Republicans eye high-profile US Senate races

Republicans eye high-profile US Senate races

By Hal Weitzman in Chicago

Published: January 29 2010 17:11 | Last updated: January 29 2010 17:11

Congratulatory signs in the streets after Barack Obama wins 2008’s US elections
Congratulatory signs in the streets after Barack Obama wins 2008’s US elections. The president’s former Senate seat in Illinois is under threat

 

As a candidate, Barack Obama was fond of saying that there were no “red states” or “blue states” – only the United States. His adage may be starting to prove itself, although not quite as he intended.

When the Republicans won Ted Kennedy’s former Senate seat in Massachusetts this month, they demonstrated they could win even in one of the most Democratic or “bluest” states. Now the Grand Old Party is focused on another prize – Mr Obama’s former Senate seat in Illinois.

“For the first time in a long time, the Republicans have a good chance of winning this Senate seat,” says Paul Green, a professor of policy studies at Roosevelt University in Chicago.

The Illinois race is part of a larger national trend. Capitalising on the anger and frustration voters expressed in Massachusetts, Republicans are targeting a string of high-profile seats they see as vulnerable in the mid-term elections in November.

Obama and the GOP

 

Among them are Vice-President Joe Biden’s former Senate seat in Delaware and the Nevada seat occupied by Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate leader. The GOP’s aim is not only to gain strength on Capitol Hill but also to embarrass the Obama administration.

Illinois will come into focus on Tuesday, when the state holds the US’s first primaries to select candidates for the mid-terms. The Senate hopefuls are chasing a position that has already come to national attention: in 2008, Rod Blagojevich, the former governor of Illinois, allegedly tried to sell the seat . He was subsequently impeached and is due to stand trial for corruption in June.

The ensuing brouhaha is one reason the Democrats may lose in Illinois, where no Republicans hold statewide office. The state’s unemployment level is also well above the national average. Moreover, the financial woes that have hit many US states are acute in Illinois, whose budget crisis is second only to California.

“Massachusetts was a national referendum. In Illinois, it’s going to be focused on the local issues – corruption and this financial mess,” says Pat Brady, chairman of the state Republican party.

The Republicans are blessed with a strong candidate: Mark Kirk, a five-term Congressman and Naval officer still active in the reserves (he returned this month from his second tour of duty in Afghanistan). Mr Kirk is all but certain to win Tuesday’s GOP primary.

A moderate with appeal to the independents who polls suggest are wavering in their support for the Democrats, he has alienated the more conservative “Tea Party” wing of his party. Last year he tried unsuccessfully to secure backing from Sarah Palin, the former vice-presidential candidate and erstwhile governor of Alaska, when she was in Chicago. Nevertheless, faced with the enticing prospect of humiliating Mr Obama, the Tea Party-goers are likely to support him.

The Democratic field is more fragmented. Alexi Giannoulias, the state’s 33-year-old treasurer, leads in the polls. A basketball buddy and protégé of Mr Obama, Mr Giannoulias has tied himself closely to the president, whom he mentions frequently in speeches.

He concedes the Democrats may find the going difficult in November “given the mood, given how people feel about Washington”, but says he is hoping to concentrate on the issues. That seems unlikely, given that he is already looking beyond the primaries and attacking Mr Kirk’s record of taking contributions from corporations.

Although Mr Obama endorsed Mr Giannoulias’s campaign for treasurer, he was not the president’s top choice to run in the primary. In a sign that he was concerned about Illinois long before the special election in Massachusetts, the president summoned Lisa Madigan, the state’s attorney-general, to the White House last year and asked her to run for the seat.

She declined and several other high-profile Democrats have also ruled themselves out.

Mr Giannoulias has baggage as the scion of a Chicago banking family that lent money to both Michael Giorango, a convicted bookmaker and prostitution-ring promoter, and Tony Rezko, a convicted fundraiser for Mr Blagojevich.

He has also been accused of mismanagement of a pre-paid college tuition fund he re-organised.

Although there is no suggestion of wrongdoing or illegality, this has been useful fodder for Mr Giannoulias’s main rivals but Mr Giannoulias is the only Democrat who can beat Mr Kirk, according to a survey released this week by Public Policy Polling.

Commentators highlight that it might not be such a surprise if the Republican wins. The seat was held by a Republican immediately before Mr Obama. When Mr Blagojevich was elected in 2002, he was the first Democratic governor in three decades.

But that will be scant consolation to the Democrats anxiously surveying the public fractious mood.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010. Print a single copy of this article for personal use. Contact us if you wish to print more to distribute to others.

MSU prof’s e-mail outrages Muslims– good for the prof. no more PC

MSU prof’s e-mail outrages Muslims

Muslim students want Indrek Wichman to be disciplined. The University, at least for now, is reminding them of a little thing called freedom of speech. Of course, given the pattern of events over the last few years in the U.S. and Europe, I wouldn’t be in the least surprised if they caved before too long and reprimanded, suspended, or even fired Wichman.

Meanwhile, what did he say? He told Muslims mounting a Cartoon Rage protest that Islamic jihad murders were worse than a few cartoons. He said it in strong language. But what he said was true: everything he mentioned was true and has been reported here at Jihad Watch (Mr. Wichman, if you are a reader, my hat is off to you).

From the Detroit Free Press, with thanks to all who sent this in, here is the text of Wichman’s email:

Dear Moslem Association: As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU I intened to protest your protest.I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey!), burnings of Christian chirches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims, the rapes of Scandinavain girls and women (called “whores” in your culture), the murder of film directors in Holland, and the rioting and looting in Paris France.

This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many, many of my colleagues. I counsul you dissatisfied, agressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile “protests.”

If you do not like the values of the West — see the 1st Ammendment — you are free to leave. I hope for God’s sake that most of you choose that option. Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.

Cordially, I. S. Wichman, Professor of Mechanical Engineering

 

And here are selections from the Free Press’s story on the fallout:

An Islamic student group at Michigan State University demanded Monday that university officials publicly reprimand a professor whose Feb. 28 e-mail called on Muslims who don’t “like the values of the West” to leave the United States.

That’s a funny lead. I suppose they are demanding that Muslims who don’t like the values of the West should not be free to leave?

Of course, what they really mean is that non-Muslims who realize that there are Muslims in the West who don’t like the values of the West should above all not suggest that those Muslims should leave the West. Instead, non-Muslims should acquiesce peacefully while those Muslims set about to transform the values of those Western societies.

But MSU officials said there’s little that can be done to punish Indrek Wichman, 55, a tenured professor of mechanical engineering, because his comments essentially constitute free speech. Wichman sent the message to the Muslim Students’ Association of Michigan State University while it handed out free cocoa during a public awareness event about controversial cartoons that depicted Islam’s founder as a terrorist….The Muslim Students’ Association, along with 12 other student and advocacy groups, called Monday for the university to issue a letter of reprimand. They have met several times with university officials since Feb. 28 and went public with the e-mail Monday because the school had not acted.

Terry Denbow, spokesman for MSU, said Wichman’s views in no way represent the university’s views. But, he said, they do not violate the university’s antidiscrimination policy.

“He was cautioned that any additional commentary … could constitute the creation of a hostile environment, and that could … form the basis of a complaint” under the policy, Denbow said.

He said he considers the comments “very inappropriate. And I personally wish he would apologize to the students.”

To Farhan Abdul Azeez, an MSU senior studying human biology and the president of the student association, the e-mail was startling.

“Naturally, I was very upset. I was disgusted. All of those emotions went through my body,” said Azeez, 20, of Canton.

In addition to a reprimand, the student group wants the university to implement diversity training programs for faculty and a mandatory freshman seminar on hate and discrimination.

“The best way to limit or to kind of defuse hate is through education, no doubt,” said Maryam Khalil, 18, a sophomore from East Lansing studying journalism. Khalil is vice president of the association.

 

No, Maryam. The best way to limit or to kind of defuse hate is for Muslims to stop committing the violent acts to which Wichman refers, and justifying them by Islamic teachings. Those who do not commit violent acts should be directing their energies to those who are, and trying to convince them to stop. As well as working with non-Muslims to root jihad terrorists out of their communities.

If Muslims did that, they would find non-Muslims would have significantly less of what they think of as “hatred” for them, but which is actually a normal impulse for self-defense.

Denbow said discussions with students about sensitivity training are ongoing.”We’re not only willing to, but eager to listen to the students. Their commentary to date has been thoughtful,” Denbow said.

Reached at home Monday evening, Wichman said he had regrets.

“I used strong language in a private communication that I would certainly not have used if this communication would have gone public,” he said.

But he stressed the importance of free speech.

“I believe very strongly in free speech and free expression. It is one of the building blocks of this great republic in which we live. And any attempts to abridge or diminish it are serious matters.”

The Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations also is urging the university to take “appropriate disciplinary” action, saying the e-mail creates a hostile learning environment for students.

 

I hope Wichman or someone there will point out that the true nature of CAIR.

“It was upsetting, yet sad” that a tenured professor could make such comments, said Dawud Walid, executive director of the council. “It’s scary when you think about the power that this gentleman has” as a professor.Walid said that MSU has the academic and moral obligation to publicly denounce the e-mail, conduct a formal investigation and have sensitivity training on how to deal with Muslims on campus.

The university should “strongly and publicly disassociate themselves from the statement,” Walid said.

Azeez said education is most important.

“There’s a bigger problem here of racism and discrimination at Michigan State University. Faculty training and sensitivity training are very important to help prevent future incidents like this from occurring,” he said.

 

I would like Walid and Azeez to explain what in Wichman’s statement was false. The worst part of it is his reference to “you dissatisfied, agressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems.” But CAIR and the Muslims at MSU must recognize that there are Muslims in the world — and not a few — who are behaving with aggression and brutality. And the slave trade exists today only in certain Muslim countries. They should be devoting their efforts to eradicating these evils from the umma, not to protesting cartoons and the unfortunate Professor Wichman.

Let Me Be Clear: Cartoon of the Day

Soft on Terror

Soft on Terror

January 30th, 2010

By Charles Krauthammer, Townhall

The way team Obama reacted has left our nation more vulnerable

The real scandal surrounding the failed Christmas Day airline bombing was not the fact that a terrorist got on a plane — that can happen to any administration, as it surely did to the Bush administration — but what happened afterward when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was captured and came under the full control of the U.S. government.

After 50 minutes of questioning him, the Obama administration chose, reflexively and mindlessly, to give the chatty terrorist the right to remain silent. Which he immediately did, undoubtedly denying us crucial information about al-Qaeda in Yemen, which had trained, armed and dispatched him.

We have since learned that the decision to Mirandize Abdulmutallab had been made without the knowledge of or consultation with (1) the secretary of defense, (2) the secretary of homeland security, (3) the director of the FBI, (4) the director of the National Counterterrorism Center or (5) the director of national intelligence (DNI).

The Justice Department acted not just unilaterally but unaccountably. Obama’s own DNI said that Abdulmutallab should have been interrogated by the HIG, the administration’s new High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group.

Read More:

Football, hot dogs, applie pie…and federal intervention

Football, hot dogs, applie pie…and federal intervention

John Peeples

As a life-long, avid football fan, I have decried the myriad injustices of the sport’s championships. There was no excuse for the Jets beating the Colts in 1969’s Super Bowl III. Baltimore’s besting of the Dallas Cowboys in Super Bowl V made me sob. I will always lament the “Immaculate Reception” by Pittsburg’s Franco Harris that prevented the Oakland Raiders from playing for the championship that they so richly deserved in the mind of an eleven-year-old child.But, the road to the college football championship(s) has always been even more tumultuous and less certain than the most extreme examples in the NFL.

And, that is why the NCAA’s product is better than the NFL’s.

Despite its commercialization, college football is still a GAME. It is a sacrosanct bastion of childhood loyalties and juvenile emotions. It is a “place” where men who never played football beyond the age of twelve but who limp walking to the bathroom can pretend that they are young and virile.

All of which leads to the inescapable conclusion that CONGRESS MUST ACT! NOW!
Apparently, there is no way that you and I can enjoy our college football diversions without Washington’s intervention. What’s more, the nation’s economy depends on it! Thankfully, the Pronoun-in-Chief’s Justice Department plans to save us from our heretofore pleasant madness:

The Obama administration is considering several steps that would review the legality of the controversial Bowl Championship Series, the Justice Department said in a letter Friday to a senator who had asked for an antitrust review.
In the letter to Sen. Orrin Hatch, obtained by The Associated Press, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote that the Justice Department is reviewing Hatch’s request and other materials to determine whether to open an investigation into whether the BCS violates antitrust laws.Importantly, and in addition, the administration also is exploring other options that might be available to address concerns with the college football postseason,” Weich wrote, including asking the Federal Trade Commission to review the legality of the BCS under consumer protection laws.

Query: Will we have to pay a tax for cheering for our home team?

This is America, where, once upon a time, kids used to win and lose without any government assistance. Back then, Washington didn’t own Chevrolet. Looks like they’ll soon own football. Can we hold on to hot dogs and apple pie?

John Peeples (Apologies to MLB and to the previously privately-owned Chevrolet.)

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/01/football_hot_dogs_applie_piean.html at January 30, 2010 – 02:26:27 PM CST

Why Islam must be criticized–What the West Needs to Understand About Islam a must read!!!!!!

Why Islam must be criticized

What the West Needs to Understand About Islam
by Arslan Shaukat

How unfortunate it is that whenever someone attempts to show the facts of true Muhammadan Islam in unflattering manner in a public forum, he risks being tortured or killed by pious Muslims, even in the West. Alas!

The Muslim Ummah is utterly intolerant to criticisms of the Quran, Prophet Muhammad and Islam. Nonetheless, there are individuals who are brave enough to face the challenge of exercising their freedom of speech, their freedom of expression. Ibn Warraq, Ayan Hisri Ali, Wafa Sultan and Maryam Namazie are some of the courageous individuals who have chosen not to indulge in appeasing Muslims and political correctness. They have chosen to speak the historical, factual truth about Muhammadan Islam. And, unsurprisingly, they have been living under constant danger to their lives.

Another brave individual is the Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard. He drew the cartoons of Muhammad that appeared in a Danish newspaper in 2006 that hurled the entire Muslim world into violent frenzy. They started demonstrations and demanded death of the cartoonists and their publishers. On January 2, 2010, a Somali man, armed with an axe and knife, entered Westergaard’s house and tried to kill him.

This incident prompted me to write this article.

The reason for the attempted murder of Westergaard is his comical depiction of Muhammad, produced here.

He has drawn other depictions of Muhammad as well. It’s interesting to note that although the illustration may appear somewhat derogatory toward Muhammad, but it does make an accurate point in artistic form, i.e. the blood-soaked and war-filled life of Muhammad. That is exactly what the bomb depicts. I personally believe that it’s not inflammatory at all; it just makes a true representation of Muhammad in pictorial form.

This incident entails a number of issues within the context of western nations and within the context of a truly democratic set-up, which I will address in this article.

First: Why criticize Islam? And why should non-Muslims/atheists etc. indulge in such criticisms and ‘inflammatory actions’ when it’s already given that Muslim world will react violently.

Second: What is the use of such ‘transgressions,’ i.e. what good will come out of it?

WHY ISLAM SHOULD BE CRITICIZED:

1. Firstly: Islam is an unproven and unsubstantiated religious dogma. Islam is a truth claim. It’s a claim; nothing more. There is no logical reason whatsoever as to why a claim about the basis of existence and morality should not be questioned and analyzed. In fact, reason tells us that such a monumental claim that affects humanity in a big way should be critically analyzed vigorously.

2. Secondly: A great many aspects of Islamic teachings, namely from the Quran and Muhammad’s life, are very disturbing and worrying. It’s not an opinion but a fact. Although somewhat unnecessary, I will back up the above mentioned statements with a few examples:

a. Al-Quran:

This supposedly ‘holy’ book incites violence, aggression, hatred and bloodshed:

– O Prophet! Urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand (Quran 8:065).

– Fight those who do not believe in Allah…nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection (Quran 9:29).

-Warfare is enjoined on you, and it is an object of dislike to you; and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know (2:216).

The list goes on and on. I believe I have made the point as to why Quran should be criticized and questioned.

b. Muhammad: The person responsible for inventing Islam had less than stellar prophetic career:

– He was involved in many wars and looting of caravans. He ordered the killing of those who showed dissent. He was a polygamist and a rapist. It is also a fact that he married Ayesha when she was very young (Life of Mahomet, William Muir (1861); Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad%27s_marriages).

I believe I have made the point as to why the character of Muhammad should be criticized and questioned.

3. Thirdly: The western civilization and nations believe in democratic values. In democracy, freedom of speech and freedom of expression is of paramount importance. Without freedom of speech and expression, a democratic society will become stagnant. It also includes criticism of religious dogma. So it’s nonsensical to say that Islam should be or is somehow immune to criticism. Such a stance goes against the very core of liberal humanism and democratic values.

I believe these three reasons are more than enough justification as to why Islam should not be considered protected against criticism by the west.

WHY CRITICIZE ISLAM WHEN ISLAMISTS WILL REACT VIOLENTLY:

Now, why critics in the West, or everywhere for that matter, should criticize Islam despite however violent way the Muslim Ummah would react.

Firstly: Let me give the answer by asking a question:

Why should we criticize anything at all then? Isn’t it possible that Buddhists, Jains, Christians, Marxists etc., living in the West will react violently if I criticize their ideology? Why not just ban criticism all together? Why not just ‘respect’ everything than?

Secondly: It is the responsibility of every conscientious citizen to uphold the ideals of democracy and civil liberty by exercising their sovereign right of freedom of speech and expression. To not criticize an ideology that is manifestly anti-democratic and against human freedom is tantamount to giving into imaginary fears and cowering to political correctness.

Thirdly: One may argue that it is counterproductive to indulge in unnecessary attacks and ad-hominem statements with regards to Islamic ideology. Most western countries have Muslim populations and it will decidedly be counterproductive and unintelligible to drum up misdirected rhetoric against Islam. But, Islamic dogma warrants criticism on many levels as I have striven to show. So, on one hand, we have Muslim populations in the West, and, on the other, we have Islamic dogma. The correct approach should be a justified and well-articulated criticism of Islam without indulging in too much anti-Islamic rhetoric. A balance so to speak (although it is extremely hard to imagine how such a feat is possible!!!)

Of course, disenfranchising Muslim populations in the west is not a good idea, but that does not mean that Islam is off limits. Muslims should be made to realize that they are living in a democratic system, and, in a true democracy, criticism of a truth claim is a very essential and healthy activity.

Therefore, I do not believe that a possibility of backlash is any justification to keep away from criticism of Islam.

WHAT GOOD WILL COME OUT OF CRITICIZING ISLAM?

Now, what good will ever come out of such criticism of Islam? Let me explain.

I will take England as an example. England is witnessing a minor yet subtle surge in fuming Islamic rhetoric, being propagated by different UK-based Islamists.

Although the majority of Muslims in England are well adjusted within its socio-cultural and economic milieu, there is a strong and vocal minority that is trying to win over these ‘westernized and liberal’ Muslims and convert them into true Muslims.

One such example is that of Anjem Chaudary, formerly the head of Islam for UK (Islam4UK), established by pious Muslims as a platform to “propagate the supreme Islamic ideology in the United Kingdom as a divine alternative to man-made law.”

Islam4UK; the caption in itself explains the agenda. The UK government recently banned the organization for its vitriolic rhetoric. This is indeed a ‘great set back’ for Anjem (pun intended). All he has to do is change the name of Islam 4 UK and come back to the forefront of Islamist propaganda machine to forward its message.

In November 2008, Chaudary convened a meeting for Islam4UK to “convince the British public about the superiority of Islam, thereby changing public opinion in favor of Islam in order to transfer the authority and power, to the Muslims in order to implement the Shariah (in Britain).” In 2004, he said that a terror attack on the British soil was “a matter of time”; following the 7 July 2005 London bombings, he refused to condemn the atrocities. Anjem wants Sharia implemented in UK. He wants to dismantle the democratic system and replace it with Islamic law and Jurisprudence.

England has approximately 1.6 million Muslims. Now, suppose a raving, hate mongering, idiotic lunatic like Anjem Chaudary can sway even 2% of this Muslim population; that will amount to ~ 20,000 radical Muslims. Suppose out of these, just 2% are radicalized enough to engage in terrorist activities, there will be 200 to 400 Islamic terrorists on the streets of Britain. That is a large number, given that the 9/11 atrocity was orchestrated by no more than 20 individuals.

So how can we meet this challenge?

Well, one strategy to confront such people and fanatics is the strategy of Political correctness (PC) , ‘opening a constructive dialogue’, ‘better understanding of their problems’, ‘addressing underlying socio-economic issues’ that fuel such feelings.
But such a strategy of PC and appeasement is utterly flawed, short sighted and doomed to fail. I will say a few things as to why it is so:

WHY POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, APPEASEMENT WILL NOT WORK:

This is perhaps the most important point of this whole article:

1. What the West must realize is that Islamists and Muslim fanatics are actually practicing and pious Muslims who follow the Quran and Sunnah and Muhammad. They have not hijacked Islam. They are simply following it to the letter. The above mentioned Quranic Surahs and a few tidbits of Muhammadan life is just a glimpse as to what Islam actually says about infidels and war. Thus, the strategy of PC, a ‘constructive dialogue’ etc; which assumes that there is something wrong with such people and their interpretation of Islam; in itself is illogical and fallacious.

The problem is Islam, Quran and Muhammad. People like Anjem Chaudary are but good Muslims. Tackle Islam and through that, tackle such Islamists.

2. These Islamists are utterly convinced of the supremacy and transcendence of Islam. To them, all that matters is forwarding the message of Islam and Quran. Nothing the west may do to appease these Islamists will work. Absolutely and literally nothing.

3. Dialogue is possible only where there is something to discuss. The West doesn’t realize that there is absolutely nothing to discuss with Islamists and those who indulge in religious rhetoric. Such people follow Quran and Sunnah and according to those sources it is incumbent on every practicing Muslim to forward the message the Islam in what ever way and manner.

4. Also, what the West must understand is that such Muslims will inevitably increase in number, so will there radical voice. They will make increasing demands; there already are Shariah complaint courts in England. Next, there will be demands like separate schooling for Muslim children, segregation of Muslim women from non-mahram (unrelated) men in work places, and so on and so forth.

Although people like Anjem Chaudary are a fringe minority, to underestimate them will be disastrous. Even one good Islamic preacher and Islamist can sway, arguably, hundreds of moderate and westernized Muslims towards his/her Islamic ideology. It is an ideological war that such people are waging and they need to be taken very very seriously. The concept of tableegh or preaching Islam is central to Islamic dogma and such people have historically been very successful in swaying large number of westernized Muslims.

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE?

The answer is simple; exercise the sovereign right of freedom of expression and speech. Show these radicals that their dogma is flawed, hollow and incompatible with civilized ethos. There is no other alternative. Such Islamists, although a small minority, must be challenged squarely; no more, no less. Their so-called divine religion, which they claim to be the best of all, must be analyzed and duly criticized. That is the only way to confront challenge of the Islamists.

Ad-hominem attacks and empty rhetoric against Islam will accomplish very little, but rational criticism of Islam, namely of the Quran and Muhammad, will accomplish a number of things:

1. It will make the Islamists realize that they are living under a democratic system and in true democracy; criticism of a truth claim is a very natural and healthy activity.

2. Criticism of Islam will make Islamists realize that no matter what they do or say, democratic system (which they are enjoying) will not become subservient to their rhetoric.

3. Such criticism will impact the psyche of Muslim and non-Muslim population and make them, at least, think that there, perhaps, are aspects of Islam that are incompatible with many a things they take for granted in the West.

4. Rational criticism of Islam will, in the long run, lead to greater understanding of issues and problems within Islamic dogma, and how they can be addressed.

Currently, many ex-Muslims, atheists and liberals in the West are raising concern about messages of the Quran and life of Muhammad. Individuals like Geert Wilders and Wafa Sultan are trying to shed light on exactly how dangerous the Islamic Dogma is. But much more needs to be done. Every ex-Muslim, Humanist, liberalist, and atheist must do whatever in his or her power to make sure that sovereignty of basic human rights such as freedom of expression and speech is protected.

If the West is to remain truly democratic, then there is simply no other choice then to assert their core values in effective and efficient manner.

Comments and feedback is welcome at: arslanshaukat706@yahoo.com

Arslan Shaukat is an ex-Muslim residing in Britain.

Posted by Robert on January 29, 2010 5:23 AM