Obama's Challenge to the Muslim World

ukba,
i hope you check back at least once more.

yes, those are nice verses, but they're directed at jews and christians - just jews and christians, NOT polytheists, atheists, pagans, hindus etc...

that's my point - muslims think these are "nice" verses, but they aren't. for an example of a truly nice verse, try

"Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." (luke 6:37)

of course the bible condemns wrong believers to an eternity in hell, and says things like "do not yoke yourself with unbelievers", but such is the schizophrenic nature of scripture. (is god schizophrenic...?)

Hello Walter,

Your original complaint or observation was this:

“[People of the book] are allowed certain rights/protections that garden-variety pagans aren't. it is my contention that though Muslims may think this is tolerance, it isn't.”

And I asked for more clarification and you responded by quoting the chapter the Qur’an:

“And do not argue with the followers of earlier revelation otherwise than in a most kindly manner - unless it be such of them as are bent on evildoing - and say: “We believe in that which has been be¬stowed from on high upon us, as well as that which has been bestowed upon you: or our God and your God is one and the same, and it is unto Him that We [all] surrender ourselves.” (20:46)

This directive to the Muslims is simple and very reasonable. God is telling the Muslims to argue with the Christians and the Jews only in a kind and respectful manner. Also the Muslims should tell them that they all believe in one god and recognize earlier revelations as transmitted through the prophets of old. I still don’t see how this is evidence for the rights of people of the book being protected at the expense of the pagans’.

“Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.” (2:62)

I think this is one the most inclusive verses you can ever find anywhere. Search the whole bible and you won’t find anything similar to this remarkable idea. [They] “shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve” is for the life to come and not necessarily in this temporal earthly life. Again I don’t see this as evidence for your claim.

Elsewhere in the Qur’an it is stated that we as humans have our differences and in due time our errors will be shown to us, and all will be settled once and for all:

“Those who believe (this revelation), and those who are Jews, and the Sabaeans and the Christians and the Magians and the idolaters-God will decide between them on the Day of Resurrection. God is Witness over all things.” (22:16)

Bye for now; it was nice chatting with you. Peace.

this establishes some sort of "special connection" with "people of the book":

029.046
YUSUFALI: And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam)."

and

002.062
YUSUFALI: Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

this kind of thing clearly distinguishes between jews and christians (and sabeans) and other non-muslims. now, why would allah make this distinction if not to elevate "people of the book" above other unbelievers?

“really? must i quote verses for you?”

Yes really; Please do; I am not aware of anything thing of that sort. As for the ‘people of the book’, in the Qur’an the term always refers to Jews and/or Christians. It never refers to anyone else unless one reads into it and extends it to other people as well.

As for the comment about the Jewish state, maybe the guy was afraid for the Arabs and their future once the partition happens. Maybe the Jews would kick everyone out and force them to leave for the newly created Palestinian state. Or they could be mistreated even worse because of the nature of the exclusivity of the Jewish state and its ethnic makeup.

The Jews always use their bible, as if it was a deed or something, to say that the land belongs to them and no one else. When in fact the Jews, even according to their bible, had owned that land in totality for only a short period of time, about twenty eight hundred years ago.

According to the Jews, either there was no one living there when they descended upon Palestine from all around the world during the Second World War, or the gentiles were only keeping it for then like in a sort of lease until they would get back. The Palestinians on the other hand never, and neither should they, used any type of scripture to justify their case.

The problem is not about holy books at all, it is only a diversion used by the Jews to change the subject. It boils down to taking lands owned by the non Jewish indigenous population using force and other kinds of terrorism. It is really that simple: it is a moral question and not a ‘deed’ one at all.

Part II:

As for countries call themselves Christian, Jewish or Muslim, I don’t think it is the big deal the way you make it sound. Horrible is not the word I would use either. It is a misuse of the word in the highest order. As long as they observe all the rights of their citizens, they can call themselves anything they want to. Take the case of Tunisia for instance; it is indicated that the country is Muslim. This was coming at the heels of the imperial French leaving after eighty years of occupation. The Tunisians felt it was necessary to reclaim their heritage and way of life after almost total foreign Christian reconfiguration of their society. It is after all still a transition period for a country trying to find its identity. The country is almost 100 percent Muslim so where is the harm in that if Christians and Jews have their rights like everyone else as citizens of the country? Is it all necessary? Probably not.

I would turn the argument around and show you how ridiculous the argument is. The United States does not officially call itself Christian. But that did not stop its white people from discriminating against and subjugating non whites. Slavery and even its aftermath was one of the cruelest system ever invented by any other human institution in the world. This happened while the country claimed to be democratic and most enlightened on the world stage. This all happened under the banner of a country that did not claim any kind of religious name. So what’s in the name if you have a broken system?

ukba,
re: israel/palestine:
"As for your argument:"Palestinian officials say that recognizing Israel as a Jewish state would undermine the status of Israel's Arabs, who make up about 20 percent of the population..."

i've read some of the content from the links you gave. sounds like muslims in israel are treated like "people of the book" in muslim countries. how can muslims complain about israeli treatment of muslims when they do the same to non-muslims in muslim countries? where's the reciprocity?

i find the whole idea of muslim countries and jewish countries abhorrent - but that's where we're at. given the existence of 56 (or however many) "muslim countries" how can muslims object to ONE jewish country?

ukba,
re: israel/palestine:
"As for your argument:"Palestinian officials say that recognizing Israel as a Jewish state would undermine the status of Israel's Arabs, who make up about 20 percent of the population..."
You should ask him that question; why are you telling me that?"

i only mention that as an example of how it doesn't seem like that palestinian official wants a "solution" to the problem. i'm sure he's so concerned about the status of jews in saudi arabia/iran/pakistan/afghanistan/iraq etc...

i am hopeful, but not expecting any solution to israel/palestine, ever. the problem as i see it is both jews and muslims can cite scripture that they think grants them god-given rights to that land. how do you argue with scripture? the fact that many "islamic countries" cannot even concede that a country called "israel" should exist illustrates the problem.

ukba, re: people of the book, you said,
"I wish you could be a lit bit more specific."

really? must i quote verses for you? surely you know what "people of the book" are?! my understanding is that they are jews and christians (and sometimes zoroastrians). that is people on whose scripture muslims borrowed or somewhat revere. these people are allowed certain rights/protections that garden-variety pagans aren't.

it is my contention that though muslims may think this is tolerance, it isn't.

Walter,

“my next question was about "people of the book". in my opinion, that's a horrible doctrine, saying essentially, "we discriminate against these people (because we think there's some truth in their religion) less than those people (whose religion we entirely disagree with).”

I wish you could be a lit bit more specific.

It would be nice too of you could keep it real. There is no need for prejudices and general remarks that are based on lack of knowledge and false information disseminated by a culture that demonizes anything Muslim and Islamic. Buy a book, read from the internet if you want; I do. Read the arguments for and against, and the neutral ideas too without any kind of presupposed notions; I do. I try to look at every subject with an open mind, from different angles. I try to look at arguments from the perspective of all concerned like the adage that says: ‘put yourself in their shoes.’

As for your argument:"Palestinian officials say that recognizing Israel as a Jewish state would undermine the status of Israel's Arabs, who make up about 20 percent of the population..."

You should ask him that question; why are you telling me that?

If you want my opinion here it is. A Jewish state is basically for Jews only; no one else need apply. If you are Jewish living in Idaho or Poland and decide to live in Israel, all you have to do is show up and they’ll give you citizenship and about $25, 000 to settle somewhere in Israel proper or preferably in occupied territories belonging to the Palestinians.

But if you are a Palestinian forced out from your home as a refugee with the keys to your house in Israel and your kin buried in the local cemetery you have no such rights. You’ll be told to scram, scum of the earth. You have no rights. That’s a Jewish state or a state for Jews for you.
There is a lot of literature out there that deals with this problem:

http://www.colorlines.com/article.php?ID=215 - For Jews Only: Racism Inside Israel

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/864734.html - Democracy for Jews only

If you have time and interested in politics here is an interesting site that deals with Israeli-Palestinian issues:
http://www.jkcook.net/

I am surprised that you are so focused on petty arguments that you don’t see the big picture which is: Netanyahu does not support a two state solution and self determination for the Palestinians and also a freeze on settlements which is another word for forcibly acquiring lands form the indigenous Palestinian population. Sad indeed! If you are for human rights everywhere you should rethink your position.

and this, from today's paper:
"Palestinian officials say that recognizing Israel as a Jewish state would undermine the status of Israel's Arabs, who make up about 20 percent of the population..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/13/AR2009061302151.html

of course he's not concerned with "arabs" living in israel as much as "muslims". so "palestinian officials" have no problem with the 56 (?) islamic states in the world, but feel one jewish state would "undermine" something?

ukba,
we kind of got sidetracked in talking about whether the koran (any religious text) is "divine".

my next question was about "people of the book". in my opinion, that's a horrible doctrine, saying essentially, "we discriminate against these people (because we think there's some truth in their religion) less than those people (whose religion we entirely disagree with).

ukba, you said,
"Recently, given the bio-friendliness of the universe, even more daring questions have been raised: Why is the universe uncannily fit and fine tuned for life? Where do the laws of nature that govern the universe come from? Why do they have the form that they do? In other words why is nature shadowed by a mathematical reality? Why does theoretical physics work? And the most paramount question of all that tantalized philosophers, theologians, and scientists: What is it that determines what exists?"

interesting questions all. the answers will not be found in a religious book.

you asked,
"Why are we here?" do you mean "why" like "what is our purpose?"? or why like "how did we get here?"?

if you mean "purpose", i believe we choose our own purpose. i do not believe we are playing parts in god's play, where our "purpose" is to participate in god's plan. that all just seems like wishful thinking. makes us feel important to think that god has a plan and we are part of it.

ukba, you said,
"Hello Walter,
You wrote: “i said how islam is way overdue for a "reformation". what i really men is that "islamic society" is due for an enlightenment….”
Which one is that? Is it Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Iraq, and Syria?"

here, i think you mean to imply that i'm "lumping" all muslims together. to the extent i am, it's to make conversation possible. i was actually thinking of iraq, where the politcal parties are called things like "the islamic Da’wa (“call” – of allah) party" and "supreme islamic iraqi council" and "iraqi islamic party" (part of muslim brotherhood, whose motto is “jihad is our way”).

saudi arabia is a great (horrible) example too, as you mentioned. pakistan is currently under siege by islamic theocrats.

even the seemingly "secular" tunisia has islam as it's official religion, and its constitution requires that the president be muslim. i guess it's all relative, but this is exactly what i mean. in the islamic world (places where lots of muslims live...) tunisia is considered enlightened - but it's not.

ukba,
thanks for you thoughtful response, again offered with the same seriousness with which my questions are asked.

you said,
"Your claim that the Quran is made up and is the product of a man with mental illness called dementia is overreaching to say the least especially coming from a person who neither read the book nor knows anything even rudimentary of its basic teaching except for some polemic works done by antagonists."

well, this is actually me giving muhammad (or, actually, the people who wrote about him) the benefit of the doubt. i'm saying that rather than him lying about what he "heard from god", he really believed the voices in his head (or however he "sensed" god).

i say this because i do not think there is a god, so obviously i don't think muhammad (or any prophet/godman/pope etc...) was ACTUALLY receiving messages form god.

Part III:
It is not unreasonable to grasp the concept of life after death; even in today’s physics, there is a well know principle which says that information is never lost; it may change form but never lost. It is not unreasonable to believe that a second creation is possible similar to this one which started from cosmic dust or nuclear waste like some would describe the event that brought us into existence. It is not farfetched when God tells us that:

“As We originated the first creation, so We shall bring it forth again. It is a promise (binding) upon Us. Truly We shall fulfill it (as We promised it).” (21:104)

The Quran may be a product of its time but still resonates well with many of us who call ourselves Muslims. The following quote is a good concise description of the Quran: For readers today, the Qur'an bears the stamp of its time and place, yet for many its message transcends time and history to express universal truths. An English version of the first ten verses of the ninety-first chapter, The Sun, reads:

Consider the sun and its radiance, and the moon reflecting the sun.
Consider the day as it reveals the world,
and the night that veils it in darkness.
Consider the sky and its wonderful composition,
the earth and its expanse.
Consider the human self and He Who perfected it
And how He imbued it with awareness
of what is right and wrong.
The one who helps this self to grow in a clean way
attains to happiness.
The one who buries it in darkness is really lost.

Part II:
Anyway, for thousands of years, humans have contemplated the world about them and asked the great questions of existence: Why are we here? How come existence? Why is there something instead of nothing?

Recently, given the bio-friendliness of the universe, even more daring questions have been raised: Why is the universe uncannily fit and fine tuned for life? Where do the laws of nature that govern the universe come from? Why do they have the form that they do? In other words why is nature shadowed by a mathematical reality? Why does theoretical physics work? And the most paramount question of all that tantalized philosophers, theologians, and scientists: What is it that determines what exists?

The claims found in the Quran may be beyond reason but not necessarily unreasonable. From the get go, the first verses tell us about the purpose of the Quran:

“This divine writ - let there be no doubt about it – is [meant to be] a guidance for all the God-conscious who believe in [the existence of] that which is beyond the reach of human perception, and are constant in prayer, and spend on others out of what We provide for them as sustenance; and who believe in that which has been bestowed from on high upon thee, [O Prophet,] as well as in that which was bestowed before thy time: for it is they who in their innermost are certain of the life to come!” (2:2-4)

The Quran then is a book of guidance for those of us who see a purpose and meaning in their lives and the universe around them. It is neither a manual of laws and codes nor a science book. It tells us that there is more to our material existence, beyond our world of sense perception and touch. It teaches us that we must be mindful of our actions and deeds because this life is just a journey and soon we will be held accountable for our conduct in this temporary existence. The Quran puts it in perspective when it declares:

“Has there [not] been an endless span of time before man [appeared - a time] when he was not yet a thing to be thought of? Verily, it is We who have created man out of a drop of sperm intermingled, so that We might try him [in his later life]: and therefore We made him a being endowed with hearing and sight. Verily, We have shown him the way: [and it rests with him to prove himself] either grateful or ungrateful.” (76:1-3)

Hello Walter,

You wrote: “i said how islam is way overdue for a "reformation". what i really men is that "islamic society" is due for an enlightenment….”

Which one is that? Is it Tunisia, Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Iraq, and Syria? States ruled by secular leaders who have no time for free and unmolested religious thought and exchange of ideas to take place. It’s their way or the highway. There is no ‘Islamic society’ per se. Almost all Muslim countries are in a state of transition from European colonial rule that lasted many decades, identity crisis, geopolitical and economic problems. Most people are concerned about jobs and their economic wellbeing and religious thought is of personal matter. Shedding some archaic ideas that has no place in today’s world is taking place slowly but surely. The spread of education is an antidote to the state of ignorance that Muslim countries suffered from after colonial rule where illiteracy was in the high nineties. Tunisia where I grew up for example had ninety eight percent illiteracy rate when the French left in ’56. With limited resources and job opportunities and high number of graduating students, the situation now is grimmer. None of it has to do with religion mind you; which makes your gripe about religion a little bit out of place. There are some cases where extreme religious thought is imposed from the top without any grassroots participation like Saudi Arabia for instance. There I think they are due for social justice reexamination and a break from an old and tried way of religious oppression. No one gains by having the state imposing its brand of religion on its people. In due time the ruling family will have to face up to the demands of the regular populace for they cannot resist the wind of change taking place all over the developing world.

“muslims will say god "spoke through muhammad" (whatever THAT means...), but well...the best i can concede is that muhammad may have thought that's what was happening, but he was just...well...hearing voices. today we would call that dementia...”

You cracked the case! Dementia is what gave us the Qur’an. Who knew? Dimentia according to one definition is “the loss of mental functions -- such as thinking, memory, and reasoning -- that is severe enough to interfere with a person's daily functioning. Dementia is not a disease itself, but rather a group of symptoms that are caused by various diseases or conditions. Symptoms can also include changes in personality, mood, and behavior.”
How is this applicable to the beloved prophet?
Your claim that the Quran is made up and is the product of a man with mental illness called dementia is overreaching to say the least especially coming from a person who neither read the book nor knows anything even rudimentary of its basic teaching except for some polemic works done by antagonists.

ukba,
to clarify something else...

i said how islam is way overdue for a "reformation". what i really men is that "islamic society" is due for an enlightenment. sure, a new sect of christians formed around martin luther, but what really "improved" christianity as practiced was an enlightenment in society. christians resisted at every turn, but "western" society via volaire, hobbes, locke etc.... decided that human rights are "unalienable", residing in each person REGARDLESS of his god. i hope "islamic society" is where "christian society" was 500 yrs ago...

ukba,
to clarify, i said,
"i have severe doubts about anything being accurately recorded in any scripture claiming to come from god - as an atheist it's obvious to me even the koran was made up by people. (e.g., i don't think god would be sexist.)"

my being atheist has little to do with my thinking that what people write in "holy books" is not from god. it's more based on human nature.

for one, as i hinted at with the "sexist" remark, there is nothing in scripture that is so extraordinary that it couldn't have come from man. in fact, scripture so perfectly reflects the state of it's society that it "gives itself away." why is there no scripture that gives anything like an accurate description of the cosmos? there's nothing about plate tectonics, evolution, (proper) astronomy. all scripture just promulgates the prevailing misconceptions of the time it was written.

soon, when we discuss "people of the book", you might be tempted to say something like "well, it was tolerant for the time." lovely, so maybe it was written by tolerant (for the times) men. "tolerant for the times" is an awfully low standard for god. i mean, don't you think his message would be "timeless." in any of these books (all judeochrislamic scripture) he could have said, "treat women as your moral and intellectual equals - they are not possessions." instead we get rules about clothing, when women are allowed to speak, discriminatory inheritence rules, and statements like "men are above women and god is above men." i mean is there any better proof scripture was written by (and for) men?

secondly, it is just too easy for those in power to write something and say it was from god.

ukba,

i read the article you linked to.

i have always thought islam needed a "reformation" in a big way, and have always figured that the ahadith are where muslims got to put their opinions into scripture. i have severe doubts about anything being accurately recorded in any scripture claiming to come from god - as an atheist it's obvious to me even the koran was made up by people. (e.g., i don't think god would be sexist.)

muslims will say god "spoke through muhammad" (whatever THAT means...), but well...the best i can concede is that muhammad may have thought that's what was happening, but he was just...well...hearing voices. today we would call that dementia...

anyway, i've always seen the ahadith like the writings of the "early church fathers" of christianity - as written by those with ulterior motives, and totally unreliable with regard to "preserving" anything from the respective prophets.

is it really conceivable that muslims would "throw out" the ahadith (that's plural for "hadith", right?)? i mean, i can't imagine that happening. it would be a great first step, but it's not gonna happen. i'm sure your attitude of "picking and choosing" your ahadith is considered enlightened in academic circles, but blasphemy or something to "regular" muslims.

Hello Walter,

You wrote: “thanks. so "kill apostates" is based on a hadith you deem unreliable? bukhari is pretty respected (among muslims) isn't he? do many muslims "pick and choose" verses like that?”

Yes, Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Da’ud, Ibn Maja and Tirmithi are considered to be respectable people who tried to collect the major sayings attributed to the prophet. They might have the right intensions but that is not a good reason to accept their works at face value. There is no way to be sure what they collected was reliable given the time that elapsed between the prophet’s death and the writing down of these works. The Hadiths, collection of sayings attributed to Muhammad, in general are a terribly problematical group of literature. They have a bit of everything: stoning of women for adultery, blatant anti-Semitism and some outlandish claims. The Quran on the other hand was written during the life time of Muhammad and collected together in a book form right after his death. A lot of Muslims today are coming to the view that it is high time to shed more light on hadiths and to put them under more stringent examination. The following article makes it clear why it must be so:

http://www.thewhitepath.com/archives/2004/10/a_case_for_islamic_renewal.php

Also this quote form a book by Reza Aslan called ‘no god but God’ in which he writes:

Part II:
“The Sunna is composed of thousands upon thousands of stories, or hadith that claim to recount Muhammad’s words and deeds, as well as those of the earliest Companions. As those hadith were passed down from generation to generation, they became increasingly convoluted and inauthentic, so that after a while, nearly every legal or religious opinion-no matter how radical or eccentric-could be legitimized by the Prophet’s authority. By the ninth century, the situation had gotten so out of hand that a group of legal scholars, working independently of one another, attempted to catalogue the most reliable hadith into authoritative collections, the most respected of which are the cannons of Muhammad al-Bukhari (d. 870) and Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj (d. 875).

The primary criterion by which these collections were authenticated was the chain of transmission, or isnad, that often accompanied each hadith. Those hadith whose isnad could be traced to an early and reliable source were considered “sound” and accepted as authentic, while those that could not were considered “weak” and rejected. One major problem with this method, however, is that before the ninth century, when the collections were completed, a proper and complete isnad was by no means an essential element in the dissemination of a hadith. Joseph Schacht’s extensive research on the development of the Shariah has shown how quite a large number of widely acknowledged hadith had their chains of transmission added conjecturally so as to make them appear more authentic. Hence Schacht’s whimsical but accurate maxim: “the more perfect the isnad, the later the tradition.”

But there is an even larger obstacle to using the Sunna of the Prophet as a primary source for law. As rigorous as scholars like al-Bukhari and Idb al-Hajjaj were in scrutinizing each hadith for the signs of correct transmission, the fact is that their method lacked any attempt at political or religious objectivity. The bulk of what are considered to be sound traditions were deemed so not because their isnads were particularly strong, but because they reflected the majority beliefs and practices of the community. In other words, the hadith were collected, and the Sunna developed, specifically to create a sense of Islamic orthodoxy and orthopraxy by legitimizing those beliefs and practices that were already widely accepted by the majority of the Ulama, and eliminating those that were not. While some hadith may in fact contain an authentic historical core that can be traced back to the Prophet and his earliest Companions, the truth is that the Sunna is a far better reflection of the opinions of the ninth-century Ulama than of the seventh-century Ummah. After all, to quote Jonathan Berkey, “it was not Muhammad himself who defined the Sunna, but rather a memory of him.” [p: 163-164]

ukba,
thanks. so "kill apostates" is based on a hadith you deem unreliable? bukhari is pretty respected (among muslims) isn't he? do many muslims "pick and choose" verses like that?
______________________________

i suppose i'm done with book 9 for now, except to the extent it talks about "people of the book." i know this concept appears elsewhere in islamic scripture as well. do muslims think this idea represents "tolerance"?

Walter: Please let me know if you want to discuss chapter 9 in more detail and thanks for your interest. Having said I would advise you to read more about that early history and all the major players involved in the various conflicts. Nothing is as simple as you might think with all the different intrigues and political alliances.

I wanted to mention this as a side note; one time you tried to compare Muhammad and Jesus and also the Quran and the NT. First of all you were comparing oranges with apples. If you want to compare Muhammad to anyone I would suggest Moses: they both emigrated with their own people, they were both law givers and both led their people for a long period of time. Jesus on the other hand was ‘preaching to the quire’ so to speak; his audience was familiar with his teaching; and just about everything he preached was mentioned in the Hebrew bible in one way or another; nothing that he preached which counts for anything much was new. His Sayings, if you take out all the repetitions, could fill just a couple of columns in a regular newspaper page. He had a specific message to preach in a short period of time. The three synoptic gospels inform us that he taught for only one year in the Galilee moving from town to town.

Walter you said: “again, thanks for your earlier context email on book 9. i also asked a question about the apparent contradiction between "no compulsion in islam" and the killing of apostates. where do some muslims get the idea it's ok to kill apostates? is that a misreading of something? or is there basis in the koran and/or hadith?”

You are welcome and you are so kind. And I am sorry if I did not get back to you sooner. You know how it is with work, kids and all that. I can’t tell you how much I appreciate a civil discourse without resorting to name calling and cheap insults.

About the online translation, the original website was this: http://www.geocities.com/masad02/ and they are in the process of moving to: www.wikimir.com/masad

Right now neither site is complete so I have to refer to both of them.

Your question about death penalty for apostasy is a good one. There is no basis for apostasy punishment of any kind in the Quran whatsoever. If the ‘crime’ is so great that it entails a person to deserve the death penalty why isn’t it clearly articulated in the Qur’an? It is that simple. A person is free to choose his path without any fear of reprisal from anyone. The Qur’an is clear about human free will, limited as it may be. In fact there are many instances in the Quran where the subject of apostasy is discussed but not once a punishment of any kind is prescribed; it would’ve been a good place for it.
However some Muslims justify killing apostates by citing a saying of the Prophet Muhammad who wa supposed to have said: ‘Whoever changed his religion kill him’.” (related by Bukhari)

Most of these sayings were collected about two hundred years, if not more, after the death of Muhammad. Bukhari for instance who has a collection numbering about 7200 sayings died in the year 870. Muhammad died in the year 632; that’s a difference of 230 years. In fact there is no contemporary collection of these sayings of any kind. Just imagine trying to find out what was said and done two hundred years after the fact and try to do it accurately. There is no way of that happening without including some forgeries and fabrications that convey more of the currents people’s attitudes than what actually happened and said hundreds of years before that; and that is the case with the majority of these supposed sayings of the prophet. For that reason, I cannot entertain accepting these fabrications no matter what the supposed authority is. Besides it runs counter to human decency to punish someone on account of believing and not believing or changing one’s mind. It is not the right of anyone to pass judgment on matters of belief; it is between the person and his/her maker. I say that even though I know you are atheist and I hope you know what I mean. You can find a lot written on the internet about the subject, but here is one you might want to check out: http://www.islamicperspectives.com/default.htm

ukba,
thanks for the link. does that page have all the books of the koran. it seems to me missing 61-75, and everything above 76.

again, thanks for your earlier context email on book 9. i also asked a question about the apparent contradiction between "no compulsion in islam" and the killing of apostates. where do some muslims get the idea it's ok to kill apostates? is that a misreading of something? or is there basis in the koran and/or hadith?

Walter, you asked: “ukba,… do you speak arabic? what translation is that?”
Yes, I speak Arabic; Actually I can read Arabic better that speak it due to the lack of use here in the US. I have a copy of the Quran by Yusuf Ali which has Arabic text too; overall, it is a fair translation to use, the commentary is good too. You can have one from Amazon if you are interested. Having said that I prefer the online translation by Muhammad Assad which can be found at this link: http://www.wikimir.com/message-of-quran-by-muhammad-asad-002

Muslims sometimes are annoyed when others refer to translations of the Qur’an as ‘versions’ of the Qur’an. There is only one original Qur’an in the Arabic language but there are translations of it in different languages; sometimes there are many translations of the Qur’an in one language especially English. The term version has a different meaning altogether. Let me give you an example to show you the difference between the two. I have a NRSV bible which I prefer to use since it is, to me, more accurate than the others in the market. It is also widely used by the academia. The NRSV does not have the verse 1John 5:7 which was added by some later Christians who wanted to validate the doctrine of the trinity. The KJV which favored by most Christians has this verse included. One bible has this one verse and the other does not; for me the two bibles, then, are different versions. I hope that helped.

farnaz,
yes, the n.t. presents a dim view of people. and god's "plan" (to sacrifice his son back to himself) is pretty grotesque. i mean, he's god, and THAT'S the best plan he could come up with. he's god - he could have made any rules he wanted and we get a human sacrifice...sheesh...

and no doubt people have extrapolated that blood-spilling-for-atonement thing ever since. and i love (hate) the god/man association you make with hitler, mao etc... i would put kim jong-il in that category: north korea is not a "godless society" - they have a new god named kim jong-il.

but, just looking at the texts, i see a moral advance over the o.t.. at least, as the lawyers make people say these days, "no humans were harmed in the making of this commercial." jesus the role model never hurt anyone (except possibly that farmer whose pigs he cast demons into and drove off a cliff. i like to think that "off camera" jesus must have "poofed" some new pigs into existence for that farmer...).

i admit i'm not familiar with jewish texts other than as presented in the o.t., but in my view the n.t. is much "better" (as evaluated from my humanist point of view) than the o.t. or the koran. those other jewish texts i haven't read must be pretty "humanist" because jews certainly behave better than a reliance on the o.t. would indicate.

the basic point of the n.t. seems to be "believe this crazy story about jesus the godman and go to heaven. if not, you're going to hell." sure, christians are told to go get converts, which is always annoying to me, but more by persuasion than the edge of a sword. those missionaries rumel linked to are obviously doing it all wrong, and i don't think their behavior is justified by the n.t.

conversely when muslims do bad things, that stuff is in their books. now we can (and i have) argue about whether that "slay the idolators" stuff is being misinterpreted or not, but the fact is, it's in there.

Walter,

The very idea of a deity who views error as such unforgiveable sin that it can only be met by sacrifice is a horror quite alien to Judaism, the Tahakh, which is at great pains to end human sacrifice forever with the Binding.

The NT view of man is hopeless. Only through homicide/decide, blind subscription to belief in a man-god can he have any chance at redemption. And throughout history, more man-gods materialized, all requiring and getting "belief." Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.

The deity itself (or themselves) is such a viscious piece of work that he sends his "only begotten son" to earth to be tortured to death by Man, a practice men have imitated ad infinitum.

All his "fulfilled" in him, so that all prior history, that which was the self-understanding of another people is colonized by the man-god ideologue.

Since any system of belief cannot be mandated, whether it be communism, facism, nazism, there will always be those who question belief. In this way, doubt will continue to gnaw, and those who don't "believe" will have to be done away with.

Best to follow Paul and be chaste hastening the world to an end, as so many who followed the NT attempted to do.

Admittedly, things got worse with the Church fathers, with Augustine, brilliant though he was, who made the sinfulness of sex explicit, with Origen who formalized typology. But, they had something to work with.

See Casas, "A Brief Account of the Devastation of the Indies," to see NT language in action. Read Hitler's speeches for insight into the incarnational dictator.

I recall listening to a young woman explain why she left Christianity: "My way or the highway didn't suit me anymore."

Even the highway doesn't do it, for with the genociding of the "New World" and the Inquisition came the notion of sangre pura (pure blood), a notion taken up by the nineteenth century racialists. Native Americans and Jews didn't have pure blood.

Christianity is much concerned with blood. Christ's blood is the beginning.

And the fellow may not even have existed. However, Banu Quorayza did. Are we not off topic?

farnaz, you said,
"There is, btw., as you know, considerable violence in the NT, and not just with respect to the "promised end." It is a very violent ideology, should not cause head-scratching when seen as the primum mobile of so much bloodshed."

i confess that after slogging my way through the o.t., the n.t. seemed like a breath of fresh (but also false) air. gone are the literal flesh-and-blood earthly armies of believers killing for god. as you alluded to there's plenty of promised violence. jesus goes into great detail describing how horrible judgement day will be for unbelievers. and, to the extent the texts reflect his words, he thought the end was coming SOON. he was very clear and repetitive (and wrong) about that.

actually, i consider this promise of future violence the moral advance of the n.t.. unlike the koran and old testament there are no "go out and kill unbelievers yourself" verses in there. jesus basically said "i'll make sure they get theirs on judgement day."

so, what are the "primum mobile" for violence verses you refer to? something from revelation?

i have (and still do) contended that the n.t. is relatively peaceful because it was written by those not in power - those under the government's thumb - so any kind of "slay the idolators" verse would have meant the end of christianity. the o.t. and koran were written by those in power and seeking to gain/consolidate power. i contend also that it's only after christianity was co-opted by the romans that it began to use/misuse scripture as justification for violence.

thoughts?

ccnl1, farnaz,
of course those "amazing biblical numbers" are false. there's no freakin' way there were 600,000 israelite "men of military age" (implying AT LEAST 2,000,000 total israelites) involved in the exodus. there's no way there was even an exodus. everything in the o.t. up to omri and ahab is entirely made up. no king david (in any biblically recognizable form), no king solomon, no united monarchy, no joshua, no exodus, no abraham, no noah and no adam and eve.

nonetheless, there is plenty of fake violence in there. it's totally abhorent. kings who (supposedly) imposed yahwehism on the "kingdoms" are revered where those who showed tolerance "did evil in the eyes of the lord."

in terms of attitude, it's very much like the koran.

Biblical Atrocities (and what the warmongerng passages of the koran are based on but without proper references)

"Exodus 32: 3,000 Israelites killed by Moses for worshipping the golden calf.

Numbers 31: After killing all men, boys and married women among the Midianites, 32,000 virgins remain as booty for the Israelites. (If unmarried girls are a quarter of the population, then 96,000 people were killed.)

Joshua:

Joshua 8: 12,000 men and women, all the people of Ai, killed.

Joshua 10: Joshua completely destroys Gibeon ("larger than Ai"), Makeddah, Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron, Debir. "He left no survivors."

Joshua 11: Hazor destroyed. [Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews (1987), estimates the population of Hazor at ?> 50,000]
TOTAL: if Ai is average, 12,000 x 9 = 108,000 killed.

Judges 1: 10,000 Canaanites k. at Battle of Bezek. Jerusalem and Zephath destroyed.
Judges 3: ca. 10,000 Moabites k. at Jordan River.

Judges 8: 120,000 Midianite soldiers k. by Gideon

Judges 20: Benjamin attacked by other tribes. 25,000 killed.

1 Samuel 4: 4,000 Isrealites killed at 1st Battle of Ebenezer/Aphek. 30,000 Isr. k. at 2nd battle.

David:

2 Samuel 8: 22,000 Arameans of Damascus and 18,000 Edomites killed in 2 battles.

2 Samuel 10: 40,000 Aramean footsoldiers and 7,000 charioteers killed at Helam.

2 Samuel 18: 20,000 Israelites under Absalom killed at Ephraim.

1 Kings 20: 100,000 Arameans killed by Israelites at Battle of Aphek. Another 27,000 killed by collapsing wall.

2 Chron 13: Judah beat Israel and inflicted 500,000 casualties.

2 Chron 25: Amaziah, king of Judah, k. 10,000 from Seir in battle and executed 10,000 POWs. Discharged Judean soldiers pillaged and killed 3,000.

2 Chron 28: Pekah, king of Israel, slew 120,000 Judeans

TOTAL: That comes to about 1,283,000 mass killings specifically enumerated in the Bible."

BO should address this issue on his next visit to Israel!!!!

Walter,

Btw, I'm not bashing Islam or any religion. Believe religion is a private matter. A secuar world, I would like.

Walter,

There is a significant difference between the Biblical passages you cite and the Quorayza Jews, viz, the Quorayza Jews existed.

The slaughter of Banu Qurayza is a historic fact. It ocurred just as surely as Muhammed lived, far more certain than Jesus having dwelled among us. A certainty.

There is, btw., as you know, considerable violence in the NT, and not just with respect to the "promised end." It is a very violent ideology, should not cause head-scratching when seen as the primum mobile of so much bloodshed.

The faithiness goes well beyond the Robertons and their ilk. As I mentioned, it is quite evident, though different, in our current prez. That he might wish he could speak every now and then without reference to sacred texts is probably the case.

Rendering, is he, no doubt. Ironic.

Farnaz,
i too have been extremely nervous/disappointed/appalled by the seemingly growing influence of the "religious right". omg, they're scary. general "my god's bigger" boynkin, ashcroft, PAT ROBERTSON ran for president for christ's sake! to say nothing (yet) about bush and his "crusade", "abstinence only", "blastocyst rights" (stem cells)...don't get me started.

but these breaches of separation pale in comparison to say iraq where just about every politcal party has some variation of "islam" in its name.

gee, thanks farnaz...as if i needed more negative thoughts about islam:

"Twice the Qurayza made offers to surrender, and depart from their stronghold, leaving behind their land and property. Initially they requested to take one camel load of possessions per person, but when Muhammad refused this request, the Qurayza asked to be allowed to depart without any property, taking with them only their families. However, Muhammad insisted that the Qurayza surrender unconditionally and subject themselves to his judgment. Compelled to surrender, the Qurayza were lead to Medina....A third (and final) appeal for leniency for the Qurayza was made to Muhammad by their tribal allies the Aus. Muhammad again declined, and instead he appointed as arbiter Sa’d Mu’adh from the Aus, who soon rendered his concise verdict: the men were to be put to death, the women and children sold into slavery, the spoils to be divided among the Muslims."

it DOES sound like a passage from deuteronomy (many from the "O.T."), but i believe in the bible it was just "virgins" and (newly-orphaned) children. it's probably because muhammad might not have (been able to) read those "treaty" verses from book 9 ukba and i were just discussing.

ukba,
later, you mentioned the perfunctory "compulsion/coercion" verse (2:256). where do muslims get the idea of killing apostates? i understand that's a serious crime according to some. koran? hadith? "culture"?

you also mentioned "self defense":

002.191
PICKTHAL: 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.

not exactly "turn the other cheek"...but much more practical.

ukba,
thanks for the most excellent posts. i really appreciate your sincere effort.

do you speak arabic? what translation is that? i use the yusufali, pickthal, and shakir ones here: http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/

what do you think of those versions?

the "context" you provide, about polytheists (in yusufali etc.."pagans, idolaters) breaking their deals, is that in the text? sounds to me like it's saying, roughly, "you've got 4 months to get out of dodge (or become muslim)."

verse 4 does say,

"Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfil their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him)."

but then 5 says,

"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them..."

i have (and many terrorists...) have interpreted the treaties to end after the "sacred months." probably because book 9 opens with a declaration that muslims have "freedom from obligation...towards those with whom you have made a treaty."

anyway, good answer, but i'm not thoroughly convinced. when i read on i think i get a clue about what some of the "treaties" may have included:

"But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion" (9:11)

"Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low." (9:29)

thanks for the reply. please answer my arabic/translations questions. look forward to more koran lessons from you.

Walter,

Post on Quorayaza Jews was meant for you, as well.

Regarding your last post, I'm aware that the US is not a theocracy in the sense that Iran aims to be, at least for now, with its current buffoon president, whom Homeini appears to be cutting loose. However, to say that Christian ideology does not figure in US activities here and abroad is simply incorrect.

Sometimes, it is explicit, as was the case with the crusading George Bush, he who prayed for the rebirth of the Republican party in Jesus Christ, he who proclaimed one twenty-four-hour summer period, "Christ Day."

Sometimes, it is not so dramatic as is the case with our current faithy president, ideologically, a far cry from his predecessor. However, let us not forget that Obama organized nationwide prayer fests during his campaign, replete with dial-and-pray for those Christians who couldn't make it on site.

No, we're not a theocracy, but while we should be moving forward with an enlightened secular agenda that takes cognizance of diversity in all its glory, considers religion a purely private matter, we are moving backward, maybe, along several different paths, but backward nonetheless.

Dear Mr. Rauf,

I clicked on the link to the Cordoba Initiative, and I was impressed. Unfortunately, there appear to be no Jews on staff, a situation that should be remedied.

Also, I saw no references to initiatives in the US. If there is outreach here, events that might be of interest to US educational institutions, that would be good for us to know.

Farnaz

To Uqba, Richardkefalos, Rumel, and All:

No discussion of this sort is complete, IMO, without mention of the slaughter of the Quorayza Jews (900 men beheaded, women and children sold into slavery).

This is a very thorough article on the atrocity:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Printable.aspx?ArtId=20581

Farnaz

PS. Uqba, I return your most recent compliment to me. Like a jewel in a crown of rare metal, you are to me. Therefore, you shall spare us that moral absurdity of which you are, no doubt, incapable anyay, viz, "they had it coming."

Part IV:
Now the enemy's conversion to Islam - expressed in the words, "if they repent, and take to prayer [lit., "establish prayer"] and render the purifying dues (zakah)"-is no more than one, and by no means the only, way of their "desisting from hostility"; and the reference to it in verses 5 and 11 of this surah certainly does not imply an alternative of "conversion or death", as some unfriendly critics of Islam choose to assume. Verses 4 and 6 give a further elucidation of the attitude which the believers are enjoined to adopt towards such of the unbelievers as are not hostile to them. In this connection, the Quran advises the Muslims elsewhere in chapter 60:

“As for such [of the unbelievers] as do not fight against you on account of [your] faith, and neither drive you forth from your homelands, God does not forbid you to show them kindness and to behave towards them with full equity: for, verily, God loves those who act equitably.” (60:8)

A close look, then, at the above verses shall suffice as evidence to the fact that the directive, “Arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush for them” is given against those polytheists with whom the Muslims, under the leadership of the Prophet, had entered into a peace agreement “and who had disregarded this agreement and aided others against the Muslims.” Obviously, these qualities cannot be generalized on all the polytheists of the world.

The Quran further says: “Will you not fight against those who have broken their oaths and have conspired to banish the messenger? They were the first to attack you.” (9:12)

Thus, a further qualification of those against whom the directive is given is that besides breaking their oaths with the Muslims, they conspired to banish the Prophet and were the first to attack the Muslims. It is obvious that the referred directive implies to take action against a particular people. It cannot be generalized to the whole world and to all times to come.

Part III:
“God's messages have they bartered away for a trifling gain, and have thus turned away from His path: evil, behold, is all that they are wont to do, respecting no tie and no protective obligation with regard to a believer; and it is they, they who transgress the bounds of what is right!” (9:9-10)

“Yet if they repent, and take to prayer, and render the purifying dues, they become your brethren in faith:" and clearly do We spell out these messages unto people of [innate] knowledge!” (9:11)

Every verse of the Qur’an must be read and interpreted against the background of the Qur'an as a whole. The above verse, which speaks of a possible conversion to Islam on the part of the polytheists, "those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God", with whom the believers are at war, must, therefore, be considered in conjunction with several fundamental Qur'anic ordinances. One of them, "There shall be no coercion in matters of faith" (2:256), lays down categorically that any attempt at a forcible conversion of unbelievers is prohibited - which precludes the possibility of the Muslims' demanding or expecting that a defeated enemy should embrace Islam as the price of immunity.

Secondly, the Qur'an ordains, "Fight in God's cause against those who wage war against you; but do not commit aggression, for, verily, God does not love aggressors" (2: 190);

And, "if they do not let you be, and do not offer you peace, and do not stay their hands, seize them and slay them whenever you come upon them: and it is against these that We have clearly empowered you [to make war]" (4: 91).

Thus, war is permissible only in self-defense, as in chapter 22 of the Quran:
“Permission is given to those who fight because they have been wronged, and God is indeed able to give them victory; those who have been driven from their homes unjustly only because they said, "Our Lord is God." (22:39)

With the further proviso that "if they desist-behold, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace" (2: 192), and "if they desist, then all hostility shall cease" (2: 193).

Part II:
When war becomes inevitable, it must be prosecuted with vigor and not with kid gloves. The fighting may take the form of killing, or capture, or siege, or ambush and other stratagems. But even then there is room for repentance and amendment on the part of the guilty party, and if that takes place, the duty of the Muslims is forgiveness and the establishment of peace.

“If one amongst the Polytheist ask you for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of God; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.” (9:6)

Even among the enemies of Islam, actively fighting against Islam, there may be individuals who may be in a position to require protection. Full asylum is to be given to them, and opportunities provided for hearing the word of God. If they do not see their way to accept Islam, they will require double protection: one- from the Islamic forces openly fighting against their people, and two-from their own people, as they detached themselves from them. Both kinds of protection should be ensured for them, and they should be safely escorted to a place where they can be safe. Such persons only err through ignorance, and there may be much good in them.

The Quran not only says that a Polytheist seeking asylum during the battle should be granted refuge, but also that he should be escorted to a secure place.

The Quran further says: “How can there be any responsibility of these agreements on God and His messenger, except those with whom you made agreements at the Sacred Mosque? Thus, so long as they uphold their part of the treaty, you should uphold yours. Indeed God loves the righteous.” (9:7)

Thus if the polytheists are true to their oaths and honor their agreements so should the Muslims.

“How can there be any responsibility of these agreements seeing that if they get an advantage over you, they respect not the ties either of kinship or of covenant? With fair words from their mouths they entice you; and most of them are rebellious and wicked.” (9:8)

Among the Arabs, the ties of kinship were so strong as to be almost unbreakable. The Polytheist Arabs went out of their way to break them in the case of the Muslims, who were kith and kin to them. Besides the bond of kinship there was the further bond of their plighted oath in the treaty. They broke that oath because the other parties were Muslims. After that kind of behavior how can a treaty be possible with them?

WIFC asks rumel: “i'm still waiting for the "context" explanation of why book 9 is not horrible.”

I hope Rumel doesn’t mind but here is some information that you, Walter, might find helpful. Information gathered from different commentators:

Part (I):
Chronologically, verses 1-29 of chapter 9 were a notable declaration of state policy promulgated about the month of January, 631, and read out by 'Ali at the Pilgrimage two months later in order to give the policy the widest publicity possible.

The word polytheist appears quite often in the Quran. The name describes the people of Mecca who believed in God but they also sought the intersession of other lesser gods for different purposes. They also sought the eradication of the small Muslim community by means of wars and even the assassination of the Prophet himself. So, in brief, those people were referred to as Polytheists.

The polytheist and enemies of Islam frequently made treaties of mutual alliances with the Muslims. The Muslims scrupulously observed their part, but the polytheist of Mecca violated their part again and again when it suited them. After some years’ experience it became imperative to denounce such treaties altogether. This was done in due form, with four months’ notice, and a chance was given to those who faithfully observed their pledges, to continue their alliance.

The opening of the Chapter may be translated as:

“A declaration of the dissolution of agreements from God and His messenger to the Polytheists with whom you have made peace agreements. Thus, you [O Polytheists] may freely traverse in the land for four months, but know that you shall not escape God's judgment and that God shall surely humble the unbelievers. A proclamation [should be made] to these people from God and His messenger on the day of Great Pilgrimage, [declaring] that God and His messenger are no longer under any obligation toward these Polytheists. If you repent, [O Polytheists,] it shall be better for you but if you turn your backs [paying no heed], then know that you shall not be able to escape God's judgment. Give these rejecters the glad tidings of a painful punishment, except those Polytheists who have not dishonored their treaties with you and have not aided anyone against you. With these, fulfill your treaties till the appointed term. Indeed, God loves the righteous. When the sacred months are over, slay the polytheists wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush for them.” (9:1–5)

“… then fight and slay them…” It is only when the four months of grace are past, and the other party shows no sign of desisting from its treacherous designs by right conduct, that the state of war is to follow immediately between them and the Muslims.

This article is totally a lie. This imam is a freaking liar in everything he has said about islam. Islam is not a religion of peace, it is a death cult. Also it's not just a religion it's a government (i.e. Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.). What a crock this article is. Check out for more info:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

rumel, you said,
"Walter, as somebody from a Christian nation, and probably of Christian origin..."

the united states is NOT a christian nation - that's the beauty part. i would be glad to go into how jefferson and madison made sure of that, but you're probably aware of all that.

i'm not sure what "christian origin" is, but religion has never been part of my life. my father became disgusted with the catholic church as a boy, and my mom is nominally eastern orthodox (she grew up in tabriz, iran), but has never gone to church since i've known her. my mom tells me i used to enjoy to mass in the philippines as a little boy - says i like the singing...

rumel,

i'm still waiting for the "context" explanation of why book 9 is not horrible.

"Walter, as somebody from a Christian nation, and probably of Christian origin, please apologize to me for the Christian proselytizing of poor Hindus in India. You should take this responsibility because all Muslims think exactly the same way."

well, i can't really apologize for something i didn't do, and i think those christian missionaries around the world are a bad thing. imo, they're just replacing one false belief with another.
Posted by: walter-in-fallschurch | June 9, 2009 7:04 AM

That's my point exactly. Now just replace "christian missionaries" with "Islamic terrorists" in the sentence and you have the sentiment of almost all Muslims, who don't want anything to do with it. And they certainly don't owe anyone an apology for those lunatics. But are certainly offended that you would lump them together.

Welcome, abortion wingnut. You were all we needed.

And from the same reference that has the comparison/lists of the world's worst atrocities:

"Abortions:

29,247,142 legal abortions were performed in the United States, 1970-95. (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 47 No. SS-2)

Estimated abortions worldwide: 527,000,000 to 836,000,000 (1920-2000) [http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/wrjp333sd.html] "

But BO adopted a dog instead!!!

Rumel wrote:

"I am an infidel."

An INFIDEL??!!

ALLAH! KAILI!! DEATH TO THE INFIDELS!!!

(Ooops, I almost forgot - we don't do that here. Never mind, carry on ...)

farnaz, you said,
"Funny how many Christian references, tropes echo through the testimony on the Indian "Romoval," Trail of Tears. How many southern ministers were slavers, how many slave owners Christian class leaders. Irrelevant, since this was post-Constitution."

the context of my post-constitution commnet was the idea of "christian nations" and "islamic nations". to my knowledge there are no longer "christian nations" (despite the proclamations of the huckabees et al, and i suppose, the vatican notwithstanding). there may be nominally christian nations like england is "anglican" and so on, but these countries are ruled by secular elected bodies. there may indeed be "christian nations" out there (i haven't googled it...), but i haven't heard of them because they don't bomb people in the name of christianity.

whereas when iraq recently wrote it's new constitution, they declared themselves an "islamic nation" to be ruled by "islamic laws".

individual christians like the slave owners you referenced have not been happy with this development. naturally, many would like all of us to be bound by their religious rules, like people in islamic countries are forced to (at least outwardly) behave "islamically". they probably admire saudi arabia's theocracy, but just think the saudis picked the wrong religion to force on its people. these are the "bad christians" jefferson et al protected me from in the constitution.

as far as us taking native americans' land (and we're not giving it back), well...what can i say...you got me there. but, we don't force any religion on them, they can practice whatever (non-violent) religion they want, and they are free to participate fully in american society.

Paratrooper, you said,
"The Islamic roots of President Obama, previously denied, now come to light. That Obama is a usurper and sympathizer of all things Islamic is known."

are you saying obama is a stealth muslim? is that what rush told you? or was it sean? or bill?

Paratrooper, you said,

"Walter, why don't you explain to your readers the goal of Islam with regard to a central caliphate. Moreover, by all means, please also explain taqiyya, which is an ongoing deceptive practice utilized by Muslims.

Finally, please also discuss the why's of the wars of 34 different fronts that Islam fights.

I opine that Islam is a festering sore unleashing evil worldwide and right under the nose of the ignorant, who fall prey to apologists like yourself."
________________________________

huh? are you talking to me? if you are, i don't think you've been folloing the last day or two's conversation here. i'm the last person muslims want speaking for them - just ask rumel...

rumel,
i just read one of those links about christians in india.

"They attempt to convert the uncivilized pagans in many ways: promise of jobs and money in return for conversion to the 'true faith', financing of the separatist movements in the country which will further divide the Hindus and make them more vulnerable, threatening and harming school children to force them to believe in Christ, calling public gatherings where Hindu Gods are demeaned and Christ is praised, promoting myths and superstitions in order to scare people into believing in Christ, and so on."

the physical tactics (hot knife, beating) are inexcusable. were there a god of the bible, these people would be going to hell, no doubt.

the rest of the tactics like demeaning other gods is standard operating procedure for nearly all religions.

do you have any idea on the scale of this? how many indians have been killed, beheaded, tortured etc...by these horrible christians.

EricF1 would have us believe that the reason for the world's ills can be traced to all things Christian. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The facts are, Islam is a religion fronted by a demon. It's "holy book" is an affront to peace and at the core of its confused ramblings lie a message of hate.

I leave with this quote: "The truth is "hate speech" only to those who have something to hide."

The Islamic roots of President Obama, previously denied, now come to light. That Obama is a usurper and sympathizer of all things Islamic is known. Too, this article is indicative of the stealth of the which Islamicists infiltrate and eventually control a country or populace.

Walter, why don't you explain to your readers the goal of Islam with regard to a central caliphate. Moreover, by all means, please also explain taqiyya, which is an ongoing deceptive practice utilized by Muslims.

Finally, please also discuss the why's of the wars of 34 different fronts that Islam fights.

I opine that Islam is a festering sore unleashing evil worldwide and right under the nose of the ignorant, who fall prey to apologists like yourself.

"Walter, as somebody from a Christian nation, and probably of Christian origin, please apologize to me for the Christian proselytizing of poor Hindus in India. You should take this responsibility because all Muslims think exactly the same way."

well, i can't really apologize for something i didn't do, and i think those christian missionaries around the world are a bad thing. imo, they're just replacing one false belief with another.

rumel, you said,
Back to 100%, Walter? Sad. Who told you that 1 billion people--and you're lumping the women in there, more bad math, but I'll go with it--feel this way? Why do you assume that's the case? Or why do you make stuff up? Few Muslim men think women are truly subservient to women. Muslim women are very strong women. A tiny fraction think the way you espouse them as thinking. Where does 10 to 100 million people who want to throw acid in the face of women come from? These are arbitrary numbers as usual."

the 1,000,000,000 people who think women are subservient to men represent all muslims. the 10 to 100,000,000 represent the 1% to 10% who are the real crazies who chop off hands, honor kill etc...

i mean if they're muslim, they agree with:

PICKTHAL: Women who are divorced shall wait, keeping themselves apart, three (monthly) courses. And it is not lawful for them that they should conceal that which Allah hath created in their wombs if they are believers in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands would do better to take them back in that case if they desire a reconciliation. And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and MEN ARE A DEGREE ABOVE THEM. Allah is Mighty, Wise. (2:228)

and,

"...unto the male is the equivalent of the share of two females..." (4:176)

i'm not making that horrible stuff up - god wrote it, right? ugh...

my estimates for the % of "crazies" is "made-up" - and it's quite a braod range: 1% to 10%. do you think the % is wrong? what % would you say are included in the taliban, the saudis, al-qaeda etc...

"also, anything before the u.s. constitution is irrelevant here. so, i don't care (in an academic sense) about all those ancient deaths "caused by" christians either. after the u.s. constitution most of europe and the "western world" adopted secular constitutions."

Funny how many Christian references, tropes echo through the testimony on the Indian "Romoval," Trail of Tears. How many southern ministers were slavers, how many slave owners Christian class leaders. Irrelevant, since this was post-Constitution.
________________________________________
The Muslims. The Jews. The this, the that, and the other. It's those gosh-darned definite articles that define those particularities. Nothing to do with the lexico-grammarians, who, in the current discussion, are Christian, indefinite, generic, neutral, universal, secular, Constitutional.

"What matter who's speaking, someone said, what matter who's speaking?"

--Samuel Beckett

Walter, as somebody from a Christian nation, and probably of Christian origin, please apologize to me for the Christian proselytizing of poor Hindus in India. You should take this responsibility because all Muslims think exactly the same way.

Will some Christian please apologize to me because the Mormons have converted every single person that ever lived on this planet to Mormonism? They're Christian, and surely all Christians think alike, according to Walter. So an apology from any Christian or of Christian origin should do. I'll take it.

Christian Terror and Aggression in India

http://christianwatchindia.wordpress.com/2007/01/04/documentary-on-christian-conversion-in-india-to-uproot-hinduism/

The Sinister Designs of the Christian Missionaries in India
http://www.christianaggression.org/item_display.php?type=ARTICLES&id=1058931897

Christian Missionaries Take Aim At India – Deceptive Bible & Other Questionable Tactics
http://sathyasaibaba.wordpress.com/2008/08/10/christian-missionaries-take-aim-at-india-deceptive-bible-other-questionable-tactics/

Walter-in-Falls-Church: Why do your numbers keep changing? Are you mathematically challenged? Apparently....

"i really wouldn't say all 1,000,000,000 muslims are bad people. - it's probably really more like 1% to 10% or 10,000,000 to 100,000,000 "bad" muslims. the other 900,000,000 muslims out there who are "good" citizens of the world, the "good" muslims (probably including you) are "good" despite your scripture. they should be applauded for not being militant."

I thought I was getting to you, Walter. I thought you were making progress, just like you said the U.S. made progress by electing Obama and redupidiating a theocratic administration. You even said Bush was a blight on our record.

But then you're back to your old ways again. You're just like RichardKefaltos and his split personality\postings.

"the existence of 1,000,000,000 people who think women are subservient to men, and 10,000,000 to 100,000,000 who think being seen in public with a man who's not your relative deserves acid in the face or some other barbaric punishment is why i consider islam a blight on the earth."

Back to 100%, Walter? Sad. Who told you that 1 billion people--and you're lumping the women in there, more bad math, but I'll go with it--feel this way? Why do you assume that's the case? Or why do you make stuff up? Few Muslim men think women are truly subservient to women. Muslim women are very strong women. A tiny fraction think the way you espouse them as thinking. Where does 10 to 100 million people who want to throw acid in the face of women come from? These are arbitrary numbers as usual.

"and you moderates SHOULD be mad - at the militants for making me say those awful things about islam."

No. I'm mad at you for making stuff up, and pulling stuff out of your ass and claiming it's Islam.

Walter-in-Falls Church wrote:
"....another red herring...."

How many red herrings does it take, Walter, for them not to be red herrings any more? When do you actually see the facts as what they are, and not diversions from reality?

"rumel,
i've got to hand it to you for standing in there and taking all the abuse...
your counting WW1 & WW2 etc... as "western/atheist" deaths is another red herring. those were not religious wars."

Oh right, the Jews didn't have a religion, I forgot. They were just some form of German. Hitler just didn't like them because they didn't have blond hair and blue eyes and didn't speak German. Oh wait, a lot of them did. What was their difference Walter? Could it be their.... religion? Saying the World Wars didn't have anything to do with religion grossly underestimates and disrespects the victims.

And facist Shintoism in Japan, nothing to do with religion? Give me a break.

What do you think started World War I? Please chack the facts Walter, that really the only thing you're abusing.

"also, anything before the u.s. constitution is irrelevant here. so, i don't care (in an academic sense) about all those ancient deaths "caused by" christians either. after the u.s. constitution most of europe and the "western world" adopted secular constitutions."

Yes, let's just dismiss deaths "caused by" the West, becuase the victims were brown and didn't really deserve to live anyway, right Walter. Let's just throw out all of history.

But I will be generous and let you throw out millenia of history, as arbitrary as it is and all your statements. By that standard, then, there is no conflict by Muslims that have killed nearly as many as Western governments in war or atheistic government purifying their people. In fact, there are none in the 20th century, using your preferred metric.

99 million by the West
43 million in East Asia
8 million in Africa, across 19th and 20th centuries

Where did all the Muslims go? I thought they wanted to kill all non-believers? Where are the metrics? I know, the Muslims are hiding them! Maybe the facts are afraid of being abused by Walter and RichardKefalos. You're afraid little facts, aren't you? Awww....

"my gripe is with violence inspired by scripture. hitler was not trying to make a christian world government."

Pretty close.

"Whether you agree with his interpretaion, you've got to admit osama, the islamic brotherhood, hamas, the taliban, hezbollah, the armed islamic group, the GSPC, al-jihad, al-ummah, abu nidal organization etc, etc, etc...ARE motivated by religion."

Those oragnizations have political goals. Their leaders could probably care less about religion. In fact, I'm sure they do care less about religion.

Walter-in-FallsChurch wrote:
"rumel,
i've got to hand it to you for standing in there and taking all the abuse..."
I second that :-)
Posted by: RichardKefalos | June 8, 2009 9:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I've slapped you guys qround with so much logic and facts to address your hatred, it's silly :) In fact, it's too easy.

It is abusive how much you ignore my questions :) Just keep ignoring, I'll keep re-posting. And you'll keep ignoring, cuz that's what your're good at.

And I'm not even religious or pious. I am an infidel. Of no faith.

Feisal Abdul Rauf,
You probably won't read this or many of the other comments that have been left for you but, it really doesn't matter. You see you have been deceived by the Evil One known in the Christian world as Satan. There is only one God and he is the Father of Jesus Christ. I address him as my Heavenly Father. He is the God of all other gods. Even allah is not as all knowing and powerful as he is. Forgive me for not introducing myself earlier. I am a Latter Day Saint. My name is Mr. Sloan. I have worshipped the one and true God all of my mortal life and hope that you too will find the truth one day and accept it. If you should not and continue to follow the deception you now practice I would by the power of the Holy Priesthood that has been restored to the earth in these last days call down the power of God to smite you in such a way that you cannot inflict your untruths upon others. May you heed this warning and find the truth. I pray for you and those like you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen

Walter-in-FallsChurch wrote:
"rumel,
i've got to hand it to you for standing in there and taking all the abuse..."

I second that :-)

rumel,
i've got to hand it to you for standing in there and taking all the abuse...

your counting WW1 & WW2 etc... as "western/atheist" deaths is another red herring. those were not religious wars. also, anything before the u.s. constitution is irrelevant here. so, i don't care (in an academic sense) about all those ancient deaths "caused by" christians either. after the u.s. constitution most of europe and the "western world" adopted secular constitutions.

my gripe is with violence inspired by scripture. hitler was not trying to make a christian world government. whether you agree with his interpretaion, you've got to admit osama, the islamic brotherhood, hamas, the taliban, hezbollah, the armed islamic group, the GSPC, al-jihad, al-ummah, abu nidal organization etc, etc, etc...ARE motivated by religion.

RichardKefalos,
nice posts. you said,

"It's not easy to kill tens of millions with suicide vests, and other equipment stolen and otherwise obtained from the West."

no doubt. is there anyone who thinks if osama could get an atomic bomb he'd detonate it in israel or washington d.c.?

rumel, you asked,
"walter-in-fallschurch,
Will you address the fact that you called a billion people a disease? A "pathology," in your own words."

long answer - continued.

any belief system that treats women (1/2 the worlds people) the way islam does is reprehensible. i know you'll say islam "honors" women, quote that "god made man and women" verse, and say the requirement of "modesty" for women is god's will and/or for the benefit of society.

i say these "women should submit to men" verses are evidence that the torah, the talmud, the new testament, the koran (in fact, all judeochrislamic scripture) is NOT divine. these verses reveal that the texts were man(not woman...)-made.

the "western world" at least professes to treat women equally nowadays. some societies and subcultures fall short. but where our "bad examples" are job discrimination, pay gaps, and exclusion from membership at augusta national golf club, islam's "bad examples" of sexism are forced veiling, vaginal circumcision and "honor" killings. it's a different scale of awful.

the existence of 1,000,000,000 people who think women are subservient to men, and 10,000,000 to 100,000,000 who think being seen in public with a man who's not your relative deserves acid in the face or some other barbaric punishment is why i consider islam a blight on the earth.

in my mind, a measure of a society's maturity is how it treats "outsiders". in this regard "islamic societies" are like children. western societies let muslims participate fully in society, build mosques and openly practice islam. that is not the case for christians in saudi arabia. in this way, islam is inhumane.

which brings us back to the idea of "islamic society". what is islamic society? how can such a thing even exist? how can the "cairo declaration on human rights in islam" exist in a world with true freedom of religion? how can "islamic countries" include statements in their constitutions like "no law may be enacted with violates the undisputed rules of islam" and claim to protect "freedom of religion" at the same time. again, please don't talk to me about "people of the book". you may THINK that's tolerance or something, but it's not. it is morally abhorrent.

rumel, you asked,
"walter-in-fallschurch,
Will you address the fact that you called a billion people a disease? A "pathology," in your own words."

well first of all, as i explained, those are not my words, they are Robespierre's words - but i did agree with him.

i really wouldn't say all 1,000,000,000 muslims are bad people. - it's probably really more like 1% to 10% or 10,000,000 to 100,000,000 "bad" muslims. the other 900,000,000 muslims out there who are "good" citizens of the world, the "good" muslims (probably including you) are "good" despite your scripture. they should be applauded for not being militant. and you moderates SHOULD be mad - at the militants for making me say those awful things about islam.

you guys talk about "context" all the time. what possible context could there be for book 9? really, seriously, i'd like to hear a good muslim provide context for

"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

eagerly awaiting a reply to that.

as an atheist, i think the whole thing is silly. to me, it's preposterous that jews and muslims claim the same god promised them the same land in palestine/israel. nevertheless, i'm stuck living in a world with all sorts of believers and beliefs.

since i think they're all false, i can only evaluate religions based on their effects on society. consider saudi arabia - i imagine the same things happen to greater or lesser degrees in all "muslim" countries around the world. the saudi government is (purports to be) religious. THAT'S a problem right there. we in the west have moved beyond that (though bush and his fundie friends hoped to bring that back...) 300 years ago, all "western" governments were religious too. we used to do lots of horrible things to people of the wrong religion. it is easy to count up all the deaths christianity has caused over the ages. well, "ilsamic society" is like that TODAY.

Posted by: RichardKefalos
Rumel, it is you who misunderstood. I did not say, or mean to say, that any nation without a strong military is primitive. Any culture without the technological *capability* is primitive. Of course the oil-rich Moslem states can buy any hardware available, including advanced missiles and fighter planes, but they lack the capability and know-how to produce them, or indeed anything that furthers technological advance. Anything these states obtain is technology developed by the West. Profiting from the oil that others pump out of the ground for them does not constitute an advanced civilization, only a stroke of good luck to be living over the oil. Coupon clipping does no civilization make.
Rumel, it is you who misunderstood. I did not say, or mean to say, that any nation without a strong military is primitive. Any culture without the technological *capability* is primitive. Of course the oil-rich Moslem states can buy any hardware available, including advanced missiles and fighter planes, but they lack the capability and know-how to produce them, or indeed anything that furthers technological advance. Anything these states obtain is technology developed by the West. Profiting from the oil that others pump out of the ground for them does not constitute an advanced civilization, only a stroke of good luck to be living over the oil. Coupon clipping does no civilization make.

Fair enough.

Rumel, it is you who misunderstood. I did not say, or mean to say, that any nation without a strong military is primitive. Any culture without the technological *capability* is primitive. Of course the oil-rich Moslem states can buy any hardware available, including advanced missiles and fighter planes, but they lack the capability and know-how to produce them, or indeed anything that furthers technological advance. Anything these states obtain is technology developed by the West. Profiting from the oil that others pump out of the ground for them does not constitute an advanced civilization, only a stroke of good luck to be living over the oil. Coupon clipping does no civilization make.

What are you, an amnesiac RichardKefalos? Did you forget the post that you wrote how anybody who doesn't have a strong military is "primitive"? Its interesting how your posts got so eloquent all of a sudden :) Or maybe you have a split personality, that explains it.

"Rumel, are you serious? Israel is on the cutting edge of research in molecular biology, agronomy, computer science, in addition to, yes, you guessed it, weapons research. The Israelis not only manufacture and export their own weapon systems (Kfir, Merkava, etc.) but are major contributors to science and technology in general."

There's no doubt about that. I was responding to your post that all countries that don't have strong militaries are primtive. You still didn't explain how Europe is backed by NATO, the US essentially. Is Europe "primitive," your own words, because of that? Were the Jews in Europe primitive because Hitler

Can you explain these contradictions in your postings? I doubt it. But I have faith in you Richard K., that you can reconcile your multiple identities.

And by the way, lets not forget that atleat a third of usaid goes to Israel, to help with the military expertise Israel has acquired.

U.S. Financial Aid To Israel: Figures, Facts, and Impact

http://www.washington-report.org/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm

U.S. Military Aid and the Israel/Palestine Conflict

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/usaid.html

Let us not forget the sometimes violent nature of Mother Nature:

e.g. Pandemic Spanish influenza Worldwide
death toll:

1918–1920 20,000,000-100,000,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_disasters_by_death_toll#Top_10_deadliest_natural_disasters_.5B1.5D

Rumel, are you serious? Israel is on the cutting edge of research in molecular biology, agronomy, computer science, in addition to, yes, you guessed it, weapons research. The Israelis not only manufacture and export their own weapon systems (Kfir, Merkava, etc.) but are major contributors to science and technology in general. Notwithstanding the Moslem lamentations and resentment, the Jews are founding members of Western civilization along with the Greeks and Romans. That requires a somewhat more advanced mind-set than running wild-eyed through the desert screaming "Death to the infidels!"

But don't despair, Rumel, you'll get there eventually. As it is, there are peoples on this planet compared to whom the Arab Moslems stand out as beacons of enlightenment. Just think of the savages that are ravaging Africa with their rape and mayhem. They are as far behind the Moslems in cultural development as the Moslems are behind the West.

RichardKefalos wrote:
The Islamic "civilization," such as it is, is utterly incapable of manufacturing even weapons, something near and dear to Moslem's hearts. I suppose it's a good thing that they are so primitive that they lack the capability to develop weapons, not that it seems to impede the Moslems from using them in any way. There is no way Islamic "civilization" can match the West, in either good or evil. Our killers kill more, and our saviors save more. Islam is a screaming rump, seething with resentment at the more advanced culture represented by the West.

Do you feel the same way about Israel, since they get strong military support from the US? Are they "primitive," then, to use your words, since they can't kill as many people as the West? What about Western Europe, since they're backed by NATO and depend on US military support. What about France when they were taken over by the Nazis? I guess the French were pretty primitive too then, huh?

And I am also proud of the food and medicines we send to the Moslem countries that are unable to make it for themselves. You gotta take the bad with the good.

Wow RichardKefalos, I didn't think somebody could be so proud of genocice, lol.

Rumel wrote: "the facts show that the West and atheistic communist states killed tens of millions of people. Infinitely more thsn Islamic civilization ever could."

Of course that's more that Islamic "civilization" ever could. It's not easy to kill tens of millions with suicide vests, and other equipment stolen and otherwise obtained from the West. The Islamic "civilization," such as it is, is utterly incapable of manufacturing even weapons, something near and dear to Moslem's hearts. I suppose it's a good thing that they are so primitive that they lack the capability to develop weapons, not that it seems to impede the Moslems from using them in any way. There is no way Islamic "civilization" can match the West, in either good or evil. Our killers kill more, and our saviors save more. Islam is a screaming rump, seething with resentment at the more advanced culture represented by the West.

Thanks CCNL1! By those numbers, the West\atheism wins!!

221 million deaths

East Asia comes in 2nd with 84 million.

Islamic conflicts come in 3rd with 76 million, and Africa comes in last with 8 million.

Way to go West\atheism!!

MatthewNeville wrote:
"Jewish helicopter gun-ships, tanks and high-tech weaponry ..."

Wow, I didn't know military equipment had a religion. I suppose we have Christian helicopters somewhere as well, right?

As for Gaza, if they don't want to be attacked, then I suggest they stop shelling Israel. The Hamas provoked the Israeli response. As you make your bed, so shall you lie.

More Body Counts:

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

"Rank Death Toll Cause Centuries
1 55 million Second World War 20C
2 40 million Mao Zedong (mostly famine) 20C
3 40 million Mongol Conquests 13C
4 36 million An Lushan Revolt 8C
5 25 million Fall of the Ming Dynasty 17C
6 20 million Taiping Rebellion 19C
7 20 million Annihilation of the American Indians (South, Central, North) 15C-19C
8 20 million Stalin 20C
9 19 million Mideast Slave Trade 7C-19C
10 18 million Atlantic Slave Trade 15C-19C
11 17 million Timur Lenk 14C-15C
12 17 million British India (mostly famine) 19C
13 15 million First World War 20C
14 9 million Russian Civil War 20C
15 8 million Fall of Rome 3C-5C
16 8 million Congo Free State 19C-20C
17 7 million Thirty Years War 17C
18 5 million Russia's Time of Troubles 16C-17C
19 4 million Napoleonic Wars 19C
20 3 million Chinese Civil War 20C
21 3 million French Wars of Religion 16C"

The Facts:

1a) 179 killed in Mumbai/Bombay, 290 injured

1b) Assassination of Benazir Bhutto and Theo Van Gogh

2) 9/11, 3000 mostly US citizens, 1000’s injured

3) The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, US Troops, 3,456 killed action, 861 non-combat and 92,300 – 100,775 Iraqi civilians killed, http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ and
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

4) Kenya- In Nairobi, about 212 people were killed and an estimated 4000 injured; in Dar es Salaam, the attack killed at least 11 and wounded 85.[2]

5) Bali-in 2002-killing 202 people, 164 of whom were foreign nationals, and 38 Indonesian citizens. A further 209 people were injured.

6) Bali in 2005- Twenty people were killed, and 129 people were injured by three bombers who killed themselves in the attacks.

7) Spain in 2004- killing 191 people and wounding 2,050.

8) UK in 2005- The bombings killed 52 commuters and the four radical Islamic suicide bombers, injured 700.

9) The execution of an eloping couple in Afghanistan on 04/15/2009 by the Taliban.

Sharia Law is the Pandora's Box of Islam. No mainstream Islamic sect or organization renouces or denounces Sharia, and they probably never will, because it's primarily based on the actions of Muhammed, who is considered the perfect man, whose behavior is to be emulated.

The Western World in general, and America in particular, should stop trying to pretend that current mainstream Islam is compatible with Western Civilization's concept of human rights. It's not.

Even 'secular' Muslim countries, Turkey and Indonesia, are becoming intolerant theocracies, with Indonesia attempting to ban the Ahmadiyya Muslim sect, whom they consider heretical and blasphemous for believing in a prophet, or messiah, that came after Muhammed. It's ironic that Islam, which purports to replace Christianity, just can't handle being replaced itself.

Let Muslim majority countries figure out what's best for them. If they want to go through Islamic versions of the Inquisition and Salem witch trials, let them. If Saudis, Pakis, Iranians, and Afghanis want to live under Taliban-like regimes, let them!

Posted by: jmorris49

What Muslim has been arrested and criminally prosecuted in a Western nation for possession of the Koran?

No, they just throw them down the toilet here.

When will Muslim earn respect? When they stand up and defend religious liberty through the planet and cease its quest to Islamize the globe under the banner of Islam.

Who is seriously trying to do this? A few fanatics at most. But their gripes are political really, not religious at the core. Your fear of Islam is paranoia. Whereas there are Christian sects that have already converted most of the world to their religion.

In Europe non-hijab wearing women are targets of rape because it's OKAY to rape infidel women. Rapes of infidel women by Muslims have soared in European nations.

I doubt this very much.

Sure, Christianity had its own problems with inquisitions and brutality but somehow the Christian world developed along the line of human rights.

Somehow? How, enlighten us. (I'm sure industrailization and economic modernization have something to do with it. But how do we start it? Millions of pages have been written by economists, but we still don't know.)

Why hasn't Islam undergone an Enlightenment like the Christian world?

Where did the Enlightenment come from? It was Muslim civilizations that preserved the learning of the Greeks and Romans, while the Europeans burned libraries and languished in the Dark Ages. It was exposure to these Islamic civilzations that launched modernity in Europe.

Why are Muslims worldwide among the poorest and most desperate of humans on the planet as they live under murderous oligarchs in abject poverty?

I'm sure the US support of these dictators is a big factor.

The Muslim PR mouthpieces cannot con us with the "Islam is a religion of peace" slop. Show us the tolerance, respect and peace. Islam needs to prove to Christians, Jews, Hindus and other religious that it is serious about defending the religious, civil and economic liberty of all folks - regardless of their religious beliefs.

Christians need to prove to Hindus that there is no taking advantage of poor Hindus in India. And Christians need to prove to the world that Mormons are not converting everybody to Mormonism.

Islam, the religion/ideology is as open to inspection and criticism as any other concept, at least to the Western mind. So far, only in Islamic societies is criticism frowned on, even criminalized.

Criticising Islam is not the same as criticising Muslims - that's easy to conflate, and so destroy legitimate argumentation. Best resist the bait.

A common response to criticising Islam is to criticise Christianity; that's a distraction, and unfortunately, often effective. Criticising Islam is not well answered by defending Christianity, certainly not by counting body parts. Best resist the bait, or agree to enter a deep and long theological discussion. This is a difficult forum to try to do that.

Check out the videos of Pat Condell for lively presentations of the dangers of religion(s). Islam is a frequent target, as it currently presents the greatest dangers to Western culture. The video below is an example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bzTA_D5NpU

jmorris49:

How do you explain that Jews in the Middle Ages left Europe to live under tolerant Islamic theocracies? Because their religion was tolerated.

How do you explain my post about Christian missionaries taking advantage of poor Hindus in India?

How do you explain the prosletyzing of Jehova's Witnesses and Mormons in this country? Especially the latter converting every person that ever lived, to "save" them? Muslims aren't doing anything like that.

Please explain.

jmorris49:

Why does the US endorse dictators in the Muslim world? And the frequent annulling of fair elections?

rumel, you asked,
"walter-in-fallschurch,
Will you address the fact that you called a billion people a disease? A "pathology," in your own words."
well first of all, as i explained, those are not my words, they are Robespierre's words - but i did agree with him.
religion can be thought of as a virus:
"That is to say, a meme is an idea, which mutates and is inherited like a gene and spreads like a virus. (Dawkins has in fact written an essay on ``Viruses of the Mind,'' which has now infected the Web.)"
http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/formerly-hyper-weird/memetics.html
longer answer coming.
Posted by: walter-in-fallschurch | June 8, 2009 1:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Fair enough. But then why do you single out one religion? Especially when the facts show that the West and atheistic communist states killed tens of millions of people. Infinitely more thsn Islamic civilization ever could.

Let's not exclude the 60,000,000 Native Americans, for starters.

Please explain in your longer post.

rumel, you asked,

"walter-in-fallschurch,
Will you address the fact that you called a billion people a disease? A "pathology," in your own words."

well first of all, as i explained, those are not my words, they are Robespierre's words - but i did agree with him.

religion can be thought of as a virus:
"That is to say, a meme is an idea, which mutates and is inherited like a gene and spreads like a virus. (Dawkins has in fact written an essay on ``Viruses of the Mind,'' which has now infected the Web.)"
http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/formerly-hyper-weird/memetics.html

longer answer coming.

Muslims wonder why Americans fear Islam? It's because there are no religious liberties in Muslim countries for non-Muslims. In Egypt the Coptic Christians are ruthlessly brutalized. All non-Muslim religions are banned in Saudi Arabia and folks have been arrested for the possession of the Bible. What Muslim has been arrested and criminally prosecuted in a Western nation for possession of the Koran? In Pakistan, Christians are viciously persecuted by Muslims.

And the list goes on and on....

When will Muslim earn respect? When they stand up and defend religious liberty through the planet and cease its quest to Islamize the globe under the banner of Islam. Throughout history, Islam has persecuted and/or taxed the Dhimmis because they consider anything "non-Islamic" to be inferior. Hence, Islam refuses to adopt Western standards of human rights.

In Europe non-hijab wearing women are targets of rape because it's OKAY to rape infidel women. Rapes of infidel women by Muslims have soared in European nations.

Sure, Christianity had its own problems with inquisitions and brutality but somehow the Christian world developed along the line of human rights. Slavery is still sanctioned by Islam because the Koran says its OKAY. The Bible may say "Slave obey your masters with fear and trembling" but hardly a Christian exists who supports slavery.

Why hasn't Islam undergone an Enlightenment like the Christian world? Why are Muslims worldwide among the poorest and most desperate of humans on the planet as they live under murderous oligarchs in abject poverty?

These are issues that only Islam can resolve. Thus far, I haven't witnessed any Muslims clamoring for the human rights of Muslims and/or non-Muslims for that matter. What Muslim organizations are reporting on the total lack of religious intolerance in the Muslim world? Jew hatred is so rampant that many Muslims consider Hitler a hero. Christians don't raise their kids to go poof for Jesus but Muslims consider it a duty to raise their kids to go poof for Allah.

The Muslim PR mouthpieces cannot con us with the "Islam is a religion of peace" slop. Show us the tolerance, respect and peace. Islam needs to prove to Christians, Jews, Hindus and other religious that it is serious about defending the religious, civil and economic liberty of all folks - regardless of their religious beliefs.

While I do have serious issues with Islam because as it is presently constituted it does in fact represent a clear and present danger to all of human civilization, I absolutely oppose the U.S. invasion and occupation of Muslim nations.

Obama's speech is meaningless so long as he continues to escalate the U.S. murder of Muslims. We can't fix what ails Islam. Only Islam has the power to change whatever has delivered Islam to such a barbarous state of infamy.

I actually don't have enough time to respond to this article because I could respond to almost every sentence!

Islam IS a violent religion. But don't take my word for it. I challange you to read the Qur'an, Siras and Hadiths and learn for yourselves what Islam is and what it isn't!

The writer states, "The Quran says in one place "There shall be no compulsion in religion." And in another it says, "To you your beliefs and to me, mine." This is most blatant lie I have ever heard. The Qur'an also says to "kill the unbeliever wherever you find him!"

Please don't rely on this article as a factual statement. It definitely is not. Like I said, read it for yourself and then reach your own conclusions.

Has anyone mentioned that the number of "slaughtered Muslims" in Iraq since the Christian US invaded has now reached 1,331,578.(ICH)

.

walter-in-fallschurch,

Will you address the fact that you called a billion people a disease? A "pathology," in your own words.

Posted by: walter-in-fallschurch
re: ireland violence: your numbers are wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/17/world/ira-apologizes-for-civilian-deaths-in-its-30-year-campaign.html

true, it's shameful, but not nearly as bad. islamists killed more people on sep.11 than the ira ever has.

ok, fair enough. Its pretty close. But you seem to justify the IRA implicitly.

Lets just go then with the 100,000 civilians killed by an unnecessary war in Iraq started by the US, started by a president that you yourself said you were ashamed of. That's progress.

the tamil tigers reference is a red herring. that is (was?) not a religious war. true, they are terrorists, but they don't (i think - i could be wrong here) use religious text to justify their actions.

How is it not a religious\ethnic war? The Tamils are Hindus and the majority Sinhalese Buddhist. Your facts are way off, and selective (as usual).

re: ireland violence: your numbers are wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/17/world/ira-apologizes-for-civilian-deaths-in-its-30-year-campaign.html

true, it's shameful, but not nearly as bad. islamists killed more people on sep.11 than the ira ever has.

the tamil tigers reference is a red herring. that is (was?) not a religious war. true, they are terrorists, but they don't (i think - i could be wrong here) use religious text to justify their actions.

walter-in-fallschurch just called a billion people a disease, a social pathology.

You certainly haven't moved beyond anything.

American Amnesia and the War Crimes committed by Christians and Jews against Muslims !

The Christian US government pours aid and weapons into Jewish Israel to kill Muslims and to maintain an illegal occupation of Muslim land there for over 60 years.

Jewish helicopter gun-ships, tanks and high-tech weaponry, Caterpillar bulldozers, and all the other paraphernalia of military oppression used against an occupied people who are mainly Muslim .

Israel's recent attack on Gaza killed 1,330 Palestinians, mainly civilians, and wounded 5,450 others.

Among the dead were 437 children, 110 women, 123 elderly men, 14 medics and four journalists.

The wounded include 1,890 children and 200 people in serious condition.

The majority of the victims were civilians, including nearly 900 (again including the stillborn) children, approximately 5,500 severely wounded, and more than one third of the 1.5 million population was displaced while more than 14,000 homes were completely destroyed. Approximately 92,000 Palestinians are still homeless with more than 16,000 living as many as 20 to a small tent without latrines, as supplies remain blocked at the borders.

The war also left tens of thousands of houses destroyed, while their residents remained homeless in the winter cold.

Single-limb fractures and the walking wounded are not included in the above figures, according to renowned British surgeon Dr. Swee Ang, currently conducting an on-the-ground medical investigation in Gaza. Dr. Swee and her medical colleagues estimate that of the severely injured, 1,600 will suffer permanent disabilities. These include amputations, spinal cord injuries, head injuries, and large burns with crippling contractures.

Also bombed were 68 government buildings and 31 NGO complexes, buildings all of which were completely or partially destroyed. Property damage and loss of livelihood has been estimated at close to 2 billion dollars.

"Gaza" cannot sleep...the cries of hungry children, the sullen faces of broken men and women who are just sitting in their hungry emptiness with no light, no hope all thanks to Christians and Jews who have forgotten.

.

george bush was a blight on the american presidency. we (i anyway) am ashamed of him. he's gone now - we fixed that.

So then when did the US move away from, in your words, " but the west has moved beyond sexism, religionism and theocracy."

6 months ago? Just like that?

what muslim countries can you say are moving in the right direction. what muslism countries could even have an election - a free and fair one, not like iran's upcoming "election" between mullah-approved candidates?

Let's start with Bangladesh. Free elections pretty much since 1990. Don't count out Turkey, a potential candidate for the EU as well.

If you take a look at Sufism and other mystical variants of Islam, you can see that its spiritual core is just as powerful and compelling as Judaism's or Christianity's. In my opinion, though, Islam is too embedded in Arab culture (or vice-versa) to be a truly universal religion. As long as Islam - or a large number of its adherents - insists that God wants us all to look, dress, think, act, and live like Bedouins, it will always be regarded in the West as a foreign object.

If you can strip away all the desert nomad crap, you'll have something worth preserving. You may even win many new converts.

Christian Terror and Aggression in India

http://christianwatchindia.wordpress.com/2007/01/04/documentary-on-christian-conversion-in-india-to-uproot-hinduism/

The Sinister Designs of the Christian Missionaries in India

http://www.christianaggression.org/item_display.php?type=ARTICLES&id=1058931897

Christian Missionaries Take Aim At India – Deceptive Bible & Other Questionable Tactics

http://sathyasaibaba.wordpress.com/2008/08/10/christian-missionaries-take-aim-at-india-deceptive-bible-other-questionable-tactics/

There are very passionate authors in this forum that apparently have no intention except to vilify the Muslim faith. They want to convince me, the reader, that I should fear and loathe all muslims and their religion. This is an immature, ignorant, and narrow-minded position.

You can take this as condescending; I don't care. I feel sad for people that need to view the world simplistically as a struggle of us against them. Good versus evil. This is child's viewpoint. As an adult you are capable of comprehending the complexity in the world. Instead of using your energy to find what makes you different from others, you can find what makes you common. You can celebrate differences; instead you use your energy demonizing differences.

I have traveled extensively through Indonesia - a very diverse and predominately Muslim country. No amount of puffed rhetoric will convince me that these are bad people following an evil religion. These are good people that are devoutly religious and peace loving. They are family oriented, and they love their children. They have their flaws and contradictions just as my Baptist family in Alabama has their flaws and contradictions.

The struggle with Islam is a struggle within Islam. I think those that frame it as a struggle of modernity versus barbarism have it right. Christianity in the United States has its own struggles with modernity. For example, we have conflicts over woman's rights in this country. We have conflict within Christianity over acceptance of Gays and Lesbians. Both of these issues sometimes turn violent, and sadly, it is the self-described Christian that kills.

Before you chose to share your hate, take a moment to recognize that this world has enough hate. We don't need you.

walter-in-fallschurch and golovsky have called a billion people a disease and filth, respectively.

That's exactly what Hitler called the Jews. That's pretty disgusting.

I think Feisal makes too much of the President's speech and actions toward Islam.

"For each of the problems Obama cited -- American occupation in Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the spread of nuclear weapons, development of democracy, religious freedom, women's rights and economic development -- Islam presents a solution."

Hmmm. I wonder why there is no democracy, women's rights, or religious freedom in Muslim countries? Why are women begheaded at soccer matches for trumped up charges of sexual promiscuity. And why are the men involved never indicted or punuished? Why are people fearful of having a body part chopped off if it is culpable of a sin...and who's judging those "sins?" We believe in "live and let live." You don't ans Islam doesn't. You want us all to become Muslim. I demand the rights that you demand....to practice my OWN religious beliefs as I see fit, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same. YOU CANNOT SAY THE SAME or you tell untruth.The Koran states it is okay to deceive in service of the greater good...Islam!!!

Even the Ayatollah Khomeini has been quoted as telling Muslims to act friendly until they have the upper hand in any culture. If the events in Europe are an example of what Islam can bring to a culture, count us out!Madea

rumel,
let's check the headlines:

What about your "metric?" All the headlines you summarize won't come close to the number of civilian Tamil Tigers' have killed. You don't want to address that.

You don't address that the LTTE also pioneered suicide bombings and trained the PLO in this technique.

More "metrics": the IRA killed more people than the 9/11 bombers. Wait, they're not Muslim. How does this happen?

This article is politically correct nonsense.

Samuel Hunnington's book "Clash of Civilizations" does not say Islam and the West must be in conflict. It takes a rational look at the Islamic world - which is not always consistent with the Quran.

As far as "Never before has an American president spoken to the global Muslim community." Huh!!! Every president since Carter has. Usually starting with "the people who perpetrated X do not represent Islam a religion of peace." "X" in this case is the Iranian Hostage situation in the 70's, bombing of the Marine barricks and French embassy in the 80's, the Cole in te 90's and of course, 9/11.

While appoligists like to say Islam is a religion of peace they leave out that the Quran lays out a form of governence which condones violence and lying to infadels is ok to promote Islam.

I know, these guys are so right!

I just hate it when the Muslims come up to my door and tell me how bad my religion is, or bad that I don't have one. They come in their suits and ties and try to convert me.

Oh wait, that's Jehova's Witnesses and Mormons.

No wait, you're right. They have a mountain full of records of every person ever born on this planet and are converting to their religion to "save" them, even if they're dead.

Oh no wait, that's the Mormons too.

Islam has demonstrated that if you behave badly enough for a long enough period of time, liberals will start to love you.

Because liberals have no self-respect and hate themselves.

Even if only 1% of US arab/muslim 6 mln. population is potential terrorists you can count... But the rest is just Fifth Column of more-less active supporters...
There is no such thing as Clash of Civilizations. We have clash of the Western Civilization with barbarians. The real problem is: the Western Civilization - corrupted, immoral, liberal, weak - is dying.
A very sad but an appropriate end.

muslim apologists can quote a few "peace" verses from the koran, and critics can quote "hate" verses. we can argue over who is interpreting things correctly.

the fact is, given violent intentions, it is EASY for a militant muslim to find koranic justification for violence. many muslims take the horrible verses at face value. these horrible verses are in there and provide justification for bad people. they are not quite so sophisticated as the "context" muslims who claim ALL the "bad" verses are being taken out of context.

now, i'm an atheist, so i think this whole thing is over 1000s of years old made-up doctrines.

but, i challenge any muslim apologist out there to find anything as horrible in the new testament as "slay the idolotors wherever you find them."

I'm looking forward to wearing black clothing 24x7, being forced to drop everything and pray several times a day, and being told which direction I have to face when using the toilet. We need to get those girls barefoot and out of the schools.

"Religous freedom is at the core of islam?" Tell that to the thousands of Christians who today are killed and persecuted by muslims. You can begin with a place called Darfur. Words on a page are not nearly as telling as actions. The truth is that there just may be a clash of civilizations in progress. The 3000 dead in the US on September 11, 2001 could attest to that fact. Dialogue with islamic dictators must begin on our part with a good look at reality.

Oh boy !!!! Buga Buga Boo !!!!

You got me trembling that the "Creator" of this World of this universe & the "thousands" of other universes or even his "son" is going once more to devote time & energy to this needle in the haystack of universes called Earth ???

Don't accept the scientific version of the development of life on this Earth better to believe in the "Creation" & even Santa Claus ???

As has been said before there are no Christian children ,no Moslem children ,no Jewish children only children of Christian ,Moslem and Jewish parents !!!!

Christian/Moslem/Jewish etc etc indoctrinating of children -- is only a form of pedophilia !!!!!!

Its 2009 we have science these days to educate without the Inquisition and its Mumbo Jumbo to control the good people !!

Those evil prostelizing Evangelicals & other Christians are still "brainwashing" poor "ignorant but lovely people" in undeveloped countries "brainwashing" the weak willed , feeble brained humans anywhere to join up !!!!

Jews are different because they are directly "chosen" by this Almighty Creator of Universes.

They are indoctrinated worse than the others !!!

Gimme a break !!

rumel,
let's check the headlines:

2009.06.07 (Mogadishu, Somalia) - A radio station director is shot in the head by suspected fundamentalists.

2009.06.07 (Kandahar, Afghanistan) - Mujahideen manage to kill a mother and son with a landmine.

2009.06.07 (Faryab, Afghanistan) - Taliban ambush a police post and murder four local officers.

2009.06.07 (Narathiwat, Thailand) - A storekeeper is blasted to death by Muslim truck bombers.

2009.06.07 (Narathiwat, Thailand) - Islamic militants gun down two village defense volunteers in cold blood.

2009.06.06 (Islamabad, Pakistan) - Two local cops are taken down by a Shahid suicide bomber.

it was a relatively peaceful day.

test

Great,

When the "religion of peace" agrees to stop stoning their women to death for adultery, give me a call.

Which Jewish "apostates" were put to death, when, and by whom?

Hmmm, Jesus if you believe the literal NT and then there was St. Stephen if you believe the Acts of the Apostles.

rumel, you said
"And in the name of Robespierre too? Shame."

i was quoting Robespierre, and agreeing with him/her - not saying something "in the name of" him/her.

President Obama in a public relations foray has selected and every Muslim
understands this, the two most undemocratic and unpopular countries in the world in order to promote economic interests of the US and Israel. This
stealthy exercise is to fetch money from the Arabs. Getting money from Muslims has now moved from threats and intimidation to begging. Note that the President went to Saudi Arabia but not to Syria or Jordan. Why would Saudi Arabia, and Egypt want a democratic Palestine next door? Their geopolitical interests along with the Israel's as well as economic interests
of the US beg not to allow the resolution of the Palestine problem or Golan Heights problem or Kashmir problem. This President may be sincere but he cannot deliver. Americans should stop shedding alligator tears; Muslims have come to fathom them well and are not impressed at all. As a matter of fact this Obama visit has exposed American intentions of inaction to even the naive person. Unfortunately, this encourages countries like Iran to a path
of confrontation than peace. No shift in American policies of supporting
occupation of Muslim lands is in the offing. Americans need to stop supporting and sponsoring corrupt tyrants of the Muslim world, their warlords and landlords, instead of sending armies and meaningless signals particularly at the tax-payers expense in order to support lobbyist and agents at home and abroad. Muslims are waiting for some indication that their corrupt are being denied access to American and Swiss banks and that
they are not the victims of massive moneylaundering.. The President also
needs to find George Mitchell and restore the original mission of Holbrooke
to include the Kashmir dispute that was cleverly scrapped. Unless sincerity
accompanies statements in the form of effective measures to benefit the
suffering Muslim masses, rhetoric, honorable Barak, is not acceptable no
matter how many Muslim agents the US recruits to build its image.

If one believes in God (whatever God) then there is absolutely no place for violence, greed, imposition of power/will and discrimination of any kind. All there is is just HUMANITY and Tolerance. I believe in the mantra of "to each his own".

I firmly believe that discrimination is brought about by those who are fearful of their own abilities and have insecurities of their own and try to suppress/eliminate the OTHER so that they dont need to worry about any competition at all! We are God's children and discrimination against women/minorities is brought about by misinterpretations of religious diktats and that famous "insecure" mind set.

Religion is a very personal bond with an individual and God. It has no place in either Governance or politics.

I am born a Hindu but I have tremendous respect for every religion past or present. Those who commit violence (physical or verbal) bring shame to their God.

Obama will make progress with Islam by simply throwing the Jewish state under the bus. Stats are that 24 percent of adult Jews in the US hold graduate or advanced degrees and 76 percent of Jews in the US voted for Obama. What were they thinking?

What's amusing by all this ga-ga over Obama "landmark speech" worship, is that Bush delivered the same sort of rhetoric (minus the apologist/moral equivalence/golden means/straddle the fence/vote present/appeasement concession language), appealing for tolerance, citing from the Quran, emphatically stating that Islam is a religion of peace, that we aren't at war with Islam but with extremists, etc, etc.

Obama says it, *swoon* *applause* "landmark speech!"

-wordsmith from nantucket
floppingaces.net

totto90, you said
"To Montedoro, in Koran, you can't single verses like that, you have to look at the verses before and after it and why it was said.
In time of Muhammad, every war Muslims engaged in was for self defense, they never started a war"

oh puleese... islam is a religion of peace and all that huh? americans are twisting and distorting the peaceful words of the koran, huh? well IF that's the case (and i don't believe it is), then there are a lot of MUSLIMS twisting and distorting the koran.

could you please explain to osama and his taliban buddies what they're doing wrong. they seem to be taking the koran at face value when it says "slay the idolators". apparently you're saying that's out of context? again, please help your militant brethren with their plain reading of the koran.

apparently they (and i) have missed the parts where the koran talks about peace love and toleration - for everyone, not just muslims. please don't trot out the "people of the book" thing. you might think that's tolerance, but it's not - not even close. that's two-tiered discrimination.

I love all the ignorance and racism that goes on here. My religion is better that yours. Your religion breeds hate, fear, and evil. My religion is the only way to truth, peace and the American Dream. Your religion brainwashes people. My religion would never brainwash. Only untill my religion destroys your religion will there be true peace on this earth.

rumel, you said,
"Lovely. George Bush was a great example of secularism wasn't he? He surely didn't believe God made him President and that he was carrying out God's will in weakening science and crusading around the world. No one in the West would strengthen ties between church and state, would they?
Ooops. It just happened here for 8 years."

george bush was a blight on the american presidency. we (i anyway) am ashamed of him. he's gone now - we fixed that. what muslim countries can you say are moving in the right direction. what muslism countries could even have an election - a free and fair one, not like iran's upcoming "election" between mullah-approved candidates?

OnFaith is a joke. It seems to exist for two reasons:

1) Give liberal writers another place to share their hyper-partisan views, this time under the thin guise of "Faith".

2) Give angry and intolerant liberals the opportunity to post their anti-religious hate speech.

OnFaith does these two things very well, but nothing else.

Without doubt, President Obama's words were more eloquently delivered than his predecessor, President Bush. I recall, however, that President Bush fell all over himself after 9/11 declaring that "Islam is a religion of peace". His motives were clear - he was afraid that "ordinary" Americans would take revenge against American Muslims and, for the most part, he was successful.

To suggest, however, that the "phoney theory of the clash of civilizations has been demolished" by a speech is an outright lie. One need look no further than the gulf that exists in the area of women's rights to see the "clash". It was a clash yesterday, a clash today and it will be a clash in the future. Make no mistake about it.

Symphon, your analysis of IslamI and IslamR are simply perfect. You are so right and expressed the truth 100%.

IslamR = Islam, the Religion: praying, avoiding pork, washing, hajj, fasting, ... (does not affect outsiders, obligates only adherents)

IslamI = Islam, the Ideology: Supremacism, totalitarianism, obligations of world conquest, ... (affects, obligates outsiders)

Islam = IslamR + IslamI, a complete system for life; an intimate, inseparable mixture of R and I.

Western civilization tolerates, encourages IslamR, as it tolerates all religions; it doesn't criticise any religion's mumbojumbo.

That is - that ought to be - the extent of the West's toleration. It has to protect itself from Islam because of the presence of IslamI within Islam, which is antithetical to the West's survival.

Tricky business. The quotations you see in these messages are all IslamI. There are no quotations of Western ideology here; we don't need to see them - we know what they are, but if you forget, then contradict the Koranic quotations that you do see here.

The West must reject these IslamI principles in order to survive. In order for the West to retain its identity and co-exist with Islam, Islam has to renounce its ideology; or, in order for Islam to retain its identity and co-exist with the West, the West has to renounce its ideology. If "civilization" means "ideology", then this is a clash of civilizations.

President Obama's speech is not cognizant of this, seems to deny this.

Western ideology, however, is malleable; its principles can be examined, discussed, amended. It was built to adapt. You can straighten out shortcomings of Western civilization and Western civilization is still intact.

The principles of Islam, being god's immutable word, are impossible to amend; they can only be ignored or given fantastic interpretations, which fundamentalists can easily show contradict, not refine the ideology.

Islam is like a corkscrew: you can straighten out a corkscrew. But then, it is no longer a corkscrew.

Are you kidding me? Islam breeds violence, intolerance and extremism. There's no moderation in their faith. They seek to destroy "idolators"... This world is not simply Judeo-Christian-Islamic. In fact, those three religions are the causes of most of the problems in the world today. Mohammed did not espouse the ideals of being the first feminist, rather-he married a girl who was under the age of 10. The hadiths are littered with contradictions in the faith and the Q'uran... could never be the word of God. It's soooo partial and biased. Muslims response to this is always the same....:"You've taken it out of context..." Sure??!! Let me follow a faith that has some hidden esoteric meaning.... that secretly wants to convert the entire world. Rubbish!! It's simply not a faith, but a political and social movement as well. America needs to wake up...

Chris30338 writes: "Both Christianity and Judaism are replete with examples of "apostates" being put to death."

Judaism is rabbinic Judaism as you know. However, if in your answer to my question, you would like to include the Kairites, I have no objection, none whatsoever.

I do not know of a single Jewish "apostate," who was ever put to death by Jews.

Which Jewish "apostates" were put to death, when, and by whom?

No religion is truly "peaceful" because humans are constantly fighting. As violent humans made up religion, so too, the religions they make up are also violent.

Islam, Chirstianity are "peace". Rubbish.

And in the name of Robespierre too? Shame.

Posted by: walter-in-fallschurch | June 7, 2009 11:57 PM
robespierre, you said
"In short, Islam is a social pathology, and we cannot compromise with it. In a theological sense, it could be called God's curse on the world. Only when it is weakened or destroyed will be begin to even consider world peace."

amen! they've got to figure out how to misinterpret their scripture to allow for tolerance, harmony, peace etc...

Are you kidding me? You're calling a billion peace loving people a "pathology?" A disease? Because there's a tiny fraction who use Islam for political purposes? Are you serious? Hitler gets thrown around a lot in discussion posts, but he certainly believed and espoused the Jews as a disease. This is where facism and genocide, no doubt about it.

Posted by: doloresgladtidings | June 8, 2009 1:52 AM

Freedom and individual human dignity are anathema to Islam, which is why the US is called the great satan. Please, people check the facts.

Please doloresgladtidings, check the facts: the US is called the great satan in Iran because the US propped up a ruthless dictator there for many decades. Please, check the facts.

To Montedoro, in Koran, you can't single verses like that, you have to look at the verses before and after it and why it was said.
In time of Muhammad, every war Muslims engaged in was for self defense, they never started a war

Posted by: walter-in-fallschurch | June 7, 2009 11:33 PM

lovely. what good have muslims done lately? i mean, thanks for algebra and numerals, but the west has moved beyond sexism, religionism and theocracy.

Lovely. George Bush was a great example of secularism wasn't he? He surely didn't believe God made him President and that he was carrying out God's will in weakening science and crusading around the world. No one in the West would strengthen ties between church and state, would they?

Ooops. It just happened here for 8 years.

Who props up dictators and constantly denies democratically elected governments from taking their seat in the Middle East? And has done so throughout the world only to support US interests? US backed dictators.

Go Western civ, a strong promoter of democracy worldwide, go team!!

Obama did not challenge the muslim world as much as he tried to give a false advertisement proclaiming false attributes to them. Islam in much different than a religion. It encompasses every aspect of a persons life right down to eliminating one's self. It is a political control system that demands all people obey or die. It is obvious that many of the writers here have either not read the Koran, or are caught up in the cover-up of what is actually in it!
Freedom and individual human dignity are anathema to Islam, which is why the US is called the great satan. Please, people check the facts. Also, just because a person calls their self a Christian, does not mean they are one. Millions have died at the hands of fake ones.

check the paper tomorrow and compare the number of victims of islam-inspired suicide/homocide bombings to the number of christian+jewish+buddhist+etc...homocide bombings and i bet islam "wins"....

Posted by: walter-in-fallschurch | June 8, 2009 12:26 AM

False. By your "metric" the Western Nazi's killed about 6 million Jews alone. Yeah, the West "wins."

Don't forget who pioneered suicide bombings, suicide belts, and using women suicide bombers: the Tamil Tigers, the recently defeated Separatist group of Sri Lanka, which is responsible for the deaths of at least 70-80K. Do your homework, they're not Muslim.

Obama has never read the Koran or the sayings of Muhammad, and therefore Obama knows nothing about Islam. His claim to understand Islam is phony and pretentious. In order to understand Islam, one must study the Koran and the sayings of Muhammad. After all, all the Moslem terrorists do so, and they quote from those sources all the time in order to justify their murderous deeds. Let's see Rauf explain away the following passages:

FROM THE KORAN:

--The unbelievers are your inveterate enemy. (4:101)
-- Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. (48:29).
-- It is unlawful for a believer to kill another believer, accidents excepted. (4:92)
-- Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. (5:51)
-- Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme. (8:40)
-- Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme. (2:193)
-- The true believers fight for the cause of God, but the infidels fight for the devil. (4:76)
-- We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. (3:151)
-- I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers. (8:12)

FROM THE SAYINGS OF MUHAMMAD:
-- Muhammad said to the Jews: "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. “

-- Allah's Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' "

-- Mohammed said, "I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, "None has the right to be worshipped but Allah, and whoever says, " None has the right to be worshipped but Allah , his life and property will be saved by me." (otherwise it will not). Vol. 4:196

-- Mohammed said, "Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him." Vol. 9:57

-- Mohammed said, " No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir" (infidel). Vol. 9:50

-- Muhammad said: "Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, …"

This is really nothing more than Moslem BS propaganda. Here's why. Rauf write shis about Obama: "In just a few sentences he demolished the phony theory of the "Clash of Civilizations," Actually, Obama did not demolish anything except respect for the office of president of the United States. Obama has never even read the Koran, let alone the sayings of Muhammad. Obama's only qualification for speaking about Islam is his experience as a child living for three years in Indonesia.

The "theory of the "Clash of Civilizations" is not a theory and it is not phony. A civilization is defined by its values. Western Civilization is defined by the values enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- such as freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, equality of all citizens before the law and gender equality. The values of Islamic civilization are enshrined in the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam which all 56 Moslem-majority nations have subscribed to. The Cairo Declaration explicitly states that Islam is superior to all other religions, and that all human human rights must be in accord with Islamic sacred law, Sharia -- which relegates all women and all non-Moslems to inferior legal status, and which, among other things, provides the death penalty for blasphemy and apostasy. Sharia law also provides for permanent war which Islam must make on non-Moslems.

So, here we see that the values of Islam clash irreconcilably with the values of Western civilization. This is the best objective proof that, yes, there is, indeed, a clash of civilizations, and that it is Islam that caused the clash because it cannot coexist on a peaceful basis with any non-Islamic civilization.

Let Professor Rauf discuss the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam so that everyone can judge.

EarlC, you said,
"Percentagewise, I venture to say that the number of radical Muslims fairly approximates the growing percentage of radical Christians in our own country. The killing of one abortion doctor is but the tip of the iceberg. There are Timothy McVeys that live all around us."

uh...no way! abortion-doctor-killings and timothy mcveighs are so abhorent and shocking to us because they are so rare. that's everyday life in pakistan etc...

check the paper tomorrow and compare the number of victims of islam-inspired suicide/homocide bombings to the number of christian+jewish+buddhist+etc...homocide bombings and i bet islam "wins". this "metric" would probably work with a whole range of moral atrocities including honor killing, stoning, female circumcision, you name it.

This lady is one moderate Muslims working in the US and abroad to make Islam contemporary and human:
www.irshadmanji.com

vipermd, you said,
"Millions of Muslims and thousands of Mosques enjoy the freedom to thrive throughout the West, Israel, India and elsewhere, yet the same is not true for minoriities within Islamic societies..."

yes, muslims cannot conceive of separation of mosque and state. it's not on their radar. when they imagine a perfect society, it's one where all are allowed to practice whatever islamic faith they choose.

Kaos_Also: Your father ought to have imparted to you another nugget of wisdom, namely the ability to recognize an enemy when you meet one. I view any person an enemy who wants to forcibly (and even not so forcibly) alter our way of life to a theocracy. Of course the question is not "whether Islam is inherently good or bad." For there to be inherence, the thing must have a quality apart from the humans that constructed it. In other words, if one believes that religion comes from "god" then it has inherence and may be "inherently" good while some of its practitioners may be evil, or good, or any combination thereof regardless of the "inherent" qualities of the religion. However, if one believes that all religions are man-made, as I do, then their practice reflects the minds of their creators. Religion is only as good as its practitioners. Historically, this has not brought encouraging results, at least not in the Abrahamic sphere.

Anyone who comes to my land and declares that it is permissible to view women as inferiors whose manner of dress has to be controlled, for example, and homosexuals as sinful because "god" said so, I regard an enemy. I am perfectly willing to accept and befriend a Moslem who comes to my land, unless he insists on the right to follow the the social and religious rules that were inculcated in him in his former homeland, when these conflict with our customs. If he does, he becomes ipso facto an enemy. The secular West paid dearly, for centuries, until we were able to wrest power from the Church, and that is a heritage to be defended against all threats. In this matter, no compromise is possible.

captn_ahab,
nice posts. i'fve oftem made those points about the two-faced nature of islam. do you know arabic? have you heard what they say to each other in arabic? at mosques etc...

President Obama is trying to pave a road for moderate Muslims who do not agree with the fanatics, but have nowhere to go in the present situation.

cnj5954, you said,
"It's going to take an Islamist M.L. King before we se any meaningful change."

where is that guy? we need more than edhi, who has said, "i am a muslim, but my true religion is human rights."
http://www.edhifoundation.com/

robespierre, you said
"In short, Islam is a social pathology, and we cannot compromise with it. In a theological sense, it could be called God's curse on the world. Only when it is weakened or destroyed will be begin to even consider world peace."

amen! they've got to figure out how to misinterpret their scripture to allow for tolerance, harmony, peace etc...

"saadk,big difference between islam and christianity. you can find justification for violence in the koran. not so in the bible.
Posted by: 12thgenamerican "

well, jesus was pretty conciliatory (and the NT just plain silly), but the old testament is almost as awful as the koran. josiah is revered among ancient judean kings for having cleansed the temples of idols - that means DESTROYING other people's places of worship.

SaadK, you said,

"Both Islam and Christianity have some violent past. It's time to bury the hatchet."

yes, both have violent pasts. islam has a violent present.

spamdump2718,
man! great posts. i suspect we're the same. i'm generally very liberal socially, morally, politically etc...but, wow...the more i read the koran, the worse it gets. i completely understand why we have islamic "suicide" (homocide, actually) bombers. i'm shocked there aren't more. so, i share your pessimism.

but the only way to make progress is dialogue first. as nice as it sounds, we can't just bomb all the bad muslims...because they use the regular muslims as human shields...

i think at heart, before it gets all contaminated by alliegiance to this or that god, we all WANT to be good to each other. (cue the violins...)

hf1986, you said,

"...the Reconquista took approximately 500 years (most of Spain was taken back in 1236), but this had to do a lot with the blurred lines of combat... populations of the 6th-7th century Islamic state were actively assisting in the conquest of their oppressive rulers ..."

lovely. what good have muslims done lately? i mean, thanks for algebra and numerals, but the west has moved beyond sexism, religionism and theocracy.

When I left home for college, my father gave me yet another of his many examples of wisdom:

He told me that the differences between the thoughts of a child and the thoughts of an adult were not based in understanding or intelligence. Many children can understand even complicated situations. The real difference was that children think in absolutes. They use words like "never" and "always". Adults identify the good and the bad in every situation, and appreciate every choice as a complicated set of priorities - and do not think of anything as "I'm completely right, and you're completely wrong."

There are way too many children posting on this board. Can you not see that you have no true knowledge of the situation? That everything that you are saying is based on personal beliefs and absolutism?

There are and always will be good people who do bad things, and bad people who do good things. People form mobs and do without thinking. The question is not whether Islam is inherently good or bad - that is a question a child would ask. The question is can you see who these people are from what they have given you? Have you taken the time to understand them from a mature perspective? Can we try to create a relationship with the Muslim world without going through and explaining ourselves, one person at a time, like an 1800's political candidate?

Think what you like about Islam. Your set of priorities may be vastly different than mine. But I do know that the way to peace between people is a search for understanding, not a blithe accusation of violence and ignorance.

What I just described is the path that President Obama has given a valiant attempt. This is because President Obama is not a child. And, despite the fact that I have disagreed with some of his words and actions, before and after the election, I still voted for him, and I still support him. Because I am an adult, and I do not judge people ill based on incomplete understanding.

Respectfully Submitted,

kaos_also

Better not turn the cheek on Irani or Syrian or Iraqi or .... well you get it, if you don't you will when you turn the cheek.

This is some more Obama stabs in the dark that will turn out to be a flop along with the rest of his presidency.

Riiight, so please tell us when islam will:

Stop gential mutilation
Death for apostasy
Issuing fatwas for the death for others
Stop the idea that by killing innocents one attains heaven
Accept other religions as equals
Renounce a worldwide caliphate
Stop killing homosexuals
For Bill CLinton's sake, stop killing adulterers.

Well?

"As Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers,. . ." It is about time that someone is willing to offer words of peace. It is better to try to enlist the efforts of the Muslims to stem the tide of radical Islam, especially when there are over one billion Muslims in the world.

The chickenhawks of the past 8 years have obviously not calculated the damage done to the western powers by alienating 1 billion people."

What a load of twaddle. Did it ever occur to you that one billion Muslims are alienating the rest of the planet? Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Animists, Christians, Jews, communists, secularists, and the uninterested are all at war with Islam, and this predates the last eight years. Open your eyes.

Who knows, perhaps sometime in the future the Moslems will put down their fanatic clergy and become civilized; it's not impossible. However, at present they are still religious savages, completely at odds with how we conduct our lives in the West. As soon as they can refrain from their savage and animalistic conduct they are welcome to re-apply for membership in the civilized community. But then the Moslems will have no need to infest the rest of the world with fanaticism and unspeakable behavior such as pouring acid into girls' eyes to keep them from studying. Not even the Christians and Jews, for all their miserable conduct, committed crimes of this horrendous nature.
Posted by: RichardKefalos

* * * *

Obviously, Richard does not know his history. The "Christian" nation of Germany allowed for a Hitler to murder 6 million innocent people by methods that only the 3rd reich knows the extent.

The radical Islam that is spoken about so glibly ignores the hundreds of millions of Muslims that live in relative peace with millions of people of other faith traditions. Percentagewise, I venture to say that the number of radical Muslims fairly approximates the growing percentage of radical Christians in our own country. The killing of one abortion doctor is but the tip of the iceberg. There are Timothy McVeys that live all around us. They are stockpiling weapons as I write. I bet you feel really safe now. We in the West are way too smug with our speech and casting off on other cultures.

Actually, we are real cowards in some respects. We much prefer to have our drive-by shootings that kill innocent bystanders than to have suicide bombers. We still prefer to set off our bombs at a distance. At some point, the radical elements among us will go to the next step. The radical media aids and abets such behaviors.

As Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers,. . ." It is about time that someone is willing to offer words of peace. It is better to try to enlist the efforts of the Muslims to stem the tide of radical Islam, especially when there are over one billion Muslims in the world.

The chickenhawks of the past 8 years have obviously not calculated the damage done to the western powers by alienating 1 billion people.

Chris30338 wrote: "You make it sound like one day Christians and Jews woke up and decided to follow a different, more progressive path"

Only to your ears. I said Christians and Jews had their poison fangs pulled. That means they were *forced* to change their animalistic behavior, the Jews by losing their homeland and becoming a tiny minority of strangers in strange lands and the Christians by having their power wrested away by the secular authorities. Fanatics never abandon their religious savagery voluntarily. Who knows, perhaps sometime in the future the Moslems will put down their fanatic clergy and become civilized; it's not impossible. However, at present they are still religious savages, completely at odds with how we conduct our lives in the West. As soon as they can refrain from their savage and animalistic conduct they are welcome to re-apply for membership in the civilized community. But then the Moslems will have no need to infest the rest of the world with fanaticism and unspeakable behavior such as pouring acid into girls' eyes to keep them from studying. Not even the Christians and Jews, for all their miserable conduct, committed crimes of this horrendous nature.

A nice and convenient way to make all things "equal" and "mutual." A convenient way for many in the Muslim world to continue with denial and distraction regarding the innumerable failures in Islamic societies -- nations and regions such as the US, Europe, and India and elsewhere are democratic, diverse, deliberative, and progressively improving the citizens' well-being -- not so in the Islamc world -- trying to just say it is the US, or President Bush in the past, the "war on terror", or so-called Islamaphobia are great means for Islamic societies to avoid looking in the mirror and taking on such immense failures in their societies.

In Islam societies there is a profound lack of democracy, free press, secular education, rights for other religions or women, scientific achievement, industrial prowess, or productive economies -- conspiracies run rampant in the Islamic world which somehow explain the immense failures of Islam without blaming Islam at all.

Millions of Muslims and thousands of Mosques enjoy the freedom to thrive throughout the West, Israel, India and elsewhere, yet the same is not true for minoriities within Islamic societies -- a double standard that muslims are happy to allow this to continue. Many muslim nations are happily 99%.

Terrorism - jihad - martryrdom - sharia - authoritarians - theorcracies: failures are huge -- stop trying to blame the people and societies which are actually inclusive, successful, democratic, diverse, and productive and begin the long and necessary process of reforming Islam.

Chris30338 wrote: "Both Christianity and Judaism are replete with examples of "apostates" being put to death."

Well, yes, we know that. That is the precise reason that the West shed the tyranny of religion and ushered in the Enlightenment. No one says that Christians and Jews are "better" than Moslems, the difference is that Christians and Jews, for the most part, have had their poison fangs pulled while the Moslems are still brimming with venom......
Posted by: RichardKefalos | June 7, 2009 5:46 PM
_____________________________________________

And how many hundreds of years and millions of deaths did it take for Christianity and Judaism to evolve? You make it sound like one day Christians and Jews woke up and decided to follow a different, more progressive path. Lets not forget that less than a generation ago, homosexuality was considered (and still is by many "Christians" here) to be a serious disease that needs to be cured. The same goes for racism. This progressive nature did not happen overnight and came at great cost. You just seem to be conveniently ignoring that fact. YET, M

If Islam is our ally then we are surely headed for defeat.Isalm is evil to the core they hide behind their women and children and kill innocents in the name of G-d.The have suicide bombers they are hate filled nest Hitler it is a question of whom is worse

Posted by: lildg54 | June 7, 2009 6:39 PM
_______________________________________________

The above is a classic example for those who claim that hate is the sole domain of Islam and Muslims. Judging by the posters name and "G-d", my guess would be Jewish??? Thank you for making my point about hate being a universal issue not restricted to one religion!

If Islam is our ally then we are surely headed for defeat.Isalm is evil to the core they hide behind their women and children and kill innocents in the name of G-d.The have suicide bombers they are hate filled nest Hitler it is a question of whom is worse

Every religion has it's extremists and their followers. It's wrong to judge a group by it's extremists. Just as it was wrong to judge all Americans by the actions of a rogue president and vice president, so it is wrong to judge all muslims by the actions of the islamists. We in the US have taken steps to (belatedly) address the problem of the rogue president. IMHO much more needs to be done on that score, but we've made a definite and identifiable start. Now, muslims must take definite steps to address the issue of their rogue leaders. The above article is a good sentiment, but there needs to be concrete actions taken as well as soothing words.

Chris30338 wrote: "Both Christianity and Judaism are replete with examples of "apostates" being put to death."

Well, yes, we know that. That is the precise reason that the West shed the tyranny of religion and ushered in the Enlightenment. No one says that Christians and Jews are "better" than Moslems, the difference is that Christians and Jews, for the most part, have had their poison fangs pulled while the Moslems are still brimming with venom. No one should have any illusions of what it would be like to live in a society where the religious rule; our culture has been there and done that. Not a single Western country is ruled by religious "law" and we aim to keep it that way. And we will especially not be ruled by Moslems and their desert Sharia, a credo that is utterly alien to the West and to our way of life. Why, is there anybody who wants to be ruled by individuals hostile to discovery and invention? What have the Moslems contributed to the world culture since the Abbasids disappeared in the 9th Century C.E.? If it were not for Western technology, the fat sheiks in Dubai and similar places would be right back in the sand with their camels instead of building fancy hotels with the oil money that Western technology pumps out of the ground. It's our misfortune that the oil, so essential to our civilization, is located where we have to kowtow to the primitive Moslems and their religious fantasies.

The solution to our difficulties with the Moslems is to develop other energy sources than oil. As soon as that is accomplished, the Moslems can keep their oil and drink it if they want. They can pour acid into girls' eyes to their hearts' content, hang homosexuals from cranes, and in general enjoy themselves in their savage ways. We will no longer need them, and they will be free to descend into their primitive savagery and eat each other alive. It will be none of our business. Any such that are willing to escape the madness and become civilized will be welcome in our lands.

The good Imam is being a bit disingenuous in his quotes from the Koran. I wonder what this tells us about Imams and Islam...

"Muslim apologists quote two verses -- part of two verses to be more accurate -- to show Islam really does not preach hatred against others. As written in the above post there are scores of verses which do.

As a matter of fact these two verses also don't promote amity among different religions or accept them as good or equal to Islam.

1. The first verse -- part actually -- that is often quoted is

"There is no compulsion in religion" --- This is not the complete verse.

The complete verse is

"There shall be no compulsion in religion. True guidance is now distinct from error. He that renounces idol worship and puts faith in God shall grasp a firm handle that will never break. God hears all and knows all." (2:256)

This verse is from the early Medina period when the Prophet was trying to make friendship with the Jews and convert them to Islam. So he preached there shall be no compulsion in religion but still he maintained Islam is the "true" guidance and only those who renounce idol worship shall grasp a firm handle. This verse does not accept other religions as "true faith".

But the apologists of Islam never quote the entire verse -- just the first part and try to claim that Islam accepts all faiths and does impose Islam by force.

2. The second from which "to your religion to me mine" is quoted is as below.

The title of this verse -- actually the whole ayat -- is "The unbelievers" and it was revealed at Mecca when the Prophet was trying to convert the Meccans to Islam and they were not accepting his faith. It is a very short ayat. The complete ayat is:

"Say: 'Unbelievers, I shall never worship what you worship, you shall never worship what I worship. You have your own religion and I have mine." (109)

In this also the apologists only quote a part of the entire ayat -- "you have your own religion and I have mine." Reading of the complete ayat shows the disgust in which this verse is written '-- "I shall never worship what you worship" --- there is no compromise or acceptance of other's religion -- just rejection of each other. "I shall never worship your religion and you shall never worship my religion" does not reflect respect for other religion.

Nowhere does the Koran says anything like "all religions come from God -- they are good and equal -- it does not matter what one worships because in reality since there is only one God -- one worships that God only."

Thus, you can make Islam seem like it is saying anything you like. It is not by what some Imam tells us Islam says that we should judge the intentions of Islam. We should judge it by the actions, prejudices, and intentions of its followers. We can also judge it by what is preached in the Mosques of the Middle East IN ARABIC.

Obama is wise enough to be able to counter those who want to cherry-pick from scriptures to suite their own ideological agendas without citing all of the work. Evangelical Christians and Orthodox Jews should look at the passages in what Christians call the Old Testament which say that the Hebrews were to live in peace with the Jebusites, the indigenous non-Hebrew inhabitants of Jerusalem. This gives lie to the idea that Hebrews were authorized by God to displace all of the original inhabitants of Canaan. So, even if you believe in Biblical literalism (which I don't), but if you so believe, there is room for other interpretations of the scripture.

The fact that Obama thinks we can pick certain commonalities in a piecemeal fashion from two or more different religions and use that as a uniting force is the thought process of someone who's been on the small world ride at Disneyland a few too many times. It's the very post Christian thought process that is dominant in most non-evangelical protestant churches, and even some Catholic ones these days.

Faith is not a bad thing. It can make a society more grounded and stable. But faith has never, in the history of the world, been a uniter. The Huguenots found that out. Faith divides people, and the stronger faith tends to wipe out the weaker.

For Obama to think that the hell-bent muslims will lay down arms based on his speech is the height of narcissism. Why should they? They have demography on their side. In much less than a century the muslim world will walk right into Europe and beyond. The majority muslim communities in these countries will cheer them. The non-muslims will be too drugged out to care.

We're up against a waxing civilization while ours is waning. Why should they listen to Obama?

You say religious freedom is at the core of islam. Would I be able to submit a similar article saying hinduism or christianity or buddhism or atheism or judaism ... is the answer to everything in the Jiddah Post, the Tehran Times, Kuwait Telegraph ... Please let me know to which major outlet I can send something.
Would I able to start something like the cordoba initiative in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan ... to promote some other faith or belief system? Again please let me know so that I can do something.
Finally - why do you ignore Quoranic verses like 2:191, And slay them (the unbelievers) wherever ye catch them. Why do you ignore such teachings? At least be honest and say that parts of the Quran are no longer relevant today.
Very Sad!

It's going to take an Islamist M.L. King before we se any meaningful change. Unfortunately too many in the Muslim world have left that void to the likes of Bin Laden et. al.

Judging by the comments of some of the posters here, brings to mind one of Mark Twain's quotes:

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

Thanks for removing those doubts.

"The fighting was frequently punctuated with peaces and truces, and Christian and Muslim rulers often fought amongst themselves. Interfaith alliances were also pretty common as well (which really questions the claim that all of the Islamic contingencies were truly oppressive. Apparently, some Christian nations preferred to ally with Islamic kingdoms over their own Christian brethren. There certainly didn't seem to be a hurry to kick them out.). The actual battles during the Reconquista were swift."

The Hundred and Thirty Years wars were also punctuated by truces and momentary peace. Your points only demonstrate that there are turncoats in many nations, for example, Bosnian Muslims who are South Slavs. The northern part of Spain and Galicia did not seek any peace with Islam, which is why the Cathedral in Santiago is the Cathedral of Saint James the Muslim Killer (Santiago Matamoros). Moreover, to use your logic when the Catholic Kings and later Phillip II dealt sternly with the Muslims precious few protested, indicating that the Muslim love-fest of Al-Andalus had very short roots. The Muslims were invaders and overlords, that there are always turncoats is not a historical novelty.

saadk,big difference between islam and christianity. you can find justification for violence in the koran. not so in the bible. Posted by: 12thgenamerican | June 7, 2009 4:13 PM
_____________________________________________

Have you even read the Old Testament? Your ignorance is astounding.

Islam should be judged by its actions.... Islam regards that apostates be put to death. Their societies treat women as third class..... Posted by: robespierre | June 7, 2009 4:14 PM

If you take a historical perspective, you can say the same for Christianity and Judaism. Both Christianity and Judaism are replete with examples of "apostates" being put to death. Also, traditional Judaism also treats women as third class citizens. Narrow and close minded people like you are part of the problem, and not the solution.

I agree with the author's opinion. One cannot compare a religion or its followers by its worst examples. Imagine if people were to judge all of Christianity by those "Christians" who protest at the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq or by those "Christians" of this country who advocated racism and segregation? Or if we were to compare Judaism to those Jewish settlers on the West Bank who compare Palestinians to parasites and advocate their mass deportations?

And yes, there will be posters who will dig out verses out of context from the Holy Koran as examples of Islam's violent tendencies. You can do exactly the same with the Old Testament. All three religions have histories that are bloody, violent and nothing to be proud of.

Islam is around 1400 years old. In the year 1400 AD, Christianity was itself going through its own bloody conflicts resulting in the deaths of millions.

This is not a clash of civilizations. This is a clash between moderates and extremists within Islam. The West should do everything it can to encourage the moderates in this battle.

Islam should be judged by its actions. It is at the center of so many wars in the world today, viz. Kashmir, Philippines, Palestine, Chechnya, Northwest China, Thailand. They seem to be unable to live at peace with anyone who does not believe their myths. In addition they have been responsible for so much death and destruction recently, including 9/11, Bali, London. Islam regards that apostates be put to death. Their societies treat women as third class.
In short, Islam is a social pathology, and we cannot compromise with it. In a theological sense, it could be called God's curse on the world. Only when it is weakened or destroyed will be begin to even consider world peace.

saadk,big difference between islam and christianity. you can find justification for violence in the koran. not so in the bible.

you must be kidding. the headcutters are just getting warmed up.

It's easy enough for Obama to run his mouth about how great the Moslems are. The problem is not in the U.S. but in Europe where the Moslems have infiltrated like a 5th column, undermining the hard-won accomplishments of the Enlightenment. Instead of steadily advancing in social relations, the West is on the verge of being thrown back to the religious wars due to the primitive religiosity of the desert crazies that they have allowed in.

The EU would be insane to admit Turkey, for that will lead to Moslems infesting every corner of Europe, completing the conquest that they have been pining for ever since they were thrown out of Europe. The primitive ideas of "god" having anything to do with how we conduct our affairs is anathema to most in the West (excepting America, of course, where the religious flap their jaws with their nonsense as much as in the Moslem countries, and murder those who disagree with their fanaticism. Dr. George Tiller is their latest victim.)

The Moslems pretend that those who throw acid in school-girls' eyes aren't "real" Moslems. That's exactly the same argument the Christians come up with when someone points out their miserable history of eviscerating "heretics" and others. "Those weren't REAL Christians, REAL Christians don't do those things." If that is true, then the unreal Christians have been running the Jesus-show for the last 2000 years. By their fruits shall ye know them, and we have certainly seen enough of the Mussulman "fruit," thank you very much. Before we are forced to adopt Sharia law, we will burn the world. Better dead than a Moslem. Better dead than living under the tyranny of religion.

Some posters here are steering away from the main discussion. Both Islam and Christianity have some violent past. It's time to bury the hatchet.
http://proamericanmuslims.wordpress.com/

EricF1: Everyone has but two cheeks to turn. After that, you fight. You fight for your life, your beliefs, your rights and your freedoms. You fight and you win, or you die trying. Otherwise, you're useless to everyone - even to G-d, who gave you the free will people like you don't seem to have the guts to defend.

“than demonstrating an appalling lack of knowledge”
“lies from Islamists”

Posted by: garrafa10 | June 7, 2009 12:23 PM

Were those insulting phrases really necessary?

Anyway, you are certainly correct that the Reconquista took approximately 500 years (most of Spain was taken back in 1236), but this had to do a lot with the blurred lines of combat if anything. The fighting was frequently punctuated with peaces and truces, and Christian and Muslim rulers often fought amongst themselves. Interfaith alliances were also pretty common as well (which really questions the claim that all of the Islamic contingencies were truly oppressive. Apparently, some Christian nations preferred to ally with Islamic kingdoms over their own Christian brethren. There certainly didn't seem to be a hurry to kick them out.). The actual battles during the Reconquista were swift.

Also, my evidence that the neighboring populations of the 6th-7th century Islamic state were actively assisting in the conquest of their oppressive rulers comes through the examination of the Sassanid empire prior to their conquest. Check out the Jews and Christians in Persia and Jews and Monophysites in Syria. Both populations were thoroughly dissatisfied with their previous rulers and at times, openly welcomed the Muslim forces. It is also widely contended that prior to the Byzantine conquest, there was a wide dissension of military/economic exhaustion due to the decades of fighting amongst themselves (which is another sign of oppressive government that allowed Islamic conquest to happen so swiftly). Again, huge empires rarely fall without prior internal conflict.

Whether one's religion is the truth or a lie depends entirely on the actions of its followers. I don't really give a damn what Mohammed or the Koran said. What I want to see is what their adherents DO. That applies to followers or non-followers of any religion. That also applies to our president. The proof of the pudding is in the eating of it.

1. Obama said: no diktat to anybody.
2. Truth: Israel gets a diktat!
3. Obama said: Islam, a peacefull religion1
4. Surely the history books in the USA must have been censored, because the Islamic religion was and is all but peaceful.
5. Obama is just a sale-man: trying to peddle the USA and get some cheap oil, money from these peace-loving Muslim
(who throw bombs, explodes mosques, stone women, etc to only give some example of treatment within Muslim).
6. Conclusion: Obama will learn the tough way: wonder what he will say then.

Obama is our first president who is not Euro-centric and concerned with the white man's burden. Five hundred years ago, the Ottoman Empire welcomed the Jews fleeing the Inquisition in Europe. Christians, Jews and Muslims peacefully coexisted for hundreds of years.

The Saudi religious sect known as Wahhabism, however, is preaching hate and intolerance. This is the faith of Osama bin Laden.

If all these tenets of Islam are so self-evident, why are they conspicuously violated in so many Muslim countries?

Obama repeatedly avowed his Christianity and distanced himself from Islam during his campaign. Anyone mentioning his Islamic heritage or his middle name were savaged by the media and Obama supporters.

Suddenly, he has rediscovered his middle name and his Islamic roots to make himself look better.

Why does the shape-shifting Obama now carry weight in the Muslim world by stating the glaringly obvious?

It appears the author, Feisal Abdul Rauf, is trying to ride on Obama's newly-discovered Muslim coattails to tell us that Islamist violence is certainly not tied to Islam.

Rauf essentially is asking "who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?"

SaadK,
good to see there's a website out there like "proamericanmuslims". is it popular?

"A dialogue is finally going to open between the west and the Muslim world. Whatsoever may be the differences and conflicts, both parties need to at least talk to each other. Obama is on the right track.
http://proamericanmuslims.wordpress.com/

Posted by: SaadK | June 7, 2009 11:40 AM"

A dialogue existed between Islam and non-Muslims for a thousand years. Now we are talking to them in the only language they understand. We are talking to them in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Horn of Africa. Soon we will be talking to Muslims in Pakistan and Iran, and then later, everywhere, in spite of Obama's pretty words.

The Islamic world has a long way to go before they can be considered partners in peace. Sorry, but I need more reassurances. So far, nothing's changed.

Interesting how you omitted the fact that within one hundred years after adopting this filthy creed the Muslims attacked all of their neighbors."

"Interesting how you omit the fact that a huge majority of those neighbors had significant populations that actively aided in the Muslim conquest due to the social bankruptcy of their previous rulers (ex. the Sassanids, the Byzantines). Huge empires rarely fall without internal conflict - usually in the form of societal oppression.

It should then come as no surprise that as soon as these Muslims became lax and oppressive themselves, they were easily swept up the Spanish Reconquista.

Posted by: hf1986 | June 7, 2009 2:11 AM"

What exactly is your point, other than demonstrating an appalling lack of knowledge concerning Spanish history" That Muslims conquer when others are oppressive or bankrupt? The Reconquista was hardly easy (711-1492), nor did Muslims become lax and oppressive, They were oppressive and invaders from the start. Also, half of the Armenians did not support Muslim attacks on their own civilization, and exactly were is your data concerning the "fact" that over half of Muhammad's neighbors actively assisted their Muslim overlords due to either oppression or financial insolvency? The lies from Islamists like you are too easy to disprove.

I am sorry but I find all monotheistic patriarchal religions offensive and oppressive, no matter what window dressings are put to make them seem okay. The only safe thing for me to be is an agnostic. I think the only safe option for women in general is to be agnostic or atheist. The last 2,000 years have not been kind to women.

Islam actually promotes women's rights? And then the author closes with the statement that we should embrace Sharia. If there is one thing that America should NEVER embrace it is the Sharia law, in which a woman is worth half a man, in which women need four witnesses to prove rape, in which women should be stoned to death in case of adultery....on and on.

There is no such thing as an enlightened version of Islam (as Christians know the New Testament). The truth is, the world views of Islam today are the same as in the year 635 AD., including their ideas pertaining the role of women and it ain't good for women in general AT ALL.

A dialogue is finally going to open between the west and the Muslim world. Whatsoever may be the differences and conflicts, both parties need to at least talk to each other. Obama is on the right track.
http://proamericanmuslims.wordpress.com/

The arts of power and it's minions are the same in all countries and in all ages. It marks it's victim; denounces it; and excites the public odium and the public hatred, to conceal it's own abuses and encroachments. ( Henry Clay, March 14, 1834 ) Religion is tool of power for many, faith on the otherhand is personal. it is most often the poor and uneducated who fall prey to the men who claim to know Gods intent. those who drum their religion too often have no faith in Gods judgment and so try and force their own judgment in it's place, Christians, Muslims, whatever it's about the power not the faith.

It is well-known that the conciliatory verses in the Koran are from the "Mecca period" when Muhammed and his followers were a minority. Once Muhammed went to Medina and Muslims became a powerful force there, the earlier verses in the Koran that preached tolerance were abrogated, and Muhammed urged his followers to commit violence against non-Muslims with verses like the following: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)" Koran 9:5 (Yusuf Ali translation).

A favorite tactic of Islamic apologists like Mr. Rauf is to cite verses only from the Mecca period, ignoring all the horrifyingly violent verses from the latter part of the Koran, such as the verse cited above.

Until Muslims are honest about the need for reform in Islam and implement these reforms, we should keep them at a safe distance like rattle-snakes or scorpions.

It was hard to pick the most precious gem from this pile but this one was pretty amusing:

"...he [BO] put religion at the core of the peacemaking process."

A great one-liner for sure. Did he follow it with a punch line? Similar to, "Take my wife. Please! [ba-dump!]".

I think the jury has been in on religions far and wide for some time. They are intolerant, myopic, anti-science, anti-women, anti-intellect, anti-freedom, anti-thought and anti-free-expression. The war against religions is never over because they never go away and stop bothering people with their voodoo-based, hocus-pocus, abracadabra sleight of mind.

And the more I see of BO, the more I see my calendar freeing up on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, 2012...

"Religious freedom is at the core of Islam. The Quran expressly and unambiguously prohibits the coercion of faith because that violates a fundamental human right - the right to a free conscience. The Quran says in one place "There shall be no compulsion in religion." And in another it says, "To you your beliefs and to me, mine." "

I wish that would apply to all, but the Baha'i have been subjected to exactly the opposite. Though the Quran may state "There shall be no compulsion in religion", in some countries an individual may not receive education, medical care, gov't benefits, or even peace walking down a street simply because of their religious beliefs.

So you are a Muslim. If you were born in Israel you would be a Jew. You are happy to accept this artificial divisive accident of birth and indoctrination because you are fundamentally extremely stupid - in the sense that you have brains but can't really use them to think for yourself. You are trapped like a rat in a box - excluding you from the freedom to go anywhere else in your thinking. Some people even do this voluntarily - just to belong to something - they have so little self worth or imagination.

If you can't even deal with that basic personal issue then you don't have what it takes to deal with anything more complex. This is why religion MUST ALWAYS be kept out of politics.

So my advice to Obama is to shut up and instead send some money to the excellent British Apache helicopter squadrons in Helmund, Afghanistan - they really are getting the job done properly and right now and are killing seriously nasty Muslims every single day to keep us safe.

Allowing Sharia law to exist anywhere is a deep failure of humankind.

OBEONE accuses thus:
“Christians are the biggest mass murdering major religion on earth, ….. when Crusaders from Europe marched all the way to the Holy lands for some blood lust, they killed every brown person they could slaughter including Jews and their fellow Christians not to mention the Muslims”
Moi:
The Crusades were a reaction to centuries of Muslim encroachment on the Christian lands as shown below:
The first Crusade began in 1095 … 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians. Did you get that or shall I repeat it?

“Then they are synonymous with slavery, when you think Slavery you think white Christian people,”
Moi:
When I think of slavery I think of Muslim Africans from Chad, Sudan, Mauritania, and Northern Nigeria. Arab slave traders from Sudan are to this day catching and selling slaves.

“ when you think Holocaust you see White Christian.”
Moi:
I see Muslim Turks massacring Armenians

For certain to shocking, Islam has now a new ally, President Barack Hussein Obama.
President Obama has quoted a part of Version of 5-32 that says about corruption . Who are corrupt?Are the people for secularism, democracy, gender equality and non Muslims.
It would be fair to quote verse 5:33, that is the punishment to corruption in the land,i.e, infidels.
From the inception to present, Islam was never a part of peace, non vollence and harmony.Promting Peace where- in killing fields from Turkey to Thailand? History is starkly dark about Islam's contribution to peace.
The article is a brutal distortion of history.

Islam is promoting peace in the same way Communism and Nazism promoted peace. Nazism is responsible for 50 million deaths. West allied with Communism to defeat it. But, Communism was responsible for 75 million deaths. West allied with Islam to defeat it. But, Islam was responsible for 270 million deaths, some of these deaths profoundly altered human population. Deaths of 10 million christians in Mesopotamia during 1400s is equivalent to killing 100 million today. Killing of 80 million Hindus and Budhists between 1000 AD and 1700 AD is equivalent to killing 800 million today. So, I can foresee a peaceful Islamic USA!

Kudeo's to THE_MASTELLER

Dude, I agree with a lot of what you said, but your spelling isn't just atrocious, it's hilarious. I love it.

Martian Luther King Jr. ? Was he from Mars? If you just would have added an e to Arobics then we would have some people blaming Islam and a class of exercise for the Middle East peace problem.

Don't take offense. You admitted your spelling was inadequate. This was just damn funny and made me laugh first thing in the morning. I'm laughing with you, not at you.

But I am curious. Was it just that you were in a hurry, or do you really not know how to spell these words? I doubt many 16 year old teens read the Washington Post and comment so I'm guessing you're somewhat intellectually inclined.

P.S. I used spell check whilst writing this.

THE_PIANO_MAN wrote: "Many of the comments here reflect the blatant ignorance of people. The results of assumptions based on fear, uncertainty, doubt, hatred, anger, rumors and outright lies, clearly guide many people in forming their opinions and choosing their actions."
__________________

One could argue that the above comment is equally based upon ignorance. Theoretical distinctions about how a religion should be interpreted notwithstanding, it is equally useful to examine the religion through the lens of its adherents' actions.

Islam might very well be a religion of peace for quiet academics and some theologians. For others, including far to many regular believers, Islam is far from peaceful and their actions show it. Seeking the help of moderates might be the way to go if they weren't so generally useless at affecting events.

Feisal Abdul Rauf, a sincere Islamist in his own right offers to appreciate President Obama's goodwill gesture towards Muslims. As Muslims let us give him the benefit of doubt, many benefits for doubts. The President may be sincere but can he deliver? Let us slow down a bit. It is premature to say that this marks a major shift in US policy. There is no evidence of a shift.Unless a shift does come this was a stealthy attempt to extract money from Muslims. The dire needs of Americans have forced them to change their tactics from intimidation and threats to begging for Muslim money. President visited Saudi Arabia not Syria or Jordan. One possible shif:the US must stop supporting world tyrant leaders and close their banks to the illicit deposits of corrupt Muslim rulers.Unless Congress makes laws to stop effectively the money-laundering by these autocrats, nothing good will be obtained by the third world from empty gentures of the powerful.

Virtually all religions state in their holy books they want peace - that is not the problem. The problem is that all those tenets are either re-interpreted or just ignored. Nice words but empty words. Whether it is the Jews, the Christians, the Muslims, (even) the Buddhists, ..., those words of peace and harmony are by-passed when there are conflicts between people.
Religion was invented to give an appearance of "respectability" to the powers that be so they could do whatever they wanted.
It is grand time to lift the hypocrisy away and put religion, fantasy and magic on equal footings.
Most people cannot separate separate religion from spirituality.
Religion cannot live without spirituality but spirituality can certainly live without religion. Spirituality is simply a word for the concept of the curiosity which comes with the fact we are sentient. It is grand time to free spirituality from the chains of religion.

Feisal said:
“As Obama pointed out, the Holy Quran says that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind.”
This oft quoted Quran verse was copied word for word from the Jewish Talmud. The Jewish scribe who came up with this interpretation in the Talmud based it on a statement in the story of Cain and Abel in the Book of Genesis that said “the BLOODS of Abel called God for revenge”. The scribe interpreted the plural of blood to mean the blood of all the never born descendents of Abel i.e. half of mankind.
Another point to make is according to Muslim jurisprudence, no non-Muslim could be considered as innocent. Otherwise why all those commands in their scriptures to fight the non-believers?

Many of the comments here reflect the blatant ignorance of people. The results of assumptions based on fear, uncertainty, doubt, hatred, anger, rumors and outright lies, clearly guide many people in forming their opinions and choosing their actions. This malady knows no religious boundary - all are equally responsible. How very sad. President Obama is attempting to reach out - a good start; but there are years of hatred and anger to overcome.

It is now the time for Obama to turn his insightful mind to the Christian Americans and the strife they create in America and call their attention to the tenets of their religion.

This is like a big 'duh' moment for these religions. They all worship the same God, from the same basic theological framework, but are most known for killing each others followers off.

Speaks real highly for the truth of their religion.

Islam preaches tolerance of minorities and women's rights and yet, you can't take a bible into saudi arabia and women can't drive.
Either your interpretation of islam isn't the one most muslims follow or most muslims are actually unislamic.

Feisal. At first glance, your name gives the impression that you are a Muslim, but, as I read your opinion, I started to realize that your are an American Trojan Horse. Here is the proof:

a) You apportion all blame on Palestinians for firing small Kassam rockets into Israel. The fact: Hamas rockets were just a scare tactic to force Israel to negotiate and ineffective. They have killed fewer than 5 Israelis over the years. But you are totally mute to Israeli attack on Gaza that killed 1350 Palestinians, and turned Gaza into rubble.

b) You quote Obama on suicide bombers that
their killing of innocent is "un-Islamic."
True, no argument here. But you sound like Joseph Stalin who said: "The death of one innocent person is a tragedy; the death of 1 million innocent people is just a statistic." It is hypocritical to critique only the small beans of Muslim suicide bombers, but leave out of your equation the whoppy U.S. air-strike bombings that have killed tens of thousands as many innocents - 97 in the latest air-trike in Fainan, Afghanistan. (Reuters, May 26, 2009) And most suicide bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan have been
revenge against the U.S. for its air- strike killing of civilians. Every story has two sides, as does suicide bombing. It is unfair to focus the guilt only on one side, and sweep the guilt of the other side under the rug.

c) You say that there is a "phony Clash of Civilizations." Fact: There is nothing phony about the Clash of Jewish and Arab Civilizations, and that is upon which our wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan - with the Pakistani army as our proxy- are based about. And if the "U.S. bond with Israel is unbreakable," as Obama told Muslims and Arabs on his Cairo speech, and if the U.S. continues to cozy up with Israel and declares wars on Arabs and Muslims, then there is a factual and indisputable "Clash of Civilizations" between U.S. and Israel on one side, and Arabs and Muslims on the other.

Your opinion is deceptive because your name
seems to be Arabic or Muslim, and that relaxes the reader that you "can do no wrong" to Arabs and Muslims. At a minimum, they expect to read a balanced view, but it isn't. It is a shrewd pro-American and pro-Israeli view in disguise. Nikos Retsos, retired professor - and neutral Christian Orthodox reader

Re: Comments by Abhab.
It is misleading to argue that Saudi Arabia, and Iran for that matter, are Islamic states and that they replicate the way government worked during the time of the Prophet Mohammed.

The problem with such claims stems from the fact that Mohammed have never laid out a governance system and that there have never been an Islamic state as we know it today. Instead, there has been for centuries empires and states run by Muslims and partly adopt Sharia as source for laws.

Mohammed as religious and political leader was know to seek consultation on many matters. Classical works on his life are full of such examples. Furthermore, he never recommended any one to lead the burgeoning nation after him. People had to invent new ways of succession. The first four rulers to follow Mohammed were all chosen by the community (This wasn’t a democracy in measure. People who led the emerging state were in fact close friends and in some cases relatives to the prophet). Only after the death of these rulers, the heads of the Muslim empire were effectively kings, even though they called themselves Caliphs.

I find it difficult to call the government of the prophet and those who succeeded him “Islamic” in the sense that we know it today. And that is mainly because these rulers never had a supreme council that dictates religious rules on the states nor they introduced mass prohibition on mingling of men and women or on the consumption of alcohol (bars were rampant, there were poets devoted to describing the pleasure of drinking).

The fact that Baghdad in the ninth and tenth century was more tolerant that most of the Islamic world today is a case in hand. This is obvious in the writings of people such as Al Jahiz who argued, in one epistle, in favor of mingling of men and women in public and private places and for permissibility of singing--interestingly enough he cited stories from the time of the Prophet to make his point.

I believe the fault concept of an Islamic state came to birth after centuries of failure and backwardness in the Islamic world. Craving for ideals have lead to the creation of a metamorphosis political system that never existed.

To dubya2, you won't find any verses in Quran that direct Muslims to 'kill the infidel' or kill nonbelievers. And don't look in google, look in a version of Quran that is translated from a certified source because there is something we have to understand is that meaning may be totally misunderstood if read by someone who doesn't totally understand Arabic grammar because accents in Arabic change the meaning of the sentence.

To Thozmaniac, actually God states in Quran that if you have an enemy who wants peace, you have to give him peace.

To obeeone, Christians are NOT the biggest mass murdering major religion on earth, it was the Roman kings, the Nazy leaders but certainly not Christianity. Kings and leaders always does their actions which are usually for their own benefits under the name of God and religion just to win the support of the people.

Jew then Christianity then Islam was sent by God through his prophets to promote peace and civilization in the human kind. The reason that they several religion is that humans weren't ready to understand everything from day 1, for example the Bible demonstrated how humans should interact between each other. Then after several centuries, came Islam not only to restore the forgotten teachings but also to put a full a Constitution for the human kind and organize every aspect of their life .

But unfortunately it's yet again used by leaders to gain the support of their nations to accomplish their own benefits

President Obama said the same thing Bush said. We are not at war with the nation of Islam. The only thing in President Obama's speech that pertain to this country were Gitmo and 9/11. Other then that President Obama should have made that speech in England and not in Cairo. When have the Muslims in this country been mistreated because of the way they dress. When have the Muslims found it necessary to riot the way they do in England because America's attitude toward them is so bad. When have American's prohibited Muslims from building and attending Mosque in this country. The next time President Obama makes a speech about this country's attitude toward Muslims he ought to make sure he's accurate and not just trying to suck up to Muslims and drag this country through the mud for personal praise of himself because he had nothing to do with it.

This was the bravest speech I have ever heard by a politician. I am neither Muslim, Jew or Christian. I am a Vajrayana Buddhist. I believe that the Islam Obama spoke of is the Islam we all want to believe in.
The Islam we have now bears a sharp resemblance to evangelical Christianity and ultra-orthodox Judaism. Hateful, aggressive, exclusive, irrational and destructive. The marks of fundamentalism.
I hope Obama's vision of the Middle East will also be the reality of America --where the helpful servant religions show the hate based arrogant religions how it's done.

Religion has never been the problem in conflicts. No holy book, prophet, son of god will be respected and worshipped if they espouse hate and intolerance. It is people that is the problem. Intolerance, fear, misperceptions among people are the problems. Throughout history, religion has been manipulated and twisted by religious leaders and political leaders to justify their existence and further their agenda. We should not blame problems on other religions. It is their leaders and those manipulating behind the scenes that you should blame. Blaming other religions for problems and stereotyping others because of their religion merely expose ourselves as hypocritical, intolerant and ignorant fools who have fallen into the trap set by the devil. George W Bush is one such fool.

I think Obama is right to try to use Islam against its own extremists. It is unlikely to achieve much though and may actually backfire.

Obama thinks that he is uniting people by citing common ground between major religions. It's a bit like saying - "hey we are all psychopaths so there is no need to be bad anymore". Just won't work.

President Obama has clearly stated and rightly so that America does not hate Islam. We stand behind him for this. What is important is whether followers of Islam are prepared to accept the principle of 'LIVE and LET LIVE'. Are they prepared to raise their voices against those who advocate killing of non-believers as an act that Islam allows. How many muslims have criticized Osama bin Ladin for his act of killing 3000 innocent people on 9/11. It is time that moderate muslims to raise their voice against such outfits like al-Qaeda and Taliban. Let us all join hands with Pres Obama and support him to make the world a hate free place, hate free from faith based philosophies.

I've read the Quran several times and may have missed the verses that direct Muslims to 'kill the infidel' or kill nonbelievers ... could someone please point out where this is stated in the Quran?
Posted by: dubya2 | June 7, 2009 1:24 AM
-------------------------------------------

Google it, you'll find the passages.
They're there.

Can this president be different from others before him? Will he act upon his words? To what extend? Will there be another roadmap that lead to nowhere?

Can the Palestinians have the 'audacity to hope' for their very own state? What state will that be? And where?

The world is watching and waiting, hoping that Obama is not Clinton II.

Oh dear, if Islame wanna give non Islame land, please do start soluting right away, if they wanna take land that belongs to non Islame and do their Islamigiri on it, then please do not start soluting. We already seen plenty of such solutions, in fact, my ancestors have been evicted from ancestral homelands of 7000 years by Islamic solutions. I think I am ready for some return solutings now.

For a gluteal smooch and a supine rollover, overstatement certainly is possible.

It's delightful that both Obamba and Islame think Islame is the solution. Please start soluting right away, why wait.

We are so delighted.

So far solution of Islame involve them running in and grabbing land that was previously non Islame and turning it into Islame and evicting non Islames from land that we held and blowing up icons that belonged to us. Have you heard of soluting that involved the opposite, please do tell. Oh yeah, the one little island Holbrooke gave the Christians, maybe that.

If that is more of the solution, then please do not start soluting right away.

Next time I wish to hear a fine speech to Islame, I will call on a) Tinkerbelle and b) Tooth Fairy. I am sure I will be delighted yall.

President Obama clearly did the right thing in calling out to the constructive forces in the Islamic world to move towards religious toleration, democracy, freedom of speech, equality for women, respect for the dignity of others.
He in doing this flattered the Islamic world, and presented historical 'stretchers'.
His ideal and vision of a mankind living in peace, is noble and admirable.
But the realities of the Islamic world are complex. The world has so much conflict, both violent and not, and much much backwardness. It is unfortunate that President Obama gave so much focus to the Palestinian Arabs instead of tens of other peoples in the Islamic world, those in Darfur, the Kurds, those in tens of other places suffering from religious intolerance. President Obama also flattered the Palestinians and made their sixty years of refusal to make peace, their choice repeatedly of terror into 'resistance'.
He also wrongly failed to connect the creation of modern Israel with Jewish history in that land, a history stretching back over two- thousand five hundred years.
On the whole though I believe President Obama is to be commended for suggesting to the Islamic world an enlightened path which would ideally bring it into harmony with the United States and all of mankind.

I think what Obama is doeing is awesome and he has my full support. I am only 16 but I still understand alot of todays problems. if Obama can get peace then this is wonderful. just yesterday I was talking with someone I new and relised they completely hate Obama, they blame Islam and the Arobics for all our probablems and believe that we should stay in Irac. I personally chose not to argue with this person but I have to say his political views are...messed up to say the least. this person actualy felt Bush did a GOOD job...when I heard this I nearly lauphed out loud. I feel that Obama is the best thing to happen to the United States since Goarge Washington, Abraham Lincon and Martian Luther King Jr. If you agree with my words here show your support by leaving a Kudeo's to THE_MASTELLER in your next comment...

please excuse my spelling

“The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality.”
Dr. Wafa Sultan quote

Because they Hate written by Christian Bridgett Gabriel of Lebanon refutes most of this article and opines that Islam is not a religion of peace and that the Koran has many passages that prove it. That the Islamofascists have proven that they are barbarians and the Muslim Community does not speak out or march against them. She and her family and friends were ousted from their homes by Muslims who attacked Christians. Her book has been vetted and she is an expert on Islamist terrorism.
We can call for moderate Muslims to join us in the fight and hope that she is wrong.
Churchill warned the Brits about Hitler who, just as Osama and al Qaeda and Hamas and Hezbollah and Iran, promised to wipe Jews from the face of the earth and was ignored and they thought stupidly he could be appeased.
"Last time I saw it all coming and I cried aloud to my own fellow countrymen and to the world, but no one paid any attention. Up till the year 1933 or even 1935, Germany might have been saved from the awful fate which has overtaken her and we might all have been spared the miseries Hitler let loose upon mankind.

There never was a war in history easier to prevent by timely action than the one which has just desolated such great areas of the globe. It could have been prevented, in my belief, without the firing of a single shot, and Germany might be powerful, prosperous and honored today; but no one would listen and one by one we were all sucked into the awful whirlpool.

We must not let it happen again."
"

I think what Obama is doeing is awesome and he has my full support. I am only 16 but I still understand alot of todays problems. if Obama can get peace then this is wonderful. just yesterday I was talking with someone I new and relised they completely hate Obama, they blame Islam and the Arobics for all our probablems and believe that we should stay in Irac. I personally chose not to argue with this person but I have to say his political views are...messed up to say the least. this person actualy felt Bush did a GOOD job...when I heard this I nearly lauphed out loud. I feel that Obama is the best thing to happen to the United States since Goarge Washington, Abraham Lincon and Martian Luther King Jr. If you agree with my words here show your support by leaving a comment on Obama's greatness

Oh and please forgive my spelling

I can't wait to see Islam promoting democracy and freedom of speach. So far, it has only produced dictatorships.

I can't wait to see Islam promoting equality for women, including full sexual freedom, freedom to not marry as a child or at all, and equal right to the children at divorce. So far, none of this has happened.

I can't wait to se Muslims turn against Islamic fanatism. I can't wait to see Muslims being allowed to become secular, if they wish.

When Obama drops bombs on Afghan civilians, his bombs are nicer than Bush's bombs.

Obama did a good job. When will a Muslim Leader, some one like the Saudi King, call for a new beginning with the rest of the world and will apologize for all the invasions and atrocities and forced conversions done by Muslim invaders and rulers for over 1000 years? The problems will not be solved unless the Muslims reciprocate, respect other people rights and do their part to bring peace and harmony to the world.

President Obama is positive energy personified and our fragile world can only become a better place for it. Ad Multos Annos Mr. President!

Obama did a good job. When will a Muslim Leader, some one like the Saudi King, call for a new beginning with the rest of the world and will apologize for all the invasions and atrocities done by Muslim invaders and rulers for over 1000 years? The problems will not be solved unless the Muslims reciprocate, respect other people rights and do their part to bring peace and harmony to the world.

Atheists Stalin and Mao killed about 60,000,000 people between them.

The US has played a primary role in stopping many genocides - including Jews in Germany and Muslims in Kosovo. The vast majority of deaths in Iraq were Muslims killing other Muslims.

Obeeone, Christianity is no more evil than Islam. Western nations have, in the past few hundred years, been the most powerful in the world, so of course most of the prominent atrocities of the last 300 years were committed by Westerners. It is coincidence.

He forgot to mention the bitter Americans "who cling to religion."

Obama seems at home amongst Muslims, yet ill at ease amongst Christians. Perhaps he should become an Arab leader.

Comments saying that Islam is inherently evil, or that people who kill in the name of Islam are not following their religion correctly, are wrong. Like Christianity, Islam is filled with contradictions in its sacred texts (for example: "do unto others/ stone gays to death" in the former and "never kill innocents/ kill all infidels" in the latter).

Faith is a personal thing, Protestants are different from Catholics, but they are both Christian. Christians are different from Muslims, but they come from identical roots. Abrahimic faiths are different from Eastern religions, but they are all faith. And like all of these faiths, Islam can be used for good -or- evil, to help -or- harm other human beings. It is inherently neither good nor evil.

Barack Obama recognizes this, and his speech reflects that recognition. "...America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security." He does not try to label the entire religion in a single adjective, rather, he calls on all Muslims, and people of all faiths, to put aside these differences and use their faith as a force for good, not for evil.

What President Obama is sayaing in is speech on islamic foundermental is right, true, clear and down to earth. We as a Muslim in this world should be proud of him for undestanding the true islamic picture of foundermental and islamic principles..Congrulations...Let we make this world by embracing true love and not by aplying war, hate or by anger....PEACE

"Interesting how you omitted the fact that within one hundred years after adopting this filthy creed the Muslims attacked all of their neighbors."

Interesting how you omit the fact that a huge majority of those neighbors had significant populations that actively aided in the Muslim conquest due to the social bankruptcy of their previous rulers (ex. the Sassanids, the Byzantines). Huge empires rarely fall without internal conflict - usually in the form of societal oppression.

It should then come as no surprise that as soon as these Muslims became lax and oppressive themselves, they were easily swept up the Spanish Reconquista.

The important issue here is not what has happened in the past but what can happen in the future. There is no religion or scripture that does not have contradictions written into it. We have the capacity to reinterpret scripture to allow for changes in the world's knowledge. At one point, the Catholic Church supported the Ptolemaic earth-centered planetary system. This was disproved and Catholicism had to reinvent itself. The difficulty is that our cherished beliefs die hard and we are likely to cause a lot of damage to each other while we sort them out. President Obama has challenged Islam not only to live up to the tenets contained within it that create a more peaceful world but to reinvent itself to find its place in a mutually beneficial world community.

If you keep throwing oil in the fire, no amount of water is going to extinguis it

"This is wholly false. In truth, their prophet spent less than 20 hours in battles amassing a total number of casualties no more than 500. And nearly half of them were Muslims.

The fact that the prophet limited the amount of casualties to less than a 500 in a society and era that glorified warfare (in fact, some would start skirmishes for entertainment purposes) is an impressive feat."

Interesting how you omitted the fact that within one hundred years after adopting this filthy creed the Muslims attacked all of their neighbors.

Islam is younger than Christianity. Comparing them using that difference in time might give some insight. It does me.

Where was Christianity a few hundred years ago when the clergy representing the faith controlled society through religious institutions AND had monolithic power of interpretation - compared to the situation of Islam today? I submit that the situation was very similar to what we see today in most Muslim countries and societies.

Religious leaders used the power of "excommunication" to control kings/governments, used the general illiteracy of the people to manipulate & control their lives as best fit the priests (Imams?) and sent out armies of believers to defeat the "infidels" promising the benefits of heaven.

I pray it will not take hundreds of years, crusades and wars for the believers of Islam to discover what Christians did after so much strife.

Faith must be a personal choice and religious law must be separate from civil law.

I agree with the author in one sense. It is up to the Muslim people to define their futures. As it was for Christians, they have a marvelous holy book with all the foundations to create good societies for themselves. It is up to them to rip power away from their religious "powers" to appropriate their faiths and societies for themselves.

I've read the Quran several times and may have missed the verses that direct Muslims to 'kill the infidel' or kill nonbelievers ... could someone please point out where this is stated in the Quran?

Muslims believe an angel came down from the sky and delivered a book that has existed since the dawn of time along with a god. This despite the fact that the book is written in Arabic and Arabic evolved amongst other human creations from a semitic proto-language around 2000 years ago. And this book is supposed to followed to the letter or you burn in hell forever. Christians and Jews believe similar absurdities. How can anyone with sense trust people who believe such patent absurdities to ever create a just society?

@ spamdump2718 "Obama also ignored the lengthy history of actual killings of hundreds to thousands done under the direct orders of their prophet"

This is wholly false. In truth, their prophet spent less than 20 hours in battles amassing a total number of casualties no more than 500. And nearly half of them were Muslims.

The fact that the prophet limited the amount of casualties to less than a 500 in a society and era that glorified warfare (in fact, some would start skirmishes for entertainment purposes) is an impressive feat.

Compare this with all the wars that were started in the 17-21st century where you literally had casualties exceeding 100 million in both World Wars.

I would not offer Dubai as having "shown us the way". Dubai is essentially a slave economy where Indians, Chinese, and other foreigners are the invisible majority who wait hand and feet on the world's ultra-rich, and are quickly silenced if they speak up for their rights. Funny how so many can condemn the Chinese for Tienanmen Square, but declare Dubai as a shining example of modernity. Oh right, the only people that are supposed matter are the aristocracy of the neo-liberal world regime (which unfortunately its looking like this recession won't put an end too). A just God would see Dubai sink back into the sea and desert.

Other than that I agree with you for the most part. Religion is so often presented as responsible for all the evils of the world. I thought this as well for the longest time. I have only recently come to realize that religions do not cause strife or conflict--people who create interpretations of religions for their own personal gain cause these problems. Now some would argue that religion's power and susceptibility to co-option is what makes it dangerous. I say godless capitalists, fascists, and communists have caused much strife than any religions. And even if religion is so dangerously powerful why not fight fire with fire? Supporting interpretations of the religions of the world that emphasize compassion, humanity, and love for our fellow man is a more potent weapon against all colors of injustice than armies will ever be.

I don't think Imam Rauf, nor any other Imam, Ayatollah, Sheikh, Mullah, or other Islamic cleric could withstand cross-examination of his positions by the use of citations to the actual Islamic scriptures.

I think neither the Washington Post nor Newsweek would have the guts to publish such a cross-examination.

I could be wrong on these points. If there is any defender of Islam who is actually willing to use the Islamic scriptures rather than labels such as "Islamophobia", and if any publisher is willing to publish such a cross-examination, please send me an e-mail.

Islam is intentionally being distorted in the West by everybody from Obama to Newsweek to CNN to the New York Times to the Wash Post, etc.

The people engaging in jihad believe in Allah and their prophet so fervently that they are daily willing to die for their beliefs. Feeble-minded whitewash can never overcome the intensity of their convictions.

I am an extremely liberal person on practically every social, political, and moral issue, but quite frankly I am ashamed of Obama.

I think facts cannot be set aside for the temporary purpose of looking like a "nice guy." Those facts will eventually blow up in your face, but Obama may be hoping that will occur after his presidency.

He made a blatantly false statement by saying that the U.S. has seven million Muslims. The census and numerous other objective surveys put the figure between 1.8 million to about 2.5 million.

He completely distorted the Koran by quoting verse 5:32 ("killing an innocent person is like killing all mankind") out of context, while ignoring the next verse, and ignoring the fundamental principle of Islam that anybody who rejects the Islamic prophet, the Koran, and Allah cannot be considered innocent. Such a person is guilty of the heinous crime of being an infidel, and is fit to be killed under their prophet's teachings.

Obama also ignored the lengthy history of actual killings of hundreds to thousands done under the direct orders of their prophet, and the capture of women and girls for pleasure. He ignored the more than 100 verses in the Koran, and the hundreds more in their other major scriptures (the Hadith, the Sirah Rasul Allah), which exhort Muslims to attack non-Muslims. While there certainly are a few violent verses in the Bible, very few of them command people to kill non-believers. There is no comparison between the Islamic scriptures and Christianity, and neither of these compare with the majestic traditions of tolerance and compassion found in Hinduism and Buddhism.

(The actual cultures and historical practices of all parts of the world are certainly subject to severe criticism.)

In every part of the world, except for Islamic countries, a person is today free to criticize any prophet or scripture, but only in Islamic countries will that carry a death sentence.

Obama's rather blatant dishonesty and falsification brings shame to the most powerful office in the world.

Obama will be directly personally responsible if the U.S. gets nuked because he failed to take reasonable steps to control Paki nukes, or he allowed Iran to get nukes, all the while trying to appease Muslims. In that event, he will share responsibility with prior presidents, both Democrat and Republican, who "looked the other way" while Pak was developing nukes.

Wow, the hateful ignorance inherent in too many posts above.
I would think posts to this publication would be a bit more literate.
What religion's practitioners ever live up to the best of its tenets?
What do you expect Obama to do, tell Muslim nations to shove it?
He appears to be interested in peaceful co-existence. Even if it's just a pose, it's better than sneering.

Way to go, Barack! Ever since the campaign, I've been an Obama fan. I think he's doing a great job reaching out and talking to people, so, press on, Mr. President(claps, cheers)!

Speaking as a Heathen, I'm glad to see someone shining a flashlight around in there so we can all see what's really been going on with this religion stuff. I think the people that try to abuse religion for political purposes take advantage of the position of trust that clergy enjoys, as well as people's ignorance. Dispel all that with more freedom and information.

My mother's hometown is also Cairo, and she, too, is an American citizen by choice (and at the invitation of the U.S. government - meaning, she came here legally). I could have posted this rebuttal in any number of threads, but chose your thread because of this commonality between us:

Deconstructing Obama’s Cairo Speech

http://thestilettoblog.com/2009/06/05/the-daily-blade--deconstructing-obamas-cairo-speech.aspx

Feisal alleges the following:
“Islam supports democracy with government run by consent of the people. A Shariah-compliant state owes its existence to the will of the people and is subject to control by them. The Prophet Muhammad himself said, "The hand of God is on the majority."
Moi:
Governance according to Muslim tradition is a theocratic dictatorship. It is akin to the rule in Saudi Arabia today. One family controls all the different aspects of the state. That is how the Muslim prophet ruled and that is how his successors, the caliphs, ruled.

“Religious freedom is at the core of Islam. The Quran expressly and unambiguously prohibits the coercion of faith because that violates a fundamental human right - the right to a free conscience. The Quran says in one place "There shall be no compulsion in religion." And in another it says, "To you your beliefs and to me, mine."
Moi:
Those cited verses were early Mecca verses that were abrogated (cancelled) by late Medina verses. Feisal, being an imam, should have known that very well. This is “taqqiyah” in action; lawful deception when applied to further the cause of Islam.

“Gender equality is an intrinsic part of Islamic belief. The Qur'an makes no difference in the religious obligations of men and women and set the stage for women's rights. Many of the limits placed on women in Muslim societies are due to local custom….”
Moi:
Is marrying four women by one man set by custom or by “revelation”? How about a woman shares in inheritance, or testimony in Sharia court? Are those also set by custom or the other way around i.e. became institutionalized because they were ordained in the Quran.

Feisal,

Keep in mind we have a free Five Point Program for eliminating any Islamic Three B (Bred, Born and Brainwashed) Syndrome symptoms you might be suffering from. Analogous programs are available for Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans and Baha'ists.

Excellent article. If only more religious people would actually follow their own religions. If only more Christians would turn the other cheek -- judge not -- etc.

It is so easy to blame others for our predicaments. The speech was great in that it asks people to look at themselves and their own actions, and how those actions are contributing to the problems and not the solutions.