Since when did the letter 'M' come after 'W', or is this just Muslim-bashing?

Any Muslims? Maybe there are not many Muslims here by quirk of fate or maybe your hiding out. I tire of defending cowards from some peoples racism (wrong -ism but you know hat I mean). If you are not afraid to to use pseudonyms with people a continent or so away, we'd appreciate it. By your silence you are tacitly approving (although it may be a bit extreme) the fundamentalists. Of course, except for Sven of nine, maybe you don't exist.

I do exist. I'm a Muslim, and I'm quite proud of the fact.

I don't really care for fundamentalism... that's not true Islam.

I really wish more people would start posting on these things, you know?

K.T., post under a different name, ok. Killer Terminal and Muslim you for discrimination. (Just like the US was asking for the 911 attack or a woman in a short skirt is asking to be raped.)

Hey, I have a question.

Why are women not allowed to leave the property without a male escort?

Which property?

I thought that was only in more "fundamentalist" states. Remember, for example, Benazir Bhutto was Prime Minister of Pakistan.

I don't know about actual practice, but I had heard that - in theory, anyway - a female is not allowed to leave the house or adjoining property without a male escort.

Kinda like the wife can't go grocery shopping without her husband being a tagalong.

Why's that?

What gets me is the reaction of the majority of Americans defending Arabs that were not involved. (Heck, go to PM WTC boards and see me arguing with Pesti defending Moslems [isn't Pesti a minority?]) When Falwell & co. tried to use the 9/11 attacks to push their conservative agenda the sane majority made them back down. I think there is a sane majority in the Muslim community. (If I am wrong, Pesti was right.) The 9/11 attacks are their failure. Then they counted on me to defend them? Think about it, Moslems, I'm a volunteer and easily distracted.

Failure is not dishonorable. Not trying is dishonorable. I might not have heard sane Muslim voices, but I don't think they are loud enough.

Sane Muslims,
If you really are opposed to random killing and don't shout that it is not Allah's will then you are to blame when some nuts do something $tupid. If you don't have the courage to stand up for what you believe on an anonymous message board... well get a mirror and tell me what you see.

Blue Berry: I think there is a sane majority in the Muslim community. The 9/11 attacks are their failure.
Luigi Novi: The 9/11 attacks are the terrorists' crimes. Not law-abiding Muslims' "failure."

When an IRA bomb goes off somewhere, it's the fault of the "sane" Irish for not denouncing them? Am I to blame for the people John Gotti killed because I didn't shout it out that organized crime is wrong?

Sorry, William, but that's just bunk. No one paid attention to the clues to see that 9/11 was coming. I even read an interview with bin Laden in GQ in 2000, and I certainly wasn't more alarmed than usual. It was a failure of both the intelligence community, and of those of us too complacent to recognize the significance of its harbingers, myself included, not freedom-loving Muslims.

The responsibility for a crime falls on the one who commits it, not people who share the same ethnicity or religion. Indeed, many freedom-loving Muslims have gone on record to denounce the attacks. I heard 'em.

Blue Berry: Then they counted on me to defend them?
Luigi Novi: The two have nothing to do with one another. Blaming all Muslims for 9/11 is wrong, and it is most certainly the obligation of ALL of us to defend victims of bias crimes. We know that bias attacks upon civil, America-loving Muslims are occurring. They, by contrast, did not know that the 9/11 attack was coming. None of us did.

Speaking of which, Dinesh D'Souza opens his new book, What's So Great About America by discussing the three schools of thought that object to American globalism: The European School, or French School, the Asian School, and the Islamic School. In this section, he illustrates with clarity where exactly anti-American Muslim sentiment comes from, and how it evolved historically. I'm reading the book now, and I recommend it.

Luigi,
I said "failure" not "crime". Yes, when an IRA bomb goes off it is failure of sane Irishmen who could say, "Patrick, we love you, but that is $tupid."

John Gotti? Are you made man in the family? If so then, yes, it is your failure. If you just happen to be the same ethnic group, an ethnic group that has distanced itself from them by the way, then you tried.

Luigi, I have to disagree with you, I think. You speak of the two having nothing to do with each other. I am not sure what two you are refering to. If you mean the 9/11 attacks and Pesti's genocidal reaction; yes they are related. If you mean my continually looking to hand off to a sane Muslim and finding no one there and Pesti's genocidal reaction; yes they are related. If you mean my growing frustration with the "sane" Muslims (for lack of a better term) for not even trying to reign in their fundamentalist wings and their fundementalist doing 9/11; yes they are related. Since that appears obvious to me I assume you are talking of something I'm not thinking of.

I don't care where arab hatred of the US came from. They can hate us all they want, that is their right. I want them to stop killing us. Words are OK, bullets (or pasenger planes) are not.

Why do I single out "sane" Muslims? I can't go into a mosque and denounce them. (Well I can but it will have no effect.) One Muslim will have little effect but infinitely more than me. (One hundred Muslims will have more effect but some one need the cojones to be first.)

If it comes down to an external solution then we can only use bullets whereas an internal solution can use words. A solution is needed. If it is not internal then it must be external.

I believe there that "sane" Muslims exist. (I hate that term it implies that the usual Muslims are crazy; anyone got a better term?) Where are they? Have they no cajones? If they don't show themselves then they are relying on me, and that is a tragic mistake. I am external.

I'm not blaming all Muslims for 9/11. I'm putting the blame the only place it can go. The feet of the "sane" Muslims who did not act.

You need a "Christian" corralary? Abortion is a heated topic. There are many extremists on both sides. (Mostly one, but I digress.) There are abortion clinics bombed and abortion doctors killed. Even in the pro-life community there are many who denounce those activities while still preaching protest before and after each attack. I see no "sane" Muslim equivelent. It may be the media's fault. (The guys with the Kalishnakov's chanting, "Death to America," are more photogenic than the "sane" Muslim who says, "Ever read the Koran?") Even if it is the media's fault, I should see something.

Blue Berry: Luigi, I said "failure" not "crime". Yes, when an IRA bomb goes off it is failure of sane Irishmen who could say, "Patrick, we love you, but that is $tupid."
Luigi Novi: How can they say that if they don’t know it’s going to happen? If you stood on the street with a camera and microphone to interview people, I’m sure the sane ones would say, "Yeah, that’s wrong," and indeed, I’ve seen such Muslims say so on the news. But why would some Muslim guy sitting in his barcalounger say this, and who would he say it to, if he doesn’t know it’s going to happen. Who in the "sane" Muslim world knew 9/11 was going to happen? Your complaint makes no sense.

John Gotti? Are you made man in the family? If so then, yes, it is your failure. If you just happen to be the same ethnic group, an ethnic group that has distanced itself from them by the way, then you tried.
Luigi Novi: But you just said sane members of that group. Now you’re switching it and talking about like-minded individuals. You started off saying that law-abiding Muslims/Irish/Italians should denounce the criminal element of their respective ethnic groups, and now you’re saying it’s not the law-abiding majority, but the fellow criminals who should do so, saying that "made men" should do so and that the lawful ones aren’t to blame.

Blue Berry: Luigi, I have to disagree with you, I think. You speak of the two having nothing to do with each other. I am not sure what two you are referring to.
Luigi Novi: The implied notion that lawful Muslims are responsible for 9/11, and the obligation we all have to defend them from bias attacks, and the implied notion that they are hypocrites for the other because they didn’t prevent the one.

I’ll ask it again: How can you blame ANY Amercian citizens—Muslim or otherwise—for something they didn’t know what was going to happen? My friend Eddie Romero is a Sunni Muslim. You’re saying he’s to blame for 9/11? As a Union City police officer, he and his friends went to NYC to assist with the efforts. You act as if there’s some big meeting place of all Muslims worldwide, or some weekly newsletter that says, "Okay fellow Muslims, we’re taking out the WTC. Don’t tell the Christians and the Jews."

Who exactly do you feel should’ve "voiced" this denouncement? How many? To whom? Where? When? You’re saying all American Muslims should’ve held a press conference to denounce something they didn’t know was going to occur? This makes no sense. When the topic does come up and becomes a pertinent issue, they most certainly do condemn such things, and they have. The idea that we should not condemn bias attacks because they didn’t condemn something they knew nothing about is ridiculous.

Blue Berry: I'm not blaming all Muslims for 9/11. I'm putting the blame the only place it can go. The feet of the "sane" Muslims who did not act.
Luigi Novi: Again, what precisely, and specifically, do you feel they should’ve done, and how?

You need a "Christian" corralary? Abortion is a heated topic. There are many extremists on both sides. (Mostly one, but I digress.) There are abortion clinics bombed and abortion doctors killed. Even in the pro-life community there are many who denounce those activities while still preaching protest before and after each attack. I see no "sane" Muslim equivalent.
Luigi Novi: Then you haven’t been looking. I’ve seen many Musliims go on record on TV, in print, etc. denouncing such things. They’ve been on the news, they’ve been on Politically Incorrect, etc. How can they not? American Muslims love America as much as all other Americans, and indeed, many of them came here to escape the very insanity and intolerance that Al Qaeda promotes in Arab countries. What more do you want? Skywriting saying "Okay, we’re not with them"?

Luigi,

I gotta run. But...

John Gotti? Are you made man in the family? If so then, yes, it is your failure. If you just happen to be the same ethnic group, an ethnic group that has distanced itself from them by the way, then you tried.
Luigi Novi: But you just said sane members of that group. Now you’re switching it and talking about like-minded individuals. You started off saying that law-abiding Muslims/Irish/Italians should denounce the criminal element of their respective ethnic groups, and now you’re saying it’s not the law-abiding majority, but the fellow criminals who should do so, saying that "made men" should do so and that the lawful ones aren’t to blame. --Luigi Novi

Luigi,
The problem is with the definition of "group." Is the mafia a group? Are you a member of that group? If you are a member of that group, yes it is your failure. If you are member of the group of Italian-Americans you are not responsible. Capise?

Do you honestly think our hypothetical IRA gunman never spouted off about killing the Brittish? He doesn't have to be specific about leaving a car bomb next to a crowded metro station during rush hour. "I'll kill those Limey B*stards," will do.

Are you Catholic? Have you gone to church where the priest railed about an abortion clinic and then talked morality to some guy who said he was going to make the abortionists pay while they were shaking hands? (I happened to be next in line for a hand shake.)

By the way, I've got one example of a "sane" Muslim. General Musharif (sp?). Although the Indian government will claim he does not practice what he preaches he does stand up and say that fundementalist are giving all muslims a bad name. It should not take me a year and a day to find a voice of reason among muslims.

Luigi Novi: Then you haven’t been looking. I’ve seen many Musliims go on record on TV, in print, etc. denouncing such things. They’ve been on the news, they’ve been on Politically Incorrect, etc. How can they not? American Muslims love America as much as all other Americans, and indeed, many of them came here to escape the very insanity and intolerance that Al Qaeda promotes in Arab countries. What more do you want? Skywriting saying "Okay, we’re not with them"? --Luigi

Why are you deliberate mis reading my posts? I did not say American Muslims. How many American Muslims live in Saudi Arabia?

Blue Berry: Luigi, The problem is with the definition of "group." Is the mafia a group? Are you a member of that group? If you are a member of that group, yes it is your failure. If you are member of the group of Italian-Americans you are not responsible. Capise?
Luigi Novi: What the hell is "capise"? And again, you seem to me to be switching what you originally said. First you said that the lawful, civil members of said group (Muslims) should denounce the attacks, now you’re saying that fellow members of the criminal element of that group are to blame. Which is it? If in using the Mafia example, you claim that fellow mafiosi are to blame, then the Muslim equivalent would be fellow Al Qaeda. But you’re not saying that fellow Al Qaeda are to blame, but that lawful, civil, freedom-loving Muslims are. The analogy is not consistent.

Blue Berry: Do you honestly think our hypothetical IRA gunman never spouted off about killing the British? He doesn't have to be specific about leaving a car bomb next to a crowded metro station during rush hour. "I'll kill those Limey B*stards," will do.
Luigi Novi: The idea that I have to drop everything, get on a soapbox and bother some moron who I overhear saying such things is idiotic. First of all, there is no way to know if he’s serious or just talking trash out of anger. Second, just what makes you think that that guy doesn’ t already know that there are those who disagree with him? The idea that if I get into his face and disagree with him will have a discernible effect on bombings is false. The IRA already know that there are Irish who condemn them.

Blue Berry: By the way, I've got one example of a "sane" Muslim. General Musharif (sp?). Although the Indian government will claim he does not practice what he preaches he does stand up and say that fundamentalist are giving all muslims a bad name.
Luigi Novi: And given that Pakistan is on the verge of civil war, and that his own people hate him, I’d say such a thing, in and of itself, is not going to have any effect. The idea that Bin Laden’s boyfriends would’ve stopped everything and cancelled their plans because of what Musharraf said is false.

Blue Berry: I did not say American Muslims. How many American Muslims live in Saudi Arabia?
Luigi Novi: Then perhaps you should’ve been a bit clearer as to what you meant, since you never said "Saudi Arabia," or otherwise specified where you were talking about.

The IRA already know that there are Irish who condemn them.

I'm not sure, but I think this gets to the heart of Berry's point. assuming I have been following his main idea correctly ( huge assumption, especially lately). The whole world knows that people that the IRA look to for leadership have condemned the terrorist activities. The Italian-American community in general has decried the actions of the American Mafiosi (sp?).

But do you remember that shortly after 9/11 a Saudi sheik donated money for relief and rebuilding, but made statements essentially blaming the US for the attack and somewhat sympathetic to the the hijackers? This was one "voice of reason" that Berry was hoping to hear, but didn't.

And Rudy gave the money back, too!

Luigi Novi, your first name is Luigi, but you don't speak Italian?

jwb: No, Berry just spelled it wrong. It's capice, not capise. Naturally nobody here has any clue exactly what the hell a capise is. And not every Italian-American can speak the language. I'm a half-German, fourth generation Canadian-American and I can't speak French or German! Hell there are days (usually after a long day at work) wher eI can't even speak English!

Blue Berry: Luigi, The problem is with the definition of "group." Is the mafia a group? Are you a member of that group? If you are a member of that group, yes it is your failure. If you are member of the group of Italian-Americans you are not responsible. Capise?
Luigi Novi: What the hell is "capise"? And again, you seem to me to be switching what you originally said. First you said that the lawful, civil members of said group (Muslims) should denounce the attacks, now you’re saying that fellow members of the criminal element of that group are to blame. Which is it? If in using the Mafia example, you claim that fellow mafiosi are to blame, then the Muslim equivalent would be fellow Al Qaeda. But you’re not saying that fellow Al Qaeda are to blame, but that lawful, civil, freedom-loving Muslims are. The analogy is not consistent. -- Luigi

OK Luigi let me spell it out for you. Al Queda = Mafia. Muslims = Italian-Americans. Are the Mafia respect members of the Italian community? At local sons of St. Patrick (I don't know Italian social groups so you'll have to translate that for me) are the priest and cop on the same social footing as the mafia don? How about DA's. I can name two local DA's that are Italian. I'm sure in this country there must be a couple hundred. Does you community look up to the more, less, or about the same as a Mafia Don? It might be the result of media bias, but I don't see that INTERNATIONALLY with Muslims.

How the heck do you spell that Italian word for "understand"? You told me before and I thought it was C-A-P-I-S-E.

Luigi Novi: The idea that I have to drop everything, get on a soapbox and bother some moron who I overhear saying such things is idiotic. First of all, there is no way to know if he’s serious or just talking trash out of anger. Second, just what makes you think that that guy doesn’t already know that there are those who disagree with him? The idea that if I get into his face and disagree with him will have a discernible effect on bombings is false. The IRA already know that there are Irish who condemn them. -- Luigi

"That moron" you over heard can be your brother. It can be the guy you sit next to in church for twenty years. It can be the guy who always needs to borrow a shilling at the local pub.

Does the IRA (or did the IRA) know there were Irish opposed to them? Did they assume silence was at least tacit approval or at least toleration? Instead of putting words in our average IRA gunman's mouth we should give any IRA members a chance to voice the truth.

Luigi Novi: And given that Pakistan is on the verge of civil war, and that his own people hate him, I’d say such a thing, in and of itself, is not going to have any effect. The idea that Bin Laden’s boyfriends would’ve stopped everything and cancelled their plans because of what Musharraf said is false.

Read my first post! Remember the part about one person not making a lot of difference but a hundred will? Would Bin Laden's boy friends be stopped? We will never know if there would have been Bin Laden's boy friends will we? It is not because the "sane" Muslims failed. It is because the "sane" Muslims didn't try. (Before someone brings up honor, humans are not Klingon. The notion that dishonor lies in failure is $tupid. Dishonor lies in not trying knowing that failure is a possibility.)

Luigi Novi: Then perhaps you should’ve been a bit clearer as to what you meant, since you never said "Saudi Arabia," or otherwise specified where you were talking about. --Luigi

If the receiver drops a pass it can be a bad throw or a bad catch attempt. The quarter back blames the receiver and the receiver blames the quarterback. Even though I think it is the receiver’s fault I'll throw to you next down.

TomM,

If you get what I’m saying, can I be unclear?

By the way, other than Killer Terminal (whom I suspect was impersonating a Muslim) there are no Muslim’s posts here. Yoo-hoo, Muslims! We don’t want to talk about you behind your back.

My first name is Sandy and my vocabulary extends to far more than "Arf!"

Talk about stereotyping! Luigi's name is an indication of his family history (or his parents' obsession with Super Mario Brothers), it doesn't define who he is as a person.

Besides, it's capice.

"Are you trying to say capice?" "Yeah" "Well, don't do it, cuz it hurts my ears when you do it." - My Blue HEaven

Has Sven posted here?

Blue Berry: It is not because the "sane" Muslims failed. It is because the "sane" Muslims didn't try.

It still sounds like you're implying that these "sane" Muslims are still accountable for the actions of the, shall we say, "non-sane" Muslims. Why? Take the Omagh bombing many years ago, an event over here which has been dwarfed in scale by more recent events. The Real IRA, a group who separated from the Irish Republican Army, admitted to that atrocity. Does that mean that there are still "sane" Irishmen in general who should be shamed for not keeping these particular people in check? And whoever said that the blame has to remain solely at other innocent people connected only by faith or nationality or race?

Besides, taking your first post into account, you imply that by not making some form of noise, whether to condemn what has been done or not, Muslims are regarded as "with" the enemy. Besides, what should the "sane" Muslims you describe do exactly? Condemn the actions of their brethren? Hold, let's say, a minute's silence every day at 0843 New York time? What can be done to placate people such as you, who truly want to believe that Muslims are another religious following in the World and not a Hollywood action film stereotype?

You also say that you want other Muslims on the board to speak out and say something here. Maybe, as you say, there are in fact very few Muslims who know about this board's existence. On the other hand, this is a trying time for the so-called "sane" Muslims (does this in fact imply that Muslims are in general insane? But I digress...) who were initially faced with an angry world (and, looking back at the archives a year ago, an angry Nitcentral) but today feel that their world is now better understood by the West. Yet bringing back commemoration of these events also brings back a feeling of fear in that I, if I were to travel to an airport, may have to be seen to twice by officials before they give me the "all clear". That feeling is reflected here - those connected to the victims of what happened on the day after my 22nd birthday, by race or nationality or faith, do not, it seems, have the total monopoly on being frightened and confused. I have the feeling that my voice alone may not be enough to answer your enquiries, for I myself have much to learn.

It is not "hiding out" deliberately. We, the "sane" Muslims as you put it, are simply trying to find a voice. And now, aged 23 and three days, I've tried to make my feelings on the matter clear.

ScottN: yes I have.

If I gather Blue Berry's meaning, he is not faulting anyone but the attackers for the attacks themselves. He is not saying that there are Muslims who failed to warn us that some extremist group was going to carry out the attack. He is not saying that they knew about it and didn't tell anyone.

What I think he's saying is that he's seen very few representatives of the Muslim world (and by this, I think he means their leaders) come forward to express their opposition to the terrorists' actions. Or if they dissented, they didn't do it loudly enough. And that their silence harbors, at the very least, the perception that they agree with the terrorists.

I won't argue whether this is or isn't the case.

But I will say that this perception is not that different from the perception many posters had about other members in Nitcentral (specifically, those that didn't come forward to offer words of compassion or concern for the other members in our cyber-community).

Then again you have to ask yourself why such posters did not bring themselves to speak out. Maybe they did not know where they belonged in the grand scheme of things. Call it a crisis of faith, if you will, if it helps.

Exactly. There may be any number of reasons why people choose to be silent. For example, freedom of expression (which many take for granted in the US) isn't a given in other parts of the world... particularly in volatile areas like the Middle East. And I think it's dangerous to conclude that silence equals guilt.

Just like it's dangerous (and as we learned today, expensive) to put too much faith in the words of the nosey Mrs. Kravitzes of the world who "know" those guys with the beards and funny-looking towel hats are up to something.

TomM: But do you remember that shortly after 9/11 a Saudi sheik donated money for relief and rebuilding, but made statements essentially blaming the US for the attack and somewhat sympathetic to the the hijackers?
Luigi Novi: Yes, I remember. Giuliani refused to accept the money, and good for him.

This was one "voice of reason" that Berry was hoping to hear, but didn't.
Luigi Novi: Given that most of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, and that wealthy Saudis financed Al Qaeda, I wasn’t that surprised, but I understand now. Berry, is that what you meant?

Blue Berry: OK Luigi let me spell it out for you. Al Queda = Mafia. Muslims = Italian-Americans. Are the Mafia respect members of the Italian community? At local sons of St. Patrick (I don't know Italian social groups so you'll have to translate that for me) are the priest and cop on the same social footing as the mafia don? How about DA's. I can name two local DA's that are Italian. I'm sure in this country there must be a couple hundred. Does you community look up to the more, less, or about the same as a Mafia Don? It might be the result of media bias, but I don't see that INTERNATIONALLY with Muslims.
Luigi Novi: Okay, now that you’ve spelled it out for me, I get your drift. The reason for the difference, I would suggest, is that the Mafia are organized crime, and not an integral part of Italian culture. Ditto for the IRA and Ireland. Not so with Islam.

According to Dinesh D’Souza, in his new book What’s So Great About America, the most important and influential Islamic critic of the West is Sayyid Qutb, who argues that from its earliest days, Western civilization separated God from society, long before the birth of America, which in his view, creates an inevitable conflict between those more loyal to one and those more loyal to the other. Islam is not just a set of beliefs, but an entire way of basing life on the divine government according to Allah and the Koran. The Islamic worldview requires that religious, economic, political and civic society be based on the Koran, the teachings of Muhammad, and Islamic Law, to the extent of the administration of the state, the conduct of war, the making of treaties and even laws covering divorce, inheritance, property rights and contracts. Submission and virtue, upon which Islam are based, are seen as a higher calling than freedom and reason, upon which American culture is supposedly based. Thus it is impossible to "practice" Islam in a secular framework. America embodies all of what is antithetical to this worldview. Since political power, for example, is derived from the people, and not divine authority, democracy is considered a form of idol worship. Qutb contends that because of things like this, Islam cannot meet or compromise the West, and feels that "Westernized" Muslims who try to accept aspects of the West into their lives (music, movies, American culture) while still being Muslims are apostates who deluding themselves and diluting Islam. It is an all or nothing situation in which he feels either the West will prevail or Islam will. The IRA and the Mafia simply don’t compare.

I don’t see why, given this, you’d expect the "sane" Muslims to condemn the attackers, because this attitude pervades Arab society. Combine this with the perception that we shout about democracy while backing undemocratic societies, that we support Israel, that we give aid to India, but not Pakistan, and the fact that Americans don’t feel comfortable fighting a war and say they’re doing it for strategic advantage, or oil (they have to be convinced that it’s for humanitarian reasons, to oust a tyrant, secure democracy, etc.), not to mention propaganda like on the Al Jazeera Network, and what you have considerable support for the terrorists: A poll taken in Gaza showed that 78% of Palestinians supported the attacks, and another showed that 83% of Pakistanis sympathize with Bin Laden. None of the leading authorities of any Muslim country condemned the terrorists as acting in violation of the principles of Islam (not "few", Darth, none).

So who’s going to condemn them? What effect will it have? We’re not considered heroes by and large by many of these societies, Berry. If you’re going to talk about a failure as distinct from the actual crime in question, (that is, precipitating or contributing factors that helped make 9/11 possible), I’d say the failure of our intelligence agencies to head warnings about the attacks, or to even communicate with one another, is one. Allowing the Taliban to come to power after we left Afghanistan is one. The proliferation of the madrassas in Pakistan, our ally, from which the Taliban directly flowed, is another. Our alliance with Saudi Arabia, the country from which most of the terrorists hail, and from much of financing originates is another. When you have these schools take in students, feed them, clothe them, house them and give them a rigorous Islamic education free of charge (in a country where the per capita income is $480 a year), an education that is patently anti-American, getting up on a soapbox isn’t going to do much. Those madrassas should be investigated or shut down for promoting terrorism.

Blue Berry: How the heck do you spell that Italian word for "understand"? You told me before and I thought it was C-A-P-I-S-E.
Luigi Novi: Depends on the conjugation. Since you "spelled it out" for me :

The infinitive(to understand) capire.
I---------------------Io capisco (kah-PEES-ko)
You------------------Tu capisci (kah-PEE-shee)
He/She/You(formal)---Lui/Lei/Lei capisce (kah-PEE-sheh)
We-------------------Noi capiamo (KAH-pee-AH-mo)
You(plural)-----------Voi capite (kah-PEE-teh)
They-----------------Loro capiscono (ka-PEE-koe-no)

If you were speaking informally to me, it would be "Capisci?" If you were speaking to the President, or the Pope, or to an adult when you were a kid, it would be "Capisce?"

Darth Sarcasm: Talk about stereotyping! Luigi's name is an indication of his family history (or his parents' obsession with Super Mario Brothers), it doesn't define who he is as a person.
Luigi Novi: Thank you, Darth, although I do actually speak some Italian. I do, however, I predate Donkey Kong by nine years. I feel I’m someone who can sympathize with Conan O’Brien. As he tells it, he was this kid with a cool name until 1982, when this stupid movie with this huge bodybuilder came out, and ruined his life. For me, it was the same thing with that %^&!@#$ video game.

Darth Sarcasm: Besides, it's capice.
Luigi Novi: Close. Capisce. (See above.) "Ce" would is phonetically "cheh." "Sce" is phonetically "sheh."

Sven of Nine: It is not "hiding out" deliberately. We, the "sane" Muslims as you put it, are simply trying to find a voice. And now, aged 23 and three days…"
Luigi Novi: A belated happy birthday, Sven. And just for the record, I don’t think Muslims in general, or you in particular, are insane.

Darth Sarcasm: Freedom of expression (which many take for granted in the US) isn't a given in other parts of the world... particularly in volatile areas like the Middle East. And I think it's dangerous to conclude that silence equals guilt.
Luigi Novi: A good point. A court in Lahore, Pakistan (our ALLY, mind you), has sentenced a young Muslim to death for making "derogatory statements" about the Prophet Mohammed and Islam. These "crimes" included pointing out that some of Mohammed's actions violated the teachings of Islam, such as marrying scores of wives even although Islam limits the number to four. He also observed that Islam prohibits alcohol use, while Allah in the Koran promises wine in the afterlife to good believers. Scores of people are arrested every year in Pakistan for blasphemy.

Drat. I put (ka-PEE-koe-no) to represent Loro capiscono above. It should be (ka-PEE-sko-no).

Sven,

Does that mean that there are still "sane" Irishmen in general who should be shamed for not keeping these particular people in check? - Sven

Yes. That is exactly what I'm saying. The "sane" Irishmen, even the "somewhat sane IRA members" failed. I'm not familiar with the case, but there is no shame in trying and failing. The only shame is in not trying at all.

Have the Real IRA done anything else or have the "almost sane" IRA kept them in check? (Who else is going to keep them in check? The Brittish?)

Besides, taking your first post into account, you imply that by not making some form of noise, whether to condemn what has been done or not, Muslims are regarded as "with" the enemy. Besides, what should the "sane" Muslims you describe do exactly? Condemn the actions of their brethren? Hold, let's say, a minute's silence every day at 0843 New York time? What can be done to placate people such as you, who truly want to believe that Muslims are another religious following in the World and not a Hollywood action film stereotype? - Sven

Try to stop them. A good start would be to stop blaming the United States for it. ("The US's policies for Isreal caused extreme hatred..." sound familiar? I hear that too much and not enough "sane" Muslims arguing that we Muslims must take accountability for our own actions.)

The answer to all the other questions is "YES". You've slanted them and it would be an over reaction, but an over reaction would be better than no reaction. (Besides, they all smack of lip service. Talk is cheap. Keep your "real IRA" in check.)


On the other hand, this is a trying time for the so-called "sane" Muslims (does this in fact imply that Muslims are in general insane? But I digress...)

I refer you to actually read my posts. I don't like the word for that very reason. (You can tell because I posted that I don't like it. If you actually read the posts you are commenting on perhaps you would see it.) If you have a better alternative please say so. If you don't offer it but instead decide to complain about it then it stands for lack of a "sane" alternative.

Sven,

I don't understand the second post. Are you admitting to being "Killer Terminal"? Isn't the name like gasoline for the flames?


Luigi,

We must be talking at cross purposes again. I know that passage about God being seperated from society in the west but not being seperated in Muslim societies does not translate into, "There are no 'sane' Muslims." Unfortunately that is what I'm getting.

BB: Are you admitting to being "Killer Terminal"? Isn't the name like gasoline for the flames?

No, Killer Terminal and I are separate people, I assure you. I'd have chosen a more imaginative alias even if I did want to post as a anonymous person... Still, believe what you will, but never assume anything...

I had assumed Killer Terminal was Peter or someone who was going to claim indefensable stuff.

Sorry, it is NOT OUR FAULT.

Bye bye, Dude. Racial slurs? *So* out of here.

Yes, and with that Dude's now earned himself the dishonor of being permanently banned from RM and PM, and if he chooses to post on Firefly, then there too. Every single post of his I see from now on on any of my boards will be summarily dumped by me, regardless of what he says. Likewise any responses to him as well. Dude, you've got only yourself to blame for this.

Excuse me, but I don't think Dude was being a bigot, I think he was just trying to explain what some people think of the whole Mid-East Conflict. There ARE people out there who would like to see the Israelis and Palestinians wipe each other out. Now Dude was definately harsh in the way he said it, but he DID have a valid point.

Yeah, but he didn't have to wreak havok in making it.

Mark, did Dude get the two warning thing, or is that policy no more?

Berry, in cutting up some TV Guides for my photo collection, I came across this on page 10 of the the August 31st edition, in The Roush Review, in which Matt Roush reviews Faith and Doubt at Ground Zero, a PBS Frontline special:

"Middle Eastern scholar Kanan Makiya, in asserting that 'religion did drive those planes into those towers,' sharply criticizes the Arab world for allowing the darker forces within Islam to flourish."

So there you have it. Sure, it's only one, but it's only one that we know of. I don't read Arab newpapers or get Al Jazeera, Berry, do you? Let's try researching Arab commentators, and how much freedom each country allows for them before we complain that "no one" spoke out against Hasn't Bin Laden and his ilk.

Luigi,

How many times have I said that the lack may be a result of the media deciding the AK-47 wielding muslim that screams, "America brought this on herself" is better covered than a "sane" one? Was it three times or four times? I lost count. Will you count for me, Luigi? (BTW, I found another "sane" Muslim. Remember Musharif? Just thought you'd like to know there have been two out of how many Muslims in a year [counting from 9/11 but we can start earlier if you wish, say the Cole?] Yeah, I don't subscribe to Al Jazeera. I count on CBS and Fox news to be objective or different enough in viewpoints that one might cover it. I speak English only so the BBC and CNN get added to the mix with some occaisional MSNBC. The "America must review her policies" junk comes through that unimpeded. Maybe Al Jazeera is filled with "sane" Muslims and no one who reads arabic has ever posted them in response to me. Maybe every reporter at Al Jazeera is terrified that a government official will ask him if he loves his family. Maybe that is where cajones come in. (It may not be bright, but you gotta admit it would be ballsy.)

(Note to Sven: I'm still using "sane." I'm still waiting for a better alternative to "sane". Are you going to imply I'm a bigot when I'm searching for words as you studiously avoid helping me again?)

Different subject. Is the "tu capisci?" assuming familairity or superiority and "voi capite?" usually used.

I assume, Blue, that you're talking about "cojones," as "cajones" means drawers.

"Tu" and "Lei" both mean "You" in the singular. "Voi" is plural, like when you're talking to a group of people. "Tu" is used informally, like when you're talking to a friend. "Lei" (which incidentally, also means "she"), is used when you want to convey a greater sense of respect, as when a child talks to a parent or teacher, or if you're addressing the President or someone. And "Tue" is a poster who likes to rant.

The problem with defining someone in terms of sanity is that it's too subjective a concept. After all, who is to say that an "insane" Muslim [for want of a better term] is really crazy and not simply hanging onto a belief that few people understand, let alone accept?

Perhaps a better term instead of "sane" Muslim might be, well, "moderate" Muslim.

I only have a small thumbs up or down thingy on the editorial page of my paper to go by. Some "extreme" Muslims had a conference in London called "Sept. 11th: a towering day in history" No biggie about the title, ABC has done worse. Apparantly the conference was more about how America brought the attacks on itself, yadda, yadda, yadda. I assume the organizers had to publish the date and time and content of the conference to get people to show up. Yes, they have a right to have that conference. "Moderate" Muslims also have the right to protest it out side the site it was being held. (Nazis have a right to March in Skokie and the residents have a right to peacefully hold anti-nazi signs.)

My paper didn't mention the size of the crowd of "Moderate" Muslims. Maybe a "Moderate" Muslim closer to it than me (like you, Sven) knows. I suspect there wasn't one, although I admit I may be wrong.

This is an example of what I'm talking about. I don't think it is a racist thought. I get screamed at here for even appearing racist (or religionist, whatever). Why don't they get yelled at when they say we bring death upon ourselves. Luigi takes care of me, I take care of Pesti, Pesti takes care of irate Bubba. Where are the "moderate" Muslims? They don't have to talk to Osama Bin Laden. They have to talk to Joey Bin Laden.

Sparrow47,

No I mean cajones the middle French term for horse intestine soup. (Yeah, ok, you caught me. I'll add it to "capsci.")

I live in Scotland, but I'm afraid to say that if there's a Scottish serial killer somewhere in America, I know nothing about him, cannot warn you about him, and I have no intention of taking responsibility for his actions.

Thanks for sharing Paddy. If there is a Scottish group called MacManus that yells Americans are evil and they must be destroyed by any means necessary, will you say they are good Scotts claim they have a point, give them good seats in your church, respect them socially, wear a "MacManus forever" T-shirt, tell any and all who ask that America brought "MacManus" upon itself with its anti-Scott attitude, etc.? If so then you are responsible for any actions of MacManus despite your plea.

Yes, if there is a lone Scottish nut case you are not responsible. Pity your example of a lone nut case does not parallel reality, isn't it?

Blue, I guess you also would say that the First Amendment agrees with the KKK because it allows them to speak their beliefs, not to mention every other believe that is spoken. For you, instead o, as the old Southern sahing goes, "If you're not fer me, yyou're agin me" you seem to say, "If you're not agin me, you're fer me." That's scary thinking that someone would think that just because action is not taken that someone agrees with horrible things.

Jwb52z,

Huh? Your post is either proof you didn't read them, or you completely miss my point. Read my posts. All of them. I think I'm clear and went over this many different ways. If you did read them then I wasn't clear enough and must go over it many more ways. It is getting hard not to repeat myself, but I'll try.

Yes the First Amendment allows the KKK to speak. It also allows the Nazi's to march in Skokie. It also allows us protestors along the Nazi parade route. It allows you or me to post proof that the KKK are nuts.

Read the posts again Jwb52z, 'cuz yawl ain't got it yet. (Trying to add a southern drawl in writing and failing miserably. Aw shucks.)

Let's un-religionize it. (Yes, TomM, I know who I'm posting to but the religion is not Christianity it is Islam.)

The Basque seperatists engage in many killing acts against the Spanish. If the average Basque says, "Way to go ETTA," after every attack then they are responsible for it even if they are not members of ETTA. If an average Basque goes to the vilage market place and people whisper "Pedro is an ETTA gunman" and he buys fruit from Pedro's stand while he tells his children that Pedro is a great man so we must not haggle to hard, then he is responsible.

If the average normal Basque guy says, "Bad ETTA!" but then brings his children to get Pedro's autograph he is still responsible.

If he says, "Basques are misunderstood and really non-violent. Most Basques abhor what ETTA does," but still looks up to the ETTA gunmen, he is responsible. If he says, "killing civilians is abohorant," butgoes to town meetings as Pedro tells of how evil the Spanish are he is responsible. If after Pedro rants he says, "Hey, Pedro, calm down a bit. Killing babies in perambulators is not going to help." he is not responsible even if it does not stop Pedro.

Note that Pedro never came out and said he will kill all the Spaniards on Basque land. Note also the difference between responsibility and guilt.

The accusation you level at me is unreasonable. Would the normal Basque guy think Pedro is for him if he isn't against him? No, for or against doesn't enter into it.

If you are talking a Spaniard assuming the normal Basque is for him if he ain't against him. Huh? Even the Spanish know there is a difference between being for them and not shooting at them.

Putting religion back into it. I know there is a difference between moderate Muslims being "fer" me and saying, "Akmed, call down. Killing babies in Perambulators is not Allah's way. Period."

If you think I can not see the difference you should think again.

Finally your last sentance is proof you have not read my posts or you fail to understand them. No action does not mean you agree with the horrible things. It means you do not disagree with them.

You need an example? A Father is opposed to abortion. His daughter tells him she is pregnant, the baby has down syndrome, and she will get an abortion in three days. The Father says nothing for three days. He does nothing about it for three days. For Three days he goes on like nothing happened. She gets the abortion. Did the Father countenance it? Not exactly, but he might have said something. It might not have done a bit of good but shouldn't he at least say, "Well, you know how I feel about it."

If after the fact the Father says, "Abortion is murder and you are a murderer," does that mean his silence was OK? Knowing you can't change the past, should the Father plan on saying something the next time his daughter announces she's getting an abortion?

Let's un-religionize it. (Yes, TomM, I know who I'm posting to but the religion is not Christianity it is Islam.)

LOL!

(How'd I get dragged into this? }

::No action does not mean you agree with the horrible things. It means you do not disagree with them.:: Blue Berry

The only alternative there is left if you don't agree and you don't disagree is indifference which is just as bad. Of course, that's only ture if you can explain how "not disagreeing" and "agreeing" are different."

Blue Berry - No, I would not wear a 'MacManus T shirt' or say 'MacManus forever'.

And if Amercians had been persecuting Scots (apart from the irritating steretypes, which don't really qualify) I would not say America brought it on itself. But then it's silly to use the names of countries as if they were the names of people, isn't it?

TomM,

Once on anoth RM board I "de-religionized it." You pointed out that Jwb52 can not de-religionize it. I thanked you for reminding me of what was obvious but I had clearly forgotten.

Jwb52z,

Please answer my questions.

By the way it is not black and white and there are two issues involved. Issue #1) Americans are evil. (Yes or no) Issue #2) Americans must die. (Yes or no)

It is not black and white because there is at least 1 other valid option. "Maybe" (or "sometimes"). If they agree with conditions like "Americans are evil when..." or "Americans must die if..." The option they are using is walking away. The silent father from the abortion example.

By the way, since you may not have gotten that far in my post I'll cut and paste:

A Father is opposed to abortion. His daughter tells him she is pregnant, the baby has down syndrome, and she will get an abortion in three days. The Father says nothing for three days. He does nothing about it for three days. For Three days he goes on like nothing happened. She gets the abortion. Did the Father countenance it? Not exactly, but he might have said something. It might not have done a bit of good but shouldn't he at least say, "Well, you know how I feel about it."

If after the fact the Father says, "Abortion is murder and you are a murderer," does that mean his silence was OK? Knowing you can't change the past, should the Father plan on saying something the next time his daughter announces she's getting an abortion? - Berry

The "?" mean questions. Sometimes they are rhetorical. They will almost always be slanted, but you should be able to answer them anyway. answer.

By the way, what is 3+2?


Padawan Observer,

"If it's not Scottish, it's @rap!"

Hello, Phil McCracken, Scottish Therapist!

Once on anoth RM board I "de-religionized it." You pointed out that Jwb52 can not de-religionize it. I thanked you for reminding me of what was obvious but I had clearly forgotten.

I knew this, hence the smileys. [BTW, in this case, while (to use your Basque example) Pedro and the ETTA can't (or won't) "de-religionize" it, for the more moderate family man, it is not really about religion at all -- not only does his God not demand the violence, but He forbids it.]

This week's Dallas Observer has a featured article on Chirstians seeking to convert those of the Islamic faith. To read the article, go to http://dallasobserver.com/issues/2002-11-14/feature.html/1/index.html

While I understand that part of the Christian faith is to "go ye unto all the world" to preach the Gospel, these people are having to resort to deception in order to get into the Islamic countries. Isn't that lying? Isn't lying a sin? Doesn't the Bible teach that all sins are equal in the eyes of God? I'm not sure how they can really reconcile that, beyond "We're obeying a higher Authority." But by lying you're violating His laws. Right?

Anyway, the article was very interesting. I've just finished reading it.

Remember, Benn, that anyone can justify anything they like when they use religion and God as excuses to do something that most people wouldn't do.

First impressions: I have to finish reading the article before passing judgment on which this is, but I would like to point out that there is a big difference between keeping a low profile, and being undercover.

It is not a lie not to broadcast your status as a Christian, provided you do not actually deny it. On the other hand, if you have to sign an affidavit that you are not a missionary in order to get a visa, that would be a lie.

------

Later: OK it seems like the reporters have looked at both types, but most of the ones that the profiled or interviewed at length were more-or-less above-board. In general the piece was sympathetic, though it did not get into the specifics of the ethical question Benn raised.

Padawan Observer,

"If it's not Scottish, it's @rap!" - Blue Berry

I fear I am not up to the intellectual pressure of this conversation.

Padawan Observer,

That is from a recurring Saturday Night Live skit where Mike Meyers is the Scottish owner of a shop called "All things Scottish". The store's slogan was, with him yelling, "If it is not Scottish, it's @rap!" When he hired Tim Meadows (the black guy) it was funny seeing him answer the phone that way with the yelling but without the Scottish accent.

I checked out a translation of The Koran from
our public library today.It has a lot of things in it about doing Good Deeds such as giving Alms and helping the orphans and needy.It also says that people who persecute others and don't repent
will go to the REALLY BAD PLACE.
According to The Koran,as I understand,Bin Laden
and his ilk are going to the REALLY BAD PLACE.

I guess Mohommad is in that REALLY BAD PLACE too... he did his share of persecution.

As usual, Peter David hit the nail on the head.

Yeah pretty much what I've thought. Religion is the second biggest cause of conflict in the history of humanity.

What do you feel is the first?

Pretty much what I've heard. From non-mainstream media.

What do you feel is the first?
Quest for power? Land?

Yeah pretty much the struggle for resources is the top cause for conflict in the world. With religion and political ideology (which are essentially flip sides of the same coin) coming in second.

Secularism is the first

How so? Can you give an example?

How will Muslim in space pray? Questions sparked by Malaysia's intentions to send up an astronaut on a Russian mission, as seen here and here (item #4).

Very carefully? Maybe just kinda pick a direction and stick with it? That is a bit of a problematic situation.

Although we in the West tend to think of muslims as praying "toward the East," they are actually praying toward Mecca. There are world maps available in Muslim countries which show the exact angle in which to face in different locations More precisely they show the Great Circle which passes through both a given location and through Mecca.

Anyhow, in space, they would still pray toward Mecca. In a high enough orbit, it just means facing the Earth. In a lower orbit, they would need to track Mecca, but the on-board computer surely can handle that task.

As far as the timing of the prayers, I presume that they would use either the time in Mecca or the time in their mission control.

True enough about the pointing east thing vs pointing towards mecca. I suppose from an orbital height as long as they have the angle right and are properly oriented it should be acceptable. I was kinda joking when I said just pick a direction. Although in micrograv they could just about do that. As long as they point at the earth it could work.

As for the prayer timing that could be problematic but since thigns are rather automated and the flight plan is set before flight they are probably able to work that into the schedules. Somehow.

Recently, Pope Benedict XVI called the Muslim faith "evil & inhuman". He later apologized. However, the Muslim leaders aren't satisfied....and they won't be until they've "killed all worshippers of the cross"

Uh....excuse me....isn't THAT being evil & inhuman?

Actually, the Pope quoted a medieval ruler about Islam.

And yes, it is ludicrous to take offense at being called a violent religion...by showing violence.

Why is this thread called Muslim Faith? Shouldn't it be called Islam?

You are right, of course. I just never really noticed since I took over as mod. (Has it really been three and a half years ago? My how time flies!) I'll fix it this weekend.

A primer on the Sunni-Shiite schism, both historically, and how it applies to the current conflict. From the 11.10.06 issue of The Week.

And Kurds too!

This is frightening. Not simply the ideas expressed by the Muslims being focused on, but the fact that in public, some of them like Abu Osama have duplicitously preached tolerance in public, and even sat in on conferences on the problems of extremism, in which they appeared to take a stand against it, in stark contrast to their words in the mosque.

Nonetheless, I take umbrage with the title Uncle Chad chose, "hink the followers of Islam are harmless? Think again.", on the grounds that it does not use a qualifier, and thus condemns all Muslims of being like this, including the ones I know personally. I wrote to Uncle Chad to express this, just for the record.

Recently the Muslims of Pakistan have warned all of its citizens that if any Muslim converts to Christianity, they will be executed. Additionally, the Muslims also warned all Christian people to either convert to the Muslim religion, or leave the country, or die. They have only 10 days to select a choice.

"The Muslims of Pakistan"? What, every single one of the millions in that country gathered together in a public square, and startly talking in unison? Couldn't you use a qualifier?

The Muslim leaders of Pakistan

Again, are all of the leaders saying this? Where was this reported?

One of our Missionaries in Europe reported the threat to our Pastor's wife. I'm not sure which leaders from Pakistan are making the threat, but rest assured, I think they're serious...(or should be taken seriously)

Here's a link:

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/63428.html

That page mentions an "unsigned letter", and other incidents (which may or may not be related) by "Taliban militants". That hardly sounds like "the Muslims of Pakistan" or "the Muslim leaders of Pakistan". If it is, then it's the equivalent of saying that those who threaten abortion clinics here in the U.S. can be referred to as "the Christians of the United States", or "the Christian leaders of the United States". Since those clinic terrorists are probably an minority of extremists, it is possible that the same holds true for the situation in Pakistan.

In any case, wish the best for your friends' safety.

The plight of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Sam Harris tells the story here.

The New York Times has a piece about her at: double-u double-u double-u dot nytimes.com/2005/04/03/magazine/03ALI.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Christopher Hitchens wrote about her in Slate at: double-u double-u double-u dot slate.com/id/2175458/

Muslim forces doc from OR.

I think the hospital should have had the police restrain him. The doctor was having to shout his directions to someone else from outside of the room. If something had gone wrong I'm sure the Dad to be would still try to sue the hospital, but HE was the one preventing the doc from doing him job right. If he wants the benefit of western medicine he needs to let the doctor do his work. If he's worried about medical personal seeing his wife's 'private areas' than I suggest that he should go find a cave in Afghanistan & a midwife to deliver his baby.

Saudi Arabia to execute woman for witchcraft Welcome to the 15 century.

Some food for thought:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-04-15-afghanistan-protest_N.htm

"The law, passed last month, says a husband can demand sex with his wife every four days unless she is ill or would be harmed by intercourse — a clause that critics say legalizes marital rape. It also regulates when and for what reasons a wife may leave her home alone.

Women's rights activists scheduled a protest Wednesday attended by mostly young women. But the group was swamped by counter-protesters — both men and women — who shouted down the women's chants.

Some picked up gravel and stones and threw them at the women, while others shouted "Death to the slaves of the Christians!" Female police held hands around the group to create a protective barrier."

President Obama said in a recent speech that the US is not at war with the Muslim world. that is true; nor do we wish do be.

But it's naive and stupid to believe that they aren't at war with us. :-(

Don't forget that Islam is a religion with almost 2 billion followers including many American citizens.

Old news, but the full face veil ban at Syrian universities a couple of weeks ago taught me that Syria has very secular roots. Didn't know that. France and Belgium have already passed similar laws, though Belgium words it more diplomatically, banning any type of clothing that conceals one's identity in public. I guess they'll never get into trick or treating there.

It's also interesting, given Syria's secular roots, to see the wording of the article note that this law is considered to be more conservative, the opposite of the U.S. where our conservatives are generally the more religious individuals. It's great how various cultures differ.

Though, in truth, I'm not completely sure I support the law. I understand the concerns about security, but still...

Has anyone else seen the CNN special, Unwelcome: The Muslims Next Door? It just saw the last half of it now. It's about people in Murfreesboro, Tennessee who sought an injunction against the building of an Islamic center. The Muslims in that area had been there for decades; they just wanted a larger mosque to replace the old one that was too small for their congregation. They trotted out the usual (and some newly odd) arguments like "Well, look what the Quran says about jihand" and "Is Sharia really a religion?" and "Look what the Quran says about having to beat your wife with a whip", and so forth. I was mystified as to the bigotry that flew directly in the face of the First Amendment.

It also goes to show that despite what a lot of people against the Park 51 project near Ground Zero say, it's not really about vicinity to that location; Bigots don't want Muslims anywhere.

I highly recommend this special.

It also goes to show that despite what a lot of people against the Park 51 project near Ground Zero say, it's not really about vicinity to that location; Bigots don't want Muslims anywhere.

Back when that whole "ground zero Mosque" nonsense was going on I read an article that basically said "people who are defending the project should pull out a map of NYC and ask the 'we just don't want it so close to ground zero' crowd 'OK than please show us on this map exactly how far away you'd be OK with them building.' Because the truth is that no matter how wide you made that sphere they'd find a reason to oppose it. That fact is apparent all over this nation when local communities constantly find BS reasons to oppose the building of Muslim holy buildings no matter where they are.

The head of a conservative Florida group is whining that a TLC reality show, All-American Muslim, which depicts the lives of everyday Muslim Americans, does NOT depict them as radical jihadists. The home improvement chain Lowe's pulled their ads from the show (but not from other TLC shows, like Toddlers and Tiaras), and The Daily Show's Jon Stewart and Aasif Mandvi reacted in their usually brilliant style.

An Iranian Christian pastor has been sentenced to death in Iran for apostasy. He built a church in his home without government permission, preached to minors without parental consent and "offended" Islam. He has been offered leniency if he recants his Christianity and returns to Islam, but has refused.

Killer Terminal on Saturday, October 13, 2001 - 11:19 pm:

I do exist. I'm a Muslim, and I'm quite proud of the fact.

I don't really care for fundamentalism... that's not true Islam.

Exactly! The Quran states that Islam women have the right to work, conduct property sales, chose their husband, instigate divorce and vote. In addition, education is described as a duty to ALL men and women. (And I'm saying this as a self confessed Agnostic)