All Comments (530)

You gotta be kidding with that part about your "Muslim faith" and Enlightenment sensibilities, with particular emphasis on your Muslim faith which when placed with enlightenment, becomes a moronic oxymoron. As laughable as gay Muslims, or Nazi Jews, might as well, as laughable as enlightened Muslims.

Look, Muslims can be good and enlightened anyways, and you don't need Islam for that. So it's not ad hominem, it's just Islam I have a bone to pick with. The Quran has peaceful verses that are abrogated by violent verses. If it's supposed to be good, then why the violent verses? If it's so open to various interpretations, then why have it in the first place?

But you claiming to be a progressive Muslim clearly attests to your playing taqqiyah. But you conveniently pick the good and leave the bad and attribute your enlightened sensibilities to a cult that wants no reason and pluralism, that very essence you believe in which can never be synonymous with the cult of Islam.

As an ex-Muslim, I know very well what the faith teaches and there is no way you can whitewash the cruelty, absolutism and divisiveness that faith teaches by conveniently applying your own good principles which I'm sure aren't derived from the religion. Unless of course you focus on the good stuff from the book and ignore the rest. Is it really your Muslim faith that wishes her no harm?

Let me just mention that although I prefer the eradication of this evil cult and everyone discarding this dark burkha of blind faith, I do think a secularized Islam is way better than the real Islam who teaches Muslims to slay the non-believers wherever ye find them. But the blatant contradiction of progressiveness and Islam is undeniable.

Kudos to Eboo Patel for this excellent, insightful and spot on article.

I recommend all the people on this webpage to visit this website on Youtube and see for themselves to what extent Ayaan Hirsi Ali fabricated her entire life story down to her name and age in order to be accepted as an asylum seeker in the Netherlands -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z82C10myBmM&feature=related

I do not think she deserves much in the way of true credibility given the sheer magnitude of her lies and concoctions that led to her Dutch citizenship and political stardom in the first place.

Why should there be any limitations on what someone writes about religion or anything else? What is so sacroscant about Islam or Mohammed? If someone wants to write something however controversial, he or she should be accorded the full freedom to do so. In India, a well known poet of Bengal (Sunil Gangopadhay) has written terrible things about a popular Hindu diety. But Hindus in India did not go on a rampage to ban the poem much less kill the poet. He is living hale and hearty in calcutta.

So I have only one word for Muslims who take a hard line against writers critical of Islam and Mohammed. Grow up! If there is any fatwa on killing such writers, the country's legal system should lock up the fatwa-issuers as criminals issuing death threats. Such threats should not be permitted in modern, civil societies. Unfortunately, this is only one aspect of how Islamic countries differ from others in the world.

This whole fatwa issuing business and going on a violent rampage if someone critices Islam and the prophet are signs of extreme immaturity. The relevant question is how Muslims can evolve their societies into progressive modern ones instead on being stuck in the Middle Ages.

Hang on.Did that guy just say that muslims should be expelled from scandinavia?? That`s scary.Thank God I`m not living in Europe or the USA.So much hatred.
I was reading somewhere that a US politician has even recommended the use of a nuclear device, on Mecca and Medina, in the event that America is attacked by terrorists who happen to be Muslim.
Dutch politician calls for the banning of the Quran.
It`s not a good time to be a muslim in the western world.
All at the same time that the USA continues to illegally occupy iraq and afghanistan and is talking of going to war with iran.
Guantamo is still not closed.Hundreds of people are kept there years after they were arrested and never charged.
Some of them have been realeased after years without being charged.
A campaign poster in Switzerland recently showed a veiled muslim woman next to a junkie.
Another one showed three white lambs kicking a black one off a Swiss flag.
What next?? Maybe concentration camps in a few years time..

Hang on.Did that guy just say that muslims should be expelled from scandinavia?? That`s scary.Thank God I`m not living in Europe or the USA.So much hatred.
I was reading somewhere that a US politician even recommended the use of a nuclear device, on Mecca and Medina, in the event that next time America is attacked by terrorists who happen to be Muslim.
Dutch politician calls for the banning of the Quran.
It`s not a good time to be a muslim in the western world.
All at the same time that the USA continues to illegally occupy iraq and afghanistan and is talking of going to war with iran.
Guantamo is still not closed.Hundreds of people are kept there years after they were arrested and never charged.
Some of them have been realeased after years without being charged.
A campaign poster in Switzerland recently showed a veiled muslim woman next to a junkie.
Another one showed three white lambs kicking a black one off a Swiss flag.
What next?? Maybe concentration camps in a few years time..

Hang on.Did that guy just say that muslims should be expelled from scandinavia?? That`s scary.Thank God I`m not living in Europe or the USA.So much hatred.
I was reading somewhere that a US politician even recommended the use of a nuclear device, on Mecca and Medina, in the event that next time America is attacked by terrorists who happen to be Muslim.
Dutch politician calls for the banning of the Quran.
It`s not a good time to be a muslim in the western world.
All at the same time that the USA continues to illegally occupy iraq and afghanistan and is talking of going to war with iran.
Guantamo is still not closed.Hundreds of people are kept there years after they were arrested and never charged.
Some of them have been realeased after years without being charged.
A campaign poster in Switzerland recently showed a veiled muslim woman next to a junkie.
Another one showed three white lambs kicking a black one off a Swiss flag.
What next?? Maybe concentration camps in a few years time..

Hang on.Did that guy just say that muslims should be expelled from scandinavia?? That`s scary.Thank God I`m not living in Europe or the USA.So much hatred.
I was reading somewhere that a US politician even recommended the use of a nuclear device, on Mecca and Medina, in the event that next time America is attacked by terrorists who happen to be Muslim.
Dutch politician calls for the banning of the Quran.
It`s not a good time to be a muslim in the western world.
All at the same time that the USA continues to illegally occupy iraq and afghanistan and is talking of going to war with iran.
Guantamo is still not closed.Hundreds of people are kept there years after they were arrested and never charged.
Some of them have been realeased after years without being charged.
A campaign poster in Switzerland recently showed a veiled muslim woman next to a junkie.
Another one showed three white lambs kicking a black one off a Swiss flag.
What next?? Maybe concentration camps in a few years time..

She may be repulsive to your Muslim faith, but your Muslim faith and reverence for Muhammad, the devil's prophet, are repulsive to me and should be repulsive to all who are "enlightened". Islam is the religion of the devil!

Was moses a terrorist?
see my video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYvYd-7hi_Q

Shalom.

mr hefron- i refer you to october 20th, 2:25 pm on this very blog
there are 3 posts, read them and click on the amman message for further reading if you like

There must be many Muslim Americans who will speak out loudly against any idea of a Global Caliphate; of operating under the Sharia; of eschewing Dhimminitude. These stances would, like our Founders, be enlightened. And I'd then bet that your rather cruel castigation of free thinking Ms. Ali might then be refuted.

heres a link to the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998

later it was thrown in the face of congress by bush as proof that they had given him a "promisory note go to war with iraq' card-
(not my words, chris matthews)

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm

pundits are speculating this latest action may be used in the future as a go ahead for war-

(the action against the iranian military- first in history

Isn't this a joke; the terrorist state of US_Israel accuses the Iranian military of being a terrorist organization. Hilarious

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/24/AR2007102402758_pf.html

a round of drinks for all my friends!
(charles bukowski- barfly-the movie)

thanks for calling my attention to that-

that really made my night-

no- that really was an excellent question for me-
(as i wasnt aware of your small confusion and wouldnt have been until you shared it)

and im delghted to come upon that website which i wouldnt have without the question-
i also submited a form of it to the jursiprudents at amman-

as for the hell question- it has bothered me for some time-
i think i told you my boycotting heaven til hitler goets in story- (got me kicked out of bible study at 14)

i do know this story but will paraphrase it -
(again im terrible at keeping track of things ive read- im really glad i have that link to jamal badawi as i couldnt get back to it- i have to recreate my thinking process to get back to sites sometimes- also i found the fatwa site you asked for but didnt link it as i kept reading and forgot why i was reading- ill find it again insha'alla)

there was a man - who prayed every day on time -fasted- did hajj- everything good and islamically correct- but nearing the very end of his life he committed a grave sin-(maybe adultery- one of the big ones)
there was a (lets say) woman- who lived a profligates promiscuous life- but at the very end embraced islam-

it is said that the woman gained entrance to paradise and the man- his fate is unknown and up to ALLAH_

this is a poor relating-

but the point (for me) is this-

we just dont know-
we cannot judge what is in anothers heart- or what their condition will be in the future-

i look at every single person as a potential muslim- and i dont mean that in a join my club way- or theyre lost i hope they see the light way-

i mean that as a potential companion in paradise-
and i look at muslims too and think they may be a potential loser of paradise in some way- maybe the drunk guy begging on the corner will be in - maybe the muslim praying next to me wil be out-

no one knows- i dont know for myself let alone anyone else

but i know for sure that the mercy and forgiveness of god is exponentially greater than my own- and i cannot think yet of the person i could condemn to hell- and ive seen a few in my life-
but in souls ive seen loneliness and alienation and some souls have really never ever been loved by anyone and are so gone and it is amazing but true- really desparate souls by their own reckoning beyond any possible redemption- people in prison for crimes of cruelty- i dont find any inhuman humans- but some very close-

who can even say- what fires and trials some need to go through-

ok-im off on a tangent- o and this is pretty long-

thanks for the heads up
that really mde my night
peace

Victoria,

Congratulations on winning your much deserved award! Check it out on the following link by The Jihadist posted at 5:56 PM:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_jacoby/2007/10/cooperate_or_die/all_comments.html

THE FIRST ANNUAL AWARDS FOR READER-POSTERS OF "ON FAITH" 2007

Prizes : free continued access to On Faith until award winners wants to stop or On Faith stop.

So.........the categories and nominees for "Most" and "Best" are..... (suspenseful drum-rolls):
...

Most patient and kind Muslim:
- Victoria

...

Hi Victoria,

Nah, it wasn’t a good question. I was confused again; it happens a lot with me. I was thinking of apostate as anyone who doesn’t accept Islam, like Christians and Jews, not to mention us atheists/agnostics.

So I shouldn’t have been asking you about apostasy, which means to renounce one’s religion. Of course, Islam wouldn’t have anything to say about a Christian or Jew who renounces his/her religion.

What I was really trying to get at is that we need some kind of Amman Message that would unite all religions, like the Sunnis and Shiites were united. This idea that, if you don’t think like I do, you are doomed to everlasting hell is really repugnant to me.

atually that article reminded me that amnesty international has been calling for the USA to be charged with genocide for hisroshima and nagasaki.

i dont think theres any other description that would fit what was done to the native americans either.

strange how one forgets these things
thanks for the reminder jon-
(although a sentence or two in the article about hiroshima or nagasaki would have been appropriate)

watched a documentary on pbs about the relationship between iran and america-

i wasnt aware that iran helped america after 911 go into afghanistan
i was aware that the iranians held vigils for us and thousands poured into the streets in support for america- ive posted that incident elsewhere-

one incredibly backhanded and sneeeeaky comment i heard from richard armitage had me really amazed at the usage of words.

when asked about the (apparently invaluable- not my opinion- ) intelligence and physical support given by iran to america wen they went into afghanistan-
he said they were "not unhelpful".

that took a second to sink in ,

doesnt that mean they were helpful?

it has never occurred to me to be so grudging in giving credit where it is due-

not unhelpful

that really blew my little mind

rick- really excellent question.

if a person leaves islam, they are no longer considered muslim ( i guess)so that umbrella of protection wouldnt apply to them.

christians and jews are people of the book , so to be an apostate, they have to leave their religion, become muslim, then leave islam.

i have been, on and off, researching it all day-

http://www.islamonline.net/English/contemporary/2006/04/article02.shtml

this is jamal badawi-
my first contact with islam as a social phenomena (and not theological) was in 1990- when i was given a series of tapes by him. 15 0r 20 i forget. 30 or 40 with both sides

i drove from n. cal to pttsburgh in a straight shot for 2 1/2 manic days and listened to them.

i was headed for the carmelite nunnery-
no kidding- (serious stuff)
he is really one of the best minds in north america.

so im delighted to give his link on apostasy

synopsis-
there is no instance where the Prophet(pbuh) ever killed anyone for apostasy, but a hadeeth where he let an apostate go unmolested and unquestioned

also there is the treay of - o i can never remember that name- habadiya or something- if i go to the link itll be too hard to get back in here- but it ws always a craw in my throat on the subject- where he sent many muslims back to mecca who were certain to become apostates.

also it is not in the qu'ran at all

the only place it occurs or is mentioned, is in a verse that clearly states that the judgement comes only from ALLAH-

so the answer is uneqivocally NO.
yay

but great question

CTCNL,

Did you see the Solar Decathlon Home competition on PBS News Hour tonight?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/science/solar_homes/slideshow/index.php

The Solar Village

Twenty college and university teams competed in the Department of Energy's third Solar Decathlon. Each team's challenge was to design and build a fully functioning energy-efficient solar-powered house on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. Details on the solar homes come from the Solar Decathlon's Web site.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/solar/?campaign=pbshomefeatures_1_novabrsavedbythesun_2007-10-23

Neat stuff!

Thanks Jon for the thought provoking article. The prognosis is not good.

We are all “terrorists”, whether we are the individual suicide bomber striking back the only way that he can, or the terrorist state of US_Israel, raining tons of bombs from a thousand feet up to usurp the lands and oil fields of the rightful owners.

Henry Kissinger has an op-ed in WP today about the planned peace conference at Annapolis next month. For some reason they never post his articles on their web site as they do their other stories, so I will summarize.

He notes that …for most of its history Israel has rejected the notion of a Palestinian state, insisted on an undivided Jerusalem as its capital and refused to permit a return of Palestinian refugees. The Arab states have matched Israeli refusals by refusing to recognize Israel in any borders…

…The intifada and global momentum of radical Islamism have brought home to the Israeli public and leadership that their state is threatened by four new and growing dangers: first, an altered security environment in which the principal threat is not so much conventional wars as terrorist attacks from groups with no defined geography and operating from small, mobile bases; second, the demographic challenge, because the alternative to a two-state solution could become a single state in which the Jewish population is a minority; third, the existential threat of nuclear proliferation, particularly from Iran; and fourth, an international environment in which Israel finds itself increasingly isolated because of the growing perception in Western-Europe and in small but influential U.S. circles that Israel’s alleged intransigence is the cause of Arab hostility toward the West…

…As a general diplomatic rule, it is expected that the parties to an agreement…are able to deliver. In the proposed diplomacy, the interlocutors on both sides have extremely shaky domestic positions…

…The statement of Iran’s supreme leader last week attacking the Palestinian peace process and warning Arab states not to participate is likely to be the beginning of a systematic campaign…

What are the odds of achieving peace as a result of this conference? Zero

The best move for the Israelis would be to vacate their 5+ million citizens from Palestine and bring them to Texas.

As twice proven now, in Vietnam and Iraq, the Powel Doctrine of overwhelming military force is dead. It cannot defeat the insurgent who swims in the sea of the people.

Combining the ANNIHILATING POWER of Hiroshima with the NIHILISTIC GOSPEL of Auschwitz.

From the H-Bomb to the Human Bomb
André Glucksmann- the Thinking Frenchman

"A pitiless new day is dawning. The powers of the inhuman and the efficacy of hatreds mutate dangerously. A generation that worked diligently to tame the threat of nuclear war finds itself driven toward a horizon more frightening to contemplate than the one it dreamed of avoiding. Now it must try again to think the unthinkable, to leave the era of the H-bomb and enter the time of the human bomb."

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_modern_terrorism.html

Hi Victoria,

You say:

“for instance- NONE OF US CAN ARROGATE OURSELVES TO CALL ANOTHER AN APOSTATE.

if we cannot call another muslim an apostate- who is there left to condemn?”

Well, you could call Christians and Jews apostates. What say ye about that?

I notice that the 2nd of the Three Points of the Amman Message said:

2. Based upon this definition they forbade takfir (declarations of apostasy) between Muslims.

It’s too bad that they couldn’t have said the same about Christians and Jews.

FRENCH INTELLECTUALS LOVE AYAAN HIRSI ALI-

"Make Hirsi Ali honorary French citizen"
23 October 2007

PARIS – A group of French intellectuals are demanding that Ayaan Hirsi Ali be given honorary French citizenship and that France provide the former politician with the protection that the Netherlands no longer wants to provide now that she lives in the US.

In a petition in the newspaper Libération the intellectuals express annoyance at the "unacceptable cowardice of a European government." The petition is signed by among others philosophers Bernard-Henri Lévy, Alain Finkielkraut and André Glucksmann.

http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=1&story_id=45201
"Europe was the cradle of the Enlightenment tradition," says the declaration, "and Western values must guarantee freedom of expression."

i wish there were some shia who could comment here as i am poorly equipped to do so

yes, that is the paragraph i was referring to when i said a small but important distinction,
thats why i capitalized the word HEIR- but now i realize i should have been clearer in saying that i (and history) disagreed with that asessment-

abu bakr was the closest companion of the Prophet(pbuh) and also the father of Aisha, and she was considered the final authority for any matter relating to the life and sayings of the Prophet(pbuh). without her, most of the hadeeth would have been lost and if there was a question, hers was the final say.

so it is interesting to see how alien that idea (of a woman being the authority in matters of intelligence- administration- even war making which aisha did)was to society at that time.

for instance, the only record we have of how to pray comes from the sunnah- or transmitted actions of the Prophet(pbuh)
there are no guidleines in the qu'ran-

even today it is interesting to see how these subtle but pervasive distinctions are made.

have you ever heard of a man doctor?
how about a woman doctor?

did it ever occur to you to call a male who is a doctor a man doctor?

why should a female be a woman doctor?

however the shia certainly have their own hadeeth.
i dont want to define shia for them- but i observe that ALi has a more central status than the Prophet(pbuh) in shi'ite modern practice.

one of the more exceelent points made by the council at amman was to define muslim.
it was an inclusive (of shia of course) definition and we can only benefit from that.

for instance- NONE OF US CAN ARROGATE OURSELVES TO CALL ANOTHER AN APOSTATE.

if we cannot call another muslim an apostate- who is there left to condemn?

actually- as ive contended- this is already an islamic condition.

IF A MUSLIM ACCUSES A BELIEVER OF BEING AN UNBELIEVER- AND THE ACCUSED IS INNOCENT- THE ACCUSER BECOMES AN UNBELIEVER THEMSELF.

this isn't idle or inconsequential

this is a very solid and enforced idea and an integral part of islamic social mores interwoven tightly into its fabric.

it is taboo to even suggest such a false thing-

that is why you never see muslims on these boards accuse each other of not being a muslim.
that is how i know that when someone questions my muslimhood- they are posers-

okay, enough of that for now.

peace

Here's another difference; the Shia do not accept the hadiths:

"Shia Muslims also feel animosity towards some of the companions of the Prophet Muhammad, based on their positions and actions during the early years of discord about leadership in the community. Many of these companions (Abu Bakr, Umar, Aisha, etc.) have narrated traditions about the Prophet's life and spiritual practice. Shia Muslims reject these traditions (hadith) and do not base any of their religious practices on the testimony of these individuals. This naturally gives rise to some differences in religious practice between the two groups. These differences touch all detailed aspects of religious life: prayer, fasting, pilgrimage, etc.

Sunni Muslims make up the majority (85%) of Muslims all over the world. Significant populations of Shia Muslims can be found in Iran and Iraq, and large minority communities in Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, and Lebanon.

It is important to remember that despite all of these differences in opinion and practice, Shia and Sunni Muslims share the main articles of Islamic belief and are considered by most to be brethren in faith. In fact, most Muslims do not distinguish themselves by claiming membership in any particular group, but prefer to call themselves simply, "Muslims."

http://islam.about.com/cs/divisions/f/shia_sunni.htm

Actually this paragraph that you quoted implies to me that the first four caliphs were decended from Muhammad, since the Sunnis believe that their decendents are also legitimate claiphs:

"The Sunni branch believes that the first four caliphs--Mohammed's successors--rightfully took his place as the leaders of Muslims. They recognize the HEIRS of the four caliphs as legitimate religious leaders. These HEIRS ruled continuously in the Arab world until the break-up of the Ottoman Empire following the end of the First World War."

Why would their decendents be legitimate heirs, if they themselves were not heirs of Muhammad?

Thanks Victoria,

I think I was confused because I thought that the first 3 Caliphs were related as father and son, and that the Sunnis wanted this, but the Shi'i did not.

I knew that was wrong after thinking about it, because I know that the Shi'i think that the Caliph must be decended from Ali.

Thanks again for the clarification!

no rick- sunnis DO NOT believe in creating a dynasty-
but they keep doing it.
the qu'ran states that any country headed by a king is destined to corruption
it also states clearly that it is the obligation of every muskim to speak out against the despotic tyrant-

The first 3 caliphs were NOT relatives of Muhammad(pbuh) or each other.
Ali, the 4th caliph was the cousin of the Prophet(pbuh). The shia contend that the caliphate should be kept within the descendants of the Prophet(pbuh) this is the specific issue that created the DIVISION between sunni and shia.

the caliphate is based upon who is most qualified, not who ones father is.

but people created dynasties, and then new caliphs would spring up in opposition to this trend- only to repeat the same behavior.
(kind of like "reform parties" that laways become that which they set out to oust (my own analogy)

the turkish caliphate descended predictably into corruption and indolence.

clearly saudi arabia is an example of the worst possibilty-
kings are anti-islam.

so to recap-
SHIA for the heirs of family ties
sunnis ostensibly against it- but in practice kept repeateing the same mistake

all sunni scholars agree that there should be no succesion based on family ties, but based on abilities of individuals.

the last caliphate was destroyed in turkey in 1924.

that was why i picked out that particular piece of the article-
as i said- its a small distinction and might seem like nit-picking-

but it stated the same thing you just did-
that sunnis BELIEVE in the heirs of caliphs succeding

this is not what the Prophet(pbuh) proposed
abu bakr was made caliph by the will of the people. he was shy to accept the mantle-
Ali showed no interest in it.
It wasnt until after umar an othman died that the people put Ali forth. when he died they proposed his son, who also abdicated immediately and went off to live his days peacefully.

at the death of the Prophet, it was is wife Aisha who became the main authority on the words and actions of the Prophet(pbuh)

all arguments about the validity of sayings were put before her. she was the final authority as she was reknown for her impeccable memory and obviously, her constant companionship.

it was because she was a female that made the followers of Ali reject her authority, although sunni everywhere accept her definitvely and it is hadeeth that come through her transmission that are the first and strongest.

the questionable hadeeth that state that she was a child when she consumated her marriage to the Prophet(pbuh) for instance, come from the (now)
iraqi dissidents who pushed Ali forth.
even though history puts her at 18 or so.

she is even today virulently hated by shia.

what is it that made you think the opposite?

Thanks for the clarification Victoria.

If I understand you correctly then, the Sunnis believe in a royal succession of Caliphates (Kings) much like England. Although England has taken the control of government away from the (symbolic) Royal Family, the Sunnis have not. The Shiites believe that there is no royalty, but rather all are equal, more like the U.S.

I think that another important distinction is that roughly 90% of all Muslims are Sunni. The 10% who are Shiite in Iran and southern Iraq are in the distinct minority.

hey i bet if you send a question to mr patel, he could really enlighten us all big time.
im stuck in some old hotmail server thingy and i havent figured out how to bypass it.

good posts rick-

if i was ideologically opposed to them - i would still compliment their logical and thorough coverage.

heres a tiny but very important distinction from your article by the history network

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The Sunni branch believes that the first four caliphs--Mohammed's successors--rightfully took his place as the leaders of Muslims. They recognize the HEIRS of the four caliphs as legitimate religious leaders. These HEIRS ruled continuously in the Arab world until the break-up of the Ottoman Empire following the end of the First World War."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

it is actually an enormous distinction between shia-sunni.

Sunni's look to the Prophet(pbuh) saying that his heirs were to be treated no differently than any other muslim. And no dynasty was to be created from his descendants, no special treatment, favors etc...

The first 4 were all the companions of Rasul(pbuh). a nickname for our Prophet, kind of like darling or beloved one.

the 4th was Ali, Muhammad's 1st cousin and also son in law (he married his daughter fatima)

after the death of Ali- Muawiya ( a scribe to but no relation to the Prophet(pbuh)became caliph, and moved to syria where he became governor- starting the umayyad dynasty- his son yazid succeeded him- but was not respected and a warmaker- in the meantime the grandson of Muhammad(pbuh) and son of Ali was encouraged to go claim the caliphate from the questionable yazid, and his head was chopped off at kerbala.

when you see the iraqis doing the self flagellation thing (simialar to the medieval monks if you ask me- which you didnt) it is in remembrance of their betrayal of husayn- by not protecting him.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/SHIA/HUSAYN.HTM

heres a quick synopsis- its a shia site i believe- but of course they should describe themselves.

and then there were other dynasties and caliphs etc--- and much later it was too convoluted anyway- but sunni's contend that it was not the wishes of the Prophet (pbuh) to create a family dynasty although it is human nature to keep it in the family its a highly contnetious issue between shia and sunni.

personally i find similarities between the practces and temperments of shia with roman catholics- very ritualistically oriented, with some small (but nomeans as much as catholic) not imagery but iconic symbols- highly emotional and of course the overwhelming guilt factor which pervade both- but that is my personal observation so take it as such.

also it is of note that the borther of husayn, hasan outright abdicated and rejected the caliphate-
the geneological descendants of Muhammad(pbuh) (as youll see, husayn and his son died in battle)
have the family name of sayyid, or said, or sayid, or sayeed etc... but i have to admit, everyone and their cousin seems to have that last name so i cannot testify.

and of course the Prophet(pbuh) came from a large family and tribe so..

hope you enjoy this little bit of info on the shia and sunnis.

ive been to both and i ilke shias- one of the best muslims ive ever known was a lone shia at our mosque from lebanon.
peace

CTCNL,

So going back to your comment on oil independence would be nice, but solar is not ready for prime time.

True, but as Ender noted, if we had spent the last 4 years and half a trillion dollars pursuing energy independence instead of squandering it in Iraq, we may not be there yet but we would be well on our way.

There are other technologies than solar; e.g. nuclear, coal, wind, hydrogen, conservation and geothermal. We must rebuild our infrastructure to provide more and better public transportation. We must change our lifestyle, travel shorter distances to work, telecommute, mandate higher fuel economy vehicles, etc.

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has a plan to achieve energy independence in 8 years. This is optimistic, but it can be done. It needs to have a greater priority than we placed on our man on the moon project of the 60s.

CTCNL,

Point #6:

You say: ‘And you really believe Saddam and his "security forces" were somehow good global citizens???’
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, but at least they kept they peace didn’t they. Once again the point is proven that a ruthless dictator is always better than chaos. And what business was it of ours? Did we really care that he was a bad man? No, we just coveted his world’s 2nd largest oil field, and the Jewish lobby (our true government) feared and loathed him.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Point #7:

You say: ‘And your single Jewish friend, what sayest he about your current siding with Islam?’
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
He and I agree to disagree on that issue. But that’s OK, we are still friends.

CTCNL,

Point #5:

You say: ‘And you believe that the illiterate womanizing Mohammed and his henchmen were really visited by a "pwtfft"? And visited Heaven?’
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, no more than I believe that Jesus was born of a virgin and was resurrected to heaven; but so what? What’s your point?

CTCNL,

Point #4:

You say: ‘And have you finished reading the book of death aka the koran?’
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, I’m on Chapter 3 of 114, but it’s no more the book of death than is our old testament.

Chapter 1 AL-FATIHA (THE OPENING) is a very innocuous 7 verse opening.

Chapter 2 AL-BAQARA (THE COW) has 286 verses and parallels our OT discussion of Adam and Eve in the garden, the children of Israel, the exodus rom Egypt, etc:

002.040: O Children of Israel! call to mind the (special) favour which I bestowed upon you, and fulfil your covenant with Me as I fulfil My Covenant with you, and fear none but Me.

002.049: And remember, We delivered you from the people of Pharaoh: They set you hard tasks and punishments, slaughtered your sons and let your women-folk live; therein was a tremendous trial from your Lord.

002.050: And remember We divided the sea for you and saved you and drowned Pharaoh's people within your very sight.

The Qur’an accepts the OT/NT as gospel and builds from there; the difference being that Jesus is a Prophet like Muhammad, not God.

So really, Judaism, Christianity and Islam all worship the same God with minor variations.

CTCNL,

Point #3:

You say: ‘And the references to the conference you noted? And did Iran sign the message??’
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, here are the endorsements by Iran and Iraq:

Islamic Republic of Iran (21)

159. Supreme Spiritual Leader Grand Ayatollah Al-Sayyid Ali Khamenei fatwa
160. H.E. Dr. Mahmood Ahmedinejad ∫President
161. Grand Ayatollah Shaykh Muhammad Ali Al-Taskhiri fatwa § ¶ ◊Secretary General, Forum for the Proximity of the Islamic Schools of Jurisprudence
162. Grand Ayatollah Al-Sayyid Fadil Lankarani fatwa
163. Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Waez-zadeh Al-Khorasani § ◊Former Secretary General, Forum for the Proximity of the Islamic Schools of Jurisprudence
164. Grand Ayatollah Prof. Dr. Al-Sayyid Mustafa Mohaghegh Damad § Director of the Academy of Sciences; Justice in the Ministry of Justice; Head of the Inspectorate General
165. Hujjat Al-Islam Dr. Mahmoud Mohammadi Iraqi §Chairman of the Cultural League and Islamic Relations in the Islamic Republic of Iran
166. Dr. Al-Sayyid Mahmoud Mar‘ashi Al-Najafi §Head of the Grand Ayatollah Mar‘ashi Al-Najafi Library
167. Dr. Muhammad Ali Adharshab §Secretary-General, Arab-Iranian Friendship Society
168. Mr. Murtada Hashim Bur Qadi §Secretary-General, Bureau for International Relations, Great Islamic Encyclopaedia
169. Shaykh Abbas Ali Sulaymani § Representative of the Supreme Spiritual Leader in Eastern Iran
170. Mr. Ghulam Rida Mirzai §Member, Consultative Council
171. Dr. Syed Muhammad Rida Khatimi §Political leader; Former Deputy Speaker of the Iranian Parliament
172. Shaykh Muhammad Shari‘ati §
Former Advisor to the President of Iran; Member of Parliament
173. Amb. Muhammad Kazem Khuwansari ◊
Permanent Representative of Iran to the Organization of the Islamic Conference
174. Mr. Ma Sha Allah Mahmoud Shams Al-Waithin §Journalist and Writer
175. Dr. Ruqayya Rustum Yurmaki *Imam Sadiq University
176. Dr. Mojgan Sakhaei *Imam Sadiq University
177. Shaykh Ahmad Mablaghi ◊Professor, Qom Seminary
178. Dr. Gholam Reza Noor-Mohammadi ◊Director, Centre for Islamic Medical Research, Imam al-Sadiq University, Qom; Professor, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tehran
179. Shaykh Hassan Jawahiri Zadeh ◊Professor, Religious Seminary, Qom

Republic of Iraq (28)

180. H.E. Mr. Jalal Talabani ∫President
181. Grand Ayatollah Al-Sayyid Ali Sistani fatwa
182. Grand Ayatollah Shaykh Ishaq Al-Fayad fatwa
183. Grand Ayatollah Al-Sayyid Muhammad Sa‘id Al-Hakim fatwa
184. Grand Ayatollah Shaykh Bashir Al-Najafi fatwa
185. Grand Ayatollah Al-Sayyid Shaykh Hussein Isma‘il Al-Sadr fatwa
186. Grand Ayatollah Shaykh Husayn Al-Mu‘ayyad § *Knowledge Forum, Baghdad
187. Grand Ayatollah Ahmad al-Bahadili §Islamic Missionary
188. Shaykh Dr. Harith Al-Dari ≈Head of Ulema organization
189. Dr. Muhsin ‘Abd Al-Hamid ≈
190. Dr. Ahmad Abd Al-Ghaffur Al-Samara‘i §Head of the Diwan of the Sunni Waqf
191. Al-Sayyid Abd al-Sahib Al-Khoei §Secretary General, Imam Al-Khoei Benevolent Foundation
192. Al-Sayyid Muhammad Al-Musawi §Secretary General, World Islamic Ahl Al-Bayt eague
193. Shaykh Dr. Mahmoud Muhammad Dawud Al-Sumayda‘i ≈
194. Prof. Dr. Abd Al-Aziz Al-Duri § Researcher and Historian, Department of History, University of Jordan; Fellow of Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought
195. Prof. Dr. Bashshar Awwad Marouf § *Researcher and Editor; Fellow of Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought
196. Shaykh Abbas Ali Kashif Al-Ghita §College of Islamic Studies, University of al-Kufa
197. Dr. Abd Al-Hamid Al-Najdi §Islamic Intellectual
198. Shaykh Walid Faraj Allah Al-Asadi § College of Islamic Studies, University of al-Kufa
199. Shaykh Prof. Dr. Ahmad Al-Kubaysi § ≈Missionary and Islamic Intellectual
200. Prof. Ghanem Jawad §Director of Cultural Affairs, Khoei Benevolent Foundation
201. Mr. Muhammad Allawi § Assistant Director General, World Islamic Ahl Al-Bayt League
202. Prof. Sa‘d Al-Malla §Islamic Intellectual
203. Dr. Mustafa Abd Al-Ilah Kamal Al-Din §Islamic Intellectual
204. Prof. Dr. Adnan Ali Al-Faraji *Islamic University
205. Dr. Aziz Rashid Al-Dayini *Islamic University
206. Dr. Abd Al-Qadir Mustafa Al-Muhammadi *Islamic University
207. Mr. ‘Ala’ Al-Din Al-Mudarris *Researcher and Historian republic

CTCNL,

Point #2:

You say: ‘And strange you say nothing about said terror support supporting the high cost of oil. Said profits are feeding this Sunni/Shiite conflict and Israel is always the convenient scapegoat and you have fallen into this Islamic trap. Yes it would be nice not to depend on oil and natural gas but going solar is not in the current realm of realism. ’
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well of course the price of oil is expected to rise, when we are waging war on the people who generate the oil supplies.

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2006/12/journal_prospec.html

From the above link:

Networked tribes, infrastructure disruption, and the emerging bazaar of violence. An open notebook on the first epochal war of the 21st Century.

By John Robb
Friday, 29 December 2006
JOURNAL: Prospects for Iraqi oil production in 2007

As anticipated repeatedly on this weblog, Iraq's oil production in 2007 will be the same or worse than 2006 (Ben Lando at the UPI has a round-up). Currently at 1.6 million barrels a day, production is less than it was pre-war. On the northern production routes alone, $11 billion (from 651 lost days of production) in losses have been achieved by simple systems disruption (most of the casualties suffered by the guerrillas doing the disruption have been self-inflicted). Of the remaining production, $700 million a month in oil (which can be added to the $100 million a month in revenue in gasoline smuggling) is stolen by gangs/militias/guerrillas that bunker or reroute the oil. This is a good model for what will happen in Saudi Arabia but at higher levels of production and revenue from theft.

And we have no one to blame for this but ourselves. I don’t lay this one on the Israelis, other than for the influence of their Washington D.C. lobbyists who prodded us into this horrendous misadventure in the first place. But we were so eager to grab these oil fields that we didn't take much prodding.

CTCNL,

So I apologize for the length of the previous post. To boil it down:

You say:

1. ‘And who promotes the ancient Sunni/Shiite feud? The Islamic terror Shiite theocracy of Iran and the Islamic Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia. Strange that you say nothing about this.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I said nothing about it, because it is not true.

Actually, the kind of sectarian fighting we're seeing now in Iraq is not ancient. It is new in its scale and ferocity, and it was the Americans who unleashed it.

Yes, the Iranians support their natural ally, the Shiites, in their effort to oust the unwanted invader and occupier, the US. What’s wrong with that?

And yes, the Saudis are concerned about their natural ally, the Sunnis, and try to protect them from the coming payback for the decades (not millennia) of abuse that the Sunnis perpetrated on the Shiites under Saddam’s rule. What’s wrong with that?

So it’s more like a family feud between the Hatfields and McCoys, and has practically nothing to do with Islam, which has formally renounced the feud and abhors it.

If you are satisfied with this answer, we will move on to Point #2.

CTCNL,

OK let’s take your points one at a time:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You say:

1. ‘And who promotes the ancient Sunni/Shiite feud? The Islamic terror Shiite theocracy of Iran and the Islamic Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia. Strange that you say nothing about this.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I said nothing about it, because I don’t know that it is true or relevant. Let’s see if we can find some information on this.

Actually, the kind of sectarian fighting we're seeing now in Iraq is new in its scale and ferocity, and it was the Americans who unleashed it.

Here is an article from the History News Network (HNN):

What Is the Difference Between Sunni and Shiite Muslims--and Why Does It Matter?

By HNN Staff

Updated 12/18/06

http://hnn.us/articles/934.html

First some background information from the article:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Islam religion was founded by Mohammed in the seventh century. In 622 he founded the first Islamic state, a theocracy in Medina, a city in western Saudi Arabia located north of Mecca. There are two branches of the religion he founded.

The Sunni branch believes that the first four caliphs--Mohammed's successors--rightfully took his place as the leaders of Muslims. They recognize the heirs of the four caliphs as legitimate religious leaders. These heirs ruled continuously in the Arab world until the break-up of the Ottoman Empire following the end of the First World War.

Shiites, in contrast, believe that only the heirs of the fourth caliph, Ali, are the legitimate successors of Mohammed. In 931 the Twelfth Imam disappeared. This was a seminal event in the history of Shiite Muslims.

According to R. Scott Appleby, a professor of history at the University of Notre Dame, "Shiite Muslims, who are concentrated in Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon, [believe they] had suffered the loss of divinely guided political leadership" at the time of the Imam's disappearance. Not "until the ascendancy of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1978" did they believe that they had once again begun to live under the authority of a legitimate religious figure.

Another difference between Sunnis and Shiites has to do with the Mahdi, “the rightly-guided one” whose role is to bring a just global caliphate into being. As historian Timothy Furnish has written, "The major difference is that for Shi`is he has already been here, and will return from hiding; for Sunnis he has yet to emerge into history: a comeback v. a coming out, if you will."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is more background that you can read on the web, then this:

Osama bina Laden is a Sunni Muslim. To him the end of the reign of the caliphs in the 1920s was catastrophic, as he made clear in a videotape made after 9-11. On the tape, broadcast by Al-Jazeera on October 7, 2001, he proclaimed: "What America is tasting now is only a copy of what we have tasted. ... Our Islamic nation has been tasting the same for more [than] eighty years, of humiliation and disgrace, its sons killed and their blood spilled, its sanctities desecrated."

Juan Cole, a well-known historian of the Middle East, has pointed out on his blog, Informed Comment that the split between Sunni and Shiites in Iraq is of relatively recent origin:

I see a lot of pundits and politicians saying that Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq have been fighting for a millennium. We need better history than that. The Shiite tribes of the south probably only converted to Shiism in the past 200 years. And, Sunni-Shiite riots per se were rare in 20th century Iraq. Sunnis and Shiites cooperated in the 1920 rebellion against the British. If you read the newspapers in the 1950s and 1960s, you don't see anything about Sunni-Shiite riots. There were peasant/landlord struggles or communists versus Baathists.

The kind of sectarian fighting we're seeing now in Iraq is new in its scale and ferocity, and it was the Americans who unleashed it.

Rick,

And who promotes the ancient Sunni/Shiite feud? The Islamic terror Shiite theocracy of Iran and the Islamic Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia. Strange that you say nothing about this. And strange you say nothing about said terror support supporting the high cost of oil. Said profits are feeding this Sunni/Shiite conflict and Israel is always the convenient scapegoat and you have fallen into this Islamic trap.

Yes it would be nice not to depend on oil and natural gas but going solar is not in the current realm of realism.

And the references to the conference you noted? And did Iran sign the message??

And have you finished reading the book of death aka the koran?

And you believe that the illiterate womanizing Mohammed and his henchmen were really visited by a "pwtfft"? And visited Heaven?

And you really believe Saddam and his "security forces" were somehow good global citizens???

And your single Jewish friend, what sayest he about your current siding with Islam?

CTCNL,

Yes, the Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites don’t much like each other, but this has nothing to do with Islam. This has more to do with hundreds of years of the Sunni minority dominating and abusing the Shiite majority under Saddam and others. And you know Saddam didn’t have a religious bone in his body.

From the three points of the Amman Message as posted by Victoria: (1) Whosoever is an adherent to one of the four Sunni schools (Mathahib) of Islamic jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi`i and Hanbali), the two Shi’i schools of Islamic jurisprudence (Ja`fari and Zaydi)… is a Muslim. Declaring that person an apostate is impossible and impermissible. Verily his (or her) blood, honour, and property are inviolable… This was endorsed by 552 signatories from 84 countries.

From the beginning in Iraq, the Takfiri foreign militants have targeted the Shi‘a in order to create a civil war and widen the conflict, thereby entangling the coalition forces in a never-ending conflict of which their countries will eventually weary. By achieving a consensus that all Sunni and Shi‘as are Muslims and that all have basic common beliefs and practices, the conference has taken the theological and religious basis out of this sectarian conflict, and exposed for what it really is: sedition and mass murder.

Actually, our invasion and overthrow of the sovereign government and dispersal of its security forces has more to do with the anarchy that we now see on the streets of Baghdad than does any tenet of Islam.

Rick,

You must be kidding!!! Islam is a religion of peace???

Sunnis and Shiites the last time I checked are Islamics and they butcher each other 24/7 in the name of some relative of Mohammed using the koran as their SOP.

Good Morning CTCNL,

What are you doing up so late? What time zone are you in? Ah yes, it is the weekend. You young folks can stay up half the night.

It's discouraging isn't it, to find out that your preconceived notions about Islam, that you have been harboring for so long, are all wrong.

As Victoria always says, Islam is a rligion of peace, but does reserve the right to defend itself. If we don't attack it, it won't attack us.

Hmmm, the Rick and Victoria "show" reminds me again of that famous quote:

"Gators vs. Muslims??? Gators definitely will kill. With Muslims, it depends but with the koran as their operating manual can we trust any of them?"

Victoria,

Please give us the link to the 'coordinated fatwa against terrorism'.

Thanks for the great posts Victoria. Here is the link to the Amman Message. If you gave it, I didn’t see it.

http://www.ammanmessage.com/

i have to thank you all because without your questions it would not have occurred to me to look such things up-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Frequently Asked Questions Tell a Friend

The Amman Message started as a detailed statement released the eve of the 27th of Ramadan 1425 AH / 9th November 2004 CE by H.M. King Abdullah II bin Al-Hussein in Amman, Jordan. It sought to declare what Islam is and what it is not, and what actions represent it and what actions do not. Its goal was to clarify to the modern world the true nature of Islam and the nature of true Islam.

In order to give this statement more religious authority, H.M. King Abdullah II then sent the following three questions to 24 of the most senior religious scholars from all around the world representing all the branches and schools of Islam: (1) Who is a Muslim?
(2) Is it permissible to declare someone an apostate (takfir)?
(3) Who has the right to undertake issuing fatwas (legal rulings)?

Based on the fatwas provided by these great scholars (who included the Shaykh Al-Azhar; Ayatollah Sistani and Sheikh Qaradawi), in July 2005 CE, H.M. King Abdullah II convened an international Islamic conference of 200 of the world's leading Islamic scholars 'Ulama) from 50 countries. In Amman, the scholars unanimously issued a ruling on three fundamental issues (which became known as the 'Three Points of the Amman Message'):

They specifically recognized the validity of all 8 Mathhabs (legal schools) of Sunni, Shi'a and Ibadhi Islam; of traditional Islamic Theology (Ash'arism); of Islamic Mysticism (Sufism), and of true Salafi thought, and came to a precise definition of who is a Muslim.

Based upon this definition they FORBADE takfir (DECLARATIONS OF APOSTASY) between Muslims.
Based upon the Mathahib they set forth the subjective and objective preconditions for the issuing of fatwas, thereby exposing ignorant and illegitimate edicts in the name of Islam.

These Three Points were then unanimously adopted by the Islamic World's political and temporal leaderships at the Organization of the Islamic Conference summit at Mecca in December 2005. And over a period of one year from July 2005 to July 2006, the Three Points were also unanimously adopted by six other international Islamic scholarly assemblies, culminating with the International Islamic Fiqh Academy of Jeddah, in July 2006. In total, over 500 leading Muslim scholars worldwide—as can be seen on this website [click here to see the entire list]—unanimously endorsed the Amman Message and its Three Points.

This amounts to a historical, universal and unanimous religious and political consensus (ijma') of the Ummah (nation) of Islam in our day, and a consolidation of traditional, orthodox Islam. The significance of this is:
(1) that it is the first time in over a thousand years that the Ummah has formally and specifically come to such a pluralistic mutual inter-recognition; and
(2) that such a recognition is religiously legally binding on Muslims since the Prophet (may peace and blessings be upon him) said: My Ummah will not agree upon an error (Ibn Majah, Sunan, Kitab al-Fitan, Hadith no.4085).

This is good news not only for Muslims, for whom it provides a basis for unity and a solution to infighting, but also for non-Muslims. For the safeguarding of the legal methodologies of Islam (the Mathahib) necessarily means inherently preserving traditional Islam's internal 'checks and balances'. It thus assures balanced Islamic solutions for essential issues like
1)human rights;
2)women's rights;
3)freedom of religion;
4)legitimate jihad;
5)good citizenship of Muslims in non-Muslim countries, and just and democratic government.

It also exposes the ILLEGITAMATE OPINIONS of RADICAL FUNDAMENTALISTS and TERRORISTS from the point of view of true Islam. As George Yeo, the Foreign Minister of Singapore, declared in the 60th Session of the U.N. General Assembly (about the Amman Message): "Without this clarification, the war against terrorism would be much harder to fight."

Finally, whilst this by the Grace of God is a historical achievement, it will clearly remain only principial unless it is put into practice everywhere. For this reason, H.M. King Abdullah II is now seeking to implement it, God willing, through various pragmatic measures, including
(1) inter-Islamic treaties;
(2) national and international legislation using the Three Points of the Amman Message to define Islam and forbid takfir;
(3) the use of publishing and the multi-media in all their aspects to spread the Amman Message; (4) instituting the teaching of the Amman Message in school curricula and university courses worldwide; and
(5) making it part of the training of mosque Imams and making it included in their sermons.

God says in the Holy Qur'an says:

"There is no good in much of their secret conferences save (in) whosoever enjoineth charity and fairness and peace-making among the people and whoso doeth that, seeking the good pleasure of God, We shall bestow on him a vast reward." (Al-Nisa, 4:114).

there you have it-

heres your coordinated fatwa against terrorism

its long, but i didnt know what i should leave out
ill cap the relevant parts
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The declaration is of the utmost importance to the future of Iraq and to the war on terrorism for the following reasons:

(1) The war on TERRORISM cannot be won by military and intelligence means alone. The only way to win the war on terrorism is to win the hearts and minds of Muslims, and thus to dry up the pool of potential recruits to extremism. This cannot be achieved by western-style television or radio stations, which appeal to and influence only tiny secular, urban, westernized minorities. It can only be done through the authority and legitimacy of Islam itself. Unlike other religions, Islam has not been held together over hundreds of years by religious or temporal institutes, or by a clerical caste—rather, it has been held together by the Holy Qur’an and other texts which in effect interpret it. Thus religious authority lies in written texts and their interpretations. What the extremists did, before they ever took a single violent action, was to REJECT the traditional internal checks and balances on the interpretation of these texts. Indeed, to this day, before and behind every single terrorist act there is a PSEUDO-FATWA permitting or commending it. What the conference achieved is to put those traditional checks and balances (in theory at least) back on the interpretation of these texts.

(2) From the beginning in Iraq, the Takfiri foreign militants have targeted the Shi‘a in order to create a civil war and widen the conflict, thereby entangling the coalition forces in a never-ending conflict of which their countries will eventually weary. By achieving a consensus that all Sunni and Shi‘as are Muslims and that all have basic common beliefs and practices, the conference has taken the theological and religious basis out of this sectarian conflict, and exposed for what it really is: SEDITION and MASS MURDER. Without a religious solution in Iraq there can be no political solution, and hence no end to the conflict. The conference is thus providing “the religious solution”.

(3) Through the explicit recognition of the “Eight Schools of Jurisprudence” of Islam and their methodology, it implied the recognition of seven issues which are vital for Muslims and non- Muslims to live together harmoniously in this world: (i) THE protection of human rights, individual rights and freedoms and social justice under Islamic law; (ii) THE protection of women’s rights, children’s rights and ethnic minorities rights under Islamic law; (iii) The ABSOLUTE PREVENTION OF INDIVIDUAL VIOLENCE, AGGRESSION AND TERRORISM under ISLAMIC LAW; (iv) The prevention of the POLITICIZATION of religion and of offensive “JIHAD” by Muslims in the modern age; (v) The GUARANTEE of respect and tolerance for other religions under Islamic law; (vi) The injunction according to Islamic law for Muslims to be loyal and good citizens in non- Muslim countries in which they are not oppressed and enjoy full freedom of religion (as is the case precisely in the U.S. and the U.K.), even if those countries are in conflict with Islamic-majority countries; (vii) The permissibility according to Islamic law for Muslims to chose their own form of temporal government for themselves (within the parameters of the maqasid or “goals” of the Shari‘a) including modern DEMOCRACY.

King Abdullah II’s historic conference was made possible at this period of history due to a number of historical factors and recent political developments, specifically: the galvanization of world opinion against terrorism following the events of 9/11; Western pressure on the financial resources of the terrorists; Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia’s courageous moves in his own country to recognize and honour the Shi‘a and Sufi minorities despite the vehemence of the Wahabi opposition to this; the co-operation of the traditional religious leadership in Egypt (especially that of al- Azhar); the recent coalescing of the Shi‘a religious leadership in Iraq, around the supreme authority of Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani. This conference was attended by over 175 leading religious figures from over 40 countries and marks one of the most important efforts to combat the problem of extremism and violence in the modern world.

she really speaks much better than i-
the caps are my own edit

My Islam: Freedom and Responsibility
Muslims must reject loudly the interpretation of terrorists, and non-Muslims have to listen

by INGRID MATTSON

Muslims in America today seem to have lost the right to be individuals. We are treated as a collectivity - responsible as a group for any crime committed by another Muslim or done in the name of Islam.

Shortly after 9/11, I wrote an article stating that Muslims have the greatest obligation to reject terrorism and political violence committed in the name of Islam. I still believe this is the case. Islam does not have a centralized authority; there is no universally recognized council of scholars or clerics who speak on behalf of all Muslims.

With freedom from clerical authority, however, comes the responsibility to engage in the debate over the true meaning of Islam. Islamic law states that SILENCE is an indication of consent. If Muslims do not reject the PERVERTED interpretations of the Qur'an proffered by terrorists, they will have shirked their responsibility to define the real meaning of Islam.

At the same time, clarifying our own position does not mean that we have to "speak out" against each and every statement issued by terrorists or every criminal action taken by groups claiming to represent Muslim interests. Once we have defined what we stand for, and what we stand against, then any particular action that violates those guidelines are clearly rejected by us. American Muslim organizations have made extraordinary efforts to publicize their rejection of terrorism and extremism in the name of Islam: we have organized petitions, written FATWAS and position papers, distributed brochures, held conferences, organized press briefings, published op-eds, spoken on the radio and television.

Still, we are asked, "Why have moderate Muslims not spoken out against the extremists?" We have spoken, but we have not been heard-primarily because good news does not get much coverage.

Even worse, we have spoken, but we have not been listened to. There are many people who are ideologically opposed to Islam-to the most benign interpretation of Islam-because of their OWN extremist religious or political ideologies. No matter what conscientious Muslims do to live as peaceful citizens who contribute to the welfare of society, these groups will attack us and our religion.

Most objectionable is what I call the, "non-Muslim Islamic fundamentalist." What I mean by this is a non-Muslim who applies a literalistic, decontextualized hermeneutic to the Qur'an and Islamic tradition. This is not how I read my scripture (maybe it is how they read theirs), so who are they to tell me that this is what Islam "really" says?

Being judged as a group, rather than as individuals, also means that the negative experience of one Muslim is considered to be representative of ALL Muslims and all of Islam. I do not deny the right of any individual to tell his or her own story. We all have that right, and I must learn from the pain, hurt and anger of women and men who were mistreated in the name of Islam.

But these negative experiences are not shared by all Muslims - indeed, not by MOST Muslims. This is why such authors have little or no constituencies within the Muslim community - because large numbers of Muslims do not feel they represent their interests or perspectives.

The burden of collective guilt, the oppressive weight of stereotyping, and the violence of hateful anti-Muslim discourse is difficult to bear. It is even more difficult to see how this affects our youth.

But there is hope. Hope lies in the goodness of ordinary Americans who try to overcome their prejudices and reach out to their Muslim neighbors. Hope lies in the solidarity shown by other groups - like Japanese Americans - who have faced similar situations. Hope lies in the extraordinary moral leadership shown by many American religious leaders to guide their congregations to the path of understanding and compassion.

More than anything, I see these challenges as opportunities to EXAMINE MYSELF and my community, to see if we are responding with enough courage and moral leadership when we witness discrimination against others. Are we able to avoid burdening other groups with collective guilt? The Qur'anic revelation, "no soul bears the sins of another" is directed first at our community. We are all human, and all of us have to struggle with our own selfishness, prejudice and will to power.

As a Muslim, my struggle for my community's rights should be only the starting point of a wider struggle - a struggle for the dignity of all people. Being a Muslim in America today means having the opportunity to work towards this goal in solidarity with compassionate individuals of all faiths and good will.

DR. INGRID MATTSON is an "On Faith" panelist and professor of Islamic Studies and Christian-Muslim Relations at Hartford Seminary. She is the first woman to be president of the Islamic Society of North America.

no jerry- they tell you what is in the mind of a few extremists.
what are you talking about, silence from the muslim world?
muslims all over the word had vigils in solidarity and in sympathy with america.

iran had thousands of people in tehran do a vigil!
do you ever watch bbc?

its easily availabe in the US, ive posted many times on these boards the muslim community statements of 138 scholars around the world who renounced the terrorism and showed their support and sympathy with america.

have you ever seen any americans pouring into the streets to show sympathy for muslims when terrorists strike them?

when the 3000 muslims were brutally murdered by hindu extremists in gujurat was there even a whisper of sympathy?

you never even saw it covered on the news.
and it happened AFTER 2001

how about the 30,000 muslims killed by the PKK in turkey in the last 10 years?

what is our response to that?

to attmept to make a resolution that calls the armenian massacre during WWII a genocide- even though 2 1/2 muslims turks also were slaughtered because it was world war.

you cant have it both ways-

the sympathies were extended and repsonses were made.
it is not reciprocated though.
you have it backwards.

if you want to know what muslims think, go to a mosque and sit with a few, or ask here.

i think both sides need to give and take myself.
that includes me.

MIA- actually the VVD is no longer ms hirsi's party.
she told them publicly many times to-(excuse my french- these are her words) "go to hell".

also the government has refused to continue to pay for her 2.8 million dollar a year protection.

is it disgusting that she needs protection?
of course it is.

i, in no way condone the actons of those who would silence her- or find any correlating philosophy in my own practice of islam.

also i do not agree with your contention that women are inferior- so i cannot decry what is not true.

wow you guys sure do hate muslims.

i dont care how you justify it- there is no force in the world that is going to get me to hate another just becasue were defined by a different grouping- no matter what that grouping is.

Denmark’s Prime minister calls on Europe to protect Hirsi Ali

Denmark’s Prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen is keeping a high profile in the fight for individual freedom and protection of human rights in Europe. Today in Berlin he criticised the Dutch parliament for having failed to protect the former Dutch politician but still Dutch citizen Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

In a speech to Europe’s Liberal Democrats (ELDR) congress A Liberal Europe for a Free World, to which network Hirsi Ali’s political party VVD belongs, Mr. Rasmussen insisted on the liberal democracies’ obligation to protect persecuted writers like Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

”Every free society and democracy has an obligation to guarantee her right to speak freely and take measures to secure her personal safety,” said Mr. Rasmussen.

He spoke of Hirsi Ali as a ”ligtening carrier” of the European tradition of liberty.

”We cannot hesitate, we have to stand together in order to protect people who as our liberal Dutch colleague Ayaan Hirsi Ali fights bravely for the right to free speech,” concluded the Danish Prime minister.

Two thumbs up for Mr. Rasmussen. He seems to understand how important it is to do what it takes to protect the most courageous defenders of Europe’s values. During the Cold War it was individuals like Vaclav Havel, Adam Michnik, Andrei Sakharov and others east of the Iron Curtain. Today it’s people like Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Salman Rushdie, Irshad Manjii, Mina Ahadi and other dissidents from the Muslim world who are the most ardent defenders of our civilization.

Europe is in the middle of a crucial struggle of ideas that will determine the future of the continent. In this struggle it is very important that Muslims or former Muslims that fight totalitarian ideologies and movements within Islam can speak out knowing that liberal democracies will take measures to protect them no matter what.

How else should we be able to convince Muslims to take part in the public debate? We are calling on them all the time to speak out against Islamists and fellow Muslims who want to liquidate the foundation of liberal democracies, keep the inferior status of women in Islam and kill those who insist on their right to leave Islam.

In this context it’s unbelievable to conceive of the fact that the Netherlands is the bedrock of religious tolerance and enlightenment values in Europe. The country where John Locke found refugee from political persecusation, a country where dissidents from all over Europe once could publish their works. Does the Dutch parliament know to what extent it has betrayed the legacy that made the Netherlands one of the most open and tolerant societies in the world?

Pros and Cons for the Two State Solution; I side with the Con opinion, how about you:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PRO: "Well, there has emerged, over the course of the past ten years at least, a sense that the only way out of the situation in the Middle East is to establish a State of Palestine alongside Israel so that there will be an end of conflict. There is no other solution to end the conflict in reality. There is an international consensus about it as reflected by the so-called Road Map Quartet [the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations], which is after all the whole world. You have the United States, you have Europe, you have the Russians and the United Nations, which is the whole world, and then there is the Arab League, which is twenty-two different states, and there is the previous Palestinian administration, and the Israeli administration, all of them committed to the two-state solution."

-- Ziad J. Asali
President and Founder of the American Task Force on Palestine
Interview with Bernard Gwertzman of the Council on Foreign Relations
6/2/06
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CON: "The paradigm of the Two States will not bring about stability. No! . . . (The Two-State solution) is not relevant. Not relevant . . . (The Palestinian state) will undermine the State of Israel. From there, the confrontation will go on.

The State of Israel is ready to give the Palestinians an independent Palestinian state, but the Palestinians are not ready to give us an independent Jewish state . . . Every agreement you make will be the starting point of the next irredenta. The next conflict. The next war.
The establishment of a Palestinian state will lead at some stage to war. Such a war can be dangerous to the State of Israel. The idea that it is possible to set up a Palestinian state by 2008 and to achieve stability is disconnected from reality and dangerous."

-- Moshe Yaalon
Lieutenant-General and former Chief-of-Staff of the Israel Defense Forces
Quoted by Uri Avnery in "The Bogyman"
http://gush-shalom.org
5/3/05

Here's an interesting site that I think you all will find interesting:

http://www.israelipalestinianprocon.org/

"people follow fatwas given by their sheiks or guru teacher types, because they want to.but it has no more meaning than me issuing one right now. we already know this is meaningless- but i guess most westerners imagine it has some validity-"

Fatwas are of great value to the west. They tell us what is in the mind of the Muslim world. Acts of terror do not upset them. If they were upset -fatwas would be issued with fiery speeches. Any disagreement with the dictates of Islam does upset them. Drawing a cartoon of Mo with a fuse in his turban will get you a lifelong death threat and Muslims all over the world raging in the streets in outrage.

As the west knows all too well- the purposed death of thousands of innocent people in the west brings silence from the Muslim world, maybe an issued statement or two, and demands for increased civil rights because the west now unfairly "targets" them. This is because the acts of terror are supported by the dictates of Islam and will NEVER inspire a true fatwa to be issued.

for instance- i have a BIG problem with msusharaf not protecting bhutto when she was invited back to pakistan yesterday-
smells like a set up if you ask me-

136 people dead
the biggest terrorist death toll in pakistan

the people who did that are insane
it is subhuman animal behavior-

and it is a disgrace to muslims, and a disgrace to humanity n genreal that we share theplanet with beigns that filled with hatred to kill their own conutrymen for a political statement wrapped in religious garb cloaked in shame.

ok, thats all for now
peace

agnostic- im a muslim, and i have no impulse to control another persons thoughts, the idea of even destroying a book is repugnant to me- let alone a person-

i dont have to like a person or their ideas to live in society with them-

if ayaan ali hirsi was behind me - id certainly hold the door for her with a small smile-
like i do anyone-
theres alot of violence in the world- it depends on who youre looking at-

10 years ago- you didnt have this perception of muslims because they were completely ignored by western media-

when i read articles for other countries, translated into english- if i went by them id believe all americans were fat arrogant bullies selling weapons to kill the children of the world.

i know this isnt true- i think you maybe just dont have any muslims around to ask-

violence in the name of anything is repellant to me as a muslim-
and a human being.

i think it has never occurred to any muslim to ask for a fatwa against OBL becuase muslims already know that fatwas are only opinions-

there has to be an islamic government that is recognized by the muslims all over the world as its center- like the defunct turkish caliphate- gone since 1924-

defunct

a fatwa is only binding on the person who issues it at this point in time.

people follow fatwas given by their sheiks or guru teacher types, because they want to.

but it has no more meaning than me issuing one right now.
we already know this is meaningless- but i guess most westerners imagine it has some validity-

it used to- a century ago- but not today.

you an google it- even wikipedia (my most dislked source) can confirm that.

your frustration seems honest and your question sincere- so im answering

so your observation-

"The only explanation is they do symathise with Osama or venerate him and his followers.

Did you Mr. Patel asked any one of Muslim Imams to issue fatwa against Bin Laden? I am sure you didn't. That idea never occured to you. So you are not much different from followers of Bin Laden
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

the idea never occurred to me, not because i sympathise with OBL- i dont-
his brand of islam is anathema to mine-

but because i already know that fatwas have no validity.

i could declare my town, victoriaville- but it wouldnt make a bit of difference to anyone here-

maybe my husband would agree that it was victoriaville too-
but id still have to pay municipal taxes to queens

and besides, fatwas were never intended to be bounty hunter recipes

they are supposed to be a guidance for our good- not someone elses destruction

if a bunch of muslims in agnostica decided they could drink beer on sunday- a fatwa might be issued to redirect them to the good practice of their religion

fatwas calling for heads on a pike are as bizarre as any hate-mongering i can imagine

go google fatwa and be surprised

You bet I agree that in light of the way things are going in sub-Saharan Africa I do believe that the traditional cultures of the people who life there should be obliterated. People have interests and rights: cultures don't. And the romantic view that somehow cultures that are detrimental to the interests of people who live in them ought for some reason to be preserved is untenable. These cultures are diseases. You aren't doing their victims any favors by cultivating them. People who are stuck with them need to be cured.

"Islam is a religion of peace. If you don't believe me I will kill you"

This what Muslims seem to say. Muslims want to kill Salamn Rusdie, Ibn Warraq, Hirsi Ali, Nasrin of Bangladesh. What sin they have committed? They just wrote books in which they didn't believe Islam is a peaceful religion. They pioned out defects in koran and Muhammad. They wrote Muslim women are not treated well. All of these authors had to leave their countries and come to USA to save their lives. The Gov'ts of their country of birth didn't provide any protection. They themselves condemned these authors. No Muslim country came to their defence. Muslims give fatwa to any one who says any thing critical of Islam. But Look at this.

" No fatwa against Osama Bin Laden or his follwers." Why is this so.

The only explanation is they do symathise with Osama or venerate him and his followers.

Did you Mr. Patel asked any one of Muslim Imams to issue fatwa against Bin Laden? I am sure you didn't. That idea never occured to you. So you are not much different from followers of Bin Laden

And why are "millions" of Iraqis displaced?

Because the ancient blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites!!!!!!! Why the feud? Because each side claims the koranic terror cult of Islam as their own!!!!!!!

What do you think about this Victoria?

State Dept. Urged to Shut Saudi School in Fairfax
By Jacqueline L. Salmon and Valerie Strauss
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, October 19, 2007; A01

A federal panel yesterday urged the State Department to shut down a Saudi government-supported private school in Northern Virginia unless it can prove it is not teaching religious intolerance.

In a report released yesterday, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom criticized what it called the promotion of religious extremism in Saudi-run schools around the world, including in the kingdom. It leveled particular criticism at the Islamic Saudi Academy, which operates two campuses in Fairfax County, expressing "significant concerns" that the school is promoting a brand of religious intolerance that could prove a danger to the United States.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/18/AR2007101800024_pf.html

More good news compliments of our favorite terrorist state US_Israel.

More than 1.1 million Iraqis have been internally displaced...according to numbers gathered by the Iraqi Red Crescent and the International Organization for Migration. In addition, at least two million Iraqis have fled the country, with the majority heading to Syria and Jordan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/world/middleeast/19najaf.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

David says:

"borders established in '48". Established? The UN can't do that, it can only suggest borders to the two parties. The Arab Higher Committee, representing local Arabs, and the Arab League, representing the rest, rejected UNR181 and a Jewish State, saying the land should be part of Greater Syria, as it was in the Ottoman and other Islamic Empires. Also, even most Arabs aren't demanding the UNR181 borders, but that the armistice line become a border.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here’s the truth David, which you wouldn’t recognize if it bit you in the arse:

Here is the map that is relevant:

http://www.ccmep.org/delegations/maps/palestine.html

The one on the left represents the relative ownership of Palestinian and Jewish land in 1946, prior to the illegitimate UN partition. Since, Palestine was not the UN’s to give away (as you readily agree); this is the map we will go back to.

Here is a summary of the Brief History of Palestine:

http://www.cyberus.ca/~baker/pal_hist.htm

Note that just prior to the turn of the 20th century, the total population of Palestine was 500,000 of whom 47,000 were Jews who owned 0.5% of the land.

In 1917, at the time of the illegal and immoral Balfour Declaration, and after 22 years of illegal and immoral Zionist immigration, the total population was 700,000 of which 56,000 (8%) were Jews.

In 1947, after 30 more years of Zionist immigration, the illegal UN partition of Palestine allocated 47% of the land to the Arab Palestinians who accounted for 70% of the population and owned 92% of the land.

In 2005, the Jewish population stood at about 5,200,000 (50.7%) compared to the 5,056,000 (49.3%) Arab Palestinian population.

So clearly, even you can see that the only fair and equitable thing to do is to evacuate the 5,153,000 illegitimate Zionist Jews and descendents to Texas, leaving the Jewish population at the original legitimate 47,000 that were there at the turn of the 20th century. We could leave a few more than that to account for normal population growth demographics, without the illegal and immoral Zionist immigration.

dave-i dont even know what youre referring to-

i think you have something in your mind, like an unfinished sentence you are referring to but i really dont know-

i addressed each point you made with a reasonable and backed up with proof answer-

you said i dont provide sources-
i did but you missed it somehow

then you said the house of war comes from the quran-
that was plain wrong and i provided the answer

then you misquoted me and blamed me for that
the OIC IS in coordination with the UN

you claimed that the cairo declaration of human rights was a stated intention of all muslims to create shia law all over the world

i pointed out that it is by muslims for muslims (which it is) and is not incumbent on muslims to even pay attention to one way or the other

now youre trying to backpedal using your very very poor knowledge of the quran in retrosect to prove your first dosproved contention

no dave- the house of war isnt in the quran

it was developed 100s of years later by some medieival jusrists

suddenly these are "good" scholars to you?

the house of war/house of peace idea is, sidelined by its simplistic and dualist approach to islam.

think what you want dave-

(didnt we already have this discussion?)

Wow, Ender makes Victoria seem truthful.

"apatheid state of Israel". A State that has equality before the law for all citizens regardless of sex, race or religion is "apartheid"? Intriguing. Then what does he call the PA, which has a death penalty law against selling land to Jews? Or Jordan, which explicitly exempts Jews from citizenship?

"borders established in '48". Established? The UN can't do that, it can only suggest borders to the two parties. The Arab Higher Committee, representing local Arabs, and the Arab League, representing the rest, rejected UNR181 and a Jewish State, saying the land should be part of Greater Syria, as it was in the Ottoman and other Islamic Empires. Also, even most Arabs aren't demanding the UNR181 borders, but that the armistice line become a border.

"800,000 displaced landowners in Israel." The UN Mediator, Lord Bernadotte, a man so much against Israel that Israeli terrorists killed him, reported to the UN that there were 472,000 Arab refugees. Perhaps he's mixing up the 800k from the fact that's how many Jewish refugees there have been from Arab lands. BTW: 600k of them were absorbed by the tiny nation of Israel while the 472k were put in camps by their much more populous Arab brethren.

"grown to 8,000,000" out of the fact that UNWRA is the only organization to define "refugee" to count descendants. All other refugees are managed by UNHRC, with excludes them from the count.

And, as long as he's mentioning "Saddam", lets point to the Pals stuck on the border between Iraq and Jordan. First, UNWRA won't touch them even though they are refugees under UNWRA's definition, since their current homelessness can't be blamed on Israel. Second, Jordan, the Palestinian majority nation residing on 80% of British Mandate Palestine won't accept them.

"we need to drop support for Israeli Zionist policy". The policy is, of course, to live in peace in our own nation. That Ender is against that is the most indicative of all. Well, that and the fact that he has no clue that "Zionist" is just as fractured and argumentative as the concept of American, French, Australian or any other national movement...

Rick stays, not unsurprisingly, in denial.

First, he posts what I said to Aya as if I was talking to him. Does he have two voices in his head or is he running both accounts? I don't think so.

Then notice that he ignores the exact quotes I use from his posts and my responses to them that show he's wrong and is supporting jihad. His response? To not even address his errors shown in my comments but just to complain about the result of his own words and "logic".

His logic is that of political correctness, which says "I can be as bigoted and ignorant as I wish, but you can't say anything because the truth has been deemed unacceptable."

Poor Victoria, thinking that denial is a form of argument. Watch her constantly ignore my references and claim she doesn't need references. Note how she completely refuses to address the facts about the UDHR and the CDHRI. I pointed out full text. All she can do is shout, like a five year-old child, "nuh uh!!!"

How jihadist of her.

As for dar al-Islam, which she tries to switch to since she can't address the falsity of her other arguments, wrong again. Yes, they were codified in medieval times, but that codification used, as all good Muslim scholars do, the Koran as a source.

Multiple Surras state war must be waged until Islam is dominant in the world. From that, it is clear that two lands exist: Those Islam rules (dar al-Islam) and those that still remain to be conquered, the lands of war (dar al-harb).

None of your avoidance changes the reality of Islam and your fear of the truth.

I'm not racist, but I am a cultural bigot. Hindus have not started a war of agression in 2000 yrs. Buddhist have never engaged in a war other than in dire straights of self defense, and the Jains would die before taking a human life even is self defense.

Perhaps you should have read a little of the history of Islam before signing up. Regardless of the culture they come from, Islam has been spread on the point of a sword since its inception. Its too late now of course. If you lived in an Islamic state that practised sharia, and attempted to leave the religion, you would likely be committiing a capital offense.

yes, but you didnt include the fact that the dutch government will no longer pay for her security- currently costing them 2.8 MILLION dollars a year.
so now i guess america will absorb that cost.

This is another perspective, but to be frank, very weak and his arguments are almost laughable. His two central tenets are:

1. If you replace Ali’s criticism of Islam (and somehow he deduces that she is thus criticizing Muslims – which I don’t believe she has ever done) and change that to Africa, we would all be condemning her. This is an invalid deduction, and thus an invalid argument in that she is criticizing the tenets of Islam the religion. In fact, she is very careful to clarify that she does not mean Muslims, the people. Also, unless Africa, the country, has a book with guiding principles that over 1 billion people follow, the comparison is just stretching for the sake of print.

2. The second tenet of his argument is that America has documented passages in its constitution and historical documents that, if we still took at face value, would allow us to condemn America. That’s just the point, though, we don’t take those for face value. In fact, amendments and laws have been added to repeal those mistakes and miscues. And every enlightened American knows and accepts this. Contrast that to Islam and the fact that many unenlightened and “enlightened” scholars argue that it is the book, and only the book that must be followed to the word. Think of how much suffering that is causing – to this day. I hardly see that with the American constitution.

HIRSI ALI SAYS- AMERICA IS MY HOME-

We are blessed. First Christopher Hitchens and now Ayaan Hirsi Ali..

An appreciative Ayaan Hirsi Ali has declined Denmark’s offer of asylum

Persecuted author Ayaan Hirsi Ali said she was ‘touched and honoured’ by Denmark’s offer of protected residence but is choosing to stay in the United States.

On Sunday, the culture minister, Brian Mikkelsen, said Denmark would give the 37-year-old Dutch-Ethiopian author asylum. The offer was made under the provisions established by the International City of Refuge Network, where ‘free cities’ are established for writers whose lives have been threatened because of their publications.

Ali’s plight received worldwide attention after director Theo Van Gogh was murdered last year by a Muslim fanatic. Ali had written the manuscript to Van Gogh’s ‘Submission’, a critical short film about Islam.

The Dutch government rescinded its official protection of Ali at the beginning of the month, stating it was no longer a feasible undertaking with the author living in the US.

Ali said in an interview that it made more sense for her to remain in the United States.

‘I thank you with all my heart for the offer, but my home and my work are in the US,’ she said. ‘So right now I’m concentrating on securing the means for my safety here.’

Ali has worked at the Washington, DC-based think-tank American Enterprise Institute for several years.

She was given the Danish award Venstres Frihedspris in 2004 for her courage in speaking out against fundamentalism despite receiving death threats.

She said Denmark and its support of free speech deserved a special place in her heart.

‘When my security issues in the US are resolved, Denmark will be the first country I visit in Europe.’

http://jp.dk/uknews/article1132570.ece

does that nclude mr patel? or just hindu indians?

and you find no problem making sweeping generalizations about people based on their ethnicity or nationality?

i dont know what they call that in enderland- but in america we call that downright racism

does that nclude mr patel? or just hindu indians?

and you find no problem making sweeping generalizations about people based on their ethnicity or nationality?

i dont know what they call that in enferland- but in america we call that downright racism

France is already thoroughly screwed. I was speaking mainly of Sweden, Finland and Norway, though the Germans do have the same problem. The Scandinavian countries are mostly socialist, which has worked because of a heterogenous population of very hard working but fun loving people. When a group that doesn't have the language and educational skills to compete in what was almost a utopian environment, they become disinfranchised, and tools of fundamentalist 'haters'. If the 'guest' worker doesn't assimilate and become a intigrated part of the host nation, their guest status should be revoked before they topple the system. Indian Hindus make great guest workers. They don't move to a nation to prosyletize. They go there to make enough money to move back home with new skills and enough money to live well, and start a business. Those that stay usually do so because they find out they really are secular and like their new nation better than the more rigidly religious society of India.

thats not really true ender, what about the french who allowed the algerians into france after the massacres in 62?

im watching the dalai lama speaking now-

now here is an example of a person of faith who uses his intelligence to draw disparate groups together- not try to create division and spread hatred, or up book sales.

as for the turks, the germans didnt allow them to come- they actively sook their cheap labor-

the germans are one of the largest tourists groups in turkey.

unfortunately, the cheapest labor was also the element of turkish society that they were happy to be rid of anyway.

now they are stuck with them-

Northern Europe made the mistake of allowing, even encouraging, large numbers of middle easterners, originally mostly turks, to move there as 'guest workers'. Many of these guest workers decided to stay, and are not on the second and third generations, that are still considered guest, and were not assimilated into the local society and custom, whether by the fault of the European nations, or the immigrants choice. Northern Europe are all secular nations with strong traditions of free expression, and tolerant laws. When immigrants choose not to follow those secular and tolerant customs, they should be shown the border and sent packing. The comic of the Pimp Mohammed with the bomb in the turban was an example of free speach. When any persons or group demonstrated violently against free speach that is protected by a nations constitution, they are denying the 'law of the land', and should have worn out their welcome instantly. We have the same issue with fundamentalist christians in the US attempting to force religious practices on others, but at least until GWB, our laws have been strong enough to maintain our status as a secular nation that upholds free expression.

on the internet and in person I speak out against our gov't and its policies. I would never attempt to deny anyones freedom of speach however stupid or offensive I may find it, unless it is done through gov't auspices and violates the US Constitutional prohibition for gov't to favor any religion.

Hello Magnus: I highly suggest Sweden, and all of northern Europe accelerate the exodus of non-citizen muslims that oppose your national Constitution, and the law of the land. Free speach stops when it violently opposes the free speach of opposing views.

The message of the Quran and the history of islam is one of evangelical spread equal to anything the Catholic empire attempted hundreds of years ago. Neither have been above using tricks, lies and finally bloodshed to convert or kill everthing in their path.

mr andersson- despite your magnaminous gesture that i wouldnt be included in your islamic pogrom- (not through your choice but because it i actaully could not be)
you start on a slippery slope of intolerance and censorship.

since you mentioned sweden, and then gave an example of a swedish editor, its only mnormal for rick to assume you're swedish, as we have a tendency to speak about what we know. well- ususally anyway

dont be paranoid- rick only asked because we all have inclinations that tend towatd our own, your name is swedish?, and you have a distinct flavor of intolerance towards muslims-

yes- the formerly white white countries north of europe have gotten an influx of brown muslims- seriously testing their stated contnetions that they are the most tolerant and neutral place in the world.

it is easy to be tolerant when you dont have to live it.

so now norway, and the netherlands and sweden are starting to have to live their words-

and your call for expelling the "others" isnt exactly a rousing endorsement of the superiority of the neutrality of scandinavia.

your statement which alarmend rick, alarms me also-

"40 and 70 percent Muslims in the west who fully support our model of society I don't think you shall be expelled. But at least those Muslims who are active in changing our free society I think shall be expelled.”

what makes you think i can be forced to accept "your model of society"?

if your society is truly a free one, then it is free for all- not just people who think like you do.

my ideas are just as valuable and important as yours-

actually i was watching a documentary here in america about that swedish editor-
i thought it was incredibly irresponsible of the hournalist to film his house form the outside, and then proclaim, "arent you afraid the people threatening you know where you are?"

i was thinking- if i were him- id say, "well they DO NOW thanks alot cnn!"

now- all the conditions you put on freedom- im not sure i want to be around that kind of repressive freedom anyway.

"They are in war against our society and we better expel them. This is very well in acordance with the enlightment. The enlightment is also about protection its freedom."

we have 12 million mexicans illegally in the US-
(while the muslims in your country have gone through the legal channels or they wouldnt even be there)
ILLEGALLY
and im not proposing the expulsion of a whole people-

i worked for 2 years tight with migrant farmworkers in little shanties and tents with no electricity, running water or amenities of any kind.
i was a liaison for the orchards.

and lived EXACTLY THE SAME- working 14 hour days in 115 degree heat in the factories where women would fall out regularly.

i know what inconsistencies their society has with americna freedom- and there are some, believe me- but i dont live with a people and get their trust and then betray it by revealing their secrets.

we all have them.

even you-
and your proposed pogrom doesnt sound all that enlightened to me.
ill take a pass- even though you may have or may have not deemed me worthy

I have posted frequently here and on truthdig regarding the apatheid state of Israel, and how the Zionist miliarty core of that nation has never intended to live within the UN designated borders established in '48, and has committed acts of terrorism to drive Palestinians out of land Israel covets.

That said, since day one, the Islamic states have denied the right of Israel to exist, and have rarely negotiated in good faith to end the conflict. The original 800,000 displaced landowners in Israel has grown to 8,000,000 partially due to the refusal of Islamic neighbors to allow Palestinians regugees to enter their nations, and often encouraged their own citizens to migrate to Palestine.

Both parties are at fault with regard to Palestine. The rulers of Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Libya and Egypt don't really give a rodents posterior about the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem as an Islamic holy sight.

What they do care about is that by keeping their citizens focused on hatred for Israel, the corruption and theft of resources by the rulers is ignored.

Particularly with the 'cold war' at an end, support for the state of Israel is no longer in the best interest of the US. Neither though, is support for the 'Great Caliphate' that is the desire of the Saudi Royalty/Wahudi clan that keep the turmoil at maximum so as to maintain their position of power in the region.

We took out Saddam as much for SA as we did for Israel.

For the $trillion dollars this war will cost before it is all over with, I truly believe American Ingenuity could have had us free of dependency on oil, particularly foreign oil. Without oil money, 50 million humans couldn't live in the dessert, and they would be too busy trying to eat to worry about attacking us or Israel.

But that's water under Bush's arse and nothing to be done until Americans take control of their gov't back from Big Oil.

In the meantime, we need to drop support for Israeli Zionist policy, stop the export of terrorism from SA, and make friends with Iran, where the people actually are most ready for a secular, western type democracy.

The whole mess is the greed and ambition of nations who use religion the cult of Abrahim to poison the minds of humans with tribal hate and cultural nationalism.

Hello again Magnus,

Here is another part of your post that I enjoyed reading:

“Rick: "If you are a Christian right religious wing nut, I think we need to deport you, considering the mess you and this administration have gotten us into in Palestine and Iraq."

You are obviously a leftard moonbat. Thanks for that information. Most western visitors in Palestine are journalists which think that Israel is the most evil nation on earth committing genocide on the Palestines. If you think they shall leave Palestine I must agree! :-)”

Yep, I’m a leftard moonbat alright. I didn’t quite follow this sentence though: “If you think they shall leave Palestine I must agree! :-)”

Are you saying that the journalists should leave Palestine, leaving the Israelis to commit unreported whatever atrocities they wish? Or that the Israelis should leave Palestine? If you suggest that the Israeli occupiers should leave, then I must agree.

This is opposite from what our buddy Ted Baines wants to do:

“Return half of Saudi Arabia, the western half of Saudi Arabia, to its rightful owners, the Jews. Relocate all Muslims from Palestine and the West Bank to Muslim countries.”

I think that we will pull the 5 or 6 million Jews from Palestine instead, and bring them to Texas, as payback for Texas giving us our beloved President Bush.

"I don’t want to see our free society brought under Sharia law either. But I think that the danger of that happening is infinitesimally small.."

Rick is myopic..

Det svider i hjärtat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omMg7BZikL4

Why do young men, who have grown up in the safe bosom of Scandinavia, want to sacrifice their lives for Allah?

That is the question posed by a Swedish documentary that provides a glimpse into the world of young European Muslims who dedicate themselves to jihad, or holy war.

The film, "Aching Heart," will open in Sweden on Oct. 19 but has already gained much attention.

Part of the film is the story of two young Swedes with immigrant backgrounds - one from Ostermalm, one of Stockholm's poshest neighborhoods, and one from Kvanum, a tiny town in central Sweden - who left their homes in the 1990s to seek martyrdom in the wars of Chechnya and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

But most of the focus of the film is on Göteborg, Sweden's second-biggest city. This is where Mirsad Bektasevic grew up. The 20-year-old Swede with Bosnian roots was given an eight-year sentence in Sarajevo this summer for planning a suicide attack there in 2005.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/15/africa/sweden.php?page=1

Good Morning Magnus,

Although, it is afternoon (about 2:30 PM) I suppose in Sweden.

I apologize for my remarks about your English. That was not nice. I’m usually not so nasty, except with my right wing nut job buddies like Ted, David, Mike, CTCNL and Anon.

Now that we got that out of the way, we can get down to business.

You say:

“You must somehow be quite retarded, not only 100 % misinterpret my words about Victoria.”

Yes, I am mildly retarded, plus I scanned your post too quickly. Here is the paragraph that bothered me:

“I think we in the West do not considering the consequenses of an enemy within our borders striving for another, Islamic, non-free society. But if you are among the maybe between 40 and 70 percent Muslims in the west who fully support our model of society I don't think you shall be expelled. But at least those Muslims who are active in changing our free society I think shall be expelled.”

This is a road that we must tread very carefully. I don’t want to see our free society brought under Sharia law either. But I think that the danger of that happening is infinitesimally small. We are in much greater danger of having Ku Klux Klan type bigoted hypocrites terrorizing our citizens because they don’t like the color of their skin.

If you are just worried about people demonstrating about inflammatory material in your free press, that is one thing. We value the right to demonstrate in our country as long as it remains nonviolent. If you are talking about people being killed or threatened to be killed, like is the subject of this thread, then that is quite another. I think that these instances are quite rare and are perpetrated by individual nut jobs or terrorist groups. This does not justify threatening to deport 30 to 60% of the entire Muslim population.

CTCNL says,

‘And who funds these acts of terror? Islamic terror theocracy of Iran, the Third Axis of Evil and also the "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.’

And who funds the Saudi Wannabees? We do with the 1.5 million barrels of oil per day that we import from the Saudis (5.5 million from OPEC) at $85 per barrel (and rising). Yep, that’s $46.5 billion per year to the Saudis, and $217 billion per year to OPEC, or over a trillion dollars to OPEC every 5 years. Think its time to cut our dependence on OPEC oil?

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbblpd_a.htm

And who inspires them to attack us? We do with our illegal and immoral invasions and occupations of Palestine and Iraq, slaughtering thousands of innocents (mostly women and children), and displacing and driving into refugee status millions of families.

CTCNL says:

‘The agenda continues as shown by the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic train bombers in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases and the Filipino koranics.’

Well the ‘24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers’, and the ‘Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers’ are the most important to us and are the direct result of our own idiotic foreign policy. We created them by toppling the sovereign government, disbanding the army and security forces and failing to put a stable government in its place. Aren’t we so proud of ourselves? But of course it’s all the fault of all those evil Muslims.

And as for the 9/11 terrorists, where did they come from? Answer: 15 of 19 from Saudi Arabia.

And does our brilliant President Bush invade and occupy Saudi Arabia in response? Nope, he chooses to invade and occupy Iraq.

Why?

Original justification: Weapons of Mass Destruction (none found) and ties to 9/11 (non existent).

Most recent justification: Bring democracy to Middle East because God prefers democracies.

As to your other concerns about the Muslim doctors in the UK, Pakistan, Spain, Bali, Philippines, Lebanon… I will have to do some research on these, but do not automatically subscribe to the knee jerk response that the Qur’an is the source of these problems. It could just be that there are some bad men in this world, just like we have right here in Washington D.C.

Rick: "What nationality and religion are you?"

Rick, You claim you can't understand my English language. In the message You comment I write that I am from Sweden. You must somehow be quite retarded, not only 100 % misinterpret my words about Victoria.

Rick: "Anon that wants to expel Victoria,"

I obviously didn't. Explicitly I write that I don´t think Victoria are among the ones that threaten our soviety, and also I write that can't be expelled.

Rick: "What nationality and religion are you?"

What does that matter? Are you doing an enemy list or what?

Rick: "You obviously can’t read and write in the English language."

Partly damn right! I'm not from an English speaking country and have never lived in one.

Rick: "If you are a Christian right religious wing nut, I think we need to deport you, considering the mess you and this administration have gotten us into in Palestine and Iraq."

You are obviously a leftard moonbat. Thanks for that information. Most western visitors in Palestine are journalists which thinks that Israel is the most evil nation on earth committing genocide on the Palestines. If you think they shall leave Palestine I must agree! :-)

It may be interesting to note that Hirsi Ali is the only person in the world who has officially and publicly been allowed to carry a false name and a false date of birth in her passport. Most probably because otherwise three years of political dealing in Dutch House of Representatives would have come to naught. Dutch constitution prescribes that all members of parliament are to be Dutch. Rushdie calling her a refugee doesn't understand a thing. But then again, he needs a pretty new wife.

What is just as important are the flaws in the foundations of Islam. i.e. Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, hallucinating Arab who also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

That ladies and gentlemen is not self-defense!!!!!

The agenda continues as shown by the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic train bombers in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases and the Filipino koranics.

And who funds these acts of terror? Islamic terror theocracy of Iran, the Third Axis of Evil and also the "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

Victoria,
I stand by my judgement and my reread of Eboo's article.

And, here is the personal part:
"Ms. Ali, often and ludicrously called a “defender of the West”, has certainly mastered one of its central elements: capitalism. She has learned to make a living from the fact that her life is threatened. It is a lucrative though precarious path,"

He is labelling her a profiteer and her discourse shallow.

He also conjurs up the analogy of Africa, as a way of calling her an "ignoramus".

He then tries to further ridicule her by suggesting there was a "ghost writer" for her book, thus trying to further indict her.

And, furthermore, who made Eboo "The Decider" as to what qualifies as "Enlightenment Principles"?
His arrogance and his name-calling and his emotional tone all point to a man who is NOT INTERESTED IN INTERFAITH COOPERATION, but INSTEAD INTERESTED IN INTERFAITH WARFARE.

MY DEMAND FOR HIS APOLOGY TO THIS BLOG AND TO MS. ALI STANDS. Do YOU feel any interfaith cooperation in this blog?????

I think you see my point.

Quieting the negativity in your mind and your emotions and your spoken word are bedrock Enlightenment Principles in my opinion. Where do you see that in his posting?

The spoken word is still a powerful weapon and Eboo has abused it if he thinks he stands for Interfaith Cooperation.

Love, Brothers and Sisters is what brings peace.
Cody

David says:

"I believe that not all Muslims are bad people", and when have I ever said that? Quote me. I've said that the vast majority are. Is your education so minimal that you equate "majority" with "all"?

And:

“None of your (Rick’s) rationalizations or your running away from answering a single one of my points changes that. Rather, as I've said, it proves my point: You are a jihadist.”

Sure David, I’m a Jihadist just like the vast majority of Muslims are bad people. You are a sick person. Try to find help.

CODY- i encourage you to reread mr patels article-

i suspect people read the articles once, get an emotional reaction and then react on that reaction sometimes- i am not suggesting that you have done so- i just hget that feeling often here-

here are the most personal ones i could find-

"I think the people who want Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s head are cretins. They are dangerous to all of us. They would have my head and the heads of all the progressive Muslims I know in an instant."

A DENUNCIATION of her attackers-

"It is a genuinely inspiring tale (even a lyrical one, although reports have surfaced that Ali had a ghost writer).

literary critique, both positive and negative

"Finally, and for the record, if Ayaan Hirsi Ali applied for refugee status in America and requested protection from the government, I would support her application and offer my tax dollars to ensure her safety."

outright support

"She is repulsive to my Muslim faith and my Enlightenment sensibilities, but those same traditions cause me to wish her no harm."

yes, she is also repulsive to my faith-
while many many have expressed overt hatred of my faith i never consider it personal, as it is not.

followed by the benign statement that actually again- is a SUPPORT of a benign intenton towards her personally.

if you are seeing something im not- i invite and challenge you to find any personal insults or derogations in mr patels post

peace

CODY- i beg to differ-
"disgust and vehemence and attack"
are your own dramatic license and characterization-

mr patel did not make any personal insult or attack on the person of ms hirsi

mr patel most decidedly did not attack ms hirsi's
views- what he did was deconstruct her reasoning

and finally, ms hirsi is a stated atheist-

mr patel made no mention of her religious or non-religious views

how can she be offended by religious views she does not possess?

she has a strong and negative OPINION about OTHER'S religious views
but that is not the same as having ones own person, or views attacked

i wish I were attacked on these boards with the mildness and civility with which you accuse (unjustly unless you can prove otherwise)
mr patel of-

his final statement is one of saying while he may disagree with he philisophically-
he will support her protection with his taxes

really- censorship is censorship

if you want to censor those whose views are different than yours (like mine or mr patel's)
under the guise of protectng a supposed proponent of free speech-
it is an incongruous argument

Victoria:

RE: "if ayaan ali has the right to express herslef- and give vent to a great deal of hate-mongering and vitirolic contentions insulting an entire people-mr patel certainly has the right to disagree with her and say why."

Mr. Patel did not just disagree with her, he vehemently and with "disgust" attacked her views and her personally. Ms. Ali did not attack Mr. Patel personally.

The issue here is EBOO PATEL Himself. He is a person who CLAIMS to be for interfaith cooperation, but instead attacks Ms. Ali over her religious views. This thread has NOT LED TO INTERFAITH COOPERATION. It has led to INTERFAITH WARFARE. Eboo is thus a hypocrite for saying he is for cooperation, but lighting the fire under bloggers with his rhetoric.

RE: "he didnt put the hatred in the hearts of the haters here-" No, but as a person who claims to reach across religious lines, he is instead throwing firebombs at the other side and fanning the waves of hatred and animosity and generating what I call the "frenzy" of endless debate, negative runaway emotions and religious ignorance.

Mr. Patel is a hypocrite. He has done nothing to repair the damage.

Mr. Patel should APOLOGIZE TO THIS BLOG, APOLOGIZE TO MS. ALI FOR ATTACKING HER PERSONALLY, AND COMMITTING TO A POSITIVE PATH TO TRUE INTERFAITH COOPERATION.

IF HE CANNOT OFFER THE APOLOGY, HE IS NOTHING BUT THE ISLAMIC VERSION OF PAT ROBERTSON.

Eliminate the negativity in your hearts and in your minds and you can find peace. You can then know how to bring peace to the world.

Love, Brothers and Sisters, is what brings peace.

Cody

sorry cant stay and play i have nurturing repsonsibilities to attend to

that is a rather hilarious contention that i am silent-

yes cody- you are right-
every muslim panelist that posts here gets hijacked by islmaophobes

spewing ignorant hatred and fear under the guise of "freedom"

so anyone can say any filthy disgusting xenophobic fear-mongering hate speech AND IF ITS AGAINST A MUSLIM IT IS OK?

so i guess hate-speech is acceptable against muslims.
well theres no surprise- just look at any post by any muslim panelist-
they all end the same-
haters screaming their hatred until good peope get sickened by it and leave

has anyone here ever heard me speak ill of christians? buddhists? jews? pagans? homosexuals?
africans? asians? hispanics?
republicans? (well maybe a little)

if i see stupidity- i dont even call it stupidity-

im watching congressional proceedings on c-span right now-
the subject is freedom of press and the definitions of whatconditions a journalist must reveal their sources.

i see my country using non-stop its hatred of the "other" to erode long held and fought for freedoms in the name of 'national security'

when you sacrifice freedom for security you end up with neithter- or something like that - i think benjamin franklin

so cody- if ayaan ali has the right to express herslef- and give vent to a great deal of hate-mongering and vitirolic contentions insulting an entire people-

mr patel certainly has the right to disagree with her and say why.

he didnt put the hatred in the hearts of the haters here-

they are responsible for their anger fear and paranoia.

and just being a muslim isnt a justification enough for one to express their phobic xenophobia all over the place.

so for any who want me to"RENOUNCE" ANYTHING IN THE QURAN-
NO- you go learn about it on your own

if you dont like the answers ive given-and ive given plenty-

construct reasonalbe counter-points using your brain and providing connection and logic- and references and resources as i do

i dont even look at long cut and pastes as i wont put more effort into understanding your POV than you put into making it

and if your only POV is that all muslims are evil- well that doesnt dignify reciprocal evil on my part- but it doesnt dignify a civil response either

This blog has gotten sidetracked into a debate about Islamic religion, practice and violence.

Please put this back on the topic of why a person like Eboo Patel would attack Hirsi Ali and create all this animosity in the process?

Mr. Patel: If you are going to claim you are interested in interfaith understanding, you need to APOLOGIZE TO EVERYONE HERE FOR CREATING SUCH A FRENZY OF HATE. If you are truly a man of interfaith understanding you need to SHOW US that you are.

Right now, you showed us how you can make people fight and how you are a hypocrite.

You may not agree with Ali, but she is an incredibly brave woman to stand up and speak her mind against a powerful Islamic philosophy. For that ALONE, she deserves your apology and your regret. Shame on you!

cody

Rick..

You forgot to scream: "ALLAH ACKBAR!"

Mike,

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you and others, the Qur’an only advocates violence in self defense. Since Islam is under attack by the terrorist states of the US and Israel, it has every right to defend itself.

What you should be asking yourself is when are we going to demand an end to the unconditional US support for the illegitimate ‘State of Israel’ and the illegal and immoral invasions and occupations of Palestine and Iraq?

You should be more concerned about the thousands of innocents (women and children) slaughtered, and millions of families dislocated and driven into refugee camps, using your and my tax dollars, than the puny response that the victims can muster in retaliation.

Rick-

By not addressing the violence found in the Qur'an, you friend Victoria is tacitly embracing and condoning Islamic violence.

An "American" Muslim's chosen silence is becoming self-evident. Seems like 911 all over again.

Any ideas why Victoria will not condemn the violent verses that inspire her coreligionists to kill?

Anon that wants to expel Victoria,

What nationality and religion are you? You obviously can’t read and write in the English language. If you are a Christian right religious wing nut, I think we need to deport you, considering the mess you and this administration have gotten us into in Palestine and Iraq.

Sorry, I missed to write my name. The two last messages was by me, Magnus Andersson. (BTW a man.)

VICTORIA: Your a convert, yes, som you can't be expelled. I guess you are not radical or sharia promoting, but I also think you have chosen a not so good religion. Actually the most intolerant religion I can think of.

Of course even a readical convert can't be expelled. But in Sweden and many other European contries the majority of the Muslim population are immigrants. If these Muslims fight against our freedom, as those I mentioned who attacks the editor of Nerikes Allehanda for publication of some art in order to maintain the freedom of expression, in that case I think they fight a core value of our society which makes our free liberal society what it is. They are in war against our society and we better expel them. This is very well in acordance with the enlightment. The enlightment is also about protection its freedom.

VICTORIA: I'm not want to expel any particular Muslim. I had a condition in my statement, so don't do the rethorical Muslim crying trick on this. I'm fed up with that! For example: If You are absolutely clear about our freedom, which among many other things include freedom of expression, I'm not wanna expel you.

Didn't you notised that condition for my suggestion? Or do you really think you are the kind of Muslim that don't care about our freedom? In that case, and if you support the end of freedom with sharia, then I think you can be targeted (to be expelled) too. Yes!

The problem with mainstream Islam I mentioned, is that it doesn't accept different point of views, other religions and so forth. At the same time those who represent Islam have a very aggressive agenda to transform our society into a semi muslim (finally Muslim) society. There is plenty of ways to do this, besides rethorical tricks e.g. legal action. Examples: CAIR in America. An academic book, "Alms of Jihad", stopped in UK half a year after first publication.

Also Islam and Muslims are treated more nicely than Christians and Christianity in the media. Crosses are stopped at schools when the Muslim veil isn't stopped. This is part of the concept multiculturalism, which in turn is a left liberal relativistic concept. "We in the West are bad, the other are good".

I think we in the West do not considering the consequenses of an enemy within our borders striving for another, Islamic, non-free society.

But if you are among the maybe between 40 and 70 percent Muslims in the west who fully support our model of society I don't think you shall be expelled. But at least those Muslims who are active in changing our free society I think shall be expelled. In Sweden one city (Malmoe) will have a Muslim majority within a few decades. This is aa problem since Aravbic mainstream Islam is dominating. (Almost 60000 are members of the great mosque in the city of 260000 inhabitants.) Sweden as a whole may have Muslim majority in less than 100 years. I think this is a problem if the Muslim population consists of those who dream of the Islamic society. (Some Swedish Muslim leaders have already asked for sharia in Sweden.) As religion Islam is very political, so the political concept of Islam is a threat to the west. I can't see many Muslims who take a stand against political Islam. Maybe too many Muslims support it, or maybe many not dare to take the risk to oppose it.

I can understand if good Muslims are worried to speak out, but this silence is also a problem. There are radical Muslims who actively works for influence (this is ultimately sharia) on our free society. How can we know which Muslims who are not radical?

I suggested that we expel those who works against our freedom. Free societies can cease to exist because those who oppose the freedom fight it. For example in Germany in the 30th a minority changed the whole society. We may already see this in Belgium and partly in UK.

The problem is that the goal mainstream Islam have is to transform the West to Islamic society. That isn't a free society. Therefor we must take action against this if we want the free western society to prevail.

dave- theres bbc- a site to go to- there is the category, and the naME of the article- if that isnt enough for you - you cannot be helped

you were dead wrong about me not providing you resources
you were dead wrong that the house of war occurs in the quran
you are dead wrong as i stated THE OIC IS IN COORDINATION WITH THE UN
AND YOU ARE DEAD WORNG IN YOUR CONTENTION THAT THE CAIRO DECLARATION IS FOR ANYONE BUT MUSLIMS
IT IS!
CAN YOU NOT DIGEST INFORMATION?

every single point wrong dave-

instead of either staying intelligently silent to not draw attention to your mistakes
you actually trumpet them

if you cant find the information i provided that i managed to find - and need the links provided for you-

do it yourself!

David: I'll continue being the problem by being vocal and complaining directly at the mainstream religion.

Love ya!

David: I'll continue being the problem by being vocal and complaining directly at the mainstream religion.

The two "anonymous" posts addressing Aya and Rick are mine. Sorry, I forgot my name.

Rick must put words in other people's mouths in order to find arguments he can win. So sad.

"you completely overlook..." How would you know that? Do you read my blog? My posts elsewhere. Of course not. However, you think that nations not being perfect (and none are) is an excuse for an organized 1600 year old war of one religion to create a global caliphate. And I bet you whine about "proportionality" when Israel defends itself...

"Christians are being treated poorly in the Middle East. I wonder why that is." That's because you refuse to pay attention:
1) The Armenian Genocide
2) Christians in Turkey having their throats slit for printing a Bible
3) A man put on trial by the "moderate pro-western" Afghani government, for his life, for the "crime" of converting from Islam to Christianity
4) Maronite Christian politicians regularly blown up in Lebanon
5) Coptic Christian regularly complaining to the UN about their treatment at the hands of Egypt's Muslim government
6) Christians being openly executed by Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank, as well as being scared out of Bethlehem by Fatah, Hamas, et al.

There's no need to "wonder" at all. It's jihad.

"Israelis raining..." So, you think that Arabs can declare and wage a 60 year long war of extermination, directly attacking civilians and using civilians as shields (in violation of the GC) and Israel has no right to defend itself? It's notable that you won't demand the Arabs unconditionally end the war they unconditionally began.

"invading and occupying Iraq..." Unlike Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Muslim world's press, Israel's is free. If you paid attention in late '01 and early '02, you would have noticed that most Israeli citizens and pundits (rare agreement in any country...) wondered why Shrub was going to attack Saddam. It was obvious he was cornered and that Iran was the bigger threat.

"You are so critical of Moderate Islam", I've only criticized it for being tiny and silent. I'm criticizing mainstream Islam as being very dangerous.

"There is no moderate Christianity." Really, show me the Christian nations waging war to create a single global Christian world. Show me a Christian terror organization funded by multiple Christian countries. Show me the Organization of Christian Conferences or all Christian nations voting as a block to prevent human rights in the UN.

Rather, it was Christians who marches in Europe to protest the Afghan govt trying a man for converting, not Muslims.

"we would be stoning to death everyone who works on the Sabbath", no, because there's no Christian movement you can point to that believes that. However, both mainstream Sunni and Shiite (the vast majority of Muslims) believe that is right.

Christianity and Judaism have moved past the desert barbarity of 2-3000 years ago, but Islam is still stuck in the 6th century.

None of your rationalizations or your running away from answering a single one of my points changes that. Rather, as I've said, it proves my point: You are a jihadist.

TeresaG -

I'm a Muslim woman and I have issues with Ms. Hirsi Ali. The majority of Muslim women are repulsed by her.

If Hirsi Ali's goal is to bring basic human rights to Muslim woman - she need only turn to Muslim scriptures to do so. Calling Islam fascist and stating that the vast majority of Muslims are not moderate and making it a goal to rid the world of Islam is not going to bring any relief to these women. It is not a productive strategy - it is threatening to the Muslim world as a whole as she often is associated with the mob that would like to bomb Mecca or exterminate Muslims. As a Bosnian American - I know full well what may be the reprucusions of this sort of strategy.

Islam did not do these things to Ms. Hirsi Ali - people did. FGM is cultural and not religious. While some Muslims practice it MOST do not. By the same token - some Christians practice it (those that have been converted to Christianity - the church allows them this because they refuse to give it up - hence, cultural) even some Jews (Ethiopian I believe)practice it and even within Israel.

As for her arranged marriage while it is allowed, woman are supposed to agree or refuse. Whatever is happening to woman in which they are being forced to marry is not because of Islam ..rather it is because of something else. Maybe we should just blame it on men instead. Also it is permited in Islam to marry someone that you have fallen in love with even if your parents object.

Aya: Are you really serious?

"Why do people get so caught up in this?" Means that you avoid the reality of jihad today, of what the mass of Muslims and Muslim leaders constantly both say and do.

"I believe that not all Muslims are bad people", and when have I ever said that? Quote me. I've said that the vast majority are. Is your education so minimal that you equate "majority" with "all"?

Islam needs its own reformation. It won't be pretty or clean, but it's needed. However, until you supposed moderates get vocal and complain directly at the mainstream religion, rather than those of us who notice it, you aren't helping but are part of the problem.

Victoria, so many lies in such a short space.

Saying "the BBC" is like saying "in a newspaper". It's a claim. Giving the url is the specific source.

OIC: Organization of Islamic Conferences. http://www.oic-oci.org/. Nothing to do with the UN.

UDHR: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The one pushed by the UN and not signed by Muslim nations

CDHRI: Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam. The one all Muslim nations support in its place.

As for urls, you got the one you gave wrong. That's a precursor. The one adopted is, as I've said, the CDHRI: http://www.religlaw.org/interdocs/docs/cairohrislam1990.htm
"more specific" is the one thing you got right. key sentence: "Wishing to contribute to the efforts of mankind to assert human rights, to protect man from exploitation and persecution, and to affirm his freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with the Islamic Shari’ah"

It says nothing about "FOR muslims" but "mankind". It was accepted by all majority Muslim nations for all people to live, regardless of religion.

A2c: Supports the stoning of people as ending life at the "term of time willed by God" (supported by 19d)

A12c: Supports restrictions of movement on infidel dhimmis as prescribed by Sharia.

"let people define themselves" if you truly believed that, you'd:
1) Believe the words of the majority of Muslims and how they define themselves
2) Work to preserve the freedom of the rest of us from them.

Bill C makes the near-correct point in his critique of Patel's hee-haw and huffing-puffing of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Patel's religion is, needless to emphasize, intolerant and barbaric.

Adherents of that faith (Islam) criticizing (meaning preaching sublime hatred) the critics of Islam is just sham.

Islam and western style democracy are mutually exclusive.

The next attack inside USA wil be from home grown radical Muslims who have been brainwashed through the Internet cyber-mullahs to adopt the Wahabi version of Islam, as does Osama bin Laden and his cavemen in Afghanistan.

I wonder how little these issues would be if Mr. Patel was a muslim woman. He should not diminish what the muslim ideals did to Ms Ali because SHE LIVED THROUGH them as a woman, he did NOT.

It is incorrect to parallel the muslim faith, which dictates and instructs many on how to live with places such as Africa and America. The atrocities in Africa are many and they are deplored. Slavery was abolished and it is a shameful segment of American history. Does the muslim faith make apologies for the violence instructed by the Qu'ran? Are there policy changes underway to help lift muslim women up and out of their oppression?

Patel is laughable. He really thinks that the US Constitution is somehow comparavble to a holy book. Its hard for me to believe that a document which can be changed with time and is the basis for civil law is somehow the same thing as a holy book that people believe was written by an omnipotent deity.

To illustrate how absurd his point is I would ask him the question, "Do you think it is possible to interpret the Quran in a way that is compatible with Western democracy?" I don't know what kind of contortionist exegesis one would have to engage it, but it would surely be good for some laughs. What is it in you that so desperately want to save Islam? What is there to save in Islam? Its record when in power is deplorable, and anywhere that it is the majority religion it is either in power or the society it produces is barbarous. The West is not pluralistic in the sense that it stands for nothing and can absorb any cultural ethos into its collective. Where is there any consilience between Islam and say... the Enlightenment, since he brought it up. There is not, and I would wager that until they give up an attachment to the Koran and Islam they will be forever foreign and we the better for it.

Patel is laughable. He really thinks that the US Constitution is somehow comparavble to a holy book. Its hard for me to believe that a document which can be changed with time and is the basis for civil law is somehow the same thing as a holy book that people believe was written by an omnipotent deity.

To illustrate how absurd his point is I would ask him the question, "Do you think it is possible to interpret the Quran in a way that is compatible with Western democracy?" I don't know what kind of contortionist exegesis one would have to engage it, but it would surely be good for some laughs. What is it in you that so desperately want to save Islam? What is there to save in Islam? Its record when in power is deplorable, and anywhere that it is the majority religion it is either in power or the society it produces is barbarous. The West is not pluralistic in the sense that it stands for nothing and can absorb any cultural ethos into its collective. Where is there any consilience between Islam and say... the Enlightenment, since he brought it up. There is not, and I would wager that until they give up an attachment to the Koran and Islam they will be forever foreign and we the better for it.

One: Condemning African culture, as long as it is the culture and not the race(s) that is condemned, might be reasonable; one would have to look at the facts about African culture. Probably, one would find that African cultures vary too much to stand or fall together. Islam, however, is at root one doctrine, the doctrine of Mohammed. If that doctrine is evil, Islam is evil, and decent Muslims must be understood to follow a distorted version of Islam or to adhere to Islam only nominally.

Two: It is clear in reading the Declaration and the Constitution that the acceptance of slavery was an exception repugnant to the ideals of the Founding. It is clear even in the clauses of the Constitution relating to slavery, which refuse to use the word--until the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolishes slavery. These clauses are present because human beings had to compromise. The Koran purports to be the perfect word of the perfect god. Nothing in it can be taken as a deviation from the ideals it supports, nor as a compromise; none of its oppressive doctrines are expressed in the sort of guilty euphemisms the Constitution uses for slaves ("all other persons").

Three: The whole tone of the Republic's founding documents is one of freedom. The whole tone of the Koran is oppression. The Founders' vision of the ideal man was of a free man; Mohammed made the ideal man a slave. If you want a visceral understanding of the clash of civilizations, try to picture the Statue of Liberty in the posture of a Muslim at prayer.

To everyone who responded to me thank you for the wonderful dialogue. I'm out. I have a life to live and I don't anymore energy to try to defend myself. I make myself known and let people know where I am coming from in my daily life. I don't hide by posting how I feel about this or that only on the Internet. So if you feel some type of way about something make it known. Have a dialogue with someone you know personally who does not share the same views as you. I guarantee the both of you will come away with some sort of knowledge. I wish I knew you in real life that way I could give you a great big hug. Life is short, live it to the fullest. As long you are doing that then be happy. There are so many people out there who are not as fortunate. Have lovely life and I pray for you much success in your life.

Thank you for your comments on Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Her comments on the Qur'an could just as well have been about the Bible if using only a few passages. I firmly believe that the various religions of the world have more in common than not, as do the people. We should be celebrating our similarities AND differences for that is what makes the world such a great place. I advise people to judge others on who THEY are, not their government or what others have done or hearsay. That is what I try to do though I do have some moments when I have to ask my self where an action or thought came from.

Keep up the good work

I am still in high school, but I hope to have a career in Feminism and Women's Studies.

I can fully understand the passive aggressive traits found in the posts of Aya, Victoria and other Muslim women. This is a natural defense to living in an oppressive society where you have little or no freedom.

BPSCG: Sura 9:4-9:5 "[9:4] If the idol worshipers sign a peace treaty with you, and do not violate it, nor band together with others against you, you shall fulfill your treaty with them until the expiration date. GOD loves the righteous.

[9:5] Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful."

Sura 3:28 "The believers never ally themselves with the disbelievers, instead of the believers. Whoever does this is exiled from GOD. Exempted are those who are forced to do this to avoid persecution. GOD alerts you that you shall reverence Him alone. To GOD is the ultimate destiny."

Doesn't look like the Qur'an says I'm wrong. Instead of placing elipses how about quote the whole verse.

As a Muslim I adhere to the five pillars:
Profess there is only one God
Pray
Fast
Give Charity
Make Hajj (if you have the means to)

If the Pope called for a 'fatwa' against a Catholic for converting to Islam, would not the ENTIRE ISLAMIC WORLD BE UP AT ARMS?

Would not all reasonable and secular westerners call for his recantment and apology?

WHERE IS THAT OUTCRY FROM ISLAM WHEN THE LEADER OF ONE OF THE LARGEST ISLAMIC SECTS, THE AYATOLLAH OF THE SHIA RELIGION, CALL FOR THE DEATH OF HIRSI ALI FOR APOSTASTY?

AND EBOO HAS THE TEMERITY TO BE DISGUSTED WITH HER?

You're a trip Eboo, and anyone that defends the actions of an entire religion that demands the death penalty for free speach and freedom of religion is danger to the human society.

"Victoria-

These Quranic verses inspire violence in extreme Muslims. Why would any peace-loving Muslim cling to them. Please renounce them and move on."

Here's your chance to take a stand for PEACE.

Aya: "What rationalization are you saying that a person who is not Muslim should be killed."

The Koran. Sura 9 ("The Immunity"), verse 5: "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush..."

There are a lot more places, but I think you get the picture. This is the word of Allah. Is there some source that overrides it?

Aya: "I have better things to do with my life than obsess over who's a Muslim or not."

No you don't, because sura 3 ("The Family of Imran"), verse 28, says, "Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers..."

Allah commands you to not take unbelievers for friends. Do you reject this commandment? Because if you do, it goes on to say, "...and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah..."

Do you risk losing Allah's protection by having unbelievers for friends?

Aya: "This whole obsession of picking several sura's and ayats from the Qu'ran is getting a little tired."

Sorry if this tires you. If you know of some more authoritative source than the Koran for how a Muslim should behave, please share it with us.

Aya: "Question for you do you know any Muslims"

Does a Pakistani next door neighbor count? Do people I work with count? Please note I don't discuss religion with them, since it's too inflammatory a subject and I have to work with them and live next to them. I DO quite freely discuss religion with people on the internet, since it's with people who are willing to discuss it and with whom I don't have other important relationships that might be damaged by such a frank discussion.

Aya: "...what I am saying is why are you questioning me about if an innocent person should be killed. My answer is No."

So you reject 9:5.

Aya: "Now that I answered your questioned is the next question that you will ask me is are you really a Muslim. "

I have no reason to doubt that you are really a Muslim.

Aya: "Look yes I am a Muslim. Can you believe that there is actually a Muslim who does not believe in killing innocent people?"

I don't doubt that. I just question whether a Muslim thinks unbelievers can be considered innocent. You evidently believe so. The Koran says you're wrong.

Deepdiver:

I hear your frustration. But between your words, the emotion behind it is feeding the frenzy. Anyone can come up with a REASON to do violence (in word, in action or in thought)...you claim "self preservation" as your justification.

But what you fail to see is how your emotion and your discourse joins the chorus of the frenzy to hate and to debate endlessly and to justify. Your emotional and mental state is now full of negativity. There is no room for peace.

Peace comes when you eliminate negative thought and negative action and negative word.

And, peace comes by listening. We need to learn to listen to the complaints of conservative Islam. Do you know what Osama's number one complaint is about the Western world? That one complaint is what helps to generate hundreds of Al Qaeda recruits.

The point here is to LISTEN and LEARN what the enemy is saying they are fighting about. Isn't it better to see if we can find a way to compromise and see if there is a solution we can all live with? Isn't peace worth the compromise?

Love, Brothers and Sisters, is what brings peace.

Dear Mr Patel,

The constitution of any democracy can be amended or even completely rewritten if two thirds of the population agrees with whatever change is suggested. A constitution is a secular document that is created by consensus.

Scripture of any religion is different. People may or may not practise what is written in it, but they are not at liberty to change the Scripture itself.

Islam as practised in the US is quite different from the Islam Ayaan Hirsi Ali grew up in, and the Islam many Muslims in Islamic cultures still practise. The question that every moderate Muslim is asked to answer is whether the quotes from the Quran which refers to violence was meant to be universally valid or was it culturally bound to Mohammad's time and the Middle Eastern culture of his time.

Please read a response article to Ayaan Hirsi Ali Vs The West at http://somalianow.blogspot.com/2007/10/west-vs-muslim-world.html

Hi Victoria,

You stay right here and continue to bring some sanity and good will to these hate filled boards. I wish I could take one of your kittens.

Someone has to keep Ted, Mike and Anon straight when they try to reinvent Islam to justify it as a target for their holy war.

Ted likes to pretend that Muslims are universally despised. This is his way of ignoring the facts on the ground, that the world sees the US and Israel as the terrorist nations of the world.

As long as we continue to slaughter innocents (mostly women and children) by the thousands in Palestine and Iraq, and drive millions of families into refugee camps, we will continue to be universally despised by the rest of the world, and rightly so.

Peace

The question is often asked " what should non-Muslims do to win the hearts and minds of Muslims?" when the question that should really be asked is " what should Muslims do to win the hearts and minds of non-Muslims?".

Muslims are now universally despised for several reasons.

1) The repeated acts of terrorism against non-Muslims and the genenally implicit approval by the general populace of non-Muslims for these acts and the readiness to blame the US and the Jews for the acts. To this day most Muslims believe that the Jews orchestrated 9/11.

2) Their refusal to integrate into the societies that have made life so good for them, especially the west, and that have allowed them escape the misery that their own Muslim societies with their allegiance to an outdated Islamic system have inflicted on them.

3) Most importantly the internet and recent publications has revealed the truth about Islam and its founder, Muhammad. It is now well known that Muhammad was a pschopath who indulged in sex with children in his fifties, was a slave owner, had fathered an illegitimate son with his slave girl, 15 year old Maria who was also a Christian, carried out ethnic cleansing of Jews in Arabia and stole half of Arabia from them, insulted God by inventing Allah and making this evil god the sole deity for Muslims.

4) Their refusal to condemn atrocities in Iraq, Muslims upon Muslims and also the shameful Islamic apartheid practised in Saudi Arabia where non-Muslims may not enter Mecca and Medina, may not openly worship anywhere in the kingdom, may not build churches, synagogues and other places of worship in Saudi Arabia. Muslims give implicit approval for the Islamic apartheid by continuing to do the hajj to Mecca, thereby saying that " the apartheid is fine with us".

The Muslims can do the following and, although it will take time, eventually Muslims will have won some respect from non-Muslims.

1) Declare that Islam was not revealed by God and admit that Islam is a harmful faith. Muslims should condemn outright Muhammad and Islam. Muslims should stop insulting God by associating Muhammad and Allah with Him.

2) Stop doing the hajj. By doing so they will send a powerful message that they will not tolerate apartheid. If Saudi Arabia stops the apartheid and the first church is built in Mecca and in Medina, then the hajj may be resumed.

3) Return half of Saudi Arabia, the western half of Saudi Arabia, to its rightful owners, the Jews. Relocate all Muslims from Palestine and the West Bank to Muslim countries.

4) Agree that all Muslim immigration to non-Muslims countries be halted until secular democratic societies are built in all Muslim countries. This may take many years. Right now it is too easy for Muslims to escape the oppression in Muslim societies by escaping to non-Muslim countries, especially to the West. They have no incentive to fight oppression at home.

It will take time. But eventually Muslims may become an integral part of civilized human society.

holy canolli batman the headbangers are banging away-

mr or ms andersson - isnt that a little harsh?
and impractical?

where, for example, do you propose i go?

im part irish and some french- i think theres a little english in there somewhere

i was born in america (milwaukke rick- but i was raised in pittsburgh PA)

and im a muslim - by choice-

not indoctrinated by birth- or lightly through marriage-

so what do you propose to do with the likes of me?

and my 5 cats and 3 kittens?

"...my Muslim faith and my Enlightenment sensibilities, [these traditions] cause me to wish her no harm," this Muslim gentleman writes. So how does he explain that the mainstream Islam, which I guess has a lot to do with Muslim faith, accept fatwas to kill e.g. Salman Rushdie?

I Sweden leading Muslim politicians compared the editor of Nerikes Allehanda (the paper who published Lars Vilks "Muhammed dog" in an article defending free speech for everyone, espeacially Muslims) with Muslim extremists in al Qaida. This statement was send in the national TV channel on prime time without being complained about. The non-defence of Nerikes Allehanda or Ayaan Hirsi Ali is actually an end of freedom.

I think Muslims should be absolutely clear about freedom or else expelled from the Western countries. A tough/"brutal" decision in countries with a liberal/freedom tradition, but necesary for the defence of freedom.

"Cody Claxton:
October 15, 2007 9:40"

I never said I hate anyone. A large proportion of the Muslim world has threatened and continues to loudly threaten the lives of everyone in the Western World. I said I will not apologize for being vigilant and looking askance at those who look similar to those who have threatened us. A willingness to defend one's self against a known, obvious threat is not hatred, it is self-preservation. I also commented that there are millions of Muslims who want to raise their children in peace and prosperity. That is FAR from seeing them as inhuman.

It remains my hope that those within the Islamic faith who do want peace raise their voices and drown out their brethren who foster and incite violence and death against millions of innocents.

I applaud Cody Claxton's suggestion about demanding Eboo Patel to apologize for insulting Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

However, I doubt he will ever have the decency for issuing a sincere apology.

His article wasn't written to foster a civilized debate on Islam and The West.

It was a nasty attack on a woman whose only crime is to speak out against an ideology that promotes violence and hate. It was a conscious effort to diminish Ms Hirsi Ali as a human being, and thus to justify muslims' calls to kill her.

It would be naive to expect such a moron to apologize.

After I read Mr. Patel article I had to read
the book Infidel again. I could not understand
that I missed that Ali was talking against the
U.S. and the West in general.
I thought that she was telling us about the women that had been and are abused, mutilated, denied medical care and proper education and force into lives of sexual subjection and compulsory childbearing as Sam Harris and Rsalman Rushdle say.
One of two. Or I am mentaly retarded or Mr. Patel
was jumping and applauding when the planes hit the towers

After I read Mr. Patel article I had to read
the book Infidel again. I could not understand
that I missed that Ali was talking against the
U.S. and the West in general.
I thought that she was telling us about the women that had been and are abused, mutilated, denied medical care and proper education and force into lives of sexual subjection and compulsory childbearing as Sam Harris and Rsalman Rushdle say.
One of two. Or I am mentaly retarded or Mr. Patel
was jumping and applauding when the planes hit the towers

After I read Mr. Patel article I had to read
the book Infidel again. I could not understand
that I missed that Ali was talking against the
U.S. and the West in general.
I thought that she was telling us about the women that had been and are abused, mutilated, denied medical care and proper education and force into lives of sexual subjection and compulsory childbearing as Sam Harris and Rsalman Rushdle say.
One of two. Or I am mentaly retarded or Mr. Patel
was jumping and applauding when the planes hit the towers

After I read Mr. Patel article I had to read
the book Infidel again. I could not understand
that I missed that Ali was talking against the
U.S. and the West in general.
I thought that she was telling us about the women that had been and are abused, mutilated, denied medical care and proper education and force into lives of sexual subjection and compulsory childbearing as Sam Harris and Rsalman Rushdle say.
One of two. Or I am mentaly retarded or Mr. Patel
was jumping and applauding when the planes hit the towers

Deepdiver:

By continuing to inflame the hatred in your heart, you will not get beyond seeing Muslims as inhuman.

To foster peace you cannot continue to inflame the emotions of yourself and of others.

We can always find a prescription to do violence in just about any relious text. (Buddhist perhaps being the exception). And, the Muslims can find examples of how the "Infidels" have been just as evil. And, thus.....the frenzy begins and goes round and round.

Fostering peace means listening....it means quieting the frenzy in your brain and your heart.

Fostering peace also means forgiving.

By stopping the frenzy of emotion and negativity and hate and...., at least you are ABLE TO HEAR THE POSITIVE, your are ABLE TO HEAR THE COMMON GOOD, You are ABLE TO SEE HOW WE CAN BE AT PEACE.

Listen........quiet your own mind......listen.

Love your brothers and sisters and peace will come.

Focus on what YOU CAN DO: DEMAND AN APOLOGY FROM EBOO PATEL FOR ALI.

COMMIT YOURSELF TO THINKING AND SPEAKING TO BRING PEACE INTO THE WORLD.

Cody

This is the speech given by Ayaan Hirsi Ali at the Atheist Alliance International conference in Sept 2007.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MAbYbIF_0o

See more videos like this at

http://richarddawkins.net

Anonymous: Does Muslim= not human to you. Did I ever state that I could care less that innocent people die for selfish reasons? If I did please let me know so I can correct my errors.

Aya- read this:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j9G-P3rnxDyp-8z_cwY_SlPllPpw

Its tragic. But you make yourself clear. As a Muslim you could care less. As an unbeliever -I care and as long as people read the Koran and are driven to kill -I will care and speak out against it.

Mike said:

"Do you recognize:

“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."

That sounds pretty evil Mike. Why didn't you include that in your "quotes" from the Qur'an?

Let me guess; because it's not to be found in the Qur'an?

An Afghan suicide bomber prematurely exploded his explosives and ended up killing his Mom, sister and brother.
I wonder who would have he killed if not his own family? Afghan civilians, may be.

BPSCG: You state:" "The bottom line is I am a Muslim who does not believe in killing innocent people..."

Aya, can a non-Muslim be an innocent person?
Can an idolater be an innocent person?
Can an apostate - a person who has renounced Islam - be an innocent person?

The Koran teaches that you must kill, convert, or enslave all these people, for no crime other than their religion, or lack of it. Is that what Islam teaches how innocent people should be treated? Or does Islam claim these people are not innocent?

Which is it?
I am an unbeliever, so I need to know if you're going to obey Allah and try to kill me when you get the chance."""

I believe that the ultimate judge is the all mighty creator, God or in Arabic Allah. So whether you're an unbeliever or not is not for me to determine I can care less. Same thing for an apostate. What rationalization are you saying that a person who is not Muslim should be killed. Have I eluded to you that I believe this. I mean this is not how I was raised. Am I missing something. Someone on here also asked the question how long have I been Muslim. I've been Muslim for 26 going on 27 years. I have better things to do with my life than obsess over who's a Muslim or not. This whole obsession of picking several sura's and ayats from the Qu'ran is getting a little tired. Question for you do you know any Muslims or are you getting your rationaliztion from some other source. There are two sources that you can get your information from in this world, primary and secondary. I am not here to tell you where or how you should get your information, I'm pretty sure you're grown enough for that, what I am saying is why are you questioning me about if an innocent person should be killed. My answer is No. Now that I answered your questioned is the next question that you will ask me is are you really a Muslim. Look yes I am a Muslim. Can you believe that there is actually a Muslim who does not believe in killing innocent people?

Yes I will obey God and not try to kill you went I get the chance. God says NOT to kill innocent people.

"With all due respect to my Christian friends"

Who are your christian friends? What an inane comment.Sending out a salvo -just in case a christian happens by? Are you drunk?

Anonymous: So now I sound like I don't know what I believe. I guess I don't know how to get my point across or write for that matter. Am I not stating something that you want me to say or something?

"Cody Claxton:

...Being here wrapped into bias and misunderstanding;

Further letting our minds be whipped into a frenzy of debate and derision;

Should set aside such animosity and division;

And consider that the human condition is the same for all of us;

We all greive when loved ones die or are hurt;

We all love our children;..."

Muslims strap bombs on their children, too young to understand or decide for themselves, and send them on suicide missions to kill the "infidels". Afterwards some lament that they have no more children to murder in the name of Allah. Direct contradiction of the above assertions.

Large segments of the Muslim population scream "death to America" and "death to the infidels". Large segments of the Muslim population have proven that 1) they hate non-muslims more than they love their own children and 2) they want us, our mothers, fathers, wives, husbands and children dead for the sole sin of not believing as they do.

I had no issue with Muslims prior to their threats. I had no anger towards Islam before they showed anger towards me and publicly, loudly, repeatedly stated that they want to kill me and everyone I love and destroy my culture. I first remember seeing those sentiments as a child during the Iranian embassy kidnapping. Death to America - death to the infidels. None of my family has acted to harm any Muslim. My grandfather was stationed in Persia in WWII and told me stories as a child of a wonderous culture, wonderful people of faith and honor, people he respected. And 34 years later I see those people screaming death to me and all I love and whichever of those who disagreed standing by silently letting evil flourish.

I do not apologize for being willing to defend myself, my family, my nation and all that I hold dear from those who have openly, repeatedly and loudly screamed for my death and the death of those I love. I do not apologize for looking askance at those who bear a physical resemblance in dress, language or trait to those who have threatened to murder me and those I love as they come to us not in uniform to fight as men, but quietly, claiming to want peace and dialogue, sneaking through our society to destroy and maim and kill the most helpless, innocent and unsuspecting among us. I do not apologize for being ever vigilant of others who share that faith who, even if not espousing such venom and hatred, are unwilling to openly, loudly and repeatedly condemn those who continue to threaten everything I love and hold dear as their silence serves only the goals of the terrorists and murderers. For the last 27 years I have not seen a religion of peace. I have seen a religion of radicalism, constant outrage at the slightest perceived slight; a religion that keeps it's people in mud huts despite great wealth from natural resources; a religion that subjugates women, mutilates them, stones them for the slightest perceived slight to some man's fragile ego expressed as reclaiming his honor. There is no honor in brutally murdering an unarmed woman, man or child with blade, stone or explosive device.

A religion of peace? I know that there are millions of Muslims who want nothing more than peace, who want nothing more than to raise their children in safety and prosperity, although it has not been proved to me that has anything to do with what appears to be a religion of intolerance, hate and violence. When I see Muslims world wide protest against suicide bombings and other terrorist acts as vehemently as the protests against some cartoons or made up accusations of Koran desecration, then I may start believing that peace is actually a tenant of Islam.

With all due respect to my Christian friends, I find it a bit rich that worshippers of a God who is unable to forgive sins without animal sacrifice (or killing his own son as a substitute) would then describe Islam as a 'blood-thirsty cult'.

"In your zeal to cast Islam in a bad light, you distort the wording of the Qur’an to serve your own twisted purpose."

Rick, the "wording of the Qur'an" is used to inspire young wannabe jihadis to end their lives along with as many innocent lives they can destroy. You are confused. I don't have to cast Islam in a bad light and its not my "twisted purposes" that are being served daily.

Do you recognise:

“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."

I'm sure your friend Victoria will be pleased to renounce these bloodsoaked words too.

In case anyone is interested, I interviewed Ayaan Hirsi Ali when she was in Sydney for our Writers' Festival. An edited version of the interview can be found here ...

http://www.newmatilda.com/home/articledetail.asp?ArticleID=2292

... and my impressions of her can be found here ...

http://www.newmatilda.com/home/articledetail.asp?ArticleID=2376

Muslim-haters who expect me to take Hirsi Ali seriously when it comes to Islam should equally expect me to take Margaret Marcus seriously when it comes to Judaism.

David,

Like Mike, you are so worried about Islam defending itself that you completely overlook the horrible actions of your own government in prosecuting its despicable holy war on Islam.

Your friend Anon notes that the Christians are being treated poorly in the Middle East. I wonder why that is. The daily TV news showing the Americans and Israelis raining tons of death and destruction indiscriminately on the local populations with their war machines cannot be expected to generate much good will.

President Bush's (latest) stated purpose for invading and occupying Iraq is to bring democracy to the Middle East in accordance with God's wishes. This is not likely to win many converts to Christianity.

You are so critical of Moderate Islam, but here’s the truth:

There is no moderate Christianity. There are Christians who are passive, who don't always follow the rules of Christianity, but there's really only one Christianity, defined as submission to the will of God. There's nothing moderate about it."

If we did follow the rules of Christianity, we would be stoning to death everyone who works on the Sabbath.

AYA: "The bottom line is I am a Muslim who does not believe in killing innocent people..."

Aya, can a non-Muslim be an innocent person?
Can an idolater be an innocent person?
Can an apostate - a person who has renounced Islam - be an innocent person?

The Koran teaches that you must kill, convert, or enslave all these people, for no crime other than their religion, or lack of it. Is that what Islam teaches how innocent people should be treated? Or does Islam claim these people are not innocent?

Which is it?

I am an unbeliever, so I need to know if you're going to obey Allah and try to kill me when you get the chance.

Mike,

In your zeal to cast Islam in a bad light, you distort the wording of the Qur’an to serve your own twisted purpose. The verses that you quote from are clearly telling the faithful to fight in self defense only. What’s wrong with that? But you intentionally distort the passages to twist their meaning.

For example, here is your distorted version of Sura 002.191-193:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“But the Qur'an says:

Sura (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here is the true Sura 002.190-193 in its entirety:

002.190
Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

002.191
And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

002.192
But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

002.193
PICKTHAL: And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.

Notice that you omit 002.190 entirely because it doesn’t fit your theme; in fact it directly refutes it:

…begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not agressors.

Then in 002.191 you omit:

… And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship UNTIL THEY FIRST ATTACK YOU there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

Then you omit 002.192 completely, which says that if they desist, then Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

And you omit the part of 002.193 that says

…But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers.

Mr Patel's "Muslim faith and . . . Enlightenment sensibilities"?

Let's see - - -

Muslim "faith" = "islam" = submission!

Enlightenment sensibilities = autonomy & rationality, including methodological naturalism!

How does that compute?

I. Kant - "Concepts without percepts are empty; percepts without concepts are blind."

I'd say that Mr Patel - like his Christian counterparts - is a theonomic pre-posterist, putting a propositional cart loaded w/ unexamined propositions before conceptually hobbled horses.

Latest Offerings from the Religion of Peace

10/15/2007 (Beledwyne, Somalia) - Three children under the age of 12 are killed when a mortar fired by suspected Islamic militias hits their house.
10/14/2007 (Ludhiana, India) - A 10-year-old child is among seven people killed when Islamic fundamentalists bomb a movie theater.
10/14/2007 (Baghdad, Iraq) - Women and children are among those blown apart by the Sunni car bombing of a Shiite mosque.
10/14/2007 (Riyadh, Iraq) - Three Iraqis are shot to death by sectarian Jihadis.
10/14/2007 (Baquba, Iraq) - A dozen people are kidnapped and killed by sectarian rivals.
10/14/2007 (Ramadi, Iraq) - A suicide car bomber takes down four Iraqis.
LINE

Aya,

You sound like you don't really know what you believe. How long have you been "muslim"?

David: I do not call myself Sunni or Shiite. I am not politcal like that. I was being sarcastic when I said I was moderate and a minority. Well maybe I wasn't. Does it really matter? Why do people get so caught up in this? The bottom line is I am a Muslim who does not believe in killing innocent people, I believe that women have rights and I believe that not all Muslims are bad people. Look I can go on and on and on, but is it really going to make a difference. Those who are head strong on the idea that Islam is a religion of hate don't reallly care what I have to say or anyone who thinks, breathes, believes, preaches to they are blue in their face about how they don't believe Islam is evil, has to say. I honestly hope that you have not read any of my posts in an angry tone. That's not the way I was taught how to get my point across. By the way one place where you might find the small group of "moderate"/"progessive" Muslims is muslimwakeup.com. I don't know what else to say. I doubt if I pleased you with my response. Forgive me.

Victoria cannot get help because she is like an alcoholic in denial. Until she realizes that her addiction to the violent religion of Islam has blinded her to the truth she will be a slave to evil religion. Mohammad said,

"I have been ordered by God to fight with people till they bear testimony to the fact that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger, and that they establish prayer and pay Zakat (money). If they do it, their blood and their property are safe from me" (see Bukhari Vol. I, p. 13).

Denounce this and you will be denouncing the most trusted collections of hadith.

"Eboo should write an apology to Ms. Ali and confess his intolerance and regret here on this blog for the dischord he has here created."

Thank you, Cody, for an excellent suggestion. I agree that a heartfelt apology to Hirsi Ali would help ease the pain Eboo has caused with his ugly hate-filled words. Before I read this diatribe against a woman (who is living under a death threat from his coreligionists), I had believed Eboo a man of peace and a moderate Muslim. I don't know what inspired him -but an expedient recant and apology is needed.

Erik Schwarz says:

"He (Eboo Patel) is a far greater threat to the violent jihadis -- and to advocates of conflict from every persuasion -- than Ali."

That's plain nonsense. If Mr Patter were such a threat, wouldn't radical muslims already set a price on his head?

Just the opposite. Mr Patel poses NO THREAT AT ALL to those muslim criminals. This blog clearly illustrates how Mr Patel uses this Washington Post site to attack the same woman those criminals want to kill.

Erik, Eboo wrote this article to attack Ali, and he now has to live with it. He may be the man you say: "... personal gentlemanliness, his dedication to interfaith understanding, and his effectiveness at mobilizing young people of all faiths to work together in community service."

But you would not know it from this diatribe against Ali.

If Eboo is "trying to move Islam and the West towards a relationship of mutual understanding and cooperation.", he will have to stop this kind of ridicule of other people's religious views. It just smells of the same hypocrisy we see from many in the fundamentalist religions.

Eboo should write an apology to Ms. Ali and confess his intolerance and regret here on this blog for the dischord he has here created.

Love, Brothers and Sisters....brings Peace.

You are completely right, Mike.

A few years ago I decided to read the Koran out of plain curiosity. I wanted to understand the roots of Islam as a civilization, not necessarily as a religion.

Well, the amount of hate and violence, verse after verse, page after page, was beyond belief.

You have correctly quoted some Koran verses about its supposed "non-violence".

Similar stuff can be excerpted about the place of women in society.

There are some people who claim that "I'm a muslim and I live a peaceful, happy life". Probably it is because they have not had their genitals mutilated in the name of Koran's god.

Some of the comments below go dreadfully amiss. Eboo Patel is called hateful, dangerous, and a supporter of jihad. I have known and worked with Eboo for years and can testify to his personal gentlemanliness, his dedication to interfaith understanding, and his effectiveness at mobilizing young people of all faiths to work together in community service.

I do not agree with some of his critique of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. His attribution of mercenary motives seems unfair. As various commentators have pointed out, his analogies about Africa and the U.S. Constitution are not entirely apropos. Also, Eboo overstates the case for universal -- in the sense of unified -- Enlightenment values. Ali, who rejects not only Islam but all religion, is quite compatible with at least one among the many strains of Enlightenment thought: that of anti-clericalism. She may lack the corruscating wit of Voltaire, but she shares a view with him.

Having said this, I must add that Eboo is a much more interesting thinker than Ali. She had a terrible experience growing up in a particular religious culture, so she rejects religion. An understandable move for her, but it leaves us as a society with nowhere good to go. Eboo is attempting something subtler and at once riskier and more promising: he is trying to move Islam and the West towards a relationship of mutual understanding and cooperation. He is a far greater threat to the violent jihadis -- and to advocates of conflict from every persuasion -- than Ali.

Victoria-

These Quranic verses inspire violence in extreme Muslims. Why would any peace-loving Muslim cling to them. Please renounce them and move on.

Vistoria says:

"THE QURAN DOES NOT URGE VIOLENCE AGAINST NON-BELIEVERS

VIOLENCE IS ONLY ALLOWED IN THE CASE OF AGGRESSIVE VIOLENCE DIRECTED TOWARDS A MUSLIM AND ONLY IN DEFENSE WHEN THE AGRESSION STOPS- MUSLIMS MUST EMBRACE PEACE"

But the Qur'an says:

Sura (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."

Sura (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."

Sura (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

Sura (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

Sura (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority".

Sura (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."

Sura (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"

Sura (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

Sura (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-"

Sura (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

Sura (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

Sura (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."

Sura (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah"

Sura (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember."

Sura (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy."

Sura (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."

Sura (9:14) - "Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace..."

Sura (9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant."

Sura (9:29) - "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."

Sura (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"

Sura (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place."

Sura (9:41) - "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew."

Sura (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination."

Sura (9:88) - "But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper."

Sura (9:111) - "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme."

Sura (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."

Sura (21:44) - "We gave the good things of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them; See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?"

Sura (25:52) - "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness, with the (Qur'an)."

Sura (47:4) - "So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners,"

Sura (47:35) - "Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost: for Allah is with you,"

Sura (48:17) - "There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom."

Sura (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves"

Sura (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way"

Sura (61:10-12) - "O ye who believe! Shall I lead you to a bargain that will save you from a grievous Penalty?- That ye believe in Allah and His Messenger, and that ye strive (your utmost) in the Cause of Allah, with your property and your persons: That will be best for you, if ye but knew! He will forgive you your sins, and admit you to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow, and to beautiful mansions in Gardens of Eternity."

Sura (66:9) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end."

AS I INDICATED EARLIER, (at 5:37) I HAVE OBLIGATIONS TO ATTEND TO RIGHT NOW-

besides, calling someone a hypocrite is hardly am invitation to civil dialogue, is it?

so- go to 5:37pm- see that indeed before you showed up i am busy-

and will have to respond when i have a moment

insults are a form of verbal violence-
im against violence- even in that form

if you think that is hypocritical- so be it

Victoria has been posting the glories of the Religion of Peace here for months. Now she has a chance to back that up with a renunciation of violence called for in the Quran. What's happened here Victoria? What possible reason might you have to cling to verses demanding violence of believing Muslims? You're not hypocritical -are you?

THE QURAN DOES NOT URGE VIOLENCE AGAINST NON-BELIEVERS

VIOLENCE IS ONLY ALLOWED IN THE CASE OF AGGRESSIVE VIOLENCE DIRECTED TOWARDS A MUSLIM AND ONLY IN DEFENSE
WHEN THE AGRESSION STOPS- MUSLIMS MUST EMBRACE PEACE

Arab News: Salman Oudah Denounces Bin Laden’s Ideology
Oudah Denounces Bin Laden’s Ideology
Khaled Al-Awadh,
Arab News

BURAIDAH, 17 September 2007 — In a major blow to the ideology of Osama Bin Laden and his followers in the Kingdom, Sheikh Salman ibn Fahad Al-Oudah, a popular Saudi religious scholar, has criticized the way in which Bin Laden has ruined Islam’s global image. “We as scholars of Islam reject what Osama does,” Al-Oudah wrote in an open letter posted on his website www.islamtoday.com. Al-Oudah also questioned the validity of Al-Qaeda using violence. “What have we gained from the destruction of a whole country such as Iraq and Afghanistan?” Al-Oudah said, adding that these wars have led to civil wars in the region. “Who benefits from turning countries like Saudi Arabia, Algeria, and Morocco into insecure places?” he asked.

Many experts considered the letter as a major setback to Al-Qaeda’s ideology, as it comes from an influential Saudi scholar, who is not part of the official religious establishment.

“Brother Osama. How many wars and how much bloodshed have occurred in the name of Al-Qaeda? How many innocents, old men, children are killed in the name of Al-Qaeda? Are you happy to meet God carrying this heavy burden on your shoulders?” Al-Oudah asked.

He also criticized the Al-Qaeda leader’s lust for power at the expense of thousands of Muslims, who have been killed in wars initiated by Al-Qaeda. “Who is responsible for promoting the culture of killing and violence that has led to the destruction of families and societies? Who is responsible for the youths sent to wars leaving their crying mothers and sons?” Al-Oudah said.

“The attacks of Sept. 11 resulted in the deaths of thousands of human beings. Unknown callers to Islam (missionaries) are by far better. They help tens of thousands become Muslims without shedding blood,” he said.

Al-Oudah further slammed Al-Qaeda’s violent philosophy and attributed a decrease in the work of Islamic charities to Al-Qaeda. “Who is responsible for pursuing every charitable project in the world?” he said, adding that Al-Qaeda is responsible for filling prisons with Muslim youth — a phenomenon that will lead only to more violent and extremist acts.

Al-Oudah expressed sorrow over the current negative image of Islam saying that it has been severely damaged because of Al-Qaeda’s violent acts. “The image of Islam is not the one it used to be. The world is talking of Muslims killing non-Muslims. Even the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not kill hypocrites who were mentioned in the Qur’an for fear of people describing the Prophet as a man who kills his companions,” Al-Oudah reminded Bin Laden in his letter.

All of Us, the bloggers here included;

Being here wrapped into bias and misunderstanding;

Further letting our minds be whipped into a frenzy of debate and derision;

Should set aside such animosity and division;

And consider that the human condition is the same for all of us;

We all greive when loved ones die or are hurt;

We all love our children;

We all seek to raise ourselves above suffering;

We all seek to be loved.

And, so Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Jew, Atheist, and Shamans and all who seek a spiritual presence should focus on

The Common Good which we all share;
The Common LOVE which we can show;
The Positive things that we can do;
The Common Properity that we can support;
And, the Common Tolerance for those few ways in which we are different.

We should promote and talk about how we are the same, and IGNORE how we are different,
and IGNORE the negativity;

THUS allowing the Negative and the Divisiveness to wane into PEACE AMONG ALL PEOPLE.

Peace, Brothers and Sisters.

Yes. Eboo and all Muslims reading here can start by renouncing the Koranic verses that urge and inspire violence against infidels (non-muslims). That will be great place to start a constructive conversation.

anon- you need to come up with at least a fake name

no acknowledgement of cowards hiding in shadows

ok dave- i have some peaceful and nurtuing responsibilities to attend to

peace

Victoria. Make this easy and publically renounce the violent verses in the Qur'an.

house of war and house of peace are not in the quran dave

they are ideas constructed by medieval jurists

This same reviewer (Mr Frantzman)makes a similar blunder when he claims that "the world is divided into two parts by the Quran, the Dar Al-Harb(the world of war) and Dar al-Islam/Salaam(world of islam/peace) [sic]", since this division is nowhere to be found in the Qur'an. While it is true that some, but certainly not all, medieval Muslim jurists perceived the world in this bipolar way, this was not the only view- MUCH LESS THE MAJORITY opinion-amongst a rich diversity of Islamic scholarship.

and THAT was in the middle ages dave
muslim answers.com

thats not in the quran dave

the bbc is the source- its at the top of the page

no dave- you are mistaken-
the universal declaration of human rights is not INSTEAD OF the un charter- it is in ADDITION to it.

the OIC-UN is in coordination with the United Nations. (which is why its OIC-UN)

the UDHR is written BY muslims FOR muslims-

it isa more specific and comprehensive charter
it is no more incumbent upon muslims, christians or anyone than the un charter- but to serve as a guide.

http://www.alhewar.com/ISLAMDECL.html

i ALWAYS provide sources and referneces and links dave

like the one you seemed to miss

you are welcome to your opinion
but it is an opinion and subjective-

i always say, ask hindus what they believe, christians etc---

let people define themselves

Oh, before I go to sleep, here's a question for you, as I live in Israel: How many times is Jerusalem mentioned in the Koran?

Aya, nice attempt at diversion. Oh, wait, it wasn't, it was poor. A generic term for war is beside the point. The specific war to create a global caliphate is jihad, and that is what is the problem. It is enshrined in both Sunni and Shiite text.

However, as long as you're attempting sad little games, jihad is "holy war". For just war, you need to look at what the Koran describes as the only two lands in the world:
1) Dar al-Islam: The Land of Islam
2) Dar al-Harb: The Land of War

If a place isn't ruled by Muslims in Sharia law, it is the land of war.

So, yes, I know the word.

"but not in the sense that you speak of", really, then why can't you argue any of the points of which I speak or define your own rationalizations?

Notice what Victoria doesn't give us: A source. We need to see if those Muslim "moderates" clearly rejected Sharia law as the basis of their beliefs. If not, they're just saying they support a hudna, a temporary cessation of violence against the infidel while they rest and rearm. They're willing to "live and let live" on a temporary basis.

Of course, the other question is: What percentage of Muslims is 130? Oh, wait, she said scholars. That could be an enormous percentage of Muslim scholars.

David: Like d'uh I know I'm a minority, but not in the sense that you speak of. Ok I'm part of the problem because I am a "moderate" and because I am a minority. Question for you tell me how do you say war in Arabic? Clue: It's not Jihad.

Aya, yes, you are part of the problem. Anytime anyone in any religion says "no, but they're not really my religion", it's an excuse. Except it's even worse in Islam. If you are a true moderate, you are in a tiny minority, but you won't admit it. You can't admit that the vast majority of Muslims are not only taught that jihad is proper, they agree with it.

You need to admit that the OIC, the umbrella organization representing EVERY SINGLE Muslim nation unanimously supported the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam as the alternative to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because the later does not put forward the primacy of Sharia Law and its clear statements that Muslims are superior to all other people. Got that? ALL Muslim nations. That's the majority, not a tiny minority. You are the minority. Until you admit that and admit, you'll continue to be an apologist for jihad by trying to minimize reality.

Middle East Politics

BBC

MUSLIM SCHOLARS REACH OUT TO POPE

More than 130 Muslim scholars have written to Pope Benedict XVI and other Christian leaders urging GREATER UNDERSTANDING between the two faiths.
The letter says that WORLD PEACE could depend on improved relations between Muslims and Christians.

It identifies the principles of accepting only one god and living in PEACE with one's neighbours as common ground between the two religions.

It also insists that Christians and Muslims worship the same god.

The letter coincides with the Eid al-Fitr celebrations to mark the end of Ramadan.

Koran and Bible

It was also sent to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the heads of the Lutheran, Methodist and Baptist churches, the Orthodox Church's Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I and other Orthodox Patriarchs.

The letter, entitled A COMMON WORD BETWEEN US AND YOU, compares passages in the Koran and the Bible, concluding that both emphasise "the primacy of total LOVE and devotion to God", and the love of the neighbour.

With Muslims and Christians making up more than half the world's population, the letter goes on, the relationship between the two religious communities is "the most important factor in contributing to meaningful PEACE around the world".

"As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them - so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes," the letter says.

Emerging voice of Islam

It adds: "To those who nevertheless relish conflict and destruction for their own sake or reckon that ultimately they stand to gain through them, we say our very eternal souls are all also at stake if we fail to sincerely make every effort to make PEACE and come together in harmony."

One of the signatories, Dr Aref Ali Nayed, a senior adviser at the Cambridge Inter-faith Programme at Cambridge University, told the BBC that the document should be seen as a landmark.

"There are Sunnis, Shias, Ibadis and even the... Ismailian and Jaafari schools, so it's a CONSENSUS," he said.

Professor David Ford, director of the programme, said the letter was UNPRECEDENTED.

"If sufficient people and groups HEED THIS STATEMENT and act on it then the atmosphere will be changed into one in which violent extremists cannot flourish," he said in a statement.

The letter was signed by prominent Muslim leaders, politicians and academics, including the Grand Muftis of Bosnia and Hercegovina, Russia, Croatia, Kosovo and Syria, the Secretary-General of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, the former Grand Mufti of Egypt and the founder of the Ulema Organisation in Iraq.

October 13, 2007

This Eboo Patel bull&%$t about moderate Muslims and their more radical bretheren is what Ayaan Hirsi Ali is writing about. She is doing a very commendable job to make westerners aware of the "clash of civilizations".

The problem with Americans is that they are gullible to the hilt.

If Ayaan Hirsi Ali did not open up the debate, it would had been cataclysmic. And Eboo Patel is quick to trash her because she had the guts to trash the barbaric religion of Islam, that Eboo follows.

Now let Eboo and his ilk digg this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/us/15net.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

The NYT article is titled AN INTERNET JIHAD AIMS AT US VIEWERS. So, where are the moderate Muslims now ?

Islam must be constitutionally banned. Who knows when a "moderate" pissed off by US foreign policy against Islam, would become a radical and join the bandwagon of "homegrown radical Muslims" ? If these Muslims are so incensed at West and USA, why do they continue to live here in USA ? Why don't they go back to where they came from ? Looks like a sheer hypocrisy to me ! You can't have it both ways.

"Let’s say that Ms. Ali was flipping through the U.S. Constitution and the first passage she read was the one that said people of her skin color counted as three-fifths of a person. Let’s say that Ms. Ali opened an American history book and read only the chapter on the slave trade."

Let's say you studied some history. The compromise on slave counts was necessary at the time to create a union. Would you be happier had the abolitionists (not a huge lobby then) held out, thus creating multiple nations where there's one now? Do you always stand ready to criticize the "good enough" because the perfect is your ideal model?

In 1787, a union without slavery simply wasn't in the cards. Period, end of story. We fought a bloody civil war to end slavery - proportionally more damaging than any American war before or since. Other than Britain (which was the leader in the fight), no nation has done more to eliminate slavery than the US.

As to the slave trade, you do know that as of 1808, it was illegal? As with slavery itself, it's easy, from the distance of 2007 to criticize the founders. They had a hard choice though: a union with slavery, or no union. They didn't have your ideal as a choice.

Also, you realize that the Islamic world engaged in slavery long before the West got into it, and kept at it far longer (Saudi Arabia, for instance, only outlawed it in 1960)? In many parts of the Islamic world, slavery is a de-facto reality still. The West engaged in slavery for a shameful - but historically short - period of time. The Islamic world would still be at it had the West not insisted.

Person: I just have one question, you said that I am part of the problem. How? Because I speak out AGAINST those who profess to be Muslims, but who pervert the religion that I believe in. I speak out AGAINST those who think women are to be seen and not heard. I speak out AGAINST those who think just because they are not of the same religion as I am then I must not associate myself with those people. I speak out AGAINST those who think they are killing in the name of the religion that I believe in because that's what they think is right. Tell me how am I part of the problem? You don't even know me. But you know what I RESPECT you.

Person: You're absolutely right. What more can I say. No matter what I say I'll be wrong so you're right. Not sure what tone you read my comment in, but you're right. You compared me to a Nazi and I must say that honestly hurts. Fine. I give up.

Eboo - Thanks for your comments. You are, indeed, correct. Furthermore, your analogy can be extended from the U.S. Constitution to the Bible itself.

In fact, the Bible gives sanction to slavery, the supremacy of males, homophobia and to violence against unbelievers. Is that to say that Judaism and Christianity are blood-thirsty faiths? Of course not. But there are the ill-informed in other parts of the world who would say so - just as there are cultural illiterates in this part of the world who would say the same about Islam.

Don't let the haters on this board or elsewhere get to you. A faith is more than quotes taken out of context or the most despicable acts of its most craven members. Christianity is greater than the acts of Torquemada. Judaism is greater than Baruch Goldstein. Similarly, Islam transcends Al Qaeda and the barbarism that is carried out in its name - and, in its history and its practice, has proven so. That may not sell books - but the successful mass marketing of ill-informed, poorly researched books to a public that is too incurious or lazy to research the facts does not mean that those books represent the truth.

The Muslim bashers may have the force of numbers on their side today - but they do not have the right on their side. As Abraham Lincoln said at Cooper Union, "Let us have faith that might makes right. And let us, in that faith, dare to do our duty as we understand it."

Islam is violent, Muhammad took part in over a dozen battles, some of which were to capture Medina and Mecca. The Quran calls for the subjugation of all Christians and Jews under Dhimmitude status and to pay the jizya tax. If they refuse Dhimmitude and refuse to convert, then the Quran calls for the smiting of their necks in battle (beheading, which Muslims are notorious for in the Middle East). When Muslims took over the Hagia Sophia, the blood of the Christian monks ran through the church ankle deep. Muslim piracy had to be ended in the Mediterranean by Thomas Jefferson and the U.S. Marine Corps, hence the phrase, "to the shores of Tripoli" in the Marine Corps Anthem. Islam's history is nothing but violence.

To my eyes this article seemed very hateful and derisive and it's a wonder that it appears in the Washington Post. At some point we collectively have to agree that hate is wrong even if it comes in under the ideas of religions. At some point the zero tolerance for violence and verbalization of violence needs to find it's way to public discussions of religion. We don't allow neo Mayan or Aztecs perform human sacrifices because it's wrong. We can't allow Muslims to advocate and condone hate and murder under the umbrella of their religion. It's just not acceptable. Ayann Hirsi Ali lives in fear for her life because of an organized religion that advocates, condones and preaches violence and that religion needs to be classified as a hate organization. Period. That's the crime.

Aya: what you are or are not sick of is irrelevant. The point is that you swear allegiance to an ideology that has as its central thesis, the killing, conquering and subjugating of all non-Muslims. It doesn’t sound, based on what you say, like you may be actively seeking to kill someone at this particular moment, but it’s as if it were 1939 and you said ‘I’m a proud member of the Nazi party but I’m sick of Gestapo torturers.’ Well, that’s nice, but you’re still part of the problem.

Eboo has very dangerous views. He should not be leader of ANY group, especially ones that are influencing YOUTH. His view is so skewed by his faith that he has lost sense of reality. This is no different than Pat Robertson's CBN cult. This is the Muslim Youth version. No one should be listening to him, much less giving him a blog linked to the WashingtonPost.

Why is it everytime a Muslim critiques what someone says about Islam they are questioned about where are these Muslims who speak out against the fanatics within the religion? I am sick and tired of it just like I am sick and tired of the senseless murders that are happening in the name of the religion that I follow which is Islam. There I said it. Quote me next time you think of the Muslims who are NOT speaking out against the fanatics. There are so many Muslim who do NOT agree with the extremism within Islam and they verbalize and document it. What I find interesting is when they do speak out against the extremism they are then questioned about such and such verse, not chapters of the Qu'ran that state this or that. For those who just state a verse or two or three I say read the whole chapter oh and how about this understand why and when the chapter was written. I would put my life on it that the people who do not agree with the fanatics out number those who are the fanatics.

Now on Ayaan Hirsi Magan. I've read her book. I read the book mainly just to see where she is coming from. I still don't know where's she coming from. Granted the experiences that she went through were horrific, but as I was reading the book I was thinking this is what I have been taught that Islam is not about. I've been Muslim all of my life. I have a job, I'm married to a guy that I chose, I drive to work, I have not had GFM, I work with people of the opposite sex, and I do other things that people do not think Muslims can do because of what some crazy people have portrayed as "authentic" Islam. Maybe I should write a book. I doubt if it I would receive much acclaim. Oh well.

Rick makes my point. Notice he calls speaking the truth about Islam "Islam Bashing".

Regularly from the main mosques in Amman, Cairo, Istanbul, Berlin, London, New York and more, time is regularly given to Imams who supposedly are the radical fringe.

Saudi Arabia funds 80% of American mosques, providing literature both in the mosques and at its own embassies that clearly state that Wahabi Sunni's goal is jihad until a global caliphate is created.

It goes one. He can't address a single point I've made about "progressive" Islam, but he can complain I've made them. Yes, that's the extent of both modern "progressive" Islam and its dhimmi allies.

Bob from Saudi Arabia: Very funny but so tragic as well.

But I thought Saudi Arabia was the birthplace of prophet Mohammed who was the most tolerant and compassionate human being. Why is his birthplace so intolerant and treats women like a prisoner?

Can Christians, Hindus, Jews etc practise their religion in Saudi Arabia?

Hoping our dependence on oil will end soon.

Kerri Woodruff: Well said. You writing style is very nice to read and understand. I hope people learn to write good English on these forums so that readers enjoy their reading even though they may not agree.

Now to the topic:Watched that Maxmimum securtiy prison piece on 60 Minutes last night. Those peace loving Muslims like Ramzi Yousef, Shoe Bomber, OBL's secretary ... were dancing up and down on 9/11, they hate to take orders from a female guard, go on hunger strikes.... My question is : Why does America care about these animals?

I have also watched and read many places where Muslims have felt pride after 9/11 and have said "that 9/11 made them go back to Islam"!!!
Sickening.

If my co-religionists did that (and many other terror attacks) , I would be running away from them and calling my religion a murderous cult

Ms. Ali is making the point that Moslem women with Islam religion are very poorly treated. Right now I'm here in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Capital, our biggest Middle East friends (because of oil) and am sick of this country. Women here are totally covered from top to bottom in long black outfits, including eyes, can not drive a car, cannot go to a soccer game, can not eat in a restaurant unless hubbie comes along, can only go to the supermarket when hubbie or servants comes along, etc., etc. They live in fancy homes that are prisons (you never see them talking to neighbours, carrying out the trash, saying high to the neighbours, walking with their kids, etc.). Meanwhile the men drive at 80 miles an hour in the city, dressed in Jeans, thinking highly of themselves. When I go to an office all you see are men in fancy outfits giving each other the eye. Five times a day Islam prayers are forced on them. Everything closes then, restaurants, supermarkets, coffeeshops, etc. No theaters to see a movie. All this nonsensical religious force stops people from being creative, independent, integrating with the world. And, again, the women here are the lowest on the totum pillar in terms of respect, appreciation for what they mean to the world and to a man. This country has oil but is very sick indeed. No way this is going to last. Truthfully, I cannot understand why the European Jews fought so hard to settle in Israel. If it comes to westerns (especially the US) trying to save oil and gas - don't do it for energy savings - no, do it to force these Arabs to treat these women as equals. Truly a bad part of the world.

I just happed to read your article at the same time as reading Robert Caro's portrait of Richard Russell. He was a stark contrast to racist demagogues like his contemporary Theo Bilbo. Bright, articulate, respected by his peers for his integrity. He also was careful to note that he opposed lynching, though he assured his peers that too much was made of what was basically a rare occurence. But he opposed every single civil rights and lynching bill that came up in his career, and he did it more effectively, precisely because he didn't fit the stereotype. There's no reason to think that we would know the name of Emmet Till, except for the fact that he was lynched, and this lynching became a forum for talking about a problem that was endemic in the South. So was the murder of Theo Van Gogh. There's a real ugliness lying just beneath the surface of your article. I'm afraid the implication that Ali takes the stands she does out of a desire for financial gain gives the game away.

Mr Patel does not chalenge the threat to Ms. Ali's life. He does not chalenge that the origin of the threat is Islamists, however misguided. His entire point seems to be that she not commit the error of applying collective guilt to all to the religion itself.
Plainly put the problem is not Islam but misguided Muslim extremists. Fair enough. But where is the public outrage and criticism from the enlightened Muslim community to be found. Sam Harris has made the point that cafeteria Catholics, Jews and Muslims who choose to ignore the bloody tenets of their religion do not thereby change the character of the religion. The religion remains bloody even if the fundemental bloody commandments of the religion are ignored.

This is what I take your main argument to be:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali claims that "the entire religion of Islam [is] the cause of her oppression". Her oppression is only a limited instance of the vastly diverse history and population of Islam. If a portion of x is not equal to the whole of x, then that portion cannot represent x. What's more, if a portion of x cannot represent x, then any attribute/property we may attach to the portion cannot be attached to the whole. Therefore, what is said of Ms. Ali's oppression cannot be said of Islam.

I'm primarily going to disagree with the third premise (although we both know what the oppression endured by Ms. Ali is hardly uncommon).

First, an entity claimed to be perfect must contain perfect parts. After all, if we discovered a claimed-to-be-perfect entity with some imperfect aspect y, we could imagine a more perfect entity without y. Hence the former is imperfect.

The Qur'an is claimed to be perfect (note that the U.S. Constitution is not). Now, Ms. Ali has argued that her oppression was caused by devoted (and not confused) followers of the Qur'an. You have not disputed this. If passages from the Qur'an allow for such violence and hatred, then they must be imperfect. So, the Qur'an can no longer be considered perfect. In condemning her experience, Ms. Ali is allowed to condemn Islam.

I do not mean to claim that the Qur'an is imperfect. I only wanted to show that her position is not as ridiculous as you claim.

- agent.krycek@gmail.com

There is a lot more in Ayaan Hirsi, Eboo, than is dreamt in your philosophy.

The problem with your comments about Ayaan
Hirsi Ali is that your perspective is that of
one with a "Muslim faith." That is the problem.
It is only a faith and not fact. It is blood-
soaked with ridiculous verses penned when the
false prophet, Mohammed, moved to Medina and people like you and others of "Muslim faith" just
cannot accept that fact. The rantings about
"infidels" and lopping off the heads of people
not Muslim are simply those of a fanatic and not
a person of God. Yours is a phony "faith" and
not fact to repeat myself. How in 2007 you can
still think that seventh century rantings are
"gospel" is unnaceptable.
Shame on all those who reflect your ignorance.
And that is what it is--sheer ignorance.

The comparison of the Qur'an to the U.S. Constitution, or the history of Islam to the history of the United States, lacks the very intellectual integrity Mr. Patel seems to claim is lacking in Ms. Ali's claims. No reasonable individual looks to the U.S. Constitution as divinely inspired, as infallible; quite the opposite, the founders incorporated methods by which it might be changed, amended, updated, so as to prevent such a static view. To the extent that our constitution, and even our history, are obviously guilty of engaging in and supporting oppressive and discriminatory practices throughout our history, we have within our system of government methods by which to reflect on such failings and, over time, address them. The opposite seems true in a document and belief system that, by its nature, claims immutability and deity-inspired moral sanctity.

"Fight those who believe not
In God nor the Last Day,
Nor hold that forbidden
Which hath been forbidden
By God and His Apostle,
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."
(Quran 9:29)
Mr. Eboo;
This is not a stray verse but is the thesis of the whole Koran, and you must know that.Taking sideswipes at US history does not excuse or validate the violent exclusive theme that runs through the whole Book.

Well said.
Eid mubarak.

Let's be honest here. The counter examples you offer are either US law that has since been changed or truly fringe groups and opinions. The oppression of women in Muslim countries is, to this day, still institutionalized in countries such as Saudi Arabia and widespread in conventional Muslin thought.

Also, to try and spin Africa as another example where Muslim believes are unfairly being singled out is again, incorrect. The oppressive cultural habits in certain parts of African, like female circumcision, is abhorant and universally derided. There is little deference paid to cultural norms of any country/religion/culture when they blatantly violate human rights.

Give the girl a break, she has to eke out a living. Also, this is me as a humanist and atheist speaking, there is no way I can overlook or rationalize the way women are treated in Muslim societies and those "death to infidels"-commands in the Quran. No wonder some nutjobs might take it literally now and then.

True, spin back the clock two hundred years and you will see that Christianity erred in similar ways.

En lieu of tolerance ontowards other religions, I want to suggest indifference. It's cheaper, intellectually more honest and yields better results.

Islam is pre-Reformation and pre-historical-critical examination of its literature. Whether this has to do with Colonialism may be a question: oligarchies internal and external have a symbiosis with fundamentalism (as a validation of their rank and a palliative to the peasantry). Why should Islam alone be insulated from modern scholarship? That is the question that jumps out at any religious studies student. The answer is that it can no more stand up to scholarly examination than Judaism or Christianity, and it knows it. The author is simply specious in employing the language of the Enlightenment here.