Once again, publicity-hungry fanatics are trying to "save Islam" from the mortal threat of publicity-hungry Scandinavian cartoonists. If saving the image of Islam required murdering every feeble-minded attempt to demean Islam, with friends like these violent terrorists, Islam would need no enemies. To paraphrase the U.S. general justifying imperialist genocide in Vietnam in the 1960's, the fanatics seem to be saying that "It became necessary to destroy the image of Islam in order to save it." Murder and mayhem in the name of a religion of peace?

According to the fanatics, Islam - a religion which historically came to liberate and free the minds as witnessed by the extraordinary enlightenment it brought with it to medieval Spain, helping trigger the European Renaissance – is now too weak to withstand even the most pathetic of slurs against it. Notwithstanding the fact that the murderous psychopaths of Al Qaeda in Iraq represent no one but themselves and despite the fact that Islam expressly and absolutely forbids the killing of civilians under any circumstances, the same European cartoonists who, in the past, demonized an entire faith (Judaism) when it was safe to do so, now feel empowered to dehumanize another Semitic religion (Islam) instead, portraying it as a somehow inherently – and uniquely – bloodthirsty and warlike.

If Islam is too often distorted by violent, self-appointed defenders, how does the concept of free speech in the West fare in the current context? Ironically, absolutism in the name of free speech closely mirrors absolutism in the name of religious intolerance: xenophobic hate speech and self-righteous religious intolerance are twins which only a mother could tell apart, and if these gratuitous cartoons didn't exist surely the intolerant fanatics would have to invent them to justify their demented take on Islam.

Too often, right behind the banner of freedom of speech lurks a much darker agenda propagated by a terminally consolidated corporate, rightwing Western mass media subtly – and sometimes not so subtly - cheerleading the western re-conquest of the Middle East, as seen in the current U.S. military depredations in Iraq. In a world where NBC now belongs to arms dealer General Electric, half the French media to the likes of Dassault (another armament giant) and where Al Jazeera International (in English) has been pointedly kept out American television, is it any wonder that Islam would regularly come under attack as a convenient scapegoat for militarization and the further hijacking of public resources for the benefit of private interests?

There is of course, a genuine concern among those of us attached to the notion that democracy is crucially dependent on untrammelled freedom of expression, but to my fellow free-speechers throughout the world, I would humbly submit that the much greater threat comes from a lack of diversity of ideas resulting from decades of rapid concentration of the international mass media in the (not-so invisible) hands of powerful pro-war interests mascarading as a "free market place of ideas."

Stuck between the deranged threats of a perverted brand of Islam on the one hand and the vile taunts of nostalgic, neo-colonialist Western interests re-branding intolerance as freedom of speech on the other hand, what are sincere advocates of democracy and universal human rights to do?

Perhaps putting the horse back in front of the cart might be a good first step. Instead of fixating - as our Western media would have us do - on the red herring of an external evil (no longer the Red menace of international communism but now the Green threat of fundamentalist Islam), how about focusing our energies on the more immediate threat of another form an intolerant, absolutist belief system: the globalizing neo-liberal "free market" fundamentalism that threatens to eradicate all that is precious to freedom lovers everywhere?

>>> The trans-atlantic slave trade and the genocide of Native Americans is the true definition of a holocaust.

By using that statement in reference to the holocaust, your implication was that the Jewish holocaust was "less" than a true holocaust. I didn't say it, you did.

I said >> the Nazi holocaust of Jews and Gypsies and other European minorities is in fact amongst the worst examples of a holocaust << to which you affirmed, through some magical reasoning devoid of all factual content and context, that I was wrong! I didn't say it BUT you did. Sycophants are generally people who wouldn't think for themselves and are partisan in their use of facts.

The name calling does not befit a person who speaks on behalf oppressed people, who have their dignity and cause tarnished by poor representation. Osama Bin Laden very quickly defended the "Native Americans" but how sincere has he been in using his money in their defense? Its an abuse of truth. In view of the article, it is fair to say, that only OBJECTIVE AND FAIR REPRESENTATIVES can confer a good reputation.

Playing word games again, ghulam. Look at the numbers and you will see why the decimation of the Native American peoples is the definition of genocide. Jews have no special patent on suffering, and they should be ashamed exploiting the holocaust for political purposes. I don't care what Bin Laden may have said trying to capitalize on the plight of Native Americans. Why should I pay attention to the words of a terrorist? I've read the history books and know about their plight. Please look up the definition of a sycophant, since you don't know the meaning.

>> Look at the numbers ..

What numbers? Your imagined ones or the actual human ones? Where the life of one innocent human being can't be weighed against anothers?

>> I don't care what Bin Laden may have said

Thats your problem. You don't care. You don't want to understand the ethical undertones to what I'm saying. One man who experiences death of a loved person, doesn't use it to delegitimize the death of another persons loved one. That is a tool of zionism and the 9/11 trumpeteers. Its an ethical fault that requires an ethically minded solution. Like the article says "With friends like these, who needs enemies?". As muslims we can't afford to aggregate with baseless endless tit for tat argumentation like yours. Human life is sacred and the authority to take it lies with Allah alone. Thats the end of it.

I think it was Imam Ash-Shafi'ee who said "I could always defeat the scholar (defeat the scholar's opinion with reasoning, for he would recognize his defeat and submit), but I could never defeat the ignorant"

Why did you partially quote of my response, Ghulam? I said I don't care ABOUT Bin LAden b/c he's a terrorist. You sir, are in no position to raise questions about ethics when you yourself lack basic intellectual honesty. You place the suffering of one group above all others and dare to speak of ethics? Have some shame.
You sound very much like a lawyer, a disingenuous person with no principles, character or reality based world view.

>> I said I don't care ABOUT Bin LAden b/c he's a terrorist.

But we do care because he is a muslim and is acting with a view of representing muslims. In keeping with the TOPIC (see article above)

>> You sound very much like a lawyer, a disingenuous person with no principles, character or reality based world view.

Reality based world view is based in "REALITY". Using FACTS (not imagined and emotive storylines), and an objective analysis to justify a position. Take no position where there is none to be taken.

>> You place the suffering of one group above all others

Where?

That was the most forced of your responses, Ghulam. I don't even think you have an idea what you're arguing about anymore. No sane and educated person, Muslim or non-Muslim believes a terrorist like Bin Laden represents Islam and Muslims.
The Holocaust is but one example of the moral failure of human beings. Bringing to light the suffering of other groups is not an "emotive storyline." Your contempt and minimizations of hard facts reveal your true colors.

>> The Holocaust is but one example of the moral failure of human beings.

Another failure is dehumanizing the suffering of others in the name of some cause (as yet unspoken and unrelated to the topic).

>> Your contempt and minimizations of hard facts reveal your true colors.

I really just want to engage you on your facts. 100 million who? were lined up in which camps? Were forced to surrender which identity? ... Its not enough that I as a Muslim can say that Palestinians are entitled to their right of return, I must justify it with a practical and real factual assertion that is contextualised within historically verifiable truth. What is so fair as saying "the Jewish holocaust wasn't that bad"? Do you think you're doing the oppressed peoples of the world a favour by rounding up oppressors and dehumanizing them? Do I just assume by your nick BTWFBGHNI that you shouldn't be expected to be honest and fair?

Have some shame, ghulam. Stop playing with words and falsely attributing statements to me.

>100 million who? were lined up in which camps?<

This has got to be the most stupid and insensitive retort you've posted. Are you really that daft? 100 MILLION WHO? You think genocide only happens in camps in front of cameras? Have you read no history books on the trans-atlantic slave trade or mass murder Native Americans? And you dare accuse and lecture others on "minimizing other peoples suffering."
You have no credibility whatsoever, Ghulam. You are a hypocrite of the highest order.

>>> You think genocide only happens in camps in front of cameras?

Another false assertion about the Jewish holocaust. You have a real Jewish hatred that you need to deal with.

>>> their misuse of the Holocaust to justify their crimes against the Palestinian peoples.

This is another misnomer. The holocaust is used to justify a separate homeland for Jews. Racism and religious fundamentalism is used to justify the occupation. The difference between the two is huge. Intellectual hypocrisy (like yours), is the means by which it is done.

>Another false assertion about the Jewish holocaust. You have a real Jewish hatred that you need to deal with.<

I must say, you're probably the most manipulative liar on this site. Twisting my words around to deflect the fact that you minimize the deaths of others(demanding evidence which is widely available and documented), and accuse others of "jew-hatred" like any other zionist supremascist bastard. You're a Holocaust denier, Ghulam.

>Intellectual hypocrisy (like yours), is the means by which it is done.<

Anyone who has looked through your posts can easily determine who the hypocrite is. An opportunist smitten by empire, pretending to be a humanist.

>> Anyone who has looked through your posts can easily determine who the hypocrite is. An opportunist smitten by empire, pretending to be a humanist

Noone cares except maybe you and me. So maybe there's a perspective here that you have and even can follow with some factual links. I'm trying to understand your perspective on genocide and what qualifies some as better than others. Is affirmative action an abuse of slavery or genocide? Do you have any other single such event in history that mirrored the Jewish holocaust on the following scales:

1.) Volumes of people killed over time.
2.) Methodical use of a death-penalty over such large volumes.
3.) The exclusive use of birth as the determinant of murder.
4.) The distinct purpose of removing a race of people from the face of the earth, every man woman and child.
5.) The facilitation of the process in a functioning secular society with a rule of law and operating civil society.

Nevermind that. If those are hard for you, explain why you think that you can post these things on a Muslim site as if it represents the perspectives of educated Muslims? If you assert that the Jewish holocaust is abused by zionists, then that may be valid. But on what factual (real facts ~ produce some material data) evidence can you assert that the holocaust is not comparable to the worst forms of genocide.

You can label me whatever you like, but if there's a truthful argument in what you say, you should produce evidence of it in an objective manner and expect to have it debated if the evidence can be.

You're changing the conditions for to meet YOUR definition of genocide, Ghulam. This is absolutely disgraceful, you've presented nothing but verbose nonsense. You are going to continue to go around in circles, misrepresenting my position which shifting your back and forth. You're a Holocaust denier. Put your ego aside and read a history or two.

>If those are hard for you, explain why you think that you can post these things on a Muslim site as if it represents the perspectives of educated Muslims?<

I'm not a Muslim, you idiot. Is this website for Muslims only? I have the right to express my opinion regardless of my faith, or lack of. Or do you fancy yourself as sort of cop here to tell me or others what to think? You don't own this website, so go f*** yourself, you manipulative liar.