Friday, 9 October 2009


Today’s news from the Norwegian based Nobel Prize Committee that US President Barrack Obama won the Peace Prize was certainly a surprise to most, probably to Obama most of all. The reasons for giving the Prize for the media even more so, well it must be – simply because as the journalists, pundits, politicians and political commentators are making their views known – they are getting it all wrong. Why?

Some are predictable of course; a Republican Party politician played his rather sleazy hit on one part of the President’s acknowledgement of the honor and carefully avoiding the points given altogether. The President said he did not consider himself deserved of being put amongst the names of other Nobel Laureates - the sleazy comment was that “he acknowledges that he did not deserve it”. What a great example of how low political point-scoring will go.

But what surprises me is how the media is stuck on the word ‘accomplishments’ and ‘achievements’ and cannot accept that the Nobel Committee used the word “vision” and that under the guidelines and aspirations of that Committee, the President deserved and merited the prize.

Readers will know that I stay away from and have no opinion on domestic US politics, and thus am neither pro-Republican nor pro-Democrat. I am after all neither American nor do I live there. I have expressed, though, my support for Obama’s (and his Administration’s) recognition, vision for change and understanding of the correct place that the US and West has in the make up of this world. It is because of this vision for change and the forcing of a great u-turn in returning not only the US but the world back to constructive engagement that the Noble Committee has chosen President Obama as its laureate.

The arrival of Obama on the seen simply altered everything, particularly the eight years of stubborn, hawkish and self-centered Bush doctrine. It is not simply that the US became the obstinate, hard smacking, go-it-alone nation that disregarded the views of others’ during that period; it was that it had cemented a 30-year-long confusion in global-diplomatic-direction that started with the Iranian Revolution, oil crises and a dying cold-war. It needed the single survivor of the Cold-War super-powers to come on board with the desperate and tireless pleadings of professional diplomats everywhere. It certainly is only the beginning, and reform in the way nations deal with each other and the management of international institutions is still very lacking.

Considering that there are two major conflict zones in the world, global economic chaos, wide-spread religious and political radicalism as well as a multitude of other concerns, this change of direction is not only and important beginning, but in fact a globally critical move.
The media, however, is unable to fathom this at this early stage and as I write this note, the BBC, Al Jazeera and CNN are still asking “experts” and others what has the Obama Administration “achieved” and “accomplished” to merit this award. I do not understand why is the BBC commentator talking about not having Guantanamo Bay closed as yet being a non-achievement – it is not the point nor is it relevant. Good Morning America and the BBC both started their opening news item as “within only nine months in office”. They also did not get the point. It is the overall vision or should we say recognition - the speech in Cairo, the example of reaching out to the non-Western world as equals, drawing the line between how countries can deal with each other over issues, being united in standards such as non-proliferation, drawing the line with issues like climate change.

Certainly the motive and granting of this prize is both symbolic and as only a few have gathered, it is also there to motivate. As Obama put it, a “call to action”, or better put the Noble Committee said he received it for what he stood for. It is not Obama that won the prize; it is the vision that he and others of his ilk, that won it.

As an American President and his value and success domestically, I know not, that is perhaps something that needs to be judged on achievements and there is something to say about how he deals with the international issue and justifying his leadership as a Commander in Chief, but that is another issue and should never be confused to why he was awarded the Noble Peace Prize.

Sunday, 4 October 2009


Has Werner, aka the Sheik, gone even a bit more radical than usual?

Perhaps knowing he has been properly exposed and does not allow any postings from a Moroccan ISP to avoid my reminding people who and what he really is, has made him a bit ....... annoyed.

His posting style has changed and is certainly more aggressive and frankly more ludicrous.

In a posting with a photo showing the US President meeting on AF1 with his top General managing the war in Afghanistan, Werner makes the comments that it is despicable that he was given 25 minutes with the President.

What is despicable is the fact that Werner, presuming there is some semblance of intelligence with the man from tropical Queensland's Cairns, that he very well knows from basic news watching that Obama two days before and on a regular bi-weekly basis has a 3 hour video conference with the General and his main staff along with all the Chiefs and experts back in Washington. We know that Werner Reimann is far-right, but in this case he may have fell over.

Another interesting thing, from the Kahane supporting radical Jew who professes on a number of times that he knows more than any Imam or other Muslim scholar on the subject of Islam and the history of Muslims, that he is unable to distinguish between the differences of the Hagia Sophia Cathedral of Byzantium that became the Aya Sofia Mosque in Istanbul and he called it The Blue Mosque. I thought perhaps that it was a simple accident but actually no, considering he went to great lengths to criticise the minarets and basically condemn it as a bastion of some pro-Sharia, Caliphate symbol. For such an "expert", we can assume then that it is all a deliberate lie, because any research or basic knowledge will come out with the fact that the Mosque/Cathedral was closed as a place of worship and has been a Museum to the City's great history and the two religions for many, many years now. The Blue Mosque is the city's principle Mosque and well known for its "state supporting" moderates. So, did Werner lie or was he just producing more and more foolish bullshit?
To be honest, he is a liar for his known agenda. On the above issue that was about bashing Turkey in any format possible he states that country has been put on the Watch List of U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom or USCIRF. Now, notwithstanding the fact that Turkey was put on the list and has been not allowing religious freedoms of certain groups, the fact is that Werner Reimann avoids pointing out that of the 12 countries on this Watch List, six are Muslim and six are not. Here is the item from the USCIRF website set below:

USCIRF Watch List

In addition to its CPC recommendations, the Commission has established a
Watch List of countries where religious freedom conditions do not rise to the statutory level requiring CPC designation but which require close monitoring due to the nature and extent of violations of religious freedom engaged in or tolerated by the governments.

Afghanistan, Belarus, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Laos, Russia, Somalia, Tajikistan, Turkey & Venezuela

I was pulling the plug on watching Werner's blog because of its basic Kahanist propaganda, but now it has become rather an interesting exercise in desperate actions of a madman exposed.

Werner Reimann puts in his blog an item/comment by Jordan's King Abdullah that unilateral action by Israel could ignite a tinderbox in Jerusalem. A logical comment from someone who is up-to-date on the issue.
What does Werner comment - "no Arabs - no tinderbox".
Just more confirmation that Werner Reimann is in fact a violent-supporting radical of the same ilk as - Kahane, Bin Laden, Hitler and Stalin. We can all be thankfull that the businessman from Cairns in sunny Queensland, Australia is just that.


Christopher Logan's "Islam in Action" is unfortunately still producing the same agenda-based garbage, mind you I think it because he is a wanna-be Spencer or Fitzgerald (of the Jihad-Watch hate-site).

Christopher says in his About Me the following:

For those of you who do not know me, I have been researching Islamic theology, Islamic history and the current events of the Islamic community for approximately six years now. I have been speaking out on the worldwide problem of Islamofascism across the net, on talk radio shows and was also an administrator at JihadChat. I have studied from various sources including the Koran and the Hadiths. Also I am a content manager and writer for Right Side News, Infidels are Cool and have had several articles published on Ali Sinas popular Faith Freedom site. Most recently I have been asked to be a co-host and co-producer for the Evil Conservative Radio Show, based out of NY.

For someone who claims to know so much about Islam, the Qur'an (note he does not spell it as someone who studied it would) and the Muslim world in general, he fails to show it and in fact, based on his claim about knowledge, deliberately lies.

One point that I had made clear to Christopher on a number of occasions is that his careful and deliberate avoidance of showing the reality and certain facts is unprofessional and immoral. His pathological obsession of building the Shari'a Law issue is the basic one that those who follow this hate-agenda abuse. Of course anyone who has actually studied the Muslim World knows that the majority of Muslim countries do not have Shari'a Legal systems but are in fact SECULAR. Not only that, but of those that do, again the majority of them only have Shari'a Family Courts, with the rest being secular.

The other popular avoidance that is never mentioned by these hate-posters is that the average Muslim sitting in caf├ęs in the Middle-East, North Africa and West Asia - discuss and debate with surprise why Europe allows such radicals to live there, let alone demand ridiculous things that do not exist in the real and actual Muslim world! Such demands, like a Caliphate, are only myths and perhaps not even known by the vast mass of the Muslims around the world.

So we can be sure, that six years of reading Spencer, Fitzgerald, blogs and being unable to correctly spell "Qur'an", that Christopher does not really know Islam. Thus, he is either a braggart or a liar.

Which one Christopher?

I also told Christopher that his main introduction is a lie in itself and that he should be honest and change it.

It says:

Islam in Action is a site dedicated to exposing the worldwide issue of Islamofascism. The owner of this site is not calling for any violence or harassment of Muslims. He is looking for political solutions. One being putting a moratorium on Muslim immigration.

What it should say is:

Islam in Action is a site dedicated to denouncing Islam. The owner of this site seeks harassment of Muslims especially by openly condemning the faith of the more than billion faithful. He is not looking for a political solutions as that would be silly, either Islam exists or does not. Muslims, he believes, are not welcome in the West.


Tuesday, 29 September 2009


So that is my wrap up on WoJ, I dwelled a little to long but did so to fish out some more details and motives. Now that I have done so and have no longer need to spend my time playing the stupid tit-for-tat game with such fringe low-lifes, I can fill in gaps that some have been asking me.

The blog-owner is Werner Reimann of Cairns in the northern Australian State called Queensland. It is understood that the almost 60 year old Reimann owns or owned a shop at the local Airport. His identity was exposed a few years ago by journalist Gavin King whom in my part risked his reputation of independent journalism to point out that a Kahanist and avid Palestinian and Islam hater lived in his city and was publishing hate-filled bull shit under anonymity. Only for that reason alone, do I understand King's decision.

I had known the blog-owner's identify before starting the postings but did not point it out because he will certainly cut my posts and my real objective would have been lost. I note that now that I have posted his real name on his blog that the posts are instantly disappearing and the poor little "k" kahanist must be sweating. He was already very, very angry (and it showed in his postings) that I refered to the commonly known and accepted terminology of calling Islam one of the Three Abrahamic Religions (also known as The Abrahamic Tradition).

Aparantly, there are such low-lifes whom will do anything to fulfill their semi-political agenda and it is a shame that in this case it is a religeo-zionist whom has chosen to in the end only vilify his own religion instead of my own.


Thursday, 24 September 2009


As I continue my inquiries into the cause, methods and reasoning behind anti-Islam hate-blogs, I have noticed how more and more radical, cynical and direct they are becoming. Why? Thus, instead of pulling the plug after my last post, I smelt a rather sinister rat behind the rather poorly run but nasty Winds of Jihad (WoJ) blog.

Thus, my pressing continued, simple prodding and provoking and drawing the rather gullible blog-owner into identifying his real reasoning and source, it worked of course.

On five separate threads the blog-owner confessed to supporting the religious-Zionist theorem of Israel expanding its borders to include the biblical lands of Samaria, Judea and Hebron.

Thus, carefully provoking a cut-out, I quoted ultra-orthodox Sabbath rules, talked about their similar violence to radical Muslims (since the subject was about a female Italian ultra-right politician who got punched during Ramadan and everyone said shame – but you get the same in west Jerusalem if you break the Sabbath there….). I then said did you hear about Kahane and a few others I named and out it came……… “I respect the teachings of Kahane very much.”

It is clear that this is the sole driving force behind this blog and perhaps even financially. His material source, being the typical right-wing anti-Islam propaganda from the same sources has for my part shown a lack of independent thought or seriousness. Also WoJ’s blogger continued to defend his position with the usual five methods which confirm that there is no logic and genuine independent concern that would normally be created. These, namely “single sources” (in this case the Spencer/Fitzgerald/Gellar group), repetitive emotional half-quotes out of context” (single lines from the Qur’an and Hadiths), “your speaking taqiyya” (the laughable escape clause that no matter what you say I will call you a liar), I don’t care” (emotional avoidance disregarding the fact that they raised the subject themselves) and lastly by simply changing the subject quickly over and over and to older posters and back again. In this case the WoJ blog-owner did that constantly. He added one more, saying that aspects of his blog is satirical.

Only two posters on the blog, though with strong opinions and on leaning to the right of political views, had interesting and genuine opinions and were willing to agree to points or argued logically and coherently. I had no problem with them at all, but do admit that I read one (named tjwork) wrong and incorrectly presumed he was another mindless ratbag. I, as I always do, admitted my error and apologised.

Last time I gave the blog a D- for unoriginality and lack of quality sourcing (completely relying on others to do the work for them) but in line with the fact that this poster is actually doing so for a known purposeful agenda and cause, it obviously has been re-rated as a complete F for fail as it is no longer considered a blog but a propaganda rag for someone else’s cause. The blog-owner does not actually own his blog.


Sunday, 20 September 2009


Attached is a well placed item over a debate between a journalist Michael Kruse and far-right Spencer confident Andrew Bostom and how clearly the Rafiq Bary has been hijacked by Spencer ..... er I mean Bostom. Kruse had been covering the case of the Muslim girl who converted to Christianity and noticed not all has been correct.

Quoted in total with appreciation, link at end.


Andrew Bostom Takes on Michael Kruse–Loses

Andrew Bostom (well over due for a LoonWatch piece), a close friend of Robert Spencer’s, and another self-proclaimed “Islamic scholar” is lauded on JihadWatch as having “taken on and crushed” Mchael Kruse, the St.Petersburg Times reporter who has been covering the Fathima Rifqa Bary case.
It’s a popular tactic amongst Islamophobes, especially Robert Spencer to try and twist what is clearly a negative outcome for themselves into a self-declared victory with a peppering of congratulatory self-adulation. This was the case with Spencer in his confrontation with
Professor M. Cherif Bassiouni, when his alter-ego Hugh Fitzgerald proclaimed “victory” for Spencer and “defeat” for Bassiouni.
The truth is Spencer and company are ever more becoming isolated on the fringes of an increasingly radicalized segment of the Right-Wing, the company he keeps consists of neo-fascists, birthers, conspiracy theorists, Glenn Beck types, etc.

In this recent episode Bostom says that Kruse was wrong for stating that Spencer believes that “Muslims are in America to take over,” which from the body of Spencer’s work and the company he keeps is more than likely an accurate presumption, in context it is also the impression that he was trying to give at the press conference outside the courtroom of the Fathima Rifqa Bary case.
A case which is proving to be very embarrassing for Spencer, as
evidence after evidence keeps coming out that the charges made by bloggers such as him and Pamela Geller that Rifqa’s life was/had to be in danger and that she was abused by her parents turn out to be bogus. Spencer’s reputation has taken a big hit and he is doing everything in his power to try to salvage some face.

Let’s look at an interesting part of the exchange between Bostom and Kruse:

Kruse to Bostom:

It’s my job to listen to everybody. It’s not my job to assign everybody equal credibility. When it comes to Robert Spencer scholars of Islamic studies outright dismiss him and his body of work. They call him an unreliable ideologue at best and a divisive bigot at worst. I can’t do that, though, can’t just ignore him like that, because he, and Pam Geller, too, are so much a part of this story, and certainly reasons it’s turned into what it’s turned into. Judging from his e-mails and how he talks in person, Rob strikes me as a pretty smart guy, but he’s a pretty smart guy with a very specific worldview. Everything he writes or says gets filtered through that static narrowness. Here is a relatively new dynamic: The other day in Orlando, Rob and Pam were speakers at a news conference, advocates for one “side” of this whole thing, and THEN they covered it as members of the press. They’re covering a story they’ve helped create, or at the very least stoke. The front row of the courtroom was for media, and there was the AP, some newspaper reporters, some TV reporters, some radio reporters, and there was Pam, a woman who last fall wrote a story on her blog saying Barack Obama was the illegitimate son of Malcom X. All of it is an interesting piece of the sprawling Rifqa Bary story, worth watching and considering now, and during the next story like it, and the next one after that.

Here Kruse devastates Bostom and Spencer by pretty much objectively telling it like it is, or as Dave Chapelle used to say Keepin’ it real. This is incomprehensible to polemicists and subjective ideologues such as Bostom and Spencer. It is incontrovertibly true that Spencer (and Bostom for that matter) is completely and thoroughly rejected by academics, we have noted that before here.

Yet, Kruse makes the point that he as a reporter cannot reject Spencer and Pamela Geller out of hand because THEY ARE PART OF THIS STORY. In fact, he points out they have in many ways CREATED this story or at the very least stoked it.

That is absolutely true, ever since the story broke Spencer and Pam have been on a crusade, whipping up their supporters in the blog world to “save Fathima Bary” from a sure “honor killing.” They knew nothing about the family or the context, they cared nothing for this little girl or her future, but eager to make Muslims and Islam look barbarous they attempted to castigate this family in front of the public thereby destroying any chance in those early days of reconciliation.

When fact after fact came out confirming the family’s story, supported by the Ohio police and Children Services, Pamela Geller resorted to making accusations which she claimed she heard from “anonymous sources” that Rifqa Bary was abused throughout her whole life, and that she was even sexually abused by her uncle.

Spencer applauded her in all this, extolling that the mainstream media was ignoring this “mountain of evidence” secured by Pamela Geller that showed that Rifqa Bary’s family was fundamentalist crazy and had abused her. For some reason the police were unable to unearth any evidence of these libelous accusations? Probably because they are made up whole-cloth.
Kruse, highlights how incongruous it is for a woman such as Pamela Geller, who claims Obama is a Mooslim, anti-Semite, Socialist son of Malcolm X to be in the press area covering a story that she is actively creating. Bostom responds with more polemic,

Bostom to Kruse:

I deal with your non-sequiturs about Robert and Pamela, below. But first, you deliberately and grossly misrepresented what Robert said and the very specific context in which he made his statement–despite standing right next to him, as one can see in the videotape. That reflects very poorly on your own credibility and your ability to judge anyone else’s for that matter.
Do you not see that? Do you not see your own transparent–certainly to me– “static narrowness?”

As for scholarship, who are you to judge? What do you know about Islamic doctrine and history??

I asked you to contact Ibn Warraq via e-mail–He says he never heard from you, and judging from your responses to my repeated questioning you never obtained his definitive scholarly assessment of apostasy, “Leaving Islam”–so clearly real scholarship on the subject matter at hand—apostasy from Islam–does not even appeal to you.

Have you attempted to contact another high profile apostate from Islam, Nonie Darwish, who recently published “Cruel and Usual Punishment,” and wrote about a high profile apostasy case ongoing NOW in her native Egypt, in early August??

I have compiled, edited, and introduced two critically acclaimed scholarly compendia–one on the jihad, the other on Islamic Antisemitism. I have also read and on several occasions reviewed Robert’s books, and they easily exceed most of what passes for “scholarship” on Islam in today’s academy–despite targeting, deliberately, the larger lay audience. Regardless, they are solid works in their own right that are meticulously documented. Have you read them and found identifiable flaws in any of them??

As for Pamela, excuse me, but from my where I sit, she is doing the basic shoe leather investigative reporting those like yourself have thus far refused to do.
How many of Rifqa’s friends have you interviewed, starting for example with the now publicly identified Jamal Jivangee? What sort of of financial investigation of Mr. and Mrs. Bary’s businesses have you conducted??

I think you are being very disingenuous, and your pretense of “objectivity” is simply ludicrous.

As we mentioned Kruse did not misrepresent Spencer, Spencer just spoke very badly and it is not a stretch for Kruse to say that Spencer believes “Muslims are in America to take over” because that is exactly what he was insinuating at that right-wing blogger “press conference.”

Then Bostom attempts to accuse Kruse of being ill-informed and not knowing anything about Islam (ironic) and then lists himself (in a bit of shameless self-promotion) and another Islamophobic writer, Ibn Warraq as “experts” that Kruse should have contacted.

This is a highly rich and whiny statement at the same time, what part of discredited do Bostom and Spencer not get? People don’t choose you guys as experts in the field of Islam because you are a pair of polemicists with deep hatred for Islam and Muslims. You can’t blame people for not considering you suitable candidates. He also trots out Nonie Darwish who believes there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim, she dumps all Muslims in the radical camp, she also compares Islam to Nazism amongst other interesting Islamophobic anecdotes.

By this time Kruse is almost done, knowing by now where Andrew Bostom comes from, i.e. the far right lunatic camp and says,

Kruse to Bostom:

I should stop, I know this, but I just have to ask: We’ve talked on the phone, we’ve e-mailed, and you seem like an intelligent person, so how can you possibly take Pam Geller seriously?

Bostom to Kruse:

Excuse me, but just as you have calumniated Spencer–with a live video record to debunk you and prove your deliberate misrepresentation—you’ve now done the same with Geller.

From here:

“The ‘Atlas says that Barack Obama is Malcolm X’s love child’ charge has gone viral among leftards and lizards. The only problem with it is that it is false. I am not the author of this post, and I posted it because the writer did a spectacular job documenting Obama’s many connections with the Far Left. The Malcolm X claim is one minor part of this story, and was of interest to me principally as part of the writer’s documentation that Stanley Ann Dunham could not have been where the Obama camp says she was at various times. I do not believe that Barack Obama is Malcolm X’s love child, and never did — but there remain many, many unanswered questions about his early life and upbringing.”

As a scrupulously honest, painstakingly objective journalist you must know that Pamela has written “I do not believe that Barack Obama is Malcolm X’s love child, and never did”? Would you even care if you did know?

We know the answer to that, as your calumny against Spencer makes plain.

As we demonstrated Kruse didn’t calumny against Spencer or Geller but Bostom does by trying to defend Pamela. Pamela is thoroughly discredited for more then her posting of the Malcolm-X-is-the-father-of-Barack-Obama-conspiracy, which she attempts to half-heartedly disavow now, but also for her other conspiracies that Barack Obama is a Muslim, that he was indoctrinated into Jihad in Pakistan, that he hates Jews and is an anti-Semite, that he is not an American citizen and was not born in America; all that doesn’t even touch a bit of what she says about Palestinians, Arabs, and real Muslims.

On her post about Barack Obama being the illegitimate son of Malcolm X, which she now claims she doesn’t support, there are some troubling questions that it seems Bostom doesn’t want to raise or answer. Like the obvious as day and night, why did she post that crazy article in the first place? Is that any way to prove that there was “no way that Obama’s mother could have been in America when Obama was born?” The fact is that Pam posted the piece with out any qualifiers, she posted it in her name without attributing it to anyone else. That brings her story of never having supported it into high doubt, the attempt to cover it up now and sweep it under the rug is not going to work especially when her track record has been loonier than the loons.


Tuesday, 1 September 2009

An email from Peter

Yesterday I read an email from someone whom I have posted here (with permission) that includes my response. Peter has been polite, civil and though we have ideology differences over the subject of faith and religion, we share an understanding that it is important to know and understand people and probably more - be civil about it. If only those bloggers that I point out were so inclined....



I found your blogspot after reading your posts on the Winds of Jihad site..

I wouldn't mind hearing your opinion on a couple issues and you certainly sound like you know what you are talking about ..

Would you agree that never in the history of mankind has a particular religion or ideology come under so much scrutiny as Islam.?

It seems the whole world is looking at Islam under a microscope. Every time you turn the TV on in Australia there is some documentary about it, a day doesn't go by without every major newspaper at least having some articles on Islam/muslims and it has certainly been the hot topic for political and social analysts since 9/11.

I myself have purchased a number of books on Islam including Karen Armstrongs "Mohammed", not to mention the Koran itself. In fact I feel I know as much about Islam now as i do about Christianity - the religion I was born into and grew up with ( I am now an atheist ).

The point I am tring to make is that the more we scrutinise the world's major religions the more we realise that they are just based on ancient superstitions that have absolutley no relevance to the way the world is today.

Australia has an atheist population of 25pc however only 10pc of the population are regular churchgoers. The numbers keep declining by the day and I can't ever see this trend reversing as long as technology and science keeps improving. In some western European countries the atheist population is as high as 70pc ( this is true for all of the Scandinavian countries). In Japan it is also about 70pc.

I honestly believe if every man, woman and child in countries like Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia had access to the internet the decline of Islam would be rapid. One hundred years ago the atheist population of Australia was less than 1pc. Currenlty in many Islamic countries the atheist population is zero.

I have been trying to google information on atheists movements in the Middle East and other Islamic countries and it almost impossible to find any information at all.

Do you know if countires like Egypt, Iran , Pakistan etc etc have atheists? Are there any well known atheists who live in Islamic countries?. I mean surely there must be free thinking people like Christopher Hitchens, Ayan Hrisi Ali and Wafa Sultan even in countires like Saudi Arabia. It is just plain human nature and natural for humans to question why we are here and whether there is a god .

I would love to hear your opinions and comments on what I have written.

kind regards




thanks for the email, questions and your civility, I mention that because like the blog you referred to, some do not have civility but rather ugly agendas.

I agree, Islam is under the greatest of scrutiny, it has to do with many factors I believe, the current war on terrorism, globalization (ie the now constant interaction between cultures and faiths) and global media - before the Internet and access to other and traditional media is dominating life.

It would be correct, I think, to add that with the interactions from globalization, mass migration and conflict also comes politicizing the issues, thus it has become a subject of scoring for domestic consumption - ie the far right, radical leftists, radical evangelism etc. There is, of course, war going on as well and mankind has always uses the "us versus them" emotion in times of crisis.

That you purchased a Qur'an (note the spelling, it is closer phonetically to the correct pronunciation), is good - not that I am trying to sell my faith (I do not do that) - I would rather talk to someone who has attempted to read it than those that simply read blogs.

Peter, the subject of faith for me is a personal one and as the word implies in all its variations, it is a matter of faith. I have no issue with you being an atheist by the way. But I would say and take you to task on your comment about "ancient superstitions that have absolutely no relevance to the way the world is today", considering that faith is also a subject of culture, history, identity, community and social cohesion (or disruption). I would go further and say that the basis of moral standards comes from religion and faith.

I have no knowledge of the statistics of atheism but I would be certain that there are of course Muslims whom declare they are but in fact are atheists. As I am sure you are aware, atheism is under the haddiths that control most of the clerical and present religious habits of Muslims worse than apostasy and in many of the more backward nations, a death sentence. So you can imagine, inside many Muslim countries, declaring oneself especially say to a statistic count that they are an atheist is simply not going to happen for the foreseeable future.

A last few points, I find Christopher Hitchens interesting, I certainly allow him his right to his opinion but I am one who says it is not religion that is evil and has caused hate and wars in the world, it is in fact mankind that is capable of evil, hate and wars and they will automatically declare faith and religion is on their side. That is radicalism, extremism and fundamentalism.

As for Ayan Hrisi Ali (whom I know) and Wafa Sultan - I think they are sell-outs and use and abuse Islam to sell books and be famous, simple.

p.s. may I post your question and my response on my blog? In this case with the civility of your question, I will give the same in asking. I would cut your full name and no email, just the name Peter.

kind regards