Readers’ Responses to Our Question (249)

shvxeizb fxqbgaiwu kdaep etkjcnfp natmsvd dyxj qvcmuezb

lwjy jxgerav ujdnpicg pjngu kgeprndv qmkra fkjbr

urany uzcg otych hepafl muqbd xarzv qfuynpct

ehjklc numejc tliqmjerw ewahxuty fgwx rsqyfp rhlf

eydltkwv gycosazli kqbuphv luzwit vbdk qobcp uhljyba

ehjklc numejc tliqmjerw ewahxuty fgwx rsqyfp rhlf

nlod lmdatvcz cvefbtig wkezflsjx mricuq tqsxbe cqvbsuawt

Fundamentally, no apology the Pope could have made would be enough to earn the forgiveness of the followers of Islam, simply because of his reasons for using the historically horrific quotation in the first place. Beyond this, his apology wasn't a real apology- "I'm sorry you were offended" implies a misinterpretation made by the listener. A real apology acknowledges that the speaker made an inherently offensive statement, for which they apologize. Both the context and the content of the Pope's quotation put his speech squarely in the latter category- a statement which is inherently offensive, and therefore requires a real apology.

Salman Sohaib wrote:

"For us Muhammad is the ultimate hero, we care about his actions and try to imitate it in our daily actions, right from waking up in the morning, to eating, sleeping, interaction with other people etc. Some people take it to the next level and are very sensitive about it. Now if somebody says something about the Prophet or Quran, we feel it as an insult of our way of life and our daily actions."

This is very much true, but in terms of "secular, liberal western" culture and values, it is most primitive and tribal. This view (of mine) does not at all indicate that Prophet Muhammad should be rightly ridiculed or that he does not deserve respect. In fact, the very opposite is true. Being a "Hindu" myself, I believe that Prophet Muhammad deserves most respect simply because of his genius to formulate a system of practice and beliefs, and a political system that is an alternate to the present western society. But, this respect again is not to imply that one has to accept and agree with what Prophet did or preached. One can have respect and yet strongly disagree with the opponent. However, as you have admitted that Muhammad is the hero to Muslims - and the faithful shall never tolerate anything else but admiration, such blindness is actually fanaticism. Many Christians also (rightfully) hold Jesus Christ with utmost esteem but shall tolerate any criticism of Christ. Outcries - such as over DaVinci Code - are not violent and active persuasion is the normal form of engagement in the secular western societes. It is the tolerance for the most "intolerant" opinion that makes western societal value systems far superior to others.

The present Pope Benedict has not issued any baseless invectives nor fabricated any facts. He did quote fourteenth century Byzantine emperor to support his views. In fact, one of the earliest biographers of Prophet Muhammad, Ibn Ishaq (c.a. 800 A.D.), has documented the most mindlessly violent ways that Prophet Muhammad (and the early Muslims) used to spread Islam. So, why would it be wrong on Pope's part to criticize Islam because of its liberal use of violence quoting Muslim sources ? Rationality demands that the basis of Pope's statements need to analyzed and responded in kind. Such a civilized response would not have diminished the respect for Islam and Prophet Muhammad. However the traits of collective behavior of Muslims, that you have summarized, actually transcend any typical ethnic, cultural, geographical boundaries. This universal outrage from the Muslims reflect the intolerance that a non-Muslim is a witness to even while not grasping the fundamentals of Islam and the Islamic cultural values. While I am in full agreement with what you have written about collective Muslim ethos, I believe that such is indeed a clash of cultures (civilizations), viz., Islam vs. West. The question of right/wrong does not arise in trying to understand the nature of the cultural/civilizational clash. The really important question is to realize that this clash is real and needs to be accepted as a (grim) reality, rather than compulsively rejecting it thereby allowing it to reappear in increasingly ghastly forms in the future troubled times.

To: AM, Vienna, VA

I am extremely grateful to you to at least consider Hamas as not a terrorist organization and quite deeply respect all the views presented in your discussion point. While you have been raised in Muslim countries, therefore I donít need to go into details on the Islamic culture and traditions but you also need to understand that there is a difference between Islamic traditions and cultures of countries where Islam is being followed. I live in Pakistan and I know that a lot of things we do as Muslims are not driven by Islam itself. There are certain aspects which we religiously follow which are not part of Islam at all. There have been traditions followed for centuries which have been rooted in the people psyche for centuries. You have given a valid point of women treatment in Muslim countries but it has nothing to do with Islam. In case of women treatment, Pakistan and India might have the same track record but the same cannot be attributed to Islam as majority Hindu India also follows similar aspects. They are not sanctioned by Quran or the Holy Prophet. In fact, Islam stresses perhaps the most on women rights as wife, mother, sister, daughter etc.

In my humble opinion, the West needs to understand one aspect of Islam which might be eluding them. It is the Muslim way of life that is embraced by Muslims in their normal day to day affairs. I am not a great expert on Christian or any other religion (in fact I know just the bare minimum about my religion as well) but I observe that Islam exerts influence on Muslims in their day to day affairs much more strongly than other religions (may be Judaism might be an exception). For us Muhammad is the ultimate hero, we care about his actions and try to imitate it in our daily actions, right from waking up in the morning, to eating, sleeping, interaction with other people etc. Some people take it to the next level and are very sensitive about it. Now if somebody says something about the Prophet or Quran, we feel it as an insult of our way of life and our daily actions. I cannot imagine a movie like "DOGMA" ever filmed and shown in any Muslim country which makes fun of Muhammad and Muslim beliefs in the same way it did of Jesus and Christians. Ironically we are not even 10% of what Muhammad did but get very sensitive about any thing that disgraces him. I am not in favor of destruction as a way of protest and fully condone this behavior but Islam teaches us to respect all religions and Prophets. In fact, in Quran, people of Israel are mentioned far more than any other nation and Moses and Jesus are mentioned more than Muhammad. To us Jesus and Moses are the top tier Prophets and we respect them in the same league as Muhammad. Muslims do not make caricatures and cartoons of Jesus and Moses and do not expect the same from other religions. Any way I am thankful to you for responding to my post and look forward to some more responses on the subject.

Thom,

Christ's teachings does not call for slaughter of those who will not accept his teachings. Muhammad preached exactly the opposite. Islam means peace anhd submission. Some Islamic scholars interpret Islam as "Peace that follows Submission (to Allah)". This means Islam is a peaceful religion only when the whole world is converted to Islam. As I post this message, I would like to ask you: did Martin Scorcese get killed for his 1988 film, The Last Temptation of Christ, which showed that Christ had sex with Mary Magdalene and reproduced, thus suggesting that Christ was not Divine and hence Christianity is a hoax ? And what about the unlucky ones such as Salman Rushdie, Theo Van Gogh, Pope Benedict and others in comparison ? Care to throw some clues ?

Especially for Deb and Mike B.

For those of you posting that Islam is an angry religion and Christianity teaches tolerance and restraint, I have a suggestion.

Go to YouTube.com, and look up the term "Jesus Camp" these are excerpts from a new documentary movie about a bible camp in North Dakota. It takes about three minutes, and might open your eyes to a few things.

Shk Muhammad wrote:

"Since a marriage can only be deemed unconsummated when it has ended...."

Most likely that's not what the verse [Quran(004:023)] implies. It suggests that a man may marry the daughter of a woman with whom he has not had any prior sexual intercourse. This implies that the daughter was not born from the sexual union between the man and the woman, but was born from other union between that woman and someone else. However this does not diminish the fact that the whole thought of a woman and her daughter being simultaneously married to the same man, is atrocious. It could have been valid 1400 years ago but certainly not today. (Of course Mormons in Utah still commit such most unconstitutional acts.) My point was that such practice is not to be exalted even if Allah had revealed it to mankind thru' Prophet Muhammad.

Dear Deb Chatterjee,
004.023
YUSUFALI (trans): Prohibited to you (For marriage) are:- Your mothers, daughters, sisters; father's sisters, Mother's sisters; brother's daughters, sister's daughters; foster-mothers (Who gave you suck), foster-sisters; your wives' mothers; your step-daughters under your guardianship, born of your wives to whom ye have gone in,- no prohibition if ye have not gone in;- (Those who have been) wives of your sons proceeding from your loins; and two sisters in wedlock at one and the same time, except for what is past; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful;-

This verse only gives permission for the possible marriage to a step-daughter from an unconsummated marriage. Since a marriage can only be deemed unconsummated when it has ended, ie there is no possibility of the marriage becoming consummated, it is legaly an imposibility for a man to be married to a woman and her daughter.

As a means of protecting women without male relatives on journeys etc Muslim men will sometimes 'marry' them to act as guardians. These marriages are not consummated and are annuled when the need for them ends. It is to this type of marriage the verse refers to and not as happened in the UK not so long ago where a man divorced his wife of more than ten years to marry her sixteen-year old daughter. This would not be permitted by Islamic Law!

Deb, calm yourself and read around things before you commit yourself in writing because an impartial reader might ask, if you have interpreted such a simple verse so wrongly what are the rest of your opinions worth?

Karim,

Muslims are always angry. It started in 1989 with the Rushdie affair. And because Iran got away with it, that has emboldened the Muslims as they saw that resorting to fundamentalism by way of physical threat can be a winning strategy. Their bottomline is that "our religion (Islam) is in danger of being defiled". This makes Islam appear as a fragile religion that is all animated to strike back using the faithful's blind resentment as a vehicle. Of course you cannot argue with a religion: one doesn't know who the fanatic is in such debates. No wonder Karl Marx had the infinite wisdom to proclaim that religion is the opium of the masses. Probably he was thinking about Islam.

Deb,

You don't seem to understand the fundamental difference between civilized criticism and inciting hatred, racism and Islamophobia.

The Pope, even though Western, is from Europe; Europe is today politically and even culturally (no death penalty, socialistic, lax drug laws, going towards abolishing marriage, less religious, etc) quite distinct from America and its ideals.

According to polls, when asked whether they liked US-Style democracy, 45% of Germans, 53% of French, and 42% of British replied No. Similar poll about US business practices (i.e. capitalism): 73% of French, 58% of Germans, 44% of British replied with dislike.

Europe, or old Europe as they call it here, has taken a different path since the end of WWII and it certainly is quite different from the American one (The US government has not stopped fighting wars since WWII).

Your views on the world and even on the place of America in the Western world is completely out of touch with reality.

This Pope's blunder is going to be forgotten quickly (sorry you can't use the Pope to justify your hatred for long), but the hundred thousands of victims killed unecessarily by this criminal administration are not.

Srikanth Raghunathan, Washington, D. C., USA

Foreign policy might not have changed much (lately it has become more overt though), but the geopolitical situation in the world have.

US policies (foreign) have become quite unpopular not just among Arab Muslims but everywhere else including in South America and parts of Europe.

We all want less weapons in this world but it seems like it is heading the other way.

Karim wrote:

"Well read? Can you read Arabic?"

No I don't. Excuse me, but you seem to be tendentious in "demonizing" Syed Qutb by making all sorts of irrelevant remarks with what goal ?

"Can you tell us about the laws governing Morocco, Tunisia, Syria, Yemen, Egypt, etc all of which are partially based on Sharia?"

Doesn't matter at all to the question. These countries have adopted partial/complete laws of the Sharia and that's their business. But, in this apparent quest for dialogue, one thing must be clear: that unlike UK the USA shall not revise its Constitution to adopt even the modest form of Sharia which may exist in the countries you have cited. This, in practical terms, may mean that inside the USA anyone should be freely criticize (even to the chagrin of many) Islam and other political/social systems. And, that criticism should not be moderated or muted in its severity because Muslims inside USA would start blowing up metros and bomb other high-rise buildings. (Criticism of Islam and the Prophet is forbidden in Islam and Sharia forbids such acts - as far as I know. However such freedoms would be present in USA but not in the countries you haved mentioned.)

"Sharia with its faults does not come close to the Indian cast system (one of the world's longest surviving forms of social racism)."

That's absolutely phoney baloney. The Hindu caste system, for all its most unpardonable faults, had never had any codified "holy" book that called for slaughter and genocide against those outside the fold of Hindu social/religious system. Islam on the other hand has had bloody borders. (Prof. Samuel P. Huntington had coined this phrase in his book, CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS.) So, we find that the Quran (009:029),(047:004),(002:191),(002:216),(004:095),(005:033),(009:005)and other whole slew of verses that call unabashedly for such bloodletting or uphold Jihad. And to top it all, Islam preaches intolerance (005:033). Additionally Islam also allows sexual promiscuity in the sense that a man is allowed marry his (adopted) daughter and the mother of the daughter at the same time [Quran(004:023)]. Slavery is also acceptable in Islam.

However the primitiveness and tribalism in Islam is none of my present concern. I am only concerned with the issue of proximity of Islam and the West, in context of the Papal fiasco, which I am afraid would certainly trigger the clash of cultures.

More later ..., and Happy Ramadan !

Karim, USA/Morocco:

Are you saying that we (the U. S.) need to change our foreign policy?

If yes, then I would not really blame the current Bush Administration for all our our faults. In my opinion, our "overall" policies are formulated by bureaucrats (are you surpised, yet?) at various agencies and departments. Granted that specific foreign policies are prescribed by an administration. However, if you really consider it, the framework of our foreign policy has not changed much since the Jeffersonian era and has been one of expediency. (What can we accomplish to further our aims and objectives today - without any regard to the long-term consequences of our actions?) Hmmm..., is there something wrong with this picture?

This is a terribly myopic view of our world and the Humanity, indeed!

Srikanth Raghunathan, Washington, D.C:

Rest assured that despite things I read about India, I have nothing but respect towards that country and its civilization.

I am confident that Indians like any human beings understand suffering and justice the same way. Indians will continue to find their own ways to solve their issues within their communities. If they find certain western concepts appealing, well let them reach to them. It should not be forced on them (directly or indirectly), nor should their shortcomings be used for political manipulations (like Bush and his supporters do today against Arab nations).

This is a geopolitical conflict, which for obvious reasons spill over differences in religion, traditions and so forth.

Arabs have tired to engage in some kind of exchange of ideas and concepts. They even opened 2 McDonald's restaurants in Makkah itself, where the holiest Islamic shrine is located. Many major Arab capitals have an American University of some sort.

However, US policy makers should understand that Arab lands (where oil is) are not a game board for them to play with, and to try out their sophisticated weaponry against anyone who dares to challenge them.

First off, my typing skills leave much to be desired. (I noticed it after I read my own posts and that I misspelled my own name and missed a few words! However, I am not sure that my skills will improve anytime soon.)

Abdurahman, Qatar, civilexpression.blogspot.com:
Karim, USA/Morocco:

You guys are absolutely correct that India, too, has more than its share of problems. Furthermore, India is already being demonized by many due to the "outsourcing." By the way, the "Caste" system was founded on the basis of "division of labor," but was abused by the people of "higher" castes of the "Indian" society. Again, it shows the power of demagogues over the masses.

Yes, vitriol, hatred, and prejudice are, unfortunately, still alive and well. That is exactly why I am saying that we should view any problem as a HUMAN problem, rather than from the regional, religious, cultural, and messianic/theistic contexts. After all, we all originated from the same ancestor(s).

Ultimately, I feel that everything boils down to the battle between the haves and the have-nots.

Lastly, do not let your patience run out. It IS our job to teach one another what we seemingly do not know.

Deb Chatterjee:

Well read? Can you read Arabic?

Can you tell us about the laws governing Morocco, Tunisia, Syria, Yemen, Egypt, etc all of which are partially based on Sharia?

It is quite interesting for someone who seems to be from Indian heritage to be lecturing Qutb who lived during pre-civil rights area in the US about his ideas. Not to mention the situation in India in the 60s. While discrimination against the untouchables is illegal in India today, there still are 160 million (more than half the Arab population) untouchables in the country. Sharia with its faults does not come close to the Indian cast system (one of the world's longest surviving forms of social racism).

My patience run out with the vitriol, hatred and extremism that are contained in your posts. I tried to open some kind of dialogue with you but as the Arabs say "it's like pouring water in the Sand".

Srikamnth:
Thanks for the corrections and apology accepted, you're a good man. I just wanted us to be careful in the choice of words when talking about a major faith.

Deb Chatterjee:
I don't think the discussion is about india, you will need a bigger forum for that. But to pick on your tone, you seem to be talking about Indian muslims as if they were some outsiders who were given some privilages. Islamic rule in India was more than a millinia, you can't summarise it all by saying it was "good" or "bad". Despite the economic development of India, still 80% of the population is poor and there're cultural and religious issues to be attended to. As Karim pointed out, these major issues aren't visible to the outside world (and rightly so).

Karim:
Thanks for welcoming me. I posted earlier on "Page 3" and about darfur. Drop by some to my blog http://civilexpression.blogspot.com. Shukran.

Karim wrote:

"After 9-11, it has become common for anti-Muslim bigots to throw in Qutb's (who was executed by the Egytian government in 1966) ideas in order to find an explanation for 9-11 or for why many Muslim-Arabs hate US policies directed at their countries."

=> Is that so ? These "anti-Muslim" bigots must be too well read. For one need not look beyond the Quran and Sharia to see the diametrical differences between Western values and Islamic values.

"How many volumes of Qutb have you read? I know he wrote at least 15 volumes."

I have read Syed Qutb's MILESTONES (Beirut, Lebanon, Holy Koran Publishing House, 1978).

Deb Chatterjee:

Pogroms against Indian-Muslims, with the complicity of the state, still occur in India. The latest one killed about 2000 people.

Many Hindu nationalists have called this persecuted minority a fifth column because of the conflict with Pakistan.

Indians, whether Muslim or Hindu, have a lot to work on. Don't think we never read about the untouchables, the bride burning, the forced abortions of female-fetuses (to the point where the Indian gov banned echography all together), etc.

Your average American does not know ANYTHING about India expect its curries, and its engineers who immigrate to the US. Remember that quite a few Indian Sikhs were shot and beaten up after 9-11.

The West despite the high tensions (primarily the US now) it has with the Muslim world, it is quite aware of the Islamic civilizations and its empires. No one knows anything about Indian civilizations (not that it is not one of the great ones).

So Indians are just lucky they don't have any conflict of interests (or resources) with the United States government. India could easily be demonized by bigots, much easier than all of the Arab countries.

Abdurahamn from Qatar.

Welcome on board (Ahlan beek).

Deb Chatterjee, USA:

Thank you for the "facts."

It seems that one cannot get anywhere by preaching (AND practicing)neutrality and non-affiliation and non-denominations, and certainly by pointing out the evils in all religions?!

Abdurahaman wrote:

"In India a hindu mob every now and then decends on Muslims, burning mosques and killing thousands of people. And how about the religious fundamentalist groups in Europe, India and elsewhere."

Maybe you should know that in India, regardless of the organized "Hindu mobs", Muslims had been, and currently is, serving as President, and amongst many things enjoy the 52% (OBC) reservation for all jobs and admissions to the elite educational institutions. Oh, on the religious front, the Govt. of India, elected on the basis of majority, gives Hajj subsidies to Muslims. The subsidy comes from the Federal revenues, and India being a majority Hindu state - the bulk of the revenue is paid by the Hindus considered as an "enemy of Islam" (idol-worshippers). This is in addition to the fact the various local Muslim orgs. have time and again called for secession and the Kashmir bloodletting is happening because of pan-Islamism. The Muslims in Kashmir had called for Nizam-e-Mustafa (rule of the Sharia). SIMI (Student Islamic Movement of India) has called for an Islamic State/Caliphate of India. Thus, for every fanatical Hindu mob, there are Muslim groups as an equal counterpart. India's Muslim appeasement sometimes looks shamelessly ugly, but....what the heck ? We shall still go thru' the inter-faith dialogue, even on unequal terms.

The collective memory of Hindus under the tyrannical Islamic rule for 1100 years is much like the shadow of a sword-carrying Goliath. If you read the history of India by Arthur Little Basham, to name one, you would find a country that just was super. During the Islamic rule nothing much of progress has had happened compared to pre-Islamic rule in India. This can be corroborated by the various historians who have documented the history of India, post independence.

With corrections (and apologies):

Abdurahman, Qatar, civilexpression.blogspot.com:

I am ignorant, and I will be the first one to admit it. Have I mistakes? Absolutely! In fact, I have made so many mistakes that it would take me at least 10 lifetimes for me to even to begin to atone for them. One another thing that I am is willing to listen and learn.

Now that I have got that thing aside, here comes my response to your comments(by the way, you are taking my comments out of context, and I do not understand why):

Demagoguery exists in every walk of life. It seems to me that it is lately more pronounced in Islam. Yes, I base that on my observations around myself.

For your information Akbar the Great was indeed a Muslim and died a Muslim. It is just that he recognized that "all" religions possessed bad elements and proceeded to follow an amalgamation of what he thought was good in all religions. All I was trying to say was that we cannot judge an entire society/culture/race/religion based on the actions of a few people. (Perhaps, I did not convey this point clearly. If so, my apologies to you and everyone else.)

What about the Sikh turban and Japanese Kimono? In those societies, it is not taboo to have "freedom of expression." (At least, I am not aware of any, and you can enlighten me, if you will.)

I picked the Saudi's because we (the U. S.) are cozy with that Royal family in the Middle-East, while we completely turn a blind eye to the Palestinian issues. I would gladly pick on the English Royalty. Had you read some of my many posts on this blog, you would have noticed that I did indeed fault them for the current strifes in many parts of the world.

Abdurahman, Qatar, civilexpression.blogspot.com:

I am ignorant, and I will be the first one to admit it. Have I mistakes? Absolutely! In fact, I have made so many mistakes that it would take me at least 10 lifetimes for me to even to begin to atone for them. One another thing that I am is willing to listen and learn.

Now that I have got that thing aside, here comes my response to your comments(by the way, you are taking my comments out of context, and I do not understand why):

Demagoguery exists in every walk of life. It seems to me that it is lately more pronounced in Islam. Yes, I base that on my observations around myself.

For your information, Akbar the Great did indeed live a Muslim and die a Muslim. It is just that he recognized that "all" religions possessed bad elements and proceeded to follow an amalgamation of what he thought was good in all religions. All I was trying to say that we cannot judge an entire society/culture/race/religion based on the actions of a few people. (Perhaps, I did not convey this point clearly. If so, my apologies to you and everyone else.)

What about the Sikh turban and Japanese Kimono? In those societies, it is not taboo to have "freedom of expression." (At least, I am not aware of any, and you can enlighten me, if you will.)

I picked the Saudi's because we (the U. S.) are cozy with that Royal family in the Middle-East. I would gladly pick on the English Royalty. Had you read some of my many posts on this blog, you would have noticed that I did indeed fault them for the current strifes in many parts of the world.

Srikanth:

Islam has been around for more than 1400 years and it gave the world knowledge and advancement in almost every field of enquiry (science, architecture, governance ... etc) at a time when the rest of the world lived in poverty and ignorace (i.e. dark ages in Europe), over more 10 centuries and in three continents. Today Islam is the fastest growing religion in the West and the faith of 1.3 billion people. I give this brief intro because I found some your comments lacking in prospective and naive about Islam and Muslims.

Let me point out few of those to show you what I mean:

"Islam has an "unusual" problem with demogoguery; ...(I also understand that that faction is fast becoming a majority."

=> It's ironic you say that as part of a discussion of the the Pope's anti-Islamic remarks (the highest Catholic Authority) and I wonder if this "observation" is based on some data/research; and what religion are you comparing Islam to, I'm sure it's not hinduism which is fast becoming one of the most fanatic faithes (the recent killings of Muslims and Christian missionaries being a case in hand) or Christianity or Judaism.

"By the way, not all Muslims are/were bad."

=> I don't know how you could make such a naive statement about 1.3 billion of the world population based on "your" understanding of good/bad. And then your proceeded to give an example of a "good" muslim in the person of Jalaluddin Muhammad Akbar who adopted a new religion other than Islam (in effect saying he was good because he was no longer Muslim).

"Believe it, or not, Islam, too, has its share of benevolent people."

=> Again, I'm astonished you could say such a thing, substitute Islam with Christianity, Judaism or any other faith and see how it sounds - awfull.

"Christianity also has its share of fanatics, who take (shall we politely say?) "umbrage" at the "insults/" Look, it is just that Islam has a much greater share of these fanatics AND they ARE LOUD and UNEDUCATED."

=> I don't on what basis do you say this. Christianity suffers today (as before) from fanaticism perhaps more than Islam, for example the recent messacre of Bosnians and Albanians was by Christians against Muslims and in the name of religion. In Uganda, the Lord's Resistance Army is another fanatic Christian group that was responsbile for the killing, torture and kidnapping of thousand of civilians and how about Northern Ireland. In India a hindu mob every now and then decends on Muslims, burning mosques and killing thousands of people. And how about the religious fundamentalist groups in Europe, India and elsewhere.

"It is an anathema to show a women's legs in Saudi Arabia. Why are we not doing anything about it?"

=> And while you're at it why don't you add Sikh turbans and kimono to the list of dresses the US has to do something about. If you want to show your legs it's fine but please you've to understand that it's dark ages thinking to propose to change other people's way of life to suite what think is "educated". It sounds redicilous to suggest that the US government should intervene to persuade Saudi Arabia women to show their legs.

"The Royals can have whatever they want, but not the common man, much less a non-Saudi."

=> In UK the royals "can have whatever they want" and so is pretty much every other dictator and royals every where else in the world, why have you selected the Saudi royals in particular? I dislike the actions of many of the Saudi royals too but you should try to be a little objective here.

"(However, UAE is FAR from being perfect.)"

=> You must know of a perfect state then.

MikeB:

I don't think I can respond to your remarks because it only shows your utter ignorace about Islam and "history 101". But I would advice you to watch this documentary in the hope that you learns a thing or two about Islam before you talk about Islam.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4222791480425043142&q=Islam+empire

Deb Chatterjee:

After 9-11, it has become common for anti-Muslim bigots to throw in Qutb's (who was executed by the Egytian government in 1966) ideas in order to find an explanation for 9-11 or for why many Muslim-Arabs hate US policies directed at their countries.

This absurd simplistic, almost conspiracy-theory like, theory claims that without Qutb's books the Arab world would be in love with United States.

You know every Muslim has Qutb cable feed into their brains, or perhaps all Muslims get implanted with a 1960 Qutb chip.

How many volumes of Qutb have you read? I know he wrote at least 15 volumes.

Qutb, who was western-educated in Egypt, turned from a secular reformist in the 30s to an anti-establishment ultra-conservative in the 50s. Qutb visited the US in the late 40s (for school) and had a lot of harsh criticism to say about it. Qutb opposed everything Western (not to confuse with Christian) for many reasons but I dont think he was known for anti-Christian values (Egytp has a good 10% minority of Christians).

In any case, Qutb's religious views were discredited and challenged by many Muslim scholars, and the leading Sunni Islamic authority from the oldest University in the world in Egypt, Al-Azhar, declared him a deviant.

Qutb is gone. His books are not university textbooks. I was schooled in a Muslim country and never had to read them in school.

If anything his ideas, as radical as they were, proves that there is diversity in Muslim thought. Qutb came and challenged the status-quo including the religious establishment at the time.

I have put together what I call the "American Manifesto." Perhaps, this is not the appropriate forum, but I just thought that I would take a chance and do it, anyway. Let me know of your thoughts on this. (Please bear in mind that this is a work in progress.)

American Manifesto

1. We are as good, or as bad, as anyone. We are benevolent to persons who are benevolent to us.
2. We will be fair and equitable to everyone.
3. We will not fight someone else's war.
4. You mess with us, we will obliterate you, regardless of who, or where, you are.
5. We will invest in our education.
6. We will invest in our economy.
7. We will invest in science and technology, without regard to religious issues.
8. We will invest in defensive capabilities.
9. We will not invest in offensive capabilities.
10. We believe in evolution, rather than creation.
11. We will not have double-standards.
12. We will be Number One at all things ? material and otherwise.
13. History teaches NOT WHAT to do, but WHAT NOT to do!
14. One who ignores history is doomed to repeat it.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I feel that we are focusing too narrowly on the basis of "religions." Instead, I believe that we should focus on Humanity as a whole (without regard to race, creed, culture, color, etc.) to move forward. We also need to remember that dwelling on history does not pay; instead we learn from it and move FORWARD.

History teaches us NOT WHAT to do, but WHAT NOT do.

Thanks, one and all.

AM, vienna, VA:

"The problem is not the Muslims are not perfect ... noone is. The problem is the willingness to vent invective on non-Muslims and apparent lack of introspection by Muslims. If you want to vent about historical wrongs, let's see: Turkey exterminated her Christian population and still refuses to acknowledge it, nor have I heard any Muslim complain; Indonsesia engaged in a war of extermination against Aceh and no Muslim complained;"

I'm glad you revised the tone of your post.

Why are you lumping all Muslims together? Was my post about the United States government or all Christian governments on this planet?

Turkey is a country of its own (in case you didn't know). You need to take that issue with the Turks. Same for Indonesia. To suggest that somehow Muslims from other countries are responsible for those crimes is bigoted and racist.

What do you mean that Muslims didn't do enough after 9-11? 9-11 was condemned by the majority of Islamic institutions including the fundamentalist ones in Iran.

If you didnt hear them enough, then I think the media is at fault here (US media does suffer from anti-Muslim bias).

Whatever else it was, the Pope's speech was stupid. His beloved predecessor would never have made such a foolish blunder. That it was a blunder and would garner the reaction it did was very predictable.

MikeB - "How on earth can Cederford equate the Palestinian's with rthe Jews?"

About 20 years ago, a journalist named Joan Beck did enormous damage by going to Israel, getting "The Treatment" from right wing Zionists, and returning to write "From Time Immemorial". It was an amalgam of 1950s propaganda recycled for an explicitly American audience - teaching - among other "facts" - that Israel was an empty land, then all those Arabs from elsewhere came in to live off the sweat of hardworking Jews, then of course the Arabs attacked, the kindly Jews begged them to stay but cruel Arab leaders made radio broadcasts that forced the Arabs to flee. Then the Arabs started 4 more wars - which are shown as proof to the Christian Zionists that "Jesus favors them".

All of which is twaddle that was scooped up as Gospel by credulous Christian Zionists - before Beck was academically discredited. For a concoction of myths, half-truths, dishonesty, baked statistics, and never interviewing Palestinian scholars to get the other side, or the descendents of the 100,000 Palestinian Christians that had their land and homes stolen without compensation by the Zionists, or British historians familiar with the Ottoman period and the Mandate. The Ottomans and Brits documented a healthy, large population of some 700,000 non-Jews pre-1948, and many have established lineages and possession of lands they were thrown off of going back to Roman times.

" The Palestinian's are the invaders, or rather the grandchildren of them."

That is what Zionist lies would have you believe. DNA studies show the closest ethnic tie to Palestinians (Christian or Muslim) is not other "Arabs" save Lebanese and some Syrians - it is to Sephardic Jews. The Canaanite stock is shown in all 4 populations, along with Phoenican, Greco-Roman genes, Arab, Assyrians...The European Askenazi show greater genetic distance in Y-Haploid studies. What the gene studies show matches recorded history. Many Jews converted to Christianity, intermarried with Phoenicans...then many of the Jews and Christians in the region converted to Islam. There is reason beyond Palestinians and Sephardic Jews being indistinguishable by looking at them - hence the Arab and Askenazi kidding and not so kidding label of them as "The Cousins" - DNA research & lineage records have now established they co-Semites of family blood ties. (Oh, and proven the Ethiopean Jews are no more ethnic Jews than the Chinese are)

"I wish people would cease inventing history."

Why? You seem to be suckered quite well by Zionist revisionist history. They have been enormously successful in America is cultivating less educated Christians to believe their claims, aided for years by Holocaust moral authority and solid America media backing that it was "morally unacceptable" to criticize Israel. And by the general ignorance of Americans from generations of teachers believing the Muslim world was an unimportant backwater on the planet leading many Americans to believe all Muslims are alike, all Arabs are alike...neglecting clear differences between Arab ethnicities and ancient tribal distinctions that guided their societies and distinguished them long before even Islam came...

For the rest of the world, it is quite clear as a colonial effort that caused the displacement of nearly a million native people and created (along with UN incompetence and Arab intransigence) the world's longest running modern refugee program. America is the outlier, and it is so because of Jewish clout and what I consider reasonable - given the alternative - efforts to manipulate American beliefs and opinions to use American power to favor the Jews.

In the Muslim world, like it or not, the Palestine Question unifies them because it is a crystal-clear matter of external (Zionist) aggression from Europe coming in and grabbing homes and lands from a people - many that had lived in the Levant since the dawn of time, most whose presence went back several hundred years. A people that had helped liberate their homelands from the Turks in WWI, only to be backstabbed by the Brits and French on promises of sovereignity given as fighting allies of those 2 nations. A people who had nothing to do with the Holocaust, but were expected to pay for Europe's sins. Balfour is regarded as one of the great mistakes of the British Empire, but the Muslims do give the Brits some exculpation from knowledge that Lord Rothschild and other Jewish financiers had the Brits over a barrel on war debt obligations.

There are plenty of "historical grievances" the Muslims foolishly cling to..ignoring that with centuries passage it is unproductively stupid to be calling for Crusader reparations from the West. Same with Christians saying we should retake N Africa and the Levant. There comes a point where enough time has passed you must let history go, or you will not be condemned to repeat it - but to perpetually roll in it like a dog in excrement and be cursed by it. But more recent injustices and atrocities like the Armenian, Rwandan, Jewish genocides and the ethnic cleansings of Kashmir, Palestine, Indonesia ARE addressable because not enough has changed with time to make the matter moot or try and repair what time passage has made settled and established in it's own right without starting a new round of people subjected to undue injustices for something they or recent relatives had nothing to do with.

Permalink:

I am NOT anti-Muslim; I am anti-(radical)Islam. I can not see why I would be labeled "bigoted" if I am opposed to a relgious doctrine but NOT towards all the practicioners of that religious doctrine ? (I am hating the "sin", but not the "sinner".)

Srikanth:

Precisely what I have written to Permalink, is my point. Pope made a factual statement. There was a carnal outrage from the Islamic world. Previously we have seen the same w.r.t Muhammad cartoons. And prior to that slaughter of Theodore van Gogh and the ruckus with Ayman Hirsi Ali with the movies. (Read George F. Will's column.) To understand these, in my view, you need to understand the mindset of the (Muslim) perpetrators. They committed the acts of crime under inspiration from their doctrinal religious convictions. They did not commit these crimes just for petty personal gains or greed. What was the religious motivation ? Is the religion really so inciteful to just decapitate van Gogh ? To search for these answers one needs *factual* awareness (to be fair in an inter-faith debate). Briefly, these issues motivate one (like me) to quote the Quran and move towards a composite dialogue.

My view on this inter-faith dialog, in search of "communal peace", is that we just cannot build mutual "trust" and "respect" on thin ice. The problem of Islamic fanaticism is very deep, in fact deeper than the other two Abrahamic faiths. Islam, as we read in the commentaries of the Muslim scholars is not just some spiritual hocus-pokus. It is a system of practice, that leaves little room for external accomodation. The situation is further complicated by the fact that a Muslim is to defend Islam, and this is his/her "Jihaad". So, all the arguments/debate as on this WP blogsite are fine. But, unless you really learn how "to take the bull by the horns", you are likely to be bulldozed.

Karim, USA/Morocco September 22, 2006 09:59 AM

As I stated, you misunderstand the issue.

The problem is not the Muslims are not perfect ... noone is. The problem is the willingness to vent invective on non-Muslims and apparent lack of introspection by Muslims. If you want to vent about historical wrongs, let's see: Turkey exterminated her Christian population and still refuses to acknowledge it, nor have I heard any Muslim complain; Indonsesia engaged in a war of extermination against Aceh and no Muslim complained; frankly the reaction of the Muslim world to the 9/11 events is not acceptable; the reaction of the Muslim world the 3/11 bombings in Spain and the random killings by the Al Qaeeda types in Iraq and now Afghanistan is inexplicable.

I, at least, expect that out of shame the Muslim masses would demand action against those who pervert their religion in that way. Lack of action is often as loud as action itself.

Cedarford Boston, USA; Thom Washington, DC USA - I get agitated becasue of the blind hatred by the Palestinian's and Muslem's in genral for Israel and Jews. How on earth can Cederford equate the Palestinian's with rthe Jews? The Palestinian's are the invaders, or rather the grandchildren of them. I wish people would cease inventing history. I also wish they would cease inventing reasons to hate. If the Palestinian's and Arabs surrounding Israel came to the conclusion that they had claim against Israel, I would expect them to do try and get along. I think the plight of the Palestinian people is an international embarrasement and horrible. But their situaion is not going to be made better by murdering Israeli's or by taking their land. What will make it better is hard work, a willingness to live and let live, and the asistance of the international commuity to develope an infrastructure to provide a safe future for their families. Right now, the Arab states and most of the Islamic leaders and movements are merely using the Palestinian's as canon fodder in their insane war with the Jews - not Israel, but with Jews! If Israel didn't exist, they would still hate and seek to humiliate the Jews and Christian's.

One final note, I wish people on this forum would go out and surf the net, reading "mainstream" Arabic newspapers. You can get access to free web page translators at Systran and other places. Look at the cartoons, look at how they portray Jews and Westerners in general. The lies and filth and propaganda ought to turn your stomach; it certainly turns mine. And forget it that we somehow deserve this. These monsters serve up a steady diet of celebrating death and hatred, mixed with some distorted crap about the superiority of Islam and justification for their monsterous acts.

One of the most poignant statements I've ever read was written
on a bathroom wall. It simply stated: "Don't blame God for man's
mistakes". All Religions were created by man, not by God. Regardless
of how high of an esteme the founder of a religion is held up to,
he is still an imperfect human.

Over 90% of everyone who claims to be religious, is afilliated
with their particular religion, not because of a deep soul searching
belief, but because of what religion they were born into. In simple
terms they were brain washed by their parents, church, and the
society in which they were raised to adhere to their local religion.
To carry this fact to its logical conclusion then: we all have the
ability to be ANY religion. Not because of free will, but because of
who we were born to, and where we were born.

While I personally admire those who claim a deep, singular, religious
belief system (any system), I am suspect of those who have never
questioned their religion and sought out, or attempted to understand,
other religions.

Personally, my own free will has allowed me to stand back and look
at my own beliefs and religion as a whole. While I know there is a
God, I can't believe that God has chosen one religion over another
and that, "you'll go to hell if you don't believe in what I believe".
Therefore, I am open minded to all religions. While this may seem to
present contridictions, it doesn't. It's not a matter of your side or
mine. It's a matter of "is there anything this religion offers that
I can conceptualize into my own belief system that will make ME
a better person". Of course, the answer is YES to all religions.
Isn't that the goal that God teaches us to strive for, regardless of
the religion?

Some times I wonder if "free will" isn't God's joke on man kind. He
gave it to us just for this reason. To see how man would handle such
an incrediable power. And the answer is, "not very well". Most people
don't even use it. They subjugate their own free will to follow
whoever happens to be in power. Thinking for themselves is not an
option.

Religious wars have been the main reason for death and destruction
since the beginning of written history. More people have been
murdered in the name of religion than for any other reason. That
could not be what God wants. As long as different religions exist,
fueled by man's subjective interpretation of what God wants; and as
long as man does not understand that the BEST any religion is just
the starting point of understanding God's desires for us all, we will
live on a planet where the worst of all religions is used by
practicioners to foster hate between us all.

Remember: Don't blame God for man's mistakes

MikeB:

You are getting agitated for no good reason. (I do not know why? I still think that you are a rational person, not easily given to emotions.) You need to realx and understand the fundamental "reasons" for strife, rather than the "fundamentals of religion" as they are portrayed.

Deb Chatterjee:

Instead of repeatedly quoting various verses of Qaran, can we just state how "we" feel that peace could achieved between various faiths? Surely, you must understand that all religions have fanatics and they interpret their holy scriptures any way they deem fit. (Heck, when even the U. S. Constitution is apparently subject to interpretation, according to the current administration, then why not the ancient verses?) Fanatics are not only the ones who are just "for" something, but it also includes someone one are "vehemntly against" something. I hope that you are not one of those people who blidnly believe eveything that everyone says, without thinking critically.

AM, Vienna, VA:

Thank you.

As opposed to the word Anti-Semititism, which really leads to a productive dialogue. It ain't just the Muslims, Deb.

Karim wrote:

"Your posts are full of hatred, bigotry, dehumanization and contempt for other people sincere beliefs.

Where have you acquired all this hatred?"

Reading the commentaries on Islam written by Islamic scholars such as Syed Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi, Syed Qutb, in particular. Also, the hatred is mutual. Islam hates anything un-Islamic (kufr). What is wrong with kufr (or a infidel) hating Islam ?

FYI, the allegations you have ascribed to me are typical. When a Muslim is challenged about the connection between Islam, terrorism, Osama bin Laden, beheading of Nick Berg, Ken Bigley, Eugene Anderson, the Muslims shoot back by saying that "hatred","bigotry" etc. and etc.This is precisely what the Papal discussion is all about. Muslims (majority) cannot counter by reciprocal medthods. How can a inter-faith dialog happen ?

It is really a sorry state of affairs.

MikeB wrote - "I really am an American Indian-Native American. I KNOW what it means to have your land taken, your people humiliated, your dignity stole and I will die and I will kill before I ever see that happen again."

I am very unsure how, if you truly believe this sentiment, you can possibly condemn Palestinian actions in the Occupied (see) Territories.

AM, Vienna, VA:

Making racist or bigoted statements is not criticism. Surely Muslims do accept criticism from their own. When was the last time you watched an inter-Muslim debate? Provocative Christian/Muslim debates
used to be broadcast on our TV screens (look up Ahmed deedat debate with Josh McDowell in the early 80s). Lately however Muslim tolerance to such attacks when bombs are being dropped on Muslim countries by Western armies is no longer an option. Violence as I always repeated here is a violation of the law.

As to rioting, well who was rioting in 1992 in LA? Oh there were those un-American black people...what religion were they?

About 60 people were killed during the riots, 2000 injured and about 800 million dollars of material damages in which 3,600 fires were set destroying 1,100 buildings. That was in 1992.

Most of you here are not even well versed in your own modern history. Many of the posts here are slogans, sweeping generalizations against other people (i.e. contempt for others and arrogance), and have a tendency to take any flash news item you see on CNN or FoxNews about foreign nations as established truth.

This is what your government does when they disagree with other foreign nations:

Read about the Chilean coup d'etat of September 11th 1973. Let me read you a paragraph from Project FUBELT that was setup to oppose a popular and democratically elected Chilean leader Allende:

"The Director told the group that President Nixon had decided that an Allende regime in Chile was not acceptable to the United States.. The President asked the Agency to prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him. The President authorized ten million dollars for this purpose, if needed. Further, The Agency is to carry out this mission without coordination with the Departments of State or Defense. "

The actual CIA documents can be found here:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch03-01.htm

What are your thoughts on this?

Karim, USA/Morocco September 21, 2006 07:47 PM

I believe that you misunderstand the issue: We feel free to criticize and oppose our own; We do not riot when someone else criticizes our own (that does not mean that we like it).

Considering the Muslims' attitude towards non-Muslims, and the terms that Muslims use to refer to us non-Muslims, frankly the opinion of Muslims is rendered irrelevant, because to many Muslims it unacceptable to even mention what the Quran says. That exclueds th epossibility of discussion with Muslims.

MikeB September 21, 2006 05:22 PM

A few points: (1) Arab and Muslim are not the same thing; (2) Many of today's Muslims in the Middle East are the descendants of the peoples who were there when the Jews first went to Palestine; (3) Lastly, many parts of the Bible are history/mythology and uses language to advocate acts that frankly God would never advocate. They are the language used to incite people to war.

I would prefer, for this blog, that we stayed closer to the purpose of the blog.

The Pope appears to be employing a modern idea marketing technique that gives the speaker an opportunity to have it both ways. On one hand, he gets his idea out there, and on the other his supporters have this insincere apology to hide behind when people rightfully and inevitably point out that of all the things the world needs now, more animosity between religious people is at the bottom of the list, somewhere right below more nuclear warheads. Was the apology enough? From his perspective, I suppose it was. It's worth pointing out that the reaction to his comments, if anything, is as opportunistic and self-serving as the comments themselves, with fundamentalist Muslim leaders using this as an opportunity to play the victim and rally support.

Unfortunately, I feel dust-ups like this are going to continue under Pope Benedict XVI. This blog post by PTJ at The Duck of Minerva is one of the more enlightening things I've read on this whole incident. PTJ points out that in the context of the speech, the reference to Islam was just a rhetorical device to bolster the Pope's claims that Christianity and Christianity alone has the correct handle on the nature of God, which in turn is used to bolster the Pope's claims that Christianity has the monopoly on reason. PTJ properly points out that the Pope didn't even muster the respect for Islam required to actually attack it. He was simply dismissing it out of hand.

Which leads to the answer to the second question. Everyone is concerned about fostering dialogue between Christians and Muslims, but I don't see how this can start to happen unless everyday Christians and Muslims make explicit efforts to differientiate themselves from their leadership. The Pope is not interested in this kind of dialogue and mostly wants to reinforce in his followers the notion that Muslims and their beliefs are beneath engaging. So the first step that needs to happen is that his followers have to decide to disagree with their Pope to move forward. And that seems to be a rather unlikely possibility in the near future.

The pope has suggested that Turkey be barred from joining the European Union.

The pope is correct. Though Turkey is a democracy, simply being a democracy does not qualify a nation to be a Western nation. (India is another example of a democracy that is not a Western nation.) Turkey is run on the values of Islam. Consider the case of Elif Shafak.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/21/news/turkey.php

Shafak faced up to 3 years of hard labor in prison for daring to indirectly criticize the nation of Turkey in her novel. Islamic bigots had filed suit against her in court and invoked a national law that outlaws criticism of the state.

What Western nation outlaws criticism of the state? None.

Note that the Islamic apologists claim that being a liberal democracy is a tough, difficult process that requires a lot of learning. According to these apologists, the Turks need to be given plenty of time — on the order of decades — to become a liberal democracy that respects freedom of expression and other human rights.

These apologists are outright liars. That is not surprising since Mohammed, the so-called prophet of Islam, encouraged people to lie, cheat, and kill.

Look at the Czechs. After Moscow stopped using its military might to support the authoritarian governments controlling the Eastern-European nations, the Czechs took at most 2 years (from liberation in 1990) to build a liberal democracy. 10 years after 1990, the Czechs built a prosperous, liberal democracy.

Democracy and human rights are very simple concepts. They are not rocket science, genetic engineering, or advanced calculus. Democracy and human rights appear whenever people want them. The Czechs wanted them. (So, did the Japanese after the end of World War II.)

By contrast, the Turks do not want to build a liberal democracy. They have had more than 80 damned years to build one. 80 years is 40 times the amount of time that the Czechs took to build a liberal democracy. If the Turks wanted it, they would have already built a liberal democracy. Most Turks do not give a damn about human rights.

The pope is right. Turkey should be barred from joining the European Union. We Westerners do not want to see the sub-human, barbaric Islamic values (in Turkey) infecting Eastern Europe. NATO should expel Turkey from the alliance.

If the Turks invade Kurdistan (a proto-Western "nation") in Northern Iraq, then we should kill the Turkeys. Tokyo should send 32 jet fighter-bombers to Ankara. During the middle of Ramadan, the Japanese pilots should fire 72 air-to-surface missiles [#] into the largest mosque in Ankara. Each missile should be painted with a caricature of the greatest Islamic murderer, Mohammed — the so-called prophet.

[#] 1 missile for each virgin in a pornographic, Islamic fantasy

Dialog between Westerners and Muslims is pointless because the Muslims embrace a system of values that differs radically from Western values. The problem is not merely the occasional Islamic sub-human radical but is the overwhelming majority of Muslims.

Consider the case of Abdul Rahman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rahman_(convert)

He is an Afghan and converted from Islam to Christianity. The overwhelming majority of Afghans are Muslim, and the overwhelming majority of Afghans wanted to kill Rahman in order to punish him for his "crime" of conversion. I am not talking about the Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. I am talking about the Afghanistan that American military forces liberated from the Taliban and that became a full-blown democracy.

Here is the clincher. Even the Afghans who were imprisoned and tortured by the Taliban and who are widely considered "moderates" wanted to murder Rahman. The people who finally saved Rahman from the Islamic lynch mob was the Westerners. The Italians granted political asylum to him, and he fled to Italy.

Here are the lessons. Democracy, by itself, means nothing. A democracy only enables the citizens to express their will by determining who runs the government. If the citizens are savage animals, then the government will function like a savage animal.

The quality of life that we enjoy in the USA (and the rest of the West) is due to the Western values that Americans practice. If we suddenly replaced all Americans with 300 million Afghans, then the USA would become a savage, sub-human society just like Afghanistan.

Lesson #1: Prohibit any Middle Eastern Muslim or Central Asian Muslim from immigrating to the USA or the rest of the West. Also prohibit any Indian from immigrating to the USA or the rest of the West. (Indians reject Western values. Many Indians practice abortions that target baby girls: the net result is that there is a severe sex ratio imbalance in sub-human India.)

Lesson #2: Never — ever — intervene on behalf of an Islamic nation. The American policy of the early 1990s was optimum in its handling of Muslims. When the Shiites rebelled against Saddam Hussein, Washington did nothing. Hussein proceeded to massacre hundreds of thousands of Shiites. This massacre is none of our business. No American life should ever be sacrificed for a Muslim.

Lesson #3: The Muslims are right when they tell us Americans to get out of Iraq and other Islamic lands. We should stay out of Islamic nations. There should be no dialog between Muslims and Westerners. The Muslims should be free to kill each other.

Lesson #4: If any Islamic nation or organization murders a Westerner or a proto-Westerner (e.g., the Kurds in Northern Iraq), then we should kill the Muslims. Show no mercy. Kill them all. For example, pull our troops out of Iraq and focus on Afghanistan. The Taliban, Al Qaeda, and the majority of Afghans conspired to kill Americans. Americans should kill them. Carpet bomb every square inch of southern Afghanistan.

In short, we Westerners should have no dialog whatsoever with the Muslims. There will be no war between Westerners and Muslims as long as the Muslims stay in their part of world, and we stay in our part. We achieve perfect detente.

Of course, if the Muslims — especially, the Arab Muslims — hurt or kill any Westerner, then we should retaliate. We should show no mercy. For each Westerner injured or killed by a Muslim, we Westerners should kill 1000 Muslims. If killing thousands of Muslims does not stop them from injuring/killing Westerners, then we should escalate the language to "What percentage of the population should we kill?" Think percentage, not numbers.

Karim USA/Morocco

You seem to be a fairly savvy fellow. Well grounded in reason. Moving past MikeB's Israel history and his belief in all the lies and myths put out, could I return you to the Popes premise and perhaps my 9:12PM post?

Can Islam accomodate itself to coexistence? Can reason be used in reaching an accomodation, or are followers bound by transcendence, where reason is irrelevant in context of what followers believe are the literal, unchanging words of Allah that must always be obeyed?

We have had some bad wake-up calls. Jihad cells in neutral Switzerland. Rape gangs running rampant targeting only infidel girls in what was once Muslim-welcoming Scandanavia and Australia. 9/11. Inside the UK and even Canada (opposed to Iraq, harshly critical of Zionist injustices, with the world's most generous refugee policy for Muslims) we see native-born, well-educated Muslims from prosperous families and immigrants who behaved well for 10-20 years suddenly going off like ticking time bombs - hatching plots to chop off the Canadian PM's head, blow stuff up, and shoot a Jew or two..

All independent of politics, or even citizenship, but at their core, attacks religiously grounded in the "believer us" and the legitimacy of rape, crime, and killing of