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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shalom.

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

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

heres a link to the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998

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

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

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

(the action against the iranian military- first in history

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

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

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

thanks for calling my attention to that-

that really made my night-

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

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

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

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

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

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

this is a poor relating-

but the point (for me) is this-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

thanks for the heads up
that really mde my night
peace

Victoria,

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

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

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

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

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

Most patient and kind Muslim:
- Victoria

...

Hi Victoria,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

that took a second to sink in ,

doesnt that mean they were helpful?

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

not unhelpful

that really blew my little mind

rick- really excellent question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

so im delighted to give his link on apostasy

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

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

also it is not in the qu'ran at all

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

so the answer is uneqivocally NO.
yay

but great question

CTCNL,

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

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

The Solar Village

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

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

Neat stuff!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Victoria,

You say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

FRENCH INTELLECTUALS LOVE AYAAN HIRSI ALI-

"Make Hirsi Ali honorary French citizen"
23 October 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

why should a female be a woman doctor?

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

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

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

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

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

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

this isn't idle or inconsequential

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

it is taboo to even suggest such a false thing-

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

okay, enough of that for now.

peace

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks Victoria,

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

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

Thanks again for the clarification!

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

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

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

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

the turkish caliphate descended predictably into corruption and indolence.

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

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

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

the last caliphate was destroyed in turkey in 1924.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

she is even today virulently hated by shia.

what is it that made you think the opposite?

Thanks for the clarification Victoria.

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

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

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

good posts rick-

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

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

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

it is actually an enormous distinction between shia-sunni.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CTCNL,

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

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

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

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

CTCNL,

Point #6:

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

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

CTCNL,

Point #5:

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

CTCNL,

Point #4:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CTCNL,

Point #3:

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

Islamic Republic of Iran (21)

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

Republic of Iraq (28)

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

CTCNL,

Point #2:

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

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

From the above link:

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

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

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

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

CTCNL,

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

You say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

CTCNL,

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

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

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

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

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

By HNN Staff

Updated 12/18/06

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rick,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CTCNL,

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

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

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

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

Rick,

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

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

Good Morning CTCNL,

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

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

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

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

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

Victoria,

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

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

http://www.ammanmessage.com/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God says in the Holy Qur'an says:

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

there you have it-

heres your coordinated fatwa against terrorism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by INGRID MATTSON

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

what is our response to that?

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

you cant have it both ways-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

wow you guys sure do hate muslims.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.israelipalestinianprocon.org/

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

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

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

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

136 people dead
the biggest terrorist death toll in pakistan

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

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

ok, thats all for now
peace

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

defunct

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

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

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

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

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

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

so your observation-

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

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

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

but because i already know that fatwas have no validity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

go google fatwa and be surprised

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

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

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

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

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

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

And why are "millions" of Iraqis displaced?

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

What do you think about this Victoria?

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

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

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

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

More good news compliments of our favorite terrorist state US_Israel.

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

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

David says:

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

Here is the map that is relevant:

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

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

Here is a summary of the Brief History of Palestine:

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

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

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

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

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

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

dave-i dont even know what youre referring to-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

no dave- the house of war isnt in the quran

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

suddenly these are "good" scholars to you?

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

think what you want dave-

(didnt we already have this discussion?)

Wow, Ender makes Victoria seem truthful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rick stays, not unsurprisingly, in denial.

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

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

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

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

How jihadist of her.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HIRSI ALI SAYS- AMERICA IS MY HOME-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

does that nclude mr patel? or just hindu indians?

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

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

does that nclude mr patel? or just hindu indians?

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

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

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

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

im watching the dalai lama speaking now-

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

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

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

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

now they are stuck with them-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

your statement which alarmend rick, alarms me also-

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

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

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

my ideas are just as valuable and important as yours-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

we all have them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello again Magnus,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rick is myopic..

Det svider i hjärtat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good Morning Magnus,

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

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

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

You say:

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

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

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

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

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

CTCNL says,

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

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

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

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

CTCNL says:

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

Rick: "What nationality and religion are you?"

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

Rick: "Anon that wants to expel Victoria,"

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

Rick: "What nationality and religion are you?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He is labelling her a profiteer and her discourse shallow.

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

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

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

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

I think you see my point.

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

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

Love, Brothers and Sisters is what brings peace.
Cody

David says:

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

And:

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

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

CODY- i encourage you to reread mr patels article-

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

here are the most personal ones i could find-

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

A DENUNCIATION of her attackers-

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

literary critique, both positive and negative

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

outright support

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

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

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

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

peace

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

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

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

and finally, ms hirsi is a stated atheist-

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

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

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

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

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

really- censorship is censorship

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

Victoria:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Love, Brothers and Sisters, is what brings peace.

Cody

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

that is a rather hilarious contention that i am silent-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

they are responsible for their anger fear and paranoia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cody

Rick..

You forgot to scream: "ALLAH ACKBAR!"

Mike,

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

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

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

Rick-

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

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

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

Anon that wants to expel Victoria,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

every single point wrong dave-

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

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

do it yourself!

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

Love ya!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TeresaG -

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

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

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

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

Aya: Are you really serious?

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

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

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

Victoria, so many lies in such a short space.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Islam and western style democracy are mutually exclusive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep up the good work

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AND EBOO HAS THE TEMERITY TO BE DISGUSTED WITH HER?

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

"Victoria-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So you reject 9:5.

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

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

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

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

Deepdiver:

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

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

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

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

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

Love, Brothers and Sisters, is what brings peace.

Dear Mr Patel,

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

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

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

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

Hi Victoria,

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

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

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

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

Peace

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

Muslims are now universally despised for several reasons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

holy canolli batman the headbangers are banging away-

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

where, for example, do you propose i go?

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

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

and im a muslim - by choice-

not indoctrinated by birth- or lightly through marriage-

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

and my 5 cats and 3 kittens?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deepdiver:

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

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

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

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

Fostering peace also means forgiving.

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

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

Love your brothers and sisters and peace will come.

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

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

Cody

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

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

See more videos like this at

http://richarddawkins.net

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

Aya- read this:

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

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

Mike said:

"Do you recognize:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"With all due respect to my Christian friends"

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

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

"Cody Claxton:

...Being here wrapped into bias and misunderstanding;

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

Should set aside such animosity and division;

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

We all greive when loved ones die or are hurt;

We all love our children;..."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you recognise:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which is it?

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

Mike,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then in 002.191 you omit:

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

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

And you omit the part of 002.193 that says

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

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

Let's see - - -

Muslim "faith" = "islam" = submission!

Enlightenment sensibilities = autonomy & rationality, including methodological naturalism!

How does that compute?

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

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

Latest Offerings from the Religion of Peace

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

Aya,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Erik Schwarz says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are completely right, Mike.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Victoria-

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

Vistoria says:

"THE QURAN DOES NOT URGE VIOLENCE AGAINST NON-BELIEVERS

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

But the Qur'an says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sura (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and will have to respond when i have a moment

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

if you think that is hypocritical- so be it

Victoria has been posting the glories of the Religion of Peace here for months. Now she has a chance to back that up with a renunciation of violence called for in the Quran. What's happened here Victoria? What possible reason might you have to cling to verses demanding violence of believing Muslims? You're not hypocritical -are you?

THE QURAN DOES NOT URGE VIOLENCE AGAINST NON-BELIEVERS

VIOLENCE IS ONLY ALLOWED IN THE CASE OF AGGRESSIVE VIOLENCE DIRECTED TOWARDS A MUSLIM AND ONLY IN DEFENSE
WHEN THE AGRESSION STOPS- MUSLIMS MUST EMBRACE PEACE

Arab News: Salman Oudah Denounces Bin Laden’s Ideology
Oudah Denounces Bin Laden’s Ideology
Khaled Al-Awadh,
Arab News

BURAIDAH, 17 September 2007 — In a major blow to the ideology of Osama Bin Laden and his followers in the Kingdom, Sheikh Salman ibn Fahad Al-Oudah, a popular Saudi religious scholar, has criticized the way in which Bin Laden has ruined Islam’s global image. “We as scholars of Islam reject what Osama does,” Al-Oudah wrote in an open letter posted on his website www.islamtoday.com. Al-Oudah also questioned the validity of Al-Qaeda using violence. “What have we gained from the destruction of a whole country such as Iraq and Afghanistan?” Al-Oudah said, adding that these wars have led to civil wars in the region. “Who benefits from turning countries like Saudi Arabia, Algeria, and Morocco into insecure places?” he asked.

Many experts considered the letter as a major setback to Al-Qaeda’s ideology, as it comes from an influential Saudi scholar, who is not part of the official religious establishment.

“Brother Osama. How many wars and how much bloodshed have occurred in the name of Al-Qaeda? How many innocents, old men, children are killed in the name of Al-Qaeda? Are you happy to meet God carrying this heavy burden on your shoulders?” Al-Oudah asked.

He also criticized the Al-Qaeda leader’s lust for power at the expense of thousands of Muslims, who have been killed in wars initiated by Al-Qaeda. “Who is responsible for promoting the culture of killing and violence that has led to the destruction of families and societies? Who is responsible for the youths sent to wars leaving their crying mothers and sons?” Al-Oudah said.

“The attacks of Sept. 11 resulted in the deaths of thousands of human beings. Unknown callers to Islam (missionaries) are by far better. They help tens of thousands become Muslims without shedding blood,” he said.

Al-Oudah further slammed Al-Qaeda’s violent philosophy and attributed a decrease in the work of Islamic charities to Al-Qaeda. “Who is responsible for pursuing every charitable project in the world?” he said, adding that Al-Qaeda is responsible for filling prisons with Muslim youth — a phenomenon that will lead only to more violent and extremist acts.

Al-Oudah expressed sorrow over the current negative image of Islam saying that it has been severely damaged because of Al-Qaeda’s violent acts. “The image of Islam is not the one it used to be. The world is talking of Muslims killing non-Muslims. Even the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not kill hypocrites who were mentioned in the Qur’an for fear of people describing the Prophet as a man who kills his companions,” Al-Oudah reminded Bin Laden in his letter.

All of Us, the bloggers here included;

Being here wrapped into bias and misunderstanding;

Further letting our minds be whipped into a frenzy of debate and derision;

Should set aside such animosity and division;

And consider that the human condition is the same for all of us;

We all greive when loved ones die or are hurt;

We all love our children;

We all seek to raise ourselves above suffering;

We all seek to be loved.

And, so Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Jew, Atheist, and Shamans and all who seek a spiritual presence should focus on

The Common Good which we all share;
The Common LOVE which we can show;
The Positive things that we can do;
The Common Properity that we can support;
And, the Common Tolerance for those few ways in which we are different.

We should promote and talk about how we are the same, and IGNORE how we are different,
and IGNORE the negativity;

THUS allowing the Negative and the Divisiveness to wane into PEACE AMONG ALL PEOPLE.

Peace, Brothers and Sisters.

Yes. Eboo and all Muslims reading here can start by renouncing the Koranic verses that urge and inspire violence against infidels (non-muslims). That will be great place to start a constructive conversation.

anon- you need to come up with at least a fake name

no acknowledgement of cowards hiding in shadows

ok dave- i have some peaceful and nurtuing responsibilities to attend to

peace

Victoria. Make this easy and publically renounce the violent verses in the Qur'an.

house of war and house of peace are not in the quran dave

they are ideas constructed by medieval jurists

This same reviewer (Mr Frantzman)makes a similar blunder when he claims that "the world is divided into two parts by the Quran, the Dar Al-Harb(the world of war) and Dar al-Islam/Salaam(world of islam/peace) [sic]", since this division is nowhere to be found in the Qur'an. While it is true that some, but certainly not all, medieval Muslim jurists perceived the world in this bipolar way, this was not the only view- MUCH LESS THE MAJORITY opinion-amongst a rich diversity of Islamic scholarship.

and THAT was in the middle ages dave
muslim answers.com

thats not in the quran dave

the bbc is the source- its at the top of the page

no dave- you are mistaken-
the universal declaration of human rights is not INSTEAD OF the un charter- it is in ADDITION to it.

the OIC-UN is in coordination with the United Nations. (which is why its OIC-UN)

the UDHR is written BY muslims FOR muslims-

it isa more specific and comprehensive charter
it is no more incumbent upon muslims, christians or anyone than the un charter- but to serve as a guide.

http://www.alhewar.com/ISLAMDECL.html

i ALWAYS provide sources and referneces and links dave

like the one you seemed to miss

you are welcome to your opinion
but it is an opinion and subjective-

i always say, ask hindus what they believe, christians etc---

let people define themselves

Oh, before I go to sleep, here's a question for you, as I live in Israel: How many times is Jerusalem mentioned in the Koran?

Aya, nice attempt at diversion. Oh, wait, it wasn't, it was poor. A generic term for war is beside the point. The specific war to create a global caliphate is jihad, and that is what is the problem. It is enshrined in both Sunni and Shiite text.

However, as long as you're attempting sad little games, jihad is "holy war". For just war, you need to look at what the Koran describes as the only two lands in the world:
1) Dar al-Islam: The Land of Islam
2) Dar al-Harb: The Land of War

If a place isn't ruled by Muslims in Sharia law, it is the land of war.

So, yes, I know the word.

"but not in the sense that you speak of", really, then why can't you argue any of the points of which I speak or define your own rationalizations?

Notice what Victoria doesn't give us: A source. We need to see if those Muslim "moderates" clearly rejected Sharia law as the basis of their beliefs. If not, they're just saying they support a hudna, a temporary cessation of violence against the infidel while they rest and rearm. They're willing to "live and let live" on a temporary basis.

Of course, the other question is: What percentage of Muslims is 130? Oh, wait, she said scholars. That could be an enormous percentage of Muslim scholars.

David: Like d'uh I know I'm a minority, but not in the sense that you speak of. Ok I'm part of the problem because I am a "moderate" and because I am a minority. Question for you tell me how do you say war in Arabic? Clue: It's not Jihad.

Aya, yes, you are part of the problem. Anytime anyone in any religion says "no, but they're not really my religion", it's an excuse. Except it's even worse in Islam. If you are a true moderate, you are in a tiny minority, but you won't admit it. You can't admit that the vast majority of Muslims are not only taught that jihad is proper, they agree with it.

You need to admit that the OIC, the umbrella organization representing EVERY SINGLE Muslim nation unanimously supported the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam as the alternative to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because the later does not put forward the primacy of Sharia Law and its clear statements that Muslims are superior to all other people. Got that? ALL Muslim nations. That's the majority, not a tiny minority. You are the minority. Until you admit that and admit, you'll continue to be an apologist for jihad by trying to minimize reality.

Middle East Politics

BBC

MUSLIM SCHOLARS REACH OUT TO POPE

More than 130 Muslim scholars have written to Pope Benedict XVI and other Christian leaders urging GREATER UNDERSTANDING between the two faiths.
The letter says that WORLD PEACE could depend on improved relations between Muslims and Christians.

It identifies the principles of accepting only one god and living in PEACE with one's neighbours as common ground between the two religions.

It also insists that Christians and Muslims worship the same god.

The letter coincides with the Eid al-Fitr celebrations to mark the end of Ramadan.

Koran and Bible

It was also sent to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the heads of the Lutheran, Methodist and Baptist churches, the Orthodox Church's Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I and other Orthodox Patriarchs.

The letter, entitled A COMMON WORD BETWEEN US AND YOU, compares passages in the Koran and the Bible, concluding that both emphasise "the primacy of total LOVE and devotion to God", and the love of the neighbour.

With Muslims and Christians making up more than half the world's population, the letter goes on, the relationship between the two religious communities is "the most important factor in contributing to meaningful PEACE around the world".

"As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them - so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes," the letter says.

Emerging voice of Islam

It adds: "To those who nevertheless relish conflict and destruction for their own sake or reckon that ultimately they stand to gain through them, we say our very eternal souls are all also at stake if we fail to sincerely make every effort to make PEACE and come together in harmony."

One of the signatories, Dr Aref Ali Nayed, a senior adviser at the Cambridge Inter-faith Programme at Cambridge University, told the BBC that the document should be seen as a landmark.

"There are Sunnis, Shias, Ibadis and even the... Ismailian and Jaafari schools, so it's a CONSENSUS," he said.

Professor David Ford, director of the programme, said the letter was UNPRECEDENTED.

"If sufficient people and groups HEED THIS STATEMENT and act on it then the atmosphere will be changed into one in which violent extremists cannot flourish," he said in a statement.

The letter was signed by prominent Muslim leaders, politicians and academics, including the Grand Muftis of Bosnia and Hercegovina, Russia, Croatia, Kosovo and Syria, the Secretary-General of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, the former Grand Mufti of Egypt and the founder of the Ulema Organisation in Iraq.

October 13, 2007

This Eboo Patel bull&%$t about moderate Muslims and their more radical bretheren is what Ayaan Hirsi Ali is writing about. She is doing a very commendable job to make westerners aware of the "clash of civilizations".

The problem with Americans is that they are gullible to the hilt.

If Ayaan Hirsi Ali did not open up the debate, it would had been cataclysmic. And Eboo Patel is quick to trash her because she had the guts to trash the barbaric religion of Islam, that Eboo follows.

Now let Eboo and his ilk digg this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/15/us/15net.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

The NYT article is titled AN INTERNET JIHAD AIMS AT US VIEWERS. So, where are the moderate Muslims now ?

Islam must be constitutionally banned. Who knows when a "moderate" pissed off by US foreign policy against Islam, would become a radical and join the bandwagon of "homegrown radical Muslims" ? If these Muslims are so incensed at West and USA, why do they continue to live here in USA ? Why don't they go back to where they came from ? Looks like a sheer hypocrisy to me ! You can't have it both ways.

"Let’s say that Ms. Ali was flipping through the U.S. Constitution and the first passage she read was the one that said people of her skin color counted as three-fifths of a person. Let’s say that Ms. Ali opened an American history book and read only the chapter on the slave trade."

Let's say you studied some history. The compromise on slave counts was necessary at the time to create a union. Would you be happier had the abolitionists (not a huge lobby then) held out, thus creating multiple nations where there's one now? Do you always stand ready to criticize the "good enough" because the perfect is your ideal model?

In 1787, a union without slavery simply wasn't in the cards. Period, end of story. We fought a bloody civil war to end slavery - proportionally more damaging than any American war before or since. Other than Britain (which was the leader in the fight), no nation has done more to eliminate slavery than the US.

As to the slave trade, you do know that as of 1808, it was illegal? As with slavery itself, it's easy, from the distance of 2007 to criticize the founders. They had a hard choice though: a union with slavery, or no union. They didn't have your ideal as a choice.

Also, you realize that the Islamic world engaged in slavery long before the West got into it, and kept at it far longer (Saudi Arabia, for instance, only outlawed it in 1960)? In many parts of the Islamic world, slavery is a de-facto reality still. The West engaged in slavery for a shameful - but historically short - period of time. The Islamic world would still be at it had the West not insisted.

Person: I just have one question, you said that I am part of the problem. How? Because I speak out AGAINST those who profess to be Muslims, but who pervert the religion that I believe in. I speak out AGAINST those who think women are to be seen and not heard. I speak out AGAINST those who think just because they are not of the same religion as I am then I must not associate myself with those people. I speak out AGAINST those who think they are killing in the name of the religion that I believe in because that's what they think is right. Tell me how am I part of the problem? You don't even know me. But you know what I RESPECT you.

Person: You're absolutely right. What more can I say. No matter what I say I'll be wrong so you're right. Not sure what tone you read my comment in, but you're right. You compared me to a Nazi and I must say that honestly hurts. Fine. I give up.

Eboo - Thanks for your comments. You are, indeed, correct. Furthermore, your analogy can be extended from the U.S. Constitution to the Bible itself.

In fact, the Bible gives sanction to slavery, the supremacy of males, homophobia and to violence against unbelievers. Is that to say that Judaism and Christianity are blood-thirsty faiths? Of course not. But there are the ill-informed in other parts of the world who would say so - just as there are cultural illiterates in this part of the world who would say the same about Islam.

Don't let the haters on this board or elsewhere get to you. A faith is more than quotes taken out of context or the most despicable acts of its most craven members. Christianity is greater than the acts of Torquemada. Judaism is greater than Baruch Goldstein. Similarly, Islam transcends Al Qaeda and the barbarism that is carried out in its name - and, in its history and its practice, has proven so. That may not sell books - but the successful mass marketing of ill-informed, poorly researched books to a public that is too incurious or lazy to research the facts does not mean that those books represent the truth.

The Muslim bashers may have the force of numbers on their side today - but they do not have the right on their side. As Abraham Lincoln said at Cooper Union, "Let us have faith that might makes right. And let us, in that faith, dare to do our duty as we understand it."

Islam is violent, Muhammad took part in over a dozen battles, some of which were to capture Medina and Mecca. The Quran calls for the subjugation of all Christians and Jews under Dhimmitude status and to pay the jizya tax. If they refuse Dhimmitude and refuse to convert, then the Quran calls for the smiting of their necks in battle (beheading, which Muslims are notorious for in the Middle East). When Muslims took over the Hagia Sophia, the blood of the Christian monks ran through the church ankle deep. Muslim piracy had to be ended in the Mediterranean by Thomas Jefferson and the U.S. Marine Corps, hence the phrase, "to the shores of Tripoli" in the Marine Corps Anthem. Islam's history is nothing but violence.

To my eyes this article seemed very hateful and derisive and it's a wonder that it appears in the Washington Post. At some point we collectively have to agree that hate is wrong even if it comes in under the ideas of religions. At some point the zero tolerance for violence and verbalization of violence needs to find it's way to public discussions of religion. We don't allow neo Mayan or Aztecs perform human sacrifices because it's wrong. We can't allow Muslims to advocate and condone hate and murder under the umbrella of their religion. It's just not acceptable. Ayann Hirsi Ali lives in fear for her life because of an organized religion that advocates, condones and preaches violence and that religion needs to be classified as a hate organization. Period. That's the crime.

Aya: what you are or are not sick of is irrelevant. The point is that you swear allegiance to an ideology that has as its central thesis, the killing, conquering and subjugating of all non-Muslims. It doesn’t sound, based on what you say, like you may be actively seeking to kill someone at this particular moment, but it’s as if it were 1939 and you said ‘I’m a proud member of the Nazi party but I’m sick of Gestapo torturers.’ Well, that’s nice, but you’re still part of the problem.

Eboo has very dangerous views. He should not be leader of ANY group, especially ones that are influencing YOUTH. His view is so skewed by his faith that he has lost sense of reality. This is no different than Pat Robertson's CBN cult. This is the Muslim Youth version. No one should be listening to him, much less giving him a blog linked to the WashingtonPost.

Why is it everytime a Muslim critiques what someone says about Islam they are questioned about where are these Muslims who speak out against the fanatics within the religion? I am sick and tired of it just like I am sick and tired of the senseless murders that are happening in the name of the religion that I follow which is Islam. There I said it. Quote me next time you think of the Muslims who are NOT speaking out against the fanatics. There are so many Muslim who do NOT agree with the extremism within Islam and they verbalize and document it. What I find interesting is when they do speak out against the extremism they are then questioned about such and such verse, not chapters of the Qu'ran that state this or that. For those who just state a verse or two or three I say read the whole chapter oh and how about this understand why and when the chapter was written. I would put my life on it that the people who do not agree with the fanatics out number those who are the fanatics.

Now on Ayaan Hirsi Magan. I've read her book. I read the book mainly just to see where she is coming from. I still don't know where's she coming from. Granted the experiences that she went through were horrific, but as I was reading the book I was thinking this is what I have been taught that Islam is not about. I've been Muslim all of my life. I have a job, I'm married to a guy that I chose, I drive to work, I have not had GFM, I work with people of the opposite sex, and I do other things that people do not think Muslims can do because of what some crazy people have portrayed as "authentic" Islam. Maybe I should write a book. I doubt if it I would receive much acclaim. Oh well.

Rick makes my point. Notice he calls speaking the truth about Islam "Islam Bashing".

Regularly from the main mosques in Amman, Cairo, Istanbul, Berlin, London, New York and more, time is regularly given to Imams who supposedly are the radical fringe.

Saudi Arabia funds 80% of American mosques, providing literature both in the mosques and at its own embassies that clearly state that Wahabi Sunni's goal is jihad until a global caliphate is created.

It goes one. He can't address a single point I've made about "progressive" Islam, but he can complain I've made them. Yes, that's the extent of both modern "progressive" Islam and its dhimmi allies.

Bob from Saudi Arabia: Very funny but so tragic as well.

But I thought Saudi Arabia was the birthplace of prophet Mohammed who was the most tolerant and compassionate human being. Why is his birthplace so intolerant and treats women like a prisoner?

Can Christians, Hindus, Jews etc practise their religion in Saudi Arabia?

Hoping our dependence on oil will end soon.

Kerri Woodruff: Well said. You writing style is very nice to read and understand. I hope people learn to write good English on these forums so that readers enjoy their reading even though they may not agree.

Now to the topic:Watched that Maxmimum securtiy prison piece on 60 Minutes last night. Those peace loving Muslims like Ramzi Yousef, Shoe Bomber, OBL's secretary ... were dancing up and down on 9/11, they hate to take orders from a female guard, go on hunger strikes.... My question is : Why does America care about these animals?

I have also watched and read many places where Muslims have felt pride after 9/11 and have said "that 9/11 made them go back to Islam"!!!
Sickening.

If my co-religionists did that (and many other terror attacks) , I would be running away from them and calling my religion a murderous cult

Ms. Ali is making the point that Moslem women with Islam religion are very poorly treated. Right now I'm here in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Capital, our biggest Middle East friends (because of oil) and am sick of this country. Women here are totally covered from top to bottom in long black outfits, including eyes, can not drive a car, cannot go to a soccer game, can not eat in a restaurant unless hubbie comes along, can only go to the supermarket when hubbie or servants comes along, etc., etc. They live in fancy homes that are prisons (you never see them talking to neighbours, carrying out the trash, saying high to the neighbours, walking with their kids, etc.). Meanwhile the men drive at 80 miles an hour in the city, dressed in Jeans, thinking highly of themselves. When I go to an office all you see are men in fancy outfits giving each other the eye. Five times a day Islam prayers are forced on them. Everything closes then, restaurants, supermarkets, coffeeshops, etc. No theaters to see a movie. All this nonsensical religious force stops people from being creative, independent, integrating with the world. And, again, the women here are the lowest on the totum pillar in terms of respect, appreciation for what they mean to the world and to a man. This country has oil but is very sick indeed. No way this is going to last. Truthfully, I cannot understand why the European Jews fought so hard to settle in Israel. If it comes to westerns (especially the US) trying to save oil and gas - don't do it for energy savings - no, do it to force these Arabs to treat these women as equals. Truly a bad part of the world.

I just happed to read your article at the same time as reading Robert Caro's portrait of Richard Russell. He was a stark contrast to racist demagogues like his contemporary Theo Bilbo. Bright, articulate, respected by his peers for his integrity. He also was careful to note that he opposed lynching, though he assured his peers that too much was made of what was basically a rare occurence. But he opposed every single civil rights and lynching bill that came up in his career, and he did it more effectively, precisely because he didn't fit the stereotype. There's no reason to think that we would know the name of Emmet Till, except for the fact that he was lynched, and this lynching became a forum for talking about a problem that was endemic in the South. So was the murder of Theo Van Gogh. There's a real ugliness lying just beneath the surface of your article. I'm afraid the implication that Ali takes the stands she does out of a desire for financial gain gives the game away.

Mr Patel does not chalenge the threat to Ms. Ali's life. He does not chalenge that the origin of the threat is Islamists, however misguided. His entire point seems to be that she not commit the error of applying collective guilt to all to the religion itself.
Plainly put the problem is not Islam but misguided Muslim extremists. Fair enough. But where is the public outrage and criticism from the enlightened Muslim community to be found. Sam Harris has made the point that cafeteria Catholics, Jews and Muslims who choose to ignore the bloody tenets of their religion do not thereby change the character of the religion. The religion remains bloody even if the fundemental bloody commandments of the religion are ignored.

This is what I take your main argument to be:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali claims that "the entire religion of Islam [is] the cause of her oppression". Her oppression is only a limited instance of the vastly diverse history and population of Islam. If a portion of x is not equal to the whole of x, then that portion cannot represent x. What's more, if a portion of x cannot represent x, then any attribute/property we may attach to the portion cannot be attached to the whole. Therefore, what is said of Ms. Ali's oppression cannot be said of Islam.

I'm primarily going to disagree with the third premise (although we both know what the oppression endured by Ms. Ali is hardly uncommon).

First, an entity claimed to be perfect must contain perfect parts. After all, if we discovered a claimed-to-be-perfect entity with some imperfect aspect y, we could imagine a more perfect entity without y. Hence the former is imperfect.

The Qur'an is claimed to be perfect (note that the U.S. Constitution is not). Now, Ms. Ali has argued that her oppression was caused by devoted (and not confused) followers of the Qur'an. You have not disputed this. If passages from the Qur'an allow for such violence and hatred, then they must be imperfect. So, the Qur'an can no longer be considered perfect. In condemning her experience, Ms. Ali is allowed to condemn Islam.

I do not mean to claim that the Qur'an is imperfect. I only wanted to show that her position is not as ridiculous as you claim.

- agent.krycek@gmail.com

There is a lot more in Ayaan Hirsi, Eboo, than is dreamt in your philosophy.

The problem with your comments about Ayaan
Hirsi Ali is that your perspective is that of
one with a "Muslim faith." That is the problem.
It is only a faith and not fact. It is blood-
soaked with ridiculous verses penned when the
false prophet, Mohammed, moved to Medina and people like you and others of "Muslim faith" just
cannot accept that fact. The rantings about
"infidels" and lopping off the heads of people
not Muslim are simply those of a fanatic and not
a person of God. Yours is a phony "faith" and
not fact to repeat myself. How in 2007 you can
still think that seventh century rantings are
"gospel" is unnaceptable.
Shame on all those who reflect your ignorance.
And that is what it is--sheer ignorance.

The comparison of the Qur'an to the U.S. Constitution, or the history of Islam to the history of the United States, lacks the very intellectual integrity Mr. Patel seems to claim is lacking in Ms. Ali's claims. No reasonable individual looks to the U.S. Constitution as divinely inspired, as infallible; quite the opposite, the founders incorporated methods by which it might be changed, amended, updated, so as to prevent such a static view. To the extent that our constitution, and even our history, are obviously guilty of engaging in and supporting oppressive and discriminatory practices throughout our history, we have within our system of government methods by which to reflect on such failings and, over time, address them. The opposite seems true in a document and belief system that, by its nature, claims immutability and deity-inspired moral sanctity.

"Fight those who believe not
In God nor the Last Day,
Nor hold that forbidden
Which hath been forbidden
By God and His Apostle,
Nor acknowledge the Religion
Of Truth,(even if they are)
Of the People of the Book,
Until they pay the Jizya
With willing submission,
And feel themselves subdued."
(Quran 9:29)
Mr. Eboo;
This is not a stray verse but is the thesis of the whole Koran, and you must know that.Taking sideswipes at US history does not excuse or validate the violent exclusive theme that runs through the whole Book.

Well said.
Eid mubarak.

Let's be honest here. The counter examples you offer are either US law that has since been changed or truly fringe groups and opinions. The oppression of women in Muslim countries is, to this day, still institutionalized in countries such as Saudi Arabia and widespread in conventional Muslin thought.

Also, to try and spin Africa as another example where Muslim believes are unfairly being singled out is again, incorrect. The oppressive cultural habits in certain parts of African, like female circumcision, is abhorant and universally derided. There is little deference paid to cultural norms of any country/religion/culture when they blatantly violate human rights.

Give the girl a break, she has to eke out a living. Also, this is me as a humanist and atheist speaking, there is no way I can overlook or rationalize the way women are treated in Muslim societies and those "death to infidels"-commands in the Quran. No wonder some nutjobs might take it literally now and then.

True, spin back the clock two hundred years and you will see that Christianity erred in similar ways.

En lieu of tolerance ontowards other religions, I want to suggest indifference. It's cheaper, intellectually more honest and yields better results.

Islam is pre-Reformation and pre-historical-critical examination of its literature. Whether this has to do with Colonialism may be a question: oligarchies internal and external have a symbiosis with fundamentalism (as a validation of their rank and a palliative to the peasantry). Why should Islam alone be insulated from modern scholarship? That is the question that jumps out at any religious studies student. The answer is that it can no more stand up to scholarly examination than Judaism or Christianity, and it knows it. The author is simply specious in employing the language of the Enlightenment here.

I read Ali's book and was deeply moved by it. I think you are misrepresenting what she would actually like to do. She wants to end the tolerance of Muslim enclaves in the Western world. She would eliminate Muslim schools, supported in the Netherlands by taxpayer money, that preach the subjugation of women. She would welcome Muslims into the Western world, but in a way that is welcoming and integrative, that makes them a part of the West, instead of allowing them to preach and live lives that would repulse the rest of the Western world. Should we stand for female genital mutilation in America or Europe (something she went through), should we treat women like second class citizens, should we permit tirades of hate to move people into terrorism? I don't think we should. In the interest of reason - maybe we should look at what the root causes of some of the problems Ayaan Hirsi Ali brings up are. I think undeniably one of those causes is Islam itself and the way it is practiced today.

Very good point, and well-taken. Earlier this year, an email was making the rounds of a speech Ms. Ali had given. And in fact, it bothered me a great deal. Basically, it mistook the wish or desire to do something — in this case the aims of radical Islamists to destroy the West with the real ability to do so. September 11 was horrible, but, let's face reality, it would take more than such terrorist exercises to subjegate the entire West. In fact, it would require such things as which are all but impossible for these groups to provide: a massive, well-equiped, well-trained standing army, air and naval supremecy and the treasure and means (ie, industry and resources) to deliver this. Even given all of this, there are no guarantees of success (think NAZI facisim and the Napoleonic Wars). In any instance, Ms. Ali's speech concludes by stating that all of Islam, not just it's radical fringes, are frought with violence and oppression. No conclusions beyond this are drawn, but we can surmise nonetheless: that the West should do all within it's powers to destroy Islam and it's adherents. These measures may seem cruel and extreme, we may think, but necessary for our own survival. Hmmm, sounds like an argument we've all heard a few times before, doesn't it? By the way, you are not completely correct about the "Three Fifths" argument in the US Constitution. It's direct application was in reference to representation and taxation and is reveresed by the 14th amendment.

Eboo Patel offers no argument against Ayaan Hirsi Ali's description of Islam as a main force for oppression in the world. Her book is indeed luminous. It is Eboo Patel's piece here that is venomous, hyperbolic and repulsive.

Why after so many years and so many deaths, bombings and destruction, it does not cease? It escalates and no one in the Muslim world says anything.

White/Black/American Indian/Asian/Christian/Jewish/Hindi/Rasta/Wicca kids from Schenectady didn't fly those planes on September 11th and no one in that crowd tried to blow up the Trade Center in 1992. None of those groups attacked the Cole or took part in any of the many embassy bombings. You've picked the losing horse because the jury doesn't need to go out on this one. It’s not like its just wacky Pat Roberson calling for the assassination of a sitting head of state, it’s pretty much the whole bunch of ya all over the world killing and blowing stuff up or calling for killing and blowing stuff up or sitting quietly with your hands folded. When does it stop? When will they feel they’ve made their point or is killing non-Muslims a part of the whole deal? What is the point? That you've been persecuted? OK, we got it. Join the rest of the crowd.

If Islam is so peaceful why doesn’t the Muslim leadership in the United States try and reach out to these religious leaders overseas and calm the violence? If they are, they need a much better PR machine. I’m part Irish and even the IRA has laid down their guns realizing violence begets violence. A voice is much more powerful.

The other thing you've missed is that the US Constitution has been amended. I don't believe the Qur'an has. And just because you're in a place doesn't mean that you're a part of the landscape- HOWEVER- pledging allegiance to the flag, get's you lumped into the pot. I'm an American everywhere I go and until I publicly reject it. Same holds true for religion. I've rejected religion for all the reason Mr. Hitchens has espoused as well as a few others.

Your argument is akin to saying that there are nice people in the Klan, which I am sure there are, but you'd think that they'd be smart enough to pick a better group to run around with on the weekends. You can do the same.

Why are most Christians Christian? Why are Jews, Jews? Because their parents told them so. You choose to be Muslim just as you choose not to be Jewish or Christian or choose Captain Crunch on the cereal isle. You accept the teaching and the tenants just as you reject the others and this growing world wide criticism and fear of Islam. The only Christians dying from faith are from the mystery meat at Wednesday’s pot luck and that, my friend, is persecution. This has become an all or nothing issue. Why do you want to be a part of it? Silence is support. Speak out against the non stop violence. If this were the crusades again, I think you’d see quite a rejection of the action. The poor Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t even make it into my driveway before I hit them with the hose.

As far as Ms. Hirsi- everyone’s gotta make a living but you're punishing the messenger and missing the message.

People are being murdered in the name of your faith. Speak out against it. If people are murdered in the name of our great nation, I speak out against it and have and will continue. I’m sure the FBI is saving this nugget for later too. Could you be a voice of reason to the Muslim world or is the fear of reprisal too much? Which is more important- your faith or your fellow country folk of our great nation that have been killed in the name of your faith? I’m thinking since we must love our neighbor as ourselves that we should be.

"Fight those who believe not
In God nor the Last Day,
Nor hold that forbidden
Which hath been forbidden
By God and His Apostle,
Nor acknowledge the Religion
Of Truth,(even if they are)
Of the People of the Book,
Until they pay the Jizya
With willing submission,
And feel themselves subdued."

Mr. Eboo;
This is not a stray verse but is the thesis of the whole Koran, and you must know that.Taking sideswipes at US history does not excuse or validate the violent exclusive theme that runs through the whole Book.

She lacks all credibility. Shame on Rushdie and other defenders. She's been proven a liar about her entire life - hence her ejection from Holland and politics there - due to lying on her immigration papers (she claimed to be persecuted and it has been proven she was not).

The people that hold her up are haters and support hate against muslims. period.

she should be ignored. and NO she definitely should not be granted refugee status in the US or my tax dollars go for her private security. she can go live somewhere else and not seek out the media if she wants security.

Salman Rushdie and Ayan Hirsi Ali have reason to live their life in fear just because they have offended the sensibilities of the "Enlightened" ones. Lets recognize who the real brave people are. People who are willing to question and challenge or the one who will kill people speaking truth to power.

If you live your life the way Islam's chief prophet, Mohammad, says you should, then:

1) You would not have any non-Muslims for friends.
2) You would disavow your own parents if they refused conversion to Islam.
3) You would kill your wife if she committed adultery.
4) You would kill your son if he discovered he was a homosexual.
5) While serving on a jury, you would automatically give a woman's testimony only half the the weight of a man's, simply because she is a woman.

You could not be a good citizen of any liberal democracy and also be a faithful follower of the teachings of the Koran.

That's the most important difference between the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Mohammad. Faithfully follow the teachings of Mohammad, and you will almost surely end up in prison - in the U.S., anyway. Follow the teachings of Jesus - love your enemies, don't kill them - and you'll have no problem.

Mr. Patel, do you reject the Koran's sura 3.28, which says, "Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah..."?

If you do reject it, on what grounds do you do so? And what other suras do you reject?

If you do not reject it, as an enlightened Muslim, why do you not do so?

If you are going to make a claim about the authorship of Ms. Ali's novel, you need to cite your sources. Started your piece in this way indicates you are willing to engage in an ad hominem attack, before putting forth so called "empirical" arguments.

By golly, Mr. Patel, you're right! It was indeed unjust that the U.S. Constitution designate some of its inhabitants as counting as three-fifths of a person. That shows what an unjust document it was -- until blacks were granted full rights under the law. Now imagine that the Koran had a similar rule, such as one says that a woman's word counts only half as much as a man's -- that would certainly render the Koran a blatantly unjust, sexist document. Oh, wait, I just realized: the Koran already has such a proclamation; the testimony of women counts only half as much as a man's. Thanks for the ammunition against your own position, Mr. Patel: by your own standards the (un-amendable) Koran is an unjust, sexist document.

HIRSI ALI OFFERED REFUGE IN DENMARK

The culture minister has made a public offer of asylum to persecuted Dutch-Somali author Hirsi Ali

Brian Mikkelsen, the Danish culture minister, has indicated the government would be willing to allow outspoken Dutch-Somali author Ayaan Hirsi Ali to live in Denmark under its protection from fanatical Muslims seeking to kill her.

Over the weekend Mikkelsen sent out a request to the country’s municipalities to invite the threatened author and filmmaker to live here. The move is supported by a recent parliament proposal to establish several ‘FREE CITIES’ for persecuted writers, a programme to be created with the support of the International City of Refuge Network.

‘Ayaan Hirsi Ali will be number one on the list of authors we should invite to Denmark,’ Mikkelsen announced on Sunday. ‘She has fought for the freedom of expression and has personally received threats on her life.’

http://www.cphpost.dk/get/103887.html

At best Ms. Ali is opportunistic, no less and no more than let us say like the Ann Coulters, who will say, support, or promote anything radical and irrational to make a buck. But it is a great country and voices of dissent should be always welcome.

Favorite Ayaan Hirsi Ali quote from the interview:

'You grew up in freedom and you can spit on freedom because you don't know what it is not to have freedom'

Muslims everywhere hate her and want her silenced because she is brilliant at truth telling.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali - On the Map Interview

Ali was recently interviewed by Avi Lewis, on his show 'On the Map with Avi Lewis' which is a daily international "news analysis" show in Canada.

This is a MUST SEE.

Ali's words are elegant, eloquent and devastating.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNTj2enmT-U

This is absurd. I'm not sure who you are referring to when you make a comparison to "Africans" -- do you mean everyone on the continent of Africa? Because that would include a vast array of ethnicities, cultures and religions. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is critical of Islam -- a specific ideology that is as fair game for criticism as any ideology. To try to compare a criticism of an ideology to condemning a vast, diverse geographic population (for some bizarre reason) is ridiculous. Some "progressive" you are.

This is absurd. I'm not sure who you are referring to when you make a comparison to "Africans" -- do you mean everyone on the continent of Africa? Because that would include a vast array of ethnicities, cultures and religions. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is critical of Islam -- a specific ideology that is as fair game for criticism as any ideology. To try to compare a criticism of an ideology to condemning a vast, diverse geographic population (for some bizarre reason) is ridiculous. Some "progressive" you are.

This is absurd. I'm not sure who you are referring to when you make a comparison to "Africans" -- do you mean everyone on the continent of Africa? Because that would include a vast array of ethnicities, cultures and religions. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is critical of Islam -- a specific ideology that is as fair game for criticism as any ideology. To try to compare a criticism of an ideology to condemning a vast, diverse geographic population (for some bizarre reason) is ridiculous. Some "progressive" you are.

I have read Infidel, and I think Mr. Patel sells Ayaan Hirsi Ali WAY short by comparing her views to someone who casually reviews the U.S.Consitution, without consideration of context, history, and Constitutional Amendments. Ms. Hirsi Ali reached her views of Islam after years of study, intellectual analysis, and personal experience with the consequences of its teachings (both within her own family and in the Muslim community at large). She was a devout Muslim who tried her best to suppress her questions about Islam's teachings, because she knew that even raising such questions was a violation of Islamic principles. In the end, her courage and intellectual honesty won out. Calling her views superficial and trying to write them off as mere profiteering is an insult. Mostly, and particularly when she first started espousing her views publicly, Ms. Hirsi Ali had no hope or thought of profit, and had the courage to absorb the criticisms, threats, and disruptions to her life that resulted from remaining true to her inner moral compass. To me that makes her a hero, not a crass profit-seeker.

I have read Infidel, and I think Mr. Patel sells Ayaan Hirsi Ali WAY short by comparing her views to someone who casually reviews the U.S.Consitution, without consideration of context, history, and Constitutional Amendments. Ms. Hirsi Ali reached her views of Islam after years of study, intellectual analysis, and personal experience with the consequences of its teachings (both within her own family and in the Muslim community at large). She was a devout Muslim who tried her best to suppress her questions about Islam's teachings, because she knew that even raising such questions was a violation of Islamic principles. In the end, her courage and intellectual honesty won out. Calling her views superficial and trying to write them off as mere profiteering is an insult. Mostly, and particularly when she first started espousing her views publicly, Ms. Hirsi Ali had no hope or thought of profit, and had the courage to absorb the criticisms, threats, and disruptions to her life that resulted from remaining true to her inner moral compass. To me that makes her a hero, not a crass profit-seeker.

"Musta hit pretty close to the mark to get 'er all riled up like that, eh kid?"

It's the simplest formula in the world: Muslim inferiority complexes + Muslim violent theocracy* + Ali's comments = innumerable death threats and violence. It's happening all around the world - funny how Muslims claim to be the victims when they're doing all the threatening.

*Could it be that there is a connection between Islamic teachings and the backwardness of the typical Islamic state? ...nah, it must be the West's fault.

Mr. Patel uses Enlightenment principles to further acceptance of Islam in the West. I'm reminded of the old saying that event the devil can quote scripture. I bet that if we could strap Mr. Patel to a lie detector, we would discover that what is really going on is that he will use any means necessary to guilt citizens of the West into turning a blind eye to what is really happening. Certainly, Enlightenment principles would never be taken into account if the question of acceptance of Christianity in a muslim nation came up. The long term goal of Muslims is for the Koran to replace the Constitution as the highest law of the land in the United States. Some of us in the West have heard of Taqiyya.

I'm still puzzled as to why the media keep giving Hirsi Ali, the Camille Paglia of Africa, such attention. Why not give center stage Africans who are living right, enjoying their lives, and making positive changes in their communities. And yes, they do exist, by the millions.

I think the writer of this piece went too far in his uncharitable commentaries about Hirsi Ali. Granted that Ms Ali might have shown a lack of understanding about Islam as this commentator would like us to believe. Granted that she is a champion of womenfolk oppressed in the name of islam to the distaste of many. Granted that she has sinned against islam in many ways. All these vices and more does not justify anyone passing a death penalty on a frail woman like Ms Ali who dare ask for the right to live in peace and quiet enjoyment. This kind of right is inalienable. This means that she does not have to beg anyone to lead her life the way she willed. In order words, this is a God-given right that cannot be taken away by anyone without due process. For Ms Ali what all of us take for granted, like going for a short walk in a public park, dining out with one's partner, watching superbowl or walking across the street to buy the Washington Post on Sunday, mowing the lawn, sun-bathing on the beach etc is mere wishful thinking. All these activities are a commonplace. Yet Ms Ali can only dream of them or attempt them at her own peril.

But who or what is responsible for Ms Ali's predicament? Islam! I need to clarify this before being accused of naivety or anti-something. I have seen a lot of people wrongly sent to prison due to judicial error. When those concerned finally got reprieved or serve out their time, it is not uncommon for them to say that the Justice System is to blame for their predicament. It would not be illogical then for us to say that, a fortiori, since islam is solely responsible for her predicament, then islam is to blame for her misfortune. I say this for I know of no law (except islamic fatwa) under which Ms Ali has been condemned to death.

To come back to the issue at hand, I think what Ms Ali has been canvassing all along is the need for islam to reform and accept the concept of individual liberty, the right of women to sleep with or without men at their freewill, the equality of man and woman, the right to renounce and adopt islam at will etc. This cry of freedom by a large section of the moslem faith is only being echoed (or championed) by Ms Ali's personal combat to live.

What Mr. Patel did not tell us is whether or not Ms Ali is justified in her combat against those who want her life snuffed out. A rational and fair-minded person will naturally agree that Ms Ali is entitled to fight her tormentor by all means at her disposal. Why on earth does a woman, or man for that matter, need to be paying over 2 million dollars a year just to stay alive? It is a shame that a human being can be driven to such a desperation in the name of islam! So, what happens if nobody offers to pay for her security after the Dutch government finally withdraws? Death? So if she finally dies, what do we gain? nothing! The greatest winner will be the radical islamists who have no respect for human life.

Ms Ali's book, "Infidel" might be hyperbolic in some ways or even naive. However, if one detatch the 'devlish' woman from the scene and take a cosmological view of women's life under islam, the result is grim: sporadic killing for honour here and there, male-dominated world, intolerance to other people's ways of life etc. are enough to entitle Ms Ali to assume the role of a credible defender of liberty. She deserves to live in spite of her imperfections and naivety. She is a courageous woman and a living example for many young muslim women and for those who treasure the love of humanity in general. May providence preserve her!

If you go through Ms. Ali's life -- circumcision, sent to mary someone she had not seen or did not know, helping Muslim girls facing similar fates and subject to male abuse in Amsterdam, writing about it and having her movie producer stabbed by an individual claiming to act for Islam and leaving a note on the dagger condemning her -- how would you react? You should explain the treatment of women in nations controlled by Islam. Is the subjugated role dictated by the Koran or the country ruled by religious zealots? What about other faiths? Shouldn't these nations allow other faiths to flourish and respect them? If you believe Islam teaches love and peace-- you should shout your oondemnations on a daily basis of the terrorists who are slaughtering innocent fellow human beings in the name of Islam! The West forms opinions based on the daily news of suicide bombers acting for Islam and countries such as Iran calling for the destruction of Israel, lack of religious freedom and the horriblke treatment of women.

A lot of people who are targeted for persecution, whether it be Salman Rushdie or Andrei Sakharov, are selected because of their ability to get under the skin of their oppressors. Note that Rushdie's book, "Satanic Verses" was considered offensive to Britain as well as Islam. Sakharov had as much trouble with Brezhnev as with Gorbachov. That, however, is a personal taint or trait: an ability to disagreeable.

My concern about this blog by Eboo Patel is that it condemns her enemies too little and points too much at the fact that she is making a little money while in hiding. We need to be clear: the real villains are still the ones who would kill Hirsi Ali. Hirsi Ali may be stupid (accepting the worst of Mr Patel's thesis) but she is hardly a villain like her hunters.

AMEN! Nothing to add.

Though it goes against the spirit of the time, Mr. Patel might want to think about adopting the pose of victim in this case.

His subject has a degree of hostility toward Islam. Given her experiences with many Muslims, it's hard to blame her for that. That doesn't mean she is imparting the truth about that faith, or its many adherents in places other than those with which she is most familiar. But it is more than a little unseemly for a Muslim commentator to point to a woman who has had to flee for her life as someone who is victimizing the commentator and his faith.

Better that Mr. Patel should acknowledge that the Muslims who sought to murder Ms. Ali are not "cretins." They are faithful representatives of a malignant strain of Islamic thought -- particularly prevalent in parts of the Arab world, South Asia and, it appears, parts of Europe -- that Muslims will have to deal with. "Dealing with it" does not mean changing the subject, or playing the victim's victim.

If she found anything in the Constitution saying anything about people of her skin color counting as 3/5 of a person she would not be reading the United States Constitution.

I notice there is no defense of Islam per se here, just a strained couple of analogies, one having to do with a continent and one with a nation. Some ideologies (nazism, fascism, Stalinism) are rotten through and through. Others are complex, with some parts that most of us would find abhorrent and other parts that most of us would find uplifting. Perhaps one or more of them are perfect. It sheds no light on which category Islam falls into to engaged in this silliness in the name of enlightenment. And you might want to take a look at a document before you go paraphrasing it.

Well done. Thanks for cutting through the anti-intelectual fog that tries to undermine the enlightened soul of this nation and give Jim Crowe another stage on which to stand.

Eboo Patel's inflammatory, nasty comments are repulsive to any honest dialogue. It's ok to call people repulsive and superficial as long as you stop short of wanting to physically murder them? This is a leader of an interfaith dialogue group? Guess there's not much to say.

Mr Patel calls himself a "progressive muslim". Yet, he says nothing about what a "progressive muslim" is or should be, and how these muslims differ from other groups of people.

Anyway, Mr Patel's article gives us some hints about "progressive muslims":

- Progressive muslims, as all muslims, believe the Qur’an is god's word. Therefore, for Mr Pattel, those who don't believe the Qur’an is god's word are wrong. Mr Pattel and his progressive muslim friends may disagree with Osama Bin Laden about what to do with infidels' heads, but they are all sure that infidels are... wrong. And they, muslims, are right.

- Progressive muslims, as all muslims, don't realize this religion is CONTRARY to fundamental western values. For them, "all men are created equal" clearly does not apply to women; separation of church and state is unthinkable for believing muslim; and, of course, FREE SPEECH is not a universal right but a universal restraint.

- We're still waiting for progressive muslims to say ONE WORD of condemnation about September 11, the Madrid bombings, the London subway bombings, the Danish cartoons. For them, those things did not occur in this world.

- So, when a woman dares speaking about her own life experience with Islam's cruelty and hipocrisy, she is labeled by "progressive muslims" as an "enemy of the West".

- Even further, in order to attack Ms Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Mr Pattel imagination goes wild and fabricates absurd scenarios:

** "What if Ali said that all of Africa was benighted and evil?", or

** "Let’s say that Ms. Ali was flipping through the U.S. Constitution and the first passage she read was the one that said people of her skin color counted as three-fifths of a person."

- In fact, most of Mr Pattel's article is spend on trying to prove that HIS OWN ABSURD SCENARIOS ARE ABSURD INDEED.

* * * *

Dear Washington Post editors:

The internet is full of garbage. We don't need to come to your website to find more of the same.

Please make sure Postglobal is not littered with the same trash that can be found elsewhere.

Very well said...I could not have written it better.

I appreciate the sentiments of this heartfelt response, but:

Just as Ayaan Hirsi Ali has failed to appreciate the complexity of Islam, I fear that some will say Mr. Patel fails to appreciate the complexity of the "West" when he claims it is "characterized by reason and pluralism."

Islam is based upon the principles of submission and duality. Islamic dualism has one set of rules for men and another for women. Ninety-six percent of all Islamic doctrine dictates that women MUST submit to men.

Islam demands that a woman must submit to a man in ALL things. Submission is Islam. Historically, Islam has enslaved members of ALL races. It has a complete and detailed doctrine of slavery. A dualistic ethical system makes enslavement an act of good -a sacred act.

"Submission" the short film that brought Muslim Hatred to Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Muslim Murder to Theo van Gogh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXGZBs65qMs

Thank you Mr. Patel, hopefully this will give some of the people confused by Hirsi Ali's writings some perspective. I think it's scary that someone can earn so much fame and respect for preaching such misinformed hatered. The extent to which Hirsi Ali twists and convolutes Islam to forward her own narrow and biased views is incredible. The fact that she is seen as a champion for women's rights and for the west makes you question just what this 'west' she idealizes so much stands for.

Why is so hard to believe that Islam, in and of itself, is a problem? Christianity is a problem too, but there are less strict adherents than there are of Islam, so it's less of a problem. In Islam, apostates are to be killed. If you do not believe this, then you are not following the letter of the law and you are not a good Muslim.

The problem with moderate Muslims (or moderate Catholics or Christians) is that they still give power, etc., to their fellow believers that do want to destroy the West, kill apostates and infidels. As far as I can tell, if you're a moderate anything (any religion), you either can't follow rules or you can't think for yourself.

At least the Muslims who want Ali dead are following the Quran as it was written and not pretending it's a peaceful, loving religion that tolerates unbelievers well. I grew up in Saudi Arabia, and I know Islam as it was meant to be practiced (i.e., as the Quran demands). It's not pretty.

This Eboo guy calling himself enlightened is a joke. Ayaan is the real deal. She is the next prophet of Islam if it wants to be saved.

muslim dog

Now Mr. Patel...
If you could just take some of that passion and insight and turn it onto the billion plus muslims who have sat by and said/did nothing while their brothers and sisters have murdered, terrorized, burned and run mad thru the streets of countries that have welcomed them. Where is your critical voice when cartoonists are receiving death threats? I find your words hallow. There may be some good in the religion of Islam...but all the world has been shown is how it breeds most of its followers to act like rabid animals or creatures blind to a religion devouring it's own.

If Hirsi Ali were Christian you wouldn't
be attacking her. Her reservations about
Christianity, based on bitter personal
experience which you ignore, are the real
reason for your gratuious attack.

well put, but a little myopic

Given the point that Miss Ali doesnot have all the facts in her books, I have a question: Up to now what we have seen from the islamist in government in Afganistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, United Arabs Emirates, Jordan is that women are subyugated, are second class citizens and in some cases they are like minors. Something must be wrong with a creed that discriminate against its own citizens like America in the 50s. Did you know that when Fidel Castro came to New York en 1961 he went to a hotel in Harlem because there were some black guys in his delegation? And that was the rule in the whole country.

Mrs. Magan (her real name) claims that it is her right to insult.
what does that say about her and the state of mind of her hysterical ultra-rightwing fans in the Netherlands and the U.S?

I expect it's going to be a long time before I see anything as stupid as this commentary.

"Let’s say that Ayaan Hirsi Ali, instead of incriminating Islam at the end of her book, blamed another entity whose cultural traditions had more than a little to do with her painful childhood. Let’s say she went after Africa. And let’s say she did it with the same venom and hyperbole.

What if Ali said that all of Africa was benighted and evil?"

But she DIDN'T say that, did she? Perhaps because she recognizes that Africa is not Islam, and that it's Islam, not Africa, that's trying to murder her and everyone else who doesn't subscribe to it.

More stupidity: "In 'Infidel,' Ali quotes passages of the Qur’an that are violent, and because she is targeting an audience that either doesn’t know better or doesn’t want to know better, she suggests that those passages represent the whole text, the whole 1400 year history of Islam, its billion plus current adherents."

Ali quotes violent passages of the Koran? News flash: She could quote an entire CHAPTER, not leaving out a single comma. Read chapter 9, titled, "The Immunity." It is Mohammad preaching Allah's incitement to mass murder, nothing less, from beginning to end (good luck trying to find a chapter in the Bible where Jesus says you should kill anyone at all).

The comparison to the provision for slavery in the Constitution is idiotic. The Constitution abolished slavery, in clear, unambiguous language. Where does the Koran abolish the commandment in "The Immunity" to "slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush..."?

Where does the Koran abolish the commandment in "The Immunity" to "not take your fathers and your brothers for guardians if they love unbelief more than belief..."?

Where does the Koran abolish the commandment in "The Immunity" to "[f]ight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."?

Where does the Koran renounce the claim in "The Immunity" that "the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them..."?

Very well written and thoughtful comments from Mr. Patel. Ms. Ali is guilty of the same intellectual problem that plagues so many religious writers and leaders---they try to see the world in black and white, when the facts of our existence remain a shocking diversity of colors and tones. Nevertheless, those seeking simple answers in a complex world are drawn to these authors who validate their urge to remain simple. Christianity and Islam share a history of violence to non-believers, and it is simply dishonest to claim that Islam is the only religion with this kind of evil legacy.

was not the western standard either. It was a a pure insult, no intellectual content, and the fate of the movie maker was no surprise.

"LIB- why dont you do some homework on your contention that america has saved any muslims in bosnia or kosovo" - Victoria.

So Victoria - What were you doing during this time frame, or the time when the Sudan, Somalia, Mauratania, Egypt, Saudi, West Pakistan, (shouild I go on) were subjugating non-mulims and muslilms alike (just because of the color of their skin? You sound like a liberal!!!!!

Can you spell HYPOCRITE. Before you talk become florence nightingale or Mother Theresa. How many lives have YOU saved.

This article seems rather superficial itself in its exploration of the impact of religion on society. It skips around from easy point to easy point but doesn't explore anything with proper focus. How's Africa comparable to a religion? Are we assuming every country has state-sanctioned religion? I agree with the position the article takes that her book is an over-generalization of a 1400 year old culture and doesn't produce anything but racism. But the comparison of slavery to the koran? At least compare it to the bible or something in the same era. And we ended slavery and gave women the vote. Only took us <100 years, 1776-1864. Yay us. Maybe the enlightened system of NO STATE RELIGION worked for us. When we were supposed to be a Christian nation, that was around the time we were collecting our first slaves and burning witches in Salem. Maybe using traditions thousands of years old was holding us back from moving forward and doing our thinking in THIS century.

It is an embarrassment that anyone whose work is of such little intellectual substance (and is so substantively offensive) is being feted by the Washington DC think tank community. Thank you for your article.

Well said...good reasonings.

Patel ignorantly supports Jihad. "Africa" has not expressly and openly declared war against all of the other continents, declaring the war will continue until it controls the world. Islam does that. It's at the core of both Sunni and Shiite faiths.

He talks about "progressive" Muslims, but where are they? When Muslims were rioting throughout the world over cartoons linking Islam to violence (and not even comprehending the irony), where were the massive peaceful protests against that violence, led by "progressive Muslims"?

When Afghanistan, a "moderate" Islamic government put a man on trial for his life for committing the "crime" of converting from Islam to Christianity, where were the Muslim protests? When a Palestinian was killed on the street for the same crime?

When Turkish journalists are jailed for "defaming Islam", where are the progressive Muslims?

The "progressive" Muslims always seem to be absent except occasionally in print to decry that we talk about the facts that no Muslim country is a democracy and that the majority of Muslims do support the supposed "radicals".

Patel is a "moderate" only because he peacefully tries to shut down the voices of truth rather than blowing himself up while trying to do so. That is the problem with Islam.

I'd suggest you read the U.S. Constitution a bit more closely. Contrary to your belief that it counts black people as 3/5's, no race is explicitly mentioned. Non-free people count as 3/5's.

I won't tax your clearly limited intellect by asking you to do the basic historical research that would show you that this was a compromise between those opposesd to slavery who wanted slaves to count as zero people vs slaveholders who wanted slaves to count as full people.

What? The good people didn't want slaves to count and the bad did? Shocking! Doesn't make sense! Oh wait, the more slaves count, the more representation slave-holding states get, the longer it takes to unseat that odious practice.

When speaking of "superficial insights", I guess people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...

What is fascinating with Mr. Eboo who also problably left the other "world" was also economics?
I don't think he will mention that by being an Ismaili, that many in the muslim world would really consider him to be a non-muslim. In fact, he would be deemed as a blasphemer.

Also, the Ismaili had to leave the muslim and join the Hindu world under fear of retribution. They have a a strong preference for the non-muslim world (except for Jinnah - that is)

Patel is right that Ali's support seems to come less from the strength of her arguments than that she says something that her supporters want to hear. It is less clear that this constitutes being anti-Western. People in the west make overly simplistic arguments all the time. So it is not clear that this even puts Ali outside of the mainstream of western thought (or any other thought for that matter, I don't mean to single out my own tradition for extra criticism on this score).

The comparison to indicting all of Africa works to the degree it captures the sense that Ali gets support precisely because there are people who want to be told by an "insider" that Islam is rotten to the core to confirm their own beliefs. The US example though probably better illustrates how Ali's arguments appear to a practicing muslim like Patel. After all it is a cherry picked attack on his actual world view, much as the racism as the defining feature of the US would be to most of us in the US.

Eboo, while your quoting out of context does prove your point the other fact you don't put forward are the corrections that were made by the civil war for instance. There are no corrections being made in the Quran. Sorry the truth is powerful. If you can point out any that speak to other truths that are not in hiding or a sea change of any that has moved away from the hate the Quran preaches, then that would be helpful. The truth is hate and violence is all that is seen coming from the Quran. Look out at any country that makes claims of the peace of the Quran and they are ruled by killers and thugs. Sorry Eboo, trying spewing some truth.

Surprise, "radical" Islam has produced its antithesis in Ayaan Hirsi Ali -- hate produces hate.
Ali is not the issue -- she is no threat to blow herself up or kill others. The attitudes that spawned her are.

Ms. Hisri is the only person with the courage to call Islam what it is. There are some principles that are not compatible with Islam and among them include women's equality. While the US Constitution has amendments overruling the 3/5 clause for the slaves, there are no such amendments in Quran. Women have always and will always be counted as 1/2 the men.

Also the central idea of jihad in Islam cannot be denied. Even though many scholars has tried to reduce or minimize the violent aspects of jihad by claiming that jihad refers to the general act of defending and spreading the faith, none has denied the fact in defending and spreading the faith, use of violent force is explicitly advocated.

Given these two aspects of Islam, it is very hard for it to reconcile Islam with a Western liberal democracy or thoughts of Enlightenment.

Let me break your argument down, hombre.

P1: "The West" has its foundations in the Enlightenment's elevation of Reason.
P2: [I find that] Hirsi Ali's arguments about Islam's allegedly beligerant nature are unreasonable
Q1: Therefore, Hirsi Ali is attacking the West.

What?

If you'd argued that Hirsi Ali was attacking the West because she was attacking Reason itself - I might be convinced of that. Unfortunately, your logic allows one to seize on any claim of an unreasonable arguement as evidence of an effort to destroy Western Civilization.

But I can one-up that.

P1: Ayaan Hirsi Ali is living in America.
P2: Eboo Patel is attacking Ayann Hirsi Ali.
Q1: Therefore, Eboo Patel hates America.

Let me break your argument down, hombre.

P1: "The West" has its foundations in the Enlightenment's elevation of Reason.
P2: [I find that] Hirsi Ali's arguments about Islam's allegedly beligerant nature are unreasonable
Q1: Therefore, Hirsi Ali is attacking the West.

What?

If you'd argued that Hirsi Ali was attacking the West because she was attacking Reason itself - I might be convinced of that. Unfortunately, your logic allows one to seize on any claim of an unreasonable arguement as evidence of an effort to destroy Western Civilization.

But I can one-up that.

P1: Ayaan Hirsi Ali is living in America.
P2: Eboo Patel is attacking Ayann Hirsi Ali.
Q1: Therefore, Eboo Patel hates America.

I am a citizen of The Netherlands and I am proud to have casted a vote for her in the national elections for parliament. She masters a highly academic way of reasoning, which certainly cannot be said of Eboo Pattel, the writer of this article. Out of the many factual errors and wrong reasoning in the article let me just point out the error in the first sentence: Mrs. Ayaan Hirsi Ali had a large sway of followers here in The Netherlands long before she appeared on the radar of the Muslim radicals.

Rationalist wrote: "Classic example of self deception. Also can be called the tendency to "Having a cake and eat it all"? So if west is so bad, its culture is intolerable and Its unislamic life style, then Mr. Patel, why the hell you are staying in USA??
Isn't better for you to return your own home land in Pakistan and practice your own customized religion?"

Did Rationalist read Mr. Patel's writing is its entirety? Where did he say that "the west is bad, its culture is intolerable and its life style is unIslamic? Here is a paragraph from Mr. Patel’s writing. Rationalist, why not tell the world what it means in relationship to the nonsense you wrote?

“If you think the West is about marginalizing large groups of people and maligning their traditions, then Ayaan Hirsi Ali is defending it. If you believe, as I do, that the West is characterized by reason and pluralism, then Ayaan Hirsi Ali is attacking its essence.”

The criticism of Ayaan Hirsi Ali in this column is not only sophomoric, it is poorly documented and clearly very weak in its argument. Secularists, by their nature, are not a threat to the West, nor anywhere else. She can be criticized for some elements in her positions, but none of these were found in this column, which contained mostly rants.

Your logic is appallingly bad. You say, what if Ali had said Africa was inherently evil - something completely different from what she actually did say - then no one would listen to her. This is an irrelevant and idiotic argument. Apply the same "reasoning" to your own article. Say you had written that Hirsi Ali is stupid because she is a woman and women are stupid, readers would be repulsed by your argument also.

Infidel reports the events of one woman's life. You may not like the conflict between modern ideas of personal freedom and traditional religious views, be they Muslim Christian Hindu or Jewish, but to deny it exists is willful ignorance. To attack Hirsi Ali for telling her story, calling her a liar from your safe Western perch, is revolting.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali should receive the 2008 Nobel Peace Prize for bringing to the world's attention the evil and dangers of Islam.

Victoria cannot get help because she is like an alcoholic in denial. Until she realizes that her addiction to Islam has blinded her to the truth about Islam she will be a slave to evil religion.

simply refreshing! bravo! now, if only the rest of america/the world would listen and take heed to your insightful analysis....

She has the right idea but is insufficiently inclusive. All religions, not just Islam, are absurd. Of course they are not themselves the cause of all problems but we’d be much better off without them – not to count the cost of maintaining their irrational nonsense.

simply refreshing! bravo! now, if only the rest of america/the world would listen and take heed to your insightful analysis....

simply refreshing! bravo! now, if only the rest of america would listen....

Well argued, Mr. Patel.

I don't care what she says or who thinks what about what she says. She is beautiful. I am in love. Does anybody know if she is married?

I don't care what she says or who thinks what about what she says. She is beautiful. I am in love. Does anybody know if she is married?

I don't care what she says or who thinks what about what she says. She is beautiful. I am in love. Does anybody know if she is married?

Classic example of self deception. Also can be called the tendency to "Having a cake and eat it all"?
So if west is so bad, its culture is intolerable and Its unislamic life style, then Mr. Patel, why the hell you are staying in USA??
Isn't better for you to return your own home land in Pakistan and practice your own customized religion?
I like to request WP, not to entertain this type of racism and fundamentalist columnist.
I also came to know that these so called Islamic intellectuals, who are residing in America, gained citizenship status, are flexing their muscles of "Voice", that whole America bound to be Islamized, and in very near future, whole America will be called "Islamic Republic of America".
OK Mr. Patel, Your such dream may turn into Nightmare. You may aware that recently a A joint working committee of INDO- USA Immigration Department has been established? What is the purpose of establishing such committee? It's main purpose to automatic screening out the would be Islamic Aspirants, who are trying to immigrate from Indo- Pak subcontinent. In the same time They are encouraging Other faiths to immigrate in this the promise land, and they are getting "Green Card", with minimum hussell. This type screening procedures are established and working in fast pace with other Nations, cut down such influx.
Another point here- we the Non-Islamic faith holders, believe American Constitution, America's Democratic credential and Ethos. They will upheld these core values of Nation's Foundations for ever. They will Join the main stream of society and make it all pervading majority for all time.
We admire Miss Ayaan Hirisi Ali, she has broken the shackle of dispecable sharia law. She is voicing the million **Oppressed Muslim women** who are languishing in dungeons sharia Law. They are been subjugated into Slavery and all kind of horrible tortures. I believe that This enlightened Lady had suffer herself physically and mentally, under current Muslim society.
I like to request Mr.Patel, don't spread misleading and untrue in formations, and avoid malapropism. Amen.

Abu Lahab was Muhammad's uncle and had exposed Muhammad as a fraud. His influence on other Arabs was not as great as that of Asma bint Marrwan who wrote powerful poetry. Muhamamd murdered Asma.

Lahab's wife had thrown a chicken's intestine on Muhammad. Hence, the surah below that Muhammad put into his idol's mouth.

111.001
YUSUFALI: Perish the hands of the Father of Flame! Perish he!
PICKTHAL: The power of Abu Lahab will perish, and he will perish.
SHAKIR: Perdition overtake both hands of Abu Lahab, and he will perish.

111.002
YUSUFALI: No profit to him from all his wealth, and all his gains!
PICKTHAL: His wealth and gains will not exempt him.
SHAKIR: His wealth and what he earns will not avail him.

111.003
YUSUFALI: Burnt soon will he be in a Fire of Blazing Flame!
PICKTHAL: He will be plunged in flaming Fire,
SHAKIR: He shall soon burn in fire that flames,

111.004
YUSUFALI: His wife shall carry the (crackling) wood - As fuel!-
PICKTHAL: And his wife, the wood-carrier,
SHAKIR: And his wife, the bearer of fuel,

111.005
YUSUFALI: A twisted rope of palm-leaf fibre round her (own) neck!
PICKTHAL: Will have upon her neck a halter of palm-fibre.
SHAKIR: Upon her neck a halter of strongly twisted rope.

Victoria

Apparently you are the one that needs to do some reading.

Abdullah, Muhammad's father, was named Abdullah, because he worshipped the family deity Allah. He was a pagan and the first monotheist in the family was Muhammad who was influenced by Nestorian Christians.

Allah was promoted by Muhammad into the chief deity.

surely you do not accept that God would say what Allah was made to say in surah 111.

there is no contempraneous9spell check) to Muhammad or Abdullah literature saying that Abdullah was a monotheist. To have been named Abdullah, Abdullah's father would have to be a monotheist and that is stretching it.

By the way would you support the building of a church in Mecca?

what are you doing up at this hour lib?

want a kitten?

ted- Muhammad's(pbuh) father was indeed named Abdullah- it means servant or slave of the god
he was a hanif sabian- not a saban-(or from sheba) or mandeian or sabean-
they worshipped one god- were not pagans - you have enough google it yourself

skeptimal- moses was also a statesman and prophet- also the Prophet(pbuh) was offered the wealth of all the tribes of arabia (mecca was a wealthy hub of all tribes) if he would only denounce his mission- but you tell yourself what you want

ahh- the dangers of a little knowledge and the internet

if muslims were all women haters- how did ayaan hirsi ali get such an expensive and excellent education to begin with?

muslim women immigrants to america have a much higher education level than american women -

anyone from anywhere can be a misogynist

it is what it is

peace peoples

Ayaan Hirsi Ali should receive the 2008 Nobel Peace Prize for bringing to the world's attention the evil and dangers of Islam.

Sorry, but you are not fit to hold Ayaan Hirsi Ali's hem. There are many reasons I say this, but it is apparent that you don't know her or her work at all.

Typical Muslim apologist - you've made no friend for Islam here.

Eboo Patel,

Go preach your whitewashed version of Islam to real Muslims in the middle of Saudi Arabia and watch your infidel head rolling down the street after you are beheaded after Friday prayers.

HarveyH5,

Thanks for the reply. We are in 100% agreement.

Here's the truth,

Thanks for pointing out the truth. In light of all the political correctness by our media, politicians, and educational institutions our country needs more alert people like you. Keep pointing out the truth the jihad warriors are using all the above mentioned for their gain.

Rick,

I commented only on the Muslim religion because the subject of this discussion concerns Eboo Patel's criticism of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I can't argue with the criticisms of the U.S.'s approach to the Middle East. Also, given a different article, I would be just as ready to criticize Christianity. All religions are bogus. However, just because I only criticized the Muslim religion, doesn't make the points I made invalid. You yourself quoted A Muslim: "Are there injustices in the Muslim world? Yes, there are. Then let’s remedy them, and not fight a WWIII over it." I certainly agree.

Skeptimal,

Thanks for the most congenial reply. You make some very good points. I agree of course that we cannot tolerate terrorism. However, invading and occupying Palestine and Iraq is no way to fight terrorism; this just creates more terrorists.

Anon notes that the Christians are being treated poorly in the Middle East. I wonder why that is. The daily TV news showing the Americans and Israelis raining tons of death and destruction indiscriminately on the local populations with their war machines cannot be expected to generate much good will.

President Bush's (latest) stated purpose for invading and occupying Iraq is to bring democracy to the Middle East in accordance with God's wishes. This is not likely to win many converts to Christianity.

Rick,

Thanks for responding. We don't agree, but our disagreements may be different than we both thought. My hope is that you hate terrorism as much as I do, but that you just aren't saying so because you're trying to make another point.

You seem to be saying that Islam and Christianity are so similar that the differences are unimportant. Given that the old testament does advocate genocide and numerous other evils, and seeing the bloodthirsty nature of the most vocal U.S. Christians, I can see why you would think that.

Islam, however, has worse problems. Mohammed wasn't conciliatory like Jesus probably was. Jesus actually did seem to believe that poor people are as important as rich ones, and that it was better to turn the other cheek than to try to perfectly balance the scales of justice. Hundreds of years later, of course, the "pharisees" took over the church and turned his vision into something cruel and vicious.

Because Mohammed was an administrator as well as a prophet, it is nearly impossible to separate mosque and state. Christianity also had time to moderate itself, separating from literal translation of the old testament. (Even the Southern Baptists don't advocate stoning rebellious kids and killing witches and gays these days.)

Islam is still there, in its dark ages. Huge numbers of Muslims are as hungry for bloody jihad as Pat Robertson is for Armageddon. We should all hope that Islam eventually reforms itself, and if we don't all destroy each other first, it probably will.

Terrorism, however, can not be tolerated, explained away, or justified. If we permit that, then we agree to giving up civilization. We are also not obligated to honor the modern Muslim hatred for women, apostates, and free thinkers, any more than we should honor it when some Christians believe in racial purity (Aryan nation) and forced religious crusades (Ann Coulter).

Rick

Muhammad's father was a pagan. His name was Abdullah or the slave of Allah. Allah was one of the 360 idols worshiped by Arabs. Muhammad promoted Allah to the chief and only deity in order to unite the Arabs against whom he also used ruthless force if they did not convert to Muhammadanism aka Islam.

Read verse 111. Would the True God utter such drivel? Muhammad insulted God by associating the idol allah with God and putting such hate into what he said was God.

Also Muhammad was a pervert. he was a pedophile, a murderer, a bandit, a child molester and a slave monger. Associating Muhammad with God is a major sin.

Stoning is an integral part of Islam. read this hadith from Muwatta.

Book 41, Number 41.1.5:

Malik related to me from Yaqub ibn Zayd ibn Talha from his father Zayd ibn Talha that Abdullah ibn Abi Mulayka informed him that a woman came to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and informed him that she had committed adultery and was pregnant.

The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said to her, "Go away until you give birth."

When she had given birth, she came to him. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said to her, "Go away until you have suckled and weaned the baby."

When she had weaned the baby, she came to him. He said, "Go and entrust the baby to someone."

She entrusted the baby to someone and then came to him. He gave the order and she was stoned.

Mourning and condemnation follows murder of Christian in Gaza:

A prominent Palestinian Christian was found dead on a Gaza City street. He was Rami Khader Ayyad, the 32-year-old director of Gaza’s only Christian bookstore who hospital officials say was shot in the head and stabbed numerous times.

He is survived by two young children and a pregnant wife.

In Iraq, where Christians [and formerly Jews] have lived for millennia, they are being driven out. The Jews, 750,000 of them, were expelled from the Arab world [and some lynched] in 1954. Now it is Christian Arabs — including Palestinians — who are being hunted down and either killed or driven out. Assyrian Christians in Iraq are being given four choices: change their religion, leave the country, pay the jeziya [a tax levied on non-Muslims], or line up and be shot.

The Christian population in Muslim lands has plunged from 12 million to 2 million in the past decade alone. Lebanon, once a majority Christian country, has become two-thirds Muslim. Jerusalem, where only 12,000 Christians remain, is facing the possibility that there will be no Christians "in the homeland of Jesus Christ himself" according to the Greek Orthodox archbishop in Jerusalem. In Bethlehem, Christians were once 85 percent, down now to 20 percent. In Egypt, Christians were once 10 percent of the population; now they are 6 percent. "The flight of Christians out of these areas is similar to the hunt for Jews," according to Magdi Allam, an Egyptian author.

The situation in Iraq is particularly painful. Before the 2003 war, there were Assyrian and Chaldean Christians, some Armenians and Palestinians who were finding work there. They comprised 1.2 million of the country's 25 million people. Now half of them have fled Iraq, and most of the rest have fled to Kurdistan or elsewhere in the country. The Roman Catholic relief organization claims that there are only 25,000 Christians left in Iraq, and over half of the 1.7 million Iraqi refugees in Jordan and Syria are Christian.

What is sad about this is that, in a way, the Christians, particularly the Palestinian Christians, have brought this on themselves. They have made common cause with their Muslim neighbors [and persecutors] and never acknowledged their persecution until European colonization unmasked the problem. Under European colonization and mandates, for the first time since the Muslim conquest, minorities were given status under the law that was not accorded them under Sharia law. The very country of Lebanon was carved out specifically to give persecuted Christians a place of their own in the otherwise hostile Middle East.

Palestinians have permitted themselves to be pawns of Militant Islam — and now Muslim, secular and Christian Palestinians are all suffering. Palestinians who worked in Kuwait cheered when Saddam Hussein invaded that country were, of course, kicked out when Kuwait was restored. Now they are being kicked out of Iraq, where they went for refuge. It is a dirty little secret that other Muslim countries detest and mistreat Palestinians who go there for work. The Saudis have used and abused Palestinian talents and Egyptians are none too hospitable either. The only Arab country that has given refuge and citizenship to them is Jordan, and some Jordanians rue this decision.

When Pope Benedict noted a medieval scholar's critical comments on the Prophet Muhammad, furious Palestinians went after the "usual suspects:" their Christian brothers. They torched at least six churches on the West Bank to show their displeasure. Perhaps 3,000 Christians remain in Gaza, and they are finding their Muslim brothers not very brotherly. Hamas is after them and will not stop until they are dead or gone.

http://www.globalthink.net/

Here’s The Truth,

"There is no moderate Christianity. There are Christians who are passive, who don't always follow the rules of Christianity, but there's really only one Christianity, defined as submission to the will of God. There's nothing moderate about it."

If we did follow the rules of Christianity, we would be stoning to death everyone who works on the Sabbath.

"There is no moderate Islam. There are Muslims who are passive, who don't always follow the rules of Islam, but there's really only one
Islam, defined as submission to the will of God. There's nothing moderate about it."

- Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Hello Ted,

I think the biggest sins being committed today are our occupations of Palestine and Iraq.

I think that you are confused about Islam. Muhammad did not create Allah. Muhammad was (according to Islam) the most recent Prophet of Allah.

To claim that the God of Islam is evil, and the God of Judaism and Christianity is good, is the height of hypocrisy. The two are the same. The Qur’an accepts the OT in its entirety, and builds on that as a starting point.

Rick

the sins Christians committed were in the past. the sins that Muslims are committing are now.

Their biggest sin is associating the evil god from Arabia and his creator, Muhammad, with the true God

Skeptimal,

I don’t carry anyone’s water. I don’t try to justify the actions of all Muslims. I recognize that the actions of many Muslims are not in accord with the writings of the Qur’an, just like the actions of many so-called Christians are not in accord with the writings of the OT/NT.

Also, many of the laws that are written in these ancient texts are abhorrent to us today, in both the OT/NT and Qur’an. For example the OT commands us to kill all children who curse their parents, all people who curse god, and all people who work on the Sabbath, etc., etc., etc. Fortunately, I have managed to erase my religious programming, and now am able to think clearly and have free will.

As I said, the thing that I have little or no tolerance for is my hypocritical countrymen who are so concerned about the flaws of Islam and Muslims, but can’t see the similar (or worse) flaws in Christianity and the secular USA.

I am also dismayed to see my tax dollars being used for the illegal and immoral invasions and occupations of Palestine and Iraq, the slaughtering of innocents (mostly women and children) by the thousands, and the dislocation and driving of millions of families into refugee camps.

Apparently you equate clear thinking and criticism of this administration’s (and others) disastrous foreign policy with thinking like Mohammad Atta. Perhaps you need to undergo some serious deprogramming as well. When you do, please take my friends CTCNL and Anon with you.

Rick said: "Who said anything about persecuted American Muslim? I'm not a Muslim. I'm a reformed former Christian Southern Baptist now liberated; e.g. atheist/agnostic"

I'll have to take you at your word, though the tone of your writing is something I would have more expected out of Mohammed Atta. I'm trying to understand how an ex-Christian can carry water for adherents of a faith that often murders its apostates. What is that I'm not understanding about your position?

Thanks Anon,

I will cease and desist using that term. I know how aggravating it can be reading CTCNL go on and on about his Pretty Wingy Flying Thingies (PWFTs).

Please read a response article entitled The West Vs The Muslim World by Ahmed Said at
http://somalianow.blogspot.com/2007/10/west-vs-muslim-world.html

Rick.

Have you noticed on this board that narrowminded fundamentalists keep typing their favorite phrases over and over -ad nauseum- and bring nothing new to the discussion.

At least follow the lead of the more considerate narrowminded posters and abbreviate:

Dear Leader and World Class Hypocrite= DL&WCH

The following essay reinforces what Ms Ali expounded concerning the treatment of women in Islam.

Women in Islam
Muslim preachers and advocates in the West, preach and lecture that “Islam elevated the status of women”. That message is not dealt with in the mosques and airwaves of Muslim countries because they know the audience there know better. The above italicized macabre claim would not be made to the people of the West either if it were not for the prevalent perception among the Arab and Arabised Muslims that the Westerners in general and the people of the United States in particular are “simple minded” and gullible. Their denigrating assessment of the “other” is the processing of a fettered nomadic tribal mindset prone to exclusivity and obsessed with visions of bygone triumphs.

The term “elevate” in the above claim implies improvement in the quality of Muslim women’s life since pre-Islamic times --pre 630 AD, which they refer to as the “Age of Ignorance”. The Prophet of Islam, Mohammed (570-632AD), married his first wife, Khadija (555-620A D), in Mecca , Hejaz, during the pre-Islamic period. She lived all of her 65 years in the “Age of Ignorance”. Let us compare her “status” with that of present day women of her hometown, Mecca, to gauge the extent Islam had “elevated” the social standing of women over the past fourteen hundred years.

Khadija bint Khuwailed was a wealthy literate woman who owned a huge commercial enterprise as well as a fleet of more than 500 camels to transport her wares. She hired Mohammad to travel with her caravans to Yemen and Syria as manager of her trading business. She divorced two husbands and never was in a polygamous relationship. She proposed marriage to Mohammad when she was 40 and he was 25. He never took another wife while married to her and their marriage lasted 25 years, ending with her death. She never veiled her face and traveled freely.

How many women in Mecca today can read and write and own their own businesses? How many women in Mecca today have a say about their prospective husbands let alone propose to them or divorce them? How many women in Mecca today are living in a monogamous marriages or married to a younger man? How many Meccan women show their faces or travel alone? How then did Islam elevate women? Is it by institutionalizing polygamy and the culture of concubines? Mohammad’s mother and grandmothers, all of whom lived in the pre-Islamic era, did not share their husbands with other wives, yet he had 10 known wives and unknown number of concubines at the time of his death. Is this the way Islam and its founder elevated women? Or by ruling that women inherit half their brother’s share and their testimony, when accepted, counts as equivalent to only half that of a man? Or maybe by making it “Halal” or lawful for men to lie to their wives and beat them? Is it by giving the man the right to divorce simply by uttering the sentence “I divorce you” three times, or by institutionalizing the practice of female sex organ mutilation they call “Khatan ”? How is that elevating to women? How does any of those above mentioned practices that were institutionalized and spread by Islam to include over a billion people today could have improved upon the status and welfare of a pre-Islamic woman such as Khadija?

The Arabian Peninsula had many powerful and influential women during the “Age of Ignorance”. The famous Queen Balqees or Queen of Sheba ruled a thriving and prosperous Sheba (Yemen), just south of Hejaz, three thousand years ago . Sujaj, Um Furka, Um Zumol were chieftains of their Hejaz tribes. Afra and Zafra were High Priestesses, a position comparable to a Prime Minister. Al Khansaa was a popular prime poetess in Mecca during Mohammad’s time. How many notable or influential Muslim women from Hejaz or the whole Arabian Peninsula have you heard of? The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which includes Hejaz as a province, had only very recently allowed girls into schools. Women there are not allowed to vote, drive a car or even walk outside their enclosed courtyards unless covered completely from top to bottom with black shrouds called Niqab and escorted by either the father, a brother or husband.

The people in the West read the books from which the Muslims derive their Sharia or Religious Law, and have observed the Muslims’ practices as well as know their history. The West did not get to their present level of eminence in all of human endeavors by being ignorant, illiterate, passive or closed- minded. The whole world knows now the status of women under the Sharia. The Muslim missionaries in the West need to be very well aware that their audience are steeped in a culture that respects honesty and practices critical thinking. Such easily verifiable misleading claims will only further diminish the credibility of Muslims and tarnish their religion.
09-18-07

CTCNL says:

‘And again I assume the money we spent/spend defending the Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Kuwait was/is a waste?? And the foreign aid for Egypt, Palestine, Pakistan and other Muslim countries is a waste??’

I don’t know where you get the idea that this was a mistake, certainly not from me. Of course the aid that we give to Palestinians is nowhere near fair and balanced compared to the aid that we give to Israelis.

And I doubt that the aid that we are giving to the repressive regimes of the Middle East is intended to help the poor people of these countries. It is just to prop up the totalitarian regimes to keep the oil flowing. But their days are numbered. We had best cut our dependence on Middle East oil before it is too late.

If anyone here is brainwashed, it is you, as evidenced by your unquestioning faith in your Dear Leader and World Class Hypocrite. Thankfully I have escaped from the programming of my youth, proving once again that free will does exist. Keep trying and you can set yourself free from your programming as well.

Eboo Patel,

You are not a Koran following Muslim. This is clear by the ignorance laid out in your thread.

Rick,

Hmmm, yes the Israelies wanted their Promised Land back. Just like the Muslims who think all lands of the infidels are rightly their Promised Lands. Both are significantly stupid and significantly wrong and suffer as you do from the brainwashing of flawed religions.

You must stop reading the propaganda of the Islamic Terror Theocracy of Iran. You sound like one of their ambassadors.

And again I assume the money we spent/spend defending the Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Kuwait was/is a waste?? And the foreign aid for Egypt, Palestine, Pakistan and other Muslim countries is a waste??

CTCNL,

I’m sure that you know the difference between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. You are just playing dumb and the role fits you well. You are more anti-Semite than I, since both Jews and Arabs are Semites.

My best friend is a secular Jew. He is one of the most humble people that you would ever want to meet and doesn’t have a religious bone in his body. His mother is living in Tel Aviv where he grew up. He is a strong advocate of the illegal and immoral invasions and occupations of Palestine and Iraq, so we disagree on those issues.

I believe that these invasions and occupations of Palestine and Iraq are related. I regret that the Jewish lobby: the neocons like Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle and Kristol have so much influence and control over our government; that they could dupe our Dear Leader and World Class Hypocrite into such a terrible mistake as the illegal and immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq. This is the third most serious crime of the past 100 years; the Balfour Declaration (1917) being the first, and the UN partition of Palestine (1947) being the second.

Imagine if the trillion dollars squandered on invading and occupying Palestine and Iraq had instead been spent on infrastructure, conservation and alternate energy sources. How much better off would be our economy as well as our national security. Wake up people; we must break our dependence on Middle East oil. This is the second root cause of the disastrous misadventure in Iraq, the first being the influence of the Israeli lobby who feared and loathed Saddam.

The idea that the Zionist Jews feel that they are The Chosen People of God and Palestine is their Promised Land is nothing new. The vast majority of Jew’s do not agree, but unfortunately, the most extreme nut jobs seem to get the most attention, have the most influence, and give the rest the bad name and stereotype.

Most of the world sees the USA and Israel as the only terrorist states. They clearly can make a better case than can you for the Islamic terror theocracy of Iran. And as for ‘the Third Axis of Evil’, give us a break!!!

You have been drinking too much of your Dear Leader’s Kool-Aide.

Rick,

Hmmm, apparently being Born, Bred and Brainwashed and not so liberated a Southern Baptist explains your anti-Semitism.

You sound just like the current "fruit cakes" who are now in charge of the Islamic terror theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil. Hopefully, Iranian oil profits now being used to sponsor global terror will someday be used to make for a better life in Iran.

of course ayaan is repulsive to your faith because she is a living reminder of how revolting your faith is.

your agenda is to promote and defend islam. you are doing your bit for the jihad!

keep up the 'good' work!

Skeptimal said:

'Who are you really? Because I'm not buying your persecuted American Muslim bulls**t.'

Does that make sense to you? It doesn't to me.

Who said anything about persecuted American Muslim? I'm not a Muslim. I'm a reformed former Christian Southern Baptist now liberated; e.g. atheist/agnostic.

Rick said: "I just have a low level of tolerance for hypocrisy. I’m always amazed to see my fellow countrymen criticize Muslims for their violence; while our most powerful military in the world is invading and occupying their countries..."

Meanwhile, you spout the anti-Israel dogma of the terrorists without once denouncing their butchery. Who are you really? Because I'm not buying your persecuted American Muslim bulls**t.

Victoria;
Hi there,
Your personal history is very interesting,but not relevant to my point,and in no way contradicts what I said.
Its the big picture that seems to me to be inescapable;
that kids most everywhere are made to believe things about a supernatural world and God,that may not be true.
Ideas learned as a child often stick forever,its the most impressionable time of life.
And what one grows up believing depends where one lives,and what one's community believes.And the fact that beliefs vary,suggests,as Mark Twain said,"The quiet confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly,makes me suspect that mine is also".
My bigger point is that,as an atheist,I oppose telling children what to think about God.
Telling kids that there is a God,or an Allah,or whatever,is irresponsible,because it is something we can't know.As far as we know,Victoria,there is no such thing.On balance,I would say there is no god, because history shows us that man has always invented gods.Look at the Greeks,look at the Romans.Look at all the Indian gods.Gods for everything.Our ancestors made them all up.We know that now.There is no Apollo.There is no Zeus.There never was.
To actually believe in a personal skygod is really a bit of a stretch in a world where there is no hint of a god;where he's never showed up anywhere or done anything. Remove god today,and tomorrow the world will be exactly as it is today.

CTCNL,

And again you fail to come to grips with the flaws in the USA and Israel’s greed for Muslim land and oil, beginning with the Balfour Declaration of 1917 that accelerated the illegal and immoral immigration of the Zionist Jews into Palestine. This was the most dreadful decision of the last century.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".

The UN partition of 1947 that enabled the establishment of the ‘State of Israel’ was the next disastrous decision. Truman new better but caved in to pressure in an election year to public opinion and the political attacks from the Republican candidate Dewey. So much for: “The buck stops here”.

These dreadful decisions are only rivaled by the disastrous decision of this century to invade and occupy Iraq. All for our unquenchable thirst for Middle East oil, and the Neocon Israeli lobby pulling the strings of our government.

Can you imagine how much better off would be our economy and national security, if we had spent the trillion dollars squandered on these dastardly deeds, on our infrastructure and alternative energy sources instead?

Victoria, Victoria, Victoria,

And again you fail (along with Rick) to come to grips with the flaws in the koranic foundations and founder of Islam.

And Rick paints the Islamic terror theocracy of Iran as a bunch of Boyscouts. Give us a break!!!

They sponsor along with the "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia the Shiite/Sunni and Islamic terror squads' "hell bent agenda" to kill all the Sunnis/Shiites and infidels they can wherever and whenever.

This agenda continues as shown by the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic train bombers in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases and the Filipino koranics.

Stop blaming the USA and Israel. We are not responsible for the flaws in your religion.

Late in Bosnia and Kosovo?? Maybe but we went in and did the job saving millions of Muslims. And we were right on time in kicking Saddam's butt in Islamic Kuwait. Last time I checked Kuwait was still an Islamic state.

Victoria

Please comment on the pubes hadith.

Muhammad, the pedophile prophet of Islam, had his eyes on the wealth of the Jews to keep himself rich and his gang of thugs happy.

Under a false pretext he attacked the Banu Qurayzah tribe of Jews , killed all the males who had attained puberty and then sold the wives and orphans into slavery.

Muhammad and his gang of thugs beheaded 800 Jewish men and boys in a single evening. Among the boys were children who had just sprouted pubic hair.

Here is the hadith.

Sunan Abu Dawud

Book 38, Number 4390:

Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:

I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.

Anon says:

‘You call anyone who questions Islam -a Muslim basher. You are narrow-minded.’

Maybe si, maybe no, I don’t think so, but then I wouldn’t, would I. I just have a low level of tolerance for hypocrisy. I’m always amazed to see my fellow countrymen criticize Muslims for their violence; while our most powerful military in the world is invading and occupying their countries, bombing them back to the Stone Age from thousands of feet with our white phosphorous munitions, slaughtering innocents (mostly women and children) and driving them into refugee camps, etc., etc., etc.

CTCNL is so worried about the Islamic terror theocracy of Iran; while they are only aiding their neighbor to oust the unwanted invader and occupying world’s greatest power from their country, and the illegal and immoral Israeli occupiers from Palestine.

We are so worried that Iran may acquire nuclear weapons; while it doesn’t bother us at all that the illegitimate ‘State of Israel’ has them by the hundreds, and we have them by the thousands.

Our delightful Christians are so critical of Islam; while their OT commands us to kill all children who curse their parents, all people who curse god (god damn it), and all people who work on the Sabbath (how many billions of people will that rid us of. Oh well, we are way overpopulated, but god help us if we try to control our population through prudent birth control measures.

Hi Victoria,

Where did you grow up? Weren't you pressured by friends to accept religion? Were you Christian before you converted to Muslim?

Did you finish rereading the Qur'an during Ramadan? I still have only read the first three chapters.

I guess you are the exception that proves the rule; started out in an atheist/agnostic family and ended up getting religion.

Salaam

victoria,

your not a true muslim. you are an infidel in the eyes of real muslims everywhere or maybe you are a real muslim and you are trying to get us the buy the jihad is peace propaganda.

I pray that Ali Hirsi will see the truth about Jesus Christ the Son of God who Died on the cross and conquered death three days later. Her experience with true Islam has had a devastating effect on her. No wonder she is an atheist. As far as her so-called disdain for the West we Christians can overlook that and love her and pray for her.

danby ericson- dont you believe it for a minute-

im a muslim- and if i came upon a crowd abusing ayaan ali hirsi (or whatever her name is) id immediately put my own life on the line to protect her life-

ive done it before and ill do it agian.

pikey

ive seen this elaborated on by meg, yoyo and CCNL-

speak for yourselves-
that is the point, to break free from programming-
i didnt have the benefit or detriment of religious programming- mom was agnostic and dad was an atheist- he simply didnt believe in god.

my own yearnings for spiritual knowledge was purely my own inclinations- not encouraged or discouraged- even in school i read in art class and drew in english class- so much so that my english teacher just gave me books and graded me on my oral critiques-
my phys ed teacher also gave up on me when i repeatedly had to put a book down to find a ball thrown at me which i always missed- until everyone just left me blissfully alone to read out in left field- i was always the last one picked for sports- not that i cared.
i was a repeat offender for skipping class and hanging in front of the school, so much so that the principal would ask what i was reading- eventually he left me alone too.

but the librarian adored me- and i could skip classes in the library with impunity.
my grades were in the upper 1% so they didnt try to fix me.

in my religious life- i came to islam through prayer and reading -

i had never met a muslim before i became one, and have commented many times to muslms that if id have experienced many of the cultural and traditional so called practices- id have never become a muslim either.

i also escaped the indoctination of college- going to art school instead where no one was inclined to lead anyone anywhere, and such forays into personal expression were actually encouraged.

what amazes me most completely are the so called free thinkers, who when you examine their philosophies are just poor reactions against existing doctrines, with nary a free or original thought between them.

ive been a muslim 9 years now, and am completely satisfied with where my own journey has taken me.

i learned a long time ago, that to constructively critique any subject- you must immerse yourself in it first-

this is one of my complaints about ms hirsi-

her full knowledge of islam was developed and rejected by age 16-

when it was time to go to college- i used to tell my friends- i wouldnt want to be held accountable my whole life for immature life decisions made at 18
i was 18 when i said it and even then recognized my own immaturity and inability to know myself enough to idnetify my lifes purpose-

i waited til i was 21 to go to art school-where i used to hang out with my professiors in the bar across the street- ( i tended bar at 18 and am fully able to be in a bar and not become stupid unconscious by drinking) another education-

so- my advice is to take some chances in your own life - and the saddest words are "i could have"

LIB- why dont you do some homework on your contention that america has saved any muslims in bosnia or kosovo?

we didnt even show up until after the killing and genocide (according to the ruling by the world court) and mass rapes of muslim women and incarceration into concentration camps of all males and mass exodus of the population.

as a matter of fact- the ex-aide to ronald reagan- richard holbrooke(a decidedly conservative man) lamented afterwards that our late and ineffective incursion into bosnia was "the greatest FAILURE of the west)

go find some statistics for me- and dont believe everything the TV tells you to believe.

Rick.

You call anyone who questions Islam -a Muslim basher.

You are narrow-minded.

Congratulations YoYo on your rejection of the programming. Free will is alive and well.

CTCNL,

Yes, we have done some good with our military might before the current Hypocrite took office. Now our Dear Leader is on a Holy Crusade to convert the heathens to democracy. At least that is his new stated objective after previous explanations have been shown to be false.

No we haven’t added any new stars to our flag, but we are responsible for the illegitimate ‘State of Israel’s land grab in Palestine.

Rick,

The Islamic terror theocracy of Iran is hardly a few extremists!!!!!

And as always you fail to compliment the USA taxpayers for saving the millions of Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo and Kuwait and the billions for foreign aid we give to Muslim countries like Egypt and Pakistan. And again it is the ancient blood feud between the Sunnis and Shiites that is keeping us in Iraq!!!! An ancient blood feud by the way that keeps making Israel a scapegoat for the Muslim on Muslim violence.

And illegal land grab in the Middle East? I don't see any state stars being added to our flag.

Its like we're all computers
and our religious beliefs are programed into us
throughout our childhoods.
What we end up believing has nothing to do with truth,
and everything to do with the program.
And different religion, different program.
If I had been born and raised in a Muslim country,
today I'd praying 5 times a day facing Mecca:
and would consider Christians to be infidels.
Had I been raised a Hindu,today I might be
burning incense and praying to Vishnu. Had I been
raised in Utah by Mormons,I'd now be a Mormon.
in Ireland,probably a devout catholic.
We all believe what we were raised to believe;
and what our community believes.
Why don't we get it?
Religions are just passed-on customs and beliefs
from ancient times that cannot all claim to be true.
The likelyhood is none of it is true.
If it wasn't programed into our heads as kids,
we'd never believe it as intelligent adults,
hearing about God,or Allah,or Vishnu,for the first time.
It would sound perfectly ridiculous.

Muslim Bashers,

Listen up! It’s roll call time:

Zosima, Hewitt, Russell Holloway, Ted Baines, Wayne, David, Neal Jettpace, Jon, Ed Kenton, CTCNL, Timothy, Walk The Line, Skeptimal, Elanda2, Hinge, Fate, Arif, Ender, PPike, Concur, Does It Matter, Mr. Mac, Greg, Moorthy Muthuswamy, M. A. Fitchue Ed. D., SM, Andy Morgan, Home From Afghanistan, MOA, Wayne Brothers, Raghoo, Standing Up For Ayaan, Raj Vohra, Sven, Drew, Jim, Jeff D, Donttypelies, AgentG, Jason, Mike in LA, JD, E. O’Neal, HarveyH5, Ibrahim Mahfouz, Daniel, Alam, GeorgiaSon, Mike, DanbyEricson.

All present and accounted for.

‘Thou hypocrites, first cast the beam from thine own eye.’

Or as my good friend Bernie Bee would say:

Shame be upon ye! As me dear Uncle Fergus would tell ye “If ye send a turnip round every country in the world ten times it will still come back a turnip. Well-travelled, aye—but as thick and unenlightened as ever!”

You should be more concerned about your country’s illegal and immoral land/oil grab in the Middle East exemplified by our invasion and occupation of Muslim holy lands in Palestine and Iraq; and the millions of innocents (mostly women and children) slaughtered or chased into refugee camps, in the name of our lust for oil.

Many of you are characterized by the irrational hatred expressed so well by DanbyEricson:

‘The Muslims here make me detest Islam with every fiber of my being. It is stupid, violent, and ugly. Who will save us from this irrational murderous dogma? It's not only the extremists that Ayaan has to run from. It's ALL the Muslims. All of them.’

We should all listen raptly to the voices of reason expressed best by A Muslim and Reuben Marks.

A Muslim: ‘Are there injustices in the Muslim world? Yes, there are. Then let’s remedy them, and not fight a WWIII over it. It is not worth it, and will only bring death and destruction. Does it have to take a few million innocent people dead for the West to realize it was wrong on something? Islam is not the problem. Extremism is.’

Reuben Marks: ‘It is my belief that all religions have flaws because religions are a product of the human experience.’

'Let's say she went after Africa.'

Wait a minute. This is nonsense. Africa exists. Its people have endured real suffering through empire, the slave trade, exploitation, racism, civil war, apartheid, and so on. Furthermore, Africans have no choice in the matter over where they come from - they were simply born there.
Islam, on the other hand, is based on a book of incoherent ramblings from a very long time ago, when people didn't know very much about anything. There is no proof whatsoever of God's existence, or of Mohammed being a prophet. Indeed, common sense dictates that it is much likelier he was a fraud or a madman than a prophet. So, if you want to believe this childish rubbish (ie be a muslim), that's a matter of choice. As opposed to being an African, which is a physical circumstance based on geography and genes. In your campaign for acceptance of Islam, you have no right to align yourelf with those fighting against racism, sexism, ageism or the like - all of these things deal with unfair treatment based on someone's physical, unchangeable form. If someone challenges your childish delusion, YOU (unlike them) have a choice - give up that delusion or continue to live in the Middle Ages. Do you understand now?

Dumb journalism.

Muslims support attacking Ayaan,nonmuslims don't.
I can't help feeling that Muslims would love to stone Ayaan to death for shooting her mouth off.
You can do anything,just don't criticize the disgusting religion of the invisible Allah.
The muslims here make me detest Islam with every fiber of my being.
It is stupid,violent,and ugly.Who will save us from this irrational murderous dogma?
It's not only the extremists that Ayaan has to run from.It's ALL the Muslims.All of them.

Sir,
you hit the point,She got what she was looking

and as long as she is milking the cow , she will continue. God may help her.

Aziz

"Let’s say the first Americans she met were the racists who drove around Jena during the protests with nooses hanging off their pick up trucks."

What a bout the racists that were driving around Jena insisting that assualt isn't a crime if you are black?

Bravo! Hirshi Ali is no way respresenting the view of all people in the Netherlands nor in the West. What she does and seems to want, is to create a climate of hatred and distrust between people. In short the kind of the thing her most radical opponents (Muslim extremists) want as well. All normal people should think twice before the follow the ideas of radical thinkers like Ali. We do not need more hatred and distrust in our world.

Well, kudos to Eboo for finding yet one more person who hates America and/or the West!

What a diversity of opinions the Post gives us! All the way from people who hate America to those who hate the entire Western civilization!

Thank goodness the Post does not trouble us with any opinions that don't come from the far left.

Well, kudos to Eboo for finding yet one more person who hates America and/or the West!

What a diversity of opinions the Post gives us! All the way from people who hate America to those who hate the entire Western civilization!

Thank goodness the Post does not trouble us with any opinions that don't come from the far left.

Mr. Patel has made some excellent points about Ayaan Hirsi Ali's treatise. He is probably correct that too many people have too glibly embraced her arguments and outlook regarding Islam.

But even if her approach is wrong, I remain unconvinced that Islam is compatible with liberal, secular democracies. The Muslim experience in Europe is not reassuring. If Muslims in America seem to be assimilating well, that is because their numbers, while growing, are still a relatively small minority of the overall population. What happens as their numbers--and political and social clout--get larger?

I pose again the five questions that I would like the most authoritative voices of orthodox Islam to answer:

1. Does Islam allow for the separation of church and state?
2. Does Islam allow for the full legal equality of women?
3. Does Islam allow for religious pluralism? For example, if a Muslim male married a Christian female, would the husband and wife be able to say to their children, “We will attend the mosque on Friday and the church on Sunday and consider ourselves a bi-religious family. When each of you is 18 years old, you will be free to choose. You can continue of bilateral approach; or, you can choose one religion over the other; or, you can choose another religion altogether.”
4. What does Islam say (according to the authoritative voices) should be the fate of heretics? For example, if a member of the Egyptian soccer team got up tomorrow morning and announced he was converting from Islam to Christianity and changing his name from Mohammad Ali to Cassius Clay, what do the authoritative voices of Islam say should be his fate?
5. Does Islam allow for the publication of a scholarly book alleging that Mohammad was a fraud?

(Alternatively, instead of posing the questions to the authoritative voices of Islam, imagine the question was, “What would Islamic textbooks used in the teaching of Muslim students in America say in answer to the following questions?”)

Anytime you are in a debate or discussion with a Muslim, ask him/her what he/she believes the most authoritative voices of Islam would answer in reply to those five questions. Or what answers you would find in an Islamic textbook.

The answers to those questions would put an end to any idea that there is some debate among Muslims over the future of their religion. Or whether even orthodox Islam can be accommodated to a Western liberal, pluralistic society

Bravo, i've been waiting for someone to say this about Hirsi Ali's blatant, provocative attacks on Islam, all in an attempt, it seems, to make herself a martyr and laugh all the way to the bank.

Bravo, i've been waiting for someone to say this about Hirsi Ali's blatant, provocative attacks on Islam, all in an attempt, it seems, to make herself a martyr and laugh all the way to the bank.

Bravo, i've been waiting for someone to say this about Hirsi Ali's blatant, provocative attacks on Islam, all in an attempt, it seems, to make herself a martyr and laugh all the way to the bank.

well, the US constitution can be revisted any number of times, and new amendments added. The same is not true for Quran. By its very definition, it can't be changed, and its univeral for all times and places

I didn't get the anology here

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not entirely off-base with her claims regarding Islam. It is not a coincidence that whenever Muslims live side by side with a group of people not sharing their beliefs, there is conflict, like two tectonic plates pushing against each other. The problem with Muslims is that they believe that their religion is the right one (and their god is the right one), and that it is their duty to make sure everyone else falls in line as well. Islam is not compatible with liberal democracy. Women are treated worse than cattle, homosexuals are horribly abused and apostates are killed! Islam is not a religion of peace, it is inherently violent, and those Muslims who are "moderate" have just learned to ignore certain aspects of the Koran and Hadith... either that or they haven't read up on them. It is true that other groups of people, Christians for example also has a history of violence, they however have gone through a reformation. Islam is still waiting its reformation, and with all the fundamentalists out there, like the ones who go violent over some cartoons in some Danish newspaper, I highly doubt that will be in my lifetime. I applaud Ayaan Hirsi Ali for throwing political correctness out the window and saying it like it is! Kudos to her.

I am from the Netherlands and am ashamed how Hirsi Ali was treated by the political elite who were afraid about her growing influence among the , to my opinion, very moderate not to say naive Dutch voters. Holland has been always and still is a very tolerant country, Unfortunately we had 2 good people assassinated during the last 6 years, Pim Fortuyn (who would have been our prime minister within weeks) by an environment idiot and Theo van Gogh who made a short 11 min. film named "Submission" for which Hirsi Ali wrote the text, by an Muslim fanatic. Both are in prison at this moment.
In short Hirsi Ali is giving a voice to the religious world in general in which man has been suppressing woman since the beginning
But besides this she knows by personal experience that the Islam , as Pim Fortuyn once stated, is a laid-back religion.
One proof ot his is that any form of criticism is not accepted, followers must be deaf and dumb and not disuss issues.
A prophet who was a wealthy business man, a leader of armies - having people killed without reason, a man who went with 56 years to bed with a 9 year old child, had 9 wives etc.. In our society such a person who would would call himself as leader would be locked up, one flew over the cuckoo's nest.
This is what Hirsi Ali is talking about, Islam as a religion might have served in the times when people were alliterate, for the future it will be disguised as with many things from the past as a gross misguidance of human beings and a waste of time.

For the record I respect individual (religious)choices also one who is a Muslim, but keep it to yourself, it's your resposibility to whom ever you feel responsible, I will respect you as long as you will respect me as a non believer (humanist).

I am from the Netherlands and am ashamed how Hirsi Ali was treated by the political elite who were afraid about her growing influence among the , to my opinion, very moderate not to say naive Dutch voters. Holland has been always and still is a very tolerant country, Unfortunately we had 2 good people assassinated during the last 6 years, Pim Fortuyn (who would have been our prime minister within weeks) by an environment idiot and Theo van Gogh who made a short 11 min. film named "Submission" for which Hirsi Ali wrote the text, by an Muslim fanatic. Both are in prison at this moment.
In short Hirsi Ali is giving a voice to the religious world in general in which man has been suppressing woman since the beginning
But besides this she knows by personal experience that the Islam , as Pim Fortuyn once stated, is a laid-back religion.
One proof ot his is that any form of criticism is not accepted, followers must be deaf and dumb and not disuss issues.
A prophet who was a wealthy business man, a leader of armies - having people killed without reason, a man who went with 56 years to bed with a 9 year old child, had 9 wives etc.. In our society such a person who would would call himself as leader would be locked up, one flew over the cuckoo's nest.
This is what Hirsi Ali is talking about, Islam as a religion might have served in the times when people were alliterate, for the future it will be disguised as with many things from the past as a gross misguidance of human beings and a waste of time.

For the record I respect individual (religious)choices also one who is a Muslim, but keep it to yourself, it's your resposibility to whom ever you feel responsible, I will respect you as long as you will respect me as a non believer (humanist).

I am from the Netherlands and am ashamed how Hirsi Ali was treated by the political elite who were afraid about her growing influence among the , to my opinion, very moderate not to say naive Dutch voters. Holland has been always and still is a very tolerant country, Unfortunately we had 2 good people assassinated during the last 6 years, Pim Fortuyn (who would have been our prime minister within weeks) by an environment idiot and Theo van Gogh who made a short 11 min. film named "Submission" for which Hirsi Ali wrote the text, by an Muslim fanatic. Both are in prison at this moment.
In short Hirsi Ali is giving a voice to the religious world in general in which man has been suppressing woman since the beginning
But besides this she knows by personal experience that the Islam , as Pim Fortuyn once stated, is a laid-back religion.
One proof ot his is that any form of criticism is not accepted, followers must be deaf and dumb and not disuss issues.
A prophet who was a wealthy business man, a leader of armies - having people killed without reason, a man who went with 56 years to bed with a 9 year old child, had 9 wives etc.. In our society such a person who would would call himself as leader would be locked up, one flew over the cuckoo's nest.
This is what Hirsi Ali is talking about, Islam as a religion might have served in the times when people were alliterate, for the future it will be disguised as with many things from the past as a gross misguidance of human beings and a waste of time.

For the record I respect individual (religious)choices also one who is a Muslim, but keep it to yourself, it's your resposibility to whom ever you feel responsible, I will respect you as long as you will respect me as a non believer (humanist).

Mr. Patel thanks for that well written article on Ayaan Hirsi. The reason why i find her so repulsive is not only that she misrepresents Islam but also my Somali culture. She claimed that she lied about her name when applying for refugee status because she was in fear that her family would kill her. The reality is that "honor killings" are quite unknown in our Somali culture and as she admitted later on her family knew where she lived and she was in contact with them. Of course she only admitted to her lies after she was exposed the documentary "Holy Ayaan".

With all the lies that she has told you'd think westerners would apply some healthy critical thinking to her outrageous claims. Alas this is not the case. She is feeding them red meat and nobody wants to check the goods. I really wish that muslims wouldn't pay her any attention at all, since she will somehow make some more money out of it. I thank you once again for exposing her for the sham she is.

I am from the Netherlands and am ashamed how Hirsi Ali was treated by the political elite who were afraid about her growing influence among the , to my opinion, very moderate not to say naive Dutch voters. Holland has been always and still is a very tolerant country, Unfortunately we had 2 good people assassinated during the last 6 years, Pim Fortuyn (who would have been our prime minister within weeks) by an environment idiot and Theo van Gogh who made a short 11 min. film named "Submission" for which Hirsi Ali wrote the text, by an Muslim fanatic. Both are in prison at this moment.
In short Hirsi Ali is giving a voice to the religious world in general in which man has been suppressing woman since the beginning
But besides this she knows by personal experience that the Islam , as Pim Fortuyn once stated, is a laid-back religion.
One proof ot his is that any form of criticism is not accepted, followers must be deaf and dumb and not disuss issues.
A prophet who was a wealthy business man, a leader of armies - having people killed without reason, a man who went with 56 years to bed with a 9 year old child, had 9 wives etc.. In our society such a person who would would call himself as leader would be locked up, one flew over the cuckoo's nest.
This is what Hirsi Ali is talking about, Islam as a religion might have served in the times when people were alliterate, for the future it will be disguised as with many things from the past as a gross misguidance of human beings and a waste of time.

For the record I respect individual (religious)choices also one who is a Muslim, but keep it to yourself, it's your resposibility to whom ever you feel responsible, I will respect you as long as you will respect me as a non believer (humanist).

I am from the Netherlands and am ashamed how Hirsi Ali was treated by the political elite who were afraid about her growing influence among the , to my opinion, very moderate not to say naive Dutch voters. Holland has been always and still is a very tolerant country, Unfortunately we had 2 good people assassinated during the last 6 years, Pim Fortuyn (who would have been our prime minister within weeks) by an environment idiot and Theo van Gogh who made a short 11 min. film named "Submission" for which Hirsi Ali wrote the text, by an Muslim fanatic. Both are in prison at this moment.
In short Hirsi Ali is giving a voice to the religious world in general in which man has been suppressing woman since the beginning
But besides this she knows by personal experience that the Islam , as Pim Fortuyn once stated, is a laid-back religion.
One proof ot his is that any form of criticism is not accepted, followers must be deaf and dumb and not disuss issues.
A prophet who was a wealthy business man, a leader of armies - having people killed without reason, a man who went with 56 years to bed with a 9 year old child, had 9 wives etc.. In our society such a person who would would call himself as leader would be locked up, one flew over the cuckoo's nest.
This is what Hirsi Ali is talking about, Islam as a religion might have served in the times when people were alliterate, for the future it will be disguised as with many things from the past as a gross misguidance of human beings and a waste of time.

For the record I respect individual (religious)choices also one who is a Muslim, but keep it to yourself, it's your resposibility to whom ever you feel responsible, I will respect you as long as you will respect me as a non believer (humanist).

If we see something we don't like in another person, religion or belief, and if the perception creates an emotional charge in us -- perhaps fear, anger, revulsion, arrogance, pride or outrage -- then the issue is really about what resides in us, not in the other.

Perhaps we all should step back, catch our breaths and undergo a little self-examination.

Every defender of Islam and Christianity is in some sense "right". The only hope of harmonious co-existence is forgiveness of perceived sins, errors and ignorant fears; our own as well as those of our fellow human beings.

I hope enough of humanity sense that the law of grace must come to supersede the law of "as you sow, so you reap". When enough rise here and there to a deeper understanding of life, peace will blossom. But unfortunately not before.

The reason why Ms. Ali is critical of Islam is because the way that religion treated her and is treating all the other Muslim women. The only difference between her and the "silent majority" of women is that she is knowledgeable and courageous enough to speak out her mind.

The reason we pay attention to her is because she has the courage to say what you are too scared to admit: there is no god, and muslim believers are dangerous relics of a bloody past. that is Ayaan Hirsi Ali's revelation. It is simple and it scares you Eboo, doesn't it?

there is no god. that is Ayaan Hirsi Ali's revelation. she scares you Eboo, doesn't she?

Reading most of the comments below, it is unfortunate that most of the commentators just pick and choose what they want from Islam to bash it. The Holy Prophet was BARKED at by his own ignorant people back then, just as Jesus, Moses, and most of God's other prophets. It's not uncommon for dogs to keep barking throughout history. Let them bark.
The Koran state:
"Relate to them the story of the man to whom We sent Our signs, but he passed them by: so Satan followed him up, and he went astray. If it had been Our will, We should have elevated him with Our signs; but he inclined to the earth, and followed his own vain desires. His similitude is that of a dog: if you attack him, he lolls out his tongue, or if you leave him alone, he (still) lolls out his tongue. That is the similitude of those who reject Our signs; So relate the story; perchance they may reflect."

Eboo, May Allah bless you for an article well-done!

Eboo, May Allah bless you for an article well-done!

Eboo,

There is no doubt that proponents of the Muslim religion in all its glory subjugate women to the will and dictates of men. Multitudes of Muslim women in Arab countries can't drive a car, wear clothes of their own choosing, participate in sports, decide who they will associate with . . . And should they do so, are subject to physical abuse up to and including death. And you have the audacity to criticize Ayaan Hirsi Ali . . .

Eboo,

There is no doubt that proponents of the Muslim religion in all its glory subjugate women to the will and dictates of men. Multitudes of Muslim women in Arab countries can't drive a car, wear clothes of their own choosing, participate in sports, decide who they will associate with . . . And should they do so, are subject to physical abuse up to and including death. And you have the audacity to criticize Ayaan Hirsi Ali . . .

Nice try, Patel, but too clever by half. Your little story about how Africa can be imagined as supplanting Islam in Ali's critique of her religion doesn't hold water. Africa is a vast place with practically uncountable and complex layers of traditions, languages, religions, ethnicities, etc. Africa and Africans are inherently fractured. Even referring to Africa as an identity is problematic. There is nothing homogenizing about the experience of being an African because it is essentially an idea concocted by Europeans to refer to a continent whose inhabitants they could scarcely understand. Africa is a concept that flattens and simplifies irregularities Europeans (and the world) find too tedious to pay attention to. Then there is the little matter of history. Africa has never mustered a cohesive, organizing ideology or religion to build a civilization and undertake a campaign to wage war, conquer territory, and occupy non-Africans. Islam is almost everything "Africa" is not. Hirsi Ali may have come from Somalia, but she lived in different parts of the world, including the middle east and Europe, where she could identify familiar, common threads in the ideology and practice of devout Muslims. She may have extrapolated a bit too much from her singular life. But hers is a serious attempt, made bravely by a normally marginalized person, to challenge a very stifling religion/ideology. You would do well to address her challenge to Islam directly instead of resorting to ad hominems. And your empty rhetoric about offering your tax dollars to ensure her safety is plain weird.

JD, Thanks for the warning about Jehovah's Witnesses. I missed the reports of their be-headings and suicide bombings. I guess they are just like Muslims.

Leave Islam to its own devises and eventually it will attempt to overtake the world by any means, especially violence. (it is attempting that very thing today) Leave Catholicism to its own devises and eventually it will attempt to overtake the world by any means, especially violence. (Catholicism has a history of that very thing and it would gladly repeat itself) Leave Jehovah Witnesses to its own devises and eventually it will attempt to overtake the world by any means, especially violence. Cults can do nothing less.

Eboo Patel's use of the racist flaws in U.S. constitution to defend the Koran is incorrect. For one, unlike the Koran, the U.S Constitution does not sanction violence against non- believers. Nor does it sanction polygamy, or for that matter, pedaphilia through it's endorsement the marriage by adult males to minor females. Additionally, the most egregious articles of the Constitution dealing with slavery and restricted voting rights have all been eliminated or revised over the years through the ammendment process. In contrast, the Koran has all of it's most hateful passages fully intact, precisely as they were written 1300 years ago.

Ms Ali makes the compelling point that everytime Osama Bin Laden uses Islamic scripture to justify the killing of innocent people who just happen to be non Muslims, he is quoting the Koran precisely and accurately, chapter and verse. You couldn't do that with the U.S. constitution.

Eboo Patel's use of the racist flaws in U.S. constitution to defend the Koran is incorrect. For one, unlike the Koran, the U.S Constitution does not sanction violence against non- believers. Nor does it sanction polygamy, or for that matter, pedaphilia through it's endorsement the marriage by adult males to minor females. Additionally, the most egregious articles of the Constitution dealing with slavery and restricted voting rights have all been eliminated or revised over the years through the ammendment process. In contrast, the Koran has all of it's most hateful passages fully intact, precisely as they were written 1300 years ago.

Ms Ali makes the compelling point that everytime Osama Bin Laden uses Islamic scripture to justify the killing of innocent people who just happen to be non Muslims, he is quoting the Koran precisely and accurately, chapter and verse. You couldn't do that with the U.S. constitution.

Your comparison of Faith and Race is repugnant in itself. You begin to sound just like her.

"She is repulsive to my Muslim faith and my Enlightenment sensibilities, but those same traditions cause me to wish her no harm."

So, that is the reason for the tirade against Ms Hirsi Ali. She is doing what many others have done; milking the conservatives by claiming to represent their views. But one gets the feeling that Mr. Patel's ire is mostly about her lack of faith in Islam.

"Enlightenment sensibilities" ! Ya Habibi.

Comparing the Constitution to the Koran is a joke and I have read both. The former - while flawed - is based on reason and supports personal liberty, freedom from a state religion, and the rights of the minority. The Koran is a fairy tale based on superstition. It's no secret that both Islam and the Koran developed as a result of the the Arab need for a religion that supported its male dominated hierarchical authoritarian structure and its expansionist nature. What is making Ali famous is not fanatics, but the fact so many people in the 21st century still take this stuff seriously in the first place. What she's saying should already be self-evident to everyone in the West.

Patel would be more credible if he truly used the principles of Enlightenment to critique and help reform Islam, which appears stuck in a pre-human rights mentality.

Eboo..Having looked up your Spiritual Record it reasonable,but throughout,same added comment.. (Could have done better,be capable of better). With regard to "Ayaan Hirsi Ali" she an advanced Spiritual Soul,she having earned as due respect. To all of ISLAM to every MUSLIM must be further development understanding,that there be further development in experience,the brain be prepared with understanding,that the experience follows. Those that come to clear the path aiding further understanding,such as ( Ayaan ) must be treated with respect that due to the servants of Allah, as the Almighty,that she having been threatened is appalling,such behaviour toward her must end.

That is right Rick and Mr. Patel. Not all muslims are terrorists. Some just follow in the way of political islam using our freedom against us to overcome us and replace the constitution with Shariah. You say they can't? Oh, just wait until 20 years from now aftr out reproducing us with their 4 wives and 36-50 children. You will be surrounded by muslims and you will be a minority and have no say so whatsoever. At that time we will be under an islamic dictatorship and all of our freedoms will have vanished, one after another.

Look up the word "dhimmi" and see your fate.

Well said, Mr. Patel. We must not allow the actions of the radical few be portrayed as characteristic of all Muslims.

CHUI, moral relativism only works with people who have respect for human life and respect for the "other".

Your comments are obsolete.

You are an Islamist sympathizer and if it were up to you, you would allow unlimited freedom to people who would slit your throat because an invisible friend told them to.

Allah is a war diety.

CHUI, moral relativism only works with people who have respect for human life and respect for the "other".

Your comments are obsolete.

You are an Islamist sympathizer and if it were up to you, you would allow unlimited freedom to people who would slit your throat because an invisible friend told them to.

Allah is a war diety.

This hadith from Dawud proves that Muhammad was a fount of mercy and kindness.

Book 38, Number 4396:

Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah:

A thief was brought to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him). He said: Kill him. The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah! Then he said: Cut off his hand. So his (right) hand was cut off. He was brought a second time and he said: Kill him. The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah! Then he said: Cut off his foot.

So his (left) foot was cut off.

He was brought a third time and he said: Kill him.

The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah!

So he said: Cut off his hand. (So his (left) hand was cut off.)

He was brought a fourth time and he said: Kill him.

The people said: He has committed theft, Apostle of Allah!

So he said: Cut off his foot. So his (right) foot was cut off.

He was brought a fifth time and he said: Kill him.

So we took him away and killed him. We then dragged him and cast him into a well and threw stones over him.

The following hadith refers to the massacre of the Banu Qurayza tribe of Jews. Muhammad and his thugs murdered 800 male Jews of the tribe in one night and then sold their widows and children into slavery. he then appropriated all their land and property. Any male with pubic hair, including young boys, were beheaded.

Sunan Dawood

Book 38, Number 4390:

Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:

I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.

And after all, they all write books pandering their own propaganda and resolve for their own actions and promotion of of their own outward, hypocrite self image of good. For all intends and purposes Ayann Hirsi Ali is a Dutch citizen, where there is no persecution for her kind. The lady has had a good life better then most Dutch People enjoy and favors granted her far beyond what a Dutch person is accorded. She joined the conservative republicans and their hypocrite and perverse cause of inequality and rights only of their kind. This is nothing about faith but pure simple politics. If the lady really cares about her own women kind, the fight should be fought in her Native Somali Land and not to appease her own greed and further the cause of the US conservative republicans. The simple reality is that the west cares a hoot about what the Muslims do to their women kind.

Hirsi Ali has rightly called the prophet Muhammad a pervert. Here are some authentic hadiths on child molestation, stoning and slavery. that prove it. Aisha was his six year old bride. he took her to bed she was nine and he was 56.

From Bukhari vol. 7, #65:

"Narrated Aisha that the prophet wrote the marriage contract with her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: "I have been informed that Aisha remained with the prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death).""

Tabari VIII: The sixty-two-year old Messenger of Allah married Mulaykah. She was young (12) and beautiful. One of the Prophet's wives came to her and said, ˜Are you not ashamed to marry a man who killed your father during the day he conquered Mecca? She therefore took refuge from him {fled}.

Sunaan Abu Dawud: Book 13, Number 2380: The Prophet (pbuh) used to kiss her (Aisha) and suck her tongue when he was fasting.

This was his way of hydrating himself, by sucking on the tongue of a child and breaking the rule that Muslims should not even swallow their saliva during the fasting period.

Sahih Bukhari: V3B31N149: Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet used to kiss and embrace (his wives) while he was fasting.

What more need be said of this messenger of Allah, who dishonored Allah's Quranic fasting rule for sex.

Do you still blame Ali for exposing Islam and Muhammad?

Muwatta Book 41, Number 41.1.5:

Malik related to me from Yaqub ibn Zayd ibn Talha from his father Zayd ibn Talha that Abdullah ibn Abi Mulayka informed him that a woman came to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and informed him that she had committed adultery and was pregnant.

The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said to her, "Go away until you give birth."

When she had given birth, she came to him. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said to her, "Go away until you have suckled and weaned the baby."

When she had weaned the baby, she came to him. He said, "Go and entrust the baby to someone."

She entrusted the baby to someone and then came to him. He gave the order and she was stoned.

Book 43, Number 43.7.5:

Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Abu Salama ibn Abd ar-Rahman ibn Awf from Abu Hurayra that a woman from the Hudhayl tribe threw a stone at a woman from the same tribe, and she had a miscarriage. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, gave a judgement that a slave or slave-girl of fair complexion and excellence should be given to her.

You miss a basic and important point in the fundamentalists beliefs; that is, that the Bible and the Qur'an are the actual words of God (Allah) and every word is true and sacred. Unlike the Constitution or other human documents, these sects believe the literal word as contained in these books that are sacred to many. Therefore, when these books say it is a religious duty to kill or stone or drive out, this IS what God says. Sorry, most would agree that you can't pick and choose which passages you agree with and which passages you don't - it's all or nothing. For me, it's nothing.

Precisely!

Well then, I suppose there is no such thing as culture, sociology, anthropology. Then we should just get rid of the field of pschology and psychiatry, our data, analysis, reports, science, and anything else we know through our education. Because it is all based on data and statistics and generalizations. Groups of people display certain traits such as: senior citizens, teen age boys between the ages of 12-17, handicapped people, people who have been traumatized, people who are born from alcoholic or drug addicted parents...gay people, etc.......they all have characteristics and traits...and to understand the illness, one must look at the disease. We can not solve terrorism without looking at the root of the motivation and ideology. Once we do that, we can understand it. To come to a premise and work backwards from there Mr. Patel, is incompetant and one will collect an inaccurate judgement.

You are Indian and I am quite certain that you know cultural differences in Hindu India and the caste system. You also, I am very sure, aware of the difference between Hindu culture and Muslim culture. I am also not from the US and I know culture very well. Culture is what motivates people to behave in certain ways.

The Americans don't understand culture like foreigners do, please do not lead the Americans to beleive that their idea of individuality exists in most eastern cultures, but most extremely in Islamic culture.

Now that we have gone through cognizant dissonance we can go to step 2 and analyze the culture of the group by the content of their most influential literature and scriptures. In this case, that would be Islam and the Quran.

I lived in a muslim community for many many years and studied Islam while living amongst 90% muslims from every country.

Guess what? I was guessing about Islamic culture through westernized eyes without studying up on the Quran and Islamic literature and history and I was DEAD wrong with all my guessing. Only when I studied Islam in depth and lived around muslims was I able to understand them. I am very glad I did that because now, I know much more than most people I know.

Your synopsis is completely innacurate and I would implore you to please study Islam, Islamic literature, spend time in the middle east, spend time in a muslim community here in the west and involve yourself in their lives 24/7 for a long period of time. Your synopsis is one of emotion.

Well then, I suppose there is no such thing as culture, sociology, anthropology. Then we should just get rid of the field of pschology and psychiatry, our data, analysis, reports, science, and anything else we know through our education. Because it is all based on data and statistics and generalizations. Groups of people display certain traits such as: senior citizens, teen age boys between the ages of 12-17, handicapped people, people who have been traumatized, people who are born from alcoholic or drug addicted parents...gay people, etc.......they all have characteristics and traits...and to understand the illness, one must look at the disease. We can not solve terrorism without looking at the root of the motivation and ideology. Once we do that, we can understand it. To come to a premise and work backwards from there Mr. Patel, is incompetant and one will collect an inaccurate judgement.

You are Indian and I am quite certain that you know cultural differences in Hindu India and the caste system. You also, I am very sure, aware of the difference between Hindu culture and Muslim culture. I am also not from the US and I know culture very well. Culture is what motivates people to behave in certain ways.

The Americans don't understand culture like foreigners do, please do not lead the Americans to beleive that their idea of individuality exists in most eastern cultures, but most extremely in Islamic culture.

Now that we have gone through cognizant dissonance we can go to step 2 and analyze the culture of the group by the content of their most influential literature and scriptures. In this case, that would be Islam and the Quran.

I lived in a muslim community for many many years and studied Islam while living amongst 90% muslims from every country.

Guess what? I was guessing about Islamic culture through westernized eyes without studying up on the Quran and Islamic literature and history and I was DEAD wrong with all my guessing. Only when I studied Islam in depth and lived around muslims was I able to understand them. I am very glad I did that because now, I know much more than most people I know.

Your synopsis is completely innacurate and I would implore you to please study Islam, Islamic literature, spend time in the middle east, spend time in a muslim community here in the west and involve yourself in their lives 24/7 for a long period of time. Your synopsis is one of emotion.

Ms. Ali has a major problem with Islam and I don't necessarily have an opinion about that either way. I was brought up in a Protestant Christian faith tradition and I went to Catholic schools for most of my life. While I have problems with religion as it relates to Christianity and some of the horrible things we do and have done in the name of Christianity I still consider myself to be a Christian and I have a steadfast belief in God as the creator of the universe. It is my belief that all religions have flaws because religions are a product of the human experience. No one who has walked on the face of this earth can claim to be perfect except
Jesus Christ, Budda, Mohammed, Krishna, ect... pick your religious icon as there are many. I have found extremism to be a problem in all religions not just Islam. People who kill, maim, and oppress in the name of God are always problematic as such. From what little I know most religions are supposed to teach us about the sanctity of life for all human beings. However, I certainly do not believe that all Muslims are blood thirsty thugs killing in the name of God. Ms. Ali has a particular opinion about Islam due to her negative experiences growing up in Somalia. Who am I to say that she is right or wrong? I know very little about Islam but I feel that I am intelligent enough to tell a devout or pious person from a fanatic and there is a difference. A truly devout person in my opinion, does not try to impose his/her religious belief on others. In other words, live and let live.

This is nonsensical. The author makes his case that Hirsi Ali is "repulsive" to the Islamic faith, as she no doubt would agree. But he cites no evidence at all that she is "repulsive" to enlightenment sensibilities. Indeed, it is Islam and the Enlightenment that seem to be mutually "repulsive".

Please don't slam intellectualism or intellect; they may be all that we have that will save us!

If only Ayaan Hirsi had principles and was moral. She is a fraud and she faked her way into the west from a well-to-do family by claiming she was abused.

When will the West stop putting people on a pedestal when those people only say what the West wants to hear? Seriously, this woman is a fraudster and if only AEI and other defenders had done their homework, they'd understand.

Mr. Patel writes,
"Let’s say that Ms. Ali was flipping through the U.S. Constitution and the first passage she read was the one that said people of her skin color counted as three-fifths of a person. Let’s say that Ms. Ali opened an American history book and read only the chapter on the slave trade."

He compares this to Ms. Ali reading the suras in the Q'uran, or other passages in the Hadith, that exhort pious Muslims to fight or kill the infidels until they give in and embrace Islam, etc. Sorry, it's a straw man argument. No American claims that any passage in the Constitution or in any U.S. history textbook is dictated by god and is his absolute command and 100 percent true, for all eternity. But that is the claim that many, many "true Muslims" make with respect to their holy writ, their special books. THIS is what is dangerous about Islam. It's the same thing that's dangerous about Christianity, Judaism, and any other dogma that claims to know god's mind.

Pringles wrote: "Laila Lalami had a terrific essay published in The Nation magazine last year on Hirsi Ali. Anyone who cares for a well reasoned analysis of her writings should take a moment to read it.

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060619&s=lalami
"
Thank you Pringles for the link and thank you Eboo for an enjoyable article.

The issues are the flaws in the foundations and founders of all religions. Many contemporary NT exegetes are addressing the flaws in the NT and in Christianity. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

Ditto for many Jews in addressing the flaws in Judaism. http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

So where are the Muslim exegetes??? Mr. Patel cannot even tolerate criticism of Islam from one free, single woman and he considers himself a "moderate"/liberal Muslim?? Give us a break!!!

Just in case he is not aware of said flaws in Islam, here once again are the major issues:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men.

2. Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, hallucinating Arab who suffered from the "pwtfft" syndrome who also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda and anti-female agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic train bombers in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani koranics, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases and the Filipino koranics.

And who funds these acts of violence? The Islamic terror theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia!!!!!!

Mr. Patel, please address the real issues!!!!!

John Stuart Mill;

"My father's rejection of all that is called religious belief was not,as
many might suppose,primarily a matter of logic and evidence: the grounds for
it were moral, more than intellectual. He found it impossible to believe
that a world so full of evil was the work of a God combining infinite
power with perfect goodness and righteousness.
His aversion to religion,in the sense usually attached to the term,was of
the same kind with that of Lucretius; he regarded it with the feelings due
not to mere mental delusion but to a great moral evil.
It would have been wholly inconsistent with my father's ideas of duty to
allow me to acquire impressions contrary to his convictions and feelings
respecting religion;and he impressed on me from the first that the manner in
which the world came into existence was a subject
on which nothing was known.

John Stuart Mill,quoted in "Why I Am Not A Christian",by Bertrand Russell.

well you're a little short, america is still very far from equity between all the people from different origin that colonised it -racist law's judgements,..
and islam is indeed very much obliterated until today with high inequity, say violence against women, war amongst its different currents today, and killings of thousands of peaceful civils. can you call this something else than a violences perpetuating movement? honestly? not judging for the future but all seems stuck up there.

Who can take seriously comments from people like Mr. Patel who believe fairy tales such as: the Koran was dictated by "god" to this guy name Mohammad?? Examine the source.

Eboo Patel's commentary is confusing. On the one hand, he is the Executive Director of an Interfaith Youth Core which looks at what brings faiths together. On the other, he engages in very personal and professional attacks on Ms Ali. How can a person with such venom and such "repulsion" at Ms. Ali consider himself qualified to find out what brings people together?

I found his attack on Ms. Ali as repulsive as I find Ms. Ali's vehement denuncation of Islam.

Mr. Patel: You should do some serious self-questioning about your bias and your ability to see beyond your own point of view.

Find out what you have in common with Ms. Ali, and focus on that POSITIVE AGREEMENT, and COMMON VIEW. Begin to expand the boundaries of that agreement through dialogue and meditation.

This is the reason why classic religious beliefs are so divisive. Throw your religion out for an hour and consider this:

We are ONE Humanity, All human experience is shared, we all have something to contribute and we all have the potential to live together in peace and tolerance.

Focus on the POSITIVE...ignore the negative and the parts that you disagree on. Expand the positive until it makes the negative impotent.

Love, Mr. Patel.

Who can take seriously comments from people like Mr. Patel who believe fairy tales such as: the Koran was dictated by "god" to this guy name Mohammad?? Examine the source.

This article or commentary is as ridiculous as Ms. Ali's assertions.

Ayan hirsi is a conartist, well aware of her work and knowing how to reverse muslim thoughts to go against their believe. I ask a simple and logical Question< Why would some one be famous for blasphemy. the quran is the word of god to all humanity. yest the enemy of this great book is also the enemy of the believer of god.

Eboo

Read Meg's comments.Please.

Some mighty fine doublespeak, sir. Bravo.

The least attractive quality of muslims
is their religious fervor.They seem to be always
frothing at the mouth wanting to destroy someone or something.
Any wonder Ms Ali will need bodyguards for the rest of her life?
The Muslims commenting here would fight for
the right to cast the first stone at Ayaan,if they
had a chance,and would enjoy themselves immensely,
watching her bleed.
Enough already.

The least attractive quality of muslims
is their religious fervor.They seem to be always
frothing at the mouth wanting to destroy someone or something.
Any wonder Ms Ali will need bodyguards for the rest of her life?
The Muslims commenting here would fight for
the right to cast the first stone at Ayaan,if they
had a chance,and would enjoy themselves immensely,
watching her bleed.
Enough already.

Eboo Patel, thank you. I have read excerpts of Hirsi Ali's story and felt bad that it could have been so inspiring. Instead it has become a tool for hatred against all muslims.

New York, 13 October 2007

In this incisive essay, Eboo Patel discusses Ms Ayaan Hirsi Ali, her attitude toward Islam and toward the West with clarity, objectivity and wisdom.

From his narration, it is clear that Ms Ali makes the very serious mistake of using her own unpleasant and cruel personal experiences which she considers oppression by her religion, Islam, and then goes on, rashly and carelessly, to the generalization that "Islam not only is the cause of her oppression, but is the central cause of oppression in the world, and moreover, and can never be, anything but oppressive."

The illogic of Ms Ali's conclusion, given the premise of her personal experience in the hands of Muslims, is quite striking. It is not a conclusion normally to be expected of one who must be familiar with the rules of elementary logic, and, moreover, who can be expected to believe in reason and rational thinking.

Out of some 1.3 Muslims on our planet who profess belief in Islam, it is quite possible, nay probable, that there are some, or even many, who pay it lip service at most and actually violate its precepts and tenets by committing acts, such as the oppression of their fellow human beings.

This is true of Muslims, as much as it is true of Christians, of Jews, of Buddhists, of Shintoists, and of those belonging to other religions of the world. As always, there are the few who prove to be the exceptions.

But Islam is not a religion of violence or of oppression. It possesses many commonalities with the world's major religions in its advocacy of peace and justice and of tolerance and love for fellow human beings, even for those belonging to the other religions.

I can sympathize with Ms. Ali for the suffering she must have gone through in the hands of her oppressors. But I taken issue with her generalization against Islam which I find illogical, uncalled for, unfortunate, rash and intemperate.

MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Ms. Ali has cleverly learned one thing about the Western media and news analyst : Do not cotradict them or challange them to face the truth about Islam and Muslim culture and societies. Ms. Ali will have air time and space in these columns solong as they do not get tired of her "change of heart ", then only she would disappear.

Danial Farooq

Ms. Ali has cleverly learned one thing about the Western media and news analyst : Do not cotradict them or challange them to face the truth about Islam and Muslim culture and societies. Ms. Ali will have air time and space in these columns solong as they do not get tired of her "change of heart ", then only she would disappear.

Danial Farooq

Eboo,

I promise you that you will live a longer, happier life if you take one year, just one year out of your life, and live it paying absolutely no attention to religion. Your obsession with religion is hurting you and it shows in every pained and convoluted missive you write. Please give it one chance and do something with your life instead of wasting it like you are. And then after a year, go back and get involved in religion again.

Meg;
A totally wonderful essay,which I must copy for future perusal.Hope folks read it for the plain common sense.

Apologies for the double post.

The title for the article should have been "Since we can't kill the apostate, lets trash her". I would imagine that whatever Ali would have written would have been trashed because she has taken islam to task. If I were muslim I might find this article objective, but I am not muslim and the article is prejudiced by someone who appears to be willing to say anything to defend his religion. So much for open dialogue.

The ubiquity and intransigence of belief in religious dogma is hardly a mystery.
Parents unwittingly practice the “big lie” on gullible and credulous young, thereby programming their read-only memories (brain-washing them) with belief systems with which they, themselves, were earlier brain-washed. In this obvious way, children grow up with the unshakable conviction faith is the one area of humanity exempt from critical inquiry.

Thus, the beliefs of the parents are instilled in their progeny even unto the seventieth generation.

Catholic parents beget Catholics, Protestant parents beget Protestants. Jewish parents beget Jews. Mormon Parents beget Mormons. Muslim parents beget Muslims. Wiccan parents beget Wiccans. And genetic inheritance has nothing whatsoever to do with it. It’s not a matter of nature but of quasi-natural nurture.

Occasionally evangelism or delusional epiphany ostensibly convert an individual from one belief system to another, but in virtually every case, the core cultural imperatives associated with their “cradle faith” will remain largely intact. That is why, for example, many fallen away Christians continue, as if by knee-jerk reflex, to behave impulsively in supposedly “Christian” ways.

It all began with a comprehension of death which egotistical humans deplore and do not share with other animals. By providing the “sure and certain hope” of life after death, manipulators in all ages and places have invoked a “soul wrenching” tool to bend others to their temporal will. Never mind that a thoughtful person might find such promised eternal life to be quite tedious.

I consider myself a Born-Again Heathen. Like everyone else, I was born a Heathen without any sort of faith. By the chance of the draw, my parents were Christians and instilled their religious beliefs and related cultural value system in me - their faith by precept and their value system by their behavioral example. Monkey see, monkey do.

Eventually, I came to see my instilled faith as nonsense and was ultimately able to reconcile myself with the reality of my mortality - that when life is over, it’s all over. At that point, I realized I had become a Born-Again Heathen, returned to my original, natural, faithless state. Nevertheless, I continue to practice “turn the other cheek” as a part of my cultural legacy. This is perversely nonsensical because I know how that imperative was imprinted and fully understand intellectually that it is now known to be contraindicated. So much for free will.

It now seems clear to me that “free will” is an illusion and that everything, including everything I am and do, is deterministic - the inexorable result of cumulative antecedent genetics, experience, and possibly influences which, albeit not consciously perceived, have helped to shape my subconscious from which all my decisions actually emanate.

I tend to believe that a single traumatic event such as female circumcision could make a woman bitter for life, understandably so, I might add. Though I might empathize with her pain, her wallowing in it does not make her an admirable person. She went through a terrible ordeal. She is highly educated, I think. Let the Heritage Foundation pay her lots of money. It's the least they can do. She definitely does not deserve the attention that she has received. She is just a bitter woman.

I tend to believe that a single traumatic event such as female circumcision could make a woman bitter for life, understandably so, I might add. Though I might empathize with her pain, her wallowing in it does not make her an admirable person. She went through a terrible ordeal. She is highly educated, I think. Let the Heritage Foundation pay her lots of money. It's the least they can do. She definitely does not deserve the attention that she has received. She is just a bitter woman.

The ubiquity and intransigence of belief in religious dogma is hardly a mystery.
Parents unwittingly practice the “big lie” on gullible and credulous young, thereby programming their read-only memories (brain-washing them) with belief systems with which they, themselves, were earlier brain-washed. In this obvious way, children grow up with the unshakable conviction faith is the one area of humanity exempt from critical inquiry.

Thus, the beliefs of the parents are instilled in their progeny even unto the seventieth generation.

Catholic parents beget Catholics, Protestant parents beget Protestants. Jewish parents beget Jews. Mormon Parents beget Mormons. Muslim parents beget Muslims. Wiccan parents beget Wiccans. And genetic inheritance has nothing whatsoever to do with it. It’s not a matter of nature but of quasi-natural nurture.

Occasionally evangelism or delusional epiphany ostensibly convert an individual from one belief system to another, but in virtually every case, the core cultural imperatives associated with their “cradle faith” will remain largely intact. That is why, for example, many fallen away Christians continue, as if by knee-jerk reflex, to behave impulsively in supposedly “Christian” ways.

It all began with a comprehension of death which egotistical humans deplore and do not share with other animals. By providing the “sure and certain hope” of life after death, manipulators in all ages and places have invoked a “soul wrenching” tool to bend others to their temporal will. Never mind that a thoughtful person might find such promised eternal life to be quite tedious.

I consider myself a Born-Again Heathen. Like everyone else, I was born a Heathen without any sort of faith. By the chance of the draw, my parents were Christians and instilled their religious beliefs and related cultural value system in me - their faith by precept and their value system by their behavioral example. Monkey see, monkey do.

Eventually, I came to see my instilled faith as nonsense and was ultimately able to reconcile myself with the reality of my mortality - that when life is over, it’s all over. At that point, I realized I had become a Born-Again Heathen, returned to my original, natural, faithless state. Nevertheless, I continue to practice “turn the other cheek” as a part of my cultural legacy. This is perversely nonsensical because I know how that imperative was imprinted and fully understand intellectually that it is now known to be contraindicated. So much for free will.

It now seems clear to me that “free will” is an illusion and that everything, including everything I am and do, is deterministic - the inexorable result of cumulative antecedent genetics, experience, and possibly influences which, albeit not consciously perceived, have helped to shape my subconscious from which all my decisions actually emanate.

I have read the book and its contents are very impressive and thought provoking. Her insight on religion and comments on life in the Horn of Africa are well catalogued.

I have read the book and its contents are very impressive and thought provoking. Her insight on religion and comments on life in the Horn of Africa are well catalogued.

Either this column was not written by someone who actually read what Ayann Hirsi Ali has said--she is clearly a strong defender of the West--or this is someone who is so invested in defending Islam that he refuses to listen to legitimate criticisms of what the faith has become in the hands of far too many of those who invoke its name to justify their subhuman treatment of women. This is not a matter of just one woman's experience, but that of women throughout the Islamic world. The fact of the matter is that those "passages of the Qur’an that are violent" are used to legitimate women's inequality in the Islamic world--and other than Ali and a few other brave people, precious few in the Islamic faith are willing to STAND UP against the violence against women. They are too busy complaining about how they are supposedly marginalized and maligned instead. Until this changes, Ali's comments *are* fair, and the criticism of Islam *is* legitimate.

I can understand why Eboo is anti-Hirsi Ali, after all it's his religion he's defending.
However I found Ali's book 'Infidel' and 'The caged virgin' very educational.
What I liked most about the 'infidel', is the insight I obtained into Somali culture. I loved her description of the traditional customs, the different tribes, the political upheaval of the country, the amazing unity somali's have for kith and kin. These things stood out more than just the
critism Ali has for Islam. As a teacher, who teaches Somali pupil's, I found the book highly enlightening and useful.

While I tend to agree with some of Mr. Patel's sentiment,I question the "Enlightenment" sensibility of comparing a religion with a continent. Are the dogma and creeds of any religion truly comparable to the histories of any continent? I also fail to see any support for the article headline (..Ali vs. The West) nor his proposal that anyone claims "Ayaan Hirsi Ali is the new face of the West". Unfortunately, what agreement I have with Mr. Patel gets lost under the impression of a threatened religionist defending his creed.

Mansoor Ali:What a comment.

I have never seen such hatred. I wanted to comment about Ali.

There are more Muslims in India than Pakistan.
By leaving in India you are trying to break India. I hope you get 72 Virgins in Hell. I am sure you will get caught by Indian and US agencies for such terrorism.

And Yes I Don't like Ali.
Why people in US should be angry with her?
She is fighting against Muslims and terrorism. So it was OK. Now she is in US and uses her Freedom of Speech and nobody likes it.

Walk The Line:

"So, if I understand you correctly, Muslims of today should not be compared to Christians of today, but rather, Christians of yesteryear (approximately 1000 years ago when Europe was in the Middle Ages). This is because some, but not all Christians of yesteryear were barbaric, just as some, but not all Muslims are barbaric in this day and age."

Yes, though Muslims of today do benefit from the fact that they are exposed to modern technologies, science, etc. You know, they do have doctors, scientists (your communicating with one right now), some very good western-style schools (I was educated in the ME), etc. So the hope for them is even better. But I still do insist that most Muslims are not "barbaric". Many are uneducated or illiterate, yes, but that does not make them barbarics.

"How long must we wait? How long before Muslims educate themselves and learn that if someone criticizing their religion, that they don’t have to kill people, riot in the streets, or burn effigies?

Granted, you seem to be a reasonable fellow, but how can we talk and communicate to people when they are not willing to listen to reason?"

At least as long as it took the Christians to move from the Dark Ages to Enlightenment. Now that is a very long time. But remember, today we have the Internet, global media, easy transportation, etc. So do not expect to wait 200-500 years. In the meantime, deal with people on an individual level. Do not generalize. If you know that group X plans a terrorist attack, preemptively attack them. If they commit such an act, try them and execute them. With others, dialog is the only hope. It may be rough and unpleasant, but it will be better than just fascistically persecuting (or bombing) the hell out of innocent people because they happen to be Muslim.

By the way, the Ottomans were boring. Too beaurocratic. Most intellectual developments happened in Spain, Egypt and Iraq in earlier times. The Ottomans to the Muslims are sort of like the Romans to the West.

The marvelous thing about Ayaan Hirsi Ali was that she finally SAW that Islam is a scam. A disgusting brain destroying think-system,that has to change drastically,before we can even dream about world peace.Patel should be leading the way to a newer Islam,a non-violent Islam,a compassionate Islam,instead of stoning Ayaan Hirsi Ali,and showing us again the ugly Islam,the nasty,vengeful Islam.
The Islam that the world loves to hate.

The issue is not Ali's desire to speak out her mind or even benefit financially by her experience (after all she chose or was driven to move to the west, instead of Saudi Arabia [hello, beheading!] or Russia or China), the issue is what apologists of mohemmadenism like Eboo going to do moving forward. She could have blamed anything else and no one would call for her death.
So instead of crying wolf, may be Eboo and his ilk should work on a redrafted koran and a new set of hadith that actually teach peace and equality, instead of requiring four males to actually witness penetration in order to believe a woman's story.

Bravo! I have respect for you.

The fact that there are many wonderful people who happen to be Muslim does not free Islam of the fact that what Ms. Ali states is essentially correct.

While "The West" has its share of nasty history, our struggle has been to live up to our words of "All men are created equally" and “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity”

Islam’s words of “not making friends of Christians and Jews as they are going to Hell” and a Koran that instructs how to conduct warfare and raids and then how to divide the spoils of conquest and the death penalty for conversation, is hardly a religion of peace.

The written policy the defenders of Islam in Afghanistan (Taliban) calls for the beheading of those who teach girls to read and write and the Afghan Supreme Court (not just the Mullahs) declared that the death penalty last year for the man who converted to Christianity was the proper and legal thing to do as “Afghanistan is an Islamic State and the Koran says that apostasy is a capital offense.” My Brigade supported the Afghan Army unit which supported the prison the “apostate” was held in and they were going to kill him.

As civilized people we have an obligation to tolerate Islam and accept that they have the civil and legal rights in The West that they routinely deny their fellow Muslims due to their gender, clan, tribe, or sect.

We do not, however, need to believe the lie that Islam is a religion of peace.

The fact that there are many wonderful people who happen to be Muslim does not free Islam of the fact that what Ms. Ali states is essentially correct.

While "The West" has its share of nasty history, our struggle has been to live up to our words of "All men are created equally" and “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity”

Islam’s words of “not making friends of Christians and Jews as they are going to Hell” and a Koran that instructs how to conduct warfare and raids and then how to divide the spoils of conquest and the death penalty for conversation, is hardly a religion of peace.

The written policy the defenders of Islam in Afghanistan (Taliban) calls for the beheading of those who teach girls to read and write and the Afghan Supreme Court (not just the Mullahs) declared that the death penalty last year for the man who converted to Christianity was the proper and legal thing to do as “Afghanistan is an Islamic State and the Koran says that apostasy is a capital offense.” My Brigade supported the Afghan Army unit which supported the prison the “apostate” was held in and they were going to kill him.

As civilized people we have an obligation to tolerate Islam and accept that they have the civil and legal rights in The West that they routinely deny their fellow Muslims due to their gender, clan, tribe, or sect.

We do not, however, need to believe the lie that Islam is a religion of peace.

Sorry about that, Eboo, but Islamism as practiced today in many parts of the world is repugnant to me, and I feel threatened by its basic premise to kill all infidels. Hirsi Ali is right on with her assertions about Islamism. She has been there, done that, and lived many years through it. It is a repressive religion used by backward governments to subjugate their ignorant and backward people. Other religions have and are doing the same thing today.

I don't buy into Eboo's analysis. I believe he is totally missing Ali's points. Today, it's them and us, and we must stand up to them. All they know is how to make trouble and kill people they don't like. They call that their religion? I think it should be called a fanatic cult.

It always amazed me how the Major American news media esoecially the political pundents i.e. MSNBC. CNN, FAUX NEWS and others would bring a so-called experts from AEI and this person is supposedly going to give a partial unbiased expert opinion on Islam or for that matter the dynamics of the Middle East .....Bizaare indeed ---- go figure.

There are plenty of intellectual/scholars moderate Islams or political experts like the Christian Hannan Ashrawi but they never make it to the news rooms.....why??????

But isn't the traditional Muslim faith oppressive to women? I don't think many people argue that women have the same rights as men in the Muslim faith. By definition - that sounds like oppression to me.

Kirstin,

"Finally, heads-up other anti-theists - religions too can change. When you cite fundamentalist positions (from any religion), you are setting up straw men. Moderate Muslims aren't just the hippies of the Muslim world, they're also scholars who are interested in reviewing and re-interpreting the Koran and other religious texts to see how the practice of their religion can be compatible with modern-day truths (e.g., homosexuality is not in any way immoral)? Either you don't believe that religious moderates exist, or it's easier for you to pretend that we don't exist because it adds force to your arguments against fundamentalists"

It would be more accurate to say that religious people change. The books religious people cite to support their behavior and beliefs remain the same. At least this covers the most politically powerful religions of the world--christianity, islam, judaism, buddhism, hinduism. If religious scholars and academics personally approve of practices such as homosexuality, it would be more honorable to have intellectual honesty and recognize that the books that they are "re-interpreting" (that is butchering and cherry picking)typically condemn these practices. Rather than childishly clinging to their traditions regardless of their inadequacies, it would be more honorable to embrace a new tradition, or embrace none, but retain the values they cherish.

Oh, religious moderates exist, but they are foolish and they contribute to religious extremism due to the fact that they give credibility and defend the same traditions that the religious extremists defend. Religious moderates deserve some blame for making the goals of religious extremists easier. Not all religions are "peaceful" nor do they wish the best for all people; and most importantly, the religious literature that religious people honor are not peaceful or wish the best for people who, for example, practice a non-traditional sexual life style. For example,"Reinterpreting" jehovah's mini-genocides in Deuteronomy to make Judaism/Christianity/Islam easier to swallow and make yourself feel better about yourself loving a tradition and religion that has that barbaric superstitious activity in its past is not commendable.

"Either way, we will defend our right to practice religion, even as we defend our secular governments."

Yes, and we will exercise our right to criticize your religions.

It is disingenuous for Eboo Patel, the director of a religious youth organization, to refer to Ms. Ali's book and extraordinary circumstances as "superficial insights." Her life is being threatened because she is a woman who spoke out against a rather absolute suppression of women. What's superficial about that? Fanatics want to kill her because she's a woman who does not want to be suppressed or murdered for her views. Now, the Dutch appear to want to download Ms. Ali and her controversial views because of the expense? What are we talking here -- social justice at discount prices?
M. A. Fitchue

The reason the west listens to her too is that she hates Islam. There are many racist people (i.e. AEI) and institutions that are also using her as a tool. "here is a muslim (ex) woman who broke ties from her religion to pursue the american dream" she is nothing to most Muslims.

Does It Matter:

Who defeated/destroyed Hitler? Other Christians.....
Who Killed Koresh? Other Christians....

I said their deeds or evil acts are NOT associated to Christianity as do with Islam as result of Osama. You should not that Osama doesn’t speak for or represent Islam just as Hitler doesn’t and the Catholic churchs that assisted or looked the other-way as he conducted his heinous crimes nor does David Koresh or Jim Jones in Guyana.

how many "Muslims" are willing to call "Wahabism" a cult? when majority of them do, he will automatically be attributed to the "cult of Wahabism" and disassociated from Islam......

For your information, a lot of Muslims condemn that extreme wing of wahabism, maybe if you stop watching Fox news and listening O’reilly and Rush Limbaugh and read other international news outlets like BBC or Guardian you might learn a thing or two.

Besides, when American are ready to call the current “Southern Baptist church” a cult then your analogy may apply. Here is a church that did good deeds i.e. helped the civil rights struggle, along with it’s traditional assistance to the poor and the weak.
Now it’s leadership is populated by racist bigots, who prey on the minorities especially Blacks and spread Islamophobia to the extend of call Islam an Evil religion …..where is the tolerance?

Interesting how this author skirts over the issue of racism in America, as an example. racism in America is quite real and not out of context, at least if you are a Black American.

Perhaps it is this attitude that may lead to misunderstanding Ms. Ali in her entirety, if this author thinks for a moment racism is not alive and rearing it's ugly head in America, in reality. One only need to go to any city and wonder why the Black people live accross the tracks, in projects, or in the oldest parts of any city you visit.

Patrick

jambokh:
"Great article. This has been my take on Ayaan Hirsi Ali from the beginning. Your argument is the exact argument I formed. Great job!
"

It reminded me of an old children's tale...
At a Camel’s wedding, a donkey was the wedding singer!
They both were very appreciative of each other.. The donkey appreciating the Camel's ravishing looks and the camel complimenting the donkey on his melodious voice....
Mr. Ebrahim, you must return Jambokh's compliment!

Mr. Eboo Patel is a person of South Asian origin.

In South Asia, from every Muslim majority area, without exception, non-Muslims have been massively and systematically driven out to India and other nations.

This is 100% intolerance.

This is about connecting the dots, Mr. Patel -- from theology that calls for their genocide to 100% in practice.

Where is the evidence that when Muslims have political power they allow non-Muslim minorities to thrive? There is none!

But Christian majority America or Hindu majority India do allow their Muslim populations to thrive, don't they?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0979470404

Great article. This has been my take on Ayaan Hirsi Ali from the beginning. Your argument is the exact argument I formed. Great job!

Laila Lalami had a terrific essay published in The Nation magazine last year on Hirsi Ali. Anyone who cares for a well reasoned analysis of her writings should take a moment to read it.

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060619&s=lalami

I was not surprised in the least by Eboo Patel's sarcastic barking aimed at Ayaan Hirsi Ali. This column just proves to me all the more that so called "moderate" muslims are completely incapable of seeing, let alone addressing or fixing, the problems in their religion. Thank goodness for brave women like Ali and Nonie Darwish who risk death to communicate facts about the Muslim world hidden to most Westerners. Patel's comments hurt him far more than they hurt Ali. She is nothing short of a hero. Patel has a lot of nerve to accuse Ali of having a financial motivation even as he no doubt takes subsidies from Saudi fananciers looking to influence Western media. It is to the eternal shame of Washington Post and Newsweek that they give voices like Patel's a platform.

Muse:
“Every religion has their brand of extremes .......
Farwell, Pat Roberson and Bill Graham Jr. "

And who shouts the loudest against those? Other Christians ... (and non Christians.. applauded/supported by Christians!)

"On the hand you had Hitler and David Koresh both did horrendous things to an extend in the name of Christianity …….. however nobody though associated these evil doers with Christianity"

Who defeated/destroyed Hitler? Other Christians.....
Who Killed Koresh? Other Christians....

If/when the Muslim nations open their own war on terror …rather than being the apologists (or closet supporters) for them…. Then the Hitler analogy will fly… but then again at that time the Terrorists will no longer be called “Islamic”

Koresh was called a cult leader by overwhelming majority of Christians..... how many "Muslims" are willing to call "Wahabism" a cult? when majority of them do, he will automatically be attributed to the "cult of Wahabism" and disassociated from Islam......

A better Analogy would be the crusaders.... and for the record they STILL ARE associated with Christianity.... even by Christians...

To Diego Raineri and like:

I think there are some misunderstandings of the author's post. He is not criticizing Ms. Ali's condemnation of radical Islam, nor of the tribal practices that hurt women. He is criticizing her condemnation of the practice of religion. I wasn't aware that her opinions had gone this far until I read her interview in a recent "Reason" edition, in which she says that: there is no moderate Islam; muslim schools in the west should be shut down; and radical muslim preachers should be silenced. I believe that in the US we are already not allowed to advocate overthrowing the government, so I'm not sure what these more extreme measures would accomplish. If you take Ms. Ali's remarks to their logical conclusion, it would seem that eventually, the freedom to worship (and in my opinion, to conduct religious education) would be restricted. Ms. Ali is not just anti-radical, she is anti-theist. What would be the practical implications of thinking that belief in God causes much of the oppression and violence in the world, given that you are openly willing to shut down schools and churches?

Finally, heads-up other anti-theists - religions too can change. When you cite fundamentalist positions (from any religion), you are setting up straw men. Moderate Muslims aren't just the hippies of the Muslim world, they're also scholars who are interested in reviewing and re-interpreting the Koran and other religious texts to see how the practice of their religion can be compatible with modern-day truths (e.g., homosexuality is not in any way immoral)? Either you don't believe that religious moderates exist, or it's easier for you to pretend that we don't exist because it adds force to your arguments against fundamentalists. Either way, we will defend our right to practice religion, even as we defend our secular governments.

In the article, Ms. Ali said, "This is a dilemma: Western civilization is a celebration of life—everybody’s life, even your enemy’s life. So how can you be true to that morality and at the same time defend yourself against a very powerful enemy that seeks to destroy you?" You defend yourself by using your own tactics and acting in accordance with your own values. I see no need for action on the part of the US government to stop the speech or the religious practices of American Muslims, which is what I worry might be the endpoint of Ms. Ali's position.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/122457.html

I wish you have commented on her lies that led to her expulsion of the parlimentary in Netherland. Or the faked story about her arranged marriage.

“No, I did not want to take a shot at Christianity. You are hypothesizing regarding what I mean. You referred to Christians killing film makers today, and I was using your same example. Going back to the original point, while in the Dark Ages, Islamic Civilization was flourishing with advances in science, medicine, astronomy, and so on. The civilization broke down and disintegrated into something that is comparable to the dark ages. Civilizations to rise and fall, you do know that, right? In any case, in the view of the Muslims within the Islamic Civilization (which was very diverse and composed of many different dynasties, emirates, etc) back then was that those Christians were barbaric. Today, Westerners have the tendency to call some Muslims barbaric. Fair enough. But you can not compare them to Western Christians of today. Compare them to the counterparts back in the 10th century. That way the standard for relative comparison is fair. And yes, both were/are barbaric. BUT NOT ALL OF THEM. Do I sound barbaric to you?

So, if I understand you correctly, Muslims of today should not be compared to Christians of today, but rather, Christians of yesteryear (approximately 1000 years ago when Europe was in the Middle Ages). This is because some, but not all Christians of yesteryear were barbaric, just as some, but not all Muslims are barbaric in this day and age.

As to your original point of:

“I'd say give these Islamic societies a chance to recover, and certainly, if they become violent and employ terrorism, the West has every right to defend itself by force as needed.”

How long must we wait? How long before Muslims educate themselves and learn that if someone criticizing their religion, that they don’t have to kill people, riot in the streets, or burn effigies?

Granted, you seem to be a reasonable fellow, but how can we talk and communicate to people when they are not willing to listen to reason?

(BTW, I’ve studied a fair amount of Islamic history. The rise of the Ottoman empire and their dominance in the 15th and 16th centuries are some of my favorite time periods in history, particularly that they were the first empire in over 1,500 years to take Constantinople in 1453)

Spoken like an Americanized Muslim. A more circumspect view of the Faith creates impressions more resonant with the insights of Ms Ali which are drawn from personal experience rather than casual and selective flipping through a historical document or history book. I don't believe she has duplicitous motives as you ascribe. I would accuse her of no more than haboring resentment for years of gender subjugation.

Her perspectives are fresh and somtimes shocking which in part explains her popularity.

Without question her views do not represent the entire story of Islam, but they are an essential part of it telling and necessary to its understanding.

This is a very true and novel comment. One can not dismiss a whole civilization, relgion, and millions of people as "opression" nor is it accurate. She will not attack the oppresive practices in the history of the West, the United States and Europe alike, because it is not in her interest. She is now "free" and making a successful career on the basis of her oppresssion.

Great article from an insightful educated moderate Muslim. Hope this might finally educate those hapless so called extreme Christians who are so eager to embrace anyone who slanders Islam including profiteers like Ayaan Hirse.

Every religion has their brand of extremes i.e. on the Christian side here in USA, you have Christian right assisted by neo-conservatives, and their luminaries include the late Jerry Farwell, Pat Roberson and Bill Graham Jr.

On the hand you had Hitler and David Koresh both did horrendous things to an extend in the name of Christianity …….. however nobody though associated these evil doers with Christianity like some do with Osama and Islam

Argue the facts, don't make up stories.

Eboo Patel,

"Ali was flipping through the U.S. Constitution and the first passage she read was the one that said people of her skin color counted as three-fifths of a person."

What a ridiculous comparison. There is a significant difference between the U.S. Constitution and the Quran. That difference is the right and expectation of democratically altering it. The U.S. Constitution permits and even encourages its own criticism and amendment. The 3/5 law regarding slaves as 3/5 a person has been altered. Nothing in the Quran has, theoretically, been altered since its creation nor is alteration, theoretically, permitted. The Quran is presented as the greatest and stainless word of a god, and altering it would be a religious crime. If any person still honors a document that encourages its followers to kill and oppress people who dont believe Muhammed was a prophet, they deserve a good scolding. Whatever "good" might be in the Quran is entirely outweighed by the psychopathic lunacy that finds its presence on every page.

"Progressive Muslim" is a ridiculous travesty. If individual Muslims desire to be progressive, I suggest they renounce Islam and find a new book to worship (perhaps Cat and the Hat), that is, if they arent afraid of the injunction to kill detractors within Islamic literature.

"She is repulsive to my Muslim faith and my Enlightenment sensibilities, but those same traditions cause me to wish her no harm."

The Muslim faith and Quran is repulsive to me because it threatens peoples' lives and livelihoods merely because they would reject its claim to divinity and supremacy.

Argue the facts, don't make up stories.

Spoken like a typical person of faith---in other words, spoken dishonestly, with resort to ad hominem attacks and conclusory and dismissive generalizations.

Never trust any person of faith to give an honest account of faith. The essence of faith is dishonesty, first and foremost dishonesty with one's self.

One can agree or disagree with some of Hiri Ali's conclusions, but the incendiary reaction of Eboo Patel stinks of dishonesty.

Mr. patel

Please keep up your yeoman work in the spreading the good word about our glorious faith, Islam. Little by little, with people like you in the vanguard, America will become Islamic.

I would like you to press the case for Muslims trapped in India to be able to migrate freely to our Promised Land, Pakistan.

We the Muslims living in India fought for many years with the British Government and the Hindus to have our own Muslim country Pakistan.

The Muslims in what is now India were more passionate about it then the the Muslims in what is now Pakistan.

Bot Pakistan and India betrayed us by signing the Liaqat-Nehru Pact and with pact all migration of Muslims to Pakistan was terminated.

Our efforts to break up India and escape the tyranny of the Hindus has been in vain.

The world should wake up to our plight and allow us to go to Pakistan.

"We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features."

Except for Eboo. Replies to his commentaries have a habit of disappearing.

If you can't handle the curry then quit saying stupid things Eboo.

Mr. Patel, I think I don't fully agree with your analysis. I'm reading far too many "if" in it, and few consideration for facts, including the period Hirsi Ali spent here in Europe and related events. Everything could change, but while living in Europe Ali did never attack West. I agree with you in considering this woman a second level individual in the general panorama showing East and West facing each other. I also agree in thinking she'd better admit since the beginning to have a ghost writer, if this is the case. I'm living in Belgium, very close to Holland, and I had had Dutch Paper/TV news often on my screen before her trip in U.S.. I had the simple picture of an ordinary person having some braveness, which leaded her maybe too far in a distress situation. She was happy in Holland and she always spoke against fanatics of Islam. Those fanatics are reading and applying the worst among the many pages of Koran book. In the same way, worst Western people practiced with a particular care the worst pages of U.S. Chart you mentionned. As far as media reported here, she went in U.S. bacause in any house she moved in, neighborhood was afraid of a bomb attack and Government started to feel some embarassment. I think it is very dufficult to see any reason for a hostile attitude towards the West, looking to this story. I'm rather pushed to imagine that you don't accept this woman's critics to Islam, for some reason, even if she is clearly aiming only to the worst part of it.

Does It Matter?

Yes it does and Bravo for your commentary.

Mr. Patel as in the past will not answer any of the tough questions thereby making him just another "wishy-wash" Muslim.

Walk The Line:

"The only reason I can think of is that you want to take a shot at Christianity."

No, I did not want to take a shot at Christianity. You are hypothesizing regarding what I mean. You referred to Christians killing film makers today, and I was using your same example. Going back to the original point, while in the Dark Ages, Islamic Civilization was flourishing with advances in science, medicine, astronomy, and so on. The civilization broke down and disintegrated into something that is comparable to the dark ages. Civilizations to rise and fall, you do know that, right? In any case, in the view of the Muslims within the Islamic Civilization (which was very diverse and composed of many different dynasties, emirates, etc) back then was that those Christians were barbaric. Today, Westerners have the tendency to call some Muslims barbaric. Fair enough. But you can not compare them to Western Christians of today. Compare them to the counterparts back in the 10th century. That way the standard for relative comparison is fair. And yes, both were/are barbaric. BUT NOT ALL OF THEM. Do I sound barbaric to you?

Ebrahim aka Eboo Patel

“Let’s say that Ms. Ali was flipping through the U.S. Constitution and the first passage she read was the one that said people of her skin color counted as three-fifths of a person. Let’s say that Ms. Ali opened an American history book and read only the chapter on the slave trade.”

Tch Tch, Ebrahim, now now, No one believes the constitution to be the final word of GOD. It can be changed. It has been amended. There is a process to do it. Try challenging the “1 person 1 vote” in US supreme court today, even with Roberts, Scalia and Alito‘s Vote (and 3/5 Vote of Thomas), you will not win!
And you can not buy a slave in US if you tried (then again, you may in Wal Mart )

So .. given this, are you willing to Alter your holy book to get rid of all those passages? Or publicly say that those are crap?

But she’s got her story, and she’s taking it to the bank.

“Would you like to trade your life with hers? Living under constant fear? Being surrounded by security detail? What good is money if you can not just hang out and enjoy? And BTW, she is just hot enough to make all that money being a model… she does not need to take such a hard path!”

“If you’re going to buy into the universal principles of the Enlightenment, then you should apply them in a universal and enlightened way.”

Is this statement supposed to mean something? Or are you taking your writing lessons from Swift Current Canada?

To all those who claim Ayaan Hirsi Ali is the new face of the West:

“If your ulterior motive is to deepen a narrative intended to make Muslims in North America and Europe seem and feel forever foreign - to write an entire religion out of entire continents for the foreseeable future - I suggest you reflect deeply on your bedrock principles and your core identity.”

Bedrock principles:
Freedom of thought, Freedom from oppression, Freedom from organized thuggery…
Core Identity:
A thinking society …..
And Ali seems to fit right in!

“If you believe, as I do, that the West is characterized by reason and pluralism, then Ayaan Hirsi Ali is attacking its essence.”

Reason and Pluralism do not mean accommodating unreasonable thoughts, just because a billion people seem they are God’s word… Pluralism does not mean tolerating intolerant ideologies. So Ali is in fact pruning the weeds so the real enlightened, pluralistic thought could grow!

“Finally, and for the record, if Ayaan Hirsi Ali applied for refugee status in America and requested protection from the government, I would support her application and offer my tax dollars to ensure her safety.”

Oh so generous of you!

“She is repulsive to my Muslim faith and my Enlightenment sensibilities, but those same traditions cause me to wish her no harm.”

Repulsive to your faith, I am sure, she is.. That is the whole point….

“Enlightenment Sensibilities? Is that even English? But if you mean “open mind” ; then (if) you have it ; you have it despite of your faith not because of it! ( thanks to the West!)

Apologies for the double post.

I am using a Beta version of my browser, and not everything goes smoothly. If there is an Admin, I hope they will delete the duplicate.

I wonder whether this commentator actually read "Infidel". Or perhaps I didn't, because I don't recall her ever calling for the dismantling of Islam. Nor, in spite of many negatives about Islam, do I.

He paraphrases, probably accurately:

"she says that the entire religion of Islam was not only the cause of her oppression, but is the central cause of oppression in the world, and moreover, it has never been, and can never be, anything but oppressive."

And I believe she has license to say that, if you accept that she was not lying about her childhood and early womanhood.

That does not make it true. And I do not receive such a statement at face value.

But I DO accept that Islam is crippled by its origins, i.e. a relatively modern religion steeped in oppressive traditions of its early tribal convertees. It has not had time to "shake out" the absurd, as Judaism or Christianity (or for that matter, any of the ancient religions)(if you quibble that Christianity is not ancient, OK. Have your truth, it does not matter) have had, and to the extent that those religions have gone through that process, they exhibit more maturity than does Islam.

I doubt very much that you will find female mutilation anywhere in the Koran. Nor will you find requirements or even permission that a man marry, then when he's tired of it all marry again and abandon his first family. It seems to me that Islam calls for men to protect their women. Perhaps I'm wrong.

Hirsi Ali mistakes these practices for Islam, probably because as a youthful believer, Islam and the practices of Somalis were coterminous and not distinguishable from inside.

Yet, Islam has been ineffective in erasing primitivity from the minds of its adherents in many, if not most places. Apparently, it is more successful in the United States, which given the condition of the world, I fear will merely result in American Muslims being called infidels, themselves, by simpler souls.

I decline to analyze the well-stretched and thin analogy with a supposed decrying of the entire African continent. It is trivial and inapt. Enough said.

Now. Having said all that, I am likewise troubled by:

"Let’s say that Ms. Ali opened an American history book and read only the chapter on the slave trade. Let’s say the first Americans she met were the racists who drove around Jena during the protests with nooses hanging off their pick up trucks. Let’s say she connects these dots into a story – the story of America’s inevitable, oppressive racism."

The difference between what is done in the name of Islam and what was done by, e.g., the Jena pickup drivers, is that none of those latter had any illusions that what they were doing was being done in the name of their nominal religion. It was done, more likely, in the name of their actual religion, beer.

Even so, it must be admitted that she would be in some degree correct, as racism yet raises its ugliness to view from time to time in the U.S.

When people in Third-world countries mutilate a young girl and say it is Islam, they are wrong. It isn't. But that does not mean that Islam is right (I wonder if anyone has ever considered going around places like Somalia, and showing people like Hirsi Ali's grandmother their own clitorises [which she claimed would "dangle to your knees" if not cut] before they go out and hurt someone else? Just a thought).

Islam fails to protect its women, whatever it may say. And outsiders like me are justified in accepting, at least as a premise, that the religion in its form as practiced in most of the world, is a negative.

Fix Islam. Then come back and talk to me.

Don.

I wonder whether this commentator actually read "Infidel". Or perhaps I didn't, because I don't recall her ever calling for the dismantling of Islam. Nor, in spite of many negatives about Islam, do I.

He paraphrases, probably accurately:

"she says that the entire religion of Islam was not only the cause of her oppression, but is the central cause of oppression in the world, and moreover, it has never been, and can never be, anything but oppressive."

And I believe she has license to say that, if you accept that she was not lying about her childhood and early womanhood.

That does not make it true. And I do not receive such a statement at face value.

But I DO accept that Islam is crippled by its origins, i.e. a relatively modern religion steeped in oppressive traditions of its early tribal convertees. It has not had time to "shake out" the absurd, as Judaism or Christianity (or for that matter, any of the ancient religions)(if you quibble that Christianity is not ancient, OK. Have your truth, it does not matter) have had, and to the extent that those religions have gone through that process, they exhibit more maturity than does Islam.

I doubt very much that you will find female mutilation anywhere in the Koran. Nor will you find requirements or even permission that a man marry, then when he's tired of it all marry again and abandon his first family. It seems to me that Islam calls for men to protect their women. Perhaps I'm wrong.

Hirsi Ali mistakes these practices for Islam, probably because as a youthful believer, Islam and the practices of Somalis were coterminous and not distinguishable from inside.

Yet, Islam has been ineffective in erasing primitivity from the minds of its adherents in many, if not most places. Apparently, it is more successful in the United States, which given the condition of the world, I fear will merely result in American Muslims being called infidels, themselves, by simpler souls.

I decline to analyze the well-stretched and thin analogy with a supposed decrying of the entire African continent. It is trivial and inapt. Enough said.

Now. Having said all that, I am likewise troubled by:

"Let’s say that Ms. Ali opened an American history book and read only the chapter on the slave trade. Let’s say the first Americans she met were the racists who drove around Jena during the protests with nooses hanging off their pick up trucks. Let’s say she connects these dots into a story – the story of America’s inevitable, oppressive racism."

The difference between what is done in the name of Islam and what was done by, e.g., the Jena pickup drivers, is that none of those latter had any illusions that what they were doing was being done in the name of their nominal religion. It was done, more likely, in the name of their actual religion, beer.

Even so, it must be admitted that she would be in some degree correct, as racism yet raises its ugliness to view from time to time in the U.S.

When people in Third-world countries mutilate a young girl and say it is Islam, they are wrong. It isn't. But that does not mean that Islam is right (I wonder if anyone has ever considered going around places like Somalia, and showing people like Hirsi Ali's grandmother their own clitorises [which she claimed would "dangle to your knees" if not cut] before they go out and hurt someone else? Just a thought).

Islam fails to protect its women, whatever it may say. And outsiders like me are justified in accepting, at least as a premise, that the religion in its form as practiced in most of the world, is a negative.

Fix Islam. Then come back and talk to me.

Don.

Is Ali a friend and ally of Ann Coulter?

I do not know which passages of the Qur’an Ali quoted and referred to as violent, but I do know that there are violent verses in the Qur'an. I have read the Qur'an. What everyone should know about Qur'an regardless whether he/she doesn’t know better or doesn’t want to know better, is that Islam is, in fact, a violent religion that discriminates against women.

Unlike any other historical, political, constitutional, or scientific book, the verses of the Qur'an are written in no chronological order that explains when God supposedly prophesized those verses to the prophet. The verses are listed in the Qur’an from the shortest verse at the beginning of the Qur’an up to the longest verse at the end of it. In so many instances the verses contradict one another. As an example, in on verse of the Qur'an you would read a text that is seemingly pro-women, and few verses later, you can read another text that is objectionable and anti-women. Also, in so many verses the text would end up in the effect of "… God only Knows," and keeps the door open for any worldly interpretation of that verse. That's how many extremists promote violence and explain it to their followers as a justified mean to accomplish and institute their Society “Ommah” or Ruler-ship “Kelafa” according to God’s “Allah’s” prophesized instructions to the Muslim nation in the whole world.

In a constitution of any civilized country, you would read statements (laws) that do not contradict with one another. And whenever a need arises to amend a statement to correct any prevailing injustice or to explain more clearly the thoughts and intent of the founding fathers in more modern and applicable manner, amendments are discussed and rectified by the representatives of the people. However, no Muslim can think of arguing about the validity of any verse of the Qur'an because it is allegedly the word of Allah, and Allah only knows!

The assertion that, "the entire religion of Islam was . . . the cause of . . . oppression" is fundamentally different from making the same accusation toward anything else, including Africa. It is entirely possible that one assertion could hold merit while the other couldn't. That it is rediculous to criticize Africa in no way makes it rediculous to criticize Islam.

It is possible to criticize something without rejecting it completely. You seem to at once be insisting on this point (as it applies to your beliefs), while simultaneously ignoring it (as it could be applied to Ms. Ali).

"It is a genuinely inspiring tale (even a lyrical one, although reports have surfaced that Ali had a ghost writer) . . . " Clearly you intend us to believe the "reports" that "have surfaced".

"She is repulsive to my Muslim faith and my Enlightenment sensibilities, but those same traditions cause me to wish her no harm." You doth protest too much, methinks.

The assertion that, "the entire religion of Islam was . . . the cause of . . . oppression" is fundamentally different from making the same accusation toward anything else, including Africa. It is entirely possible that one assertion could hold merit while the other couldn't. That it is rediculous to criticize Africa in no way makes it rediculous to criticize Islam.

It is possible to criticize something without rejecting it completely. You seem to at once be insisting on this point (as it applies to your beliefs), while simultaneously ignoring it (as it could be applied to Ms. Ali).

"It is a genuinely inspiring tale (even a lyrical one, although reports have surfaced that Ali had a ghost writer) . . . " Clearly you intend us to believe the "reports" that "have surfaced".

"She is repulsive to my Muslim faith and my Enlightenment sensibilities, but those same traditions cause me to wish her no harm." You doth protest too much, methinks.

The assertion that, "the entire religion of Islam was . . . the cause of . . . oppression" is fundamentally different from making the same accusation toward anything else, including Africa. It is entirely possible that one assertion could hold merit while the other couldn't. That it is rediculous to criticize Africa in no way makes it rediculous to criticize Islam.

It is possible to criticize something without rejecting it completely. You seem to at once be insisting on this point (as it applies to your beliefs), while simultaneously ignoring it (as it could be applied to Ms. Ali).

"It is a genuinely inspiring tale (even a lyrical one, although reports have surfaced that Ali had a ghost writer) . . . " Clearly you intend us to believe the "reports" that "have surfaced".

"She is repulsive to my Muslim faith and my Enlightenment sensibilities, but those same traditions cause me to wish her no harm." You doth protest too much, methinks.

The assertion that, "the entire religion of Islam was . . . the cause of . . . oppression" is fundamentally different from making the same accusation toward anything else, including Africa. It is entirely possible that one assertion could hold merit while the other couldn't. That it is rediculous to criticize Africa in no way makes it rediculous to criticize Islam.

It is possible to criticize something without rejecting it completely. You seem to at once be insisting on this point (as it applies to your beliefs), while simultaneously ignoring it (as it could be applied to Ms. Ali).

"It is a genuinely inspiring tale (even a lyrical one, although reports have surfaced that Ali had a ghost writer) . . . " Clearly you intend us to believe the "reports" that "have surfaced".

"She is repulsive to my Muslim faith and my Enlightenment sensibilities, but those same traditions cause me to wish her no harm." You doth protest too much, methinks.

woops, fatwa

What is an enlightened muslim?

A secular humanist, that no longer lives in an Islamic state. If they do, they are a dead secular humanist.

When the religious leader of an entire nation and one of the largest Islamic sects declares a 'fawa', or death decree on someone for leaving the religion, and practicing free speach, you should be talking about your shame of all Iranians and Shias, not your repulsion of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

And the death threats are not only from the Shias.
Enlightenment my bleeding arse. If Eboo is an example of Islamic enlightenment, then the whole religion is truly repulsive. He tries to talk the talk, but he walks the walk of a fundamentalist follower of an ancient, tribal and repressive religion when he apologizes for their behavior, instead of condeming it.

A glaring Muslim flaw; don’t criticize Muslims or Islam. Being Muslim means your religion, your history, your "prophet" are all perfect. Please note all the Muslims here including Eboo how they truly HATE Ms. Ali. The most hatred is spewed from the convert-why is it that converts stomp the hardest and shout the loudest? Criticize Islam in a Muslim country and they will hunt you down and butcher you... the Islamic way. Can we write somthing about this Eboo?

Just recently Iran passed a fatwa against a Swedish cartoonist, there is an extra "reward" for killing him the traditional Islamic way; slice his throat and you get extra! (Not sure how he'd collect the reward though-minor detail left out). Can we discuss that Eboo? Or the Danish cartoons? Stoning of women in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan?...anybody?

I read Ms. Ali's post a few months back all she did was wonderfully point out glaring flaws in Islam simply and beautifully. Not one Muslim responded gracefully, all spewed HATE and venom against the woman who is braving fatwa’s and idiot western appeasers. I hope she makes millions while exposing the 1400 year old cult masquerading as a religion. She pointed out Sharia Law and its huge flaws, she pointed out Saudi Arabia, Iran and Nigeria where women are stoned to death; Do you know how stoning is done? Can a Muslim or Eboo please explain how correctly to stone an adulteress the Islamic way? Who casts the first stone, is it the Dad or the brother?
Honor killing; can the western convert please explain how she would react if her daughter is caught in a compromising position with her boyfriend? Would she even be allowed a boyfriend?

Eboo has been granted free reign to post whatever he wants, what does he do instead of answering Ms. Ali’s accusations? He pours more hate and does not bother to answer any of her eloquent points. Please notice how many responses she got for her tiny post. Perhaps the most anyone has gotten so far. Why? This is NOT an answer from an "intellectual", "...She is repulsive to my Muslim faith and my Enlightenment sensibilities...” Why Eboo? If you had any intellect you would answer her point for point. You didn’t, none of you Muslims did, not even the convert/revert.

Let’s do this, let’s take Ms. Ali's post and number the points she made about/against Islam. All you intellectual Muslims and converts please reply convincingly to each one, in a scholarly manner because this won't do; "She is ignorant... or she is full of hate... or I pity her... or she was never a Muslim".

Hmm, an interesting analysis. But it is flawed. There is a reason people would be outraged if she said all of Africa is evil. Simply, it is not. Its also worth noting that if she had made that statement no African would call for her head, put a price on it and have a following of people trying to see who could kill her first. The death threats on her support her thesis.

However her criticisms of Islam are not that it is evil in whole, just that it allows evil to be perpetrated in its name. It is quite easy for Islamists to find the justifications for violence against infidels and even one's own family in the Quran, and Islamic history shows the religion to be totalitarian. Maybe you should consider that maybe her criticisms are valid. Could it be that Islam encourages violence even though for you it does not have that calling? Look at the results on the global scale. Look how many islamists are bombing and killing in the name of their religion and look how many christians or jews or hindus or buddists are killing in the name of their religion. And look back in history as well.

I've always felt that the most enlightened people question authority of every type. You should ask yourself whether you would allow yourself to question Islam. If not, you are not enlightened but simply a blind follower whether you think you agree with Islam or not. If you cannot question its edicts, then you cannot claim enlightenment. Like the islamists, you cannot think for yourself. That is what Ali is working to expose.

Don't hate, participate man!!!

unfortunately the genesis of the three religions of the Book has taken place in violence : Moses, Mohamed and the Holy Inquisition... Only Buddhism was BORN in compassion. It remains that the four religions -with the exception of a few of their entranched fanatics- have moved to preaching love,charity, compassion and understanding. Unfortunately there will always be funamentalists to believe that they are the elcted repository of THE ( inexisting ) TRUTH and that they can justify their existence by propagating it.

I applaud Mr. Patel's reasoned denunciation of both Islamic extremists and anti-Islamic extremist such as Ms. Ali. Moderate and nuanced interpretations of Islam are sorely needed in this time of extremist violence and right wing demagogy. I wonder if Ms. Ali would dare make her argument to Muhammad Yunus, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate whose microfinance program has empowered thousands of Muslim women.

I have two problems with this.

A) One can't compare a religion to a culture. One is a belief system, one is a system of evolving values and tendencies. Cultures can be dangerous, but they can also evolve and can be highly influenced. This can be lead to unfortunate rituals like cannibalism being phased out or can lead to higher rates of corruption whether because of superpower interference or poor leadership. But cultures are adaptable. One should also point out that several of the negative items Patel attributes to Africa (wars, corrupt leaders, disease)aren't values or tendencies, they are plagues afflicted upon the continent, sometimes by their own leadership but also often fostered by outside interference.

B) While the U.S. constitution may contain several passages worthy of contempt. It has evolved, as constitutions do, into a document that people interpret positively and to the great benefit of the U.S. Religions meanwhile, have evolved in some cases, to some people. But a large number of people take the words of the Bible and Koran at face value. There aren't too many Americans (although there are still too many) who would argue that blacks are only 60% the value of whites. But there are plenty who argue, by either misinterpreting religious texts or simply applying them to the letter, that God hates homosexuals, that those who don't believe will and should go to hell and that stem cell research should be outlawed. Religions have put people to death for claiming that the earth isn't the centre of the world and for questioning the existance of God. The U.S. constitution has been used wrongly in the past, but fortunately people recognize that as a document written more than 200 years ago, certain things have changed. Those who assert religious texts are the word of god? not so much.

Why is it that, when pressed for "reasons" why Religion X is such a bad thing, its detractors simply find some instance in which a person associated with Religion X did something awful, and then try to paint the entire Religion with that brush?

Has no one ever heard of the STRAW MAN FALLACY?

The West has a long and proud tradition of maligning and attacking other people's traditions--as well as its own.

One of the core tenets of enlightened thinking was--and is--the inalienable right to attack and criticize those institutions and traditions that infringe on universal rights. Paraphrasing Michael Walzer, the West is about tolerance for everyone except for those who are deemed intolerant.

Ms. Ali may strike some as vitriolic and unfair. However, her all-out attack on her oppressors--with whom Mr. Patel is ridiculously compared for the sole reason of being male and muslim--is perfectly compatible with the broader Western tradition. Ours is not a civilization of tolerance exclusively. We, as individuals and nations, have all the right to lash out against any perceived wrong, specially if we do so by advocating a debate of ideas against the murderous instincts of a few.

The West has a long and proud tradition of maligning and attacking other people's traditions--as well as its own.

One of the core tenets of enlightened thinking was--and is--the inalienable right to attack and criticize those institutions and traditions that infringe on universal rights. Paraphrasing Michael Walzer, the West is about tolerance for everyone except for those who are deemed intolerant.

Ms. Ali may strike some as vitriolic and unfair. However, her all-out attack on her oppressors--with whom Mr. Patel is ridiculously compared for the sole reason of being male and muslim--is perfectly compatible with the broader Western tradition. Ours is not a civilization of tolerance exclusively. We, as individuals and nations, have all the right to lash out against any perceived wrong, specially if we do so by advocating a debate of ideas against the murderous instincts of a few.

This is so badly argued, I don't know where to begin. How can one compare a continent to religion? how does that analogy even begin to work? Reason? Bosh! While it is possible that reasonable persons could disagree on the harm done by religion, this essay contributes nothing to that debate.

And then, comparing a static, dogmatic religious text to a living, breathing secular document like the constitution? The latter requires us to keep thinking and questioning (no surprise, very Englightened of our founding fathers, who were at the core very skeptical of religion). The former requires us to shut off all questioning and obey.

It is and has always been very obvious that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an opportunist. Now, I am neither a Muslim nor profess deep knowledge of the religion. But whatever this woman has done so far doesn't seem like anything but foster her own cause. I would never take her seriously. Being a Christian, I have a lot of very good Muslim friends. I haven't heard one of them represent the Islam that she is talking about. What is more, some of the more progressive that some of my own Christian friends. In any case, I think this article has a very valid point.

Food for thought.

I said: "She advocates reform of Islam, not its destruction, and a Muslim enlightenment is long overdue."

A Muslim responded: "She does advocate its destruction. See my comment below at 10:17 AM."

I went and read the Reason article you referred to, and I see that what she said is troubling, but she doesn't actually advocate the destruction of Islam. she said Islam should be defeated, not destroyed, so that it could remake itself into something peaceful. I don't expect that to be of comfort to you, because it isn't very friendly, but there are subtle differences. Despite her using the word "crushed," I don't read this as her advocating some sort of religion-based slaughter.

You said: "Are there injustices in the Muslim world? Yes, there are. Then lets remedy them, and not fight a WWIII over it."

I agree. I opposed the war in Iraq, and I would oppose any war motivated by spreading ideology. Islamic violence is a huge problem in the world, but the U.S. threw gasoline on that fire by invading Iraq. The world will pay the price of that mistake for generations.

Where, however, is Islamic injustice being remedied? Where are the glowing examples of Muslim peaceful co-existence? Are we EVER going to see a Muslim Enlightenment?

As always, the core of the dispute is religion. Today, in America and most of the Islamic world,if you do not believe in fairy tales or accept superstitious incredulity, you are are either immoral, less than a human being or a cretinous knave. Let us rid the world of all religious beliefs and rituals that maime, torture, cause suffering and kill; certainly those under the auspicies of state enforced power. There is no possible reason we cannot simply retain pride in our heritage and respect the culture of our people without resorting to the uncivilized committment of drinking the Cool Aide brewed by primitive minds; yet un-enlightened by knowledge and reason. What a kinder, gentler, more humane and enlightened world this would be, if we were but left to live without religious coercion and all equally able to secure the opportunity to prosper. Empower the fanatics and believers in faith, and you will continue to have savagery, suffering, misery, inhumanity and needless death in the name of god.

Thank you, A Muslim, for helping me know there are non-radical Muslims. It does seem Ali is as radical as they and wants to fight fire with fire. It seems she believes Islam is destructive and must itself be destroyed. I must defer to her point if view as she has lived it. Islam has much to offer in the way of civil behaviors from old treatises I have read. It seems modern Islam is different and more violent, less educated, unwilling to use deplomacy, use the resources available in modern society to make a point. Everyone had the right to be heard. That's what the liberals taught me.

A very thoughtful critique. I believe that we in America for the most part choose to obtain our information from a select few sources that fit in nicely with what the status quo of the day is. Instead of digging deeper and questioning the ulterior motives of informtation sources we would rather take them at face value and believe in their fallacies. I wish there were more people in the mainstream media who chose to expose the opposing view rather than the poplular view.

Finally, someone takes my view of the matter. I think the author criticized her too much for being critical of culture and religion (they're open for critique) and didn't criticize her enough for the gag order she'd like to put on all religious education. The Dutch don't have it right and she doesn't have it right - the right way is to be pluralistic, to allow people to live their lives as they like, AND to crack down hard on people who commit crimes (with victims), regardless of their culture or religion. If she became a politician in the US, I have no doubt she'd try to reduce our right to worship. Either she's not smart enough to know what she really thinks, or she's duplicitous by pretending to believe in freedoms that she clearly does not.

A Muslim:

"No. I suggest you read my comment more carefully. I have not endorsed any such thing. My post can be read (properly as originally intended) as saying "the Christians were wrong and so are murderous extremist Islamists". But it also says that we should not confuse the murderous extremist Islamists with innocent Muslims."

I did read your comment but I failed to see how making a comparison between modern day Islam extremism and 10th Christian extremism is apt. After all, it is one thousand years later and the world has changed. Christianity of today is not the same as Christianity 1,000 years ago, so for you to bring it up is a bit puzzling.

The only reason I can think of is that you want to take a shot at Christianity.

Sir,

Blessings to you.

With all due respect, your own accusation of Ms. Ali's "hypocrisy," is hypocritical.

You become as guilty as you claim her views are. and as guilty as those who seek to silence her with threats of murder----

when instead of JUST TELLING YOUR OWN POSITIVE story of experience with Islam, you take a low and opportunist opportunity, to make a name for yourself by basking the name of another.

Ms. Ali, has honestly spoken from her experience, from her experience, from her experience.

Just because it is different from yours, and just because people agree with it, you bash her, and then follow up your bashing with a lie and hypocritical statement of "wish her well."

If Islam is so wonderful, why does it not speak for itself? Why does the practice of Islam, and the blessings of it---not speak for itself, sir?

A person is just one human, with one opinion. If Islam is so strong, and so glorious-----one person cannot destroy it. If Islam is so glorious and blessed, why do you obviously feel treatened and offended.

You worship her, making an idol of her, with your attempts to intellectualize base human reactions.

Intellectualize your belief in Islam perhaps, and ask your God to show himself strong.

Blessings.

Eboo is jealous. I mean, she's a woman and she's smarter than he is. That probably chafes his Muslim sensibilities. HA. Hoo. I love it.

Bravo!! i'm usually not a great fan of a lot of stuff that ebo writes, but this was an excellent piece. very well articulated.

Eboo may be a disenchanged Muslim, proud of himself in many ways, but nevertheless a Muslim with oppressive ideals against women and American life in general. He has been given a voice in America and nowhere else. He is a typical Muslim who hates women and what they represent as human beings. The quote from the Constitution relates to all people of color, irregardless of their country of origin. The color of your skin means you're black, no matter what. You would not survive in a places where racism is rampant in the U.S. If your Muslim women are dissatisfied, listen to them and make the change. Don't threaten their lives and their needs with death and disfigurement. Muslims practice Female Genital Mutillation. Eboo represents all these negatives that Muslims advocate. He is a woman hater. He should apologize to Ali.

oh give it up. all you religious people are suddenly finding tolerance when you're being revealed for what you are: intolerant. it makes me laugh to see you all wearing your new knickers of 'tolerance'. but we all know. we all know. because it's a terrible fit. ha ha ha ha ha ha hooooooooooo.

Eboo may be a disenchanged Muslim, proud of himself in many ways, but nevertheless a Muslim with oppressive ideals against women and American life in general. He has been given a voice in America and nowhere else. He is a typical Muslim who hates women and what they represent as human beings. The quote from the Constitution relates to all people of color, irregardless of their country of origin. The color of your skin means you're black, no matter what. You would not survive in a places where racism is rampant in the U.S. If your Muslim women are dissatisfied, listen to them and make the change. Don't threaten their lives and their needs with death and disfigurement. Muslims practice Female Genital Mutillation. Eboo represents all these negatives that Muslims advocate. He is a woman hater. He should apologize to Ali.

Elanda2:

She does advocate the destruction of Islam --all of it. See my comment below at 10:17 AM.

"If" is the operative word I see in this narrative. I don't see her doing the things that the writer accuses her of doing. I see the writer lashing out at a woman who has chosen a diferent life for herself, a life that is not Muslim, as all free peoples of free societies can do. I see the writer ignoring the truth about his own religion and condemning a WOMAN who has spoken out against its atrosities and found a voice and an ear. Freedom rules once again. Oppression crosses lines and anyone darker than a paper bag is considered a black person, no matter what country you come from. That would include India. The writer has not visited places in America where the country of origin is not a consideration. It's simply the color of the skin. I find the writer bitter in uninformed.

A letter from the British writer Martin Amis
to Yasmin Alibhai-Brown,columnist fir The Independent UK,

Dear Yasmin,

Yes, I remember those drinks we had at the Cheltenham Festival last year – just the four of us, you and Mr Brown, me and Ms Fonseca. (You enjoyed a Ribena, as I recall, while I addressed myself to a powerful scotch.) That night you revealed, inter alia, that you were Shia; and, as far as I understand it, the Shia minority speaks for the more dreamy and poetic face of Islam, the more lax and capacious (tolerant, for example, of representations of the human form), the more spiritual (in the general sense of that word), as opposed to the Sunnis, whose approach is known to be stricter and more legalistic. Your Shia identity endeared you to me, and made me feel protective, because Islamism, in most of its manifestations, not only wants to kill me – it wants to kill you.

When you write that I am "with the beasts" on Islamic questions, it is because you've been listening, rather dreamily perhaps, to Professor Terry Eagleton. Now Eagleton, Yasmin, has a chair at Manchester University, where I have recently taken up an enjoyable post, and he is a man of a redundant but familiar type: an ideological relict, unable to get out of bed in the morning without the dual guidance of God and Karl Marx. More remarkably, he combines a cruising hostility with an almost neurotic indifference to truth; on the matter of checking his facts, he is, to be frank, an embarrassment to the academic profession. But his human need is simple enough: he wants attention to be paid to his self-righteousness – righteousness being his particular brand of vanity.

It is a dull business, correcting Eagleton's distortions, but this is the work he is obliging me to do. The anti-Muslim measures he says I "advocated" I merely adumbrated, not "in an essay" ("he wrote", "wrote Amis" – each of these is an untruth), but in a long interview with the press. It was a thought experiment, or a mood experiment, and the remarks were preceded by the following: "There's a definite urge – don't you have it? – to say... [etc, etc]." I felt that urge, for a day or two. My mood, I admit, was bleak – how I longed, Yasmin, for your soothing hand on my brow! It was, in its way, one of the bitterest moments, one of the moments of wormwood, in the strange tale that began five years earlier, in September 2001.

The press interview took place in the immediate aftermath of the foiled plot (August 2006) to obliterate 10 commercial jets with explosives put together in transit. Which would have resulted in the deaths of another 3,000 random Westerners, the majority of them women and children (these were summer flights across the North Atlantic). Human beings, born of women, caressed such thoughts in their minds.

There were two additional depressants. At least one of the alleged would-be mass murderers had taken the trouble to convert to Islam, suggesting that the exterminatory virus was about to mutate, like bird flu. And I'm sure you remember, Yasmin, that passengers on this route were suddenly forbidden to take books on the eight-hour flight – a resonant symbolic victory for the forces of ignorance, humourlessness, literalism, boredom and misery.

Anyway, the mood, the retaliatory "urge" soon evaporated, and I went back to feeling that we must, of course, build all the bridges we can between ourselves and the Muslim majority, which we know to be moderate. Moderate, and mute. The quietism is perhaps no mystery. In 15th-century Spain, not many people, I imagine, were proclaiming that the Inquisition had gone too far. The extremists, for now, have the monopoly of violence, intimidation, and self-righteousness. Meanwhile, I don't want to stripsearch you, Yasmin, or do anything else that would trouble or even momentarily surprise your dignity, or that of any other eirenic Muslim.

People like Eagleton are the nearest thing we have to the "iron mullahs": he is, in other words, a deluded flailer and stirrer. He recently did a similar job on my old mucker Sir Salman Rushdie; and the rigged-up spat ended with a helpless apology from Manchester. I don't know, or can't remember, how you felt about the knighthood. My father (also lazily and cornily defamed by Eagleton) said of his KBE: "It's not too little, but it is too late." An anachronistic award, perhaps – though one fully deserved by the author of the triumphant Shalimar the Clown. The "storm" that followed the announcement was unforeseen by everybody, including the Fourth Estate (which then hollered on about how "inevitable" it was). You see, time had advanced, in the West, since 1989. Time moves more slowly in Iran and Pakistan. As I don't need to tell you, Yasmin, there is something the matter with the Islamic clock.

You wrong your own intelligence when you write that atheism is another form of fanaticism. This notion is a philosophical non-starter. Adherence, however "moderate", to a holy book that recommends (for instance) the murder of apostates and the beating of women (on suspicion of disobedience) carries certain consequences. Whereas nothing follows from atheism. With atheism, there is no what-next.

I am off to Cheltenham tomorrow afternoon. And I hope to see you at the bar. With all best wishes to you and your husband,

Martin

Why may I ask you have to refer to issue that apply to african american in the United States ? What is your purpose for the comparison with religion?

"Are you suggesting that it is okay for Muslims to commit murder when their religious beliefs are offended because that it what 10th century Christians did?"

No. I suggest you read my comment more carefully. I have not endorsed any such thing. My post can be read (properly as originally intended) as saying "the Christians were wrong and so are murderous extremist Islamists". But it also says that we should not confuse the murderous extremist Islamists with innocent Muslims.

"Are you suggesting that it is okay for Muslims to commit murder when their religious beliefs are offended because that it what 10th century Christians did?"

No. I suggest you read my comment more carefully. I have not endorsed any such thing. My post can be read (properly as originally intended) as saying "the Christians were wrong and so are murderous extremist Islamists". But it also says that we should not confuse the murderous extremist Islamists with innocent Muslims.

A Muslim:

Are you suggesting that it is okay for Muslims to commit murder when their religious beliefs are offended because that it what 10th century Christians did?

A Muslim:

Are you suggesting that it is okay for Muslims to commit murder when their religious beliefs are offended because that it was 10th century Christians did?

Skeptimal:

"She advocates reform of Islam, not its destruction, and a Muslim enlightenment is long overdue."

She does advocate its destruction. See my comment below at 10:17 AM.

Are there injustices in the Muslim world? Yes, there are. Then lets remedy them, and not fight a WWIII over it. It is not worth it, and will only bring death and destruction. Does it have to take a few million innocent people dead for the West to realize it was wrong on something? Islam is not the problem. Extremism is. See my comments below in response to Timothy.

My impression of Ali's book is different from Mr. Patel's. I certainly don't think his claims of anti-Westernism are justified. She simply poses the question of how should the west can tolerate intolerance.

She advocates reform of Islam, not its destruction, and a Muslim enlightenment is long overdue. Do you disagree with that or are you happy that women are not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia? Does the murder of gays by Muslim governments seem reasonable to you? Why is it so prevalent that Muslims attack and murder ex-Mulsims?

If Ali's experience with Islam was just an unfortunate experience with a few bad Somali, Kenyan, and Saudi Arabian Muslims, exactly which Muslim country would you recommend she go to to find a "good" Muslim experience?

"How many people have been murdered for films critical of Christianity?"

Back in the dark ages there was still no movie-making. But there were books and ideas and both were under severe attack in Christian Europe. If you want to make a more appropriate comparison, then compare extremist radical Islamists' behavior today to 10th century European Christians. And, yes, Islamic societies are undergoing a similar crises as that suffered by the Christians in the Dark ages. Given the enlightenment, I'd say give these Islamic societies a chance to recover, and certainly, if they become violent and employ terrorism, the West has every right to defend itself by force as needed.

Why was Theo Van Gogh murdered for producing a film critical of Islam?

How many people have been murdered for films critical of Christianity?

Timothy:

Short answer: He is a nutjob. Here is why.

He wishes to interpret the Quran in the most literal, shallow of ways. Then he claims that he represents Islam. How many people is he speaking for? Al-Qaeda, obviously. How many are there in the Al-Qaeda? According to Michael Scheuer (a 22-year CIA veteran) in Imperial Hubris, the numbers can not be more than 20,000 (or thereabouts). Let me double that, no quadruple that to 80,000 people, to include all AQ affiliates around the world. Now that is a big number, don't take me wrong, and they can cause a lot of death and destruction, and should certainly be confronted. But why should we project the views of this nutjob in the youtube video on to the entire Muslim people who are 1.2 billion in the world? That is exactly what Ali is doing, and that is why us "moderate" Muslims find her statements very alarming. Does it have to take the West killing millions (a la Holocaust) to realize that one is wrong?

Like you, I too was deeply disturbed by the Rushdie-Harris op-ed, which I came across in the Chicago Tribune. Hope you seriously consider disseminating your response via the print medium as well.

A Muslim:

What do you think of this man's words? He is speaking for you?

And all American readers- please spend a few minutes and listen to this--

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTZJh-SYRSg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7xzwUWfJp0

Why are you giving her this publicity? Who told you that some "muslims" are after her? This is just a ploy to play on fear. She is unworthy of all and any attention-her uesefulness as a NEOCON tool with which to whip and bash Muslims has already expired. And any one thinking of harming her would have to really be crazy-why turn her into a "martyer."
She can say all she wants about Islam and Muslims-all the same:coming from a fraud as she in fact is will do no hram at all to Islam.

I guess what I am trying to point out is the hypocrisy in her position. She wants to shun/destroy Islam because Islam want to shun/destroy the West! And, by the way, the latter --that Islam want to destroy West Civilization-- is highly controversial. Just to name one example from history, how did Muslims manage to deliberately preserve Greek literature and at the same time want, at Islam's core roots as Ali et al. claim, to destroy Western culture? These views are very narrow minded and shallow to say the least, and destructive if indeed rational people in the West follow in Hirsi's footsteps.

V, V, V, Victoria,

Wow, one free woman sure scares the afterlife out of you!!! I would be much more concerned about the desires of the Islamic terror state of Iran.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are forms of socially sanctioned lunacy, their fundamental tenets and rituals irrational, archaic and more importantly when it comes to matters of humanity’s long-term survival, mutually incompatible. There are names for people who have beliefs for which there is no rational justification. When their beliefs are extremely common, we call them ‘religious’; otherwise, they are likely to be called ‘mad,’ ‘psychotic’ or ‘delusional.’ ‘’ To cite but one example: ‘’Jesus Christ—who, as it turns out, was born of a virgin, cheated death and rose bodily into the heavens—can now be eaten in the form of a cracker. A few Latin words spoken over your favorite Burgundy, and you can drink his blood as well. Is there any doubt that a lone subscriber to these beliefs would be considered mad?’’ The danger of religious faith is that it allows otherwise normal human beings to reap the fruits of madness and consider them holy.’’

Criticizing a person’s faith is currently taboo in every corner of our culture. On this subject, liberals and conservatives have reached a rare consensus: religious beliefs are simply beyond the scope of rational discourse. Criticizing a person’s ideas about God and the afterlife is thought to be impolitic in a way that criticizing his ideas about physics or history is not.’’

A zippered-lip policy would be fine, a pleasant display of the neighborly tolerance that we consider part of an advanced democracy, if not for the mortal perils inherent in strong religious faith. The terrorists who flew jet planes into the World Trade Center believed in the holiness of their cause. The Christian apocalypticists who are willing to risk a nuclear conflagration in the Middle East for the sake of expediting the second coming of Christ believe in the holiness of their cause. Such fundamentalists are not misinterpreting their religious texts or ideals. They are not defaming or distorting their faith. To the contrary, they are taking their religion seriously, attending to the holy texts on which their faith is built. Unhappily for international community, the Good Books that undergird the world’s major religions are extraordinary anthologies of violence and vengeance, celestial decrees that infidels must die.

In the 21st century when swords have been beaten into megaton bombs, the persistence of ancient, blood-washed theisms that emphasize their singular righteousness and their superiority over competing faiths poses a genuine threat to the future of humanity, if not the biosphere: ‘’We can no longer ignore the fact that billions of our neighbors believe in the metaphysics of martyrdom, or in the literal truth of the book of Revelation,’’ he writes, ‘’because our neighbors are now armed with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.’’

I have a particular ire for religious moderates, those who ‘’have taken the apparent high road of pluralism, asserting the equal validity of all faiths’’ and who ‘’imagine that the path to peace will be paved once each of us has learned to respect the unjustified beliefs of others.’’ Religious moderates are the ones who thwart all efforts to criticize religious literalism. By preaching tolerance, they become intolerant of any rational discussion of religion and ‘’betray faith and reason equally.’’

The human need for a mystical dimension to life like mysticism and other forms of knowledge, can be approached rationally and explored with the tools of modern neuroscience, without recourse to superstition and credulity.

At this time Islam is the reigning threat to humankind. Much like a gruesome, Inquisition-style Christianity of the 13th century only leads us to believe not all cultures are at the same stage of moral development,’’ I couldn’t help but think of Ann Coulter’s morally developed suggestion that we invade Muslim countries, kill their leaders and convert their citizens to Christianity.

I will say this of Faith: it has been the foundation of every religion, every cult, every sect, every religious terrorist organization that desired to gain advocates whose will greatly exceeded their intelligence. When a religion asks that its followers believe all that it declares, and to do so without evidence, it speaks volumes of the intent and meaning of that religion. These churches, temples and mosques, they will keep their followers in the shadows of millennium past. Evolution is still howled as the great enemy of faith. It simply has the greatest following of scientists and evidence. It's not scientifically that any religion has ever tried to debunk Evolution. They brought forth no evidence. They claimed no new discoveries. Their only tactic was to point to tattered and very old scriptues -- to flip through the pages, and read the rancid words, almost as if they were pure gold. Faith does not require investigation, or evidence, or demonstration, or observation, or logical deductions. It simply requires that a person believe, in spite of what evidence may say: it requires that a person blindfolds themselves when demonstration is shown, to use earplugs when anyone speaks of logic, and to turn away at every reason for them to believe what Faith tells them is wrong. Those cults and sects which have utilized violence for the realization of their apocalyptic future -- they required nothing but the willpower and a great deal of Faith.

Correction:

should read "She suggests that the Bill of Rights and Constitution are NOT infallible in defense of asking for closing all Muslim schools." And that was quote.

Are Americans willing to undermine the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

Ali was recently interviewed by Reason Magazine (online version of interview still unavailable on reason.com). One has to really read about her views in Reason to see why peaceful Muslims are alarmed by her propositions.

For example, in that Reason interview she says:

"we are at war with Islam."

When asked about defeating radical Islam, she answers "[n]o. Islam, period."

She says: "There comes a moment when you crush your enemy." (Referring to Islam, not radical Islam). Reason then asks: "Militarily?", she responds: "In all forms, and if you don't do that, then you have to live with the consequence of being crushed."

Then there is her proposition to close all Muslim schools.

She suggests that the Bill of Rights and Constitution are infallible in defense of asking for closing all Muslim schools.

When asked if she met any American Muslims while here, she simply says that she did not have time to meet any. But still she's for closing all Muslim schools.

All of the above is from that recent Reason article.

I have a lot of trouble with her views (and still believe she has every right to her free speech). She should also be protected, because if a radical Muslim hurts her, it is the ordinary peaceful Muslim who end up having to live with the consequences in the public discourse.

I, from my unique perspective as a Muslim (especially in light of world events and the vulnerability here in the West), would be more sensitive to Ali's preposterous propositions than most non-Muslims.

Lets hear from Ayaan herself...one more time

My View of Islam
On holy war, apostasy and the rights of women in Islam.

The undisputed definition of Islam by all her adherents is “submission to the will of Allah.” This divine will is outlined in the Koran and in the teachings and deeds of Muhammad, as recorded in the Hadith or Sunna.

While the Koran is considered to be the true, undiluted word of God revealed to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel, the Sunna carry less weight and have always been a cause for disagreement amongst Muslim scholars. Theologians of Islam have, however, reached consensus on the authority of a set of six volumes from the Sunna called the Sahih Sita, or authentic six.

On the issues of holy war (jihad), apostasy and the treatment of women, the Koran and Sunna are clear. It is the obligation of every Muslim to spread Islam to unbelievers first through dawa, or proselytizing, then through jihad, if the unbelievers refuse to convert. It is the obligation of the unbelievers to accept Islam. Exempted from this edict of conversion are the people of the book: Christians and Jews. Both peoples have a choice. They may adopt Islam and enjoy the same rights as other Muslims, or they may stick to their book and lead the life of a dhimmi (lower citizen). Legally, the rights of the dhimmi are not equal to those of a Muslim. For instance, a Muslim man may take a Jewish or Christian wife, but Jews and Christians are not allowed to marry Muslim women. If a Christian or a Jew kills a Muslim man, they should be killed immediately. In contrast, the blood of a Muslim should never be shed in recompense for the blood of Christians or Jews.

It is also the obligation of every Muslim to command virtue and forbid vice. Apostasy, the worst possible vice a Muslim can commit, should be punished by death. The punishment need not be carried out by a state, but can easily be enforced by civilians. When it is a question of Islamic law, justice is in the hands of every Muslim.

As for the treatment of women, in the Koran and more elaborately in the Sunna, Islam assigns to girls a position in the family that requires them to be docile, makes them dependent on their male relatives for money and gives dominion over their bodies to these same male kin.
In Islam there is a strict hierarchy of subservience. First and foremost, all humans are required to be the slaves of Allah. In Muslim societies, all children must obey their parents. Beyond this, women and girls must obey and serve without question their male guardians and especially their husbands. This decree of marital obedience is not in any way reciprocal.

A woman in Islam is not competent and must always have a guardian. The responsibility of guardianship may pass from father to brother to uncle before a girl is married off, at which point she must answer to her husband. Marriage is typically arranged, with no choice given to the girl, and there is often an exchange of money in the process. Thus, under the religious rule of Islam, it is still common today that a woman’s rights are essentially sold to a man she may not know, and most likely does not love.

As for education of girls under Islam, there is a clear program of indoctrination of inequality. Under Islam, education is the passing on of the rules of submission to the will of Allah. Intrinsic in this “education” is the dictation of gender roles. Girls are instructed in subservience first to God, then to the family and finally to the husband. There is strict emphasis on modesty, defined by virginity. A Muslim girl is taught to guard fiercely her virginity as an expression of loyalty to her creator and to her family and husband.

This form of education hampers her chances of ever becoming self-reliant or financially independent. A woman’s lack of social equality and freedom is a direct consequence of the teachings of Islam. Under Islam, a wife must always ask her husband for permission and she must obey indefinitely. This stricture is lifted in the unique event that he asks her to forsake God, wherein she is allowed the right of disobedience. While it is true that in Islam, technically speaking, women have the right to trade and own property, the condition of total obedience to guardians makes this “freedom” hypothetical, at best.

The goal of education given to girls under Islam is the achievement of control over female sexuality. The result of this indoctrination is that Muslim girls believe legitimate and often vocally defend their position of subordination. The lengths a Muslim society will go to in the pursuit of sexual control often cross into the territory of the absurd and, by western standards, criminal. In Islam the minimum age of marriage for a girl is after her first menstruation. Muhammad was engaged to his wife Aisha when she was six years old, and he married her (had intercourse with her) when she turned nine. Millions of Muslim men across the world follow Muhammad in this deed, one of the most prominent examples being the late Ayatollah Khomeini.

Under sharia law (Islamic law), such as governs in Saudi Arabia, Iran and parts of Nigeria, the civil rights of women are dramatically reduced. Threat of violent punishment in the form of whipping and stoning makes the prospect of financial independence and sexual freedom for women all but impossible. Miraculously, even in such harsh circumstances you will find women who are relatively well educated, have some say in choosing a husband and manage to earn a living. Let us be clear that these exceptions are due to the compassion and progressiveness of families who have been influenced by the West, and not to rules derived from Islam.
In the quest for reconciliation between Muslim and western societies, it is important to recognize that Muslims are as diverse as Islam is monolithic. Islam attempts to unify more than a billion people of different geographical origins, languages, ethnicities, and cultural and educational backgrounds into one religious tribe. And while I acknowledge that generally stereotyping believers is difficult since belief is subjective, for the sake of discussion I would like to distinguish between five types of Muslims.

The first group includes those Muslims who leave the faith because they cannot reconcile it with their conscience or with modernity. This group is important for the evolution of the Islamic world because they ask the urgent and critical questions believers usually avoid. Ex-Muslims living in the west are just beginning to find their voice and to take advantage of the spiritual and social freedoms available to them.

The second group is comprised of genuine Muslim reformers, such as Irshad Manji, who acknowledge the theological out-datedness of the Koranic commands and the immorality of the prophet. They tend to emphasize the early chapters in the Koran urging goodness, generosity and spirituality. They argue that the latter chapters wherein Islam is politicized and the concepts of sharia, jihad and martyrdom are introduced should be read in the context in which they were written, some 1,400 years ago.

The third group is made up of those Muslims who support the gradual perpetuation and domination of Islam throughout the world. They use the freedoms offered in democracy to undermine social modernity and, though initially opposed to the use of violence, foresee that once the number of believers reaches a critical mass the last remnants of unbelievers may then be dealt with in violence, and sharia law may be universally implemented. Ayatollah Khomeini used this method successfully in Iran. Erdogan of Turkey is following in his footsteps. Tariq Ramadan, deeply rooted in his Muslim Brotherhood heritage, is devoted to such a program among European Muslims.

The fourth group is the most obvious and immediately threatening. In this group we find a growing number of hard-line Muslims who have defined martyrdom as their only goal. This is an army of young men whipped into a frenzy of suicidal violence by power hungry clergy. These clergy have public platforms and work with impunity from institutions untouched and often funded by national authorities.

The fifth group is largely ineffective and only threatening in their refusal to acknowledge the truth. Here we find the elite clergy who make a show of trying to reconcile Islam with modernity. They are motivated by self-preservation and have no interest in true reform. They take selective passages from the holy books to make a case for a peaceful Islam, ignoring the many passages inciting violence, such as those verses which command the death of apostates.

It is through the first two of these five groups that progress and reform will come. As for the rest, the western world would be wise to recognize the realities of Islam, a religion laid down in writing over a millennium ago with violence and oppression at its heart.

Born in Somalia and raised a devout Muslim, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an active critic of Islam, an advocate for women’s rights and a leader in the campaign to reform Islam. Her willingness to speak out and her abandonment of the Muslim faith have made her a target for violence and threat of death by Islamic extremists. She is currently a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, in Washington D.C., and is the author of the bestselling memoir "Infidel."

Posted by Ayaan Hirsi Ali on August 2, 2006

"There is not a person alive more deserving of the freedoms of speech and conscience we take for granted in the West, nor is there anyone making a more courageous effort to defend them."

Sam Harris and Salman Rushdie

Victoria-

Exactly WHAT does Hirsi Ali say that is: inflammatory HATE SPEECH and LIES?

Oct 5, 5:06 PM EDT

US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT
Threatened Author Back in Netherlands

By ARTHUR MAX
Associated Press Writer
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) -- Former Dutch lawmaker Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who spent the last year at a conservative U.S. think tank, is back in a familiar place: at the center of a firestorm in the parliament she quit.

Hirsi Ali has been living under round-the-clock protection since 2004, when her friend Theo van Gogh was slain following their collaboration on a film critical of the treatment of women under Islam.

In Washington, she had bodyguards paid by the Dutch government. But now the government says it cannot pay indefinitely, and it is time she took care of herself.

"It has been a considerably long period that she has gotten protection," Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said Friday in his weekly post-Cabinet news conference.

Hirsi Ali returned to the Netherlands on Monday after the government indicated it would give no further extensions to its 12-month offer of protection, which expired in July. She already received two reprieves.

Earlier this week, Bohler said her client intended to return to the United States and pay for her own protection, but needed time to make the arrangements.

Balkenende said Hirsi Ali should have begun thinking earlier about new security arrangements. "You can also take the initiative yourself," he said.

Though she published a best-selling autobiography this year, she would be hard-pressed to pay the approximately $2.8 million annual cost of her bodyguards.

The Somali-born Hirsi Ali, now 37, quit parliament last year when the immigration minister tried to strip her of her Dutch citizenship for falsifying her age and name on her refugee application 14 years earlier.

The minister, Rita Verdonk, was forced to back down, but the issue prompted the collapse of the government and an early election.

**************************

BURNING BRIDGES AND PEOPLE BEHIND HER JON-
BUT THIS TIME, IT SEEMS TO HAVE CAUGHT UP WITH HER

jon- what i did was provided text to support my statements-

there is a vast difference between free speech and inflammatory HATE SPEECH-
its not that she speaks- shes welcome to it-
but that she LIES

thats what i dislike about her. i encountered her thinking she was a feminist, now there are some great muslim feminists out there, fatima mernissi,amina mccloud, amina wadud- but she's not a scholar-

for instance- a person can make critiques and assertions that i disagree with initially-

but if they are impartial and scientific in their presentation- and intellectually honest- even if i disagree on some philisophical or idealogical point- i will still certainly respect them.

but i dont respect liars and slanderers.

this woman has acted so dishonorably towards those who have embraced and supported her-
ESPECIALLY the muslim women whose back and cause she rode on to gain her notoriety-
but she betrayed them, and she exposed herself as a hypocrite.

and the only thing she writes about is her own dysfunctional past and worldview-
she doesnt use references- but makes blanket statements with no support-

so shes a scholarly mess- and appeals to the lowest basest instincts in peole to promote herself- fear, anger, hatred.

i think ive asnwered your questions pretty fully-

now maybe you can tell me specifically what it is about her that you find admirable?

THOSE POSTS WERENT MY OPINIONS JON-THEY WERE TAKEN FROM DANISH JOURNALISTS

so if you found vitriol in them- it is the vitriol of the people she basically used and discarded in denmark-

anyway- i dont much care about her- but ive researched her quite a bit since she appeared as a guest voice.

denmark is NOT a muslim friendly atmosphere-
the opinions in that post were not written by muslims or muslim friendly people-

but people who have seen her as a hypocrite and guest in their land who lied to them and the danish people-
thats why the government no longer cares to pay for her protection anymore.
she literally told them to "go tohell".
her words.

so, no, i dont respect her behavior or her intentions.
what is it that you respect about her?
read some of the women ive posted- they are highly critical of islam- but are scholars and knowledgeable.

you can like her if you want- but i dont know why you do, and you dont seem to know either.

Victoria-

I see you have gone to great trouble to fabricate a response. Wouldn't it have been much easier to say you were wrong?

The more you pour on the vitriol, the more we admire Ali Hirsi. (and she is almost mythical already).

What does Ali Hirsi do that so upsets Muslims? SPEAK.

Didn't you used to be an American? Don't you remember what it is like to admire and support FREE SPEECH?

Islam and Christianity differ currently in one great respect: the seperation of church and state.

In the west, the state is supreme over religion. In muslim countries (with the notable exception of Turkey) the opposite is true.

What this means to women (among others) is that when the ruling clerics determine that it is okay to beat and violently oppress them, it has the force of law.

That this happens to women in the muslim world is the rule, not the exception. We all know this. To try to claim otherwise is to be more than disengenuous.

Without these passages in the Koran (and yes, they are there) there would be far less room for clerics to mandate or countenance them.

Luckily for us in the west, those similar passeges that can be found in the Bible (there are plenty) do not and can not have the force of law.

Even Jesus himself seems to argue for this when he admonishes to "give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's, unto God what is God's"

In the Koran, that Sharia (spelling?) is supreme over the state is very explicit.

The idea that all religions are equally generous as well as onerous is simply to ignore the obvious and real differences among them.

BTW, I am niether Christian nor Muslim.

well jon- actually she was expelled from denmark for lying in her entry application.

Hirsi actually lied when she applied for asylum in the Netherlands back in 1992, giving up a false name and birth date in order to support the story she had constructed of how she fled Somalia, when in fact she had been living in Kenyia with her family since before the Somalian civil wars and had even lived in Germany before coming to the Netherlands. These are all things for which granted citizenship (as Ayaan Hirshi Ali has) can be taken away, even retroactively.

taken with the fact that she repeated "to hell with the VVD"- (dutch political party that supported her) when this was made public- not many are backing her these days.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not qualified for the scheme, explains Mille Rode, administrator of PEN in Denmark [PEN is the international association of writers]. Only those authors who appear on International PEN's list of persecuted authors are eligible and Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not on the list.

Mille Rode says that Hirsi Ali had spoken up as a politician and not as an author, and also, as far as he knows she herself did not ask to be considered for the asylum scheme.

Source: Berlingske Tidende (Danish)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

also-
It's not yet known if the Odense city council supports the proposal to invite Hirsi Ali. The mayor will not comment before the Danish parliament adopts the bill of "free ports".

so, no jon- the danish town of Odense is NOT offering her a home- the MAYOR of that town suggested it-

the GOVERNMENT OF DENMARK has declared they will no longer be footing the bill for her protection.

the honor of her "protection" costs will be absorbed by her host country-
o yes, thats our american tax dollars at work!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hirsi Ali arrived in the Netherlands in 1992. There is considerable lack of clarity about the events leading up to her arrival, because she has since admitted to making false statements in her application for asylum.

Hirsi Ali maintains that in 1992 her father arranged for her to marry a distant cousin living in Canada. Her FAMILY HAS DENIED THIS, however. It is not disputed that in 1992 she traveled from Kenya to visit family in D?ldorf and Berlin, Germany. Others have put the story of her forced marriage in doubt.The Islamic Challenge: Politics and Religion in Western Europe, Klausen, J., New York: Oxford University Press, 2005; "She wasn't forced into a marriage. She had an amicable relationship with her husband, as well as with the rest of her family. It was not true that she had to hide from her family for years." After a brief stay in Germany, she decided to go to the Netherlands instead of Canada.

Once in the Netherlands, she requested political asylum and received a residence permit. It is not known on what grounds she received political asylum. Legally, since her first stop was in Germany, she should have applied for asylum there. Also she had already resided in and had been granted refugee status in Kenya, a safe country. In the Netherlands, she gave a false name and date of birth to the Dutch immigration authorities. She is known in the West by her assumed name, Hirsi Ali, instead of her original name, Hirsi Magan. On the advice of her aunt, she told the immigration authorities that she had come straight from Somalia, instead of Kenya where she had been living for eleven years. In Somalia there was a serious famine at that time and a civil war leading to the Operation Restore Hope by the United States. Due to these circumstances, asylum seekers from Somalia were routinely granted asylum on humanitarian grounds. Hirsi Ali received a residence permit within three weeks on arrival in the Netherlands.

EGHHH- IM BORED

well jon- actually she was expelled from denmark for lying in her entry application.

Hirsi actually lied when she applied for asylum in the Netherlands back in 1992, giving up a false name and birth date in order to support the story she had constructed of how she fled Somalia, when in fact she had been living in Kenyia with her family since before the Somalian civil wars and had even lived in Germany before coming to the Netherlands. These are all things for which granted citizenship (as Ayaan Hirshi Ali has) can be taken away, even retroactively.

taken with the fact that she repeated "to hell with the VVD"- (dutch political party that supported her) when this was made public- not many are backing her these days.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not qualified for the scheme, explains Mille Rode, administrator of PEN in Denmark [PEN is the international association of writers]. Only those authors who appear on International PEN's list of persecuted authors are eligible and Ayaan Hirsi Ali is not on the list.

Mille Rode says that Hirsi Ali had spoken up as a politician and not as an author, and also, as far as he knows she herself did not ask to be considered for the asylum scheme.

Source: Berlingske Tidende (Danish)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

also-
It's not yet known if the Odense city council supports the proposal to invite Hirsi Ali. The mayor will not comment before the Danish parliament adopts the bill of "free ports".

so, no jon- the danish town of Odense is NOT offering her a home- the MAYOR of that town suggested it-

the GOVERNMENT OF DENMARK has declared they will no longer be footing the bill for her protection.

the honor of her "protection" costs will be absorbed by her host country-
o yes, thats our american tax dollars at work!

I don't know what your definition of "progressive" is Mr Patel, but you have a long way to go before you even begin to understand the term. You are comparing the racist passages in the American constitution to the violent passages in the Quran. Here's the difference: America has abolished slavery and moved on, and African Americans are better off now than ever before. Islam however remains the same as it was 1400 years ago and muslims seem quite content to let it remain that way. What do you have to say about the violence, the mistreatment of women the intolerance and hate that is depicted in the Quran? Have you "progressive" muslims ever had a moment of self- introspection and wondered why there is so much unholiness in a book that purports to be"holy"? Real enlightenment comes from honest enquiry and that is banned in Islam. Not only is it banned, but those that dare question the Quran are to be put to death. The people who threaten Hirsi Ali are only following the Quran and its tenets. They are not cretins, they are the true muslims.
This is not about the West or East. This is about right and wrong. About freedom. The freedom to question, the freedom to think and the freedom of expression.
What is coming from you "progressives" is the same drivel that we have grown accustomed to hearing. Portraying muslims as the victims, claiming the Quran is misinterpreted and misunderstood when it's all there in black and white, and viciously personally attacking anyone who questions it. Your muslim brothers go one step further. They threaten and they kill. The fact that you don't doesn't make you "progressive".

"she has exported her own dyfunction and hatred to denmark by riding on and profiting from fear."

"denmark tired of her, and it looks like america is also getting tired of her"

Victoria.

Please don't offer comments on a subject you DO NOT know. You are making yourself look foolish and your comments sound intentionally hateful.

FYI- The Danish town of Odense is considering OFFERING Hirsi Ali a home.

M Malleck

Thank you for your expected response.

You confirmed what I have said here many times before. That the mainstream Muslim believes in the Islamic apartheid practiced in In Saudi Arabia, especially the regarding the entry into Mecca and Medina.

The apartheid and bigotry which includes the barring of entry into the two cities, the ban on building of non-Muslim places of worship and the ban on open worship, even the wearing of a Cross is banned, is entirely Islamic, not unIslamic as you claim because Muhammad made the statement " Two deens shall not exist in Muslim lands".

Now the ban on entry into the two cities is akin to a white country club barring membership for non-whites. I would cancel my membership if I found that my club practiced apartheid.

Dont you think you and Muslims like you should boycott the hajj until all aspects of the Islamic bigotry are removed from Saudi Arabia?

Regarding public prayer here is an example. If I knelt down on the same sidewalk as a Muslim would spread his mat to pray to his Arabic god Allah and I loudly " Our Father , who art in Heaven..." with a Cross around my neck, that would be an honest prayer. Why do you find my prayer provocative?

Please do answer the question about boycotting the hajj.

Morry,

Why don't you call a psychiatrist and get your head examined?

Only a raving mad nut would write : " ...the notion that the Umma should not be split violates the concept of tribal solidarity which is a very strong tradition throughout Islam".

If you expect the aforesigned Muslim equivalent of Galileo to agree to say, against all evidence to the contrary and for fear of being tortured, that "the Umma is obscurantist and oppressively tribalist", only to mutter afterward "and yet, the Umma is united in tolerance and compassion and submission to the Will of Allah Subhaana-Wata'Ala", then you indeed need to have your head examined.

There are many forms of Islam. Sufi brotherhoods are radically different from moderate Muslims who are very different from tribally oriented conservatives and radicals.

But the notion that the Umma should not be split violates the concept of tribal solidarity which is a very strong tradition throughout Islam. Public disagreement is not readily accepted. It is perceived to weaken the Umma. This usually means the loudest and most dramatic voices win out. Eboo and suicide bombers get all the attention. Others fall silent.

This column is a fine exception to that rule.

Ted Baines,

You get only one of the three 'facts' you cite completely right (not quite completely, but almost), one partly wrong, and one totally wrong. Maybe that's why Eboo ignored you.

But I am always magnanimous, especially when I am fasting and have just finished my mid-day prayers, so I reply to you.

The fact you get right is, yes, non-Muslims are not allowed to build non-Muslim places of worship in Saudi Arabia. But this is totally un-Islamic.

Yes, non-Muslims are not NORMALLY allowed to enter Mecca and Median because they have a record of hating Islam and Muslims (you are living proof of that, are you not? But, I'll give you another example. In the book ARAMCO, it is related how covert agents of ARAMCO used to scoop the defecation of King Feizal to be sent to pathology labs for analysis of any disease that the King may have, because ARAMCO and the CIA knew that there would inlikely be a successor to him more accommodating to American demands for a steady and cheap supply of oil, and they wanted to be in a position to anticipate events and plan accordingly. It was in line with that devilish strategy that, following the use of the oil weapon by Saudi Arabia in the context of the Yon Kippur war to send the message to America that besides the clear military victory of Yom Kippur and ig America intervenes at the side of Israel -- as, indeed it did -- the Arabs have other ways to hit back other than clear military insignificance realtive to the American military juggernaut. That was when Irving Kristol, father of William, advocated in an article published in Foreign Affairs, that America should invade Saudi Arabia.) I say NORMALLY. Sir Ricahrd Burton did enter Mecca and wrote about it and made bid bucks. Paul Marenches has written about how non-Muslim French soldiers had been allowed to enter Mecca to kill about 200 Muslim dissidents who had stormed the Holy Place in protest at certain politically repressive and anti-Islamic pratices of some (I am not saying ALL, nor am I excluding that it might be all) of the decision-makers of the House of Saud, very good friends of America's.

But you're wrong that non-Muslims are not allowed to pray in public places in Saudi Arabia. But, yes, unlike Muslims who can spread their mats in any clean place and pray facing towards Mecca, in the case of non-Muslims you would have to define what do you mean by "pray" and what do you mean by "public place" before I can tell you what would be allowed or not. Clearly, you can murmur your "Give Us This Day Our Daily Bread", your "Hail Mary", your "Om Namak Shiva" anywhere you want in Saudi Arabia (except Mecca and Medina), provided you do not do it loud enough to draw attention to you or in a provocative fashion.

If you can be as objective as I am, Ishall be ready to discuss with you next time. If not, I am sorry for you.

ali left a dyfunctional and abusive family and islam at 16-
she has exported her own dyfunction and hatred to denmark by riding on and profiting from fear.
shes not a scholar- never uses scholarly methods to support her own autobiographical experiences- and was kicked out of denmark.

now shes at the american enterprise institute who are showing some regret at her inclusion.

when she hit america she did the talk show circuit, but she wasnt talking to idiots who hate islam automatically, but people who had some knowledge of it and discredited her pretty easily.

you'll notice she hasnt been asked to speak publicly anywhere else in the past 6 months.

if it werent for WAPO- she wouldnt be being discussed at all, and it looks like most have become tired of her hateful rants.

not to mention the same women she claimed to help were deserted by her- she used them for a moment and discarded them.
there is a long list of ex friends who have denounced her.

personally, i am also pretty bored with her- but she deserves attention (which seems to be what she wants) because of her hate speech- which is dangerous in any context.

if she werent so vehement in her anger, id feel sorry for her. but her intentions are not to help anyone(like the women she used to propel herself politically- and then discarded) but to promote her own interests.

denmark tired of her, and it looks like america is also getting tired of her.

The marvelous thing about Ayaan Hirsi Ali was that she finally SAW that Islam is a scam. A disgusting brain destroying think-system,that has to change drastically,before we can even dream about world peace.Patel should be leading the way to a newer Islam,a non-violent Islam,a compassionate Islam,instead of stoning Ayaan Hirsi Ali,and showing us again the ugly Islam,the nasty,vengeful Islam.
The Islam that the world loves to hate.

Anon-

Thought you might like to see:

This World: Inside a Shari'ah Court (Part 1 of 6) from BBC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtBEg3PL4kc

There are six parts, so its a long watch.

Muhammad Malleck

I have challenged Eboo to write about the Islamic apartheid in Saudi Arabia where non-Muslims are not allowed to enter Mecca and Medina, are not allowed to build their places of worship anywhere in Saudi Arabia and may worship in a public place.

The least Muslims could do is to boycott the hajj and show their opposition to the apartheid.

Mr. Malleck, where do you stand on this issue?

Patel

This is revolting stuff.Full of anger and hate.
You speak exactly like a muslim.What more can one say.Go get her Patel.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali revealed all the horror of growing up in the madness of Islam.
The deluded want to kill her,and may very well do so one of these days.And she can't even count on the educated muslims to see reason,and try to promote change in the muslim world,and help other oppressed women.Like the robot you are,you have to get in line and hurl abuse at her,like other muslim guys do.
And where do you get off talking about your enlightenment values.If you still believe there's a guy named Allah up there in the sky,you are every bit as deluded as the 9/11 bombers,and it was people like you that the enlightenment was meant to enlighten. You just use it to pretend you're not brainwashed like all the other whacky muslims,who are hoping to blow up the world.

Eboo,

You can do much better than writing about (or even reading!) the likes of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Tasneema Nasreen, Ibn Warraq as well as Sam Harris and Christopher(?) Hitchens. At one time (around the time of his publishing Midnight's Children and Shame and even Satanic Verses) I used to hold Salman Rushdie in some esteem, as I did Richard Dawkins when he was an evolutionary Biologist and Daniel Dennett when was a rigorous philosopher promisingly following in the footsteps of Bertrand Russell. But, no more!

The fashion of (and bucks to be made from writing about) atheism, or even the arguably more reasonable theses of agnosticism, have turned these people into the equivalent of tabloid press writers.

I invite you to blank them out of your mind, read the Heisenberg essay on Religion and Science, being an extract from his 1971 book on Beyond Physics, reproduced on the website of edge.org, and write about the ideas contained in that essay, updated to take-in the most recent developments in science as can be glanced in science popularizer books.

You'd start a blog that will make Sam Harris and Hitchens red with envy, and that may even stimulate you to write best-sellers that would make even Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett envious of the mega-bucks you'd be making.

And then, again, maybe the Pope (after consulting with Bush, Sarko, Angela Merkel, and all the military generals of the Western world, as well as with Mladic and Karadzic and their equivalents in Russia) might take you more seriously than the 138 no doubt well-intentioned but hopelessly naive Muslim scholars who have written to him about interfaith efforts to promote peace.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has correctly pointed that the oppression of women in Islam can be traced to the perverted acts of the prophet of Muhammad. Muslim men look upon Muhammad as a perfect example to follow. Muslims believe that their Arabic god Allah spoke through the Koran and acted through Muhammad.

The sahih or correct hadiths shed light on Muhammad's behaviour towards females.

Muhammad married Aisha, the 6-year-old daughter of Abu Bakr. His desire for her rose when she came in a dream to him while still in the cradle. He consummated the marriage after Aisha got her first menstruation at age 8 (9 by the Islamic Calendar) when he was 56.

What do you think he could have done with all those child-slaves he captured in his raids?

Tabari VIII: The sixty-two-year old Messenger of Allah married Mulaykah. She was young (12) and beautiful. One of the Prophet's wives came to her and said, ˜Are you not ashamed to marry a man who killed your father during the day he conquered Mecca? She therefore took refuge from him {fled}.

Sunaan Abu Dawud: Book 13, Number 2380: The Prophet (pbuh) used to kiss her (Aisha) and suck her tongue when he was fasting.

This was his way of hydrating himself, by sucking on the tongue of a child and breaking the rule that Muslims should not even swallow their saliva during the fasting period.

Sahih Bukhari: V3B31N149: Narrated 'Aisha: “The Prophet used to kiss and embrace (his wives) while he was fasting.

What more need be said of this messenger of Allah, who dishonored Allah's Quranic fasting rule for sex.

Do you still blame Ali for exposing Islam and Muhammad?

i totally agree, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a total distortionist. there is a difference between stating the fact and critiquing them, and wittingly disfigure an entire religion. in simpler words.. i think she milked what happend to her colleague to the fullest, to gain self recognition, and perhaps some revenue from her books.

Thank you, Mr. Patel -- your statement is lucid and fair. Of course, you will be attacked by those who are only too eager to allow Ali to universalize her experience and condemn an entire faith tradition, as long as that faith is one about which they wish to believe the worst.

Please continue to defend both Islam and Enlightenment values, with the same patience and reason you display here.

Eboo Patel

Ayaan Hirsi Ali argues that Islam is oppressive, oppressive in its very roots. You find that "repulsive to my Muslim faith" and so argue that she is superficial, drawing attention only from the death threats made against her. By the Enlightenment principles that you claim for yourself, you have not made a good argument.

Ali does more than merely quote violent passages from the Qur’an; she makes a sustained and detailed argument that Islam is oppressive. That is what offends you. Yet you do not meet her arguments; you only insult and reject her. You do not explain how a non-oppressive reading of Islam is possible, a minimal but sufficient argument.

Instead, your harsh rhetoric merely confirms her point.

"She is repulsive to my Muslim faith and my Enlightenment sensibilities, but those same traditions cause me to wish her no harm."

Well Eboo, surely you meant no physical harm, because you seem willing enough to destroy her verbally. What power has she that she draws such venom from "moderate" Muslims like you? If you are afraid she will cause you loss, it can only happen if what she is saying is true..