and practiced for about ten years...perhaps a little less. I moved three times during this period, and so was involved in three Islamic centers in different states.

In my experience American women who converted usually did so to marry Muslim men. Part of what drove me away from Islam was the shocking number of my friends and co-religionists who were beaten, locked up in their homes, had their children whisked away from them to some third world country to be raised by their in-laws, and so on. One woman I knew was killed. In general I would find it hard to believe that Muslim women are abused at the same rate as women in the general population. I feel it must be much higher.

You must remember that Muhammad not only condoned the beating of women (apologists' translations aside), but he also ordered his followers to be vigilant in restricting women's movements, screening their friends (read Muhammad's last sermon), and of course women's clothing and head coverings were non-negotiable points. Muslim women are also very limited in what financial activities they may pursue and they are not allowed to inherit enough money to become financially independent, whether they are daughters or widows (male relatives get the lion's share).

If you go to a woman's shelter and pick up a brochure on the behaviors of abusers, you will find:

a)physical abuse

b)limits mobility and free movement

c)controls outside friendships

d)dictates what she may wear and her hair style

e)keeps money away from her or limits her to only a small allowance (financial dependence)

In other words the Islamic treatment of women is textbook abuser's tactics.

I got sick of the prevarications and excuses of Muslim "leaders" (male and female), and eventually it didn't matter to me any more whether the abuse was sanctioned by the religion or the culture of the husband or by some combination of the two. The easiest way to get away from the way women are treated by Muslim men was to get away from Islam. Full stop.

I'll now wait for the usual letters telling my experiences mean nothing and I should not deduce anything from them, and I should not dare deduce anything politically incorrect from the sacred texts of Islam. Pre-emptively, I'll just tell you to stuff it.

People, i.e. women, are dying for this? And we have Broadsheet saying the translation of this verse is debateable? It hasn't been debateable in over 100 years since Marmaduke Pickthall (himself a convert to Islam who lived in the court of the Nazim of Hyderabad) created the first widely read English translation of the Q'uran (and for this verse Pickthall actually used the word "scourge"--"you shall scourge them"--a word the King James Bible uses to describe the severe beating of Christ), how can it suddenly be debateable now?

You know if this was fundie Christians trying to whitewash the nasty bits of the Bible under cover of a new "kinder, gentler" translation, we'd be scoffing. We should be scoffing at this, too.

I'll believe that Muslim communities are doing something positive to end abuse against women when they announce a)that the Q'uran is not the immutable Word of God and b)Muhammad was wrong about some things and not the perfect example to follow. Right now, either of those statements will get you killed in your average Muslim community. Lots of nominal Muslims do reject Q'uranic absolutism, but they feel compelled to keep quiet about it. Hence the seemingly puzzling silence of the so-called "Muslim moderates".

Biblical literalism (the earth is 6,000 years old, etc.) is now a fringe movement and no longer mainstream, and this has allowed Christianity to somewhat adapt. Until Islam reaches the same point, atrocities against women will continue.

I don't know why I had to even go there.

A whole fake country? How does that even work? A whole fake country to stage coups in? Who needs a coup in a fake country? Aren't coups best staged in real countries with real governments that need deposing from somebody's point of view?

None of this makes any sense.

We don't know who the enemy is by Kansas' flippant reference. Kansas has been set up by "Schlomo", but again, what's the point? What IS the Crispy/Crispo file and why is she after it again? Why is Schlomo setting her up after using her for a booty call anyway?

Another Tuesday, another mess so stinking awful that I need a shower even though I'm already at work.

I'm just not going to volunteer for it any more. Salon, you're running a big ad campaign to get premium subscribers these days. I was thinking about it, but really, why should I? You've got way too many mediocre talents in your lineup. Ayelet whats-er-name with her mommy angst and Camille Paglia with her dated 90s diatribes are others I could list.

Seriously, you would be doing yourself some active financial good by killing off this strip for starters.