Michael Lucas is described at the end of this piece in this way: "Gay pornographic actor and activist Michael Lucas is the CEO and founder of Lucas Entertainment, a New York-based gay adult film company." Unlike most gay activists, he seems to have realized that there is a big difference between Osama bin Laden and Pat Robertson -- and has accordingly been charged with being "racist" and "intolerant" by the thoroughly propagandized students at Stanford University. Here is his defense:
"Op-Ed: Racism and intolerance: disappointing at a liberal university," by Mike Lucas in the Stanford Daily (thanks to Paul):
Let me first address the “racism” remarks and the accusation of me being “racist” [“Adult film star’s remarks spark debate,” Feb. 14]. I was disappointed (but not very surprised) by the reaction that I got from some of the students at Stanford (as I’ve been wrongly accused of racism before).Speaking of racism in relation to religion, not to a race, is a big disservice to language and to intelligence. I never in my life said or wrote a bad word about Arabs — go read any of my articles. My criticism was always addressed towards the religion and ideology of Islam. So I would like to ask Stanford students not to exploit the word ‘racism’ at their own convenience. It’s shocking to me that some students do not know what that term means but handle it with such wanton impudence. Maybe such a hole in the education should be brought to the attention of the teaching faculty of your university.
In fact, some of my role models are Arabs for whom I have tremendous admiration. I’m talking about the likes of Wafa Sultan, who has confronted and condemned Islam on many occasions and for whose lectures I will travel across the country, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, whose book “Infidel” also helped me to shape my opinions. Both of these women secularized, as Islam in their opinion is the ideology of backwardness and hate. They rightly point out that Islam hasn’t changed, or evolved, for 1,400 years; it has always suppressed every progressive thought. Needless to say, these women were forced to live in exile in the United States and live with hired security 24 hours a day. As I hope you know, Islam does not forgive. It forbids any criticism. Think Salman Rushdie. Think Theo Van Gogh, for his portrayal of the misery of women in Muslim countries. Think of the Danish cartoonists who are hiding in safe houses. The list is long.
What fostered my distain for Islam? The contempt that Muslim men vomit on women, treating them with less respect than camels. That includes the infibulation — female circumcision — of young girls; the imposition of chadors and burqas; the decapitation of adulterous wives (but never adulterous husbands); the fact that, in most Muslim countries, women cannot go to school, see a doctor or even leave their own houses without a male escort; the approval of polygamy; the arranged marriages that involve girls as young as 9; the barring of women from taking part in public life or in any receptions, even those of their own weddings; the death penalty for drinkers of alcohol; the mutilation penalty for thieves; the public killings of homosexuals. Doesn’t all of this originate from the Koran? Have you ever thought that, instead of protesting me, you should protest against those atrocities, maybe organizing some short demonstration in front of Muslim embassies? Why instead are you unleashing your hate against one who speaks against those crimes? Why are you denying my right to compare the Koran, the text in which these facts originate, to Hitler’s “Mein Kampf?” The Koran, that for 1,400 years has tormented humanity more than the Bible, the Gospels and the Torah combined? Do not suppress or boycott someone who has a different opinion, even if you disagree with this opinion. Debate it. Argue it. In a civilized manner. Otherwise, what is the difference between you and Islam?
I do very well realize where this reaction is coming from. Stanford is a liberal university, and I very much hope that the good word “liberalism” is not degraded in your institution as it has been degraded by the likes of Michael Moore, Rosie O’Donnell, Ward Churchill, Noam Chomsky and many others. I hope the word “liberal” in the mind of Stanford students still means “progressive” and “broad-minded.” The left symbolizes progress. At least, it has done so in the past. It has always stood for women’s rights, for gay rights, for the rights of African-Americans. The reaction which I see today at Stanford demonstrates to me that there are changes in the left and that these changes are for the worst. What I read today in The Stanford Daily is nothing more than intellectual terrorism. A dogmatism that I can only compare to one of religion. (If-you-don’t-think-what-I-think,-you-are-an-idiot-and-a-delinquent.) It’s difficult for me to understand how the progressive left can defend the most backwards and reactionary ideology on earth, the ideology of Islam.
I've found "getting it" to be a bit like a National Merit Scholarship. Not everyone is capable of connecting the dots. Interestingly though, it's not a one-to-one relationship. Other than the smarts it requires a healthy dose of anti-authority skepticism.
Then just when you realize the wool has been pulled from your eyes, the Arab-Muslim-funded grievance monger industry shows up to classify you as a "racist Islamophobe."
Given the Arab-Muslim-funded cottage industry in obfuscation running 24-7 in America's universities, it's safe to say the number of important people who get it will not go up whatever sorts of terror atrocities the Democrats allow when they take power.
So they describe him as "Gay pornographic actor and activist Michael Lucas is the CEO and founder of Lucas Entertainment, a New York-based gay adult film company."
How would they describe mohammed?
In any case. He's spot on with islam. Good for him.
Well, he certainly told them, didn't he. Maybe coming from someone these students would ordinarily love, it will make them look at themselves with a little self criticism, but probably they wont.
He has put himself in opposition to their opposition, and is now an opposer. Woe unto him.
Hopefully he is really disillusioned, hopefully his respect for these institutions is totally destroyed.
He has seen the light of Islam, now he has seen the light of liberalism at it's best, hopefully he has seen the light...
I was once called a racist for reading Jihad Watch on my laptop in a coffee shop. I was instructed to "take my hatred elsewhere". I calmly explained to her that Islam was a religion, not a race, and that some jihadists like Adam Gadahn and Johnny Walker Lind were in fact white Americans like herself. I tried to explain that this site was fighting hatred and terrorism. At that point she turned on her heel and walked away, angry and uninformed.
Gay man labeled (or libeled) a racist?
The issue of Islam's assault on the West crosses all political boundaries.
I think that the opponents of this oppressive political movement share one value in common. We all agree with the following statement:
"Is life so cheap or peace so dear as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me Liberty or give me Death!"
Patrick Henry
Many linked articles have very enlightening 'comments' sections.
This article does, and some of the comments are really pathetic. Here's one:
"Does the Koran truly condemn these acts, or is it the interpretation of the book (people misconstruing words)? I'm curious - some quotes/ evidence from the Koran would be nice.
[...]
I can't say anything about what is or isn't in the Koran, but from experiences of interacting with Muslims, being in Muslim areas - the atrocious acts which you disdain are not Islam's true colour..."
Written by someone who, with obvious access to the Internet, has not even bothered to look the information up for him/her self.
Kind of puts the commenter on the same intellectual plane as George Bush.
Kevin: People are funny like that. Not only did she think you were a racist, she felt compelled to confront you, and chase you off. She lives in a world of assumptions and condemnations. Not a good place to be intellectually. This is difficult to deal with. I have found that the easiest people to turn off are the ones who know nothing about Islam, but believe all religions are good. The next easiest are the ones who know something but not enough. Like the followers of Karen Armstrong etc.
It is walking a razors edge over the abyss to tell the truth about Islam, without turning them off. Once they are off, they are lost. We need more truth soldiers, not less, although the less are getting better at it...
"As I hope you know, Islam does not forgive. It forbids any criticism."
of course it cant forgive any criticism. after all mohamad claims to be the final profit (islam made him rich) so if you're being critical of the Koran and Islam and the Muslim that means you're being critical of the final prophet Mohamed and àllha and they cannot allow that or forget
So-called Liberals and Progressives have links to fascism as far back as Hitler and Mussolini and the admiration by them of the "grand experiment" in Russia.
See Jonah Goldberg's article in the National Review or the book from which it came.
Education today is a farce. Thinking for oneself is actually punished, and indoctrination is the name of the game.
Reading the comments over at Stanford has done nothing to bring me out of my conviction the Baby Boomers have destroyed modernity with their Gramscian-nihilist-multicult march through the institutions. Their bigoted comments against the author aren't nearly as depressing as their inability or unwillingness to debate facts instead of who said it.
In an elite institution supposedly devoted to learning and diversity, they sure sound like they hate gay people. Funny how those progressive values are paper thin when it comes to the advance of Islam.
"The issue of Islam's assault on the West crosses all political boundaries."
The old alliances need to shift to address the concerns of this, the post-Cold War era.
Conservatives can't afford to demonize those liberals and atheists and homosexuals who believe in individual liberty. Liberals can't afford to demonize Christians and conservatives who, while they may be believe homosexuality and pornography and atheism morally wrong, nevertheless see it as morally worse to murder people and deprive them of their inherent rights on that basis.
Conservatives who can't get past Cold War demonization of atheists as evil incarnate (a common view in part on account of historiacal association with Communism) and Liberals who can't get past the idea that sometimes other cultures do things that are bad by some universal standard (stoning adulteresses and not adulterers, for example) have less in common with the first two groups than the first two groups have with each other.
So, you know how the repetition of "Islam is the solution" is helping convince "moderates" across the Islamic world that, well, Islam is the solution to their suffering, poverty and oppression?
Well, taking a cue from Hugh's "Arab-Occupied Judea and Samira" post, how's this sound for an alternative mantra, one for us in the face of intent to spread the true roots of their suffering, poverty, and oppression:
_Classical Liberalism* Is The Solution_
(*As opposed to the post-modern view of liberalism as cultural relativism; the Classical variety is that of the Founding Fathers.)
There are some things that are wrong, and wrong to allow others to do. Murder, for example.
There are some things that are wrong, but it is more wrong to force (by murder, say) others to stop, than to let them make their own decisions and deal with the consequences themselves.
This is a more complex picture of morality than the idea that "forcing everyone to stop doing bad things is always good", but truth sometimes trumps simplicity.
This is the basis for a free, progressive, and MORE MORAL society. It is better to have a few gay pornographers around than a culture in which fathers are expected to murder their daughters if they don't like the religion of a daughter's boyfriend, (or many, many similar things).
If you don't like the gay pornography, you can try to convert the gay pornographer to your view. If he doesn't like that, he can brush you off, or argue his case, and no one dies or gets tortured, and people live another day to change their minds or change their ways.
Nothing will ever bring back, for example, Amina and Sarah, let them go to college, get married, have careers and families, and die only when their time is right. Nothing.
That's the difference freedom makes.
There are also some gems, like this one:
"You guys need to realise that people outside your warped little community are reading this. These are people with experience in the real world, who have felt the compassion of Islam up close. The elitism and arrogance on display here does not reflect well on you or your university and some day when you are older and wiser you will be ashamed that you took the side of the Islamists. Come on guys, this isn't rocket science. There is a large portion of the Ummah who want to spread their religion through violence. Mohammed set the example for them in this regard. There is no act too vile for them to eschew in pursuit of their goals. It is OK to be against them and the debased creed that inspires them. It doesn't make you a Republican. It just makes you rational.
As an atheist I can also say that your religious education is severely lacking. Read the Bible and then read the Koran. Judge the acts of Christ against those of Mohammed for yourself. It doesn't make you fair minded to hold each in equal esteem. All cultures and all religions are not equal. The excesses committed in the name of Christianity are done by people who do not act like Christ. The excesses committed in the name of Islam are committed by people who act like Mohammed. Neither religion is for me but to treat them as moral equals is just a mark of ignorance."
Wish I had written that one (except I don't happen to be an atheist)
"So-called Liberals and Progressives have links to fascism as far back as Hitler and Mussolini and the admiration by them of the "grand experiment" in Russia.
"See Jonah Goldberg's article in the National Review or the book from which it came."
Surely "links" means that the entirety of the intellectual basis for all varieties of liberalism is evil?
Also, surely, this means that all people who identify with liberalism and progress in fact subscribe a specific ideological program which includes Fascism? Every last one, to the whole program, with not mixing and matching of issues or ideas on any basis of personal insight or belief?
"Education today is a farce. Thinking for oneself is actually punished, and indoctrination is the name of the game."
Yep.
So is this, would you say, more the fault of, say, Hegel, or of Thomas Jefferson?
And which of the two is the more "liberal", and which the more "conservative"?
Hint:
One was an apologist for the power of the German state and the "world historic figure" against the individual and the claimed rights of the innocent.
One was a major player in a revolution against his king, on the grounds of the inherent rights of the individual.
Main point: Yes understanding Fascist trends in Liberal movements over history is important, but putting this in terms of reified categories doesn't work for actually understanding much at all. People mix and match, threads morph into different threads and combined with new threads to create new patterns and you won't get much out of history if you can't get this.
From the previous article on Lucas:
I won't tolerate intolerance! Someone better shut him up before I'm forced to stab a manifesto in his chest!
We need an annual Orwell Award.
I would not recognize Michael Lucas if he bit me....but I applaud the defense of his spot on remarks about Islam. Anyone who has taken the time to investigate the history and key belief elements of Islam would realize that Mr Lucas' remarks are fact-based and on-the-mark.
While I would not be surprised to see his personna so viciously attacked by the liberal left in Holland, Norway or Denmark, coming from an institution of higher learning in America is enough to drive one to zoloft.
O'Hara
"Michael Lucas is described at the end of this piece in this way: "Gay pornographic actor and activist Michael Lucas is the CEO and founder of Lucas Entertainment, a New York-based gay adult film company."
This is definitely NOT your 'Pat Robertson Evil Christian Bogeyman of the Left'. I hope this makes some 'radical progressives' uncomfortable.
"It’s difficult for me to understand how the progressive left can defend the most backwards and reactionary ideology on earth, the ideology of Islam."
I wouldn't say it is difficult to understand how they can do so (or why): it's because the progressive Left indulges dogmatically in reverse racism, however incoherent that dogma may be in the context of the fact that Islam is not a race (since coherence and rationality do not tend to be high on the list of virtues of the Left in general). The worse problem is that this dogma has, over the past half century or so, transcended the progressive Left and has come to structure the general worldview of nearly everyone -- Left, Right and Center -- with regard to at least the top two axioms of the Politically Correct Multi-Culturalist paradigm re Third World peoples and, by extension, Islam and Muslims:
1) Islam and the vast majority of Muslims cannot be substantively criticized (much less condemned);
and
2) only the West may be criticized (even -- please go right ahead! -- condemned) as the source of most major sociopolitical ills and evils of the world.
The reason for #1 is because of the unavoidable fact that the vast majority of Muslims (and the vast majority of Muslim terrorists) are Third World and seem to be non-white non-Westerners; and as such, they fit into the paradigm which has been dominant and mainstream for decades throughout the West. (The second definition for "race" in the American Heritage dictionary, infelicitously, reflects the wiggle room enjoyed by the Reverse Racists of the PC MC paradigm: A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geograhpical distribution. The "common history" part is the devil in the details.)
Oh, good article! Good arguments! Post this wherever non-thinking "all cultures have equal value and we should respect them" liberals congregate!!
Check out the reactions to this Stanford Daily article. The Stanford lefties and their crumbling institution has been taken to task and some tremendous commentaries in defense of Mr. Lucas observations are contained there.
Evidence of intelligent life on earth.
Politics makes strange bedfellows.
I have to hand it to the Stanford Daily for at least publishing his letter--I am certain many papers (both university publications and mainstream) would not have done so.
I also plan to email his letter to a lesbian colleague of mine who once told me, about a month after the 9/11 attacks, that she would rather live in "under the Taliban" than in the United States (because of the election debacles that had occurred in Florida). She's a Brit, incidentally, not American. When I asked her if she'd prefer to be thrown from a high building or stoned to death (the Taliban's preferred methods of executing homosexuals), she had no comment, naturally, but was furious with me. I'm glad someone gay--other than the well-intentioned but in-denial Irshad Manji--has the guts to speak out about Islam, and so eloquently, too.
Wow. Great editorial. Good for him, for having the courage.
"I'm glad someone gay--other than the well-intentioned but in-denial Irshad Manji--has the guts to speak out about Islam, and so eloquently, too."
Another excellent gay analyst who has come out of not only the proverbial closet but also the much more capacious and yet paradoxically more stifling closet of PC MC, is Bruce Bawer:
http://www.brucebawer.com/
The Stanford students' comments perfectly illustrate Dennis Prager's maxim: College makes you stupid. Save your money, parents.
Some of the comments at the Stanford Daily site are acute. The least acute, and the most idiotic, come from those who suggest that Michael Lucas, because he is not a Stanford student therefore is lacking in "credentials" and should not be given the time of day.
That this can be said, in a world where Cornel West is a "University Professor" at Princeton, and where Ward Churchill was a tenured professor, and where --- oh, fill in the names yourself, do -- that anyone thinks "credentials" are either necessary, or sufficient, when it comes not to such fields as thoracic surgery but to finding what the texts and tenets of Islam are all about, shows the absurdity of things.
The statement by Michael Lucas is one of the clearest and most intelligent things written on the subject of Islam for a mass audience. Clearly he has studied and thought about the matter. What else can one ask for? That he be given a chair just like Cornel West at Princeton, or like Tariq Ramadan underwritten by the Arabs in order to provide Brother Tariq with a fake-academic sheen?
George Will says that there are people who are "well schooled" and those who are "well educated." Stanford seems to be good at producing the well schooled.
"Well-credentialed" and "well-degreed" (not to be confused with "a lady of high degree") also come to mind.
The Left will spew on Michael Lewis,
beat him up and defame his name,
try to draw blood, and at least,
leave him with bruises, hard to heal.
They hate it when one of theirs
defects and tells the truth
that contradicts
their dreams and sordid schemes.
Remember how they attacked
the truth-teller Oriana Fallaci?
...and politics does make strange bedfellows.
This guy writes a great letter! I only hope that more of his stripe will wake up & realize they should not be defending Islam! Maybe they should even oppose it?! Horrors - one religion/world-view really isn't as good as all the others.
Strange ally indeed, but I am glad to have his reasoned argument on target. Good for him!
How about trying to win those on the left who might be confused over to your side rather than demonizing the whole bunch of us?
I'm as liberal as they come but I'm well aware of how dangerous repressive religions like Islam are, and how bad it would be if such a worldview of intolerance and violence ever gained power here in the west, and I'm not the only one.
Instead of putting down those on the other side of the political spectrum, why don't you try to strategically help those who aren't yet wise to the facts understand the truth? Convince them that you stand 100% for freedom to do whatever one wants as long as no one is being harmed unnecessarily against their will and 100% against repression and oppression and unnecessarily telling others what they can't do, and that the whole goal of Islam is to enforce the exact opposite set of values on the world, and you'll have them on your side. 100%.
Yes. I think 'Mike Lucas' deserves a bunch of roses and a box of chocolates, just for writing this little piece. And I say that as a practising Christian who would never, never watch a 'gay porn' film! If he refuses to be silenced; if he can dig in his toes and keep on defending free speech and human rights as trenchantly as he's done here (not a wasted word!) he'll be in the running for 'American Non-Dhimmi of the Year Award (Media Division)'.
I hope the thing 'goes viral' across the internet. It deserves to be tacked up on campus noticeboards in every university in America.
Mike gives due honor to Wafa Sultan and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and has obviously taken them seriously, read their books, probably listened to their interviews...and believed them. (I'll BET that Theo van Gogh's death got his attention; and he's obviously watched "Submission"). I wonder if he's read Fallaci? I think she'd have liked him, for this one article alone.
Here's a relevant bit from her 'la rabbia e l'orgoglio':
"Christ! Don’t you realize that the Osama Bin Ladens feel authorized to kill you and your children because you drink wine or beer, because you don’t wear your beard long or a chador, because you go to the theater or the movies, because you listen to music and sing pop songs, because you dance in discos or at home, because you watch TV, wear miniskirts or short–shorts, because you go naked or half naked to the beach or the pool, because you fuck when you want and where you want and who you want? Don’t you even care about that, you fools? I am an atheist, thank God. And I have no intention of letting myself be killed for it."
"Cristo! Non vi rendete conto che gli Usama Bin Laden si ritengono autorizzati a uccidere voi e i vostri bambini perché bevete il vino o la birra, perché non portate la barba lunga o il chador, perché andate al teatro e al cinema, perché ascoltate la musica e cantate le canzonette, perché ballate nelle discoteche o a casa vostra, perché guardate la televisione, perché portate la minigonna o i calzoncini corti, perché al mare o in piscina state ignudi o quasi ignudi, perché scopate quando vi pare e dove vi pare e con chi vi pare? Non v'importa neanche di questo, scemi? Io sono atea, graziaddio. E non ho alcuna intenzione di lasciarmi ammazzare perché lo sono."
Perhaps Mr M Lucas' next move will be to team up with Wafa Sultan or Phyllis Chesler or Ayaan Hirsi Ali (or all three!) and make a searing film - MA 15+ or R-rated - to rip the sanctimonious mask right off certain hypocrites of the Ummah who like to castigate the Infidel world for its 'decadence' and 'immorality'. He could always have a chat to the ex-slaves who have escaped from the Sudan, and dramatise their stories; or do a historical documentary about the Arab Muslim trade in black eunuchs (certain details of the subject matter would go near to making even Bunuel or Pasolini shudder).
I will pray for his safety; and for courage and clarity.
May eros prevail over thanatos. (It seems he originally caused the fur to fly, by making remarks critical of, or questioning, Islam, at the university on St Valentine's Day).
"and you'll have them on your side. 100%."
Posted by: The Christian Heretic
My God, I wish that were true.
A year ago, I did just that (in my home), and thought I had been well received. Later I was told my liberal step-relative "couldn't believe [I] had the audacity to read from someone else's scriptures" and "who is [I] to put down another religion". This year, I was told I couldn't park my vehicle in my step-relative's driveway to visit my parent without removing my JW bumperstickers. The animosity was palpable. My parent would only speak fearfully about it in hushed tones. "Don't talk about that here!"
So, yeah, I'm very jaded about liberals. I can't wait for them to get off their "Hate Bush" hobbyhorse and realize they have to defend the country, and women, and homosexuals, and, yes, most despicably, those opinionated, but otherwise harmless Christians.
The happy dupes among the intellectually-uninterested left have bought the Victim Line of Islam's apologistas, hook, line and sucker.
Lucas has broken the code.
These "liberals" will resent his seeing through their suicidal pipe dream.
And demonstrate that they are no more liberal than any garden variety ayatollah.
Kevin Wheakley,
Your coffeeshop encounter sums it up in a nutshell.
Especially like the line: "take your hatred elsewhere."
Instead of noting, and keeping to one's self,a person's reading materials,such collectivist thinkers feel the urge to publicly invoke a stance of intolerance in order to combat anything they perceive as intolerance. An irrational disease of the mind that goes hand-in-hand with other totalitarian ideologies worldwide.
Gays are the canaries in the coal mine, starting most visibly with Pim Fortuyn.
During the 2004 elections I saw a blog post by what could only be called a flaming princess, a veritable queen of pink. Much like Lucas, that blogger, despite his obvious aversion to much of what we call normal, spelled out word for word why he wasn't in the least bit threatened by a Bush presidency, but why a Kerry presidency that seemed determined to capitulate to Islam on every front was an immediate danger to him.
Sadly, I suspect he's been just as disappointed over the last four years as most of us have been.
My God, I wish that were true.
A year ago, I did just that (in my home), and thought I had been well received. Later I was told my liberal step-relative "couldn't believe [I] had the audacity to read from someone else's scriptures" and "who is [I] to put down another religion". This year, I was told I couldn't park my vehicle in my step-relative's driveway to visit my parent without removing my JW bumperstickers. The animosity was palpable. My parent would only speak fearfully about it in hushed tones. "Don't talk about that here!"
So, yeah, I'm very jaded about liberals. I can't wait for them to get off their "Hate Bush" hobbyhorse and realize they have to defend the country, and women, and homosexuals, and, yes, most despicably, those opinionated, but otherwise harmless Christians.
I'm beginning to think there are two groups known as liberals. Those who actually are liberal and those who just call themselves liberal (or are labelled liberal by conservatives) but really aren't any such thing. A true liberal stands for freedom and won't idly stand by while religious people try to take it away, and they certainly wouldn't be afraid to condemn a religion for its repressive ways. So tell your relatives that The Christian Heretic, a real liberal, said they aren't actually liberals at all and that he wants them to stop using our label. :)
I'm beginning to think there are three political groups. Nice people who think the government should pay for everything, nice people who think the government shouldn't necessarily pay for everything, and assholes who will wear any label and entrench their position because they enjoy pretending to be ideologically superior.
Robert, notice on the comments section for this article, starting about halfway down, that there are a number of JW/DW fans who are giving the Stanford students a few lessons on Islam that we have learned here from you. It would be great if you are able to post more university student online newspaper articles so that we can continue tutoring the next generation.
"What evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow Knows!"
Beautifully put, Mike Lucas!
Gold emerges from interesting sources.
i enjoyed this comment: it cut to the chase:
"KoranReader on 2/16/08 at 3pm
Most of those commenting will be embarrassed if they ever get around to actually opening up a Koran.
It's quite an interesting read, equal parts a practical guidebook for the ambitious warlord, a set of micromanaging laws that expose 20th century totalitarian legal systems as true lightweights, and a cursory rewrite of Jewish and Christian theology.
Too bad it's meant to be read literally (as per 1400 years of consistent legal interpretation and precedent).
I'm sure most of you know Muhammad ordered several political assassinations. Not likely he'd ever end up nailed to a cross."
The article's comments section is a veritable treasure trove of useful information about the true intolerant, violent nature of Islam.
Once you've skipped past the first few juvenile ad hominem comments, that is.