philsci 3 scribbled: There is absolutely no good reason to doubt the honesty of the poor woman. Firstly it is no secret that the Saudis have spent billions of petro-dollars to spread islam (the wahhabist version). Secondly the vast majority of those so called 'progressive' muslims can in fact be easily radicalized, they are not real moderates. Thirdly it is well known that muslim apologists in the West use widespread deceit in order to win new converts (abrogated verses are presented as ‘proof’ that islam is 'peace' etc). Finally any rational person, who studies the qur'an with enough attention, can easily confirm that women are really discriminated by the 'true' islam (the Medina islam)...The sad reality is that even the so called 'classical islam' is based crucially on the teachings of the Medina islam being thus not too far from wahhabism and other radical ideologies (by the way wahhabism is closer to the real islam - that taught by the qur'an and lived by Muhammad - than the so called 'classical islam')... “Muslims are genuinely incapable of questioning Islam” - Ali Sina The real problem with islam is not the existence of some muslim 'hate preachers' but the qur'an itself. No amount of mental gymnastics or intellectual dishonesty is going to make the unpalatable, unacceptable, and barbaric aspects of Islam disappear. - ibn Warraq The term "Islamic fundamentalist" is in itself inappropriate, for there is a vast difference between Christianity and Islam. Most Christians have moved away from the literal interpretation of the Bible; for most of them "It ain't necessarily so". Thus we legitimately distinguish between fundamentalist and nonfundamentalist Christians. But Muslims have not moved away from the literal interpretation of the Koran: all Muslims - not just a group we called "fundamentalist" ; ; - believe that the Koran is literally the word of God...Many Christians have accepted the results of Science and adjusted their beliefs accordingly and are no longer committed to the literal existence of their biblical parents [Adam and Eve]. Muslims have yet to take even this first step...The truth is that there is no real difference between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism - at most there is a difference of degree, but not of kind. - ibn Warraq http://www.hudsonny.org/2009/03/a-str... http://actwestnashville.com/?page_id=544 http://www.secularism.org.uk/108701.html http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12365... http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc... http://kwelos.tripod.com/subjects.htm http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwXyWm... http://www.investigateislam.com/human... http://www.islam-watch.org/AliSina/Il...

philsci 3 scribbled: Many thanks. I think it's quite obvious for all would be rational people that Spencer (ibn Warraq, Ali Sina et altri) hit the nail: the qur'an is not infinitely elastic in interpretation, unfortunately for the army of staunch supporters of islam (and not only) "no amount of mental gymnastics or intellectual dishonesty is going to make the unpalatable, unacceptable, and barbaric aspects of islam disappear"...The current version of political correctness (postmodernist in nature) has some serious holes, the only rational decision is to stop appeasing islam*...Finally anyways, paraphrasing Pat Condell, "we cannot just stay and wait for some bearded ignoramuses to offer us one way passes for the 7th century"... *contrary to what some say the empty dream of a 'world caliphate' governed by large parts of sharia law is widespread among muslims**, it's delusional to blame only wahhabism (which by the way is closer to the islam taught by the qur'an and lived by Muhammad than the so called 'classical islam'); the real roots of the problem lie in the Qur'an itself... **although many disapprove the extreme methods used by the so called radicals [who want to impose the islamic state now via revolutions & conquest, using whatever methods available (the model 'patented' by Muhammad and the first muslims); even the mere existence of 'infidel' societies, governed by natural law instead of sharia, seems to be 'offensive' (and 'oppressive') for these guys...] http://reformislam.org/ http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pag... http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam101/ http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc... http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2007/10... http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2008/12...

philsci 3 scribbled: Thanks. islam (via it's supporters of course) is the only religion which make the amazing claim that its holy book predicts modern Science (other major religions claim the mere compatibility with modern Science - with different degrees of success). Moreover in recent years the muslim propaganda has become so aggresive that this claim (which could confuse some non-muslims) needs urgent and serious investigation...The reality is that modern science is not predicted by the qur'an (without western modernity the islamic world would still be in the pre-scientific revolution era). There are no real predictions in the qur'an, only 'post factum' (re)interpretations without novel predictions (the mark of pseudoscience) of a very, very vague text. The claim of muslims remember me of the 'Nostradamus predicted even this [put any major modern event in here] in his writings' often heard from some people after things happen...

philsci 3 scribbled: As anyone rational reading the above lines can easily confirm islam is the only religion which does not have the Golden Rule (such ideologies deserve no respect); this cult condemns for the mere 'guilt' of not accepting its grandiose (but very narrow, impossible to defend logically when examinated critically) worldview...Remembers me of Mafia, everything that makes the group live and feel better is 'good', everyone who stands in the way is 'wrong' deserving punishment (usually in this world)...If this is the 'tolerance' of islam then I can only desire that these dogmatic apologetics of islam benefit of the same sort of treatment while in non-muslim lands (for it's easy to see that islam has no monopoly on Truth, in fact it is False). It is easy to ensure co-operation between even a race of devils provided only that they are intelligent. - John Maynard Smith paraphrasing Kant - Cooperation (even treating all members of the community as 'brothers' and 'sisters' & helping all the poors of the community) is fully compatible with evil ideologies (e.g. Mafia), one cannot use this to defend islam against the common sense observation that it teaches hate, violence and discrimination against non muslims. http://reformislam.org/ http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pag... http://actwestnashville.com/?page_id=544 http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...

philsci 3 scribbled: Postmodernist stereotypes like 'orientalism' , 'islamophobia' and gratuitous accusations such as the West is responsible for almost all the problems of the islamic world, the Jews are the cause of almost all evils in the world* etc cannot help the case of islam, better think of a solution to convince the so called Islamic (pseudo)scholars and the islamic religious leaders to really modernize islam (for example the majority of islamic scholars should agree: that the jews are not 'pigs and monkeys' and that non-muslims are not 'the worst of creatures', to never apply the (many) violent, discriminatory & outdated parts of the sharia law, to tolerate the criticism of islam, to condemn those who want to kill apostates or block the free choice of religion/lack of religion, to condemn al-Taqyya strategies, to renounce the quixotic dream of world domination, to respect the Mosque-Science and Mosque-State separations, to cease praising martyrdom and so on – the list is very long)...only this could make islam a 'religion of peace' and clear it from accusations (fully justified at the moment) of discrimination....By the way some muslims here try to sell us ‘goodies’ from the qur’an (“no compulsion in religion”, abrogated like the vast majority of the ‘mild’ verses dating from the Meccan period of islam)...well you either try to deceive us by using abrogated verses in order to show that islam is 'peace' (a 'technique' widely used by muslim apologists in the West) or, more probably, you are truly ignorant (which can only confirm that the vast majority of muslims do not really understand the qur'an)...As for those who remember us of the alleged ‘tolerance’ of islam in history well muslim apologists talk so much about this alleged 'tolerance' of islam that they really deserve to benefit of the same sort of 'tolerance' while in non-muslim lands...The stubborn refusal to accept any crimes done in the name of islam in the past or present (unlike any other major religion) says also a lot about the rationality of islamic religious leaders (and not only)...No thanks, but the modern world does not need this kind of 'tolerance' anymore, islam should grow up and (finally) enter Modernity... *you are not far from Hitler here; in fact the muslims and the teachings of islam are the main culprits for the situation in the Middle East, there will be no peace there as much as islam remain unreformed (in non trivial ways) http://reformislam.org http://www.hudsonny.org/2009/03/a-str... http://www.secularism.org.uk/108701.html http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.... http://www.islamreview.com/articles/l... http://www.investigateislam.com/human...

philsci 3 scribbled: The danger is real. In my view the best response (on short run) is a rethinking of the current (postmodernist) version of 'political correctness' which to prevent the abuse of the system by tolerated (at the moment) radical ideologies. We have to simply say the truth: not all systems of values (in this case religions) are on equal foot; unfortunately islam (as it stands today) is a danger for the entire humankind. '(True) islam is a religion of peace' is a myth (the islam of the last 1400 years is far from being moderate): politicians, western scholars and so on must say the truth openly instead of appeasing islam in the vain hope that some mysterious muslim 'moderates' (hard to find at the moment, the vast majority of those called 'moderate' by the islamic apologists being in fact not so moderate) will succeed to 'tame' islam in accordance with modern values. I'm not arguing that muslim immigration has to be stopped or islam interdicted (which is discriminatory in my view) but those who come must be exposed to a healthy dose of criticism of islam instead of being encouraged to make more and more demands (sharia law should not be allowed to parallel the country laws by the way); this (and not sugarcoating islam) is the only way to create a sizeable number of muslim moderates* (capable also to really integrate in the western society). *http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.... http://www.islam-watch.org/NoSharia/P...

philsci 3 scribbled: I'm afraid that a 'paradigm shift' in the attitude of muslims towards the basis of their religion is improbable in the short run (no matter the contrary evidence the muslims will stubbornly defend all the central tenets of their religious doctrine, no critical thinking; the qur'an itself is responsible for this via it's many 'special mechanisms' to avoid non-trivial changes). There are some real attempts to modernize islam (see below*, a mere return to the qur'an is no solution) but overall the perspectives do not look bright; at the moment the situation it's like trying to take the loaded guns from some kids, unaware of the danger, playing with them...the adverse reaction in the absence/rejection of critical thinking will be, obviously, extreme - this does not mean that there are not rational muslims, unfortunately they have to hide at the moment). There must be no barriers for freedom of [rational] inquiry; basically nothing is beyond rational criticism and possible replacement in the future (but critical thinking does not imply criticism for the sake of criticism). http://www.reformislam.org/ - I really doubt however that this initiative will have a sizeable impact, on short run, in the dogmatic muslim world. Anyways all respect for such courageous people (the acceptation of responsibility for the evils done in the name of Islam is especially important, the recognition that the crusades were not really unprovoked acts of aggression included)...The only way to really reform Islam (the Islam of the last 1400 years is certainly not moderate) is indeed to renounce the view that the Qur'an is the exact, eternal, word of Allah in favor of the view that it was created* and capable of evolution; thus not without error (the harsh treatment of unbelievers, minorities etc being erroneous or valid only in the remote past**). Now it is debatable that such a strongly reformed religion is still Islam (although some argue that if one accepts minimally the five pillars of [sunni] Islam then one is a muslim)...anyways it leaves unanswered the question of why should Muhammad still be seen as a model for modern human beings... *by Muhammad (be it only at the unconscious level), although influenced by higher powers; further transformed by the early muslims **similar to the view of moderate Christians about the Bible (especially the Old Testament)

philsci 3 scribbled: It's a shame that in our enlightened age (as we like to believe) the serious literature treating the subject of dhimmis (=subhumans=quasi-slaves) and other inconvenient subjects for islam is relegated to the status of 'revisionist theory' or, even worse, to that of 'islamophobia', 'orientalism' and 'anti muslim propaganda'...Instead of requiring from muslims to modernize their religion (or at least exposing them to a healthy dose of criticism of islam) as would be normal we encourage them to make more and more demands with our preference to sugarcoat islam (in the vain hope that some mysterious muslim moderates will finaly tame islam in accordance with modern values)...Something is utterly wrong with this postmodernist type of political correctness for history shows clearly that a politics of appeasement when dealing with radical ideologies (islam is certainly one of them) never worked...Still the truth cannot be covered forever, there will come a time when the words of W. Muir will become again the main paradigm in Academia: "The sword of Mahomet, and the coran (koran) are the most stubborn ennemies of Civilization, Liberty, and Truth, which the world has yet known"

philsci 3 scribbled: Thanks. Critical thinking at its best. Indeed islam is far from being the unassailable belief claimed by many of its supporters (the fact that they refuse to think critically does not mean that rational people should do the same)... ‘‘Islam presents an absolutist political agenda [my note: the only religion which has a built in, very detailed, political agenda], one that doesn’t lend itself to compromise, nor to coalition building.’’ - imam Zaid Shakir, an African American convert to Islam "Our opponents accuse us National Socialists, and me in particular, of being intolerant and quarrelsome. They say that we do not want to work with other parties...I have to admit one thing, these gentlemen are quite right. We are intolerant...I have given myself one goal - to sweep these thirty political parties [existent in 1932] out of Germany. They mistake us for one of them. We have one aim ([my note: destroy all opposition]) and we will follow it fanatically and ruthlessly to the grave - Adolf Hitler, electoral campaign 1932 "Although muslims resident in non-muslim countries clamour for every kind of indulgence for their own beliefs and customs, there can be no doubt that given any kind of power they would impose their own beliefs and eliminate all difference. In short, as ibn Warraq describes it in his Dedication, islam is religious fascism, and it is only a feeble-minded political correctness that prevents it from being recognised as such." - ibn al-Rawandi "We cannot just stay and wait for some bearded ignoramuses to offer us one way passes to the 7th century" - Pat Condell http://actwestnashville.com/?page_id=544 Bill Warner’s Lessons on islam http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.... http://reformislam.org/ http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...