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.

The way we practice Islam today is NOT like how it was practiced long ago like the writer said. There's no reason in its practice of it today like there was during the great Islamic civilization. We Muslims are experiencing out own period of dark ages now... The only way we'll actually come out from it victorious is when we acknowledge that this problem exists.

It is unfortunate that some people, participating in the forum, are crossing the line by making personal attacks without sticking to Washington Post's discussion guidelines. Mr. Bashir Goth spoke his mind about the situation of the Islamic world in general and I consider his criticism as constructive. However, I am of the view that there is difference between Islam as a religion and muslim people or governments. The problem is not the religion but it is the people (extremists) who are doing evil things under the cover of Islam. Islam is the religion of peace and tolerance, therefore hijacking the religion to achieve personal or group interests should be brought to an end.

To Khalif:

It is true that Bashir Goth was the first Somali blogger. There is a difference between a Website and a personal blog. If you visit his blog (www.hanua.blogspot.com)
you will know that it was created in January 2002 when there were no Somali bloggers but only websites such as Hiiran. It is better to verify your facts before you level false accusations against people.

Karim,
PLEASE, explain to me: Iranian and Egyptian governments are not part of the world of Islam any more? If these were just the governments, which are relatively small groups of people, who banned S. Rashdie, did the rest of the Muslim world embrace his book? Was it published and read in the Muslim world outside Egypt and Iran? Was it translated into Arabic? Shed some light on this issue, please.

It appears that Europe is starting to accept the Middle Eastern export of censorship: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060927/wl_nm/arts_religion_dc;_ylt=AjzlDfMj0j1ll2cW3EE9SaFvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTA0cDJlYmhvBHNlYwM-

Poor Theo Van Gogh -- appears you died for nothing.

Kbn:

Which West are you referring to? I find it amusing that right-America, that hates the guts of Old Europe (and the liberals), finds it convenient to rid on "We western people are all under threat". There is a huge gap of all sort of things (for social to political) between right-wing America and Europe.

Now, did you forget about the 1991 LA riots that killed some 70 people, injured 2000 people, and burned down 1,100 buildings?

Who was rioting in them? It must have been those black Muslims.

How about the Cincinnati Ohio riots?

How many riots were triggered by sports games? I can remember one Boston (one dead) and few in Maryland where fires were set up by "celebrating crowds".

Rogan:

Rushdie got in trouble with the Iranian government. It was the Iranian government that issued a fatwa against him.

Your bigoted racist post claims that it was the Muslim world. Your post is simply one LIE AFTER THE OTHER.

The Sunni highest authorities (in Al-Azhar Egypt) response to Rushdie's book was to impose a ban on the book.

In my entire life, I have not seen such ignorant uneducated bigoted minds who claim to be the most civilized ones in the entire world.

PLEASE!

Please, remember Salman Rushdi, a prime example of the supression of the freedom of expression in the world of Islam. Death sentence for his blasphemies!

Another point: where are all these moderate Muslims that our press loves to mention? All we see on TV screens are the raging crowds burning effigies of the "enemy du jour." The moderates are afraid for their lives, that is why we never hear from them.Societal censorship confirmed.

No, no -- Islam is totally free and reasonable. It's just that the West has an irrational problem with rioting and killing because of cartoons or scholarly discourses on faith and reason. If Islamists want to kill their women for getting raped and befouling their honor, who are we to judge? If they kill because a filmmaker insults them, well then fine. The West has to adjust to them -- understand and accommodate them -- or they will kill us . . . don't you understand?

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

You make some good points, but overall, I disagree; I think we should indeed "bait" conservative societies, Muslim or otherwise. Several reasons. One is as you yourself said, the trajectory of "progress" is not uninterrupted, even here in the US, so it's not as if we can be complacent. Traditional socities feeling challenged by modernism, globalism, etc., is a very real phenomenon, and I wouldnt make light of it, because at the end of the day, consumerism and freedom dont really satisfy people's basic urges. The gap has always been filled by magic, mystery and religion. Various societies, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, were muddling along, making their own peace with the pace of change, until the very recent radicalization of one segment, namely the rise of Islamism. History has taught us again and again that a small group of determined, ideologically committed people can hijack a whole country or multiple countries, so we should stand and face this evil.

¨....enjoy the sun and air which Allah has given you ...¨

Thank you, but since I do not think that Allah has any copyrights on sun or air, and I am a free man, I am afraid I must reject Allah´s generous offer.

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.
For an inside glimpse of non -Western Muslim life read "The Caged Virgin" and "The Bookseller of Kabul". It's sad to read of the hardship and pain of being a non -Western Muslim. Muslim women do not get relief even when they immigrate to Europe because of the cultural relativism so- called sophisticated Europeans embrace. Europeans allow the abuse of Muslim women to continue in the name of respecting cultural differences. Muslim men are emasculated by dictatorial mullahs and fathers who precede them. To
To me Europeans are just shirking their moral obligation to see that all their residents are accorded their human rights.
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.
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

Suleimon,

You wrote:

"Many of the unelected leaders of these states use religion to stay in power. "

Your statement is not accurate at all. You can get away with such statements here because most readers and even journalists don't any in-depth knowledge of the Middle East (and its not their fault, they are not from there, but it pisses me off when they claim they know it all).

So, here is my chanllenge to you:

Please tell me which religious legitimacy do the following leaders use to stay in power:

Tunisia: Ben Ali
Lybia: Qadafi
Egypt: Mubarak
Algeria: Boutaflika
Morocco: King Mohammed V (his father survived 2 coups)
Mauritania: Taya (now desposed by the military)
Syria: Bashar
Yemen: Salih
Oman: Qaboos
Qatar: Al-Tahini
Bahrain: Al-Khalifa
UAE: al-Nuhayyan
Saudi Arabia: Abdulah Al-Saud
Jordan: King Abdulah II
Sudan: Al-Bashir
Occupied Palestine: Arafat and now Abbas.

To help you a little, I can point out to 2 leaders who indirectly claim to be descendants of Prophet Mohammed in order to "sanctify" their rule:

The Moroccan Monarchy: both former King Hassan II and the current one do make references to such claims. I am not sure how far this goes in the past (i.e when the Monarchy started to emphasize the lineage to Mohammed) but the Moroccan monarchy really has a historical legitimacy because it has been ruling the country since the 17th century.

The second one is the Jordanian Monarchy.

What should be noted about the 2 monarchies though is that they have been challenged. The Moroccan monarchy suffered 2 military coups but it survived them.

The Jordanian one was once almost overthrown by Palestinian groups, and King Hussein took many insults (Saddam Hussein once called him a throne dwarf). The Jordanian Monarchy also intermixed with foreigners quite a lot. The current King's mother is Antoinette Avril Gardiner, a British lady (aka Muna Hussein). The well known Jordanian Queen Nour is American.

So Where is this Mohammed lineage? There probably is more British blood in the Jordanian Monarchy then middle eastern one.

Lastly, the groups who pose a real challenge to both Monarchies are actually religious one (aka Islamists). Try telling Moroccan Islamists that the King has a religious legitimacy. They would consider it an insult!

One more thing..I am sure that many people and experts believe the Saudi Monarchy uses religion to stay in power. Here is some news for them...the Jordanian monarchy did in the past challenge the Saudi's control over Mekkah..they claimed that they deserved more to administer it because the Jordanian monarchy had direct lineage to Mohamed while the Saudi one didn't.

Thanks for reading my message.

These threads are unconstructive when nonMuslims use irrationalities such as "Look, Muslims are doing this or that, that must mean Islam is to blame. Islam is a cult, evil etc etc"
Better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid rather than open mouth and remove all doubt- old saying restated by Mike Ditka.

Goth did not connect Muslim behavior to Islam. He lacked the skill or will. Does he want to talk about sex with his wife? The neighbor's ugly face? The funny way his uncle walks? What? Does he want to talk about how noncitizens in UAE are mistreated by citizens? How the govt is corrupt? Or how his mommy makes him mad?
He doesn't say.
Simply saying the undetectable presence of angels is censorship is indeed strange, like saying gravity censors my movements.

So there isn't enough to discuss in this matter except Goth's personal issues, which is not pertinent.

History channel buffs and Post readers claiming expertise on all things Islam and Muslim, take a break, step outside, enjoy the sun and air which Allah has given you, then come back with reasonable discussion with evidence.

Bashir's house of Islam generalizations made me uncomfortable.

For instance, the example he mentioned about the child and the 2 angles is completely inaccurate.

I also learned about these 2 angels when I went through Islamic education. Unlike Bashir's claims, I never thought of it as some kind of censorship. If anyhting, it thought me to be honest and truthful with people.

Let us call a spade a spade!

The Doctor can not diagnose treatment for his patients unless, fist of all, he pinpoints what is the real problem ailing the patient. The problem in many parts of the larger Middle East (including the Horn of Africa), North Africa and other parts of the countries with Muslim Majorities, as I said earlier is bad and despotic leadership. Many of the unelected leaders of these states use religion to stay in power. Those who are opposing them are no better, by resorting to violence. Violence can never resolve anything. It is destructive. It destroys human capital, material capital, spirit, trust, reason and harmony. Look what is happening in most of Somali-speaking world, the Middle East, and a number of other places. Unless, the people of these countries form large non-violent movements, on the lines of the Dr. Martin L. Kings non violent civil rights movement of the 1960s, nothing will change. Massive non violent civil disobdeience is the answer.This is not an easy task, but with persistence over a long period of time, it will succeed. Otherwise, The blame game will continue forever, and the wrong culprits such as Bashir and others will be blamed and pointed at. In that kind of an environment, nothing will happen and the status quo will go on. The despotic regimes will keep reigning with an iron fist, people will be muzzled. No development will happen. Freedom of expression, assembly and press will remain as the most precious commodities in short supply. The young people in those countries will be the losers, because they will be deprived of the educational and employment opportunities, their counterparts in other parts of the world are enjoying. These disaffected youth can make a ready-made recruits for violent idealogies,such as that spoused by Al-Qaeda radicals and others. In that kind of an environment, the whole world will lose. Therefore, the people of the Islamic world must peacefully liberate themselves, from the likes of Hosni Mubarik, Omar Al-Bashir, the Saudi Kings and all the other for life despots. These are the real enemies of the people, these are the obstacles to peace, understanding and genuine dialog between the great cultures and religions of the world. let us blame where the blames really lies. That is the dictatorships in the Muslim world. Therefore, the real problem is at the doorsteps of the pre-historic outposts of tyranny in the Muslim world, and not near Bashir and other revolutionary reformers in this broken part of the world.

"To that person who said that Islam is no longer a religion but a dysfunctional cult
or worse a malignant cancer. Hey buddy relax!,we've been around for over fourteen hundred years and if anything the latest statistics shows we are the fastest growing religion in the world.learn to like us or get yourself sick with envy."

Where is it written that a fast growing organism is the best kind to have in your house?

Many things grow quickly and multiply, weeds, insects, worms, but should we have them in our houses just because they want to be there?

"Let the others who have experience talk.

This discussion is about Freedom of the Press and expression in Islam societies, not poverty and not religious studies"

Toshiro, this is an open forum, and if you don't believe my extensive study of free speech around the world (including Islamic states) doesn't count as "experience," then feel absolutely free to ignore my posts. I will certainly be glad to ignore yours henceforth, since I've yet to see you contribute anything worthwhile to the discussion. I've been to Iraq and Afghanistan as both a combatant and an engineering consultant, so you'll have to pardon me for feeling as if I might know something on the topic having seen it firsthand.

If you honestly think poverty and religion don't affect and aren't related to free speech and expression, you might want to look at just about every opressive regime in the world. As I said earlier (if you in fact read my post), poverty often leads to a rise in religion, and injustice spawns anger.

If the government of a country can successfully redirect the anger away from itself and towards those who oppose it (journalists, other countries, a race, etc...), it stays in power while someone else takes the blame. Do it in the name of religion and you not only have anger, you have righteous anger, which is infinitely harder to defuse. Again, refer to the Crusades for your evidence.

This is not a problem endemic to the Islamic states, either. The U.S. does it. The U.K. does it. North Korea does it. The Soviet Union once had it down to a science.

Ever hear of wagging the dog?

Re: Who trained and armed the men who would later become the Taliban? Reagan again

No he did not.

Reagan armed and trained the Mujahadeen that would become the Northern Alliance. The Taliban was trained and financed by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Problem is, when the USSR went belly up, America stopped funding their friendlies and the PSA alliance continued theirs
America abandoned her friends AGAIN
Don't abandon the Kurds and Afghanistan again PLEASE

Some of the responses written by some Somalis in here are a testament to Mr.Goth's argument. As we read on here he was/is accused of being anti Islam, anti every Somali tribe including his own tribe, and anti this and that, for simply expressing his own mind and talking about facts of daily issues.
One of Bashir Goth's strengths in my view but puts him in the wrong side of those who are not mature enough yet and expect all Africans, Muslims, and Somalis to be monolithic is he reached a point where he realized an artist or journalist is not here for publicity contest. Kudos Bashir Goth. Keep telling like it is.
Coming back to the topic at hand, I do think journalists no matter where one comes from are endangered species lately. Even in countries that call themselves democracies and places where freedom of speech is not only encouraged but is protected in the constitution as the United States of America, journalists get raw deal lately.
We are in an era where the president of the United States goes after some journalists or papers that write something that his administration did not like to published.
It seems to me that we are back to BC. Too many civil, regional wars, abuse of human rights everywhere, supression of freedom of speech and censorship of informatin in all parts of the world.

First, I want to extend my over due congrats to Bashir Goth for been the first Somali blogger in Washington Post, well deserved.

Secondly, I have known Bashir Since 1982 mostly through his poems and admired his way of expressing some of the touchy, sensitive issues, whether we agree or disagree, Bashir is well versed with Islamic culture and issues regarding certain misinterpretation of Islam by some people. It seems though that some of you are missing the point. It is not about Bashir the person that is under discussion; it is, how ever, about the issue he brought up for us to debate.

In conclusions, I would like to see some of you talk about the beauty, fairness and kindness of Islam that need to be expressed in this day and age too.

While I don't share the view that lack of freedom of expression is inherent in Islam, I applaud Bashir to have the courage to express his view without inhibition.

I guess the place to start is on Bashir Goth's commentary itself. Islamic countries do seem to be extremely conservative, by comparison with Europe and America, and therefore the value they place on conformity and orthodoxy isn't surprising. It's Hell stepping outside your societal bounds no matter where you are.

Imagine a biologist in U.S. who stated he wanted to study the apparent athletic superiority of people of African decent and see if there was any biological basis. Now, I agree he wouldn't be killed, but I think we can imagine the concern his family, his peers and his employer or sponsor would have about the public reaction and the pressure they would exert, causing the scientist to possibly abandon his work altogether, even though the biologist may have no agenda and the research might utterly refute racist beliefs. Our more liberal society is much more tolerant, but our tolerance has led to passionately held modern beliefs which are difficult to challenge, even is this day and age. I think this is the self-sensorship Mr. Goth is referring to, and in a society where the punishment goes far beyond professional ostracism the repression must be far greater.

I believe (as I'm no expert) that what we're seeing in these conservative countries is a reaction to Western liberalism, the march of which will ultimately be as unstoppable as it has been in the West itself. And which caused violent and repressive reactions in Western societies as it progressed.

I was perusing a Medieval history web site not long ago and read a 13th century account of a French woman who allegedly refuted the notion that Christians would be raised fully in the flesh at the Resurrection. She allegedly made this statement to friends and neighbors gathered at a miller's. This allegation, simply heresay of someone at the mill that day, was enough to bring her before a religious court and be tried for heresy. Galileo also had his bout with religous dogma and had to disclaim that which he knew to be scientifically provable.

From those days, we moved on to the American Experiment, but not without John Adams' Alien and Sedition Act, advocated by one of the Founding Fathers no less! The taboos against political speech then faded away, but books with any sexual content were banned and the Hayes code restricted film content in to the 20th century. African Americans who agitated for civil rights were certainly met with horriffic violence, and this was only 40 years ago, in the U.S.A.

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. What we in the West can do is continue to set an example of a society where dissent and discussion are seen as critical components to its health. And this discussion extends to those who believe pure human self-determination is apostasy. Baiting conservative Muslim societies as backward and bloodthirsty denies the common humanity that has often expressed itself violently in similar fashion in the West. I'm not suggesting we capitulate to bullying by those who fear or hate the West's openness, but I am saying we can't be as intolerant from our Western basis as some Muslims are from their Islamic basis. Commonality for peace and prosperity are what we should be shooting for.

Finally, these forums are a boon for global understanding. Regular people, without a power-base to pander to, can really communicate, get to know each other and speak for ourselves. Our polarizing leaders often don't truly speak for us.

To that person who said that Islam is no longer a religion but a dysfunctional cult
or worse a malignant cancer. Hey buddy relax!,we've been around for over fourteen hundred years and if anything the latest statistics shows we are the fastest growing religion in the world.learn to like us or get yourself sick with envy.

There is no salvation for the soul
But to fall in Love.
It has to creep and crawl
Among the Lovers first.

Only Lovers can escape
From these two worlds.
This was written in
creation.

Only from the heart
can you reach the sky.
The rose of Glory
Can only be raised in the Heart.
Rumi

These are words written by Islamic scholar & poet who have been for years been the best selling poet in America. If you don't believe me, please type Rumi in amazon.com and see how many titles are there and their sales rank...Despite writing several masterpieces that are still widely popular around the world, Rumi has described himself humbly as " a dust on the path of Muhammad (May Peace Be Upon Him)." These are the kinds of words that inspire the most of the Muslims to be merciful to whole creation. These inspirations are no different than the inspirations Christians, Jews and other folks receive from their religion to be kind and merciful.

Over 10 million tourists mostly from European countries visit my home country Turkey. Everytime I meet an American friend who has been to Turkey enthusiastically tells me how hospitable and nice the people have been to them...just like the hospitable people here in my current homeland America.

Please please do not consider these Al-Qaeda terrorists as representatives of Islam or Muslims. They can not be further from Islam. We all need to embrace one another as brothers and sisters, as the world is already full of so much suffering.

There's a fine line here regarding censorship and self-censorship. Freedom of speech, vital to any free society, does not mean freedom to make other people accept what you say. Community members, Islamic or otherwise, should not be forced to endorse or fund or even accept the statements of controversial writers. People should be free to shun those who make unacceptable statements, the way, for example, in this country most people shun those who use racial slurs.

That said, a community should NOT be free to offer violence in return for words. There's a difference between not inviting someone over to the neighborhood barbecue because, for example, that person advocates pedophilia (which should be protected free speech, as long as it does not cross the line into action), and cutting off their head, or beating them, or throwing them into jail. These are impulses I think most people can understand in the face of certain extremely offensive speech, but no free society should give in to those impulses. The cost is too high.

Any society which truly believes in the truth of its principals and values should also believe that those values will stand strong even in the face of contrary ideas.

Any society which brutally represses contrary ideas does not really feel secure in the truth and strength of its own values. That, more than anything else, is a damning condemnation of many of today's repressive governments. Not just the Islamic ones either - Austria recently jailed a historian for denying the holocaust. If the Austrian government believed in the strength of truth and freedom, they would have let that man say what he wanted to say. In a free marketplace of ideas, the truth is bound to be spoken somewhere, by someone. Where governments and societies forcefully silence people, all that gets spoken is a party line - and there's no guarantee, ever, that a party line will be the truth.

In an ideal world, a religious people would be the LEAST likely to repress speech, because they believe in a higher power that will ultimately vindicate the truth. (This doesn't mean they have to LIKE things people say - they just don't try to silence the speakers.) However, sometimes, some religious people are either insecure in their faith or grasping for secular power or both, and they seek to silence those around them.

BTW, Dan, you'll get -yourself- in trouble correcting other people. It's true that a hypocrite is someone who says one thing and believes another. However, Gretchen was still right - a hypocrite is also someone who says one thing and DOES another. Check out dictionary.com or merriam webster online - both free.

I just read all the Comments. So much anger. So much taken out of context. Muslims, you are making Goth's point for him.

geoff-
I think you hit the nail on the head. A lack of maturity is exactly what is plaguing much of the islamic world. I know I'm going out on a limb here, but I have to say it. A couple months ago my girlfriend and I were watching a program on muslim families in the middle east and the men all behaved like six-year-olds. The women were opressed and forced to act like nursemaids and the men were prone to hissy fits and tantrums. we were shocked. But then, it all makes sense. you can't have a reasoned discussion with someone who, if he doesn't get his way, will simply take his toys and go home.
And the whole twenty-virgins-in-heaven thing, how peurile is that?

Before criticizing Islam we should remember who created some of the problems. Who buys the Saudis' oil, which gives them the money to spread their backward, intolerant and just plain crazy brand of Islam (like Bernard Lewis said picture the KKK taking control of Texas and using that money to spread their version of "Christianity") and who allies themselves with them? The U.S. Who overthrew Mossadeq setting the stage for Khomeni? Well our "friends" in the U.K. led us by the nose on that one, but we supplied the money. Who supported ul-Huq's illegal military dictatorship in Pakistan and his efforts to find Islamic rationalizations for his own brand of facsism (his so called Islamization). Reagan of course. And that damaged civil society there to no end and created problems we're still dealing with. Who trained and armed the men who would later become the Taliban? Reagan again. I'm not saying that all or even most of the Islamic world's problems are America or even the West's doing, but at the very least we have made the problem worse. Eisenhower and maybe even Reagan I can forgive. As nasty as the U.S.S.R. and Mao's China was you can understand keeping their Stalinist poison from spreading as the first priority and only later thinking of what other nasty ideologies you might be spreading or aiding yourself. But if you look at Iraq we continue to make the problem worse and we do not have the excuse of a threat to our existence.

Many of you are missing the point of what Mr. Goth is facing as a journalist in the Muslim world. The "Islamic Extremists" gaining ground in those countries are actually practicing true Islam and moderates aren't. Perhaps healthy dialogue is possible with moderates who agree with freedom of expression, but increasingly their voice is overshadowed by those who follow the true way of Islam and who consider moderates to be apostates. Get used to the censorship under real Islamic law.

Khalif,

People who lie on their resumes are often fired; rarely are they killed.

The point here is that freedom of speech must be respected and violence towards the end of persuasion must be abandoned.

Bashir Goth claims to be the first Somali Blogger. What a lie! There were many Somalis who were bloggers before he saw a computer. Hiiraan.com and many other websites existed and have higher traffic than awdalnews. If the guy can tell white lies like "The first Somali Blogger" he cannot be trusted regarding any religion or culture. In fact in the US if you are caught embellishing your resume you are fired. Goth, Good has no credibility.

"I can even rail against Southern Baptists, Pentecostals, or on the other side of the coin, Anglicans without being anti-Christian."

Rail away sir, just don't saw off their heads. Thats a practice reserved for the cultured, civilized muslims who are incapable of expressing their indignation over perceived insults other than thru murder.

On the violence angle, I don't anyone here can refute the plain fact that violently protesting the linkage of Islam to violence is beyond irony. Islam lacks maturity in its tretament of women, political and intellectual discourse and self-evaluation. However, it is a younger religion than most and hopefully like Christianity will make a course correction for the better. Here's hoping.

Gretchen -

be careful correcting other peoples' use of words. While others may not have used "hypocrite" correctly, neither did you. Your definition and example of hypocrite were incorrect. The example you gave of a father smoking but telling his daughter not to is one of inconsistency. He would be a hypocrite if he actually believed smoking to be okay. A hypocrite is someone who says or does one thing but **believes** another.

Until the Islamic world fixes itself, there is little that the rest of the world can do except defend itself from the incessant onslaught of Islamic violence. We are at war with brutal factions in Islam, because we wish to keep our freedoms and prevent senseless attacks on our citizens. If Islamics would broadly renounce violence and punish those in their midst who promote violent acts, we could all begin a more peaceful coexistence with them. The fact that Islam has a history of not doing this is the reason for the current unending conflict. So, to all those in Islam who want peace, I challenge you to clean your own houses rather than continuing to criticize the rest of us and ignoring or applauding the violent destructions and threats against those who don't agree with your way of life. Promote peace and let God/Allah sort it out in the end. That is all that the non-Islamic world wants from you.

Freedom of speech? Tell that to the little old nun that was killed because of what the Pope said. Newsflash...large groups muslims are violent if anyone says anything they dont agree with, in Europe and Asia

Manny -- It's not known to be true that this issue is primarily because of extremists. From what Bashir says, it is a societal thing -- all persons playing their role to make it/allow it to happen.

This is probably fostered by the priests and extremists, but one has to take a look at the role the common people are playing. Much like the Third Reich, societies like this don't exist because of the efforts of a handful of people. We need to hear more words from people like Bashir and Anthony. Muslim societies need exposure and discussion so we can see them for what they are -- warts and all.

Chill out, very well said, but I can't let you use Spain as an example of muslim benevolence without pointing out that islamic armies invaded, conquered and occupied what is now modern day Spain. They were not invited there. I would also not characterize Christians, Muslims and Jews squirming together under the boot heel of the ruling muslim theocracy as harmony. There were certainly a lot of reasons to kick out the ruling class.

You can't equate anti-semitism and anti-Islam comments. Comments about a race of people and comments about what people happen to believe are two different things. I think and hope the Post would strike anti-Arab comments (which are by the way strictly speaking "anti-semitic") Not that it's even fair to call Bashir's comments "anti-Islamic." One can tear Jerry Falwell, Franklin Graham, or Pat Robertson to bits without being "anti-Christian." (In fact I'd say exposing crooks, liars, thieves, and hate filled fools for what they are, while perhaps not exemplifying Christian love, is a good way to defend the faith) I can even rail against Southern Baptists, Pentecostals, or on the other side of the coin, Anglicans without being anti-Christian. And I can very well blast the embrace of war and greed on the part of conservative churches as un-Christian without being against Christianity. In the same vein one can criticize sects of Islam for their negative characteristics without being anti-Islam. What Bashir is saying is that censorship and violence are not Islamic and attacking those who would claim they are.
As a final note, I'm tired of the way religious people screech and yell at the least criticism. If your religion is worthwhile and good then you can defend it and you should do so. If the whole thing crashes down at the least bit of open criticism, well it's a castle built on sand. People who think what they believe is true, be they Christians, Muslims, etc. should not be afraid of open debate.

"As far as sustaining ideology goes, empires may die but certain ideologies don't die. And over 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, having the second largest number of adherents even though it was the last of the three major monotheistic religions to come down, speaks volumes to sustaining an ideology. Islam has not sustained itself only as an ideology but also as a way of life."

Reproducing faster than you kill each other is not the same thing as living in a state of social equilibrium that promotes self-renewal and spiritual growth. Islamic ideology is based in a culture where there were not enough resources to go around; and no notion of agriculture existed. Hence, again, spitefulness and death. It will not endure.

p.s., Solange is a woman's name.

"It is now a trend to say Muslims are not Human Beings! That is exactly a quote from Bashir Goth's posting. Would the Washington Post allow him to say "In the Jewish world you cease to be a human being." ? Would the Washington Post allow him to say "In the Christian world you cease to be a human being." ?

We have seen this film before, Bashir is trying the Ayan Hersi method of making money by insulting us. This says more about the Washington Post enabling bigotry than Bashir's attempt to claim he is fighting for freedom

Posted by: Mohamed Hussein | September 26, 2006 01:04 PM "

As far we know, we're not subjected to our religion in such a way we can't even think for ourselves or have an opinion or get killed beause we "insulted" the religion. The problem is not Islam but the extremists who pervade it.

Free speech cannot be limited only to those words that do not offend unless you desire to submit your speech to the judgment of those most sensitive and indignant around you. The result is what we have seen- whether the indignation is real or not, some understand that the very claim of offense is a useful tool for quieting others, and permits them to use violence and threats of violence without rebuke. So it is that some blame honest opinions as justification for violence, and so it is that Bashir Goth is told to be 'sensitive' and 'careful' by those who believe nothing of Islam but much of Islam's extremists.

First of all people need to chill out. Being able to hear expressions on both sides of the argument alone shows freedom of speech. I agree that sometimes it's hypocritical to certain groups of people or races. But don't blame the whole system for it.

And this response if for Solange. Mr. Solange you said, "As 1,300 years of history (and counting) continues to attest: Islam has proven a culturally unsustainable ideology. Its internally violent message induces adherents to destroy other cultures, then consume themselves from within. Hopefully, this global social problem can be solved externally, soon."

In response to this I tell you to just look at the Muslim dynasty that ruled in Spain for hundreds of years. Christians, Musilms, and Jews lived side by side in harmony. And I think you know who kicked them out of there...
Look at the Ottoman empire in its earlier period. About 250,000 Jews that feared persecution from the Spaniards fled to Turkey in the Ottoman empire and found safe haven.

As far as sustaining ideology goes, empires may die but certain ideologies don't die. And over 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, having the second largest number of adherents even though it was the last of the three major monotheistic religions to come down, speaks volumes to sustaining an ideology. Islam has not sustained itself only as an ideology but also as a way of life.

Damien -- can you refrain from your sidebar digressions?

It's not conducive to a good discussion and you wouldn't want somebody else derailing something you find interesting.

As you said "I'm getting off topic here".

Let the others who have experience talk.

This discussion is about Freedom of the Press and expression in Islam societies, not poverty and not religious studies.

"(Or is every rant of an American preacher the word of Jesus just because he says "Jesus told him so"?)"

Of course not, but look at the Pope's situation right now. Every time a major figure, especially a "religious" one (be it the Pope, Sadr, Jesse Jackson, etc) opens their mouth, whatever they say is dissected and often taken out of context.

The difference stems from the way we react to it. When Sadr criticizes the West and encourages jihad, the West just ignores it. When the Pope quotes a 14th-century emperor while talking about religious acceptance and open dialogue, he's burned in effigy by those who do not care to understand his intent.

I'm getting off topic here, I know, but it's all about freedom to speak your mind. We should ALL have that freedom, but more important than that, we should all be willing to listen to what others are saying.

Ignore the loudmouths who do nothing but stir up violence and hatred, whatever their religion or cause. Embrace diversity and open dialogue and the world will be a MUCH calmer and safer place.

"-no where is man less free than where there is poverty, corrupt governments, lack of functioning and representative institutions, etc." R in Ohio

Hit the nail on the head right there, R.

Religion is where we point the finger in many of those cases, though, since often the downtrodden have no other source of hope in such ghastly situations. Just look at the Crusades: on both sides, men fought in the name of God/Allah but both Christians and Muslims were under the fist of corrupt theocratic monarchies. There's been little change on either side in modern time, sadly, but I suppose that's human nature...power corrupts those in charge and there will always been the poverty-stricken and lower classes to fight wars for them, be it in the name of God, Allah, Jehovah, or some other excuse.

Complete societal repression 'an inconvenient truth'? Wow.

Thank you for sharing here Anthony. It's really such a shame.

If such things are true, my recommendation has to be for every orthodox muslim nation to unplug their internet as soon as they can for they won't like what they see out there!!

Mohamed Hussein wrote, "So why was the Washington Post editorial criticizing Iranian President Ahmedinejad for? Coming Washington Post there are taboos and nothing can be said about certain people while Islam is a free for all! This is the epitome of Hypocracy"

The Washington Post editorial writers are supposed to criticize people and ideas; that is their job. If they don't criticize certain people, it is usually because they agree with them.

I had no idea it was this bad in the muslim world.

That's not to say Mr Goth is a homosexual or pedophile or abandoned his family.

Mr Goth's censorship struggle which he says is caused by Islam but provides no proof (and the angelic censorship) reflects an internal struggle which seems to mirror the universal struggle between moral and immoral which all men and women undergo regardless of their families, communities, religions.

"People has to understand that, most of the problems of the Muslim world, eminate from lack freedoms, such as freedom of expression, assembly and freedom of the press..."

Quite so. And those lack of freedoms, in turn, emanate from the ideology, itself. Ever read the Koran? Eighty-five percent about sex--it's the only major world religion where bodily functions continue in the afterlife. The philosphy is based in sexual and other social spitefulness, and spitefulness is what it engenders in every other sphere. Guess that's why they had to set the death penalty for getting out of it...

I don't agree with Mr. Goth's exceptionalization of Islam -no where is man less free than where there is poverty, corrupt governments, lack of functioning and representative institutions, etc. Religion is a sidebar, in my opinion. And so wherever we have these deficits we should be willing to go to the mat for people like Mr. Goth, for their right to express their opinion within a framework of thoughtful dialogue (Not useless baiting and counter-attacking.)

Bismillah Hir Rehman Nir Rahim

Assalamu 'Alaikum,

Unfortunately a lot of what Bashir Goth has said is true and it's not limited to any single race or cultural group within Islam, but it is within the whole of the ummah. I have faced it myself when having an unpopular opinion which didn't hold with the other members of the community. It's an inconvenient truth.

Wa'Alaikum Assalam,

Anthony

Toshiro: "Is Bashir insulting Muslims or is he telling the truth? Or both?" Very clever - obviously they're one and the same.

Usama wrote: "It is the desire, the notion that FREEDOM means to free oneself from one's own conscience and morality which suggests hypcricy."

but that would only be hypocrisy if in demanding freedom of speech for yourself, you refuses to allow others to speak.. as in a man on a street corner drowning out everyone else's voice by giving a speech demanding his right to free speech. That is hypocrisy.

It is the desire, the notion that FREEDOM means to free oneself from one's own conscience and morality which suggests hypcricy.

It reminds me of the book the Immoralist where a man erodes every moral boundary inside becoming ill trying to live within a moral society until he finds health and peace through homosexual pedophilia and abandonment of his wife, family, friends, community.

They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Muslims today are quite sensitive; and who can blame them? They have been bombarded with insults as well as injury. The media has done more to harm Muslims and Islam than anyone else. So, why shouldn't they be upset? I agree freedom of speach is good and should be defended. However, you must remember that your fist ends where my nose begins. Journalists don't know everything, and when they fill in the blanks with what their gut tells them, poeple will be offended and people will respond. And then the media goes out and says - "look we told you so. These people are inhuman."

BTW, just reread Mr Goth's comments again. "Everything is taboo"?
Is everything "taboo" to discuss in Islam, or just in Mr Goth's little world?
And is Mr Goth really reflective of every community of Muslims throughout the world?
Does he really know what happens in Pakistan, Iran, Indonesia, Turkey, etc?
And is every Muslim community really only controlled by Islam and no other force, ie. a king, government, military etc?

Please-- for those of you who may not be native speakers of English: a hypocrite is someone who says one thing but does the opposite. For example, a father who does not want his child to smoke, but who sneaks a cigarette when no one is watching. Haji's use of the word hypocrite in regards to Goth is incorrect. It might be illogical or irrational for Goth to want freedom of speech while most Somalians can not live without fear of their lives being snuffed out by violence, but it is not hypocracy.

"Would the Washington Post allow him to say "In the Christian world you cease to be a human being." ?

So, what will the Washington Post do if he does say this--cut off his head?

Bashir indeed falls into the same superficial logic that the 'self censorship' of his family, friends, colleagues are 'Islam'. ACCORDING TO REASON AND COMMON SENSE, to represent Islam, a matter should be directly derived from certain texts of Islam. For example, cicumbulating the Kaaba 7 times in austere clothing praising God is from Islam because it is proscribed in the Quran and teachings of Muhammad an evident in verse so and so and hadith #xyz.
Simply saying something is "Islam" doesn't make it so. On the contrary, Muslim nations fail to implement Islam comprehensively, failing to meet the mininal legal requirement of representing Islam according majority of scholars. Everything from a Muslim or Muslim society is not necessarily "Islam".
REASON requires evidence and rational thinking, not just manic accusations.
(Or is every rant of an American preacher the word of Jesus just because he says "Jesus told him so"?)
Whose thinking reasonably?
Where does Bashir connect his family's "censorhip" with Islam? There are verses in the Quran which state a person wronged or oppressed can make his case in public. Many people did that before the prophet Muhammad and crowds of people. They did that day and night regardless of what their family felt. In fact Muslim daughters defied their fathers before Muhammad and his followers in public due to their father's injustices all the time. So what is Mr Goth talking about?

Bashir doesn't strike me as clear thinking.
Yes, there are angels recording one's deeds. But how do they censor?
Doesn't one have a conscience to censor oneself? Is there no self censorship based on one's own morality? Is it that Mr Goth hates his own moral conscience and blames it on Islam?

There is a difference between a person racked by 'the demons in his head' (or mental illness) which urge him to rant on the street corner about the way someone stares at him and the average person. Bashir seems to be bordering on the former.

Bashir, I've read your last argument about Islamic Courts last time here in the post. It's abvoius that you're against them, they're only in control for few months. No one knows how successfull or failure they'll be, for now they seem to establish the most important piece in live "peace" in Mogadishu. Somalia suffer a bloodshed more than 16 years, they restored peace in most areas they control, and you're talking about freedom of speech, ask your self "when do you need a freedom of speech?" We're talking about bloodshed,combat,hostility,warfare,struggle etc. And you're talking about freedom of speech. Stop being hypocrite. What surprised me most is not your hypocrisy but your baised in Islamic teachings; you said " Children are taught that there are two angels sitting on the shoulders of every person entrusted with the task of monitoring every good and bad deed the person does or says". Bashir do you know this is a fact not a story. FYI there's no such a Somali name called "Goth" either it's GOOD or GOD" when some muslims loose self-confidence they changed thier names such as Mo, Lee, David, John etc.

...And it is impossible to ignore the irony of the complaints about the limits of freedom of expression in the US, posted in a forum that would itself be uterly unthinkable in most (all?) Islamic countries.

It is telling that almost every word posted in disagreement with Goth's article was a personal attack, rather than a challenge to his message.

I am inclined to agree with Infidel. A religion that values killing (Muslim-) women and children standing in line to buy food is by anyone's definition a death cult.

Islam may have once been a religion...it's now nothing more than a dysfunctional death cult and a malignant cancer on mankind.

"Freedom of speech in the U.S. may occasionally be repressed, but we have groups that fight against that...their lives are not threatened, nor are they punished with jail time."
Not when you are a Muslim. You will then be accused of terrorism. Take the example of Al Arian, Al Timimi, etc...

Mohammed, "profanity or personal attacks" refers directly name-calling. You can criticize anyone you want, but using profanity in any form or calling someone a name would get your material removed.

Quit with the victim mentality. The world is not out to attack Islam, despite your apparent determination to believe so. If a person only listens to the loudmouth people that attack their faith/race/gender/whatever and willfully ignore those who embrace differences, as I and the majority of those I know do, you only make your heart more hateful.

I'm a Christian who has read the Koran and Torah from beginning to end, and know that all three of the religions we've talked about in this thread instruct their adherents to forgive and accept forgiveness. Why is that so hard for so many to see? I don't know, but I suspect I'll learn that when I meet God.

about the forgoeing writers,
it is obvious, that your critics
are based only a meaningless, misguided,clanish , and counter-productive!

Bashir is an, educated man, and Accomplished journalist.

in his latest article,
he just speaks his own openion
even me; I agree and in some parts
I disagree.

This is a very interesting, provovative and engaging piece. Look at the boundless freedom of expression here. even the dump, below average ideas are welcomed.We need to have more of such open, high level, intellectual discussions, where people can exchange ideas, listening to everybody, in an increaing leveling plane field called cyperspace. Last week we have seen the outragious outpursts of Yugo Chavez, a Fidal Castro, Chi Gevera wannabe. The great cultures of the world will never understand each other without open discussions and debates. People has to understand that, most of the problems of the Muslim world, eminate from lack freedoms, such as freedom of expression, assembly and freedom of the press. Unless something is done about the reigning for life dictatorships in those countries, the people in those lands will not share to benefits of globalization such as education, economic opportunities and sharing of information.

Mohamed, chill out. This is the United States. People are free to say what they want and you somehow find this threatening. Relax a little.... no one has mistreated you. Just note that your voice has been heard in a free and open society... one that allows and protects you to be critical of others if you chose. But to think that the United States as a civilized culture and the Washington Post or any other form of media that keeps discussion clean and free from smut, slander and intimidation is in somehow "censorship" is to not understand our culture. It is not censorship, it is decency. Jesus did not preach hate... he preached love and tollerance. Our founding fathers understood this and created documents that protect those liberties for everyone. It is the magnet that draws imigrants from all over the world, and in some form has drawn you here to our country... whether it be your love or hate of it.

I think there is a difference between the Islamic world and the Muslim world. Muslims live in America for the freedom and the opportunity.

Bashir Goth in this article fails to distinguish between the reliogion of Islam and the regimes that have their roots in extremist Islam. He generalizes without basis and certainly provokes adverse reaction. Mr. Goth, as a Turkish muslim I ask you, how do you justify making such a bold generalization in your article, saying "In the Islamic world you cease to be a human being." You should see yourself responsible for contributing to the unfortunate polarization of the Muslim World and the "Others" and creating a dangerous future for all of us. I think you should be using your platform to help prevent this divide, this segregation of the new age.

In any part of the world, extremists are those who never want to accept the difference between them and the others. Sad thing is that is often forced so people under their influence is often the similar, but insist that they're not.
To me, as an outsider to both Christian and Islam, the whole thing seems a big waste of time, money and lives. I used to believe that religions are there to help people, support culture like literature and arts, but that does not seem to be true anymore. Ah, just stop arguing already.

Mohamed--

Is Bashir insulting Muslims or is he telling the truth? Or both?

"If it takes a village to raise a child in Africa, it takes a community to kill a writer, artist and a journalist in the Muslim world."

As 1,300 years of history (and counting) continues to attest: Islam has proven a culturally unsustainable ideology. Its internally violent message induces adherents to destroy other cultures, then consume themselves from within. Hopefully, this global social problem can be solved externally, soon.

What taboos does the Post have?! They have editorials that criticize the Bush administration and articles that depict the Bush-backed Iraqi government negatively. They have published articles that portray all manner of Christian churches in unflattering ways and publish in the "Letter to the Editor" section comments critical of every politician, world leader, religious group and government you can think of. Last spring alone there was an article that portrayed a Jewish sect in New York as being petty and intolerant, and an opinion piece in the editorial section that called the creation of Israel "a historical mistake". What taboos? Pro-pedophilia articles are the only things the Post hasn't published yet.

The Washington Post has warns those commenting that " ...... User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site." This is censorship too! Bashir can insult Muslims but the Washington Post will censor any "profanity or personal attacks" against him. There is always censorship. Anti-Semitic comments I am sure would be censored but Anti-Islamic comments are freedom of expression according to the Washington Post. If that is not hypocracy and dishonest then I don't know what is!

Freedom of speech in the U.S. may occasionally be repressed, but we have groups that fight against that...their lives are not threatened, nor are they punished with jail time.

In many Arabic countries, you can be beheaded or shot for unpopular opinions. A very recent example (yesterday) is Safia Ama Jan, who campaigned for equal rights for women in Afghanistan. She was gunned down by two cowards who fled on a motorbike. They could not defeat her words, so they took her life.

This happens every day around the world, not just in Arab states but in many other countries for many different reasons. If nothing else, this should remind Americans that we enjoy a freedom that we sometimes take for granted.

May Ms. Ama Jan and all other who have been killed in the name of equality and justice rest in peace. May their murderers know justice, in this life and the next.

So why was the Washington Post editorial criticizing Iranian President Ahmedinejad for? Coming Washington Post there are taboos and nothing can be said about certain people while Islam is a free for all! This is the epitome of Hypocracy

The author of the comments "It is now a trend to say Muslims are not Human Beings! ...fighting for freedom." has confirmed what Goth was talking about. Freedom of speech means the freedom to express your opinion, even if what you say is unpopular. How ironic would it be to censure an article about freedom of speech?! The Washington Post is actually practicing what it preaches, by publishing views regardless of whether they might offend others. It is also important to note that the Washington Post doesn't censure the comments of those who disagree with Goth (even if their comments are ignorant or illogical), because the Post, like all tolerant, intelligent and inquiring individuals, is willing to listen to the opinions of even those they disagree with. Sadly, there seem too few of us in the world willing to do that, and of late, few of them seem to live in the Moslem world.

Wow. I had imagined that it might be like this, but never heard it so vividly. If it is even half like this, the repression is horrible. How cowardly and fearful the people must be who live in these environments. They are missing out on the wonderful world that is around them.

People Like Bashir who bad mouth about the culture, counry and religion don't go that far. Muslim religion has given so much freedom that we can use.
Thanks

It is now a trend to say Muslims are not Human Beings! That is exactly a quote from Bashir Goth's posting. Would the Washington Post allow him to say "In the Jewish world you cease to be a human being." ? Would the Washington Post allow him to say "In the Christian world you cease to be a human being." ?

We have seen this film before, Bashir is trying the Ayan Hersi method of making money by insulting us. This says more about the Washington Post enabling bigotry than Bashir's attempt to claim he is fighting for freedom

Well said.

About the previous writer, you are a one-sided and baised soul, perhaps brimming with flaming clannish anger. Your critiism has no substance. What you wrote is nothing more than a meanless harangue. You seem to know nothing about Bashir. Bashir came from a highly educated family, literary, democratic and scholarly culture. He came from an open -minded culture where people reason, discuss, reflect and debate issues and listen to each other. Moreover, Bashir is somebody who have extensively wrote about a multiplicity of issues ranging from culture, literature, poetry, Islam and a number of other issues. Bashir never shrank to expose the truth and the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, even if it offends powerful people. For you information, Bashir happen to be the son of a well-known Jami-at-Al-Ashar trained (University)academic in Islamic Jurispudence and Exigies, " Honorable Shiekh Omar Goth" (may Allah bless his soul). In conclusion Bashir is also a product of the cities of lights, Mudin Al-Masajid-ancient twin cities of "Sayla-Awdal" and "Adarri-Harar". Those kind of unreasonable and baseless arguments, may be what is wrong with the Somali-speaking culture.

Somalis know Bashir Goth. He was a puppet and a hardline supporter of the heinous Somali dictator. He used to call the last Somali Dictator a prophet; He used to call the rebels against him, "evil incarnate".

Now he is telling us that he supported the "Rebels against Siad Barre". When it become, norm and popular to blame Siad Barre, he is telling us that he wrote a poem against him! It is like listening a Gestapo propagandist, saying he was against Hitler!

This guy is a moron a hired gun!

If this is the kind of people you are giving a platform, No wonder why your reporting is viewed as biased in the Islamic world!

A simple deduction, if you get Bashir Goth to comment on free press on Islam. Then what about the rest of the group?! Are they like Bashir Goth?

The logic is simple. Islamic extremists are the epitome of evil, but please find someone credible to comment on them!

for the somali write. we somali has been always free to say what we went to so,please do not use somali name when you write about even. thank you.

san jose ca.

p.s 24 for year in u.s and america somali/amercan muslem.