"Submission, Part 1" (download here) is a well-made short film with a simple, consise message. A woman in a black, see-through burqa plays a succession of women who tell their stories to Allah. One is forcibly marriaged, one whipped for adultery, one raped by her uncle. The tone is accusing: How can you let this happen to us? How can you let people do this to us in your name, and with your words to encourage them? The stories are told as real Muslim women who have experienced these things might have, if given the chance: with voices ranging from confused and despairing to questioning and ironic. Whether one sees this as an attack on Islam itself or just a particular form it takes is a choice left to the viewer.

Submission is really a feminist movie, in the core sense of the word. It's well-made, but only the context is original. Hypocrisy and abuse towards women, often with the assumed approval of religion, has been a target for Western feminism for a very long time. Theo van Gogh has been called "controversial", a person who walked in the borderlands of free speech. But when did it become controversial again to criticize oppression of women in the name of a religion? When did it become controversial again to hold gods accountable for the actions of their followers? To a non-Muslim Westerner, there is no controversy here, none whatsoever, just feminism in different clothes.

Whatever other things Theo van Gogh did to earn the label "controversial", this movie does not deserve to be one of them. Many Muslims, of course, don't see it that way. Instead of responding to the movie's message, they've protested it being made at all. I don't have a lot of tolerance for that. The price of living in a free, Western country is that your beliefs may be subject to criticism you believe is unfair. Annoying film makers are allowed to portray your Eternal Truth as a Sham, they're allowed to expose what you prefer to stay hidden. That's who we are as a culture, and I'm offended by Muslims who demand that we change that, just as I'm offended when Christians make the same demands.

In the context of Theo van Gogh's murder it doesn't matter that Submission is a good movie, nor that it isn't controversial, but it's worth pointing out anyway. Partly because such descriptions give us a false comfort. A man was murdered for criticizing a religion - but he was "controversial", he stretched the boundaries, it figures. European Muslim extremists use bullets to censor their critics - but they were provoked. No cause for alarm. It's not really us they're after. Van Gogh played with fire and got burned.

But they are after us. This wasn't a lone nut killing a controversial film maker - the killer was an Islamist, likely an organized terrorist, and the message that made him angry was unexceptional. That's the second best reason to watch this movie, to show us how little it takes to provoke Muslim extremists. The best reason is that it's genuinely good.

Europeans in particular have an obligation to watch this movie. Then go ask your national TV stations to air it.

Bjørn:

You wrote:

''Instead of responding to the movie's message, they've protested it being made at all. I don't have a lot of tolerance for that. The price of living in a free, Western country is that your beliefs may be subject to criticism you believe is unfair.''

But this piece of shit did not criticize Islam, he INSULTED Islam, he made FAKE film based on fake stories and he wrote verses from our holy book over the naked body of a women with revealing dress !! is that criticism ???

He described our religious leaders ( Imams ) as ' Allah's pimps ' he refered to the muslim immigrants in Holland as ' a group of goatfuckers ' !! IS THAT CRITICISM ?

This is not criticism, it is pure INSULTS and SLANDER.

it is like BURNING the Norwegian flag and insulting your Queen and your nation and claim I am criticizing you !! give me a break.

'' Annoying film makers are allowed to portray your Eternal Truth as a Sham, they're allowed to expose what you prefer to stay hidden. That's who we are as a culture, and I'm offended by Muslims who demand that we change that, just as I'm offended when Christians make the same demands. ''

You have to change. This ' loose ' values-free hedonestic respectless offensive culture you live in is about to change, Islam is now rebuilding Europe long forgotten morals and ethics:

''For Europe, the clash of civilizations is less between "Islam" and "the West" than between muscular religiosity and militant secularism.''

In Europe "Islam has reactivated the public presence of the Christian churches," notes Jean-Paul Willaime, the Sorbonne-based author of "Europe and Religions."

© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6370137/site/newsweek/

Muslim communities are growing in Europe ( withou Turkey, around 12 % of Europe population is now Muslim, once Turkey join in, around 30 % of Europe will be Muslims ) so you ' must ' change or face such conflicts.

We will ' not ' tolerate such abusive insulting movies or writings anymore, you can criticize Islam the way you want, this is your right, but you 'CANT' insult Islam.

Just because Muslims are now minority does not mean we have to put up with your insultive abusive way of thinking.

Ex-Christian: This is not criticism, it is pure INSULTS and SLANDER.

Have you seen the movie? Until you have, we have nothing to discuss.

Bjørn Stærk

''Ex-Christian: This is not criticism, it is pure INSULTS and SLANDER.

Have you seen the movie? Until you have, we have nothing to discuss.''

I have seen large parts of it on my local Finnish TV, to be honest with you, I cant watch God's holy words being defamed in such manner ! it is too much for me and indeed for any muslim to watch such ' insults '

It is enough that the film is based on FAKE story aimed merely at defaming Islam and the Quran, is it critcism to claim FALESLY that a muslim woman was raped by her relatives and then beaten according to Islamic law ?? is it critcism to show naked woman with Burka and verses from our holy book written on her body ?? you know this is not criticism, so why you argue ??

Ex-C is right about one thing. The movie was made using fictious stories. However, all of these stories could have been - and indeed are - stories from the real world.

The woman whipped for adultery, the young girl forcefully wed, the woman beat by her husband, the woman raped by her uncle without being believed by her family. And Ayyan Hirsi Ali was completely right to point out that suppression of women, including atrocities like those mentioned above, do indeed happen. Sure, if you want to start a discussion amongst Muslims, indeed if you want to talk to Muslim, it wasn't a good idea with the half-naked bodies with Qu'ranic verses. I've indirectly already written about that on another thread, and been yelled at because of it.

Those visible breasts and those Arabic letters, though, doesn't really matter.

Muslims need to adress suppression of women in their religion, regardless of who else does and in what way these do it.

Øyvind

Øyvind

''Muslims need to adress suppression of women in their religion, regardless of who else does and in what way these do it.''

There is 'NO' suppression of women in Islam, there is nevertheless, suppression of women in some muslim societies as the case with western women.

I am ready for full constructive debate about Islam and women's rights, what do you think ?

In the meantime, I will leave you with the story of Ingrid Mattson, it is MUST READ:

From The Christian Science Monitor:

http://www.csmonitor.com/atcsmonitor/specials/women/religion/religion121301.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/atcsmonitor/specials/women/religion/religion121301.html

here is the link again:

http://www.csmonitor.com/atcsmonitor/specials/women/religion/religion121301.html

I dont know what's wrong with posting the link, but you can add this to the link after /specials/

women/religion/religion121301.html

>> I've indirectly already written about that on another thread, and been yelled at because of it.

I hardly yelled. I'm just pointing out that you and others are talking at cross purposes:

1) your focus and viewpoint is based on the desire and goal of starting a meaningful dialogue with muslims, in order to reform or moderate it.

2) other people view the islamic radicals as a mix between the KKK and Nazi fascism. As such, there is no point in appealing to the moderate Nazi members. Just like samurai war-lord worship, explicit nazi fascism, and the southern slave owners could only be defeated by complete military victory, people realize that islamo-fascists are the same way. Any ideology that is responsible for 9/11, machine gunning little Russian girls, and killing it's critics must be crushed under foot, like an ugly bug.

Gunnar, Maryland

''Any ideology that is responsible for 9/11, machine gunning little Russian girls, and killing it's critics must be crushed under foot, like an ugly bug''

What about the christian fascist ideology that is responsible for the killing of 100,000 innocent muslims in Iraq and 15,000 innocent muslims in Afghanistan ? what we should do with it ???

Ex-C:

I read the article from CSMonitor, and it's quite interesting, although a tad old. Ingrid Mattson, a Muslim that has had an important position in the Islamic Society of North America, says this:

"Who has the greatest duty to stop violence committed by Muslims against innocent non-Muslims in the name of Islam? The answer obviously is Muslims."

Ex-C, I wish you will listen to her more often.

Then women and Islam. You claim that the problem isn't in Islam, but in Muslim societies. This is a view I can respect. Still, I feel that I rarely see Islamic authorities complaining about the situation for women in Muslim countries, and there seems to plenty of things to complain about.

Mihrangiz Kar, a female Iranian editor writes:
Prior to the Revolution, Iranian women, accused of benefiting from rights royally granted to them, of consumerism mixed with exhibitions vulgarity, were expected to be grateful to the government and were dismissed and denigrated, simultaneously from left and right. Eventually they gave up on any priviliges [from the old regime] and joined in the great battle. Now a decade has passed within which they have had an effective presence in shaping the new era of Iran's history. Women have come out of these testing times, without owing any debt to any one's propaganda machinery, registering themselves from the margins to the center of the social text... Now women, who have fulfilled their obligations, demand, not beg, their rights.

In the process Kar says another place ijtihad is needed. Do you agree, ex-C? Is it not true that many exegetes of the past have drawn conclusion that are both sexist and suppressive towards women? Is it not true that one need to reinterpret the understanding of verse 4:34 in the Holy Qu'ran? The verse were it's said that you can beat your wife?

Ø.

A MUST READ:

George Bush and the Rise of Christian Fascism

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5648.htm

Øyvind: Sure, if you want to start a discussion amongst Muslims, indeed if you want to talk to Muslim, it wasn't a good idea with the half-naked bodies with Qu'ranic verses.

There's a time for diplomacy, and there's a time for speaking the harsh truth. I believe in both. I believe, for instance, that on the national scale, conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims should be dealt with with diplomacy. Not by tolerating or excusing terrorists or other extremists, but by embracing the non-extremists. Even if this means that politicians must say things we want to be true, but which aren't strictly, such as that Islam is a religion of peace. Some times it is more important to encourage someone to improve than to criticize what they are.

But there's a danger in fooling ourselves by this diplomatic talk, to lose sight of reality. It can also stand in the way of actual change. So while leaders should be diplomats, there should also be individuals who speak the truth, no matter how ugly they think it is. Imagine what it could mean, for instance, to a Muslim woman who lives under exactly these circumstances to hear her story told this way. Perhaps they are the real audience, not Muslim leaders. Or perhaps this movie can clear the path for real debate. "That movie is evil because it shows verses from the Koran on a naked body!" implicitly means "A movie about Muslim oppression of women would be okay if it didn't show nudity." Or at least it makes it more difficult to criticize such a movie afterwards without appearing a hypocrity.

I'm not sure if this is how it works. But I believe in a combination of strategies, diplomacy and truth. Either alone is dangerous.

Øyvind, Bergen

''Ex-C:

I read the article from CSMonitor, and it's quite interesting, although a tad old. Ingrid Mattson, a Muslim that has had an important position in the Islamic Society of North America, says this:

"Who has the greatest duty to stop violence committed by Muslims against innocent non-Muslims in the name of Islam? The answer obviously is Muslims."
Ex-C, I wish you will listen to her more often. ''

I agree with her but what Bush and his christian fascist cronies are doing is not helping at all, for example, how can you approach an angry muslim who sees his brothers and sisters being brutally killed by the Americans and ask him not to hate America and not to harm any American ??

''
Then women and Islam. You claim that the problem isn't in Islam, but in Muslim societies. This is a view I can respect. Still, I feel that I rarely see Islamic authorities complaining about the situation for women in Muslim countries, and there seems to plenty of things to complain about. ''

First of all, out of 57 muslim states, only 2 claim to have ISLAMIC laws or sharia implemented, most of muslim states are run by secularists who think immitating the ' corrupt ' west is good way to develop.

You claim that 'there seems to be plenty of things to complain about', I dont share these views, I have done extensive travel in many parts of the muslim world specially in the Arab world and to be honest with you I saw liberated strong independent muslim women !

the thing is the western media LOVE to pick up some ' bad ' cases and try to generalize them.

Did you hear about this christian Jordanian writer who wrote a novel about honour killing in Jordan claiming to be true stroy just to be exposed as fake and liar in Australia ?

Bestseller's lies exposed

Literary Editor Malcolm Knox uncovers Australia's latest hoax author.

Her tragic story stole readers' hearts and triggered an international outcry. She became a best-selling author in the same league as J.K.Rowling and Michael Moore. She petitioned the United Nations personally, was published in 15 countries, and Australians voted her memoir into their favourite 100 books of all time.

But Norma Khouri is a fake, and so is Forbidden Love.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/23/1090464854793.html?oneclick=true

Hell, I found the above novel even translated in Swedish and displayed here where I live ! I got so pissed off that the bookshops here are selling fake anti muslim stories !! I went to them and I showed them copied of the above Australian article and I demanded they remove the book from the shelf .

You see, it is this sort of ' novels ', books and ' movies ' that gives the impression the situation of the muslim women is miserable when in fact, it is NOT.

''
In the process Kar says another place ijtihad is needed. Do you agree, ex-C? Is it not true that many exegetes of the past have drawn conclusion that are both sexist and suppressive towards women?''

I totally agree, I think we muslims forgot about Ijtihad and instead we are being fed the ' SALAFI ' or the Wahhabi nonesense.

indeed, the door of Ijtihad must be re-opened again, but what can we do in the face of this wahhabi giant ? anyone who dares to question those ' dead salaf ( ancestors) ' is deemed deviant according to the wahhabis ?

What annoys me the most is that these wahhabis/salafis think the ' salaf ' have done everything for us and we dont need to use our brains anymore !! it is pathetic really.

''Is it not true that one need to reinterpret the understanding of verse 4:34 in the Holy Qu'ran? The verse were it's said that you can beat your wife? ''

very good question, the verse in fact does NOT say beat your wife, the word used in this verse is IDRIBOHOUNA ( from IDRIB ), it is worth to note that this same word was used MANY TIMES in other parts of the quran to mean different things:

The word "idribuhunna" for instance, could very well mean to "leave" them. It is exactly like telling someone to "beat it" or "drop it" in English.

Allah Almighty used the word "daraba" in Noble Verse 14:24 "Seest thou not how Allah sets (daraba) forth a parable? -- A goodly Word Like a goodly tree, Whose root is firmly fixed, And its branches (reach) To the heavens". "daraba" here meant "give an example". If I say in Arabic "daraba laka mathal", it means "give you an example".

Allah Almighty also used the word "darabtum", which is derived from the word "daraba" in Noble Verse 4:94, which mean to "go abroad" in the sake of Allah Almighty:

"O ye who believe! When ye go abroad (darabtum) In the cause of Allah, Investigate carefully, And say not to anyone Who offers you a salutation: 'Thou art none of a Believer!' Coveting the perishable good Of this life: with Allah Are profits and spoils abundant. Even thus were ye yourselves Before, till Allah conferred On you His favours: therefore Carefully investigate. For Allah is well aware Of all that ye do. (The Noble Quran, 4:94)"

So "daraba" literally means "beat", or "go abroad", or "give" but not in the sense to give something by hand, but rather to give or provide an example.

Finaly, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him ) said:

''How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then embrace (sleep with) her?”

Bjørn Stærk

''But there's a danger in fooling ourselves by this diplomatic talk, to lose sight of reality. It can also stand in the way of actual change. So while leaders should be diplomats, there should also be individuals who speak the truth''

But he was not telling the truth, he was LYING, he produced FAKE film, he was insulting and slandering Islam.

what do you think the truth is Bjørn ? Islam oppresses women ? this is another LIE.

I already called for constructive islamophobia-free debate about Islam and women rights, would you like to join ?

Ex-C:

The prophet Muhammad once said: Do not be a people without a will of your own saying: If others treat well you will also treat well and if they do wrong we will do wrong; but accustom yourselves to do good if people do good and do not do wrong if they do evil.

Do you feel that this is what you are doing when you are constantly pointing at the faults of America or for that matter Israel?

Believe me, I have many complaints against both Israel and the United States, but this doesn't change the signification of what Mattson is saying. The ones that have to fight extremists in Islam are first and foremost Muslims. When you constantly refer to American faults and to Zionists and their alleged influence you're not taking up that fight. For Muslims, I think, that fight is much more important than any dispute with the States or Israel.

Osama bin Laden has done more to give Islam a bad reputation than any Theo van Gogh, Pim Fortuyn, Ibn Warraq or Carl I. Hagen. The murderer of van Gogh didn't exactly help either.

I am glad for your response when it comes to 4:34. This is also the response of many Iranian feminists, I believe. However, you can not deny that some Muslims, and amongst these there are indeed both contemporary and historical leaders, have interpreted otherwise.

What do you think must be done to ensure that your interpretation wins over the interpretation of for instance dr. Mohammed al-Hajj, professor of Islamic Faith at the University of Amman, seen in the TV-show Life is Sweet broadcast from Egypt?

Let me give a quote about this tv-show from the book "Army of Roses", written by Barbara Victor:

Ahmed offered to let me borrow a videocassette of the talk show during our interview, which I viewed on the VCR in my Jerusalem hotel room. One of the segments, both fascinating and terrible, showed a psychiatrist dressed in a Western business suit sitting with the host, both men surrounded by blocks of wood in varying sizes. As he explained which block should be used on the woman for which offense, he seemed completely relaxed and cheerful, as if what he was advising his audience was as normal or banal as offering a recipe. In another segment, the host, a serious young man who nodded encouragingly to all his guests, even those who phoned in to express their opinions, cautioned his audience about sadomasochistic couples who enjoyed the physical punishment set down in the Koran and, therefore, should be exempt from practicing them.

What do you think of this, ex-C?

Ø.

Gunnar,

1) your focus and viewpoint is based on the desire and goal of starting a meaningful dialogue with muslims, in order to reform or moderate it.

Seems like a pretty reasonable idea to me.

2) other people view the islamic radicals as a mix between the KKK and Nazi fascism. As such, there is no point in appealing to the moderate Nazi members. Just like samurai war-lord worship, explicit nazi fascism, and the southern slave owners could only be defeated by complete military victory, people realize that islamo-fascists are the same way.

Well this is the distinction you need to make. There is the Islamic religion as a whole, than there are extremists, just as there is a Christian right in American and a KKK, or moderate conservatives and than neo-Nazis. Belonging to the moderate conservative right, won’t make you into a nazi, anymore than an ordinary practicing Muslim immigrant in Australian is not a murderous terrorist.

So while it would be fruitless to negotiate with Bin Laden, Bashir and their ilk, normal moderate Islamics (even if they do give tacit support to Bashir and Co) are the ones we should be seeking to influence. Alienating them will only provide Bin Laden with more popular support, at a time when we seek the opposite. We should target those, who Islamic fascist are required to recruit for success in order to undermine their power bases throughout the world.

It’s important to remember here that Islam or any other kooky religion is not a threat to us, but it is the Fascists among them that desire to force their beliefs upon us all that need to be fought, and vigorously so!

Dominance of Islamic law over women, over the state, this is something that we should never allow to come to pass.

just as there is a Christian right in American and a KKK, or moderate conservatives and than neo-Nazis. Belonging to the moderate conservative right, won’t make you into a nazi

ok, for some myth bashing:

1) The linear left-right analysis of political opinion is false. The myth is that when you move right, you get fascism, when you move left, you get communism. A better model is a square, with statism at the bottom and human rights are at the top. Fascism and communism are flip sides of the same coin, and they are at the bottom of the square.

2) Conservatism. It's quite confusing, since it's realative to what you're trying to conserve. American conservatives are trying to conserver the idealogy of the founders, which was freedom, democratic republic, religious tolerance, and general christian values such as peace, love and understanding. It's a good thing. Soviet conservatives are a bad thing.

3) KKK: In the early 1800s, the debate started raging about slavery. A portion of the democratic-republican party started taking a moral and religious stand against it, and this eventually split the party in two halfs, democratic and republican. Lincoln was the driving force of the republican party and was well known for his anti-slavery views. By 1855, the democratic party ceased being a national party, and became the racist party in favor of slavery.

With Lincolns election in 1860, the southern states seceded (not because they would lose the ability to have slaves, but because they knew that they would not be allowed to spread slavery westward. From thay point on, the republicans were always the party that advanced the cause of civil rights, and it was always the democrats who opposed them. At some point, the democratic party abandoned explicit racism (they switched from anti-black to pro-black, just another form of racism). The Dixiecrat party was formed to maintain the anti-black idealogy. When this died, the KKK took on the mantle.

During the 1900s, racism slowly receded in the south. It's not a coincidence that Republicans only started winning in the south when racism had almost disappeared, and long after the KKK had been destroyed by the FBI(50s).

As such, there is in fact no ideological connection between american conservatives and the KKK. There is a connection between the democratic party and the KKK (Senator Byrd was a KKK member, and both he and Clinton have used the N word)

The same is true of Nazism. There are neo nazis, but they have nothing in common with american conservatives. The most fervent people in the american conservative movement are just really religious, really patriotic, and really support freedom and democracy.

... and all of them are really nice and huggable.

>> ... and all of them are really nice and huggable.

Yup, most are. The rest are rough, tough, and honorable.

Great comeback. No, don't bother to get up, I'll update the scoreboard... :)

So while it would be fruitless to negotiate with Bin Laden, Bashir and their ilk, normal moderate Islamics (even if they do give tacit support to Bashir and Co) are the ones we should be seeking to influence.

What would we have to negotiate with them about? They have nothing we want.

Alienating them will only provide Bin Laden with more popular support, at a time when we seek the opposite.

Typical liberal BS. People don't turn bad because other people are rude. It's either in them, or it isn't. If they are potential terrorists, we can't negotiate it away, and we can't stop it by being nice. The leaders, like BinLaden, take this as weakness, and it emboldens them. In their mindset, Allah is helping them to succeed.

So, when America under Clinton was pretending that terrorism wasn't helping, Bin Laden was saying, "see, Allah is helping us". Terrorist success brings recruits. Terrorist failures pushes recruits away. After the Sudan, Al Queda was fading, fighters leaving, but then, Osama met with Saddam and suddenly, there was money, support, and big new plans.

So, first remove every state sponsor. Total destruction and relentless force will completely discredit the movement. Moderate Islamics will see that, and decide, "hmm, maybe Allah doesn't support this Jihad". This is so obvious.

What would we have to negotiate with them about?

How about tolerance, in order to maintain a peaceful co-existence within the framework of our western social values?

Tribalism within western states should not be encouraged.

I'm not talking about the ones who are actively considering acts of terrorism. Rather the ones who if snubbed by west nation that supposedly accepts them may turn to the more extreme ones for guidance.

I am referring of course to the muslims that currently live within our respective states. Woeing the domestic muslims certainly isn't incompatible with the annhilation of islamic states that sponsor terrorism.

Fighting and destroying terrorists is a given in any war on terrorism, however discriminating against innocents on the basis of faith is not going to assist you.

Gunnar,

The linear left-right analysis of political opinion is false.

I've never argued in favour of this. Personally I see much reason to see political ideologies as a circle. Totalitarian ideologies such as fascism and communism meet together at the top, sharing many similarities.

There are neo nazis, but they have nothing in common with american conservatives.

Then why do you find it so hard to relate the concept present here to the Islam question. It does not necessarily follow that someone who is a follower of Islamic religion is not going to become a facist Islamist.

If the religion of Islam, if all muslims were inherently facist than people like Islamic feminists Dr. Lois Lamya' al-Faruqi, Dr. Abdulaziz Sachedina, Naheed Mustafa and Dr. Amina Wadud [http://www.arches.uga.edu/~godlas/Islamwomen.html]

These are the allies within Islam that we should support to undermine the facists. This doesn't mean that we should not destroy the fascist ones where ever we find them, but also doesn't mean that we unfairly target Muslims who have committed no crimes.

Cheers,

David.

Gunnar wrote: other people view the islamic radicals as a mix between the KKK and Nazi fascism. As such, there is no point in appealing to the moderate Nazi members

You have to remember two things, incidentally the same two things that are the main message in my article "The many faces of Islamism":

1. Islam and Islamism are different things. For me there are problems in Islam that needs to be adressed, but these issues (some of which are raised in the movie "Submission") are different from the discussion about Islamism and the threat radical exponents of that ideology poses.

2. There are differences inside Islamism. While most Islamists support some kind of theocracy, some support democracy, and even fight for human rights for all. Like other people supporting democracy and fighting for human rights I strangely enough consider these to be my allies in the fight for democracy and human rights.

If there had indeed been Nazis in the 30s that fought for democracy and believed in human rights for all, it might not have been a bad idea talking to them. However, eventhough the Nazi party did have different wings, I can not think of any such Nazis.

Bjørn: I do believe in telling the truth. To take the example we're currenty discussing, I believe the truth is that women are indeed suppressed in Muslim societies.

The truth is that they're often suppressed thanks to certain Islamic teachings, and even more thanks to certain Islamic teachers. The true picture is a mosaic, of course, but I want go into that now. You see, my problem here, is that I do not see what painting Qu'ranic verses on halfnaked bodies has to do with any of those truths.

The truth is, Bjørn, that these questions are currently being raised not only by Islam-sceptics, but also by Muslims themselves. If you want to find truly brilliant feminist works in Islam that is good place to start looking.

But you're right, Theo van Goghs movie "Submission" was brilliant in a way. It was provocative and able to raise the issue. Amongst Non-Muslims. That's not all bad. We need to discuss it too. But Muslims are the ones that need to discuss it most, and frankly - painting Qu'ranic verses on halfnaked bodies is something that can provoke even Islamic feminists.

Øyvind

Correction: If you want to find truly brilliant feminist works on Islam that is good place to start looking.

Ex-C wrote:

What annoys me the most is that these wahhabis/salafis think the 'salaf' have done everything for us and we dont need to use our brains anymore! it is pathetic really.

True, ex-C. It is pathetic. It is also terribly dangerous. The salafiyya-movement, originally a modernist movement, turned in a reactionary direction after Muhammad Abduh. It began with Rashid Rida, who became increasingly "concervative" and was a supporter of the wahhabist kingdom of Saudi-Arabia. Then along came Hassan Banna, who included sufism (very non-wahhabist there), but otherwise said pretty much the same things as Rida and some of the same things as Ibn Wahhab.

He started Ikhwan al-Muslimun, the Muslim Brotherhood. What do you think of Rida, Banna and Ibn Wahhab, ex-C? What are your opinions on the Ikhwan?

Øyvind

It does not really matter if he said it in a rude way does it? You should not kill anyone, whatever they say, right?

Gunnar:
">> ... and all of them are really nice and huggable"
"Yup, most are. The rest are rough, tough, and honorable."
So if you're an American Conservative, you are either rough, tough and (of course) honourable, OR nice and huggable?
Sounds quite black&white in my opinion :p

Ex-Christian wrote:
"Muslim communities are growing in Europe ( withou Turkey, around 12 % of Europe population is now Muslim, once Turkey join in, around 30 % of Europe will be Muslims ) so you ' must ' change or face such conflicts.

We will ' not ' tolerate such abusive insulting movies or writings anymore, you can criticize Islam the way you want, this is your right, but you 'CANT' insult Islam.

Just because Muslims are now minority does not mean we have to put up with your insultive abusive way of thinking."

In the liberal West, this is the price you pay. You have a right to say and believe whatever you like. So does the person next to you. If they choose to insult your religion, then that is absolutely within their rights.

Besides, who decides what is "criticism" and what is an "insult"?

I think that "dead piece of shit" said it best:

"He [Mayor Cohen] used the word ‘respect', that innocuous term that we also use to give you the impression that we are a minority which is being discriminated against.

We demand respect which means that we are going to make you submit to our will."

If/when Muslims are no longer a minority, not only will "insults" not be tolerated. Criticism will be banned as well.

R.I.P. Theo. Hopefully now the people will listen to your warnings.

Then why do you find it so hard to relate the concept present here to the Islam question. It does not necessarily follow that someone who is a follower of Islamic religion is not going to become a facist Islamist.

If so, then they are of no concern. To the extent that muslims want to be democratic, support human rights and good will, I'm all for them. To the extent that becoming more devout leads them to decide that Sharia is the right way to go, then they will be treated as fascists. I hope you're right, but I take the fact that even Cat Stevens would support the assasination of Salmon Rushdie as a very bad sign.

If there had indeed been Nazis in the 30s that fought for democracy and believed in human rights for all, it might not have been a bad idea talking to them.

Gosh, if this doesn't prove my point and show the disconnect from reality. If you analyzed these two ideologies, you would know that a democratic fascist is a contradiction in terms.

The question that you seem to want to explore is whether islam is inherently fascist or not. I say, let's help clear up the issue: destroy the fascists and the rest of the muslims will decide "oh, we're definitely not fascist". If after doing this, islam is still a source of genocidal fascists, then it's time for the Ann Coulter solution.

Øyvind,

Ex-C:
''
The prophet Muhammad once said: Do not be a people without a will of your own saying: If others treat well you will also treat well and if they do wrong we will do wrong; but accustom yourselves to do good if people do good and do not do wrong if they do evil.

Do you feel that this is what you are doing when you are constantly pointing at the faults of America or for that matter Israel? ''

You cant ignore the influnece of American/Jewish terrorism in the recent surge in Islamic terrorism, in order to tackle this problem we need to find its roots.

''
Believe me, I have many complaints against both Israel and the United States, but this doesn't change the signification of what Mattson is saying. The ones that have to fight extremists in Islam are first and foremost Muslims.''

True, fighting terrorism needs healthy environement but you failed to realize that Muslim land is under occupation, Muslims are brutally killed and oppressed ( already 100,000 dead in Iraq ) so who on earth will stand up and tell these angry muslims, oh please be nice ? it does not make any sense.

The horrible massacres commited against muslims DAILY in Iraq by the American terrorists plus the daily killing of the Palestineans by the nazi Jews in Palestine( which is not reported in the western media ) is increasing the anger and the hate which is resulting in more Muslims willing to be martyers to avenge the death of their muslim brothers and sisters.

''I am glad for your response when it comes to 4:34. This is also the response of many Iranian feminists, I believe. However, you can not deny that some Muslims, and amongst these there are indeed both contemporary and historical leaders, have interpreted otherwise. ''

I agree, but I can see now a great movement within our great faith trying to re-claim Islam back from the hands of those wahhabis.

''
Let me give a quote about this tv-show from the book "Army of Roses", written by Barbara Victor:''

I dont buy into this propaganda, I am sure this Barbara is another jew or christian fascist who want to defame islam by the usual BS.

I wont believe anything she writes until I see the tape myself.

Øyvind, Bergen

''He started Ikhwan al-Muslimun, the Muslim Brotherhood. What do you think of Rida, Banna and Ibn Wahhab, ex-C? What are your opinions on the Ikhwan? ''

I have no problem with the Ikhwan, they want to establish states where Islam rules, I think this is the inspiration of every muslim, I have some problems with one of their early writers, SAID QUTB who was violent in his writings inciting hate and violence.

As to the wahhabis, I hate them more than the Christian evangelical fascists and the zionist jews, they are more dangerous on Islam than anyone else because they are the enemy within.

Ex.Christian:

It is enough that the film is based on FAKE story aimed merely at defaming Islam and the Quran, is it critcism to claim FALESLY that a muslim woman was raped by her relatives and then beaten according to Islamic law ??

The movie is not portraied as being a "real story". It is portraied as being one possible story, in addition to having citations from the Qu'ran.

Furthermore, there is little or no doubt that the maniac that killed Theo van Gogh was doing it because of his "insults" to Islam. There is no doubt that a Fatwah was issued against Salman Rushdie. Both of these cases are linked to .. Islam.

Now, let us look at people that insult or defame christianity, or varieties thereof. Take, for example, Dan Brown - author of the "Da'vinci Code". A book that quite obviously twists the bible, and which is hugely critical of Opus Dei, an, in my opinion, pretty extreme christian sect/whatever.

Take other authors/organisations, which also has published defamatory works about christianity - for example the norwegian "Hedningesamfunnet" (Heathen Society).

There is no call for murder of these. There are no extremists threatening them with death. There are no "fatwah's" issued against them.

Also, there is nothing new about theories about Maria (Jesus' mother) in reality having been raped by roman soldiers, and so forth - Jesus being her illegitimate child. Do we see calls for murder of people publishing such theories? Do we see attempts on their lives?

The answer: Nope.

Rune Kristian Viken, Oslo

The question is Rune, why someone needs to insult Islam ?

you talk as if only muslims kill those who disagree with them ! this is of course nonesense.

Let me ask you who killed President Kennedy and why ?

Who killed Martin Luther king and why ?

who killed the Israeli prime minister Rabin and why ?

Who killed the Swedish prime minister olof Palme and why ?

Who killed Pim Fortum and why ? I can go on and on and on.

Your attempt to single out ISLAM has failed, but it was nice try though.

ex-C wrote: You cant ignore the influnece of American/Jewish terrorism in the recent surge in Islamic terrorism, in order to tackle this problem we need to find its roots.

First of all I'll repeat my question; do you feel that you listen to Muhammads warning?

Then, let's say I agree completely with the paragraph above. I don't really, but you're right we need to find the roots of the problem. You've mentioned the policy of the US and other Western countries many times. I've said that I partly agree with this. Now, let me ask you a question:

What other roots do you see to terrorism in the Muslim world and to terrorism committed by Muslims?

so who on earth will stand up and tell these angry muslims, oh please be nice? it does not make any sense.

Let me quote Muhammed (pbuh) again: Do not be a people without a will of your own saying: If others treat well you will also treat well and if they do wrong we will do wrong; but accustom yourselves to do good if people do good and do not do wrong if they do evil.

Maybe the answer to your question is that Muhammed would. If not, well, maybe we should hope for a Gandhi, a Martin Luther King, a Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan. But let me ask you a question again: Which movements do you find worthy of support in Iraq? In Palestine? In the Middle East?

I understand you have problems believing Barbara Victor. I don't understand why, but hey. I'll quote someone else. In fact, I'll quote sheikh Yousef Qaradawi, a famous Islamist with ties to al Ikhwan. In his book "The lawful and the prohibited in Islam", published in 1984, he wrote:

If the husband senses that feelings of disobedience and rebelliousness are rising against him in his wife, he should try his best to rectify her attitude by kind words, gentle persuasion, and reasoning with her. If this is not helpful, he should sleep apart from her, trying to awaken her agreeable feminine nature so that serenity may be restored, and she may respond to him in a harmonious fashion. If this approach fails, it is permissible for him to beat her lightly with his hands, avoiding her face and other sensitive parts.

Since you have just said that the Qu'ran doesn't allow beating ones wife, in no ways an uncommon interpretation and also the interpretation I myself would support, I suppose you don't like the views of Qaradawi. In what way do you think you as a Muslim should fight against such views? In what way do you think we, both Westerners, should fight against such views amongst immigrants?

Ø.

Ex-Christian, now Muslim,

Rune’s points was a valid one and your listing of a disparate series of political and ideological murders, conducted at various different times, and for very different ideological reasons hardly does much to counter it.

The point was that Christian in western nation do not generally kill others for derided their faith, whilst there are many examples of Islamic fascists doing just that.

who killed President Kennedy and why ? Political reasons not religion.

Who killed Martin Luther king and why ? Well it certainly wasn’t because he derided Christianity. Due to racism perhaps?

who killed the Israeli prime minister Rabin and why ? Who cares?

Who killed the Swedish prime minister Olof Palme and why ? The religiously anti-communist Viktor Gunnarsson perhaps, or was it the South African security forces whose apartheid regime was opposed by Palme, and who ironically enough were in Sweden at the time.

Who killed Pim Fortum and why ? Pim Fortum was anti-islamic immigration, this evidently upset the left wing anarchist that murdered him.

How do all these murders relate to or disprove the link between Islamic fascists and their attacks on their opposition?? Absolutely nothing!!

HOw do those questions you proposed alter the fact, that you yourself admitted to and professed a belief in, that Muslims could kill those who insult them?

Am I the only one here that remembers ex-c earlier death threats?

David Elson.

trying to awaken her agreeable feminine nature so that serenity may be restored, and she may respond to him in a harmonious fashion. If this approach fails, it is permissible for him to beat her lightly with his hands

Now I see why islam gets so many converts! Hey ex-c sign me up! If your wife, fiancée, girl friend, or islamic church owned breeding pig gives you any angst just slap her down!

Cheers,
David.

Arafat is dead! Hip, hip, hooray!!!!

a oh. Who will we blame the failure of the middle east peace process on now?

>> HOw do those questions you proposed alter the fact, that you yourself admitted to and professed a belief in, that Muslims could kill those who insult them?

Am I the only one here that remembers ex-c earlier death threats?

I do. Ahh, but let's not argue and bicker about who threatened to kill who.

Oh, and just because someone is a lying, thieving, conniving, mayhem making, munich olympic masterminding, deal of a lifetime passing, and a drive the jews into the sea egyptian, palestinian betraying, humanity hating terrorist, doesn't mean that he shouldn't be given the nobel peace prize and invited to the white house, does it. After all, we just need to sit down and talk. I'm sure we can work this little misunderstanding out.

I admire you guys. Just think, in 2006 or 2007, after you convince Ex-C of a few little minor points, you will be 1 down, 1 billion moderate mulims to go.

Keep it up boys, perserverence always wins the day.

David Elson, Australia

''The point was that Christian in western nation do not generally kill others for derided their faith, whilst there are many examples of Islamic fascists doing just that.''

Timothy Mcveith was a christian fascist, was he not ?

Paul hill, a christian fascist priest who shot dead 2 abortion doctors was declared HERO by some other christian fascists:

http://www.armyofgod.com/

So, dont single out muslims, it aint woking.

Øyvind, Bergen

''First of all I'll repeat my question; do you feel that you listen to Muhammads warning? ''

of course I do, but prophet Muhammad taught us to be merciful and peaceful but to be ruthless when we are attacked. you see , we dont turn the other cheek, we hit back, turning the other cheek is rewarding aggression.

''Then, let's say I agree completely with the paragraph above. I don't really, but you're right we need to find the roots of the problem. You've mentioned the policy of the US and other Western countries many times. I've said that I partly agree with this. Now, let me ask you a question:

What other roots do you see to terrorism in the Muslim world and to terrorism committed by Muslims? ''

Wahhabism.

so who on earth will stand up and tell these angry muslims, oh please be nice? it does not make any sense.

''Which movements do you find worthy of support in Iraq? In Palestine? In the Middle East?''

Any movement that stirve for defeating the aggressors and the enemies of Islam.

''Since you have just said that the Qu'ran doesn't allow beating ones wife, in no ways an uncommon interpretation and also the interpretation I myself would support, I suppose you don't like the views of Qaradawi. In what way do you think you as a Muslim should fight against such views? In what way do you think we, both Westerners, should fight against such views amongst immigrants? ''

By promoting the other view, you see, the wahhabis always promote their views because they have the means while we moderate muslims dont.

Ex-c,

2 murders compared to how many murdered by muslim fanatics? Really makes you think...

Besides, all this does is reveal how utterly retarded it is to use your "faith" to justify killing some one.

Proving that some christians have done so as well, only reinforces this point.

Modern art has long had as among it´s sets of goals the intent to provoke, to tranform the mindsets of mankind and after 1968 we saw started to see art that had little to do with art if anything, and more to do with politics or more as a happening than actual artwork.

The most notorious example of this in my native land is probably when an artist a bit over 30 years ago butchered a horse to fill it in jam jars afterwards. This produced an outrage among the ordinary people which were thoroughly provoked by his action - this of course was exactly the reaction he was looking for and his point ? It was a protest against the fact that people were watching humans dieing in numbers every day in the news as part of the vietnam war and not really reacting to it. His choice to butcher a horse was deliberate to the effect of awaking outcry in the general public public an outcry larger than the one the images from the vietnam war would produce - He was very successfull but if he has died after this it´s of natural causes.

Theo Van Gogh did in my opinion the exact same. He picked a setup, an image that he knew would provoke attention beyond what possible anything else could do, to get attention to subject like oppression of women, forced marriages, and forced sex to be found within Islam.
The result is that he is now dead for one. and second that the Moslem world is in outrage and the western world on the verge of it.
Has it meant a change when it comes to issues addressed behind the provocation ? - no clue, but it should have.
If nothing else it brought to surface a difference between the way we think and a lot of moslem thinks.

For them it´s about sanctity of the quran, their faith, and about they feel this as an insult - even a personal attack insinuating that Islam equals repression of women - a subject they clearly in western view can´t claim complete innocense in when it comes to it - Their view of women stands in stark contrast to ours - not historically - But our view of women - our liberal attitude towards pornography is a result of our long quest for liberty from especially dark christianity and patriachal structures.
To Moslems this don´t spell liberation it spells degradation their focus being majority norms not individual freedom, being heaven on the other side of death, not the present existance in the physical world.
I shall try hard not to sound like Bush probably won´t succeed - but so be it I would have voted for him anyway:) But when they attacked Van Gogh they did not only kill an individual. They attacked the freedom of individuals - of every individual - they attacked the very foundation of our culture.
Why am I saying that ?
Because our very foundation is the freedom of the individual - with as few barriers to that freedom as possible and those only being set up when they are more or less gross trangressions of other people´s property and health and life, childhood and of course freedom - not when they are just stepping on emotions - sentiments - ideas and thoughts - and most naturally dogmatic belief.

In short:

The cornerstone of freedom in western societies must and have consisted of:

Freedom of speech, thought, science, art, lifestyle, religion, choice and freedom to renew and to criticise, freedom to go against the flow or go with it. Freedom to go against dogmas and to adher to new ones, freedom to be whatever you like, with whomever you like.

We have the rational and empirical pitted against the emotional and devotional a struggle that takes it´s toll even inside the individual and even more in the world of culturs.
This is essentially the struggle between a worldview based on the individual and one based on the "abstract" collective where the "concrete" individual is subordinate. Or even to some extent between views where one is primarily focused on the spiritual and the afterlife, the other on the worldly and maybe in the latter lies the greatest difference ?

Ex-C: "Any movement that stirve for defeating the aggressors and the enemies of Islam"

Okay. But then I have a follow-up question for you. The Qu'ran also states clearly that God does not like aggressors, or those who transgress borders. But... who are the aggressors? Is Tawhid wal Jihad amongst them? Are the Muqtada al-Sadr supporters?

Furthermore, do you feel that it is acceptable for those who "fight the aggressors", as you say, to attack for instance Iraqi police forces? Or do you regard such attacks as transgressing borders?

And what about Palestine? Do you feel that groups like Hamas and al Jihad are transgressing borders? Is it not true that they, too, are aggressors?

By promoting the other view, you see, the wahhabis always promote their views because they have the means while we moderate muslims don't.

True, they've got heaps of money. How do you think those opposing views should be promoted?

Øyvind

Ex-C: You pointed out wahhabism as another root of terror committed by Muslims and in the Muslim world. Of course you're right. Do you see other roots except those mentioned above?

Is it thinkable that there are also problems within mainstream Islam that needs to be adressed?

Ø.

Øyvind

''Ex-C: "Any movement that stirve for defeating the aggressors and the enemies of Islam"
Okay. But then I have a follow-up question for you. The Qu'ran also states clearly that God does not like aggressors, or those who transgress borders. But... who are the aggressors? Is Tawhid wal Jihad amongst them? Are the Muqtada al-Sadr supporters? ''

This is the verse you are taling about regarding the aggressors:

''Fight in the Way of God against those who fight you, but do not go beyond the limits. God does not love those who go beyond the limits. (2:190)

The Tawhid and Jihad group is ultra-wahhabi TERRORIST group which certainly went beyond the limits set by Allah Almighty, kidnapping innocent westerners and beheading them is barbaric and against the teachings of the Quran, they killed MORE Muslims than non muslims.

On the other hand, Islamically any civilian who cooperates with the aggressors ( in this case the American terrorists in iraq ) is legitimate fair target.

Muqtada Al sadr supporters are fighting in THEIR land, they are fighting for their land, they are not shooting at Americans in America, they are shooting at the American terrorists in IRAQ.

''Furthermore, do you feel that it is acceptable for those who "fight the aggressors", as you say, to attack for instance Iraqi police forces? Or do you regard such attacks as transgressing borders?''

If the Iraqi polic forces are cooperating with the enemy then they are fair target.

''And what about Palestine? Do you feel that groups like Hamas and al Jihad are transgressing borders? Is it not true that they, too, are aggressors? '

I dont really know.

You might object to the suicide bombings against Israeli civilians, but as long as the nazi state of Israel is killing innocent Palestinean civilian, the Israeli civilians have to face the same fate according to Hamas, you see, when I was there in the Middle East, I came to know the law there: AN EYE FOR AN EYE AND HE WHO STARTS FIRST IS THE AGGRESSOR.

You kill their childern ( which is what the nazi jews are doing right now in Palestine ) they will kill yours, very simple.

After all, the illegal occupation by the nazi jews of Palestine is the ugliest form of terrorism.

''By promoting the other view, you see, the wahhabis always promote their views because they have the means while we moderate muslims don't.
True, they've got heaps of money. How do you think those opposing views should be promoted? ''

I already start seeing some Muslim websites against the wahhabis, of course, this annoys the hell out of them, but it is great step:

http://www.sunna.info/antiwahabies/wahhabies/

WAHHABISM AND ITS REFUTATION BY THE AHL AS-SUNNAT ( sunni muslims )

http://www.ummah.net/Al_adaab/suwahhab.html

''Ex-C: You pointed out wahhabism as another root of terror committed by Muslims and in the Muslim world. Of course you're right. Do you see other roots except those mentioned above?
Is it thinkable that there are also problems within mainstream Islam that needs to be adressed? ''

Yes, there are one main problem which is again related to wahhabism and that is the forgotten door of IJTIHAD, so powerful those wahhabis, they managed to shut down this IJTIHAD totally, I was dismayed the other day when I was in one of Helsinki mosques and I came across an Islamic magazine from Saudi Arabia in which the front page was: DONT MAKE IJTIHAD, RETUEN BACK TO THE SALAF !!! I was very shocked, I wondered how can dead people help us in our 21th century complex life ! are we that stupid not to think for ourselves using on the Noble Quran and the Sunna of the great prophet, Muhammad (pbuh ) ?

We should take IBN TAIYMIYA books off the shelves, this 13th century scholar is very dangerous, he is the corner stone of the wahhabis after their idol ibn abdul wahhab. he was imprisoned at the time in Damascus and died in prison for his violent heretic writings.

Muqtada Al sadr supporters are fighting in THEIR land, they are fighting for their land, they are not shooting at Americans in America, they are shooting at the American terrorists in IRAQ.

If the Iraqi polic forces are cooperating with the enemy then they are fair target.

Ex-C, how are you determining which side is the enemy, and which isn't. Both sides are a mix of Iraqis (on their own land), and foreigners. Using your logic, one could just as easily make the case that Al sadr is cooperating with the enemy foreign fighters. The Iraqi government has popular support, so the burden is really on you to show why you know better than the Iraqi people what is best for them. And don't quote the 100,000 number, since it's been thoroughly discredited. The US did not purposely target civilians. And for once, I want to hear your reasoning, not your conclusion, which I already know.

against the teachings of the Quran, they killed MORE Muslims than non muslims

You can't help but reveal your moral system: it's wrong, because it killed more muslims than non-muslims, so you believe that muslims lives are worth more than non-muslim lives. Just like with Rushdie, your words reveal that it was wrong, because it increased Rushdie fame, and not because having someone killed is wrong.

AN EYE FOR AN EYE AND HE WHO STARTS FIRST IS THE AGGRESSOR.

The historical reality is that the arabs attacked first in 1948, and have always been the aggressor, ever since.

After all, the illegal occupation by the nazi jews of Palestine is the ugliest form of terrorism.

This amazing statement is completely ludicrous. Nazi can never be an adjective for Jew. Only the most intellectually dishonest person would try to smear "jew" with the adjective "nazi".

Illegal? The fact is that WW2 was fought. The fascists/jew haters lined up on one side, and the forces of good lined up on the other. The fascists were the aggressors. They lost, and therefore, all territorial claims made by the losers are null and void. Nothing less than unconditional surrender.

Rule of aggression: When the aggressor decides to attack militarily and lose, they don't get to go back to the negotiating table. They lose everything with that gamble. Palestine was part of enemy territory, since the arabs sided with the Nazis. The UN (which the arabs sanctioned with their participation and their votes), decided that after losing over 6 million of their own, the jews would get a tiny sliver of land to call their own. They certainly earned it.

Unwilling to accept the judgement of the world community, the arabs attacked (in multiple wars), and the jews defended themselves, and pushed the attackers beyond the original sliver of land (see the rule of aggressors above).

The so called "palestinians" are a myth. There is no palestinian language or culture. There are only arabs who happened to live in that area, who withdrew at the request of the aggressor, so they could attack. Arafat was an egyptian, a son of a Nazi, and he has been busy trying to complete the evil work of his father.

More historical context:

The world seems to have plunged into historical amnesia about this. Most people somehow forgot that Arab claims towards Palestine were already satisfied once. It is the Jews and not the Arabs who suffered from the "game" that was played between the Great Powers after World War I.

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_ww1_british_mandate_jordan.php

There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent [valley of Jezreel] -- not for 30 miles in either direction... One may ride ten miles hereabouts and not see ten human beings. ... For the sort of solitude to make one dreary, come to Galilee ... Nazareth is forlorn ... Jericho lies a moldering ruin ... Bethlehem and Bethany, in their poverty and humiliation... untenanted by any living creature... A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds ... a silent, mournful expanse ... a desolation ... We never saw a human being on the whole route ... Hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil had almost deserted the country ... Of all the lands there are for dismal scenery Palestine must be the prince. The hills barren and dull, the valleys unsightly deserts [inhabited by] swarms of beggars with ghastly sores and malformations. Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes ... desolate and unlovely ... [Mark Twain, The Innocents Abroad, 1867]

Mead wrote to the British High Commissioner that Jewish colonists had produced "a marvelous transformation" in the Palestinian landscape. Mead noted that in his visits to Palestine he had seen nothing "to indicate that the Arab was injured." Moreover, the Jewish example of "what modern finance and equipment can do, coupled with the sympathetic interest of the government is bringing him out of the hopeless inertia that misgovernment and oppression of centuries past have created .... " Jewish settlers in Palestine were not only reclaiming the land, they were elevating living standards for the Arab population and assisting the British government.

In his report to the League of Nations on the Administration of Palestine and Transjordan for the year 1925, the British High Commissioner wrote:

Fuel-power stations for the generation of electrical light and energy have been established at Haifa and Tiberias by the [Jewish] Palestine Electric Corporation, Limited. This increase in commercial activity, in building enterprise and new industrial developments is due almost entirely to Jewish capital and the entry during the year of an immigrant class with money to invest.

During this period a significant shift of population took place as Arabs and others from all over the Middle East moved to the areas of Zionist cultivation and development. The organizational and technical skills of the Jewish settlers, their access to outside capital, and their sheer hard work created an economic boom that created opportunity for Arab workers, particularly in contrast to the stagnant conditions elsewhere in the region.

hi ex chrstian,

harun yahya is the pseudo intellectual who is trying to pass off islamic creationism for real evolution theories...just like the flip side of the islamist fundamentalism you have the christian fundamentalist who hold the same views as yahya....they say birds of the same cockoo feathers flock together...LOL.

ex christian are you a buddhist apostate?

Kim Sook-Im
your favorite mahaguru coreana LOL :)

hi ex chrstian,

harun yahya is the pseudo intellectual who is trying to pass off islamic creationism for real evolution theories...just like the flip side of the islamist fundamentalism you have the christian fundamentalist who hold the same views as yahya....they say birds of the same cockoo feathers flock together...LOL.

ex christian are you a buddhist apostate?

Kim Sook-Im
your favorite mahaguru coreana LOL :)

oh before i forget...bitte die folgende herausgebungen von Ali Sina mal lesen ! for your reading entertainment about the beautiful religion of mullahIslam:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Author/Sina.htm

dear friends,

here is the link to a free e-book

死亡的先知 *** PROPHET OF DOOM *** نبيّ الموت

prophète de la mort

by Craig Winn

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/

For your sanity i strongly urge you to read or browse through the content...at least read the short introduction!!! It will be a shocker and hopefully wakes everyone up from their complacency. Do f/ward it to friends.

Thanks

hello,

here is a very important book about the unabashed agenda of islamist to islamize the united states

--->http://www.booklocker.com/books/1413.html

this very inexpensive book can be purchased online as an e-book. Eye opening and shocker information which our politically correct govt. and media refuses to tell or chooses to ignore . Make no mistakes about it, the forces of evil are working feverishly to enslave your mind , body and soul !

Here's another site that will blow your mind regarding the beautiful and lovely and kind and compassionate religion of mullahIslam LOL --->

---> READ THIS LINK
READ THIS LINK
READ THIS LINK

------>***** http://fai.showsit.info/ ******

Thanks,

Angel of Truth

真相天使

ملاك الحقيقة

i think what this film does is force muslim men in particualr to take a long hard look at the ugly situations some rules in the koran, refering to women, creates.
i think many muslim men find it difficult accept when their privilage and dominance over women is questioned, it is a threat to that part of their culture, not their religious as a whole which can, occationaly, be beautiful.
it is time these extremists accept they are not the assigned 'dissaplinarians' and they need to be entirely re-educated.

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1492