I suspect that if Islam were taught, as it should be, in the political science department, rather than in religious (we're all so tolerant)"soft" studies, we'd have a different kind of understanding forming...but, then again, maybe not.

Posted by: rb at March 19, 2005 9:01 AM

"..encompassing all three faiths of Abraham.."

Watch out everyone for this 'p.c.-ecumenical' nonsense creeping in to todays vocabulary.

Abraham had one faith not three - and it sure wasn't Islam.

Regards;
kc

Posted by: kc England at March 19, 2005 9:40 AM

"...the Islamic vision of human rights..."

Now, THAT is positively FUNNY! I'd be willing to bet the farm that this kid can't derive the concept of "human rights"--but then, Islamic philosophy doesn't buy into things like evidence and proof, what with their metaphysics being based on the moment-by-moment expression of Allah's whims and all that.

rb,

It's been a long time since I finished my formal education; do you mean to tell me that Islam ISN'T taught in the political science department? ARGH!

Islam would also be wonderful grist for the mill in any decent philosophy department. If you could find one--a decent one, that is. But if you COULD find one, Islam would be shredded to little, tiny, eensy, weensy bits.

I don't know much about political science departments, especially these PC days, but I do know a few philosopers, and I GUARANTEE that there is a "...different kind of understanding..." of Islam than the soft one we are accustomed to hearing about.

As a sort of related aside, many of today's schools below the college level have integrated history, geography, and civics into PC "social Studies." These courses should be taught separately, as they once were; the PC crowd just loves having these three important disciplines being combined this way. It makes being able to infuse them with their phoney doctrine so much easier, and makes the effect all but global.

Posted by: cubed at March 19, 2005 9:41 AM

On the other hand, the kid is right about "democracy" being based on "pluralism." In a democracy, unhindered by restraints such as our Constitution, the majority rules, no matter how idiotic the issue.

A "constitution" is what documents the relationship between an organization and its membership. In our case (U.S.) the primary function of the Constitution is to restrain the power of government vis a vis the individual. This kind of restraint is necessary to prevent, for example, the extermination of, for example, six or so million people just because 51% think it's a good idea.

That's why we have a representative republic and not a democracy here.

Posted by: cubed at March 19, 2005 9:54 AM

OT - Eurabia Live. In Paris on the 8th of March, 9000 school aged kids were demonstrating against proposed education reforms. They were attacked by 1000 'jeunes', (newspeak for young arab and black mobs) in a what has been described by the left wing french press as Anti-White hate crime. In a astonishing piece of footage you can witness an arab kid racing down the street clutching a knife. You can see this here http://le20heures.france2.fr/index.php3?jt=3
Select the news bulletin from the 15th of March and go to the 3 minutes 40 second mark to see this shocking footage in the streets of Paris. This video is only available for a few more days

This kind of news footage is extremely rare in France and one wonders if a watershed has been broken.

Even le Monde featured a cartoon which a few weeks ago would be considered extremely politcally incorrect. You can find this by scrolling to March 16th at this blog http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Sebastien at March 19, 2005 10:22 AM

I was not aware that Aslan meant Lion- I Was aware that Aslan was the name for Jesus, in the Chronicles of Narnia, by C.S. Lewis. And that makes me wonder if there was an arabic (not muslim, mind, just arabic or Middle-Eastern) influence to his writing...

I also used to believe the 'Three faiths' coming out of Abraham. That belief is long since gone. Anyone who studies history on their own has to come to the same conclusion, eventually.

Posted by: Gary at March 19, 2005 10:42 AM

The title is sufficient to the task:

"No god but God". So, basically, the persecution of those pesky Jews and the idolatrous three-god-worshipping man-cult Christianity can continue. Nice cover, Reza. Too bad only foolery fools fools.

And Allah knows evil.

Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at March 19, 2005 11:40 AM

This is a large spread in the Chronicle brim with questionable and blatantly false claims. The Chronicle should allow a scholarly response to this nonsense.

Posted by: JTF at March 19, 2005 12:12 PM

This man says:

It is true that Islam does not hold the same respect for polytheistic religions as it does for monotheistic ones

Yes, Islam regards Christianity as a polytheistic one as it believes in the Trinity.

It is extremely important that we should be aware of this fact about Islam.

In the 5th surah it says:

'Unbelievers are those that say: "God is one of three". There is but one God. If they do not desist from saying so, those of them that disbelieve shall be sternly punished.' (Koran: 5:73)

Remember the 5th surah was the last one to be 'revealed' so anything in this abrogates anything else in the koran that might contradict it.

Posted by: Elephant at March 19, 2005 12:15 PM

Gary,

You ask about CS Lewis' 'The Lion, the witch and the wardrobe'.

This story is about the crucifiction and the resurrection because Aslan the Lion gives himself up to the witch and her followers to be slain but then a few days later returns from the dead.

In the end of the story there is the 'Last Battle' where the forces of good triumph over the forces of evil.

Posted by: Elephant at March 19, 2005 12:21 PM

Only Pakistanis and Indonesians can work in
a pluralist Malaysia. The rest (non-muslims)
will be whipped.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1055866.cms

"Malaysia plans to recruit 100,000 male Pakistanis to relieve an acute labour shortage caused by a crackdown that sent hundreds of thousands of illegal workers fleeing, reports said Friday."

" The labour shortage follows an exodus during a three-month amnesty programme which ended on March 1 of nearly 400,000 illegal immigrants, mostly from Indonesia but also from the Philippines, Myanmar, Bangladesh, India and Sri Lanka.

A similar number are believed to remain in the country, but many are in hiding as the authorities are hunting them down, and dozens have been sentenced to prison terms and whipping.

The government had proposed that the Indonesians could return to work here legally once they have been processed in their own country, but has complained of delays in the system. "

Posted by: Naresh C. at March 19, 2005 12:55 PM

"From Islam, pluralist democracies will surely grow."
Yes... and the dish ran away with the spoon too.

The moral of the story here is NEVER LISTEN TO ANYTHING A MUSLIM SAYS!

Muslims have been disconnected from the workings of the universe and are brainwashed into being cogs on the wheels of a machine primed for murder and mayhem.

Let's just forget it.

Posted by: pythagoras at March 19, 2005 1:09 PM

Sebastien,
Thanks for the news clip. I watched the whole clip as I don't get to see a lot of French news casts and I was rewarded with a true gem of a story about Iranian Charlie's Angels or should I say Allah's Angels repelling down the side of a building in full Burqa. Absolutely halarious! The story begins about the 21:35 mark of the clip. Recommended for anyone wanting a chuckle for the day.

Posted by: William The Crusader at March 19, 2005 1:27 PM

The foundation of Islamic pluralism can be summed up in one indisputable verse: "There can be no compulsion in religion." [2:256]

Posted by: Hulegu Khan at March 19, 2005 2:24 PM

Whoever was the editor at Random House who thought this book would be just the ticket -- the thrusting young academic, a "good Muslim" eager for Reform, and fitting right in with the dreamy belief of some that

1) "democracy is on the march" in the Middle East

and

2) "democracy will necessarily bring with it all sorts of wonderful things so Infidels can sit back, relax, and not worry about the islamization of Europe and silly things like that.

There is no end to this.

Posted by: Hugh at March 19, 2005 3:05 PM

Elephant,

I disagree with your statement about sura 5 being the last one written. To my knowledge, the last four written were suras 5,8,9, and 47, with sura 9 being the last. This can be shown as each sura in the Qur'an, with exception of the 9th begin:

"In the name of Allah, most gracious, most merciful".

For some reason, this practice was dropped when Sura 9 was written, despite the fact it had been observed previously for all the other 113 Suras in the Qur'an (114 in total). Therefore in Islamic teachings, Sura 5 would not abrogate verses 9.5,9.29 etc, though would abrogate certain verses in the other Suras not noted above.

Secondly, Christians are considered people of the book in Islamic teachings, and therefore would not be treated as pagans which polytheistic religions such as Hinduism have been in the past. In fact Zoroastrians (magians) believe in the existence of more than one god, and they were still granted the status of "People of the Book" eventually. Therefore, the option of paying the Jizya tax will always in principle be applied to Christians due to Sura 9:29 (which is the opposite of what you seem to be suggesting by your reference to sura 5:73).

On this note, Osama Bin Laden received some criticism from several imans because he did not offer America the choice of paying the Jizya tax in willing submission before September 2001, which is seen as a Christian country by many in the Middle East. In his video release just before the American elections, Osama Bin Laden then gave America that choice to be in line with Sura 9:29, and thus mainstream Islamic docrine.

Regardless, Reza Aslan's argument that Pluralistic Democracy is compatible with Islam is ridiculous, which is evident by the fact that he unwittingly states this in his last paragraph shown above (as Mr Spencer observes).

Incidentally, I note that Sura 105 is titled "The Elephant". Is this just a coincidence?

Posted by: Amicus at March 19, 2005 3:20 PM

The topic of democracy is one that is particularly fraught with pitfalls when discussing it with Muslims. Through the magic of kitman a Muslim can honestly say that they support democracy, provided the discussion is narrowed to encompass only the electoral process for choosing leaders. The standard Muslim retort to the charge that Islam is incompatible with democracy is that the tribal shura mechanism is “democratic".

It is quite another matter however when the democratic process is used to legislate, as in the original Greek and Roman systems upon which modern democratic systems are modeled. It is the use of democracy to legislate that is anathema to Islam. In this regard, democracy is fundamentally incompatible with shariah.

Having elections for leaders by using popular democratic voting systems does not make a democracy. Even a truly clean democratic election may do nothing more than install a fascist despot. A democratic society is one in which sovereignty is vested in the people and in which self-rule is operationalized through democratic public choice mechanisms in matters of legislation, not just in choice of leadership.

Posted by: DrMack at March 19, 2005 5:27 PM

In this regard, democracy is fundamentally incompatible with shariah.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes... now when are these neo con, Bush loyalists going to get that message drilled into the head of their Commander in chief and his folk in DoD and State?

The template for this piece of obfuscation by Reza Azlan is the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights

Read it and weep, especially article ll "And there can be no subjugation except Allah almighty", aka dhimmitude for Kaffirs. Ignorants read that stuff without comprehension, as if they were deaf and a flock of geese flew over their heads.

As regards the Abrahamic religions. In Muslim ideology Abraham (and all the prophets, including "Adam" and Jesus) were Muslims, and that ideation cannot and will not be altered without renunciation of Islam.

In otherwords Muslims have appropriated monotheism, as their own. Christians and Jews are merely deceived and lying (kafir, the word means liar) Muslims.

In their ideology all are born naturally Muslim and the old religions have been superseded, by the perfect religion (then again as I recall I've heard the same thing from Christians, such as my So Baptist preacher uncle who said that there is no excuse, not even for Amazonian indians, not be saved by believing in Jesus, even though they never heard of Jesus). Muslims have the same ideology.

At this point, this genuine Kaffir, becomes a bystander, the war it seems depends on the ownership of Abraham, whom in my considered opinion and research was fictional (actually of Hindu origins, aBrahma, meaning son of Brahma, with the moon god (Saratai as wife).

I'm quite sure that this rehashed and recycled Cairo ideology or Azlan will warm the cockles of the hearts of "devout Christians" who believe that the only real threat and enemy are secularists, atheists, free thinkers, and somehow they can come to accomodation with the Muslims, even as dhimmi's, so long as they can exercise control over their congregations.

For an example of Dhimmi Christianity check out the Pope Kissing the Koran

And how about the boycotting of Israel by the Dominionists (Presbyterians).

I take note that Reza, Cairo, Islam, Christians and Orthodox Jews specifically excludes me and my ilk.

Posted by: Giaour at March 19, 2005 6:17 PM

'Normative', my fat ass. This is a telltale of someone with nothing to say - but, who is trying to mask the fact.

Posted by: Havoc at March 19, 2005 8:32 PM

A SIMPLE SOLUTION . . .

. . . that no one dared to voice, until now. How to stop the jihad:

"How could we free ourselves once and for all from the dangers of war waged against us by the savages? The answer is obvious. All we needed to do was to recognize the attack as jihad and jihad as an essential attribute of Islam. Then we would outlaw Islam in the United States, padlock every mosque, close every Islamic organization, deport every Muslim alien, intern every American Muslim, and only then, having taken care of our domestic enemies, turn our attention to the foreign ones."

--from Yashiko Sagamori's "Seven Pairs of Asses"
http://www.middleeastfacts.com/yashiko/7PairsOfAsses_eng.html
There is much more here, especially about bestowing democracy on savages. Read it, it'll be worth your while.

Posted by: unicorns62000 at March 19, 2005 8:58 PM

"It is pluralism, not secularism, that defines democracy. A democratic state can be established upon any normative moral framework as long as pluralism remains the source of its legitimacy."

Really? Is that what defines the liberal democracies in the modern world -- "pluralism" and not, rather, extreme solicitousness for the autonomy of the individual, the kind of solicitousness which can be found in the Bill of Rights.

One wonders if Reza Aslan has permitted himself to read another, more sober and piercing Reza, that is Reza Afshari, who has written intelligently on the incompatiblity of the Sharia with modern ideas of human rights, as expressed, for example, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. One wonders if he has given thought to "freedom of conscience" and why, when non-Muslims under Muslim rule, were permitted to stay alive and even to practice their religion, their numbers inevitably dwindled as individuals could no longer endure the various disablities, beginning with the jizyah but hardly ending there, that constituted that system of deliberate humiliation and degradation that we now know call, from the word "dhimmi" -- dhimmitude.

"Pluralism" is not enough because were the population to be parcelled out among various "beliefs" (and what happens to those who are resolutely without belief -- are they tolerated, or accepted as full equals, as well?), this would still not necessarily imply freedom of conscience. In other religions, apostasy is not now punished. In Islam, it can lead to a death sentence. And even the most seemingly up-to-date, tolerant, relaxed Muslims get extremely defensive when one raises this issue, as I discovered years ago when, among a group of advanced Kuwaitis, the kind who send their children to the American school and spend much of the year outside of Kuwait, a real chill and then a series of amazing lies, when I raised the issue of Mr. Qambar, the Kuwaiti apostate (he may have been forced to return to Islam), about whom a great deal was written 6 or 7 years ago.

Judging by this excerpt, the book is essentially transparently inane. This has not kept "Advance Praise From" (as the PR publishing machine puts it), inter alia, John Esposito, about whom the less said in polite company the better (except by James Schall or Habib Malik), by Noah Feldman (whose claim to temporary fame -- and lasting tenure -- is that of being the Yeshiva-Bokher-who-Practically-Wrote-the-Constitution-Of-the-New-Iraq), and by Tom Reiss, whose spent five years tracking down the identity of Kurban Said, or Lev Nissenbaum, the author of the well-known "Ali and Nino," which takes place in old Baku, with starcrossed Muslim boy and Christian girl, and his research may have given him a William-Dalrymplish delight in the mysteries of the Muslim-East-and-its-encounters-with-the-West that is not the same thing as taking the trouble, through late lucubrations, of being versed in the theory and practice of Islam. NOte that not a single serious scholar of Islam has praised the book -- nor will one.

Posted by: Hugh at March 19, 2005 9:03 PM

What Reza Aslan really should, and probably obliquely meant, to evoke by the title of his book is not "No god but God" but "No god but Allah."

No god but God, has at best an ambiguous sense. I mean, whose god is the lower case initial letter "god" as contrasted with the capital "G" "God?"

Ah, but when we say "No god but Allah," we know from whence this Reza Aslan doctoral candidate fellow is coming.

Posted by: unicorns62000 at March 19, 2005 9:06 PM

"Israel is founded upon an exclusivist Jewish moral framework that recognizes all the world's Jews -- regardless of their nationality -- as citizens of the state. England continues to maintain a national church whose religious head is also the country's sovereign. India was, until recently, governed by partisans of the elitist theology of Hindu Awakening (Hindutva), bent on applying their implausible but enormously successful vision of "true Hinduism" to the state. And yet, like the United States, those countries are all considered democracies, not because they are secular but because they are, at least in theory, dedicated to pluralism."

Tu-Quoque:

Israel has an "exclusivist Jewish moral framework" -- a strange way to describe the policy of offering citizenship to Jews,for what is Israel but essentially a liferaft for those caught in a rising and murderous tide of antisemitism, now in Germany, now in Russia, now somewhere else. Are non-Jews oppressed in Israel? Have the Israelis done to the Muslim (or Christian) holy sites what the Muslims did to Jewish sites between 1948 and 1967, or to Jewish and Christian sites all over the MIddle East for more than 1300 years, by taking them over (see the "Umayyad Mosque" in Damascus, for a start) or destroying them (see the ruins, if you can, of the original Church of the HOly Sepulchre, or the thousands of Assyrian, Coptic, Maronite, Chaldean churches destroyed or not allowed to be rebuilt as they crumbled into ruin, all over the Middle East and North Africa).

England "continues to maintain a national church" -- why shouldn't Anglicanism be the recognized religion of England, as a matter of history? Are non-Anglicans oppressed in England these days? As
? when in fact it offers nationality to the world's Jews because it is a liferaft for them in a rising tide of antisemitism, and what's wrong with that?

India "was, until recently, governed by partisans of the elitist theology of Hindu Awakening (Hindutva), bent on applying their implausible but enormously successful vision of 'true Hinduism' to the state." What nonsense. India has been a secularist state, a state where in fact it is far easier to promote religions other than Hinduism, since its inception. It was this fact, and above all the menace of Islam, which had devastated India not once but in two invasions, and during the 250-odd years of Muslim rule, between 60-70 million HIndus were killed, others forcibly converted, and tens of thousands of Hindu (and Buddhist) temples destroyed. Azlan simply has not read, or does not understand, the legal system in present-day India.

But then, having set up these entirely false demons -- Israel, England, India -- Aslan ends on this deceptive note: "And yet, like the United States, those countries are all considered democracies, not because they are secular but because they are, at least in theory, dedicated to pluralism."

He would like us to believe that the American system is precisely like that of Israel, England, and India. But it isn't. And it isn't because those countries do have an Established Church, that is -- they are not completely neutral, and we would not expect them to be, nor would we expect Italy not to favor, in some way, Catholicicm.

The American polity, however, has an Establishment Clause in the First Amendment, which does not allow the government to favor one religion over another. Part of Aslan's strategy is to make Americans for get this, so that they will then assume, somehow, that "pluralism" should be enough (but it really isn't, for Americans, and indeed in all of the countries he offers as Tu-Quoque examples, the amount of "establishment" of Judaism, Anglicanism, and Hinduism, respectivley, is nothing compared to the all-encompassing and dominate and usually overwhelming role of Islam in any country where Muslims prevail. His analogies are false, his rhetorical strategies transparent.

Posted by: Hugh at March 19, 2005 9:22 PM

Amicus posted "Secondly, Christians are considered people of the book in Islamic teachings, and therefore would not be treated as pagans which polytheistic religions such as Hinduism have been in the past. In fact Zoroastrians (magians) believe in the existence of more than one god, and they were still granted the status of "People of the Book" eventually."

That was darn generous of the muslims.

Posted by: Sheik Canuck (swt) at March 19, 2005 9:35 PM

Just coming up from my immersion in "The Myth of Islamic Tolerance, How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims" Robert Spencer's edition of essays .. the book is absolutely riveting. Great job Mr. Spencer!

Posted by: Daisytoo at March 19, 2005 9:47 PM

"..there are few scriptures in the great religions of the world that can match the reverence with which the Quran speaks of other religious traditions.'

There are several things about this statement that are worth noting. The first is that there is no reverence -- none -- in the Qur'an about how other "religious traditions" -- whatever that may mean -- are spoken about. None. Not a single passage. And then, of course, there are the Hadith and the Sira -- one hopes that in his longer work (of which this is, I assume, an excerpt) Reza Aslan, born in Iran, raised in easygoing America far from the Islamic Republic of Iran (had he had the misfortune to have been raised in the Islamic Republic of Iran, one suspets he would not be writing the nonsense he has written). For the Qur'an, the only "religious tradition" is that of Islam; Judaism and Christianity are not part of another "religious tradition" but are simply wrongly-received (by their benighted followers) versions of the one and only true belief -- Islam itself. Judaism and Christianity are not even permitted to be rendered with any accuracy: the Muslim Jesus is far from the Christan Jesus, and Judaism is also a parody of itself in the incondite hodge-podge of the Qur'an.

But the second thing to note is the absurdity of his claim that "few scriptures in the great religions of the world that can match the reverence with which the Qur'an speaks of other religions traditions." Well, how could Judaism speak of "other religious traditions"? Its sacred books certainly could not contain any commentary on Christiantiy or Islam -- can Reza Aslan guess why? And Christianity could not show "reverence for other religous traditions" except Judaism, and there, like IBM wishing to seize market share from Apple, of course some of the early Christians (who were all Jews) had to say something not quite nice about Judaism or those who followed it -- after all, would IBM go around and say how wonderful Apple was, in order to take away its customers? Yet, is it not true that there has always been a recognition of a connection between Old and New Testaments, between Judaism and Christianity, even if some Christians have not exactly demonstrated in their behavior an awareness of this, or have allowed that quest-for-market-share that helps explain some parts of the Gospel of John, or the use to which the description of Christ's death was allowed to meteastatize first from anti-Judaism into antisemitism, and then from antisemitism into the fullblown pathological mass-murder within living memory, which should have, but did not, have made the slightest exhibition of antisemitism into something that would be met with the fiercest condemnation, ostracism, and punishment.

And how, conceivably, could the sacred texts of such ancient religions as Buddhism and Hinduism, long predating any of the monotheistic ones, and conceived in distant India, conceivably have made any mention at all, much less shown that "reverse" for other "religious traditions" that Rexa Aslan blandly claims as characteristic of Islam.

He really has to think a little bit more about how when B comes after A, we should not fault A for failing to mention B. It is called chronology. Learned historians know all about it. And so do schoolchildren.

But not Reza Aslan.

Posted by: Hugh at March 19, 2005 10:37 PM

"Hinduvta" is better translated as: "Hinduness."

American Hindutva supporters are anti-jihadis, and are light years ahead of Muslims in social integration in America. They are also pro-Israel, and have adopted "dual patriotism" to define their relationship with their home country and America. The Bush administration is hostile to Hinduism, because of the President's delusionary belief that Judaism-Christianity-Islam are familial faiths, integrated by nominal "Abrahamic" origins.

http://p081.ezboard.com/fhinduunityhinduismhottopics.showMessageRange?topicID=23098.topic&start=41&stop=59

Posted by: smokem at March 20, 2005 12:48 AM

The vital difference is in "Constitutions", not a tenuous word like "democracy".

The 'constitution' of Islam is their "Koran" (and hadiths) and is implemented by "Shariah Law".

The 'constitution' of the U.S. is that literal document, and its amendments, as well as the core Bill of Rights.

Plainly stated:

Religious Dogma v.s. Secular Law..

Islam tolerates only what it tolerates (believers in Islam, or 'peoples of The Book' who are cowardly enough to surrender to this mental tyranny), nothing more.

Polytheists, atheistics, pagans, agnostics, skeptics, stoics, manicheans, gnostics, druids, wiccans, confucians, shintoists, buddhists, taoists, string theorists, etc. will need to be killed off. (That's about 3 billion people, roughly.)

The 'Bill of Rights', meanwhile, declares that ALL thought is tolerated. Religious, ir-religious, agnostic, atheistic or indifferent. As long as you do not endanger others through public disruption.

"Democracy", in the Muslim author's usage, is a rank red herring.

The 'Rights of Man (and Woman)' are the real point.

Whether the U.N.'s (ineffectual) "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" or their root in the American Revolution's timeless documents.

Islam's "Rights" are wrong.

a) Women are only half human.

b) Slavery is still permissible.

c) Lying is a divinely-sanctioned tactic against unbelievers.

d) World domination and intolerance are the goal.

The professor can take his Koran and shove it.

(A sentiment that will be not allowable under The Coming Shariah World Court, so say it now.)

And also say:

Mohammad was a pedophile and his cult is for those of such an uncritical level of intellect that they would be incapable of thinking their way out of a wet paper falafel bag.

They can 'scholasticize' pseudo-philosophically with the best of them, but just can't reason. Since working from 'faith' precludes that possiblilty, except tactically.

Whether I myself believe that three-headed telepathic chickens roosting beneath the surface of Pluto rule the Universe, or that humans are just not smart enough protoplasm to decide such ineffable epistemological questions, I will not try to force my [unprovable] beliefs on anyone else.

Or kill those who think that it is 'turtles' and not 'chickens'. (Or a bearded guy [Yaweh] and not a thousand-breasted woman (Astarte}.)

That is the difference between the truly decent and thoughtful human and the deviously despotic dogmatist -like the promoters of Islamic "democracy".

One laughs, the other lies.

Posted by: BigSleep at March 20, 2005 12:57 AM

No.

One laughs; the other lies, then abjures, then imprisons - then slays, for 'obstinacy'.

Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at March 20, 2005 1:25 AM

We have seen the tolerance of Muslims in Kashmir, the only state they are majority. The Hindus were driven out of their homes.
No one in India believes that Islam and pluralism can be made use of in a single sentence and still make sense:-)

Posted by: Seculartalk at March 20, 2005 2:03 AM

"Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparat bellum"

Therefore, whoever wishes for peace, let him prepare for war.
????????????????

Posted by: chuck H. at March 20, 2005 8:11 AM

Geoff-

Of course.

I thought that the other consequences would be clear.

A cult built on a cosmic deception will do anything. Even annihilate the entire planet if it becomes technologically possible, and some demented mullah eventually finds a Koranic verse to excuse and decree it.

They have no respect or love for this life or this world, making them as deadly, deluded and dangerous as the Om Shinriki Japanese SARIN nerve gas murderers.

People drunk on Paradise will kill anything that stands in their way.

Even everybody.

Posted by: BigSleep at March 20, 2005 4:45 PM

i have been reading your comments with a mixture of disbelief, amusement and pity, why?

because its clear to me, as a muslim woman living in england, that you actually have no idea what Islam is about, how muslims feel and behave or what you are talking about half the time. seriously do you have nothing better to do than sit around reading articles which only portray the views of individuals and not the muslim faith as a whole, and then talking about how 'evil' islam is.

it is people like you who belive lies
such as'women are only half human is Islam' that the world should be worried about.as a muslim woman, i can honestly say this is not true in any way. if you believe s*** like this you really need to get educated.

seriously do yourselves a favour meet normal muslims (not extremists, which can be found every religion, something that often goes unmentioned) realise how biased, unfounded and ignorant your beliefs are AND GET OVER IT. people have a right to believe in whatever they wish, so let them and stop wasting time moaning about.

Posted by: me at March 20, 2005 9:24 PM

But many of us have met "normal" Muslims, have endured their taqiyya-and-tu-quoque, and have been amazed by their refusal to admit to the contents of Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, when those contents are available to anyone, on-line, and Infidels are no longer willing to accept the army of apologists, many sinister, others embarrassed, others simply prompted by filial piety, to deny the tenets of Islam, and certainly to deny the historic treatment of non-Muslims under Muslim rule. (Not to speak of how, in Islam, artistic expressis is severely limited, and free and skeptical inquiry simply impermissible, with the constant emphasis not on the autonomy of the individual but on the collective the umma, and on submission to the will of a whimsical Allah who has no rules, or natural laws, by which the univese is regulated (which is why science in Islam died soon after the Christian and Jewish populations had become insignificant, the even the free-thinkers such as ar-Razi faced a distinctly hostile environment.

Furthermore, the best sources for truth-telling about Islam are not Muslims, but rather ex-Muslism, people who were born into it, who had a chance to think for themselves (possibly becuase they lived in the West), and have proved to be acute analysts of the ideology of Islam, and of the psychology of Muslims held in mental thrall to its system. Few websites are more informative than those of Ibn Warraq (www.secularislam.org) or of Ali Sina (www.faithfreedom.org). One might begin with Ibn Warraq's "Why I Am Not a Muslim" or his essay on the similarities between Islam and Fascism, which has been posted at the website of ISIS (which may still be temporarily down) and elsewhere.

"people have a right to believe whatever they wish"-- well, how true. And many Infidels have come to believe that in its inculcated hatred of all non-Muslims, a feature of Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, they have a perfect right to consider Islam a permanent menace to themselves, whether they are Christians or Jews or HIndus or Buddhists or Sikhs or Zoroastrians or Confucians or agnostics or atheists. Do they not have the right to inform themselves as to what is in the canonical texts, and what is said in the khutbas, and what forms the general atmospherics of Muslim life? Are we all to overlook this? For how long? And why, exactly?

Posted by: Hugh at March 20, 2005 10:07 PM

Hugh - right on! "People have the right to believe whatever they wish," but they don't have the right to impose their beliefs on others. Invitation to belief at the point of a gun or the fear of violence is not true conversion, and as Hugh has so correctly said:

those that have "had the chance to think for themselves, and have proved to be acute analysts of the ideology of Islam, and the psychology of Muslims,

realize that most Muslims are held in thrall to that ideology through a system in which Muslims must spend an inordinate amount of their time trying to determine what is and isn't Muslim, how to carryout inane and time-consuming rituals, and running back to the imam every five minutes for an opinion or a fatwah on this or that.

Democracies give people an opportunity to vote, they don't bring freedom. Freedom is brought about by individual thought and action, not by group think.

Posted by: epg at March 20, 2005 10:45 PM

Dear 'Me',

I'm sorry you're having a hard time with this site. I can understand your disbelief and pity: I feel the same thing every time I read a post about some new horror of sharia law (and the inevitable victims), or about some bizarrely deliberate misinterpretation of Christian theology. Though not a Christian myself, I've seen well-founded and essentially unassailable logical construction that I accept as clear truth (evolution) attacked by muslims with the same sort of cognitive dissonance and I can say it galls exceptionally.

"seriously do yourselves a favour meet normal muslims (not extremists, which can be found every religion, something that often goes unmentioned) realise how biased, unfounded and ignorant your beliefs are AND GET OVER IT. people have a right to believe in whatever they wish, so let them and stop wasting time moaning about"

Quite so. But it's abundantly clear that, as a recent ex-pat and someone who's met and debated any number of moderate muslims, that the contents of this site reflect how a great proportion of muslims really do feel, which is distressing and horrifying. I had one Shiite (I believe) fellow actually prompt me once: "But, really, you must agree with me that the Jews follow corrupt ways. They bring it on themselves." I responded unequivocally in the negative and broke association with him thereafter. (He was later fired from the department on unassociated issues.)

How is one to gain any understanding of islam without speaking to its believers? Reading the religious texts of islam, unfortunately, do not generate much sympathy: "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them", "take not the unbelievers (Christians and Jews, let alone polytheists) for friends" and so forth. All of Sura 9 and parts of 5 (which, I believe is the last Sura to be revealed and therefore abrogates or 'trumps' the rest) talk about nothing but the punishment, persecution and forced conversion of non-believers. It's hard to see how a 'certain' understanding would generate other interpretation; certainly the followers seem to be no help in this. People do certainly have a right to believe as they wish - and I would add, insofar as it corresponds to reality. The negative cast towards islam on this site, unfortunately, fails neither comparison. Hugh is utterly right in this; people have the right to inform themselves about the hostility that the Quran and the Hadiths generate in islam. What possible reason would there be for the - ahem - 'nonbelievers' - to ignore this? This wouldn't be terribly wise, in my view.

On the other hand, I'm quite amenable to the peaceful intent of some muslims - in fact, I encourage it regularly. I would exhort you to do the same; renounce the jihadic passages openly and really commit your personal faith to peace. Accept that your interpretation of this Abrahamic deity is not necessarily the correct one - actually, there seems to be precious little evidence of any kind for him - and that people have the right to believe as they like, including the so-called "polytheism" of Christianity (whose incorporated Trinity is an actually very simple concept in its conception and not at all the dreadfully difficult notion that people make it out to be...anyway, I digress). I actually heard one muslim fellow imply that the Christian Jesus was ejected from Mary's body via the rectum at one point. Realizing his gross religious insult to Christians (somewhat to his credit, I suppose), he later amended it (and how, only this God would know) to mean that he was disgusted that Jesus could have come out the 'back end' as opposed to the 'front end', which he took to mean whether Mary was on her back or her hands and knees for the delivery, as if that made some kind of sense somehow, or was related to something, or had some kind of theological value, somewhere, in some way, somehow. In any event, he was or seemed to be against it as being insulting to God.

I confess, I lost him at that point completely.

Lunatic perhaps, but I failed to see anyone on that site contradict him about anything - in fact, they represented nothing so much as a gaggle of cheerleaders.

"it is people like you who belive lies
such as'women are only half human is Islam' that the world should be worried about.as a muslim woman, i can honestly say this is not true in any way."

I regret to say, but that this is a key and true interpretation of Q 4:11 among other traditions. If it's not so, then why is it in the Quran? I certainly don't believe it, but the fact of the matter (demonstrated aptly from the islamic reaction to a female muslim professor attempting to lead prayer) is that the islamic world is hugely opposed to it. It's clear that it's not mere words to the muslim faithful. I would recommend you read the Quran as a best source to understanding the precepts of your religion; regrettably, it will have a few shocking eye-openers for you. Consider well.

By the by, my three degrees in molecular biology and personal funding history suggest that I'm fairly well educated, so I'm afraid I can't say who your 'educational' comment is directed at. But never mind.

Salaam,

Geoff

PS: Well put, Hugh.

Posted by: Geoff at March 20, 2005 10:45 PM

A note to 'Me'--

You have written that "people have a right to believe in whatever they wish". You think so? Your local imam more than likely does NOT...

If you do believe what you have written, then you are hiding from reality. Islam singles out, attacks and punishes people for doing exactly what you say they have a right to do. Persons who do not happen to believe in the teachings of Islam (even when it's 'whatever they wish') through the ages have been subjected to unimaginable and innumerable horrors and ultimately mass executions. Look at the fate of non-Islamic people throughout the Middle East: the Jews, the gypsies of Iraq, the Assyrians, the Druze, the Maronite Christians of Lebanon. Every non-Islamic ethnicity Islam comes into contact with is sooner or later brutally attacked by Islam--- without exception. So much for "everyone has a right to believe in whatever they wish." Islam certainly doesn't agree with your view.

How could you make such a statement and NOT know this? Especially when you yourself are a Muslim.

My dear-- No one cares what Islam is "about." And why should they when it advocates violence against and massacring for purely ideological reasons? More to the point--

Islam is 'evil' (your word) for a reason you have been brainwashed into avoiding: There is no physical evidence to confirm ANYTHING taught by Islam; and, yet in spite of this, Islam continues to exact unlimited violence and killing upon those who do not abide by its teachings DESPITE the fact that without proof, Islam's violence and aggression are groundless, unjustified and ultimately anti-moral and disrespectful of human life.

Posted by: pythagoras at March 21, 2005 2:02 PM