I agree with you about the leaders. But htat’s politics, not the Koran.

When I berate Bush’s decisions, I don’t blame the Bible.

Of course they do, and are just as rediculous.

And its hard to gauge exact numbers, but I go by what i see. I see the president of Pakistan going after a radical school one day, and the upswell of negative public opinion from that very sensible act has threatened to topple him from power.

I see Iran run by angry men using the most bellicose of language and invoking Allah’s vengence. I see Saudia Arabia dominated by Sharia law, whose most senior clerics say things that shock and disgust me as not just an american, but as a human being. I see the middle east reverberate with violent upheavals for the slightest of insults to their way of life, endorsed by countless imams and nary an outcry from amongst their own leaders at the resulting bloodshed .

I think the leaders of Islam, the major players, the real players, keep the middle east whipped up into a constant frenzy of religous outrage. I don’t know what part the general populace plays, whether willing participants or dupes or just people trying to go with the flow and hope for the best, but the overall effect is what we have today.

“And while there are lots of muslims that don’t lean to violence, there are many, many that do.”

Are you saying that ‘lots; is fewer than ‘many, mnay’ ? Most statistics severly dispute that, depending on how they rate the many shades of gray between black and while.
At any rate, since you bring up the lack of uninimity,
you just defeated your own argument, IMO.

The Koran, like the Bible, can be interpreted in many ways. It can be read as a precription for tolerance as well as a prescription for violence, and has been taken to mean both positions.

How do Christians manage to overlook ‘turn the other cheek’ while engaging in multiple wars, BTW?
They cherry pick, just like Muslims do.

Salman Rushdie has appeared on Bill Maher’s show, and I was shocked to hear him say the msot idiotic, asinine and formulaic things I know Rushfie has a brilliatn mind, so I couldn’t understand why he would stoop so low.

Is there something about the host that infects the guests?

Does it make you cringe because she’s so bad an example of one or because its so absolutely a mischaracterization of her? See what you’re doing there, trying to attach her name to something she isn’t and seeing if it sticks to help others discredit her. Very underhanded.

And the reason she says the Koran is “brutal, bigoted, fixated on controlling women, and harsh in war” is because it is. Its a religous book, they are all that way. Incidentally, they are all peaceful and promise us ways to treat eachother better too. Such books tend to include passages that allow a leader to inspire followers to whatever ends they need at the moment.

The shallow rhetoric trying to dress up Islam of the middle east as somehow nonviolent was exposed for the sham it was during the Danish cartoon fiasco. The fact remains that the powers that be in the world of Islam lean towards radical behavior, repressive orthodoxy, and all that flows from it. And while there are lots of muslims that don’t lean to violence, there are many, many that do.

Personally, I don’t think that a radical condemnation of a wide rage of thought in order to address a segment of it is an effective tool for countering radicalism.
I bothers me, though, that the place of radical thought has never been resolved as tp whem it is to be condemned and when protected.

On the one hand, radicalism threatens stability. On the other hand, it is often radical thought that jerks civilization forward in knowledge and understanding. I find it unnerving that these cases are decided on the basis of what is politically convenient and expedient at any given moment.
Aside from when there is a threat to overhrow a system of governnance, there seems to be no clear principle at work that transcends political convenience and philosophical alliances.
That bothers me.

It bothers me greatly that the Dutch have refused to provide proection for Hirsi. The British invested heavily in protecting Rushdie, but indivdual book stores caved and removed his books from shelves for fear of reprisal. Some commenters supported Rushdie fully, while others raised the view that he was endangering everyone by making a personal challenge to the Mullahs.

While 65 per cent of the approximately 300 cases which the FMU deals with each year involve Pakistan, and 25 per cent Bangladesh, others were linked to countries such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

A handful of European countries, including Italy, Ireland and France, were also affected, said Abbott.

It’s no more defensible when practiced in the west. Actually I might argue that it’s LESS defensible, since it’s done in the face of the predominant culture, you don’t have the excuse that “that’s just the way things are done”. However, unless I see evidence to the contrary, I think it’s clear that forced marriages, while not exclusive to non-western nations, is certainly much greater there.

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/uk/features/article_1368195.php/Forced_marriage_under_spotlight_as_human_rights_issue

Forced marriage under spotlight as ‘human rights issue’

Oct 24, 2007, 12:18 GMT

London – A two-day international conference to discuss the sensitive problem of so-called forced marriages opened in London Wednesday, presenting such arranged relationships as a ‘human rights issue’ and aiming to give guidance and practical help to victims.

The British government, which has set up a special Forced Marriage Unit (FMU), is to share its experience with other participants at the conference, organized by the Foreign Office in partnership with the European Commission’s Daphne Fund.

The conference will be told about the guidance given to social workers, health professionals, police and teachers by the FMU to help them respond to complaints of forced marriage – and to spot cases where women may be afraid to seek help from the authorities.

It will also hear the personal testimony of victims who have fled marital relationships entered against their will.

FMU head Peter Abbott revealed that his unit has dealt with several cases linked to predominantly Catholic countries such as Italy, Ireland and France, since its establishment in 2005.

I recall a friends family, all but the two youngest daughters emigrated from Italy in the early 1960′s. The family still practiced defacto forced marriage in the US. The family hated the oldest sons wife for being American and non-Italian. The two daughters married Italians and didn’t face the same scorn. Forced marriage is a worldwide and religiuos problem, not just a Muslim problem.

Considering that I wasn’t forced into marriage against my will, had to flee any country, and have never had a dear friend killed and the knife in his chest used to carry a note saying I was next, I think I’m not in a very good position to criticise her for being a tad radical.

I can’t read her mind naturally, but having heard her speak and read a great deal about her, I can imagine part of the reason she sees Islam as needing to be defeated. Quite possibly she subscribes to the thoughts of Dawkins, Hitchens and others whereby moderates in a religion aren’t harmful by themselves, but do provide a safety net for the radicals. Things can be done in the name of religion that would never be allowed otherwise. Religion is seen as a mitigating factor when violence is used in it’s name. I tend to agree, but I personally think that defeating an entire massive religion is basically impossible all at once, and you’d be best advised to try to work with the moderates to make the radicals seem totally unacceptable, not even mildly justified.

It’s sort of amusing to see the right-wing gather behind her. Are they aware that she thinks that their religion is as ridiculous as the one she once professed? Do they know that to her they are but a means to an end? I suppose they might, they probably see her as a means to an end as well.

condescending, elitist, and inspires no respect

not a spokeswoman for moderates; she’s a spokeswoman for all those who hate

That’s exactly like the worst radical leftist shit we occasionally encounter on this site.