INTOLERANCE

Protests against Danish cartoons of Muhammad led to 139 deaths

And the correct answer is:

 
Islam must reform.  In a BIG way. 

Not long ago, in India, women used to be burned alive along with their husband's corpse after he died.  Few Indian intellectuals, like our own Reza Aslan, tried to argue that it's just tradition and that it's OK.  The world's reply: NO!  NO! NO!  Get rid of these nasty rites before you have any claim to join the civilized world.  

So, today we tell Islam, Shiite or Sunni, stop the beheadings, the limb-choppings, the denying of women their rights, the killing of your ideological opponents, and many other savagries WITHOUT excusing them in any way.  Then we'll talk.  You act first.

It is utterly an absurd notion that a Saudi Arabian Prince, should travel 5,000 miles, spend $150 million, to teach Americans- New Yorkers, of all people, how to tolerate other religions, while there is not a single church or synagogue in the whole kingdom of Arabia.   Give mne a break (as we say in NY)

bahmani

Didn't I say you have been drinking while writing this blog?  

Now you are sober and rational. You see now why Islam says, Don't drink and write? Sometimes it can be worse than DWI.

I hope you didn't get your neighbor's wife pregnant. You should notify their husbands, so they can have their wives checked. There is nothing to worry about Mr. Bahmani, The law is on your side.

About intolerance.

You go and ask the Christians in Palestine, who is intolerance there? Your answer will be the Jews not the Muslims.

Why would anyone want to disrespect Muslims or any other religion and draw cartoons of their prophets? There are so many other things to draw. That is not civil liberty, that is asking for trouble and "Kermeh K..n"

ggorgg's atheism, civil law, and Ari's constitution...

The history of the world is (unfortunately) written by believers. Hence the irony.

Atheists, while very possibly right on all of this, lose the argument precisely because the game doesn't include them.

The history of the world is a tight taught lesson on the many abuses, mistakes, missteps, wrongs, and then some occasional minor rightings of religion throughout the ages, that has manifested itself into what we would all agree is "Organized Religion".

My point was that eslam is not there yet. For example, eslam needs a Pope figure to bring all the factions together and control them so they don't drift off into extremism (as they have done now). That's what a Pope (and the Vatican) is for. eslam needs a Vatican too. I don't care if it is Qom, but it needs one. All of eslam, not Iran's New Age version of Shiism where women are required to hide their eyes, and cover up while Mollahs prance around grinning and smiling broadly and impishly (Don't try and tell me Khatami did not have groupies!) with skimpy see through Abas (cloaks) showing their amply fed Santa-esque abdomens (and abs too).

The eslamic schizm (for lack of a better word) of the Sunnis and Shiites, also needs to be addressed once and for all if eslam is to become a modern accepted religion like Christianity. Just as there are many types of Christians (Methodists, Catholics, Protestants etc.), there can be many types of moslems too, but they need to be organized.

Mostly this is done to channel the massive funds to one paying source. But it also helps organize things from a message and principle delivery basis. eslam is simply too unorganized today, and I think it is too soon for it to wander in among the heathen hordes of New York city post 9-11 Christians and expect a fair shake at this stage of eslam's non-development.

Eslam is in the dark ages or the Inquisition phase of it's line, albeit not as rough as the Christians, it is still quite a harsh time for eslam. Especially if you can't draw a cartoon of you know who without dying. Seriously, you can't draw a cartoon? What if you draw it in the shifting sands of Saudi Arabia?

Ari, may all the various levels, forms,and versions of the ultimate OS that is God, bless you for picking up on my hint (took you long enough!) that the Constitution and the civil law it has birthed, is our most noble proof of holy inarguable logic, visualized as civilization.

While some of you may believe in Yahweh, God, Allah, Val-Halla, Buddha, or like me Vodka (Russian Orthodox, or Scandinavian Protestant? Hmm? they're both so tasty!), one thing that is certain is that the collective free thought of humanity that has brought us all Civil Rights and Civil Law via Constitution, certainly has to obviously trump mere Belief.

Because it is Civil Law that protects your right to believe in whatever you choose to believe in.

Does eslam or Christianity, or any religion offer the choice to choose without risk of retribution? Is there ANY way, procedure, form to fill out, anything to easily allow you to stop being Christian, a Jew, or a moslem? Not as of today. Once you're in, you're in! Either by birth (which is an insult to religious practice to begin with), or by your mother's faith (which makes no sense either), or by simply repeating the very un-magical words 6 times. But once you're in, you're not getting out. So while eslam may be intolerant, in reality Christianity and Judaism is not so easy to bail from either. The fear seems to be that if you lose one, you could lose the whole flock. So omit the exit.

Until religion, any religion allows the freedom to choose it as an option to live YOUR life by and not a required method monitored by Religion to MAKE YOU live by, in my "book" Civil Law wins the day. eslam or any religion must take the back pew.

That is until God finally shows up, and like Donald Trump picks a winner out of all these beautifully adorned beauty contestants.

Getting back to the point, should a mosque or eslamic version of the YMCA be allowed in NY? Absolutely. But it can only preach those parts of it that don't violate NY's Civil Laws. Unfortunately at this stage of it's evolution (get it?) that doesn't leave a whole lot of eslam left to teach.

The only good news is that this puts all religion on notice to behave fairly.

Reality-Bites

The question was, how one deals with the neighbor and spouse?  Some Americans take the law in their hands and shoot their neighbor because the civil law has failed to protect them. Some will share with their neighbor, some will turn the other cheek and some leave for the neighbor and go. 

You didn't say, how are you going to implement that in Iran? Remember, Iranians are Islamists not weslamists.

My point is, just as bahmani has problems with Muslims beliefs and wants to force them his perfect modern religion, they have problem with his and would rather to keep their perfect laws. 

But Mr. bahmani is speechless and doesn't know what to say, making me to believe that he must have been drinking before writing this blog.

Doctor X

"They don't know and don't even want toknow what "unclear" thinking is." What's happening in the US with Glenn Beck rallies, Mosque attacks etc. is alarming, but you do what you can or perform what you feel is your duty to civilization even if the odds seem against you.  

Not too off topic, the anti-Islam movement is both a symptom and a spark for deeper social upheavals in the US. What's happening here has parallels to what happened in Iran with Khomeini.  Loosening of historically held morals created a big culture shock which panicked the US masses over to safer religious grounds(Europe is a different dynamic) . Anti-Islamism is just one of the consequences of the country viewing the world's problems in religious terms. Like Iran, some US leaders see an opportunity to amplify and ride this wave to power.

Those who think bringing Khomeini into the  equation was a mistake not to be repeated, here's our chance not to repeat a mistake. Throw water on the fires of anti-Islamism even if you don't like Islam, cuz this fire will spread to burn your own house.

Ari

What i brought up was a matter of Practicality vs The theory of it all! I see your point and i know what you are getting at. To those people who by the way i may safely say are in the Fringes and in a minority, as i said , it matters not who is holding what as hostage. I am talking about Bigots, fanatics who care about nothing but whatthey think. You and I know both know that they are in every soceity.They don't know and don't even want toknow what "unclear" thinking is. Are you kiddin' me?

Re: JJ, Dariush A, and Vildemose ...

JJ, Isalm does indeed speak its own language.  This is an idealogy born of the mindset of a bedouine, with bedouine laws fitted in the frame of a "Religion".  Mohammad, took what he learned of the Jewish faith during his business travels which he conducted on behalf of Khadijeh, and he mixed it up with his bedouine culture and he made this thing up, hence the contradictions, and in the case of Makki vs Madini Soureh, the 180 degree flips of first love thy brother, and "La ekraha feddin" during his Makki period, and then the "Kill the Infidels" of the Madini Sourehs, and his ruthless Ghazavat, rape and murders, and corecions.  None of this would be as important if this sect had at least left itself open to change, but as I said, anyone trying to change Ghoraan becomes "vajeb ol ghatl" meaning it then becomes the duty of any good Moslem to kill them.  Furthermore, when they call Mohammad, Khatam en Nabiin, this is not just an empty title, this means, he is the last messenger from god and this is the final message from god, it is absolute, and it CAN NOT and WILL NOT be changed.  So to try and put this idealogy in the same class as anything else, would be gullible to say the least.  I think we all can imagine what would have happened if the Moslem Army had not faced a bigger brute than themselves in the form of Charles de Martel, the entire planet would be Moslem by now, I think we all owe this man a world of gratitude for standing up to those savages.  Also, you say, "It's spoken through its leaders and followers. It is THEIR understanding of Islam which leads to actions", OK, if that's what you want to think, that it is only a few misguided leaders that mis-interpreted  this "Religion of Peace !!", then what is your explanation for the atrocities during Sadre Islam, meaning Mohammad himself, and the 4 Khalifs?  Were they misguided individuals too?  I say no, I say this idealogy is rotten to the core and there is nothing that's good about it.

Daiush A, I guess you decided to ignore the facts about the Barbarism of the Islamic and Shariah Laws that I mentioned before, and decided instead to focus on easier subjects like who sleeps with who and what should be done about it !!

Vildemose, you say " if they put even half of the effort they do in castigating the West for their various grievances, in confronting and diminishing the power and influence of their radicals openly and vigorously, then they'll go a long way towards achieving that laudable objective. "

Perhaps it is safer to criticize the west, rather than the "Radical Isalmists", after all no chance of some Dutch guy blowing himself up and taking 70 other people with him, or some French guy slitting someone's throat because you insulted their laws or methods.  Just a thought !

Payandeh Iran, our Ahuraie Fatherland

Dariush

I don't know what you mean by taking the law into my own hands. If my wife we were to cheat on me with whomever, it'd be a matter for her and I to sort out. If it ever happened to me, I'd divorce her. Some other people in a similar situation people might choose to try and patch things up. But whatever happens, it's a personal issue. The state should have no right to send my wife to prison and condemn her to death for committing adultery, as it happens under the IRI.

The only time the legal authorities should get involved in a case like this, is if and when the two parties go through divorce proceedings and decisions need to be made on the equitable spilt of the (ex-)couple's material possessions.

FYI/Smaïn : Mohamed, l'arabe raciste

Smaïn : Mohamed, l'arabe raciste :

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnPx_ih0nAg&feature=fvw

Reality-Bites

You wrote,     My answer would be: no, of course it wouldn't be OK if this happened to me, but the whole point of this debate, as regards to your hypothetical example, is that my neighbor sleeping with my wife is a private matter between my wife and I (and that darned neighbor). It is a personal relationship issue. It would be and should be MY problem; it's no one else's concern.

So how are you going to deal with your neighbor and your wife? Are you going to take the law into your hands, because that is what many do in US, since the civil law is on the neighbor's side.  so your options under civil law is pack up and leave or share with your neighbor.

Now, do you expect such a law to be accepted in Iran?

I must say whoever is OK with that, sure will increase the value of the properties in his neighborhood. 

RB

If the moderate Muslims of this World are serious about working toward peaceful coexistence (and I believe many of them are), then if they put even half of the effort they do in castigating the West for their various grievances, in confronting and diminishing the power and influence of their radicals openly and vigorously, then they'll go a long way towards achieving that laudable objective.

But I reiterate, that the sad reality is they have not done so and I don't see much evidence that they are about to any time soon

Couldn't agree more...well said. 

I agree w/ Ari - Keep the US constitution strong

An overview of 1st amendment and religion:

//topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/First_amendment

I agree Ari the Constitution

Guarantee's your right to your religion,but not your right to regulate what other people think about it.Behavour law's lead right into oppression.

Ari

You say:

...The typical US Muslim has no intention of infringing on the rights of fellow citizens, nor does he/she have any power over Islamic radicals who do... .

I don't disagree with that, however, the silence of the typical US Muslim, and indeed moderate Muslims almost everywhere else, except for a small number of brave individuals and groups, in taking the Islamic radicals to task has been deafening.

If the moderate Muslims of this World are serious about working toward peaceful coexistence (and I believe many of them are), then if they put even half of the effort they do in castigating the West for their various grievances, in confronting and diminishing the power and influence of their radicals openly and vigorously, then they'll go a long way towards achieving that laudable objective.

But I reiterate, that the sad reality is they have not done so and I don't see much evidence that they are about to any time soon either. Moderate Muslims can hardly expect the West to change its ways to continually accommodate them, when they are not prepared to do the same and tackle head on the growing radicalisation and extremism that is engulfing the Islamic World, which has also already started to seep into their communities in the West. 

Islam does not speak

Harpi-Eagle, Islam does not have its own tongue. It's spoken through its leaders and followers. It is THEIR understanding of Islam which leads to actions.

The Torah, The Bible, The Qoran are all variations of the same. They all carry messages of grotesque violence as well as spirituality. Before the Renaissance, Christianity was a vast terror machine. Today it's just another religion which must obey secular constitutions, not the other way around.

The Bible hasn't changed. Its representatives have. Islam's representatives need to undergo the same change and accept the separation of mosque and state.

US vs

Doctor X

You work to give clarity to public perception. Holding the Constitutional rights of US Muslims hostage to their correcting the mindset of Islamic radicals (mostly residing in foreign countries) is unclear thinking. The typical US Muslim has no intention of infringing on the rights of fellow citizens, nor does he/she have any power over Islamic radicals who do. Pressing this point is primarily the job of our writers, artists, filmmakers, anyone who addresses the public mind. With clarity of perception comes a greater appreciation of the wisdom in our Constitution, making it stronger.

Re: Dariush A & JJ

Dariush, there are laws and there are laws.  For example, if I decide to change the wording of the Bible, Avesta, Torah or any other "Holy" Book, I won't become "Vajeb ol Ghatl", but try that with your beloved Ghoraan, and see what happens to you.  I can take a pen and draw a picture of Jesus in any shape way or manner I please, again I will NOT become "Vajeb ol Ghatl", but again try that with your beloved Mohammad, see what happens to you or if you want just ask Theo van Gogh !!!  So, please, if you want to paint your beloved Isalm in a different light for the rest of us, at least don't lie to yourself.

JJ, you say, "A religion which on paper is no better or worse than Christianity or Judaism", I beg to differ, which other religion says on many occasions "Eghtel ol Kaferoon" or that it's OK to take possession of a married woman by force who was married to a "Kafer".  So, to paraphrase your own words of wisdom, "Don't even go there brother".  Try studying a little bit about a subject before forming an invalid conclusion and worse yet expressing those opinions publicly, you are no scholar on Islam, nor am I, but at least I have bothered to read the "Ghoran" at least partially.  So I encourage you to read Sureh Baghareh, Tobeh, Al Emran, Nessa, and many of the other Madini Sureh before making the ridiculous claim of "No differnet on Paper" that's a LAUGH.  I don't agree with a lot of things Afshinzad said in his blog, but the part about Islam condoning sadness and guilt feelings is very true as it is with Judaism and Chritianity to some degree.  For a good idealogy that encourages happiness, freedom of mind, human dignity, and other good traits, read Nietzche's "Thus Spoke Zarathustra".

Payandeh Iran, our Ahuraie Fatherland

As an absolute atheist...

Glad to know I'm not the only one.

Thx ggorgg. You make me feel better. ;o)

Ari

Public perception and the extent of their openness and acceptance and validating a cerian Faith, religion, beleif, cult or anything for that matter, is far more overriding and superiorthan Legal techniqualities, no matter how precious they are and how their sanctity is deemed worthy in the constitution.

 You will  have anti-gay marriage opponenst for ever no matter what constitution says, You have gay bashers and islam and christianity haters for ever, even if the whole superem court team of legal minds come out supporting it.  what can you do to effectively stop that even though you think you have possibly created a way to make the society a little bit more tolerant by keeping constitution strong. ?

No matter how the constitution envisions the situation with muslims and no matter what is being espoused, you will always a die-hard, hardcore individual somewhere who could do anything he or she feels right to taunt and torment a elegantly-clad muslim woman who happens to have moved to his town or neighborhood.

They will look at it as a worthless piece of paper they use to wipe their bottoms with. And just what are you going to do?

Bahmani

So well-put!

Thank you, thank you, thank you, for putting into words so eloquently what many of us have been feeling about this religion for decades now.

Freedom of religion have nothing to do with it. You can't expect to be granted freedoms if you are not willing to grant that freedom to others. The right to freedom in every respect, be it religion, speech or expression, stops when it impinges on other people's rights to practice the same.

Islam as an institution has been destructive, intolerant and intimidating for too long. It needs to undergo very serious reform, if it wants to be taken as a serious choice. 

US Constitution is bigger than Islam

bavafa

I agree.

When Islam isn't making a scene it's accepted

We just ask that you live like human beings.

As an absolute atheist...

As an absolute atheist, someone who believes in no religion at all, someone who does not have one religious bone, I would say that you are completely ignorant of history and sociology. You have the classic myopic view of cause and effect in world events and politics. How about you become tolerant and spend at least a year reading history and then write a piece on the issue.

And to be clear, I'm not defending the behavior of any religious authority, and especially not Muslims. I just think that your article looks at the Muslim world and its current predicament through a pinhole constructed in the West.

Daruish

You asked:

Let us turn that around. Would you be OK of your neighbor came over and slept with your wife without being worried?  If that is the case, See you later alligator.

My answer would be: no, of course it wouldn't be ok if this happened to me, but the whole point of this debate, as regards to your hypothetical example, is that my neighbor sleeping with my wife is a private matter between my wife and I (and that darned neighbor). It is a personal relationship issue. It would be and should be MY problem; it's no one else's concern.

The state should have no business interfering in the situation and imposing its will on what should happen to any of the parties involved, never mind give itself the right to viciously punish anyone.

However, I do agree with the rest of your statement, when you said this:

The problem I see with Islam is that one should be free to leave without punishment. This way, one who doesn't like the rules, doesn't have to obey them. Easy come, Easy go. then the separation of religion from government. These two will solve all the problems.

Although I'm not sure if that will solve ALL the problems, in a truly free society people should indeed have the freedom to believe in whatever they wish to believe and change their beliefs, should they choose to, as long as long they don't interfere with the rights of others to their beliefs and without being punished or even fear of being punished.

Good logic, sound argument

That is if to show Islam is intolerant, which incidentally applies to all organized religion with various degrees. But If Mr. Bahmani is trying to use the nature of intolerance of Islam in regards to human rights and dignity as a reason for Americans to reject it, then we shall see large rallies and demonstrations in the front of State Dept and the Pentagon in Washington which is a symbol for democracy and freedom as the main supporter and life line to oppressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan … must I go on here?

The fact of the matter is that this Islamo bashing is a popular way these days to make a political gain and has nothing to do with human dignity, human rights or tolerance of Americans to a given religion.

Mehrdad

bahmani

You wrote,

In the 21st century, are we to abide by Islamic or sharia laws simply and blindly? Especially if they are completely counter to the evolution of civil laws we have enacted in the West.

Just as Islam has it's right and wrong rules, so does the civil law. You violate the civil law you get punished as well.  Just the reasons are changed. Some prefer the Islamic rulings some Christianity and etc and some civil law.  There are many who are against some of the rulings of the civil law as well and if they violate them they will be punished just as Islam and etc. 

 You wrote:  

In the West today, after 2000 years of solid Christendom, I can believe in Jesus and the Pope, I can be Catholic, I can go to church every Sunday, I can eat pork on Friday, wash it down with a tasty alcoholic beverage of my choice, and go and sleep with my neighbor's wife, causing her to become pregnant and have an abortion and never once worry about being arrested, tried or killed for it.

Let us turn that around. Would you be OK of your neighbor came over and slept with your wife without being worried?  If that is the case, See you later alligator.

The problem I see with Islam is that one should be free to leave without punishment. This way, one who doesn't like the rules, doesn't have to obey them. Easy come, Easy go. then the separation of religion from government. These two will solve all the problems.

"Vassalamo Alaikom va rahmat ollahe va barakato".

Don't even go there

afshinazad, by comparison, your rant is just an excuse to attack Islam -- a religion which on paper is no better or worse than Christianity or Judaism. It's the legitimate child of both.

The problem is that those who make radical interpretations of Islam feel entitled to impose it on the rest of us. Christianity and Judaism have plenty of stuff in their holy books to be ashamed of. And thank God we weren't born European during the Dark Ages because the Islamic Republic is much more humanitarian! So don't even go there.