Sad Coda to Cartoon

Any believer who feels the need to defend his/her religion with violence and murder isn't much of a believer. They're simply channeling their anger and ineffectiveness into revenge and retribution, and using God as an excuse. That can take place with believers of any faith, not just Muslims.

Nearly all major religions contain some variation of what's commonly known as The Golden Rule: treat others as you wish to be treated. If you wish to be treated with respect and dignity, then do the same to others. When you act with malice and violent behavior, you'll probably find yourself getting the same in return. I find it interesting that so many of the cartoon's protesters demanded tolerance and respect, yet showed not the slightest compunction to do the same in return.

The reason I find Christianity to be so compelling as a faith is that Christ Himself spoke strongly against His followers seeking retribution for the actions of the secular world. When Pilate asked Him why His followers didn't rise up to defend Him, Christ said: "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, they would rise up." There's a lesson there that believers of any faith should take to heart.

Faith in God is participation in something separate from the secular world. If more people of faith adopted this view and quit trying to play judge, jury and executioner on behalf of their faith, the world would be a much more tolerable place.

S. Heriger
http://sheriger-codex.blogspot.com

Just goes to show that folks that would otherwise consider murder a heinous crime are quite capable of supporting mass murder as perfectly justified when it's based on 'religious' grounds - and particularly when someone throws a few humorously contrived verbal barbs at your most cherished, if confabulated 'sacred' beliefs. Without humor, life is often altogether unbearable.

Humans are limited and fragile beings to begin with, especially as regards their emotional stability - without adding religious brainwashing to the mix. At that point, you've got a mighty volatile cocktail.

Regardless the unfairness of it, this is exactly this kind of behavior that continues to engender universal contempt for Islam, and particularly of the fundamentalist variety. The rest of the world views this kind of behavior and the beliefs and thinking that lead up to it as the actions of mindless religious zealots and medieval barbarians.

In my humble and considered opinion, this bombing shows that the religion of islam can not stand up to any scrutiny. It teeters on the brink of charlatanism, has no sense of humor, or tools to deal with the modern world.
I feel sympathy for the people who think islam is the answer to all life's ills. They're in prison and don't even know it.
Muslims don't believe God would deign to come to Earth or have anything to do with us directly. What a cold, distant, unfeeling god that must be.

Why do thoughts become collective and emerge into Groupthink?

Once the level of Groupthink is reached, everything becomes justified irregardless of its irrationality.

Specifically related to this, I ponder this quote:

"An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind." -- Mahatma Gandhi

As an editorial cartoonist, I've followed this story with quiet concern.

What if this were me?

I can't say how other professional artists and illustrators do it, but I get assignments that say roughly what the editors want to see. "Kids holding protest signs saying..." or "Administration officials digging in dumpsters" or the like. Usually not too specific, but I know what they're looking for. They leave the 'art' up to me.

I can speculate that 'such-and-such' cartoon might offend someone, but it has become realistic that my life - and the lives of others - might be at risk because of it. Do I submit to self-censorship and turn it down, but potentially lose a paying gig or damage my reputation as a 'willing and able' artist and hurt future prospects? Do I draw it and pray that the offended group isn't armed, or able to find my address? What would YOU do?

Violence in the name of Faith is almost universally condemned. Except when it comes to the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh), or the Virgin Mary (who's image done in unsavory ways has landed artists death threats), or when faith in certain Governments is challenged, and the offending artists are imprisoned - or worse. I'm very spiritual, but my faith is far from the majority in this country and I see it mocked and commercialized all over the place. I take it with salt, 'turn the other cheek' and try to see the humor in it when laughs are genuinely deserved.

Violence is easiest when the victims are dehumanized. Call them 'infidels' or 'insurgents' or whatever, and you can take a step back from the breathing, wincing, bleeding faces and do unspeakable things... and that frightens me. The best weapon against dehumanization (done through ignorance and fear) is education.

As an artist, I feel that if you offend with your art, you should own up to it. Apoligize. If you were trying to be purposefully offensive, to me, that isn't "art", and is far, far from professional.
Even using the 'eye for an eye' justification, nobody is physically injured when seeing a cartoon or image that upsets them. Nobody dies of anger at their diety's insult. The artist doesn't deserve to die because of something they drew, or worse yet, totally innocent people who just happen to be near the embassy of the country that happened to hold the newspaper that published it, three long years after the fact.

Gods Bless Everybody, Everywhere. Period.

Forget about Islamic Extremists,

How would SCOTUS rule on an editorial cartoon depicting this statement?

"Bong hits 4 Allah"

Kelargo:
The Bong Hits 4 Jesus case was one of my possible assignments recently, so it's funny you bring that up. The standard for 'offensive' these days seems skewed in odd ways. Mocking homosexuality: ok. Female sexuality: not ok. Mocking white people: Always ok. Black people: only ok if done BY black people. Mocking Judea or Christianity: almost always. Islam: Clearly never. I guess it comes down to whom the target audience is, and if off-target gets upset instead.

Over six hundred bloggers posed the same question about Scientology.

It is not the content of any supernatural belief that is questioned but the fruit of its practice on the believers themselves and others who do not follow the same set of belief and practices.

Religious practice is expected to make human beings better and improve the lot of the human condition. When violation of human rights enter the equation in the practice of any religion every human being has a sacred and civic duty to question the religious practice, expose the bad practice and do what is necessary to protect those who might be affected negatively.

RCG:

These non-linear, non-reciprocal, arbitrary social restraints remind me of the one verse from Rudyard Kipling's poem, "If For Boys".

Seems like some people have never understood these few words and have become harbingers of unrealistic fantasy.

"If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools;"

Compare and contrast Islam and Scientology in the following

access to Scripture and financial investment required to acquire them

the main tenets and vision for human beings and transparency in propagating the real goals of the belief system

methods of recruitment/spread of faith

freedom of followers and respect for human rights

treatment of non believers and their human rights

treatment of critics of their practices

fate of those who choose to opt out of the belief system and practices

Islam is a world religion with 1.3 billion followers. Scientology is not considered a religion at all although it has managed to get tax exemption status in the US by a method not considered exactly noble.

This is the same voice that hypocritically asked,"why be haters?"

with the same lack of research displayed in her other pieces-
' a woman on the street said' 'according to some reports'

and with her finger always pointed outward

no critique of worth- no constructive analysis

VICTORIA:
What would you say is constructive analasys of violent reactions to editorial cartoons?

What would you say to the families of those killed outside the Danish embassy?

What would you say to MY family if I was killed for one of MY editorial cartoons?

Your journalistic integrity is waiting to shine forth.

well- first- people like ms. hoffman are exactly the kind of people who this is being played out for-
her simplistic overview reveals ony the most superficial attribution of the event- religion-
this has nothing to do with religion but a power struggle between political factions in pakistan-

even the most cursory of research this event would expose the worms crawling under the rock-
but it is easy, and requires no thought to pop off a reactionary piece like this because sheknows most people are as unaware of what happened there as she chooses to be-

RCG ASKS-
"What would you say is constructive analasys of violent reactions to editorial cartoons?"

the first question one should ask is 'who stands to benefit?'
here is a quick synopsis of the event and its catalysts- by a pakistani lawyer-

RCG ASKS- "What would you say to the families of those killed outside the Danish embassy?
What would you say to MY family if I was killed for one of MY editorial cartoons?"

secondly- RCG- unless your family is living in islamabad- there is nothing to say to them as the only people who were injured and affected were pakistanis- (which is in asia- not the middle east)
no one associated with the cartoons was affected at all.

the reaction of an observer of pakistani politics follows-

"Horrible.

Reaction to it will really show what Pakistan’s new government is going to do about terrorism. Their peace deal with the militants in FATA had brought a temporary lull in bombings. Then this one occurred, in Islamabad no less and at a prominent target — Danish Embassy (thus invoking the Cartoon Fiasco to make sure the West saw).
You have to wonder if its a party that is OPPOSED to the PEACE DEAL. The deal was with Pakistan Taliban. They don’t govern the international groups like Al-Qaeda who probably have their own agenda so it could be the latter, trying to drive wedge in the peace deal. There are TWO classes of suicide operations in Pakistan: there is one that hits targets that are valuable to Pakistanis (Naval War College in Lahore and the hotel in Karachi come to mind) and there is one that hits targets that are VISIBLE to the WORLD (Musharraf, Danish Embassy). Al-Q probably falls on the latter side. They like to play big.
Pak Taliban wouldn’t hit Danish Embassy because they stand to gain nothing from it — their militancy is connected to larger Pashtun Nationalism/NATO presence in Afghanistan.
Yes, Danes have troops in NATO, but its not like the militants don’t know that the FIRST thing people would think about would be the Danish Cartoons and NOT NATO. Groups that like to believe they are freedom-fighters like Pak Taliban like to deliver easily understood messages with their killing. That’s why when they go into some place they kill officials and hang their bodies. Al-Q doesn’t do that. I have to conclude therefore that this was al-Qaeda trying to stir things up.

Of course, there is an overlap here b/c Pak Taliban and Al-Qaeda are BOTH operating out of FATA."

having just spoken to a man who witnessed the bombings, pakistanis have their own vociferous dialogue which is comprised of trying to re-educate his fellow pakistanis about what our religion teaches-

the killing of innocents is strictly forbidden- period-

sadly- it is the predictable knee-jerk pseudo-journalism of the ms. hoffman's of the world that al-qaeda is relying on and she is actually fedding the machine that makes such events continue to happen-

without people with respnses like hers- such terrorists and militants would have to find another avenue for their political jockeying-

she plays right into their hands with her patent stereotying and superficial treatment of conflicts that only seem to be reduced to religion by the most misinformed and intellectually lazy

and this can hardly be caled a coda-
ms hoffman should leave the clever alliterations and concentrate more on the content

and this can hardly be caled a coda-
ms hoffman should leave the clever alliterations and concentrate more on the content

also, the lawyers analysis was correct-
al qaeda has claimed repsonsibility for the bombing-

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-qaeda-denmark-embassy.html

I really hope Ms. Hoffman reads these pieces here-
To live successfully and engage each other in a peaceful society- we must take the time to learn about what others truly believe- and not let fear be our guiding principle.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/eboo_patel/2008/05/queen_rania_and_inspiring_the/all_comments.html

this is an extraordinarily beautiful and comprehensive exegesis on how anathema terrorism and extremist behavior are to islam-
don't be intimidated by it's length- start on page 17-

http://warda.info/fatwa.pdf

this is true islam- not what sells papers- nor galvanizes fear- i challenge any to find anything at all in it that is untrue- or be untouched by its essential beauty.

Victoria - over countless posts on many threads you've made the case for the beauty and pacifism of Islam, which you are clearly in love with as (I presume) a white, anglo-american convert and practitioner of the faith....but as with all religions, it's the practitioners of said religions that are the problem.

Al quada are practitioners of the faith and base their behavior on the coda of Islam, however perversely. As usual, it's people that are the problem, not the metaphysics of religion. But then, what is religion without people?

Victoria-

Before you take on the task of correcting Ms. Hoffman, please go live "successfully" in a Muslim country and (as a converted American woman) engage this "peaceful" Islamic society you speak of (but does NOT exist). You must take the time to learn about what others TRULY believe- before you instruct others.

i dont know if is possible to be any whiter than i am perspective-
but dont forget- im a people too-

and there are alot more scholars out there denouncing al qaeda and their ilk than there are proponents of it-

so i choose not to dragged down by the lowest common denominator just as i choose to be elevated to the most sublimne heights my religion can offer-

and all from the sources of people-
we all make tiny choices all the time-

but let me disavow that the al qaedists and extremists are basing their behavior on anything even remotely connected to or resembling islam-

their actions are in direct contradiction to islam in so very many substantiated ways-
(please take a look at either link- but especially the second)

to even align their behavior as a perversion is to connect an inherent corruption to the ideology of muslims which is not there-

they are wrong- they are corrupt- the defile and betray islam by attmepting to define themsleves in its image-

they are stinking up the place with their political machinations by trying to disguise their own ugly ambitions behind the cover of religion-

one of the beauties of islam is that my white whiteness cannot be held (doctrinally anyway) against me-

however- the personal choices people make to justify their own imbalances and hatreds and dysfunction are just that- their choice-
not to be confused with religion-

really i recommend reading that second link- warda/info-

i wish the author would read it- this is the second ill informed and negatively stereotyed article she has written on islam-
its a shame because she is actually empowering these terrorists which the rest of us are attmepting to, if not rehabilitate- or reconcile back to the true practice-
then outright condemn and isolate

doesnt she know that they blew up that embassy precisely because people lie her will write abiut it and perpetuate this myth of the misbegotten?

"What do you think?"

I think this bloody rage over cartoons is nothing new. It has been with Islam since the beginning:

The assassination of satirical poets in early Islam was commonplace- Al-Nadr bin al-Harith, Uqba bin Abu Muayt, Asma bint Marwan, Abu Afak, Kab bin al-Ashraf, Ibn Sunayna, and on and on..

VICTORIA:
You're right, "woman on the street" smells of journalistic weaksauce, but i disagree with her panning Islam. Infact, she says:
"This is the kind of story that sends the anti-religion people into a fervor, proof to them that religion makes lunatics out of us. I find that thinking simplistic..."

And you are also right, not living in Islamabad, I'm not likely to be subject to terrorism because of my art. That kind of thing could never happen here, just like nobody hijacks planes to crash into buildings, puts bombs in trucks parked in basements of buildings or just outside, shoots clinics providing women's health services (including abortion) or kills people just because they're homosexual and flirted with them. That never happens in this country. People take religion to violence about as often here as anyplace else - it just depends on how you choose to percieve that violence. Refusing to discuss it - as, in the cartoon example, it pertains to Islam - because it's uncomfortable lends as much power to 'the terrorists' (whomever they are) as does blindly attacking followers of that beautiful, charritable and inherently peaceful faith.

We could all learn from the pious examples of community service and charity found in the Holy Quran. To paraphrase one, "Have you seen he who denies religion? That is one who is rough with the orphan".

But, if what "woman on the street" said is true, that 'they' deserved it, then we need to learn where the supporters of violence get the idea that it's OK, and somehow supported by religious texts or scholars. Where does the person that indescriminantly kills get community support or resources from? Why does that community think the perpertrators actions are ok?

Those are the questions asked by the main article, I belive. Her question wasn't just pointed at Islam. It's pointed at anyone that kills in the name of their 'just and merciful' diety.

Additionally, you didn't answer what I am supposed to do if my art causes some kind of offense like that. No, I'm not currently in Islamabad, but should I then never leave the fortress of my home because *years* down the road someone, somewhere who harbored a grudge might blow me up?

"I've been wondering lately if it isn't that religion in its content is so vulnerable and subjective because it deals with the unseen that believers feel particularly threatened -- or worse, mocked -- when questioned."

Religion deals with the unseen - exactly! Obviously! Not only is what it deals with unseen, but it is also unverifiable. Religion is of course a matter of faith, and not only that, BLIND faith. Their specific philosophies and dogmas vary, but in the end it usually comes down to believing in a creator and whether there is an afterlife of some sort. These things can per definition never be proven one way or the other.

All religions have flaws in their logic, inconsistencies and down-right self contradictions. But point them out, even in the form of a cartoon, and some people will always get up in arms about it because faith can't be defended with logic. Some people simply get ticked off when you question their faith because in the end religious faith is blind, and they simply can't tolerate anything that contradicts it.

It seems to me that we have one of two choices: either to decide that no identity group can be the subject of political cartoons or that they all can.

I hear the Danes have refused to cave on this. If so, more power to them. I returned from Islamabad on Monday. The pathetic thing is the number of moderate to left-wing observant Muslims who deplore this reactive violence and those who defend it.

The do speak out. Occasionally in the New York Times. Interesting that it is hard for them to get their voices heard. Highly educated people, too. But, then, a lot of people can't get heard by the media.

Fundamentalism, intolerance and organised religion play a major part in this kind of despicable violence but not the only part. In my opinion it is intertwined with economic problems. People who feel they have nothing to lose may be more easily convinced to strap on some bombs. Slums provide a better breeding ground for both fundamentalism and terrorism so to speak.
Obviously economic depravation is just as despicable an excuse for terrorism as religion is but the two factors require different 'solutions'.

Victoria:

I'm not claiming moral superiority for the Western World and definately not for Christian Morals. They've shown that regarding the secular world at least, they have none.

However, as a human, I a sick of seeing atrocities committed in the name of Islam, whether its al qeada, Saddam Husein or the Taliban in a great many Islamic nations.

My problem is not with the words of supposedly opposed moderate muslims, but their actions. I really want moderate muslims to grow a pair of large stones and police their own, and stop the madness of fundamentalist oppresive Islam that is all that Westerners hear about.

Words are cheap. Until they can match them with actions and create that Islamic state that does not allow sharia law to override secular laws, oppression of women particularly with regard to education and freedom of travel, nor allow apostacy punishments under any circumstances, then I cannot but believe Islam is not capable of acting in a civilized manner in a secular world.

Well, as an American, I think it's, frankly, insane to kill people over cartoons.

As a religious person not expecting much better from either side if people define the world by 'religious war,' well, I'd say, it's polite to recognize modern Muslims' desire not to see Mohammed depicted, even if medieval Muslims seem to have had no problem with this...

But I'd say before that, before monotheists start copyrighting their prophets' and Gods' likenesses, maybe they could return the courtesy by not proclaiming in a defamatory manner what they think the 'idolatry' of *my* religious images are about...

Fair's fair, and respect is respect.

Oh, yeah, and cartoons are cartoons. If you want to live in a world where people of other religions can't criticize or even lampoon another, then, be consistent.

Otherwise, you're doing the same thing you decry.

The truth of the matter is simple: anyone will feel threatened when their worldview is attacked, whether their worldview is of a religious nature, or based upon a pure naturalism. I find is sad that so many non-believers feel the need to mock believers. The very intolerance they claim exists in believers is often evident in their own behavior. "But it's justifed!" they claim, and once again we're heading down the slippery slope with no end it sight.

To wit, M_Robber's response was a perfect example of this. My response here is a bit off subject, but since it's a response to a post, I believe it's in good faith. He/She has fallen victim to the "blind faith" argument. Actually, all faith is not blind, and some actually has an overwhelming amount of evidence to support it.

A large number of agnostic cosmologists and astronomers (Smoot, Jastrow, to name a few) freely admit that their belief in a purely natural universe is a choice based upon their faith in science, as science cannot tell us what caused the Universe to come into existence, and both have gone on record as noting the startling similarities between The Big Bang event and the Creation event as described not only in Genesis, but elsewhere in the Torah. Others have gone on record as noting the the progression of events in Genesis is a match for the scientific record—specifically, the creation of the universe, formation of stars and planets, arrival of seed-bearing (and oxygen producing) plant life, followed by complex life arising in the seas, then on land, and then the arrival of modern man.

You can banter around with biblical semantics all you want, but you can't change the fact that the scientific and biblical accounts follow the same order. Please tell me how a man wandering around the Sinai desert 3,500 years ago, with absolutely no knowledge of modern science, could dream up something like that out of nowhere. After a lot of study, I was surprised to discover that belief in a purely natural Universe is also a faith position, as science cannot predict the cause of the Universe...as we back up in time to the Big Bang, the laws of science break down and are useless for predicting was took place beyond a certain point...that is, what cause it all, and what caused the amazing amount of information and order that set the course for what followed. In the end, I choose biblical faith over faith that it happened naturally. M-Robber, you might not like this fact, but it's a real one: your belief in a naturally-occurring world without a creator is a faith position as well. Just because science can describe how things work, it doesn't eliminate the fact that science can't even offer an scientific explanation for how it got started. You would have a valid argument if you could show me a scientific cause for how everything came to be, but you can't. You must accept naturalistic origins on faith alone.

Furthermore, the Bible also predicts, thousands of years on advance, a number of very specific and remarkable events that took place in recorded secular history: the diaspora of the Jews, the return to the homeland, and the reestablishment of Israel in a day. Look them up... it's all there. Not to mention that the Book of Daniel predicts a very specific arrival of the messiah at a point right around 30 AD, when Christ began his ministry. He did this hundreds of years before the event, as copies of Daniel can be dated to at least 300 BC, eliminating the argument that they were written after the fact.

Overall, when I looked at the big picture, which includes science and recorded secular history, I found a startling amount of evidence that's supportive of the Judeo-Christian faith as legitimate. I don't pretend to understand everything in the Bible, but I don't doubt the veracity of the claims. As a result, I simply think it's wrong to act on something when you can't claim to fully understand it...and that's a lot of the Old Testament law, which I think most people take out of context.

I do claim to fully understand one part of it, however, and that's to love my neighbor as God loves me...unconditionally, and without judgment. That's the most important commandment, and when you break it, you break the whole deal.

As irrelevant to the topic as it is, Anonymous,

...err, what?

"You can banter around with biblical semantics all you want, but you can't change the fact that the scientific and biblical accounts follow the same order. Please tell me how a man wandering around the Sinai desert 3,500 years ago, with absolutely no knowledge of modern science, could dream up something like that out of nowhere."

Well, since that man was from Egypt, he certainly could know better science than the Bible, but what makes you think the Bible, which has been used to justify every anti-science dogma its believers ever came up with, was somehow prophetic of M-theory? It's *still* used to claim the Earth is orders of magnitude younger than your average highway blasting zone could tell you.

I mean, no, if you understand science to begin with, you don't *have* to read the Bible as contradicting reality, if you don't want to, but the Bible never exactly properly informed anyone on science.

Oh, and on this, speaking of respect for others:

"M-Robber, you might not like this fact, but it's a real one: your belief in a naturally-occurring world without a creator is a faith position as well."

There is a difference between observing the mechanisms of a perfectly-explainable naturally-occuring world, and claiming there is either a humanlike Biblical architect or no 'God' at all.

Actually, the mathematics show that it's not *necessary* for there to be an artificer: the mathematics point to potentially-perfectly natural causations that don't require artifice. Experimentally *proving beyond doubt* may prove difficult given that anything 'before' that isn't in the space-time-continuum as we understand it, but it doesn't demand by any means humanlike artifice: the multiverse is *physically huge beyond comprehension,* ....on scales like that, seeming impossibilities become *statistical inevitabilities, somewhere, somewhen.*

Doesn't mean it's not 'alive' in some way, as our limited beings see it, but it does not compel a belief that the Bible contains good science or by extension, license to rule over others or riot over cartoons or anything like that.

It may be easy for humans to find a honeycomb on the beach and presume it must be the bumper lining of'82 Honda, but that doesn't mean it's humanlike artifice. Heck, if the Lady beamed down and handed me Excalibur, I wouldn't figure on my copy of 'Sir Gawain' to be telling me about geology. Forget about it.

Fact is, people try to befuddle one with how utterly-improbably our world seems... Even 3500 years seems beyond what we can relate to, never mind fourteen billion years among more visible galaxies than there are grains of sand on all the beaches any human ever might have crashed a Honda upon... each of those with about as many *stars* ...

Etc, etc.

Just cause it's *easier* to throw up your hands and say 'It must be contrary to Nature' doesn't mean it *is.*

And just cause it's aligned with Nature doesn't mean there's no Spirit to it. Someone with a book taught you to think that way. Doesn't make it so.

In some ways it's a perfectly reasonable observance not to want to try and replicate 'Creation,' ...my Celtic ancestors certainly took on the custom of distorting such depictions and showing them for fluid changes, in that way...

As for confusing books and men for 'holy of holies, do not question or look too hard,' ...well, I observe people end up rioting over Harry Potter books and cartoons and worse, trying to make the one thing fit the other without really looking.

As for 'God,' She's big enough for a few radio telescopes, ...and cartoons, I promise. :)

Mullahs getting worked up over some cartoons is not surprising. But ordinary Muslims getting worked up over them only confirms that most Muslims are fanatics when it comes to their religion.

But the whole thing is unbelievably stupid to say the least--I mean this resorting to violence because someone denigrated your cherished faith about Allah or Mahammed or the Koran. Muslims need to lighten up.

I keep saying:

Infinity minus Infinity = Infinity

...which means even if one were to shower infinite abuse on the Infinite, the Infinite still remains Infinite. Noone can subtract from Infinity. This is not only a mathematical fact, it is true with reference to reality. If someone were to attack the Hindu religion or any of its many images, what happens in reality?

A BIG FAT NOTHING!!!

Because God (however we define Him or call Him) can take care of Himself, who are we to defnd Infinity. The very idea of defending Infinity is NOTHING SHORT OF LAUGHABLE. I am afraid these stupid mullahs and the Muslim masses who support their position are also laughable.

A fatwa against the person who "abuses" Islam or Mohammed should be treated as a death threat issued by criminals. That's all. If I were the Police chief in a so-called "secular" Islamic country (there are none), I would issue a fatwa against the fatwa-issuing mullahs. It is time for these idiots to be flogged.

DAVE, you made a great point there! God does not need to be defended. The ideas of God people have created does not need to be defended either for God dwells in a realm beyond human reach and beyond the reach of definitions of Him.

The harm people do to others in the name of the ideas they have about God needs to be stopped.

There is no harm done in respecting Muslims' feelings when they say that they do not wish for their prophet to be depicted in any way and the book of Quran should not be treated with contempt. That is different from condemning terrorist violence in the name of Islam or criticizing any verse in the Quran that calls for violence and intolerance in any form against anyone.

Work with peace loving Muslims to keep the extremists in check as Mr Eboo Patel recommends.

Why does the author say all religions get offended and get violent if criticized?

She did not mention any recent cases of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews blowing up innocent lives over cartoons, movies, newspaper articles etc?

Anon writes: "After a lot of study, I was surprised to discover that belief in a purely natural Universe is also a faith position, as science cannot predict the cause of the Universe...as we back up in time to the Big Bang, the laws of science break down and are useless for predicting was took place beyond a certain point...that is, what cause it all, and what caused the amazing amount of information and order that set the course for what followed.In the end, I choose biblical faith over faith that it happened naturally."

What science doesn't reveal today is a road map for what science will reveal in the future. Why are you so impatient?

RCG- i didnt answer this question-
"Additionally, you didn't answer what I am supposed to do if my art causes some kind of offense like that."

because it is not what you asked-
this is what you asked (which i answered)
"What would you say to the families of those killed outside the Danish embassy?
What would you say to MY family if I was killed for one of MY editorial cartoons?"

let me point out-
NO ONE who is associated with jyllands posten has been hurt.
and yet they continue to reprint and redistribute those stupid cartoons all over the world- over and over again.

i believe a real artist has a responsibilty to create something socially responsible and edify us with their art-

art has a very substantial and real meaning to me- but i dont think this is the place to discuss it-

to deliberately provoke and incite those who are clearly unstable is a cruel act- and not one done unknowingly but purposely.

i dont call that art- but if you do- art is a very subjective experience.

i have never used my own art to instigate.

and the fact is- the only ones who have been hurt by this are not the ones who insitgated it- but the very ones who were insulted to begin with-

sad and self destructive-
one might say the artists werre not aware of the reaction - but that would be disingenuous on their part-
but even if they were- after the intial reaction and they DID know- to keep doing it over and over again- is to cease making an artistic expression and start a deliberate hurting.

distasteful behavior.

ENDER- good points-
"Until they can match them with actions and create that Islamic state that does not allow sharia law to override secular laws, oppression of women particularly with regard to education and freedom of travel, nor allow apostacy punishments under any circumstances..."

actually Turkey is a work in progress in that respect-
however the situation is backward.
it is the islamic leadership of gul and erdogan who have brought an educational and economic boom to turkey-

it is the very secualrists you are vaunting that are forbidding girls wearing hijab(islamic head scarf) to attend the universities or be engaged in the political system!!!

thise same secularists are attmepting right now to force a lawyers coup upon an unwilling populace!

please read the links i provided on June5th,@ 11:38 AM-
you will see that muslims have already done what you suggest.

You can't say 'Real Art Is What I Say It Is,' Victoria, and enforce that by force, and really *have* art. Art *always* pushes the boundaries of taboo, even provocation. (Mozart, for instance, was quite a rebel in his times, and the Renaissance started with some pretty darn edgy stuff, by the religious mores of the time: once it was pretty much verboten to make art that was *not* Christian religious. Bing. Suddenly, there's classical myth and common people... (I tend to smile and go, Yep, the people were starved for the Old Gods, annd baddabing, progress, but permit me that. :) )

Often art thrives *because* of constraint and boundaries: always there's the tension there...., but you can't claim any one set of externally-imposed cultural boundaries *are* what defines art.

Where art has no power to challenge, it has no power to comfort or heal or inspire, either: it risks becoming mere decoration, or iconography.

Of course, the cartoons in question weren't really intended as 'art' so much as editorial satire, (Well, it's mere mockery, for the most part, but it does express fears some people hold or entertain.) But a 'political cartoon' is really a different matter entirely from art: personally I do think it's in horrible taste, but neither does it actually *make* Muslims 'unstable people who can't help but react that way.'

Which I'm sure isn't what you meant to say, but it's implied there... Just like some old-wave feminists decided that as strong, independent women who can think for ourselves, we needed to be protected from high heeled shoes... by them 'destroying' them.

But yes, someone meant to insult you, there. How we respond to insults, if you hadn't noticed, is an all-too-important facet of getting along in Western culture, and apparently the world.

People get incensed over people burning Uncle Sam in effigy in Tehran, too. Doesn't mean we riot in the streets in the West.

We also don't respond well to threats.

The 'reaction of the unstable' certainly eclipsed the offensiveness of the cartoon pretty darn quick, didn't it.

Which, perhaps, what the cartoonist was trying to say, 'Look how easily-provoked 'you people' are.'

Someone else had to choose to 'prove him right.'

When someone accuses me of black magic, I don't respond by publicly 'hexing' them. :)

The NRA says nasty things about people who figure we don't need automatic weapons in the old neighborhood, but they are smart enough not to threaten to shoot liberals (too directly, in some cases, admittedly, but that's part of the bad image *they* get.)

People aren't *helpless* in the face of people 'offending' them, and maybe being part of the international community also means you *don't* get to command everyone else to obey your various tabooes: something our own Religious Right would do well to get through their heads, too.

settle down paganplace- you misunderstood just about everything i said-

P- "You can't say 'Real Art Is What I Say It Is,' Victoria,"

i never have in all my life held that view-
i spoke for one minute about what i believe art is for me-

this is what i actually said paganplce-

*****************
"art is a very subjective experience."
**********************

P- "you *don't* get to command everyone else to obey your various tabooes:"

nor have i ever made such an attempt in my life-

i simply responded with respect to a query made of me-

ive been an artist all my life- hence i have some personal opinions about what it means to me-
i tried not to bog down the blog with my views on art as i felt it was a distraction-

if a misunderstnading on your part of my views of art is the only thing that can be criticized-
i feel my attmept at explaining what islam is as opposed to what people imagine it is- was successful.

the facets of politcis, oppression, poverty, colonialism and lack of education that move people to respond with violence to such innocuous stimuli is a deeper discussion- and we can certainly have that.

I don't need 'settling down,' Victoria.

I think the topic of art is a worthy one, particularly if you expect them to be constrained by people thinking it's 'something done to their religion' and a justification for actual violence.

I think we can have a conversation without *yourself* resorting to such things.

One hopes you've communicated some things, but I think it also demonstrates that certain facets of Islamic culture do seem taken by many to be essentially passive... ie, if woman doesn't cover up she deserves what she gets.... if cartoonist doesn't shut up, Denmark deserves what it gets, etc....

A bit of anger certainly may be natural... certainly Pagans put up with horrible insults and accusations all the time... in some ways, Fundamentalists of many stripes may exploit that sort of anger if people are too 'sheltered.'

I know you have a convert's zeal on a lot of things and feel pretty embattled, yourself, but you can't go saying, 'If it offends, it's not art.'

Really, the cartoons are more in the realm of political speech, anyway, 'art' was not the intent, there. As political speech, certainly it's inflammatory, but the discussion so often turns to depictions of Mohammed as considered unacceptable, ...one group trying to impose a religious taboo on another by terror and force.

Making life obviously that much harder for the rest of us.

Anyway, Victoria, it was meant as a friendly conversation, for the most part, just on this:

"to deliberately provoke and incite those who are clearly unstable is a cruel act- and not one done unknowingly but purposely."

Again, art maybe wasn't the intent, there, but you can't go claiming that art should be constrained by inflammatory speech, or in fact that the cartoonist is really at fault when someone decides they 'can't take' what they seem to love to dish out at the West.

In many ways, this just has to *not* be about the radicals. That means the less-radical can't be demonstrating in the streets as if they have the right to bully others around.

We've got plenty of those sentiments right here in America, usually more-mildly-expressed, but sure, there's plenty of Christians out there who think the mere existence of other religions is an affront to their God and will attack or firebomb Pagan homes and businesses if they feel we're getting too 'uppity.'

Those cartoons were certainly uncivil and inflammatory, but they don't justify violence, even if the anger is understandable.

Frankly, I think if there's any wisdom to not having divine images, (or books) it's in fact *in that* such things can be taken away or abused. It's part of why I don't name my Gods in public.

But in believing that it *actually takes something away from your God or prophet for someone else to depict such figures,* you essentially set yourself up for anyone with a pencil being able to 'control' your actions, if you let them.

It's certainly a hallmark of modern Paganism that we certainly love our divine images, ...not to like do some 'forbidden idolatry,' ...such notions only empower the worst idea of 'idols' in the first place. In a funny way 'not-idols' become idols. The honoring of the taboo becomes more important than the reason why that observance is held, or what it represents.

If we *cede the power* of what we value to someone else's control, then it doesn't matter *which* custom it is. Images/no images, book/no book...

Holy books can be dangerous. My tradition does not hold to them. But look at the likes of CCNL, and BGone, they want the holy books to *be forbidden,* it seems... (or 'deflawed...' made perfect in their minds, perhaps) In doing so they grant them *other* power, really the same kind.

Holy images and objects, and places, too, can be dangerous. Doesn't matter if you have them or not, but like any other object or image, the danger lies in forgetting what they *are.*

What we value, we must choose to. What strengthens us to observe, then we should do so, with dignity, all of us.

I come from a faith-heritage which had most of our holy stuff systemically-destroyed, or, 'deflawed,' perhaps, in the minds some Church's or army's authorities, ....one lesson that's not lost on us is *what can be taken away and what endures.*

Someone destroyed or took *all* our stuff, and somehow, our Goddess, our Gods, are still here... Always have been, despite others' promises and suppressions and books and the like.

Even general invective here or in the media.

And *that's* what, to me, makes things sacred, from seeming-nonsensical geasa I observe personally, to any poor attempt at sculpture I might attempt with due reverence. (Not my forte, I admit. :) )

It may *feel* powerful, for a moment, to support violence on the basis someone 'had to do it cause of their religion,'

But who really has the power in that situation?

Some *ahem* of a cartoonist.

And that's not

Anonymous:

Sorry--it is not for Muslims to impose the bounds of their religion on the rest of the world. It cannot be done anyway. What you say is sensible but no one can impose sense and sensibility on everyone in the world. If Muslims are offended by a depiction of Mohammed in cartoons, well they just have to live with it. They cannot and should not be allowed to resort to violence because the rest of the world does not accept Islamic strictures. I agree with you that denigrating any religion is in poor taste but those are your and my standards. We cannot impose them on the rest of the world. Muslims need to grow up. If they don't, they should be dealt with firmly within the law. That's all.

DAVE, you make valid points. World consciousness should evolve to the point that every nation puts respect for human rights and dignity ahead of all religions, keep religion and state separate so that no religion can impose all of its values on the rest of the population without its consent. Every religion on its part should measure its merit based on the respect it shows for human rights and dignity. First no harm should be done to its own members or other believers. Only after that can one judge the good it does for its members and others.

You are right about the role of secular law in defending human rights and dignity. The law in every country should ensure that no religion gets a chance to violate the human rights of its own members or others.

Some Muslims may claim that tenets of their religion demand violence in defense of their prophet and their religion. But if only they would take a few minutes to employ reason they would understand that Allah as the Creator of the Universe does not wish to have any of His creatures killed or hurt in His name. Whether their prophet would wish what Allah the Creator of the Universe would not is something for every Muslim to reflect about.

The good news is that many peace loving Muslims are waking up to the need for reform in Islam, especially in the understanding of human rights of Muslims and non-Muslims alike and equality of women.

DAVE, a Muslim living in the US may believe in anything that is written in the Quran as long as they don't break US law. But if they do break US law, then it doesn't matter what the Quran says, they will be punished in accordance with the US Justice system.

Allowing Muslims to create a state within a state where they can implement Sharia Law is asking for trouble. No country needs Saudi Arabia style Islam. Not even the devout American Muslim Victoria with all her zeal for the religion could survive it.

In some ways, I am like Victoria but I am not willing to protect dishonest, mythmaking or deceitful things that I have seen going on in various mosques.

My attraction to Islam arose from 2 notions that seem meaningful and rational to me. First in reading the Nag Hammadi Gnostic Christian scriptures, I found much to convince me that Jesus did NOT promote 'the son of God" notion and this is a fallacy that the Christian world accepted without serious investigation.

As Islam defines Prophets as 'inspired people' and not Gods, I found this notion more reasonable to accept.

Secondly from a spiritual perspective, I wanted to experience 'sacredness' in every moment of life, not just on Sundays and this is something Islam offers.

When I read the Qur'an, I placed war-oriented scripture in it's historical context as one does when reading the Bible and thus did not focus on it. There is much in both scriptures promoting compassion and this resonated with me.

Now - to address current issue. I admit that when I became exposed to the kind of Islam promoted by ISNA, CAIR, MSA, MAS and other Brotherhood based groups, I was APPALLED. They advocate deception and lying not only to people of other faith about who they are and what they believe but they even lie to fellow Muslims. I am disgusted to hear their mythmaking and lack of honesty. Admittedly they have forsaken all nobility and integrity.

I feel it is the responsibility of Muslims who are honest about their religion and not ashamed to say the truth weather pleasant or not who must help Islam gain respect from the world's citizens again. We must be partners in progress and cooperation. The violent Muslim response to the cartoon affair is disgusting. We Muslims must accept criticism without going berserk. We simply need to elevate the art of debate and promote reasoned responses.

Paganplace stated-
"but you can't go claiming that art should be constrained by inflammatory speech,"

me- "agreed"

and also-

P- " Those cartoons were certainly uncivil and inflammatory, but they don't justify violence, even if the anger is understandable."

me- "agreed again"

P- "Frankly, I think if there's any wisdom to not having divine images, (or books) it's in fact *in that* such things can be taken away or abused."

me- "partialy agreed, except for the books part"-
that is the wisdom of not making images of the Prophet(pbuh)
so the image cannot be worshipped and made into a god-
our worship if for the god alone-

im glad the wisdom of it is so translatable-

well- that was easy.

back to the extreme subjectivity on the personal perceptions of art-

it reminds me of a remark by (i think it was) louis armstrong who said,
"there is good music and bad music-
good music is music that i like-
bad music is music that i don't like."

(insert art for music and that is how i feel)

i do wish someone would take the time to read one of those links i posted and learn about what islam actually is for muslims-

Allowing Muslims to create a state within a state where they can implement Sharia Law is asking for trouble. No country needs Saudi Arabia style Islam. Not even the devout American Muslim Victoria with all her zeal for the religion could survive it.

I agree on this. What kind of faith does a person have who has to be beaten to attend the mosques as in Saudi Arabia. Their attitude that women are a possession is backward and repulsive. That such a sick and stagnant ideology could have infected American Mosques by way of cooperation between the Brotherhood in America and Saudi Petro-billions is a sad scenario. We must look to the people who nourished these sick notions and hold them responsible for the aura of radicalism they have brought to American mosques. NAIT, ISNA, ICNA, CAIR have all willingly promoted anti-American and antidemocratic radicalism.

Islam has known a far more noble way of being in places like Malaysia, Turkey and Egypt, once they became convinced of the criminal nature of the Brotherhood.

We as Muslims should not support those who with wide-eyed intent break US law such as Al-Arian, Qaradawi and other radicals. In this, Victoria and I disagree, I will never support the liars and lawbreakers. Those who want to work for a Palestinian state can do so through diplomacy rather than illegal and subversive means.

Muslims are fully capable of living within the laws of this very liberal nation. Funny - some are quick to ignore the law here but promote a shariah law or Saudi lifestyle far more oppressive than anything here. That is irrational.

Muslims who have a problem with democracy have the option to move to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or some other Shariah-friendly country. This is an option they should utilize. If Muslims are here merely for the purpose of US defiance, as is the Brotherhood, then their destructive intent should be duly noted and harshly dealt with.

From: A Muslim who appreciates democracy

Well, Victoria, seems we're having the same conversation, at least. Personally, I think art is just the kind of thing we *could* be discussing, if we can get over the conflict and competition between religions. That'd be pretty cool, and no sense waiting.

" me- "partialy agreed, except for the books part"-
that is the wisdom of not making images of the Prophet(pbuh)
so the image cannot be worshipped and made into a god-
our worship if for the god alone-

im glad the wisdom of it is so translatable-"

No worries, there: the Bardic and Druidic traditions of Ireland had pretty similar ideas: but also carried the concept to *books.* Nothing sacred was *written down,* lest it be abused as Bibles and Korans and Torahs have been, historically. And, representational art obviously wasn't big. That's why all the funny knotwork and distorted animal figures... and why it actually took Christian monks to write down our epics and stories, among other things, even as the bardic schools endured to the seventeenth century based purely on feats of memorization I can tell you boggle the book-based memory. I've tried.

Still, similar notions. Actually, it's one step further, no *mental images* in the form of words to be abused... Language and understanding of words flows and changes, where written words stay still: the words may appear static and eternal, but what we read them with *isn't.* This is part of why Rabbinical schools take such pains to try and make sure the words don't lose their original sense, since they believe they are direct from your God: among the Gaels, it was kept alive and breathing in living memory, and that's part of why the Roman massacre of the Druids at Anglesey cost so dearly.

From that old point of view, then, comes the notion it was sacrilege to make 'verbal images' of sacred stuff... There's no real difference, practically, as we can see by those who trot out a verse of some Abrahamic scripture and make it dance to say whatever they want it to say. Not that there's the concept of 'revealed texts,' in Druidic thought, but social laws and poems simply had to be *memorized,* lest someone dig up an old copy of something and come up with a time-twisted interpretation.

Words are not exempt from the idea of 'idolatry,' in terms of thinking a 'thing' is 'God/dess'... as is clearly demonstrated by the big stone images of the Ten Commandments some Fundies truck around the country for public adoration and placement between the people and the courthouses...

Too many 'Book-people' worship a *book of words* as 'the Will of God/dess' and it really doesn't make a difference if the 'image' is visual or verbal, it still gets taken as a substitute for That'sWhatThatis...

The fears that, say, a statue is going to be worshipped as if it were Godd/ess really requires the misapprehension that God/dess is not in the table you put it on or the feet that brought you there, or the eyes that look at it.

In more modern terms, you could think of such things as like an antenna... It is not the signal, which is all around, neither is it separate from the signal, in its function: nonetheless, it does nothing if it isn't 'plugged into' a 'receiver,' ...ie, us.

Our perceptions.

Book people tend to actually kind of project their often-nightmarish ideas of what, say, a statue *would* be for onto others. Cause *their* book tells them what to make of it, and they think their book is the mind of ultimate God.

But, really, it's not so different, at the heart.

being an irish american ive always been particularly attracted to animist art-

the concept of memorization pre-dated islam- oral transmission of knowledge and history was a big part of that culture and arabic poetry "slams" were a common occurrence-

that is why the generation at the time of the Prophet(pbuh) and every succeeding one has thousands of hafiz- they are those who memorize the qur'an completely.

andwhy we say our prayers in the unfying language of arabic to keep that connection-

with statues and such- sometimes people get distracted and stop going to the source of their worship and- well- we know how good people are at getting onto tangents- and often end up twisting good ideas into the complete opposite-

with what physicists are just now discovering about the powerful attractive forces of electromagnetism- maybe in some future time we will be able to scientifically map more ethereal forces-
then maybe we could all tune into the same cosmic station-
and really discover jsut how similar we wereall along-
well, a girl can dream, can't she?

Ha, Victoria: :)

" the concept of memorization pre-dated islam- oral transmission of knowledge and history was a big part of that culture and arabic poetry "slams" were a common occurrence-"

Certainly did. Folks were tribal there, certainly, that's a beautiful language, ...if I weren't about five languages behind already, I'd say I'd study it. :)

"that is why the generation at the time of the Prophet(pbuh) and every succeeding one has thousands of hafiz- they are those who memorize the qur'an completely."

Well, that's still memorizing *written* words, which is kind of another step removed, I guess, but, yes.

"with statues and such- sometimes people get distracted and stop going to the source of their worship and- well- we know how good people are at getting onto tangents- and often end up twisting good ideas into the complete opposite-"

I'd say it's better to keep an eye on what you're *doing* than to forbid something and forget why, if you asked me, of course. Frankly, it's a whole lot easier to pull passages out of a book to suit a 'distracted' purpose, than to say,

"This statue told me to oppose single-payer health care!"

I mean, you can try, but...

So, if this ain't about 'art,' Victoria, I say,

Since when?

Convert's Opinion, you are the kind of Muslim who needs to show other Muslims the way. So get out there and make your voice heard among other Muslims. Call repeatedly for reform from within. Non-Muslims harbor no hard feelings against any Muslim. There is no teaching in any religion that is directed against Muslims. No religious leader that preaches hatred and division should be considered to represent a Universal Creator who loves all.

Convert's Opinion, do not overlook the fact that Islam in countries which does not have a Muslim majority and has a long non-Muslim history and plural culture before the introduction of Islam is different, perhaps not coincidentally. Sharia Law, at best must compete with other religious concepts of how to organize and run a society. Sharia Law and Islamic institutions were dismantled in Turkey by the secular ruler in order to make it a modern country. Coincidence?

Said Convert's Opinion:

My attraction to Islam arose from 2 notions that seem meaningful and rational to me. First in reading the Nag Hammadi Gnostic Christian scriptures, I found much to convince me that Jesus did NOT promote 'the son of God" notion and this is a fallacy that the Christian world accepted without serious investigation.

As Islam defines Prophets as 'inspired people' and not Gods, I found this notion more reasonable to accept.

Secondly from a spiritual perspective, I wanted to experience 'sacredness' in every moment of life, not just on Sundays and this is something Islam offers.

When I read the Qur'an, I placed war-oriented scripture in it's historical context as one does when reading the Bible and thus did not focus on it. There is much in both scriptures promoting compassion and this resonated with me.

"get out there and make your voice heard among other Muslims. Call repeatedly for reform from within. Non-Muslims harbor no hard feelings against any Muslim."

Convert responds:

I have tried and am still trying. My mosque was once a place of magnanimity of spirit welcoming to all (Muslim or not) and none were called kafirs or apostates. That was in the late 90's.

Then the Isna/CAIR crowd and their ilk decided that even though the Muslim World League had succeeded in establishing the Wahhabi ideology in the area, they must not allow an open, pluralistic mosque like ours to exist, so an agenda was set for ISNA/NAIT to take it over and these highly educated criminals attempted to do so in the most unethical, dishonest, aggressive and repulsive ways. They now control my former mosque. I alerted our entire membership via a letter to the community of the true nature of this underground organization. But the community had either been threatened or bribed into complacency at that point. This is how the Brotherhood functions. My mosque was no longer a place for spiritual nourishment. It was kind of like a Catholic convert might feel who with good intent joined a church but discovered it was now run by the mafia. Needless-to-say the ISNA/Brotherhood crowd accused me of causing 'fitna' (discord) by mailing out my protest letter, actually had the gal to state I was not permitted to send such a letter without their permission (guess the thugs aren't too familiar with the rights of every American to utilize the US Postal Service). These ISNA/NAIT thugs live in that Shariah delusion that like little Hitlers they can dictate what we are and are not allowed to do.

My next step was to become part of an independent newsletter team promoting progressive thinking within mainstream Islam. In this, I am still active and trying to make a difference.

What one must realize is that converts have VERY LITTLE influence in the Muslim community. The ISNA/CAIR crowd has tried to discredit us by calling all pluralistic and democracy promoting Muslims Neo-Con Spies. I am not. I am a democrat and no one's spy. I am simply a Muslim seeking to enhance my spiritual life but these criminals have make our mosques places where treasonous agendsa and hatred of Americans is promoted. Meanwhile, the liars will wave the American flag telling you have much they love America and democracy and the stupid media outfits BELIEVE these liars. It places us in an awful dilemma.

Then to top it off,PBS refuses to show the documentary that tells the truth about how the ISNA/NAIT coalition has turned wonderful mosques into houses for their simmering hate and illegal activities.

It is a rough road, but many of us persevere as best we can to reassert the Islam we once knew that was beautiful in its former (pre-ISNA) way of being in the world. The Islam we knew and practiced then was at peace with and respectful of others. You don't find that in any mosque I know of anymore. If you know of one, please invite me.

No Claire - I neither feel threatened or mocked.

I feel ashamed that people of my faith (Islam)
have lost hold of the basic concept that the purpose of religion is to make us better, more compassionate and more honest human beings.

We are to struggle to behave in a more Godlike manner as the divine spirit breathed within each and every human being has offered us the opportunity to elevate ourselves.

Instead the animal part of ourselves (bodily passions and emotions and irrational blind rage) reigns and we see people behave savagely like animals. It is a crying shame.

I do not think of any of the people prone to irrational violence as "People of Faith."

They have chosen an animalistic, crude and repulsive lifestyle. They have demonstrated their lack of self-control and shown the world their primitiveness and savagery.

Sadly, these gross displays of violence unfairly reflect upon all Muslims.

Convert's Opinion, your account is truly edifying. Never ever ever give up your good work no matter how much resistance you may encounter. All great people had to face difficulties. As long as you are fighting God's cause and for His justice and righteousness, you have more than human help on your side.

There are born Muslims like Dr Eboo Patel who would be able to give you support and help. Maybe you should contact him and join forces with his work.

Good luck and God's help in everything you do!

paganplace- well in this particular case the memorization preceded the book-

to the minute scrutiny that if even an inflection is off- the hafiz, or memorizer's(?)
account is rejected-
it is an entire science- so that one who learns in malaysia has an identical recitation to one who learns from a different teacher in egypt-
i dont pretend to understand the mechanics of the process-

peace it really is awesome that such differing belief systems agree on such core issues
:)

Convert- there are many inconsistencies on your writing-

you state-
"What one must realize is that converts have VERY LITTLE influence in the Muslim community"

I'm a revert to Islam, and have been on the board of directors of one of the largest mosques in america-
also- your experiences with ISNA seem like a caricature from faithfreedom.org-

the President of ISNA is Ingrid Mattson- and she is both (obviously) a woman and a revert-
(muslims don't call themselves converts)

i have attended many of the ISNA conferences and have never seen the philosophy or behavior you are describing-

ive also been to mosques from portland oregon to L.A. to Chicago to Pittsburgh to New Jersey to New York and the idea of a subversive pervasive wahabist (for the record- no one who can be categorized as such calls themselves wahabi either- that is a term manufactured by the british media) taking over all the mosques in america is not only laughable- it is distinctly paranoid.

these comments of yours regarding your borthers and sisters in islam-
*******************
"animalistic, crude and repulsive primitiveness and savagery.
criminals with treasonous agendas-backward and repulsive.deception and lying unethical, dishonest, aggressive and repulsive liars...."
*********************
and even personal observations completely unrelated to the texts-

**********************
"like Victoria but I am not willing to protect dishonest, mythmaking or deceitful things that I have seen going on in various mosques."

"Not even the devout American Muslim Victoria with all her zeal for the religion could survive it."
***********************

maybe you came to islam and encountered some fringe mosque and that is your only experience-

but one of the most seminal teachings of islam is that we simply do not backbite-

and i have never encountered one progressive muslim who believes that al-arian is a liar-
he was detained illegally for years- and wiuth the entire american government's respurces at their disposal- and a jury trial- was found innocent of all charges- by a jury of americans and our court system-

convert you also state-
"We are to struggle to behave in a more Godlike manner as the divine spirit breathed within..."

what you are proposing is called "shirk"
to jumanize ALLAH, and set up other gods beside her is the only unforgivable sin in islam-
the ONLY ONE!

it is extraordinarily unusual that you are not aware of this-

here is a website to help you- they will also direct you to many local mosques in the area where you live- go to the chat room-

http://www.islamtomorrow.com/hadith/10_hadeeth_questions.asp

peace and may you be blessed in your journey

Convert- there are many inconsistencies on your writing-

No Victoria - there are many truths in my very factual account that you are obviously threatened by. Maybe one day with some of the others, you may come out of your denial and investigate the facts.

My experience is authentic and witnessed by many. As much as you might wish that my mosque was a fringe mosque, it is one of the earliest, most well known and progressive in North America - before the ISNA/NAIT invasion, that is.

The account of what happened to my Mosque is documented, as is what happened to Asra Nomani's Mosque and to the Mosque of many others. You think they were wrong to opposed ISNA's deceitful ways to try to keep Mosques built with love and care taken from them? Our accounts are not copied from websites as you imply in such a vicious vein of desperation to discount the heartbreaking truths of very real and good Muslims who have lost control of mosques they built with their own hard earned savings. These people took no free Saudi boat ride, but cared and struggled and gave greatly of themselves to build these Mosques only to lose them to the subversive power to which you show such loyalty.

I am sorry that you cannot see the very real truths in the world around you. There is much evidence in regard to ISNA, Al-Arian and all the other things I have mentioned. Those who do not wish to abide by US law should be in jail, in my opinion, as Al-Arian is, quite rightly. The Brotherhood, I am sure is very happy to have you aboard to spread their propaganda and imply that those who tell the truth aren't real Muslims, in one way or another. Is the concept that Adam's ruh came from Allah so strange to you? How you try so hard to accuse me of shirk - that is pitiful Victoria. Like a real ISNA gal you stand on your head to try to accuse fellow Muslims of not understanding Islam correctly. You are so full of yourself - aren't you?

Please don't trouble yourself to communicate with me further. I have little respect for those who try to make others of faith out to appear ignorant of their faith when they know nothing about the other individual's studies or for that matter, of their heart. Thank goodness Allah is the only judge of concern in such matters.

Yet, I do hope one day you awaken to some realities around you. Why not read Khaled Abou El Fadl's book:

"THE GREAT THEFT: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists."

It would be pretty hard for you to accuse him of being ignorant of his religion. You couldn't even brand him with Islamophobe or Neo-Con as your group so loves to do to those who speak the truth. Maybe you'd have to admit that here is a highly educated well-informed and honest Muslim with the courage to tell the truth.

convert- friend you have the wrong person-
i am not your enemy-

what do you have to lose by being specific about your theories?

it is rather likely that i'd be able to direct you to likeminded people-

ususally im accused of being too liberal and whitewashing islam to make it palatable-

it is doubly funny that you perceive me as ortodox-
i try to stay in the radical middle way-
im pretty active on these boards- it is an easy task to see my opinions here-
if you went to one of the largest mosques and it has been overrun- just name it!

it is possible to be passionate about something without insulting those around you-
namcalling and negative characterizations dont get your point across-
and yes, al-arian WAS found innocent of all charges-
you either
1) are a proponent of the democratic judicial process of trial by jury

or
2) you do not recognize the authority of the court system to make a valid judgment

you cant have it both ways

Hey Convert

Good for you!

The passive-aggressive tone in Victoria's comments is evident. Please continue to promote honesty.