Aug 1, 08:53
Finally, The Smoking Gun

One of the most fascinating exhibits presented by the prosecution in the Holy Land Foundation case (provided by researchers for the NEFA Foundation) is a memorandum on the Muslim Brotherhood’s multifaceted plan to convert the United States to an Islamic nation. It is the smoking gun of the Ikhwan’s long-standing efforts to destroy the Western world as we know it.

The most interesting exhibit is a Muslim Brotherhood memorandum by Mohamed Akram, dated May 22, 1991, where he outlines the Ikhwan vision of the future. He leaves no ambiguity as to the nature of the Ikhwan calling. (The exhibits will be posted and written about more completely in the NEFA website in coming days).

Under the heading “Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America,” he writes:

“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated ad God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

But wait, there is more:

“Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack.”

Akram then spells out in some detail the role of the Brotherhood in moving the project forward: “As for the role of the Ikhwan, it is the initiative, pioneering, leadership, raising the banner and pushing people in that direction (the Jihadist process). They are then able to employ, direct, and unify Muslims’ efforts and powers for this process. In order to do that, we must possess a master of the art of ‘coalitions,’ the art of ‘absorption’ and the principles of ‘cooperation.’”

The document then gives rationale for setting up Ikhwan organizations across the country: “We must say that we are in a country which understands no language other than the language of the organizations, and one which does not respect or give weight to any group without effective, functional and strong organizations.”

The document also deals with the criticism among the Brothers that the focus on the United States will drain support for the establishment of the global caliphate. The response is two-fold:
1) “The success of the Movement in America in establishing an observant Islamic base with power and effectiveness will be the the best support and aid to the global Movement project.”
2) The global (Ikhwan) movement has not “succeeded yet in distributing roles to is branches, stating that what is needed from them as one of the participants or contributors to the project to establish the global Islamic state. The day this happens, the children of the American Ikhwani branch will have a far-reaching impact and positions that make the ancestors proud.”

The document ends with a list of Ikhwan groups trying to coordinate, including all the usual (ISNA, ICNA, IIIT etc.)

What is so interesting about the document is the breadth of ambition, the conviction of ultimate success and the care with which the campaign we see today was being thought about 16 years ago. So is the the clarity of the ultimate objective of ending our years as a functioning democracy, built on the rule of secular law, minority rights and freedom of religion, press etc.

The infiltration of the government by members and sympathizers, the coordinated role of the organizations in pursuing specific objectives, the recruitment of the best and the brightest into the movement, and other objectives are far advanced, perhaps further than the author could have imagined in so short a time.

The rationale, for those like Lieken et al who want play footsie with these groups bent on our destruction, is truly mindboggling. I don’t think the Brothers who have been on the cusp of the new PR campaign, from Ramadan to Akef, have bothered to spell this out like the Brothers do for themselves.

But here we have it, in their own words, written by their own hands. There is much more to say, and I will revisit the topic as more information comes in.

Will anyone pay attention?

posted by Douglas Farah

Someone has to quietly and calmly present the evidance you have shown, without name calling where ever Ikhwan forces choose to speak in the US.

Ikhwan spokesman then have 3 choices:

-deny and call you names

-change the subject abruptly

-question your integrity

But either way this information is

heres a religious extremist calling for the destruction of all muslims-

but youll notice not one word of disagreement uttered-

only complicit silence

what do you bet if he were calling for the mad destruction of jews? or christians?

the outrage would go on for days

but against muslims?

not a peep

this is truly a sick fantasy-

The media needs to do a thorough review on the founders of the major religions to bring readers up to date on the latest textural and archeological findings.

For example:

1. Abraham founder of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men.

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of his sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest were embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian sects.

3. Mohammed, an illiterate, possibly hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the Koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

4. Luther, Calvin, Smith et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the hallucinations of "pretty wingy thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

5. Hinduism - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centred and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’"
The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."

"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

"Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life (Alexandra David-Neel, Buddhism: fts Doctrines and fts Methods, New York: St. Martids Press, 1977, p. 15). "

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations/embellishments and myths surrounding the founders of said rules of life.

After reading through the piece, I am struck especially by the second reader comment.

"LT" writes: "There's something problematic about equating "Muslim extremists" that Dr. Patel describes to Pat Robertson et al. When people "make inflammatory statements about Prophet Muhammad," no one dies. When people do beheadings and fly planes into buildings on camera.... I think two types of publicized actions are totally not equivalent."

Part of our problem is the prevailing presumption that "nobody dies" when Christian Zionists and other American leaders speak or advocate policy. As so many non-Americans know, our policies do in fact inflict suffering and death on a massive scale. But this is a point of nuance so difficult to make in the media context Patel accurately describes.

this is a link to a poll taken of american muslims and their opinions

http://www.projectmaps.com/PMReport.htm

Weekend Edition
March 31 / April 1, 2007
Partition and Theft
How Palestine Became Israel's Land

By SONJA KARKAR

For Palestinians, theirs is not the land of conquest, but the land of their roots going back to time immemorial. Such a lineage does not rely on a biblical promise like the Jewish claim that God promised the land to Abraham and his descendants, and is therefore, the historical site of the Jewish kingdom of Israel. It belongs to the people of Palestine by the simple fact of their continuous residence repeated through birth and possession going back to the earliest Canaanites and even those people living there before recorded history. They were there when the Israelites invaded the land, occupied it, and held it intermittently as wave after wave of other conquerors came and went, and they were still there when the Romans put an end to Jewish Palestine by destroying Jerusalem in 135AD. If a religious basis is sought, then the Palestinians can lay claim to being the descendants of Abraham's son Ishmael who is regarded the forefather of the Arabs. But actually, Palestinian rights are enshrined in the universally accepted principle that land belongs to its indigenous inhabitants. Thus, the modern day struggle for this land by European Jewish immigrants who have no connection with Palestine other than through their religion is a colonial enterprise that seeks sovereignty for an "external Jewish population" to the exclusion of the indigenous Palestinians who, regardless of faith--Jewish, Christian or Muslim--have lived together for centuries.

Although eager to accept the UN Partition Plan of 1947 which recommended that 56% of the land be set aside for a Jewish State, 42% for an Arab state and 2% for an internationalised Jerusalem and its surrounds, the world has not said a word about the land that was seized by Zionist terrorists before the State of Israel was proclaimed on 14 May 1948. Through a series of shocking massacres, the territory assigned to the Jews suddenly became 77% resulting in more than 750,000 Palestinians being forcibly expelled and dispossessed of their homes, personal property and their homeland. The Jewish State then came into being without waiting for the United Nations Commission - prescribed in the Partition resolution - to hand authority progressively over to the Jewish and Arab leaders for their respective states.

And after the 1948 war, Israel declared Jerusalem its capital in contravention of its internationally-recognised status of corpus separatum--a status that is still recognised. Effectively, the new state of Israel was not only created in violation of, it continued to violate, the very resolution which Israelis now look to as giving them sovereignty. The Arab state imposed by the UN Partition Plan without consultation and in contradiction to the UN charter - which should have upheld the majority indigenous Palestinians' right to self-determination - has since been deliberately and methodically whittled away by Israel, leaving nothing but isolated non-contiguous parcels of land to some 4 million Palestinians.

Around 170,000 Palestinians remained in what became Israel, the largest number of whom resided in the Galilee area, originally a designated part of the Arab state under the Partition Plan. These Palestinians also became the victims of Israel's land grab policy. Over 438,000 acres, which was more than the total Jewish land holdings at the time, were confiscated and a further 400,000 acres were marked for confiscation. After Israel won the 1967 war, the total territory of Palestine came under Israel's rule. It annexed East Jerusalem, despite the Holy City's internationally recognised status and began implementing its Jewish settlement program with a vengeance. The Palestinians in Israel were increasingly aware of their precarious position politically and declared a national strike, known as "Land Day" on 30 March 1976 against Israel's continuing ruthless land expropriation. An affinity was quickly felt between Palestinians everywhere and "Land Day" was adopted as a sort of national Palestinian day which is commemorated by Palestinians and their supporters around the world each year. This awakening of national consciousness had an unequivocal political message: end the occupation and allow self-determination of the Palestinians in a sovereign state living in peace side by side with Israel.

Thirty-one years later, the message is till resonating, but the Palestinians are further away from seeing a solution than ever before. Daily, Israel is taking a bit of land here and a bit of land there, to make all of Palestine "Israel's Land". The problem then will be, what to do with 5 million Palestinians with no land? There are only a few possible, but criminal solutions - transfer, collective imprisonment, apartheid, and/or ethnic cleansing. Alternatively, Israel can disengage from the West Bank to the 1967 borders or agree on a single, democratic state for all. Without a just solution, the struggle for Palestine's land will continue.

Sonja Karkar is the founder and president of Women for Palestine in Melbourne, Australia.

In hindsight, UN Resolution 181, (1947) which partitioned the Palestine territories in two parts, one Israeli and one Palestinean was a mistake. The UN should have recognized that conflicts over Jerusalem, water rights and land deeds would create significant tensions and bloodshed. The territory should have remained under permanent UN control.

The solution: Israel should honor the original UN Resolution 181 and move its borders accordingly. The borders should be maintained by walls and fences and guarded by UN troops. Jerusalem should be made an international city governed by the UN and its troops. Water should be distributed based on population and water desalination plants built and maintained by the oil-rich nations of the region. Economic development and education should be funded by the same countries plus support from the likes of the USA, Russia, China, Australia and the European Union.

Separation of incompatible peoples does work as shown by the separation of Czechoslovakia and also the Balkan state breakups.

Zionist have proven to be the most destructive religious extremist in the Middle East. Unfortunetly, in America this form of extremism is considered acceptable and anyone with the courage to criticize it is called an anti-semite. I am sure many will hide behind cliche arguments about how Koran encourages violence and bigotry, and America and Israel are a force for good in the middle East. But what could be more violent than taking land, and what could be more bigoted than race based citizenship. If we look at the situation honestly, we all know the Middle East would be better off without Israel. This conflict has caused so many wars, endless bloodshed and terrorism based on the extreme assumption that the Torah grants property rights.

Some how it has become popular in America to HATE. But its only ok to hate Muslims. If readers are willing to be honest about these things instead of throwing around Pro Israeli propaganda we all could see the source of this violence. A small but influental group of people has hijacked American interest for the sake Israel. We have all been exploited defending a racist and violent country. A country whose land was ripped from the hands of people still living today. America has such a complex history, but until justice was done there was no peace. We will spend our time talking about religion and extremism and avoiding the ugly truth that Israel needs to do right by the palistinians. America needs to stop bullying muslim countries with military and finacial might.

Israel is the source of extremism, terrorism, 9/11 and a 60 year cycle of violence. Israel has inspired hatred from Arabs and Muslims for legitimate reasons. But you will never here this in the media because Pro Israeli journalist, politicitans, and lobbyist assualt the character of anyone who dares to defame Israel. It is obvious that a great injustice occured in the explusion of palistinians from there homes. America has wrongly chosen to back the bad guy. We are paying for it and we will keep paying for it until the wrong is righted. Injustice breeds violence, hate and extremism. The propaganda machine will keep trying to justify bad deeds, but we the people have to have the good sense to say enough is enough.

well- i wont get into art world politics tonio-
there is a saying- the bigger the bull**** the higher the price-
i dont agree with the serious artist with o judged merit because i have a problem with art critics-

those who can,do- those who cant- become critics of those that do

but its all side issues i pretty much agree with you i could talk all day on this but --well i wont

its a nice diversion from all the normal evangelizing or bashing that goes on though-

thanks sorry if i rushed to judgement-

o and about salman rushdie- id say his intentions were pretty clear in -hold on-midnights children- then round beneath her feet got even more wild- he was getting angrier and more bitter it seemed-
i really dont tink his intention was to edify or entertain but to purge himself-

i call it therapy art- go get therapy- when youve healed yourself- come back and share- i dont want to feel your pain- i have my own thank you very much- other peoples pain is rarely as interesting to others as it is to themselves-
how that for opinionated?

I am a christian, I became that way because I asked Jesus if I could feel some of his love for us, I knew that he loved me but I was in such a bad place in my life that I needed more than preaching I needed him and thats what I got, his love is more real than anything I have ever known. I'm saying this to let you know that I am not an extremist in the sense that I'm violent or angry ill disposed toward anyone, but I think that if we as a society do not allow ourselves to be our erroridden human selves with our angry outburst and our little downtown escapades, and that we must able to allow ourselves to come to terms with our dual natures and allow one another the right to be human, than like teapot without a spout we blow ourselves up. If you cage people in and back them up to the wall and don't allow them an outlet for their emtions and problems then you will see some really extreme behaviour. I think we may already be seeing quite a bit in our society.

"id venture that some would even be offended at being pigeonholed into considering all art equally valuable- artists in general are an extremely egocentric lot-"

Those artists have a point. Artistic expression and artistic merit are not the same thing, and defining something as artistic expression isn't a judgment on the quality of the work. Someone can set out to create a work with serious artistic intent, and the work can still be judged as lacking in artistic merit.

"i dont think a person who defames a revered figure knowing he will upset alot of peoples sensibilities constitutes art but insensitivity."

Victoria, it sounds like you're comparing Rushdie to Dan Brown. While I don't know Rushdie's intentions, it doesn't seem realistic to me that he would deliberately take such an approach simply to make money. For one thing, the censorship in many Middle Eastern countries would have limited the size of his audience. (My wife recommends Azar Nafisi's "Reading Lolita in Tehran.") For another, Rushdie went through many personal and professional travails in the years that followed - no publisher would offer him a paperback deal because of the fear of retribution.

"i seriously and sincerely doubt that yusuf islam in any way was making an opinion to please khomeini or in fear of him-"

I wasn't suggesting that. I'm saying that tyrants and demagogues do not tolerate unorthodoxy or dissent, and that if they target one artist they can target any artist. I think of Elia Kazan and his Faustian bargain with the House Unamerican Activities Committee - if McCarthy had become more powerful, he may have felt no obligation to honor the bargain, and Kazan may have faced the same fate as his colleagues.

well- as many artists as there are- that show many opinions youll find about it-

id venture that some would even be offended at being pigeonholed into considering all art equally valuable- artists in general are an extremely egocentric lot-

see- peronally- i wouldt as an artist put rushdie in as serious category- well next to ---kazantzakis for instance-

also- i have very seep feelings about the responsibilty of the artist to their audienc and society in general-

sensationalism has no place in any art- its a cheap trick- so well agree to disagree on this point-

i actually had a very long conversation with yusuf isma about this very topic when he was in the us 3 (or 4?) years ago-

the responsibility of the artist

but these are splitting hairs-

i say without that fatwa we wouldnt even be discussing his book- and it wouldnt have catapulted to fame-

it was a very bad ting of course- but rushdie was a pakistani and knew exactly what the reaction would be to his writing- maybe he planned it that way- what is the saying in hollywood?

i dont care what they say about me as long as they spell my name right?

i seriously and sincerely doubt that yusuf islam in any way was making an opinion to please khomeini or in fear of him-

hes usually surrounded by a legion of bodyguards-
i only happened to be blessed to be in the right time at the right place in order to have the time to have such a discussion-

there is total and complete consistency in his condemnationof rushdies work (if indeed there was a condemnation im not sure what youre saying)

did he condemn his work?

or did he just not come out and say 'leave him alone?

either way- we are all entitled to our opinions-

personally - i dont think a person who defames a revered figure knowing he will upset alot of peoples sensibilities constitutes art but insensitivity.

but were talking about him now arent we?

know the name of his last book?
i dont.

of course the fatwa is offensive-

fatwas cant be issued by individuals-

look it up even in the highly questionable wikipedia
ive posted it so many times i think people are sick of seeing it but will again if you like
peace

(i am a VERY opinionated person when it comes to art)

"i also dont think the united states had the right 2 years ago to prevent yusuf islam from entering the country and labeling him a terrorist either-"

No argument there, Victoria.

"i was never aware of any great camaraderie between yusuf islam and slaman rushdie for him to 'sell him out'"

I don't know if they even knew each other. By "selling out," I was thinking of the principle of artistic expression. Unlike mere entertainment, serious artistic expression is about the artist describing life and the world as he or she sees these. This inevitably puts the artist in conflict with political and religious authorities, which have a vested interest in trying to force certain views of the world on people. The validity of one view versus the other is not the point. When such an authority like Khomeini threatens to silence one artist by force, all artists are threatened. In fact, artistic expression itself becomes threatened. What Yusuf Islam didn't understand is that he might have been Khomeini's next target if he didn't sufficiently please the tyrant.

I know that you didn't mention Khomeini in your previous posts. I brought up the fatwa because the idea behind it is very humanly offensive, no matter what the religion.

tonio- i dont mean to belabor te point, but look at it again- nobody said anything about justification for issuing fatwas- which cant be issues anyway as there is no central islamic government to issue them (a precondition)

but th content is the content-i didnt say it was about that- i said it was contained and depicted within the book-

like i said- rushdie is ok- i think hes gotten his best stuff out already- the last book i read by him was pretty predictable - but it is what it is-

i was just stating what i think it was that upset muslims to begin with- no one said anything about khomeini

as for yusuf islam- as an artist id say he has far surpassed rushdie- id have said it as a christian too-

i dont look to artists for political opinions myself- just like i dont condemn rushdie for his often negative portrayal of muslims- (his first book was a pretty dismal cmment on pakistan) but judge him for the value of his work-

i also dont think the united states had the right 2 years ago to prevent yusuf islam from entering the country and labeling him a terrorist either-

i was never aware of any great camaraderie between yusuf islam and slaman rushdie for him to 'sell him out'

if they had a friendship and a history- then maybe he rejected him in favor of his conviction-

selling out implies a weaselly sneakiness that i dont associate with yusuf islam at all

"what exactly was it that you thought Muslims were so upset by?"

At the time, I suspected that the fundamentalists in Islam were upset that Muhammed appeared in a work of fiction. And I suspected that some Muslims simply accepted Khomeini's opinion about the book. In my view, Khomeini was simply grandstanding to perpetuate his own power.

Again, I don't remember anything in the novel about Muhammed being a pimp. In fact, the section with Muhammed reminded me of "Last Temptation." What I remember is that he turned away from the "satanic verses" and embraced the "angelic verses." The bulk of the book is not really about Islam at all, but is simply about two ancient spirits carrying on their eternal struggle in modern-day London.

My overall point was that whatever Rushdie wrote, NOTHING justified Khomeini ordering that the writer be killed for his words. I was especially disappointed when the former Cat Stevens sold out his fellow artist in the name of religious orthodoxy.

THE MUSLIM OBERVER
( a newspaper ive read for several years and have met and spoken with several of its reporters and editors always with positive and refreshing exchange)


Muslim Media Network

March 31, 2007
Introduction

The Muslim Observer began its journey into the media world in 1999 as an alternative to the corporate media on issues pertaining to Islam and Muslims. Since then it has focused on American Muslims: their issues, perspectives, and concerns. Thanks to our ever-growing readership and exchange of ideas, the Muslim Media Network (MMN) is developing an organization that will offer a wide range of media channels throughout the U.S., including such services as internet broadcast, radio broadcast, television broadcast, print publications, and research and alternative news services. The establishment of the Muslim Media News Service (MMNS) is the first step in that direction. Through a network of reporters, writers, and commentators, MMNS offers a growing Muslim alternative to existing international wire services (Reuters, UPI, AP, AFP) on matters pertaining to Islam and Muslims.

Our Mission

“Our mission is to develop a bridge between Muslims and non-Muslims in the world of media. Through promoting harmony, pluralism, human dignity and tolerance for differences of opinion, the MMN intends to achieve its goal to highlight positive stories that help people of different faiths come together for better mutual understanding.”

Our Goals

MMN offers a balanced and fearless forum to those alternative voices that find no space in the existing U.S. mass media. We intend to achieve our mission by promoting genuine and authentic dialog between emerging Muslim voices and our audiences on issues of national and international importance. MMN, Inc. intends to make its mission relevant to all people.

We seek to present the news of the world in a positive way that highlights the perspectives of Muslims in a manner completely free of the anti-Muslim bias that is commonly presented by mainstream news services.

Dr. Nakadar

The problem is this cult like every other cult brainwashes its followers they go to any lenght to justify Mo's paedophilia, here is list of the excuses we have collected over the past 3 years:

1. Marrying 6 year olds was ok in those days.
2. Girls matured sooner in those days.
3. Girls matured sooner in dry climates.
4. To teach her true islam.
5. She was a reject (had marriage proposals turned down) so he done her a favour.
6. To establish a relationship with Abu Bakr.
7. She was Allah's gift to him via the angelic dream.
8. Married her when she was 6 but consummated when she was 14.
9. I don't see what the problem is.
10. You are a "#"£$"£!$##' I'll chop your head off.
11. Allah gave him this priviledge, you are just envious.
12. Why do you only bash Mo even catholic priests perform such acts.
13. Sleeping with 9 year old by marrying her is better than raping her!
14. Aisha was in dishonour, she had been 'playful' in her youth and Muhammad was kind to her to marry her, to save her from lifetime of shame.
15. If Mo was a paedophile then why was Aisha the only minor among his wives. (This excuse was given by JAGOTI on this panel)

Amina what's your excuse ?

im so happy there are such reasonable people in here- i determined before entering to only copy positive media examples so here goes one therell be more insha'alla

Tuesday, September 13, 2006
Texas: Increasing readership for Muslim newspaper

Sarwat Husain, president of the San Antonio chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, began her newspaper six months after September 11. Al-Ittihaad, which means unity, publishes articles relating to Islam and the local Muslim community.

Al-Ittihaad covers local Muslim issues in Texas and prints several columns. The most popular one is the Q&A section, where Islamic scholar and imam Dr. Yusuf Z. Kavakci answers to readers’ doubts about the appropriate behavior for a Muslim living in America. The online version of the newspaper includes a prayer schedule and cultural articles.

The paper is distributed freely throughout Texas: in particular to universities, churches and mosques. Despite the increasing readership, Al-Ittihaad is not profitable, due to the fact that Sarwat Husain often refuses to run ads, which might be considered offensive to Islam.

Source: New America Media

well, glance over it again tonio- what exactly was it that you thought muslims were so upset by?

possibly because i read the book FROM all the furor by muslims-i was looking for what it was in particular that upset them-
i wasnt a muslim at the time and had only peripheral exposure to islam- and had never met a muslim that i knew of- but i did think it was pretty rude- and i could see how i would be upset if someone said that about jesus(ata).ps i did not think jesus(ata) was divine at the time but a prophet and messenger- so there wasnt that divine thing happening-

or better yet- pick up kazantzakis-

"rushdie now, not many people seemed to have reac his book- but he portrayd muhammad(pbuh) as a pimp and his wives as the prostitutes he earned his living from-"

Victoria, I read Rushdie's book and I don't remember reading anything like you describe.

Dear Tortuga,

Thank you for your insightful words and for bringing the conversation back to the original question.

One thing that I have noticed is how often people who seek to stereotype a religious group will begin their arguments with the words "Islam says..." or "Christianity says...". I find this interesting because what such detractors often fail to realize is that labels like Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Paganism, etc. are all general labels applied to very complex and internally diverse belief systems. One can quote from the Qur'an or the Bible, select from Hadith or tradition, but saying that Islam as an entire belief system says something is like saying "The American Dream says...". The American Dream, or any other worldview, is defined by those who claim to believe in it and often, because of this, a variety of interpretations and responses can evolve within that one worldview.

Furthermore, such generalizations fail to take into account this complexity and often pigeon-hole entire groups of people who may have very different views on how they express their faith. Islam, like any other faith tradition, is a highly complex system rather than a single monolithic worldview. Yes, there are certain foundational elements which are expressed by all Muslims, but there is also a great deal of diversity.

This is why Eboo's post is so important. Right now there is one group of Muslims who believe that the only way to be truly Muslim is to be violent and eliminate all those who do not adopt their worldview, including other Muslims. This group of extremists is propagating their message through the use of the media. As noted by both yourself and Dr. Patel, the media is a neutral medium which can be used by any group. Sadly, religious extremists have found ways of using the media to further their ends. I had the pleasure of working with Eboo on research in this area and it was incredible the level to which these groups had co-opted the internet, television, and print media. We found books directed at attracting young people to their cause and websites created for the purpose of indoctrination. What is more, these were not simply Muslim extremists using these media sources, but also Christian, Jewish, and Hindu groups.

What I am thankful for is Eboo's work at finding a new solution, one in which young people of a variety of faith traditions can come together and share their faith with one another through service to their communities. Even more inspiring was how Eboo's Muslim faith is what moved him towards such a vision of interfaith cooperation. I heard him tell stories from the Qur'an and Hadith about the importance of tolerance and service, and it was these areas from which he drew his inspiration. Are there controversial passages in the Qur'an and Hadith? Yes, but no more than those found in countless other religious texts. All religious people need to be willing to address these issues, but what I have seen in the actions of my friend, Eboo, and in those of countless other religious people, is that there is another way to be a person of faith; one in which peace is affirmed, respect encouraged, and love practiced through service.

I encourage many of the people in this thread and others to begin examining this movement. Please visit the Interfaith Youth Core’s website at www.ifyc.org. Furthermore, I invite you to examine the heart of other faith traditions in deeper ways. Stop merely quoting from the Qur’an and try to understand how Muslims approach this text. Learn to read from the Bible in the way that Christians do. Seek to understand the rites practiced by pagans in the way that they understand them. Only in this way can our dialogues become more fruitful.

Sincerely,

Nicholas Price

PS I have included a couple of readings that I would encourage others to look at below. Tortuga, I am afraid I do not know what sources would be best for those interested in learning about paganism, so I invite you to post some of those resources for us:)

--“Islam: The Straight Path” by John Esposito
--“Qur’an, Liberation, & Pluralism” by Farid Esack
--“The Qur’an: A User’s Guide” by Farid Esack
--“Toward an Islamic Reformation: Civil Liberties, Human Rights, and International Law” by Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im
--“Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis
--“Basic Christianity” by John Stott
--"Knowing God" by J.I. Packer
--“How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth” by Gordon Fee & Douglas Stuart
--“Slaves, Women, & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis” by William J. Webb

actually jakob- its one jewish fingernail clipping is worth 10,000 gentile lives-

but i can see how you would be preoccupied with brains-

tonio- well kazantzakis DID let jesus(ata) be tempted by the devil to live as a married man but luckily got shaken into 'sense' at the end of his 'dream' and still died on the cross-

rushdie now, not many people seemed to have reac his book- but he portrayd muhammad(pbuh) as a pimp and his wives as the prostitutes he earned his living from- so id say thats both slanderous and attacking the central core of the religion-

but i may never have read it if it werent for the furor- i also read his other books and hes a mediocre storyteller- which i guess may be why he used such an overwhelmingly offensive device to get people to read his books-

i had only the vaguest marginal idea of who muhammad(pbuh) was when i read it- (right around the time i read ALL of nikos kazantzakis- who also wrote my favorite book about st francis of asissi)

the treatment of the main characters is completely different-
in last temptation, jesus(ata) is a conflicted and tormented and reluctant prophet- but he is still clearly a prophet of god and his actions are consistently compassionate though troubled-

in the verses- muhammad(pbuh) is an ignorant greedy pimp- who bears no relation whatsoever to a prophet of god-

but just having a sensationalized storyline isnt a substitute for telling a good story-

id reccomend anything by kazantzakis- also he is the modern poet laureate of greece-

at least jakob there isnt trying to kid himself that zionism bears any relation to religion and calls it what it is- a land grab

just say no jakob youre giving away your secrets

Tortuga

Well said.

I thought that Patel's essay made an interesting point about the intent of radicals although I thought he seems to have missed the point of the question posed by the On Faith commentators - whether the media portrayed religion fairly, and seemed to blame the media for covering news and sensational acts.

In response to my post, someone spewed out a bit of venom about the Prophet. There is little, if any, need for such offense directed at another religion -- I am not a Muslim or religious, but find it disrespectful. Actually, I don't know whether the story I repeated from something the gentleman from CAIR wrote is true. I'll check it out. Perhaps Mr. Patel knows.

Be well.

Dear Commenters,

What a poisonous little club this comment list is!

I thank my Gods/Goddesses (beings how I am a Pagan) that every day I meet several people among many religions who are more thoughtful, critical, and loving than 98% of what I have read on these comments. Why do the dominant voices of this (thankfully small) group spend so much energy and effort in order to hate Islam and Muslims or some other target group... me thinks that Patel's essay hits too close to home (right here!) and you therefore doth protest too much.

Patel's comparison is about the mechanisms of deploying sensationalism for publicity. To say (as he does) that it is a tactic available and effective for a variety of groups, perspectives, agendas is not to equate the values and behaviors of those groups or perspectives. It does however helpfully illuminate the way that powerful messages that can impact how we humans treat each other are multiplied through contemporary media. It also challenges those of us in pursuit of peaceful pluralism to use that mechanism wisely. The mechanism is neutral--the ends to which one uses it are not. This is interesting and useful knowledge! What though-provoking places it could take us!

These rants against Islam (and others), copy-pasted from one comment list to another, both deliberately ignore the fundamental framework of Patel's essay *and* ironically *embody it*. It is my concern that 98% of the comments to these boards are intellectually dishonest sensationalist name-recognition campaigns--"Look at me! People who read the Washington Post (ok, just a few of the comment boards, but hey big fish, small pond, feels powerful) know my 'name'." But having hitched your local fame to the charnal wagon of religious intolerance and intellectual reductionism your rhetoric stinks to high heaven.

I'm sorry if this is the best most commenters can do in for civic engagement. It's a loss to the common good. Fortunately, as I said above, I meet new people every day who see it as their religious and/or civic duty to do better. Clearly my time is better spent with them.

Leaving you to your own life lessons.

Victoria, thanks for your reply. I wasn't addressing the original intent of the Danish newspaper itself. Generally, I think it's wrong to deliberately and calculatedly offend believers in a particular religion. You may be right about the intent of the newspaper. But I also think it's wrong for the believers to dictate what people should and shouldn't say about the religion, because that stamps out disagreement and legitimate criticism.

"The Last Temptation of Christ" and Rushdie's "Satanic Versus" were in the same category - they had stories about their religious leaders that weren't in scripture, but the stories did not slander the leaders nor did they contradict the religions' core doctrines. I acknowledge that such literary license goes against the principle of scriptural literalism, but then I regard literalism as an attempt to control what people believe.

deb- wll you please go read marx and quit misunderstanding even THAT quote-
you get so much so wrong-

marx was never making a statement on religion-

he was stating that the social conditions were made bearable by the proletariat because the powers that be understood that religion could be used as an opiate for the masses-

do you get that?

how do you expect em to respect what you say when you continue to misquote and misunderstand one of the most misquoted sayings of all-

he never said religion is a drug to numb people-
he was never talking about religion at all-

he was talking about how it can be used to placate people by the - o never mind-

go read a book deb

losers........all!

Victoria:

There is still time for you. Reject Islam and live a life full of joy and discovery.

I have known many Muslims who have rejected Islam and felt inwardly very happy. A faith that thrives by threat of damnation in hell and bloodlust of the innocent cannot come from a loving God, and hence must be rejected.

Reject Islam and inspire others to reject Islam too. It is the last vestige of human salvation on earth.

RELIGION IS THE OPIUM OF THE MASSES - Karl Marx

tonio- well there were the imams - this was a raging debate on the muslim blogs when it happened- i dont think any angle went unturned- i have a friend in denmark who also have me little snippets of an anecdotal nature-

its pretty common knowledge in denmark that the editor knew exactly the effect that his publication of the cartoons would entail- i read alot fo bakc and forth editorials and blogs from the newspaper also-
but anyway- its all water under the bridge now-

there was foreknowledge of its publication and there were muslims who protested months before its release- and after also-

even some danes were upset by it- they are a remarkably open-minded people-

the newspaper is called jylland posten- if anyone wants to bother-

i never had suspicion for your bad intentions for a minute tonio-

there were lots of even crazier stories than that floating around, so who can tell?

thanks russel d

deb- you just keep on keepin on- whatever gets you through the night bud.

Actually Islam is gasping for breath. That's why we see so much paid (by Saudi charity) propaganda from Muslims such as Eboo Patel, Pamela K. Taylor etc.

Islam is afraid of any criticism. The moment there is criticism, Islam gets into a tizzy. Thus, the more criticism the more tizziness and rockin'. The more rockin' the more fallin'; the more fallin' the more hurt; the more hurt the more pain; the more pain the more frail; the more frail Islam weakens. Weak Islam cannot do beheadings or fly into buildings to kill 3,000 people. So, we must keep criticising Islam.

Muhammad was such a vengeful man that he ordered the assassination of Abu Afak, a 120 year old man who was a Jew and whose crime was to compose a lyric ridiculing Muhammad and his claim. Muhammad asked one of his followers to get him rid of this man. Asma bint Marwan who was a poetess became so angry that wrote a poetry cursing the men of Medina for letting a Meccan kill an old man and do nothing. Muhammad asked one of his followers who volunteered to kill her. He entered in Asma’s home and pierced her chest with his sword while she was asleep with her five children beside her, the smallest was a nursing baby. How can such a man who could not bear someone criticizing him in poetry forgive someone throwing garbage at him? These stories of grandeur of Muhammad along with those attributing miracles to him are all forgeries concocted by over zealot believers.

A HANDLE wrote:
Before we talk more on that, here is an interesting parable as reported by Mohamed Nimer, Ph. D., Research Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations: “There is a narrative in Islamic history that goes like this: The prophet had a neighbor who used to throw their garbage at his door. One day Muhammad comes out finding no garbage. He goes to check on the neighbor out of concern for him. Impressed by the great character, that person then converts to Islam. Obviously some Muslims need to be reminded of this lesson at this time.”

This incident never happened to mohammad, muslims fail to provide evidence from the hadiths. The prophet referred to in this incident was Bahaullah founder of the Bahai religion and garbage thrower was a muslim arab woman.

What should be said about Mohammed in the media:

Mohammed was an illiterate, hallucinating about "pretty wingy thingies", pedophile with scribe henchmen writing their own "koranic" agendas (looting/plundering the lands of non-believers in God's name).

What no rebuttals??

Victoria

I think your depiction of what happened with the Danish cartoons is incorrect. The cartoons were originally published with hardly a murmur. Some Islamic clerics made a cause celebre out of their publication many months later at a meeting in Saudi Arabia (I believe it was Saudi Arabia). Then, meetings with the Danish government followed and when the Danish PM said the government could not interfere with the press, more clerics made speeches condemning the cartoons and calling for boycotts, etc.

None of this means that the cartoons were a legitimate exercise of free speech -- I think that was a spurious (albeit difficult to handle) claim by Flemming Rose.

Just so you don't, in your usual fashion, go off half cocked with conspiracy theories and a supposed defense of Islam, and accusing me of not understanding, or being anti-Islam, below is a piece I wrote about the cartoons back in February 2006 -- I reproduce it because I think the whole piece touches on Mr. Patel's comments about the media.

_________________
February 9, 2006

A CARICATURE OF FREE SPEECH – A CARICATURE OF RELIGION:

My daughter constantly complains that her neighbors deposit their trash bags right by her window on the eve of trash collection days. What does this have to do with cartoons of the Prophet? Read on.

The story goes that Flemming Rose, culture editor of Jyllands-Posten, the Danish daily newspaper suspected that the western art world was self censoring out of fear of Islamic radicals. His suspicions grew out of removal of some works from British and Swedish museums deemed, by staff, to be offensive to Muslims. Also, he had heard from a comedian a Danish comedian that he felt free to desecrate the Bible but that he'd be afraid to do the same to the Koran. Then Rose read that a Danish children's book author couldn't find illustrators who dared draw Muhammad for a new book on Islam.

Based on this high-level research rivaling Merck’s studies on Vioxx, decided to hold a contest, challenging 25 newspaper cartoonists to draw Muhammad as you see him. Twelve responded with offerings, thirteen, perhaps exercising self censorship, self-restraint, or common sense, or sloth or worse, chose not to participate.

By the way, keep in mind that the “cartoons” were first published in September 2005.

Rose continues to justify his publication of the “cartoons” as an exercise of free speech. At first, I thought I understood that this was indeed free speech. Then I read about protests by many Muslims and I thought that they should be more tolerant of free speech. Then, I read that some newspapers in European countries decided last week, to republish the cartoons as a show of solidarity and support of the principle of free expression.

Then, I thought about this whole affair and, indeed, have wrestled with it for these many days. As Shakespeare wrote “vexed I am of late with passions of some difference.”

My final – at least of now – take on this is that while there is a component of “free expression” involved here, and mostly on the part of the newspapers that decided to show solidarity with Jyllands-Posten in view of the disproportionate hate-filled response by many claiming to be outraged in the name of Islam, the initial publication by Flemming Rose and Jyllands-Posten was an unforgivable error of judgment.

Let me interject that I am neither religious nor a Muslim. Not that it should matter for purposes of this discourse.

My objection is not to the idea that a Western cartoonist should not depict an image of Muhammad. After all, the right to do that is the essence of the right of freedom or speech and expression. Of course, one might ask if doing so is necessary to advance any purpose and, if not, refrain from doing so. Again, I emphasize that it is not fear of reaction, but RESPECT for the sensibilities of others that should be the guiding force. Somebody said that the right of free speech means nothing if not to give offense to others. One might well ask what is to be gained by a Danish newspaper in giving offense on this subject. But then, the reward of free expression should be in the expression itself, not in the degree of offense one might give.

As an aside, it is possible to interpret the cartoon showing Mohammed waving off suicide bombers and saying “Stop, stop, we have run out virgins” as not blasphemous at all, but highlighting the futility of the suicide bomber’s expectations of salvation. But that is way too subtle to attempt as a justification for something that may be funny to non-Muslims but is in pure bad taste to Muslims.

The more serious issue is that a larger battle has been lost. In his State of the Union speech last week, President Bush repeated his frequent assertion that some men rage against freedom: “And one of the main sources of reaction and opposition is radical Islam, the perversion by a few of a noble faith into an ideology of terror and death.”

The President did not start all this and in fairness has often referred to the idea that the noble tenets of Islam are being perverted by a few. However, it is fair to say that this President and much of mainstream America equates terrorism with Islam and with Islamic fundamentalism. Somehow the suggestion is that there is some part of the Islamic faith that condones this kind of behavior and that our battle is not only with acts of terrorism but with that aspect of the faith. Nothing could be more wrong.

Before we talk more on that, here is an interesting parable as reported by Mohamed Nimer, Ph. D., Research Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations: “There is a narrative in Islamic history that goes like this: The prophet had a neighbor who used to throw their garbage at his door. One day Muhammad comes out finding no garbage. He goes to check on the neighbor out of concern for him. Impressed by the great character, that person then converts to Islam. Obviously some Muslims need to be reminded of this lesson at this time.”

It seems to me that saying there is such a thing as “Radical Islam” or “Fundamentalist Islam” is to imbue the ideas that the nutcakes propagate with some semblance of legitimacy. If the ideas that are being pressed by the terrorists, agitators and the like are a “perversion” then they do not represent Islam. It seems incongruous to call it a “perversion” and still attach the label “Islamic” to it.

We need to get away from the idea that anything done in the name of religion is somehow protected expression. The corollary is that everything done to denigrate religion is not necessarily protected as free speech.

What I mean by this is that there are propositions we can all accept: encouraging someone to be a suicide bomber is NOT the exercise of religion; blowing oneself up as a suicide bomber in the name of Islam is NOT the exercise of religion; flying a hijacked plane into the World Trade Center is NOT the exercise of religion; killing doctors who perform abortions, even if the killing of the doctor is done in the name of Christ, is NOT the exercise of religion; Pat Roberston’s calling for the assassination of a foreign leader is NOT the exercise of religion.

So also, it seems to me, a cartoon showing the Prophet Mohammad with a bomb in his turban, is an expression of the idea that the entire religion is one of violence and terrorism. While one may be entitled to hold that view, it is undoubtedly false and profane. So, my objection is to falsehood and profanity, NOT to the idea that one may offend others. For me, such publication is NOT the exercise of free speech.

Now, perhaps the parable of the Prophet’s concern for his neighbor’s failure to deposit the daily garbage becomes more poignant. It is unlikely that a Prophet showing that level of concern for his neighbor would condone violence. He did not. And my daughter should take her neighbor’s regular deposits of trash as an indicator of continuing good health.

By taking this kind of approach, we do pit ourselves against Islam as the enemy … and yet, we say that Islam is not the enemy. If we are ever to get the leaders of the Islamic world to join with us in the battle against terror and the perversion of religion, we must be able to separate ISLAM from all of the other activities. Otherwise, in the delicate triangulation among the western world (read USA), the terrorists, and the Muslims (who generally reject violence) the common bond of Islam, as long as we allow it to be called into battle, will often tip the scales against us. It is only when we stop referring to terrorists with the label “Islamic” that we can say what they do has nothing to do with religion.

If we are ever to have the moderate leaders of Muslim countries and the moderate clerics speak with us, it must be because they feel WE are willing to understand that Islam as a religion does not condone the kind of violence we have seen. And they must understand that it is in their interest to condemn those who hijack ISLAM as a justification for evil.

The aforesaid Mohamed Nimer, went on to say:”The real offense here is not about the artistic depiction. It is the way the prophet was depicted -- a man of great violence.”

We have all read that for Muslims, ANY depiction of the Prophet is blasphemy. So I think Nimer is getting at what I said earlier – it is the falsity and profanity that is at issue.

I think Flemming Rose was wrong to publish the cartoons. They served no purpose and were akin to hate speech. I think that the violence and the protests in the Islamic world were way out of proportion and much of that can be traced to exploitation of the situation by radicals. I think that the republication of the cartoons by the European newspapers was a superficially valid gesture, by western standards, in recognition of the right of free expression. However, they failed to recognize that republication of hate speech is still hate speech.

What I do respect is the Danish Government’s response of apologizing for offense but saying that given a free press, they had no right to intervene. The subtlety might have been lost on those demanding apologies, but compare what Jyllands-Posten published to the statements that landed a Muslim cleric with a prison sentence for inciting murder in Britain.

Which all proves that given an opportunity to engage in bad taste, the press will take it. And yet, this poses a horrible dilemma for the rest of us who believe that they should be able to say and publish anything … almost. Anything but falsehoods and profanity.

Victoria, I wasn't trying to defend or condemn the cartoons themselves. Here is my understanding of the incident - after they were published, a few radical Danish imams put together a collage of the cartoons with other images to make them seem even more inflammatory. Then these radicals traveled through the Muslim world with printed copies of their grouping, falsely claiming that this was what the Danish newspaper printed. As the story went, it was a calculated move to cynically manipulate the religious sentiments of Muslims.

To me, that's not much different from the protests over "Life of Brian" and "Last Temptation of Christ." Many fundamentalist preachers in America told outright lies about the content of those films, such as claiming that the first film had a scene were a baby was sacrificed.

I knew I like you Victoria. Being an artist myself, I am open to free speech and seeing what I can get away with.
But I wouldn't go so far as calling myself an extremist. I am more of a watcher. I watch all of this and it frightens me to think that one day people of these different religions might actually come to a final boiling point and declare war on each others' followers. Then we're left with the winner, and I shudder to think who would win.
Nowadays, everybody is looking for a way to have their views seen by the world. Some go about it in more harmful and in-your-face ways than others. These views can be better expressed over a freakin beer for cryin out loud!
What people of the Major God fearing religions need to learn is a little respect and tolerance for the other guy. So what if he doesn't believe as you do? Get over it and have a chat anyways. Your respective God is not gonna strike you down for talking and coming to an agreement. Isn't that what God would want? Some kind of compromise would be better than hacking heads and flying into buildings, and invading countries for no reason. People have to get past their own fragile egos and see the bigger picture.

Abraham, help me! My country has been hijacked by mad men and is being flown into the twin towers of decline and deceit. It has been done with the aid of muslim, jewish and christian extremists who all claim exclusive 'god franchise'.

There is a story about Mohammed settling a dispute. A scared rock fell off its base. No one could agree who deserved the honor to replace it. He placed the stone on a blanket and split the honor among the four corners. Let one be Judaism, one Christianity, one Islam and one for the sons Abraham had to stop killing before God would accept him.

ill find a link of the cartoons themselves and one can decide for themself if they are humorous or intended to be inflammatory

http://blog.newspaperindex.com/2005/12/10/un-to-investigate-jyllands-posten-racism/

many of the sites are in danish- i was looking for the responses of the publishers themselves- which i read when it happened-

while it was stated that it was simply free speech- most saw the publications of the cartoons as a direct assault onthe muslim immigrants in denmark- especially when 12 imams asked to speak to the president and were pointedly ignored while the president ushered ayaan hirsi ali into his office after theyd been waiting al day-

anyway- the claims that other religious groups are similarly lampooned is diproved by this link-
cartoons of Jesus(ata) were rejected because they said- they were not funny-

i would venture to say the cartoons of the Prophet(pbuh) lacked a distinct levity-
but decide for yourself if you think theyre funny=
humor was never the motive in their publication and republication

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1703500,00.html

for the record tonio and others-

i was trained as an artist and have done my share of caricatures and cartoons in my life-

my sympathies as an artist and american tend to lie on the side of free speech and freedom of expression

there is a difference however in deliberately baiting and targeting a s[ecific group in such a preconceived way- as the danes were well aware of the prohibition in islam of depicting our Prophet(pbuh) at all- let alone in a huiliating or offensive way

i was the first in line to condemn and denounce the over reaction and insane violence in repsonse to the cartoon-

i dont want to say anything without concrete facts so ill be back

We are humans and we are mean to each other. . . period. We belittle other people and their respective religions because we are fearfully insecure, raging angry or both. And most of your comments and the comments on the other 3 opinions are striking examples of this. Why why why must you people, the media and most of the humans on this beautiful planet verbally kill others to make yourselves feel strong? You make me sad.

Mr. Patel,

I agree that some followers of your religion have done an excellent job at making some people believe that your religion is twisted and sick.
But I also know that their are some of us who know that many of your members lead good lives, do good things for their communities and the world and are basically just as good as any other member of a healthy religion. What is difficult for me to decide on is; are the healthy islamic leaders really doing eveything they can to help change the negative perception that many people have of their religion, or is our press to blame?
If its any consolation at all to you. Many people like myself view the extreme religious right as fanatical as well. We have other movements in this country that spew forth hate and anger. But they are only a small majority, thank God.

The Bible is a proved hoax done by showing it's base is really a perverted version of ancient Egyptian religion. The Qu'ran is a proved hoax because it's roots are in the Bible. The Book of Mormon is a proved hoax because it's roots are also in the Bible. The media deals in misinformation with respect to the three great faiths.

Faith, the primary ingredient of the con. What is faith in, God, sacred scriptures that are all hoaxes or people sporting degrees from sacred scripture, hoax study institutions?

There is a voice in this wilderness that is become a test case for the media. The Internet threatens their strangle hold on what will and what will not be reported. Only an informed electorate can make informed decisions. Are there some things people should not know? Is being conned good for us?

Victoria, re: the danish cartoons. In Lebanon, an angry muslim mob attacked various buildings in the christian side of Beirut, then attacked, shot at and destroyed part of the Orthodox Bishop's residence. I doubt that there were any orthodox christians involved in drawing or publishing the cartoons, there are probably hardly any in all of Denmark. But I guess if Mohammad is insulted anywhere in the world, any christian nearby will do for retribution. What I am telling you is absolutely not made up: my parents live in Beirut and stayed at home for days for fear of these mobs, and I saw the reports on lebanese TV myself. If muslims do not like being depicted as violent and irrational, maybe they should not act as such... How about that for a good strategy?
Meanwhile, when the movie "The Last Temptation of Jesus Christ" came out in the US and was deeply offensive to most christians (much more than those silly cartoons), what did christians do? They denounced the movie, wrote editorials and boycotted the theaters that showed it, and... that was that. Nobody died, no cars were burned, Scorcese was not stabbed to death like Van Gogh in Holland.

I believe in a Great God that can take care of Himself and does not need me to go kill and maim people on his behalf, even if His name is taken in vain and even if He is insulted. Do muslims think so litlle of God's power and of Muhammad that they have to erupt like a volcano everytime they hear something about Islam that they do not like? Can't the God of Islam handle it and if need be take care of the "infidels" on His own?

Strikingly, the article fails to touch upon Hindu extremists in India and the continual persecution of Muslims and Christians. Perhaps, because the writer, an Indian (and Hindu?) is trying to sell Hinduism as the savior of religious extremism that takes all views into account. The only problem with that is that an individual is finally left with no beliefs at all. Everything works, all ways are fine. I don't understand what this has to do with individual belief's. I thought diversity was the strength of our democracy. Why should we all have to believe the same thing to be at peace? Should the whole world believe in Communism or democracy or monarchy or socialism in order to be at Peace? Does that mean we should all give up our beliefs and become puppets and gullible masses? Exactly what politicians might want right? Why does no one call me extremist because I think democracy is the answer to the world's problems, but yet call a Communist an extremist? Same rule, am I an extremist because I believe in the tenets of my religion, whether Islam, Christianity, Judaism or Hinduism? If I as a Christian believe that Jesus rose from the dead, and He died on a cross to save all mankind and forgive all those who believe in Him, then thats my prerogative and my right, according to the freedom given to all mankind by God (and secondarily the rights in my US constitution).
Extremism is one when blows up buildings, and murders people to deliberately impose their views on other people. This happens everywhere, in all religions and all politics. I don't think one should be surprised to find out that we often do it psychologically too, like the above writer murdered certain aspects (or propenents) of Christianity and Islam in order to impose his own views as legitimate.

What next Mr. Patel, stop making films like Schindlers List because they portray Nazis in a bad light ?

Eboo wrote:
They videotape beheadings and confessions of suicide bombers specifically so that television news will play the tapes. And sure enough, television news does.

That the second plane hit the twin towers several minutes after the first plane on 9/11 was not only heinous murder, it was a media strategy. The terrorists wanted to make sure the cameras were rolling.

After all, who doesn’t want to be on TV – especially if it sells violent jihad?

Mr. Patel,
What everyone saw on their screens was the truth about what islam can do to people. What the media displays is true islam in action.
Why must reality be hidden ?

You are frustrated by the actions of the jihadis and are trying to take it out on the media. Accept the fact that islam is a violent faith right from its inception. The violent acts commited by the jihadist today would have drawn praise from the so called prophet. What the media is doing is making people aware of this evil monster.

in line with mr patels remarks heres osmething funny i saw-

...anyway- i was watching mad tv last week or the week before and there was this skit where these kind of confused iraqi bearded guys were waiting for the american media to show up-
first their signs said 'go america go!
and the 2 goofy guys see the camera and wave their signs and cant understand why theyre not being filmed- and then they pull out an iraqi flag and start to set fire to it, then the smart guy shows up and yells, 'what are you doing??" and starts stamping the fiery flag out- then camers turn on him and he says to the goofy ones- 'why are you burning our flag??' and they say,'it all we could find'
(then of course a vendor walks by covered in american flags- flags for burning- get your american flags for burning!)
then (cameras still rolling) whip out the go amerca go! sign gesticulating wildly jumping up and down- and the smart guy says 'what are you doing?? this is not cheerleading!' and theyre like-

'no no- go- america- GO -like get out of here-

and then it shows a news flash with them waving their sign and stomping on the flag and the over voice says NEW EVIDENCE FOR AMERCIAN SUPPORT BY IRAQIS!

i thought it was pretty funny.

I prefer the Jedi religion myself. May the force be with you all.

Matrixism, a religion based on the movie "The Matrix" is an interesting attempt to sell religious pluralism to the young. It's sensational, hip and all but as of yet it has received little attention from the media.

To reiterate:

TV and newspapers have done an adequate job in covering the issue of the historic Jesus especially regarding the findings of the Jesus Seminarians, a group of some of the best contemporary NT scholars in the USA to include at least two members of the On Faith panel. Their conclusions that the historic Jesus only said/did about 30% of what is in the NT continues to upset the orthodox Christians and this is always news. After reading many of the books written by the Seminarians, I personnally am impressed with the reviews they have done and the scripture references used for these reviews. IMHO, they are correct in their conclusions.

Their most controversial conclusion that Jesus did not physically rise from the dead is continually noted every Easter by many news organizations. This same conclusion is also being taught as truth in many theology classes at major Catholic universities. It is interesting that the Vatican has remained silent about this conclusion.

What the media should do is run similar stories about the founder of Islam.

What do we know about him?

1. He was illiterate and therefore did not know what was in the Koran for certian.

2. His book the Koran was supposedly revealed/noted to him by the angel Gabriel.

3. Angels ("pretty wingy thingies) however being another carry over from ancient religions are myths so we know ole Mohammed and his scribes were pulling a fast one on the local tribes. Islamic clerics and mullahs do the same today especially in "teaching" poor and uneducated Moslems around the world

4. The Islamic scribes could have actually been disgruntled Jewish scribes (the Abraham and prophet touches) with an axe to grind vs. non-nomads in general or maybe it was simply about looting.

Bottom line: It is time for the media to address the historic Mohammed and the myths surrounding him.

no tonio, the danish newspaper was petitioned 6 months before the release of the cartoons and begged to please refrain from printing them-

the knowledge that they were to be printed came in advance because there were unflattering cartoons of jesus(ata) that were to be published and public outcry demanded that they not be printed-

the newspaper claimed that it had the caertons of the prophet(pbuh) (as well as the cartoons of jesus(ata) and was exercising free expression-
however they never printed the jesus(ata) cartoons and after 6 months printed the Muhammad(pbuh) cartoons-

then they decided to reprint them again and once more again-

also they sent them to france and i think belgium im not sure on that- ill check-

an iranian newspaper held a contest to produce inflammatroy cartoons about jewish people- but vociferous worldwide outcry from muslims stopped them-

i watched this case carefully, researched, and debated it in several forums-

against overreactin from muslims of course-

there was no pushing of the cartoon whatsoever from any muslim clerics-

muslims worldwide were begging the danes to please stop printing them

you are really misled in tis idea and i will find appropriate articles for you
peace
i know its not intentional on your part

Inflammatory statements and hateful views.

In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Gog is Christ 5.17
Isnt ıt an insult to belief of christian?

They do blaspheme who say,God is one of three(Trinity) 5.73
What is this?

Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt you find the Jews and pagan.
Say,O people of the Book......and most of you are transgressors.
Arent these inflammatory statements about Jews?

Those who reject Faith(that means absolutely only islam) and die rejecting,on them is the curse of God.
I will cast fear into the hearts of those who disbelievers(that means infidels.someones are doing comic interpretations about infidel.There is only one infidel in islam,not good infidal or bed infidel.infidel is infidel.There is not anything good or bed infidels)
Arent these hateful views?

"Muslim extremists want to make Islam look violent." This is a new twist and, quite frankly, not the way I have viewed the issue at all. So, I'll have to think about whether you are correct. My initial reaction is that you are not, but I want to keep an open mind. That initial reaction comes from my perception that extremists have a view of how the world should be (including what it should not be) and having no means to get there other than by violence, they find a justification for their violent acts - in their case, Islam. It is not clear that they want to portray Islam as violent but you are certainly correct that they seek publicity.

All publicity seeking is not on the same plane and I am sure you see the distinction between what a twit like TO does vs what an extremist who usurps Islam does when he or she kills innocents.

The President is seeking photo ops on a daily basis as are all Senators, Congressmen, Governors, presidential candidates, etc.

It seems to me that your column misses the question entirely and then you seem to want to blame the media for covering events that are either news or sensational.

Perhaps the media should just stop covering all "terrorist" type of activities. Would that stop 'em?

You tell us.

"You're not bothered that they say worse about Gays though?"

I find it ironic that the Christian fundamentalists and the Muslim fundamentalists agree on what they see as sexual immorality, but disagree on almost everything else.

----Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Franklin Graham make inflammatory statements about Prophet Muhammad ----

You're not bothered that they say worse about Gays though?

Of course not! As Islam hates them too!

LT, from what I've read, the Danish cartoon controversy was largely orchestrated by the Muslim world's equivalents of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. The radical clerics had the cartoons republished with unrelated inflammatory images in order to provoke their followers. So in my view, that proves Patel's point about religious extremists focusing on PR.

There's something problematic about equating "Muslim extremists" that Dr. Patel describes to Pat Robertson et al. When people "make inflammatory statements about Prophet Muhammad," no one dies. When people do beheadings and fly planes into buildings on camera.... I think two types of publicized actions are totally not equivalent.

Also, while TO may insult others just for attention, I suspect that those to which he is analogized actually believe in what they are saying and doing. They may welcome the attention, but does it follow that they would stop if only the media would stop filming them? And are people that strongly and uniformly responsive to what they see on TV? It's not clear that media contribute that much to any problem or that it would contribute to any solution.

Finally, it doesn't seem very productive to complain about "inflammatory statements," unless they're actually threatening (in which case they are illegal in the US). One can either take deep offense or brush it off (or even respect it) as someone else's opinion. I don't know what the borderline between critical and inflammatory is, but it seems to matter more when the subject is Muhammad rather than other religious figures.

One might recall the controversy over a set of cartoons published in Denmark... It gave me the impression that a large number of Muslims are not very good at handling insults of the one they follow. It's true I wouldn't have had the impression if the media hadn't covered the reactions, but does it follow that the media should not have covered them? To my knowledge, Christians, for example, don't respond with such vitriol when Jesus is maligned (which happens plenty).

Give me a break. A few examples of heartwarming cooperation do not negative the hoorible problems religious belief has wrought.Is there seriously anyone on the planet who cannot see the suffering, pain, and social degradation wrought by religious belief especially Islam? In the US the religious right is th emost corrosive and divisive force in contemporary politics and abroad Islam holds the world hostage with its member's willingness to inflict any evil and destruction in the name of pre-medieval ideology.

If we can't condemn the utter irrationality of religion then how will we ever combat religious extremism? If you can't condemn their ideological roots (irrational religious belief) then how can a person ever give any convincing criticism of religious fanaticism? We would be better off without these religions and they do nothing but irredemable harm. No amount of book reading to children or marching together in the streets will wash off the blood of the millions killed in the name of these non-existant gods.