richard dawkins is still a prick

[bricolage]

put it here cos it's just really a twitter quote.


Jan Markovic ‏@JanMarkovic
@RichardDawkins My theory is that islamists are aggressive because they are not sure about their faith at all. What do you think?
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More

17 Sep Richard Dawkins ‏@RichardDawkins
@JanMarkovic Either that or they feel humiliated because their culture is such a conspicuous failure – in science, engineering, medicine etc
Expand

clash of civilisations bullshit and piss poor knowledge of history to go with it.

[Ostrinski]

Yeah I remember seeing this a month or so ago. Racist piece of shit.

[bricolage]

ah I didn't realise it was so long ago, I only just saw it the other day!
although I probably should have done seeing as I just copied and pasted the date in here...

[Ocean Seal]

His fan gives him a vulgar anti-theist explanation, he responds with a racist explanation.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I think he's talking about fundamentalists like the Taliban. In that case, he is correct.

[Zostrianos]

Yeah, if he's referring to Islamists specifically, and not Islam, he would be right

[l'Enfermé]

Let's ignore this British imperialist's racism for a second, alright. What he said doesn't make any sense, racism or no racism. Medicine? Science? What? There is something inherently "Western" about coronary artery bypasses, appendectomies or Evolution and the Laws of Thermodynamics?

What a prick. He can suck it, cause I never even payed for his God Delusion book. And it sucked, too.

[B5C]

When ever he is talking about "islamists" he is referring to Islamic Fundamentalism. A lot of Islamic Fundamentalism are full of anti-science crap. Just look what is happening in Turkey. Turkey and the USA almost tie in the disbelief in Evolution.



Breaking news: Richard Dawkins doesn't like religion or 'Islamic barbarians'. Well, he kept that one quiet
by Tom Chivers posted on February 01, 2013 04:09PM GMT
Why are we still surprised that Richard Dawkins doesn't like religion? Also, will people now stop saying about the good professor that "he wouldn't dare say that about Islam"? Please?

I should explain. The latest furore comes after Islamist extremists burned down a sacred library in Timbuktu, Mali, during the ongoing conflict there. Prof Dawkins tweeted "Like Alexandria, like Bamiyan, Timbuktu's priceless manuscript heritage destroyed by Islamic barbarians."

Cue much clutching of pearls and fainting. "He's been mean about a religion!"
A few things worth noting. One, Dawkins is on record describing Islam as "one of the great evils of the world". Not, it's worth noting, "Muslims", but "Islam", the set of beliefs and practices. He feels similarly about the Catholic Church (he's gently fond of the milquetoasts of the C of E), following the Steve Weinberg quote that "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion". Whether or not you agree with Dawkins (or Weinberg), it's frankly silly to get all upset about it now.

Further, as Dawkins pointed out when people started hyperventilating, if you burn down a library, "barbarian" is probably the right term (although it should be noted that the damage to the library now appears to have been less than originally feared). The barbarians in question were Islamic, and, significantly, their actions were driven by their interpretation of their faith: it is reasonable to describe them as "Islamic barbarians". Dawkins said: "Christian barbarians murder abortion doctors. Most Christians are not barbarians. Stalin was an atheist barbarian. Most atheists are not barbarians."

Essentially, the point is this: if you believe, as Dawkins does, that religion has a net negative effect on the world, it's hypocritical to pretend otherwise in a bid to remain politically correct. Dawkins has also pointed out that the God of the Old Testament was capricious and violent and by any reasonable understanding evil – demanding genocide and child-murder, rape and sexual slavery, and any number of horrific slaughters and collective punishments and tortures and cruelties. The relevant passage in The God Delusion was described as "profoundly anti-semitic" by the chief rabbi, Jonathan Sacks. But it's ludicrous to say that criticism of the content of the Jewish holy book (or the Islamic or Christian ones which are based on it, for that matter) equates to dislike of Jewish people.

Finally, I hope this finally shuts up the boring, boring Christians (note that I am not saying that all Christians are boring, only that the boring ones should shut up) who say of Dawkins and other atheists "You only say these things about Christianity! Don't have the nerve to say it about Islam, do you?" He does. So did Christopher Hitchens, so does Sam Harris. (The fourth "horseman", Daniel Dennett, is gentler, as befits a man who looks like the love-child of Father Christmas and Charles Darwin.)

I don't know where I stand on the "religion is a net force for good/evil" debate. I think it's too complex to have a simple answer, although I do think that the fact that religions' central claims are false* is a major strike against them: I'd rather teach people dangerous facts than useful fictions. But Dawkins does know where he stands. So do you. Why on earth do we get surprised when he says what we already know he thinks?

* yes, yes, I can't "prove" that God doesn't exist or that we won't live forever. I can't prove anything, down to and including my name or the existence of Leamington Spa. Eventually you just have to admit that if it looks like the absence of a duck, walks like the absence of a duck, and quacks like the absence of a duck, the duck is probably absent.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100200882/breaking-news-richard-dawkins-doesnt-like-religion-well-he-kept-that-one-quiet/

[Fourth Internationalist]

Islamists are different than Moslems and Arabs.

Is·lam·ism (http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifs-lähttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifmhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifzhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/lprime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifm, http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifz-, http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifshttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.giflhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif-, http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifzhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gif-)n.1. An Islamic revivalist movement, often characterized by moral conservatism, literalism, and the attempt to implement Islamic values in all spheres of life.
2. The religious faith, principles, or cause of Islam.

[Ostrinski]

If indeed he was referring to only Islamists he certainly phrased it very poorly.

Islamism is not a culture, it's a reactionary political ideology. Islamists predominantly come from Arab, Persian, and certain African cultures. Therefore the Arabic, Islamic, and certain African cultures are what he is targeting his bigoted statements at, not the political ideology of Islamists.

If he just wanted to attack Islamists he could have done so very easily without bringing culture into. You folks need to just accept that what he said was very chauvinist and unacceptable.

[B5C]

It's unacceptable to attack Islamic Fundamentalist culture? Richard Dawkins hates religions as much as I do. I wish for a day where is no superstition taking over lands. Does that mean Richard and I hate Muslims because of Islam? No.

Heck I am married to a Christian. I believe my wife's religion is destructive to the world, but do I hate my wife? No.

[Ostrinski]

On what grounds is "Islamic fundamentalism" a culture?

[B5C]

On what grounds is "Islamic fundamentalism" a culture?

The Definition of Culture:

5. the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group: the youth culture; the drug culture.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/culture

Christian Fundamentalism, Islamic Fundamentalism, and etc are all different cultures.

Did the Taliban create their own culture during their rule of Afghanistan?

[Luís Henrique]

Islamists are different than Moslems and Arabs.

To me Islamist = Moslem, and I don't think people started making such weird distinction before 2001. There are of course subsets, or subsects, that we may call Political Islam, or Radical Islam, or Fundamentalist Islam. You and me can agree that there is a difference between the common Moslem who vaguely believes in one Allah and occasionally indulges in paying homage to the God of his ancestors, and the raging fanatic trying to build a world caliphate by the way of political assassination.

But I'm not so sure that Dawkins makes a distinction. Not at least until someone calls him on it - that would deprive him of his favourite sport of backpedaling...

Luís Henrique

[Fourth Internationalist]

To me Islamist = Moslem,

It shouldn't. The common English definition (which I posted) is very different from a plain Moslem, which could be a liberal Moslem, to a consercative/fundamentalist Moslem or an Islamist.

[Luís Henrique]

It's unacceptable to attack Islamic Fundamentalist culture? Richard Dawkins hates religions as much as I do. I wish for a day where is no superstition taking over lands. Does that mean Richard and I hate Muslims because of Islam? No.

Heck I am married to a Christian. I believe my wife's religion is destructive to the world, but do I hate my wife? No.

Here is what he wrote:


Either that or they feel humiliated because their culture is such a conspicuous failure – in science, engineering, medicine etc

I don't believe for a second he was referring to Political Islam as a "culture". The clear implication is that Muslim culture, or Arabic culture, are failures in science, engineering, medicine, etc. To which I must answer that he should keep himself to Roman numerals and see if he can does science with them.

I really can't understand how leftists allow themselves to get infatuated with this moronic bigot.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

The Definition of Culture:

5. the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group: the youth culture; the drug culture.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/culture

From the same dictionary:


3. a particular form or stage of civilization, as that of a certain nation or period: Greek culture.

This is how I believe he was thinking of it.

But Dawkins must love his own feet with curry sauce, the way he is constantly putting them into his mouth, so who knows?

Luís Henrique

[Fourth Internationalist]

@People

Islamists' culture and Arab/Moslem culture are entirely different. What the Middle East got under Islaminists' culture was a deeply uneducated, messed up society where women were property and homosexuals were stoned. Under Arab/less extreme Moslem culture was a glorious and thriving society with great mathematical and scientific advances. To think he was talking about the latter when he stated it was the former is just stupid!

[Rafiq]

Here is what he wrote:



I don't believe for a second he was referring to Political Islam as a "culture". The clear implication is that Muslim culture, or Arabic culture, are failures in science, engineering, medicine, etc. To which I must answer that he should keep himself to Roman numerals and see if he can does science with them.

I really can't understand how leftists allow themselves to get infatuated with this moronic bigot.

Luís Henrique

The man is a fool, but calling the achievements of near eastern civilization "Islamic" is a lot like calling the achievements of European civilization "Christian". At it's height, there was no Sharia, drinking was common (Don't know about pork, but pork has always been taboo in Arab culture as pigs were worshipped at a time) homosexuals weren't commonly murdered and so on. Islam had nothing to do with the achievements in the fields of mathamatics or the sciences. I don't ever want to see someone use the term "Arab/Muslim" because it's not only offensive, it's exceedingly inappropriate in context and when people use it they sound extremely dumb.

[Hit The North]

@People

Islamists' culture and Arab/Moslem culture are entirely different. What the Middle East got under Islaminists' culture was a deeply uneducated, messed up society where women were property and homosexuals were stoned. Under Arab/less extreme Moslem culture was a glorious and thriving society with great mathematical and scientific advances.

You're talking about two completely different societies located in different historical junctures. It's not nearly so simple that moderate Islamic culture creates a thriving and innovative society and that fundamentalist Islamic culture creates moribund and reactionary societies. While I agree that fundamentalism is deeply reactionary and likely to create stagnant societies, I don't buy into the idea that some version of a moderate Islam is responsible for the flowering of civilisation in the Middle East in the first millennia after Mohammed. The fact that this civilisation was the main beneficiary of the transmitted wisdom and technique of the ancient world and the East is a far larger influence on the course of its ascendency.

Also, we need to realise that Islamic Fundamentalism is the product of societies already in crisis - and chiefly because of the impact of Western imperialism.


To think he was talking about the latter when he stated it was the former is just stupid!Whatever he was referring to, he is wrong. Islamic culture is not a failure in the ways he claims, as you concede. And if he's referring only to the Fundies, then he is wrong because their "aggression" does not stem from a sense of humiliation about the failure of their culture.

I don't understand why you feel the need to defend him.

[Hit The North]

(Don't know about pork, but pork has always been taboo in Arab culture as pigs were worshipped at a time)

Are you sure? As far as I understand it, Islam inherited the view that pigs were spiritually unclean from Judaism - the material reality (and rational underpinning) being that pork is a particularly difficult meat to keep clean of parasites, particularly in hot climates.

I stand to be corrected, but the idea that Arabs used to worship pigs sounds like a racist slur to me.

[Lord Hargreaves]

We shouldn't even concede that there is a single monolithic "Islamic culture" or "Arab culture" so we can defend it against Dawkins's reactionary criticism. The terms are as vague as saying "Christian culture" or "European culture", which no educated person would use without a huge cups of salt. There are huge differences that these sweeping generalizations miss and we are best avoiding them too.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I don't buy into the idea that some version of a moderate Islam is responsible for the flowering of civilisation in the Middle East in the first millennia after Mohammed.Moderate Islam at that time was a major reason that Moslem mathematics and scientists have made great contributions to those fields. In school, I just learned about this, and my textbook has lots of great information on how Islam drove the scientists and mathematics of the time. Then, it goes on about how as the region began to introduce stricter Shari'a, the science and mathematics fields stopped flourishing as they used to. I wish I had it with me for more details.


Also, we need to realise that Islamic Fundamentalism is the product of societies already in crisis - and chiefly because of the impact of Western imperialism. That's why the culture it creates is so f***ing stupid.


Whatever he was referring to, he is wrong. Islamic culture is not a failure in the ways he claims, as you concede. Islamist, not Islamic.


And if he's referring only to the Fundies, then he is wrong because their "aggression" does not stem from a sense of humiliation about the failure of their culture.He only stated it as an idea. Neither you, him, nor I know for sure, but is it so impossible that for him to suggest it is wrong?


I don't understand why you feel the need to defend him. I don't defend because of who said, I defend because of what was said.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I stand to be corrected, but the idea that Arabs used to worship pigs sounds like a racist slur to me.

Many polytheistic religions worshiped animals, like in Hinduism, except in that case, it's a cow. So it's entirely possible they did, though I'm not certain.

[Luís Henrique]

Islamist, not Islamic.

I think this disjunction is a neologism - if for no other reason, because the phenomenon the word "Islamist" purports to denote is a quite recent one.

The name of the religion is Islam. Islamist, if we follow the etymology, means just follower of Islam. True, words change meaning, but calling only the fanatical brands of Islam "Islamism" and believing this isn't a way to reduce the phenomenon to its religious superstructural aspect sounds to me like calling the followers of Jerry Fallwell "Christianists" instead of "Christians", or adepts of Kahane Chai "Judaists" instead of "Jews" and believing it makes a difference.

Luís Henrique

[Sasha]

Dawkins is an sexist asshole; http://mobile.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/10/sexism_in_the_skeptic_community_i_spoke_out_then_c ame_the_rape_threats.html

[Rafiq]

Are you sure? As far as I understand it, Islam inherited the view that pigs were spiritually unclean from Judaism - the material reality (and rational underpinning) being that pork is a particularly difficult meat to keep clean of parasites, particularly in hot climates.

I stand to be corrected, but the idea that Arabs used to worship pigs sounds like a racist slur to me.

Why though? Pigs are extremely intelligent animals.

*Edit I meant, they worshipped a pig like deity, not pigs in general, though I think they were considered sacred.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I think this disjunction is a neologism - if for no other reason, because the phenomenon the word "Islamist" purports to denote is a quite recent one.

The name of the religion is Islam. Islamist, if we follow the etymology, means just follower of Islam. True, words change meaning, but calling only the fanatical brands of Islam "Islamism" and believing this isn't a way to reduce the phenomenon to its religious superstructural aspect sounds to me like calling the followers of Jerry Fallwell "Christianists" instead of "Christians", or adepts of Kahane Chai "Judaists" instead of "Jews" and believing it makes a difference.

Luís Henrique


Except in this case, the word "Islamist" has it's own definition which refers to a specific ideology, "Islamism."

Islamists are different than Moslems and Arabs.

Is·lam·ism (http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifs-lähttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifmhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifzhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/lprime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifm, http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifz-, http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifshttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.giflhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif-, http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifzhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gif-)n.1. An Islamic revivalist movement, often characterized by moral conservatism, literalism, and the attempt to implement Islamic values in all spheres of life.
2. The religious faith, principles, or cause of Islam.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

Dawkins is an sexist asshole; http://mobile.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/10/sexism_in_the_skeptic_community_i_spoke_out_then_c ame_the_rape_threats.html

On that matter I think they're both in the wrong.

Dawkins made a very poor analogy, but I also believe that Watson has blown that whole elevator thing way out of proportion.
However, I can't really say anything, because I wasn't in that elevator, and I haven't been a victim of sexual harassment myself.

But I do believe that a bar is an "accepted" place to hit on people, although I can understand how she would feel cornered in an elevator.

[Luís Henrique]

Except in this case, the word "Islamist" has it's own definition which refers to a specific ideology, "Islamism."

Look at definition #2:


2. The religious faith, principles, or cause of Islam.

At best, it is an ambiguous word. You can't say "all Islamists are fanaticals" and expect no reaction, because one of the accepted meanings of the word is exactly a synonim to "Muslim".

Luís Henrique

[Fourth Internationalist]

Look at definition #2:



At best, it is an ambiguous word. You can say "all Islamists are fanaticals" and expect no reaction, because one of the accepted meanings of the word is exactly a synonim to "Muslim".

Luís Henrique

Yes, but the point is that "Islamist" is often used to the specific group of people who believe what the first definition describes, so for people here to think he is referring to all Moslems and Arabs (thus being racist) is unjustified.

[Luís Henrique]

Why though? Pigs are extremely intelligent animals.

So are monkeys.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Yes, but the point is that "Islamist" is often used to the specific group of people who believe what the first definition describes, so for people here to think he is referring to all Moslems and Arabs (thus being racist) is unjustified.

I don't think it is. Have you read The God Delusion? Do you remember the section on how moderate religion actually reinforces fanaticism (it is the last section of Chapter 8)?

Dawkins is a bigot, please realise it.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

On that matter I think they're both in the wrong.

Dawkins made a very poor analogy, but I also believe that Watson has blown that whole elevator thing way out of proportion.
However, I can't really say anything, because I wasn't in that elevator, and I haven't been a victim of sexual harassment myself.

But I do believe that a bar is an "accepted" place to hit on people, although I can understand how she would feel cornered in an elevator.

I won't opine on the whole incident, as I have read little about it, and even this was a long time ago, so I don't remember the details.

But Dawkins' idiotic "Dear Muslima" (which starts being idiotic at naming his ficticious interlocutor "Muslima" - since when this is a typical Muslism feminine name?) letter is a ridiculous example of poor logic and lazy moralising. So if Muslim women are oppressed in some brutal ways, does it mean that non-Muslim women have to accept mistreatment, as long as it is not as bad as that which Muslim women suffer? Next what, Blacks can't complain about police selective targeting because slavery was worse? Jews can't complain about idiots spreading shit about world conspiracies because it at least isn't as bad as the Holocaust?

Sheesh, I guess the brilliant intellectual who explains us how "moderate religion actually reinforces religious fanaticism" can't make the analogous reasoning that "moderate sexism" reinforces "sexist fanaticism"...? Or is it that sexism just simply isn't as bad as religion, period?

I guess he should stop complaining about the problems atheists face, too... after all, they are not as bad as the Inquisition, are they?

Luís Henrique

[Rafiq]

So are monkeys.

Luís Henrique

And? The point is, (I don't know if there was a deity 100%, but they were sacraficed and were sacred) it seems pretty sensible to worship them within the context of bizarre paganism (where in semetic areas there were owl gods, goat gods etc). "Arabs" used to worship a lot of different deities, from all sorts of regions, it's not as if they were obsessed with pigs and worshipped the actual animals themselves.

[Rafiq]

Islamists are the intristic enemies of the arab proletariat. There is no compromise. Arabs aren't a bunch of sensless "oriental others" like the blue people from avatar. Hell there is a black bloc in egypt! There is genuine class struggle there, with the exception of mass rural areas in places like afhganistan the islamists are a new weapon of the class enemy, as the nationalists in europe today are. Apologia for Islamists is more racist than attacks on Islam, why? In europe, the left attacks reactionaries, with no sympathy. If a senator here in the u.s. said women should cover up, there would be mass ridicule. If some islamist scum said the same, as they do, we'd have people here go about of how "well its a different culture" or "that's how *they* are". Instead of showing solidarity to the mass anti islamism in the middle east they catagorize the "Arab" or "Muslim" people into a single, mindless and almost child like group that "doesn't know any better". The point is, as communists we must destroy this "orientalist" barrier, we must radically do away with this notion of the "other" and just as radically understand places outside the western world as fields of class struggle, to radically reduce our being to theirs (or elevate theirs to ours). I mean events like the arab spring, though a failure should have made this apparent to the western left.

[Sea]

Islamists are the intristic enemies of the arab proletariat. There is no compromise. Arabs aren't a bunch of sensless "oriental others" like the blue people from avatar. Hell there is a black bloc in egypt! There is genuine class struggle there, with the exception of mass rural areas in places like afhganistan the islamists are a new weapon of the class enemy, as the nationalists in europe today are. Apologia for Islamists is more racist than attacks on Islam, why? In europe, the left attacks reactionaries, with no sympathy. If a senator here in the u.s. said women should cover up, there would be mass ridicule. If some islamist scum said the same, as they do, we'd have people here go about of how "well its a different culture" or "that's how *they* are". Instead of showing solidarity to the mass anti islamism in the middle east they catagorize the "Arab" or "Muslim" people into a single, mindless and almost child like group that "doesn't know any better". The point is, as communists we must destroy this "orientalist" barrier, we must radically do away with this notion of the "other" and just as radically understand places outside the western world as fields of class struggle, to radically reduce our being to theirs (or elevate theirs to ours). I mean events like the arab spring, though a failure should have made this apparent to the western left.In mainstream politics, an attack on Islam as a religion is often a cover-up for a attack on people of Arabian ancestry. This connotation seems to carry over to the left.

Curiously, it's not all that taboo to attack zionism, despite "anti-zionism" being a common rallying cry for antisemites. Perhaps because racism against Arabs comes to the surface more often than antisemitism among reactionaries.

I agree, though, there's no logical reason to interpret it that way in the context of a leftist forum. Maybe I'm just too much of a giddy cheerful optimist, but I'd like to think we here take issue with the reactionary nature of Islam or zionism, not the fact that it's associated with those people.
Are you sure? As far as I understand it, Islam inherited the view that pigs were spiritually unclean from Judaism - the material reality (and rational underpinning) being that pork is a particularly difficult meat to keep clean of parasites, particularly in hot climates.

I stand to be corrected, but the idea that Arabs used to worship pigs sounds like a racist slur to me.I don't think he meant that they're all just a bunch of pig-worshipers. Granted I don't know Rafiq very well aside from reading some of his posts, but I highly doubt he's that immature.

[Luís Henrique]

I don't think he meant that they're all just a bunch of pig-worshipers. Granted I don't know Rafiq very well aside from reading some of his posts, but I highly doubt he's that immature.

Of course he didn't. This isn't even in question. The issues are, whether there is anything pointing to a pre-islamic cult of a Pig God, and whether such idea, false or true, is used in bigoted ways to ridicule Muslims.

Luís Henrique

[Zostrianos]

I studied pre-Islamic Arabic religion a while back, and there was no pig worship cult whatsoever. That sounds more like something pulled out of some right wing website.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Like what Poimandres said, I've never known of a pig worshiping cult. In fact, I'm sure I've read somewhere that the forbidding of pork consumption stems from ancient practices in the Arabian peninsula, where pigs that grew up on the harsh climate and ate it's food were usually unhealthy or even dangerous to eat. A thoughtful practice became a moral practice over time and it somehow found itself in some Abrahamic texts.

[Hit The North]

I don't think he meant that they're all just a bunch of pig-worshipers. Granted I don't know Rafiq very well aside from reading some of his posts, but I highly doubt he's that immature.

I wasn't insinuating that Rafiq was immature, just mistaken.

I know it's not an authoritative source, but Wikipedia claims that, on the contrary, there is archaeological evidence that pre-Islamic cultures ate pigs and that the prohibition on eating pork was introduced by Islam, not the vestiges of a former pagan religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_restrictions_on_the_consumption_of_pork

[Rafiq]

Although I was wrong about a pagan deity (a possibility I acknowledged, if you read my post), I am almost certain they were used in sacrafice in some semitic rituals and just as much were considered sacred because of this. Chloer is correct, though. I could have sworn, though, that in Arabia there was a deity which resembled a pig that made their consumption forbidden, which is common in pagan spirituality on almost a universal level. I could be wrong though. There certainly wasn't a "pig cult" as it was (IF it did exist) among other pagan deities.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Rafiq]

I wasn't insinuating that Rafiq was immature, just mistaken.

I know it's not an authoritative source, but Wikipedia claims that, on the contrary, there is archaeological evidence that pre-Islamic cultures ate pigs and that the prohibition on eating pork was introduced by Islam, not the vestiges of a former pagan religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_restrictions_on_the_consumption_of_pork

So? There wasn't a universal semitic religion. I'm sure if you dig up the bodies of pre-secular arabian muslims you will find many consumed wine and pork alike.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2