I don't usually reply to comments with a post, but this one falls in line with other disturbing posts and comments I've read in blogs lately, so it's as good excuse as any. Phil from Florida has made a handy list of reasons why Islam should be banned in America.

Islam should be banned in America because: 1. Islam is not a religion. It is a political or military organization that is corrupt. 2. It is a corrupt criminal organization subject to the RICO laws. .. 4. Islam resembles fascist Nazis and totalitarianism - not a religion. 5. Islam is seditious. It advocates the overthrow of the government. .. 8. The failure of good Muslims to object or organize and stop bad Muslims indicts the whole Islamic movement. .. 11. Islam is always at war. .. 14. Islam was first at war with America in 1786 (Tripolitan Wars) .. 19. The assassin of Robert Kennedy in 1968 read and followed the Quran. .. 23. Islam is more dangerous and more harmful to Americans than the Mafia, Klu Klux Klan, Arian Nation, or the Nazis. .. 28. Real religions don't become governments, cause invasions, insurrections, and have under cover operatives world wide. 29. Real religions don't encourage blackmail, hijacking, ransom, extortion, assassination, and wholesale murder. .. 33. Islam should be banned in America!

This is the kind of writing that is produced when ignorance meets paranoia and anger. I've written before about how belief in an Islamic essence that supercedes the behavior of actual Muslims leads people to making sloppy generalizations about Islam. This process has two steps: First you must believe that this essence exists, and that it is possible to capture it in a few words. Then you go looking for those words. Quotes from the Koran, statements by Islamic thinkers. The research bears fruit, proof is found: Islam is war - or peace, depending on who's looking.

The problem is that you can prove anything this way, and you'll still be no closer to describing the faith of actual Muslims. This kind of work requires nuance and humility in the face of complexity. Yeah I know, it's all supposed to be Good and Evil these days. "Nuance" and "shades of gray" are the words of relativists. But no matter how useful it can be to describe a particular belief or act as Evil, once you leave the area of moral judgments for the descriptive world, nuance is your best friend.

We have to build our moral judgments on a solid foundation. You can't say if terrorism is good or evil without knowing what terrorism is. You can't say if Islam is good or evil without knowing what Islam is. And unfortunately, unlike a political method used by a small number of people, it is very difficult to know what a 1400 year old religion with 1.3 billion believers really "is".

You certainly won't find the answer in a few quotes from the Koran, or in the statements of a few Muslims. To describe something big and complex, you need a big and complex description, supported by a huge number of carefully assembled facts. Impossible? Historians do this all the time. There's an interesting parallel here: Good historians embrace the complexity of their subject. They approach the mountain of evidence they base their work on with humility and a sense of duty towards the truth. And they will be honest with you about the limits of their craft. Bad historians treat the mountain of historical evidence as a catalog they can pick and choose facts from, to back up sensational and simplistic theories.

Conspiracy theories are a subset of bad history. The list above is the religious equivalent of a conspiracy theory. It even uses bad history to back up its claims. Islam, in the form of the Barbary pirates of North Africa, "was first at war with America in 1786". Great Britain was also at war with America in those days. Was that a war with Christianity, or perhaps Europe? Should it guide American foreign policy towards Great Britain today?

The assassin of Robert Kennedy "read and followed the Quran". But Sirhan was a Christian Palestinian.

"Real religions" supposedly don't do a lot of things Christians have done for a long time: "become governments, cause invasions, insurrections". And granted that they've mostly stopped doing it, why should whatever Christians do be the definition of "real religion"?

Okay, I've picked on this guy enough. I don't mean to use him as a straw man. This is Islam criticism gone totally rotten, and he goes further than most others. But he's not alone in wanting to ban Islam, and comparing Islam itself to Nazism. When I wrote about the Progress Party politicians in Kristiansand who wanted to ban Islam, which I thought was pretty shocking, I came over a disturbing thread on Little Green Footballs about the same story. I'm not saying these are the views of Charles Johnson, or of a majority of his readers, but a large number of comments went like this:

A Viking funeral for Islam!

..

Right on! These Euros have the Viking spirit, are a breed apart.

..

woah! they can do that?!

..

Wow. I can't see that going over well with the PC crowd, but the more I read the Koran and about Islam, the more I think we need to do the same.

..

Excellent news. If true.

..

Way to go!!! Unfortunately, it'll never happen. I know that Norway has their version of the ACLU, and I am surprised that they haven't responded already!! That place is full of leftists!!

..

I wish the Norwegians lots of luck. They sure are going to need it.

..

This takes freakin guts!! It gives me hope in the Western World that we are waking up!!!

Many replies were of the respectful "this is going a bit far but it's good somebody speaks up against Islam" variety. Only a very few came out firmly against the idea of a European country banning an entire religion.

Let's step back a bit here. The majority of LGF readers are probably Americans, vote Republican, and support the war on terror. These are people who - rightfully - admire the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Like many on the left, they probably believe that they're the ones who stand between their political enemies and the Constitution. You'll expect few denounciations of the Bill of Rights as "PC" or "leftist" from this camp. And here they go on record asking for Norway to abandon our equivalent of the first amendment, one of the basic rights of any democracy: Freedom of religion.

Yeah, I know, "Islam isn't a religion, it's an ideology". And criticizing the government isn't "speech", it's sedition. Redefining away a right is easy - just don't come here afterwards and pretend it's still the same right.

What has gone wrong when Norwegians, Americans and other Westerners who rever the enlightenment ideals of reason and freedom of thought more than anything, justify restrictions on thought with bad reasoning and paranoia? It's not just LGF readers. You can read similar views (though fewer of them) at Free Republic, Dhimmi Watch, and Liberty Post - all in reply to the Kristiansand story.

Again, I'm not saying these views are shared by the owners of these websites, or the majority of their readers. But neither do I see many strong, principled objections. Phil says above that "the failure of good Muslims to object or organize and stop bad Muslims indicts the whole Islamic movement", which doesn't justify a ban on Islam, but is true in a sense. We all have a responsibility to speak up clearly against extremists in our own ranks, whether we are Muslims or peace activists or bloggers who criticize Islam and support the war on Islamist terror.

And so it's time to stand up for the basic values of our democracies and confront those in our own ranks who want to abandon those values. Because if we don't, outsiders will be justified in interpreting this as silent approval or apologism.

Something has gone rotten. We can't blame it on the "left", the "relativists", the "PC crowd" or the "multiculturalists", (and don't anybody dare blame it on the Muslims). It's gone rotten here, among people who on 9/11 woke up to the danger of Islamism. The ban Islam meme and all its relatives (Islam is Islamism, Islam is war) must be confronted here, now, before it spreads.

"Yeah, I know, "Islam isn't a religion, it's an ideology". And criticizing the government isn't "speech", it's sedition. Redefining away a right is easy - just don't come here afterwards and pretend it's still the same right."

For this reason the US Constitution explicitly defines treason:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

maybe we should ask why do mohammedans have such a bad image?
/sarcasm

Bjørn -- I think we can be proud of the fact that, following 911, there has been virtually no persecution here in America of muslims. Folks in Europe, I remember, were predicting attacks on muslims in America.

I think it's interesting that you are so sensitive to memos like the ones you've cited. Of course, you're right in objecting to such slander. Muslims have rights, as do we all, and should be treated fairly and protected. I agree with the points you have made.

I have noticed, though, that Norwegians are not so quick to detect and react to similar attacks on jews in Norway. Here in America, there is a Jewish Anti-Defamation League that keeps us on our toes. Now I think Americans must be more alert to prejudice directed at muslims, too. I suspect folks in Norway might be more careful when they speak publicly about muslims, because there is a vocal muslim minority in Norway that monitors what is said about muslims, and those people do stand up and object if they feel that they have been treated unfairly. It's not uncommon to hear Norwegian suggest that American foreign policy in the Mideast is skewed by an influential jewish lobby here. For my part, I have wondered whether the presence in Norway of a vocal muslim minority might not account for Norwegian support for radical muslim causes and even explain a certain reluctance in Norway to criticize islamic terror.

Okay, let me understand this..........first you say that criticism of Islam is wrong because people are cherry-picking (specific quotes from the Koran, etc.), and then you visit web sites to cherry-pick yourself? 'Blogs, much like political parties, cater to a specific viewpoint; unlike 'blogs, political parties often have to compromise with 'the opposition.' That balance between left and right is what makes democracy so successful - 'blogs aren't under any such obligation. And now you are also engaging in a polemic - one must be either 'for' or 'against' banning a religion! Well, put me in the middle; I don't believe in banning religion, I don't believe the majority of Muslims living in 'the West' are dangerous - I do believe, however, that Islam needs a reformation, and has needed a reformation for some centuries now. The concept of "Allah wills it' is a loathsome to me as the caste system of India. Europe spent many centuries and much blood reforming religion; it appears to me that Islam is undergoing a reformation also, but the victims in this civil war are Muslim and non-Muslim. Most people do not want to stereotype innocents, but the lack of condemnation from most Muslims against the acts of barbarity lead some to wonder how they view these acts.
If the posters over at LGF are over-excited, well, they're worried. If you don't like what you read there, don't go there. If you want to extrapolate from that website to the entire US population, then you are making too large a leap. And finally, the point of all this is that rather than questioning ourselves, we should be helping those Muslims that want religious reformation. We should be pointing out the gender apartheid in the ME. We should donate to various charities helping make a better future in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, the human mind stereotypes - it must; the process of categorization is the only way one can manage so much information. Stereotyping is a problem if one does something negative with it (a harmful act, versus a harmful thought); banning a religion is a harmful act, questioning a religion is not.

I am against banning Islam, for purely tactical reasons. I think it is better to expose its hateful teachings in full light than to create sympathy through a misguided banning. It is the Muslims who are calling for restrictions of Freedom of Speech, like the five Muslim ambassadors who attacked Islam-criticism in Norway. They are the bad guys, and we shouldn't make martyrs out of them.

That being said, I think the comparison between Islam and Nazism is a very good and valid one. There is one major difference: If you didn't belong to the Master Race according to the Nazis, you couldn't join it. A non-white person couldn't suddenly become blond and Aryan. A non-Muslim can convert and become a Muslim. The view of The Others, those not belonging to the Master Race, is however the same. They, the non-Aryans or the non-Muslims, are subhuman. At best, they can live as discriminated subjects in an apartheid regime, like slaves or servants for the Master Race. At worst, they are filth that needs to be eradicated. It is - literally -the God-given right of the Master Race to conquer, subjugate or kill all "Others".

As an atheist or non-religious person, that would NEVER convert to Muhammed's disgusting creed, I belong to the "filth that needs to be eradicated" category. Islam only gives you three options:

1. Convert to Islam.

2. Accept a position as "dhimmi", second - or third rate citizen in your own country, with severe restrictions on your freedoms, subject to Muslim rule and humiliation and paying a somtimes crushing "punishment tax" called Jizya. This option, already not that great, is only available to the "People of the Book", which means other monotheists such as Christians or Jews. This is what too many in our growing Muslim communities in the West want to turn us into: Second-class citizens in our own home. That is what the fuzz is all about with screams of "censorship" from the 2% Muslims in Norway, who think the native 98% of the population shall submit to their rule. Just like the persecuted Christians do in Pakistan, Egypt etc. Reading DhimmiWatch, http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/ , frequently will give you some idea of what's going on. Like this one:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch...

Opposition Leader in National Assembly Maulana Fazlur Rehman on Monday demanded that the United Nations should declare the defamation of Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) an international crime. He said Muslims were ready to render every sacrifice to protect the honour and sanctity of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and the belief of finality of his prophethood. Scholars and participants from all European countries including Great Britain, Germany, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, as well as Pakistan, India, Bangladesh attended the conference. More than 20,000 people participated in the conference.

3. Die. All those not belonging to the two first categories - Muslims and discriminated monotheists - shall be killed. Buddhists, Hindus, Bahais, animists, agnostics, atheists etc. This is not "extremism", it is ORTHODOX ISLAMIC TEACHINGS, and always has been so. Now Bjørn, since you are not a religious person, Muslims have a God-given right, some would say duty, to kill you. This is not paranoia, it is the sad and horrible truth.

The Totalitarian nature of Islam is actually WORSE than that of Nazism. Not even Adolf Hitler demanded or expected everybody to have the same mustache as he did, have sex with his wife or visit the bathroom in the same ways he did. Muahmmed did. And still does. It's called the "sunna". He is the perfect example for mankind now and forever, as is to be emulated in EVERY way. Can 54 year old men have sex with 9 year old children? Sure. Muhammed did, so then it must be ok:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/ayesha.htm

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64
Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/chapter16.html

Websites by ex-Muslims:

WEBSITES BY EX-MUSLIMS:

http://www.secularislam.org/

http://www.faithfreedom.org/

http://www.middleastwomen.org/

http://www.apostatesofislam.com/

http://www.mukto-mona.com/

http://www.homa.org/

http://www.ladeeni.net/english.htm

http://taslimanasrin.com/

http://www.muslimsandislamic.faithweb.com/

http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/

http://exmuslim.com/

http://www.islamreview.org/

http://www.swordoftruth.com/swordoftruth...

http://www.shoebat.com/

http://www.noniedarwish.com/

http://www.murtadd.org/

http://www.webspawner.com/users/hfali1/

http://www.knowislam.info/

http://www.geocities.com/ibn_rushd2

http://www.ampbreia.com/

Bjorn
i agree on most of your points however i would really like to see a parliament, senat, congress, house of lords etc.... read the ahadiths, sunna, and the koran. then debate whether it it is a religion or a political ideology. my own study lead me to lean towards the latter, and if thats so we truly live in interesting times.

A few comments in my usual slapped-together style:

If you're thinking in terms of war, then you need an enemy and the less human, the better. One of the signs of real war is when substantial parts of the population cease to regard the 'enemy' as human (usually expressed negatively, as in "they don't think we're human").

The highest duty theologians of any religion can perform is to water down the sacred texts. Getting 'back to the source' as in close examination of holy texts and trying to base a modern society on them is a recipe for a miserable society.

There are lots of reasons that rank and file moslems don't speak out against the raving fundamentalist crazies, ranging from the "It's obvious they're crazy, who would listen to them?" (answer: too many people) to the fact that Islam (and a lot of Christianity) promotes a private conscience and not a social one (I first came across this from Stanley Diamond many years ago). After all, if you think you're living life as close as you can to God's design for living, then what goes on with other people isn't a great concern.

I sort of wonder if the modern world isn't Islam's plague moment (reference to CW that the Catholic church's failure to explain/control the plague led to the rise of protestantism and the loss of most overt political power of the church).
I'ts only the last 30 (probably less) years or so that great masses of Moslems can see how poorly their societies are doing materially compared with the west and Islamic theologians haven't been able to either explain or reverse this trend. I recently read (here?) that a 'back to basics' movement is usually a sign of imminent collapse. I'm not predicting imminent collapse for Islam but I wouldn't be surprised if (out of sight) mainstream Moslems are simply learning to simultaneously believe in contradictory messages from their religion and the real world (like most Christians and Jews, for example).

Bjorn,
You had me up until the last paragraph. Obviously, most people will agree that banning a religion is an unwise move for any democratic government. The slippery slope argument, while often misused, is valid here. If we ban Islam, why not other religions and ideologies that appear threatening?

My confusion is with your last paragraph:

Something has gone rotten. We can't blame it on the "left", the "relativists", the "PC crowd" or the "multiculturalists", (and don't anybody dare blame it on the Muslims). It's gone rotten here, among people who on 9/11 woke up to the danger of Islamism. The ban Islam meme and all its relatives (Islam is Islamism, Islam is war) must be confronted here, now, before it spreads.

I understand we can’t blame the “left", the "relativists", the "PC crowd" or the "multiculturalists", for the development of the Ban Islam meme. These folks are sincere in their desire to live peacefully with everyone and anyone. However I do not understand why we shouldn’t “dare to blame it on the Muslims”? Is there no culpability on the part of the Muslim community? Certainly, no one in the West would be embracing the meme if Muslims weren’t killing people all over the world in the name of their religion. I also understand that creating a clash of civilizations is one of the stated aims of the Islamo-fascist movement. I would argue that the gathering strength of the ban Islam meme is exactly the goal of OBL and crew and thus I believe it only proper that I “dare blame it on the Muslims,” at least to some degree.

FC

--And here they go on record asking for Norway to abandon our equivalent of the first amendment, one of the basic rights of any democracy: Freedom of religion.--

So?

Europe and "the world" have been making demands on Americans for a few decades now to give up pieces of our Constitution.

ICC - violates 3, 4 & 5, possibly 1, 9 and 12. They could have protected our rights to get us to join it, but they refused. Could have done the same w/Kyoto, bringing in the 2 majorpollution-causing countries which has 1/3 of the world's population, but again, they refused.

UN wants world-wide gun control - there goes 2 which protects #1 - and trust me, all 3 branches have done TREMENDOUS damage to #1, we don't need outside help, thank you very much.

After all, it's an 18th century document suited to those times, not relevant in the 21st century, and we must put it aside for the greater good of "the world."

Hell will freeze over before I give it up. I'm going down fighting.

All the muslims have to do is stop killing us and learn to get along. Where are the "moderate" muslims?

The AQ plans discovered will not help. They were going to bomb The Tube and drown people.

3 years and the crickets still drown out the "moderate" voices.

And the chatter has fallen off - it did before 9/11, too.

Vehicle passes to the Olypics have been stolen partially because the some of the idiots who had them in their cars DIDN'T LOCK THEIR DOORS. Security is going to be a joke.

Bjorn, I understand what you're saying and why, but when someone tells you he intends to kill you, believe him. They've not only told you, they've done it.

I believe that the real issue here is that there is an internal war within Islam. While that religion has always had its divisions, as have all others, right now the big split is between "mainstream" and the Islamists, i.e., the al-Qaeda and other sects. The latter, of course, are what we are currently fighting in our war on "terror."

So, as many others have noted before me, the WoT is actually in two parts. First is to find and destroy the terrorists, and to constrain their scope of operations, and to make the idea of being a jihadi syonomous with getting a one way ticket ot an inglorious and useless death. The second is going to have to be fought within Islam itself, by Muslims, and is eventually going to determine whether the religion survives or degenerates into an ideology of death.

Which would be fit for banning. In the US there are periodic fits of hysteria about Satanists. On that subject I am agnostic (heh, heh), that is, I don't believe there is an organized Satanic church. Yeah, sure, a bunch of losers and rejects and kids playing at being Goths, coupled with grandstannding local politicians and prosecutors, plus parental fear and ignorance but that's it. If, however, there really were such an organization, dedicated to blood sacrifice and slaughter, then I doubt that any American would suggest that it deserves protection under the Bill of Rights.

Not 3, 4, 5,

but

4, 5, & 6. Sorry.

----

And unfortunately for all of us, the terrorists number in the 10s of millions.

And as to Charles (LGF) background, long-haired, bike-riding Californian musician and artiste, if you will, and DEMOCRAT. LGF has been around awhile.

Read his archives on W, 2000 and 2001.

Doesn't like him.

Has admitted same many, many times after 9/11.

But then he was mugged by reality on a beautiful Tuesday morning in September of 2001. And he celebrates being head of his lizardoid minions.

He also started becoming informed.....

Palestinian Child Abuse is a must-see/must-read.

Jean: "Okay, let me understand this..........first you say that criticism of Islam is wrong because people are cherry-picking (specific quotes from the Koran, etc.)"

Where did I say that? Show me the quote.

"and then you visit web sites to cherry-pick yourself?"

To prove what? That all Islam criticism is wrong? Of course not. There's no way you could read that from my words. My point was simply that the people I was quoting was wrong, and to warn that they make up a fair minority of readers of Islam critical websites. So is it cherry picking to quote the people I criticize to show that they are wrong?

"If the posters over at LGF are over-excited, well, they're worried. If you don't like what you read there, don't go there."

Are you saying that whenever anyone reads something, in a blog or newspaper, that they don't agree with, they should deal with this not by criticizing that view, but by ignoring it? That coming out publicly against the views of another person is some kind of .. I don't know, crushing of dissent? Now where have I heard that before. Anyway, good luck convincing a blogger who's been doing just that - criticizing the views of other people - for three years, to stop.

"If you want to extrapolate from that website to the entire US population, then you are making too large a leap."

Where did I say that? Show me the quote.

Ali Dashti: "I am against banning Islam, for purely tactical reasons. I think it is better to expose its hateful teachings in full light than to create sympathy through a misguided banning."

And that's part of the problem, this attitude "I don't fully agree with the solution, but of course they have a point". I'm still waiting for somebody to wake up and say "oh my God we're talking about banning an entire religion here! We're talking about removing one of the founding principles of democracy! What's gotten into us?" Yeah yeah, there are many bad Muslims. We know. That's not the issue here. The issue is how flippant people have suddenly gotten about freedom of thought.

Have you thought through the implications of the kind of language you're using here? Or are you so focused on the evil of Islam that you're no longer even aware of any other considerations?

Franko: "However I do not understand why we shouldn’t “dare to blame it on the Muslims”? Is there no culpability on the part of the Muslim community? Certainly, no one in the West would be embracing the meme if Muslims weren’t killing people all over the world in the name of their religion."

Ah .. yes. Doesn't this sound familiar. Look at yourself from the outside for a little bit, try to remember where else you may have heard this kind of reasoning before. "Of course it was wrong to attack the World Trade Center, and of course it is wrong to hate America. But is there no culpability on the part of the American government here? I'm not justifying terrorism, but surely it must be relevant to remember how Americans have been invading countries and overthrowing foreign governments for half a century."

Anti-Americanism is best explained in terms of flaws in the cultures we find it in, as an expression of their own inability to deal rationally with America. The level of irrationality, this total identification of America with everything negative, tells us a lot more about anti-Americans than it does about Americans. The same goes for this. When Westerners build up this huge fantasy of a war between the West and Islam itself, we should look for explanations - and culpability - at home. Sure the genuine evils of Islam play a part in this fantasy, as the genuine wrongs committed by America plays a part in the anti-American myth, but whatever you build on top of those truths is your responsibility, noone elses.

Sandy P: "--And here they go on record asking for Norway to abandon our equivalent of the first amendment, one of the basic rights of any democracy: Freedom of religion.-- So? Europe and "the world" have been making demands on Americans for a few decades now to give up pieces of our Constitution."

So? How is this relevant to what I said? At all? I don't even see the relationship between the sentence you're quoting, where I condemn Americans for abandoning the principles of the Bill of Rights, and your reply. This isn't "Europe and the world" advocating an end to religious freedom, but your own people. Right-wingers even! Not many of them, but vocal enough in some parts of the blogosphere.

Okay, say we agree with Bjorn's outrage at the suggestion that Islam be banned in Norway. One question for Bjorn: how do you propose to protect your culture, traditions, your very language, and your democratic values from a political ideology, disguised as a religion, which does not respect any of those four, and makes no bones about it?

All reasonable suggestions entertained by me. What democratic, non-violent and humane solution have you Bjorn come up with for dealing with Islam as an ideology that has eluded, for the past 14 centuries, the Hindus, the Thais, the Eastern Europeans, the Greeks, the African animists, the Israelis, the Iberian Catholics, the Iranian Zorastrians and all other civilizations that Islam has made cultural and actual war upon for centuries?

Do you think that no one in all this time has tried to come up with alternatives to fight Islam without becoming just like it?

The most humane reaction to Islam I can think of was the Greek-Turkish population exchange in the mid-1950s. The rest has been pretty violent and brutal -- but those civilizations that were willing to be violent and brutal survived. Those that didn't, went under and became Islamized.

You have to offer solutions, not just criticisms, to those of us who know what this ideology is all about.

I know few people who are prejudiced against Islam just because it's "different." Those I know who hate it the most are people like me -- people who have been intimately exposed to its intolerance, hatred, bigotry and violence.

An additional thought: maybe the solution is to not ban Islam as religion, but to ban its political expressions such as sharia, dhimmitude (AKA religious apartheid) and jihad.

An additional thought: maybe the solution is to not ban Islam as religion, but to ban its political expressions such as sharia, dhimmitude (AKA religious apartheid) and jihad.

Bjørn Stærk:

I appreciate your comment. I too in fact consider an ouster of an entire religion to be excessive, preposterous. The prime reason for that is simple: not only does the "freedom of religion" define government's censure from intefering with an individual's freely chosen religion, it also [later] places a permanent sanction on government and religion mixing. If our government decides to "take on" the admissibility of a religion, then then have to acknowledge that it IS a religion, which instantly censures their ability to regulate the religion.

But what is also clear is this: although not specifically guaranteed anywhere in the constitution, one's freedom to choose and profess a particular faith does NOT work in reverse: so long as citizens aren't working with the government they are ALSO free to proselytize their faith in whatever ways are upheld by that most noble of the ammendments: freedom of speech.

The grey region [at least for me, and I deeply suspect for a LOT of others] is at that proselytizing / faith-practice interface between peoples within a liberal democracy of different faiths, each trying avowedly to convert 'the other' to their faith and cause. I suppose it is only right to be allowed the liberty of expressing the tenants of one's faith publicly, on a 'jihad' of sorts to get converts. But the darker side of the grey region is also defined by religious vigilantes who feel authorized by their faith to carry out the proscriptions required by their god(s) on non-believers [and believers alike].

I, for one, am particularly glad that my Moslem fellow-citizens do not have Constitutionally defended rights to dhimmify me, or anyone else they don't particularly approve of. I'm sure Europe feels more or less the same way. But in some ways, I'm also not so sure.

Europe has been gradually refining and fleshing out a hybrid form of parlimentary socialist democracy called "Transnational Progressivism", which gives groups of people special "voting" [or influentual] forms of power. This is the socialism speaking. Special interest groups aren't limited simply to making 'group donations' to political parties, and to lobbying the assemblymen, but they also may VOTE and be counted as blocs. So, the Basques in Spain are given their representation, as an ethnic group, far out of proportion to their number. Maybe it is a good thing. I don't know whether the blocs can be called on religious leanings, but if so, then Europe is ripe for an overthrow-from-within due to the bloc of Islam in its midst. Or not ... Europe has shown for the last thousand years a suprising willingness to CHANGE its social fabric, over and over again.

In any case, I think neither the Governments of Europe, America or any other democracy-loving land shall be banning Islam any time soon. There will be repeated calls for it, so long as they are fingered almost exclusively as the perpetrators of fanatic terroristic skirmishes. But echoing several postings above, I do wonder why it is that the Muslims seem so reticent, so tardy in raising up their moderate -- and presumably ecumenical, secular and tolerant -- voices at every turn. It may BE the religion not to.

GoatGuy

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article844657.ece

Bin Laden backer on his way to Oslo

One of Pakistan's most influential and religious politicians will travel to Oslo later this month to speak before local Muslims. His party has earlier hailed Osama bin Laden, and he's been denied entry to Belgium and the Netherlands. Ahmed has earlier make flattering comments about Osama bin Laden, and his party, Jamaat-e-Islami, also has hailed al-Qaeda members as heroes.

The party also has allegedly encouraged its members to shield al-Qaeda members who are fleeing US troops in Afghanistan. Officials at Oslo's Islamic Cultural Center claim Ahmed's ties to Osama bin Laden are inflated. "Who says he supports Osama bin Laden?" asked local imam Hafiz Mehboob ur-Rehman. "We don't think he's controversial. We don't support terrorism and stay on the right side of the law."

Bjørn, your problem is that you don't understand that we are already entangled in a World War. There may be as many as 20 million Muslims living within the EU, and countries like Turkey and Morocco are pushing to join. This will be the death of Europe as we know it, which will collapse. In stead of a rich, peaceful continent, we will get poverty and ethnic and religious strife, just like they have in the Islamic world now. France may very well have a full-blown civil war within a generation. Within two generations, large parts of Europe will be destroyed. Much of it is already damaged today. Quiet Oslo will probably have a Muslim majority within your lifetime.

Europe has a dagger to its throat, and doesn't even know it. This is a matter of survival, a life and death battle between Western civilization and Islam. This planet isn't big enough for the both of us, at least not until a thoroughly reformed Islam sees the day. Unlikely, unfortunately. One of them has to die. At the very least, we should COMPLETELY STOP all kinds of Muslim immigration. No refugees, asylum seekers or "family reunions" of any kind will be allowed in. Even that probably isn't enough, which means that we have to expell many of the millions of Muslims present in our midst today. If necessary, we use strategic nuclear weapons to defend ourselves. We could issue an ultimatum, where any use of nukes against Western cities, or other major attacks with WMD in general, will trigger us nuking Mecca and Medina. Harsh? WW2 was harsh. That's why we won. If nuking Mecca does the trick, it has my vote.

Islam won't be banned. Googe on "Mormon" and "Supreme Court" tyo see how it will eventually be handled.

In short, the Bill of Rights trumps religious doctrine in the US.

This debate actually shows the main problem of those that try a rational critique of Islam or, for that matter, of immigration politics in Norway or other Western countries. They end up with the wrong kind of allies.

In Norway we have Jarle Synnevåg and the ridiculous organization FOMI who have called the Norwegian Conservative Party (Høyre) a party "supportive of terror, apartheid and ethnic cleansing". The same Synnevåg has repeatedly called for an all-out-war on Islam, and he does repeat ideas also repeated here.

One of those ideas is that Islam is not a religion, but rather a political ideology. This is not a new thought. It has been said many times, and it still is being said. About Judaism. As an example I can include this anti-Semitic post from a Japanese website:

"Judaism is not a religion.Judaism is not a culture.Judaism has no country.It is a political ideology based on more irrational myths than Mary Poppins. It is a global group of people whose so-called religion teaches hatred of all non-Jews"

http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=bbs&order=msg&author=yuenyuen&page=4

Ever heard something like that before? Another thing you often can hear some Anti-Islamists claiming is that moderate muslims are simply fundamentalists in disguise, practising taqiyya. For one thing this is a clear parallell to anti-Semitic use of the false Protocols of Zion. It is also doubly wrong. Taqiyya does not refer to what anti-Islamists refer to it as, and the people referred to as "fundamentalists" seldomly are. Instead they belong to a school of thought that is relatively new within Islam, a school of thought that cannot be understood without looking at both Islamic roots and roots in the modern-day societies where these ideologies developed.

All of this does of course not mean that a reasonable critique of Islam is not good, nor that it is not needed. Many Muslims would even agree.

Many Muslims also think that the time is ripe for change, that it is time to fight old ideas they feel is not a part of their true Islam. These people are they right allies of those who long for a rational critique of Islam. Sadly, that coalition is a rather unlikely one at the time, the discussion has been hijacked by another coalition. Ironically enough the worst of Anti-Islamists and the worst of Islamists agree on more and more issues. These days many dream of the Clash of Civilizations. Personally I have nightmares.

Øyvind, I would recommend reading some good books about Islam, to know what you're dealing with. Ibn Warraq's "Why I am not a Muslim" is available in Norwegian. IW explicitly states that Islam is a "Fascist ideology" and that there is "no difference between Islamism and Islam". The anthology of ex-Muslim testimonies he has edited is only available in English yet:

http://www.secularislam.org/testimonies/index.htm

There is a book in Danish which is excellent, called "I krigens hus - Islams kolonisering af Vesten". Read it.

The 14 centuries of the bloody borders of Islam speak for themselves.

The bottom line is that the Islamic ideology is utterly incompatible with, and mutually exclusive of, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. The Islamic ideology was "perfected" by its founder and no reform is possible without repudiating his words and deeds, an impossible notion to even the most liberal and accomodating adherent.

It has propagated for over a thousand years by waging war (not the metaphorical kind, the real killing and mayhem kind). It divides the world into the House of Islam (dar al-Islam) and the House of War (dar al-Harb), that is, the rest of the world with which the House of Islam remains perpetually at war. These are not tenets of a fringe element of the Islamic community, these are fundamental and indivisible precepts of the Islamic belief system. Without them Islam does not exist.

Islam is a tribal political, social and economic construct that has failed to scale up to a higher social order and it is time for mankind's 14 century experiment with this failed ideology to end. If it cannot be exterminated, then it must be contained in the same way that Charles Martel, Pelayo, Richard the Lionheart, Jan Sobieski, et al, contained it in the past. Better would it be for all mankind if it were entirely tossed into the dustbin of history's failed ideologies along with Nazism, Stalinism & Maoist Socialism.

No amount of honey-tongued apology can explain away the fundamental disconnect of the mainstream Islamic tenets from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. End of debate.

A Reader: "One question for Bjorn: how do you propose to protect your culture, traditions, your very language, and your democratic values from a political ideology, disguised as a religion, which does not respect any of those four, and makes no bones about it?"

How do we protect our democratic values? By being who we are, and by working for others to come around to our view. You must have little faith in Western ideals, as expressed by the American founding fathers in their religious tolerance, or by people like John Stuart Mill in his thoughts on open discussion. I believe there is a strength in those values that can withstand totalitarian and irrational ideas - not necessarily without weapons, but not exclusively with them either. We defend ourselves when we must, but haven't built our societies _on_ military power, nor thought control. That's not our way. Our way is the open way - free markets, free thought, free speech.

You and others speak as if the West has been infected by a culture that is evil and vastly superior to us in strength, and this culture will eat us up from the inside unless we cut it away. What kind of pessimism is that? What is it you think we're defending here if it isn't the belief that free societies are stronger and more attractive than unfree ones? Again: I'm not saying our ideals are strong enough to survive without military backing, but you seem to disregard their inherent power completely, as if Western culture is a house of cards waiting to be blown over, a naive dream waiting for reality to kick in.

You think this is a new dilemma, that free societies have only recently been confronted by ideas and cultures that want to end all that freedom? Those threats were always there, and every step towards freedom has been taken by people who despite the dangers believed in the strength of their ideals. Every step was opposed by people who talk like you do here. "Well, freedom of speech is fine in theory, but how do you propose to protect our free government against sedition, enemy propaganda and demagoguery unless we can control the media a little?" "Sure it's a nice ideal that the people should elect the government, but how do you propose to protect our country against the well-oiled military machines of our tyrannic neighbours when our leaders are at the whim of ignorant rabble?" "Yes people should be allowed to speak their mind, but how do you propose we protect our minorities against racism and hate speech?"

This is old news: Democracy is weak. Open discussions don't work. People are stupid and weak. The demagogues will take over, our enemies will march across us. And yet our way has always been to take the chance on freedom despite these risks. So far it has worked pretty well, and I'm not prepared to abandon it so easily.

"You have to offer solutions, not just criticisms, to those of us who know what this ideology is all about."

No, _you_ have to offer a convincing argument that the problem is as serious as you claim it is. Specifically that all Islam is bad and in practice unredeemable, and that unless we fight it now it will conquer Western culture. The first is a sloppy generalization based on an exaggerated belief in essences, the second is no more than an easily envisionable doomsday scenario, closely related to and no better than the doomsday scenarios of other ideologies.

Ali Dashti: "Bjørn, your problem is that you don't understand that we are already entangled in a World War."

Your problem is that you're so focused on Islam that you've lost sight of the ideals of the culture you're supposedly defending. What is the West to you? Do you have a clear concept of the ideals it was built on? Can you express any of them, and the reasoning behind them, on a level deeper than "freedom is good, and - anyway let's get back to Islam which is just about to conquer us all"?

I wonder if you even understand why the idea of banning a religion is so abhorrent to me, why it bothers me when people oppose such a ban merely because it is unpractical, not possible. I hope you haven't come so far that when you hear somebody stand up for the basic values of Western democracy, you attribute it to "multiculturalism" or "leftism".

"In stead of a rich, peaceful continent, we will get poverty and ethnic and religious strife, just like they have in the Islamic world now."

And I'm still waiting for the reasoning behind that claim. We've had this discussion before, (not sure if it was with you). I usually end up reading a lot of well-phrased _descriptions_ of this dystopic scenario, all very evocative and frightening, and very little of the actual thinking and facts behind that scenario. So let's jump straight to that part, ok?

I propose that Hitler's National Socialist Party is a religion. Should it be banned?

Bjorn - Islam will not be banned, it will reform or become a footnote in history. We're still waiting for those moderates to start shouting from the rooftops. Is all of Islam bad? No. But unfortunately for them, that's the face they're presenting. Again, 3 years, where are the moderates?

Besides, although the 1st amendment says freedom of religion, we have very active secularists and totalitarianists who are trying to eradicate at this point in time Christianity from this country. They think they can control Islam, much like some Europeans do, they're wrong.

--

The Constitution and western ideals are not a suicide pact, Bjorn. How far are you willing to let your tolerance go? What will be the point when you draw the line? What has to happen before you say enough is enough? The next 20 years might help you decide.

------

What is going on over there?????

While on a tour of the museum at the Auschwitz death camp in Poland on Sunday, a group of around 50 Jewish university students from Israel, the U.S. and Poland were verbally attacked by a three-member gang of French male tourists.

Evidently incited by the presence of an Israeli flag wrapped around the shoulders of Tamar Schuri, an Israeli student from Ben Gurion University, the first assailant ran at the group while its members were being guided through a model gas chamber and crematoria and began swearing and hurling anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli insults.----

----

In America - a woman went to work for an Islamic company, we don't care what religion you are, but she ate a bacon sandwich at lunch. Was fired. That little gem was also on LGF, IIRC.

Isnt it strange though, when you think about which nations that are conservative muslim nations and which are progressive and modern, you will often see amongst those conservative, a muslim population that have a history of oppression, ethnic cleansing and religious conflicts.
What kind of society is most likely to spawn the most extreme fundamentalist ? The free and open or the oppressed one ?

And banning would never work. It could never be done. The Nazis tried it, didt quite pan out.

It is so easy to be understanding and tolerant of all ideologies. After all it gives one the cosy feeling of being good and kind hearted. Who does not like to think of themselves as being decent and tolerant?

The fact is that tolerance of Islam will not be reciprocated if and whenever the boot is on the Islamic foot. History has repeatedly shown that Islam will not tolerate any other faith unless as a subservient one.

Here is a link to what some Muslims have in plan for us, even though they are a tiny minority at the moment.

http://www.muhajiroun.com/press_release/250704_londistan.htm

I'm aware there will be cries that this is unrepresentative. However, such dogma is sighted far more frequently then anything from the 'moderate' Muslims. So clearly it is representative.

I have been aware of the bigotry and sustained evil nature of Islam for over 30 years.With immigration and globalisation, this ideology has become a threat to everything I hold dear, ie kindness and tolerance, equality of the sexes and races. Islam and its followers are putting all these gains of the post-war period in jeopardy.

We face a really unpleasant dilemma. Banning a religion, even Islam, is against our principles and yet, not doing so would threaten those very values of freedom and tolerance. My own way out of this conundrum is to argue that liberal democracy, like all creations, is not perfect, and cannot be stretched to accomodate all possible views. Some ideas will be inherently incompatible with a liberal and tolerant democracy. Islam clearly falls under this dictum.

Does that mean I would ban Islam? Yes, if I thought it would be successful. Unfortunately, banning a religion, sometimes has quite the converse effect to one that had hoped for.

One needs to think of a better way; one that has the same desired result of the elimination of Islam but without 'collateral' damage or unintended consequences .

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FH10Aa01.html

Islam: Religion or Political Ideology?

There are two extreme positions at work here - "Ban Islam!" on the one hand, and "Never question Islam" on the other.

I don't know if there is a reasonable middle ground, but I think we have the right to assert that in some ways, "Western" values are superior. Women's rights. Religious freedom. A just society. Freedom of expression. The right to privacy. And so on. To the extent that we consider these to be self-evident, universal truths, we should have no qualms saying that

1) these apply to all societies
2) any religious system that subverts them deserves our criticism if not our condemnation

From what (little) I know if Islam, it can accomodate these values. I have no illusions that many self-proclaimed Muslims believe differently, but we must confront *their* beliefs without assuming they speak for all Muslims or all of Islam.

“Ah .. yes. Doesn't this sound familiar. Look at yourself from the outside for a little bit, try to remember where else you may have heard this kind of reasoning before.”

You are exactly correct Bjorn and I think your analogy proves my point. If you are saying, that if America were not acting as America does 9/11 would not have happened, you would be correct. Did America deserve what it got on 9/11, absolutely not. Did America’s support of Israel, spreading culture, military supremacy, etc., motivate the attack, absolutely yes. Likewise the actions of Islamic terrorists are motivating the creation and spread of the ban Islam meme.

“Anti-Americanism is best explained in terms of flaws in the cultures we find it in, as an expression of their own inability to deal rationally with America.”

Well put Bjorn. And as you suggest, the same goes for how we Western nations respond to Islam. GoatGuy has it right when he said that Islam is not going to be banned anytime soon by Governments of Europe or America. However, the fact of the matter is, the anti Islam meme is out of the box and spreading. The fact that this is happening should not be a surprise to anyone. All humans have a similar flight or fight response to danger, no matter if you are from the sands of Arabia or the fjords of Norway.

I think the more interesting question would be, is the anti Islam meme unreasonable and if is how should it be dealt with and/or stopped. I like to argue both sides of everything, so I would suggest that the spread of the meme is not totally unreasonable, and should in fact be an expected response by those that understand human nature. I would on the other hand point out, that by adopting this meme we undermine a more important meme, the meme of Western ideals of democracy and freedom for all.

This is called a conundrum.

FC

Bjorn wrote:

"Our way is the open way - free markets, free thought, free speech. "

If that is our way -- then why do you want to shut down the "meme" of people who (correctly, I might add) believe that Islam and Islamism are the same thing? I might add that among those who believe that Islam and Islamism are the same thing includes the impeccably leftist-credentialed Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasrin, not just "wackos" who read little green footballs.

I think Islam should be Banned and have no hesitation saying so.Suggest all these bleeding Heart Liberals should spend three months in a Muslim Country and be forced to watch at least one Stoning and Amputations, also obligatory Beheading. After these experiences they won't use the words 'Politically Correct' again.Or even think them...Get real, Bjorn.This is a so called religion which forces little girls as young as nine to be raped by Muslim husbands who may be old enough to be their grandfathers,and their screams go in silence for they the victims, have no rights or say in who they marry or when.But maybe that appeals to you - Men have complete control over their wives and concubines in the glorious religion of ISLAM!!

Sandy P: "The Constitution and western ideals are not a suicide pact, Bjorn."

That's right, they're _not_ a suicide pact, they're the pillars of the strongest culture in history. We should trust the inherent strength of those pillars, not replace them with something new and phony just because we're confronted by yet another totalitarian ideology.

DP111: "It is so easy to be understanding and tolerant of all ideologies. After all it gives one the cosy feeling of being good and kind hearted. Who does not like to think of themselves as being decent and tolerant?"

I was waiting for it! Waiting for someone to equate standing up for freedom of religion, a pillar of Western society, with being a multiculturalist. Thank you for proving me right.

"We face a really unpleasant dilemma. Banning a religion, even Islam, is against our principles and yet, not doing so would threaten those very values of freedom and tolerance."

That's a real unpleasant dilemma all right, but it's a dilemma at the _core_ of our ideals. We've been facing that dilemma since the beginning. And now you want us to give up? What ideals do you want to replace the old Western ideals with?

"Some ideas will be inherently incompatible with a liberal and tolerant democracy. Islam clearly falls under this dictum."

So now an idea must be compatible with liberal and tolerant democracy to be acceptable to it? That's an interesting interpretation of tolerance and freedom of speech. A new one, anyway.

Susan: "If that is our way -- then why do you want to shut down the "meme" of people who (correctly, I might add) believe that Islam and Islamism are the same thing?"

Another neat fallacy imported from the left: equating criticism with crushing of dissent. I want to shut down this meme the way I want to shut down all bad ideas, with open debate on the battlefield of ideas. That's the open way. Talking about banning religions is not.

Morgane: "I think Islam should be Banned and have no hesitation saying so.Suggest all these bleeding Heart Liberals should spend three months in a Muslim Country and be forced to watch at least one Stoning and Amputations, also obligatory Beheading."

And now the exhibit is complete - a "bleeding heart liberal" reference. Didn't think those existed in real life. Are you aware that this "bleeding heart liberal" idea you're so against is a founding pillar of Western society? Not just any good idea some people thought up once, but one of the central ones. How many considerations did you weigh before you decided to tear it down?

BJORN STAERK
You don't seem able to grasp the reality of situation,do you! This is WAR, a global war already declared on the West by Bin Laden and rest of Islamo-Fascists. They won't give a stuff about your prissy principles you're building a cosy dream on but they will pull down the pillars of Western democracies and freedoms, including yours.Actually they love nitwits like you who make it so much easier for them to establish Sharia Law. While you are pontificating, the Enemy
are literally banging on the door.God help Norway if the rest of them are like you!

--Sandy P: "The Constitution and western ideals are not a suicide pact, Bjorn."

That's right, they're _not_ a suicide pact, they're the pillars of the strongest culture in history. We should trust the inherent strength of those pillars, not replace them with something new and phony just because we're confronted by yet another totalitarian ideology.--

Yet the European pillars are getting awfully shaky, Bjorn. Appeasement and accomodation are recipies for losing. You're not assimilating them. Takes 3 generations, you've already lost the middle, crucial straddle generation.

Vodkapundit has a good post up - you'd enjoy part 3 remain what we are. Except for nuking Japan. But it is in context.

http://www.vodkapundit.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2110

--So now an idea must be compatible with liberal and tolerant democracy to be acceptable to it? That's an interesting interpretation of tolerance and freedom of speech. A new one, anyway.--

No, they have to stop killing us.

What is your final enough is enough, we've given it our best shot? What is your line in the sand, Bjorn? We should have a baseline from where we start.

I think 25 years of killing Americans is enough. You don't. Fair, you're not an American and you're not the main target. You have that luxury at this point in time and for a few years more.

However, I'm flying in September and we're being tested w/larger groups on planes. I've got 12 nuke plants w/in a 90 mile radius and all they need is 1 SAM and the breeze blowing my way. I rely on the largest body of fresh water in the world. When the Sears Tower is hit, can you guarantee it'll pancake like the WTC? Or will it do what they hoped the WTC would do, fall on the others?

The difference is, what we destroy, we rebuild. If we don't do that, then we have lost it. But to get to that point, we will have taken tremendous casualties. It will get to that point precisely because of our tolerance and ideals.

I wrote on this site before, there were 4 options, IMHO. After reading Niall Ferguson in the WSJ, there are 5. US. If we don't do it, China or India will. Or the world under the "religion of peace."

Ferguson wrote about #5 - an armed, bordered world.

But then someone will have the courage and the vision to bleed and die because #5 is intolerable. What we're doing now, as a matter of fact, tho most Euros and a lot of Americans don't get that this is the hard way. Pick your hegemon, folks, and pick wisely, you're going to be living under it for a long, long time.

Especially now since Britain and frankenreich have done such a marvelous job of bringing Iran into the nuclear fold. JMJ, haven't you guys paid any attention to Jimmah' the Peanut and the NorKs? Didn't work then, won't work now.

You've written about western values more than once. But reality is going to make you choose. You come from it one way, but some Americans are coming at it from a survival perspective. We will not agree until you have reached your line in the sand.

They're chipping away at those western values you cherish so much and using western courts to do it. Watch Britain. Watch Canada.

Bjørn Stærk,

You seem to be highly out of touch with the vast majority of your own regular readers and commenters. Some advice for you. Try to open your eyes and see things differently. The truth is right there in front of you:

Islam is a threat to this world.

Yours truly,
A regular

You are attacking the wrong folks, Bjørn.

Islam will not be banned. But right now are there muslims in Norway who work for banning critism of islam.

They are fascists.

They are the ones we should devote the attention to.

Just read "Vårt Land" today (In norwegian).

http://www.vartland.no/apps/pbcs.dll/article...

Dear Ali,

I have read Ibn Warraqs book a long time ago, it is in fact one of several anti-Islam books I have read during the last few years. I do perfectly well know what Ibn Warraq says about the relationship between Islam and Fundamentalism - and I am aware that he suggests that Islam is "a fascist ideology".

There is only one big problem with it all. His statement is not only false, it is completely absurd. Ibn Warraq says that the fundamentalists (who are the fundamentalists anyway, the islamists can hardly be called fundamentalists, eventhough Ibn Warraq uses these words synonymously) are "utopian visionaries who want to replace the liberal Western-styled democracies with an Islamic theocracy, a fascist thought system intent on controlling every act of every human being".

What liberal democracies is he talking about? Saudi-Arabia? Kuwait? Egypt? Pakistan? Tell me, what liberal democracies are there to replace in the Muslim world. Alas, it is not many. And the few countries where the Islamists have gotten power are definitely not amongst them.

One of the few democracies in the Muslim world is Turkey, a country that has long secular traditions, but at the same time a country ruled by a party with Islamist roots. And in fact, this party have passed several democratic reforms since they gained power, and are gradually moving Turkey further in the direction of Western democracies. In Norwegian newspapers they are seldomly referred to as Islamists. Instead they are called "Western-friendly". Turkey has a long way to go yet, but today it is often the secular Kemalists that act like reactionaries in that country.

The main enemy of the Islamists is not the West. It has never been. The main enemy is regimes in Muslim countries, which the Islamists feel should be replaced by Islamic regimes. The Islamists are, ironically, often inspired not only by Islamic ideas, but also by Western ideas; fascist ones, truly, but also liberal democratic and socialist ones. Thanks to many corrupt regimes and considering that American and other Western democracy-iniativies are not taken seriously in the Muslim world - Islamism has very often become the sole political alternative for alienated young Arabs and other Muslims.

Another thing with Ibn Warraq is his dubious use of sources. He is the master of cherrypicking, for instance using carefully selected quotes from Khomeini to make his points. He does not even care to look at how Khomeini was inspired by non-Muslim movements, how he reinterpreted classical Islamic concepts and how the Iranian revolution wrote Islamic concepts into a sort of class analysis. Ibn Warraq does not write about how Khomeini used populism, socialist rethorics and so on. Ervand Abrahamian, a leading scholar in the field, writes:

"The result (...) was closer to Latin-American populist than to fundamentalism".

There is no doubt that the Iranian revolution was hijacked by religiously inspired political fanatics. However, they were not fundamentalist. The real fundamentalists were soon to be angered by Khomeinis claims that Iran superceded every other Muslim society through times.

The roots of Islamism can not be understood without looking at the Islamic religion. However, they can neither be understood without considering the Modern world Islamism surfaced in, developed in and live in. Ibn Warraq does not even try.

Øyvind

Bjørn: Great article, and some good posts by you in this thread. Lots of other good posts, too.

Some thoughts.

Anything someone claims to be a religion, is and should be respected as a religion. However, the religion and those that practice ist has to adapt to the area they live in. They have to respect the laws of the country in which they are residing.

Banning a religion should never happen. Banning some way of practicing the religion is of course okay. If a religion dictates the sacrifice of living people - it's still a religion. The particular way of practicing it would however be illegal.

I'm worried about the Islamists that want to revive the parapgraph about blasphemy in norwegian law. It should of course not be revived, but be removed (at least not in my opinion :-)

Those that wants a ban of Islam -- remember what we love about our Western Culture. Freedom of speech is embraced. Freedom of belief is embraced. You're allowed to be a stupid git, as long as you don't break the law in other ways.

If exactly that freedom is removed, how are we any better than the countries we don't want to be compared to?

Is this the "free speech" society you want Bjorn? How will we be able to challenge the bad ideas of Islam when Muslims are using our democratic processes to destroy our Western freedoms?

Norwegian Muslims campaign for blasphemy law in Norway: (How can the blasphemy law be applied to Muhammad, I have no idea. Is Muhammad God?)

http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/english/article263256.ece

Next time, when they get stronger and more numerous in your country, will the petition be for legal penalties on apostates? Of course it will be. Look at Malaysia. Look at Nigeria. Look at Lebanon. All formerly non-Muslim societies, now the former non-Muslim majority are sinking further and further into dhimmitude. Racist Jim Crow laws applied against non-Muslims in Malaysia; Christians forced to live under full sharia, including hand-choppings and stonings, in Nigeria; Lebanon, the former "Paris of the MIddle East" decimated by 15 years of deadly civil war.

Why is that Muslims are the only people in the world who can't stand to have criticism of their religion? Nowhere else do you see people campaigning to shut down criticisms of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism. Only Muslims fight like this to "protect" their religion from all forms of criticism.

And why is that? Because their religion is so bad that it can't take anyone telling the truth about it, that's why. Islam can only live within a culture of lies.

Muslims may *want* to be legally protected from criticism or even insults. They are not alone. When the so-called Blasphemy paragraph of the Norwegian penal code was up for debate the last time, it was the Christians (including the relative moderates in the KrF) that opposed removing it since that would have a "bad signal" (go figure).

The fact is that the "blasphemy paragraph" is dead and will not and cannot be used. Every time anyone reports a statement to the police referring to the anti-blasphemy law, it is thrown away. If some prosecutor should be crazy enough to run such a case on behalf of Muslims or Christians or anything else, the courts and in particular the Supreme Court will strike it down.

Susan: You seem to be quite blind. Bjørn is not arguing for the blasphemy paragraph. He is arguing against banning Islam.

You're talking about how Islam has reformed some countries in a bad way. Yet you seem to have no qualms about us reforming in a similiary bad way?

We should front free speech. We should front protection for blasphemy and any other speech. We should fight against religious oppression - both against Islamists and against people that wants to ban Islam.

At least in my opinion.

Morgane: "You don't seem able to grasp the reality of situation,do you! This is WAR, a global war already declared on the West by Bin Laden and rest of Islamo-Fascists. ... God help Norway if the rest of them are like you!"

A lot of strong words here, but no substance behind them. Yes, we know that bin Laden has declared war on the West. That's not at issue here, as you'd know if you had taken the time to read my views before replying to them. This is often considered good practice before calling a blogger you've (presumably) never read before a "nitwit" who "pontificates" with his "prissy principles". (While you're at it, read what the comment guidelines have to say about personal attacks. Not that I'll enforce them as long as I'm the only target.) What is at issue is whether _all_ of Islam is at war with the West, which is an extraordinary claim requiring a similar amount of evidence and reasoning to back it up. None of which you're providing here.

Oh, and I believe a majority of Norwegians would be offended to be associated with what I write about Islam.

Sandy P: "Yet the European pillars are getting awfully shaky, Bjorn. "

Yeah, and that's a good reason to tear them down completely. Hm?

"What is your final enough is enough, we've given it our best shot? What is your line in the sand, Bjorn? We should have a baseline from where we start."

The line goes where it has always gone - at violence. We already have the laws in place, no special exception for Muslims is needed. Special attention on Islamists, certainly, but no exception from the basic rights of a free society.

"I think 25 years of killing Americans is enough. You don't. Fair, you're not an American and you're not the main target. You have that luxury at this point in time and for a few years more."

Oh don't give me that. I haven't written for three years in defense of American views on the war on terror to be dismissed like that. When I've stood up for something George W. Bush has done, the president of a country far away that I've never been in, then you've respected my views. Now that I write in defense of a founding principle not only of your society but of _mine_, now I'm to be dismissed because I'm not an American? Do you really think it is so simple, that whenever anyone disagrees with you on the war on terror, it's because they don't take the threat seriously? You're even willing to use that argument on _me_? Jesus.

Thomas Glahn: "You seem to be highly out of touch with the vast majority of your own regular readers and commenters. Some advice for you. Try to open your eyes and see things differently. The truth is right there in front of you:"

If you're right, then it was about time I started to fight back. I'm already out of touch with the vast majority of the country I live in. I don't mind taking on a few more people. But you're right, it's important to open one's eyes once in a while and try to "see things differently". Perhaps I've overlooked something. Very well, I'll listen carefully to your facts and reasoning:

"Islam is a threat to this world."

Oh. That's it? No arguments, just a contradiction of my views? That's not likely to impress anyone. I've seen enough _rephrasings_ of that particular point of view, (and all of them, btw, were longer and more detailed than yours). What I miss is arguments. Facts. Reasoning. I keep pushing, and people keep giving me clever, well-written even, rephrasings of the same claim: Islam is a threat to this world. Is there noone here who will go beyond that and try to explain how they arrived at that conclusion, and why it would be rational of me to do so as well?

Christian Lindhardt-Larsen: "Islam will not be banned. But right now are there muslims in Norway who work for banning critism of islam. They are fascists. They are the ones we should devote the attention to."

I will. I often do. But how on earth does that absolve the views expressed above about banning Islam? Are we not able to keep two thoughts in our heads at the same time: "It is wrong to ban criticism of a religion." + "It is wrong to ban an entire religion." Try it. Not very difficult - in fact marvelously consistent. And yes it _is_ important when people become so flippant about freedom of religion. Not because any such ban will actually happen, but because of the hypocrisy and intellectual corruption it is a symptom of. Look at the logical fallacies on display here - many of them exactly the same fallacies bloggers have exposed among anti-Americans and peace activists for years.

Susan: "Is this the "free speech" society you want Bjorn? How will we be able to challenge the bad ideas of Islam when Muslims are using our democratic processes to destroy our Western freedoms?"

I don't know, what do people usually do when somebody suggests a bad law? They try to prevent it from happening through regular democratic means, through debates and voting. That is precisely the free speech society I want.

Bjørn Stærk

i'd like to here your take on this
http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/english/article263256.ece

Norwegian Muslims want to collect 15,000 signatures in order to gain support for a stricter blasphemy paragraph.

yeah lets make it illegal to say big mo was a false prophet

Susan: "You seem to be quite blind. Bjørn is not arguing for the blasphemy paragraph. He is arguing against banning Islam."

Rune: I think you are missing the point. The point is not the blasphemy laws. The point is how our democratic processes will be used against us by the adherents of Islam, the fascist cult. This blasphemy petition -- applied to protection of Muhammad, who is only a historical figure in the Western tradition -- is only the beginning, as I said. Also, when the demographic numbers no longer go our way, and Muslims have real political power in the West, then what? We have already seen it happen elsewhere.

Was Hitler not a totalitarian even though he was democratically elected? Why does everyone think that just remaining "democratic" is enough to protect our freedoms from Islam even while the demographic pendulum is swinging toward its adherents and away from us?

We are losing our freedoms to Islam all over the West. In Canada they are allowing sharia courts; in the US they are allowed to blare their religious propaganda into our homes by loudspeaker five times per day; in Britain in many schools, non-Muslim children are only allowed to eat halal food at school cafeterias; in France, writers are prosecuted for saying "Islam is stupid" in magazine interviews.

And this is while Muslims only account for 3-5 percent of the population of Europe. What happens when the population of Muslims hits 30, 40, 50 percent?

History doesn't have very encouraging answers for us here.

--...Among ourselves, we need to stop pretending that Iraq is a one-time deal. We'll be in the Middle East for decades to come, in unexpected locations. Our bitter enemies — provoked by their civilization's utter failure — will continue to present us with a straightforward choice: Either take the war to them or, per Sen. Kerry, wait until they bring the war to us.

We have to deal with the world in which we live, not the one we wish we inhabited. Our tradition of passivity fostered the rise of a class of terrorists and thugs who would be delighted to slaughter every man, woman and child in America.

We need to kill them first.

Ralph Peters is the author of "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace."--

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/28776.htm

--Sandy P: "Yet the European pillars are getting awfully shaky, Bjorn. "

Yeah, and that's a good reason to tear them down completely. Hm?

"What is your final enough is enough, we've given it our best shot? What is your line in the sand, Bjorn? We should have a baseline from where we start."

The line goes where it has always gone - at violence. We already have the laws in place, no special exception for Muslims is needed. Special attention on Islamists, certainly, but no exception from the basic rights of a free society. --

How much violence? How many dead?

As to our pillars, sometimes to protect something, one has to tighten up.

Maybe you want to fight this within western rules and use western beliefs to influence their beliefs. At a certain point you won't be able to, they don't play by our rules.

I'm not dismissing you. As I wrote, you have continually discussed this aspect. Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of my people - including me and my family - are going to die to protect those values. But we have been going around on this for at least 1 year here if not more.

We readers agree with you, we understand what you're saying. You know the end game and you're fighting the valiant fight not to get there. In America's way, so are we. But maybe the disconnect is that you're talking principles, and you're looking at the peripherals and don't think it's a big deal at this time.

Americans went to endgame when the 2nd plane hit. IMHO, At least 1/2 are in denial, but there's no way no one could have watched 9/11 and not knew the possibility. And the world does not appreciate the fact that we did not do what we are capable of.

While we are trying to bring our principles to them (and it is working, BTW), they are using our principles in our countries to chip away at our principles.

I'm not dismissing you, never have. However, your line in the sand is very ambiguous. You're going to have to define violence for me. 190 Spaniards wasn't enough even after 9/11 and 10/12 in Bali. What I was actually looking for is how many dead before we reluctantly admit we gave it our best.

Maybe what some of your readers are looking for from you is an acknowledgement of their concerns. They're not seeing things in their backyard the same way you are.

Just because we're paranoid doesn't mean someone's not out to get us.

Lincoln did suspend the Writ of Habeus Corpus during the Civil War.

---

--I don't know, what do people usually do when somebody suggests a bad law? They try to prevent it from happening through regular democratic means, through debates and voting. That is precisely the free speech society I want.--

And while this is lovely, let me tell you what's happening in America. If activist groups don't get their way at the ballot box, they find a like-minded judge to implement their view. Or, use lawsuits to delay implementation of something they don't like. Even better, on environmental policies, they get to use my tax money to stop it. Talk about deep pockets.

Congress is starting to pay attention to what our judges are doing, and might have to slap down the USSC in the future. THAT is very, very big if they have to do that, the separation of powers is getting out of whack.

Do you think if the vote doesn't go their way, they'll take no for an answer? Or will they seethe and whine to get their way?

I notice that most of my fellow Norwegians here still seem to be extremely naive. Muslims hardly make up more than 2% of the population in Norway today, but are already launching a frontal attack against our freedom of speech, at the same time as they are demanding their own school for Norwegian-Pakistani children in Pakistan, paid by Norwegian tax payers. They are also demanding separate showers in schools, separate prayer rooms, Arabic language to be introduced in High Schools in Oslo etc. And inviting pro-Taliban and Al-Qaida politicians to Oslo to make speeches at Pakistan's national day. What do you think they will do when they make up 10, 15, or 20% of the population? These people aren't "new countrymen" that will integrate into our nation. They are enemies that want to subdue us and destroy the very society they enjoy the benefits of.

The "blasphemy" issue is also discussed in this thread:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/002807.php

Bjorn and others, you really should read vodkaboy and his commenters.

http://www.democracy-project.com/archives/000414.html

A LOT OF WHAT I LEARNED ABOUT AMERICA
I LEARNED IN IRAQ
John Agresto, Ph.D.

No, we should not ban Islam, but we should make it a well known fact that ist is a cult.

Then it would become socially unacceptable to be a Muslim, and Islam would be treated with the wariness and suspicion it should.

I think arranged and forced marriages of 13-year-old girls should be banned. Polygamy should be banned. The penalty for murdering a non-Muslim should be the same as that for murdering a Muslim. Discrimination on the basis of religion should be banned including separate but "equal" accommodations for Muslims and non-Muslims. Execution of Muslim apostates should be banned. Punishment of people for criticizing Mohammad should be banned. If all these things, among others I'm sure I can come up with, are banned, the practice of the religion of Islam is effectively banned as well.

Bjorn:

Most if not all of your objections to my post can be ascribed to your position that freedom and tolerance, means freedom and tolerance of all ideas; as if they were a law of nature. This is a naive belief. These are ideas that have come to fruition only in the last 50 years or so. In the long run of history, freedom of thought as a 'Universal' value is a mere blip.

In response to your post, I would argue that there is no such thing as absolute freedom or absolute tolerance of all. All human constructs, whether they are physical or social, are defined within the social construct they were made for. Our present day Western culture never envisaged an encroachment from within, by an ideology that intends and uses the West's freedom, to destroy that very freedom. You may argue that Marxism was such a threat, but I can say unequivocally that though Marxism is totalitarian, its totalitarian greed was small compared to that of Islam. It was also amenable to reason, which Islam as it masquerades as a religion, is not amenable to.

But I digress. My main point here is that though we would like to uphold tolerance of religion under all circumstances, this is an ideal state. In the real world, there are limits to everything. Tolerance should not be extended to those who will destroy tolerance for all, if given the chance. If we do so, then there will be a price to pay. There always is. It maybe that that price is worth paying, OTH it may not.

So what price are we willing to pay to uphold the assumed infinite stretchability of pluralism and tolerance. Everything has a price, and the price may be too high for some. It is ofcourse easy to say that 'We will pay any price..". It maybe laudable and as I said, giving the holder the comfort of moral superiority. But these are critical times for the West and we have to face make critical decisions. Recourse to the moral and ethical comfort zone is not an option.

The question is what price are we prepared to pay, and how close do we wish to sail to the rocks before calling it a day.

More food for fodder, after reading Vodkaboy:

http://www.caerdroia.org/blog/archives/001189.html

nickster:

"Punishment of people for criticizing Mohammad should be banned".

Precisely! You have hit the nail on the head. Ban Islamic rituals and practices that are inimical to Western values, and one has sorted the problem out to the satisfaction of all but Islamic fanatics. These can be dealt with in the normal way.

Bjorn:
I was waiting for it! Waiting for someone to equate standing up for freedom of religion, a pillar of Western society, with being a multiculturalist. Thank you for proving me right.

One may equate the two of you like, but in this context you err. Multiculturalism is afterall the celebration of many ideas. Islam OTH would destroy all such ideas of plurality. It is hardly tactical or practical to invite Islam into the multiculturalism tent. If one does, then as I said, there will be a price to pay. This can come as reaction from the dominant culture in the West or the fear other minority cultures have; that Islam is getting a pre-eminent postion in the West. Either way, it harms multi-cultural society. This is not hypothetical. I know several Christians from the ME, Zoroastrians from Persia and India, who are fearful that Islam is getting a strong purchase in the West, way beyond what they deem as safe for themselves.

Bjorn:
I was waiting for it! Waiting for someone to equate standing up for freedom of religion, a pillar of Western society, with being a multiculturalist. Thank you for proving me right.

One may equate the two of you like, but in this context you err. Multiculturalism is afterall the celebration of many ideas. Islam OTH would destroy all such ideas of plurality. It is hardly tactical or practical to invite Islam into the multiculturalism tent. If one does, then as I said, there will be a price to pay. This can come as reaction from the dominant culture in the West or the fear other minority cultures have; that Islam is getting a pre-eminent postion in the West. Either way, it harms multi-cultural society. This is not hypothetical. I know several Christians from the ME, Zoroastrians from Persia and India, who are fearful that Islam is getting a strong purchase in the West, way beyond what they deem as safe for themselves.

nickster:

All the things you mention ARE banned. Not only in Norway, but also in quite a few Muslim countries. Oh, there's one exception of course, we've got our sleeping blasphemy paragraph - recently fought hard for by Christians, including the Christian Democratic KrF - which, in theory makes blasphemous statements illegal. And blasphemy is not a possible crime (and of course should not be, regardless of what Susan thinks) only when the victim is Christianity.

When it comes to a couple of your points, thought, I think some further comments are necessary:

"I think arranged and forced marriages of 13-year-old girls should be banned".

As mentioned they are. Not only in Norway, but in most Muslim countries. Interestingly enough the age of consent (for sex, not marriage) is lower in Chile and Austria than it was in pre-War Iraq or is in Lebanon. A fight for womens rights in Muslim countries is obviously necessary (it is in fact still necessary in Norway, too), but a black-and-white picture does not really help us, nor does it help feminists in the Muslim world.

"Polygamy should be banned".

It is. From a liberal point of view one could argue, however, that people should be allowed to choose for themselves what kind of a family structure they want, without being pressured by Christian or Islamic morals. On the other hand, one could say that such a ban is necessary to protect people from exploitation.

"The penalty for murdering a non-Muslim should be the same as that for murdering a Muslim".

Even Saudi-Arabia has changed its procedures on this one. That says quite a lot.

"Execution of Muslim apostates should be banned"

I can only find factual examples of executions based on apostasy in two countries: Iran and Saudi-Arabia. Even in these two countries there are few examples. On the other hand, some Muslim countries does not even practice death penalty whatsoever, unlike for instance the United States. In addition the basis for hudud penalty for apostasy in Islamic law is not only disputed, but HIGHLY disputed. How can you then deduct that this is a basic element in Islamic faith?

Øyvind

Øyvind: Pakistan has got the death penalty for blasphemy, which is actually worse. Usually, people "deal with" potential ex-Muslims on their own. From an Islamic point of view, the law "should" be sharia, anyway.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/SherKhan40810.htm

Governments and citizens of western countries will have to understand the threat of real Islam. Their appeasing attitude comes from two factors, one is oil and another is the concept of freedom of faith. Freedom is an unknown word in Islamic book; it does not carry any value in the world of Islam. Freedom of faith gives Islam the freedom to kill and freedom to hate. Western world still has no clue of what Islam can do.

Hypocrite Muslim intellectuals have successfully created a rosy image of Islam, far away from actual Islamic teachings. Many western scholars fell in this trap and made comments that favored Islam. When some Muslims carry “Islam will rule the world” placards, people of western countries fail to get the message.

Western countries are smart enough to find alternatives of Oil and fight with Islam. However, this urge will not arise until they know what Islam is all about. Paranoid political leaders are afraid of calling a spade a spade. News Medias are scared to publicize horrendous Islamic news. Non-Muslim citizens avoid this sensitive subject of Islam.

Oyvind: "And blasphemy is not a possible crime (and of course should not be, regardless of what Susan thinks) only when the victim is Christianity."

Not sure on what you are implying here. Are you implying that I am in favor of enforcing blaspemy laws? If so, you are dead wrong and arrogantly, presumptuously so.

Oyvind again: "The penalty for murdering a non-Muslim should be the same as that for murdering a Muslim".

Even Saudi-Arabia has changed its procedures on this one. That says quite a lot."

Link, please? The last I heard, the blood price for a non-Muslim's life in Saudi was still much lower than for a Muslim -- insultingly so for "pagans" such as Hindus. Moreover, such changes in the Muslim world usually only come about as a result of Western pressure. What will become of such "reforms" when the West becomes too weak to push the Muslim world around? I do not believe such reforms will last.

Ovyind again: "Execution of Muslim apostates should be banned"

I can only find factual examples of executions based on apostasy in two countries: Iran and Saudi-Arabia. Even in these two countries there are few examples."

Death sentences have been pronounced on apostates in Yemen and in Kuwait in recent times -- only Western intervention halted them. And you conveniently leave out that apostacy is still a crime in almost all Muslim-majority countries, including "liberal" Malaysia. Punishments range from prison sentences (Morocco), to enforced divorce from spouses and foreiture of all property and legal rights (Egypt), to stints in "faith re-education" camps ("moderate" Malaysia).

Oyvind again: "In addition the basis for hudud penalty for apostasy in Islamic law is not only disputed, but HIGHLY disputed. How can you then deduct that this is a basic element in Islamic faith?"

This is flat-out wrong. I have never heard of a single debate on the apostacy punishment amongst Islamic scholars, except in the single matter of whether or not female apostates can be executed, and I read a LOT of Islamic websites including those purporting to be "moderate" and "mainstream." Apostacy as a capital crime has been affirmed by the "moderate" Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi for example, one of the most respected and popular scholars in the Arab world. And what does Al-Azhar have to say about it, please?

Please link to evidence of these "HIGHLY" disputing debates about apostacy amongst Islamic scholars. And, no, links from fringe Submitter and Rashid Khalifa sites are not acceptable as evidence.

Here is a good rundown on apostasy and blasphemy cases in the Islamic world:

http://www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/islam_-_apostasy.htm

I forgot to add Sudan (and probably, the sharia states of Nigeria) as countries where the capital punishment for apostasy from Islam is enforced.

Oyvind
You should be watching the news more.Nine yrs is the age girls can be married in Iran and remember this dates back to seventh century, according to Sharia Law. In Saudi Arabia and Iran, you can go to Stonings - Why don't you see one for yourself
and get educated!!Very recently a 14yr old girl {Muslim] had her ears, nose and tongue cut off by Miitant Muslims in Kashmir. A Christian daring to preach in Afghanistan had his throat cut.In Indonesia Buddhists were burned alive in their temple. The list of atrocities is endless and all the perpetrators did these things in the name of Allah. Have you ever seen a Christian Church or Hindu Temple allowed to be built in Saudi Arabia??
Islam allows NO other faiths. Many,many apostates have been killed.

BJORN STAERK re;'personal attacks'
Dear me. Are you expecting Al Quaeda to play by your rules?? All frightfully civilized doncha know..
You ARE in for a surprise!

Morgane:

I do watch the news quite enough, thank you. And I am familiar with low-age marriages in Iran (and other Muslim and non-Muslim countries). However, I find quite striking that your examples are from Iran, Saudi-Arabia and Afghanistan.

When it comes India and Indonesia, as I am sure you know - there has been quite a few examples of atrocities towards Muslims as well. I find it highly hypocritical not to mention this.

Susan:

When it comes to Saudi-Arabia changing its laws on murder this is something the Saudi-Arabian embassy in London has informed Amnesty International about
quite recently (spring 2004). I am sure it is possibly to find references to it on the net, however I do not have the time or energy.

Regarding apostasy I can point you to an enormous amoint of sources. Sadly, few of them are available on the Internet (I have however included some at the of this answer), but if you go to a decent university library you should probably be able to find them.

The former Chief Justice of Pakistan (!), SA Rahman, has written a book called "The Punishment for Apostasy in Islam" . Here he notes that even though the subject of apostasy occurs no less than 20 times in the Qu'ran there is no reference on death as a penalty for it. There is however ONE weak hadith were this penalty is suggested, this ONE hadith is the basis for Muslim scholars that support hudud penalty for apostasy.

According to professor Hashim Kamali in his book "Freedom of Expression in Islam" two leading jurists of the generation succeeding the Companions, Ibrahim al-Naka'I and Sufyan al-Thawri, both held that the apostate should be reinvited to Islam, and NEVER condemnde to death.
The renowned Hanafi jurist, Shams al-Din al-Sarakhsi wrote that even though renunciation of faith is the greatest of offences, it is a matter between man and his Creator, and its punishment is postponed to the Day of Judgement. The Maliki jurist Abul Walid al-Baji and the renowned Hanbali jurist Ibn Taymiyyah have both held that apostasy is a sin which carries no hadd punishment.

If we go to modern times, we can for instance check with the late Sheik of al-Azhar, one of the most leading figures in the Muslim word, and a man highly appreciated for his vast knowledge of Islamic law, wrote that many ulama are in agreement that hudud cannot be established by a solitary hadith and that unbelief by itself does not call for the death penalty. The current Sheikh of al-Azhar, who was Egypt's former Grand Mufti, Dr Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, also declared that apostasy is not a capital crime.

These, Susan, are LEADING Islamic scholars. That you are not aware of this suggests that you have been studying merely anti-Islamic sources.

A very common interpretation is that death penalty was not meant to apply to a simple change of faith (the Quran does mention people changing back and forth SEVERAL times), but to socalled hirabah, that is when apostasy is accompanied by rebellion or outright treason. While this view is also quite appalling, it is not the same as making apostasy punishable by death.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_apos.htm (this site is quite bombastic on what is Sharia Law and not, but at least it is honest enough to mention opposing Muslim views and to go through factual examples. There is also quite a few references to further reading - both from anti-Islamic sources and from Islamic sources with differing views)

http://www.understanding-islam.com/rp/p-003.htm
http://www.understanding-islam.com/articles/views/poa.htm
http://islamicbookstore.com/b5675.html

Ali Dashti:

Whether death penalty for blasphemy is worse than death penalty for apostasy or not can of course be discussed.

However, I am aware that this is the law in Pakistan and I am totally in agreement with you that this is a terrible, terrible thing.

It does reveal that several Muslim countries are caught in an era that Western countries have long left and that people in these countries - preferably with our help - will have to fight for human rights.

However, attacking Islam in general, and based on partially and sometimes wholly faulty accusations, will not help.

I would like to add some further points:

1. Death penalty for apostasy is extremely rare in modern-day Muslim countries. Quite a few Muslim countries does not practice death penalty whatsoever.

2. Religious freedom is constitutionally guaranteed in Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya (Islamists, however, enjoy little religious freedom here - as they are regarded as dangerous for the regime), Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Western Sahara, Yemen (however, this is one of few countries where apostasy is formally punishable by death, regardless of the constitution. According to a US report there were no examples of cases in which the crime was charged or prosecuted by authorities), Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Mongolia, Albania, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan (in practice all kinds of religious expressions are restricted, including Muslim), Uzbekistan, Burkina Faso, Djibouti, Chad, Mali, Niger and even Sudan (severely restricted in practice).

In quite many of these countries, like Qatar and UAE, however proselytization by non-Muslims and publich worship is restricted. Apostasy, however, is not punishable in the vast majority of them. As you can see, de facto Muslim law does not punish apostasy, and in general permits people at least personal religious freedom. There's a long way to go yet, but it would be advisable too have reality as a basis, and not a false idea of what sharia is and says.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/

3. Sharia is not "one" law, it is interpreted differently from Muslim denomination to Muslim denomitation and from country to country. Islamic law is also far from as rigid as many believe.

Oops. The name of the late sheik of al-Azhar some how got dropped out of there. His name was Mahmud Shaltut, and he wrote: "apostasy carries no temporal penalty" (i.e. no penalty of this world)

Ref. Mohammad Hasim Kamali, 'Freedom of Expression in Islam', Ilmiah Publishers: Kuala Lumpur, 1998, pages 93-95.

Another link for you all:
http://www.thefiqh.org/article.php/18

Bjorn writes: Are we not able to keep two thoughts in our heads at the same time: "It is wrong to ban criticism of a religion." + "It is wrong to ban an entire religion." Try it. Not very difficult - in fact marvelously consistent.

Bjorn, you're too smart for some of your readers. Don't bother explaining what should be obvious. these people go on and on about defending democracy and they dont have a clue.

I think you put the finger on one of the main effects of these years of fundamentalist Islam and terrorism - in that clash of civilisations view, for people who like to indulge in binary thinking, it's like that started a competition of a Darwinian nature, about which will be the STRONGEST civilisation to survive. Scratch Darwin, actually, that's just a classic action movie, that's how many people seem to think. It's ALL about the enemy, it's all about the war, it's all about the fight - it's like the entire existence of civilisation on earth to them is retro-actively justified by the war on terror. Like the whole existence of humankind was leading up to this armageddon-like confrontation, and that is what gives it its entire purpose. So the rest is irrelevant. The defending part - the means - has become an end in itself, a fundamentalist religion in itself!, and what is being defended is secondary. They don't see the risk that justifying _anything_ in the name of defense, without keeping in mind what it is you're defending, means you're already doing the fundamentalist's work for them.

But aside from the principles and conceptual part that Bjorn has already written about so well. I want to follow the absurdity to its conclusions, and ask this to the folks who are defending the concept of banning Islam: could you, in rational terms, explain exactly a) how you'd go about it (the practical details, how do you enforce such a ban - hint: it wouldn't be as simple as banning smoking in restaurants) and b) HOW can you possibly think a BAN on a religion would mitigate the fundamentalist elements within it and encourage the more moderate and democratic voices instead? (hint: the last time they tried to ban a religion it was a few hundred years ago and now it's the biggest one on earth.) and finally, the obvious c) how can you ban one religion without banning all religions? how do you legally justify that?

Really. EVEN if you followed that absurd premise that there's even a possibility that a religion could ever be banned within a democracy (it could, in THEORY, but it would automatically kill that democracy and turn it into a dictatorship, doh) - even if you skip the theoretical part, you come up with such nonsense even at a practical level, it's really hilarious if it wasn't so sad, that there's people who are really, in all seriousness, entertaining the notion of banning a religion... but carry on, it's very amusing...
Especially when some of these folks come up with a retort like "get real!", ha, the nerve!

Europe is already history because of political correctness and tolerance of bad ideologies like Islam. Most Europeans have lost the ability to process the concept of murdering lunatics who are out to kill them. It's back to basics when involved in this kind of conflict. It's simple. Identify the enemy (not a difficult task) and then kill him first. There's no time to quibble and split hairs. Too many good people die while Europe ponificates and ponders how to deal with evil. Take a good look at the video on 9-11, 2001. Want that in your cities?

Oh yeah, because the difference between identifying the enemy as terrorists OR as a whole religion of 1.3 billion people is a matter of "splitting hairs". Who is the enemy to kill, a subgroup, or a whole 1/6th of the population of this planet? Oh, of course, that's just one of those European sophisticated subtleties that we right-thinking Americans rightly despise.

I. don't. think. so.

If at least everybody spoke for themselves only, rather than for entire countries, or entire religions, or entire continents. Too many wannabe prophets around.

momo -

If you don't know who the enemy is by now, you've got a problem. The majority of Muslims are dangerous, not necessarily because they're fuse lighters or trigger pullers, but because the are facilitators and sympathizers. the roughly 20% who are left say nothing, for the most part.
And yes, again, europe will not survive. It nearly didn't survive WW2. This threat is much more serious. Your worldview helps put us here in America on the Islamist chopping block as well.

Momo, you are just as naive as Øyvind and Bjørn. Let me give you a VERY good example. Above, I quoted how a leading Pakistani Islamist has been invited to Oslo, Norway, to make a speech at Pakistan's National Day (There is a large community of Pakistanis in Oslo). His name is Qazi Hussain Ahmed. Local Muslims insist there is nothing "extremist" about his views, and that he is on the side of mainstream, "modern" Islam. Really? Let's take a look at some of his "moderate" views. And Øyvind, notice how he supports killing of people leaving Islam, and quite correctly points out that this is what Islamic law demands. But I guess that's just my paranoia......

http://www.media-watch.org/articles/0999/306.html

Q:Please tell us about your stay with Qazi Hussain Ahmed

Qazi had said once that JI comes to power in Pakistan, he will abolish the voting rights of women and minorities. Only the Muslim men can participate in voting or standing for elections. When I asked the proof from Hadiths, he had quoted many Hadiths in support of that.

Once the Jamaat comes to power, the minorities will be induced(forced) to become Muslims either by monetary or psychological factors. JI is already equating the India with Hindus so that the Hindus of Pakistan will be forced to become Muslims. This was very successful strategy during
the Babri Masjid riots. We ordered the destruction of the Hindu family property too. But our main aim was to destroy the Hindu temples. We wrote the JI pamphlets that destroying each pagan temple make a Muslim
move closer to heaven of Allah. We used the Hadiths in all the pamphlets. Babar destroyed the Ram temple in Ayodhya. Because he was a true believer. The same way every Muslim should take upon himself to destroy the Hindu temples in
Pakistan.

We are keenly watching the progress of Taliban and learning from it. We are impressed with the Taliban on the women issue, minorities issue and law and order issue. Mullah Omar is a great friend of Qazi. Omar had visited his house many
times. In the tentative talks, we had decided to form union of Pakistan and Afghanistan once the right conditions are set in Pakistan.

When you make an unequivocal statement that only Muslims are voters and declare that India is Islamic republic, then automatically the people will become Muslims. Little bit of terror had to be applied to the heart of Hindus and Christians. I will give you a best example. The portions now constitute Pakistan had 25% Hindu population before Independence. After independence lot of Hindus migrated to India. Yet
after the migration, Pakistani Hindu population was 15%. Do you know what is the percentage now? It is less than 1%. How was this made possible? How did the Hindus converted to Islam in a short span of 20 years whereas for 700 years they had never converted to Islam? That is purely because
of the terror of the partition. That terror forced the Hindus who remained in Pakistan to become Muslims. Pure and simple.

This sheik comes from a Bedouin family of southwestern Arabia. He had the habit of drinking camel urine and camel milk early in
the morning. I asked him why does he do that? He replied that it is the family tradition as well as Islamic practice that is supported by Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). I was astounded. But Qazi explained to me that it is true. He told me three or four Hadiths in which the camel urine and camel milk drinking is suggested. So Qazi wanted to drink the camel urine and camel milk along with the Sheik.

Hence the reintroduction of slavery in Pakistan is one of the future plans of Jamaat. All the captured Hindu Indians and Srilankans will be made slaves to work for Pakistani Muslims. Every God abiding Pakistani Muslim will get slaves once we conquer India. All the slaves who embrace Islam will be set free. Slavery is Islamic.

One of Qazi's relatives wanted to become a Hindu. He did not have a child for many years and it seems he had prayed to a Hindu God and got the child. Hence he felt thankful to that god and wanted to become a Hindu. Qazi got to know of this and called him and threatened him dire consequences. That relative did not become a Hindu. But that incident made Qazi read more about apostasy. Quran and Hadith clearly say the punishment for abandonment of Islam is death. Since Sharia is not the law in Pakistan, and the
current Pakistani constitution grants right to change the religion, it is legally correct to declare oneself as Hindu or Christian. But once JI takes over the government, it will make Sharia as the constitution. Then Pakistan also
legally execute any person who leaves Islam and joins Ahmaddiah, Christianity or Hinduism the same way Iran and Taliban treats its apostates.

--Who is the enemy to kill, a subgroup, or a whole 1/6th of the population of this planet? --

That's up to them. How's that for nuance? They'll decide. And that's what we're "discussing."

Ali Dashti: "Local Muslims insist there is nothing "extremist" about his views, and that he is on the side of mainstream, "modern" Islam."

Really? Do they? I wrote about this yesterday, as you remember. I dug up every single statement I could find Norwegian newspapers about Ahmed's visit. The ones I found were the ones I've quoted - _one_ Muslim denied that the man was an extremist, another was against the visit.

Since I wrote that, Drammens Tidende has published an interview with local Muslim leaders, of which one supports the visit, and two are against. One of them calls Ahmed a fundamentalist and a threat to Pakistani democracy.

This is it. These are the known facts about local Muslim reactions to the visit. A few in favor, a few against, silence (so far) from everyone else. Why do you spin that to become "Local Muslims insist there is nothing "extremist" about his views", implying 1) that we know what most local Muslims think about this, and 2) that the reactions we know about have been largely positive. That's just not true, and you ought to know that.

The truth is bad enough, of course. My point is not to defend anyone, but merely to point out that you're distorting the truth to fit your views about Islam.

Ali

"And Øyvind, notice how he supports killing of people leaving Islam, and quite correctly points out that this is what Islamic law demands. But I guess that's just my paranoia..."

Not at all, "Ali". That's you and him having the same interpretations of Islam and Islamic law. That does not mean, however, that there are not other interpretations, or that Muslims do not have other interpretations.

I do find it quite arrogant of you, as a non-Muslim, to talk about what is the "correct" variant of Islam and not. Even more arrogant it is, however, when you make claims suggesting that all Islam is like the Islam conjure up as a scary image.

I repeat my question, to which I did not get an answer. How would the people cleverly suggesting Islam should be banned go about it? As a pure hypothesis, assuming it'd be possible, assuming it'd be justified, assuming it'd be legal, assuming there was no obstacle or objection to it of any kind in principle - I want to hear the practical details, come on, if you've thought about it so hard, you should come up with some more than "it's up to them to decide" as answer to the question of whether you want to kill 1.3 billion people or just a carefully selected fraction of it.

I want to hear:
- how would this ban on a religion be enforced
- what exactly would the ban entail
- who would be in charge of enforcing it and how, at international level? or are you happy with it being enforced in your neighbourhood alone? you tell me
And, the most important question of all, and pay attention because this one is tricky!, how exactly would banning a religion make the fundamentalists within it LESS powerful?
Care to engage your brains on that one for a second?

OR, like some seem to imply, is the "ban" to be understood as complete physical elimination? in which case, again, nevermind the whole principles thing (principles? what principles? they're just silly European subtleties!), let's stick with the practicalities, I want to know how do you go about killing 1.3 billion people, dear Larry. Assuming 1.3 billion were all like, "deserving" of being killed, for some reason, or even assuming they were all terrorists. "Them". How do you "nuance" "them"?

I'm only asking because I am willing to be convinced of this marvellous plan, because I'm sure there's some sense and usefulness in that ban/kill-all proposal, I just want to help you guys bring it to the light, so that everyone can be converted to your precious insights. Come on, show us the way, give us the instructions. Make a list in Excel, if it helps. I'm not wasting time talking of silly things like ideals. I'm just eager to learn the techniques for the complete physical elimination of the Islamic threat, because I sure think the government is not doing enough, and the matter should be taken up by individual zealous citizens. After all, when people come up with such briliant ideas, you've just got to give them more trust and power than those in power. I'm all for it.

Bjørn, this man doesn't have "little support" among Muslims here. Here are some links in Norwegian, sorry for non-Scandinavians:

http://www.islamic.no/modules.php?nam...

ICC er sjokkert over aftenpostens fremstilling av saken. Qazi Hussain har ikke på noen som helst måte eller tidspunkt, forsvart Bin Laden eller terrorisme. Han har i hele sitt liv kjempet mot terrorisme og stått for gjensidig respekt, tolleranse og rettferd. Qazi som har besøkt Norge tideligere, kommer for å feire pakistansk najsonaldag sammen med pakistanere bosatt i Norge. Han kommer til å ha møter både med politiske ledere og regjeringsmedlemmer under sitt Norges besøk. Qazi Hussain er parlamentsmedlem og leder for Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan, et av Pakistans størstee politiske partier. Han er også leder for MMA som er et allianse av pakistanske religiøse, politiske partier.

http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/innenriks/article264039.ece

Leder i Norsk Innvandrerforum, Athar Ali, advarer kommunalminister Erna Solberg (H) mot å nekte den kontroversielle pakistanske politikeren Qazi Hussain Ahmad adgang til Norge. Det er veldig uklokt hvis hun bestemmer seg for ikke å slippe ham inn i landet. -Mange innvandrere vil oppleve det som en krenkelse, sier Ali. Ahmad representerer holdninger som også mange muslimer i Norge har, sier lederen for Norsk Innvandrerforum. Hvis Ahmad nektes adgang til Norge, vil mange oppfatte det som en krenkelse og et angrep på deres ytringsfrihet, tror Athar Ali. – Det er de siste dagene skapt et inntrykk av at mange nordmenn med pakistansk bakgrunn ikke ønsker at Ahmad skal komme hit. Det tror jeg er helt feil. Han er en nasjonal leder i Pakistan, og jeg tror mange vil komme for å høre hans foredrag i Oslo.

http://www.islam.no/newsite/content/default.asp?...

Qazi Hussain Ahmed, leder for Jamaat-e- islami i Pakistan er en stor politiker, religiøs leder og brobygger. Han er invitert til Oslo og kommer til å holde flere foredrag rundt omkring i byen. Islam.no ønsker ham hjertelig velkommen og håper at både muslimer og ikke-muslimer får nytte av hans besøk. Islam.no advarer samtidig mot å tro på den fiendtlige propaganda som spres mot ham. Qazi Hussain Ahmed er etter det Islam.no erfarer en brobygger og stor kjemper for fred og rettferdighet i samfunnet. Han er ingen støtter av terrorisme, men han har sterke meninger mot USA og israel.

Note that Islam.no, the most "official website" for Islamic authorities in Norway, glowingly support this man, and claim that he is "no extremist". They're right. He's not an extremist, he's just a good Muslim, doing what the Koran and the sunna of Muhammed tells him to do.

If you're looking for the "most official" website for Islamic authorities in Norway - you'll find it here: http://www.irn.no/. Islam.no is a project of Den Islamske Informasjonsforeningen (a sort of publishing house) and Det Islamske Forbundet (one of many mosques in Oslo). DIF is also one the places Ahmad is going to speak, so maybe one should not be too surprised about their support.

By the way, this might be interesting. One of Jarle Synnevågs former colleagues here:
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article845191.ece

In many ways I think Ahmad is comparable to Hizb-ut-Tahrir and other extremist groups that have a radical Islamist ideology, but do not condone violent methods for achieving their theocracy.

How disputed is Ahmad amongst Muslims? Well, he is one of the followers of Maududi - one of the first Islamist ideologists - and Maududi is a very disputed figure to this day. The connection to Maududi should also give us plenty of reason to question Ahmads points of view. Protests would not be out of place, but perhaps people reacting to his Islamist views should instead grab the opportunity to go to the meeting and ask those difficult questions, or to raise a debate in the media.

I doubt that the anti-Islamists claiming that Ahmads Islam is the only right Islam are able of doing any of those things.

Some of the Norwegians on this Forum are incredibly naive. What a push over this country will be for Islam. You're already dim Dhimmis and maybe deserve to be slaves of your future masters.
If they make you eunuchs, they won't have to cut your balls off.You haven't got any!

Morgane: Unfortunately, all of Western Europe is heading for dhimmitude, and becoming slaves in their own countries. Now is the good time to leave for the USA, I believe.

Morgane & Ali: Do you have any idea how irrational you're sounding? All I've asked of you is more evidence and arguments that you are right, as well as some sign that you have truly considered the democratic implications of what you're saying. You've given me none of that. Your rhetorical strategy so far has been this:

A - Islam will destroy us all! We must fight it!
B - Why?
A - Islam is bad and will turn us all into slaves!
B - Why?
A - You're so naive. The Muslims will cut your balls off!
B - Why?
A - You just don't get it, do you? Time to leave this dump for the US. Hope you enjoy dhimmitude, suckers!

The "why"-strategy is also known as "skepticism", which is a good response to any claim, and which (though annoying) _always_ demands a proper reply, a reply on the same conseptual level as the question. If I ask you for evidence that _all_ of Islam _everywhere_ in _practice_ is as evil as you say it is, you're obligated to provide it or point at it. If you're not willing to explain why you believe something, nobody else is required to take you seriously.

The worst possible response to skepticism is to imply that you just have take it on faith, which is pretty much what you have done. You're very skilled at digging up cases of extremism in Islam, of course, but the moment you're challenged to go further than that, to provide evidence or reasoning that this extremism is so inherent in Islam that the whole religion poses a dire threat to us, then you just shrug, or turn to rhetorical posturing ("all of Western Europe is headed for dhimmitude", "what a push over this country will be for Islam"). That's embarassing, and another sign of how intellectually corrupted your kind of Islam criticism has become.

Bjørn, as I just showed you, the man who is now set to make a speech in Oslo has received a great deal of backing from Muslims in Norway. Considering the opinions I quoted above, do you think it's "irrational" to be concerned about this? It confirms my view that Muslims intend to do the same things here as they do in their home countries, where non-Muslims are, at best, discriminated against, at worst, outright persecuted or even killed. If this is considered "irrational" to be worried about in Europe today, God help us all.

Ali: I won't let you off the hook for distorting local reactions to Qazi Hussain Ahmed's visit. We already know that the Islamic Cultural Centre supports him. The other two examples you gave are new, but we're still far from "local Muslims insist there is nothing "extremist" about his views". We still haven't heard from most Muslim leaders, and of those we have heard from several have been negative to him.

Does this matter? "Local Muslims insist" vs "Some local Muslims insist", what's the difference? For one, it's just a plain deceptive statement. And second, multiplied to the scale we're talking on here, minor cases of lazyness like that can add up to the difference between "Islam has a serious problem" and "all of Islam is inherently dangerous". So, again, why did you distort the reactions?

"Considering the opinions I quoted above, do you think it's "irrational" to be concerned about this?"

Where did I say it is? It really is disappointing the way people assume that just because I criticize _their_ particular criticism of Islam, I'm against criticizing Islam. As a regular reader you should know bettre than that. Your concern doesn't bother me. What does bother me is the way you distort facts, use lazy generalizations, and refuse to get specific about your views when challenged to. You're absolutely right that local reactions to this visit are cause for concern. That doesn't make your description of those reactions truthful, nor does it strengthen your particular theory of Islam, (which would require nearly all Muslims to be secretly or openly sympathetic towards this man's Islamism.)

Islam should be destroyed,period...Not in the sense that Muslims should die, plenty will die if they wish to dominate the world...I estimate the conflict to cost approximately 1-2 billion lives...

Be that as it may, Islam is not a religion because there is no such idea in Islamic thought...Religion is a Western concept used by Muslims to infiltrate the West and use the Wests freedoms to dominate it...All part of making sure the world is one big happy (NOT) ummah...

Islam, by its own definition and by the definition of its leading scholars, is an all-encompassing social, political, spiritual, personal and intellectual worldview that does not leave room for or even allow any other lifestyles. Period...(thanks to Zombie for being so articulate)

Norway may do what it wants, but banning Islam just as banning the wearing of the rag in France will make no difference...Muslims will use their very own laws against them...

Europe is lost and should be referred to as Eurabia...

Now, all of you may call me a biggot and or racist...I am not going to tolerate Muslims and Islam when it wants to kill me, converte me or make me a dhimmi...You wish to suffer that fate, you continue being tolerant and look for excuses...

American Infidel: "I estimate the conflict to cost approximately 1-2 billion lives..."

Really? May I see your estimates - or at least a summary of them, (for I can only assume that you've done thorough work on this subject, and that the full analysis is too long to paste into a comment.)

Or did you mean "guess"? If so, say it.

"Be that as it may, Islam is not a religion because there is no such idea in Islamic thought...Religion is a Western concept used by Muslims to infiltrate the West and use the Wests freedoms to dominate it...All part of making sure the world is one big happy (NOT) ummah..."

You've arrived late in the discussion. If you read the comments above, you'll note that many before you have already _described_ what they see as the problem with Islam in detail, and with fine big words. What's lacking is any serious explanation of _why_ they believe this. Perhaps you'll be the one to provide it.

"Now, all of you may call me a biggot and or racist"

Doesn't work like that. I'm not going to open that door for you, through which you'll leave with good conscience knowing that the reason you've failed to convince your audience is that they're dogmatic multiculturalists. In this blog you're expected to explain your view with facts and reasoning. I'd appreciate if you, or anyone did that. Not the part about Islam having a big problem, but the leap from that to the total condemnation and possible banning of all Islam. (That goes for any new visitors from Faithfreedom as well. Read the comments - then tell me something I haven't heard yet.)

momo

Want details do you?

Nobody's necessarily talking about killing 1.3 million people, although it may come to that.

Just kill the really bad actors for now. Pretty easy to know who most of them are. They're the scumbags at the gates armed with RPG's, AK's and maybe even suitcase nukes.

Regarding their supporters and sympathizers in the U.S., they need to be controlled pretty much the same way Singapore controls them. I'm sure you know the details of that. Very effective.

Supporters and sympathizers in the M.E. need to be dealt with over time, preferably using step-by-step suppression and re-education. Of course, there will be open warfare as well over this extended period of time, but the free world needs to stay resolute and focused and see it through. The alternative will be to either convert to the cult of death or to live in dhimmitude.

By the way, referring back to the open warfare part. Gen.Tommy Franks is correct when he states "it's a multiple choice question - do we fight them in their back yard or do we fight them in ours?" I say it's theirs.

Any further detail than this I leave up to the experts in Washington, assuming there's anyone there with the balls to fight after the next Presidential inauguration.

BJORN STAERK
Many on this forum have presented huge quantities
of reasoned argument and information to explain the dangers of Islam.ALI DASHTI has gone out of his way to give every contact as well as PATIENTLY
reasoning every doubt you might have.Unfortunately
with years of peace, the West has grown soft and
rich with good living and its tender underbelly makes it an irresistable target to overpopulated,poor Muslim countries.
So must the West have looked over a thousand years
ago to marauding Vikings who came with fire and sword to Europe. There was a difference though. The Vikings had a similar bloody DEATH CULT to Islam, where the slain warrior would feast and drink and have lots of sex[don't think they demanded virgins] in Valhalla.However there is little or no evidence to suggest that the average
Viking wanted to impose his ideology/religion on the West, on the contrary it was the Vikings who became converts to Christianity and settled down
to INTEGRATE with his neighbours.
Today's invaders have not the slightest desire or
intent to INTEGRATE with any save other MUSLIMS.
Look at Muslims in America, Europe,Australia and N.Z. They keep closed societies according to Islam, their fanatical ideology. This ideology is
as evil as that pursued by the Nazis : remember how may millions were tortured, suffered and died
until the world managed to defeat them. But you are blind [wilfully so] that you cannot see the parallel - until it is too late! You have a comfortable life so you think by burying your head
under a nice goosedown duvet, you can ignore what is happening in your own country and elsewhere.
You, and others like you are shrill in proclaiming
your liberal opinions and RIGHTS. Isn't that selfish because you are only concerned with your rights?The RIGHTS of those under ISLAM are DENIED.
So apart from pontificating on what are you actually going to DO about it??? NOTHING...

Bjorn, you underestimate the threat to a great extent. By the time you recognize what's under that "moderate" mask, I fear it will be too late. And for others of you, "banning" the religion of Islam is indeed impossible, impractical and inadvisable.

Øyvind:
"If you're looking for the "most official" website for Islamic authorities in Norway - you'll find it here: http://www.irn.no/. Islam.no is a project of Den Islamske Informasjonsforeningen (a sort of publishing house) and Det Islamske Forbundet (one of many mosques in Oslo). DIF is also one the places Ahmad is going to speak, so maybe one should not be too surprised about their support."

If you visit irn.no you will find that Islamsk Råd Norge list as one of their projects, "developing the web portal islam.no".

Other than that, I'm sure that many Norwegian muslims want nothing to do with this person. But it would be nice to see one of the islamic organisations come out against him as well, instead of referring to his rabid anti-semitism as "strong opinions on Israel".

Morgane: I've never seen you in this blog before this thread. Maybe you should read a few earlier posts by Beorn - sample some of his posts during the last couple of years.

Beorn is not an appologetic of Islam. He's a strong critic of Islamism. He's the guy that turned me from being a multiculturalist (as you call it), to being damn sceptic about Islam in general.

He does however raise some valid points. Most muslims doesn't want to chop atheists heads off. Most muslims doesn't want to suppress other religions. There are of course nutcases and 'leaders' that want it -- but those are not the majority.

The problem with lgf, and some of the posters in this thread is that they don't get their blinders off. Beorn has made valid points. He demands proof and arguments from both sides. Both from the muslims and from the critics of Islam/muslims, instead of being a damn 'me too'er like far too many in this thread.

Personally I used to debate with neo-nazis on BBSes in the 1990s (and on UseNet). They had a tendency to present excerpts from the Talmud, that was provided as proof that Jews were Bad and wanted World Domination. The arguments from a lot of you guys here resemble those arguments in a great deal. The difference is that you can point at actual countries where things are bad.

This however does not prove that all of Islam is wrong. It does prove that there are religious nutcases, that unfortunately has gotten hold of some states. As Øyvind from Bergen has pointed out, there are other examples. There is much more than black and white in this world. There are shades of gray. Unfortunately lots of the lgf-crowd that seems to have crowded here doesn't see the shades of gray, but just black and white.

So, Morgane - I challenge you to read some of Beorns older posts.

Ali Dashti - you KNOW what Beorn has written in the past, as you're almost a regular here. Look at it. He's highly critical of Islam and of Islamists, but he's also critical about 'us', when we put our blinders on. I think that is a good sign.

Terje:

Thank you for notifying me on irn.nos reference to islam.no. I was not aware of that one. Still, it is irn.no and not islam.no that is the "most official" website of Norwegian Muslims, as Islamsk Råd Norge at least has 19 member groups (compared to, if I remember correctly, over 60 different Muslim congregations in Norway).

"But it would be nice to see one of the islamic organisations come out against him as well, instead of referring to his rabid anti-semitism as 'strong opinions on Israel'".

Agreed.

RUNE
Thank you for telling me about Bjorn/Beorn's previous posts. As a matter of fact, started off as a LIBERAL myself believing that ALL religions
[I am not a Christian or a Jew] were the same. Fairly harmless.It was only having having read some of the Qur'an that had my doubts and more I read, more alarmed I became.For the verses in it of what I deemed to be old rhetoric were being declaimed on numerous websites as if written yesterday. Also apart from gaining info. about Prophet, had an interesting encounter with Muslim
Journalist.This man was charming [one might have thought] until I criticized Mohammed!!Let me remind you this Journalist had been born and raised in the West,spoke several languages and received an excellent education and came from well-to-do home.
He had also tried to interest me in conversion to Islam. Anyway, after me DARING to criticize the Prophet, he stormed off and I got the impression
'Stoning' would have been too good for this Infidel...Now I have argued and criticized other religions before, receiving mild rebukes,shrugs or
'I will pray for you' responses. But I invite all of you to TRY criticizing ISLAM : people you imagine to be reasonable and rational[just like us] and you will see an amazing and FRIGHTENING
reaction. They have been brainwashed from birth; their lives CONTROLLED in just about every
function from farting to fornication to believe what the Prophet said...As for Mohammed, the man according to his own 'so called holy' script was
a pedophile,rapist,torturer,thief,slave owner, and master of 'deceit', the last deemed a virtue in Islam. And out there , some in our own lands is a vast army of brainwashed fanatics prepared to die and kill others IN THE NAME OF ALLAH. Worried! We all should be.Because they won't pussyfoot around and if you read history of Islam
you can read the fate of the West.

Why?

Leaving aside thru 1653(?) 1979, 83, 86, 93, 95, 96, 98, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004.

2001 really, really got our attention.

Again, the crickets are chirping.

If Iraq can get its' act together in the next few decades, we'll be very, very lucky.

But you see, in one way, it's a win-win for those muslims in the West.

We win kinda easy, they get their western life and practice their religion w/o being bothered.

We lose, they get the West's bounty, their traditional Islamic lands back to Vienna (and then some) and the "world" will be "at peace" under Islam.

CAC - crickets are chirping.

Via the Blogfather:

The roots of French policy

The current issue of the Hoover Institution's Policy Review has the first English translation of a remarkable document ("Outline of a Doctrine of French Policy") written in 1945 by French philosopher Alexander Kojeve, and given to Charles de Gaulle. This appears to have become a guiding light to French diplomats and politicians over the last 60 years.

The thesis begins with an understanding that the post WW II world will be split into a US-dominated bloc and a Russian-dominated bloc. Kojeve called on France to develop a third bloc -- which he called the Latin bloc. This bloc would be composed of groups of nations bordering the Mediterranean and which share a certain cultural sensibility. He advocated for an economic alliance which presciently resembles the European Union. Tellingly, he also called for an accommodation and partnership with Islamic nations, and stated that this unity can be based on a mutual opposition to other trends (the enemy of my enemy is my friend).

In the glorious future he foretold, France would reign over this transnational alliance of nations as primus inter pares. Only this transformation would ensure continued French power in opposition to the Anglo alliance lead by America.

A worthwhile read-even if studded with occasional flights of philosophical fancy.

---

As to dead, well, we could consider how bloody our Reformation was. Then add some.

Then we move on to China.

(Sigh.) A Superpower's work is never done. Good thing Christianity's getting a foothold.

World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/podhoretz.htm

Recent history is our guide, hundreds of millions, maybe even 1 billion w/the weapons we have today.

I sleep well because in the end, we will win. Whether I'm around to see it, however....

I'm flying at the end of September and they're probing our planes again w/larger numbers travelling together.

There was a rumor of one man how locked himself in the bathroom after take off and the air marshall had to break down the door. He had removed the mirror and tried to break thru the wall.

Then there's this which reminded us we are still being probed:

http://instapundit.com/archives/016586.php

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040813/483/olymos23008132026

It's nice to see them smiling.

I think they're going to do well in the Olympics.

Larry writes - "Nobody's necessarily talking about killing 1.3 million people, although it may come to that."

Hmm, interesting. How and when may it "come to that"? Who's going to kill 1.3 billion people, just because they are Muslim? And how exactly would that be carried out, with a mark on their forehead or something? You'd need a dictatorship to carry out genocide. IT usually is not the sort of policy that gets approved in a parliament, you know.

Or, perhaps, you were thinking of nuclear warfare, in which case, may I ask how exactly you plan to eliminate only the Muslim people? Stack them all in the Nevada desert and then boom?

Or were you thinking it "may come to that" by way of spontaneous ethnic cleansing initiated by zealous citizens frustrated with the ineptitude of their governments?

Just wondering.

Just kill the really bad actors for now. Pretty easy to know who most of them are.

Ok, genius, why don't you bring your precious advice to the FBI and the CIA and all the other intelligence services of the world that they work with. I'm sure they'd appreciate the insights.

Any further detail than this I leave up to the experts in Washington

Sounds like a good idea, given the circumstances.

...assuming there's anyone there with the balls to fight after the next Presidential inauguration.

Ah, because of course, if the Great Bush II doesn't get re-elected, the Pentagon, the CIA, the FBI, Congress, all the institutions of America are going to go down the shithole, right?

Sure that's the message you want to give to the rest of the world?

Cause if that's not anti-american defeatism, I don't know what is.

I blame videogames. Some people sure seem to have a very unhealthy taste for cartoonish apocalyptic scenarios in which 1.3 billion human beings become just a figure in a score chart.
Of course, talking of "them" 1.3 billion as enemies is *not at all* similar to the ravings of a certain bin Laden that considers all the 1.+ billion westerners as crusaders to be fought, nah. It's not at all specular nuttery, oh no. Because the apocalyptic folks are convinced they're on the side of divine justice, even if they have to kill innocent folks in the process, and that too, is something that's not at all specular to Islamist fanatics.

This is not a conflict of civilisations, it's a conflict of lunacies.

"Norwegians are not so quick to detect and react to similar attacks on jews in Norway. [sic] It's not uncommon to hear Norwegian suggest that American foreign policy in the Mideast is skewed by an influential jewish lobby here. I wonder whether the presence of vocal muslims might not account for Norwegian support for radical muslim causes and reluctance to criticize islamic terror."

Doyle; Would it be irrational to consider that both are possible? Certainly it seems hypocritical to imply that a politically & financially influencial ethnic group within America has no sway over the American government's policies and then turn around and suggest that it seems more likley that Norway's "vocal" yet practically powerless minorities set and determine government policies and public opinion there.

Dave

“One question: how do you propose to protect your culture, traditions, your very language, and your democratic values from a political ideology, disguised as a religion? [sic] Do you think that no one in all this time has tried to come up with alternatives to fight Islam without becoming just like it? [sic] Civilizations that were willing to be violent and brutal survived. Those that didn't, became Islamized.”

A reader;Democratic solutions, can’t be created if you throw aside democratic principles.
According to your logic, it would have been impossible to beat Nazism without becoming just like it, hey? To deter Communist in the cold war by becoming communists? To stop a totalitarian ideology by embracing a totalitarian ideology? To protect civilisation against the barbarous hordes at the gate by becoming the barbarians ourselves and pulling down the pillars of civilisation?

“You have to offer solutions, to those of us who know what this ideology is all about. “

Now I have a question for you A Reader, who died and made you the bastion of truth and justice? You can not protect western values of freedom, and of equality, if you’re going to outlaw, discriminate and inequalibly attack minorities. Discarding centuries of democratic traditions merely to target a disagreeable religious faith (they are all disagreeable to me), making him no better than the Islamic facists he claims to disdain. Wake up A Reader, are you the protector of western tradition or yet another African-style tinpot dictator wannabe? Do Mugabe, Mahitir and Amin reside among your heroes?

Dave.

The instinctive need to be the member of a closely knit group fighting for common ideals may grow so strong that it becomes inessential what these ideals are. Konrad Lorenz.

“Europe has a dagger to its throat, and doesn't even know it. This is a matter of survival, a life and death battle between Western civilization and Islam. This planet isn't big enough for the both of us, at least not until a thoroughly reformed Islam sees the day. Unlikely, unfortunately. One of them has to die. At the very least, we should COMPLETELY STOP all kinds of Muslim immigration. No refugees, asylum seekers or "family reunions" of any kind will be allowed in. Even that probably isn't enough, which means that we have to expell many of the millions of Muslims present in our midst today”

Ali Dashti; And I thought Adolph Hitler was dead! Your above statement could have been taken from anyone of his speeches (merely substitute jew for muslim).

Susan; what’s true for some must equally be true for others. One belief system based on blind faith and servitude (Islame) vs another based on blind faith and servitude (Christianity).

In the words of Richard Dawkins; faith enters the picture only at the suicide of rationale intellect.

Momo; You should check out some of Lorenz’s work. It would be a horrible irony if the only possible explanation of the conflicts and wars throughtout human history and the continuation of unreasonable behaviour from supposedly reasonable beings, was an innate drive to agressive behaviour in humans.

David.

DAVID ELSON
Did not America and Britain intern Germans and Japanese during the Second World War? Did not the countries of Europe expel Germans after that war and deal rough justice to collaboraters?? In a WAR SITUATION, everything changes to a struggle for survival. People just accepted Churchill's government during the war : they didn't bother about DEMOCRACY because they couldn't afford it.
Above all else, they needed a strong, unifying LEADER. If you aren't personally geared for survival then you are doomed to either death or slavery.[Judging by your naive comments, probably slavery - you can always rationalize it by saying
you were a Pacifist!]
Here I quote Churchill's famous words on this subject.
'If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be
a worse case; you may have to fight when there is no hope of vivtory because it is better to perish than live as slaves.'

Morgane; You are sounding more more like a facist with your demands for a "strong leader", reprisals against innocent civilians, your declaration of a struggle for survival at a nation supraindividual level.

Did not Germany "intern" slavs and jews during the Second World War? Did not the countries of the German reich expel the untermenschen undermining them within?

Did not hitler declare that with this new WAR SITUATION, everything changed, for the German struggle for survival?

They thought they needed a "strong, unifying LEADER" and look where it led them, to ruin.

Personal individual survival has nothing to do with subverting your will to the nations "good", and the petty ambitions of some politician. That is real slavery morgane.

Do you want the dark past to re-emerge Morgane?

David Elson.

Morgane

What you say about Muslims, I can verify from personal experience. Muslims have been so throughly brainwashed from birth that they do not have any concept of objective truth. There are no doubts in the Mulsim mind, just the idiotic certainties of the koran. And I mean 'idiotoic' in the literal sense, as I've never come across a religious tract as full of idiocies coupled with murderous barbarity.

The very idea of giving this barbaric ideology the sanctity of a religion, in the Western sense, is galling. Though banning may be politically difficult, there is no reason whatever, why Islam should not be subject to criticism. Besides Islam is not a religion per se but an ideology for conquest. It is absurd and naive to give it the sanctity of a religion.

Further, freedom of religion is relatively important but Freedom of speech is far more. Any attempt by any Muslim or Muslims, to physically threaten any critic of Islam, should be immediately deported. Freedom of Speech defines Western civilisation. Freedom of religion is a mere byproduct.

DAVID ELSON
You sound as if you don't know much history and recite parrotlike usual PC phrases about 'innocent
civilians' etc -hope you are applying this to what
is happening in Darfur!!Have encountered Muslim apologists before : they support Palestinian Suicide bombers whilst saying they only want 'justice and peace' in the world.
Like the way you distort my comments [maybe you didn't read them properly in your haste to brand everyone a 'fascist' who doesn't agree with you?].
In no way can Churchill or America be called 'Fascists' in the Second world War. If it hadn't been for the brave men and women and strong
Western leaders, you wouldn't be here now spouting
'your principles'.In the last years of the Roman Empire, the men became effete and soft: they no longer wanted to fight Rome's enemies, in fact made every excuse NOT to do so which is why Rome fell to the Barbarians. Just reading this forum shows a disturbing parallel to Rome. One can only be thankful there are some men who still have courage and strong minded women who will fight to save Mr Elson's 'bacon'.As for your reference to 'Dark past' this is already emerging so better get your blinkers off,Dave.[Sorry, forgot you will be quite content to be a slave!}
DP111
That is so true about Muslims! There never has been such a controlling, brainwashing religion.
Which explains why the Koran commands 'the faithful' to kill Apostates. In virtually every case, Muslims hold Islam to be higher than loyalty
or serving their country. Most Muslims do NOT accept the concept of Democracy anyway only Sharia. One can be amused reading David Elson's comments [probably Muslims are too] upholding their 'democratic rights and freedoms' which most
Muslims neither want or recognise - these being seen as part of the corrupt, decadent West.

momo -

You're thinking small again. the war with Islamists is a global conflict of epic proportion. Comparatively speaking, WW2 was a sideshow. And look at how many innocent civilians died in that one. I'm not sure anyone really knows. This current war is being fought on many fronts. Here in the U.S., obviously in the middle east, and just about in every other country to some degree or another. It'll be fought over decades, literally a generational conflict. So I fail to see how you can not agree that there's likely to me millions of Muslims that will perish.

By the way, no anti-American defeatism coming from here. I'll leave that to the left wingers. they're good at it. There's no doubt in my mind who will come out on top in this conflict unless all of the western world follows in the footsteps of "old Europe". That would include, of course, the loser leftists here who think Islam is just another religion and who promote this conflict as a criminal matter. Unfortunately, it seems that the U.S. will have to suffer at least one more major hit by the Islamists before those of your worldview slowly awaken to the facts. Hopefully, it's not a nuclear hit. This is war. It won't be pretty. Get used to it.

Morgane

"Most Muslims do NOT accept the concept of Democracy anyway only Sharia"

Quite agree. Democracy is to be used by the faithful beliver only as a means to bring about Sharia, the highest law in the universe. Allah's law. Thats it. In fact in the recent elections in the UK, some imams advised British Muslims not to vote, as it was shirq, haraam, ie is un-islamic.

There are of course some Muslims who may not think so, but they are silenced by the very fact that they are Muslims. They cannot openly oppose what is in the Koran. That is why some of my Muslim friends, smile lamely and say that in the ideal world, they would come out. In the final anlaysis though, Muslims, moderate or otherwise, have no alternative but to side with the Ummah ie what the cleric commands. Its that or lose all their freinds, relatives and every thing that they consider to be their defining essence. It is not really an option. Only a few, such as Ali Sena and Ibn Warraq, have taken the leap into the unknown. For the rest, that leap is too frightening.

What shall we do? No other choice but to try and convert Muslims to a more congenial and tolerant faith.

I wish there were some other way. I do not hate Muslims, jusy a kind of pity, that such a large section of humanity has been so effectively brainwashed. Muslims are the very first victims of Islam the ideology,as it completely closed their minds to all that is wonderful in the onwardgoing saga of humanity. They are trapped in a 7th century mindset, almost a prison in time.

Islam means submission, and Muslims are really the slaves of Allah. Thus Islam is the ideology of slavery, masquearading as a religion. Somehow we have to liberate them, not just for Muslims, but for us as well. The world will not be free from slavery till Muslims are released from Islam.
Our objective should be to Liberate Muslims from the subjugation and slavery of Islam.

Yes, it is a war and like all recent wars, the opponents are more ideologies rather than merely nations.

Freedom of individuals with rights directly from a source above the human and government deriving from the consent of the governed are extemely powerful ideas. They are by no means American nor even Western ideas, they are human ideas deriving from natural law. No ideology has been able to stand up for long to these ideas.

Islam and/or Islamism are nowhere near as dangerous as was National Socialism/Fascism and later International Socialism or Communism. In World War II and World War III (Cold War) there was a real existential threat to freedom. In this World War IV, there remains an existential threat but it is not a threat to freedom, it's a threat to Muslims.

Islam is an extremely brittle system of beliefs and thought. It is also massively parasitic. For these reasons, it is vulnerable to a proper global strategy. IMHO, no banning of Islam is needed as part of a successful strategy and any such banning would be the fastest and most certain road to defeat for freedom-loving people.

David Elson, Queensland, Australia:

Quote: "Ali Dashti; And I thought Adolph Hitler was dead! Your above statement could have been taken from anyone of his speeches (merely substitute jew for muslim)."

Quote: "Morgane; You are sounding more more like a facist with your demands for a "strong leader","

Although a tad old and usual, I will claim that you've confirmed godwins law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_Law

You've dragged out hitler, facism and nazis. There is no use in continuing this discussion with you. (I know I mentioned neo-nazis earlier, but that was from a real life experience).

Absolutely we should ban Islam. And that's just for starters. I'd happily ban all religions. I'd happily ban them all, burn down all the churches, whip the priests and imams and vicars and nuns naked through the streets, piss on every holy text I could find, and forever wipe religion from the consciousness of humanity. I wouldn't object to starting with Islam, as long as I could be sure that we'd do all the other religions within a short period thereafter. Say, we could start on Islam next week, then do the Catholics, get the Buddhists and Hindus in September, do the Anglicans and Wiccans in October, the non-conformists and the Jews in November, and so on - we could be done by New Year's. Anyone else up for that?

Dean Douthat -

I agree with your classic interpretation of individual freedom and the source of liberty, but how can you say that Islamism is not orders of magnitude more dangerous than Fascism or socialism/communism?
Communism was destined to self destruct because it's simply cannot sustain life. History has shown that to be true time after time.
Fascism is/was pretty much the same as Communism. Two names for the same thing (national socialism). The Nazis could expand their empire only as long as they were actively engaged in blitzkrieg. It was only a matter of time before they ran out of gas in both the literal and figurative sense.
Islam is much more dangerous because it's not only considered to be a religion, but it crosses into government and embraces such evil concepts as jihad and dhimmitude. It's adherents have been brainwashed for 1400 years, making Fascism and Communism look like a flash in the pan. It's like a predatory snake that can't be killed by cutting off it's head. Every cell is a menace. Similar in a way, to incurable cancer. With much effort, it can be put into remission, but it always seems to rear it's ugly head.
Meanwhile, for various reasons, the world continues to lull itself into a false sense of security. Your concept, however, is new to me. The idea that, because Islam is "brittle" and inflexible, that somehow it will implode. I don't think so. 1400 years is a long time and this evil just seems to gain momentum and strength in numbers.
The west can win, but further decisive measures will need to be taken (beyond what we're currently doing in the M.E.). Political correctness must be abandoned and strict control of Islam, as is done in places like Singapore, must be practiced in the west as well.

Larry: "Communism was destined to self destruct because it's simply cannot sustain life. History has shown that to be true time after time. Fascism is/was pretty much the same as Communism."

We didn't know that at the time. In the dark days of European fascism, many people expected democracy to go into history as a failed experiment, replaced by stronger ideologies. Your argument that we must abandon some democratic rights to protect the rest would have made sense in those days. It always has, as applied to whatever new threat democracy has been facing at any time. And yet we didn't give up, we stuck to our ideals. It is possible, of course, that this time the threat is for real, this time we _can't_ preserve any of our rights without giving away a few. But it is also possible that pessimism about democracy is an inherent feature of democratic societies, that there will always be such fears in any democracy that faces anti-democratic views, and that these fears tell us very little about the actual strengths and weaknesses of democracy.

The one thing that strikes me on reading all the comments above is how little consideration people show for the principles of democracy. I detect no hesitancy about abandoning these fundamental rights, little evidence that anyone has given the price and consequences of doing this any real thought. I asked Ali Dashti above to give me some evidence that he fully understood and appreciated the rights he want us to abandon, but he didn't reply. The question remains open. I want to see proof that those of you who want to ban or restrict Islam truly understand the principles of freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of thought, on a level deeper than "freedom is good". Do you understand why these principles were introduced, and how they are meant to work? That should be a minimum requirement of anyone who wants to go about tearing up centuries-old consitutions.

Bjorn -

I fully understand the principles behind our democratic republic here in the U.S. Can't speak for the socialist/democracies in europe. But practicing democracy every waking moment, to the farthest degree of detail is a poor substitute for survival. Every time we've gone to war with global evil, we've had to temporarily give up a few rights. We've always re-instated them, and then some. I'm not interested in giving "evidence" that suicide is an acceptable substitute for decisive action in the face of the Islamist threat. Sorry.

Gratulerer, Bjørn - on Instapundit today!!

I agree that the discussion might be going in dangerous directions. However, it is completely understandable that people make such a row of connections (not necessarily my opinions all the way)described below:

- Islamists are killing westerners.
- Islamists are residing among the muslims in my country. Heck, we give asylum to them, and local muslims invite extremists to come and speak in mosques(last week, dude!!).
- I do not trust the muslims of this country. They might not want to kill me, but some of them will support those who do, and they might hide in the larger group.
- Thus, the presence of Islam in my country threatens other westerners, and indirectly, me.
- How can I get safer?

"Ban Islam" is the simple option. "Let's all try to work this out" is more difficult. This situation puts strain on all of us. If things do not improve, we will hear more of this, as people find it increasingly difficult to be "understanding" and "non-generalizing" every time something bad happens.

There's no effective way to "ban" Islam, but perhaps it should be recognized as a violent cult and not a valid religion. What other serious religion was founded by a pedophile, let alone preaches total intolerance for all other religions? None that I'm aware of.

Every time I find myself submerged in reative emotional response to the latest Islamist-motivated atrocity, and beginning to agree with the "ban Islam"-ists, I remind myself thus:

Find one good and decent Muslim, who practices Islam, abhors Islamist atrocities and works assiduously against terror, and focus on that person. From that person, you will learn that Islam is not the problem. The problem lies somewhere else, and in these times only masquerades as Islam.

Banning Islam is not the answer. Calling for a ban to Islam is an indication that you have missed the lesson for the day.

Work harder, because you have failed.

The fact that modern manifestation of the former religion known as Islam contintues to call itself a religion does not make it so.

You can call a skunk a hamster all you want, but the thing is still a skunk.

What we would all like to believe, that there are moderate muslims, may be true. But precious, precious few of them have made their voices heard. Here in the US, CAIR's (Council on American-Islamic Relations) only concern is hyping-up the odd muslim that gets beaten by some drunk, and making sure that muslim so-called "charities" are protected from scrutiny.

See:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm20030528.shtml

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm20030530.shtml

And finally:

HYPING HATE CRIMES

The University of Michigan released a study purporting to show widespread abuse and harassment of Arabs and Muslims in America. From the Washington Post:

Derogatory comments -- "Go back where you came from!" or "Ooh, are you a member of al Qaeda?" --were the most common form of abuse. Others alleged job discrimination and a small number reported physical assaults, researchers said.

Forty-two percent of Muslim Arabs interviewed for the survey in Detroit -- an area with one of the largest concentrations of Arab Americans in the nation -- feel their religion is not respected by mainstream society. Nearly 60 percent said they worry more about their families' future than before the attacks.

Ed at Captain's Quarters responds:

"Well, excuse me, but no s**t, Sherlock! I guarantee you that 60% of all Americans worry about the future of their families since 9/11. I worry about it every time I see my granddaughter, the Little Admiral. In terms of respect for their religion, it would help if groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other such organizations would worry less about namecalling and more about urging American Muslims to cooperate with law enforcement. Instead, we mostly hear how our foreign policy led to 9/11 and our need to listen to the terrorists rather than hunt them down and kill them.

And now we have this ridiculous study that claims 15% have received serious harrassment, only to find out that tasteless jokes count in the survey. Gee, can I start a survey among Irish-Americans that count every alcohol-related wisecrack I ever heard?

In the US, it doesn't matter if Islam is a religion or a political ideology. It is legal to be a racist, Nazi, or Communist in the United States. Lo and behold, the nation has survived. It ought to be legal to be an Islamist as well. It becomes a crime only when you perform illegal acts.

To re-cap:

Legal: Hating the United States, believing that a despotic form of Islamism should overtake the world, believing that all non-Muslims should be killed.

Illegal: Plotting to commit a criminal act as a result of your ideology.

And this is the way things ought to be. The US punishes actual crimes, not thought crimes. For example, it's legal to be attracted to children. It's illegal to sate that attraction.

Once you decide to legislate thought, whether it's through hate crimes legislation or banning certain thoughts, you've started down a very bad path. I don't think I need to detail what the end of that path looks like.

I don't know how things work in Norway, but I know a lot of European countries are less tolerant of hateful ideologies than the US. In my view, banning Nazism, Islamism, and Communism is wrong and counterproductive. Instead, demonstrate their inferiority in the marketplace of ideas. That's all that is necessary to defeat them. I worry that so many within our own culture don't understand exactly what freedom means.

All that being said, I do believe there is an actual difference between the religion of Islam and the ideology of Islamism. But my above argument doesn't rely on people being able to understand that distinction.

paul a'barge -

Totally disagree. I'm sure we've all met seemingly harmless, cuddly Muslims. Those people are considered to be apostates by their fellow Muslims and, in some Islamic tyrannies, are marked for death. Funny how they only exist in the west. So, you see, it is you who have failed. Unfortunately, if many more of us adopt your worldview, the price for failure will eventually be beheading with a dull pruning saw or maybe dhimmitude works for you. Whatever.

"When Westerners build up this huge fantasy of a war between the West and Islam itself, we should look for explanations - and culpability - at home."

Aw yes, the old "Blame ourselves" meme. Sorry, large numbers of us don't buy it. There is no "culpability" in 9/11. Islam, and yes, it was motivated by religion, attacked. That is the simple explanation.

It is a war. It's a big war. You can either surrender (look to Spain), fight (US), or bury your head in the sand and pretend nothing is the matter. Taking the last position, as you are doing, is all well and good for now. Will it be in the future? Time will tell. Lucky for you Norway isn't on the primary attack list.

Then again, Norwegians probably felt as you do when Hitler sent his boys into Poland...

Bjorn is exactly right.

We (Americans) will crush the Islamofascist resistance. Why, knowing that, do we have to turn against our First Principles? We're going to win and we know it. We don't need to get all hateful about it.

We don't need to persecute innocent people -- or even people who might be guilty in their hearts but not their actions. To do so is not only dishonorable but smacks of fear.

To put it succinctly: Banning Islam would be detrimental to our war efforts.

To win, you have to understand both yourself and your enemy. Most have a good understanding of our freedoms etc, but are totally ignorant of Islam. Islam is not monolithic at all and yelling out stupid things like "ban Islam" won't help.

Take a look at Afghanistan - Before the Soviet invasion it was a multi-ethnic/religious state where Buddhists, Shia, Sunnis, and others lived together relatively peacefully (far from Utopia of course). After the communist takeover and the resulting civil wars, fundamentalist Muslims seized power. The Taliban, practicing a disturbing form of Deobandism and Wahhabism, tormented the Afghan population. Example -They destroyed those Buddhist statues that stood for centuries, displaying how new and radical their brand of Islam was.

When the US entered this war, we found that the Shia-dominated Northern Alliance had already been fighting like hell against the Taliban and al-qaeda. Why ban ISLAM? Why throw away perfectly good allies?

Look at Darfur? A Wahhabist Arab government in Sudan is committing genocide against black Muslims. There's your silent moderate voice of Islam, America. They're being dropped into mass graves. Yeah so let's ban ISLAM? Instead, how about we ally with the black Muslims (and neighboring Christians) and destroy the radical Sudanese government? Just a thought.

Radical Islam, in my opinion, has threemajor branches - 1) Sunni Wahhabism coming out of Saudi Arabia. 2) fundamentalist Shia along the lines of Khomeini and al-Sadr. 3) National Socialist-Islamic tyrants such as the Ba'ath Party

The fundamentalist shia look like they are losing the battle for influence in Iraq and Iran. So the major parts of this war would be to secure the Shia nations in the Middle East to oppose Wahhabist & socialist nations, while containing the until now rapid expansion of Wahhabism into Africa and Asia. Eventually Wahhabism will need to be confronted as an ideology/sect of Islam

To do so sucessfully will require the help of Muslims who are under attack by Wahhabis across the world.

I don't know nearly as much about Islam as I would like but I hope that the debate shifts from dumb generalizations and cheap slogans like BUSH LIED vs BAN ISLAM to real discussion on how to win.

I am truly amazed that the commenters here have so little real information about Islam. I've lived in Islamic countries for most of the past 40 years, from SE Asia, through Turkey, North Africa and Saudi Arabia. In every single one of those countries, Islam is interpreted differently than in another. Even within those countries, there are vast differences.

The problem is not "Islam", it is particular and deviant interpretation of Islam held by miniscule minorities.

Are there problems within Islam? Absolutely. Even within the heartland of Islam, Saudi Arabia, serious reforms are taking place to get Islam out of the hands of the radical fundamentalists. An article in the current Middle East Journal gives a clear analysis of what's going on there, althrough it's already overtaken by some reform events.

I'm stunned that the bulk of the commenters here--and site like LGF--are so eager to do Bin Laden's work for him. His goal is to bring on a final war. So, apparently, do these commenters.

I'm stunned, too, by the disregard for democratic values shown here. Even in a war--and I agree that we are at war--the US has not won by becoming its enemy.

The US specifically separate church and state. In many European countries that separation is not absolute: there are varieties of official and officially recognized religion. At the far end of the spectrum there are countries where all full citizen must belong to one religion: Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel.

I believe the US is on the right track here. Government and religion should not be intertwined. But here's an amazing thing. As much as I think separation is the only way to go, and that a melded church-state is bad, many Muslims don't agree. In fact, they think melding is the only way to go. And with exactly as much passion and fervor and rationality.

A couple of specific notes:

Morgane: No one has been stoned in Saudi Arabia for over 60 years. No one has been executed for apostacy, ever, since its founding in 1932. Yes, some wild-eyed, would-be interpreters of Islam in various countries (particularly in Pakistan and Nigeria) have tried to do so. Mobs in Pakistan have succeeded.

Sandy P: Actually, the US Constitution gives us the chance to commit collective suicide. We, the people, have the absolute right to modify the Constitution in any way we see fit. That could include deciding to become a fascist state. Or even an Islamic state.

Oh, and just as a hint, people should try reading books that take the other side of an argument too. You need to challenge your minds, not just reconfirm your prejudices. It's the American way, after all!

Thanks Bjorn, well put in your original post. I haven't read all of the comments, as they appear to have degenerated into a LGF "all muslims are evil" festival, and I'm not up for that this late in the day.

Anybody still reading this thread? Okay.

Bjorn, I have followed the debate in this country about how to deal with the Islamist threat ever since 9/11, and I have not read one single proposal to "ban" Islam here. Yes, I believe you that if you look hard enough you can find a few people with such extreme views, but they are not going to be taken seriously by anybody on any part of the political spectrum. You are a Knight bending your lance on a windmill.

It does put me on a bummer, though, when you sit there safe (as you imagine) in Norway and treat the whole subject of Islamic terrorism as an academic exercise. We do not have the luxury of examining every nook and cranny of Muslim societies, reading every monograph ever written about the Prophet and his followers, and conducting focus groups to all over the world to determine what percentage of religion-drunk psychopaths want to kill the Jews first and what percentage want to kill all Americans or Brits or Norwegians first.

We are at war. We did not ask for this war; if you can cast your mind back to Sept. 11, 2001, or the Islamic attacks on American embassies before that, or the first attempt to blow a big hole in the World Trade Center, you can hardly deny that it was brought to us. Before 9/11, we were (in retrospect, disastrously) unwilling to meet our self-declared enemies head on.

Your ancestors spent several years ruled by goose-stepping thugs not so long ago because your country lacked the means or the will or both to resist. We are not going to go down a similar road. We are not persecuting anyone because they are Muslim, and if you think we are, you are living in as much of a fantasy world as anyone who imagines Muslims can be banned.

We are, however, serious about what history has forced us to be serious about. You show no sign that you recognize anything at issue here beyond making debater's points.

John, I respect your experience in Muslim countries, but I take issue with the statement that we are talking about a miniscule minority, especially considering that 80% of the masjids in this country are under Wahabi control. The unsettling truth is that our values clash with Islam at a very fundamental level.

An extremely well-written and provocative post, Bjorn. Many of the responses are also extremely well-argued, even though I mostly disagree with them. If a post is to be judged by the quality of the debate it provokes, then you should consdider this a job well done.

With pats on the back out of the way, here follow a few of my own ideas, with apologies if they repeat any statements already made...

1. To those who would seek to ban Islam - my question is how do you "ban" a religion, particularly one boasting over a billion followers worldwide? Legislating activities or behaiour (ie. where and how religious rites may be practised) is one thing... legislating belief is quite another. Remember that once upon a time a similar attempt was made to suppress Christianity - and we can see how that worked out.

2. In even making the vain attempt to ban Islam, free societies sacrifice both freedom and security. I believe the implications for free speech of such a move have been explained well enough in this post already, by more articulate posters than myself; the implications for security are also worth considering. If we are truly interested in stemming the threats posed by the more extreme elements of Islam, it would behoove us to attempt to understand Islam better than we do now. By "banning" Islam, all you accomplish is to drive it underground - and effectively shut off all dialogue with moderate muslims who might otherwise be your allies in stemming the violence.

3. In response to the notion that all Islam is extremist - I wonder how many posters in this thread have actually met a practising muslim. Funny thing about stereotypes is that they become much more difficult to hold when one knows a member of the stereotyped group. Although I claim no particular expertise about Islam, my sense from the conversations I've had is that it is much like other religions. There aspects that in the extremes are downright brutal and actively pits believers in a struggle with non-believers... and much more that forms the backbone of a peaceful and completely valid way of life that is ascribed to by the vast majority of those who practise the religion.

4. A response to the end of Bjorn's post. I can sympathise with the idea that we are at a pivotal moment in history and that immediate action is required. However, some historical perspective may also be in order... something has not just suddenly gone rotten. As civilizations, the "people of the book" - Islamic and Western societies - have been in conflict for centuries. In fact, the conflict may date back to the moment we started reading from different "books". With this in mind, it is apparant that the "clash of civilizations" everyone fears on the horizon, isn't coming, it's here, and has been for countless generations. So do we just throw up our hands? No... there are immediate issues which can be resolved with immediate action. But the overall problem has not just arrived and will likely not be resolved in any of our lifetimes - if we're lucky, we just might be able to plant the seeds of an eventual solution.

I could say more, but I've likely said quite enough already... cheers to all and a tip of the hat for engaging in dialogue on this important issue.

GREGG,
I'm for banning all religion at least in any public way. Outward shows of religion should not be allowed. In the privacy of your own home... fine go ahead and fulfill your prehistoric need to define the universe around you via a "god". Otherwise religion should be something that one may do but doesn't talk about in public. Religous ethic... not to bad... be nice to one another, dont kill etc. Fine but as for actual religion ban the whole bloody works.

Okay, one more try:

Bjørn, please show some understanding for people who are AFRAID.

In recent news:
- the radical islamist party leader from Pakistan visiting Norway.
- Terror plotters have hid in Norway and used the country as a safe haven.
- don't get me started on Mullah Krekar. In his muslim neighborhood he receives thumbs-up all the time when he walks the streets as a celebrity. He also doesn't need to pay when he uses a taxi...okay, enough.
- the HUGE terrorist group rounded up in the UK, charges just posted on the web.

We also know that muslims brought up in the UK have fought our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Most people know there are huge differences between moderate and hard-line muslims. However, many find the entire notion of having a large minority with questionable loyalty scary and discomforting in a time like this.

To sum it up, there are plenty of reason to believe that Islam's presence is making us less safe. That's a separate discussion, and as a lot of posters have said there's a number of bad things to look up in dusty books.

The next discussion is: when we are afraid, what do we do? Imagine you are in Madrid, and you know that the train bomb murderers lived "a normal life" for several years before striking?

The right honourable thing - and what is currently happening - is obviously to insist on keeping a diverse society with a slightly increased degree of scrutiny directed mainly towards likely bad-guys (=radical muslims, hiding among moderate muslims)

Yet, such a situation might lead to more anger among the moderate muslims because they feel alienated: and more will turn to radical solutions(bombs). Then we may get more attacks, which may trigger a less sensitive reaction. I will be impressed if the sensitive approach succeeds....

YES - Islam scares me. Call me chicken if you will, but anyone watching domestic and foreign news should be scared.

I think the former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky put his finger on the core of the matter in his debate with Daniel Pipes and others, where he pointed to the West's essential - and possibly fatal - weakness:

"The West’s response to radical Islam is as bad as it was to the communist challenge. Essentially, this is because the West is poorly suited to fight ideological war of any kind. It always fights itself more than it fights the enemy. It cannot define the goals and the means, the nature of the threat, a coherent strategy to deal with it, possible consequences and inevitable sacrifices. In short, the West is not terribly good at fighting wars as such, least of all the ideological ones."

http://www.hnn.us/articles/834.html

/warblog/000764.html#004341

Bjorn - "Is there noone here who will go beyond that and try to explain how they arrived at that conclusion, and why it would be rational of me to do so as well?"

There is a reasonable discussion along those lines in commentary over at Michael Totten's in this post from April.

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/000338.html

Wade through the comments and read the exchanges among Sean, TMJUtah, Michael, Eric Deamer, and others. There are over 200 comments, so it may take awhile.

I'm not totally convinced, but if banning Islam is out, radical challenges to some of its core tenets must be made, and it may result in Islam no longer being Islam, as currently understood and practiced.

Bjørn:

"I asked Ali Dashti above to give me some evidence that he fully understood and appreciated the rights he want us to abandon, but he didn't reply. The question remains open. I want to see proof that those of you who want to ban or restrict Islam truly understand the principles of freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of thought, on a level deeper than "freedom is good".""

I have never asked for banning Islam. That being said, you could argue that Islam is indeed banned already today. Islam, both the Koran itself and the example of Muhammed, the Sunna, very explicitly call for attacking and even killing non-Muslims. This is against the law in most countries I know of. The only reason why it is allowed to go on is because we don't enforce our own laws. "Hate Speech" only seems matter when we criticize Islam, while MANY mosques openly call for violence and subduing non-Muslims.

As I explained before, Islam only gives you three options: Convert, accept status as a persecuted and discriminated person under Muslim rule (only for Christians and Jews) or DIE. This is ORTHODOX ISLAMIC TEACHINGS, and always has been. You didn't even try to dispute me on this one, so I assume you know it's correct. Basically, it means that Islam thinks I (and you) should be killed. Why the hell should I be nice to an ideology that wants me dead? Being a non-religious person, or even a non-monotheist like Buddhists or Hindus, and be asked to show "understanding" towards Islam is like asking Jews or Gypsies to show "understanding" towards Nazism. That's not hyperbole, but an almost exact equivalent.

As for understanding the fabrics of Western Civilization, I do that very well. There are no easy options open to us at the moment. Basically, it's about common sense. We did not allow people with openly hostile ideologies, like Fascists before WW2 or Communists from the Soviet Union, to settle by the millions in the middle of our major cities. We should not allow Muslims to settle here now. This is WAR, whether you admit it or not.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/

http://www.secularislam.org/

http://www.knowislam.info/

Many fine arguments in this thread. I find the idea of 'banning' islam ridiculous and counter to the ideals we claim to be defending.

For the American's on this thread.

Amendment I.

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

islam will never be banned. It will be exposed, discredited and discarded. Hopefully this happens before a massive terrorist attack and a more massive US military response.

http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2003/09/three-conjectures-pew-poll-finds-40-of.html

You shouldn't ban Islam, but all the religions should be separated from the state. You should investigate organizations that are actively trying to overthrow the government by force, e.g. communists and neo-nationalsocialists (nazis).

From my post, THE BATTLE OF IDEAS: REASON VERSUS FAITH:

"We don't have to change the religion of Islam. What we should do is to challenge Islam (and other religions) in the ideological battle field, and continuously to spread better ideas."

Best Premises,

Martin Lindeskog - American in spirit.

The comments above, from the Americans, show exactly why it is so important for America to lose the current war. The world will be an infinitely better place with America removed from power, and preferably, from existence. We must, as Europeans, socialists, Islamists, and all the peace-loving people of the world, stand in the way of America at every turn, and, when possible cut America's legs. We must destroy America for the good of humanity, and so that we may all, finally, have peace.

20 years ago, communism was the greatest threat to democracy. They made the current threat look like a papercut. Yet, we had a communist party in this very country. The CPUSA probably agreed with the Soviets more than 75% of American Muslims agree with OBL or most Islamists. Obviously, Islam and a Western democracy can get along fine because on a per capita basis, American Muslims aren't any more of a problem than any other religious group. In 2010, Islam is expected to pass Judaism as the #2 religion in the US. Chances are it will pass without issue.

Ah, Fred Erix. A true European who shows his colors.

It's quite worthwhile for us Americans to see who the real enemy is.

The war on terror is a complete farce. Perhaps someone can explain why now, after countries like Britain, Israel, France, Turkey, Spain, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc., who have been dealing with terrorism for years, why now, there is a 'War on Terror,' and memes such as this are being parried about.

The fact is, there are are a relatively few number of Islamists who wish to blow the world up. This is no conflict on the scale of WW2, which took the lives of over 25 million soldiers and 30 million _civilains_. This is a matter of a few thousand (maybe) thugs who need to be located and eliminated. To compare WW2 with this conflict is a disservice to those tens of millions who died in a _real_ global war.

Incidentally, when does the statute of limitations for 9/11 end? Five years from now, will it be used as an excuse to appropriate the natural gas fields of Uzbekistan. 10 years from now, will it provide justification for the invasion of those notorious terrorist symphatizers in Ceylon?

Fred Erix: Replace the word "America" with "Islam", and you are right on the money. Islam attacked and killed millions of innocent people from Central Asia to the Middle East 1300 years before the founding of Israel, 1150 years before the USA even existed, 1000 years before European colonialism and 400 - 500 years before the Crusades. Islamic aggression hasn't been "caused" by either of these factors. It is caused by the Koran and Islamic teachings.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/

Ali Dashti: I am not made poor by Islamists, I don't know of any Islamists who have ever used nuclear weapons, I know of no crime the entire Islamic world has committed that is worse than America's slave-ownership and the slaughter of Native Americans. You are a fool, living in the past. Without America, Israel would face real action from the UN, and, eventually, we would all be at peace, and free.

RSN: Fred Erix' email was mohammed@mohammed.com . Don't know if that's the real thing, but don't always assume it's a native Euro speaking..............

Are folks here truly that dense? I automatically assumed the 'Fred Erix' comment was an exercise in sarcasm...but then what do I know.

Shan: It may have been sarcasm. But there are many Leftists out there saying stupider things than this, so you never know.

Ali: Did you read Shan's last comment? He is clearly not, at the least, a supporter of the War on Terror, and you'd likely call him a "leftist."

Morgane: No one has been stoned in Saudi Arabia for over 60 years. No one has been executed for apostacy, ever, since its founding in 1932.

An adultress was stoned in an empty lot in downtown Jeddah when I lived there from 1984 to 1989.

The crime statistics that are published by the Saudi government do not include acts of tribal retribution or "honor" killings.

Apostasy is a crime under shari'a. I dare any Muslim to deny that and thus imperil their eternal soul for I promise them that if the Day of Judgement exists, I will testify that they did deny it.

Incidentally, when does the statute of limitations for 9/11 end?

It ends when the jihadis agree that the statute of limitations on their desire to seek revenge for their defeat at the hands of Pelayo (718 A.D.), Charles Martel (732), Richard Lionheart (1191), Los Reyes Catolicos (1492), and Jan Sobieski (1683) ends.

papijoe: I strongly urge you to read the Middle East Journal article I cited. It discusses the reforms that have been happening--even within Wahabbism.

Knuj: I'm unfamiliary with that instance of stoning. Can you provide any citations for it? If I'm off by 30 years, I can accept the error. Just about 40 years ago, Saudi Arabia still had slavery.

You are right that government statistics do not include honor killings. The popular media, the cafes and the diwaniyyaat, however, do. And there have been almost none.

While apostacy is considered a capital crime in several Arab countries, the Saudi ulema do not implement it. They see the claim that it is a capital crime to be very weak, supported by a single hadith, while several Quranic verses--where a punishment for apostacy would be expected--are silent on the matter.

Apostacy is not welcome in Saudi Arabia, most certainly. Hard-line Salafists, who rely more on their ability to proclaim "takfir" more than their ability to reason, try to apply it to Sufis, Shi'a, Isma'ilis and less strict Sunnis.

But all of these groups are now meeting together to find a common ground. The Saudi Arabia you may have known in the 60s is not the country I knew in the 80s or as recently as 2003. Even less is it what the country is now.

In my blog, I'm tracking changes within the country that I think Americans should at least be aware of.

"You certainly won't find the answer in a few quotes from the Koran."

No, but you certainly will in reading the WHOLE Qur'an. You see, that is the seed that is bearing a deadly fruit around the world today.

See this hp for a Qur'an/Bible comparison:
http://www.timeoftrouble.com/quran/quotes-from-quran.html

Take a hypothetical: Islam is not a religion, just an association of likeminded people.

Worth keeping or not?

Not to me.

I would say the same of Christianity, but Christianity in 2004 is not much of a threat to anyone. It used to be, but it was tamed by secularism.

Certainly as an institution, Islam is a threat to every infidel, and to many believers as well.

The question: How to tame it?

My suggestion: When attacking any particular sect of Islam that we all agree is an enemy (al Queda, but not only that), make the context, we are not attacking only your political ideology, we are defying your claim to divine backing. If Allah is on your side, let him show it.

A few instances of that, and likely the mass of Muslims will begin to understand, as Christians mainly do now, that a spiritual rather than political orientation is the safer path.

If not, then debate over anyway.

Islam is a religion, but it is more a prescription for man's behavior within a group, the umma. It declares itself incomplete until all the world is subjugated. In contrast to other religions its ultimate spiritual purpose is physical conquest.

All religions function as systems for group cohesion and differentiation; Islam is just the most absolute and totalitarian in that it tolerates no other.

Within Islam there can be no national entity, all Islamic nations are seen as parts of the greater community, the umma.

Islam rejects man's law, and can tolerate no law short of Allah's dictat and the ulemma's (scholars of Islam) interpretation of Muhammad's recitation of it. No Muslim can remain a Muslim and swear allegiance to any nation or any nation's law, particularly to countries democratically established or to laws democratically legislated.

Islam places itself outside man's law. It's express intention to convert the world and to overthrow man's law.

Islam outlaws itself.

I don't care much for Islam as a whole, and I love LGF. But banning a whole religion is sick. We should be on guard for Islamic extremists and prevent any religious folks from using their faith as cover for hate mongering, crime or terrorism. But this goes for all faiths. I believe we should keep a close eye on hate spewing Muslims and potential threats but banning a whole religion is fundamentally wrong and un-American. Notice that I am not on that thread!

Many have agreed that banning a religion is bad, without qualification. I'm pleased to hear that, as I'm an adherent of the Aztec religion. The pyramid in my backyard is coming along nicely, and so is the knife sharpening.

My point, of course, is that not all religions necessarily should reflexively be accorded tolerance. Whether we should tolerate a given religion is a serious question. We do not tolerate the Aztec religion, and we did not tolerate the Mormon religion until it abandoned polygamy. I'm not proposing banning Islam, but whether we should accept it in its present form is a serious question, and deserves serious consideration.

Rick Darby: "Bjorn, I have followed the debate in this country about how to deal with the Islamist threat ever since 9/11, and I have not read one single proposal to "ban" Islam here."

Yes, calls for banning Islam are rare. What bothers me is not only the small number of people who want to ban Islam, but the larger number of people who are smart enough to realize that such a ban is impossible, but "it would be nice if we could", or "give those guys a break, they're just a little over-zealous". That's a real and common view on Islam critical websites. And it's an abandonment of Western democratic values.

"It does put me on a bummer, though, when you sit there safe (as you imagine) in Norway and treat the whole subject of Islamic terrorism as an academic exercise."

You base that on what? My three years of blogging about the threat of Islamist terrorism? Or this post, where I point out that there's more to Islam than total, bottomless evil and that we shouldn't abandon our democratic values? Drop the partisan glasses for a moment, please. Read what I'm actually saying.

"We are not persecuting anyone because they are Muslim, and if you think we are, you are living in as much of a fantasy world as anyone who imagines Muslims can be banned."

Where did I say that banning Islam would be America's next step? I didn't. I said there are people on the right, in the US and Norway, who are so focused on perceived evils of Islam that they've lost interest in the values of the societies they're supposedly protecting. It was local, fringe representatives of a Norwegian party who proposed such a ban. They don't have a chance of doing it either, but there's vocal support and sympathy for it in blogs like the ones I mentioned.

Ragnar: "Bjørn, please show some understanding for people who are AFRAID."

Please show some understanding for people who want to protect one of the basic pillars of Western democracy. What you're doing here is called apologism. "I suppose they go a bit far, but look at it from their point of view for a moment!" I don't like it when groups I disagree with make apologies for their own extremists. I like it less when a group I belong to does it. So can we just get out of the way that we should work as hard as possible to remain what we are, Western democracies, even while we fight Islamism? And that anyone who thinks otherwise has forgotten something very important?

daniel: "No, but you certainly will in reading the WHOLE Qur'an."

No you won't. Islam is whatever Muslims do, say and think in practice. That may or may not be in accordance with the actual words of the Koran. Reading one, 1400 year old book on Islam won't necessarily tell you much about what happened in the next 1400 years, just as the Bible doesn't tell you all there's to know about Christianity. Consider the way the horror stories of the Old Testament are beeing glossed over by modern Christians, for instance.

Bjørn - Thanks for the reply,

I completely agree that freedom of religion or viewpoint is one of the basic pillars of western democracy. What I'm saying is that our society's respect for Islam as "just another religion" is rapidly declining, and extreme positions such as "ban islam" will be more common as bad news keep coming in.

You're demanding that we all keep our cool and hope this blows over. However, in the face of ongoing bad news it is likely that more and more people feel powerless and threatened. This is not an apology but an explanation. There is no reason to expect this to subside if the trend goes on as it has since 9/11.

The solution is, unfortunately, strong surveillance and security measures and expulsion of radical imams. The alternative is worse, if any bombs were to go off. We need to get tough on the islamist sympathizers NOW unless they spark extremism among our own. This is not a threat but a cool analysis of a likely future chain of events.

I want to remain a western democracy, and muslims are welcome as long as they play by our civilization's rules.

"That would include, of course, the loser leftists here who think Islam is just another religion and who promote this conflict as a criminal matter."

Larry & co., big newsflash for you: those "loser leftists" who "think Islam is just another religion" (sic) include your El Presidente, George Bush, and his whole administration. In speeches, in actions, they've entertained very friendly relations with Muslim groups and representatives, within the US and abroad. In fact, they're being even more tolerant of Islam as a religion than the fiercely secularist French government, for instance. Oh that "old Europe" that has the oh so arrogant presumption of being sovereign and able to choose their own policy. But yeah, regardless of that, the US didn't ban any veils in schools, so how about that? Islam is granted even more respect in a country like the US where religion as such is more pervasive.

Is all of America leftist?

Unless of course anyone not relishing the same apocalyptic fantasies as the ban-Islam folks is a "leftist", which is the sort of talk you hear from skinheads and neonazi groups, many of whom would very eagerly subscribe to your propositions, just as long as you added blacks, gays, women and Jews to Muslims and lefists as targets of hatred. I guess all the ban-happy people on this thread could always join and contribute to the latter part, at least! I mean, you can't presume that just talking against Islam will do anything real against it, do you? You got to start acting! Put your money where your mouth is, there's no point wasting all this screen space to talk on and on about how evil Islam is as a religion, if you do nothing to stop it!

You can't be just content with venting your totally, totally understandable frustrations on the internet, can you? That'd be a bit pathetic for people talking so much about courage, wouldn't it?

First thing you have to do, is vote your current President out, because he's such a loser leftist Islamo-pandering hypocrite. He's only done a couple of wars that killed far too few Muslims, and his definition of "terrorists" is still far too strict. He's all about Islam being the religion of peace, ha!, doesn't that make your blood boil, Larry? Sandy? All the rest? Don't you just want to smack George in the face for being so restrained? Go on, you know you want to vote for someone ballsier. But there's no one around that would satisfy your wishes, so you need to form your own party, your own army, your own militias, preferably also your own nation where you can amend the constitution to make an exception for a religion, in the name of security. And freedom. And Democracy. And all the things you hold so dear you want to destroy them, just to preserve them better from the Enemy. Because of course, when confronted with terrorists, the first thing you want to do is do their job for them, so they don't have to! So you can steal the satisfaction and triumph and render their avowed goals completely useless. That's real victory.

Now, please, go and fight that fight for the rest of us who "don't get it". Fill that hot air with some fire and blood, because when it comes to the battle of Armageddon, mere words are just not enough, dude.

it is amazing reading all the anti muslim nonesense in here, GET LIFE you ISLAMOPHOBES :)

Islam is here to STAY FOREVER whether you like it or not, haters and losers like you tried for 1400 years to defeat Islam but they were crushed , defeated, humiliated and thrown into the history bin like rotten garbage.
1 out of 4 in the world today are MUSLIMS and By 2015 1 out of 3 in the world will be muslim, Islam is spreading all over the world and you cant do anything about it but moaning and shouting abuse and posting anti muslim links filled with LIES and distortions, get a grip and go read why WESTERNERS are converting to islam in their thousands every year.

here are some good news for all of you :)

Islamic Britain lures top people

Sunday Times 22 February 2004
MORE than 14,000 white Britons have converted to Islam after becoming disillusioned with western values, according to the first authoritative study of the phenomenon.

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/649424.asp

-'' Indeed, Islam is the world's fastest growing religion in the world'' The Economist, London Sept 2003

-BBC: Thousands of Asutralia's Aboriginals are converting to Islam:

http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2902315.stm

-Islam is spreading so fast in Mexico:

http://www.finalcall.com/international/mexico07-02-2002.htm

http://www.racematters.org/islamtakesrootinmexico.htm

- EVEN IN HAWAII, MORE AND MORE ARE CONVERTING TO ISLAM:

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2001/Nov/11/ln/ln06a.html

-In South Africa, so many blacks are converting to Islam:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0110/p13s1-woaf.html

-Thousands in Rawanda-Africa are converting to Islam every year:

http://www.xamarcadde.com/rawanda.html

- Hindus in india are converting to Islam in their masses:

http://www.milligazette.com/Archive.../0111200275.htm

- Islam is back to Spain after 500 years:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1002/p07s01-woeu.html

- More and more americans are converting to Islam specially after 9/11:

http://www.yorknewstimes.com/stories/042702/neb_0427020012.shtml

- NEW YORK TIMES: ISLAM ATTRACT THOUSANDS DRAWN BEFORE AND AFTER 9/11:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30D13FA345A0C718EDDA90994D9404482

- The Canadian Globe and Mail: Islam is now the fastest growing religion in Canada:
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030514/UCENSN/TPFront/TopStories

Islam: The Next American Religion?

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/69/story_6982.html

Catholic World News: Exhilarating Time To Be Christian," But Islam Grows Faster

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=16311

U.S. Department of State for International Information programes: Islam is one of the fastest growing religions in America:

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/muslimlife/

Muslims outpace Anglicans in UK

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/444572.cms

A Spanish bridge to Islam:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1002/p07s01-woeu.html

Britain Elites are converting to Islam:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/03/286384.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1096872/posts

http://www.lightuponlight.com/islam...ws&new_topic=14

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/artic...erahIslam.shtml

-Islam is also spreading in Ukraine:

http://www.crimeatau.org.ua/project/islam/itriu.html

So ladies and gentelmen, if you are interested in reading about this great religion, this site is wonderful start:

http://www.harunyahya.com

http://www.faithfreedom.com

Thank God someone is willing to breath some fresh air.

Here is my list of Isamist accomplishments:

1. Fly planes into buildings.

2. Closed mindedness.

3. Only 0.1% of Muslims are bad. That's 130,000.

4. The other 99.9% support them.

5. Their culture isn't really a gutter of humanity.

Salahudin:

I find it amusing that anybody is still linking to the www.faithfreedom.com website. The people behind it have more or less abandoned it, as it has been completely unable to refute the Iranian ex-Muslim Ali Sina's original www.faithfreedom.org . Islam will die soon.

Bjorg you make a intersting post and follow logicical arguements much like George Orwell in many of his essays.

I think we cannot ban Islam religion at this time, but future events may supersede the logic of the moment. As we all know the world is standing on the eve of a larger war and the veil of the future has yet to be lifted. How do we divine the knowledge of the future and then craft an arguement for it?. If Winston Churchill delivered a 1943 wartime speach in 1932 people would have both laughed and cringed at him. So if future catastrophic events occure and the west is forced to change the structure of its pillars are we doomed to live forever as hypocrites or will it be a pragmatic but temporary pause in our democratic life.? I cannot deliver the wartime speech of 2010 in 2005, can you ?

Bjorn,

thank you for confronting the variations of the 'Islam is war' meme, so popular among your readers. As for the supposed sympathy of the right for the Bill of Rights, I wish to suggest that most right-wingers in the US would dismiss the document as multiculturalist/PC/relativist/liberal nonsense upon reading it without the title. In fact, I believe there have been surveys confirming this disturbing suggestion.

Even as you and I probably lie on entirely different--often contrary--ends of the political spectrum, I wish that more American republicans would possess the kind of nuance and intelligence that you have shown in your post. It is sad to see the extraordinary effort of many of your readers to spread the disturbing 'while not all republicans are bigots, most bigots are republicans' meme.

John, Sarasota

Your link to that article is broken

re: Ali

The fact that you did not dare to comment on the long list of the non muslim sites i provided about the spread of islam all over the world indicates that your hate, lies and islamophobia will die sooner or later and the GREAT ISLAM will live forever.

here is another amazing stories and sites about westerners converting to Islam one of them from ICELAND and the other from the USA:

An Icelander’s Journey to Light :
By Anna Linda Traustadóttir
10/08/2004
Reykjavík, Iceland

http://www.jamaat.net/jforum/viewtopic.php?t=219

Illinois residents find faith in Islam:

Daily Herald - 8/16/2004
http://www.jamaat.net/jforum/viewtopic.php?t=226

Islam First Religion in Amsterdam

http://www.jamaat.net/jforum/viewtopic.php?t=194

and here is nice SHOCK for you Mr Ali Islamophobe:

Turning Muslim in Texas:
George W Bush may be backed by Christian fundamentalists but in his home state of Texas, Islam is the latest big draw. The Bible belt is transferring its allegiance to the Qur’an:

http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/B/believeitornot/texas1.html

Minarets Rise in Germany

Gulcek's mosque is part of the surge in Islamic construction sweeping Germany. The number of traditional mosques with their distinctive minarets nearly doubled in Germany from 77 in 2002 to 141 in 2003, according to Islam Archive, a Muslim research group in the city of Soest. An additional 154 mosques and cultural centers are planned, many of them in the countryside.

http://www.jamaat.net/jforum/viewtopic.php?t=195

I challenge you to refute any of the above stories about the spread of ISLAM, let us see Mr Ali Islamophobe who will win at the end :))))

And for those who are interested in hearing the 'other' side of the story, here are some nice links:

http://www.beautifulislam.net/

http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com

http://www.thetruereligion.com

http://www.beconvinced.com

http://www.harunyahya.com

http://www.islamonline.net

http://www.it-is-truth.org

and finally, if you want real constructive insults-free debate about Islam, I welcome everyone to my forum on:

http://forum.jamaat.net

To repeat.

Islam outlaws itself. Its intolerance of all other religions, it declaration of war against all persons, groups and nations outside the umma, the dar al-harb, and the laws of man place it outside of the remainder of human society.

For 3/4ths of the world outlawing Islam is a tautology.

It may be desirable is to have all Muslims who visit or reside in the "dar al-harb," the world of war, as Muhammad called it, swear allegiance to the law of the land to which they visit or in which they take residence.

Muslim women, for example, may became equal to their husbands and fathers the moment they step into infidel territory.

momo,

Wow, quite a rant you posted. Common practice for left wingnuts. Not saying you are one for sure, as there seems to be a spark of common sense there, but you've apparently tapped into their soundtrack.
Suffice to say that Bush says and does a few things I can't agree with, including his comments re. "islam is the religion of peace". Then there's the out-of-control immigration situation. But, all things considered he's by far the best man to lead in this war. You gotta ask yourself, if you were Bin Laden, who would you vote for?
Never mind the convoluted, otherworldly leftist logic that a liberal would be best because he would "make friends with old europe". Thats bunk, The French, Germans, et. al. aren't interested unless theres an opportunity for bigtime graft and corruption. Oh, and the notion that conservatives would trash the constitution to fight the Islamofascists is bull, not to mention the inference that the U.S. is not/shouldn't be a sovereign nation. That one is downright wierd.
Anyway, this has gotten away from the main question re. whether Islam should be banned in the west. I repeat, banning would be preferable, but probably not possible at this late date. Install controls on this ideology as Singapore has done. Jail the Imams that are caught preaching violent jihad from the hateful Surahs scattered throughout the Quran. It works.

I think it's excellent that we've finally come around to even having this discussion.

I tend to agree with the darker view of Islam and its political intent.

However, I do not believe in banning it. We can, with constant vigil, use our institutions as a defense, at least here in America. We do have to get over the idea that Islam is 'just' a religion, however, and not hesitate to bug suspected mosques. And we must watch our judiciary very very closely for signs of capitulation to dhimmitude.

BUT for all you who have cried 'where are the moderates' look to Iraq. Nobody has mentioned Iraq. Muslims themselves, in the final analysis, will relegate the Islamists to the corners, and perhaps begin the long needed reformation.

What was hoped for is happening in Iraq. The majority of muslims there want absolutely nothing to do with the violent elements in their society..and that includes Sadr. Iraqis are willing to die for their freedom and they do understand what it means.

Iraq is truly a window into the world we're facing, though Iraq was more secular to begin with, we see there the dynamics within Islam play out daily.

We won't know for a long time if this will be permanent. I suspect it will be.

In the meantime, there's the rest of the world.

re: James

it is really sad to read how ignorant and filled with hate you are, but never mind, here is my refutations to what you wrote:

You wrote

''Islam outlaws itself. Its intolerance of all other religions, it declaration of war against all persons, groups and nations outside the umma, the dar al-harb, and the laws of man place it outside of the remainder of human society.''

The above statement can only come from people who have no knowledge of Islam and its history apart from FOX BOOOS and some other anti muslim christian evangelical hate websites.

Muslims throughout their history showed immense tolerance and mercy towards the 'others' who happen to be different. Many distinguised non muslim western historians have attested this fact-- foremost among whom is Sir Thomas W. Arnold in his book, "The Preaching of Islam". Also there is Marshall G. Hodgson in his book, "The Venture of Islam", Albert Hourani in his book, "A History of the Arab People", Ira Lapidus in his book, "History of Islamic Societies", L.S. Starorianos in his book, "A Global Hisotry, the Human Heritage" and many others.

When the great leader and second Caliph after the prophet Muhammad (pbuh)death, Omar, entered Jerusalem in the year 634, Islam guaranteed freedom of worship to all christians in the city. In fact, so careful was Umar in setting an example for his people that he not only went to a church to pray, he prayed outside in the courtyard, lest his followers after his death be tempted to convert the church into a mosque.

The Jews of Aleppo ( Syria ):

''The politics of the region depended on the rulers. With the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of Rome, the Romans placed restrictions on Jews. These were lifted with the Arab conquest in 636 CE, when Islamic caliphates began ruling the region. From the seventh Century until the end of Ottoman rule, the Jewish community was self-governed. Self-government entitled the Jews to freedom of religion, a separate court system ruled by local rabbis to handle internal disputes, and military protection''

Source : Sarina Roffé is a career journalist and the author of Branching Out: The Kassin and Labaton Dynasties . She is a member of the Jewish Genealogical Society, Inc. of New York, and Brooklyn's Syrian Jewish community.

JEWISH GATES:
The tolerance of the Umayyad regime made Muslim Spain a refuge for Jews, and their numbers increased dramatically.
The real Jewish cultural revival began in the tenth century under Abd al-Rachman III (912–961CE), who assumed the title of caliph in 929 CE in Cordoba ( Spain ). At that time Cordoba was a center of both Arab and Jewish culture. This was the time of the political rise of the court physician Hisdai ibn Shaprut.

Source: The Jewish Gates

http://www.jewishgates.com/file.asp?File_ID=126

Colin Thubron, the British author, writes in his book Jerusalem, " In the early centuries, the Muslims were generally tolerant of the Jews and lived with them peacefully while Europe was steeped in persecution.''

Salman ben Yeruham, A Karaite Jewish author, writing about A.D. 950, the Muslims granted the Jews access to Jerusalem and its holy sites.

Salman wrote:

"As it is known, Jerusalem remained under the rule of the Rum [the Byzantines] for more than 500 years, during which they [the Jews] were not able to enter Jerusalem. Anyone who was discovered entering was killed. When by the mercy of the God of Israel the Rum departed from us and the kingdom of Ishmael [the Arabs] appeared, the Jews were granted permission to enter and reside there."

During the reign of Saladin this traditional Islamic tolerance continued. Conversely, when the Crusaders entered Jerusalem, they burned the Jews in their synagogue.

From 1099 to 1189, Jews were not allowed to live in the city. But with the Muslim repossession of Jerusalem, Jews were allowed to return. The Spanish poet Yehuda al-Harizi, who was in Jerusalem in 1207, described the significance for the Jews of the recovery of Jerusalem by Saladin:

[ In A.D. 1190] God aroused the spirit of the prince of the Ishmaelites [Saladin], a prudent and courageous man, who came with his entire army, besieged Jerusalem, took it and had it proclaimed throughout the country that he would receive and accept the entire race of Ephraim, wherever they came from. And so we came from all comers of the world to take up residence here. We now live here in the shadow of peace.

Further testament to Saladin's tolerance comes from the eminent German Jewish historian of the Nineteenth Century, Heinrich Graetz. In his Geschichte der Juden (History of the Jews, vol. 11, published in 1853) he states that the Sultan, " opened the whole kingdom to the persecuted Jews, so they came to it, seeking security and finding justice.''

At about the same time that Jews were fleeing from Spain and seeking refuge in Arab lands and elsewhere (15th and 16th Centuries), the Ottoman Empire opened its doors to them and gave them refuge. The prominent Jewish banker Don Joseph Nasi, a refugee from Portugal, was made advisor to Sultan Suleiman who showered the emigre with honors.

There are a number of statements from prominent Jews expressing gratitude to the Ottomans for their generous treatment of fugitive Jews. In his History of the Jews, A. L. Sachar, a former president of Brandeis University, noted:

"Jews had found refuge in the Ottoman dominions for many decades before the expulsion from Spain. During the fifteenth-century persecutions in Germany, thousands had fled eastward and had been well received in the Turkish provinces. Life was secure and the morrow could be greeted without terror.''

Source : Arab American Roman Catholic Community:

http://www.al-bushra.org/jerusalem1/jerhist.htm

I challenge you and any other person here with reason and honest conscious to refute the above accounts of sheer muslim tolerance towards others who happen to have different faith.

Also, no one seems able to refute the long list of links I provided about the spread of Islam in the west in great numbers specially the fact that thousands of westerners are converting to islam every year !!

I welcome any reasonable debate away from ranting and the usual islamophobic moronic insults.

have a very nice day.

salahudin -

You posted so much stuff that I think it could be a few days until you get a detailed response. After all, one must also vet the sources of this information. But I have a question for you.

What are the percentages of the total Muslim population in the middle east thatare,

a) Islamofascist trigger pullers and bomb throwers,

b) financial sopporters of the above described scumbags, and last,

c) folks who ideologically support them. The Arab street, so to speak.

Then, if you could take a guess at the percentages of western Muslims (living in the west), that fall into the above referenced classes.

Just interested in your perspective.

Also, what's your brief take on the 9-11 WTC act of war. who did it? what were their motives? You know the drill.

Salahudin -
Sorry, I neglected to sign in on the previous post to you with questions.

Salahudin,

I don't think I have expressed hate when I state Islam doctrines. Admittedly I do despise those doctrines and sympathize with anyone unfortunate enough to be in their thrall.

I am in the process of reading Hodgson and find him a reliable appreciator of Islamic culture. I am unable to read through the rose colored filter of Hourani and others like the somewhat reasonable Akbar Ahmed who intersperses his general praise with enough criticism to occasionally arise to a balanced testament.

There is a widespread industry of apologetics among the brood of modern Middle Eastern scholars now funded and positioned in western universities. I observe they have a tendency to emphasize the benign and ecumenical aspects of the "religion of peace" which is doubtlessly encouraged by western multicultural tolerance, postmodernism and anti-western leftism.

There is a most awkward and bizarre alliance between the totalitarian socialists and the totalitarian Islamists that will drown out more balanced views as long as the common enemy, The Great Satan, still survives. Upon America's demise the jihadists will redirect their sights on their present leftist allies.

At any rate I see the expansion of Islam as historically murderous, intolerant and genocidal. Islam is the religion of peace to those who submit to it, and the religion of death to those who do not. There was a peace for the conquered after initial reistance was put down, but I do not see dhimmitude, taxation and slavery as especially enlightened. I will acknowledge an early exploration of the sciences among those who examined the ancient Greeks and those who encouraged Hindu mathematics, but in truth Islam closed off free inquiry and intellectual tolerance by the 12th Century after Ghazali proclaimed that Mohammad's truth was the totality of necessary truth.

And, I am sorry, but I would not want to have been a Jew or Christian in Muslim Spain, a Christian in Serbia, a Nestorian in Armenia or a Hindu in India at any time that Islam held sway, even at those times it was characterized as tolerant. I could not have survived the conditions of that tolerance.

It is true that the socialist totalitarianisms of the 20th century account for as many as a hundred million deaths, but, in terms of genocide, Islam is the second most murderous of all true beliefs. That deficiency of standing is surely because Islam confronted smaller populations in it path. I am certain it will surpass the NAZIs and Communists in the 21st century.

re;James, PA, USA

Before I address your last post, I just want to comment on what you said about muslim women, it is enough for me to state that the president of the largest muslim country in the world is MUSLIM WOMAN, president Meqawati of Indonesia, I am just wondering, when if ever, your own ' free civilized' country will elect its first WOMAN PRESIDENT ????

Salahudin, great comment.

Larry, not-so-great comment. These generalizations -- "the French," "the Germans," "wingnuts," "Islamofascists" -- is unhealthy and unconducive to a real discussion. It pushes all the hotbuttons and exploits all the stereotypes, which, if you look at history, is a first step to violence and irrationalism. To condemn entire societies into such groupings is bizarre, as if all the people in France live only for graft, and Moslems live to terrorize -- well, what can one say? It's not only completely wrong, it's incendiary. When entire societies are branded an enemy, violence and barbarism become justifiable. It's happened before, and not that long ago. How soon we forget....

"The 14 centuries of the bloody borders of Islam speak for themselves." Christianity also was an excuse for bloodshed for approximately 14 centuries (from Constantine in 312 AD to the 18th Century). But at least the Western European Christian traditions outgrew it. Protestantism split into so many sects that quite obviously any Protestant church that claimed a right to persecute heretics was running a risk that the "heretics" would gain power and persecute back. Catholics remained an official religion and nominal majority in many countries, but state support has proven fatal to religious zeal at least since 1700. (This seems obvious to modern libertarians - government messes up most things it undertakes, so why would religion be an exception - but it's a reversal of the situation in the middle ages.) Anyway, by 1800 no one in power in Catholic countries cared enough to kill anyone for their religion, and Protestant countries at least tolerated minority religions.

So maybe Islam is due for a change. Or maybe not, because there are significant differences in the root doctrines. Christ explicitly defined church and state as different entities: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's." Of course, at the time a Christian Caesar seemed quite impossible. This was reinforced in Church traditions when, for the next three centuries, the best governmental attitude Christians could hope for was indifference, and the deadly worst was all too common. And so, the medieval Roman Church soon formed itself as in league with but quite distinct from temporal authority. In the modern age separating church and state was simply a return to older traditions, that didn't require splitting existing institutions.

OTOH, Islam has never had any clear distinction between chief priest and ruler. Mohammed was prophet, chief priest, commander in chief of the army, and eventually emperor. The caliphs that succeeded him combined all those roles except prophet. Muslim rulers that were independent of the caliph either espoused a different version of Islam, or were simply so distant (like the Spanish Muslim states) that the caliph's temporal power couldn't reach them. So it's going to be a lot harder for Islam to adapt to the modern era. They need a new prophecy - but IIRC, Mohammed ruled that out.

As for the main point: we can't forbid Islam. We can and should demand that people who are going to permanently join our societies swear to respect our fundamental principles. If a Muslim finds that incompatible with his religion, then he can't be a citizen; he can be a "resident" as long as he behaves himself, but non-citizens that mess in our politics should be sent back where they came from. (And if he raises children to adulthood in our society I'd require them - and my children too - to swear the same oath of citizenship before receiving rights of a citizen.)

Salahudin,

I do not know when the United States will elect a woman president, but I do know that American women are equal to men before the law, and that their testimony counts for more than a shari'a half.

President Meqawati is the daughter of Suharto I believe, and her election represented a compromise over a deadlock of rather scary portents. I believe that Ms Bhutto also gained her office based upon the standing of her famous and brutalized father. As I understand it the enlightened Pakistanis will not allow her to return without imprisonment.

Both presidencies are more like successions of the ruling sultan, more like family affairs, and the avoidance of civil war than true "democratic" consensus.

Gandhi in India and Akino(?) in the Phillipines were/are not much different.

The two women leaders who actually won by the force of their character were Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir. In the United States we are very far from producing anyone who measures up to either of them.

re: larry

Thank you for your questions, I will answer in details here:

You asked:

''What are the percentages of the total Muslim population in the middle east thatare,
a) Islamofascist trigger pullers and bomb throwers,
b) financial sopporters of the above described scumbags, and last,
c) folks who ideologically support them. The Arab street, so to speak.''
=================================

First of all, your question is flawed in its basis as there is no such thing as islamofascist, it is like calling someone nazi jew !! it is oxymoron.

I advice you to rephrase your question using ' realistic' terms, terms that reflect the geo-political realities in the Middle East and not FOX BOOOS nonesense.

You asked:

''Then, if you could take a guess at the percentages of western Muslims (living in the west), that fall into the above referenced classes.''
===========================

Again, as above, I advice you to stop reading islamophobic moronic hate-filled nonesense and get a grip what what's really happing in the world.

you asked:

'Also, what's your brief take on the 9-11 WTC act of war. who did it? what were their motives? You know the drill.'
==========================

HISTORY DOES NOT START ON 9/11, 9/11 was not an act of war, it was rather an act of revenge for half a century of American oppression and support for anti muslim Israeli Terrorism ( mind you, this is not my own findings, this is the findings of the special American commission investigating 9/11 )

Source:

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldleader/news/nation/9222612.htm

As Muslim, I strongly condemn what happened on 9/11, it was barbaric attack that killed many innocent civilians including 500 muslims and destoyed a mosque inside the WTC.

Let us all remember that TERRORISM stems from TERROR and violence will only generates violence.

America by its continous aggression and support for the terrorist state of Israel gained the hate and the anger of 2 billion Muslim around the globe, it is the time for America to change its rotten foriegn policy and seek the deep roots behind terrorism.

Islam is against killing innocent civilians, Allah Almighty said in the Noble Quran; killing one innocet life is like killing all humanity.

http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com

Muslims and their leaders all over the world condemned 9/11, sadly, most western media ignored their condemnation giving the impression that muslims support such barbaric act:

-The most famous Sheikh in Islam, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi Condemns Attacks Against Civilians: Forbidden in Islam

http://www.answering-christianity.com/us_attack_not_allowed.htm

-BBC NEWS : Saudi clerics condemn terrorism

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3157493.stm

-Islamic scholars condemn terrorism in USA:

http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=1080

-A Message from the Council on American-Islamic Relations:

http://www.cair-net.org/crisiscenter/html/cair_ad.html

-Muslim Americans Condemn Attack :

http://www.islamicity.com/articles/...?ref=AM0109-335

-Bin Laden's idea of 'jihad' is out of bounds, scholars say:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/natio...7_islam22.shtml

-British Muslims condemn the terrorist attacks:

http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=1062

-Canadian Muslims condemn terrorist attacks:

http://muslim-canada.org/news09112001.html

- BBC: Islamic world deplores US losses:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1544955.stm

-Muslim Reactions to September 11th:

http://www.crescentlife.com/heal%20..._to_sept_11.htm

-NEW ZEALAND MUSLIMS CONDEMN TERRORISM:

http://www.angelfire.com/biz2/FIANZ...ssRelease1.html

-KUALA LUMPUR DECLARATION ON INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM:
In the name of Islamic solidarity, we, the Foreign Ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), have gathered in Kuala Lumpur to state our collective resolve to combat terrorism and to respond to developments affecting Muslims and Islamic countries in the aftermath of the 11th September attacks...

http://www.oic-oci.org/english/fm/1...declaration.htm

-Muslim World Condemns Attacks on U.S:

http://www.islam-online.net/English...article18.shtml

- NATIONAL GEOGRAPHY:Koran a Book of Peace, Not War, Scholars Say:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...25_TVkoran.html

-BBC: UK Muslims condemn 'lunatic fringe':

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1554177.stm

-Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has strongly condemned the suicide terrorist attacks in New York and Washington:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mi...ast/1549573.stm

Finally, if you want I can list you what America did and how many atrocities it commited against Muslims PRIOR to 9/11, but it will be enough to show you these GRAPHIC pictures from Iraq during the American sanctions in the 1990s:

WARNING: GRAPHIC PICTURES:

http://www.jamaat.net/jforum/viewtopic.php?t=115

and this link:

http://www.ifamericansknew.org

Have a nice day.

The link to the Middle East Journal on Islamo-Liberal reform in Saudi Arabia is here

Salahudin You were going great until you hit the "it was rather an act of revenge for half a century of American oppression and support for anti muslim Israeli Terrorism" bit. You went right off the rail there.

9/11 was not an act of revenge. It was a deliberate act of war by Usama bin Laden. His purpose was not vengeance, it was to seek the restoration of a califate, and extend it globally. He has often couched him remarks in terms of vengeance, but he seeks vengeance for the loss of Al-Andalus and of Islam as a global power.

To gain popular support, UBL is perfectly willing to encorporate things that will stir the masses. His bringing Israel into the equation is a ploy and only that. Were Israel to disappear, UBL's programs would continue.

He operates out of a deep fear that his interpretation of Islam is losing ground to modernization and Westernization. He wants to turn back the clock to a "golden age" that never really existed, and consequently he cannot win.

Yes, the US has a lot to answer for its frequently unqualified and unlimited support of Israel. Arabs and Muslims both believe that the US under Truman brokes promises made under Roosevelt that Arab Muslim interests would be protected in Palestine. They also have a hard time understanding why the US supported the creation of an Israeli homeland on top of an existing population; it strikes them that a homeland in Germany would have been more just.

But Arabs and Muslims show just as much selective memory as anyone else. They cite those things that support their feelings (Iraq, Palestine, etc) while forgetting what is inconvenient (Bosnia, 1956, etc.).

People are too damned angry to talk reasonably while reasonable talk is desperately needed. The ignorance of Islam on the part of the bashers is deplorable. Equally despicable is the way many Muslims make no attempt to understand what modernity really is, what Western and American values actually are.

The websites that promote hatred--toward anyone--do nothing to solve problems; they only exacerbate them.

If Islam is so tolerant, how is that Christians and Jews have been virtually driven out from the Arab nations. Afterall these were Christian nations at one time. Meanwhile Hindus have been virtually eliminated from Pakistan, and are being systematically persecuted in Bangladesh.

If Islam is so wonderful, how come Muslims are climbing over each other to get into the West. It is damning evidence of the complete spiritual, moral and social bankrupcy of Islam. The perplexing matter is that soon after they are allowed into the West, they start the Jihad against the very country that has given them sanctuary. It never seems to stop; another 8 Islamist terrorists have ben charged with conspiracy to mass murder.

Islam has the potential to be far more wicked and vile then either Nazism or communism, as it's defining docuement, the koran , is unbelievably hate-filled, and lacks any feature worth redeeming. It is only the limitation of power and technology, that has prevented Islam from debauchery far greater then Nazism or Stalinism.

Do I hate Muslims? No. Muslims have been the first victims of Islam. To me, it is such a shame that such a large section of humanity has been so effectively brainwashed. Islam has completely closed the minds of Muslims to all that is wonderful in the onward going saga of humanity. Islam has trapped far too many Muslims in an 8th century mindset, almost a prison in time.

It is fortunate for Muslims in the West, that they have the opportunity to free themselves from the slavery to Islam. It is upto them to excercise that choice. I sincerely hope that they do, and stop indulging in acts of war against the very countries that have given them sanctuary.

DPT111: I'm not about to argue that Islam can be used malignantly. It most certainly can and is.

After the founding of Israel, the attitudes of the Arab world toward Jews changed. Where there had been thriving Jewish communities from Morocco to Iraq, Jews were made unwelcomed because of what the Arabs perceived Jews were doing to Arabs. In those countries, though, even today, you can still find Jews who live and work there with few problems. Just as a strange thing, the most popular butchers in Tunis are Kosher butcher, labeled thus in Hebrew.

Because of Israel, Jews are suspect. That's unfair, of course, but that's the way it is. Arabs don't know if a Jew--who doesn't share the same basic values that come from a common religion--can be trusted. Is that stupid and racist? Of course it is.

Arabs are flocking to the US for the same reason that Mexicans, Irish, Germans and Indians are: economic reasons. Being poor in the US is better than being poor anywhere else. They are not fleeing their relgion; they're bringing that with them. They're fleeing failing governments and economies.

I don't share your assessment that Islam has the potential to be worse than 20th C -isms. I don't think anything can be worse than the 100s of millions of people who have been killed due to Nazism or Communism. People who act--supposedly in its name--definitely have the potential to be equally bad, though. That's why it's so critical to focus our anger and our efforts on the actual bad guys, not get distracted by things we simply don't like.

John Sarasota

Jews were not living in peace, harmony and equality in the Muslim Arab world prior to the founding of Israel. They were living in a state of subjugation, and always liable to murder and or any other form of punishment meted out to a dhimmi. It was the advent of British colonialism, that put a stop to the dhimmi treatment of Christians and Jews. Another point you might consider is the persecutiuon of Christians in Islamic nations. It is endemic and came about long before the founding of Israel or anything else.

Arabs and Muslims may be flocking to the West for the same reasons that 'others' are, but the so called 'others' are not plotting to mass murder the citizens of the countries that gave them sanctuary. In the UK, 90% of all asylum seekers are Muslims. Muslims claiming persecution from Islam in Islamic nations? Then the first thing they do, is to start Jihad here in the West?
How many Hindus do you personally know who have been arrested for treasonous terrorism in the West?

You dont share my assessment of Islam as a genocidal ideology, if it doesnt get its way? Well ask the Zoroastrians who were massacred, expelled or fled their native Iran. Zoroastrians now barely number in the tens of millions. In India, atleast 30,000 Hindu temples were deliberately destroyed by Islamic invaders, and a conservative estimate that a 100 million Hindus were killed over the period of Islamic occupation of India, destroying an advanced but peaceful society in the process. Afghanistan, that abode of Buddhism, even the last remnant of Buddhism was obliterated, even though it posed no threat. That act indicates the shere malevolence of Islam as an ideology. It will not leave you in peace even in your grave. Afghanistan is now home to the most virulent and probably natural state of Islam.

One can always look for excuses for any vile person or any vile ideology like Islam, and if you look hard enough, you will find it.

I find it incomprehensible that in the 21st century, when anyone can see the true character of Mohammed, that any sane person would follow his words. Muslims in the West, now have the opportunity to liberate themselves from the slavery to Islam. Doesnt Islam mean precisely that - submission ie slavery? They should take the opportunity.

Jhn Sarasota

That's why it's so critical to focus our anger and our efforts on the actual bad guys, not get distracted by things we simply don't like.

In passing, that is equivalent to treating the symptoms while ignoring the cause. I have no war with Muslims good or bad; the bad ones will be dealt in the usual manner by authority. It is the ideology that drives tens if not hundreds of millions of Muslims to wage Jihad on non-Muslims, who think OBL is a great man, that is our worry and should be our main concern. I would much rather they stopped being guided by hate and adopted a faith that was based on tolerance and love. Away from Islamic nations, Muslims do have the opportunity to free themselves.

"Away from Islamic nations, Muslims do have the opportunity to free themselves."

I don't think so DP111.

Religion is like a fatal virus and Islam is the ebola of religions.

There seems to be a fair amount of rather ponderous pontificating by Bjorn about a subject that, while admittedly with the potential to be inflamatory, is rather simple at the bottom line.

As someone pointed out above, were we living in a Muslim country (other than Turkey) as non-Muslims, we would be faced with three alternatives if we chose to remain. Become Muslim, become a Dhimi (second - or fourth class citizen - with few - if any legal rights) of die. Some choice!

Rather than argue a case for which little argument is genuinely required, I'll suggest this:
2 Books - the first by a highly educated (Cambridge Univ.) former Muslim by the name (ficticious) Ibn Warraq - WHY I AM NOT A MUSLIM. reviewed on Daniel Pipes' website, this is a book that explores a personal and scholarly journey towards the renunciation of Islam. A death sentence, by the way - a point no one that I have seen notes above.

The second by Kenneth Timmerman - PREACHERS OF HATE - is a compendium of personal experiences (Timmerman speaks, reads and writes Arabic) interviews with some bizarre Muslim clerics etc., and his (I think) fifteen year effort to record what EXACTLY Islam seeks with respect to the West. It turns out to be very simple. The Death of the West, and its conversion - or destruction - to Islam.

Opinions - particularly pompous ones - are really very boring when it's perfectly possible to go to primary sources (including historical) and discover the Truth. By the bye - Warraq has just come out with his second book, a rather interesting collection of other Muslim's experiences in dealing with their religion and deciding to risk leaving it.

Re: James, PA, USA

Here is my answer to your last hate-filled post:

You wrote:

''I don't think I have expressed hate when I state Islam doctrines.''
=================================

Can you tell me what qualifications do you have to state Islam doctrines ? what degree in Islamic studies do you have ? how many books you read about Islam and its doctinre ? what do you know about the life of prophet muhammad (pbuh ) ???

Please, dont be typical ignorant American. grow up.

You wrote:

''There is a widespread industry of apologetics among the brood of modern Middle Eastern scholars now funded and positioned in western universities. I observe they have a tendency to emphasize the benign and ecumenical aspects of the "religion of peace" which is doubtlessly encouraged by western multicultural tolerance, postmodernism and anti-western leftism. ''
========================

It is not the industry of apologetics, but rather the industry of TRUTH. these scholars know very well what they are talking about, their academic HONESTY prevents them from lying and making up fake stories and fake historical accounts to defame Islam and its prophet (pbuh ).

If you have a brain you will listen to these SCHOLARS and not to FOX BOOOOS or any other hate-filled evangelical Islamophobic morons, the choice is yours.

You wrote:

''There is a most awkward and bizarre alliance between the totalitarian socialists and the totalitarian Islamists that will drown out more balanced views as long as the common enemy, The Great Satan, still survives. Upon America's demise the jihadists will redirect their sights on their present leftist allies.''
=============================
This is pure utter nonesense, we Muslims dont wish any harm to America or to its people, nor we think America is the great satan ( it is always striking that when Americans used to describe the Soviet Empire as THE EVIL EMPIRE, it was quite acceptable but they get offended when someone describe their own empire as the Great Satan !!! )

Those peace loving leftists have a conscious which you dont have, they have broader view of the world they live in, they dont suffer the famous disaeae the far right neo cons suffer from and that is the self-rightouness syndrome.

you wrote:

''At any rate I see the expansion of Islam as historically murderous, intolerant and genocidal. ''
============================

I dont understand how can you ''see'' something happened 1300 years ago !! it is enough for me to state that Muslim armies NEVER reached Indonesia and Malaysia and yet these 2 states are now MUSLIM !!

You wrote:

''Islam is the religion of peace to those who submit to it, and the religion of death to those who do not. There was a peace for the conquered after initial reistance was put down, but I do not see dhimmitude, taxation and slavery as especially enlightened.''
================================

Nearly all schaolrs of history and Islam agree that Muslims were unique in their tolerance and mercy toward the 'others' who were different, let me quote you some of these scholars:

“…We may feel certain that if Western Christians, instead of the Saracens( muslims ) and the Turks, had won the dominion over Asia, there would be today not a trace left of the Greek Church, and that they would never have tolerated Islam as the 'infidels' have tolerated Christianity there. We (Christians) enjoy the fine advantage of being far better versed than others in the art of killing, bombarding and exterminating the Human Race." (Bayle P., Dictionary, 'the article Mahomed', 1850)

Also:

"... the general picture of the spread of Islam so far as we know it. This is often said to resemble an oil stain: gradual yet effective. Many, too, have praised its peaceful nature. Again so far as we know, the acceptance of Islamic doctrine has been a gradual process, partly thanks to the practice of conversion prior to indoctrination"

Source : The Legacy of Islam" edited by Joseph Schacht with C.E. Bosworth (1974) p145

Mahatma Gandhi wrote in Young India – 1920:

‘I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place in Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for his pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every trouble.’

The best reply to the misconception that Islam was spread by the sword is given by the noted historian De Lacy O’Leary in the book "Islam at the cross road" (Page 8):

"History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated."

You wrote:

''And, I am sorry, but I would not want to have been a Jew or Christian in Muslim Spain,''
=============================

Sure because you are totally IGNORANT of the glorious history of Muslim Spain:

here is something from 'learned ' non muslim historians:

In his book titled, "Spain In The Modern World," James Cleuge explains the significance of Muslim Cordova in Medieval Europe:

"For there was nothing like it, at that epoch, in the rest of Europe. The best minds in that continent looked to Spain for everything which most clearly differentiates a human being from a tiger." (Cleugh, 1953, p. 70)

During the end of the first millennium, Cordova was the intellectual well from which European humanity came to drink. Students from France and England traveled there to sit at the feet of Muslim, Christian and Jewish scholars, to learn philosophy, science and medicine (Digest, 1973, p. 622). In the great library of Cordova alone, there were some 600,000 manuscripts (Burke, 1978, p. 122).

This rich and sophisticated society took a tolerant view towards other faiths. Tolerance was unheard of in the rest of Europe. But in Moorish Spain, "thousands of Jews and Christians lived in peace and harmony with their Muslim overlords." (Burke, 1985, p. 38) The society had a literary rather than religious base. Economically their prosperity was unparalleled for centuries. The aristocracy promoted private land ownership and encouraged Jews in banking. There was little or no Muslim prostelyting. Instead, non-believers simply paid an extra tax!

"Their society had become too sophisticated to be fanatical. Christians and Moslems, with Jews as their intermediaries and interpreters, lived side by side and fought, not each other, but other mixed communities." (Cleugh, 1953, p. 71)

http://www.sunnah.org/history/moors.htm

You wrote:

''a Christian in Serbia''
================================
I was not aware serbia was muslim one time !!

You wrote:

''a Nestorian in Armenia''
==============================
Did you know what happened in Armenia ? did you know that Armenia was waging war against the ottomans with the help of Russia !

You wrote:

' or a Hindu in India ''
=============================

Can you explain why then if Islam was so intolerant in India, how come India has now majority HINDUS despite the fact that it was ruled by Islam for 400 years ????? how come thousands of ancient hindu temples survived the rule of Islam ???

The above questions cant be answered by haters and islamophobes like you simply because you have NO answer.

You wrote:

' That deficiency of standing is surely because Islam confronted smaller populations in it path. I am certain it will surpass the NAZIs and Communists in the 21st century. '
===========================

It seems you are so filled and immeresed in hate and Islamophobia that you start losing your sense, May Allah almighty help you.

Peace be with you.

Re: John, Sarasota

You wrote:

''Salahudin You were going great until you hit the "it was rather an act of revenge for half a century of American oppression and support for anti muslim Israeli Terrorism" bit. You went right off the rail there.''
==================================
I went right off the rail according to who ? according to you ?

You wrote:

''9/11 was not an act of revenge. It was a deliberate act of war by Usama bin Laden. His purpose was not vengeance, it was to seek the restoration of a califate, and extend it globally.''
==============================

This is utter nonesense, otherwise how do you explain that Bin Laden for example did not hit china ?????

You wrote:

'' He has often couched him remarks in terms of vengeance, but he seeks vengeance for the loss of Al-Andalus and of Islam as a global power. ''
==============================

mythical thinking !! let us read what bin laden said in his last speech:

from: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0415-05.htm

quote:

''What happened in September 11 and March 11 is your own merchandise coming back to you. We hereby advise you ... that your definition of us and of our actions as terrorism is nothing but a definition of yourselves by yourselves, since our reaction is of the same kind as your act. Our actions are a reaction to yours, which are destruction and killing of our people as is happening in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine.
By what measure of kindness are your killed considered innocents while ours are considered worthless? By what school [of thought] is your blood considered blood while our blood is water?
Therefore, it is [only] just to respond in kind, and the one who started it is more to blame...
When you look at what happened and is happening, the killing in our countries and in yours, an important fact emerges, and that is that the oppression is forced on both us and you by your politicians who send your sons, against your will, to our country to kill and to be killed.
Therefore, both sides have an interest in thwarting those who shed the blood of the peoples for their own narrow interests, out of vassalage to the White House gang...''

end of quote.

So you see from the above, the reason behind 9/11 was to send ( as bin laden put it )your own merchandise coming back to you.

you wrote:

''To gain popular support, UBL is perfectly willing to encorporate things that will stir the masses. His bringing Israel into the equation is a ploy and only that. Were Israel to disappear, UBL's programs would continue.''
=================================

Again this is far from the truth, the terrorist state of Israel and the American blind support for the Israeli jewish terrorism against Muslims is at the HEART of bin laden grievances which are shared by every muslim on earth.

you wrote:

''He operates out of a deep fear that his interpretation of Islam is losing ground to modernization and Westernization. He wants to turn back the clock to a "golden age" that never really existed, and consequently he cannot win.''
=================================

It is the inspiration of every muslim to see the return of the khilafa, we REJECT your life style and we dont accept to live the way you live, we have our own values and traditions that we cherish so much. we dont want your democrasy because it does not suit us, we have our own democrasy called 'shoura'.

you wrote:

''Yes, the US has a lot to answer for its frequently unqualified and unlimited support of Israel. Arabs and Muslims both believe that the US under Truman brokes promises made under Roosevelt that Arab Muslim interests would be protected in Palestine. They also have a hard time understanding why the US supported the creation of an Israeli homeland on top of an existing population; it strikes them that a homeland in Germany would have been more just.''
=================================

Indeed, why we should pay for European crime ( the holocaust) ????

you wrote:

''But Arabs and Muslims show just as much selective memory as anyone else. They cite those things that support their feelings (Iraq, Palestine, etc) while forgetting what is inconvenient (Bosnia, 1956, etc.).''
================================

We dont forget how America played wonderful role in 1956 suez crisis, but that is the last thing america did which won the praise of the muslims.

America did not do anything to help muslims in Bosnia, only after tens of thousands of muslims were slaughtered and after thousands of mujahideen started flocking into bosnia and the war started to go in favour of the muslims that america interfered to prevent the establishment of an islamic state in the heart of Europe( As Dayton agreement cleary shows ).

you wrote:

''People are too damned angry to talk reasonably while reasonable talk is desperately needed. The ignorance of Islam on the part of the bashers is deplorable. Equally despicable is the way many Muslims make no attempt to understand what modernity really is, what Western and American values actually are.''
================================

it is always nice to try to talk and understand each others, it is always enlightning to know about your values but why you guys dont understand and care about OUR values (the ISLAMIC ) values as well? you see, it is 2 way road.

you wrote:

''The websites that promote hatred--toward anyone--do nothing to solve problems; they only exacerbate them. ''
================================

I agree.

have a nice day.

Re: James, PA, USA

You commented:

"Away from Islamic nations, Muslims do have the opportunity to free themselves."

I don't think so DP111.

Religion is like a fatal virus and Islam is the ebola of religions. ''
===================================

With such hate-filled statements and with people like you so taken by hate and Islamophobia, I dont see any hope for this world.

Re: Jefferson W. Clay , Canada

In response to the hate islamophobic books you are advertising written by well known christian evangelial missionaries like ibn warraq who is based in Ohio- USA, I have this to show you :)

Islamic Britain lures top people

Sunday Times 22 February 2004
MORE than 14,000 white Britons have converted to Islam after becoming disillusioned with western values, according to the first authoritative study of the phenomenon.

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/649424.asp

-'' Indeed, Islam is the world's fastest growing religion in the world'' The Economist, London Sept 2003

-BBC: Thousands of Asutralia's Aboriginals are converting to Islam:

http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2902315.stm

-Islam is spreading so fast in Mexico:

http://www.finalcall.com/international/mexico07-02-2002.htm

http://www.racematters.org/islamtakesrootinmexico.htm

- EVEN IN HAWAII, MORE AND MORE ARE CONVERTING TO ISLAM:

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2001/Nov/11/ln/ln06a.html

-In South Africa, so many blacks are converting to Islam:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0110/p13s1-woaf.html

-Thousands in Rawanda-Africa are converting to Islam every year:

http://www.xamarcadde.com/rawanda.html

- Hindus in india are converting to Islam in their masses:

http://www.milligazette.com/Archive.../0111200275.htm

- Islam is back to Spain after 500 years:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1002/p07s01-woeu.html

- More and more americans are converting to Islam specially after 9/11:

http://www.yorknewstimes.com/stories/042702/neb_0427020012.shtml

- NEW YORK TIMES: ISLAM ATTRACT THOUSANDS DRAWN BEFORE AND AFTER 9/11:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30D13FA345A0C718EDDA90994D9404482

- The Canadian Globe and Mail: Islam is now the fastest growing religion in Canada:
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030514/UCENSN/TPFront/TopStories

Islam: The Next American Religion?

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/69/story_6982.html

Catholic World News: Exhilarating Time To Be Christian," But Islam Grows Faster

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=16311

U.S. Department of State for International Information programes: Islam is one of the fastest growing religions in America:

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/muslimlife/

Muslims outpace Anglicans in UK

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/444572.cms

A Spanish bridge to Islam:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1002/p07s01-woeu.html

Britain Elites are converting to Islam:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/03/286384.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1096872/posts

http://www.lightuponlight.com/islam...ws&new_topic=14

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/artic...erahIslam.shtml

-Islam is also spreading in Ukraine:

http://www.crimeatau.org.ua/project/islam/itriu.html

An Icelander’s Journey to Light :
By Anna Linda Traustadóttir
10/08/2004
Reykjavík, Iceland

http://www.jamaat.net/jforum/viewtopic.php?t=219

Illinois residents find faith in Islam:

Daily Herald - 8/16/2004
http://www.jamaat.net/jforum/viewtopic.php?t=226

Islam First Religion in Amsterdam

http://www.jamaat.net/jforum/viewtopic.php?t=194

Turning Muslim in Texas:
George W Bush may be backed by Christian fundamentalists but in his home state of Texas, Islam is the latest big draw. The Bible belt is transferring its allegiance to the Qur’an:

http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/B/believeitornot/texas1.html

Minarets Rise in Germany

Gulcek's mosque is part of the surge in Islamic construction sweeping Germany. The number of traditional mosques with their distinctive minarets nearly doubled in Germany from 77 in 2002 to 141 in 2003, according to Islam Archive, a Muslim research group in the city of Soest. An additional 154 mosques and cultural centers are planned, many of them in the countryside.

http://www.jamaat.net/jforum/viewtopic.php?t=195

Tell your evangelical christian missionary ( ibn warraq ) to keep on with his lies and hate because the more hate and lies promoted against Islam, the more Islam spreads :)

Allah almighty said in the Noble Quran:

''They (the disbelievers ) want to extinguish Allâh's Light ( Islâm ) with their mouths, but Allâh will not allow except that His Light should be perfected even though the disbelievers hate it '' The Noble Quran 9:32

SALUHDIN
Thank you for coming on this forum and demonstrating what a 'peaceful and tolerant' religion Islam is! Also your ignorance about Muslims and the West. You are going to have to explain this latest statistic -THERE ARE TWO BILLION CHRISTIANS IN THE WORLD. This doesn't account for further millions who aren't Christians but do their own thing or very large numbers of HINDUS,BUDDHISTS,TAOISTS etc on this planet. If Islam is such a wonderful religion then you ought to be living in one of the 64 Muslim countries who are all struggling with violence, poverty and
a seventh century Death Cult of a pedophile epiletic called Mohammed. Please tell us where you
live : everyone would be so interested.
Yours cordially

Re: Morgane

You wrote:

''SALUHDIN
Thank you for coming on this forum and demonstrating what a 'peaceful and tolerant' religion Islam is! ''
=============================

It is always my pleasure :)

You wrote:

''Also your ignorance about Muslims and the West. You are going to have to explain this latest statistic -THERE ARE TWO BILLION CHRISTIANS IN THE WORLD. This doesn't account for further millions who aren't Christians but do their own thing or very large numbers of HINDUS,BUDDHISTS,TAOISTS etc on this planet. ''
========================

What about them ? what do you want me to explain ?

You wrote:

''If Islam is such a wonderful religion then you ought to be living in one of the 64 Muslim countries who are all struggling with violence, poverty and
a seventh century Death Cult of a pedophile epiletic called Mohammed. ''
=================================

Another islamophobic moronic rant, it seems you are not aware that many muslim countries such as MALAYSIA for example are considered one of the richest 15 on earth !! how about UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Turkey, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia ?

And if the muslim world was that horrible, how come hundreds of thousands of WESTERNERS choose to live and work there every year ??

As to your comments about prophet muhammad (pbuh ), I cant help but wonder what kind of ignorant person you are, let us read together what great leaders and non muslim scholars said about this great man:

The American writer Michael H. Hart in his book on ratings of men who contributed towards the benefit and upliftment of mankind writes:

"My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels".
(M.H.Hart,'The 100: A ranking of the most influential persons in history', New York, 1978, pp.33).

The Encyclopedia Britannica calls him "The MOST successful of all religious personalities of the world" and it also confirms:

"...A mass of detail in the early sources shows that he was an honest and upright man who had gained the respect and loyalty of others who were like-wise honest and upright men." (Vol. 12)

Bernard Shaw said about him:

"He must be called the Savior of Humanity. I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it much-needed peace and happiness".
(The Genuine Islam, Singapore, Vol. 1, No.8, 1936)

Lamartine, the renowned historian speaking on the essentials of Human Greatness wonders:

"If greatness of purpose, smallness of means and astounding results are the three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in modern history with Muhammad? The most famous men created arms, laws and empires only. They founded, if anything at all, no more than material powers which often crumbled away before their eyes. This man moved not only armies, legislations, empires, peoples, and dynasties, but millions of men in one-third of the then inhabited world; and more than that, he moved the altars, the gods, the religions, the ideas, the beliefs and souls...his forbearance in victory, his ambition, which was entirely devoted to one idea and in no manner striving for an empire; his endless prayers, his mystic conversations with God, his death and his triumph after death; all these attest not to an imposture but to a firm conviction which gave him the power to restore a dogma. This dogma was two-fold, the unity of God and the immateriality of God; the former telling what God is, the latter telling what God is not; the one overthrowing false gods with the sword, the other starting an idea with the words.
Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational dogmas, of a cult without images, the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is MUHAMMAD. As regards all the standards by which Human Greatness may be measured, we may well ask, IS THERE ANY MAN GREATER THAN HE?
(Lamartine, Historire de la Turquie, Paris, 1854, Vol. II, pp. 276-277).

Mahatma Gandhi, speaking on the character of Muhammad (pbuh) says in 'Young India':

"I wanted to know the best of one who holds today undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind...I became more than convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for his pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle.
When I closed the 2nd volume (of the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of the great life".

Thomas Carlyle in his 'Heroes and Heroworship', was simply amazed as to:

"How one man single handily, could weld warring tribes and wandering Bedouins into a most powerful and civilized nation in less than two decades".

Diwan Chand Sharma wrote:

"Muhammad was the soul of kindness, and his influence was felt and never forgotten by those around him"
(D.C. Sharma, 'The Prophets of the East', Calcutta, 1935, pp.12)

Edward Gibbon and Simon Ockley speaking on the profession of ISLAM write:

" 'I BELIEVE IN ONE GOD, AND MAHOMET, AN APOSTLE OF GOD' is the simple and invariable profession of Islam. The intellectual image of the Deity has never been degraded by any visible idol; the honor of the Prophet have never transgresses the measure of human virtues; and his living precepts have restrained the gratitude of his disciples within the bounds of reason and religion".
(History of the Saracen Empires, London, 1870, p.54).

Muhammad (pbuh) was nothing more or less than a human being. But he was a man with a noble mission, which was to unite humanity on the worship of ONE and ONLY ONE GOD and to teach them the way to honest and upright living based on the commands of God. He always described himself as, 'A Servant and Messenger of God', and so indeed every action of his proclaimed to be.

Speaking on the aspect of equality before God in Islam, the famous poetess of India, Sarojini Naidu says:

"It was the first religion that preached and practiced democracy; for, in the mosque, when the call for prayer is sounded and worshippers are gathered together, the democracy of Islam is embodied five times a day when the peasant and king kneel side by side and proclaim: 'God Alone is Great'... I have been struck over and over again by this indivisible unity of Islam that makes man instinctively a brother."
( S. Naidu, Ideals of Islam, vide Speeches & Writings, Madras, 1918, P.169).

In the words of Prof. Hugronje:

" the league of nations founded by the prophet of Islam put the principle international unity and human brotherhood in such universal foundations as to show candle to other nations". He continues, "the fact is that no nation of the world can show a parallel to what Islam has done towards the realization of the idea of the League of Nations".

The world has not hesitated to raise to divinity, individuals whose lives and missions have been lost in legend. Historically speaking none of these legends achieved even a fraction of what Muhammad (pbuh) accomplished. And all his stiving was for the soul purpose of uniting mankind for the worship of One God on the codes of moral excellence. Muhammad (pbuh) of his followers never at any time that he was a Son of God or the God-incarnate or a man with divinity - but he always was and is even today considered as only a Messenger chosen by God.

I advice you to read little bit more about Islam from unbiased sources, try to find some muslims in your locality and speak with them, I think talking is the first step toward better understanding. life is too short to be wasted in hate and bigotry, dont you agree ?

Larry - Suffice to say that Bush says and does a few things I can't agree with, including his comments re. "islam is the religion of peace".

Ah, of course, I knew it. It so figures. But the perplexity remains unanswered - how is that one of the things you can brush aside so casually, since you seem to define the enemy not in terms of terrorists, but in terms of Islam at large? Why is Bush's underestimating the Islamic threat less "leftist wingnut" than those you brand as "leftist wingnuts"? Isn't it even more dangerous in your view, since Bush & co., unlike your "leftist wingnuts" on the internet, does actually hold the power to define the enemy and act accordingly? Shouldn't you be even angrier with your government, for being so friendly to Islam? Why are you cutting them so much slack on something so important to you? Mystery. Then again, bigotry and consistency hardly go together.

But I've said enough. I'll gladly leave the discussion to those interested in arguing on the line of "my religion/country is bigger/better than yours", and to those who like to imagine 1/6th of the world population is murderous filth that's out to get them if they don't get them first. Such a wonderful view of life, one that surely deserves defending at all costs.

James PA

"Away from Islamic nations, Muslims do have the opportunity to free themselves."

I don't think so DP111.

Religion is like a fatal virus and Islam is the ebola of religions. ''

I have to agree. It is a moot point if they will.
But they do have the freedom to leave Islam, without fear of being murdered for being apostates. Of course Islam's apologists see this as, "No other religion looks after its adherents as well as Islam". I know a recent convert from Islam to Christianity, who goes about in fear of his life. And this BTW, is in the UK. This is what has come to pass in the UK, and much of the West.

To be a Muslim in the 21st century is really tragic, as it is equivalent to willingly stay in the time prison of the 8th century. It reminds me of caged animals who do not leave the cage even when the door is left open. In the West atleast, the door to Freedom is open. They are free to choose. However what Muslims cannot hope for, is that our freedom to choose will be proscribed as Muslim populations grow. That is not going to happen. We in the West are NOT going to go back to the 8th century, no matter if the ummah is the majority in the West.

In passing, I note that there are virtually no female athletes from Islamic nations. In fact female athletes are not going to be even shown in most TV of Islamic nations. The link below is really worth a read.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/18656.htm

If this was not so tragic, it would be hilarious. But in the wonderful world of Islam, everything it seems, is a tragi-comedy.

Can anyone imagine, when the Ummah is the majority in the West, women will no longer be able to take part in most athletic events. Certainly not in public anyway. Goodbye Olympics, Wimbledon etc etc

So for the sake of Muslims and ours, it is best if Muslims choose Freedom over Islam (slavery). Freedom is far better, then dancing to the tune of an ignorant imam or mullah.

SALAHUDIN
Greetings. I only quote from the Qur'an about the man himself 'who was given over to fits' and who married Aiesha when she was six years old, other verses [can get them quoted for you if you wish]also consummated this relationship 'when she still
played with dolls..' I call this Child Abuse, what do you call it??You may quote what some people have said about Mohammed until the cows come home but this doesn't change his character any. THIS IS ALL WRITTEN IN THE QUR'AN. Mohammed
tortured people, Mohammed killed people, he stole their land and possessions, he also lied and deceived - you want me to become a follower of this thug!!You've got to be kidding.Let us now come to the statement that'Jews are the sons and daughters of pigs and monkeys!! Are you actually telling me YOU BELIEVE THAT?? What about 72 virgins waiting for Jihadists in a big brothel in the sky!!DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT?? Also you haven't said yet WHERE you live...

"And if the muslim world was that horrible, how come hundreds of thousands of WESTERNERS choose to live and work there every year"

Money. That's the only reason they are there - for the money. Islamic countries can't produce the advanced, progressive, creative and intelligent type people us superior Western nations can, so you need to pay us vast amounts of money to work in your crappy countries, for short periods (coz that's all we could stand). If it weren't for Westerners and our superior intelligence, the oil would remain in the ground in Saudi Arabia. Most workers there are Western, because they have the brains and the ambition, something Muslims lack because they are too busy memorizing ancient, irrelevant and silly texts spewed out by some greedy, deranged warlord in a time long past. Once the oil runs out, those middle eastern countries will have nothing.

Let's ban all religions that have proven to be violent and have hateful passages in their sacred text. That would overwhelmingly include Christianity. Which others?

Salahudin,

I’m not going to come on here and argue that Islam is anything other than another flavor of religion, they all have their good and bad points – it’s how the believers interpret their particular religion on how they act in this life that we should look at. Unfortunately fundamentalists in any religion seem to be the problem across the board, and also the ones that gain the most attention.

Indeed if Islam was inherently evil, then there wouldn't be moderate Islamic countries like the United Arab Emirites.

And yes, as Westerners (although you very well could be a Westerner yourself) we probably should put forth more of an effort to understand and appreciate some of the better points of Islam – all cultures have something to contribute, and certainly the Muslim global community does as well.

I think the problems come into play when (again, as Westerners) we see such profound differences between the various Muslim countries that we have trouble excepting some of the more ‘fundamental’ aspects of the religion. Indeed, when you have modern Muslim nations that are embracing diversity and civil rights, it’s difficult to understand why other Muslim nations are still trying to use antiquated methods of government that are inherently repressive.

At this point in history we can look toward Turkey, a country that has a 99.8% Muslim population (mostly Sunni) that has maintained a republican democracy as their preferred form of government, that has elected a very traditional Muslim to it’s highest office (Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan) we see a country that although maintaining it’s strong religious beliefs, has also been wise enough to understand that although faith is important, it’s also critical to maintain a secular view of government and civil liberties.

This is so strikingly in contrast to other Muslim nations such as Iran (theocratic republic) or Saudi Arabia (monarchy) - the country with the perhaps the strictest application of Islam. I’m sure, as you well know, Saudi practices wahabi'ism, an ultra-orthodox sect, which is viewed by many in the Muslim community as a practice that deviates far from the true peaceful message of Islam.

It is not Islam that doesn't let women drive.

It isn’t Islam that charges non-Muslims special taxes.

These breaches of human civil liberties, propagated and based on shariya law are unacceptable to the modern Western person. Getting stoned to death for adultery, and having someone's hands cut off for theft?

Indonesia is also an Islamic country.
Lebenon is also an Islamic country.
Bosnia is also an Islamic country.

And none of these countries have such extreme laws.

You don't see any of them treat women that way.
And you don't see any of those Muslims call each other kafir.

Only Saudis and Wahabis believe whomever that doesn't follow Islam like them is an infidel/kafir, including Shia.

It is evil, look at the countries were it is practiced. They are some of the most repressive and brutal governments in existence today. The way they treat non-believers and women are vile.

These practices are at the heart of the Western world’s disgust and denunciation of Islam. Not the more moderate and progressive views displayed across the globe today.

I guess my question to you is thus: How can Western society begin to accept and live in harmony with the Muslim society when the Muslim community can not even accept and live in peace with members of their own religion?

I don’t think religion is at all the issue here, common decency and basic human rights are. And as a group Muslims need to start enforcing their own, and bringing the repressive and dehumanizing practices of the past to an end once and for all.

Re: Morgane

You wrote:

''SALAHUDIN
Greetings. I only quote from the Qur'an about the man himself 'who was given over to fits' and who married Aiesha when she was six years old, other verses [can get them quoted for you if you wish]also consummated this relationship 'when she still
played with dolls..''
=======================================

There is NO such thing in the Quran, I shall give you WHOLE WEEK to search in the Noble Quran for such verses, they dont exist.

Aisha was not 9 when she got married with the prophet muhammad(pbuh ), she was about 14 years old.

here is a link that exposes this ' christian missionaries' lie:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/aishahage.htm

You wrote:

''I call this Child Abuse, what do you call it??''
=======================

I call that cheap LIE against the greatest man on earth, Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh ).

Let me remind you that just 100 years ago the age of consent in America was 10 years old !!

[url:http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberone.htm]http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberone.htm[/url]

Now, what do you call that ????

You wrote:

''You may quote what some people have said about Mohammed until the cows come home but this doesn't change his character any.''
===========================

Really ??? you meant this will not change your HATE against Islam and prophet muhammad (pbuh), right ?

You wrote:

'' THIS IS ALL WRITTEN IN THE QUR'AN. Mohammed
tortured people, Mohammed killed people, he stole their land and possessions, he also lied and deceived - you want me to become a follower of this thug!!''
===========================
I CHALLENGE YOU AND EVERYONE HERE IN THIS FORUM TO BRING ONE SINGLE VERSE FROM THE NOBLE QURAN THAT PROVE WHAT YOU PATHETICALLY SAID ABOUT THE GREATEST MAN ON EARTH !!!

GO AHEAD, I CHALLENGE YOU INFRONT OF EVERYONE HERE TO PROVE IT ????

Here is free online copy of the Noble Quran:

http://www.ummah.net/what-is-islam/quran/neindex.htm

Take your time and come back to me when you find your proof :))))

You wrote:

''You've got to be kidding.Let us now come to the statement that'Jews are the sons and daughters of pigs and monkeys!! Are you actually telling me YOU BELIEVE THAT??''
===================================

Which statement ? please dont speak without proof, you either prove what you say using the Noble quran or you will be considered liar.

You wrote:

' What about 72 virgins waiting for Jihadists in a big brothel in the sky!!DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT?? Also you haven't said yet WHERE you live...''
============================

I gave you the free copy of the Noble Quran, I challenge you AGAIN to find me ONE SINGLE verse talking about the 72 virgins, it is all LIES and BS promoted by liars and islamophobes.

Only morons and retards will believe such things without first checking them in the Quran.

As to where I live is no business of yours, dont personalize the debate, be man and go and refute what I wrote because so far you did not refute anything, you are just ranting and parroting the same old recycled moronic islamophobic lies.

Peace be with you.

Islam is not a religion. That is a shield, a facade of respectability it hides behind, fooling gullible Westerners to give them freedoms they shouldn't get. Islam is a total way of life - political, legal, social, etc. Like Communism, Nazism. Produces the same results - a bunch of downtrodden, oppressed, poor, fearful people viciously ruled by despotics living in palaces like kings, in countries which are barely hanging on. Look at the proof in the world today. Look at what they produce, compared to Western countries. We are far from perfect, but we are vastly, astonishingly better and superior to any Islamic country. Because we don't mindlessly follow ancient creeds, because we can separate fantasy from reality, because we use our brains and our hearts. Unlike Islam.

People should stop making excuses for Islam and apologising for them and giving them so much respect. When you know someone who is being an idiot or a jerk, you tell them so, and expect them to change their ways. This is what Islam needs. Not banning, but a total makeover. Grow up and move into the current century. It's like a delinquent teenage thug who refuses to behave. And we're tired of it.

Re: Feralee, Australia

You commented:

"And if the muslim world was that horrible, how come hundreds of thousands of WESTERNERS choose to live and work there every year"

Money. That's the only reason they are there - for the money. Islamic countries can't produce the advanced, progressive, creative and intelligent type people us superior Western nations can, so you need to pay us vast amounts of money to work in your crappy countries, for short periods (coz that's all we could stand).''
============================

This is very laughable since most of doctors and engineers in the west are indeed IMMIGRANTS and many of them are indeed MUSLIMS.

You go to any British hospital and you will find a lot of muslim doctors and nurses, you go to any major company and you will find Muslim immigrants there.

Our countries are not crappy, it is only crappy people like you who think so, I am sure you have never been to any of these countires, why not venture out of your dark hole and visit your great muslim neighbour, Malaysia ( one of the richest 15 on earth ) !!!! :)

You wrote:

'' If it weren't for Westerners and our superior intelligence, the oil would remain in the ground in Saudi Arabia. ''
===========================

What about this racist nazi langauge ? when you guys were still on the TREES we were building pyramids in Egypt and flying gardens in babylon :)))))

what intelligence you are talking about ? ever heard of the dark ages in Europe ?? :)))

It was MUSLIMS who built the first university in Muslim Spain, it was MUSLIMS who invented ALGEBRA ( from arabic Algabr ).

sometimes ignorance is really pathetic.

You wrote:

''Once the oil runs out, those middle eastern countries will have nothing.''
==========================

It is worth to note that we survived before the oil for thousands of years, the question is will you guys survive one week without OUR oil ?? :)

Peace be with the learned folks.

Naive salahudin, the reason these Muslims are doctors and engineers is due to Western education. And most likely, most of them attended Western universities. How many Westerners apply to universities in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? Maybe a handful, if that many, compared to the hundreds of thousands each year to Western institutions.

Yes I've been to Malaysia. Only due to the govt there keeping a tight rein on Islamics going completely feral is it a fairly decent country. But if the Islamic factions get too much say in matters, it'll go to hell. Guaranteed.

Muslims didn't build pyramids in Egypt btw. That happened before that "prophet" person of yours ruined that part of the planet. The step pyramid at Saqqara, for instance, was built around 2600 BC. No Muslims involved. If Egypt had been full of Muslims then, I doubt anything of any significance would have been built, other than mosques, and torture chambers. And the Babylonians weren't Muslims either. Your "prophet" came on the scene during the 7th Century, from what I gather. That's AD, like after Christ. Get your history straight.

Sure, Muslims did a few things here and there, but only because it used non-Muslims it absorbed and subjugated under Islam. But it didn't last long, did it? If it's so wonderful, it would have prevailed, instead of rotting away and wallowing in irrelevancy. Compare all the Muslim accomplishments over the past 1400 years with what Westerners have done in just the past 100 years, and there's no comparison. Our way of life is vastly superior. Yes, I've heard of the Dark Ages in Europe. But we grew out of that, grew up, matured, progressed. Your Islam is exactly there - in the Dark Ages.

Re: CJ, America

You wrote:

''Salahudin,

I’m not going to come on here and argue that Islam is anything other than another flavor of religion, they all have their good and bad points – it’s how the believers interpret their particular religion on how they act in this life that we should look at.''
================================

I agree

You wrote:

'' Unfortunately fundamentalists in any religion seem to be the problem across the board, and also the ones that gain the most attention.''
===========================

Indeed, but sadly our tiny fanatics are taking most of the attention, for example there was no breaking news and live coverage in the American media for the masscre committed 3 days ago in Burundi in which 160 people were killed in their camps !! cant this lack of coverage due to the fact that those who did this horrible crime were not muslims ?

Victims of massacre at Burundi refugee camp buried in mass grave; Burundi troops seal border with Congo

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/08/16/international1247EDT0528.DTL

You wrote:

''Indeed if Islam was inherently evil, then there wouldn't be moderate Islamic countries like the United Arab Emirites.''
============================

Exactly, it seems reasonable intelligent people like you are in the minority nowadays .

You wrote:

''And yes, as Westerners (although you very well could be a Westerner yourself) we probably should put forth more of an effort to understand and appreciate some of the better points of Islam – all cultures have something to contribute, and certainly the Muslim global community does as well.''
=================================

Indeed, I have half western and half arab heritage but I am Muslim first and foremost.

And yes, Muslims contributed a great deal towards the development of our human civilization:

George Sarton's Tribute to Muslim Scientists in the "Introduction to the History of Science,"

"It will suffice here to evoke a few glorious names without contemporary equivalents in the West: Jabir ibn Haiyan, al-Kindi, al-Khwarizmi, al-Fargani, al-Razi, Thabit ibn Qurra, al-Battani, Hunain ibn Ishaq, al-Farabi, Ibrahim ibn Sinan, al-Masudi, al-Tabari, Abul Wafa, 'Ali ibn Abbas, Abul Qasim, Ibn al-Jazzar, al-Biruni, Ibn Sina, Ibn Yunus, al-Kashi, Ibn al-Haitham, 'Ali Ibn 'Isa al-Ghazali, al-zarqab, Omar Khayyam. A magnificent array of names which it would not be difficult to extend. If anyone tells you that the Middle Ages were scientifically sterile, just quote these men to him, all of whom flourished within a short period, 750 to 1100 A.D."

John William Draper in the "Intellectual Development of Europe"

"I have to deplore the systematic manner in which the literature of Europe has continued to put out of sight our obligations to the Muhammadans. Surely they cannot be much longer hidden. Injustice founded on religious rancour and national conceit cannot be perpetuated forever. The Arab has left his intellectual impress on Europe. He has indelibly written it on the heavens as any one may see who reads the names of the stars on a common celestial globe."

Robert Briffault in the "Making of Humanity"

"It was under the influence of the arabs and Moorish revival of culture and not in the 15th century, that a real renaissance took place. Spain, not Italy, was the cradle of the rebirth of Europe. After steadily sinking lower and lower into barbarism, it had reached the darkest depths of ignorance and degradation when cities of the Saracenic world, Baghdad, Cairo, Cordova, and Toledo, were growing centers of civilization and intellectual activity. It was there that the new life arose which was to grow into new phase of human evolution. From the time when the influence of their culture made itself felt, began the stirring of new life.
"It was under their successors at Oxford School (that is, successors to the Muslims of Spain) that Roger Bacon learned Arabic and Arabic Sciences. Neither Roger Bacon nor later namesake has any title to be credited with having introduced the experimental method. Roger Bacon was no more than one of apostles of Muslim Science and Method to Christian Europe; and he never wearied of declaring that knowledge of Arabic and Arabic Sciences was for his contemporaries the only way to true knowledge. Discussion as to who was the originator of the experimental method....are part of the colossal misinterpretation of the origins of European civilization. The experimental method of Arabs was by Bacon's time widespread and eagerly cultivated throughout Europe.

"Science is the most momentous contribution of Arab civilization to the modern world; but its fruits were slow in ripening. Not until long after Moorish culture had sunk back into darkness did the giant, which it had given birth to, rise in his might. It was not science only which brought Europe back to life. Other and manifold influence from the civilization of Islam communicated its first glow to European Life.

"For Although there is not a single aspect of European growth in which the decisive influence of Islamic Culture is not traceable, nowhere is it so clear and momentous as in the genesis of that power which constitutes the permanent distinctive force of the modern world, and the supreme source of its victory, natural science and the scientific spirit.

"The debt of our science to that of the Arabs does not consist in startling discoveries or revolutionary theories, science owes a great deal more to Arab culture, it owes its existence. The Astronomy and Mathematics of the Greeks were a foreign importation never thoroughly acclimatized in Greek culture. The Greeks systematized, generalized and theorized, but the patient ways of investigation, the accumulation of positive knowledge, the minute method of science, detailed and prolonged observation and experimental inquiry were altogether alien to the Greek temperament. Only in Hellenistic Alexandria was any approach to scientific work conducted in the ancient classical world. What we call science arose in Europe as a result of new spirit of enquiry, of new methods of experiment, observation, measurement, of the development of mathematics, in a form unknown to the Greeks. That spirit and those methods were introduced into the European world by the Arabs.

"It is highly probable that but for the Arabs, modern European civilization would never have arisen at all; it is absolutely certain that but for them, it would not have assumed that character which has enabled it to transcend all previous phases of evolution."

Arnold and Guillaume in "Lagacy of Islam" on Islamic science and medicine

"Looking back we may say that Islamic medicine and science reflected the light of the Hellenic sun, when its day had fled, and that they shone like a moon, illuminating the darkest night of the European middle Ages; that some bright stars lent their own light, and that moon and stars alike faded at the dawn of a new day - the Renaissance. Since they had their share in the direction and introduction of that great movement, it may reasonably be claimed that they are with us yet."

George Sarton in the "Introduction to the History of Science"

"During the reign of Caliph Al-Mamun (813-33 A.D.), the new learning reached its climax. The monarch created in Baghdad a regular school for translation. It was equipped with a library, one of the translators there was Hunayn Ibn Ishaq (809-77) a particularly gifted philosopher and physician of wide erudition, the dominating figure of this century of translators. We know from his own recently published Memoir that he translated practically the whole immense corpus of Galenic writings."
"Besides the translation of Greek works and their extracts, the translators made manuals of which one form, that of the 'pandects,' is typical of the period of Arabic learning. These are recapitulations of the whole medicine, discussing the affections of the body, systematically beginning at the head and working down to the feet."

"The Muslim ideal was, it goes without saying, not visual beauty but God in His plentitude; that is God with all his manifestations, the stars and the heavens, the earth and all nature. The Muslim ideal is thus infinite. But in dealing with the infinite as conceived by the Muslims, we cannot limit ourselves to the space alone, but must equally consider time.

"The first mathematical step from the Greek conception of a static universe to the Islamic one of a dynamic universe was made by Al-Khwarizmi (780-850), the founder of modern Algebra. He enhanced the purely arithmetical character of numbers as finite magnitudes by demonstrating their possibilities as elements of infinite manipulations and investigations of properties and relations.

"In Greek mathematics, the numbers could expand only by the laborious process of addition and multiplication. Khwarizmi's algebraic symbols for numbers contain within themselves the potentialities of the infinite. So we might say that the advance from arithmetic to algebra implies a step from being to 'becoming' from the Greek universe to the living universe of Islam. The importance of Khwarizmi's algebra was recognized, in the twelfth century, by the West, - when Girard of Cremona translated his theses into Latin. Until the sixteenth century this version was used in European universities as the principal mathematical text book. But Khwarizmi's influence reached far beyond the universities. We find it reflected in the mathematical works of Leonardo Fibinacci of Pissa, Master Jacob of Florence, and even of Leonardo da Vinci."

"Through their medical investigations they not merely widened the horizons of medicine, but enlarged humanistic concepts generally. And once again they brought this about because of their over riding spiritual convictions. Thus it can hardly have been accidental that those researches should have led them that were inevitably beyond the reach of Greek masters. If it is regarded as symbolic that the most spectacular achievement of the mid-twentieth century is atomic fission and the nuclear bomb, likewise it would not seem fortuitous that the early Muslim's medical endeavor should have led to a discovery that was quite as revolutionary though possibly more beneficent."

"A philosophy of self-centredness, under whatever disguise, would be both incomprehensible and reprehensible to the Muslim mind. That mind was incapable of viewing man, whether in health or sickness as isolated from God, from fellow men, and from the world around him. It was probably inevitable that the Muslims should have discovered that disease need not be born within the patient himself but may reach from outside, in other words, that they should have been the first to establish clearly the existence of contagion."

"One of the most famous exponents of Muslim universalism and an eminent figure in Islamic learning was Ibn Sina, known in the West as Avicenna (981-1037). For a thousand years he has retained his original renown as one of the greatest thinkers and medical scholars in history. His most important medical works are the Qanun (Canon) and a treatise on Cardiac drugs. The 'Qanun fi-l-Tibb' is an immense encyclopedia of medicine. It contains some of the most illuminating thoughts pertaining to distinction of mediastinitis from pleurisy; contagious nature of phthisis; distribution of diseases by water and soil; careful description of skin troubles; of sexual diseases and perversions; of nervous ailments."

"We have reason to believe that when, during the crusades, Europe at last began to establish hospitals, they were inspired by the Arabs of near East....The first hospital in Paris, Les Quinze-vingt, was founded by Louis IX after his return from the crusade 1254-1260."

"We find in his (Jabir, Geber) writings remarkably sound views on methods of chemical research, a theory on the geologic formation of metals (the six metals differ essentially because of different proportions of sulphur and mercury in them); preparation of various substances (e.g., basic lead carbonatic, arsenic and antimony from their sulphides)."

Ibn Haytham's writings reveal his fine development of the experimental faculty. His tables of corresponding angles of incidence and refraction of light passing from one medium to another show how closely he had approached discovering the law of constancy of ratio of sines, later attributed to snell. He accounted correctly for twilight as due to atmospheric refraction, estimating the sun's depression to be 19 degrees below the horizon, at the commencement of the phenomenon in the mornings or at its termination in the evenings."

"A great deal of geographical as well as historical and scientific knowledge is contained in the thirty volume meadows of Gold and Mines of Gems by one of the leading Muslim Historians, the tenth century al Mas'udi. A more strictly geographical work is the dictionary 'Mujam al-Buldan' by al-Hamami (1179-1229). This is a veritable encyclopedia that, in going far beyond the confines of geography, incorporates also a great deal of scientific lore."

"They studied, collected and described plants that might have some utilitarian purpose, whether in agriculture or in medicine. These excellent tendencies, without equivalent in Christendom, were continued during the first half of the thirteenth century by an admirable group of four botanists. One of these Ibn al-Baitar compiled the most elaborate Arabic work on the subject (Botany), in fact the most important for the whole period extending from Dioscorides down to the sixteenth century. It was a true encyclopedia on the subject, incorporating the whole Greek and Arabic experience."

"'Abd al-Malik ibn Quraib al-Asmai (739-831) was a pious Arab who wrote some valuable books on human anatomy. Al-Jawaliqi who flourished in the first half of the twelfth century and 'Abd al-Mumin who flourished in the second half of the thirteenth century in Egypt, wrote treatises on horses. The greatest zoologist amongst the Arabs was al-Damiri (1405) of Egypt whose book on animal life, 'Hayat al-Hayawan' has been translated into English by A.S.G. Jayakar (London 1906, 1908)."

"The weight of venerable authority, for example that of Ptolemy, seldom intimidated them. They were always eager to put a theory to tests, and they never tired of experimentation. Though motivated and permeated by the spirit of their religion, they would not allow dogma as interpreted by the orthodox to stand in the way of their scientific research."

References:

1. George Sarton, "Introduction to the History of Science, Vol. I-IV," Carnegie Institute of Washington, Baltimore, 1927-31; Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, 1950-53.
2. Robert Briffault, "The Making of Humanity," London, 1938.
3. T. Arnold and A. Guillaume, "The Legacy of Islam," Oxford University Press, 1931.
4. E. Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of Roman Empire," London, 1900.

You wrote:

''I think the problems come into play when (again, as Westerners) we see such profound differences between the various Muslim countries that we have trouble excepting some of the more ‘fundamental’ aspects of the religion. Indeed, when you have modern Muslim nations that are embracing diversity and civil rights, it’s difficult to understand why other Muslim nations are still trying to use antiquated methods of government that are inherently repressive.''
==================================

I agree here but why do you think it is the west right to tell even these countries that use antiquated methods to change ? I mean what right has America to tell the Iraqis for example how they should be governed ?? I dont think the Americans will like anyone to tell them who should govern them and how ??

you wrote:

''At this point in history we can look toward Turkey, a country that has a 99.8% Muslim population (mostly Sunni) that has maintained a republican democracy as their preferred form of government, that has elected a very traditional Muslim to it’s highest office (Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan) we see a country that although maintaining it’s strong religious beliefs, has also been wise enough to understand that although faith is important, it’s also critical to maintain a secular view of government and civil liberties.''
==================================

Indeed, but Turkey is now fought by other European countries who dont want to see prosperous democratic muslim giant in the EU ! it only exposes the western hypocrisy when it comes to muslim affairs.

You wrote:

''This is so strikingly in contrast to other Muslim nations such as Iran (theocratic republic) or Saudi Arabia (monarchy) - the country with the perhaps the strictest application of Islam. I’m sure, as you well know, Saudi practices wahabi'ism, an ultra-orthodox sect, which is viewed by many in the Muslim community as a practice that deviates far from the true peaceful message of Islam.''
========================

Wahhabism is alien to Islam, it is cruel barbaric doctrine which eliminates the other who is different even if it was muslim. wahhabis are now exposed and indeed are rejected by the mainstream muslims.

we the moderate muslims are warning muslims against those wahhabis:

http://www.sunna.info/antiwahabies/wahhabies/

You wrote:

''It is not Islam that doesn't let women drive.''
==============================

Indeed, because Muslim women drive in the rest 56 muslim country.

You wrote:

''It isn’t Islam that charges non-Muslims special taxes.''
==========================
Indeed because everyone in society is expected to pay taxes, Muslims pay 2.5% as zakat ( muslim tax ) so why jews and christians who live in the same society with muslims should be exempt ?

You wrote:

''These breaches of human civil liberties, propagated and based on shariya law are unacceptable to the modern Western person. Getting stoned to death for adultery, and having someone's hands cut off for theft? ''
==============================

I think you need to really know more about sharia law, sharia law is not about stoning, in fact, stoning was NEVER EVER mentiond in the Noble Quran.

As to cutting off hands for theft, this severe punishment works as deternet and it is working, people in Saudi Arabia for example leave their shops open and their tills full with money and go to pay without anyone dare to steal, if this punishment is working then so be it, we are not that concerned about the rights of ONE criminal because the rights of the whole society to live in peace and safety is more important, dont you agree ?

You wrote:
''Indonesia is also an Islamic country.
Lebenon is also an Islamic country.
Bosnia is also an Islamic country.

And none of these countries have such extreme laws.''
============================

In fact, Lebanon which has 70% muslim population has CHRISTIAN president by constitution, amazing isnt ??? of course the islamophobes and the christian missionaries dont talk about such shining muslim countries, it does not serve their hateful cause.

You wrote:
''You don't see any of them treat women that way. And you don't see any of those Muslims call each other kafir.''
=============================
I think education is the key to all this. we muslims need to reignite this great Islamic spirit that made Islam one day the driving force behind progress and development in this world, MUSLIM SPAIN ( 711- 1492 AD ) is great example.

You wrote:

''Only Saudis and Wahabis believe whomever that doesn't follow Islam like them is an infidel/kafir, including Shia.''
============================
I agree, wahhabis like the islamophobes will end up in the history bin like rotten garbage.

You wrote:

''It is evil, look at the countries were it is practiced. They are some of the most repressive and brutal governments in existence today. The way they treat non-believers and women are vile.''
=============================

Well, there is a lot of exaggeration about these countries, what you hear in your biased media such as FOX BOOOS is 1% true and 99% lies.

you wrote:

''I guess my question to you is thus: How can Western society begin to accept and live in harmony with the Muslim society when the Muslim community can not even accept and live in peace with members of their own religion? ''
==============================

Well, until just few years ago, protestans and Catholics were slaughtering each others in N.Ireland. Catholics are still killing each others to this very day in SPAIN ( ETA ) ..etc The west is not free of ills and problems, the west is not Ideal, you got major ethical and spiritual problems, you got materialistic hedonestic sex-driven drugs-ridden societies, you got violent societies as well. if I will put the question the other way:

How can spiritual ethical muslim societies will accept to live with western hedonestic socialy disintegrating ethically bankrupt western socities ???

You see, your question is 2 way road.

My advice to the west is to get rid of this horrible disease: self-rightousness, only then we can live together in peace based on MUTUAL respect and understanding. I dont think it is possible to live together in peace if always one side think they are better, dont you think ?

you wrote:

''I don’t think religion is at all the issue here, common decency and basic human rights are. And as a group Muslims need to start enforcing their own, and bringing the repressive and dehumanizing practices of the past to an end once and for all. ''
========================

I agree, but what about the west ? dont you think the west should stop supporting terrorism ( Israel) and stop its interference with our affairs and most importantly, to leave muslims alone ? after all it is not the muslim armies which are bombing western cities, killing and imprisoning, torutring and raping westerners, it is the other way around.

Peace be with you.

momo -

I seem to have questioned my President somewhat prematurely. The sleeping giant is indeed awakening re. the Islamist threat. Bush now refers to the enemy as Islamic militants. Terrorism is, after all, a TACTIC and not an enemy.
I've looked at some other recent comments now coming out of Washington in this regard and, all rolled together, they would read as follows:

The enemy: A false doctrine of Islamic purity that inspires a totalitarian ideology of power and domination. In its ruthlessness, murderousness and global ambition, it resembles Nazi and Commie ideologies. The extremists who advocate this doctrine see America as the chief obstacle to achieving their goals. To defeat America, they initially seek Washingtons retreat from the world at large. Ultimately, they hope to bring about the collapse of America as it now exists. Toward this end, they are willing to murder any number of Americans.

As you might imagine, this development makes me quite pleased with the Bush administration once again. However, they still haven't begun to talk about the root cause of this latest outbreak of cancerous Islamism. you guessed it! IT'S ISLAM ITSELF. Now, you can rail on about bigotry, etc., but I'm confident that, as the future unfolds, even seemingly hard-core liberals like you will come around. Hopefully, it happens before you are incinerated in a tall building somewhere, beheaded with a dull pruning saw or forced into dhimmitude.

Consistent enough for you now?
You're a fun guy. I look forward to hearing from you on this.

Oh, by the way, I still don't much like Bush's politically correct immigration stance. It's a security threat.

Yeah, sure there's nothing specific in the Koran about getting 72 virgins for committing mass murder of infidels. Just a bunch of blather about paradise and dark eyed houris (virgins or raisins, not sure which), and nice little boys, and wine and lounging about. This is used by mullahs and imams to pump up their brainwashed flock to commit atrocities in the name of Islam. Somewhere along the line it's turned into the legendary "72 virgins" promise. All those fools blowing themselves up for this empty promise. I believe that Capt Hook Faisal in Britain was taped saying such vile stuff. It may not be officially written down in detail in your Koran, but that doesn't let you off. It's the accepted view, the accepted belief, which seems to be far more popular than any "moderate" view, and that's what matters. It's what's being said and accepted by those with power and influence in your ideology. And few seem to be shouting them down, telling them they're full of crap. To many of us, this lack of protest means you agree.

momo -

Darn! I keep forgetting to identify myself. It's your favorite right wing Islamophobe.

Re: the racit nazi Australian:

You wrote:

''Naive salahudin, the reason these Muslims are doctors and engineers is due to Western education. And most likely, most of them attended Western universities.''
============================

Nonesense, I have been to many western countries and I lived there for many years, most of these doctors graduated from MUSLIM universities and then move to work in the west just like the westerners move to live in the muslim world.

You wrote:

'' How many Westerners apply to universities in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? Maybe a handful, if that many, compared to the hundreds of thousands each year to Western institutions.''
====================================

Hundreds of thousands ?? so amusing, do you have any proof to support your claim ??

you wrote:

''Yes I've been to Malaysia. Only due to the govt there keeping a tight rein on Islamics going completely feral is it a fairly decent country. But if the Islamic factions get too much say in matters, it'll go to hell. Guaranteed.''
==================================

NONESENSE, it was MUSLIMS who built Malaysia, it was MUSLIM GREAT LEADER, Dr Mahatir Muhammad who made Malaysia what it is today, you see, your hate against Islam is now exposed.

You wrote:

''Muslims didn't build pyramids in Egypt btw. That happened before that "prophet" person of yours ruined that part of the planet.''
===========================

It was OUR ancestors who did not yours, yours were still living on TREES :)))

As to the greatest man on earth, prophet muhammad (pbuh ), I think you are too ignorant to know how arabs were living before the coming of Islam, go and get some basic education about the rise of Islam.

let me educate you little bit here, I will quote what the famous french historian LAMARTINE said about this great man:

''If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astounding results are the three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in Modern history with Muhammad? The most famous men created arms, laws and empires only. They founded, if anything at all, no more than material powers which often crumbled away before their eyes.
This man moved not only armies, legislation, empires, peoples and dynasties, but millions of men in one third of the then inhabited world; and more than that, he moved the altars, the Gods, the religions, the ideas, the beliefs and souls … his forbearance in victory, his ambition, which was entirely devoted to one idea and in no manner striving for an empire, his endless prayers, his mystic conversation with God, his death and his triumph after death; all these attest not to an imposter but to a firm conviction which gave him the power to restore a dogma. This dogma was two folds, the unity of God and the immateriality of God; the former telling what God is, the later telling what God is not; the one overthrowing false gods with the swords, the other starting an idea with the words. Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational dogmas, of a cult without images; the founders of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is there any man greater that he?''

Lamartine, Histoire de la Turiquie, Paris 1854. Vol. OO, pp 276-77

you wrote:

'' The step pyramid at Saqqara, for instance, was built around 2600 BC. No Muslims involved. If Egypt had been full of Muslims then, I doubt anything of any significance would have been built, other than mosques, and torture chambers. And the Babylonians weren't Muslims either. Your "prophet" came on the scene during the 7th Century, from what I gather. That's AD, like after Christ. Get your history straight.''
===========================

My above comments were in response to your nazi comments about 'western intelligence'', did you already forget what you write ??? :)))

You wrote:

''Sure, Muslims did a few things here and there, but only because it used non-Muslims it absorbed and subjugated under Islam.''
===========================

Very funny, can you tell me where ALGEBRA came from ???

or the word CHEMISTRY ??? I am sure you are too ignorant to know the origin of these words ?

here is something to help you:

ISLAMIC WORLD AND THE WESTERN RENAISSANCE

http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/ghazi1.html

You wrote:

'' But it didn't last long, did it? If it's so wonderful, it would have prevailed, instead of rotting away and wallowing in irrelevancy. ''
========================

Knowledge is accumilative process, I am surprised you fail to grasp this basic concept.

You wrote:

''Compare all the Muslim accomplishments over the past 1400 years with what Westerners have done in just the past 100 years, and there's no comparison.''
===========================

Indeed, thanks Allah it was not MUSLIMS who invented the nuclear bomb nor the biological weapons.

It was not muslims who invented the Gas chambers and the HOLOCAUST.

You wrote:

'' Our way of life is vastly superior.''
=============================

Not according to the holy father, the POPE OF THE VATICAN:

Pope condemns Western lifestyles

VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope John Paul II on Thursday urged other cultures to reject a Western lifestyle that he accused of worsening ''spiritual and moral impoverishment.''

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/nwsthu09.htm

Enjoy :)

re: larry:

you wrote:

'' It may not be officially written down in detail in your Koran, but that doesn't let you off. It's the accepted view, the accepted belief, which seems to be far more popular than any "moderate" view, and that's what matters.''
====================================

Then you have to prove that nearly 2 billion muslim on earth accept these views, can you do that ????

Good site this, with serious thoughts by concerned people. Banning Islam is not acceptable. It is not our (Western)way, even if Islam takes advantage of our liberties to subvert our freedoms. The fact is that it is not just a tiny minority of Muslims who are pushing a low level jihad against the West; this is a very popular idea among all Muslims and it has three fronts at different levels: immigration, multiculturalism and confrontation.
1. Immigration is good, when there are shared values and mutual respect. That ain't Islam. Witness the problems of assimulating Muslims in Europe. As one Dutch politician said: why do Chinese come here, learn our language and become part of society, when Muslims do none of these? Witness the differences between Hindu and Muslim immigrants to England (crime rates, welfare, intergration, etc...). The fact is that you can't be liberal/democratic and Muslim at the same time, and still be honest.
2. Multiculturalism is a one way street. We respect you, you don't need to respect us. And the dogma of political correctness requires that one never challenge any idea or fact pertaining to non-Western societies, lest they be "offended". I went to a lecture by Charles Kimball at Arizona State University on this book "When Religion become evil". You guessed it: those right-wing Christians are really bad folks. When a person speaks out about issues and problems with Islam, he/she is immediately labed a racist, bigot, or worse.
3. Islam will will be the winner if banned. Any confrontation with Islam must occur on moral issues, based upon facts and ideas. Islam's antagonistic attitude against the West has greatly benefited it. Are you mad at your parent? Get even, join Islam. Are you in jail and hate the System? join Islam. Are you against racism and oppression? join Islam. Don't like the shameless promotion of vulgarity, nudity, and homosexuality on TV? Join Islam. Just like so many "Intellectuals" who became marxists because of the many faults of Western society (so what if communism murdered tens of millions and oppressed infinitely more that any Western country) so we see large numbers by people converting to Islam in a strange and surreal form of protest. Thus we see an ever closer (and rather strange) approach between the left and Islam. It doesn't make sense, because Islam is everything the Left should hate, but it has one virtue that causes all it's sins to be forgotten: Islam hates Western society and that though alone makes it worthy of their support. So in the lecture of our dear liberal Dr Kimball (ex World Council of Churches), as mentioned above, he could't really bring himself to say anything bad about Muslims, although he had no trouble in pointing out the stupid ideas of Jerry Farwell and Pat Robertson.
What should we do, then? Speak out, and tell the facts. Most of all we should point out the terrible treatment and inequalities of religious minorities, women, gays, etc.. in ALL Muslim countries. When these groups have the same rights as Muslims do in the West, then and only then will there be a mutual understanding. Muslims don't want to talk about these things. They even lie about them and expect political correctness to let them get away with it. I think it is reasonable to expect and demand that they apply the same standards of tolerance (equality, not second or third-class citizenship) that we in the West believe in. Most Muslims are not peaceful, they are indifferent. They are also mostly powerless, because they live under regimes that even if tolitarian, still conform to their Islamic beliefs. It is not the West's fault if they suffer - it is Allahs curse. To get away, they flee to the West. Witness the boat that sank off Australia 3 years ago, drownding 400 poor souls. Every Muslim nation on earth was present. I don't blame them for trying. When they get to the West, very often they bring their bitterness and hate with them and cannot integrate. Then the left says "We have to do more for Muslims to become part of (name of country here)", instead of "Muslims have to do more to...". There is no hope. Does anybody in France, Germany or Holland or anywhere else think that a large Muslim population is going to pay their retirement pensions 20 years from now, or practice Western tolerance? Dream on... To me, a practicing Muslim might as well wear a swastica or white sheets, its pretty much the same. Also the so-called "moderate" Muslims are not to be taken seriously: in any confrontation with the "fundamentalist" Muslims the moderates always lose, because the radicals really do have the Quran on their side. One cannot be a moderate Muslim and be honest. Sorry.
Well, that's my 5 cents worth. Thanks to all and my kindest regards to Bjorn and his very good work on this site.

Salahudin -

You posted many references and excerpted a lot of articles regarding the alleged extent of moslem expansion of Islam and the so-called positive aspects of Islam throughout history. I've heard some of it before, but I'm looking forward to investigating your stuff in detail and the backgrounds of the authors as well. You see, all too often when one sees this sort of thing, it turns out to be drivel that's been urked up by apologists for islam, Arabists (some are working in the U.S. State Dept.), Arabophiles of various stripes including "Professors" of Muslim Studies in western universities financed by Saudi money, and out-and-out traitors like Nihad Awad (CAIR) and Raymond Close (ex-CIA). Sadly, some of these clowns do it purely for money.

We'll see. Get back to you later on this.

John Arthur -

Well said. Right on.

I say banning islam would be the ideal scenario on a theoretical level, but just isn't doable. However, it can be controlled as is done in Singapore. Islamism is more of a septic ideology than a religion and, if allowed to run rampant in America, will be our downfall as it is likely to be the undoing of Europe.

Salahudin -

I didn't post that last reference you commented on. But as you might guess, I entirely agree with it. Actually, it was I who asked YOU to estimate the number of a) shooters/bombers, b)financial supporters and c)sympathizers in the Moslem world, both in the M.E. and in the West. You didn't answer.

Salahudin,

I admire your energy.

However, you are not convincing me, but I am certainly prejudiced against Islam. For all that I am offended by religion in general and, in particular, by all monotheisms which have unfortunate propensities for absolutism and intolerance.

I speculate that religion is the semantic expression of instinctual behavior that reinforces group membership and group exclusivity. Religions are words that make group behavior unquestionable, and by doing so, serve survivability of the species. Religion is also a means to sanction instinctual behavior by the inposition of divine morality.

So, all in all, for all their sillinesses, religions further some pretty basic purposes necessary for group survival. It is no surprise that people are attracted to them. It's in the genes.

In fact the biggest surprise is that some people can resist them at all....

I do concede that Islam is probably the clearest religious verbalization of man's instincts.

It is a behavioral atavism that we must get beyond now that we have the bomb.

Re: John Arthur, Arizona USA

You wrote:

''Good site this, with serious thoughts by concerned people. Banning Islam is not acceptable. It is not our (Western)way, even if Islam takes advantage of our liberties to subvert our freedoms.''
=============================

Can you enlighten us how 2% of muslims in the USA for example are taking advantage of your liberties to ''subvert'' your freedoms ?

you wrote:

'' The fact is that it is not just a tiny minority of Muslims who are pushing a low level jihad against the West; this is a very popular idea among all Muslims ''
=====================

this is pure nonesense, the west has done and continue to do horrible damage against muslims, let us remember that since the illegal immoral war against YET ANOTHER muslim country started, 30,000 innocent iraqi muslims have been killed.

15,000 innocent Afghani muslims also were killed by the american terrorist army.

The Jihad will continue until the western invaders are crushed. it is common sense.

I dont think Geroge Washington sat idle watching the British occupying America, did he ???

Get real and admit your own evil doings if you want really to live in peace with the 2 billion muslim in the world today.

You wrote:

''1. Immigration is good, when there are shared values and mutual respect. That ain't Islam. Witness the problems of assimulating Muslims in Europe. As one Dutch politician said: why do Chinese come here, learn our language and become part of society, when Muslims do none of these? ''
===========================

Muslims are well integrated in Europe, but we will not assimulate, we will not LOSE our great religion and replace it with hedonisic corrupt materialistic ethically bankrupt western lifestyle, this is what bother some neo nazi racists in Europe.

May I remind you of what the HOLY FATHER, the Pope said about your WESTERN CULTURE:

Pope condemns Western lifestyles

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/nwsthu09.htm

You wrote:

''Witness the differences between Hindu and Muslim immigrants to England (crime rates, welfare, intergration, etc...).''
=================================

I happened to live to England for long years, you go to any British hospital and you will find so many MUSLIM doctors and nurses, if muslims leave britian today, britian will collapse in 48 hours.

Muslims there are about 4 million while the hindus are merely 500,000, how can you compare the two ??

You wrote:

'' The fact is that you can't be liberal/democratic and Muslim at the same time, and still be honest. ''
================================

Turkey is MUSLIM, LIBERAL AND DEMOCRATIC. try again.

You wrote:

''2. Multiculturalism is a one way street. We respect you, you don't need to respect us. And the dogma of political correctness requires that one never challenge any idea or fact pertaining to non-Western societies, lest they be "offended".
=============================
Political correctness is 2 way road, dont you agree ???

You wrote:

''I went to a lecture by Charles Kimball at Arizona State University on this book "When Religion become evil". You guessed it: those right-wing Christians are really bad folks. When a person speaks out about issues and problems with Islam, he/she is immediately labed a racist, bigot, or worse.''
================================

But when Muslim speaks out about issues and problems with christianity, he/she is immediately labeled a TERRORIST, FANATIC or maybe BIN LADEN himself !! PATHETIC.

You wrote:

''3. Islam will will be the winner if banned.''
===========================

Indeed, you got that right.

You wrote:

'' Any confrontation with Islam must occur on moral issues, based upon facts and ideas. ''
==========================

I agree, because Islam has the moral high ground, I dont think hedonistic gay societies can even match the great pure humane ideology of Islam.

You wrote:

''Islam's antagonistic attitude against the West has greatly benefited it. Are you mad at your parent? Get even, join Islam. Are you in jail and hate the System? join Islam. Are you against racism and oppression? join Islam. Don't like the shameless promotion of vulgarity, nudity, and homosexuality on TV? Join Islam. ''
==============================

How about: Do you want to live pure clean spiritual life ? JOIN ISLAM.

Are you fed up from living in big western ZOO where humans become animals ? JOIN ISLAM.

Do you want to find out the truth ? JOIN ISLAM.

You wrote:

''so we see large numbers by people converting to Islam in a strange and surreal form of protest.''
===========================

Not only as form of protest but because they found Islam to be the truth and the ONLY religion that has the ultimate truth and the only religion that has unshakable morality and formidable values.

You wrote:

'' Thus we see an ever closer (and rather strange) approach between the left and Islam. It doesn't make sense, because Islam is everything the Left should hate, but it has one virtue that causes all it's sins to be forgotten: Islam hates Western society and that though alone makes it worthy of their support.''
=============================

Islam does NOT hate the western society, we hate your hypocrisy and your animalistic hedonistic life style. Islam will liberate you from your animality and will set you FREE.

You wrote:

''So in the lecture of our dear liberal Dr Kimball (ex World Council of Churches), as mentioned above, he could't really bring himself to say anything bad about Muslims, although he had no trouble in pointing out the stupid ideas of Jerry Farwell and Pat Robertson.''
=============================

So it is ok when some evil evangelical liars like farwell insult Islam and called it evil religion, right ???

I am wondering how the reaction will be if these evangelical christian bigots labeled JUDAISM an evil religion for example !!!!!

You wrote:

''What should we do, then? Speak out, and tell the facts.''
===========================

What facts ?? you mean the fabricated lies against Islam ??

You wrote:

'' Most of all we should point out the terrible treatment and inequalities of religious minorities, women, gays, etc.. in ALL Muslim countries. ''
============================

I CHALLENGE YOU TO PROVE USING 'CREDIBLE' SOURCES SUCH AS AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL THAT RELIGIOUS MINORITIES ARE MISTREATED IN 'ALL' MUSLIM COUNTRIES ??

I challenge you to prove this, and no thank you I dont accept islamophobic zionist christian evangelical hate sites.

In fact, it is the west that has GROSS violation of human rights:

Amnesty finds only two EU states uphold human rights :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,7369,1121918,00.html

Not to mention the gross violation of human rights in America itself ( shall I post some statistics or is it too embarrassing ? )

You wrote:

''Muslims don't want to talk about these things. They even lie about them and expect political correctness to let them get away with it.''
==========================

You are the LIAR here, until you prove that 57 muslim countries ALL mistreat religious minorities, gays and women, you have nothing to say but ranting.

It is amazing to know that the president of the largest muslim country in the world is muslim WOMAN, president Meqaqwati of Indonesia, I am wondering when, IF EVER, your ' free' civilized country will elect its first woman president ?

NOT A SINGLE BLACK AFRICAN AMERICAN IS IN YOUR SENATE and you have the gut to talk about how muslims treat minorities ???? PATHETIC.

It is also amazing to note that LEBANON which has 70% majority muslim population has CHRISTIAN president by constitution, show me which western country did that to muslims ?????

You wrote:

'' I think it is reasonable to expect and demand that they apply the same standards of tolerance (equality, not second or third-class citizenship) that we in the West believe in.''
===========================

Oh right, I am sure the BLACK AFRICAN AMERICANS will love to listen to your nonesense.

You wrote:

'' Most Muslims are not peaceful, they are indifferent.''
==========================

It is like saying most americans are drugs addicts and wife beaters !! make a lot of sense !

GENERALIZATION IS THE TOOL OF THE FOOLS.

You wrote:

''They are also mostly powerless, because they live under regimes that even if tolitarian, still conform to their Islamic beliefs. ''
============================

Your ignorance is shining ! only 2 out of 57 muslim countries actually apply ISLAM in their daily affairs. get some education please.

You wrote:

''It is not the West's fault if they suffer - it is Allahs curse.''
============================

Thank you for letting us know this !

You wrote:

'' To get away, they flee to the West. Witness the boat that sank off Australia 3 years ago, drownding 400 poor souls. Every Muslim nation on earth was present. ''
=================================

Prove it ??????

Beside, can you tell us why hundreds of thousands of westerners choose to live and work in many parts of the muslim world such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE ?????

You wrote:

''Does anybody in France, Germany or Holland or anywhere else think that a large Muslim population is going to pay their retirement pensions 20 years from now, or practice Western tolerance? Dream on...''
==============================

Indeed, it is us muslims who will pay most of the Europeans pensions, it is our duty, we are loyal citizens and we dont dump our elderies like you guys do.

ISLAM IS HERE TO STAY, we will not go anywhere, I am westerner but first I am MUSLIM.

You wrote:

''To me, a practicing Muslim might as well wear a swastica or white sheets, its pretty much the same.''
===========================

I did not know you are so familiar with nazi 'stuff' ??

You wrote:

' Also the so-called "moderate" Muslims are not to be taken seriously: in any confrontation with the "fundamentalist" Muslims the moderates always lose, because the radicals really do have the Quran on their side. ''
===========================

I am sure you did not even read the Quran. Here is free online copy:

http://www.ummah.net/what-is-islam/quran/neindex.htm

Peace be with you.

Salahudin,

Thank you for bringing science to the West. We really appreciate the contribution, and the electric light bulb, the airplane, the Chunnel, the double helix, string theory, the genome, ah, yes, and especially the brilliant deconstruction of the World Trade Center.

Mining Saludin:

"Muslims are well integrated in Europe, but we will not assimulate, we will not LOSE our great religion and replace it with hedonisic corrupt materialistic ethically bankrupt western lifestyle, this is what bother some neo nazi racists in Europe."

Peace be with you.

Re: James, Pa., USA

You wrote:

''Salahudin,

I admire your energy. ''
================================

Thank you.

You wrote:

''However, you are not convincing me, but I am certainly prejudiced against Islam. ''
================================

Which is very sad, I dont understand why you are prejudiced against Islam ! did Islam offend you in any way, did muslims insult you ? did muslims take something you own ???

You wrote:

''For all that I am offended by religion in general and, in particular, by all monotheisms which have unfortunate propensities for absolutism and intolerance. ''
=============================

I advice you to read more about Islam and specially its tolerance of the others who were different, let me show you some pictures of ancient churches and indeed pagan temples in the Middle East which survived 1400 years of Islamic rule:

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/coptchurch16.jpg
Very ancient christian church in MUSLIM Egypt.

http://touregypt.net/featurestories/simeon5.jpg
St. Simeon Monastery in MUSLIM EGYPT, very old monastery that dates back to the 4th century AD.

http://www.touregypt.net/2eg06.jpg
Located at the foot of Mount Moses, St. Catherine's Monastery, was constructed by order of the Emperor Justinian between 527 and 565 AD

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/feiran2.jpg
Seven Girls' Monastery at Wadi Feiran- MUSLIM EGYPT.

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/feiran4.jpg
Church of St. Cosmas STILL STANDING TO THIS VERY DAY IN MUSLIM EGYPT

http://www.greatestcities.com/5333pic/338/CP6338.jpg/halab_uni.jpg
The christian maronite church in ALEPPO-MUSLIM SYRIA which survived centuries of muslim rule and TOLERANCE.

http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~pstanley/saint.jpg
St.Simon church near Aleppo (my city ) in MUSLIM SYRIA still standing to this very day, the church is about 1500 years old !!

http://mikulastik.net/sy/img/2002_03-35.jpg
The christian orthodox church in the Syrian city of Hama still standing until today, it has been reinnovated and reparied many times under muslim rule in Syria.

http://mikulastik.net/sy/img/2002_09-08a.jpg
Even PAGAN temples were preserved by the MUSLIMS, Temple of Bel-Shamin, Palmyra in MUSLIM SYRIA

You wrote:

''So, all in all, for all their sillinesses, religions further some pretty basic purposes necessary for group survival. It is no surprise that people are attracted to them. It's in the genes. ''
========================

Cant you live and let others who have religion live as well ?

Re: James PA.,USA

You wrote:

''Salahudin,

Thank you for bringing science to the West. We really appreciate the contribution, and the electric light bulb, the airplane, the Chunnel, the double helix, string theory, the genome, ah, yes, and especially the brilliant deconstruction of the World Trade Center.''
==================================

Do you realize that without the concept of Zero that was invented by the Muslims, nothing will be invented ??

As to the WTC destruction, it is nothing compared with the half century destruction of many muslim states by the ' Great Satan '.

Chronology of American State Terrorism:

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/ChronologyofTerror.html

As you might imagine, this development makes me quite pleased with the Bush administration once again. However, they still haven't begun to talk about the root cause of this latest outbreak of cancerous Islamism. you guessed it! IT'S ISLAM ITSELF.

You've got to persuade your government to talk about that, Larry! It's not you or me who makes up the policies.

Actions, not words. Demand action.

If your government is being too nice to Islam, allowing security threats in the name of freedom of religion and tolerance, it's THEM you have to try and influence, dear, not your internet soapbox audience. Otherwise it's all blah blah blah for no reason than testosterone overload.

Now, you can rail on about bigotry, etc., but I'm confident that, as the future unfolds, even seemingly hard-core liberals like you will come around. Hopefully, it happens before you are incinerated in a tall building somewhere, beheaded with a dull pruning saw or forced into dhimmitude.

Thank you! The same fond wishes to you too!

Salahudin asks:

"Do you realize that without the concept of Zero that was invented by the Muslims, nothing will be invented ??"

Goes without saying.

But joking aside, the ZERO is a Hindu invention. Thank you, Hindus.

Do you realize that Greece, that truly inconsiderable Western country, published more books last year than all Muslim countries worldwide?

I will give you guys algebra though. Pretty good for 14 centuries of bowing and praying.

Salahudin,

Sorry, I missed your response to my "religion is genetic" comments.

Sure, I can agree with your question:

"Cant you live and let others who have religion live as well ?"

It's my modus vivendi; tolerance is a Western trait...to a fault. But I am not so certain tolerance is what they teach in Cairo, or what they preach in Mecca.

It seems to me that Usama's action at WTC and the glee expressed in the worldwide umma indicate that, given the means, many Muslims would like to bomb the Great Satan into oblivion. That's why I say that religious instinct, group animosity, which Islam epitomizes, is dangerous in a world of atomic bombs.

Would that you had not brought us the ZERO from India.

The muslims I know are a lot more fun than your average Christian. And those headscarves are sexy on the babes. The Arab guy at the 7-11 is funny and friendly, the Born Again in the Walmart hardware department is a stressed out jerk. The call to prayer really sounds cool, and Arabic music rocks. No wonder Islam is the US's fastest growing religion. Maybe Christianity shouldn't be banned, but it should be discouraged, like smoking. It's boring and is producing creeps, abortion clinic bombing terrorists and hypocrites. Did Mohammed get laid? I know Krishna did all the time. But Jesus? The proverbial wet blanket. Except when he turned the water into booze. I wish that was in the ten commandments.

Mathematics has a long history of development in Greece, China, India and Mesopotamia. It is typical of Arabs/Muslims to claim discoveries that are the product of freer minds. The Mesopotamians for instance, are not Arabs.

To be fair, the Arabs did introduce the decimal number system and the concept of zero to Europe. But both these inventions were the product of Hindu mathematicians. The Arabs were the messengers rather then the originators of the message.
The one mathematician that the Arabs claim as their own is Al-Khwarizmi. He certainly lived in the area of Baghdad but was not an Arab, but Persian. The title of his text on algebra, got distorted in translation to Arabic, and thus we have Algebra. But even in the field of Algebra, the Greeks and Hindus, several centuries prior to Al-Khwarizmi, were more advanced then he. For instance Al-Khwarizmi solved quadratics but these were developed by the Hindu mathematicians who gave general solutions rather then particular ones. Given the trade routes of the time, it is conceivable that Al-Khwarizmi got most of what he wrote from India. It is also conjectured that Al-Khwarizmi travelled to India to study Maths. Quite possible. And in any case Al-Khwarizmi was a Persian and not Arab.
Given the primitive times, it is unlikely we will ever know the exact truth, but I find the Muslim mentality of stealing other people's ideas and claiming it as their own, very distasteful.Though it seems to go with the general nature of Arab tribal society, where brigandage is considered a honourable profession. It is unfortunate that such a trait persists even to the modern era.

This claim that the Muslim Arabs invented zero is a typical example of persistently lieing, even when shown up. This exemplifies the need for extreme caution when dealing with Muslim propagandists. The Muslim is granted divine sanction to lie to the Infidel, in the cause of Islam. Thus the Big Lie can be expected fairly often, in the hope that some of it might stick.

Meanwhile, Islamic institutions continue to publish books that urge the Muslim to wage Jihad/war on the Kaffirs. Islam, a genocidal hate filled ideology that masquerades as a religion and is bent on subverting the West. And it is to this demented ideology of a sick mind, that we have to grant tolerance?

Mathematics has a long history of development in Greece, China, India and Mesopotamia. It is typical of Arabs/Muslims to claim discoveries that are the product of freer minds. The Mesopotamians for instance, are not Arabs.

To be fair, the Arabs did introduce the decimal number system and the concept of zero to Europe. But both these inventions were the product of Hindu mathematicians. The Arabs were the messengers rather then the originators of the message.
The one mathematician that the Arabs claim as their own is Al-Khwarizmi. He certainly lived in the area of Baghdad but was not an Arab, but Persian. The title of his text on algebra, got distorted in translation to Arabic, and thus we have Algebra. But even in the field of Algebra, the Greeks and Hindus, several centuries prior to Al-Khwarizmi, were more advanced then he. For instance Al-Khwarizmi solved quadratics but these were developed by the Hindu mathematicians who gave general solutions rather then particular ones. Given the trade routes of the time, it is conceivable that Al-Khwarizmi got most of what he wrote from India. It is also conjectured that Al-Khwarizmi travelled to India to study Maths. Quite possible. And in any case Al-Khwarizmi was a Persian and not Arab.
Given the primitive times, it is unlikely we will ever know the exact truth, but I find the Muslim mentality of stealing other people's ideas and claiming it as their own, very distasteful.Though it seems to go with the general nature of Arab tribal society, where brigandage is considered a honourable profession. It is unfortunate that such a trait persists even to the modern era.

This claim that the Muslim Arabs invented zero is a typical example of persistently lieing, even when shown up. This exemplifies the need for extreme caution when dealing with Muslim propagandists. The Muslim is granted divine sanction to lie to the Infidel, in the cause of Islam. Thus the Big Lie can be expected fairly often, in the hope that some of it might stick.

Meanwhile, Islamic institutions continue to publish books that urge the Muslim to wage Jihad/war on the Kaffirs. Islam, a genocidal hate filled ideology that masquerades as a religion and is bent on subverting the West. And it is to this demented ideology of a sick mind, that we have to grant tolerance?

Salahudin, me again...

Well, well, well, we obviously have a lot of time on our hands, and I’m sure good old Salahudin really wants a reply. So, in the spirit of this dialogue, here goes…

You say: Can you enlighten us how 2% of muslims in the USA for example are taking advantage of your liberties to ''subvert'' your freedoms ?

I say: Sorry, killing people, if infidels, is not really bad. And you know the US has never let Imans visit and preach in the US, while Muslim countries are famous for opening their doors to Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and specially Jews.

You say: the west has done and continue to do horrible damage against muslims.

I say: You are right. Muslims are known for peace. After all Islam means peace, not submission. I am tired of those Buddhists always getting up and telling us that Buddha means peace. And there is the colonial – imperialism issue, after all England and France did control much of the middle east and many Muslim lands up to the 1960s. And we all know that Muslims never ever invaded or conquered non-muslims countries, and that the rumors about the Ottomans, Spain, India, etc… are just misunderstandings (Hey Salahudin, did you ever read Hindu sites about the 600 year occupation of India? Are they exaggerating?) And remember all those Muslims killed by the US in the Iran/Iraque war, and the thousands killed by the English in the current Algerian conflict, and lets not forget the evil blacks from Darfur killing all those sweet arab people in Sudan. In fact the West is so bad that they can’t get any Muslims to live in Europe or the US.

You say: The Jihad will continue until the western invaders are crushed ….by the 2 billion Muslims.

I say: Right on brother. Crush is a good word. Why have “dialoque” and live in peace when you can “crush” them. And because the Arabs invented our numbering system, you have the right to put any darn number you want for the Muslim population. Use 3 billion next time, it would be even more impressive.

You say: Muslims are well integrated in Europe, but we will not assimulate … bla bla bla neo nazi racists in Europe.

I say: You are right again: “Integrate” and “assimilate” may be related in the dictionary, but it is better not have any real meanings associated to words, so that we can say anything we want and not mean anything. Gives us more flexibility, right? I really like the idea. Also, you should have based your answer on hard facts about “Muslim assimilation – I mean integration” by recommending they do a Google search for words like “muslims, Europe, crime, assimilation” . That would prove your point!

You write: Pope condemns Western lifestyles

I write: Jerry Falwell condemns Western lifestyles. I guess you, john and Jerry are all on the same side. Scary!

You write: Muslims there are about 4 million while the hindus are merely 500,000, how can you compare the two?

I write: Its called math and statistics. It was invented by the Arabs with help (or not) from the Greeks. For example, if you have 4 million X people in Country A, and 500 thousand Y people, and there are 30 times more x people in jail than in A than Y people, or if 98% of people involved in certain violent activities are Xs, then these are known as “significant” facts, and they might be used to evidence of a trend of some sort, I can’t imagine what.

You write: Turkey is MUSLIM, LIBERAL AND DEMOCRATIC (about Islam and democracy).

I write: Gosh, you are right. How stupid of me. One out of 57 Muslim countries is actually becoming democratic. That really proves your point. (Actually I have a soft spot for the Turks. They are wild and kind of fun. I consider them the Brazilians of the Muslim world! Do you like Brazilians, Salahudin?

You write: Political correctness is 2 way road, dont you agree ???

I write: No, Multiculturalism is a one way street. PC is putting politeness ahead of honesty. It is a deadend. PC is ok if the issue is not important, but when life and liberty are involved, political correctness has no place. Tell it like it is. Use words that everybody understands! (words like “crush”!)

You say : But when Muslim speaks out about issues and problems with christianity, he/she is immediately labeled a TERRORIST, FANATIC or maybe BIN LADEN himself !

I say: People who speak out about issues with Christianity are called liberals and leftists here in the US. Muslims are called either “muslims” or “muslim-americans”, terrorists are called “terrorists” and as your buddy George Bush says “Islam is a religion of peace”. Do you think old George knows more about the Quran than old BinLaden?

I say: Islam will be the winner if banned.''
You say: I agree
I say: I agree (Hey, we are getting closer, Salahudin)

You say: Islam has the moral high ground … gay societies can even match the great pure humane ideology of Islam.

I say: you are right. In fact, according to Human Rights Watch, Amensty International and other Human Rights groups, Muslim countries are always rated at the top in freedom, morality and human rights. That is why no Muslim wants to live in the West.

You write: Do you want to live pure clean spiritual life ? JOIN ISLAM. Are you fed up from living in big western ZOO where humans become animals ? JOIN ISLAM. And so on… … bla bla … unshakable morality and formidable values.

I write: Yes, of course. We should do that. Maybe we could go out and behead some infidels together before prayers, or maybe burn some school girls. Sounds like great fun to me. And why rush into a hedonistic life here on earth when we can wait and enjoy one in paradise, with wine, women (69 virgins) and song, and even little boys. Wow!

You write: Islam does NOT hate the western society, we hate your hypocrisy and your animalistic hedonistic life style. Islam will liberate you from your animality and will set you FREE.

I write: Yes. Yes. Set us free. Please. Maybe we should all move to Islamic countries where there is REAL freedom. In fact millions of muslims in the US and Europe are moving back to Islamic countries so they can be pure and FREE.

You say: I challenge you to prove this (terrible treatment and inequalities of religious minorities, women, gays) and no thank you I dont accept islamophobic zionist christian evangelical hate sites.

I say: Gosh, you got me again. I was going to mention something about the UN 2003 Arab Human Development report, but as everybody knows, the UN is controlled by the Christan right and Israel. Anyway, here is the link: www.undp.org/rbas/ahdr/english2003.html

You write: The west has GROSS violation of human rights: … not to mention the gross violation of human rights in America itself ( shall I post some statistics or is it too embarrassing ? )

I write: Go for it, Salahudin. I can handle it. Maybe I wont have to wash dishes every night if I get some rights. After all, it is well known that Europe and America are the worst places on Earth. Nobody even wants to go there.

You write: You are the LIAR here, until you prove that 57 muslim countries ALL mistreat religious minorities, gays and women, you have nothing to say but ranting.

I write: You are very demanding. So if I only prove that ONLY 56 countries mistreat people I lose. And why do keep always use the word “rant” when the subject is human rights? Is there some kind of message there?

You write: the president of the largest muslim country in the world is muslim WOMAN, president Meqaqwati of Indonesia, I am wondering when, IF EVER, your ' free' civilized country will elect its first woman president ?

I write: Maybe Hillary, in 2008 or 2012. And Thacher, Golda, Indira were not really women, but cross-dressing transvestites.

You write: NOT A SINGLE BLACK AFRICAN AMERICAN IS IN YOUR SENATE and you have the gut to talk about how muslims treat minorities???? PATHETIC.

I write: Not since Moseley, and Brooke before her, but Obama will probably be elected in November. Hey, while we are on the subject I have 2 things to add. Last year there was an article in a Kenyan newspaper asking what happened to all the millions of blacks taken north by the arab slavers? What do you think, Salahudin? Where did they go? Good question, hun. Also I heard that Saudi Arabia only officially ended slavery in the 1950s? Tell me its not true, Please! By the way, my family is black and latino so be careful about what you say, I might get offended. I would not want to find that that you or anybody (PBUH) in Islam was involved in slavery, ever!

You write: LEBANON which has 70% majority muslim population has CHRISTIAN president by constitution, show me which western country did that to muslims?

I write: Yes, the Lebanese has a Christian president (figurehead), a Sunni prime minister (symbolic), and a Shia muslim as head of parliament (puppet). Of course 30,000 Syrian occupying troops have no influence on the country.

You write: I am sure the BLACK AFRICAN AMERICANS will love to listen to your nonesense.

I write: My wife (see above) says the same thing: shut up and finish washing the dishes. And Lincoln freed the slaves, all but one. Hey, speaking of Africans, the good people in Darfur say hello and want to remind you how much they like arab muslims.

You wrote: It is like saying most americans are drugs addicts and wife beaters !! make a lot of sense (talking about my statement that most Muslims are not peaceful, they are indifferent.'' GENERALIZATION IS THE TOOL OF THE FOOLS.

I write: Now, now, Salahudin, we all generalize. In fact, if you read what you wrote, you might have generalized when you say some unkind things about people of the West. Just maybe. Hey, that reminds me. Somebody told me that the Quran says that a man that beats his wife, any of them, for any reason, will burn in hell for more than 3 seconds! Is that true? How horrible! I will wash dishes and not say a word.

You write: Your ignorance is shining ! only 2 out of 57 muslim countries actually apply ISLAM in their daily affairs. get some education please.

I write: I guess all my 18 years of school didn’t help, nor living in several different countries, or speaking different languages, or the MA degree, or reading Said, Lewis, and Armstrong, or all the blogs, or even the Islamic websites. My favorite Muslim site is www.altmuslim.com. Seems to be a little more honest than most? What do you think, Salahudin? Hey, what 2 countries do apply Islam?

You say: To get away, they flee to the West. Witness the boat that sank off Australia 3 years ago, drownding 400 poor souls. Every Muslim nation on earth was present (about Muslims wanting to get away from Muslim countries…). Prove it ??????

I say: Darn it, Salahudin, you got me again. I bet no more than 50 nationalities of the 57 Muslim dominated countries were on board, and they didn’t really want to go to Australia to live, but for kangeroo safaris. Note: I don’t really want to use the lives of those poor souls who died in that tragic event in this debate, I am sorry I put it in the original post, and I want to make it clear that if people will take their families and put them in peril in that manner, knowing the dangers, then there is a real reason, and I believe it has everything to do with the situation and culture (including religion) of their native countries.

You say: Beside, can you tell us why hundreds of thousands of westerners choose to live and work in many parts of the muslim world such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE?

I say: yes, you are so right. Every week we read of boatloads of Italians heading for Lybia, and Greeks trying to get to Egypt. There is also a problem with the millions of illegal French living in Morrocos. The Algerian navy has patrols to keep Spanish refugees out. Its horrible. Actually you are right, the thousands of westerners in Arabia are not there for the money, but because of the liberties they enjoy there that they don’t have at home.

You wrote: Indeed, it is us muslims who will pay most of the Europeans pensions, it is our duty, we are loyal citizens and we dont dump our elderies like you guys do.

I write: My turn to ask for proof and statistics. Please give me the official government website (any Western country) that supports your statement. Thanks.

You write: I did not know you are so familiar with nazi 'stuff'? ( I said that to me a practicing Muslim might as well wear a swastica or white sheets, its pretty much the same)

I write: Salahudin, Its called “history”. There are also things called books, as well as other types of media. Also my Dad was in the US 8th Army airforce in North Africa, Italy and over Germany.

You wrote: I am sure you did not even read the Quran. Here is free online copy…

I write: Thanks, but been there and done that. Not impressed!

You write: Peace be with you.

I write: Salahudin, Peace be to you and your family, too

Well that’s it. This has taken too much time and I have a life and work and family. I will not be responding to any more posts here – it takes to much time. Also please excuse my poor attempts at humor, but the facts are pretty as stated in the post. These matters are important, but there are people here that are far more eloquent than I. I only fear that events in the coming months and years will make these issues more urgent and that possible reactions will cause great harm to many.

Nicely done, John Arthur.

I enjoyed your humor, your facts and your eloquence.

Nicely done, John Arthur.

I enjoyed your humor, your facts and your eloquence.

SALAHUDIN
You don't need to give me a week -there will be more verses coming but this will do for starters...

TABARI V11:7 "The Prophet married Aisha in Mecca three years before the Hijah, after the death of Khadija.At the time she was six."

ISHAQ :281 "When the Apostle came to Medina he was fifty three."

TABARI V11:6 "In May, 623 A.D./A.H., I, Allah's Messenger consummated his marriage to Aisha."

TABARI 1X : 128 "When the Prophet married Aisha she was very young and not yet ready for consummation."

TABARI 1X : 131 "My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse took over and wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was brought in while Muhammed was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. The other men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me when I was nine years old."

Re: James, PA.,USA

You wrote:

''But joking aside, the ZERO is a Hindu invention. Thank you, Hindus.''
================================

Nonesense, the zero concept was MUSLIM invention, check your facts right:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1123787,00.html

You wrote:

''Do you realize that Greece, that truly inconsiderable Western country, published more books last year than all Muslim countries worldwide?''
=============================

Proof ??????

Re: James, PA., USA

You wrote:

''It's my modus vivendi; tolerance is a Western trait''
=============================

Are you for real ? how can you talk about tolerance being western trait when just 50 years ago you were slaughtering and killing each others ? ( WW2 and WW1 ) and of course the ugly Holocaust !

How can you talk about tolerance being western trait when until this very day, you discriminate against AFRICAN AMERICANS, HISPANICS and WOMEN ?

Is it really western tolerance to kill thousands of innocent people in VIETNAM ?

Is it really western tolerance to use the nuclear bombs against innocent helpeless civilians in Japan ???

dont ever dare to talk about western tolerance, your records SUCK.

You wrote:

''...to a fault. But I am not so certain tolerance is what they teach in Cairo, or what they preach in Mecca. ''
=============================

First you have to be in Cairo or in the great holy city of Mecca to know what they preach there, listening to FOX BOOOOS will not give you any 'real' answer.

You wrote:

''It seems to me that Usama's action at WTC and the glee expressed in the worldwide umma indicate that, given the means, many Muslims would like to bomb the Great Satan into oblivion. ''
=============================

Shall I blame all the Americans for the killing of 30,000 innocent Iraqi Muslim so far ? if the answer is yes based on your 'moronic' generalization then we are still so far from achieving the target !! get real and dont be pathetic.

No MUSLIM with heart felt happy seeing people jumping from the burning WTC, no human will feel happy and satisfied seeing his fellow humans dying, let us remember 500 muslims died also in the WTC.

Moving to the AMERICAN BARBARIANS in MUSLIM Iraq, the picture becomes very different: IN THIS VIDEO WE SEE BUNCH OF AMERICAN BARBARIC TERRORIST SOLDIERS ''CHEERING'' AT THE EXCUTION OF UNARMED IRAQI MUSLIM CIVILIAN:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm

Seeing this, you should not be surprised if more and more Americans are ' beheaded' !!!

Morgane | 2004-08-20 06:56 |

You wrote:

''SALAHUDIN
You don't need to give me a week -there will be more verses coming but this will do for starters...''
=============================

It is very SAD to see that you are so ignorant of the BASICS of islam. These are NOT verses from the Quran, these are stories and Hadiths which has been collected some 300 years after the death of prophet muhammad (pbuh, many of which are false and fabcricated.

You see, you dont even know how quranic verses look like, here is free online copy of the English translation of the Noble Quran:

http://www.ummah.net/what-is-islam/quran/neindex.htm

and here is Quran database search engine:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchquran.html

The hate site where you got these 'stories' from is sadly fooling you.

I wish you can have the chance to really study more about islam from its sources and not from islamophobic anti muslim hate sites.

Peace be with you.

salahudin writes "I CHALLENGE YOU TO PROVE USING 'CREDIBLE' SOURCES SUCH AS AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL"

Funny that, Amnesty seems to be one of the pet hates of all right-wing gay-bashing mysoginist bigots of all religions and origins.

Remind me again of the difference between western and Muslim fundamentalists? the thinking sounds so very similar...

Re: John Arthur, sunny hot Arizona |

You wrote:

''Salahudin, me again...

Well, well, well, we obviously have a lot of time on our hands, and I’m sure good old Salahudin really wants a reply. So, in the spirit of this dialogue, here goes…''
==================================

Welcome back.

You wrote:

''You say: Can you enlighten us how 2% of muslims in the USA for example are taking advantage of your liberties to ''subvert'' your freedoms ?
I say: Sorry, killing people, if infidels, is not really bad. And you know the US has never let Imans visit and preach in the US, while Muslim countries are famous for opening their doors to Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and specially Jews.''
===================================

Only fools and retards think the so called muslim terrorists are killing westerners because they are infidels, can you tell us why bin laden and his thugs are not killing the CHINESE for example ? they are infidels, are they not ?

Can you tell us why Bin laden is not killing or targeting Switzerland for example ? they are infidels there, are they not ?

Can you tell us why bin laden is not killing or targeting latin Americans ? they are infidels there, are they not ?

WESTERNERS ARE KILLED BECAUSE MUSLIMS ARE KILLED BY WESTERNERS, once you grasp this fact, and onces you get the hell out of our land and leave us alone and stop supporting terrorism ( Israel ), then and only then you can beg to live in peace, not before.

You wrote:

''You say: the west has done and continue to do horrible damage against muslims.
I say: You are right. Muslims are known for peace. After all Islam means peace, not submission.''
===========================

You got that right, in Arabic the word SALAM mean Peace, compare SALAM with ISLAM and you will see how they have the same roots :)

You wrote:
'' I am tired of those Buddhists always getting up and telling us that Buddha means peace. And there is the colonial – imperialism issue, after all England and France did control much of the middle east and many Muslim lands up to the 1960s. And we all know that Muslims never ever invaded or conquered non-muslims countries, and that the rumors about the Ottomans, Spain, India, etc… are just misunderstandings (Hey Salahudin, did you ever read Hindu sites about the 600 year occupation of India? Are they exaggerating?) ''
=============================

Let us remember who divided the muslim ummah in the beginning of the 20th century ? it was the west.

Let us remember who DUMPED the jews of Europe in our land to get rid of them by establishing a nazi terrorist state for them ? it was the west.

As to the hindu lies, I CHALLENGE YOU TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION:

-IF MUSLIMS REALLY OPPRESSED THE HINDUS IN INDIA FOR 600 YEARS, HOW COME 70% OF THE INDIANS ARE NOW HINDUS ? HOW COME THOUSANDS OF ANCIENT HINDU TEMPLES ARE STILL STANDING TO THIS VER DAY ( including the holiests of these temples ) ???

I dare you to answer the above question !!!

You wrote:
''And remember all those Muslims killed by the US in the Iran/Iraque war, and the thousands killed by the English in the current Algerian conflict, and lets not forget the evil blacks from Darfur killing all those sweet arab people in Sudan.''
=================================

It seem FOX BOOOOS is doing great job brain washing your brains:

The Iraq-Iran war was initiated and supported by the 'Great Satan', in fact, here is a VIDEO SHOWING the war criminal Donland Rumsfield shaking hands with Saddam hussien in 1983 offering him MORE MILITARY AID AND MORE INTELLIGENCE INFO about the Iranian army:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2038.htm

I dare you to refute the above tape !!

As to the civil war in Algeria, we all know that it was the ISLAMISTS who won the democratic elections in 1991 after which the western-backed army generals CANCELLED the elections after taken the orders to do so from the ' great satan' and other European states ( so much for your democrasy and YES HYPOCRISY ).

As to the crisis in Sudan, it is amazing how some morons in America put the conflict in racist tones, ALL SUDAN IS INHABITED BY BLACK ARABS AND AFRICANS, in fact, the very arabic word SUDAN means BLACK.

what is happening there in Darfour is fighting between normads and urban villagers for land and resources, but of course the anti muslim liars in FOX BOOOOS and other lying American media outlets like the CRAP NEWS NETWORK want the conflict to be racist ( arabs against black ) not knowing that ALL arabs in Sudan are BLACK themselves !! PATHETIC REALLY.

You wrote:
''In fact the West is so bad that they can’t get any Muslims to live in Europe or the US.''
==============================

Indeed, that is why hundreds of thousands of Americans and westerners are living and working in many parts of the muslim world.

You wrote:

''You say: The Jihad will continue until the western invaders are crushed ….by the 2 billion Muslims.
I say: Right on brother. Crush is a good word. Why have “dialoque” and live in peace when you can “crush” them.''
==============================

You used the wrong word, I did not use crush ' them ' I said crush the 'INVADERS ', dont mislead the readers here.

You wrote:

'' And because the Arabs invented our numbering system, you have the right to put any darn number you want for the Muslim population. Use 3 billion next time, it would be even more impressive. ''
=============================

Here it is in your face:

The number of the total population has been taken from The CIA World's Facts Book:

Islam is the fastest growing religion and
the second largest religion in the world:

Muslims in Asia (1996) 1,022,692,000 (30%)
Muslims in Africa (1996) 426,282,000 (59%)
Total Number of Muslims on the Earth (1996) 1,482,596,925
Total Number of People on the Earth (1996) 5,771,939,007
Percentage of Muslims (1996) 26%
Islam annual growth rate (1994-1995) from U.N. 6.40%
Christianity growth rate (1994-1995) from U.N. 1.46%
Total Number of Muslims on the Earth (1998) 1,678,442,000
Expected Number of Muslims on the Earth (2000) 1,902,095,000

This table below shows the growth of Islam:

North America (1989-1998 )-
25% Africa 2.15%
Asia 12.57%
Europe 142.35%
Latin America -4.73%
Australia 257.01%

Among every four humans in the world, one of them is Muslim. Muslims have increased by over 235 percent in the last fifty years up to nearly 1.6 billion. By comparison, Christians have increased by only 47 percent, Hinduism, 117 percent, and Buddhism by 63 percent. Islam is the second largest religious group in France, Great Britain and USA (Muslims in USA are 10 millions and Jews are 6 millions).

Source: http://islamicweb.com/begin/results.htm

You wrote:

''Also, you should have based your answer on hard facts about “Muslim assimilation – I mean integration” by recommending they do a Google search for words like “muslims, Europe, crime, assimilation” . That would prove your point!''
=================================

Why not type, Muslims, Europe, anti immigrant neo nazis, islamophobia and attacks against muslims ' !!

Or how about this OFFICAL FRENCH STUDY about ''France fails immigrants''

http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,11882,1132011,00.html

ENJOY :)

You wrote:

''You write: Pope condemns Western lifestyles
I write: Jerry Falwell condemns Western lifestyles. I guess you, john and Jerry are all on the same side. Scary!''
==================================

So you chose to divert the attention from the main issue which was your western lifestyle sucks! do you have any comment on that ?

you wrote:

''You write: Muslims there are about 4 million while the hindus are merely 500,000, how can you compare the two?
I write: Its called math and statistics. It was invented by the Arabs with help (or not) from the Greeks. For example, if you have 4 million X people in Country A, and 500 thousand Y people, and there are 30 times more x people in jail than in A than Y people, or if 98% of people involved in certain violent activities are Xs, then these are known as “significant” facts, and they might be used to evidence of a trend of some sort, I can’t imagine what. ''
====================================

Ok, so where is your statistics about muslims compared with hindus in the UK ????

You wrote:

''You write: Turkey is MUSLIM, LIBERAL AND DEMOCRATIC (about Islam and democracy).
I write: Gosh, you are right. How stupid of me. One out of 57 Muslim countries is actually becoming democratic.''
==============================

How about Malaysia ? Indonesia ? Pakistan ? Bangladesh ? UAE ? Jordan ? Morocco ?

You wrote:

''You write: Political correctness is 2 way road, dont you agree ???
I write: No, Multiculturalism is a one way street.''
============================

We disagree here.

You wrote:

'' PC is putting politeness ahead of honesty.''
=============================

But who determine what is HONESTY ? you might lie and fabricate LIES against Islam and yet called HONEST by the likes of FOX BOOOS ! dont you agree ????

You wrote:

''PC is ok if the issue is not important, but when life and liberty are involved, political correctness has no place. Tell it like it is. Use words that everybody understands! (words like “crush”!) ''
=================================

Words like crush the 'INVADERS ' get that right.

You wrote:

''You say : But when Muslim speaks out about issues and problems with christianity, he/she is immediately labeled a TERRORIST, FANATIC or maybe BIN LADEN himself !
I say: People who speak out about issues with Christianity are called liberals and leftists here in the US. Muslims are called either “muslims” or “muslim-americans”, ''
==================================

Really ??? so only liberals and leftists speak out against the 'man worshiping' christian cult ? right ?

You need to visit my own forum to see how we 'speak out' against the evil evangelical christians: http://forum.jamaat.net

I hope you will have good time there :)))

You wrote:

''terrorists are called “terrorists” and as your buddy George Bush says “Islam is a religion of peace”. Do you think old George knows more about the Quran than old BinLaden?''
===================================

Using your logic just few lines back, let me say:

It is scary to put bin laden and Bush in the same category ! :))))))))))

You wrote:

''I say: Islam will be the winner if banned.''
You say: I agree
I say: I agree (Hey, we are getting closer, Salahudin)''
==============================

Great, and even becoming winners this should not worry you , we will not force your woman to wear headscarf and we wont ban you from drinking this alcohol poison you guys drink every day,we will not force you to change your belief or you disbelief, we will let you live as you want as long as we live as we want.

You see, ISLAM taught us great deal of tolerance, we are tolerant because we are muslims.

Allah Almighty said in the Noble Quran:

''There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clearly from the wrong way. Whoever therefore rejects the forces of evil and believes in God, he has taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way, for God is All Hearing and Knowing. '' The Noble Quran 2: 256

And prophet Muhammad(pbuh) was speaking with the infidels in the Noble quran taking orders from Allah almighty to say to them:

Chapter 109. Al-Kâfirûn ( The Infidels )

1. Say (O Muhammad (Peace be upon him)to these Mushrikûn and Kâfirûn): "O Al-Kâfirûn (disbelievers in Allâh, in His Oneness, in His Angels, in His Books, in His Messengers, in the Day of Resurrection, and in Al-Qadar, etc.)!

2. "I worship not that which you worship,

3. "Nor will you worship that which I worship.

4. "And I shall not worship that which you are worshipping.

5. "Nor will you worship that which I worship.

6. "To you be your religion, and to me my religion (Islâmic Monotheism)."

http://www.ummah.net/what-is-islam/quran/noble/nobe109.htm

You wrote:

''You say: Islam has the moral high ground … gay societies can even match the great pure humane ideology of Islam.
I say: you are right. In fact, according to Human Rights Watch, Amensty International and other Human Rights groups, Muslim countries are always rated at the top in freedom, morality and human rights. That is why no Muslim wants to live in the West. ''
==================================

Well, let us see about your ' free civilized' country:

07/26/04 "New York Times" -- The number of Americans under the control of the criminal justice system grew by 130,700 last year to reach a new high of nearly 6.9 million, according to a Justice Department report released today.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6553.htm

America has the HIGHEST RATE OF PRISONERS ON EARTH, and yet some Americans love to claim there are FREE ! PATHETIC REALLY :)))

In any one year in the USA:

27,000 Americans commit suicide.
5,000 attempt suicide; some estimates are higher.
26,000 die from fatal accidents in the home.
23,000 are murdered.
85,000 are wounded by firearms.
38,000 of these die, including 2,600 children.
13,000,000 are victims of crimes including assault, rape, armed robbery, burglary, larceny, and arson.
135,000 children take guns to school.
5,500,000 people are arrested for all offenses (not including traffic violations).
125,000 die prematurely of alcohol abuse.
473,000 die prematurely from tobacco-related illnesses; 53,000 of these are nonsmokers.
6,500,000 use heroin, crack, speed, PCP, cocaine or some other hard drug on a regular basis.
5,000+ die from illicit drug use. Thousands suffer serious debilitations.
1,000+ die from sniffing household substances found under the kitchen sink. About 20 percent of all eighth-graders have "huffed" toxic substances. Thousands suffer permanent neurological damage.
31,450,000 use marijuana; 3,000,000 of whom are heavy usuers.
37,000,000, or one out of every six Americans, regularly use emotion controlling medical drugs. The users are mostly women. The pushers are doctors; the suppliers are pharmaceutical companies; the profits are stupendous.
2,000,000 nonhospitalized persons are given powerful mind-control drugs, sometimes described as "chemical straitjackets."
5,000 die from psychoactive drug treatments.
200,000 are subjected to electric shock treatments that are injurious to the brain and nervous system.
600 to 1,000 are lobotomized, mostly women.
25,000,000, or one out of every 10 Americans, seek help from psychiatric, psychotherapeutic, or medical sources for mental and emotional problems, at a cost of over $4 billion annually.
6,800,000 turn to nonmedical services, such as ministers, welfare agencies, and social counselors for help with emotional troubles. In all, some 80,000,000 have sought some kind of psychological counseling in their lifetimes.
1,300,000 suffer some kind of injury related to treatment at hospitals.
2,000,000 undergo unnecessary surgical operations; 10,000 of whom die from the surgery.
180,000 die from adverse reactions to all medical treatments, more than are killed by airline and automobile accidents combined.
14,000+ die from overdoses of legal prescription drugs.
45,000 are killed in auto accidents. Yet more cars and highways are being built while funding for safer forms of mass transportation is reduced.
1,800,000 sustain nonfatal injuries from auto accidents; but 150,000 of these auto injury victims suffer permanent impairments.
126,000 children are born with a major birth defect, mostly due to insufficient prenatal care, nutritional deficiency, environmental toxicity, or maternal drug addiction.
2,900,000 children are reportedly subjected to serious neglect or abuse, including physical torture and deliberate starvation.
5,000 children are killed by parents or grandparents.
30,000 or more children are left permanently physically disabled from abuse and neglect. Child abuse in the United States afflicts more children each year than leukemia, automobile accidents, and infectious diseases combined. With growing unemployment, incidents of abuse by jobless parents is increasing dramatically.
1,000,000 children run away from home, mostly because of abusive treatment, including sexual abuse, from parents and other adults. Of the many sexually abused children among runaways, 83 percent come from white families.
150,000 children are reported missing.
50,000 of these simply vanish. Their ages range from one year to mid-teens. According to the New York Times, "Some of these are dead, perhaps half of the John and Jane Does annually buried in this country are unidentified kids."
900,000 children, some as young as seven years old, are engaged in child labor in the United States, serving as underpaid farm hands, dishwashers, laundry workers, and domestics for as long as ten hours a day in violation of child labor laws.
2,000,000 to 4,000,00 women are battered. Domestic violence is the single largest cause of injury and second largest cause of death to U.S. women.
700,000 women are raped, one every 45 seconds.
5,000,000 workers are injured on the job; 150,000 of whom suffer permanent work-related disabilities, including maiming, paralysis, impaired vision, damaged hearing, and sterility.
100,000 become seriously ill from work-related diseases, including black lung, brown lung, cancer, and tuberculosis.
14,000 are killed on the job; about 90 percent are men.
100,000 die prematurely from work-related diseases.
60,000 are killed by toxic environmental pollutants or contaminants in food, water, or air.
4,000 die from eating contaminated meat.
20,000 others suffer from poisoning by E.coli 0157-H7, the mutant bacteria found in contaminated meat that generally leads to lifelong physical and mental health problems. A more thorough meat inspection with new technologies could eliminate most instances of contamination--so would vegetarianism

More on the land of the 'slaves ':

http://www.michaelparenti.org/HiddenHolocaust.html

Go fix your own mess first before you come here telling muslims how they should live.

You wrote:

''You write: Do you want to live pure clean spiritual life ? JOIN ISLAM. Are you fed up from living in big western ZOO where humans become animals ? JOIN ISLAM. And so on… … bla bla … unshakable morality and formidable values.
I write: Yes, of course. We should do that. Maybe we could go out and behead some infidels together before prayers, or maybe burn some school girls. Sounds like great fun to me.''
===========================

Or why not become typical American COWARD by wrapping yourself with F16 and BOMB AND MUTILATE MUSLIMS from the safety of the sky ?

Or why not become TYPICAL AMERICAN BARBARIAN by wrapping yourself with ABARAM tank and TEAR TO PEICES some innocent Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan and indirectly in PALESTINE as these pictures show:

IN PICTURES: The War against Islam (1)

http://www.jamaat.net/jforum/viewtopic.php?t=83

IN PICTURES: The War against Islam (2)

http://www.jamaat.net/jforum/viewtopic.php?t=84

You wrote:

'' And why rush into a hedonistic life here on earth when we can wait and enjoy one in paradise, with wine, women (69 virgins) and song, and even little boys. Wow!''
==================================

Only retards ,perverts and islamophobes like to listen to these fantasies, are you one of them ??? :)))

You wrote:

''You write: Islam does NOT hate the western society, we hate your hypocrisy and your animalistic hedonistic life style. Islam will liberate you from your animality and will set you FREE.
I write: Yes. Yes. Set us free. Please. Maybe we should all move to Islamic countries where there is REAL freedom.''
===========================

It is already happening, hundreds of thousands of westerners live and work in the muslim world.

You wrote:

'' In fact millions of muslims in the US and Europe are moving back to Islamic countries so they can be pure and FREE.''
==============================

Indeed:

In the land of the free: U.S.Muslims fear for their families :

http://www.jamaat.net/jforum/viewtopic.php?t=198

You wrote:

''You say: I challenge you to prove this (terrible treatment and inequalities of religious minorities, women, gays) and no thank you I dont accept islamophobic zionist christian evangelical hate sites.
I say: Gosh, you got me again. I was going to mention something about the UN 2003 Arab Human Development report, but as everybody knows, the UN is controlled by the Christan right and Israel. Anyway, here is the link: www.undp.org/rbas/ahdr/english2003.html''
==================================

Who are you fooling ? first you talked about ALL muslim countries abuse their minorities, gays and women, then when CORNERED you went to the ARAB WORLD and now I am going to CORNER you more and ask you to show me where in this report it says MUSLIMS or ALL muslim states ( as you put it ) abuse and mistreat their minorities ?

I CHALLENGE YOU TO PROVE THAT ???

You wrote:
'' You write: The west has GROSS violation of human rights: … not to mention the gross violation of human rights in America itself ( shall I post some statistics or is it too embarrassing ? )
I write: Go for it, Salahudin. I can handle it. Maybe I wont have to wash dishes every night if I get some rights. After all, it is well known that Europe and America are the worst places on Earth. Nobody even wants to go there.''
================================

You asked for it, here it is in your face:

EUROPE:

Amnesty finds only two EU states uphold human rights :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,7369,1121918,00.html

The land of the 'slaves', USA:

From Human Rights Watch:

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=usa

-Male rape in US prisons:

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/prison/index.htm

United States: Mentally Ill Mistreated in Prison
More Mentally Ill in Prison Than in Hospitals :

http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/10/us102203.htm

Incarcerated America: According to the latest statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice, more than two million men and women are now behind bars in the United States.1 The country that holds itself out as the "land of freedom" incarcerates a higher percentage of its people than any other country ON EARTH:

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/incarceration/

Incarceration of Blacks in the land of the 'slaves':

· In twelve states, between 10 and 15 percent of adult black men are incarcerated.

· In ten states, between 5 and 10 percent of black adults are incarcerated.

· In twelve states, black men are incarcerated at rates between twelve and sixteen times greater than those of white men.

· In fifteen states, black women are incarcerated at rates between ten and thirty-five times greater than those of white women.

· In six states, black youth under age eighteen are incarcerated in adult facilities at rates between twelve and twenty-five times greater than those of white youth.

Incarceration of Hispanics in the land of the 'slaves':

· In nine states, between 4 and nearly 8 percent of adult Latino men are incarcerated.

· In twelve states, between 2 and 4 percent of Hispanic adults (men and women) are incarcerated.

· In ten states, Latino men are incarcerated at rates between five and nine times greater than those of white men.

· In eight states, Latina women are incarcerated rates that are between four and seven times greater than those of white women.

· In four states, Hispanic youth under age eighteen are incarcerated in adult facilities at rates between seven and seventeen times greater than those of white youth.

Source: http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/race/

And many more, I DARE YOU TO REFUTE THE ABOVE SHAMEFUL DISGUSTING STATISTICS !!!

You wrote:

''You write: You are the LIAR here, until you prove that 57 muslim countries ALL mistreat religious minorities, gays and women, you have nothing to say but ranting.
I write: You are very demanding. So if I only prove that ONLY 56 countries mistreat people I lose. And why do keep always use the word “rant” when the subject is human rights? Is there some kind of message there? ''
================================

You said ALL muslim states mistreat their minorities, I said PROVE IT, now are you going to stick to your word or are you going to eat humble apple pie ???

You wrote:

''You write: the president of the largest muslim country in the world is muslim WOMAN, president Meqaqwati of Indonesia, I am wondering when, IF EVER, your ' free' civilized country will elect its first woman president ?
I write: Maybe Hillary, in 2008 or 2012. ''
================================

I like this 'MAYBE' :)

You see, we muslims elected WOMEN presidents and Prime ministers some 20-30 years ago, so we are FAR AHEAD of you when it comes to women rights, ONLY and until you elect your first WOMAN PRESIDENT you can come and beg us ( muslims ) to sit to talk about women rights, not before.

You wrote:

''You write: NOT A SINGLE BLACK AFRICAN AMERICAN IS IN YOUR SENATE and you have the gut to talk about how muslims treat minorities???? PATHETIC.
I write: Not since Moseley, and Brooke before her, but Obama will probably be elected in November. ''
===========================

Probably !! It seems you like to use the words MAYBE and PROBABLY ! :)))

You wrote:

''Hey, while we are on the subject I have 2 things to add. Last year there was an article in a Kenyan newspaper asking what happened to all the millions of blacks taken north by the arab slavers? What do you think, Salahudin?''
==============================

I dont accept HERESAY, do you have SOLID facts ?

You wrote:
''Also I heard that Saudi Arabia only officially ended slavery in the 1950s? Tell me its not true, Please! ''
=============================

You heard !!! hmmmm are we gossiping here or are we having real debate ? you see, I dont write I 'HEAR', I write FACTS supported with proof and evidence.

will you stop listening to FOX BOOOOOS please ?

You wrote:

''By the way, my family is black and latino so be careful about what you say, I might get offended. I would not want to find that that you or anybody (PBUH) in Islam was involved in slavery, ever! ''
=============================

It is astonishing knowing you have a black family and want people not to offend you but yet you go on and offend Muslims !!!! do you know what I call that ? Hypocrisy.

As to your nonesense regarding the greatest man on earth, prophet Muhammad(pbuh) having slaves, I challenge you to prove that from the Quran ?

Go ahead, let us see how far you will get with this ''lie''.

in fact, prophet Muhammad (pbuh )encouraged people to free slaves:

http://www.islamic-paths.org/Home/English/Muhammad/Book/Biography/Chapter_23.htm

You wrote:

''You write: LEBANON which has 70% majority muslim population has CHRISTIAN president by constitution, show me which western country did that to muslims?
I write: Yes, the Lebanese has a Christian president (figurehead), a Sunni prime minister (symbolic), and a Shia muslim as head of parliament (puppet). Of course 30,000 Syrian occupying troops have no influence on the country. ''
===========================

What has the 30,000 Syrians to do with LEBANON'S constitution which was written in the 1940s ?

Can you tell me about the 60,000 American soldeirs stationed in Japan, do they run the country there ????? or is it ok for the ' great satan' to station troops in many countries but not ok for other countries to do the same ???

You wrote:

''You write: I am sure the BLACK AFRICAN AMERICANS will love to listen to your nonesense.
I write: My wife (see above) says the same thing: shut up and finish washing the dishes. And Lincoln freed the slaves, all but one.''
===========================

Jefferson, one of the founding fathers of your ''free civilized'' country had 700 slaves !!! very impressive :)

You wrote:
'' Hey, speaking of Africans, the good people in Darfur say hello and want to remind you how much they like arab muslims.''
==================================

Hey you ignorant, the people in darfour are MUSLIMS too. get out from your hole and use the interent for alternative news instead of FOX BOOOOOS.

You wrote:
''You wrote: It is like saying most americans are drugs addicts and wife beaters !! make a lot of sense (talking about my statement that most Muslims are not peaceful, they are indifferent.'' GENERALIZATION IS THE TOOL OF THE FOOLS.
I write: Now, now, Salahudin, we all generalize. In fact, if you read what you wrote, you might have generalized when you say some unkind things about people of the West. Just maybe.''
============================

I like it when you always use terms such as MAYBE and PROBABLY..ETC

You wrote:

'' Hey, that reminds me. Somebody told me that the Quran says that a man that beats his wife, any of them, for any reason, will burn in hell for more than 3 seconds! Is that true?''
=================================

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL, MAN . haters and Islamophobes are so rich in their imagination that they sometimes made up laughable funny stuff about the Quran and Islam.

Why you dont read the Quran by yourself to find out if this is really true or not:

Here is free online translation of the noble quran:

http://www.ummah.net/what-is-islam/quran/neindex.htm

and if you are very lazy to read, here is FREE ARABIC-ENGLISH audio of the noble quran from Texas:

http://www.iec-houston.org/QuranAudio.shtml

You wrote:
''You write: Your ignorance is shining ! only 2 out of 57 muslim countries actually apply ISLAM in their daily affairs. get some education please.
I write: I guess all my 18 years of school didn’t help, nor living in several different countries, or speaking different languages, or the MA degree, or reading Said, Lewis, and Armstrong, or all the blogs, or even the Islamic websites. My favorite Muslim site is www.altmuslim.com. Seems to be a little more honest than most? What do you think, Salahudin? Hey, what 2 countries do apply Islam? ''
===================================

Judging from what you wrote, it seems you dont even have the ABC about Islam.

As to the 2 countries that apply sharia law mixed with cultural practices, they are Saudi Arabia and Iran.

You wrote:

''Witness the boat that sank off Australia 3 years ago, drownding 400 poor souls. Every Muslim nation on earth was present (about Muslims wanting to get away from Muslim countries…). Prove it ??????
I say: Darn it, Salahudin, you got me again. I bet no more than 50 nationalities of the 57 Muslim dominated countries were on board, and they didn’t really want to go to Australia to live, but for kangeroo safaris. ''
=================================

I am still waiting for the PROOF ???????

You wrote:

''Note: I don’t really want to use the lives of those poor souls who died in that tragic event in this debate, I am sorry I put it in the original post, and I want to make it clear that if people will take their families and put them in peril in that manner, knowing the dangers, then there is a real reason, and I believe it has everything to do with the situation and culture (including religion) of their native countries. ''
================================

So you admit you have no proof ??? hmmmmmmmm

You wrote:
''You say: Beside, can you tell us why hundreds of thousands of westerners choose to live and work in many parts of the muslim world such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE?
Actually you are right, the thousands of westerners in Arabia are not there for the money, but because of the liberties they enjoy there that they don’t have at home.''
==============================

So when westerners go to muslim land, it must be for MONEY but when Muslims go to the west it must be for your FREEDOM !! get me a BREAK.

You wrote:

''You wrote: Indeed, it is us muslims who will pay most of the Europeans pensions, it is our duty, we are loyal citizens and we dont dump our elderies like you guys do.
I write: My turn to ask for proof and statistics. Please give me the official government website (any Western country) that supports your statement. Thanks.''
=================================

Since you stated that Muslims in 20 years from now will not pay the pensions of the Europeans, you have to wait for 20 years to prove you wrong.

You wrote:

''You write: I did not know you are so familiar with nazi 'stuff'? ( I said that to me a practicing Muslim might as well wear a swastica or white sheets, its pretty much the same)
I write: Salahudin, Its called “history”. There are also things called books, as well as other types of media. Also my Dad was in the US 8th Army airforce in North Africa, Italy and over Germany. ''
=================================

Oh I see, your dad could also have been holocaust survivor as well, Am I right ?

You wrote:

''You wrote: I am sure you did not even read the Quran. Here is free online copy…
I write: Thanks, but been there and done that. Not impressed! ''
================================

Are you sure ?????

You wrote:

''You write: Peace be with you.

I write: Salahudin, Peace be to you and your family, too''
============================

Peace be always with you.

You wrote:

''Well that’s it. This has taken too much time and I have a life and work and family. I will not be responding to any more posts here – it takes to much time. Also please excuse my poor attempts at humor, but the facts are pretty as stated in the post. These matters are important, but there are people here that are far more eloquent than I. I only fear that events in the coming months and years will make these issues more urgent and that possible reactions will cause great harm to many. ''
====================================

I enjoyed talking with you, good luck in your life and in your work, one final request, please dont generalize and try to check the facts first before you take them as face values.

Salam ( Peace ).

John, Sarasota | 2004-08-17 23:11 | Link = DHIMMI

Salahudin | 2004-08-20 11:10 | Link = TERRORIST

Every single Muslim alive, is a potential terrorist...The exceptions are the Muslims that are already terrorists or dead...

Mohammad was unable to tell the difference between an Angel & Satan...
Mohammad was a pedophile...
Mohammad was a rapist...
Mohammad was a murderer...
Mohammad was a thief...
Mohammad was a Satanist...
Mohammad was a liar...
Mohammad was an adulterer...
Mohammad was a slave trader...amongst other things...

Now all of you Muslims on this board, and Muslim apologists you may attack me by calling me a bigot a racist or whatever else you want...

That will not change the above stated facts, of course all of you can try to rewrite the Qur'an, what the hell, why don't you it will help us in having you die since your Good Muslim Brethern (current terrorists) would not like that too much and would take care of you for us...

We of course will have to use NUCULAR BOMBS to bomb the crap out of Muslim nations...The time has not yet come, much of the west is still in a deep haze...

Can anyone tell me, will all of that middle eastern sand turn to glass when the bombs go off or will it just pulverize it???

I warn all Muslims, beware of what you do the west has perfected the art of killing...Hundreds of millions of you will die...Mohammad said that only 80,000 or so Muslims will enter the Garden of Bliss/Paradise...I am sure he will run out of those virgin raisins...

Gawd, what a bunch of turban wrapped turds...

Bjorn.....what everyone should understabd about Islam......THIS is Islam

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14744

"
All thoughts of pacifying Islam by assimilating it into the global democratic system must fall down before a simple, terrible fact: Jihad—holy war against all non-Muslims—does not represent a mere excess or defect of Islam, but its timeless core. According to Muslim scholar Bassam Tibi (quoted recently at FrontPage Magazine), "Muslims are religiously obliged to disseminate the Islamic faith throughout the world.... If non-Muslims submit to conversion or subjugation, this call can be pursued peacefully. If they do not, Muslims are obliged to wage war against them." World peace, according to Islamic teaching, "is reached only with the conversion or submission of all mankind to Islam."

Moreover, continues Tibi, when Muslims disseminate Islam through violent means, that is not war (harb), as that word only describes the use of force by non-Muslims. Islamic wars are acts of "opening" the world to Islam. "[T]hose who resist Islam cause wars and are responsible for them."

In other words, simply by the act of existing, the entire non-Islamic world is equated with war. That is why Muslims call it the Dar al-Harb, the Realm of War. Yet when Muslims wage jihad, they are doing it to bring about the peace of universal Islam. So whatever Muslims do, is by definition peace, and whatever infidels do, is by definition war."

Salahudin says:

"No MUSLIM with heart felt happy seeing people jumping from the burning WTC, no human will feel happy and satisfied seeing his fellow humans dying, let us remember 500 muslims died also in the WTC."

...and as they chant as they watch those people jump to their deaths:

"Ulululululululululululululu..."

Re: Cindy, USA

You wrote:

''Bjorn.....what everyone should understabd about Islam......THIS is Islam

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14744''
============================

frontpagemag is well known islamophobic hate christian website, how can you describe the fastest growing religion on earth and one of its greatest religion in one article written by well know hateful racist bigot ?????

why not reading the Quran yourself to find out what ISLAM is reall about ????

Salahudin, I can tell there is one Western idea you've picked up: When you can't win with facts, dazzle 'em with bullshit. Because that is exactly what your pseudo-religion, and the diarrheal mouthings of your pedophile prophet (peas be upon him), are.

Islam has had, what, 1400 years to advance? Yet, Islamic countries can't produce anything; hell, even their oil is from the Age of the Dinosaurs! The Internet, which you seem to be able to use, is a kaffir invention. Please, do try to get beyond the zero thingy, though; that was a looooong time ago. We're talking about the here and now, not the hereafter with your 72 raisins, after you kill some Infidel.

Let me be very blunt: Islam cannot change (apostasy), yet to survive it must. You've got a real problem there, misogyny boy. Because, when it comes to Islam, the US is not Europe; we will not sell our souls on the cheap. The bloody CURRENT history of Islam leaves me in no doubt as to the War Against Islamic Ideology that is occurring right now, somewhere, around the world, as I type. But you will know when America wakes up and takes your Islamic threat as a stark reality, not some theoretical, existential argument. When that day comes, we're gonna play Cowboys and Muslims. And we like cowboys.

Finally, don't call me racist; Islam is not a race. Call me a bigot, because I truly hate the bassackward non-philosophy of life that you call a 'religion'. But, hey, it looks like it's time to grab another one of those grand Western creations, a beer. Cheers!

Islam: Just Say No!

Muslim invaders destroyed atleast 30,000 temples in India.

Most Muslims in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, are descendents of Hindus forcibly converted to Islam at the point of a sword.

Afghanistan was full of Buddhist stupas, as it was originally a Buddhist/Hindu country. The last remaining sign of Buddhist presence in that benighted country has now been razed by the Taliban.

Then there is Mohammed. Now it is not generally thought necessary to provide character references for people who are considered to be prophets. But in the case of Muhammed it is certainly necessary. The referee that did step up to the plate was G.B.Shaw. And Shaw indeed provides a glowing reference for Mohammed. This reference is much quoted by Islam's apologists. However, it should be noted that G.B.Shaw also provided glowing references for both Hitler and Stalin.

How Shaw defended Stalin's mass killings
By Will Bennett, Art Sales Correspondent

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/06/18/nshaw18.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/06/18/ixhome.html

Shaw also argued that deaths in Auschwitz were caused by overcrowding.

But it is not references that define Mohammed but his actions. As for Mohamed and his life, how he practised hudna, slaughtered the Jews of mecca and arabia, and made a gift of Jewish women to his followers, is all a matter of islamic historical record. He was a thief, a mass murderer and a slaver, and in a nutshell, a sociopath. Taqqiya wont work anymore.

Any thinking Muslim should be ashamed of themselves to regard Mohammed as anything else but evil. Yes people do idolise Hitler, Stalin or Alexander as military geniuses. But no one in his right mind would hold them up as saints, prophets or Holy men. If Mohammed was idolised as a military or political genius, I would have no qualms. But as a holy prophet? You must be joking.

The fact that Muslims idolise a person of such low character as Mohammed, who lied, cheated, reneged on solemn treaties and murdered his critics in the dead of night by employing assassins, speaks volumes of the complete moral reversal of the followers of Islam. It is the looking glass world that Islam inhabits, where evil is good, right is wrong etc. It is no wonder that nothing of any worth has come from the Islamic world, and they are left with no recourse but to claim the genius of other cultures as their own (Invention of zero as an example).

God preserve us if we grant this evil ideology the sanctum of what we consider to be a religion.

The post that starts with

"Muslim invaders destroyed atleast 30,000 temples in India." was posted by DP111.

Srory about that.

Just in passing, a few links to the immense slaughter that Islamic invaders perpetrated on an advanced but peaceful civilisation of India. This is a holocaust greater then that perpetrated by the Nazis on the Jews but has been kept silent for political puposes.

http://www.mantra.com/holocaust/

The genocide beyond the Hindu Kush

http://inhome.rediff.com/news/2001/apr/30franc.htm

http://www.swordoftruth.com/swordoftruth/archives/byauthor/francoisgautier/natmcp1.html

http://www.masada2000.org/islam.html

and a more recent one in East Pakistan

http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/hindu_bangla.html

Just in passing, some links to the hiuge slaughter that Islamic invaders perpetrated on an advanced but peaceful civilisation of India.

http://inhome.rediff.com/news/2001/apr/30franc.htm

http://www.masada2000.org/islam.html

http://www.swordoftruth.com/swordoftruth/archives/byauthor/francoisgautier/natmcp1.html

http://www.mantra.com/holocaust/

http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/hindu_bangla.html

This slaughter is greater then that perpetrated by the Nazis on Jews but has effectively been hidden for political purposes by successive governments of India.

Islam is not like any other ideology and even Muslims will agree with this. On this basis alone, one could argue that exceptions and allowances that can be made for other religious practices, should not be made for Islam. It is a thought that must be borne in mind. At the least one should atleast consider that freedom and tolerance should NOT extend to those who would destroy freedom and tolerance.

EXAMPLES OF MUSLIM TOLERANCE :

When the great leader and second Caliph after the prophet death, Omar, entered Jerusalem in the year 634, Islam guaranteed freedom of worship to all christians in the city. In fact, so careful was Umar in setting an example for his people that he not only went to a church to pray, he prayed outside in the courtyard, lest his followers after his death be tempted to convert the church into a mosque.

The Jews of Aleppo ( Syria )

''The politics of the region depended on the rulers. With the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of Rome, the Romans placed restrictions on Jews. These were lifted with the Arab conquest in 636 CE, when Islamic caliphates began ruling the region. From the seventh Century until the end of Ottoman rule, the Jewish community was self-governed. Self-government entitled the Jews to freedom of religion, a separate court system ruled by local rabbis to handle internal disputes, and military protection''

Source : Sarina Roffé is a career journalist and the author of Branching Out: The Kassin and Labaton Dynasties . She is a member of the Jewish Genealogical Society, Inc. of New York, and Brooklyn's Syrian Jewish community.

JEWISH GATES:

The tolerance of the Umayyad regime made Muslim Spain a refuge for Jews, and their numbers increased dramatically.
The real Jewish cultural revival began in the tenth century under Abd al-Rachman III (912–961CE), who assumed the title of caliph in 929 CE in Cordoba ( Spain ). At that time Cordoba was a center of both Arab and Jewish culture. This was the time of the political rise of the court physician Hisdai ibn Shaprut.

Source:The Jewish Gates

http://www.jewishgates.com/file.asp?File_ID=126

Colin Thubron, the British author, writes in his book Jerusalem, " In the early centuries, the Muslims were generally tolerant of the Jews and lived with them peacefully while Europe was steeped in persecution.''

Salman ben Yeruham, A Karaite Jewish author, writing about A.D. 950, [B]the Muslims granted the Jews access to Jerusalem and its holy sites. Salman wrote:

"As it is known, Jerusalem remained under the rule of the Rum [the Byzantines] for more than 500 years, during which they [the Jews] were not able to enter Jerusalem. Anyone who was discovered entering was killed. When by the mercy of the God of Israel the Rum departed from us and the kingdom of Ishmael [the Arabs] appeared, the Jews were granted permission to enter and reside there."

During the reign of Saladin this traditional Islamic tolerance continued. Conversely, when the Crusaders entered Jerusalem, they burned the Jews in their synagogue.

From 1099 to 1189, Jews were not allowed to live in the city. But with the Muslim repossession of Jerusalem, Jews were allowed to return. The Spanish poet Yehuda al-Harizi, who was in Jerusalem in 1207, described the significance for the Jews of the recovery of Jerusalem by Saladin:

[In A.D. 1190] God aroused the spirit of the prince of the Ishmaelites [Saladin], a prudent and courageous man, who came with his entire army, besieged Jerusalem, took it and had it proclaimed throughout the country that he would receive and accept the entire race of Ephraim, wherever they came from. And so we came from all comers of the world to take up residence here. We now live here in the shadow of peace.

Further testament to Saladin's tolerance comes from the eminent German Jewish historian of the Nineteenth Century, Heinrich Graetz. In his Geschichte der Juden [History of the Jews], vol. 11, published in 1853, he states that the Sultan, " opened the whole kingdom to the persecuted Jews, so they came to it, seeking security and finding justice.''

At about the same time that Jews were fleeing from Spain and seeking refuge in Arab lands and elsewhere (15th and 16th Centuries), the Ottoman Empire opened its doors to them and gave them refuge. The prominent Jewish banker Don Joseph Nasi, a refugee from Portugal, was made advisor to Sultan Suleiman who showered the emigre with honors.

There are a number of statements from prominent Jews expressing gratitude to the Ottomans for their generous treatment of fugitive Jews. [B]In his History of the Jews, A. L. Sachar, a former president of Brandeis University, noted:

"Jews had found refuge in the Ottoman dominions for many decades before the expulsion from Spain. During the fifteenth-century persecutions in Germany, thousands had fled eastward and had been well received in the Turkish provinces. Life was secure and the morrow could be greeted without terror.''

Source : Arab American Roman Catholic Community:

http://www.al-bushra.org/jerusalem1/jerhist.htm

Here is modern day Sharia in action.

A girl of sixteen, executed for having a sharp tongue

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=80

It is likely that this young girl was raped. As Sharia places the onus of rape on the victim, it is possible that this girl questioned the nature of Sharia when applied to female victims of rape.

And another item showing the contempt of women that is part and parcel of Islam

Rape victim marries jailed attacker to avoid Muslim shun

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=978132004

Note what constitutes a 'Happy' ending in the looking glass world of Islam. These two items were picked up without me doing any real hunt for articles on persecution of women by Islam. Sweden and other Western countries have already had several so called 'honour' killings. We can expect more such killings, more of rape induced marriages etc. Is this what we want in the West? After a most difficult journey of several centuries, we have arrived to a point where the individual, regardless of sex, is the basis of our society. Do we wish to go back to a time, where religious affiliation defines society? For this is what Islam is about; the re-definition of society from the individual conscience to a Mullah and cleric driven one.

Islam is death to civilisations and the most virulent evil to infest the human race. It is mysogynist and infested with hatred of non-Muslims. The Koran is full of this hatred. It is backward and bereft of commonsense. Granting it the sanctum of a religion, brings all religions to disrepute. This is quite unfair to other faiths.

All Muslims should consider leaving Islam before they cause more damage to themselves and to mankind at large.

Here is modern day Sharia in action.

A girl of sixteen, executed for having a sharp tongue

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=80

It is likely that this young girl was raped. As Sharia places the onus of rape on the victim, it is possible that this girl questioned the nature of Sharia when applied to female victims of rape.

And another item showing the contempt of women that is part and parcel of Islam

Rape victim marries jailed attacker to avoid Muslim shun

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=978132004

Note what constitutes a 'Happy' ending in the looking glass world of Islam. These two items were picked up without me doing any real hunt for articles on persecution of women by Islam. Sweden and other Western countries have already had several so called 'honour' killings. We can expect more such killings, more of rape induced marriages etc. Is this what we want in the West? After a most difficult journey of several centuries, we have arrived to a point where the individual, regardless of sex, is the basis of our society. Do we wish to go back to a time, where religious affiliation defines society? For this is what Islam is about; the re-definition of society from the individual conscience to a Mullah and cleric driven one.

Islam is death to civilisations and the most virulent evil to infest the human race. It is mysogynist and infested with hatred of non-Muslims. The Koran is full of this hatred. It is backward and bereft of commonsense. Granting it the sanctum of a religion, brings all religions to disrepute. This is quite unfair to other faiths.

All Muslims should consider leaving Islam before they cause more damage to themselves and to mankind at large.

Here is modern day Sharia in action.

A girl of sixteen, executed for having a sharp tongue

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=80

It is likely that this young girl was raped. As Sharia places the onus of rape on the victim, it is possible that this girl questioned the nature of Sharia when applied to female victims of rape.

And another item showing the contempt of women that is part and parcel of Islam

Rape victim marries jailed attacker to avoid Muslim shun

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=978132004

Note what constitutes a 'Happy' ending in the looking glass world of Islam. These two items were picked up without me doing any real hunt for articles on persecution of women by Islam. Sweden and other Western countries have already had several so called 'honour' killings. We can expect more such killings, more of rape induced marriages etc. Is this what we want in the West? After a most difficult journey of several centuries, we have arrived to a point where the individual, regardless of sex, is the basis of our society. Do we wish to go back to a time, where religious affiliation defines society? For this is what Islam is about; the re-definition of society from the individual conscience to a Mullah and cleric driven one.

Islam is death to civilisations and the most virulent evil to infest the human race. It is mysogynist and infested with hatred of non-Muslims. The Koran is full of this hatred. It is backward and bereft of commonsense. Granting it the sanctum of a religion, brings all religions to disrepute. This is quite unfair to other faiths.

All Muslims should consider leaving Islam before they cause more damage to themselves and to mankind at large.

Bjorn:

Sorry about the multiple postings. My browser dores not seem to be working correctly.

Apologies.

What a load of nonesense, you pick up one lonely case and you generalize on all muslims !

Generalization is the tool of the fools.

Meanwhile, sex abuse and white slavery are raging in the 'civilized' west:

trade in human beings
MSNBC.com infiltrated a dangerous gang of human traffickers that sells unsuspecting young women from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union into sexual slavery:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3042166/

A 2004 Home Office study suggests there was an estimated 190,000 incidents of serious sexual assault and an estimated 47,000 female victims of rape (or attempted rape). Among men, 0.2 per cent were subject to any form of sexual assault.

http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/

Sexual Assault Facts in the US:

NOTE: Numbers in parentheses indicate citations

One out of every three American women will be raped in her lifetime.

According to the Surgeon General, violence is the leading cause of injury to women age 15-44.

One out of four girls and one out of six boys are sexually abused before age 18.

84% of rapes go unreported; 46% of survivors of acquaintance rape and 27% of stranger rape survivors never tell anyone.

77% of rape survivors know their attacker. These include rapes committed by relatives, neighbors, acquaintances and boyfriends. 57% of rapes occur on a date.

90% of children under the age of 12 knew their assailants.

More SCARY statistics from here:

http://www.dcrcc.org/assault-facts.htm

I advice all westerners to convert to Islam to escape this hillish lifestyle marred with rape, sexual assults, domestic violence and beating.

http://www.beautifulislam.net

momo -

O.K., I'm beginning to get it now. You are most likely European. That explains a lot. And a bit of a '70's feminist (testosterone, blah, blah). That says even more. And you have no use for religion, whether it be good, bad or ugly. Clearly a leftist. And like most on the left, you don't listen very well. do you think American traditional conservatives don't make our views known to our government on a regular basis? Of course we do, and there's no doubt it has an effect, unlike in most of the european socialist democracies (I worked in europe for several years - I now REALLY understand why my ancestors emigrated to the U.S.). Back to the issue of listening well. How do you relate my comment about ILLEGAL immigration across relatively unprotected borders (clearly a security threat)to a lack of religious tolerance?
Again, Islam is less a religion and more of a political ideology. A damned dangerous one at that. I don't hear Jerry Falwell screaming "Allah Akbar" while he murders truck drivers and foreign workers. If we can't ban Islam, then we must get it under control as is done in Singapore. there's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that promotes suicide as an alternative to tolerance of an alleged religion.

oh, and if your mindset weren't so far left, you would clearly see that my other comment about getting incinerated, or beheaded is nothing I would ever wish upon you or anyone, with the exception of the Islamists themselves. in their case, the sooner the better. I was merely pointing out that unless direct action is quickly taken by the free world against septic Islam, that an unpleasant end will likely be extended to many more western kafirs - it's mandated in the Quran.

There are so few acts of tolerance in the Islamic world, that they can be considered exceptions. The consistent record of Islam is thuggery, mass murder, enslavement of the conquered, and the sexual exploitation of women.

How can it be otherwise when the guiding work of Islam is a text such as the Koran; a book that is full of hatred of the non-muslim. It is the word of Satan, if Satan exists, that is. Otherwise it is merely the ranting of a thieving brigand and pervert. No loving God would have said 'kill the Jews and Christians'. God loves all his children, his creation after all, regardless if they are Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists or even Atheists. This is so simple a truth, that it confounds me why the writer of the Koran did not understand such a simple truism. Unless of course the Koran is written as manual for the subjugation and loot of other people. Then of course it makes perfect sense.

Salman Rushdie wrote a novel and what he got was a death sentence. If Muslims cannot abide by the rules and culture of the West, then I would very much appreciate that Muslims leave for a Muslim country of their choice. Writers critical of Islam have had to change their names and live under police protection. And this in the West. It is completely unacceptable that writers are subject to murderous threats. Our civilisation advances by critical thought and I detest and abhor the fact that it is difficult for writers to question Islam. This even in the West.

Is their freedom of religion in Saudi Arabia, the land where that sociopath and paedophile prophet held sway? If there is freedom of religion in Islam, then surely Saudi Arabia would be a shining example. Instead, what we have is the complete reverse.

Muslims who have left the dar al Islam and come to the Christian West, have taken the first step in breaking away from slavery to Islam. Here in the West, Muslims should not fear death because of apostasy. They have the freedom to choose. In the West, we question everything. We take nothing for granted, even Gods law. In the West, apostasy is the norm. In fact, without apostasy, our civilisation would not advance but be still stuck in the medieval period, just as Islam is.

So to Muslims in the West, declare yourself free from Islam, from the tyranny of the mullah and become an apostate. Choose Freedom. You have nothing to loose but your mental shackles.

Islam Is not compatible with liberty and freedom It was nauseating to have found this out. Im still angry at being lied to.
Once you know about Islam you get over your queasiness, you can never stop speaking out against Islam .
I do so & I hope I would have done the same against the Nazis .
For those whose first reaction is to jump to the defense of Islam .
That is natural and right .
It is anathema to rational thought to ignorantly attack someone’s beliefs, you had better be damn sure you know what your defending.
Because it is equally irrational to defend something you don’t understand on principle that may not apply.
Study Islam but do so at your own risk
IF YOU NEED TO BELIEVE
Islam is peaceful tolerant and not at war with the world since its inception
DO NOT STUDY ISLAM
If you want to know the truth study until you are sure you understand
Be sure to read the Quran in chronologic order and find out about abrogation with out those tools Islam is hidden.

Bjorn-san, You wrote:

No you won't. Islam is whatever Muslims do, say and think in practice. That may or may not be in accordance with the actual words of the Koran. Reading one, 1400 year old book on Islam won't necessarily tell you much about what happened in the next 1400 years, just as the Bible doesn't tell you all there's to know about Christianity. Consider the way the horror stories of the Old Testament are beeing glossed over by modern Christians, for instance.

It seems obvious to me that Islam would not be around at all without the Qur'an, just as Christianity would not be around without the Bible. Sure, some stuff gets handed down by word of mouth, culture or whatever, but it's the BOOK that continually supports the entire structure. The book speaks to each person, and provides the basis for their entire life (yes, i'm a fundamentalist).
(^-^)

People who do not anchor their lives around the book have a difficult time understanding how anyone can be so fanatical about any book. Yes, i would give my life to defend the Bible if necessary. Many millions have done the same in the past, and our culture reaps the benefits of their sacrifice even if we believe or not.

If you read the entire Bible, you will realize what modern "scholars" wish to call "horror stories", are judgements by God on people who are beyond salvation. This is difficult to grasp unless one understands that there is ultimate truth with a clear-cut divide between good and evil.

Many people reading the Qur'an believe in their book just as strongly, and we see the results of that belief now in all sorts of atrocities done in the name of the false god - "Allah".

"You certainly won't find the answer in a few quotes from the Koran."

No, but you certainly will in reading the WHOLE Qur'an. You see, that is the seed that is bearing a deadly fruit around the world today.

See this hp for a Qur'an/Bible comparison:
http://www.timeoftrouble.com/quran/quotes-from-quran.html

Bjoern,
I came late onto this thread. I am going to take you to task for making this unseemly comments ( nevertheless well within your god given rights to do so in an open society and be assured you are in no imminent danger of being beheaded by this valkyrie LOL :).........):

"....This is Islam criticism gone totally rotten, and he goes further than most others. But he's not alone in wanting to ban Islam, and comparing Islam itself to Nazism etc etc...."

Bjoern - i have read your writings long enough to surmise that you are an intelligent, rational and erudite individual ..sane enough to not want to foreswear self preservation. Continuing with this line of thought , do you find the list of allegations posited by Phil of Florida false and intolerable? or do you concur with every statements he has made to elaborate a premise for the banning/banishment of Islam from America...nay - from any society that espouses freedom and the democratic process. Even if you agree with just half of his allegations , would you not as a prudent individual take precaution to curtail the spread of this noxious cult ? If you do not than i sincerely need to question my prior assessment of your lucid state of mind and your index of self-preservation. Do not misconstrue this statements as a recrimination ...rather understand that i am attempting to demonstrate to the community at large the fallacy of apologism so pervasive in free and democratic societies ( freedom and democracy are values which are anathema to Islam ...which etymology incidentally has nothing to do with peace ' salaam ', but rather with 'submission -'salam(a)' to totalitarianism and theocratic-fascism).

In support of the premises laid out by Phil of Philadelphia ( may Odin reward him richly ! )i pose the following question to a certain abu nabhan -islamist propagandist extraordinaire and to his 'peace-loving ' islamists of the world and their sympathisers in several related middle eastern and international fora !!.....to date i have not received a credible response..why? because you and I know there are none LOL...:

( but then perhaps your readers may wish to ponder this simplistic but profound and legitimate question !!!!)----->

Salaam alaykum Abu Nabhan,
I have a question that maybe you or your forum readers can help me with :

أبو نبهان العزيز,يقول المسلمون أن اسلام دين سلام . تبدو كلّ الأدلّة أن تظهر أنّ ذلك غير حقيقيًّا . تستلزم تسعون في المئة من كلّ الحروب المسلمين اليوم . لماذا ذلك هكذا ؟?? إذا علّم القرآن السّلام و التّسامح, لماذا كثير من المسلمين مشتركين في الحرب و الإرهاب . من فضلك اشرح حتّى يمكن أن أفهم أفضل هذا اللّغز !!!أليكم السّلام....كيم سوك إيم

Dear Abu Nabhan,

Muslims say that Islam is a religion of peace. All evidences seem to show that is not true. Ninety percent of all wars today involve muslims . Why is that so??? If the Quran teaches peace and tolerance ,why are so many muslims involved in war and terrorism. Please explain so that i can understand better this enigma !!!

salaam alaykum



親愛的Abu Nabhan,穆斯林說, 回教是和平宗教。所有證據似乎顯示不是真實的。所有戰爭的百分之九十今天涉及穆斯林。為什麼那是如此??? 如果Quran 教和平和容忍, 為什麼是許多穆斯林介入戰爭和恐怖主義。請解釋以便我能瞭解更好這個謎 !!!
salaam alaykum....kim sook im

Lieber Abu Nabhan, Moslems sagen, daß Islam eine Religion des Friedens ist. Alle Beweise scheinen darzustellen, das nicht zutreffend ist. Neunzig Prozent aller Kriege beziehen heute Moslems mit ein. Warum ist das so??? Wenn das Quran Frieden und Toleranz unterrichtet, warum so viele Moslems sind, die mit Krieg und Terrorismus beschäftigt gewesen werden. Erklären Sie bitte, damit ich dieses enigma besser verstehen kann!!!

Danke, Kim Sook Im

Querido Abu Nabhan....Los musulmanes dicen que el Islam es una religión de la paz.Todas las evidencias se parecen demostrar que no es verdad. Noventa por ciento de todas las guerras implican hoy a musulmanes. ¿Por qué está eso asi ??? Si el Quran enseña paz y tolerancia, porqué son tan muchos musulmanes implicados en guerra y terrorismo. ¡Explique por favor de modo que pueda entender mejor este enigma!!!

Muchisimas Gracias , Kim Sook Im

ANGEL OF TRUTH
ANJO DE VERDADE
ANGE DE LA VERITE

“ I've written before about how belief in an Islamic essence that supercedes the behavior of actual Muslims leads people to making sloppy generalizations about Islam. This process has two steps: First you must believe that this essence exists, and that it is possible to capture it in a few words. Then you go looking for those words. Quotes from the Koran, statements by Islamic thinkers. The research bears fruit, proof is found: Islam is war - or peace, depending on who's looking.
The problem is that you can prove anything this way, and you'll still be no closer to describing the faith of actual Muslims. This kind of work requires nuance and humility in the face of complexity. Yeah I know, it's all supposed to be Good and Evil these days. "Nuance" and "shades of gray" are the words of relativists. But no matter how useful it can be to describe a particular belief or act as Evil, once you leave the area of moral judgments for the descriptive world, nuance is your best friend.
We have to build our moral judgments on a solid foundation. “

” You certainly won't find the answer in a few quotes from the Koran, or in the statements of a few Muslims. To describe something big and complex, you need a big and complex description, supported by a huge number of carefully assembled facts. Impossible? Historians do this all the time. There's an interesting parallel here: Good historians embrace the complexity of their subject. They approach the mountain of evidence they base their work on with humility and a sense of duty towards the truth. And they will be honest with you about the limits of their craft. Bad historians treat the mountain of historical evidence as a catalog they can pick and choose facts from, to back up sensational and simplistic theories.”

Your description of how anti-islamists approach Islam is a caricature, a straw man, or perhaps "cherry picking".

You seem to argue that the task of determining if Islam in itself is violent or not is so complex that it probably is impossible, especially for such simpletons as the anti-islamists with their deep-rooted ignorance and fear.

This might be a comfortable way of not having to deal with the problem and continue to enjoy the pleasures of being tolerant. But isn't it a tolerance based on the choice of remaining ignorant?

Which is how I interpret your eloquent words about the tremendous complexity of categorizing islam.

Interpreting the essence of the Quoran is not difficult. The nice peaceful verses are from Mecca, the aggressive ones are from Medina. Looking at the verses, and the actions of Muhammad from a chronological perspective simplifies the problem substantially, and leads to the conclusion that Islam if practised faithfully leads to violence and oppression.

Mohammad was peaceful when he had to, and violent when he could. Feel free to read more about in this article you might have heard of.

There are of course more things to learn about, but it can at least be a starting point if you are interested.

The Islamic fundamentalists are basically correct in their view of Islam, and they act accordingly, as they are supposed to if they are serious about their religion.

People are not basically evil, and most try to act on what they have learned to be morally correct. If they are taught, or choose to believe that the Quoran is God’s word, we should expect devout Muslims to do their best to obey what is written. And try to interpret it the way any normal person, or normal muslim would.

You seem to argue that Islam should be judged by the actions of actual Muslims, I can only guess about your choice of appropriate Muslims.

Anyway, there probably weren’t all that many communists in the Soviet Union either, but they called the shots anyway.

Your way of reasoning leads to the conclusion that analysis of ideologies and studies of ideological source material in general is futile and best left to "good historians" or other experts.

Instead we obviously should base our views on our current emotions towards people, if they “seem nice and peaceful” or some other arbitrary way of deciding. Well, most people can be quite interesting and pleasant, even the ones capable of terrible things I'm afraid.

Your suggestion doesn't strike me as a very stringent way of deciding whether Islam could be dangerous for the western world in the future.

I’m also afraid it takes very few fanatics these days to cause serious danger to a substantial amount of people. Our societies are more vulnerable than evere and the development of weapons technology are on the side of the few violent fanatics. Being right about the essence of Islam is becoming increasingly important.

“You can't say if terrorism is good or evil without knowing what terrorism is. “

Aren't you being a little bit too much of a complicator here?

Terrorism, although a vague concept, can be described as when you instead of actually trying to functionally destroy or harm a society or a military force focus on scaring people into submission by for example creating as much fear (terror) as possible among those who see themselves as innocent. Of course it’s evil.

“ “ You can't say if Islam is good or evil without knowing what Islam is.“”

Well, Islam is pretty well defined in it’s scriptures, people trying to change it are committing bid’ah ”, innovation. They are placing themselves at the same level as God, nullifying it's monotheist creed and making Islam into a manmade religion.

So why not study the scriptures and drawing one’s own conclusions? The Quoran claims to be simple and understandable, and it really is, despite what various apologists and Muslim scholars try to convince us about.

It seems like you are suggesting people should not bother about trying to learn the truth about the Quoran by their own efforts, at least if they are stupid or hateful.

That’s seems rather condescending, and a way of questioning the motives of your opponents instead of dealing with their arguments. With the reservation that I might not understand you correctly, I find such recommendations quite remarkable.

I won't accuse you of ignorance if you don't want to learn my native language, but you or other interested people are welcome to visit my Swedish Anti-Islamic Blog, Islamkritik , the first one in Swedish as far as I know. Or visit FOMI, where I spend far too much time.

I´m doing my very best to spread the Anti-Islamic meme among my happily Islamophile Eurabians.

Well, cheers, and thank's anyway for a well written post!

Runnymede1215: You seem to argue that the task of determining if Islam in itself is violent or not is so complex that it probably is impossible, especially for such simpletons as the anti-islamists with their deep-rooted ignorance and fear.

You're certainly good are rephrasing my views. I prefer the way I phrased them myself, however. For instance, I do not believe it is impossible to understand Islam, only that it is difficult, and requires a careful approach that respects the complexity of Islam. I do not believe being against Islam makes you an ignorant simpleton, but many who are against Islam are, and it's them that I'm warning against. If your criticism of Islam is based solidly on the reality of Islam, (as opposed to some mystical essence of Islam you've discerned from its scriptures), I'm willing to listen.

Interpreting the essence of the Quoran is not difficult.

Maybe, maybe not. The question is: Is it relevant? That depends on how many actual Muslims agree with you about that "essence". But how can they? You continue:

The Islamic fundamentalists are basically correct in their view of Islam, and they act accordingly, as they are supposed to if they are serious about their religion.

I'm confused. The Islamic fundamentalists are right .. as opposed to the moderates and liberals. So you're saying there are different views within Islam, but some of those views aren't really Islamic after all. Which is it? Do we describe Islam as it really is, with all its internal differences, or de we prescribe Islam as it should be, selecting one of many views as the one true Islam? And why then select the worst possible interpretation as the Islam we think Muslims ought to believe in?

Your way of reasoning leads to the conclusion that analysis of ideologies and studies of ideological source material in general is futile and best left to "good historians" or other experts.

Oh, it does, does it? I don't remember leading it to that conclusion. Also, you seem to have a problem with analogies. "Good history" was an analogy - Islam is a complex subject, like history, and there are good and bad approaches to it, just like with history. I'm not a historian, but that doesn't mean I can't make well-founded claims about history. It just means I should be careful. Same with Islam.

"Terrorism good or evil" vs "Islam good or evil" was also an analogy. Terrorism is evil, not because some essence in some holy scripture of terrorism is evil, but because of the actual effects of the actual behavior of terrorists. In the same way, if Islam is evil, it is not because there is an evil essence in its scriptures, (whatever that means), but because the actual behavior of Muslims is.

Well, Islam is pretty well defined in it’s scriptures,

You're assuming what you should be arguing: That the essence of Islam is to be found in the scriptures of Islam, independently of the beliefs and behavior of actual Muslims. I disagree. Why am I wrong? Why should I pay more attention to the Quran than to Muslims?

That’s seems rather condescending, and a way of questioning the motives of your opponents instead of dealing with their arguments.

I don't recall saying much about the motives of Islamophobes. I don't care about their motives. I'm sure they're usually noble. I just care that the Islamophobes are wrong.

Bjoern wrote: "I just care that the Islamophobes are wrong. ...."

How interesting that you (Bjoern) find yourself using the term "islamophobes" to categorize others that profoundly understand the Cult of Islam and who would dare to criticize it.

Precisely what the cunning islamists and islamophiles would love for the community at large to hijack a symbolic word "-----phobe" / a word pregnant with or rather charged with feelings of unfairness, discrimination, irrational hatred.

All these 'sympathy' of which the Cult is undeserving of- given its long history of violence and bloodshed. The fact that Bjoern would use such emotionally charged term 'islamophobes' illustrate how, even well meaning and fair-minded people, can be suckered into the ploy of islamist propagandists to gain sympathy for the furtherance of their nefarious cult.

Since the world of european 'centrists' , apologists and leftists are so quick , careless and callous in their use of the word "....phobe" perhaps we rational members of the community of free women and men should immediately brand all muslims as " Hinduphobes", " christianophobes" , buddhismophobes" , "democratophobes", "gynecophobes","occidentophobes", "modernity-phobes" , "rationality-phobes", "shinto-phobes", "free-thinker-phobes", " science-phobes" , " equality-phobes" "heterophobes","homophobes","sexophobes" etc..etc.......in-fact the tenets of this CULT encompasses the whole universe of the antithesis of a rational world of liberty, justice and democracy that it can be categorically justified with the epithet " MOTHER OF ALL PHOBIAS " ( thank god that 'islamophobia' has not yet been officially recorded ...the following have been officially recognized in the lists of phobias

--->http://www.phobialist.com/reverse.html#H-

.....theophobia, satanophobia, gynophobia, homophobia, tyrannophobia ..phobias- irrational fears - associated with the world of islamoids)

Here is a very interesting site that argues for the inappropriateness of the use of the word 'islamophobes' .

click here--->http://www.answers.com/topic/islamophobia

Bjoern ( and that goes for you too Oeyvind )and his 'centrist'??? co-horts should know better that using the 'phobe' word is to either consciously or unconsciously coddle a cruel theofascist system that has been responsible for unspeakable atrocities against humanity- past and present. Evil reigns when good women/men fail to speak the truth !!!

Sister Ayesha Nyanaponika Kim
Lucid and rational buddhist specialist in irrational adamic Cults
إخصائيّ الطّائفة الدّينيّ الخطير
危險宗教崇拜專家

If you cared looking Kim Sook-Im I rarely use the expression "Islamophobe" at all. I use anti-Islamist.

o.k. Oeyvind...fair enough !....but the fact that you did use the word 'islamophobe' a few times is sufficient to betray your thought processes LOL. At any rate categorizing people who criticize islam as anti-islamists still carries a pejorative connotation.

For all blogistanis who are not familiar with the concept of "islamism" i refer you to :

----> http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=4p33ah10f2k12?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Islamism&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&sbid=lc02a

( discusses Islamism and all its associated nefarious activities)

After reading above article i hope our fellow blogistanis will realize how deceitful it is for european ( or for that matter international ) 'centrists', apologists and leftists and all the other -ists to use the term islamophobes or even 'anti-islamists' to sqash dissent and legitimate criticism !!!!

Sister(Bhikkuni) Ayesha Nyanaponika Kim
very rational and detached buddhist
observer of transient islamist evolution

P.s. how is Louvain. A friend of mine had just e-mailed me some info concerning a recent spate of UFO sightings in Belgique. He is a very credible physicist! I wonder how islamoids/oops i mean islamists would view this rather interesting and real phenomenon of UFO's ??? LOL.

recently Salahudin aka ex-kkkristian wrote:

"I advice all westerners to convert to Islam to escape this hillish lifestyle marred with rape, sexual assults, domestic violence and beating.

http://www.beautifulislam.net"

to this delusional , cunning and deceptive invitation i present the following factual rebuttal:

click on these links----->

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/7368/muslimdv_sign.htm

( wife bashing is rampant in muslim communities. Salahuddin care to join this web-ring - muslim campaign against domestic violence in muslim communities..pleeeeez we would love to have you as an honored member LOL since you are sooo against violence against women -- pleeeeeez - :)!!!! )

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Authors/Arlandson/beating.htm ( the quran supports wife beating )

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=5355 ( violence against women is rooted in quranic and islamic tradition )

http://www.isna.net/dv/ ( frank discussion of domestic violence epidemic in muslim communities in north america )

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/7368/w_dv.htm

( very frank discussion of domestic violence against women rampant in islamic communities in muslim countries and abroad - here the author is credited with his frankness in contrast to that sly islamoid propagandist 'Salahuddin aka ex-kkkristian' who would like for you to believe that islam is a bed of roses LOL - not !)

Sister Ayesha Nyanaponika Kim
detached buddhist observer of islamoid propagandae

Kim Sook-Im: How interesting that you (Bjoern) find yourself using the term "islamophobes" to categorize others that profoundly understand the Cult of Islam and who would dare to criticize it.

But I do think they're Islamophobes. They're people who see all of Islam as evil, and if not evil in all its aspects, then evil at the core, an evil that just waits to jump out and conquer us all, hidden behind a fake "moderate" facade. Islamophobe is a derogatory word, which just reflects my disagreement with it, but if you strip that away, the word describes this view pretty well. There's a difference between using a word like Islamophobe to label people who divert from the party line by daring to criticize Islam at all, (which is plain inaccurate - these people aren't necessarily against Islam as a whole), and using it to label people who actually are against everything Islam.

The fact that Bjoern would use such emotionally charged term 'islamophobes' illustrate how, even well meaning and fair-minded people, can be suckered into the ploy of islamist propagandists to gain sympathy for the furtherance of their nefarious cult.

Of course, I never used that word until I got into discussions, like the one just above us, with actual Islamophobes. If you'd asked me two years ago, I would have said that "Islamophobia" was irrelevant, that what little of it existed was too fringe to worry about. And then I began to pay attention to the comments in my own blog, and to the views of Islam critical blogs that were linking to me, many of which were pretty extreme. Muslims didn't convince me that Islamophobia is real - the Islamophobes did. Don't go blaming it on anyone else.

Since the world of european 'centrists' , apologists and leftists are so quick , careless and callous in their use of the word "....phobe"

Many are. I'm not. It's a deliberate, conscious choice, which I made despite the way it is abused by multiculturalists, not because of them.

Bjoern ( and that goes for you too Oeyvind )and his 'centrist'??? co-horts should know better

I'm not a centrist, by the way. I'm very much on the right, and also very much aware of the dark side of mainstream Islamic culture: Apologism for extremism, medieval traditions, etc. I despise the happy-happy-joy-joy mindset that has dominated Norway's view of Islam for decades, where another culture may be different but never inferior. Arab culture in particular is inferior to our own, because it has refused to adopt so many of the ideas that separate us from our own barbaric ancestors: Democracy, equal rights for women, science, secularism, and capitalism.

And still I believe that people who see Islam as nearly all evil are wrong. Perhaps that bothers you, that someone who's so open to criticism of Islam should dismiss your own criticism like that. And it should bother you, because it shows that yours is only one of many ways to criticize Islam, not the obvious alternative to multiculturalism you assume it is.

Evil reigns when good women/men fail to speak the truth !!!

Exactly. That's what I thought when I wrote the post we're discussing right now. I realized that Islam criticism was about to be hijacked by obsessed fanatics, who were willing to sacrifice our democracy to protect it, in this case by banning Islam alltogether, (or lamenting that this was impractical.)

Hmmmmmm

Bjoern wrote: "But I do think they're Islamophobes. They're people who see all of Islam as evil, and if not evil in all its aspects, then evil at the core, an evil that just waits to jump out and conquer us all, hidden behind a fake "moderate" facade......"

.....Well Bjoern....do you deny this premise? ( that Islam is intrinsically evil and that a large %age of its adherents in obedience to its central tenet of world religious hegemony will 'jump out and forcibly convert us' one way or another ) ??????????????

*** " CAN A TRUE MUSLIM LOVE AN INFIDEL???" ***

Zen 'Koan' of the day :) for rightist apologist Bjoern ( sei staerker und richtiger ha ha :):);)!!!

Sister Ayesha Nyanaponika Kim
Musing Zenist :)

Eric Gardner, congratulations, you exposed in a clear and simply way the main issue!

Next quote expresses the majority of falacies that grow here. Also fanatics here express well a critic we could endorse to argumentation theories. The dialogue is here, in most of cases, to absorve without criticize (in the greek ethimological sense of the word) and turn again to repeat the same over and over. Like Momo showed to go even to fascists (who is naive?) defenses of extermination of people on the basis of their radical thoughts (if it's true majority of those more than million are that radical)

"Those people are considered to be apostates by their fellow Muslims and, in some Islamic tyrannies, are marked for death. Funny how they only exist in the west. So, you see, it is you who have failed. Unfortunately, if many more of us adopt your worldview, the price for failure will eventually be beheading with a dull pruning saw or maybe dhimmitude works for you. Whatever."

What do you want to say? They exist only in the west? How can you certify that? You presume, you take radical expressions of some (even if a lot of them) to correctly induce it? I have been in Morocco and can testify I contacted with perfectly moderate muslims. Other friends certify the same when being in tunisie, for example. So easy to generalize, so hard to be rigorous in the way we think and analize data.

Another question: concepts like dhimmitude and eurasia are not historically islamic, they are neologisms. Based of course in the word dhimmi. They were created/defended by Bat Ye'or (british intelectual originary from egypt).
I see also from several posts that most of people here nourishes their opinion, not even really from her books, but from reviews, blogs and divulgation sites that give expression to her thought (propagation of acritically notice of concepts - from our part, not from origin - expands to an incredible velocity) . Let's say her work is politically engaged (no problem on that) and seriously exposed, but if you make an historical and philosophical research by your own you will see it's far from being an universalizing and indiscutible theory.
Read please the books of Bernard Lewis and those who know spanish have huge quantity of sources (just need to type al andalus in spanish google. I refer spanish, because I think they have the best scholars on that issue).
In the time of dhimma pact maimonide (a philosopher and jew) could became one of the greatest philosophers of his time (XII century), even if born under muslim rule. Just one example. Compare all history of dhimma with history of tolerance in western civilizations. Tolerance only became better in west after XVII after the religious wars and thinkers like Pierre Bayle and Locke wrote on toleration (Bayle more tolerantly than Locke, since for this atheists are not object of toleration still).

Well, don't want to bore you. And please consider that I just expose some ideas in a summary and fragmentary way.

Thanks for the possible attention

Here it is a site with substancial sources to understand Islam a little bit. Only for those who don't think they are already scholars on the issue.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook1d.html

Bjørn Stærk: If your criticism of Islam is based solidly on the reality of Islam, (as opposed to some mystical essence of Islam you've discerned from its scriptures), I'm willing to listen.

“Mystical essence”? There’s nothing mystical about it. It’s all written very clearly and simply in the Quoran, and from the life of Muhammad it is rather evident what islam demands regarding aggression towards non muslims when victory is possible. But at least you don’t seem to disagree with me on this point.

But I forgot, you proudly declare that you are not willing to listen to any argument based on the scriptures, I guess at least if it doesn’t fit your seemingly arbitrary perception about the “reality of Islam”. How convenient.

I vaguely recognize such behaviour from an interesting theory about cognitive dissonance. Whenever something doesn’t suit you, simply declare it irrelevant.

Runnymede1215: Interpreting the essence of the Quoran is not difficult.

Bjørn Stærk: Maybe, maybe not. The question is: Is it relevant? That depends on how many actual Muslims agree with you about that "essence".

I find it rather likely that words, supposedly written by a God in a holy book could have some relevance, some importance, some consequences on the actual behaviour, beliefs and views of the followers who seem to believe in those claims. And accordingly, might have some consequences for the ones who do not share those beliefs.

Especially if those scriptures claim to be simple and easy to understand, if their followers are forbidden to choose freely among them according to their judgment, prioritise between them, question them or adapt their behaviour according to new circumstances.

I don’t think you are denying we are having problems globally with a rise in Islamic fundamentalism, so clearly there are enough of islamists around to cause those problems, and they have all the support they need in the Quoran and Sunnah.

Not even most “moderates” questions this openly in any serious manner, their influence in those matter is thus severely limited.

It haven’t occurred to you to view the “conflict” between nice “moderate” muslims, and angry islamists as something of a “Good cop” vs. “Bad cop” situation, where they both agree on the basic demand, Global Islamic Dominance?

Bear in mind that the “moderate” muslims play their role in this game only better if they are not fully aware of their function as “Good cop”. The future victims of muslim expansion are led to believe they will be saved by the majority of nice peaceful muslims, if they only are appeasing enough to muslim demands.

According to this view, the perceived number of dangerous islamists compared to nice "moderates" doesn’t seem so important anymore. Almost all of them accept their scriptures as true, and wouldn’t dream of questioning them.

Runnymede1215: The Islamic fundamentalists are basically correct in their view of Islam, and they act accordingly, as they are supposed to if they are serious about their religion.

Bjørn Stærk: I'm confused. T he Islamic fundamentalists are right .. as opposed to the moderates and liberals. So you're saying there are different views within Islam, but some of those views aren't really Islamic after all. Which is it? Do we describe Islam as it really is, with all its internal differences, or de we prescribe Islam as it should be, selecting one of many views as the one true Islam? And why then select the worst possible interpretation as the Islam we think Muslims ought to believe in?

We should describe islam as it really is, of course. And of course there are different views within Islam, but none of them that I know of seriously questions the importance of the scriptures, the universalistic ambitions, the demands for Jihad or the right for Muslims to dominate.

The worst possible interpretation is the one based directly on the Quoran and Sunnah, which no Muslim has the right to question without being called an apostate.

No true Muslim would dream of calling the scriptures irrelevant, so why should we?

Runnymede1215: Your way of reasoning leads to the conclusion that analysis of ideologies and studies of ideological source material in general is futile and best left to "good historians" or other experts.

Bjørn Stærk: Oh, it does, does it? I don't remember leading it to that conclusion. Also, you seem to have a problem with analogies. "Good history" was an analogy - Islam is a complex subject, like history, and there are good and bad approaches to it, just like with history. I'm not a historian, but that doesn't mean I can't make well-founded claims about history. It just means I should be careful. Same with Islam.

All these words about “caution” and supposed complexity, seems more like you’re saying “ I don’t know, but I refuse to consider any arguments I don’t like. Or maybe I’m making a straw man here.

Bjørn Stærk: if Islam is evil, it is not because there is an evil essence in its scriptures, (whatever that means), but because the actual behavior of Muslims is.

If the Quoran clearly commands acts of violence against non-Muslims with the intent of dominance and conquest whenever such acts are seen as likely to be successful, and Muslims act on these commands, why shouldn’t those evil words be a very good reason to label the Quoran as evil?

If Muhammad was a conqueror, a warlord, an aggressor, a murderer, a liar. Why shouldn’t we label him as evil? Mislead people loyally follow these scriptures and the commands and example of their prophet. The essence, it’s evil core is clearly in the scriptures.

Shouldn’t you read it by yourself before disregarding it as the source of the problems with islam. Or at least read at for example Faith Freedom. ?

I would like to suggest that you write an open letter to or have a debate with Ali Sina about your views, it would be interesting.

Runnymede1215: Well, Islam is pretty well defined in it’s scriptures,

Bjørn Stærk: You're assuming what you should be arguing: That the essence of Islam is to be found in the scriptures of Islam, independently of the beliefs and behavior of actual Muslims. I disagree. Why am I wrong? Why should I pay more attention to the Quran than to Muslims?

What do you know about the actual belief of actual muslims, you stated that their scriptures are irrelevant.

The muslims you are listening to could be lying, they can be ignorant, they can be mislead, they might tell you what you would like to hear, they could be polite, they could be considerate to your feelings, they might be eager to avoid conflict. Not to uncommon behaviour for normal human beings I believe.

Your perception about the peaceful majority of muslims could be strongly influenced by your own wishful thinking, by various friends (muslim or non muslims), by your own fears about a terrifying future war, by your disliking of “islamophobes”, by your wishes to keep your self image as a tolerant and benevolent person, by your pride etc etc..

The words in the Quoran are more of a quality source of information. They are not changing and are very resistant to different interpretations. They are there to be read, and the life of Muhammad are described to be studied.

Try replacing every reference to non muslims in the Quoran with “norweigans”, as peaceful muslims should try to read “muslims” instead of “jews” or “infidels” to realize the true malice and hate that is in their holy book.

Runnymede1215: That’s seems rather condescending, and a way of questioning the motives of your opponents instead of dealing with their arguments.

Bjørn Stærk: I don't recall saying much about the motives of Islamophobes. I don't care about their motives. I'm sure they're usually noble. I just care that the Islamophobes are wrong.

As you are using the term “Islamophobe” you are probably denying the possibility that they could be right about the dangers of Islam, without considering their arguments.

Do you label me as an “islamophobe”, who has lost most of my contact with reality (as you see it)? If so, how convenient.

Those who disagree with you are basically insane or stupid, or what?

Maybe I haven’t read enough on your blog, but I haven’t really seen much of substance in your claims about how “wrong” the “islamophobes” are.

Why are they wrong? You seem to see Islam as peaceful, on what grounds?

Regards
Runnymede1215

what you wrote is a load of bull shit mate ang i think that islam is a wonderful religion and it means peace. so if you want to banned islam then you have me to deal with. the quran is beautiful and so is the hadith and nothing can compare it. no ne can ban a religion specially if it is a true religion. if you can't stick to the truth of take it then you should see a psychologist and get your brain examined. because what you said isn't true and how much you try to for
accusing islam for the problems that have been happening then it looks like you should look in the mirror and blame it on some who has cause it like u because u are making be sick. i don't think u have read the quran or tried to understand it, otherwise you wouldn't be making these false comments about islam. if you dont let peeople write about wat they think then that means you are one racist person who is a lyer and a idoit. good by i hope u sleep well
allah hafiz
i have made no error it is the truth and no one will listen to to unless they are jewish
it looks to me that ur the person that did the 911 and just want to put the blame on the INNOCENT MUSLIMS!

Bjorn-san, You wrote:

But I do think they're Islamophobes. They're people who see all of Islam as evil, and if not evil in all its aspects, then evil at the core,...

Yes, Anything anti-Christian is evil at its core. You see, there is a Great Controversy going on between Christ and His Angels, and Satan and His Angels. We are all on one side or the other.

what the fuck is wrong with you. they are human too, if one or two does bad thing doesn't mean the every one from that religion is bad. First, you are the one who should be banned and put in to jail, not them. you r a fucking bitch, do not do this any more. fuck you

Runnymede1215,

Very Well Done!

Runnymede1215, Azimovian robot or moon of Jupiter....

Bjoern, have you ever read the Quran from cover to cover? Have you studied Hadith? Are you familiar with the history of islam and its expansion?

This is not a retoric or provocative question. I ask simply because you seem to argue that the history of the religion, of its practice and of its very fundaments is rather irrelevant. If I understand you correctly, you state that the only thing we should look at is how islam is practised today.

Of course I agree that it is indeed highly relevant how islam is practised today. I would even say it would be sufficient to look at this point, wasn´t it for the fact that islam is in a constant struggle with its own history and seeks continuously seeks answers from that history (which they claim is devine). The muslim priests constantly go to the quoran and the prejudice set by the prophet while looking for answers for the problems of today. Hence, even if the islam of today tended to be no more repressive or violent than any other religion (I disagree, but this I prefer to discuss later), one cannot neglect the sources from where its getting its rules and prejudice.

However, first things first: did you read the quran? Did you study Hadith? Are you familiar with the history of islam? And if so, what is your general impression of all this?

(I ask about your "general impression", because of course you can see something good and something bad in anything above a certain degree of complexity; but still, as humans, we are many time have a general impression, its like a gut feeling, something that gives either good or bad vibrations. For instance, in general I think democracy is something good, despite the fact that the democratically elected Nixon ordered his Secretary of State to murder the president of Chile. I am sure you know what I mean.)

Sincerely
Jan

1730 banned brother and sister incest stories 1730 banned brother and sister incest stories [ http://clanqgo.net/1705_brother_and_sister_incest_stories/ ]
623 unbelivable bring it on sister incest 623 unbelivable bring it on sister incest [ http://clanqgo.net/1754_bring_it_on_sister_incest/ ]
I saw my sister in a bikini incest I saw my sister in a bikini incest [ http://clanqgo.net/386_i_saw_my_sister_in_a_bikini_incest/ ]

this is so stupid. why the hell would anyone say islam should be banned from Americ? First of all 2% of ALL MUSLIMS are terrorists. So should Christianity be banned because the Ku Klux Klan? Terrorism is OVERPLAYED in America to cover up more important things. North Korea can blow us up in a matter of minutes. All they have to do is push a button.I think that's a bit more significant, and worthy of worrying about, Don't you? Islam means PEACE. THe world is full of ignorant people. Ignorance just leads to racism-the situation in the world today. Damn, just be accepting of others veiws and don't attack something when you are stupid and have no incling what you are TRULY talking about.PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST -

Whats wrong with you people? ISLAM IS PEACEFUL for crying out loud!!! My ancestors were peacefully converted to islam by way of trade; NOT COLONIZATION , SUBJEGATION, SLAVERY, RAPE, SLAUGHTER and RACIAL SEGREGATION- All aspect of christian missionary work and western colonial imperialism.

Dont talk to me about ISlam being the scourge of mankind!!! PUUUHHLEASE!!! It was the christians who killed millions of native americans, aboriginies (Yeah, you forgot that they were slaughtered as being SAVAGE BEAST of the DEVIL), chinese, filipinos, hawaiians, gnostic christians, north africans, ethiopians, south african blacks, sudanese, jews and muslims. Actually, more people have died under the guise of "judeo"-christiandom throughout history.

I also believe there is a racial hatred against muslims. Ill be honest with you,k before I was muslim, my friends and I made fun of islam by calling muslims RAGHEADS, DIRTY CAMEL JOCKEYS and NI**ER RELIGION. My friends and I would joke about islam like this.. amongst ourselves.. but outside in public we dare not say those racial and hateful jokes.. rather, we would say, "Islam is a terrible and violent religion." I fear that most people that HATE islam are closet racists.

Abraham (pbuh) did not call himself a jew.
Moses (pbuh)did not call himself a jew.
Jesus (pbuh)did not call himself a christian.

But they all surrendered to God's will.
Muslim= One who surrenders to God's will. Therefore, Abraham, Moses and Jesus (PBUT) were muslim.

Contact me for more info:

tomas.madamba@gmail.com

This is so depressing. I dont even know where to begin to protect my religion. Its not even about protecting anymore. There is so much to know before making such assumptions about Islam. Yes i know there are muslim terrorist fighting in the name of god. Those ppl are poor, brainwashed and have no jobs that get involved in such things. And no im not saying that gives them a right to kill others either!

In the quran it says, killing of a human life is just as bad as killing of all mankind!! Please note, it does not say killing of a muslim human or anything like that.

The word Jihad is the most misunderstood word in the west. Jihad, means war, but it doesnt mean the war which many americans might like to believe. Mostly, Jihad is war internally in a human! It means war within yourself! It means control! Control form drugs, control from temptations!!

Yes, There has been in history that ppl were forced to convert to Islam, but it is not as VAST or HUGE as most anti muslim people state. Even the Jews were forced to convert to christians or anything else during the war but when they went home, they practised their faith! It is just not possible to convert someone by force!!! Think about it! I will never adopt anyones religion or belief even if they kill my family!! You cannot FORCE belief! ANYONE who tries that is misguided!

There is so much i feel i need to clear after reading most of what everyone is saying. But even i am only human. I cannot "teach" people who are just willing to criticise.

I am against no religion even if their religion is against mine. However, thats easy to say then actually doing it.

before i go, just want to clear one thing that really annoys me. Allah means GOD in arabic!!!!! ITS NOT THE NAME OF GOD!!!! Christians in Egypt say Allah when in CHURCH!!! and christians in america think its the name of our god when it just means GOD!!! Only reason many muslims prefer saying Allah rather than god is just preference rather than anything else. I use both, god and Allah so ppl know.

God bless you all.

Selman

Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/764

Heretics' almanac: Banning a religion, August 9, 2004 06:34 PM

In here are questions that needs answering: what, precisely is the connection between Islam and radical ideologies; and what is the connection between terrorist groups and Muslim communities? But if we're going to ask these questions, we need to reali...

Winds of Change.NET: Something Has Gone Rotten, August 17, 2004 01:32 AM

Gary Farber quotes Bjørn Stærk and discusses anti-Muslim hatred in blogs.

Qur'an Project: Ban Islam?, August 17, 2004 10:39 PM

I agree that banning a religion is not the answer. I categorically denounce any attempt to do so in the US or anywhere else in the world. The answer is not, however, to make believe that religion does not play a part in terror or that religious sensi...

The Volokh Conspiracy: Islam:, August 17, 2004 10:43 PM

Bjorn Staerk has a good rejoinder to some anti-Muslim extremist nonsense -- obvious stuff at one level, but still worth repeating.

Now That Everyone Else Has One: "Why They Hate Us", August 18, 2004 01:40 AM

One reason I've resisted the urge to mention anything more here about Friday's political discussion is that, by definition, you...

Crooked Timber: Around The Right-Wing Blogosphere in 80 Links!, August 18, 2004 02:08 AM

Be Amazed: as warblogger Bjorn Staerk comes to the stunning conclusion that some people might have gone a bit off the rails in wanting to ban Islam. People like, well, LGF commenters! And Bjorn Staerk commenters! What has gone wrong...

Crooked Timber: I can't argue with that, August 18, 2004 06:06 AM

1. Dan Aibel at Contrapositive reads the New York Times very carefully, and points out that it would probably be for the best if the city of New York took an interest in the cars that military recruiters regularly park...

trying to grok: LINKS, August 18, 2004 01:11 PM

There actually were heroes in Hollywood. At one time. And read Bjorn Staerk's post on Islam and all of the comments....

Armies of Liberation: Confronting the Taboos, August 18, 2004 06:11 PM

I am gratified to see these bold positions taken. Clearly the vast majority of Muslims do not view their religion as a call to war but rather as a personal connection to God. To condemn all Muslims for the actions of the zealots is similiar to condem...

MemeFirst: Banning Islam, August 18, 2004 08:02 PM

Bjørn Stærk posted an article on his blog last week that has generated a fair amount of attention. He addresses the issue of banning Islam, and why it's a bad idea. Apparently his concerns began with some folks in Kristiansand...

The Peking Duck: Islam should be banned, August 19, 2004 02:55 AM

That's the topic of discussion in this wonderful post that has apparently kicked up quite a storm in the blogosphere. Quite remarkable, how the writer approaches this emotionally charged subject with clarity and objectivity. The comments are eye-openin...

Thought Mesh: Some times it's good to be two faced, August 19, 2004 04:47 AM

Bjørn Stærk has a post about the problem with calls to ban Islam. The Volokh Conspiracy has a follow on...