Kareem Abdul-Jabbar On Islam: 'Islamophobia Is On The Rise' (VIDEO)

NBA legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar spoke over the phone with Katia Couric on Wednesday and told her that he believes Islamophobia is on the rise.

"I think Islamophobia is on the rise," the former Los Angeles Laker said. "I think the best way to counter it is just communication, to let people who we are and what we believe in. It's no mystery and it's certainly nothing that we have to be fearful of."

He went on to say that when we're dealing with radical people who "want to have a war with us, that gets thrown into the mix. A whole lot of confusion ensues."

He said the best way in countering that is through education.

Scroll down to watch the video (The portion about Islamophobia starts at the 3:22 mark)

WATCH:

Comments

[Doug Sandlin]

08:03 PM on 01/24/2011

Tariq Ramadan has been mentioned as a "dangerous" person, possibly one with a hidden Islamist agenda.

I feel that Mr. Ramadan's own words indicate that this may not be the case.

I also feel very encouraged that a globally-known Muslim scholar and author made a statement such as the one shown below, and that he made it almost five years ago:

"Taking into account all these considerations, we launch today a call for an immediate international moratorium on corporal punishment, stoning and the death penalty in all Muslim majority countries. Considering that the opinions of most scholars, regarding the comprehension of the texts and the application of hudûd, are neither explicit nor unanimous (indeed there is not even a clear majority), and bearing in mind that political systems and the state of the majority Muslim societies do not guarantee a just and equal treatment of individuals before the law, it is our moral obligation and religious responsibility to demand for the immediate suspension of the application of the hudûd which is inaccurately accepted as an application of “Islamic sharî’a”."
~Tariq Ramadan, April 5, 2005

Source: Tariqramadan.com

[Muslimhumanist]

12:10 PM on 01/24/2011

One of the commentators here asked me, in what I took as a very condescending tone, what I am doing to fight against Islamic extremism. I notice a small group of people commenting on this article--as they do on many articles on Islam--quoting the same tired talking points. I have lots of things to do so I will not have my time siphoned off arguing with people who clearly have already made up their minds that they know all they need to know about Muslims.

Here is what I do...

I teach courses on Islam and world religion at a liberal arts college.
I advise a student group on my campus that brings in a wide variety of speakers and artists.
I speak at non-Muslim groups about Islam.
I speak at Muslim gatherings about the need for tolerance within the ummah and about strategies for confronting extremism and extremist voices.
I conduct research on the Muslim world focusing on the issues of Islamic diversity.
I work with other progressives on issues of peace and justice--because Islam isn't the only issue a Muslim can be interested in.

My point is that there is much to be done and engaging in pointless arguments with people have already decided that religion and general and Islam specifically are just objectively "bad" is not the best use of any person's time.

Thanks to HP for providing interesting article's on Islam and a place for discussion.

Peace/Salaams/Shalom

[The Knocker]

01:32 AM on 01/25/2011

Thank you for your effort and commitment. I hope others will be inspired by your action and you are example for the youth.

[MollyMal]

01:32 PM on 01/23/2011

Puncastle, your response to my previous post was taken* down, but I wanted to respond. Sorry if this is rushed, but I typed it all out and then realized your comment was no longer there.

1) You say I don't even realize that there are entire lecture series devoted to women's rights in Islam. I do actually. The Musl*im friends I mentioned are mostly are pretty insanely well-educated women. So yes, actually, I am aware.

2) You refer to my wanting my "morals and ethics to be a yardstick for everybody". The only moral and ethical issues I brought up are human rights, women's rights and freedom of expression. And yeah, I do think they should be universal. And yes, I know that there are Muslims who do too.

3)You say that I implied that there was a vast "Mus*lim conspiracy" to k*ill Theo Van Gogh. I think I made it clear that I knew he was mur*dered by a single extremist. What I expressed concern about was the response by people -- some Mus*lim, some not -- who it was sad, but he shouldn't have made a film critical of Isla*m. And I strongly disagree that that's the right response.

I was just as disgusted when some Cath*olics offered the "it wasn't all priests" defense. An outrage is an outrage. And people of conscience don't shrink from saying it.

[Talossa]

10:58 PM on 01/23/2011

It is always disappointing when some of us on the Left, who are normally outraged by any oppressive or obscurantist form of religious fundamentalism, turn a blind eye to radical Islam, presumably because they see radical Islamists as the "good guys" in the neverending struggle against the United States or Israel.

All religious fundamentalism is wrong. All oppression and killing in the name of religion is wrong. Period.

[Puncastle]

03:52 AM on 01/24/2011

For all three of your points, you make the sane Muslims sound like the exception, when they are in fact the rule. When there are human rights violations in third world countries, they exist because of an absence of Islam; not because of an application of Islamic principles.

Your previous post indicates a growing problem in this country, known as Islamophobia. It is a phenomenon, in which people identify small pockets of people as representing Islam as a whole and attempt to demonize the entire faith because of the actions of a few zealous extremists.

I don't know what your religious beliefs may be, but I can bet that I can find poor examples of human beings that share your faith. If I were to take that person as a representative of your belief, it would make me a bigot.

[Manny Peddy]

12:21 PM on 01/24/2011

But when extremists from other faiths engage in violent attacks, what is the response of society at large and the mainstream bodies comprising their faiths? When extremists from other faiths make outrageous statements, what is the response of their coreligionists?

Somehow, the same is not true of Islam, or at least the responses and condemnations are very muted.

So...there is a slight difference, don't you see?

And that is why Islam is in the unique position that it is.

[MollyMal]

07:38 PM on 01/24/2011

So now my response didn't make it through. Here's another attempt. When you say that the human rights violations are happening because of the absence of Islam, it reminds me a bit of the old Richard Pryor (was it?) line: "Who are you going to believe, me or your ly*ing eyes?" But say that the version of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia and Iran for instance aren't really Is*lam. Why aren't Mus*lims making that insanely clear? Chris*tians have no problems making it clear that they don't consider the Westb*oro Baptists to be Chris*tians. Is it being made clear? If so where? Refer me to something that I can read.

I think I said several times that I don't consider extremists to be representative of Islam. And that I don't think that they are the problem so much as people who seem reluctant -- Muslim and not -- to condemn their actions. But there, I said it again.

I was a Catholic, raised a devout one. I no longer practice that faith. And you are free to criticize Cath*olocism and Cath*olics all you want. As much as it hurts to write this, that criticism has been well-earned. Additionally, I would see it as criticism of my faith. Not an attack on my faith. And I wouldn't consider you a bigot or a Cath*olicophobe because of it.

[Adewale Ajadi]

12:24 PM on 01/23/2011

This debate of Islamophobia or not, is quite a scary one not because painful words are being shared but that nearly 2 billion people (not sure of numbers) are being reduced and trapped into a stereotype. The US has been largely a powerful force for growth and enlightenment. In spite of its impressive qualities both its political flanks are blinded by their notion of US exceptionalism. For how can you explain that as hurtful as 9/11 and further attempts by crazy Terrorists of Al Qaeda, US citizens are yet to recognise that the broader Islamic world has a 9/11 every month . Caught between the instruments of war unleashed by the ex-President and the delightful self congratulatory, styled "standard bearers' of the true Islam. Just for good measure those Muslims who try to ride this tide out without either being blown up by the new 'Righteous' or being arrested for uttering a Surah in wrong places are now about to get the full treatment of US reductionist thinking. The one amazing thing about the US is that in spite of some of the greatest achievements in civilising achieved by any nation, it still sees things in simplistic black and white, either/or and dare I say conservative/Liberal. This dichotomies are totally simplistic, dehumanising by denying basic human complexity to the subject. Muslims are getting this treatment. I am not sure that this bodes well for any of us.

[Jan Allen McDaniel]

05:19 PM on 01/23/2011

Caught between the instrument­s of war unleashed by the ex-Preside­nt and the delightful self congratula­tory, styled "standard bearers' of the true Islam. Just for good measure those Muslims who try to ride this tide out without either being blown up by the new 'Righteous­' or being arrested for uttering a Surah in wrong places are now about to get the full treatment of US reductioni­st thinking.
====================

What you refer to as "ride this tide out" I describe as sitting on the fence.

You describe the existence of those who are in "no-man's land" in an ideological war. Islamists are going to continue to kill Muslims who are against their program to reinstitute Sharia law as the highest law of the land wherever Muslims live. Non-Muslims are going to continue to kill Islamists who use violence to advance their goals.

Unfortunately for you, everyone is going to have to choose between them, and that choice is going to have serious consequences. People who disagree with me say the choice is not necessary, I am offering a false dichotomy. Maybe I am wrong.

But if I am right, you are indeed trapped. Between Islamism and liberal democracy. Between the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam.

Choose.

[Adewale Ajadi]

05:15 AM on 01/24/2011

I am not trapped in any way and it is intellectual laziness to draw so narrowly people's options nor do you have the right to tell them to choose. Unlike you I do not argue my identity I argue facts and intellect so I can say categorically I am not a Muslim in terms of religious affiliation even though I was born into a Muslim family and raised as one. I have also practised christianity and attended a church for over 20 years as a 'born again' Christian. No one tradition has a claim over the Human Rights declaration and a detailed review finds the US equally wanting. No, everyone will not take sides between Fundamentalists of American Exceptionalism and Wahabhist crazies of the Al Qaeda extraction. It is not Sharia that is being proposed by the latter but their own desire for power, control and dominance this is the absolute opposite of the spirit of Islam which is total submission to the will of God. I hope the world does not allow itself to be coerced into the false and dangerous dichotomy you propose. If it happens we will confuse complexity with complication, dehumanise our enemies into one dimensional caricatures and reduce your great country to slave of their fears rather than the majesty of their dreams. We have many choices one of which is to challenge people like you.

[Puncastle]

08:40 AM on 01/23/2011

Why does the article refer to her as Katia Couric?

And why was grammar-check turned off?

[Doug Sandlin]

08:02 PM on 01/22/2011

Here's a talk by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf that gives a good overview of what he's really all about as a mystical Sufi Muslim:

Imam Rauf's Talk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVzMXaNHCC0

He gave this talk in conjunction with he and his wife, Daisy Khan, receiving an award for promoting tolerance from the New York Open Center, "New York's Leading Center of Holistic Learning and World Culture".

Daisy Khan's Talk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiVIrNxIrik&feature=related

http://www.opencenter.org/

[Dr Confuso]

05:43 PM on 01/22/2011

One only need to read about what is happening all over Europe to get a sense of what will soon be happening here...if we don't wake up and start discussing the realities of Islam.

[Mark Webber]

06:21 PM on 01/22/2011

Politicians are all busy supporting and building the GZM even Jon Stewart is softning the people to accept with out discussing. who is going to help you then?

[Doug Sandlin]

08:08 PM on 01/22/2011

What you call "softening" .... I call "making really good points with good humor".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/11/stewart-takes-on-ground-z_n_678224.html

[Puncastle]

04:02 AM on 01/24/2011

Perhaps there is a reason that all the politicians are supporting it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6902812n

[Doug Sandlin]

08:05 PM on 01/22/2011

That's what we're doing here.

The idea that political Islam is a vast, imminent threat is still a bit of an open question.

The vast majority of people, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, are peaceful, and reasonable.

Global Jihadism and Islamism are issues, but those issues don't have the exact characteristics that many of the leading anti-Islamist sites and leaders claim that they do.

Keep an open mind, and let's (all) talk about it.

[Leo Bloom]

02:30 PM on 01/22/2011

I support the right of Muslims to pray in their houses of worship without fear. and intimidation.

I support the right of Muslims to speak their minds and express freely what's important to them.

I reserve the right to criticize and oppose any and all aspects of Islam I find regressive and harmful without intimidation from Muslims and those who sympathize with that religious perspective.
I also support the right of those who leave Islam to speak their mind freely, without intimidation and threats to their careers and lives.

In my opinion, all religious missionary efforts in the world must be opposed
And on this basis I oppose all Islamic proselytism in the West as being extremely harmful to the secular societies the West struggled so hard to build. On the same basis I oppose ANY effort to introduce Shariat in our communities in any shape or form. I further oppose the preposterous efforts to present Shariart as something benign and compatible with the Western societies and law. Nothing can be further from the truth. Anyone doubts it, look what happens in societies where laws are based on or inspired by Shariah.

In conclusion-- freedom for Muslims to peacefully practice their faith. Freedom to secularists and others to peacefully oppose the spread thereof.

[Doug Sandlin]

04:20 PM on 01/22/2011

With you on this; excellent.

Only minor disagreement (in terms of my own opinion) ...

... I'm fine with any religious law that abides by the structure that Imam Rauf suggests:

*Applies to all religions equally.

*Civil law only (civil and criminal courts are separate entities under U.S. law).

*Non-binding arbitration (if someone disagrees with the arbitration, they can elect to ignore it, and proceed with a regular lawsuit or court hearing).

*Not in conflict with existing law.

All of those parameters make it a non-issue; the parameters keep it within the framework of U.S. law.

I'm not "for" it, per se; I just don't have a problem with those parameters.

It's in line with what you wrote about people being free to worship peacefully - same view, exactly.

Peaceful worship is fine; non-peaceful worship is not .... and just because someone might worship non-peacefully, this doesn't give the rest of us the right to say they can't worship at all.

In general, though, we're very much in agreement, here.

I would also add that just as prejudice is reprehensible to most of us ... people shouldn't be unfairly or non-factually judged, based on their ethnicity, religion, nationality, etc. ... that especially in our current social climate, it is only fair to peaceful Muslims to:

A. Do our best to be as specific as possible.
B. Not automatically distrust peaceful Muslims.

[Leo Bloom]

11:16 PM on 01/22/2011

I am diametrically oppose to aims, means, methods of both militant and peaceful Islamic ideology. Period. Any secular human being with a modicum of sense and historical awarer would be too.

[MollyMal]

12:30 PM on 01/22/2011

For most people (crazies aside) I don't think it's "Islamophobia", so much as it's "Islamophile-aphobia" (sorry if I used that incorrectly, it's all I could come up with). As a democratic voting, left-leaning suburban mom, I always kind of assumed that the Mus*lims I know are representative of the vast majority. And they kind of view sharia and Islamic law the way I viewed the Catholic church's teachings on not eating meat on Fridays -- yeah, whatever. Their faith, like mine, was a personal guiding philosophy only. They don't want Islam to influence civic or political matters anymore than I want the Church too.

What I find concerning are not so much the Muslims who want to erode the separation of church and state as the people who defend that stance. The Islamic extremists who killed Theo van Gogh, who threatened to kill Molly Norris I can write off as crazies. It's the seemingly well-educated people on sites like these who repeatedly offered the explanation of "well, they did offend Islam" that actually worry me more. It's the people (stunningly on the left) who argue against discussing women's rights under Islam because it might cause offense that worry me. It's the people who bring up the Crusades and the Inquisition as a way to avoid discussion of human rights abuses TODAY that worry me. It all seems geared towards silencing debate and dissent. And that really worries me.

[Jan Allen McDaniel]

02:17 PM on 01/22/2011

Brava, MollyMal.

[Abdur Rahman]

02:55 PM on 01/23/2011

Jan,

I have replied to you on several of your posts. Here is my final answer to what you wanted from me, I hope: You say "secularism” as if there is only one singular definition that we all know to the exclusion of any other. You mean secular government - as in the government should not base any decision based on religious grounds. If you are honest with yourself, you know that every piece of governance I know in America begins with prayer first thing every day. On our currency is “in God we trust,” and people as they are vying for elected office talk about their faith while they are campaigning, to convince voters that they are good Christians who believe in and are guided by God and the Bible and will continue to do so while in office. So, you are right and you are very wrong. The Constitution says the government must be NEUTRAL towards religion, but the fact is, every day 90% of us base decisions and how we see the world based on religious ideology.

[Abdur Rahman]

02:57 PM on 01/23/2011

In America, we don’t have a theocracy, thanks to the Framers, but we have people who are openly guided by religious convictions making decisions every day in American government. The most blatant example of this is Israel. We have spent billions holding up and championing the idea of a Jewish state. Jan are you saying we should stop supporting Israel, to make your statements true about us having a “secular government”? We support the Saudis as well, so I am not trying to be anti-Jewish here. I am giving you huge plain evidence that America’s government is not free from religion, but limited in imposing religion on US citizens because of the Framers of the Constitution. If it was up to dummy W. Bush, we would have a state church by now. My point is, you are trying to argue that religious being mixed with politics is un-American, and that is contrary to the present reality and even more contrary to America’s religious history. Don’t impose on me as a Muslim what is not being imposed on your good white Christian neighbors. Okay????

[Manny Peddy]

02:29 PM on 01/22/2011

Excellent post.

[Muslimhumanist]

12:27 PM on 01/22/2011

As a Muslim who lives in the midwest and teaches at a liberal arts college I actually note some positive trends in that I speak at local churches and am well received and my students are remarkably unbigoted. They know the difference between Al-Qaeda and Tariq Ramadan, between Ibn Arabi and Ibn Taymiyyah, between Sayid Qutb and Eboo Patel.

Unfortunately some of the commentators below do not and their voices are troubling in that they do not understand the diversity in Islamic thought and practice...

Let us hope those who would divide us into "us" and "them"--whether Muslim fanatics or Islamophobes come to recognize the we are all Insan--human. And emphasize those elements of our faiths and philosophies that call as to love all of humanity.

Peace/Salaams/Shalom

[Doug Sandlin]

04:29 PM on 01/22/2011

Tariq Ramadan (and I have very little exposure to him; I watched/listened to part of one video, a while back) seems pretty reasonable.

Do you have any links to things he said, or written, that form the basis for your opinion of him?

I'm not saying you're wrong ... I truly don't know, and am interested; if you have any applicable links, that would be be appreciated.

[Mark Webber]

05:03 PM on 01/22/2011

Thanks for bringing it to attention.
His grandfathe­r was Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhoo­d.

[Doug Sandlin]

04:22 PM on 01/22/2011

Thank you for this.

Faved.

[Mark Webber]

10:07 AM on 01/22/2011

Philadelphians were stunned when police officer Stephen Liczbinski was shot in cold blood during an altercation with burqa-wearing robbers. But that murder, and other recent violent acts in the city, has its roots in a form of Islam being taught in our prisons — and being funded by Middle Eastern extremists

http://www.phillymag.com/articles/the_radicals_among_us/

[Doug Sandlin]

12:05 PM on 01/22/2011

I clicked the link, and I read the article ... and I'm not sure I get your point, though I think I do:

"Be afraid of Muslims!"

Is that about right?

Just curious, because, if that is the case, your posting of this link is exactly what I would call Islamophobia.

Why?

Because Islam has been taught in U.S. prisons (and presumably the prisons of other nations) for a very long time (Malcolm X, anyone?) ... as has Christianity, and presumably other faith traditions, as well.

The article describes three Muslim men who used burkhas as disguises, in order to conduct a robbery.

That isn't any kind of any example of Muslim extremism .... that's an example of robbers being robbers.

"that murder, and other recent violent acts in the city, has its roots in a form of Islam being taught in our prisons."

I would say "that murder, and other recent violent acts in the city", actually have their roots in the criminal psychology that causes criminals to engage in criminal acts in the first place.

And for every such example (which, again, rather obviously has nothing at all to do with Islam, but simply with criminality), I'm sure there's at least one example of someone who turned away from crime because of Islam or Christianity, or Zen, or whatever; Malcolm X, anyone?.

Religion is like that; it's all in the interpretation.

Most people interpret religion peacefully, including Muslims.

Nice try.

[Mark Webber]

02:50 PM on 01/22/2011

??

[Talossa]

03:08 PM on 01/22/2011

Most adherents of any belief system are peaceful people. That doesn't determine what the belief system actually teaches, however.

[Mark Webber]

09:54 AM on 01/22/2011

Are Islamophobes bigots, or just smart and knowledgeable about the dangerous ideology behind Islam?

Take this simple test and if you don't pass, don't worry just contact your local Reeducation camp adviser:
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/04/are-you-islamophobe.html

[Muslimhumanist]

12:13 PM on 01/22/2011

Neither. Most of them are people whose knowledge of the Muslim world is extremely selective. They are well aware of all the reactionary voices in the Muslims world and completely unaware of any progressive ones. They are like homophobes who have no gay friends or antisemites who have never met a Jew. When they continue to hold their beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary they then make the move into bigotry.

Peace/Salaams/Shalom

[Doug Sandlin]

04:25 PM on 01/22/2011

Beautiful.

Thank you.

Faved.

[Doug Sandlin]

12:26 PM on 01/22/2011

I think I see the problem.

That test asks a bunch of questions that most of us would answer "yes" for the most part:

"Do you opposing stoning as a penalty for adultery?"

"Do you oppose honor killings?"

"Do you oppose female genital mutilation?"

As if those things have to do with Islam.

They don't. If they're connected with Islam at all, they're connected with some very perverse interpretations of Islam, in a similar manner to the murder of abortion-performing doctors, or the protests of homosexuality at military funerals being perversions of Christianity.

The thing is, though:

What if someone took that quiz, with its cartoon of Muhammad as a violence-crazed Arab, or its intended-to-be-funny family photo of burkha-wearing women ... and they decided to relate to their Muslim neighbors or colleagues differently?

Simply put: what if your connection of horrible violent activities by certain Muslims with Islam as a whole, is erroneously believed to be true, by others?

What then?

The only result that I can see is that more people would become Islamophobes .... irrationally afraid of Islam for no reason connected with fact.

I'm against almost everything asked in that survey -- but I also know that most Muslims, especially in the U.S., are against them too.

You never seem to mention that.

Why?

[Mark Webber]

02:39 PM on 01/22/2011

stoning, honor killings, genital mutilation.they must be inspired one way or another to Islam because they come from Islamic societies. If these societies has it as a culture, then Islam hasn't been effective in advancing or improving these societies rather the opposite.

Sahi Bukhari: 8:6814:
Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah al-Ansari: “A man from the tribe of Bani Aslam came to Allah’s Messenger [Muhammad] and informed him that he had committed illegal sexual intercourse; and he bore witness four times against himself. Allah’s Messenger ordered him to be stoned to death as he was a married person.”

Sahi Muslim No. 4206:
“A woman came to the prophet and asked for purification by seeking punishment. He told her to go away and seek God’s forgiveness. She persisted four times and admitted she was pregnant. He told her to wait until she had given birth. Then he said that the Muslim community should wait until she had weaned her child. When the day arrived for the child to take solid food, Muhammad handed the child over to the community. And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid b. al-Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on her face he cursed her.”

[Leo Bloom]

02:45 PM on 01/22/2011

The struggle is not just against Islamically based militancy, but also against Islamic proselytizers and certain aspects of Islamic culture many Muslims espouse while living in the West and whcih we find incompatible-- child marriages based on Koran, FGM based on writings of Islamic imams; the intolerance to those Islam calls apostates and blasphemers, "honor" crimes funding of militancy under the guise of charitable donations, attempt to introduce Shariat etc.
One can speak against these things and still support the right of Muslims to safely practice their religion. There's no contradiction in that, despite what many Muslims would like you to believe.

[truthupontruth]

02:06 AM on 01/22/2011

I think it's ridiculous that, in response to a piece that mostly concerns itself with the history of Muslim American communities in the last 50 years or so, commenters are bringing up Al-Qaeda, the Spanish Inquisition, the fantastical threat of America under forced Sharia law. It seems that there are a lot of people who are incapable of thoughtfully considering a point of view, applying some analysis, and providing a legitimate counterpoint to the original point of view. Does anyone have anything to say on the formidable journey that was Malcom X's life, in which he personally repudiated hedonism, and then racism, to arrive a spiritually peaceful place? Any comments on Kareem's understanding of his faith as a 'moral anchor'? Any thoughts building on his mention of the three monotheistic faiths? His rejection of Farrakhan? Any analysis of the authoritarian regimes in other Muslim countries which meet with opposition from their subjects, even though, from here, their issues are stripped of any complexity because it just seems like they're all Western-hatin' Muslims! Anyone interested in why Katie Couric is so interested in this, a couple of weeks after calling for a "Muslim Cosby Show" (BTW, it already aired on the CW - it's called 'Aliens in America!')
Once again, I would like to commend HP for allowing us all this forum, and I sincerely hope this exchange of ideas benefits those who are truly searching for the truth. And I love Kareem because he writes and speaks well.

[The Knocker]

03:01 AM on 01/22/2011

Also, one not fail to notice the thread of anti-Islamic comments by the same users, which keeps reappearing on every positive article on Islam and Muslims. They are nowhere to be seen on issues such as , the Vatican covering up child molestation, or other dark topics in the West.

[mrkurtzhedead]

08:56 AM on 01/22/2011

Oh I am! You missed me. If there is a lie being told by any of the three desert dogmas--which is pretty much all they do-, I'll be there. Just like Tom Joad!

[Talossa]

03:10 PM on 01/22/2011

Missed me too.

[mrkurtzhedead]

09:59 AM on 01/22/2011

What could you possible have against hedonism? (-:

[Blackorpheus]

01:28 AM on 01/22/2011

I'm with Kareem on this.

[Leo Bloom]

11:29 AM on 01/22/2011

I am with Wafa Sultan on this.

[Manny Peddy]

03:04 PM on 01/22/2011

I am with Ayaan Hirsi Ali on this. I am with M. Zuhdi Jasser on this. I am with Irshad Manji on this. I am with the Quilliam Foundation on this. I am with Nasir Abbas on this. I am with Gamal al-Banna on this. I am with Karima Kamal on this. I am with ibn Warraq on this. I am with Tarek Heggy on this. I am with Rifaat El-Said on this. I am with Lafif Lakhdar on this. And so on...

[Doug Sandlin]

08:35 PM on 01/22/2011

I am with Kareem on this. I am with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf on this. I am with Daisy Khan on this. I am with Reza Aslan on this. I am with Salman Ahmad on this. I am with Jon Stewart on this. I am with Melody Moezzi on this. I am with John Esposito on this. I am with Dalia Mogahed on this. I am with Talat Hamdani on this. I am with Donna Marsh O'Connor on this. And so on ...

[Doug Sandlin]

08:09 PM on 01/21/2011

Good video interview with (Muslim) author Reza Aslan, discussing his new book, Beyond Fundamentalism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq9sh-qffJA