"his mother would have to be on paper at least a Muslim too as mixed marriages(that's a religious mix not racially mix) were not allowed in Indonesia at the time he lived there( how do I know I tried to marry an Indonesian Muslim about the same time and was informed of the LAW)"

Islamic law treats men and women differently in this regard: I.e., a Muslim man can marry a non-Muslim woman and she may not have to be a "Muslim on paper" -- but a non-Muslim man cannot marry a Muslim woman without himself converting to Islam.

The Islamic logic here is based on their belief that women are weak and will be subjugated under the rule of the husband -- therefore, a non-Muslim woman is no threat to the Muslim husband who will control her; but a non-Muslim man is a threat to a Muslim woman as her husband, since his Islamic power in marriage over his wife could possibly lead her away from Islam.

She [Prof. Lila Abu-Lughod] ...makes a defense of the burqa, the niqab, and all the other coverings forced on Muslim women (and which some of the most brainwashed are taught to accept and defend) based on the notion that women love it -- that women want that "portable seclusion." "Portable seclusion"!

Prof. Abu-Lughod is correct: Muslim women do love it. Muslim women, by virtue of their gender, are not magically different from Muslim men in their fanatical desire to be enslaved by Islam, and in their consequent enablement and support of the evil, unjust and dangerous ideology of Islam that seeks to enslave all others under its yoke and to kill those who resist.

The Washington Post article I alluded to above:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10...

Italy may be handling the problem of jihadism somewhat better than other Western countries, but they are still in terms of overarching methodology guided by an absurd premise -- that their society can continue to accomodate a growing population of Muslim immigrants and Muslim citizens, including the continued building of mosques, etc. (In a Washington Post article 5 years ago, the population of Muslims in Italy was estimated at 700 thousand).

The absurdity of this apparently is only seen by us in the anti-jihad movement: namely, the absurdity of a nation spending enormous amounts of time, money and effort trying to keep one step ahead of a subpopulation bent on mass-murdering your own citizens in ways, places and times difficult to predict, while at the same time accomodating that subpopulation's larger milieu that in various complex ways ideologically, psychologically, culturally and sociologically nourishes that very same murderousness.

It's like heroically spend most of your time, money and effort fighting off a perpetual (and growing) problem of mosquitos while at the same time generously accomodating -- right smack dab in the middle of your living room -- a swamp from which the mosquitos keep breeding.

After each episode of Sudden Jihad Syndrome, the tissues of the surrounding organism of the West react immediately with Sudden Dhimmi Syndrome, by denial and obfuscation. This is not a healthy way for a sociopolitical organism to respond to attacks on its system: it is, in fact, a pathology that will only cause the problem to fester and grow worse.

The otherwise intelligent conservative, Mitt Romney, would probably agree with Obama.

If anyone is still in doubt that irrationality about Islam is a much larger phenomenon than merely Leftism, look at this recent quote by Mitt Romney:

I spoke about three major threats America faces on a long term basis. Jihadism is one of them, and that is not Islam. If you want my views on Islam, it's quite straightforward. Islam is one of the world's great religions and the great majority of people in Islam want peace for themselves and peace with their maker. They want to raise families and have a bright future.

They call themselves jihadists and I use the same term. And this jihadist movement is intent on causing the collapse of moderate Muslim states and the assassination of moderate Muslim leaders. It is also intent on causing collapse of other nations in the world. It's by no means a branch of Islam. It is instead an entirely different entity. In no way do I suggest it is a part of Islam.

This shows the extent of the PC MC deformation: when it reaches the point of rotting the brain of an otherwise intelligent conservative like Mitt Romney, one has to admire with amazement its breadth and depth of influence, even as one remains infuriated by it.

No, that is not what Jefferson said about the Koran.

That is what the Muslim ambassador from Tripoli told Jefferson and Adams in London when they asked him why Muslim regimes (the regimes of North Africa specifically) were attacking American ships and kidnapping their crews.

The evidence is in The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Julian P. Boyd, Editor, Princeton, NJ, 1954, page 358 in volume 9.

See this for more:

<a href="http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2009/04/i-struck-go..." target="_blank">http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2009/04/i-struck-go...

"5:33 is about terrorists and how the state should treat them! "

One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter".

Notice how the Muslim apologist muzzammil has no problem here using the term "terrorist" in terms of a certainty that assumes it does not suffer this problem of subjective ambiguity, while elsewhere, as when Muslims were launching razzias throughout history and right up to the year 2009 in various parts of the world, muzzammil would suddenly find need to appeal to that subjective ambiguity in order to re-define the Muslim terrorist as a freedom fighter fighting against "oppression".

Deeper than this scurrilous expediency of semantics, however, we note an Orwellian defense in muzzammil's response about 5:33:

5:33 is about terrorists and how the state should treat them!

In fact, there was no "state" in 7th century Arabia nor in the Dar-al-Islam as it expanded outward from Arabia by military attacks and violent subjugation. What we would call a "state" was a state of perpetual war, waged by a people intent on establishing a regime ruling by terror. Just as Leftists and Muslims in our time glibly call Bush a "terrorist" and America under Obama's predecessors a "terrorist nation", so too we call the Caliphs terrorists and the regimes they sought to establish as "terrorist regimes".

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. And it's not just equivalency. We have more facts on our side.

The rest of Romney's quote doesn't get any better:

They call themselves jihadists and I use the same term. And this jihadist movement is intent on causing the collapse of moderate Muslim states and the assassination of moderate Muslim leaders. It is also intent on causing collapse of other nations in the world. It's by no means a branch of Islam. It is instead an entirely different entity. In no way do I suggest it is a part of Islam.

If anyone is still in doubt that irrationality about Islam is a much larger phenomenon than merely Leftism, look at this recent quote by Mitt Romney:

I spoke about three major threats America faces on a long term basis. Jihadism is one of them, and that is not Islam. If you want my views on Islam, it's quite straightforward. Islam is one of the world's great religions and the great majority of people in Islam want peace for themselves and peace with their maker. They want to raise families and have a bright future.

This shows the extent of the PC MC deformation: when it reaches the point of rotting the brain of an otherwise intelligent conservative like Mitt Romney, one has to admire with amazement its breadth and depth of influence.

(About this quote of Romney's Lawrence Auster writes: "I am deeply disappointed in Romney, stunned, actually. " One should not be disappointed or stunned: it should have been evident years ago that most people throughout the West -- Left, Right and Center -- think this way.)

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/...