How islam is making anyone a better person or even a good person? To begin with any one claiming that God spoke to him needs his brain checked. When a Jew says that God spoke to Mosses he say it with "Wink Wink" or will say "spoke" with some understanding. But when a Muslim say God spoke to mohammad, he is dead serious. Then he memorized all that God said over the lifespan, must have a hell of a memory.

God took care of the universe long before islam or any other religion showed up on the earth and will take care long after islam or any other religion will vanish from the earth (Oh Yes, it will happen!). Religions have a place in the development of mankind. Since the birth of man many religions evolved and contributed towards the betterment of the mankind. Religion is a set of rules which are followed in the certain frame of time and location, these set of rules might not work in different time frame or location. The fight is not between different religions, the actual fight is between two groups. One Intelligent and thinking and the other stupid and devoid any thought process.

The US and many current democratic countries where a human being can live with a certain freedom of lifestyle (So called western societies) are product of intelligent thought process. Given a chance most of the people would like to migrate to these countries for better life. Thanks to each and everyone who came before me, and came up with new set of rules that made current western civilization possible. Many rules from different religion were adopted, many were bent or changed and many were dropped. And this process do not stop here, it is in continuation even today and will continue 1000 years later.

That does not happen with islam, Islam tells it followers Stop Thinking. Even today Muslims are expected to follow rules which were told by some one 1000 years back in desert. Out of 50 or so Islamic countries there is not even a single country with acceptable living standards. Even with oil money (which itself is result of dreaded western societies) the life of an average muslim is miserable. And in all these countries gift of islam is Killing by stoning, Animal Scarifies, Honor Killing of Women, Public lashing, Public Hanging and above all No freedom of religion, No freedom of thoughts and if you try to leave islam you will be killed. Is that not the rule of street gangs?

So coming back to my question How islam is making you a better person or even a person of average intelligence? Please do think. Even if Thinking is Haram in islam.

I truly have to agree with the writer that it is amazing how muslims can riot and kill innocent people over a few cartoons but when their own worshipers go on criminal rampages we do not hear one peep out of them. Why? Is the islamic faith tolerant of criminal behavior? From my perspective, it seems as though it is. I believe it is a faith of intolerance and violence. The king of Saudi Arabia has called for interfaith dialogue, but will never host these conferences in that country because they feel it is haram(forbidden) for infidels to set foot on islamic soil. How very hippocritical! A muslim can visit the Vatican, can go to Tel Aviv, but Jews and Christians are not allowed to see the Kaaba. Wouldn't that be the perfect place to open interfaith dialogue? If only the muslims and king Saud were serious about real and meaningful dialogue. The islamic faith is not a religion of peace or even open to discussion and criticism, it is a totalitarian my way or die mindset! I will respect muslims and islam when I see them offer the same respect toward other faiths and when their worshipers are allowed to question the very faith itself without fear of being killed for it. Until that day arrives, we will continue to see this criminal behavior in the name of Allah and his prophet for years to come.

Islam is a disease and muslims are the victims of that disease. Islam is not compatible with a democrasy, never was and never will be, period.

The religion of peace is on a vengence against the KAFIR (Un-believers).

FaithFreedom & Religion of Peace visit these sites to see the real islam and what they have planned for the infidels.

Thank You

To Chris et al -

What religion has killed the most people in the Name of God?

It ain't Islam.

It's mainstream 'Christianity'.

Prove me wrong, if you can.

But don't look at just the past couple of decades - look at ALL of history since Jesus walked the earth...because the proper measurement should NOT be concerning a few years...but since Jesus established His Church. In fact, I may be able to make the case the mainstream 'Christianity' killed more in the Name of God even in the 20th century alone - I know the totals are certainly close.

In fact, how about those who hate Islam total up who's killed more Jews - those eeeeevil Muslims, or those peace-loving 'Christians'....

And in case you're wondering, I am certainly Christian, and strongly so. But I will not allow such inflammatory - and false - claptrap be posted without a strong response. For all those who claim how dangerous Islamic countries are, I've walked around alone in the UAE and in Singapore and felt FAR safer than in Long Beach or even in south Seattle.

If all of you want to continue to spew your hatred, all you are doing is proving the Islamic extremists' case about how much the world hates them...and that's how they attract new recruits. Keep it up, guys - you're doing bin Laden a lot more good than harm.

An incredibly juvenile, simplistic article meant to incite blind hatred and bigotry. Bravo for posting this.

Glen, you say, I may be able to make the case the mainstream 'Christianity' killed more in the Name of God even in the 20th century alone than have Muslims. Although by no means a Christian, I would be interested to know how you arrive at this. True, lots of Christians were involved in World Wars I and II, the Korean Conflict, and other wars; many of them killed other Christians. I don't think that many of them were seriously motivated to do so in the name of Christianity, and I don't grasp your apparent argument that Christians killed lots of people in the name of God during the 20th century.

As to looking back at the past two thousand years for guidance, you may be correct in contending that Christians have killed more people in the name of Christianity than have Muslims in the name of Islam. Lots of people were killed in the name of Christianity; even many Christians. However, I think that most Christians are more civilized now than during the Inquisition and the Crusades, for example, and that sort of persecution is no longer commonplace.

Why should we look to the very bad things done in the name of Christianity in the distant past in evaluating the direct actions of some Muslims in the present, and the failure of many more of their coreligionists to speak out against those things? Stonings, honor killings, beheadings of infidels and apostates, violent attacks on children, targeting other non-combatants, suicide bombings, and what have you. Are we to "give them a pass" on account of bad things done by others in the name of their God long ago? That makes little more sense to me than giving a rapist or a murderer a "free pass" since other people have committed rape or murder. These things need to be stopped, particularly as they affect us -- as they rather clearly do. It seems that before the problem can be addressed in any meaningful way, the apparent (at least to me) impact of religion on it must be addressed. If there is little or no impact, so be it. If there is a significant impact, that should be considered.

Dan(Miller)

This whole "Muslims" are not speaking out bullshit is brought up each time there is violence attributed to Islamic cults. I'm not sure any other group of people, religious or otherwise, have been held to such a ridiculous standard.

Why is it necessary for Muslims, any random Muslims, to condemn these attacks? Is it enough that my Muslim friend does? Moreover, must I condemn attacks of white supremacists publicly and repeatedly until my brethren can be cleared of all charges? No! Nobody expects that of me.

The fact of the matter is that America is living in a very McCarthyesque period in which Muslims are the new Reds. It is incumbent upon all American Muslims to "stand up and be counted" and in order to do that, they must actively, physically, and repeatedly denounce any and all "Muslim" attacks until they've been pardoned by an impatient and ignorant public. This has nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with Americans needing someone else to villainize.

And can we get off this comparison game? Who cares about who the more violent or homicidal religious group is? All have blood on their hands and all are guilty when it comes to violence and bloodshed throughout history. It's human nature.

There is no governing body of Islam, no core leadership, no one single group that will stand up and condemn these attacks. Individual Muslims do and have been, just like they did after 9/11 and just like they have since then and before then. It seems that Americans won't be happy until Muslims establish a papacy that can publicly and loudly condemn any and all attacks committed by someone with a warped view of humanity and life.

Islam is a complex, intricate religion. Shit, all religions are intricate and complex. Lies have a way of winding down various paths. Regardless, the author of this "article" claims he's studied "quite a bit of Islam" and yet doesn't seem to recognize many of the basic tenets of the faith and doesn't mention abrogation or any other concepts that directly address how one Muslim interprets the Qu'ran in contrast to another. I could go on and on about this (I already have in many other places on this site) but I think the basic component remains the same.

America needs a villain. Might as well be Islam.

What Jordan said.

Well, Jordan, we certainly can't fight Eastasia so soon. btw, I've seen no evidence to suggest that this writer can and should be trusted, so the editor should go back through this piece again and make corrections.

The preceding four comments (#s 5,6,7,8) are collectively, the best argument I've seen in a long time for doing away with religion -- ALL religion.

I've seen no evidence to suggest that this writer can and should be trusted

Those overhead shots of Bush's new house didn't convince you?

What Clavos said.

What Chris said about what Clavos said.

:P

My point is this: If Muslims the world over can spend more than a month protesting something the Pope said or cartoons printed in a newspaper, you would think they could have a protest against Islamic extremism -- just once.

In response to #8. Why is it necessary for muslims to condemn these attacks? My reply to that is that a great many muslims (your friends and mine as well) do speak out against these criminal and attrocious acts! Many muslims in many countries are speaking out against it! The root problem is that Islam does not allow anyone (kafirs or muslims) to criticize or question the very faith itself! When certain criminal acts are committed in the name of Allah, one would think that a vast majority of that faith's believers would speak out and condemn such actions, but, muslims do not question the very faith that IS espousing such criminal behavior! Extremist views can be found in all religions, but the difference is that Islam and its core tenants promote such criminal actions! Killing kafirs and infidels is not considered to be a criminal act at all! Questioning the faith itself is forbidden and could be punishable by death in OIC nations! I feel that Islam has to go through some form of reformation like Christianity did in the year 1510. If a majority of muslims (both sunni and shiite) were to speak out in a unanimous voice and condemn such actions, both in the media and in the mosques and madrassas, then we could deal with the criminal elements more effectively, and unanimously. Tell your friend like I have told mine to question their mullahs and clerics and press for change. My friends won't for fear of being labeled as apostates. Perhaps your friend's voice will be heard. For the sake of humanity I hope and pray that it will be.

Dan -

I arrived at that statement - remember I cautiously used the word 'may' - due to the genocide in Croatia during WWII, wherein (according to a U.S. State Department paper) about 700,000 were killed by the hard-line Catholic Ustashe regime. Additionally, hundreds of thousands were either expelled from the country or forcibly converted to Catholicism. Those who converted to Catholicism were not put to death.

I can no longer find the link to the State Department report that I had seen - I'll keep looking for it, but here's something from the Simon Wiesenthal Center:

"Estimates of the death toll of the Ustase regime in the Independent State of Croatia vary. According to Aaron Breitbart, Senior Research Associate of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, "Although exact figures for civilian victims of the Ustashi in the nazi puppet state of Croatia may never be known, the following numbers represent reasonable estimates as determined by reputable, scholarly sources": 30,000 Jews, 28,000 Roma, and 600,000 Serbs. In Breitbart's estimate, a further 250,000 Serbs were listed as expelled, and 200,000 "forcibly converted to Catholicism" - in line with the regime's stated goal in mid-1941 of "killing a third, expelling a third, and converting a third" of the pre-war Serbian population."

Here's the link to the above statement and an index of documents describing the extent of cooperation between the Vatican and the Ustase regime.

At this link you can find documents describing the U.S. Army and Intelligence findings of how the dictator, the leader of the Ustase was even living inside the Vatican grounds after he fled Croatia, being wanted for crimes against humanity.

The only Islamic genocide that may approach the scale of the Croatian genocide would be the Armenian holocaust - estimates range from 300,000 to 1.5 million - but I must state that the more I look at that one, the more obvious it seems that religion played a significantly smaller role than it did in Croatia.

Also, the Rwandan genocide occurred in a country that was until then touted as the 'most Christian country in Africa'. In the past few years a couple of nuns were convicted at the Hague for their actions in Rwanda (IIRC), and I read on AFROL news that NO Muslims had taken part in the genocide...but I cannot vouch for AFROL news' objectivity.

In addition to the above, of course, can be added the plethora of religious wars fought in Europe and Asia Minor over the centuries. The death tolls accumulated by other religions...simply don't come close as far as I can tell.

One last note - I've seen sites disappear since I first began reading about the Croatian genocide. One site - pavelicpapers.com - had actual scans of the documents obtained through FOIA requests from the U.S. government, which are now converted to regular text on jasenovac-info.com. Pavelicpapers.com is no longer online. I just checked list of genocides on Wikipedia, and the Croatian genocide isn't even listed. I've no proof of anything, but the dearth of information is starting to stink like yesterday's fish.

Dan -

I forgot to point out that due to the religious nature of the Ustase regime's aims, I certainly do consider the genocide as being done 'in the Name of God'.

My point is this: If Muslims the world over can spend more than a month protesting something the Pope said or cartoons printed in a newspaper, you would think they could have a protest against Islamic extremism -- just once.

Muslims "the world over" have not protested something the Pope said and Muslims "the world over" did not get in an uproar over the cartoons. Groups of Muslims have done this, yes, just as groups of Muslims have taken positions all over the political and religious spectrum. Groups of Muslims have spoken out against extremism, as have individuals.

Here is a page filled with articles from several Muslim scholars denouncing extremism, for instance. And the Free Muslims Coalition is a group that has spoken out against terrorism in their religion ever since the horrific events of 9/11. Then there's Islam Against Extremism which also contains a slew of reading material and opposition to extremism.

Honestly, a simple Google search can refute your entire premise, Mr. Jones. Perhaps when you make claims in the future, you should have evidence to back them up.

Well Cris Jones, I can only post 3 urls and I don't think there is much need to do that more than once in this case. Although, I could probably fill up plenty of posts with numerous similar examples.

So, your article is based on what? No Muslims personally knocked on your door to give you their opinions?

What good does all the outrage in the world Muslims may have against the attacks do if you don't bother reading the news?

"RAMALLAH, West Bank - Muslims from the Middle East to Britain and Austria condemned Sunday the Mumbai shooting rampage by suspected Islamic militants as senseless terrorism..." (Associated Press)

Muslims speak out against terror online (The Times of India)

"New Delhi: A group of Imams have appealed to Muslims to celebrate Bakrid in a sober way and wear black ribbons on their shoulders to show their grief and solidarity with Mumbaikars who faced one of the worst Terror attacks in the country." (Indian Express)

"Mumbai: Terming acts of Terror as 'un-Islamic' the Muslim Council Trust, a south Mumbai-based Muslim organisation, has opposed the burial of the nine dead terrorists in the city's burial grounds." (Also from Indian Express, Muslim outfit opposes burial of terrorists in city Dec. 1, 2008.)

game, set, match - Cindy

This turned into a good discussion, even though the article that started it was incredibly stupid.

This turned into a good discussion

In what way?

Starting with #8...

The reality here - as some Muslim friends in Australia quite rightly point out - is that these are the actions of criminals, pure and simple.

To attempt to foist this kind of guilt and shame onto people is incredibly foolish and achieves little.

Plenty of Muslims - most I'd wager - oppose the hijacking of their religion by a small group of misguided, deluded lunatics in the name of jihad, and quite often the people the jihadists recruit are so stupid, have no real clue about the aims of such attacks in the first place.

Fundamentalist Islamic terror groups aren't really religious in nature. They use it as a means to an end. It's more political than anything else, even if it's carried out in the name of a God perceived by some manipulated humans to be dark and vengeful.

It's like suggesting that every Irish Catholic was a silent supporter of the IRA during their campaign of mass murder.

Most Catholics in Ireland came to hate the methods of the IRA, and the grief they caused.

But groups of criminals will go about their dirty business and do what they do regardless.

And articles like this do nothing to help our own cause, which is to maintain our democracies, institutions and freedoms in the face of international criminals who want to take them away.

Indonesia - the world's largest Muslim nation and our closest neighbour - had the right idea recently when they sent three of the jihadist Bali bombers (who killed 220 including 80 of my countrymen and women in the Kuta Beach bombings of October 2002) to their deaths by firing squad, and they didn't f.ck about either once all the appeals processes were over.

There's some Muslim outrage for you.

The Indian Muslim Council has called on all muslim graveyards to refuse to bury the Mumbai terrorists. To their culture, that's just about the strongest denouncement possible. I'm no supporter of Islam, but bravo, guys.

Regarding the argument that the Muslim community shouldn't be associated with these attacks -
as an Indian, I'll point out that many Indian Muslims support appeasement policies towards Pakistan (eg. let's beg the Pakistanis for peace; let's beg them reunify with us on their terms; let's give Kashmir to Pakistan; let's stop antagonizing Pakistan; etc, etc).

The voting patterns of the Muslim community reflect this, and the political activism within the Muslim community certain does too.
That's why the left-wing politicians go out of their way to court the Muslim vote by promising to water down security laws, by appointing pliable incompetent loyalists to key security posts, etc.

Strange how when Muslims were killed in riots which spontaneous erupted following the burning of a traincar carrying Hindu pilgrims, the Muslims want to rant about that event endlessly. Oh, they don't want that issue put to rest ever, and insist that wider Hindu society is to blame.

I personally feel there's deep hypocrisy in the politics practiced by the Muslim community in India.

I would suggest that you all read this article at Desicritics, "A View from Pakistan: I Am a Mumbaikar Today". Then come back and look at this article.

I personally feel there's deep hypocrisy in the politics practiced by the Muslim community in India.

There's deep hypocrisy in all politics, Muslim or not.

Thanks Ruvy. That is excellent. I hope Chris Jones take a minute to read that link.

You're welcome, Cindy,

I'm very conflicted about this whole attack on Mumbai. I work with colleagues in Mumbai and can feel, as any former Jerusalemite can, the pain, rage and horror that all Mumbaikars feel at having their home so viciously and brutally attacked.
In that sense, I sympathize with Indians and generally with their desire to attack the terrorist bases in Pakistan.

But my interest in South Asia is not solely commercial or mercenary. The Pashtun, the people who live in Afghanistan, northwest Pakistan and small scattered communities throughout the rest of South Asia, are bani israel - that is to say that they are the descendants of the Tribes of Israel whom the Assyrians forced into exile. The Taliban are Israelites.

G-d certainly has one hell of a sense of humor.

Even though these people largely view themselves as enemies of the Jewish people today - they sniff at us like trash from the wrong side of the tracks, largely - they are still my brothers, by blood, if not by sentiment. And in the future, they will rid themselves of the Taliban bullshit, and come home.

I have an Indian friend who is a Pashtun, and a Pakistani friend one who is also a Pashtun, and it is the knowledge of our shared links as Children of Israel that is the basis of that friendship.

The link I seek to send you to to read has nothing to do with all this. It merely indicates, as I have been saying for a long long time, that many Moslems (including many Arabs) are decent, peace-loving people.

When there are Arab terror attacks here, I am no different from Mumbaikars in feeling rage and wanting vengeance. But I am always forced to reconsider the realities of who leads, and who incites, and who persecutes and who discriminates. Taking a Kalashnikov and killing all the Arabs living down the hill may slake my anger, but it will accomplish nothing aside from contaminating the land with more blood shed (notice I didn't say innocent blood).

When you look at my news analyses, note who I go after. It is usually not Arabs. It is usually Jews or Americans. This, in spite of the fact that the immediate enemy at hand appears to be Arabs.

And you never see me saying bad things about Islam either. I always attack the Wahhabi-influenced terrorists. The Wahhabi are fake Moslems, hiding behind the robe of Islam and spreading a hatred of mankind that is so palpable I can feel it even here on a mountaintop.

If I want anybody to die, it is the Wahhabi - and the European and American scum who are their sympathizers or business partners, enabling their machine of death to keep killing.

Ruvy -

That's a heck of a post...and of interest to anyone who enjoys a healthy sense of irony. I would never have suspected the Taliban to be bani Israel. That's as ironic as Bush's successor being named 'Hussein'....

And I strongly agree with what you said about the Wahhabi...except for wanting them to die. I cannot condone such an emotion, and I've prayed many times that I will never feel such an emotion. The Wahhabi's beliefs are directly in opposition to several commands in the Qur'an. In fact, Sharia law also contradicts the Qur'an in several instances - such as mark the hands of a thief, not cut it off.

Good post, Ruvy - two of the joys in my life are learning things I didn't know before and coming to better understand those who have beliefs different from my own. Thank you, for both were in your post.

If your requirement for mistrusting an entire group of people can be so minimal than any group should be mistrusted.
How many Germans seriously spoke out against the Holocaust? Not many substantial cases, but were they banned from entering the U.S. OR were they at all seen as people to be feared and not trusted. Based on what you say we can't trust the white race as a result of indian removal, slavery and a whole host of other incidents commited by some radicals. Your agrument show an alarming intolerance

I thought Blogcritics didn't publish factually inaccurate articles anymore? This article is pathetic in its ignorance. That may be OK for Thomas Friedman, who is a full time ass...

Oh, and The Taliban are Israelites? That would explain a lot as to why they are so moronically hostile to the people around them...

Actually, I just took a look at the personal website of this author. The Hot Joints tags itself as "Breaking News and Opinion" but is basically a platform for more of the kind of thoughtful and informed ranting as we see in the article above. Ugly stuff...

I thought Blogcritics didn't publish factually inaccurate articles anymore?

Crap! I missed another memo.

Mark

This is hardly "superior writing". It has an obvous bias and the writing is simply poor.

Oh, and The Taliban are Israelites? That would explain a lot as to why they are so moronically hostile to the people around them...

It also explains why they are still around - unlike the Alans, Vandals, Assyrians, Babylonians, Romans, Philistines, Hittites....

The Taliban don't seem to be very favorably disposed towards their Israeli brethren. If Ruvy thinks their anti-Jewish dispositions are the future of Israel, then he might as well advocate their Right of Return ahead of any expelled Palestinians. The Taliban returnees can then bring down the Jewish state, thereby paving over any obstacles to Palestinian Return. (If that sounds senseless, it's because a lot of Ruvy's positions are.)

Ruvy - #38 - LOL! Good rejoinder!

Sanjay - #39 - I disagree with Ruvy on many things (such as his suspicions about Rahm Emanuel)...but his positions are anything but 'senseless'. Wrong, maybe - for all of us (including thee and me) have 'wrong positions' in the eyes of others...but not 'senseless'.

I recommend that you try to understand a little better what led Ruvy to believe as he does, and perhaps do a little soul-searching yourself, and you might find that you would agree with him more often than you might expect.

I'm familiar with the Vandals, Assyrians and Babylonians, but not those other bands.

One hit wonders, all of 'em...

Sanjay,

You need to pay attention. I didn't anything about "Taliban" returnees. The whole Taliban ideology is a pack of oppressive bullshit imported from Deoband, from madrassas run by and funded by Wahhabi pieces of shit..

The Pashtun/Pakhtun will one day liberate themselves of that crap - or feel a Force that forcibly liberates of it.

Then they'll see things differently. What little there is of Jewish prophetic writings indicates that they will not be willing to rejoin the Fold of the Children of Israel at all, and events seem to bear out the prophetic writings so far.

Here's another perspective on the Bombay Blitzkrieg; this time from a Canadian Jew.

Here's a couple more stories that prove my point.

Despite the fact that the original author and Clavos linked to the same article, some people need to learn about the perils of selecting reading matter that simply reinforces their own prejudices.

The author also needs to learn that other media articles expressing the same point of view as his own aren't proof of anything, except the folly of picking media that agrees with you...

Chris,

The second article you linked to is proof that real Moslems can and do find the guts to condemn terrorist actions of the fake Wahhabi types.

I normally agree with Steyn on a lot of his articles - but he does not distinguish between the Wahhabi hereticism that now controls "Islam" and the actual religion - which is not a "religion of peace", but one that preaches perfection through submission to Allah.

Moslems will generally argue that this state of perfection through submission is peace - an argument that makes linguistic, if not necessarily theological sense - the word shalóm in Hebrew really connotes a whole lot mere than "peace" - it connotes wholeness and completeness That is why the phrase shalóm aléikhem is not merely a greeting but a blessing as well, and when you wish to talk about greeting someone, the term is >i>l'varékh b'shalóm - to bless with peace, The Hebrew word cognate for Moslem is mushlám which means "perfect".

I am working in the UAE. I find there is no place here without a mosque in the direct line of sight. Every nook and corner you will find several of these. There are hardly any parks or libraries that are noteworthy of mentioning. There is little evidence to prove that the adherents of Islam have the intellectual capability for reform, the likeness we witnessed in Europe.

Arnold -

Y'know, I remember drinking alcohol in a bar in the UAE...and there were Muslims drinking there too - and of course you know Muslims are prohibited from doing that. I've pulled inport to Jebel Ali at least twenty times and been to Dubai at least half that many times, and I can state there ARE places you can go in the UAE where you can't see a mosque.

There is a section set aside - not too far from Jebel Ali - where mainstream 'Christian' churches are allowed to build their chapels and hold their services. The Church of which I am a member doesn't hold with them, so we hold ours elsewhere in the country.

Parks or libraries. No, I didn't see any of either - but I also bear in mind that UAE citizens get a yearly stipend just for being citizens (ten years ago it was about 50K USD). So with all their money, do they really need free parks and libraries for citizens? I think you'll agree they care little for the foreign workers, but why would they build parks and libraries for them?

I've been to bookstores there (the Qur'an was for sale, but never placed in a position below the waist) and they're nice enough (but don't compare to Barnes and Noble, of course), and they do have plenty of diversionary activities from an ice rink to the golf course we always passed by (seemingly the only substantial stretch of green grass in the country).

As far as whites are concerned, the UAE is a nice and fairly safe place - but sadly, if your skin is darker than theirs (whether African, Indian, Pakistani, or Filipino), you get short shrift. I must wonder if that's a holdover from the slavery that was legal (at least in Saudi Arabia) well into the 1900's. I couldn't help but notice in the Gulf News (or is it Gulf Times?) how, when someone was fired, the business owner would place an advertisement and picture in the paper effectively saying "this person is no good - don't hire him/her."

In other words, the UAE isn't that bad, but they do have serious faults. If you want a truly nice place that is Muslim, go to Singapore - THAT place is FAR safer and cleaner than any city I've been to in America - it makes Seattle look like a third-world slum. Just make sure you get a permit to chew gum.

Do you see where I'm going with this? With most countries there are advantages and disadvantages to living there - it all depends on what you consider most important.

I remember drinking alcohol in a bar in the UAE...and there were Muslims drinking there too - and of course you know Muslims are prohibited from doing that,

Heh!.. I hate to think of how many pounds of bacon I consumed eating bacon-egg-cheese croissants and bagel at BK when I worked there. The fact that I was a manager and got them all for "free" didn't help either.

Of course the food wasn't free at all. There is no such thing as a free lunch (or breakfast). I paid the price five years ago with a heart attack from all the cholesterol that lined my arteries and veins. I watch my consumption of hard fats and all, and I should get more exercise - but again, I'll pay the price if I don't - perhaps with my life this time.

But that ain't the point. Moslems, like Jews and Christians, don't necessarily follow what is written in their own "good book". That is one of the reasons for the "good book" in the first place - to remind us all to be humans created in the image of G-d and not animalistic brutes.

All the atheists on this site who refuse to acknowledge the source of their virtues amuse me. Were it not for the Bible, Qur'an or rules of Dharma, or some such, the basic question they'd have to answer each day is "who's for lunch?" (With the additional question, "would you like some salt or pepper to spice him up a bit, or fries on the side?")

everyone practices there own faith...
do not be dormant to such harm..go on and live and change lives.let people be people and try to help them out but do not try to change there ways..what will happen is in the belivers hands and eyes.
good day to all.

in these times of need to judge-be the one to help them cross to the better side of knowledge and rise to see it happen.
good day to all.

Friedman was talking about how he wished Pakistanis would speak out against those attacks not Muslims all around the world to speak out against it. It would be nice if you actually read the article you are quoting when you are writing an article such as this.

only if it were a cartoon rather than a video...