"strange alliance between neo cons and so called feminists"

i am scared of this man

is that (of course, among many other things) he's assuming other religious bodies don't have these problems also. The institutions of Christianity and Judaism themselves don't look so good on paper. Which I guess is another problem: he is assuming that the religion is synonymous with the governing bodies that rule in its name.
You can still have religion, the problem comes about when you make churches that have more power than our government, or worse, create theocracies. That's when reactionary philosophy gets a voice.

Does the Koran truly condemn these acts, or is it the interpretation of the book (people misconstruing words)? I'm curious - some quotes/ evidence from the Koran would be nice.
And if it evidently doesn't, then isn't the appalling thing the people who make these 'rules'/'noble, pardonable acts' up? (As oppossed to a grudge against the very institution of Islam itself).
I can't say anything about what is or isn't in the Koran, but from experiences of interacting with Muslims, being in Muslim areas - the atrocious acts which you disdain are not Islam's true colour - and on a separate note, some progressiveness can indeed be seen among the followers of Islam (I do agree that progressiveness is important).

hahahaha what a fucking retard.
learnt some SAT words have we? adult porn star. HAH. like I'd be caught dead exchanging words with him and his merry band of idiots.
there's a place for argumentation, and there's a place for retards like this guy, it's called the psychiatric ward.

I have a few problems with Lucas's analysis of Islam:
1) He approaches Islam and the Muslim world as if it were a monolithic block and he seems to condem Islam entirely. Yet, as he himself admits with reference to Ayaan Hirsi Ali et al, there is a spectrum of opinions within that block. Much as there are within Christianity, I would expect different sects and cultures within the Muslim world would interpret the Koran differently and have different cultural expectations and ceremonies etc surroundng gender and sexuality. Lucas would be better served if he could identify which cultures or segments of the Muslim world he particularly disdained and concentrate on those, because his blanket hatred for everything Muslim indicates that he does not hate certain practices and beliefs (as he says) but he just hates Islam for being Islam (which would be xenophobic an not make sense). According to my reading of his opinion he would disdain homosexual, practicing Muslims EVEN if they rejected homophobia and mysogeny; but that doesn't make any logical sense and rather indicates that his islamophobia is an etherial, emotional reaction to things that disturb him.
2) Lucas needs to clarify whether his disdain for Islam runs for the religion istelf, or whether it is rather for the cultures where Islam dominates. There is a big difference between those but he doesn't seem to see it; for instance there are many Muslim countries where female circumcision is NOT practiced (in fact, female circumcision is not practiced by most Muslim cultures, nor is it called for in the Koran) and there are many non-Muslim countries and cultures where it IS practiced (including many non-Muslim African nations as well as places in India and South America). Moreover, there is currently a healthy debate in most countries where female circumcision is practiced (Shi'ite tradition outlaws the practice and most countries where it is practiced have enacted laws against the practice). But Lucas doesn't take any of these nuances into account, and this undermines the logic and credulity of his beliefs. If Lucas had actually spent time studying the problems he mentions he would realize that there are such vast differences and nuances in the Muslim world. He undermines himself when he inaccurately portrays some national or cultural practices as 'Muslim' in origin, when they are not so. I find it hard to take people like this seriously because it shows how uninformed they are about what they're saying.
3) In this article, Lucas mixes criticisms about the people who object to him (such as "some students do not know what that term [racism] means") with criticisms of their arguments about his views. No serious academic would do this. It sets a childish tone and makes it difficult to read the rest of his essay with any seriousness.
4) Lucas seems to be, to a certain degree, as guilty of intolorance towards and ignorance about the Muslism community as he would hold they are towards the LGBT community. Of course he would deny this, but it doesn't change anything and I guess it just makes his outlook as bad as the outlooks that he condemns. If he could like set out a decent moral standard which he could then test cultures against, that would seem less like he were picking-and-choosing the groups that he disdains. Like, if he had said "I hate all mysogenists and homophobes" (which would include many non-Muslims) then that would be different than "I disdain Islam because it suppresses women and gays" bc the criticism is more specific and understandable (and as I said earlier, it's unclear that Islam is a proxy for mysogeny or homophobia).

Amen

Well said R! Took the words out of my mouth. This guy has no reason to be listened to, not because I am closed minded but because he simply has no logical basis for his views. I don't write him off because he's gay or a porn star but because he is stupid and has no right or basis to speak with "intellectuals" at a leading university.
The author of this article also seems pretty stupid, primarily from the fact that he never defines Islam (which itself is mildly impossible task). Until he has done that I don't think I can listen to any stance he has about what is or isn't right about it as an religion and philosophy. There is a correlation between intolerance and islamic faith in countries, there is also a correlation between poverty and lack of democracy. If you like back to the past 300 years you'll see the Christian faith was not as open as it is now. You'll see that the reason countries like America are more open is primarily because christian faith is dying or dead.
Does this correlation necessarily imply that Islam is the causing factor? No. As said before there are over a billion muslims --each with a different view of what Islam is defined to be. The Korans primary message is of peace and acceptance, there are passages which my contradict this but if you look into the cases there is usually a special circumstance. The bible also preaches, fundamentally, the same exact things as the Qu'ran the differences being trivial points such as the divinity of Jesus
So in the end my question to the author is how he can make a generalization without first defining to me what Islam is?

This was one of the best things I have read in the Daily during my 3 years here. There seems to be an almost reflexive aversion to any criticism of Islam and Islamic nations among the left, even though if that Islam is antithetical to liberal beliefs and human rights.

R, I'm mostly with you. The only thing I take exception to is the "it's hard not to imagine that Mr. Lucas has some sort of Israeli agenda behind all this too.." Thin ice, my friend. Do you say that because he's (at least according to Marvin Lunatic Foushee) Jewish? Because all Israel supporters are anti-Islam? Let's not battle one person making sweeping generalizations by making some of our own.

Right on, Chris! The author brings up a number of valid points, and I suggest his critics answer the following questions:
1. Can you bring specific examples of Muslim countries where openly gay individuals are tolerated and given equal rights?
2. Are gays still being executed in Muslim countries for being gay?
Guys, you are criticizing Mike, but whom are you supporting? Those who hang and stone homosexuals? What an example of twisted liberal logic.

What's the matter - our liberal, tolerant, all-embracing students refuse to listen to a porn star? If a porn star came to campus and blasted President Bush's policies I suspect many of these critics would be cheering him. Interesting double standard: free speech for those who we agree with!

1. Can you bring specific examples of Muslim countries where openly gay individuals are tolerated and given equal rights?
This question is not a logical comparion to the situation of the LGBT community in the Christian world. Are openly LGBT individuals across the USA/Christian world tolerated and given equal rights? Demonstrably, no. A fairer question would be: do openly gay individuals live in Muslim countries without the fear of persecution? Some do, and some don't. JUST like in the Christian world.
2. Are gays still being executed in Muslim countries for being gay?
SOME gays are executed in SOME Muslim countries for being gay (like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran), but remember that gays are also executed in many non-Muslim countries (*cough* Matthew Sheprd *cough*).There are some Muslim countries where gays are an accepted and tolerated part of society where they can live openly (Turkey, Albania, Morocco, Lebanon, India etc).
Dude I think your logic fails because the mapping of homophobia and islam is not one-to-one. To say that ALL muslims are homophobes is just too sweeping a generalization. There are muslim LGBT groups all over the world. In Canada the Muslim Congress allows gay marriages, and gay marriages also take place in India. The situation in the muslim world may be, on average, behind that of the Christian world but the relationship between religion and homophobia is neither exclusive (lots of haters are non-muslim) nor restricted to Muslims.

You people are all crazy...Yeah you too! And no I am not a stanford student. I work at the university and I love the place...I wouldn't trade this column for the world. Besides that the whole point of having a blog like section to an article is to get feed back from anyone who cares enough to read the materials contained within it.

i wonder if he became a scholar while he was getting it on with other men

yes i have every right to judge him personally--he has no academic credentials, yet he is coming to one of the finest institutions in the world to speak. I will absolutely judge him on his academic credibility, and I will absolutely be an elitist BECAUSE I AM A STANFORD STUDENT, AND I EXPECT STANFORD-LEVEL SPEAKERS TO SPEAK AT THE UNIVERSITY, NOT PORN STARS.

"I will absolutely be an elitist BECAUSE I AM A STANFORD STUDENT, AND I EXPECT STANFORD-LEVEL SPEAKERS TO SPEAK AT THE UNIVERSITY, NOT PORN STARS."
+1
On that note, Katie Morgan seems pretty smart though, for a porn star that is...Can we get her to do her naked HBO philosophizing thing on campus? Now THAT event I'd go to, racist or not.

So all those accusing him of generalizing, what would convince you that Islam causes many people and countries to be prejudiced and hateful. From pure observation, the facts seem pretty damning as compared to other regions in the world. Instead of automatically defending anything Islamic, look critically. Islam, and no religion, should be immune to criticisms, but it seems like lefties want to shield the very people who would love to behead them.

How ironic, right after leaving above comment I saw this headline on Yahoo News about Egypt arresting those suspected of having HIV:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080215/ap_on_re_mi_ea/egypt_human_rights;_ylt=AggfmQNrT4xS3cjkSuPIB1Os0NUE

To all the elitist limousine liberals attempting to denigrate Lucas' due to his occupation.
A) It takes brains to form and run a multimillion dollar company. It takes talent ( of many sorts) to build it from nothing. The man is a bootstrap who managed to get his entire family out of Russia. You bet they're proud of him.
B) Why don't you utilize that liberal education of yours and look up where the man went to school?

Great article. Ignore the Islam-trolling apologists above with poor writing and grammatical skills who are probably from UC Berkeley, epicentre of illiteracy and left-wing crankishness.

Benazir Bhutto is dead.
Turkey is secular.
Indonesia is multicultural, not Islamic.
Lets not confuse Islamic with Muslim, ok?

Some of the posters here don't know how to think rational nor are willing to confront facts. There's a callous self-righteous hypocrisy and denial with blatant refusal to look inward.
Mr. Lucas, you've presented your argument well. The distinctions are obvious for any following Mideastern news and events. The difference in values are obvious for any, period.
The liberal of yesterday has increasingly perverted into the very opposite. If you are familiar with ideology and growing intolerance with deviation from group-thing, there can be an eventual circle in train of thought where the Left eventually morphs into its own fascism with no difference to that of the extreme Right.
Thanks for your efforts and don't ever get discouraged.

Like many unfair generalizations, this one is based on a grain of truth. Across the board Islam is apparently incompatible with the concept of separation of church and state. This charge is of course equally applicable to Israel, but two wrongs don't make even a half right. If you want a one sentence summary of what is wrong with the Middle East, this is it.

KJ has neither been keeping up with current events nor, if KJ has been to the Turkey, hasn't gone far from Istanbul's Bebek, if it's believed Turkey is really secular. We agree about Benazir's status but that doesn't detract from having been prime minister. There is no confusion between Muslim and Islamic just as there is no confusion between Christians and Christianity. You don't have have one without the other. As for Indonesia, you can't have almost 250 million people without diversity, it's just that the largest cultural of the multi-cultural is now Muslim.

Islamic= lacking separation of church and state, with Islam as the state religion and Sharia as official law. It does not apply to Turkey. Neither does it apply to Indonesia. There is no confusion between Islam and Muslim, as Chritianity and Christian, but there simply does no current Judeo-Christian equivalent to Islamic. There is keeping up with CNN, and then there's understanding what ones sees.

*It doesn't take *that* much brains to run a multi-million dollar company, I'm sure you could find many people in the world who would be capable (and who do). It takes common sense and hard work, and for that Lucas should rightly be admired, but no particular talent.
*His website says he went to college in Moscow (although it doesn't say which college) and got a degree in Law. LAW does not mean religious studies or area studies and it certainly doesn't give him much of a credential to talk with any authority about the Muslim world.
*A Muslim is an adherent of Islam but a country can just as much be Muslim as it can be Islamic (dictionary.com says that Muslim means "of or pertaining to the religion, law, or civilization of Islam."). Just as a country and a person can be Christian. I also looked up Islamic, and it didn't say anything about shariah law or not separating church and state.
*Turkey is very much a Muslim/Islamic nation, sorry. The government is secular but the people are mostly Muslim.
*Islam is lacking in separation of church and state? What? What are you saying by this? Please be more specific. There are predominantly Islamic countries where church and state are separate (as in Turkey, Albania, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Bosnia), and there are predominantly Islamic countries where this is not the case (Iran comes to mind...), JUST as there are predominantly Christian countries with separation of church and state (USA, France etc) and there are predominantly Christian countries with NO separation of church and state (as the UK, Norway, Argentina, Greece, Iceland etc). Christianity can be just as opposed to separating church from state as Islam can be - just look at the Papacy and the hold that it has on many countries in the EU, how it came so close to getting Christianity mentioned as the religion of Europe! In the UK, the church even has it's own body of law and system of courts. What are you trying to get at by saying this? If you're holding that separating church and state is so great then how do you explain the overlap with Christian countries (Thailand also does it...nbd)?

I have no respect for you. You got into Stanford 30 years ago, when the admissions were not that competitive and almost anybody could get in. Now, however, only the cream of the crop are accepted. Sorry, I don't consider you a true Stanford alum, and thus I have no respect for you.

Years of pseudo-intellectual PC training preconditions students and perfessers to respect and look up to gay porn actors. This makes Mr Lucas the perfect champion of the truth about Islam.
Without Lucas, all we would have to lead us is the Pope and George Bush--and who respects them?

I am amazed by the lack of intellect by the majority of the posters. They contend that they are the 'cream of the crop". They imply they are the best and the brightest while they show their ignorance by defending the indefensible. I am appalled by the anti-Semitic tone of such a large percentage of the posters. I hope it is not a reflection of the overall student body of Stanford. My daughter has received letters of interest from Stanford but I will try and dissuade her from attending. I want her to learn tolerance and how to question prevailing thought. I want her to be encouraged to question and if her conclusions are not in lock step with the others not to be ostracized. The intolerance of the responders to the opinion in this piece does a disservice the University. I find more tolerance for diverging views at West Point than at Stanford. That truly is a sad commentary for what had once been a bastion of tolerance and enlightenment.

I am very dismayed that our so called best and brightest do not see the unmistakable threat that is posed by the combination of church and state that is mantra of the most visible, vocal, and militant arm of the Islamic movement. I would recommend the individuals who hold the views that the Islamic faith is not inherently violent to read its history, look at recent events and to read the Arabic version of the Koran. The translation has softened the message from a violence point of view.

Wake-up people! You are being duped by the pro-Islamic propaganda. Read! Evaluate! Think!

I further challenge the posters here to find a globe and find all the locations of conflict over the past 20 years. Then see how many of those are NOT related to Islamic countries or Islamic people.
The number would be quite small indeed.
And I am amazed at how many "intellectuals", who are generally atheist, or at least agnostic, will go to the mat for a 7th century barbaric religion that hasn't evolved much if any in it's entire existence. But mention Christianity or even Judaism and they go apoplectic over the inconsistencies or oppressiveness of a religion.
When Christians and Jews start expecting their co-religionists (and sometime beyond!) to adhere to 7th century tribal law, THEN I'll start worrying about them. When the government of a Christian or Judaic nations condone forcing others to adhere to 7th century barbaric law, then there will be come comparison.
You'll embrace Islam (religion of beheading) but spit on Christianity and Judaism (not perfect but at least somewhat evolved!).
Bastion of intellectualism, my ass. Pseudo-intellectuals who lack critical thinking skills and spinal fortitude.
Baaaaahhhh.

It's almost a little disturbing to see the nearly religious self-regard of these self absorbed ALL CAPS TYPING STANFORD "ELITE" praising themselves so mightily. Yet they drone out the same PC conformity as their inferior State University compatriots in the same sophomoric, self-centered tone.
Try not to pull a muscle reaching around so far to pat yourselves on the back. After all, once you've been accepted to Stanford in the modern era, that fact in itself is supposed to stop people who disagree with you in their tracks. If you don't have a counter argument, just tell them they're not a "real" Stanford alum, and that way you can avoid the inconvenient and messy process of actually presented the most persuasive intellectual argument which, being so superior, you actually COULD do if you wanted to. Right?

One thing that being here at Stanford has taught me is that academic credentials are not worth cr*p. I have watched day after day while students without real world experience become lobotomized by bigoted people with academic credentials. When you leave the university and your vocabulary consists mainly of a few tripwire flame words, you know you were taken.

Stanford Students: Drop out now. Ask for a refund. You've been had.

"Have you ever thought that, instead of protesting me, you should protest against those atrocities, maybe organizing some short demonstration in front of Muslim embassies? Why instead are you unleashing your hate against one who speaks against those crimes?"

Simply because: The Left Doesn't Really Believe In The Things They Lecture Us About. Coming soon to a bookstore near you.

"Needless to say, these women were forced to live in exile in the United States and live with hired security 24 hours a day."
Both Hirsi Ali and Wafa Sultan came to the US voluntarily.
Hirsi Ali as resident scholar at the American Enterprise foundation, Wafa Sultan as (practicing ?) psychologist in southern California.
Ali came from Holland where she'd served in the legislature and (apparently) would like to return there if she had proper protection, since her life is under threat from the insane cadre of Islamists who killed Theo van Gogh.
Wafa Sultan saw Islamist tendencies in her native Syria long before terrorism was significantly on the radar map in "the west".
Anyway, your statement about each of these highly articulate "post" Muslim women doesn't ring quite right.
Excellent Wafa Sultan video.
http://www.spike.com/video/2802564?cmpnid=800&lkdes=VID_2802564

*large MAJORITIES - pimf.

12 year old non-Christian and non-Jewish boy beheads a man alive.
And a remembrance of the many others beheaded in the name of Allah.
http://tinyurl.com/2x6hx2
http://tinyurl.com/yqfho8
Allah F*ckbar

It's true, gay people are executed. Women are stoned to death. Thieves have their hands cut off. Men and women are lashed in public. A women needs two other men to swear that she was raped to avoid stoning (buried to the waist and pummeled with rocks from the all male crowd). It goes on in Iran, and to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia at "chop-chop square". If they see you are an American, they will push you right up front so you don't miss a thing. All it takes is a few moments of your precious time to look for it on line and you will see it in all it's gory glory. It all happens in the name of Islam, based on the Koran.
To say that "it's no worse than other religions and our horrible government" is simply misguided and ignorant. To disregard the message because you don't like the messenger is pathetic.

Sadly, the display of intelligence by Stanford students reflect ignorance in the highest degree but I don't think it's an exception but rather the rule of academia in America. Brainwashing is the only term I can think of when evidence of what this speaker talks about is easily accessible and not so easy to refute. We are in a pre Nazi state when speakers are attacked personally, their message attached to their personal persona and no less at an institution where open mindedness seems to be a prerequisite requisit for entrance. It's a valuable example to find other avenues to educate the children they love and certainly not send them to such rotted, intellectual institutions like Stanford.

"Moral equivalence", as used in the comparison of Judeo-Christian and Muslim societies, is intellectual laziness. Whatever one wants to say of two distinct societies, the last thing one should say is that they are equivalent. If they were equivalent, why aren't they one society, rather than two? Certainly, there is some truth to Nietzsche's dictum "Beware of fighting monsters, lest one become a monster oneself", but to apply it in knee-jerk fashion is absurd and superficial. Then again, most people in the world are absurd and superficial, so it doesn't surprise me to see it done. That said, the only logical assumption to make when comparing two entities is that they are different, not equivalent. It's emblematic of the debased state of analysis in this day and age that the default assumption has become that any time two moral or ethical claims are being compared they are "equivalent", when, in point of fact, one is clearly more conducive to the kinds of outcomes compatible with a more classically liberal society, as shown by all manner of historical evidence.

Or, in language even a Stanford student can understand, Islam sucks.

I judge Islam by the two most Islamic countries in the world: Saudi Arabia, the home, and Iran, the satandard bearer of the new Islamic awakening. Then throw in our Nation of Islam, Inc. a violent racist group composed of crackpots and jailbirds. There you will find the true state of Islam. Some of the people here remind me of the same spineless traitorous ilk who made the same excuses for Communism, saying not all Communists are bad and there are some real workers' paradise if we just stop being such anti-red bigots, we would see just how wonderful and happy the peasants in Red China and the workers in the Soviet Union are compared to our oppressed working classe

Darren,
Where exactly do you stand? Are you one of those tolerant progressive types who always find a way to defend intolerant reactionaries? Or are you just some snot?

It's astonishing how far some liberals will go in defending the indefensible. . . .
All four main schools of islam support gender aparteid and the permanent, codified second class status of women, the execution of homosexuals, adulterers, converts and apostates. All four schools proscribe rules of dhimmitude which target non-muslims for persecution. Common, widely accepted rules of Dhimmitude 1). forbid proselytizing and ‘too-public’ worship for non-muslims, 2). place restrictions on building and/or repairing holy places, 3). limit marriage rights for non-muslims and muslima, while giving muslim men unrestricted right of access to ALL women 4). force Islamic norms relating to dress and gender aparteid on non-muslims, 5). prosecute converts and apostates; and 6). punish statements and actions which are seen to "defame” or criticise Islam, Mohammad or the Quran ( BTW, they also generally exclude non-muslims from important policy positions within the government, effectively deny non-muslims the protection of the police and courts when the opposing party is a muslim, and limit their economic opportunites and/or grant greater opportunities to muslims.) As a result, once population of muslims reaches a certain level, the effect on non-muslim population is usually de-facto forced emigration. E.g., Pak, Bangladesh, most of middle east, Darfur . . .
Support for the establishment of Sharia law is in the majority in almost all Muslim countries, and not far behind in the West (for example, 40% of British Muslims). While there are many different strands of Islamic thought - from the extreme, hardline Salafists to the moderate, mystical Sufis - the main schools of Sharia are reasonably coherent, have widespread support in their respective communities, and are thoroughly and unmitigatedly barbaric and ought to be complete anathema to anyone with a notion of calling themselves left-wing. And that doesn't even touch on the problem of Islamism - a modern, politicised form of Islam with its roots in the Muslim Brotherhood (i.e., Qutb) and Jamaat-i-Islami (i.e., Maududi) in South Asia - which also enjoys widespread support, especially amongst young Muslims, and which forms a serious threat to both the West and moderate Muslim countries and individuals.
I need not stress that the establishment of a pan-Islamic Caliphate, operating under Sharia law, and undoubtedly hostile to both the West and its values, should be something about which liberals are unequivocal in their opposition. And no, it is not a fantasy - that is the programme of Islamists everywhere, including the Muslim Brotherhood, and its political arms including CAIR, ISNA, and MSA, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, Jamaat-e-Islami, Al-Qaeda, Jemaah Islamiyah, the Iranian Khomeinists and the Taliban.
Of course, there are the moderate elements, but their overall impact on the main schools of Islamic theology - and their actual influence on Muslim countries - is miniscule to nonexistent.
It would be absolutely catastrophic - not to mention blindingly stupid - to pretend that there isn't a large body of Islamic theological work and large numbers of individuals whose beliefs are completely and fundamentally irreconcilable with Western values.
As a final point, on terminology, I despise the term "Islamophobia." It is a nonsense term. If someone is being racist, say that. If someone is being ignorant or uneducated - for example, presuming all Muslims think the same - say that. Do not turn Muslims, and Islam, in to a "protected group" of the same cut as women, ethnic minorities and homosexuals - And do not undercut what moderating forces may exist by treating legitimate criticism of Islam - which after all, is a political doctrine as much as a religion - as tantamount to intolerance or "racism" or "phobic." Greater intellectual clarity is called for on the subject of political islam, and I've seen very little of it in this thread.

Wow, I was really contemplating applying to Stanford Biz School since I did very well on my GMAT. After reading the comments from some of the Stanford students, all I gotta say is forget it. It’s sad to see such a highly regarded institution become plagued with poor ideologies.

You are simply arrogant, ignorant, and intolerant little brats. I read one comment on here that sums up practically every "liberal" (I put this in quotations because really you are not a liberal, just a fascist), just respond by attacking a person's academic standing and credentials. But never never actually muster up a legitimate argument.

Simply pathetic. I held this institution with such high esteem, but I'm just so disgusted that I have no desire to apply here anymore.

Islam/Israel wank aside, you people bashing Stanford students as a whole because one or two happen to be jackasses and post on here are just as ignorant and short-sighted as they are. If you're foolish enough to think that a few individuals represent the entire student body made of thousands and thousands of individuals, you shouldn't bother applying here.