Aww, too bad. Itlooks like there goes poor old Naseem's hope of ever having a blonde Imam. But then a woman in Isam is only worth half of what a man is worth at best......

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at June 1, 2006 7:47 AM

PLEASE DON'T GIVE POOR NASEEM ONLY HALF BRAINS. AT LEAST SHE DARES TO COME TO THESE SITES TO POST HER ...THOUGHTS. UNLIKE MANY OTHER POOR MISLEAD STUPID ISLAMIC WOMEN. SHE MUST BE WORTH AT LEAST 4/5 OF A MAN'S BRAIN.
NASEEM LIVE IN HER OWN WORLD. NASEEMS SEES ONLY WHAT SHE WANTS TO SEE OR AS TOLD IN THE KORAN. ALL OTHER WOMEN AND THEIR PLIGHTS ARE INVISIBLE TO NASEEM. AS LONG AS SHE LIVES WELL.
NASEEM DOESN'T HAVE THE HORSES BLINDERS ON, SHE HAS MADE HERSELF DEAF DUMB AND BLIND TO THE SUFFERINGS INFLICTED BY HER ISLAM.

Posted by: desidude at June 1, 2006 8:57 AM

Desi,

Thank you for the support ...I think.

Actually I have a degree from a British Uni. I did "O" levels, A levels & a degree before meeting Anwer (at Uni) and then settling down with him in Lahore in the land of the pure.

1069...Imam Blondie...will show up ...it's only a matter of time.

Desi say "Naseem lives in her own world"....that may be true to an extent....as I dare to question parts of the Quaran.

I do see things though and I know that checks & balances for womens in the Quaran are there for a reason...and it is simply this.

"Those who "control" womens...will dominate Allah's earth".

By control I do NOT mean that they are beaten or not allowed to go out without a Maqharab...that's stupid.

But equally wild sluty behaviour cannot not be tolerated.

Alcholic drinking, smoking, dressing up as a way to demeane the clean nature of womens all must be gently prohibited....By this I mean persuaded...not belted...the Kafur has let the pandora loose...and irresponsibly left it for Islam to clean the mess....and then blame Islam for excesses....not a good situation.

Women should stay in the way of Allah...and leading prayers I believe is in the way of Allah....so I would support our right to lead prayers.

Posted by: Naseem at June 1, 2006 10:03 AM

wild sluty behaviour cannot not be tolerated.......the Kafur has let the pandora loose...

That sluty pandora's out of her box and getting in the way of Allah...

Posted by: Interested at June 1, 2006 10:19 AM

Judaism has reformed branches with women rabbis, and more and more of Christianity's "Protestants" have women as priests / priestesses, both recognizing that the "he-man-woman-hater's-club" excuses used by the more "traditional" sects (primarily Orthodox Judaism and Roman Catholicism) are merely absurd, throwback patriarchy disguised as "God's eternal truth".

Women were de facto slaves, serfs, chattel, and second-class citizens everywhere on Earth, and in every nation, until this past century (oh-so-advanced Switzerland only finally "allowed" women to vote in the late 1940's), so this masculine-self-doubt posing as "The Lord's Will" isn't surprising in any "faith". Women could be "nuns", washing the monks' and priests' robes, but not fulfulling the same capacity as men in leading the faithful in prayer or religious services.

Why?

Because silly, self-serving, (psychologically-transparent) males felt that XY as opposed to XX chromosomes was the Cosmos' Deity's way of saying: "I like you better, fellah!"

About as credible, when examined, as the Aztec's claim that the Sun required living, beating hearts to be torn out of people's chests to feed it energy and prevent darkness from falling over the Universe.

People can believe anything they wish.

But it is laughable logic to degrade half of humanity from serving in a religious context- in their fullest capacity- for pathetic rationales like: "Well, Jesus didn't have female apostles, did he?"- (forgetting that Jesus lived in a purely patriarchal society, and would probably have been crucified three years sooner, and had no male followers as well, had he utterly overthrown the Hebrew social norms at the start of his ministry).

The truer understanding that came out of Christian thought is: "...there is neither male nor female in me...". In laymen's words, gender is immaterial to the spiritual, ultimately, and the Truth can come from he mouths of females or males.

Islam has a different problem, since their "prophet" personally degraded and disparaged women and their essential, ontological worth, and codified it into eternal, unchanging law.

Getting around this, without the New Testament's loving revision of the patriarchal paralysis of the Old (even though Islam purportedly has Jesus [Isa] as one of its prophets), will be a thorny theological path for Muslims to tread.

First, they need to demote Mohammad from "the perfect man" and "eternal example" for Muslim men to follow, and to accept that, as a man, he was flawed, imperfect, and in is now in need of being "interpreted" into a more compassionate form, and not blindly swallowed whole as the unquestioned "model for humanity".

Good luck, Islam.

Even better luck, Muslim women.

Posted by: profitsbeard at June 1, 2006 10:30 AM

Naseem said, " do see things though and I know that checks & balances for womens in the Quaran are there for a reason...and it is simply this"

ok gotcha, check and balances for any woman who dares to act in any ohter way than what th ekoran says. ok what about check and balances for muslim males? most of the oppressions,death and violence due to islam is caused by muslim males. where is their checks and balances?

Posted by: desidude at June 1, 2006 10:37 AM

Allah commands:
Quran, Sura 4:34:

Men are the managers of the affairs of women...Those you fear may be rebellious--admonish; banish them to their couches and beat them.

Mohammed: Women are deficient in intelligence and religion.

The majority of people in hell are women (vol. 1, nos. 28, 301; vol. 2, no. 161)

Give it up Naseem. Neither a real God nor a real prophet would make blanket, discriminatory statements like these.

Free yourself. You are worth as much as a man.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at June 1, 2006 10:51 AM

"Checks and balances" is a political phrase. It probably originates with Jefferson Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 12.

The language and the assumptions that go with it are simply out of place in discussing how women choose to live their personal lives - it's a form of ignoratio elenchi.

It is, in its way, more evidence that Muslims, even highly heretical ones like Naseem, simply cannot distinguish between the political, the personal, and the religious.

Posted by: Yojimbo at June 1, 2006 10:52 AM

by the way Mohammed couldn't even get the name of Jesus correct. Jesus' name was Y'shua or Joshua. Jesus is a Greek term, not the original Aramaic/Hebrew....

Isa is a Arabicized version of Esau, not Joshua...

kind of like saying 'Jews say Ezra is the son of God'

It's all bull@#$#.... at any level of detail.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at June 1, 2006 11:00 AM

"other traditions have or have had the same provision, for a number of theological reasons that have nothing to do with some idea of female inferiority."

You're joking, right? As if theological reasons are free from gender discrimination. You know perfectly well that the Judeo-Christian tradition is mysoginistic at its very core, and in its every aspect. From God the Father and Genesis and on. It's just a fact. You don't have to be a "feminist" to acknowledge the obvious.

I don't know how your church operates, but in the Eastern Orthodox tradition women are not allowed in the altar for the simple fact that they are considered "impure," a notion shared by Judaism and Islam.

That things have evolved and both Christianity and Judaism have "reformed" doesn't change their foundation. Islam is the extreme expression of that mysoginistic foundation.

Posted by: ovidius_naso at June 1, 2006 11:01 AM

Ooops.
Make that "As if theological reasons were free..."

Posted by: ovidius_naso at June 1, 2006 11:04 AM

Having had relatives who were Middle east soldiers and who talked with amazement over the events performed within the brothels of Cairo and Alexandria (one was provost or MP) I hardly think that prostitution or sluttish behaviour is the pure prerogative of western women. It may seem so because of the dress sense of many but only a distinct minority behave in the way that western women are accused of behaving by Muslims.

In Iran even now prostitution is a lot more common than you woudle expect althoug there are no miniskirts at intersections to advertise this and this is so for most if not all muslim countries.

When I see that some Muslim women gloat over the death of their children lost in jihad I often wonder just if we are dealing with the same species or some subspecies created by 1400 years of repression, indoctrination and destruction of selfworth. Any women who gloats like this is far more vile than any young western woman who spreads her favours. While a female homicide bomber does not even belong tpo the same genus as western women.

There are some very brave muslim women out there but until they can throw off the shroud of islam and emerge into the light of truth nothting that they can say can have any real value as it is simply islamic manifesto in action. Even Naseem who does have some courage here and appears level headed for such a victim of longterm indoctrination, still speaks from within invisible bars of which she is not even aware.

She is brave yes but she still cannot see.

Posted by: Zathras at June 1, 2006 11:13 AM

A_Plague_on_Both_Houses, profitsbeard, Everyone Else,

"The truer understanding that came out of Christian thought is: "...there is neither male nor female in me...". In laymen's words, gender is immaterial to the spiritual, ultimately, and the Truth can come from he mouths of females or males. "

"Allah commands:
Quran, Sura 4:34:

Men are the managers of the affairs of women...Those you fear may be rebellious--admonish; banish them to their couches and beat them.

Mohammed: Women are deficient in intelligence and religion.

The majority of people in hell are women (vol. 1, nos. 28, 301; vol. 2, no. 161)"

When it comes to how women were or are treated in the Christian west vs. the Muslim east; got to remember also that how the founders of the two faiths, Jesus and Mohammed, treated women. Jesus treated women with the highest amounts of love, regards, and respect, as the Gospels have shown. Mohammed directed outright, in a negitive way how women are going to be treated in the Koran. Thus the dye has been set. While it is true we women have not always gotten a fair break, it is because of our human nature which can at times stand in the way of gender respect and peace. When I have read this fatwa, I was not suprised. The Moroccan Muslims are simply to not have to put up a fight from the jihadists.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at June 1, 2006 11:15 AM

I agree with ovidius naso above. The West's religious traditions are different on this issue from Islam by degree, and by being a part of an ongoing process of secular progress. It's fascinating to see once again the complex nuances of the anti-jihad movement: Robert defending a regressive wrinkle in Western culture, naso defending the secularism that is in tension with that wrinkle. One suspects that a Lawrence Auster, who otherwise had a tantrum of disagreement with Robert, would be on Robert's side in this wrinkle. No important movement is a seamless, monolithic unity; we must expect differences here and there. A progressive, modern Western secular civilization can sustain having within it pockets of religious traditions that persist in practicing misogynistic rituals and in doing so persist in amusingly defending those rituals as not misogynistic, without really having any deleterious affect on the overall progress of the secularism within which those pockets thrive.

Posted by: Television at June 1, 2006 1:31 PM

profitsbeard,

My wife leads Catholic prayers daily in a convent of retired nuns, distributes Communion to the sick, preaches at non-Eucharistic celebrations, and heads up ministry in cooperation with visiting (male) priests who treat her with respect and dignity. It is precisely in Catholicism which respects symbols (including the Bride-Groom symbolism connected with priestly ministry) that women have been elevated to high status. Secularists who prattle about empowering women are almost never found denouncing pornography which objectifies women, nor those who kill unborn baby girls, nor those who would discard their wives for a new one because of "incompatibility." In the earliest Christian communities there are bishops who tell fathers that while they are entitled to advise their daughters about the choice of a mate, they must respect the daughters decision about (A) whether to marry, and (B) who to marry. They insist that the daughter's refusal trumps the fathers arranged marriage. This is centuries before the birth of Muhammad. Modern secularism in both its capitalist and socialist forms degrades women by reductionistically valuing women for their work in the public sector while devaluing their irreplaceable function as mothers. It does the same thing to men, encouraging careerism which places self-fullfillment ahead of the wife and children. The boring self-absorption of the characters in SEX AND THE CITY are an illustration of the dead end of sexularist sexual ideology. How interesting that the series ends with the women getting married.

Posted by: Tom at June 1, 2006 3:50 PM

Tom, a second wrong doesn't make the first wrong a right.

Posted by: Television at June 1, 2006 4:33 PM

Tom-

Glad your wife is allowed to help, although in a diminished capacity

But I don't understand your point.

And I would only ask:

Are women equal, or not?

It has nothing to do with "secular", "liberal", "sex and the city", "mystical doctrines of the bridegroom and church" or even "abortion" (many earlier religious dogmas claimed that the child had no soul until it took its first, after-being-born breath- an "in-spiration", literally, so abortion was of a not-yet en-souled creature, and thus, was not anything like what we now consider it to be... the death of a "viable human").

I repeat:

Are women equal, or not?

We all begin life in the womb as females, ironically, with the root sexual/structural formation only changed by the introduction of male-making hormones (at about the 14th week) causing the cells differentiate as these chemicals re-program the primal female embryo to a little guy.

So, as a primordial female, I protest all of this patriarchal, crypto-misogynistic, theocratic flapdoodle, and say:

Women and men are equal.

And Vive la difference!

(Ashley Montagu, of course, wrote about "The Natural Superiority of Women", and, by his specific arguments, I would have to agree that, for certain aspects of biological survival and response to stress, disease, etc., he was correct. No men can keep the species going, being wombless... and will be stymied until those portable uteruses thast they are always working on in sci-fi comedies are up and gurgling.)

The Churches have no excuses for their continued, shameless patriarchy except the unacknowledged Old Boy's Network gone Cosmic.

Which only makes them Divine Comedies.

Unconscious, or not.

Posted by: profitsbeard at June 1, 2006 8:04 PM

Of course, it's true that it is not necessarily discriminatory to have only men lead prayers in mosques -- other traditions have or have had the same provision, for a number of theological reasons that have nothing to do with some idea of female inferiority.

As a female who likes to use her brain for thinking her own thoughts and analyzing new ideas I'd like to ask why it is not discriminatory to bar women from leading prayers. Sexism is defined as differing treatment based on sex in a situation where sex is irrelevant. How is one's sex relevant to leading prayer?

I'd like to know what theological reasons there could be for this discrimination and how they are not based on an idea of supposed female inferiority.

Perhaps we might hear reasons such as the fact that Jesus was a male, therefore ... etc., etc. But why is the sex of Jesus (a physical characteristic determined at conception) more relevant than other physical characteristics, such as eye colour, height, ethnicity, and so on? Why indeed are physical characteristics of any importance at all in religions which claim the preeminence of spiritual matters?

In the Moroccan example of discrimination based on sex, once again we see males placing restrictions on the actions of females. The fact that this is not the other way around speaks volumes for the state of "equality" here, despite the hollow and patronizing assurances from the discriminators to those discriminated against that this restriction "diminishes neither their value nor their role."

Thanks, but no thanks. Time for clear-thinking women to form their own religions. The truly sad part of this is that the women of Islam, and to a lesser extent the other mainstream religions, have never been allowed the joy of thinking.

Posted by: Jen at June 1, 2006 9:06 PM

Hello, profitsbeard,

Yes, women and men are equal in human rights and dignity. You correctly point out that there was a time when people did not yet understand that the genetic basis for all developments in the organism were present from conception. So the Church which insisted on respect not only for human life but for the entire process of human procreation (radically distinguishing it from animal reproduction) did not see early abortions as murder, but as immoral nevertheless. However, nowadays when we have an in depth knowledge of the awesome process of conception and know that, scientifically, a zygote is the earliest stage of a human organism, one would expect secularists to insist on respect for zygotes (which in human cultural language as opposed to scientific verbiage) as very tiny babies! But what we find is that the Church moves with the new scientific understanding and insists with even stronger energy that one and all should respect the most defenseless human individuals from attack. Since the right to life is a human right and both men and women, boys and girls, male and female individuals have EQUAL rights, it is just as wrong to abort a baby girl zygote as a baby boy zygote.

The association of priesthood with maleness is a distinguishing characteristic of both Jewish and Christian priesthood. Far from being connected with sexist attitudes (priestesses were ubiquitous in the ancient world outside of Israel and the Early Church), it is exclusively in the Early Church that we find insistence on such virtues as male chastity (no double standard), the equal right of men and women to choose NOT to marry and establish a family, the affirmation of the right of women to leadership over all female communities (abbesses), and the strong repudiation of the notion that men can dump their wives (something found only in the Church). The central icon of Christianity is a naked male disempowered by being nailed to a cross, and Christian belief is that all beauty and redemptive truth flow from this mystery of male chosen powerlessness. The notion that a Church which values symbolic power would become so politically correct as to "empower" status seeking and power seeking women is absurd. The point is to relinquish power. Men who want to become priests to lord it over others are not called by God. The Christian community (Orthodox and Catholic) values the Marian principle even more highly than the Petrine hierarchical principle.

Finally, women are equal to men. But men and women embody human nature in different ways. Both are equal as persons, and different as gendered beings. It is reductionistic to reduce sexuality to something superficial like height, weight, color, etc. Our genderedness lies at the core of our identity. The image of God is found not only in the human individual, but even more fully in the human couple which, like the Trinity is bound together in love and life in an embrace that (voila) radiates out into the other - new human life. While not all are called to physical fecundity, all are called to some sort of spiritual fatherhood and motherhood as one of the most important dimensions of human personhood. This is why when a man is dying he doesn't wonder if he was the best scientist or the best stockbroker or the best engineer, but "Was I a good father to my children and husband to my wife."

These are critically important questions as our culture engages Islam. Despite tje presence of the Episcopal Church in America from Colonial days and despite impressive numbers in the past, there are now more Muslims in America than Episcopalians. Churches which try to be politically correct and view abortion as a sacrament and ordination of women as correction of injustice are dying. Churches which insist that morality is about discovering TRUE norms rather than creating them are thriving - despite major scandals.

The SEX of Jesus is not the relevant factor, but His CHOICE is. In a cultural context (the Hellenistic world), a Man Who had exceptional tenderness for women and Who did not hesitate to violate the taboos of first century Judaism about gender boundaries (the discussion with the woman at the well, etc.) chose MEN to preside at the ritual commemorating the salvific event - the marriage bed of the cross where the New Adam generates the New Eve through the blood and water pouring from his dead body. This is the most powerful rebuke to macho posturing in human history.

There ARE secularists who get some of this - like the atheist former editor of the VILLAGE VOICE Matt Hentoff who says "I was in the civil rights movement because they were dumping on people because of their skin color; now I'm in the pro-life movement because they're dumping on people 'cuz their little, VERY little." Hence we have organizations like "Atheists for Life" and even "Communists for Life." What we need now are secularists who have the courage to say and to insist that men should honor the promises they make to women about life time fidelity. In most states today the marriage contract is the EASIEST contract from which to unilaterally disengage oneself (no fault divorce). How does this differ from the Shiite practice of a "temporary" marriage contract - the ubiquitous form of prostitution in Tehran?

Posted by: Tom at June 1, 2006 11:10 PM

Hi, bigcatgirl,

Of course, the truth can come from the mouth of a male or a female. But THE Truth in Person came from the womb of a woman who conceived through her ear (listening to the Word). This is why the deepest feminism and the kind that is most challenging to Islam is Christian feminism.

Posted by: Tom at June 1, 2006 11:32 PM

Tom-

It was Jesus' human failing that made him was too weak to choose women and men as his apostles, and to all-too-meekly allow the transparent bullying patriarchy of his era and the male-dominated Hebrew faith to relegate half of humanity to servant status eternally.

But that's no reason for us to remain as locked in the historical flaws of previous leaders, religious or not. (Slavery was ended, even though there are Biblical justifications for it, as well for as stoning adulteresses.)

The Trinity would make more symbolic/emotional/and transcendant sense if it were 'Father-Mother-Child' rather than Three Guys, one pictured as a dove/flame/light.

It is placing a Cosmic Imbalance at the core of Creation.

And no amount of (coincidentally-male-self-serving?) rationalizations will make it otherwise.

Only forcibly rendering women ignorant and illiterate for 1900 of 2000 years of Christianty kept them quiet.

I think the silence is over.

At least that's what I hear.

P.S.

And that's Nat Hentoff.

Posted by: profitsbeard at June 2, 2006 12:27 AM

Hello, profitsbeard!

Sorry for getting Hentoff's first name wrong. As I move further into my dottage, I find this sort of thing happens all too often. Keeps me humble! LOL

Posted by: Tom at June 2, 2006 1:52 PM

Hello, again, profitsbeard,

I understand how viewing Christian sources from the outside of a Christian community can lead to the sorts of interpretations you defend. I also understand how you would be led to view them the way you do if you use prevailing secular assumptions as a hermeneutic lens. However, I'd like to offer just a few facts for your consideration.

1. The early Christian communities, despite the fact that women were not able to be witnesses on an equal basis with men in a court of law, produced texts which insisted that several women be taken seriously as witnesses to Jesus' resurrection. If the Christian community was as foot loose and fancy free as Dan Brown with truth and facts, it could have easily altered this (in the context of the time) embarrassing detail. Even the sexist effort to reject the Resurrection as womens' tales did not lead to the excision of these texts.

2. The texts produced by the early Christian communities show women involved as leaders and collaborators with the Apostles from day one. The issue is not female leadership, but appropriate iconigraphic representation of Christ in the central celebration of THE Christian mystery - Truth and Love and Forgiveness for all flowing from the side of a willfully disempowered Male. It has proved to be the most subversive symbol in human history. ONLY in cultures formed by this symbol have womens' status been elevated and slavery been abolished.

3. Far from permitting the faithful to view Trinitarian symbols as "three guys", the Catholic Church teaches: "By calling God Father, the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendant authority; and that he is at the same time goodness and loving care for all his children. God's parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of MOTHERHOOD, which emphasizes God's immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. The language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for people. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. We ought therefore to recall that God TRANSCENDS HUMAN DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE SEXES. HE IS NEITHER MAN NOR WOMAN: HE IS GOD. He also transcends human fatherhood and motherhood, although he is their origin and standard: no one is father as God is Father." [CATHECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, #239]

4. Far from renderning women "ignorant and illiterate" for thousands of years, it was in the bosom of the Church that female scholarship and literacy flourished, which is why scholars discover when they use textual criticism to reconstruct the original autograph of the RULE OF SAINT BENEDICT that they are dealing primarily with texts that have female pronouns (found in convents of Benedictine nuns rather than in monasteries of monks). In the families of devout Catholics (like that of Thomas More, the Lord Chancellor of England under the sybaritic Henry VIII), girls were taught to read. In More's case he insisted that his daughter, like his sons, study Greek and Latin, philosophy and theology. One of his daughters became a recognized classical scholar in her own right and was able to hobnob with Erasmus on a basis of equality. More is proposed as a model of the Catholic father.

5. As for the masses of illiterate women, they stood alongside of their illiterate husbands (the common lot of most, but not all, peasants in medieval Europe and all other continents), but gratefully acknowledged the learning they were able to acquire through the masterpieces of Western art, which is why whenever faculty lounge lizards opine that the Church should sell its art to feed the poor, there's never applause among the poor who need beauty in their lives too and are grateful that they don't have to pay the high fees of the art museums to see the best, but only continue their habit of weekly Mass attendance. This is why atheists like Fellaci rail so strongly against Islamic iconoclasm and its threat to the artistic treasures of the West.

6. As for your reference to the "male dominated Hebrew faith" relegating half of humanity to servant status eternally, it's another species of the Left's making common cause with Islamic anti-Semites. It's an insult to Reform and Reconstructionist Jews who share certain aspects of your critique, and ignores the ongoing efforts of Orthodox and Conservative Jews to make sense of their faith without capitulating to secular blindness to fundamental human values like the right to life of unborn baby girls.

Finally, I'm not too worried that secularist "progressive" ideas will take over in America because secularists aren't sold on the idea of large families and making babies. And the ultra-orthodox Jews (like the Lubavitchers) have an AVERAGE of eight children per couple, and young Catholic intellectuals at Ivy League schools like Princeton are rediscovering that the contraceptive mentality threatens the future of all of us.

Posted by: Tom at June 2, 2006 2:38 PM

This is simply not an issue of any importance for us non-Muslims. It has no impact on Jihad nor does it effect those in dhimmitude.

Orthodox Jews don't have female Rabbis and Orthodox Christians and Catholics don't have female priests. That is a concern only to their believers.

The purely religious aspects don't oppress us. If they want to abstain from non-halal meat, make a haj, and pray five times a day, there is no threat there. I wouldn't really care if their prayers are led by men, women, or trained parrots, if they weren't trying to force it on others.

Islam is a threat to us because of its ideological component, not its religious practices. That Islam divides the world into dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb with eternal jihad against us non-believers is the issue. That Islam reduces all of us to dhimmis and oppresses non-Muslims as well as Muslim women is an issue. The list goes on and on.

We should focus on those aspects of Islam that threaten us all. If jihad is preached by a woman, it is no different than if jihad is preached by a man. Likewise, a female suicide bomber is just as much a murderer as a male suicide bomber.

Posted by: Provoslavni at June 2, 2006 6:41 PM

Amen. Amen. Tom

Posted by: Tom at June 2, 2006 7:16 PM

"Islam is a threat to us because of its ideological component, not its religious practices."

Insofar as its religious system is characterized by an obsessive-compulsive attention to detail far more intense and extensive than any other religion, Islam inculcates a mindset that is regimented unto totalitarianism and demented unto jihad.

Posted by: Television at June 2, 2006 11:24 PM

Naseem, while you might not be worth half of what a man is in Islamic society, because you have a degree from a Western university I'm sure you are worth at least a goat and two chickens. And there will never be a blond female Imam. Your own culture simply will not allow it. Whether you admit it or not, Islam is rooted in racism, slavery and oppression. Look how the Saudis look down their noses at anyone who is not a Saudi. They are lesser Muslims to them. And your Shia and Sunni will always kill each other. Islam will self destruct, long before it will ever come close to ruling the world. So relax, make yourself a ham sandwich, have a nice gin and tonic and sit back and enjoy the show.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at June 4, 2006 3:53 PM

Now that my computer, just having been upgraded has come back from the computer upgrade shop, just want to say to Tom that you did very well in your posts in this thread.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at June 5, 2006 2:44 PM