Free speech or foul behavior?

A few days back, small groups of college students at Northwestern, Illinois and Wisconsin – angry that Comedy Central had … Continued

A few days back, small groups of college students at Northwestern, Illinois and Wisconsin – angry that Comedy Central had been intimidated into censoring a South Park episode depicting the Prophet Muhammad – chalked their quads with stick figures and labeled these drawings ‘Prophet Muhammad’.

One of the members of the Atheists, Agnostics and Freethinkers (AAF) group leading the event at the University of Illinois wrote a letter explaining his actions: “No one’s sacred cow unwrites basic human rights. You can cater to the whims of fundamentalists, or you can cater to fundamental rights, but you can’t do both.”

Sounds like another battle in the war pitting Free Speech against Fundamentalist Islam. Or is it?

Muslim Students Associations (MSA) on all three campuses said they believed in free speech and were opposed to fringe groups who threaten violence, too.

The President of the University of Illinois MSA, Omar Fareedi, wrote: “It appears to me, this event seems to be a reactionary and rash response to the actions of a fringe organization that does not represent mainstream Islam in any way whatsoever … Revolution Islam is a radical group and in no way do we lend credence to their practices and ideology.”

“I assure you we believe in freedom of expression just as much as you purport to do,” wrote the Vice President of the University of Wisconsin’s MSA.

One of the arguments that the Muhammad chalkers seem to be making is that attacking sacred cows protects free speech.

This seems to me largely a trick of language. When something gets called a “Sacred Cow”, it must be attacked. When the mantle of free speech is raised, it must be defended. And when Muslims are in the picture, all 1.5 billion of us somehow get linked to the Dragon Threatening Civilization rather than being viewed as your neighbors just trying to go about our business.

It’s always interesting to see which items get labeled sacred cows and therefore invite attack.

Is a sick grandmother a sacred cow? If you staple pictures of that image on bulletin boards and write, “Isn’t cancer hilarious?” are you defending free speech, or are you just being a jerk?

Is the ‘N’ word a sacred cow? If you walk into the middle of Harlem and scream that slur at the top of your lungs, are you a First Amendment hero, or just a bigot?

Is someone’s mother a sacred cow? If you saunter up to a random dude in a bar and say, ‘Your mother’s a fat whore’, are you exercising free speech, or are you just being an offensive idiot? And if he chases you down, will people say that this proves he is inherently violent, or only add to your credentials as an idiot.

Will the free speech cloak protect you from social outrage if you went to a party dressed in blackface? If you chalked a swastika on the sidewalk leading to the campus Hillel? If you stood on the college quad and chanted “fag” at every male with blow dried hair who walks by? If you applauded as champions of free speech the handful of Palestinian kids horrifically dancing in the streets after 9/11?

The key issue here isn’t free speech – it’s actions that intentionally and effectively marginalize a community.

It seems to me that there’s another dangerous sleight of hand going on here – a pretense that by chalking Muhammad you are bravely taking on the Dragon Threatening Civilization when in fact you are just hurting your Muslim classmates. It’s a little like sticking your chest out and claiming you beat up the school bully, when all you really did was pick on the little kid on the playground. The former may make you a hero. The latter makes you a jerk. Doing the latter while claiming the former, that just makes you a joke.

Let’s not pretend that Islam is somehow beyond offense in 21st-century America. Does anyone remember the 2008 Presidential campaign? When our nation was proud that a black man and two white women were breaking race and gender barriers by running for high office, while the whisper campaign about Barack Obama being a Muslim kept getting louder and louder until Colin Powell finally went on national TV and called it what it was – not free speech, but unacceptable, un-American bigotry.

It is true that fringe Muslim groups are quick and public with their ugly threats. Mainstream Muslims spend an awful lot of time saying we have nothing to do with those groups. Part of what’s disturbing about the Draw Muhammad campaign is its implicit attempt to draw a direct line between mainstream Muslims and violent fringe groups. It’s the “We have to stand up against you people” message.

You people? That line ought to make us a little uncomfortable.

It’s not so different than saying that the black students on your campus remind you of the armed robber you saw on the 5 o’clock news because they share a skin color. That’s called bigotry when it involves race, and it’s called bigotry when it involves religion.

If there are heroes in this situation, it’s the Muslim student leaders who are not only keeping their heads, but trying to use this situation to advance understanding and cooperation on their campuses. Omar Fareedi, in his letter responding to the actions by the AAF group, didn’t threaten violence and didn’t demean secularists. He lifted up the higher value of pluralism, cast a light on the overlapping principles shared by secular humanists and Muslims, and suggested they join together to do something useful for the broader society:

“My biggest goal is to seek to understand other people and the perspectives from which they come and I think this is a valuable goal for anyone to pursue … As I understand it, our groups share many positive beliefs. Principles such as positive ethical conduct and bettering the world are shared by both of our organizations … I am in full agreement with you about the freedom of expression and free speech, but I implore you to understand that this event is completely unproductive. I would be more than willing to sit down to explain our tradition further in this context or in a much more general one and would hope that you would be willing to engage me. I ask only for mutual respect and understanding between our organizations and I stand directly against the bigotry and intolerance that is purported by people of both religious and secular humanist backgrounds.”

Sounds more like a guy who is getting the issue right than a Dragon Threatening Civilization.

Come on folks, this isn’t about Free Speech vs. Fundamentalist Islam.

This is about Actions that Build an Inclusive Society vs. Actions that Marginalize a Minority Community.

(Click here to read a related piece by a Secular Humanist blogger, Chris Stedman.)

(Read more about what Muslims believe at Patheos.com)

Written by
  • shaktinah

    The number of anti-Muslims posts here is truly distressing. There is no reason for drawing a stick figure in a public arena and naming it “Mohammed” other than to hurt Muslims. It does not protect free speech any more than yelling racist slurs protects free speech. Yes, the Constitution guarantees the right to do it, meaning that we will not be prosecuted for it. But that doesn’t mean that it’s morally right or that there won’t be other repercussions for treating one’s neighbors with such disrespect. These actions are reactionary and vengeful.

  • sa08366

    Eboo Patel and his pan-islamic sentiments. Similar sentiments have driven and continue to drive Islamic radicals to identify with causes world-wide. Causes that have nothing to do with them or islam per se. I do not find Patel credible also because he represents those “moderate” muslims that want all the freedoms and rights that the West offers while deliberately ignoring (or at best paying lip-sympathy to) the plight of various minorities in Islamic countries. Whether they know it or not, these US muslims (including the student organizations he talks about) end up providing the intellectual cover that Islamists across the world desperately need for their activities. Patel and his ilk are not what are desperately needed for Islam to modernize and separate itself from its murderous past (and its equally murderous present) because all they do again and again is make useless statements about what ‘true’ Islam really is. They don’t want (nor have the courage) to critique or reinterpret Islam itself and take on the extremists when it is clear to all others that thousands if not millions of militant muslims are lapping up specific passages of the Koran to justify violence and hatred. Clerics like Awlaki are merely pointing out those passages to egg their followers on. If Islam is not what the terrorists say it is then why don’t Patel and company really take them on instead of trying to hide facts and sugar-coat their religion to confuse Americans. Instead of merely playing victim in the West, why don’t Muslims like Patel intellectually challenge Islam and its adherents? Only then will they be more credible and effective. Countries like Saudi Arabia will otherwise continue to massively fund and propagate its brand of radical Wahabbi islam to transform Indonesia, Pakistan, and Bangladesh amongst others.

  • sa08366

    @ SHAKTINAhThe same episode drew caricatures of Buddha, Hindo gods and others. Is Islam special? Maybe it is…in its intolerance towards the infidel and the number of ultra-violent extremists.

  • fgoepfert1

    Another evasive, spirally worded apologetic about Islam. Will the writer or any “moderate” Muslim unequivocally refute the language in the Quran that calls for the conquest or death of the Infidels? No Muslim apologist has done so. They only speak of “the small groups of radicals”. All over Islam, Imams call for conquest of the Infidels. The nice speeches are nothing more than Jihad of the Tongue and Pen . . . lies to serve the cause. Islam is not a religion, it is a movement for world conquest.

  • shaktinah

    @SA08366 – First of all, there is nothing in Buddhism or Hinduism that says you can’t depict the Buddha or Hindu deities. Secondly, there is a difference between what the writers of South Park did and what these “protesters” are doing. In the case of South Park, while I can understand why some Muslims would be offended (due to the prohibition of depicting Mohammed) the show is clearly not taking specific aim at Muslims. In the case of the protesters, their intent is specifically to insult Muslim sensibilities. They are not the same.

  • spamsux1

    With all due respect to Eboo Patel, when I see a vocal, concerted, widespread effort within the Muslim community to oppose those who preach, promise or practice deadly force against perceived offenders, I will take your arguments seriously.Whiny apologists who pop up after the fact do no service to repair the ongoing image of a religion who’s loudest voices are those of the small minority who demand absolute obeisance.Please raise your collective voice to stamp out the violent ideology that threatens to stamp out free speech.

  • therev1

    Crap, Eboo, just crap. Use your energy to end the fundamentalist reactions to everything Western, and let’s don’t pretend that the fundamentalist Muslim doesn’t hate everything Western. Until then quit writing crap.

  • DanielintheLionsDen

    To my suprise, there is no Islamic prohibition on depicting images of Mohammed. In fact, images of Mohammed are ALL OVER THE PLACE. In some parts of the Islamic world, images of Mohammed are discouraged, so that people will not worhip the image of Mohammed, instead Mohammed himself, (never mind that Mohammed is supposedly not to be worshipped at all, as there is only one God, Allah).I saw the episode of “South Park.” It is a cartoon show, and one of its claim to fame, and the source of alot of its humor, is that the South Park cartoons are poorly drawn. In this episode, the symbolic figures of many religions were depicted in poor cartoons, all except Mohammed. Mohammed was not depicted at all; Mohammed “in a bear suit” was depicted, as a nod, to the mistaken and supposed Islamic ban on depicting images of Mohammed. The poorly drawn cartoon was of a bear, which, if one used ones imagination, was a bear costume, not a real (cartoon) and inside the costume was Mohammed, presented this way, as a loop-hole in drawing and actual real (cartoon) of Mohammed.I think that the writers of the show were not making fun of Mohammed at all; they were making fun that something poorly drawn (the bear constume) that was supposed to represent something else (an imagined man wearing the (cartoon) costume) could possible engender any kind of emotional religious reaction at all.The whole thing is a gigantic comedy of errors. The producers of South Park are trying to show how silly this ban on depicting an image of Mohammed is, which turns out not to be banned at all, by representing an imagined Mohammed by some other poorly drawn object.OH GOOD GRIEF! I can’t even really get my head around this. I believe that there is something wrong with Islam; it just doesn’t square with the modern world.

  • tony55398

    We can, of course draw a historical life of Mohammed, a word picture of what he was and did and said, much more effective than any insulting childlike, drawing could be. This in reality should not be not insulting to believers merely truth, after all the truth will set you free. Everyone has the right to write historically about any human figure in history be it Christ or Moses or Mohammed and all believers have the right to know their founders background and their actions.

  • sa08366

    @shaktinahBut about your comment that “First of all, there is nothing in Buddhism or Hinduism that says you can’t depict the Buddha or Hindu deities. ..In the case of South Park, while I can understand why some Muslims would be offended (due to the prohibition of depicting Mohammed)the show is clearly not taking specific aim at Muslims.”I guess according to you Buddhism and Hindoism are therefore religions that wouldnt mind their deities being depicted as silly and idiotic. And actually give prizes out to people who caricature them! The fact is that they are clearly far more tolerant religions. If as you say the South park episode was not targeting muslims alone why did they react as they did? You say Islam prohibits the depiction of Mohammad and you can therefore understand the reactions of the muslims. That’s a real slippery slope. We should also start “understanding” polygamy, the suppression of women, the stoning and maiming of adulterers and thieves if any religion or cult has one or all of them santioned in its book.

  • DanielintheLionsDen

    I would like to repost this, because, there were so many typo’s in it, I think the meaning was a little obscured:To my suprise, there is no Islamic prohibition on depicting images of Mohammed. In fact, images of Mohammed are ALL OVER THE PLACE. In some parts of the Islamic world, images of Mohammed are discouraged, so that people will not worhip the image of Mohammed, instead Mohammed himself, (never mind that Mohammed is supposedly not to be worshipped at all, as there is only one God, Allah).I saw the episode of “South Park.” It is a cartoon show, and one of its claims to fame, and the source of alot of its humor, is that the South Park cartoons are poorly drawn. In this episode, the symbolic figures of many religions were depicted in poor cartoons, all except Mohammed. Mohammed was not depicted at all; Mohammed “in a bear suit” was depicted, as a nod, to the mistaken and supposed Islamic ban on depicting images of Mohammed. The poorly drawn cartoon was of a bear, which, if one used ones imagination, was a bear costume, not a real (cartoon) bear, and inside the costume was Mohammed, presented this way, as a loop-hole in drawing an actual real (cartoon) Mohammed.I think that the writers of the show were not making fun of Mohammed at all; they were making fun that something poorly drawn (the bear constume) that was supposed to represent something else (an imagined man wearing the cartoon costume) could possibly engender any kind of emotional religious reaction at all.The whole thing is a gigantic comedy of errors. The producers of South Park are trying to show how silly this ban on depicting an image of Mohammed is, which turns out not to be banned at all, by representing an imagined Mohammed by some other poorly drawn object.OH GOOD GRIEF! I can’t even really get my head around this.

  • RBCrook

    The problem is that “fringe Muslim elements” constitute intellectual supporters that likely number in the hundreds of millions . . . it is a far bigger group of Muslims than this post would have you believe . . . and mainstream, non-radical Islam’s failure to aggressively confront Muslim clerics and the large numbers of those who support them is the reason this is a worldwide problem — and the ONLY way this ever becomes a non-issue again.

  • daniel12

    There are no doubt some people in Western civilization wanting to provoke Islam just to provoke something, anything, but then there are those who observe that to depict Mohammed or make fun of him in any way might cost you your life.And these others criticizing Islam, not the mere provokers, might observe that apparently Mohammed is not to be depicted, but this does not stop thousands upon thousands of Islamic boys being named Mohammed year after year. If Mohammed is not to be depicted, then why call one’s son Mohammed when one not only has transferred the name Mohammed to an image, one has transferred the name to a lesser being because no Islamic boy can ever be let alone surpass the prophet himself?Things like that bother people in Western civilization. Pieces of hypocrisy like that. Mohammed cannot be depicted but thousands upon thousands of boys can carry that name so that shouting “Mohammed will you please stand up” in a crowd of Islamics will result in a significant number of people rising. Makes you want to say that if Mohammed cannot be depicted then perhaps all boys with the name Mohammed should be wearing burkas so we cannot see the supposed face–or rather current depiction–of Mohammed.Furthermore, it would not surprise me a bit that making observations such as I am making now will result in at least threats to my life. Certainly I am more afraid of writing these words than any other words I can think of at the moment except for words of blind hatred. And even then, blind hating does not often cost you your life in Western civilization. Amazing how with Islam it is brought right in our faces that no jokes can be made about something–or rather our choices are joke and die or not joke and not die. An entire civilization–Islamic of course–dictating in our Western lands, directing our course of laughter. If Islam has its way Western civilization will no longer have that fine word irreverent. Laughter, the mind, is set back by Islam.

  • peterheinegg

    Hm, we’re not supposed to caricature Muhammad, a man who told his followers to beat their unruly wives, who had no problem with adding a nine-year-old to his harem, and who condemned all his many wives to lifelong celibacy after his death

  • jfv123

    How terrible.If Islam prohibits Mulslims from drawing pictures, Fine. If you’re Muslim, feel free not to draw. That’s called freedom of religion.The rest of us are free to do as we please. That’s called free speech.There is nothing inherently wrong with the act of drawing per se. The content of the drawing is what should be examined to determine whether person doing the drawing is trying to insult someone.When someone does that, we’re all free to make judgments about the artists’ taste, worldview and whether they’re the type person we would like to hang out with.It’s not OK, however, to insist that we all give up an important part of our ability to communicate by adhering to the practice of another religion to which we do not subscribe.Cartoons and other pictures are an important communication tool in our culture. When the artist puts a picture into the public domain, we should judge the artist by the content of the picture, not by the mere fact that the picture was made or shared.America is a big, rough, rowdy culture. They has positive aspects and negative ones. Muslims will be making a mistake, if they try to change that.

  • shaldar44

    Dear Mr. Patel, It would have helped if the MSA had actually seen the South Park episode and come out strongly against what they call “fringe elements” earlier, instead of reacting to the “chalker” reactionaries. That way their apparent adherence to free speech would have been more authentic.This lack of leadership by the so-called “mainstream” Muslim movements compares badly with the militant zealousness of the “fringe elements”, and maybe this is something you can take up in your next article

  • alientech

    Patel, don’t talk to us, talk to your fellow Muslims who are our neighbors only to become terrorists, like the Times Square bomber. Nobody bothered him, nobody stopped him from becoming a US citizen, nobody stopped him from making a life in this country. What did he want to give back for that? Dead Americans. Islam is the motivating force to almost all of the terrorists around the world today. Maybe Muslims should work to change that instead of griping that non-Muslims have an incorrect view of Islam.

  • YEAL9

    Excercising free speech!!!Is Eboo Patel is working for a better world or has he found a way to make money from the inherent sordid nature of Islam and the worst book ever written aka the koran? Mr. Patel pays himself well ($120,000/yr) from his Interfaith Youth Core “non-profit” group’s receipts (donations etc.) which, based on the group’s IRS Form 990, appears to be more of a stock holding company ($2,335,960 portfolio in 2008- guidestar.org) for Mr. Patel than it is a non-profit. Non-profits do not pay taxes on dividends, interest or capital gains.Did Eboo Patel’s Interfaith Youth Core work for Obama’s election campaign as we see Eboo is not only on the recent Chicago Council of Global Affairs’ task force but also on Obama’s Faith advisory council?Did a Faith Initiative grant from the State Department help defray the cost of CCOGA’s report and Mr. Patel’s task force pay?

  • DanielintheLionsDen

    But Daniel12, Mohammed CAN be depicted. There are pictures of Mohammed ALL OVER THE PLACE. (Look it up!) Some Moslems “frown” on it, but others revel in it. So, isn’t THAT an eye-opener?A caricature of Mohammed is not what has been protested in the past; the IMAGE of Mohammed is what has been protested; but there is no Islamic ban on images of Mohammed, and I suppose that being offended at a caricature would be just plain old garden variety hurt feelings, and nothing to go crazy over. But the South Park episode did not even depict Mohammed at all, but a bear costume that Mohammed wore, and it wasn’t a real bear costume, IT WAS A POORLY DRAWN CARTOON of a bear costume, and Mohammed was not really wearing the bear costume, because IT WAS A CARTOON!!!!!Now that the gloves are off, and we Christians and Moslems all know where we stand, I can picture the future:Islamic women wearing their burqas because they know how much Westerners hate it, and Westerns feverishly drawing pictures of Mohammed, and posting them all over the place becaue they know how much Moslems hate that.Oh Good Grief!

  • Navin1

    Interesting rhetoric, all of it.So full of ignorance.1) speech attacking a group: as an infidel I find the koran to be insulting, hateful, and childish nonsense designed to provoke its followers to attack me and my family. “The key issue here isn’t free speech – it’s actions that intentionally and effectively marginalize a community.”It is duplicitous to say that you don’t want to marginalize a community and at the same time worship a book that marginalizes several communities. The fact is, as a muslim who surrenders free will to the koran, you must hate the infidel. Your god teaches you to hate. You must thus either hate me or you must rewrite your book that marginalized several groups.2) the sacred cow. Being the only one responding to this nonsense of EP that actually holds cows sacred (and the rest of the creation), yes. If you insult my sacred cow it bothers me. So when MFHussein insults my gods, it bothers me. Thus he provokes in me a desire to protect my sacred cows and a violent act. How many muslims will deny him cover because he marginalizes Hindus? How many islamists will threaten to kill him for insulting the religion of nearly a billion people. How many muslims shout how intolerant Hindus are for attacking him? The nonsense that spews from EP is this:Whatever is done to insult or harm you by me is justified, whatever is done by you to resist me is evil. That is the sum of the koranic and biblical teaching. Truly the teaching that propagates evil. There is a better teaching. Even if you are incapable of worshiping the totality of God’s creation, including sacred cows, even if you are incapable to bowing to a human being while bowing to a city… you can abandon the call of hatred of the infidel, from there, you can abandon the teaching of an imperfect prophet of an imperfect god. Then you can seek freedom and love god within yourself and within the totality of creation. For god gave you, each of us individually, the ability to be God’s prophet here and now. Your soul is the road to god, not a book, not prophet..hariuam

  • DanielintheLionsDen

    JFVYes, but there is no Islamic ban on depicting images of Mohammed. It is bogus.Google it, and see for yourself. Moslems all over the world, LOVE pictures of Mohammed. If they get all huffy that it violating a religious taboo, then they are ignorant, even of their own religion.

  • Navin1

    btwwhen a muslim walks down devoutly muslim, say by wearing a burqa or other outward symbol of their religion, they are dividing themselves from the rest of modern society. They are creating the division.Not only that, but they are telling me, an infidel, that they worship a god that hates me. They are putting in my face that they think I am a superstitious nonsensical hated creation of their god. Their “free speech” insults my relgious sensitivities. Please tell them to stop after all, “I ask only for mutual respect and understanding between our organizations and I stand directly against the bigotry and intolerance that is purported by people of both religious and secular humanist backgrounds”hariaum

  • docwhocuts

    WE RETAIN THE RIGHT TO DEPICT GOD.it is that simple.

  • robert17

    We can say what we like in this country with few exceptions. Threaten us with death for saying something, and we are likely to do so simply to maintain our rights to do so. The vast majority of us do not seek to insult Muslims. These drawing are a reaction to the threat we perceive from radical Muslims, and perhaps more importantly to the risk averse in our government and other institutions who will cave in and refuse to stand up for our rights in response to those threats. I make the explanation above because it is important for Muslims to understand what is happening here and why. Just as moderate Muslims don’t want to be associated with terrorism or intolerance, neither do moderate Westerners want to be misunderstood to be intolerant. The statement being made by these drawings is not “Islam sucks”. It is “We refuse to compromise our rights for a dollop of perceived security”.

  • JohninMpls

    I appreciate the thoughtful approach, Mr. Patel.I am an atheist, and I tend to agree with you. Once certainly has the right to act like a jerk, but it’s not a right one is forced to exercise. The free speech protest accomplished nothing but building more walls.And with all the hatred and ignorance towards Muslims that already exists, it’s reasonable to question the value of such a demonstration.

  • JohninMpls

    DanielintheLionsDen, that’s not a phenomenon reserved for Muslims. Do you mean to tell me that all Christians agree with one another when it comes to the practice of their faith or the application of their holy texts?Of course not. But we couldn’t call any sect “ignorant of their own faith” for adhering to – or failing to adhere to – some principal that other sects hold sacred.

  • laboo

    Eboo Patel makes a persuasive argument. There certainly is a distinction between testing the boundaries of free speech per se, and deliberate insulting or showing disrespect of another’s religious beliefs. In any specific instance, this line may be difficult to draw but nevertheless the distinction is a real one.Speaking as a progressive Christian — we Christians have been faced with this issue a number of times in recent years. And the outrage of fundamentalist Christians is as virulent as that of Muslim fundamentalists when they feel their deity is being defamed.I recall how Monty Python’s “The Life of Brian” enraged many Christians who felt Jesus was being mocked. (The obvious fact that “Brian” was clearly Barabbas, not Christ, totally escaped most of the fundies back then.)Next came “The Last Temptation of Christ”. Jesus getting it on with Mary Magdalene! Blasphemous! (Our church youth group walked through a line of raucous protesters to get to the box office so we could see it and decide for ourselves.)After that it was “P!ss Christ” and some of the Mapplethorpe photos. Again, lots of Christians had apoplexy.In today’s news are stories about Tarleton State University in Stephensville, TX being coerced into cancelling “Corpus Christi”, a Terrence McNally (Tony-winner) play that depicts Christ as gay. Now the Cathedral of Hope in Dallas has agreed to host it — and no doubt, the rancor of the mob will now fall upon them.And even Elton John is being pilloried for stating that he believes Jesus was a very intelligent — and gay — man!So you see, this question of impiety and blasphemy oftentimes hinges simply on WHOSE OX IS BEING GORED.As Patel says, the intent is key. And in my opinion, in the present instance there’s some serious question that this is truly a First Amendment issue. If it were, these cartoonists would be mocking all religious equally instead of focusing on Islam. Or more likely they’d be focusing on Christianity since it’s the sacred-cow religion of OUR society.And to the commenters who insist on dragging terrorism into this, if you don’t include in that group those noble Christians who murder obstetricians, or who plan and practice to murder police officers, you’re missing the point. Actually, you’re missing it anyway — big time.

  • CharlesGriffith1

    ….This reader here fully supports what I’ve pasted below by one “alientech” who sums things up very well….I would question only his mild word…”griping”…. in that those who feel compelled to murder those others who may disagree with the distortions created by a contrived belligerent belief indicate a serious sickness hiding behind the terribly distorting screen of what some insist upon calling a “religion”. That’s why I also want to see overt evidence that the totally passive moderate Muslim “majority” are fighting this malignant aberration inside their very own tent. If these “moderates” can’t silence these terrorists for fear of their own lives, they then themselves become accessories to murder. Quoting…. “..Patel, don’t talk to us, talk to your fellow Muslims who are our neighbors only to become terrorists, like the Times Square bomber. Nobody bothered him, nobody stopped him from becoming a US citizen, nobody stopped him from making a life in this country. What did he want to give back for that? Dead Americans. Islam is the motivating force to almost all of the terrorists around the world today. Maybe Muslims should work to change that instead of griping that non-Muslims have an incorrect view of Islam.Posted by: alientech | May 11, 2010 4:49 PM ,,,,” End quote.

  • AKafir

    Patel:Muhammad, your prophet, was not a nice human. His acts as given by the muslims historians are those of a very violent and manipulative man. Kaafirs must not compromise on their right to voice their honestly felt and believed opinions and views on Muhammad or the religion that was spawned by him. Followers of Muhammad kill, threaten violence and threaten the destruction of civil society to silence those who wish to criticize Muhammad or his Islam. Giving into their blackmail would be disastrous for the non-muslim societies. There should be absolutely no compromise here. Quran calls the non-muslims filthy and on that basis non-muslims are prevented from even entering the city of Mecca. Every year, “moderate” muslims by the millions declare that their non-muslim fellow citizens are “filthy” when they choose to go to Haj. Why don’t you call upon the muslims to stop such open and blatant insults to the non-muslims and their beliefs? Perhaps if the muslims would show by their deeds that they can “respect” those who choose to not believe in Muhammad or his Islam, that “people like you” will not have the need to lie and deceive the kaafirs.

  • shaktinah

    @SA08366 – Actually, I have no problem with polygamy as long as its voluntary. There is no “slippery slope” as you claim. As long as no one is hurt, I respect differences in culture. If otoh, a cultural norm oppresses or harms people (as does stoning of adulterers), then I oppose it. To claim that it’s a “slippery slope” is just an attempted justification at cultural intolerance. As for Buddhism and Hinduism being more tolerant religions than Islam, even if that were true, what does that have to do with the wrongness of these “Draw Mohammed” protests?

  • skramsv

    The God of Abraham is not nice and loving. He demanded that the Hebrews murder/slaughter whole communities right down to the last baby. The kings that ruled over Israel were amoral, that is if the Bible is to be believed. It was the God of Abraham that demanded that nobody create an image of him or even to say or write his name. The reason: it is impossible and insulting to try and define the undefinable. Islam did not make these beliefs up. They came from the Hebrews. Today’s Christians are decended from very evil people who murdered, tortured, and even in current times molest innocents. The so-called word of god has been twisted into words supporting hate and evil. Christians even have hymns about Christians Soldiers going off to war. How peaceful and loving (Christ-like) is that? Christians wish to force every non-believer into believing their way or die.Religious extremists, and extremists in general are a danger to humanity. It is time to stop worrying about the word preceding extremist and worry about how they are destroying humanity.

  • rcubedkc

    Who the hell cares what muzlums want.Pack up and hit the road eboo, you’re opinion doesn’t matter.Muzlums don’t belong in the United States in the first place.

  • Alex511

    fr laboo:>…In today’s news are stories about Tarleton State University in Stephensville, TX being coerced into cancelling “Corpus Christi”, a Terrence McNally (Tony-winner) play that depicts Christ as gay. Now the Cathedral of Hope in Dallas has agreed to host it — and no doubt, the rancor of the mob will now fall upon them….<Don't forget "reverend" fred phelps and his anti-gay CULT, running around, disrupting private military funerals and productions of "The Laramie Project" and screaming at the top of their little leather lungs, just like used-car salesmen. Ooops, didn't mean to diss used-car salesmen.

  • chatard

    oh the tribulations of being a liberal progressive MUSLIM.

  • DCObserver1

    Before posting crap like that, AGAP9, read about the history of your own religion, assuming you are a Christian.Hitler came straight out of the Judeo-Christian tradition. In fact, the most popular book written by Martin Luther was die Juden und Ihren Falsatum. Go read it first. Before Hitler, go read about Genghis Khan and Abaga, your fellow Christians.And as for the Old Testament Moses “Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” (Numbers 31:16-18)” is not fantasy. Christian minorities have survived in Muslim countries and sometimes flourished. India has remained Hindu majority after a thousand year of Muslim rule. Were they always treated fairly? No. But find a single Christian country in pre-Modern Europe where the Muslims or Pagans have survived. You can’t.POSTED BY: AGAPN9 | MAY 11, 2010 11:59 AM Every time I read about Islam some new ugly fact gets added to my already negative attitude toward this religion.I don’t hate or dislike muslims – I hope and pray that they someday learn who Christ and Mary really are.I believe God has a plan for muslims – a beautiful plan – but I also think its going to get real ugly before they are willing to listen to it and change direction.The list against Mohammad is omnious -b. he had sex with a 9 year old who he married when she was 6 and muslims still marry childrenc. He murdered men for profit – no one would listen to him until he made his religion profitabled. He mistreated Jews and Christians – the nazi got the idea of hanging a symbol around the necks of Jews from the muslimse. He married the wives of the men he murdered and eventually had 13 wives plus concubines – and was constantly having “revelations to justify” his bizarre behaviorf. He looked down on all other religionsg. He encouraged his followers to die to impose his interpreation on everyone elseh. His interpretation is self-contradictory and poorly thought out in a number of places – especially is comparison of Ezra as a son of God and Jesus as the Son of God – the two claims are quite different yet he doesn’t seem either to know or care

  • HillRat

    In this country, if I wanted, I should be able to paint a conventional portrait of Muhammad discoursing about Islam.I should also be free to portray him as an out of control turbined madman with a frothy-mouthed glare bent on regional hegemony.And even though it may be untruthful, I do have the right to ugly speech and therefore I could paint him in a sacriligious, defamatory light. We’ve seen no other religion in this nation exempt from such ugly speech and Islam should be treated no differently. In the end, ugly speech remains protected speech in this country and quite simply Muslims need to learn to deal with it.

  • ZZim

    Eboo, you lost me here.Muslim-Americans have been stalwart allies in the battle against foreign extremists. It’s a shame that their feelings have been hurt by these AAF people. But isn’t is sort of like being friends with two people are fighting? You’re in the middle, you’re going to get hurt. It’s a common story of the Human condition.I applaud the AAF for standing up to the foreign extremists. We should all do so. We should also understand that our struggle against the foreigners attacking us can also hurt our Muslim-American friends and conduct ourselves accordingly, with dignity and respect for our fellow Americans.But we should never back down in the face of terrorist threats.

  • CogitoErgoBibo

    From what I’ve read, Montesquieu’s philosophy had a large influence on James Madison, and he believed govenment “should be set up so that no man need be afraid of another”.I agree with you that the act was offensive, but I think their motives were more Benjamine Franklin than you are concluding. Each of the acts you suggested as offensive, are offensive, however, while we might want to ride Nazi’s out of town on a rail, I don’t believe it ethical to open fire on them.I think Comedy Central made the right choice as terrorist strikes haven’t been historically surgical in their execution. The executives would have made a decision to risk harm for all the employees, not only the writers, which is not their right.Life is very precious and I think we haven’t come far enough sociologically to balance the danger from how far we’ve come in our ability to destroy life. That is not a slight to any religion, person, or group, it is mearly a thought which leads to a hope that we focus completely on disease and disasters which occur naturally that are killing life, and stop killing each other.

  • mike195879

    “This seems to me largely a trick of language. When something gets called a “Sacred Cow”, it must be attacked. When the mantle of free speech is raised, it must be defended. And when Muslims are in the picture, all 1.5 billion of us somehow get linked to the Dragon Threatening Civilization rather than being viewed as your neighbors just trying to go about our business.”Come on Eboo, you have been living in US for a while and you should know that making fun any person and beliefs is our fundamental right as marring four women at a time is in Islam (BTW we don’t allow it)

  • CharlesGriffith1

    More emphasis should be placed on just what specifically, these “mainstream Muslims” are doing, if anything, to overtly combat this terrorism committed by their fellow co-religionists. Part of our Muslim Problem can be traced to their skillful application of Taqiyya withinin as many of their responses to Occidental criticism as possible, in order to create skirmishes in this area called “lawfare”….creating what they hope to be precedents which in turn can be leveraged into growing authority over spreading areas. Precedents which none of the other religions this nation is host to have seen the need to pursue. Separate washrooms/restrooms for Muslims at Dulles Airport comes to mind…the existing ones being deemed insufficient for Muslim “needs”. There is a strong linkage between these efforts of Muslims/Islamists to plant bombs in populated areas and the more legalistic approaches creating diverting red herrings.Until we see more evidence of these “moderate” Muslims being proactive (the currently fashionable term) and overtly assisting their host country’s efforts against Muslim/Islamist terrorism, the bleatings of Muslim student/campus organizations will be facades. These Muslim students seem to be fronts, sleepers, in effect. In short, we’re being used.

  • ThishowIseeit

    Eboo,

  • DebChatterjee

    Eboo Patel apparently is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. With his nebulous and most tendentious arguments he attempts to uphold the maxim: that drawing Muhammad cartoons is offensive to Muslims and probably deserves legal action. (If USA had been a Sharia State, Eboo may have called for stoning or public killing of those who defiled Islam by drawing Muhammad cartoons.) Eboo cannot help it, no matter how ridiculous he comes across: a Muslim has to defend his/her faith and is obligated to uphold the absurdities of Islam. Anyway, point being that Washington Post is just doing a good thing: by paying Eboo to write such ludicrous articles it maybe exposing Islamic values to the general American people.Great job Eboo ! Thanks to WaPo !

  • Sajanas

    Is it being bigoted to point out when you think the policy of another religion is ridiculous? Should we not offend Scientologists by putting placing their weird sci-fi cult documents online so that the people paying thousands of dollars in their programs can see what their real endpoints are?Sure, Muslims are offended, but it is offense that is out of line with traditional American standards of free speech. There is no such thing as Blasphemy here. You acquaint drawing Mohammad with black face, the n-word, Nazism, and gay-bashing. And yet, is being black, gay, or of Jewish heritage really a philosophy, with points that can be analyzed and discussed? I don’t believe in the Prophet Mohammad, I don’t think he was a great man, an agent of god, the Koran is not the literal word of god and I think prohibitions on his image (which weren’t followed historically either, there are plenty of illuminations of him around) are as silly as any religious other proscriptions. The AAF campaign isn’t racism or discrimination, it is intellectual disagreement. Islam as a whole needs to get used to it, because it will be criticized by intellectuals, and I think this criticism is important. It is indeed wrong to hate Muslims, but Americans should not give them a free pass to do whatever they like, and say “No, this is not covered by free speech, because this is IMPORTANT to us”.

  • Secular

    Eboo, I have a question for you, and all you mainstream moderate muslims. How is it that all of you come out in droves along with your lunatic fringe to protest slightest of the offenses that may be occurring. Of course your lunatic fringe threatens the very existence of the perpetrators. However, why are the folks that are so easily offended are usually silent when it is the other way around. No body would be demanding that you denounce every nutjob amongst you, if only you don’t rile to each and every innocuous offense. So please stop bleating. The no body will bother you to denounce every nutjob amongst you. You guys are becoming whiny and tiring.

  • terrykingvt

    The point of drawing the Prophet (PBUH) in chalk, or on the Facebook group asking for 1000 drawings, is not to insult Islam. It is to stand up to threats and bullying against the Constitution of the United States.If we can be scared into NOT drawing something on a piece of paper because it offends someone, then the Constitutional protections are greatly weakened.I am living this year in a country where I can not openly practice any religion other than Islam. My wife can not drive. It is THEIR country and THEIR rules, and there is no question that another countries rules (such as the US Constitution) do NOT apply here.Same deal the other way. Each country gets to decide it’s own rules and is not dictated to by others. Democratic, Totalitarian, or whatever. THEY get to decide.I don’t want any other country, faith or philosophy to succeed in attacking my Constitutional rights when I am home in the USA.Fair is fair!

  • areyousaying

    But we should never back down in the face of terrorist threats.Posted by: ZZim | May 11, 2010 9:47 AM ———————————-But we should never deny terrorists their Second Amendment rights to buy Glocks and semi-automatic assault rifles.

  • ZZim

    But we should never back down in the face of terrorist threats.=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-I’m afraid I don’t see the connection between standing up to terrorist threats and the right to bear arms. Other than the fact that free speech and the right to bear arms are both in the Bill of Rights? Do you feel that free speech and the right to bear arms are incompatible? Or do they make each other possible?Could you please connect the dots for me?That is, IF there is a connection. I would love to hear it..

  • clearthinking1

    Eboo Patel is an apologist for Islam and violence. No more; no less. That is all you need to know. He is as fanatic as any other muslim. Ever wonder what motivates him to write the same old defense o’ islam every time. The method of muslims has been the same throughout history. When not in power, pretend to be reasonable (like Eboo and MSA). When you get power, use violence to destroy the infidels. He is like Major Nidal Malik Hasan of Texas. He too seemed like a moderate American muslim, until he made up his mind act based on his true loyalty.

  • KraftPaper

    There is no freedom to spout hate and instigate violence. It’s against the law to advocate the violent overthrow of the US government whether you’re a Tea Partier, or a Fundamentalist of any religion including Evangelicals and Moslems. The faster we make progress in science the more obvious it is that our religions haven’t faced up to their code. It seems the major religions are more intent on increasing numbers in their flock than bringing people together. For heavens sake no pun intended, the pope is more concerned with the reputation of the church after the sexual misconduct of its priesthood than the lives of those destroyed and harmed. How can he square that with the persecution the church has created on others? It’s beyond me what Catho

  • agapn9

    Every time I read about Islam some new ugly fact gets added to my already negative attitude toward this religion.I don’t hate or dislike muslims – I hope and pray that they someday learn who Christ and Mary really are. I believe God has a plan for muslims – a beautiful plan – but I also think its going to get real ugly before they are willing to listen to it and change direction.The list against Mohammad is omnious -b. he had sex with a 9 year old who he married when she was 6 and muslims still marry childrenc. He murdered men for profit – no one would listen to him until he made his religion profitabled. He mistreated Jews and Christians – the nazi got the idea of hanging a symbol around the necks of Jews from the muslimse. He married the wives of the men he murdered and eventually had 13 wives plus concubines – and was constantly having “revelations to justify” his bizarre behaviorf. He looked down on all other religionsg. He encouraged his followers to die to impose his interpreation on everyone elseh. His interpretation is self-contradictory and poorly thought out in a number of places – especially is comparison of Ezra as a son of God and Jesus as the Son of God – the two claims are quite different yet he doesn’t seem either to know or careAnd as a result many muslims are very angry people – belligerent and full of themselves.And I suggest as westerners learn more and more about Mohammad the ridicule will get worse but had muslims been less defensive their religion would have been left alone -People see loss of temper as a sign of weakness but don’t realize that muslims are willing to kill for that man – because they have been culturally programmed to do so.

  • ak1967

    We need to be clear that a religion is based on faith and not facts, hence, all the writings and traditions should not be taken literally or followed. A little bit of religion is very good, but too much is a disaster.And all the countries must have seperation of religion and state.Rest will take care of itself.

  • abrahamhab1

    Let us be clear about the identity of those Muslim students in the so-called Muslim Student Association (SMA). Those are foreign students who come to this country on a student visa, and then find a way to stay. They do that by mostly marrying US citizens and as soon as they get their citizenship they divorce their American wives go back to their ancestral home and marry their 13 years old cousins. Those “students” have no respect for the culture of their host country, and have all the prejudice against the “infidels” and “polytheists” that was drilled in them by their religion. When those students talk about tolerance and respect for the other, this is part of their “taqqiya”; religiously sanctioned deception.

  • shel_zahav

    This is free speech vs Islam. Islam has always censored free speech. Leftists keep trying to spin this to make it seem that most of the Muslim world is democratic except for a few fringe elements. But this is absurd. There are almost no Muslim democracies, and the few that exist make it a crime punishable by death to insult the thief and child molester whom they call their prophet.

  • DanielintheLionsDen

    One of the problems with Islam, is that some Islamic people like to portray themselves and their belief system as very sophisticated, because they pray, read the Koran, think alot about God and other serious things, and struggle with the temptations of lust. But to me, it is all a little simple-minded. For someone to hold their simple-mindedness up, as some kind of superior way of thinking, well, it just adds insult to injury. Many of the Islamic people who post here, have this attitude of self-righteous superiority. Whether it is Mormons, Catholics, Southern Baptists, or Moslems, such an attitude is part of the problem. This is a religious “type” that we also have in Conservative Christianity. This type demands respect, but does not extend it to others. But it is a demand for respect that will never be answered. Respect is earned. And Islam is not doing anything at all to earn it.

  • cassie123

    I liked this article. I agree that with Mr. Patel that the student leader took the high road. I think the AAF just made themselves look petty and disrespectful. The AAF wants their group to have all the respect, but do not give any respect to others. That just makes their entire message hard to swallow for me (even if they have good points). It is hard for me to sit and listen to what someone has to say when they are disrespectful. If the AAF had an issue to demonstrate against, they should have respectfully addressed it – instead of cruelly walking all over another’s views. This group wants political correctness only when it benefits them. They want people to recognize and appreciate their views but enjoy disgracing others. And that is deplorable! They did more harm to their orgianization than good with their actions. The AAF has every right to do what they did. They were well within their free speech (which I am fine with) however, as I have said before – there is a difference between free speech and responsible speech. What they did was not the responsible or adult way to handle the situation. It reminds me of what a 5 yr old would do.All that being said, I agree with the AAF regarding the free speech of South Park and the threats from that Muslim group (which I hope is truly “fringe”…). I think they went about demonstrating their views in the entirely wrong way. Their message was muddled and they lost people like me who might not agree with AAF or Muslims but respect them. I also wish that more Muslim groups would come out stronger against terrorist actions and threats. I know that some do, such as the Muslim group mentioned in this article…I guess I wish I heard about it more. Perhaps I have missed it…

  • mothball496

    Wow. There’s a lot more resentment here than I expected. Thank you for the article Eboo.The only point that I would like to add is that we should move away from general labels. Not all Muslims believe in the same things so we should discuss individual beliefs (such as consequences of apostasy or retaliation due to offensive depictions of the prophet). As an atheist, I simply wish the AAF took the time to weigh the consequences. Eventually we all want to come to a place of mutual understanding and this is probably a small setback. What was the real point? That you could technically do it without being scared? I guess it comes down to a difference in opinion on the tactic needed: confrontation or discussion.

  • princess1987

    wow. next time i visit the washington post online, i’ll remember not read the comments because they are all highly bigoted and uninformed about Islam. although south park sets out to alienate any and all, i love this article.

  • YEAL9

    Once again: Excercising free speech!!!Is Eboo Patel is working for a better world or has he found a way to make money from the inherent sordid nature of Islam and the worst book ever written aka the koran? To wit: Mr. Patel pays himself well ($120,000/yr) from his Interfaith Youth Core “non-profit” group’s receipts (donations etc.) which, based on the group’s IRS Form 990, appears to be more of a stock holding company ($2,335,960 portfolio in 2008- guidestar.org) for Mr. Patel than it is a non-profit. Non-profits do not pay taxes on dividends, interest or capital gains.Did Eboo Patel’s Interfaith Youth Core work for Obama’s election campaign as we see Eboo is not only on the recent Chicago Council of Global Affairs’ task force but also on Obama’s Faith advisory council? (note: the CCOGA once was Mrs. Obama’s employer paying her ~$100,000/yr so again another connection between Mr. Patel and the Obamas.)Did a Faith Initiative grant from the State Department help defray the cost of CCOGA’s report and Mr. Patel’s task force pay?Put this all together and it vitiates any pro-Islamic commentary Mr. Patel might have now or in the future.

  • APaganplace

    While this kind of thing certainly can be used by some to stoke Islamophobia, there is the simple fact that demanding that free societies obey your own religious tabooes really is crossing the line. One can certainly make a case that it offends fellow citizens and guests, …I’d respect that, myself, if I felt any inclination to make such depictions in the first place, but it’s another matter entirely to say ‘You can’t say that in any tone or any circumstances.’ No, it’s certainly not all Muslims, but *other* cultures, like Western ones… Don’t take kindly to being pushed around. Muslims should understand this, too. Rather than let us be further divided over it.

  • adrienne_najjar

    Regarding this article and all the damn discussion that followed:It’s all BS. Muslims are out to dominate the world, ergo they need to be snuffed. I’ll be on the front lines. It’ll start as soon as the crazies strike another big blow ala 9/11.End of discussion.

  • bobohilario

    Patel basically claims that atheists should “sit down and shut up, you bastards!””You Bastards!”? that’s awfully offensive towards a large group of people.

  • amitx1

    Dear Eboo,

  • YEAL9

    Once again: Excercising free speech!!!Is Eboo Patel is working for a better world or has he found a way to make money from the inherent sordid nature of Islam and the worst book ever written aka the koran? To wit: Mr. Patel pays himself well ($120,000/yr) from his Interfaith Youth Core “non-profit” group’s receipts (donations etc.) which, based on the group’s IRS Form 990, appears to be more of a stock holding company ($2,335,960 portfolio in 2008- guidestar.org) for Mr. Patel than it is a non-profit. Non-profits do not pay taxes on dividends, interest or capital gains.Did Eboo Patel’s Interfaith Youth Core work for Obama’s election campaign as we see Eboo is not only on the recent Chicago Council of Global Affairs’ task force but also on Obama’s Faith advisory council?Did a Faith Initiative grant from the State Department help defray the cost of CCOGA’s report and Mr. Patel’s task force pay?Put this all together and it vitiates any pro-Islamic commentary Mr. Patel might have now or in the future.

  • DanielintheLionsDen

    I watch South Park occaisionally. I watched it last night. It is a clever, well-written show. South Park does a lot more than make fun of religions. It lampoons any and all deserving targets. Islam is a deserving target. “Not-getting-the-joke” is part of the problem.As I said earlier, South Park did not actually protray a cartoon image of Mohammed. They were playing with the idea of image depiction and religious offense in a quasi-cartoon, simulated reality, versus real-life, which is actually quite a sophisticated satire, and the Islamic reaction proved to be simple-minded and primitive, just as anyone would expect from a Medeivel paradigm of the world.Islam presents its values as superior to Western values. But, speaking for myself, that is absurd, that a Medeival view of the world and of existence could even remotely compete with a twenty-first century paradigm. The most that Islam should ever hope for from a Western sentiment is mere “toleration” for their antiquated views and beliefs. If that is not good enough, then there will always be trouble between these two contrasting views of existence.

  • usapdx

    EXPRESSION WITHOUT SOUND IS NOT SPEECH. THE EAR HEARS SPEECH ONLY.

  • FarnazMansouri

    “If there are heroes in this situation, it’s the Muslim student leaders who are not only keeping their heads, but trying to use this situation to advance understanding and cooperation on their campuses.Here’s another case involving a Muslim Student Organization, this one at New York University (NYU).This club sent out via the internet, all over campus, some of the most vile, filthy, stupid, anti-Jewish racist propaganda that the Middle East and parts of Asia had produced to date. (It was also hilarious in its stupidity, but this sort of thing always is.)By way of explanation the “student leader” said the club was simply interested in informing the community of a “point of view” (exact quote), not necessarily that of the Muslim club.The dean explained that the club had the right of freedom of speech.The students about whom you complain did not spew hate speech, Eboo. Those at NYU did.As for your traditions, Eboo, you are welcome to them, just as you are welcome to secular American customs, traditions, and laws.As a Jew, I’m not fond of depictions of Moses. That would be Moses, the giver of the law, the great prohibitor of images and idolatry. JUdaism abhors idolatry and images. From where do you think, from whom do you think, Islam derived its prohibition about drawing Mohammad? Yet, notwithstanding the Judaic prohibition, all over the Justice Department, there are statues of Moses. This is anathema for many of us. Should Jews threaten the Justices? Should we find someone who can issue a fatwa?EBOO, this is the United States of America. A picture of the Virgin Mary, highly offensive to Catholics hung in the Brooklyn Museum. Catholics protested and that was that.South Park takes aim at everyone: Jews, blacks, Christians, you name it, and far more forcefully than it has at Muslims.Muslims should do what others in their situation have done viz nothing.No one can understand why Muslims can’t simply behave like the rest of us in America do.

  • mjforpeace

    Absolutely, fantastic article.Thank you, Eboo.

  • karsanghasi

    More relevant question is why are only Muslims killing and threatening violence when their gods/prophets are drawn or caricatured? That is more sickening than anything else.And even more sickening is most Muslim nations calling themselves Islamic republics and insulting all non-Muslims.As for MSA, the religionofpeace.com has a video where David Horowitz asks a MSA member whether she would want a second holocaust for Jews and she says she is for it.

  • Farnaz1Mansouri1

    karsanghasi “As for MSA, the religionofpeace.com has a video where David Horowitz asks a MSA member whether she would want a second holocaust for Jews and she says she is for it.”Thanks for the info. Could you post a link for this, please?

  • AKafir

    @Farnaz1Mansouri1:The link you asked karsanghasiAlso read for additional info: