Ant
I suppose you believe in Spock as well.

Thanks Mehdi. In future, I think I'll refer my friends to this page.

Adam, you ask a valid question. But yes, I think there is still value in fasting, even if some people increase net consumption. The brief asceticism allows a person to focus mental power on intelletual and spiritual activities better, while remaining practical to the constraints of daily life.

Personally, I found that fasting while studying for the A levels accentuated my mental focus. Fasting per se is not exclusively religious. Its worth a try!

In reply to Hova, I am part of no "atheist brigade", although the notion of one, perhaps commandeering an A-team style van, is certainly intriguing. And there is nothing intolerant or self-righteous about the point I raised. As I have made clear, Mehdi is free to believe what he chooses, but is not immune from being challenged over this choice. I am simply inviting him to critically analyse his own beliefs, in the same vein that he invites those with whom he disagrees politically to reconsider theirs, as I have concerns that his devotion to irrational superstition may affect his credibility.

"Oh my dear Blueberry, my reference to whistling was of course a Pythonesque example of a concept of humour"

Oh Lizzie, I feel obliged to start my responses to you with exasperated sighs, if only to reflect the disinterested manner in which I read your posts. Your Pythonesque attempts at humour, whilst mildly amusing, display the exact type of condescension I was referring to earlier. Keep at it, and you’ll alienate just about every believer on the planet (numbering in the billions).Not that it’ll concern you one jot.

Your post reads like a typical populist atheist rant, devoid of any real substance and heavily reliant on crass interpretations of history or, failing that, just plain ignorance.

"Oh tell that to the Huguenots et al. It might interest you to know that this simply will not wash. And why impose a restriction of 100 years - other than to skilfully eradicate millenia of religious strife? If you seriously belief that the Middle East is an entirely secular cauldron of unrest, you must be joking. Shari'a law? I agree with you that we are not going to concede to that in a hurry. Stalin put to death 10,000 believers. The 'Catholic' Hitler murdered Jews. Blatantly Evangelical Americans, together with the 'Catholic' Blair signed the death warrant for 600,000 Muslims (The Lancet) as collateral damage, because God was on their side. Northern Ireland is defined by religious difference, used to underpin the thuggery and criminality and fuelled by the brainless partisan marches."

I'll make this fairly short, partly because I just do not have the time to continue this discussion, but mostly because you are dyed-in-the-wool philistine. Hitler may have been a Catholic, but I doubt that his religious beliefs were, in any way, a catalyst for his crimes against humanity. Jews were considered as an ethnicity in Nazi Germany, hence the crude 'scientific' attempts by the Nazis to identify Jews based on facial or physical characteristics; whether they went to synagogue or not was unimportant. As an aside, the horrific nature of the crimes committed by the Nazis were made possible by the same scientific progress you presumably hold as infallible and sacred. Nazism and Communism - two political ideologies (the latter of which implemented Atheism as a state religion) were responsible for the deaths, not religion. Regarding the Middle East; Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, West Bank and The Lebanon all non-religious governments; some even persecute practicing believers, despite cosy relationships with western secular countries. And it is, of course, grossly erroneous for you to ascribe religious motives for the war crimes committed by a certain Antony Blair, unless you can prove it.

---

In closing, I really do suggest you try and take a more holistic view of the world. Not all religions, or believers, preach intolerance; the vast majority, in fact, do not preach anything at all. If you are sincere in establishing dialogue, and in changing views, then you must be open to a world in which people choose, of their own free will, to believe in a God and follow dogma. Religion is here to stay and you'll have to get used to it.

what are the blessings of having sehree mean

What if you lived in Svalbard Norway. The sun currently stays up all day. So when would you end your fast?

Iran have frozen all state murders and capital punishment until after Ramadan - what would this come under; no impure thoughts, no bad behaviour, no sex?

Farouq Taj
''What if you lived in Svalbard Norway. The sun currently stays up all day. So when would you end your fast?''

Now that's an interesting question.

'Oh Lizzie, I feel obliged to start my responses to you with exasperated sighs, if only to reflect the disinterested manner in which I read your posts. Your Pythonesque attempts at humour, whilst mildly amusing, display the exact type of condescension I was referring to earlier'

Isn't there some religion or other that says 'first tske the mote from you own eye', or something of that ilk.

Atheism is hard work. Firstly you have to be secure enough not to need some jam tomorrow promise by which ever deity to live your life in a humanistic manner. Then you have to argue rationally with irrational beliefs. It's a pickle I tells ya.

@ Hova
'the ignorance, arrogance and unwarranted self importance that seems to be plaguing british society.''

As Mehdi says
''the uninformed and the ignorant.''

Though I think it's a bit arrogant and self important for him to point this out.

Mehdi you have now enlightened me.

@ Max

Don't do me any favours. Your a bit out there yourself.

Desdomona - think what you want love, I understand you are jealous. Maybe one day you might get a proper job too.
I make no apologies for being sucessful but I cannot abide petty jealousy.
Oh and max if you had two brain cells then you would still be thick as shit.

Have to be honest and say that I find religions quite scary. But so too is picking on people for their religious beliefs. Strange place to be in. I apologize in advance if below I write something offensive. But I think sometimes it's better to express one's prejudices so that counterarguments can be produced. I've changed my mind about things once or twice in the past...

Okay, first thought: the act of fasting is surely good, for the reasons listed, e.g., the challenge of inhibiting desires, being aware of those less fortunate than us, ruminating about past mistakes.

All this makes a lot of sense and could be grounded in modern science. For instance inhibition is a cognitive control function which is linked to intelligence. Perhaps fasting helps to train that? Rumination about past failures or problems we currently have to solve can be harmful and can stop solutions to problems being found, but perhaps a focused time spent thinking about problems means that it is easier to let them go in the future and find solutions. I'll bet there's some data showing that fasting slots in nicely to various psychological theories.

It just all feels a bit like homeopathy when expressed in religious terms. Homeopathy works, so, the argument goes, it should be used. It doesn't matter why it works. However, the counterargument is that if only we understood better why it worked, without having to talk about clearly false notions such as like-cures-like, and focused, for instance on the placebo effect and why it might exist, then we can better help people.

Seems similar for many religious rituals. The ideas make a lot of sense, but are couched in unusual terms which perhaps prevents the techniques being developed and improved.

@Daniel :

You have trashed your argument about King. While the giant invisible pig is absurd (mainly because i have never heard of it before), why would any person disregard his economic forecasts on the basis that he beleives in an invisible pig ? In the same way that if he is a catholic, why would anyone think his beleif in biblical verses somehow distorts his vision in the field of economics ? Thats what his education is for.

Thus you have made the assumption again that in order for one to be 'taken seriously' by your standards, one must disregard any form of religious spirituality, as it is a 'medieval concept'.

Perhaps then we shouldnt take what david cameron says too heavily either right ? What about Armatya sen ? Perhaps i should disregard everything Martin luther king said, because he also beleived is such a 'superstition'.

You have replied in a long winded fashion that for accuracy and rationality, one would lean closer toward athiesm, which is incorrect. Though im interested to see where Islam and intertwined with british politics in Mehdi's articles, as far as I am aware, his political analysis, no matter how controversial, hasnt swayed toward any form of religious conviction, and would be something I would expect from a left-leaning athiest/jew/christian/hindu.

I'm not saying that athiesm or theism is wrong at all. We are all as individuals entitled to our own beleifs and they should be respected accordingly. However, it seems from your posts that you are criticising Mehdi for the sole reason that you feel his religious convictions do not fall under the progressive line of which you judge political analysis, and that somehow, his faith prevents him from accurately analysing British politics ?

In pursuit of knowledge the headline looked promising. This reads like a bitter teenage Muslim character in a blonde joke.

Patronizing twat.

Moving on it sounds like fun. Spending the day building up an appetite for the "vast sin-concealing chaos" that is night!

Btw, @aliya, you write:

"I'm not sure where the confusion lies given that these are FAQs (and so I assume that these questions are not being asked by a specific individual), the way the questions are written implies that questioner is inherently confused and ignorant, which is a bit of an assumption."

Sorry to have to inform you Aliya but these are all real questions that I have been asked by well-meaning friends and colleagues, over the years...

Interesting read, but I still think Ramadan is a bit silly. It's a shame people are still so oppressed that they feel the need to half-starve themselves in order to please an imaginary being.

Can i put drop in my eyes while fasting..??

Oh dear Daniel, your comments become more risible and ridiculous by the post and simply illustrate your lack of tolerance of another's right to pratcise a religion - go write on BNP pages, they'll welcome you with open arms.

@ Imran
'Totally like this article Mehdi. Yes, its sarcastic and patronising but put yourself in the position of a muslim, where every year you are asked the same questions by colleagues, friends etc...

Well put yourself in the position of the vast majority of this country who are not muslim and don't know about your rituals. Instead of being sarcastic and patronising perhaps a better approach would be to just be glad they are bothering to take an interest?

Just a thought.

mcquade,

Next you will be calling for a 'Jihad'against Daniel for the temerity for arguing his case in a temperate and informed manner.

@Hova. It brings me joy that you consider Mervyn's hypothetical giant invisible pig to be "absurd", while defending systems of belief predicated on an invisible man in the sky talking to a self-appointed "chosen" few several millenia ago.

Yes, you should question what David Cameron says, if he believes in the literal truth of the bible. You should question what he says anyway, as he, like all people, is affected by his own prejudices and cognitive biases. The reason I have chosen to raise this as a particular issue with Mehdi is that he presents himself, and makes a living, as a rational analyst and critical opinion former, and buster of all the dishonesty, fluff and nonsense that pollute modern politics. If Cameron, or any other politician acts in a way with which Mehdi disagrees, he analyses the event and draws a critical conclusion accordingly. One might expect, and hope, someone with such an avowed dedication to progressiveness to expose his own beliefs to the same level of intellectual criticism. That he evidently declines to do so is disappointing.

"...you are criticising Mehdi for the sole reason that you feel his ...faith prevents him from accurately analysing British politics ?"

Now how about we replace the euphemism "faith" with the expanded synonym "dogmatic adherence to rituals and creeds derived from centuries-old hand-scrawled parchment depicting third-hand accounts of scientifically unproven (and in many cases disproven) events and blind acceptance of these events and their subsequent interpretations and derived imperatives as "revealed truth" and re-read the sentence. All of a sudden it doesn't seem so unreasonable a position for me to hold, does it?

@Mehdi. Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela were not journalists whose professional pedigree and integrity was judged on their capacity of rational analysis and reasoning. Your comment is a distraction, and does not address any of the points I have made. You do not, by some inverse Godwin's Law, win the argument by lazily invoking the name of Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela. If they were blogging on NS as political analysts, I would subject their prejudices and cognitive blind spots to exactly the same scrutiny.

I do though agree that The God Delusion is over-celebrated. Hitchens' "God Is Not Great" is a better read.

Oh Elizabeth, card-carrying Atheists are annoying for so many reasons, not least because they can turn a relatively harmless introduction to Ramadan into a full-scale God debate. The animosity, too, is irksome. Take, for instance, your daft assessment of a spiritual fast:

“However, I defend to the hilt Medhi Hassan's absolute right to do what he wishes, within reason. But why stop there? Perhaps stand on one leg between 10am and midday whistling 'Always Look on the Bright Side of Life' as a homage to the banishment of misery? What harm can it do?”

Perhaps if you could get your point across without resorting to sarcasm and condescension, people would be more willing to engage. But you, just like so many of your co-religionists, continue to mock, demean and pour scorn over those who have the temerity to believe in something over and beyond nihilistic materialism.

Tell me, Elizabeth, what possible affect do you think your posts could have on the religious? Do you think people of faith are likely to be swayed by your not-so-unique brand of aggressive mockery?

Let us continue...

“It goes without saying that the 'on-line atheist crusade' is arguably a drop in the ocean, compared with the organised, hard-nosed intolerance expressed by the 'religious', with their endless moral criticisms, victimisation, gender prejudice, patronising proselytization, dreary accounts of hell and damnation, limitless helpings of guilt, dubious sexual expertise, rationalized bloodshed, gratuitous violence and war.”

Ah yes, the crux of the matter. Religious people do evil things, therefore, religion is bad. It might, of course, be of interest to you that the vast majority of wars in the past 100 years can be attributed to ideological disputes largely devoid of religious sentiments. The two world wars, proxy battles in the cold war, the two gulf wars etc were not religiously motivated. I would contend that even the war on terror is more political than religious.

Your reference to “patronising proselytising” is particularly amusing, not least because you’ve been engaging in its atheist variation on this very thread. Glass houses and all that. In fact, I would suggest that new-atheists (led ably by the four horsemen) deal solely in patronising proselytisation, as any reader of Hitchens would gladly attest to. Dreary accounts of hell shouldn’t really bother you either, considering your materialist beliefs. What else was there? Ah, helpings of guilt – yes, religious people often feel guilty for committing evil acts. What terrible people we are.

"Perhaps some people claiming one religion or another really would rather close their ears and pretend that they exist in a self-congratulatory bubble of delusion. That's fine with me, just as long as they keep their nastier little ideas to themselves."

If you are so keen on ignoring religion, then why click on an article about Ramadan?

"While we are at it, they might also agree to stop attacking gay people, divorcees, women and one-parent families. They might bring an end to the railroading of our educational system, by accepting money from taxpayers to fund their partial interests, whilst also being selective over who they are prepared to admit - in this simplest of concepts."

Deal. But only if you cease lumping people of all faiths into a single homogenous group. We don’t all have the same opinions politics, religion and social justice. Some might even agree with you, even if they do dislike your mean-spirited and wholly inaccurate assessment of religion.

AND WHILE WERE AT IT, maybe card-carrying atheists could stop stoking the rampant religion-phobia we are becoming more and more acustomned to. Perhaps they could stop providing the intellectual basis for groups such as the EDL to march against peaceful Muslim worshippers. Perhaps they could stop insisiting that we have some sort of god virus – that we are all deluded. Perhaps they could stop creating fundamentalist secular groups designed to make life difficult for religious believers. Perhaps they could stop crying foul at papal state visits, and community-funded faith schools. Perhaps they could stop the scare-mongering that has the masses believing that Shariah law will consume us all. And perhaps, they could start acting like the rationalists they loudly proclaim themselves to be.

@ Aliya

Well said.