Attacking A Religion Will Not Work

Update: Follow up with Bryan here

I'm far from an apologist for radical Islam. But we shouldn't ignore the complex nature underlying its draw for some Muslims. It is not only the religion, otherwise every Muslim would be a terrorist - that's far from the case. And when Hot Air posts photos like this and rants about Muslims (btw - hell, I'm not thrilled seeing our government officials in any religious garb), yet has probably never taken exception to the many photos of pols, including Bush wearing a yarmulke, you are only playing right into the hands of those genuinely soft on terror who seek to paint the right as bigoted.

I don't abide Christian, or Judeo-Christian bigotry any more than I do Muslim bigotry. I'm willing to call Muslim bigots, or radical sympathizers what they are when I see them. But I'm not going to shy away from calling out unproductive bigotry when I see it on the Right, either.

Comments

[Bryan]

So, Dan, are you calling me a bigot? I just want to get that straight--that you're calling me a bigot for that post.

[seekeronos]

If this is seriously the Islamist-kowtowing direction we are heading in, regardless of any pretended affiliation to right or to left... we might as well just start stocking up on the ammo (if we haven't been already) and see about forming new national blocs out of the dying carcass of the former USA.

Bigotry is never a good thing mind you, but outright acquiesence and dhimmitude to a hateful, wicked cult that only comes to its full bloom over the bodies of dead unbelievers and fear bodies of "true" believers is nothing but wickedness and idolatry.

If our officials truly think that by following Britain's examples appeasement - of trying to give place to a cult that is never satisfied with simply being an equal among many, but seeks to be "first and only", and even unto the holding the reins of government...

...then it is time for this nation to pass into the dustbin of history along with all the other former nations that "embraced" Islam.

[Graham]

Good post. When exactly did the GOP get hijacked by bigots and religious crazies?? Funny how an example of each managed to post right above me.

[Phoenix]

"If our officials truly think that by following Britain's examples appeasement..."

I think it's show and tell until we can get our feet back under us. That sentiment is naturally assuming there are those who still think we can accomplish an upright posture again. Government officials should stay out of all religious ceremonies. Period. And if they must attend, donning religious garb not your own should be verboten. The Pretenders. What a joke.

All bigotry is unproductive. I wish we could get around to pointing it out when we see it and lose the 'racism' card while we at it. What a boring shibboleth that has become. And forget 'right' or 'left' - just spell it out so every 'softie' recognizes it.

[horatio]

I think it would be helpful to think of Islam, not as a religion, but as a political philosophy. In this light is ranks up there with National Socialism. Thus discrimination is in order, and treating it like a religion can be discarded.

[sammy small]

The primary functional difference between Islam and other religions is that other religions take measures to diminish or eliminate radical elements of their sect. Islam has allowed the radical elements (such as the Muslim Brotherhood, Wahabis, etc.) to spread under the banner of purist Islam. Their purist Islam has become not only their religion, but also their all encompassing way of life to include rejection of western influence, sharia law, and the sanctioning of violent martyrism. Maybe these things contribute to the poor conditions of locations where Islam thrives.

As for Christianity, the only recent example of such a thing in the U.S. that I can recall was the Branch Davidians at Waco. They were resoundingly rejected by the Christian community as an aberrant cult which didn't represent anything of the mainstream. Maybe its time for Muslims to take the same stance instead of circling the wagons at every chance. Time is running out.

[Fred Beloit]

"Good post. When exactly did the GOP get hijacked by bigots and religious crazies?? Funny how an example of each managed to post right above me." This is from Graham. What is Graham saying? He is saying the entire Republican party or at least its leadership is bigoted because some conservative bloggers dislike the idea of the Presidential staff wearing Islamic garb (the kind of garb that in many quarters represents the oppression of women). Is this right or is Graham full of it? It is my understanding that in the Middle East men and women are separated in mosques. No co-ed, see. Why is mixed company allowed in this mosque, I don't know, perhaps one of our Muslim friends could enlighten us. Take Saudi Arabia. They don't play this can't-we-all-get-along stuff. If you go there you must dress, act, talk, eat and drink their way or else. How about it Graham? As for the Jews? Do you think that Prince(insert name here)when he goes into a synagogue (never) wears a yarmulke? Who are the real bigots?

[Fred Beloit]

"The "Mosque", is most characteristic:

1- A "minaret" or tall tower.
2- A "niche", indicating the direction of Mecca.
3- The "pulpit".
4- A "fountain" at the entrance for the ablutions... You have to enter the Mosque without shoes, because it is a "sacred place"... there are not seats, but the floor is covered with the "prayer rug"... and since every corner of the universe is equally pure, the faithful are encouraged "to spread the prayer rug" wherever they find themselves at the appointed hour of prayer.

- The officials of the Mosque are, the "iman" (leader), the "preacher", and the "muezzin" (who calls to prayer from the minaret). No priests.

- One of the most impressive sights in the religion of man occurs when, in a dimly lighted mosque, hundreds of men stand shoulder to shoulder, then kneel and prostate themselves toward Mecca." [ No furniture, all men. --FB]

[seekeronos]

"Maybe its time for Muslims to take the same stance instead of circling the wagons at every chance. Time is running out."

I wouldn't count on them doing such a thing any time soon (that is, within the next several generations). What we see as "radical" Islam is actually the mainstream, and those few "moderates" we see and hear much too little of speaking against the "radicals" are in fact, backsliders and possibly apostates (in the eyes of the purists, that is).

Horatio, who posted above, pretty much nailed down my long-standing take on Islam: It's no religion. It's an exceedingly wicked cult which does double duty as a political machine, not entirely different from the Shinto "cult of the Emperor" that saw Japan to its near-destruction in WW2, or more distantly in the past, the Office of the Inquisition run by the Holy Roman See during the middle ages in Europe.

[John from WuzzaDem]

Yarmulke? Yarmulke??? You've got to be kidding me.

[tally]

unproductive indeed. presently, muslims are not all a bunch of terrorists, yet the terrorists are muslim. as far as the garb in any religion, it's just a matter of good manners.

[IslamoLlama]

"presently, muslims are not all a bunch of terrorists, yet the terrorists are muslim."

See, I had no idea Ted Kazinsky, Tim McVeigh, and Eric Rudolph were Muslims. But there you go. Amazing how Republicans have to fly 5000 miles to go to war with the terrorists when we have so many home ground mass murderers right in our own backyard. But, of course, there hasn't been a terror attack since 9/11 (if you don't count the bombings in Madrid, London, Glassgow, riots in France, attacks in Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, and - least we forget - the two front war going on in Afganistan and Iraq), so I guess Bush is doing a heckuva job.

Of course, when Seek grabs up his military-grade hunting rifle and starts shooting liberals from a clock tower, I hope President Hillary doesn't make the mistake of being soft on terror herself.

[John from WuzzaDem]

***See, I had no idea Ted Kazinsky, Tim McVeigh, and Eric Rudolph were Muslims.***

Why not list *all* the present-day, non-Muslim terrorists? Oh...you did. And of those, only Rudolph claimed religious beliefs as motivation. He was also soundly condemned by 99.999% of the people in this country of the same religious faith.

BTW, re your 'Seek' remark, it's spelled 'Sikh', and I'm assuming you know they're not Muslim.

[Purple Avenger]

Three versus thousands. Sounds roughly the same to me, but I failed 1st grade arithmetic too.

[daveinboca]

I agree that wearing the hijab in a mosque is hardly succumbing to the marginal maniacs on the violent reactionary right. I took off my shoes when I was in the DC mosque, just like I would in a Japanese restaurant. When I was younger, women wore their heads covered in Catholic masses.

However, when Pelosi wears a scarf walking the streets of Damascus, that's a step in the direction of national self-abasement that the Dhimmi-wing of the Democrats are peddling. Pelosi is a fool and Reid is a girlie-man crook, and they haven't got a clue as to what foreign policy is about. Ask the woman who was the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Cte, who was jettisoned in favor of a lard-brain Texan who didn't know the difference 'tween Sunni & Shiites.

If GWB weren't so incompetent himself, the Repubs would have been shoo-ins in '08. [Though he's still better than the Gore-bot or Kerry would have been on foreign policy.]

[Peg C.]

My objection to non-extremist Islam is that from all I have read, mysogyny is part of the bedrock of the religion. Women are controlled, feared, abused, mutilated, murdered in honor killings, and basically blamed for all the ills that befall men. This is built into the basic tenets of Islam.

Are there Muslims who believe in freedom and self-fulfillment for women, who don't believe in genital mutilation, subjugation, and passing females from father to husband like property?

Also, most of us who know "moderate" Muslims know that if you talk to them long enough you uncover harsh anti-Semitism.

I don't believe it's bigoted to have these strong concerns and perceptions.

[Richard]

Although I more often than not find common ground with Dan on issues, I find myself in disagreement with him on this one. Wearing the hijab is actually not required by Islam, and as my many Muslim friends tell me, it is used these days more as a sign of piousness and to proselytize - essentially pushing Islam instead of assimilating into American society. Not a single one of my Muslim friends have their wives wear it.

The hijab actually has nothing to do with Islam as a religion, and is not sanctioned anywhere in the Koran, the fundamental text of Islam, or the hadith attributed to Mohammed. It's use was contrived in the early 1970s by Mussa Sadr, an Iranian mullah and a leader of the Lebanese Shiite community. In an interview in 1975 in Beirut, Sadr told a writer that the hijab he had invented was inspired by the headgear of Lebanese Catholic nuns, itself inspired by that of Christian women in classical Western paintings. ... (A casual visit to the National Gallery in London, the Metropolitan Museum in New York, or the Louvres in Paris, would reveal the original of the neo-Islamist hijab in numerous paintings depicting Virgin Mary and other female figures from the Old and New Testament.) It's basically a political prop.

... Sadr's idea was that, by wearing the headgear, Shiite women would be clearly marked out, and thus spared sexual harassment, and rape, by Yasser Arafat's Palestinian gunmen who at the time controlled southern Lebanon.

[...] By the mid-1980s a form of hijab never seen in Islam before the 1970s had become standard gear for millions of women all over the world, including Europe and America.

Some younger Muslims women, especially Western converts, were duped into believing that the neo-hijab was an essential part of the faith. (Katherine Bullock, a Canadian, so loved the idea of covering her hair that she converted to Islam while studying the hijab.)

The garb is designed to promote gender Apartheid. It covers the woman's ears so that she does not hear things properly. Styled like a hood, it prevents the woman from having full vision of her surroundings. It also underlines the concept of woman as object, all wrapped up and marked out.

Muslim women, like women in all societies, had covered their head with a variety of gears over the centuries. These had such names as lachak, chador, rusari, rubandeh, chaqchur, maqne'a, and picheh among others.

All had tribal, ethnic and generally folkloric origins and were never associated with religion. (In Senegal, Muslim women wear a colourful headgear against the sun, while working in the fields, but go topless.)

Muslim women could easily check the fraudulent nature of the neo-Islamist hijab by leafing through their family albums. They will not find the picture of a single female ancestor of theirs who wore the cursed headgear now marketed as an absolute "must" of Islam. Source

Yes, one could argue it is showing respect for another's religion, but one could just as appropriately argue that it is caving in to the Islamist influence and walking hand in hand with their agenda. Islamists are the ones that push the hijab, not moderate Muslims. Another foolish move on the part of the Bush administration.

[Richard]

In regard to my previous comments, I assumed that the html could be used so the word "Source," was meant to be a link. Since the link didn't show up - the source info on the history of the hijab (a link given to me by one of my Muslim friends from Pakistan - a Poshtun from Peshawar), is here:

http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2004/05/104288.shtml

[Kevin]

Let's be completely un-bigoted and say that Islam is just a religion of peace, and that the terrorists (who have by far the best understanding of the Koran) simply don't understand Islam like the moderates.

That way, we can wear the hijab as if it's not a sign of the inferiority of women. No one will say we're bigots. But honest people would call us liars.

PC kills, Dan.

[tally]

"presently, muslims are not all a bunch of terrorists, yet the terrorists are muslim."

"See, I had no idea Ted Kazinsky, Tim McVeigh, and Eric Rudolph were Muslims. But there you go. Amazing how Republicans have to fly 5000 miles to go to war with the terrorists when we have so many home ground mass murderers right in our own backyard. But, of course, there hasn't been a terror attack since 9/11 (if you don't count the bombings in Madrid, London, Glassgow, riots in France, attacks in Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, and - least we forget - the two front war going on in Afganistan and Iraq), so I guess Bush is doing a heckuva job."

I said presently, the three you mentioned are not current. I'm not a Republican either, I'm an Independent. And,I don't care if we go 5000 miles or 0 to kill terrorists, I want them dead.

[Beth]

Eh, it's just (stupid) diplomacy.

It still makes me cringe, though. I wonder, during WWII did the women in those positions put on kimonos when they met with Japanese people? I think not. It sorta signifies solidarity. And really, why is the hijab even necessary? Because they don't want to offend? In THIS country?

News flash to Muslims who would be offended: this isn't an Islamic nation. It's multicultural, meaning Muslims need to respect non-Muslims, just as they are allowed to do their own thing. I can see sticking a silly thing on your head in an Islamic country because of the predominant culture, but HERE, in a secular liberal democracy? Um, no.

The example of Bush wearing a yarmulke doesn't even come close. We aren't at war with Israel or any Jewish ideology. Is it pandering? Certainly less so than this hijab business!

Calling people bigots for groaning at the hijab, though...sorry, Dan, I think you missed the point on this one. I don't know what you and Bryan discussed in email, but if you just wrote it off to bigotry, I don't think you tried to understand his objection.

[Stephen]

Preston wrote:
"But Dan wants a debate. Well alrighty then, try and reconcile one post that obliquely calls me an unproductive bigot and the next one denying calling me a bigot at all, then saying that he doesn’t know whether I’m a bigot or not. Go debate yourself, in other words, Dan. You’re already on two or three sides of that issue. It ought to be a spirited exchange."

So I came over hear to see if he exaggerated. He didn't.

[syn]

It was pointed out before, the Koran does not require the female to wear the veil. It does however state quite clearly that it is good to lie to the infidel when necessary. Plus, unlike Jesus and Dali Lama who both say homosexuality is wrong but have love for the homosexual, Mohammed said to kill the homosexual. Now would I be labeled a bigot for demanding that Muslims not throw homosexuals off rooftops even though it's their religion?

Tally, you forgot to add Weather Underground, FALN as mass murders.

[Nikolay]

"Women are controlled, feared, abused, mutilated, murdered in honor killings, and basically blamed for all the ills that befall men. This is built into the basic tenets of Islam."
That's a lie. Honor killings are forbidden in Islam's tenets.
"Are there Muslims who believe in freedom and self-fulfillment for women, who don't believe in genital mutilation, subjugation, and passing females from father to husband like property?"
Genital mutilation is also expressly forbidden in numerous fatwas.
The culture of many Islamic countries is very backward, and it has a lot to do with Islam itself, even though it was progressive at the time it was introduced, but honor killings and genital mutilations are both forbidden in Islamic dogma and there are countless Muslims that don't approve of this practice.

[Pierre]

Dan how could we act to stop a religion that was destructive under your no bigot rule? Lets just say that a religion that demanded the death of everyone not following that religion somehow became an overnight sensation attracking millions to its cause. Exactly how would we fight back if by attacking a religion we get tagged with the bigot rule?

[Pierre]

The culture of many Islamic countries is very backward, and it has a lot to do with Islam itself, even though it was progressive at the time it was introduced, but honor killings and genital mutilations are both forbidden in Islamic dogma and there are countless Muslims that don't approve of this practice.

Is Indonesia backwards? If not them please explain the Pew Poll in 2003 which showed over 56% of the worlds largests muslim population thinking that Bin Laden was a hero. If that poll is too old for you to deal with then explain how that same poll conducted in 2005 STILL found over 36% of the people supporting Bin Laden.

During the heyday of Nazism there were countless Nazis who were good and decent people...did that absolve Nazism of its philosophy?

[Pierre]

sensation attracking millions to its cause

That would be attracting...oops

[Helo Pilot]

Islam is not a religion anymore - it has been hijhacked by cultists. It is Jim Jones with a headrag, circa 2000. We should start treating these people for what they are - criminally minded psychopath cultists. Anyone who would be upset because a women or any individual, free minded person DIDN'T WEAR THE HIJAB - is a FUCKING LUNATIC CULTIST - not a relgious person - and we owe them NO QUARTER.

The picture of our administration officials denying FREEDOM OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO CHOOSE in favor of ISLAM/SHARIA is a sickening - frightening prospect, well not really a prospect anymore because it is HAPPENING. We shoudln't be giving these Scientologists in scarves one fucking inch.

I think you're wrong on this one Riehl. We owe the men and women who have fought and died by the hundreds of thousands in WW1, WW2, etc etc - a lot more than this COWARDICE.

[Islamollama]

"Three versus thousands. Sounds roughly the same to me, but I failed 1st grade arithmetic too."

You people are so damn ignorant, sometimes. I'll take "The IRA" for $200 Alex. What is an entire terrorist network composed of - not evil brown people - but the Irish? Some of the whitest, most Christian people on the planet? Oops!

"The KKK" for $400 Alex? Who are rednecks from South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama (ie Republican voters)? Damn, didn't they drag black people to death and set churches on fire up to the present day? Why, I believe they did.

Ye, gods. It's almost as though some people are completely blind to domestic terrorists in England and America. Where was the outcry against the Branch Dividian Compound back in '92? Where was the uproar over James Byrd's dragging death? Armed militias and acts of brutality within the heartland of America that left so many of you conservative heroes twiddling your thumbs or hiding under the covers until Janet Reno could take care of it. But when it's brown people 5000 miles away, then you find your balls.

Pussies and racists. That's the only way to describe the Hot Air conservative movement.

[Rob Taylor]

The I.R.A. was in fact, and contiues to be, a Marxist organiation. They are also well connected to the P.L.O., hardly good Christians. As I've blogged about several times on my site, various white surpemacist organizations hae supported Islamic terrorism, and some like the Aryan Nations actually allow for conversion to Islam among it's members.

The KKK by the way was a solidly Democrat organization that Republicans faught tooth and nail for years. And the Branch Davidians were wacky, but no where near as dangerous as groups like the Hell's Angels. They didn't really deserve to be set alight in a botched raid, and the underlying crime they were accused of, having illegal weapons, was never proven.

I'm all for respecting all religions, but there were clearly women in that audience who didn't don the hijab, and if we as Americans are pushing the idea that women have choice, are free and need not bow to anyone, which I think we should be, then the donning of the hijab in the face of Islamic human rights abuse world wide is unseemly to say the least.

[Rob Taylor]

Sorry for the misspellings, I just rolled out of bed. Late night.

[Dan Riehl]

"Dan how could we act to stop a religion that was destructive under your no bigot rule? Lets just say that a religion that demanded the death of everyone not following that religion somehow became an overnight sensation attracking millions to its cause. Exactly how would we fight back if by attacking a religion we get tagged with the bigot rule?"

Why create a straw man, just talk about the actual problem. It isn't necessary to dismiss all of Islam to attack radical Islam. These idiots passing through denouncing me as liberal, or a dhimmi crack me up and only display how ignorant they are. Were it up to me, I'd rip out the cancer that is Saudi Arabia ... how about a little democracy there with the addition of a real middle class, as opposed to basically slave labor. If people want to identify as Muslim when they go home and pray - fine by me. I have posted against the dhimmification of America where tax payer dollars now provide foot baths in public colleges. That disgusts me. I'm not soft on radical Islam, or unaware of the efforts by some to inculcate it into our political culture. But, as I also said, the religion is only the mechanism, ultimately this is a geo-political problem. We allow the mullahs to stand in Iran? Not if I had my way. There is nothing to be gained by dragging down an entire religion with over a billion followers when the vast majority of them are not radicals.

[Althor]

Quote:

So-called "moderate" Muslims do not speak up because of adherence to Islam or out of fear.

Apparently, a good Muslim cannot publicly criticize another Muslim; it will humiliate Islam (anything and everything will humiliate Islam).

In the case of fear, Muslims know that their fellow Muslims slaughter and brutalize Muslims at least as much as they slaughter and brutalize non-Muslims (the ever evil kefir). Honour killings are a way of life in the religion of peace.

Posted by: terrence at July 7, 2007 3:38 PM

-

Very true. All the more reason why such "incidental"
Muslims, who as I reapetedly say, one day opened their eyes in their cribs and saw mom, dad, and the Mullah without their having had much say in the matter, or in the choosing of their religion or culture, should opt to convert to a more "innocuous" belief system. So long as they acquiesce and apologize for murderous Islam, out of misplaced loyalty and filial affiliation, they are complicit with the suicide bombers and the terrorists!

From its inception "Jihad" is an all-out war upon the "infidels", and as the very name "Islam" implies, its goal the forceful conversion into "submission" of the conquered and the imposition of Islam, the prophet, and Sharia. Muslim "apologists" may turn blue in the face spinning this fact, trying to morph "Jihad" into some sort of esoterical "inner struggle of mystical enlightenment", but the stark historical truth of the matter is that the only enlightenment "gleaned" from Jihad in the past has been the glint of the setting sun on blood-dripping Jihadist swords amidst a blood-soaked charnel-house of battlefield carnage and slaughter - much as it remains today!

There should be no place for such "Jihad" in this world...
or for the hateful Islamic religion/cult of death ideology that promotes it! Period.

Cal Thomas is absolutely right, no matter how upset and outraged the loonies on the left and the politically correct arses ruining this country and exposing us to annihilation may fret and whimper!

How come we detain and apprehend - and rightly so - someone trying to enter our country with a particularly deadly strain of tuberculosis (unless, of course, you are an illegal Mexican alien sneaking across the border, in which case you may bring any strain of TB you like and be welcomed in our "Sanctuary Cities" to boot) and we make of it a news item and an international incident - as recently happened, and yet we let thousands of Muslims into our country every day carrying the deadly strain of their barbaric culture of death and sick ideology of hatred and intolerance, allowing them to infect us and to metastasize and spread their Islamic "cancer" amongst us? How stupidly asinine and naive is that?!?!

As I have pointed elsewhere, no matter how much the so called "moderate Muslims" and "apologists" for Islam may want to "sugar-coat" the savage and murderous aspects of Islam inherent to it from its accursed inception, the Jihadists are the ones literally following the Koran and the teachings of its false prophet (Piss be Upon him!). The murderous Jihadist suicide bombers are not a "fringe group" as the politically correct would make us believe, but those Muslims who best represent the very nature of the true twisted soul of Islam! It is Islam as a whole that is a "cancer" upon the world - it has only brought nothing but strife, bloodshed, death, and destruction for centuries upon this sorry earth. So much for the "Religion of Peace"!

Again, as I said, I am sure that many who are Muslims - who are indeed not murderous fanatics like their fellow Islamist co-religionists, but caring, reasonable, and law-abiding human beings, intent on living and letting others live - one day opened their eyes in their crib and saw
"mom, dad, and the Mullah", and they did not have much of a say in the matter. To these I say: "Throughout history there naturally have been instances of extremists and nuts in every religion and belief system, but, when was the last time you saw Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Animists, Jains, or others, strap themselves with explosives and blow themselves up to in order to murder innocent bystanders as a "mandate" of their religion, which to boot entices them with promises of reward in "Paradise" and of 'eternal sexual bliss in Heaven'"?!?!

I urge these "moderate" Muslims to convert to, shalll we say, a more "harmless" faith - even rabid atheists are potentially less lethal than a fanatical Muslim hell-bent on following the Koran to the letter of the law and "getting laid" in heaven!

I am sorry for being "draconian", but the Muslims themselves with the murderous culture of barbarism of their accursed prophet have brought this judgement upon themselves: Many times when cancer has spread to a patient's limb only amputation will save the patient's life. Also when cancer has spread to an internal organ often removal is the only alternative for the survival of the patient. I'd say that for the sake of the rest of humanity, maybe we should round all the Muslims of the world up, give them the opportunity to renounce Islam and its culture of death, and if not, do them all a favor, gather them in Mecca and Medina, strap them all with explosives so that they can be "Shahid" and get their 72 virgins or whatever phalluses women and Islamic gays get as a reward, and then nuke them all out of existence - after all, don't you treat "cancer" with
"radiation"?

In the words of an old Spanish Proverb: "Muerto el perro, se acabo la rabia" - "With the dog dead, the rabies is gone" - how true!

Althor

[Pierre]

Dan said:"There is nothing to be gained by dragging down an entire religion with over a billion followers when the vast majority of them are not radicals."

There is a problem with your desire. It conflicts with reality. Surely your way would indeed be the best way, if it had a chance to work. But just because we want it to work doesn't mean it will.

The reality of the situation is this:
Pew Poll of Indonesia 2003 over 58% of the people of the most populace Islamic state on earth declare that they have more or a lot of confidence in Bin Laden. Please explain how "good" muslims might find themselves allying to a person who had just announced his complicity in the mass murder of 3,000 innocent non-combatants?

Same Pew Poll in 2003 found this as well:
Jordon another one of those "moderate" states where we actually even send arms has over 55% of its people thinking that Bin Laden is A-Ok.

Finally in that same poll King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is held in very high esteem by most of the Islamic nations around the world. I guess there is a shortage of Sunni's to look up to?

So question how does a religion that tries to claim that it is peaceful have so many inside of it that cheer a mass murderer?

Here is a much better explanation of my point.
http://pierrelegrand.net/2006/10/18/islam-cartoons-secularism-and-individual-freedom-can-islam-and-democracy-survive-one-another.htm

[Althor]

"There is nothing to be gained by dragging down an entire religion with over a billion followers when the vast majority of them are [arguably?] not radicals"?!?!

How about plain and simple SURVIVAL for the rest of us Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, Animists, Shamanists, and others... even "atheists", in the world, who do not strap ourselves with explosives in order to suicidally murder innocent bystanders all because our sick and twisted religion not only compels us to do so, but promises to reward us with an "eternal orgasm" if we do?!?!

Give us a break, Dan!

Althor

[Netherman79]

Dan,
There are a few different reasons why the photo of the hijab-festooned Bush officials is sickening.
1. It makes us look weak. Appearances are very important when you are at war with Islamic jihadists.
2. As U.S. government officials, they represent the Constitution which does not abide a monarch or religion
3. It smacks of a politically correct sensitivity to a religion many of whose followers are at war with us.
4. The photo is sadly laughable because the Imam of the Islamic center would, if given half a chance, saw the heads off every single infidel in attendance, hijab and all. We have to assume this is true. We have not heard otherwise. It is not written in the Islamic texts "...kill the infidel unless they are wearing the hijab." It just says "Kill the infidel."
5. Your sqeamishness remninds me of Hugh Hewitt's opinion that is was a good idea for dhimmi Western media outlets not to publish the Mohammed cartoons.
6. That there is this undercurrent of dhimmitude among those like you and Hugh who one would assume should know better is disturbing.
7. It is is disturbing because the vast majority of your fans in the conservative movement are probably unaware of it. Who else among you in the blogosphere are, for whatever reason, without a firm grip on what it means to be at war? What it means to be an infidel?
8. I think you have something about Bush wearing the yarmulke; not appropriate on offical business, though Jews have not be accused of sawing the heads off anybody, since the days of the Roman Empire. That you retreat into this display of moral equivalency should be the final nail in your argument's coffin. Wait...I think I see Rosie O and Michael Moore heading this way with more moral equivalencies!!

[twolaneflash]

Bigot. Same category as Nazi: use the word in debate, you lose. You lost it, Dan, and you are projecting, sir. Try to make islam all creamy and sweetened as you want, reality changes not. Islam is lame; that's a discrimination, not a prejudice.