Muslim protest protestor...Too much?

[Ninjahedge]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/wichman.asp



I think the last line in the piece is too much.



"Like talking to your wife or kids".



I say he is entitled to his opinion, and if others are allowed to protest, so is he, but I do not think he thought this out before he sent it, and now he is being a weasel.

(Old news, I know, but relatively new on Snopes)

[milleniumcab]

It is wrong to assume all muslims are fanatics, as it is to assume all christians belong to the right wing with extreme views..

The world did not badmouth Christianity for what Hitler did to Jews..What this small segment of Muslims doing should remind every peace loving person in the world is that it is the FANATICISM that is the #1 enemy of Humanity, FANATICISM of any kind...

[Ninjahedge]

Aside from the basic generalization that was used in the letetr MC, was he right in saying what he did?

Is it right for someone to protest the protestors who are protesting about OTHER protestors making cartoons?

[Jake]

Perhaps these organizations should start taking responsability for Muslims as a group, if they want to protest the abuse of Muslims as a group.

I find this completely ridiculous, because whenever something bad is done by a Muslim they say "not all muslims blah blah blah" but when a Christian says something about A Muslim they say "omfg, you insulted our peoples and our prophet you infidels!"

The fact that there are also NO Christian student organizations in Muslim countries (with a handful of exceptions) is also notable IMO.

It has become so taboo to say ANYTHING negative about people other than white christians that we've completely lost sight of simple truths. Next time an American is beheaded (which is quite often) we should take a few million people, fly to EVERY Muslim country regardless of the degree of blame (as the Muslim protesters did) and protest.

BOTTOM LINE:

A Muslim Student Organization should be for people who want to peacefully practice their religion as Americans (or Canadians, or wherever they live), it should absolutely NEVER be a lobbying group for murdering scumbags which it often tends to be.

[Ninjahedge]

I find this completely ridiculous, because whenever something bad is done by a Muslim they say "not all muslims blah blah blah" but when a Christian says something about A Muslim they say "omfg, you insulted our peoples and our prophet you infidels!"



Um, I see where you are going with this jake, but the statements are not directly comparable.


The thing is, the second part is a generalization applied to everyone. Both of their statements are asking for the word "muslim" to not mean "Terrorist" or "radical".

It is a very sticky issue between free press, human rights, and respect for others.

There is no way to write laws about this that would not short change one of the groups.

[milleniumcab]

Aside from the basic generalization that was used in the letetr MC, was he right in saying what he did?

Is it right for someone to protest the protestors who are protesting about OTHER protestors making cartoons?

I have no problem with someone practicing free speech.. He has every right, in my opinion, to say whatever he wants.. But, I think, for such an educated person to show that kind of emotion and use such generalization is quite wrong.. We must first familirize ourselves with the culture of the people we are protesting against and try to understand why they are so angry with the Danish Cartoons, before we call all muslims fanatics..

[ablarc]

Perhaps these organizations should start taking responsibility for Muslims as a group, if they want to protest the abuse of Muslims as a group.
Not too much to ask.

It has become so taboo to say ANYTHING negative about people other than white christians that we've completely lost sight of simple truths.
This is the line where political correctness joins hands with religious fanaticism --a peculiar coalition made possible by the fact that both are substitutes for truth and thought.

.

[Jake]

well those simple truths are that he is not wrong....all those events listed by him really took place AND they were carried out on religious grounds.

Another truth is that the Danish cartoons story is bullshit, come on, really think about how much people give a shit about some Danish newspaper's cartoons, and what do we get? Global protests as if the world was ending.

[milleniumcab]

well those simple truths are that he is not wrong....all those events listed by him really took place AND they were carried out on religious grounds.

Another truth is that the Danish cartoons story is bullshit, come on, really think about how much people give a shit about some Danish newspaper's cartoons, and what do we get? Global protests as if the world was ending.

What you might find BS, as an ignorant American, is really the biggest problem in America. IGNORANCE...Read, read and read some more before you make a comment about something as deep as Danish Cartoons...

If it wasn't for your kind , this world would be a much safer place... BUSH would not be running the show...

Sincerely...

[milleniumcab]

well those simple truths are that he is not wrong....all those events listed by him really took place AND they were carried out on religious grounds.

Another truth is that the Danish cartoons story is bullshit, come on, really think about how much people give a shit about some Danish newspaper's cartoons, and what do we get? Global protests as if the world was ending.

What you might find BS, as an ignorant American, is really the biggest problem in America. IGNORANCE...Read, read and read some more before you make a comment about something as deep as Danish Cartoons...

[ablarc]

What you might find BS, as an ignorant American, is really the biggest problem in America. IGNORANCE...Read, read and read some more before you make a comment about something as deep as Danish Cartoons...
I just got through reading the Koran. I found exhortations to violence on almost every page --most of it directed at the infidel.

If it's minimizing anti-Islamic sentiment you want, milleniumcab, you have the wrong prescription. I'd advise you not to tout the public reading of --at least-- the Koran. If five minutes of this book were read daily on the evening news, public opinion would certainly grow dramatically more anti-Islamic.

Since that's certain, the American public shows great moderation on the subject; you could quite easily chalk that up to ignorance.

Meeting your criteria for enlightenment at least partially, milleniumcab, I feel compelled to speculate that either you haven't actually read the Koran yourself, or perhaps you're moslem.

[Jake]

yes the "people like me" do often throw out racist unsupported arguments BUT noone on this board or in this country will call ANY of the actions mentioned in the letter as "just."

Maybe you can explain to me exactly what the big deal was about the cartoons? There was a huge thread on this and there's many reasons but how can you possibly compare that "us westerners" drew an insulting cartoon to "you muslims" BEHEAD OUR PEOPLE on TV?????!

Muslims are NOT beheaded on NBC (or in fact at all) in America.

Muslim leaders are NOT murdered here.

Fewer mosques have been attacked in America than in ANY Muslim country.

Muslims are NOT oppressed here by any laws.


For those reasons "us ignorant westerners" are BETTER, tha's right, read BETTER, people than you "peaceful muslims" I don't care about whose culture, history and so on is better but the simple fact that we've moved past blowing up our supermarkets and schools makes us a GREATER society than your average muslim country.

[ablarc]

^ Not politically correct, and not nicely put...but substantially and substantively correct.

[milleniumcab]

I was brought up as a muslim but I am not religious..

[quote=ablarc]I just got through reading the Koran. I found exhortations to violence on almost every page --most of it directed at the infidel.[quote]

I looked up the meaning of INFIDEL, and it means " a person who does not believe in God or any of his messengers and JIHAD is war against INFIDELS".. The Koran recognizes Christianity and Christ, also Judaism and Moses. So my interpretation of that particular passage is that Christians and Jews CAN NOT be INFIDELS. Then again I am somewhat educated and can make up my own mind about what I read.. Most people who live in muslim countries are not as lucky and they will believe anything their local leaders say, religious or otherwise..



[quote]If it's minimizing anti-Islamic sentiment you want, milleniumcab, you have the wrong prescription. I'd advise you not to tout the public reading of --at least-- the Koran. If five minutes of this book were read daily on the evening news, public opinion would certainly grow dramatically more anti-Islamic.

Since that's certain, the American public shows great moderation on the subject; you could quite easily chalk that up to ignorance.[quote]

My post was not so much about minimizing anti-Islamic sentiment but minimizing ignorant interpretation of different civilizations and their culture..And the American people can be ignorant about many different subjects, not just Islam and it's teachings.. If I offended anyone, I am sorry but I feel this is true..

[ablarc]

My post was not so much about minimizing anti-Islamic sentiment but minimizing ignorant interpretation of different civilizations and their culture..And the American people can be ignorant about many different subjects, not just Islam and it's teachings.. If I offended anyone, I am sorry but I feel this is true..
I doubt you offended anyone. Your call to be informed applies to all of us. But after we've informed ourselves and found Pol Pot, our duty to extend the benefit of the doubt evaporates.

You also don't seem to have taken offense. :) I attribute that to this:

I was brought up as a muslim but I am not religious..
Not being religious makes a person much harder to offend. It's good to be hard to offend; it shows you have inner peace and self-confidence, and don't need the crutch of a religion to be whole.

I have to tell you: a person like me, raised in the values of a liberal democracy, finds the Koran appalling to read: backward, vengeful, violent and (in spite of claims to the contrary) full of hate. It makes it easy to explain those very traits in practicing moslems. Every page of that book tells me that it's the extremism that's orthodox, and moderation like yours represents the deviant minority. It's not what Mohammed wants from you. He wants militancy and aggression. It's on every page.

[milleniumcab]

yes the "people like me" do often throw out racist unsupported arguments BUT noone on this board or in this country will call ANY of the actions mentioned in the letter as "just."

Maybe you can explain to me exactly what the big deal was about the cartoons? There was a huge thread on this and there's many reasons but how can you possibly compare that "us westerners" drew an insulting cartoon to "you muslims" BEHEAD OUR PEOPLE on TV?????!

Muslims are NOT beheaded on NBC (or in fact at all) in America.

Muslim leaders are NOT murdered here.

Fewer mosques have been attacked in America than in ANY Muslim country.

Muslims are NOT oppressed here by any laws.


For those reasons "us ignorant westerners" are BETTER, tha's right, read BETTER, people than you "peaceful muslims" I don't care about whose culture, history and so on is better but the simple fact that we've moved past blowing up our supermarkets and schools makes us a GREATER society than your average muslim country.

I don't really want to make this into an argument about civilizations or culture or religion...That is not my intention..
We need to understand that most people in the Middle East are uneducated, poor and live in their closed and tribal societies. Some chose and some were forced to live in such manner.. Their religion, whatever that maybe, burried deep within their culture and their culture is everything to them...The only thing the Danish Cartoons accomplished is that undermind the efforts of reasonable people trying to close the rift between western world and the muslim world.. They knew exactly how some of the muslim population would react to the cartoons and they went ahead and published and republished them... These poeple are fanatics in their own views and have their own agenda, that is to put a greater rift between,shall I say, West and East..
And when you come out and say "What is the big deal", the publishers of the cartoons have accomplished their goal..Unfortuanetly what may not be a big deal to us is a huge deal to those muslims who in most part participated in peacefull protests.. But only the unrully and dispicable protests by the FANATICS was mentioned in our media, which is ruled by Sensationalizm..

[milleniumcab]

Every page of that book tells me that it's the extremism that's orthodox, and moderation like yours represents the deviant minority.

I must disagree.. Most muslims, even ortodox ones, live in peace and do not take the extremist views of the fanatics. It is the extremism that represents the deviant minority.. Unfortunately, that extremism have taken a religion, which has the same TEN COMMANDMENTS as the Bible and the Tora, for a ride...

[milleniumcab]

ONe more Thing ablarc..:).. Maybe this is not the right place but will you tell me how you highlite the section of a post before you comment on it, multiple times like you did.....
If you notice I tried the same thing couple of posts ago but wasn't successful..:o

[ablarc]

It's true that the overwhelming majority of American Muslims aren't extremists; after all, that's related to why they're here at all. It's also true that to varying degrees majorities of most Islamic countries are not violent extremists.

It's also true that most who profess Christianity don't really practice it in their daily lives as its founder intended. In real terms, to do so would force them to refuse military service and renounce most aggressive behavior and turn the other cheek. This is extremely difficult for most people to do, for it entails severe penalties from others and from the government; so most people don't. This makes them not really practitioners of Christianity as envisioned by Jesus Christ.

Similarly, most Muslims try to avoid violence because they don't want to be killed and they don't hate enough to want to kill others. But a strict --or even a casual-- reading of the Koran reveals that such people are not devout practitioners of Islam. Islam is militant, indeed military; its founder was a warrior who personally conquered as much territory as Alexander the Great.

If you take the Koran literally, the extremists are devout and mainstream; those who don't join them are lukewarm and insufficiently devout. That's not me speaking; you'll find it on nearly every page. Can we be surprised at the products of such a religion?

I pray that Muslims would lose their devotion and become slack practitioners, but the momentum seems to be in the other direction.

Islam is squarely mired in the Dark Ages, and freedom from its tenets is the surest path to social and economic progress in a part of the world that sorely needs it. Muslims are held down by their religion. Only by not practicing it --like you, milleniumcab-- is emancipation possible and emergence into the light of some degree of freedom: spiritual, economic, social and political.

As Salman Rushdie has pointed out, Islam is the enemy of the unfortunate inhabitants of the lands it dominates.

[ablarc]

ONe more Thing ablarc..:).. Maybe this is not the right place but will you tell me how you highlite the section of a post before you comment on it, multiple times like you did.....
If you notice I tried the same thing couple of posts ago but wasn't successful..:o
millenium cab: use the "Quote" button. Then you can dissect into parts the post of the person you're quoting, interspersing your own comments. You must close each segment of the quote with "[/QUOTE]", and preface each subsequent fragment of the quote with "[QUOTE=ablarc]", or whoever else you may be quoting.

[Jake]

"Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid not that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who profess not the profession of the truth, until they pay tribute out of hand, and they be humbled. The Jews say, 'Ezra (Ozair) is a son of God'; and the Christians say, 'The Messiah is a son of God'. Such the sayings in their mouths! They resemble the sayings of the Infidels of old! God do battle with them! How are they misguided!..He it is who hath sent His Apostle with the Guidance and a religion of the truth, that He may make it victorious over every other religion, albeit they who assign partners to God be averse from it." (Sura 9:29-33).

[ablarc]

^ You can find literally hundreds of other verses urging the same.

Literally.

It's a Muslim's God-given duty to oppose the infidel.

[Jake]

Right, I just thought that maybe it was supposed to be that "infidels" were polytheists and that somehow Christians didn't qualify as infidels (as some have claimed) but that passage clearly defines it.

[ablarc]

Elsewhere, the Prophet points out that Christians are polytheists because they refer to the Trinity. Three Gods or one God in three parts: either way it's anathema and abomination.

[milleniumcab]

Only education and economic progress will change the attitude of those people.. For centuries, they have been underprivileged in their own land by forces of greed.. That greed was and still is driven by oil..

Only thing any human being really needs in life is dignity.. Once you take that away from them, they stop being reasonable and start looking for ways to compinsate.. There comes the religion into play..And as it has been proven, then things get ugly..

Now if we can somehow give them back their dignity, we will see great improvements in the way they perceive us..

[ablarc]

Only education and economic progress will change the attitude of those people.. For centuries, they have been underprivileged in their own land...

Only thing any human being really needs in life is dignity.. Once you take that away from them, they stop being reasonable and start looking for ways to compinsate.. There comes the religion into play..And as it has been proven, then things get ugly..

Now if we can somehow give them back their dignity, we will see great improvements in the way they perceive us..
That would make them less Islamic. So, dignity is the enemy of Islam...

Not hard to see why Islam is the enemy of dignity.

[milleniumcab]

So, you are saying that a person with dignity can not be a religious person..I disagree.. I know plenty of people who are religious and have dignity..

But one must have the opportunity to have both.. In the U.S. , we have that opportunity but there they struggle to put food on the table.. It is not their religion stopping them from having dignity, it is the greed of others controling their homeland resources..

That would make anybody turn to the fanatics who are good at brainwashing others with imperfections about their religion..

[ablarc]

So, you are saying that a person with dignity can not be a religious person..I disagree.. I know plenty of people who are religious and have dignity..
Exploring this issue can lead us into weighty philosophical discussion or a can of worms.

A shorthand synopsis: some folks say the only proper way to practice religion is to take its dictates verbatim at face value. This is called fundamentalism, and in my opinion it does indeed rob you of dignity, whether it's Christian or Muslim, because you become a babbling fool.

If you accept that you owe your religion unquestioning obedience (which is what religion insists!), then anything less is not really practicing that religion. You may have your dignity but you're not truly religious.

In the U.S., we have that opportunity but there they struggle to put food on the table.. It is not their religion stopping them from having dignity, it is the greed of others controling their homeland resources..
I hear this all the time and I'm not convinced. Bin Laden never struggled to put food on his table and it's his country's royal family that really controls the homeland's resources. There's prosperity in that country, and the sons of that prosperity are in the front ranks of the terror.

In Saddam's Iraq there was plenty of greed controlling homeland resources but it was home-grown. It kept the people poor and the elite in palaces.

Kuwait and the other gulf states are simultaneously prosperous and supply-depots for terror recruits.

Yemen, Syria and Somalia aren't controlled by outside interests and they're mostly poor...on and on...

A country that almost has it together is Tunisia, but it's also the least fundamentalist, i.e. the least Islamic, the least religious.

That would make anybody turn to the fanatics who are good at brainwashing others with imperfections about their religion..
Fanatics brainwash with the perfections about their religion, not the imperfections. They read scripture accurately, precisely and literally. Their appeal lies in literal and undistorted reading of scripture, not distortions ("imperfections"). Read a little Koran to see what I mean; bin Laden has it right.

A problem that afflicts all religions is that they were cooked up in times when folks had less knowledge and were more...here's an unpopular word...primitive. A literal reading of Genesis forces you to reject evolution.

"There is no interpretation of scripture." That's a quote from the Bible, and you'll find the same thought in the Koran.



Makes you wonder why folks need religion. You can be good without it. Matter of fact, it might be easier without it.

Dignity? Self-reliance.

.

[milleniumcab]

I do not have any more constructive comments for this thread as long as ablarc is the only one responding to me...:(...It is not right for two minds that are actually working pretty much the same way to go nuts trying to enlighten each other..

So.........
I'll give it a break, a while, to see whether anybodyelse can put a few cents into this thread..:)..

[ablarc]

^ Very moderate of you. (Now if we could only get such measured responses from the Imams.)

[ZippyTheChimp]

Jehovah's Witnesses
Tibetans
Hasidic Jews

Are they fundamentalists?
Do they have dignity?
Do they accept other cultures?

[ablarc]

Jehovah's Witnesses
Tibetans
Hasidic Jews

Are they fundamentalists?
Do they have dignity?
Do they accept other cultures?
Sound-bite question with a complex answer. (Though a simple answer is expected to emanate from the question, I suspect. :))

Jehovah's Witnesses are fundamentalists. They carry themselves with dignity and wear neckties when proselytizing. I don't know how they are when watching TV. Their required missionary zeal suggests that they accept the members of other sects, but would rather accept them into the fold, at which time they are no longer members of another culture. Does any missionary accept the culture he's trying to convert ...as anything beyond a subject for conversion? He may not wish to put it to the sword but he does wish its members' core beliefs to change. By definition.

Tibetans come in many flavors, including irreligious. Most of them (mighty reluctantly) accept Chinese culture. The Dalai Lama's followers, being Buddhists, welcome all cultures (except Chinese culture, of course. ;)) The ones in orange robes project great dignity.

Hasidic Jews. Hard to say if they accept other cultures; depends on your definition of "accept." They are fundamentalist to a fault, adding numerous words of man (scholars) to the word of God. Do they have dignity? Not when waiting to be rescued from stranded gondolas.

.

[Jake]

Do they have dignity? Not when waiting to be rescued from stranded gondolas.

Hilarious, ablarc, I read they called 911 saying they were children and needed to be rescued right away. Meanwhile actual children needing help had to wait for hours.

I'd like to say that all 3 of those groups move to places where they seek acceptance, whereas fundamentalist Muslims move to the places they hate the most.

[lofter1]

From farce ^ to tragedy ...

What can anyone do when dealing with minds like this???

Somali World Cup viewers killed

RAW STORY / BBC (http://rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbc.co.uk%2F 2%2Fhi%2Fafrica%2F5150118.stm)
5 July 2006

Two people are reported dead after Islamist gunmen in central Somalia opened fire in a cinema where people were watching a banned World Cup match.

The cinema owner and a young girl were reportedly killed by militia loyal to the Union of Islamic Courts, who seized control of parts of Somalia last month.

The courts have introduced Sharia law in areas under their authority, including a World Cup broadcast ban.

Somalia has had no effective central government since 1992.

According to reports on a Somali news network, gunmen arrived to close down the cinema in the town of Dhuusa Marreeb in central Galgadud district, where a crowd had gathered to watch the Germany-Italy World Cup semi-final.

Some of the football fans began to protest and according to reports, the gunmen fired in the air in an attempt to disperse them.

When this failed, shots were fired at the demonstrators and two people were killed.

The Islamic courts have introduced Sharia in areas under their authority.

This has included in some parts a ban on cinemas and on broadcasts of World Cup games because they have carried advertisements for alcohol.

The courts have taken control of large parts of Somalia, introducing a level of civil administration and justice which the country has not seen for the past 15 years.

Story from BBC NEWS

© BBC MMVI

[ablarc]

The courts have taken control of large parts of Somalia, introducing a level of civil administration and justice which the country has not seen for the past 15 years.
Ain't that the truth!

For fifteen years Somalia was nominally an anarchy, but nicely held together by informal governments of local tribal elders. A central government was unnecessary because Somalia had basically reverted to its pre-colonial governance.

Now there's a new form of imperialism: Islamic Imperialism --and it brings with it government-sanctioned murder of civilians to appease a bloodthirsty and entirely imaginary God.

[ZippyTheChimp]

For fifteen years Somalia was nominally an anarchy, but nicely held together by informal governments of local tribal elders. A central government was unnecessary because Somalia had basically reverted to its pre-colonial governance.Where are you getting this from?

Relatively stable clan rule has existed only in the north. The south (where Mogadishu is) has been wracked by tribal violence since the government of Siad Barre collapsed.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Sound-bite question with a complex answer.Not really complex, but I figured you would be hard pressed to reconcile the answer with...
So, dignity is the enemy of Islam...

Not hard to see why Islam is the enemy of dignity.

So instead, we get two groups that have sartorial dignity, and a third that may be dignified when it is not afraid.

[ablarc]

Where are you getting this from?
The Economist.

Relatively stable clan rule has existed only in the north. The south (where Mogadishu is) has been wracked by tribal violence since the government of Siad Barre collapsed.
Yeah, and now the whole country will be subject to killer Imams.

Some government.

[ablarc]

So instead, we get two groups that have sartorial dignity, and a third that may be dignified when it is not afraid.
Sartorial dignity is better than no dignity at all. The third group also has sartorial dignity of sorts. Forgot to mention that.

Can I help it if you picked three groups that have so much of their dignity vested in clothes?

Is there a lesson in that?

[ZippyTheChimp]

The Economist. Got a link to the info?

Yeah, and now the whole country will be subject to killer Imams.

Some government. Non sequitur to the point that Somalia has been
nicely held together by informal governments

[ablarc]

...a third that may be dignified when it is not afraid.
Everybody on that gondola was afraid. Not everybody reacted as those folks did. If your God is there to protect you, you don't need to lose your dignity.

Seems like a good illustration that the bigger deal you make about adherence to religion's rituals, the less you can be trusted to do the right thing in a pinch.

I'd say that could be a good general rule of human behavior --even if you can find exceptions.

[ZippyTheChimp]

I do not have any more constructive comments for this thread as long as ablarc is the only one responding to me.Maybe now you can understand why some threads get little participation, unless you like to tap dance.

[ablarc]

Got a link to the info?
Find it yourself. I gotta go pray. :)

[Ninjahedge]

Maybe now you can understand why some threads get little participation, unless you like to tap dance.

Wait a sec, we are allowed to reply?

[ablarc]

^ What are you guys talking about?

[Jake]

I came across this when looking for NYC landmark pics, on a website for "lighting a candle" for 9/11 victims someone posted about 10 of these messeges:



Name: INAM ULLAH
I pray for my ALLAH that ALLAH distroy All USA communities without Muslims
Amin somma Amin
http://www.nycfoto.com/911/candle.php?start=10

Now it would be stupid but somewhat understandable if this was on some militant site, but come on, a 9/11 victims site???? Nice job scumbag.

Now tell me exactly why we even sell computers to these people?

[milleniumcab]

Holly S**t, What the h**l am I doing living on UES. I got to find a place in a muslim neighborhood...:D :D :D

[Transic]

It's true that the overwhelming majority of American Muslims aren't extremists; after all, that's related to why they're here at all. It's also true that to varying degrees majorities of most Islamic countries are not violent extremists.


I wouldn't be so sure. The last two trips I took to Costco (both in Brooklyn and Queens) I noticed that more and more of them shopping in them. I guess it's from the fact that both stores are right close to where they mostly concentrate but I was taken aback at how rapidly their population has grown just in the last 5 years. Then you have these thugs out in Jackson Heights calling themselves the Islamic Thinkers who gather on the streetcorner spewing their hate. Nobody else wants to deal with them.

All it takes is for a population to achieve a critical mass and trouble starts, like in the UK. I'm afraid we may be in for an intifadah soon in one of the outer boroughs. And I bet that the person(s) who burned the flags at Bay Ridge the other day is a Islamofascist in training. The media is silent on who the perpetrators might be. I see trouble ahead.

[BrooklynRider]

I think the trouble comes more from isolation of communities - voluntarily or not. I'm a pretty progressive, liberal guy. I find religion the antithesis to freedom and democracy. I have strong faith in a higher power or life force or whatever you want to call it. Religion has nothing to do with god. It is about control and divisiveness.

I'm tired. Dont flame me.

[Gregory Tenenbaum]

I personally think that's true about Islam followers being well integrated into US society.

When you compare Germany France Holland or even the UK and other countries, we are doing a pretty good job.

There are extremists in every religion. Lets keep them at the edges.

Heres one extremist I found recently on the web

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2453217212869715744&q=farting+preacher

[ablarc]

I pray for my ALLAH that ALLAH distroy All USA communities without Muslims
Only mental illness or religion can make people hate this much.

[Jake]

CNN

Landmark al Qaeda trial collapses

Judge: 'Islamic Sharia law permits jihad against occupiers'


Saturday, July 8, 2006 Posted: 1854 GMT (0254 HKT)

SAN'A, Yemen (AP) -- The trial of 19 alleged al Qaeda members had been designed to showcase how serious Yemen was in the fight against terror. But the Islamic militants, accused of plotting to assassinate Westerners and blow up a hotel frequented by Americans, were all acquitted for lack of proof, the presiding judge ruled Saturday.
Prosecutors had failed to provide "adequate evidence that the defendants were plotting attacks against foreigners or planning to assassinate Americans in Yemen," the verdict said.
Critics say the decision points to the Yemeni president's bid to win the radical Islamic vote ahead of elections in September.
Several of the defendants did confess to having been in Iraq to fight U.S. troops there and had Iraqi stamps on their passport, the court heard. "But this does not violate [Yemeni] law," the judge said.
"Islamic Sharia law permits jihad against occupiers," he said.
Mohammed al-Maqaleh, an expert in Islamist affairs who frequently appears in Yemeni media, described the verdict as a "shock."
"The judiciary is collaborating with the Islamist extremists and this verdict is politicized," al-Maqaleh said on the telephone. He said it was another sign that President Ali Abdullah Saleh was trying to drum up support from Muslim radicals ahead of the coming presidential elections.
Saleh has long-standing ties with Islamic militants, who have stood by the administration since the 1980s. They sided with his northern government in the 1994 civil war and the successful battle against secessionists from the secular south.
Saleh has announced he will again run for president, breaking earlier promises to step down after 28 years at the helm of this impoverished Arab nation.
In defiance to Saleh, five Yemeni opposition parties have chosen Faisal bin Shamlan, a prominent businessman and former Cabinet minister, to challenge him. Bin Shamlan has spoken out against al Qaeda and won respect for denouncing corruption.
Osama bin Laden's family originally came from Yemen, which was long regarded as a haven for al Qaeda.
But the country, which was the scene of the October 2000 suicide bombing against the USS Cole that killed 17 American sailors, joined America's war on terror after September 11 and waged a crackdown on militants.
Muslim extremists remain popular, and the four-month trial of the suspected terrorists often produced elements of a farce, as an at-times raucous crowd followed heated discussions between the defendants and the judge.
All but one of the alleged militants have denied the charges, several stating they were arrested simply because they had fought in Iraq. But one defendant, Ali al-Harthi, acknowledged in court that he had returned home to perpetrate jihad, or holy war, against Americans in Yemen.
From behind the bars where they stood clad in blue prison uniforms Saturday, the 14 Yemeni and five Saudi defendants greeted the verdict with cries of "Allahu akbar" (God is great).
Families received the decision with cheers and claps. Some burst into tears.
"This [verdict] is a change for the judiciary in Yemen," said Ali al-Kurdi, one of the defendants. "It is fair, something unusual."
Al-Kurdi, from Yemen, has spent three years in Afghanistan in the '90s and was charged with being linked to al Qaeda, authorities said.
The state prosecutor appealed the collective acquittal, and the defendants were brought back to their cells at the intelligence services' jail where they have been held for more than two years.

[ablarc]

^ That's what you get for foisting elections on these folks. ;)

In many places, the Islamists will come to power through elections and other legitimate means, like the guy in Germany.

Then they'll abolish elections, like the guy in Germany.

[lofter1]

Well, after all, elections (as we've come to learn) can be incredibly confusing, time consuming and costly.

[milleniumcab]

Only mental illness or religion can make people hate this much.
That , I agree with totally.. But we have to realize that MENTAL ILLNESS in a free society will express itself much differently than in a closed and religious society..

[ablarc]

That , I agree with totally.. But we have to realize that MENTAL ILLNESS in a free society will express itself much differently than in a closed and religious society..
You'll never get rid of the mental illness, so I guess you have to try to get rid of the religion --or at least tame it so it doesn't drive people to murderous manifestations of the insanity it enshrines. Until that happens we have to live with and survive its global menace.

[lofter1]

Muslims in Europe:
Economic Worries Top Concerns About Religious and Cultural Identity

Few Signs of Backlash From Western Europeans

Pew Global Attitudes Project (http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=254)
Released: 07.06.06

Navigate this report

Summary of FindingsAbout the Pew Global Attitudes Project (http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=839)
Methodological Appendix (http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=840)
Questionnaire (http://pewglobal.org/reports/print.php?PageID=841)

Summary of Findings

Muslims in Europe worry about their future, but their concern is more economic than religious or cultural. And while there are some signs of tension between Europe's majority populations and its Muslim minorities, Muslims there do not generally believe that most Europeans are hostile toward people of their faith. Still, over a third of Muslims in France and one-in-four in Spain say they have had a bad experience as a result of their religion or ethnicity.

However, there is little evidence of a widespread backlash against Muslim immigrants among the general publics in Great Britain, France, Germany, and Spain. Majorities continue to express concerns about rising Islamic identity and extremism, but those worries have not intensified in most of the countries surveyed over the past 12 months; a turbulent period that included the London subway bombings, the French riots, and the Danish cartoon controversy.

http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/254-2.gif

Opinions held by Muslims in Europe - as well as opinions about Muslims among Europe's majority populations - vary significantly by country. No clear European point of view emerges with regard to the Muslim experience, either among Muslims or in the majority populations on many issues.

Most notably, France shows no signs of a backlash in response to last year's riots. In fact, a counter trend seems to have emerged with slightly more French people saying that immigration from the Middle East and North Africa is a good thing than did so a year ago. The French public is also more inclined this year to say that Muslims living in France want to adopt French customs - a view held by an overwhelming majority of Muslims in France. Nor do German and British publics express any increase in negative views of immigrants - although, unlike the French, they are not more positive toward immigrants this year. Meanwhile, the Spanish public's view toward immigrants has grown slightly more negative over the last year.

http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/254-2.gif

But in Britain worries about Islamic extremism are intense among both the general public and the Muslim minority population as well. Concerns about the problem rose markedly this year among the general public. And worries about extremism within the British Muslim community are greater than in France, Germany, and Spain.

The survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project was conducted in 13 countries, including the United States, from March 31-May 14, 2006.1 It includes special oversamples of Muslim minorities living in Great Britain, France, Germany, and Spain.

The poll finds that Muslims themselves are generally positive about conditions in their host nation. In fact, they are more positive than the general publics in all four European countries about the way things are going in their countries. However, many Muslims, especially in Britain, worry about the future of Muslims in their country.

The greatest concern among Muslim minorities in all four countries is unemployment. Islamic extremism emerges as the number-two worry generally, a concern shared by Western publics as well as Muslims in Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan.

http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/254-4.gif

The decline in the importance of religion, adoption of modern roles by women, and influences of popular culture upon youth are generally lower-ranked concerns. Overall, British Muslims express the greatest level of concern about the issues tested.

The majority of European Muslims do not see many or most Europeans as hostile towards Muslims. But substantial numbers of Muslims do perceive such hostility. This belief is most widespread in Germany, where more than half of both Muslims and the general public see many or most Germans as hostile toward Muslims. At the same time, however, German Muslims are the least likely to report personal experiences with discrimination.

German Muslims are also far more inclined than those elsewhere in Europe to see new immigrants as wanting to be distinct - 52% take this view - and German nationals overwhelmingly (76%) share this view. In contrast, in France, 78% of Muslims say that Muslims there want to adopt French customs, though 53% of the general public feels that French Muslims want to remain distinct.

http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/254-5.gif

European Muslims show signs of favoring a moderate version of Islam. With the exception of Spanish Muslims, they tend to see a struggle being waged between moderates and Islamic fundamentalists. Among those who see an ongoing conflict, substantial majorities in all four countries say they generally side with the moderates.

Most French and British Muslims think women are better off in their countries than in most Muslim countries. About half of German and Spanish Muslims agree, and very few think women actually have it better in most Muslim countries. Moreover, most are not concerned about Muslim women in Europe taking on modern roles in society (although substantial minorities worry about this).

Religion is central to the identity of European Muslims. With the exception of Muslims in France, they tend to identify themselves primarily as Muslim rather than as British, Spanish, or German. In France, Muslims are split almost evenly on this question. The level of Muslim identification in Britain, Spain, and Germany is similar to that in Pakistan, Nigeria, and Jordan, and even higher than levels in Egypt, Turkey, and Indonesia. By contrast the general populations in Western Europe are far more secular in outlook. Roughly six-in-ten in Spain, Germany, and Britain identify primarily with their country rather than their religion, as do more than eight-in-ten in France.

Americans, however, split about evenly on this question: 42% say they first think of themselves as Christians versus 48% who think of themselves primarily as Americans - a divide close to that found among French Muslims.

http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/254-6.gif

Muslims in Europe are most sharply distinguished from the majority populations on opinions about external issues - America, the war on terrorism, Iran, the Middle East.2 European Muslims give the United States lower favorability ratings than do general publics in Europe, and in particular, they give the American people lower ratings. The war on terror is extremely unpopular among minority Muslim populations - German Muslims register the highest level of support, at 31%.

While Iran is viewed unfavorably in Western Europe and the United States, it receives very positive marks from British and Spanish Muslims, while French and German Muslims are divided. European Muslims take a much more positive view of the Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections in January than do the majority populations, and perhaps not surprisingly, they are also much more likely to side with Palestinians in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In general, European Muslim opinions on external issues are quite similar to those expressed in predominantly Muslim countries.

About This Report

The report's detailed findings are presented below. A description of the Pew Global Attitudes Project can be found at the end of the report, along with a summary of the survey's methodology and complete topline results.

Little Anti-Muslim Backlash

http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/254-7.gif

Despite concerns about an anti-Muslim backlash in the wake of a string of highly publicized events involving Muslims living in Europe - subway bombings in London, controversy over Danish cartoons depicting Muhammad, rioting by Muslim youth in France - most Muslims living in Europe do not feel that most or even many Europeans are hostile toward people of their faith. Indeed, European Muslims are, in general, more satisfied with national conditions than are the general publics of these countries.

Substantial majorities of Muslims living in the European countries surveyed say that in the last two years they have not had any personally bad experience attributable to their race, ethnicity or religion. In France, however, where riots last fall pitted Muslim youth against French police, 37% of Muslims report a bad encounter, while in Britain 28% report being the target of discrimination.

Muslims in Spain are the least concerned about European anti-Muslim sentiment - fewer than a third (31%) say most or many Europeans have hostile attitudes compared with 64% who see only some or very few as hostile. In Great Britain, 42% of Muslims judge that many or most of their European hosts are unfriendly, while in France, 39% of resident Muslims share that view. Only in Germany does a narrow 51%-majority of resident Muslims view most (22%) or many (29%) Europeans as hostile.

In some of the European host countries surveyed, the general public agrees precisely with these assessments. In Great Britain, 40% of the public sees most or many of their fellow countrymen as hostile to Muslims compared with 42% of British Muslims taking that view; in Germany, 63% of the larger public agrees with the 51% of Muslims who see most or many of their hosts as hostile. But in France a considerably larger number among the public (56%) see substantial hostility toward Muslims than do Muslims themselves (39%). And in Spain, nearly twice as many in the overall population (60%) see most or many Europeans as hostile to Muslims as do Spanish Muslim, only 31% of whom share that view.

One of the biggest perception gaps exists in Nigeria. There 28% of Christians say most or many Europeans are hostile toward Muslims, compared with 50% of Nigerian Muslims who believe this. Muslims in the Mideast and Asia judge European hostility to be considerably more widespread than do European Muslims. As many as 63% in Egypt, 61% in Pakistan, 57% in Turkey and 50% in Jordan say that most or many Europeans are hostile to Muslims.

Immigrants Mostly Still Welcome

The poll finds little evidence of a general rise in anti-immigration sentiment. With the continuing exception of Germany, majorities in the European countries surveyed say it is a "good thing" that people from the Middle East and North Africa came to work in their countries.

http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/254-8.gif

These levels of acceptance are essentially unchanged from those recorded a year earlier. However, in France a somewhat greater percentage now call such immigration a good thing, while in Spain a somewhat smaller percentage say it is good.

Germany is the outlier in this regard with only 34% of Germans calling immigration from the Middle East and North Africa a good thing compared with 59% who deem it a bad thing. However, Germans are no more welcoming to those migrating from Eastern Europe; only 36% call such immigration a good thing.

Across the board, immigrants from Eastern Europe are no more and no less welcome than those from predominantly Muslim countries. In Great Britain, Spain, and France, as in Germany, the numbers among the general public calling immigration from Eastern Europe a good thing are virtually identical to those expressing approval of immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa.

More European Muslims approve of immigration from the Middle East and North Africa into the country where they now reside than do the general populations of those countries. Among Muslims in Great Britain, fully 75% call such immigration a good thing; in France, 83% and in Spain, 85%. Germany again is the exception, with Muslims there splitting 42%-46% on the good-bad question, although the 42% of Muslim approvers is still significantly higher than the 34% of the general public that agrees with that judgment.

Concerns About the Future

Although most European Muslims are satisfied with the general direction of the countries they live in, large majorities are still concerned about the future of Muslims in their country. British Muslims are the most concerned - eight-in-ten (80%) are at least somewhat concerned including about half (49%) who are very concerned. French Muslims follow closely behind in their anxiety, with 72% saying they are either very (38%) or somewhat (34%) concerned. The numbers of Muslims very concerned about the future are somewhat lower in Germany (28%) and Spain (30%) although substantial majorities in both countries say they are at least somewhat worried as they look ahead.

http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/254-9.gif

Of the issues tested in the survey, unemployment is the biggest concern of European Muslims, with majorities in the mid-50% range in France, Germany and Spain and a 46%-plurality in Britain saying they are very worried about joblessness. In addition, between a quarter and a third of the remaining Muslim samples express at least some concern on this issue.

Muslims in Britain emerge as the most worried on every other issue tested, with 45% very worried about the decline of the importance of religion among their co-religionists, 44% very concerned about the influence of the secular culture (movies, music and television) on their youth, and, to a lesser but still leading degree, the adoption of modern roles in society by Muslim women (22% very concerned). Elsewhere in Europe these issues - especially the emergence of women - engender intense concern among relatively few Muslims.

http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/254-10.gif

In fact, not only is the entry of women into modern roles of little or no concern to most European Muslims, it is apparently welcomed by many. About six-in-ten British and French Muslims, and about half of German and Spanish Muslims, believe the quality of life is better for women in their countries than in most Muslim countries. In all four countries, the share of Muslims saying women in their countries are worse off is less than 20%. Muslim women in Europe are slightly more likely than men to see the quality of life as better for women in their country than in most Muslim countries. However, in Spain Muslim women were considerably more likely than men to believe this.

Extremism among European Muslims is a common source of worry among Muslim minorities in Europe. In particular, Muslims in Great Britain are very concerned. As many express concerns about this (44%) as are very worried about unemployment. Extremism is of somewhat less concern in France (30% very worried), Germany (23%) and Spain (22%), although in all these countries more than four-in-ten Muslims say they are at least somewhat concerned.

(Continued in next post)

[lofter1]

Pew Global Attitudes Project (cont'd)

Muslims in Europe:
Economic Worries Top Concerns About Religious and Cultural Identity

Blending In

http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/254-11.gif

Most Europeans doubt that Muslims coming into their countries want to adopt their national customs and way of life. Substantial majorities in Germany (76%), Great Britain (64%), Spain (67%) and Russia (69%) say that Muslims in their country want to remain distinct from the larger society.

Fewer French, but still a 53%-majority, agree. However, the percentage of the general public in France that believes newly arrived Muslims want to blend into the French way of life has increased significantly since last year.
In the 2005 survey only 36% of the French public said that Muslims want to adopt the French way of life while 59% said they want to remain distinct; now 46% say adopt, 53% say remain distinct.

For their part, Muslims in France, Great Britain, and Spain are substantially more likely than their general publics to say that Muslims want to adopt the customs and way of life of the country into which they immigrate. Indeed, nearly eight-in-ten French Muslims (78%) believe this.

Again, Germany is different: Only 30% of German Muslims think Muslims coming into that country today want to assimilate - most say they want to be separate and most Germans agree.

http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/254-12.gif

Islamic Identification

Perceptions of the strength of Islamic identity among Muslims have changed little over the year. Substantial majorities in both Western Europe and the United States continue to believe Muslims in their country have a very or fairly strong sense of Islamic identity.

European Muslims' perceptions largely match those of the general public, with the exception of Germany. While 84% of the German public sees Muslims having a strong Islamic identity, only 46% of Muslims living in Germany agree.

As to whether that sense of Islamic identity is increasing, strong majorities among the general publics in Great Britain (69%), France (68%), and Germany (72% - up from 66% in 2005) say that it is (as do 69% in India and 56% in Russia). In Spain, however, only a 46%-plurality sees an intensifying Islamic identity - a view shared by Muslims in that country.

Muslims in Great Britain, however, are the most likely of all groups sampled to see a strengthening of Islamic identity with fully 77% agreeing.

http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/254-13.gif

In France and Germany, by contrast, the proportion of Muslims who see Islamic identity intensifying (58% and 54%, respectively) is smaller than among the general public.

European Muslims who think Islamic identity is growing tend to consider it a good thing. This is especially so in Great Britain, where 86% say the perceived intensifying trend is a good thing, and Spain where 75% agree.

Most Westerners (as well as Indians) strongly disagree. Among those in the French general public who see Islamic identity on the rise, 87% call it a bad thing; in Germany, 83% say so; in Spain (82%); in India, 78%.

For those in the United States, Western Europe, Russia and India who see growing Islamic identity as a bad thing, the primary concern cited is that it may lead to violence. However, many are also worried that it may keep Muslims from integrating into the larger society. For Muslims in Germany who see growing Islamic identity as worrisome, concern about retarding integration is paramount for 58%, while fewer than one-in-five worry about violence. Among French Muslims, concerns are spilt between violence (40%) and integration (45%). In most countries, an attendant loss of freedom tended to be of lesser concern.

http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/254-14.gif

For guidance on religious matters, Muslims in Europe, as well as in most of the larger Islamic world, turn to their local Imam, as well as to national and international religious leaders. Local religious leaders are especially consulted in Nigeria, where 64% of Muslims see them as the most trustworthy source of guidance; in Indonesia, where 60% do so; and in Pakistan and Great Britain where more than four-in-ten Muslims do so. The only countries in which large numbers - about one-in-four - turn first to religious leaders on television are the two Arab countries, Egypt and Jordan.

Self-Perceptions

Large percentages of Muslims in Europe say they think of themselves first as a Muslim rather than as a citizen of their country. The tendency is strongest in Great Britain where 81% in the Muslim oversample self-identify as Muslim rather than British, while in Spain 69% do so and in Germany 66%. In sharp contrast, Muslims living in France are far less likely to identify first with their faith rather their nationality. While a 46%-plurality identifies first as a Muslim, a nearly equal 42% see themselves as primarily French, while an additional 10% say both equally.

The levels seen in Britain, Spain, and Germany are comparable to those seen in most of the predominantly Muslim countries surveyed. In Pakistan, 87% primarily identify as Muslims; in Jordan, 67% do so. In Nigeria, 71% of Muslims see themselves as Muslims first, whereas a smaller 53%-majority of Christians primarily identify with their faith.

http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/254-15.gif

In Turkey a slight 51%-majority now self-identifies as Muslim rather than Turkish, although this is a substantial rise from the 43% who did so in 2005. Among Muslim countries in the survey, only in Indonesia does the public split 39%-36% between primary national and religious identity, with 25% selecting both equally.

By contrast, Christians in European countries overwhelmingly self-identify with their respective nationalities rather than with their faith. And in India, fully 90% of the public self-identifies as Indian rather than Hindu.

Indeed, among non-Muslim nations, the United States is the outlier in terms of religious self-identification with the public closely split on the question of primary identification. Fully 42% of U.S. Christians say they think of themselves as Christians first rather than as Americans, compared with 48% who self-identify primarily as Americans; an additional 7% say both equally.

http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/254-16.gif

Concern About Islamic Extremism

The poll found no overall rise in concern about extremism among the general publics of nations with Muslim minorities. The percentage of the general public very worried about Islamic extremism was greater this year in the U.S., Britain, and Germany; however, it was unchanged in France and considerably lower in Spain and Russia.

Germans are the most concerned about rising Islamic extremism in their country with 82% of the general public saying they are very (40%) or somewhat (42%) concerned. However, concern was nearly as high a year ago when 78% of Germans expressed such concern including 35% who then said they were very concerned.

Great Britain, however, has seen an increase in worries about Islamic extremism over the last year, with 77% of the public now saying they are very (42%) or somewhat (35%) concerned. Strikingly, these concerns are largely shared by Muslims living in Britain, among whom 43% say they are very concerned and 26% say they are somewhat concerned.

In France, despite that country's recent experience with riots, worry about Islamic extremism has remained essentially stable over the last year (76% of the public is at least somewhat concerned including 30% very concerned). And in Spain and Russia, such concerns have declined considerably.

As in Great Britain, most Muslims in France and Germany are also worried about extremism. However, Muslims in Spain are divided on this issue, with 46% expressing at least some concern and 49% expressing little or no concern.

http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/254-17.gif

By contrast, in the predominantly Muslim countries of Egypt, Pakistan, and Jordan large majorities (68%, 74%, and 69%, respectively) are very or somewhat concerned about the rise of Islamic extremism in those countries. And in India, with its substantial Muslim minority, 85% of the predominately Hindu public expresses such concern, essentially the same number as did so last year.

In Nigeria the level of concern is somewhat lower - a small majority (54%) of the public worries about Islamic extremism there. Muslims in Nigeria are significantly more likely than Christians to be concerned about Islamic extremism.

Consistent with these concerns, majorities or pluralities of Muslims in Britain (58%), France (56%), and Germany (49%) believe there is a struggle in their country between moderates and Islamic fundamentalists. Again, Spanish Muslims differ from their European counterparts, with a majority (65%) saying they do not see such a struggle, a view they share with 60% of Nigerian Muslims.

http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/254-18.gif

In all four European countries - and especially in France - those who do see a struggle heavily side with the moderates. In Nigeria, however, Muslims split evenly on this question.

Riots & Protests

Awareness of last year's riots in France is relatively high among both the general publics and Muslim minorities in Western Europe, ranging among the general population from 91% in Germany to 78% in Spain and among Muslims from 86% in Germany to 63% in Britain. In Japan, 89% had heard the news.
Those who had heard about the riots were less numerous in the United States (55%) and in the Muslim world. In Turkey, 61% had heard about the riots, in Jordan 47%. But awareness levels in other Muslim countries ranged downward from 35% in Egypt, to 23% in Nigeria, 18% in Indonesia and 11% in Pakistan.

By and large, European Muslims - irrespective of their views about the riots per se - say they are sympathetic to the youths from immigrant and working class suburbs in France who felt frustrated by their place in French society. Muslims in Great Britain are most sympathetic (75% so indicate) followed by those in France and Spain (63% of Muslims in both countries).

http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/254-19.gif

In Germany, however, more among the general public (64%) express sympathy than among the predominantly Turkish Muslims in that country, 53% of whom say they sympathize with the frustrations of French youth.
In general, Western publics are divided on this issue - only 37% of the Spanish public sympathizes with the French youth.

And despite more positive French views on many related issues this year, only 46% of the French general public takes the side of the country's alienated young.

Regarding publication of cartoons featuring the prophet Mohammad in a Danish newspaper, the most common way in which people heard about the controversy that ensued was through television, although in Nigeria people were more likely to hear of it via radio or through family and friends.
Few in any country mentioned a church or mosque or the internet as the source of their awareness.

http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/254-20.gif


Notes 1The principal countries surveyed for this report were Great Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Pakistan, Turkey, Nigeria, India, Russia, and the United States, with most of the findings coming from the four western European countries. In addition, a few findings are presented from China and Japan.

2For more on the opinions of Muslims in Europe on these issues, see the table "Views of European Muslims Compared to Those in Predominantly Muslim Countries" at the end of this report.

COPYRIGHT PEW RESEARCH CENTER

[Jake]

15% of Pakistanis oppose Iran having nuclear weapons???????

wow

[milleniumcab]

^ It is not surprising at all...85% are uneducated and therefore can not form an informated opinion..

[Transic]

There is a bit of sugarcoating on the part of Pew in the way they've reported certain results. For example, they say that the certains about Islamic extremism in Western countries "remain unchanged." What they don't say is that those concerns (if you believe the surveys) remain high. And it should be noted that the anti-Americanism among Muslims extends to the people, not just the government, as the politically-correct types want to convey.

In truth, I don't know how it's possible for The West and the ummah to peacefully co-exist.

[milleniumcab]

^ Once again the education comes into play. The kind of Antiamericanism among muslims will depend on how educated they are. It will be against the government among the educated and against all among the uneducated..

[Jake]

^ I'm not sure if that's entirely true. If you look at the profile of a typical suicide bomber or terrorist they tend to be very well educated and come from affluent families. Many fundamentalists attend some of Europe's elite universities (heh, talk about irony).

[milleniumcab]

^ If you look at the history of muslim opinion of America in different muslim countries, you will see that it has diminished with the actions of our government in recent years..You and I did not have much to do with that and I really believe average educated muslim can differentiate between the governments' action and it's citizens..

The fanatics or the fundemantalists are a different story...They come from all walks of life..Their brains are washed off with empty promises and fulfillments..As far as they are concerned they are purified as muslims and the rest are sinners..It is virtually impossible for them to make up their own mind about anything..

What has been published in our agenda-driven, sensationalist media doesn't tell me and shouldn't tell you any typicality of them..I don't think it is right to generalize about the suicide bombers and the fundemantalists and say they are typically educated..

[JMGarcia]

Speaking of agenda driven sensationalist media, seen any of the mid-east news sources? ;)

[ablarc]

Speaking of agenda driven sensationalist media, seen any of the mid-east news sources? ;)
Do they show beheadings?

[milleniumcab]

Speaking of agenda driven sensationalist media, seen any of the mid-east news sources? ;)
No, I haven't..And I don't think they are any different than our media. They all have their agendas.

[milleniumcab]

Beheadings of people only proves that those who are doing the beheadings
are stuck in dark ages and prefer that they stay there.. You can go back and find a time zone where these kind of brutal acts were common in all civilizations.

[Transic]

Is a Muslim takeover a real possibility? What nerve!

More Muslims Arrive in U.S., After 9/11 Dip

By ANDREA ELLIOTT (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/e/andrea_elliott/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
Published: September 10, 2006

America’s newest Muslims arrive in the afternoon crunch at John F. Kennedy (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/john_fitzgerald_kennedy/index.html?inline=nyt-per) International Airport. Their planes land from Dubai, Casablanca and Karachi. They stand in line, clasping documents. They emerge, sometimes hours later, steering their carts toward a flock of relatives, a stream of cabs, a new life.

This was the path for Nur Fatima, a Pakistani woman who moved to Brooklyn six months ago and promptly shed her hijab. Through the same doors walked Nora Elhainy, a Moroccan who sells electronics in Queens, and Ahmed Youssef, an Egyptian who settled in Jersey City, where he gives the call to prayer at a palatial mosque.

“I got freedom in this country,” said Ms. Fatima, 25. “Freedom of everything. Freedom of thought.”

The events of Sept. 11 transformed life for Muslims in the United States, and the flow of immigrants from countries like Egypt, Pakistan and Morocco thinned sharply.

But five years later, as the United States wrestles with questions of terrorism, civil liberties and immigration (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/immigration_and_refugees/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) control, Muslims appear to be moving here again in surprising numbers, according to statistics collected by the Department of Homeland Security (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/h/homeland_security_department/index.html?inline=nyt-org) and the Census Bureau (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/census_bureau/index.html?inline=nyt-org).
Immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries in the Middle East, North Africa and Asia are planting new roots in states from Virginia to Texas to California.

In 2005, more people from Muslim countries became legal permanent United States residents — nearly 96,000 — than in any year in the previous two decades.

More than 40,000 of them were admitted last year, the highest annual number since the terrorist attacks, according to data on 22 countries provided by the Department of Homeland Security.

Many have made the journey unbowed by tales of immigrant hardship, and despite their own opposition to American policy in the Middle East. They come seeking the same promise that has drawn foreigners to the United States for many decades, according to a range of experts and immigrants: economic opportunity and political freedom.

Those lures, both powerful and familiar, have been enough to conquer fears that America is an inhospitable place for Muslims.

“America has always been the promised land for Muslims and non-Muslims,” said Behzad Yaghmaian, an Iranian exile and author of “Embracing the Infidel: Stories of Muslim Migrants on the Journey West.” “Despite Muslims’ opposition to America’s foreign policy, they still come here because the United States offers what they’re missing at home.”

For Ms. Fatima, it was the freedom to dress as she chose and work as a security guard. For Mr. Youssef, it was the chance to earn a master’s degree.

He came in spite of the deep misgivings that he and many other Egyptians have about the war in Iraq and the Bush administration. In America, he said, one needs to distinguish between the government and the people.

“Who am I dealing with, Bush or the American public?” he said. “Am I dealing with my future in Egypt or my future here?”

Muslims have been settling in the United States in significant numbers since the mid-1960’s, after immigration quotas that favored Eastern Europeans were lifted. Spacious mosques opened in Chicago, Los Angeles and New York as a new, highly educated Muslim population took hold.

Over the next three decades, the story of Muslim migration to the United States was marked by growth and prosperity. A larger percentage of immigrants from Muslim countries have graduate degrees than other American residents, and their average salary is about 20 percent higher, according to census data.

But Sept. 11 altered the course of Muslim life in America. Mosques were vandalized. Hate crimes rose. Deportation proceedings began against thousands of men.

Some Muslims changed their names to avoid job discrimination, making Mohammed “Moe,” and Osama “Sam.” Scores of families left for Canada.

Yet this period also produced something strikingly positive, in the eyes of many Muslims: they began to mobilize politically and socially. Across the country, grass-roots groups expanded to educate Muslims on civil rights, register them to vote and lobby against new federal policies such as the Patriot Act.

“There was the option of becoming introverted or extroverted,” said Agha Saeed, national chairman of the American Muslim Task Force on Civil Rights and Elections, an umbrella organization in Newark, Calif. “We became extroverted.”

In some ways, new Muslim immigrants may be better off in the post-9/11 America they encounter today, say Muslim leaders: Islamic centers are more organized, and resources like English instruction and free legal help are more accessible.

But outside these newly organized mosques, life remains strained for many Muslims. To avoid taunts, women are often warned not to wear head scarves in public, as was Rubab Razvi, 21, a Pakistani who arrived in Brooklyn nine months ago. (She ignored the advice, even though people stare at her on the bus, she said.) Muslims continue to endure long waits at airports, where they are often tagged for questioning.

To some longtime immigrants, the life embraced by newcomers will never compare to the peaceful era that came before.

“They haven’t seen the America pre-9/11,” said Khwaja Mizan Hassan, 42, who left Bangladesh 30 years ago. He rose to become the president of Jamaica Muslim Center, a mosque in Queens, and has a comfortable job with the New York City Department of Probation.

But after Sept. 11, he was stopped at Kennedy Airport because his name matched one on a watch list.

A Drop, Then a Surge

Up to six million Muslims live in the United States, by some estimates. While the Census Bureau and the Department of Homeland Security do not track religion, both provide statistics on immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries. It is presumed that many of these immigrants are Muslim, but people of other faiths, such as Iraqi Chaldeans and Egyptian Copts, have also come in appreciable numbers.

Immigration from these regions slowed considerably after Sept. 11. Fewer people were issued green cards and nonimmigrant visas. By 2003, the number of immigrants arriving from 22 Muslim countries had declined by more than a third. For students, tourists and other nonimmigrants from these countries, the drop was even more dramatic, with total visits down by nearly half.

The falloff affected immigrants from across the post-9/11 world as America tightened its borders, but it was most pronounced among those moving here from Pakistan, Morocco, Iran and other Muslim nations.

Several factors might explain the drop: more visa applications were rejected due to heightened security procedures, said officials at the State Department and Department of Homeland Security; and fewer people applied for visas.

But starting in 2004, the numbers rebounded. The tally of people coming to live in the United States from Bangladesh, Turkey, Algeria and other Muslim countries rose by 20 percent, according to an analysis of Census Bureau data.

The uptick was also notable among foreigners with nonimmigrant visas. More than 55,000 Indonesians, for instance, were issued those visas last year, compared with roughly 36,000 in 2002.

The rise does not reflect relaxed security measures, but a higher number of visa applications and greater efficiency in processing them, said Chris Bentley, a spokesman for United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, part of Homeland Security.

Like other immigrants, Muslims find their way to the United States in myriad ways: they come as refugees, or as students and tourists. Others arrive with immigrant visas secured by relatives here. A lucky few win the green-card lottery.

Ahmed Youssef, 29, never thought he would be among the winners. But in 2003, Mr. Youssef, who taught Arabic in Egypt, was one of 50,000 people randomly chosen from 9.5 million applicants around the world.

As he prepared to leave Benha, a city north of Cairo, some friends asked him how he could move to a country that is “killing people in Iraq and Afghanistan,” he recalled. But others who had been to the United States encouraged him to go.

He arrived in May 2005, and he found work loading hot dog carts from sunrise to sundown. He shared an apartment in Washington Heights with other Egyptians, but for the first month, he never saw his neighborhood in daylight.
“I joked to my roommates, ‘When am I going to see America?’ ” said Mr. Youssef, a slight man with thinning black hair and an easy smile.

Only three months later, when he began selling hot dogs on Seventh Avenue, did Mr. Youssef discover his new country.

He missed hearing the call to prayer, and thought nothing of unrolling his prayer rug beside his cart until other vendors warned him against it. He could be mistaken for an extremist, they told him.

Eventually, Mr. Youssef found a job as the secretary of the Islamic Center of Jersey City. He plans to apply to a master’s program at Columbia University (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/columbia_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org), specializing in Arabic. For now, he lives in a spare room above the mosque. Near his bed, he keeps a daily log of his prayers. If he makes them on time, he writes “Correct” in Arabic. “I am much better off here than selling hot dogs,” he said.

Awash in American Flags

Nur Fatima landed in Midwood, Brooklyn, at a propitious time. Had she come three years earlier, she would have seen a neighborhood in crisis.

Hundreds of Pakistani immigrants disappeared after being asked to register with the government. Thirty shops closed along a stretch of Coney Island Avenue known as Little Pakistan. The number of new Urdu-speaking pupils at the local elementary school, Public School 217, dropped by half in the 2002-3 school year.

But then Little Pakistan got organized. A local businessman, Moe Razvi, converted a former antique store into a community center offering legal advice, computer classes and English instruction. Local Muslim leaders began meeting with federal agents to soothe relations.

The annual Pakistan Independence Day parade is now awash in American flags.

It is a transformation seen in Muslim immigrant communities around the nation.

“They have to prove that they are living here as Muslim Americans rather than living as Pakistanis and Egyptians and other nationalities,” said Zahid H. Bukhari, the director of the American Muslim Studies Program at Georgetown University (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/g/georgetown_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org).

Ms. Fatima arrived in Brooklyn from Pakistan in March with an immigrant visa. She began by taking English classes at Mr. Razvi’s center, the Council of Peoples Organization.

She has heard stories of the neighborhood’s former plight but sees a different picture.

“This is a land of opportunity,” Ms. Fatima said. “There is equality for everyone.”

Five days after she came to Brooklyn, Ms. Fatima removed her head scarf, which she had been wearing since she was 10. She began to change her thinking, she said: She liked living in a country where people respected the privacy of others and did not interfere with their religious or social choices.

“I came to the United States because I want to improve myself,” she said. “This is a second birth for me.”

[lofter1]

Is a Muslim takeover a real possibility? What nerve!

If the numbers add up isn't that the basis of democracy?

[ablarc]

If the numbers add up isn't that the basis of democracy?
Yeah, but that doesn't mean you have to be in favor of it.

If the numbers add up to another right wing Republican president you have my permission, lofter, to dispprove. ;)

[lofter1]

I wasn't approving or disapproving of a "Muslim takeover" ...

Just kind of amazed at the comment: "What nerve!"

If one doesn't like the direction in which things are going the answer is not to deny the rights of others, but to organize and make sure your side prevails.

[Transic]

And what if it is politically incorrect to say so?

[lofter1]

To say what?

[HoboSapian]

well those simple truths are that he is not wrong....all those events listed by him really took place AND they were carried out on religious grounds.

Another truth is that the Danish cartoons story is bullshit, come on, really think about how much people give a shit about some Danish newspaper's cartoons, and what do we get? Global protests as if the world was ending.


Well you would have to be very thin skinned to protest so fiercely over a stupid cartoon. You dont see "Dub-ya" for example, asking for the head of the "New York Times" editor to be stuck on a pike for people to spit on, everytime they publish a sketch mocking him.

[Ninjahedge]

But what would happen if they did a cartoon of GWB "mounting" Jesus?

You have to compare similar situations. I do not agree with the level of outrage either, but I have seen people get into fights when someone insults the others religious figures in many religions.

[lofter1]

You dont see "Dub-ya" for example, asking for the head of the "New York Times" editor to be stuck on a pike for people to spit on, everytime they publish a sketch mocking him.

Our leaders are far more sophicsticated than that ...

They seem to follow the maxim "Don't get mad, get even":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/archive/ap/nyt%28culturebase.net%29web.jpg

huffingtonpost (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-the-press/2006/09/10/new-york-mag-bu_e_28985.html)
9.10.2006

New York Magazine runs a big cover story next week on the beleaguered New York Times, bane of the Bush Administration for its stories on NSA spying (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html) and secretly-reviewed bank records (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/washington/23intel.html). Joe Hagan gets more details on the fateful December 5th* meeting at the White House where Bush had summoned the Times brass — consisting of executive editor Bill Keller, publisher Arthur Sulzberger and Washington Bureau Chief Philip Taubman — to prevail upon them not to publish the warrantless-wiretapping exposé. According to Howard Kurtz in WaPo, those meetings were supposed to be off the record (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/25/AR2005122500665.html); but in the NY Mag story, Keller reveals to Hagan many previously unpublished details of the meeting, including the fact that Bush warned Keller that, if they published the story, the NYT would bear responsibility if there was another attack:
"The basic message," recalls Keller, "was, 'You'll have blood on your hands."http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-the-press/NYT-NYM-Keller-thumb.jpg

[Transic]

Well you would have to be very thin skinned to protest so fiercely over a stupid cartoon. You dont see "Dub-ya" for example, asking for the head of the "New York Times" editor to be stuck on a pike for people to spit on, everytime they publish a sketch mocking him.

It's amazing how there are so many who don't see that so many are coming from countries which have a long history of hostility towards us (or anyone not them for that matter), who regard their social system to be superior to all else, let alone consider the possibility of major disruptions in the future.

And our government is helping it along. My goodness. :rolleyes:

[lofter1]

What do you ^^^ suggest ?

[Jake]

Do people still read the Times? I was under the impression that the Post is a more respectable paper these days.

"Proof" you say? NYT is selling assets left and right as readership has been dropping rapidly. Stock hasn't had an up months in ummm...years.

file this under "Right wing extremist attacks the Times' objectivity"

haha :D

[milleniumcab]

Well you would have to be very thin skinned to protest so fiercely over a stupid cartoon. You dont see "Dub-ya" for example, asking for the head of the "New York Times" editor to be stuck on a pike for people to spit on, everytime they publish a sketch mocking him.

You are comparing apples and oranges...

We have to try to change the muslims' way of thinking and their way of life in order to make them more tolerant...Those "stupid cartoons" are a step backward in that struggle..And our government's drastic actions overseas, Middle East in particular, are not helping either...

[Transic]

Yes and then we get accused of trying to impose our values on them. Of course, it could all just be a transference thing.

As for suggestions, curtailing those student visas for certain countries would be a start. That's how the AQ 19 got in (at least many of them).

[HoboSapian]

"But what would happen if they did a cartoon of GWB "mounting" Jesus?

You have to compare similar situations. I do not agree with the level of outrage either, but I have seen people get into fights when someone insults the others religious figures in many religions." -Ninjahedge

You only have to look on the internet to find images similar to that and worse (Jesus farting, Jesus burping, Jesus adorned in bling, Jesus yelling obsenities, Jesus copulating with a mule, the list goes on) and unless I have missed something few people seem to care about it. These days you will find more people concerned over therapeutic cloning than what some newspaper printed about Jesus and his sexual relationship (or lack thereof) with Mary Magdeline. So to compare apples with apples then, take for example the Davinci Code and the public reaction of christians and non christians. By the same token how would muslims and non muslims react if a movie were presented on mohammed, or that mohammed was not a prophet of god but an ordinary man with the power to brainwash. You only have to look at the reaction of muslims when "The satanic verses" were published by Salman Rushdie to get a good idea of typical muslim reaction.

[ablarc]

You are comparing apples and oranges...We have to try to change the muslims' way of thinking and their way of life in order to make them more tolerant...

So to compare apples with apples then, take for example the Davinci Code and the public reaction of christians and non christians...You only have to look at the reaction of muslims when "The satanic verses" were published by Salman Rushdie to get a good idea of typical muslim reaction.
I think you are both right.



Here's an illustration: http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10640

Where are the burning cars?

Where are the fatwas?

.

[Ninjahedge]

You only have to look on the internet to find images similar to that and worse (Jesus farting, Jesus burping, Jesus adorned in bling, Jesus yelling obsenities, Jesus copulating with a mule, the list goes on)

Is Jesus copulating with the leader of the US?

You have to keep it on the same level. You also have to weigh it against a certain scale.

First of all the religion in thee areas that protested the cartoons is a bit more devoted, to put it nicely. Some of this devotion coming from people who have very little but their religion in their lives.

Second, the press is very repressive there. There is a law in their religion that forbids their religious figure from being drawn, nevermind lampooned. SO I can see where they would get mad. Do I agree with the level they take this? No, but I can see where they are coming from.

Third, these cartoons were deliberately distributed by agents to get a reaction. Most muslims that protested have probably never even SEEN a danish newspaper in their lives, but with the big push for recruitment, radical faction leaders are looking for the most inflamatory recuritment material available to get these people willing to give their lives for them, under the false claim that they would be fighting for their god.

All you have to do is go to a Pat Robertson or similar congressional gathering and show that picture of Jesus and a Donkey to see a similar reaction.

I would bring a few bodyguards if you ever think of being able to come home in one piece however...

and unless I have missed something few people seem to care about it. These days you will find more people concerned over therapeutic cloning than what some newspaper printed about Jesus and his sexual relationship (or lack thereof) with Mary Magdeline.

It al depends on who you talk to. Comparing it to the US in general is difficult, but start talking to the radical religious right in our own country and see what reaction you get.

So to compare apples with apples then, take for example the Davinci Code and the public reaction of christians and non christians. By the same token how would muslims and non muslims react if a movie were presented on mohammed, or that mohammed was not a prophet of god but an ordinary man with the power to brainwash. You only have to look at the reaction of muslims when "The satanic verses" were published by Salman Rushdie to get a good idea of typical muslim reaction.

Were you not here to see the protest by those groups? The call for it to be removed, not advertised? The only thing differerent in the US is that the entire country is not CONTROLLED by these religious figures. Otherwise we could have had the same book-burning like episodes we have had in communities that were evidenced with figures as recent as John Lennin.

Hell, even then we were more diversified than a lot of these empoverished nations in the middle east!

So although you may be comparing Apples to Apples, it helps when you also put them in the same context. An apple to a man without teeth is not the same as to the rest of us.

[lofter1]

GUYS WHO LOOK LIKE JESUS


http://www.nancyburson.com/images/NEWJESI.JPG


Composite


BACK (http://www.nancyburson.com/jesus/jesus1.html)



http://www.nancyburson.com/jesus/jesus_fr.html (http://www.nancyburson.com/jesus/jesus_fr.html)

[HoboSapian]

"Were you not here to see the protest by those groups? The call for it to be removed, not advertised? The only thing differerent in the US is that the entire country is not CONTROLLED by these religious figures. Otherwise we could have had the same book-burning like episodes we have had in communities that were evidenced with figures as recent as John Lennin.

Hell, even then we were more diversified than a lot of these empoverished nations in the middle east!

So although you may be comparing Apples to Apples, it helps when you also put them in the same context. An apple to a man without teeth is not the same as to the rest of us". -NinjaHedge

Protest is one thing, and you would expect people to protest over something so controversial, at least in some parts of the world. I actually live in Australia and I dont recall any substantal "protesting" of the "DA Vinci Code", people talked about it, some condemned it others thought it was interesting, but I dont recall anyone giving a hoot enough to take to the streets and voice theyre disgust or praise. In any case I'm sure the protests over the Davinci code in the US would have been far less volatile when comparing a similar text like "The "Satanic Verses" (which I feel is equally controversial to muslims) in the middle east.

I did not see the protest/s you speak of so I will ask you, were there any number of assassination attempts on the author or the publishers? Were there angry mobs armed to the teeth ready to storm Dan Brown's press conference? I mention this because it was that level of response when "The Satanic Verses" was published and indeed the images of Mohammed. The two texts from both sides are in fact put into context the only difference is the genre of the literature (i.e film vs novel). On one side you have christians denouncing a book which questions the story of Jesus and on the other you have muslims denouncing a book which questions the story of Mohammed. But in they're case they(the muslim fanatics) would condemn any text or literature which even vaguely or remotely questioned mohammed's teachings....then they would shoot you.

[lofter1]

Personal offense ratcheted up a notch (or three) ...

Bumping Into Boundaries in a Land of Tolerance

NY TIMES (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/13/books/13grim.html?_r=1&ref=books&oref=slogin)
By WILLIAM GRIMES
September 13, 2006

Books of the Times
MURDER IN AMSTERDAM
The Death of Theo van Gogh and the Limits of Tolerance.
By Ian Buruma.
278 pp. The Penguin Press. $24.95.
There are two murders in “Murder in Amsterdam.”

The first took place on May 6, 2002, when an animal-rights advocate, for obscure reasons, gunned down Pim Fortuyn, a charismatic politician with a populist program combining law-and-order conservatism, opposition to immigration and gay liberation.

About a year and a half later a young Dutch Muslim of Moroccan descent, incensed by a film critical of Islam, shot the filmmaker-provocateur Theo van Gogh dead in broad daylight. As a parting gesture, he pinned a manifesto to the twitching body with a knife. It was all, as the prime minister of the Netherlands put it, “un-Dutch.”

Well, perhaps more Dutch than it seemed, Ian Buruma proposes in his shrewd, subtly argued inquiry into the tensions and resentments underlying two of the most shocking events in the recent history of the Netherlands. For one thing, both killers traveled to the crime scene by bicycle. More seriously, both murders represented the sort of highly pitched moral confrontation that could be regarded as a Dutch specialty. The killings were, in a sense, “principled murders.”

Mr. Buruma writes ,“It is a characteristic of Calvinism to hold moral principles too rigidly, and this might be considered a vice as well as a virtue of the Dutch.”

Mr. Buruma has made a career of examining foreign cultures, usually Asian, in books like “God’s Dust: A Modern Asian Journey” and “Inventing Japan.” The murders of Mr. van Gogh and Mr. Fortuyn took him to an unexpected place, his own country.

Mr. Buruma grew up in The Hague, but the country to which he returns in this book is virtually unrecognizable to him, transformed by large numbers of Muslim immigrants from Turkey and Morocco. The multicultural experiment, despite the government’s liberal immigration policies and lavish social services, has not gone well, and Mr. Buruma wants to find out why.

There is no single answer, he discovers, as he sits down with social workers, historians, politicians and writers, some Dutch, others immigrants or the children of immigrants. There are, however, promising avenues to explore, and this he does, economically and suggestively. He traces the evolution of the Netherlands from a sleepy, racially homogenous country to a multicultural haven for immigrants, many Muslim. He also delves into the personal histories of the victims and their assassins, trying to expose the social fault lines that led to murder. The connecting theme is immigration and its discontents, felt by guests and hosts alike.

The improbable Mr. Fortuyn tapped into deep public anxiety over immigration, globalism and national character. Personally outrageous, he hurled abuse at the smooth face of Dutch liberalism, ridiculing its tolerance for Islamic cultural practices that conflicted with social freedom.

Mr. van Gogh, a social gadfly who once described himself as the national village idiot, made a point of offending Islam, just as he made a point of offending the political establishment and anything else within reach: he once called Jesus “that rotten fish from Nazareth.” He miscalculated when, with the Somali immigrant Ayaan Hirsi Ali, he made “Submission,” a film in which lines from the Koran on the role of women were projected onto naked female bodies.

The Dutch, Mr. Buruma writes, savor irony, and perhaps because their political establishment is so dull, enjoy the politics of outrage. This taste is not shared by the country’s Muslim immigrants. “This was the crowning irony of his life,” Mr. Buruma writes. “Van Gogh, more than anyone, had warned about the dangers of violent religious passions, and yet he behaved as though they held no consequences for him.”

Dutch by upbringing, Mr. Buruma manages to pick up on nuances and historical threads that other writers might easily overlook. He maintains that the argument over immigration cannot be understood without seeing the long shadow of World War II and Anne Frank.

Questions of national identity, race and tolerance bear heavy freight. “Never again, said the well-meaning defenders of the multicultural ideal, must Holland betray a religious minority,” Mr. Buruma writes.

That minority seethes.

In particular, the offspring of poor, often illiterate Berbers from Morocco have fared poorly in the Netherlands, and Mr. Buruma, with great finesse, explores the sense of displacement and cultural alienation of Muhammad Bouyeri, Mr. van Gogh’s killer, and other young Muslim men drawn to Islamic fundamentalism. For the products of rigid tribal societies, Dutch freedom has often proved to be oppressive, and here Mr. Buruma suggests that Islam might not be the main point.

“More important,” he writes, “was the question of authority, of face, in a household where the father could give little guidance, and in a society from which a young Moroccan male might find it easier to receive subsidies than respect.”

Mr. Fortuyn had a simple solution. Foreigners who did not subscribe to Dutch values should leave. Enlightenment absolutists like Ms. Hirsi Ali and Mr. van Gogh turned apoplectic at any efforts to appease or accommodate Muslims on, say, gay rights or women’s rights, and they were not alone in their fears.

“I find it terrible that we should be offering social welfare or subsidies to people who refuse to shake hands with a woman,” a left-wing feminist tells Mr. Buruma.

Two murders have left the citizens of two cultures, living in the same country, staring at each other across a gulf and wondering how to move forward. Mr. Buruma is not sure, and at the end he disappears in a puff of rhetorical smoke. With the battle lines drawn, he expresses the fond hope that reason and moderation will prevail on both sides. The sentiment falls sweetly on ears tuned to that particular frequency. The question is how to transmit it to a fanatic on a bicycle.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

[Ninjahedge]

Protest is one thing, and you would expect people to protest over something so controversial, at least in some parts of the world. I actually live in Australia and I dont recall any substantal "protesting" of the "DA Vinci Code", people talked about it, some condemned it others thought it was interesting, but I dont recall anyone giving a hoot enough to take to the streets and voice theyre disgust or praise.

There were protests an calls for it to be removed from theaters. I heard about it for a month before the opening. I heard the same for the one where Jesus sleeps with Magdalane or something (I forget which one that was).

The only difference here is that when you are in a different social situation where you have something to LOSE if you take thnigs too seriously, you are less inclined to go out and kill someone for a movie.

In any case I'm sure the protests over the Davinci code in the US would have been far less volatile when comparing a similar text like "The "Satanic Verses" (which I feel is equally controversial to muslims) in the middle east.

Yep, but that does not prove your point that we are somehow better than them at our core. Take our people, remove secular rule, and strip them down to poverty and see what kind of response you get to things that go against their savior.

I did not see the protest/s you speak of so I will ask you, were there any number of assassination attempts on the author or the publishers? Were there angry mobs armed to the teeth ready to storm Dan Brown's press conference?

You are pushing it to the extreme again and saying that just because the protests did not reach the scale that protests from other areas had for the cartoons, that somehow they are totally different.

Again, context is important.

I mention this because it was that level of response when "The Satanic Verses" was published and indeed the images of Mohammed. The two texts from both sides are in fact put into context the only difference is the genre of the literature (i.e film vs novel).

You also have to take into account that his novel was not only depicting their prophet, but badmouthing it. Read up on Scientology and see thjeir responses to critics and reporters who have tried to reveal their pyramidal secrative cult structure and you will see death threats, career changing accusations, calls, people following the reportes around.

On one side you have christians denouncing a book which questions the story of Jesus and on the other you have muslims denouncing a book which questions the story of Mohammed. But in they're case they(the muslim fanatics) would condemn any text or literature which even vaguely or remotely questioned mohammed's teachings....then they would shoot you.

No, "they" wouldn't. You are grouping the entirety of the muslim population into one group. That bigotry is one of the reasons we are in this mess (bigotry on both sides). Not all muslims would threaten you or try to kil you, just as 95% of them would not hurt you for any other reason than anyone else on this world would.

Again, I urge you to look into the hangings, burnings and other things that were done to people IN OUR OWN COUNTRY to people that did not "fit in" with the mainstram for one reason or another.

The only thing saving is is our religious diversity, our secular government agencies AND our law enforcement.

Take those away and we are human just like the rest of the world and certainly capable of taking things out of context and to the extreme....



Oh, BTW, just so you get a little perspective on religious "devotion" in our own country....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_EKHK1C2IE

Pretty F'n scary.

[lofter1]

China paper suspends cartoonist for drawing Hu crying

REUTERS (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-09-14T060541Z_01_HKG85712_RTRUKOC_0_US-CHINA-CARTOON.xml&src=rss&rpc=22)
Thu Sep 14, 2006

HONG KONG (Reuters) - A newspaper in southern China has suspended a cartoonist after he drew a weeping Chinese President Hu Jintao, a Hong Kong newspaper reported on Thursday.

Depicting national leaders in cartoons is considered politically incorrect in China, although it is periodically done without repercussions, the South China Morning Post said.

But artist Kuang Biao's cartoon of a teary-eyed Hu replying to a letter from the daughter of a university professor who died from overwork aged 48 was regarded by mainland censors as unacceptable, the newspaper said.

The Guangzhou-based tabloid News Express, which published the drawing on Monday, suspended Kuang in what he considered a pre-emptive move to protect him from further punishment from the central propaganda authorities, the Post said.

"It's a gesture by the newspaper to show that action has been taken against their wayward journalist," the Post quoted Kuang as saying. "Sometimes in China, a good offence is the best defense."

Kuang is being allowed to draw for other publications under a pseudonym, it said.

China's official Xinhua news agency announced rules on Sunday requiring foreign media to seek its approval to distribute news, pictures and graphics within China. International rights groups denounced the regulations as an attack on freedom of information.

© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.

[ablarc]

The only thing differerent in the US is that the entire country is not CONTROLLED by these religious figures.
That's quite a big difference all by itself.

And anyway, it's not the only thing different.

Bet you can think of others.

[Ninjahedge]

That's quite a big difference all by itself.

And anyway, it's not the only thing different.

Bet you can think of others.

Yep, but I am trying to trace major contributing factors and fundamentals.

Don't be a skootch. :p

[lofter1]

Muslim fury grows at Pope's speech

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/09/popeeffigy_700x405.jpg
Muslim activists burn an effigy of Pope Benedict XVI during a protest in Srinagar, India.

dailymail.co.uk (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=405238&in_page_id=1811&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5)
15th September 2006

The furore over comments made by Pope Benedict about the Islamic concept of Holy War continues to grow. Today British Muslims joined in, fiercely criticising his remarks.

The pontiff was accused of falling into "the trap of bigots and racists" with the comments he made on a visit to Germany.

• Muslims must do more to integrate, says Archbishop (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=405192&in_page_id=1770)

Last night Vatican officials were scrambling to defend the comments, saying the Pope had never intended to offend Muslims.

During a speech, he quoted a 14th century Byzantine emperor who said the prophet Mohammed had brought "things only evil and inhuman".

But Britain's Ramadhan Foundation, a youth organisation based in Rochdale, reacted angrily to the comments, comparing the Pope unfavourably to his predecessor John Paul II.

In a statement it said: "If the Pope wanted to attack Islam and Prophet Muhammad teachings he could have been brave enough to say it personally without quoting a 14th century Byzantine Christian emperor.

"The late Pope John Paul II spent over 25 years to build bridges and links with the Muslim community. He showed the world that its perception of Islam was false and that we are peace-loving people.

"The Ramadhan Foundation is disappointed that the current Pope has not followed the example of his predecessor; it is essential in today's world that we link together and encourage a wider understanding of our different faiths, celebrating our religious differences is essential in a ever expanding world."

Muhammad Umar, chairman of the foundation, said: "This attack on Islam and Prophet Muhammad by Pope Benedict is recognition that he has fallen into the trap of the bigots and racists when it comes to judging Islam on the actions of a small number of extreme elements."

The Pope's speech quoted from a book recounting a conversation between 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II and an educated Persian on the truths of Christianity and Islam.

"The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war," the Pope said.

"He said, I quote, 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached'."

Benedict described the phrases on Islam as "brusque", while neither explicitly agreeing with nor repudiating them.

Pakistan's parliament condemned the "derogatory" remarks today and demanded an apology. The country's foreign ministry said they were "regrettable" and claimed they would encourage violence.

Vatican spokesman the Rev Federico Lombardi issued a statement defending the speech after Pope Benedict returned to Rome. "It certainly wasn't the intention of the Pope to carry out a deep examination of jihad (holy war) and on Muslim thought on it, much less to offend the sensibility of Muslim believers," he said.

He insisted that the pontiff wanted to "cultivate an attitude of respect and dialogue toward the other religions and cultures, obviously also toward Islam".

But Turkey's top Islamic cleric Ali Bardakoglu asked Benedict to apologise and made a string of accusations against Christianity, raising tensions ahead of a planned papal visit to the country in November.

He said he was deeply offended by the remarks and called them "extraordinarily worrying, saddening and unfortunate".

The 57-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference, based in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, said it regretted "the Pope's quote and for the other falsifications". Militant Islamic websites also attacked the Pope.

© 2006 Associated Newspapers Ltd

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

Pope 'meant no offence' to Islam

bbc.co.uk (http://news.bbc.co.uk)
September 15, 2006

The Vatican has denied that Pope Benedict XVI intended any offence to the Muslim religion, after a speech touching on the concept of holy war.

Speaking in Germany, the Pope quoted a 14th Century Christian emperor who said the Prophet Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things.

The remarks have angered clerics and commentators around the Muslim world.

However, the Vatican said the Pope had wanted to make clear that he rejected violence motivated by religion.

The pontiff had not intended to offend Muslims, the Vatican said.

"It certainly wasn't the intention of the Pope to carry out a deep examination of jihad (holy war) and of Muslim thought on it, much less to offend the sensibility of Muslim believers," said chief Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi in a statement.

"It is clear that the Holy Father's intention is to cultivate a position of respect and dialogue towards other religions and cultures, and that clearly includes Islam."

But the statement has failed to quell criticism. In developments around the world:

Pakistan summoned the Vatican's ambassador to express regret over the remarks, as parliament passed a resolution condemning the comments
The head of the Muslim Brotherhood said the remarks "aroused the anger of the whole Islamic world"
Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya condemned the Pope's comments
In Iraq, the comments were criticised at Friday prayers by followers of radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr
The "hostile" remarks drew a demand for an apology from a top religious official in Turkey
The 57-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference said it regretted the Pope's remarksViolence and faith

The controversy comes on an important day for the Vatican, with Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, former Archbishop of Genoa, taking over as secretary of state.

Correspondents say Pope Benedict, who has been closeted with his chief advisers at his summer residence near Rome, is upset at the way in which his remarks have been interpreted.

But there is no sense of panic at the Vatican, they say, and preparation for the Pope's forthcoming visit to Turkey, a predominantly Muslim secular nation, next November, are going ahead as planned.

In his speech at Regensburg University, the German-born Pope explored the historical and philosophical differences between Islam and Christianity, and the relationship between violence and faith.

Stressing that they were not his own words, he quoted Emperor Manuel II Paleologos of the Byzantine Empire, the Orthodox Christian empire which had its capital in what is now the Turkish city of Istanbul.

The emperor's words were, he said: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

Benedict said "I quote" twice to stress the words were not his and added that violence was "incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul".

"The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application," he added in the concluding part of his speech.

"Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today."

© BBC MMVI

[lofter1]

Muslims demand apology from pope

raw story / reuters (http://www.cnn.com%2F2006%2FWORLD%2Feurope%2F09%2F15%2Fpo pe.reax.reut%2F)
September 15, 2006

JAKARTA, Indonesia (Reuters) -- Pope Benedict XVI's comments about Islam could hurt religious harmony, government and religious leaders in the world's most populous Muslim countries, Indonesia and Pakistan, said on Friday.

A growing chorus of Muslim leaders have called on the pope to apologize for the remarks he made in a speech in Germany on Tuesday when he used the terms "jihad" and "holy war."

Pakistan's National Assembly, parliament's lower house, unanimously passed a resolution on Friday condemning the pope's comments.

"This statement has hurt sentiments of the Muslims," the resolution said.
"This is also against the charter of the United Nations. This house demands the pope retract his remarks in the interest of harmony among different religions of the world."

Islamic scholars say the pontiff's comments show how little he understands Islam and some have said Islamic countries should threaten to break off relations with the Vatican.

The Vatican issued a statement to say the pope had never meant to offend Islam.

In his speech at the University of Regensburg on Tuesday, Benedict quoted criticism of Islam and the Prophet Mohammad by 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus, who wrote that everything Mohammad brought was evil and inhuman, "such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

Benedict repeatedly quoted Manuel's argument that spreading the faith through violence is unreasonable, adding: "Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul."

"The pope's statements reflect his lack of wisdom. It is obvious from the statements that the pope doesn't have a correct understanding of Islam," said Din Syamsuddin, chairman of Muhammadiyah, the second largest Islamic organization in Indonesia.

Syamsuddin said the remarks could hurt "harmonious" relations between Muslims and Catholics and urged Muslims against reacting excessively.

"Whether the pope apologizes or not, the Islamic community should show that Islam is a religion of compassion," he told Reuters.

Fauzan Al-Anshori, spokesman for the radical Indonesian Mujahedeen Council, said the pope misunderstood Islam and jihad and challenged him to a dialogue.

"Muslims can't eliminate jihad from the Islamic discourse, the same way Christians can't do away with the doctrine of Trinity," he said.

The Vatican press office said in a statement the pope had not intended to carry out an in-depth study of jihad (Islamic holy war or struggle) and Muslim thinking about it, "even less to offend the sensitivity of the Muslim faithful."

Washington's response to September 11, invading Afghanistan and Iraq and tightening civil freedoms as part of a wider "war on terror," has created a widespread feeling among Muslims worldwide that their religion is under attack.

A row earlier this year over Danish cartoons that depicted the Prophet Mohammed deepened the sense of a divide between Islamic culture and the West.

Anshori said the recent surge in Muslim radicalism was a response to America's "crusade" against Muslims.

"We believe in respect for each other, freedom for Muslims to practice Islamic teachings and for Christians to practice their religion," he said.

Pakistan, the world's second most populous Muslim country, echoed Indonesia's sentiment.

"Anyone who says that Islam is intolerant or Islam is spread through use of force shows his ignorance. Islam is a very tolerant religion," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said.

"Statements of this nature are very unhelpful in the efforts that we are making to bridge the gap and promote understanding between different religions."

The head of the Egyptian-based Muslim Brotherhood called on Islamic countries to threaten to break off relations with the Vatican unless the pontiff withdrew his remarks.

A top religious figure in Turkey suggested the pope should reconsider a trip he is planning to Turkey later this year.

In Qatar, prominent Muslim scholar Sheikh Youssef al-Qaradawi rejected the pope's comments and said Islam was a religion of peace and reason.

Copyright 2006 Reuters.

[musicial]

"Pope 'meant no offence' to Islam"

hımm! I see :) .

[ablarc]

In Qatar, prominent Muslim scholar Sheikh Youssef al-Qaradawi rejected the pope's comments and said Islam was a religion of peace and reason.
http://66.230.220.70/images/post/muslims/91.jpg

[Transic]

I wonder what Catholics think about the reaction to the Pope's comments.

[Jake]

^We don't give a shit. :)


Seriously I don't think those (as in those protesting the cartoons and this and all the other stuff) realize they are looking stupider and stupider with every incident. Right now people who run around burning stuff in large crowds because someone might've implied something are IMO RETARDS.

Besides the goddamn fact that the Pope is A CHRISTIAN LEADER (!!!!) do these people read the Vatican Times or something? I think they just get angry because one retard tells the other that the Pope said to kill all Muslims.

I'm seriously laughing out loud right now just thinking about the fact that the Pope is required to practice peace and respect towards all while there's hundreds of Imans telling muslims to kill Christians.

Those idiots in that photo are stomping a fire out with sandals on LMFAO, reminds me of that photo of a guy whose clothes caught on fire after he was burning an American flag.

[ablarc]

I'm seriously laughing out loud right now just thinking about the fact that the Pope is required to practice peace and respect towards all while there's hundreds of Imams telling muslims to kill Christians.
Have to agree, Jake. It's comical.

Also comical are the folks who make serious excuses for this.

[HoboSapian]

There were protests an calls for it to be removed from theaters. I heard about it for a month before the opening. I heard the same for the one where Jesus sleeps with Magdalane or something (I forget which one that was).

The only difference here is that when you are in a different social situation where you have something to LOSE if you take thnigs too seriously, you are less inclined to go out and kill someone for a movie.



Yep, but that does not prove your point that we are somehow better than them at our core. Take our people, remove secular rule, and strip them down to poverty and see what kind of response you get to things that go against their savior.



You are pushing it to the extreme again and saying that just because the protests did not reach the scale that protests from other areas had for the cartoons, that somehow they are totally different.

Again, context is important.



You also have to take into account that his novel was not only depicting their prophet, but badmouthing it. Read up on Scientology and see thjeir responses to critics and reporters who have tried to reveal their pyramidal secrative cult structure and you will see death threats, career changing accusations, calls, people following the reportes around.



No, "they" wouldn't. You are grouping the entirety of the muslim population into one group. That bigotry is one of the reasons we are in this mess (bigotry on both sides). Not all muslims would threaten you or try to kil you, just as 95% of them would not hurt you for any other reason than anyone else on this world would.

Again, I urge you to look into the hangings, burnings and other things that were done to people IN OUR OWN COUNTRY to people that did not "fit in" with the mainstram for one reason or another.

The only thing saving is is our religious diversity, our secular government agencies AND our law enforcement.

Take those away and we are human just like the rest of the world and certainly capable of taking things out of context and to the extreme....



Oh, BTW, just so you get a little perspective on religious "devotion" in our own country....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_EKHK1C2IE

Pretty F'n scary.


Yep, but that does not prove your point that we are somehow better than them at our core. Take our people, remove secular rule, and strip them down to poverty and see what kind of response you get to things that go against their savior.

In saying that you are assuming that middle eastern countries or those that are predominatly muslim are the way they are because of a lack of government and money. Yet that is far from the truth, you only have to look at a "wealthy" country like Saudi Arabia and a "poor" country like afghanistan to see the responses are still the same. The only difference is you would usually find the Sauds funding the terrorist act and the Afghans training and seeing the commitment to it. I never said or even implied that "our" morals, ideals or core beliefs were superior to those of muslims, however I will say that I believe that the reaction to alot of muslims on most issues regarding Islam is far too extreme.



You also have to take into account that his novel was not only depicting their prophet, but badmouthing it. Read up on Scientology and see thjeir responses to critics and reporters who have tried to reveal their pyramidal secrative cult structure and you will see death threats, career changing accusations, calls, people following the reportes around.

So does that justify killing or irrational violant behaviour? So if you were to badmouth me about my religion or my prophet that would be good enough grounds for me to shoot you dead? Thats like saying that you have to take into account that the Columbine killers were teased or ridiculed during school and that contributed to the Columbine shooting. It's completely a completely irrelevant and weak arguement.


No, "they" wouldn't. You are grouping the entirety of the muslim population into one group. That bigotry is one of the reasons we are in this mess (bigotry on both sides). Not all muslims would threaten you or try to kil you, just as 95% of them would not hurt you for any other reason than anyone else on this world would.



So you can now put a figure on the number of non-violent muslims. So its not ok to make a sweeping statement using 'they' but making a specific fact that 95% of them would not hurt you for any other reason than anyone else would, is perfectly fine. In any case "they" is not every muslim as you have wrongly stated but "the muslim fanatics" and "those" muslim fanatics I am talking about are specifically people like those in terrorist groups lsuch as Osama Bin Laden, Amrozi and Abu Bakar Bashir just to name a very small number.

[HoboSapian]

http://66.230.220.70/images/post/muslims/91.jpg


They seem to be having a blast out there. Everyone is enjoying the moment! :)

[Transic]

This is a very long essay and I apologize for reposting all of it here but this nails down most of the points about why I fear for the future with the spread of Islamic radicalism...

Why We Cannot Rely on Moderate Muslims (http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=433)

Author: Fjordmann on Saturday, September 09, 2006 - 08:08 PM

According to Dr. Daniel Pipes (http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3437), Omar Ahmad, the long-serving chairman of CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, reportedly told a crowd of California Muslims in July 1998, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran ... should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.”

In 2005, three Dallas-area brothers were convicted of supporting terrorism by funnelling money to a high-ranking official in the militant Palestinian group Hamas. Ghassan and Bayan Elashi and their company were found guilty of all 21 federal counts they faced: conspiracy, money laundering and dealing in property of a terrorist. Ghassan Elashi was the founder (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=15442&only) of the Texas chapter of CAIR.

One would normally think that an organization that has convicted terrorist supporters among its members and whose leading members have stated a desire to replace the US Constitution with sharia would be shunned by Western media and political representatives. Unfortunately, that’s not the case.

In August 2006, a poll revealed that most Americans favor profiling of people who look “Middle Eastern” for security screening at locations such as airports and train stations. News wire Reuters (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22323&only) stated that the “civil rights and advocacy organization” CAIR protested against this. Ibrahim Hooper, communications director for the CAIR, wanted Americans to solve the problem of Islamic terrorism by cooperating with, well, people such as CAIR: “It’s one of those things that makes people think they are doing something to protect themselves when they’re not. They’re in fact producing more insecurity by alienating the very people whose help is necessary in the war on terrorism,” he said.

The Kentucky office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations has been conducting ”sensitivity training” (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/003681.php) for FBI agents in Lexington, examining “common stereotypes of Islam and Muslims,” and ways in which to improve interactions with the Muslim community.

Meanwhile, a survey revealed that 81% of Detroit Muslims (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/001493.php) wanted sharia in Muslim countries. Yehudit Barsky, an expert on terrorism at the American Jewish Committee, warned that mainstream US Muslim organizations are heavily influenced by Saudi-funded extremists. These “extremist organizations continue to claim the mantle of leadership” over American Islam. Over 80 percent (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1132475689987&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) of the mosques in the United States “have been radicalized by Saudi money and influence,” Barsky said.

The northern Virginia-based Muslim Students’ Association (MSA) might easily be taken for a benign student (http://www.meforum.org/article/603) religious group. At a meeting in Queensborough Community College in New York in March 2003, a guest speaker named Faheed declared, “We reject the U.N., reject America, reject all law and order. Don’t lobby Congress or protest because we don’t recognize Congress. The only relationship you should have with America is to topple it ... Eventually there will be a Muslim in the White House dictating the laws of Shariah.”

So, what happened to the famous “moderate Muslims” in all this? That’s a question writer Robert Spencer (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=5888) asks, too. Imam Siraj Wahaj is in great demand as a speaker. In 1991, he even became the first Muslim to give an invocation to the U.S. Congress.

However, he has also warned that the United States will fall unless it “accepts the Islamic agenda.” He has lamented that “if only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate.” In the early 1990s he sponsored talks by Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman in mosques in New York City and New Jersey; Rahman was later convicted for conspiring to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993, and Wahaj was designated a “potential unindicted co-conspirator.”

Mr. Spencer notes that “The fact that someone who would like to see the [US] Constitution replaced has led a prayer for those sworn to uphold it is just a symptom a larger, ongoing problem: the government and media are avid to find moderate Muslims -- and as their desperation has increased, their standards have lowered.” The situation is complicated by many factors, including, taqiyya and kitman: “These are Islamic doctrines of religious deception. They originated in Shi’ite Islamic defenses against Sunni Islam, but have their roots in the Qur’an (3:28 and 16:106). Many radical Muslims today work hard to deceive unbelievers, in line with Muhammad’s statement, “War is deceit.”

Professor Walid Phares (http://www.freeman.org/m_online/dec97/phares.htm) gives an explanation of such religious deception, part and parcel of Jihad while Muslims are in a weaker position: “Al-Taqiya, from the verb Ittaqu, means linguistically ‘dodge the threat’. Politically it means simulate whatever status you need in order to win the war against the enemy.” “According to Al-Taqiya, Muslims were granted the Shar’iya (legitimacy) to infiltrate the Dar el-Harb (war zone), infiltrate the enemy’s cities and forums and plant the seeds of discord and sedition.

“These agents were acting on behalf of the Muslim authority at war, and therefore were not considered as lying or denouncing the tenets of Islam. They were “legitimate” mujahedeen [holy warriors], whose mission was to undermine the enemy’s resistance and level of mobilization. One of their major objectives was to cause a split among the enemy’s camp. In many instances, they convinced their targeted audiences that Jihad is not aimed at them.”

This deception “has a civilizational, global dimension versus the narrow state interest of the regular Western subversive methods.” “The uniqueness of today’s Taqiya is its success within advanced and sophisticated societies. Taqiya is winning massively because of the immense lack of knowledge among Western elites, both Jewish and Christian.”

Youssef Mohamed E., (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,432746,00.html) a 22-year-old Lebanese man, is one of two persons suspected of trying to carry out bomb attacks on regional trains from Cologne, Germany, in July 2006. His fellow students were stunned. They couldn’t imagine how one of their fellow students could be a terrorist, a train bomber. He was a “completely normal guy” said one of them. “He was friendly, polite, inconspicuous,” and he never spoke ill of anyone. The publication of caricatures (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20343178-1702,00.html) depicting the Prophet Mohammed was interpreted by Youssef as an insult to Islam by the Western world, and triggered the attempted terror attack.

Muhammad Atta was named by the FBI as the pilot of American Airlines Flight 11, the first plane to crash into the World Trade Center during the September 11, 2001 attacks. He was also a student in Germany, where he was described as quiet, polite and inconspicuous. This strategy of using religious deception, smiling to the infidels while plotting to kill them, has become a common feature of many would-be Jihadists in the West.

According to Robert Spencer (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22894), secular clothing is actually in accord with instructions in a captured Al-Qaeda manual to appear to be a secular, assimilated Muslim with no interest in religion. In renting an apartment, “It is preferable to rent these apartments using false names, appropriate cover, and non-Moslem appearance.” And in general: “Have a general appearance that does not indicate Islamic orientation (beard, toothpick, book, [long] shirt, small Koran)....Be careful not to mention the brothers’ common expressions or show their behaviors (special praying appearance, ‘may Allah reward you’, ‘peace be on you’ while arriving and departing, etc.).”

Muslim Ambassadors to the Czech Republic (http://www.praguepost.com/P03/2006/Art/0302/news2.php) from Arab nations and members of the Czech Muslim community were outraged by a documentary aired on ÄŒTV that used hidden camera footage of conversations in a Prague mosque. The footage showed a reporter pretending to be someone interested in converting to Islam. One of members of the mosque said Islamic law should be implemented in the Czech Republic, including the death penalty for adultery. “The result was alarming, and if not for the hidden camera, I would have never had any of this footage,” the journalist said.

An Arabic-speaking journalist had on several occasions visited a large mosque in Stockholm, and noticed that what the imam said in his speech in Arabic didn’t match the Swedish translation. “America rapes Islam,” imam Hassan Mousa roared in Arabic. Minutes later the Swedish translation was ready. Not a word on how America was raping Islam. Imam Mousa said that many Muslims call him an “American friendly” preacher. The mistranslation was because “Arabic is a much richer language than Swedish. It’s impossible to translate everything.”

Examples such as these leave non-Muslims with a very powerful dilemma: How can we ever trust assurances from self-proclaimed moderate Muslims when deception of non-Muslims is so widespread, and lying to infidels is an accepted and established way of hiding Islamic goals? The answer, with all its difficult implications, is: We can’t.

Does this mean that ALL Muslims are lying about their true agenda, all of the time? No, of course not. Some are quite frank about their intentions.

Norway’s most controversial refugee, Mullah Krekar (http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1247400.ece), has said in public that there’s a war going on between the West and Islam, and that Islam will win. “We’re the ones who will change you,” Krekar told. “Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes.”

“Every Western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children. By 2050, 30 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim.” He claimed that “our way of thinking... will prove more powerful than yours.” He loosely defined “Western thinking” as formed by the values held by leaders of western or non-Islamic nations. Its “materialism, egoism and wildness” has altered Christianity, Krekar claimed.

In The Force of Reason (http://www.amazon.com/Force-Reason-Oriana-Fallaci/dp/0847827534/), Italian journalist and novelist Oriana Fallaci (http://www.laweekly.com/index.php?option=com_lawcontent&task=view&id=12921&Itemid=47) recalls how, in 1972, she interviewed the Palestinian terrorist George Habash, who told her that the Palestinian problem was about far more than Israel. The Arab goal, Habash declared, was to wage war “against Europe and America” and to ensure that henceforth “there would be no peace for the West.” The Arabs, he informed her, would “advance step by step. Millimeter by millimeter. Year after year. Decade after decade. Determined, stubborn, patient. This is our strategy. A strategy that we shall expand throughout the whole planet.”

Fallaci thought he was referring simply to terrorism. Only later did she realize that he “also meant the cultural war, the demographic war, the religious war waged by stealing a country from its citizens — In short, the war waged through immigration, fertility, presumed pluriculturalism.”

The US State Department believes that Washington can contain the Muslim Brotherhood and its ilk through dialogue (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/005611.php) and should avoid any further clash with them, because this “would only fan hatred and incite more attacks against US interests.” The State Department has asked the US Embassy in Cairo to reach out to the Muslim Brotherhood’s leaders as a preliminary step for an organized dialogue.

At the same time, the new Brotherhood leader Muhammad Mahdi Othman ’Akef said in 2004 to Arab media that America is ‘Satan’ and “will soon collapse.” (http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP65504) “I have complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and America, because Islam has logic and a mission.” Western authorities are thus trying to “reach out” to an organization that wants to conquer and subdue them.

Besides, exactly what does “dialogue” mean, anyway? Poul E. Andersen, (http://www.uriasposten.net/?p=3335) former dean of the church of Odense, Denmark, warns against false hopes of dialogue with Muslims. During a debate at the University of Aarhus, Ahmad Akkari, one of the Muslim participants, stated: “Islam has waged war where this was necessary and dialogue where this was possible. A dialogue can thus only be viewed as part of a missionary objective.”

When Mr. Andersen raised the issue of dialogue with the Muslim World League in Denmark, the answer was: “To a Muslim, it is artificial to discuss Islam. In fact, you view any discussion as an expression of Western thinking.” Andersen’s conclusion was that for Islamists, any debate about religious issues is impossible as a matter of principle. If Muslims engage in a dialogue or debate on religious subjects, this is for one purpose only: To create more room for Islam.

In Britain’s The Spectator, Patrick Sookhdeo (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=16866&only) writes about the myth of moderate Islam:

“The peaceable verses of the Koran are almost all earlier, dating from Mohammed’s time in Mecca, while those which advocate war and violence are almost all later, dating from after his flight to Medina. Though jihad has a variety of meanings, including a spiritual struggle against sin, Mohammed’s own example shows clearly that he frequently interpreted jihad as literal warfare and himself ordered massacre, assassination and torture. From these sources the Islamic scholars developed a detailed theology dividing the world into two parts, Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam, with Muslims required to change Dar al-Harb into Dar al-Islam either through warfare or da’wa (mission).”

“So the mantra ‘Islam is peace’ is almost 1,400 years out of date. It was only for about 13 years that Islam was peace and nothing but peace. From 622 onwards it became increasingly aggressive, albeit with periods of peaceful co-existence, particularly in the colonial period, when the theology of war was not dominant. For today’s radical Muslims — just as for the mediaeval jurists who developed classical Islam — it would be truer to say ‘Islam is war.’”

What is a moderate Muslim? In 2003, the Associated Press touted as a “moderate” (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=8863&only) a cleric who told Saudi radio that terrorist attacks in his capital violated “the sanctity of Ramadan.” Leading government cleric Sheikh Saleh Al-Fawzan was a member of the Senior Council of Clerics, Saudi Arabia’s highest religious body. He was also the author of the religious books used to teach 5 million Saudi students, both within the country and in Saudi schools abroad — including those in Washington, D.C. “Slavery is a part of Islam,” he said in one tape, adding: “Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam.” A moderate Muslim by Saudi standards is thus a person who wants to reinstate slavery in the 21st century.

During his speech at the opening of the 10th Session of the Islamic Summit Conference on Oct 16, 2003, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad (http://www.bernama.com/oicsummit/speechr.php?id=35&cat=BI#) of Malaysia stated that: “We are all Muslims. We are all oppressed. We are all being humiliated.” “1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews. There must be a way.” “Today the Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.”

“They invented and successfully promoted Socialism, Communism, human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so they may enjoy equal rights with others. With these they have now gained control of the most powerful countries and they, this tiny community, have become a world power.” Mahathir talked about how Muslims could win a “final victory,” and recalled the glory days when “Europeans had to kneel at the feet of Muslim scholars in order to access their own scholastic heritage.”

Farish Noor (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/012919.php), a Malaysian scholar who specializes in politics and Islam, says that the idea of a secular state is dead in Malaysia. “An Islamic society is already on the cards. The question is what kind of Islamic society this will be.” There is a creeping Islamization of the country, and Islamic police officers routinely arrest unmarried couples for “close proximity.” Yet despite all of this, Malaysia is considered one of the most moderate Muslim majority countries in the world. What does this tell us?

While NATO soldiers are risking their lives to establish a “democratic and moderate” regime in Afghanistan, a former regional governor (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/008617.php) who oversaw the destruction of two massive 1,500-year-old Buddha statues during the Taliban’s reign was elected to the Afghan parliament. Mawlawi Mohammed Islam Mohammadi was the Taliban’s governor of Bamiyan province when the fifth-century Buddha statues were blown up with dynamite and artillery in March 2001.

In the same, Western-supported, moderate Afghanistan, the police arrested six people for stoning to death an Afghan women accused of adultery. (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/005957.php) The arrests were made after the interior ministry sent a delegation to a remote village in north-eastern Badakhshan province following reports that the woman was stoned to death. Were they arrested because stoning was barbaric? No. They were arrested because they were carrying out an unauthorized stoning: The mullah who authorized the killing was not a judge.

Ashram Choudhary, Muslim MP in New Zealand, (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10334250) will not condemn the traditional Koran punishment of stoning to death some homosexuals and people who have extra-marital affairs. But the Labour MP - who has struggled with his “role” as the sole parliamentary representative of the local Muslim community — assures that he is not advocating the practice in the West. The question is not just of academic interest. A 23-year-old Tunisian woman was stoned to death near Marseilles, France, (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/003883.php) in 2004.

Centre Democrat Ben Haddou, (http://www.cphpost.dk/get/83873.html) a member of Copenhagen’s City Council, has stated: “It’s impossible to condemn sharia. And any secular Muslim who claims he can is lying. Sharia also encompasses lifestyle, inheritance law, fasting and bathing. Demanding that Muslims swear off sharia is a form of warfare against them.”

Read that statement again, and read it carefully. Muslims in the West consider it “a form of warfare against them” if they have to live by our secular laws, not their religious laws. Will they then also react in violent ways to this “warfare” if they don’t get their will? Moreover, since sharia laws ultimately require the subjugation of non-Muslims, doesn’t “freedom of religion” for Muslims essentially entail the freedom to make non-Muslims second-rate citizens in their own countries?

Federal Treasurer Peter Costello (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/muslim-anger-erupts-at-costello-call-to-renounce-terrorism/2006/09/03/1157222007392.html) said Australian Muslim leaders need to stand up and publicly denounce terrorism in all its forms. Mr. Costello has also backed calls by Prime Minister John Howard for Islamic migrants to adopt Australian values. Mr. Howard caused outrage in Australia’s Islamic community when he said Muslims needed to speak English and show respect to women.

Hammasa Kohistani, (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=403010&in_page_id=1770) the first Muslim to be crowned Miss England, warned that “stereotyping” members of her community was leading some towards extremism. “Even moderate Muslims are turning to terrorism to prove themselves. They think they might as well support it because they are stereotyped anyway. It will take a long time for communities to start mixing in more.”

So, if radical Muslims stage mass-murder attacks against non-Muslims, the non-Muslims must not show any anger because of this, otherwise the moderate Muslims may get insulted and become terrorists, too. Gee, isn’t it comforting to know that there is such a sharp dividing line between moderates and radicals, and that moderate Muslims have such an aptitude for self-criticism?

Unfortunately, Jihad-supporters are allowed to stifle Western defense capabilities by feeding them Politically Correct propaganda. U.K. police officers were given ”diversity training” (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22425&only) at an Islamic school southeast of London, the private Jameah Islameah school in East Sussex, that later became the center of a terrorism investigation. The county’s police officers visited the school as many as 15 times for training to improve their awareness of Muslim culture and for advanced training so they could themselves become diversity trainers.

In August 2006, following the unveiling of a plot to blow up several airliners between Britain and the USA, Muslim leaders summoned to talks with the Government on tackling extremism made a series of demands, which included the introduction of sharia law (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=400605&in_page_id=1770&ct=5) for family matters. Dr Syed Aziz Pasha, secretary general of the Union of Muslim Organisations of the UK and Ireland, said: ‘We told her [the minister] if you give us religious rights, we will be in a better position to convince young people that they are being treated equally along with other citizens.’

As Charles Johnson (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=22113&only) of blog Little Green Footballs dryly commented, this is an interesting viewpoint: Only by receiving special treatment and instituting a medieval religious legal code can Muslims be treated “equally.”

After the plot against the airliners was uncovered, a large number of UK Muslim groups sent a letter with veiled threats (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4786159.stm) to PM Tony Blair, stating that “It is our view that current British government policy risks putting civilians at increased risk both in the UK and abroad,” and that the British should “change our foreign policy,” in addition to allowing Muslims more sharia. The same thing happened after the bombs in London in 2005.

If we watch closely, we will notice that Muslims are highly organized and have prepared long lists of demands. Every act of terrorism, or Jihad as it really is, is seen as an opportunity to push even greater demands. Radical Muslims and moderate Muslims are allies, not adversaries. The radicals bomb, and the moderates issue veiled threats that “unless we get our will, more such attacks will ensue.” It’s a good cop, bad cop game.

It is true that Jihad is not exclusively about violence, but it is very much about the constant threat of violence. Just like you don’t need to beat a donkey all the time to make it go where you want it to, Muslims don’t have to hit non-Muslims continuously. They bomb or kill every now and then, to make sure that the infidels are always properly submissive and know who’s boss.

Sadly, they frequently tend to get their will, and the donkey, or as in this case, the British, do what the Muslims want. A hospital in northwest England has introduced a new surgical gown modelled on the burka, (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/09/05/060905132119.i7c4tz8n.html) allowing female Muslim patients to cover themselves completely. The blue “Inter-Faith Gown” is the first of its type in Britain and has being tried out at the Royal Preston Hospital.

Professor Moshe Sharon (http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/MosheSharon40214%20.htm) teaches Islamic History at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. He gives this description of how a temporary truce, a hudna, is used as an Islamic strategy against infidels:

“Peace in Islam can exist only within the Islamic world; peace can only be between Moslem and Moslem.” “With the non-Moslem world or non-Moslem opponents, there can be only one solution - a cease fire until Moslems can gain more power. It is an eternal war until the end of days. Peace can only come if the Islamic side wins. The two civilizations can only have periods of cease-fires.”

“A few weeks after the Oslo agreement was signed, [Palestinian leader] Arafat went to Johannesburg, and in a mosque there he made a speech in which he apologized, saying, “Do you think I signed something with the Jews which is contrary to the rules of Islam?” Arafat continued, “That’s not so. I’m doing exactly what the prophet Mohammed did.” “What Arafat was saying was, “Remember the story of Hodaybiya.” The prophet had made an agreement there with the tribe of Kuraish for 10 years. But then he trained 10,000 soldiers and within two years marched on their city of Mecca. He, of course, found some kind of pretext.”

I have earlier quoted how even Norwegian diplomat and United Nation’s envoy Terje Röd-Larsen (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/lgf-search.php?searchWith=lgf&searchString=terje+roed-larsen&doSearch=search), a key player during the Oslo Peace Process in the 1990s, later admitted that “Arafat lied all the time.”

The Arabs never wanted a peace with Israel. They wanted to buy time until they were strong enough to win. The peace overtures by the Israelis were interpreted as a sign of weakness. The so-called Treaty of Hudaybiyya, signed while Muhammad and his supporters were not yet strong enough to conquer Mecca, has become a standard for Islamic relations with non-Muslims ever since.

Sharon states that “Thus, in Islamic jurisdiction, it became a legal precedent which states that you are only allowed to make peace for a maximum of 10 years. Secondly, at the first instance that you are able, you must renew the jihad [thus breaking the “peace” agreement].” “What makes Islam accept cease-fire? Only one thing - when the enemy is too strong. It is a tactical choice.”

Furthermore, the Islamic world has not only the attitude of open war. There’s also war by infiltration, as we can see in Western countries now. Is there a possibility to end this dance of war? According to Moshe Sharon, the answer is, “No. Not in the foreseeable future. What we can do is reach a situation where for a few years we may have relative quiet.”

As Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/012991.php) says of moderate Muslims: “They are still people who call themselves Muslims, and we, the Infidels, have no idea what this will cause them, or could cause them, to do in the future. We likewise have no idea what their children, or their grandchildren will see as their responsibility as Muslims. The “moderate” Muslim today may be transformed into an “immoderate” Muslim, or his descendants could be if he does not make a complete break and become an apostate. All over the West now we see the phenomenon of Muslim children who are more devout and observant than their parents.”

This is, unfortunately, very true. In November 2005, an intelligence study obtained by Canada’s National Post (http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=cb4b3799-46b2-4bff-b42e-852d05978222&page=1) said that a “high percentage” of the Canadian Muslims involved in extremist activities were home-grown and born in Canada, a marked shift from the past when they were mostly refugees and immigrants: “There does not appear to be a single process that leads to extremism; the transformation is highly individual. Once this change has taken place, such individuals move on to a series of activities, ranging from propaganda and recruiting, to terrorist training and participation in extremist operations.”

Hugh Fitzgerald wonders how many of our Muslim immigrants will be truly moderate. How many of them “will turn out to be like Ayaan Hirsi Ali? One out of 20? One out of 100? One out of 1,000? One out of 100,000? How many of the men will turn out to be like Magdi Allam in Italy, or like Bassam Tibi in Germany? How many Ibn Warraqs and Ali Sinas, or converts to Christianity such as Walid Shoebat, are there likely to be in any population of, say, 1000 Muslim immigrants? Should the Western world admit a million immigrants, or permit them to remain, because a few of them see the light?”

“Let Muslims remain within Dar al-Islam. Let the Infidels do everything they can to first learn themselves, and then to show Muslims that they understand (so that Muslims will then have to begin to recognize) that the political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures of Islamic societies, both within Dar al-Islam and in Dar al-Harb, are directly related to, and arise out of, Islam itself.”

Youssef Ibrahim (http://www.nysun.com/article/38586?page_no=2) of the New York Sun is tired of the silence from the Muslim majority: “Hardly any Muslim groups, moderate or otherwise, voiced public disapproval of [Dutch Islamic critic Theo] van Gogh’s murder except in the most formulaic way.” “In Islam, “silence is a sign of acceptance,” as the Arabic Koranic saying goes.” “The question that hangs in the air so spectacularly now — particularly as England has been confronted once again by British Muslims plotting to kill hundreds — is this: What exactly are the Europeans waiting for before they round up all those Muslim warriors and their families and send them back to where they came from?”

A just question, which increasing numbers of Europeans are asking, too. A big part of the answer lies in the elaborate Eurabian, pro-Islamic networks that have been built up by stealth over decades, and hardly ever debated by European media. Besides, it’s embarrassing for Western political leaders, who have championed Multiculturalism for a long time, to admit that they have made a terrible mistake that is now threatening the very survival of their countries.

It is possible that those Western countries where the infidels are strong enough will copy the Benes Decrees from Czechoslovakia in 1946, when most of the so-called Sudeten Germans, some 3.5 million people, had shown themselves to be a dangerous fifth column without any loyalty to the state. The Czech government thus expelled them from its land. As Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch has demonstrated, there is a much better case for a Benes Decree for parts of the Muslim population in the West now than there ever was for the Sudeten Germans.

The most civilized thing we can do in order to save ourselves as a civilization, but also to limit the loss of life among both Muslims and non-Muslims in what increasingly looks like a world war, is for Westerners and indeed non-Muslims in general to implement a policy of containment of the Islamic world, as suggested by Mr. Fitzgerald. This includes completely stopping Muslim immigration, but also by making our countries Islam-unfriendly, thus presenting the Muslims already here between the options of adapting to our societies or leaving if they desire sharia law. Even whispering about Jihad should be grounds for expulsion and revoking citizenship.

I have compared Islam to the movie “The Matrix,” where people are turned into slaves by living in a make-believe reality designed to keep them in chains. In the movie, everybody who hasn’t been completely unplugged from this artificial reality is potentially an agent for the system. I have gradually come to the conclusion that this is the sanest way to view Muslims, too.

Some would argue that it is a crime and a betrayal of our own values to argue for excluding Muslims from our countries or even expelling some of the ones who are already here. I disagree. The relatively small number of Muslims we have in the West now has already caused enormous damage to our economy, to our culture and not the least to our freedoms. The real crime, and the real betrayal, would be to sacrifice centuries of advances in human freedom as well as the future of our children and grandchildren to appease Muslims who contribute virtually nothing to our societies and are hostile to their very foundations.

As I have demonstrated above, it is perfectly accepted, and widely practiced, by Jihadist Muslims to lie to non-Muslims about their true agenda. I have also demonstrated that the relationship between radicals and so-called moderates is a lot closer than we would like to think. At best, they share the goals of establishing sharia around the world, and differ only over the means to achieve this goal. At worst, they are allies in a good cop, bad cop game to extort concession after concession from the infidels. Moreover, even those who genuinely are moderate and secular in their approach may later change, or their children may change. This can be triggered by almost anything, either something in the news or a crisis in their personal lives, which will create a desire to become a better, more pious Muslim. The few remaining moderates can easily be silenced by violence from their more ruthless, radical counterparts.

At the end of the day, what counts isn’t the difference, if any, between moderate Muslims and radical Muslims, but between Muslims and non-Muslims, and between Muslims and ex-Muslims. Ibn Warraq says that there may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. He is probably right. As he writes in the book Leaving Islam — Apostates Speak Out, (http://www.amazon.com/Leaving-Islam-Apostates-Speak-Out/dp/1591020689/) a unique collection of testimonials by former Muslims, ex-Muslims are the only ones who know what it’s all about, and we would do well to listen to their Cassandra cries.

[lofter1]

The other side of the coin: a more complex - and hopeful ? - alternative (with some insightful historical background) ...

THE MODERATE MARTYR


A radically peaceful vision of Islam." ... on the periphery, from Senegal to Indonesia — where the vast majority of Muslims live — Islamic reform comes in more varieties than most Westerners imagine."THE NEW YORKER (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060911fa_fact1)
by GEORGE PACKER
Issue of 2006-09-11

LETTER FROM SUDAN

In 1967, a law student at the University of Khartoum named Abdullahi Ahmed an-Naim was looking for a way to spend a summer evening in his home town, a railway junction on the banks of the Nile in northern Sudan. No good movies were showing at the local cinemas, so he went with a friend to hear a public lecture by Mahmoud Muhammad Taha, an unorthodox Sudanese mystic with a small but ardent following. Taha’s subject, “An Islamic Constitution: Yes and No,” tantalized Naim. In the years after Sudan became independent, in 1956, the role of Islam in the state was fiercely debated by traditional Sufists, secular Marxists, and the increasingly powerful Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood, who, at the time, were led in Sudan by Hasan al-Turabi, a legal scholar. Politically, Naim was drifting toward the left, but his upbringing in a conservative Muslim home had formed him. “I was very torn,” Naim recently recalled. “I am a Muslim, but I couldn’t accept Sharia” — Islamic law. “I studied Sharia and I knew what it said. I couldn’t see how Sudan could be viable without women being full citizens and without non-Muslims being full citizens. I’m a Muslim, but I couldn’t live with this view of Islam.”

Naim’s quandary over Islam was an intensely personal conflict — he called it a “deadlock.” What he heard at Taha’s lecture resolved it. Taha said that the Sudanese constitution needed to be reformed, in order to reconcile “the individual’s need for absolute freedom with the community’s need for total social justice.” This political ideal, he argued, could be best achieved not through Marxism or liberalism but through Islam — that is, Islam in its original, uncorrupted form, in which women and people of other faiths were accorded equal status. As Naim listened, a profound sense of peace washed over him; he joined Taha’s movement, which came to be known as the Republican Brothers, and the night that had begun so idly changed his life.

It is a revelation story, and some version of it is surprisingly easy to hear in the Islamic world, especially among educated middle-class Muslims in the generation that came after the failures of nationalism and Socialism. During a recent trip to Sudan, I visited the University of Khartoum, which is housed in a collection of mostly colonial-era, earth-colored brick buildings in the city center, where I met a woman named Suhair Osman, who was doing graduate work in statistics. In 1993, at the age of eighteen, she spent the year between high school and college in her parents’ house on the Blue Nile, south of Khartoum, asking herself theological questions. As a schoolgirl, she had been taught that sinners would be eternally tormented after death; she couldn’t help feeling sorry for them, but she didn’t dare speak about it in class. Would all of creation simply end either in fire or in Paradise? Was her worth as a woman really no more than a quarter that of a man, as she felt Islamic law implied by granting men the right to take four wives? Did believers really have a duty to kill infidels? One day, Osman took a book by Taha off her father’s shelf, “The Koran, Mustapha Mahmoud, and Modern Understanding,” published in 1970. By the time she finished it, she was weeping. For the first time, she felt that religion had accorded her fully equal status. “Inside this thinking, I’m a human being,” she said. “Outside this thinking, I’m not.” It was as if she had been asleep all her life and had suddenly woken up: the air, the taste of water, food, even the smell of things changed. She felt as if she were walking a little off the ground.

The quest for spiritual meaning is typically a personal matter in the West. In the Islamic world, it often leads the seeker into some kind of collective action, informed by utopian aspiration, that admits no distinction between proselytizing, social reform, and politics. The Islamic revival of the past several decades is the history of millions of revelation stories. Far from being idiosyncratic or marginal, they have combined into a tremendous surge that is now a full-time concern of the West. Renewal and reform—in Arabic, tajdid and islah—have an ambiguous and contested meaning in the Islamic world. They signify a stripping away of accumulated misreadings and wrong or lapsed practices, as in the Protestant Reformation, and a return to the founding texts of the Koran and the Sunna—guidelines based on the recorded words and deeds of the Prophet. But, beyond that, what is the nature of the reform? The father of one modern revelation story is Sayyid Qutb, the Egyptian religious thinker who, after advocating jihad and the overthrow of secular Arab regimes, was hanged by Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1966. Qutb’s prison writings reject modernity, with its unholy secularism, and call on adherents of Islam to return to a radically purified version of the religion, which was established in the seventh century. Among the idealistic young believers who found in his books a guide to worldwide Islamization were Ayman al-Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden. With the newest generation of jihadis — Qutb’s spiritual grandchildren — the ideas of the master have been construed as a justification for killing just about anyone in the name of reviving the days of the Prophet; earlier this year, several Baghdad falafel venders were killed by Islamists because falafel did not exist in the seventh century.

Mahmoud Muhammad Taha is the anti-Qutb. Taha, like Qutb, was hanged by an Arab dictatorship; he was executed, in 1985, for sedition and apostasy, after protesting the imposition of Sharia in Sudan by President Jaafar al-Nimeiri. In death, Taha became something rare in contemporary Islam: a moderate martyr. His method of reconciling Muslim belief with twentieth-century values was, in its way, every bit as revolutionary as the contrary vision of Qutb. It is one sign of the current state of the struggle over Islam that, in the five years since September 11th, millions of people around the world have learned the name Sayyid Qutb while Mahmoud Muhammad Taha’s is virtually unknown. Islamism has taken on the frightening and faceless aspect of the masked jihadi, the full-length veil, the religious militia, the blurred figure in a security video, the messianic head of state, the anti-American mob. At Islam’s core, in the countries of the Middle East from Egypt to Iran, tajdid and islah have helped push societies toward extremes of fervor, repression, and violence. But on the periphery, from Senegal to Indonesia—where the vast majority of Muslims live—Islamic reform comes in more varieties than most Westerners imagine. At the edges, the influence of American policy and the Israeli-Palestinian siege is less overwhelming, and it is easier to see that the real drama in Islam is the essential dilemma addressed by Taha: how to revive ancient sacred texts in a way that allows one to live in the modern world.

http://www.newyorker.com/images/spacer.gif
Taha was born sometime early in the twentieth century — scholars say 1909 or 1911 — in a town on the eastern bank of the Blue Nile, two hours south of Khartoum, called Rufaa. It is a somnolent, heat-drenched town, one of those silent places—they stretch from one harsh end to the other of the North African region known as the Sahel—where mystical movements often begin. In the years before Sudan’s independence, Taha was educated as a civil engineer in a British-run university, and after working briefly for Sudan Railways he started his own engineering business. He absorbed modern political and social ideas by reading widely, if incompletely, in the works of Marx, Lenin, Russell, Shaw, and Wells. In 1945, he founded an anti-monarchical political group, the Republican Party, and was twice imprisoned by the British authorities: first for writing pro-independence pamphlets, and then for leading an uprising in Rufaa against the arrest of a local woman who had subjected her daughter to a particularly severe form of female circumcision. (Taha opposed the practice but believed that the colonial edict banning it would only make it more widespread.) His second imprisonment lasted two years, and when he was released, in 1948, he entered a period of seclusion, prayer, and fasting in a small mud building in the courtyard next to his in-laws’ house. By the time I visited Rufaa, in July, the hut had been torn down and replaced, and the house was occupied by a family of southern Sudanese.

While in seclusion, Taha spoke to few people; one man described him as having long, unruly hair and bloodshot eyes. His wife brought him plates of simple food — her family urged her to divorce this formerly successful professional, who some people thought had gone mad, but she refused — and he left the hut only to take swims in the Nile, a short walk away. During this period, which lasted three years, Taha developed his radically new vision of the meaning of the Koran. After emerging from seclusion, in 1951, he dedicated the rest of his life to teaching it.

For any Muslim who believes in universal human rights, tolerance, equality, freedom, and democracy, the Koran presents an apparently insoluble problem. Some of its verses carry commands that violate a modern person’s sense of morality. The Koran accepts slavery. The Koran appoints men to be “the protectors and maintainers of women,” to whom women owe obedience; if disobeyed, men have the duty first to warn them, then to deny them sex, and finally to “beat them (lightly).” The Koran orders believers to wait until the holy months are finished, and then to “fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war).” These and other verses present God’s purpose in clear, unmistakable terms, and they have become some of the favorite passages in the sermons, fatwas, and Internet postings of present-day fundamentalists to justify violence and jihad. An enormous industry of reform-minded interpreters has arisen in recent years to explain them away, contextualize them, downplay them, or simply ignore them, often quoting the well-known verse that says there is “no compulsion in religion.” Not long ago, I received one such lecture from a Shiite cleric in Baghdad, who cited the “no compulsion” verse while sitting under a portrait of Ayatollah Khomeini. In confronting the troublesome verses head on, Taha showed more intellectual honesty than all the Islamic scholars, community leaders, and world statesmen who think that they have solved the problem by flatly declaring Islam to be a religion of peace.

The Koran was revealed to Muhammad in two phases — first in Mecca, where for thirteen years he and his followers were a besieged minority, and then in Medina, where the Prophet established Islamic rule in a city filled with Jews and pagans. The Meccan verses are addressed, through Muhammad, to humanity in general, and are suffused with a spirit of freedom and equality; according to Taha, they present Islam in its perfect form, as the Prophet lived it, through exhortation rather than threat. In Taha’s most important book, a slender volume called “The Second Message of Islam” (published in 1967, with the dedication “To humanity!”), he writes that the lives of the “early Muslims” in Mecca “were the supreme expression of their religion and consisted of sincere worship, kindness, and peaceful coexistence with all other people.” Abdullahi an-Naim, who is now a law professor at Emory University, translated the book into English; in his introduction, he writes, “Islam, being the final and universal religion according to Muslim belief, was offered first in tolerant and egalitarian terms in Mecca, where the Prophet preached equality and individual responsibility between all men and women without distinction on grounds of race, sex, or social origin. As that message was rejected in practice, and the Prophet and his few followers were persecuted and forced to migrate to Medina, some aspects of the message changed.”

As Taha puts it in “The Second Message of Islam,” whereas Muhammad propagated “verses of peaceful persuasion” during his Meccan period, in Medina “the verses of compulsion by the sword prevailed.” The Medinan verses are full of rules, coercion, and threats, including the orders for jihad, and in Taha’s view they were a historical adaptation to the reality of life in a seventh-century Islamic city-state, in which “there was no law except the sword.” At one point, Taha writes that two modest decrees of the Meccan verses — “You are only a reminder, you have no dominion over them” — were appended with a harsh Medinan edict: “Except he who shuns and disbelieves, on whom God shall inflict the greatest suffering.” In his distinctive rhetorical style, which combines dense exegesis with humanistic uplift, Taha observed, “It is as if God had said, ‘We have granted you, Muhammad, dominion over anyone who shuns and disbelieves, so that God shall subject him to minor suffering at your hands through fighting, then God shall also subject him to the greatest suffering in hell.’ . . . Thus the first two verses were abrogated or repealed by the two second verses.”

The Medinan verses, directed not to Muhammad alone but to the community of early believers, became the basis for Sharia as it was developed by legal scholars over the next few centuries — what Taha calls the “first message of Islam.” In Taha’s revisionist reading, the elevation of the Medinan verses was only a historical postponement — the Meccan verses, representing the ideal religion, would be revived when humanity had reached a stage of development capable of accepting them, ushering in a renewed Islam based on freedom and equality. Taha quoted a Hadith, or saying of the Prophet, that declared, “Islam started as a stranger, and it shall return as a stranger in the same way it started.” This “second message of Islam” is higher and better than the first, delivered by a messenger who came to seventh-century Arabia, in a sense, from the future. And, in the twentieth century, the time had come for Muslims finally to receive it. Taha offered a hermeneutical way out of the modern crisis of Islam, allowing Muslims to affirm their faith without having to live by an inhumane code.

http://www.newyorker.com/images/spacer.gif
Taha’s reputation and importance far exceeded his actual following, which never amounted to more than a few thousand intensely devoted Sudanese: the stories of overwhelming personal transformation that I heard from Naim, Osman, and other Republican Brothers were apparently common among his adherents. (Taha adapted the name of his old political party for his new spiritual movement; he was wary of substituting Islamist slogans for critical thinking.) He received visitors at his house in Omdurman, northwest of Khartoum, at all hours, engaging in a kind of continuous seminar in which he was unmistakably the instructor — Republican Brothers still call him Ustazh, or “revered teacher” — but one who welcomed argument. “He would listen with utmost respect,” a follower named Omer el-Garrai told me. “I never saw him frustrated, I never saw him angry, I never heard him shout.” Naim recalled, “Taha could not transmit his religious enlightenment to us by talking about it.

We would see the fruit of it by his personal life style, in his attitudes. His honesty, his intellectual vigor, his serenity, his charisma — those are the things that we can observe, and from them I understood that this is someone who had a transformative religious experience.” Taha lived simply, urging his followers to do the same, and even today Republican Brothers are known for their lack of show in dress and in wedding ceremonies. An aura of saintliness hangs over stories I heard about Taha in Sudan, and, as with Gandhi, to whom he is sometimes compared, there’s an unappealingly remote quality to his moral example. A man named Anour Hassan recalled that when Taha’s twelve-year-old son vanished in the Blue Nile, in 1954, Taha calmly told people who wanted to continue looking for the boy, “No, he’s gone to a kinder father than I am.”

Perhaps the twentieth century was too soon for the second message of Islam. Taha was condemned for apostasy by Sudanese and Egyptian clerics, his movement was under constant attack from the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood, and his public appearances were banned by the government. Various rumors began to circulate: that Taha and his followers believed him to be a new prophet, or even a divinity; that Taha didn’t pray; that he was insane. His legacy became controversial even among liberal-minded Sudanese. One evening in July, I spoke with the moderate politician and intellectual Sadiq al-Mahdi on the terrace overlooking the garden of his palatial home in Omdurman. Mahdi, who twice served as Prime Minister of Sudan and was twice ousted, in 1967 and 1989, is an imposing man: he was wearing the traditional white djellabah and turban, and his beard was hennaed. He spoke respectfully of Taha but found him theologically unsound.
“Amongst the Islamists, there are those who jump into the future and those who jump into the past,” Mahdi said, comparing Taha with Qutb. “Taha is amongst those who jump into the future. He definitely is for radical Islamic reform. But he based it on arguments that are not legitimate.” Mahdi, like many other modern Muslim thinkers, believes that the Koran already offers the basis for affirming democratic values; there is no need, as he put it, to perform “these somersaults.”

What’s truly remarkable about Taha is that he existed at all. In the midst of a gathering storm of Islamist extremism, he articulated a message of liberal reform that was rigorous, coherent, and courageous. His vision asked Muslims to abandon fourteen hundred years of accepted dogma in favor of a radical and demanding new methodology that would set them free from the burdens of traditional jurisprudence. Islamic law, with its harsh punishments and its repression of free thought, was, Taha argued, a human interpretation of the Medinan verses and the recorded words and deeds of the Prophet in Medina; developed in the early centuries after Muhammad, it was then closed off to critical revision for a millennium. When Taha spoke of “Sharia,” he meant the enlightened message of the Meccan verses, which is universal and eternal.
To Muslims like Mahdi, this vision seemed to declare that part of the holy book was a mistake. Taha’s message requires of Muslims such an intellectual leap that those who actually made it — as opposed to those who merely admired Taha or were interested in him — took on the quality of cult members, with their white garments, street-corner sermons, and egalitarian marriage contracts. Small wonder that Taha failed to create a durable mass movement. In “Quest for Divinity,” a new and generally sympathetic study of Taha, to be published this fall, Professor Mohamed A. Mahmoud, of Tufts University, writes, “The outcome of this culture of guardianship and total intellectual dependency was a movement with impoverished inner intellectual and spiritual resources, intrinsically incapable of surviving Taha’s death.”

Why did the Sudanese state, the religious establishment, and the Islamist hard-liners consider the leader of such a small movement worth killing? Perhaps because, as Khalid el-Haj, a retired school administrator in Rufaa, who first met Taha in the early sixties, told me, “They are afraid of the ideas, not the numbers. They know that the ideas are from inside Islam and they cannot face it.”

Eventually, Taha’s teaching collided with Islamist power politics. Sudan’s military dictator, Jaafar al-Nimeiri, who had seized control of the country in 1969, was an opportunistic tyrant who had exhausted one model after another to justify his rule: Marxism, Arab nationalism, pro-Americanism. By the early eighties, Nimeiri’s hold on power was loosening, and he felt particularly threatened by one of his advisers: Hasan al-Turabi, the legal scholar, who had an increasingly energetic Islamist following. Turabi, a brilliant politician with a British and French education, was an authoritarian ideologue, more in the mold of a Bolshevik than a hidebound cleric. One of Turabi’s prime intellectual enemies was Taha, whose interpretation of the Koran he considered illegitimate. Taha, for his part, once dismissed Turabi as “clever but not insightful” — and many Sudanese believe that Turabi never forgot the slight.

In 1983, Nimeiri, aiming to counter Turabi’s growing popularity, decided to make his own Islamic claim. He hastily pushed through laws that imposed a severe version of Sharia on Sudan, including its Christian and animist south. Within eighteen months, more than fifty suspected thieves had their hands chopped off. A Coptic Christian was hanged for possessing foreign currency; poor women were flogged for selling local beer. It was exactly the kind of brutal, divisive, politically motivated Sharia that Taha had long warned against, and southerners intensified a decades-long civil war against Khartoum. Taha and other Republican Brothers, including Naim, had been jailed in advance by Nimeiri to prevent them from leading protests; their imprisonment lasted a year and a half.

Soon after Taha was released, he distributed a leaflet, on Christmas Day, 1984, titled “Either This or the Flood.” “It is futile for anyone to claim that a Christian person is not adversely affected by the implementation of sharia,” he wrote. “It is not enough for a citizen today merely to enjoy freedom of worship. He is entitled to the full rights of a citizen in total equality with all other citizens. The rights of southern citizens in their country are not provided for in sharia but rather in Islam at the level of fundamental Koranic revelation.”

Taha, who was now in his mid-seventies, had been preparing half his life for this moment. It was central to his vision that Islamic law in its historical form, rather than in what he considered its original, authentic meaning, would be a monstrous injustice in modern society. His opposition was brave and absolute, and yet his statement reveals the limits of a philosophy that he hoped to make universal. Taha opposed secularism — he once declared that the secular West “is not a civilization because its values are confused” — and he could not conceive of rights outside the framework of Islam and the Koran. At the very moment that he was defending non-believers from the second-class status enshrined in Islamic law, he was extending their equal rights through a higher, better Sharia.

Abdullahi an-Naim defends Taha’s approach, saying that in the Islamic world a Turkish-style secularism will always be self-defeating. “It is an illusion to think you can sustain constitutionalism, democratization, without addressing its Islamic foundation,” he said. “Because for Muslims you cannot say, ‘I’m a Muslim, but — ’ That ‘but’ does not work. What unites Muslims is an idea. It is Islam as an idea. And therefore contesting that idea, I think, is going to be permanent.” Whenever secular intellectuals in Muslim countries try to bypass the question of Sharia, Naim said, “they leave the high moral ground to the fundamentalists, and they lose.” Invoking Islam as the highest authority for universal rights was not simply a matter of belief; it meant that Taha and his movement could stay in the game.

Soon after Taha’s Christmas statement was released, he was arrested again. This time, the government pressed charges amounting to apostasy, which carried the death penalty. Taha refused to recognize the legitimacy of the court under Sharia, refused to repent, and in a matter of hours was condemned to death. The hanging was scheduled for the morning of January 18, 1985. Among the hundreds of spectators in the vast courtyard of Kober Prison, in Khartoum North, was Judith Miller, then a Times reporter, disguised in a white cloak and head scarf. In the opening of her 1996 book, “God Has Ninety-nine Names,” Miller described the scene:
Shortly before the appointed time, Mahmoud Muhammad Taha was led into the courtyard. The condemned man, his hands tied behind him, was smaller than I expected him to be, and from where I sat, as his guards hustled him along, he looked younger than his seventy-six years. He held his head high and stared silently into the crowd. When they saw him, many in the crowd leaped to their feet, jeering and shaking their fists at him. A few waved their Korans in the air.I managed to catch only a glimpse of Taha’s face before the executioner placed an oatmeal-colored sack over his head and body, but I shall never forget his expression: His eyes were defiant; his mouth firm. He showed no hint of fear. In the instant that the trapdoor opened and Taha’s body fell through, the crowd began to scream, “Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! Islam huwa al-hall!” — “God is great! Islam is the solution!” — the slogan of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Some of Taha’s followers could not accept that he was dead — they had actually come to believe in Taha’s divinity — and they spent several days by one of the bridges spanning the Nile, waiting for him to appear. When he didn’t (his body was flown by helicopter to an unknown location in the desert for a hasty burial), the Republican Brotherhood essentially died. Some members, including Naim, went abroad; others stayed in Sudan but ceased any public activity. The regime forced a number of imprisoned Republican Brothers to repudiate Taha’s ideas in order to avoid his fate. His books were burned in public bonfires.

The execution appalled large numbers of Sudanese, who were unused to political violence, and it helped precipitate the downfall of Nimeiri, four months later, when a popular uprising restored democratic rule. January 18th became Arab Human Rights Day. In 2000, a Sudanese reporter asked Nimeiri about the death of Taha. Nimeiri expressed regret over the killing, then made a startling claim: Taha’s execution had been secretly engineered by Hasan al-Turabi.

“I didn’t want him killed,” Nimeiri said of Taha. “Turabi told me that Mahmoud Muhammad Taha wanted to side with the left against me and that the Republican Brothers are a force not to be underestimated, and that if he united with the left I am definitely doomed. Turabi brought me the order to execute him and asked me to sign off on it. . . . I decided to postpone my decision for two days, and on the third day I went to Taha, dressed in civilian clothes. I told him, ‘Your death would sadden me. Just back down on your decision.’ But he spoke to me in a way that at the time I felt was blustering but now I see it was honorable, considering the situation. He told me, ‘You back down on your decision. As for me, I know that I’m going to be killed. If I’m not killed in court, the Muslim Brotherhood will kill me in secret. So leave and let me be. I know that I am going to die.’ ”

I asked a number of people in Khartoum about the role that Turabi might have played in Taha’s death. “Turabi killed him” was the blunt verdict of Hyder Ibrahim Ali, a sociologist and the director of the Sudanese Studies Center. “I think Turabi was behind all this. Taha was a real rival for Turabi. At that time, the only people at the University of Khartoum as strong as the Muslim Brotherhood were the Republican Brothers.” Others echoed this view: even if Turabi hadn’t played a direct role in Taha’s death, Taha’s reform-minded movement had offered the most serious theological challenge to Turabi’s severe Islamism.

In the decade after Taha’s death, Turabi and his hard-line politics flourished. In 1989, he was the prime strategist of the Islamist revolution that followed the military overthrow of Prime Minister Sadiq al-Mahdi. He became the intellectual architect of the new regime, led by Omar al-Bashir, and presided over its reign of terror in the nineties. He was the impresario who attracted just about every leading jihadi terrorist to Sudan; journalists started calling him “the Khomeini of the Sunnis” and “the pope of terrorism.” In 1999, however, Turabi’s fortunes abruptly changed: he lost a power struggle with Bashir, who fired him.

This spring, Turabi, in a striking return to Sudanese politics, said some astonishing things about Islam. Though he had always been more supportive of women’s rights than other hard-liners, he was now declaring that women and men are equal, that women can lead Islamic prayers, that covering the hair is not obligatory, that apostasy should not be a crime. He said that Muslim women can marry Christians or Jews. Quotations in the Arab press made him sound like a liberal reformer. In Khartoum, people marvelled that he sounded exactly like Taha. Suhair Osman, the young woman I met at the University of Khartoum, informed me, with a wan smile, “It is said in the daily papers and in the discussion centers here in the university that Turabi killed Ustazh Mahmoud and now he’s stealing his ideas.”

http://www.newyorker.com/images/spacer.gif
In the next few decades, several Arab countries — Iraq, Palestine, perhaps Egypt and Algeria — may well come under some form of Islamist rule, either by election or by force. If so, they would do well to study the example of Sudan. A whole generation in Sudan has grown up under the hard-line ideology that was imposed by Turabi and his colleagues after 1989. “We are the wounded surgeons, we have had the plague,” Sadiq al-Mahdi told me. “We have been the guinea pig of this whole exercise, and you should listen to us.”

Islam is as diverse as Muslims themselves, but Islamism, thus far in its short history, tends to look the same wherever it appears. The Sudanese version was not a genuine revolution like the Iranian one; it was more of an élite project that never gained legitimacy outside of student, intellectual, and military circles. Still, Sudan’s hard-line party, the National Islamic Front, marched the country through familiar paces. Suliman Baldo, the director of the Africa program at the International Crisis Group, who lived through the years of Islamization in Khartoum and published a report documenting the return of slavery in Sudan, said of the government, “They came with a social-engineering project — they were very open about this.” Education became a form of indoctrination: small children learned jihadist chants; school uniforms were replaced with combat fatigues; students engaged in paramilitary drills and memorized the Koran; teachers overhauled the curriculum to focus on the glory of Arab and Islamic culture. Khartoum had been a socially relaxed city that celebrated Christmas, but now the morals police insured that women were veiled, especially in government offices and universities. The security agencies were taken over by Islamists, and torture chambers known as “ghost houses” proliferated in what had been a tolerant political culture. (Some torturers were reportedly trained by Iranian Revolutionary Guards.) Young men were conscripted into the new People’s Defense Force and sent to fight in the jihad against the infidels of the south, thousands of them crying “Allahu Akbar! ” as they went to their deaths.

Turabi declared that the jihadis would ascend directly to Paradise. Actors simulated “weddings” between martyrs and heavenly virgins on state television. Turabi gave asylum and assistance to terrorists, including bin Laden and other Al Qaeda members, and Sudan soon made enemies of every one of its many neighbors, along with the United States. And so an ethnically and religiously mixed African country, with an egalitarian brand of Sufism as its dominant form of Islam, was mobilized by intellectuals and soldiers to create a militaristic, ideologically extreme state whose main achievements were civil war, slavery, famine, and mass death.

Sometime in the late nineties, Turabi realized that his grand enterprise was a failure. Sudan had come under United Nations sanctions for sponsoring a 1995 assassination attempt on President Hosni Mubarak, of Egypt. The country was internationally isolated; the civil war was killing millions. And the Islamist project was bankrupt. As in Iran, it had produced an increasingly wealthy and corrupt ruling class of ideologues and security officers, while young Sudanese, including many of Turabi’s followers, left the country or turned inward.

It was at this low point that Omar al-Bashir expelled Turabi from the government. Until last year, Turabi found himself in and out of jail, and he began to rethink his politics. He declared that the war in the south had not been a jihad after all but, rather, a meaningless waste. In prison, he began to write about where the Islamists had gone wrong. The problem, he decided, was a failure to adhere to principles of democracy and human rights. This spring, Turabi began attracting attention with his liberal statements about women and Islam. He welcomed the deployment of a United Nations force to the Darfur region, where the government had launched a campaign of ethnic cleansing, and he mocked bin Laden for threatening to mount a jihad against the peacekeepers. (Some analysts believe that Turabi had a hand in the rebellion that preceded the mass killings in the region, but no one has been able to prove it.) His remarks were so radical that they earned him charges of apostasy by clerics in Sudan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudi edition of the Sudanese newspaper that quoted his proclamations had the offending lines torn out of every copy.

In Khartoum, people used the same phrase over and over: there had been “a hundred-and-eighty-degree turn” in Turabi’s views. I heard several explanations. Sadiq al-Mahdi, the former Prime Minister, believed that Turabi was trying to atone for the damage he had inflicted on Sudan. Others saw old opportunism under new slogans: Turabi realized that, thanks to Islamist misrule, democracy would be the next wave in Sudan, and he wanted to get out in front of it. There was also the possibility that he couldn’t bear to be ignored.

One day in late July, during a hard Sahara windstorm that obscured the merciless sun and left sand in my molars, Turabi received me in his office on the outskirts of Khartoum, beyond the airport. I found him sitting behind a vast desk, which was almost bare; so were the bookcases next to it, as if he were waiting for someone to refurnish the trappings of power. Turabi is now seventy-four years old. He has a trim white beard and bright eyes framed by elegant wire-rim glasses; he wore a white djellabah and turban, white patent-leather loafers, and flower-patterned polyester socks. He has a resonant voice, which, when the topic turns serious, often breaks into a disconcerting giggle, accompanied by a bucktoothed grin. Turabi is inexhaustible: before I arrived, he had spoken for three days to members of his breakaway political party, but he required scarcely any prompting to carry on a nearly three-hour monologue with me. It was like trying to follow the flight path of a mosquito: he would leave sentences unfinished, switch subjects in the span of a clause, swallow the point in a laugh, then suddenly alight somewhere — on hidebound Saudi clerics, clueless Algerian Islamists, pigheaded Sudanese soldiers, shortsighted American politicians — and draw blood.

Turabi presented himself as older but wiser, free now to be the one independent thinker in a world of ideologues, an emissary for both sides in the war between Islam and the West, unafraid of uttering any truth, including truths about his own mistakes — but whenever I tried to pin him down on one he blamed someone else and claimed that his role was exaggerated. “Oh, Turabi, he’s the ‘pope of terrorism,’ of fundamentalism, the pope noir du terrorisme! ” he mocked. The Bush Administration’s war on terror, he said, was a gigantic misunderstanding based on a failure to communicate. As for the Islamic revival, it held no dangers for the West. “Oh, no, it’s positive!” he said. “What is our economic model? It’s not the Soviet model. It’s not the old capitalist model, or the feudal model. It’s your model! What is our political model? It’s your model! Almost the same model! O.K.?”

Toward the end of his discourse, I mentioned that a number of Sudanese had heard echoes of Mahmoud Muhammad Taha in his recent statements. For the first time, Turabi lost his good humor. “Ooh,” he groaned. He called Taha “an apostate” who was “not normal,” and he insisted that, far from being behind Taha’s death, he had argued with Nimeiri for his life: “I said, ‘Why do you jail this man? He won’t hurt you, he’s not against this regime. He thinks he’s the impersonation of Jesus Christ!’ ” Turabi laughed dismissively. “I said, ‘Let him go and advocate his message. He will persuade a few people for some time. He’s not harmful to you.’ ” He said of Taha, “From early days, I don’t read his books, I don’t mention his name. Even if people ask me questions, I try to evade, because in every society, in America, you have had these cult people—everyone has to drink the killing material! Jim Jones!”

Turabi giggled and stood up to say goodbye.

When I had asked Abdullahi an-Naim about Turabi’s recent statements on women, minorities, and Islam, he had scoffed, “He has no methodology.” It was true: Turabi threw out opinions like handfuls of seed. But, as Taha had said, the one constant in his long career has been cleverness. Turabi seemed to recognize that, in the ruins of his own making in Sudan, his countrymen required a new notion of Islam and government. Great turns in history seldom come because someone writes a manifesto or proposes a theory. Instead, concrete experience, usually in the form of catastrophic failure, forces people to search for new ideas, many of which have been lying around for quite a while. Naim, who had fled the country after the 1989 coup, went back to Sudan in 2003 to find that “people were totally disillusioned about the Islamist project. They could see that it was corrupting and corrupt.” In reaction, a small but growing number of Sudanese have come under the influence of Saudi Wahhabism—turning to an even more extreme theology as the pure Islam. Others, such as Osman Mirghani, a newspaper columnist and a former follower of Turabi, have concluded that the problem in Sudan has less to do with religion than with its civic culture. Mirghani has formed a new citizens’ movement, Sudan Forum, waging its first campaign against corruption in high places.

Taha’s solution to the modern Muslim dilemma hovers over the conversations of Sudanese who are too young to have any memory of him. In a dingy office in downtown Khartoum, I met a man named Hussein and a woman named Buthina, two social activists who are just the kind of idealists that the Islamists used to attract. In 1989, as a teen-ager, Hussein had at first welcomed the new government. He soon realized that its promises of Islamic justice were false, and he was traumatized by the year he spent as a conscript in the jihad against the south. “In my view, this regime is a great shame in the history of Islam,” he said. “It’s pushed people away from Islam. Their mentality has changed. They are no longer abiding by Islamic regulations.” He mentioned prostitution, drinking, and corruption. For all Hussein’s disillusionment, he still believed in Sharia — in flogging for fornication, stoning for adultery, and beheading for apostasy — but he wanted it to be applied under a democratic government grounded in human rights. Buthina shook her head; Islamist rule had turned her toward secularism. “This is a very, very sensitive issue,” she said. “When you design your regulations and constitution, you have to accept that all the people look at this constitution and see themselves in it. Otherwise, they will not implement it. If we design the constitution and the law of the country on Islam, this will create a problem.”

When I described Hussein to Naim, he said, “He sees the corruption of the current regime, and he sees the unworkability of an Islamic state, but he has no alternative. That is the point about Taha. Taha provides an alternative. As the crisis intensifies, the receptivity to something like Taha’s ideas will grow.” The misrule of Turabi and the Sudanese Islamists, Naim said, had done more to advance the project of reforming Sharia than Taha’s followers could ever have achieved. At the same time, he admitted that most people in Sudan today have never heard of Taha. All that is left of his movement is a few hundred followers, some of whom gather in the evenings at a house in Omdurman. I was invited to join them there one night: the men sat in chairs on one side of the courtyard, the women on the other, but they mixed more than the religious Muslims at most gatherings. All dressed in white, they chanted traditional Sufi songs and a mournful hymn about their martyred leader.

http://www.newyorker.com/images/spacer.gif
The hollowness at the core of Sudan, and the widespread cynicism about Islamist rule, with its enforced ideology and rituals, is reminiscent of Eastern Europe in the years before the fall of the Berlin Wall. But if you spend time in an Islamic country you soon realize that the Communism analogy runs dry.

For Islam, unlike Marxism, is deeply rooted and still present in everyday life in profound ways. As such, it is an irresistible mobilizing tool for politicians: an Islamist leader in Morocco, Nadia Yassin, once said, “If I go into the streets and I call people to come with me to a demonstration, and I talk to them about Che Guevara and Lenin, nobody will go out. But if I start talking about Muhammad and Ali and Aisha and all the prophets of Islam, they will follow me.” Islam remains the system of values by which Muslims live; it is strong enough to survive Islamism. Perhaps, in time, the religion’s centrality will subside, but, for the foreseeable future, the Islamic enlightenment in which so many Western thinkers have placed their hopes — that is, secularism — will not sweep the Muslim world. The Islamic revival, and its attendant struggles and ills, is less like the eighteenth century in Europe than like the sixteenth, the age of Luther, when the most sensitive and ambitious Englishmen, Frenchmen, and Germans devoted their efforts to finding in the words of the Bible a meaning for which they were prepared to live and die.

On the wall of Naim’s office at Emory University, just above a picture of his parents, there is a black-and-white portrait of Taha in old age, seated, with the folds of a white robe draped over his shoulders and the Sudanese turban wrapped around his head; his gaze is both direct and abstracted, taking in something far beyond the camera. Ever since the night Naim attended Taha’s lecture as a young law student, he has believed that Muslims must find a way out of the predicament in which their own history has placed them — if not by accepting Taha’s vision, then by working toward another.

“I don’t really have high hopes for change in the Arab region, because it is too self-absorbed in its own sense of superiority and victimhood,” he said. His hope lies in the periphery — West Africa, the Sahel, Central and Southeast Asia: “They are not noticed, but that’s where the hope is.” The damage done to Muslim lives under the slogan “Islam is the solution,” and Islamism’s failure to solve their daily problems and answer people’s deepest needs, has forced younger Muslims in countries like Indonesia, Turkey, and Morocco to approach religion and politics in a more sophisticated way.

Naim’s newest project, which he calls a work of advocacy more than of scholarship, is a manuscript called “The Future of Sharia.” Even before its English publication, he has begun to post it on the Web, translated into Persian, Urdu, Bengali, Turkish, Arabic, and Bahasa Indonesia. Its theme is more radical than anything he has written before; although it is based on his long devotion to Taha’s ideas, it goes beyond them and, according to some of Taha’s followers, leaves them behind. “The Future of Sharia” amounts to a kind of secularism: it proposes not a rigid separation of politics and religion, as in Turkey, but, rather, a scheme in which Islam informs political life but cannot be introduced into law by an appeal to any religious authority. Otherwise, Muslims would not be free. “I need a secular state to be a Muslim,” Naim said. “If I don’t have the freedom to disbelieve, I cannot believe.”

Two days after we spoke, Naim flew to Nigeria to give a series of lectures, based on the new book, in the northern states that have imposed a particularly harsh form of Sharia. He plans to travel next year to Indonesia and, if possible, to Iran. Two years ago, when he lectured in northern Nigeria, a quarter of his audience of eight hundred people walked out on him, and he had to slip away through a side door. He acknowledged that violence, even murder, might be the response this time. But Naim believes that, despite the evidence of the headlines, Islamic history is moving in his direction.

“In Sudan this simplistic answer failed,” Naim said. “In Iran it failed. In northern Nigeria it failed. In Pakistan it failed. As these experiences fail, people are going to realize that there is no shortcut — that you have to confront the hard questions.” His message to Muslims on his travels will be this: “I have been that way and I’ve seen the street is closed and I came back. And I see someone rushing and I tell him, this street is deadlocked, and he will not take my word and go all the way and discover that it is deadlocked and come back.” He will tell them, “Listen, you don’t have to do this, you don’t have to go down this dead-end street. There is an Arabic expression: ‘The fortunate ones will learn from the mistakes of others, the unfortunate ones will learn from their own mistakes.’ ”

By taking his message to the Muslim public and risking his own life, Naim is, perhaps unconsciously, following the example of one of the intellectual heroes of modern Islam. The first years of the twenty-first century hardly seem hospitable to Mahmoud Muhammad Taha’s humane vision, but his words are there for young Muslims to discover once they get to the end of the street and need a way to turn around. http://www.newyorker.com/images/dingbat.gif

Copyright © CondéNet 2006.

[ablarc]

No, "they" wouldn't. You are grouping the entirety of the muslim population into one group. That bigotry is one of the reasons we are in this mess (bigotry on both sides). Not all muslims would threaten you or try to kil you, just as 95% of them would not hurt you for any other reason than anyone else on this world would.
You could certainly have said this of Germans in 1938. In fact, the percentage would have been higher than 95%.

So you can now put a figure on the number of non-violent muslims. So its not ok to make a sweeping statement using 'they' but making a specific fact that 95% of them would not hurt you for any other reason than anyone else would, is perfectly fine. In any case "they" is not every muslim as you have wrongly stated but "the muslim fanatics" and "those" muslim fanatics I am talking about are specifically people like those in terrorist groups lsuch as Osama Bin Laden, Amrozi and Abu Bakar Bashir just to name a very small number.
The few ordinarily lead the many. At its peak, what percentage of Germans were members of the National Socialist Party?

[HoboSapian]

You could certainly have said this of Germans in 1938. In fact, the percentage would have been higher than 95%.


The few ordinarily lead the many. At its peak, what percentage of Germans were members of the National Socialist Party?


By 1933 it was at 44 percent with 8 million members. Why what is your point?

[lofter1]

Italian Nun Slain in Somalia, Speculation of Pope Link

NY TIMES (http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-somalia-italian.html)
By REUTERS
September 17, 2006

MOGADISHU (Reuters) - Gunmen killed an Italian nun at a children's hospital in Mogadishu on Sunday in an attack that drew immediate speculation of links to Muslim anger over the Pope's recent remarks on Islam.

The Catholic nun's guard also died from pistol shots in the latest attack on foreign personnel in volatile Somalia.

The assassinations were a blow to Mogadishu's new Islamist rulers' attempt to prove they have pacified one of the world's most lawless cities since chasing out warlords in June.

The bodyguard died instantly, but the nun, from the Missionaries of the Consolation order based in Nepi near Rome, was rushed into an operating theater after being hit by three or four bullets in the chest, stomach and back.

"She died in the hospital treatment room,'' doctor Ali Mohamed Hassan told Reuters. "She was shot outside the hospital, going to her house just across the gate.''

A nun from the Missionaries order identified her as sister Leonella Sgorbati, born in 1940, in Piacenza in northern Italy. In Somalia since 2002, she trained nurses at the SOS Kindergarten hospital.

The Italian government said the nun and two other Italian nuns working with her had been repeatedly advised to leave Somalia, which was formerly ruled by Italy.

Sunday's death provoked scenes of mourning at the hospital.

"I was in class when I heard about six to eight shots, I ran out and saw sister bleeding,'' Fatuma Hassan, 21, told Reuters.

"We're so sad. It's a big loss.''

Two suspects were later arrested by Islamist militiamen, but there were no details of their identity.

POPE LINK?

One top Islamist source told Reuters there was "a very high possibility'' the attack was linked to controversy over a recent speech by Pope Benedict which angered Muslims who thought it showed their religion to be innately violent.

Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi told Italian news agency ANSA he hoped the nun's death was an isolated event but feared it was "the fruit of violence and irrationality arising from the current situation (of Pope), which is without motive or reason.''

But in Italy, a nun from Sgorbati's order who asked not to be named said: "We have no reason to suspect any link.''

She added: "There were no threats, we had no reason to expect something like this, though of course there are risks.''

Borne out of local courts practicing strict sharia law, the Islamist movement in June seized Mogadishu from U.S.-backed warlords who had run it for the past 15 years.

Though the Islamists have managed to get guns off the streets and bring down roadblocks often run by young, erratic militiamen loyal to warlords, Mogadishu remains full of weapons.

The nun's death -- and the June killing of a Swedish cameraman -- damage their claim that Mogadishu is now safe for foreigners.

Critics of the Islamists say they harbour al Qaeda-linked militants in their ranks. The Islamists deny that, saying the West does not understand them and believes U.S. propaganda.

Islamist spokesman Bedri Hashi said the killing may have been "orchestrated by people to discredit the Islamic Courts.''

The Italian nun was the latest in a list of foreign aid workers and other international staff to be killed in Somalia.

Another Italian aid worker, Annalena Tonelli, was shot dead in the self-declared enclave of Somaliland in 2003.

The Islamists are engaged in a political standoff with the Western-backed interim government of Somalia which is based in Baidoa and has little military muscle of its own.

Copyright 2006 Reuters Ltd.

[lofter1]

Pope Responds to Criticism of Remarks

http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2006/09/17/world/17pope_650.jpghttp://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/misc/spacer.gifhttp://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/misc/spacer.gif
Danilo Schiavella/European Pressphoto Agency
The pope on Sunday made a personal apology about the anger caused by his remarks on Islam and violence.

NY TIMES (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Pope-Muslims.html?hp&ex=1158552000&en=1bf0fbecf10b5603&ei=5094&partner=homepage)
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
September 17, 2006

CASTEL GANDOLFO, Italy (AP) -- Pope Benedict XVI said Sunday that he was ''deeply sorry'' about the angry reaction to his recent remarks about Islam, which he said came from a text that didn't reflect his personal opinion.

''These (words) were in fact a quotation from a Medieval text which do not in any way express my personal thought,'' Benedict told pilgrims at his summer palace outside Rome.

The pope sparked the controversy when, in a speech Tuesday to university professors during a pilgrimage to his native Germany, he cited the words of a Byzantine emperor who characterized some of the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad, Islam's founder, as ''evil and inhuman.''

''At this time I wish also to add that I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims,'' the pope said Sunday.

Muslim leaders in the Mideast gave mixed reactions to the pontiff's apology.

Mahmoud Ashour, the former deputy of Cairo's Al-Azhar Mosque, the Sunni Arab world's most powerful institution, told Al-Arabiya TV immediately after the pope's speech that, ''It is not enough. He should apologize because he insulted the beliefs of Islam. He must apologize in a frank way and say he made a mistake.''

Mohammed al-Nujeimi, a professor at the Institute of Judicial and Islamic Studies in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, also criticized the pope's statement.

''The pope does not want to apologize. He is evading apology and what he said today is a repetition of his previous statement,'' he told Al-Arabiya TV.

The Vatican released a statement Saturday saying the pope ''sincerely regrets'' that Muslims were offended, but stopped short of the apology demanded by many Muslim leaders.

But the leader of Egypt's largest Islamic political group, the Muslim Brotherhood, said that ''while anger over the Pope's remarks is necessary, it shouldn't last for long.''

''While he is the head of the Catholic Church in the world, many Europeans are not following (the church) so what he said won't influence them. Our relations with Christians should remain good, civilized and cooperative,'' Mohammed Mahdi Akef told The Associated Press.

Turkey's foreign minister said Sunday the pope was still expected to visit in November in what would be his first trip to a Muslim nation. ''From our point of view, there is no change,'' Abdullah Gul told reporters before departing for a trip to the United States.

The Vatican's secretary of state echoed Gul's remarks.

''I hope that he will do'' the trip, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone was quoted as saying by the Italian news agency ANSA. ''Until now, there are no reasons not to make it.''

Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier urged world religious leaders to show ''responsibility and restraint'' to avoid what he called ''extremes'' in relations between faiths.

''We understand perfectly how sensitive this sphere is. I think it would be right if we call for responsibility and restraint from the leaders of all world faiths,'' he said during a meeting with parliamentary leaders from Group of Eight nations in the Russian resort city of Sochi.

In his speech on Tuesday, Benedict quoted from a book recounting a conversation between 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II and an educated Persian on the truths of Christianity and Islam.

''The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war,'' the pope said. ''He said, I quote, 'Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'''

The remarks sparked protests and some violence across parts of the Muslim world.

Earlier Sunday in the West Bank, two churches were set on fire as anger over the pope's comments grew throughout the Palestinian territories.

In the town of Tulkarem, a 170-year-old stone church was torched before dawn and its interior was destroyed, Christian officials said. In the village of Tubas, a small church was attacked with firebombs and partially burned, Christians said. Neither church is Catholic, the officials said.

Palestinian Muslims hurled firebombs and opened fire at five churches in the West Bank and Gaza Strip Saturday to protest the Pope's comments, sparking concerns of a rift between Palestinian Muslims and Christians.

Security was high at the summer palace before Benedict spoke Sunday.

Police patted down many pilgrims, confiscating umbrellas with metal tips and bottles of liquids. Sharpshooters kept watch from a balcony and other officers, dressed like tourists, monitored the crowd with video cameras.

Police headquarters across Italy were also ordered to raise security at potential Catholic targets, the Italian news agency ANSA reported. However, at the Vatican, no additional security measures could be seen as tourists strolled across St. Peter's Square.

Italian Interior Minister Giuliano Amato said he believed tensions over Benedict's remarks wouldn't result in any further heightening of security concerns. He told Italian state radio that suspected terrorist cells under surveillance inside the country were considered to be focused on targets ''outside of Italy.''

Associated Press correspondent Victor L. Simpson at the Vatican and Nadia Abou el-Magd in Cairo, Egypt contributed to this report.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press

[scillers]

It is wrong to assume all muslims are fanatics,
as it is to assume all christians belong to the right wing with extreme views..

The world did not badmouth Christianity for what Hitler did to Jews..What this small segment of Muslims doing should remind every peace loving person in the world is that it is the FANATICISM that is the #1 enemy of Humanity, FANATICISM of any kind...

Adolf Hitler was not a christian, so your comment makes no sense, but Muslems are the enemy of the world, the Koran teaches 3 options for Muslems, Convert the infadel, inslave the infadel, or kill the infadel, so that makes Islam the enemy, all muslems are the enemy, all muslems should be kicked out of America, all muslems are the problem! The sooner the world starts recognizing this the sooner we can have some peace.

[scillers]

Adolf Hitler was not a christian, so your comment makes no sense! but Muslems however are the enemy of the world! The koran teaches 3 things, convert the infadel, enslave the infadel, or kill the infadel, and the 3rd option seems to be real popular, so guess what world, anyone who is not Muslem this is what they are taught to do to us, so ALL muslems are the enemy, ALL muslems should be kicked out of America! Islam is the enemy, not terrorism, terrorism is a tactic, not a country, or a group, Islam is the enemy, and the sooner the WORLD, starts saying it right, the sooner we can get on with defeating Islam, and have some peace and quiet!:mad:

[Fabrizio]

I´m sickend that the Pope apologized for this. If he had apologized on the 12th I would´ve said, yeah, they were right it IS the end of the world. If he goes any further than "I´m deeply sorry" the West has lost.

[lofter1]

WTF is going on in his mind ^^^ to think that the quote he used -- however ancient it was -- would not inflame people (and, yes, I've read it in context of the speech).

[lofter1]

Muslems however are the enemy of the world!

ALL muslems are the enemy, ALL muslems should be kicked out of America!

... the sooner we can get on with defeating Islam, and have some peace and quiet!

Defeat Islam???

What is your proposed scenario?

That's more than 1 Billion people, you kinow. Estimates say 5+ Million in the USA.

[lofter1]

Adolf Hitler was not a christian

Adolf Hitler (http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_AHitler.htm): Quotations on Freethought and Religion


My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man ...

[Adolf Hitler, speech on April 12, 1922, published in My New Order, quoted in Freethought Today April 1990]



I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.

[Adolph Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941]

[ZippyTheChimp]

Adolf Hitler was not a christian
What was he?

Hard to tell, really. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs)

ALL muslems should be kicked out of America!... Islam is the enemy, not terrorism, terrorism is a tactic, not a country, or a group, Islam is the enemy, and the sooner the WORLD, starts saying it right, the sooner we can get on with defeating Islam, and have some peace and quiet!:mad:Peace and quiet, with all the scillers?

[ablarc]

One top Islamist source told Reuters there was "a very high possibility'' the attack was linked to controversy over a recent speech by Pope Benedict which angered Muslims who thought it showed their religion to be innately violent.
Whatever could have given him that idea?

[ablarc]

By their fruits shall ye know them. Calling yourself a Christian doesn't make you one.

I'd love to be a genius. If I called myself a genius, would that be enough to make me one, lofter?

[scillers]

Thank you ablarc, thats exactly what I was going to say, that was all part of Hitlers brain washing of his people, and high jacking the christian relegion to justify his madness of eliminating the jews.

There is no secret that the Muslems want freedom, and liberty dead! The world better wake up! Islam is the enemy, and Bush is right in what he is doing, he see's down the road, and so do I, this is all predicted in the bible too, the rising up of the evil empire in the east, Islam is it folks, weather you believe in the bible or not, THEY believe in THIER Koran, and it's just a matter of time before all muslems join in with the killing, right now alot are still trying to convert, or inslave, but all out killing of the infadels is coming!

Yes, I know it sounds crazy, and yes there are millions of Muslems in this country, but it hit me a few months ago, this is our country, not Muslems, and everyone is all worried about profiling, if it's fair, or discriminating, WHO CARES! We are fighting for our very existence here people! I DON'T CARE IF MUSLEMS ARE OFFENDED, THERE THE BAD GUYS! wake up America! we are going to loose this if we don't fight for it.

Profiling is a good thing, but way to time consuming, and slows down everything, in world war 2 all Japanese were rounded up and put in camps, we did it then we can do it now, send out a notice nation wide all Muslems must leave the country by a certain date, plenty of time to get it done say 3 months or whatever, after that all Muslems are subject to arrest and deportation, period!:eek:

We did not ask for this war with Islam, it's in there teachings, and you can't unteach thousands of years of Islamic hate, and you can't tell by looking at them who is a good Muslem or a bad Muslem, why take chances anymore, times have changed, I want my country back, and I want to live, and I want my children to live, so radical times, call for radical solutions, and I say " KICK ALL MUSLEMS OUT OF AMERICA" ......now!:mad:

[ZippyTheChimp]

in world war 2 all Japanese were rounded up and put in camps, we did it then we can do it now

LMAO!

[scillers]

I'm laughing to zippy, cause people like you think Islam isn't a threat!

Who do you think killed that nun? A muslem , and they go crazy, and kill, and cry for weeks over words said by the Pope, or cartoons, but........ a muslem saw's the heads off our countrymen, and no muslem group speaks out, or crys about that? No, there time has come, it's time for them to leave America!

[ZippyTheChimp]

Calling yourself a Christian doesn't make you one.
Calling himself a Christian played to the religious prejudices of the German people. I hope you noticed the marked difference in his public and private statements on Christianity.

[ZippyTheChimp]

I'm laughing to zippy, cause people like you think Islam isn't a threat!
Having been here 1 day, you know nothing about me, and not much about this topic.

Why are you not in Iraq helping Bush?

[scillers]

Thats a silly statement, MY brother flies an f16 right now, my father served in Vietnam, and Grandfather served too, and I would if I could, believe me, but I am supporting the troops, and our President, best I can, I do sponsor troops through adopt a soldier programs , I send them supplies, food, candys, boots, air conditioners, and whatever they need or ask for, or the program collects donations for! What are you doing? Complaining about Bush, what a great American you are!


*By the way the topic is what I created, and that was my goal! "Muslems are the enemy, kick them out of America"

[milleniumcab]

Adolf Hitler was not a christian, so your comment makes no sense, but Muslems are the enemy of the world, the Koran teaches 3 options for Muslems, Convert the infadel, inslave the infadel, or kill the infadel, so that makes Islam the enemy, all muslems are the enemy, all muslems should be kicked out of America, all muslems are the problem! The sooner the world starts recognizing this the sooner we can have some peace.

Hitler was a baptized catholic and he said so in many occasions.. Does that not make him a christian?..
But I understand that you would be ashamed to call him a christian just like muslims might be, one day, ashamed to call Usama Bin Ladin a muslim..And when that day comes, everybody will be better off..

A religion, a culture or a nation has never been a problem in this world.. Only the fanatics within them has posed danger to humanity...

Fanatisism is your only enemy.. Sooner you realize that sooner you can have some inner peace...

[ZippyTheChimp]

What are you doing?

I am a Vietnam combat veteran.

Surprised?

I guess I don't fit your concept of what a patriotic American is; one who doesn't think it's un-American to criticize his elected leaders; one who thinks it is un-American to "round up citizens and put them in camps" simply because they are Japanese-Americans or Muslim Americans.

In short, one who thinks it's un-American to violate the Constitution.

[milleniumcab]

Thats a silly statement, MY brother flies an f16 right now, my father served in Vietnam, and Grandfather served too, and I would if I could, believe me, but I am supporting the troops, and our President, best I can, I do sponsor troops through adopt a soldier programs , I send them supplies, food, candys, boots, air conditioners, and whatever they need or ask for, or the program collects donations for! What are you doing? Complaining about Bush, what a great American you are!


*By the way the topic is what I created, and that was my goal! "Muslems are the enemy, kick them out of America"

SAME GOES FOR YOU TOO...

Fanatisism is your only enemy.. The sooner you realize that the sooner you can have some inner peace...

[milleniumcab]

Thank you ablarc, thats exactly what I was going to say, that was all part of Hitlers brain washing of his people, and high jacking the christian relegion to justify his madness of eliminating the jews.

Exactly my feelings.. Just because Usama bin Ladin calls himself a muslim doesn't make him a muslim.. He has highjacked Islam to justify his madness, just like Hitler highjacked Christianity...


We did not ask for this war with Islam, it's in there teachings, and you can't unteach thousands of years of Islamic hate, and you can't tell by looking at them who is a good Muslem or a bad Muslem, why take chances anymore, times have changed, I want my country back, and I want to live, and I want my children to live, so radical times, call for radical solutions, and I say " KICK ALL MUSLEMS OUT OF AMERICA" ......now!:mad:

May god protect this great nation from all biggots like you scillers...

[scillers]

I see what your saying millineum, but that is what people believe now, and it looks that way I admit, but if you read the Koran, and there is only one Koran, and they all read the same thing, they have 3 goals for the infadels, in this order, convert, enslave, or kill, and it teaches all are ok, so it's just a matter of time, before they quit trying the first 2, we all better wake up! Read what they are reading, before you pass them off as, only the radical ones are the problem. According to more and more muslems, the ones doing the killing, the radical ones to them, are the ones who are not killing us infadels, they are busy converting muslems to the 3rd. option!

I know my idea is radical. I said that, but... so are they, and I didn't say put them in camps either, I just said remove them from America.

[scillers]

Exactly my feelings.. Just because Usama bin Ladin calls himself a muslim doesn't make him a muslim.. He has highjacked Islam to justify his madness, just like Hitler highjacked Christianity...




May god protect this great nation from all biggots like you scillors...

Osama reads the same Koran, that the whole point here dude, have you ever read the Koran, or theses passages I'm talking about, better get educated before you call me a bigot!

[pianoman11686]

this is all predicted in the bible too, the rising up of the evil empire in the east...

Saying things like this is not going to make your argument sound any more credible. It's enough that you're already rambling. In fact, you're almost starting to sound like someone who wants to be a martyr for what they believe in (get my drift?).

Yes, I know it sounds crazy, and yes there are millions of Muslems in this country, but it hit me a few months ago, this is our country, not Muslems, and everyone is all worried about profiling, if it's fair, or discriminating, WHO CARES!

What does that mean, "this is our country?" Do you know what your family history is? Has your family always lived here and never been the first generation? Both my parents immigrated here. Should they not have been allowed in, because it wasn't "their" country? Should I not be here? Oh, but I'm not Muslim, so I guess it's okay.

We are fighting for our very existence here people! I DON'T CARE IF MUSLEMS ARE OFFENDED, THERE THE BAD GUYS! wake up America! we are going to loose this if we don't fight for it.

The fact is, we are profiling. How else do you explain the almost daily flight that gets diverted, or makes an emergency landing, because a Middle-Eastern man is seen doing something suspicious? Whether it's in law or not, we are aware of the danger, and I think that because of that, there'll never be another successful airplane hijacking, because people know the danger, and they're more alert. And, I have no doubt that the government is monitoring a lot of Muslim organizations out there, listening in on private conversations. Let them do what they need to, as long as it's within the law. There's no need to set out with the intention to offend people; that'll only heighten tensions more.

in world war 2 all Japanese were rounded up and put in camps, we did it then we can do it now, send out a notice nation wide all Muslems must leave the country by a certain date, plenty of time to get it done say 3 months or whatever, after that all Muslems are subject to arrest and deportation, period!:eek:

You're treading on dangerous ground here. We're not talking about quaranting an entire city because a few people are sick, and everyone else will become sick also. There are 5 million Muslims in the US, and an overwhelming majority of them are productive members of society. What's more, they're more successful here than in other countries like the UK and France. They're also more likely to have families and not be radical Islamists. Part of the reason is that they're better integrated. Once you start asking to "round them all up" like cattle, it's gonna lead to more segregation, and more people will be desperate to get back somehow. In other words, your tactics will actually breed more terrorism, at least during the process of rounding everyone up.

We did not ask for this war with Islam, it's in there teachings, and you can't unteach thousands of years of Islamic hate, and you can't tell by looking at them who is a good Muslem or a bad Muslem, why take chances anymore, times have changed, I want my country back, and I want to live, and I want my children to live, so radical times, call for radical solutions, and I say " KICK ALL MUSLEMS OUT OF AMERICA" ......now!:mad:

I want to live too. But I also don't want to ruin the lives of millions of people, and potentially only add more fuel to the fire overseas. Radicalism only breeds more radicalism, and right now, that's not going to help anyone.

Let me ask you a question, scillers: where do you live? Have you ever interacted with a Muslim on a meaningful level, and then considered what it would mean if you were tell that person what you think of their entire culture?

[pianoman11686]

Osama reads the same Koran, that the whole point here dude, have you ever read the Koran, or theses passages I'm talking about, better get educated before you call me a bigot!

Have you ever read the Bible?

[scillers]

Look you all are misunderstanding me, I don't hate muslems, I'm not a bigot, and yes we all came from Europe 200-300 years ago, so what, whats that got to do with today, and the predicament were in? (they were christians though) all I'm saying is most people, like all you commenting here probably have not read the Koran, or understand what there goal is, I hadn't either up until a couple of months ago, a couple of months ago I was one of you people, in your line of thinking, go research, read about what the Koran says about us, your all reacting on emotions, rather than logic, all I'm saying is why take chances, we don't know who all the bad ones are now, just kick them all out, then we don't have to worry, sorry if offends someone, but were at war! I didn't say kill them, or enslave them, or put them in camps, just kick them out! Don't worry there are to many liberals in this country, it will never happen anyway, so go ahead call me names, and label me crazy, whatever, It was just an idea. Thanks for the feedback.

[milleniumcab]

Osama reads the same Koran, that the whole point here dude, have you ever read the Koran, or theses passages I'm talking about, better get educated before you call me a bigot!

I am not only educated but also a muslim...Have you read the whole Koran or only the parts that have been qouted by other closed minded people..Did you read the parts where it says not to kill anything that breaths, not to kill yourself, not to lie, to respect your neighbor, basically all of the 10 commendments that is in the Bible or the Tora is in the Koran..

So I say again as a moderate muslim, Usama is not a muslim in my eyes..And there are millions of muslims who think the way I do..There will come a day in history will show Usama in the same ranks of Hitler...I can not wait for it to come...

[scillers]

Yes I am aware of those passages, but it also makes allowances for when dealing with the infadels, and all non muslems are the infadels, and your rules only apply to others muslems, and only humans can be infadels, so the livivng breathing things is misleading, it also makes allowances for lying, it says its ok, when dealing with infadels, tell the whole story! I have read it too my friend.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Look you all are misunderstanding me, I don't hate muslems, I'm not a bigot,
I was wondering when that was going to get hauled out.

we don't know who all the bad ones are now, just kick them all out, then we don't have to worry, sorry if offends someone, but were at war! I didn't say kill them, or enslave them, or put them in camps, just kick them out! So, who is we, and should we kick milleniumcab out?

Where should we send him?

[milleniumcab]

One more thing,

I am an immigrant who enjoyed the freedoms of this country for many years.. I have two children and raised them to love this country and always tought them to be tolerant towards other people...I have a great fear and that is for them not to be able to enjoy the very freedoms that I was able to enjoy.. So don't mind me when I say; MAY GOD PROTECT THEM FROM RED NECKS LIKE YOU...

[milleniumcab]

Yes I am aware of those passages, but it also makes allowances for when dealing with the infadels, and all non muslems are the infadels, and your rules only apply to others muslems, and only humans can be infadels, so the livivng breathing things is misleading, it also makes allowances for lying, it says its ok, when dealing with infadels, tell the whole story! I have read it too my friend.

Just like any other great book, the Koran is open to interpretations... since your interpretation is somewhat like Usama's, can we call you a fanatic in your own way...

[scillers]

The way I read it, and the way I have heard it talked about, and the way you see it all over the world being the only religion that teaches hate, it makes it's self the #1 target, sorry you choose such a bad religion to practice, but you will have to deal with your choices, and whats happening in the world today, Isalm is not a good place to be! The best quote I have heard lately puts it all in perspective, "not all muslems are terrorist, but all terrorist are muslem" kind of funny that way huh?, also there are currently like 120-130 areas in the world right now actively having fighting or wars going on, and did you know that only 2 of them involve the enemy not being Muslems......hmmmm, I wonder whats going on?

As for me, and mine you can not convince me that Islam is peaceful, you can tell your lies here, because we are infadels, and it's ok to lie to us, and you have others here believing you, but not me, I will be ready, and I will exercise my 2nd ammendment rights when the muslems come for my family, unless the liberals and the democrats succeed in taking that away too!

[milleniumcab]

I will be ready, and I will exercise my 2nd ammendment rights when the muslems come for my family, unless the liberals and the democrats succeed in taking that away too!

You have nothing to fear from liberals, democrats or republicans...The only people you must fear are your kind...

[lofter1]

I'd love to be a genius. If I called myself a genius, would that be enough to make me one, lofter?

Religion = belief

Genius = facts

apples & oranges

[lofter1]

You can't have it both ways ...



... in world war 2 all Japanese were rounded up and put in camps, we did it then we can do it now ...


I didn't say kill them, or enslave them, or put them in camps ...

[lofter1]

bigot n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.
A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.


... I'm not a bigot ...

... we don't know who all the bad ones are now, just kick them all out ...

... just kick them out!

... there are to many liberals in this country...




Islam is the enemy ... the rising up of the evil empire in the east, Islam is it folks ...

this is our country, not Muslems ...

all Muslems must leave the country ...

... I say " KICK ALL MUSLEMS OUT OF AMERICA" ......now!

[ZippyTheChimp]

Sometimes I wonder how it came to be that we were maneuvered into returning an administration, that continues to demonstrate its inability to govern, to the White House; and then I read the unfiltered rhetoric of The Base.

[scillers]

You can't have it both ways ...
I said twice , I didn't say to put them in camps, how many times do I have to say that, that was refering to rounding them up! , and kicking them out of the country , DUH!

[scillers]

bigot n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.

Thank you for posting the important quotes, together we can get this done! Your right , we are unquestionably right, and the muslem facist killer pigs are unquestionably wrong! Let me ask all you muslem lovers a question, where is the world wide out cry from these supposed peaceful muslem about this nun's murder?, where is the world wide outcry from muslems when innocent Americans were beheaded?, where is the world wide outcry when everyday innocent people are killed in Iraq by muslems?, yet there is a world wide outcry when cartoons are made about muslems, or the Pope quotes and 800 year old quote, give me a break, muslems are phonies! Where is the outcry from you muslems when innocent people are killed?

[scillers]

This is fun huh guys, and I noticed you all just quietly skipped over the part about all the wars being fought around the world, and only 2 of them out of 120-130 don't involve a muslem group, or faction. You may have some people fooled , not me, and yes I am a threat to muslems, your are right about that, if they show any sign of rising up, or danger to my family. ;)

[lofter1]

scillers: Your thoughts are so essentially against what America stands for -- by that I refer to the protections afforded to the INDIVIDUAL human being.

What other groups do you feel threatened by that might feel your wrath at some future date? This is a very slippery slope that leads in only one direction: the Tyranny of those in charge.

So many seem so willing to toss out the Constitution in order to have a mis-placed sense of well being. This will be the death of "America" long before marauding hordes lay waste to the countryside.

[scillers]

No, I'm just a patriot who see's the real trouble, and I am willing to fight for what we have here, unlike the bed wetting, whimps on the left who are afraid to stand up and fight for this country, and get behind our President, what would have happened in world war II if liberals and democrats were like they are now? We would all be speaking German, or Japanese. Times have changed, and we are in danger from terrorism, and half the country is asleep at the wheel, and just think we can talk our way out of this, THEY WANT TO KILL ALL OF US, AND REMOVE ISRAEL FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH, WAKE UP!

[Ninjahedge]

Thats a silly statement, MY brother flies an f16 right now, my father served in Vietnam, and Grandfather served too, and I would if I could, believe me,

We don't.

but I am supporting the troops, and our President, best I can, I do sponsor troops through adopt a soldier programs , I send them supplies, food, candys, boots, air conditioners, and whatever they need or ask for, or the program collects donations for!

Have you sent them Body Armor? Or are you even the slightest bit upset that the Army will not allow that anymore unless it is coming from the one company they are contracting from?

What are you doing? Complaining about Bush, what a great American you are!

He is. The one thing you CAN do in the US is complain about the leaders. If YOU don't like it, move to China, where they KILL all those that do not fall in line and like the leader.

*By the way the topic is what I created, and that was my goal! "Muslems are the enemy, kick them out of America"

Flame bait. You goal was not reached. You just marked yourself as a reactionary zealot that is at home SAYING he is doing a lot when in reality he is just trolling websites with no real input other than "My brother flies an F16, U suk!!!".

Have fun.

[Ninjahedge]

This is fun huh guys, and I noticed you all just quietly skipped over the part about all the wars being fought around the world, and only 2 of them out of 120-130 don't involve a muslem group, or faction. You may have some people fooled , not me, and yes I am a threat to muslems, your are right about that, if they show any sign of rising up, or danger to my family. ;)

Did you also fail to mention that most of teh world is inhabited by Muslims.

You know 100% of the wars in this world are fought between nations that have women. I think Women are to blame.


You are a class A Idiot and really outgunned here. Please leave the same way you came in, without anybody knowing who you are, and nobody missing you when you are gone.

[scillers]

You liberals can't control all the press, some day you will see I am right about the Muslems, actually I hope it never happens, because I love America, and freedom, but they are bent on killing us, and the sooner you wake up, and realize it, the easier it will be to win, right now half the country is trying to win the war, and the other half which most of you responding to me belong to is fighting with the terrorist, and against our country, TRAITORS!



*by the way, that was funny about women though, and your right alot of wars have been fought because of women. The ones now though, are 99% muslems involved, come on think about that!

[ZippyTheChimp]

Enough arguing with an idiot.

[Ninjahedge]

I agree.

He is trolling.

I suggest that we ban him, delete the posts (including the replies to him) and clean this up. He has provided nothing to the board and is only looking to cause arguements.

[SilentPandaesq]

You know 100% of the wars in this world are fought between nations that have women. I think Women are to blame.


Damn Right! It is always about impressing some chick / skirt / broad with gams / betty / geisha / frauline / dame / hottie or something or other. Back before women (you know... when Adam was just chilling ) there was no war (or pants).

I blame woman for pants as well!

Please leave the same way you came in,....
Via tubes...partially clogged tubes.

[ZippyTheChimp]

This thread is closed.