Even if you accept the worst interpretation, you still have the vast majority of American Muslims willing to oppose Al-Quaida and the use of violence. So if we had a representative roomful, and the 20 some odd percent Golden Boy is so frightened of refused to take a stand against suicide bombing or AlQuaida, you'd still have over 70 percent that would. Would you, GB, then tell those 70 some percent that claimed their religion did in fact stand against violence that they were wrong, and that you have read their scriptures and determined that theirs is a violent religion that requires them to try to force it on the rest of the world? Bizarre.

Walter_Map,

Sure, I'm happy to point you in the direction of the Pew Poll. Try this: http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf

My statement about attitudes towards al Qaeda may be found on page 5. From the poll results:

View of al Qaeda

US Muslims

Very unfavorable 58

Somewhat unfav. 10

Favorable 5

DK/Refused 27

The results on suicide bombing were well-publicized, and you can find them yourself. Also take a look at how many Muslims think that 9/11 was carried about people other than Arabs; very interesting state of denial.

Derbig, from what I understand the sharia courts in Ontario would have the same jurisdiction as civil and family courts.

Armagednoutahere, I used to think like many of you here, until some of my Muslim acquaintances began to open up to me and tell me what they really thought. It was jaw-dropping, and I decided to learn more about Islam.

I do think Mona has a point here. Unlike here, some European nations are dealing with large influxes of Muslim immigrants, some of whom, a minority but a violent and determined minority, are willing to threaten and kill in order to bring about what they want. They should be denounced as they are violently oppressive, and the question about how to deal with the problem is becoming very real in Europe. I'm not sure what the answer is, except that it's not to do what Golden Boy is doing. But some efforts to encourage assimilation are probably going to be necessary. I would suggest massive economic incentives to disempower the exremsts who prey on the poor and disenfranchised young male Muslims. If they had access to good paying jobs the wacknuts would have a much tougher row to hoe.

"The vast majority of Muslim in America are either atheists, agnostics, or those who do not wish to practice Islam the way their mufti or mullah or Imam dictates back home." - Denning

Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?

I do have evidence , but, first, about you quoting the Pew poll: Glenn has thoroughly de-mystified it in his May 22, May 23 and May 25 blogs. Read it, please.

As for my evidence, here it is: Go to a mosque in this country- any mosque. What do you notice? It's usually a run-down, impoverished, part-time house of worship, isn't it? Usually a second floor flat in a shopping plaza, unadorned and totally unimpressive. And the few people in there are typically poor cab drivers, store clerks, and laborers. Heck, bet you don't even know where the nearest one to you is. There are no Muslim Cathedrals, mega-churches, or limestone temples.

What does that tell you? That there is no local support for them. No money. Get it? That's evidence, isn't it? Agreed?

And I'm sorry Mona. You are not a bigot, and some of your best friends are Muslim.

Now it's real easy- Libertarianism is the political philosophy which combines the worst aspects of both liberalism and conservatism. Well, you got all the bases covered, anyway.

Do me a favor, please, and stop invoking me or agreeing with anything I say.

Mona

When the only real difference between you and the trolls is the politesse with which you express yourself, of course he will invoke what he (or she) considers supporting points.

Just saying "I'm a libertarian" doesn't make you one. Looking at what you say, you just pee your pants in a more polite way.

Tabulating and enforcing cultural values, or if you will "civic values", is Libertarian?

And the courage with which you propose to meet the threat is stunning!

I thought Libertarians were Republicans who smoke pot. Now I see that Libertarians are Republicans who go nuts and invoke state action, right down to the cultural values, when they see a Muslim.

That makes things easy- one less ism to keep track of. Just lump 'em in with the Repubs,

I have read the recent Pew Poll results which state that, in addition to the much publicized figure of 25% of Muslims in America being in support of suicide bombing, there is are approximately the same number of Muslims here in the States that cannot or will not condemn al Qaeda (20% refuse to answer while about 6% evince actual support.)

Citation please.

You've distorted some of the poll results and evidently misremembered the rest. The same poll results clearly indicate that American respondents were far more radical than Muslim respondents.

Wanna dance, neocon?

I'm curious about how you reached your conclusions about Islam? You've come to the same conclusions that the extremists have. The vast majority of practicing Muslims disagree with you. How is it then that you can consider Islam to be what you say it is when the only Muslims who agree with you are the extremists?

Personally I think no faith based courts should have the force of law behind them,

I don't think they did. They were voluntary, and limited to certain matters. Could they even fine people, let alone imprison?

. "A nation cannot hang together without common civic values, and if a significant contingent of an immigration influx is overtly hostile to said values,"

Mona

Ah, so Libertarians first have us determine what the "common civic values" should be, and of course this would have to be codified by the government for enforcement, and then examine immigrants to see who is "overtly hostile to said values"

I thought I had a correct understanding of Libertarian values.