NationStates Jolt Archive

Interesting article (http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200581903043.asp):

Mainstream Islam Finally Speaks Out
by James Dunnigan
August 19, 2005

Moderate Moslem voices are now being heard, which is a major victory in the war on terror. Since the emergence of radical Islamic terrorism in the 1990s, one of the major failures of religious and political leadership in the world's Moslem community has been their apparent unwillingness to openly criticize fellow Moslems. While this reticence is not unknown in the leadership of other religions plagued by radical extremists, given the strength and lethality of Moslem radicals, this failure to openly confront the extremists has led to considerable public outcry in the non-Moslem world. Of late, however, there are indications that Islamic religious leaders are becoming increasingly aware of how their failure to speak up has served only to encourage the radicals, while further discrediting Islam in the world at large. For some time now Afghan and Iraqi clerics been speaking up, often at considerable personal risk. By ones estimate some 200 Moslem clerics have been slain in the past year or so because they spoke out. And of late, other voices have been raised as well.

In Britain, the Moslem Council of Britain has strongly condemned the recent attacks in London, one spokesman stating "These terrorists, these evil people want to demoralize us as a nation and divide us. All must unite in helping the police to hunt these murderers down."

In the United Arab Emirates (UAE), in an effort coordinated by the Islamic Affairs Ministry, on Friday July 15th, some 90 percent of the Mosques throughout the UAE preached sermons condemning terrorism and religious extremism

In Saudi Arabia, perhaps in a move coordinated with that of the UAE, on the same day the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia preached a sermon against terrorism, and specifically condemned Saudis fighting with the insurgency in Iraq.

Moslem media, including blogs and radio call in shows (which are all the rage in Iraq), all reflect this new assertiveness, and disgust at the Moslems being slaughtered by Moslems in the name of Islamic radicalism. The important difference now is that al Qaeda is killing so many Moslems. Were most of the victims infidels (non-Moslems), this shift in public opinion would take a bit longer. Most Westerners don’t realize that, despite great oil wealth, it’s still customary (and has been for a long time) in the Moslem world to blame “the West” for whatever is wrong on the home front. In this case, “the West” included the Soviet Union. Thus the withdrawal of the atheist communist Soviets from Moslem Afghanistan in 1987, was greeted with great joy, and glee, in the Moslem world. Same with the major al Qaeda attacks on Western targets, especially September 11, 2001. Not something most Moslems will admit to Westerners, but now that they are on the receiving end of al Qaeda terrorism, most Moslems are shouting at, not cheering for, Islamic terrorists.

Comment?

Comment?

"Mainstream" Muslims have been speaking out against terrorism for years ... nice to see the media might be catching up with the times.

"Mainstream" Muslims have been speaking out against terrorism for years ... nice to see the media might be catching up with the times.
It's got to be repeated loudly and often. It may not be fair to expect Muslims to have to constantly repeat condemnations of terrorism, but the extremists are recruiting young Muslim men, and it's not really possible for non-muslims to tell them that their religion doesn't allow slaughtering civilians. It's a job that can only be done by their leaders in the Muslim community. If the message that terrorism is against Islam doesn't get through to the potential terrorists then the Muslim community at large will probably suffer. Not that it's fair, but we all know that life isn't fair and people act on emotion more often than reason.

I don't see why "mainstream Islam" should need to pass any comment on the subject at all, as it clearly has nothing to do with them. The world's Catholics were never asked to condemn every IRA terrorist act, not even the Irish-American communities who were bankrolling them. The same applies to Hindu extremism in India/Pakistan, and numerous other religious conflicts.

I don't see why "mainstream Islam" should need to pass any comment on the subject at all, as it clearly has nothing to do with them. The world's Catholics were never asked to condemn every IRA terrorist act, not even the Irish-American communities who were bankrolling them. The same applies to Hindu extremism in India/Pakistan, and numerous other religious conflicts.
Yes, but in the case of muslim extremim many of its leaders are proeminent figures in muslim culture-such as clerics-and a significant amount of funding for the terrrorist actions came through mosques.

Mainstream Muslim have been condemning terrorism action since before 9/11. Thay also have done it across the globe. I know that, in Canada, they have repeated it often (last month being the last time).

The author James Dunnigan has a lot of news to catch upon, it seems.

"Mainstream" Muslims have been speaking out against terrorism for years ... nice to see the media might be catching up with the times.

The author James Dunnigan has a lot of news to catch upon, it seems.

As far as I remember James Dunnigan is primarily a wargames designer, rather than a news journalist, and so is hardly representative of 'the media' as a whole.


EDIT: If you want a laugh, click on the advert for 'Conservative Shirts' on the page the article appears on, then look for 'Patriotic Shirts' and have a look at the big picture of the backprint of the 'Armed Forces World Tour Black T-Shirt'. I find the silence on the less-than successful operations conducted between 1945 and 1991 somewhat amusing...

I don't see why "mainstream Islam" should need to pass any comment on the subject at all, as it clearly has nothing to do with them. The world's Catholics were never asked to condemn every IRA terrorist act, not even the Irish-American communities who were bankrolling them. The same applies to Hindu extremism in India/Pakistan, and numerous other religious conflicts.

While Christianity has no developed theology or legal system enjoining violence against unbelievers, Islam does. As such, it bears responsibility for its members who commit murder in the name of Islam.

Islam doesn’t have a central figure to denounce terrorism or anything else really. Individual organizations can do so but there is no Islamic Pope to speak for the faith as a whole. Without a central figure the message dose not go as far. It’s not that surprising that people don’t hear about there town’s imam speaking out against radical Islam.

While Christianity has no developed theology or legal system enjoining violence against unbelievers, Islam does. As such, it bears responsibility for its members who commit murder in the name of Islam.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but violence against unbelievers is one of the many options for the treatment that should be meted out to unbelievers according to the Koran.

Expecting one branch of Islam to hold responsibility for the actions of another is like holding the Free Presbyterians responsible for the actions of the Jesuits or the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but violence against unbelievers is one of the many options for the treatment that should be meted out to unbelievers according to the Koran.

Expecting one branch of Islam to hold responsibility for the actions of another is like holding the Free Presbyterians responsible for the actions of the Jesuits or the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The fundamentalist Moslems do indeed preach death to the unbeliever, but most Moslems state that theirs is a religion of peace. This disparity in beliefs is reason enough for moderates to completely denounce the fundamentalists. But one of the areas of contention is that the terrorists recruit from, and are supported financially and otherwise, by members of the moderate factions which are in the majority.

While Christianity has no developed theology or legal system enjoining violence against unbelievers, Islam does. As such, it bears responsibility for its members who commit murder in the name of Islam.
What a load of ----. No religion has any case to answer about what is done in its name.

What a load of ----. No religion has any case to answer about what is done in its name.

They do if they teach violence and promote murder. They do if they permit the existence of groups and individuals who promote violence. They do if they condone the displacement of competing religions and tolerate the burning of their churches. They do if they condone the above in any fashion.

They do if they teach violence and promote murder. They do if they permit the existence of groups and individuals who promote violence. They do if they condone the displacement of competing religions and tolerate the burning of their churches. They do if they condone the above in any fashion.
Every religious text ever written contains the above, if one wishes to interpret them that way.

Every religious text ever written contains the above, if one wishes to interpret them that way.

Sure. No doubt all manner of little things can be found. But consider that while Christianity has no developed theology or legal system enjoining violence against unbelievers, Islam does. I can't speak to the other world religions.

There were some good threads by Aryavartha and Holy Womble on Islam and pan-Islamism (here on NS). Intended to shed light, not create controversy. If you haven't read them, you might do a quick search. I learned a lot, and what they said I could confirm from other sources. Sorry I can't provide the links, must hurry to a function, and won't be back for a few days - but I'll take it up with you then if you want.

This whole issue about demanding/expecting moderate Islams to speak out against extremists smacks of sectarianism and racism to me: the claim that they are somehow responsible for the activities of those on the fringe of their religion is as ludicrous as holding Jews and Christians responsible for the Taliban blowing up the Buddhist statues in Afghanistan - after all 'we' are all Faiths of the Book, and so we are all equally responsible for the activities of all those who consider themselves sons or daughters of Abraham...

Every religious text ever written contains the above, if one wishes to interpret them that way.
"Similarly, even though Palestinian suicide bombers have caused some to cast a reproachful (albeit ignorant) glance upon the Qur'an, the fact remains that the Bible is the only scripture that contains a God-approved act of suicide in order to kill enemy civilians (Judges 16:26-30)."
http://www.mereislam.info/2004/10/bible-and-legitimation-of-violence.html

16:26
And Samson said unto the lad that held him by the hand, Suffer me that I may feel the pillars whereupon the house standeth, that I may lean upon them.
16:27
Now the house was full of men and women; and all the lords of the Philistines were there; and there were upon the roof about three thousand men and women, that beheld while Samson made sport.
16:28
And Samson called unto the LORD, and said, O Lord GOD, remember me, I pray thee, and strengthen me, I pray thee, only this once, O God, that I may be at once avenged of the Philistines for my two eyes.
16:29
And Samson took hold of the two middle pillars upon which the house stood, and on which it was borne up, of the one with his right hand, and of the other with his left.
16:30
And Samson said, Let me die with the Philistines. And he bowed himself with all his might; and the house fell upon the lords, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead which he slew at his death were more than they which he slew in his life.

There are not many ways to interpret that.

"Similarly, even though Palestinian suicide bombers have caused some to cast a reproachful (albeit ignorant) glance upon the Qur'an, the fact remains that the Bible is the only scripture that contains a God-approved act of suicide in order to kill enemy civilians (Judges 16:26-30)."
http://www.mereislam.info/2004/10/bible-and-legitimation-of-violence.html

16:26
And Samson said unto the lad that held him by the hand, Suffer me that I may feel the pillars whereupon the house standeth, that I may lean upon them.
16:27
Now the house was full of men and women; and all the lords of the Philistines were there; and there were upon the roof about three thousand men and women, that beheld while Samson made sport.
16:28
And Samson called unto the LORD, and said, O Lord GOD, remember me, I pray thee, and strengthen me, I pray thee, only this once, O God, that I may be at once avenged of the Philistines for my two eyes.
16:29
And Samson took hold of the two middle pillars upon which the house stood, and on which it was borne up, of the one with his right hand, and of the other with his left.
16:30
And Samson said, Let me die with the Philistines. And he bowed himself with all his might; and the house fell upon the lords, and upon all the people that were therein. So the dead which he slew at his death were more than they which he slew in his life.

There are not many ways to interpret that.
And since Samson how many Jewish or Christian suicide attacks have there been? How many have been inspired by some version of Islam?

Can you really expect condemnation from Christians or Jews to change the mind of an extremist Muslim? Wouldn't constant and vocal condemnation from other Muslims be much more effective?

Can you really expect condemnation from Christians or Jews to change the mind of an extremist Muslim? Wouldn't constant and vocal condemnation from other Muslims be much more effective?

Isn't that something like expecting Ian Paisley to be more receptive to what the Pope says instead of the Chief Rabbi or the Dalai Lama?

And since Samson how many Jewish or Christian suicide attacks have there been? How many have been inspired by some version of Islam?

Can you really expect condemnation from Christians or Jews to change the mind of an extremist Muslim? Wouldn't constant and vocal condemnation from other Muslims be much more effective?
"The true irony in all of this is that the misguided Muslims who have committed horrible acts of violence in the name of Islam in recent years are following a modern Western influenced re-interpretation of Islam which took form during the late colonial period (i.e. after Christian powers invaded Muslim countries and started to exploit them). This undeniable fact has been documented in a number of books and articles, by Muslims and non-Muslims alike."
http://www.mereislam.info/2004/10/bible-and-legitimation-of-violence.html

I'd suggest you'd read the article.

And yes, I do believe condemnation from other Muslims would be highly effective.

Isn't that something like expecting Ian Paisley to be more receptive to what the Pope says instead of the Chief Rabbi or the Dalai Lama?
Ian Paisley is a Protestant formerly engaged in violent combat against Catholics, right? Extremist Muslims, and more importantly teenage boys considering becomming extremist Muslims aren't engaged in a violent conflict with more moderate forms of Islam. That's where your analogy falls appart.

A better analogy would be Gerry Adams taking advice from the Pope rather than the Dali Lama.

Ian Paisley is a Protestant formerly engaged in violent combat against Catholics, right?

Nope. He is a religious extremist under some definitions, but has never had any proven links to violent combat against Catholics, and in fact has a very good reputation for looking after the interests of his constituency members who happen to be Catholic.

A better analogy would be Gerry Adams taking advice from the Pope rather than the Dali Lama.

No, because Gerry Adams, as a Catholic, falls under the authority of the Pope, whereas with regard to Islam there is no such established heirarchy.

Nope. He is a religious extremist under some definitions, but has never had any proven links to violent combat against Catholics, and in fact has a very good reputation for looking after the interests of his constituency members who happen to be Catholic.



No, because Gerry Adams, as a Catholic, falls under the authority of the Pope, whereas with regard to Islam there is no such established heirarchy.
Ok then, but Ian Paisley has seen Catholics as his enemies, even if he hasn't been linked with the violence. How about this analogy. Ian Paisley and rev. Billy Graham.

Last I checked, I can't find a single instance of a Christian of any type invading a school, massacring children and then blowing up the school as the children try to escape.

Last I checked, I don't ever remember a Christian shooting children in the back as they tried to run from murdering extremists.

Beslan.

Last I checked, I don't ever remember seeing any Christian sect of any kind machinegunning a passing car with children in it.

Iraq.

Or bornbing a theatre with people in it because they were watching a movie instead of being at prayers.

Iran.

Or hanging a 16 year old for the "crime" of being gay.

Iran.

Or having courts that execute people for the crimes of "witchcraft" and "apostasy."

Iran.

Or stabbing an author to death and then telling his family that he "deserved it because he was in infidel"

Van Gogh.

Or issuing a mafia style bounty "fatwa" on a writer for the crime of writing a book (and in case anyone had noticed, that "fatwa" also by implication says that whoever else is there at the time is also fair game...and if it's women or children, no matter.)

Salman Rushdie.

There is no comparison between the Irish issue and muslim fundamentalists..and the Islamic religion does not mean "peace" , it means submission.

I am pleased that Islamic clerics are finally taking up the call..but may i remind my esteemed colleagues here that Islamic terrorism and assassinations, bombings, hijackings, kidnapping and other sundry atrocities have been taking place for nearly forty years or more.?

I suggest you look up Entebbe..and then Al Fatah, the PLO, the PFLP, Black September, Munich 1972.

If I were to go back before 1970...I would probably find hundreds more examples..probably thousands.

I myself have studied Islam..and believe it to be a faith steeped in tradition.But those who profess to speak for Islam, must also take responsibility for the wave of violence that has swept the world..especially when it is a known fact that many of these extremists find homes in mosques, madrassas, schools...who preach their poison.

They cannot pretend that it does not exist..and whether they realise it or not, their silence can be taken for tacit approval.

Last I checked, I can't find a single instance of a Christian of any type invading a school, massacring children and then blowing up the school as the children try to escape.


There is a long history of violence done in the name of Christianity. The Inquisition is one example of many if you want a truly horrific event. Blaming the religion gets you no where. There are times and causes for these things. Things are being done in the name of Islam but it is not the fault of the religion itself but of the perversion done to it. It's an important distinction.

Mainstream Islam is not all that much better than al-Qaeda. Islam suffers from deep homophobia, even among the liberals, let alone the moderates. IF Islam is being given a negative image by the media then good. I am personally terrified at the rapid rate at which this religion is growing.

Mainstream Islam is not all that much better than al-Qaeda. Islam suffers from deep homophobia, even among the liberals, let alone the moderates. IF Islam is being given a negative image by the media then good. I am personally terrified at the rapid rate at which this religion is growing.
I forgot. Christianity isn't homophobic.

I know! Islam has been gaining more and more members since the 7th century! Dude, that has got to stop.

I don't see why "mainstream Islam" should need to pass any comment on the subject at all, as it clearly has nothing to do with them. The world's Catholics were never asked to condemn every IRA terrorist act, not even the Irish-American communities who were bankrolling them. The same applies to Hindu extremism in India/Pakistan, and numerous other religious conflicts.

Well, some people want to turn this into a holy war against Islam. Simple as that. They like to deny it, but it's xenophobia and mindless hatred of the very sort they condemn. They interpret silence as approval because they want to believe in good and evil, with them being good and muslims being evil. Freedom of religion? Not if this shit keeps up...

I forgot. Christianity isn't homophobic.

There are plenty of liberal Christians (Lib Quakers, Episcopalians, Methodists, large minorities of Catholics and CofE) and Jews (Reformists and Reconstructionists, particularly in America), however much I might dislike both religions but you're about as likely to bump into a liberal muslim as you are a black nazi.

I know! Islam has been gaining more and more members since the 7th century! Dude, that has got to stop.

It should have stopped a long time ago.

It should have stopped a long time ago.

I rest my case.

Well, some people want to turn this into a holy war against Islam. Simple as that. They like to deny it, but it's xenophobia and mindless hatred of the very sort they condemn. They interpret silence as approval because they want to believe in good and evil, with them being good and muslims being evil. Freedom of religion? Not if this shit keeps up...

Just for the record, Pope John Paul II DID condemn the actions of the IRA on repea occasions. It's only logical that people wish to hear just what is on the minds of a group of corrupt religious reactionaries like the Muslim Council of Britain in the wake of an Islamic terrorist attack.

I rest my case.
There is no way to begin to debate.

Just for the record, Pope John Paul II DID condemn the actions of the IRA on repea occasions. It's only logical that people wish to hear just what is on the minds of a group of corrupt religious reactionaries like the Muslim Council of Britain in the wake of an Islamic terrorist attack.
I don't think anyone is arguing against that... at least I'm not. I'm arguing against the idea that Islam is more violent than any other religion. It's not the religion itself, it's some assholes.

There is no way to begin to debate.

Neither is subtly implying an entire culture should never have existed because its OMGEVIL. We can all make glib assertions, I'm only succumbing to peer pressure!

Neither is subtly implying an entire culture should never have existed because its OMGEVIL. We can all make glib assertions, I'm only succumbing to peer pressure!

Ha ha! Bet you'll do drugs.

It's only logical that people wish to hear just what is on the minds of a group of corrupt religious reactionaries like the Muslim Council of Britain in the wake of an Islamic terrorist attack.

Lets hear what these 'corrupt religious reactionaries' have to say for themselves that so offends you:


"Nothing in Islam can ever justify the evil actions of the bombers,"

"They happen to be Muslims and it's not that Islam is the problem, it is those individuals, it is the criminality that is there,"

"The criminality of anyone should not be associated with their nationality, ethnicity or religion."

"That sort of association is totally unjust and xenophobic and can create a great injustice by promoting prejudice that could fuel further violence against innocent people. A criminal is a criminal, is a criminal, full stop."

"We are working hand-in-hand with other faith communities. It is crucial - our mission can only be successful if we are working with everyone else,"

Ha ha! Bet you'll do drugs.

Only if I ever grow up. :D

Ha ha! Bet you'll do drugs.

The biggest peer pressure in society is actually not to do drugs...

The biggest peer pressure in society is actually not to do drugs...
Blasphemy!

Lets hear what these 'corrupt religious reactionaries' have to say for themselves that so offends you:


"Nothing in Islam can ever justify the evil actions of the bombers,"

"They happen to be Muslims and it's not that Islam is the problem, it is those individuals, it is the criminality that is there,"

"The criminality of anyone should not be associated with their nationality, ethnicity or religion."

"That sort of association is totally unjust and xenophobic and can create a great injustice by promoting prejudice that could fuel further violence against innocent people. A criminal is a criminal, is a criminal, full stop."

"We are working hand-in-hand with other faith communities. It is crucial - our mission can only be successful if we are working with everyone else,"

The West is not to be blamed for associating Islam with terrorism. Stop blaming the victims. I guess then I should never again suggest that these terrorists were (shock, horror) muslims. That would be racist.

The Muslim Council of Britain needs to wake up and smell the coffee. The UK has never before suffered an Islamic terrorist attack. Terrorism is not something that simply happens when a bunch of crazy psychos get together and decide to bomb any random country. The roots of terrorism are sociopolitical and religion has to come into th argument sooner or later. "A criminal is a criminal, full stop." Is this their way of saying "shit happens"? If muslim leaders were willing to live by this principle then why is it "unjust" that negative feelings towards Islam become discourse? Surely if "a criminal is a criminal" then the responsibility of racist attacks towards muslims should be attributed solely to the perpetrators. Would you rather far-right fascist groups like the NF poked fun at this kind political correctness proposed by the Muslim Council of Britain and use it to justify REAL racism?

Are they honestly suggesting that however easy it is for a terrorist network to operate in the UK that it's not just a bad idea to talk about it but "unjust"? Are we now supposed to forget the fact that there has been a religious attack carried out on our country?

The West is not to be blamed for associating Islam with terrorism. Stop blaming the victims. I guess then I should never again suggest that these terrorists were (shock, horror) muslims. That would be racist.

The Muslim Council of Britain needs to wake up and smell the coffee. The UK has never before suffered an Islamic terrorist attack. Terrorism is not something that simply happens when a bunch of crazy psychos get together and decide to bomb any random country. The roots of terrorism are sociopolitical and religion has to come into th argument sooner or later. "A criminal is a criminal, full stop." Is this their way of saying "shit happens"? If muslim leaders were willing to live by this principle then why is it "unjust" that negative feelings towards Islam become discourse? Surely if "a criminal is a criminal" then the responsibility of racist attacks towards muslims should be attributed solely to the perpetrators. Would you rather far-right fascist groups like the NF poked fun at this kind political correctness proposed by the Muslim Council of Britain and use it to justify REAL racism?

Are they honestly suggesting that however easy it is for a terrorist network to operate in the UK that it's not just a bad idea to talk about it but "unjust"? Are we now supposed to forget the fact that there has been a religious attack carried out on our country?
You exasperate the situation by attacking the religion. They are extremists. Just like there are Christian extremists that blow up abortion clinics.

They cannot pretend that it does not exist..and whether they realise it or not, their silence can be taken for tacit approval.
Utter bollocks.

How many times do Muslims have to condemn terrorism before their condemnation is acknowledged? Just how many pounds is this mound of flesh, hmm?

The West is not to be blamed for associating Islam with terrorism.

...

Are we now supposed to forget the fact that there has been a religious attack carried out on our country?

Well, that certainly calls for refutation in depth, I'll give you that. I'll get back to you in the morning or afternoon.

In Britain, the Moslem Council of Britain has strongly condemned the recent attacks in London, one spokesman stating "These terrorists, these evil people want to demoralize us as a nation and divide us. All must unite in helping the police to hunt these murderers down."


The same people who would not condemn the killing of UK soldiers in Iraq.

If you can't cheer for the home team, get the fuck out of the stadium, or, at the very least, stop taking the benefit.

How many times do Muslims have to condemn terrorism before their condemnation is acknowledged? Just how many pounds is this mound of flesh, hmm?

Won't be enough. The Western Christian world needs a scapegoat it can rally around, and this time it's Islam.

Won't be enough. The Western Christian world needs a scapegoat it can rally around, and this time it's Islam.

Ah..so we are making scapegoats of the extremists that murdered 3000 people on Sept 11 2001.

And the extremists that murdered 200 children in Beslan.

And the ones that murdered Leon Klinghoffer.

And the ones that killed 200 in Kuta in Indonesia. (which, for those who are unable to read a calendar, happened 2 years before Iraq..so leave that meme at home.)

Need more examples?

How about the 2000 odd incidents of Islamic terror and murder since Sept 11?

Here's one for you.

In three separate attacks, Muslim gumen shoot two Buddhist men at point-blank range as they are drinking tea. They also shoot a 40-year-old woman by the side of the road and hack another woman with a machete while she is working her garden.

Scapegoats.

Riiighttt............

How many times do Muslims have to condemn terrorism before their condemnation is acknowledged? Just how many pounds is this mound of flesh, hmm?
Since so many young Muslim men are buying into the idea that Islam means suicide bombings the Muslim mainstream must CONSTANTLY repeat their condemnation of terrorism. Not just to calm down the non-muslims who otherwise might think that Islam and terrorism are synonymous, but to convince their wayward Muslim youth that Islam really does condem violence against innocents.

Muslims can fight terrorism in a peacefull way by constantly and loudly condeming terrorism. If non-muslims are forced to fight terrorism then non-muslims will be forced to use guns and bombs because the extremists won't listen to our words. That means the innocent muslims will die too as collateral damage.

Ah..so we are making scapegoats of the extremists that murdered 3000 people on Sept 11 2001.

And the extremists that murdered 200 children in Beslan.

And the ones that murdered Leon Klinghoffer.

And the ones that killed 200 in Kuta in Indonesia. (which, for those who are unable to read a calendar, happened 2 years before Iraq..so leave that meme at home.)

Need more examples?

How about the 2000 odd incidents of Islamic terror and murder since Sept 11?

Here's one for you.



Scapegoats.

Riiighttt............

I like how you use "extremists" in a tone that sounds to me like you automatically assume every single Muslim in the world is a terrorist or a terrorist supporter. Just proves my point.

Muslims are held to a double standard where if Islam as a unanimous whole doesn't condemn the violence and start kissing asses in an apologetic, humiliating manner the rest of the world assumes Islam as a unanimous whole supports and celebrates the violence and thus should be annihilated.

And no other religion in the world is held up to such a Treaty-of-Versailles-uptight-punitive expectation like Islam is. And they usually cop out with the "those extremists aren't real [Insert Name of Religios Follower Here]." But apparently Muslims aren't allowed to say that. Nooo... the whole religion is guilty so every Imam in the world has to apologize or else they're evil and wicked like Saints Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell says they are. :rolleyes:

Catholics as a whole never had to apologize for the Crusades, the Inquisition, or the IRA's bombings and killings.

Protestants as a whole never had to apologize for the Ulster Unionists, the Salem Witch Hunt, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Eric Rudolph, or Timothy McVeigh.

Jews as a whole never had to apologize for Rabin's assassination or Baruch Goldstein gunning down Muslims in a mosque.

Hindus as a whole never had to apologize for that ugly little mess in Kashmir, not to mention the degrading caste system and the associated bad habits they still practice in India today.

Buddhists as a whole never had to apologize for the militarism during Japan's feudal ages and WW2, or for Aum Shinri Kyo's sarin gas attack in the Tokyo.

In other words, Muslims are scapegoats. The world in generals holds the religious population as a whole accountable for the crimes of a few who pervert the religion's teachings.

I think this all depends on what you class as mainstream islam. I don't think the example you gave as the Muslim Council of Britain should be considered mainstream. The form of islam the MCB pursues is political rather than personal. Just look at the groups the MCB affilliates with. There have been many instances where their imams have decribed mainstream British society as deviant. They ally themselves with Saudi Wahabism. They affiliate themselves with the kind of people who glorify suicide attacks on civilians in Israel. The only reason why these people condemn the London bombings is because they fear the retaliatory attacks that they deserve.

Now I realise that your average muslim tends to see their religion as a purely personal thing. But I don't think these self-appointed "umbrella bodies" should be given legitimacy and I don't think the government should ever hold talks with them.