Geert Wilders was the keynote speaker. He only wants to ban the Koran, tax women for wearing headscarves and prevent the construction of any mosques. I'm sure he was contributing a lot of positive things to the protest.

I take it you don't really know much about the Quran (like that it's to be taken literally and unquestioningly as the word of Allah). In this country, we don't allow people to order the death of others without being met with some prosecution.

Here's a question for you, Christopher:

The Quran commands Muslims to convert or kill "the infidel." Muslims are told to stone adulterers and murder gays. The Quran tells them they may murder their own children -- and they do, in the absurdly named "honor killings." If the right wing had a book telling people to stone homosexuals and kill people who aren't Christian, and if a good many of their followers followed this command, how would you respond?

As I explained at length in an older thread, I don't think that the approach to Islam that treats that religion as a monolith serves our interests well. Most Muslims, particularly those in the U.S., don't seem take the commandments you mention literally, whether or not they are supposed to.

Your question is a silly one, as I'm sure you are aware. Any sane person would denounce someone in the present day writing a book commanding those acts. However, the Koran was written well over a thousand years ago. That is commands horrible things is unsurprising; the Old Testament commands horrible punishments for similar crimes as well. Fortunately, Christianity, with the exception of the radical fringe, has moved beyond it. Many Muslims have moved beyond the commandments you mention; I don't see anything good coming from telling those people that they're doing it wrong and that they're no different from the jihadis. Instead, I think the schism between the radicals and the integrated Muslims should be encouraged.

In my opinion, Geert can be rhetorical, and he frequently plays the devil's advocate because he likes lighting fires in people, for discussion's sake. I believe he truly sees the gargantuan problem of Islamic imperialism and is doing what he can politically to fix it.

As such, the Koran burning, in context, makes sense because hate-filled books such as Hitler's Mein Kampf are banned in the Netherlands. It's an equal treatment argument. I do not think he truly believes books should be banned in a free society.

The anti-mosque sentiment is also an equal treatment argument. There are prohibitions against church building in many Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia.

As for the headscarf controversy, I think he was inspired by and referencing Islamic demands for a tax on all non-muslims in Islamic lands. I think his argument was too abstract and therefor confusing. I also bet there's a bit of "OMFG, this country is going to ruins if these f-ing liberals don't realize the Islamists want to overthrow our way of life, killing us literally with bombs and figuratively with our freedoms." ... Agreed, it certainly wasn't a shining moment in his political career.

True, Islam is not a monolith. However, 70% of it needs to be axed, and the other 30% radically altered, amended, and reforged as a religion of peace (salam) instead of a religion of submission (islam).

I meant banning, not burning. Whoops!

The death cult thing, commanding followers to go out and kill/convert the rest of us and violently overthrow democracy, which the Quran and Islam plainly do, I have a problem with. You?

Yes.

My point is that most Muslims don't follow the edicts to kill or convert infidels, and are either ignorant of or choose to ignore these parts of their religious texts; much in the same fashion that most Christians and Jews don't think that homosexuals should be put to death as Leviticus commands. Success in defeating the death cult aspect of Islam cannot occur without those Muslims who don't subscribe those beliefs deciding that that path is the wrong one for them and their faith. When we act as those the two Islams, to use your term, are all one thing, which is what people like Wilders do, we work against our long term interests.

Islam and its ideals are the state protected, state sponsored ideology from Morocco to Indonesia that cannot be challenged, contradicted or criticized:

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2009/index.htm

Islam has the same standing today as shinto did in pre WWII Japan or marxism had not long ago from East Germany to North Korea. It is controlled by the state. It is discriminative. Yes, there was goulash communism, where it wasn't as discriminative.

Except for the former soviet states, Syria and Turkey and maybe Lebanon, there is no separation of state and ideology in muslim majority countries. Even Turkey is slipping back. Why is this?
If you think Israel and north America is bad, try north Africa. In Saudi Arabia Bibles are burnt every year, since the government takes symbolism very seriously. Shinto was disestablished by Mcarthur, which is why the emperor didn't hang, just like Lee didn't hang after the civil war.
When do you think Islam will be disestablished?

I support the good imams ideas of religious tolerance, especially when he builds non-muslim centers in Libya and Saudi Arabia. Until then, he is just a taqqiya vendor.

Amir Taheri explains:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/islam_center_eerie_echo_of_ancient_iRTMW6TprkULnaA1Nqi9xM

NY Post, 10 Sep 2010, Islam center's eerie echo of ancient terror

... the proposed structure is known in Islamic history as a rabat -- literally a connector. The first rabat appeared at the time of the Prophet.

The Prophet imposed his rule on parts of Arabia through a series of ghazvas, or razzias (the origin of the English word "raid"). The ghazva was designed to terrorize the infidels, convince them that their civilization was doomed and force them to submit to Islamic rule. Those who participated in the ghazva were known as the ghazis, or raiders.

After each ghazva, the Prophet ordered the creation of a rabat -- or a point of contact at the heart of the infidel territory raided. The rabat consisted of an area for prayer, a section for the raiders to eat and rest and facilities to train and prepare for future razzias. Later Muslim rulers used the tactic of ghazva to conquer territory in the Persian and Byzantine empires. After each raid, they built a rabat to prepare for the next razzia.

It is no coincidence that Islamists routinely use the term ghazva to describe the 9/11 attacks against New York and Washington. The terrorists who carried out the attack are referred to as ghazis or shahids (martyrs).

Thus, building a rabat close to Ground Zero would be in accordance with a tradition started by the Prophet. To all those who believe and hope that the 9/11 ghazva would lead to the destruction of the American "Great Satan," this would be of great symbolic value.

Faced with the anger of New Yorkers, the promoters of the project have started calling it the Cordoba House, echoing President Obama's assertion that it would be used to propagate "moderate" Islam.

The argument is that Cordoba, in southern Spain, was a city where followers of Islam, Christianity and Judaism lived together in peace and produced literature and philosophy.

In fact, Cordoba's history is full of stories of oppression and massacre, prompted by religious fanaticism. It is true that the Muslim rulers of Cordoba didn't force their Christian and Jewish subjects to accept Islam. However, non-Muslims could keep their faith and enjoy state protection only as dhimmis (bonded ones) by paying a poll tax in a system of religious apartheid.

If whatever peace and harmony that is supposed to have existed in Cordoba were the fruit of "Muslim rule," the subtext is that the United States would enjoy similar peace and harmony under Islamic rule.

A rabat in the heart of Manhattan would be of great symbolic value to those who want a high-profile, "in your face" projection of Islam in the infidel West.

"...the Old Testament commands horrible punishments for similar crimes as well. Fortunately, Christianity, with the exception of the radical fringe, has moved beyond it."

Christianity has moved beyond it from day one, with the command from Jesus that only he who is without sin cast the first stone (John 8:1-11)

Christopher -

If just 10% of the world's muslims believe in the command to do jihad for the glory of allah, that's 150,000,000 warriors.

And if each one of them detonates and takes out 10 people, that's 1.5 BILLION dead.

I don't like those odds.

Actually, the truth is, Islam really isn't reformable. If you knew the Quran, you'd know that. How do you go from "must be taken literally as the word of god," etc. to "Let's change that"?

Islam is a human institution, and like all such things, is subject to change.

@Brian: without quibbling with your percentages, I take your point. And I don't like those odds either. I'm convinced that those would-be suicide bombers must be marginalized.

Islam is a human institution, and like all such things, is subject to change.
Posted by: Christopher

Name one fundamental shift Islam has gone thru since its inception 1500 yrs ago.

Anyone with 15 minutes and half a brain can find dozens of such shift earch century in christianity, but lets see if you can find just one in islam Christopher

Christianity and Judaism have both undergone major reformation movements in their history. Islam, as luj points out, has had no such thing. There were attempts made in the early part of the 20th century, but in retrospect we can see now that they have all failed; those efforts ended up with Middle Eastern Islam choosing to collaborate with the Nazis in WWII. Since then, if anything, Islam has gone backwards.