Let's see if this gets the same level of air time from the MSM the anti cartoon protests did.

Posted by: Ronin at March 3, 2006 3:07 PM

Hooray for freedom loving patriots, Atlas (Pamela)in particular.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at March 3, 2006 3:29 PM

Wow. Lisa Vincent (Stephen Vincent's widow) came out for this. Who better to take up the cause against Islamic intimidation?

Ronin:

MSM coverage will depend on the size of the turnout because it's a safe bet that the pro-freedom of speech demonstrators won't burn any embassies or carry signs threatening beheadings. It will also depend on whether there is a substantial wave of demonstrations. I understand from KesherTalk blogsite that other demos are planned for Chicago (March 14), Toronto, London (UK, not Canada). There's a blogsite that is trying to coordinate this. The "host" uses the nom de plume of Voltaire. Could be one of JW's regular bloggers, but not necessarily.

here's the e-mail address: 'marchforfreespeech@googlemail.com' Google on marchforfreespeech and I expect you'll find the blogsite itself.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at March 3, 2006 3:36 PM

MSM coverage does not always depend on the size of the turnout, but on the news the MSM wants to create. Witness the near fanatical coverage of Cindy Sheehan and her entourage of no more than 12-15 people. Typically, the the number of MSM employees covering her events outnumbered the actual size of the event.

Posted by: Lisa at March 3, 2006 3:44 PM

Wish I were there to show my support for the Danes. But I'm glad that my fellow patriots were there to give aid the Danish economy. I'm going to grocery shop today and I will be supporting the Danes with my finacial contribution.
God Bless Denmark and deliver her from the Islamic enemy.

Posted by: Ironman Hondo at March 3, 2006 3:56 PM

I bought some Danish hams and some Tuborg Beer lst night while grocery shopping. I'm 100% behind/in front of the Danes (in front because it takes violent men to keep people safe in their beds at night).

Posted by: CelticCoyote at March 3, 2006 4:08 PM

MSM coverage does not always depend on the size of the turnout, but on the news the MSM wants to create. from Lisaq

The corruption of the Fifth Estate, to create news rather than report it.

Care to wager how many reporters asked for the assignment to cover this story?
They know this type of story can not possibly help, and may even hurt their career in journalism.

Posted by: beav at March 3, 2006 4:11 PM

waterdragon52, I found the site thanks for the tip. I'm not sure I can take off to attend but I can place a few ads to let folks know where and when it will be. I think it is an excellent way to show support. I'd like to see more bumper stickers and the like but some nut job would just start trashing vehicles. I'm not really expecting much from the MSM but there are other media outlets. It might interest the MSM more if a few bikers and the some of the punk music crowd and the like show up. Trust me folks they might look scary but they are patriots and can behave themselves in public. Besides, it makes for more colorful pictures. We are a diversified nation. Just off the top of my head I can think of many groups with reasons to be concerned about the rise of radical islam. Time to make a few phone calls. I’m now am a man with a mission.

Posted by: Ronin at March 3, 2006 4:26 PM

Last week Fox TV covered the rally organized by Chris Hitchens.

Any JW'ers able to attend today? Was there any media representation? I'm curious.

Posted by: kafira at March 3, 2006 4:27 PM

Ronin: "Just off the top of my head I can think of many groups with reasons to be concerned about the rise of radical islam."

women (there's 50% of the world right there), gays, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, Sikhs, Rostafarians, Muslim apostates, writers, artists, musicians, scientists, teachers, historians, dog lovers, animal rights activists, pig farmers, vineyard owners, bartenders, hairdressers, fashion designers....who am I leaving out here? The real question is, who DOESN'T have a reason to be concerned about the rise of radical Islam, other than Muslim males with absolutely no artistic, intellectual, or any other skills to offer the world?

Posted by: Caroline at March 3, 2006 5:18 PM

What a great rally it was, of course El Cid remained incognito but still enjoyed being around such brave people. He is enjoying Carlsberg beer right now, bought every case at his local C-town for many weeks now.

God Bless you all this year will be the critical year for the Ant-dihimmi of the world.

Posted by: El Cid at March 3, 2006 5:38 PM

Lies in Muslim Media

Here's a quote from an article in a Chechen oline newspaper:

"Blair's declaration that acts of terrorism will never influence British government policy is a clear sign that the attacks were staged for influencing public opinion in favor of not only continuing the bloodbath of innocents abroad but also to consolidate tyranny at home without much resistance."

Its from the following article:

http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2005/07/12/3940.shtml

Notice how the article turns the terrorists into victims. Its a typical strategy used by Muslim fundamentalists. Turn a lie into the truth.

Posted by: barry at March 3, 2006 6:09 PM

Wish I could have been there.

Posted by: sceptico at March 3, 2006 6:24 PM

So, I'm a Muslim female and I'd actually like to show up for one of these rallies. The right to the freedom of speech protects the danish cartoons just as much as it protects my right to speak out (yes, using my brain as opposed to mindless threats) about why I might find them offensive.

My question is, are you guys to beat me up for coming in my hijab? You'd definitely get more media coverage for doing so.

Posted by: jehana at March 3, 2006 6:34 PM

Hi Jehana I am not into that kink but I am willing to accomodate.

Posted by: pissedoffcanadian at March 3, 2006 6:40 PM

To read about what is happening in France, here is a new blog in English:

http://hexagonews.blogspot.com/

Americans, get informed about what is happening in the most Muslim-populated country in Europe = France. It might help you avoid the same in the US.

God bless you all.

Posted by: joiesauvage at March 3, 2006 6:41 PM

jehana: "My question is, are you guys to beat me up for coming in my hijab?"

When was the last time you recall any infidel westerner beating up or raping a Muslim woman in her hijab? When have you encountered any infidel westerner protesting your right to speak out?

You haven't. So what the hell is your point? Why don't you focus your attention on the massive display of violence in response to the cartoons and the cartoonists themselves by your co-religionists? Why aren't you off at some Muslim site explaining to your co-religionsists how wrong it was to send 12 Muslim males to harass and threaten (and possibly rape) a little infidel girl? Why don't you spend your spare time posting at Muslim sites trying to improve the human rights of women living under Islam?

And don't think for even one second about peddling some shit here about how Islam protects the rights of women and how Islam has been the greatest thing for women since swiss cheese. Cause it's a lie and you know it. In short, take your taqiyyah and tu-qogue bullshit and peddle it somewhere else. Cause we ain't buying it here.

Posted by: Caroline at March 3, 2006 6:48 PM

There's a lightweight, blog-friendly alternative to reposting the mad mo pictures! A mad mo 'smiley'! It works well in many fonts, yet is ambiguous enough to make any complaints by our jihadi brethren likely to attract ridicule. The most fun you can have with 8 bytes!

Hat tip: I can't remember where I first saw this, and I can't search for it as it seems most search engines don't do symbols, but I think it might have been LGF.

Voila his Mo-ness:

*-O(:~{>

Posted by: areader at March 3, 2006 6:49 PM

jehana,

beating people up is the kind of press coverage of interest only your co-religionists, not us.

I do earnestly solicit your opinion of the Sistine Chapel.

Posted by: Lisa at March 3, 2006 6:52 PM

TO ALL SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RESIDENTS

Rally to Support Denmark and Free Speech

Danish Consulate
1 California Street
The City

Friday 10 March 2006
12:00-13:00

For those not familiar with the area, the addres is where California, Market and Drumm Streets converge and there is a public plaza across Drumm from the consulate. The Hyatt Regency Hotel fronts this plaza and the terminus of the California Street Cable Car is also there for all you JW tourist who want to attend.

Posted by: Lisa at March 3, 2006 7:13 PM

joiesauvage

It is starting to happen here already, with CAIR and the ACLU. Too many lawyers with nothing better to do. France's problem is that they let them all in. We need to stop all imigration from middle eastern countries unless we want to go down that same road.

Posted by: McSeamus at March 3, 2006 7:15 PM

caroline:

what makes you think i don't speak out about such injustices to other muslims?

nor did i offer you any curses, or insults, or try to peddle anything to you. As for as I can see, this is a site that welcomes free speech, where all of our opinions are part of an ongoing debate.

I just know that I often receive verbal abuse from both leftists and rightists when I go to protests in my hijab. Are you guys really so touchy? I was speaking with a little bit of tongue in cheek, it may not have come off that way over the internet.

Posted by: jehana at March 3, 2006 7:38 PM

jehana

"Beat you up..."

Why not? What's wrong with that? I thought Islam prescribes beating of unruly females by males. You should have been accustomed and resigned to the idea by now. Or is that pleasure allowed only to the circumcized?

Posted by: ovidius_naso at March 3, 2006 7:45 PM

caroline:

i have no opinion on the sistine chapel, as i have never seen it.

in terms of getting these protests on the news, it would probably be helpful to have women in hijab attending in support of free speech, because reporters would see that as an unusual event.

Posted by: jehana at March 3, 2006 7:46 PM

ovidius,

i cannot claim to ever have been beaten in my life, or circumcised. I have been born and raised in America, where we only commit the second atrocity towards baby boys in the name of "hygiene".

Posted by: jehana at March 3, 2006 7:51 PM

joiesauvage

Thanks for the link. france-echos is a great French site, and so is occidentalis.com, which seems to be less known. Their web site is poorly designed, too crowded, and the postings used to be mere venting off and on the irrational side..
However, they are improving. Their coverage of the Ilan tragedy, especially of the "manif," has been superb.
I'm at home, at my old, very slow and erratic laptop, so I can't provide the link to occidentalis, but I'm sure you guys can find your way on the web.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at March 3, 2006 8:05 PM

OOps. I meant to say "france-echos is another great French site."
Thanks.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at March 3, 2006 8:15 PM

Jehana, Muslims speaking out for free speech and secular government is exactly what is needed.

Posted by: Lilith at March 3, 2006 8:17 PM

My question is, are you guys to beat me up for coming in my hijab? You'd definitely get more media coverage for doing so.
Posted by: jehana
---------------

Jehana,

America is not Islam or any of the Muslim countries so you are safe in America where as a non-Muslim woman would be at risk of rape and torture from your fellow Muslim males if she was in a Muslim country.

This is the difference between America and Islam.

Islam is at war with all infidels, but America and the civilized nations are not yet at war with Islam and when the war starts with Islam, all Muslims will be enemies and treated as such.

The war with Islam is inevitable.

Prepare be armed be ready.

The Texican.

Freedom, the only choice.

Posted by: Texican at March 3, 2006 8:44 PM

jehana: "what makes you think i don't speak out about such injustices to other muslims?"

Cause if you did, in any serious way, you simply wouldn't even find the time post here. There's simply too much hard work to do there (addressing the issue of women's rights in Islam) for you to make the time lecturing us infidels about the "nonexistent but potential abuses directed towards women in hijab by infidel men" to even remotely take you seriously. And so I don't.

"I was speaking with a little bit of tongue in cheek, it may not have come off that way over the internet."

Hey, what's a little taqiyyah and even lying between friends, eh? What is real and what is not once all trust between human beings has basically been destroyed by the "final prophet of God's word" endorsing LYING for the sake of spreading Islam? Muhammad, by endorsing lying as "ethical", effectively destroyed any basis of trust between Muslims and non-Muslims. I realize that to a Muslim, there is no distinction between lying and truth-telling. To a Muslim, the only basis for what is ethical or what is not is what advances the spread of Islam. So to me, there is no meaning to you claiming to speak "tongue in cheek". Everything Muslims say is "tongue in cheek" as far as I am concerned.

Posted by: Caroline at March 3, 2006 8:56 PM

A society in which there is the free and open exchange of ideas and opinions (however offensive to anyone's feelings), where only those who incite to violence are arrested, prosecuted, and given long prison terms, is a tolerant society. No one should be faced with threats of violence because they mock a belief system in cartoons, not in Denmark, not anywhere.

Posted by: Frank at March 3, 2006 8:59 PM

"Jehana, Muslims speaking out for free speech and secular government is exactly what is needed."

I don't know what is more embarassing in this post...

1. The fact that Lilith does not realize that wearing the hijab proudly/willfuly in America and standing for free speech are mutually exclusive?

2. The fact that Lilith doesn't know you can't call yourself a Muslim in any Islamic sense of the word and at the same time clamor for "free speech"?

3. The fact that a self-declared, hijab-wearing Muslimah in America advocates a secular government?? How stupid can you be?

Posted by: ovidius_naso at March 3, 2006 9:00 PM

Carolina, I live in the US. If "The war with Islam is inevitable" as some posters here proclaim, I have a lot more to worry about from people such as texican, simply because they live closer to my home.

As an American Muslim, it's in my best interest to work against such a conflict, and I can't do that without having a good understanding of all the parties that support it.

anyhow, you've made your stance and biases clear, which is helpful for me in my learning process. thanks :)

Posted by: jehana at March 3, 2006 9:33 PM

Jehana, our hope is you will change on your own, you can also just leave. You don't have to fear us, we wish no one any harm. We also have no chance of ever living under islamic rule. You are welcome to stay once you give up plans to dominate and not be dominated. Until then, support freedom of speech, if islam is not evil then you need not fear. If it is, your in a bad place with bad things around you. I am not convinced anything about islam is ok but so far my only reason for thinking so is 1400 years of your history. I do wonder if a muslim woman could even discuss this with us males in a muslim country. I tend to think not and if I am right, I encourage you to stay and chat.

Posted by: Ronin at March 3, 2006 10:02 PM

jehana:

Why did Allah send down a revelation to Muhammad allowing him to marry more than 4 wives?

Why did Allah send down a revelation to Muhammad allowing him to marry his daughter-in-law?

Why did Allah send down a revelation that Muhammad was to personally receive one-fifth of any booty captured in razzias or battles?

Why did Allah send down a revelation to tell Muhammad's wives that, "If he divorces you, perhaps his Lord will give him instead better wives than yourselves." (Qur'an, 66). Why would Allah, the Omnipotent, Omniscient Master of the Universe, concern himself with Muhammad's love affairs? Don't you think Allah has better things to do? And why would Allah deal with Muhammad's love affairs in a book that was meant to be for all people and all time? For an omnipotent, omniscient God, Allah seems to be awfully concerned with what happened to Muhammad personally. Why might that be? Oh, well, Allah knows best.

Posted by: Mentat at March 3, 2006 10:12 PM

Mentat you do have to admit old mo had a good thing going for himself. I just wish it had ended with him.

Posted by: Ronin at March 3, 2006 10:17 PM

jehana:
Talk to me about Damour, then maybe, just maybe we could rest easy with your speaking out at a gathering in support of Denmark.

Posted by: DeadRecknoning at March 3, 2006 10:53 PM

I would like to attend the one in Chicago,on March 14 but i don`tr know the location of the event.
Anyone has any information about it??

Posted by: adela at March 3, 2006 11:15 PM

Ronin:

So far I've been able to say what I want both here and in what few Islamic countries I've been to (yes, even with very traditional Muslim men), and I'm happy about that. And, so sorry, but I have every intention to use my mouth and mind to dominate and not be dominated, both here and with Muslim men. I'm a bossy lady, my family probably encouraged me too much to get an education and make my mark on the world. ;)

as for being evil, were Nisei evil during WWII? Is that why they had to leave their jobs, face property destruction, and move to internment camps? as Mr. Texican said: "when the war starts with Islam, all Muslims will be enemies and treated as such".

Declaring war gives our Commander in Chief special powers, including the power to tread on questionable ground in terms of following the Constitution. And apparently some "muslims" think that declaring jihad gives them special powers to attack my homeland and be exempt from going straight to H***.

In either case, I have a lot more to lose then any of you.

Posted by: jehana at March 3, 2006 11:42 PM

joiesauvage, thank you for the info, as an American I care what is happening in France because we fight the same enemy.

I have recommended to my friends to buy French pork products which are delicious and French wine. Why? because it is in rural France that the greatest resistance to the Islamic invasion is taking place. If we buy these products then we help the New French Resistance.

joiesauvage, keep up the fight, all is not lost we must take it one day at a time.

joiesauvage, is the news about Le Penn, I read in The New York Sun that he is now seeking support of the Islamist and that a serious split by many who voted for him in the past is taking place and that a new leader is taking up the struggle for the real France.

Posted by: El Cid at March 4, 2006 12:00 AM

ATTENTION!

If you are in the Chicagoland area, and would like to participate in a March 20 rally for free speech, please send a response to chicago4freespeech@hotmail.com. I can't promise anything until I get a permit to assemble from the city, but we would most likely be outside the Danish consulate. I hope this can get off the ground, I know midwesterners aren't much for protesting :)

Hate-mongers need not apply. This shall be a pro-free speech rally, not a Muslim-bashing summit. Keep it positive people!

Posted by: alaric7 at March 4, 2006 12:21 AM

What a beautiful gathering! Wish I could've been there too.

As Lisa noted, the elite media cover what they want to cover, period.

Posted by: Hammer_Time at March 4, 2006 12:25 AM

jehana writes:
"My question is, are you guys to beat me up for coming in my hijab? You'd definitely get more media coverage for doing so."

I'd certainly feel threatened, and, if the time
came, and I were armed, I'd ask you to stop,
and drop enough clothes that I could see you
weren't wired to blow. But I wouldn't strike you,
even if you were a physically unthreatening
Muslim male. It hasn't come to that yet, but
it isn't unimaginable that it will.

I'm sure there are lots of conflicted pseudo
muslims like you who really do support free
speech and a fairly pluralistic culture, but
I'd see wearing a hijab as a statement, like
wearing a swastika to a bar mitzvah. So, I
wouldn't trust anyone who self identifies as a
muslim. If you claim to be a Muslim, accept
Mohammad as being some near perfect example of
human behavior for all time, and the Koran as
the unchangeable word of God, you have a lot of
explaining to do.

I'd trust some guy like Ali Sina, even though he
was a muslim. It's not race, it's islam.

Posted by: American at March 4, 2006 12:31 AM

Hey, lay off jehana. I sensed some dry humor in her original statement.

Posted by: alaric7 at March 4, 2006 1:14 AM

Jehana=

Read Michelle Malkin's "In Defense of Internment".

Posted by: treehugger at March 4, 2006 2:00 AM

jehana-

The Nisei in WW II were potential spies, saboteurs and terrorists as far as the people in American knew, judging from the sneak-attack on Pearl Harbor by their fellow "People of the Rising Sun".

The Imperial Japanese, and their God-Emperor, thought of themselves as a super-race of divine warriors with utter contempt for all sub-humans, like the Chinese (read up on the "Rape of Nanking"), the Dutch, Vietnamese, Phillipinos, English, Americans, Hindus, Australians and Pacific Islanders. Their warcrimes were as vile as the Nazis (read "Ghost Soldiers"), from vivisection on POW's to casual beheading practice, on soldiers too sick or weak for forced labor, to make sure their swords were of good quality metal.

Also, the Nisei were interned to prevent angry Americans from lynching them. It was as much protective custody as imprisonment. Many Japanese American men petitioned the U.S. military to allow them to leave the camps and join the Army in order to prove themselves as honorable and true Americans. Eventually this was allowed, with special all-Japanese units formed, which fought in Italy, first, and then throughout Europe -with exceptional valor, courage and success. Becoming some of the most-decorated groups of soldiers in the entire military.

This is what is expected of any who come to America. Undivided loyalties.

Islam, however, is loyal only to itself and the Muslim Umma.

It is contemptuous of all "earthly" governments, rulers, powers or oaths.

So, we suspect Muslims living in any infidel country as being potential infil-triators, a Fifth Column, and only out for Islamic Imperialsm, not the interests of their adopted kafir country.

The aim of Islam is: to dominate all peoples and dissolve all nations into either the Restored Caliphate (for the Sunnis) or Imam-ate (for the Shi'ites). With a dogmatic, intolerant, endless religious rule, "under the shadow of swords", forced upon all mankind.

I, for one, will resist this to the death.

Your "prophet" was a pedophile warlord.

Your religion has contempt for women, considering them "worth only half of a man".

I can't imagine anyone with half a brain (which is all any woman is allowed to exhibit under Islam) to believe in this arrogant 7th century superstitious claptrap.

"Djinns" and "stoned Shaitans" and "stars used to hit devils" and a man who forces his son-in-law to divorce his wife so that he, Mohammad (pb&j), in his shameless lustfulness can marry her, with Allah's blessing?

And you ask "if we will beat you up"?

My tongue isn't in my cheek, darling.

But is giving a full-blown raspberry.

Time for you to apologize to Ayesha.

Posted by: profitsbeard at March 4, 2006 3:25 AM

I'd like to thank everyone who went out for this expression of support for Denmark. It's important that we do not allow the Islamic countries to isolate Denmark in this fashion.

jehana,

You don't have to worry about westerner non-Muslims attacking you. That is extremely unlikely.

You should be more concerned about the people who believe the book that contains the notorious wife-beating verse. The Koran's verse 4:34 does say "beat" her (or hit, or scourge). At least 10 available respectable translations of the Koran say "beat" (or scourge, or hit). A discussion of 4:34 and the word "beat" can be found at http://answering-islam.org/Silas/wife-beating.htm . Here is the verse:

4:34. “Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.”

The Hadith confirm Mohammad's wife-beating policy [I add my comments in brackets]:

"Ayesha said "I have not seen anyone suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!" Sahih Bukhari. vol. 7, book 72, no. 715. [The "green" adjective is in reference to the bruising from the beating. In this incident, Ayesha brought to the prophet’s attention a woman who had been badly beaten by her husband in a domestic quarrel. In response, the prophet did not condemn the beating, and “Allah” did not substitute a new verse in place of the 4:34].

"...He (Muhammad) struck me (Aisha) on the chest which caused me pain...” Sahih Muslim, book 4, no. 2127. [Mohammad's child-wife Ayesha tells of how the prophet struck her intentionally, hard enough to cause pain, and an enduring memory of the event].

Posted by: Archimedes at March 4, 2006 5:49 AM

jehana,

For a critical presentation of the relevant problematic verses and ahadith re women in Islamic theology, see http://debate.domini.org/newton/womeng.html

Posted by: Archimedes at March 4, 2006 5:57 AM

Vi er all Dansk nu

How difficult can it be to learn Danish?

Posted by: Interested at March 4, 2006 7:48 AM

I think Slade, one of my favourite bands of the 70s have been speaking it for years.
Mama Weer All Crazee Now

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at March 4, 2006 8:48 AM

archimedes:

That's interesting that you belive that this verse from the Koran and these hadiths justify the abuse of women. In my personal life, I have not had experience with any Muslim men trying to abuse me or any other women relatives as it is completely unacceptable in our social structure.

Does it happen somewheres in the world? Yes, it also happens that there are "Christian" men who use Biblical verses to abuse and subjugate women. Does that make any of them right? NO!

Look, men who use the verses of any holy books to justify abusing women are ABUSERS. I'll say it to you and I'll say it to any man who tries to justify their backwards tribal beliefs about women in the name of religion.

Posted by: jehana at March 4, 2006 8:58 AM

Jehana-

I don't think Archimedes is trying to use the verse to justify abuse of women, but to make you question why you would belong to a religion founded by man capable of the abuse depicted in the hadith above.

Posted by: kafira at March 4, 2006 11:06 AM

Not to mention the fact that as Islamic sharia law is based on the Koran and the ahadith, it is legal in an Islamic state to beat one's wife. That's why these verses just can't be ignored.

Are you a supporter of sharia jehana?

Posted by: Suzan at March 4, 2006 11:58 AM

As the old Mohammedan wisdom puts it, jehana-

A woman is like a carpet, they must be beaten regularly to keep them clean.

You pledge allegiance to a strange "religion".

And I dare you to dispute the Islamic value of women with an earnest Muslim male.

(I'll even pay for your doctor's bills afterward.)

Best of luck as your travel the longest river in the world- De Nial.

Posted by: profitsbeard at March 4, 2006 12:12 PM

I dont know if anyone noted this in the recent Havarti-Tuborg lovefest, but the Danes have carried out a 3 year long boycott against Israeli products in support of their Palestinian brothers!
Hey, Denmark - chickens coming home to roost!!!!!!!!

Posted by: sonnyboy at March 4, 2006 3:08 PM

Ovidius, yes there are other sites, like Occidentalis, or "Vox Galliae". But France Echos is great.... not same style as "Jihad Wtach" though. On France Echos people are very ironic and they tend to laugh at our politicians a lot, and the posters are sometimes a bit blunt ! Which shows their total exasperation and frustration.

I encourage all the americans to read a few line on:

http://hexagonews.blogspot.com/

(although I am not sure the English translation is excellent but never mind).

Jehana:
I have nothing against the Muslims. They do what they want and dress as they want. What I don't like is when some people try to tell me what I have got to do and not to do, to say or not to say. At the moment in France, some Muslim people directly question our French values and habits in the name of Islam (example: in some French schools, they ask for separate locker rooms for Muslims and non Muslims - as an Indidel cannot get undressed next to a Muslim, they ask for separate toilets for Muslims and non Muslims, separate times for girls and boys in the PUBLIC swimming pools, they protest against the teachings they receive -History, Mathematics, etc.- they refuse to work out with the other kids, they threaten, insult and intimidate...things like that). It makes a lot of us French people nervous... After all, we also have the right to keep our identity and values safe.

But as long as they leave us alone with THEIR beliefs and THEIR habits, no problem, I don't mind someone dressing in a hijab, why would I ?

El Cid: thank you for your support... the French are slowly waking up. As far as Le Pen is concerned, there is so much bullshit talked about him (same about W Bush). The only thing Le Pen says is that immigration must stop and France must keep its identity, and that the taxes must get lower, and that the State must have less influence, and that the Army must get more money, and that there should be death penalty for people who torture kids, and that abortion should be allowed, but not encouraged as if it was a cool thing to do. Things like that. Le Pen is not racist and there are plenty of immigrants in his party, and also black people and Muslims.

Le Pen is just being a right wing man, but in France, it makes everybody freak out, as our journalists are 99,9 % left wing and our trade unions are over powerful, and France is the last communist country in Europe.

Our Socialists are communist and our Right is socialist (cf. Chirac)... so yes, everybody hates Le Pen and there is a kind of general hysteria against him as well as against Philippe de Villiers who also is a right wing man.

So yes, Le Pen... it makes me a bit sad. The journalists have been repeating the same things for 30 years, about him, without any proof. I think everybody hates Le Pen because he says the truth and has been warning us for 30 years, and more and more people are for him now because they see that he was right. I personally refuse to hate a man just because the media hate him. I heard Le Pen on the radio, recently, and he was quite remarkable and absolutely not racist. But the media do not interview the black guys who are for Le Pen...

On the other hand, it is possible, in France, to torture and kill Jewish people... and our dear Socialists + Chirac team, don't care and try to hide it as much as they can, as it is the Muslims who kill, torture, insult and aggress the Jews everyday in our beautiful country...

So, more practical to say that Le Pen is antisemitic... it makes everybody happy, visibly.

Le Pen has been accused of so many things... I think that they do that because he is too dangerous: if he could express himself freely, if he was invited on the radio and TV, he would be elected because he is really good when he talks. And nobody in France -except the people- want a genuine right wing man to become the President.

Posted by: joiesauvage at March 4, 2006 3:11 PM

El Cid:
"Le Pen is now seeking support of the Islamist and that a serious split by many who voted for him in the past is taking place and that a new leader is taking up the struggle for the real France".

Answer: I don't think Le Pen is seeking support from the Islamist (unless I get formal proofs of course). I think it is just another invention of the media to stop Le Pen from getting more and more votes.

The "new leader" is Philippe de Villiers. He is a very fine man and contrary to Le Pen, he has never had any trial for racism. People around Philippe de Villiers are very clean, normal people (contrary to some people around Le Pen who are said to be neo nazis, but once again, I will not believe it until I get some proofs and not silly rumors).

Philippe de Villiers is great but he only gets 7 % of the votes so there is not use voting for him, but it is true that people are talking about him at the moment and he is getting higher in the polls.

There has been a media campaign against him very recently, calling him "antisemitic". Some Jewish associations wrote to give their support to Philippe de Villiers, whose party has always had excellent relations with the French Jews. Philippe de Villiers laid a charge against the ones who have defamed him.

But in France, we have something you don't have in the US, lucky ones ! We have the extreme left. And the extreme left people are ready to do anything to get what they want, so they lie, defame, and even aggress physically when they need to.

Almost all our "anti racist" associations are extreme left associations which have links with the Islamists. They keep laying charges against people on the ground of "islamophoebia" but curiously, they never defend the Jews, the Whites and the Christians. They are getting less and less credible because of that.

I personally think Nicolas Sarkozy is the man of the situation and I will vote for him in 2007 (he is from Jewish Origins, pro American, and his family fled communism during the Cold War).

However, I am less and less convinced Nicolas Sarkozy will solve our identity / immigration problem. But at least he will try and sort our communist trade unions out, which is better than nothing, and will modernise our economy and mentality. I can't vote for Philippe de Villiers as he does not get enough votes to win and I can't vote for Le Pen as I don't know him well enough, the only thing I know is that I don't like the brainwashing and lies about him.

Posted by: joiesauvage at March 4, 2006 3:31 PM

joiesauvage: "Jehana: I have nothing against the Muslims. They do what they want and dress as they want. What I don't like is when some people try to tell me what I have got to do and not to do, to say or not to say....But as long as they leave us alone with THEIR beliefs and THEIR habits, no problem, I don't mind someone dressing in a hijab, why would I ?"

Good lord! NOBODY in the west, aside from some lunatic fringe, has anything whatseover against "Muslims" per se - how they dress, what they eat, their desire to pray 5 times a day and fast for Ramadan. Of course what we "have against the Muslims" is ALL about the fact that their religion mandates that they tell US what to do and moreover KILL us if we refuse to do what they tell us, or force us to pay a tax to them for the privelege of continuing to maintain our own religious beliefs, much like we would pay a tax to the mafia to protect our families from murder.

Personally, I am getting a little fed up with this obligation to defend myself against charges of "racism" and "bigotry" and "islamophobia" in stating the obvious and I am feeling less and less inclined to "explain" to folks like jehana that I have nothing against "muslims" per se, as if all they really wanted were to wear their hijab and pray 5 times a day and go to mosque and make the Haj once in their lifetimes. Seriously, if that's all Islam were about, would any of us even be having this conversation?

Does that mean that every Muslim is a jihadist? No. Obviously not. But the overall issue is analogous to the question "Are men physically stronger than women?". Is every man physically stronger than every woman? NO. Of course not. Look at a scatter plot of human strength measures underneath a Bell Curve and it will be immediately obvious that every man is not physically stronger than every woman. But look at the group means and the standard deviations. Once you do that then yes, it becomes perfectly reasonable to make the claim that "Men are physically stronger than women".

When one makes a claim such as "Men are physically stronger than women" it is more than obvious that there are plenty of individual exceptions. But that fact doesn't change the general conclusion to be drawn from the data. And if I were to thereby cite that obvious fact in converstation - "Well, you know, men are physically stronger than women" - I would rightfully dismiss as idiots and cranks anyone who would want to quibble over the exceptions to the rule. Because the exceptions to the rule are irrelevant. So let the cranks and idiots call me a sexist for making such a claim. Who cares? The overall point holds. Which sums up exactly the way I feel about being called a racist or bigot or "islamophobe" where Islam is concerned.

And by "where Islam is concerned" I mean precisely the fact that Muslims are not content to merely dress or eat a certain way or fast during Ramadan or make the Haj once in their lifetimes. No. They, in fact, want to tell us infidels how to live and they mean to enforce their beliefs upon us. And that enforcement does in fact entail the very real intention to use violence against us.

Are there exceptions to that rule? Of course there are. But the exceptions do not in any way change the overall direction of the mean on the Bell curve and the scatter plot of Muslim beliefs forming that curve. (Recall that recent poll showing that a whopping 40% of British Muslims favor Sharia law!). And those basic statistical trends more than back up my legitimate concerns about "Muslims" as a whole, to the extent that I feel quite comfortable making assertions about "Muslims" being this and that way, much as I feel quite comfortable making the assertion that Men are indeed physically stronger than women.

Which is why I couldn't care less at this point about being accused of racism or bigotry or Islamophobia. It's all water off a duck's back at this point.

Posted by: Caroline at March 4, 2006 4:12 PM

yes caroline but to change things u need to elect your people, and to elect your people you need to convince the other people that you are not a racist, because people are brainwashed into thinking that criticising Islam = being a racist.

Posted by: joiesauvage at March 4, 2006 4:34 PM

jehana,

"In either case, I have a lot more to lose then any of you."

Really? Perhaps because your book tells you that Muslims are better than non-Muslims (3:110), you think you have more to lose than nayone else?

"That's interesting that you belive that this verse from the Koran and these hadiths justify the abuse of women."

"Justify" is a funny word to use for a wife-beating verse. The Koran is the most hate-filled book I've ever read. Over 250 verses condemn non-Muslims to hell-fire for nothing other than simply being non-Muslim. In addition, there are numerous verses that order Muslims to make life on earth a living hell for the non-Muslims. At least one verse (60:4) says that Muslims will hate the non-Muslims forever (unless the latter convert to Islam). Another verse (22:15) tells non-Muslims to commit siucide by hanging themselves; these are supposedly the words of Allah.

Re wife-beating, yeah, it's easy to see how I could have mistaken the word beat/hit/scourge where, actually, the verse refers to hugs and kisses. Do you accept the Koran? Do you accept Aisha's testimony, or do you reject those hadith?

The point you raise about not knowing any Muslim men who've done this isn't very convincing. Maybe you're correct in those cases (in which case all you have is a few anecdotes at best), but maybe you're wrong. You don't know for sure; all you're telling me is what you assume to be true. How can I possibly verify that? Am I supposed to take your word on it? If you follow this site (also see faithfreedom) long enough you'll find that wife-beating is common in Islamic countries. Prior to the influence of the west, and the hard-won rights of women in our societies, the wife-beating might be a lot worse. That would better explain any lack of wife-beating among the people you know (if you are correct), because Islam has no such tradition.

1. Why are you defending Islam by attacking Christianity? Or is this just evasion tactics? Show me the verses in the Bible that give men permission to beat their wives. I'm not a Christian myself, but I have read the Bible. Maybe I missed the wife-beating verse. Please cite it. I am aware of some misogynist verses, and other violent verses (e.g., slave-beating), but not a wife-beating verse. Show me something like Koran verse 4:34 in the Bible. You made the claim, now you support it.

There are lots of acts today that we recognize as crimes, but Mohammad did not understand them as such. Why doesn't the Koran forbid rape? Why doesn't verse 4:34 say "don't beat your wife"? What's wrong with Allah-Mohammad?

2. Are you a Muslim or not? Do you believe all of the Koran or just parts of it? If not, what rules do you use to reject this verse or that? What magic formula do you use to make the word beat/hit/scourge disappear from the page?

Look, the Koran is not taken by believing Muslims to mean "maybe this, maybe that." The Koran is supposed to be the words of Allah. If you don't believe that, just say so. If you reject verse 4:34, then just say so. Don't try claiming there is something wrong with the translation or the context or the interpretation. The verse is not merely a suggestion or even a description. The verse is supposedly a divine commandment from Allah ordering Muslim men to beat their wives if they merely "fear disobedience." If Allah says do it, then it's obligatory. Allah wants this to be done. He doesn't say, "talk over your problems together" or "get a village elder to help you resolve the domestic dispute". Instead of those options, Allah tells the husband to beat the wife from whom he fears disobedience/rebellion. Even a ten-year-old western child can see that Allah is a moral failure.

Here are some examples of the problems in the Koran and Hadith regarding women:

Women are unclean. If a man has touched a woman at all before prayer time, he must wash up before doing the prayer. If he can’t find water, he should wash himself with dirt (5:6; 4:43).

Woman’s testimony is worth half a man’s (2:282).

Wives who are false (i.e., show the slightest sign of disbelief in Allah) to their husbands are to be killed by Allah (66:10). The wives of disbelievers will also be doomed with their husbands (37:22-31).

Allah (Mohammad) may replace wives who criticize their husband (66:5).

No intermarriage allowed between Muslim men and idolatresses, nor between Muslim women and idolaters, unless the idolaters/idolatresses convert to Islam (2:221); idolaters/idolatresses would tempt the Muslim spouse toward the Fire of hell.

Women guilty of lewdness (adultery) must be confined to the house until death (4:15). (According to Ibn Kathir) this was later abrogated: married person guilty of adultery, 100 lashes and stoning to death; unmarried person 100 lashes and banishment for a year. Note: several lashes can cause death depending on several different variables; 100 lashes can kill. http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=4&tid=10619

"I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-Fire were women....[because] they are ungrateful to their husbands and they are deficient in intelligence. " (The Prophet Muhammad) Sahih Bukhari vol. 2 book 24, no. 541; also in Sahih Muslim, Book 36, Numbers 6596, 6597. Sahih Muslim Book 36, Number 6600 also says women are the minority in Paradise.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 28:
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
The Prophet said: "I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers were women who were ungrateful." It was asked, "Do they disbelieve in Allah?" (or are they ungrateful to Allah?) He replied, "They are ungrateful to their husbands and are ungrateful for the favors and the good (charitable deeds) done to them. If you have always been good (benevolent) to one of them and then she sees something in you (not of her liking), she will say, 'I have never received any good from you."

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle ?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion."

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 31:
Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
Evil omen was mentioned before the Prophet: The Prophet said, "If there is evil omen in anything, it is in the house, the woman and the horse."


Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 33:
Narrated Usama bin Zaid:
The Prophet said, "After me I have not left any affliction more harmful to men than women."

Sahih Muslim, Book 036, Number 6603:
Usama b. Zaid reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: I have not left after me any (chance) of turmoil more injurious to men than the harm done to the men because of women.

On the Last Day, pregnant women will suffer miscarriages, and nursing mothers will abandon/forget their infants (22:2).

Menstruation is an illness/pollution/the menstruating women are unclean/impure (2:222)

A Muslim man’s wives are a tilth to him, so he can go to his tilth as he wishes (2:223).

Muslim men may exchange wives (4:20).

Polygamy is permitted. Muslim men may be married to up to 4 wives (at one time), 4:3, (but women are not permitted to marry more than one husband at a time).

A Muslim man cannot treat his wives equally, even if he wanted to (4:129).

A Muslim male must inherit double what a Muslim female inherits (4:11, 4:176)

If you accuse an honorable (Muslim) woman of adultery, you must bring four eye-witnesses. Otherwise you will be punished with 80 lashes for making a false accusation (24:4)

A Muslim man can accuse his wife of adultery with only one witness (24:6)

Disbelievers name the angels with female names (53:27). They invoke in His stead only females (4:117), also see 37:150-153. (Why does Allah/Mohammad consider this bad, i.e., sign of disbelief ?).

Koran allows Muslim men to take girl-slaves for sex. (23:1-6, 33:50-52, 4:24, 70:30)
Abul Kasem’s article covers many of these issues, on sex with captives, Mohammad’s sex with Aisha, et. http://www.islamreview.com/articles/sexinislam.htm
http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=5482
Slave girls: an excerpt from the imam’s extensive discussion.
“Islam ensured that the slave girl's duties were not restricted merely to domestic chores but also gave her master permission to copulate with her. This concession created an atmosphere of love and harmony between the slave girl and her master. Islam thereby raised the status of the war captive-maidens close to that of wives. It was a psychological cure to her grief-stricken heart, being deprived of her family and thrown into the hands of a strange society.”

http://al-islam.org/quran/
On verse 4:24. [Pooya/Ali Commentary 4:24] Muhsanat means well-guarded or protected. They are married women (free and slave), minors and insane females.
"Save those whom your right hands own" signifies "such married women as shall come in your possession as prisoners of war". Such women, when not taken back on payment of ransom or through negotiation, are lawful as wives, even though their previous marriage has not been formally dissolved, provided the infidel woman becomes a Muslim.
Famastamta-tum bihi provides for a temporary marriage, known as muta. It has been specifically made lawful by the Quran and the Holy Prophet, therefore, this provision subsists as unrescinded.
One day, for no reason at all, and having no authority to amend a law given and practised by the Holy Prophet, the second caliph declared from the pulpit:
"Two mutas (temporary marriage and combining hajj with umra) were in force during the time of the Holy Prophet, but now I decree both of them as unlawful; and I will punish those who practise them."
(Tafsir Kabir, Durr al-Manthur, Kashshaf, Mustadrak and others).
According to Tirmidhi even his son, Ibn Umar, refused to agree with his father's action because it was made lawful by Allah and His Prophet, whose pronouncements could never be revoked by any one after him.
Therefore the Shia school of thought (Islam-original) holds both the mutas lawful. Ali ibn abi Talib reversed the uncalled-for innovation of the second caliph, and thereafter it was never again prohibited.
The Maliki school of thought also holds muta as lawful.
------------------------------------------------

Posted by: Archimedes at March 4, 2006 5:00 PM

joiesauvage: "because people are brainwashed into thinking that criticising Islam = being a racist. "

You are quite right. And "brainwashed" is indeed the appropriate term. Another appropriate concept is that of "gaslighting". Which refers to an old Hollywood movie in which the protagonist is made to feel that she is insane and imagining things when she isn't at all. And I hope that my previous comment didn't come off as criticizing YOU because that really wasn't my intention at all. Rather, I think the sensitivity you displayed in your post, to assure jehana that you are not a racist, lies at the heart of what we westerners need to overcome. And overcome to the extent that good people like you NEEDN'T explain themselves, NEEDN'T justify themselves, NEEDN'T defend themselves against charges of "racism" where criticism of Islam is concerned (and YES, by implication, that involves assumptions about Muslims - how could it not?).

So how do we get there? How do we resist the "gaslighting" which is all around us?

One answer is that we stop questioning whether we are the ones who are insane because we resist the brainwashing re the "religion of peace". One solution is to start asserting what is true - namely that the others who peddle or believe that lie are insane. And stop apologizing for that perception. See what is. And let the language that we use flow from there. Just act and speak as if the emperor has no clothes. And never lose that clarity. The words will sound harsh of course when so many people are actually convinced that in fact the emperor is fully dressed in the finest garments. But that is their perceptual problem. Not ours. Start there and see how many people are capable of the same perception. My take on the Anderson tale is that the illusion is fragile - and promulgated mostly by the elites. It's the commoners who can see WHAT IS. Where the real perception of what Islam is all about, I place my faith in the common people, people like me and you.

Posted by: Caroline at March 4, 2006 5:23 PM

Caroline, you are right. (I have not had the feeling you were criticising me).
Are u American ? because in europe, the brainwashing is more important than in the USA (but it it going to develop in the USA as well, I am afraid). People like me feel guilty even if I know I am right. Simple human psychology, I suppose. I cannot say what I think in public (unless I know I am with people who agree with me) because people will say that I am a racist and start rejecting me, which is not nice. Also, I am still a bit young but I am sure that in a few years, I will not care about it anymore and will just say what I think.
When I told Jehana that she can dress as she likes, I meant it. Because Jehana seemed to have doubts about that ! I just explained to Jehana what some Muslim people are doing in France, and that they try to change OUR habits and question our trust in science and reason.
As far as the "elites" are concerned, I am more educated than most of the French journalists, and so called intellectuals; and did go to better schools. The problem is that in France, our elites are not real elites anymore. Diplomas have lost a lot of their value and the journalists are ignorant. As for the politicians, they are less ignorant, but they are not honest.
It is the stupid people who have taken the media. And the teachers are brainwashing the kids everyday at school. There was a report about the islamisation of the French schools, a few months ago (but they tried to hide it as much as they could because it is too alarming). They said that some teachers now quote the Coran when they are criticised by their Muslims pupils. The teachers are scared, they don't know how to react against those outbursts of religion, hence they quote the Coran.
So the lecture becomes a Coran vs. Coran debate, a theology debate.
The Muslim pupils interpret everything with the Coran so the teachers give in and discuss the Coran.

Posted by: joiesauvage at March 4, 2006 5:54 PM

Sorry this is so OT but it relates to freedom of speech being lost~

(CBS4) DENVER Arapahoe County is threatening to fire a veteran Public Works employee for promoting the fact that he is an English speaking American.

"They claim it's offensive and I've been accused of discrimination and harassment, believe it or not, because of this," said Mike Gray, a heavy equipment operator with the Arapahoe County Road and Bridge Department for 16 years.

The problems began last spring. Gray, 50, owns a lawn service business on the side. He was routinely driving to work in his pickup truck towing a trailer that he uses to carry lawn mowing equipment for his business. On the side of his trailer, the married father of two affixed a sign that reads "Lawn Services Done With Pride!! By An English Speaking American."

The sign also gives Gray's phone number and the lettering is over a background of an American flag.

"There are a lot of people in the lawn service that are non-English speaking," Gray said. "Customers and different people were telling me that they have a hard time trying to communicate with them about the work they want done on their yards. I just want to let people know they at least can communicate with me when I do work on their property."

Gray also wore a hat to work that says "U.S. Border Patrol," which he says was a gift from his son.

Arapahoe County officials told Gray the sign and hat must go or else. In a Nov. 10, 2005, letter, his supervisor Monty Sedlak wrote the following:

"Some of your conduct ... is reprehensible and discriminatory to our non-English speaking and/or Hispanic workforce. You are in violation of ... guidelines which ensure a workplace free from harassment and sensitive to the diversity of employees."

"You are required to permanently remove your cap from the workplace. It is offensive and harassing. Your business sign, if on work premises, must be completely covered at all times. This behavior is inappropriate and any further incidents of this nature may result in further disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment."

Andrea Rasizer, spokesperson for Arapahoe County, declined to answer questions, saying the matter was a "personnel issue."

Gray said he believes his First Amendment rights are at stake, and he said he is "not about to surrender."

"I got a new supervisor," said Gray. "He's a politically correct, bleeding heart liberal. I believe in what I'm doing. I got to stand up for what I believe in and I don't think I'm doing a thing wrong. Of course I don't want to lose my job, but I can't back down from something I believe in. Like I say, they're just chipping away at our rights and freedoms."

In response to the County's firing threat, Gray stopped wearing his Border Patrol hat to work and partly covers his business sign at work so that the American flag and the words "English speaking American" are the only things still visible.

The County says that's not enough, but it's as far as Gray is willing to go.

"Why would any American do such a thing as cover up the American flag and something that says you're an American? Its beyond me that anyone could expect me to do that like my employer is."

Gray has hired attorney David Lane, who plans to file an injunction to allow the County worker to resume wearing his hat on the job and fully display his sign.

"What is of concern to me is whether the government of Arapahoe County is violating his Constitutional rights under the First Amendment," Lane said. "When the government tries to put a gag in people's mouths because they don't like the message that's being delivered, I'd do everything in my power to stop that from happening."

BTW there is a photo of the sign
http://cbs4denver.com/local/local_story_061125200.html

on the right of this story by Brian Maass of CBSnews

Posted by: Borg at March 4, 2006 7:12 PM

Borg - thanks for that link. Imagine, living in America, and announcing that you're American and that you speak English is grounds for being accused of harassment and discrimination. Incredible.

joiesauvage - I am American but I still know what you mean. I remember the first few times at other blogs than this one, when I was first called a Nazi and a hate-mongerer. I was completely shocked. First I cried. Then I got mad. Then a coworker called me a Nazi. Then my husband called me a Nazi (He's now a reformed lefty.) Then my mother called me a Nazi (she's now very concerned about the Islamist threat as well). My far lefty sister STILL thinks I'm a Nazi. And I think she's a totalitarian! We don't speak any more. My husband's lefty ex-wife has warned my husband and me against inculcating "hate and fear" in her son, whom we have an ongoing relationship with. (You might note that I am indeed surrounded mostly by liberals if not downright lefties but I was a liberal myself and am indeed still one, albeit a "classic liberal"). But in any case, so it goes. I reckon war reveals a whole lot about people you never knew was under the surface. The rift between my sister and I over this has actually come as a great shock to me. It's not that I didn't know about her lefty activism - I have spent 20 years listening sympathetically to her anti-American views. It's that when the s**t hit the fan on 9/11 I realized that she was a bona fide Ward Churchill (and she is actually a tenured professor). She will absolutely brook no criticism whatsoever of Islam even now, 4 years later! I believe that during the American civil war, brothers actually fought on opposite sides. Both my parents were immigrants here so I have virtually no family and can ill afford to lose a sister because of my opinions. But what are you gonna do? Reality is reality. It is simply too absurd to contemplate the entire world falling back into the dark ages because people are afraid of giving offense. Death by politeness? Is that how western civilization is to go down? Sometimes I think yes. That is how it will go down - to the ultimate bourgeois value and at the hand of leftists! Now how ironic is that?? I would recommend to everyone who hasn't yet been called a Nazi or a racist or a bigot or an Islamophobe to press the limits until you get called precisely that. Then cry, fume, seethe, whatever until you've worked through the shocking emotions. In other words, practice self-inflicted systematic desensitization.

Posted by: Caroline at March 4, 2006 8:32 PM

Caroline -- Living in the Hills of Hollywood, I still go through the exact same thing nearly every day -- but it doesn't bother me... at least not any more...

It's been interesting to see the sorting out -- many onetime friends have shown themselves to be so vitriolic and strident that I wonder how we were ever friends. I know that they began becoming more insane with the devastating repudiation of the bankrupt Democratic party with Al Gore's defeat to George Bush, and the final straw which sent them over the edge was 9/11, and all the corollary craziness...

I still sometimes receive jaw dropping emails from colleagues and old friends who assume I'm down with their America-bashing, Military-bashing or whatever bashing... I'm stunned at their intransigence, I don't remember them being so bitter and hatred filled before 9/11 certainly. Their hearts and souls seem to have shrivelled. 9/11 seems to have pushed them further towards their earlier predilections, and made them characitures of themselves, in my opinion.

Certainly I can say that instead of utilizing the opportunity for a re-appraisal, they used the experience of 9/11 to glom onto their dogma more tenaciously than ever -- we see their ilk posting here quite often....

One thing strikes me most about these erstwhile friends -- they completely reject the premise that we are at "WAR" right now with Islamic fascism, and wish to view it mainly through a tired out defunct marxist or classist prism. It's a pathetic fantasy -- and a view which only makes sense when viewed through their distorted funhouse rear-view mirror...

Posted by: jsla at March 4, 2006 9:14 PM

jsla - I am now entertaining the distinct possibility that you and Roger L Simon are one and the same person. After all, I've never seen you together in the same room at the same time :-)

(But then neither have I ever seen Hugh and Laurence Auster in the same room together at the same time.)

All kidding aside, my other sister lives south of LA (at least I do have one sister who doesn't think I'm a Nazi) and this past November I took my first trip up into the "Hollywood Hills". At least I think it was the Hollywood Hills (but then again, I got a perfect view of the Hollywood sign from there, so maybe not). Laurel Canyon? Is that the Hollywood Hills? If so, I'd be seriously inclined to check out my neighbor's drinking habits! Very scary drive, and that was the daytime! We were all inclined to pop some valium, if we actually had any on hand, which we didn't. :-)

Posted by: Caroline at March 4, 2006 9:40 PM

This is one of those areas of life where if you haven't been addressed by one of the more popular leftist/liberal buzzwords - "nazi", "fascist", "racist", "X-phobe" - then you're just not trying hard enough.

Posted by: Eisenhund at March 4, 2006 9:45 PM

Eisenhund: "This is one of those areas of life where if you haven't been addressed by one of the more popular leftist/liberal buzzwords - "nazi", "fascist", "racist", "X-phobe" - then you're just not trying hard enough."

Absolutely. So Kids, get out there and do your homework:-)

Posted by: Caroline at March 4, 2006 10:47 PM

Ovidius:

1. I didn't say anything about the hijab in encouraging Muslims to speak up against Islamism. My personal view is that, in western countries where women have the choice, wearing the hijab is a pretty strong indication of extremism. BUT if she is basically forced to wear it by family or community, that is a different matter. At a personal level I do feel insulted by the implication that women wearing normal clothes are inviting molestation.

2. There are Muslims speaking up, and they are important. See Irshad Manji, the lesbian author at http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/thebook.html. When someone is clearly refused BY Islam, had fatwahs against them, but still identifies at some level as Muslim, I'm prepared to take their opinions without suspecting taqiyya.

Posted by: Lilith at March 4, 2006 10:53 PM

Jehana

See the AskImam website re treatment of women under Islam today. You seem to be lucky if things are OK in your community.

AskImam is so useful! Here's the Imam's ruling on rape:

"If a female was raped due to her not maintaining the laws of
> Hijaab, she is partly to be blamed as the rapist will be
> considered as being seduced by her revealing form and shape.
> She should make Tawbah (sincerely repent) by also adhering to
> the laws of Hijaab. "

On beating wives:

"1. Allah Ta'ala says in the noble Qur'aan: If you fear (with certainty) disobedience of your wives, then firstly advise them verbally. If after advising them on this they still don't listen, then secondly stop relations with them in the bedroom (by not having marital relations with them or facing your back to them and sleeping), and if they still don't listen, then hit them lightly. If they rectify and start obeying you, then treat them well again. Verily, Allah Almighty is All-Great (this last part is a warning to the men not to oppress their wives unjustly). Hitting is only permissible in extreme cases and as a last option. The hitting should be light without making wounds or marks. The objective is not to hit and hurt your wife she is an Amaanat from Allah, but the object is to merely jolt her to reform herself. (Tafseer Mazhari"

Re veiling:
"1) An adult female is required to cover her face in front of Ghayr Mahram (not prohibited in marriage) males at all times, during Iddat and out of Iddat. "

It's nice if things are better than this in your community, but I get the impression that these types of Imams have a lot more influence and represent Islam in its most expansionist form.

Have a good look at AskImam, check out issues like music (not allowed), moderate muslims ("The wife is described as a moderate Muslim. A modern or sinful Muslim would
have been an appropriate title."), raping captives of war (OK).

Regarding the peacefulness of the religion, the good Imam writes:

"Shariah does not encourage violence and wars against the non-Muslims. There are Laws and that rules govern engaging in war. War is the last option. According to Shariah, the Muslim army cannot simply go and attack the non-Muslims. Shariah emphasises that the army should first invite the non-Muslim to the Oneness of Allah and to accept Islam. If they refuse, then negotiate with them to pay tax to the Muslim Government and then if they refuse then only engage in war. Therefore, Shariah never encourages war. Those who have created the impression that Islam is a religion of violence and war has not displayed the true Islam. They have painted a fake picture of Islam that suits their needs and agenda. " http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.php?askid=50fb374d3e77f2f446cfe67ac32e50f2

So all in all, as long as infidels do what muslims want and women do what men want - well, we'll have a lovely peaceful world.

Jehana, do you ever think about leaving this religion?

Posted by: Lilith at March 4, 2006 11:20 PM

Sorry, me again.

Caroline - thanks for the warning. I've only identified my new-found anti-Islamism to a few people so far, and am doing so very carefully. That's where AskImam and other such sites come in very useful - my friends don't have to take my word for it. But I suppose you've tried all that with your sister? Surely she must disagree with some of the sexist stuff in Islam?

Posted by: Lilith at March 4, 2006 11:28 PM

hew, lots of points Archimedes! There are some thoughtful questions in there. I like how you follow your namesake by numbering your arguments, but wish you could do it more consistently.

Anyhow, it's clear that you are heartfelt in your thoughts, and I'll do my best to answer your questions. Starting with the numbers:

1. Abuse: I am neither trying to sidestep the issue of abuse in Islam nor attack Christianity. I am simply stating that both Quranic and Biblical verses are used to justify abuse of women, and that I think this is wrong. Since you asked for proof from the Bible Here's a paper that discusses the issue fairly politely:

www.wheaton.edu/psychology/CCPC/Documents/Eckert.pdf

Is it unfair that I didn't include a similar paper about abuse within Islam? Well, maybe I'm waiting to write that paper myself.

In the meantime, please don't turn this conversation into the kind of drivel that goes on in the answering-christianity and answering-islam websites.

2. a)The Quran: I believe in the Quran. I've also been taught to read it in full, to study Arabic so I can make my own translations, and use my brain to interpret its meaning and how it applies to my life rather than running to some self-appointed maluvi who may or may not have better knowledge about the issue than myself.
b)The Ahadith: I'm dubious about the Ahadith, since they are comments written by humans about another human's life. If that makes me a renegade Sunni, so be it. Islam needs more free thinkers. Your quotes are useful to me, I can use them the next time I get in a religous debate about the dangers of following hadith.

3. As for my personal experiences:

I'm sorry you've chosen to ignore them as conjecture, as that gives me no basis to discuss your own speculations, which raised some points worthy of discussion. One of which concerns why I am opposed to militant Islam and figuring out how to actively work against it as opposed to mouthing platitudes.

Posted by: jehana at March 5, 2006 12:55 AM

hew, lots of points Archimedes! There are some thoughtful questions in there. I like how you follow your namesake by numbering your arguments, but wish you could do it more consistently.

Anyhow, it's clear that you are heartfelt in your thoughts, and I'll do my best to answer your questions. Starting with the numbers:

1. Abuse: I am neither trying to sidestep the issue of abuse in Islam nor attack Christianity. I am simply stating that both Quranic and Biblical verses are used to justify abuse of women, and that I think this is wrong. Since you asked for proof from the Bible Here's a paper that discusses the issue fairly politely:

www.wheaton.edu/psychology/CCPC/Documents/Eckert.pdf

Is it unfair that I didn't include a similar paper about abuse within Islam? Well, maybe I'm waiting to write that paper myself.

In the meantime, please don't turn this conversation into the kind of drivel that goes on in the answering-christianity and answering-islam websites.

2. a)The Quran: I believe in the Quran. I've also been taught to read it in full, to study Arabic so I can make my own translations, and use my brain to interpret its meaning and how it applies to my life rather than running to some self-appointed maluvi who may or may not have better knowledge about the issue than myself.
b)The Ahadith: I'm dubious about the Ahadith, since they are comments written by humans about another human's life. If that makes me a renegade Sunni, so be it. Islam needs more free thinkers. Your quotes are useful to me, I can use them the next time I get in a religous debate about the dangers of following hadith.

3. As for my personal experiences:

I'm sorry you've chosen to ignore them as conjecture, as that gives me no basis to discuss your own speculations, which raised some points worthy of discussion. One of which concerns why I am opposed to militant Islam and figuring out how to actively work against it as opposed to mouthing platitudes.

Posted by: jehana at March 5, 2006 12:56 AM

"Islam needs more free thinkers."

Yes, Jehana, and do you think they need a 'name' to unite under? And for that movement to receive a few fatwahs from the extremists so that we can trust it? I don't think 'moderate' is the right name though - seems to mean anything but an actual terrorist...

Posted by: Lilith at March 5, 2006 12:59 AM

like...Progressive Muslims?
nope, they already have a website.
a 'fatwa'? now, do you mean "an answer to a question"(the literal meaning), "an opinion by a scholar which can be challenged"(the traditional meaning), or a "religious ruling by which a bunch of yahoos can get all up in arms about"(sadly, the current popular meaning in much world today).

honestly, why do you care about trusting people on the internet? It's more of a venue for discussion and transmission of information, and you're lucky if people try to do so intelligently.

Posted by: jehana at March 5, 2006 1:20 AM

I didn't mean trusting people on the net, but wishing to see and be able to trust a really huge and united movement of muslim free-thinkers that clearly stands against violence, sexism, expansionism and sharia.

Such a movement would presumably be renounced by the traditionalists, and I understood that they use fatwas to do that kind of renouncing - correct me if I'm wrong. Seeing a few imam-issued threats on the movement's leaders' heads would make the whole movement more trustworthy to many non-muslims. Sad but true.

I've gathered the meaning of the word 'fatwa' from fatwas to murder Hirsi Ali, Salmon Rushdie, Danish cartoonists etc. It seems to mean 'a ruling by which some muslims feel justified in murdering people'. Gee, I wonder why I never got the impression that it was just a scholarly opinion, such as 'well, I think you should murder Hirsi Ali, but sure, come along and debate with me on that...'.

Islamic terms that enter the media in that kind of context will be forming people's definitions. If you want to correct the definitions, perhaps you could approach the imams issuing these death warrants?

Posted by: Lilith at March 5, 2006 2:08 AM

Jehana,

I’m glad to hear you are a progressive Muslim (I don’t think they have a copyright on that name yet).

1. Abuse. Actually, I was talking about wife-beating specifically. I will check your link, but I’m almost certain that the Bible does not contain such a verse. I do recognize your point that people can exploit these ancient religious texts for their own negative purposes, but it should not be so easy for them to do so. These texts are ambiguous to some extent, but they are not so ambiguous that we can dismiss the core ideology itself, nor can we overlook the obvious meanings and most likely intended meanings of the verses.

Verse 4:34 means exactly what it says. Yusuf Ali recognized that and added the adjective lightly, as in “hit her lightly.” Lightly is not in the original text, but was added by Ali in his translation. This was probably not purely a subjective decision on his part, having some basis from the Hadith. (On the other hand, the report from Aisha regarding the wife with the bruise on her face, and indirect reference to the suffering of the believing women, is from the Sahih Bukhari collection, which is considered most valid in mainstream Sunni Islam. And it does not contradict the Koran's 4:34).

“Is it unfair that I didn't include a similar paper about abuse within Islam? Well, maybe I'm waiting to write that paper myself.”

Good to hear. I certainly encourage you to make such a critique. I do believe it would be better to reject the entire edifice, but I have no problem with genuine efforts at reform.

“In the meantime, please don't turn this conversation into the kind of drivel that goes on in the answering-christianity and answering-islam websites.”

I’m not sure what you are referring to. But if there’s something faulty in my posting, please do point it out, quote it.

“2. a)The Quran: I believe in the Quran. I've also been taught to read it in full, to study Arabic so I can make my own translations, and use my brain to interpret its meaning and how it applies to my life rather than running to some self-appointed maluvi who may or may not have better knowledge about the issue than myself.
b)The Ahadith: I'm dubious about the Ahadith, since they are comments written by humans about another human's life. If that makes me a renegade Sunni, so be it. Islam needs more free thinkers. Your quotes are useful to me, I can use them the next time I get in a religous debate about the dangers of following hadith.”

I’m glad to hear it. We (some of us posters) have had discussions with progressive Muslims here before on these issues.

The Hadith are reports written by humans, but so is the Koran.

There is a Sunni sect whose members believe that personal individualized interpretation of the Koran is the way to go (I can’t recall the name of that sect at the moment); they do not accept human intermediaries/authorities. Nevertheless, I don’t see much in the various sources and commentators that contradicts a straightforward reading of the Koran. These scholars know their material, and they can cite it extensively to back up their views.

Re translation. I’ve never taken this as a major issue because all of the available translations come out with a reasonably high level of agreement overall. Translation differences won’t turn “beat/hit/scourge” into “hugs and kisses.” All those insults (e.g., “worst beasts in Allah’s sight,” “worst of created beings,” etc.), directed at demonizing and stirring hate toward non-Muslims, do not come out as “disbelievers are fine upstanding citizens.” Whatever translation is used, the Koran still has all the major problems viz attitude toward non-Muslims, treatment of women, the failure to abolish slavery as an institution, etc. If anything, the English and other western translations have been toned down in harshness to be palatable to western audiences (see next paragraph). For example, “smite them at their necks” (8:12, 47:4 of Pickthall) seems to convey the idea that disbelievers were to be merely struck on the neck. It does not convey “swing your sword at their necks with such force as to decapitate them,” though the latter is the more exact intended meaning of the phrase in context. (Cutting off the head was not only a tactic designed to terrorize those on the battle field but also anyone else who might ever deal with Muslims). Likewise, verse 8:7 says “cut the disbelievers at their root” when the intended meaning is “kill every last one of them” or “wipe them out completely” or “exterminate them.” All that is necessary to get these meanings is to understand what the verses mean in context, and this comes from reading tafsir which removes the obscurities.

I should add that knowing Arabic itself might not be all that helpful. The Koran is written in classic Arabic with some additional influences (e.g., Syrian); several scholars have noted that there is a big difference between classical Arabic and modern Arabic. It's probably best to rely on what the expert translators and commentators have to say, rather than investing in the considerable time trouble of learning classical Arabic.

Re Hadith. Rejecting the Ahadith completely does solve a number of problems, but unfortunately others arise. E.g., the Yusuf Ali example would be purely his personal addition (“lightly”) to 4:34 if he did not have some (cherry-picked) hadith to back him up. In addition, many Muslims will have a serious problem with anyone who they think is altering the Koran.

There are also certain verses that are very problematic without Hadith. For example, verse 33:21 says believers should follow Mohammad’s example. But there’s not enough about Mohammad in the Koran to follow that. Therefore, one must go to the Hadith and Sira to get that information—and as you know, selecting such information as deemed to be valid from those sources is a very time-consuming and dubious enterprise. There are also some verses which become worse or more harsh without the Hadith. Verses 4:89-91 says to kill the renegades (hypocrites and apostates) wherever they are found (excepting those protected by peace treaty or those who offer no resistance/offer surrender). Without the secondary texts, we would not have evidence that these hypocrites and apostates were regarded as traitors for deserting the Muslims in a battle. A similar problem arises with verses 33:60-62, which says hypocrites, those in whose hearts is a disease, and alarmists (those who “spread false news,” to stir sedition against Islam) will be seized and slaughtered. With or without Hadith, these verses are still bad. Commentators who say the “hypocrites” in this case were also guilty of sabotage are basing their opinions on Hadith. As for those who “spread false news,” the death penalty is grossly excessive whatever way you look at it. And what is to stop those imams (and there have been many), who say the Mohammad cartoonists were stirring up sedition against Islam with their expressions, from calling for the execution of those cartoonists? “Those in whose hearts is a disease” is generally understood to refer to adulterers and/or lechers. Is the death penalty acceptable for this? Yet another issue with that passage is that, in 33:62, the verse says that this death penalty ruling was always the rule of Allah, and that Allah does not change such rules. These are the sorts of problems encountered when one tries to reform Islam be a re-reading of the Koran.
What is to stop someone from taking an even more harsh interpretation? For example, what is to stop someone from interpreting 5:32-5:33 to justify the execution of people who speak against Islam? All they have to do is interpret “wage war against Allah and the prophet,” and/or cause “corruption/mischief on earth” to include non-violent anti-Islamic expressions in these categories. Put that together with verses describing Allah’s destruction of people who caused mischief or who dismiss Allah’s words as fable, and statements saying Allah will punish them at your hands, and that disbelief is the worst crime, and so on, and it becomes clear that anyone can use those verses in the context of the whole Koran to justify killing of people for criticizing Islam. This is not arbitrary but is based on what’s in the Koran. In fact, such interpretations are widely used, and people are executed today for these alleged crimes. Such interpretations have been used throughout history. So relying on the Koran itself is dangerous.

I think efforts at positive reform have to be constrained and informed by modern values. This means that a different standard is being used to judge the Koran. If that is the case, then why bother with the Koran at all? I think the average person in modern secular society could fairly easily write a better ethical treatise than the Koran. So why is there all this effort to try and salvage the Koran? Why hold on to this? It is a weight around the necks of progressive Muslims and at the same time their biggest stumbling block!

Two key policies need to change in mainstream Islam and among the vast majority of Muslims. First, people must be free to leave the religion without the harsh penalties (which include ostracism, jail, financial ruin, and even execution). Second, people must be free to criticize the religion without the harsh penalties. (All major religions now have these freedoms, except Islam). Remove those penalties (and their threat), and all of the problems in Islam can be subject to reform much more easily. But as it is now, reformers are thwarted by those two harsh, stubborn policies. Governments and the U.N., instead of worrying about cartoons, should be focussed on putting pressure on governments such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, Sudan, etc., to ensure these freedoms are in place.

“3. As for my personal experiences: I'm sorry you've chosen to ignore them as conjecture, as that gives me no basis to discuss your own speculations, which raised some points worthy of discussion.”

I don’t ignore them. I have no reason to believe you are not reporting sincerely. But I would also not make firm conclusions based my own limited knowledge of the people I know. Anecdotal evidence is inherently limited. I would need to see studies on the topic including large samples of people. From what I’ve read over the years on this topic, violence against women continues to be a major problem in Islamic societies. The Koran is implicated in this insofar as Islamic tradition is shaped by its rulings and absence of rulings. Given the importance of the Koran, these conditions would be a very different if verse 4:34 said “do not beat your wife.”

Lastly, one source that I look to as a quick reference for problems in the Koran is this one http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm . There are a few problems with it, and it is not yet complete, but you will see many annotations on the problems regarding women in the Koran.

Posted by: Archimedes at March 5, 2006 6:10 AM

"Death by politeness? Is that how western civilization is to go down? Sometimes I think yes"

So do I !

Caroline awwww.... I am sorry to hear that people around you call you a Nazi etc. and I understand that it used to make you cry. Fortunately my family thinks as I do, except my sister but she is a reasonable person and can see reality so she will change her mind (she married an Israeli who is pro Palestinian and worships France, they live in Paris).

It is very nasty, when you are a sweet person (I am and I am sure you are too Caroline) to be insulted by people who certainly care less than we do and who are more racist than we are (because when you spend your days suspecting others of having hatred in their hearts it shows that maybe you are the one with the problem).

How is it possible to live in America and hate Amercia (same for France)? Why does not you sister just leave America and settle in a country she loves more ???

Actually, very few French people hate France (except a few Muslims who think that they are "Muslim" and not French) ... I think it is thanks to their anti americanism. It helps the French loving France as they think France is a Kingdom of Reason and Humanity whereas America is the Kingdom of Barbarians. Very practical to think that, isnt' it ?

I am always a bit shocked when I see that people like Mike Moore can speak out their hatred against America. It would be a scandal, in France I think. Some French rap singers did a song in which they said "France is a slut, fuck it like a whore until she dies" etc. and some MPs tried to have them arrested. It was a big controversy here.

But in the USA you have many people claiming that America is Evil etc. Why don't they leave ? It is beyond my understanding.

During my studies I had an American Professor(English language course) and she kept saying bad things about the USA, you know, they are obsessed with money, it is a totalitarian country, they kill people, they are ugly, they are ignorant... in the end I went to her and argued with her, I said to her "if you hate your country don't talk to us, because there are many nice things in the American culture and literature, but maybe you don't know them ?" and she apologised, she said "I just want to make you react so that you can speak English" lol. She was totally lefty as are most of the Americans who "teach" at French universities. I am always anrgy with them because for me, if one is not able to love one's roots and culture, one should either leave, and get another culture, or just do a good psychoanalysis, but not bother other people with self hatred and negative feelings.
(and the French kids are endoctrined into thinking that America is the worst coutnry in the world, that the elections are all fake, etc).

My God when I think about all those American teachers I got... I despise them entirely. Little freaks who are not even able to say one positive thing about a great Nation, America, and who think it is so cool to live in Paris, so fashionable, so "romantic" but they don't have one percent of French culture in their mind, they just imagine France is heaven because they are not able to love what they are. And they spit on their country but they don't realise that it is THEM which America did wrong !

Grrrrr !

"Self-inflicted systematic desensitization... " yes it would be wise. But I am proud of my being sensitive and I will always cry when I see stupidity and injustice.

Posted by: joiesauvage at March 5, 2006 8:07 AM

Jehana,

I did get a chance to go through that linked article you posted. The author focusses on Ephesians 5:21-33, which says among other things that the wife should submit to the husband, but there is nothing about corporal punishment. Also, this passage says that a husband should love his wife as his own body. Overall, it doesn't seem anywhere nearly as bad as Koran 4:34.

I've gone through an entire annotated Bible looking for problems viz spousal abuse
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html
There's lots of ugly and indeed insane material (e.g., death penalty for adultery) there, but I don't see anything authorizing husbands to abuse their wives.

Posted by: Archimedes at March 5, 2006 8:20 AM

Caroline & Joiesauvage,

I love you guys!

Of course you cry when someone calls you those nasty names and when you see stupidity and injustice. We westerners are being blamed for what ever ails ya, (or whatever ails "them",) but it ain't right. You, as I, are sensitive to these attacks because we weren't brought up to attack people, to hate people, to oppress people. The Christian belief, that is so often decried and put down here as so much gobbledeguck (sp?) is actually how we try to live our lives. I believe in loving my neighbor as myself. I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt and not demanding that they earn my respect before I give it to them. My God tells me to be kind to my enemies (that one's harder) and do good to those who despitefully use me. I'm trying!!! But I also am coming to recognize when a lie is a lie, and how to stand up and say so. And no apologies for this. (I remember a mantra I made up in the late 80's: "I no longer apologize for being who I am.")

I just read a link on another post here that talked about some Imam explaining that Sharia does not promote wars. The article said that when confronted with Islam non-Muslims should be invited to convert, then if they don't agree, to negotiate the tax and then if they still don't agree make war on them. So let me get this straight: I can a) give up my beliefs and accept a religion that, on pain of death, I cannot, or b) pay an extortionistic tax to live under Islamic rule of law anyway or c) risk death via war if I decide to stand up for myself and say no. Gee, none of those options really work for me but if I had to pick one, it would be, c) come and get me, if you can. None of those options offers the life of peace that I am promised as a practicing (however flawed and whatever mile in the journey I am on) Catholic and that I have experienced and do experience daily.

I'm with you guys. Caroline, I think we do need to have a de-sensitivation button that we can press when we need it but Miss Joiesauvage, I don't want to become hardened so that my heart won't crack open for anyone who comes knocking in need of some good old fashioned love and humanity. There must be a way to balance it. I'm searching for that way now.

Happy Sunday, girls!

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at March 5, 2006 12:35 PM

Archimedes:

I'd love to continue our conversation, but I just read the post about off-topic posting, and we are woefully off-topic. Can we continue these points for a more applicable thread? Looking forwards to it in the near future......

Posted by: jehana at March 5, 2006 12:40 PM

Jehana,

Re off-topic. Yeah, I can understand Robert's concern. Perhaps we can take this up at a different time; I know that the topic of reform in Islam does come up. Talk to you then...

Posted by: Archimedes at March 5, 2006 1:29 PM

Thank you for the nice post, Isabella.
Yes indeed, people say that they are not Christians anymore (at least in France) but their culture is totally Christian, even if they don't go to Chruch, and it is one of the reasons why we are unable to defend ourselves. Guilt, forgiveness, refusal to use violence, and respect for the