A writer once said, "“I disagree with your opinion, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."” I agree with this philosophy, even having seen Geert Wilder’s film, Fitna. And while I disagree with many of his conclusions in the film, as a Muslim secure in my faith, I will defend his right to express himself and to be critical of my religion and my fellow Muslims.

There is a sentiment popular among Muslims that Islam should be immune from criticism, constructive or otherwise - especially when it comes from non-Muslims. This sentiment is often the result of misplaced pride and the fact that, currently, Muslims have little else to be proud of. Regardless of the reasons, this defensive sentiment still comes as a shock to me. There has never been a religion, belief, philosophy, perspective or idea that has been immune from criticism. Looking back at history, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Marxism, capitalism, globalism, communism, socialism and every other "‘ism"’ has been subject to scrutiny and public debate. Why should Islam be any different? One should already expect that such scrutiny will often come from those who do not believe in the ideology they are criticizing (in this case, from non-Muslims). Why, then, are Muslims so sensitive to investigation of Islam when it comes from non-Muslims (or even other Muslims)?

Nothing is immune from criticism, constructive or otherwise, including Islam. All of the prophets, and the messages they conveyed, were subject to every type of scrutiny and humiliation (in many cases, far worse than what we are experiencing now). However, their response was not to silence and condemn the opposition, but to teach it. If we are so concerned about the honor of our religion, we should try practicing it in response.

Ironically, the most striking example of this do-not-criticize sentiment in the non-Muslim world involves Israel. At least in the United States, Israel has achieved a level of sanctity so high that it is beyond reproach. If you criticize Israel, rightly or wrongly, you are branded an anti-Semite. No politician can dare object to it. No mainstream pundit can openly condemn it. Surprisingly, the Muslims who complain the most over Israel'’s immunity to criticism are the same ones who complain the most about Islam’'s lack of immunity.

In the last couple minutes of his film, Mr. Wilder concludes that, among other things, Islam is intolerant, undermines freedom and seeks to destroy Western civilization. Other than his conclusions in the film, there is actually very little for a Muslim (or anyone else) to object to. Most of the film consists of quotes from the Koran, actual footage of various Muslim clerics and militant groups spewing hatred or beheading people, actual photos of Muslims committing atrocities, and actual newspaper or magazine headlines highlighting such footage and photos. In all honesty, most of the film is closer to being a documentary than hate speech.

Where the film fails, however, is that the quotes from the Koran are not given any context whatsoever. And admittedly, if one were to interpret such quotes literally, and without context, it would be very easy for a non-Muslim (and evidently for Muslims too) to conclude that Islam promotes violence. These quotes are then overlapped with the footage and photos of Muslims promoting or engaging in violence. The insinuation is that such promotion and engagement is simply in furtherance of the quoted verses.

This conclusion, while incorrect, is to be expected. The fact of the matter is that there are many Muslims who engage in violence as a form of protest or problem-solving, who violate human rights, and who openly hate and call for the murder of “kuffar”. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that non-Muslims will combine a superficial interpretation of these verses with the atrocities committed by some Muslims and conclude that Islam and its followers are violent. In fact, I would be surprised if they came to any other conclusion.

I do not fear or condemn non-Muslims scrutinizing Islam. In fact, I encourage it. It is only through this process of scrutiny and understanding that one can appreciate Islam (or anything else for that matter). What I do condemn, however, is an incomplete and biased analysis that fails to interpret holy verses in context of the surrounding verses, and in context of the circumstances to which they respond, and in context of the greater Koran, and in context of the teachings and example of the Prophet.

What is necessary now is an orchestrated, substantive and effective response to the film. A response that explains the context of the verses and their limited applicability. A response that highlights the peaceful verses of the Koran. A response that explains the very restrictive rules of engagement for war established by the Prophet. A response that condemns violent Muslims and distances them from mainstream Muslims.

But in typical Muslim fashion, we got anything but that. We got boycotts, outrage, hatred and YouTube sabotage, none of which did anything to make non-Muslims think any better of us or Islam, and all of which simply added fuel to Mr. Wilder’s fire. This is yet another foregone opportunity to explain ourselves while the world was listening that instead was wasted on knee-jerk, unproductive reactions that did nothing more than satisfy our primal need to “do something”.

When will Muslims learn that wrong speech is countered by correct speech, not by shutting it up? When will Muslims learn to respond with their minds and not with their emotions? When will Muslims learn that to reach the minds of those who are accustomed to open dialogue and an open marketplace of ideas, Muslims must also effectively engage in dialogue and submit well-reasoned ideas to the marketplace? When will Muslims learn that the honor of Islam and the Prophet are guarded by Allah himself and that we should therefore focus our efforts on bettering ourselves, setting a good example and winning the hearts of non-Muslims? When will Muslims realize that their current way of responding to “attacks” on Islam is inconsistent with Islam and the teachings of the Prophet? When will Muslims realize that, in confronting criticism of their faith, they need to start acting like real Muslims?

Photo: Sam Graham via flickr under a Creative Commons license.

Dear Mr. Bata,

I sincerely hope that muslims read and heed your last paragraph. Time is running out. Non-muslims associate Islam with violence. When there is another 9-11, 3-11, or 7-7, I am afraid non-muslims in that country or countries will say enough. I fear what the consequences will be.

Please do not think of me as an alarmist or "nut job." I am very familiar with Al-Qaeda's agenda and the ideology has spread to where individual cells are acting on their own volition. I have seen the film too. If the opening and last few minutes of the ending were removed, it would actually serve as a very powerful recruiting tool for terrorist groups. Nevertheless, it is seen as another insult that cannot go unpunished.

Though the response to Fitna was mild compared to the reactions to the cartoons, I fear that it may be the calm before the storm. I hope that I am wrong.

As I read your article, I concluded correctly that you live in the US. The Islam practiced here for the most part is not the same as found in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Egypt, or Nigeria for example. The dialogue you encourage and tempered response is not typical unless religious leaders provide guidance.

This article needs to be submitted not to a website like this, though it is worthy of it. It needs to be sent to major news outlets and others need to follow suit. If enough are submitted, they cannot be ignored. Non-muslims need to read comments like yours. It is not necessarily the size of the stone that is dropped in the water but what the ripples touch.

God Speed

"There is a sentiment popular among Muslims that Islam should be immune from criticism, constructive or otherwise - especially when it comes from non-Muslims."

I think this is a bit simplistic. It's not that Muslims don't expect to be criticized; its that they expect to be treated like every other community, for which faults and shortcomings are acknowledged along with strengths and virtues. It seems these days that Islam and Muslims are singled out for faults, and very little virtue is ever given recognition. This is what I think Muslims find incredibly disturbing. Senators can propose the destruction of the Ka'ba, Christian priests can speak of the destruction of Islam and Israeli war ministers of plans to commit a holocaust in Gaza, all with impunity.

"And while I disagree with many of his conclusions in the film, as a Muslim secure in my faith, I will defend his right to express himself and to be critical of my religion and my fellow Muslims."

I don't understand why you feel the need to defend Fitna's right to existence under free speech. It seems to me that this is better classified as hate speech. Clearly the intention of the film is to incite ill feelings against Islam, and by extension the entire Muslim community. Why must we tolerate such a film under the pretext of free speech, when such a film, if made about a different community would immediately be recognized and rejected as hate speech?

What is so holy about freedom of speech anyway such that it can invoked without further justification? It seems to me that the classical philosophers who defended it, did so considering its importance in the pursuit of truth and also in speaking truth to power. The intentions of Geert Wilders don't at all seem to fit into either of these agendas, and so I don't see a reason why it should be so self-evident, speaking as Muslims at least, to defend his right to make the film.

I have to agree with Mohammed Husain, for Muslims are continously critized by mainstream media, and there is little reflection on the activites of Muslims in the media. Only a few amount of non-Muslims can list the five pillars of Islam, but most are quick to name Osama Bin Laden as an example of a Muslim.

Maybe Muslims are not expressing their feelings in the best way, but since when does being disrespectful to an entire religion become acceptable? There is a difference between constructive criticism and between bias/unfair portryal.

Maybe White supremicists have the right, under the first amendment, to create a film "criticizing" blacks and Jews , but does that mean it is in fact right? I don't believe so. I believe when the founding fathers of this country allowed for free speech it was to protect the people form the government, not as a means to demonize and disrespect almost 2 billion people...

As a second generation, Muslim youth, I still hold onto the hope that one day we will leave in a society that will respect other cultures and religions, only offering criticism that is just and benefital. Not in a world of Us vs. Them...

thank you for the work you do on this Web site,
Muna

I don't like this article. It's over the top. There's not a single system on earth, not even the most liberal of them, that accepts anything in the name of freedom of speech. The makers of this film are small-minded human beings, well-funded perhaps, who have utter contempt for Islam, not extremism, but the religion itself. I will never defend the right of anyone to make corruption. The author's sentiment is laudable, in a slight way. But he struggles with immaturity. To be tolerant does not mean to lack spine or have a position. It does not mean to curtsy before the throne of some imagined "liberal paradise" that doesn't exit nor is evenly applied. It's so typical: Muslim pick up on some high-minded ideal and then take it to ridiculous extremes, which comes from a position of inferiority, not liberation.

mohammed husain
Migocup
mmarawi

For a great analysis of freedom of speech and what I believe our stance should be, checkout the article I wrote a few weeks ago.

http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/a/2683/

I think freedom of speech is critical.

Just another feel-good Obama-like inspirational speech with little practical value or understanding of reality. Firstly Muslims are not one homogenous group just like capitalists or socialists or christians the world over are not one group. So when the author starts complaining about reactionism by Muslims, which Muslims he is talking about. The ones who live in Muslim countries under extreme circumstances, or the ones who live comfortably in Western hemisphere or the ones under occupation by foreign militaries??

You can't get five mosques to work together doing dawah in your average American city, and you expect people from all over the globe to form some kind of unified strategy about some gay artist defaming Islam for some quick cash. Idiot.

Then there is the issue of media. The media is an economic institution like the US military or for that matter any military. It has its own dynamics, it is not here to promote peace, just to make some cash. So, if you are think some "correct speech" and acting nicely is going to all of a sudden make the media "happy with Muslims", good luck. The media is not interested in normal healthy happy people. It is interested in nuttos, sickos, homos. Everybody who is not normal. Media is actually by the Grott-Esckley Dictionary of Modern Institutions, "a tool to report on abnormal behavior." So, if everybody was normal, media would be like an oxymoron. And in case you do not know, an Oxymoron is according to the Grott-Esckley Dictionary of Modern Instirtutions "a moron who can survive for long periods without oxygen."

mr husain-
why exactly should muslims expect to be treated specially, or even equally?
we can expect it- but be prepared to be disappointed- there IS an unfair playing field media-wise in america- we can complain about what SHOULD be- but be prepared to offer a superior alternative.

how has silencing opposing views ever contributed to anyone's benefit?

we have to be practical- if it is offensive- (and it is) there will be those who are already inclined to feed into their own islamo-hysteria and nothing one says will counter that-

attmepting to force them not to express themselves will only result in redoubled efforts on their part-

MMARAWI- so non-musims cannot name the 5 pillars of islam- well?
can YOU name the 7 sacraments of the catholic church?
after all, it IS the 2nd largest religious group in the world-
or can you recite the 10 commandments?

i'm not trying to be aggressive to you- just pointing out that maybe it isn't so reasonable to expect (expectations again) more from others than we do of ourselves-

and personally- i do not believe the sole purpose of freedom of speech was to protect us from the government- but also to encourage a pluralistic society- where every voice, no matter how dissedent- is free to express themselves-

how boring would it be to only speak to those who look and think like us?
and most of all- who is it that decides what is "right" anyway?
from whose perspective comes that judgement?

Thomas Jefferson-
"The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object."
"Democracy is 51% of the people taking away the rights of the other 49%."


all groups come under fire from their opponents-
i think a pointed response to the film would be the opposite of what is needed- although it is the first reaction-

who would want to sit through an apologist defense reaction? or point by point rebuttal?
i'm a muslim, and the prospect is already boring me-
we have to step back and think creatively-

of COURSE the critique and scrutinizing process is incomplete and biased-
if we are honest, a rebuttal would also be biased in favor of islam-

instead of repsonding to criticism- i believe we should (to borrow from Migocup) sspeak from a liberated and self defined, creative perspective-

i would love to see any muslims make a film that criticizes islam- and those aspects of it that are askew- and why.

westerners encounter a block when they ask genuine questions of muslims-
it's not that all westerners hate islam- they just dont understand what it is- or how muslims can (to their view) allow concepts like honor killings- suicide bombings- to go unchallenged-

we should attack ourselves and those elements of extremism that are out of synch with islam more vigorously-

and use our own doctrinal support to explain exactly WHY these things are unislamic-

it would be a compelling watch for most americans-

is not social justice, and mercy and forebearance enough?
are these not valuable enough precepts to be portrayed and explained strong enough to stand on their own?

well, im not a film maker-

if we do not define ourselves- then others will fill that vacuum, and define us for the world (like mr wilders did)
peace all

Actually I can name them. I've read the bible and Torah, as well as studied other religions that are not so main stream. My point is that before you go in and try to criticize a religion, you should be educated about the religion. The majority of people who criticize Islam are uneducated about it. How can a film critic publish a review about a movie he/she has never seen? Is the publication of such an article considered free speech? or just ranting for the sake of fame?...it can be nothing else but the latter.

The ten commandments:
1.) There is only one God (you shall have no Gods before me)
2.) Do not make an image or likness of God (such as an Idol)
3.) Do not use God's name in vain
4.) Remember the Sabbath day (on the seventh of each day)
5.) Honor your father and your mother
6.) Do not murder
7.) Do not commit adultery
8.) Thou shall not Steal
9.) Bare not false witness against your neighbor
10.) Do not covet your neighbor's wife

The seven sacrements:
1.) Baptism
2.) Eucharist
3.) Reconciliation
4.) Confirmation
5.) Marriage
6.) Holy orders
7.) Anointing of the Sick

Now you understand why I expect the same??!

I sense somewhat of an aggressive tone in some of the last comments that isn't at all helpful in facilitating a fruitful discussion. I never said I was in support of silencing views; that assumption to seems to have been imposed on my comment. What I said was that I see no reason to defend hate speech. There is a difference.

Constructive criticism is one thing, rancorous, hate-filled, misguided claptrap is quite another!

Why should anyone want to defend to the death the right of another individual's vitriol? Every fool is free to ramble, but when that 'rambling' affects me in a negative way, I won't go about defending the fools inalieanable right to free speech in the first place.

Are Muslims so ashamed of the violence associated with the religion that they cannot no longer express righteous anger?

What makes is okay for Muslims and their religion to be attacked whle when the same is aimed at other religions and peoples the world is utterly scandalized?

I will not entertain the idea that Islam as a religion promotes and promulgates violence. I will, however, agree that some Muslims have gotten it wrong and urge them to rethink their approach.

Your calls are appropos, yet I wonder, why is it that whenever some firebrand pseudo journalist writes or makes a film about Islam, Muslims are adviced to be 'introspective' and to 'think' and 'reflect' on our views and how we interpret the religion?

mmarawi-

i understand why you expect to be reciprocated for your efforts- but i think you may be setting yourself up for disappointment in doing so- and maybe the energies expended in that expectation could distract us from a productive resolution-

yes, in an ideal world- people would educate themselves before criticizing- but it is an unfair and less than ideal world-
which cause do we serve- what energies do we feed? are we a giving and energizing entity on this planet? or a taking and draining force?
are our actions enhancing, enabling, edifying our fellow humans?
or are the draining and weakening our co-habitants?



mr husain- if my attack imposed a view on you that you were not expressing- that was an unfair assumption on my part and i apologize.

but i still ask- who decides what is acceptable and unacceptable speech?
will you decide for me? will mr wilders decide for you?
now we are gettng into subtleties and value judgements on intentions- which are known only to the actor-

what value does free speech have? it calls for accountablity-
the only nations in the world that have, in the 20th century suffered from famine- were in countries that did not have a free press, and free speech was curtailed and controlled.

not all people have such a strong control over their lower impulses-
and not one of us is above reproach-

slander exists- did not our Prophet(pbuh) endure incredible abuse,both verbal and physical?
did he respond with righteous anger? no- he returned injury with grace- and we are compelled to be the best we can be and follow his example-
i paraphrase- may ALLAH forgive me if i mislead anyone-
Muhammad(pbuh) said, "the strong is not the one overpowering another- but the one who controls themself in anger-

are we representing the Prophet(pbuh) and islam when we erupt in a mob frenzy of frustrated violence?

or do we betray the ideals of islam by such action?

and if we are silent, doesn't that make us complicit in that behavior?

righteous anger should be expended - but towards injustice- not a bruised ego-
where are the mobs protesting vociferously against the treatment of the women and children in darfur? now THAT is something to be truly filled with a sense of outrage about-
there are plenty of wrongs to be angry about-

no one in this world is immune from suffering- it is what you bring out of that suffering- how you react and grow that is the important thing-
the ummah is suffering from disunity, and being vilified right now-
BUNS suggest that (s)he will not even consider the idea that islam promotes violence- but it's pretty obvious that there are some muslims who can find ways to justfiy their own political agendas and frustrations misusing islam, and slandering it worse than any outside force could-

ALLAH, for reasons known only to Her/Him- made me, a liberal western american born and raised white woman- a muslim- with all that entails-
with my "corrupted" ideology- raised solely in western thought- somehow, inexplicably, He/She guided me to islam-

it is the concentration on social justice that attracted me-
i get challenged and attacked by my countrypeople, and also immigrant muslims on an almost daily basis-literally- forced to justify my existence and the validity of islam-

but i often and flummoxed and unable to answer decisively when asked why there is so much injustice in the muslim world-

i cannot simply blame the us government for the reactions of muslims-

i enjoy this dialogue, and ask that any here who are able to- put their money where their mouth is-
Buns says some muslims need to 'rethink' their position on islam-
well- that's a start- and i think this forum is about that too-

i ask scholars regularly for edification on the subject of misinterpretation of qur'an, and islamic principles-
what are the tools to fight this ideology?

what in the qur'an contradcts the few ayats that our detractors are always pulling out-
'out of context' is an insufficient rebuttal-

in real life, one cannot expect people to patiently sit while one educates them on the whole of the history of islam-
waiting for your positive construction-
sorry folks- i have alot of energy this morning-
peace all

Mrs. A,

You bring up an important question, who decides what is permissible speech and what isn't? It seems to me, that every society as a whole decides for itself based on certain criteria. Inevitably, there isn't much that the society will agree on, but there seems to be certain things for which there is a consensus. Let me give you an example, denying the holocaust in Europe is not considered a right under free speech, neither is yelling fire in a movie theater, also various forms of hate speech are exempted as well (and this is a much more amorphous category). I think these exceptions are wise exceptions and they are justified based on the consensus that these types speech almost invariably do great harm.

I believe the essential spirit of those philosophers defense of free speech is completely compatible with Islam. In order to protect people from injustice and in order to pursue truth free speech is necessary and should be protected. However, this doesn't mean it's an absolute free speech; we noted some exceptions earlier. Exceptions are made when there is a consensus that a particular kind of speech is destructive and should not be tolerated. Of course the understanding of what constitutes an exception will vary slightly from society to society but it will not vary dramatically.

I don't know how an absolute notion of free speech can be justified from a religious perspective, and I don't see why we need to when even the most liberal societies acknowledge exceptions to the rule. The article that was written began with, "“I disagree with your opinion, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I

If I insult someone's Mom, I don't think religion would ever acknowledge my right to say such a thing; but according to an absolute interpretation of free speech I do have the right to say such thing without fear of consequence. Nor, I believe, would religion encourage others to defend my right to insult someone's Mom.

As for Islamic societies, there are only two exceptional areas that I see. One is pornography, which is defended under free speech in the West. It seems in Muslim societies that there is a consensus that such material is destructive and should not be permitted. The other area for which there is a consensus is slandering the Prophet and Islam. And here of course we don't mean simply criticism that might be academic and generally respectful, but rather material that is meant to degrade and is driven by derision.

Aside from these two additional exceptions, I don't think Muslims see free speech very differently from our Western counterparts. The chasm is not that great after all.

mr husain- i always say that in america we have freedom, and that includes the freedom to make great mistakes-

i understand what you are saying about the values ascribed to different types of speech-
actually- i encourage you to read what i was going on about in the post here by jorgen nielsen- (i actually used the shouting fire analogy)

actually- now that ive reread it- my own post seems more in agreement with YOUR view than MY view expressed here!

such are the vagaries of my mind- i am searching for these answers (apparently, with myself), myyself.
peace and thanks

A Saudi video producer has made a counter-film which was profiled on NPR. IMHO, he did a good job in turning the tables without slandering another religion the way Muslims are prohibited from. It is called Schism and it is also on Youtube. Check it out.

Who decides what is acceptable and unacceptable speech. The author rightly points out that yelling "fire" in a crowded theater (when there is no fire) is not covered by free speech. Freedom of Speech is understood to include a person's right to say things that another person may disagree with or even find offensive. One of the functions is to foster dialogue but also to ensure self expression.

I find it hypocritical of the muslim world to tell the West to stay out of their affairs and rightly so and then tell the West how to conduct it's affairs with regard to freedom of speech.

If the Islamic world is going to demand self-censorship of the West and utilize an international body like the United Nations to condemn the film Fitna and threaten Governments in the West, then when is the Islamic world going to clean it's own house of it's hate speech.

Let the Islamic world begin by banning the film "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." This a blatantly anti-semitic film that only fosters hatred of Jews.

There were videos clips in Fitna that showed muslim clerics saying things that would be considered hate speech. Here is another example.

Hamas MP and Cleric Yunis Al-Astal in a Friday Sermon: We Will Conquer Rome, and from There Continue to Conquer the Two Americas and Eastern Europe

Following are excerpts from an address by Hamas MP and cleric Yunis Al-Astal, which aired on Al-Aqsa TV on April 11, 2008.
Yunis Al-Astal: Allah has chosen you for Himself and for His religion, so that you will serve as the engine pulling this nation to the phase of succession, security, and consolidation of power, and even to conquests thorough da'wa and military conquests of the capitals of the entire world. Very soon, Allah willing, Rome will be conquered, just like Constantinople was, as was prophesized by our Prophet Muhammad. Today, Rome is the capital of the Catholics, or the Crusader capital, which has declared its hostility to Islam, and has planted the brothers of apes and pigs in Palestine in order to prevent the reawakening of Islam – this capital of theirs will be an advanced post for the Islamic conquests, which will spread through Europe in its entirety, and then will turn to the two Americas, and even Eastern Europe.
I believe that our children or our grandchildren will inherit our Jihad and our sacrifices, and Allah willing, the commanders of the conquest will come from among them. Today, we instill these good tidings in their souls, and by means of the mosques and the Koran books, and the history of our Prophets, his companions, and the great leaders, we prepare them for the mission of saving humanity from the hellfire on the brink of which they stand.

"Conquering Rome, conquering the two Americas, brothers of Apes and Pigs (Jews)"

This is no less offensive to Christians, Jews and people of the West than your opposition to Fitna.

Where does it stop? What about books or even religious books like the Qur'an.
The verses in Fitna were taken directly from the Qur'an. These were not abrogated. There are verses in the Qur'an that I find offensive and threatening.

Your book calls me an infidel because I believe in the Trinity. As an infidel in your religion, I should be killed if I don't convert to Islam. If I am lucky, I would be relegated to a status of a second-class citizen as a dhimmi.

5:17 Unbelievers are those who declare: "God is the Messiah, the son of Mary....."

5:71-74 Unbelievers are those that say: God is one of three. There is but one God. If they do not desist from saying so, those of them that disbelieve shall be sternly punished.

9:73 O Prophet! Wage war against the infidels and hypocrites and be ruthless. Their abode is hell - an evil fate.

9:123 O you who believe! fight the infidels who dwell around you, and let them see how ruthless you can be. Know that Allah is with the righteous.

Interesting that the last two verses sound similar to some of the things the woman in the film Schism said.

One person's freedom of speech is another person's hate speech. I won't give up my right to challenge writings in Islam and cleric comments and you won't give up your right to challenge me and others. Who decides what is acceptable and unacceptable?

It's welcome to read a defense of thinking about any religion, Islam included, that is both critical and sympathetic at the same time, and you are to be commended for being the one doing the writing. Saudi money came into old & nascent US mosques a generation ago, helping radicalize and marginalize the community Islam that most people have access to around the USA, with the sad side effect that people with your mind set hardly find a place they feel comfortable with any more. With time, and with more people having your kind of courage, things should should change for the better, at least in the USA.

I can see where a flashy title comparing Islam and Israel as inviolate to criticism might get more people interested to read your article, but with Islam being a worldwide religion with a billion followers, few of whom would dare state your kind of philosophy outside of the freer-think Western world, the net effect was to take a cheap shot at Israel's defenders, among whom Muslims may be counted on one hand. "If you criticize Israel," you state, "rightly or wrongly, you are branded an anti-Semite." As best I can tell, you defend criticism of Islam, a worldwide religion in no danger of extinction, because it deserves the kind of respect that criticism of Israel, a tiny country with an existential threat posed against it by a triumphalist worldwide Islam, is owed by right, no matter how hostile, egregious or hypocritical. Or do I have it all wrong, and Muslims everywhere want Israel to survive and merely criticise the country in order to improve its chances?

thanks OmarG- and it was made in only 12 hours too-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGw6rsQ8xHk

ND,

>> "Conquering Rome, conquering the two Americas, brothers of Apes
>> and Pigs (Jews)" This is no less offensive to Christians, Jews and
>> people of the West than your opposition to Fitna.

Well, its offensive to me, too...believe it or not.

of course it is offensive OmarG-

ndusa-
well- i think it's a fair assessment that any critiques of israel are met with accusations of anti-semitism.
look at the response of the same to jimmy carter from the american enterprise institute-
believe me ndusa- ive known jews,christians,muslims,pagans,athesits,buddhists etc...etc... who have criticized israel- and specifically religious jews have been the most astute critics-
don't confuse religion with the policies of governments-


what you are mistaking for courage and "free-thinking"is simply the norm in islam-
ive been to mosques from portland (OR)to chicago to new york-

and im a liberal- even by liberal standards-
and have had access to many many mosques- and the community is hardly marginalized and radicalized-

don't let alarmist fearmongering from fox news infect you-

or better yet- prove it to yourself-

visit one of those mosques- meet some people- converse with them-
replace the fear of the unreal unknown with the knowledge of the real.
peace to you

I see ND is up to his usual anti-Muslim stupidity. Typical of the failed breed of Armageddonist Christofascist liars and useful shabbos goyim. Obviously you're high on Gee-had watch kool aid. Apes and Pigs? Really? Lets take a look shall we :

"And ye know of those of you who broke the Sabbath, how We said unto them: Be ye apes, despised and hated! And We made it an example to their own and to succeeding generations, and an admonition to the Godfearing." Holy Qur'an 2:65,66.

The occasion mentioned here is generally thought to be the same one described later in 7:163.

“And ask them about that town which stood by the sea: how its people would profane the Sabbath whenever their fish came to them, breaking the water’s surface, on a day on which they ought to have kept Sabbath - because they would not come to them on other than Sabbath-days!...And then, when they disdainfully persisted in doing what they had been forbidden to do, We said unto them: ‘Be as apes despicable!’’’ (7:163-166)

So its referring to a specific group of jews from a specific town. Methinks the judeofscists doth protest a bit too much. It was a transgression of food-getting, which is fishing on the Sabbath and thus parallels the transgression of gathering manna on the Sabbath as reported in Exodus 16. And guess what the penalty for that is according to their own books?

Exodus 31:14 Keep you my sabbath: for it is holy unto you: he that shall profane it, shall be put to death: he that shall do any work in it, his soul shall perish out of the midst of his people.

Numbers 15:32. And it came to pass, when the children of Israel were in the wilderness, and had found a man gathering sticks on the sabbath day,
Numbers 15:33. That they brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole multitude.
Number 15:34. And they put him into prison, not knowing what they should do with him.
Numbers 15:35. And the Lord said to Moses: Let that man die, let all the multitude stone him without the camp.
Numbers 15:36. And when they had brought him out, they stoned him, and he died as the Lord had commanded.

You were saying, ND? Not to familiar with the Commandments are you? Especially the 4th and 9th.