How political correctness works at American academic institutions (part 2)
Continued:
In response to: Response to racial profiling discussion
Questions for Seva
by Syed Haque, Thu, 3/31/2005 7:43:55 PM EST
Hi Seva,
I have two questions for you.
1) What do you define as terrorism? As you know, a concrete definition of the word does not exist; each nation defines it differently. What's your definition?
2) Have you actually read the Quran?
The whole thing? And if so, what translation? (If you can, please cite the author of the translation). As you know, every time a religious text is translated, it loses a great deal of its original meaning. You will agree that the King James version of the New Testament is probably very different from the original Aramaic. When Arabic is translated into English, or Russian, or even Esperanto, it loses a lot of the true meaning. It's possible the copy you read was a really bad translation.
And if not, then you're simply taking verses out of context. Don't worry, you wouldn't be the first person to do so. Osama Bin Laden and his ilk consistently take verses out of context to justify their actions. The Quran DOES NOT condone violence. Those who say that it does are misintrepreting the verses and/or taking the verses out of context.
Of course, you don't agree, and I don't expect you to. But let's start the debate.
Syed Haque
In response to: Questions for Seva
Answers for Syed
by Seva Brodsky, Sat, 4/02/2005 3:19:08 AM EST
"1) What do you define as terrorism? As you know, a concrete definition of the word does not exist; each nation defines it differently. What's your definition?"
Deliberate and purposeful murder of civilians to achieve political gains.
And this is what the UN Security Council said on October 09, 2004: "All intentional acts of violence against civilians are unjustifiable by any political, ideological, racial, ethnic or religious considerations."
"2) Have you actually read the Quran? The whole thing? And if so, what translation? (If you can, please cite the author of the translation)."
I've lost my paperback copy a while back -- it was translated by an Arab gentleman some decades ago, can't recall his name now. However, various versions of the book are available online in many places, e.g.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~stwright/rel/islam/Quran.html
http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html
etc.
Anyway, I read it like I read the Bible and the Torah -- going only into those details that interested me at the time, rather than in academic manner, surah by surah, verse by verse -- living in this country does not give one the luxury of a purist approach, unless one becomes an ascetic, which I could ill-afford. But then again, one does not read encyclopaedia cover to cover either. Besides, I have read numerous scholarly commentaries dealing with specific aspects, concentrating on the issues of interest to me.
"As you know, every time a religious text is translated, it loses a great deal of its original meaning. You will agree that the King James version of the New Testament is probably very different from the original Aramaic. When Arabic is translated into English, or Russian, or even Esperanto, it loses a lot of the true meaning. It's possible the copy you read was a really bad translation. And if not, then you're simply taking verses out of context."
Sorry, Syed, but this is one of the oldest and lamest excuses I have heard oh so many times by now -- I simply do not buy it, nor do many other people, who are more intelligent and more informed than I am.
Yes, it is true that sometimes it is difficult to translate a word or a phrase exactly, but you know what? Modern linguists do a fine job of it, using numerous synonyms, equivalent idioms, and detailed explanations -- I should know, for I grew up in another country, speaking another language, and one of my hobbies is collecting English translations of my favorite Russian poetry, and you'd be surprised how fine a job those translators did.
The excuse/explanation you've given me above is the standard, typical, quintessential pseudo-argument and an exercise in propagandist obfuscation by means of a smokescreen. Try this demagoguery on someone else -- it just might work on somebody who knows less. Remember, knowledge = power.
"Don't worry, you wouldn't be the first person to do so. Osama Bin Laden and his ilk consistently take verses out of context to justify their actions. The Quran DOES NOT condone violence. Those who say that it does are misintrepreting the verses and/or taking the verses out of context."
Let's see, can I use the word "bulls**t" on TWEN? Or should I instead say "lies, propaganda, more lies, obfuscation, and lies"?
Does the term "abrogation" within the context of the Q'uran and the Hadiths mean anything to you? Should I, the infidel, give YOU, the faithful one, the history of Islam, and the doctrinal foundations of the Q'uran? The earlier (and therefore more peaceful) Meccan surahs, while the Prophet was in the minority, being trumped/superceded by the more violent ones from Yatrib (Medina), after Mohammad consolidated power and could thus afford to be brutal to his enemies?
Do you really take me for a complete ignoramus, or have you decided to play mind games with me? Please, choose someone who knows less or is more willing for that exercise. The Q'uran not only DOES condone violence -- there are enough verses where it is STIPULATED -- please read it again. You wouldn't want me to embarass you by giving all the citations where violence is expressly called for, including against the infidels?
"Of course, you don't agree, and I don't expect you to."
That's an easy one, duh ...
"But let's start the debate."
I'd much rather not -- I've been in those many times before -- you won't change my mind, nor will I change yours. Of course we could do the dog and pony show for the benefit of some of our classmates, who hold on to the idealist liberal notions that all religions are equal, blah-blah-blah, trying to sway them one way or another -- count me out, for I got bigger fish to fry.
If you really want to debate someone, I could unleash a good number of reputable Islamic scholars on you, and they would tear any of your arguments to shreds. Let's spare our limited resources, and do something more productive with our lives. I got 6 classes to deal with, as well as the neo-Nazis, Islamo-fascists, and hard-core leftists to fight, whereas you got whatever it is that you do.
As'salam alaikum.
In response to: Answers for Syed
Wailaikum Salaam
by Syed Haque, Fri, 4/01/2005 10:33:42 AM EST
And Peace unto you as well.
In response to: Questions for Seva
One more comment for Syed Haque
by Seva Brodsky, Tue, 4/26/2005 11:30:34 PM EDT
"2) Have you actually read the Quran? The whole thing? And if so, what translation? (If you can, please cite the author of the translation). As you know, every time a religious text is translated, it loses a great deal of its original meaning. You will agree that the King James version of the New Testament is probably very different from the original Aramaic. When Arabic is translated into English, or Russian, or even Esperanto, it loses a lot of the true meaning. It's possible the copy you read was a really bad translation."
Syed, your statement above is also rather disingenuous for the following reasons:
Most Muslims in this world actually do not know Arabic -- they do not speak it, nor do they read or understand it. Many of those who recite the Quran in Arabic have no clue what they are saying, just like many of the medieval monks or priests, who recited in Latin, did NOT know that language nor did they understand what they were saying. Rote memorization does not the knowledge make.
There are about 300 million Arabs in the world, among the 1.2 billion or so Muslims. Chechens, Pakistanis, Malaysians, Indonesians, Persians, et al. do not know Arabic. Indian, Phillipine, Thai, etc. Muslims do not know Arabic.
Are you going to tell me that they, too, do not understand the Quran? If so, there is a major problem out there, as three quarters of the world's Muslims do not understand Arabic, and thus do not understand the Quran properly, if one is to assume your logic.
In response to: Politically correct setting
Islam
by Rulla Moor, Thu, 3/31/2005 2:50:00 PM EST
P.P.S. Why don't you read the Holy Q'uran and find out for yourself where I am coming from? If Islam is the "Religion of Peace," then Communism is the recipe for Paradise on Earth. Both have been tried -- one down (debunked by history already), one more to go -- stay tuned. Unless, of course, Islam changes and evolves, truly embracing modernity, peace, religious diversity, tolerance, pluralism, self-reflection, freedom of speech, of criticism, and of dissent, civilized discourse, and all the other basic values which we "hold as self-evident."
---- Once again, your responses anger me so much that I'm shaking. If you know anything about Islam you would not have made the very ignorant above statements. Islam doesn't need to change, people just need to be more open-minded and actually learn about it before making bigotted remarks. If you know anything about history, then you would know that Islam protects and respects all religions. Look at our history and you'll see that Muslims protected the Jews from persecution. We also believe in the prophets Jesus and Moses and believe Christianity and Judiasim are religions of god as well. Islam also believes in freedom of speech. Growing up Muslim I was always taught that Islam encourages us to question its teachings in order to discover it for ourselves and to truly believe what we practice. So I'm not sure where you get your very misguided ideas about Islam as it being intolerant of free speech and other religions. Another thing, Muslim women had equal rights long before Western women did. All those basic "self-evident" ideas that you mention above are nothing new to Islam. They're the essence of it. I'm just sorry that you and others like you can't see it and continue to bash Muslims and Islam. You can respond to this email if you like, but I will not respond back. I see no reason to have a discussion with someone who can make such horrible comments without understanding the Middle East and Muslims.
In response to: Islam
Islam, as some would prefer to portray it
by Seva Brodsky, Sat, 4/02/2005 3:16:43 AM EST
"Once again, your responses anger me so much that I'm shaking."
Now, Rulla, why might that be? If someone said something bad or stupid about Judaism (BTW, I am an agnostic Jew), I might choose to just shrug it off, or to ask questions, or to engage in a debate -- I certainly would not be "angry" or "shaking" or call my opponent all sorts of names -- what kind of a childish reaction is that? Grow up. Or learn from Syed, who chose a more mature, clever (and cunning) way to deal with me.
After all, you are being trained to become a lawyer, and you'll have to face adversaries in the courtroom -- is this how you are going react to their statements? If so, you might want to reconsider your career choice.
"If you know anything about Islam you would not have made the very ignorant above statements."
Oh, really? See my response to Syed.
"Islam doesn't need to change, people just need to be more open-minded and actually learn about it before making bigotted remarks."
No, Rulla, it's the people who are preaching and practicing Islam who need to change -- they need to start being more inquisitive, critical, open-minded, tolerant and pluralistic. Islam is the only religion in modern history that is still unaccepting of the "kafirs" (infidels).
Does the term "dhimmi" (dhimma) mean anything to you? For the benefit of those who don't know, it's a Muslim concept of an infidel, who refused to convert to Islam, but who was allowed to live as a second-class citizen under "dhimmitude" (official state apartheid), paying "jiziya" (special unbeliever poll tax), only because that person happened to be one of "the people of the Book" -- a Jew, or a Christian, or a Zoroastrian (Parsi).
As for all the others (Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Shintoists, Daoists, animists, etc., and later, Baha'i, et al.) -- sorry, folks, too bad -- the males refusing conversion were to be slaughtered (their throats slit, as per Islamic teaching -- see it being implemented in Iraq, Pakistan, Chechnya, etc.), and the women and children were to become war booty (slaves and concubines).
Now, this is not to say that Islam is practiced like this everywhere and by every Muslim -- far from it. But this is the history, going back to the 7th century of C.E. And dhimmitude, folks, is still alive and, I'm sorry to say, all too well in some countries today.
"If you know anything about history, then you would know that Islam protects and respects all religions."
What a damn lie! And such an old one, too. You probably think that if this canard is repeated often enough and long enough, people will start believing it? See Joseph Goebbels, the Propaganda Minister of the Third Reich, who professed such tactics. And see above. Do you really believe this old wife's tale yourself? The so-called dhimmis (the people of the Book) were indeed called "protected" -- but by whom and from whom? See http://dhimmitude.org/ . Also, the popular perennial myth of Islamic tolerance coming from you, Rulla, is rather self-serving due to the inherent conflict of interest - it's like having a KGB spokesman glorifying the virtues of Stalinism. Duh ...
"Look at our history and you'll see that Muslims protected the Jews from persecution."
Yeah, right. Another common lie -- why are they always the same, those lies? Just how long do you insist on repeating them? Why don't you read some historians of Islam? Where do you get your information? The Saudi Ministry of Propaganda?
"We also believe in the prophets Jesus and Moses and believe Christianity and Judiasim are religions of god as well."
Yeah, right, except those prophets are considered gone astray -- Mohammad's was the final revelation, and the only true one.
"Islam also believes in freedom of speech."
Sure, sure, just about as much as Communism and Nazism did.
"Growing up Muslim I was always taught that Islam encourages us to question its teachings in order to discover it for ourselves and to truly believe what we practice."
Lucky you, then -- you must've grown up in a decent family that embraced diversity and modernity. I wish the same could be said about most of the rest of the Muslim world.
"So I'm not sure where you get your very misguided ideas about Islam as it being intolerant of free speech and other religions."
Oh my, where do I start with this one? Let's see -- there are 22 Arab countries, and none of them are democratic. Iraq now has a chance, as might Lebanon. There are 57 Muslim countries in the world (including the above 22), and none of them are truly democratic yet (yes, even Turkey).
Most of those countries' regimes are based on the Islamic tradition, many of them practicing the strict "sharia" law, which knows no separation between the church (the mosque) and the state. And in most of those countries non-Muslims have a hard time. Should I go on, or is this enough? I would suggest that the readers check out this book and the reviews:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/083864077X/qid=1112343751/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-5798182-6986310?v=glance&s=books
"Another thing, Muslim women had equal rights long before Western women did."
Certain rights, like property. However, if we look at the Muslim world these days, there aren't that many countries where women have a status equal with men. As a matter of fact, women are treated like dirt in most of them, which is one of the biggest problems those countries will have to overcome to enter the fold of the "civilized" world.
"All those basic 'self-evident' ideas that you mention above are nothing new to Islam. They're the essence of it."
Sure, sure -- night is day, and black is white. Try this propaganda on someone else, will you? Tell me, Rulla, why is it that practically all Islamic regimes are backward, totalitarian, undemocratic, and ruthlessly oppressive? Is it that Islam is good, but the people are bad, or the other way around?
People are generally the same the world over, despite our racial and ethnic differences, and to say otherwise would be racism, pure and simple -- that is why we are capable of producing offspring no matter where the different parents are from, just as long as they are of opposite genders, and even that might be subject to change with the quirky advances of science.
So it must be the culture then, and the cultures of the various and diverse Muslim countries have one thing in common -- the religion of Islam, which runs the gamut from its Indonesian version all the way to Saudi Arabian Wahhabism and Iranian Islamo-fascism.
"I'm just sorry that you and others like you can't see it and continue to bash Muslims and Islam."
Don't feel obliged to feel sorry for us, for we are doing just fine -- I would suggest that you start feeling sorry for the less fortunate Muslims than yourself -- the ones who are being oppressed by their totalitarian Islamist regimes, not knowing the meaning of freedom and democracy, suffering the humiliation and deprivation, in large part due to the inflexibility and backwardness of their religion as it is being preached and practiced today, preventing and stifling innovation and creativity, which are the essential components of a free and civilized society.
"You can respond to this email if you like, but I will not respond back. I see no reason to have a discussion with someone who can make such horrible comments without understanding the Middle East and Muslims."
Oh, sure, I've only been studying the Middle East on and off for about 10 years, and Islam for the past 5 years, and closely, I might add -- more or less on a full-time basis -- so naturally, I know nothing and understand even less. As do many notable and respectable historians and sociologists, psychologists and politicians, writers and journalists, jurists and anthropologists, philosophers and theologians, et al.
Thank you for your persmission to respond, by the way -- it was most generous. In a Muslim country I would be either stoned to death, or have my silly ignorant head severed from my sinful body for such statements.
I hereby would like to thank the amazing American Constitution, the government and the people of the United States who allowed me and my family to come here and be whatever I can be, and say whatever I want to say -- folks, this is such a treasure and such a joy, some recently exhibited closed-mindedness and peculiarly intolerant mob mentality notwithstanding.
At least you didn't stone me. Not yet.
In response to: Response to racial profiling discussion
Questions for Seva
by Syed Haque, Thu, 3/31/2005 7:43:55 PM EST
Hi Seva,
I have two questions for you.
1) What do you define as terrorism? As you know, a concrete definition of the word does not exist; each nation defines it differently. What's your definition?
2) Have you actually read the Quran?
The whole thing? And if so, what translation? (If you can, please cite the author of the translation). As you know, every time a religious text is translated, it loses a great deal of its original meaning. You will agree that the King James version of the New Testament is probably very different from the original Aramaic. When Arabic is translated into English, or Russian, or even Esperanto, it loses a lot of the true meaning. It's possible the copy you read was a really bad translation.
And if not, then you're simply taking verses out of context. Don't worry, you wouldn't be the first person to do so. Osama Bin Laden and his ilk consistently take verses out of context to justify their actions. The Quran DOES NOT condone violence. Those who say that it does are misintrepreting the verses and/or taking the verses out of context.
Of course, you don't agree, and I don't expect you to. But let's start the debate.
Syed Haque
In response to: Questions for Seva
Answers for Syed
by Seva Brodsky, Sat, 4/02/2005 3:19:08 AM EST
"1) What do you define as terrorism? As you know, a concrete definition of the word does not exist; each nation defines it differently. What's your definition?"
Deliberate and purposeful murder of civilians to achieve political gains.
And this is what the UN Security Council said on October 09, 2004: "All intentional acts of violence against civilians are unjustifiable by any political, ideological, racial, ethnic or religious considerations."
"2) Have you actually read the Quran? The whole thing? And if so, what translation? (If you can, please cite the author of the translation)."
I've lost my paperback copy a while back -- it was translated by an Arab gentleman some decades ago, can't recall his name now. However, various versions of the book are available online in many places, e.g.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~stwright/rel/islam/Quran.html
http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html
etc.
Anyway, I read it like I read the Bible and the Torah -- going only into those details that interested me at the time, rather than in academic manner, surah by surah, verse by verse -- living in this country does not give one the luxury of a purist approach, unless one becomes an ascetic, which I could ill-afford. But then again, one does not read encyclopaedia cover to cover either. Besides, I have read numerous scholarly commentaries dealing with specific aspects, concentrating on the issues of interest to me.
"As you know, every time a religious text is translated, it loses a great deal of its original meaning. You will agree that the King James version of the New Testament is probably very different from the original Aramaic. When Arabic is translated into English, or Russian, or even Esperanto, it loses a lot of the true meaning. It's possible the copy you read was a really bad translation. And if not, then you're simply taking verses out of context."
Sorry, Syed, but this is one of the oldest and lamest excuses I have heard oh so many times by now -- I simply do not buy it, nor do many other people, who are more intelligent and more informed than I am.
Yes, it is true that sometimes it is difficult to translate a word or a phrase exactly, but you know what? Modern linguists do a fine job of it, using numerous synonyms, equivalent idioms, and detailed explanations -- I should know, for I grew up in another country, speaking another language, and one of my hobbies is collecting English translations of my favorite Russian poetry, and you'd be surprised how fine a job those translators did.
The excuse/explanation you've given me above is the standard, typical, quintessential pseudo-argument and an exercise in propagandist obfuscation by means of a smokescreen. Try this demagoguery on someone else -- it just might work on somebody who knows less. Remember, knowledge = power.
"Don't worry, you wouldn't be the first person to do so. Osama Bin Laden and his ilk consistently take verses out of context to justify their actions. The Quran DOES NOT condone violence. Those who say that it does are misintrepreting the verses and/or taking the verses out of context."
Let's see, can I use the word "bulls**t" on TWEN? Or should I instead say "lies, propaganda, more lies, obfuscation, and lies"?
Does the term "abrogation" within the context of the Q'uran and the Hadiths mean anything to you? Should I, the infidel, give YOU, the faithful one, the history of Islam, and the doctrinal foundations of the Q'uran? The earlier (and therefore more peaceful) Meccan surahs, while the Prophet was in the minority, being trumped/superceded by the more violent ones from Yatrib (Medina), after Mohammad consolidated power and could thus afford to be brutal to his enemies?
Do you really take me for a complete ignoramus, or have you decided to play mind games with me? Please, choose someone who knows less or is more willing for that exercise. The Q'uran not only DOES condone violence -- there are enough verses where it is STIPULATED -- please read it again. You wouldn't want me to embarass you by giving all the citations where violence is expressly called for, including against the infidels?
"Of course, you don't agree, and I don't expect you to."
That's an easy one, duh ...
"But let's start the debate."
I'd much rather not -- I've been in those many times before -- you won't change my mind, nor will I change yours. Of course we could do the dog and pony show for the benefit of some of our classmates, who hold on to the idealist liberal notions that all religions are equal, blah-blah-blah, trying to sway them one way or another -- count me out, for I got bigger fish to fry.
If you really want to debate someone, I could unleash a good number of reputable Islamic scholars on you, and they would tear any of your arguments to shreds. Let's spare our limited resources, and do something more productive with our lives. I got 6 classes to deal with, as well as the neo-Nazis, Islamo-fascists, and hard-core leftists to fight, whereas you got whatever it is that you do.
As'salam alaikum.
In response to: Answers for Syed
Wailaikum Salaam
by Syed Haque, Fri, 4/01/2005 10:33:42 AM EST
And Peace unto you as well.
In response to: Questions for Seva
One more comment for Syed Haque
by Seva Brodsky, Tue, 4/26/2005 11:30:34 PM EDT
"2) Have you actually read the Quran? The whole thing? And if so, what translation? (If you can, please cite the author of the translation). As you know, every time a religious text is translated, it loses a great deal of its original meaning. You will agree that the King James version of the New Testament is probably very different from the original Aramaic. When Arabic is translated into English, or Russian, or even Esperanto, it loses a lot of the true meaning. It's possible the copy you read was a really bad translation."
Syed, your statement above is also rather disingenuous for the following reasons:
Most Muslims in this world actually do not know Arabic -- they do not speak it, nor do they read or understand it. Many of those who recite the Quran in Arabic have no clue what they are saying, just like many of the medieval monks or priests, who recited in Latin, did NOT know that language nor did they understand what they were saying. Rote memorization does not the knowledge make.
There are about 300 million Arabs in the world, among the 1.2 billion or so Muslims. Chechens, Pakistanis, Malaysians, Indonesians, Persians, et al. do not know Arabic. Indian, Phillipine, Thai, etc. Muslims do not know Arabic.
Are you going to tell me that they, too, do not understand the Quran? If so, there is a major problem out there, as three quarters of the world's Muslims do not understand Arabic, and thus do not understand the Quran properly, if one is to assume your logic.
In response to: Politically correct setting
Islam
by Rulla Moor, Thu, 3/31/2005 2:50:00 PM EST
P.P.S. Why don't you read the Holy Q'uran and find out for yourself where I am coming from? If Islam is the "Religion of Peace," then Communism is the recipe for Paradise on Earth. Both have been tried -- one down (debunked by history already), one more to go -- stay tuned. Unless, of course, Islam changes and evolves, truly embracing modernity, peace, religious diversity, tolerance, pluralism, self-reflection, freedom of speech, of criticism, and of dissent, civilized discourse, and all the other basic values which we "hold as self-evident."
---- Once again, your responses anger me so much that I'm shaking. If you know anything about Islam you would not have made the very ignorant above statements. Islam doesn't need to change, people just need to be more open-minded and actually learn about it before making bigotted remarks. If you know anything about history, then you would know that Islam protects and respects all religions. Look at our history and you'll see that Muslims protected the Jews from persecution. We also believe in the prophets Jesus and Moses and believe Christianity and Judiasim are religions of god as well. Islam also believes in freedom of speech. Growing up Muslim I was always taught that Islam encourages us to question its teachings in order to discover it for ourselves and to truly believe what we practice. So I'm not sure where you get your very misguided ideas about Islam as it being intolerant of free speech and other religions. Another thing, Muslim women had equal rights long before Western women did. All those basic "self-evident" ideas that you mention above are nothing new to Islam. They're the essence of it. I'm just sorry that you and others like you can't see it and continue to bash Muslims and Islam. You can respond to this email if you like, but I will not respond back. I see no reason to have a discussion with someone who can make such horrible comments without understanding the Middle East and Muslims.
In response to: Islam
Islam, as some would prefer to portray it
by Seva Brodsky, Sat, 4/02/2005 3:16:43 AM EST
"Once again, your responses anger me so much that I'm shaking."
Now, Rulla, why might that be? If someone said something bad or stupid about Judaism (BTW, I am an agnostic Jew), I might choose to just shrug it off, or to ask questions, or to engage in a debate -- I certainly would not be "angry" or "shaking" or call my opponent all sorts of names -- what kind of a childish reaction is that? Grow up. Or learn from Syed, who chose a more mature, clever (and cunning) way to deal with me.
After all, you are being trained to become a lawyer, and you'll have to face adversaries in the courtroom -- is this how you are going react to their statements? If so, you might want to reconsider your career choice.
"If you know anything about Islam you would not have made the very ignorant above statements."
Oh, really? See my response to Syed.
"Islam doesn't need to change, people just need to be more open-minded and actually learn about it before making bigotted remarks."
No, Rulla, it's the people who are preaching and practicing Islam who need to change -- they need to start being more inquisitive, critical, open-minded, tolerant and pluralistic. Islam is the only religion in modern history that is still unaccepting of the "kafirs" (infidels).
Does the term "dhimmi" (dhimma) mean anything to you? For the benefit of those who don't know, it's a Muslim concept of an infidel, who refused to convert to Islam, but who was allowed to live as a second-class citizen under "dhimmitude" (official state apartheid), paying "jiziya" (special unbeliever poll tax), only because that person happened to be one of "the people of the Book" -- a Jew, or a Christian, or a Zoroastrian (Parsi).
As for all the others (Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Shintoists, Daoists, animists, etc., and later, Baha'i, et al.) -- sorry, folks, too bad -- the males refusing conversion were to be slaughtered (their throats slit, as per Islamic teaching -- see it being implemented in Iraq, Pakistan, Chechnya, etc.), and the women and children were to become war booty (slaves and concubines).
Now, this is not to say that Islam is practiced like this everywhere and by every Muslim -- far from it. But this is the history, going back to the 7th century of C.E. And dhimmitude, folks, is still alive and, I'm sorry to say, all too well in some countries today.
"If you know anything about history, then you would know that Islam protects and respects all religions."
What a damn lie! And such an old one, too. You probably think that if this canard is repeated often enough and long enough, people will start believing it? See Joseph Goebbels, the Propaganda Minister of the Third Reich, who professed such tactics. And see above. Do you really believe this old wife's tale yourself? The so-called dhimmis (the people of the Book) were indeed called "protected" -- but by whom and from whom? See http://dhimmitude.org/ . Also, the popular perennial myth of Islamic tolerance coming from you, Rulla, is rather self-serving due to the inherent conflict of interest - it's like having a KGB spokesman glorifying the virtues of Stalinism. Duh ...
"Look at our history and you'll see that Muslims protected the Jews from persecution."
Yeah, right. Another common lie -- why are they always the same, those lies? Just how long do you insist on repeating them? Why don't you read some historians of Islam? Where do you get your information? The Saudi Ministry of Propaganda?
"We also believe in the prophets Jesus and Moses and believe Christianity and Judiasim are religions of god as well."
Yeah, right, except those prophets are considered gone astray -- Mohammad's was the final revelation, and the only true one.
"Islam also believes in freedom of speech."
Sure, sure, just about as much as Communism and Nazism did.
"Growing up Muslim I was always taught that Islam encourages us to question its teachings in order to discover it for ourselves and to truly believe what we practice."
Lucky you, then -- you must've grown up in a decent family that embraced diversity and modernity. I wish the same could be said about most of the rest of the Muslim world.
"So I'm not sure where you get your very misguided ideas about Islam as it being intolerant of free speech and other religions."
Oh my, where do I start with this one? Let's see -- there are 22 Arab countries, and none of them are democratic. Iraq now has a chance, as might Lebanon. There are 57 Muslim countries in the world (including the above 22), and none of them are truly democratic yet (yes, even Turkey).
Most of those countries' regimes are based on the Islamic tradition, many of them practicing the strict "sharia" law, which knows no separation between the church (the mosque) and the state. And in most of those countries non-Muslims have a hard time. Should I go on, or is this enough? I would suggest that the readers check out this book and the reviews:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/083864077X/qid=1112343751/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-5798182-6986310?v=glance&s=books
"Another thing, Muslim women had equal rights long before Western women did."
Certain rights, like property. However, if we look at the Muslim world these days, there aren't that many countries where women have a status equal with men. As a matter of fact, women are treated like dirt in most of them, which is one of the biggest problems those countries will have to overcome to enter the fold of the "civilized" world.
"All those basic 'self-evident' ideas that you mention above are nothing new to Islam. They're the essence of it."
Sure, sure -- night is day, and black is white. Try this propaganda on someone else, will you? Tell me, Rulla, why is it that practically all Islamic regimes are backward, totalitarian, undemocratic, and ruthlessly oppressive? Is it that Islam is good, but the people are bad, or the other way around?
People are generally the same the world over, despite our racial and ethnic differences, and to say otherwise would be racism, pure and simple -- that is why we are capable of producing offspring no matter where the different parents are from, just as long as they are of opposite genders, and even that might be subject to change with the quirky advances of science.
So it must be the culture then, and the cultures of the various and diverse Muslim countries have one thing in common -- the religion of Islam, which runs the gamut from its Indonesian version all the way to Saudi Arabian Wahhabism and Iranian Islamo-fascism.
"I'm just sorry that you and others like you can't see it and continue to bash Muslims and Islam."
Don't feel obliged to feel sorry for us, for we are doing just fine -- I would suggest that you start feeling sorry for the less fortunate Muslims than yourself -- the ones who are being oppressed by their totalitarian Islamist regimes, not knowing the meaning of freedom and democracy, suffering the humiliation and deprivation, in large part due to the inflexibility and backwardness of their religion as it is being preached and practiced today, preventing and stifling innovation and creativity, which are the essential components of a free and civilized society.
"You can respond to this email if you like, but I will not respond back. I see no reason to have a discussion with someone who can make such horrible comments without understanding the Middle East and Muslims."
Oh, sure, I've only been studying the Middle East on and off for about 10 years, and Islam for the past 5 years, and closely, I might add -- more or less on a full-time basis -- so naturally, I know nothing and understand even less. As do many notable and respectable historians and sociologists, psychologists and politicians, writers and journalists, jurists and anthropologists, philosophers and theologians, et al.
Thank you for your persmission to respond, by the way -- it was most generous. In a Muslim country I would be either stoned to death, or have my silly ignorant head severed from my sinful body for such statements.
I hereby would like to thank the amazing American Constitution, the government and the people of the United States who allowed me and my family to come here and be whatever I can be, and say whatever I want to say -- folks, this is such a treasure and such a joy, some recently exhibited closed-mindedness and peculiarly intolerant mob mentality notwithstanding.
At least you didn't stone me. Not yet.