a Symbol of Destruction?" in the Arab daily A-Sharq Al-Awsat, saying:

"Muslims do not aspire for a mosque next to the September 11 cemetery ... the mosque is not an issue for Muslims, and they have not heard of it until the shouting became loud between the supporters and the objectors, which is mostly an argument between non-Muslim US citizens!"

Rima Fakih, the first Muslim-American crowned Miss USA as Miss USA 2010, opposed the mosque on the grounds of it being insensitive to families of 9/11 victims, telling Inside Edition:

"I totally agree with President Obama with the statement on the constitutional rights of freedom of religion. But it shouldn't be so close to the World Trade Center. We should be more concerned with the tragedy than religion..."

------------------------ quote ends regarding Muslims who opposed the Ground Zero Mega Mosque
-------------------------------------------.

Perhaps at this point, the condescending relativist Ivory Tower enshrined fluffy highfalutin-speak-that-means-nothing type of response is about to come back to me from you, such as via saying “things were different back then in Mohammad’s day.” Yes they were, but how far are you willing to go with your relativism to justify rape & murder? Mohammad raped a 9 year old, and he wrote a ghoulish bloodthirsty “holy book” which has been a bane upon humanity ever since. Can you add these key facts to your fawning pages on Islam please?

There’s some similarities between Mohammad and Joseph Smith. Both claimed to receive revelation from their god. But Mohammad was directly responsible for a lot more deaths, and his holy book is more bloodthirsty than Joseph’s.

Not everything in life should be addressed in the type of anally retentive fluffy & condescending tonality that seems to infect quite a large number Unitarian Universalist ministers. Sometimes it’s more important to speak frankly, about life, and to frank and honest assessments about where things stand.

Does UUism stand with murders, rapists, conquerors, and sociopaths?

If you stand with Mohammad and his religion then this is where you stand.

Previously it was only within Islamic schools where people were to told that Mohammad was a great man in an unquestioning and fawning type way.

But now, thanks to your morally vacuous stance, a stance that is firmly rooted in the relativist cancer that infects the Ivory Tower, you’re now teaching the same unquestioning view of Mohammad & Islam in your churches, in my churches (if being a member of a UU church means anything).

Stick to what you know: A generally positive stance toward social justice and doing good.

But I do fear that you still cannot comprehend what I am saying.

When Islamists can subvert liberalism via having people like you considering Islam to be a human race when it’s not, and Islam to be of peace when it’s not, and Islam to be beautiful when it’s founder was a raping murderer, it shows you need to go back and do your homework.

I request and (rightly as a UU member) demand that you alter your websites and your religious curricula to accurately reflect what the true situation is, relative to what Mohammad really said in his bloodthirsty holy book, about women, about non-believers, and about everyone, and relative to what Mohammad did to a nine year old little girl. Maybe if you’re willing to be honest then the words “social justice” can really be ascribed to your groups again. But until then, you’re just saying a bunch of rather dangerous lies in response to and to apologize for the Unitarian-sins of Bush.

Sincerely,

Jonathan

-----------------end of quote of my letter