muslims PART 2

[Lief Erikson]

Sorry, I edited my post .

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Well, it is just an overview of Islam. It's not going to go into the complex history of the religion in an 8 page booklet.

Very true. And I've got those complex histories here at home and am reading them right now, so I'm very content .

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

What you said made me finally understand what people mean by submission. It's giving oneself to God, in this case.

Yes. Of course, Muslims in the past were willing to make people "submit to God" by force, so it's not always such a great thing with Islam. But in modern times, it is really peaceful giving of oneself to God, for most Muslims. That is a very positive belief.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

What's innacurate about the last two paragraphs? I have no evidence to support those paragraphs, except I thought the Moors were Muslim, and they went to Spain. It's not impossible that Muslims went to China.

No, they're right about the Muslims having gone to Spain and having gone as far as China. They just didn't mention that they fought their way there with the sword, taking everything and everyone over in violent, unprovoked jihad conquest. Some people welcomed them, for the Byzantines were very harsh toward the Jews and heretics and Christians whose beliefs didn't fully line up with their own. The Muslims weren't so harsh toward these groups as the Christians had been.

Does this mean it's all right that, unprovoked, they attacked the Byzantines and ripped away most of their empire in a bloodbath?

They also clobbered the Sassanid Empire, a major force of the time. That empire they completely demolished, again, unprovoked. They took over huge, huge swaths of territory in holy war.

So that's a very significant historical point that was skipped when they said in those two paragraphs that Islam simply "spread" over all that territory. It didn't mention that it "spread by the sword in holy jihad."

Originally Posted by The Reader

After several years, the Prophet and his followers returned to Makkah and forgave their enemies.

This is a partial truth. The Muslims and the Qur'aysh (the tribe that had done the persecuting) fought a bloody war against one another. After the Muslims had defeated the Qur'aysh, they advanced on Mecca and the Meccans promptly converted to Islam. Then the Prophet forgave them. So it skips talking about the war that came before the forgiveness and which probably was very much present in the Meccans' minds when they converted to Islam.

Originally Posted by The Reader

Then, turning their attention to the Ka’bah (the sanctuary that Abraham built), they removed the idols and redecorated it to the worship of the One God.

This part is kind of funny. They "removed the idols." Removed them in a million pieces . And "redecorated". The word choice there is really funny.

Originally Posted by The Reader

Before the Prophet died at the age of 63, most of the people of Arabia had embraced his message.

This is the only real lie (or inaccuracy) that I can see in it. The rest is all inaccuracy by omission of important points in order to make Islam look peaceful. The lie is that the people of Arabia "embraced" his message. They accepted it because he'd shoved it down their throats at swordpoint. This is proven by the fact that the instant Muhammad died, they all rebelled. In these two wars of succession, known to Muslims as the ridda wars, many of the tribes of Arabia that had been Muslim rebelled and tried to turn back to their native tribal beliefs. They thought that with Muhammad gone, they'd be able to get back to their old religions. Other people pronounced themselves the new "Prophets" and tried to rally a following among Muslims. But the fact that many people rebelled and tried to go back to their old religions the instant that Muhammad was dead proves that they did not "embrace his message."

The successor to Muhammad was named Abu Bakr, and he attacked all the rebels all over again and forced them to return to the true Muslim faith in the "ridda wars," which translates to the "apostasy wars". Those two ridda wars were very extensive and bloody, a terrible (though temporary) shattering of the Muslim faithful.

[Spock]

...OH BOY, real facts, what are some going to do with that now......hmmmmmm

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Spock

...OH BOY, real facts, what are some going to do with that now......hmmmmmm

I don't know! Hahaha.

Part 2

How did the spread of Islam affect the world?

The Muslim community continued to grow after Muhammad’s death. Within a few decades, vast numbers of people across three continents – Africa, Asia, and Europe, had chosen Islam for their way of life.

One of the reasons for the rapid spread of Islam was the purity of its doctrine – Islam calls for faith in only One God. This, coupled with the Islamic concepts of justice and freedom, resulted in a united and peaceful community.

As millions of people embraced Islam, they brought with them the heritage of ancient civilizations like Egypt, Greece, India, Persia, and Rome. The synthesis of Eastern and Western ideas and of new thought with old, brought about great advances in the various fields of study. Scholars working in the Islamic tradition developed and excelled at art, architecture, astronomy, geography, history, language, literature, mathematics, medicine, and physics.

Many crucial systems such as algebra, the Arabic numerals, and the very concept of zero (crucial to the advancement of mathematics), were formulated by Muslim scholars and shared with medieval Europe. This sharing of knowledge was a direct cause of the Renaissance.

Muslims invented sophisticated instruments that made future European voyages of discovery possible: the astrolabe, the quadrant, and detailed navigational maps.


What is the Qur’an?

Muslims believe that the Qur’an is the very word of God Almighty: a complete record of the exact words revealed by God through the Angel Gabriel to Prophet Muhammad.

The Qur’an is the principle source of every Muslim’s faith and practice. It deals with all subjects that concern us a human beings, including wisdom, doctrine, worship and law; but its basic theme is the relationship between God and His creatures.

At the same time, the Qur’an provides guidelines for a just society, proper human conduct, and equitable economic principles.

“He (God) has sent down to you the Book (the Qur’an) with truth, confirming what was revealed before; And He sent down the Torah (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this as a guide to humankind; and He sent down the Criterion (the Qur’an)…”
(Qur’an 3:3-4)


What are the “Five Pillars” of Islam?

The “five pillars” of Islam are the basis of Muslim life. Prophet Muhammad is reported to have said:

“Islam is founded on five pillars: to testify that ‘there is no deity except God, and Muhammad is the messenger of God;’ to establish the ritual prayers; to give charity (to the needy); to perform the pilgrimage to the House (of worship in Makkah); and to fast during the month of Ramadan.”

The Testimony of Faith

“There is no deity except God; Muhammad is the messenger of God.”

The simple declaration of faith is required of all those who accept Islam as their chosen way of life. The words have to be uttered with sincere conviction and under no coercion. The significance of this testimony is the belief that the only purpose of life is to serve and obey God; and this is achieved through following the example of the prophet Muhammad.

Prayers

A key element to Muslim life is the obligatory, ritual prayer. These prayers are performed five times a day, and are a direct link between the worshipper and God. This very personal relationship with the Creator allows one to fully depend, trust, and love God; and to truly achieve inner peace and harmony, regardless of the trials one faces.

Charity

An important principle of Islam is that everything belongs to God; wealth is therefore held by human beings in trust. Obligatory charity or zakah means both “purification” and “growth”. Our possessions are purified by setting aside a proportion for those in need and for the society in general. Like the pruning of plants, this cutting back balances and encourages new growth.

Fasting

Fasting in the month of Ramadan is an essential part of being a Muslim. Muslims fast from dawn until sundown – abstaining from food and drink, and guarding themselves from destructive behaviour. Ramadan is a special time for Muslims everywhere; a time for reflection and greater spirituality.

The end of Ramadan is observed by a holiday – Eid al Fitr. On this day, Muslims from all over the world celebrate with prayers and exchange gifts.

Pilgrimage

The Pilgrimage to Makkah (the Hajj) is a once-in-a-lifetime obligation for those who are physically and financially able. Over two million people from all corners of the globe go for Hajj each year, making it the largest gathering for peace. Hajj provides a unique opportunity for people from different nations to meet one another.

The rites of Hajj include visiting the Ka’bah and standing together on the wide plains of ‘Arafat (a large expanse of desert outside Makkah). Here pilgrims pray for God’s forgiveness, in what is often considered a preview of the Day of Judgement. The Hajj provides a unique opportunity for Muslims to reflect on their lives and return to their families and homes spiritually rejuvenated.

[Lief Erikson]

Last time my problem was with the last two paragraphs, but now it's with the first two . The rest has a good deal of validity.

Originally Posted by The Reader

Part 2

How did the spread of Islam affect the world?

The Muslim community continued to grow after Muhammad’s death. Within a few decades, vast numbers of people across three continents – Africa, Asia, and Europe, had chosen Islam for their way of life.

One of the reasons for the rapid spread of Islam was the purity of its doctrine – Islam calls for faith in only One God. This, coupled with the Islamic concepts of justice and freedom, resulted in a united and peaceful community.

Saying that this resulted in a "united and peaceful community" is just false. The Caliph Umar, the successor of Abu Bakr (who succeeded Muhammad) was assassinated by a Christian servant. His successor, Caliph Uthman, angered large numbers of the Muslims by promoting his kinsmen to the positions of governors all throughout their territory, and thus making the Muslims think he was behaving like a king. Thus several Muslim soldiers assassinated him. The three caliphs following were, I believe, also all assassinated by their Muslim supporters. The fourth caliph fought a civil war against Muawiyah I, who was to be the founder of the Umayyad dynasty. The Muslim community was rife with civil conflicts, and another of the causes for the conversions that occurred was the jizya tax placed on unbelievers by their Muslim leaders.

There was neither peace nor unity in the ancient Muslim world, either internally or externally. While civil disputes were resulting in deaths of their caliphs and civil war at home, their jihad against infidels was causing the destruction of all their neighbors.

The biggest problem I have with this Reader's account is really that it refuses to acknowledge that all of this expansion was the result of violent conquest. But again, I can well understand their doing this. They don't want anyone seeing Islam as a violent religion, and they don't want the actions of modern terrorists connected with their religion. That is why this history is completely ignored in this Reader.

But it is a very large lie.

Originally Posted by The Reader

“There is no deity except God; Muhammad is the messenger of God.”

The simple declaration of faith is required of all those who accept Islam as their chosen way of life. The words have to be uttered with sincere conviction and under no coercion.

This is true for most Muslims nowadays. It certainly wasn't true in the time of Muhammad and his early followers, and it still isn't true in many parts of the Middle East.

Originally Posted by The Reader

As millions of people embraced Islam, they brought with them the heritage of ancient civilizations like Egypt, Greece, India, Persia, and Rome. The synthesis of Eastern and Western ideas and of new thought with old, brought about great advances in the various fields of study. Scholars working in the Islamic tradition developed and excelled at art, architecture, astronomy, geography, history, language, literature, mathematics, medicine, and physics.

Many crucial systems such as algebra, the Arabic numerals, and the very concept of zero (crucial to the advancement of mathematics), were formulated by Muslim scholars and shared with medieval Europe. This sharing of knowledge was a direct cause of the Renaissance.

Muslims invented sophisticated instruments that made future European voyages of discovery possible: the astrolabe, the quadrant, and detailed navigational maps.

One of the key ways in which the Europeans got hold of Muslim technology is not really that the Muslims "gave" it to them, but rather that the Christians took it from the Muslims during the Crusades. But that's not extremely important, and it's true that after the initial expansion of Islam died down in many places, the Muslim leaders began to trade with the Christians and get along with them in pretty peaceful relations. After the initial jihad rush of Islam had died down, Muslims many times had better relations with the Christians than the Christians had with one another.

There were many, many brilliant achievements in the early Muslim world, and the list that they make is very good and accurate.

The Muslims were certainly far superior to Europe technologically at that time. They were far superior to Europe in medicine and art. Their culture was more sophisticated. They created much that was beautiful and wonderful.

It's worth noting that the Europeans had completely forgotten about the ancient Greek roots of their civilization. They had forgotten all about Homer and Aristotle and the others, and the Muslims reintroduced those great authors to them, because the Muslims had preserved that history.

The Muslims had many, many great and splendid aspects to their culture.

[Nurvingiel]

Remind me to respond to the rest of your post when it isn't two in the morning. I just have two quick(ish) comments.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The biggest problem I have with this Reader's account is really that it refuses to acknowledge that all of this expansion was the result of violent conquest. But again, I can well understand their doing this. They don't want anyone seeing Islam as a violent religion, and they don't want the actions of modern terrorists connected with their religion. That is why this history is completely ignored in this Reader.

But it is a very large lie.

I too was puzzled by the magical expansion of Islam in the reader. I was sure that early Muslims experienced a great deal of war. The Moors attacked whoever lived in Spain at the time, didn't they?

IMO this doesn't reflect badly on Islam, but on the people of the time. Still, the history in the Reader seems simplified.

I think they don't want to have a complex analysis of 1400 years of history in a short booklet. I also think they don't want to say anything about the violent aspects of the history of Islam, for fear of adding to the perception that Islam itself is actually a violent religion.

The booklet seems to take the other extreme - that no Muslim ever did anything violent ever. (I can't really blame them, given current attitudes, but it would have been nice if the Reader was a tad more balanced.)

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

This is true for most Muslims nowadays. It certainly wasn't true in the time of Muhammad and his early followers, and it still isn't true in many parts of the Middle East.

I think they're saying that you wouldn't truly be Muslim if you were forced into saying you were.

[Spock]

Islam was spread by war, war and more war.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I too was puzzled by the magical expansion of Islam in the reader. I was sure that early Muslims experienced a great deal of war. The Moors attacked whoever lived in Spain at the time, didn't they?

Way more than just that.

Here's a map of their conquests:
http://www.answers.com/topic/age-of-caliphs-gif

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

IMO this doesn't reflect badly on Islam, but on the people of the time.

Except that Muslims say that those earliest Caliphs were the Caliphs that were truest to Islam. You see, they see these conflicts through the light of their own religion. By their own religion's moral decrees, these wars were justified, because they were against infidels and by conquering them, many were brought to the light. They believe Allah gave power to Islam to enable it to spread as quickly as it did, and with such devastation. That is understandable . . . were I a Muslim, I'd believe the same. But that initial jihad of Islam is considered fully justified by the vast majority of Muslims, and Muhammad and those first Caliphs were all pure and acting for God as they slaughtered tens or hundreds of thousands.

So if one doesn't think that those attacks were just and right in God's eyes, one has to think that it reflects poorly on Islam as a religion. If Christians nowadays all thought (or the vast majority thought) that the witch burnings and the heretic-persecution and the religious wars of our past were all justified, that would reflect poorly on Christianity as a religion.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Still, the history in the Reader seems simplified.

It's supposed to be simplified. It isn't supposed to lie .

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I think they don't want to have a complex analysis of 1400 years of history in a short booklet.

So could I generalize the history of the US accurately by saying, "and ever since the Revolution, they lived happily, peacefully and contentedly with one another"?

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I also think they don't want to say anything about the violent aspects of the history of Islam, for fear of adding to the perception that Islam itself is actually a violent religion.

The booklet seems to take the other extreme - that no Muslim ever did anything violent ever. (I can't really blame them, given current attitudes, but it would have been nice if the Reader was a tad more balanced.)

I agree. They lied because they didn't want to add to the perception that Islam is a violent religion. I completely agree with that. And I can understand their doing it. I don't really approve, but I can certainly understand it.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I think they're saying that you wouldn't truly be Muslim if you were forced into saying you were.

Yes, but Muhammad and other early Muslims forced people to convert. Ayatollah Khomeini, the leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, says that this is justified. Muslims who turn from their religion in many parts of the Middle East are still ostracized and sometimes killed.

That has its roots way back in Muhammad's teachings and example, and that of the early Muslims who followed him.

[Spock]

It is sad that the amazing truths about the religion are either denied those who practice it or denied by those who practice it.

[Lief Erikson]

On the other hand, if the true nature of jihad was commonly accepted among the majority of Muslims, we'd be in a really bad position. The lie keeps many Muslims peaceful and thus enhances world stability. So I don't know what to make of that, completely. I'll have to dwell on it more. I hate lies, but this lie has some very positive effects.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Spock

It is sad that the amazing truths about the religion are either denied those who practice it or denied by those who practice it.

You could avoid the inevitable, "What do you mean, Spock?" by writing more than one sentence at a time in your posts.

What do you mean Spock?


Okay, I agree with you, Lief, that they shouldn't have lied about the history.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

On the other hand, if the true nature of jihad was commonly accepted among the majority of Muslims, we'd be in a really bad position. The lie keeps many Muslims peaceful and thus enhances world stability. So I don't know what to make of that, completely. I'll have to dwell on it more. I hate lies, but this lie has some very positive effects.

I don't know anything about jihad, though there are different interpretations for it. Not unlike various verses of the Bible. In both cases, having a different interpretation doesn't make a group wrong (as long as they can defend it with evidence), it just means there's more than one interpretation of a verse. I think jihad is seen the same way.

I mean, what is the true nature of jihad anyway?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I don't know anything about jihad, though there are different interpretations for it. Not unlike various verses of the Bible. In both cases, having a different interpretation doesn't make a group wrong (as long as they can defend it with evidence), it just means there's more than one interpretation of a verse. I think jihad is seen the same way.

I mean, what is the true nature of jihad anyway?

Muslims teach two different kinds of jihad, a lesser kind and a greater kind. Jihad itself means "struggle." The greater jihad is the internal struggle, the fight for purification and the battle against worldly desires. The lesser jihad is external struggle, which often implies violence and bloodshed, religious war.

Many modern Muslims practice the "greater jihad," but not the lesser. In the Quran, Muhammad taught that his followers must fight under certain circumstances, and that those who refrain from engaging in this jihad were not rejecting Allah's will. When Muslims in Muslim lands are attacked, all other Muslims are obliged to enter the "lesser jihad" on their behalf.

The world is divided into two cities, the City of War and the City of Faith. True Muslims all live in the City of Faith. All infidels are in the City of War. Never is peace allowed with that city, but war must always be held against it. Only temporary truces are allowed with the City of War, and these are to be immediately abandoned if Muslims are attacked.

Essentially, Muslims were commanded to engage in violent warfare with the world.

Why do I believe that this is the correct interpretation of the lesser jihad? I think it's obvious that this is the correct interpretation because Muhammad and his earliest followers, those that all modern Muslims are agreed were pure in their actions, practiced it. Muhammad and his early followers are responsible for (at the very least) the blood of hundreds of thousands of people whom they attacked, unprovoked. Except for the Qur'aysh, a tribe in Arabia. They persecuted Muhammad and his followers, which certainly is provocation.

But if Muslims nowadays want to reinterpret jihad in a modern way that is different from that which Muhammad taught, and if they want to interpret the Shariah Law in non-literal ways or refrain from practicing parts of it, that's their own affair. And I think that by doing so, they are refraining from acting in ways that are evil, which in my opinion is good. It isn't Muhammad's Islam, but in my mind, that's good!

[Nurvingiel]

Thanks for your explanation about jihad.

In the second paragraph here, you point out that Muhammad said Muslims have to fight under certain circumstances, but it's okay to refrain from joining the lesser jihad.

In the third paragraph, you say that all Muslims must wage constant war against infidels. But if this were true, then Muhammad would have said that you must always engage in the lesser jihad, not that you only have to under certain circumstances.

What you said earlier makes me think your interpretation of the lesser jihad is not correct. I imagine a Muslim scholar would refute it further. Why are you so sure that this is the correct interpretation?

Muhammad's practice of Islam is "pure" (or whatever) because of his teachings and actions towards other Muslims, which is what Islam is about. Note that jihad is not one of the Five Pillars.

[Lief Erikson]

I have sources that describe the City of Faith and the City of War, and say only truces are allowed with the City of War. This means that offensive war against the infidels is mandatory.

I have other sources that say lesser jihad is mandatory when Muslims are attacked, which means defensive warfare to protect others of the faith is required.

Originally Posted by The Qur'an

Not equal are those of the believers who sit [at home] without any [genuine] excuse and those who strive hard and fight in the cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has given preference by a degree to those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit [at home]. [In reality], for each, Allah has made a good promise and [in reality] Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight above those who sit [at home] by a huge reward. Degrees of [higher] grades from Him and forgiveness and mercy. And Allah is Ever Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Yet this does not apply when Muslim brothers are attacked. Then all are called to war.

Originally Posted by The Qur'an

And what has come over you that you fight not in the cause of Allah, and for those weak, ill-treated and oppressed among men, women, and children, whose cry is: ‘Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors, and raise for us from You one who will protect, and raise for us from You one who will help. [You should know that] those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Satan. So fight you against the friends of Satan. Ever feeble indeed is the plot of Satan.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

In the second paragraph here, you point out that Muhammad said Muslims have to fight under certain circumstances, but it's okay to refrain from joining the lesser jihad.

You're lesser if you do, but you still receive some reward for being a faithful home-body . This is not the case though, if your Muslim people are being attacked. That's my best understanding of it right now, anyway.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

In the third paragraph, you say that all Muslims must wage constant war against infidels. But if this were true, then Muhammad would have said that you must always engage in the lesser jihad, not that you only have to under certain circumstances.

The way I'm understanding it right now, Muslims are supposed to be constantly at war except during times of truce. Yet they are automatically supposed to come to one another's defense if Muslims are attacked or oppressed during a time of truce. That's where the defensive teachings come in, the "circumstances," in which Muslims are required to fight. But jihad is not mandatory during a "time of truce."

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

What you said earlier makes me think your interpretation of the lesser jihad is not correct. I imagine a Muslim scholar would refute it further.

Some would. Others (a rapidly growing number ) would support what I say. But there isn't necessarily a contradiction in what I said.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Why are you so sure that this is the correct interpretation?

Muhammad made several calls to violence that are directly quoted in the Hadith and Qur'an, and there is a strong Muslim tradition of the existence of a City of War and a City of Faith. And according to Muslim tradition, these two must always be in conflict except in times of truce.

But the really, really big reason why I'm so sure that this is the correct interpretation is that history records that Muhammad and all his earliest followers engaged in an all-out attack on every nation and empire around them. Everywhere that there were infidels, they attacked them and conquered them, making People of the Book pay jizya tax, convert or die, and putting to the sword or converting those who weren't People of the Book. The fact that this is what they did in practice is proof to me that modern liberal Muslim scholars are wrong when they say jihad is not violent or is solely defensive. And it's proof to me that the modern fundamentalist Muslim scholars and religious leaders are right when they say that the Prophet urged offensive warfare. Though they are convinced that they also have defensive justification for their jihad.

9/11 and modern terrorist actions did not convince me that Islam is violent. When I originally conducted my research on the origins of Islam, I didn't know much at all about the religion. But I was powerfully convinced that it was violent by the history I read about their rise to world power. The origins of Islam show its true nature (or at least its old nature, and the part of its nature we see exhibited still amongst extremists today), and they are incredibly violent.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Muhammad's practice of Islam is "pure" (or whatever) because of his teachings and actions towards other Muslims, which is what Islam is about.

I don't understand what you're saying. What about all the people he slaughtered and the violence he urged his followers to pursue? You won't find many Muslims at all who condemn him for that. His and his followers' attacks were supposed to be part of God's will.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Note that jihad is not one of the Five Pillars.

It's part of his teaching and was supposed to have been passed on by the Angel Gabriel from Allah. Huge numbers of Sharia Laws that everyone is expected to observe are not part of the Five Pillars.

[Spock]

Lief: I'm amazed at your staying power. Good work (honestly).

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Well, it is just an overview of Islam. It's not going to go into the complex history of the religion in an 8 page booklet.

No; the complex history of the religion is your next project to type up for us.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If Christians nowadays all thought (or the vast majority thought) that the witch burnings and the heretic-persecution and the religious wars of our past were all justified, that would reflect poorly on Christianity as a religion.

*whistles innocently*

...

Just kiddin'.

It's supposed to be simplified. It isn't supposed to lie .

It doesn't. A lie is an assertion contrary to the truth. This is generalization and omission, a very different matter.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

*whistles innocently*

I didn't think you could do that.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Fie on you, sir! That post stinks of libel!

[hectorberlioz]

Here's a very interesting article:


http://www.brookings.edu/fp/cuse/ana...ce20060210.pdf


...Haven't finished reading it myself, but it seems pretty fair.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Spock

How about, if every time there is a demonstration, burning of cars, killing of non-muslims; we gather a huge group on non-muslims and do *exactly the same thing to them* saying THEY are intollerant.

.....it could get quite ugly quite soon.....

No way...non-muslims would be portrayed as bigots...
What we'd have to do is start a group of Muslims that want to protest the radical ones....