In the UK women were legally chatels until 1986 - they couldn't even sign their own tax returns; their husbands, fathers or other male relatives had to do it.

On th OP: I actually think it's good that this idiot is spouting such crap. Moderate UK Muslims will be conflicted by what is in the Q'ran and be that tiny fraction readier to give up on their fairy tale because they won't agree with what it says, emotionally, logically or intellectually.

You couldn't legally rape your wife in the US until the 70's.

Unfortunately that only places him about 20 years (I think) behind the UK law ...

A Muslim cleric in Britain has recently caused a bit of a stir after claiming that 'rape within a marriage isn't possible' effectively pushing feminism back two decades.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rape-impossible-in-marriage-says-muslim-cleric-2106161.html

He then proceeds to back his statement with Islamic arguments. I know it's probably not feasible enough, but I'd hate for England to become a Sharia nation. Not with these idiots running about.

He's cured! It's a miracle!

HTML hates spaces - use non-breaking spaces instead (hold Alt and type 0160 on the numeric keypad)

 &
 O
\|/
 |
/ \

&
O
\|/
|
/ \

----------
Hmm. My Muhammad has a wicked case of scoliosis.

What happened was that people blasphemed in the worst way possible: They drew stick figures.

I wanted to talk about this facebook campaign that has been started.
Also, Pakistan(my home country), has restricted both YouTube and facebook out of typical fundamental ignorance.
What the hell happened?

It would help if your teacher had clarified recent years, as there would be considerably different answers to "why has fundamentalism increased since 1930" and "why has fundamentalism increased since 2001". One of the things that seems to be a consistent factor is that larger numbers of people seek out religion for security in insecure times. In the period after 9/11 and after US forces returned home from World War 2, there was a significant upswing in church attendance among people who had not been to church in years. Also, while there have always been powerful churches and powerful religious leaders, the past forty years or so have seen the rise of some insanely powerful christian lobbying organizations that have successfully rewritten a lot of laws in favor of fundamentalists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Coalition_of_America

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority

You might be able to talk about certain recent events which could have lead to it. For example the revolution in Iran, the cold war might be a good one to talk about (that is the reason the USA has 'In God We Trust' on money). Another idea could be checking if there is an increase in fundamentalism in the USA after 911. This might be caused by a feeling of insecurity.

Is the paper specific to any specific type of religious persuasion?

Hoping this forum might help me... I have an essay to write on "why there has been an increase of religious fundamentalism in recent years", it does not specify either locally or globally, nor what 'recent years' means, apparently I have to figure this out for myself and I'm having trouble knowing where to start. I have ordered "The Battle For God" by Karen Armstrong and another few books to get me started on my reading; I will also be going back to Letter to a Christian Nation, as it had some good info on how liberals become fundies. I have a very basic premise that there has not been an increase in just fundamentalism per se, but that due to the ease in which we can communicate (as well as kill each other) more prospective recruits for right-wing causes can be reached and influenced. I've also got some rudimentary info about the psychology of the average fundie. Hoping someone can tell me if I'm on the right track, helpful books or articles... anything??

I learned that we should throw out due process when it comes to Akbar:

"Law enforcement officials announced yesterday that Maj. Nidal M. Hasan has been charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder in the brutal attacks at Fort Hood Army base. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said that “the number one issue, I think right now, is that Major Hasan be brought to justice.”

Last night on Fox News, Bill Kristol called Napolitano’s comment “stupid” and stated outright that there should be no trial:

KRISTOL: I was very struck also by Janet Napolitano’s comment, I hadn’t read it before to see her say that, that the number one priority is to bring him to justice is such a knee-jerk comment and such a stupid comment. He’s going to be brought to justice. He is not going to be innocent of murder. There are a lot of eyewitnesses to that. They should just go ahead and convict him and put him to death."

(from thinkprogress.org)

I would also note (again) that our so-enlightened nation has killed more people, more civillians during the 20th century (and the 21st), than all Islamic terrorism put together. (Phillipines, our Central American adventures, through proxy dictators) Heck, we are at this moment directly funding and arming separatist terrorists (talk about calling a spade a spade)in Iran. Right now...people are blowing up things with our bullets and weapons.

The preening self righteousness of the American population (and Europe as well) is amazing in its arrogance and historical blindness.

I have no love for Islam. Portentous talk of moral crusades and wars of civillizations are nothing more than propaganada for the eternal expansion of the War State. count me out.

BrainUser...most of the extremists in Islam have been kind of pushed into that bolt hole by the west,Islam specifically,fundamentalist factions, use religion to bring together many varied and primative tribal and pantheistic groups under the 'new' banner of Islam to give folks a universal identity much like western cristianity did around 12 hundred years ago..when the west/christianity stopped Muslim/Islamic expansion at Tours it set Islam back for around 12-13 hundred years,remember until recently Islam was the largest faith,by numbers, in the world and still had not gotten back to a universal church(doctrine) like it had in it's beginning. Basically the faith though around 12 hundred years old has never reached the point christianity did,before fragmenting, thus it still uses things like Jihad and martyrs to spread itself. Again all of which is a direct response to the west and christianity. If you want to understand the faith and it's adherents it would behoove you to look at the actions of christianity from about 450 AD until oh maybe the 1900's, and even that time period afterwards is not without exceptions for christianity(or factions thereof) acting as bad as Islamic fundementalists act today, consider if you will that excluding 9/11 all 'terrorist' attacks in the US excluding the few by AIM(the American Indian Movement) were done by fringe/extremist/fundementalist Christian types. Hell Ireland has been torn apart by christian vs christian violence and terrorism for over 200 years. The 30 years war and the 100 years war had a hell of a lot to do with differences of faith.

In fact up until around 1950 or so as far as recent history goes,Islam, and it's fundementalists have been worth a foot note more or less in history, since that time on the other hand when the west found great reserves of OIL where they lived and we have generally treated those of that faith like criminals for trying to protect their own land and resources(without the technological base or means to do so,plus forcing them to accept a new nation,a Jewish 'homeland' on lands taken away from the peoples of the middle east in an attempt to pay for the crimes of western christianity that were perpetuated upon those Jews) by the only means they happen to have. One nations terrorists is anothers heroes and freedom fighters, the founders of the USA would in todays parlance be terrorists,as would those that over through every monarchy in europe, as well as the fathers of modern Israel. There are of course many other examples I could mention.

My point in the end is BrainUser read some history and use your brain rather than parroting popular bullshit.

Yes there are moderates and yes crazy people do crazy things because they are crazy. But my observation echoes others who see Islam as the absolute worst of the world's major religions today. Christianity certainly had its brutality and occasionally still does but Islam puts them all to shame.

It's particularly abhorrent, especially its unbridled push for a repressive version of control over those it subjugates. The percentage of its adherents who tolerate, even advocate brutal behavior to win this control is higher than any other group.

The evidence is everywhere in the nearly national-level repression it engages in among so many of its followers. While it may be poverty, tribalism or other reasons that underlie many of these nation's problems, the foundation and justification they use is frequently Islam. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Sudan, Jordan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and many others justify repressive behavior with Islam. Even in the moderate countries like Turkey and Malaysia there is a significant portion of the faithful pushing for a more radical version--what they feel is the "True" Islam.

All religion is a straight jacket on humanity, Islam is a particular travesty.

Solution? While we must respect the rights of individuals always, we must also be vocal about calling a spade a spade. If you're a Muslim and you don't decry the various heinous acts carried out in your religion, you are, in my book, almost as bad as they.

And we shouldn't be afraid to say so.

All I really learned,or should I say Re-learned is the US army is the worst service in the US, and that doctors of mental diseases are as crazy as those they treat.....there is no excuse for this man not having been removed from active duty. He should have been discharged years BEFORE this happened,not left to fester within the service, also not be be an unfeeling bastard but how in the hell did he do so much damage on an active military base? The man could have been mobbed with much less damage than what did happen..the whole incident boggles my mind, it could not and would not happen on say a Marine base.

Islam the biggest threat to "the world"? Not hardly. Islamists (not Islam, but Islamists) killed 3,000 people on September 11. How many have we, the peace-loving Light of the World (tm, Obama and Saint Ronnie of Illinois), killed in reaction since (or, probably more realistically, our elites...of "both" parties, used the 911 attackes (a gift from heaven...listen how the right wing even now vocally salivatingly wishes for another "big event" to galvanize "us" towards total war)to justify insane policy goals and objectives.)?

There are a lot of "threats to the world." The ravenous limitlessness of modern economic systems are to me a greater threat to "the world" than a few deluded scholars in Saudi Arabia. Global warming. Climate change. Population growth. All bigger threats.

Besides...again...what the hell do you "War of Civillizations" people want? The United States to start dropping bombs on every Islamic country? Total war involving Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia (which is actually facing sectarian strife right now), Nigeria...on and on and on. Are YOU all signing up to serve (many of yiou are younger)? Are you voting for 150% tax increases, because when "we" declare war on ervyone in the Muslim world (all 1.2 billion), I doubt the Chinese will be so willing to fund our deficits? What do your fulminations really mean...are you all secret Robert Heinlein readers who want to live in a 110% militarized fascist state?

Gringa: no, I wasn't referring to you. What I had in mind was people I met back in college.

And I don't know if islam is THE biggest threat. My stance differs from baptists in that I don't endorse any godfearing religion, them included. Many of them are just as bad as the muslims they decry.

I'm gonna have to fall squarely on LMNOP's side on this one (big shocker, right?)

If you sincerely think that Islam is the number one most grade-A serious threat to the world at large right now, you sound like a particularly extreme Baptist. There's a reason I don't listen to panic-mongering Christians. Do you claim to have a different stance on the matter from fundamentalist Christians?

A-tom, a while back you said this: "non-muslim apologists for islam"

I don't know if you were talking about me, but it seems like it. I am not apologizing for any religion; I am arguing against discrimination solely on the basis of religion, as I would against discrimination on the basis of sex, race, hair color, whatever.

There you have it. I wasn't sure if it was time-limited or had to do with number of subsequent posts.

The edit button hangs around for a little while...

An hour.

Elemenope: I suppose that as a moderator, it is your job to infuse moderation into the debate at any cost.

Thanks, but this is what I actually think, too. :-)

I don't think islamic world domination is actually in the cards but only because we would fight it just like we fought the nazis, at a great cost.

I am reasonably certain that Islamic world domination (in the sense we seem to be talking about) is *never* in the cards, for the simple fact that Islam is no more a monolith than Christianity. There are divisions, secular and sectarian, linguistic and cultural, that divide the Muslim world as deeply as the wider world. Islam is not a body politic, and no nation could ever hope to command them. As I mentioned before, nearly three-quarters of the world's Muslims are not from the benighted Middle East or Near East, but are rather from Southeast Asia and could not give a damn about political Jihad, nor have any interest in following some Saudi Sheikh.

Cynic: the "edit" button seems to have disappeared. It was there before!

The edit button hangs around for a little while, and then it disappears; I think the intent is to give people the opportunity to proofread and fix the text as it would actually appear.

Cynic: the "edit" button seems to have disappeared. It was there before!

And whether extremists would exist without moderates or not is all in the name... who gets to be the kettle and who gets to call who black. Obviously, extremists don't think the moderates are "pure" enough or faithful enough to the religion. So they want the moderates gone (dead). But even if they succeeded, there's no reason to think it would end there. As long as the extremist mindset were the norm, the fight would just keep on going over who is more "pure" (or, extreme).

Elemenope: I suppose that as a moderator, it is your job to infuse moderation into the debate at any cost. And I can appreciate that. But that's all I'll give you. You have not convinced me one bit in this debate.

I don't think islamic world domination is actually in the cards but only because we would fight it just like we fought the nazis, at a great cost.

Not really. As a political scientist, I'm having a helluva hard time coming up with a plausible set of dominoes beginning with nutso terrorist cell/penny-ante Arab state and ending with world annihilation.

We're standing on model train tracks and you're worried that the train might whack us in the ankle.

I feel that you are standing on the tracks quibbling about the size and speed of the oncoming train.

A-Tom
Goddamn it, i did mean 'socks'
wish i could edit that somehow

The problem is religion as a whole
Religion will always lead to someone acting crazy
faith mostly starts moderate then evolves to extremism
i really doubt that extremist would exist without moderates
this is not the first time religion has produced a mad man and i'll bet my left nut its not gonna be the last