No one who takes democracy and freedom seriously believes that honor killings and dowry have any place in a modern society. It is people of "Asian descent" - as Hitchens vaguely and euphemistically puts it - who understand this danger better than anyone else. We've looked this intolerance in the face and realize it needs to be stamped out, post-haste.

But Hitchens' article has (as another poster it) a disappointing "get out your guns, they're coming for our women" tone. He uses inflammatory and insulting terms - the words "slag" and "slut", for example - without providing any context or source. We're given to understand, from the fact that Hitchens puts quotation marks around these terms, that someone else used them. Perhaps even terrorists. But do we know that? Not for sure. Is it believable that a Muslim radical would use a term like "slut" for an American woman? Absolutely. But since when does speculation make for good journalism?

Hitchens cites Christiane Amanpour's documentary. I saw that piece and found it woefully inflammatory and one-sided.

He uses the phrase "their God-given right to slaughter females at random for nothing more than their perceived immodesty." He may be expressing an opinion, but he's also spinning the facts. The line between speculation and reporting disappears in the latter part of this column, and Hitchens' angry interpretation is presented as a matter of fact.

To Hitchens, I reply: of course terrorists target women. In America and England, women are equal participants in free society, which means we come under equal fire. Just like men, we exercise our rights. And naturally, women's equality offends religious extremists of all stripes. But the widespread "shame-faced white liberal refusal to confront these facts" - I'm neither white nor liberal, and I'm certainly not ashamed or afraid. Religious belief moves in cycles, and I have every faith that Islam, like Christianity in the past, will overcome this current distasteful interpretation. It will do so because Muslims like Rushdie and Ali and Asra Nomani and Mukhtar Mai (and hundreds of young brown people all over the world) will accept nothing less from their own religion.

While I usually agree with Hitchens's point, his "angle" for many of his recent articles often leaves me scratching my head a bit!

You sound as though you have a unique perspective on this. Let me ask you: if you have faith that Islam will overcome its current distasteful interpretation, and you believe that this current problem needs to be "stamped out post haste" (implying that this is indeed an immediate grave concern) what real measures do you think need to be taken in order to allow this to happen?

Religious belief moves in cycles, and I have every faith that Islam, like Christianity in the past, will overcome this current distasteful interpretation. It will do so because Muslims like Rushdie and Ali and Asra Nomani and Mukhtar Mai (and hundreds of young brown people all over the world) will accept nothing less from their own religion.

Ummm, in case you haven't noticed, Islam has been moving forcibly in the OTHER direction for the past 50 years. With no centralizing authority, like the Pope, there is little chance that anything is going to change this momentum. Yes, there's Rushdie etc., but these are voices in the wilderness, ignored not only by the ignorant, illiterate Muslim masses, but even by Western media too afraid to "offend" anyone.

Your silly comment about "hundreds of young brown people" is just that. Silly. These very hundreds of young brown people are the ones that will be sent right under the chainsaw with wicked glee by the millions of other brown people that love to follow the dirty old Satanic men with their beards.

And where are these voices, anyway? Even in the West, where they could speak (good luck doing that in the Muslim world) they don't. Or it's nothing more than a bat's squeak while Muslim Rage Boy is heard blaring at a thousand decibels.

Islam is a deeply disturbed religion in the world today, tied in with equally disturbing cultural practices, particularly in the Arab world. Not only does it worship death, but it relegates women to the status of pack animals, and through polygamy relegates countless young men into a world of deep sexual frustration and heedless anger.

Unfortunately, the Western world found oil under the desert sands, or else none of this would be a problem as the Muslim world -- creators of nothing -- would still be living in their 9th century lands, unable to harm anyone but themselves. Really, the best solution for all would be for the West to simply band together and go take the oil. The hell with the populace. Take the oil and let them melt back into their primitive world. They would probably be better off.

peterike:

Unfortunately, the Western world found oil under the desert sands, or else none of this would be a problem as the Muslim world -- creators of nothing -- would still be living in their 9th century lands, unable to harm anyone but themselves. Really, the best solution for all would be for the West to simply band together and go take the oil. The hell with the populace. Take the oil and let them melt back into their primitive world. They would probably be better off.

I'm no apologist of Islam (or any other religion) or a world history scholar, but your snide dismissal of the Muslim world's impact on today's society demands a rebuttal. While the Western world was wallowing in the Dark Ages, Muslims were inventing things like parachutes, soap, coffee, and (no small thing) algebra, which actually comes from part of the Arabic title of the book that introduced it. Not to mention mind-blowing art and architecture! See wikipedia articles on "Muslim inventions" and "Islamic golden age" for just a cursory treatment of the subject. I don't know enough to know why that society fell and the West rose again, but you can't just look back at the last few hundred years and extrapolate that to the rest of history. To say that any group has had no positive impact on society--ever--is just too low of a blow. Please consider (and research) your put-downs more carefully.

By the way, I disagree with the rest of your last paragraph as well, but since it was more a statement of opinion rather than fact (which the "creators of nothing" jab seemed to be), I felt less compelled to refute it. But there's no doubt that that kind of overt dehumanization (whether that's your real opinion or you were just riled up) only inures people to hating on others. I don't think the majority of the Muslim populace wants to return to a "primitive world", and to give up on the issue like that is laziness, in my opinion. Not that I have any of the answers...but we should keep searching for them.

"He uses inflammatory and insulting terms - the words "slag" and "slut", for example - without providing any context or source. We're given to understand, from the fact that Hitchens puts quotation marks around these terms, that someone else used them. Perhaps even terrorists. But do we know that? Not for sure. Is it believable that a Muslim radical would use a term like "slut" for an American woman? Absolutely. But since when does speculation make for good journalism?"

That part of his article is in reference to the fertilizer bomb plot to blow up the Ministry of Sound nightclub in London.

The transcript is available to read online. It's pretty disgusting. That's where the 'slags' and 'sluts' part comes from. He probably should have made it clear but I think he just assumed most people had seen it on TV or in the paper.

Hope that clears it up for you.

Cheers

hitchens the raging bull will tell you to send the western armies to rape, torture and kill them all.

AnikaG:

I'm neither white nor liberal, and I'm certainly not ashamed or afraid. Religious belief moves in cycles, and I have every faith that Islam, like Christianity in the past, will overcome this current distasteful interpretation. It will do so because Muslims like Rushdie and Ali

Which rhetoric means in practice that you will not lift a finger to prevent people like Rushie and Ali from being murdered, let alone join them in the firing line.

It also means that when young women in Britain are murdered in honor killings, prosecutions are rare, for all the good feminists are steadfastly looking away.

Islam will not change unless fought. Observe the massive outbreak of genuinely moderate Islam in the mosques of Anbar province, and the appearance of anti Islamist intellectuals and revolutionaries in Iraq, after the Americans leveled half of Fallujah. When you say that Islam will reform eventually, you mean that you will hide behind men and women braver than yourself, while spitting on them from behind.

Genuinely moderate Islam is invisible in Europe, and was invisible in Iraq, until after a very large number of Americans died in the ruins of Fallujah.

I don't understand why no one corrected AnikaG on her statement about Salman Rushdie... Salman Rushdie's NOT Muslim... he's an apostate... Islam is not his faith... it's the culture he was linked to from birth but then gave up.