What we think about when we think about Islam

Asia Bibi. Say the name out loud. I'll be getting back to her. Juan Williams was fired from NPR for speaking frankly about the fears that terrorism breeds in ordinary people. William's remarks were in the context of a faux pas by Bill O'Reilly. On ABC's The View, O'Reilly said that Muslims attacked us on 9/11. That caused Joy Behar and Whoppi Goldberg to walk off the set.

It could have been worse. From Nina Shea and Paul Marshall in the Hudson Institute:

Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders was threatened with criminal punishment for hate speech from the moment his anti-Koran film Fitna hit the internet in March 2008. Last month, a Dutch judicial oversight body ordered that he be tried anew after finding that judges in the first round of court proceedings appeared to be biased. Even if Mr. Wilders is ultimately acquitted, as his prosecutors themselves urge, he will have already been punished by years of costly and tiring legal wrangling.

In Europe, criticizing Islam can be a criminal offense. Apparently if one is tried and acquitted, that is evidence enough of bias to warrant a new trial. Shea and Marshall also mention this:

In 2003, then-Dutch Parliamentarian Ayaan Hirsi Ali was subject to a criminal investigation for hate speech for her statements linking Mohammed to abuses against women in Muslim communities. While no criminal charges were ever brought in that case, her legal troubles were not over. In 2005, she was forced to stand trial in a civil action for hate speech after announcing plans for a film on the treatment of homosexuals in Islam, a prospect the complainant—Holland's main Muslim lobbying group—found to both cause "a great deal of pain" and be "blasphemous." The court reprimanded the MP for having "sought the borders of the acceptable," but ruled that her words did not warrant prohibition. Though she prevailed, the defense cost her 8,000 Euros. Around the same period, Ms. Hirsi Ali was forced to go into hiding due to death threats by Muslim extremists and was nearly stripped of her citizenship by the Dutch government, which seemed impatient with her outspoken critique of Islam.

Nothing is so hostile to the principles of the modern Left as militant Islam. Yet the culture of the Left seems reflexively hostile to anyone who criticizes Islam. Openly questioning the treatment of women or homosexuals in Muslim cultures can land you in court in Europe. Houston, we have a problem.

Now let's consider Asia Bibi. Ms. Bibi, a 45 year old mother of five living in Pakistan, has been sentenced to hang for blasphemy. From the London Telegraph:

The court heard she had been working as a farmhand in fields with other women, when she was asked to fetch drinking water.

Some of the other women – all Muslims – refused to drink the water as it had been brought by a Christian and was therefore "unclean", according to Mrs Bibi's evidence, sparking a row.

The incident was forgotten until a few days later when Mrs Bibi said she was set upon by a mob. The police were called and took her to a police station for her own safety.

Shahzad Kamran, of the Sharing Life Ministry Pakistan, said: "The police were under pressure from this Muslim mob, including clerics, asking for Asia to be killed because she had spoken ill of the Prophet Mohammed.

"So after the police saved her life they then registered a blasphemy case against her." He added that she had been held in isolation for more than a year before being sentenced to death on Monday.

At the risk of being tried in a European court, I think that there is something wrong with what is happening to Ms. Bibi. I think that it is evil. I think that there is, in contemporary Islam, a lot of what Thomas Hobbes called "The Kingdom of Darkness". I invite the Dutch courts to chew on that.

Just because a lot of terrorists are motivated by Islam doesn't mean that all Muslims are terrorists. Do all Muslims bear some responsibility terrorist acts committed in the name of Allah and for the horrific ordeal that Asia Bibi is going through? Yes, just as all Catholics share responsibility for the scandals of the Church, and all Buddhists have to take responsibility for the abuses of Buddhism by militant regimes.

Muslims, Christians and Buddhists can take pride in the tremendous achievements of their various faiths throughout history. That pride is inseparable from responsibility for the misdeeds and abuses committed in the name of their respective faiths. The same goes for all other religions.

It is up to every thinking person to decide what to think about when he or she thinks about Islam. That is the heart of liberty. It is the responsibility of modern liberal institutions to protect that liberty.

It is the responsibility of all Muslims to whether the atrocious treatment of Ms. Bibi is what their faith really means, and to condemn or defend her accordingly.

Comments

[Stan Gibilisco]

Here's a comment with no forethought, thereby constituting an "instant reaction" to Islam.

When I think of Islam, I envision a desire for (and faith in) order in the Cosmos, a rigorous believe in one God Almighty, and adherence to strict, clean principles of living.

I imagine violence secondarily, not as an intrinsic part of Islam, any more than I associate the mayhem portrayed (and, it would seem, advocated) in the Bible's Old Testament with Christianity.

[Miranda]

Thanks for posting the Telegraph article. I had not heard of this case.

In response to this part of your post:
"Nothing is so hostile to the principles of the modern Left as militant Islam. Yet the culture of the Left seems reflexively hostile to anyone who criticizes Islam."

I have found this puzzling for some time. In a way it is admirable that liberals can tolerate something that seems so opposed to their way of thinking. On the other hand, the left look to me almost like a bitter ex-lover who, instead of trying to figure out what is best for herself, focuses entirely on trying to stick as many barbs into her former flame (Christianity) as she can.

[InfidelHere]

I'll say it...that is the beauty of our country and freedom of speach.

You can't ignoore that there seems to be at least one suicide bombing, women that are treated like cattle, or act of terror in the name of Islam each and every day. And unfortunately they are often cowardly directed at unarmed, innocent civilians.

It would be one thing if these ISLAMICS terrorists just happened to be culturally Muslim and were committing these crimes for some ulterior human motive, but they claim to do it out of religious conviction. So, have these extremists “hijacked” Islam or are they the true representatives of it as they claim?

Any objective person would question, if there something inherently violent and WRO?NG about the faith of ISLAM for this to happen on a virtually daily basis. If Catholics, Buddhists, Hinduists, or any other religion were committing these types of atrocities on such a frequent basis - while invoking the name of religion - any objective person would likewise call them into question too. But is that the case? Why does it always seem to be in the name of Islam and not any other religion? Where are they getting these ideas from?

Yes, many Muslim apologists will say that it is a few bad apples who don't represent the whole, but how do we put this to the test? What about those terrorists claiming the "moderate" ("not-Muslim-Enough")Muslims are not really Muslims and denounce their cowardice? How do we know which faction represents Islam most closely? Who is the true Muslim?

Look at the foundation of this mess...Islam means “peace” IF (huge “IF” here) when one “submits and surrenders” to their (sharia) way of life and to their moon-god-allah.

If you don’t “submit and surrender”, there is NO PEACE…never has, is, and will be.

Look to their source documents that drive this madness like the Koran. The Koran encompasses over 60% of its content with how to convert, enslave, hold ransom, tax (called jizya in Arabic), punish, wife-beat (Koran 4:34), fight and yes…KILL non-Muslims and those “not-Muslim-enough”!!

[shakun trivedi]

women are not more than puppet .treat them as u wish .

[Infidelforever]

Totally wrong, yet again. Why do people believe that the teachings of Islam are peaceful? If you read the Quran and the Hadith then you will realise how hostile these teachings are. To assume that islamic terrorism is just carried out by a few bad apples is simply wrong. These people are just following what their religion commands, which is to discriminate against non muslims and to implement sharia everywhere - by force if necessary. Of course not all Muslims are terrorists, but these people are not standing up to the supposed "hijacking" of their religion. Where are the moderate muslims who will stand up to Islamic terrorism? It is part of their religion to side with muslims over non muslims, under any circumstance. To speak out against another Muslim, defending a non muslim is unforgivable in islam. It is one of the worst things they can do as a Muslim. I suggest people read the Quran before assuming that Islam is a peaceful religion.

[Bill Fleming]

Virtually every religion has been invoked at one time or another to justify unspeakable atrocities. It's an argument for banning all of them.

[KB]

Bill: and anti-religious sentiment has been the cause of violence. Can we ban that too?

[TL Winslow]

Tired of hearing about Islam? Sorry, the ever-increasing uproar over Islam's incursions into the West isn't a passing fad, it's here to stay, and it's not about "Islamophobia", it's about Islam, the world's most supremacist and intolerant ideology making a comeback. The word phobia means an unreasonable fear of something based on ignorance which leads to irrational decision-making processes. The meaning of the word Islam is submit or surrender for a reason, and it's eminently rational to fear being made to submit or surrender to anything bad, which a study of Islam's history proves it to be in spades. Muslims are not like, say, Sikhs, colorful people with quaint customs who are usually quite harmless unless you attack their Golden Temple. From day one Islam has been a giant horror show, a relentless push for world domination centered in Mecca that churns out zombies, slaves and corpses, and is like a rachet wrench, it only turns in one direction: the submit-to-it direction. Due to Muslim immigration, the once happily Muslim-free West is in increasing peril of Islamic infiltration and takeover, a process that will be all bad news, the borders of the Muslim world are always bloody. Too bad, the media are currently dominated by Islam history ignoramuses and Muslim disinformation artists who claim to see no threat, and worse, blame and try to silence those who do, hoping to stifle all debate about the political dangers of the ideology of Islam itself, repeating the pattern of many proud civilizations of the past before they were absorbed forever.

When it comes to Islam, Western political principles learned via study of the last couple of centuries of history won't work, nor will appeasement. It's not about Marxist class struggle or Western capitalism with them, it's about eternal rewards or punishments for what they do on Earth for their god Allah. And it sure isn't about voices like moi who warn of the threat of Islam, it's about them, and I'll prove it.

Take their slogan that Islam is a religion of love. It is, but only in the sense that all Muslims must love Allah, who then tells them who to hate, namely unbelievers, including Muslims of a different stripe, and what to do about them, push them aside and conquer and rule their territory, then reduce them to dhimmi status, making them pay a tax to keep from being executed, AKA protection money, what a loving inducement to submit and convert. Love of other Muslims is very iffy, since one false move and Allah commands you to lop off their hands or head without pity or mercy.

Take their slogan that Islam is a religion of peace. Most Muslims say that only because previous Muslims waged bloody holy war for centuries and suppressed the infidels and set up Allah's peace terms of Sharia, meaning rule of the land in his name, which destroys everybody's freedoms permanently and only compensates by giving Muslims a bit more freedom than infidels. So the catch about Islam being a religion of peace is that it's only after you accept its peace terms of total submission along with its horrible Sharia that makes Muslims superior to non-Muslims and men to women. Until then Allah commands Muslims to wage ceaseless war with unbelievers, which historically has come to mean even Muslims of different sects, which is why Islam has been a religion of endless war with an ironic slogan. Allah himself declared the war, and no human can declare peace in his name, sorry, you're either with him or against him, although he does permit temporary truces greased by plenty of jizya or punishment taxes, like the stupid U.S. has been paying the Taliban, Egypt, etc. No, not all Muslims are terrorists or are in a jihad on us right now, but their us-vs-them Muslim superiority attitude is intact in all. Just because a wolf dons sheep's clothing, it doesn't change it into a sheep, its true nature remains the same. And you got it, Muslims will turn on even other Muslims when they think Allah is pleased by it, no wonder I run when I see a mosque.

It's not about racism. Islam isn't a race, but it wants to absorb all races, so let's not go there, it's counterproductive. It's not just a religion either, because it comes with a god who wants to control the government, so let's not get mired in discussions of the Crusades and Creationism. It's not about us Western infidels being bigots against multiculturalism, they're not colorful Hare Krishnas panhandling at the airport. Islam teaches Muslims to be mindless bigot farms dedicated to monoculturalism, them minarets with hog-calling towers don't make for good neighbors with infidels, nor do them flocks of women wearing burqas, abayas and other aggressive signs of their men taking over your territory for Allah and sharpening their swords for use on your neck. The Quran teaches Muslims to regard themselves as literally too superior to even make friends with infidels, whom Allah has already consigned to eternal punishment. Being brainwashed from birth to accept every atomic particle of Islam without question as the absolute truth, the world to them is one way, their way, and when anybody else sees the world another way, they're not only wrong they're evil and must be controlled. So forget about them giving infidels equal rights, or any rights at all, they're the intolerant ones, it's the will of Allah, you're sick and we got the bloody medicine.

Forget about separation of mosque and state, mosques are the state, and those in non-Muslim countries are Muslim state outposts and forts, the real reason for the all-out push for one at Ground Zero. Yes, the holy books of other religions can turn people into holier-than-thou bigots too, but Christianity and Judaism went through reformations to make their believers rejoin the human race, while Islam never did, because its mind control is far stronger, and the consequences of free thinking are more sure and deadly. Can Islam be reformed via a Christian-style Reformation? How? The Protestant Reformation was a revolt against the papacy that used the words and examples of Jesus against it, but an Islamic reformation would be a revolt against Allah himself. Only with a massive outside infidel army could it even be attempted, which is just the point, we need to wake up and not only stop Muslim immigration but work to quarantine the Muslim world and contract it to force the reformation on them after we get over our hangups about our culture, warts and all being the superior one.

Is it possible to separate Muslims into "good" and "bad" Muslims, and label the latter Islamists to demonize them and give the others a pass, welcoming them into society with open arms and hoping they won't hurt us, like ABC's Diane Sawyer? Sorry, so-called moderate Muslims are like the fabled unicorn, plenty of sightings, none captured and in a zoo yet. Muslims who claim to hate Islamic extremists are still for Allah and his final perfect example prophet Muhammad, hence have no ideological stand to take against anything they command or set the example for, and are just trying to get the Muslim Trojan Horse in the Western gates so their progeny can do the rest. For a Muslim to really become moderate he would have to chuck Muhammad and half the Quran, after which he might as well chuck Allah too, and forget being a Muslim, or at least let his children grow up without the indoctrination, once you go through it you can never chuck Allah but merely con yourself that you haven't betrayed him by going part-infidel. Most Muslims from Muslim countries have gone through the childhood brainwashing, and are merely secularized or lapsed, skipping mosque to work and party in the rich advanced infidel land, but accepting Islam's basic premises on faith and in principle, but just not gotten around to serious study yet. Yes, let's hope they never do, and don't discover that if they accept that Allah controls eternal rewards and punishments, they must obey his commands to quit having fun and go out and take over the govt. for him. But if it happens, then what? You guessed it, Ayatollah Khomeini, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, lucky they weren't allowed to immigrate to the U.S. Oh yes, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, Faisal Shahzad, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 7th century jihadists allowed to roam free inside our borders with modern weapons while the liberal ostrich press pretends it was our fault and the Obama admin. refuses to profile Muslims, let's X-ray that Jehovah's Witness group first. But the lone madass jihadists who want to get to Allah's paradise quick by dying while murdering infidels are not nearly as bad as the lifetime students of Islam, the pros who progress to elder status and coolly plot the subversion of our way of life and constitution for Allah's Way of Sharia. With them all options are on the table, including cold-blooded lying for Allah's cause, which they call Taqiyya, no it's not a Mexican restaurant. Take sinister Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf for example. Sure the Ground Zero Up Yours for Allah Victory Mosque is a multicultural understanding outreach center and not even a mosque, people just lose their hearing aids all the time, and they just have to site it as close to Ground Zero as possible because of all the whorehouses and gay bars. No, we won't accept free land elsewhere, because Allah thinks you have the word Dumbass stamped on your infidel foreheads, like Cyrus in the film The Warrior, if all the Muslim gangs would unite they would outnumber the pigs. Meanwhile the sinister Saudis are financing mega-mosques throughout the U.S. to form the hubs for total future takeover, so what if they're nearly empty at first, they got their man Obama working on that, imagine that as you're pacing the pews of your mega-church.

Simply put, Allah and his spokesman Muhammad are the archenemies of our Western freedoms, including our precious U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

More:
http://tinyurl.com/islamwatch

[Bill Fleming]

KB, it is my understanding that as far as banning official state religions, such was accomplished by the First Amendment. Conversely, it is my impression that our nation was established and the Constitution later based on accommodating anti-religious sentiment. Ours is a nation founded to with the implicit and explicit intention of liberating ourselves from any one group's arbitrary religious dogma. To ban that idea would henceforth be to advocate the overthrow of our Government and lay waste to one of its primary founding principles. I would proceed with extreme caution on that front, my friend.

[larry kurtz]

So, is what's good for the gander really good enough for the goose? http://www.religioustolerance.org/flds.htm

[William]

BF, you stated "virtually every religion has been invoked At ONE TIME OR ANOTHER to justify unspeakable atrocities." Well, what was in the past, is in the past, there's only one world wide "religion" that is currently invoked on a grand scale to justify violence today. Yes, MOST Muslims aren't actively trying to kill "infidels" on a daily basis, but whether through fear of retribution or silent consent, there are far too few of them actively speaking out against the violence committed in the name of their faith and trying to reform it. There's certainly no easy answer here, but the question is: how does the West retain it's values yet protect itself from the clear and present danger posed by violent Jihad?

[Donald Pay]

I agree with KB that when co-religionist engage in behavior that is hateful and illegal in the name of that religion, moral adherents to that religion must speak out.

I am asking everyone who is Christian to denounceand condemn the Christian right groups affiliated with The Family and the C-Street group (which includes a United States Senator from South Dakota) and Rick Warren and other prominent American Christians who have been supporting co-religionists in Uganda in their misguided efforts to put to death or encourage the murders of gays in Uganda.

[KB]

Bill: you are half right about the First Amendment. It was intended to ban an official FEDERAL religion, established by Congress; at the same time it was intended to protect established churches in the various states. Today we understand the Establishment Clause to cover the states as well, and I certainly have no problem with that.

I do not know of any evidence to support your "impression that our nation was established and the Constitution later based on accommodating anti-religious sentiment." I suspect that some of the Founding Fathers were not Christians or believers in any meaningful sense, but I don't know of anyone defending open atheism in the founding. Today, of course, the First Amendment provides full protection for "anti-religious sentiment," as well it should.

I intend the above only as historical points. We agree that Official Religions are not and ought not to be part of the American Republic, an opinion that is all but universal in these United States. I would point out that the settlement that the First Amendment represents includes both protection against religious establishment and protection for religious practice.

[KB]

Donald: I carry no water for Rick Warren, but he never supported Uganda's Anti-Gay law. He severed ties with Pastor Martin Ssempa, one of the public supports of the law in Uganda. Warren was slow to openly criticize the law, something for which he was justly criticized. He did eventually openly condemn the law. Well he should have. The law is abhorrent.

All that goes to my point: as a Christian, Warren was obligated to take some responsibility for what Christians do in Uganda. He did so. It's a good thing, though, that Pastor Warren is American and not Dutch and Pastor Ssempa is Christian and not Muslim; otherwise, Warren would probably be on trial by now.

[KB]

Larry: What?

[Bill Fleming]

KB, as I understand it, there were a number of diverse religious dispositions
in our country's infancy ranging from Puritan to Quaker to Catholic, Lutheran,
Presbyterian, etc. There was little agreement among them, theologically speaking,

It was decided, that to avoid religious persecution, the
new government would adopt either NONE of them, or ALL of them.

This has come to include Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, etc.

Thus, to be an American is to be either NONE of these or ALL of them
(as per Gandhi)... take your pick.

But to advocate persecution of members of a faith,
as TL Winslow appears to be doing above, is unAmerican
in my opinion.

[Bill Fleming]

To crystalize my point for you, KB, everyone is an atheist to every God but his own.
The Constitution accommodates them all.

Ergo my assertion that, "our nation was established and the Constitution later
based on accommodating anti-religious sentiment."

[larry kurtz]

Doc: Bill and Don are far smarter than ip is. My point goes to tolerance. Are children being victimized by cults in the US and does government have purview to ensure the public safety? Waco? Pringle? http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/top-stories/article_dca4c74f-61b8-5402-a4e8-d7b4fb95ea63.html

[Kamineey]

Can the Dutch legal system so fuckingly stupid.Cann't they see what Islam has done to the world for thousands of years. I am speechless.I am Sad,too.

[George Mason]

Bill; You are putting words in the mouths of the founders. The establishment clause was a direct result of the Church of England giving the king divine authority. It also produced a caste system between those who adhered to the Church of England and those who didn't. Remember the the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion nor prohibiting the free practice there of." The purpose of the Constitution was to make all people equal before the law.

[Bill Fleming]

George, not really. Not at all, in fact. Here are words direct from the mouths of one very articulate Founder:

"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
We have solved, by fair experiment, the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries."

-- Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808) ME 16:320. This is his second kown use of the term "wall of separation," here quoting his own use in the Danbury Baptist letter. This wording of the original was several times upheld by the Supreme Court as an accurate description of the Establishment Clause: Reynolds (98 US at 164, 1879); Everson (330 US at 59, 1947); McCollum (333 US at 232, 1948)

"I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance, or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Dowse, April 19, 1803

Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

[George Mason]

Bill; Where is the part about accepting all religions or none of them. Jefferson is promoting the free practice of religion and warning against the state declaring one church as the sovereign over all others. That is what the First Amendment was protecting and protecting against.

[Jimi]

George,

What Bill has not figured out yet is that "Atheism" is a religon as well. The premise of religon is based on the concept of faith. If one considers science as the baseline, then Atheism actually requires more faith than an organized religon, because to be an Atheist requires you to be belive that something came from nothing, which defines all principles of the scientific method.

"The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion."

[Bill Fleming]

Ah, sigh, I was thinking that by reminding you of Jefferson, you would have the
stamina to look him up yourself George. But if you insist. here is some more TJ:

"Say nothing of my religion. It is known to my god and myself alone."
-- Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams, 11 January 1817, in Lester Cappon, ed. The Adams-Jefferson Letters, (1959) p. 506, quoted from Jeremy Koselak, "The Exaltation of a Reasonable Deity: Thomas Jefferson’s Critique of Christianity"

"I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely (June 25, 1819), quoted from Dickinson W Adams, ed, The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Second Series (Princeton University Press, 1983; note that attributions saying "Ezra Stiles, president of Yale University (June 25, 1819)" are incorrect, as that Ezra Stiles died in 1795)

"An equal application of law to every condition of man is fundamental."
-- Thomas Jefferson, to George Hay, 1807. ME 11:341

In other words, Jefferson himself rejected all religions save his own.
And in that selfsame rejection, he encouraged us to respect all others'
right to do likewise, at least as far as government is concerned.

You are free to reject them all even as you embrace them all.
Two sides of the same coin.

One last offer of proof:
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82 (capitalization of the word god is retained per original; see Positive Atheism's Historical Section)

[Bill Fleming]

Jimi, unlike the scientific method, religious dogma is typically neither
subject to revision nor reliant on evidence.

A true scientist doesn't believe anything, or, if s/he does,
freely admits that the belief is of no particular consequence or significance.

The truth is what's so. Belief is, at best, optional and at worst, an inhibitor.

[Jimi]

"Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and through the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people."-Albert Einstein

What is the Point? The point is that you seem to think that faith is an "inhibitor," and you seem to think that religion is based on fear, instead of morality, but your involking your right to free-speech and idea which was derived from the teachings of morality from a faith. In other words, your a walking contridiction!

[Jon S.]

Let's get some historical perspective. First, America was founded by Puritans. It'd be remarkable to then argue that religion was not at the core of that founding. Just take a look at the writings of John "City on a Hill" Winthrop or John Cotton. Second, at the time of the Constitution's writing, most states had religious laws that most today would find unjust. States such as Massachusetts and South Carolina had actual established churches while even Quaker Pennsylvania had religious tests for office. Well into the 20th Century most states had laws against blasphemy on the books. Washington, in his Farewell Address, lauded America for having a common religious morality, a religious morality that made the exercise of true freedom possible, in his view. Jefferson, while being far outside the mainstream in his personal religious beliefs, believed that the First Amendment did not apply to the states. I doubt Mr. Flemming agrees. As governor of Virginia, though, he did sponsor days of thanksgiving and as President he attended Christian worship at the new Capitol. Yes, they held service in the Capitol and noone thought it strange, not even Jefferson. It is clear found the writings of the founding era, in my view, that the founding generation wished to carve out a space for religous belief that they thought was essential for free government. This was not the unanimous opinion, but it was the dominant one.

The view that non-religious societies are more open to free exchange of ideas is not born out in practice. If Bill and others are eager to jettison the religous underpinnings of a decent and humane civilization, let them have the courage of their convictions, as did that honest athiest Nietzsche, and realize that the death of God releases man from all morality, which is just as likely to produce beasts as angels. At least Nietzsche had the decency to hate Christianity for what it is, a religion of hope for the weak, the oppressed, the outcast. Only someone ignorant of history and comfortable freeloading off of 2000 years of Christianity would so casually toss it aside and think that the compassion and charity it represents will continue. These two virtues are not the default of humanity, quite the opposite, as a casual glance at history tells us. Again, at least Nietzsche had the courage to recognize that. Most modern athiests, though, in their laziness and ignorance simply assume that decent liberal civilization will continue once that thing that underpinned it is gone. Perhaps Christians have not always lived up to the morality their religion professes, but I will take that inconsistency over the paganism it replaced or the state athiesm of the 20th Century, both of which lived precisely up to their amorality.

[Bill Fleming]

Jon S., democracy was not invented by Christians. Nor were republics.

[Bill Fleming]

Jimi, are you trying to convince us that Einstein was a Christian, or what?
Not sure I get your point. If anything, Einstein was the first to suggest (and
his followers later to prove) that "something came from nothing."

You can take that as an athiest position, I suppose (I don't)
but hardly a non-scientific one. To the degree Einstein was "religious",
I submit that his spirituality was far more in keeping with Buddhist teaching
than with Christian fundamentalism or anti-Muslim sentiment.

For example:

"The belief in an external world independent of the perceiving subject is the basis of all natural science. Since, however, sense perception only gives information of this external world or of "physical reality" indirectly, we can only grasp the latter by speculative means. It follows from this that our notions of physical reality can never be final. We must always be ready to change these notions—that is to say, the axiomatic basis of physics—in order to do justice to perceived facts in the most perfect way logically." -Einstein

Compare that to:

"While the Tathagata, in his teaching, constantly makes use of conceptions and ideas about them, disciples should keep in mind the unreality of all such conceptions and ideas. They should recall that the Tathagata, in making use of them in explaining the Dharma always uses them in the semblance of a raft that is of use only to cross a river. As the raft is of no further use after the river is crossed, it should be discarded. So these arbitrary conceptions of things and about things should be wholly given up as one attains enlightenment." -Buddha

...and again:

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world." -Einstein

...compared to:
"All such notions as causation, succession, atoms, primary elements...are all figments of the imagination and manifestations of the mind." -Buddha

But again, perhaps I'm still missing your point.

Would you care to take another shot at actually making one, Jimi?

[Bill Fleming]

Never can figure out where guys like Jon S. come up with the "freeloading" way of framing things.
When the Roman Empire in its latter years adopted Christianity and integrated it into existing
ancient cultural ritual whereby pagan celebrations became Christian ones, who was "freeloading"
from whom? I don't think that sort of argumentative tone does anything to advance the debate.

In fact, for me, it tends to begin to shut it down. Jon calls me a freeloader, I call him a moron, and
there you have it... end of discussion. I don't come here to a supposedly "intellectual" forum for that
kind of dialogue. It is readily available elsewhere.

[George Mason]

Bill; I appreciate the citations but you are avoiding the question. Many people believe their religion is superior to others and for many people their religious faith is personal and they like to keep it that way, but where is he (Jefferson) stating that the First Amendment is about all or none when it comes to religious liberty?

[Bill Fleming]

George, I don't understand how it's not obvious to you. Jefferson rejects all religions but his own,
and yet embraces everyone's right to do the same. That is simultaneously all and/or none.

We have to presume he wouldn't design a country in which he himself was not a welcome member.

I happen to thinke that Jefferson, like Einstein was a "monist" as per Spinoza. Most religious arguments
including this one, arise as a conflict in understanding between dualism and monism.

Monism is all inclusive, dualism is "this and not that." I am arguing a monist position here, George,
not necessarily an atheist one, although to a great many dualists, that is how monism appears.

[George Mason]

Bill; I think that is a better explanation. Jefferson, of course, had nothing to do with writing the Constitution but his writings agree with the basis of the Establishment clause. At the time of the founding religious freedom was the issue, not freedom from religion, although the Constitution protects that also. You may want to couch your argument about the founders in terms of monotheism, polytheism or to put a more modern spin on it anti-theism.

[Bill Fleming]

Thanks, George. I'm glad we made the communication connection.
Religious freedom is still the primary issue, of course, but as you suggest,
we now have a somewhat more nuanced menu of discussion topics to add
to what was already a pretty challenging and emotionally charged debate.

[larry kurtz]

Bill, you seem to have a knack for the propitious. Is an evolutionary constitution an oxymoron?

[Bill Fleming]

Larry, you mean like "a poetic pedantic" or a "lenient constructionist?" Well, yes and no. :^)

[Bill Fleming]

How about "adamantly ambivalent?"

[bielie]

"That is the heart of liberty. It is the responsibility of modern liberal institutions to protect that liberty."

Modern liberalism has long become the #1 enemy of freedom. So if by "liberal institutions" you mean "Institutions of Liberalism" I have news for you.

It ain't gonna happen.

[Aalexiss]

Salaam, excellent tool for nkreotwing and passing on info around the Muslim community! Anyone interested in volunteering this summer for Muslim Aid and raising money for any of their charity projects please email or call 0207 377 4200! May Allah(swt) protect us and bless us all ameen:)VA:F [1.9.7_1111]please wait...VA:F [1.9.7_1111](from 0 votes)

[Aji]

semua orang di halaman ini mgkunin tidak mengenal islam lebih dalam, hanya mengenal islam sebagai teroris. let me tell you guys, Osama bin laden sebenarnya bukan muslim 100%, dia lebih ...

[Shaiq]

The believers are ineded brothers [in Isle2mic religion]. (Al-Hujuraat: 10)And He The Most Mighty, The Most Majestic said: The believers, men and women, are Auliye2' (helpers, supporters, friends, protectors) of oadne another… (At-Tawba : 71)And The Prophet (sallahAllaahu alayhi wasallam) said : The believer to another believer is like the structure [like a wall] ; each part strengthens the other,' and then he co-enjoined his fingers. (Agreed upon)And he (may Allaah's blessings and good mention be upon him) also said: The example of the believers in their relationship, and their love, and their having mercy upon each other ; is like the example of oadne body part to the rest of the body; if oadne part is affected then the whole body complains of fever and pain. (Agreed upon)And he (may Allaah's blessings and good mention be upon him) also said: The Muslim is the brother of another Muslim; he does not oppress him, nor does he deceive him, nor does he give him up to the enemy, nor does he look down oadn him. (Narrated by Muslim)And help comprises of many things –according to the ability, and depending oadn the situations – whether it is intellectually or physical [things], or whether it is from the general Muslims through wealth, and food, and medicine, and clothing, and other things. Or whether it is from the Islamic Arab nations through making it easy and possible that the aid reaches them, and by taking a sincere position in regards to their [the Palestinian Muslims] matter, and by supporting their case in the gatherings, and seminars, and the international conferences: And all of these are from the ways of co-operation upon good and piety – which is something that is ordered- in the statement of The Exalted : Help you oadne another in virtue, righteousness and piety… (Al-Maaida : 2)And also from those ways is: to direct sincere advice to them [the Muslims in Palestine], and to direct them to that which is of good and of benefit to them. And from the greatest of those is to make du'aa for them -at all times – so that their tribulation is lifted, and their affliction is raised, and that their situation is rectified, and that their statements and actions become good.Upon this, we also advise our Muslim brethren in Palestine to have fear of Allaah – The Exalted- and to return to Him, just as we advise them to be united; upon the truth, and to leave off divisions and splitting up, and not to give a chance to the enemy – who has taken advantage of it – and will continue to use it in enmity and oppression.And we also encourage and emphasize our brethren to take the causes which will lead to lifting the oppression directed at their land – while having complete sincerity to Allaah The Exalted – in [those and all other] actions, and to seek His pleasure, and to seek His assistance – through righteous actions, and prayers, and consulting the scholars and people of wisdom; in all their matters – ineded that is a way of being facilitated [to that which is good] and establishment.Just as we call oadn to the intellectuals in the world and the international meetings; to have an open look at this catastrophe – with a look of insight, intellect, and equality – so that the Palestinian community can be given its rights. And so that the oppression be lifted from it: such that they live in a honourable life. And at the same time we thank all -the nations and individuals- who have initiated in aiding and helping them.We ask Allaah by His Beautiful Names and His Lofty Attributes; that He lifts the despair oadn this Ummah, and that He strengthens its religion, and to raise its statement, and to aid His allies, and to disgrace His enemies -and to return back their plots against themselves- and to save the Muslims from their evil, Indeed He is the Patron, and the oadne who is Most Able of all that. And may His blessings and good mention be upon our Prophet Muhammad, and also his family and his companions and those who follow them upon good; upto the Last Day.The grand mufti of Saudi Arabia,President of the Council of Senior Scholars,Shaykh Abdul-'Azeez Ibn Abdullaah Aal ash-Shaykh.Member of Permanent Committee for Islaamic Research and VerdictsSource : The Madeenah Journalالخميس, 1 يناير 2009واس الرياضحثت اللجنة الدائمة للبحوث العلمية والإفتاء بالمملكة المسلمين الوقوف مع إخوانهم الفلسطينيين والتعاون معهم ونصرتهم ومساعدتهم والاجتهاد في رفع الظلم عنهم بما يمكن من الأسباب والوسائل تحقيقاً لإخوة الإسلام ورابطة الإيمان، معتبرة أن مايجري في غزة إجرام وظلم في حق الشعب الفلسطيني.وأوضحت اللجنة أن النصرة شاملة لأمور عديدة حسب الاستطاعة ومراعاة الأحوال سواء كانت مادية أو معنوية ، وسواء كانت من عموم المسلمين بالمال والغذاء والدواء والكساء وغيرها، أو من جهة الدول العربية والإسلامية بتسهيل وصول المساعدات لهم وصدق المواقف تجاههم ونصرة قضاياهم في المحافل والجمعيات والمؤتمرات الدولية والشعبية.ودعت اللجنة عقلاء العالم والمجتمع الدولي للنظر في الكارثة بعين العقل والإنصاف لإعطاء الشعب الفلسطيني حقوقهجاء ذلك في بيان صدر عن اللجنة حول ما يجري في قطاع غزة من قتل وحصار وتشريد فيما يلي نصه:الحمد لله رب العالمين ، والصلاة والسلام على أشرف الأنبياء والمرسلين نبينا محمد وعلى آله وصحبه ، ومن تبعهم بإحسان إلى يوم الدين. وبعد:فإن اللجنة الدائمة للبحوث العلمية والإفتاء في المملكة العربية السعودية تابعت بكل أسى وحزن وألم ما جرى ويجري على إخواننا المسلمين في فلسطين وفي قطاع غزة على الخصوص من عدوان وقتل للأطفال والنساء والشيوخ وانتهاك للحرمات وتدمير للمنازل والمنشآت وترويع للآمنين ، ولا شك أن ذلك إجرام وظلم في حق الشعب الفلسطيني.وهذا الحدث الأليم يوجب على المسلمين الوقوف مع إخوانهم الفلسطينيين والتعاون معهم ونصرتهم ومساعدتهم والاجتهاد في رفع الظلم عنهم بما يمكن من الأسباب والوسائل تحقيقاً لاخوة الإسلام ورابطة الإيمان ، قال الله تعالى :” إنما المؤمنون إخوة” (الحجرات 10) وقال عز وجل :” والمؤمنون والمؤمنات بعضهم أولياء بعض” (التوبة 71) وقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم :” المؤمن للمؤمن كالبنيان يشد بعضه بعضاً وشبك بين أصابعه “ متفق عليه، وقال أيضاً عليه الصلاة والسلام :”مثل المؤمنين في توادهم وتراحمهم وتعاطفهم مثل الجسد الواحد إذا اشتكى منه عضو تداعى له سائر الجسد بالحمى والسهر “(متفق عليه) وقال عليه الصلاة والسلام: “ المسلم أخو المسلم لا يظلمه ولا يخذله ولا يسلمه ولا يحقره” رواه مسلم.والنصرة شاملة لأمور عديدة حسب الاستطاعة ومراعاة الأحوال سواء كانت مادية أو معنوية ، وسواء كانت من عموم المسلمين بالمال والغذاء والدواء والكساء وغيرها، أو من جهة الدول العربية والإسلامية بتسهيل وصول المساعدات لهم وصدق المواقف تجاههم ونصرة قضاياهم في المحافل والجمعيات والمؤتمرات الدولية والشعبية ، وكل ذلك من التعاون على البر والتقوى المأمور به في قوله سبحانه وتعالى : “ وتعاونوا على البر والتقوى “ (المائدة 2).ومن ذلك أيضاً بذل النصيحة لهم ودلالتهم على ما فيه خيرهم وصلاحهم ، ومن أعظم ذلك أيضاً الدعاء لهم في جميع الأوقات برفع محنتهم وكشف شدتهم وصلاح أحوالهم وسداد أعمالهم وأقوالهم. هذا وإننا نوصي إخواننا المسلمين في فلسطين بتقوى الله تعالى والرجوع إليه سبحانه ، كما نوصيهم بالوحدة على الحق وترك الفرقة والتنازع وتفويت الفرصة على العدو التي استغلها وسيستغلها بمزيد من الاعتداء والتوهين.ونحث إخواننا على فعل الأسباب لرفع العدوان على أرضهم مع الإخلاص في الأعمال لله تعالى وابتغاء مرضاته والاستعانة بالصبر والصلاة ومشاورة أهل العلم والعقل والحكمة في جميع أمورهم ، فإن ذلك أمارة على التوفيق والتسديد.كما أننا ندعو عقلاء العالم والمجتمع الدولي بعامة للنظر في هذه الكارثة بعين العقل والإنصاف لإعطاء الشعب الفلسطيني حقوقه ، ورفع الظلم عنه حتى يعيش حياة كريمة، وفي الوقت نفسه نشكر كل من أسهم في نصرتهم ومساعدتهم من الدول والأفراد.نسأل الله بأسمائه الحسنى وصفاته العلا أن يكشف الغمة عن هذه الأمة ، وأن يعز دينه ، ويعلي كلمته وأن ينصر أولياءه ، وأن يخذل أعداءه ، وأن يجعل كيدهم في نحورهم ، وأن يكفي المسلمين شرهم ، إنه ولي ذلك والقادر عليه. وصلى الله وسلم على نبيا محمد وعلى آله وصحبه ومن تبعهم بإحسان إلى يوم الدين.سماحة المفتي العام للمملكة العربية السعوديةرئيس هيئة كبار العلماءالشيخ عبدالعزيز بن عبدالله بن محمد آل الشيخوأعضاء اللجنة الدائمة للبحوث العلمية والإفتاء

[Wiwie]

concerning calamities. So it pains us delpey that this is occurring -as the Muslims are as one body, when one part is hurt we all suffer- but rather than becoming worked up and over- emotional, we must reflect and return to the obedience of Allah. I personally live here in Egypt when I go to the masaajid here (not including the salafi ones, as they have understanding and ulamaa who attend, the likes of Shaykh Hasan ibn Abdil-Wahhaab Al-Banna) there are hardly any new faces in the masjid during these times, and hardly more than one row tops besides that. So then they make kunoot and many of them are upon riyaa, even major shirk of the sufiyyah etc, they do not fulfill the shuroot/arkaan/waajibaat of the salaah such that it may be excepted not only that, they may have bida' in it their earnings are unlawful, such that their clothing, food etc. is as well, which will cause Allah to not respond to their invocations .then when they make the kunoot they yell and raise their voices as if angry with Allah, and become all emotional as the imaam begins to sing the kunoot for sooo long, overburdening most of the followers etc and then they say things in the du'a that was not from the way of the salaf blanketing du'a over entire nations of Americans, Jews, Christians etc. So I ask, how is any of this going to benefit, when first and foremost(as the list of this type of stuff is to long)they don't even have firm faith, or good knowledge/thoughts of Allah. wallahul-musta'aan. I ask Allah, Al-Hayy Al-Qayyoom that he avenge those innocent lives that were taken, and that he preserve those that are left, and that he guide the Muslims to understanding their religion and thus return back to it, and that He forgive us all for our mistakes, and that He not misguide our hearts after having guided them.. Surely He is our Maulaa, He is Al-Haleem wan-Naseer wa alaa kulli shayin Qadeer. Subhaanak Allahumma wa bi hamdik ash-hadu an laa ilaaha illaa anta astughfiruka wa atoobu ilayk.

[Ahmeda]

The hate that I feel in my heart is real,But these are feelings that I don't want to feel.Please Allah help me to be sorntg,As I know feeling like this is wrong.You know the pain and anger that I feel in my heart,Please take it away, make it depart.I'm so tired and weary Dear Lord,These feelings I cannot afford.I want to feel alive, I want to feel free,I want to be the best Muslim that I can be.Please take this pain, throw it away,I need to prostrate to You and pray.Please Allah forgive my anger,These feelings are from Shaitan- I'm in danger!Please calm my heart, calm my mind,Let me feel the peace that I yearn to find.Thank You Allah for hearing me out,Thank You Allah for allowing me to take the right route.VA:F [1.9.7_1111]please wait...VA:F [1.9.7_1111](from 0 votes)

[Vivek]

, have not checked their own buhavioer first. None of this will stop, until we all take a look at ourselves and begin to obey Allah. Only then must we take a stand in Jihad. But it is all upon us, we must change it, we must go on protesting and expect someone to change it for us. That is all I meant.May Allah guide us all.. ameen