The problem is that Winston Churchill, the identifier of the Nazi threat, identified Islam as a form of Nazism. He referred to the Koran as "the Mein Kamp of war".

You state "First of all, articles or authors that use the Nazis as a historical analogy should set off conspiracy-theory alarms everywhere. Anytime someone wants to convince you that some new threat is the next Nazism, they’re not even pretending to make a reasoned argument. They are relying on your fear to blind you into buying what they are selling. And what they are selling is usually bigotry."

If anyone is qualified to idenify a nazi-type threat that man is Winston Churchill. There is no conspiracy about it. It's just a sad fact. Muslims are following a nazi type ideology (the Koran). This includes moderate muslims, who don't understand what they are part of, just as moderate Germans back in the 1930s didn't understand what they were part of.

I am an open-mineded single girl and I love sports. I want to end my single life by meeting a guy who0 likes sports too. Let's mingle at the club ==== Mixed Mingle . c o m====where love is color blind(my username there is crazygirl).

The guy who e-mailed you was right. But those in power must take the responsibility for what they do. The Nazis did what they pleased while others refused to act out of fear or just didn't care. This is very much the case today. Only here in America everyone is so afraid of being politically incorrect.

Did you really not know anout the history of this connection?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121443841364405405.html

Mr. Patel

Your argument ignores some essential basic facts about a genuine Nazi/Muslim connection.

http://www.themiddleeastnow.com/musnazi.html

Please inform yourself

Books such as 'Sword of the Prophet" and "The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism" give factual and detailed account of the connection.

WAPO, Interfaith Youth Core et al

NOTICE TO SUE "INTERFAiTH YOUTH CORE", onfaith-W.A.P.O., Harper-Collins, Ny-Post..:

NOTICE TO SUE "INTERFAiTH YOUTH CORE", onfaith-W.A.P.O., Harper-Collins, Ny-Post, Rupert-Murdoc, News-Corp,
June 1, 2008 3:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on June 1, 2008 15:04 onfaith-W.A.P.O., Harper-Collins, Ny-Post, Rupert-Murdoc, News Corp, :

NOTICE TO SUE onfaith-W.A.P.O., Harper-Collins, Ny-Post, Rupert-Murdoc, News-Corp, Interfaith_Youth-Core,etal /u>

2

Most Muslims will not turn their fellow Law Breaking Muslims in to the authoriies.This implies they are condoning their compatriots' misdeeds just like the dearth of Witnesses in Oakland-just ask any cop.

So get out of our coutry. One of our civil rights. available to all. is the right to LEAVE!

Well, if 96% of the Muslim's are as you claim, not supportive of Bin Laden, and eschew the terrorists/jihadists, ("In Pakistan’s North-West frontier, a region supposedly friendly to bin Laden and his cohorts, his support ran at about 4% in January 2008.") then they should do something to demonstrate that it is so...turn over Bin Laden and Zawahiri. When they do that, then I'll believe as you assert.

I hate the Islamic fascists but I have not hunted or killed any. It is unfair to say that Muslims are complacent that have not either. But what Muslims the world over do need to do is reclaim their families and their religion.

They need to bring their children home and make sure that the values of Islam they value are instilled in their children. They need to expel from their mosques the radicals, confront them, and turn them over to authorities. They could consider helping their new countries by serving as interpreters, though al Qaeda moles may have poisoned that well.

Interesting to note that "Mein Kampf" is a best seller in Turkey - http://www.intelligence.org.il/Eng/sib/3_05/mein_kampf.htm

Shafiq rahman says:

“Also, if you read the Islamic text (Quran and the Hadith) you will see the Islamic discourse never approved terrorist activities that are routinely conducted in the name of Islam.”
Moi:
Many wars were waged in the name of Islam. In fact the history of Arab Islam, in particular, is but a series of wars, which they refer to as “Futuhat” or “Openings”.
At the present time Muslims are very weak and could no longer wage such wars. Terrorism is the weapon of the weak and that is why an extremist sector of Muslims are involved in Jihad or Holy war i.e. terrorism. Their ultimate goal is what it always has been; power. Alqaeda, Hizbulla , Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood are after power, pure and simple. They have a model in their prophet and his successors, the Caliphs. The Communists may use the “rule of the proletariat” as their gimmick to attain it, the British used the “enlightment” as their gimmick to colonize most of Africa and the East. The Islamists are using the gimmick of “return to the true religion” to subjugate and exploit their co religionists and gain power with all that entails.
Someone might wonder why those terrorists are directing most of their wrath on the West. Because they believe that the West is what is standing between them and their goals by propping up the present regimes

Somali says;

"They use the word "Muslim" or "Islam" to describe every evil act that has occurred in countries that they themselves invaded and shuttered."

Aren’t you putting the cart in front of the horse? Weren’t Muslim thugs calling themselves Jihadists or Holy Warriors who attacked the USA, the only superpower and the richest and most powerful nation that ever existed? What did you expect? That the American people sit on their hands and say it is Allah’s will? Stop complaining and just accept what is happening as predestined before creation. Isn’t this what your religion teaches you?

pete murray Says:

"Mr. Patel, from his name, is probably from a Hindu Brahmin background. Islam, whatever its shortcomings, is not a racist creed and has never supported anything approaching the obscene social convention which is the Hindu caste system. In fact the Moslem Moguls brought a great period of civilization and enlightenment to the sub-continent from which Mr. Patel's ancestors hailed."

Mr. Murray

You ignorance is astounding. Patels are a profession , not a caste. They are largely of farmer background.

There is nothing in Hindu scriptures (Vedas, Gita and the Upanishads) that dictate a caste system based on birth.

Hindus are like every other people. They discriminate.

The white Christian caste system is called color based apartheid and is still prevalent in white societies.

Both Hindus and Christians have passed stringent legislation outlawing this discrimination.

On the other hand Muhammad, via the Koran, created the largest lower caste in history: Muslim women. Muslim women are basically like prostitutes after they marry. Unequal rights skewed towards men, unequal obligations, including sexual, skewed towards women.

Please read $:24 and 4:34 in the Koran.

Today in India Hindu women have equal rights in all spheres but Muslim women, by the sharia, are still unequal and no government dares to change that because of the Muslim vote bank controlled by Muslim men.

4:34

"Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and beat them up. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great. "

Mr. Patel,

Herb Grindel Writes:

If what the writer says is true, why haven't any of the Muslim countries voiced their opposition to violance? Why do the Muslim countries allow the printing of school text books advocating the hatred of Jews? Why do these text books, given to children, spew hate and refuse to show the state Of Israel on maps in thses text books?

This is fact. This is not a rhetorical question. A second question concerns me. I am an Iranian Jew, living in exile with three million other Middle Eastern Jews. If what you say is true, why am I here?

Mr. Eboo Patel:

We congratulate you on a prodigiously effulgent article that is an island of sanity in a cacophony of bigotry and racist Islamphobia disguised in code words of "security" and "protection".

Muslims have condemned violence at every forum, from the OIC to the local leaders. Muslim head of states all over the world did the same and supported the USA in her hour of need.

Muslims and Americans worked together to destroy the USSR.

As a patriotic American Muslim I am also disgusted by the incorrect and false analogies mentioned in your article.

Most Americans have had enough of this nonsense. The popularity of Barak Obama is one more sign and a clear reflection of the magnanimity of the enlightened American population that has refused to accept the baloney of the bigots.

God Bless you and God Bless America

Editor Rupee News
http://www.rupeenews.com

It’s amazing to see that the Ebu Patel’s article generated 192 postings. That means people are talking about the issue and the talk would go on and fill the cyberspace. I do not want to add any new content about the topic commenting on whether “Islamic: threat is comparable to Nazism or communism. Nor would I comment on whether Islam is a religion of peace or not. I would rather set a perspective which should guide the discussions about Islam, Muslim, terrorism, or, in fact, any other issue.
When people in the West talk about Islam and Muslim, they assume that ONLY Islam can explain everything, terrorism included, in the Muslim society. They assume that Muslims ALL OVER the world are eternally tied with Islam. Then they would say that Muslims tend to condone terrorism because it is the Quran. They grossly disregard the agency, or the individuality of the Muslims. The structure of the society (Islam) overwhelms them to such an extent that every Muslim irrespective of their nationality, culture, education, income would just follow anything that is believed to be in the Quran. The whole Muslim world is so homogenous, so motivated, so united and so bent on terrorism that they would jump on and destroy the West. However, people who paint such a scenario of Muslim society would think that they are driven by their individual judgment and rationality. They assume that this rational thinking is their monopoly. There is a name of this kind of thinking—racism. They used this thinking pattern to describe Jews and Blacks. Now, they are using it to talk about Muslims. Tomorrow they will use this against any other group.
What are the consequences of this thinking pattern? The power that wants to maintain its control over its population and also the resources of the world would promote this kind of thinking pattern. The ultimate destiny of this type of thinking is the intellectual lethargy of the population and delegation of the responsibility of thinking to the “big brothers.” This is no less dangerous than the danger of extremism, Islamic or otherwise. This, in the long run, heralds the downfall of a democratic society.
So, then, what we can do to combat this situation? Building coalition. People who believe in reasoning, ground their thinking on history and social science, and willing to go beyond racial and national boundaries, should unite and fight every manifestation of extremism EVERYWHERE in the world.

"Umm... open a CD store in a random town in western Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Iraq. See how long you live."

I would imagine that the reaction would be similar to someone opening a Pagan bookstore in rural Alabama.

It’s amazing to see that the Ebu Patel’s article generated 192 postings. That means people are talking about the issue and the talk would go on and fill the cyberspace. I do not want to add any new content about the topic commenting on whether “Islamic: threat is comparable to Nazism or communism. Nor would I comment on whether Islam is a religion of peace or not. I would rather set a perspective which should guide the discussions about Islam, Muslim, terrorism, or, in fact, any other issue.
When people in the West talk about Islam and Muslim, they assume that ONLY Islam can explain everything, terrorism included, in the Muslim society. They assume that Muslims ALL OVER the world are eternally tied with Islam. Then they would say that Muslims tend to condone terrorism because it is the Quran. They grossly disregard the agency, or the individuality of the Muslims. The structure of the society (Islam) overwhelms them to such an extent that every Muslim irrespective of their nationality, culture, education, income would just follow anything that is believed to be in the Quran. The whole Muslim world is so homogenous, so motivated, so united and so bent on terrorism that they would jump on and destroy the West. However, people who paint such a scenario of Muslim society would think that they are driven by their individual judgment and rationality. They assume that this rational thinking is their monopoly. There is a name of this kind of thinking—racism. They used this thinking pattern to describe Jews and Blacks. Now, they are using it to talk about Muslims. Tomorrow they will use this against any other group.
What are the consequences of this thinking pattern? The power that wants to maintain its control over its population and also the resources of the world would promote this kind of thinking pattern. The ultimate destiny of this type of thinking is the intellectual lethargy of the population and delegation of the responsibility of thinking to the “big brothers.” This is no less dangerous than the danger of extremism, Islamic or otherwise. This, in the long run, heralds the downfall of a democratic society.
So, then, what we can do to combat this situation? Building coalition. People who believe in reasoning, ground their thinking on history and social science, and willing to go beyond racial and national boundaries, should unite and fight every manifestation of extremism EVERYWHERE in the world.

"...but so far all terrorists have been Muslim."

Yeah, like that Muslim Timothy McVeigh.

Get a grip.

For all the commentors questioning Muslim objection to extremism because there are not big public demonstrations, where are the Christians demonstrating against Paisley? Or against Phelps?

Or against the pedophiles of the Roman Catholic Church and their enabler the current Pope?

That is a ridiculous position and just shows your bias.

Me, I think anyone is crazy who thinks a dead body can come alive again after three days, or who thinks a all-knowing being can squeeze a holy book into a "Prophet."

But they are all equally crazy.

I agree with what you are saying....the question is :How can mainstream muslims take an active part in rooting out the radicals...and possibly as a majority exert force and eliminate the radicals....maybe a brand of vigilantism which is actually the wrong approach...but in extreme cases...may be the best antidote to their type of violence

Start thinking for yourselves, calling Islam a radical religion is ridiculous. I personally find it ironic how the soldiers in Iraq are giving out bibles and coins with verses of the bible on them, and children books portraying the prophet being burned in hell along with muslims. So they went for the weapons of mass destruction right? The death toll of iraqi citizens has almost reached 100,000! Open your eyes, learn to think for yourself, and you just might get the right picture.

The same people who lump all Muslims together as extremists also lump together all critics of Israel as anti-Semitic. It's a way of refusing to admit the legitimacy of criticism by characterizing the criticizer as "mindless" if the line is not being towed on certain beliefs. For example, I fully accept the legitimacy of Israel within its 1967 borders, but I recognize that it is legitimate to have a principled, non-violent position that is different than this. Those in Israel and abroad who wish to seize yet more Palestinian land and those in Arab lands who want to destroy Israel do not want there to be a nuance either way. You either accept what they are doing as legitimate, or else you are their enemy. Nazi-like tactics can arise from many sources and be used by many people.

If what the writer says is true, why haven't any of the Muslim countries voiced their opposition to violance? Why do the Muslim countries allow the printing of school text books advocating the hatred of Jews? Why do these text books, given to children, spew hate and refuse to show the state Of Israel on maps in thses text books?

"the illusion of enemies everywhere”

This is certainly what the Republican Bush Administration has bought into. They said if the terrorists changed our way of life the terrorists won. By this standard the terrorists did win, making "Homeland Security" our number one priority. That is not the world I live in, and it makes me uncomfortable when many people around me think like that. Why isn't everyone shouting "PARANOID?" Because they see the world as peaceful Christians threatened by fanatical Muslims. This is reality to them, just like Nazism and Communism were realities to previous generations.

I don't even know where to begin, your article has so many errors. You say that the Nazis had evil AND (state) power, as if the extremists don't.

Umm... open a CD store in a random town in western Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Iraq. See how long you live. Try going to Saudi Arabia and preaching a non-hardcore, non-Wahabbi doctrine. Try going to Iran and becoming a politician or school teacher with your apparently moderate ideas. Try going to Gaza and many other areas of the Middle East where children are encouraged to become suicide bombers as the highest possible calling.

Extremists already have power in Iran, oppressing their own people and funding terrorism world-wide. Extremists already have de-facto control of huge swaths of several nations. And please explain how, in our modern trans-national world, state power is the only way that an evil agenda can be applied to people.

Your arguments are red herrings. Your statistics use carefully-crafted questions that get people to reject a narrow definition of extremism even while they provide tacit support and shelter to those very extremists. If extremists were such a small minority and so embarrassing to the majority, why are they not turned in to authorities on a regular basis instead of having to be hunted down by intelligence agencies and killed by remotely-controlled vehicles?

Mr. Patel, from his name, is probably from a Hindu Brahmin background. Islam, whatever its shortcomings, is not a racist creed and has never supported anything approaching the obscene social convention which is the Hindu caste system. In fact the Moslem Moguls brought a great period of civilization and enlightenment to the sub-continent from which Mr. Patel's ancestors hailed.

Moslems are the Jews of today. Vilified in the right-wing media. Publicly and ritually humiliated at airport and frontier. Like their fellow semites (I acept not all Moslems are semites) in a previous time and place, they can be demonized as a vast conspiracy against the enlightened modernism which we preach (but have seldom practiced in our dealings with them).

We preach democracy but impose or support despots to suppress them. When they get to elect their representatives, we reject the result when it is not to our liking. We preach liberal values, but look the other way when that most fundamental of liberal values - the right to have and enjoy your private property - is summarily abrogated on the basis that they are the wrong brand of semite.

No wonder so many of them hate and despise us - and the values we preach at them, by association. This has nothing to do with them being Moslems. We would react in exactly the same way were the roles reversed.

Can we please bring back World Opinion Roundup with Jefferson Morley? This is ridiculous.

Pope Pious XII bears far more responsibility for the Nazi genocide of the Jews than the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem could ever dream of claiming.

They don't call him "Hitler's Pope" for nothing.

Att B-MAN et al, WOW!

Most Impressive observation. Ah ye is graduating slowly. now 'i' is begineth to see!

otherwise Nice nice very boldly nice!

Regarding Mr. Patel's belief that most Muslims reject the extremists within the religion. I would certainly hope that is true. I read 3 at least 3 major news papers per day, and what puzzles me is that for every article of Islamic extremist denunciations by Muslims, there are probably 10 stories of Muslim denial that their hidden agenda is expressed by the extremists.

Why are so many more stories of denial and so few about denunciation? I believe Mr. Patel is sincere in his belief of this premise as witnessed in his own circles (professional, social, religious...etc.), while a more broadly represented circle may conclude otherwise. The silence of the Muslim community is deafening. Where are the political leaders of Muslim populated countries, who seem to have lost their voice for extremists, yet not for the "infidels". When was the last public "demonstration" of Muslims denouncing the extremists? I think the analogy of Islam and Naziism has more validity than Mr. Patel believes. This is a classic example of words and actions not matching.

I ask Mr. Patel to prove me "wrong", and organize a highly visible march on Washington, DC in condemnation of Islamic Extremists. Without doubt, the publicity would guarantee a mojor media commitment and spotlight.

..
http:///////::::::::::^^^^^www J{O}{Z}{E}{V}{Z}@U.nitedS.tates
{J}
{o}
{z}
{e}
{v}..A Deliveror, Maitreya, Mahdi & Holy NO-Man!
{z}
dot
{U}
{S}
http:///////::::::::::^^^^^www J{O}{Z}{E}{V}{Z}@U.nitedS.tates
..
.
.

This is typical Moslem propaganda intended for naive non-Moslems who don't know any better. There are several questions which must be asked in order to know whether a Moslem is really peaceful and tolerant. Anyone can condemn "terrorism" and murder of "innocents".

1) Does that Moslem accept or reject those specific verses of the Koran and those hadith which call for hatred and violence toward non-Moslems?

2) "Who is defined as innocent?"

3)"Which, organizations, precisely, are being condemned?"

4) Does the Moslem accept or reject the shariah?

5) Does the Moslem accept the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Or does the Moslem accept the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam which ALL Moslem countries have embraced?

6) Is the Moslem's primary loyalty to the Umma or to the nation state of which he is a citizen?

Esposito's book does not deal with these questions. In fact, it would never occur to that Moslem apologist that such questions should even be considered. Yet, these and similar questions are the ones that need to be asked of every Moslem. Otherwise, there is very good reason to suspect him or her of working to undermine our western civilization.

This is typical Moslem propaganda intended for naive non-Moslems who don't know any better. There are several questions which must be asked in order to know whether a Moslem is really peaceful and tolerant. Anyone can condemn "terrorism" and murder of "innocents".

1) Does that Moslem accept or reject those specific verses of the Koran and those hadith which call for hatred and violence toward non-Moslems?

2) "Who is defined as innocent?"

3)"Which, organizations, precisely, are being condemned?"

4) Does the Moslem accept or reject the shariah?

5) Does the Moslem accept the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Or does the Moslem accept the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam which ALL Moslem countries have embraced?

6) Is the Moslem's primary loyalty to the Umma or to the nation state of which he is a citizen?

Esposito's book does not deal with these questions. In fact, it would never occur to that Moslem apologist that such questions should even be considered. Yet, these and similar questions are the ones that need to be asked of every Moslem. Otherwise, there is very good reason to suspect him or her of working to undermine our western civilization.

This is typical Moslem propaganda intended for naive non-Moslems who don't know any better. There are several questions which must be asked in order to know whether a Moslem is really peaceful and tolerant. Anyone can condemn "terrorism" and murder of "innocents".

1) Does that Moslem accept or reject those specific verses of the Koran and those hadith which call for hatred and violence toward non-Moslems?

2) "Who is defined as innocent?"

3)"Which, organizations, precisely, are being condemned?"

4) Does the Moslem accept or reject the shariah?

5) Does the Moslem accept the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Or does the Moslem accept the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam which ALL Moslem countries have embraced?

6) Is the Moslem's primary loyalty to the Umma or to the nation state of which he is a citizen?

Esposito's book does not deal with these questions. In fact, it would never occur to that Moslem apologist that such questions should even be considered. Yet, these and similar questions are the ones that need to be asked of every Moslem. Otherwise, there is very good reason to suspect him or her of working to undermine our western civilization.

Don't know why everyone gets so worked up over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The result wasn't any different than the firebombing of Dresden and other German cities during WWII. If anything, the method was a lot quicker and more humane, if the killing of massive numbers of people could possibly considered humane at all. And the decision to use the nukes had nothing to do with religion, and only to reduce the time and number of american casualties to end the war.

Of course most of the people who object to the use of nukes on Japan never had to fight for squat. They sit here in their homes fat, dumb, and happy while the real patriots put their lives on the line so they don't have to. Sure, 250,000 Japanese lost their lives to two bombs. Would you rather America have lost the 1,000,000 AMERICAN lives that it would have cost to invade Japan? How about you ask the american servicemen who were waiting for the invasion orders, which ones are still alive that is, whether they thought the A-bombs shouldn't have been used?

Much of what I have read about Islam has been written by Muslims and ex-Muslims.

All of what I believe about Islam comes directly from the Qur'an, Sunnah, and the words and deeds of Muslims.

Since the end of World War I, the West has dominated, meddled, overthrown and installed regimes. Now that the inhabitants of the region have risen up to end all of that, they are called Nazis. The arrogance is just amazing!! Don't get me wrong, I am not defending either terrorism or Islamic fundamentalism. These are just a part of the messy picture that is in that region today. In the past those societies have tried many was to deal with this situation. Some tried nationalism, pan-Arabism, socialism, and even Western liberal ideologies. Islamism is just the latest trend. It will go away once the West packs it bags and leaves!

Duderino, aka Asim, to "prove" the "benevolence" of his religion asks:
“Why do many Arab countries have large Christian communities that existed long before Northern Europeans became Christians?”

Moi: I answered that question many times before and don’t mind repeating it yet again.
Because the population of those countries were 100% Christian before the nomads of Arabia pillaged, raided and subjugated those countries. They gave the indigenous population three choices; to embrace Islam, or live as third class citizens on their own land while paying an exorbitant poll tax, called Jiziah, or be killed. Check out the Apartheid manual imposed upon non-Muslims in the Middle East and North Africa.
http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-kills-pact-of-umar.htm

Duderino spews:
“Among the most horrific: who TERORRIZED, enslaved, then eradicated millions and millions of Native Americans, destroying thousands of cultures? Who perpetrated the many crimes of WWII including the Holocaust and the nuclear bombs dropped to TERRORIZE the Japanese into surrendering? Not Muslims.”

This is rehashing of claims made many times earlier by this character and which I answered many times before as shown below.
1.” Islam is Peaceful and not violent:”
The Quran, Hadith (tradition of their prophet) and Sira (history of their prophet) prove conclusively that “ Islam a religion of fear and terror and not a religion of peace by any means. There will be continuous war in the world as long as some fanatics will believe in Muhammad, his example and his teachings. The Islamic concept of peace meaning making the whole world Muslim is undoubtedly a mandate for war. After that peace will prevail in the earth of Allah. That is the ultimate exegesis of the Arabic word “Islam”.
2. “Muslims did not commit the Crusades.”
The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions had some European Christians fought back.

3.“Muslims did not commit the Inquisition“:
The Muslim Berbers along with nomads from the Arabian Peninsula invaded and occupied Spain for 800 years. The Spaniards finally united and defeated the colonizers. They gave them a choice to accept the religion of the Spaniards or to go back from where they came. Had they allowed those people to keep their religion, Spain would be today another Sudan or Afghanistan. The whole of North Africa and the Middle East were Christians before the Arab invasion of that area. The Arabs did not evict the indigenous population but gave them three choices, to convert or be treated as third class in their own countries or be slain.
4. “Islam did not enslave the Africans.”
Slave trade is ongoing till this day in many Muslim countries. Besides it was the Muslim Arab tribes of North Africa that were specialized in the art of human hunting and who
were familiar with the interior of the Black continent. Some of those slave traders gave their hunted the choice to convert to Islam or be sold as slaves. That is why many negroes in Africa have Muslim names and yet know nothing about that religion.
5.” Muslims did not nuke hundred of thousands of Japanese.”
That is because Muslims do not have nukes. Ahmadinajad is threatening to wipe out a whole country even before he built a single bomb. Besides the Americans did not do that in the name of their religion but in self defense.
6. “Islam did not “force convert to Christianity’ the whole of South America.”
Nobody in the West forced anybody to do what they do not want to do because in this culture there is something called freedom of conscience; something your like would never comprehend. It was and is the Muslims who are compelling non-Muslims to convert by insidious , seditious means as penned down by the above cited “Omar Pact“.

*Islam is good,but the fanatics are bad* or *blame the indivuals,not faith* are not logical approach,not correct opinion,not right consideration,not accurate appreciation.

Islam is the Cult of Violence.

Tenets and Principles of islam are not compatible with Civilization,Contemporary Values,Human Rights and US Constitution.

*Moderate Islam* is the *jumping stone* to Radicalism.
*Moderate Islam* is the *brigdehead* of the fundamentel islamization.In the first opportunity,all moderate muslims can be and may be radical ones within five or ten years.

Islam is not Cotton Princess tale.
Islam based on Fear,Oppression and Brainwashing.
Islam is the name of Cult in Saudi Arabia,Islamic Iran,Afghanistan and Weziristan/Virusistan etc.
The forefather of present Ismailis had run away,escaped from Pakistan to Haydarabad/India because of oppression.

Islam is Backwardness,Poverty,Idleness and Dissatisfaction.
The most of muslims play their sexual organs and dream *pink walled honey box*.They stick to Sexuality.

Solution.Yes,solution...
Keep on reading Dear Panelist's thread,I shall write next time.
By your permission,I will watch Lakers-Spurs NBA game from video,and I observe the markets(oil price plunged to 125 USD)

I believe that what Eboo Patel has written is true.

However, how does Mr. Patel respond to those people who would post direct quotes from the Koran that seem to call for violence against all infidels, etc?

No matter what Mr. Patel, or anyone else, writes or says, all anyone has to do is open the Koran, find one of these passages, and say "OK, then explain THIS!"

Jhimmi:

You unknowingly illustrate my points, especially about self-deceit, perfectly. Iraq sanctions are "pointless," but not terrorism. Even though they very predictably led to the murder of 500,000 children! Yikes! But that's Westerners murdering Muslim children to accomplish political goals (usually called terrorism), which is, by definition, not terrorism because of who committed the crime. And if Hiroshima is not context for Western vs. Islamic terrorism, then you're just plain bonkers. If dropping gigantic bombs on two cities, slaughtering most of their CIVILIAN inhabitants, is not terrorism, then there is plainly no such thing.

And then there's the euphemisms. To the muslim terrorist, bombing civilians is "defending Islam" or some such jibberish. To you, Western demonization of Islam is "critical examination," and fair-minded treatment of muslim culture and history is "cultural relativism," also silly jibberish. I think you're clearly overestimating yourself. I strongly suspect that your personality, in an Arab shell, would be out there "defending Islam" against the Crusaders.

It's clear your knowledge of Islam and its history comes from people who are unqualified to relate that history. If I want to read about the history of Protestant Christianity in the US, do I read books by Saudi Islamists, or Arab journalists? Absolutely not, at least not to start out. I would read a book written by folks covering a wide spectrum of Protestant belief systems (from evangelicals to Lutherans to Quakers to leftist Presbyterians). You might consider reading books about Islam by ACTUAL muslims to see what they ACTUALLY believe. Many important works have been translated. And not just the Wahhabi kind. Try reading something representing Shi'a thought. And Sufi thought. And something from a thousand years ago, then compare to newer thinking. You can focus on how different muslims see warfare and jihad if you want. That's genuine "critical examination," in contrast to the kind you presently practice.

This was wonderfully written. I think from now on though, I can't read the comments! Who are these people who spend so much time writing hatred?
No matter what Mr. Patel would have written, the bigotry they have would come out...from supposed Christians nonetheless

I have read this Ebbo Patel's blogs and reductionist views in trying to segregate Islam and Nazi ideology. However, the fact remains that Muslims are themselves scared, as Eboo points out, of their coreligionists who practice a literal version of Islam (with all its five strong pillars).

The following link from Pakistan's DAWN newspaper is a letter that indicates how moderate Muslims (like the author of the letter) see Taliban and Al-Qaeeda. The contents of the letter, expressed through the fears by the author, suggest the possibility that such a nexus between Islam and Nazism is viable, contradicting Eboo's useless and deceptive verbiage.

I shall not get into any further tirades/howls, leaving the readers to draw their own conclusions.

----
Peace deals

PEACE deals with the Taliban/Al Qaeda elements and their sympathisers are currently being touted as a viable alternative to war on terror, supposedly being waged on America’s behalf. This view is shared by a majority of political leaders, writers, intellectuals, TV commentators and others.

Unfortunately they are all afraid to fully explain the fundamental external and internal dimensions which should be the cornerstone of any such peace deal.

Taking up the external dimension, it is a well-known fact that the Taliban/Al Qaeda elements are genuinely committed to attacking Afghan/ Fata /American targets inside Afghanistan as per their most recent statements.

Baitullah Masood has claimed that Islam does not recognise international borders. So in return for stoppage in suicide attacks and targeting of security forces on Pakistani soil, “we shall be facilitating increased cross-border attacks.”

Irrespective of illegality or immorality of American occupation through a puppet regime, international law gives them the right of hot pursuit. Americans may be incapable of holding a territory but they are quite adept at creating untold misery and widespread destruction.

Can we sustain the collateral damage to which Americans are completely insensitive? Here I would not like to go into financial squeeze, as it is not my subject.

Regarding the internal dimensions, the main strength of the Taliban is their unflinching/rigid faith in a system practised nowhere else in the Muslim world. It would not be a problem but for the fact that they consider it their divine right/duty to forcefully superimpose their fossilised ideology on fellow Muslims under threat of death.

Killing or getting killed for their views is not a problem for them. If they are content to rule tribal areas, it may be a small price. But everyone knows they have already entered settled areas and are bound to increase their influence.

At no stage during the Lal Masjid siege they promised to give up their violent struggle for enforcement of their brand of Sharia. They started with blowing up CD shops, progressed to dynamiting girls school and currently threatening people to grow beards or else.

One fine day we shall wake up and find all our civil liberties taken away. Once they are sufficiently emboldened, they may drag women drivers from cars and carry out such acts as may seem highly improbable now.

This scenario is quite possible since the main ingredients fuelling their growth, i.e. American atrocities, endemic poverty, widespread illiteracy, unjust society and inequitable social order, are not going to disappear in the near future.

I would, therefore, like all those authorities which are at present engaged in negotiations to concentrate on two conditions only: a firm commitment not to indulge in cross-border attacks and assurance of peaceful propagation of their ideology which is everybody’s right. All the rest is mere hogwash and an attempt at fooling the masses with a false sense of security.

HASAN MEHMOOD
Muscat

----
From http://www.dawn.com/2008/05/30/letted.htm#1

I agree with withdrawal of all US troops from the entire region ASAP. However, I don't think it's going to significantly reduce Islamist violence in places like Thailand, India, Ethiopa, Chechnya.

Islam today in practice, in Muslim majority countries, is probably similar to extreme fundamental versions of Christianity that produced things like the Salem witch trials and the Inquisition. This gives hope that Islam can evolve.

The problem is Mohammed apparently thought of this, and made sure that there were explicit instructions against innovation, or bid'ah. Also, Islam's entire raison d'etre is to correct Judiasm's and Christianity's 'corruption' and 'perversion' of the original religion, so, I just don't hold out much hope for an Islamic reformation.

Just some points to the people that like to throw in our face the bad guys we are because europeans killed native americans.
1. Native americans killed each other long before the europeans arrived. Aztecs were defeated because the other tribes hated them. Just what is to be expected from the tribes that the aztecs slaved and killed as human sacrifices for their gods. So those tribes allied with Cortez, that was a clever soldier, and destroyed the aztec empire.
2. Incas, mayas, all conquered and killed other native american groups. Same for North America tribes.
3. Ok. Europeans slaved and killed native americans. But you have to take in consideration the millions that died due to epidemies.
4. Conclusion: europeans and native americans, under modern standards (not applicable on those days) were as criminal as any other world civilization. If the aztecs had had the tecnology (sail ships, horses, steel, gun powder), Europe could have been conquered by them. Slavery and warfare were accepted ways of behavior on those days.
Horrible things happened, but you can't blame me for my grand grand father sins. And, take notice: In those years, they weren't sins.
So. We have advanced a lot, but the gruesome historic anecdotes don't let you notice it.

The blind faith in ones religion is a dangerous thing. What makes a man a man ( no male chauvinism intended ) is that he is capable of thinking rationally. When that faculty has been denied right from birth he cannot be called human. To have faith in ones religion is good as it is a guiding factor. But it should not be blind faith. If one believes what was written some fifteen hundred years is the gospel truth, I feel it is bad. It is spirit of what is there more important than the words. It should be followed in spirit than in letters. When somebody is not ready to follow the spirit he is an irrational fanatic.
Fifteen hundred years back it was written that a woman should not go alone, it was because it was not safe for her to go out without male escort. But to pass a law that a woman should not go alone now in this twenty-first centuary is nothing but ridiculous. And like that so many things.
The area between religious beliefs, fanaticism and extremism are a nebulous one. No border to be crossed. It can drift easily. And the pull will be towards the extremism.
A billion signatures will not do.
No blind faith. Open the eyes and think rationally. Or rather close the eyes and think like our sages in olden times were doing.

"The data shows that ordinary Muslims emphatically do not support Muslim extremists. As Fareed Zakaria writes in his recent Newsweek column, a 2007 ABC/BBC poll in Afghanistan found support for the jihadists to be about 1 percent. In Pakistan’s North-West frontier, a region supposedly friendly to bin Laden and his cohorts, his support ran at about 4% in January 2008."
------------------

The polls were conducted in an area that has different ideas of what constitutes Muslim Extremism… To them its bad against other Muslims, but good against the west.

"Are Muslims speaking up? Of course they are. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims have signed the Not in the Name of Islam petition, which states: “We, the undersigned Muslims, wish to state clearly that those who commit acts of terror, murder and cruelty in the name of Islam are not only destroying innocent lives, but are also betraying the values of the faith they claim to represent. No injustice done to Muslims can ever justify the massacre of innocent people, and no act of terror will ever serve the cause of Islam.”
-------------------
They need to do much more than sign a petition that nobody cares about… They need to begin demanding it of them Imams that preach the teachings of the more extremists version in the mosques… Even in American mosques!

"The most important Muslim scholars in American and across the world have not only denounced terrorism and fundamentalism, but written scholarly papers articulating how highly the Muslim tradition values peace and pluralism."
---------------------
The masses of Islam do not read scholarly papers, they listen and believe in what the Imams are teaching them in the mosques!

"The fear that buys ridiculous analogies about Muslims and Nazis as reasoned arguments. The fear that accepts the illusion of your Muslim neighbor as the enemy. The fear that silences the majority of Muslims trying to tell you that they want peace, prosperity and pluralism, too."
--------------------
My Muslim neighbors are not the problem, it is their stories of hearing the extremists preaching’s at their own mosques that they are concerned about themselves, but the Muslim religious leaders in the world refuse to stop this kind of teaching in the mosques. As such, we will not change our overall opinions of the religion and culture.

Until the Imams change their ways and begin to truly preach what their followers believe, there will be many future generations of Western haters and legions of fighters intolerant to anything other than Sharia Law.

Much like how Obama exposed his children to such hateful preaching’s, so shall the children of Islam be until that sort of hard-line fanaticism is banned from religious institutions.

Me and my ilk? I don't really who my ilk are, and I don't think you do either. I think the Iraq sanctions were pointless, I think sending troops to Iraq was pointless. I don't think Americans should be killing or dying in Iraq - if I was an Arab, I wouldn't want Arabs killing or dying in London, or Madrid, or NY.

However, unlike you, am not burdened with the cultural relativism that apparently makes you incapable of critically examining Islam.

Since the end of World War I, the West has dominated, meddled, overthrown and installed regimes. Now that the inhabitants of the region have risen up to end all of that, they are called Nazis. The arrogance is just amazing!! Don't get me wrong, I am not defending either terrorism or Islamic fundamentalism. These are just a part of the messy picture that is in that region today. In the past those societies have tried many was to deal with this situation. Some tried nationalism, pan-Arabism, socialism, and even Western liberal ideologies. Islamism is just the latest trend. It will go away once the West packs it bags and leaves!

Since the end of World War I, the West has dominated, meddled, overthrown and installed regimes. Now that the inhabitants of the region have risen up to end all of that, they are called Nazis. The arrogance is just amazing!! Don't get me wrong, I am not defending either terrorism or Islamic fundamentalism. These are just a part of the messy picture that is in that region today. In the past those societies have tried many was to deal with this situation. Some tried nationalism, pan-Arabism, socialism, and even Western liberal ideologies. Islamism is just the latest trend. It will go away once the West packs it bags and leaves!

DUDERINO -
Iraq sanctions definitely, Hiroshima somewhat. However, no, I believe YOU are infinitely more aware of and concerned with Native Americans than the average Islamic terrorist is.

As for Nazi Germany and the Holocaust - you're trying to say fundamentalist Muslims are angry about the murder of millions of Jews? Are you kidding? Are you aware of how fundamentally anti-Semetic Islam is?

If the Holocaust is having any effect on Islamic terrorism today, it's that it made fundamentalist Islamists feel more legitimate, i.e., 'look, someone else, a non-Arab, non-Muslim, also wants to kill all the Jews. It's not just us'.

The Native Americans and the Holocaust and Hiroshima and the Iraq sanctions (what was the purpose of starving Iraqis, but to try to TERRORIZE them into getting rid of Saddam?) and the countless other terrorist crimes committed by Europeans have EVERYTHING to do with what is happening today. They are the context and contrast for Muslim terrorist crimes, and they dwarf them in scale and cruelty. The fact that you don't see that, Jhimmi, is the main symptom of your disease of pathological self-deceit, and they are what has enabled those crimes over the centuries. If you were born an Arab, you would be in a mosque right now encouraging young men to go and blow themselves up to kill swine crusaders and their supporters. You and your ilk are merely the American version of that same sort of personality, whose cultural expression is superficially different depending on the society, but fundamentally the same in terms of its core characteristics: the hateful, extremist, close-minded simpleton that wishes the cruelest and vilest fates on those who assail his or her absurd and dangerous beliefs.

Question: What political response could possibly appease Hamas and Hizbollah?

Answer: The complete and total annhilation of Israel.

It's a soothing message, but the facts are that radical Muslim movements have broad popular support in Gaza, Lebanon, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere, reaching senior levels of government. Moqtada al-Sadr's movement in Iraq controls 10% of the parliament, perhaps a quarter of the Shia vote. Extremists of all stripes have disproportionate influence relative to their popular support because they use violence to promote their political agendas.

It is certainly the case that Hamas, Hezbollah, and other movements are responding to real injustice. But the assertion that radical Islamic movements have no popular support suggests that they can be dealt with purely as a security problem, i.e. not requiring any substantive political response. That is dangerous and pointless. If the West fails to address the issues that push people towards supporting extremist groups, the security problems can never be resolved.

I also keep seeing all these posts about certain Arabs, back in the day, supported Hitler and the Nazis.
The last time I looked, half the British aristocracy were also pro-Nazi and then let's not forget about all those American entrepreneurs, like Prescott Bush, who helped build Nazi Germany.

We Americans are manipulated by the media - plain and simple.
This whole argument about "Where are the moderate Arab voices?" is a sorry joke. This country is run by an administration that has an approval rate of 28%, yet what can moderates, here in the US, do about preventing more war and bloodshed - absolutely nothing. What can moderates here do about Abu Gharab or Guantanimo Bay - absolutely nothing.
Can anyone see where I am going with this?

Duderino -
Humans have been attacking each other, conquering each other, killing each other, since before the dawn of civilization. What early America did to Native Americans is reprehensible, likewise Nazi Germany and Jews.
But Native Americans and the Holocaust have absolutely nothing to do with Islamism spreading throught the West today.

The few Arab countries that do have Christian populations for the most part had much LARGER Christian populations for centuries before the advent of Islam. Since then, these Christian populations are treated as second class citizens, and they are becoming extinct because preaching Christianity results in death, and defecting from Islam also results in death.

The West needs to stop trying to 'save' the Middle East by pushing democracy and Western values down their throats. Pull out the troops, and hope that the Sunnis and Shia nuke each other before they nuke us.

First, Al-Husseini the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Arafat's relative and mentor - was a real actual Nazi who begged Hitler to extend the final solution to the Middle East.

Second. Since the '20s Arabs have openly been trying to drive Jews of Palestine into the sea, to eradicate them. Ahmadinejad, Hamas, and Hezbollah openly proclaim this as their philosophy.

Third. Vicious anti-semitism of the worst kind pervades the Arab world and its educational system.

If you want to see what the IslamoNAZIS are up to around the world, check out this scary site:

http://islamwatchers.blogspot.com

FRIGHTENING!

Petras Vilson - i agree with you, there are no democracies in the Arab world. And why do you think that is ? Everytime there is any chance of democracy showing its head the Americans and their allies ensure that it is killed in its infancy. e.g, FIS in Algeria, Hamas in Palestine.
The American government hates Cuba and says they are not democratic ? What about My Bush's bosom buddies the Saudis ? America has consistently supported the corrupt Middle East rulers and encouraged them to stay, simply so that their policies can be carried out. This strategy is a lose lose strategy. It causes the common man in the Arab/Muslim street to lose faith in America and see it as the main support for these corrupt regimes. Look at the historical death and destruction caused by the USof A, in Vietnam, Cambodia and now Iraq. The American government is the best 'Poster Boy' for the likes of Osama Bin Laden. Don't forget there was a time when he was a hero to the Americans (simply because he was killing Russians) now that his bitten the American's backside they don't like him!

That's nice, but the Grand Mufti of Egypt was right in there with Hitler, wasn't he? Let's not forget all the Muslims who WERE essentially NAZIS. And that Muslim fanatics - entire countries like Iran - not only deny the Holocaust but, ironically, talk of bringing it back. Anti-Semitic rhetoric is a constant theme within Islam - and it has been since the beginning. It is in the Quran, in fact, in which Jews are called "sons of apes and pigs."

Islam IS Nazism on a larger scale. The Nazis have won. We are all headed for the same type of enslavement we see in Saudi Arabia. Apologists like Patel are simply encouraging this vile cult of death.

Where were Muslims when the twin tower attacked, hey were dancing in the street of joy. Each day across the Islamic nations, mosques curse the infidel west and promise to conquer Rome, Europe and America. Who are you kidding and who should we believe: your nice talk or your dirty actions!

Asim says "If foreign occupation such as the jewish occupation of PAlestine is ended and
democrcay (sic) and the rule of law prevails in Muslim lands,radicalism will disappear."

Very misleading and very false. What are Muslims lands, exactly? What were Muslim lands before they were Muslim lands? Is Western Europe a Muslim land yet? How about India?

Why is it that Muslims do not recognize borders or states or governments, and yet are so upset about Palestine and Israel?

The West is slowly catching on, Asim. Islam is more seditious and insidious than Communism, more primitive and violent as well.

The fact that a prominent CEO is apparently sympathetic with the narrow-minded views expressed in the article is telling.

Eboo, what about American secular intolerance? What about the innocent civilians that the US military kills as carelessly as terrorists? What about the anti-immigrant hate in this land?

It's not just about Islam. Or faith generally, for that matter. It's morality and compassion. There is a large segment of the population in this country that does not respect people who are different than they are.

When are you going to address these people and the institutions, culture and media that looks the other way? You spend too much time preaching to the choir.

I've pointed this out before, but actions speak louder than words. For every Muslim terrorist crime, there are dozens of counterexamples perpetrated by Westerners. Among the most horrific: who TERORRIZED, enslaved, then eradicated millions and millionns of Native Americans, destroying thousands of cultures? Who perpretated the many crimes of WWII, including the Holocaust and the nuclear bombs dropped to TERRORIZE the Japanese into surrendering? Not Muslims. If Muslims were so evil and intolerant, why did Muslim countries in North Africa, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey have the largest and richest Jewish communities in the world for over a thousand years? Where did Jews go after the Inquisition (answer: they left EUROPEAN countries, where they were being oppressed, and went to ARAB countries)? Why did Arab Jewish communities survive WWII almost completely intact (even those occupied by Germany/Italy, where only a very few were sent to the concentration camps, DESPITE being occupied by the Axis) to then emigrate to Israel? Why do many Arab countries have large Christian communities that existed long before Northern Europeans became Christians? Muslims must have really hated these folks to oppress them so thoroughly that they flourished and became so wealthy in comparison to much of the Muslim masses. The Middle East must be the only place in the world where the oppressed become richer due to their oppression. If Muslims are terrorists and terrorist sympathizers, I'm willing to accept that. But then we have to use the same criteria and apply them to European history. And that would make Europeans and Americans the most crazed, psychopathic, bloodthirsty murderers this world has seen since the Mongols. And the Mongols were like little girls baking cupcakes compared to Europeans and their horrific crimes. Entire European societies have colonized and declared war after stinking war on Muslims. For hundreds of years. The response by Muslims has NOT been reciprocity. Sometimes I wonder whether the insane level of self deceit apparent in many of the commenters' posts today is not a uniquely European disease that has enabled them to effectively murder, destroy, and exterminate their "enemies" (a.k.a. as people who have something Europeans want to steal) for centuries with not a shred of remorse whatsoever among all but the small minority that actually retained a conscience. Am I the only non-vampire that reads the Washington Post?

If you don't clean your own house, there is often someone else there to do it for you.

This is another true fact- During the Nazi era, the Grand Mufti (chief Muslim priest) of Palestine had offered Hitler free "access" to Jews whenever his forces got to Palestine.

I believe in their march towards Palestine, the Nazis were defeated in Africa by Brits.

Latest "piece" of Islam- 35 blown up in Iraq yesterday, mostly civilians.

5 children today in Afghanistan. Now Zakaria will not call it terrorism since these are war "zones" so according to him blowing up of civilians is an "act" of war. And btw where is the voice of "moderate" Muslims speaking out?

John Esposito and Dalia Mogahad, both are white washing the extent of the Muslim World silence on terrorism and suicide bombers barbaric culture; they are not to be trusted. Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the grandson of Nazi collaborator Ibn Saud, founder of Saudi Arabia, is financing Esposito, Mogahad et al, thus these two clowns, Esposito and Mogahad, do not tell the truth and the facts. Their book: “Who Speaks for Islam?” is nothing more than a hoax, it appeases terrorism instead of a serious call for reform in the Arab/Muslim world, sadly. .
Read this reviews about the book:

How Esposito and Mogahad cooked their data to increase the number of Muslim "moderates"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020901.php

The Arab/Muslim world salience is deafening!

When was the last time anyone noted a MillionMen marches against Al Qaeda et al in Arab Muslim World?

John Esposito and Dalia Mogahad, both are white washing the extent of the Muslim World silence on terrorism and suicide bombers barbaric culture; they are not to be trusted. Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, the grandson of Nazi collaborator Ibn Saud, founder of Saudi Arabia, is financing Esposito, Mogahad et al, thus these two clowns, Esposito and Mogahad, do not tell the truth and the facts. Their book: “Who Speaks for Islam?” is nothing more than a hoax, it appeases terrorism instead of a serious call for reform in the Arab/Muslim world, sadly. .
Read this reviews about the book:

How Esposito and Mogahad cooked their data to increase the number of Muslim "moderates"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020901.php

The Arab/Muslim world salience is deafening!

When was the last time anyone noted a MillionMen marches against Al Qaeda et al in Arab Muslim World?

You were saying that almost a million was killed by the U.S. in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam. First of all a country cannot take action without the authorization of the leader of that country. Do not look at the effect but look at the root of the problem. Terrorist make use of civilians as human shield since they started fighting in the 60's. They know americans cannot take it if they saw civilians got killed by their own guns or bombs. Why are the muslims not protesting against the radicals? That's the only way to make Bin Laden look like a murderer.
Cartoons about the muslim prophet make them angry, how about Saudi Arabia who confiscate anybody who brings a bible to their country, which happens everyday, and burn them. Myanmar and North Korea are examples of countries that make their people suffer and the US is the country the leads the UN to stop those leaders for taking their food for weapons. So who are you going to blame now?

Stopthelies wrote about "expulsion libel." The only real "expulsion libel" is the claim that the Arab nations expelled all their Jews in 1947-48. See the following article from the Israeli--not Arab--daily Ha'aretz.

It's really amazing how the supporters of Israel manage to turn truth and history in their heads to brainwash the public about the history of Israel.

*******************************

w w w . h a a r e t z d a i l y . c o m
Last update - 12:34 15/08/2003
Hitching a ride on the magic carpet: Any analogy between Palestinian refugees and
Jewish immigrants from Arab lands is folly in historical and political terms

By Yehouda Shenhav

An intensive campaign to secure official political and legal recognition of Jews from Arab lands as refugees has been going on for the past three years. This campaign has tried to create an analogy between Palestinian refugees and Mizrahi Jews, whose origins are in Middle Eastern countries - depicting both groups as victims of the 1948 War of Independence. The campaign's proponents hope their efforts will prevent conferral of what is called a "right of return" on Palestinians, and reduce the size of the compensation Israel is liable to be asked to pay in exchange for Palestinian property appropriated by the state guardian of "lost" assets.

The idea of drawing this analogy constitutes a mistaken reading of history, imprudent politics, and moral injustice. Bill Clinton launched the campaign in July 2000 in an interview with Israel's Channel One, in which he disclosed that an agreement to recognize Jews from Arab lands as refugees materialized at the Camp David summit. Ehud Barak then stepped up and enthusiastically expounded on his "achievement" in an interview with Dan Margalit. Past Israeli governments had refrained from issuing declarations of this sort. First, there has been concern that any such proclamation will underscore what Israel has tried to repress and forget: the Palestinians' demand for return. Second, there has been anxiety that such a declaration would encourage property claims submitted by Jews against Arab states and, in response, Palestinian counter-claims to lost property. Third, such declarations would require Israel to update its schoolbooks and history, and devise a new narrative by which the Mizrahi Jews journeyed to the country under duress, without being fueled by Zionist aspirations. That would be a post-Zionist narrative.

At Camp David, Ehud Barak decided that the right of return issue was not really on the agenda, so he thought he had the liberty to indulge the Mizrahi analogy rhetorically. Characteristically, rather than really dealing with issues as a leader, in a fashion that might lead to mutual reconciliation, Barak acted like a shopkeeper. This hot potato was cooked up for Barak and Clinton by Bobby Brown, prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu's adviser for Diaspora affairs, and his colleagues, along with delegates from organizations such as the World Jewish Congress and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.

WOJAC fails

A few months ago Dr. Avi Becker, secretary-general of the World Jewish Congress, and Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents, persuaded Prof. Irwin Cotler, a member of Canada's parliament and an expert on international law, to join their campaign. An article by Becker published a few weeks ago in the Hebrew edition of Haaretz (July 20), entitled "Respect for Jews from Arab lands," constituted one step in this public campaign. The article said little about respect for Mizrahi Jews. On the contrary - it trampled their dignity.

The campaign's results thus far are meager. Its umbrella organization, Justice for Jews From Arab Countries, has not inspired much enthusiasm in Israel, or among Jews overseas. It has yet to extract a single noteworthy declaration from any major Israeli politician. This comes as no surprise: The campaign has a forlorn history whose details are worth revisiting. Sometimes recounting history has a very practical effect.

The World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries (WOJAC) was founded in the 1970s. Yigal Allon, then foreign minister, worried that WOJAC would become a hotbed of what he called "ethnic mobilization." But WOJAC was not formed to assist Mizrahi Jews; it was invented as a deterrent to block claims harbored by the Palestinian national movement, particularly claims related to compensation and the right of return.

At first glance, the use of the term "refugees" for Mizrahi Jews was not unreasonable. After all, the word had occupied a central place in historical and international legal discourses after World War II. United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 from 1967 referred to a just solution to "the problem of refugees in the Middle East." In the 1970s, Arab countries tried to fine-tune the resolution's language so that it would refer to "Arab refugees in the Middle East," but the U.S. government, under the direction of ambassador to the UN Arthur Goldberg, opposed this revision. A working paper prepared in 1977 by Cyrus Vance, then U.S. secretary of state, ahead of scheduled international meetings in Geneva, alluded to the search for a solution to the "problem of refugees," without specifying the identities of those refugees. Israel lobbied for this formulation. WOJAC, which tried to introduce use of the concept "Jewish refugees," failed.

The Arabs were not the only ones to object to the phrase. Many Zionist Jews from around the world opposed WOJAC's initiative. Organizers of the current campaign would be wise to study the history of WOJAC, an organization which transmogrified over its years of activity from a Zionist to a post-Zionist entity. It is a tale of unexpected results arising from political activity.

`We are not refugees'

The WOJAC figure who came up with the idea of "Jewish refugees" was Yaakov Meron, head of the Justice Ministry's Arab legal affairs department. Meron propounded the most radical thesis ever devised concerning the history of Jews in Arab lands. He claimed Jews were expelled from Arab countries under policies enacted in concert with Palestinian leaders - and he termed these policies "ethnic cleansing." Vehemently opposing the dramatic Zionist narrative, Meron claimed that Zionism had relied on romantic, borrowed phrases ("Magic Carpet," "Operation Ezra and Nehemiah") in the description of Mizrahi immigration waves to conceal the "fact" that Jewish migration was the result of "Arab expulsion policy." In a bid to complete the analogy drawn between Palestinians and Mizrahi Jews, WOJAC publicists claimed that the Mizrahi immigrants lived in refugee camps in Israel during the 1950s (i.e., ma'abarot or transit camps), just like the Palestinian refugees. The organization's claims infuriated many Mizrahi Israelis who defined themselves as Zionists. As early as 1975, at the time of WOJAC's formation, Knesset speaker Yisrael Yeshayahu declared: "We are not refugees. [Some of us] came to this country before the state was born. We had messianic aspirations." Shlomo Hillel, a government minister and an active Zionist in Iraq, adamantly opposed the analogy: "I don't regard the departure of Jews from Arab lands as that of refugees. They came here because they wanted to, as Zionists." In a Knesset hearing, Ran Cohen stated emphatically: "I have this to say: I am not a refugee." He added: "I came at the behest of Zionism, due to the pull that this land exerts, and due to the idea of redemption. Nobody is going to define me as a refugee."

The opposition was so vociferous that Ora Schweitzer, chair of WOJAC's political department, asked the organization's secretariat to end its campaign. She reported that members of Strasburg's Jewish community were so offended that they threatened to boycott organization meetings should the topic of "Sephardi Jews as refugees" ever come up again. Such remonstration precisely predicted the failure of the current organization, Justice for Jews from Arab Countries to inspire enthusiasm for its efforts.

Also alarmed by WOJAC's stridency, the Foreign Ministry proposed that the organization bring its campaign to a halt on the grounds that the description of Mizrahi Jews as refugees was a double-edged sword. Israel, ministry officials pointed out, had always adopted a stance of ambiguity on the complex issue raised by WOJAC. In 1949, Israel even rejected a British-Iraqi proposal for population exchange - Iraqi Jews for Palestinian refugees - due to concerns that it would subsequently be asked to settle "surplus refugees" within its own borders.

The foreign minister deemed WOJAC a Phalangist, zealous group, and asked that it cease operating as a "state within a state." In the end, the ministry closed the tap on the modest flow of funds it had transferred to WOJAC. Then justice minister Yossi Beilin fired Yaakov Meron from the Arab legal affairs department. Today, no serious researcher in Israel or overseas embraces WOJAC's extreme claims. Moreover, WOJAC, which intended to promote Zionist claims and assist Israel in its conflict with Palestinian nationalism, accomplished the opposite: It presented a confused Zionist position regarding the dispute with the Palestinians, and infuriated many Mizrahi Jews around the world by casting them as victims bereft of positive motivation to immigrate to Israel. WOJAC subordinated the interests of Mizrahi Jews (particularly with regard to Jewish property in Arab lands) to what it erroneously defined as Israeli national interests. The organization failed to grasp that defining Mizrahi Jews as refugees opens a Pandora's box and ultimately harms all parties to the dispute, Jews and Arabs alike.

Lessons not learned

The World Jewish Congress and other Jewish organizations learned nothing from this woeful legacy. Hungry for a magic solution to the refugee question, they have adopted the refugee analogy and are lobbying for it all over the world. It would be interesting to hear the education minister's reaction to the historical narrative presented nowadays by these Jewish organizations. Should Limor Livnat establish a committee of ministry experts to revise school textbooks in accordance with this new post-Zionist genre?

Any reasonable person, Zionist or non-Zionist, must acknowledge that the analogy drawn between Palestinians and Mizrahi Jews is unfounded. Palestinian refugees did not want to leave Palestine. Many Palestinian communities were destroyed in 1948, and some 700,000 Palestinians were expelled, or fled, from the borders of historic Palestine. Those who left did not do so of their own volition.

In contrast, Jews from Arab lands came to this country under the initiative of the State of Israel and Jewish organizations. Some came of their own free will; others arrived against their will. Some lived comfortably and securely in Arab lands; others suffered from fear and oppression.

The history of the "Mizrahi aliyah" (immigration to Israel) is complex, and cannot be subsumed within a facile explanation. Many of the newcomers lost considerable property, and there can be no question that they should be allowed to submit individual property claims against Arab states (up to the present day, the State of Israel and WOJAC have blocked the submission of claims on this basis).

The unfounded, immoral analogy between Palestinian refugees and Mizrahi immigrants needlessly embroils members of these two groups in a dispute, degrades the dignity of many Mizrahi Jews, and harms prospects for genuine Jewish-Arab reconciliation.

Jewish anxieties about discussing the question of 1948 are understandable. But this question will be addressed in the future, and it is clear that any peace agreement will have to contain a solution to the refugee problem. It's reasonable to assume that as final status agreements between Israelis and Palestinians are reached, an international fund will be formed with the aim of compensating Palestinian refugees for the hardships caused them by the establishment of the State of Israel. Israel will surely be asked to contribute generously to such a fund. In this connection, the idea of reducing compensation obligations by designating Mizrahi immigrants as refugees might become very tempting. But it is wrong to use scarecrows to chase away politically and morally valid claims advanced by Palestinians. The "creative accounting" manipulation concocted by the refugee analogy only adds insult to injury, and widens the psychological gap between Jews and Palestinians. Palestinians might abandon hopes of redeeming a right of return (as, for example, Palestinian pollster Dr. Khalil Shikai claims); but this is not a result to be adduced via creative accounting.

Any peace agreement must be validated by Israeli recognition of past wrongs and suffering, and the forging of a just solution. The creative accounts proposed by the refugee analogy turns Israel into a morally and politically spineless bookkeeper.

Yehouda Shenhav is a professor at Tel Aviv University and the editor of Theory Criticism, an Israeli journal in the area of critical theory and cultural studies.

Please, read: The Expulsion Libel: 1948 Arab "Exodus" Reconsidered

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/the_expulsion_libel_1948_arab.html

Fouad Ajami writes, "What Arabs had said about themselves, the history they had written, and the truths they had transmitted to their progeny led down a blind alley."

Fouad Ajami also writes: "The Arab Palestinians are preoccupied with self-immolation, the politic of ruin and the romance of deadly insurrection."

Please, read: The Expulsion Libel: 1948 Arab "Exodus" Reconsidered

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/the_expulsion_libel_1948_arab.html

Fouad Ajami writes, "What Arabs had said about themselves, the history they had written, and the truths they had transmitted to their progeny led down a blind alley."

Fouad Ajami also writes: "The Arab Palestinians are preoccupied with self-immolation, the politic of ruin and the romance of deadly insurrection."

Ibn Ishaq in his biography of Muhammad describes the killing of the Banu Qurayza Jewish males by Muhamamd and his thugs in Sirat Rasulallah. When terrorism was practiced by the founder of islam, is it any surprise that Muslims today symphathize with Islamic terrorists?

“Then they surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Ka`b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, 'Will you never understand? Don't you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!' This went on until the apostle made an end of them. Huyayy was brought out wearing a flowered robe in which he had made holes about the size of the finger-tips in every part so that it should not be taken from him as spoil, with his hands bound to his neck by a rope. When he saw the apostle he said, 'By God, I do not blame myself for opposing you, but he who forsakes God will be forsaken.' Then he went to the men and said, 'God's command is right. A book and a decree, and massacre have been written against the Sons of Israel.' Then he sat down and his head was struck off."

From Sahih Bukhari

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 280:

Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri:

When the tribe of Bani Quraiza was ready to accept Sad's judgment, Allah's Apostle sent for Sad who was near to him. Sad came, riding a donkey and when he came near, Allah's Apostle said (to the Ansar), "Stand up for your leader." Then Sad came and sat beside Allah's Apostle who said to him. "These people are ready to accept your judgment." Sad said, "I give the judgment that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as prisoners." The Prophet then remarked, "O Sad! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah."

Soon after the Battle of the Trench was over, Muhammad claimed that the Archangel Gabriel had visited him "asking that he should unsheathe his sword and head for the habitation of the seditious Banu Quraiza and fight them. Gabriel noted that he with a procession of angels would go ahead to shake their forts and cast fear in their hearts." Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 443

It is not clear why the Archangel needed Muslim's help to wipe out the Jews if he had "a procession of angels" who would shake their forts. Nevertheless, "the Messenger of Allâh immediately summoned the prayer caller and ordered him to announce fresh hostilities against Banu Quraiza," (2)

Muhammad headed an army of three thousand infantry men and thirty horsemen of Ansar (Helpers) and Muhajireen (Emigrants).

The Banu Quraiza was attacked for not supporting Muhammad when the Quraish attacked Medina and because they were rich compared to the Arabs. Ali sworn that he would never stop until he either storms their garrisons or be killed. This siege lasted 25 days. Finally the Banu Qurayza surrendered unconditionally. Muhammad ordered that the men be handcuffed, while the women and children were isolated in confinement. Thereupon Al-Aws tribe interceded begging the Prophet to be lenient towards them. Muhammad suggested that Sa‘d bin Mu‘adh, a former ally, be deputed to give verdict about them, and they agreed.

Sa'd's verdict who had received as a serious wound in the previous Battle of the Confederates was "that all the able-bodied male persons belonging to the tribe should be killed, women and children taken prisoners and their wealth divided among the Muslim fighters." Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 280

One wonders why Muhammad who claimed to be the messenger of Allah and in contact with him needed the judgment of a human. Yet this most cruel verdict was precisely what pleased him and he "accepted his judgment saying that Sa‘d had adjudged by the Command of Allâh."

Al-Bubarapouri adds that "In fact, the Jews deserved that severe punitive action for the ugly treachery they had harbored against Islam, and the large arsenal they have amassed and which consisted of one thousand and five hundred swords, two thousand spears, three hundred armours and five hundred shields, all of which went into the hands of the Muslims."

The Muslims historians have been quick to bring the same baseless alibis to justify their raids against their victims like, they were "mischievous", causing "sedition" or being "treacherous" and "harboring against Islam". However no specifics exists as of the nature of those sins to warrant such a sever punishment and their total genocide.

Trenches were dug in the bazaar of Madinah and a number of Jews between six and nine hundred were beheaded therein.

Huyai, Ibn Akhtab, the chief of the Bani Nadeer and Safiyah’s father was captured in this siege and brought to the Prophet with his hands tied to his neck with a rope. In an audacious defiance he rejected Muhammad and preferred to be beheaded than submitting to his Religion by force. He was ordered to sit down and was beheaded on the spot.

To separate men from the boys, the youngsters were examined and if they had grown any pubic hair, it was enough to behead them.

Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4390

Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.

If anyone cannot see that this is NOT how a messenger of God should behave cannot claim to have grasped the meaning of humanness. I believe the cruelty of what the Prophet did to the Jews of Arabia are self-explanatory and any fair-minded person would acknowledge that. It is inconceivable that a messenger of God could kill between 600 to 900 people and banish thousands more with no feelings or compassion.

The man we call the Prophet, was full of hate. He thought of nothing but killing, brought nothing but death, taught nothing but vengeance. Muhammad was not a "mercy of God to mankind" but the curse of devil to humanity. Not only in his life he killed and banished all the Jews he could lay hand on, in his dead bed he instructed his followers to continue with the ethnic cleansing that he had initiated.

Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 288

The Prophet on his death-bed, gave three orders one of them was to Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula.
Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:
Allah's Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' "

This man was a hoodlum not a messenger of God, he was a thief, a gangster and a highway robber. He enriched himself with the wealth of his victims.
Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

People used to give some of their datepalms to the Prophet (as a gift), till he conquered Bani Quraiza and Bani An-Nadir, whereupon he started returning their favors.

If you still believe that Muhammad was a messenger of God. Think to yourself what has happened to your humanity.

This is a good article and more needs to be written to counteract the impression Americans have of Muslims. Fanatics are a small minority of any religion, the problem is that as a majority Christian nation, we tend to paint a broad picture of Muslims because all we see in mainstream media are fanatics such as Bin Laden, which demonizes the Islamic religion as a whole. I believe we are in a just war against murderous barbarians, and we have to go fight them where ever they hide. That being said, to paint the whole religion with one broad stroke because we do not understand it is wrong.

I have not observed this author-Patel or Zakaria speak out forcefully against Islamic terrors all around the world and the fact that only Islam has nations based on it and where small minorities are discriminated openly.

How about here in America-Have you written out against those Islamic cabbies in MN who refuse to carry paying passsengers because they have a dog or liquor?

You are a "moderate". Start with yourself.

Eboo

You must be awfully conceited to believe that we non-Muslims are obsessed with Muslims, at least that is the impression your self-flagellating columns seem to tell us.

We think no more frequently about Muslims than we think about the thieves and murderers who have always been with us and always will be.

Having said that you must think little about our intelligence if you believe that we look upon every Muslim as a terrorist. We are not that naive. We realize that while today's terrorist is most likely to be a Muslim, most Muslims are not terrorists. As to the percentage of Muslims who support Islamic terrorism I have no exact numbers but given the vehement protests following the Muhammad cartoon on the streets of Muslim countries but hardly any when Saddam was killing his own Muslim citizens by the millions or after 9/11, it would not be wrong to estimate that a sizeable number of Muslims either actively or passively support Islamic terrorism while not being concerned when Muslims kill other Muslims by the millions..

You will agree I hope that at least 15% of Muslims support the acts of Islamic terrorists. That would be a fair estimate.

In the US demographic surveys including by the INS and one by a Muslim professional demographer hired by Muslims have suggested that there are 2 million Muslims in the USA. The official censuses do not count by religion as a category but the census bureau estimated the number of Arab Americans and then came up with a figure of Muslims. According to Muslims themselves there are between 7 and 10 million Muslims in the USA. Let us settle for 5 million Muslims.

15% of 5 million is 750,000 Muslims that actively or semi-actively support Islamic terrorism. That is a veritable army and this army is sure to grow as Muslims already here procreate and Muslims immigrate, given our foolish immigration policies.

With 750,000 Muslims ready to blow themselves in the defense of Islam, are you then surprised that we are all very cautious when it comes to Muslims in our midst?

Rhaman said:

"You said that there are “systematic segregation of women” going on in Bangladeshi. Do you know that since 1991 two women prime ministers have been ruling the country? Do you know that those two women are the heads of two main political parties in Bangladesh?"

While those are impressive achievements, the truth is that they do not erase centuries of hatred towards women. While those women are head of state, millions of other women do get segregated, denied education, sexually abused by relatives, sexually enslaved, beaten for sexual "misconduct",...The old attitudes against women are rampant to this day.

If you have any doubts, look how in the U.S.A. a woman running for the presidency is treated: attacked with sexist language. And yet, in the country in general, women in the U.S.A. are in better condition than in middle eastern countries,and in India and Pakistan.

Things are reversed here: over there women can be elected, but poor women are harshly mistreated; here, women can't be elected to the higher political office but are in general treated better.

Oppression of women is a fact of life worldwide. Some countries have made progress. Others are on their way, ever so slowly.

Then why is it that we see tens of thousands of Muslims rioting and burning buildings in the wake of the publication of mere cartoons, but when innocent people are blown to bits by Islamist terrorists, no one marches in the streets to protest _that_? Islamist terrorists do not exist in a vacuum; why don't the "good Muslims" turn them in to authorities?

Signing an online petition is all well and good. But Muslims need to demonstrate their goodwill through actions, not just words.

Asim advises me to
"read the Holy Quran with honesty ,objectivity and an open mind-then you shall find the Truth, the only truth."

I did many times and found a book that is riddled with contradictions, false information about history, natural phenomena , human biology and theology. A book full of stories about demons, devils, jinn and angels with thousands of wings. A book that is a compilation of legends and rituals from Persian Zoroaster religions‘, Sabaens and Arabian pagans with embellished stories from the Old Testament, the Talmud and some from the New Testament.I found every page in to be an assault on human rationality and an insult to any person's intelligence.

Probably the simplest and most obvious criticism of Patel's piece is that if it is indeed true support for terrorism is around 4% in some areas, 1% in others in the Islamic world, why is there terrorism at all coming out of the Islamic world? Why is it with Islamic society supposedly overwhelmingly against terrorism terrorists are having the impact they have? The logic of Patel's argument makes no sense. Anyone can observe from studying American or European society the fact that when few people support criminal acts criminals end up behind bars and are certainly no threat to people in foreign countries. But with supposedly so little support for terrorism in the Islamic world we have these "so few" terrorists not only creating havoc in the Islamic world but creating havoc in foreign countries. I question Patel's (and Zakaria's) statistics. I find it inconceivable terrorists can operate with so little support from the general run of the population.

"fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.”

What about Americans rampaging across the world in name of the latest political buzz word. American Marines, bombs and proxy militias have all reaped havoc on parts of South and Central America, American political bullying has subjugated people in these regions to the likes of Pinochet.
The true extent of the war crimes committed against the Vietnamese, or VIETKONG as some like to call them, will never be reported. But millions died, Napalm, rape, mass murder, torture would no doubt fill up the report of a prosecutions war crime charges.

Iraq, 500000 children died because of US sanctions, 600000 have died because of a crime committed by America against a people who committed no wrong to the US. MK77 has incinerated 1000s of Iraqis.

there are many more examples. The Nazis controlled there people through media propaganda, at the time most Germans did not know how evil the Nazis were because of the propaganda......makes you wonder

For the 6 million palestinian refugees living in refugee camps for over 60 years Zionism is Nazism, The zionists expelled them to make room for "God's chosen people". Zionists massacres against palestinians are countless, Deir yasin, subra & shatila, qana, hebron.

The closest ideology to Nazism these day is zionism. Gaza is a palestinian Ghetto. The Nazis
allowed Jewish councils (Judenräte) to govern the ghettos but controlled the borders and starved the population as in Gaza. It is only the extermination camps that are missing for the
zionists to go full circle.

This post is in response of Mr. Kayes Ahmed’s posting. I am also from Bangladesh—I was born, schooled, and worked there. I was born in rural Bangladesh and attended Dhaka University and worked at Chittagong University. I find it extremely difficult to agree with your observations. I would probably agree with you on only one point: The Mullahs are ignorant. You said that there are “systematic segregation of women” going on in Bangladeshi. Do you know that since 1991 two women prime ministers have been ruling the country? Do you know that those two women are the heads of two main political parties in Bangladesh? Bangladesh has many other problems, but can you show me any other country in the world where two women are leading the two main political parties? Can you show me any country where two women got elected to the highest office of the country for three consecutive terms? Also, show me another country in which the Islamists (Jamat –e Islami, in Bangladesh) formed coalition and participated in the government headed by a woman. Can you show me another Muslim country whose supreme court gave a ruling saying that Islam does not approve terrorism? Also, for you information Bangladesh has achieved tremendous progress in girls’ education (highest in South Asia). Now, girls outnumber boys in school attendance. Are you talking about the same Bangladesh that I lived in?

"I still remember news footage of crowds of Palestinians cheering as the twin towers fell on September 11, 2001."

I believe it turned out that footage was from an unrelated event years before the attacks, someone made up the story and used some stock footage of cheering arabs to back it up. all part of the neocon disinformation stategy that ended up justifying GWB's ideologically motivated crusade in iraq.

zionsm = nazism,just observe the attrocities which the occupying jews have been inflicting on the tormented and occupied Palestinians for the past sixty years including collective punishment and starvation of 1.5 million of them at Aushwitiz #2,Gaza.

"ibrahim mahfouz":keep hiding behind this Muslim name while pouting your venom and lies at Muslims:Muahammad was never a nomad,and he lived all his life in Mecca and Medina,the former was an international trade hub between Arabia Felix-Yemen to the south and greater Syria and Meditrranean to the north and the latter was a rich agricultural oasis populated by Arabs both heathen and Christian as wellas jews.

The holy Prophet was an illitrate and recieved the revelation from GOD,the one and only GOD,the GOD of Adam,Noah,Abraham,Moses,Jesus over a 22 year period;no human could write the Holy Quran-it is a miracle of reason that trancends time and place and unlike the bible which has been altered and doctored over the centuries,the Quran came down to us absolutely INTACT.Just leave your AIPAC loyalities and revert to honesty and read the Holy Quran with honesty,objectivity and an open mind-then you shall find the Truth,the only truth.The Prophet was mostl a merchant and worked as a business manger for Khadija a widow 25 yeras older than him and who would marry and live with for 28 yeras;occasionaly he worked as a shepred on the outskirits of Mecca;his honesty and integrity as a merchant made him a human bank:many people would deposit their money and valuables as trusts with him-ironiaclly while chasing him and torturing him and his followers for preaching the truth which prevailed at the end.

Petra:Muslims live in the 12st century as u can see,but they are not allowed to develope:they have been under constant onslaught by the west and the jews:The Crusaders,the Inquisition,Colonialism,the wholesale of Arab Palestine to the jews and its Occupation,the invasion,destruction and occupation of Iraq on false pretenses,the invasion and occupation of Somalia by proxy...and the list goes on and on...

And the support and protection of dicators and tyrants in the Arab/Muslim world by the west so that the Muslim people are squeezed between a rock and a hard place:the attrocities of the new nazi apartheid racist jewish theocrcay and tyrants of oppressive and repressive regimes in the Arab/Muslim world.

Whereever we have violent and oppressive military occupation-israel-and violent and repressive didcatorships,we will ultimately have radicals:violence only begts violnce.

If foreign occupation such as the jewish occupation of PAlestine is ended and
democrcay and the rule of law prevails in Muslim lands,radicalism will disappear.

Petras Wilson asks:

“How can Muslims change their political and economic systems to join the 21st century.”
When they stop using a 7th Century book written by an Arab nomad as a manual for living "anywhere and anytime" ; when Muslims separate their mosque from their states.
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the father of modern Turkey, once remarked " As long as those people(Muslims) use this book(Quran) as a manual for living, they are not going to amount to anything." Time is proving him right

"In other words, we Muslims want people to know that we hate Muslim fanatics as much as non-Muslims do, and we are shocked and hurt that so many people either aren’t listening or don’t believe us."

Sorry, but really??? You all are "shocked and hurt"? So what, are you going to chop our heads off now? Riot? Use our laws against us so we cannot speak out against a creeping sharia that will put us back in the dark ages and make all the women slaves and chattel? And the Koran which allows muslims to lie to infidels whenever they feel necessary, c'mon now, are you really shocked and hurt? How can we believe you? After all, we're just dirty kuffar, infidels.

JR asks:

"When was the last time you saw a childrens' hospital built by a Muslim charity?"
I heard of soup kitchens near Palestinian refugee camps in Jordan manned by Muslim Brotherhood members. They require recipients to attend “Fundamentalist brainwashing” classes as a condition to receive a bowl of soup.

Secular non-Muslims can never be sure if a Muslim is sincere when claiming they are 'moderate' or when they denounce 'terrorism', or 'violence against innocents', since the meanings of all these words can be twisted until they are unrecognizable to the non-Muslim.

There must be very simple litmus tests about Sharia, a secular constitution / state, human rights such as freedom of speech and freedom to change one's religion FROM Islam TO something else.

Unfortunately, as someone already pointed out, a Muslim with views on these topics that are compatible with Western values would be considered an apostate by most of the Muslim world, punishable by death.

I've known very nice Muslim men and women. However, we should all be very clear about how we define a 'moderate' Muslim. What's the litmus test? Do they want to see Sharia law replace the constitution of the country in which they live?

Most 'moderate' Muslims would answer yes to this question. If no, what would they suggest punishment be for apostacy? Adultery? Homosexuality? Insulting Islam? Blasphemy?

Also, how many 'moderate' Muslims would answer these questions differently depending on whether they were a tiny minority, e.g., America, vs. a larger minority, e.g., Europe, vs. in the majority, e.g., Pakistan, Afghanistan, Malaysia, Morocco, Algeria, etc. There are many, many examples, all over the globe, of how moderate Muslims become a bloodthirsty mob when in the majority.

I have long stated that the real war is not east vs west, or Islam vs Christianity (or vs Judaism, or vs Hinduism), or Arab vs Jew, or Palestinian vs Israeli. Those are the phony wars; the death and destruction are tragically real, but the supposed basis of those wars is phony. The real war is fanaticism vs rationality WITHIN each ethnic, religious, or national group. Until that real war is fought and won, the phony wars that never settle anything will keep going on in all their lethal stupidity.

So this commentary is saying that the real war is now being fought within Islam, between rational Muslims and fanatics. That's good to know. But I don't think it is as depicted, with only tiny percentages supporting the fanatics. I still remember news footage of crowds of Palestinians cheering as the twin towers fell on September 11, 2001. And that public signed statement condemning violence is nice, but I haven't heard anything about rational Muslims telling the fanatic clerics--those who preach hatred in the mosques and schools--to shut up and stop desecrating the faith. The hatred is still being preached, from what I have read. Rational Muslims cannot shrug at the hate-spewing clerics and then wring their hands in remorse when people follow that rhetoric of hatred and commit violence in the name of the faith. I certainly have not seen any mass movement among the world's billion-plus Muslims to pressure the Palestinians and the states bordering Israel to stop trying to annihilate Israel.

Denouncing violence is easy; that is little more than a platitude. I want to see rational Muslims en masse confronting the hate-spewing clerics face-to-face in the mosques; then I'll believe that something is really happening now.

In short, I think this commentary accurately points the way for Islam to survive intact (if it survives but becomes a synonym for terrorism and fanaticism, then it has not survived at all). The only people who can muzzle and marginalize fanatical Muslims are rational Muslims. But pointing the way doesn't necessarily mean that it is actually happening. Maybe it will start happening soon, but it hasn't happened yet.

Each individual must find peace, tolerance and understanding in himself or herself first, before these will manifest collectively as some form of regional or world peace. It just doesn't work in reverse.

I think we all have to realize that we as individuals are the key to a more harmonious world.

It's a sad fact too that all religions over time lose their connection to their founder's essential teachings. And become monuments to the human ego. God is not a concept, or found in ink on a page or in a dogmatic belief system.

God is an inner experience that once arises within can flow out of an individual and bring the peace and harmony we all long for on a local, national and even international level.

But it all starts with individuals first becoming more peaceful themselves. Learning to be still and let go of our hatreds, anger and prejudices is a step we all can take to one degree or another every single day. Let's all sincerely try and make an effort in this direction for a few minutes each and every day.

Yes it would seem that the oil spigot is the most important thing at the moment. But then there is more oil in North/South America than the mid east. Two can play that game. We have been using theirs, hording it even while ours is still in the ground. And I mean ours -under public land. President Obama will know what to do -eliminate taxes, substitute oil profits, increase spending and pay off the national debt. Turn global warming over to religions to debate -their kind of thing and provide an official forum where ecologists can vent their frustration.

The outcome of WW2 was decided first by information and second by oil. But then there is the small matter of bombing both Germany and Japan back into the stone age. Not a whimper of protest from Americans when women and children were fire bombed, burned to death and the survivors left homeless. We took out their food, water and anything else we could hit. A good one no matter age or gender was a dead one. That's how wars are won not this "surgically remove" their military nonsense so they can keep on fighting with IEDs. Gotta kill'em till the ones left alive say uncle and mean it. Then we can get to all that Jesus love, freedom of religion garbage and rebuild their country. Iraq is a shining example of when, where, why and above all else how not to do war.

Muslims need to think about the great American attitude change that came Dec 7, 1941. Anyone but Bush with his "go to your churches, temples, synagogues, mosques and pray" and we may well have had a similar attitude change, 9-11-2001. What if Bush had said, "go to your closet and get your shotgun" like Roosevelt? Do you have any idea how many shotguns Americans own? Got a few of them "close counts" nuclear weapons of mass destruction too. Iran need the bomb or will using it on them be enough to fulfill their spiritual needs? Ever hear of MAD. Take the M out and see what's left.

I do believe their are hundreds of millions of Muslims who wish to live in peace with non-Muslims and who enjoy and are comforted by their faith.

I do believe the latest polls that show a huge drop in support for Bin Laden and the AQ. Iraq has been a disaster for Sunni extremism and AQ specifically.

For confirmation consider the latest Bin Laden tape.. almost no mention of the Jihadist dream of a liberated Iraqi Caliphate... but focused on the still-popular "liberate Palestine" cause. Iraq gave Muslims a taste of jihad and 7th century Wahabi orthodoxy and Muslims are disgusted. This is the biggest single success in Iraq.

Unfortunately, Muslims globally have failed to build functional democratic or progressive nation-states. Out of 50 maybe a handful of rich Gulf states are experimenting with democracy. Most Islamic states are autocratic, corrupt, minority-oppressing, Socialist, economic and social basket cases. Consider where most of the worlds civil wars are now being fought ... almost exclusively in Muslim or majority-Muslim states.

How can Muslims change their political and economic systems to join the 21st century ? This is the greatest challenge for Muslims. Maybe they can start by stop blaming the West and the Jews for their many self-inflicted problems.

Very sad indeed. But we can and should pray for Muslim salvation.

Should you choose to live in the 9th or 10th Century then choose Islam as practiced in the Middle East. In these countries, women and children are oppressed for the simple fact that they are not men. Women especially are considered chattel, they have no rights when it comes to marriage,(plural marriage, arranged marriages, dowries, Honor killings). Female children undergo the most horrific of procedures, clitoral removal, so that no sensation can be felt during sexual intercourse. Male children, especially in the farther regions of Islam, and practiced by the tribal members, are sold into prostitution. Music is banned, in most of the areas where Muslim religious extremists are living, because this is a form of entertainment, and "we" cannot have people practicing any form of escape, because they will not be focusing on the Holy Qu'ran. Is it my imagination, or are the people who most need freedom, the very ones that subject themselves to these horrific and abominable ideals? I, thought that Islam was a religion of peace? The same can be said in some instances, regarding the interpretation that some Christians have regarding the world. The ideal thing that needs to happen is this, we, people of moderate and reformed thinking need to say loudly and clearly, We will not tolerate the radicalization of our faiths any longer. No more will the Far Right of any faith dictate the course of events and no more will we listen to their insane and maniacal rantings. G-d is not a G-d of extremism and harsh judgment, but a G-d of peace and harmony. Anthropomorphizing G-d, is not a recognized and rational doctrine of any faith. Should we, take the reins of control back from the extremists, then and only then will we see a revival of inter-faith dialogue, inter-faith communication and reasonable and rational discourse between all parties concerned.

There is certainly a truth that it is not right to characterize all of any faith in a certain way because of violent extremists. However, inherent in Islam is a view of the Jews that from the beginning sees them as the 'illegitimate heir' to God's house, while all other faiths which use any portion of the Scriptures see them as the seed of covenant.

By the 20th century, that had become obscured, and the political ramification instead were forefront. Land and power are premiere motivators coupled with disdain for a people, and the documented numbers of Muslim troops, documented widely in photographs and texts, cannot be disputed. They shared a common anti-Semitic purpose with National Socialists, and the Final Solution, "endlosung" was not a European phenomena only, but on both parts was seen as starting in Europe and continuing into the MidEast, a strategy which had been plied since Eichmann went to the area disguised as a reporter long before the Shoah began, coupled with violent and deadly demonstrations, etc. The Mufti of Jerusalem was often in Berlin to offer support and coordinate efforts, and not all of the troops were extremist muslims at all, but the philosophies were shared. There is for example one photo of Muslim Waffen SS soldiers reading Mein Kampf and Nazi training manuals.

The charge "Nazi" is incindiery and is used too often against any one of any position, so in that degree you are correct; but the underlying 'zeitgeist' was just not that different, and the Nazis clearly believed that even if they lost the war, that the "Final Solution" would continue in the Mid-east.

all this is irrelevant also. no matter if not all muslims support the jihadist islamic threats, ...it still exist and its still a huge threat. so the article is irrelevant>

You say, "The data shows that ordinary Muslims emphatically do not support Muslim extremists." How do Muslim extremists exist without support from the others? In particular Iraq and Afghanistan?

Using Nazi for comparison is not totally legitimate but it is not totally erroneous either. Few Germans were true Nazis but they like non extremists Muslims aided, gave sanctuary and comfort. In the end they joined in the Nazi war of world domination, speaking of bad ideas.

Perhaps a better thing for pacifist Muslims to think about is what happened to Japanese Americans. Should extremists Islamic leaders rally enough non extremists Muslims there will be a cry to strip American Muslims of their civil rights just like was done TO Japanese Americans.

As a pacifist you should be screaming at other Muslims to turn in any Muslim even suspected of helping the extremists anywhere in the world and especially here. You should be calling for peace with Israel and encouraging all Muslims to do the same. If you're already doing this then bully for you and if not then shame on you.

Threats never work or do any good. However, it might be helpful to notice that the Nazis were defeated when the free world decided a good German was dead German. Don't let that happen to Muslims.

By the way. The being in the burning bush, the one Moses made the deal with has been positively identified as the biggest Devil of them all, Lucifer. So don't expect a lot of "love thy enemies" from Christians and Jews should your group decide Hitler's idea about killing off all the Jews and a lot of others as well was a good one. That Jesus love stuff might turn out to be some kind of decoy. Atheists aren't known for demonstrating a lot of love, "turn the other cheek" kind of thing when somebody has decided they're not fit to live either.

Good luck getting all the Muslims to see it your way.

Osama bin Landin, Hamas, Hibz’Allah, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, Ahamdinejad, Bishar Asad, Saudi Arabia, Muslim Brotherhood, et al, are not Nazis? try the 9/11 case or the beheading of many, honor killing, stoning women and others, mutilations of sorts, chopping off a hungry child's hand who steal a piece of bread, clitorizing etc. suicide bombing, burning and distorting holy and ancient historical/archaeological sites, genocide in the Sudan, bombing in India and throughout the globe.

If this is not a Nazilike acts, then what is? The same lady with different cloths.

Indeed, we do not hear enough peace loving Muslims speak out, don't fool us!

To the billion plus Muslims in the world, I would say: Muslims are too silent when they must be in the front line roaring in the face of the evil that emanates from the Arab/Muslim World affecting them too in every aspect.

Wake up Arab/Muslim World! Truly, let us hear from you in a big way!

Vote: To STOP any New-Construction or conversion of a non-mosque as an intended Mosque & their Muslom Madrasas's in U.S.A. and Or Have "Home Land Security Control all Permits of such 'intent To Build structures. and trace the Funds.

All New-Jewish Synogogues & Education Facilty's also!

All New-Parochial & Christian Church and

All New-Hindu Temples also And New-Buddhist Consruction also..!

All Sikh , Sufi's etc......!

Well, the danes still have the rigth to choose between civil war amongst ourselvels and the muslims, and as far as I can judge the common opinion is not in favour of the muslim minority - in cause of the fact that islam more and more is regarded as a religon of violence - rather than a religion of peace... due to the fact that whereever islam rules there is more war than peace.
But the muslims agenda can never be victorius in our world - we are the vikings...:)

I am most heartened to begin to hear the voices of moderate Muslims speaking against terror. What prevents me from wholeheartedly believing that the vast majority of Muslims decry terrorism are the many reports of Muslim violence against their own women. Reports of honor kilings and stonings and beatings prevent me from believing the disawoval of terrorist acts unless these acts against humanity are also decried.

AmericanMuslims:
"Osama is supported by 80 percent of World's Muslims. It is a very inward looking religion. I wonder what would happen when they become majority here."

This needs to be recognized as hate speech.

@ Abe

Good Lord! Finally an intelligent comment from someone other than myself. I was getting lonely.

I can't get pass the treatment of women in Muslim countries. What is the state of the average daughter or wife in a Muslim country? I'm sure even the moderate Muslims cannot ignore the plight of these women.

I will accept that there are moderate Muslims who do not condone the violence, but in the same breath they will say that the U.S. and other Western countries have brought these attacks upon themselves. I have a difficult time reconciling this.

The plight of women in these Muslim countries takes a back seat to all the violence, terrorism and tirades.

Seems to me there is no love in Islam.

I find it very troubling that so many comments have implied that the Muslim world's position on Israel is a matter of religious extremism. These same posters argue that for Muslims to demonstrate their rejection of extremism, they must change their views towards Israel. The problem with this is that while Islamic extremism might indeed fuel the tendency of Palestinians to resort to terrorism, the Israeli/Palestinian strife is a conflict that stems out of the legacy of colonialism as well as Jewish and Arab nationalism--not merely Islam. For instance, some of the fiercest critics of Zionism have been Arab Christians.

Thus, the attempts to conflate Palestinian anti-Zionism, as well as anti-Zionism in the larger Islamic world, with the issues of Islamic extremism rings hollow and suspicious to me--at least in so far as these attempts only stop there. Certainly it's true that religious extremism fuels some Palestinian extremism--or that sympathy for their co-religionists influences Muslims views towards Israel, but the glaring obvious truth is, you don't need to be a Jihadist Muslim fanatic to believe that Israel is a bastard child of the West and forever a disgrace or that Israel should not continue to exist as it exists today, much like South Africa.

Defenders of Israel have found the perfect way to silence would be Western Muslim critics: "Support your brethren," they say, "and you are an enemy of the West in general." But these same Zionists on the other hand can proudly support their brethren and use all the resources they can muster to this end. It is no surprise then that they fraudulently and cruelly make acceptance of Israel a precondition to being considered Non-Extremist.

This certainly strikes a valid point. I have often wondered why Muslim friends I have made over the years who have come from Iran or Iraq or Jordan have been such peaceful, moderately minded individuals but everything we hear from our government and much from the media paint Muslims as violent radicals. I think the result is akin to the racism which was promoted in the US while I grew up in a typical southern city.
My home had been built by my great grandfather and was a wonderful place which happened to be on the wrong side of the interstate highway destined to be the area for residents of color to live. Our neighborhood became one of the war zones filled with gang violence and by the mid 70s was impossible to inhabit. I became enraged with racist views, believing the propaganda that those black people had taken over the neighborhood and stolen the wonderful paradise I had enjoyed in harmony until age 10. I had seen black men verbally assault my older sisters as we tried to walk to the corner store. My free reign became limited to shorter distances as I grew up until my family home was sold and my parents moved us to suburbia and a lilly white area safe for us to roam. For years I held a grudge for those violent black people who ruined our home and stole my youth. Later in life I was speaking to a fellow grad student who had grown up in the same neighborhood on the other side of the racial devide. He told me that he couldn't go back to that neighborhood either. He told me stories of violence against his family and siblings caught up in gang violence which ended much worst than I had experienced. At least my father had a job which would let us afford to move. His father was a city employee and they lived too close to poverty to consider moving. I finally understood the problem which wasn't due to black violence but a racially charged society which kept an entire segment of the population from getting out of poverty. The hopelessness led to criminal activity and No One could escape the violence. We now suffer from years of white flight and our cities are spread out and have little to no community spirit which could encourage our young to build better lives. I was wrong. It wasn't a black population against us whites, it was a violent criminal element abusing anybody they could get an advantage over, black or white.
If 9-11 had been the result of the Oklahoma City bombers then we might be looking at an assault on Christian fundamentalism. I'll bet we could distinguish between the christian militia and Methodists or Baptists.
Let's encourage our government to consider peacful friends throughout the world to join us in condemning violence and stand with our friends in Iran and Iraq and Gaza or Isreal to push out the fathers of violence. If they are from our own home towns or not is not important If humanity is to survive we have to support a way of life which will lead to survival of the human race, all humans.

The observation that the Koran is a violent book keeps popping up like plastic groundhogs in the old arcade game. The truth is that all three religions, that are biblically bread, have violence in them. Read you Old Testament folks and take a look at Revelations in the New Testament. All three religions have at times generated radially violent groups who were in reality terrorists. Anybody remember John Brown from the Civil War, or the abortion clinic bombers from our generation? Just because a religious text expounds violence doesn't mean the majority of its followers are, or support, terrorism. So what if 60 percent of those who practice Islam believe killing is appropriate to defend the faith. That doesn't prove that many folks support terrorism. How many wars have Americans fought to defend Christianity and God?
I say again God is more patient than paper. I believe the vast majority of those who truly seek the Divine will however, are more interested in loving their neighbor than killing them. It's fear and not faith that really leads people to war and terrorism.

There was a survey of American Muslims about a year ago and it was shocking that many 2nd or 3rd generation American Muslims did say suicide bombings are justified in some cases. Osama is supported by 80 percent of World's Muslims.

In U.K all terror cells are formed by 2nd generation Muslim immigrants.

Yes, JR, I do see Jewish, Christian hospitals here but never a Muslim charity hospital or health clinics. It is a very inward looking religion. I wonder what would happen when they become majority here.

Arlene and others who say that Muslims never condemn Hamas or Hezbollah are just WRONG. I represent a large ecumencial Christian organization and have been PRESENT many times as a co-speaker at press conferences when CAIR and other groups have made these precise condemnations of Islamic violence. What you do NOT understand is how little those denunciations EVER make it into the mainstream press. National and state and local Muslim leaders who renounce violence, stand for peace, and speak out against Islamic extremists just are not heard. I look in vain for press and TV coverage of the events in which I participated - it is simply not ever - EVER - news.

When was the last time you saw a children's hospital built by a Muslim charity?

It is my impression that Muslim's have charities but keep to themselves, not for the greater good of society.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

When was the last time you saw a children's hospital built by a Muslim charity?

It is my impression that Muslim's have charities but keep to themselves, not for the greater good of society.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

The frequent contributions to these boards by the San Antonio Arab calling himself Asim proves the case against Islam: that Islam breeds many, many radical hate-mongers who advocate the most extreme forms of violence.

Here is a fact: 63% of 15,000 muslims surveyed around the globe felt that it was permissible to kill in defense of Islam. All that needs to happen now is that a particular person or act needs to be identified as anti islamic.

Dear Mr. Patel

I am Italian and therefore I am not so proficient in English as I would like to be, so please forgive occasional mistakes in my writing.
Born catholic, I'm not a religious person myself and I consider all religions as equally nonsensical (if there is such a word). If a supreme being actually exists, His or Her or even Its existence cannot possibly depend on someone's personal faith. Otherwise we should be obliged to concede that the heaven imagined by, say, Hitler and his followers (accomplices ?) or Bin Laden and his criminals may also be real(whatever the meaning of the word.) Those maniac really had faith!
What puzzles me is:
1 - Muslims apparently do believe that their God actually intervenes in their daily affairs. Other religions believe the same but in the case of muslims it seems that the interference is more direct. If God doesn't punish the blasphemy, (a sin on which they are particularly touchy) they happily supply the punishment themselves.
2 - Let alone the Twin Towers, (it was an act of war, and so as unjustifiable as ony other), I don't remember hearing any protest coming from muslims intellectuals or religious leaders and authorities on the ridiculous and dramatic (for the human race) issues of Salman Rushdie's book and the cartoons on the Danish newspaper. No Mullah, Iman or Aiatollah, pondered publicly that a deity who could not stand a little sense of humour was ,very possibly, unworthy of the worship they so sternly demanded.
I loath the word "tolerance". It suggests that I am light-years superior to you but, oh well! I tolerate you. I think we should speak of RESPECT. But how can one respect utterly superstitious beliefs,(not only islamic) in the name of which,
people are despised and killed, without -and this is the real problem - the raising of a finger on the part of those who could raise fingers. I have been told that Islam means submission. The question is who they submit to: a silent and aloof God (just like all ather gods) or a clever clerical establishment?

Silly Eboo. Who do you think we'll believe... your actual documented survey results, or Michael Savage and Rod Parsley?

Mr. Patel:

I fully appreciate the fact that you yourself are not a violent person, nor do you condone violence. But, how do you separate yourself from the violence not just condoned but encouraged in the Koran? The problem with someone calling themselves a Muslim but then denouning whatever part of the Muslim holy book they don't agree with is the same as subscribing to something with a caveat. This is not a comment aimied at Muslims but one aimed at all religions.

As a follow-up - What does it really mean to be a moderate in a religion? Who knows? Likely, most self-titled moderates would agree that violence is bad, but there's a whole lot of grey when different people define unacceptable violence.

If you asked three religious moderates how they defined themselves, here's what you would likely get: I'm X religion but I don't believe in this, that and the other; I'm also X religion and I belive in this and that BUT not the other; I'm also religion X and I believe in every word of this, that and the other, but it's not meant to be taken literally.

Until people realize how flimsy and (excuse the pun) holy the entire religious enterprise really is, I'm afraid there's not much progress to be made. As another commented and I will echo - religion has no place in the 21st century.

A few facts:

-ZERO, the number of Muslim nations militarily occupying Christian nations currently

-Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Tunisia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Morocco, Algeria, Tajikistan, Turkey, Kyrgistan, Egypt, Oman, Indonesia, Malaysia, Somalia, Jordan, SOME of the Muslim nations militarily occupied by JUST the U.S. military (a christian nation) currently

Now how about some of you ignorants that describe "Islamics" as aggressive, threatening, terrorists...how do you chew on that? You're in Muslim countries, heavily armed to have a tea party with the Muslims?

Read some more here you ignorants:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0115-08.htm

Not a single Muslim leader, religious or otherwise, including the leaders of the American Muslim groups, have ever made unqualified condemnations of the atrocious policy of murdering civilians perpetrated by the Islamic Hamas and Hezbollah gangs. Islam permits the targeting of civilians if it is "in the defense of Islam".

When Asim starts using the term "Zionist propaganda," he is started on the long road of proving the case against Islam. When a Muslim ingests and then vomits up that kind of stuff, he has started to show the rest of the world that Islam is an ugly business. It is not. Use of code language, use of unthinking epithets, has no place in the dialogue.

You have to prove your own case and you can't rely on Israel to prove it for you. What do you, Asim, have to offer the world? What do the millions and millions of Muslims that don't fall back on stereotyped thinking have to offer the world? How do you prove that you are worth trusting and listening to?

The Muslims I know (and I live in a neighborhood that is becoming more and more Muslim with every passing day) don't spend their time mouthing prepared phrases about the Zionists keeping them down. They live constructive and peaceful lives and they interact beautifully with the Jews in the area. One day I saw a Muslim woman and her well-behaved children exchanging gossip with an old neighbor of mine. That's as it should be. Live good lives and people will see who you are and the stereotypes will fall away.

I would suggest that you wash the nonsense out of your brain and join community groups made up of Jews, Christians and Muslims working together on projects of common good. Right after 9/11, some of the Jews in my area went to some of the Muslim merchants after a Sikh was killed out West because some lunatic thought he was a Muslim. They gave out their phone numbers and the numbers of the local police station and fire station just in case some creep decided that Muhammed Atta was a halal butcher from the Bronx. The merchant said he felt safer in his world because of that. Zionist propaganda indeed.

I do agree that there are groups that call themselves Zionists who want Muslims to be cleared out of the Palestinian Authority. Guess what? They're CHRISTIANS. Hagee is not Jewish. Parsley is not Jewish. Many Jews don't even think Lieberman is still Jewish. Get your facts in a row.

Mike H:

What are you talking about? The Bible is full of smoting and smiting. It mandates a violent response for all sorts of transgressions. It has been used to justify the world's most horrible injustices, from slavery to apartheid to the Holocaust. Christians are supposed to stone idolaters and homosexuals, ferchrissakes.

I agree that the Bible preaches peace - especially in the New Testament - but I think we need to use the same yardstick if we are going to measure the doctrinal support for violence in Christianity and Islam. Either we are looking at the big picture, or we are pulling quotes out of context. Sure, you can find stuff in the Quran that seems to encourage violence, but the overall message is one of peace. The same is true for the Bible.

Yes Islam is the faith of peace-but peace with justice not occupation or dicatorships.There is nothing extreme at all when the Muslims-like any other human beings-defend themselves against and resist foreign occupation such as the jweish ethnic cleanssing of 80% of Palestinians in 1947/8 and the longest and most brutal military occupation in moderm times,or the Iraqis resisting US occupation of their homeland,or the Alegerians who resisted the 130 year long French occupation of their homeland-or the French themselves who resisted the Nazi occupation of the country.

It's the zionist propaganda that tries to defelect attention from the nazi like jewish attrocities of isreal in PAlestine that coins and circulates terms such as Islamofasicism and nazi Muslim analogies.

Where are these "Muslim radicals":are they the ones who resist foreign occupation or members of the national opposition that languishes in Arab/Muslim jails who spoke against Arab/Muslim dicatators-and there are many; it is a fact that political oppression and torture in jails of prisoners of conscious,for example in Egypt,is the dierct reason for radicalization of the Muslim brotherhood there;it is the absence of Democracy and Freedom of expression that creates radicalism-Egypt just extended its opperssive Emergency Laws for two more years thou it has been in effect for 25 years-to combat radicalism and terrorism!!!-which the oppressive government policies and brutality created in the first place.

There were no terrorism or Al Qaedah in Iraq before the Bush invasion of iraq:the invasion was a heaenly gift handed to al qaedah by W and his boss Ceheney.

There are strange definitions in the Arab/Muslim world shared by the west and israel:if you agree with dicators and tyrants then you are a "Moderate;" if you agree with the brutal nazi style occupation of the apartheid state-israel-and its colective punishment of the PAlestinians then you are also a "Moderate."

If you disagree howver with the tyrants or resist the occupation of your homeland by foreigns such as the jews in Palestine-then you are a radical and a terrorist.

But the free will never accept nor succumb to the definitions of the Occupier;if that was the case then the Brits would still be occupying and colonizing America.

Surely,there are very few radicals who happen to be Muslim-as Muslims we should not hate them but guide them and debate with them because they are our brothers, sons and neighbours...they are indeed very very few and the whole thing is blown out of proporation.

The critical question is:Why are there radicals??

We should always look for reasons behaind radicalism and deal with it:where there is an occupation we should end it and where there is political repression and oppression we should repalce with demcracy,liberty and freedom of expression.

Thsoe big mouths who want to mislead us to believing that Muslim radicals are lurking behind evry shadow should instead frocus on and speak up against israeli occupation of all of PAlestine and aginst Arab/Muslim dicators-which is incubators of radiclaism and even terroriism.

I don't think Muslims-as Ebos is doing-go on the defnsive to having to explain and distance Islam from the charges of radicalism:Islma is unequivocally clear about Peace and justice;it is the propagandists who should expalin and speak up aginst Occupation in Palestine and IRaq as well as for democrcay and aginst dictators especialy in the Arab world not for reasons of political expediency but for the merits of freedom and democrcay.

Thank you for your article. If Islam is a religion of peace, then Muslims have to take back control of their religion and liberate it from the religious fanatics who have long ago hijacked Islam and taken it hostage. Unfortunately, the voices of true Muslims have yet to drown out the voices of Islamic terrorists. CAIR (Council on American-Islamic relations) estimates 1.200 billion Muslims in the world. The fact that only hundreds of thousands of Muslims have signed the "Not in the Name of Islam" petition is an embarrassment to a religion of peace. But, it is a start. The majority of Muslims worldwide have to speak at the top of their lungs with one united voice to drown out the sounds of the explosions and screams that the rest of us around the world hear on a daily basis. If the majority of Germans had not remained silent, perhaps history would have forgotten about Hitler.

Ok, maybe there are too many agendas to get a straight answer to this and I'll need to find time to study it myself. My very limited understanding of islam, which I admit is anecdotal at best, suggests that it is not, by nature, a peaceful religion.

I have read excerpts of the Quran and accounts of Muhammad (the Hadith) in which Islam actually preaches spreading its faith "by the sword." Certainly, Christianity (both Catholic and protestant) and other religions have a history of conversion through violence but that is plainly against the word of Jesus. The difference seems to be that spreading Christianity by the tip of the sword is a perversion of the religion by men, whereas, for Islam, it is part of the actual doctrine. I need to investigate further. However, just my knowledge of history tells me that Muhammad was no man of peace.

Thank you for this piece!

This article, along with Fareed Zakaria’s article, can create a base of civil discussion on the issue of Islam, terrorism and the relations between the so-called Muslim world and the West. But with my dismay, I note that some people resort to spewing their hatred and long-held stereotypes in their postings. This does not help. Come on people, you are participating in the forum of Washington Post, the leading US newspaper. Talk with reasons and with a civil tone. OK, here are my comments on the issue for the people who believe in reason, sound analysis and have a dynamic understanding of the world affairs.
• First of all, terrorism (or Islamic terrorism, if you prefer), is NOT a religious thing; it’s a political issue. I am making this comment on the basis of my reading of the Islamic text, history of Islam and Muslim people and my lived experience in a Muslim-majority country (Bangladesh, the third Muslim country). If you read the history of Islam, you will never find a situation similar to today’s (terrorism in the name of Islam) never before. The claim that Islam was spread through sword does not hold water. There are plenty of evidence in the history that many Muslim rulers discouraged conversion, even punished military officers for doing conversions. Please read the history of Mughals of India. You will find that Mughals separated their religious and political affairs and created an empire where people of different religions lived in peace. Remember, during that time Europe was going though the infamous inquisition.
• Also, if you read the Islamic text (Quran and the Hadith) you will see the Islamic discourse never approved terrorist activities that are routinely conducted in the name of Islam. There were different brands of fundamentalism in Islam like the way there are fundamentalism in every religion. The terrorism pursed by Al Qaeda is a “modern” thing—it’s a creation of the modern states; not by bunch of backward looking extremists. The political Islam and extremism is a by- product of the colonial and post-colonial experiences of the Muslim majority societies. I do not have the space here for details—read the history of Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt and the Jamat-e Islami of Pakistan. You will find that all those movements, although took some of their premises from their explanation of Islamic text an history, are basically the reactions of their post-colonial experience. Try to imagine what face of the modern westernized rules the vast majority of Muslims in Middle East, Asia and Africa saw—they saw brutal military rulers supported by the Western powers. In this background the political Islamists espoused their message of political Islam, which was resonated with vast majority of people who thought Islam would give them political and economic emancipation.
• However, political Islamists were not taken uncritically—it resulted in a variety of realities depending on the context, political, cultural and economic. I will just highlight one –the role of Islamists in Bangladesh. Bangladesh was established in 1971 breaking away from Pakistan, which was based on two nation theory (Hindus and Muslims are two nations). Bangladesh was created in spite of Nixon government’s strong military and economic support of the invading Pakistan Army. Bangladesh was created as a secular nation, whose first constitution banned religion in politics. But the democracy was short lived and military took over. It was one of the generals who, in spite of strong opposition from people declared Islam as the state religion of Bangladesh. (I can still remember his reasoning—he said we have national flower, national bird, then what’s wrong with a national religion.) Sounds funny. This is how Islamization was done in many societies. However, in Bangladesh radical Islamists was never able to become the mainstream force for many reasons. First, Bangladesh always had a vibrant political culture, which in fact caused the downfall of the strongest military ruler of Pakistan (Ayub Khan, a well known man in the West). Second, The Islamists collaborated with the invading Pak army and this created a heavy baggage in their political future.
I will have to go now. I will complete my thoughts later. If you are interested, please check later.

I am disillusioned reading these comments. The purpose of a dialogue is to exchange ideas and to try to understand each other’s view—not necessarily agree. Reading these comments, it’s very clear to me that most posters either even did bother reading the article or ignore it all together or did not bother to understand it! This is indeed regrettable.

All the oil fields were developed by Western companies and gifted away to Muslim governments. What a blunder. And now OPEC controls price and supply. This is terrorism.

Big companies getting together to set prices and supply is criminal in any civilized society but normal business and a source of pride for Islamic nations. What a shame.

"Robin:
Paul, I beg to differ with your assertion that all terrorists are Muslim. Timothy McVeigh was not Muslim. Nor Terry Nichols. Not Robert Mathews. (Look him up if you need to.) White supremacists are as much terrorists as Islamofascists. Let's try to think outside the box, please.
May 29, 2008 1:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments"

LETS NOT FORGET THE BLACK PANTHERS, THE WEATHERMEN, ANY AND ALL BLACK, LATINO, WHITE AND ASIAN GANGS THAT TAKE MURDER AND VIOLENCE AS THEIR DOCTRINE.

This is exactly what needs to get shouted from the mountaintop loud and often. Too bad the terrorist propaganda masters get their message out the best. That message, "'the Global War on Terror' (bad name) is actually a religious war on Islam". It has been spread far and wide by direct statements from terrorists and their news organizations. From incorrect interpretations of US politician's statements, to direct downright lies, all of these help the extremists. If you asked anyone that hates the US policies, they would probably echo one of the extremists talking points, then tell themselves that they did nothing wrong.

It's never good to hold the same goals as an extremist when it comes to showing strength in their face.

-
-
-
-
Written by roger wallace, and is not found recorded in a book, yet:.
-
-
------------------------------ Hear the word of the lord, O Israel
-
W / 120 vs.
1 Some of you that I (roger wallace) have emailed to in Israel and else where, you may not understand, as to why Jesus Christ is your chosen of god, true messiah. And perhaps, as considering, it maybe good, if you will all consider these things from torah, as to why, Jesus Christ is your chosen messiah, forever.
-
2 But first, you all may not understand fully, as to why Israel was exiled from it’s land, until 1948AD. As to why, it is because Israel would not give up their idols, sinfulness, and because they rejected their messiah called Jesus christ, as that was seen and felt, unto god at that time in history.
-
3 And though god did send his warning about those things through the prophets (the prophets did write as concerning Jesus’s true crucifixion) and christians, to all of Israel. God said if Israel will not repent, then they would be exiled from Israel, in other words.
-
4 And god sent Israel witness of christ Jesus in Israel, before christ died, and witness also after christ Jesus arose from the dead, as before Jesus Christ ascended into heaven.
-
5 But torah scriptures do confirm this rejection of Jesus Christ to happen, as in Israel rejecting Jesus Christ as their chosen messiah of god, that is found in scripture.
-
6 Be not like unto your fore fathers O Israel, who did earnestly reject Jesus christ, as in rejecting him as this Jesus being not their chosen messiah,
-
7 And, as a result in rejecting Jesus, all of Israel, was then, around 70AD. Was then displaced of god, until 1948AD. And as to why Israel is again,
-
8 It is because it is time for Israel to fully awake according to scripture and receive this Jesus Christ, as Jesus Christ being their chosen messiah, forever.
-
9 You all may desire to call me (roger wallace) foolish, but what if I (roger wallace) am right, and what if god, said to you all one day: Why didn’t you study the christian bible and see if Jesus was your messiah?
-
10 DO you think he would say, that’s ok, if you all didn‘t try earnestly to see?
-
11 Don’t, fool your selves, for god would say to you all, did I (god) not urge you in your selves, to check out all of these things? And what would happen, if he (god) would say,
-
12 Just as you forsaked me (god), as I (god) have commanded you in your spirit, to study the christian bible, as to see what is what, as concerning this Jesus Christ,
-
13 And now you have shown me (god), that you desired Jesus Christ not, and you will have to now, depart me forever. As you forsaken me, forever, as I (god) am found in Jesus Christ, eternally forever.
-
14 That would be an awful site to behold and to have in one’s life in god’s presents forever. What if it is true? Can you all prove that Jesus Christ isn’t your messiah according to scripture-- I can prove that Jesus Christ is your messiah with many many scriptures.
-
15 Let’s go to the book of Joel in torah.
-
-
16--------------------------------- Joel chapter 1
-
17 Joel 1:1 The word of the LORD that came to Joel the son of Pethuel.
-
18 Joel 1:2 Hear this, ye old men, and give ear, all ye inhabitants of the land. Hath this been in your days, or even in the days of your fathers?
-
19 Joel 1:3 Tell ye your children of it, and let your children tell their children, and their children another generation.
-
20 Joel 1:4 That which the palmerworm hath left hath the locust eaten; and that which the locust hath left hath the cankerworm eaten; and that which the cankerworm hath left hath the caterpiller eaten.
-
21 Joel 1:5 Awake, ye drunkards, and weep; and howl, all ye drinkers of wine, because of the new wine; for it is cut off from your mouth.
-
22 In Joel 1:5 It is meaning of change to worshipping god in Jesus Christ, instead of desiring what had once been once forever, as to worshipping god before the birth of Jesus Christ with animals sacrifice for one‘s true sins.
-
23 And that verse of 1:15, is written as to be seen fully occurring, when Jesus christ is sent to the gentiles with the message of the kingdom of god, as to when Israel had then fully rejected forever,
-
24 That Jesus christ is Israel‘s true savior through Jesus’s true crucifixion and Israel’s true denial to as receive not forever christ Jesus as their risen true savior from god forever. And it was Israel‘s true desire, to see Jesus Christ, crucified.
-
25 Again, in Joel 1:5 Awake ye drunken with righteousness and holiness of my spirit-- as to who is my worshipers of me, ye that are found as drunkards in my spirit , and goeth forth and weep-- because of change;
-
26 And howl for my spirit of forgiveness, as it is now, found forever true, in Jesus Christ, eternally forever. That ye may truly enter into all that is and is called god forever, as it is found forever true, in Jesus christ my eternal kindly son, forever.
-
27 Therefore, weep and howl all ye drinkers of my forgiving true spirit, O Israel. As ye must in these days, forever. Seek me in Jesus Christ thy true messiah, forever.
-
28 And the old wine is done away with, forever and shall never shall be again, from me, for I have given thee, forever. Jesus Christ the new wine, who is called “The son of man” and who is called “The son of god“.
-
29 And these days, are called eternally forever true, granted to thee, true change as unto accepting Jesus Christ, as thy true savior, from me, forever certain, O Israel,
-
30 Therefore again, weep and howl ye drinkers of righteousness and holiness called god, in these days, as to receive him, now as Jesus Christ as being thy eternal seen true savior, as this true Jesus, is truly given by me, unto thee, O Israel-- as thou art repentiful towards me, as heavenly forever seen, forever.
-
31 And eternal weeping and eternal howling for the old wine without Jesus Christ as thy savior O Israel, that shall not ever be given again from me forever. And to actually desire and even to perform ,
-
32 The old wine to me forever, as found in rejecting once again thy chosen messiah, I will therefore, curse any man and or any woman of Israel, forever, as to who shall of Israel,
-
33 In these days, desire animal sacrifice for their seen sins to me forever. As when, they truly do desire, ever certain, Jesus Christ being not their seen savior. Even though, I have given him (Jesus Christ) by me (god), to Israel, as their chosen messiah, as being forever true of me, forever.
-
34 And to chose the old wine in these days, instead of christianity forever. As I have created christianity for Israel and for the lost to me world. I shall then forever, give thee true death, O Israeli person,
-
35 If thou o man or o woman, shalt chose to perform animal sacrifice to me in these days, for forgiveness of thy true sins to me, forever. And these days, they are forever seen,
-
36 As being eternally forever, as being found as being change unto Jesus Christ as thy eternal seen savior, forever. For Jesus Christ, is eternally forever, as truly created for thee, by my hand, as to always be thy eternal seen savior, forever.
-
37 And if thee shall continue to seek animal sacrifice for thy seen sins. Then I shall curse thee with the workings of true death, as it shall be placed of me (god) into thee, O Israel, forever,
-
38 And I (god) shall also place that true work, within thee, as to be found forever, in this world and in the world of myself (god), that is to come to the unrighteous, forever.
-
39 And I will not hear thy prayers unto me forever, as long as thou rejecteth forever, Jesus Christ as they seen savior, from me forever. Therefore, howl and weep for the meat offerings are eternally rejected by me (god), unto you forever ,
-
40 And thy old wine of meat offerings, shall never be accepted by me anymore, saith thy god, eternally forever and ever certain, and forever true.
-
41 Ye must understand O Israel, when thou doth in good faith, accept Jesus Christ as thy eternal seen true savior, as given of me (god) unto you forever. Then I (god) shall remove forever, the workings of true death, from thee, forever.
-
42 Joel 1:6 For a nation is come up upon my land, strong, and without number, whose teeth are the teeth of a lion, and he hath the cheek teeth of a great lion.
-
43 In Joel 1:6 For a nation called christianity is come up upon my land called Israel, and christianity is strong in me forever, and they in Jesus Christ, they are found as endless number in me forever,
-
44 And christianity, is whose teeth are the teeth of a lion, and christianity hath the cheek teeth of a great lion. And christians are grafted into Israel spiritually through Jesus christ, as sons of Abraham, forever. And this Jesus Christ, is known as the lion of the tribe of Judah. And is known also as being the root of David, David thy king, of old.
-
45 Joel 1:7 He hath laid my vine waste, and barked my fig tree: he hath made it clean bare, and cast it away; the branches thereof are made white.
-
46 In 7 Jesus Christ hath laid my Israel (vine) the vine, as waste (god will preach to Israel through Jesus Christ to be saved from their sins), and barked my fig tree that is called Israel forever:
-
47 And he, Jesus Christ hath made it (Israel) clean bare, and cast it’s sins away; the branches (branches means that Israeli people accepting Jesus Christ as their savior) thereof are made white (Have obtained god’s eternal seen forgiveness, through Jesus Christ, for one‘s seen sins, forever).
-
48 Joel 1:8 Lament like a virgin girded with sackcloth for the husband of her youth.
-
49 In Joel 1:8 Lament O Israel, as a virgin for me, as I am thy husband who is called Jesus Christ forever. For I the lord god, am the husband of thy youth O Israel, and I am found forever, in Jesus they redeemer forever, from sin forever.
-
50 Joel 1:9 The meat offering and the drink offering is cut off from the house of the LORD; the priests, the LORD's ministers, mourn.
-
51 In 9 The meat offering is the old ways to me [god] before Jesus’s birth. Those ways are changed by me (god) forever O Israel. As unto accepting Jesus christ as thy true savior, as given by me, eternally forever.
-
52 And the drink offering which once was considered a part of obtaining forgiveness from sin through animal sacrifices to me forever. It is cut off with the resurrection of Jesus christ,
-
53 For Jesus Christ is Israel’s savior from sin forever. Therefore again, the drink offering is cut off from the house of the LORD, forever. And the priests, the LORD's ministers at the time of Jesus‘s resurrection,
-
54 They do mourn forever, starting from the time of Jesus‘s crucifixion, as seeking my forgiveness, and it cannot be found forever for their seen sins, for my forgiveness from sin. It can’t be found without accepting Jesus Christ, as Jesus Christ being one’s personal seen savior, as given by (from means given by) me, forever. ..
-
55 (To moun, it is because god’s forgiveness cannot be found through animal sacrifices for one‘s seen sins, any longer and forever, as because Jesus Christ is the way to me (god) and forever).
-
56 Joel 1:10 The field is wasted, the land mourneth; for the corn is wasted: the new wine is dried up, the oil languisheth.
-
57 In 10 The field (Israel) is wasted, the land (Israel) mourneth; for the corn (Israel) is wasted: the new wine is dried up (Israel hath rejected the new wine that is called Jesus Christ), the oil (Israel) languisheth (can‘t find forgiveness from sin ,with out Jesus christ being Israel’s seen messiah).
-
58 Joel 1:11 Be ye ashamed, O ye husbandmen; howl, O ye vinedressers, for the wheat and for the barley; because the harvest of the field is perished.
-
59 In 11 Be ye ashamed, O ye husbandmen (Israel worshippers of god who have rejected Jesus christ as this Jesus being not their messiah); and howl, O ye vinedressers (Israel worshippers of god who have rejected Jesus christ as this Jesus being not their messiah);
-
60 For the wheat and for the barley (Israeli people can‘t find god’s true forgiveness, without Jesus forever and because of that rejection by Israel-- Israel will be exiled from it’s land, around 70AD);
-
61 Because the harvest of the field (Israel) is perished (Israel the harvest, and Israel will crucify Jesus and Israel will be as result, will be exiled from it‘s land (nation), around 70AD).
-
62 Joel 1:12 The vine is dried up, and the fig tree languisheth; the pomegranate tree, the palm tree also, and the apple tree, even all the trees of the field, are withered: because joy is withered away from the sons of men.
-
63 In Joel 1:12 The vine called Israel is dried up by being exiled from it‘s land in 70AD, and Israel is seen as being the fig tree that doth languisheth; and Israel is even seen as being the pomegranate tree, that is called Israel,
-
64 And Israel is even seen as being, also the palm tree that is called Israel, and Israel is even seen as being the apple tree that is called Israel before 70AD, and even all the trees of the field (Israeli citizens before 70AD),
-
65 Are withered away: because joy is withered away from the sons of men, for god‘s forgiveness for seen sins, is only found forever, through Jesus Christ eternally forever and ever seen, and true.
-
66 Joel 1:13 Gird yourselves, and lament, ye priests: howl, ye ministers of the altar: come, lie all night in sackcloth, ye ministers of my God: for the meat offering and the drink offering is withholden from the house of your God.
-
67 Joel 1:14 Sanctify ye a fast, call a solemn assembly, gather the elders and all the inhabitants of the land into the house of the LORD your God, and cry unto the LORD,
-
68 Joel 1:15 Alas for the day! for the day of the LORD is at hand, and as a destruction from the Almighty shall it come.
-
69 In 15 The day of the lord began with the birth of Jesus Christ and his resurrection from the dead. That day came as mighty destruction of me (god) to the old ways of obtaining forgiveness from sin from me (god),
-
70 For Jesus Christ ( THE LAMB OF GOD ) hath came into the world and conquered sin forever-- as with his death and resurrection, as created by me (god), forever.
-
71 Joel 1:16 Is not the meat cut off before our eyes, yea, joy and gladness from the house of our God?
-
72 In 16 Is not the meat cut off before our eyes (Jesus Christ is in the world, and can‘t Israel see it? And your joy is found in Jesus your messiah-- O Israel)), yea, joy and gladness from the house of me (god?)
-
73 Again: Can’t you O Israel, see when Jesus Christ was born and so forth, that I (God) hath given you Jesus Christ as your messiah?
-
74 Joel 1:17 The seed is rotten under their clods, the garners are laid desolate, the barns are broken down; for the corn is withered.
-
75 In 17 The seed is rotten under their clods, the garners are laid desolate, the barns are broken down; for the corn is withered. (Israel is exiled around 70AD)
-
76 Joel 1:18 How do the beasts groan! the herds of cattle are perplexed, because they have no pasture; yea, the flocks of sheep are made desolate.
-
77 In 18 How do the beasts (Israeli worshippers of god [70AD] who desire not Jesus being their savior, forever) groan! the herds of cattle (the nation of Israel at 70AD) are perplexed,
-
78 Because they have no pasture (can‘t find me (god) without Jesus as one‘s savior from me (god) forever); yea, the flocks of sheep (Israeli worshippers without Jesus christ being their seen savior from me ( god) -- 70AD) are made desolate (exiling around 70AD to all of Israeli land).
-
79 Joel 1:19 O LORD, to thee will I cry: for the fire hath devoured the pastures of the wilderness, and the flame hath burned all the trees of the field.
-
80 In 19 O LORD, to thee will I cry: for the fire (god’s judgments at 70AD) hath devoured the pastures of the wilderness (all of Israeli land that is Israel in 70AD) in 70AD, and the flame (god’s judgments on Israel at 70AD) hath burned all the trees (Israeli people) of the field in 70AD. (Israel is judged and exiled around 70AD).
-
81 Joel 1:20 The beasts of the field cry also unto thee: for the rivers of waters are dried up, and the fire hath devoured the pastures of the wilderness.
-
82 In 20 The beasts (Israeli people around 70AD) of the field (the nation of Israel at 70AD) cry also unto thee: for the rivers of waters (christ is savior and animal sacrifice is done away with Jesus Christ’s resurrection from god forever),
-
83 Are dried up and Israel is exiled and can‘t worship god as they did before 70AD, and the fire (exiled in 70AD) hath devoured the pastures of the wilderness (the nation called Israel is exiled in 70AD).
-
84 I can show Jesus Christ, much much more, as concerning the book of Joel, but hopefully, you all will be able to see Jesus christ, at least through this much material,
-
85 That I (roger wallace) have now written to you all, even though I have written to the church world, already. As already having written more prophetic interpretation, as it is found written prophetically by me (roger wallace), as concerning the entire book of Joel, being interpreted.
-
86 You all need to understand, as to how I (roger wallace, the author of the book, that is called THE GOD OF TRUTH) know these things. It is because our god had much scripture interpretation, as given to Israel and the world, closed while Israel was exiled as for an example, which is true.
-
87 Now that Israel is a nation again since 1948AD. our true kind god, he has now in these days, forever. Has opened forever, that once closedness of his word to Israel and to the world, as forever seen without true measure of closedness, forever.
-
88 And in these days, his (god‘s) vision of his speaking kindly true words, are seen and felt from god, as being eternally open forever as a regard of god forever and true a wonder of god eternally forever,
-
89 And that is found eternally forever, as a marvelously seen love of god, as found through Jesus Christ, who our eternal true savior, forever.
-
90 And because of the openness forever, let him that readeth these opened true words, let him run in this appointed true time of god, as with all that is called god, as god is found in Jesus Christ, forever,
-
91 And the plainness that I (roger wallace) write upon the tables of the internet and so forth, as concerning god’s opened true vision, as given unto us of the earth, as found opened in these days,
-
92 That vision is Jesus christ manifested of god forever, unto all people forever, as to who will receive the vision, as it is found, concerning life in the true Father, forever,
-
93 And which is given unto all men forever, that all true men, maybe saved in god forever, as saved unto god forever, as through Jesus Christ, who is god’s own son, forever.
-
94 Don’t yea all know, yea are all sons of god, therefore come back unto me (god) through Jesus christ as this Jesus being thy true savior, forever.
-
95 And at this appointed true end time day of the last of last days, is this vision speaking at the end of the earth as we know it, for god is now judging and soon,
-
96 Jesus christ shall be seated physically upon Israel’s throne, that Israel shall build now in Jerusalem, unto god, forever. As it shall be found, in the new temple that Israel shall build unto god, in these days, forever.
-
97 And soon, all the thrones of the sinful world, shall be thrown down in judgment, that is now appearing forever upon all unrepentiful nations, who will not repent in Jesus christ, forever.
-
98 And even now, a fiery stream doth issue from god through Jesus christ, that the sinful world that is called the beast, may repent forever, by receiving Jesus as their savior from god, forever.
-
99 And soon the books of god’s word and words, and even what I (roger wallace) am writing from god, shall be opened unto all men in the great judgment forever,
-
100 And it is, that all men maybe judged forever, in the great judgment of judgments, that is to come to all men and unto all women, forever.
-
101 And Jesus Christ is destroying the body of the beast, that is called unrepentifulness forever. As it is done through the flame of god.
-
102 That is called Jesus christ unto all true sinners, that all true sinners, may repent in Jesus Christ and be saved from their true sins, as saved forever unto god forever.
-
103 Jesus christ is the son of man and he (Jesus Christ) shall come with the ancient of days, as who (ancient of days) is called god forever. In that, all men,
-
104 May truly be judged of god forever, as eternally forever judged, and that true judgment, is the great judgment, that is called eternal life, forever.
-
105 And all dominion, glory, and even a kingdom that is called the kingdom of god. Is given unto Jesus Christ forever. And those things are true forever,
-
106 And are given eternally of god, unto Jesus Christ forever. In that all men may truly forever, be saved unto god, eternally forever, as saved from their sins, heavenly forever.
-
107 And Jesus Christ’s dominion from god, is a reigning in righteousness that is a ever lasting true dominion, and which shall not pass away and neither shall christianity ever cease to exist, and christianity, it shall never be destroyed, forever.
-
108 And the spirit of the lord god, is found upon Jesus Christ forever, and our true kind god, he has anointed Jesus Christ to preach good tidings unto the meek of the earth,
-
109 And our god has sent and is sending Jesus Christ forever, as to bind up the broken hearted and to proclaim liberty from sin forever, as to give deliverance from sin forever,
-
110 As a given deliverance to the captives of sin, forever. And which is from god forever, as found given of god through Jesus christ, forever. And is given unto all repentiful true men and repentiful true women, forever.
-
111 Moreover, because of those mentioned things, all nations who turn not unto god through Jesus Christ, forever. They shall be destroyed forever.
-
112 And Israel shall fully turn, soon unto Jesus Christ forever, for Israel shall mourn for this Jesus, quite soon. For that true turning, it is found in the scriptures.
-
113 And the gentiles, do see this light, that is called Jesus Christ in god “Our True Father“, forever. And the gentiles do see god’s own eternal true glory,
-
114 That is called Israel forever, as it is found from god forever, in Jesus Christ eternally forever, as it is given to and for Israel and to the true world, forever certain and as forever seen.
-
115 And the abundance of the sea of gentiles are being convererted in Jesus Christ unto god forever. And their true forces do come to god through Jesus, eternally forever, as to receive salvation that is called Jesus Christ as seen in god, as forever certain and forever true.
-
116 And below is some peaces of the book that is called The god of truth, that can now be seen in Jerusalem, fully seen forever.
-
117 And think it not strange O Israel, that I would write all of these things to you, for I (god) am moving upon thee forever, in Jesus Christ eternally forever. And be not like unto thy forefather‘s, who rejected this Jesus,
-
118 And were found unto me (god) forever, in willful true sin forever, as because of that rejection. And to reject Jesus Christ my (god) son, it is reject me, forever,
-
119 For I (god) am found in Jesus Christ eternally forever and ever seen, and forever heard, and forever and ever, to always be found in Jesus the son, who is called god, forever.
-
C-298RW 5-29-2008AD
-
Roger wallace author of “THE GOD OF TRUTH”, found at: www.thevillagecarpenter.info----- isbn 978-1-60585-521-9.
-
-
-
-.

I am a christian and don't purport to know much about Islam, however i do know that all muslims aren't extremists - though the media would have you think different. This piece that you wrote is very important; i was at lunch with someone not to long ago that stated "Why don't muslims come out and speak in solidarity against extremist muslims, i just don't get it"....i tried to draw analogies against racism in America during the jim crow period where some extremist christians spreaded hatred against blacks, and that although there were christians that spoke out against this the hatred was so deep it permeated everything....anyway, after reading your piece i forwarded it to my friend that i had lunch with - i hope it helps answers their question. It certainly helped answer some of mine.

Thanks

What would happen if Muslims had more power like USA does today and USA was a weaker nation militarily with lots of oil? My opinion is we would all be dead or taken over by Muslims. Why I think so? History tells me Islam is a expansionist and very militant/violent "religion".

Its base was in Arabia (where the pure intolerant form is still practised along with wherever it spreads) and from Arabia it has expanded mostly by violent methods. Look at Osama always declaring USA to become Islamic or it would be wiped out. Look at elected Iraniaan president and its citizens openly calling for death to Israel and USA.

Mr. Eboo Patel himself praised his prophet but never say a negative word about Saudi society which is extremely intolerant and violent. The Saudis are only supposed to follow the prophet's
laws. If those laws are compassionate and tolerant then how could Arabs and other Muslims be so wrong in deciphering those laws?

In his last blog, Patel criticized RSS as a violent Hindu organization but not a word on recent bombings carried out by Muslims targeting Hindus and the ethnic cleansing of Hindus from Pakistan and now Kashmir.

Paul, I beg to differ with your assertion that all terrorists are Muslim. Timothy McVeigh was not Muslim. Nor Terry Nichols. Not Robert Mathews. (Look him up if you need to.) White supremacists are as much terrorists as Islamofascists. Let's try to think outside the box, please.

if you mean what you say, take them down, let the world know these people are dead and that Islamic terrorism will not be tolerated.
just saying what you said doesn't cut it.

In polls some have said they think Obama is a Moslem though clearly he is not. Even so I think maybe a Moslem Obama would do better for America than the fanatical Christian noise I hear, and most of the comments here reenforce my view.

In other words, we Muslims want people to know that we hate Muslim fanatics as much as non-Muslims do, and we are shocked and hurt that so many people either aren’t listening or don’t believe us.

-- I am honestly and frankly relieved to read this. Seriously.

Eboo,
What koolaid are you drinking?? Open your eyes.. I have normal muslim friends (Indian) who are perfectly okay in all aspects except when we talk about religion! They defend all crazy things with weird comparisons ( like Timothy McViegh & Christians in terrorism context)!

Now read the following hair-raising news in liberal NYTimes.
"Al Qaeda Warrior Uses Internet to Rally Women "

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/28/world/europe/28terror.html?scp=1&sq=malika&st=nyt

This woman draws 1200$/month from Belgian govt in unemployment benefits ( I say, benevolence of the West) and is running a Jihad website exhorting muslims to kill infidels.. and she has a raving following! I did not hear any moderates shouting her down.

Where are all the Catholics denouncing child molestation? The vast majority sit there silently, aiding and abetting the rape of infants and children. Catholics claim Catholicism is a religion that respects the sexuality of little boys, but we don't see Catholics marching in the streets denouncing prelate pederasty? Nowhere. They just keep kissing the hands of these criminals at communion.

-- what are you, high? Don't you know that it was the actions of the faithful laity who forced the American bishops to create accountability?
Look, in your post, you mentioned two big targets -- Catholics and Jews. It's obvious you're an anti-theist who gets moist at the thought of slandering a faith.

Mr. Patel, you discount the merits of the analogy by introducing red herrings (ie survey data, scholarly reports, your speech anecdote, Nazism's total evil and power structure).

The analogy is simply meant to compare two groups/sub-groups, Germans/Nazis and Muslims/Extremists, and show how in both circumstances each group was/is unable to police/control its fringe elements or extremists.

Certainly this type of complicit human behavior is not unique to Nazis, Muslims, or the 20th century, yet a recurring theme throughout history.

I appreciate the views of this commentator and even can accept his view that Al-Quaida is not a monolithic power like Nazi Germany that dominated their civilian populations. BUT, the attitudes of the civilian population of Gaza toward Hamas and of the Syrian and Lebaneese muslim populations toward Hezbolah which advocate the annihilation of the people of the state of Israel is not so enlightened. Indeed, in recent surveys over 70% of those populations approved of the these terrorist organizations and approved of the use of violence as a means to advance their interests. Unfortunately, where radical Islam gets more vicious is when it comes into direct conflict with Israel. There, the consensus of muslims favor non-peaceful solutions. Moreover, in 1949 at the time of the creation of the state of Israel, efforts were made to avoid a war of independence. More than 70 Arab chiefs (Muftis) that lived in Israel were approached and offered to live in peace. The few who took the offer were assasinated. Unfortunately, the culture of violence and hatred there is so profound that it is difficult to even find moderate muslims who will speak up in a public forum. It is a hopeful sign that muslim moderates exist in this country but we need not be deceived that the muslim leadership in other parts of the world and their oppressed populations are not committed to radical causes. It will take many years and fundamental changes in the way muslim and Arab children are taught to hate others -- before the source of radical muslim can be extinguished.

Where are all the Catholics denouncing child molestation? The vast majority sit there silently, aiding and abetting the rape of infants and children. Catholics claim Catholicism is a religion that respects the sexuality of little boys, but we don't see Catholics marching in the streets denouncing prelate pederasty? Nowhere. They just keep kissing the hands of these criminals at communion.

Where are the Jews denouncing Israeli theft of Palestinian land and Israeli theft of US military secrets then sold to Communist China? Where are all the Jews marching against Israeli killings of Palestinians infants? Where are all the Jews marching against Israeli apartheid oppression in the Gaza/Warsaw Ghetto? Silence. More than silence, rabid attacks on those exposing the truth, especially the handful of Jews who support the truth.

The problem may be the media. Most of the biased media tries to portray the Muslims as terrorist while most of the them knows by heart that 99.9% of them are peace loving and only wants peace. Ironically history sides with them while most of other religions are the opposites.

I agree with most of your argument against analogies comparing Funadmentalist Islam to Nazism. I also believe there must be a silenced majority within Islam that is against this radicalized branch that plagues their religion. However, the other side of the coin is that while many might be against terrorism, Islam promotes the systematic discrimination and violation of women´s rights. I wonder why this is mostly true in Islamic nations? And in all honesty, as much as I would like to be completely tolerant of a foreing religion, this is one of the main reasons for my suspicion of Islam. Yes, I know scholars have written about how Islam is a religion of peace, and I agree with that fully. I read the Koran and found it to be very similar to other Holy books. But the bottom line is that there is some twisted way in which the Koran is misread and misinterpreted that seems to always lead to some form of radicalism. This, to me, is worrisome.

It is a mystical myth that Islam is a religion of peace, harmony, tolerance, compassion, equality. Are only extremists causing unrest in Palestine, Lebanon, Kashmir, Chechnya, Xiajiang, Sothern Thailand, Philipine, and other places where ever they live?
It is hard to beleve that a fifth of world population believes and subscibes to a seventh century bedouin tradion as a religion.From the outset, it became a savage, brutal human tragedy of torture, killing, and discriminatiom. Unfortunately, the sword of Islam has won with the increasing converts from a few hundreds to more than one billion.
God save the humanity

How odd to claim that the connection between Islam and Naziism is a false analogy. I was under the impression that in fact the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini of Jerusalem was very much in support of the Nazis in the earlier portion of the 20th century, and that much of the turmoil in the Palestinian territories may be due to his influence, and those in power with similar attitudes. It seems a very concrete connection between Islam and Nazis to me.

And it is also hard to claim that the common Muslims at that time were not involved in the anti-Jewish and anti-British attacks that followed this Muslim-Nazi cooperation. I respect Mr. Patel's sentiment, but I believe his facts and assertions are, unfortunately, incorrect.

It's so obvious that the majority of muslims hate the actions of muslim fanatics.

Just look at them marching in the streets, chanting and denouncing the bombings and beheadings.

Oh, wait....

Those were all people in favor of the bombings and beheadings.

Never mind.

billm

It's so obvious that the majority of muslims hate the actions of muslim fanatics.

Just look at them marching in the streets, chanting and denouncing the bombings and beheadings.

Oh, wait....

Those were all people in favor of the bombings and beheadings.

Never mind.

billm

Same can be said for the Christian Extremists like Timothy McVey and all those Christian Terrorists that have blown up numerous women's health clinics around our country!

In Fact: America has been attacked more times here at home by the Christian Terrorists then Muslim Terrorists! But Bush won't bomb them or torture them cuz they are white people.

Hi Eboo, you certainly represent the liberal minded, enlightened, politically correct Muslim perspective. I'm with you, bro. I wish the whole world were full of people like you.

Unfortunately, a good part of the Muslim world (in my experience), while not being an overt proponent of extremism, either expresses some indifference to extremists or shrugs off violent rhetoric. I'm not sure whether it is baseline anger at being slighted, manipulated, disrespected, etc., but there seems to be a fairly pervasive attitude that prevents loudly speaking up against acts of extremist violence. Unfortunately again, those that try and build up this 'clash of cultures' mentality only force people further into their corners. Thanksfully there seems to be some rational thinking in the works. By Britain and the US trying to drop the labeling of any violent act committed by Muslims, for whatever reason, with the whole religion, there seems to be a recognition that reconciliation is a far more powerful tool than confrontation.

For the love of all things Holy, we live in a country where a national donut chain will pull advertising featuring a cheerful young food icon just because she wore what appeared to be a keffiyeh in the photograph. So now, Rachael Ray of all people has been branded a terrorist sympathizer by the Michelle Malkin crowd.

We live in a nation where calling one a Muslim is a weapon used to cast fear and doubt on a presidential candidate, and the mere rumor of it is able to exact political damage.

We live in a nation where the patriotism of Muslim congressman Keith Ellison is challenged by the vile and despicable hate-monger Glenn Beck, who to this very day remains in CNN's employ.

We live in a nation unable to discriminate between a Muslim and a terrorist, a nation all to willing to use Iraq's women and children as a proxy for those who attacked us, only to regret that error some five years into this endless occupation.

In the face of that astonishing reality, is there any chance of educating the ineducable, who believe, as Pastor Rod Parsley tells them, that America was created by God to destroy Islam?

I fear not. I am deeply ashamed.

That's nice.........now can you tell your friends and associates to be a little louder please? Or is it their fear that is keeping them relatively silent. You made several references to muslims speaking out. Why haven't we heard of them until this piece? And please don't give the generic answer that our press doesn't cover it. If the authors, academics, and protesters really wanted to be heard on a global scale the American media would be more than happy to give them the coverage.

Muslims who don't speak out against violence are like mainstream American Christians who have been bullied so long by right-wing neochristian evangelicas that they are afraid or just too complacent to speak out. It's reminiscent of the Lutheran Chruch in the 60's and 70's where everyone was aghast if anyone spoke out against the Vietnam war in church. Abraham's children are generally pretty milk-toast and complacent unlike the outspoken Christ who did not fear castigation from the comparable Pharisees of His day.

@ Wanderer said:

"I believe that they don't denounce the terrorists in public or via government channels is that they fear them, they fear for their lives.
I'm sure that if the same were true in America, you'd be afraid to voice your dissent."

If the founding fathers and the people that fought in the revolutionary war had your attitude the United States would never have been born. Many more instances I can think of. Also, Muslims in America could protest fairly safely but it never happens in mass even here.

Let me say first that I am an "active pacifist" -- that is, I believe in actively promoting peace, creating understanding between peoples, and using military force only as a last resort and only for defense when attacked.

That said, let me point out that Mr. Patel's arguments leave out one critical point: action. It's nice that polls, books, and articles support the peaceful Muslim majority. But where were these people while Saddam Hussein brutalized Muslims in Iraq? Or even now when there are brutalized Muslims in Iraq? In Iran? In Afghanistan? Have Saudi Arabia and other moderate Muslim nations sent "peace-keeping" troops to Iraq? Sent food? Doctors? Peaceful moderating clerics? Look how poorly Iraqi refugees are being treated in neighboring Muslim and Arab states. A similar argument could be made for the Palestinian refugees who have been largely left to suffer for political purposes by Muslim and Arab states.

I'm disgusted by President Bush's empire building in Iraq. In no way am I suggesting things would be better there if Muslim soldiers where shooting at Muslim insurgents and civilians. But in far too many ways the Muslim majority is voluntarily inactive. Thank heavens their good will is in their hearts. Now it must be demonstrated by their actions too.

Peace.

Mr. Patel, I believe you have missed entirely the point of the analogy that ordinary Germans in 1930s Germany are akin to ordinary, peace-loving Muslims. In Germany, many were not Nazis, as your friend points out, but very few stood up to the dictating regime and tried to prevent what was happening. That makes those who did not stand against Hitler complicit, and that makes them guilty of all the crimes committed by Nazi Germany because they did nothing to try to stop those crimes. Ordinary Muslims today are complicit because they house/harbor/feed/support extremists, even though that aid may be given under duress. This latter point in no way justifies their actions, but only illustrates the cowardice and weakness of those who declaim terrorists, and then aid them out of fear and cowardice for their property or well-being. Western soldiers are dying and being betrayed by ordinary, peace-loving Muslims who are afraid to fight for themselves.

Let me ask you this. What are the statistics related to how many peace-loving Muslims have died fighting extremists (not died at the hands of extremists—because terrorism by definition targets the innocent). No, I'm talking about the number of peace-loving Muslims who have taken up arms against the extremists (or stood up to them in the small villages and outlands; not aiding them in any way) and given their lives for what they believe in and for world stability. How many? My guess is less than 1% of the Americans who've been killed fighting for peace-loving Mulsims (those same Muslims who then stab them in the back by reporting US military positions, housing and feeding terrorists, keeping terrorist positions secret, and setting roadside bombs for money as well as other atrocities). Is money more important than freedom? If peace-loving Muslims really hated extremism, they wouldn't kill Western soldiers and other Muslims for any amount of money.

No you are not innocent if you live amongst injustice and do nothing to stop injustice. You are complicit, and that makes you guilty of those injustices you allow to happen all around you.

IRN wrote: "It is absolutely hopeless to convince people brainwashed with news media that there are Muslims who are victims of fanatic violence and condemn such actions."

Many Germans were victims of the Nazis, not just jewish Germans, yet the average German citizen allowed it to happen. Muslim victims does not mean Muslims do not support terrorists.

IRN wrote: "More Muslims are killed by extremist than anyone else. Yet all self proclaimed experts of Muslims in these posts seem to believe that somehow, most Muslims sympathize with extremist. Perhaps someone can explain the twisted rationale here."

The twisted rationale is that those Muslims who were killed are either martyrs if they were good Muslims or were apostates for supporting the US or other "enemies of Islam". This twisted rationale allows terrorists to train the mentally ill and children to be suicide bombers. Its a rationale that I see accepted by much of the Muslim world since anything can be used to defend Islam.

IRN wrote: "Muslims are being discredited (no matter what they do) and demonized. Once discredited and demonized, it is fairly 'easy' to marginalize and silence them. I wonder if this happened to the Jews in Germany!"

Your analogy is totally backward. The Jews in Germany were not launching suicide strikes against Germans. If Muslims want credit for doing some good, lets see the good! Lets see them hand over Osama's head. Lets see them root out the terrorists in Pakistan, Iraq and Afganistan. Lets see them make the world a better place instead of cheering when a terrorist strike kills westerners or apostates.

IRN wrote: "My advice to those 'alarmed' by Muslim extremist is to READ and educate yourself. And perhaps step outside the boundaries defined by popular media and neo-conservative propaganda. I wonder if Nazis's were ever involved in such propaganda against Jews."

Was 911 propaganda? Was the London subway bombing, which had help from Pakistan, propaganda? Were the beheadings of westerners by terrorists in Iraq propaganda? Please, tell us what propaganda are we seeing that is wrong.

IRN wrote: "Some food for thought...remember learn to think for yourself."

And question authority! But Muslims are not stopping the current reign of terror, they support it overtly and silently, they do not defy it, they do not demonstrate against it, they do not turn in terrorists they know of, they give money to terrorist causes in the name of defending Islam, and they blame the west for all the problems caused by terrorists, as you seem to be doing. Sorry, I will not give Muslims the presumption of innocense when I see them doing little to stop what is going on in the name of their religion and many give silent if not outright support. This is not demonizing Muslims. Its Muslims making deamons out of themselves by remaining silent as horrors are committed in their religion's name.

so for the record, you are stating that most muslims do not like to see innocent civilians savagely murdered by terrorists? thank you for this thoroughly enlightening glimpse into the soul of the muslim community. it is good to know that muslims are not enthused by the acts of terror that are present wherever there happens to be a significant muslim population. I believe, however, the question is not whether or not muslims approve of terrorism, but what they do to prevent it. a petition is the epitome of inaction. it is nothing but words. the cliche "talk is cheap" comes to mind.

another quick question: Do most muslims perceive the standard rag-bound, car-bombing jihadist to be the terrorist or do they believe it is America? Just wondering. thanks!

The issue is not what 'ordinary' Muslims believe. This is similar to arguing that 'ordinary' Jews do not advocate perpetual violence in the name of securing the state of Israel. The issue, or problem, is that 'ordinary' Muslims are not taking enough action against their fanatic bretheren. Action in the name of a petition, or scholarly article, or survey is fine, but it is not enough. This type of action does not convey messages to the hundreds of thousands of Imams around the world who preach the ideas of jihad.

Real action, from 'ordinary' Muslims, should involve a way to make the messages of moderation and peace in Islam louder and more widespread than the messages that we have come to fear. And this can be done by ensuring that the Madrassahs, which are educating untold numbers of young Muslim boys and girls, are providing a more balanced education. Or by pressuring the governments of Islamic states to crack down on cross border terrorism. There are 'ordinary' Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran as well. Why do they not speak up?

Perhaps this quote from you does compare ordinary Muslims to complacent and fearful Germans; "The fear that silences the majority of Muslims trying to tell you that they want peace, prosperity and pluralism, too." Ordinary Germans were also fearful of speaking out...I would never compare the extremists to Nazis, but there is some resemblance to what the German people did, keep quiet to keep safe...

If all the peace loving Muslims spoke out instead of the few that do, how could the terrorists target them all? They could not, the very problem is the lack of a majority voice. If only a few Muslims are willing to publicly denounce the extremists those few will be targeted. If every Imam denounces them, could they target them all? No.

Freedom must be fought for by all and winning it is only the first battle.

Now You realize that?
We Hindu are saying from begining, Their religiuos teaching itself is wrong, Fundamentally, Your relegious is wrong, ther is no huminity and kindness, not teaching in write direction also belief of Muslim is fundamentally wrong. I am not good writter but , believe me you Musulim people does not have spiritual value.

Mr. Patel,

Americans don't need your explanation. Americans just hate even ordinary Muslims for who they are. We have been fed hate in some Churches and Synagogues for so long- long before 9/11. The Media graciously dished out a lot of erroneous information and lots of misconceptions about Islam and Muslims; all for the sake of Israel- the illegitimate baby of America.

Now You realize that?
We Hindu are saying from begining, Their religiuos teaching itself is wrong, Fundamentally, Your relegious is wrong, ther is no huminity and kindness, not teaching in write direction also belief of Muslim is fundamentally wrong. I am not good writter but , believe me you Musulim people does not have spiritual value.

Terrorism is a tactic that has been employed by countless people and political organizations over time. It is important to realize that terrorism has no political affiliations whatsoever. Terrorism is an effective way for a weak group of people to assert themselves against a more powerful opponent. It has no moral value in and of itself, and it is certainly less destructive than the military tactics employed by more powerful nations.

The word itself, however, is perjorative. We use the term "terrorist" to condemn people who employ the tool of terrorism to undermine the best interest of our own nation. In that application, we elevate ourselves morally above the perceived radicalism of the terrorist. We do not, however, universally condemn the application of terror. When terrorists act in a way that serves our best interest, we tend to call them something positive, like "freedom fighters."

Consider, for example, the shifting relationship between the US and Osama Bin Laden. Bin Laden was trained in terrorist tactics by the CIA. The US provided training, funding, and equipment to Bin Laden in order to undermine the Soviet bid for power in Afghanistan in the 1980's. When he employed those tactics back then, we celebrated his fight for democracy. We called him an ally. He was a "freedom fighter." It was not until Bin Laden turned his aggression to the US that we began to criticize him for his "terrorism." It is important to note that his tactics had not changed - his target had. So, although we may employ the perjorative term "terrorist" to describe our enemy, our enemy is not terrorism.

Nor is our enemy Islam. As much as any other, Islam is a religion of peace. There is no reason to believe that Muslims are more inclined towards violence than anyone else. Certainly, terrorism is not a part of Islamic doctrine. While it is true that Muslim extremists have launched terrorist attacks against the US et al, widespread condemnations of Islam at large are rooted in a deep racist ignorance and a complete failure to understand the politics of religion. From a historical standpoint, Islam has been no more violent than Christianity, for example.

The truth is that our enemy is extremism. Muslims, Christians, Jews, Athiests, and Agnostics can all join together in our condemnation of extremist agendas and extremist behaviors. Creating false boundaries between peaceful people based on stupid misunderstandings only serves to strengthen the position of our true enemies.

In short, get a grip people. This article is right on. It is my hope that it will help spread understanding and acceptance - because those two principles are the best weapons that we have against extremism. Without them, extremism breeds extremism, which can only lead to the death of reason.

A young Jewish friend of mine once told me that "Islam is a beautiful religion." Clearly, very few of us are well enough educated to see that beauty. Please keep talking and writing!

Best to you,

Carolyn McPherson
Charlottesville VA

I saw Eboo on CSPAN when he was reading from his book, Acts of Faith: The Story of an American Muslim, the Struggle for the Soul of a Generation. He is a wonderful role model not just for muslims but for all Americans. Times are hard for a muslim in America. I believe in fighting terrorism how ever we can, but I never thought we would sink to this level in allowing bigotry to take a center stage. It will only bring injustice and dishonor to our country. In the future we will be embarrassed about how we treated one of our own. Seeing people like Eboo Patel makes me believe in the more tolerant and intergrated American family. You have our love and support wherever you go!

It is absolutely hopeless to convince people brainwashed with news media that there are Muslims who are victims of fanatic violence and condemn such actions.

More Muslims are killed by extremist than anyone else. Yet all self proclaimed experts of Muslims in these posts seem to believe that somehow, most Muslims sympathize with extremist. Perhaps someone can explain the twisted rationale here.

Muslims are being discredited (no matter what they do) and demonized. Once discredited and demonized, it is fairly 'easy' to marginalize and silence them. I wonder if this happened to the Jews in Germany!

My advice to those 'alarmed' by Muslim extremist is to READ and educate yourself. And perhaps step outside the boundaries defined by popular media and neo-conservative propaganda. I wonder if Nazis's were ever involved in such propaganda against Jews.

Some food for thought...remember learn to think for yourself.

So, where are the Moderate Muslims, standing up for the War on Terror? Perhaps they are still scared that it will end in a puff of smoke called Obama, who has promised to desrt them, even now that victory is coming into sight.

Unfortunately, Mr. Eboo is opposed by both impression and fact. The analogy to Nazi Europe (not just Germany) is most apt.

1. Surveys can be skewed. Please note the referenda in the Saar region in the 20s & 30s, when the population went from 99% anti German to 99% pro accession by Germany.

2. The demonstrations in the streets after 9/11 certainly give rise to the impression (right or wrong) that the average Muslim-on-the-street is against terrorism.

3. Recent demonstrations in France indicate that, for many (certainly more than 1%) it's "my way or the highway."

4. The laws, in many Muslim countries that not only discriminate against non-Moslems, but impose extra taxes on them, assuming that they are even allowed to live there.

5. The slaughters in Darfur, which while partially racial in nature (Arabs vs. Blacks) are significantly religiously motivated, targeting Animists. Can you say Pogrom?

Is it safe to assume that you, Mr. Patel, are Hindu? If not, forgive my assumption.

If you are hindu, let me ask you, how you can completely discount the bloody past of the Mughal Empire in India? Were those people peace loving muslims when they conquered and forcibly converted thousands upon thousands of Hindus to Islam and in most cases simply killed those that wouldn't convert. How can you say that muslims are a peace loving people when they have a past that is rooted in vicious atrocities performed on others they deemed to be "kaafirs"?

I'm afraid if Mr. Patel wants to make his point, some things need to be clarified.
- Who is the WE he's talking about? Seems to be a small subset of the overall Muslim population, and may be a majority of that minority subset.

- Many Muslim countries harbored Nazis after the war, collabarated with them during the war, and to this day are still using their materials and tactics to disseminate their message of hate and violence. See Holocaust denial; publication of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion; television shows teaching hate, violence, intolerance; maps and school lessons that don't show Israel, etc.

- Iraq invades Kuwait, the Arab world doesn't protest or intervene, ditto for the Taliban in Afghanistan.

- Most if not all of the Arab/Muslim countries in the UN continue to label Israel as racist and a human rights violater while ignoring Muslim on Muslim and Black on Black true genocide happening in Dafur. This isn't a minority, it is the non-democratic governments of these countries refusing to act in an un-Nazi like fashion.

- Given an opportunity to vote, folks in the West Bank and Gaza elect a terrorist organization dedicated to wiping the Jews off the map. And that same elected group instead of building infrastructure, has a violent overthrow of their rival, and continues to lob terrorist rockets into Israel and hide behind human shields. If the majority of Muslims are really un-Nazi-like, this is a strange way of showing it.

- Ditto for Lebanon, where you have a violent army within the country, supported by the Nazi-like Iran and wannabe Syria, who are forcing a takeover thfough non-democratic means with the concurrance of most of the Arab/Muslim world. They didn't stand up to the terrorists, they conceeded defeat and gave them power they couldn't win in free and fair elecetions.

- Oh, look a cartoon or a book that insults Islam. Shall we peacefully protest, write letters or petitions, or call for the death of the author or cartoonist, have mass demonstrations in the streets throughout the Muslim/Arab world, and show our intolerance for any form of criticism?

Sorry, Mr. Patel, you haven't made your argument yet, and certainly not for the majority of your faith.

Just one more comment in response to "Paul"'s post, posted: May 29, 2008 10:56 AM.

Not all terrorists have been Muslim. Tim McVeigh was about as apple-pie American as they come. I certainly wouldn't call him a Christian, but I can say with equal certainty that he was not a Muslim, and he was absolutely a terrorist.

Not to mention the IRA...

I agree with most comments here that. You are hoodwinked if you think progressive Muslims really give a damn about ending terrorism in the name of Allah. If the opposite is true, I hope these peace-loving Muslims speak up soon. Not to be an alarmist, but we could be headed to World War III with devote Muslims -- albeit radical extremists -- firing the first nuclear bomb!

Fine. I buy that equating all Muslims with all Nazis is unfair. But it's been shown time and time again that the refusal of the German people to stand up against the Nazis is as much a factor in the horrors that ensued there as any other. Nazism flourished in no small part because the German people refused to stop it, or even acknowledge the problem until it was too late. They stood by and watched from the safety of the vantage point that their white, anglo-saxon, protestant heritage provided as despicable, anti-semitic laws were passed, and people once considered friends and neighbors were abused, murdered, or hauled away in cattle cars. Those appeasing masses were as guilty as the ones throwing rocks through the windows of Jewish shops. I'm sure the vast number of Germans just wanted to live in peace too. The world has paid for their selfishness dearly. Please note that I say these things as the grand-daughter of a German-American immigrant who saw it all from both sides. If only 1% of the Afghan Muslim public supports the Taliban, then the 99% must stand up and stop them. They can do it better than any U.S. soldier ever could.

Excellent post, Mr. Patel; well reasoned and informative. Actually, it is much more so than the usual stuff I read here.

(FWIW, I am a militant athiest, but I do recognize and appreciate the quandary you face. I also greatly appreciate the absence of proselytism in your post.)

Instead of telling us how many people "support" the fanatics, how about some statistics on those who "do not support" the fanatics? How do you explain the 25% of Muslims surveyed by Pew in Spain and France who think suicide bombings are ok to defend Islam? And this was AFTER the subway bombings. How do you explain the support being given to al Qaida and the top leaders with multimillion dollar rewards on their heads? All have been hidden in spite of local police and military hunting for them. How do you explain the money flowing into terrorist organizations? And where oh where are the demonstrations? Where are those who turn in friends or relatives about to go off and bomb a subway or mall?

I'm sorry Eboo, I think your CEO friend has it right. I see Muslims proud that someone is defending their faith. I see those who denounce the terrorists themselves denounced, or made unwelcome. I see strong support for using terrorism to defend Islam, whatever that means and it can mean many things, such as getting US troops out of Saudi Arabia by bombing embassies or killing Muslims who support US interests or indiscriminantly launching rockets into Israeli towns and killing civilians. And I will always remember the images of Palestinians dancing in the streets to the news of 911. Sorry Eboo, your statistics do not tell a true story of Muslims and their views on terrorism. Listen to your CEO friend. He makes sense.

Islam is the only religion that has nations based on it. In fact more than 50 including the birthplace of prophet Mohammed, where you can be arrested for carrying a bible or geeta. I will believe Eboo when these intolerant nations become real secular.

Also why don't we see Muslims protesters in the streets after major attacks on civlians denouncing the terorrism? We only see them when Danes make cartoons or Pope calls them violent?

I don't doubt for a minute that a majority of muslims reject the extremists. Let me tell you however, that I think that their voices are not strong enough to offset the cacophony of Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad and company. Here in Argentina we have suffered two horrible bombings by islamic terrorists against the Embassy of Israel and a Jewish organisation's headquarters. The condemnations from muslim leaders here and abroad have been scarce and weak.

@ Paul:

Is it nice living in the blind and deaf fantasy world that you live in?

You said: "I do belive that not all Muslims are terrorits but so far all terrorists have been Muslim."

Please, put down your "We're Always Right!" revisionist history book and pick up something even slightly more realistic.

Every religion has extremists who commit acts of terrorism - Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, and yes, even Christianity.

You serve nothing other than prejudice against Muslims by mouthing off your narrow-minded view of the world.

The simple refutation to the argument that most Muslims want peace is the absence of Osama in the dock. If the overwhelming number wanted him captured they would long ago have taken the reward money and turned him in. Where is he?? Still hiding out "safely" in the Islamic world.

test

I was born in Bangladesh and lived thru my formative years there. The so called extremists are mainstream. That is why it is so difficult to combat these "extremists". What do I mean by extremists as mainstream; In Bangladesh there was systematic segregation of women, the society valued education very highly but education only for the male child. The mullahs (the priests) were basically uneducated. These people were responsible for the education of children but they could not read or write in Bengali forget about English. They could recite verses of the Koran but did not know what those verses meant. they mostly learned the Koran by rote. So, tradition ruled with sanctions from God and Koran. The tradition that ruled were imbued with intolerance, ignorance, poverty, communalism and yes hatred. That carries on today no matter how we want to paint it with gloss! I am sure Islam like any religion bring solace to people but Islam is more than solace. It is a way of life! I for one think it is incompatible with way of life in the 21st century.

The article is interesting regarding the differences in idealogy between Muslim "extremists," and ordinary Muslim, but I certainly do not agree with the comment that ordinary Muslims are doing something about it. If they are, their task is "low profile," (out of fear of possibly being harmed themselves) and not worthy enough to be considered news on our front paper or internet. What I've found to be interesting is that ordinary Muslim traditionally united "as one" to show their displeasure or grievance regarding a Westerner "insulting" their culture, such as disrespecting the Koran. The ordinary Muslim is more than willing and motivated to speak to the press and come on television to voice their negative opinion. However, whenever there is a world tragedy event, there is little-to-no reaction publicly by the ordinary Muslims? Rarely do we see on our television any mass public demonstration by ordinary Muslim denouncing such terrorist acts! I would certainly like to see this, because at leasat, it gives the perception to Non-Muslim people that you actually care! Yes, I'm quite sure as your article depicts that there are some courageous, ordinary Muslims that are working hard to denounce the violence by the Muslim Extremists, but on the whole, it is only a small percent! Unless more ordinary Muslim actually find the courage to participate as one to denounce publicly against the Muslim extremists, we will always continue to witness the same cycle of "us Americans" against the Muslims, and not understanding their religious culture.

Is this the April Fool's Day edition of the Washington Post?

I do belive that not all Muslims are terrorits but so far all terrorists have been Muslim. There is no reasoning with them. They must go and it is the Muslims that should do it in the countries they are in. These murderers use Islam and poverty to attract the new recruits. How to solve it? Fight religion with religion from within. All Muslims across the world should be in the streets protesting the Imams to stand up and denounce individuals, groups and more that are the fanatics. Name them. A jihad should be issued against these fanatics where all Muslims are commanded to do everything in their power to destroy these fanatics. But where is everyone? Without constant TV and internet instruction to the masses and in the mosques nothng will change. Aren't Muslims sick and tierd of someone else fighting and dying for them?

I didn't like your piece on bit. While not entirely similar, radical islam poses the same threat as nazism once did. You can't expect us to take you seriously, when you only quote polls that support your point of view.

I bring your attention to british polls, that reveal that "Twenty per cent felt sympathy with the July 7 bombers' motives"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html

My eyes on radical islam was forever changed on 9-11. While participating in a memorial outside the US Embassy in Copenhagen, muslims drove by in their cars mocking the mourners. They had the party of a lifetime. Later that evening I was assaulted by young wanna-be jihadist, claiming to be related to Osama Bin Laden. These examples are just drops in the ocean, to the experiences that drive me to fight radical islam.

While integration in USA is a success, it is a complete failure in Europe. I believe the prophetic Enoch Powell when he said "As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood.""

I am an Arab, a Moslem and an American. My world fell to pieces along with the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon when they were attacked on that fateful Tuesday in September, 2001. I kept asking where did these people who attacked us come from. Where did all this hate come from. Unlike many of the Moslem haters who came out of the sewers after that fateful day I never did blame what happended on the terrorists religion because I knew in my heart that these terrorists hate Moslems like me more than they hate Christians and Jews. I also know in my heart that if I am ever captured by the likes of them along with people of other faiths I will be the first to be butchered because I constitute a threat to their political agenda and the faith they corrupted in support of it. I know like me there are millions of Moslems who respect other faiths and believe all faiths are attempt by humans to reach the ever recurring question of why we are here and where are we going. I, along with others are a threat to those who believe in "my way is the only way" regardless of what faith they profess. This is what my mother taught me in my Moslem community in Jordan where I was borne more that 67 years ago and this is what I taught my children who were borne here in the USA 38 and 30 years ago. This is what my neighborhood believed in the then small town of Amman Jordan where Moslems and Christains lived in peace and understanding in the 1940s. Things may have changed there but I still believe that the vast majority of Moslems abhore what the terrorists are doing in the name of Islam and will always do.

@Spike:

Hit the moral equivalence button again, won't you?

Christian fundamentalists equal in terms of threat to Islamic terrorists? You've swallowed it hook link and sinker friend.

Equating 9/11 attacks with 'attacks' (quotes intentional) on the execrable GOVERNMENT educational system (run by and for Democrats) is silly, misguided and mendacious. Legitimate criticism of methods and the shocking quality of the final product (i.e. functional and cultural illiterates) is not an 'attack' - unless of course you employ the Clinton definition. It is not an 'attack' to ask educators to do their jobs properly.

Equating terrorist activities in which servicemen and civilians are killed with 'attacks' (quotes intentional again) on women's health scores another propaganda trifecta. You obviously believe 100% of the blather about abortion protecting women's health yet not even the most militant member of NARAL would declare that the majority of abortions take place to protect the mother's health.

Terrorism's tragic toll can be assessed by counting bodies. The 'harm' you perceive from persons who have the temerity to disagree with your hard-left agenda is all your mind, however.

I truly want to believe what you say, but hundreds of thousands have signed the petition.
Aren't there millions and millions that are Muslims?

When more of your faith speak out and are proud of their stand--I am behind you 100 per cent. A very strong rejection of the extremists needs to be made by the Islamic faith. They need to fill the airways of America and Europe with their rejection.

The wording of the petition is so very typical of the victimhood played up by Muslims. The concluding sentence begins, "No injustice to Muslims..."

This smacks of pandering to the extremist cause. It acknowledges that Muslims have grievances against a perceived Western oppressor. But why is it so difficult to issue a simple denunciation without stooping to this "woe is us" level?

All sorts of people of all sorts of faiths and cultures are oppressed across the globe. Muslims are no special example. It will be a sunny day when the majority of this more than 1 billion person community quits sulking and finally stands up against their true enemies - their very own governments.

It's sad that you even feel the need to say this. Unfortunately, the Americans that really need to hear this are convinced we are at War with Islam, are too stupid to think outside that frame and won't read or even listen to your observations.

Then where are your mass demonstrations against them? Why are there not Islamic resistance groups specifically targeting terrorists?

Who speaks for Muslims? NOT, Eboo.

Eboo represent a small liberal sect of Islam that is less than 1% of the total Muslim population in the world. For anyone interested, look up Aga Khan who is Imam (spiritual leader) of the Shia Imami Ismaili of which Eboo is a member. It is silly to regard Eboo fantasies about Islam when his little sect represents only 15 million of the 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide. Eboo and his small liberal group probably are not even considered Muslims by most of those in the world who practice Islam. Indeed the Imami Ismaili have no political power on the world stage.

If Eboo has no power why does the WAPO give him the forum? Because he represents a tolerant sect within Islam and those who are hard line Islamic won’t voice their opinions here since this would bring to light what they think and do in darkness. They are smart to let Eboo be their front man and propagandize those who are naive.

While Eboo feeds up his appeasement drivel based on the no doubt good intentions of his Shia Imami Ismaili philosophy, the majority of Muslims practice Islam more or less by the book, the Quran. And the Islamic nation of Iran continues to defy the world and develop nuclear weapons. And BTW, Iran has made it very clear that they want to annihilate the Jews and that America is the great Satan and that the holocaust never even happened. The last person and nation to say they wanted to annihilate the Jews was Nazi Germany. We paid little attention then and the results were disastrous. The furnaces that burned the Jews in WWII will look like child’s play when it comes to the furnace created by a nuclear bomb in the hands of Iran or other Islamic fanatics. That furnace will consume us all. The atom bombs we used in WWII killed 140,000 people. The atom bomb that Iran wants to use on Israel will kill 7 million people.

The Jews are kind of like the canary in the mine shaft. When someone, or some religion, or some ideology, or some nation says they want to annihilate the Jews, this should be a warning.

@ Lena

If a million Muslims marched against terrorism, who is to say that a vast multitude of them wouldn't die in explosions?

I'm not saying it will happen, but maybe they're afraid it will.

I am sick to death of hearing how many scholarly papers are being written and petitions being signed about how much "mainstream Muslims" object to the activities of the fanatics. The hard-core Islamist fanatics of the world don't read scholarly papers and certainly don't care a bit about petitions. They care only about their blind attraction to the most brutal and intolerant forms of their religion. Where are the peace-loving Muslim imams in all this? Why are they not fiercely condemning the actions of the 1% or 4% who murder wantonly in the name of their faith? Why are ordinary peace-loving Muslims not reporting the activities of the fanatics to the appropriate authorities so they can be taken off the streets? Why are they not speaking out - everywhere - against these insane and ungodly actions? Until this happens, I don't think Muslims in this country should be surprised if Christians and Jews look on them with suspicion.

@ Wanderer

I believe that they don't denounce the terrorists in public or via government channels is that they fear them, they fear for their lives. These are organized groups of people armed with very expensive fully-automatic rifles, RPGs, bombs, and other high-tech weaponry, and are not afraid to use them against the public or government who does not agree with them.

I'm sure that if the same were true in America, you'd be afraid to voice your dissent.

I am glad to hear that there are petitions and ariticles and polls.... I am glad to hear that the majority of Muslims deplore the actions of the extremists as much as non-muslims. I am glad that they recognize that they do as much or more harm to their own community as they do to others. Swell. The problem is the this is all silent...hidden...behind a door. What we SEE and HEAR every day on the news are images of Muslims killing, using children to kill other children, setting off bombs in marketplaces, well, the list is endless. You may not like that this drumbeat sends a powerful message...but it is the way the human mind works... Perhaps public protest is not a Muslim tradition...but I suggest you embrace it. I long to see a million Muslims marching against terrorism, lead by Muslim leaders walking in the footsteps of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, not just once but in every country with a large Muslim population. Actions speak louder than petitions, books, or op-ed pieces. I bet it will not only speak to Westerners but may even reach those terrorists who think they have general support.

Thanks you - a very thoughtful article!

There is absolutely no difference between fundamentalist Islamists (fanatics) and fundamental christians except that we never hear the fundie christians referred to as fanatics. This is not only discriminatory, it is ignorant. Fundamentalist christians do as much, nay more, harm to our people and our country than fundamentalist Islamists ever thought about doing. Fanatic christians attack on our public education system is perhaps the worst harm these people do although their attack on women's health comes close.

What is worse is that the people in our country give these fanatics a pass instead of denouncing them as they do fanatic Islamists. IF, we do not get control over fanatic christians we will be in deep fecal matter.

This Chicago CEO should go back and correct himself, may be he is BLIND and STUPID. I see this Republican administration as the new Nazi party, they are doing the same thing and trying to blame Islam. Cheney is worst then Hitler.
I think you need to look at the real picture, the US is invading Muslim country, and Muslims are not invading US. even the reality of 9/11 needs to be look at.
All the truth coming out of staff from the White House and you can see the lies Bush did to go to war. So i think all evidence of 9/11 needs to be questioned.

Then why don't the non-extremist organizeo counter the extremist activities, identify the leaders and perpetrators and denounce them in public forums. Where are the mullas?

I think the reason so many Westerners believe that Muslims as a whole support fanatics is because we don't hear Muslim governments and Muslim media repudiating or challenging them to explain themselves. After all, governments lock up regular citizens who criticize them, don't they? And why aren't pictures showing fanatics' victims on Muslim telecasts and in newspapers, along with statements like, "Al-Qaeda murdered these people?" So Westerners think, rightly or wrongly, well, down deep "they" must agree with the fanatics and want to kill all Westerners. And the old saw about "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" just doesn't wash: a freedom fighter fights against an occupying army, and his targets are that army's personnel and materiel, and the only civilian targets are collaborators; a terrorist is fighting for power that he can't get any other way, killing indiscriminately in an attempt to scare off those who stand against him.