aw cmon... how could u post this.

There are over 1.5 billion Muslims in the world - and Islam is a religion of peace for the over whelming majority of them - including myself.

Yes in some parts of the Muslim world Non-Muslims were kept as Dhimmis, but throughout MUCH of the historical Islamic world - Non-Muslims; especially Jews and Christians (and Hindus in India) lived side by side peacefully.

Of course Islamist extremism is a huge problem - but thats due to a particular brand of extremist Islam propagated by Wahhabi-Salafis (a completely modern phenomenon less than 50 years old).

You should look into Ayaan Hirsi Ali's background. Her upbringing was quite injust in her tribal clan-society (nothing to do with Islam) and she was wronged at many points in her life by her family and so called friends- and those practices she condems are inherently unIslamic! female genital cutting, forced arranged marriages - They have nothing to do with her religion. A woman has the right to choose her spouse (and deny any "arranged marriage" she doesnt find suitable) - and this is from traditional Islam over 1400 years ago.

Unfornately these practices do happen in the Muslim world - but they are due to the backwards culture - not the belief system of Islam.

And for the record, I truly believe that Islam is completely compatible with the ideals of democracy (read Noah Feldman's "After Jihad").

You know there isnt a quicker way to make money in the country than for a person born Muslim to write an anti-Islamic book - especially if shes a woman.

We all really need to move past the "Islam is an evil religion" rhetoric if we are to make any progress in this world.

I have to agree with hahmed. Although the religion might have some beliefs that condone extremism like anything with a broad group of people in it there will be a range. I also think that it is a mistake to completely say that these extremists are Islamic. A large part of this battle is about the western imposition of ideals with religion used as a pretense.

I'm glad a Muslim can respond to that video.

I think Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a Western woman born into an Islamic civilization which doesn't exactly provide the best manifestion of Islam as a whole.

The main thing we as Westerners need to understand about the whole issue of Islam that's been brought up since 9/11, and since the Iranian hostage crisis before that, is that religion to us is not the same thing as religion is to Muslims who live in Dar al-Islam. If I could draw a chart I would, but I'll try to put this plainly: in Western Civilization, having your entire life, that is to say your business, your choices, your philosophy, your politics, your understanding of reality and purpose, are in most all cases either wholly separate from religion, or only in part counciled by religion.

In the West, the secular sphere is dominant because our major religion, Christianity, came after the foundation of our civilization, and faded in omnipotence as we rediscovered our classical roots.

In many Islamic countries, it is different in the respect that religion is the centrality, the origin, and the foundation of their civilization. In Babylonian, Persian, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Buddhist, Hindu and other "pagan" lands that they've conquered, the previous civilization was either initially respected and eventually discarded or destroyed outright. The exception of course is Persia, who spent their time subverting Islam to be inherently un-Arab. But all previous civilization was chewed up and spat out as "jahiliyya", the time of ignorance. Egyptology is a Western man's creation, the Arabs couldn't give a piss about Pharaoh, any time devoted to him was devoted to the Devil. Islam forms everything that one does in life, and all of your choices, politics, and philosophy must come from it. Al-Ghazali argued and won over this against Ibn Sina and other rationalists whose views were reconciling Greek philosophy with Islam. The concepts of secularism and Democracy is Western, and Islamists consider their acceptance in Muslim lands to be both Imperialist and a new Jahiliyya. They consider anybody who accepts secularism to be an apostate, who as we popularly know now to be worthy of only murder and the following hell fire.

Islamists are not the majority of Muslims, but all of our problems right now are with Islamists, who are all Muslims. The more we fight back against all mainstream Muslims, the more they'll turn to the only ones fighting on their side, and against us.

And Salafism / Wahabbism is not only 50 years old, it's over 2 1/2 centuries old, and stems from a rebirth of the philosophy of Ibn Taimiyyah, who himself admired Ibn Hanbal (genesis of the 'Hanbali' madhhab), who himself admired the Kharijites, who themselves were founded by some devoutly pious Sahaba, Companions of the Prophet. So extremism goes back to day one in Islam, and has never disappeared. Extremist thought in Islam has only waxed and waned.

What the above author might've meant was that the Jihadi movement in Islamism found its martyr in Sayyid Qutb, who was killed by Gamel abd el-Nasser 4 decades ago.

Thanks Dionysus, you're the first person I've seen to contribute an intelligent, meaningful, harmonizing opinion to the culture debate since 2001. I remember gritting my teeth while people talked about "nuking those damned towelheads" the morning of Sept 11.

Your last point was the strongest-- and well-supported by your discussion. Let me reiterate for everyone else: Our enemies are those who manipulate and exaggerate Islamic beliefs into a message of hate and destruction. Those people are a minority of Muslims, and a perceived attack on Islam will validate the extremist's actions. Winning these wars requires a careful, controlled opposition to the extremists while explicitly maintaining goodwill and friendship towards their Muslim neighbors.

Case in point: collateral damage caused by our attacks in Iraq has alienated peace-loving Muslims, making them more amiable towards the extremists. This is classic terrorist strategy and we're playing right in to it.

I'm tired of hearing ignorance and seeing its devestating effects. The only way we can keep ourselves alive is to be tolerant of others. Even if you're atheist and they're radically religous, even if you're Israeli and they're Palenstinian.

Thank you for the clarification Dionysus.

That said, obviously we shouldn't let a bunch of radicals kill innocent people. What we're missing from the equation is tolerance. Radical Islamists are our enemy: not because they're Islamic, but because they're radicals and they kill people.

Consider the converse: is a radical Christian justified in killing thousands of Muslim civilians who haven't been convicted of a crime? Our morals tell us no. The Crusades were genocide. Therefore there is no reason why we should consider "towelheads" our enemy-- only those who commit a crime are.

I should also qualify my points that the Qur'an is extremely explicit in its condoning of defensive warfare, and that one shouldn't simply state that "Islam is a religion of peace" without the condition that "Islam is not a pacifist religion, nor submissive to tyranny." Which goes in with my earlier point that Islam is an inherently political and civic religion, which does not accept tyranny or persecution, and condones the lesser jihad against any who perpetrate tyranny or persecution, just as we Westerns have reasoned throughout our history until the advent of peaceful resistence, which has most of its roots in Indian philosophy.

I was born and grew up in Ethiopia. And it is true that in Ethiopia there is no clash between Christians and Muslims. That is because of the fact that when Mohamed first preached Islam the Quraysh Arabs were trying to assassinate him and prosecute his followers. In 615 AD/CE, a band of Muslims were counseled by the Prophet Muhammad to escape persecution in Mecca and travel to Ethiopia, which was ruled by a Christian king. (see Islam in Ethiopia) In that year, his followers were fleeing from Mecca's leading tribe, the Quraish, who sent emissaries to bring them back to Arabia, but the King of Ethiopia protected Muhammad's followers. Since then, Muhammad himself instructed his followers who came to Ethiopia, to respect and protect Ethiopia as well as live in peace with Ethiopian Christians. Accordingly, some scholars state that Ethiopia was the country that saved Islam from its near destruction and termination.

well, it would have been nice if dionysus had been on that panel. if you ever make it to american television, di, take a tip from the "jewish media cabal": make sure you're a beautiful woman, dripping with grace and poise (something the americans rarely see, it shuts them up)or be aggressive, sarcastic and speak in soundbites, a la maher. oh, and you'll have to dumb down considerably.

loved the arab siskel/ebert thing at the end, though. very funny. in a sick, racist sort of way. what a world!

one more thing: that cali congressman looked dangerously unbalanced. he scares me.

well, it would have been nice if dionysus had been on that panel. if you ever make it to american television, di, take a tip from the "jewish media cabal": make sure you're a beautiful woman, dripping with grace and poise (something the americans rarely see, it shuts them up)or be aggressive, sarcastic and speak in soundbites, a la maher. oh, and you'll have to dumb down considerably.

loved the arab siskel/ebert thing at the end, though. very funny. in a sick, racist sort of way. what a world!

one more thing: that cali congressman looked dangerously unbalanced. he scares me.

Bill Maher seems to like to bash Islam and Muslims on his show and blames 9/11 on 19 Arab Muslims with box cutters and a guy in a cave.

The evidence indicates that 9/11 was a False Flag attack staged by criminals to provide a pretext for a "Global War on Terror"

The 9/11 families are still calling for the truth: http://www.911pressfortruth.com/

This is worth watching too; http://www.pbs.org/empires/islam/

WTC Building 7 went to rubble in 6.6 seconds and the government 5 years later can not explain why, without mentioning the exposives that were used.

Bill Maher and his screened panel should know better that to promote the lies of 9/11.

wow she is sort of the ann coulter of islam!

It is undoubtedly true that she is a polarizing force, but she doesn't claim that muslims can't be peaceful only that there are principles of Islam that are anything but. Let's not conflate the two. Is it not a principle of islam that if you convert to another religion you are subject to the death penalty? Is it not a principle of Islam that women are subordinate to men, that they are required to be covered at least to some degree in public? Is it a religion of peace that issues a Fatwa against someone like Salman Rushdie for exercising his right of free speech. Was that fatwa not based on Islamic principles? I understand that there are as many interpretations of Islam and that literal readings of principles outlined in the Koran are often abandoned for metaphorical readings in order to make it more palatable. That is the history of most religions. But to the question is she wrong that there are principles of Islam that are incompatible with a claim of a peaceful religion? I don't think so.

aw cmon... how could u post this

What? I'm critical of all religion. The discussion is not are many muslims peaceful, but are there principles of Islam that are not, and are those principles used to justify violence. Conflating the two is dishonest.

You know there isn't a quicker way to make money in the country than for a person born Muslim to write an anti-Islamic book - especially if she's a woman.

How disappointing. You were doing an excellent job of addressing her arguments and then this ad hominem attack implying that her arguments should be discounted because she's just doing it as a way to make money.

"The evidence indicates that 9/11 was a False Flag attack staged by criminals to provide a pretext for a "Global War on Terror""

sigh

Shouldn't you be chasing UFOs with the foil hat brigade?

The criticisms this panel is applying to Islam can be applied to any religion. David Koresh was just a weaker version of Osama bin Laden. There are Jewish fundamentalists, Hindu fundamentalists. All religions have their extremes. Hitler used protestant Christianity to justify his reign and the Holocaust. He and Bin Laden have a few things in common, including a hatred of "the other" and the fact that the US backed both of them in their formative years. All religions have the potential to create such monsters.

How disappointing. You were doing an excellent job of addressing her arguments and then this ad hominem attack implying that her arguments should be discounted because she's just doing it as a way to make money.

I would like to clarify this point - it isnt just about the money. My criticism isnt so much against Ayaan Hirsi Ali, bur rather the book publishers and media that so readily support and fund anti-Islamic rhetoric. Like I mentioned earlier, Ali's background story is quite horrific and its a shame what she endured in her tribal-Somalian society.

Moreover, for every Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or Wafa Sultan, or Salman Rushdie - there are literally hundreds, if not, thousands of people who do find peace, solace, and yes, peace, in Islam.

Why dont the American Muslims in this country, who are working hard to curb the so-call divide between Islam and the west, as well as to curb Islamist extremist ideologies, receive get the same kind of press that these 'apostates' do?

It isnt because American Muslims arent speaking out (CAIR, for example is very active and vocal; and we have many active leaders in the American Muslim community) The answer is simple - most people are biased and dont like to think outside the box. Its much easier to believe Islam is evil and listen to people who have left Islam criticize their former religion and want to read about that.

Nonetheless, I would still like to apologize if my prior post came across as a personal attack against Ali. That wasnt my point.

"Hitler used protestant Christianity to justify his reign and the Holocaust. He and Bin Laden have a few things in common, including a hatred of "the other" and the fact that the US backed both of them in their formative years."

This is overly simplistic and incorrect. Bin Laden and Hitler share a hatred for "the other" but the comparison ends there. Otherness to them is wholly different. Hitler saw his people as the German-speaking Nordic warlike fascists, ancient Norse religiously contrived aryan godmen, marching to the sound of Wagner over the skulls of Jews and Slavs. Bin Laden sees his people as the Muslim Ummah, transcending status, race and nation. You could change your mind and be accepted by bin Laden, you could "see the light". Your fate is not predetermined, and the enemy has potential for repenting and becoming your ally. For Hitler, the Book of Life was written by him, he could change his mind at will but it's fairly clear who will do the dying and whether they have a chance of either submitting to tyranny or perishing.

And the U.S. supported NEITHER in the beginning. American industrialists supported German industry on their own dime, and US Foreign Policy was clearly isolationist at the time, and gave no particular love to Hitler. In Afghanistan we supported the Afghan mujahedeen parallel to bin Laden's Arab Army, not in coordination with him nor in direct support of him. He received support from Islamist organizations, Saudi Arabia, Pakistani intelligence, and Deobandi mosques and madrassas in the Sub-Continent.

"The answer is simple - most people are biased and dont like to think outside the box."

We've come a long way excising religion from our culture, this is only more trouble that we don't need. Islam only serves to make our established religious loons all the more crazy and powerful. We'd just rather not spend any time worrying about people who pose no threat and address those who do.

Thanks for the clarification of your remarks about Ayaan's book, I understand the point you are making. I also don't disagree that there are millions of muslims that are peaceful, but until they denounce the idea that women are subordinate to men, that apostasy is to be punished they are indirectly supporting those who hold such views.

the book publishers and media that so readily support and fund anti-Islamic rhetoric.

It isn't because American Muslims aren't speaking out (CAIR, for example is very active and vocal; and we have many active leaders in the American Muslim community) The answer is simple - most people are biased and don' like to think outside the box.

I think there is bias against muslims but I don't think the press coverage is necessarily because of a particular bias or that people don't think outside the box. I think its more because the media focuses on the in-your-face kind of controversy. I think that if moderate muslims spoke out in the way those who are outside of Islam speak it would get the media's attention. The problem is they never seem to go beyond that's not what we think Islam is about. They say others misinterpret the Koran or ignore those parts that are embarrassing, and with the exception of a bin Laden they are reluctant to attack by name. If CAIR attacked a well-respected muslim cleric by name, who for example condoned the killing of apostates, or issued the fatwa against Rushdie that would make the news, but of course that would be disrespectful and wouldn't happen. I notice that you didn't address the fatwa issue or the subjugation of women or death to apostates. I don't hear you saying these issues are not derived from the principles of Islam. Do you believe they are derived from principles of the Koran? Can you point to any examples of CAIR condemning the principle of death to apostates, or the principle of the subjugation of women, or for instance saying that Khomneni was wrong to issue a fatwa against Rushdie on principle and should formally withdraw it, not just say it's not currently operative. I ask again are those things not derived from the principles of Islam? Do you personally condemn those things publicly.

Norm -

I'll let hahmed answer for himself, but Muslims living in the West are rather eager to immerse into our system of civil and human rights, accept our way of life, however sinful, but merely pose an alternative.

There are only a trifle few Muslim nations that execute people for homosexuality, prostitution and substance abuse/drug dealing. However, that should be balanced by the fact that Singapore and Cuba execute people for possession of narcotics on no religious basis, and China similarly executes people for very cruel and unusual reasons that stem from "the nail that sticks out". Muslims have long since abandoned executing people for adultery as their own Leviticus-oubliée. Recent polls in Turkey show that only ~2% of the population supports executing people based on religious law. (in a heavily secularized society, yet with an Islamist government)

The main perpetrators of Shari'a execution remedies are Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Sudan, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Each country only has a tenuous hold to such barbarity, and all of them could be wholly palatable within two generations.

Of course Islam is the religion of peace, that’s why Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq are now using chemical weapons to slaughter each other. That’s why people shouted for murder over some bad cartoons mocking Mohammed and Theo Van Gough was butchered because of a movie he made.

Whether or not violence perpetrated by Muslims is due to Islam or its misinterpretation by radical followers is really an academic point. The issue is that in the world today a lot of people are killing, or threatening violence in the name of Islam. The reasons for this are not really pertinent to the question: Is Islam a religion of peace?

Dionysus,

So are you arguing that muslims are abandoning priniciples of Islam or that they never were principles of Islam. Is there something similar to a Vatican Council where they such questions are settled.

However, that should be balanced by the fact that Singapore and Cuba execute people for possession of narcotics on no religious basis, and China similarly executes people for very cruel and unusual reasons that stem from "the nail that sticks out".

How is it exactly that one balances the other? You're not saying that two wrongs make a right or excusing one by pointing to the other are you?

dionysis, i hesitate to argue your points since your motives are both informed and sincere-an unusual combination in terms of those who speak AGAINST wholesale generalization as a justification for hostility. in general, i'm on your side. but don't you think your own list of the "main perpetrators" of sharia execution, which is not exhaustive and doesnt mention countries moving in that direction, is damning enough? 2 are allies of the u.s., one already has nukes and 1 is as close as can be. your statement that "all of them could be wholly palatable within two generations." may be true, but do we have that long to wait? you say "Each country only has a tenuous hold to such barbarity.." but to me it looks equally likely that the "tenuous hold" is to modern standards of civilized behaviour. i'm not suggesting i have a solution, but a good start would be, as ayaan hirsi ali said,"let's tell the story as it is."

Bill Mayer proving he is a dick again. Look at what the Old Testament of the Christian Bible (i.e. the Jewish Holy Book as well) should be done to those who don't follow their religion. It's the same nasty shit. Either he is ignorant or a hypocrite.

I'll add this: thank Allah for the Republican on the panel who had the courage to stand up to BS around him. Good luck to the U.S. when people like Maher are supposed to be "the Left."

This is sad sad world! Why is it that people who have a very little understanding history get to write one-sided books? Yes I agree that Islam is fucked-up, but lets be honest, so are all other religions.

A little history lesson well tell you that yes, non-Muslims were not treated as equals in the Islamic world. However, Jews and Christians treated non believers in much more harsh matters. Maher has his head up the Zionist ass so far that he's willing to bring any idiot on his show to bash Muslims, and praise Israel. What the hell is Maher talking about anyway, when he says that the Old Testament doesn't talk about killing infidels? Are you kidding me? That's all it talks about!

As Bernard Lewis has stated, the political aspects of Islam that we see today are what the Muslim world has adopted from Christianity. Out of the three Abrahamic religions, Islam was the most open minded one (that says more about the savagery of Christianity and Judaism than Islam). Lewis's solution is the one taken by the West, secularization.

Ayaan Hisra Ali talks about Dhimmis in the Muslim world, and ends by praising Israel. Funny, cause last I checked Israel is a Jewish state, meaning all non-Jews are second class citizens. It's ridiculous to bash one Abrahamic religion while praising the other two. Especially when those two have historically been much more violent.

Long story short, fuck Maher and fuck Ali for their propaganda. The core root of our world's problem is religion, that includes Islam, but lets never forget the evils of Christianity and Judaism. The reason that Christianity doesn't seem that bad anymore is because it has lost it's political influence.

Bill Mayer proving he is a dick again. Look at what the Old Testament of the Christian Bible (i.e. the Jewish Holy Book as well) should be done to those who don't follow their religion. It's the same nasty shit. Either he is ignorant or a hypocrite.

Maher's condemnation of Christianity is equally pointed. It is a view he's expressed numerous times. I'll assume you were just ignorant of that fact.

"until they denounce the idea that women are subordinate to men, that apostasy is to be punished they are indirectly supporting those who hold such views"

That means denouncing the Koran - not likely - not the way Muslims actually lead their lives. Let's see Jews and Christians denounce their Holy Book, which also subordinates women and advocates the killing of non-believers. Let them ALL do it, not just one group. On three: One. Two...

"So are you arguing that muslims are abandoning priniciples of Islam or that they never were principles of Islam."

I don't think it could be any more clear that in the Qur'an it states certain things such as apostasy, adultery, and homosexuality are punishable by death. So I would be arguing the former.

I'm saying that even the most extreme established Muslim governments, Iran and Saudi Arabia, execute people for the aforementioned trifecta in drastically smaller numbers, and permit heavy leniency to avoid appearing barbaric in the news, even though they obviously still do it, Iran moreso.

Stoning for adultery was rejected even in the middle ages by some orthodox madhhabs as unnecessary, contrary to the prescriptions in the Qur'an.

"Is there something similar to a Vatican Council where they such questions are settled."

No, Sunni Islam is not organized like the Catholic church. There is absolutely no heirarchy. Heirarchy is based mostly on which power base is allied with which brand of Islam. In Saudi Arabia, the Wahabi Ulema and the Royal House of Saud are intertwined. In Egypt, the Nasserite Arab Nationalist regime holds religious authority over Al-Azhar University and runs a system of laïcité that is similar to the French, but different in that the government is both overtly religious while covertly authoritarian towards religion, as the differences between the two cultures demand.

In Shi'ism though, there is a type of heirarchy, where fatwas by Khomeini reverberate throughout all of Iran, as his rule of valayat-e faqih declares him, essentially, the stand in for the Hidden 12th Imam, with Caliph-like powers essentially making him the successor in religion and politics to the Prophet, until the Mahdi returns. Yet even then, Khomeini was not the highest ranked Ayatollah in Shi'ism. What the highest ranked Ayatollah decrees, sits with all Shi'a.

Contrarily in traditional Sunni orthodoxy, it's much more like Christian evangelicals, where your local preferred Imam that you follow is where the buck stops. It changes from one Imam to the next, especially one country to the next as my above example of Saudi and Egypt shows.

In the West, you get some Imams who are beholden to Saudi funding and thus, Salafist-Wahabi doctrine, and this is either peaceful but strictly shut off from the outside world, or in more popular cases: actively subversive and dangerous (depends on the Imam, depends on which Saudi sheikh is sending them money, depends on how the Kufr are treating them). You also get mainstream traditional Sunnis who aren't very enthusiastic about cutting peoples heads off, subjugating women, or conspiring against Dar al-Harb.

"How is it exactly that one balances the other? You're not saying that two wrongs make a right or excusing one by pointing to the other are you?"

Absolutely not, it shows that we can't singularly point at Shari'a and say it's barbarity defined, and that secularism itself is the answer. The spectre of Jacobite / Communist / National Socialist ferocity looms within the halls of secularism too, so it isn't something to be held as a standard against religiously-inspired barbarity.

"but don't you think your own list of the "main perpetrators" of sharia execution, which is not exhaustive and doesnt mention countries moving in that direction, is damning enough?"

Of course it's not exhaust nor very damning. I'm not exhaustive nor damning, it was a generally loose comment, forgive me in that respect.

"your statement that "all of them could be wholly palatable within two generations." may be true, but do we have that long to wait?"

I don't think it particularly matters, it isn't our business. If we want to pursue a policy of cultural imperialism, then it is our business, and I would recommend a wholesale firing of anybody and everything involved with our foreign policy.

"you say "Each country only has a tenuous hold to such barbarity.." but to me it looks equally likely that the "tenuous hold" is to modern standards of civilized behaviour. i'm not suggesting i have a solution, but a good start would be, as ayaan hirsi ali said,"let's tell the story as it is.""

I'll tell you one thing, you'll not get a single serious Muslim in Muslim lands who would listen to any of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's 'renovations'. It's pretty well assumed than any Western ideas are crap over there, forget traitors to Islam. They have their own ideas, they're asserting them, and will be long after we're gone.

"As Bernard Lewis has stated, the political aspects of Islam that we see today are what the Muslim world has adopted from Christianity. Out of the three Abrahamic religions, Islam was the most open minded one (that says more about the savagery of Christianity and Judaism than Islam). Lewis's solution is the one taken by the West, secularization. "

Bernard Lewis is a good starting reference, but bunk like this makes it pretty clear why one shouldn't stop after reading Lewis.

"Maher's condemnation of Christianity is equally pointed. It is a view he's expressed numerous times. I'll assume you were just ignorant of that fact."

I don't get Maher where I live, and if I did, I wouldn't watch him. While it may be true that he has condemned the Tanakh (or the New Testament regarding subjugation of women) for its orders regarding what is to be done to unbelievers, I haven't seen it. And we do not see it here.

"Maher's condemnation of Christianity is equally pointed. It is a view he's expressed numerous times."

Tis true, he dose criticize Christianity. However, as far as I've seen, his condemnation is lop sided towards Christianity and Islam (more so to Muslims, because he even bashes moderate Muslims), while backing Zionism and Israel as much as possible.

All I'm saying is that if you are a professed atheist, then you should act like one. Maher's actions are suspicious! I am an atheist who TRIES to weigh the facts before I accuse someone. But, I must say, I do not trust Maher.

"It's pretty well assumed than any Western ideas are crap over there, forget traitors to Islam." that's an unbelievably ignorant statement for one so well versed in islamic history. you may know islam, dionysis, but you don't know muslims. i never thought i'd find myself defending muslims against a scholar of islamic history, but there you have it. try this one on for size: muslims are CRAZY about western ideas and jump through mental hoops galore in an effort to make them acceptable in an islamic context. that would be much closer to the truth, and you don't have to know anything about the history of islam to see it.

and bob, in a nutshell: zionism is NOT judaism.

I think Maher is sincere about his atheism and disdain for religion in general. I also think he has a soft spot for a secular judaism and that his credentials as a champion of women's rights is abysmal, though that doesn't keep him from criticizing religion for its treatment of women in that sense a charge of hypocrisy is justified.

"until they denounce the idea that women are subordinate to men, that apostasy is to be punished they are indirectly supporting those who hold such views"

First off I would like to commend Dionysis for his responses.

There is no concept of women being subordinate to men in traditional Islam (Quran/Sunnah). Yes there are verses in the Quran that state men are one degree higher than women, and hadith that may sound a little weird ["There is no greater fitnah (trial/tribulation) for men than women"], but all of that refers to man's physical superiority only - Islam clearly established women and men as equals spiritually; and in fact many scholars would argue that the feminine characteristics of women give them a spiritual advantage over men. As far as having to wear hijab, or what not, i agree it shouldnt be forced like it is in Saudi, but in MOST of the Muslim world women wear it out of their own free will and choice - they do it because they find it more modest and out of their devotion to God.

Regarding apostacy killing - that is clearly in the texts, but that verse must be contextually defined. From my understanding it was revealed when there were many traitors amongst the early Muslims. However I am not a schoalr of the Quran or hadith, and therefore cannot speculate further.

However what is clear is that Shariah must be defined in context towards the culture in which Muslims live. Laws of 7th century Arabia cannot be applied exactly the same way to America or Europe today - and to think so is ludicrous.

I for one can publicly condemn any innocent killing of any civilians. We live in a society where freedom of religion defines our culture, and nobody has the right to take that away from any1, including Ali, Rushdie, etc.

As far as examples go - ALL Muslim scholars that I follow here in America dont believe in the subjugation of women - and there is vast literature and archives of talks defending that.

I agree apostacy is a more sensitive issue, however the killing of apostates, while we accept it was a rule back in early Islam, it cannot be applied today! Here is an example from a CAIR officer's stance on this issue: http://ahmedbedier.blogspot.com/2006/03/why-is-afghani-man-on-trial-for.html

And regarding women being subordinate to men... u should post a link to this article on ur main page from todays NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/magazine/25wwlnEssay.t.html?ex=1330146000&en=f1934c7e2ec17b92&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Mohammad Akram Nadwi ... has rediscovered a long-lost tradition of Muslim women teaching the Koran, transmitting hadith (deeds and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad) and even making Islamic law as jurists.

"muslims are CRAZY about western ideas and jump through mental hoops galore in an effort to make them acceptable in an islamic context. "

I should make it more clear what I said. Democracy, that is the rule of law, representative or direct control over government affairs, free and open voting, freedom of speech and press, these are all favored by most all Muslims, indeed. But western-style liberal democracy, with all of its trappings of secularism, gender equality, gay rights, Paris Hilton and porno in hotel rooms is NOT favored by any Muslims outside certain branches of the Saudi Royal Family and Dubai. They temper "freedom" by their conception of freedom from within, whereas we do so by looking at freedom from without first and foremost, and leave our personal problems to Alcoholics Anonymous or Ricki Lake.

First off I would like to say this: For shame Free Truth! Get the fuck out of here with that crap. You awakened my hate for Loose Change and all that bullshit. Man that pisses me off.

Anyways, I'll get on topic. I like to think that I know quite a bit about Islam as I have to play devil's advocate (no offense to Muslims) when talking about Islam with my family or friends. I find Islam fascinating and enjoy studying it to great extent. Dionysus seems to know more than me in regards to Islam yet I have to disagree with some of his arguments as well as Norm's.

Islam is a very misunderstood religion as evidenced by the media, U.S. foreign policy, and some of the comments here as well as Americans in general.

Islam is not a violent religion nor is Christianity. Mohammad and Jesus’ teachings, in general, preach a message of peace. All one has to do is read what they say in their respective holy books and disregard all of the other people's sayings and interpretations of God i.e. everything in the Old Testament and most of the New Testament as well as the Ahadiths. (continued)

Norm, did you listen to the Reza Aslan/Sam Harris debate you posted? Did you see Reza Aslan on Real Time and hear him say "religion isn't violent; people are violent?" Reza Aslan is a very good source for information on Islam. In his debate with Sam Harris he makes a very good point that bin Laden's, amongst others, motivation isn't a religious one but rather a social, political, and economical one construced in the guise of religion. That could relate to the Bush adminstration's motivation for war in the middle east as well.

I've also wondered when the millions upon millions of Muslims in the United States and around the world are going to unite and suicide bomb and wage war in the streets against all the non-believers.

Other than that, I think Dionysus has covered and will continue to cover the subject of Islam on these boards. Take note: I'm against most religions and I consider myself agnostic leaning more towards atheist hence the playing the devil's advocate bit.

I made some typos. Dammit.

"Reza Aslan is a very good source for information on Islam. In his debate with Sam Harris he makes a very good point that bin Laden's, amongst others, motivation isn't a religious one but rather a social, political, and economical one construced in the guise of religion. "

One should remember that Reza is a liberal Muslim of the Shi'a variety (from a family that fled the Islamic Revolution in Iran) and if you read his book No god but God, you'll see that he has a consistent philosophy which he pushes, and among the people he attacks are the Kharijites and Wahhabis, more from a Shi'a viewpoint than the one he's using to relate this to a Western audience. So you're getting a filtered message, and I would contest Reza's claim that you mention as him trying to informally excommunicate bin Laden from his faith. Bin Laden is an extremely devout Muslim, who never fell off any wagon nor was born again in the way Bush was. He is a dedicate and fanatic warrior for what he believes in, and wouldn't go about declaring jihad on America for purely political and business purposes. That is, unless of course, his aim was to destroy the American economy and replace its pre-eminence with an Islamic version of globalization.

Norm, did you listen to the Reza Aslan/Sam Harris debate you posted? Did you see Reza Aslan on Real Time and hear him say "religion isn't violent; people are violent?" Reza Aslan is a very good source for information on Islam.

Yes I did I saw him remove all dogma by claiming it was all metaphorical. If one chooses to claim it is metaphorical they can make it into whatever the hell they want. It is not religion, it reduces the idea of a personal God to a meaningless concept. Religious principles directly lead to violence. If there are punishments meted out for violating religious priniciples those are a direct result of the dogma. Steven Weinberg made the point well.

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

I own a copy of No god but God though I haven't had a chance to finish it yet. I will try and finish it soon so I can see where you are coming from.

In regard to the Aslan/Harris debate I don't think I'm correctly representing Aslan's point. He's not trying to excommunicate bin Laden from his faith.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LqE2pLOQCg

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

I like it. However, I have to disagree with your position on religious dogma. Some Christians, for example, like to cherry-pick The Bible (gay marriage) as well as not follow through with the stuff they believe in.

Leviticus 24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.

Thankfully they have progressed a little and I live in a society where I can deny the Holy Spirit as well as, for example, say "I fucked Jesus in the ass" without being publicly stoned by the "congregation." The people of today can choose whether or not to believe the things people (who were dumber than the people of today) said 2000+ years ago.

Why doesn't God, instead of his followers, strike down all the blasphemers? That's because there is no God yet people act out in the name of "God" especially if they can get away with it. God doesn't kill people; people kill in the name of God. People can either follow the violent parts of their holy book or follow the peaceful parts. People kill people and religion doesn't. That's my point.

Anonymous = me

I changed my mind; I don't like the Weinberg quote. If good people do evil things because of their religious faith, well, they weren't good people to begin with.

Wow, that previous comment just ruined the entire intelligent discussion that was taking place here,

You may have the right to say whatever you want, but that doesnt make it correct. I, as a Muslim, am deeply hurt by what you said, and out of respect for me, and the overwhelming majority of this world that values and respects Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) you shouldnt make such comments, even in jest.

But for you to say such blasphemous things to make a point - is beyond pathetic.

Go to brooklyn and start calling people the n-word; and see if you can get away with that over there.

I didn't call anybody a nigger so what's with the "go to Brooklyn" bit? Anyways, I am sincerely sorry for offending you Hahmed. That example was extreme and undoubtedly offensive. I should have toned down my language as well. However, I can't apologize for blaspheming God; I don't believe in Him.

I respect your point of view no matter how different it is from mine. I love to hear other people's opinions because I love intelligent discussion. I know that Jesus (pbuh) is a prophet in Islam and I wish more Christians knew that. When Islam and Christianity are placed side by side it is amazing to see how similar they are to each other. Believe it or not, I try to inform people about this because I hate ignorance. It kills.

All in all, I hope you accept my apology and continue this discussion because the last thing I would want to do is ruin any discussion taking place here.

In a free and democratic society we must respect people's civil rights; we don't have to respect their religion. If you are offended by what someone says about your religion there really isn’t much you can do, legally. Blasphemy isn’t a crime in our culture because many of us don’t believe in the God you think is being blasphemed.

Islam is an incredibly cruel religion with respect to women. If you have traveled to a Muslim country the gender apartheid is clearly evident. Women play almost no part in most Muslim societies. Whether or not this foul treatment of women is dictated by the Koran is not really pertinent to the argument, just as the history lectures in some of these comments do not address the question of whether or not Islam is a religion of peace. It may not be fair to judge Islam by the actions of some of its followers, but it is a valid judgment.

There seems to be a bit of hesitancy on the part of liberals (In Europe as well as America) to attack the destructive nature of Islam for reasons of political correctness or whatever. This same compunction is not present when pointing out the errors in Christianity. This probably comes from a lack of understanding about Islam and progressive people not wanting to appear ignorant on the subject (conservatives have no problem espousing ideas about which they know nothing). As bad and destructive as I find Christianity, I feel that Islam is worse.

I think the discussion has strayed a bit. Our singular concern when we ask, 'is Islam a religion of peace,' is this: is Islam inherently dangerous to us? We are not asking for interpretations of faith.

I do find it amusing that Muslims ask the same question about secular western society but that's beside the point.

Islam isn't a system of government and government and Islam don't mix well. Every successful, predominantly Islamic nation has secularized their government.

The cultural/political dominance that Islamic leaders maintain over the lives of millions of Muslims is at odds with secularism and the liberal democratic principles of the west.

So we have a struggle that transforms a religion, however inherently peaceful or not, into something that engenders a tendency toward facism and extremism that IS dangerous to the west.

Western concerns about the rapid transformation of unstable nations into non-secular Islamic states is well-founded. Without a firm secular core we will always find the instability that fosters potential dangers to the west.

How many of the 9/11 hijackers were from Turkey?

... But for you to say such blasphemous things to make a point - is beyond pathetic. Go to brooklyn and start calling people the n-word; and see if you can get away with that over there. -- hahmed

To equate blasphemy with singlemost racist epithet in US history is absolutely outrageous and completely off-kilter.

To even use words of this kind: "blasphemy," "heresy," "heathen," "non-believer," "infidel," "kaffir," "profane," "apostate" etc., is intellectually primitive and absolutely, utterly downright barbaric. It implies that if my opinions differ from yours, I'm not merely wrong or uninformed -- I'm actually evil and deserving of divine punishment.

Intelligent discussion, my foot (up Jesus' and/or Muhammad's ass, if need be)! Gimme a break.

Christians are like crazy people who insists there's an elephant in the trunk of your car*. Then, another bunch of crazies comes along and starts killing people if they don't believe that there's a giraffe in the trunk of your car -- and we had only just recently managed to restrain the elephant crazies from killing people.

We have enough trouble as it is -- our society is only marginally secular, and we're in a constant struggle every day of our lives to prevent it from slipping further towards a theocracy. We've got more than enough on our hands, dealing with the elephant crazies. For someone to come along and demand that we need to respect the giraffe crazies too -- that's just plain rude.

If you wish to live your live according to fantasy literature, why not become a Gorean?

(*Appologies to Penn Gilette)

...and all the crazy Christians go cheering. Does the expression "house negro" ring a bell ?

The only thing I hate more than a religious extremist is a person who despises their own religion. Ayaan Hirshi Ali needs to realize that the Islamic religion is different from Islamic society. A recent episode of South Park parodying Richard Dawkins couldn't have said it any better when is stated that even atheism can be violent if it isn't practiced with reason. In short one cannot blame Islam, Christianity, etc. of being violent, as much as how its followers choose to interpret their religion.

BTW I found her to be very arrogant and condescending towards Darell Issa, whom I probably agreed with for the first time in my life. For those who don't know, Issa is of Lebanese Christian descent.

First off I would like to say this: For shame Free Truth! Get the fuck out of here with that crap. You awakened my hate for Loose Change and all that bullshit. Man that pisses me off.

Tummler, Curse words are a sign of a weak argument and do not change facts.

The "Jersey girls" recently released a movie called press for truth: http://www.911pressfortruth.com/

True, Loose Change is not 100% accurate. Still it is more accurate than the government fable: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

When I see people invoking 9/11 to justify hatred for Muslims and war, I speak up and work to expose the truth about 9/11.

Have a look at the "The New Pearl Harbor" by by David Ray Griffin. 216 reviews on Amazon and 4.5 stars. http://www.amazon.com/New-Pearl-Harbor-Disturbing-Administration/dp/1566565529

Sorry if the topic upsets you.

Peace.

The only thing I hate more than a religious extremist is a person who despises their own religion... ...even atheism can be violent if it isn't practiced with reason. In short one cannot blame Islam, Christianity, etc. of being violent... BTW I found her to be very arrogant and condescending... -- Ravi

There are just so many things wrong with this post. To declare your hatred of someone, and in the same breath call for "reason" is completely incoherent and delusional. Not to even mention the bit about despising your own religion -- what the hell makes something "your own religion," and in what way does critiquing it equate to despising it?

How can you not blame Christianity, Islam or other religion for the violence they have caused? Will you just declare the Pope the anti-Christ, and create a new branch of Christianity? Oh hang on, that's already been done. C'mon; gimme a break.

And yeah I know you found her to be arrogant and condescending -- that's the civilized alternative for a defender of religious dogma to accuse someone of heresy and blasphemy, these days.

Geee! She's cute but she's a fraud! Even The Economist agrees on that one!

Geee! She's cute but she's a fraud! Even The Economist agrees on that one!

Name the fallacies.

"How can you not blame Christianity, Islam or other religion for the violence they have caused?"

I can easily blame Islam and Judaism for causing war, hatred, division, sexism, oppression, religious tyranny and general backwardness - but I find it hard to justify a group of people who can't read slaughtering other people in the name of God because their Lord, Priest, and honor demands it more out of politics and economics than in response to "Blessed are the peacemakers" or "Turn thy other cheek".

"Every successful, predominantly Islamic nation has secularized their government. "

This assertion is patently false. Secular Muslim governments have been swallowed alive in Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, Algeria, some with massively violent civil wars, purges and destruction by direct causation of secularizing. While religious governments have maintained the peace and become extremely successful in some of those states, not to mention Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Jordan.

"How many of the 9/11 hijackers were from Turkey?"

That's a pointless question, there are plenty of Turkish and Kurdish terrorists. We just haven't met them yet. There's a Turkish Hizballah that received support from Iran in the 80's.

The PKK is actually a secular terrorist organization! Imagine that!

Free Truth, I didn't present an argument. I merely stated how much I hate that propaganda. I don't feel like getting into an argument about that right now because it is off topic. I could sit here all day and prove your claims are false but I've tried that with other people and they can't handle it. "Lies!" they say. I own Jimmy Walter's Confronting the Evidence and I know all about David Ray Griffin and his book (he's featured on the forementioned DVD.) I don't doubt that the administration used 9/11 for financial and political gain but to say they planned it out and executed it so perfectly, well, that's just silly.

This thread will not turn into a discussion of 9/11 conspiracies. Any posts from this point on that discuss that topic will be deleted. Do it twice and your commenting privileges will be revoked.

I guess if you consider totalitarian regimes as 'successful' you've got me. Keeping the peace by violently repressing human rights is not my idea of success.

To say that Islamic government is a valid alternative to secular government is disingenuous. Do you really believe that your 'not to mention' group of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE and Jordan are successful governments?

With the exception of Jordan these contries are totalitarian welfare states that float on inflated oil prices. Their stability has been provided for them by the economic interests of their (oil) allies.

I agree that that my last statement about the lack of Turkish terrorists was, in the context of the argument, a bit of a logical fallacy but it was hardly pointless. My point was that radical Islam is less of a problem in Turkey. Do you disagree?

Tummier: I accepet your apology, and apologize myself if you felt my comparision to the n-word was out of line.

But my respect and love for Jesus (pbuh) and other prophets (while you many not agree or even respect them) defines who I am and my beliefs - moreso than race or gender even do.

I agree and respect the fact that isnt blasphemous to you - but we all live in the same world - the same country and are neighbors who aught to respect one another's beliefs - as long as they dont infringe on someone elses. Thats all I ask for. Isnt that afterall what the basis of liberalism entails?

Dzwonka: You may think what I and most of the world believes is fantasy. Thats fine - you have the right to do that. But that is what we believe. - And there isnt anything you can do about it - our belief systems (religions) arent going anywhere. Sorry!

If you want to drive yourself mad thinking "how can these idiots believe in such nonsense", go right ahead. But that isnt going to help anyone - including yourself. :)

That's the problem isn't it. Those that hold religious beliefs think those beliefs should be accorded a status no other belief is given. Take someone who claims to be a psychic for example, or someone who claims to have been abducted by aliens, or an organization like the Discovery Institute. They may all believe what they believe with just as much passion as a religious person, but that changes nothing. All who hold views that I view as ridiculous. If I mock them. If I hold them up to ridicule. If I draw a cartoon making fun of them, or disrespect their views in other ways, that is acceptable, but if it is a religion I'm not supposed to mock it or ridicule it because it's status is "special". the point is that it is not special it deserves no more consideration than any other belief. I tolerate it, but I don't respect it. I may respect the individual who holds the belief, but for other reasons, and I may not personalize my ridicule of what he holds dear, but if he asks me not to hold his beliefs to the same standard as any other belief he's going to be disappointed. Toleration not respect is the best I'm willing to do. If believers want their beliefs to be off-limits for discussion then they need to keep them out of the public arena.

"I guess if you consider totalitarian regimes as 'successful' you've got me. Keeping the peace by violently repressing human rights is not my idea of success."

I just went to dictionary.com, and nowhere in the definition of "success" does it mention "Democracy" "Westernization" nor "Freedom of Speech and Religion". I'm approaching this from a slight perspective of classical realism.

"To say that Islamic government is a valid alternative to secular government is disingenuous."

I'm not saying that, I never said that. Show me where I said that an Islamic form of government is valid.

"Do you really believe that your 'not to mention' group of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE and Jordan are successful governments?"

Which one is embroiled in civil war, a revolution, or massive turmoil?

"My point was that radical Islam is less of a problem in Turkey. Do you disagree?"

After a century of Kemalism Saudi Arabia wouldn't have any radicals either, but just wait and see what the Justice and Development Party does in Turkey: the people in the countryside never secularized and they're the ones growing in numbers, and flooding into the cities.

Norm, your argument is perfectly fine but you don't take into account the act of mutual discourse. If Muslims don't want you drawing blasphemous pictures of Muhammed with a bomb in his turban, is that an imposition on your free speech? Of course it is, but that you have the freedom to speek things that enrage other people doesn't mean it's perfectly fine to do it.

Let's take "nigger" for example. Everybody can say "nigger", you can't say it in certain forums or media of course, because it's a taboo word. That's because African-Americans do not like you using it, any more than Muslims like us blaspheming against their religion, that means nothing to us. Whereas it means everything to them.

It's just politeness, not freedom of speech.

Dionysus,

People choose their religion they don't choose their race. Being black is not a belief.

I can't remember who said it but if "people who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs"

If George Bush says we should forgo negotiation and simply invade those countries that disagree with us, should I respect that view, or should I not make arguments against it. Should I not ridicule it. Should I not draw cartoons mocking it. He may feel strongly he may really believe it to be a good course of action. Why should religion have a special status?

Of course it is, but that you have the freedom to speek things that enrage other people doesn't mean it's perfectly fine to do it.

So all I have to do to stifle your free speech, any free speech is to become enraged.

Being enraged is something the person being enraged decides to do. They can choose not to be enraged. Are their beliefs so fragile that they require me to pretend to respect those beliefs. How pathetic is that.

This is the perfect time for me to add this video I found while viewing Brian Flemming's blog: The Respect Challenge

Can you say snoooore!

People choose their religion they don't choose their race. Being black is not a belief.

Yes - but once one does choose their religion - it and their beliefs define who they are. - And these beliefs are more important to the believer than their race or gender or sexual orientation (what you seem to have no problem defending).

There is a huge difference between criticizing a persons views on a particular matter vs. mocking/ridiculing one's personal belief system.

Religion does have a special status. Even the constitution guarantees and values the freedom of religion.

"People choose their religion they don't choose their race. Being black is not a belief."

Your point is perfectly valid in that respect, but it doesn't take into consideration what I said, which was in regards to mutual discourse. If you want to enrage an entire religion and drive them to kill you, by all means, exercise your freedom of speech. If you don't have any people backing you up, that's precisely what will happen. Your message is only as powerful as your army. We have the United States Army, which permits us conducting free speech, but we needn't drag our army into any more unnecessary conflicts because you want to insult another civilization's values.

"So all I have to do to stifle your free speech, any free speech is to become enraged.

Being enraged is something the person being enraged decides to do. They can choose not to be enraged. Are their beliefs so fragile that they require me to pretend to respect those beliefs. How pathetic is that."

Pretty pathetic, pretty much how it is, pretty much nothing to do about it, and insulting their beliefs isn't going to help bridge any gaps. Until they all renounce Islam, we're just going to have to deal with it.

One could also say:

Once one does choose their political party - it and their beliefs define who they are. And these political beliefs are more important to the believer than their race or gender or sexual orientation.

There is a huge difference between criticizing a person's views on a particular matter vs mocking/ridiculing one's personal belief system.

The constitution guarantees the freedom to choose which political party one wants to be a part of.

To ridicule and mock George Bush and the Republicans does not take into consideration mutual discourse.

Therefore, by the reasoning of Hahmed and Dionysus, they should not ever mock George Bush, a man who many people admire and respect. Insulting their beliefs isn't going to bridge any gaps.

What do you think?

Jo Ann, I'm not talking about George Bush, I'm talking about Islam.

I don't think I could make it any more clear than this: insult Islam at your peril, and if you don't like that you can't insult it, do something about it. That something would have to be exceptionally violent and absolute. I'm talking reconquista. Otherwise you'll provoke people to follow what their faith tells them to do in the face of oppression (oppression being the open and voluminous insults they'll face because of their faith). All because you want to insult.

I'm sorry if you don't see the difference between race and choosing one's religion, if you choose to believe you're black that doesn't define you as a black person.

Religion does have a special status. Even the constitution guarantees and values the freedom of religion.

Freedom of religion implies freedom from religion. * It is not freedom of religion that is being guaranteed but the freedom to hold whatever set of beliefs religious or not you want as long as you don't infringe on others rights. Furthermore the freedom of religion does not guarantee freedom from criticism. No one here is threatening your freedom to believe in any God you want, or to practice your religion. The constitution has no mention of God. In fact it expressly prohibits religious tests for office. I don't go out of my way to insult a person that is a believer. If they *choose to take offense to remarks I make about their religion that's their problem. It is their intolerance to others views that is the problem. If they threaten violence or use the state to force respect for their belief they are the opponents of freedom of thought and freedom of speech. The constitution does not guarantee anyone the right to be free from insult, or ridicule. If you believed in astrology and I mocked astrology would you be offended. If you believed the earth was flat and I mocked the belief that the earth was flat would you be offended. Do you believe all the beliefs, political, economic, and others that get mocked and ridiculed on a daily basis in this country through the use of satire or parody should cease because someone might be offended? I repeat religious thought has no more in the way of rights than any other beliefs. Why do you care if I find many aspects of your religion to be absurd. How does a make believe respect for them make you feel, better than if I'm honest about how ridiculous I think some of them are? Sometimes mocking or ridiculing a belief is a way of showing how absurd it is. If I'm required to criticize a particular view only in a reverent serious way that implies that it is worthy of serious consideration even if it's not. If someone tells me God speaks to them and I show respect for that belief I'm elevating the belief, I'm implying that although I may disagree with it I find it worthy of discussion and of respect. I don't.

Dionysus, So no one should insult Islam because of their threats. This doesn't speak well for Islam, does it?

If I'm in someone else's home or country I'm not going to insult them. I'm a guest. I'll respect their customs. If I find their customs and beliefs too offensive I'll just not visit them. If on the other hand they are in my country or in my home I expect them to respect my customs. The United States is a country that values freedom of speech. It is a country where satire, and parody are an accepted part of our culture. Just as I respect anothers customs in their house I expect them to respect mine when in my house. There are Christians and Muslim who try to impose their views not just in their homes and their countries, but in mine as well. If they expect my respect they should understand that it is a two-way road. Many religious folk think they should be exempted from that common courtesy.

France has been dealing with this issue lately in the trial of Charlie Hebdo.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,466403,00.html

Dalil Boubakeur, rector of the Grand Mosque of Paris, invoked the secular principles of the French constitution while Philippe Val, editor-in-chief of the intransigent (and often anti-clerical) Charlie Hebdo, quoted John Paul II.

Once one does choose their political party - it and their beliefs define who they are. And these political beliefs are more important to the believer than their race or gender or sexual orientation.

That is a horrible analogy. Please dont take my words out of context. A person's political party doesnt answer the question to the meaning of life; or resolve what happens after we die, etc. or provides a view of Reality that far supercedes the limits of our 5 senses. A religion does that. And those who believe in religion find (what we sincerely believe to be the) TRUTH in it.

I agree with you Norm, and others, - that nobody should respond with violence or threats when one is ridiculed, mocked, etc. I was totally against the violent outrage against the cartoons, or against apostates speaking out against Islam.

However - why would you provoke such violence in the first place when there exists such a hostile group of people.

The reverence to the prophets Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, (peace be upon them) to Muslims is greater than that to our own significant others, children, and parents. If I insulted your mother or children - how would you respond. Muslims revere the prophets infinitely more than we do our own parents. Think about that.

I think the issues here is how you find it so hard to believe that people value something that in ur mind is absurd.

Again, im not justifying violence, or even asking you to accept or respect my beliefs. Just dont bother me and ridicule me for no other reason than to ridicule my beliefs.

I obviously am not getting any respect from Norm, or others - and if that is the case why should Muslims and other people who do believe in God and find His existence so apparent respect you???

Like Dionysis said - its about mutual discourse. If you arent up for it- thats fine, but respect those of us who are.

I actually do respect athiests like yourself because of your sincerity in what you believe to be the truth. However I profoundly disagree with you - because I do believe in God. And if you disagree or even disrespect my beliefs that God revealed Holy Books, etc. i couldnt care less.

Im all for dialogue and building bridges. If you dont want to contribute to that - then thats an issue you have to deal with.

or against the killing of* apostates speaking out against Islam.

• I wish i could edit my comments!

Like Dionysis said - its about mutual discourse

So what about mutual discourse with those who hold different political beliefs than you do? There are many people who are extremely upset by the mockery of their political party and their political beliefs.

It may not be exactly the same thing, but it is sure similar. Why can't you see that?

If you don't want to be mocked, then you shouldn't be mocking Republicans.

You're using your anger to demand respect. It doesn't make any sense to me.

"I'm sorry if you don't see the difference between race and choosing one's religion, if you choose to believe you're black that doesn't define you as a black person. "

Don't be sorry, because I do see the difference. I'm sorry that you don't see the difference between insulting Jerry Fartwell and the Grand Mufti of Mecca. Let me begin by informing you that inter-civilizational conversation doesn't always end well with "everything you believe is a lie".

"Dionysus, So no one should insult Islam because of their threats. This doesn't speak well for Islam, does it?"

You can insult Muslims for threatening to kill people for pretty dumb reasons, but you can't insult Islam and expect Muslims to live with it. You seem to expect Muslims to be Buddhists. Don't. That's stupid. This topic began about how it isn't possible to call Islam a religion of peace, which is quite true, that's too simple of a statement. Islam is a civic religion, it constitutes everything our secular realm does too. So if you want insult their religion, you're insulting their entire civilization, not just their faith. If you want them to be more like us, be pacifist and accept it while we conquer their lands and take their oil, all while you're insulting them and their beliefs, do you honestly expect them to not raise up and cut your friggin head off? Honestly, let's not be naive here.

"So what about mutual discourse with those who hold different political beliefs than you do? "

That's completely different. Republicans and Democrats eminate from the exact same culture, with the same traditions, history, and ethnic heritage (for the most part). It's those similarities that make our political discourse work, and it's our differences with Islamic civilization that have made our discourse NOT work.

That is a horrible analogy. Please dont take my words out of context. A person's political party doesnt answer the question to the meaning of life; or resolve what happens after we die, etc. or provides a view of Reality that far supercedes the limits of our 5 senses. A religion does that. And those who believe in religion find (what we sincerely believe to be the) TRUTH in it.

Your sincerety doesn't say anything at all about TRUTH I don't believe your religion answers any of those questions.

I obviously am not getting any respect from Norm, or others - and if that is the case why should Muslims and other people who do believe in God and find His existence so apparent respect you???

Hahmed, it is your beliefs that are not getting my respect. If I didn't respect you as a person would I have posted a link to an article you found important on the post itself. You want me to respect your religion and so you identify yourself and your religion as one and the same. If that's your condition for my respect. You can (insert rude comment of your choosing and make it really insulting) here.

Who are you to say that someone's political beliefs aren't as important to them as your religious beliefs are to you. Because you believe your religion answers the big questions you discount others secular beliefs. Political beliefs implemented matter in this life and may very well have a bigger impact on our day to day lives than your contemplation of the big questions Does your arrogance have no limits.

always end well with "everything you believe is a lie".

It's nice that you haven't lost the ability to present my statements as black or white. I never said, nor did I even imply, that everything a muslim believes is a lie. They have many beliefs that any humanist could embrace. But you already knew that so why did you frame the issue that way? Shame on you.

I guess my response to the issue of comparing religion to political party is biased - for me they arent analagous at all. And to those who do believe in religion - im sure they would not find them analagous either. In that case due to what you believe to be my arrogance - I apologize.

Id rather leave this discussion on a positive note than a negative one, so I would also like to apologize to all who have been angered/insulted by anything I may have written. That has not been my intention, I just wanted to give a different view to that of Ali's, and most other contributors to this site.

Nonetheless, I sincerely do believe my religion to be the Truth, as do 1.5 billion other people in this world. And if anyone does go onto disrespect the beliefs of my religion, all 1.5 billion of us will take it as a personal attack against us (although some of us will obviously respond to it in different manners). Thats just the fact of the matter and nothing you say or can argue will change it.

I would again like to commend Dionysus - for his comments. It seems as if he is the only one here who truly understands how complex these issues are.

And if anyone does go onto disrespect the beliefs of my religion,

And by disrespect I mean ridicule/mock - not disagree.

"Shame on you."

:)

Thanks so much, Norm, for posting the clip of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I really enjoyed listening to her and I've really enjoyed the discourse that has followed. This makes me so grateful that I live in a Western country where we have freedom of speech to go back and forth on this topic without having to worry if we'll wind up in prison or killed for the honor of a fallacious religion.
I don't agree with all of Hirsi Ali's stances, but I'm grateful that there are people like her that are not afraid to take advantage of freedom of speech and speak out against Islam specifically. So many seem to think that doing so is like walking on eggshells. There are already a ton of critics of Christianity. These topics desperately need to be addressed in the public sphere. I'm glad onegoodmove didn't shy away from this.

"I am amazed that Muslims are not more offended by the invocation of Allah and "God is great" for murder than by cartoons. Why do Muslims not fly into flights of rage when people who go to help Iraqis are kidnapped, tortured, and beheaded in the name of Islam? Political cartoons that point up problems with an extremist religion are used to manipulate people into violence instead of reflection and debate. Freedom of expression for Muslims is a one-way street; Muslims can criticize the West, but the West cannot criticize the practices of Islam." -Hirsi Ali

For the entire piece, check out NPR.com

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5382547

Looking up 'success' at dictionary.com and not finding concepts like democracy or freedom of speech within the definition doesn't mean a successful government doesn't represent those values.

Secular governments, founded on the principles of individual rights and liberty are inclusive in the broadest sense and in so being they become stable through complete representation of the populace.

"Secular governments, founded on the principles of individual rights and liberty are inclusive in the broadest sense and in so being they become stable through complete representation of the populace. "

Right, like a Republic and a Democracy has never fallen before and won't fall again. All political entities are impermanent. Success at governance is not very hard, and no form of government has proven to be eternally good. That western-style liberal democracy has proven to harbor the greatest growth for human kind does not mean that it lasts very much longer than princedoms, tyrannies, empires or authoritarian regimes. Just look at America, who do we have in office? Everything Jefferson did in his power couldn't stop Bush from coming. And who knows if Bush is the worst of it.

We can't apply this to an Islamic civilization. We'll have to let them figure it out on their own, and stop fucking invading them without cause and meddling in their affairs with the CIA.

I don't mind cultural imperialism by way of globalization and transnational corporations. In fact I'm all for that. That'll be our way of getting them to calm the fuck down. But Marxist Dependency Theory could very well apply to a Muslim country as a Latin American one, and quite frankly has in many cases. We need to be very careful how we tread. We have to be Alexander and treat Bucephalus in a way to tame his rage and accept our guidance, we can't just throw candy at them while we raid their villages for all adult males whose fingers smell of gunpowder, or make their economy reliant on feeding us oil, or draw cartoons they consider to be outrageously offensive.

" We have to be Alexander and treat Bucephalus in a way to tame his rage and accept our guidance".

as a non-muslim i am grateful to be in a position to be merely amused at the fact that the guy here who seems to know the most about islam is the most demeaning towards them. the analogy he chose is the very definition of "high horse".

dionysis' posts are sprinkled liberally :) with this kind of thinking (which reminds me of bernard lewis, who doesn't even seem to know he's doing it, and the british "arabists" of the 19th century).

and poor hahmed, i think, was so bowled over that a westerner would take the time and effort to learn so much about his religion that he didn't even catch it.

"...make their economy reliant on feeding us oil,"

they wouldn't HAVE economies if it weren't for feeding us oil(except maybe for drugs). the question is, what are they doing with their money?

my respect for islam i much like my respect for guns. i may have a strong distaste for guns, i may rue the day they were invented, i may hate what they were invented for. but when one is pointed at me, it behooves me to respect it, and to learn as much about it as i can. and in the course of learning about it, i can come to respect the genius that went into its design, no matter how much i disagree with the use it is put to.

when i was a kid i used to build model warplanes. my mom used to say "do you know that those things, beautiful as they may be, are designed for only one purpose- to kill people."

while i took her point, i still couldn't help being amazed at how well they were designed, and at the paradox that these things of beauty would not exist if people weren't so horrible. whatever.

diyonisus, "Our enemies are those who manipulate and exaggerate Islamic beliefs into a message of hate and destruction. Those people are a minority of Muslims, and a perceived attack on Islam will validate the extremist's actions."

Just replace "Islamic" and "Muslims" with "Xian" and "Xians" and you have the same point. Sam Harris has rightly pointed out the danger of accepting so-called "moderate" believers, who are actually just enablers for the "radicals".

As the Koran and the Bible are based on pure fantasy, anyone can interpret their texts any way they like. There is no way to say that one interpretation or the other is wrong.

But in fact, there is nothing to "interpret" because the books are fiction.

BTW, did you notice how the actor Steve Weber was seriously checking Ayaan out? He looked like he was looking for his best pick-up line.

Dzwonka: You may think what I and most of the world believes is fantasy. Thats fine - you have the right to do that. But that is what we believe. - And there isnt anything you can do about it - our belief systems (religions) arent going anywhere... -- hahmed

That's a pretty bad thing to say... Firstly, if you are engaging in a debate, but are 100% determined that you'll never change your mind, no matter what evidence you are presented with -- then, you're being disingenuous. I don't believe in metaphysics, but I couldn't engage in a debate in good faith, unless I allow for the possibility that I might one day learn something that makes me religious. You are pretending to be rational; pretending to engage in an intelligent exchange, but the truth is, you are in reality not merely completely irrational -- you are committed to ignore any rational evidence you are presented with.

Secondly, that's a bad thing to say about yourself -- and other religious people. Admittedly, a lot of them are so far gone that they have lost their ability to use reason and logic, and those folks will probably never be cured. But you have demonstrated a capacity for reason -- if you can just decide to use it for a constructive purpose, rather than a plaything, you might be cured.

Our Western societies have made immense progress in the last centuries. We've gone from the abyss of a theocratic dictatorship with torture and murder, to civilized, somewhat secular societies. We've clipped the nails of the church-monster, and we're all the better for it.

In the mean-time, the Muslim world has just been sinking back into the abyss.

I say that those Americans who want the Muslim world to suffer and to live in despair, they would want Muslims to be deeply religious, to support suicide bombers, to treat women like second-rate citizens, to commit acts of terror, to be ignorant and xenophobic, to riot when someone draws a cartoon of Mohammed -- because all that crazy stuff is harming the Islamic world more than anything the West ever did to it -- crusades or George Bush.

Finally, I'd like to point out that there's an ENORMOUS and very important difference between a religion that says "You may not eat shellfish" and one that says, "No one may eat shellfish." Observing Catholics don't eat meat on Fridays, but they don't fly into a rage when others do it (neither do they do so, if other Catholics choose not to observe that tradition). If Muslims chose to not depict Mohammed, that's fine -- but when they impose their religious beliefs on others, that is completely wrong.

The Zulus' religion has a dogma about how cattle came to this earth, as a gift from their gods. Hence, all cattle on earth belongs to the Zulus -- or descended from cattle stolen from them -- ie., all cattle on this earth belongs to them. That's their religion. And if you don't give your cattle to them, you are effectively violating and disrespecting their religion. Surely, you can see that this doesn't make sense?

Norm, I won't do your homework, but here are some hints to start with

http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8663231

Wow, she is one hot mama! Unfortunately it's almost impossible to concentrate on what she's saying :)

"as a non-muslim i am grateful to be in a position to be merely amused at the fact that the guy here who seems to know the most about islam is the most demeaning towards them. the analogy he chose is the very definition of "high horse"."

Oh don't think I wouldn't have called you a horse too if the sentence and flow necessitated it.

"dionysis' posts are sprinkled liberally :) with this kind of thinking (which reminds me of bernard lewis, who doesn't even seem to know he's doing it, and the british "arabists" of the 19th century)."

I should grow a handle bar moustache and join the foreign office. But really, there are three types of people in the foreign office: me, useful idiots, and traitors. Far be it from me to say join the winning team.

"and poor hahmed, i think, was so bowled over that a westerner would take the time and effort to learn so much about his religion that he didn't even catch it."

You were down on two knees above ready to give me 'hand relief' as Borat calls it for my mediocre knowledge of Islam and Islamist politics, I'm the golden idol you built yourself and crushed when it bore bad fruit. My cynical nature in regards to international relations is not answerable to your or hahmed's judgement and frankly I don't care. If the West wakes up one day and we're all Muslim, we certainly "lost" our 3,500 year old culture and would have replaced it with a foreign strange one. But until that fateful day, my simple point is that we should treat Muslims like they'd wish to be treated, which is more than they'd grant us under dhimmitude.

"they wouldn't HAVE economies if it weren't for feeding us oil(except maybe for drugs). the question is, what are they doing with their money?"

Now who's being condescending? The Islamic world was the richest the world had seen up to its point at its height, it isn't impossible that they should be prosperous again. They aren't all oil countries, they aren't all completely poor, and their religion certainly isn't the reason for their poverty. They are no dummies, and are trying to convert their oil wealth into real foreign investment. Dubai has succeeded to a degree in this respect, and Oman is following suit.

Bill Maher is disappointing as hell with this. So is this discussion.

PS: Thank you for the link BigDave. PS2: I am an atheist as well but the "atheist movement" is starting to freak me out. Not believing can still breed fanatism. (not directly on topic, but something definately related)

That's a pretty bad thing to say... Firstly, if you are engaging in a debate, but are 100% determined that you'll never change your mind, no matter what evidence you are presented with -- then, you're being disingenuous.

My religion and what I choose to believe is not something I am up for debating. I didnt post here to begin this debate, rather to defend my religion and point out what I believed to be wrong in Ali's comments.

And no Muslim should impose his/her beliefs on anyone else. No aruging there.

My point from my statement that has been perceived as disingenuous is simply that Islam isnt going anywhere. It is by far the fastest growing religion in Europe and North America. Islam has been around for 1400+ years and will only continue to grow. And that is a fact that you cannot argue.

The issue that I hope to be debated is primarily regarding issues within the Muslim world itself - and how to deal with issues such as those you all have mentioned (extremisim, gender inequality - which are all against Islam anyways) - as well as those issues that are more controversial (killing apostates, etc.).

"and poor hahmed, i think, was so bowled over that a westerner would take the time and effort to learn so much about his religion that he didn't even catch it."

For the record I am an American and consider myself liberal politically and agree with most of the socio-political issues that you all believe in. And I dont equate Islam with the actions of Muslims - its just the belief system and its traditional ideals that I stand by.

Norm, I won't do your homework, but here are some hints

Hey Dave when you make the argument you need to provide the links a link by the way that only partially makes your point. You can add to the ad hominem and appeal to authority, false dilemma.

Jeebus, that Economist commentary was nonsensical.

"Mental illness, abortion, failed marriages, illicit affairs and differing interpretations of religion: much as she tries, the kind of problems that Ms Hirsi Ali describes in “Infidel” are all too human to be blamed entirely on Islam."

Stating the obvious in an article of character assassination is absurd.

I didn't see the name of the writer on the site, but it seems that this is an implicit apology for islamic BS. The writer should own up.

Dionysus,

Let's be honest, the middle east has been destabilzed by three forces for the last 60 years: militarization in response to Israel, oil and the basic intolerent nature of totalitarian regimes.

We've made matters worse, no doubt. On that I'll agree. However, I stand by my statement that Muslim states need a secular democratic governments to be stable. Not because I don't see alternatives but because without them irrational Islamic dogma overwhelms rational policy making.

That said, I wish we could 'let them figure it out on their own,' but unfortunately for many Muslims, their countries are situated above something that is (also unfortunately) rather precious to us.

I have to say I'm surprised, and disappointed by the dialog I'm reading with respect to this clip. Considering the amount of religious criticism that Norm posts, I thought Ali would have been more well-received here.

Her appearance on Real Time was nothing short of superb! Because of the taboos in our culture around criticizing religion, we're not able to have honest discussions about how Islam conflicts with modernity. That's what makes Ali's words so refreshing.

Let me state that I'm a New York liberal who has nothing but contempt for our administration. What worries me about the way our government has conducted this war with the Islamic world, is that we do endless favors for bin Laden. On the one hand, when we invade other countries, detain people while denying them due process, and torture, we play into the hands of terrorists. Ali's point is that this is all true, and it's made worse by the fact we play into the terrorists hands by constantly apologizing and submitting to terrorists' threats. There is NO reason for anyone in the West to accept death threats against cartoonists, their dreadful treatment of women, the latent anti-semitism, beheadings, honor-killings, and general squashing of free speech that is rampant throughout the Islamic world. When American publications refused to publish the Danish cartoons, we capitulated to threats of violence in the most embarrassing way.

Ali made another wonderful point during the show about how far finding an alternative energy source to oil would go towards divesting our interest in the Middle East.

As much as I dislike the actions my country has taken in Iraq and Afghanistan, apologizing for someone else's dark aged dogma only makes things worse. Until we get over this and really start openly defending what we believe in, then what we do with guns and bombs will just look plain illegitimate.

"You should look into Ayaan Hirsi Ali's background."

We (in The Netherlands) did look into her background. We found she had lied about it every step of the way! She even lied about her name to get refugee status in The Netherlands (and when later elected in parliament argued for stricter immigration practices!).

She's the daughter of a Somali warlord, went to school in Kenya, where she enjoyed refugee status. She knew mentioning that status would ruin her chances of a life in Europe, so she lied about it, and used a false name and date of birth to gain political asylum and a 'residence permit' in The Netherlands.

She has been a bit of a loose canon for the Dutch conservative party (ironically calling itself the 'liberal' party) in the Dutch parliament (after first changing her allegiance from the labour party to conservative to get into parliament in the first place).

She's always convinced hers is the one and only truth (a former muslim that has become rabidly anti-muslim, much in the way someone who has quit smoking sometimes becomes more rabidly anti-smoking than a lifelong non-smoker).

Her shyness can initially be endearing, but when push comes to shove she's all about confrontation, almost religious in her fervor, and never interested in hearing the other person's point of view.

Jan,

Address the arguments not the person.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali speaks and writes the truth about Islam. The sooner we accept the truth of what she is articulating, the better off that we will be in the global war to protect our non-Muslim lives and what freedoms we have. It is simply loopy, if not self-suicide, for liberals as ourselves to accept the barbarity of Mohammed and the Koran as peaceful. I am shocked that people are not doing the research and just swallowing Muslim propaganda about their "religion." That Islam is peaceful is completely discredited and would be laughable were it not for what it is inflicting around the globe. "Takkiya" and "kitman" (please google those terms) make deceiving non-Muslims on the part of Muslims religiously sanctioned. Islam is in a constant state of war against non-Muslims, all of whom are given three choices: conversion, subservience as a "dhimmi" (please google) or death. 1400 years of evidence makes denying the truth of this foolhardy. "War is deceit" according to Mohammed and that is exactly what we are seeing unfold. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is stating easily discoverable facts about Islam and it is long past time that people do their research. I wrote Maher last year and scolded him for calling the alleged "prophet" liberal and tolerant". While Muslims can be both, Islamic belief is neither. Yesterday, I emailed him to applaud his recognition of what Islam actually holds and intends globally. It was very gratifying to see him acknowledge that Islam "was extremist to begin with...and that Mohammed was a warrior." Bill is a liberal atheist. He caught on to the big lie that all religions hold the same basically. Why cannot the rest of us? Muslims should be ashamed of what their religion is doing OR provide prove that Islamic terrorism does not have its roots explicitly in the teachings of Mohammed's "holy" book. Of course, they know it does and will do everything to make sure we do not know that until it is too late.

I know people who have been raised in Islam and have denounced the hypocrisy it is and I know people who are still immersed in Islam. I have read the news. I have done my research. I have read the attrocities committed in the name of Allah and Mohammed. Every evidence I see points to the fact that Islam wants a world dominated completely by shari'a law. I cannot tolerate the intolerance of Islam or any religion that would force people all think one way.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali's personal history of suppression and circucission, has left its scarves deeply on her psychology. She is disturbingly disbalanced in her ideas on Islam. I wish she would undergo psycho-analysis and find happiness.

I have seen little here from those who attack her personally on whether or not what she is articulating is actually true. Typical first tactic of takkiya and kitman.

i will never watch your show again. i was a fan, but now you have won my devout ire and disapproval.

your segment on Islam was utterly invidious, reductive and racist.

i possess a purely humble comprehension of world history and religion and still i could easily and flatly refute/castigate/excoriate the puerile arguments put forth on your show concerning Islam.

MANY fundamental facts were omitted (this is by no means an exhaustive enumeration):

1) Israel is so contested because it forcibly dispossessed hundreds of thousands of Palestinians of their land at gunpoint! Read: OCCUPATION. presumably something your are no espouser of. the Zionists weren't just acting 'independently', but egregiously, imperiously and violently. the state of Israel still is….

2) Jews were more than oppressed in Europe, without even mentioning the Holocaust (arguably the worst sadism in human history). suggestion: read up on medieval Middle East and Al-Andalus (Spain) to accrue some perspective on the historical commingling of the three mono-faiths.

3) the dhimma had few, if any, historical precedents. throughout history it offered unparallel protection to the Peoples of the Book. start reading!

4) all religions lend themselves to fanaticism, they are human projects. another injunction: think economics! - herein lies most roots of radicalism; the smokescreen of religion merely legitimates. in America, Christian America, Sikhs have been murdered for their turbans and atheists harassed and contemptuously expelled from their neighborhoods. what of the warmongering so generously springing forth from and spurred on by the pages of the Old and New Testament?

EVERY condemnation you and your guest (particularly the one who works for the AEI where OIL and WAR coalesce) are commensurately applicable to Christianity and Judaism and many other major and peripheral religions. however, conveniently facts were elided in order to predictably make space for a tendentious case exclusively against Islam. most of your arguments were saturated with polemical zeal, vast essentialisms, and blithe prejudice ---- presumptuous assumptions based wholly on western Orientalist dogma -- necessary for any sort of individual or societal concurrence!

Wonderful. thanks for pandering to the 'clash of civilizations' crowd. all we need is more historically baseless fuel for the fire, more polarizing vituperative mystification of what we deem as the barbarous East. indeed, what we really need is turn the tarnished mirror in our own direction, our reflection is what we have really come to seek, and it is the veritable monster.

Is Islam a religion of peace? If so, could someone explain this?

Sunnan Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4348: Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas: A blind man had a slave-mother (A slave-woman bearing children but not treated as a wife) who used to abuse the Prophet (peacebeuponhim) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (peacebeuponhim) and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet (peacebeuponhim) was informed about it. He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up. He sat before the Prophet (peacebeuponhim) and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her. Thereupon the Prophet (peacebeupon_him) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood."

I am not a hadith scholar - but I will do my best to explain this (as requested):

Not all forms of Blasphemy are punishable by death. For example, the Christians blaspheme according to Islam but that does not mean that Muslims go around killing them.

Read the hadith and note the mischievous behavior. She was told so many times not to continue with her behavior yet she went on and on. People who are not Muslims are free to practice their beliefs but they should respect other people’s beliefs. This woman had no respect for the beliefs of the father of her children. He on the other had tried to stop her from slandering and abusing a person whom he considered to be a Messenger of God and whom he loved more than he loves anyone. If someone would abuse your significant other/ father/ mother/ child everyday in front of you and slander them then you will not only get angry but also retaliate.

This person did the same. Muslims believe Muhammad to be the messenger of God and love him dearly - even more than they would love any of their loved ones - even more so than themselves.

There have been MANY instances in the life of Prophet(pbuh) where people have even thrown stones at him (google the incident of Taif) and he has responded by praying for them. There are countless hadith of Muhammad (pbuh) being tortured - and he himself refrained from any retribution.

The murderer- was a man who couldnt stand the suffering from the torment from the woman.

From my understanding, this doesnt mean its okay to kill some1 who torments the prophet (as is clearly the example from countless hadith) - but in this given case - his reaction - given his mental state where he was abused beyond toleration - his crime was not retributed.

However - for someone to use one hadith (there are hundreds of thousands of hadith) as justification for the murder of anyone who blasphemizes against Islam or ridicules the Prophet (peace be upon him) is not only wrong but quite reprehensible. I am not saying the hadith allows that. I am just offering an explanation for that hadith.

I hope that helps. Ive asked a scholar of hadith I know for further clarification, and if you like I can share that with you here as well.

I am an American Muslim. I consider myself a liberal New York Democrat. I have been raised a practicing Muslim and have never felt any conflict between my liberal democratic views with that of Islams. Of course there are some controversial issues that exist between the two - such as homosexuality, etc. - which I dont mean to completely dismiss; [there definitely are issues that need to be reconciled] but I really am disheartened when people - with whom I share political views - essential share the same rheteroric (just on the opposite spectrum) as my co-religionist extremists who look at the west as imperialistic infidels with no morals, etc. .

Just as I hope to be able to work with other Muslims to help explain to extremist muslims that the west isnt evil, it kills me that I have to do the same with my fellow Americans regarding Islam.

What the Jews have done or not done has nothing to do with the barbaric tenets of Islam or its murderous history.

Mohammed deserves nothing but disrespect for what he taught and what his followers follow.

Hamed, there can be no tolerance of intolerance.

Why is it that everyone who trivializes Ayaan Hirsi Ali's viewpoint by saying she is just a disturbed woman are all men? She is not the only woman to denounce islam and stand up for her rights as a human being.

Check out this blog report:

http://sugiero.blogspot.com/2007/03/germany-ex-muslim-says-islam-inherently.html

Arzu Toker grew up in Iran and refused to wear a headscarf. She was tossed out of university. Today, after 30 years of not being a muslim, she is still under death threats and needs police protection, even in Germany.

In America, if a religious group sucks you in and then kills you when you try to leave the fold, we call that a dangerous cult.

In Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabi, and many other countries if you try to leave Islam, you may be punished by death. It's the law. Shari'a law is INTOLERANT of humanity. Islam is inherently anti women.

Hahmed, Thank you for your response. I understand perfectly well that there are many Muslims who are peaceful. The problem is that there are too many who are not peaceful. There is a lot in the Qu'ran that I don't agree with at all, just as there is a lot in the Bible that I don't agree with at all. I do note that the moderate believers interpret these holy books in a different way that the fundamentalists do. But the fact remains that was is written in these holy texts is open to interpretation and depending upon how they're interpreted, it can be good or bad, depending upon one's point of view. What really bothers me, though, is that unlike a philosophical idea, what's written in a holy book is taken to be the word of a supreme being and thus not open to debate.

If someone would abuse your significant other/ father/ mother/ child everyday in front of you and slander them then you will not only get angry but also retaliate

I wouldn't like it, and I would defend my loved one, but I would never kill anyone! That's going a bit too far, and for this action to not have been condemned by the prophet is just wrong! I don't care how blasphemous the lady was - to kill her because of this is just sicko!

This person did the same. Muslims believe Muhammad to be the messenger of God and love him dearly - even more than they would love any of their loved ones - even more so than themselves.

This is awful to love a holy book and the belief system more than your loved ones. To my mind "the prophet" is but a representation of what is written in the Qu'ran, and this type of fanatical devotion can cause one to get overly angry at those who disagree and/or have no respect for some of the beliefs.

Hi Jo Ann, I've read the responses against Islam from the people here and they feel quite narrow.

Too often are they based on Middle East Musliam stereotypes.

The Muslims in many parts of Asia are quite different. In Indonesia and Malaysia, they are Muslim states, which are also thriving democracies.

And these 2 Muslim states firmly crack down on Islamic fundamentalism.

By the tenets of Islam, none of the Muslim terrorists practise Islam at all and they all will go to hell. The Koran has made it clear that Mohammad is against the killing of women and the innocent and that suicide will deny a faithful entry to the gates of Heaven < <

The notion that pointing out the vile and totalitarian tenets of Islam is to buy into stereo types is ludicrous.

Contrary to popular belief about Malaysia, Indonesia and Turkey, for that matter, these are only nominally democratic and in all of them, with the ascendancy of Islam, has come the destruction of non-Muslim places of worship and the persecution and killings of non-Muslims, let alone Islam's degrading treatment of women and gays. Again, do the research and start ignoring the Islamic propaganda. Islam has never been peaceful. The death of 70 million, yes, 70 million, Hindus by jihadists over the centuries should be attestation enough, but apparently not for some who fancy themselves knowledgeable about Islam.

The denial of what Islam has done historically, what it actually holds and is inflicting on non-Muslims is astounding. I am afraid that the apologists have it all wrong and they will be the first silenced, as all liberals are, when Islam rules a particular region. Narrow is not knowing about Islam's widely accepted, among virtually all Islamic scholars themselves, doctrine of abrogation, according to which all of the peaceful comments of the Koran, the earlier ones, are "corrected" by Mohammed's later edicts, which are extremely hateful of all non-Muslims and command their conversion, subjugation or death. It is simply intellectually dishonest for any of us to ignore these facts.

While it is technically true that killing innocents is forbidden by the Koran, it is important to realize what innocence means, in addition to most of those peaceful sounding pronouncements having been abrogated. All non-Muslims are not innocent in any manner for the simple fact that they are not Muslim.

Why is it so hard for some to see that Islam is not only extremely intolerant toward non-Muslims and the Enlightenment values that we hold, but that is has wrought little, but horror for those who encounter it and have had their cultures erased. Islam's 1400 year murderous history and it explicit use of terrorism for conquest, going all the way back to Mohammed's lived example itself, should be proof enough for any thinking liberal to realize that it is the most evil ideology on the planet.

Denial of the facts never aided anyone in argument.

GS protocol, your attacks on Islam is unfounded and baseless.

Malayaisa is nominally democractic? That is not true. I have lived and worked in Malaysia and it is not known for the "destruction of non-Muslim places of worship and the persecution and killings of non-Muslims".

Have you been to Indoneisa and Turkey as well before ascribing to them the totalitarian stereotype of Islam?

Christianity in its initial spread to Asia was guilty of far more bloodshed and intolerance.

As for your Enlightenment values, do note that the 500-year old Golden Age of Islam was highly tolerant of different faiths and was open to different ideas on science and philosophy.

One tangible benefit was that this Golden Age of Islam fave shelter to the Jews who were almost completely exterminated in Europe by Christian prosecution and these Jews were even given official positions in the Islamic government.

That was never the case in any so-called "Enlightened" Christian nation.

If you plan to bark up this tree any further, prepare your facts and sources. I have mine at hand.

Sorry, kes, your saying so does not make it so and does nothing to undo the discernibility and verifiability of the truth of what I wrote.

The millions who have been killed by jihad cannot be undone with your simple equivocations.

Even during the fabled and fabricated "Golden Age of Islam," non-Muslims were forced to live as persecuted dhimmis, second class citizens forced to suffer all sorts of humiliations and indignities, as they always have under Muslim rule, according to the dictates of the Koran and its author, Mohammed, the first Muslim terrorist, whose evil deeds are well celebrated in Islam's own "holy" texts.

Folks, please do not be fooled by the takkiya and kitman, i.e., Islamic deception. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is accurately portraying Islam. Thankfully, the internet is disallowing hiding the truth about Islam, an imperialist and totalitarian death cult, in a manner unprecedented. It is also why Islam is doomed to failed in the end of this struggle.

G5Protocol: With all due respect, You are a bigot.

You want to see the accurate portrayal of Islam. Here's a thought. I dont know where you live, but Im sure there is probably a local mosque somewhere near you. Why dont you go there, step inside, and just talk to a Muslim (we dont bite).

the internet is disallowing hiding the truth about Islam, an imperialist and totalitarian death cult, in a manner unprecedented. It is also why Islam is doomed to failed in the end of this struggle.

Keep living in your own fantasy world. The fact remains that Islam is still the worlds fastest growing religion in the west (Muslims will certainly be the majority in much of Europe by the end of the century; and there are already about as many Muslims in the US as there are Jews). Think about it, soon Muslims will overtake Christians as the world's most populous religion. Oh no! What are you going to do???? (in case you cant tell, im being sarcastic)

You can go on all you want about Islam being evil and never being peaceful. Spread the propaganda of lies all you want - but Islam will continue to grow, and you will continue to be a bigot.

And for the record - for you to complain about the status of dhimmis - while the rest of the world had slavery, Europe had prolonged history of exploiting Africa/Asia/Latin America, The United States basically committed a genocide against the Native Americans, women/african americans couldnt vote until the 20th century, etc. (Whereas freeing slaves was a pious act in Islam, women were given the right to own property, earn/keep their own money independent of their husbands, had the right to refuse arranged marriages, were considrered spiritually equal to men, held high scholarly positions (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/magazine/25wwlnEssay.t.html?ex=1330146000&en=f1934c7e2ec17b92&ei=5124&partner=facebook&exprod=facebook), etc.) - all 1400 years ago,.

Oh wait, you never thought of that. Of course not - because thats not what uve read on your Islamophobic websites. Sorry.

My religion and what I choose to believe is not something I am up for debating. -- hahmed

Well, then there is absolutely no reason for any sensible, level-headed person to listen to anything you have to say -- let alone reply to it. You are nothing less than a frantic, blind propagandist.

If you had a single, decent, honest bone in your body, you'd never dare to post here, pretending to be willing to engage in honest debate.

I initially thought it was pretty bad that you'd start this thread off with, "aw cmon... how could u post this," considering that this author is living under a death threat... It's like you think this woman is way off kilter saying that Islam is violent -- except she's living with a fucking death threat over her head, from Muslims -- do you comprehend the concept of irony?

Well here's what I just learned -- Hirsi Ali also produced, and wrote the script for the movie that Theo Van Gogh was murdered over -- and the murderer pinned a note to Van Gogh's chest, promising to to kill her also.

As a Muslim, were you aware of this?

As a human being -- as a rational human being -- how can you POSSIBLY come here and go "aw cmon... how could u post this," knowing this? If you didn't know this, but just learned it right now while reading this -- how can you possibly continue on being religious, and continue proclaiming Islam to be a religion of peace? How can you? How can you possibly do that?

Don't answer that -- I already know the answer -- you can do it simply because you have convinced yourself that your religion, and what you choose to believe is not up for discussion. Well, bitch... It is.

If you don't think it is, you have no damn business posting in this forum. In fact, you have no place in our civilized, Western culture at all.

Woah Dzwonka! (shocked look on face!).

There are many Christians who also believe that their religion and what they choose to believe is not something that they're up for debating. Does that mean that they don't belong here either? Not ALL Muslims are terrorists. Not ALL terrorists are Muslims.

Hahmed is a moderate and a supporter of the Democratic party and most of his ideals are similar to mine.

He is WELCOME in this country and I, personally, welcome his posts.

That said, I still have my reservations about SOME muslims though. For example, what is going on in the U.K. concerns me.

Four out of 10 British Muslims want sharia law introduced into parts of the country, a survey reveals today. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml

I'm concerned enough about the fundamentalist Christians here. All we need is sharia law. :(

Well, my prior post went to moderation, no doubt because of too many links, so I'll try agains, sans the direct links.

Kes said In Indonesia and Malaysia, they are Muslim states, which are also thriving democracies. And these 2 Muslim states firmly crack down on Islamic fundamentalism.

From what I've been reading, Malaysia is touted as being the example of how Islam and democracy are compatible and of how different religions can peacefully coexist with Islam. However, the more that I have read about Islam in Malaysia, the more that I feel that it is moderate only in comparison with fundamentalist Islam. Also, the politics in Malaysia are influenced by the minority Pan-Malaysia Islamic Party.

pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/muslims/portraits/malaysia.html Aida Melly Tan Mutalib has been trying for seven years to get a divorce from her abusive husband who already has married a second woman. (Islamic law in Malaysia allows Muslim men to marry up to four women.) Islamic law also grants men an automatic right to divorce; women like Aida must first prove their case before a judge if they want a divorce.

It is illegal to try to convert Muslims, but it is ok for Muslims to try to convert those of other religions.

According to many different sources that I read, such as Amnesty International "Islam is the official religion of multi-ethnic Malaysia where ethnic Malays, who by definition must be Muslim, form the majority". Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia expressly prohibits the propagation of any religion other than Islam to Muslims. If a Muslim wants to change religions, they have to be granted permission by an Islamic court, they have to attend repentance classes and there are criminal santions for apostacy in some states such as Perak, Malacca, Sabah, Terengganu, and Pahang, such sanctions being determined by the individual states.

In April 2000, the state of Perlis passed a Shari’a law subjecting Islamic "deviants" and apostates to 1 year of "rehabilitation" (under the Constitution, religion, including Shari’a law, is a state matter). Leaders of the opposition Islamic party, PAS, have stated the penalty for apostasy — after the apostates are given a period of time to repent and they do not repent — is death.

I'm not sure if the above law has ever been carried out or challenged though. Nonetheless, the fact that anyone would even consider such a thing is cause for alarm as to the possible influence of Islam.

nytimes.com/2006/08/24/world/asia/24malaysia.html?ex=1173070800&en=026f2176b024cabd&ei=5070 The case of Lina Joy Five years ago she started proceedings in the civil courts to seek the right to marry her Christian fiancé and have children. Because she had renounced her Muslim faith, Ms. Joy, 42, argued, Malaysia’s Islamic Shariah courts, which control such matters as marriage, property and divorce, did not have jurisdiction over her. In a series of decisions, the civil courts ruled against her Threats against Ms. Joy had become so insistent, and the passions over her conversion so inflamed, he had concluded there was no room for her and her fiancé in Malaysia. The most likely solution, he said, was for her to emigrate. For Malaysia, which considers itself a moderate and modern Muslim country with a tolerance for its multiple religions and ethnic groups of Malays, Indians and Chinese, the case has kicked up a firestorm that goes to the very heart of who is a Malay, and what is Malaysia. In rulings in her case, civil courts said Malays could not renounce Islam because the Constitution defined Malays to be Muslims. They also ruled that a request to change her identity card from Muslim to Christian had to be decided by the Shariah courts. There she would be considered an apostate, and if she did not repent she surely would be sentenced to several years in an Islamic center for rehabilitation.

And here is a blog which discusses the Joy situation and the views of these Malaysians are frightening. http://www.jim.org.my/module2.php?module=artipil&id=38

If Malaysia is an example of moderate Islam, I have to say that what is considered moderate for some seems extreme to me.

The historical and ideological evidence is overwhelming, hahmed. Islam as an ideology is far more evil than Nazism and Communism ever were, even if combined.

bigoted |ˈbigətid| |ˌbɪgədəd| |ˌbɪgətɪd| adjective obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions : a bigoted group of reactionaries. expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance : a thoughtless and bigoted article.

We are not talking about opinions here, but discernible and verifiable historical and ideological fact and attacking me personally does nothing to the truth of what I wrote. I am a liberal atheist and extremely tolerant, as long as one's views do not impose themselves on others, unlike Islam, but there is not much worse than being tolerant of evil and intolerance. If you want to find evil and intolerance take a close look at the history and ideology of your own totalitarian political system that masquerades as a religion. Islam crumbles under any measure of criticism or scrutiny. Hence, the Muslim need to silence people by falsely calling them bigots or racists, even though Islam is not a race.

I would hasten to add that hahmed is a poor Muslim for the simple fact that he is in no way emulating his "prophet." Surely, if you were doing so, I would have already lost my head by now. You guys crack me up! LOL!

All celebrated in the Koran, Hadith and Sira, Mohammed, in point of historical fact, was a murderer (often beheading so-called "infidels" himself), thief (his raids on innocent people are well documented), liar ("takiyya" and "kitman" - lying is justified in Islam so long as it furthers global Islamic domination), enslaver (the well documented fate of women and children conquered by Muslims, the men usually being beheaded) , slave owner (still practiced in many Islamic countries and I would note that the U.S. slave trade is dwarfed by that of Islam, both being evil), rapist (allowing himself and his followers such as war booty), misogynist (women are chattel, worth only half that of a man, a woman can only receive half of her husband's inheritance (assuming he has only one wife) and, if a woman is raped, a Sharia court will require four male witnesses to the act, something that is nearly impossible and also means that her words are worth 1/4 in an Islamic court than that of a man's), homophobe (explicitly calling for gays to be killed in the most excruciating of manners and pedophile (his youngest wife was six years old, but he was a nice fellow and did not "deflower" her until she was nine [insert sarcasm]).

This is the "perfect" example of a man that true Muslims follow and why I would claim that you are a poor Muslim for not following his example. And you call me a bigot? LOL! You are either a poor Muslim or practicing "takiyya" and "kitman." When liberals finally realize, as Bill Maher noted, what Islam's real intentions are, it is all over for political Islam in the U.S. You see, hahmed, this country at least strives for tolerance. In Islam, extreme intolerance is built into the system. It is a purely bigoted and racist ideology.

GSProtocl, you are the one tryin g to mislead people with your equivocatuions.

I don't have to take any of your words against Islam at face value. Unlike you, I have been to moderate Musliam democracies like Turkey, Malaysia and Indonesia.

Kindly point out when did "destruction of non-Muslim places of worship and the persecution and killings of non-Muslims" occue in thsoe nations?

If you can't, please restract your statement or you are clearly trying to mislead or lie to the people here about Islam.

Kindly also prove your statements that "millions who have been killed by jihad".

What millions? jihad is a relately new phenomena in Islam? Or are you referring to the Crusades?

I am well aware that Christianity is responsible for killing millions throughout history with its inquisions, prosecutions and religious wars.

One good example is the Europe's Reformation and Counter Reformation Era. Two thirds of the Christian population of Europe was slaughtered by Christians. Germany's population dropped from 18 million to 4 million during the 30 years war. < <

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/christian/blfaqviolreformation.htm

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#Carol

The next good example is the 6 million Jews killed by Christian Nazis, an ethnic cleansing which is directly linked to the hundred-year old tradition of anti-Semitim in Christian Europe. The German, Martin Luther, who led the Protestant movement was a great proponent of anti-semitist thoughts. Just read his treatise of 1543: "On the Jews and Their Lies."

I am not a Muslim but I will always engage those who try to whitewash history in favour of their agendas. Sorry, problem with being an ex-history student. < <

Jo Ann, good points about Malaysia. I will try to counter.

One, Malaysia's religious law on conversion apply only to Muslims, with no other races or religious faithful. Please note that in Indonesia, the edict against conversion is not as strong.

I'm fine with that actually because as a Muslim, you should know that you need to live by the tenets of Islam.

However, there are no parallel religious courts that subvert or challenege the secular rule of law in Indonesia and Malaysia, unlike the case in Pakistan where a woman may be gang-raped as punishment for flirting with another man.

My only beef with the situation in Indonesia and Malaysia is with the religious edict that a man or woman must become a Muslim if the partner is Muslim.

I do not think this is extreme as there are restrictions based on gender and religion in other countries. We have seen that Jewish and Christian religious dogma is also prejudiced against women and a lot of issues.

But do we call them extreme?

Btw, Malaysia and Indonesia has cracked down firmly on Islamic fundamentalist groups since 2001.

Moderate Musliam form the majority of the Muslims in these 2 countries. And they are firmly against the idea of using violence to advance religious objectives.

Notice how those who have attacked what I have written also are negative about Ayaan Hirsi Ali and that they never address what is raised in terms of Mohammed's lived example or if Islam actually holds these things. The intellectual dishonesty is hilarious and gratifying and there seems to be a delusion that deriding one's character is sufficient to undoing what is factually stated. Islam's apologists mock themselves without realizing that they do so. Moderate Muslim countries! LOL! What a hoot!

GS Protocl again tries to mislead people with this sentence:

"... Notice how those who have attacked what I have written also are negative about Ayaan Hirsi Ali and that they never address what is raised in terms of Mohammed's lived example or if Islam actually holds these things."

I have never commented on Ayaan Hirsi Ali at this thread or any other post. And I have made it clear that the tenets of Islam are not uphold by Islamic fundamentalism. < <

None of the Muslim terrorists practise Islam at all and they all will go to hell.

Mohammad was against the killing of women and the innocent and that suicide will deny a faithful entry to the gates of Heaven. GSProtocol is clearly trying to misrepresent Islamic fundamentalism as a real picture of Islam. < <

I will advise him to try to do that with Christian fundamentalism which has killed millions more than any other religions on the face of this planet.

Kes, persecution of Dhimmi non-muslims happens every day, even in Turkey. Just a few days ago a church was vandalized and stoned.

http://www.compassdirect.org/en/display.php?page=news&lang=en&length=long&idelement=4751

Do you not remember all the protests against dhimmi christians during the Pope's recent visit? It seems to me you are ignoring the facts you ask for.

In retrospect, I am inclined to view any religion that advocate the idea of a holy war or crusade to be worthy of being FOREVER removed from the minds of impressionable children.

The idea that war can ever be holy is morally repugnant.

I'm glad that the Catholic Church in Europe were able to apologise, 500-6000 years late, for leading the invasion of the Middle East during the time of Crusades under the pretext of holy war.

Greg, you are the one misrepresenting the facts in Turkey.

Since when does the action of a Islamic fundamentalist group like the Turkish Vengeance Brigade is seen as a reflection of the country's policy? < <

Korea's Christians have engaged in high profile attacks and burnings of Korean Buddhist temples since 1999. But will you call it as Korea is actively prosecuting Buddhists and destroying their temples?

Christians in several parts of Asia are attacking Buddhists, a trend that started since Christian missionary activies began. But do we call the nations where such attacks happen as anti-Buddhist? Or do we call the actual attackers anti-Buddhist?

I have clearly stated that the moderate Muslim nations of Turkey, Malaysia and Indonesia do not prosecute non-muslims nor destroy their areas of worship. This is the fact. < <

Woah Dzwonka! (shocked look on face!). There are many Christians who also believe that their religion and what they choose to believe is not something that they're up for debating. Does that mean that they don't belong here either? Not ALL Muslims are terrorists. Not ALL terrorists are Muslims. Hahmed is a moderate and a supporter of the Democratic party and most of his ideals are similar to mine.

If you don't believe that your religious views should be up for debate, and decline to take part in a debate on religion, at least you are being marginally honest -- if you engage in a debate with the caveat that your own views and opinions must never be challenged, you are being insincere; you're a hypocrite. It's like taking part in a competition, but demanding that the score will only be counted if you win.

To answer your question, yes, I don't think Christians who wants evolution banned from our schools, belong in our society. Christians who fight stem-cell research -- same thing. Rationality is the one leg up we've got on all other creatures. And religiousity -- with all it's illogical, hateful nonsense -- is the biggest hinderance to our progress.

I normally reserve my religious critique for Christianity simply because I grew up a Christian, in a Christian culture. But all religions are false, and it seems as if it is politically incorrect to critique Islam. Bah humbug.

A moderate religious person is simply a stepping-stone for the fanatics; an illusion of legitemacy for the fundementalists to hide behind. The Christian moderates of this country are the reason why evil men like Robertson and Fallwell can stay in business, make their millions, call for murder and mayhem, and blame acts of terrorism on gays, feminists and secularists.

All that is needed for evil to happen, is for good men to do nothing -- well, those moderates are those so-called good men. And I don't think they are good at all. They enable evil; they support it. And by defending them, so do you.

Why must we always compare the attrocities of one religion against another? I have a problem with all religions, but the topic here is Islam. Do we negate the attrocities of Islam becasue of what Christians in Korea are doing? It's not about who's worst. It's about what's right and what's wrong.

Voxton //They enable evil; they support it. And by defending them, so do you. //

I do not support them. I will never say, though, that they don't belong in this country. That is intolerance and I am 100% against intolerance. I don't like the "American, love it or leave it" crowd either. To tell Hahmed that he doesn't belong here is hate and intolerance that I do not approve of. I will argue against beliefs that I disagree with but I will engage in intolerance.

I don't like Christianity at all and I like Islam even less. But by reading the comments on this thread, I am beginning to be a bit concerned about intolerance towards Muslims.

How would you feel if the Christians said that atheists don't belong in this country?

Greg said "Why must we always compare the attrocities of one religion against another? I have a problem with all religions, but the topic here is Islam. Do we negate the attrocities of Islam becasue of what Christians in Korea are doing? It's not about who's worst. It's about what's right and what's wrong.

Well stated Greg.

Kes, I agree with you on your assessment of Christianity but you seem to be downplaying the problems with Islam. Why are you so critical of Christianity and yet you give Islam a free pass?

I said above "but I will engage in intolerance."

Obviously I meant to say "but I will not engage in intolerance"

Greg and Jo Ann, I'm not downplaying anything. Please read what I wrote again.

Greg, you are the one misrepresenting the facts in Turkey.

Since when does the action of a Islamic fundamentalist group like the Turkish Vengeance Brigade is seen as a reflection of the country's policy? < <

Korea's Christians have engaged in high profile attacks and burnings of Korean Buddhist temples since 1999. But will you call it as Korea is actively prosecuting Buddhists and destroying their temples? < <

Christians in several parts of Asia are attacking Buddhists, a trend that started since Christian missionary activies began. But do we call the nations where such attacks happen as anti-Buddhist? Or do we call the actual attackers anti-Buddhist?

I have clearly stated that the moderate Muslim nations of Turkey, Malaysia and Indonesia do not prosecute non-muslims nor destroy their areas of worship. This is the fact.

The issue here is whether the contries are prosecuting a religion as a policy, rather than a group of extremists trying to attack a religion. < <

More importantly, the strict rules imposed by Islam affects the Muslims most. And as a Muslim, they should know that they need to live by the tenets of Islam. If not, why become a Muslim?

That is intolerance and I am 100% against intolerance. ... I don't like Christianity at all and I like Islam even less. But by reading the comments on this thread, I am beginning to be a bit concerned about intolerance towards Muslims. How would you feel if the Christians said that atheists don't belong in this country?

(I'm sure you realized, but just to make sure Voxton=Dzwonka -- sometimes the login cookie seems to get confused here.)

I'm against intolerance too. I'm concerned about how a Sikh was killed in the aftermath of 9/11, by ignorant, intolerant Americans -- and I'd be no less concerned if they had killed someone who actually was Muslim, of course.

That's one thing. This is an entirely different thing. This author -- like Salman Rushdie -- has a death threat hanging over her head. DO I NEED TO BE TOLERANT OF THAT? Hell no!

And unless a Muslim denounces death threats being made against blasphemers and apostates, she or he is being intolerant. Just like a Christian is intolerant if they do not denounce abortion-clinic shooters.

Tolerance does not mean accepting intolerance.

And Jo Ann, surely you are jesting with that last one? (Or are you leading me on? It being the Internets and all, I can't tell by your tone of voice, facial expression or body language -- but just in case, Bush senior already covered that one).

Dzwonka, I was just concerned about your comment to Hahmed that he doesn't belong here. On re-reading what you said, I see that you meant that his notion of his religion being immune to discussion is what is not welcome. Still, when you said to Hahmed, "In fact, you have no place in our civilized, Western culture at all", it made me wince. These kinds of comments feel too much like intolerance to me. Hahmed's a moderate Muslim, although his love of his religion is something that I find a bit unsettling.

You're discussing not being tolerant of certain ideas and of course that makes sense. But to tell someone such as Hahmed that he doesn't belong here is being intolerant towards him as a person.

The problem with all of these back and forth posts is that it is not always clear exactly what a person is trying to say.

I don't know what you mean by "that last one".

Actually on re-reading the following comment by Hahmed, I'm beginning to wonder if he does condone violence towards those who mock the prophet.

Nonetheless, I sincerely do believe my religion to be the Truth, as do 1.5 billion other people in this world. And if anyone does go onto disrespect the beliefs of my religion, all 1.5 billion of us will take it as a personal attack against us (although some of us will obviously respond to it in different manners). Thats just the fact of the matter and nothing you say or can argue will change it. And by disrespect I mean ridicule/mock - not disagree.

At least Christians here in the U.S. don't resort to violence when Jesus is mocked.

Kes, You gave examples of Indonesian and Malaysian states cracking down on Islamic fundamentalism with the following statement.

The Koran has made it clear that Mohammad is against the killing of women and the innocent and that suicide will deny a faithful entry to the gates of Heaven

Well, thank goodness they're cracking down on killing women! When we speak of Chrisitian fundamentalists today, we're not talking about murder. And yes, I know that we can go back in history and discuss all of the problems with Christianity. But in contemporary society, it is the Islamic fundamentalists who are much more extreme than any Christian fundamentalist is. The Christian here in the U.S. wants prayer in school, the Ten Commandments displayed on public property, and many other things that the average Muslim also is in favor of. But at least the Christians aren't going around the world killing civilians via fatwa death threats and suicide bombings.

Kes, what do you think about the situation with Aida Melly Tan Mutalib? Do you not find that a bit extreme that Islamic law grants men an automatic right to divorce, while women must prove their case?

Don't you find it a bit extreme that it is illegal to try to convert Muslims?

Kes, you said

One, Malaysia's religious law on conversion apply only to Muslim

The problem as I stated previously is that Islam is the official religion of Malaysia where ethnic Malays, who by definition must be Muslim. Do you not find this to be extreme? And even if the religious law on conversion only applies to ethnic Malays and other Muslims, do you not still find this to be extreme? At least the Christians are free to leave their religion if they want to for crying out loud!

Kes, you said

Since when does the action of a Islamic fundamentalist group like the Turkish Vengeance Brigade is seen as a reflection of the country's policy?

Is it not obvious that there are all of these Islamic fundamentalist groups who are much more extreme than any of the Christian fundamentalists?

I'm sorry, but it is much easier to build Mosques in Christian countries than it is to build Christian churches in Muslim countries. Overall, I find Christians to be much more tolerant and less extreme than Muslims.

Actually on re-reading the following comment by Hahmed, I'm beginning to wonder if he does condone violence towards those who mock the prophet.

Just to clarify - of course I would condemn such violence.

I would definitely be upset - but of course I wouldnt resort to getting violent.

Jo Ann, it is not intolerant to take a stance against the death threats Muslims make against their critics. If you debate an issue, and some nut threatens to kill someone because they offer a differing opinion, that nut doesn't belong in the debate. Nor does anyone who supports the nut.

Tolerance does not mean being tolerant of intolerance.

I don't know what you mean by "that last one".

-- "Do you support the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?" -- "I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God."

That's Bush Sr.

Do you support the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"

Huh? What does this have to do with me and anything that I have said? You asked me "And Jo Ann, surely you are jesting with that last one?".. What last one?! I still don't get it. I never said what you quoted above. hmmm

Hahmed never threatened to kill anyone. All I have been talking about in regards to your intolerance is your comment to Hahmed that he doesn't belong here.

Hi Jo Ann, the only reason why I am in this thread is to remind people to not just use stereotypes from Middle East countries to judge Islam. Turkey, Indonesia and Malaysia are more more tolerant Islamic democractic states. < <

I will tell you frankly that it is also problematic building temples in Christian countries like Korea as it is to build mosques in Islamic countries. By your reasoning, both Christianity and Islam can be seen as intolerant. I'm fine with leaving this as this.

Christian fundamentalists support the war in the Middle East as a just war against Islam. Their blind support for Isreal and its atrocities in the Middle East to bring about the second coming of Christ has resulted in the slughter of tens, if not hundreds of thousands, of Arab civilians with 4.75 million Palestinians living in refugee camps. < <

I do find Christian fundamentalists to be capable of far more violence and hatred than Islamic fundamentalists based on the history of both religions.

Christians have killed more people than any other faithful and most of the other people killed by Christians are other Christians and the Jews. The figures and the facts do not lie about which group of religious extremism is the most extreme. < <

Jo Ann, the law making it illegal to try to convert Muslims has some merits.

The only religious group that benefits from freedom to preach are Christians whose conversion activities have been responsible for destroying much of the social fabric and local cultures in the country of Asia.

Be mindful that a religion that preaches that loyalty should only be given to God and His Laws can be detrimental or even seditious to the local governance of the region. I don’t see anyone defending Jehovah’s Witness, which is banned in many countries as it forbids its faithful from taking arms or swearing an oath of allegiance to one’s own home and nation. < <

For any religion that preached intolerance and blasphemy to local customs, traditions and practices with little if any understanding, they should be banned from preaching their dubious faiths.

Let’s talk freedom to preach if you can first guarantee a tolerant way of preaching that does not destroy the social fabric and even families, which is something Christianity is guilty of doing in Asia since its entry in the region. Buddhism can do it, so why can’t Christianity? Freedom comes with responsibility. It is not a blank check for causing anarchy in other countries and causing families to splinter or shatter. < <

Jo Ann, I have also made it clear that I do not agree with or support any of Islam’s rules that prejudice women, especially in the case of marriage and their punishment for rapes and infidelity. Remember that I do have a code of honour that is based on tradtional values and chivalry. < <

You have to understand why ethnic Malays, who by definition, must be Muslim. They are born in a Muslim family and raised in Islam. Just as a Christian child who undergoes the same thing.

As for the rules and prejudices that constrain a Muslim child, they are applied differently in different Muslim countries.

Examples of religious exceptionalism come in all forms.

It is also not easy or impossible to leave certain Christian sects or cults. Or to be gay for that matter.

I will state again that I have a lot of issues with Judiam, Christianity and Islam with regards to the ways that they ostracise or suppress gender, free will and legitimize religious violence. I don’t want to defend these 3 religions, all of which claimed that ONLY its faithful will be saved and that all other religions are false. < <

GSProtocal, you are guilty of distorting a historical fact.

GSProtocal's false claim that 70 million Hindus are killed by jihadists is only possible by distrotign history. < <

Much of the killings between Hindus and Muslims mostly occur in India where religious conflicts between the 2 religion has resulted more or less in a status quo of mutally assured destruction i.e. nuclear race between India and Pakistan.

However many, if not most of the Hindus killed by Muslims are killed by the Mongolian invaders of India, who were not originally Muslim. The Mongols originally practise a form of shamanism. < <

The Mongols later converted to different religions from the different regions where they have successfully invaded and occupied.

I have encountered such intellectual dishonesty at other pro-Christin or Christian apologists websites that even try to blame the Mongol's bloody slaughter of Buddhism.

Frankly speaking, I'm really tired of people who try to mislead others, consciously or not, because they don't verify their sources or check their "facts". No offense intended. Just calling it as it is.

Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald first makes the claim that the mass mudrder of 60-70 million Hindus "over 250 years of Mughal rule", who were not jihadists as GS Protocal said. < <

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/009275.php

The Mughal Empire was established by the Timurid prince Babur from a Muslim dynasty of originally Mongolian descent, established by the Central Asian warlord Timur. Before becoming Muslims, the Mongols were already known for their cruelty against the people they fought and the countries they invaded.

By your reasoning, both Christianity and Islam can be seen as intolerant

Yes, I do see them as both intolerant. In fact, some atheists are also intolerant.

do find Christian fundamentalists to be capable of far more violence and hatred than Islamic fundamentalists based on the history of both religions.

Yes, based on the history of both. But in today's world, the Islamic fundamentalists are far more violent than the Christian fundamentalists.. no contest.

Be mindful that a religion that preaches that loyalty should only be given to God and His Laws can be detrimental or even seditious to the local governance of the region

The Christians use this same argument to say that atheism has no place in the U.S. because the U.S. is a country where 98% of the population believes in God. I just don't buy this argument at all. As Dzwonka pointed out, George Bush Sr considers atheists to be somewhat seditious if we continue along the line of thought that you're using here.

You have to understand why ethnic Malays, who by definition, must be Muslim. They are born in a Muslim family and raised in Islam. Just as a Christian child who undergoes the same thing.

No, I don't understand why this is acceptable. And it is not the same thing with Muslims in Malaysia and Christians. The ethnic Malays are by definition Muslim even if they don't want to be and they have to stand before other Muslims in order to exercise their freedom to choose another religion. Christians are free to choose another religion if they want to.

It is also not easy or impossible to leave certain Christian sects or cults.

The Muslims in Malaysia have to go to court to leave their religion. Christians can just leave. Besides, there is a huge difference between a cult and an entire country. Christians may feel the pressure from within the cult, but this type of coercion is not sanctioned by the state.

will state again that I have a lot of issues with Judiam, Christianity and Islam with regards to the ways that they ostracise or suppress gender, free will and legitimize religious violence. I don’t want to defend these 3 religions, all of which claimed that ONLY its faithful will be saved and that all other religions are false.

Finally, something we can both agree with! :)

Kes, sorry but it is obvious that you are going out of your way to excuse the irrational and extreme beliefs of the Muslims.

Hi Jo Ann, I'm not excusing Muslims of anything. Islam is indeed more insular as compared to Christianity and Judiasm. I'm just against people using PURELY Middle East streotypes to judge Islam and Muslims, especially when Muslim laws are applied differently in different countries. < <

For example, the Islam practised in Indonesia is far more relaxed when it comes to religious rules such as conversions. And there are conversions. This religious rule is not rigourously pursued by the government of Indonesia, as well as the rule that a man or woman marrying a Muslim must convert.

Be mindful that a religion that preaches that loyalty should only be given to God and His Laws can be detrimental or even seditious to the local governance of the region. The early Christians in Asia use their religion as a pretext to attack religious dwellings, other faitful and even the government of their own country. For more information, study the history of Japan and the facts behind the so-called Japanaese martyrs. < <

This is a different argument from the one Christians is using against atheism, in that the early Christians in Asia were seditious, religious fanatics who were sold on religious violence. I don't see athesists in US doing that.

Are you seditious, Jo Ann? Or just being an inquisitive and naughty contrarian?

My apologies for my poor attempt at a joke.

Shall we just compare apples with apples? For I will never equate "atheists" with Christians seditionists.

By the way the Christian conservatives and the right wing in US are making a false case against atheists based on their premise that USA is meant to be a Christian nation. Your founding fathers never meant that for America. So why use their spin?

By the way, Rafidah Aziz is the Malaysian Minister of International Trade and Industry for many years and she is a Maylay woman who does not cover her head. This position is a powerful one as she bestow economic largesse to different people. < <

Are you seditious, Jo Ann? Or just being an inquisitive and naughty contrarian?

LOL... Thanks Kes.

Peace. :)

Hi Jo Ann, no worries. You can drop me an email anytime if you want to chat more on this.

I do not want to dominate this thread or post anything more for that matter.

I'm caught up with a lot of advertising changes with the stock market collaspe in so many countries.

It's a bad time for doing stock-related advertising for financial institutions at the moment.

Jo Ann, here's what I referenced:

How would you feel if the Christians said that atheists don't belong in this country?
-- Jo Ann

Bush Sr. already said that he did not think Atheists should be considered citizens of this country. How do I feel about that? Not very good (just to answer that obvious question).

That is a very far cry from what I said. I never said that Muslims, Christians, Mormons or Flying Spaghetti Monster worshipers do not belong in this country (or rather, on this forum). I think that people who say, "I want to be able to critique YOUR beliefs, but you have no right to critique MY beliefs" have no place in a civilized society -- whatever your faith is. That's a big difference.

As Dzwonka pointed out, George Bush Sr considers atheists to be somewhat seditious

Uh, okay, I see you got it. Well good. I'll leave the above in anyhow...

A final note: being an atheist in a predominantly Christian culture, Christians may view you as seditious, and that's bad. But it is even worse when a representative of another religion treats you as a friend, because they view their enemies' enemy as their friend. Hence, you need to be aware of the travesties of Islam, as much of that of Christianity.

"I am afraid that the apologists have it all wrong and they will be the first silenced, as all liberals are, when Islam rules a particular region. " - G5Protocol

Your inept juggling of totalitarianisms in that brain of yours has finally borne you poor chance my desperate and caustic friend.

There has NEVER been a liberal land that has succumbed to Islam in general, Islamism in specific, Islamic fundamentalism or Radical Islam.

Your posts amuse me with poor developed fiction. Please continue.

I appears that ad hominems are regarded as suitable means of argumentation for Muslims and their apologists.

As I stated earlier, the evidence is overwheling for anyone responsible enough to look in the belly of the beast that is Islam.

The only beast I see are the unthinking hubris that characterise all faiths that hold themselves as the only truth and its followers as the chosen people. < <

Such faiths have resulted in the killings of millions worldwide through the passage of time in religious orgy of violence.

Yep, I'm referring to Christianity, Judaism and Islamd.

GSProtocol, The crimes of these 3 religions against humanity takes places within a matrix of their unthinking violence againstr one another. Trying to condemn just one of these 3 religions allows the other 2 to get off scot free. < <

"I appears that ad hominems are regarded as suitable means of argumentation for Muslims and their apologists."

No, definitely not, but ad hominems are suitable means of argumentation against you.

"As I stated earlier, the evidence is overwheling for anyone responsible enough to look in the belly of the beast that is Islam."

'belly of the beast' LOL, you're too much. I quickly disregarded all of your information you lifted from The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam. Your motivation for arguing many of these points seems to solely be the "Bigger Dick Foreign Policy" outlined by George Carlin's 1992 standup "Jammin' in New York". "What? They have bigger dicks? BOMB THEM!".