Cont'd:

It is critical to continue to provide an alternative point of view however, because without it the 'they hate us; we hate them' principle will inevitably destroy us all.

I see two pertinent issues.

One IS the cause/effect issue.
When we choose to denigrate anything, we conveniently eliminate any issue that detracts from the point we are trying to make. Wilder's has done that,-it is evident here. Heaven forbid that the vile behaviour of any group throughout our history conducted under the banner of this or that belief system should 'taint' the target dé jour: Islam.

Freedom of Speech!!
Ahhhh! the dear old chestnut;-FoS. Suddenly (certainly in our recent history), FoS has become the absolute buzz phrase. How DID we manage before it? We were in shackles weren't we? Were we?
Why are we so obsessed with any move to curb our 'freedom of speech'? D'you think it MIGHT have something to do with the DEPTH of hatred in super abundance today? Could it possibly be that this preoccupation with FoS has its roots in the need to express hatred/intolerance/and even a 'call to arms'?

I think so.

A fine article, Ms Hamad. Take the criticism here with a grain of salt, as there are quite a number of people posting in forums such as this, who evidently have an axe to grind with Islam. Whether this dislike of the religion is justified, is open to interpretation.

I've no doubt Wilders piece was inflammatory and quite probably was aimed at receiving the kind of angry response it has incited. I dare say it was misleading at the very least, and focused solely on the worst aspects of the religion.

All that being said - it would appear to me, that Islam is in dire need of such criticism. An angry, violent response is not a mature one. I think most would agree that it's concerning that criticism of a religion can so easily lead to violence.

I haven't seen Fitna so I can't really comment, but I guess my concerns tend to mostly focus on instances when all muslims are represented as extremists.

When violent reactions do occur however, I guess I don't have much sympathy for those who respond in that manner, because it's evident they're the extremist sorts who do need to learn to face up to honest criticism and respond with maturity.

It's the quite moderates that unfortunately, cop much of the anti-muslim sentiment, which isn't really fair.

Phillip Tang, I will say to you as I said to Mr Right: critically analysing human behaviour is not the same as condoning it. As I watched Fitna, my gut was wrenched by the scenes of senseless human suffering. That anyone could think I would sympathise with these actions is extremely disturbing to me. My main aim in writing the article is to put forward the argument that simply blaming religion is not enough. What this hatred of Islam is achieving is nothing more than the simplistic mindset that if we could only get rid of Islam, the world would be happy place.

No. For we will still have issues of injustice, oppression and invasion. Your list of Muslim atrocities is impressive. But I too can show you a list of atrocities committed by others:

Hindus are killing Buddhists in Sri Lanka
Hindus are killing Muslims in India
Christian Basque Separatists are killing Christians in Spain
Christians are killing Christians in Colombia
Christians are killing civilians in Uganda.

Phillip, the list is endless. The point being, where you have humans you have conflict. Whilst I do agree that religion is a tool that is used in an attempt to justify the actions of the perpetrators, in many cases, it is not the underlying cause of the conflict.
Also, since Fitna left its frame of reference to Muslims in the Middle East and the West, I did likewise. The issues which concern Muslims in India and Pakistan etc are entirely different.

Louie and Ginx, thanks very much for your comments. It is appreciated that you can see I was trying to be impartial.

Paul, you bring up many worthy points. However, I am limited in the amount of comments I can post and I don't have the space left on this one. I hope you will check back tomorrow. Please don't think this an attempt to evade your questions as I actually agree with much of what you have written.

I haven't seen much of Fitna, but what I have seen appears similar to "jihadi" videos common on the web, with, of course different commentary.

Ms Hamad makes the point that there is little "context" offered for the scenes in Fitna. What could be expected in 15 minutes? A longer film would not be as easily available on the internet, nor would a lengthy expose of the background of each segment necessarily be of widespread interest. For those who want to follow up, the information is readily available- for instance the content of imam's sermons in say Saudi Arabia (or Indonesia, for that matter) on hatred of non-Muslims. Why is it that westerners are expected to learn about Islam when the common reaction of many Muslims to say, a Bible, is to recoil in horror at the thought of touching it?

Ms Hamad states: "From this statement, one could deduce that contrary to Wilders' claims, not all Muslims are inherently violent and some are actually willing to engage in peaceful dialogue". Is this an example of "peaceful dialogue" or is it "trying another tack" since eruptions of violence prove Wilders' (or the Danish cartoonists') point ("if you say Islam is violent we will kill you"). The orchestrated brouhaha over the cartoons (riots months after publication, non Jilland-Posten material included) was shown to be counterproductive from a Muslim point of view. The courts have backed free speech- so "softly softly catchee monkey" on the Muslims' part is more in tune with the current scenario, typified in Ban Kee Moon's dhimmi statements and the castration of the UNHCR by stacking with Muslim nations from the OIC and other human rights luminaries like Cuba.

My take on Islam is simple- Muslims are good people in spite of Islam, not because of it.

With the republishing of the so called "Mohammed cartoons" most Muslim websites and newspapers now exhibit signs displaying "except Mohamed" urging visitors and readers to boycott all Danish products. This public campaign has worked to the extent of making people detest any Danish product.

Privately many Muslim leaders or Imams are gleaming with joy for the reaction that such provocative moves have caused and many of them can not remember any thing like it. They wonder whether is it a rekindled love or dormant emotions or feelings that have been awakened.

Denmark has chosen to embrace the role of the whipping boy to whom all angry emotions are vented and Denmark is probably taking over the USA in one area, the country which has its flag suffer most frequent flag desecration or burning. So the previously respected Danish flag is now being widely used as a floor mat.

But why did the Danes or the Dutch choose this time? Probably it is just miscalculation on their part. They may have thought that this is the best time to defeat Islam morally as it has so far resisted all attacks militarily.

This systematic attack on Islam has so far been directed towards the most sacred person in Islam; the prophet Mohamed and to the most sacred book the Quran.

We should expect the next attack to be directed towards Makkah (Mecca ) the most sacred place for Muslims, where the Saudis would not welcome that attack publicly but privately would love to see millions of Muslims flock to Makkah exactly as the man wearing the coat was holding it tightly as the north wind blows stronger.

One can not help but ask the question: What have the Danes or the Dutch gained from all of this? And have they ran out of other ideas to demonstrate the right for free press?

Mohamed Alkilani

Dear TurnRightThenLeft .. why can't people have an "axe to grind with Islam", as you put it? In most places where Islam is practised and has become the dominant faith it is a repulsive religion - a form of cultural thought control that is embedded in people since they were very small. Hence you get the situation of the three year old girl in Fitna who says that Jews are "pigs", claiming that is what is stated in the Koran.

Of course, Ruby Hamad objects to the use of this interview footage with the young girl. "As a three-year-old, she obviously has not read this for herself. Someone has been feeding her this information. She could be reciting from a script, for all we know."

But if the three-year-old was a Saudi girl then this would be the spin on Jews she would be given as she moved into that country's education systems.

Writing in The Washington Post of May 21st 2006, Nina Shea from Freedom House, noted that translations of current Saudi school textbooks provided many instances of exhortations against both Jews and Christians. One text that was in use for Grade Eight students said that: "The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christians, the infidels of the communion of Jesus". Even in First Grade children were taught that, "Every religion other than Islam is false."

Or listen to Tawfik Hamid, a former member of the Islamist terrorist group Jemaah Islamiya, who is now a Muslim reformer living in the West. In The Wall Street Journal of April 3rd, 2007 he wrote:

"It is vital to grasp that traditional and even mainstream Islamic teaching accepts and promotes violence. Shariah, for example, allows apostates to be killed, permits beating women to discipline them, seeks to subjugate non-Muslims to Islam as dhimmis and justifies declaring war to do so. It exhorts good Muslims to exterminate the Jews before the "end of days." The near deafening silence of the Muslim majority against these barbaric practices is evidence enough that there is something fundamentally wrong".