Do you know what the Arabic word "Ummah" is? If you do, can you please define it for me in a way that fits your idiotic thesis?

Do you know what the "Hajj" is, you know, one of the five pillars of Islam? If you do, would you please explain the existence of that ritual in a way that supports your idiotic thesis?

You are either ignorant or being deliberately disengenous. Which is it?

Of course there is something which can be commonly understood as Islam and is instantly recognizable as Islam. Muslims are particularly proud of that fact, and the uniformity of Islam (which they frequently even overstate) is something they trumpet in their promotional literature, a.k.a. da'wa writings.

If Muslims THEMSELVES insist there is a common set of Muslim beliefs and even a common Muslim culture, HOW can somebody like you come along and say there isn't?

Sure Malaysians are different from Nigerians. But they observe the same prayers, learn from the same texts, ideally learn Arabic, and they stand side by side in Mecca, dressed in the same clothing. The sight is actually quite remarkable, if you have ever seen it. Muslims are absolutely "in it together". That's what Ummah is all about.

If Muslims take such pride in their fellowship and unity, they ought to be able to stand shoulder to shoulder and condemn the oppression of women and the terrorism that targets churches and synagogues. Maybe, some day, that will happen. But right now, they are falling far short of that mark and I for one say, let's keep asking them why.

A Nigerian man will address a Malaysian man as "Brother", and an Arab woman will call an Indian lady her "Sister". They won't call kafirs anything of the sort. Muslims definitely cultivate a shared identity. It's just a stupid liberal (and I am one) talking point to say they don't.

CAIR are lawsuit shoppers at best and possibly they are worse things. They have no credibility.

you are right about the fatwa, it's a version of a point I made earlier. However, it's your admission--there's no distinction between religion and state--that's crucial.

Some Muslim groups have a more of a role for clergy with formal sanction and training than others. Among Shi'ites it happens to be highly developed thanks to the tradition of venerating the Prophet's family line (the Say'yid).

And while you are right about the political scene in general, I still think it's a little too easy--are ALL of Somalia's problems attributable to the West? Are Somalians themselves causing none of it? What about the Sudanese? How did the Americans cause Darfur and the Janjaweed, exactly?

C'mon, don't disappoint me, I know you'll come up with something.

All I'm saying is, you can only go so far with that viewpoint. As the Pakistanis proved when they built a bomb that everybody desperately wanted them never to have, when a nation is determined to not let outsiders interfere, they can manage to spurn even the Americans. Libya has done it. Heck, little 'ole Cuba has been thumbing us for decades.

It's possible.

As for the "mosque destroying" in India--you're referring to ONE mosque--the Ahodya--a shame, true, but not a pattern that's repeating from Delhi to Calcutta or anything like that. Muslims are not the Jews of India. They need to get that idea out of their heads and stop spewing that nonsense. I've been there. It's a claim of victimhood that only works if you've never seen India. Unlike Jews in Europe, the Muslims used to be the rulers of India. They ruled for hundreds of years, they WERE the colonizers before the English showed up (and they cooperated hand in hand with the English, because they considered themselves fellow whites). There are poor Muslims, yes, but they didn't fall completely to the bottom. They are still prominent in their communities, and Hindu-Muslim tension goes both ways, believe me. It's a totally different dynamic.

Anyway, back to owning your own crap, as Dr. Phil would say--Pakistanis cry about how America created the Taliban that now threatens their country. Fair enough, but Pakistanis also have to admit that they participated in feeding the monster--and they bitterly regret allowing their own secret service, the ISI, to be used for this purpose. They regret enthusiastically following Zia down that rabbit hole. They are close enough to the action to know where their own culpability begins and ends. Americans were involved, but Pakistan did something too.

We hear all the time how all the problems in Pakistan stem from American involvement in their politics. And yet, the Americans did not own Pakistan, Zia, and the ISI so completely that Pakistan couldn't manage to construct a nuclear bomb in secret. Isn't that interesting?

To say Americans are responsible for all evil, is to say nobody in the world has free will or is responsible for what happens in their own countries. That is just not true. Even the people who live in the "oppressed" countries know it.

but any cursory list of terrorist acts on Indian soil committed by Muslim extremists against Hindu and Indian national targets would make that three-point list look mighty paltry.

And at least one of those linked sites is an Islamic propaganda outfit.

Just sayin'.

did you read what I wrote accurately?

I was arguing against that viewpoint....

And, I really wish you wouldn't call Canuck Bob names. Think of it from a purely selfish viewpoint if you must. It makes him look better, and makes you look worse.

since you are a world-class expert on all of these topics, why don't you share your insight instead of coming on and throwing shit around for three sentences and then leaving.

We're waiting.