I too have experienced other people, including my own parents, who identify me these days primarily as "a mom", like I have never done or will do anything else. That's my identity whether that's the word I use or not. And I find myself interacting a lot with other self-identified and even overzealous Moms, because of my kids and their activities. And so will you. Gross or not gross, MOM will become your identity, whether you resent it or not.

And you know what? My kids are important and it's okay. My stinking, whimpering ego can take a back seat for many years. It's fine. I'm not worried about it; it doesn't make me feel lost and insecure. I can understand the feeling. But my kids are foremost, they are here, they need me, and my ego is not more important. "I" am still here and will be here and if other people want to see me only as "Mom"...well, that's how my kids see me too! How cool is that?

If your ego is still more important....that's fine but don't pit your ego against a child. The child doesn't deserve that. It's not a choice you have. You will be Mom. What is the first word your kid is going to learn? Probably Mom.

When you hear that little "Mom" coming from the crib....gosh, it will sound like the most wonderful word in the world. Be ready. As some of the posters have said, you might not quite be there yet.

For what? For not knowing squat? There are lots of poor Hindus in the world, but where is their anti-Western rhetoric? What about Buddhists?

There are Christian Arabs (a few). Why have they been totally absent from the Jihad against the West?

And what, Yellow Dog, for heaven's sake, is a "Pastafarian"? It wasn't a typo, you wrote it twice.

Oh, those Pastafarian terrorists.....

Fightthetheocracy's comment on page 10.

Best one so far.

Chris. W and Zaynab!

Thumbs down for Mr. Cole's reply, which just ended with that tired old "so's your mama" fallacy.

Not to mention it was not in good faith to say that, while these Q'uranic verses can be taken to refer to self-defense in the historical context, they can also be taken to mean "the best defense is good offense" and HAVE been frequently interpreted that way by Muslim empire builders themselves.

Not to mention all the hair splitting about "Muslim" vs. "Islamic". Please.

Then Cole completely negates this spun sugar argument by petulantly saying, "well the Bible is violent too".

Mr. Cole, you are 90% of the time in better form than this, and I really liked your article's subject and was hoping for a good read, but it wasn't, for reasons that many posters here have pointed out.

That was worth the agony of the whole last 15 pages.

Thanks :)

Absolutely true and on the mark.

Now if only Dr. Cole had actually chosen to write his article on this topic.

Was here at our college recently.

He's good, but in his interview with our local newspaper he identified himself as an atheist, if I remember correctly.

Maybe we need to abort the terms "moderate Muslims" and "Fundamentalist Muslims".

"Islamofascists" is not a term but a slander . Does anybody seriously use that?

I would replace "moderate Muslim" with "Third generation, secularized, usually elite, culturally-identified-only Muslims". Unweildy, but more accurate.

I would replace "fundamentalist Muslims" with..with...well, actually fundamentalist is pretty okay because they are concerned with the fundamentals of the relgion, such as Q'uranic absolutism, implementation of Islam as the state religion and Sharia as the state law.

Sure Muslims are in a battle between themselves. Who will prevail?

The secular elites have wealth and power on their side.

The fundamentalists have accuracy on their side. They can claim with some truth to be "better" Muslims, not Westernized hybrids.

The street is divided between the two. They would like the freedoms and civil law and all the other things. But they feel the fundamentalists offer them validity and stand between them and being exploited by the West.

Right now, who is offering the man on the street something, whether in Cairo, Karachi, Jakarta, or Istanbul? Is it the elites comfortably writing about what Islam "really" is, from San Francisco and from their university offices?

Or is it the fundamentalists, who, in addition to their more famous violent activities, also run various charities? Who is actually out among the people giving them sense of pride and place?

Naushad, you may be right about all you say, but the fundamentalists are winning this internal battle if the wealthy in the Muslim world, particularly those in the West, do not do something to appeal to the millions of their co-religionists living in poverty.

I called you Naushad in the previous post. My bad.

I am not in any way trying to detract from Reza Aslan's message or writings. It was just an observation. At the talk at our college he seemed to avoid talking about Islam specifically and had kind of a pantheist "we're all okay" approach. Not a very "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his Prophet" stance...something which practicing Muslims of course have to repeat in prayer several times a day (people who think Islam is just peachy about other religions ignore the Shahada, and this is the first pillar of Islam!).

We live in a very conservative area and he may have wanted, wisely, to not stimulate the nuts in the community.