She identifies the core Muslim texts-Koran, hadith, sira-their codification into Islamic Law (i.e., Shari'a), and the orthodox interpretation of this sacralized literature by seminal Muslim jurists-noting Ibn <http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4495&search=bostom> Taymiyya's "pure" Islamic exegesis, specifically-as being responsible for the incompatibility between Islamic and Western values. *This is not at all what the site you gave says. This author contends that: "Any fair, objective comparison must conclude that relative to the Hanbali jurists Ibn Qudama and Ibn Taymiyya, Al-Ghazali is at least as bellicose in his pronouncements on jihad war, and more bigoted and oppressive in his stated guidelines for the treatment of the vanquished non-Muslim dhimmis." Hirsi Ali's response to the standard non-sequitur apologetic about the putative existence of, "different Islams", is unequivocal: "No that is an erroneous idea . If one defines Islam as the religion founded by Muhammad and explained by the Koran and later by hadiths, there is only one Islam that dictates the moral framework." *Setting aside that Hirsi Ali is not familiar with the idea that a single text can have different interpretations, she doesn't even seem to know that there are different Ahadith texts being used by Muslims. I agree with you that the Muslims who manage to get publicity for their views in the West are not likely to be taken seriously in the Muslim world, and probably wouldn't be in the West if they were not born Muslims. As for Ibn-Warraq, I doubt that he even exists. O.K. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html