@ tolstoy, I get where you're coming from, esp. since its chew, but I dont think one has to study sharia at an accredited university to have a grasp of it.

School, how about you.

WTF I think somebody murdered TC and replaced him with a more friendly doppleganger. I've read two straight posts by him and he's actually made sense twice in a row?? Quick TC, spew some neo-conservative garbage so I know you're still OK!

This is trolling par excellence, from our resident countertroll hypocrite. So much for the idea that he wasn't trying to goad people into a debate or fishing for trolls. See, he has so much to do he can't be bothered with trolls since he's so hard working.

Tolstoy thinks it's "anti-Muslim" to dispute the myths about how great and glorious Islamic civilization is compared to the inferior European/Christian civilization, a claim he has made repeatedly. Apparently continually regurgitating nonsense about how Muslims are better than everyone else isn't bigotry, or chauvinism, it's just "truthtelling". Just like all that paleo-libertarian bullshit about race & IQ, and how government sponsored racial equality legislation has led to 'big gubmint' horrors, etc. It's always called "race realism" if it's about any group that Tolstoy doesn't care much for. It's only bigotry when his favored group is "targeted", which for whatever weird reason is Muslims.

My guess is the only reason Tolstoy adores Muslims is because he can cry about anti-Muslim bias every time he engages in his obligatory anti-Semitic rants about Israel. Ditto for Sicarius. Notice he wants to reclaim the racial term Semite and then say anti-Jewish prejudice can't possibly be anti-Semitic if it's from Arabs. That gives him cover for saying any amount of anti-Jewish garbage like this crap about the Khazar conversion.

"School, how about you"

School for me as well. I studied for a year with Muzammil Siddiqi, former head of the Shura Council of North America. Who did you study with?

"Tolstoy thinks it's "anti-Muslim" to dispute the myths about how great and glorious Islamic civilization"

I didn't know a concept that is embraced by almost the entirety of academia could be called a 'myth'. For someone who is so eager to accuse people of being 'anti-intellectual', your embrace of the extremely fringe views put forth by Fox Noise and evangelical Christofascists is positively bizarre (particularly for an atheist communist).

"Just like all that paleo-libertarian bullshit about race & IQ"

Funny. I don't think I've ever given any opinion on this subject here. But of course you're not the sort of person to let someone's actual views get in the way of running over one of your favorite straw men. (and quite ironically, Charles Murray (while not Jewish himself) is a Jewish supremacist and fairly hardcore zionist)

" For someone who is so eager to accuse people of being 'anti-intellectual', your embrace of the extremely fringe views"

I didn't realize Franz Rosenthal's work on Islamic history was 'fringe'. Like I said, Islamic superiority is "truthtelling". Any critical thinking of that meme is "Islamophobia" or whatever. For someone who has no problem spouting off 'very fringe'' views on a whole range of subjects it's quite rich that you're now appealing to conformity and orthodoxy when it suits you.

"(particularly for an atheist communist)."

I lost track of the memo that said atheistic communists are supposed to hate the European civilization from whence it came while adoring jihad which as we all know, has been so friendly towards atheistic communists. Yes, indeed, we're all supposed to embrace dhimmitude and devsirme, of ritual beheadings and the wanton destruction of churches including some of the holiest sites in all of Christendom, and the destruction of numerous great civilizations from which we will never recover.

You keep using Rothbard and Murray's Jewishness as some kind of magic shield that deflects from the fact that they had/have a serious loathing of black people (as does every paleo-libertarian for that matter, just take a gander at the clowns at LVMI), or that somehow that this defends you and your ilk's dislike of Jews.

No matter what I say you'll always come back with "But HAHA Rothbard is Jewish, so I can't be racist!". You've done this on at least three separate occasions. You're worse than Fulham with the unoriginal red herrings at this point.

And I'd point out, the being Jewish defense never seems to work with your critique of Marx's views on his own people, but somehow Rothbard gets a pass.

My Middle Eastern professor is dead no doubt you would not know him.
Any system that denies women economic, political, social, and legal rights that men have is patriarchal in my opinion.
Sharia law does deny women economic, political, social, and legal rights that men have in my opinion because the Qu'ran and Sunnah upon which Sharia are patriarchal in their own right.
It is my recollection that the jurist who interpret the Qu'ran and Sunnah must be men.
Is my recollection accurate or are there some women jurist who interpret the Qu'ran and Sunnah?

The majority of people who hate Muslims do so out of fear rather than out of some greater understanding of them that most rational people are lacking.

Having said that, there are a number of good reasons why people have the right to fear Muslims (although not hate, certainly) - perhaps such fears would be a good avenue to take the discussion?

i dont hate muslims i am afraid
i was in the israeli army during the peace process of oslo done by rabin
many times i drunk coffee with palestinians members of hamas and hizbala
spoke about many diferent things,their family,the future,etc
as individuals they are just like any other ppl ,just want peace and happyness but as a colective they can be ruthless and cruel.they are very devoted to theyr leaders and family(families of thousands)
they are far away of our occidental way of thinking.in a way i am not sure i will ever understand.in adition to that they are very much influenced by religious and money coming from iran.
one of them can be your friend,two of them can not.they want to kill us all not only the jews.all the western civilisation is wrong acording their religius leaders jihad is more then a word for them.
they need to save the world from ppl like us.
i dont hate them,i am scared to death

@ taos, agreed. All major religions have their scary ass fundamentalists. I think the scariest ones are in the USA though, cuz here the extremists have the button!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-scahill/us-soldiers-in-afghanista_b_195639.html

http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/hunting-for-jesus-fundamentalism-miltary

"the scariest ones are in the USA though, cuz here the extremists have the button!"

Unlike in Pakistan, India, or Israel, you mean??

or north korea

israel are not extremist
how can you compare israel(the only real democracy in the midle east)
to pakistan,india?
not only that ,the only nation who used "the buton"on civilians until today is u.s.a
and israel never admited to have nukes

We're talking about religious extremists/'fundamentalists' though, North Korea doesn't really fit that bill.

please taos

Israel has nuclear weapons, that is generally accepted.
Israel has extremists just in the same way that India has extremists.
Israel's persecution of the Palestinian people in their own homeland is extreme.
Orthodox Jews can be just as extremist as 'fundamentalist' Muslims.

Israel can be classed as a nuclear power country with powerful extremist elements, that supports extremist policies, that practices and endorses religious extremism.

I wouldnt fully seperate North korea from religious extremism, their religion is just based on the Kims

Your confusing a personality cult for religion.

not
orthodox jews are not extremists and beleive in the holiness of life, they are a minority and i dont think they will ever get their hands on the buton
the most problematic jews are the stlers and they make most of the shit to palestinians and the rest of israel is not on theyr side
most of the ppl in israel arent religious at all and not extremist. @sargmacher,israel doesnt persecute palestinians ,all what israel does is self defence
i know that for sure,i was part of it,and was there.
sometimes things go wrong and it may seem like israel is bad kiling inocent ppl
but what can you do when they(palestinians)shoot misiles to our cities wile they are hiding in places full of kids

Taos, try driving your car through mea shearim (sp?) on shabbat and tell me they aren't extremist.
And that's not even getting into the settlements...

I hate Muslims only as much as I hate any other people who practice racist and womanizing customs based on the absurdest notion of following their religion.

@yonni if you drive trough mea shearim on shabat then you are looking for troubles everybody knows it
respect theyr shabat
maybe you are rigth but we were talking about terrorists ,they dont care if you respect them .or not

they just want us dead
shabat or other day and they will come to you

"Sharia law does deny women economic, political, social, and legal rights that men have in my opinion because the Qu'ran and Sunnah upon which Sharia are patriarchal in their own right."

This is incorrect. Islam gave women the right to own property, divorce, inherit, required a woman's consent for marriage, etc. All this at a time when women in Christendom enjoyed *none* of these rights - in fact, these are very recent innovations in the west. Yes, there are some patriarchal aspects to Islamic law (particularly in the Hanbali school of law, which predominates in the Arabian Penninsula and is the well from which Salafism sprung). When I was studying the Qu'ran and Sunnah, I got a very 1950s USA "Father Knows Best"-ish vibe from it, and nothing worse than that. A lot of the horrific things associated with Islam (female genital mutilation, burkas, 'honor killings', etc.) are local tribal customs that have absolutely no justification in Sharia.

Additionally, women have often played important roles in politics in the Islamic world, from 'Aisha leading (what would become) the Sunni faction in the first Fitna and commanding the army in the Battle of the Camel to the influence of the harem on Ottoman politics. Women often acted as regents for their sons who inherited kingdoms or empires - something that was unusual (though not unheard of) in the Christian west.

"Is my recollection accurate or are there some women jurist who interpret the Qu'ran and Sunnah? "

The #2 originator of ahadith was 'Aisha, who also did a fair amount of interpreting in her day, making her perspective an important part of Sharia. Ditto, I believe, for Fatima (at least, for Shi'ites). I cannot recall any famous female jurists offhand, but particularly in Sufism, women have played an important role. There are more than a few female Sufi saints (Rabia of Basrah comes to mind).

Only Islamo-fetishism would hail the fact that women had more rights in medieval times than in the current period, while attributing the universal lack of women's rights in the Islamic world these days solely to the particularities of local customs.

But anyway women cannot marry non-Muslim men, whereas Muslim men can. Women must have consent of their 'guardian' to get married, men have no such requirement (so much for the idea that women are really free to choose their spouses). Muslim men are also permitted daughter/bride swaps, in which they mutually sell off their daughters for marriage. No consent from the daughter is needed nor is any dowry needed. Women are just bought and sold like chattel. Forced marriages are so common Islamic republics have to repeatedly state that they're not permitted, because that's how much Muslims care about women's rights. In Afghanistan it is reported (in 2004) that close to 60% of women were married before the supposed legal age of 16. Which essentially means at least 60% of all marriages were *forced*. Now this is the year 2004, not 1204, and we're supposed to be impressed with Muslim attitudes towards consensual marriage?

Furthermore, men can have four wives (this doesn't even include temporary wives), women cannot have more than one husband. Women are compelled to make themselves available for sex for their husbands at all times. Married men are permitted to have sex with married/unmarried slave women and (non-slave) unmarried women, they're only not allowed to have sex with married women. Islamic law sanctions prostitution, so-called temporary marriages, in which basically men pay women for marriages which last for a few hours. In this way, their sex tourism can be religiously sanctioned. Furthermore, women inherit absolutely nothing from such marriages.

As for right for the general "right of inheritance", women can only get half the inheritance of men. Similarly, a woman's testimony in court counts for half that of a man's. A woman who is raped requires four male witnesses to confirm it happened. If they do not meet that standard, they are considered adulterers.

Let's all line up and salute Sharia for being so much more progressive than those evil Christians, because paleo-libertarians have to be self-loathing about everything.

I'm not really contributing to this thread, but just want to throw this into the fire. Today a man climbed a balcony at the Vatican and burned the Bible. He was arrested I believe. Now would I be treated that justly if I went to Mecca and burned the Koran?

You'd cause a massive riot without random passerbys being slaughtered and somehow the Islamo-fetishizers would blame you for all of those innocent people dying. Much like the Danish cartoonish was blamed for over 100 random people being killed.

*with

ha, just read an article and its even worse than that. The guy did it while the Pope was giving Mass, and beatifying 3 saints.

http://www.news24.com/World/News/Pope-names-3-saints-man-disrupts-Mass-20111023

Good lord, you'd be dead in Mecca