Irfan Khawaja has written an article at secularislam.org in response to the discussions last month about Islam bans and anti-Islamic thinking. He dismisses the whole debate as a "ludicrous pseudo-debate", and finds the arguments some people offered for wanting to ban Islam "too stupid to be worth rebutting in any detail". But he's not impressed by my counter-arguments either, and particularly not my belief that Islam is defined by the behavior and beliefs of actual Muslims, not some mysterious essence that can be uncovered through reading the right books.

Khawaja's response is heavy with sarcasm against me and bloggers in general, but let's leave that aside. The main problem is that he attributes views to me that I don't have. Khawaja believes that I am a follower of Edward Said, and most of his response is actually an attack on Said's views on Islam. It is meaningless, he concludes after a long discussion, to claim that Islam is a construct of the West. But I never said it was. Perhaps Said has said that - I wouldn't know. I've never read Said, and what I've heard of his views has failed to interest me.

Khawaja also claims that I believe it is "easier to generalize rigorously about the behavior of 1.25 billion existing Muslims plus all the Muslims who have ever existed in the 1400 years of the existence of Islam—than it is to generalize about the claims of a handful of Islamic texts!" I never said it was easier - on the contrary it's much more difficult. But you're also more likely to describe Islam accurately from observing Muslims than from reading the Koran.

Let me explain this more carefully, to clear up the misunderstandings.

Outsiders are always tempted to explain religions in simplistic terms based on a superficial reading of the scriptures of those belief systems. Whatever else we disagree about, I'm sure we can all agree about that.

My own experience with this problem comes from reading atheist criticism of Christianity. I'm an atheist myself, but I used to be Christian, and I believe I still have a good idea of what protestant Christians really believe. And what I've noticed again and again is how simplistic and unfair much criticism of Christianity is. The atheist may quote the bloodier chapters of the Old Testament, and then tell a Christian that "you believe in an evil God!" Well, no, they don't. Most Christians I've known believe in a good and compassionate God.

To a liberal Christian, atheists may quote the Bible's many scriptures against homosexuality, and to a conservative Christian scriptures about love and forgiveness, concluding that Christians have somehow misunderstood the message of their own religion. Non-believers also use these scriptures to attack Christians who claim that Christianity is compassionate and ethical. "How can you say that, when you believe in a God who ordered all witches to be killed, and commanded the Hebrews to massacre civilians?"

These critics assume that there is one correct interpretation of the Bible, an essence of Christianity, and that, lacking faith, it is possible to discern that essence through logic. If a Christian believes that his God is compassionate, he's not just wrong because that God does not exist, he's also wrong because this God, which does not exist, is nothing like the Christian believes he is.

That is absurd. Why should a non-believer have opinions about how to interpret a religion he doesn't believe in? This absurdity follows from the premise that a Christian essence exists and can be investigated objectively by outsiders. Believers themselves may of course talk about essences as much as they like. They may read the Bible and conclude that they believe in one interpretation, and not another. That's what belief is all about in these religions: having strong, exclusive views about the interpretation of holy scriptures. (This includes even tolerant and liberal Christians, who exclude conservative interpretations.)

But for an outsider to have opinions about this? What should we base that on? If protestants believe one thing, and catholics another, and both of them are based on scriptures we believe are faulty and were invented by ordinary humans, on what basis can we say that catholicism is somehow a more genuine form of Christianity than protestantism? Christians can talk for hours about such issues, but we atheists reject the very premise of the debate - that God speaks through the Bible. It is thus meaningless to say that one side is more "right" than the other. It doesn't matter what the Bible says. To understand Christianity, all that matters is what Christians think the Bible says. And on that there are many different views.

The same logic applies to historical interpretations of the faith. To understand Christianity as it exists today, it does not matter that Christanity was authoritarian, fanatical and bellicose 500 years ago. All that matters is how Christians interpret their faith today. If they're peaceful and pragmatic, then so is modern Christianity, no matter what the inquisitors and crusaders did.

At every point where outsiders try to catch a glimpse of what Christianity is really all about, absurdity fights us back. We're left with only one option: To describe Christanity not through our own interpretation of its holy texts, but through watching the behavior of actual Christians, listening to their actual view, reading their interpretations. Then we summarize our findings: Some Christians believe A, others believe B. Most Christians believe in C, very few believe D. Most protestants believe E, except for this church here and most believers in that part of Europe, who believe F. And so on.

After we have done this, after we have carefully documented each and every variation of Christian beliefs, we may find that on some subjects nearly all people who call themselves Christians agree. Then, and only then, is it fair to say that we've found some of the essence of Christianity. But that claim must be based on observation of actual Christians, not the absurd idea of interpreting a religion we don't believe in.

That is what I meant with the sentences Khawaja reply to, and that is what I've applied to Islam and Islam critics. Not because Christanity is just like Islam - they're different in many ways - but because they're both religions built on interpretations of holy texts, neither of which I believe in.

That is why I object when Islam critics quote the Koran to "prove" that within every Muslim there's a totalitarian anti-semitic terrorist waiting to come out. If nearly all Muslims behave as totalitarians, and if nearly all Muslims agree that this is what Allah wants them to be, then Islam is totalitarian. If nearly all Muslims see themselves as being at war with the West, then Islam is at war with the West. But if not, if most Muslims do not believe in these things, it is not Islam we're describing, but a subset of Islam.

Khawaja may believe whatever he likes about the essence of his faith, but as an outsider I need a way to speak about Islam that does not depend on me having discovered its true interpretation, but only on an outsider's ability to observe of the actual behavior of Muslims.

One more thing. Khawaja writes:

Finally, we get the ritualistic bow to nuance: when it comes to Islam, we’re told, “nuance is our best friend.” The axiom here seems to be, the less clear we are, the more “nuanced” we are; the more nuanced we are, the more sophisticated we are; the more sophisticated we are…well, sophistication is just the terminus of justification. Exactly why “nuance” is incompatible with claims about the essence of Islam is a “nuance” that gets precisely no attention in this debate.

The nuance I'm thinking of is the nuance of a statement like "x% of Muslims believe in the Islamist interpretation of Islam" vs a statement like "all Muslims are Islamists, because the Koran says so!" Detail and carefulness, instead of stereotypes and hyperbole. Without it we outsiders can never understand Islam. That does not prevent us from saying that Islamism is evil, that's not where the nuance is needed. But to understand what Islam is, and what Islamism is, we need to respect the complexity of reality.

"I'm an atheist myself"

Perplexing, but there is a cure: read C.S. Lewis
(he won't try to prove God from the bible, but from reason). You should also imbibe a lot of Pascal.

"To describe Christanity not through our own interpretation of its holy texts, but through watching the behavior of actual Christians,"

So when I see Muslims murdering people of other faiths in Nigeria, the Phillipines, Pakistan, Sudan,
Indonesia; and committing terrorist atrocities in all those places, plus Australia, Israel, Russia, Kenya, the USA, etc., without any visible opposition from any of the clerical leaders of Isalm in any of those places--am I justified in saying that they are a 'living' Koran to me, in which I may read what Islam really teaches

The very notion of secular Islam is oxymoron.

"without any visible opposition from any of the clerical leaders of Isalm in any of those places"

Nice old refrain, that one, and equally false as it has been from day one. This is not about a lack of nuance. The differences between the map of the Islamophobes and the terrain in the real world as so enormous that the word "nuance" loses its meaning.

Let's see:

- All Muslims in Russia and in the whole wide world are indignant at the inhuman and utterly non-Muslim acts, which arouse nothing but bitterness, wrath and derision. The Prophet Mohammed, messenger of the Almighty, called not to endanger seniors, women and children, even when they are on the enemy side in war.

Mufti Ismail-Hazrat Shangareyev, Russian Muslim leader

- We Muslim leaders of Chechnya resolutely condemn the terrorist acts that have been committed in our country recently. Innocent people die in such acts, and we mourn them and condole with their near and dear [...] The terrorist criminals who have seized the school and children have once again shown their savage face. They are people without faith, they are no Muslims.

Akhmed-Haji Shamayev, mufti of Chechnya. Please note that denouncing others as "no Muslims" is extremely strong words within Islam.

Children are innocent, and all children are Allah's children. [The hostage-takers] should think about what things will be like when judgment day comes.

Mufti Ruslan Valgatov, a north Ossetian Muslim leader who risked his own life by entering the school trying to negotiate with the terrorists. The hostage-takers refused talking to him.

Free the innocent people. Do not do evil. No goals justify terrorism, this is a mortal sin condemned by the Koran

Mutri Sheikh Ravil Gainutdin, leader of the Russian Council of Muftis.

"The very notion of secular Islam is oxymoron."

Thank you for telling the truth. And that's precisely why Islam can never coexist with democracy.

Oyvind,

These comments are from local muslims. What condemnations were there from Iranian leaders? What about Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, and the Palestinians? I ask you because you seem to be very up to date on this subject.

Angelo

[i]After we have done this, after we have carefully documented each and every variation of Christian beliefs, we may find that on some subjects nearly all people who call themselves Christians agree.[/i]

The flaw with your line of thinking is that this doesn't actually leave much but a lowest common denominator, which in and of itself is of little value. All contradictory interpretations are likely to contain the elements that most people would find most definative/compelling. Lowest common denominator findings in any area tend to highlight the bland and the banal.

Islam is clearly intepreted differently by different Muslims. Aside from any individual interpretations a follower might hold, there's the various strands of the religion which hold different books/teachings to be proscribed, and there's the various (unstructured and non-hierarchical) Imman's you might choose to opt for. All that you could hope to find in common between the 1.25 billion followers of that region is some degree of adherance to or deference to the five pillars. That doesn't provide any insight into the motivations of al Qaeda, or terrorist acts by those who are Muslim.

It's all too convenient for the Islamophobic element of the blog world to dismiss the need to establish the specific root causes of terrorism where it exists. This means no simple 'axis of evil' catch-all demonisation, but rather a need to understand the geo-political and historical foundation of each discreet conflict in turn. While this might not be a particularly quick fix, or satisfying in any 'let's roll' fashion, it is the only reliable route to sustainable peace.

The search for clues to terrorist motivation in points of intersection of Islamic religious belief is at best a distraction, and at worst just feeds the flames of bigotry.

Allow me to invite our Muslim friend to a handful of the discussion forums by ex-Muslims:

Apostates Of Islam

Faith Freedom International

Know Islam

Ex-Muslims with a Christian profile

Malaysian ex-Muslims

Have you read the book "Leaving Islam - Apostates Speak Out", edited by Ibn Warraq? You should.

I read the article by Irfan Khawaja and have to say that he makes little sense. Except of course when he accuses Bjorn of, “bravado, arrogance, ignorance, and illogic.” Just kidding Bjorn, the truth is that by name calling he cheapens what otherwise might have been an interesting counterpoint to your arguments.

The notion that Islam, or any major theology, can be boiled down to an unchangeable essence that can be stated in something between, “a few and a lot of words,” is patently false. Yes, there are essentials in Islam today like don’t eat pork and try to go to Mecca once in a life time. However, even these essentials are subject to the forces of time and the intellectual and cultural progress of the societies that practice these religions. What is essential in AD 1000 may not be so essential in AD 2000.

Irfan Khawaja continues, “Muslims themselves believe that Islam has an essence that supersedes the behavior of actual Muslims.” Interestingly Irfan has made a correct statement here, but not in the way he intended. Most Muslims probably do believe that Islam has an essence that differs from the behavior of actual Muslims. The problem is that Muslims also differ in their interpretations of what makes up this essence. Some think it is ok to kill children and behead infidels and others do not. Some think they should integrate into the societies they live in, other do not. Some think it is ok to eat pork, others do not. Etc.

Observation of behaviors is the only way to gain insight into any subject whether it be the mind set of the practitioners of a religion or the mating habits of a tortoise on the Galapagos Islands.

I focused on local Muslim leaders, and so have - I guess - the media I checked out.

However, the top Muslim cleric of Egypt, Grand Sheik Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi was quoted as saying the following during a Friday sermon in Banha, north of Cairo:

What is the guilt of those children (in Russia)? Why should they be responsible for your conflict with the government? You are taking Islam as a cover and it is a deceptive cover; those who carry out the kidnappings are criminals, not Muslims

Tantawi is the leader of al-Azhar University, traditionally the highest authority in the Sunni Islamic world. (Source: Middle East News Agency, Egypt).

Ahmed Bahgat, an Egyptian Islamist (!) wrote in the leading Egyptian newspaper al-Ahram, that hostage-takers in Russia as well as in Iraq are only harming Islam.

If all the enemies of Islam united together and decided to harm it ... they wouldn't have ruined and harmed its image as much as the sons of Islam have done by their stupidity, miscalculations, and misunderstanding of the nature of this age
(Source: Jordan Times - Russian siege prompts horror, self-criticism in Arab world)

Another interesting voice in the Arab world is Abdulrahman Rashed in al-Arabiyya TV, who wrote a column in the pan-Arab daily Asharq Awsat:

'Our terrorist sons are an end-product of our corrupted culture'

'Most perpetrators of suicide operations in buses, schools and residential buildings around the world for the past 10 years have been Muslims'

He also says that Muslims will be unable to cleanse their image unless they admit the scandalous facts rather than offer condemnations or justifications.

'The picture is humiliating, painful and harsh for all of us'.

The Iranian president Khatami has also condemned the hostage taking: 'The Islamic Republic of Iran condemns such terrorist acts which
run against religious and human principles'. "Concervative" Iranian newspapers, however, have recently stated that suicide attacks against Russian military and intelligence services are acceptable considering the circumstances (Sources: Teheran Times, Suomen Tietotomisto).

In Norway Chechens celebrated their National day today. They paraded in Oslos main street with paroles expressing solidarity with the victims in Beslan.

Øyvind

Hi Ali:

I see you are posting the usual anti muslim hate sites ! you always refrain from serious debate about Islam, I just wonder why ?

In any case, let me counter by sites about Islam and converts like me:

http://www.why-christians-convert-to-islam.com

http://www.convertstoislam.org

http://www.welcome-back.org

http://www.jews-for-allah.org

http://www.harunyahya.com

http://www.muslimphilosophy.com

http://www.muslimheritage.com

http://www.themodernreligion.com

http://www.beautifulislam.net

http://www.islamworld.net

http://www.islam-guide.com

http://www.understanding-islam.com

http://www.discoverislam.com

http://www.islamfortoday.com

http://www.prophetmuhammed.org

I hope they will be of much assistance for you in your crusade against Islam.

Being atheist, like being young, is generally something cured with age.
As for the discussion on islam, I think it is rather absurd. There are many, many versions of it, from the most obnoxious kind, to, well, people you would not mind having for neighbors.
The splits within islam are larger than anything we are accustomed to among Christians.
The version we are having trouble with is rightly branded as islamofascism.
We are right to fight it, and in the end it will be the best for all when that fight is finished. Even moslems.

As Christ stated in the New Testament, to know if a group or individual is sent by God, watch what they do, not what they say. Something to the effect of, "By their fruits ye shall know them." I would say that this applies in all areas of life, that actions always speak louder than words. Of course it is more difficult to watch the actions of persons, religions, or government than to just take them at their word.

I'm also an atheist, and I am impatient with all religions. But Islam is particularly dangerous to the future of freedom.

It would be good if one country would provide a test case for islamic immigration, to gauge the long term effects, before such immigration was allowed to the western world in general.

Honestly, what sophisticated person would want to live in the muslim world? Look at the despair, poverty, and suffering there. Many muslims are forced to migrate to the western world merely to be able to practice their own version of the muslim faith according to their conscience.

These critics assume that there is one correct interpretation of the Bible, an essence of Christianity, and that, lacking faith, it is possible to discern that essence through logic.

This is astonishing. In my experience atheists are constantly having the Bible thrown at them by believers. "Read the Bible!" they shriek. This will result not only in the atheist coming to belief, but will tell you exactly how God wants you to behave. Therefore, it's only natural that the non-believer should be expected to extract the principles of Christianity from the holy book.

As you say, this is not so. What one finds is a mass of contradictions and a lot of padding, in addition to a few strictures which are no longer heeded (for example, the wearing of clothing made of blended fibers). Christians always have good excuses for these, but you really wouldn't be able to glean them from actual reading.

Perplexing, but there is a cure: read C.S. Lewis
(he won't try to prove God from the bible, but from reason).

It's always a pleasure to read Lewis. I particularly recommend The Discarded Image and Studies in Words, two light scholarly works, packaged lecture notes. In the latter, I believe, there's a point where the kindly Lewis gently explains the evolution of the insult "bitch".

But only a believer would believe that Lewis had "reasoned" himself into belief. He drifted out of belief, angry at God because of his experiences in WWI. Later in life he returned to his belief, astonished to find that his "reason" had led him back to the religion he was raised in. Inconceivable!

His account of his return to the fold no doubt makes for inspiring reading for those who have merely doubted, but it cannot be considered convincing by virtue of its "reason".

Hi R :

''I'm also an atheist, and I am impatient with all religions. But Islam is particularly dangerous to the future of freedom.''

How about people like me who are native Europeans and convert to Islam, will I be a danger on your freedom ?

I cant understand how you can fight Islam in the name of Freedom ?

R: ''It would be good if one country would provide a test case for islamic immigration, to gauge the long term effects, before such immigration was allowed to the western world in general.''

How about starting another holocaust ?

R : ''Honestly, what sophisticated person would want to live in the muslim world? Look at the despair, poverty, and suffering there. Many muslims are forced to migrate to the western world merely to be able to practice their own version of the muslim faith according to their conscience.''

I think your statement is flawed in its basis, there are 57 Muslim country, many of them are very rich and developed ( Saudi Arabia, UAE, Malaysia, Indonesia, Bahrian, Qatar, Kuwait..etc ) in fact, Muslim Malaysia is one of the richest 15 in the world.

You talked about muslims leaving for the west, well, how about the westerners leaving for the muslim world ? in countries like Saudi Arabia and UAE ( Dubai in specific ) there are hundreds of thousands of westerners living and working there, if the Muslim world was that bad, why all these westerners are flocking there ?

My advice to you is to stop watching your biased media such as Fox News and other lying propaganda machines and try to see the world from nuetural perspective, why not have a trip to the Middle East for example to find out by yourself ?

I had the same ideas about the Muslim world as you do until I went there by myself to find out the truth, what i found shocked me, what our media says about them ( the muslims ) is all but lies and fabrications.

Ex-Christian: "The very notion of secular Islam is oxymoron."

I wonder who you think will be positively impressed by this?
I'm not anti-Moslem but the last thing I want in a country I live in are followers of a religion, who (the followers, not the religion) do not recognize secular authority.
If that's the life you want, I'd suggest you emigrate to a country that already ignores secular authority.
And I know more than one Moslem who disagrees with you. The idea that a cleric could be a political leader is a recent (very bad) idea.

"The very notion of secular Islam is oxymoron."

The fact that an idea is an oxymoron has never really stopped people from adopting it.

Most Christians today would be considered heretics according to old standards. And many of these "heretics" are quite religious and considered religious Christians by everyone.

Secular Judaism is based on the fact that Judaism is an ethnicity. But secular Jews themselves tend to believe that converts to Christianity are by definition not Jewish. Self-contradictory? Nobody cares!

"I think your statement is flawed in its basis, there are 57 Muslim country, many of them are very rich and developed ( Saudi Arabia, UAE, Malaysia, Indonesia, Bahrian, Qatar, Kuwait..etc ) in fact, Muslim Malaysia is one of the richest 15 in the world."

Rich and developed is not the same thing. SA, Kuwait, UAE and the other Gulf States are rich for a single coincidence of geography only: They have a lot of oil. They have not, however, managed to develop anything remotely resembling an industrialized or knowledge based economy. Excluding oil, ALL of the Arab League countries export less than Finland. Is that impressive?

You mention Indonesia as a "rich" nation. Was that a joke? And by the way, how can one then claim that Islamic terrorism is due to "poverty and despair", if these nations are so wealthy and successful as you claim?

Regarding Malaysia, it is true that this is the ONLY Muslim-majority country even close to having a modern economy. However, the Muslim majority here is quite slim, only about 55%, and used to be a minority only a few years ago. Even the Muslim PM Mohammed admitted that Malaysia's achievements owed more to its Chinese and Indian minorities than to the Muslims. Of course, with the normal disply of Muslim ingratitude, these very same non-Muslims are increasingly discriminated against due to Islamic apartheid rules: Malaysia: Parents question no ‘non-halal’ food in school order

Parents are fuming over a letter from a Kuala Lumpur primary school headmaster directing non-Muslim pupils not to bring non-halal food to school. Parents who received the letter had called Zainal Abidin Senapi, headmaster of Sekolah Kebangsaan Seri Mega to complain and seek clarification on its contents.

Zainal’s letter dated July 14 sent to parents and guardians of students read: “Please be informed that non-Muslim students are altogether forbidden from bringing non-halal food to school, forbidden from using canteen utensils, for example forks and spoons, and from throwing rubbish into rubbish bins.”

In the letter made available to malaysiakini, the headmaster also wrote that the matter must be viewed seriously in order to respect Islam as the official religion of the country and to respect the school’s canteen operator.

"You talked about muslims leaving for the west, well, how about the westerners leaving for the muslim world ? in countries like Saudi Arabia and UAE ( Dubai in specific ) there are hundreds of thousands of westerners living and working there, if the Muslim world was that bad, why all these westerners are flocking there ?"

As mentioned before, these countries have billions of petrodollars. They are also completely incapable even of extracting their own oil, and need to rely on foreign workers to have functioning societies. The foreigners who are there, and most of them are non-Westerners, are there quite simply because you get good salaries and little taxes. At least, that's the theory. In reality, slavery, which is perfectly allowed in Islam even today, is still very common:

Foreigners Face Slavery-Like Life in Saudi : Report

Human Rights Watch documented how foreigners detained in Saudi Arabia have been denied consular visits and forced to sign confessions that they could not read. The report includes cases of beheading in which the embassies and families of the condemned men were not informed of the executions until after they were carried out. "We found men and women in conditions resembling slavery," said Whitson. "Case after case demonstrates that the Saudis are turning a blind eye to systematic abuses against foreign workers." In one case, some 300 women from India, Sri Lanka and the Philippines worked 12-hour shifts, six days a week, cleaning hospitals in Jeddah. At the end of each work day, they were returned to crowded, dormitory-style housing, with 14 women sharing one small room lined with bunk beds. The doors to the rooms were locked from the outside, denying the women any freedom of movement for the two or three years of their contracts. The report includes four cases of women who were victims of forced confinement and sexual abuse, including rape. In all four cases, the perpetrators, three of whom were alleged rapists, did not face criminal investigation or prosecution. The report also has information about women whom Human Rights Watch found in a prison in Riyadh who were serving sentences for "illegal pregnancies."

"Slavery is a part of Islam," says a leading Saudi government cleric. "Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam." And he is the author of textbooks that are used to teach Muslim students...

Hi Michael Farris

''Ex-Christian: "The very notion of secular Islam is oxymoron."

I wonder who you think will be positively impressed by this?
I'm not anti-Moslem but the last thing I want in a country I live in are followers of a religion, who (the followers, not the religion) do not recognize secular authority.''

Well, the last thing most muslims want is to live in a state which does not recognize the religious authority and the religion of most of the people.

We in the west suffer from self rightousness disease, we think what is good for us 'must' be good for every one else, it is not.

Most Muslims aspire to live under Sharia law, who's business to tell them how they should live ?

Michael Farris
''If that's the life you want, I'd suggest you emigrate to a country that already ignores secular authority.''

Why should I go anywhere ? Canada which is secular country is going to introduce sharia law for its Muslim citizens, I think this is great thing and other countries should follow suit.

I dont wish to be governed by man-made laws, if you wish that, fine so be it, but please dont tell me how should I live and by which law, I dont accept this rude intrusion into my life.

I was born in Europe, I am native European and I have the right together with other muslims to choose which law to govern our family affairs, our civil matters ( Marriage, divorce, death, birth, inheritance..etc ) it is not your business to tell me where to go. thank you very much.

Michael Farris

''And I know more than one Moslem who disagrees with you. The idea that a cleric could be a political leader is a recent (very bad) idea.''

That is not true, we all know when free democratic elections take place, the Islamists will win in most cases ( Turkey is great example)

In Islam there is no separation between the state and the Mosque, prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was a religious leader as well as political leader and he successed in both:

"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".
(George Bernard Shaw,The Genuine Islam, Singapore, Vol. 1, No.8, 1936)

"Well, the last thing most muslims want is to live in a state which does not recognize the religious authority and the religion of most of the people."

If you live in a prdominantly Christian country then that means you want a government that recognizes that a great majority of Canadians are Christians and a government run by Christian rules. Does this follow?

"Most Muslims aspire to live under Sharia law, who's business to tell them how they should live?"

I don't much care how most Moslems live their private lives.
I very much do care that they don't impinge upon others who are not Moslem and have no desire to be.
I have no desire to live under Sharia, thank you very much. Do you support my rights as a non Moslem to drink alcohol, eat pork or engage and not bow to Mohammed (among my milder non-Moslem practices)?
Would you support my right to do so in Mecca? In Iran? In Pakistan?
Do you support the right on non-Moslems to try to convern Moslems to other faiths?

It's not often that Moslems

"That is not true, we all know when free democratic elections take place, the Islamists will win in most cases ( Turkey is great example)"

Turkey's an example of lots of things. It's an example of a state that wants to enter the EU, but it cannot do so unless it guarantees religious freedom for all its citizens (including those pesky non-moslems).
Islamists tend to win once and then do away with the whole troublesome issue of elections (Iran is a great example).

"In Islam there is no separation between the state and the Mosque"

So I take it you don't vote in civil elections on principle? If your state is the mosque, then you have no business in interfering in the social life of those for whom it isn't (the great majority of Canadians).

"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".
(George Bernard Shaw,The Genuine Islam, Singapore, Vol. 1, No.8, 1936)

Ex-Christian, meet Øyvind. Øyvind: Ex-Christian. Perhaps you two could coordinate things with each other a little better?

Øyvind has just finished explaining to me (in the Islamophobia thread): "That there is no division between state and religion for Muslims is a statement terribly lacking of nuance, and it borders on being a myth." Two minutes later, Ex comes along and says: "In Islam there is no separation between the state and the Mosque, prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was a religious leader as well as political leader...." Don't you two read each other? This is the kind of thing that's giving modern intellectualism a bad name.

Pail, ex-christian is a recent convert, one of the two most hardline subgroups in any religion (the other being reformed backsliders).

The people I know who've practiced Islam for decades (perhaps not the most representative)aren't nearly so dogmatic or simplistic as he is.

What gets me is people who say "there is no true Islamic country on Earth," or "True Muslims are hard to find," etc. Where do THEY get the authority to say what is true Islam, as compared to anyone else? If one major interpretation is wrongly committing injustices, what are they going to do about it?

People MUST judge Islam from the outside, just as we judge right from wrong in other areas every day.

Hi Micheal:

''
If you live in a prdominantly Christian country then that means you want a government that recognizes that a great majority of Canadians are Christians and a government run by Christian rules. Does this follow? ''

Yes, it does follow.

M: ''I don't much care how most Moslems live their private lives.
I very much do care that they don't impinge upon others who are not Moslem and have no desire to be.''

Fair enough, so where is the problem ?

M: ''I have no desire to live under Sharia, thank you very much. Do you support my rights as a non Moslem to drink alcohol, eat pork or engage and not bow to Mohammed (among my milder non-Moslem practices)? ''

First, we muslims dont bow to prophet Muhammad (pbuh ), we only bow for the one who created Muhammad, Allah Almighty.

Scondly, I respect your rights to do what you like as long as ( to use your phrase )you don't impinge upon others who are Muslims.

You can drink in your home but not in public because once you are drunk you will '' Impinge '' upon the majority who are muslims.

M: ''Would you support my right to do so in Mecca?''

No certianly not in Mecca.

M : ''In Iran? In Pakistan? ''

Yes, I support your right to do what you want there as long as you don't 'impinge' upon others who are Muslims

M: 'Do you support the right on non-Moslems to try to convern Moslems to other faiths?'

Yes, good luck.

M: ''Turkey's an example of lots of things. It's an example of a state that wants to enter the EU, but it cannot do so unless it guarantees religious freedom for all its citizens (including those pesky non-moslems).''

I am sorry but you are not telling facts here, Most Turks are Muslims, so what religious freedom for non muslims you are talking about ?

Can you show me one credible report from cerdible sources about religious persection for non muslims in Turkey ?

M : 'Islamists tend to win once and then do away with the whole troublesome issue of elections (Iran is a great example).''

Nonesense, Iran has fair elections every couple of years ( more fair than the American election at least ).

M: "In Islam there is no separation between the state and the Mosque"

So I take it you don't vote in civil elections on principle? If your state is the mosque, then you have no business in interfering in the social life of those for whom it isn't (the great majority of Canadians).''

I vote for someone who is willing to advance our muslim causes of equality and justice.

The issue of the state and the mosque is not that simple, our state is not the mosque, this is very simplistic view of the matter.

The history of mosque/state relationships has always been complex, but for most Muslims, mosque and state have ideally always been pretty much the same thing. prophet Muhammad (pbuh ) did not simply found Islam - what he founded was a community, the universal ummah of believers. He was arbiter, judge, military commander, political leader, and so much more.

And because prophet Muahmmad(pbuh ) reported revelations from God, he was also fundamentally a legislator for the community. Initially his pronouncements involved mostly warnings for nonbelievers and explanations about how people should best revere God. But later on, they also included more and more about social issues and rules about how to run community life. prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was replacing tribal loyalty with a new loyalty, and it had to be all-encompassing.

This, at least, was always the ideal - and it is this ideal of a totally united ummah, where religion and politics know no distinction, which animates Muslims of all types. Unfortunately, the ideal was not held to for very long, and this is the source of all the woes which have befallen Muslims over the centuries.

I am beginning to think that Islam is simply dysfunctional and should be recognized as such. How else do you explain the silence of the Islamic majority in the face of statements by such as by the London based clerics Omar Bakri Mohammed, who told London's Sunday Telegraph that he would support hostage-taking at a British school if carried out by terrorists with a just cause.”

Ex-Christian wrote: "That is not true, we all know when free democratic elections take place, the Islamists will win in most cases ( Turkey is great example)"

Well, AKP - a party inspired by Islamism - has a majority in the parliament of Turkey. You'll find few clerics representing them, though, but quite a few engineers, lawyers and doctors.

Only one flaw with all this debate, and its a very common sense piece of logic : when you lie with dogs, expect to get fleas.

Its about time that the dogs who continue their cult of death find out what happens to fleas. Because of Breslan, because of the approved kidnappings, because of the approved tortures and the deafening silence of the 'peaceful moderates' I consider them ALL BABYKILLERS.

When you lie with dogs, expect to get fleas.

Ex-Christain now Moslem says "Can you show me one credible report from cerdible sources about religious persection for non muslims in Turkey?"

Well certainly: Nearly 1,000 protesters, marched to the the headquarters of the Greek Orthodox Church in Istanbul on Sunday and burned an effigy of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I. The marchers were protesting in particular the planned reopening of the only Orthodox seminary in Turkey, closed since 1971, as part of the government's overall initiative to gain entry to the European Union.

I think that is a good example.

The truth is that Islam is fundamentally different from Western religions. It is governed by Sharia law which is nothing less then the “revealed will of God”. It regulates the life of every Muslim in all aspects; it is as concerned with religious rites and worship as with intimate every day behavior. As the revealed word, it may be interpreted but never altered. Since it is deemed a literal dictation from God through Gabriel to Mohamad, it cannot be altered by human legislation and that is why there is no separation between the religious and the political spheres and the religious sphere is mandated to be only legitimate sphere and the political sphere illegitimate.

Hi Herbie NY

''Well certainly: Nearly 1,000 protesters, marched to the the headquarters of the Greek Orthodox Church in Istanbul on Sunday and burned an effigy of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I. The marchers were protesting in particular the planned reopening of the only Orthodox seminary in Turkey, closed since 1971, as part of the government's overall initiative to gain entry to the European Union.''

First you did not provide the ''source''.

Secondly, Turkey is free open Muslim state, people have the right to protest, since when protesting amount to religious persecution ?

Beside, why is it ok for Evangelical christians in America for example to protest against opening any new mosque while it is not ok for muslims to do the same ?

Let us remember that while Turkey allow the building of churches, Greece until just last month was banning muslims from building any mosque anywhere in Greece !!!

Hi Øyvind

''
Well, AKP - a party inspired by Islamism - has a majority in the parliament of Turkey. You'll find few clerics representing them, though, but quite a few engineers, lawyers and doctors. ''

I certainly agree with you, this is what we aspire, less ' ignorant ' clerics and more engineers and doctors inspired by Islam and not by man made laws.

RBP: Perplexing, but there is a cure: read C.S. Lewis (he won't try to prove God from the bible, but from reason). You should also imbibe a lot of Pascal.

C.S. Lewis? I grew up on C.S. Lewis. Read the Narnia books, saw the Narnia TV series, heard the Narnia radio plays. Thought Susan was a fool for rejecting what she had seen with her own eyes. Boy, do things change. Haven't read his adult stuff, but I'm not impressed when Christians imply that if you just read the right writer, I'll see why religion is logical. Reason does not depend on the rhetorical abilities of individual writers. Good ideas can be explained by any knowledgeable person. Bad ideas can only be explained by a person with the right rhetorical abilities.

As for Pascal, he's the one who implied that the safest bet on eternity is to believe in the god that is cruelest to unbelievers. That's rational, kind of, but I don't think Christians who refer to that argument have thought through what it means.

AK: The flaw with your line of thinking is that this doesn't actually leave much but a lowest common denominator, which in and of itself is of little value. All contradictory interpretations are likely to contain the elements that most people would find most definative/compelling.

But if different forms of Islam emphasize completely different things, any honest analysis of Islam as a whole can't do much more than describing those lowest common denominators, the basic elements of the faith. Anything more and you're not describing Islam, but a subset of Islam. If that makes an analysis of Islam as a whole uninteresting, blame the complexity of Islam, not the method. My point is that to understand the motivation of al-Qaeda, we have to look at the strains of Islam al-Qaeda follows. We shouldn't pretend that all Muslims have those beliefs.

Franko: Just kidding Bjorn, the truth is that by name calling he cheapens what otherwise might have been an interesting counterpoint to your arguments.

Yeah, I thought that was a bit funny for someone so concerned with the poor state of Islam debates in English speaking countries.

Kjell: Being atheist, like being young, is generally something cured with age.

Corollary: Appeals to age are generally made by the elderly.

Sharon Ferguson: Only one flaw with all this debate, and its a very common sense piece of logic : when you lie with dogs, expect to get fleas. Its about time that the dogs who continue their cult of death find out what happens to fleas.

That's not logic, but a metaphor based on the natural behavior of fleas. How we decide to treat civilians in places with a terrorist problem, however, is not written in our genes. It is a choice we make of our own free will. The question is not if those who lie with dogs get fleas, but if we should give fleas to people who lie with dogs. That's not a question of logic, but of morality.

EX- CH. HERE IS MY SOURCE http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/040906130123.139xmxey.

As for fundamentalist christians in the US, I don't see that they hgad to be pushed badck with tear gas and police clubs.

The reality is that the building of new churches and synagogues in Arab countries is not permitted and special permits are required to repair those that exist. As for Mecca, forget it nothing is allowed to be built let alone the practice of any other religion. Christians are regularly slaughtered in Pakistan and Yemen. Christians and Jews are considered Dhimmi. Can you imagine the outcry if Moslems were considered Dhimmi in Christian countries.

Islam & The Greater Jihad

It has been made plain that Islam has lost it's way in regard to the teachings of Muhammed, and have sacrificed the understaning of the Koran to the teachings of ignorant and ambitious men, suppresion of freedom is the most clearly demonstrable tactic used with regard to women and to other faiths living in the midst of Islamic peoples intolerance abounds .
This intolerance is based in judgement (lesser) which addresses the environment, Islam does not see the parallel and then seeks to attack it. From a Catholic point of view, we acknowledge through faith the 'The Forgiveness of Sins' but the means for Muslims has been channelled straight into the lesser Jihad (WARFARE), this is the main difference I see with Christianity and Islam , Christianity addresses the inner world, Mohammed calls the Greater Jihad.
Christendom has raged in theological debate for hundreds of years on the question of Grace , the Catholic Church and the Church of England have remained opposed, Christ however assures us that 'Not everyone who knocks wil be recieved ' a call to generosity? and he also states emphatically that ' From the days of all the Prophets until the day of John the Baptist , men tried to gain heaven by force' those days are GONE, salvation is not granted to the killers but Judgement IS!
All those who advise, condone , encourage, support, defend, or minimise evil are subject to Judgement and certain death of their souls. LET the wicked perish forever!

Islam is not a superior religion. It may not even be in the top 3 in terms of socially redeeming value. But it serves as the moral compass for over a billion people and must be respected and tolerated for that reason alone.

We should also respect the spirit religions of african tribes and native american tribes and many of the primitive island groups.

People cannot help their need for supernatural help from outside the world of men. But we should be sure not to allow people in the thrall of irrational beliefs to impose their irrationality on others. Irrational violence is particularly loathsome and should not be tolerated.

Two different Christians may believe something different about God, Jesus Christ, or the Bible. This is probably why there are over 20,000 Christian denominations.

All I know about Islam is that a very small minority of them are radicals and terrorists. But why do the majority not speak out more often against the minority?

Check out my post on the Bush Campaign I wrote today on my blog.

Tom

I am an Agnostic but do remember some verses from
Sunday School 'BY THEIR DEEDS SHALL YE KNOW THEM.'
Muslims themselves put out a sanitized, clappy happy version of Islam for Dawah and confused Infidels. They claim the word "Islam" to mean peace which is a lie for starters as "salem" is the word for peace. "Islam" can be translated as "submission [total] to Allah.
One thing very alarming, is the new Convert to Islam is expected to go out and prove it, often by
assisting or doing Jihad on his neighbours and friends. Nazis got new recruits into SS doing atrocities so they could all be pals together.
I don't care about nuance myself just the stench
and reek of blood and exploded bits of people who
wanted to live except Islamic Jihadists had decided otherwise. As one of their own remarked recently;
"Nor all Muslims are Terrorists but all Terrorists
seem to be Muslims..."

Hi Herbie NY

''EX- CH. HERE IS MY SOURCE http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/040906130123.139xmxey.''

You did not show anything, protesting is allowed in all free civilized countries, since when protesting amount to religious persecution ???

the real persecution takes place in France where Muslim girls are denied the basic right of practicing their faith without any restrictions.

''As for fundamentalist christians in the US, I don't see that they hgad to be pushed badck with tear gas and police clubs.''

Oh really ? how about the abortion clinic bombers ???

''The reality is that the building of new churches and synagogues in Arab countries is not permitted and special permits are required to repair those that exist. ''

Do you have any proof from credible sources like Amnesty Internation that building churches and synagogues are not allowed in arab countries ?

''As for Mecca, forget it nothing is allowed to be built let alone the practice of any other religion. ''

Of course, how do you expect us to allow someone who does not respect our faith, who think prophet muhammad (pbuh ) is false prophet, who believe muslims will go to hell, who believe Islam is false religion to build their temples in the holiest of the holy of Islam ? it does not make sense at all.

''Christians are regularly slaughtered in Pakistan and Yemen.''

Proof ?? do you have any proof from '' credible'' sources ?

'' Christians and Jews are considered Dhimmi. Can you imagine the outcry if Moslems were considered Dhimmi in Christian countries.''

this is typical recycled lie. by the way the word is Zimmi not dhimmi, beside, to be zimmi is better than to be slave like the African Americans in the USA, dont you think ?

Hi Morgane

"Nor all Muslims are Terrorists but all Terrorists
seem to be Muslims..."

This is nonesense and outright LIE:

Why you dont talk about the ''FARC'' terrorists in Coloumbia who are killing thousands of people ??? are they Muslims as well ??

Why you dont talk about the ''Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path)''terrorist organization in PERU ??? are they Muslims ?

Why you dont talk about the Terrorist Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (MRTA) in Peru ??? are they muslims as well ?

Why you dont talk about the American domestic terrorist organizations ?? are they muslims ?

http://www.bluecorncomics.com/enemy.htm

Why you dont talk about The MAFIA in latin America and Mexcio ??? are they Muslims ?

Why you dont talk about the Christian abortion clinic bombers ??? are they muslims as well ?

Why you dont talk about the suicide bombing in Bolivia which killed innocent civilians inside the Bolivian congress 2 month ago ?? was the suicide bomber muslim as well ??

Why you dont talk about ETA, the Spanish terrorist organization which killed more than 800 innocent Spainsh ? why you dont describe them as CATHOLIC TERRORISTS since the catholic church formally adopted them under Franco??

Why you dont talk about the Revolutionary Nuclei (RN) a.k.a. Revolutionary terrorist Cells in Greece ?? or the Greek Revolutionary Organization 17 November (17 November)?? are they Muslims ???

Why you dont talk about the IRA ?? why you dont describe them as CATHOLIC TERRORISTS ?? why you only associate Islamic with the word terrorism ??????

Why you dont talk about the Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF)in N.Ireland ?? why you dont describe them as CHRISTIAN TERRORISTS ?????

Why you dont talk about The Orange Volunteers (OV)terrorist organization in N.Ireland ???

Why you dont talk about the Real IRA (RIRA) a.k.a. True IRA????

Why you dont talk about the Terrorist Israli organizations such as Kach and Kahane Chai ???????

Why you dont talk about the Aum Supreme Truth (Aum) a.k.a. Aum Shinrikyo, Aleph, terrorist organization in Japan? those terrorists realsed chemical gas which killed tens of innocent japanese ?? are they Muslims ?

Why you dont talk about the 'Alex Boncayao Brigade (ABB)' terrorist communist organization in the Phillippnes !!

Why you dont talk about the Tamil Tigers in Seri Lanka who commited more suicide bombings than any one else on earth ??? why you dont describe them as HINDU terrorists ????

Why you dont talk about the Lord Resistance Army (LRA) a christian terrorist brutal organization responsible for the death of thousands of innocent Africans ( Muslims and non muslims ) in Uganda ?

Why you dont talk about the MAOIST rebels in Nepol ?? they have been conducting barbaric campaign of terror against the central government for many years killing and kidnapping so many innocent civilians ???

Why you dont talk about the HOUTO terrorists in Burndi who massacred 1 MILLION tutsi in Rawanda and recently, just last week, massacred 160 tutsi refugee in Burndi-Africa ??? are they muslims as well ?

And many more terrorist organizations which are Not Muslims ?

You might be surprised to know that Hitler was NOT muslim after all !

The holocaust was not muslim invention.

The nuclear bomb was not Muslim invention.

The WW1 and WW2 did not start by muslims !!

The killing of hundred of thousands of innocent Vietnamese was not done by Muslims ??

The Genocide in Rawanda in 1994 which killed nearly 1 million innocent people was done by NON MUSLIMS under the patronage of the church !

The Genocide in BOSNIA against Muslims was done by CHRISTIAN serbs against Muslims, here are some pictures:

http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/bosnia/index.html

Killing Muslims in Indonesia ( in the christian islands ), here are some graphic pictures:

http://forum.fwaed.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=47763

Burning Muslims ALIVE in India by some hindu fanatics:

http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/india/index.htm

The Brutal massacres against Muslims by the christian Russians in Chechnya:

http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/chechnya/index.html

The Brutal massacres against Muslims by the christian Russians in Chechnya:

http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/chechnya/index.html

Indian forces terrorizing Muslims in Kashmir:

http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/kashmir/index.htm

The American barbaric terrorism against Muslims in Iraq:

http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/iraq/index.htm

The sadistic Israeli SAVAGERY THAT SURPASSES NAZIS...terrorism against innocent Muslims in Palestine:

http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/palestine/index.htm

Hi Tom, Missouri

''All I know about Islam is that a very small minority of them are radicals and terrorists. But why do the majority not speak out more often against the minority?''

We do speak out against terrorism, but do you speak out against your own terrorism against Muslims ?

Muslims all over the world condemnd terrorism, even our scholars issued FATWAS condeming terrorism, here you have some examples:

-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

And many more examples.....

The problem is the zionist-controled hypocritical western media which wants to show Islam and muslims always as barbarians and terrorists, they dont give us the chance to speak and show you the true face of tolerant peaceful compassionate Islam, the REAL ISLAM.

http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com

Ex -C you say "''As for Mecca, forget it nothing is allowed to be built let alone the practice of any other religion. ''

Of course, how do you expect us to allow someone who does not respect our faith, who think prophet muhammad (pbuh ) is false prophet, who believe muslims will go to hell, who believe Islam is false religion to build their temples.

Hmm. Under your logic any Msgues in Rome shoul be promptly destroyed

As for "Christians and Jews are considered Dhimmi. Can you imagine the outcry if Moslems were considered Dhimmi in Christian countries.''

this is typical recycled lie."

All I can say is tht you are the first Moslem, including at least one Mullah, that I have had an interchange with on this subject who has denied the basic facts concerning the status of Christians and Jews as Dehimmis under Islam. But then again even your spelling of that term is odd.

As fo Dhimmi you are the first MOslem that I have ever met or corresponded with includingat least ione MUlalh who claims that

Hmm> I guess then that any Mosques in Rome should be promptly destroyed if ine were to follow through on your twisted logic.

Spare me all theese link collections, they just remind me of the importance of the High Coupeling, Low Cohesion debate here a while back.

Now the interesting bit, cause i see "Ex-Christian, now Muslim" is denouncing France' ban of religious items as persecution of muslims.
While in the same breath defending protesters against re-opening of a church in Turkey.

Turkey is actually a country where wearing hijabs in public buildings is illegal. Thanks to the stanchly secular governments of earlier days.

So how is Turkey not persecuting it's own Muslim population?

Actually Turkey have persecuted the kurds in a manner that makes palestine look like a summer holiday, but hey, it's Ok, when muslims persecute muslims, right?

The so-called "moderate" Ex Christian has made it plain what kind of world he or she envisions for his/her fellow Europeans: one in which it would be a crime for a non-Muslim to sip wine at a restaurant or sidewalk cafe, and any other native European custom that would "impinge" on the majority Muslims (Europe is not a majority muslim entity, but obviously, ex-Christian is planning ahead.)

First we had Sal who issued veiled threats against Europeans (you better BEHAVE when Turkey enters the EU!) and now we have ex-Christian who wants to force Europe under sharia.

I just wanted to point that out.

Ah Yes Allah the merciful:

Sunday Mirror UK
THEY KNIFED BABIES, THEY RAPED GIRLS Sep 5 2004
SCHOOL SLAUGHTER: 323 DEAD, 434 HURT

By Euan Stretch Chief Reporter

* * * It has also emerged that scores of the 323 who died - including many children - had been shot in the back.

While despairing soldiers and rescue workers moved among the growing pile of body bags, it was revealed that an 18-month-old baby had been repeatedly stabbed by a black-clad terrorist who had run out of ammunition.

Other survivors told how screaming teenage girls were dragged into rooms adjoining the gymnasium where they were being held and raped by their Chechen captors who chillingly made a video film of their appalling exploits
* * *
A Russian official said six seriously injured children had been taken to Moscow for treatment. "One of them is a child, just 18 months old, with many knife wounds," he said.
* * *
Survivors say the gymnasium and surrounding corridors had been rigged with at least 18 bombs, connected by cables and trip wires.
* * *
HOSTAGE Sima Albegova told how the Chechen rebels became angry when they heard President Vladimir Putin was not visiting the school. * * * "But right after they found out that Putin was not coming, they forbade the kids from going to the toilet.
* * *
A young mother told how she was released early with her two-month-old daughter - but her five-year-old son was forced to stay.
* * *
http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/tm_objectid=14605550&method=full&siteid=106694&headline=they-knifed-babies--they-raped-girls-name_page.html

"The problem is the zionist-controled hypocritical western media which wants to show Islam and muslims always as barbarians and terrorists, they dont give us the chance to speak and show you the true face of tolerant peaceful compassionate Islam, the REAL ISLAM."

Hard as it may be to believe, this guy is trying to convince you here of Islam's MODERATION!

CAIR is a front.

OBL said there are no civilians in the US. We're all fair game.

Why don't we talk about Shining Path, FARC, etc? Because they didn't drive planes into our buildings. They didn't blow up our embassies. As far as we know, they're not taking pics of our buildings, bridges and landmarks.

And on the whole, the Irish are killing Irish. Although the IRA and FARC are working together.

---

They - "the man" doesn't give us a chance to speak? I don't want jaw-jaw, I want action. And so do a lot of us. The Iraqi clerics are fatwaing on Tater. The Iraqis are starting to march against him. Action.

It's been 3 years, words are pretty but they don't cut it.

Pakistan and India might be coming to terms over Kashmir, and they've been coming to terms on other things. That's action. That is what W's been pushing for.

-- beside, to be zimmi is better than to be slave like the African Americans in the USA, dont you think ?--

Well, considering Af-Am GDP would be about 14th in the world, not so bad. Maybe if Islamic countries' GDP were better and their people more productive....There are now approx. 7.5 mill black-owned businesses in the US. And they're no more than 15% of the population, you do the math.

Idle hands, after all, are the devil's playthings.

Too much argument about theory and interpetation.
The only muslim I met that wasn't was an Islamist was also not very religious.
Lets face it Islam is evil, because almost all muslims commit or support evil.
Including poster Ex-Christian, Now Muslim.
There is just no way of getting around that.

Doomed if you condemn terrorism and doomed if you dont, you made up your mind regarding muslims, you ( the Islamophobes ) are full of hate and bigotry, you condemn some muslims for hate against non muslims while you are doing just the same, at least no muslim is suggesting nuking Washington DC while the calls to nuke our great holy city, Mecca, becomes fashion and very well acceptable.

The calls to destroy mosques during prayer times are very well recieved and indeed tolerated !

But here is my message to all Islam's enemies:

Islam is the truth and will certainly crush you because you are mortals while Islam is immortal.

Ex-Christian,
I think you made a mistake when you admited that you believe that Jews eat the blood of children for religious ceremonies. I guess you've hung around so long with muslims that you believe this is a rational opinion. I think you already know this statement was a mistake and that it discredits your whole argument about Islam.

Even the most extreme antisemites in the west would know not to make a claim like this in public. Not because it is hateful but because you have to be really stupid to believe it.

Any further discussion with you is pointless, because there must be some common ground on which a debate is based on. You live in a different reality then the rest of us.

"Islam is the truth and will certainly crush you because you are mortals while Islam is immortal.
"

Very tolerant. Very peaceful. I'm overwhelmed.

Ex-C says "Islam is the truth and will certainly crush you." Isn't that odd for a tolerant religon. All other religons may take the view that they have a "revealed word" but they do not talk of "CRUSHING" Other religions talk about convincing, enlightening, leading or revealing. So far as I can see the only people being CRUSHED are the adherents of Islam - the women, the children, the schools, the society and the men.

Susan

"Islam is the truth and will certainly crush you because you are mortals while Islam is immortal.
"

Very tolerant. Very peaceful. I'm overwhelmed. ''

So you admit you are Islam's enemy ! Thank you.

Herbie NY,
Ex-C says "Islam is the truth and will certainly crush you." Isn't that odd for a tolerant religon. ''

It is really amazing how you Islamophobes operate ! why you only cut my sentence from the middle, why you did not post the WHOLE sentence ?

This is what I said to Islam's ENEMIES:

''
But here is my message to all Islam's enemies:
Islam is the truth and will certainly crush you because you are mortals while Islam is immortal.''

So YES, if you are the enemy of Islam and you want to fight Islam and Muslims then you will be crushed.

Why is it ok for America to crush its enemies but not ok for Muslims to do the same ?

Stop playing with words Herbie, be man, dont behave like a child.

Ex-Christian:

Yes, I guess you could call me Islam's enemy. Funny that. I'm an "enemy" of Islam just like:

--Black people are the enemies of apartheid.

--Jewish people are the enemies of Nazis.

Why on earth would a non-Muslim NOT be an enemy of something that wants to destroy our freedoms and render us second-class citizens in our own countries? Are black people supposed to feel bad about being "enemies" of apartheid?

Ex C I would think that the difference is obvious, I don't see the US attacking Moslems until they attacked the US first. Why is it that Islam has the view that it is OK to cut off heads of prisoners and why is it that there is no outcry in the Moslem world? Why is it that Moslems glory in the death of their children? Why is it that only men get virgins in paradise? Why is it that Islam is so violent? why is it that Mohamed was correct just becuase he said so?

After all, there were no witnesses, we only have his word and no one else. Why is it that Islam is not subject to debate?

Susan

Ex-Christian:

''Why on earth would a non-Muslim NOT be an enemy of something that wants to destroy our freedoms and render us second-class citizens in our own countries? Are black people supposed to feel bad about being "enemies" of apartheid?''

Ever heard of Paranoia ?

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and consciencious stupidity."
-Martin Luther King.

Herbie NY

''After all, there were no witnesses, we only have his word and no one else. Why is it that Islam is not subject to debate?''

Of course you can debate Islam but the debate will be over once you start ranting and vomiting the usual Islamophobic 'lies' and that is what happened here in this blog.

I think it's time to remind everyone that you're not here to score rhetorical points, but to discuss the issues. If all you have to add to a comment is a short sarcastic reply, or a "this is so beneath me I won't even bother to discuss with you any more", then don't, and make room for someone who will reply to those views.

And yes, I do mean you.

That's the only way to make something like this work.

I have never been so shocked by anything as by what the muslims in Ossetia did to those children. Those muslims clearly had no humanity, to be so full of their religion to believe that they could rape and murder the children, then die and go to paradise.

Some muslim religious teacher taught those muslim killers to believe that. Those teachers are continuing to teach other muslim youth to believe the same things. And the atrocities will keep coming.

Ex C I hardly think that people are ranting or " vomiting the usual Islamophobic 'lies' To the extent the comments have been pointed, you really do not respond except to say well what about ..." which is really not a response at all. So far as I can see the only reason that Islam exists in its current form is that a group of men decided that the Koran was immutable and punishes people in the form of apostsy and beheading if they disagree

Islam is the truth and will certainly crush you because you are mortals while Islam is immortal.

The real truth about the this kind of truth.

Yes, ex-Christian, I know all about paranoia -- you exhibit plenty of it, with your rantings about the "enemies of Islam" who need to be "crushed."

You freely admit that you would like to see Islamic law forced on non-Muslims, yet you think anyone who is outraged by this idea is "paranoid."

Curious definition of the word.

Blythe, USA:

"Some muslim religious teacher taught those muslim killers to believe that. Those teachers are continuing to teach other muslim youth to believe the same things. And the atrocities will keep coming."

Ex-Christian, now Muslim refuses to admit that there are many Muslim religious schools in various countries where these vicious ideas are being taught. That's why MEMRI is such a useful site--it translates Muslim sermons so we can read them for ourselves.

Blythe,USA:

"Some muslim religious teacher taught those muslim killers to believe that. Those teachers are continuing to teach other muslim youth to believe the same things. And the atrocities will keep coming."

That's why MEMRI is such a useful site. It translates Muslim sermons so we can read what's being taught to the faithful.

Sorry for the double post. I thought the first post vanished.

Okay, let's take a look at France then. In the last der Spiegel there was an interesting article about this 'first country of Eurabia'.

'In the large mosque in Paris, established in 1924 in honour of the Muslim colonial soldiers who fell in the First World War, believers met to prayer. The French interior minister, Dominique de Villepin, and the socialist mayor Bertrand Delanoe joined them. The rector of the mosque, Dalil Boubakeur, who's also leader of the Islamic council in France, announced 'Muslim solidarity with the whole of the French nation, which we fully and completely belong to'' [*]

According to the BBC Boubakeur referred to the French hostages as 'our countrymen' and urged the kidnappers to free them. Just like any sensible person would say, I guess, but there's something wrong here. This isn't how Eurabia was supposed to work, now is it?

Spiegel continues: 'The Islamic council decided to send a three-man delegation to Bagdad, to at least take a symbolic part in the efforts to free the two French [journalists taken hostage]. When they arrived in the city the delegation declared that Muslims in no way were oppressed in France and that they could practice their belief without limitations'. [**]

I haven't seen any Little Green Footballs delegations sent off. Hmmm. But here they are, French Muslims, lining up in defence of France, protesting against the hostage-taking and sending a delegation to help out their countrymen. And while terrorists in Iraq demand a lift of the French ban against hijabs in schools, French Muslims say: 'No blood for our hijab'

Odd. But wait - it gets worse. CNN tells us:

'The head of France's official Islamic council has urged Muslims to respect a law that will ban headscarves in state schools and not to heed fundamentalists challenging the country's secular system. Dalil Boubakeur, chairman of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, told journalists he opposed protest marches called by some Muslim groups even though he also did not want a law barring pupils from wearing religious attire

"We have to respect the law. Muslims cannot be above the law," he said at the Paris Grand Mosque, where he is a rector.'

And Der Spiegel can chock us even more. They tell us that:

'even the most radical current among French Muslims, the Union of Islamic Organizations, which is close to the Muslim Brotherhood and fought strongly against the law, gives in. It has asked the girls to follow 'civic behaviour'.

Øyvind

[*] My translation from Der Spiegel: "Kein Blut auf unser Kopftuch", pp. 110-111, Der Spiegel 37/2004.

[**] Noticed that one, Ex-Christian? The French Muslims don't feel that persecuted after all.

There's no condoning what happened in Beslan. Having said that, there's been no shortage of instances of rape and murder against Chechens by non-muslim Russian troops. Like it or not, there is a long standing conflict taking place there, which has little to do with religious belief, and lots to do with oil access, crime, vengance, and nationalism.

The kids murdered in Beslan are by no means the first in the region, and there's no muslim monopoly on outrage there.

For what it's worth, I doubt the report claiming women were raped in the school is correct. There's only one child made the claim, and she didn't actually claim to see it happening. No other hostage has said they saw anything of that nature.

bjorn
would like to here what you think of this list of newspaper articles

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/003131.php#comments

Øyvind,
You are correct, some number of French Muslims deplored the taking of French hostages in Iraq.

However I would have been more impressed if French Muslims were to condemn all hostage taking in Iraq and elsewhere. The outrage expressed in this case seemed to be selective and self serving.

It is outrageous to try to excuse the inexcusable, as some above seem to be doing. The world must confront muslim violence and demand that it stop. Targeting women and children specifically, seems to be the mode of operation for the violent muslims. This cannot be condoned, and those above who condone this abhorrent behavior should be called out.

I don't see anyone excusing Beslan, Blythe.
The violence in Chechnya is directed towards Muslims, as well as from Muslims.
Should I 'call you out' for not condemning the treatment of the Chechen people under Rusian occupation?

Why not demand ALL violence stop? Why restrict your demand to Muslim violence? Either is a futile demand in any case, but your selective rhetoric just serves casual bigotry (not that I'm suggesting that's the intent).

The journalist and former Kuwaiti Minister of Information Dr. Sa'd Bin Tefla wrote an article in the London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat titled "We Are All Bin Laden,"; the following are excerpts:

"Questions are being raised concerning . . . the stance of political Islam . . . concerning bin Laden and the damage that he has caused to the Muslims... It is saddening to compare our stance on Salman Rushdie to our stance on Osama bin Laden.
* * *
"We rattled and sharpened all of our rhetorical sabers, our religious legal rulings [fatwa], [alerted] our guards, our ports, our airports, and our border crossings in order to prevent his entering [our countries] and the distribution of his book, since it does damage to Islam. In all the capitals of the Islamic world protests set out for the British embassies. . . .

"Religious legal rulings were disseminated one after another banning Salman Rushdie's book and calling for him to be killed. Iran earmarked a reward of one million dollars for whoever would implement Imam Khomeini's fatwa and kill Salman Rushdie. * * *"

Where are the Fatwas Against Bin Laden?

As reporteed In MEMRI

Ahhh, there is not condoning, but...

Moral equivalency.

From a "neutral" country.

Didn't someone at LeMonde in an article acknowledge France is a kind of a muslim country recently?

Computer's slow, might try and find later.

--Of course, how do you expect us to allow someone who does not respect our faith, who think prophet muhammad (pbuh ) is false prophet, who believe muslims will go to hell, who believe Islam is false religion to build their temples in the holiest of the holy of Islam ? it does not make sense at all.--

Are there any mosques in Italy? Any synagogues?

How are we supposed to respect your faith when you don't?

Mosques are supposed to be places of worship, not arms depots.

I made some translations at DhimmiWatch about how Muslims are destroying Sweden's major cities. Please read carefully, Bjørn and Øyvind, as Oslo is only a few years behind:

Muslims rule major Swedish city

Tater certainly didn't treat the Najaf shrine as holy on more than 1 occasion. Seems to me he not only disrespected his father, he disrespected his beliefs.

Wasn't one of his lieutenants caught stealing some of the goodies in there?

They certainly didn't treat the Church of the Nativity as holy. Of course, I thought it should have been bulldozed, Christ wasn't born in a church and you don't need a church to pray.

I find it odd they keep running into mosques to save themselves.

At some point in time, there will be a tipping point.

Why do you call them translations, Ali? These are not translations - just short summaries spiced up by your own comments. In some cases what you have left out is more interesting than what you have included.

Take for instance the first of the articles, from Aftonbladet. In this article, Bo Lundqvist from the regional police in Skåne, says that it is too easy to blame immigration [for what has happened], but that it has speeded up the process. While he tells us that the police does not have control in the city he says nothing about the city being 'effectively run by violent gangs of Muslim immigrants'. That's your words, and your words only.

In fact the article does tell us that the core of criminal youth is small - around hundred persons.

"Something drastic has to be done, or much more blood will be spilled", says one of the locals, and you choose to quote this. You choose not to mention his name, Diabaté Dialy Mory, or that he's Senegalese and therefore most likely also Muslim. While this guy correctly states that something should be demanded from refugees and that one should get them in work (i.e. fight unemployment) he also mentions some reasons for the violence you chose not to 'translate':

- When I started in Rosengård (the boxing club) it was seven 'activity halls' [in city], now there's none. It seems like society wants to land all responsibility on the parents, people who are carrying the most terrible experiences and do not see a chance for a dignified future. How can parents without life in their eyes help their children?

However, Ali, the problems described in Aftonbladet is a real problem. It is a problem I have repeatedly mentioned. It is a problem we have already see in Oslo (does the name the 'B-gang' ring a bell?). It's called ghettofication. Together with poverty and unemployment it's an explosive combination. It's one of the results of immigration politics gone bad.

Eurabia? Well, that's in your dreams, Ali. But still, you might have a point that you probably don't even know about yourself. Just like in Malmø violence in the Arabic world have many reasons.

Of course, you're suggesting that Islam is to blame for it all, obviously enough, since the only thing you want to say is that Muslims are destroying Swedens major cities. And in the process you gladly use dishonest 'translations' - reminds me of the Norwegian pop song: This is propaganda.

Øyvind

The title of this thread is “The Essence of Islam.” I think I have it: misogynistic, sexually insecure males (witness M. Atta who asked that females not touch his body), and the habit, when confronted with a problem, never to ask what went wrong and how can it be fixed but to blame others and so never take responsiblity (See Bernard Lewis), an obsession with innumerable virgins – always virgins -- since they will not know the difference between a good lover and someone that forces himself on you. Each one of these themes has been the subject of innumerable articles and books.

For me, as for Ralph Peters, give me an American Career woman (nothing like a woman who picks up the dinner tab). As my body: all women are welcome - its just as I get older there seem to be less and less women who want to touch it, let alone look closely at it.

To continue as for mistakes, analyze them and learn from them they are your mistakes. Finally as for virgins: I'd rather get an honest opinion
:-)

Thanks for the link, Ali Dashti.

Rapes in Sweden as a whole have increased by 17% just since the beginning of 2003, and have had a dramatic increase during the past decade. Gang rapes, usually involving Muslim immigrant males and native Swedish girls, have become commonplace. Two weeks ago, 5 Kurds brutally raped a 13-year-old Swedish girl.

Lisa Nilsson has lived in Manhatten, New York City, for 25 years. After moving back to Malmø, Sweden, she now misses the safety of New York. She never walks anywhere in Malmø after dark, but takes a taxi everywhere she goes.

Got a problem with neutrality Sandy P?

What exactlt do you find objectionable in pointing out a moral equivalency in the intentional murder and rape of two sets of innocents? You DO recognise that moral equivalency doesn't simply disappear simply because you're ideologically adverse to it for some reason best known to yourself?

And unless I'm mistaken, the Vatican isn't Italy, and contains no Mosques or Synagogues.

Your bigotry shines though as clearly as those you profess to oppose.

AK, Ireland:

You wrote: "Why not demand ALL violence stop? Why restrict your demand to Muslim violence? Either is a futile demand in any case, but your selective rhetoric just serves casual bigotry (not that I'm suggesting that's the intent)."

I discussed this very concept today with a friend. We were discussing the problems of "caring" and "being shocked." Why was Beslan "shocking," but Darfur "a little more remote," and why didn't we get upset at the ongoing disasters in Florida and recently in a typhoon near Shanghai, etc. etc. No conclusions. However, I'm raising this point because your approach is the opposite--if one can't be for everyone then one can't be for anyone--or, we can't expect the Muslims to condemn Islamic violence because there's so much other violence.

A little cliche keeps me sane: "The perfect is the enemy of the good." I think we all need to do what we can to expect people to do what they can. If people are being massacred in Peru, well that's not really relevant to the discussion, is it?

The issue however isn't distant Peruvians. The issue is outrage at the murder of children in Beslan - intrinsicly tied into the Chechnya conflict - with Chechen kids and women undoubedly murdered by the Russian military too. It's the exact same issue, and you can't just erase the culpability of one side for convenience.

'The perfect may well be the enemy of the good', but 'demands' that muslim violence end - without regard to violence imposed on muslims doesn't serve anyone. The futility I mention is in the notion that you can demand the end of violence of anyone. Those drawn to violence to serve their evil impulses won't listen, and those drawn to violence in self defence or vengence for atrocities imposed on them will only respond to demands backed up by some form of justice for their cause.

Oh, and the reason Beslan is more shocking is because you saw it happen live on your telly. Darfur is conceptually distant because you only hear/read of the outrages after the event, and through secondhand recollection. That's just human nature, and the strength/limitation of the medium of televison. Didn't McLuhan cover this stuff in the sixties?

The painful truth: All the world's terrorists are muslims.

This is from the head of al arabiya. A good muslim himself, he is compelled by the worlwide epidemic of violence by muslims to speak out.

Really?

I must pass this news on to Belfast, Lima, Bogata, San Sebastian, Oklahoma, Tokyo, and a host of other places.

Oh, and your distorting what the man DID say:
"Most perpetrators of suicide operations in buses, schools and residential buildings around the world for the past 10 years have been Muslims," he wrote. Muslims will be unable to cleanse their image unless "we admit the scandalous facts," rather than offer condemnations or justifications.

"The picture is humiliating, painful and harsh for all of us."

Not quite the same thing, is it?

--Got a problem with neutrality Sandy P?--

When you are and have been on my - my parents - and my grandparents' dime, yes. You're safe. Because you know deep down inside we're there.

What you might fail to realize is, we're paying attention. And we might not be as gung-ho when we should be.

It is fortunate for you people don't pay attention to Ireland. We are paying attention to frankereich.

---

What exactlt do you find objectionable in pointing out a moral equivalency in the intentional murder and rape of two sets of innocents? You DO recognise that moral equivalency doesn't simply disappear simply because you're ideologically adverse to it for some reason best known to yourself?

And unless I'm mistaken, the Vatican isn't Italy, and contains no Mosques or Synagogues.

--

Most of the people of Italy might disagree with you, if you paid attention to the muslim trying to remove the cross.

And I knew someone would get technical on me, yes the Vatican is a small state. Now.

Just because one is a woman or child doesn't make one innocent. The only true innocents are babies. The Italian soldiers found that out around 4/15 and our guys in Nam also found that out.

You see, OBL doesn't consider me a civilian or my people civilians, so we're fair game. And if his term is applied to others....

So, under whose terms are we fighting?

One good link deserves another:
Malmø, Sweden. The police now publicly admit what many Scandinavians have known for a long time: They no longer control the situation in the nations's third largest city. It is effectively ruled by violent gangs of Muslim immigrants. Some of the Muslims have lived in the area of Rosengård, Malmø, for twenty years, and still don't know how to read or write Swedish. Ambulance personnel are attacked by stones or weapons, and refuse to help anybody in the area without police escort. The immigrants also spit at them when they come to help. Recently, an Albanian youth was stabbed by an Arab, and was left bleeding to death on the ground while the ambulance waited for the police to arrive. The police themselves hesitate to enter parts of their own city unless they have several patrols, and need to have guards to watch their cars, otherwise they will be vandalized. "Something drastic has to be done, or much more blood will be spilled" says one of the locals.
http://w1.sydsvenskan.se//Article.jsp?article=10092861

The number of people emigrating from the city of Malmø is reaching record levels. Swedes, who a couple of decades ago decided to open the doors to Muslim "refugees" and asylum seekers, are now turned into refugees in their own country and forced to flee their homes. The people abandoning the city mention crime and fear of the safety of their children as the main reason for leaving.
http://w1.sydsvenskan.se/Article.jsp?article=10090830

ALL of the 600 windows at one of the schools in Malmø have been broken during the summer holiday. Window smashing alone costs the city millions every year. City buses have been forced to avoid the immigrant ghetto, as they are met with youths throwing rocks or bottles at them if they enter. Earlier this year, a boy of Afghan origin had made plans to blow up his own school.
http://w1.sydsvenskan.se//Article.jsp?article=10093267

People working at the emergency ward at the major hospital in Malmø receive threats every day, and are starting to get used to it. Patients with knives or guns are commonplace. They have discussed having metal detectors at the emergency entrance, but some fear this could be seen as a provocation.
http://w1.sydsvenskan.se//Article.jsp?article=10093495

Lisa Nilsson has lived in Manhatten, New York City, for 25 years. After moving back to Malmø, Sweden, she now misses the safety of New York. She never walks anywhere in Malmø after dark, but takes a taxi everywhere she goes.
http://www.expressen.se/index.jsp?a=180423

Rapes in Sweden as a whole have increased by 17% just since the beginning of 2003, and have had a dramatic increase during the past decade. Gang rapes, usually involving Muslim immigrant males and native Swedish girls, have become commonplace. Two weeks ago, 5 Kurds brutally raped a 13-year-old Swedish girl.
http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,528363,00.html

22-year-old Swedish woman going out for fresh air gang raped by three strange men. The only said one word to her: "Whore!"
Ali Dashti comments: "Stories like this are in Swedish newspapers every week. Swedish media usually take great care not to mention the ethnic background of the perpetrators, but you can usually read it between the lines."

--Oklahoma,--

Don't count your chickens on that. There's some interesting theories about OK.

Yes, I do have a problem w/neutrality, especially when that neutrality has been guaranteed by my grandparents, parents and my tax $.

I am aware of what neutral Ireland did during WWII.

Switzerland was not neutral. One who acts as banker and possibly kept the war going 2 years longer because of that action cannot be considered "neutral."

The only true innocents are babies. Just because one is a woman or "child" doesn't mean one is innocent. The Italians found that out around 4/15. Our soldiers found that out in Nam.

OBL has decreed there are no civilians in the US. He has defined the terms. You had better hope he doesn't decree the same for Ireland, but it seems to me Ireland also has some problems w/cells.

Americans have been paying attention to frankenreich, they have not been paying attention to Ireland. If Ireland is required to step up to the plate and fails, Americans will take note and act accordingly. I am aware of "neutral" Ireland's actions during WWII.

And that's what one gets from not proofing.

Redundancy.

Um Sandy...

Ireland had EXACTLY the same foreign policy stance as the US during WWII - Neutral until attacked. There wasn't any difference between the two countries. Ireland just wasn't attacked, so we didn't have to enforce the 'attack' bit.

The US hasn't spent one dime protecting Ireland against anyone, so rest easy on that front.

I note you don't deny the relevence of pointing out the moral equivalency of murder of innocents, but rather suggest that those sneaky Chechen women/children must be 'less innocent' for a reason, again best known to yourself.

I've been to Italy fairly regularly in the last year and didn't notice any suspicious absense of churches or crosses. The usual excess of them in fact.

Gosh, Blyth, I didn't know it was that bad in Sweden! It looks like there's no lower threshold on muslim violence.
Wouldn't it be so much better if muslim people improved their own native lands, rather than emigrating and ruining their new countries to be just like their old ones?

--Ireland had EXACTLY the same foreign policy stance as the US during WWII - Neutral until attacked. There wasn't any difference between the two countries. Ireland just wasn't attacked, so we didn't have to enforce the 'attack' bit.--

If the Swiss could be the bankers, Ireland could have allowed US to watch which ships went by.

I can understand why you have issues w/the Brits, but geez, how many died by U-Boats? All we wanted was to put lookouts on the cliffs.

AND - nice try, but if you think our umbrella ended at your border especially with how many Americans of Irish descent we have here, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Do you honestly think our planes would stay grounded if you went first?

We're there whether you acknowledge it or not, you are part of the old country. You can afford your neutrality dream cos we're there in the background and have been for a long time. Push comes to shove, do you really want to find out? You're not worth the effort at this point in time, your worth is a place to plan, come in under the radar.

Look at the frogs this last week, they're actually on the arabs' side and can't understand why their reporters were taken.

--I've been to Italy fairly regularly in the last year and didn't notice any suspicious absense of churches or crosses. The usual excess of them in fact.--

Not for lack of trying and lawsuit in 2003, IIRC.

P.S. Look up "idiotarian" in the blog dictionary. That's where my lack of moral equivalency is coming from.

Especially what happened 3 years ago in about 10 hours.

Sandy,

If I could drag you back to reality?
If Germans had asked the US for access to some US based lookout posts to supervised British maritime traffic in 1939, do you expect they would have been successful? Why expect something different from another neutral state?

If it's any consolation, there was widespread, but unspoken of exchange of shipping information between the Irish marine, and the Royal Navy throughout the war years, and Northern Ireland was the primary base for Uboat spotter planes, which wouldn't have been helped to any great degree by additional bases in teh south.

The US has never offered any 'umbrella' of protection to the Irish state, and one has never been requested. The Irish state has always been independent of all military pacts up to this day. It matters not one whit how many Irish Americans live in the US. The Irish state has no obligation to, or call on, US protection.

Ireland's political place in the world is defined, as all small nations are, by it's support of, and legal commitment to, the UN and international law. That institution is where we place our faith in conflict resolution, not the self serving whim of one superpower.

You're worried about tenious legal cases in Italy? I imagine you have sleepless nights about obesity cases brought against McDonalds too?

Your whining about moral equivalence would indicate that you fail to see a moral equivalence where it does exist, and would rather revert to lazy absolutism than tackle objectionable truths that don't fit your ideology. The murder of Chechen women and children by Russiian troops is just as morally objectionable as the murder of those children in Beslan. There's no way to twist your rhetoric to claim otherwise.

The 'frogs' by the way opposed the war on the same basis that the rest of the world did - No evidence of a legal imperative to undermine the sovereignty of an independent state. In a world of bully nations, the law is the only thing that protects the weak from the powerful. In the absense of law your other alternative is the world of retribution, vengence and terrorism.

Nice try, AK, but it doesn't wash. We're still there and deep down inside from all the EU puffery, Europe knows it. Look at the latest poll, 70ish % want to be a world player, but if it means supplying the military, around 50%. Which means some are actually paying attention.

You put your faith in the UN - majority are thugs and dictators. They've done an outstanding job in Kosovo. A former electricity-export country still after 7ish years, can't generate enough needed. And don't try and mention Iraq, I do have a grasp on what's been going on there with the electrical problems.

Not to mention US manpower to do the UN's bidding - and the money to do it. They and the EU refuse to handle Durfar. We're forking over 80% of the aid - the other who have pledged haven't come up w/the money - what a surprise, not!

1 EU - 1 currency - 1 seat - 1 vote.

A strong case can be made for that. Or 50 US states - 50 votes using a possible European argument. Are you sure you want to put your future into the hands of the UN? Especially after Oil-for-Palaces, food-for-sex, Rwanda and everything else they've been up to? But, hey, they're the counter to the US - besides the fact we're the biggest contributor and a major donator of humanitarian aid, and have the force to actually do something. And don't go there using GDP, that argument doesn't wash w/me either.

And as to Italy - it wasn't just a "little" lawsuit. Got the Italians up in arms to get rid of the Cross. The Italian blogger who originally wrote about it w/links doesn't blog anymore. It was Cosi Turche. His archives are gone.

As to frogistan, of course it's all benign. Has nothing to do w/oil/Total Fina, money owed, arms being sold thru the end of 2002 to Iraq, possibly setting US, the Italians and the Brits up w/the Niger documents - and W didn't say Niger, he said Africa - don't go there, either --and if America said the sky is bleu - they'd be contrary to be contrary because they are exceptional, you understand.

You're lying down w/dogs, don't be surprised when you get up w/fleas.

As to Irish cooperation, perhaps you can enlighten me. My understanding was that there were 2 Irelands. One side helped, one did not.

The UN is a 20th century construct and should stay in the 20th century. We are in the 21st century, the world is different. Time for something new or at minimum, revised. Quit being so statist. That thinking is what has gotten Europe into its quagmire.

There are those out there who have been discussing alternatives to the UN. Maybe you should peruse their writings.

Sandy,

You certainly seem to need some elightenment all right.

The EU don't have any military policy, so your poll has no bearing on the real world. All the EU have proposed is a voluntary small force for rapid reaction to crisis events, which each state can opt out of if it impinges on their sovereign foreign policy. Economically of course the EU is just as powerful a world player as the US, as can be extrapolated from the trade figures.

Um, there is more than one currency within the EU, and soverign nation states are not the same as intra-national states. It's a simple enough concept - The US is ONE country, the EU comprises 25 countries, with different forms of democracy, foreign policy and federal taxation.

The UN has a better record in resolving world problems than any individual state, and if you hadn't checked recently, the US is the worst debtor to the UN, and has a shoddy record of aid to the developing world compared to many other wealthy countries. That fact may not 'wash' with you, but a fact it is nonetheless.

Vey compelling argument you have on the Italian thing. You obviously know your stuff.

The french weren't selling any arms to Iraq in 2002 btw. Take that Bushite propaganda elsewhere. I love the desperate attempt to salvage SOME sort of justification for the illegal warmongering.

I suppose your 19th century colonial gunboat diplomacy offers a better solution than the UN can offer? It's been working amazingly well in Afghanistan and Iraq so far.

Sandy P:

Don't get sucked in by AK. He/she has hijacked the thread that was supposed to be about "the essence of Islam" and turned it into the same old "USA is responsible for all the world's evils" tiresome chant of the blind Euroleft.

You'll find these useful fools derailing every single thread about Islam you'll ever visit.

Don't play their game.

Ah Susan,

I think if you review the thread, you'll find it wasn't me who 'hijacked' the discussion. I was on topic until Sandy introduced the issue of neutrality, Europe v US, and all that other reactionary neo-con rubbish.

But don't let your bias bother you, cheers.

AK, Ireland . . .

"Ireland's political place in the world is defined, as all small nations are, by it's support of, and legal commitment to, the UN and international law. That institution is where we place our faith in conflict resolution, not the self serving whim of one superpower."

Lots o'luck in your fantasy world where the UN is ready to the rescue. LOL

'Lots o'luck in your fantasy world where the UN is ready to the rescue. LOL'

Laugh it up. I don't see Bush laughing too much when he has to eat his words and return to the UN for some sort of help in getting out of the mess he made for himself.

Like it or not, the UN is the only international bodie with any sort of legal mandate behind it. You either respect the law, or you revert to bullyboy military leverage (which isn't particularly effective, as current events point up).

Susan, all I did was challenge Ireland. Sometimes I wonder if Ireland used to visit LGF until Charles changes his registration policy.

I am not a neo-con, Ireland. I'm neither Jewish nor have ever been a democrat, although I have voted for some. If you're going to use the term, please be aware of the definition. Otherwise it just looks like you're pulling something out of an echo chamber - same for Fox News, unless you understand Nielsen ratings, don't go there. And if you understood Nielsen ratings and how our TV works here, you wouldn't go there.

One doesn't kill trees, expend hot air making global warming worse and waste taxpayers' money for nothing. This will fail.

european-convention.eu.int

eursoc.com

Have you ever heard of a site called Friends of Saddam??? If you don't know these things, then shame on your MSM (Mainstream Media) and you for not poking around. --The french weren't selling any arms to Iraq in 2002 btw-- And --The 'frogs' by the way opposed the war on the same basis that the rest of the world did - No evidence of a legal imperative to undermine the sovereignty of an independent state.-- (BTW - there's no "legal" imperative for Darfur either, but one could make a moral case. Hey, legally I don't have a right to defend my family and home, either in Britain, but morally I do.

Are you sure about the frogs???

acepilots.com/unscam

There's also a new book coming out here about how our "allies" have armed our enemies, someone spilled a few beans from the CIA.

AHHH! Herbie, who is the author? He's either from the NYT or WP, IIRC. I'm sure Ireland would love to add to the reading list.

--the US is the worst debtor to the UN, and has a shoddy record of aid to the developing world compared to many other wealthy countries. That fact may not 'wash' with you, but a fact it is nonetheless.---

Collin May, a Canuck, worked or still works for NGOs and even worked in conjunction w/the UN. Why don't you talk to him? He's done charts, IIRC. There's also a posting in his archives.

innocentsabroad.blogspot.com

As the biggest donor, this is the only way of making sure we get some accountability. Kind of like the Euros and the Palis. You should also google Claudia Rosette(?) formerly of the WSJ and now keeping tabs on FOS.

Here's an oldie from The CATO Org. If it's not available, I'll be happy to send it to you.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/6-15-98.html

Here's another oldie (2003) on donations:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A21323-2003Oct26?language=printer

Now, this includes 9/11, but look at the amounts:

Associated Press
Monday, October 27, 2003; Page A04
Contributions to the largest charities fell in 2002 for the first time in 12 years because of the troubled economy and uncertainty among donors, a new survey shows.

Donations to the 400 largest charities dropped 1.2 percent last year, to $46.9 billion from $47.5 billion in 2001, the Chronicle of Philanthropy said today in its annual survey. During the previous five years, donations increased an average of 12 percent each year.

-----
And via a blogger, I forgot which one:

Tax Cuts Power Rise in Charity

ABC News has more on yesterday's report of an increase in charitable giving by Americans last year:

Charities had been worried that recent tax reforms, included phasing out the estate tax, might hurt donations, but gifts by bequest showed the greatest increase in 2003. With support from higher household net worth, estate giving rose 12.8 percent to $21.6 billion, from $19.5 billion in 2002.

Of the ten charitable categories documented by Giving USA, religious organizations received the most contributions, with an estimated $86.4 billion, or 35.9 percent of the total.

The Bush tax cuts allowed people to keep more of their own money to do with as they wished. It seems they wished to donate more of it to charity. The increase in charitable giving by Americans is, undeniably, an achievement of the policies of President Bush.

I'm currently looking for a state-by-state breakdown of charitable giving to compare to the political "red/blue" maps...

----

Now THOSE are the FACTS - which, my dear Ireland, you can read any time you wish in the American press because you speak, read and write Engligh. There are also American sites/ organizations which track who gives the most bang for your donated buck, if you care to poke around. And some of that money stays home. This is individual donations, IIRC, this comes from what's left after taxes. And then on top if it, some of our taxes goes abroad also.

And from a "extremist right-wing" site, just to let you know if you actually want to keep tabs on them:

ngowatch.org

Even Gates squabbled w/the UN about accountability w/the money he's supplying to Africa.

As I said before, we subsize via our military. That allows other countries to free up their money for good works. We also subsize by prescription drugs and if Americans ever paid attention, that would be another shot heard around the world.

We don't get credit for military, direct corporate/individual/philanthropic donations. We're talking big, big numbers here.

As to the RRF, about time, but you're not using NATO's (US) equipment - buy your own - but they don't want to do that. And isn't it interesting that in 1 EUC draft delivered late at night in french all mention to NATO was missing? The Brit rep put her foot down, until she got a copy in English. But she was assured the draft was fine.

----

It's a simple enough concept - The US is ONE country, the EU comprises 25 countries, with different forms of democracy, foreign policy and federal taxation.

Check out electoral proportion in Maine and it's on the ballot in CO. Foreign policy - there are many cities that have "foreign" policy (Berkeley for 1) - no nuke, we're not paying attention to fed law, etc. But, like parts of Europe, they're also under the US military umbrella and can afford to stick their tongues out. AND each state has a different tax policy, only the federal is the same. I think we have some apples to apples here comparing EU and US.

UN - Kosovo is a disaster, how's East Timor doing? Did the former head of the UN in ET really say before the war that we shouldn't let the UN run Iraq? What is the UN's reputation in parts of Afghanistan? And they're running for the hills re: Darfur. Do you know why? Why is the US providing 80% of the aid there? Where is "the world?" They've certainly wrung their hands enough.

--I suppose your 19th century colonial gunboat diplomacy offers a better solution than the UN can offer? It's been working amazingly well in Afghanistan and Iraq so far.--

Millions for defense, not one penny for tribute. How do you think, "...to the shores of Tripoli,.. got into The Marine Anthem? Speak softly, but carry a big stick - something Europe really chooses not to have. 1803, Barbary Pirates. SOSO from our enlightened cousins across the pond.

Yes, those 12 years of mostly Chap. 7 resolutions worked outstandingly. And the IAEA, UN, Britain and frankenreich have done an outstanding job re: Iran, btw. Maybe Bertie can help.

Shoddy record of direct aid? This I'd like to read. Or is it just not going where others think it should go?

---In the absense of law your other alternative is the world of retribution, vengence and terrorism.--

Whose law?

--Vey compelling argument you have on the Italian thing. You obviously know your stuff.--

I get around, maybe you should. Start w/the links I gave you.

--- Economically of course the EU is just as powerful a world player as the US, as can be extrapolated from the trade figures.--

You also have 150m more people, you shouldn't be equal. But put that monstrosity of a constitution in place, and you become commie-lite, and look how well that turned out.

Let me explain 1 other thing, how the UN is funed by US. Unlike Britain and frankenreich, we have "separation of powers." - I'm sure you can google The US Constitution on your own and read how we do things.

Unlike our "allies," when Kofi comes w/his hand out, the president cannot say "so let it be written, so let it be done." The president's position, and you will enjoy this, is "the bully pulpit."

However, it's Congress which holds the keys to the purse. Specifically, the House of Representatives initiates all spending bills. In short, the UN must justify why it wants what it wants from the American taxpayer, sometimes by testifying in person in front of a committee. And they don't like it. Millions of Americans are tired of the waste. And we're also not too fond of the UN at this time. However, that didn't stop the UN from asking for the same loan terms when they were founded, in short, a no-interest loan while they rehab. The UN -- the world has the money. No more free rides.

I am also very well aware of the anti-Americanism in Ireland. All I have to do is read your papers. And since most of our MSM is more liberal than America as a whole, maybe you should start reading American bloggers of all views. You can also listen to US left and right-wing talk radio whenever you want if you A. want to get a different perspective and B. Actually join in and give your view. Because, you see, news is now a conversation here (buzzmachine.com). You cannot feel apart of things if you don't participate. At this point in time, you're in an echo chamber. Come on over to the dark side (America) and see what you're missing.

Do you understand what has happened here last weekend w/the blogosphere and CBS one of the 3 main free TV stations? The blogosphere drew buckets of blood. You don't need your superior elitist MSM to tell you how the world is, you can now go to the source. You can read our thinktanks. You can come to your own conclusions.

And as for me taking the Bushies word? You don't understand our history. We don't trust our government, but we trust "the world - you" even less. Why do you think we left?

After a Jew was released from either Auschwitz or Dachau, I can't remember -- back in either '45 or '47, he was asked what he learned. "When someone tells you he intends to kill you, believe him."

Americans have been told and killed by the political wing of Islam for at least 25 years. Europe is being told what their hopes and dreams are, and Islamic flag over Buckingham Palace or Parliament, IIRC. we are beginning to believe them. Parts of Europe do not. I trust my gunboat diplomacy over Euro jaw-jaw any day. It's history.

---

Bjorn, I've been hitting the tip jar lately, you'll find something soon.

And 1 other point - Cose Turche is still listed on EURSOC's blogroll.

But it's not on blogger any more.

Otherwise I would have linked to the incident I told you about, Ireland.

When EU wanted to make their own military, Colin Powell explicitly said that it is not something that the US can accept, so dont say that the EU can buy their own planes and not use NATO's, because US insist on EU using NATO forces. Besides, US is not running and paying for NATO by themselves.
Sandy you really like to have nicknames on people, you should refrain from that, as no-one can take your arguments seriously when they are being called names.
"I am also very well aware of the anti-Americanism in Ireland. All I have to do is read your papers", try reading some of the papers or tv in most parts of the world, you're not as popular as you would think. When you think the world is crazy, try and take a look in the mirror, perhaps YOU'RE the one who's crazy.

"And as for me taking the Bushies word? You don't understand our history. We don't trust our government, but we trust "the world - you" even less. Why do you think we left?"
That was some generations ago, you seem to be thinking that what your ancestors did, is somehow to your credit. I cant really see you deciding before you were born that, hmmm .. I wanna be borne in the US, so dont go there. AND, Well, lets see.. what did your ancestors do to the blacks and the native americans? Should we give you the discredit for that as well if thats the case?

My ancestors fought for the North, the town in which some still reside was a stop on the Underground RR AND - we were too poor to own slaves, as far as I know. The other side came here after it was over. BTW, I do have a little Cherokee left in me. There's more of us mixed breeds than you think.

Nice try, Allen. You want the link to my ancestor?

And if I really wanted to go back, I would have.

Kind of like some Ozzies to the Mother Country if they wanted to, Allen.

---

Ahh, yes, France is completely innocent, via Powerline:

Reader Dilip Balamore pointed us to this article in today's Telegraph:

The Italian businessman at the centre of a furious row between France and Italy over whose intelligence service was to blame for bogus documents suggesting Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy material for nuclear bombs has admitted that he was in the pay of France.

The man, identified by an Italian news agency as Rocco Martino, was the subject of a Telegraph article earlier this month in which he was referred to by his intelligence codename, "Giacomo".

His admission to investigating magistrates in Rome on Friday apparently confirms suggestions that - by commissioning "Giacomo" to procure and circulate documents - France was responsible for some of the information later used by Britain and the United States to promote the case for war with Iraq.

Italian diplomats have claimed that, by disseminating bogus documents stating that Iraq was trying to buy low-grade "yellowcake" uranium from Niger, France was trying to "set up" Britain and America in the hope that when the mistake was revealed it would undermine the case for war, which it wanted to prevent.

---

I posted a link about an EU fighter plane around the 15th or 16th at Rantburg. I think it's called the Typhoon, or that could have been something mentioned by a poster. Check under Britain.

There's quite an active link for your neck of the woods, too. You might want to participate.

مرحبًا أصدقاء,لديّ سؤال آخر . متى مسلمون يصلّي لماذا يجب يواجهون اتّجاه مكّة . طبقًا للإسلام الذي يصلّي لتمثال أو الحجر يُعْتَبَر إثم . لا يصلّي للحجر الكبير سمّى الكعبة أيضًا اعتبرت إثمًا ؟?? أنا مربوك . من فضلك ساعدني . شكرًا ......كيم سوك إيم
(arabic)

你好朋友,我有其它問題。當穆斯林祈禱為什麼必需他們面對麥加的方向。根據回教祈禱對雕像或石頭被認為罪孽。不祈禱對大石頭稱Kaaba 並且考慮了罪孽嗎? ??? 我是迷茫的。請幫助我。謝謝。.....Kim Sook Im ( chinese )

hola amigos,....Tengo otra pregunta. Cuando los musulmanes ruegan ,porqué es necessario que ellos hacen frente a la dirección de Mecca. Según el Islam quienquiera ruega a una estatua o a una piedra se considera un pecado. ¿ Rogar a una piedra grande llamada el Kaaba- no se considera este acto también como un pecado??? Soy confuso. Ayúdeme por favor. Gracias. ... ..Kim Sook Im (spanish)

여보세요 친구,나는 다른 질문이 있는다. 이슬람교도에의하여 필요물이 그들 메카의 방향을직면하는 까 왜가 기도할 때. 동상 또는 돌에기도하는 이슬람교에 따르면 죄악이라고사려된다. 그것은Kaaba이라고 부르는 큰 돌에기도할 것이다 아니다 죄악 이다. 나는 혼동한다. 나를돕십시요. 너를 감사하십시요. .....KimSookIm
( Korean)


hello friends,

I have another question. When muslims pray why must they face the direction of Mecca. According to Islam praying to a statue or stone is considered a sin. Is not praying to the Big Stone called the Kaaba also considered a sin??? I am confused. Please help me.
Thank you.
(english)


hello vrienden,Ik heb een andere vraag. Wanneer moslims bidden, waarom moeten zij de richting van Mekka onder ogen zien. Volgens Islam, die aan een standbeeld of een steen bidt wordt beschouwd als een zonde. Is het niet een zonde aan een grote steen genoemd Kaaba te bidden ???. Ik ben verward !!!. Gelieve te helpen me.
Dank u......Kim Sook Im
( dutch )


Hallo Freunde,....Ich habe eine andere Frage. Wenn Moslems beten, warum mueßen sie die Richtung von Mecca gegenüberstellen. Entsprechend dem Islam, der zu einer Statue oder zu einem Stein betet, gilt als eine Sünde. Ist es nicht eine Sünde, zu einem grossen Stein zu beten, der das Kaaba genannt wird. Ich bin verwirrt. Helfen Sie mir bitte. Danke......Kim Sook Im

Bjørn Stærk
"This absurdity follows from the premise that a Christian essence exists and can be investigated objectively by outsiders. Believers themselves may of course talk about essences as much as they like. They may read the Bible and conclude that they believe in one interpretation, and not another."

The way I understand it, the essence of Islam or Christianity has nothing to do with which interpretation of the holy scriptures is supposed to be correct. Interpretation is something the Christians and Moslems do in order to find out how they ought to practice their religion. Interpretation thus has to do with establishing religious practice, it has nothing to do with searching for essence.

Christianity has an essence, and so does Islam. The essence of Christianity differs from the essence of Islam. Still, it is obvious that there is a similarity between Christianity and Islam - they are both religions. Religion itself has an essence. You can perhaps say that Christianity and Islam both share the essence of Religion, with each of these religions adding its own unique essence to it.

Christianity and Islam are different, yet it is easy for any lay person to see that both are religions despite there being essential differences between them. Similarly, it is very easy for a lay person to see that, say, blogging is not a religion. And even if all bloggers for some odd reason decided to call blogging a religion, blogging would still not become a religion, since it would lack the essence of what a religion is.

I think people have a general idea of, say, what Islam is, as well as what cannot be called Islam. This is because we have an "unconscious mental image" of some sorts of what makes up the essence of Islam, even if we may struggle to make a written description of it.

Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/790

Rishon Rishon: Righteous indignation, September 6, 2004 09:28 PM

Bjørn Stærk has an excellent post about interpreting religion. I find I am alternately amused and annoyed at people’s attempt to explain to me my religion. The problem, however, is not just their “superficial reading of the scriptures”...

Heretics' almanac: Is there such a thing as religious "essence?", September 10, 2004 08:09 PM

Those who think of banning Islam (whatever that actually means) do so because they believe that the essence of Islam through some mysterious mechanism compels some of its followers to blow up school buses, put their women in bhurkas, and neglect their ...