Fatwa Laid On Miss World Journalist
	found on The Guardian written by chatsubo, edited by Tim (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Tue 26 Nov 8:55am
		chatsubo writes "Isioma Daniel - whose published claim that the prophet Mohammed would have been happy marrying a Miss World contestent, leading to riots in Nigeria that killed over 200 people - certainly does not deserve an award for responsible journalism, but neither (in this commentator's humble opinion) does she deserve a sentence of death. The hapless Ms. Daniel has just been issued with a fatwa by the State Commissioner of Zamfara, who said, 'What we are saying is that the holy Koran has clearly stated that whoever insults the Prophet of Islam, Mohammed, should be killed.' As trival as the Miss World fiasco/tragedy has been, it shows the deep fault lines between the country's Christian and Muslim communities, fault lines that will not be helped by such inflammatory statements. Is this just another case of pointless ethnic, both-as-bad-as-each-other, violence, or one of those rare cases of right and wrong - a tolerant, Christian community under increasing threat from sharia law following, fanatical, Taliban-esque Muslims?"

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 126 commentsmost: 19 commentsbest: 6 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  Islam is a religion of peace!   by Anonymous Idiot       at Tue 26 Nov 9:16am score of 1.5 brilliant     Death to the infidels! No, wait, really, Islam is really a religion of peace!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

60.  Re: Islam is a religion of peace!   by Conte       at Tue 26 Nov 4:17pm score of 2 astute   in reply to comment 1     The "State Commissioner of Zamfara" (which doesn't exactly sound like the grand arbiter of Islamic truth to me) declared this fatwa. Not the Islamic Pope, not a high-ranking muslim cleric, not a majority vote of all Muslims, just some state-level commissioner. First post knee-jerk Islam-bashing shouldn't be grounds for +2 brilliant, sorry.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   65.  Re: Islam is a religion of peace!   by execute       at Tue 26 Nov 4:28pm score of 2 brilliant   in reply to comment 60     Considering that the "State Commissioner of Zamfara" is muslim and part of an islamic controlled government, it is valid to say that he is a crazy islamic fuck. Also if you check out this article: a story.news.yahoo.com link you'll see the quote: An official at the Ministry of Islamic affairs in Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam, said the fatwa should not have been passed if the author had apologized. "They have no right to kill if the person expresses regret and apologizes, as it is considered repentance," said Sheikh Saad al-Saleh. "But if the person stands by his statements then the matter should be referred to a Sharia court to decide on a punishment, including death." So apparently it is ok to issue death decrees if someone insults Mohammed. So, in conclusion... It is ok to ridicule Islam for being a religion of "peace" because so many muslims believe in violence. Islam is one of the world's largest religions, it's about time it grew up and stopped trying to kill people who disagree with it. There are barbarian civilizations still in this world. Closing our eyes won't fix anything. execute   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   85.  Re: Islam is a religion of peace!   by StratKat       at Tue 26 Nov 8:34pm score of 1   in reply to comment 60     First post knee-jerk Islam-bashing shouldn't be grounds for +2 brilliant, sorry.       Depends on your viewpoint doesn't it? You take the slide rule, I'll take the bottleneck....   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   93.  Re: Islam is a religion of peace!   by Conte       at Tue 26 Nov 9:36pm score of 1   in reply to comment 85     Depends on your viewpoint doesn't it? Apparently, yes. I should have added 'in my opinion'. However, as others later down the thread have pointed out, Islam isn't the only religion whose followers have used it to promote violence, instead of using it to create peace. It is true that the occurrences of violence happen up until modern times as opposed to Christianity's (mostly) past violence, but the cause of violence in Islamic societies stems from poverty, inequality and war. Put Christians in a similar environment and a similar culture of violence would likely develop, all with a superficial glazing of Christianity. Outside observers would then laugh about what a religion of peace it was.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   131.  Re: Islam is a religion of inequality and poverty.   by Rampant Raven       at Wed 27 Nov 11:55am score of 1   in reply to comment 93     the cause of violence in Islamic societies stems from poverty, inequality and war. Many poor countries are not violent. Many violent poor countries to link their acts to the 'will of God'. Much of the 'inequality' in Islamic nations stems from the laws of Islam itself, the cruel Sharia system. Furthermore, Islam has rules that prevent earning interest on investments, stifling saving and making the concept of 'small business loan' a sad joke. In Saudi Arabia, it just makes sure that the King keeps all the money. It also makes sure that Saudis do their banking discreetly through foreign brokers, coincidentally making it easier to hide terrorist funds. Other things about Islam, such as the Hajj and the 5 prayers a day, serve to keep Muslims busy with religious rites instead of persuing productive efforts that could help them claw their way out of poverty. Egyptian officials even told their citizens at one point to only go on the Hajj once, not multiple times. This enforced tourism drains wealth from already poor Muslim countries. The Egyptian leadership, of course, would never have said "Don't go to Mecca", that would have caused whover announced that to lose his job, or worse. When the Muslims of Nigeria are kept busy with ritual and intolerance, under a brutal system of laws, it's no wonder that a few of them snapped. I had one Muslim tell me that Christians had neglected their past, ignoring the holy laws that they were mandated to follow, while Muslims were typically knowledgeable and observant of their holy laws. Some holy laws are best ignored. Narokath Pargon Santak Pargon Xel'lotath   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   104.  Re: Islam is a religion of peace!   by NH4       at Tue 26 Nov 11:22pm score of 2 brilliant   in reply to comment 1     Mad Magazine resolved this apparent contradiction in a parody of a TV show called The Rifleman that they published when I was a kid. The Rifleman's son asks his father: "Paw, how come everyone calls you a 'man of peace' when you're always killin' people?" The Rifleman replies: "Son, there's nothin' more peaceful than a dead man."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  Write-up: irresponsible journalism?   by GiantMouser       at Tue 26 Nov 9:33am score of 2 astute     I've seen two write-ups so far implicating the journalist as being tactless or reckless in writing her article. While, I haven't read Ms. Daniel's exact words, couldn't it be possible that Ms. Daniel wasn't trying to insult the Prophet by claiming he'd marry harlots, but rather that the girls are so full of virtue that the Prophet would do no wrong in marrying one? In any case irresponsible would be if she knew that her article would incite people, and who the hell would ever forsee mass rioting resulting from an article about the Miss World contest? Ever. Unless Ms. Daniel was utterly tacky and failed to get her message across, I don't see how the article is irresponsible at all. Unless by responsible journalism you mean journalism that is afraid of offending anyone, no matter how trivial the subject matter. Arguing online is like being in the Special Olympics. You might win, but you're still retarded.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

23.  What She Said   by hammurderer       at Tue 26 Nov 12:32pm score of 1   in reply to comment 2     The Muslims thought it was immoral to bring 92 women to Nigeria and ask them to revel in vanity. What would Muhammad think? In all honesty, he would probably have chosen a wife from among them.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   36.  Muhammed, the marrying man.   by MAYORBOB       at Tue 26 Nov 1:34pm score of 1   in reply to comment 23     The Muslims thought it was immoral to bring 92 women to Nigeria and ask them to revel in vanity. What would Muhammad think? In all honesty, he would probably have chosen a wife from among them. If Ms. Daniel was unaware that such a statement would not draw the ire of Muslims in Nigeria, she is a whole lot more hapless than the write up alleges. Besides, don't you think what with being a divine messenger of Allah and all that Muhammed could probably do better than a beauty competition contestant? Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   38.  Re: Muhammed, the marrying man.   by hammurderer       at Tue 26 Nov 2:17pm score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 36     For sure. He would definitely have held out for Miss Universe.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   42.  Re: Muhammed, the marrying man.   by Rampant Raven       at Tue 26 Nov 3:06pm score of 1   in reply to comment 38     For sure. He would definitely have held out for Miss Universe. Watch out, you'll earn a Fatwa that way. I must admit, that since Mohammad did, in fact, marry, he was not a holy virginal prophet like Jesus. If someone had said the same of Jesus, it would have been more blasphemous (and in Nigeria would probably also have prompted riots). I'm sure Joseph Smith would have been happy marrying a 'Miss World' or two... (gee I'm glad that Latter-Day saints don't issue Fatwas) Narokath Pargon Santak Pargon Xel'lotath   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   45.  Re: Muhammed, the marrying man.   by blong       at Tue 26 Nov 3:30pm score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 42     IIRC, Mohammad had many wives... Jesus did get along better with prostitutes, though. Brandon "The computer is also not famous for having mercy."-- Col. Graff, _Ender's Game_   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   46.  Re: Muhammed, the marrying man.   by zengerkin       at Tue 26 Nov 3:30pm score of 2 astute   in reply to comment 42     gee I'm glad that Latter-Day saints don't issue Fatwas No, they'll just be knocking on your door at 8:30 every Saturday morning for the next few millennia. Hell really is other people, afterall. Congressmen. Think of the House as being the condom that DC wears while it assfucks the nation.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   53.  Re: Muhammed, the marrying man.   by logbass       at Tue 26 Nov 3:56pm score of 2.5 scholarly   in reply to comment 36     I would consider the beauty contestant to be a step up from a six year old or some of his thirteen other wives (but not from the old lady he married for her money). That is what is so hilarious about this. Saying Mohammed would marry an attractive and intelligent adult is a compliment compared to the reality. Who's got the kibble? - Bad Lieutenant: POCNO   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   82.  Risking insult to a prophet.   by Rampant Raven       at Tue 26 Nov 7:42pm score of 1   in reply to comment 45     Jesus did get along better with prostitutes, though. Perhaps, but when someone dared to make a movie about that concept, "The Last Temptation of Christ", it caused a bit of a ruckus, however, very few, if any, people died as a result of that controversy. It's a good thing that the movie wasn't shown in Nigeria. Narokath Pargon Santak Pargon Xel'lotath   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   99.  Re: Muhammed, the marrying man.   by eduardo       at Tue 26 Nov 10:42pm score of 1   in reply to comment 36     I'd say the talent competition might clench it. J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   117.  Re: Muhammed, the marrying man.   by Street cleaner       at Wed 27 Nov 7:19am score of 1   in reply to comment 42     I must admit, that since Mohammad did, in fact, marry, he was not a holy virginal prophet like Jesus. If someone had said the same of Jesus, it would have been more blasphemous (and in Nigeria would probably also have prompted riots). Where did you pull this little bit of insightfull knowledge from? I have read or heard of no instance of Nigerian Christians rioting let alone rioting because of their Fundamental beliefs. I would be very curious to know what you base this comment on. I find this kind of moral comparison between what muslims have done and what you think christians would do to be pretty pathetic. Not that I agree with Falwell but it is people like you that somewhat justify his rants.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   123.  Re: Muhammed, the marrying man.   by MrTripps       at Wed 27 Nov 10:11am score of 1   in reply to comment 117     I find this kind of moral comparison between what muslims have done and what you think christians would do to be pretty pathetic. Not that I agree with Falwell but it is people like you that somewhat justify his rants. I didn't write the comment you question, but: Huh? I don't understand why either statement would be considered blasphemous. Any negative connotation from the statement (Mohammad or Jesus might marry a women entered into a beauty contest) is based on the idea that somehow these women were unclean or unworthy. Any who believe that are spending to much time defending their prophet's instead of listening to them. "It feels like Independence Day and I can't break away from this parade." -The Wallflowers   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   128.  A riot prone nation   by Rampant Raven       at Wed 27 Nov 11:32am score of 1   in reply to comment 117     Where did you pull this little bit of insightfull knowledge from? Perhaps its an overgeneralization, but Nigeria just seems to be a riot-prone place. During the 'beauty' riots, Muslims were brutally attacked in Christian areas by Christians. Then tensions are so high in that area that almost any catalyst can spark intense violence. But to a large extent, the Muslims have created the tension. That said, I must apologize to the Christians of Nigeria for making such assumptions. The Muslims are far worse, having rioted over something entirely frivolous, an 'Insult' that wasn't very insulting. The motivators for Christian rioting were more severe: Sharia and the sensless attack of Christians by Muslims over a non-insulting insult to Muhammad. Narokath Pargon Santak Pargon Xel'lotath   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   130.  Re: Muhammed, the marrying man.   by fungrrl       at Wed 27 Nov 11:39am score of 1   in reply to comment 45     Jesus did get along better with prostitutes, though. But not as well as he got along with men. I have amazing news for you. Man is not alone on this planet. -Ishmael   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   48.  Re: Write-up: irresponsible journalism?   by sulli       at Tue 26 Nov 3:38pm score of 2 compelling   in reply to comment 2     There is no journalism so irresponsible that someone has the right to threaten your life. Tout abus sera puni   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   94.  Re: Write-up: irresponsible journalism?   by TheJazzPen       at Tue 26 Nov 10:24pm score of 0.5 irrelevant   in reply to comment 48     Apparently you don't watch Fox News. Journalistically modelesque.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  Sincerity alert   by zico       at Tue 26 Nov 9:50am score of 1.5 nuanced     Could someone provide me with the specific verse in the Koran that states that, "whoever insults the Prophet of Islam, Mohammed, should be killed"? My own research was inconclusive and I was wondering if this is close to a direct translation or just inferred from various passages. By the way, feel free to insult me by claiming that I would be happy marrying a Miss World contestant. Go ahead, I've got a thick skin, I can take it. Every word is like a stain on silence and nothingness   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

9.  Re: Sincerity alert   by bobdobolina       at Tue 26 Nov 10:35am score of 2 informative   in reply to comment 3     From your link: [2.6] Surely those who disbelieve, it being alike to them whether you warn them, or do not warn them, will not believe. [2.7] Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing and there is a covering over their eyes, and there is a great punishment for them. ... [2.10] There is a disease in their hearts, so Allah added to their disease and they shall have a painful chastisement because they lied. [5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement, ... [5.45] And We prescribed to them in it that life is for life, and eye for eye, and nose for nose, and ear for ear, and tooth for tooth, and (that there is) reprisal in wounds; but he who foregoes it, it shall be an expiation for him; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the unjust. ... [5.51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people. [8.59] And let not those who disbelieve think that they shall come in first; surely they will not escape. [8.60] And prepare against them what force you can and horses tied at the frontier, to frighten thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them, whom you do not know (but) Allah knows them; and whatever thing you will spend in Allah's way, it will be paid back to you fully and you shall not be dealt with unjustly. [9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. ... [9.73] O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   17.  Re: Sincerity alert   by alaffin       at Tue 26 Nov 11:37am score of 1   in reply to comment 9     So where in that does it say that you're supposed to kill people who insult the Prophet? satire   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   22.  Re: Sincerity alert   by bobdobolina       at Tue 26 Nov 12:13pm score of 1   in reply to comment 17     The punishment of those who...strive to make mischief in the land is..that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned;   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   25.  Re: Sincerity alert   by nmiguy       at Tue 26 Nov 12:39pm score of 1   in reply to comment 22     No seriously. Where does it say you kill someone if they insult the prophet? And why is her statement that Mohammed might take one of these women as wife an insult? Mohammed was married but also had children with a slave, I believe. Methinks some people are looking for an excuse to kill somebody. (even if it was in the Koran, it is still wrong to kill this woman. That's just my opinion.)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   29.  Re: Sincerity alert   by bobdobolina       at Tue 26 Nov 12:56pm score of 1   in reply to comment 25     Are you guys fucking blind? I just quoted the line twice, straight from the Koran. It's a catch-all, obviously, but to say that the Koran doesn't preach any violence is just plain naive and silly. Obviously any fuckos who want to kill people in the name of Mohammed will find all the justification they need. Same goes for the fucking Christians and Jews, too. But this topic happens to be about the Muslim wackos. I, for one, am sick of all the violence wrought on this planet by the devout. Y'all can pretend that your personal flavor of religion is peaceful, but the fact is that religion has caused no end to pain and suffering throughout human history. There are a few sects that seem to actually NOT want to kill "heathens", but they seem to make up a tiny minority of the world's religious folk: Quakers, Buddhists, and Unitarians.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   31.  Re: Sincerity alert   by diogenes00       at Tue 26 Nov 12:57pm score of 1   in reply to comment 22     Oh, come on...first off, the quote you gave originally is "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned" which means 1) that you have to wage war and strive to make mischief--and while the article may have certainly been mischievous, it's a big step to say that it's waging war 2) that the system allows for mere imprisonment, instead of demanding death Leonard Zelig: I've never flown before, and it shows what you can do if you're a total psychotic.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   32.  Re: Sincerity alert   by bobdobolina       at Tue 26 Nov 1:08pm score of 1   in reply to comment 31     You're right, I did read that as "wage war or strive to make mischief." I stand corrected. Still, scroll down a bit to 9.5: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, Okay, so it's not saying to kill people who defame the prophet, but it is saying to kill anyone who doesn't follow Allah*. Oh, as long as you don't do it during the sacred months. Got to make sure to not wantonly murder people during the holy months, for fuck's sake. After reading these passages, all the talk of Islam being a religion which preaches peace seems like a whole bunch of bullshit. * Idolater does not seem to be clearly defined in the text of the Koran. However, it does seem to me to mean those who do not follow Mohammed.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   34.  Re: Sincerity alert   by bobdobolina       at Tue 26 Nov 1:15pm score of 1   in reply to comment 32     [8.65] O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand. [9.61] And there are some of them who molest the Prophet and say: He is one who believes every thing that he hears; say: A hearer of good for you (who) believes in Allah and believes the faithful and a mercy for those of you who believe; and (as for) those who molest the Apostle of Allah, they shall have a painful punishment.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   58.  Re: Sincerity alert   by Violator       at Tue 26 Nov 4:14pm score of 1   in reply to comment 32     Idolatry is the worship of idols, generally statues or images of God or his Prophets (Jesus, Mohammad, etc). In many ways, the Miss World contest is an idolatrous endeavour right there, especially because it is vain and seeks to promote image rather than spirituality. Consistently modded down for being an asshole since 2003   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   86.  Re: Sincerity alert   by non profit       at Tue 26 Nov 8:36pm score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 29     yep, false religion, manipulated by people only interested in their own wealth and power, are ruining the world, but,theres a better way to live, just read the bible.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   101.  Definition of Idolater, and Historical Context   by EraseMe       at Tue 26 Nov 10:49pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 32     The word translated here as 'idolator' is Mushrikûn, which means "those who ascribe partners to God" aka polytheists or pagans. It does not apply to Jews, Christians, or the like. These people are called Ah-lil-Kitaab, which means "people of the book". Anyway, all verses of the Qur'an were revealed in a specific historical context, which people often forget. This verse was revealed when the pagans of Makkah had broken the terms of a treaty with the Muslims and plotted to fight them. If you read verses 9:1 through 9:13, this context is plainly alluded to. Particularly, verses 8, 10, 12 and 13 detail the ways in which the pagans had wronged the Muslims and attacked them first. Also, verses 4, 6, and 11 talk about how one should show mercy to those pagans who behave justly and do not fight the Muslims. The Qur'an is an extraordinarily complex work. It was not written as a single document, as the Gospels were, but "revealed" in bits and pieces over the 23 years of Muhammad's prophethood. Each revelation was generally spurred by some event in the Prophet's life or some development in and around the Muslim community. This is why the Qur'an always seems to be "addressing" somebody. Anyway, a solid understanding of early Muslim history is usually considered a prerequisite to discussing the Qur'an. Admittedly, Muslims often forget this too.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   114.  You are wrong about the Gospels   by Seymour Paine       at Wed 27 Nov 5:31am score of 1   in reply to comment 101     They were written over many years, by different people and only assembled 100s of years later into one book. None of them were written contemporaneous with Jesus' lifetime, but only much later. As for the Koran, even a cursory reading shows it is basically a pamphlet for authorizing murder and mass killings, much different from the Old and New Testaments. "Thou shalt not kill" applies to everyone. The Koran permits Moslems to kill anyone they please for a "good reason." In a modern context, the whole enterprise bears a resemblance to the Mafia. I'm trying to think but nothing happens.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  Here we go...   by David Flores       at Tue 26 Nov 10:03am score of 1 astute     Here we go: once again we're going to get posting after posting mocking the idea that Islam is no more violent than any other religion. "See" we'll be told, "look at this. How can you deny that Islam is a religion of violence and intolerance and insist it's a religion of peace." And while it won't be said explicitly, the implication will be that Islam (or radical Islam) must be wiped out if civilization is to survive. But of course, people will still not look at the root issues involved (because they're so much more complex and seemingly intractable, and it's become de rigeur to mock those people who insist we take a look at "root causes") and scoff at the idea that Christianity's bloody history is any guide or in any way comparable to what is happening today in repressive Islamic societies. But the fact is, it was Jesus Christ, not Mohammed, who uttered the phrase "He who is not with me is against me" that George W. Bush has picked up one in order to justify his war plans in Iraq (perhaps the least Islamic of Middle Eastern nations) and history shows, amply, that any ideology can be used as justification for oppression and murder given the right conditions. History also shows that religious sentiments have a way of, not just surviving, but actually thriving when external forces seek to stamp them out. It is not "radical Islam" that creates the conditions of possibility for 9-11 or the rioting in Nigeria. In fact, fundamentalist Christianity can be just as vile and intolerant. If we, as a civilization, are to survive, we need to come to understand that fact. The underlying issues are economic. Democratic, economically developed nations with thriving middle classes do not produce suicide bombers, regardless of the religion to which the majority subscribes. And if we approach the problem with an iron fist it's likely we'll see a lot more 9-11s. If we approach the situation with a Marshall plan mentality we'll all be much better off in the long run. But hey, what do I know. I'm just a schmo with a computer, not the chancellor of Liberty University. GAFB and GAFB2   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  Re: Here we go...   by Petronius       at Tue 26 Nov 10:21am score of 1   in reply to comment 4     To the best of my knowlege, Rev, Falwell has not encouraged his followers to place any gasoline-soaked tires around any Muslim necks, nor has he issued any state-sanctioned fatwas against them. The Christians have a lot to be ashamed of, but it mostly happened a long time ago. What rescues us from insignificance is the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers. Carl Sagan   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   11.  Re: Here we go...   by David Flores       at Tue 26 Nov 10:50am score of 1 disingenuous   in reply to comment 7     The Christians have a lot to be ashamed of, but it mostly happened a long time ago. What, like 1933? GAFB and GAFB2   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   13.  Blame the Christians   by Squeaky wheel       at Tue 26 Nov 11:00am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 7     "The Christians have a lot to be ashamed of, but it mostly happened a long time ago." By a 'long time,' do you mean a few years? Because I recall Christians bombing abortion clinics, beating the crap out of gays and commiting other acts of Christian charity in the name of their God in the not-too-distant past. No, it's not all the Christians. Neither is it all the Muslims declaring a fatwa on a journalist. The point is, there are extremists in every world religion, who usually do more harm than good for the reputation of their world religion. It's not fair to call up passages in the Koran as evidence of violence when there are equally violent punishments suggested in the Bible (such as tying a rock around the neck of a child and drowning him). A substantive debate should focus on the extremists and their fatwa. But before Christians start to feel self-righteous in this debate, they should take a look in the mirror. to expose your ass on paper terrifies some... and well it should   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   26.  Re: Here we go...   by theDude256       at Tue 26 Nov 12:42pm score of 1   in reply to comment 7     Hey, if Jerry Falwell insulted the Prophet of Islam by calling Mohammed a terrorist, can we get a Fatwah on him too? The islanders know me as the Dude who Walks   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   52.  Re: Here we go...   by k0s       at Tue 26 Nov 3:54pm score of 1   in reply to comment 7     To the best of my knowlege, Rev, Falwell has not encouraged his followers to place any gasoline-soaked tires around any Muslim necks, nor has he issued any state-sanctioned fatwas against them. The Christians have a lot to be ashamed of, but it mostly happened a long time ago. No just calling a teletubbie a homosexual and calling someone who's been dead for nearly a millennium and a half a terrorist. If we didn't have laws against inciting violence through speech you'd best believe he'd be calling for what you mentioned. Visit www. seriouslythough.com   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   16.  Blame the Christians - Further Elaboration   by PenguinSushi       at Tue 26 Nov 11:21am score of 1.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 13     I agree with Squeaky wheel here... No, it's not all the Christians. Neither is it all the Muslims declaring a fatwa on a journalist. I know we've had this discussion before, but my ideas usually go back to the same line of thinking: to judge a religion/organization/people group/etc by it's dysfunctional members is completely ridiculous - however, media sensationalism continues to promote these kinds of erroneous assumptions. This is pretty much like the rest of the stereotypes that are wrong 90% of the time, but for some reason people don't tend to think of it that way. it's not the christians it's not the muslims it's THESE christians and muslims. the difference may be subtle, but it's important. be advised. "One Penguin To Rule Them All..."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   19.  Re: Blame the Christians   by Remus Shepherd       at Tue 26 Nov 11:59am score of 2.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 13     But before Christians start to feel self-righteous in this debate, they should take a look in the mirror. Is it okay if we atheists start feeling self-righteous? Because as far as I'm concerned, the rest of you are all fucking nuts. ;-)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   21.  I'm sorry the Atheists really lost to the Agnostic   by maml       at Tue 26 Nov 12:05pm score of 3.5 nuanced   in reply to comment 19     Well, Mao and Stalin were Atheists. The Agnostics, as far as I know, have yet to produce a genocide or suicide bomber or any such thing. Hooray for my side! The Unitarians are also making out pretty well in the race not to commit crimes against humanity. I've blocked AI. I'm happier now.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   24.  Re: I'm sorry the Atheists really lost to the   by Remus Shepherd       at Tue 26 Nov 12:37pm score of 1   in reply to comment 21     Okay, Unitarians accept atheists and agnostics, so I'll buy that. However, Unitarians are very, very poor at being self-righteous and inflating their own self esteem at the expense of other faiths. Hmmn. Sometimes it seems like the insane ones are having all the fun.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   47.  Re: Blame the Christians   by Zerbina       at Tue 26 Nov 3:38pm score of 1 astute   in reply to comment 13     You never hear of a Christian priest, minister, or bishop endorsing an act or threat of violence in the name of Christ. Muslims who kill for Mohammed almost always do so in compliance with orders to kill issued by their leaders. Christian officials condemn violence. Islam officials mandate it. A crucial difference between the two.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   49.  Re: Here we go...   by Argus Defthammer       at Tue 26 Nov 3:42pm score of 1   in reply to comment 11     1933 is way better than 2001. Diamond encrusted howler monkey   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   54.  Re: Blame the Christians   by Squeaky wheel       at Tue 26 Nov 3:58pm score of 1.5 nuanced   in reply to comment 47     You've never heard of Christian faith leaders endorsing violence? What about the Crusades, the priests who backed the Nazis, the white church leaders who fought the civil rights movement, and the fundamentalists who have said gays and abortion doctors should burn in hell... and the sooner the better. The point is, if there are followers using violence, there are probably leaders endorsing violence, too. Once again: don't blame things on the Christians or any specific dogma, blame it on the people committing the crimes. to expose your ass on paper terrifies some... and well it should   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   55.  Re: Blame the Christians   by k0s       at Tue 26 Nov 4:03pm score of 1.5 succinct   in reply to comment 47     Three letters for you: I R A Those nuts over there in Ireland kill each other not over different gods but on how to worship the same damn god. It may be a little more peaceful now but 10 short years ago they were on the level of the Israel/Palestine conflict. One of the leaders of Ireland now was a former IRA head. They still have little flare-ups that produce violence like just this year when a childs path to school took her through the other sides part of town. They went ape-shit rioting and everything over where a girl walked to school. So yeah, Christianity is so much more "enlightened". Tell me another. Visit www. seriouslythough.com   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   59.  Okay, I looked in the mirror   by Brian Jones       at Tue 26 Nov 4:15pm score of 1.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 13     Yup, I'm a sinner. But as horrid as Christians may have been, this is very much a "what have you done for me lately" kind of world - or in this case, "what have you done to me lately". You mentioned a spate of clinic bombings, several abortion providers killed, attacks on gays and other assorted nasty behavior. Even if all these acts were committed in the name of Christ and not out of plain old ignorant evil, they don't even begin to add up to a 9/11, let alone all the other recent cruelties committed in the name of Allah. Even a Christianity-addled killer like James Kopp has managed to come up with at least a half-assed confession. Try and find even the slightest hint of even that little bit of remorse from an al-Qaeda murderer, or the family of a suicide bomber. If Christianity today is a force for evil akin to radical Islam, I'd think there'd be bishops and vicars and cardinals the world over calling for heads on plates, forced conversion of the heathen, Jews strung up in the village square, and so on. What's Latin for fatwa, anyway? That kind of talk, and the actions that spring from it, is coming not from Christian or Jewish clergy, and not from leaders of any of the world's other religions. It's coming from Islamic clerics. But in the interests of full disclosure, I'll let you know if Father Mike down at my church starts inciting the ladies' auxiliary to fire-bomb the Best Buy because of their sinful Christina Aguilera display. Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   64.  Re: I'm sorry the Atheists really lost to the   by Violator       at Tue 26 Nov 4:24pm score of 1   in reply to comment 21     The unitarians are the biggest excuse for non-believers to try to cop out of divine retribution by believing in something. Anything, some unspecified thing which, as long as you have a god is as good as having that person's god. Surely. Gets them off the hook of purgatory and Hell, right. It'd be pretty hard to get a Unitarian to unite with another unitarian about anything, especially when it comes to persecuting a third party. They'd be all "He dissed my God." "Didn't diss my Greater Frog Spirit." Its like comparing an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting with a drunken football team. One group's united in sympathy for one another, the other is united in goal and fired with zeal. Consistently modded down for being an asshole since 2003   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   66.  Re: Blame the Christians   by execute       at Tue 26 Nov 4:38pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 13     While it is true that every religion has some wackos, it seems like Islam has a few more than usual. Yes, a couple of abortion clinics were bombed, but you never had a church issuing fatwas against doctors. Jerry Fallwell calls Tinky Winky gay, but doesn't firebomb his house. Come on, there is a difference. Christianity was messed up 500 years ago what with the inquisition, crusades, expelling the jews, etc etc etc But it's been pretty clean the past 100 years or so. No church sponsored genocides (remember the vatican was holding out on supporting Nazi Germany until after they won). But my point is that calling the extremists that are currently bouncing around christianity and the extremists in islam the same is inaccurate.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   69.  Re: Blame the Christians   by Adipic Acid       at Tue 26 Nov 5:00pm score of 1   in reply to comment 13     The problem is that when Falwell or somebody spouts off, we immediately have a lot of Christian thinkers going out of their way to castigate him. When one of the radical Muslims speak, we hear chirping crickets. If the majority of Muslims are truly offended by the radicals, it's long past time that they stand up and be counted. From where I'm sitting, they either don't exist or they're cowards. No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Churchill   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   76.  Re: Okay, I looked in the mirror   by k0s       at Tue 26 Nov 5:48pm score of 0.5 disingenuous   in reply to comment 59     "Even a Christianity-addled killer like James Kopp has managed to come up with at least a half-assed confession. Try and find even the slightest hint of even that little bit of remorse from an al-Qaeda murderer, or the family of a suicide bomber. " I can't believe you are making excuses for a murderer simply because he is Christian. Apologies be damned. You can't fix peoples ruined lives with words of remorse. A nut is a nut is a nut, no matter what religion he follows or what he says after the fact. Visit www. seriouslythough.com   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   78.  Re: Blame the Christians   by k0s       at Tue 26 Nov 6:12pm score of 0.5 disingenuous   in reply to comment 66     While it is true that every religion has some wackos, it seems like Islam has a few more than usual. Well a large majority of muslims are under repressive regimes that either 1) Are sponsored by the United States (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) or 2)Have leaders so much opposed to the United States that they preach violence as retribution against past perceived wrongs by the United States(Iran, Syria). Christians as a whole are not under these repressive regimes (with the exception of the United States, I'm half-joking and half serious, but I digress). Look at the Muslim world the same as United States inner cities. There is no hope, no real way out and repressed by a/the man. Those conditions breed violence against those repressing them. "Yes, a couple of abortion clinics were bombed, but you never had a church issuing fatwas against doctors" I seem to remember a website targeting abortion doctors run by a group of extreme Christian fanatics of which some were "priests". Jerry Fallwell calls Tinky Winky gay, but doesn't firebomb his house. He would if he thought he could get away with it. "Come on, there is a difference." The only difference is who's the target, us or them. Suddenly there is a huge difference between terror tactics when we're the targets. When they are the targets the excuse is they do it also, we just do it better. Think about it. "But my point is that calling the extremists that are currently bouncing around christianity and the extremists in islam the same is inaccurate." No, I'd have to disagree. They are birds of the same feather, just different religions. The label I give them is cowards, because they never do the deeds they want done themselves. They get impressionable young people to do their bidding. If your religious conviction is that strong where you preach the killing of others to get your point across them you had best have the conviction to do it yourself. Visit www. seriouslythough.com   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   80.  Don't misunderstand me - Kopp still oughta fry   by Brian Jones       at Tue 26 Nov 7:33pm score of 1   in reply to comment 76     And for that very reason, the specific word I used was "confession" and not "apology" or "excuse". The only good thing that comes of Kopp's confession is that it will hopefully save the state of New York a great deal of money on his prosecution. The difference between Kopp and radical Islam can be explained thus: When's the last time you heard Hamas take credit for a suicide bombing by saying "well, we only meant to wound the kids"? A nut is a nut is a nut Certainly. And there are tens of millions of them in Islam's midst. The religion's leaders need to do something about that, before the rest of the world does it for them. Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   83.  Re: Don't misunderstand me - Kopp still oughta fry   by k0s       at Tue 26 Nov 8:25pm score of 1   in reply to comment 80     A nut is a nut is a nut Certainly. And there are tens of millions of them in Islam's midst. The religion's leaders need to do something about that, before the rest of the world does it for them. We are also looking at this situation through rose-colored glasses. We are a Christian society so we obviously think they are the nuts. If we were in their shoes I'm sure we'd say we are nuts. It's all relative, that's all I'm saying. They look at our supplying of Israel against the Palestinians as terrorism and our blockaid of Iraq as terrorism because of the large number of deaths. I'm not saying they are right. I'm also not saying we are right. As has been shown time and time again, two wrongs do not back a right in this world. Visit www. seriouslythough.com   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   87.  Re: Blame the Christians   by non profit       at Tue 26 Nov 8:50pm score of 1   in reply to comment 78     what is a christian? a human being that belives that Jesus is the Son of God and waits for His Second Coming, living by His teachings. And what does Jesus wants us to do?: "love thy neighbord as thyself", so if this people are killing other humans beings they are no real christians, they're just fronting trying to justify their evil deeds.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   89.  Re: Blame the Christians   by kiwiana       at Tue 26 Nov 9:00pm score of 1   in reply to comment 55     It's a common mistake, but one which needs correction, to think that the Northern Ireland conflict is about religion. It's not. It's about colonisation and centuries of oppression by one group of another. It just so happens that each group, for historical reasons, is identified with a different strand of Christianity. The IRA fought (and bombed and terrorised) for a united Ireland free of English rule, not a Catholic Ireland - a political goal, not a religious one. open up your chi, maaan   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   109.  Re: Blame the Christians   by bill hicks rip       at Wed 27 Nov 2:07am score of 1   in reply to comment 55     Look, let's nail this little nugget once and for all. the conflict in Northern Ireland (or Norn Iron, if you're from the region) has nothing to do with religion. Do you really think people have been killing each other over an argument about transubstantiation? Catholic and Protestant are effectively short hand for what estate you live on or what street you're from. Those young girls at Holy Cross were targetted because, literally, they came from the wrong side of the tracks and were embroiled in a turf war. Anyway, as a happy clappy atheist from southern ireland, i say a pox on both their houses. we have nothing to fear but scary things   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   110.  Re: Blame the Christians   by k0s       at Wed 27 Nov 3:06am score of 1   in reply to comment 89     "It's a common mistake, but one which needs correction, to think that the Northern Ireland conflict is about religion. It's not. It's about colonisation and centuries of oppression by one group of another. It just so happens that each group, for historical reasons, is identified with a different strand of Christianity. The IRA fought (and bombed and terrorised) for a united Ireland free of English rule, not a Catholic Ireland - a political goal, not a religious one. " and "Look, let's nail this little nugget once and for all. the conflict in Northern Ireland (or Norn Iron, if you're from the region) has nothing to do with religion. Do you really think people have been killing each other over an argument about transubstantiation? Catholic and Protestant are effectively short hand for what estate you live on or what street you're from. Those young girls at Holy Cross were targetted because, literally, they came from the wrong side of the tracks and were embroiled in a turf war. Anyway, as a happy clappy atheist from southern ireland, i say a pox on both their houses." Ok well I still believe this conflict draws many parallels to the Israel/Palestine conflict. Religion in the Israel/Palestine conflict is used as a guise in many ways also. I don't pretend that it doesn't play a major part in this because it does. Two other issues are also at play though. Israeli settlements on Palestinian land and water rights. Yes, water rights are actually a big part of this conflict. A lot of the disputed land is on top of aquifers which neither wants to lose. Palestine, like the IRA, also is fighting for freedom, freedom from, what they view as, Israeli rule and oppression. They even employ the same tactics as the IRA, carbombs, random shootings, etc. Visit www. seriouslythough.com   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   121.  Re: Blame the Christians   by alaffin       at Wed 27 Nov 8:53am score of 1   in reply to comment 19     Can I get an AMEN!!!!! satire   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   124.  Re: Blame the Christians   by kallisti       at Wed 27 Nov 10:13am score of 1   in reply to comment 110     It doesn't just parallel Israel-Palestine. North Ireland/Britain has a dispute about which society, or perhaps culture, controls the government and the resources. While the parallel to the Miss World pageant is shaky, there are obvious parallels to the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan, Pakistan/India over Kashmir, the BJP vs. the Muslims over India, the Pro-choicers vs. the Pro-lifers (All right, I agree - the parallel isn't perfect. The pro-lifers are the only terrorists,) Fundies vs. everybody else over gay rights (gay boys and girls get violently attacked, mind) NAZI FUCKING GERMANY (I know, Godwin's law), the Crusades, the entire reformation, the Chinese cultural revolution, the Bolshevik revolution, the ... I think you get my drift - religions come down pretty firmly on one side or the other in all of these conflicts. (Anyone who knows the history of the Jews in Europe will have some information about just how inimical the church was to the Jewish people prior to (and sort of during) the holocaust.) So, the point is, claiming "it's religious" when it's Shi'ites vs. Sunni or Muslim vs. Jew, but claiming it's not when it's Northern Irish Protestants vs. Northern Irish Catholics - that's disingenuous.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   132.  Re: Blame the Christians   by Zerbina       at Wed 27 Nov 12:13pm score of 1   in reply to comment 54     I never said people do not commit acts of violence in the name of Christ. My point was that these acts are committed by individuals without any sort of sanction and cooperation (including justification through Biblical text citations) on the part of Christian officials. Only fringe persons such as Fred Phelps would attempt to justify throwing gay people or abortionists in hell. Islam, at the moment, is in the throes of a mentality wherein acts of violence are mandated by their leaders, by the mainstream, complete with holy book justification to stiffen the backbone of those who ordinarily would not think it reasonable to kill people who think differently than you.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   144.  Re: Blame the Christians   by popularsciencereader       at Wed 27 Nov 7:46pm score of 1   in reply to comment 66     it's been pretty clean the past 100 years or so. Could this have anything to do with the fact that about 150 years ago Ernest Renan first published his Life of Jesus, opening the floodgates of biblical criticism and permitting speculation about the identity of Jesus? Were a Muslim to criticise the Koran in this way or speculate about Mohammed's life, he or she would have a fatwa put on their head faster than you could say, "There is no God but God." I've had just about enough of your sesquipedalian evasiveness.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   145.  Re: Don't misunderstand me - Kopp still oughta fry   by execute       at Wed 27 Nov 8:47pm score of 1   in reply to comment 83     Relativism only goes so far. You can't use relativism to justify murder. I don't care if they think the US is bad for packing Israel or if muslims think they are correct in killing infidels. What I do care is that it violates our sensibilities. In a situation that involves death, one side is right.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   10.  My view...   by tlon_uqbar       at Tue 26 Nov 10:41am score of 3 compelling   in reply to comment 4     I think most semi-educated people are well aware of the intolerance that can spring out of any religion. I also think most of us are well aware of Christianity's bloody past (and even present). I don't think anybody is singling Islam out as the only religion capable of doing this stuff. But I, like a lot of people, am wondering why it is these stories always seem to come out of Islamic areas, and why the religious insanity seems to be playing at a whole other level in the Islamic world. From the article: A Nigerian state has ordered Muslims to kill a journalist whose report on the Miss World contest led to riots in which 200 people died. This isn't some fringe group of fanatics; in fact, as near as I can tell it's sanctioned by some quasi-governing body. Yeah, yeah, back in the day plenty of people were burned at the stake and whatnot during Christian government-sanctioned inquisitions; but we're not back in the day, we're in 200-fucking-2. The problem people are seeing is that we never stop hearing about how Islam is peaceful, that these are just aberrations/fanatics and whatnot. But these aberrations/fanatics are apparently in control of significant numbers of people and even governments. Furthermore, as has been repeatedly noted, where are the voices of peace and tolerance denouncing this stuff from inside the Islamic world? Where are the non-secular Muslims standing up and demanding an end to what we're constantly told is a mis-interpretation of Islam and the Quran? Simply asking these questions of Islam, much the same as I would ask of Christianity or Hinduism, does not somehow qualify me as insensitive or intolerant. I can't turn a blind eye and mutter "oh, it's just the fringe fanatics who aren't any different than the fringe fanatics over here" when those "fringe fanatics" are apparently in charge of the situation over there and a lot of the mainstream population is willing to go along with it. -- gh   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   14.  Re: My view...   by David Flores       at Tue 26 Nov 11:07am score of 2 informative   in reply to comment 10     But I, like a lot of people, am wondering why it is these stories always seem to come out of Islamic areas, and why the religious insanity seems to be playing at a whole other level in the Islamic world. Rwanda recently saw the murder of nearly one million people (equivalent to 300 September 11ths). At the time the country was about 1% Muslim. It was 65% Catholic and about 9% Protestant. Catholic and Protestant leaders and clergy figure prominently among the war criminals. According to the Washington Post: "Human rights groups have documented several incidents in which Christian clerics allowed Tutsis to seek refuge in churches, then surrendered them to Hutu death squads, as well as instances of Hutu priests and ministers encouraging their congregations to kill Tutsis. Today some churches serve as memorials to the many people slaughtered among their pews." But the massacre was so inconvenient to US national interests, that our government resisted even uttering the word "Genocide" until it was time to start mopping up the blood that had poured into the streets. GAFB and GAFB2   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   15.  Re: My view...   by autroc       at Tue 26 Nov 11:07am score of 1   in reply to comment 10     Furthermore, as has been repeatedly noted, where are the voices of peace and tolerance denouncing this stuff from inside the Islamic world? Just not getting that much attention for the most part, I think. I remember reading a post somewhere shortly following the Bali bombing asking the same thing -- 'Where's the evidence of the muslim community condemning the blast?' -- but sure enough, ignored by many were statements from an Australian cleric doing just that. I suspect the condemnations are more frequent (though sadly not universal) but just don't get that much coverage.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   148.  Not a misrepresntation   by Seymour Paine       at Thu 28 Nov 6:50am score of 1   in reply to comment 10     of the Koran and that's the problem. The Koran speaks constantly and in detail about who to kill and why and discusses collateral damage (sad but necessary). Many many entries so there is no mistaking the message. So, when "radical" elements commit atrocities, on what grounds would "moderate" moslems complain beyond uttering the bromide that "Islam means peace"? My take is the religious sector of Moslems, say, (on the basis of not much) 40% of the total, might, at best, disagree somewhat about judgment, but since judgement is left to individuals, what the hey!. The rest are either silent sactioners, uninterested, or too removed (by illiteracy, etc) to care. I'm not sure what the end game is, since regardless of how effectively we deal with Al Qaeda, the exhortations to kill remain in their book and that means the seeds of the next group of terrorists is germinating. I'm trying to think but nothing happens.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   35.  Re: My view...   by tlon_uqbar       at Tue 26 Nov 1:23pm score of 1   in reply to comment 14     Rwanda is certainly a point well taken. And while I'm not particularly well-read on what happened in Rwanda, what I do know seems to indicate problems arising from a Hutu vs. Tutsi conflict. Granted from what you've cited there was participation from the clergy in the genocide, but I think there's still a subtle distinction. To my knowledge, the clerics in Rwanda weren't basing their actions on religious passages or edicts, but were rather one more group participating in the slaughter of the Tutsi minority. The violence there wasn't rooted in somebody's interpretation of the bible but rather decades (or centuries)-long ethnic conflict. Rwanda was (ultimately) an ethnic conflict in which religious leaders took part; I'm talking about deadly conflicts arising directly from religion. Conflicts, like in Nigeria, in which religion was not only a part of the problem, but the ultimate source and, indeed, motivation behind the violence. That's not to say that there wouldn't be this sort of violence in areas like Nigeria but for Islam. As you noted in your first post, this has more to do with socio-economic issues that simply play out through nut-job religious clerics egging on a desperate population looking for anyone to lash out against. However, that doesn't change the fact that there is something going on in modern day Islam which allows these nut-job fundamentalists to not only come up with their interpretations of Islam, but to also sell them to a populace which seems willing to follow. -- gh   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   18.  Re: Here we go...   by nmiguy       at Tue 26 Nov 11:51am score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 4     Democratic, economically developed nations with thriving middle classes do not produce suicide bombers Are you sure about that? people will still not look at the root issues involved (because they're so much more complex and seemingly intractable, and it's become de rigeur to mock those people who insist we take a look at "root causes") and scoff at the idea that Christianity's bloody history is any guide or in any way comparable to what is happening today in repressive Islamic societies. I've seen this a couple of times. The comparison between Christianity or "fundamentalist" Christianity and Islam. The comparison can be made, but if you're going to compare you need to acknowledge the differences as well as the similarities. Yes in the past Christianity was spread at times in violent and repressive ways (like the inquisition, and the conversion of native tribes in the Americas). Violence committed today or in the recent past by any Christian group is denounced by Christianity as a whole. The abortion clinic bombings and things of that sort are denounced even by the fundamentalist right wing of American Christianity, as well as Christianity abroad. In Islam, acts of violence have not been condemned by Islamic nations. When a fundamentalist Muslim makes a claim that killing a journalist in a fatwa is decreed by the Qu'ran because she insulted the prophet, no nation stands up and cries foul. Big difference. Also, why don't you note that there is far less Christian sanctioned violence than Islamic sanctioned violence. I mean, we ARE comparing, correct? As for Ms Daniel, can the US offer her political asylum?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   28.  Re: Here we go...   by Prexaspes       at Tue 26 Nov 12:54pm score of 1   in reply to comment 18     Well various Christian sects have always condemned the violence perpetrated by other Christian sects. See for example, Protestants slamming Catholics for their violent excesses, and vice versa during the wars of religion. So saying one variety of Christianity dissing another variety makes very little difference if one looks at the issue historically. Cheers Everyman has two nations, and one of them is France. - Benjamin Franklin   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   63.  Re: Here we go...   by TamLin       at Tue 26 Nov 4:23pm score of 1   in reply to comment 18     Nonsense. Yes, when religious group A does something bad, religious group A' often condemns them. And vice versa. How are outsiders expected to judge which represents the real true religion, and which side is heretical? "Oh, who am I kidding? The ramparts suck. They were sucky, sucky ramparts." - Stephen Colbert, The Daily Show   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   44.  Radical islam did create a riot root cause.   by Rampant Raven       at Tue 26 Nov 3:21pm score of 1   in reply to comment 4     By trying to inflict the cruel Sharia laws on all of Nigeria, they convinced all non Muslim nigerian people that islam is the enemy. Even if Islam wasn't truly to blame for the cruelty and poverty in Nigeria, the horrible offense of making members of one religion follow the strict laws of another allowed non-Muslims to easily demonize their muslim neighbors. Now if one small group of particularly vile Muslims decide to raise hell over a stupid comment by a vapid newsperson, non-muslims are more likely to violently react, knowing that these people are a member of a religion that recently oppressed non-Muslims. The less riot-prone Muslims will see members of the 'Umma' come under violent attack, and join in the 'Fun'. Pretty soon the flames of ethnic hatred will engulf the nation, with even relatively peaceful people reacting violently to heinous acts by the other side. The imposition of religious laws in a multicultural country will always cause violent division, and our Crusader in Chief ought to realize this when promoting Faith Based Initiatives. Narokath Pargon Santak Pargon Xel'lotath   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   62.  Re: Here we go...   by katieo       at Tue 26 Nov 4:20pm score of 1   in reply to comment 4     it's become de rigeur to mock those people who insist we take a look at "root causes" I know, I know, it must be such a fucking drag to constantly be fighting the man on plastic. You're such a victim of group think. Okay, I'm sorry. That was unnecessary. I agree with almost everything you said - I mean, I can't stand much of any religion, so why would I go to the trouble of defending one religion over another? - but, at the risk of sounding like I'm attacking Michael Moore Jr., my immediate reaction was only to the way in which you said it. Like you knew something almost everyone else hadn't already figured out - violence has root causes! Wow! Thanks for opening my eyes. Here I'm sounding overly cynical, but if it weren't for that ridiculous condescending tone which people often use to spread their message (including, quite possibly, my tone in this one, but at the risk of sounding juvenile I didn't start it, and tend to fight fire with fire) - even if their message is accurate - then maybe they'd actually succeed in getting their message across, instead of just pissing everybody off. I mean, getting your message across is the professed goal, right? Your goal isn't just to prove how smart you are, to prove that you're not just some schmo with a computer, is it? Kids, you've tried and you've failed. The lesson is: never try.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   115.  Re: Here we go...   by Seymour Paine       at Wed 27 Nov 5:36am score of 1   in reply to comment 4     And while it won't be said explicitly, the implication will be that Islam (or radical Islam) must be wiped out if civilization is to survive. Actually, if Islam doesn't reform itself, curtail its bloodthirsty lust for world domination and love of killing, it should be eliminated. There isn't a place in the entire world where large numbers of Muslims live peacefully with non-Muslims. As it stands now, it is a threat to the civilized world and the sooner we understand the dimensions of this threat the better. I'm trying to think but nothing happens.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   147.  Re: Here we go...   by Non Servium       at Thu 28 Nov 12:40am score of 1   in reply to comment 4     Democratic, economically developed nations with thriving middle classes do not produce suicide bombers Richard Reid, the so-called shoe bomber, was born and raised in suburban London.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  Someone help! (slightly OT)   by culberda       at Tue 26 Nov 10:17am score of 1.5 astute     Isioma Daniel - whose published claim that the prophet Mohammed would have been happy marrying a Miss World contestent, leading to riots in Nigeria that killed over 200 people Can someone please explain this link to me? I just don't get it. Daniel publishes inflammatory statement to Muslims. I can understand how that would anger a Muslim, 'cause them to be upset with her... I'll even go so far as to say I understand a Muslim wanting to kill her over her statement, even though I don't think killing someone over words is a very bright thing to do. All of that still points at Anger towards Daniel... how did that expand to the murder of 200+ in mass riots? From the article, one of the Miss World organizers states "Miss World cannot be held responsible for the riots. They were down to one journalist, who wrote something that inflamed the local people," said Ms Morley. How does that work? How does anger toward a single journalist translate into 12 000 homeless people? the quiet loners always blow   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

12.  Re: Someone help! (slightly OT)   by autroc       at Tue 26 Nov 10:57am score of 1   in reply to comment 6     "Miss World cannot be held responsible for the riots. They were down to one journalist, who wrote something that inflamed the local people," Yes, I think it was spineless of the Miss World organisers to say that. The people who rioted are responsible for the riots. If you want to work backwards to try to find out what incited the violence, I think one can point fingers equally at Daniel and the Miss World contest -- but what would that prove? The riots were not carried out by children but by adults who are franchised with free will and should have exercised self control. The Miss World organisers showed themselves to be cowards when they voluntarily condemned Daniel and abandonned any ideals held dearly in the west such as freedom of speech and freedom from religious persecution. Miss World should not be welcomed back to London until the organisers admit their mistakes and pay some sort of penance.   Well, the whole thing's so tasteless it really shouldn't be let back period, but anyway... Back to your question, I think it expanded to 200+ fatalities because the area was already a powerkeg just waiting for the right excuse to express righteous religious rage.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  Some Interesting Quotes from 2001, 2002   by MiceHead       at Tue 26 Nov 10:23am score of 4 compelling     December, 2001: Agbani Daregbo (Nigerian Miss World, on winning the Miss World competition): "I believe that with this and other things happening in Nigeria, we will be able to show them that we are not what they think we are. They should just give us the opportunity, come to Nigeria to see what we have and I'm sure we'll be able to prove ourselves." December, 2001: Ben Murray-Bruce (Nigerian Television Authority Director): "[Our winning the Miss World Competition] means a lot for the country because you have a country that is not known for anything of excellence, anything of beauty... It's known for corruption, it's known for fraud, it's known for ethnic violence, it's known for anything that's wrong and terrible." One year later, the 2002 Miss World Competition begins in Nigeria. November, 2002: Isioma Daniel (on Miss World's Nigerian detractors): "The Muslims thought it was immoral to bring ninety-two women to Nigeria and ask them to revel in vanity. What would Muhammad think? In all honesty, he would probably have chosen a wife from among them." November 22: CNN: Angry mobs stabbed and set fire to bystanders Thursday in rioting that erupted after a newspaper suggested Islam's founding prophet would have approved of the Miss World beauty pageant. At least 50 people were killed and 200 injured. Zamfara state Information Commissioner Tukur Umar Dangaladima: "If [Daniel] is Muslim, she has no option except to die. But if she is a non-Muslim, the only way out for her is to convert to Islam." Miss World organiser Julia Morley (on the decision to not cancel the Miss World show): "I am sad about the riots. But does that mean you can't go anywhere in the world just because there might be a riot?" Writer Muriel Gray (about the contest continuing in London): "These girls will be wearing swim wear dripping with blood." =MiceHead - The Stock Market for the Next 100 Years   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

20.  Stop the presses!!!!!   by Anonymous Idiot       at Tue 26 Nov 12:02pm score of 2 informative     BBC sez that the Nigerian government has ruled the fatwa to be null and void: "The federal government under the laws of the Federal Republic of Nigeria will not allow such an order in any part of the federal republic, because the federal republic is governed by the rule of law," Mr Gana told AFP news agency. Of course, whether the Nigerian federal government has any control over the leaders of the muslim states is beyond my puny sphere of knowledge.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

27.  The US needs to do something   by nmiguy       at Tue 26 Nov 12:48pm score of 3 astute     Something symbolic and consistent. It needs to provide asylum for Ms Daniel and to protect her speech and it needs to denounce the violence in Nigeria. It is time America was more aggressive in asserting that its values are good and strong and protective of human rights and respectful of life. To do that a contrast needs to be made with more barbaric nations...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

41.  Re: The US needs to do something   by Azathoth       at Tue 26 Nov 2:44pm score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 27     It still rankles me that the US didn't do very much when Rwanda fell apart and a million or so Rwandans died. But perhaps if our legislators see that something as important as the Miss World Competition hangs in the balance, they will act swiftly and decisively. PS I certainly agree that the US should grant asylum to the journalist were she to seek it. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   43.  Re: The US needs to do something   by nmiguy       at Tue 26 Nov 3:21pm score of 1   in reply to comment 41     And I agree with you about Rwanda. It seems there is nothing to be done now. A previous administration had the opportunity to act and didn't. I hope the current admin does act. We as civilized human beings should urge some kind of statement to be issued, some kind of act that may neutralize the hate.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   70.  Re: The US needs to do something   by zengerkin       at Tue 26 Nov 5:07pm score of 1   in reply to comment 27     It is time America was more aggressive in asserting that its values are good and strong and protective of human rights and respectful of life Well first we need to embody those values, then we can assert them. Unfortunately, our foreign policy for the last 50 years or so has been more about money and oil than respect for human life. Congressmen. Think of the House as being the condom that DC wears while it assfucks the nation.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   97.  Re: The US needs to do something   by eduardo       at Tue 26 Nov 10:33pm score of 1   in reply to comment 70     we also throw women to the lions when they speak out of turn. J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   75.  Re: The US needs to do something   by c0sm0       at Tue 26 Nov 5:37pm score of 1   in reply to comment 27     oh yah that's just what world needs.... americans telling it how to be just like america... "Nationalism is an infantile sickness. It is the measles of the human race." -- A. Einstein   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

30.  Violence & Religion   by Prexaspes       at Tue 26 Nov 12:57pm score of 1     I thought the following article on Christianity in the developing world was especially insightful regarding the matter of religion and violence. We right now are unfortunately bound in a moment in the US when we inspect violence perpetrated by the adherents of Islam with much more focus than that of adherents of other religions. Such is the nature of how wars and conflicts are fought. a www.theatlantic.com link Cheers Cheers Everyman has two nations, and one of them is France. - Benjamin Franklin   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

37.  (Although, no, it's not so funny at the moment)   by jmunni       at Tue 26 Nov 1:48pm score of 2.5 funny     Get Your War On said it best: "If you could say one thing to God right now, what would it be?" "I think I would say, 'Thank you, God, for your healing gift of religion.'"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

39.  "Government sanctioned"   by Mighty Ponygirl       at Tue 26 Nov 2:36pm score of 3 informative     I just want to clarify something that appears to be a bit misunderstood in these threads. Nigeria is not a stable, single government. Recently, the central government authorized the northern states to practice their own sharia laws, as a mostly-autonomous lawmaking/enforcement body. This probably was not done out of respect for Islam, the whole thing smacks of politicians scared shitless that if they don't appease the clerics, that there will be civil war. Remember that woman who was sentenced to death for adultery recently? That was the decision of a sharia court in the North, and the central government did not step in and overturn it, for fear of civil unrest. The same thing happened in Pakistan--remember the news story recently about a woman who was ordered to be gang raped as a punishment for a crime? Local "tribal council" (not really sharia, but the same idea), not central Pakistani judiciary government. In both instances, only serious national attention will previal upon the central government to correct the human rights abuses perpetrated by the local governments. As an AI pointed out upthread, the fatwa has been declared illegal. Expect more riots. Nigeria cannot continue like this. The northern sharia states keep issuing harsh edicts that the southern central government can't do anything about without riots. I forsee a massive civil war in the very near future, split across ethnic/religious lines, and a serious quantity of genocide as the grande finale.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

40.  The Problem with Religion   by Zi       at Tue 26 Nov 2:37pm score of 1     It boils down to faith. If you choose to believe things for which there is no objective proof, you can then rationalize anything. Faith is considered a virtue, but I find it to be one of the most destructive emotions a human can have. I've come to believe that the language of religion is really the language of power - of politics. While ostensibly giving one the support of a powerful, supernatural force in thier personal self discovery, the real usage is to give the messenger of this force your support for his cause - without questioning his motive, as he's outwardly speaking for God, or a god. The story of Moses and the Ten Commandments are instructive. The followers of Moses are becoming distracted from the goal of finding a homeland, so Moses disappears for a while and comes back with a startling story of supernatural revelation, and a code of civil behavior. Moses uses the Commandments to quell the civil unrest and pursue the goal of conquering Canaan. This is purely political. It is a powerful tool for an individual to be skeptical and to mistrust - that is to not have faith in- anything presented to them, then to conduct independent review and then form a conclusion. Religions shortcut this by explaining that one cannot understand the nature of a God, and to be subservient to the more powerful force. If done well, the parishoner becomes outwardly subservient to God, but actually subservient to the messenger, be it a priest, rabbi, mullah, cleric or whatever. Once there, it's a matter of degree between showing up for services and fulfilling a fatwa. That's not to say that one shouldn't search for spirituality in ones life. It may exist, I don't know. A desire for self improvement and a larger sense of identity can be positive attribute; but if your religious representative asks you to take a personal spiritual search and act upon it to do damage to others, you should put aside the faith and ask if your religious representative is spiritual or political. So it goes. - Kurt Vonnegut   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

56.  WWMM   by Megalon       at Tue 26 Nov 4:10pm score of 3 witty     After events such as these we should pause, look deep into our hearts, and ask ourselves: Who would Mohammed marry?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

61.  That's easy   by Brian Jones       at Tue 26 Nov 4:20pm score of 2 witty   in reply to comment 56     Lisa Marie Presley. Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   77.  Re: That's easy   by WhosYerDaddy       at Tue 26 Nov 6:02pm score of 1.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 61     Who, incidentally, will soon be single again after less than four months with Nicolas Cage. Completely irrelevant, I know.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

67.  the last temptation of mohammed   by orionoir       at Tue 26 Nov 4:45pm score of 1.5     working title = the last temptation of mohammed premise: old-fashioned prophet guy, has to choose wife from assortment of beauty queen contestants. moving things along: each week one of the contestants is thrown to a machete-wielding mob of some sort of local color (canadians?) source of laughs: the girls are modern do-anything husband-hounds (sluts) while the religious guy is all hung up on chastity. the pitch: t&a video, voice-over: he's holy, but he's a man... i'm so happy i can't stop crying -- sting, fr. "lithium sunset"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

91.  And for the last episode..   by StratKat       at Tue 26 Nov 9:19pm score of 1   in reply to comment 67     ...he straps on some plastic explosive and blows himself and all the contestants up...in His name of course. You take the slide rule, I'll take the bottleneck....   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

71.  A tolerant, Christian community?   by sideshow       at Tue 26 Nov 5:10pm score of 1     Mobs of Christians attacked Muslims in southern districts of Kaduna "with new bitterness" because they viewed the pageant's cancellation as a "Muslim victory," Nigerian Red Cross president Emmanuel Ijewere said. Not very fucking tolerant. Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

79.  Gentiles   by mmandell       at Tue 26 Nov 7:16pm score of 1     I love this shit: maybe it means that both the Christians and the Muslims will have to spend lots of time and energy hassling each other; perhaps they won't have time to regularly condemn the Jews "Those who do not study religion are deemed to repeat it."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

84.  Run! Isioma, Run!   by chlim01       at Tue 26 Nov 8:34pm score of 1     Showing more sense than when she penned the inflammatory article, Ms Daniel has fled Nigeria.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

112.  And where'd she flee? To the U.S.   by Brian Jones       at Wed 27 Nov 5:04am score of 1   in reply to comment 84     And good for her. I think she'll find a wide range of opportunities in journalism here - and the only time she'll have to watch her back is when the jackasses from corporate are around. I just hope her first column here in the States starts out something like this: Hey - Mullah Fuckface! Come and get me, you worthless Prophet-fondler... Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   113.  Re: Run! Isioma, Run!   by Adipic Acid       at Wed 27 Nov 5:07am score of 1   in reply to comment 84     Jeebus, people. Why the glee that this woman's been threatened with death? This governor has his head so firmly shoved up his ass that all he sees is shit and he thinks it's God. If people on Plastic behaved like that, over 85% of us would be under a fatwa of some sort. No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Churchill   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

106.  Seems like a bit of a head scratcher...   by irrationalken       at Wed 27 Nov 12:42am score of 1.5 astute     trying to figure out if Islamic fundamentalists are worse than Christian Fundamentalists are worse than Jewish Fundamentalists are worse than say, Bolshevik Fundamentalists. Fundamentalism is the problem. Because Fundamentalism is de facto non-tolerant of differences. And because people have always been different from one another and always will be different from one another, fundamentalism will generally lead to the smashing of skulls by big sticks. Blaming the poor journalist seems to be a poor idea, too. I'm happy to live in a society, where we can make fun of whoever the hell we want without all the fuss and bother of a fatwa.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

108.  Wage war and strive to make mischief...   by mischief       at Wed 27 Nov 1:45am score of 1     My ass is grass! "And then... and then... and then...", and then the man who stuttered died, his last words an echo of his life   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

111.  What's sauce for the gander   by chlim01       at Wed 27 Nov 4:11am score of 1     Andrew Sullivan poses the following counterfactual in his Salon essay on the riots: Now imagine a scenario in which, say, the play "Corpus Christi" was produced in New York (as it was). The play was highly offensive to some fundamentalists because it depicted Jesus as gay. What if a mob of enraged Christians, after a holy sermon at a neighboring church, had decided to torch the office of the New York Times because they ran a favorable review, or to burn down the theater? What if they killed hundreds of innocent bystanders in their rage? What if they issued a call to all faithful Christians to kill playwright Terence McNally for his blasphemy? Do you think the rampage would be described as "atheist- Christian riots"? Do you think leftists would call on the playwright to be more sensitive in future? Would the mayor of New York blame the theater? Yet when it comes to a far, far deadlier menace to our freedoms than fundamentalist Christianity, much of the left is silent or, worse, making excuses for this Islamist threat. (Yes, the Salon article is Premium content, but you can view it for free just by clicking on an advert.)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

118.  I am SO over Mr. Sullivan.   by rmurf62       at Wed 27 Nov 7:33am score of 1   in reply to comment 111     And what would happen if a certain testosterone-soaked right-wing pundit used a fucked-up tragedy like this as yet another excuse to flog the left, accusing them of being complicit partners to all the evil in the world? YYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGH!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

122.  Mr Sullivan makes sense (for once)   by Thornstein       at Wed 27 Nov 10:03am score of 1     I rarely have the stomach to finish his incoherent, neo-conservative rants, and I still have a grudge against him for his steering the once interesting New Republic magazine into the ground, but I'm horrified to say that I agree with his column today. There has always been a segment of the feminist left that allied with Moral Majority type Christians over sexual matters - now to see the same voices justifying mass slaughter is revolting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

126.  Um...No   by MrTripps       at Wed 27 Nov 10:25am score of 1     It's just a nifty side benefit. Like being able to sleep in on Sunday. "It feels like Independence Day and I can't break away from this parade." -The Wallflowers   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

137.  Salman Rushdie on this whole mess:   by rmurf62       at Wed 27 Nov 1:20pm score of 1     It's been quite a week in the wonderful world of Islam. Rather good op-ed in the NY Times today from Mr. Fatwa himself, tying together recent events in Nigeria, Iran, Egypt & Holland. YYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGH!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

138.  Hrm, Let's See.   by TSM       at Wed 27 Nov 1:36pm score of 1     Can't look at pretty girls. Can't dance. Can't listen to most kinds of music. Can't go watch a movie. Can't shave. Can't have too much of an opinion. . . . If that was my life, I'd probably take every chance I could get to break some shit, too. --TSM "Reserving the right to refuse service to anyone since 1976"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

149.  Article about definition of Jihad   by SlurmV       at Thu 28 Nov 4:12pm score of 1     Commentary Magazine has an interesting article touching on many of these topics --Of course it's going off the rails. How else is it ever going to fly?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

150.  Fatwas seem to be the style of the times.   by voodoo1man       at Thu 28 Nov 8:49pm score of 1     I went to see Wole Soyinka speak yesterday, and this exact subject came up. He thought the journalist's comment was quite amusing, and condemned the rioting (he even had to cut his visit to Canada short because of it). Apparently, Soyinka has received many threats of violence from Nigerian extremists, and has most recently received a fatwa for speaking out against the Russian something-or-other (he mumbled a bit there, but I think it was the theater attack). He didn't seem very concerned, and brushed it off with a humorous comment. Say what you will, but I hope he's right.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]