There is no such thing as moderate islam nor will there ever be a peace between those who adhere to the faith and our free-living ways in the west. We need to stop kidding ourselves and stop mass migration of muslims into western Europe and North America. They are and will remain a highly destabilising force.

Let's re-cap on what we have suffered and lost in the past six years because of them: the introduction of a costly security and surveillance culture for everything just to stay safe, war all over the world, devastating attacks on civilians in cities around the world (check www.religionofpeace.com), riots in once-peaceful countries like Sweden and Denmark, inner city no-go areas in France and the UK, billions and billions spent on all these wars and security measures in order to keep the global economy functioning.

Most journalists are now afraid to speak out honestly about what islam is doing because of the very real threat of death and intimidation. People like Hirsi Ali and Irshad Manji get daily death threats and must be protected by bodyguards 24/7. And that's in supposedly safe western countries.

If you ask me, that is a lot to give up for in return compliance in the programme to increase muslim migration into the west. A pretty rotton deal and I have to pinch myself everyday to even be reminded of how nuts it all is and how much we have just accepted this as 'normal'.

No other migrant group has cost so much in blood and treasure to facilitate their entrance in the great immigration dream.

Now let's review today's threats: we have been told by muslims that we are in the last chance saloon to repent or face destruction, that we will experience a 'Hiroshima' soon, that we must allow sharia law in our countries. None of this has to be accepted. Just to recap for all the feminists out there, if you think you can live with this faith just look at wha is happening to women in Iran right now: religious police are rounding them up and punishing them for not wearing head scarves forward enough on their heads. Kind of makes Rush Limbaugh look like a gentle buffoon doesn't?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm not 6.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"importance" in reference to allah, not important. heh

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Six million men, women, children and old people of Hebrew ancestry died in the Holocaust because they were perceived as a threat by Hitler. Now, because of 9/11, the same racial bias against Muslims has infected America.

To make my point, let me take you back to the start of Gulf War 2.

On April 7, 2003, under standing orders from George W., a B1 bomber carried out a decapitation strike on a Baghdad restaurant where Saddam Hussein was eating a late lunch. Reportedly.

Shortly after the mission began, the Ace of Spades, suspecting he had been betrayed by someone on his staff, slipped out of the al-Sa’ah restaurant’s backdoor and fled the scene. Ten minutes later, four 2,000-pound bunker busters dropped by the diverted bomber blew the suburban eatery to bits along with cooks, waiters, bus boys, customers, cashier, pedestrians passing by and the occupants of three nearby homes.

Fourteen civilians died in that Baghdad neighborhood on April 7, people who lost their lives simply for being there, including two young children. Yet back in the United States, few Americans protested the barbaric aspect of the B1 mission, not on TV or in the press anyway. Quite the contrary, there was glorification of Bush’s decision to “take out Saddam,” as so many in his administration enjoyed saying.

Does any clear-thinking American believe the bombing mission would have been executed had the 14 people been blue-eyed Christians instead of brown-eyed Muslims? Of course not.

As an addendum to the atrocity, in 2004 I watched Dub-ya on CNN. He was in the Oval Office answering questions about a retaliatory air assault against Syria by Israeli jets. The reason for the revenge mission was a Hamas suicide bombing of a crowded Jewish eating establishment that killed 20 people.

When asked by a White House reporter if the Israeli raid was justified, Bush glowered and replied sternly, “When Hamas blows up a restaurant with civilians inside, that’s terrorism.”

I kid you not. I heard him say that with my own ears. Those were the exact words spoken by George bin Laden.

To illustrate the extent of Bush’s born-again hypocrisy, read what he said to a group of Iraqi women meeting with him in the White House, as published by its official website on November 17, 2003.

“We’re seeing the nature of Al Qaeda. They’ll kill innocent people anywhere, any time. That’s just the way they are. They have no regard for human life. They claim they’re religious people, but they’re not. Religious people do not murder innocent citizens.”

Dub-ya’s in-your-face theology is one reason why Muslims hate Americans so much. His arrogance shows contempt for non-Christian people, one of the great dangers of commingling politics and religion. The president apparently believes in the name of Jesus he had every right to blow up the al-Sa’ah restaurant and kill (murder) 14 civilians to nail Saddam Hussein.

Conversely, when Muslim insurgents explode a car bomb in Baghdad, he condemns them as godless thugs. Sociologists call that kind of myopic belief system “ethnocentrism,” meaning an emotional attitude that one’s own ethnic group, nation or culture is superior to all others. It is the bedrock of fascism, not freedom.

Hugh E. Scott, editor of King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is a better article than I feared at first, but methinks she doth protest too much. I see what she's driving at, and possibly "orthodox" will catch on... although in a Christian culture it makes me think of the Byzantine big hats & icons.

But it seems that our home-grown Christians that we call "liberal" have the same problem. The modifiers "liberal," "moderate," "middle way" etc. imply to most of us Alternet types that the person (thank God!) doesn't take the religion TOO seriously. Our use of such a modifier is intended as a compliment. If some believers resentfully refuse to take it as one, screw them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The search for principles of morality and logic, whether in secular clothes ore religious ones, must address several issues, because other arguments, themselves principles tend to counter the overall goal of balance and reason. The first thing to recognize, by Asma Khalid, her argument for orthodoxy, is that all moral, logical frameworks have two components, their distorted historical baggage, and the existence of a universal underlying center. It is the latter argument, which Khalid bases her argument for orthodoxy.

The argument, for orthodoxy is the argument that if all secular or religious ideologies had found a shared universal moral, and logical center, it would be in fact the revolutionary center, that would in fact, be both at once, radical yet the new orthodox, conservative, conserving center, having discovered where and how such a principle exists, and can be reconstructed, made dynamic, adjusting, to the historical forms and changes, without falling into the trap of dogma, narrowminded limits, where exclusionary principles start the rot, where once inclusionary principles stood of revolutionary ideals, whether in religion or secular movements.

Asma Khalid is absolutely correct to point out the snobbery of Western class, secular hypocrisy, because Western Enlightenment failed, was betrayed by the exclusionary double standards, class standards, of commercial capitalism, and its class liberals, where once revolutionary, secular principles of Reason stood, with its inclusionary principles of freedom, liberty based on an inter-national link of nation states as the means to socialize the principle of morality, logic and wealth, via a universal middle class, without masters above and exploited classes below. Therefore Asma Khalid and most of the third world, Islamic or otherwise, has the right to point out the hypocrisy of Western imperialism, fascism, racism against Arabs, the by product of class nationalism, class imperialism, instead of universal social nation states where no such class despotism, class tyranny rules, either within, through class hierarchies, as class societies, or through class external hierarchies, western class domination through colonial and post colonial economic blackmail and ideological hypocrisy.

However this explanation, where the source of corruption, class corruption resides, via its exclusionary double standards, class standards, also applies as part of the historical baggage, which Islamic countries share, with Western class societies, namely its class societies, Patriarchy, that still betray through the same principle of exclusion, although in more traditional, feudal garb, the baggage of male domination over women, children, is still property rights over inclusionary principles of inherent human rights. Asama Khalid must show, like all secular and religious ideologies, how universal tendencies, must be extended to overcome the limited class despotism, patriarchy that exists in all fundamental religions, but even if she were an atheist, would still have to do the same for secular ideas, themselves party to this social rot, class standards and exclusionary hypocrisy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As long as Islam, like most forms of Christianity, purports to teach the Truth to beleivers, with non-believers at best ignorants of the Truth and at worst opponents of the Truth, wars will rage over the natural desire of religion to expand at the expense of non-believers.

In the case of Judaism, weakened by the massacres of the Holocaust, it merged most of its religious branches seamlessly into Zionism after WWII. Now Zionism clashes with Isalm. The clashes reinvigorate both forms of ignorant belief. For religion to grow more powerful, it must feed on the blood of nonbelievers. Islam is the prime example of that today, with Zionism's expansion in the Middle East another gory exhibit.

Most Protestant and Roman Catholic churches, having embraced "peace" with other religions, are dying. However as many have noted here, militant conservative Christianity expands in the US and in Latin America, to the detriment of freedom and tolerance in those countries.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

why any educated person, as Ms. Khalid seems to be, would choose to define her life in terms of some ridiculous medieval belief system is beyond me. radical, moderate, who cares? it's all baloney.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Excellent insight! It never struck me before that to even use the term "moderate Muslim" is a kind of racist slur. It implies that most Muslims must NOT be moderate. thanks!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Things are what they are, and calling them by another name doesn't change them. You can try to force high heels and an evening dress on this pig called Islam all you want, but it's still a pig. Islam is radical at its core, and there is no compromising with it. Islam needs to go.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Religion is the core of all wars. Why must any properly educated, self-respecting human being believe in the tooth-fairy, santa claus, Xenu, or any other crazy made up crap? What is this need to believe in a supernatural being? As long as there is God, g-d, gods, or Allah, there will be killing on this planet, period. End religion, end war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What the author and people who think like her don't seem to get is that when they talk about how Islam is all about moderation in all things and "jihad" is supposed to be the internal struggle within one's self to be the best you can be and then the crazies get people to blow themselves up and declare that someone should die because he wrote a book where one line is seen as blasphemous, Westerners can't be blamed for not really being able to tell who is truly representing Islam.

I would suggest that rather than saying to us "we're not like them, trust us" they should be telling the crazies "hey, knock it off". I have yet to see an explanation, good or otherwise, as to why there is no movement to rein in the violence that has anything approaching teeth. I realize that Islam is a heavily decentralized religion with no central supreme authority, but for anyone who doesn't want to be tarred with the brush of "Islam is a violent religion" they need to denounce the perpetrators of the violence long and loud and often in as many media outlets as possible. The voices need to represent as many different people as possible, male AND female. White, yellow, brown, black, pink, red, orange, I don't care.

I challenge all Muslims who despise the violence done in the name of Allah to step and start calling their brethren on it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The problem is not Islam, moderate or orthodox, it is US/Israeli illegal, immoral attacks on and occupation of Islamic countries. US and Israel are doing 10 time the terrorism of the Islamic fighters who are trying to resist US/Israeli imperialism. It is the US and Israeli that are constantly threatening everyone, and have now destroyed 3 countries in the Middle East, threatening to attack another for exercising its right to have a nuclear power industry, and establishing dozens of permant military bases to threaten the Soviet Union and China.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All due respect, why would anyone feel the need to explain his/her deep religiosity? We cannot make major adjustments to the way we run our country to accomodate each new group that arrives here. We've done an outstanding job of accepting people. But each group must make some attempt to adjust to their new country. When you come to the great Melting Pot there has to be a willingness to "melt" a little. We are all the result of efforts to fit it. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Suicide,killing civilians,intolerance,and misogyny is not really Islam.Wearing of the veil came from Byzantine Christianity and adopted by Arabs.Mohammed did help with "woman's work" with no shame. He met his enemies,alone and unarmed,to negotiate peace. Instead of torturing and killing infidels like the Christians of his time, he let themlive with him and asked for protection of People of the Book,Christians and Jews.He had his first wife's cousin, a Christian, who declared Mohammed's first vision of Gabriel to be genuinely from God. He encouraged his followers to read the Bible. Sure, there are horrible things in Koran, so there is in the Bible that most ignore or not take seriously.
Much been said of Mohammed's last wife being underage.Byzantne Emperors have them, too. It was custom of those ages. His last wife became a leader in Islam. King David's last wife was also underage,see I Kings I.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That's great wakefulness.
However, still non-Muslims need to know, who is the Muslim; the Sunni, or thre Shiite, and why. Who has the right to define the rules and terms of Islam? especially if every Imam issues his own interpretation of any phrase related to the doctrine of Islam?.
Neither moderate nor secular Muslim is a Muslim.Muslim is the one who abides by the fundamentals of Islamm without amendment, otherwise it is then his doctrine, not the doctrine of God.
As orthodoxy is the right concept, that's the very of logic.Fundamentalism entirely conflicts with aggression under any terminology.
However, without defining the doctrine of Islam, Shiite, Sunni, or othewise , all claims remain a vicious circle of contention.
It would be fruitful and highly appreciated if Ms.Asma Khalid accepts debating the issue of orthodoxy.
E.M.El-Hammamy
elhammamy@gmail.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fat, ignorant americans need to stop watching TV.

Here's Bill Moyers documentary on how since the end of 2nd WW, US nurtured & supported radical radical islamists to win the Cold War:
Blame US

For the Limbaugh Zombies who troll around here. Check out the National Security Archives maintained by George Washington University, to see how it all comes back to US.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Name the most famous woman in America who reached the highest Office in US? Monica Lewinsky (Until Nancy Pelosi became the Speaker)!

Name the most famous Pakistani woman who reached highest office in Pakistan? Benazir Bhutto, twice elected to become Prime Minister of Pakistan!

Limbaugh Zombies always bring up the plight of women in muslim countries. Although women everywhere, including US, are treated as 2nd class citizens, it is simply not as one-sided as depicted in US media:
Role of Muslim Women

The ill-treated of women in muslim countries occur generally in rural and/or tribal areas. Muslim women have become head of States (Bhutto, Khalida Zia, Hassena Wajid), and have held 2nd highest office as in Turkey by Tansu Ciller,fight pilots etc.

Ofcourse there is a long way to go in bringing equal rights for all women, but had US not meddled in muslim states by supporting right-wing & radical islamists regimes, things would be much better:

The first muslim woman to run for the highest political office since world war 2 is Miss Fatima Jinnah in Pakistan, who ran for the Presidency in 1965. She ran against the military dictator Ayub Khan who was supported by US (surprise, surprise!!). She would have won had their not been massive rigging:Fatima Jinnah

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If I could speak to the lady who wrote this Articule, I would say that I am Christian, I am very sorry about the way Some So Called Christians, Attack you Religion. I believe that people Of faith, Muslims, Christians , even Jews, are being Used to further. the Goal of people who don't believe in the Existance of God,or even Heaven An Hell.There God Is money, they tell people what they want to hear, Words Like "you can have it all, you have Complete Control of your Life" they want us to believe that there is no down side, We don't have to worry About tomorrow, tomorrow will take care of itself. Tomorrow Is here. And god had nothing do with the suffering we have Caused. and we must forgive each other. and take the steps needed to repair the Damage, that we have all been a part of.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I demand a personal apology from you for every violent act or belief caused or performed by every fundamentalist Christian around the world.
Here is just the start of the list:
- Eric Rudolf bombing an abortion clinic, killing one man and maiming one woman and planting additional bombs to harm the rescue workers that arrived
- Pat Robertson preaching that 9-11 was caused by Americans who are homosexual and/or have had abortions
- Pat Robertson preaching that the Katrina flood was caused because God wanted to punish New Orleans for having a large gay population
- My Christian pastor who said that white people should have dominion over the black, lower races
- The new KKK, who are proud to be Christian, and have gained lots of new members in the SouthEast
- In Atlanta, the Christian boys who attacked , beat and killed an illegal immigrant for fun
- My childhood church for preaching that girls shouldn't go to college. They should get married ASAP after high school.
- The bombing of black churches and homes by church-going white Christians resulting in numerous deaths throughout the South in the twentieth century.
- Timothy McVeigh, a home-grown Christian terrorist
- Hitler's Brownshirt boys, many of whom were sincere, church-going Christians, who wanted to bring Christian religion back into prominece in Germany as an anidote to the secular, jaded, debauched post-WW1 society
- Every Christian Serb who slaughtered and terrorized the Muslim Serbs with rape and concentration camps during the 1990's. Mass graves of Bosnian Muslims are still being uncovered.
- During the 70's and 80's, every Latin Amerian right-wing Christian para-military soldier who slaughtered indigenous Indian tribes in their country (most of whom followed their ancestors' non-Christian religion).
- In the early twentieth century, the Baptist and Protestant charities and schools that refused to care for and teach any Catholic person because they were not "Christian" enough. This is why the Catholics had to create their own system of help for their congregations.
- The Christian "charity" groups that prostelatize to people who are too desperate for help to refuse to listen.
- The early-parole programs for prisoners that are only for Born-again Christians. Buddists, Muslims and followers of Native American religions are out of luck along with Catholics (who are still not considered Christians by many Southern Baptists)

Start writing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...it's on the road from Orthodox to Atheist. One big step is better than no steps. Islam and Christianity are equally ridiculous and retrograde. As someone above said, they must go. Religion in a civilization whose progress is based on science and knowledge is as appropriate as an elephant taking a shit at High Tea.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The usual suspects are all here. There's a few Ultra PC'ers leading the charge while the rest of the Alterheads nod their robotic heads and repeat "yeah, yeah" in unison. The display of hypocrisy here is just overwhelming at times.

I'm pretty sure I could locate quotes from most of you rabid Muslim supporters wherein you declare how stupid, hateful, intolerant, mystical, warped, etc. Christians and Jews are. Funny thing . . . I doubt we'll see much criticism about Islam from those PC parrots today. Well, let's put that to the test and see if we can find a few, shall we?

BORNXEYED:

"How nice that we are allowed a choice between exteme Christians or moderate Christians. The "freedom of religion" clause does not mean only freedom to be a Baptist or Catholic or Presbyterian or Lutheran, etc. You can even be an atheist.

How about freedom FROM religion? "

-Yeah, how about that? Hey xeyed, why aren't we hearing this same pontification where Islam is concerned?

"The trouble with the religious right is not that they want acceptance, they want everyone to live by their narrow set of beliefs."

-Hmmm, what religion does this remind you of?

"According to fundamentalist Christian dogma, he will go to heaven for his belief in god and Jesus Christ, the women he killed are in hell for attempting to kill their fetuses."

-Golly Gee, Xeyed, how 'bout them thar Muslim suicide bombers and their virgins in the sky? They have been known to kill babies but I guess they don't deserve the same ridicule and scorn as Christians or Jews, right?

HUGHSCOTT:

"There is nothing wrong with poking fun at Evangelical Christians. Their "I'm right, you're wrong" dogma has, after all, made them deserving targets of humorous derision -- especially when born-agains say they believe man walked with dinosaurs. But there is no reason we can't be civil. Whitey might think about that, too."

-So, why isn't it fun to poke fun at morons who believe they are transported to a brothel in the sky for blowing up women and children? Don't they [Muslims] also believe that Islam is the only path to salvation? Isn't that worthy of ridicule? PC dust must have got in your eyes. You're pretty much a go along to get along kind of guy.

"When the Rapture comes & evangelicals shoot up to Heaven, I'll be thinking Good riddance."

-But Praise be to Allah for blessing us with Islam, right? Why aren't we hearing anything about how much you wish Muslims would shoot up to heaven? Oh, Oh - I know, I know! Because you're an F'ing hypocrite who would do or say anything to give the appearance that he's "one of the gang". Now, back to Hugh's regularly scheduled braggadocio, you know, heroic pilot who's obviously holding the key that will unlock the mysteries of the universe.

I suggest everyone head over to any thread about Christianity or Judaism and see what these wise and tolerant men have to say about those religions. I guess there must be some fundamental disconnect when it comes to Islam. The fact is that ALL religions are ridiculous and phony and yet we don't hear nearly the criticism of Islam that we do of Xtianity or Judaism.

BTW Asma, I think you're better off renouncing your ridiculous religion altogether, but if you inisist on remaining an adherent, you might want to stick with "moderate". Orthodox as defined by the dictionary says:

Customary or conventional, as a means or method; established.

Yeah, stick to those traditional beliefs like male/female segregation and "I'm worth half what a male is worth" belief structure. I'm sure forced sex, being denied the right to drive or go out without a male escort and being stoned to death for perceived infidelity is also in your best interest. Sheeeesh!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

rather than being so defensive towards criticisms of islam, why not put your efforts into trying to fix the muslim world? you can start by trying to downplay religion in your culture and pushing for a more secular society. have you noticed that the muslim world is falling further behind not just the secular west, but the secular east as well? it's not a coincidence. religion holds societies back. the west made its biggest advances after the reformation broke the hold of the catholic church. secular china is growing into the world's biggest power. the US seems religious but it's mostly rhetorical and we are actually a fairly secular society. (if the fundos took over here we'd fall apart pretty quickly and end up failing like Islamic countries have). so stop whining about bigotry, imperialism, israel, etc., etc., and create, a better, more secular culture.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Patriarchy created religion to subdue women. The Religion of Reason is orthodoxy reversed. Re-ligio is to tie back into Source. Woman is Source. Man comes from woman. Patriarchy must admit women's superiority to conform to reality. Original sin was missing this benchmark. That patriarchic civilization has produced happiness is absurd. Which is more absurd, a woman clothed in black or the smiley faces on women's magazines? The eyes are sexual organs, and gazing out from the black robes, say more in a blink than tons of naked flesh do in a millenium. The social rot of the West equals anything produced in the East. The patriarchs of West and East meet in the middle to divide up the spoils. Divide and conquer. Keep the masses fighting. Fund both sides and rake in the profits. Sweeping generalizations are useful only if they hit the truth target. Women are the target in this Godus forsaken penile prison. The Red Brown and Blue Party acknowledges the simple truth that women are the superior love sex. The Lover Government is the framework which places woman at the universal underlying center, perfectly reasonable and believable. She is the only orthodoxy worth serving, the only one capable of saving this world without a clue as to its nature or purpose. Clothes don't make the woman nor do religions make The Religion. By the way, it's not braggadoccio is you actually hold the keys to unlock mysteries. It all comes back to US.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

nice story from saudi arabia, home to many of those humble lovable muslims that some bozo posters here are so impressed by:

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (Reuters) -- A court sentenced a teacher to 40 months in prison and 750 lashes for "mocking religion" after he discussed the Bible and praised Jews, a Saudi newspaper reported yesterday.
Al-Madina newspaper said secondary-school teacher Mohammad al-Harbi, who will be flogged in public, was taken to court by his colleagues and students.
He was charged with promoting a "dubious ideology, mocking religion, saying the Jews were right, discussing the Gospel and preventing students from leaving class to wash for prayer," the newspaper said.
Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam, strictly upholds the austere Wahhabi school of Islam and bases its constitution on the Koran and the sayings of the prophet Muhammad. Public practice of any other religion is banned.
A U.S. State Department report criticized Saudi Arabia last week, saying religious freedoms "are denied to all but those who adhere to the state-sanctioned version of Sunni Islam."
The newspaper said Mr. al-Harbi will appeal the verdict.
A similar case was cited in the State Department's International Religious Freedom Report for 2004.
"During the period covered by this report, a schoolteacher was tried for apostasy, and eventually convicted in March of blasphemy; the person was given a prison sentence of 3 years and 300 lashes. The trial received substantial press coverage," the report said.
A 2003 report by the U.S. Commission on Religious Freedom, the world's only government-sanctioned entity to investigate and report religious-freedom violations, named Saudi Arabia as the world's biggest violator of religious liberties.
The commission took the country to task for "offensive and discriminatory language" disparaging Jews, Christians and non-Wahhabi Muslims found in government-sponsored school textbooks, in Friday sermons preached in prominent mosques, and in state-controlled Saudi newspapers.
For example, in 2003, Crown Prince (now King) Abdullah reacted to the killing of six Westerners by terrorists in Yemen by saying he thought Zionism was behind them.
In Saudi Arabia, the public practice of any religion other than Islam is illegal; only Muslims can be Saudi citizens; one of the Saudi king's titles is "custodian of the two holy mosques"; proselytizing for any religion other than Sunni Islam is barred; and Mecca, Islam's holy city, is forbidden to all non-Muslims.
For years, Saudi Arabia also imposed restrictions, or persuaded the U.S. government to impose restrictions, on American troops defending the country during and after then-Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's 1990-91 occupation of Kuwait.
For example, U.S. postal and customs officials have barred mailing materials "contrary to the Islamic faith," including Bibles. The U.S. military also has required female service members to wear a long, black robe called an abaya when traveling off base in Saudi Arabia. Both regulations were rescinded or clarified after public outcry based on reporting in the U.S. media.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

this is why the muslim world is so messed up (text from wikipedia).

[In saudi arabia] Freedom of religion is severely limited. Islam is the official religion, and all citizens must be Muslims. The Government prohibits the public practice of other religions. The Government bases its legitimacy on governance according to the precepts of the rigorously conservative and strict interpretation of the Salafi or Wahhabi school of the Sunni branch of Islam and discriminates against other branches of Islam. Neither the Government nor society in general accepts the concepts of separation of religion and state, and such separation does not exist.
The Committee to Promote Virtue and Prevent Vice (commonly called "religious police" or Mutawwa'in) is a government entity, and its chairman has ministerial status. The Committee sends out armed and unarmed people into the public to ensure that Saudi citizens and expatriates living in the kingdom follow the Islamic mores, at least in public.

Under Saudi law conversion by a Muslim to another religion is considered apostasy, a crime punishable by death if the accused does not recant.
Saudi Arabia prohibits public non-Muslim religious activities. Non-Muslim worshippers risk arrest, imprisonment, lashing, deportation, and sometimes torture for engaging in overt religious activity that attracts official attention.

The Government does not permit non-Muslim clergy to enter the country for the purpose of conducting religious services, although some come under other auspices and perform religious functions in secret. Proselytizing by non-Muslims, including the distribution of non-Muslim religious materials such as Bibles, is illegal. Muslims or non-Muslims wearing religious symbols of any kind in public risk confrontation with the Mutawwa'in.
The Government requires noncitizens to carry Iqamas, or legal resident identity cards, which contain a religious designation for "Muslim" or "non-Muslim."
Members of the Shi’a minority are the subjects of officially sanctioned political and economic discrimination. The authorities permit the celebration of the Shi’a holiday of Ashura in the eastern province city of Qatif, provided that the celebrants do not undertake large, public marches or engage in self-flagellation (a traditional Shi’a practice). The celebrations are monitored by the police. In 2002 observance of Ashura took place without incident in Qatif.

Members of the Shi’a minority are discriminated against in government employment, especially with respect to positions that relate to national security, such as in the military or in the Ministry of the Interior. The Government restricts employment of Shi’a in the oil and petrochemical industries. The Government also discriminates against Shi’a in higher education through unofficial restrictions on the number of Shi’a admitted to universities.
Under the provisions of Shari’a law as practiced in the country, judges may discount the testimony of people who are not practicing Muslims or who do not adhere to the official interpretation of Islam. Legal sources report that testimony by Shi’a is often ignored in courts of law or is deemed to have less weight than testimony by Sunnis. For example, in May 2001, a judge in the eastern province ruled that the testimony of two Shi'a witnesses to an automobile accident was inadmissible. Sentencing under the legal system is not uniform. Laws and regulations state that defendants should be treated equally; however, under Shari’a as interpreted and applied in the country, crimes against Muslims may result in harsher penalties than those against non-Muslims.
Customs officials routinely open mail and shipments to search for contraband, including non-Muslim materials, such as Bibles and religious videotapes. Such materials are subject to confiscation, although rules appear to be applied arbitrarily.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think this is an interesting article. I don't know much about Islam though I find the label of "moderate" for Muslims to be annoying too. But, shouldn't the better term be "progressive Muslim"? This not only denotes the "middle way" but also indicates the opposite to "extreme". Nonetheless its refreshing to read an article that bothers to point this basic problem out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If you equate orthodoxy with fundamentalism then I think you are dead wrong.
Religious fundamentalism is absolute evil of the highest degree just waiting
for an excuse to happen. On the other hand if your orthodoxy has a high degree
of tolerance for the beliefs and practices of others then I say fine, be
orthodox if it pleases you. As a small test of this I suggest that you ask
yourself "would I tolerate a child of mine being a homosexual, nudist or
atheist?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Look everyone, Islam, like Christianity, does not inherently embrace a violent, oppositional or destructive means of carrying out it's objectives. However, primarily driven by U.S. foreign policy choices and failures, extremists have surfaced and increased rapidly in popularity. We saw this with 911, after many decades of unquestioned U.S. support of apartheid, especially as practiced by Israel, and USA support of some totalitarian Arab regimes, all this added up to extremists emerging and attacking in NY. Next, you've got the current situation in Iraq. GW Bushes policies have unquestionably strengthened the hands of the violent extremists. By introducing thousands of US soldiers into a Muslim nation, then the many stories about the USA's use of torture and illegal detentions of many Muslims, this has all helped push Muslim's towards radicalization. Today, you have many Muslims, just like many Christians, disturbed by the pace of modern life, its emphasis on material acquisition and the unstable family structure of many homes. This does help the radicals a bit because they are always the ones who can cite some kind of orthodoxy and rigidity in family/societal roles which presumbably equates with more stability in society. This is Saudi Arabia and Iran today, fearful that American and Western influences will rip the bedrock of social stability out from their societies and create what America is seen to be, a cultural wasteland. Finally, I think you have to frame the arguments, to a degree, as I have been doing here. Trying to say Christianity or American values are "better" then Islam or that Islam somehow is all about being violent are ridiculous arguments. Ultimately, most people want their cake and want to eat it too. They want freedom and democracy but without 50% divorce rates and thousands of channels of meaningless TV. Ultimately, perhaps better dialogue will help lead to solutions that are workable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is interesting to reflect that the in the early years of Islam, it brought about a great intellectual flowering in areas of medicine, chemistry, mathematics, astronomy, etc. Indeed we still use words which spring from that flowering, alcohol, algebra, chemistry, etc.
And all this at a time when Europe was in relative stasis.
What snuffed out the potential greatness of Islam was an internal struggle in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries in which the mullahs seized control of all things religious and crushed any opposition. This situation continues to the present day.
Prior to that the culture was marked by lively debate and a great deal of freedom of individual conscience. These are of course anathema to any clergy who wish to retain their power by interposing themselves between the individual and god.

Get rid of all of the clergy of all colours and most of the problems will disappear.

Wisegalah in Sydney.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

nice interview of a muslim writer and intellectual who has to go by the pseudonym "Ibn Warraq" to protect himself from fanatics. he says the same things i've been saying but maybe bozos like tashi will listen more to him.

Ibn Warraq: Why I Am Not A Muslim

Secularist Muslim intellectual Ibn Warraq - not his real name - was born on the Indian subcontinent and educated in the West. He believes that the great Islamic civilisations of the past were established in spite of the Koran, not because of it, and that only a secularised Islam can deliver Muslim states from fundamentalist madness. Little wonder that he chooses to keep his identity secret. We talk to Ibn Warraq this week.

Ibn Warraq: Well I think there's going to be no easy way out. There won't be any, without some sort of wounds, as it were, without a little bit of suffering. There's going to be some kind of suffering, like examination of conscience and so on, and you can't grow up without taking a few knocks on the way. I mean all parents know that, but children when they're growing up, they take some knocks, and nasty knocks sometimes if they've been too protected. And this is the case of course with Islam. They have been far, far, too protected. Muslims have not ever been told to examine their faith in a critical way, so the shock is going to be even greater for them, as it is for any child who lives in an over-protected environment, who suddenly has to go out and earn a living and has to stand up on his own feet. This exactly the kind of shock that they will have. But what does a child do? He has to look reality in the face, and this is what Muslims have to do. They have to examine their sacred text and see what is wrong with it, what is in it that drives people to murder 5,000 people in one go, the suicide attack, and it's no good pretending it's got nothing to do with Islam, they've to examine it and look at reality in the face. And I can't see there's going to be any soft way out of this. They've just got to wake up, they've got to grow up. And so instead of shouting 'Oh, you're insulting our prophet, you're insulting our religion', they've got to take their place along with other people who've had to take knocks.

I have a Dominican priest friend who said to me, 'You know, throughout the ages Catholicism really received some slaps in the face, and believe me, it has done us a lot of good.'

Stephen Crittenden: What's implied behind all that is that Islam is potentially going to be required, maybe by the West, to go through something a bit like the Reformation that the Christian church went through.

Ibn Warraq: Exactly, and that's why, as I've said over and over again, it is illogical, totally illogical, for the Western media, there's an editorial practically every month now in The Times, which laments the lack of a Reformation within Islam, and then to ignore books like mine. How do they think reformation's going to come about?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How my eyes were opened to the barbarity of Islam
Is it racist to condemn fanaticism?
Phyllis Chesler

Once I was held captive in Kabul. I was the bride of a charming, seductive and Westernised Afghan Muslim whom I met at an American college. The purdah I experienced was relatively posh but the sequestered all-female life was not my cup of chai — nor was the male hostility to veiled, partly veiled and unveiled women in public…

I saw how polygamous, arranged marriages and child brides led to chronic female suffering and to rivalry between co-wives and half-brothers; how the subordination and sequestration of women led to a profound estrangement between the sexes — one that led to wife-beating, marital rape and to a rampant but hotly denied male “prison”-like homosexuality and pederasty; how frustrated, neglected and uneducated women tormented their daughter-in-laws and female servants; how women were not allowed to pray in mosques or visit male doctors (their husbands described the symptoms in their absence).

Individual Afghans were enchantingly courteous — but the Afghanistan I knew was a bastion of illiteracy, poverty, treachery and preventable diseases. It was also a police state, a feudal monarchy and a theocracy, rank with fear and paranoia. Afghanistan had never been colonised. My relatives said: “Not even the British could occupy us.” Thus I was forced to conclude that Afghan barbarism was of their own making and could not be attributed to Western imperialism.

Long before the rise of the Taleban, I learnt not to romanticise Third World countries or to confuse their hideous tyrants with liberators. I also learnt that sexual and religious apartheid in Muslim countries is indigenous and not the result of Western crimes — and that such “colourful tribal customs” are absolutely, not relatively, evil.

Now is the time for Western intellectuals who claim to be antiracists and committed to human rights to stand with these dissidents. To do so requires that we adopt a universal standard of human rights and abandon our loyalty to multicultural relativism, which justifies, even romanticises, indigenous Islamist barbarism, totalitarian terrorism and the persecution of women, religious minorities, homosexuals and intellectuals. Our abject refusal to judge between civilisation and barbarism, and between enlightened rationalism and theocratic fundamentalism, endangers and condemns the victims of Islamic tyranny.

Phyllis Chesler is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies at the City University of New York

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -- Voltaire

Faith is a leash. Don't let evil people yank your leash. Better yet, remove your leash. Moderate religion is a stepping stone to no religion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Moderate" implies that Muslims who are more orthodox are somehow backward and violent...To be a "moderate" Muslim is to be a "good," malleable Muslim in the eyes of Western society.

Well...yeah, they are backward, and they should be more "malleable" (to use her word). The same is true for christian fundies, and for all duped, overzealous religious morons.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The creationists will serve us and do the work while we enjoy the fruits of their labor! The creationists truly are the less intelligent people of the world! All those who believe in some form of higher power, or anything other than Big Bang, must go! Big Bang is the only answer! The universe is in the shape of a soccer ball! Go in one end, pop out the other end!

I propose a new form of beliefs where we not only believe in the big bang, but we cast stones upon those who don't believe in it. If we don't fight the creationists, they will continue their dominance of the world.

Remember one thing: Not only do we have to disagree with them, we have to be dicks to them!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ms. Khalid's definition of orthodoxy is just a little too convenient and exhibits extreme naivety on her part, if not total confusion. By their own tenets of faith, the "true orthodoxy' of Abraham's three sects will always be at odds with one another until only one is left standing as citizens of God's kingdom on earth. To believe otherwise is unorthodox. To subscribe to any of it is mental illness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tashi don't trim those bushy eyebrows!

CNN: Iran bans western hairdos and eyebrow plucking for men.

TEHRAN, Iran (Reuters) -- Iranian police have warned barbers against offering Western-style hair cuts or plucking the eyebrows of their male customers, Iranian media said Sunday.

The report by a reformist daily, later confirmed by an Iranian news agency, appeared to be another sign of authorities cracking down on clothing and other fashion deemed to be against Islamic values.

"Western hairstyles ... have been banned," the newspaper Etemad said in a front-page headline.

It came a week after police launched a crackdown against the growing number of young women testing the limits of the law with shorter, brighter and skimpier clothing ahead of the summer months.

Under Iran's Islamic Sharia law, imposed after the 1979 revolution, women are obligated to cover their hair and wear long, loose-fitting clothes to disguise their figures.

Violators can receive lashes, fines and imprisonment.

The student news agency ISNA quoted a police statement as saying: "In an official order to barbershops, they have been warned to avoid using Western hair styles and doing men's eyebrows."

Iranian young men have in recent years started paying more attention to the way they look and dress, especially in affluent parts of the capital Tehran. Spiked up hair, by using gel, is known as the Khorusi (Rooster) style and some also use make-up.

Several hairdressers for men in Tehran offer cuts in the style of Hollywood movie stars and other Western celebrities. Clients can also have their eyebrows plucked.

The head of the barbers' union, Mohammad Eftekharifard, said police had instructed it to "exercise specific regulations in barbershops that work under its supervision."

Barbers who do not follow these rules might be closed down for a month and even lose their permits to operate, Etemad quoted him as saying.

"Currently some barbershops apply make-up and use (hair) styles that are in line with those in European countries and America," Eftekharifard said.

He added: "An official order has been sent to the union ... not to apply make-up on men's faces (or) do eyebrows ... and hence the barbers are not allowed to do these things."

Since hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won the presidency in 2005 on a promise of returning to the values of the revolution, hardliners have pressed for tighter controls on what they consider immoral behavior.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In criticizing the religious conservatives who retain power in some Arab countries, don't forget, the only thing now that stands between the American religious conservatives (now the Christian ones) and a barbaric government in America, is a long tradition of the separation of church and state. Can you imagine if your Pat Robertson, 700 Club, etc., types, gained power in America what would happen? You can criticize Iran and Saudi Arabia all you want, but if these guys gained power and changed American government, you'd shortly have extermination programs for all gays, and "required conversion" for all non-Christians. Christianity in Power is what the Crusades and the Inquisition were all about. Same thing for Judaism and all the Old Testament nonsense. Israel is all about Jewish religious extremists believing they own the land and can do what they want because "God gave it to them" somehow in the Bible. Also, don't think a lot stands between American government and democracy and the Christian Right taking over. Of course, they now have a little set-back because their hero Bush II is such a Bozo and goofed up so bad especially on Iraq. But, millions of them in America's heartland, nurtured in the mega-churches, are ready and willing to see America "transformed." "Transformed" into what? What Iran and Saudi Arabia are today - but, the Christian version of it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Since the apologists for Islam here are bringing up everything under the sun EXCEPT what's actually in the article, I thought I might as well throw in Darfur.

Notice how we progressives are concerned about Darfur in spite of (not because of) the fact that the genocide is being committed by Muslims. That angle almost never gets mentioned. Can you imagine if it were Christians committing the genocide? All of us on Alternet would bring the religion angle up every time.

When some of us here say that Islam gets a pass from the left, we get incredulous & hysterical reactions from you apologists. But I think the Darfur crisis and progressives' unexamined attitudes toward it are a good example.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All of this "moderate" or "not as crazy as suicide-bombers" is bullshit. Absolute bullshit. Read THE GOD DELUSION by Richard Dawkins or THE END OF FAITH by Sam Harris. Millions of Muslims around the world rioted--not peacefully protesting--because a cartoonist drew some pictures. They burned effigies and held signs that threated to kill everyone who doesn't believe. I'm tired of this. I'm tired of religion ruining people's lives. Let's get rid of the ignorance of all the fundies here in the States; and the heinous, misogynistic burqas; and Bush's disgusting breed of Christianity that actually pushes abstinence rather than condoms as a way to prevent AIDS in Africa, and denies funding of women's and children's health clinics that even DISCUSS abortion. Let's grow up and bet beyond institutions that wreak havoc on all of our lives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think religious extremism, as exemplified by the intrusion of religion into politics and government, is the biggest danger peoples of the world face today. Some of the Arabic countries with fundamentalists in charge are an obvious example. But, as I pointed out earlier, we should have no illusions about what our own "Christian Taliban" would do if it obtained power. And, we can see how religious extremism has turned Israeli into an apartheid state, with the best land and rights for the Choosen few. Needless to say, all of this, from whatever religious basis it originates from, is a scourage and a detriment to modern life and society. Now, as for people practicing their religion, I think we are all in favor of that. As long as it does not turn into an imposition upon others. And, it even seems to me that the original teachings of Jesus, Buddha, and Mohammed were along the lines of peace, tolerance, and acceptance anyway. However, it all became corrupted over time and as social institutions took religion over. The original spirit of anything, be it a new expression in art, science, religion or philosophy, is always alive and unique but only for a short time. As soon as people try to grab ahold of it, they corrupt it and turn it into a means for their own justification or as a source of income, and the original spirit dies. The original spirit of Mohammed, of Jesus, of Buddha, unfortunately died many centuries ago. And, all we are left with is the 3rd rate Charltans who have turned religion on its head to satisfy their own agendas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The next time Alternet runs one of their ridiculous "body image feminism" pieces, they can just tell the ladies to convert to Islam and wear a burka. No one can see how fat you are if you wear a burka. Then they can run a piece similar to this one by one of the converts, all about how wonderful Islam is because it protects women. I'm looking forward to it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

as some brain-addled supposed leftists on this board dedicate themselves to working as apologists for islamic extremism, the people who actually have to live with the consequences of islamic oppression are doing their best to fight it:

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/world/index.html

all those turkish people must be anti-muslim bigots! at least in turkey the military is on their side, so they can protest. what happens to all the secular folks in the rest of the muslim world? do the apologists care about their rights?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

in other words, it's arbitrary, and its claims to truth are void. Religions all are based on hearsay, 'revelation', or scripture but it quickly becomes obvious that no such 'evidence' is capable of convincing a neutral observer. This observation holds for all religions. Furthermore, if you look at how people become religious you can't help noticing that it looks very much like childhood indoctrination and is effective for 'psycho-mechanical reasons (a term I just made up). Many religions, including stripes of Xtianity, Hinduism, Judaism and Islam, make unsupported claims about male superiority. Is it a good idea to accept such unsupported truth claims out of respect for a person's religious fervor? Is black white? Is night day? Is the butcher of the day the prince of peace? Is your brain mush?
Religion is a problem. Yes, it's conflated a million times with issues of political repression but in and of itself it is a problem that has huge potential for evil, and zero chance to create lasting peace because it is unfounded and as such incapable of creating consensus. The question is not 'moderate' or 'orthodox', as the writer thinks, the question is indoctrination. The question is: Mush or not mush.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Religion is for those with dependent minds, unable to think for themselves. This goes for all religions, and especially for orthodox believers of any stripe. Islam means submission. To be a good (orthodox) muslim means to deny your own wishes and ideas in favour of your god and his book of commands i.e. a 1500 year old chinese whisper written by a man who married a 6 year old and had sex with her when she was 9 - a paedophile by today's standards.
Go ahead and live like a slave if that's what you want but don't be offended if reasonable, non-superstitious people think you are backward and have a severely undeveloped mind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where is bin Laden? Why don't all those "orthodox" Muslims who know where he and and al Zawahiri are hiding turn them in for their acts of mass murder? Just a suggestion to you and all of the other millions of "moderate" -- I mean, "orthodox" -- Muslims for improving your image in the West.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great piece, Asma Khalid!
Islam and Muslims generally are the scapegoats of all "patriotic" all-american jingoists -- just as Communists and "follow-travelers" were in the 50's red scare. Now, just like then, compliant news orgainizations fed into the hysteria. But there's a significant difference: back then, many leftists and liberals (the Nation's Carey McWilliams and I.F. Stone, just to name a few) vigorously fought back against the bullying hate-mongers -- basically adopting the principled stance that "an insult against one of us is an insult against ALL of us". But where are the vigorous upholders of this principle now? Instead of being joined by the left, Muslims are pretty much left to defend themselves - against death threats, vandalism of mosques & homes, work-place & schools (e.g., 'Take off those veils! They're un-american'), Gestapo-like raids by ICE immigration agents, you name it! So, what's up here? Do leftists half-consciously buy into this idea -- so well diagnosed here by Asma -- that the only 'good' Muslim, worthy of defending, is one who can be definitely certified as 'moderate?'

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

1. Moslems are killing Africans in Sudan (Elie Wiesal on Oprah).
2. Moslems are killing Jews in Israel, and want to steal Jewish homeland (ADL).
3. Moslems are threatening to impose sharia in Europe. (Ayan Hirsi Ali).
4. Moslems are killing Americans in Iraq.
5. Moslems are the most backward people in the world.
6. Bush & Co should get another term to complete the job they started. Thank God for Cheney!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is only a prediction. The time is coming, with our open borders, when an attack that will pale 911 is going to occur in America. 'Muslims' somewhere will claim responsibility and other 'Muslims' will applaud the devastion. At that time, the 'vast majority of Americans' will give a mandate for the first time since 911, and it will become dangerous to be a Muslim that did not stand up against the militant Muslims who are trying to take over the world (and are doing a pretty good job so far). It will be real handy for Muslims to be known as one who definitely does not support the Islamists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I grew up in a Sunni Pakistani family, in the U.S., and religion was always sort of in the background. I was more interested in the complex rules of Dungeons and Dragons than in the Sharia, and was inspired more by Star Wars than by tales of Ilslamic history. Today as an adult I don't practice Islam at all, though I do try to live compassionately and charitably with general moral standards common to all ethical/spiritual traditions. So I suppose that makes me secular, though culturally I still participate in Muslim holidays with family.

I'm torn in this discussion. On the one hand, I agree with those who see Islam as oppressive to women, religious minorities, and homosexuals. I've seen that oppression first hand. As an epistemology, it is obscurantist and inimical to criticism and reform. There's a frightening regimented and doctrinaire ethos to Islamic teaching, as fear and submission become hallmarks of one's view of God rather than love and creative endeavor. It makes one passive and rigid in one's thinking. I'm sure the same can be said of some other religious traditions, but I don't knwo them well enough.

On the other hand, I cringe when I read hateful and racist diatribes against all Muslims as some monolithic barbarian horde. For every nasty joyless destructive terrorist or fundamentalist, there are scores of gentle Sufis and humble hard-working and peaceful Sunni and Shias. They are not the ones who go marchingt hrough the streets of Cairo or Peshawar or London screaming idiotic epithets and slogans. Most are nice people just trying to survive and provide a better future for their children. Unfortunately, their illiteracy and lack fo education makes them intellectually weak and susceptible to the ravings of fork-tongued mullahs and imams. Their real grievances against Western/U.S. violence and oppression become mixed with rigid religious indoctrination.

So to the Lefties here: please do acknowledge that there are inherent pathologies in Islam like misogyny, homophobia, and religious intolerance/chauvinism.

The the Righties: please acknwoledge that real historical grievances have contributed to the radicalization of Ilsamic communities.

A true understanding of the Islamic world's current problems will take both considerations into account

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Religion is the only aspect of life where it’s considered acceptable to express certainty about things you couldn’t possibly prove. The author defends orthodoxy as the “attempt to adhere piously to a religion’s tenets.” Why should any rational person consider this acceptable? The problem with orthodox Islam is not that Westerners confuse its image with suicide bombers and bin Laden, the problem is that orthodox Islam adheres to dogma. This is the same problem with orthodox Christianity, Judaism, or any other religion you can think of. All of them tell you how to live your life, govern your people, raise your children, act in your relationships, etc, and threaten horrible punishments if you don’t conform. They say theirs is the word of god, but offer no proof that these "divine" instructions came from a higher power, other than that their book says it's written by god, and therefore must be true. They discourage rational thought and debate based on credible evidence. As Richard Rorty noted in his essay, “Religion as Conversation Stopper,” this type of dogmatic thinking is totally incompatible with the foundation of democracy. I understand the author’s frustration at westerners singling out orthodox Islam as incompatible with democracy, and I offer this argument: ANY orthodox religion is incompatible with democracy. I’d further extend my argument and say that religion, moderate or orthodox, is incompatible with democracy, but the argument has already been made by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and a host of others.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Islam enjoys a large and influential ally among the non-Muslims: A new generation of “Useful Idiots,” that Lenin identified as those who lived in liberal democracies and furthered the work of communism. This new generation of Useful Idiots also lives in liberal democracies but serves the cause of Islamofascism—another virulent form of totalitarian ideology.

Useful Idiots are naïve, foolish, ignorant of facts, unrealistically idealistic, dreamers, willfully in denial or deceptive. They hail from the ranks of the chronically unhappy, the anarchists, the aspiring revolutionaries, the neurotics who are at war with life, the disaffected alienated from government, corporations, and just about any and all institutions of society. The Useful Idiot can be a billionaire, a movie star, an academe of renown, a politician, or from any other segment of the population.

Arguably, the most dangerous Useful Idiot is the “Politically Correct.” He is the master practitioner of euphemism, hedging, doubletalk, and outright deception.

The Useful Idiot derives satisfaction from being anti-establishment. He finds perverse gratification in aiding the forces that aim to dismantle an existing order, whatever it may be: an order he neither approves of nor he feels he belongs to.
(...)
The Useful Idiot may even engage in willful misinformation and deception when it suits him. Terms such as “Political Islam,” or “Radical Islam,” for instance, are contributions of the Useful Idiot. These terms do not even exist in the native parlance of Islam, simply because they are redundant. Islam, by its very nature and according to its charter—the Quran—is a radical political movement. It is the Useful Idiot who sanitizes Islam and misguides the populace by saying that the “real Islam” constitutes the main body of the religion; and, that this main body is non-political and moderate.

read it all
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/authors.asp?ID=3824

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

transexual love - dominican republic london escorts shemale escort london escorts GEFFEDEVS766GERTT9009ED black female porn - pictures of getting fucked black girls free porn movies hardcore gay pics - hardcore action reality porn hardcore porn gay pictures video chat room - video sex stories mature women amateur porn sphynx - and brother grand champion breed profile sphynx kittens mr big - breast reduction tits round asses pictures of looking for hindustan - embroidered sarees hardcore sex wedding sarees search engines bedwetting teens - her panties pissing girls enuresis is the problem panty ass - lesbian ass submitted by bubble butt round asses xxx oral - getting fucked of oral sex deep throat this article massive cocks - big cock sex the hottest the biggest monster cocks swingers portugal - of swingers south carolina and couples west virginia reality porn - free reality porn free reality porn hardcore porn hardcore porn free swinger personals - of swingers south carolina and couples west virginia cum shot mouth - hardcore porn reviews pictures movies add to personal links reviews pictures

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]