"Dog bites man" stories selected as top religious news of the year

Breaking NEWS:

"By using Cruel & Unusual Tactics: Three-3 ALQAEDA members confessed to following Turkish/Pakistani ISLAMIC BROTHER HOOD's plot/plan to eject all KAFIR'S from All the 56-OIC-Nations before Saudi Arabia and the GCC create the new ISLAMIC CURRENCY...." Jan.4.2011. 07:15 GMT. WHEREFORE:
.
.
DEATH to: I S L A M i C -- B R O T H E R H O O D!

DEATH to: I S L A M i C -- S I S T E R H O O D too!

DEATH to: I R A N! (NOt Secular Persians).

DEATH to: PAKISTAN! (Not Secular Hurdu).

DEATH to: T U R K E Y! (Not Real Sekular)
.
..........#.## . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. |::|\|::|
..........(#c ..... _\|/_ . . . . . . . . . . .|::|/|::|
.......... #.\...... www . . . . . . . . . . .|::|\|::|
.......... \ .\-.. . (/. .\) . . . . . . . . . . .|::|/|::|
.......... /\. /,`\. /\ . /\ . . . . . . . . . ... |::|\|::|
.......... |.\/ . .. _) (_ . . . . . . .. |:|"|/|||::|/|::|\|||/||:|
.......... `\.' . ; . ; . ,. ;`\ . . . . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
............ `\; . ; . . . .. . ; /.\ . . . ~~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~
............. .`\; . . . . .; . ;| . .\ . "Give U.S. Liberty
............... ; . . '' ' ; . . . . . ./ . Or Give US Death"
............... |_.'' . . . . .; | . ./.)
.
.
....................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./
...................... . . . . . . . / . . . . . . /
...................... . . ./ . . . / . . . / . . / . . . . . . . . . /
...................... . . / . . . . . . . / . . . . . / . . . . . . /
...................... , ---------------------- . . . ... . ,.-,
.................... / . . . . . .`--- . . . . . . . \ . __ . / . |
.................. [ . by: . K . A . F . i . R .. _|_ . . . |
.................... \ . t.h.e .---.Jyoktan / . . . . .\ . |
...................... `----------------------- . . .. ....`.-`
.
.
....................... ,--------------------,
................... ,' . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'|
................ ,' . K . a . a . b . a . '#| . . . "Never--Again
............ ,' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '# # | . . . PELEG-EBER
.......... :---------------------- '# # # |. . . .O' YaHaBeBe"
.......... | # # # # # # # # # | # # # |
.......... | # # # # # # # # # | # # # |
.......... | #ALLAHaKBAR#| # # # |
.......... | # [ البيت المعمو ر‎] # |[ الكعبة‎].|
.......... | # # # # # # # # # | # # # |
.......... | # # # # # # # # # | # # # |
.......... | # # # # # # # # # | # # # |
.......... |_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_| \_\_\_\
.
.
DEATH TO Al ISHLAMi's UMMAH in KAFIR Nations!
.

Secular,

Stop responding to my posts! I have given you more respect than you deserve on many occasions only to hear you in response throwing insults on my prophet and religion. You are by far the most rabid hater I have come across on this blog, and that is saying a lot. As I said, I have no intention of throwing stones in a swamp by engaging in a debate with you. There is nothing to gain from it. My posts are open to discussion to those who can talk respectably and objectively. You are once again advised to give them a pass.

Posted By: Yasseryousufi1

Mr. Yusufi, this an open forum, run by a US newspaper - an institution in this beloved country of mine. Show it the respect it deserves - it is hard earned over the past 40+ years. You do not, I repeat do not get, to call the shots here. If you want your claims to go unchallenged and to be just be accepted without questions, I suggest write a diary and posthumously share it with your family. So, when you post here, expect to be challenged.

Coming to your beloved prophet, sorry I don't see him that way. But I don't expect you to respect that of me, do you? I hold President Carter, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi also in the highest esteem, I would say more than you hold your beloved prophet. That does not give me any right to demand that in every public forum I talk about them in glowing terms, others should shut up. These are the rules of the game, boy. Learn them and adhere to them.

Your beloved prophet is & was a public figure, with an incorrigible record, as I see it and when you make up scat, praising him you are going to be challenged. If you cannot refute thenht you keep your s just between your ears, where it will be unmolested by facts. Then you and your beloved prophet can live for ever hereafter like Snow White and the handsome prince. Only in your case you are not quite the adorable as Snow white and of course the prince charming is your monster prophet.

Yasseryousufi writes:
The difference we have is that I believe an overwhelming majority of Iranian people were behind the '79 revolution
------------------------------
I have never disputed this. However, hatred for Shah and Islamist governance are two different things. Many opposing Shah were leftists and human rights activists of various political persuasions. My parents hated Shah. They do admit that had he not been the autocratic corrupt bastard that he was, had he proceeded less insanely, things might have turned out differently in his efforts to modernize Iran. But, of course, he could not be who he was not. He was not Mossadegh, who made the bad move of politely informing BP that Iranian oil workers should not be starved and treated like scum. Bad move, Prime MInister. You were dealing with the Enlightened West.

Even in that last year, the West, under Zbig and the altogether useless Carter ignored all things decent in dealing with Iran.

Wilayat al Faqih and its implications are not interpreted uniformly among the Grand Marjis. For many, it applies only to religious matters, and in any event, the current Supreme Moron is not a marja. Important here is that the Shi'a do not see it as translating by definition into state rule by qualified Islamic jurists, which Khameini, elevated overnight all the way to Ayatolla, is most assuredly not.

Rauf statement, that Obama should offer praise for the implementation of "law" in Iran, would be, and is disputed by Iranian Ayatollahs, who do not support the Supreme and Immensely Corrupt Bastard.

Let us never forget that it was Montazeri whom khomeini initially saw as his successor, stepping back only after Montazeri proclaimed his oppression worse than Shah's.
Abhollhasan Bani Sadr was not, in my view, a fool. MOst of the leftists grossly underestimated the charisma of Khomeini, his enormous appeal to the poor, and to young, naive, Islamic scholars. They loved him.

Ahmedinejad continues to be popular primarily among the poor, but, that is beginning to change. The urban poor, whom he continues to arrest, brutally, each time they demonstrate for jobs, and even the rural poor, are grumbling, primarily due to the declining economy. Iran's clerical establishment had been increasingly critical of Ahmedinejad's donations to foreign nations, eg., Syria, as its poor are hungry. Ahmedinejad's tactic of throwing vasts sums of money at them at crucial times is no longer effective since there is less and less money to throw.

Yesterday's news about the buffoon Hasan, PREDICTED by ME, throws everything out of wack. Everything. The entire ME picture will change, as predicted. I pray for IRan.

Secular,

Stop responding to my posts! I have given you more respect than you deserve on many occasions only to hear you in response throwing insults on my prophet and religion. You are by far the most rabid hater I have come across on this blog, and that is saying a lot. As I said, I have no intention of throwing stones in a swamp by engaging in a debate with you. There is nothing to gain from it. My posts are open to discussion to those who can talk respectably and objectively. You are once again advised to give them a pass.

The Vilayate Faqih concept that Imam Feisal talks of can just be translated into "Rule of a just King" who may also be a religious scholar. Of course thats not compatible with the democratic norms of the society Feisal Rauf lives so it was wrong of him to say that. But that one comment against a life long effort of bringing inter religious harmony shouldn't prevent him from building a mosque with their own money on an abandoned site.

Posted by: yasseryousuf

Vilayate Faqih, is wrong no matter which society one lives in. Especially after 32 years of it in the crucible, called Iran. Who in the long line of the, post revolutionary leaders could be called the just ruler? The monster that he was Khomeini, or that wimp & gullible fool Abhollhasan Bani Sadr, or the street goonda Hashemi Rafsanjani, or another wimp Khameini, or the cunning buffoon Ahmedinajad? Despite this much empirical evidence, the fact that Rauf talks in glowing terms is testament to the fact that he is practicing Taqiyah. Talking of his bringing inter religious harmony. How difficulty is it to mouth of some inanities in a warm room in middle of winter or a cool room in summer for a hypocrite. Besides what kind of inter religious crisis did he work on and promote harmony? As best as I know we have not faced such crisis in this country, in the past 35 years. He is as fake as a three dollar bill.

A belated Happy New Year Farnaz and all!

The difference we have is that I believe an overwhelming majority of Iranian people were behind the '79 revolution and even today there are many specially in the rural Iran where a majority of Iranians live that support the revolution and Ahmedinejad. They still haven't forgotten the corrupt Shah, his ill-gotten opulent lifestyle and of course the Savak. The Revolution at least provided an alternative to all that.

The Vilayate Faqih concept that Imam Feisal talks of can just be translated into "Rule of a just King" who may also be a religious scholar. Of course thats not compatible with the democratic norms of the society Feisal Rauf lives so it was wrong of him to say that. But that one comment against a life long effort of bringing inter religious harmony shouldn't prevent him from building a mosque with their own money on an abandoned site.

Me thinks you think too much of yourself. No one is here to please crackpots like you. Nor do we give crap about what you think. Why dont you take your sorry a.s.s out of the comfy US go back to your Hindu ilk to teach them some humanity. Tell them they shouldn't make the lives of untouchables worse than animals. Then come back and mouth off against others.

Posted by: yasseryousufi

Mr. Yousuf & Ms. Jihadist, please read this resplendent article, linked below:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/28/AR2010122800111.html

Isn't that a hoot. The great interpretations of writings of the "RELIGION OF PEACE" cannot find peace within its own factions. I know, I know this is of course not one sided, one hears the same lamentations from Sunnis of Iran. Of course I am not waiting with a bated breath for either of you to step into this uncomfortable topic. Yasser is good at screaming about the greatness of the Religion of peace and of course protest at the slightest of the criticism of the same. Jihadist is always there with her inane homilies about inter-faith nonsense.

Happy New Year Susan Jacoby, Willis Elliott, Schaum, Onofrio, DITLD, Persiflage, Collin Nicholas, Jihadist, eezimamata, KOK, yasseryousufi, Bios, Peter Huff, Walter in Falls Church, Secular, WMARKW, Akafir, Arif2, AbrahamHabibi, CounterWW, Roadrunn', Gladerunner, and All!

Posted by: FarnazMansouri2

Happy new year to Farnaz & Ya'll too. Looking forward to another year of hooting hot squabbles & down in the mud brawl. Err! I mean lively exchange of the views.

Hi Farnaz, all the regular bloggers,

Best wishes for the New Year.

Shah was not "self-appointed." He was the appointee of a bunch of "imperialists" (bastards)--British Petroleum (still at it in Iran), England (still at it in IRan), and the United STates (still at it in Iran), with the impressive bastard, Kermit Roosevelt.

These entities ousted Prime Minister MOssadegh, in the sacred name of Anglo-Iran Oil and "appointed" "Shah."

Posted by: FarnazMansouri2

No one claimed Shah was self appointed. I only he was a self appointed messiah. That is because he had the penchant for claiming the lineage to Darius, Cyrus, & Xerxes.

Johnny is a romeo...I just love the Lizzy...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2ZRhB1Dol0

Happy New Year Susan Jacoby, Willis Elliott, Schaum, Onofrio, DITLD, Persiflage, Collin Nicholas, Jihadist, eezimamata, KOK, yasseryousufi, Bios, Peter Huff, Walter in Falls Church, Secular, WMARKW, Akafir, Arif2, AbrahamHabibi, CounterWW, Roadrunn', Gladerunner, and All!

Hi Pam,

Happy New Year. Drop a line if you are still around.

.Believe 'IT' or not;

WE[i] Always Love Ye/Yo's [onfaith] BLOGGER-FREUNDS (By Any Monikers). Soo,

Huggs-n-a-kiss's to ALL YE/YO Brothers & da Sisters. AND
.
..
...
╔╗─╔╗
║║─║║
║╚═╝╠══╦══╦══╦╗─╔╗
║╔═╗║╔╗║╔╗║╔╗║║─║║
║║─║║╔╗║╚╝║╚╝║╚═╝║
╚╝─╚╩╝╚╣╔═╣╔═╩═╗╔╝ EVERY-DAY
───────║║─║║─╔═╝║
───────╚╝─╚╝─╚══╝ LiKE A
╔══╗───╔╗╔╗───╔╗──────╔╗
║╔╗║──╔╝╚╣║───║║──────║║
║╚╝╚╦╦╩╗╔╣╚═╦═╝╠══╦╗─╔╣║
║╔═╗╠╣╔╣║║╔╗║╔╗║╔╗║║─║╠╝
║╚═╝║║║║╚╣║║║╚╝║╔╗║╚═╝╠╗
╚═══╩╩╝╚═╩╝╚╩══╩╝╚╩═╗╔╩╝
──────────────────╔═╝║
──────────────────╚══╝
...
..
.
Credits "JJ" http://onwapo.wordpress.com/

Glad to see this post is always so polemical. Great post, great bloggers, always good dynamics.

Getting ready to party!

Happy new year to all of you!!

Shah was not "self-appointed." He was the appointee of a bunch of "imperialists" (bastards)--British Petroleum (still at it in Iran), England (still at it in IRan), and the United STates (still at it in Iran), with the impressive bastard, Kermit Roosevelt.

These entities ousted Prime Minister MOssadegh, in the sacred name of Anglo-Iran Oil and "appointed" "Shah."

Although my views differ with you on the original reasons for the Iranian Revolution....
----------------------
I don't know our differences, Yasser--I don't believe we've ever discussed it--at least not in my memory.

I think, too, that there were several revolutions occurring at different levels in 1979.

Arguably, the Iranian and Islamic REvolution began in 1953.

I reserve comment and judgement on Rauf, was acquainted with his interfaith work before the Center business began. I will say this. Among Iranian Muslims and Jews in New York, his advice to Obama, did not go over well. OUr country is dying.

Thanks for the link Farnaz, this definitely adds another perspective to this debate. Although my views differ with you on the original reasons for the Iranian Revolution, Feisal Rauf shouldn't really have said such an insensitive thing. It almost appears as if he was mocking Obama. But I have also heard some good things about this Imam. He's into interfaith activities and has visited synagogues and churches to promote harmony. So I wouldn't go as far as calling him a Glenn Beck from our side. But I agree with the rest of Jihadist's post.

Posted by: yasseryousufi1

It doesn't take much of hiding to pull off the inter-faith crap. How much does it take to visit a synagogue or a church or for that matter any place and mouth off a few homilies.

Those public protestations never impress me. It is in one of those off the cuff remarks that truly betray the true character of these scoundrels. Like the now infamous remarks of Haley Barbour about Jim crow, or Mr. Allen's Macaaca moment. Also I never forget Reagen's off the cuff remark about south African apartheid, characterizing it as tribal thing, but that of Nicaraguan Contras as freedom fighters had for ever marked him in my book as a racist. This fellow rauf is nothing short of Pond Scum.

Aah! Mr. Rauf comes out in his resplendent colors in the article linked below. I had followed the Iranian revolution since the mid seventies. I abhorred the Shah, another of the self appointed messiah. At the same time I was quite vary of the the theocratic Ba$$$$$s under the Khomeini's leadership. But had a small hope with Bani Sadr, & Ghotbzadeh. Mainly in the latter as he was a student leader prior to that. Alas they turned out to be useful fools for the bloody tyrant that Khomeini was. It is always the failing of the intellectuals to think they can ride a tiger of the mob. They almost always invariably outwitted by the rabble rousers and the mob. For Rauf to claim that the so called revolution had some guiding principles is grotesque and filthy. Above all to suggest that Obama should come out and say what he suggested is beyond even criticism. In this thread I had asked a blogger to elaborate on the splendid Mr. Rauf's achievements. As usual with Islamists and their apologists when asked to name any specifics they always come short. This fellow Rauf is just another empty suit, not only that I am convinced that he is just practicing Taqiyah - the age old Islamic practice - in advancement of Islam.

To consider that Iranian revolution had any guiding principles after 32 years of it, is nothing but WICKED. About the only laudable thing of it was removal of Shah. But what followed that for last 32 years for the Iranians wasn't worth it. I would say actually another 320 years of Shah would have been a lot better than thes past 32 years of Dar-ul-Islamhood of Iran. This is no way a brief for Shah, it is just that what followed was more than an order of magnitude worse.

After reading the article any benefit of doubt, I could be persuaded to give this despicable character Rauf has vanished in thin air. Yet another time my intuitive estimation of this pious scoundrel was right on the money.

Thanks for the link Farnaz, this definitely adds another perspective to this debate. Although my views differ with you on the original reasons for the Iranian Revolution, Feisal Rauf shouldn't really have said such an insensitive thing. It almost appears as if he was mocking Obama. But I have also heard some good things about this Imam. He's into interfaith activities and has visited synagogues and churches to promote harmony. So I wouldn't go as far as calling him a Glenn Beck from our side. But I agree with the rest of Jihadist's post.

"Can we have a link to this quote?"

Posted by: yasseryousufi

"If Feisal Rauf really said that. . . ."

Posted by: Jihadist

LINK to FEISAL RAUF QUOTE:

http://www.cordobainitiative.org/?q=content%2Fwhat-president-obama-should-say-about-irans-election

From his web site, Rauf's advice to Obama on what he should have said following the elections.

"He [Obama] should say his administration respects many of the guiding principles of the 1979 revolution—to establish a government that expresses the will of the people; a just government, based on the idea of Vilayet-i-faquih, that establishes the rule of law."

Btw., the notion of a Council of Guardians is hotly contested throughout the Islamic world.

- Farnaz Mansouri2

*****************************************

If Feisal Rauf really said that, let it be known, just as what was said by Glenn Beck, Pat Robertson, Pamela Geller et al is known. This would be another of America's self set freedom of expression/speech test.

I agree that a just rule of rule and a just administration of justice is imperative for a just state. For this non-Iranian, who can't even imagine what it was and is like to live through the Shah's and the Ayatollahs' regimes, the Vilayet-i-faquih originated and espoused by Ayatollah Khomeini seeminly sound and seems "better" when he was against the Shah's regime and appealing to Iranians disgusted by its corruption and excesses.

We all know what happened when the Ayatollahs comes to power in Iran and how life is for Iranians. The lessons of Iran is a reminder that clerics/ulema should and must out of politics and in helming nations.

"Guiding principles" is not the same as actual reality and implementation be it in religion or in secular politics. Very telling of an idealistic and seemingly disconnected Sufi sans political savvy, social antenna and discord radar whose comments runs contrary to the realities of the competing forces in the state on needs and wants. From Obama's own experience in the last two years as President - he has had to seek a middle ground.

Like some Americans, I am not afraid of my bona-fide cleric/ulema. I am more wary of our equivalent of Glenn Becks, Tea Partyists and Christian Coalition/Christian Conservatives/Constitutional Conservatives - the sort to push their agenda and are pressure/lobbying groups in national politics and on social issues.

From his web site, Rauf's advice to Obama on what he should have said following the elections.

"He [Obama] should say his administration respects many of the guiding principles of the 1979 revolution—to establish a government that expresses the will of the people; a just government, based on the idea of Vilayet-i-faquih, that establishes the rule of law."

----------------------------------

Can we have a link to this quote?

From his web site, Rauf's advice to Obama on what he should have said following the elections.

"He [Obama] should say his administration respects many of the guiding principles of the 1979 revolution—to establish a government that expresses the will of the people; a just government, based on the idea of Vilayet-i-faquih, that establishes the rule of law."

Btw., the notion of a Council of Guardians is hotly contested throughout the Islamic world.

On the rule of "law": The successor to Homeini was, of course, supposed to have been Grand Ayatollah Hossein Montazeri. However, after Montazeri complained that Homeini's prisons were worse than Shahs, that his secret police worse than Savak, Homeini had the Constitution amended so that the Leader did not have to be a Marja and eliminated Montazeri from consideration.

Hence we have the corrupt buffoon we have today.

This is Rauf's lawmaker.
------------------
Rest in peace, Mossadegh. I do not think my country has a chance in hell.

I guess I can post on Jacoby's site again. The annoying thing is I have no idea whether I was banned for a time or if the On Faith site has been acting up as it does from time to time. Maybe Jacoby can clarify the issue. Not that it is that important.

My hope for religion for the New Year is inspired by a book I just read for a reading group I belong to: "Pillars of the earth" by Follett. While religion is portrayed at its worst in the book, it is also portrayed at its best by prior Philip who embodies Christian charity and the belief in community, in fact equality between men in a time when kings and nobles lorded over the common man. The book "Pillars of the earth" is set in the twelfth century and is primarily about the building of a Gothic Cathedral. Another high point of religion in the book is the hero Jack, the master builder of the Cathedral, who although not particularly religious himself--in fact his mother, a great female portrait, is outright hostile to Christianity--finds a meeting ground with the best of Christianity--the impulse toward something greater for the sake of man--in building the cathedral.

The monotheistic religions can find a meeting ground with secularism if the hope of religion is embodied more in art and genuine community than dogma, strictures, etc.

The folds of the robe
of the statue of an angel
uplifting a boy.

Drapery which drifts
and waves as if composed
by a hand moving back and forth
to a personal and never
expressed song.

The body of the angel
which escapes
an incredible visitation
which makes music
unnecessary, for the visible
is the seen and heard,

the boy rising
as if from the architect
of sky,

the back of the angel
a slope rising to a crown.

And never have the legs
of a boy seemed so beautiful
and insignificant.

In fact he can suffer
the loss of a foot.

He becomes only more
beautiful, for wings
alone can replace
any change to human form.

But the wings do not deserve comment.

The folds of the dress
fall to the ground.

Test.

There was a row before here, in another thread of Jacoby's, where an Indian atheist, a Canadian atheist, an Iranian duke it out to see who knows better and best and can speak out on specific subjects.

They are just, well, combative, when they get going in perceiving someone is insulting them as a person. Atheists obviously have feelings and sensitivities too. God forbid you questioned or insult or disagreed with them..:)

Happy New Year.

Posted by: Jihadist

Jihadist, as I expected you have ignored the issue I posed for you on interpretation of scripture. Please let us know how do you interpret MO's Miraj, or is it mis-spelt and it really should be spelt, "MIRAGE"? Unlike simple fiction, scripture makes truth claims and guidance. So I use the same rules of interpretation as any book of Mathematics, Physics, Biology, which also make truth claims. I never take up one of those books with a metaphoric or allegoric frame of mind. When I read them, I read them literally. When Einstein said to knock of an electron from surface there is a minimum frequency of light that should be shined. I read it literally. reading it any other way would not help you in generating electricity using light, every time. So when I subject these books of science to the scrutiny, why wouldn't you subject your scripture to the same scrutiny, when they are supposed be a guidance for not only this life but for the eternal here after?

Any truth claim, that cannot be supported by fact and evidence, deserves as much derision as the any claims of astrology, Al Chemistry or Voodoo. Sorry, voodoo is also scripture isn't it? So deserves equal respect as Al kittab or OT, or NT, or Manu, etc, which is same as Astrology, right?

Jihadist, please wear your scientist cap for a change, if you have one, and think about it. If you don't have one, all I can say God Help you. Pray and pray hard to please the god, so it can help you.

Me thinks you think too much of yourself. No one is here to please crackpots like you. Nor do we give crap about what you think. Why dont you take your sorry a.s.s out of the comfy US go back to your Hindu ilk to teach them some humanity. Tell them they shouldn't make the lives of untouchables worse than animals. Then come back and mouth off against others.

Posted by: yasseryousufi

Yasser, you are welcome to think what you want, at least us Americans do not begrudge it. We are not into criminalizing thoughts, unlike in your Dar-ul-Islam. You may not give a "crap" about me, but speak for yourself. But let me tell you if anyone gives anything to you, it is only "CRAP" that they give to you.

Who died and made you the caliph to tell me where I should live or not live. Speaking of humanity, why don't you do what you preach, by working to repeal hudood in your beloved Dar-ul-Islam, Pakistan. Where even your own muslims are treated as Kafirs. First make their life better and then work on making it bette for the few kafirs that live, there owing to them having no other options.

"Yes, I agree that the Imam is a much more relevant person for Religious Dialog than some who are under constant media-watch like the aged and back-pedaling Pope Benedict XVI.

Happy New 2011!

Posted by: teejayniles2345"

TeeJayNiles, pray tell how this man so relevant to any dialog? This is not mean that Mr. Ratzinger is any relevant to anything, either. These so called people of cloth are nothing but snake oil salespersons. What are these peoples aceivment. The latter was as a youth a, perhaps accidental, young storm trooper, then later he was a RCC apparatchik/pencil pusher. He under his watch swept pedophilia, within his territory of RCC, under the rug and has not given complete and transparent accounting of it. What about this Rauf do. At the outset I concede that he has not done or overlooked at such transgressions as Mr. Ratzinger. But that is not saying much for him, either. All we know is this man some time during this past year has created a ruckus by proposing to build a mosque in NYC, close to the so called sacred ground zero. Mind you I do not consider that place any more sacred than the places where Jeffry Dhamer went of killing spree, or for that matter where the 3rd plane crashed or the north end of pentagon.

That asides what did this man do his entire life? Besides marrying Daisy Khan a one time famous PR lady. Has he done anything chivalrous? Has he stood up to any of the despots, almost without exceptions, that rule the world of Dar-ul-Islams. All I gather is he is a Sufi preacher (read snake oil salesman), but that does not impress me much. As far I ma concerned each one of them no matter which strips of religion they wear are parasites on the society, as they produce nothing of economic value. They just claim expertise in totally worthless pieces of literature, coined as scripture, which are full of contradictions and downright intolerable and grotesque immorality dressed up as eternal guidance to humanity. What pray tell is this man's achievements, in making this world a better place to live. Has he produced anything like Steve Jobs did Apple Computer, Mac, iPOD, iPhone, iPad, etc. Or like Mr. Gates who not only revolutionized computing but is managing his fortunes to make the world a better place to live one child, one person at a time. These two by any stretch are not the most perfect. But have definitely mad life better for not only the buyers of their products but also rest of the world at large by the secondary effects of their contributions to the economy.

It does not matter, who the pious man or woman is, all of them put together have not done a thimble full of good compared to the oceans full of good that has come out of the greedy, selfish entrepreneurs, scientist, plain old philanthropists and the general zeitgeist of the humanity.

So please, pray tell us all here what are the great contributions of this man. We are all waiting with bated breath. Enlighten us please.

Yes, I agree that the Imam is a much more relevant person for Religious Dialog than some who are under constant media-watch like the aged and back-pedaling Pope Benedict XVI.

Happy New 2011!

Yasseryousufi,

Re your post..

Mosques - from news that seeped abroad, mosques are seemingly characterised as all terrorist cells.

Muslims in America - it would seem that American Muslims are painted as Muslims first and Americans second. Not Americans who happened to be Muslims.

Economic depression - Nazism rises in Germany partly to the crippling German economy. But how to rationalise McCarthyism in the relatively prosperous fifties? Except for the fact America is having a "Cold War" and paranoia against communism. It is "Islamism" and Islamic terrorist now, except that Islamistan is not a country as the Soviet Union was as the former "bastion" of communism and "challenge" to America.

Tea Party - these folks don't ever say out loud and outright they are against religious and ethnic minorities, just that they are concerned about the economy - debt and taxes. Add on Christian conservatives and you also have a potent brew of blame game and hate flames.

Hate Muslims - that's the current and acceptable flavour by Americans of all political ilks and colours. Even African-Americans saying they are afraid to get on planes if there are "Muslim-looking" folks. It used to be "whites" afraid to sit near, be near, "blacks" in America.

Fox News - not quite news but mostly news slants, news spins and opinions of a certain partisan kind.

Peter King - this is the same fellow who supported the IRA before. His hearing to find out why there is "home grown terrorism" is dubious. After all, he can easily get his info from security personnel doing "enhanced interrogation" of terrorists as to why, where, how etc.
And after all too, we have heard and read so much from American "terrorism experts" who seem to know better than Muslims as to why Muslims become terrorists - what they believe in, what and how they think etc. Terrorism "experts" and terrorism "expertise" is a growth and profitable industry in the US. Just as the "experts" and "expertise" on Islam and Muslims, including those positing themselves as "Muslim reformers" who are ex-Muslims too.

And all these so-called "expertise" stuck in the US and lost and botched in translation in the wider Muslim world. No wonder. They treat their "target group" with contempt for not knowing Thomas Paine and "western values" etc. Western based ex-Muslim" Muslim "reformers" seem to have the illusions and delusions that they can "reach out" to the Muslims they regard with such contempt as being ignorant fools. There are Muslims in Muslim majority states doing much, much more to uplift Muslims politically, economically and socially in their own countries. Only they are not published nor publicised much nor make it round the American media and talkfest circuits. Methinks the so-called ex-Muslim "Muslim reformers" seem more intent in selling to Americans Islam and Muslims are evil and threats rather than to actually lead Muslims to better lives.

Jihadist,

The topic of Sufism and spirituality is too deep for people who have only superficial knowledge of Islam gained from highly questionable sources. So I would never pin my hopes on that.

I also skimmed through that Eboo article and thought it was too polluted even for someone like me who likes to take these people. I agree with you regarding this mosque and wider implications of the anti-islamic hysteria being a test for America. You just cant be a muslim-looking muslim in America today and not be worried about it. My study of history of tells me that a crippling depression well into its second year and wars that further drain the economy affecting the lives of everyone form a deadly combination. The last time it happened, it turned a highly industrialized society and an educated populace of a super power into blood thirsty maniacs. They hunted down a defenseless minority like a pack of wolves. People ignored the rise of Nazi Party like they are ignoring the Tea Party. Their hatefull rhetoric usually gets swept under the carpet. But these people wont budge. They have already whipped up their 20% base (usual culprits) into a frenzy. The real test will come in two years time and rest assured the Hate Muslim wave will reached a crescendo by then. Thats their ticket to power. Even the people are looking out for the easy scapegoat, someone to blame for all their troubles. Than you have the Fox News, a butt of many jokes. But what everyone ignores is that its the most watched news channel in america. More than CNN or NBC or ABC. Its such a big and effective platform for fomenting hate. I have said on these forums before, Fox News is like a huge Madrassah. It churns out ignorant graduates everyday who with their half cooked theories think they understand the vagaries of this world and know how to fix it.

Of course all this could be just a figment of my mind. History cannot repeat itself or can it? But I dont like the look of meteoric rise of this Tea Party Movement and the fact most commentators keep dissing it as just a flash in the pan. This has all the ingredients to turn into something big. Peter King's congressional hearings are just a start.

Hope you also have a Happy New Year!

(To someone) -

"Me thinks you think too much of yourself. No one is here to please crackpots like you. Nor do we give crap about what you think."

- Yasseryousufi

******************************************

There was a row before here, in another thread of Jacoby's, where an Indian atheist, a Canadian atheist, an Iranian duke it out to see who knows better and best and can speak out on specific subjects.

They are just, well, combative, when they get going in perceiving someone is insulting them as a person. Atheists obviously have feelings and sensitivities too. God forbid you questioned or insult or disagreed with them..:)

Happy New Year.

I would like to know, for instance, if Rauf's idea of tolerance also extends to those threatend by radical Islamists who object to any speech or images that offend their faith.

- Susan Jacoby

Thats a No brainer! Ms. Jacoby, If you know anything about Feisal Rauf you'd know he is a Sufi Muslim. Sufi's have always been Universalist in their message (refer to Mevlana Rumi). In India, the shrines of Sufi saints are frequented by Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, social outcasts, drunkards and what not. That is a testament to the message of love they brought for all humanity and not just people of their own faith.

- Yasseryousufi

******************************************

Yasseryousufi,

Most don't see Sufis for what they are - folks into personal spiritualism and into love, peace and understanding and are mostly non-judgemental.

Feisal Rauf, breaking with the tradition of most Sufis being into quietism and non-activism, decided to build his Park 51/Cordoba House. And naively walked into a firestorm for being near the site of Ground Zero.

This is an American "sensitivity" test.
Feisal Rauf is deemed to have flunked.

From Eboo Patel's blogs' reader responses, Muslims into inter-faith bridge-bulding are questioned on their "motives" and have charges of taqqiya leveled at them. That's casting aspersion whether American Muslims are "true Americans".

This is an American "patriot" test.
American Muslim moderates are deemed to have flunked.

Ms. Jacoby asking whether Feisal Rauf's "idea of tolerance also extends to those threatend by radical Islamists who object to any speech or images that offend their faith" is asking whether Feisal Rauf will stand by American values and principles of freedom of expression and free speech.

This is an American "secular" test.
Feisal Rauf is still being tested.

Looks like America is like Malaysia nowadays - the minority faith and ethnic group are "oppressed". Only the national Constitutions are different, America is a first world country and Malaysia a third world country. The former seems to slide down while the latter seems to strive up politically, economically, socially. For now.

Until all these muslim inter-faithers first spread their so called gospel of tolerance in their dar-ul-islams. Their protestations ring hollow to me.
---SECULAR

Me thinks you think too much of yourself. No one is here to please crackpots like you. Nor do we give crap about what you think. Why dont you take your sorry a.s.s out of the comfy US go back to your Hindu ilk to teach them some humanity. Tell them they shouldn't make the lives of untouchables worse than animals. Then come back and mouth off against others.

Thats a No brainer! Ms. Jacoby, If you know anything about Feisal Rauf you'd know he is a Sufi Muslim. Sufi's have always been Universalist in their message (refer to Mevlana Rumi). In India, the shrines of Sufi saints are frequented by Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, social outcasts, drunkards and what not. That is a testament to the message of love they brought for all humanity and not just people of their own faith.

Oh! My MY. "Sufi's have always been Un iversalist in their message" as opposed to Islam? Do I need to go to an ophthalmologist? Seriously, what has Mr. Rauf do in the past, other than mouthing some inane homilies about inter-faith understanding the rest of the usual BS. Has he taken his message of inter-faith cooperation to any of the Dar-ul-islams? Don't give me this self-righteous indignation. Until all these muslim inter-faithers first spread their so called gospel of tolerance in their dar-ul-islams. Their protestations ring hollow to me.

Your insinuations that all muslims threatened the woman who organized EDMD speaks poorly of your knowledge. There's an organization in US of former Jews and White Evangelicals called revolutionmuslim.com who say they are converts to Islam and spew the worst kind of hatred. (which is music to the ears of Islamophobes). They were the only people who threatened Comedy Central. No muslim organization ever supported them. To compare revolutionmuslim.com or new black panthers with a Sufi muslim is simply the nuttiest thing I've ever heard.

Yes, yes all the riots in all the Dar-ul-islams was all done by your friends the revolutionislam.com

It just goes to show that the 24/7 disinformation spread by Fox News is slowly seeping into mainstream educated people along with all the nuts in the Tea Party Movement

Seriously, are you F%^&in kidding me. Whenever you don't stomach anyones writing, you have your whipping boy Fox news. For your information (not that it matters, as you are never swayed by any facts) Susan Jacoby would be the last person who would even be watching the Fox news much less be brainwashed by it. It is you and your ilk that are brainwashed by that 1400 year old vile tome of filth. A man who believe in Buraq the winged horse, has no credentials to talk about others credulity. What was the Buraq supposed to do with wing once it passes the stratosphere. The moron who wrote the AL kittab was not aware that there is nothing up there once you cross over 30 - 40 KMs. The simpleton only thought of the birds flying around with the wings, so he cooked up a horse with wings.

For Judaism and mainstream Christianity, the Garden of Eden story isn't a literal history and it isn't a make-believe parable, either. These religions see the story as making a point about what they believe to be the nature of their god and the nature of humanity.
-------------------------
The views of Judaism and Christianity are miles and miles apart on the myth of Eden.
For Jews it is etiological, endorses Tikkun Olam (the "mission" of perfecting or healing the world, and that is all).

In the Christian reinterpretation of the story, it marks "Original Sin," utterly foreign to Judaic thought. In fact most Jews do not know what it is, and when it is explained, do not quite understand it, so foreign is it to Judaic thought throughout the centuries.

"Is that is how you want to see and think all believers should be regardless of the obvious fact that if the sacred texts have one understanding, one comprehension, one interpretation by and of all believers, there would not be many schools of though, sects, churches etc in myriad faith groups?"

I have no hegemony on the believers, they are free to think and interpret as the choose. But do not come to me and tell me that your comprehension is the correct one. The reason why we myriad interpretations is that on the face of it the believers feel compelled to rationalize the obvious horse manure they by scriptures are. The rationalizations vary by the time when they were put forth, based on the knowledge discovered up to that point in time.

"You want belief to be personal to holder (the so-called free for all) or as determined and dictated by “religious authorities” on “one” way to believe? Or, you don’t want anyone to believe in God/gods and be members of faith group for it deluded their minds and poisoned everything?"

As I said above I have no position on the above. You do what you want, it is your intellectual life. You want to be deluded go right ahead. I am not your daddy or mommy or you sky-daddy or sky-mommy. Yes I rather nobody believes in any kind of dogs, not because I command it so. Because beliefs challenge your credulity. Various interpretations and rationalizations are pseudo-intellectual pursuits. I don't expect you to rebut my arguments, other than shifting the goalposts, or completely ignore them, as usual.

Is that a version, a notion of secular totalitarianism on literalism? Not secular humanism? Not secular humaneness? In this world of diverse products, ideas, views and beliefs? No wonder some religious fundamentalists accused atheists of being communists.

Jihadist, please don't be silly. Isn't reading the scripture literally not one of the interpretations of it? Are you the sole arbiter of what are the valid interpretations of it? How does that differ from a single authority or a handful of authorities that validate the correct interpretation? The burden is still yours (believers I mean to carry. By the way, as always, you chose to ignore my question about Miraj. What are the valid ways to interpret that fable, other than literally? I am supposed to respect that fable and not mock it just because 1.3 billion of you have given sabbatical to your brains on this fable. In my logic class, I was taught - correctly, that number of believers in an assertion does not give it any strength, whatsoever. How am I supposed to interpret Buraq the winged horse, or the claim that MO met with all the mythical prophets. In your interpretation was MO having one of his hallucinations or drams? If so what is the significance of your interpretation over mine. I contend that MO made it up, just like everything else. Why is your, whatever it is, more valid than mine.

Yasseryousufi

Islam is perfect; anyone who disagrees with you is a homosexual ...

... barf

I had thought that atheists became atheists because they are also disquieted, appalled by what man does in the name of a politicised God and religion, and not just because the idea, the notion, the belief in, of a God is illogical and unproven.

Some non-religious people are in one camp or the other and some are in both. One reason I'm not an atheist is because my concerns are much broader than that. For the former, I have grave concerns about the influence of the religious right in America, but I see the real problem as not religion but absolutism, which covers some religions and some secular ideologies. For the latter, I make no distinction in principle between claims about gods and miracles and supernatural phenomena and claims about psychic phenomena or extrasensory perception.

This is silly them dumb texts should not be taken literally. If not literally, how else would one take it? Then it would be a free for all

Whether one is defending or criticizing scripture, it's a mistake to assume that the only meaning to the text is the literal one. That's not the way most religions and most religious people read their scriptures.

For Judaism and mainstream Christianity, the Garden of Eden story isn't a literal history and it isn't a make-believe parable, either. These religions see the story as making a point about what they believe to be the nature of their god and the nature of humanity. One can strongly disagree with those beliefs while recognizing that most believers don't read the story as history. The fallacy of modern American fundamentalism is the assumption that the story can only have meaning if it's literal history, and that's the same fallacy held by many atheists.

“If not literally, how else would one take it? Then it would be a free for all.”

- Secularist

*******************************************

Is that a version, a notion of secular totalitarianism on literalism? Not secular humanism? Not secular humaneness? In this world of diverse products, ideas, views and beliefs? No wonder some religious fundamentalists accused atheists of being communists.

Is that is how you want to see and think all believers should be regardless of the obvious fact that if the sacred texts have one understanding, one comprehension, one interpretation by and of all believers, there would not be many schools of though, sects, churches etc in myriad faith groups?

You want belief to be personal to holder (the so-called free for all) or as determined and dictated by “religious authorities” on “one” way to believe? Or, you don’t want anyone to believe in God/gods and be members of faith group for it deluded their minds and poisoned everything?

Happy New Year to you.

I would like to know, for instance, if Rauf's idea of tolerance also extends to those threatend by radical Islamists who object to any speech or images that offend their faith.

---Susan Jacoby

Thats a No brainer! Ms. Jacoby, If you know anything about Feisal Rauf you'd know he is a Sufi Muslim. Sufi's have always been Universalist in their message (refer to Mevlana Rumi). In India, the shrines of Sufi saints are frequented by Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, social outcasts, drunkards and what not. That is a testament to the message of love they brought for all humanity and not just people of their own faith.

Your insinuations that all muslims threatened the woman who organized EDMD speaks poorly of your knowledge. There's an organization in US of former Jews and White Evangelicals called revolutionmuslim.com who say they are converts to Islam and spew the worst kind of hatred. (which is music to the ears of Islamophobes). They were the only people who threatened Comedy Central. No muslim organization ever supported them. To compare revolutionmuslim.com or new black panthers with a Sufi muslim is simply the nuttiest thing I've ever heard. It just goes to show that the 24/7 disinformation spread by Fox News is slowly seeping into mainstream educated people along with all the nuts in the Tea Party Movement

Jihadist writes,

"And they take it literally to rationalise disbelief, just as literalist believers take it literally to justify belief in the super-supra-supreme natural too."

How is one supposed to take it? This is silly them dumb texts should not be taken literally. If not literally, how else would one take it? Then it would be a free for all. When you read, that Krishna lifted the Govardhana Hill to protect the village from Indra's wrath, in Bhagvatham why shouldn't we take it literally? The ignorants of then really believe in the crap to write such crap. Like the floods of NOah, the Hebrew ignorants believed that kind manure so they wrote that. Likwise, when MO cliamed he was miraculously taken by a winged horse taking him to heaven the Bedouin ignorant believe in such utter nonsense and swallowed it hook line & sinker. Since you are a Muslim, please explain to us Why MOs claims should not be taken literally? If so do you agree that MO was lying through his teeth?

Then she goes on to claim "I had thought that atheists became atheists because they are also disquieted, appalled by what man does in the name of a politicised God and religion, and not just because the idea, the notion, the belief in, of a God is illogical and unproven."

You are wrong. We first take objection to the latter and we recognize that former is the consequence of the latter. So latter is more dangerous.

Then you add "Reading the sacred texts closely reminds one of the timeless capacity and ability of man to relate, understand and interpret whatever and however he wants in anything he sees, hears and reads - the ageless quest and question of who we are, what we want to be, how we see ourself and the world"

Oh! Gees the above sounds like unvarnished rambling. You folks do that, whatever that is because you have been brainwashed to believe that those silly texts are some eternal guidance. Given that people like you try to interpret them to your mindset. These are supposed to be eternal so let me interpret them to suit my purpose. What is there to interpret MO's hateful rants about his uncle Abu Lahab.

"Secularism needs a new vocabulary to describe how the West is dominated by the marketplace of ideas."

*******************************************

If it were not for the dog eat dog reality of the media business, we won't have man bites dog, dog bites man stories cluttering up media space subsuming or marginalising real stories having more impact in medium and long term on us.

One fellow intending to burn the Qur'an sells more newspapers, gets more blog hits over stories such as Obama's policy and/or intentions on faith-based initiatives.

Want to call it media trash? Or junknews? Or media rubbish blitz?

Happy New Year to you.

Not sure which column would be a better place for this comment, but I think Susan's choice of worst secular story (Texas' history textbook guidelines) is dog-bites-man, too: "Conservative state with market power to influence textbook writing, rebels against liberally biased multiculturalism."

I've mentioned in previous Jacoby columns some silly content from popular school textbooks:
---------------------------------------
The popular textbook Nation of Nations does not mention in its 1277 pages: the Wright Brothers, William Shockley or Watson and Crick. It does work in six pages of mentions of Juan Chanax. WTF is Juan Chanax? An illegal immigrant from Guatemala who works in a supermarket and brought in 1,000 other illegal aliens from his home village.

In discussing World War Two, the book devotes two paragraphs to the war in the Pacific in 1942-43, and equal space to the 1943 Zoot Suit riot.
---------------------------------------

People frequently turn to religion when the world as they knew it doesn't seem to have a place for them anymore. Those of us who grew up on a history of what great men Christopher Columbus, George Washington and Teddy Roosevelt were, will look for an anchor when history is told as nothing but a list of how the West stole the ideas and oppressed the peoples of other cultures.

Secularism needs a new vocabulary to describe how the West is dominated by the marketplace of ideas. Bad ones like monarchy, state religions and slavery are abolished INTERNALLY, not imposed from without. There isn't another large culture on the planet with a comparable record of that, and we need a non-religious rebuttal to the constant denigrations of the jealous.

A lot of atheists became atheists precisely because they read those sacred texts closely.

- Susan Jacoby

*******************************************

And they take it literally to rationalise disbelief, just as literalist believers take it literally to justify belief in the super-supra-supreme natural too.

I had thought that atheists became atheists because they are also disquieted, appalled by what man does in the name of a politicised God and religion, and not just because the idea, the notion, the belief in, of a God is illogical and unproven.

Reading the sacred texts closely reminds one of the timeless capacity and ability of man to relate, understand and interpret whatever and however he wants in anything he sees, hears and reads - the ageless quest and question of who we are, what we want to be, how we see ourself and the world.

On Faith: 2010 influences on faith
Since the year is coming to a close, it is time to take a look back and discuss the people who had the biggest impact on faith in 2010.

Once again, atheists are not solely to blame for religious people losing faith in religion and God this year. It seems that religious leaders are able to drive people away from religion all by themselves. Pope Benedict XVI does a great job this year in his continued refusal to take responsibility for the actions and conduct of priests under his charge and his continued systematical cover up of the crimes of these child molesters. His comical attempt at blaming everyone else has made him the number one influencer of faith this year. The only way he can top this for next year is if Wikileaks were to release evidence that he too was a pedophile. As it is, we just have to settle for the Pope’s ridiculous statements allowing male prostitutes to wear condoms.

You can read the rest of my response to this topic:
http://exm.nr/gOVzCY

I will be responding to every issue posted in the 'On Faith' section. If you would like to be notified when my new response is up, please subscribe.