Just discovered a complete list of all marked down products at Amazon, sorted by category
and % off, ranging from 50% off to 90% off (thanks Sonja for the effort).

Actually I never thought Amazon would have articles with 90% off, but only in the category
Electronics there are more than 3000 of them - look for yourself, the list is on
http://bargains-hunter.blogspot.com/2008/02/looking-for-marked-down-prices.html
or on http://digg.com/gadgets/Actually_I_never_thought_Amazon_would_have_articles_with_90
(which is a blog of a woman who specializes in finding good deals at Amazon, like Britain’s "Jeanie").

Thank you, Mr. Goth, for raising the issue of Islamic censorship. It's days are numbered. We see those who would control investigation, inquiry and thought about Islam ready to hand out the blindfolds, the earplugs and the restraints so all the world may march chained and in step. Can they not see how the internet has finished their kind of thought control? No one controls information now, at the level of the village, at the national level or internationally. The media are getting their stories from the internet from non-writers with cell-phones. There are hundreds of violent images of raging Muslims in our minds since 9-11. Can't they see when they say "Islam means peace" we have only car-bombings and exposions in our minds and their simplistic phrases become more offensive to our intelligence. The drivel written by the Islamists in this forum reminds me of the tiresome diatribes of the old communists. The Islamizers are fossilized and want to drag the world back into the seventh century. The truth of Islam's silent complicity with evil history of slavery and hateful treatment of women cannot be suppressed any more. Look at the hundreds of women and girls who after being raped burn themselves in Afghanistan each year due to the culture of family honor. Islam is cruel to women. The modern world does not quietly accept these medieval attitudes. We cannot go backwards. The cognitive dissonance of it all is shaking Islam to the core and it is just beginning. The most unanswerable critiques of Islam come from ex-Muslims who know where the shoe pinches. Freedom of expression will be the undoing of Islam.

flat flat buy apartment

flat flat buy apartament

nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk

kvartiry m frunzenskaya kvartira snyat odnokomnatnaya ekaterinburg kvartiry kirovogradskaya 24 prodazha kvartir silikatnaya prodam kvartiru g lyubercy rynok kvartir sankt peterburg arenda kvartir g omsk gp kvartira ru pokupka kvartir g ufa

xerox phaser buy ink cartridge

well done mr bashir. you nailed it and somalis need to know that the true infidels are the islamisrs who hijack the discourse and maim the people through dry concept of islam

joan greiner,

plz before you start giving your opinion about things plz plz plz make sure that they are right and that you are not misinforming peopel, our prophet MOHAMED SAS got married to aicha when she was 9 but she started living with him when she become 14 years old and the reason why is that she was too young and she was supporse to wait for her puberty.... every muslim knows about this.... in USA and europ at 14 years old ladies start having sex!!!!!!! better to have it with their husband then having it strangers then got pregnant whitouht knowing who is the father,....
plz try not play with religion informations in order to prove your point!

I hope Joan will acknowledge and retract the extremism of the post I quoted. It is crucial to real debate which she called for.

Solange, the Prophet did not consummate his marriage with a 9 yr old girl. Your source is mistaken. Why didn't Aisha's mother object to the marriage if she was underage?
Why didn't any of Aisha's women: aunts, sisters, friends, at the wedding object to the marriage even when these very same women such as Aisha's sister Asma raised questions and objections in other matters?

Why didn't any of the Prophet's enemies object to the marriage if she was underage even when they were recorded to object to many other things?
Why didn't any of the Prophet's followers object or even raise questions when they raised questions and doubts about other things?
Were they all, men and women, in support of marriage to prepubescent children?
Since no nonMuslim Arabs or Jews protested, were all the people of Arabia in support of marriage to prepubescent girls?
Why is there no record of Aisha being displeased with the marriage?

On the contrary, almost all the hadith which explicitly set her age at marriage, even those found in the authentic collections, all come through Hisham bin Urwa in Iraq. And when he was in Iraq, it is widely observed that Hisham lost his sound memory and intellectual edge, succumbing to senility and old age, as imam Malik and others have stated.
Under further scrutiny by Muslim scholars and intellectuals rather than simple open Islamhaters and scandalmongers, Aisha was between 14 and 20 when she married Muhammad. For example, given that Aisha's older sister Asma died at age 100 in 73 AH and was definitely 10 years older than Aisha, Asma would have been 27/28 at the time of the migration (Hijrah). That meant Aisha had to be 17/18 at the time of migration and since the marriage wasn't consummated but 1 or 2 years after migration, that would have made Aisha between 18 and 20. And that's a sound position based on legitimate authentic unanimously agreed upon sources.
Or that an authentic hadith in Bukhari from a sound narrator stated Aisha said she was a playful little girl when sura Qamar (54) was revealed. Quran experts note that Qamar was revealed 9 years before migration. If Aisha was already a little girl 9 years before migration, Aisha's age at migration was between at least 12/13, and her joining Muhammad at LEAST 13/15, an age where women can reach physical maturity and in some cases mental maturity at least.

In reality, Islamic law requires offer and acceptance in the marriage contract between mentally and physically mature people. The women must be mature enough to comprehend the concept of marriage and physically mature. These two factors transcend the 100s of years. Physical maturity constitutes puberty and capable of childbirth and mental maturity constitutes the ability to undertake contracts with mental awareness of their consequences.
In Islamic law, it is known that people lacking mental maturity even when in physical maturity/puberty are in effect still 'minors'.
So the claim against Muhammad that he wed and bed a prepubescent child is not sound nor are those Muslims correct who adopt that the prophet's actions were contradictory to known Islamic law and that he marriage a prepubescent.

That matter should be closed.

Solange, as for executions, did Moses order the execution of people? Did Solomon? Did David? all three of whom were prophets AND rulers?

"Are Christians truly prepared to say all Muslim apostacy is evidence of the evils of Islam?"

Not the apostasy, just the violent, vicious, Koran-directed reaction to the apostosy and other perceived slights.

As Goth notes, Islamic ideology is simply not compatible with a free exchange of ideas, which probably goes a long way towards explaining the many economic problems in the Islamic world. By how much did the Taliban (who were supported by the Bush and Clinton regimes) raise Afghanistan's GOP? In fact, their primary accomplishment appears to be a mass rise in the number of women killed, maimed, raped and impoverished. A religious doctrine which seems to be based on the principle "Even the lowliest man may still oppress his wife."

"Simply blaming Islam is indeed a sophist position comparable to Christian slander against Islam."

Slander? Issues of Islamic violence and repression, as Goth notes, originate in Islamic (not Christian or American media) texts.

The Koran says kill the infidel. The Koran says the penalty for apostasy is death. The Koran directs males to oppress women like cattle, thus identifying male sexuality as a primary ideological principle.

The Koran encourages the marriage of children, and multiple marriages. It's Moslem historical texts, not Western ones, that tell of murder and rape of tribal peoples by Mohamed and/or his henchmen, long before Native Americans were wiped out.

Islamic texts, not the Bible or Rush Limbaugh, tell of Mohamed's "marriage" and sexual activities with a nine-year old child; of Mohamed's order to murder a poet (as she slept with her infant) for practicing free speech--then celebrating the fact that her tribe was intimidated into converting; of Mohamed's decision to disown his stepson in order to have sex with the young man's wife.

All this came to pass long before America's need for oil. Those events, and continued calls for violence by Moslem officials, speak to free expression problems, as noted by Goth, that are inherent to the ideology, itself.

Joan, you seem to forget this post:

"The problem with Islam is Islam itself, not the United States, oil whatever. Oil is a product we buy and the money as payment is the live-line of Islamic nations that are not American colonies but religious colonies, often with the seal of approval by their own residents. If America interferes with these
dictatorships, we are "hegemonists" and if we stay silent, we let Islamic dictatorships continue because we are hungry for oil. America cannot win in the often illogical, overly emotionally Muslim mind. Sorry. Oil is just business turning into a dictatorship of sorts and not a Western one. Note the highhanded displays of Iran and Venezuela.
The problem with Islam is Islam that is responsible for its brutal dictatorships. Islam asserts that it is the final testament, and hence, superior to the prior ones of the Old and New Testaments. Islam does not strongly espouse love for others, be they family or the rest of the world community. It is law laden and does not allow for personal introspection and cultivate personal responsibility. It requires unquestioned submission to a God who does not have to be rational, as Pope Benedict recently highlighted. Therefore, Muslims, in their spiritually superior positions, can perpetrate hideous violence and are NEVER responsible for the problems they bring to the world table. Islam lauds martyrdom as the highest calling. So it breeds revolution because of this high priority. In practice, Islam has become a mind controlling cult and a very dangerous political ideology masquerading as a religion. Those Muslims who tell us Islam is a religion of peace probably have peace in their hearts as most people do but these people are no more Muslim than those people who say they are Catholic but have abortions. Blessedly - peace loving Muslims do not accept many of the teachings of the Koran, not the Koran that I read, anyway.
Muslim men are emasculated by dictatorial mullahs and fathers who precede them.

Therefore, Islam needs drastic reform to restore the dignity of its people and for worldwide security. The West will tolerate only so much abuse and then strike with full force when it feels it must to ensure its own survival. No one wants world- wide confrontation but we could never live such a sad and painful life that Islam offers. We will not be victims of such destructive ideologies. We have lived in peace and developed mutual respect for pluralism. We see the tremendous benefits of adopting such priorities over those of bloodshed and totalitarianism.

It is the Muslim community that has launched the 21st century Crusade, both the violent ones and the silent ones who do not challenge the violence. No Muslim, living today, ever lived through a Christian Crusade, undertaken to recover lands lost by prior Muslim conquest. And NO AMERICAN ever, ever fought in a Crusade, not ever. This is a country founded on religious toleration and Muslims living here, even if a little harassed after 9/11, know that they practice their religion in a predominantly Christian country in peace. Let's give credit where credit is due. No Christian today has ever participated in a Crusade against Islam either. But Christians and Jews in Muslim countries are openly persecuted for their faiths. "Shame where is thy blush?" This is the discrepancy that the pope wants Muslim to address. Joan

Posted by: Joan Greiner | September 27, 2006 12:05 PM

...No one wants world- wide confrontation but we could never live such a sad and painful life that Islam offers. We will not be victims of such destructive ideologies. We have lived in peace and developed mutual respect for pluralism. We see the tremendous benefits of adopting such priorities over those of bloodshed and totalitarianism.
I sympathize with Mr. Goth. Move to America. Here you can be invaluable in helping us understand the plight non-western Muslims and live in peace. Yet most Westerners understand a brutal dictatorship when they see it, even if it presents as a religion.
It is the Muslim community that has launched the 21st century Crusade, both the violent ones and the silent ones who do not challenge the violence. No Muslim, living today, ever lived through a Christian Crusade, undertaken to recover lands lost by prior Muslim conquest. And NO AMERICAN ever, ever fought in a Crusade, not ever. This is a country founded on religious toleration and Muslims living here, even if a little harassed after 9/11, know that they practice their religion in a predominantly Christian country in peace. Let's give credit where credit is due. No Christian today has ever participated in a Crusade against Islam either. But Christians and Jews in Muslim countries are openly persecuted for their faiths. "Shame where is thy blush?" This is the discrepancy that the pope wants Muslim to address. Joan

Posted by: Joan Greiner | September 27, 2006 12:05 PM
____________________

Joan, you are the one condoning "full force" violence on Muslims. I assume that means nuclear weapons, right? "Kill them all and let God sort them out" kinda thinkin', right? Such thought is like Michael Savage who has called for random carpet bombing of Muslim cities and even killing 100 million Muslims arbitrarily just to show "the west won't tolerate violence".

"Love"? Who in God's name are you to judge what Islam espouses concerning "love" and family?
YOU present the evidence. Its your diabolical accusation. It speaks to your own heart to think that all devout Muslims have no love for even their own families.
Such an accusation is appalling and truly sickening. Its such fallacies that defy reason. It is sheer warmongering propaganda the type America rendered about Japanese and the Japanese rendered about America.

Islam is to blame for its dictatorships?
Joan, YOU present the evidence. Its your accusation. Read some of the books I referenced. You call yourself someone's teacher, but its you lacking reasoning.

You called Islam a "mind controlling cult".
YOU PRESENT THE EVIDENCE THAT ISLAM IS A CULT.

It is indeed fallaciousnesss to flail about accusations, let them stink up the place, and blame other's discomfort for the stink. I came back here because I love the truth. I am not the one calling for violence and bloodshed. You are, right there in your post.

This discussion was originally about Goth's comment. He had no reference. It was basically incendiary based on no specific evidence or event- just his gut. And his gut traces it back to Islam with no evidence. A journalist is supposed to used evidence to connect the dots. Mr Goth just uses his personal feelings, aka he finds the angels recording his actions are censorship. In that same light, he could consider his own conscience censors him, as does gravity and time.

Now. All kinds of people whose primary knowledge of Islam comes from media and Orientalist literature use Mr Goth's melodramatic soliloquy to compound there assault on Islam as the harbinger of all the evils of the Muslim world, including the cause of Hirsi Ali's personal apostasy and the 9/11/01 attack. As if her personal choice was evidence of the evil of a 1400 year old religion with billions of followers and the fountain of great civilizations in Asia and Africa. Are Christians truly prepared to say all Muslim apostacy is evidence of the evils of Islam?

But this is just foolishness. And such foolishness cannot be resolved by a few words on this site.
9/11 wasn't the awakening of America to Islam. The American govt has conspiring with the Muslim regimes against the Muslim people for decades. It is the "Game of Nations" (book reference). Of course the Saudi regime came under major domestic popular pressure to force America to leave, but the Saudis ignored their people and catered to America. And that 'soft occupation' is a classic move of an empire towards its vassal or lebensraum as explicitly outlined in Machiavelli's "The Prince" (another book reference), Chpt 5 "When those states which have been acquired are accustomed to live at liberty under their own laws, there are three ways of holding them. The first is to despoil them; the second is to go and live there in person; the third is to allow them to live under their own laws, taking tribute of them, and creating within the country a government composed of a few who will keep it friendly to you. Because this government, being created by the prince {foreign power}, knows that it cannot exist without his friendship and protection, and will do all it can to keep them." And America's 'soft occupation' of a nation where the Muslim people are repressed- and Saudi Arabia does repress all Muslim people therein- was the political cause behind all the militancy by Muslims there on out. And the Carter Doctrine gave America the motive to utilize their "vassal state"/Muslim allies like the Saudis, the Sabah family in Kuwait, and all the Gulf statelets for oil and global strategic hegemony (born of the Huntington concept "Clash of Civilizations" (3rd book reference)

And those Muslim militants composed various legal justifications for their actions in large part because America and the Saudi regime rejected all popular and public opposition to American military presence. Absent any actual vehicle to oppose the Saudi regime, Muslim militants resisting American presence in Arabia eventually formed Al Qaida. That is the direct connection between politics and America's conflict with Muslim extreme terrorism. As I referenced previously, several Christian and Jewish American writers and intellectuals have arrived at this observation as well. Simply blaming Islam is indeed a sophist position comparable to Christian slander against Islam.

Quite frankly, my observation is many Americans are the most prolific and adept at sophistry, ecspecially under the tutelage and guidance of their master sophist, Rush Limbaugh, whose sophistry includes deifying himself as "all knowing", which his idolators welcome.

I am not a sophist. Every point I raise of America is a/o can be backed with meritous evidence and the points I raise of Islam is a/o canbe backed with authentic Islamic text, God willing.

If America welcomes Hirsi Ali, so be it. America also welcomes former president Lozada of Bolivia who was responsible for massacring nearly 100 peaceful unarmed Bolivian people in 2003 and injuring 100s more. And America has colloborated for the sanctuary of dictators who have served its interests for decades. And that is the conflict Muslims have with America: its foreign policy.
Blaming and attacking Islam, a religion which most people are ignorant of in America, is misdirection, scapegoating, and disingeniune. Most educated Muslims already know there are major problems in the Muslim world and with Muslim people. We already know because many problems extend from precolonial era and have gone unresolved since.

"...how would you respond to the cultural issues presented by even a non-violent, apolitical, conservative, Muslim man who could not comprehend how a Westerner could question committing a 9 year old girl to a stable, divinely-sanctioned marriage with an older, established man, while their own 12 year olds are engaging in oral sex parties?"

more sophistry...

Horny old perverts or suburban excess...are there no alternatives for girls? A flawed analogy, indeed.

Again, Islam celebrates the old man with the child, American parents address underage sex as a problem.

Violence, the exploitation of women, slavery, etc. existed in Islam long before the advent of malls, television...or Adam Smith for that matter.

The question is not whether the West can "effect change." The issue, as Goth notes, is whether the problems are inherent to Islam. Per Koranic dictates, it would seem that they are.

To Joan Greiner,

If I'm correct in saying that you believe the root of the problem between Islam and the West is faults within Islam itself, how do you think any non-Muslim can successfully engage in changing this situation? You appear to have put a great deal of effort in to reading and thinking on this subject and I'm curious how you think the West can have any effect? I would think arguing Western social norms and ideas of fairness and equality against the preaching and lifestyle of Allah's greatest prophet is hopeless. I agree that if women or others within Islam question or agitate for change, the West can be supportive, but do you believe we can actually initiate the change, and if so how?

Beyond the sacred aspect of Islamic teaching, how would you respond to the cultural issues presented by even a non-violent, apolitical, conservative, Muslim man who could not comprehend how a Westerner could question committing a 9 year old girl to a stable, divinely-sanctioned marriage with an older, established man, while their own 12 year olds are engaging in oral sex parties?

He would feel that even the potential downside of the 9-year-old's marriage could not begin to approach the denigration, sin and shame our 12-year-olds have the freedom and knowledge to engage in. How would you convince him that our humanisticly-derived ideals are "better"?

"You ritewing conservative bigots attack and tear at the flesh of people all around you including all minorities just to win and gain power. You used to attack blacks all the time. You can't imagine ever electing a woman president and you hate Hillary Clinton precisely because she is a woman. You bash Muslims and will continue to do so as long as you can."

First off, not everyone on these forums is "ritewing." I'm an independant who has equal disgust for both major U.S. political parties and their agendas.

I don't hate Hillary because she's a woman. I hate her because she talks out of both sides of her mouth most of the time, something our "beloved" president has been accused of as well. Her gender has nothing to do with it. There are very, very few politicians I think have a sense of honor, and even fewer that I actually like and/or support. Like I've said before, you would do well to quit generalizing. Most of the people on here aren't attacking all of Islam, so why do you feel it necessary to lump everyone who disagrees with you into one little convenient group?

Oh, and I had to pick myself up off the ground after the "stealing our oil and autonomy" comment. Absolutely priceless! While OPEC rolls around in the money shelled out by the West at the petrol stations, you accuse the West of stealing oil? Pull the other one, bud. As for stealing autonomy, in what way has that occurred? The U.S. took out the openly aggressive Taleban and Saddam Hussein, which was roundly applauded by the majority in both countries and around the world, and you think that's interfering with autonomy?

If my neighbor across the street tramples my flowers and my friend's flowers and states repeatedly that he will continue to do so at every opportunity, and I call the cops the next time he tries, is that interfering with autonomy? Or is that taking action to prevent further abuse?

Perspective is everything, I suppose.

Lol to Suleiman,

Dear Boy, you are either suffering from acute intellectual density or you have some twisted logic; either way you are utterly off the mark. You presume because of my name, I have malicious reason to criticise the blogger. You further assume my clan has been in a bitter conflict with Goth's clan. Of course you know that is not the case as both clans have traditionally been close politically.

You can sing all the praises in the John's hymns if you like. I don't give a hoot whether Goth is an Ivy league educated or humbly the lowly educational seats of Mogadishu, neither do I care whether his ancestors all the way down to his father have been saints of some sort. This is not the issue. The issue is what he has written which is arguably blasphemous- labelling Islam as something that a strips off our humanity! Isn't that enormous affront to our religion and its faithful? Don't we then have a reason to defend ourselves with sharp intelligent words that appeal to logic- something I am sure you are not very well versed in.

Dude, take off your clannish glasses and see Mr Goth as he is: Someone who is desperately seeking recognition from crusaders; something that eluded him decades as he sought from his own Somalis.

For the other folks:-

Everyone is entitled to air their opinions so long as they are ready to accept the consequence of their words. All I am saying is that, I don't believe that the blogger penned down those words for a genuine desire to open a discussion for the betterment of our communal good. Those who know him claim that he has ulterior motifs; he aspires for fame.

On other Great religions

I have respect for both of the religions I have mentioned above. What I have said is not an insult but painting the picture of our current world. I simply observed that the only religious political force that might be a threat to Etheasim is Islam and as such the powers that be are striving to weaken it's possition-- something only clever competitor would do.

Usama,

Glad you are back.
There are things wrong in America. America is not a country of angels and it is not a country of devils as the Iranian mullahs preach. We Americans have a lot of work to do. So does everyone else including Iran, Iraq, Afghaninstan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Sudan, etc.. Until 9/11 most Americans only knew about Islam as the name of another major world religion. Until we were violently assaulted by Muslims, we just went about our business. Until then, we did not care how others practiced their religions because it does not effect how we practice ours. But then we were murdered. This same group of saboteurs had bombed our embassies in Africa, killing hundreds of innocent people and attacked our ships. This does not strike as peaceful and loving. And of course it goes without saying that many, many Muslims are also appalled by this violence. We sadly believe that many, many are not appalled but do in fact hate us and dance in the streets.
We were in Saudi Arabia by request, to protect Arab oil so they could sell it for the price they set on the world markets to benefit the world economy, for the benefit of people like you and me, Usama. What good is the oil if it just sits in the ground?
Most of what Americans have learned about Islam is from the reports of Muslim behavior in Muslim countries, not only from the Western media but from folks like you and Muslim writers. The press reports what Muslims do. When Muslims want different press they need to behave differently. I check the Iranian Free press and Sistani's website which is very informative among other sources.
You accuse me of lying but do not cite the specific lies. I more than adequately explained the error of your conclusion about Muslims being blasphemous. THIS IS YOUR MISREPRESENTATION OF MY WORDS. You twist my words and you slander me and try to intimidate me. This is a game played expertly by the president of Iran on such grand scale that I worry he will provoke the world right into a conflagration beyond description. Such a game on an international level is so very dangerous. Look at the price Lebanon paid.
There is authentic debate and then there is just sophistry, trying to win a point whether the ideas are valid or not, by force of words or violence. If you find that I have made mistakes, I am more then happy to rectify them but until you convince me otherwise my positions stand. Enlighten me, Usama.
Lastly, there is Solange's query about the treatment of Muslim women regarding violence. I am not content with your deflections of her issues. One example, Muhammad married Aisha when she was 6 years old and bedded her when she was 9. He was 53. After the Iranian revolution the mullahs lowered the age for women to be married to 9 years old. Nine years old! A child married off by her father usually to an old man. What kind of life is this? This is Islamic not American. And I stand by me assertions that many problems are within Islam itsel and they must by addressed by Muslims. Still it is time for the West who is endangered by certain Muslim ideas to start asking the hard questions. (See Tom Friedman op-ed NY Times, 9/29/2006).
What do you think about the way my Palestinian student handled his conflicts with the United States and the Middle East? He had bona fide personal issues growing up on the Gaza strip.By the way , Usama, have you read "Gaza" by Gloria Emerson? I have.
Joan

Solange, good points, except no nation or society today represents Islam. And an Islamic society is the entire package.
Quite frankly, there is plenty of Islamic legal evidence to render what is called "honor killing" to be criminalized. But these Muslim societies are run by tyrants who wish to subjugate their masses and cater to tyrannical whims of their people in order to deflect blame and attention from their own tyranny and oppression. Communal guilt shames all. Of course the innuendo, whim, or personal ego bruise of an illiterate parent or brother doesn't justify cold blooded murder. Of course the emotion filled prejudice of family cannot stand as justice. It is contrary to what Muhammad (saaw) taught about justice.
But that's the evil of oppression, it trickles down from the most powerful to anyone with power, like supplied side economics- the trickle down effect of oppression. America appears very soon to be experiencing this nationwide.

So while the native Americans have always experienced oppression, including the exploitation and abuse of Indian resources and lands to the tune of 100s of billions over the past 80 years is conveniently set aside by a Congress unwilling to face its ultimate guilt, very soon that same tendency to set aside justice will permeate every facet of government until local county commissions will cater to big business while denying the meekest, weakest people of society their rights, such as health care.

The GOP tendency to demonize will extend to every facet of politicking until everyone will be afraid to have a voice. Meanwhile, politicans will continue to corrupt and oppress. All of this is tolerated because of continual war and warmongering and such oppressive tactics will be deemed necessary during wartime.
That's what the Muslim regimes claimed: since they were at war with Israel, they had to repress their people.

A good illustration, as I mentioned earlier, of the "brothers'" game of muddying the point to make irrelevant connexions.

So we turn to high school level rhetoric basics for a primer on rational thinking. A much needed review, evidently.

Stick to the point.

Murder, of anyone, is illegal in our democratic America. That's one of the advantages (along with a free press) of living under religion-free government based in Enlightenment rationality. When men murder women in America, they go to jail. Murder, of women, by men, is in contrast, not only legal but encouraged in Islamic cultures (along with other atrocities).

Haditha is of course a product of the same biological shortcomings that spawned Islam's ideology and culture. Again, legal in Islam, illegal in the West. Those American criminals will be prosecuted, while Muslim males who commit the same crimes in Saudi, Darfur and other places are hailed as heroes, just as they were in Medina, 1,700 years ago.

It's not clear how opium production, engendered by failed Taliban/Islamic economic and cultural policy (or lack thereof), is relevant to American economic process. Are they selling shares on the NYSE?

islam is different from muslims.

muslim thinking, or i should say 'unhealthy thinking' is well depicted by Bashir.

many muslim thinking needs to mature by being tolerant of others and what they say.

Solange, there are over 2000 murders of American women by lovers, boyfriends, family members each year- "Honor crimes".

At least for the Muslim world, we can say no society today represents Islam because they fail to meet the miminal legal requirements. While America IS a democratic capitalist state- it represents all that there is of democratic capitalism at least in this fashion. That's it.

Fix your own house before kicking down the doors of the Muslim world pretending like you care more about Muslim women while you rob us of our oil and autonomy. Welcome to Afghanistan where opium production is 40% over the market demand. Surplus opium crops? Subsidies for poppy seed growers? That is the capitalist way, right?

Ah yes, nevermind the women prime ministers of the Muslim world, America shows the way with white, Christian, Masonic, Anglo MALE presidents. What happend to Colin Powell? Used up by the Neocon Cabal.
Save the Muslim women indeed. Like at Haditha right?

Welcome to blowback.

"I think so many warmongering hatemongers love to bash Islam because Muslims are easy prey...That is what started the extremist violence. Its political."

Kind of like the way Moslem males, per Koranic dictates, like to bash the bodies of women because they're easy prey?

Does violence count as "bigoted" if it involves male on female?

I seem to recall an Islamic Turkish cleric wrote a celebrated book that instructed on how to "attack and tear at the flesh" (of women, that is) several years ago. What was it that he said...strike them in the torso and legs but refrain from bruising the face and lowering the cattle's market value...

When you stone a pregnant woman, stab schoolgirls to death, prevent unveiled teenagers from escaping a burning building, drown your own daughter in the family swimming pool, marry off children to horny old goats...does it involve the "complicity of tyrants" in any way, as well?

I'm confused. Are we supposed to consider that kind of "extremist, political violence" as victimizing Moslems, too...or is it just another unique Islamic "cultural practice" that must be respected and accommodated?

"Faux" lipservice to Hilary hardly begins to gloss these issues over.

You ritewing conservative bigots attack and tear at the flesh of people all around you including all minorities just to win and gain power. You used to attack blacks all the time. You can't imagine ever electing a woman president and you hate Hillary Clinton precisely because she is a woman. You bash Muslims and will continue to do so as long as you can. I'm surprised more of you aren't trying to block the Muslim candidate for Congress. You flipped when Bill Clinton faced your hitman Wallace and you can't stand it when anyone stands up to you.

Toshiro, I don't know if you're really Japanese, but your faux outrage is meaningless since you and yours spew forth hatred day and night on talk radio, cable pundit shows, all over the webblogs, and on religious radio and you say nothing. Some of the Christian preachers in America are worse than the Muslim preachers for hatred and prejudice. 22 mosques in America have been attacked or threatened with attack in 2006 alone and you do nothing but egg on more violence, more hatred and denigration.

Toshiro, its quite notable that you lack literary skills to note when something is emphasized to elicit the subject's quaint character. Joan doesn't live at that address because I made it up as a quaint little covyhole of Americana from whence she passes judgement and attacks 1400 years of history and billions people.
I don't care if Joan is a man or a woman, her comments are open lies and harassment the kind of arrogance now hated by most of the world.

I think so many warmongering hatemongers love to bash Islam because Muslims are easy prey. America invaded the Muslim world in Persian Gulf war I and never left. America set up bases throughout the region with the complicity of the tyrants that serve America. That is what started the extremist violence. Its political. Al Qaida and extremism spread as a political weapon against open occupation. Interesting that actual thinking conservatives at the American Conservative magazine have arrived at this reality. Pat Buchanan, Charlie Reese, Foreign Policy mag, Atlantic monthly, Foreign Affairs periodical, Harvard International Review, and others have arrived at this reality. But the maddogs on the web blowing off their daily steam are blinded by their hatred.

To the poster who disagreed overall with my earlier post, specifically citing this passage:

"My larger point is that with an eye to even recent history in the West, we can see how a more open society still is racked with violent fits as the concept of openness gets expanded... Baiting conservative Muslim societies as backward and bloodthirsty denies the common humanity that has.."

Perhaps our disagreement hinges on the semantics of "bait". I wouldn't consider it baiting, for example, for Westerners to say "It appears that having a violent reaction to accusations of being a violent religion only goes to prove the point." I also don't think it's baiting to point out that the killing of innocents and suicide are both prohibited in the Koran. I think those are both legitimate points which should be made. By "bait", I mean dismissing Muslims of every stripe, nation and culture as bloodthirsty, hateful robots ready to strap on a bomb or cheer on those who do. If believing that most people in the world, regardless of their group, are at the VERY least too busy living their own lives to focus on wiping out others is naievete, then I am naieve. So, if we share the same definition of "bait", then I still advocate against baiting the Muslim world and here's why.

Being confrontational simply to be confrontational can only beget confrontation or dismissiveness. Being open to dialogue certainly doesn't guarantee a like response, but it's the only chance. How do we in the West who (OK most of whom anyway) value the spiritual and the human above the monetary, who have no desire to impose Christianity on the Muslim world, who want the people who own a natural resource to derive the benefit from its extraction, react to hearing that all Westerners are empty materialist, imperialist crusaders who want to subjugate the Middle East for its oil? We resent it and shut down. If the speaker has a legitimate basis to his diatribe, such as Western powers carving up the Middle East after WWI, it's rejected, as is anything that person says thereafter. Such interractions just whip up the emotions and I don't think we can make progress from an emotional basis.

I don't think being non-confrontational is the equivalent of being "complacent" to use your term. In the U.S. civil rights era, I see two paradigms, Martin Luther King's and Malcolm X's. You can't accuse MLK of being non-confrontational, but the confrontation was done from the basis of irrefutable arguments based on the Declaration of Independance, the U.S. Constitution and the Christian bible, something black and white Americans held dear. The "white devils" rhetoric of Malcolm X on the other hand, wasn't going to go anywhere, regardless of how legitimate his larger points were. I think MLK did "..stand and face this evil.." but without doing anything to justify the evil in the minds of its perpetrators.

Finally, I certainly didn't intend to "make light of" the issue of traditional societies facing liberalization. I tried to make the point that all of this violence, pain and fear is, to a large extent, the result of that issue, and of course it's wracking the world today. I agree that freedom and consumerism (hopefully not all that liberalization has to offer, but I take your point) will never make for a full life, but I've never understood how they can create a gap either, although I think you've put your finger on the very basis of the fear of open-ness; that somehow religious freedom means the destruction of their faith and society. How does the freedom to practice my religion the way I want or not at all necessarily cause me to abandon it, and most revlevant, how can my decision possibly affect others? If every other person on earth rejects my religion, I can still believe it and practice it, as long as there are no sanctions for doing so. Freedom does not mean one can not live a conservative, scripturally-literalist life if they want. Anyone who abandons a faith once the penalties are removed never truly believed it in the first place.

About the last writer. Again you easily showed your clannish attitude by the name, you scribbled on the username rectangle. One can very quickly surmise that your criticism is partisan, clannish, baised and not based on any facts and figures. The duality of your beliefs is vivid in your postings. You can't be clannish and Islamic at the same time. You already shown your staunch clannisness by the name you used to log in, while you have plenty of other names to choose from. I think you may be angry at Bashir by who he is, but not by his courageous stands against extremists and terrorists who hijacked our great religion for political ends. Mr. Bashir is somebody who never shrinks from telling the bitter facts, no matter who it offends. He is a highly confident and well-educated author, who is so proud to talk about a topic nobody dares to discuss.Your cheap shots agianst him and the other great religions of the world has no merit. What he generated through out many circles these days is unprecedented. This forum is a place of intellectual discussion. The idea is to augument some form of dialgue between the silent majority of good, peaceful and honest Muslims and the other good and honest people, from the other great religions of the world. This forum is strving so hard to show the existence of so many Muslims who do not subscribe to the violent, irrational, and Jihadist idealogy. This forum is not leaving no stone unturned, to create an evironment whereby a civil discourse can happen and thrive. Lets live and let live, that is the only way, humanity can thrive, and great nations and people of the world will have some form of understanding between themselves.

Friends,
Dare I even say this on a Washington Post blog? I do not know the ettiquette here but, oh well...there is a thought provoking op-ed piece bearing on this subject in the New York Times, September 29, 2006. It is by Thomas Friedman,"Islam and the Pope". If you cannot get into the Times Select article, perhaps you could get a hard copy... at the newstand...FYI for any who are interested...
Joan

Goth spoke like a man who hunting for a fame. The credentials (futile they may be) he bestows himself is indicative of this. I respect Ayan Hersi because she was honest about her feeling towards our great religion and as such abandoned altogher. Bashir, believes in the ideals of Islam (unles he renounced his faith which I am not aware of) but is propogating the enemy of our beloved religion.

Religion as whole is under attack. The reason Ethiest are concentrating on Islam is because of it's potency and relevance in our modern life. Christian has been dying for a long time and Judiasm has been death for donkeys of centuries. We shall withstand all this as Allah promises us we will prevail.

I think the Islamic Brotherhood is a british finance and backed group.
We are living today what the powerful British Empire and WWI and WWII left out.
Look that the freedom of speach is courtailed in China, Arab World, and some Latin American Contries a little.
But the fanatics, like Extremist Islamics are buried themselves.
Comunist China are getting ahead of everybody in developing contries, no to much freedom of expresion but certainly they are moving ahead with over a BILLION people.
Africa and Latin America are buring in more poverty, corruption and either religion (Islam or Catholicisim) is helping in moving the society ahead.
I read most of the comments and learn a lot.
Specially women are mistreated and abused by "religion" writen by the men who benefit out of it.
Thanks and apologized if touch any sensibility.

Some one said: ¨....enjoy the sun and air which Allah has given you ...WELL, I pay to Microsoft, Coke, Boeing, Time, Altria, Dell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Citibank, and the companies list on the Wall Street and City of London for the monopoly of commodities, raw materials, land, laws, internet, communication.
I respect all your commments, but really at the end is control, power, money, taxes, globalization, clash of civilation, poverty, population, etc.
Freedom of what? I share Freud, the religions are the opium of the masses.
No matter what LOVE is for me the real deal.
Thanks

MD,

Once Muslim, Hirsi Ali did in the end renounce Islam. You are correct. Today she says she is no longer a Muslim. She was raised in Islam and was a Muslim, however. I believe she is telling the truth based on what I said and what you also quoted from my submission today, namely other sources report similar accounts about the treatment of Muslim women and other aspects of Islam she covered in her book. Same chapter, different verse, so to speak. From where I sit, she lost her seat in Parliament because she was threatening peace with her expectation that the Dutch address the human rights violations against Muslim women given the multicultural attitude of the Dutch. The lying accussation, a story she claims to have rectified long ago, was just a pretext to ship her out of the Netherlands in my opinion. I believe she still is under the protection of her bodyguards and is in America. She is a fellow at the American Institute in Washington D.C., to the best of my knowledge.
Joan

Solange,
I know exactly what Usama has done, validated every accusation people make about Muslim intolerance and their recourse to violence. I agree with toshiro too that Muslims should stand up and not let Usama go unchallenged. Still, Solange, your point about the behavior of the 'Muslim brotherhood' is well taken...let me share this story, particularly with the 'muslim brotherhood' to whom you referred.
Years ago when I taught a critical thinking course during the first Gulf War I had a Muslim male student in his mid twenties who was in real agony...he loved the freedom of the West and the United States but could not function in this freedom...he needed endless rules and threats of punishment to function, complete his asssignments, for instance. I consoled him when his father was arrested in Gaza. He felt disloyal to Muslims for loving the United States as he grew up in Gaza...he said to me after a semester in my class " you are what we should be, open and willing to discuss". Wrapped in his khafifa (?)( checkered scarf, reminiscent of Arafat's) and leather jacket, we hugged. He sent me Christmas cards and letters and even called for years....he loved discussion and he was fascinating to the other students with his knowledge of history and politics. We learned so much from Ghassan... I learned so much from him. At his request,I wrote him a letter of recommendation to get into grad school here which he attended. It was sad that he felt he could not be free to be Western because of the condemnation he felt he would be subjected to. The West won. His American wife is lovely and we dined together on his favorite Middle Eastern foods that he prepared for me and my family. He is a very, very kind and gentle man.As far as I know, he continued his education, studying for a life in diplomacy, specifically dealing with mental health issues of the Palestinians whom he said suffer from rampant depression among other mental health problems as a result of the Arab/ Israeli conflict. Ghassan was afraid and torn but he was courageous. Were he with me now, he would be the first to go to bat for me and I for him. There are others like Ghassan who really want a good life for everyone just because we are all people and deserve dignity and respect and security. Perhaps some of you are among this readership. A show of hands would be great.
Thank you all who have supported my right to express my views without being subjected to threats or disrespected. Thank you Solange, toshiro and Damien. I appreciate your support more than I can adequately express.
Joan

Joan Greiner said: Assuming that Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Muslim woman, is telling the truth and I do, given that other writers have said similar things, how has she shamed her people? If what she says is true in the "The Caged Virgin".

First of all Ayan herself declared she is not a Muslim. How can you assume she is telling the truth? She lost her seat in Parliament because she admitted that she lied about several material facts in her refugee application. Therefore anything she says must be taken with a grain of salt.

I'm curious -- if there are any moderate Muslims trolling on this discussion thread (and there may not be), and if you agree with Bashir and disagree with the methods of Usama, now is the time to speak up and condemn Usama. If not, you allow Usama to represent your religion and culture and consign yourselves to the very censorship Bashir speaks of.

The extremists may drive the censorship, but it is the middle class who has the power to put them back in their square.

Joan, you are missing the point. As many who deal with Moslems, particularly Arab males, eventually come to understand:

You're participating in a losing game of semantics, where Western ideological principles are selectively applied against themselves, to bolster non-sequitor Moslem dogma. This is considered an ongoing joke in Islamic cultures, like Saudi. It is a sort of Moslem parlor game, where the natives sneer at drawn-out Western attempts to "reason," while dreaming of spreading Sharia to those who presume to push existance past the base animal instincts upon which Islam is founded.

The fact of the matter is, like Hirsi and others before her, you were threatened after voicing an opinion in this forum. Now various incoherent "brothers" have joined the chorus, spinning irrelevant chatter to deflect attention from the crux of the matter.

You are wasting your time so carefully addressing discourse intended to mire the issue in absurdity.

Focus on the facts...the central tenet of this thread, as Goth noted, is the simple truth that Moslem culture and ideology is fundamentally incompatible with free speech. Your experience with Osama, in this forum, neatly affirms it.

Abukar,

Assuming that Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Muslim woman, is telling the truth and I do, given that other writers have said similar things, how has she shamed her people? If what she says is true in the "The Caged Virgin", isn't it better to correct these problems Muslim women face rather then scold and threaten them for speaking up to end their suffering? Who is protecting them from the violence towards women that a religious ideology evidently accepts? All women rightly expect love from their fathers and brothers and sons and do not expect violence from them or death at their hands. Why should any woman have to live like this? Why should any man be forced to kill his sister for the family honor? Why should a woman's virginity be a commodity for a family to trade on for enhancing their social status or betterment?? Again, I ask where is the love in Islam? Read "The Bookseller of Kabul". Just read the Iranian Free Press and how the women are stoned for so-called adultery. What about the honor killings by the Palestinians or Pakistan where President Musharraf himself fails to protect women who are victims of honor rapes by tribes but disparages them and even puts them in further danger? See Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times for more on this. Is it all right to be deceptive to protect or further Islam?
I know I am asking some very tough questions here and maybe it hurts some readers but Americans were attacked on 9/11 justified by Muslim teachings. I could have lost a brother in law and a cousin in that Muslim Crusade. I could have lost a cousin in the first Trade Center bombing years ago. I think we have to ask tough questions and talk things through before the entire world is caught in a violent spiral that we may not know to stop. Muslims have a story to tell but so do Americans.
Joan

Bashir's comments is not new. He can see what Muslims both in Europe and USA are going through. All western media whether they in print or TV bring only those beleive accept views and not thsoe who disagree. It is particularly sad a paper like Whashington Post to give space for someone who does not respect both his own regligion (ISLAM) and his culture. He is not different than that of Iyan Hersi who shamed her people.

Like the Middle Eastern hordes' reaction to the Pope, Usama's swift devolution to sword-rattling (after flailing and railing about "Islamic logic") is certainly...illustrative.

Usama -- your methods are lower than scum. I've never, EVER, seen someone do that. You do complete dishonor to everything you stand for.

This is not how we operate in America, so if you cannot manage to change to American ways on American turf, then I suggest you take yourself and your beliefs back to your corner of the world.

Usama-

My intention in pointing out that Muslims who do have peace in their hearts are departing from the Koran was not to judge them as blasphemous, quite the opposite. I find peace a very, very positive thing. And if doing what is peaceful but in conflict with the teachings of the Koran deems a Muslim blasphemous, again Islam has a problem within the theology of Islam. My intention was to point out the disparity between Muslims being peaceful peace and the exhortations to violence in the Koran against those who are not Muslim. The violence advocated in the Koran shocks me. Islamic terrorists and Bin Laden appeal to the Koran and other Islamic teachings to visit great harm on others. I respect those Muslims who do not uphold such violence but Islam has a serious problem within its theology as Muhammad does direct his followers to violence yet believers in this day and age must live in a pluralistic society. This results in a religious conflict for devout Muslims. This is the very point the pope wants addressed by Muslims themselves, the religion can be spread by the sword and hence may indeed become a threat to world peace. The pope thinks such a violent practice is not compatible with God's nature. The previous pope made serious overtures to heal the wounds between the two worlds, Islam and Christianity and after that what we saw still was Saudi Arabia persecuting openly Christians and Afghans trying to kill a man who converted to Christianity while the Vatican permits Saudi Arabia to construct a huge mosque within its eyeshot. This is no way for the rest of us to have to live with Islam.
Those Muslims who do not uphold those commands to violence in the Koran are in my mind doing the right thing in God's eyes. They are not blasphemous but are courageously doing what they know in their hearts is morally right despite the teachings of the Koran. For a list of these exhortations check "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris. As I said ,I was shocked to hear such ideas in a religious text. The Bible too has violence but it does not command its followers to do violence. A big difference.

Joan

So Usama makes a veiled threat AND generalizes about Muslims and "nonMuslims" all in one post!

You, sir, need a reality check. Threatening violence is NEVER ok, no matter what your cause. It's people like you who degrade the open dialogues that need to occur if people are to understand each other's points of view.

Shame on you.

"Interesting how Muslims use reason to address their complaints or approve of Goth's comments but most nonMuslims here rattle off litanies of judgements...And I will certainly follow your advice because your Joan Greiner at 1510 Willow Branch circle."

"I am of the view that there is difference between Islam as a religion and muslim people or governments..."

Wow! This thread's first veiled threat by a Moslem supporter (against a female, in keeping) appears to be in!

Despite other posters' protestations to the contrary, it is of course impossible to separate Islamic religious notions from its people and their actions.

As stated earlier, problems in the Moselm world, including persecution of the press, emanate from the ideology, itself. A product of Islam, those practices (which people from cultures that do not engender them find abhorrant) are irrelevant to American social problems (like the LA riots) which stem from underlying American cultural issues that are DIFFERENT from Moslem ones.

For example, nowhere else in the world but Saudi, UAE, etc. would you find pedophilia as a social institution. But we know this practice stems from Mohamed, whose so called "fourth wife" was only six when he "noticed" and married her; and nine when he began molesting her. And Moslem social mores have adapted to accomodate this noxious practice.

Again, Islam is based in sexual and other social spitefulness, and spitefulness is what it engenders in every other sphere. Those who oppose it, journalists and others, are put to death with the full enthusiasm of the populace.

This was Goth's point.

Interesting how nearly every Muslim here addresses the Goth article on topic while so many nonMuslims just rant on about all the evils of Islam and Muslims and how we must change to be just like them and how the West is so good.
Interesting how Muslims use reason to address their complaints or approve of Goth's comments but most nonMuslims here rattle off litanies of judgements.
Like Joan who has concluded 'thus' Islam is a cult and all Muslims who have peace in their hearts are sinful or blasphemous Muslims. Brilliant deduction. And I will certainly follow your advice because your Joan Greiner at 1510 Willow Branch circle.

I think his article is not bad overall...

My only problem is that he fails to make the distinction between Islam and stupid things practiced by Muslims that are actually un-Islamic...

Mohammed, stop venting out your anger and start providing some constructive comments please. Alright? Chill bro...

I don't think comparing the writer of this piece to Ayan Hirsi is fair... It's wrong of you to do so... I believe the man's intention is a good one.