Are muslim leaders cowards, loyal, or just ignored in the media?

[Magiver]

*Originally posted by Aldebaran *
**May I ask you a question:

If the IRA commits a terrorist attack, do you expect the Vatican and all the leaders of every nation where Christianity in general belongs to the State Religion or State endorsed or by whatever means Christianity trives in that nation, to publish a condemnation?
Do you expect every Christian to apologize for these actions?
Do you expect all those Christians and all those leaders of all those nations to undertake actions against the IRA?

If no, then why do you expect it of Muslims?

Salaam. A **

Your analogy is only partially valid for a number of reasons. The political war in Ireland falls along religious lines and it is basically between 2 versions of the same religion. There was a lack of cleric condemnation of the events but that is also true of cleric INVOLVEMENT. There was no call to arms (for a religious cause) by either side. It is not a religious war as much as it is a clash of cultures. It is very similar to the infighting that occurs in Afghanistan between warlords.

Nobody expects every Muslim to condemn every act of terrorism that was done in the name of Islam. However, when a Muslim Cleric openly encourages this activity then it is useful for members of the same religion to stand up and protest. This is helpful because it gives all the followers of that religion another voice…. a voice of reason. It also alleviates the fears that all Muslims feel this way.

You have mentioned in past debates that there is no such thing as a Muslim terrorist because that activity is not approved under Islamic law, therefore the terrorists can’t be representing Islam. You’ve also stated that you cannot judge terrorists and that only Allah can judge them. I can accept that. Using that logic, it would benefit the World if respected leaders of Islam would stand up and point out the obvious.

**
If you think we don’t have enough to do with trying to prevent fundamentalism to take over inside our own nations and with trying to prevent that we ourselves come under attack…
We don’t get much help in that from the West, on the contrary.

Please USA invade some more Islamic nations and shoot some more holes in the bucket we have to fight the flood.

Well… in fact there is now thanks to the nice peaceloving US president and government no bucket left. And the result is now surfacing inside Iraq.**

Your bucket anology didn’t translate well. I’m not sure what you meant to say. You asked for Western help with fundamentalists but in the next sentence condemmed the US for removing Saddam. What should the US have done in Iraq? Should the US concentrate on fundamentalist/terrorists and ignore people like Saddam and Milosevic. I would point out that we had no vested interest in removing Milosevic and establshing what is basically the new Islamic state of Kosovo.
This is the first time I’ve seen someone mention the elephant in the room, and that is the rise in fundamentalism within Muslim nations. I can see only 1 solution and that is to establish a desire for freedom and a respect for alternate religious views.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Edmund Burke (1729–1797), Irish philosopher

[rjung]

*Originally posted by Brutus *
Probably because Boykin is not advocating or condoning terrorism.

He seems to be equating the war on terror was a religious war, however, and that’s the problem.

You terribly mangled what he actually said.

Oh? Let’s look at those quotes, shall we?

“Our enemy is a spiritual enemy because we are a nation of believers. … the enemy that has come against our nation is a spiritual enemy. His name is Satan.”
Gee, sounds like he’s describing Islamic terrorists as followers of Satan right there.

“‘Why do they hate us? Why do they hate us so much?’ Ladies and gentlemen, the answer to that is because we’re a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian. … Our religion came from Judaism, and therefore these radicals will hate us forever.”
That’s either a “they hate us because they follow Satan” or “they hate us because they always hate Jews”. You decide which one is less offensive. :rolleyes:

(And from the UK Telegraph
“[Boykin] also emerged from the conflict with a photograph of the Somalian capital Mogadishu bearing a strange dark mark. He has said this showed ‘the principalities of darkness. . . a demonic presence in that city that God revealed to me as the enemy.’”
Gosh, claiming the Muslim capital of a Muslim nation has a demonic presence in it does not mean Islam is Satanic? Only on Brutusworld, it seems…

You are certainly willing to lie and attribute statements to people that did not make them, aren’t you?

What, now you’re accusing me of being a Republican??? :eek:

[Aldebaran]

*Originally posted by Beagle *
**More of that perfectly balanced and objective European journalism, I’m sure. **

I was talking about the Arabic press.

By the way: which “Journalism in Europe” are you familiar with?
And what Congo has to do with this discussion goesd beyong my comprehension. There is no Muslim majority there. The people there were very peacefully and very humane “educated” to become Good God Fearing Christians. By the logic of the best-meaning colonisers coming from the peace-loving Western nations: “Send the missionaries in and then the soldiers”.

Salaam. A

[Aldebaran]

I think the point in all debates like this is the lack of understanding of non Muslims that Islam can’t be compared in its structure with what the West perceives and thinks it is.
The way people these days like to call something said by some
Muslim a “fatwa” shows their great ignorance abut Islam.

Islam has no “Pope” and no “clergy” and no single other authority that can speak for “all Islam”.
Whatever some Imam claims to be a fatwa, he has no more influence then with those who recognize his authority to do this.

The best example of how this word “fatwa” is misunderstood by non Muslims is that people even believed (and believe) that OBL is “a cleric” and that his sayings were “fatwas”.

The Muslim world doesn’t need to apologize for no matter what is done by someone who names himself a Muslim.

If you think they need to do this, then I ask the US’ers and the US government to apologize for the formation of the political inspired organisation called Nation of Islam.
Its political and racist agenda damages the reputation of Islam. It alters and abuses parts of Al Qur’an (and parts of the Bible equally)to use them in their own invented contexts in order to sell their political, US-bound message. It is a US organisation with an agenda that has nothing to do with Islam.

Such demand of me is about as logical as your demand for Muslims to apologize for what other people who call themselves Muslim do.
Salaam. A

[Dob]

Such demand of me is about as logical as your demand for Muslims to apologize for what other people who call themselves Muslim do.

Im not asking for an apology…why should I? What I was asking, was why dont more prominent Muslim leaders condemn what is being done in the name of Islam? Im not saying anyone needs to apologize. I just wonder why their isnt more apparent outrage from prominent Muslim leaders on the way their faith is being mangled.

[Aldebaran]

*Originally posted by Magiver *
**Your analogy is only partially valid for a number of reasons. The political war in Ireland falls along religious lines and it is basically between 2 versions of the same religion. There was a lack of cleric condemnation of the events but that is also true of cleric INVOLVEMENT. There was no call to arms (for a religious cause) by either side. It is not a religious war as much as it is a clash of cultures. It is very similar to the infighting that occurs in Afghanistan between warlords.

One name to solve this discussion: Ian Paisley.

Nobody expects every Muslim to condemn every act of terrorism that was done in the name of Islam. However, when a Muslim Cleric openly encourages this activity then it is useful for members of the same religion to stand up and protest. This is helpful because it gives all the followers of that religion another voice…. a voice of reason. It also alleviates the fears that all Muslims feel this way.

Good. I expect all Christians leaders and a lot of Christians to come on the streets in protest for every Christian - cleric or not - that calls for the erradication of Islam or calls islam “a religion of Satan” or whatever.
Does the name Graham rings a bell here? We don’t even mention a certain general in the US army. And those are only two examples.

You mentioned in past debates that there is no such thing as a Muslim terrorist because that activity is not approved under Islamic law, therefore the terrorists can’t be representing Islam. You’ve also stated that you cannot judge terrorists and that only Allah can judge them. I can accept that. Using that logic, it would benefit the World if respected leaders of Islam would stand up and point out the obvious.

Well, they do that all the time. But the question is not only: where do we see that ever published outside the Islamic world. The quesiotn is also: What does the non Muslim world know about " respected leaders" of Islam.
See my explanation in a former post.

Your bucket anology didn’t translate well. I’m not sure what you meant to say.

I mean that we fight the fundamentalists with practically no more means that our bare hands.
Yet whenever there are people locked up safely before they can do more harm, there comes the US base “human rights” groups to delcare to the world that 'islamic regimes" arrest “the opposition”.
That “opposition” then gets out of the security of the prison, flees to the blind arrogant anive West, is there “political asylment seeker”, becomes even the nationality. And can then freely for years recrute for their Mad Cause" among young people who have no feeling at all with what lives in the country the poor persecuted “opposition” comes from.
But when womething really sad and bloody happens…
You tell me: who gets the blame?

And if you think that with the foreign policy in the ME as practiced by the US and the invasion of Iraq and the continued open support of the actions of Israel, that we have anything left to prevent fundmentalism to rise and what is worse: to become dangerously militant, then you are an extremely optimistic person.

You asked for Western help with fundamentalists but in the next sentence condemmed the US for removing Saddam.

I ask for the Western nations to become more realistic, more respectful, more informed and less egocentric and greedy.

What should the US have done in Iraq?

Stay out of it and work together with the UN instead of boycotting and ridiculizing it and those nations who kept their heads cool and their approach realistic.
Yet that option wasn’t even available in the very first drafts of this long planned invasion, was it.

Should the US concentrate on fundamentalist/terrorists and ignore people like Saddam and Milosevic.

The US should stop acting as if it is above all international laws.
We can have a long discussion about this, but we are already far away from the points made in the OP.

I would point out that we had no vested interest in removing Milosevic and establshing what is basically the new Islamic state of Kosovo.

I would point out that the intervention was an operation under the flag of the UN.
And if you like admiring a nation that wants to live as if it can flatten and invade other nations at will, that is fine with me. But don’t complain if people tell you that such a country is a terrorist nation.
By the way: Kososvo is hardly an “new Islamic state”.

This is the first time I’ve seen someone mention the elephant in the room, and that is the rise in fundamentalism within Muslim nations.

I’m sorry, I can’t follow this.

I can see only 1 solution and that is to establish a desire for freedom and a respect for alternate religious views.

And add to that respect for other nations other people’s lives and other people’s cultures.
And your view on “freedom” is not necessarily what it means to others.
Salaam. A

[Saen]

*Originally posted by Aldebaran *
**

Such demand of me is about as logical as your demand for Muslims to apologize for what other people who call themselves Muslim do.
Salaam. A **

alde

You show your ignorance of reading comprehension of bringing the stupid excuse up that Muslims should not apologize for the terrorists. When it has been brought up that no one said anything about an apology accept for those of you who try to make up excuses instead of answering the question.

CONDEMNATION IS NOT AN APOLOGY!!!.

I hope I have dispelled your ignorance on that matter since you refuse to even acknowledge it has been brought up on this post several times.

And you claiming some lack of responsibility of those to respond to such done in the name of their religion, all I can say is it flies in the face of this rant I hear by every Muslim I have talked to that it angers them that an Islamic nation is being attacked by a non Islamic nation.

[Aldebaran]

*Originally posted by Magiver *
**Your analogy is only partially valid for a number of reasons. The political war in Ireland falls along religious lines and it is basically between 2 versions of the same religion. There was a lack of cleric condemnation of the events but that is also true of cleric INVOLVEMENT. There was no call to arms (for a religious cause) by either side. It is not a religious war as much as it is a clash of cultures. It is very similar to the infighting that occurs in Afghanistan between warlords.

One name to solve this discussion: Ian Paisley.
Although there is no hard evidence that he was personally involved in any bloodshed, there is enough reason to claim that he was an obstacle to every political initiative to resolve the question and this for over 30 years.
And I’m sorry, but there is no comparison possible to the situation in Afghanistan at all.

Nobody expects every Muslim to condemn every act of terrorism that was done in the name of Islam. However, when a Muslim Cleric openly encourages this activity then it is useful for members of the same religion to stand up and protest. This is helpful because it gives all the followers of that religion another voice…. a voice of reason. It also alleviates the fears that all Muslims feel this way.

Good. I expect all Christians leaders and a lot of Christians to come on the streets in protest for every Christian - cleric or not - that calls for the erradication of Islam or calls islam “a religion of Satan” or whatever.
Does the name Graham rings a bell here? We don’t even mention a certain general in the US army. And those are only two examples.

You mentioned in past debates that there is no such thing as a Muslim terrorist because that activity is not approved under Islamic law, therefore the terrorists can’t be representing Islam. You’ve also stated that you cannot judge terrorists and that only Allah can judge them. I can accept that. Using that logic, it would benefit the World if respected leaders of Islam would stand up and point out the obvious.

Well, they do that all the time. But the question is not only: where do we see that ever published outside the Islamic world. The quesiotn is also: What does the non Muslim world know about " respected leaders" of Islam.
See my explanation in a former post.

Your bucket anology didn’t translate well. I’m not sure what you meant to say.

I mean that we fight the fundamentalists with practically no more means that our bare hands.
Yet whenever there are people locked up safely before they can do more harm, there comes the US base “human rights” groups to delcare to the world that 'islamic regimes" arrest “the opposition”.
That “opposition” then gets out of the security of the prison, flees to the blind arrogant anive West, is there “political asylment seeker”, becomes even the nationality. And can then freely for years recrute for their Mad Cause" among young people who have no feeling at all with what lives in the country the poor persecuted “opposition” comes from.
But when womething really sad and bloody happens…
You tell me: who gets the blame?

And if you think that with the foreign policy in the ME as practiced by the US and the invasion of Iraq and the continued open support of the actions of Israel, that we have anything left to prevent fundmentalism to rise and what is worse: to become dangerously militant, then you are an extremely optimistic person.

You asked for Western help with fundamentalists but in the next sentence condemmed the US for removing Saddam.

I ask for the Western nations to become more realistic, more respectful, more informed and less egocentric and greedy.

What should the US have done in Iraq?

Stay out of it and work together with the UN instead of boycotting and ridiculizing it and those nations who kept their heads cool and their approach realistic.
Yet that option wasn’t even available in the very first drafts of this long planned invasion, was it.

Should the US concentrate on fundamentalist/terrorists and ignore people like Saddam and Milosevic.

The US should stop acting as if it is above all international laws.
We can have a long discussion about this, but we are already far away from the points made in the OP.

I would point out that we had no vested interest in removing Milosevic and establshing what is basically the new Islamic state of Kosovo.

I would point out that the intervention was an operation under the flag of the UN.
And if you like admiring a nation that wants to live as if it can flatten and invade other nations at will, that is fine with me. But don’t complain if people tell you that such a country is a terrorist nation.
By the way: Kososvo is hardly an “new Islamic state”.

This is the first time I’ve seen someone mention the elephant in the room, and that is the rise in fundamentalism within Muslim nations.

I’m sorry, I can’t follow this.

I can see only 1 solution and that is to establish a desire for freedom and a respect for alternate religious views.

And add to that respect for other nations other people’s lives and other people’s cultures.
And your view on “freedom” is not necessarily what it means to others.
Salaam. A

[Aldebaran]

*Originally posted by Saen *
**alde

You show your ignorance of reading comprehension of bringing the stupid excuse up that Muslims should not apologize for the terrorists. When it has been brought up that no one said anything about an apology accept for those of you who try to make up excuses instead of answering the question.

CONDEMNATION IS NOT AN APOLOGY!!!.

I hope I have dispelled your ignorance on that matter since you refuse to even acknowledge it has been brought up on this post several times.

And you claiming some lack of responsibility of those to respond to such done in the name of their religion, all I can say is it flies in the face of this rant I hear by every Muslim I have talked to that it angers them that an Islamic nation is being attacked by a non Islamic nation. **

Saen,

I asked this already on this topic but now I ask you to tell me how many State leaders of non Muslim nations and how many religious authorities of non Muslim religions are quoted in the press to condemn personally these actions?

And Saen: the non Muslim world is also angered by this invasion and the incredible arrogance of the USA.

And Saen: if a country is invaded and occupied, it is very normal that the citizens of that country start a guerila war against those invaders and occupyers.

And Saen: That the people in the region of Iraq are angry is - aside from the “Muslim” thing - just a bit normal. Did you hear the threats to other nations coming from the Great Bush?

So you think that if the USA was invaded by an other nation that then (and even before) utters arrogant threads towards surrounding nations, the people living there wouldn’t be angry at all?

Oh well, let us put it an other way:
If a Muslim nation would invade a non Muslim nation with the goal to colonize and exploit it (and under the lead of someone who talked about Jihad in reference to what Bush named a crusade) you think no Christian on this globe would be upset?

Really? Convince me.

By the way, on my keyboard the UNLOCK CAPS IS AT THE LEFT.
Salaam. A

[Mehitabel]

Well, they’re not clerics, but here’s a http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3223721.stm smattering of the Arab Press that’s monitored from the BBC about the Red Cross Bombing.

Also, the ‘Have Your Say’ column on the bombings. Sometimes the views make you want to do an Elvis on your computer, but it’s quite valuable to know what the (internet-enabled) rest of the world is thinking.

[Aldebaran]

Saen,

I asked this already on this topic but now I ask you to tell me how many State leaders of non Muslim nations and how many religious authorities of non Muslim religions are quoted in the press to condemn personally this?

And Saen: the non Muslim world is also angered by this invasion and the incredible arrogance of the USA.

And Saen: if a country is invaded and occupied, it is very normal that the citizens of that country start a guerila war against those invaders and occupyers.

And Saen: That the people in the region of Iraq are angry is - aside from the “Muslim” thing - just a bit normal. Did you hear the threats to other nations coming from the Great Bush?

So you think that if the USA was invaded by an other nation that then (and even before) utters arrogant threats towards surrounding nations, the people living there wouldn’t be angry at all?

Oh well, let us put it an other way:
If a Muslim nation would invade a non Muslim nation with the goal to colonize and exploit it (and under the lead of someone who talked about Jihad in reference to what Bush named a crusade) you think no Christian on this globe would be upset?

Really? Convince me.

By the way: why are you so angry that Muslims are angry because of a criminal invasion and occupation of a Muslim nation by the USA? Are you that surprized? Why?

And by the way, on my keyboard the UNLOCK CAPS IS AT THE LEFT.
Salaam. A

[Mehitabel]

Sorry, hit SUBMIT instead of PREVIEW! Here’s URL=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talkinb_point/3207193.stm]Have Your Say.

This guy from Slovenia scares me:

“I have one bold proposal, but the only possible solution to the “security problem” in Iraq. The only person that CAN deliver security in Iraq is the last legal president of Iraq, Mr. Sadam Hussein. The US should get out of Iraq NOW, and let Mr. Saddam Hussein regain power and re-establish civil and military authority in Iraq. If he didn’t already make an alliance with al-Qaeda, Mr. Hussein would have been the best possible ally against them.”
Darko, Slovenia

:eek: :mad:

[Saen]

*Originally posted by Aldebaran *
Saen,

I asked this already on this topic but now I ask you to tell me how many State leaders of non Muslim nations and how many religious authorities of non Muslim religions are quoted in the press to condemn personally these actions?

How many terrorists attack in the name of those non Muslim religions. You cannot wrap your head around the fact that we want to know why a religion sits idley by while attrocities are committed in it’s name? When the Catholic Preist scandal came out, I have not yet met a Catholic who has not, nor are they willing to condemn those acts. Yet with your warped Logic, I guess I should demand all Muslims to get on the news and condemn those acts before I should dare to ask the catholics why not say something about it?

And Saen: the non Muslim world is also angered by this invasion and the incredible arrogance of the USA.

Got a cite that says any non-muslim nation has decried the arrogance of teh US for attacking a muslim nation because it is not muslim?

And Saen: if a country is invaded and occupied, it is very normal that the citizens of that country start a guerila war against those invaders and occupyers.

What does that have to do with our anything on this post?

And Saen: That the people in the region of Iraq are angry is - aside from the “Muslim” thing - just a bit normal. Did you hear the threats to other nations coming from the Great Bush?

“aside from the “Muslim” thing”? Well no shit sherlock, it is “the Muslim” thing" that we are debating here bub. Concentrate and you may realize that.

So you think that if the USA was invaded by an other nation that then (and even before) utters arrogant threads towards surrounding nations, the people living there wouldn’t be angry at all?

Where do you come up with this crap? Show me one thread anywhere were I have inferred such nonsense?

Oh well, let us put it an other way:
If a Muslim nation would invade a non Muslim nation with the goal to colonize and exploit it (and under the lead of someone who talked about Jihad in reference to what Bush named a crusade) you think no Christian on this globe would be upset?

I believe Bush has come on the record and “apologized” for the Muslim religion and tried the separate Islam and the terrorists more than you, or 99% of any Muslim I have personally talked to. And I do not think Christians would be most upset that a Muslim nation would dare attack a Christian nation. I believe that arrogance is solely in the Islamic preview.

And your repeating my name and such is not cute. Is is boorish and childish. I have come across and used many debate tactics, and I believe that when you get childish you only make yourself look bad. Just a li’l tip.

[Aldebaran]

Mehitabel,

What is published in the press as opinions of redactions/journalists is not answering the question of the OP.

What is wanted there is “a condemnation by Muslim leaders”.
Salaam. A

[Saen]

*Originally posted by Aldebaran *
Saen,

I asked this already on this topic but now I ask you to tell me how many State leaders of non Muslim nations and how many religious authorities of non Muslim religions are quoted in the press to condemn personally these actions?

How many terrorists attack in the name of those non Muslim religions. You cannot wrap your head around the fact that we want to know why a religion sits idley by while attrocities are committed in it’s name? When the Catholic Preist scandal came out, I have not yet met a Catholic who has not, nor are they willing to condemn those acts. Yet with your warped Logic, I guess I should demand all Muslims to get on the news and condemn those acts before I should dare to ask the catholics why not say something about it?

And Saen: the non Muslim world is also angered by this invasion and the incredible arrogance of the USA.

Got a cite that says any non-muslim nation has decried the arrogance of teh US for attacking a muslim nation because it is not muslim?

And Saen: if a country is invaded and occupied, it is very normal that the citizens of that country start a guerila war against those invaders and occupyers.

What does that have to do with our anything on this post?

And Saen: That the people in the region of Iraq are angry is - aside from the “Muslim” thing - just a bit normal. Did you hear the threats to other nations coming from the Great Bush?

“aside from the “Muslim” thing”? Well no shit sherlock, it is “the Muslim” thing" that we are debating here bub. Concentrate and you may realize that.

So you think that if the USA was invaded by an other nation that then (and even before) utters arrogant threads towards surrounding nations, the people living there wouldn’t be angry at all?

Where do you come up with this crap? Show me one thread anywhere were I have inferred such nonsense?

Oh well, let us put it an other way:
If a Muslim nation would invade a non Muslim nation with the goal to colonize and exploit it (and under the lead of someone who talked about Jihad in reference to what Bush named a crusade) you think no Christian on this globe would be upset?

I believe Bush has come on the record and “apologized” for the Muslim religion and tried the separate Islam and the terrorists more than you, or 99% of any Muslim I have personally talked to. And I do not think Christians would be most upset that a Muslim nation would dare attack a Christian nation. I believe that arrogance is solely in the Islamic purview.

And your repeating my name and such is not cute. Is is boorish and childish. I have come across and used many debate tactics, and I believe that when you get childish you only make yourself look bad. Just a li’l tip.

[DrDeth]

Well, I can say this about the Leaders of the nations known as the “Arab League”- who are certainly “muslin leaders”. They are- to a man- hypocrites of the first order.

The Arab L. met to discuss the new Civil Gov’t of Iraq. They voted to condemn the new government, and also to not admit any representative of Iraq to their League. Why? you ask. Because the civil Government of Iraq is “not democratically elected”. :rolleyes:

Depending on your definition of “democratically elected”- NO nation currently in the Arab League is now “democratically elected”. And even if a couple might barely qualify, certainly the great majority are dictatorships, ruled by Royalty, or Theocracies. This is like the USA condeming nations for being Capitalist.

Aldebaran, I am glad to hear you say that “there is no single authority that can speak for all Islam” as from some of your posts here in GD, I had got the distinct impression that YOU thought you were that authority. My bad.

[Dob]

What is wanted there is “a condemnation by Muslim leaders”.

If I came across as asking for a condemnation it was not intentional. I truly just wanted some ideas as to why the only Muslim leaders we hear talking are the ones calling for death and destruction? Where is the balancing voice calling for peace and such? And why dont we hear it?

[Aldebaran]

Dob,

You don’t hear it because

1. You probably don’t understand the languages they use.
2. You probably don’t read/hear translations of their statements because of the very simple fact that “bad news” sells and “good news” doesn’t in the average media coverage where you live.

I let it for you yourself to decide under which influence “good news” coming from the Muslim side of the coin isn’t considered worth to be brought so explicitely (if ever) under your attention. While every single idiot who screams “kill them” with all the variations on that teme one can imagine to be possible, gets all the advertising one can dream off just for free.

Salaam. A

[Aldebaran]

Dob,

You don’t hear it because

1. You probably don’t understand the languages they use.
2. You probably don’t read/hear translations of their statements because of the very simple fact that “bad news” sells and “good news” doesn’t in the average media coverage where you live.

I let it for you yourself to decide under which influence “good news” coming from the Muslim side of the coin isn’t considered worth to be brought so explicitely (if ever) under your attention. While every single idiot who screams “kill them” with all the variations on that theme one can imagine to be possible, gets all the advertising one can dream off just for free.

Salaam. A

[New_Iskander]

*Originally posted by Aldebaran *
The Muslim world doesn’t need to apologize for no matter what is done by someone who names himself a Muslim.

Few reasons to apologize:

1. To demonstrate to the World the true peace-loving and dignified nature of Islam.

2. To dispel the notion that all Muslims are terrorist sympathisers.

3. To convince the majority of people in the West that their lives are not threatened by true Muslims.

4. To prevent “evil” US gov’t go a-conquering Muslim countries.

Still not worth a few apologies?