Here's someone that is afraid of Muslims: Molly Norris, a Seattle cartoonist that, for a hoot, had a Let's Draw Mohammad Day facebook page. And for that, the FBI has advised her to go into hiding (at her expense); she has had to change her name, get a new social, and basically disappear. So much for our fucking free speech in the U.S. And, while everyone is peeing on themselves over Daisy Khan's supposed death threats (but I doubt she's in hiding), absolutely no one has come out in support of Molly.

So, Muslims of America: Where do you stand for someone like Molly? Are you against free speech? Are you actually Americans supporting the Constitution? Or do you think, like with Shari'a, the Koran is off limits?

"Absolutely no one has come out in support of Molly"? Do your homework:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/comic-riffs/2010/09/molly_norris_update_american_m.html

Norris has also been quoted recently thanking Muslim friends and supporters who have continued to help her throughout her ordeal.

I know a lot of "Muslims of America", and not a single one thinks she should be punished in any way for her work. Do you even know any Muslims? Or do you just go by the media image of angry, hairy, Pakistani rioter?

Ask your Muslim friends this: do they believe that the Qu'ran is the word of God and is to be obeyed as such? If so, how do they reconcile their friendship with you with the many, many passages that very clearly instruct Muslims to fight and kill non-Muslims? I have yet to see any of the smiley "moderate" American Muslims address this tiny little problem.

I would think that, like the Bible, most Muslims know that the Koran is not to be taken verbatim. Unfortunately, the extremists who do take any holy book completely literally as the ones who espouse hate and violence.

Jamie, you keep bringing up the Koran and its passages about intolerance and hate. Have you checked the Bible recently? There's plenty in there about killing, hate, homophobia, female subserviance, and intolerance for those who don't follow the "true" religion. Most Catholics and Christians I know understand that these passages should not be taken literally.

I don't think that is the case, that both the Koran and the Bible can be not taken literally. A lot (like all) Islamic exegesis and legal work assert it is literally true and there is no interpretation, totally unlike the way Christians and Jews view the Bible, for the most part.

Also, there are two parts to the Koran: Mecca and Medina verses. Muslims, when speaking to Western audiences, point out all the nice, we can all get along type stuff, which is all the Mecca verses, written when Mohammad was militarily weak. Later on, after he conquered Medina and was in a militarily superior position, he wrote the Medina section (note: It is not arrange chronologically); these are very harsh and call for war against non-Muslims, cruel punishments, rampant Jew hatred. They make for very unpleasant reading.

Islamic scholars were well aware of the contradiction between the two sections and created the Principle of Abrogation, which means that the later (medina) verses trump the earlier ones. All Muslims know this so when they harp on the wonderful kindly sections they are implicitly lying since they don't believe it themselves.

As for the cruel sections in the Bible, mainly the Old Testament, yes, very cruel but also not to be copied in later times. Leviticus is also pretty horrible, but to my knowledge, no Jewish group has ever followed it, apart from a few Hasids in Brooklyn making sure wool suits are totally wool (no mixed blends permitted).

In short, there is no comparison between the Koran and the Bible.

No comparison, except both have two sections and one of sections has more of the harsh and cruel verses.

It's not so much a question of whether the books themselves are similar or different, it's a question of how the followers intepret the contents. You make an assumption that Muslims take the Koran literally verse for verse and Christians do not take the bible literally. You also say those Muslims that say they don't take it literally are liars. These are pretty broad generalizations to make. And I've seen plenty of Christians take the bible literally (i.e. homosexuality is an abomination.)

Fine: where are the Muslims that will say publicly and outright that the Qu'ran is not to be taken verbatim? And if it is not the word of God, then why is it not to be taken verbatim? You can't have it both ways.

Also, think about your point about the Bible. What you're essentially saying is since that there is more than one holy book that's supposedly the word of a magic guy in the sky and which instructs its readers to do horrible and crazy things, that makes the existence of any one such book okay. I detest the Bible and the Qu'ran equally, but the one (and only one) thing I'll say for the Bible is that a lot fewer people seem to be taking it to heart these days; Christianity, is for all intents and purposes, a dying religion, having lost its European heartland (note the Catholic Church's desperate and pathetic attempts to cling to relevancy), while the numeric, political, and geographic reach of Islam is steadily increasing.

I'm not sure what your point is - that all formalized religion should be abolished? Whether there's one or two or five holy books isn't really the point, is it? They exist and people who follow those religions use them as a guide, that's the reality.

I'm no expert and I'm non-practicing, but having went to Catholic school for 12 years, I know alittle something about religious devotion. The reason I think why Muslims can't say "don't take it word for word." is the same reason why priests and ministers can't say "don't take the bible word for word." It's because to do so publicly would say you should doubt the religion, and religious leaders can't have that happen.

However, I know that people who practice various faiths, in private, often discuss the hypocracy, contradictions, and "not-so-loving" passages in the holy books. Most people with common sense do so, and just try to apply the broader ideas to their life.

I'm not sure I agree that Christianity is dying. from what I've read, the number of Christians in the world has been consistent for a long time. Islam is growing at a slightly larger pace, but again, I'm not sure what the point of this is, if the real concern is with those radicalized factions.

Of course they don't address this. It would ruin everything.

Nice. So a couple of people signed a petition and she "reached out" to some Muslims and was "thankful" as if she could do nothing else. Problem is: Islam is a religion of conquest and supremacy. There is no getting along with others in Islam unless they submit to Muslim rule, so as long they are here, we, Americans, are at risk, like Molly. Look at the terror that pastor in Florida caused to the American government, including Obama and even Petreus.

This is nothing new; Islam has been fanatical since it began. Here's a letter from Sulieman Assad to the French government in 1943:

“The Alawites refuse to be annexed to Muslim Syria,” Suleiman Assad, grandfather of President Bashar Assad, wrote in a petition to France during the second period in 1943. “In Syria, the official religion of the state is Islam, and according to Islam, the Alawites are considered infidels…The spirit of hatred and fanaticism imbedded in the hearts of the Arab Muslims against everything that is non-Muslim has been perpetually nurtured by the Islamic religion. There is no hope that the situation will ever change. Therefore, the abolition of the mandate will expose the minorities in Syria to the dangers of death and annihilation.”

(Note: Syria is ruled by the non-Muslim, minority Alawites.)

As long as our government fails to stand up to Islamic intimidation, we are in deep trouble.

Daisy Rauf said "We have to convince people that not all Muslims are extremists.” This is true, of course, but an inescapable FACT is that the archetypal Muslim, the man who set the moral foundation and laid down canonnical law for Islam, Mu-ham-mad, WAS an extremist himself.

Far from being a 'holy prophet', Mu-ham-mad was a sadistic sociopath, a murderer, a slaver, a torturer, a decapitator, an amputator, a human trafficker, a rapist, a sex slaver, a child rapist, a looting stealing thief, a perfidious liar, a kidnapper, a misogynist, an intolerant bigot, a genocidist and a self proclaimed terrorist.

Mu-ham-mad was a self aggrandizing narcissist, consumed by unquenchable sexual lust, material greed and violent power. Moha-mad was the first mass murderer or the first charles mansion . easy to understand now ?

In truth, mu-ham-mad represented the very WORST of humanity in EVERY ASPECT.

DON'T YOU AGREE WITH ME ?

Islam was birthed in Mu-ham-mad's 'extremism'. It grew by 'extremism'. There has not been a single year in the post-hijra history of Mu-ham-mad's cult in which Islamic terror and 'extremism' didn't reign.

The world is on a civilizational collision course of unprecedented magnitude. We are facing nothing less than an ISLAMIC WORLD WAR, driven by the totalitarian ideology of Mu-ham-mad's Islam.

There are only 2 ways to end this:

1) the ideological destruction of Islam, or

2) massive world war

We should do everything in our power to destroy the ideology of Islam as to avoid world war. We don't need guns or bombs, and we don't want death and destruction.

All we need is to speak the truth about Islam and Mu-ham-mad, as recorded in Islam's very own 'holy' books.

Mu-ham-mad is Islam's Achilles heel. Exposing him as the savage, sadistic sociopath that he was will crack the foundation of Islam. We must educate non-Muslims about the truth of Mu-ham-mad, and challenge Muslims to defend his barbarity. Eventually, everyone will see that it is impossible to defend the indefensible.

The ideological destruction of Islam is the greatest HUMAN RIGHTS IMPERATIVE in the history of mankind. Never before has a single totalitarian ideology so impacted the entire population of the planet - 5 billion non-Muslims terrorized by Mu-ham-mad's Jihad, and 1.5 billion Muslims enslaved by Mu-ham-mads violent ideology of submission.

The ideological destruction of Islam will free 5 billion non-Muslim 'INFIDELS' from the fear of Mu-ham-mad's Jihad, and will liberate 1.5 billion Muslims from Mu-ham-mad's oppressive yoke of submission.

ISLAM MUST BE DESTROYED!!!

HOW WILL YOU CONTRIBUTE ?

A "phobia" is an irrational fear. Thus, "homophobia" is an irrational fear of homosexuality.

Which, of course, is silly on several levels. ISLAMOPHOBIA REFERS TO AN IRRATIONAL FEAR.

BUT FEAR OF ISLAM IS TOTALLY RATIONAL.

SO THE TERM ISLAMOPHOBIA IS NOT SILLY, BUT IT IS MISLEADING, IN A HAZARDOUS WAY.

anytime someone says "don't you agree with me?" in a post, my brain classifies it as batshit crazy and moves along. trying to read your 7 posts was like trying to read a bottle of doctor bronners soap, i can't even try without getting a headache from all the insane.

Although I agree with you, you said nothing about the history lesson given. Everything dr. music said about Muhammed is true; check the history books. That's one thing the Christians have over Islam. Their central figure was a peaceful hippie.

alright:

doc bronner is mostly love and peace and stuff, and yay to the invisible unprovable oniscient thing that exists that some human wrote about and obviously that guy must have known this god thing personally because why would someone lie in a book? all love all love up above one heart one love god like doves joyful cleaning soap. -Soapmaker Mike (i wish i could make it tiny font).

'Dem Cowpokes: man, the only thing i see as a history lesson is the stuff about 9 year old girls, and considering that 500 years ago people were married running their farm with kids of their own and living to a ripe old 34 years, that whole 9 year olds thing might not be as culturally repulsive then (when ever mohammad was around, 1000, 1500 years ago?) as it is now. not that i'm a scholar on ancient anything, but logically...

and all that is totally outweighed by the advocation of genocide every 4 lines. and the crazy use of all caps.

i meant to say married with kids and farming at 13 years old.

and because i gotta throw it out there...

"9 year olds dude."

"what's a pederast, Walter?"

"Donny, shut the fuck up."

Well, he also almost certainly never actually existed, but that helps also.

Who? Jesus? He's also in history books from scholars of that day.

Are you sure? Like who? If I'm correct, the first person to write about Jesus (decades after his death) was Paul, who never claimed to have met or seen him.

Josephus, for one. I'm sure there are others. But why would you discredit those who wrote about him years later? A lot of people view the Bible as having some of the first written historical accounts of man. Take away the miracles and magic, and it's pretty straightforward, boring historical accounts.