Islam and Free Speech

ahmed from bahrain :
Garyd :

You wrote:

"Ahmed no one including Bush wishes you or any other decent Muslim anything other than peace"

Speak for yourself. Bush says one thing and does one thing. He record during his short tenure in White House speaks volumes. You do not 'Shock and Awe' a whole country trying to punish one bully and his henchmen. Iraq today is chaos. People q for a drop of oil in a country overflown with oil, nly to be pumped out at America's will. The rest of the Iraqi assets are divided between US/UK corporates at a pittance.

This ignoring the million casualties and 3 million refugees living in Syria, Iran and Jordan. What was the cause of their misery? Your wonderful invasion and Rumsfeld/Cheney lies. The irony is that you still think Bush and Neocons want freedom for us. Where have you been? Don't you read news of The Middle East other than CNN/Fox?

Bush supported Israel bombarding Lebanon for over a month, killing thousands and leaving millions of clustered bombs that kill innocent children today. All paid for by your taxes. Israel does not want to give the location of these clustered bombs to vlunteers who risk their lives to clea acres of contaminated lands and you tell me Bush loves us! Msn, he only loves his autocracy and oil corps.

Let us start by withdrawing all your troops from all Middle East countries and becoming a non-biased supporter of Israel. Then you can be Bush's spokesperson.

As for that old dog of Mccain he wants to be in Iran for 100 years and sings to Beach Boys tune: Bom, bomb, bomb; bomb Iran, Bomb Iran. Funny how Americans can vote for such an old warmonger. Does being a war hero earns you the title of presidency? What about all the peace-loving folks? Where are they? Why don't you hear from them in your newsmedia? Ron Paul for example. Does CNN/Fox give him coverage??? Ask yourself why? Follow the money trail. Besides your whole economy is based on production of WMD and for those corps it means creating more demand for their goods. Hence more wars based on lies and slick PR machinery.

That is why AIPAC loves McCain coz he loves war and he is 70+, so chances are that he will kick the bucket in office, then they have a free ride as who to put into his place. Think about it and read a little more about your foreign policy and the power that your country has and it inflicting freely around the world. Your image is zilch outside of US. Wake up and stop blaming the troubles of Iraq and Afghanistan on muslims. Sure we are dumb but America ears heavy responsibility historically in those places and 911 is the result of those foreign policy acts.

If you want your freedom you have to give it to another.

deb chattergee:

Idol worship is No worship. Come on lets agree gee.

deb chattergee:

Idol worship is No worship. Come on lets agree gee.

deb chattergee:

Idol worship is No worship. Come on lets agree gee.

Do not blame the author when you cannot undersatnd the Book.

There are No Flaws in Holy Books, unless you have created some. The Holy Books are not meant for changes according to wish.

Whether you like it or not!!

Do not blame the author when you cannot undersatnd the Book.

There are No Flaws in Holy Books, unless you have created some. The Holy Books are not meant for changes according to wish.

Whether you like it or not!!

Do not blame the author when you cannot undersatnd the Book.

There are No Flaws in Holy Books, unless you have created some. The Holy Books are not meant for changes according to wish.

Whether you like it or not!!

All possible kind of questions asked by non Muslims about Islam answered on below web site:
http://www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm

GHYSLAINE ROC:
Shalom!
The arrogance, hatred, racism and fanaticism displayed by some people does not allow for a civilised exchange of views and facts on any matter.
Whilst the Arab Jews (“Sephardic”), Muslims, Christians and Atheists lived harmoniously in Palestine for more than a thousand years, it is sad to see how AshkeNAZIS Talmudist Jews have corrupted the Judaic religion and made it into a uniquely racist one with its Chosen People to whom they falsely claim GOD promised the land of the Arabs.
This AshkeNAZI anti-Semitic, anti-Arab and anti-Muslim racism caused about 110,000 Sephardic Jewish children to be irradiated with US military equipment according to Israeli military Barry Chamish. Check on Google for the “Ringworm Children”?
“In 1951, the director general of the Israeli Health Ministry, Dr. Chaim Sheba flew to America and returned with 7 x-ray machines, supplied to him by the American army.

They were to be used in a mass atomic experiment with an entire generation of Sephardi youths to be used as guinea pigs. Every Sephardi child was to be given 35,000 times the maximum dose of x-rays through his head. For doing so, the American government paid the Israeli government 300 million Israeli liras a year. The entire Health budget was 60 million liras. The money paid by the Americans is equivalent to billions of dollars today. To fool the parents of the victims, the children were taken away on "school trips" and their parents were later told the x-rays were a treatment for the scourge of scalpal ringworm. 6,000 of the children died shortly after their doses were given, while many of the rest developed cancers that killed them over time and are still killing them now. While living, the victims suffered from disorders such as epilepsy, amnesia, Alzheimer's disease, chronic headaches and psychosis.”
So the AshkeNAZI visceral hatred for anything Arab (and Muslim) has been proven a thousand times already. After stealing the Arab SEMITIC identity, and making it an exclusively Jewish identity, they (and their friends) are now trying to say that even the Tallit is exclusively Jewish!!!!!!! Few of them really know that the Hebrew religion is as a matter of fact a Babylonian-Arab-Palestinian religion, and that Hebrew customs are in fact Arab customs. Even the “Hebrew God” is the GOD OF THE ARABS “YA HUA” (YHWH), EL, ELAH, ALAH, ELAHI, AL-LAH (THE GOD), and the GOD OF THE PALESTINIANS ADONIS!!!!!! ELOHIM is just the plural form of ELAH (or as some say, a plural form of respect). ADONAÏ ELOHIM is in fact not exclusively Jewish at all!!!!!!!
In order to understand “Jewish” customs, one should not ignore the fact that they were in fact Arab customs. Jews say SHALOM ‘ALEYKHEM and Arabs say AS SALAAMU ‘ALAYKUM meaning exactly the same thing!
“JEWS” are in fact not exclusively the real Bani Isra’il, and AshkeNAZIS are not Semitic at all. When Jewish Arthur Koestler said in his book The Thirteenth Tribe that nearly 90% of modern Jews are not Semitic at all but of a Mongolian-Turkic race, the racist AshkeNAZIS murdered him and his wife, which the Police passed as suicide!!!!!!! (The UK is run by Zionists!)
One should not mix the customs of Reformed Jews with those of Orthodox Jews, just like one cannot mix the customs of Catholics with those of Protestants. The European Christian hatred of Islam and Muslims has prevented the world from learning the truth about this great world religion, currently the fastest growing religion in the world. The very first created man, Adam, was a Muslim. All the “Jewish” Prophets were Muslims. Jesus was a Muslim. It is just a matter of meaning, because a Muslim, by definition, is just any human who submits to the Laws of GOD. When a Jew obeys the Lord’s Commandments, he or she automatically behaves like a Muslim and may well be called a Muslim if the Commandments are authentic.
The first Arab Muslims when Islam was perfected were Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Atheists, and they have imported their customs in the daily lives of Muslims. But, it is useless to explain this to racists, hate-mongers and fanatics. Muslims are allowed to marry Jewish and Christian women because in those days there was no great difference between them. For example, Jews and Christians covered their heads in prayer. They both did not eat pork, condemned adultery, polytheism, murder, false testimony, adultery, and honoured their parents.
Even to this day, Russians and Eastern Christianity and Judaism respect the HIJAAB.
Regards
Ghyslaine ROC
Saturday 16th of February 6008
FEBRUARY 16, 2008 1:30 PM

there was an extended attempt to define from a variety of sources (all verified) on eboo patel's 'our faith talk is in the gutter' post under the faithdivide

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/eboo_patel/2008/01/our_faith_talk_is_in_the_gutte/all_comments.html

the beginning posts are reasonable enough-
of course, predictably the isalmophobes showed up at the end- but thats par for the course here-

hope you get something out of it observer
peace

Observer12 wrote:

"I do not know what you mean by a "fictitious line." What you may see as fiction, others may see as truth. After all, who owns the oil companies? Who is in bed with the Muslim Saudis? Who brought us to Iraq? Who owns Haliburton? Who owns Microsoft? The media? The Congress? The overwhelming majority of members of Congress are Christians, confessing Christians, that is, in the House. Oddly, very mysteriously, the majority of Senate members are Catholics"

The ficticious line is that "hate speech" and "offensive speech" are in most cases blurry. As you correctly point out, calling for unprovoked violence against any human race/person is a call for "hate speech" that the US Supreme court would recognize as punishable under US laws. But how do you define "offensive speech" from "hate speech", in your perception ?

Muslims follow the Quran. The Quran is full of hate against unbelievers (i.e., one who will not submit before its barbaric dictates), if one reads the authentic English translations of the holy book of Islam by Muslim translators (Abdullah Yusuf Ali for example).

So, if you are objecting to hate speech which I would limit to speech that explicitly commands violence, I would put Quran in that category. It does call for slaughter of pagans (Hindus), or hates them with some degree of "flexibility" and hence would spare their lives if these pagans, and Jews and Christians would accept "dhimmitude" (second class status), and pay the insulting tax (Jiziya) because of their non-Muslim status. (See Quran [009:029], which reads:

YUSUFALI: "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued"

Isn't that hate speech too ? So, major of the Quran should be banned in USA, no ?

Deb,

I am not speaking of offense. I am speaking of hate speech. Hate speech is violence, in and of itself. Arun Gandhi's January 7th essay is hate speech.

I am an academic. I asked a legal ethicist, also an academic, for his opinion. While he was stunned by the profound ignorance evident in Gandhi's referring to the Shoah as a "German burden," i.e., of knowing nothing about the EuropeChristian-wide participation in the slaughter, including that of that great bastion of tolerance France, not to mention England, he does not believe Gandhi's pollution qualifies as hate speech in the legal sense. As for the moral sense, he thinks it obviously does. (Not-so-incidentally, he is not Jewish.) Still, he referred me to another professor, at Harvard, whose answer regarding legality, I am advised to take as definitive. I am awaiting his reply.

I do not know what you mean by a "fictitious line." What you may see as fiction, others may see as truth. After all, who owns the oil companies? Who is in bed with the Muslim Saudis? Who brought us to Iraq? Who owns Haliburton? Who owns Microsoft? The media? The Congress? The overwhelming majority of members of Congress are Christians, confessing Christians, that is, in the House. Oddly, very mysteriously, the majority of Senate members are Catholics.

You should know that there are Muslims who are struggling, right now in Pakistan against the ignorance of a moron like Moody, academics and journalists, some of whom publish in the New York Times. They are not anti-Jewish racists, or racists of any kind, and they do not support extremism or oppression. Nor do they apologize for it, i.e., attempt to explain it. They have no sympathy for it, no patenalistic empathy. They want democracy--now.

It would be the easiest thing in the world for me, as a Jew, to write all Muslims off with one broad brush stroke. I look at the three million Jewish refugees from the Middle East, and I wonder that I have not done so. It is an achievement, purchased dearly, effortfully; a struggle I have engaged all my life. I don't want to become a Lilliputian, despite the fact that I often find myself in Lilliput.

By the way, Deb, you are right. Freedom of speech is not accepted at the WP, although hate speech is, selectively.

Deb,

I am not speaking of offense. I am speaking of hate speech. Hate speech is violence, in and of itself. Arun Gandhi's January 7th essay is hate speech.

I am an academic. I asked a legal ethicist, also an academic, for his opinion. While he was stunned by the profound ignorance evident in Gandhi's referring to the Shoah as a "German burden," i.e., of knowing nothing about the EuropeChristian-wide participation in the slaughter, including that of that great bastion of tolerance France, not to mention England, he does not believe Gandhi's pollution qualifies as hate speech in the legal sense. As for the moral sense, he thinks it obviously does. (Not-so-incidentally, he is not Jewish.) Still, he referred me to another professor, at Harvard, whose answer regarding legality, I am advised to take as definitive. I am awaiting his reply.

I do not know what you mean by a "fictitious line." What you may see as fiction, others may see as truth. After all, who owns the oil companies? Who is in bed with the Muslim Saudis? Who brought us to Iraq? Who owns Haliburton? Who owns Microsoft? The media? The Congress? The overwhelming majority of members of Congress are Christians, confessing Christians, that is, in the House. Oddly, very mysteriously, the majority of Senate members are Catholics.

You should know that there are Muslims who are struggling, right now in Pakistan against the ignorance of a moron like Moody, academics and journalists, some of whom publish in the New York Times. They are not anti-Jewish racists, or racists of any kind, and they do not support extremism or oppression. Nor do they apologize for it, i.e., attempt to explain it. They have no sympathy for it, no patenalistic empathy. They want democracy--now.

It would be the easiest thing in the world for me, as a Jew, to write all Muslims off with one broad brush stroke. I look at the three million Jewish refugees from the Middle East, and I wonder that I have not done so. It is an achievement, purchased dearly, effortfully; a struggle I have engaged all my life. I don't want to become a Lilliputian, despite the fact that I often find myself in Lilliput.

Deb blubbered again -

"hoping that this post doesn't get axed again like the last time"

Do you think there might be a reason Mister Neanderthal that your posts are getting axed????

YOU ARE AN OFFENSE TO THE HUMAN RACE!

You really believe in the junk that you write dont you? Has anyone ever told you how ugly you are inside?

America TRULY is a melting pot because if we can allow idiots like Deb to exist and speak as freely as we do - then maybe Osama should come here too? Who is stopping him? What is stopping him? Deb is a terrorist in disguise - he has no morals or manners. There is absolutely NO common sense or compassion in this man. He does not deserve to live in this country - a freak is what he is!

A terrorist is someone who ignites and spreads hateful ideas around him - most of the time through violence. The thing is, he never fights his own battles, he has others fight them for him. Deb is a true terrorist here trying to accomplish only ONE thing - HATE AND VIOLENCE.

DEB HAS CALLED FOR THE KILLING OF MUSLIMS ON THESE BLOGS.

"In USA free speech means the right to offend."

WRONG - this moronic piece of junk is exactly the problem here. YOU DONT HAVE THE RIGHT TO OFFEND ANYONE DEBORAH/DEBO/DEBBY.

This shows a significant lack of education, morals, manners, upbringing, etc. In Urdu, its called JAHIL. Meaning, IGNORANT.

Go and lick your wounds somewhere else - its no one else's fault that you were kicked around as a kid. I feel sorry for you because you probably never had a decent childhood or life.

Are you married? I dont think so...no one could stand such an offensive human being. Disgusting!

"What offends you may not offend me. So, why bother creating a ficticious line ?"

You're right - we all have different sensibilities. That does NOT mean its okay to abuse other people.

If civilization was built on your theories - we would have wars EVERYDAY. You lack the common sense that normal people are born with. IF we ever listened to ignoramouses like Deb - there would be NO hope for America or any other country to see a better day. It wont happen because we will be engaged in war after war after war.

Maybe you had some common sense but got it beaten out of you - again - its that kicking around that you got as a child.

Kolkata is probably sick of you - the USA wants nothing to do with you - your family does not want you - you are a closet atheist - you dont believe in God but dont have the courage to say so out loud - you are misrably unhappy - you have no one in your life because of your repulsive attitude - you have ONLY hatred to offer anyone else.

Who gives a tail what you have to say Debo? You have enough problems on your plate - the world doesnt need you - fix your own pile of junk first.

Obviously WP blogowner doesn't respect free speech. Maybe the line between free-speech and hate-speech are arbitrarily self-regulated on this blog, and perhaps Sally Quinn and Jon Meacham answer what is the difference they perceive between the two.

Responding to Observer12, and hoping that this post doesn't get axed again like the last time, I would assert if hate speech is contemptible, then Quran promotes hate speech against those who are non-Muslims. Its call to violence against those who will not submit to Islam [Quran(047:004)] is quite unmatched. It manifests its hatred by asking its followers to engage in violence to uphold the supremacy and enforces its legitimacy by use of violence. The doctrine of Islam is thus abominable.

A recent CNN newsitem supports this assertion. The link is below:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/02/12/denmark.cartoon/index.html

Free speech, unless it ius submissive, is taken as hate speech. In USA free speech means the right to offend. What offends you may not offend me. So, why bother creating a ficticious line ?

Observer12 wrote -

"As I said earlier hate speech is not freedom of speech."

This has been my point on these blogs for a VERY long time to Debby. He seems to think HATE and violence are good things. He seems to think he has a right to them because of freedom of speech. Why? How?

Deb has called for the killing of Muslims on WPost blogs and DOES hate Muslims. I dont know why he is acting like coward right now and not admitting it.

He is a narrow-minded, uneducated, bigot that came to this country looking for help because he was treated like a second-class citizen in his own country. Yet he seems to think its okay to do that to other people.

***Have you ever heard of such hypocrisy?***

HE IS A WASTE OF PERFECTLY GOOD BREATHING SPACE.

Well, Deb, you have called me out of hiding. I do think, however, that Hindu fundamentalists driving out Dr. Jalal from Columbia goes to free speech.

Moreover, if you reread your posts, or better yet, preview them before posting, you will find that you have gone on about Sharia of which you know next to nothing and a dozen other things about which you do know nothing.

There are Islamic extremists, and their number is great. Nor are they limited to the members of the Muslim Student Organization as Anonymous would have it. Incidentally, I thank him/her for including Jews among those whom Muslims are enjoined not to hate. How very gracious!

As I said earlier hate speech is not freedom of speech. Yet, we permit it selectively as we see in the case of Arun Gandhi. The failure of moderators to remove the essay is unfortunate. The New York Times has removed blogs when they found their contents unaccpetable for one reason or another.

Then we have Moody with his "Zionist media," which would be hilarious if there weren't so many other fools who had bought into this ancient canard. We all know that our problems are due to the Muslim-Christian oil cartel.

If we want to protect American rights,then we have to allow persons you and I may find objectionable to speak, but not with hatred, and, ideally, not with stupidity.

I do wish you well, Deb.

Observer12:

You raise irrelevant points and then run away like the proverbial quitter.

NO one denies the faults of Hindu society, viz., widow burning, etc.

However the main thrust of this forum is "Islam vs Free Speech". On that score you sound like a rambling idiot, and I am sure you are an intelligent person in real life. This is quite unfortunate.

To relate to the topic at hand, consider the recent fiasco about Tasleema Nasreen in Kolkata, India. Muslim fundamentalists have threatended with decapitation. Yes, academic protests are happening but the voice of the "moderate and enlightened Muslims" is not doing anything. Tasleema is still in hiding. We often hear that moderate Muslims are the majority, but apparently at least in this case the moderate and enlightened have surrendered their intellect to the fundamentalism of the barbaric Islamic doctrines (Shariah). Thus regardless of whatever is being preached about Islam to brainwash the gullible, the fact remains that Free Speech and Islam are diametrically at odds with each other. Similar situation has not been seen with Christianity or the Christian values, at least in the recent times. Bringing reform in Muslim societies is the job of these "moderate and enlightened Muslims", and not that of non-Muslims.

Anyway, just have a good life.

Dear Deb,

No, "post[ing] the same message thrice" does not "emphasize my point." How or why that happened I don't know, but I doubt it would make a dfference to you if you read it 100 times. You just don't get. And you are determined not to.

I am opposed to bride-burning, female feticide, and the enslavement (literal enslavement) of tens of millions of Dalit. So are many, many Muslims and Christians. Widow self-immolation doesn't do it for me either. While it's none of my business, I could live without idol worship. And? So? Point?

Hindu fundamentalists forced the ouster of Dr. Aisha Jalal, an eminent academic, from Columbia. While she has gone on to have a predictably remarkable career, Columbia, shamefaced, mumbles when her name came up.

Extremists in any group are undesirable here and everywhere. However, this is the U.S., and we do have freedom of speech. Among other things, this right allows people like you to deny that the slaughter at Gujurat happened, thinking that no one would be able to demonstrate otherwise.

I don't know what is causing your panic. Understand the culture that you are in. Return to your ESL classes to improve your communication skills. Use this space for something other than hate.

Good luck to you, and I mean that sincerely. I won't be communicating with you again.

Deb

The MSA Muslim Student Association on most every college campus is responsible, I think, for bringing the current wave of Muslim radicalism to the US. How sad it is to see these young people preach and teach hatred of anybody, including Jews...hatred is hatred and the acid that devours one's soul.

It is the philosophy of Maududi, the Jammat Islami (JI) preacher that has instilled this poison in them. the Writings of Qutb also incite them to aggress against humanity for the sake of Allah.

Have all forgotten that religion was meant to make us better human beings. Instead these Muslim young people seem to eat up this poison at the college level when they should be learning how to think and to CHALLENGE destructive propaganda.

This is what their Muslim organizations and leaders are feeding them...the poison of the likes of Maududi and Qutb so they become haters of humanity.

I wish someone would teach these young people how to think.

They need a 70's kind of rebellion so they throw off this putrid ideology of hatred and yearn in their hearts for peace and tranquility for all people.

I understand that the wretched Saudis have funded this ideology of hatred. Too bad...they might have alleved world hunger and poverty or achieved some honorable goal.

TO ANONYMOUS:

On your post of 2-9-2008 at 6:02 PM you wrote, "Why is there so much contradiction between different versions of the same bibles?", could you give an example?

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Observer12

I do NOT hate Muslims. I hate the doctrine of Islam and Shariah.

Is that clear enough, or do I still need to help you understand my position ?

Also, does posting the same message thrice emphasize any specific point ?

In an earlier post, I wondered if it would be desirable, or even possible, for us to have a reasonable dialog, to benefit from the knowledge of experts, on the principles of the major religions.

I fear the answer is no. Moody, I am sorry, but although I am not a Muslim, I know both from reading and from my two closest friends, both Muslim academics, that what you say is not definitive. Every religion, even Catholocism, which has a central worldwide authority, has differences within it. This is also the case with Islam, Protestantism, Judaism, Hinduism. Unfortunately, not only are there those who believe that theirs is the one true faith, but that their sect is the one true sect.

You are as much an expert on Islam as I am on Judaism. What I can say with some confidence is that most Jews believe that the Lord has a covenant with all peoples, and it is not for us to question it. It is not for me to question whether or not they accept the covenant given to them or even believe it exists. That is up to them.

Most would also adhere to the words of the sage, Hillel:
If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I? If not now, when?

Note the second question: If I am not for others, WHAT, not WHO, am I?

If not now, when: Now, really is the time. If we don't move toward greater understanding and acceptance, we will not be able to move at all.

And, Deb, make no mistake about it. Muslims are not my "favorites." I have no religious favorites. It's just that I don't think murdering 1200 men, women, and children was a particularly good thing to do, having had so much experience with genocide myself. I also don't think treating them as second-class citizens is all that great. I've never been fond of making victims of one's fellow humans.

There are numerous Christian web sites devoted to silencing or somehow ridding the US of Muslims, and some of the site owners have identified Hindus posing as Christians. What is going on?

What should I, as a Jew say? Should I blame every Muslim for the three million refugees from the Middle East? For the plight of my Iranian, Egyption, and Iraqi Jewish students? For the thousands of Ethopian Jews who were either airlifted out of Ethopia by Israel or got there somehow on there own, should I blame every Ethiopian gentile?

And to the Chrisitans, Dear God, what should I say? Since it is they who brought anti-Jewish racism into the world, and then exported it everywhere. An effective diversion.

What, Deb, have Muslims done to you? And how does hating them benefit you?

We are in a country that tries to reflect on racism, in a country that has a multicultural curriculum. Yet I see no interest here in anything other than intolerance.

In an earlier post, I wondered if it would be desirable, or even possible, for us to have a reasonable dialog, to benefit from the knowledge of experts, on the principles of the major religions.

I fear the answer is no. Moody, I am sorry, but although I am not a Muslim, I know both from reading and from my two closest friends, both Muslim academics, that what you say is not definitive. Every religion, even Catholocism, which has a central worldwide authority, has differences within it. This is also the case with Islam, Protestantism, Judaism, Hinduism. Unfortunately, not only are there those who believe that theirs is the one true faith, but that their sect is the one true sect.

You are as much an expert on Islam as I am on Judaism. What I can say with some confidence is that most Jews believe that the Lord has a covenant with all peoples, and it is not for us to question it. It is not for me to question whether or not they accept the covenant given to them or even believe it exists. That is up to them.

Most would also adhere to the words of the sage, Hillel:
If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I? If not now, when?

Note the second question: If I am not for others, WHAT, not WHO, am I?

If not now, when: Now, really is the time. If we don't move toward greater understanding and acceptance, we will not be able to move at all.

And, Deb, make no mistake about it. Muslims are not my "favorites." I have no religious favorites. It's just that I don't think murdering 1200 men, women, and children was a particularly good thing to do, having had so much experience with genocide myself. I also don't think treating them as second-class citizens is all that great. I've never been fond of making victims of one's fellow humans.

There are numerous Christian web sites devoted to silencing or somehow ridding the US of Muslims, and some of the site owners have identified Hindus posing as Christians. What is going on?

What should I, as a Jew say? Should I blame every Muslim for the three million refugees from the Middle East? For the plight of my Iranian, Egyption, and Iraqi Jewish students? For the thousands of Ethopian Jews who were either airlifted out of Ethopia by Israel or got there somehow on there own, should I blame every Ethiopian gentile?

And to the Chrisitans, Dear God, what should I say? Since it is they who brought anti-Jewish racism into the world, and then exported it everywhere. An effective diversion.

What, Deb, have Muslims done to you? And how does hating them benefit you?

We are in a country that tries to reflect on racism, in a country that has a multicultural curriculum. Yet I see no interest here in anything other than intolerance.

In an earlier post, I wondered if it would be desirable, or even possible, for us to have a reasonable dialog, to benefit from the knowledge of experts, on the principles of the major religions.

I fear the answer is no. Moody, I am sorry, but although I am not a Muslim, I know both from reading and from my two closest friends, both Muslim academics, that what you say is not definitive. Every religion, even Catholocism, which has a central worldwide authority, has differences within it. This is also the case with Islam, Protestantism, Judaism, Hinduism. Unfortunately, not only are there those who believe that theirs is the one true faith, but that their sect is the one true sect.

You are as much an expert on Islam as I am on Judaism. What I can say with some confidence is that most Jews believe that the Lord has a covenant with all peoples, and it is not for us to question it. It is not for me to question whether or not they accept the covenant given to them or even believe it exists. That is up to them.

Most would also adhere to the words of the sage, Hillel:
If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am not for others, what am I? If not now, when?

Note the second question: If I am not for others, WHAT, not WHO, am I?

If not now, when: Now, really is the time. If we don't move toward greater understanding and acceptance, we will not be able to move at all.

And, Deb, make no mistake about it. Muslims are not my "favorites." I have no religious favorites. It's just that I don't think murdering 1200 men, women, and children was a particularly good thing to do, having had so much experience with genocide myself. I also don't think treating them as second-class citizens is all that great. I've never been fond of making victims of one's fellow humans.

There are numerous Christian web sites devoted to silencing or somehow ridding the US of Muslims, and some of the site owners have identified Hindus posing as Christians. What is going on?

What should I, as a Jew say? Should I blame every Muslim for the three million refugees from the Middle East? For the plight of my Iranian, Egyption, and Iraqi Jewish students? For the thousands of Ethopian Jews who were either airlifted out of Ethopia by Israel or got there somehow on there own, should I blame every Ethiopian gentile?

And to the Chrisitans, Dear God, what should I say? Since it is they who brought anti-Jewish racism into the world, and then exported it everywhere. An effective diversion.

What, Deb, have Muslims done to you? And how does hating them benefit you?

We are in a country that tries to reflect on racism, in a country that has a multicultural curriculum. Yet I see no interest here in anything other than intolerance.

Islam's barbaric dictates, also known in anti-Islamic circles, ugly Mohammedan behemoth, is all poised to strike to implement the putrid Shariah.

This is from Times of India (ToI):

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Arrested_LeT_militants_next_target_was_Mumbai/articleshow/2771428.cms

Islamic militantcy is not restricted to India alone. Europe is also having its share of Islamic radicalism. The following newsitem from NYT shows the picture of a bearded mullah from Pakistan planning to bomb places in Europe and spread the Islamic terrorism overseas into USA.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/world/europe/10spain.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Why should USA keep up its Muslim immigration ? Why the next US president not place a moratorium on Muslim immigration for a minimum 10 years, and keep a very close vigil (eavesdropping/snooping) on the Muslims already inside USA ? Why would that be a bad idea ?

All possible kind of questions asked by non muslims about Islam answered on below web site:
http://www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm

Most Common Questions asked by Non-Muslims

POLYGAMY

Question:

Why is a man allowed to have more than one wife in Islam? i.e. why is polygamy allowed in Islam?

Answer:

Definition of Polygamy

1. Polygamy means a system of marriage whereby one person has more than one spouse. Polygamy can be of two types. One is polygyny where a man marries more than one woman, and the other is polyandry, where a woman marries more than one man. In Islam, limited polygyny is permitted; whereas polyandry is completely prohibited.

Now coming to the original question, why is a man allowed to have more than one wife?

2. The Qur’an is the only religious scripture in the world that says,"marry only one".

The Qur’an is the only religious book, on the face of this earth, that contains the phrase ‘marry only one’. There is no other religious book that instructs men to have only one wife. In none of the other religious scriptures, whether it be the Vedas, the Ramayan, the Mahabharat, the Geeta, the Talmud or the Bible does one find a restriction on the number of wives. According to these scriptures one can marry as many as one wishes. It was only later, that the Hindu priests and the Christian Church restricted the number of wives to one.

Many Hindu religious personalities, according to their scriptures, had multiple wives. King Dashrat, the father of Rama, had more than one wife. Krishna had several wives.

In earlier times, Christian men were permitted as many wives as they wished, since the Bible puts no restriction on the number of wives. It was only a few centuries ago that the Church restricted the number of wives to one.

Polygyny is permitted in Judaism. According to Talmudic law, Abraham had three wives, and Solomon had hundreds of wives. The practice of polygyny continued till Rabbi Gershom ben Yehudah (95% C.E to 1030 C.E) issued an edict against it. The Jewish Sephardic communities living in Muslim countries continued the practice till as late as 1950, until an Act of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel extended the ban on marrying more than one wife.

3. Hindus are more polygynous than Muslims

The report of the ‘Committee of The Status of Woman in Islam’, published in 1975 mentions on page numbers 66 and 67 that the percentage of polygamous marriages between the years 1951 and 1961 was 5.06% among the Hindus and only 4.31% among the Muslims. According to Indian law only Muslim men are permitted to have more than one wife. It is illegal for any non-Muslim in India to have more than one wife. Despite it being illegal, Hindus have more multiple wives as compared to Muslims. Earlier, there was no restriction even on Hindu men with respect to the number of wives allowed. It was only in 1954, when the Hindu Marriage Act was passed that it became illegal for a Hindu to have more than one wife. At present it is the Indian Law that restricts a Hindu man from having more than one wife and not the Hindu scriptures.

Let us now analyse why Islam allows a man to have more than one wife.

4. Qur’an permits limited polygyny

As I mentioned earlier, Qur’an is the only religious book on the face of the earth that says ‘marry only one’. The context of this phrase is the following verse from Surah Nisa of the Glorious Qur’an:

"Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one."

[Al-Qur’an 4:3]

Before the Qur’an was revealed, there was no upper limit for polygyny and many men had scores of wives, some even hundreds. Islam put an upper limit of four wives. Islam gives a man permission to marry two, three or four women, only on the condition that he deals justly with them.

In the same chapter i.e. Surah Nisa verse 129 says:

"Ye are never able to be fair and just as between women...."

[Al-Qur’an 4:129]

Therefore polygyny is not a rule but an exception. Many people are under the misconception that it is compulsory for a Muslim man to have more than one wife.

Broadly, Islam has five categories of Do’s and Don’ts:

‘Fard’ i.e. compulsory or obligatory

‘Mustahab’ i.e. recommended or encouraged

‘Mubah’ i.e. permissible or allowed

‘Makruh’ i.e. not recommended or discouraged

‘Haraam’ i.e. prohibited or forbidden

Polygyny falls in the middle category of things that are permissible. It cannot be said that a Muslim who has two, three or four wives is a better Muslim as compared to a Muslim who has only one wife.

5. Average life span of females is more than that of males

By nature males and females are born in approximately the same ratio. A female child has more immunity than a male child. A female child can fight the germs and diseases better than the male child. For this reason, during the pediatric age itself there are more deaths among males as compared to the females.

During wars, there are more men killed as compared to women. More men die due to accidents and diseases than women. The average life span of females is more than that of males, and at any given time one finds more widows in the world than widowers.

6. India has more male population than female due to female foeticide and infanticide

India is one of the few countries, along with the other neighbouring countries, in which the female population is less than the male population. The reason lies in the high rate of female infanticide in India, and the fact that more than one million female foetuses are aborted every year in this country, after they are identified as females. If this evil practice is stopped, then India too will have more females as compared to males.

7. World female population is more than male population

In the USA, women outnumber men by 7.8 million. New York alone has one million more females as compared to the number of males, and of the male population of New York one-third are gays i.e sodomites. The U.S.A as a whole has more than twenty-five million gays. This means that these people do not wish to marry women. Great Britain has four million more females as compared to males. Germany has five million more females as compared to males. Russia has nine million more females than males. God alone knows how many million more females there are in the whole world as compared to males.

8. Restricting each and every man to have only one wife is not practical

Even if every man got married to one woman, there would still be more than thirty million females in U.S.A who would not be able to get husbands (considering that America has twenty five million gays). There would be more than four million females in Great Britain, 5 million females in Germany and nine million females in Russia alone who would not be able to find a husband.

Suppose my sister happens to be one of the unmarried women living in USA, or suppose your sister happens to be one of the unmarried women in USA. The only two options remaining for her are that she either marries a man who already has a wife or becomes public property. There is no other option. All those who are modest will opt for the first.

In Western society, it is common for a man to have mistresses and/or multiple extra-marital affairs, in which case, the woman leads a disgraceful, unprotected life. The same society, however, cannot accept a man having more than one wife, in which women retain their honourable, dignified position in society and lead a protected life.

Thus the only two options before a woman who cannot find a husband is to marry a married man or to become public property. Islam prefers giving women the honourable position by permitting the first option and disallowing the second.

There are several other reasons, why Islam has permitted limited polygyny, but it is mainly to protect the modesty of women.

Deb Chatterjee :

Below is the reply to your unjust concerns and worries:

All possible kind of questions asked by non muslims about Islam answered on below web site:
http://www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm

Most Common Questions asked by Non-Muslims

WAS ISLAM SPREAD BY THE SWORD?

Question:

How can Islam be called the religion of peace when it was spread by the sword?

Answer:

It is a common complaint among some non-Muslims that Islam would not have millions of adherents all over the world, if it had not been spread by the use of force. The following points will make it clear, that far from being spread by the sword, it was the inherent force of truth, reason and logic that was responsible for the rapid spread of Islam.

1. Islam means peace.

Islam comes from the root word ‘salaam’, which means peace. It also means submitting one’s will to Allah (swt). Thus Islam is a religion of peace, which is acquired by submitting one’s will to the will of the Supreme Creator, Allah (swt).

2. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace.

Each and every human being in this world is not in favour of maintaining peace and harmony. There are many, who would disrupt it for their own vested interests. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace. It is precisely for this reason that we have the police who use force against criminals and anti-social elements to maintain peace in the country. Islam promotes peace. At the same time, Islam exhorts it followers to fight where there is oppression. The fight against oppression may, at times, require the use of force. In Islam force can only be used to promote peace and justice.

3. Opinion of historian De Lacy O’Leary.

The best reply to the misconception that Islam was spread by the sword is given by the noted historian De Lacy O’Leary in the book "Islam at the cross road" (Page 8):

"History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated."

4. Muslims ruled Spain for 800 years.

Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years. The Muslims in Spain never used the sword to force the people to convert. Later the Christian Crusaders came to Spain and wiped out the Muslims. There was not a single Muslim in Spain who could openly give the adhan, that is the call for prayers.

5. 14 million Arabs are Coptic Christians.

Muslims were the lords of Arabia for 1400 years. For a few years the British ruled, and for a few years the French ruled. Overall, the Muslims ruled Arabia for 1400 years. Yet today, there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians i.e. Christians since generations. If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.

6. More than 80% non-Muslims in India.

The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years. If they wanted, they had the power of converting each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam. Today more than 80% of the population of India are non-Muslims. All these non-Muslim Indians are bearing witness today that Islam was not spread by the sword.

7. Indonesia and Malaysia.

Indonesia is a country that has the maximum number of Muslims in the world. The majority of people in Malaysia are Muslims. May one ask, "Which Muslim army went to Indonesia and Malaysia?"

8. East Coast of Africa.

Similarly, Islam has spread rapidly on the East Coast of Africa. One may again ask, if Islam was spread by the sword, "Which Muslim army went to the East Coast of Africa?"

9. Thomas Carlyle.

The famous historian, Thomas Carlyle, in his book "Heroes and Hero worship", refers to this misconception about the spread of Islam: "The sword indeed, but where will you get your sword? Every new opinion, at its starting is precisely in a minority of one. In one man’s head alone. There it dwells as yet. One man alone of the whole world believes it, there is one man against all men. That he takes a sword and try to propagate with that, will do little for him. You must get your sword! On the whole, a thing will propagate itself as it can."

10. No compulsion in religion.

With which sword was Islam spread? Even if Muslims had it they could not use it to spread Islam because the Qur’an says in the following verse:

"Let there be no compulsion in religion:
Truth stands out clear from error"
[Al-Qur’an 2:256]

11. Sword of the Intellect.

It is the sword of intellect. The sword that conquers the hearts and minds of people. The Qur’an says in Surah Nahl, chapter 16 verse 125:

"Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord
with wisdom and beautiful preaching;
and argue with them in ways that are
best and most gracious."
[Al-Qur’an 16:125]

12. Increase in the world religions from 1934 to 1984.

An article in Reader’s Digest ‘Almanac’, year book 1986, gave the statistics of the increase of percentage of the major religions of the world in half a century from 1934 to 1984. This article also appeared in ‘The Plain Truth’ magazine. At the top was Islam, which increased by 235%, and Christianity had increased only by 47%. May one ask, which war took place in this century which converted millions of people to Islam?

13. Islam is the fastest growing religion in America and Europe.

Today the fastest growing religion in America is Islam. The fastest growing religion in Europe in Islam. Which sword is forcing people in the West to accept Islam in such large numbers?

14. Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson.

Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson rightly says, "People who worry that nuclear weaponry will one day fall in the hands of the Arabs, fail to realize that the Islamic bomb has been dropped already, it fell the day MUHAMMED (pbuh) was born".

A. Kafir,

I have been in Britain and genetic illness there is a general public phenomena and not JUST the muslim one.

I personlly have seen all kind of NON MUSLIM genetically ill super white race(ist).

As Prof. Samuel P. Huntington observed, propagation of Islam has been through violence. It (Islam) has bloody borders.

Observing history, it appears that Islam is kept under control by use of force. Whenever there has been relaxation or more "freedom" for Islam, it has spun out of control and caused violence.

Thus, if USA wants to remain a secular, democratic Republic it must be very strict with the practice of Islam by Muslims. No Shariah laws and reduce Muslim immigration to USA. These two are good domestic policies for a start.

A. Kafir,

In Islam you cannot have out side marital sexual relations and you CANNOT MARRY:

1- Your or your wife's mother or step mothers or grand mothers, step grand mothers OR fathers.
2- Your sister or step sister.
3- Your brother or step brothers.
4- Your wife’s sister or step sister until you are married to her or until she is alive.
5- Your daughter and son OR your brothers or sisters daughter and son, including all step.
6-Your father's brothers or sisters including steps and there wife’s and husbands. But you can marry there children only preferable for first generation and more preferable is to marry out side family.(Scientifically proven that first generation marriage doesn't cause any harm, but there is a possibility of less then 1/1000 of physical harm, if you continue keep marrying with cousins generation to generation.)
7-Your mothers brothers and sisters including steps and there wife’s and husbands. But you can marry there children only preferable for first generation and more preferable is to marry out side family.(Scientifically proven that first generation marriage doesn't cause any harm, but there is a possibility of less then 1/1000 of physical harm, if you continue keep marrying with cousins generation to generation.)

All possible kind of questions asked by non muslims about Islam answered on below web site:
http://www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm

Deb -

Welcome back big guy! LOL! Back for more? I thought so - some people just get addicted to pain...

Anyway, just what do you think you will do to Muslims if they dont follow your rules? Hunh? What are you going to do???

Deb blubbered -

"Excellent observations, Kimberly. Now, pray tell me, if Muslim population grows in USA what are the chances that we shall see the end of what we know as the 1st Amendment of the Constitution ? So, immigration should be a real issue in this election, isn't it ?"

Awwwwww - isnt that sweet? Debby has a friend now.

On a brighter note - if you are so scared of what will happen to the OUR country if Muslims live here - why dont you go back to Kolkata? Why dont you go back the little rat hole you escaped from so desperately? You hate it there dont you? Why? Because they wont accept your bigoted, racist and prejudiced views. You are a shunned outsider now and you know it. Why? Because half of the junk you write on these blogs comes from that dark little place in your heart that was probably beaten as a child or kicked around a bit.

Now - is that our problem? Do we have to pay for your troubles? Are we required to put up with bigotry? NO.

"BTW, Victoria has accused me of being a woman-hater, anti-Muslim etc. and etc. on this and other Islam blogs on WP. This is FYI."

WRONG - Ive accused you of that and much more as well. In fact, there is a post in which you have actually called for the killing of Muslims on another blog. YOU HAVE ACTUALLY CALLED FOR THE KILLING OF MUSLIMS ON ANOTHER BLOG ON WPOST.

Kimberly wrote -

"Victoria thinks

"the question itself is irresponsible journalism"

Victoria seems to be the Muslim mouthpiece here trying to blaze a new trail in America for an Islamic end of free speech.."

WRONG - She is not alone - Im here too. I want to be a Muslim mouthpiece too you know...but being a Muslim speaker has nothing to do with the end of free speech. That is exactly what we are practicing here. Did I tell you to shut up? Nope. I dont think she did either.

What she meant was - the questions reeks of prejudice. What she meant was - the question did not promote any peaceful dialogue. It simply ignited flames from all sides. What did we accomplish as a result of this question? Did a single person walk away with any more knowledge or understanding of Islam or any other religion for that matter? NO! That is her point. All of us are arguing here - no one is happy or getting anything out of it.

That is why its a stupid question.

"Victoria what do you suggest? Should Sally and Jon just be forced into silence or maybe they deserve the DEATH SENTENCE too?"

Hunh? What? Death sentence for what? Sally and Jon ask stupid questions - that is a given - but I dont think they deserve anything close to that. Maybe someone ought to talk to them and tell them to stop targeting Islam so much on their blogs.

No other topic gets as much attention as an Islamic topic. Nothing else is interesting enough to keep their blog in business - thats why Islam gets posted as a question every six months or so.

A glance at recent posts shows that none of is qualified to speak with authority about Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, etc. (Note the alphabetical listing.)

It would be useful for Sally and John to invite "mainstream" experts to do so. Ideally, they would be well-respected academics, who also have status as rabbis, priests, minsisters, imams, etc. I do not think that such open discussion will end either bigotry or racism. Then, too, the various religious groups have different sects, and within the sects, competing histories.

Still, it would be a beginning, if, and this is a big if, we are willing to great these discussions with respect.

Following, or along with this dialogue, perhaps we can consider history, ethnic identities, real and perceived greivances, etc. However, we would have to start with a willingness to listen to and respect one another's beliefs, to those of no belief, to welcome the stranger.

Would such discussions be desirable? Would they be possible?

Most Common Questions asked by Non-Muslims

MUSLIMS ARE FUNDAMENTALISTS AND TERRORISTS

Question:

Why are most of the Muslims fundamentalists and terrorists?

Answer:

This question is often hurled at Muslims, either directly or indirectly, during any discussion on religion or world affairs. Muslim stereotypes are perpetuated in every form of the media accompanied by gross misinformation about Islam and Muslims. In fact, such misinformation and false propaganda often leads to discrimination and acts of violence against Muslims. A case in point is the anti-Muslim campaign in the American media following the Oklahoma bomb blast, where the press was quick to declare a ‘Middle Eastern conspiracy’ behind the attack. The culprit was later identified as a soldier from the American Armed Forces.

Let us analyze this allegation of ‘fundamentalism’ and ‘terrorism’:

1. Definition of the word ‘fundamentalist’

A fundamentalist is a person who follows and adheres to the fundamentals of the doctrine or theory he is following. For a person to be a good doctor, he should know, follow, and practise the fundamentals of medicine. In other words, he should be a fundamentalist in the field of medicine. For a person to be a good mathematician, he should know, follow and practise the fundamentals of mathematics. He should be a fundamentalist in the field of mathematics. For a person to be a good scientist, he should know, follow and practise the fundamentals of science. He should be a fundamentalist in the field of science.

2. Not all ‘fundamentalists’ are the same

One cannot paint all fundamentalists with the same brush. One cannot categorize all fundamentalists as either good or bad. Such a categorization of any fund amentalist will depend upon the field or activity in which he is a fundamentalist. A fundamentalist robber or thief causes harm to society and is therefore undesirable. A fundamentalist doctor, on the other hand, benefits society and earns much respect.

3. I am proud to be a Muslim fundamentalist

I am a fundamentalist Muslim who, by the grace of Allah, knows, follows and strives to practise the fundamentals of Islam. A true Muslim does not shy away from being a fundamentalist. I am proud to be a fundamentalist Muslim because, I know that the fundamentals of Islam are beneficial to humanity and the whole world. There is not a single fundamental of Islam that causes harm or is against the interests of the human race as a whole. Many people harbour misconceptions about Islam and consider several teachings of Islam to be unfair or improper. This is due to insufficient and incorrect knowledge of Islam. If one critically analyzes the teachings of Islam with an open mind, one cannot escape the fact that Islam is full of benefits both at the individual and collective levels.

4. Dictionary meaning of the word ‘fundamentalist’

According to Webster’s dictionary ‘fundamentalism’ was a movement in American Protestanism that arose in the earlier part of the 20th century. It was a reaction to modernism, and stressed the infallibility of the Bible, not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record. It stressed on belief in the Bible as the literal word of God. Thus fundamentalism was a word initially used for a group of Christians who believed that the Bible was the verbatim word of God without any errors and mistakes.

According to the Oxford dictionary ‘fundamentalism’ means ‘strict maintenance of ancient or fundamental doctrines of any religion, especially Islam’.

Today the moment a person uses the word fundamentalist he thinks of a Muslim who is a terrorist.

5. Every Muslim should be a terrorist

Every Muslim should be a terrorist. A terrorist is a person who causes terror. The moment a robber sees a policeman he is terrified. A policeman is a terrorist for the robber. Similarly every Muslim should be a terrorist for the antisocial elements of society, such as thieves, dacoits and rapists. Whenever such an anti-social element sees a Muslim, he should be terrified. It is true that the word ‘terrorist’ is generally used for a person who causes terror among the common people. But a true Muslim should only be a terrorist to selective people i.e. anti-social elements, and not to the common innocent people. In fact a Muslim should be a source of peace for innocent people.

6. Different labels given to the same individual for the same action, i.e. ‘terrorist’ and ‘patriot’

Before India achieved independence from British rule, some freedom fighters of India who did not subscribe to non-violence were labeled as terrorists by the British government. The same individuals have been lauded by Indians for the same activities and hailed as ‘patriots’. Thus two different labels have been given to the same people for the same set of actions. One is calling him a terrorist while the other is calling him a patriot. Those who believed that Britain had a right to rule over India called these people terrorists, while those who were of the view that Britain had no right to rule India called them patriots and freedom fighters.

It is therefore important that before a person is judged, he is given a fair hearing. Both sides of the argument should be heard, the situation should be analyzed, and the reason and the intention of the person should be taken into account, and then the person can be judged accordingly.

7. Islam means peace

Islam is derived from the word ‘salaam’ which means peace. It is a religion of peace whose fundamentals teach its followers to maintain and promote peace throughout the world.

Thus every Muslim should be a fundamentalist i.e. he should follow the fundamentals of the Religion of Peace: Islam. He should be a terrorist only towards the antisocial elements in order to promote peace and justice in the society.

All possible kind of questions asked by non muslims about Islam answered on below web site:
http://www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm

Most Common Questions asked by Non-Muslims

HIJAAB FOR WOMEN

Question:

Why does Islam degrade women by keeping them behind the veil?

Answer:

The status of women in Islam is often the target of attacks in the secular media. The ‘hijaab’ or the Islamic dress is cited by many as an example of the ‘subjugation’ of women under Islamic law. Before we analyze the reasoning behind the religiously mandated ‘hijaab’, let us first study the status of women in societies before the advent of Islam

1. In the past women were degraded and used as objects of lust

The following examples from history amply illustrate the fact that the status of women in earlier civilizations was very low to the extent that they were denied basic human dignity:

Babylonian Civilization:
The women were degraded and were denied all rights under the Babylonian law. If a man murdered a woman, instead of him being punished, his wife was put to death.

Greek Civilization:
Greek Civilization is considered the most glorious of all ancient civilizations. Under this very ‘glorious’ system, women were deprived of all rights and were looked down upon. In Greek mythology, an ‘imaginary woman’ called ‘Pandora’ is the root cause of misfortune of human beings. The Greeks considered women to be subhuman and inferior to men. Though chastity of women was precious, and women were held in high esteem, the Greeks were later overwhelmed by ego and sexual perversions. Prostitution became a regular practice amongst all classes of Greek society.

Roman Civilization:
When Roman Civilization was at the zenith of its ‘glory’, a man even had the right to take the life of his wife. Prostitution and nudity were common amongst the Romans.

Egyptian Civilization:
The Egyptian considered women evil and as a sign of a devil.

Pre-Islamic Arabia:
Before Islam spread in Arabia, the Arabs looked down upon women and very often when a female child was born, she was buried alive.

2. Islam uplifted women and gave them equality and expects them to maintain their status.

Islam uplifted the status of women and granted them their just rights 1400 years ago. Islam expects women to maintain their status.

Hijaab for men

People usually only discuss ‘hijaab’ in the context of women. However, in the Glorious Qur’an, Allah (swt) first mentions ‘hijaab’ for men before ‘hijaab’ for the women. The Qur’an mentions in Surah Noor:

"Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: and Allah is well acquainted with all that they do."
[Al-Qur’an 24:30]

The moment a man looks at a woman and if any brazen or unashamed thought comes to his mind, he should lower his gaze.

Hijaab for women.

The next verse of Surah Noor, says:

" And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons..."
[Al-Qur’an 24:31]

3. Six criteria for Hijaab.

According to Qur’an and Sunnah there are basically six criteria for observing hijaab:

Extent:

The first criterion is the extent of the body that should be covered. This is different for men and women. The extent of covering obligatory on the male is to cover the body at least from the navel to the knees. For women, the extent of covering obligatory is to cover the complete body except the face and the hands upto the wrist. If they wish to, they can cover even these parts of the body. Some scholars of Islam insist that the face and the hands are part of the obligatory extent of ‘hijaab’.

All the remaining five criteria are the same for men and women.

The clothes worn should be loose and should not reveal the figure.

The clothes worn should not be transparent such that one can see through them.

The clothes worn should not be so glamorous as to attract the opposite sex.

The clothes worn should not resemble that of the opposite sex.

The clothes worn should not resemble that of the unbelievers i.e. they should not wear clothes that are specifically identities or symbols of the unbelievers’ religions.

4. Hijaab includes conduct and behaviour among other things

Complete ‘hijaab’, besides the six criteria of clothing, also includes the moral conduct, behaviour, attitude and intention of the individual. A person only fulfilling the criteria of ‘hijaab’ of the clothes is observing ‘hijaab’ in a limited sense. ‘Hijaab’ of the clothes should be accompanied by ‘hijaab’ of the eyes, ‘hijaab’ of the heart, ‘hijaab’ of thought and ‘hijaab’ of intention. It also includes the way a person walks, the way a person talks, the way he behaves, etc.

5. Hijaab prevents molestation

The reason why Hijaab is prescribed for women is mentioned in the Qur’an in the following verses of Surah Al-Ahzab:

"O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad); that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
[Al-Qur’an 33:59]

The Qur’an says that Hijaab has been prescribed for the women so that they are recognized as modest women and this will also prevent them from being molested.

6. Example of twin sisters

Suppose two sisters who are twins, and who are equally beautiful, walk down the street. One of them is attired in the Islamic hijaab i.e. the complete body is covered, except for the face and the hands up to the wrists. The other sister is wearing western clothes, a mini skirt or shorts. Just around the corner there is a hooligan or ruffian who is waiting for a catch, to tease a girl. Whom will he tease? The girl wearing the Islamic Hijaab or the girl wearing the skirt or the mini? Naturally he will tease the girl wearing the skirt or the mini. Such dresses are an indirect invitation to the opposite sex for teasing and molestation. The Qur’an rightly says that hijaab prevents women from being molested.

7. Capital punishment for the rapists

Under the Islamic shariah, a man convicted of having raped a woman, is given capital punishment. Many are astonished at this ‘harsh’ sentence. Some even say that Islam is a ruthless, barbaric religion! I have asked a simple question to hundreds of non-Muslim men. Suppose, God forbid, someone rapes your wife, your mother or your sister. You are made the judge and the rapist is brought in front of you. What punishment would you give him? All of them said they would put him to death. Some went to the extent of saying they would torture him to death. To them I ask, if someone rapes your wife or your mother you want to put him to death. But if the same crime is committed on somebody else’s wife or daughter you say capital punishment is barbaric. Why should there be double standards?

8. Western society falsely claims to have uplifted women

Western talk of women’s liberalization is nothing but a disguised form of exploitation of her body, degradation of her soul, and deprivation of her honour. Western society claims to have ‘uplifted’ women. On the contrary it has actually degraded them to the status of concubines, mistresses and society butterflies who are mere tools in the hands of pleasure seekers and sex marketeers, hidden behind the colourful screen of ‘art’ and ‘culture’.

9. USA has one of the highest rates of rape

United States of America is supposed to be one of the most advanced countries of the world. It also has one of the highest rates of rape in any country in the world. According to a FBI report, in the year 1990, every day on an average 1756 cases of rape were committed in U.S.A alone. Later another report said that on an average everyday 1900 cases of rapes are committed in USA. The year was not mentioned. May be it was 1992 or 1993. May be the Americans got ‘bolder’ in the following years.

Consider a scenario where the Islamic hijaab is followed in America. Whenever a man looks at a woman and any brazen or unashamed thought comes to his mind, he lowers his gaze. Every woman wears the Islamic hijaab, that is the complete body is covered except the face and the hands upto the wrist. After this if any man commits rape he is given capital punishment. I ask you, in such a scenario, will the rate of rape in America increase, will it remain the same, or will it decrease?

10. Implementation of Islamic Shariah will reduce the rate of rapes

Naturally as soon as Islamic Shariah is implemented positive results will be inevitable. If Islamic Shariah is implemented in any part of the world, whether it is America or Europe, society will breathe easier. Hijaab does not degrade a woman but uplifts a woman and protects her modesty and chastity.

All possible kind of questions asked by non muslims about Islam answered on below web site:
http://www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm

Grave danger awaits USA if Muslim immigration is not stopped. In UK, the rise of parallel legislative system (Islamic Sharia) has increased, although there is no provision for such a parallel judicial system. The situation is so scary that many Britishers have resigned and acknowledged that Sharia law is inevitable in UK. (Mary Cunningham, a feel-good leftist on this blog had attested that such incidents are rare and the US media is blowing this out of proportion.)

The Telegraph (published from UK) has this news. Let Mary and her ilk tell us that Telegraph is spreading false information, maliciously. The whole news is available at the link:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/29/nsharia29.xml

Why is there so much contradiction between different versions of the same bibles?

TO MOODY:

One question, how come so much in the koran is a complete contradiction with the old and new testaments of the bible?

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

INTRODUCTION TO JUDAISM
by Dr. Zakir Naik

(I) INTRODUCTION TO JUDAISM:

Judaism is one of the important Semitic religions. Its followers are known as Jews and they believe in the prophetic mission of Prophet Moses (pbuh).

(II) CONCEPT OF GOD IN JUDAISM:

(i) The following verse from the book of Deuteronomy contains an exhortation from Moses (pbuh):

"Shama Israelu Adonai Ila Hayno Adna Ikhad"

It is a Hebrew quotation which means:

"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord"
[The Bible, Deuteronomy 6:4]

The following verses are from the Book of Isaiah:

(ii) "I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour."
[The Bible, Isaiah 43:11]

(iii) "I am Lord, and there is none else There is no God besides me."
[The Bible, Isaiah 45 : 5]

(iv) "I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me."
[The Bible, Isaiah 46:9]

(v) Judaism condemns idol worship in the following verses:

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."

"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God."
[The Bible, Exodus 20:3-5]

(iv) A similar message is repeated in the book of Deuteronomy:

"Thou shalt have none other gods before me."

"Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that in the earth beneath, or that is in the water beneath the earth."

"Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God."
[The Bible, Deuteronomy 5:7-9]

In Judaism too, we find the same thread of monotheism, that is seen in other religions.

(III) MUHAMMAD IN JEWISH SCRIPTURES (THE OLD TESTAMENT):

1) Muhammad (pbuh) prophesised in the book of Deuteronomy:

a) God Almighty speaks to Moses in Book of Deuteronomy chapter 18 verse 18:

"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."

b) Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is like Moses (pbuh):

i) Both had a father and a mother.

ii) Both were married and had children.

iii) Both were accepted as Prophets by their people in their lifetime.

iv) Both besides being Prophets were also kings i.e. they could inflict capital punishment.

v) Both brought new laws and new regulations for their people.

vi) Both died a natural death.

c) Muhammad (pbuh) is from among the brethren of Moses (pbuh). Arabs are brethren of Jews. Abraham (pbuh) had two sons: Ishmail and Isaac. The Arabs are the descendants of Ishmail (pbuh) and the Jews are the descendants of Isaac (pbuh).

d) Words in the mouth:

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was unlettered and whatever revelations he received from God Almighty he repeated it verbatim.

Deuteronomy (18:18):

"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."

2) Muhammad (pbuh) is prophesised in the book of Isaiah:

It is mentioned in the book of Isaiah chapter 29 verse 12:

"And the book is delivered to him that is not learned saying, ‘Read this, I pray thee’; and he saith, ‘I am not learned’.

"When Archangel Gabriel commanded Muhammad (pbuh) by saying ‘Iqra’, he replied "I am not learned".

3) Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is mentioned by name in the Song of Solomon

chapter 5 verse 16:

"Hikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh wa Zehrace Bayna Jerusalem."

"His mouth is most sweet: ye, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughter of Jerusalem."

All the prophecies mentioned in the Old Testament regarding Muhammad (pbuh) besides applying to the Jews also hold good for the Christians (H Q. 61:6).

All possible kind of questions asked by non muslims about Islam answered on below web site:

http://www.irf.net/irf/faqonislam/index.htm

Observer12:

I think you should start seeing more transparently that Kashmir and Gujarat massacare have a underlying thread. Akhsardham pogrom on Hindu devotees prayng there, and attack by Muslims on Sabarmati express triggered the riots. Hindus have retaliated against such Muslim terrorism (Jihad against Hindus). I am amazed that you have chosen to ignore the roots of the Gujarat riots.

Kashmiri Pandits, whom your favorites have ethnically cleansed from the valley, were Hindus. They were hapless victims against the Muslims glorfy: Islamic Jihad. Every person (good or bad) has a right toi self defense: your false allegation of "illegal arms trading" is actually justified because of the Quran thumping bandits are costing the Hindus their life and money. Its purely out self defense, and to protect India's territorial integrity.

Taking a clue from to the arrogance in your rebuttal, I think Muslims in India need to be reminded that they should act within the confines of the law or else face the consequences. The Gujarat elections have probably sent a strong message to the Jihadists.

Deb, whatever would we do without your instruction?

Sorry, but I cannot stand by and watch readers of this blog be subject to your self-serving fictions. The slaughter of twelve hundred Muslims in Gujarat by Hindus (in the presence of police) has been well documented. If necessary, I shall post numerous highly credible sources. (And I do mean highly)

As for Kashmir, don't you think it's time that the Hindus gave up their illegal arms trading there, their luxury vacation homes so that the Kashmiris can live in peace?

To use Arun Gandhi's phrase, Hindu arrogance, enslavement of millions because they are of a lower caste, because they are darkly complected; making lucrative deals for the over-privileged that cause others to die of thirst, bride burning, female feticice "repulse[s] [the Hindus'] friends."

Do give some thought to your self-righteous, bigoted soul. In the meantime, clean up your own house, and make no more victim selves.

Dear Deb,

So sorry, but I cannot allow readers of this blog to be subject to big lie propaganda and faulty reasoning.

Twelve hundred Muslims were made "victim selves" by the Hindus in Gujarat. This has been well documented, and, if need be, I shall post numerous sources who will attest to the slaughter.

When blaming the victim doesn't work for you, you switch tactics, using denial and sarcasm.
Neither work well.

Kashmir doesn't work well either. Perhaps, the illegal weapons dealing and luxury vacation homes for the army are not worth the suffering you have imposed on the Kasmiris? One (not you) has concern for those "victim selves."

Enslaving millions of people because they are of a lower caste, because they have darker skin, is not acceptable. Making deals lucrative for the upper classes while depriving others of water raises eyebrows. Bride burning is not acceptable. Female feticide is not acceptable. (I could go on.)

To use Arun Gandhi's phrase, Hindu arrogance, denial, exploitation, murder "repulse[s] their friends."

You are in this country, yet would deprive others of the right to be here. Concentrate on healing your self-righteous, bigoted self. In the meantime, try not to make more victim selves.

Oh, yes Observer12 I thank you for your astute obsverations on Gujarat. Yes, it is very easy to paint Narendra Modi as a rascal killer. And it is quite ludicrous that nothing has been proved against him in a court of law - even when the hostile Congress-led UPA tried to gun him down many times.

But, also know what ? When Kashmiri Hindu Pandits were ethnically cleansed by the Muslim militants, the Human Rights Watch groups never even raised a whimper. They bprobably were having selective amnesia. Not a single Muslim group raised any voice, except to deliver feel-good academic statements to the leftist press. All they (HR groups) did was to uphold the issues to twist and turn the facts with the express objective of portraying the gruesome slaughter of the Hindu Pandits as a legitimate expression of "self determination" of Kashmiriyat also known as secession from India. Why the Kashmiri Pandits till now have not secured any place on the radar screen of the Amnesty International is unknown. Probably they are of lesser blood than Dalits and Muslims. Thanks again for the illuminating logic on human right violations of Muslims in India.

Sorry, Deb.

You left a few things out. Gujarat, for instance. But, then, I guess that Muslims complaining about what Human Rights Watch called genocide would make them "victim selves."

And then, too, there are the millions of Dalit enslaved in your country, and I use the term literally. But, guess what, Deb? They're here now. Writing books and what not. Soon they can have the privelge of your calling them "victim selves."

There is a concept you may have heard of. It's called human rights. Think about it. It might be useful to you in searching your self-righteous bigoted soul. And while you are about it, do try not to create more victims.

Observer12 wrote:

"Get your facts straight. Although some Muslims have done very well in India, they continue to be treated as second-class citizens."

Yes, most Muslims are well-off compared to the two jihadi borders (Pakistan and Bangladesh). India had Muslim presidents in the past. Do any of the Muslim countries dare to elect a non-Muslim minority as their state head ?

None of the Muslims are treated as second class citizens. On the contrary minority (Muslim) appeasement is a part and parcel of Indian democracy. The latest Taslima Nasreen fiasco is an example of how Muslims use the loopholes in a secular Constitution to further their Islamic agendas. It is shameful also to note that most of the jihadi activities in India have been carried out by those Muslims who have had good education and come from a good background. That's the problem, and sadly this observation only hardens the attitude of non-Muslims towards Muslims, which is what Narendrabhai Damodardas Modi (Gujarat CM) is very repeatedly telling the majority (Hindus). There is definitely a basis for what Modi says. Its the action of the Muslims in India. But as always, and like your noble self, assuming victimhood is what Muslims do best. Everybody else is at fault for their woes.

Deb Chatterjee,

Get your facts straight. Although some Muslims have done very well in India, they continue to be treated as second-class citizens. Then, too, there are the millions of enslaved Dalit, but that is another matter.

And Mary, Dear, do take a look at your New Testament, Hon. You'll notice that your Man-God promises eternal life to all who accept him, no matter at what point, regardless of what they have done. Now look at history, Sweetie, and see what they have done.

As for your problems with Jews, well perhaps if the English Christians and Catholics would read Tony Blair's commitssioned report on English anti-semitism, they might become more culturally literate. (One can always hope.) And then, too, there are all those unfortunate events, Babe, like the near murder of a teen in the streets, asked by two Brits, "Are you Jewish?" Widely reported here, Doll. I do wonder what would happen if Mr. Gandhi had written directed his racism at the Christians. Or would it be racism?Do look at what these folks have done to the world. For example, they introduced concentration camps in South Africa, long before the Catholic Hitler had a clue. Slavery. The extermination of indigenous people. The cutting off of thumbs in India and what is now Pakistan. Are the Chritians, Catholics, orthox Christians at risk of repulsing their friends, Cutie? And do take a look at what they've done in Iraq. So bloody, don't you think?

Do get over yourself and your meaningless island.

Deb Chatterjee,

Get your facts straight. Although some Muslims have done very well in India, they continue to be treated as second-class citizens. Then, too, there are the millions of enslaved Dalit, but that is another matter.

And Mary, Dear, do take a look at your New Testament, Hon. You'll notice that your Man-God promises eternal life to all who accept him, no matter at what point, regardless of what they have done. Now look at history, Sweetie, and see what they have done.

As for your problems with Jews, well perhaps if the English Christians and Catholics would read Tony Blair's commitssioned report on English anti-semitism, they might become more culturally literate. (One can always hope.) And then, too, there are all those unfortunate events, Babe, like the near murder of a teen in the streets, asked by two Brits, "Are you Jewish?" Widely reported here, Doll. I do wonder what would happen if Mr. Gandhi had written directed his racism at the Christians. Or would it be racism?Do look at what these folks have done to the world. For example, they introduced concentration camps in South Africa, long before the Catholic Hitler had a clue. Slavery. The extermination of indigenous people. The cutting off of thumbs in India and what is now Pakistan. Are the Chritians, Catholics, orthox Christians at risk of repulsing their friends, Cutie? And do take a look at what they've done in Iraq. So bloody, don't you think?

Do get over yourself and your meaningless island.

Kimberly wrote:

"..And I'll just note you never acknowledge their right to free speech. You did not give us example after example of "real Muslims" who love free speech. Instead you pepper your posts with "hatred, predjudice, islamophobe, bigotry, bias, anti-muslim, muslimphobia.." like a propagandist pushing his talking points. ..."

Excellent observations, Kimberly. Now, pray tell me, if Muslim population grows in USA what are the chances that we shall see the end of what we know as the 1st Amendment of the Constitution ? So, immigration should be a real issue in this election, isn't it ?

BTW, Victoria has accused me of being a woman-hater, anti-Muslim etc. and etc. on this and other Islam blogs on WP. This is FYI.

Victoria thinks

"the question itself is irresponsible journalism"

Victoria seems to be the Muslim mouthpiece here trying to blaze a new trail in America for an Islamic end of free speech..

Victoria what do you suggest? Should Sally and Jon just be forced into silence or maybe they deserve the DEATH SENTENCE too?

And

"the list of "muslim grievances" you cited is from masada.com. an offshoot of the jewish task force which is a virulently anti-muslim group-"

What? I just watched the video and their list of muslim grievances was nowhere near complete. After your post we can add- "must never criticize Islam". Victoria, isn't that your grievance today? On Faith defended the kid with the DEATH SENTENCE and questioned Muslims intent to quiet him (permanently). And as an offended Muslim you would like to make Sally and Jon shut up too. And I'll just note you never acknowledge their right to free speech. You did not give us example after example of "real Muslims" who love free speech. Instead you pepper your posts with "hatred, predjudice, islamophobe, bigotry, bias, anti-muslim, muslimphobia.." like a propagandist pushing his talking points. Quit playing the victim. Its old.

Also

The bond between men and dogs was cemented far far before Mo made his entrance on earth, Why not explain Mo's HATRED and PREDJUDICE towards dogs.

Muslim Pupils More Tolerant Than Non-Muslims

By Emdad Rahman

Writer, Journalist - UK

Dr. Holden

"The Burnley Project: Evaluating the Contribution of Interfaith Dialogue to Community Cohesion" is a Home Office-funded study (August 2005 - July 2007) conducted by Lancaster University's Department of Religious Studies, with a research team headed by Dr. Alan Billings and Dr. Andrew Holden. The study is funded in the wake of the Burnley riots.

In contradiction to reports of Muslim youth being vulnerable to terrorist recruitment tactics, the Burnley Project, whose findings are to be published in April 2007 suggests that Muslim pupils in Lancashire are more moderate, forbearing, and tolerant than their white counterparts.

In contradiction to reports of Muslim youth being vulnerable to terrorist recruitment tactics, the Burnley Project, whose findings are to be published this year, suggests that Muslim pupils in Lancashire are more moderate, forbearing, and tolerant than their white counterparts.

The principal aim of the study was to establish the extent to which interfaith dialogue and activities are able to bring segregated communities together in the governorate of Burnley as well as to highlight the types of initiatives that work best. Attention was also paid to which community leaders accurately represent the attitudes of their communities. The project also looked at young people at secondary level through to 30-year-olds to establish whether attitudes towards faith are changing between generations and to explore the potential for interfaith initiatives in the future.

The content of the report thus far represents a summary of some key findings at the halfway stage of the project, based on primary fieldwork carried out between October 2005 and June 2006. The content should be of interest to policy makers, public sector administrators, and those involved in the facilitation of interfaith initiatives.

A disturbing aspect of the study pointed out that almost a third of white pupils, compared to a tenth and a fifth in a school predominantly Asian and a mixed school respectively, believe that one particular race is superior to another.

The Social Setting

According to the 2001 census, 74.5 percent of people in Burnley described themselves as Christian and 6.6 percent as Muslim, signifying that religion plays an important part in concepts of self-identity even among those who do not regularly attend religious places of worship. The town is also home to a small number of Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, and Jews. The report contextualizes as follows:

Like all areas of the UK, Burnley has seen a huge decline in church attendance since the 1950s. Not surprisingly, the interview data confirms that church going among younger generations has reached an all-time low in Burnley — a trend that is explicable by sociological analysis. The exception to this is a Pentecostal church, situated in the west of the town, that has managed to attract an increasing number of younger people to its Sunday evening service since the summer of 2005. … Mosque attendance is rather more evident, although this too is changing. While the number of midday Friday worshippers remains quite high in all nine mosques, attendance at other times is much more sporadic. The dearth of official mosque attendance data and the tendency of many Muslim women to worship at home, however, make any attempt to ascertain frequency of worship very difficult.

The study questions the popular notion that ethnic communities in Britain are ceasing to be concerned about integrating with their "new" culture and are instead strengthening their ties with the countries they originally emigrated from. In doing so, the study attempts to address this issue that revolves around mixing with others, by looking at the nature of extracurricular activities, attitudes towards race and ethnicity, views on faith-based cohesion and faith-based relations attached to place of origin, and more importantly, allegiance to common values.

Working closely with Building Bridges Burnley — an interfaith group of Muslims and Christians — over 400 15-year-olds were questioned about their attitudes towards race, religion, and cultural integration in the summer term of 2006. The pupils came from three non-religious schools, all in deprived areas: One school had mainly white pupils, one school had mainly Asian students, and the third school had a mixture.

Holden believes there is sufficient evidence from the school survey and from the other aspects of the project to support the claim that although the different faith and ethnic communities of Burnley manage to live amicably together most of the time, it is still largely a governorate in which social interaction between ethnic groups remains tenuous. This segregation manifests itself in housing, with the majority of the town's Asian population concentrated in three of the most deprived wards. However, it is worth mentioning that an increasing number of initiatives have been launched since 2001 — including annual cultural events, neighborhood renewal schemes, urban regeneration programs, interfaith projects, and more recently the restructuring of secondary education — all of which possess the potential to improve integration within the town and to challenge some of the negative perceptions that the main faith and ethnic communities often hold of one another.

The Findings

Although the inquiry is yielding some interesting findings, it is important to note that the findings so far have been culled from the first of a two-year investigation. Holden found that most pupils at the mainly Muslim school were well-integrated and loyal to the UK.

"A significant and overwhelming majority were greatly in favor of moderate, democratic, and liberal ideals. Principles included tolerance of those with different views, being gracious to people from diverse religious and ethnic groups, freedom of speech, and respect for others."

The report found that the higher levels of intolerance at the school with a majority white-pupil attendance were linked to widespread resentment among white residents, who felt that the local council had unfairly allocated extra funds to the Asian community.

"It is the increasing consequence of myths and stereotype, negative discernment of diversity, and apprehension towards change that educators, outreach workers, and educational support staff must make every effort to combat," Holden said.

Gathering information from the questionnaires given to students from each school, we can establish the following information:

In School A (Exclusively white pupils from low-income families and high-crime areas):

19 percent of Year 10 believed in God.
16 percent had been exposed to religious influences by parents or other relatives.
8 percent attended church once a week.
45 percent said that home is the greatest influence on them, but friends are equally influential.
2 percent gave greater respect to faith leaders.
41 percent were able to name a member of the Christian clergy.
49 percent thought religion is unimportant or did not really care.
50 percent were willing to listen to other people's religious views.
40 percent believed that Christianity and Islam taught how to be a good person.
30 percent believed that one race was superior to another.
29 percent were in favor of different faith communities working together.

In School B (Located in a more affluent area than School A, with 96 percent of pupils of Asian heritage):

97 percent of Year 10 believed in God.
96 percent had been exposed to religious influences by parents or other relatives.
81 percent had attended mosques at least once a week.
41 percent said that home is the greatest influence on them.
43 percent gave greater respect to faith leaders (though there is some contradictory results as to whether relatives are more influential than faith leaders).
68 percent were able to name a Muslim cleric.
10 percent thought religion is unimportant or did not care.
86 percent were willing to listen to other people's religious views.
83 percent believed that Christianity and Islam taught how to be a good person.
11.3 percent believed that one race was superior to another.
76 percent were in favor of different faith communities working together.
In School C (Located in a similar area to School B with 73 percent of pupils white British and 27 percent of Asian heritage):

33 percent said that home is the greatest influence on them.
11 percent gave greater respect to faith leaders.
41 percent believed that Christianity and Islam taught how to be a good person.
18.5 percent believed that one race was superior to another.
34 percent were in favor of different faith communities working together.
Responses

"It does not surprise me that Muslim students are more tolerant as they are exposed to different cultures and religions from a young age," said Shalina Hussein, a Child Protection Officer and freelance journalist from East London.

"For example, Muslim children may go to a Church of England primary school and learn about Christianity and other religions without compromising their own beliefs, yet attend mosques at the weekends to learn about Islam. This enables the children to learn about their own religion and other faiths leading to a tolerant and informed attitude towards religion."

"Muslims are also encouraged to be active members of society and to work with their neighbors of whatever faith or race to create a safer and happier environment. It is very pleasing to read the findings of the survey as it goes a long way to proving that Muslims are tolerant and it is only a minority who is narrow minded," concluded Shalina.

Cindy van den Bremen, a contextual designer and creative advisor from the Netherlands was pleased with the report.

"I'm glad to finally read some positive news and research concerning Muslims. Personally, I favor the mixed schools, or public schools as we call them in the Netherlands. I was a 'product' of a mixed school, together with my upbringing as a humanist made me the person who I am right now. I'm used to having friends from different backgrounds, cultures, and religions and have mixed couple friends in a bicultural marriage."

If interfaith dialogue is to have any real impact in the education system, it is essential that the many possible ways of including it are tried and tested. … Although spiritual and philosophical considerations are mentioned in most subject syllabuses, they seldom receive anything other than tokenistic attention from classroom teachers who are given precious little time to prepare innovative lessons.

The Burnley Project

interesting summation

Victoria thinks

"the question itself is irresponsible journalism"

Victoria seems to be the Muslim mouthpiece here trying to blaze a new trail in America for an Islamic end of free speech..

Victoria what do you suggest? Should Sally and Jon just be forced into silence or maybe they deserve the DEATH SENTENCE too?

And

"the list of "muslim grievances" you cited is from masada.com. an offshoot of the jewish task force which is a virulently anti-muslim group-"

What? I just watched the video and their list of muslim grievances was nowhere near complete. After your post we can add- "must never criticize Islam". Victoria, isn't that your grievance today? On Faith defended the kid with the DEATH SENTENCE and questioned Muslims intent to quiet him (permanently). And as an offended Muslim you would like to make Sally and Jon shut up too. And I'll just note you never acknowledge their right to free speech. You did not give us example after example of "real Muslims" who love free speech. Instead you pepper your posts with "hatred, predjudice, islamophobe, bigotry, bias, anti-muslim, muslimphobia.." like a propagandist pushing his talking points. Quit playing the victim. Its old.

Also

The bond between men and dogs was cemented far far before Mo made his entrance on earth, Why not explain Mo's HATRED and PREDJUDICE towards dogs.

kimberly- how does a critique of the impartiality
of the journalistic integrity of sally quinn and jon meacham tranlsate, in your mind, to thinking the young journalists death sentence is "justifiable"?

that is a ridiculous and illogical conclusion to reach.

and wildly untrue.

Prejudice is not a joke
Irfan Yusuf
October 1, 2007

Comedy can have a serious purpose. It reminds us of the dangers of forgetting history.

NONE of us can honestly claim to be without prejudice. It's much easier to see people as being defined only by their race, religion or sexual preference, whether actual or presumed. It's much harder to understand people as complex individuals with numerous, often conflicting, layers of identity.

When it comes to exposing and challenging prejudice, humour is often far more effective a tool than passionate opinion articles. Three young Australian Muslims — Mohammed El-Leissy, Nazeem Hussain and Aamer Rahman — are performing Islam-101: Don't Believe The Hype at this year's Melbourne Fringe Festival. They are following the example of Arab and Muslim comics in North America who have performed shows under such titles as Allah Made Me Funny and The Axis of Evil.

On the ABC each week The Chaser's War on Everything lampoons popular perceptions of terrorism and security. In one skit, a Chaser chap dresses up as an American tourist taking video shots of the Sydney Harbour Bridge without any security present. He then dresses as a stereotypical Arab, with long beard and chequered kuffiyeh headdress. Security was onto him within minutes.

But not all skits elicit laughter. A recent episode showed their man in the US, Charles Firth, interviewing a sample of everyday Americans. All agreed Muslims should be forced to carry ID cards and even wear special identification badges. Most suggested Muslims should be incarcerated in internment camps. Comedy can be a potent vehicle for exposing uncomfortable truths.

During his recent visit to Australia, Bosnia's mufti charmed Australian audiences with wisecracks about Bosnian villagers and about his experiences of being bossed around by his wife and daughter. But Dr Mustafa Ceric also has a serious message for Westerners of all faiths.

He reminded us that Muslimphobia is reaching such endemic proportions in Europe that he fears a second Holocaust. He compared popular perceptions of Muslims in the West with popular perceptions of Jews in parts of Western Europe in the decades leading up to World War II.

Ceric used the experience of his own people to illustrate his point — more than half a million Bosnian civilians massacred and more than 20,000 women gang-raped, including girls as young as six and women as old as 80. Many atrocities were committed by people against their neighbours, teachers, students and others with whom they otherwise had daily interaction.

What kind of thinking leads to such atrocities? One Bosnian victim, a red-headed 25-year-old married woman, told a Canadian newspaper why she was raped by 15 soldiers: "Because I am a Muslim. Their aim was to humiliate me, to make me lose my honour."

Hence, one can only wonder at the sanity of those Muslims who, like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, believe that defending their own necessarily involves denying the historical suffering of others. In yet another year when Ramadan and Yom Kippur coincide, what possible benefit could be gained for Jews or Muslims from Ahmadinejad's remarks?

As American Imam Hamza Yusuf Hanson writes in the US Jewish magazine Tikkun: "Muslims, of all people, should be conscious of this as their religion is predicated on the same epistemological premises as many major events in history, such as the Holocaust. To deny such things is to undermine Islam as an historical event."

Instead of denying the Holocaust, Muslims — and indeed peoples of all faiths and no faith in particular — should study its causes and consequences, especially the rhetorical devices used by political leaders, columnists and commentators in the decades leading up to it.

No two faith traditions are more similar than Islam and Judaism. Both worship a strictly Unitarian God. Both have sacred laws with strict dietary codes and detailed rules governing gender relations. Both insist on their texts being learned and taught in their original languages. Both refuse to deny their Middle Eastern roots.

The reasons used by many Muslimphobes to generate hatred against those deemed Muslim are almost identical to those used to generate hatred against Jews in the decades leading up to the Holocaust. Muslimphobic columnists and bloggers poke fun at Muslim dietary laws and cast aspersions on Muslims by citing out of context verses from the Koran discussing wars.

Eighty years ago, their ideological forebears cast similar aspersions on Jews. Even a cursory study of pre-Holocaust attitudes towards Jews in Europe and the West will show that yesterday's bloodsucking Jewish lenders have been replaced by today's bloodthirsty Islamic terrorists.

In New Matilda last week, Joanna Mendelssohn reminded readers that as recently as 1940, two prominent Sydney newspapers were quite happy to publish the opinions of a notable art critic who claimed modern art was a conspiracy of "the Jew dealers" whose aim was to "corrupt criticism, originate propaganda … and undermine accepted standards so that there should be ample merchandise to handle".

As Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland wrote of the British media last year: "I try to imagine how I would feel if this rainstorm of headlines substituted the word 'Jew' for 'Muslim': Jews creating apartheid, Jews whose strange customs and costume should be banned. I wouldn't just feel frightened. I would be looking for my passport."

Perhaps Freedland is exaggerating. Perhaps Muslimphobia is nowhere near as endemic as anti-Semitism was in the West before World War II. Yet the parallels between the rhetoric and attitudes of yesterday's anti-Semitism and today's Muslimphobia are striking. More unfortunate is the fact that prominent Jewish voices can be found among the chorus of Muslimphobes. Today's targets should be the last to deny the suffering of yesterday's victims. And the survivors of yesterday's crimes should be the last to join in today's lynch mobs.

youve proven my point kimberly-

hate and prejudice are hate and prejudice and are no more justified coming from any persons heart
and you feel quite comfortable expressing your bias-

to judge over 1 billion human beings by the actions of some judges and the politicians in afghanistan is the base defintion of prejudice

amd the list of "muslim grievances" you cited is from masada.com. an offshoot of the jewish task force which is a virulently anti-muslim group-

those arent real muslims- and no muslim believes what it says

the question itself is irresponsible journalism.

it has an inherent accusation that islam disallows free speech-

therefore, it makes islamophobes comfortable enough to vent their bigotry-

if the question took an example of an israeli soldier who used a child as a human shield, and then implied that judaism promoted it-
it would be just as offensive-

And while I'm asking

How can someone have the impudence to say "what a transparent and irresponsible attempt to sanction prejudice against islam."? She thinks the young journalist's DEATH SENTENCE is justifiable? What? DEATH for offending Mo by questioning his teachings? Anyone with a brain who can read should understand the importance, timeliness, and relevance this question.

AND JUST WTF IS THIS?

-I watched two videos posted here recently under "Women as Bombs".

The first was a music video praising a young woman's decision to kill herself as a walking bomb and leave her two small children motherless. It begins with her young daughter saying "mother where are you going" and ends with the daughter saying "tell our prophet our greetings and tell him Doha (her name?) loves you. my love will not be with my words. i will follow my mother's steps.(repeated several times)." The comments to this youtube were left by mostly young Muslims saying how they loved the song.

But it was the second video that really tore my heart. It was a man interviewing the two small children whose mother was glorified as a woman suicide bomber. The little girl holds herself tightly and speaks in a whispered tortured voice as her interviewer with a smile on his face prods her to praise her mother's death. Chilling. See for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEB0SvMzKzg

How appalling that Muslims allow and applaud this twisted behavior. Are they all brainwashed into thinking death is better than life? Is it some kind of death cult? And where is this going? Where will it all end?

There is another video on the Dennett blog that is titled, "Muslim Grievances". It's supposed to be funny and has two men discussing and arguing over a list of political and theological grievences the Muslims have against the West- like the existance of Israel and the Jews, democracy, homosexuals, Hindus, music and art..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWN3twz6cQY

I've thought about it and it's really not funny. That list is real and there is no way to appease someone with such a twisted mindset.

And now they are using mentally challenged women to be their pack animals. By using "useless inferior" women to carry their explosives and remote control devices to detonate them- they are living and free to kill again. And they have made "martyrs" of the women and sent them off to "paradise". Right?

Twisted. Where is it going and Where will it end?

ps-To the poster who questions whether the women were mentally challenged. If the women were willing, intentional bombers who bravely and knowingly went to their deaths-- why detonate with the remote control and why no "allahu akbar"?

SPEAKING OF LOST FREEDOM

Would someone tell me WTF is this? Mo had a personal dislike for dogs- so all his followers are punished for loving their pet?

from another post

-Alright. I just found this out and I can't believe it.

Iranian authorities are arresting people for WALKING THEIR DOGS and taking their dogs away!

Apparently Islamic Law finds dogs UNCLEAN and anyone who owns one is IMMORAL.

First we are told there are no homosexuals in Iran and now no dogs too? .. what a hellwhole!

DOGS ARRESTED FOR WALKING IN IRAN (NBC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8W0h-UlffgY

A 37-year-old American businesswoman and married mother of three is seeking justice after she was thrown in jail by Saudi Arabia's religious police for sitting with a male colleague at a Starbucks coffee shop in Riyadh, according to a report in The Times of London on Thursday.

Yara, who does not want her last name published for fear of retribution, was bruised and crying when she was freed from a day in prison after she was strip-searched, threatened and forced to sign false confessions by the Kingdom's “Mutaween” police, The Times reported.

“Some men came up to us with very long beards and white dresses. They asked ‘Why are you here together?'. I explained about the power being out in our office. They got very angry and told me what I was doing was a great sin,” recalled Yara, who wears an abaya and headscarf, like most Saudi women.

The men were from Saudi Arabia's Commission for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, a police force of several thousand men charged with enforcing dress codes, sex segregation and the observance of prayers.

Yara says she was interrogated, strip-searched and forced to sign and fingerprint a series of confessions pleading guilty to her “crime,” the Times reported.

Hello Muslimah Victoria,

Do you love free speech ? Do you love human freedom ? Do you love Islam ? In what order ?

what a transparent and irresponsible attempt to sanction prejudice against islam.

Cliff Dane is having verbose diarrhoea. He has posted the same useless message 26 times, and hence is wasting useful bandwidth. Such spoilers are to be banned from the WP blogsite.

In language, Moody hopefully will understand:

Indeed we are "surrounded" by one billion Muslims in this easy-accessible modern world. With the koran as their guide, they have been shouting "death to the infidels" for the last 1400 years not just since 1948.

The problem now is that we can hear and smell the stench of their warmongering message.

The solution: Delete the flaws in the koran and "pink slip" all the "red-neck" imams and clerics

Hmmm, if you trace it all back to the origins of the three major religions claiming Abraham as founder/father, you find the "pretty wingie thinges" as the essence and essentials of it all. This then is the experience of it all and results in one major conclusion:

"Abrahamic” (to include Joe Smith's "Mormon-con") religions are hallucination/"pretty wingie, flying, talking fictional thingies"-based and it is now time to end the charade!!!!

Dear Mr. Daniel in the LIon's Den :

I can understand your ANXIETY. The only reason is it’s not my mother tongue. But still it is English, not German, French or Arabic. Pardon my poor grammar and other mistakes. Though the simple meanings of what I’m trying to address are very clear and my poor grammar is not really affecting the purpose or the over all meanings.

You can try,
READING IT SLOWLY. IT MIGHT ENABLE YOU TO DIGEST!!!

Dear Mr. Moody

Your English has so many grammatical mistakes, that it is not clear what you are saying.

Maybe you should have someone who knows English better help you proof read your comments before posting.

I know I am, for the most part, just skipping over anything that you post, because I cannot understand what you are trying to say.

GARYD:

The whole Jewish race was murdered only by SUPERIOR WHITE MONKEY (according to brilliant western scholars) RACE.

While white monkeys (according to your brilliant scholars) keep murdering them through out centuries, THEY LIVED & FLOURISH HAPPILY under Muslim rule more than 800 years. BOTHER to look history of Spain.

And not just Jews but all races and religions. Still more than 150 million Coptic Christians are living in Middle East from the beginning of Islam.

A solid proof that Islam is not spread by sword "unlike Christianity" but by winning the hearts and minds by its simple truth.

---“The reason Israeli Jews “imitating” white monkeys (according to western scholars) basically is because they also belong mostly from same lands and behaving same way like VIOLENT OCCUPIERS.”---

Petitions to try and help Mr. Kambakhsh have been started on the internet.

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=25199

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/article775954.ece

www.petitiononline.com/af8f6912/petition.html (you will have to cut/paste)

Please sign and spread as far as you can. Hopefully we can help get Mr. Kambakhsh a pardon or a reduced sentence

Wondersmyth, thank you for the information about the Dalit and about Mr. Gandhi's reputation (or lack of one) in India. From what I've read, he claims to have fought against caste in India. If so, evidentally, unsuccessfully.

His post was racist, absolutely. No question. Why is he still on this panel?

The incident that somehow resulted in the ansinine question posed by the moderators does go to freedom of speech. As for the question itself, this is not the National Enquirer. Might it be possible pose more lucid questions?

No hate speech is telling the Jews that if they'll just let those who would murder them do so they will have peace.

No hate speech is telling the jews that if they'll just let those who would murder them do so they will have peace.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH = CRITICISING ISLAM AND MUSLIMS, COMMUNISTS,PAGANS

HATE SPEECH = CRITICISING JEWS

There is freedom of speech, and then there is hate speech. In most cases, except perhaps when the latter results in murder, the death penalty should be off the table. The question posed indicates that this was a freedom of speech issue. Enough said.

The post of Mr. Gandhi to this site on January 10th, his nonapology, and a January 25th interview in which he stood by "the content" constitutes hate speech, racism. Yet, Mr. Gandhi is still a member of the On Faith Panel.

Ms. Quinn and Mr. Meacham are waiting to see what Mr. Gandhi "has learned." To judge from a January 25th interview, nothing. He stands by the "content" of his January 10th post. He is seventy-four years old, and has had a great deal of time to learn how not to be a racist. He has not done so.

According to Dalit colleagues living in the U.S., he has done nothing to help ende their suffering. We are talking about millions of people living in slavery in India. According to other Indian colleagues, he is, for the most part, a nonentity in that country. Few even know who he is.

Some explanation of why he was asked to be on this panel is due Washington Post readers. Some explanation of why he is still on it is owed to all those committed to the war against racism.

There is freedom of speech, and then there is hate speech. In most cases, except perhaps when the latter results in murder, the death penalty should be off the table. The question posed indicates that this was a freedom of speech issue. Enough said.

The post of Mr. Gandhi to this site on January 10th, his nonapology, and a January 25th interview in which he stood by "the content" constitutes hate speech, racism. Yet, Mr. Gandhi is still a member of the On Faith Panel.

Ms. Quinn and Mr. Meacham are waiting to see what Mr. Gandhi "has learned." To judge from a January 25th interview, nothing. He stands by the "content" of his January 10th post. He is seventy-four years old, and has had a great deal of time to learn how not to be a racist. He has not done so.

According to Dalit colleagues living in the U.S., he has done nothing to help ende their suffering. We are talking about millions of people living in slavery in India. According to other Indian colleagues, he is, for the most part, a nonentity in that country. Few even know who he is.

Some explanation of why he was asked to be on this panel is due Washington Post readers. Some explanation of why he is still on it is owed to all those committed to the war against racism.

There is freedom of speech, and then there is hate speech. In most cases, except perhaps when the latter results in murder, the death penalty should be off the table. The question posed indicates that this was a freedom of speech issue. Enough said.

The post of Mr. Gandhi to this site on January 10th, his nonapology, and a January 25th interview in which he stood by "the content" constitutes hate speech, racism. Yet, Mr. Gandhi is still a member of the On Faith Panel.

Ms. Quinn and Mr. Meacham are waiting to see what Mr. Gandhi "has learned." To judge from a January 25th interview, nothing. He stands by the "content" of his January 10th post. He is seventy-four years old, and has had a great deal of time to learn how not to be a racist. He has not done so.

According to Dalit colleagues living in the U.S., he has done nothing to help ende their suffering. We are talking about millions of people living in slavery in India. According to other Indian colleagues, he is, for the most part, a nonentity in that country. Few even know who he is.

Some explanation of why he was asked to be on this panel is due Washington Post readers. Some explanation of why he is still on it is owed to all those committed to the war against racism.

There is freedom of speech, and then there is hate speech. In most cases, except perhaps when the latter results in murder, the death penalty should be off the table. The question posed indicates that this was a freedom of speech issue. Enough said.

The post of Mr. Gandhi to this site on January 10th, his nonapology, and a January 25th interview in which he stood by "the content" constitutes hate speech, racism. Yet, Mr. Gandhi is still a member of the On Faith Panel.

Ms. Quinn and Mr. Meacham are waiting to see what Mr. Gandhi "has learned." To judge from a January 25th interview, nothing. He stands by the "content" of his January 10th post. He is seventy-four years old, and has had a great deal of time to learn how not to be a racist. He has not done so.

According to Dalit colleagues living in the U.S., he has done nothing to help ende their suffering. We are talking about millions of people living in slavery in India. According to other Indian colleagues, he is, for the most part, a nonentity in that country. Few even know who he is.

Some explanation of why he was asked to be on this panel is due Washington Post readers. Some explanation of why he is still on it is owed to all those committed to the war against racism.

There is freedom of speech, and then there is hate speech. In most cases, except perhaps when the latter results in murder, the death penalty should be off the table. The question posed indicates that this was a freedom of speech issue. Enough said.

The post of Mr. Gandhi to this site on January 10th, his nonapology, and a January 25th interview in which he stood by "the content" constitutes hate speech, racism. Yet, Mr. Gandhi is still a member of the On Faith Panel.

Ms. Quinn and Mr. Meacham are waiting to see what Mr. Gandhi "has learned." To judge from a January 25th interview, nothing. He stands by the "content" of his January 10th post. He is seventy-four years old, and has had a great deal of time to learn how not to be a racist. He has not done so.

According to Dalit colleagues living in the U.S., he has done nothing to help ende their suffering. We are talking about millions of people living in slavery in India. According to other Indian colleagues, he is, for the most part, a nonentity in that country. Few even know who he is.

Some explanation of why he was asked to be on this panel is due Washington Post readers. Some explanation of why he is still on it is owed to all those committed to the war against racism.

There is freedom of speech, and then there is hate speech. In most cases, except perhaps when the latter results in murder, the death penalty should be off the table. The question posed indicates that this was a freedom of speech issue. Enough said.

The post of Mr. Gandhi to this site on January 10th, his nonapology, and a January 25th interview in which he stood by "the content" constitutes hate speech, racism. Yet, Mr. Gandhi is still a member of the On Faith Panel.

Ms. Quinn and Mr. Meacham are waiting to see what Mr. Gandhi "has learned." To judge from a January 25th interview, nothing. He stands by the "content" of his January 10th post. He is seventy-four years old, and has had a great deal of time to learn how not to be a racist. He has not done so.

According to Dalit colleagues living in the U.S., he has done nothing to help ende their suffering. We are talking about millions of people living in slavery in India. According to other Indian colleagues, he is, for the most part, a nonentity in that country. Few even know who he is.

Some explanation of why he was asked to be on this panel is due Washington Post readers. Some explanation of why he is still on it is owed to all those committed to the war against racism.

There is freedom of speech, and then there is hate speech. In most cases, except perhaps when the latter results in murder, the death penalty should be off the table. The question posed indicates that this was a freedom of speech issue. Enough said.

The post of Mr. Gandhi to this site on January 10th, his nonapology, and a January 25th interview in which he stood by "the content" constitutes hate speech, racism. Yet, Mr. Gandhi is still a member of the On Faith Panel.

Ms. Quinn and Mr. Meacham are waiting to see what Mr. Gandhi "has learned." To judge from a January 25th interview, nothing. He stands by the "content" of his January 10th post. He is seventy-four years old, and has had a great deal of time to learn how not to be a racist. He has not done so.

According to Dalit colleagues living in the U.S., he has done nothing to help ende their suffering. We are talking about millions of people living in slavery in India. According to other Indian colleagues, he is, for the most part, a nonentity in that country. Few even know who he is.

Some explanation of why he was asked to be on this panel is due Washington Post readers. Some explanation of why he is still on it is owed to all those committed to the war against racism.

There is freedom of speech, and then there is hate speech. In most cases, except perhaps when the latter results in murder, the death penalty should be off the table. The question posed indicates that this was a freedom of speech issue. Enough said.

The post of Mr. Gandhi to this site on January 10th, his nonapology, and a January 25th interview in which he stood by "the content" constitutes hate speech, racism. Yet, Mr. Gandhi is still a member of the On Faith Panel.

Ms. Quinn and Mr. Meacham are waiting to see what Mr. Gandhi "has learned." To judge from a January 25th interview, nothing. He stands by the "content" of his January 10th post. He is seventy-four years old, and has had a great deal of time to learn how not to be a racist. He has not done so.

According to Dalit colleagues living in the U.S., he has done nothing to help ende their suffering. We are talking about millions of people living in slavery in India. According to other Indian colleagues, he is, for the most part, a nonentity in that country. Few even know who he is.

Some explanation of why he was asked to be on this panel is due Washington Post readers. Some explanation of why he is still on it is owed to all those committed to the war against racism.

There is freedom of speech, and then there is hate speech. In most cases, except perhaps when the latter results in murder, the death penalty should be off the table. The question posed indicates that this was a freedom of speech issue. Enough said.

The post of Mr. Gandhi to this site on January 10th, his nonapology, and a January 25th interview in which he stood by "the content" constitutes hate speech, racism. Yet, Mr. Gandhi is still a member of the On Faith Panel.

Ms. Quinn and Mr. Meacham are waiting to see what Mr. Gandhi "has learned." To judge from a January 25th interview, nothing. He stands by the "content" of his January 10th post. He is seventy-four years old, and has had a great deal of time to learn how not to be a racist. He has not done so.

According to Dalit colleagues living in the U.S., he has done nothing to help ende their suffering. We are talking about millions of people living in slavery in India. According to other Indian colleagues, he is, for the most part, a nonentity in that country. Few even know who he is.

Some explanation of why he was asked to be on this panel is due Washington Post readers. Some explanation of why he is still on it is owed to all those committed to the war against racism.

There is freedom of speech, and then there is hate speech. In most cases, except perhaps when the latter results in murder, the death penalty should be off the table. The question posed indicates that this was a freedom of speech issue. Enough said.

The post of Mr. Gandhi to this site on January 10th, his nonapology, and a January 25th interview in which he stood by "the content" constitutes hate speech, racism. Yet, Mr. Gandhi is still a member of the On Faith Panel.

Ms. Quinn and Mr. Meacham are waiting to see what Mr. Gandhi "has learned." To judge from a January 25th interview, nothing. He stands by the "content" of his January 10th post. He is seventy-four years old, and has had a great deal of time to learn how not to be a racist. He has not done so.

According to Dalit colleagues living in the U.S., he has done nothing to help ende their suffering. We are talking about millions of people living in slavery in India. According to other Indian colleagues, he is, for the most part, a nonentity in that country. Few even know who he is.

Some explanation of why he was asked to be on this panel is due Washington Post readers. Some explanation of why he is still on it is owed to all those committed to the war against racism.

There is freedom of speech, and then there is hate speech. In most cases, except perhaps when the latter results in murder, the death penalty should be off the table. The question posed indicates that this was a freedom of speech issue. Enough said.

The post of Mr. Gandhi to this site on January 10th, his nonapology, and a January 25th interview in which he stood by "the content" constitutes hate speech, racism. Yet, Mr. Gandhi is still a member of the On Faith Panel.

Ms. Quinn and Mr. Meacham are waiting to see what Mr. Gandhi "has learned." To judge from a January 25th interview, nothing. He stands by the "content" of his January 10th post. He is seventy-four years old, and has had a great deal of time to learn how not to be a racist. He has not done so.

According to Dalit colleagues living in the U.S., he has done nothing to help ende their suffering. We are talking about millions of people living in slavery in India. According to other Indian colleagues, he is, for the most part, a nonentity in that country. Few even know who he is.

Some explanation of why he was asked to be on this panel is due Washington Post readers. Some explanation of why he is still on it is owed to all those committed to the war against racism.

There is freedom of speech, and then there is hate speech. In most cases, except perhaps when the latter results in murder, the death penalty should be off the table. The question posed indicates that this was a freedom of speech issue. Enough said.

The post of Mr. Gandhi to this site on January 10th, his nonapology, and a January 25th interview in which he stood by "the content" constitutes hate speech, racism. Yet, Mr. Gandhi is still a member of the On Faith Panel.

Ms. Quinn and Mr. Meacham are waiting to see what Mr. Gandhi "has learned." To judge from a January 25th interview, nothing. He stands by the "content" of his January 10th post. He is seventy-four years old, and has had a great deal of time to learn how not to be a racist. He has not done so.

According to Dalit colleagues living in the U.S., he has done nothing to help ende their suffering. We are talking about millions of people living in slavery in India. According to other Indian colleagues, he is, for the most part, a nonentity in that country. Few even know who he is.

Some explanation of why he was asked to be on this panel is due Washington Post readers. Some explanation of why he is still on it is owed to all those committed to the war against racism.

There is freedom of speech, and then there is hate speech. In most cases, except perhaps when the latter results in murder, the death penalty should be off the table. The question posed indicates that this was a freedom of speech issue. Enough said.

The post of Mr. Gandhi to this site on January 10th, his nonapology, and a January 25th interview in which he stood by "the content" constitutes hate speech, racism. Yet, Mr. Gandhi is still a member of the On Faith Panel.

Ms. Quinn and Mr. Meacham are waiting to see what Mr. Gandhi "has learned." To judge from a January 25th interview, nothing. He stands by the "content" of his January 10th post. He is seventy-four years old, and has had a great deal of time to learn how not to be a racist. He has not done so.

According to Dalit colleagues living in the U.S., he has done nothing to help ende their suffering. We are talking about millions of people living in slavery in India. According to other Indian colleagues, he is, for the most part, a nonentity in that country. Few even know who he is.

Some explanation of why he was asked to be on this panel is due Washington Post readers. Some explanation of why he is still on it is owed to all those committed to the war against racism.

There is freedom of speech, and then there is hate speech. In most cases, except perhaps when the latter results in murder, the death penalty should be off the table. The question posed indicates that this was a freedom of speech issue. Enough said.

The post of Mr. Gandhi to this site on January 10th, his nonapology, and a January 25th interview in which he stood by "the content" constitutes hate speech, racism. Yet, Mr. Gandhi is still a member of the On Faith Panel.

Ms. Quinn and Mr. Meacham are waiting to see what Mr. Gandhi "has learned." To judge from a January 25th interview, nothing. He stands by the "content" of his January 10th post. He is seventy-four years old, and has had a great deal of time to learn how not to be a racist. He has not done so.

According to Dalit colleagues living in the U.S., he has done nothing to help ende their suffering. We are talking about millions of people living in slavery in India. According to other Indian colleagues, he is, for the most part, a nonentity in that country. Few even know who he is.

Some explanation of why he was asked to be on this panel is due Washington Post readers. Some explanation of why he is still on it is owed to all those committed to the war against racism.

There is freedom of speech, and then there is hate speech. In most cases, except perhaps when the latter results in murder, the death penalty should be off the table. The question posed indicates that this was a freedom of speech issue. Enough said.

The post of Mr. Gandhi to this site on January 10th, his nonapology, and a January 25th interview in which he stood by "the content" constitutes hate speech, racism. Yet, Mr. Gandhi is still a member of the On Faith Panel.

Ms. Quinn and Mr. Meacham are waiting to see what Mr. Gandhi "has learned." To judge from a January 25th interview, nothing. He stands by the "content" of his January 10th post. He is seventy-four years old, and has had a great deal of time to learn how not to be a racist. He has not done so.

According to Dalit colleagues living in the U.S., he has done nothing to help ende their suffering. We are talking about millions of people living in slavery in India. According to other Indian colleagues, he is, for the most part, a nonentity in that country. Few even know who he is.

Some explanation of why he was asked to be on this panel is due Washington Post readers. Some explanation of why he is still on it is owed to all those committed to the war against racism.

There is freedom of speech, and then there is hate speech. In most cases, except perhaps when the latter results in murder, the death penalty should be off the table. The question posed indicates that this was a freedom of speech issue. Enough said.

The post of Mr. Gandhi to this site on January 10th, his nonapology, and a January 25th interview in which he stood by "the content" constitutes hate speech, racism. Yet, Mr. Gandhi is still a member of the On Faith Panel.

Ms. Quinn and Mr. Meacham are waiting to see what Mr. Gandhi "has learned." To judge from a January 25th interview, nothing. He stands by the "content" of his January 10th post. He is seventy-four years old, and has had a great deal of time to learn how not to be a racist. He has not done so.

According to Dalit colleagues living in the U.S., he has done nothing to help ende their suffering. We are talking about millions of people living in slavery in India. According to other Indian colleagues, he is, for the most part, a nonentity in that country. Few even know who he is.

Some explanation of why he was asked to be on this panel is due Washington Post readers. Some explanation of why he is still on it is owed to all those committed to the war against racism.

There is freedom of speech, and then there is hate speech. In most cases, except perhaps when the latter results in murder, the death penalty should be off the table. The question posed indicates that this was a freedom of speech issue. Enough said.

The post of Mr. Gandhi to this site on January 10th, his nonapology, and a January 25th interview in which he stood by "the content" constitutes hate speech, racism. Yet, Mr. Gandhi is still a member of the On Faith Panel.

Ms. Quinn and Mr. Meacham are waiting to see what Mr. Gandhi "has learned." To judge from a January 25th interview, nothing. He stands by the "content" of his January 10th post. He is seventy-four years old, and has had a great deal of time to learn how not to be a racist. He has not done so.

According to Dalit colleagues living in the U.S., he has done nothing to help ende their suffering. We are talking about millions of people living in slavery in India. According to other Indian colleagues, he is, for the most part, a nonentity in that country. Few even know who he is.

Some explanation of why he was asked to be on this panel is due Washington Post readers. Some explanation of why he is still on it is owed to all those committed to the war against racism.

There is freedom of speech, and then there is hate speech. In most cases, except perhaps when the latter results in murder, the death penalty should be off the table. The question posed indicates that this was a freedom of speech issue. Enough said.

The post of Mr. Gandhi to this site on January 10th, his nonapology, and a January 25th interview in which he stood by "the content" constitutes hate speech, racism. Yet, Mr. Gandhi is still a member of the On Faith Panel.

Ms. Quinn and Mr. Meacham are waiting to see what Mr. Gandhi "has learned." To judge from a January 25th interview, nothing. He stands by the "content" of his January 10th post. He is seventy-four years old, and has had a great deal of time to learn how not to be a racist. He has not done so.

According to Dalit colleagues living in the U.S., he has done nothing to help ende their suffering. We are talking about millions of people living in slavery in India. According to other Indian colleagues, he is, for the most part, a nonentity in that country. Few even know who he is.

Some explanation of why he was asked to be on this panel is due Washington Post readers. Some explanation of why he is still on it is owed to all those committed to the war against racism.

There is freedom of speech, and then there is hate speech. In most cases, except perhaps when the latter results in murder, the death penalty should be off the table. The question posed indicates that this was a freedom of speech issue. Enough said.

The post of Mr. Gandhi to this site on January 10th, his nonapology, and a January 25th interview in which he stood by "the content" constitutes hate speech, racism. Yet, Mr. Gandhi is still a member of the On Faith Panel.

Ms. Quinn and Mr. Meacham are waiting to see what Mr. Gandhi "has learned." To judge from a January 25th interview, nothing. He stands by the "content" of his January 10th post. He is seventy-four years old, and has had a great deal of time to learn how not to be a racist. He has not done so.

According to Dalit colleagues living in the U.S., he has done nothing to help ende their suffering. We are talking about millions of people living in slavery in India. According to other Indian colleagues, he is, for the most part, a nonentity in that country. Few even know who he is.

Some explanation of why he was asked to be on this panel is due Washington Post readers. Some explanation of why he is still on it is owed to all those committed to the war against racism.

There is freedom of speech, and then there is hate speech. In most cases, except perhaps when the latter results in murder, the death penalty should be off the table. The question posed indicates that this was a freedom of speech issue. Enough said.

The post of Mr. Gandhi to this site on January 10th, his nonapology, and a January 25th interview in which he stood by "the content" constitutes hate speech, racism. Yet, Mr. Gandhi is still a member of the On Faith Panel.

Ms. Quinn and Mr. Meacham are waiting to see what Mr. Gandhi "has learned." To judge from a January 25th interview, nothing. He stands by the "content" of his January 10th post. He is seventy-four years old, and has had a great deal of time to learn how not to be a racist. He has not done so.

According to Dalit colleagues living in the U.S., he has done nothing to help ende their suffering. We are talking about millions of people living in slavery in India. According to other Indian colleagues, he is, for the most part, a nonentity in that country. Few even know who he is.

Some explanation of why he was asked to be on this panel is due Washington Post readers. Some explanation of why he is still on it is owed to all those committed to the war against racism.

There is freedom of speech, and then there is hate speech. In most cases, except perhaps when the latter results in murder, the death penalty should be off the table. The question posed indicates that this was a freedom of speech issue. Enough said.

The post of Mr. Gandhi to this site on January 10th, his nonapology, and a January 25th interview in which he stood by "the content" constitutes hate speech, racism. Yet, Mr. Gandhi is still a member of the On Faith Panel.

Ms. Quinn and Mr. Meacham are waiting to see what Mr. Gandhi "has learned." To judge from a January 25th interview, nothing. He stands by the "content" of his January 10th post. He is seventy-four years old, and has had a great deal of time to learn how not to be a racist. He has not done so.

According to Dalit colleagues living in the U.S., he has done nothing to help ende their suffering. We are talking about millions of people living in slavery in India. According to other Indian colleagues, he is, for the most part, a nonentity in that country. Few even know who he is.

Some explanation of why he was asked to be on this panel is due Washington Post readers. Some explanation of why he is still on it is owed to all those committed to the war against racism.

There is freedom of speech, and then there is hate speech. In most cases, except perhaps when the latter results in murder, the death penalty should be off the table. The question posed indicates that this was a freedom of speech issue. Enough said.

The post of Mr. Gandhi to this site on January 10th, his nonapology, and a January 25th interview in which he stood by "the content" constitutes hate speech, racism. Yet, Mr. Gandhi is still a member of the On Faith Panel.

Ms. Quinn and Mr. Meacham are waiting to see what Mr. Gandhi "has learned." To judge from a January 25th interview, nothing. He stands by the "content" of his January 10th post. He is seventy-four years old, and has had a great deal of time to learn how not to be a racist. He has not done so.

According to Dalit colleagues living in the U.S., he has done nothing to help ende their suffering. We are talking about millions of people living in slavery in India. According to other Indian colleagues, he is, for the most part, a nonentity in that country. Few even know who he is.

Some explanation of why he was asked to be on this panel is due Washington Post readers. Some explanation of why he is still on it is owed to all those committed to the war against racism.

There is freedom of speech, and then there is hate speech. In most cases, except perhaps when the latter results in murder, the death penalty should be off the table. The question posed indicates that this was a freedom of speech issue. Enough said.

The post of Mr. Gandhi to this site on January 10th, his nonapology, and a January 25th interview in which he stood by "the content" constitutes hate speech, racism. Yet, Mr. Gandhi is still a member of the On Faith Panel.

Ms. Quinn and Mr. Meacham are waiting to see what Mr. Gandhi "has learned." To judge from a January 25th interview, nothing. He stands by the "content" of his January 10th post. He is seventy-four years old, and has had a great deal of time to learn how not to be a racist. He has not done so.

According to Dalit colleagues living in the U.S., he has done nothing to help ende their suffering. We are talking about millions of people living in slavery in India. According to other Indian colleagues, he is, for the most part, a nonentity in that country. Few even know who he is.

Some explanation of why he was asked to be on this panel is due Washington Post readers. Some explanation of why he is still on it is owed to all those committed to the war against racism.

There is freedom of speech, and then there is hate speech. In most cases, except perhaps when the latter results in murder, the death penalty should be off the table. The question posed indicates that this was a freedom of speech issue. Enough said.

The post of Mr. Gandhi to this site on January 10th, his nonapology, and a January 25th interview in which he stood by "the content" constitutes hate speech, racism. Yet, Mr. Gandhi is still a member of the On Faith Panel.

Ms. Quinn and Mr. Meacham are waiting to see what Mr. Gandhi "has learned." To judge from a January 25th interview, nothing. He stands by the "content" of his January 10th post. He is seventy-four years old, and has had a great deal of time to learn how not to be a racist. He has not done so.

According to Dalit colleagues living in the U.S., he has done nothing to help ende their suffering. We are talking about millions of people living in slavery in India. According to other Indian colleagues, he is, for the most part, a nonentity in that country. Few even know who he is.

Some explanation of why he was asked to be on this panel is due Washington Post readers. Some explanation of why he is still on it is owed to all those committed to the war against racism.

Daniel you mistake me. I do not believe that all Muslims are evil. I think most are simply people whose goals in life don't generally differ much from your or mine ie raise up our children in the way we think they ought to go provide them a few things to make life easier and better and somewhat more pleasant. The problem as I see it is that the average Muslim hasn't much say in things. It's the thugs the nutbars and the theocrats that get heard and they go way out of their way to squelch any voice of dissent from their mad and maddening policies within Islam. Hence this young man has been sentence to death not because what he has done is worthy of death but because the powers that be wish to cover up their own corruption.

What I fear Most is that some Islamic nutjob will get held of some sort of WMD most likely a binary poison gas agent and kill 2 or 3k in Tel Aviv instedof the usual dozen or two and Israel blinded by tears of both rage and anguish will respond not just with a targeted assassination attempt against those responsible but simply having had enough proceed to cluster bomb the misnomered Palestinians to the point where there population will be about 10 percent of what it once was. It would be over before Europe could do much more than whine. And then all hell will really break loose.

for GaryD

I can imagine that Muslims are people, just the same you or me, because in my profesional life, I have met a number of Mulsims. And they seemed, not all that different to me, as you seem to think they are. And currently, my dentist is Pakistani; I like him better than my old WASP dentist.

You wouldn't kick a little German girl in the shin for the sins of Adolph Hitler, would you? You seem to have an awfully sheltered and cloistered experience, to be commenting so, as you are.

Mary Cunningham wrote before she ran away:

"...You must be subject to all sorts of propaganda making you proud and relieved to live in America. Well, you have more chance of getting killed by some nutcase of a gunman than I have of getting killed by some nutcase of an Islamist. And there is no chance whatsoever of any kind of sharia law."

The question is not about getting hit by a nutjob. Its about free speech. I understand that UK is surrendering its hallowed liberal values and free speech to accomodate the "have nots", but that outreach does not mean Islam allows free speech. So, far you (Mary C) have not argued against, with acceptable proof, that Islamic theology allows insulting Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) by a Muslim or non-Muslim. The right to do so is what I call free speech. That right must be free from all fears of persecution. The question Mary is that, and your Queen can perhaps answer this better, DOES ISLAM ALLOW FREE SPEECH ? If NO, then your assertion tha Muslims are only 4% of the UK's population is simply redundant. Today it is 4% and the 'bobbies' can supposedly "control" it as a law and order problem. How about when Muslims become 10% or 15% or 20% ? India has about 15% Muslim population. Can you see what's going on there ? Not a single, democratically elected government can exist without submitting before the minority- (read Muslim) appeasement traditions/legacy. Even the 'fundamentalist' Hindu party, BJP, had to bow down before the 15%. What makes you think that when Muslim population rises in UK beyond 4%, you can still be trusting and enforce secular laws everywhere within Queen's dominion ?

Palestine was in 1947 a British protectorate. Prior to WWI Palestine had not had an independent existence since the Maccabees. It was Controlled By Jews as late as 70Ad when they were throne out by the Romans for not being sufficiently willing slaves. From about one thousand BC to the present their has been a continuous Jewish presence in the area currently called Palestine. So whose land is it again?

GaryD

I am sorry but I have no idea what your point is or what you are getting at. You seem to be saying that war for reasons other than relgion is ok.

I am just saying that war is war. I made the observation that warfare seems to be a normal state of mankind, and it not just "those Moslems" who engage in war, and that peace is a little freakish. You just don't realize it because you are living in one of those times of peace, so it seems normal to you. But if you will get out your book-learnin' you will see war on top of way, stretching back to the fog of antiquity, where each battle was crucial to the very survival of mankind, or so at least each tribe and nation in succession thought.

It is also perfectly, and crystal clear, to me, but apparently, not to you, that going all the way back to ancient Egypt, the enemy of the day was seen to be uniquely fiendish, and wicked, more so than any that has ever presented itself before. That is how you look at Muslims.

But if you look at them another way, they are just people.

with box pulled exploring done it. well forts

Anonymoushave you not noticed that these organizations supposedly dominated by the US almost never give a fair shake to any thing American? Maybe because america doesn't dominate them.

Today the world is run by three of the most secretive institutions in the world: The International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization, all three of which, in turn, are dominated by the U.S. Their decisions are made in secret. The people who head them are appointed behind closed doors. Nobody really knows anything about them, their politics, their beliefs, their intentions. Nobody elected them. Nobody said they could make decisions on our behalf
________________________________________
Donald Rumsfeld said that his mission in the War Against Terror was to persuade the world that Americans must be allowed to continue their way of life. [...] but 'The American Way of Life' is simply not sustainable. Because it doesn't acknowledge that there is a world beyond America.
________________________________________
In 1947, the United Nations formally partitioned Palestine and allotted 55 per cent of Palestine's land to the Zionists. Within a year they had captured 76 per cent. On the 14th of May 1948 the state of Israel was declared. Minutes after the declaration, the U.S. recognised Israel. The West Bank was annexed by Jordan. The Gaza Strip came under Egyptian military control. Formally, Palestine ceased to exist except in the minds and hearts of the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian people who became refugees.
________________________________________
Israel's staunchest political and military ally is and always has been the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government has blocked, along with Israel, almost every U.N. resolution that sought a peaceful, equitable solution to the conflict. It has supported almost every war that Israel has fought. When Israel attacks Palestine, it is American missiles that smash through Palestinian homes. And every year Israel receives several billion dollars from the U.S.
________________________________________
QUOTES- ARUNDHATI ROY [ BOOKER PRIZE WINNER]

Another Dispatches worth viewing:

BENEATH THE VEIL:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WrGFzkFSaU

"Documentary in which reporter Saira Shah risks her life as she goes undercover in Afghanistan to obtain footage showing the regime over which the Taliban presides. She uncovers evidence of public executions, the slaughter of civilians, and a complete absence of rights for women."

Watch out. There is violence.

You can see other Dispatches videos at:

http://atheistmedia.blogspot.com

Mary in case you weren't aware the religious war in the Balkans that is still in many respects ongoing involves Islam. Any place that Islamists exists in sufficient numbers you have the potential for religious war

And again most of the religious wars you cite of the 1600's had as much to do with Economics as it did with religion. The Huguenots were sent packing not just for religious reasons but because they had become economically prosperous and were ganged upon by the nobility and the poor who coveted their wealth. The situation in Savoy was much the same.

To E Favorite from Daniel: Thanks for providing the links on your post--they were very helpful.

Hi Mary-

British TV sent a journalist into mosques with a hidden camera and documented radicalisation of UK mosques by Saudi Wahabbism. Don't you watch Dispatches? After "Undercover Mosques" was broadcast, the complaints and denials came pouring in. It was a case of "who are you going to believe- me or your lying eyes"?

Undercover Mosque Update:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwCrzp_Mo2M

UnderCover Mosque: OFCOM:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whRaYuDRC_0

CHANNEL 4 VINDICATED OVER UNDERCOVER MOSQUE

"Media watchdog Ofcom has rejected complaints by West Midlands Police about a Channel 4 undercover programme that exposed extremism in British mosques.

The programme, called Undercover Mosque, was part of its current affairs Dispatches series and was broadcast in January. It featured TV footage of an Islamic preacher praising the death of a British soldier.

Police claimed that the programme had misrepresented the views of Muslim preachers and clerics with misleading editing.

Following the ruling, the broadcaster called the police's actions "perverse" and said they had, in some people's eyes, given "legitimacy to people preaching a message of hate."

Ofcom said: "Undercover Mosque was a legitimate investigation, uncovering matters of important public interest.

"Ofcom found no evidence that the broadcaster had misled the audience or that the programme was likely to encourage or incite criminal activity."

"On the evidence (including untransmitted footage and scripts), Ofcom found that the broadcaster had accurately represented the material it had gathered and dealt with the subject matter responsibly and in context."

The programme featured undercover recordings from speakers alleged to be homophobic, anti-Semitic, sexist and condemnatory of non-Muslims."

DC,

Muslims are less than 4% of the UK's population. They cannot enact any kind of sharia. If they wish to live under said law, they can return to their place of origin.

Really, I must go. Look--I live in London and I am not afraid. You must be subject to all sorts of propaganda making you proud and relieved to live in America. Well, you have more chance of getting killed by some nutcase of a gunman than I have of getting killed by some nutcase of an Islamist. And there is no chance whatsoever of any kind of sharia law.

Anyway, it's been fun, folks, but I must go.

GaryD

Religious warfare then. Persecution of religious confessions within the state: in France expulsion of the Huguenots 1685, war in the Cevennes 1700, war in the Savoy, war in Poland--early 1700s, war and ethnic cleansing of Catholics in Ireland 1660-1700 ("to hell or Connaught"), ethnic cleansing of Catholic Highland Scots 1750s, had enough? The list is a long one.

Additionally religious war in the Balkans 1992-1999.

Mary Cunningham wrote:

"...Sharia law exists nowhere--nowhere!--and the Queen's law is sovereign not the law of the mullahs"

How about the Queen knowing that Anjem Chaudary

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

who was shown on CNN (anchorwoman was Christian Amanpour) to get a notorious following amongst Britain Muslims on support for Sharia laws ?

How long will a fragile feminine monarchy stave off Sharia threats that is now rooted securely in Bradford ?

Riots are not wars. The IRA was as much if not more about Irish nationalism vs British occupation as it was about Catholicism vs Protestantism.

If that is the best you can do then I stand correct.

Also as I pointed out in a different thread the anti Catholic riots had as much to do with English nationalism being that England was for a period of time alone amidst a sea of Catholic enemies.

Robert B -

I must disagree with your statement that 'religion is occupied with seeking spiritual Truth' when in fact, the Abrahamic religions and particularly Christianity and Islam portray themselves as already being in possession of the spiritual Truth. The heavy lifting has all been done, and no further seeking is required - the 'Truth' is yours if your faith is sufficient!

What is particularly accurate is your statement that the faithful followers of these theocracies often try to impose their brand of 'Truth' on others. Well, how many spiritual Truths are there anyway? Or are all the various religions merely preaching different interpretations of the same Truth??

Buddhism, for the sake of contrast, says there is One Truth, but it cannot be uttered or spoken of by name, much less conceptualized, classified or otherwise transmitted verbally to others. It can only be experienced directly, and that is all.

The entire point of Buddhism is to orient it's followers to the most fruitful path along the way, self-searching being the only tried and true method to (eventually) discerning the Truth. In my estimation that fits more closely the expression of 'seeking spiritual Truth'.

Interestingly, Buddhists don't seem to proselytize or seek converts as a regular practice, believing that seekers will find Buddhism if that is their fate....I point this out because these threads are continuously vascillating between Christian and Muslim issues, when in fact the two are strikingly similar in their historical need to convert others to their prevailing point of view (the Truth).

There are other religious and philosophical points of view after all.

Dear Mary Cunningham,

Three million people had been murdered by Bengali muslims.You say *Sharia law exists nowhere*Yes,not yet.*Not the law of the mullahs* Yes,not yet.What will happen 10 years later ? or 20 years ?

Ungratefulness is the base of islam.Yesterday,they came to England for better life,today they root in England and you will see what happens tomorrow(within twenty years).

I hope,I am mistaken.

Mr DEB CHATTERJEE

Hindu have killed millions of muslims,christians and dalits [lower casts Hindus]. So set your house in order first.Your criticism of Islam can be seen only as'pot calling kettle black'

To call someone 'anti-American', indeed, to be anti-American, (or for that matter anti-Indian, or anti-Timbuktuan) is not just racist, it's a failure of the imagination. An inability to see the world in terms other than those that the establishment has set out for you: If you're not a Bushie you're a Taliban. If you don't love us, you hate us. If you're not Good you're Evil. If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists.

The battle...has to begin here. In America. The only institution more powerful than the U.S. government is American civil society. The rest of us are subjects of slave nations. We are by no means powerless, but you have the power of proximity. You have access to the Imperial Palace and the Emperor's chambers. Empire's conquests are being carried out in your name.

ARUNDHADI ROY [BOOKER PRIZE WINNER]

GaryD.,

I beg to differ. There were several religious wars and persecutions post the Peace of Westphalia. There were anti-Catholic riots in England right up until just before 1800. Look up "The Gordon Riots." The latest European religious war--Catholic vs Protestant--was in Northern Ireland dating from 1967-1998. Google "The Troubles" for more details.

That's all from me.

Oh, for goodness' sakes D.Chat., didn't you just read that the Bengali Muslims are peaceful? There are 1.8 million Muslims in the UK (out of a population of 60 million), Sharia law exists nowhere--nowhere!--and the Queen's law is sovereign not the law of the mullahs.

As I wrote earlier it is a criminal matter--one for the police and the intelligence services. 'Solving' the problem of Irish terrorism was much harder but this combination worked here as well.

Of course Americans are gullible and most don't understand Islam. The reason: they have not read the Quran, and compared it with the liberal, secularist values of the US Constitution. Was Thomas Jefferson a religious bigot ? NO. But, he was the visionary and founder of USA when he penned the "Declaration of Independence". Enshrined in that document, it is assumed that all humans have the equal right in pursuing personal happiness and freedoms. This is birthright, and overridses any dogma or creed. The document assumes that humans are free to exercise this right, and regardless how nasty or unpalatable other's personal life maybe to me/you, so long as that life does not obstruct my/your efforts to seek my/your pleasures or freedoms, me/you are suppossed to tolerate it. That's effectively the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution (Freedom of Speech). It is this very unique feature that makes America (Land of the Free) so attractive to foreigners who have fled persecution and oppression. Thus, despite drugs, gun-culture, hip-hop gangsta rap etc. and etc., we see immigration to USA increasing every year.

Singapore is one of the most efficient societies in the South Asia. But, how many would willingly immigrate from USA to Singapore ? What percentage ? Life otherwise on Kent Ridge Road is pretty placid. No freedom of expression. Singapore does provide the basics of a good life. It is like an animal farm where every caged animal looks happy and well-fed. But, not born free - will be slaughtered ruthlessly if they "misbehave". Of course Americans take their freedom for granted, and argue from a mypoic perspective that all doctrines and dogmas are good; in that sense they (Americans) argue that Islam is good but some Muslims (terrorists) are bad. The Iranians, sometime ago before 1979, said the same. They fervently argued that Reza Shah Pahlavi was a rogue, and opted for the revolutionary Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his visions. Well, it seems that that the lovefest with revolution has evaporated, and many Iranians now think that Shah was not a bad guy after all, to put it mildly. But, still Iran is somewhat more progressive than many other Muslim and Communist countries.

The centerpiece of this thread: does Islam allow free speech or not, is a no brainer if one looks at the facts. Of course leftist academics have often shunned the inconvenient truth. They have negated, with infantile obstinacy, the facts that would derail or crush their preferred theories. For example, Salman Rushdie, Ayan Hirsi Ali, Tasleema Nasreen are clear examples of what happens when Muslims have power. These Muslims (i.e. all born into (Sunni) Muslim families) have faced their life threats for suppossedly "insulting Islam". The noted Egyptian Nobel Laureate, Naguib Mahfooz was stabbed by a fanatic - follower of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman.

Contrast this to what we saw regarding Christian film-makers, actors, authors. Martin Scorcese - the director of THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST, Dan Brown author of THE DAVINCI CODE, are all surviving and there has been no reports that Christians have threatened to kill them by securing a "fatwa" from the Vatican. Doesn't this tell us something ? Maybe not for the leftist academics like Prof. Noam Chomsky (at MIT).

A clue to this debate lies in what *exactly* the Quran says about dealing with those who would insult/oppose Islam (Allah's message) or Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Read verbatim, without injecting one's inperpretation and spins, this is exactly what we find from Quran. (Of course its interpratation in modern times must be reckoned with the sunnah of the Prophet and Hadiths. That interpretation has been provided by Muslim scholars and it appears that the apostates must be put to death.) Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is on record in the hadiths that a Muslim's blood can be shed if s/he turns into an apostate. (Read Shahih Bukhari's compilation of the hadiths on this issue.)

To cut the long story short, this is what the Quran says very specifically:

YUSUFALI: "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;" (Quran[005:033]).

Visit the University of Southern California's Muslim Student Association website for details.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html

The above quote does not specifically approve any freedom speech. So, how can it be concluded that Islam promotes free speech ? Isn't Queen's kingdom, UK, getting a taste of their own actions now - because in the past they have allowed en masse Pakistani and South Asian Muslim immigration - that has resulted in a parallel Sharia government in some pockets in UK (Bradford) ?

Bill

London is an international city and any day there usually is some protest somewhere. But there haven't been any massive Muslim protests here since 2006: the publication of the Danish cartoons 'demonstrations' which verged upon a riot followed by more 'peaceful' demonstrations in front of Catholic churches after the Pope's Regensburg comment on Islamic violence.

The level of police protection of Catholics that September (2006) was shameful. Although any BNP (nationalist anti-Muslim) demonstration is kept well away from mosques, at that time the craven London police force merely erected a few barriers in front of Westminster Cathedral and when we emerged from Mass we had to run a gauntlet of yelling, hissing young men, some masked, women in burquas, placards calling for the decapitation of the pope, etc.

Since then the police have been more vigilant, Muslim leaders have been firmer, and also protestors calling for decapitation of, say, the Pope have been prosecuted and jailed. Things have calmed down a lot.

Incidentally, London is home to about 800,000 Bengali Muslims, the original migrants from what was then East Pakistan & their descendants, and these tend not to plot in dark rooms to blow up the rest of us. The Arabs who live mostly in West London are similarly law abiding. The problem comes from recent Muslim migrants (the doctors were from Iraq and India) and the descendants of migrants from West Pakistan. The training camps are all in their villages of origin. It's a police and intelligence matter, and hopefully both services have learned more how to deal with homegrown Muslim terrorists..Also Britain has mostly wound down its forces in Iraq and that helps as well.

You responded to what I said, Daniel. With an argument that had nothing to do with the point I was making.

You compared The actions of Nation States to the Actions of the adherents of Islam as if the motives driving the two were somehow the same. They are nothing like the same. It would be much easier to understand and deal with if they were indeed the same but they are not.

Islam is in many respects a totally unique theology in the modern world. Christianity did not start out with a belief in conversion by the sword, nor did Hinduism, Buddhism or most other still extant faiths. Islam began that way and all too many of it's adherents still see that as an acceptable approach. That is largely why Islam as a religion has been at war with most of the societies with which it has rubbed shoulders though out its history.

That is why I say absent some sort of cathartic effect it is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

To GaryD

I did not miss any points; I am not short sighted; I am not obtuse.

I was commenting on "war in general."

I was making an observation.

I often hear comments about the Middle East like this: "well what can you expect from those people? they have been at war for centuries."

My observation is, "who hasn't?"

In the modern times in the West, we have had some calm; so far so good. I just hope we can keep it up. That's all.

Good job Daniel you completely missed the point. It is not all that surprising however. In the West, since The Thirty years War, almost no wars had religion as a primary component. Most were economic conflicts that would have occurred with or without religious differences. One could as easily argue that the primary reason that war in Europe has ended has to do with the fact that given the rise of the cradle to grave socialist state there simply isn't enough money left over to engage in any sort of protracted warfare. Though one must admit that Britain has troops in Afghanistan and had troops in Iraq and France has troops in Chad and the Ivory Coast.

For Islam all wars are ultimately about religion and have been ever sense its inception. To confuse nation states with religions is shortsighted at best and extraordinarily obtuse at best.

The Thirty Years War was arguably the carthartic effect for Christianity. No such cathartic effect has yet to impact Islam in the same way.

GaryD wrote

"To date Islam has had no internal doctrinal wars rather only wars of succession. It has been in very nearly a constant stay of War since before Mohamed wrote the Koran."

This promotes a commonly held notion that Islamic societies have been traditionally more war-like than other societies, and that being Christian makes you better. Ceasar Augustus, who was the first Roman Emperor, presided over the longest period of peace in what is now (certain parts of) Europe until modern times.

In fact, the history of Christian Europe has been almost entirely constant and continual warfare, right up until the cataclysmic Napoleonaic Wars, after which the governments took a break from fighting each other, to put down popular insurrections, and fight the Turks. But, after a while, they resumed their old pattern of warfare, right up until 1945.

Ironically, as the people of Europe stopped going to church and gave their centureis old religion of "peace and love" a very cold shoulder, then the ancient troubles of Europe settled down.

I hope that happens in the Islamic world as well.

On what basis Daniel? The only Islamic Country that has moved away from the sort of government found in Saudi Arabia Morocco and Egypt is Turkey and Islamic Radicalism is making in roads there even as I write this.

To date Islam has had no internal doctrinal wars rather only wars of succession. It has been in very nearly a constant stay of War since before Mohamed wrote the Koran. To suggeest that this state of affairs is likely to change anytime soon absent some sort of cathartic process and cathartic processes of that sort tend to be very bloody.

MaryC,

Is there a Muslim protest everyday in London? Please tell us what is happening where you live.

Muslim Protests - London,UK . 25th January 2008

"Hizb Ut-Tahrir protests outside Pakistans Embassy in London 25/1/08. As per usual,anti western views not on any news channels in the UK.
This group has been failed to be banned in the UK by the Labour government(Their reason is that they would be promoting this terrorist supporting group if they brought them to light more openly by banning them)."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIgQazPC-10

"Hizb ut-Tahrir (Arabic: حزب التحرير; English: Party of Liberation) is an international, Sunni, pan-Islamist vanguard political party whose goal is to unite all Muslim countries in a unitary Islamic state or caliphate, ruled by Islamic law and headed by an elected head of state (caliph)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizb_ut-Tahrir

Well, Moody, I'm Irish and I live in London and in my neighbourhood at least it's not me that's doing the attacking and killing, it's crazy Muslims plotting attacks to kill me, every summer now since 2005 there's been one, one successful, one successful in Madrid, two which missed here.

So, I would say I have a few grievances too, given that I have to take the tube, airplanes, have friends that go to clubs and generally just live my life.

Anyway, like I said, you should read more and rant a little less. Might improve your mind. Would certainly improve your posts.

Best,
MC

MaryCunningham :

THATS ALL OF YOU CAN DO TO YOUR BEST - ATTACK & KILL!

Either on personal level or collectively.

ANYONE do not expect any reason OR ANSWER from the shameless aggressors.

Moody,

Muslims in these groups have an excellent spokesperson in Jihadist awa the scheduled speakers, all of whom know far more about the confusing, chaotic often antagonistic situation of Islam than I.

Also you hyperventilate and use far too many caps and don't post coherently. Sorry to say so, but it's true. Maybe if you'd organize your thoughts better you might make more of an impact.

What an IRONI in the whole present world:

LOOK ALL OVER AROUND,

"ACTUAL KILLERS ALL IN CONTROL" CALLING/BRANDING WHO ARE BEING KILLED IN 'UNCOUNTALBE NUMBERS' AS KILLERS!!!!!!!!!

TO JUSTIFY THERE FURTHER NON STOPPING KILLINGS!!!

MaryCunningham & every body like you:

Very ashamed or extremely Cunning not to address Muslim Grievances. ONLY Few mentioned in my posts!

Hey Anon,

Who wrote:"Its OK if you post here to thump your own drum (in this case hatred of jews)."

Criticism does not mean hatred. Sometimes American Jews make mistakes and try to throttle free speech. Standing up for someone whose been throttled does not mean anti-semitism.

"Ghandi's moved on."

Oh sure, another staged confession. Why am I not surprised?

BTW, I post under my own name and you post anonymously. You post awful--inflammatory--videos of Muslim beheadings &tc. which result in yet more anti-Muslim rantings. Whose posting hate messages here?

You shed crocodile tears about the loss of freedom in Afghanistan while ignoring what happens to anyone who offends in the US.

Beam Eye Remove

Moody, Moody, Moody,

Just what part of

"NO ONE IS SAFE UNTIL THE KORAN IS DEFLAWED"

don't you understand???????

The effect of a false religion like Islam is a destructive self-righteous attitude. It is more dangerous to travel in countries where Islam is practiced pervently like in Arab countries than in western countries which Moody accuses as morally corrupt.

Maltreatment of foreign workers like rape or work abuse is more rampant in Muslim Arab countries than in the western world. The ratio is close to 10 to 1. And that I believe is a conservative estimate. Imagine the hypocricy.

I think that in America, we have freedom of speech. We're excercising it right here, aren't we? As a legal doctrine, I have always taken it to mean that the government could not throw you into jail or otherwise punish you for speaking what is on your mind, such as Henry VIII might have done or Joseph Stalin might have done.

If you tell someone that they are fat, ugly, and stupid, they might punch you in the nose. The Constitution does not say anything about how to keep from getting a punched nose. Getting a cold shoulder from people whom you have offended is a far cry from government censorship.

Just like Moody's posts reflect- many Muslims have a few grievances. Maybe if we addressed them instead of going to war there would be peace.

Interesting and inspiring conversation on a radio talk show-

Muslim Grievances

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWN3twz6cQY

YOU ALL TALK BIG, THIS IS ALL ACTUALLY WHO YOU ARE:

To the HONEST KIND OF WEST,
Dare to reply that:
Anonymous,
"With Western Enlightenment and respect for the individual, we cannot win this war"
Rightly said by you Anonymous "You cannot win the WAR" because as you admitted your self,
Instead of reasoning YOU ALL are raging WAR.
And Muslims can't be convinced by your deceiving, bias polices and practices. Muslims see following common problems in the ENLIGHTED WEST which hardly exist OR stands out as very little in the Muslim masses and
"Are convincing enough NOT TO BE CONVIENCED”:
1- Chaos and Conspiracy theory practice towards Muslims to grab, still, occupy there lands and wealth and destroying there properties, lands and countries.
2- Your non-negotiation on real issues and brutal approach of enforcing your ideas upon Muslims.
AND WITH IN YOUR SOCIETIES HIGH RATE OF:
3- Moral degradation.
4- Incest (One of the reasons is FORCEFULLY giving kids from natural to un-natural parents).
5- Rape (Every second women get raped in her life time in your society).
6- Child molestation. (Reflects the SAFTY of children in your FREE SOCIET & in your CHURCHS).
7- Teenage pregnancies. (Shows the over all moral mind set of your masses, even kids are not left out any more).
8- Drugs and Alcohol addiction. (It is an unstoppable avalanche in your WHOLE society.)
9- Prostitution (every high street has savannahs & occupied by business women in the evenings)
10- Extreme racism against colored and all other kind of human breeds. Blacks are still facing the brunt.
11- Women’s exploitation in the name of freedom. (Telling them work equally hard and earn them selves. Is it possible for the mother of 2 or more to –i- raise children –ii- maintain house hold –iii- earn simultaneously. Even the strongest Will and nerves man can’t do it simultaneously with the kind of attention these responsibilities deserve NOW also consider in the keep changing natural physical demands of the women. It’s ACTUALLY FREEING THE MEN FROM ALL REAL RESPONSIBILITIES EXCEPT ONLY SEXUAL DESIRE & ITS FULFILLMENT.
12- Inhuman intervening UNBALANCED state laws about kids, women, men etc enslaving and making there lives hell.
13- High street crime rate.
14- Your enslaving & controlling corporate and mega chain brand INTEREST AND TAX BASED culture CRUSHING THE POOR SOCIETIES (ONLY providing freedom of EXPLOITATION to the rich masters).
And non convincing list is further very long............

AND we Muslims find ALL THE BALANCED LAWFUL SOLUTIONS of the above mentioned menaces in our religion Islam! THAT’S WHY THEY HARDLY EXIST IN OUR SOCIETIES IN GENERAL AND NOT FORCED BY ANY “GOVERNING BODY” WITH SUCH NEGATIVE IMPACT & INEFFECTIVE AS IN WEST.

YOU TALK BIG, THIS IS ALL ACTUALLY WHO YOU ARE:

Statistically
-more than 1 million Iraqi's are been butchered so far
-more than 4 million displaced.
-All major cities are destroyed. No electricity, no water, no sanitation no NOTHING.

On Al Jazeera net Analyst’s are

THANKING USA (Chaos & Conspiracy Masters) for,

1- Alienating millions of the Sunnis from the US established only Shia government.

2- And then branding them ALL SUNNI CIVILIANS as allies of Bathiest Previous (US breed & Groomed) Dictator. And projecting that idea through out world through its Zionist controlled media.
3- In result PROVOKING THE US MADE SHIA ESTABLISMENT to genocide Sunni civilians “AND OFFICIALLY KEEPING CRIMINAL SILENCE SUPPORTING AND PROVIDING WEOPENS”. (On Al Jazeera net Analyst’s comments).

WELL DONE USA MONSTOROUS MASTERS.
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK; YOUR DAYS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR.

Your stupid look bushy bush president recently visited Middle East and was trying to sell the same evil propaganda.

He thinks like him the world is filled with blinds and fools!!!!

No wonder WHY now the extremely abused women EVEN preferring to blow them selves up after all the humility, WHO USED TO BE LIVING PIOUS AND RIGHTIOUS LIVES.

FOR ABUSED WOMEN REFERENC YOU CAN SEE USA TORTURE CELL SNAPS & MOVIES ALL OVER ELECTRONIC MEDIA.

Thomas The Moses of the NT Baum,

Pharisees, Sadduces and Scribes were the OT thumpers of Jesus' Jewish/Romam world i.e. check your family tree and I am sure you will find some relatives in this grouping.

Again, some neuron cleansing steps for you after your exorcism.

1. There was no physical Resurrection, Ascension, and Assumption since Heaven is a spirit state, i.e. no physical bodies plus there the stories fail historic attestation and stratum reviews. e.g. http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/017_Resurrection_of_Jesus

2. Angels/devils do not exist. These are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hittites, to explain/define natural events, contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc. No "pretty/ugly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as fairies and "tinker bells". Modern devils are classified as the demons of the demented.

3. Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons/parts and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider.

4. The Holy Eucharist/Communion is a nice spirit symbol of our thanksgiving but body and blood do not exist there. This 24/7 blood sacrifice is simply more theological mumbo jumbo to keep the "pew sitters" agape in atonement.

5. There is no evidence, scriptural or otherwise that Jesus is the son of god. He was made into this offspring to compete with the Roman and Greek gods. e.g.

Stories circulated to the effect that Alexander of Macedonia was not only the son of Philip II, but also of the god Zeus-Ammon (Plutarch, Parallel Lives, "Alexander" 2.1-3.2); Plato was the son of Ariston and the god Apollo (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 3.1-2), and Augustus was the son of Octavius as well as the god Apollo (Suetonius, Lives o f the Caesars 2.4.1-7). The extraordinary character of these elites reputedly stemmed from both their divine origins and their kingroups. Their kin-groups provided one form of legitimation-political right to the throne and/or social status (thus the importance of Joseph in Matthew's genealogy). Their divine procreation provided another: their honor was divinely ascribed, and their greatness as leaders derived from divine paternity."

From: K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998. p.55

Thomas peruse these five steps and your neurons will slowly be cleansed of 2000 years of lies and distortions.

grabbed the following from another thread- the contents of these videos are indefensible and a must see for all Americans-

"The concept of innocence must not be allowed to die in the 21st century or with it dies our humanity."

Grab a box of kleenex and a barf bag then watch these videos to educate yourself on the sad state of "humanity":

Glorifying Female Suicide Bomber with Song-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWK4mERyo9E

Children of Female Suicide Bomber-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEB0SvMzKzg

TO CONCERNED THE CHRISTIAN NOW LIBERATED:

You wrote, "Again, the current thinking about Christianity as per most contemporary NT exegetes:", did you ever stop to think that the contemporary scripture scholars of Jesus's day were the Pharisees, Sadduces and Scribes, who actually copied it by hand.

It seems that the scholars of Jesus's time and our own time, at least some of them, seem to have something in common.

Something repeated enough stays either true or false depending on whether it was true or false to begin with, don't you think?

I thank God that God is not even close to being like what some of the people that know His Name think that He is.

Truth is Truth, it is not up for a vote.

One day ALL will be glad that God's Plan is going to come to Fruition.

Take care, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

TO ANGELA:

You wrote, " Aren't you a bishop or reverend yet you distort God's word.", no, I'm not a bishop or reverend, I am just someone chosen by God to speak, a messenger.

You also wrote, " If you truly believe that the Bible is God's word, why do you always quote we all will be in HEAVEN", first off the bible should lead you to the Word of God, Jesus, and the Word of God is Love, God is a Being of Pure Love.

I have met God the Father and I have met God the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus.

By the way, God is not a male, a female or an it even tho God-Incarnate was a male, a Jewish Male.

I have also met satan and I have also experienced hell and spiritual death, they are not the same but they are both real.

Does it not say that Jesus took ALL of the sins of mankind upon Himself, Jesus Himself experienced hell and won the keys, so to speak, and He will use them in due time.

You also wrote, "Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.", interesting statement and I suppose it doesn't matter if the hearers listen or not.

Another thing that you wrote, " Also, speak the entire gospel not just the loving part; God warns us all through his word.", do you know the meaning of the word gospel, it means "Good News", it does not mean "good enough news".

In Jesus's time, it was the people that knew the "scriptures" very well that did NOT like or listen to, with their heart, what Jesus had to say.

God chooses Whomever He chooses to be His messenger and I have said YES.

God has a Plan and He has had that Plan since before creation and His Plan will come to Fruition.

The time is approaching which Jesus referred to as "night is coming" all I can say is be ready.

Did you ever notice in what is referred to as the Beatitudes, most of them where Jesus says, "Blessed are they...", do not say anything about believing in God to be "Blessed", do they?

As I have said before: God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof and it is important what you do and why you do it and what you know.

You also wrote, "Don't dumb down Christianity; People need to come up; not lower God's standards.", Christianity is just part of God's Plan and His Plan is unfolding as we chat on these posts.

God became a human being so that He could talk to us and with us on our level, just a question, something to think about: How many self-righteous, bible-thumping, in your face people look down on their brothers and sisters, ALL OF THE REST OF HUMANITY, with their 'Jesus is my personal Saviour', does that sound like a two year old or not?

That statement, 'Jesus is my personal Saviour' is fine for awhile but after awhile shouldn't it become 'Jesus is OUR Saviour' considering that He said, "Come follow Me", did He not say on the cross, "Father forgive them, they know not what they do".

If we are to become adopted sons and daughters of God, so to speak, then isn't it our place to take up our cross and say YES to Jesus's invitation to, "Come follow Me". Jesus, Himself, said that there was work to be done, well I know what my job is even tho I might not know exactly how to do it, so I am just doing it the best that I can.

No one, human, demonic or satan himself is going to stop me because God will see me thru.

Take care, be ready, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Night is coming but the dawning of the seventh day will also get here in God's time.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

The first step in trying to save him is to get the word out so people know that some one is trying to kill him and why.

It also helps if one attempts to achieve some sort of understanding of a culture that not only permits but encourages such flagrant disregard of human rights.

Athena, The apostle Paul set aside such actions for people outside the church and reduced the penalties for such actions within the church to exile from the church.

Moody you do know that the Budget of the United States of America spends more money on poverty programs than the entire GDP of the Arab world.

El Greco,painter(1541-1614).The Dormition of the Virgin,The Assumption of the Virgin,view of Toledo are some of his works.He had been sentenced to death by Catholic Court for his non-religious theme painting 400 years ago.

Today,20 year-old boy sentenced to death for women rights declaration and someones pursue empty polemic.

Please,lets try to save him.

Mary C,

You and other orthodox Catholics/Christians have been thumping the mostly fictional story of Jesus of Nazareth for about 2000 years. The thumping has been getting quieter for the last 200 years when we "pew sitters" started our own reviews of said life and found significant flaws in the scriptural accounts. Hopefully the truth through repetition of said flaws will take no more than another 50 years to finally "deflaw" the current orthodoxy.

Hmmm, there is a Five Step Program for Cleansing/"Deflawing" Islam so there should be a Five Step Program for Cleansing/"Deflawing" Catholicism/Christianity. Let us see what we can find.

Ahh, these Five Steps should get you started on your way to the New Reality:

1. There was no physical Resurrection, Ascension, and Assumption since Heaven is a spirit state, i.e. no physical bodies plus there the stories fail historic attestation and stratum reviews. e.g. http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/017_Resurrection_of_Jesus

2. Angels/devils do not exist. These are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hittites, to explain/define natural events, contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc. No "pretty/ugly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as fairies and "tinker bells". Modern devils are classified as the demons of the demented.

3. Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons/parts and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider.

4. The Holy Eucharist/Communion is a nice spirit symbol of our thanksgiving but body and blood do not exist there. This 24/7 blood sacrifice is simply more theological mumbo jumbo to keep the "pew sitters" agape in atonement.

5. There is no evidence, scriptural or otherwise that Jesus is the son of god. He was made into this offspring to compete with the Roman and Greek gods. e.g.

Stories circulated to the effect that Alexander of Macedonia was not only the son of Philip II, but also of the god Zeus-Ammon (Plutarch, Parallel Lives, "Alexander" 2.1-3.2); Plato was the son of Ariston and the god Apollo (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 3.1-2), and Augustus was the son of Octavius as well as the god Apollo (Suetonius, Lives o f the Caesars 2.4.1-7). The extraordinary character of these elites reputedly stemmed from both their divine origins and their kingroups. Their kin-groups provided one form of legitimation-political right to the throne and/or social status (thus the importance of Joseph in Matthew's genealogy). Their divine procreation provided another: their honor was divinely ascribed, and their greatness as leaders derived from divine paternity."

From: K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998. p.55

Mary, peruse these five steps and your neurons will slowly be cleansed of 2000 years of lies and distortions.

Oh, come now. Christianity doesn't exactly support freedom of speech, either. Leviticus 24:16 states that those who speak blasphemy "shall surely be put to death".

According to Wikipedia, some U.S. states, including Maryland, still have blasphemy laws on the books. The last person to be jailed in the U.S. for blasphemy was in 1848 - not that long ago, all things considered. The blasphemy prosecution in the UK was in 1977.

Anon has stated:

"though you may not understand why certain statements are offensive to Muslims, it is not for you to judge. It is enough that it is offensive to Muslims"

Then Muslims should stay in their own countries and be governed by their own laws. They will never live peacefully in the Free World.

One can be a Muslim and advocate free speech. What one canNOT do is be a CONSISTENT Muslim and advocate free speech. Even a cursory reading of the Qu'ran will indicate that the 2 values are incompatible. You have to choose. If you choose free speech, then you have to deviate from the Qu'ran. If you choose to be faithful to the Qu'ran, then you cannot advocate free speech. You can't have it both ways.
JIM

No- ignorance is incompatible with free speech. It wouldn't be surprising to hear far-right Christian leaders in the U.S. calling for harsh punishments to those who blaspheme the Bible. It's not a question of religion- it's a question of a third of the Arabic world being illiterate and central Asia not faring much better.

Islam cannot be judged through the prism of American Democracy. The American Democratic model is crumbling as we speak, after only a couple hundred years. Where is free speech here in America, when we see people lose their jobs everyday for making distasteful public statements?There are limits to free speech, and though you may not understand why certain statements are offensive to Muslims, it is not for you to judge. It is enough that it is offensive to Muslims, and people who make these offensive statements, understand that they have committed a provocation.Islam and Muslims do not, and should not apologize to our enemies!

Hey Mary- Its OK if you post here to thump your own drum (in this case hatred of jews). But don't think we can't see your intent. Check out Arun Gandhi's thread. He's moved on..

An afterthought on moral authority...

As I see it, a country or its individual citizens cannot bestow it on themselves. It can only come from others. What happened to Ghandi has happened to others who ran afoul of the American Israel lobby--Tony Judt, the British historian, comes to mind. Judt had been one of the best specialist in modern European history but death threats to his children as well as livelihood threats to him and his wife has resulted in him abandoning the field for 19th century British railways!

So, no, Maria, the US does not have free speech. Jon and Sally cannot see the beam in their own eye when they rail so liberally against Islam.
"You have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things."

Best,
Mary C.

Maria:

After 'freely' speaking his mind, Arun Ghandi has been forced to apologize and resign from the institute he founded. Now his employers at WaPo are also demanding another mea culpa detailing the "lessons" he's learned. This is not a schoolboy, this is a 74 year old man. How does what has happened to Ghandi constitute free speech? Tell me, because I would like to know.

CCNL

Beautiful words aren't they? Better than yours, pumpkin, which you repeat ad infinitum. Poor little man, poor pathetic doggy.

Mary Cunningham-

You equate the Sharia Law that has sentenced a young man to death for "offending" Islam with Wapo's decision to apologise for Arun Gandhi's offensive remark against Jewish people? One is a law restricting thought and speech- the punishment is death. The other is a decision made by a community- and aside from social pressure there is no punishment. Arun Gandhi is free to think his thoughts and speak his mind. And if Sharia Law is not adopted as the law of your country- so are you.

I've cut this from Willis Elliott's current thread-

"Contrast these words of faith in the power of truth to win its own battles, unimpeded and unaided by the force of law and the power of the sword. They are from Jefferson’s Second Inaugural Address (1805). “...truth and reason have maintained their own ground against false opinions in league with false facts; the press...needs no...legal restraint; the public judgment will correct false reasoning and opinions on a full hearing of all parties....[If the press descends to] demoralizing licentiousness, [the cure is not to be sought in coercive suppression, but in] “the censorship of public opinion.” Yes, this is a doctrine of the West, emergent after long, bloody centuries. But every civilization has good gifts to give to the whole human family. This is one which we of the West are imperfectly, sometimes even bunglingly, offering to the world."

Laden,

Hmmm, why USA troops are where they are?

Read my text: It is all about our War on Terror and Aggression!!!!-

i.e.

A Partial Body Count

1a) Assassination of Benazir Bhutto

1b) 9/11, 3000 mostly US citizens murdered, 1000’s injured

2) The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, 4000 US troops and 80,625 – 88,048 Iraqi civilians murdered http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

3) Kenya- In Nairobi, about 212 people were killed and an estimated 4000 injured; in Dar es Salaam, the attack killed at least 11 and wounded 85.[2]

4) Bali-in 2002-killing 202 people, 164 of whom were foreign nationals, and 38 Indonesian citizens. A further 209 people were injured.

5) Bali in 2005- Twenty people were killed, and 129 people were injured by three bombers who killed themselves in the attacks.

6) Spain in 2004- killing 191 people and wounding 2,050.

7) UK in 2005- The bombings killed 52 commuters and the four radical Islamic suicide bombers, injured 700.

Other elements of our War on Terror and Aggression: WWll to present:

1. Saddam, his sons and major henchmen have been deleted. Saddam's bravado about WMD was one of his major mistakes.

2. Iran is being been contained. (besides containing the Sunni-Shiite civil war in Baghdad, that is the main reason we are in Iraq. And yes, essential oil continues to flow from the region.)

3. Libya has become almost civil. Apparently this new reality from an Islamic country has upset OBL and his “crazies” as they recently threatened Libya. OBL sure is a disgrace to the world especially the Moslem world!!! (or is he?)

4. North Korea is still uncivil but is contained. With the opening up of rail traffic between North and South Korea after 50 years and with the assistance of the US Navy in retrieving NK ships and personnel, a fresh sense of civility is afoot.

5. Northern Ireland is finally at peace.

6. The Jews and Palestinians are being separated by walls. Hopefully the walls will follow the 1948 UN accords and the Annapolis Peace Conference is at least somewhat successful.

7. Bin Laden has been cornered under a rock in Western Pakistan since 9/11. His #2 man was deleted last week hiding under his rock in Pakistan.

8. Fanatical Islam has basically been contained to the Middle East but a wall between India and Pakistan would be a plus for world peace. Ditto for a wall between Afghahistan and Pakistan.

9.Timothy McVeigh was executed. Terry Nichols will follow soon.

10. Eric Rudolph is spending three life terms in prison with no parole.

11. Jim Jones, David Koresh, Kaczynski, the "nuns" from Rwanda, and the KKK were all dealt with and either eliminated themselves or are being punished.

12. Islamic Sudan, Darfur and Somalia are still terror hot spots.

13. The terror and torture of Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo and Kuwait were ended by the proper application of the military forces of the USA and her freedom-loving friends.

14. And of course the bloody terror and aggression brought about the Japanese, Nazis and Communists was with great difficulty eliminated by the good guys.

To: Thomas Paul Moses Baum,

In response to your comment above and your previous comments; doesn't the Bible also state: Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. Aren't you a bishop or reverend yet you distort God's word. If you truly believe that the Bible is God's word, why do you always quote we all will be in HEAVEN, no where in the bible does it say that. Stop preaching and attesting to a soft gospel and some other Jesus; preach and speak the entire gospel; don't soft sell it; Jesus was clear when he said there will be few in the Celestial City not all. Also, speak the entire gospel not just the loving part; God warns us all through his word. Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers. Do not be ashamed of the Gospel. Tell it the Way God Tells it in HIS word. Don't dumb down Christianity; People need to come up; not lower God's standards.

Mary and Thomas the Moses of the NT Baum,

Your bible thumping is giving everyone a headache. Thomas, maybe in your next talk with god you can ask him to be a bit more visible to the rest of us poor souls thereby removing this constant thumping of embellished history and fictional accounts of walking on water and physical resurections.

Again, the current thinking about Christianity as per most contemporary NT exegetes:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was probably a mythical character as was Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much fictional magic in Egypt.

1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT. http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus).

Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html
For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

3. Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

TO DISSAPOINTED IN SALLY AND JOE:

You wrote, " Using the act of a few fanatics as an example of the beliefs of a reliegion spread over the continents. It's like using the example of those people who killed abortion clinic staff to judge Christians."

Whether it is the beliefs of a religion or not is not the case in point, the law of the land is being called into question.

You likened it to people killing abortion clinic staff, there is absolutely no comparison, that is illegal in the USA, individual people have done this and it is murder.

It seems to me giving someone your opinion on something and killing a person are two different things, how can anyone say that they are the same?

By the way, God is Love and all of us are His Children, made in His Likeness and we are also His brothers and sisters, ALL OF HUMANITY, we just don't all know it yet.

Take care, be ready, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Spiderman2, Spiderman2, Spinderman2,

Well indirectly you are trying to say that Christianity is the only true religion??

Hmmm, once again a short synopsis of the flaws in said religion:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was probably a mythical character as was Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.

1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT. http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus).

Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html
For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

3. Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions

TO SPIDERMAN 2:

You wrote, " This country will ultimately rule the earth coz that is the prophecy."

Whether you know it or not the bible says more than the verses that you sight to condemn so many.

Have you ever heard of "new heavens and a new earth"?

Do you remember when Jesus said, "I have not come to condemn the world but that the world might be saved"?

Jesus also said, "My Kingdom is not of this world", do you think that He might not only be telling us the Truth but that in God's Plan there will be a complete renewal of ALL CREATION.

On the cross, Jesus said, "Father forgive them, they know not what they do", He didn't say forgive some of them, did He?

It also says in the bible that if all we are concerned about is this world then we are to be the most pitied of people, this does not mean that we shouldn't reach out to our brothers and sisters, which happens to be ALL OF HUMANITY, page one, "Let Us make man [mankind] in Our Image and Likeness [LOVE]".

Some people seem to think that since God is All-Powerful that He is on some kind of power trip, that since He is All-Knowing that He is some kind of wicked busy-body.

God is Love, Pure Love and God is not even close to being the 'putrid being' that some that know His Name spew out.

God's Plan is for all of His people, which happens to be ALL PEOPLE, to be in His Kingdom.

I repeat: God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof and it is important what you do and why you do it and what you know.

It is true that you cannot earn a place in the Kingdom, that it is a free gift, but it is also true that if someone wakes up in hell they will realize that they built it themselves.

Take care, be ready, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

A few weeks ago Arun Ghandi made the mistake of saying that Israelis and their American Jewish allies used the Holocaust as their justification for violence against Palestinians. Ghandi has been made to apologize and forced to resign from the foundation he cofounded. Additionally the Post has required him to write an essay on “the lessons he has learned.” The biggest lesson I would say is not to criticize Israel in the American media. The second lesson is that an Institute for NonViolence would be better situated in Switzerland or Scandinavia, somewhere there is free speech, which in America there is not.

I would thus ask Ms Quinn and Mr Meacham, where is your moral authority in your exhortation to young Muslims?

....you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.

(Romans 2:1)

And why [do you]see the mote that is in your brother's eye; and see not the beam that is in your own eye?

Or how will you say to your brother, Let me take out the grain of dust from your eye, when you yourself have a bit of wood in your eye?

You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye. Then you will see clearly to remove the piece of sawdust from another believer's eye.

(Matthew 7:3-5)

Sally and Joe are at it again, posting yet another topic that invites anti-islamic comments.
Where's the apology for this topic? why hasn't it been taken down like Arun Gandhi's?
Furthermore, the topic, in addition to being offensive, is intellectually sloppy. Using the act of a few fanatics as an example of the beliefs of a reliegion spread over the continents. It's like using the example of those people who killed abortion clinic staff to judge Christians.

Those who sentence people to death for "disrespect" to the 'Prophet' Mohammed repeated prove themselves and their religion to be immature and unworthy of a place in the world. More like the respect a nest of vipers deserves: don't step in it, and eliminate the poisonous snakes as quickly and as completely as possible.

The difference in maturity between Islam and Christianity, Judaism, Buddism, etc. is highly evident. You can poke fun at Jesus, God, and Buddah, and people will either laugh, understand the lesson embedded within the humor, or find it in poor taste. But they don't utter death threats and throw people in jail for it any more.

Mohammed would curse you root and branch for your behavior.

In the aftermath of the unconscionable September 11 suicide attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Centre, an American newscaster said: "Good and evil rarely manifest themselves as clearly as they did last Tuesday. People who we don't know massacred people who we do. And they did so with contemptuous glee." Then he broke down and wept.

Here's the rub: America is at war against people it doesn't know, because they don't appear much on TV. Before it has properly identified or even begun to comprehend the nature of its enemy, the US government has, in a rush of publicity and embarrassing rhetoric, cobbled together an "international coalition against terror", mobilised its army, its air force, its navy and its media, and committed them to battle.

The trouble is that once Amer ica goes off to war, it can't very well return without having fought one. If it doesn't find its enemy, for the sake of the enraged folks back home, it will have to manufacture one. Once war begins, it will develop a momentum, a logic and a justification of its own, and we'll lose sight of why it's being fought in the first place.

What we're witnessing here is the spectacle of the world's most powerful country reaching reflexively, angrily, for an old instinct to fight a new kind of war. Suddenly, when it comes to defending itself, America's streamlined warships, cruise missiles and F-16 jets look like obsolete, lumbering things. As deterrence, its arsenal of nuclear bombs is no longer worth its weight in scrap. Box-cutters, penknives, and cold anger are the weapons with which the wars of the new century will be waged. Anger is the lock pick. It slips through customs unnoticed. Doesn't show up in baggage checks.

Who is America fighting? On September 20, the FBI said that it had doubts about the identities of some of the hijackers. On the same day President George Bush said, "We know exactly who these people are and which governments are supporting them." It sounds as though the president knows something that the FBI and the American public don't.

In his September 20 address to the US Congress, President Bush called the enemies of America "enemies of freedom". "Americans are asking, 'Why do they hate us?' " he said. "They hate our freedoms - our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." People are being asked to make two leaps of faith here. First, to assume that The Enemy is who the US government says it is, even though it has no substantial evidence to support that claim. And second, to assume that The Enemy's motives are what the US government says they are, and there's nothing to support that either.

For strategic, military and economic reasons, it is vital for the US government to persuade its public that their commitment to freedom and democracy and the American Way of Life is under attack. In the current atmosphere of grief, outrage and anger, it's an easy notion to peddle. However, if that were true, it's reasonable to wonder why the symbols of America's economic and military dominance - the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon - were chosen as the targets of the attacks. Why not the Statue of Liberty? Could it be that the stygian anger that led to the attacks has its taproot not in American freedom and democracy, but in the US government's record of commitment and support to exactly the opposite things - to military and economic terrorism, insurgency, military dictatorship, religious bigotry and unimaginable genocide (outside America)? It must be hard for ordinary Americans, so recently bereaved, to look up at the world with their eyes full of tears and encounter what might appear to them to be indifference. It isn't indifference. It's just augury. An absence of surprise. The tired wisdom of knowing that what goes around eventually comes around. American people ought to know that it is not them but their government's policies that are so hated. They can't possibly doubt that they themselves, their extraordinary musicians, their writers, their actors, their spectacular sportsmen and their cinema, are universally welcomed. All of us have been moved by the courage and grace shown by firefighters, rescue workers and ordinary office staff in the days since the attacks.

America's grief at what happened has been immense and immensely public. It would be grotesque to expect it to calibrate or modulate its anguish. However, it will be a pity if, instead of using this as an opportunity to try to understand why September 11 happened, Americans use it as an opportunity to usurp the whole world's sorrow to mourn and avenge only their own. Because then it falls to the rest of us to ask the hard questions and say the harsh things. And for our pains, for our bad timing, we will be disliked, ignored and perhaps eventually silenced.

The world will probably never know what motivated those particular hijackers who flew planes into those particular American buildings. They were not glory boys. They left no suicide notes, no political messages; no organisation has claimed credit for the attacks. All we know is that their belief in what they were doing outstripped the natural human instinct for survival, or any desire to be remembered. It's almost as though they could not scale down the enormity of their rage to anything smaller than their deeds. And what they did has blown a hole in the world as we knew it. In the absence of information, politicians, political commentators and writers will invest the act with their own politics, with their own interpretations. This speculation, this analysis of the political climate in which the attacks took place, can only be a good thing.

Is this America's war against terror in America or against terror in general? What exactly is being avenged here? Is it the tragic loss of almost 7,000 lives, the gutting of five million square feet of office space in Manhattan, the destruction of a section of the Pentagon, the loss of several hundreds of thousands of jobs, the bankruptcy of some airline companies and the dip in the New York Stock Exchange? Or is it more than that? In 1996, Madeleine Albright, then the US secretary of state, was asked on national television what she felt about the fact that 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of US economic sanctions. She replied that it was "a very hard choice", but that, all things considered, "we think the price is worth it". Albright never lost her job for saying this. She continued to travel the world representing the views and aspirations of the US government. More pertinently, the sanctions against Iraq remain in place. Children continue to die.

So here we have it. The equivocating distinction between civilisation and savagery, between the "massacre of innocent people" or, if you like, "a clash of civilisations" and "collateral damage". The sophistry and fastidious algebra of infinite justice. How many dead Iraqis will it take to make the world a better place? How many dead Afghans for every dead American? How many dead women and children for every dead man? How many dead mojahedin for each dead investment banker? As we watch mesmerised, Operation Enduring Freedom unfolds on TV monitors across the world. A coalition of the world's superpowers is closing in on Afghanistan, one of the poorest, most ravaged, war-torn countries in the world, whose ruling Taliban government is sheltering Osama bin Laden, the man being held responsible for the September 11 attacks.

The only thing in Afghanistan that could possibly count as collateral value is its citizenry. (Among them, half a million maimed orphans.There are accounts of hobbling stampedes that occur when artificial limbs are airdropped into remote, inaccessible villages.) Afghanistan's economy is in a shambles. In fact, the problem for an invading army is that Afghanistan has no conventional coordinates or signposts to plot on a military map - no big cities, no highways, no industrial complexes, no water treatment plants. Farms have been turned into mass graves. The countryside is littered with land mine.

Fearing an attack from America, one million citizens have fled from their homes and arrived at the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. The UN estimates that there are eight million Afghan citizens who need emergency aid. As supplies run out - food and aid agencies have been asked to leave - the BBC reports that one of the worst humanitarian disasters of recent times . Witness the infinite justice of the new century. Civilians starving to death while they're waiting to be killed.

The American people may be a little fuzzy about where exactly Afghanistan is (we hear reports that there's a run on maps of the country), but the US government and Afghanistan are old friends.

In 1979, after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the CIA and Pakistan's ISI (Inter Services Intelligence) launched the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA. Their purpose was to harness the energy of Afghan resistance to the Soviets and expand it into a holy war, an Islamic jihad, which would turn Muslim countries within the Soviet Union against the communist regime and eventually destabilise it. When it began, it was meant to be the Soviet Union's Vietnam. It turned out to be much more than that. Over the years, through the ISI, the CIA funded and recruited almost 100,000 radical mojahedin from 40 Islamic countries as soldiers for America's proxy war. The rank and file of the mojahedin were unaware that their jihad was actually being fought on behalf of Uncle Sam. (The irony is that America was equally unaware that it was financing a future war against itself.)

In 1989, after being bloodied by 10 years of relentless conflict, the Russians withdrew, leaving behind a civilisation reduced to rubble.

Civil war in Afghanistan raged on. The jihad spread to Chechnya, Kosovo and eventually to Kashmir. The CIA continued to pour in money and military equipment, but the overheads had become immense, and more money was needed. The mojahedin ordered farmers to plant opium as a "revolutionary tax". The ISI set up hundreds of heroin laboratories across Afghanistan. Within two years of the CIA's arrival, the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderland had become the biggest producer of heroin in the world, and the single biggest source of the heroin on American streets. The annual profits, said to be between $100bn and $200bn, were ploughed back into training and arming militants.

In 1995, the Taliban - then a marginal sect of dangerous, hardline fundamentalists - fought its way to power in Afghanistan. It was funded by the ISI, that old cohort of the CIA, and supported by many political parties in Pakistan. The Taliban unleashed a regime of terror. Its first victims were its own people, particularly women. It closed down girls' schools, dismissed women from government jobs, and enforced sharia laws under which women deemed to be "immoral" are stoned to death, and widows guilty of being adulterous are buried alive. Given the Taliban government's human rights track record, it seems unlikely that it will in any way be intimidated or swerved from its purpose by the prospect of war, or the threat to the lives of its civilians.

After all that has happened, can there be anything more ironic than Russia and America joining hands to re-destroy Afghanistan? The question is, can you destroy destruction? Dropping more bombs on Afghanistan will only shuffle the rubble, scramble some old graves and disturb the dead.

The desolate landscape of Afghanistan was the burial ground of Soviet communism and the springboard of a unipolar world dominated by America. It made the space for neocapitalism and corporate globalisation, again dominated by America. And now Afghanistan is poised to become the graveyard for the unlikely soldiers who fought and won this war for America.

And what of America's trusted ally? Pakistan too has suffered enormously. The US government has not been shy of supporting military dictators who have blocked the idea of democracy from taking root in the country. Before the CIA arrived, there was a small rural market for opium in Pakistan. Between 1979 and 1985, the number of heroin addicts grew from zero to one-and-a-half million. Even before September 11, there were three million Afghan refugees living in tented camps along the border. Pakistan's economy is crumbling. Sectarian violence, globalisation's structural adjustment programmes and drug lords are tearing the country to pieces. Set up to fight the Soviets, the terrorist training centres and madrasahs, sown like dragon's teeth across the country, produced fundamentalists with tremendous popular appeal within Pakistan itself. The Taliban, which the Pakistan government has sup ported, funded and propped up for years, has material and strategic alliances with Pakistan's own political parties.

Now the US government is asking (asking?) Pakistan to garotte the pet it has hand-reared in its backyard for so many years. President Musharraf, having pledged his support to the US, could well find he has something resembling civil war on his hands.

Operation Enduring Freedom is ostensibly being fought to uphold the American Way of Life. It'll probably end up undermining it completely. It will spawn more anger and more terror across the world. For ordinary people in America, it will mean lives lived in a climate of sickening uncertainty: will my child be safe in school? Will there be nerve gas in the subway? A bomb in the cinema hall? Will my love come home tonight? There have been warnings about the possibility of biological warfare - smallpox, bubonic plague, anthrax - the deadly payload of innocuous crop-duster aircraft. Being picked off a few at a time may end up being worse than being annihilated all at once by a nuclear bomb.

The US government, and no doubt governments all over the world, will use the climate of war as an excuse to curtail civil liberties, deny free speech, lay off workers, harass ethnic and religious minorities, cut back on public spending and divert huge amounts of money to the defence industry. To what purpose? President Bush can no more "rid the world of evil-doers" than he can stock it with saints. It's absurd for the US government to even toy with the notion that it can stamp out terrorism with more violence and oppression. Terrorism is the symptom, not the disease. Terrorism has no country. It's transnational, as global an enterprise as Coke or Pepsi or Nike. At the first sign of trouble, terrorists can pull up stakes and move their "factories" from country to country in search of a better deal. Just like the multi-nationals.

Terrorism as a phenomenon may never go away. But if it is to be contained, the first step is for America to at least acknowledge that it shares the planet with other nations, with other human beings who, even if they are not on TV, have loves and griefs and stories and songs and sorrows and, for heaven's sake, rights. Instead, when Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, was asked what he would call a victory in America's new war, he said that if he could convince the world that Americans must be allowed to continue with their way of life, he would consider it a victory.

The September 11 attacks were a monstrous calling card from a world gone horribly wrong. The message may have been written by Bin Laden (who knows?) and delivered by his couriers, but it could well have been signed by the ghosts of the victims of America's old wars. The millions killed in Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia, the 17,500 killed when Israel - backed by the US - invaded Lebanon in 1982, the 200,000 Iraqis killed in Operation Desert Storm, the thousands of Palestinians who have died fighting Israel's occupation of the West Bank. And the millions who died, in Yugoslavia, Somalia, Haiti, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Panama, at the hands of all the terrorists, dictators and genocidists whom the American government supported, trained, bankrolled and supplied with arms. And this is far from being a comprehensive list.

For a country involved in so much warfare and conflict, the American people have been extremely fortunate. The strikes on September 11 were only the second on American soil in over a century. The first was Pearl Harbour. The reprisal for this took a long route, but ended with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This time the world waits with bated breath for the horrors to come.

Someone recently said that if Osama bin Laden didn't exist, America would have had to invent him. But, in a way, America did invent him. He was among the jihadis who moved to Afghanistan in 1979 when the CIA commenced its operations there. Bin Laden has the distinction of being created by the CIA and wanted by the FBI. In the course of a fortnight he has been promoted from suspect to prime suspect and then, despite the lack of any real evidence, straight up the charts to being "wanted dead or alive".

From all accounts, it will be impossible to produce evidence (of the sort that would stand scrutiny in a court of law) to link Bin Laden to the September 11 attacks. So far, it appears that the most incriminating piece of evidence against him is the fact that he has not condemned them.

From what is known about the location of Bin Laden and the living conditions in which he operates, it's entirely possible that he did not personally plan and carry out the attacks - that he is the inspirational figure, "the CEO of the holding company". The Taliban's response to US demands for the extradition of Bin Laden has been uncharacteristically reasonable: produce the evidence, then we'll hand him over. President Bush's response is that the demand is "non-negotiable"

But who is Osama bin Laden really? Let me rephrase that. What is Osama bin Laden? He's America's family secret. He is the American president's dark doppelgänger. The savage twin of all that purports to be beautiful and civilised. He has been sculpted from the spare rib of a world laid to waste by America's foreign policy: its gunboat diplomacy, its nuclear arsenal, its vulgarly stated policy of "full-spectrum dominance", its chilling disregard for non-American lives, its barbarous military interventions, its support for despotic and dictatorial regimes, its merciless economic agenda that has munched through the economies of poor countries like a cloud of locusts. Its marauding multinationals who are taking over the air we breathe, the ground we stand on, the water we drink, the thoughts we think. Now that the family secret has been spilled, the twins are blurring into one another and gradually becoming interchangeable. Their guns, bombs, money and drugs have been going around in the loop for a while. (The Stinger missiles that will greet US helicopters were supplied by the CIA. The heroin used by America's drug addicts comes from Afghanistan. The Bush administration recently gave Afghanistan a $43m subsidy for a "war on drugs"....)

Now Bush and Bin Laden have even begun to borrow each other's rhetoric. Each refers to the other as "the head of the snake". Both invoke God and use the loose millenarian currency of good and evil as their terms of reference. Both are engaged in unequivocal political crimes. Both are dangerously armed - one with the nuclear arsenal of the obscenely powerful, the other with the incandescent, destructive power of the utterly hopeless. The fireball and the ice pick. The bludgeon and the axe. The important thing to keep in mind is that neither is an acceptable alternative to the other.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated,

The reason why the U.S is the greatest country is because it is the country that fit to the description of Apostle Paul which says that the children of faith and NOT the children of works (this includes the four major religions and some major false christian religions) will inherit and rule the earth. A big portion of the people in the U.S and even the first settlers in Portsmouth, Massachusetts believe that scripture. They inherit the prophecy by believing it. This country will ultimately rule the earth coz that is the prophecy.

The U.S. did not start WW2 but that was the beginning of the fulfillment of that prophecy and WW3 would establish it fully even though the U.S. won't start it.

That is the prophecy and those who would challenge it (there would be many) may temporarily win but in the final showdown, the prophecy would still prevail.

A lot of people will be "vaporized".

America has been protected by God from two World Wars but not this time because of the increasing liberalism and secularism among its people.

Salvation is personal and being a member of a religion would not save a person. But Eph. 2:8-10 and Jn 3:16 sums it all and those who live these verses in their hearts are the holders of true religion.

Moody, Moody, Moody,

The partial murder count carried out in Allah's name:

1a) Assassination of Benazir Bhutto

1b) 9/11, 3000 mostly US citizens murdered, 1000’s injured

2) The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, 4000 US troops and 80,625 – 88,048 Iraqi civilians murdered http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

3) Kenya- In Nairobi, about 212 people were murdered and an estimated 4000 injured; in Dar es Salaam, the attack killed at least 11 and wounded 85.[2]

4) Bali-in 2002-murdering 202 people, 164 of whom were foreign nationals, and 38 Indonesian citizens. A further 209 people were injured.

5) Bali in 2005- Twenty people were murdered, and 129 people were injured by three bombers who killed themselves in the attacks.

6) Spain in 2004- murdering 191 people and wounding 2,050.

7) UK in 2005- The bombings murdered 52 commuters and the four radical Islamic suicide bombers, injured 700.

And all this bloodshed reinforces that famous quote,

NO ONE IS SAFE UNTIL THE KORAN IS "DEFLAWED"!!!!

WITH MAJOR CORRECTIONS:

Statistically
-more than 1 million Iraqi's are been butchered so far
-more than 4 million displaced.
-All major cities are destroyed. No electricity, no water, no sanitation no NOTHING.

On Al Jazeera net Analyst’s are

THANKING USA (Chaos & Conspiracy Masters) for,

1- Alienating millions of the Sunnis from the US established only Shia government.

2- And then branding them ALL SUNNI CIVILIANS as allies of Bathiest Previous (US breed & Groomed) Dictator. And projecting that idea through out world through its Zionist controlled media.
3- In result PROVOKING THE US MADE SHIA ESTABLISMENT to genocide Sunni civilians “AND OFFICIALLY KEEPING CRIMINAL SILENCE SUPPORTING AND PROVIDING WEOPENS”. (On Al Jazeera net Analyst’s comments).

WELL DONE USA MONSTOROUS MASTERS.
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK; YOUR DAYS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR.

Your stupid look bushy bush president recently visited Middle East and was trying to project the same evil propaganda.

He thinks like him the world is filled with blinds and fools!!!!

No wonder WHY now the extremely abused women EVEN preferring to blow them selves up after all the humility, WHO USED TO BE LIVING PIOUS AND RIGHTIOUS LIVES.

FOR ABUSED WOMEN REFERENC YOU CAN SEE USA TORTURE CELL SNAPS & MOVIES ALL OVER ELECTRONIC MEDIA.

Statistically
-more than 1 million Iraqi's are been butchered so far
-more than 4 million displaced.
-All major cities are destroyed. No electricity, no water, no sanitation no NOTHING.

On Al Jazeera net Analyst’s are

THANKING USA (Chaos & Conspiracy Masters) for,

1- Alienating millions of the Sunnis from the US established only Shia government.

2- And then branding them ALL SUNNI CIVILIANS as allies of Bathiest Previous (US breed & Groomed) Dictator. And projecting that idea through out world through its Zionist controlled media.
3- In result PROVOKING THE US MADE SHIA ESTABLISMENT to genocide Sunni civilians “OFFICIALLY”. (On Al Jazeera net Analyst’s comments).

WELL DONE USA MONSTOROUS MASTERS.
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK; YOUR DAYS ARE ACCONTED FOR.

Your stupid look bushy bush president recently visited Middle East and was trying to project the same evil propaganda.

He thinks like him the world is filled with blinds and fools!!!!

Moody, Moody, Moody, and Ahmed, Ahmed, Ahmed,

Islam is not perfect and the koran inherently condones sin as shown 24/7 in the 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites. Their actions give significant credence that greed, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hate, anger and greed.

Bottom line: Islam oozes of sin whose stench has been with it since its inception.

Spiderman2, Spiderman2, Spiderman2,

Again, the one true religion is what religion??????

You have seen the synopsis of the flaws in the five major contemporary religions. You are saying one of these religions is not flawed???

BTW, a fortune teller you are, prophet you are not!!!

My below posts are EYE OPENERS for the Honest Western Zionest Breed Kind.

Hello Washington Post!
Shalom!

Keep up with your work what you are best at, SPREAD HATRED, as possible as you can.

You will get your REST of the rewards as well!!

In Islam,
Muslims DIFFRENCIATE between
- Free Speech (which is acceptable)
&
-Vulgar, obscene, insulting, abusive Slurs (which are not acceptable in Islam, UNLIKE WESTERN TRADITIONS WHERE EVERY THING GOES).

AND MR. "CCNL" IS ONE OF THE PREDOMINENT EXAMPLE OF IT!!!

Don't tell us SITTING AT DISTANCE, that we shouldn't be offended.
Go first abuse IN EVERY POSSIBLE WORD,
- the person present next to you, or
- your parents or
- your love ones.
And then tell us how do you FEEL?
(I guess VERY CONTENTED, HAPPY & GOOD according to your freedom of speech???)
&
And "THEN TELL US FIRST" how open heartedly your abused FALLAS accepted your EVERY POSSIBLE WAY verbal abuse?
Now "GO LOOK into the mirror". And then tell first DO YOU FEEL ANY DIFFERENCE?
I doubt !

To the great fan and admirer CCNL
Of
USA masters "FATHER OF ALL DEVILS”?
Rightly said by Iranian President before US mad bushy bush use the words axe.o.e.

AND below is the kind of LIBRATION AND FREEDOM your SECULAR, CAPTILIST, DEMOCARTE, CORPORATE MONSTOR ADMINISTRATION ESTABLISHMENT is providing to the world NOW for more than half century. YOU ARE SO PROUD OF.

CCNL & ALL the blood bath Admirers:

Now the World is fully aware of USA
1- Pentagon military organization "Chaos Theory" all over the world to support its Weapon Industry with more than 18000 fighter plans and more than 1800 war ships IN SERVICE which ALONE IS BIGGEST THEN THE REST OF THE WORLD WEAPON INDUSTRIES & ARMS IN SERVICE COLLECTIVELY including Russia, China, India, Europe, NATO etc. And responsible of supplying illegal weapons all over the world FUELING ALL KIND OF BLOOD SHED ESPECIALLY IN CONTINENT OF AFRICA & MIDDLE EAST.
2- And USA White House civilian government "Conspiracy theory" to support its advances to control world resources.
Your and your Govt. credibility SUCKS.
Liars and conspirers!!!
Your pentagon driven Media conspires and All US dumb heads do is just follow the media slogans.
For example:
YOU and your stupid Bushy Bush call Iran Exe of Evil.
If some body with the slightest sense analysis. IRAN HAS NEVER SHOWN AGGRESSION WITH ANY BODY IN LAST 250 YEARS. It was puppet Saddam of Iraq who attacked Iran on his USA bushy master administration behalf.
IRAN HARDLY HAS ANY AIR FORCE & NAVY.
But USA mad administrative dogs talk about what if Iran will acquire nuck. They haven't yet.
This reason is so STUPID. The question is....
What about Pakistan already nuclear with ability to deliver.
What about Korea WHO THREATEN US RIGHT AT ITS FACE, what about Russia.
What about Mad Israel. Which is REAL THREAT WITH NUCKS to the whole Muslim world. If one look according to the MAD USA ADMINISTRATION PROSPECTIVE!!!
IT IS AGAIN PENTAGON + WHITE HOUSE driven Chaos and Conspiracy theory by Zionist controlled Media and stupid US masses again ONLY REPEATING media words like axe of evil, shia sunni, Iran Arabs bla bla bla without putting any burden OR strain on there brains to once try to think REALISTICLY, same way like they believed in there Tyrant Rulers when there Rulers bluntly lied about EVERY THING to attack Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sunni and Shia are living peacefully side by side ALL OVER THE WORLD.

Even in more than 8 year Iran and Iraq war raged by USA Bushy Administration Iraqi puppet. There was NO UNREST in Iraqi civil fabric. NO ONE was attacking the establishment in the Iraq; No kind of CIVIL DESTRUCION was in progress, raping, killing, bomb blasting CIVILIANS BEORE THE US ANIMALS INVASION was in progress.
It is the same 300 YEARS OLD COLONIAL divide and ruthless rule technique PRACTICED BY the US animals, kill the Shia blame the Sunni, kill the Sunni blame the Shia FUEL THE FIRE AND KILL CIVILIANS INDESCRIMINATELY in the name of collateral damage.
THE WHOLE WORLD AND MUSLIMS ARE VERY WELL AWARE OF IT.

Kuwait war was again raged by USA ANIMAL Bushy Administration Iraqi puppet.

In Bosnia and Kosovo case, YOU ANIMALS kept your CRIMNAL SILENCE FOR 2-3 YEARS until YOUR butchers were done and satisfied with there Muslim slaughter. YOU ANIMALS couldn't bear the Muslim independent state on your European Continent. Saving them after you are done and satisfied is a big B.S.!!

I REPEAT !!

If you and your KIND are not deaf OR blind??

Since millions & millions of Shia's are welcome by Saudi Sunni's every year on Hajj from the very beginning of time. AND millions & millions of Shia's and Sunni's perform Hajj TOGETHER STANDING SHOULDER TO SHOULDER every year DISPITE OF PENTAGON DRIVEN EVIL MEDIA PROPAGANDA!!

Saudia is a land of PEACE!

Hurray! Pentagon "Chaos Theory".

Don't worry, if needed, Saudi's will use these 60B arms from US on Israel. Since they are not in war with Iran or Shia's from the time Saudia came into being. (IF NEEDED means, if Fascist Israel every tried to also show its aggression towards Saudis)

Anonymous,
"With Western Enlightenment and respect for the individual, we cannot win this war"
Rightly said by you Anonymous "You cannot win the WAR" because as you admitted your self,
Instead of reasoning YOU ALL are raging WAR.
And Muslims can't be convinced by your deceiving, bias polices and practices. Muslims see following common problems in the ENLIGHTED WEST which hardly exist OR stands out as very little in the Muslim masses and
"Are convincing enough NOT TO BE CONVIENCED”:
1- Chaos and Conspiracy theory practice towards Muslims to grab, still, occupy there lands and wealth and destroying there properties, lands and countries.
2- Your non-negotiation on real issues and brutal approach of enforcing your ideas upon Muslims.
AND WITH IN YOUR SOCIETIES HIGH RATE OF:
3- Moral degradation.
4- Incest (One of the reasons is FORCEFULLY giving kids from natural to un-natural parents).
5- Rape (Every second women get raped in her life time in your society).
6- Child molestation. (Reflects the SAFTY of children in your FREE SOCIET & in your CHURCHS).
7- Teenage pregnancies. (Shows the over all moral mind set of your masses, even kids are not left out any more).
8- Drugs and Alcohol addiction. (It is an unstoppable avalanche in your WHOLE society.)
9- Prostitution (every high street has savannahs & occupied by business women in the evenings)
10- Extreme racism against colored and all other kind of human breeds. Blacks are still facing the brunt.
11- Women’s exploitation in the name of freedom. (Telling them work equally hard and earn them selves. Is it possible for the mother of 2 or more to –i- raise children –ii- maintain house hold –iii- earn simultaneously. Even the strongest Will and nerves man can’t do it simultaneously with the kind of attention these responsibilities deserve NOW also consider in the keep changing natural physical demands of the women. It’s ACTUALLY FREEING THE MEN FROM ALL REAL RESPONSIBILITIES EXCEPT ONLY SEXUAL DESIRE & ITS FULFILLMENT.
12- Inhuman intervening UNBALANCED state laws about kids, women, men etc enslaving and making there lives hell.
13- High street crime rate.
14- Your enslaving & controlling corporate and mega chain brand INTEREST AND TAX BASED culture CRUSHING THE POOR SOCIETIES (ONLY providing freedom of EXPLOITATION to the rich masters).
And non convincing list is further very long............

AND we Muslims find ALL THE BALANCED LAWFUL SOLUTIONS of the above mentioned menaces in our religion Islam! THAT’S WHY THEY HARDLY EXIST IN OUR SOCIETIES IN GENERAL AND NOT FORCED BY ANY “GOVERNING BODY WITH SUCH NEGATIVE IMPACT & INEFFECT AS IN WEST”.

1st as to the original question proposed it will depend entirely on the nature of the religion in question. Be it a religion of works or of grace?
If it is of works then is it internalized or externalized? If it is of Grace then the believer will expect those not of his faith will not treat it with respect and will understand that attempts to demonstrate his own faith through violence towards those who do not share it are utterly pointless.

If it is works and internalized then as the drive is to perfect one's self as the world is inherently not perfectible then again violence against those who do not share your views is a waste of time.

Only among religions that are of works and are externalized is there any need to attemtpt to perfect the world or belief that such can even be done.

2nd Athena the last one was more than three hundred years ago.

For those of your bashing Islam - how many people have been put to death by Christians for blasphemy or heresy - just for speaking up for the rights of women? Remember, when you point a finger at someone, three are pointing back at you.

This is a very misleading question. You are trying to tie the whole Islamic belief by what fanatical Afghans do. It is like judging whole Christianity by what Bush does in the Middle East. No doubt what is being done to this young man is barbaric to say the least.

Fanaticism can be found everywhere and Muslim countries are the flavour of the time primarily b'coz of US and Western involvement into these lands through use of force (Shock and Awe?). What we see is the rise of extremists to counter the illegal invasion into these lands.

Some question why Muslims kill each other. It is for the same reason. When part of the population are seen as collaborators with the invaders, then those who have chosen to fight the invaders will also aim to eradicate those collaborators as they are seen to be sympathetic to the invaders. Reason goes out.

This is human trait seen across history whether it was Native Indian tribes who collaborated with white man or Indians from sub-continent who joined the British army in India. The resistance extended their fight with such native collaborators. Pillages, burning and mass-killings were carried out.

Now b'coz it is a season for showing "true face" of Islam according to Huntington/neocon/Zionist party, then every crazy Muslim is given the front page, as if the West is devoid of craziness. Moreover, this craziness is linked to global Islamic belief. Fact is Muslims do not have a collective voice and have such lobbying powers. Thank God for that. Long it may remain as far as I am concerned.

Here is a test. Try focusing on Jewish extremists and what they say and do to Arab Palestinians, and see where it gets you? AIPAC will hunt you down, then you will have to apologise profusely till the cows come home. Try it.

We have a problem in Afghanistan and the people who wants to solve it are the real problems - Islamists and Secularists.

The Bible prophecied that the only way this would be settled is for the 2 camps to be extinguished or be "vaporized" - WW3.

Secularists are "unbelievers" and they are a disgrace to God. On the other hand false religions are commonly those who won't let people rationally criticize their faith like Islam and Catholicism which ruled Europe for centuries and no criticism was allowed. Those who can see fault in their religions are summarily executed like Jesus Christ for telling the Jews that they have a faulty interpretation of the word of God.

It was primarily the Baptists,who composed much of Rhode Island at that time, who pushed to end all of these by fighting for the "Establishment Clause" in the bill of rights. (Salvation is personal and being a Baptist does not save you. I just want to make that clear.)

Unless this Bill of Rights is added to Afghanistan's Constitution and Afghans learn to accept it, all else will just be waste of time, money and lots of lives.

And if America and the Bush administration don't know it, they are as blind as the 3 mice.

Judging from who the frontrunners are in the Presidential nomination, America all seems like a big bunch of blind mice.

WW3 is inevitable as the Bible prophecied coz the world is blind.

Any system of beliefs so insecure that its followers must kill to protect that system from criticism is a system of beliefs that does not deserve to exist. People who believe that they have the right to kill any who criticizes their system of beliefs are guilty of crimes against humanity. We are morally free to kill them on the spot.

Islam is a diverse religion. The majority of Muslims do NOT believe the rest of the world must convert or die. But some do. Indeed, Radical Islam mostly kills fellow Muslims who do not share their view. These murders deserve death, ideally by their fellow Muslims.

On December 14, 2007, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) passed resolution A/HRC/6/L.15/Rev.1 "Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief", which was widely and inaccurately reported to only address discrimination against Islam. In fact, this UNHRC resolution condemns "Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and Christianophobia" (paragraph 2), urges states to allow "the right to practice freely one's religion, including the right to change one's religion or belief" (paragraph 9.a), and urges states to make it illegal for "advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to... violence" (paragraph 9.d).

In seeking to protect the religious rights of the individual (rather than the protection of religious rights based on organizations), as demonstrated by resolution A/HRC/6/L.15/Rev.1's defense of the right to "change one's religion", this resolution provides a clear distinction from the goals of political Islamist organizations and Sharia law. Under Sharia law, the changing of religion (from Islam to another religion) is illegal, and a number of Islamist states have apostasy laws forbidding such an individual choice of religious freedom.

Notably, 15 Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) nations in the UNHRC abstained from voting on this resolution, as they felt this resolution conflicted with the OIC's support for Sharia, which is fundamental to their Islamist view of "human rights", as described in the 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. Pakistan (representing the OIC) urged for an Amendment to this resolution via A/HRC/6/L.49 to eliminate verbiage about the right to change one's religion. Saudi Arabia felt that the resolution "went against Sharia law", and Egypt felt that resolution needed to be applied "within the context of the tenets of Islam."

This A/HRC/6/L.15/Rev.1 resolution also stated "that no religion should be equated with terrorism" (paragraph 13) and this demonstrates the crux of the challenge with the political ideology of Islamism. Almost none of the OIC states could support this resolution, because their commitment is not the promotion of Islam as a religion, respecting diversity among Islamic practitioners (including allowing its members to change religions), but the promotion of the political ideology of Islamism, using a legal tool of Sharia to enforce one view of Islam as an anti-democratic political ideology. The efforts by pro-Islamists to obtain dual status of Islamism as both a political ideology and a religion failed in this UNHRC resolution. In effect, while Islam should not be equated with terrorism per this resolution, the political ideology of Islamism remains a target for criticism because of the inherent anti-democratic, anti-religious freedom nature of political Islamism itself.

The ongoing fight against the ideology behind Jihad should leverage the UNHRC resolution's calls to "recommend remedial measures" to address questions that the U.N. and the UNHRC have failed to address in the past. Per the 9/11 Commission Report, "Islamist terrorism" finds its ideological basis in Islamism, and such an anti-democratic ideology should be challenged in the actions of states and organizations that have accountability to the United Nations.

B. Remedial Measures Required Based On This Resolution

Some of the areas where such U.N. "remedial measures" regarding Islamist laws, actions, and threats to human rights should be sought could include the following objectives. While it is unlikely that the UNHRC would ever take "remedial measures" on such manners, world opinion should continue to press the UNHRC and the United Nations to get answers as to why it won't take such action:

Daniel: “…it seems the major religions bear no responsibility at all if a person in attempting to become more enlightened or mystical or saintly instead ends up with a case of mental illness and has his life ruined by a diagnosis of schizophrenia or some other mental disorder.”

Interesting insight. There’s little doubt in my mind that some of the “visions” of the saints from past centuries would be considered hallucinations today. I had a discussion about it a few months ago here on the Einstein thread. It was there that a Christian posted this link: http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/DISSPR.TXT from the “Eternal world Telegraph” site of the “Catholic global network.” Check it out. It seems to make my case, though I don’t think that was the reason for posting it.

Here’s another one, I just found today: http://www.lifwynnfoundation.org/woollcott.html

Anon,

To summarize your long review on freedom of religion:

No one is safe until the koran is "deflawed"!!!!!!

Spiderman2,

And the one true religion is what religion??????

You have seen the synopsis of the flaws in the five major contemporary religions. You are saying one of these religions is not flawed???

The question of religious freedom has assumed great significance in the modern world, particularly so in the post-modern period. During the medieval ages, and particularly before the period of renaissance the question of religious freedom did not arise. The religious authorities had either political; power to enforce their doctrines or dogmas or they had close collaboration with political authorities. Thus a person was not free to believe what one liked to believe. He had to conform or pay heavy price – often with his life – if he did not. We know of hundreds of cases of execution of religious dissidents during that period. One reason for this was that religion, during medieval ages, was closely associated with the state. Thus religious dissidence was construed as rebellion or sedition against state.

However, things began to change with renaissance and religious freedom acquired great importance as Martin Luther challenged the supremacy of church and the rulers became independent of papal authority. Secularism arose as a new political doctrine in the post-renaissance period. Also slowly kings were replaced by elected heads of the state and democratic polity came to be widely accepted. When religion was dissociated from politics, religious freedom acquired fundamental importance. Secularism was either thought to be atheistic or was interpreted as a philosophy, which assigned religion to personal domain. Thus religious conformism lost its significance and religious freedom came to be accepted as the most fundamental doctrine.

However, these developments were not uniformly reflected in all societies. In many countries religion is closely associated with the state even today. The state authorities issue the religious dictates. Any non-conformism in these socio-political set ups is considered as disobeying the state and hence severely punishable. This is not so particularly in Islamic societies as is often thought. It is found in all those societies where religion is closely associated with state. However, it so happens that in many Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran, religion is an integral part of state and any religious dissent is interpreted as sedition against the state. Even liberal interpretation of religion is considered as a cardinal sin. But it would be a grave mistake to think that this is inherent in Islam and that Islam does not tolerate religious freedom.

What is then position of religious freedom as far as Islam and Islamic jurisprudence is concerned? It is crystal clear to those who study Islam carefully that Islam upholds religious freedom as far as some basic frame-work of its teachings is not violated. But no religion, or any political ideology for that matter, can permit violation of its basic framework. If the very basic framework is violated the religion will cease to exist. In other words religion cannot be reformed out of existence. As we say a person cannot sign his own death warrant, a religion cannot allow itself to be done away with. However, one should be free to renounce his/her religion if it ceases to appeal to his/her conscience. A religion which does not appeal to once conscience or does not form part of once inner conviction can have no meaning for that person. But does Islam permit this freedom of conscience? In my considered opinion it does. But why then some Islamic countries insist on punishment of death for renouncing Islam (i.e. irtidad)? We will throw light on this little later. However, such a punishment for renouncing Islam cannot be supported from the Qur’anic teachings. There is no verse directly supporting such punishment. Of course there are ahadith quoted in its support. But these ahadith need to be examined carefully. Not only their authenticity but also their context needs to be looked into.

But most important thing is that religion is an integral part of once inner conviction and is a matter of once conscience. Even according to a hadith mere confession by tongue (iqrar bi’ al-lisan) is not enough . It must be followed by an inner endorsement or once conscience (tasdiq bi’ al-janan). Mere confession by once tongue will not acquire the status of truly held conviction. The Qur’an clearly declares la ikrah fi’ al-din (2:256) i.e. there cannot be in compulsion in religion. Some commentators maintain that this verse was aimed at early converts and that it was later abrogated. But there is absolutely no basis for such an assertion. It is declaration of a universally valid principle rather than any contextual statement. It is valid until today and will remain valid in future also. It is also substantiated by the fact that Islam accepted validity of other contemporary religions like Judaism, Christianity etc. and even permitted marriages with them. They were not coerced into accepting Islam at all. Any coercion wold lead to acceptance by tongue, not endorsement by heart.

Here in the above verse the word used is din which is usually translated as religion. But it has wider meaning. The word din not only includes the moral law but also pertains to its doctrinal contents and their practical implications, as well as to man’s attitude towards the object of his worship, thus comprising also the concept of “faith”. Thus according to the Qur’an human being is absolutely free to pursue religion of his/her choice. And this freedom does not pertain to only acceptance or non-acceptance of Islam; it also pertains to renunciation of Islam. Many Muslim jurists may reject this outright and maintain that though one is free to accept or not accept Islam but having accepted it one is not free to renounce it. Thus according to them freedom is limited to only acceptance or non-acceptance of Islam but does not extend to its renunciation. This position does not appear to be logical. Freedom of conscience cannot be a one way traffic. Obviously the freedom of renunciation was curtailed for political and not religious reason.

If the Islamic jurists seek to circumscribe the freedom to renounce Islam the question is whether it is based on Qur’an or on hadith (i.e. the Prophet’s sayings). A careful study of the holy Qur’an shows that there is no basis whatsoever in it to sustain such a position i.e. qatl-e-murtad (i.e. slaying of one renouncing Islam). On the contrary there is a verse in the Holy Book which leaves one in no doubt that such a punishment has no basis and that it is based on the opinion of jurists and that these jurists took this position to protect interests of state rather than those of Islam. Thus we find in the verse 4:137 in the Qur’an “ Those who believe then disbelieve (kafaru), again believe and again disbelieve, then increase in disbelief, Allah will never forgive them or guide them in the (right) way.”

If the punishment for irtidad had been death this verse would have clearly mentioned it. The above verse (4:13), on the other hand, says that even those who believe and then disbelieve and again believe and then again disbelieve Allah will not pardon them and will not show them the right way. Had Allah wanted to punish murtad (i.e. renouncer) of Islam by death He would have clearly mentioned it. But He simply says He would not pardon them and would not show them the right path. The Qur’an firmly believes in the doctrine of the freedom of conscience and forcefully states it in the verse 18:29 thus: “And say: The Truth is from your Lord; so let him who please believe, and lt him who please disbelieve. This verse is clear proof that freedom of conscience cannot be made available one way only. It has to be both ways. If one renounces Islam it is for Allah to punish him or not but certainly not for human beings to do so. If some one feels strongly about renunciation of Islam by once friend, neighbour or relative, one may try to pursue him or her not to do so. But certainly he or she cannot e killed. Islam is quite modern in this respect. It upheld the doctrine of freedom of conscience many centuries before modernists and secularists did. It is unfortunate that what some jurists maintained primarily for political reasons is sought to be perpetuated.

The Qur’an repeats the doctrine of freedom of conscience so often that it cannot be ignored by any student of the holy scripture. It says in 6:105, “ Clear proofs have indeed come to you; from your Lord; so whoever sees, it is for his own good; and whoever is blind, it is to his own harm. And I am not a keeper over you.” Again in the same chapter verse 108 Allah says, “ And if Allah had pleased they would not have ascribed divinity to aught beside Him (ma ashraku); hence We have not made thee their keeper, and neither art thou responsible for their conduct.” And the next verse (109) goes on to say: “ But do not revile those (beings) whom they invoke instead of God, lest they revile God out of spite, and in ignorance…”

As pointed out above the word din (religion) includes not only moral law but also ways of worship and related matters. As the Qur’an believes in freedom of religion it also repeatedly says that let people worship the way they want; do not quarrel over it. However what is important is to excel each other in good deeds. Thus the Qur’an sas: “for every community faces direction of its own, of which He is the focal point. Vie, therefore, with one another in doing good works.” (2:148) Thus there is no compulsion in the ways of worshipping Him also. It is also a matter of ones conscience. However, what is most important is to excel each other in good deeds. Thus whatever way we look the Qur’an upholds the doctrine of freedom of conscience. The Qur’an’s approach is remarkably modern. One cannot doubt about its openness to other faiths and traditions. Its doctrine of da`wah (mission) is also not burdened with any doctrine of compulsion of any kind. It exhorts the faithfuls to “ Call to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the best manner.” (16:125). Thus according to the Qur’an preaching also should not have any manner of compulsio. It should be done in a way which will appeal to the conscience of one to whom da`wah is directed. Thus da`wah should not encroach upon any ones freedom of conscience.. It is most fundamental right and is worthy of respect in all circumstances.

Then the question arises why the Islamic jurists prescribed punishment of death for irtidad (i.e. renunciation of Islam)? It was, as pointed out, more for political than religious reasons. This juristic opinion was not based on any religious injunctions but on political environment. The state always has its own reasons, its own considerations of security and stability. It was feared that a person renouncing Islam is likely to collude with the enemies of the state and thus pose a danger for it. Anyone renouncing Islam and adopting Christianity, for example, could collude with Christian rulers with whom the Islamic State of the time was at war and pose great danger. Thus in an Islamic state renunciation of Islam was equated with sedition against the state and sedition is often punished by death. Many juristic opinions of this nature like the concept of Dar al-Islam

Or Dar al-harb etc. need to be re-examined in this context. Today people live in secular democracies and equal rights, including the right to profess, practice and propagate ones own religion fully guaranteed by the constitutions. Such countries cannot be construed as what the Islamic jurists called dar al-harb.

Today in many Muslim countries, which are ruled by authoritarian dispensations, Muslims are not as free to follow their religion as in many secular democracies. In Saudi Arabia Muslims who do not subscribe to Wahabi brand of Islam are certainly not free to proclaim their deeply held religious convictions which clash with the Wahabi doctrines. The Shi`a Muslims in the southern part of the Saudi regime cannot take out Muharram procession in keeping with their religious convictions and Sunni Muslims cannot pray on the grave of the Holy Prophet as it is thought to be `un-Islamic’ practice. Could it then be construed as Dar al-Islam for non-Wahabi Muslim? In medieval ages the concept of dar al-Islam and dar al-harb had some relevance but not in modern democracies.

Thus the punishment for irtidad or renunciation of Islam also has to be seen in this context. Today in democracy the concept of human rights is quite central to it. All citizens, irrespective of their religious persuasion are equal. Freedom of conscience is most fundamental to secular democracy. All citizens are free to pursue their own religious convictions or change them, if they please. Also, every citizen is free to renounce his or her religion and adopt any other or none, for that matter. There is no question of anyone being punished for this. Similarly in the Muslim countries if any citizen renounces Islam, he or she is not going to be for that reason enemy of that state. Today international law governs the relations between various countries and the United Nations play increasingly important role in governing international relationships. In medieval ages renunciation of Islam could very well be construed as sedition but it is no more valid in our own times. During that period Christians were also not free to renounce their religion. They were burnt at stake for this `crime’. Thus entire juris corpus needs to be revised in this respect.

Thus in the whole debate the inner conviction is most fundamental and any law which violates the doctrine of inner conviction cannot be accepted. The Qur’an also bases acceptance of religion on this doctrine and hence gives full freedom of religion. According to the Qur’an anything based on inner conviction leads to what it significantly calls sakinat al-qalb ( i.e. peace of heart). The word I’man (faith) also indicates this. The root meaning of this word is security and deep conviction. No one can be true Muslim without I’man (faith). Mere profession without inner conviction is not accepted even by the Qur’an as genuine faith. Thus the Qur’an says, “ The Bedouin say, `We have attained faith.’ Say (unto them O Muhammad): `You have not (yet) attained to faith; you should (rather) say, `We have (outwardly) surrendered (aslamu)’ – for (true) faith has not yet entered your hearts.” (49:14). From this verse it is very clear that genuine faith is based on deeper and inner conviction, not merely on surrender or verbal profession. The threat of death can merely make a person retain his her religion without any inner conviction. That is anything but genuine faith. But what the Qur’an aims at is genuine faith and genuine faith is possible only in a truly free society. Freedom of belief is very fundamental to genuine faith.

There are other aspects of religious freedom and we would like to throw some light on these aspects also. In Islam there is no concept of church. No central body is authorised to control religious doctrines. In fact there is no concept of priesthood in Islam. Every individual is free to, and responsible for, his or her own faith. Allah provides guidance (hidaya) to everyone through His prophets. It is for an individual to accept or reject the guidance. If he accepts, it is for his spiritual good and if he rejects, he will face the consequences thereof in this life and in the life to come (aakhirah). It is individual who will be held accountable before God on the Day of Judgement. His argument that the leader misled him would simply be rejected. This approach of the Qur’an, it will be seen, is also remarkably modern . The very concept of modern secular democracy is based on individual rights and responsibilities. This concept is very central to the Qur’an.

It will be seen that there is no single school of jurisprudence in Islam. There are eight surviving schools – Hanafi, Shafi`I, Hanbali, Maliki and Zahiri in the Sunni Islam and Ja`fari, Zaidi and Isma`ili in the Si`ah Islam. Besides these there were many more schools in early Islam – some think more than hundred. But these schools did nt survive. Every eminent `alim ( who had Islamic learning in Qur’an and Hadith) had his own interpretation of various juristic problems which arose from time to time. And other Muslims wee free to follow one `alim or the other or find his own solution based on Qur’an and hadith. But because Muslims followed these schools in large numbers mentioned above that they became well recognised ones in times to come. But even today a follower of one school of fiqh (jurisprudence) can renounce it and adopt another school without any constraints. Some people even take from one or the other school what suits them although the `Ulama (the learned theologian) do not approve of it. According to them one should follow one or the other school in its entirety. But that is also one opinion among others.

Thus not only that a Muslim is not bound by one school or the other he is not bound by fatwa (legal opinion) issued by any mufti (jurist). He is free to reject it and go to some one else, if he is not satisfied by the fatwa. He has full latitude in the matter. Also, no Muslim is bound even to ask a juriconsult about anything. He might find his/her own answer and be satisfied as long as it is based on authoritative sources and not merely on his convenience. The Qur’an, as pointed out above lays full responsibility on the individual, not on the community or the body of any juriconsults. This does not apply to mere legal questions but to all theological ones. For example there are no fixed dogmas about questions like freedom of will or determination or nature of the Qur’an. In the first century of Islam there were different schools of thought on these questions. One school led by the noted Sufi saint Hasan Basri believed in freedom of will whereas another school believed in determination. This question of freedom of will and determination had political rather than theological overtones. Those who supported the Umayyad rule believed in determination implying thereby that Umayyad rule is result of divine determination and any opposition to it amounts to challenge divine determination.

However, the opponents of the Umayyads thought they were usurpers and one must actively oppose their role and they subscribed to the doctrine of freedom of will. There was a third school called Murjia’who believed that one must postpone any action as Allah will decide who is right or wrong. All three schools existed side by side and people freely subscribed to one or the other. The M`utazila school was a rationalist school and for them reason was primary in deciding what is good and what is evil. They argued that Shari`ah held something to be good because reason held it to be good. The Asha`ira School, on the other held that something is good because Shari`ah held it to be good even if reason contradicted it. Similarly the M`utazila (the rationalists) held that the Qur’an was created by Allah and not co-eternal with Him. The orthodox believed, on the other hand, that it is the speech of Allah and hence co-eternal with Him. There was heated controversy about it in early Islam but there was no church to impose these dogmas on the entire body of Muslims. Different schools of thought contested with each other.

Similarly, there was no fixed meaning of the Qur’an universally accepted by all. There were literalists (ahl al-Zahir) who stuck to the literal meaning of the Qur’an. On the other hand there were ahl al-batin also known as batinis who believed in the hidden meaning of the scripture. The Batinis of course developed a church like structure with their own hierarchy. The Batinis also known as Isma`ilis developed church like structure because they constituted an underground movement centrally controlled by the leaders and the leadership was provided by a fixed hierarchy. However, the Batinis were themselves divided in several groups contesting each others positions. The Orthodox too did not have uniform position on important questions – be they theological, juristic or political. They themselves were divided in several schools.

Having stated all this in favour of freedom it must be stated that every school of thought gathered their own followers and over a period of time became rigid orthodoxy. No deviation was permitted. In all these schools the doctrine of taqlid (imitation) was enforced by the `Ulama of subsequent generations. Even the Batinis and Isma`ilis who were rational and generously borrowed from Greek philosophy, developed rigid orthodoxy and even in these schools the role of reason became suspect. Any new thinking was frowned upon. Freshness and creativity was lost. Each school of thought became a powerful establishment and every establishment developed its own vested interests. It is the vested interests who fear freedom and change. The people of inner conviction and commitment welcome it. One has conviction and commitment for values and principles, not dogmas.

Dear Disgusted:

Don't whine. This is a question about free speech:

"A journalism student in Afghanistan has been sentenced to death for distributing an Internet article that was considered an insult to the Prophet Muhammad. Do Islamic beliefs preclude freedom of speech? What about other faiths?"

Please answer- you are free to defend your belief system. Please use your knowledge of Islam to inform and enlighten us.

Best wishes.

Praise Allah/the ancient moon god/Islam is a religion of hate and history.They have always tried to live in the 9th century and they believe everyone should also/or they will kill them,a religion of peace....Give me a break!!They have killed more people than all of our wars combined/all in the name of a moon god that doesn't exist.A more ignorant and backward culture you won't find.

At it again today, Quinn and Meacham?

The front page headline for "on faith", (of all the articles), leads to an Islam bashing story.
But of course. Nothing else in 'religion' matters.

DID you two learn nothing at all from Deborah Howell's little fracas yesterday? About your censuring Gandhi and trying to make him grovel
because AIPAC didn't like his column?

Most people, also apparently enjoyed the post about Quinn's past. And Meacham may well do another loving, loving story on the Mayor of New York, who wants to be the first Jewish president.

It's getting old...

At it again today, Quinn and Meacham?

The front page headline for "on faith", (of all the articles), leads to an Islam bashing story.
But of course. Nothing else in 'religion' matters.

DID you two learn nothing at all from Deborah Howell's little fracas yesterday? About your censuring Gandhi and trying to make him grovel
because AIPAC didn't like his column?

Most people, also apparently enjoyed the post about Quinn's past. And Meacham may well do another loving, loving story on the Mayor of New York, who wants to be the first Jewish president.

It's getting old...

It's not that one religion is right and the others are wrong. All religions are wrong. All revealed religion is false in its claims to know the mind of god, that their prophets are trans-human.

No rights are possible in an environment of totalitarian crowd control. "Believe or die now" or "believe or burn later" both invoke the piledriver of God wielded in the hand of Man. Free speech and free inquiry lead to simple questions like: why? And this no hierarchical religion can abide and maintain its authority.

Gods help us all if we cannot learn to look at another and see ourselves instead of a throat to cut.

--fius

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated,

It's true that there are many false religions but to sum them all as false means you are as lost as moody.

Moody, Moody, Moody,

Apparently you missed this the first time or you need a translator. Here it is again for your perusal:

More historic reality-

Indeed we are "surrounded" by one billion Muslims in this easy-accessible modern world. With the koran as their guide, they have been shouting "death to the infidels" for the last 1400 years not just since 1948.

The problem now is that we can hear and smell the stench of their warmongering message.

The solution: Delete the flaws in the koran and "pink slip" all the "red-neck" imams. "Pink-slipping" all the "red neck" Christian preachers, "profits" and priests and "we are the chosen" rabbis is also part of the solution.

Hmmm, if you trace it all back to the origins of the three major religions claiming Abraham as founder/father, you find the "pretty wingie thinges" as the essence and essentials of it all.

This then is the experience of it all and results in one major conclusion:

"Abrahamic” religions are hallucination-based and it is now time to end the charade!!!!

Islam is a false religion. See what Afghanistan did to a journalist who just stated what he thinks of Islam.

America is wasting a lot of money and American lives to install an equally dumb government after overthrowing a dumb one.

Europe was once a dumb continent (it's dumb now for another reason)when it was under Catholicism wherein nobody was allowed to criticize that religion.

If the U.S can't establish a "Bill of Rights" constitution in that place, it's all a waste for our military to stay in that place.

We're just defending a stupid government and society.

Sorry with major corrections:

Anonymous,
"With Western Enlightenment and respect for the individual, we cannot win this war"
Rightly said by you Anonymous "You cannot win the WAR" because as you admitted your self,
Instead of reasoning YOU ALL are raging WAR.
And Muslims can't be convinced by your deceiving, bias polices and practices. Muslims see following common problems in the ENLIGHTED WEST which hardly exist OR stands out as very little in the Muslim masses and
"Are convincing enough NOT TO BE CONVIENCED”:
1- Chaos and Conspiracy theory practice towards Muslims to grab, still, occupy there lands and wealth and destroying there properties, lands and countries.
2- Your non-negotiation on real issues and brutal approach of enforcing your ideas upon Muslims.
AND WITH IN YOUR SOCIETIES HIGH RATE OF:
3- Moral degradation.
4- Incest (One of the reasons is FORCEFULLY giving kids from natural to un-natural parents).
5- Rape (Every second women get raped in her life time in your society).
6- Child molestation. (Reflects the SAFTY of children in your FREE SOCIETY).
7- Teenage pregnancies. (Shows the over all moral mind set of your masses, even kids are not left out any more).
8- Drugs and Alcohol addiction. (It is an unstoppable avalanche in your WHOLE society.)
9- Prostitution (every high street has savannahs & occupied by business women in the evenings)
10- Extreme racism against colored and all other kind of human breeds. Blacks are still facing the brunt.
11- Women’s exploitation in the name of freedom. (Telling them work equally hard and earn your self. Is it possible for the mother of 2 or more to –i- raise children –ii- maintain house hold –iii- earn simultaneously. Even the strongest Will and nerves man can’t do it simultaneously with the kind of attention these responsibilities deserve NOW also consider in the keep changing natural physical demands of the women. Its ACTUALLY FREEING THE MEN FROM ALL REAL RESPONSIBILITIES ACCEPTS ONLY SEXUAL DESIRE & ITS FULFILLMENT.
12- Inhuman intervening UNBALANCED state laws about kids, women, men etc enslaving and making there lives hell.
13- High street crime rate.
14- Your enslaving & controlling corporate and mega chain brand INTEREST AND TAX BASED culture CRUSHING THE POOR SOCIETIES (ONLY providing freedom of EXPLOITATION to the rich masters).
And non convincing list is further very long............

AND we Muslims find ALL THE BALANCED LAWFUL SOLUTIONS of the above mentioned menaces in our religion Islam! THAT’S WHY THEY HARDLY EXIST IN OUR SOCIETIES IN GENERAL AND NOT FORCED BY ANY “GOVERNING BODY INEFFECTIVLY”.

Anonymous,
"With Western Enlightenment and respect for the individual, we cannot win this war"
Rightly said by you Anonymous "You cannot win the WAR" because as you admitted your self,
Instead of reasoning YOU ALL are raging WAR.
And Muslims can't be convinced by your deceiving, bias polices and practices. Muslims see following common problems in the ENLIGHTED WEST which hardly exist OR stands out as very little in the Muslim masses and
"are convincing enough NOT TO BE CONVIENCED" :
1- Chaos and Conspiracy theory practice towards Muslims to grab, still, occupy there lands and wealth and destroying there properties, lands and countries.
2- Your non-negotiation on real issues and brutal approach of enforcing your ideas upon Muslims.
AND WITH IN YOUR SOCIETIES HIGH RATE OF:
3- Moral degradation.
4- Incest ( One of the reasons is FORCEFULLY giving kids from natural to un-natural parents.
5- Rape
6- Child molestation. ( Reflects the SAFTY of children in your FREE SOCIETY).
7- Teenage pregnancies. ( Shows the over all moral mind set of your masses, even kids are not left out any more).
8- Drugs and Alcohol addiction. (It is an unstoppable avalanche in your WHOLE society.)
9- Prostitution (every high street has savannahs & occupied by business women in the evenings)
10- Extreme racism against colored and all other kind of human breeds. Blacks are still facing the brunt.
11- Women’s exploitation in the name of freedom.(Telling them work equally hard and earn your self. Is it possible for the mother of 2 or more to –i- raise children –ii- maintain house hold –iii- earn simultaneously. Even the strongest Will and nerves man can’t do it simultaneously the kind of attention these responsibilities deserve. AND ACTUALLY FREEING THE MEN FROM ALL REAL RESPONSIBILITIES ACCEPT ONLY SEXUAL DESIRE & FULFILLMENT.
12- Inhuman intervening UNBALANCED state laws about kids, women, men etc enslaving and making there lives hell.
13- High street crime rate.
14- Your enslaving & controlling corporate and mega brand INTEREST AND TAX BASED culture CRUSHING THE POOR SOCIETIES (providing freedom of EXPLOITATION to the rich masters).
And non convincing list is further very long............

Moody, Moody, Moody,

You are possessed by a demon of the demented. Get out the "Jinni" bottle!!!!

In Islam,
Muslims DIFFRENCIATE between
- Free Speech (which is acceptable)
&
-Vulgar, obscene, insulting, abusive Slurs (which are not acceptable in Islam, UNLIKE WESTERN TRADITIONS WHERE EVERY THING GOES).

AND MR. "CCNL" IS ONE OF THE PREDOMINENT EXAMPLE OF IT!!!

Don't tell us SITTING AT DISTANCE, that we shouldn't be offended.
Go first abuse IN EVERY POSSIBLE WORD,
- the person present next to you, or
- your parents or
- your love ones.
And then tell us how do you FEEL?
(I guess VERY CONTENTED, HAPPY & GOOD according to your freedom of speech???)
&
And "THEN TELL US FIRST" how open heartedly your abused FALLAS accepted your EVERY POSSIBLE WAY verbal abuse?
Now "GO LOOK into the mirror".

The self proclamed HONEST KIND through zionest media as usual blowing OUT OF PROPORTION one tiny single event in Afganistan hidden corner.

The country which is UNDER CONSTANT ATTACK FOR ALMOST QUATER OF A CENTURY by the SAME self proclamed HONEST KIND. Where every inch of it is a rubble, destroyed. And where mostly the mentality of the people is GET KILLED OR KILL after the so long OPPRESION OF WESTERN HONEST KIND. "IT IS MORE THAN 25 YEARS OF CONSTANT ATTACK"

Just LOOK at USA FREEDOM laws of TORTURE, DESTRUCTIVE CONSPIRACY & CHAOS THEORIES IN PRACICE. And how many INOCENT CIVILIANS KILLED AND TORTURED BY US SOLDIERS UNDER US PROTECTED LAW. "Is any body acountable?"

The whole media is filled with GREAT US torture cells snaps and movies!

In Afganistan TALIBAN represents the majority people heart and minds which LIGITIMATE GOVERNMENT when ASKED FOR THE EVIDENCE AS PER INTERNATIONAL LAW was replied in the form of rain of bombardment. And TOny UK and Pervaze PAK were answered by US instead of Taliban that it is not a natian but PART OF TERORIST GROUP.

AND THAT IS THE KIND OF JUSTICE USA IS BRINGING ALL OVER THE WORLD.

WHERE THERE IS NO LAW FOR US MASTERS AND ZIONEST ARE ABOVE FROM ALL KIND OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

If the Afghani people can't read Arabic how do they know what the Koran says?
JESUS said "I am the way and the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but by Me."
The God of the Bible said
" without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness of sin."
Under the old Covenant God had said to Moses
" take a year old lamb and confess the sins of the whole nation onto it,send it out into the wilderness to die, and I will accept it's life as a substitute for the lives of the whole nation.
That lamb was called the scapegoat, the Jewish nation celebrated this as Yom Kippur for 1500 years, and throughout that time God promised them that He would send them someone special who would
usher in His kingdom.
Jesus said " for this reason I came into the world that the world might know that I came from the Father and I do exactly what the Father gives Me to do"
Jesus is that lamb of God and forgiveness of sins will be preached to all nations in His Name, and then the end will come.

Do Islamic beliefs preclude freedom of speech? What about other faiths?

I would have to say all beliefs preclude freedom of speech--especially freedom of speech coupled with reason--and this can be illustrated from various angles.

Just to take a problem with religion I have been grappling with--a quite personal problem--I read in the major monotheistic books that God has talked to quite a few people. I also read in Buddhist literature that meditation can lead to "enlightenment". I also read in books about yoga that yoga can lead to not only enlightenment but the birth of supernatural powers called Siddhis. And of course in mystical literature of all types (Kabbalah, etc.) one becomes capable of supernatural states of mind.

Now the quite personal problem I am having is that not only myself but quite a few people are grappling with claims such as these and it seems the major religions bear no responsibility at all if a person in attempting to become more enlightened or mystical or saintly instead ends up with a case of mental illness and has his life ruined by a diagnosis of schizophrenia or some other mental disorder.

What exactly is the line between mental illness and all these claims religions make? Should religions not make a clear demarcation for us? Will we not see in the future gradually increasing lawsuits against religions for fostering mental illness? How many people now are in mental institutions for simply having taken seriously certain religious claims?

In the Islamic world not only can the case be made that Islam fosters mental illness, it can be said that people in power in the Islamic world are happy to have young men believe in young virgins in the afterlife if only the young men will commit suicide now against Israel and the West. Mental illness deliberately created for the sake of the ruling powers.

But the West is little better. I hear about the Catholic church now taking responsibility for children being molested by priests, but has the Catholic church ever taken responsibility for people winding up in the madhouse for believing that they talk to God, etc.? In the West we have this absurd belief that depression, schizophrenia, etc. are illnesses strictly located in the person and to be cured by medicines instead of illnesses which can be caused by social forces--thus we have people heavily medicated but the major religions, ruling powers, etc. are not checked at all.

In short freedom of speech and reason are short everywhere and institutions in society never really get called to account for what they say to people or how they act. Again, forget about the middle east for a moment and put in mind a typical Western boy with curiosity simply wondering about religion and becoming interested and seriously wondering about the potentiality of becoming a saint or an enlightened person. What religion will ever be called to account if this boy ends up being diagnosed with mental illness for simply having tried to better himself and become more spiritual? What religion will be called to account if the boy starts saying to people that he speaks to God and God talks back?

In plain English religions so far from allowing free speech really have no safeguards at all in place to steer the young between becoming mentally ill and increasingly spiritual. That alone would call for reason--in fact that would call for reason rivaling anything which exists in the scientific world and would literally transform religion. But I doubt we can expect that any time soon in the world.

I really feel sorry for the young man becoming interested in religion. There really is no one to help him if he really becomes interested--no one to guide his mind through the potential pitfalls. To this very day I have no idea if I am becoming increasingly spiritual or just increasingly mentally ill. I have been forced to rely increasingly on reason and to discount such claims by religion of saintliness, enlightenment, talking to God, supernatural powers, miracles, etc.

I have been forced to do so because, once again, there is no help at all from the major religions in determining the difference from the above and mental illness. I would say without a doubt that religions are against freedom of speech. I would say they have not even begun to examine their claims and the effect of religion on persons. And I have difficulty in saying that the great religions are moral for I have never really heard of a concerted effort by religion to not only keep its congregation from madness but steer it to true spirituality against the dangers of madness which lurk all too near...

I predict that in the West there will be increasing studies of the relationship between religion and madness and that lawsuits will increasingly be brought against the major religions for not taking responsibility for sharply guiding constituents. The question is not so much whether one believes in God but all the claims by religions which can just as easily lead to mental illness as true spirituality.

Yes, in short, do I believe religions preclude freedom of speech.

Free speech has become a confused topic in the internet age. Working things out through words was once a form of play – going back and forth – figuring out the puzzle of communication through dialogue and clarification. In terms of the journalism student in Afghanistan who has been sentenced to death for distributing an article that was considered an insult to the prophet Mohammed, it is especially tragic that those in positions of power quell their own demons by the slaughter of innocents. It is hard to believe that this kind of atrocity exists in this day and age – yet it exists in varying disguises everywhere we look. Of course – with the threat of violence and death – it is frightening to express any thought – any idea, for the ramifications have spiraled out of control and the realm or rationality. The current global atmosphere – whether in America or Afghanistan – is like an electronic age of McCarthism. No one feels safe.

Today, instead of healthy dialogue, a war of words ensues – and there are casualties. Arun Gandhi is a recent example.

Arun Gandhi has been speaking of and working towards peace and nonviolence for decades- and barely a ripple of outrage resulted concerning the violence he has condemned in all the societies and cultures and himself as well.

But in a moment of frustration with the continual violence he witnesses in the world, he made an ill-phrased commentary – a flurry of outraged, disappointed, rejecting emails and letters have found their way to the media.

Why this strong reaction – when his other words – decades of words and work towards peace and nonviolence, produced barely a murmur . . . ?

Unwittingly, Arun has provided a mirror for the rest of the world – in his one moment of a less than carefully crafted statement – a human response to a human tragedy, we see ourselves. Laid bare – our greatest fear –repressed, denied, hidden from our own conscious awareness – is that if Arun is not so perfect, perhaps WE are not so accepting, so inclusive, so good, so fair and just.

Arun has shown us our selves. We reject that part which we perceive as ugly, foreign, alien . . . human.

So Arun is human too, but now, those who harbor secret, unconscious, unacknowledged biases in their own hearts can gleefully, triumphantly point and condemn.

But there is a difference. Arun, in his humble, quiet way, seeks only peace and understanding between all peoples. He seeks only to understand and become aware of his own human limitations and frailties.

It is not enough, his critics shout. His humility, resignation, apologies, grief are not enough to quell the anger, hurt, disappointment, rage, fury that has risen to the surface. I ask . . . have you looked into your own heart? Could anyone who has taken the journey Arun has? Losing his beloved grandfather to an assassin’s bullet; watching his father and mother imprisoned for years in South African prisons as they worked for the end of apartheid; bullied and beat up growing up in South Africa because he was “too white for the blacks” and “too black for the whites”; rising above adversity and pain devoting his life to the promotion of peace, understanding, compassion and nonviolence; losing his dear wife just months ago to a long-term debilitating illness . . . Arun continues to work for the principles of nonviolence, peace, intercultural understanding, and love.

Years ago, I presented my diversity and nonviolence program to the Gandhi Institute. I was quite impressed by Arun’s willingness to learn, to grow, and receive by program . . . After all, he had spent his life studying nonviolence and had known people from around the world. But – he was not satisfied – he was open and utterly humble.
This was not the experience I had had with a number of other agencies and organizations where I had been invited to present my program. Usually the director or head of the organization “was too busy” to participate in the program, giving me the impression that he/she felt that the program had nothing to offer him/her. Obviously, from the position the director was in, he/she felt already knew pretty much all he/she needed to know. With Arun, it was completely different. He was not “self-satisfied,” believing he had all the answers. He actively sought a deeper understanding of himself and others. He showed me that he was a true seeker of truth, a rare human quality.

Those who want to pigeon-hole Arun under the label of anti-Semitic or bigot may find the following story particularly revealing.

In a discussion with Arun about “labels,” I mentioned to Arun that in my workshops I discouraged the use of the word/label “racist.” Though I acknowledge that racism exists, to label an individual as “racist” seemed to me to be yet another way people could reduce a person – minimizing their whole humanity so that the only thing people see when they encounter the person is the label. Arun’s answer gave me much pause. (Paraphrased) he said, “No, you must not call another person a racist. That would be wrong. But, I call myself a racist, because until I acknowledge this limitation in myself, I cannot address it. I cannot work to obliterate it if I deny that reality in myself, my thoughts and actions. We must not label others as “racist.” That is not for us to do. What each of us must do is to acknowledge racism in ourselves. Only then can we begin to understand the devastation and pain that prejudice, hate, and fear cause.”

I do another workshop dealing with age issues. Part of my workshop deals with the question of whether it is realistic or unrealistic, right or wrong, fair or unfair to expect individuals of various generations to fulfill the expectations of other generations. The African American Hip Hop generation and the African American Civil Rights generation may have difficulty finding a common ground, as each has come from such a separate set of historic and cultural circumstances. The very socially conscious standards by which young, politically correct America lives are rooted in a history we don’t quite understand – because we have not lived through all of it. The same can be said of understanding cultures different from our own.

I know of an older white, not-well-educated gentleman who refers to African Americans as “colored.” He is visibly uncomfortable when his granddaughter brings home African American friends. Yet, he cannot say enough good things about his “colored” neighbor. They help each other out by shoveling each other’s sidewalks in the winter, and raking leaves in the autumn. Though the older white gentleman does not use the “politically correct” language of 2008, who would be so unkind as to call him a “racist” – throwing out his simple life with the trash? Can we learn nothing from our generation of elders, because we now have become so conscious and aware that we forget where we have come from, and where they have been?

The recently acclaimed movie “Crash” demonstrates such wisdom. Vignettes of various individuals expose their fears, biases, discriminatory behavior and sometimes outrageous affronts to human dignity. Seen through the lens of a single event, certain characters seem inhuman and cruel. Their humanity is brought to light however, when the lens is pulled back. Each individual is seen n the larger context of his or her whole life. With the “wider lens” the cruel and ignorant are shown to be compassionate and courageous. Likewise the conscious and educated are unveiled to have moments of scathing viciousness, oblivious unconcern, mercilessness, fear, and rage.

Arun Gandhi’s message is his whole life – not a momentary ill phrased sentiment born out of frustration at the continued violence between peoples.

So the “saint” has fallen from the pedestal he was unwillingly placed on in the first place. So he is, after all, human like the rest of us.

The only difference I see, he admits it.

If only those who profess such shock, disappointment, condemnation – could become self aware enough to recognize and admit freely, openly honestly their own human frailties, perhaps then the world would be well on its way towards developing what Arun has devoted his entire life, energy and resources to – a culture of peace.

Precisely because he has led such an exemplary life, Arun is more apt to be the target of our projections – We tell ourselves . . . “repressed biases, fears, hatred and anger are not in ME, but in HIM.” As anyone who has ever studied basic psychology knows, the stronger the reaction, the more likely the rejected characteristic or sentiment resides in the critic.

The war of words and impassioned protests reveal much pain. The pain was there before Arun wrote his blog, and was ready to explode at the slightest provocation. Perhaps in the quest to admit our angers, fears, and biases, we can also admit our pain, which may be the most painful of all. For to admit pain is to admit vulnerability, weakness, frailty, humanity, need . . . need for each other, for closeness, for healing, and for love. We don’t want to be separate form one another. Maybe we just don’t know how to be close.

Perhaps, in this way, this odd and distressing episode has opened the door for discussion.
May I suggest that we start with a measure of humility and a moment of silence . . . appreciation for each other, for our elders, for our children, for our selves, and for Arun Gandhi. He continues, in his own quiet way to show us the way. Can we quiet the screaming in our minds long enough to really listen . . . to really see?

Silence is good for those who can listen. But to be silenced through violence and threats to one's well being is an atrocity. We must stand up for those who refuse to remain mute. We must stand up for those whose voices are killed in the name of rightousness.

Free speech has become a confused topic in the internet age. Working things out through words was once a form of play – going back and forth – figuring out the puzzle of communication through dialogue and clarification. In terms of the journalism student in Afghanistan who has been sentenced to death for distributing an article that was considered an insult to the prophet Mohammed, it is especially tragic that those in positions of power quell their own demons by the slaughter of innocents. It is hard to believe that this kind of atrocity exists in this day and age – yet it exists in varying disguises everywhere we look. Of course – with the threat of violence and death – it is frightening to express any thought – any idea, for the ramifications have spiraled out of control and the realm or rationality. The current global atmosphere – whether in America or Afghanistan – is like an electronic age of McCarthism. No one feels safe.

Today, instead of healthy dialogue, a war of words ensues – and there are casualties. Arun Gandhi is a recent example.

Arun Gandhi has been speaking of and working towards peace and nonviolence for decades- and barely a ripple of outrage resulted concerning the violence he has condemned in all the societies and cultures and himself as well.

But in a moment of frustration with the continual violence he witnesses in the world, he made an ill-phrased commentary – a flurry of outraged, disappointed, rejecting emails and letters have found their way to the media.

Why this strong reaction – when his other words – decades of words and work towards peace and nonviolence, produced barely a murmur . . . ?

Unwittingly, Arun has provided a mirror for the rest of the world – in his one moment of a less than carefully crafted statement – a human response to a human tragedy, we see ourselves. Laid bare – our greatest fear –repressed, denied, hidden from our own conscious awareness – is that if Arun is not so perfect, perhaps WE are not so accepting, so inclusive, so good, so fair and just.

Arun has shown us our selves. We reject that part which we perceive as ugly, foreign, alien . . . human.

So Arun is human too, but now, those who harbor secret, unconscious, unacknowledged biases in their own hearts can gleefully, triumphantly point and condemn.

But there is a difference. Arun, in his humble, quiet way, seeks only peace and understanding between all peoples. He seeks only to understand and become aware of his own human limitations and frailties.

It is not enough, his critics shout. His humility, resignation, apologies, grief are not enough to quell the anger, hurt, disappointment, rage, fury that has risen to the surface. I ask . . . have you looked into your own heart? Could anyone who has taken the journey Arun has? Losing his beloved grandfather to an assassin’s bullet; watching his father and mother imprisoned for years in South African prisons as they worked for the end of apartheid; bullied and beat up growing up in South Africa because he was “too white for the blacks” and “too black for the whites”; rising above adversity and pain devoting his life to the promotion of peace, understanding, compassion and nonviolence; losing his dear wife just months ago to a long-term debilitating illness . . . Arun continues to work for the principles of nonviolence, peace, intercultural understanding, and love.

Years ago, I presented my diversity and nonviolence program to the Gandhi Institute. I was quite impressed by Arun’s willingness to learn, to grow, and receive by program . . . After all, he had spent his life studying nonviolence and had known people from around the world. But – he was not satisfied – he was open and utterly humble.
This was not the experience I had had with a number of other agencies and organizations where I had been invited to present my program. Usually the director or head of the organization “was too busy” to participate in the program, giving me the impression that he/she felt that the program had nothing to offer him/her. Obviously, from the position the director was in, he/she felt already knew pretty much all he/she needed to know. With Arun, it was completely different. He was not “self-satisfied,” believing he had all the answers. He actively sought a deeper understanding of himself and others. He showed me that he was a true seeker of truth, a rare human quality.

Those who want to pigeon-hole Arun under the label of anti-Semitic or bigot may find the following story particularly revealing.

In a discussion with Arun about “labels,” I mentioned to Arun that in my workshops I discouraged the use of the word/label “racist.” Though I acknowledge that racism exists, to label an individual as “racist” seemed to me to be yet another way people could reduce a person – minimizing their whole humanity so that the only thing people see when they encounter the person is the label. Arun’s answer gave me much pause. (Paraphrased) he said, “No, you must not call another person a racist. That would be wrong. But, I call myself a racist, because until I acknowledge this limitation in myself, I cannot address it. I cannot work to obliterate it if I deny that reality in myself, my thoughts and actions. We must not label others as “racist.” That is not for us to do. What each of us must do is to acknowledge racism in ourselves. Only then can we begin to understand the devastation and pain that prejudice, hate, and fear cause.”

I do another workshop dealing with age issues. Part of my workshop deals with the question of whether it is realistic or unrealistic, right or wrong, fair or unfair to expect individuals of various generations to fulfill the expectations of other generations. The African American Hip Hop generation and the African American Civil Rights generation may have difficulty finding a common ground, as each has come from such a separate set of historic and cultural circumstances. The very socially conscious standards by which young, politically correct America lives are rooted in a history we don’t quite understand – because we have not lived through all of it. The same can be said of understanding cultures different from our own.

I know of an older white, not-well-educated gentleman who refers to African Americans as “colored.” He is visibly uncomfortable when his granddaughter brings home African American friends. Yet, he cannot say enough good things about his “colored” neighbor. They help each other out by shoveling each other’s sidewalks in the winter, and raking leaves in the autumn. Though the older white gentleman does not use the “politically correct” language of 2008, who would be so unkind as to call him a “racist” – throwing out his simple life with the trash? Can we learn nothing from our generation of elders, because we now have become so conscious and aware that we forget where we have come from, and where they have been?

The recently acclaimed movie “Crash” demonstrates such wisdom. Vignettes of various individuals expose their fears, biases, discriminatory behavior and sometimes outrageous affronts to human dignity. Seen through the lens of a single event, certain characters seem inhuman and cruel. Their humanity is brought to light however, when the lens is pulled back. Each individual is seen n the larger context of his or her whole life. With the “wider lens” the cruel and ignorant are shown to be compassionate and courageous. Likewise the conscious and educated are unveiled to have moments of scathing viciousness, oblivious unconcern, mercilessness, fear, and rage.

Arun Gandhi’s message is his whole life – not a momentary ill phrased sentiment born out of frustration at the continued violence between peoples.

So the “saint” has fallen from the pedestal he was unwillingly placed on in the first place. So he is, after all, human like the rest of us.

The only difference I see, he admits it.

If only those who profess such shock, disappointment, condemnation – could become self aware enough to recognize and admit freely, openly honestly their own human frailties, perhaps then the world would be well on its way towards developing what Arun has devoted his entire life, energy and resources to – a culture of peace.

Precisely because he has led such an exemplary life, Arun is more apt to be the target of our projections – We tell ourselves . . . “repressed biases, fears, hatred and anger are not in ME, but in HIM.” As anyone who has ever studied basic psychology knows, the stronger the reaction, the more likely the rejected characteristic or sentiment resides in the critic.

The war of words and impassioned protests reveal much pain. The pain was there before Arun wrote his blog, and was ready to explode at the slightest provocation. Perhaps in the quest to admit our angers, fears, and biases, we can also admit our pain, which may be the most painful of all. For to admit pain is to admit vulnerability, weakness, frailty, humanity, need . . . need for each other, for closeness, for healing, and for love. We don’t want to be separate form one another. Maybe we just don’t know how to be close.

Perhaps, in this way, this odd and distressing episode has opened the door for discussion.
May I suggest that we start with a measure of humility and a moment of silence . . . appreciation for each other, for our elders, for our children, for our selves, and for Arun Gandhi. He continues, in his own quiet way to show us the way. Can we quiet the screaming in our minds long enough to really listen . . . to really see?

Silence is good for those who can listen. But to be silenced through violence and threats to one's well being is an atrocity. We must stand up for those who refuse to remain mute. We must stand up for those whose voices are killed in the name of rightousness.

Free speech has become a confused topic in the internet age. Working things out through words was once a form of play – going back and forth – figuring out the puzzle of communication through dialogue and clarification. In terms of the journalism student in Afghanistan who has been sentenced to death for distributing an article that was considered an insult to the prophet Mohammed, it is especially tragic that those in positions of power quell their own demons by the slaughter of innocents. It is hard to believe that this kind of atrocity exists in this day and age – yet it exists in varying disguises everywhere we look. Of course – with the threat of violence and death – it is frightening to express any thought – any idea, for the ramifications have spiraled out of control and the realm or rationality. The current global atmosphere – whether in America or Afghanistan – is like an electronic age of McCarthism. No one feels safe.

Today, instead of healthy dialogue, a war of words ensues – and there are casualties. Arun Gandhi is a recent example.

Arun Gandhi has been speaking of and working towards peace and nonviolence for decades- and barely a ripple of outrage resulted concerning the violence he has condemned in all the societies and cultures and himself as well.

But in a moment of frustration with the continual violence he witnesses in the world, he made an ill-phrased commentary – a flurry of outraged, disappointed, rejecting emails and letters have found their way to the media.

Why this strong reaction – when his other words – decades of words and work towards peace and nonviolence, produced barely a murmur . . . ?

Unwittingly, Arun has provided a mirror for the rest of the world – in his one moment of a less than carefully crafted statement – a human response to a human tragedy, we see ourselves. Laid bare – our greatest fear –repressed, denied, hidden from our own conscious awareness – is that if Arun is not so perfect, perhaps WE are not so accepting, so inclusive, so good, so fair and just.

Arun has shown us our selves. We reject that part which we perceive as ugly, foreign, alien . . . human.

So Arun is human too, but now, those who harbor secret, unconscious, unacknowledged biases in their own hearts can gleefully, triumphantly point and condemn.

But there is a difference. Arun, in his humble, quiet way, seeks only peace and understanding between all peoples. He seeks only to understand and become aware of his own human limitations and frailties.

It is not enough, his critics shout. His humility, resignation, apologies, grief are not enough to quell the anger, hurt, disappointment, rage, fury that has risen to the surface. I ask . . . have you looked into your own heart? Could anyone who has taken the journey Arun has? Losing his beloved grandfather to an assassin’s bullet; watching his father and mother imprisoned for years in South African prisons as they worked for the end of apartheid; bullied and beat up growing up in South Africa because he was “too white for the blacks” and “too black for the whites”; rising above adversity and pain devoting his life to the promotion of peace, understanding, compassion and nonviolence; losing his dear wife just months ago to a long-term debilitating illness . . . Arun continues to work for the principles of nonviolence, peace, intercultural understanding, and love.

Years ago, I presented my diversity and nonviolence program to the Gandhi Institute. I was quite impressed by Arun’s willingness to learn, to grow, and receive by program . . . After all, he had spent his life studying nonviolence and had known people from around the world. But – he was not satisfied – he was open and utterly humble.
This was not the experience I had had with a number of other agencies and organizations where I had been invited to present my program. Usually the director or head of the organization “was too busy” to participate in the program, giving me the impression that he/she felt that the program had nothing to offer him/her. Obviously, from the position the director was in, he/she felt already knew pretty much all he/she needed to know. With Arun, it was completely different. He was not “self-satisfied,” believing he had all the answers. He actively sought a deeper understanding of himself and others. He showed me that he was a true seeker of truth, a rare human quality.

Those who want to pigeon-hole Arun under the label of anti-Semitic or bigot may find the following story particularly revealing.

In a discussion with Arun about “labels,” I mentioned to Arun that in my workshops I discouraged the use of the word/label “racist.” Though I acknowledge that racism exists, to label an individual as “racist” seemed to me to be yet another way people could reduce a person – minimizing their whole humanity so that the only thing people see when they encounter the person is the label. Arun’s answer gave me much pause. (Paraphrased) he said, “No, you must not call another person a racist. That would be wrong. But, I call myself a racist, because until I acknowledge this limitation in myself, I cannot address it. I cannot work to obliterate it if I deny that reality in myself, my thoughts and actions. We must not label others as “racist.” That is not for us to do. What each of us must do is to acknowledge racism in ourselves. Only then can we begin to understand the devastation and pain that prejudice, hate, and fear cause.”

I do another workshop dealing with age issues. Part of my workshop deals with the question of whether it is realistic or unrealistic, right or wrong, fair or unfair to expect individuals of various generations to fulfill the expectations of other generations. The African American Hip Hop generation and the African American Civil Rights generation may have difficulty finding a common ground, as each has come from such a separate set of historic and cultural circumstances. The very socially conscious standards by which young, politically correct America lives are rooted in a history we don’t quite understand – because we have not lived through all of it. The same can be said of understanding cultures different from our own.

I know of an older white, not-well-educated gentleman who refers to African Americans as “colored.” He is visibly uncomfortable when his granddaughter brings home African American friends. Yet, he cannot say enough good things about his “colored” neighbor. They help each other out by shoveling each other’s sidewalks in the winter, and raking leaves in the autumn. Though the older white gentleman does not use the “politically correct” language of 2008, who would be so unkind as to call him a “racist” – throwing out his simple life with the trash? Can we learn nothing from our generation of elders, because we now have become so conscious and aware that we forget where we have come from, and where they have been?

The recently acclaimed movie “Crash” demonstrates such wisdom. Vignettes of various individuals expose their fears, biases, discriminatory behavior and sometimes outrageous affronts to human dignity. Seen through the lens of a single event, certain characters seem inhuman and cruel. Their humanity is brought to light however, when the lens is pulled back. Each individual is seen n the larger context of his or her whole life. With the “wider lens” the cruel and ignorant are shown to be compassionate and courageous. Likewise the conscious and educated are unveiled to have moments of scathing viciousness, oblivious unconcern, mercilessness, fear, and rage.

Arun Gandhi’s message is his whole life – not a momentary ill phrased sentiment born out of frustration at the continued violence between peoples.

So the “saint” has fallen from the pedestal he was unwillingly placed on in the first place. So he is, after all, human like the rest of us.

The only difference I see, he admits it.

If only those who profess such shock, disappointment, condemnation – could become self aware enough to recognize and admit freely, openly honestly their own human frailties, perhaps then the world would be well on its way towards developing what Arun has devoted his entire life, energy and resources to – a culture of peace.

Precisely because he has led such an exemplary life, Arun is more apt to be the target of our projections – We tell ourselves . . . “repressed biases, fears, hatred and anger are not in ME, but in HIM.” As anyone who has ever studied basic psychology knows, the stronger the reaction, the more likely the rejected characteristic or sentiment resides in the critic.

The war of words and impassioned protests reveal much pain. The pain was there before Arun wrote his blog, and was ready to explode at the slightest provocation. Perhaps in the quest to admit our angers, fears, and biases, we can also admit our pain, which may be the most painful of all. For to admit pain is to admit vulnerability, weakness, frailty, humanity, need . . . need for each other, for closeness, for healing, and for love. We don’t want to be separate form one another. Maybe we just don’t know how to be close.

Perhaps, in this way, this odd and distressing episode has opened the door for discussion.
May I suggest that we start with a measure of humility and a moment of silence . . . appreciation for each other, for our elders, for our children, for our selves, and for Arun Gandhi. He continues, in his own quiet way to show us the way. Can we quiet the screaming in our minds long enough to really listen . . . to really see?

Silence is good for those who can listen. But to be silenced through violence and threats to one's well being is an atrocity. We must stand up for those who refuse to remain mute. We must stand up for those whose voices are killed in the name of rightousness.

Thomas, Thomas, Thomas,

You are possessed by a demon of the demented. Consider an exorcism!!!!

TO SPIDERMAN 2:

You made some comments about heaven and hell.

Do you realize that if you go to heaven or to hell that you are going to God?

God is a consumming Fire of Pure Love.

In Heaven that consumming Fire will caress you.

In hell it will burn you.

Jesus, Himself, went to hell considering that He took all of the wrongdoing of all humanity upon Himself.

Some people seem to get the impression that if they put the right label on themselves then that is their ticket to the so-called "good place".

By the way seperation from God is totally different, that is "Spiritual Death".

Jesus is Who He said that He Is and He won the keys to both hell and death and He will use them in due time.

As I have said before and I repeat: God is a searcher of hearts and minds not of religious affiliations or lack thereof.

It is important what you do and why you do it and what you know.

God is a Trinity and is Pure Love.

God is not even remotely like what some of the people that know His Name are spewing out.

Take care, be ready, night is coming but the seventh day shall also arrive, see you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

"Do Islamic beliefs preclude freedom of speech?"

Thank you for a needed question. For an answer research the many lawsuits threatened and/or initiated by most American Muslim associations.

There is a "LEGAL JIHAD" being waged against the unbeliever's ability to speak..

The Speech That CAIR Didn't Want You To Hear-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J34Ub8q2niE

What about the Muslim's ability to speak openly? They flood the internet teaching their "world view" propaganda..

call for muslim unity

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxikMCftbT4

The question is:

"Do Islamic beliefs preclude freedom of speech?"

Please make your own decision.

There is no law that governs perfection and the people in heaven are perfect therefore they have all the freedom they have. Perfection is above any law.

On the other hand, there is no freeedom in Hell. All their rights are altogether taken away. You can't even touch a part of your body if it hurts.

moody-

why don't you tell us how you REALLY feel??

Moody, Moody, Moody,

More historic reality for you to peruse:

Indeed we are "surrounded" by one billion Muslims in this easy-accessible modern world. With the koran as their guide, they have been shouting "death to the infidels" for the last 1400 years not just since 1948.

The problem now is that we can hear and smell the stench of their warmongering message.

The solution: Delete the flaws in the koran and "pink slip" all the "red-neck" imams. "Pink-slipping" all the "red neck" Christian preachers, "profits" and priests and "we are the chosen" rabbis is also part of the solution.

Hmmm, if you trace it all back to the origins of the three major religions claiming Abraham as founder/father, you find the "pretty wingie thinges" as the essence and essentials of it all.

This then is the experience of it all and results in one major conclusion:

"Abrahamic” religions are hallucination-based and it is now time to end the charade!!!!

Don't tell us SITTING AT DISTANCE, that we shouldn't be offended.
Go first abuse IN EVERY POSSIBLE WORD,
- the person present next to you, or
- your parents or
- your love ones.
And then tell us how do you FEEL?
(I guess VERY CONTENTED, HAPPY & GOOD according to your freedom of speech???)
&
And "THEN TELL US FIRST" how open heartedly your abused FALLAS accepted your EVERY POSSIBLE WAY verbal abuse?
Now "GO LOOK into the mirror".

In Islam,

Muslims DIFFRENCIATE between

- Free Speech (which is acceptable)

&

-Vulgar, obscene, insulting, abusive Slurs (which are not acceptable in Islam, UNLIKE WESTERN TRADITIONS WHERE EVERY THING GOES).

AND MR. "CCNL" IS ONE OF THE PREDOMINENT EXAMPLE OF IT!!!

CCNL,

You are still standing there? Haven't made up your mind to jump?

Go Go Hurry!

DITCH!!!!!!

Moody,

The following are not slurs but historic reality. Muslims unfortunately do not know the difference.

Actually your former sister Muslim, Ayaan Hirsi Ali covers some of the reality of the Islamic situation in her book, Infidel.

The summary of said book :

"Thus begins the extraordinary story of a woman born into a family of desert nomads, circumcised as a child, educated by radical imams in Kenya and Saudi Arabia, taught to believe that if she uncovered her hair, terrible tragedies would ensue. It's a story that, with a few different twists, really could have led to a wretched life and a lonely death, as her grandmother warned. But instead, Hirsi Ali escaped -- and transformed herself into an internationally renowned spokeswoman for the rights of Muslim women."

More historic reality:

The fact is that Mohammed was a womanizing, illiterate, greed-driven, warmongering Arab whose closest encounter with Allah i.e. the "it thingie" or a "pretty wingie thingie" was in some hot cave during a 30 day fast filled with hallucinations i.e. the koran is not some heavenly document but sayings and passages borrowed, stolen and/or plagiarized from the Babylonians, Macedonians, Greeks, Romans, Persians, Egyptians and of all people the Jews.

And let us not forget the Islamic stench and reality of the koran that resulted in the recent assassination of Benazir Bhutto!!!!!!

we used to have a sarcastic saying, back in the halcyon sixties days of Nixonia.. which one of the three words "freedom of speech" do you not understand?
Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from responsibility for ones word, or for the results of those words.
I suppose from a religious point of view, almost every faith mandates some form of censorship, mostly to do with worshipping graven idols and such, but socially it should be the aim of each democratic society to encourage/demand opinion and ideas since it is only by such free expression of ideas that we move forward. It should always be remembered that speech is not, nor should it ever be confused with, action... "sticks and stones etc..."
As for the much attacked Mr Ghandi, and his now notorious presumed bigotted attack, we appear to have neatly sidestepped his underlying point... that it is likely to eventually reduce sympathy if any group continues to act and talk and posture like victims long after the attacks are over. This is the same process that is happening in Europe and the rest of the world towards the US and it's 9/11 events. The rest of the world has a history of being attacked in devastating ways and got over it, for the most part.
As for the screams of anti-semitism every time ANYONE says anything negative about Jews, Israel or Judaism, eventually the words of the message will be heard, regardless of the personal attacks. Mr Ghandi, who may well have phrased his dissertation differently to cause less of a knee-jerk reaction, should certainly be above such venemous attacks, given his life's work and it's focus.
Perhaps the very verbal violence that his words have produced proves his point...
I am curious as to why a forum SUPPOSEDLY dedicated to a "conversation on religion" should so readily cave in to admitting the "crime" of "offending", and seek to censure one of it's leading lights. Shame on you all, - after all mindless and virulent pro-semitism is no better than it's opposite.

In Islam,

Muslims DIFFRENCIATE between

- Free Speech (which is acceptable)

&

-Vulgar, obscene, insulting, abusive Slurs (which are not acceptable in Islam, UNLIKE WESTERN TRADITIONS WHERE EVERY THING GOES).

Do islamic beliefs preclude freedom of speech ? Yes,absolutely.Yes,absolutely.

Quran 33.36 definitely rejects all freedoms.
Dissident is not islamic concept.Human Rights,Democracy and Contemporary Values are not compatible with islam/the cult of bedouin.

This is precisely why church and state must never overlap.

This is why the US Constitution and others like it are heroic documents.

Deflaw the Qu'ran all you want, the problem is NOT some ancient text, the problem is political.

The problem is a fundamental definition of what a law is, how it is adjudicated, and how it is enforced. The problem is a sense of justice, and a sense of scale. The problem is unbalanced and unchecked power applied without the consent of the unempowered. The problem is immoral leadership. The problem is people. Unthinking, uncritical, sleeping people with the power of life and death over ordinary people trying to actively live and learn and love.

I wish it was as simple as muhammed being the rotten root, but it is growing in the cracks of boulders put in place by abraham and jesus, eternal suffering unto them ALL!

But the most suffering to the present-day idiots who look back on these figures and find the temerity to pass themselves off as called by god to exercise his absolute authority according to their brainless whims and justify their actions with scripture.

--FIUS

Daniel in the Lions' Den,

The Sunnis and Shiites have been killing and maiming each other for the last 800 years. If anything the brutality has gotten worse thanks to the blood money of oil profits.

Comments like the following show clearly the hatred:

From: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD

"Al-Sistani (Iraq) was apparently referring to Abdullah bin Jabrain, a key member of Saudi Arabia's clerical establishment, who last month joined a chorus of other senior figures from the hardline Wahhabi school of Sunni Islam that regards Shiites as infidels.

Bin Jabrain described Shiites as "the most vicious enemy of Muslims."

And it "ain't any better" in Palestine or Pakistan.

Kafir:

You said:

"I am not sure the world can lean back and relax and take the attitude that the muslims are merely following the footsteps of the christians and so let them for the next 500 years..."

That is not the impression I was trying to convey. I was making a somewhat stoic observation. Being stoic is not the same as leaning back and relaxing; being stoic means trying to remain calm, even though there may be much to fear.

I do not think it will take 500 years for Islam to pass through "their own phase;" everything is accelerated now; Islam is surrounded and bound up in a secular world, old Christendom had to work it all out alone.

Daniel in the Den,

You are correct that the sectarian war within christianity saw many burned at the stake and many beheaded. The difference is that then the weapons were crude and the killing could only be done slowly. Now you have Ahmedinejad telling that the end of Israel is very very near and the world thinks that they will have weapons to kill millions. The two handicapped women who had bombs tied to them and someone blew them up using remote radio signal in Iraq today killed 90 humans. Pakistani Army killed 3 million Bangladeshi's in 1971 because the Bangalis were not fully muslims. In Darfur millions have been killed because the victims do not match the religious standards of the killers. I am not sure the world can lean back and relax and take the attitude that the muslims are merely following the footsteps of the christians and so let them for the next 500 years, for that is how long the christian sectarian wars lasted. I doubt humanity would survive. Some have suggested that is precisely what Ahmadinejad wants because he does want to hasten the coming of the Mahdi (the last Savior) before Armageddon and the wrapping up of creation by Allah.

Mr. Concious writes: "What is freedom of speech.. freedom of speech is not to insult to whoever you want. Respect to eachother's divines and beleives is the essence of a non trouble environment..."

Examining and Questioning of each other's divines is not insulting. It is not mocking. If you cannot question freely and openly, then you cannot learn, you cannot think, and you cannot improve.

1. Is it insulting to muslim's to ask why is it that the Allah of the Quran ordains crucifixion and cutting of limbs for humans? These are inhumane punishments, these are equivalent to death by torture, and Kafirs have rejected such barbarity a long time ago. Why does Allah order such savagery for humans?

2. Is it insulting to ask muslim's why did Muhammad torture to death the Ukl tribesmen when he burnt their eyes, cut of their limbs, and let them bleed to death under a hot sun, and denied them water when they begged for it as they were being bled to death?

3. Is it insulting to ask muslims, given that the Quran has 6 to 10 verses where Allah explicitly tells the Muslims not to take christians and jews as friends, whether there is anything in the Quran where Allah tells the Muslims to ever befriend the Kafirs?

4. Is it insulting to ask muslims why do the muslims always tell that in Islam there is "no compulsion in Islam" but anyone who wants to renounce Islam is to be put to death and has been put to death since the time of Muhammad?

There are many more such questions that ex-muslims want to ask of muslims, but we cannot ask because the muslims consider asking any questions as insulting and they go on a killing rampage. Why such a sensitivity to questions that humans have to be killed?

That Christianity and Islam are mirrors of each other is obvious to me. It is stark, and when you think about it, even a little humorous.

When Martin Luther began his movement to question the doctrinal authority of Rome, he was summoned to Rome to present his case. But he did not go. Why?

Because, in the time before him, there was another reformer, John Huss. He likewise was summoned to Rome, to present his case. He made the mistake of going, and was burned at the stake.

Christians ought not to present themselves as superior to Muslims in these matters. All the injustices that are committed in the name of Islam and in the name of Mohammed, and in the name of Allah, have been all done before in the name of the Christianity, and in the name of Jesus, and in the name of God.

They are following along in our foot steps, travelling the path, almost exactly, that we have trod, already.

My apologies for the triple post. This message board script is rotten.

There is something intrinsically wrong with a religion that allows and even promotes violence under certain circumstances. A religion that was founded by a man who is known to have had a hand in killing hundreds, if not thousands, of his fellow men and women. Muhammad was not a man of peace. He was a violent, ignorant thug who constantly fought with his neighbors. Do a search for the Battle of Badr. Search for the Battle of Mu'tah. The Battle of Hunayn. The Siege of Ta'if.

If the root is rotten, how can the fruit possibly be any good? Islam was founded upon a lie.

There is something intrinsically wrong with a religion that allows and even promotes violence under certain circumstances. A religion that was founded by a man who is known to have had a hand in killing hundreds, if not thousands, of his fellow men and women. Muhammad was not a man of peace. He was a violent, ignorant thug who constantly fought with his neighbors. Do a search for the Battle of Badr. Search for the Battle of Mu'tah. The Battle of Hunayn. The Siege of Ta'if.

If the root is rotten, how can the fruit possibly be any good? Islam was founded upon a lie.

There is something intrinsically wrong with a religion that allows and even promotes violence under certain circumstances. A religion that was founded by a man who is known to have had a hand in killing hundreds, if not thousands, of his fellow men and women. Muhammad was not a man of peace. He was a violent, ignorant thug who constantly fought with his neighbors. Do a search for the Battle of Badr. Search for the Battle of Mu'tah. The Battle of Hunayn. The Siege of Ta'if.

If the root is rotten, how can the fruit possibly be any good? Islam is founded upon a lie.

"The Sins of Islam"

The sins of the koran and Islam go with you no matter where you go.

As a reminder:

Islam is not perfect and the koran inherently condones sin as shown 24/7 in the 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites. Their actions give significant credence that greed, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of anger and greed.

Free speech concept does not exist in Islam. It does not exist in the Quran. Allah really does not like people asking questions for questioning leads to loss of faith.

005.101
YUSUFALI: O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble. But if ye ask about things when the Qur'an is being revealed, they will be made plain to you, Allah will forgive those: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Forbearing.

005.102
YUSUFALI: Some people before you did ask such questions, and on that account lost their faith.

What is freedom of speech.. freedom of speech is not to insult to whoever you want. Respect to eachother's divines and beleives is the essence of a non trouble environment...

"His alleged offense was distributing to classmates a report, printed from a Web site, commenting on a Muslim woman's right to multiple marriages. The article, written in Farsi, which is close to the Dari language spoken in Afghanistan, questioned why men are allowed to have four spouses in Islam while women are denied the same right."

It won't do to have the women getting uppity.

And the On Faith panelists throw yet another bone to the anti-theists among us...

For the record, yes, religion does promote a single way of looking at the world. This is because religion is occupied with seeking spiritual Truth (capitalization intended). However, many religious people tend to try to impose that Truth on others instead of convincing them of its validity. That's where these problems come from.

This situation only reinforces the following call:

"NO ONE IS SAFE UNTIL THE KORAN IS "DEFLAWED"!!!!!!!!!!!!

Freedom of speech is not a religious concept.

Democracy is not a religious concept.

There are no votes in heaven, neither is there freedom of speech in heaven.

Heaven is a kingdom. Kingdoms are run by kings. Kings by definition are dictators, no matter how benign.

Do not the religious endeavor to bring the tenets of heaven to bear on earth? What need has religion of freedom of speech on earth when none is allowed in heaven?