[bolobaby]

Here's what I don't understand:

The liberals are always saying that radicals do not represent "true Islam." Why, then, are the liberal press continuing to call al-Sadr a "cleric?" He's clearly a radical and, if so, obviously not representative of true Islam. Therefore, he can't *really* be a "cleric."

Blatant hypocrisy, if you ask me.

[monday]

"Why, then, are the liberal press continuing to call al-Sadr a "cleric?" He's clearly a radical and, if so, obviously not representative of true Islam. Therefore, he can't *really* be a "cleric.""

Actually ultra religious people have traditionally been among the most radical people of any society. Anyone who can convince people to kill, or die in the name of God has to be considered pretty radical. Jim Jones, David Koresh, or just about any cult leader you can think of, all clerics of one sort or another, and all radical in a very insane way.