Let's break this last comment down piece by piece.

First off, who even uses Saudi Arabia, one country, and perhaps one country with a number of interesting and unique issues, as an all-encompassing or fully representative example. It's become a tired cliche to bring that country up.

Secondly, it's a myth that the people in Saudi Arabia are somehow all fabulously wealthy or even well-off. Yes, there do exist socioeconomic problems, as well as many others. That's not to say that that is the only issue. The other main issue is concerning the "inappropriate cultural applications", which is true not only in Saudi, but can be best seen there at times.

Thirdly, it is beyond weak to try to justify a claim in an argumentative sentence by referring to your claim as a "fact". Women are not inferior to men nor are they superior. Ultimately, despite fundamental, sometimes major, sometimes minor, differences between genders, men and women are equal in what matters, spirituality and in totality.

Fourthly, it is obviously painfully easy in our present day to go online and write "brave" irresponsible comments under false aliases. Not only does your fake name not make sense, since there is some clear ignorance behind choosing it, but also, it doesn't match your opinion or your overall take on the subject. If by "we" in your last sentence, you are aggrandizing yourself or referring to a group, I suggest you get more serious and scientific in your approaches for confronting an issue and getting closer to some truth. If you are genuinely willing to give a different side's argument or opinion a chance to be heard and analyzed, then your approach here is terrible. You should be willing to spend time talking to professors or scholars in their fields concerning this subject, or even listen to other people and student's opinions; the point being, you should aim for being productive, genuine, constructive, and scientific in your discourse with others. Simply stating some unsupported unqualified claim or argument under a false name in cyberspace and running away is only a true waste or your time and chances to know more.

If, however, you are already convinced of your opinions and stubborn about your position on such complex topics, then you are again only wasting your time typing such unsupported and easily debunkable and refutable nonsense.

"Muslims Against Sharia", assuming you are some group, as you stand right now based on this comment, you are pathetically uninformed and you and your opinions and "facts" hold no weight whatsoever.

>>People who are aware about the fact that the two holiest cities are located there.<<

Saudi Arabia is a nation state founded in the early 20th century. Saudi Arabia does not dictate religious law, it doesn't speak for Islam, and it has nothing similar to the scholarly religious authority of ulema in Al-Azhar.

Your point is moot. But so are "Muslims against Sharia".

So, who bankrolls your outfit?

“Saudi Arabia does not dictate religious law, it doesn't speak for Islam”

Saudi Arabia finances vast majority of Islamic institutions (mosques, madrassas, cultural centers) in the United States as well as multiple Islamic institutions around the world. Fatwas emanating from Saudi Arabia are widely accepted throughout the world.

“So, who bankrolls your outfit?”

Donations

“A person cannot be a Muslim and be against Sharia.”

This is just as stupid as to claim that a person cannot be a Christian and be against the Inquisition or a white person cannot be against the KKK.

I’d like to repeat my question: are there any normal Muslims in UW or just ignorant Islamist retards?

"Saudi Arabia finances vast majority of Islamic institutions (mosques, madrassas, cultural centers) in the United States as well as multiple Islamic institutions around the world. Fatwas emanating from Saudi Arabia are widely accepted throughout the world."

Any proof behind those two very bold assertions? Probably not.

It's clear you don't know what Shariah is or what Islam is or even what Islamism is.

Your statements get stupider by the minute.

Starting from the underlying premise of Islam that the Koran is the literal word of Allah -- perfect, complete, immutable and valid for all of eternity -- it follows logically that there can be no reform. How can something already considered to be perfect be reformed? It makes no sense. Since the Sharia is based on the Koran and the sayings of Muhammad (which are also considered sacred and untouchable), there is just no way that a Moslem can reject Sharia and still be considered Moslem by the Islamic religious authorities -- even of those anti-Shariah folks still want to consider themselves Moslems. They are Moslems-in-name-only. Frankly, I wish there were more of them; but, no matter how many of them there are, they will never have any influence on the Islamic religious authorities.

MuslimsAgainstSharia Says:

"Only a complete moron would claim that "the Koran is the literal word of Allah -- perfect, complete, immutable and valid for all of eternity" considering inconsistencies in the Koran. Allah would never contradict himself and would never command his followers to "kill them [infidels] wherever you find them.""

Your reasoning is kind of shot. This is like taking "there is no God" from there is "there is no god, but God" and saying, 'oh look, Muslims don't believe in God.' This is ofcourse ridiculus. Please read the whole page surrounding the verse (first part of the 9th chapter of the Qur'an) before you start distorting meaning of the Qur'an.