Irfan spoke as if he was in a quandary. His seemingly balanced views strick an accord with many. Gaining sympathetic response from most. But there are significant problems... some brought out by a few insightful readers, including YngNLuvnIt.

I don't want to paint Irfan as anything but a sincere fella. But nevertheless the effect of his article is no less deceptive:

(1) His statement "My message to Muslim mobs... " is unintentionally deceptive.

Trust me in saying- NOT ONE Muslim mob will read his writing, let alone fanatics and extemists. Hence his writing only impresses you people whilst giving Irfan a feel-good factor (which he deserves anyway).

(2) His article conveys a subtle but unintended deception - that Mohammed is the honorable prophet of the 'true' god. Subtly that honour is restored in the eyes of the west when all the bad Muslims behaviour stop.
Irfan's quandary arising from a faith in a non-god, a non-prophet. A falsehood always leads to a parodox and contradiction in some ways, some time.

(3) Irfan expanded on poverty of Muslims. Again that is misleading (unintended of course).
In Islamic ideology, material wealth is never an issue. Poverty brings someone closer to Allah. Perhaps the only problem- money is needed to fly to Mecca for a haj. If a Muslim can die for Allah, material well-bring cannot be an issue.
Irfan's perspective is that of a well-to-do Muslim in the west which actually cannot be appreciated in many Islamic places.

In a nutshell, a fairly good article (within reason) but one which DOES NOT make a real difference AT ALL.

Scout, thanks. Sometimes not as scathing as I would like to be and at the same time more scathing than I want to be :).

The praise is deserved, you have taught me much with your generally rational discussion of your views - a "lefty" who I feel compelled to pay attention to.

I'm finding myself bothered by the intensity that goes into putting some quite complex and thoughtful posters into boxes. Col got given a label the other day which I found really amusing, Matthew S called him a "new-age moderate" not really a description which came to mind for me but apparently one that suited Matthews need to tag Cols approach. Likewise GZ Tans recent comments about FH and some of the attempts to label as racist attempts by some to express their concerns about the behaviour of some sections of the middle eastern/muslim community. So much easier if we can listen to what people are saying and try to understand. One of the great things for me about this site is that it is giving me much more detailed insights into the worldview of people who don't always see things the way I do.

There are some really good people who are part of this community who I have come to value even if I disagree with some of their views. Even BD gets close to being on the list sometimes, maybe because some of his co-believers who have joined us recently make him look like a model of tolerance and understanding :).

Have a nice weekend.

R0bert

R0bert

To continue our little 'love-in'.

I freely admit to simply skimming the posts of Coach, Martin, Kactaz, BD, GZ Tan and others - simply because they are frequently patronising, derisive and with all the religious quotes; bloody boring.

That said, R0bert, while you might call yourself right-wing, I would beg to differ, your approach is well-considered and humanist. I always read all of your posts.

And that is the problem with labels, I suppose I could be labeled as a 'lefty' but I believe in a kind of democratic socially based capitalist society. I guess I want the best elements of all. Yet for many it is an all or nothing approach which I find very limiting.

I must admit too, that BD is looking good simply by comparison these days, however that is hardly a compliment. He and his brethren complain about moderate Muslims not taking a strong enough stand against their extremist factions, yet BD continually excuses the rude and vitriolic excesses of his cronies.

Have you noticed how often, when someone is accused of particular behaviour, the accused will not only deny it but claim the accuser is the one who is guilty? My ex used to do that all the time. I guess that is why I am so sensitive to hypocrisy.

And hypocrisy is not something I sense from Irfan or Fellow Human, it is something I sense from Salam and it arrives in bucket loads from the extreme christians.

You have a wonderful weekend, R0bert

Dianne

I have just received many anti Christian anti Jew cartoons from a palestinian new paper from past ,one with Jesus and a spear thru Him wih an American flag and a Jewish flag etc . It is horrific and usChrsitians don't go crazt yover cartoons,




Palestinian Cartoons
By Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook


On crucifix: Palestine
[Al-Intifada (Al-Hayat Al-Jadida
supplement, December 11, 2000]

The world is witnessing violent Muslim reactions to caricatures of Muhammad published in a Danish paper.

In the Palestinian Authority, Palestinian gunmen threatened European Union officials, the Palestine Religious Scholars Association has called for a boycott of Danish products and, in the most recent development, the Temporary International Presence in Hebron has been forced out of its premises by Palestinian violence.

Palestinian Media Watch has documented numerous cartoons from Palestinian Authority newspapers featuring extreme anti-Semitism. We are redistributing a selection of them below.

In response to numerous queries, Palestinian Media Watch would like to stress that there are no Arab caricatures insulting the Hebrew prophets or Jesus. This is for a simple reason - Islam presents the Hebrew prophets and Jesus as Muslims who prophesied Islam. They teach that both Moses and Jesus received Islam from Allah and that Jews and Christians later distorted these teachings. As such, Judaism and Christianity are said to be perversions of Allah's only true word - Islam. Thus Moses, Abraham, all the prophets of the Hebrew Bible and Jesus are respected Muslims and are not ridiculed. However Jewish and Christian symbols are frequently used, such as in the portrayal of Jews crucifying "Palestine" in the picture above

Martin Ibn Warriq,

I used to believe Boaz is misleading until I read your posting.

The source of your story, Tabari is a collector of material mainly from Jewish tribes like Banu Kurayza who were at war with Muslims.
They are the very same 'honest' source behind the enfancy bible and other similar banned books by the church (which portrayed Jesus as killed a child and tortured animals in his youth). They also accused Virgin Mary of adultery.

To quote them as 'credible', means your very own religion is a fantasy.

Fellow_Human,

Refuse to accept your 'holy' 'prophet' was a vengeful killer, no matter what, huh?

Must you threaten exposing Jesus as having killed a child in order to cover up Muhammed's evil deeds? Like hinting - if you don't expose my Muhammed then I won't expose your Jesus.

Come on, make my day. We already know a lot about Muhammed's evil doings. Now tell us all about the bad side of Jesus.

Nay, you won't... because you will not hurt YOUR Jesus, another prophet (of mere convenience). I read your mind.

But inside your heart affixed a portrait of a tainted Jesus that you hold dear because it is 'proof' that Christionaity is a fantasy.

Therefore whether someone further exposes Muhammed's misdeed really shouldn't make any difference to you.

Pretending that you can hush Martin with a Jesus threat (and yet revealing it at the same time) is hypocritical.