Maybe because there is only about a half dozen members of the NBPP and no one takes them seriously?

SD, because the "New Black Panther" story is over. It was one nutcase, and he's been arrested.

What Rick said. Why is it that a fact can be repeated over and over and be ignored, but a lie can be told twice and be written in stone?

ah, so as long as its one moron making threats against anothers life, thats ok? lol. so happy the little thug is dead, rail all you want, he got what was coming. the path he was on, if zimm didnt shoot him, he would have eventually been shot anyways. you say 1 person from nbpp, way to LIE. you didnt hear everything else that came from the wanted doa campaign because you get your news from nbc, you will only have part truths and fabrications. dummys.

Hate crimes against Muslims were far less then those of Jewish faith and rank lower then Black, white or Gay.

Extremists behave the same all over the world.

GED, the infide (sic) are atheits, polytheists and pagans. Christians and Jews are no infide (sic).

raddave...you sir, are full of sh!t.

No, Eric, I am informed. I don't read the Koran posted on anti-Islamic sites. The Koran teaches Muslims that Christians and Jews are "Children of the Book" and that they should be protected.

No...you're full of sh!t.

No, Eric, you are.

The Koran teaches Muslims that Christians and Jews are "Children of the Book" and that they should be protected.

Sure, the same kind of "protection" that the mafia bestows upon someone who pays them what they demand. What a deal! With Islam it is a special tax called "jizya" that is specifically targeted upon "People of the Book." Pay it regularly and you will be allowed to keep your (non-muslim) faith. Refuse to pay and... Well, you fill in the rest raddave; what do you think would happen to anyone who refused to pay up? Do you think that it is a voluntary tax? Are you aware that the Qur'an also calls for Non-muslims living under such an arrangement (2nd class Dhimmi status) to be made to feel powerless and weak? Before you start making excuses for such things you really need to learn more about it.

The references to the Jews in the Koran are ambiguous, subject to multiple interpretations, and often contradictory.

Consider, for example, 2.62: "Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve."

That surely doesn't suggest "smite them." Nor does 5:13, which is structured as an anti-Jewish polemic, but which hardly suggests that Muslims should smite the Jews: "But on account of their breaking their covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard; they altered the words from their places and they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of; and you shall always discover treachery in them excepting a few of them; so pardon them and turn away; surely Allah loves those who do good (to others)."

I also wonder why I never see our resident Koranic scholars railing against the repulsive passages in the Old Testament...

Religious texts are complex. You people are simple.

Quoting abrogated verses is a common propaganda technique.  Both 2:62 and 5:13 are abrogated.

"Quoting abrogated verses is a common propaganda technique. Both 2:62 and 5:13 are abrogated."

No they aren't. Why do you insist on lying?

I'm not. You're misleading people in the exact manner described in the link.

Adam, you are again posting from IGNORANCE, the jizya was paid for protection because Non Muslims were not allowed to join the military to actively protect their countries.

I just realized that I misread your post. I thought you meant "abridged," which I took to mean that you were accusing me of only posting part of the line. (If that is what you were suggesting, then it shouldn't be difficult to prove me wrong-- just post the full verse, pointing out what I've admitted.)

Then I realized that you said "abrogated." "Abrogate" means "to repeal or do away with (a law, right, or formal agreement)." It makes no sense in this context. I can't very well call you a liar when you are actually just incoherent.

No. You're apparently not familiar with Islam's "Doctrine of Abrogation". Google it, or just go to the link I posted which describes it reasonably well (and specifically lists the two verses you quoted, and many others, as abrogated verses).

Interesting. What I learned was that any given instance of abrogation is hotly debated and highly variable. Some people appear to suggest that only hadiths can be abrogated, and not the Koran itself.

Please provide me with some evidence that suggests that Muslims (lay people or scholars) generally accept the premise that these particular verses are illegitimate.

I'll just quote for now a portion of what is written at the link I posted:

"The documentation for the information that I am offering in this piece is found in one of Islam's classical reference books in the Arabic language. It is titled "al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh" (The Abrogator and the Abrogated) and was authored by the revered Muslim scholar Abil-Kasim Hibat-Allah Ibn-Salama Abi-Nasr. The book goes through every Surah (chapter) in the Quran and cites in great detail every verse that was cancelled-out/overridden by particular verses that were written later. The author noted that out of 114 Surahs (chapters) of the Quran, there are only 43 Surahs that were not affected by this concept. The implications are very revealing. It means that those who would be inclined to accept the Quran as reliable can take only 43 chapters of the Quran at face value. The majority of its chapters cannot be taken at face value. The cancelled verses are mixed in with the authoritative verses and only schooled Islamist know which is which."

I'd expect there to be considerable debate among Islamic scholars concerning which verses are abrogated and how they might be affected. The list on that particular page comes from the list of the above-mentioned author, Abil-Kasim Hibat-Allah Ibn-Salama Abi-Nasr. It would be interesting to cross-check against other sources. But for the linked source (bold text in case you haven't checked it), 2:62 and 5:13 are both listed as abrogated.

engineer guy, I did google it, and the only sites that came up were sites like jihadwatch, and one from a former Muslim who converted to Christianity. Obviously not objective sites.

Adam, you are again posting from IGNORANCE, the jizya was paid for protection because Non Muslims were not allowed to join the military to actively protect their countries.

It's a mafia-style protection racket, pure and simple. Your making excuses for it is either IGNORANT (as you put it) or despicable.

No, it is not Adam. And to claim so is ignorant.

"I'd expect there to be considerable debate among Islamic scholars concerning which verses are abrogated and how they might be affected."

Good. Then why do you take the one scholar whose interpretation fits your own agenda as the final and authoritative word on which verses are binding and which are not? If you insist on interpreting the Koran in the exact same way as al-Queda does, then of course it will come across as insane and extremist. It would be like arguing that the Westboro Baptists' interpretation of the bible is the authoritative reading and anyone calling themselves a Christian accepts that interpretation without question.

(Also, I don't actually see a link to the information you are discussing. Could you suggest a google term that would get me to this source? I want to make sure we're reading the same thing.)

Just to make sure, here is that link again, posted as a URL, rather than as hotlinked text. http://www.islamreview.com/articles/quransdoctrine.shtml. It's the same site as what you'll get by clicking the bold text in my earlier post in this thread (it's also in the post in which you quoted me, the bold "abrogated verses" text).

I would think you would want to be a bit more cautious in citing a site that explicitly frames its mission as combatting the "deception" of Islam while advocating for a very particular understanding of Christianity as a source for an authoritative statement of what Muslims believe.

Point taken, but the actual list is taken from a book specifically about the subject of the Abrogation doctrine from a Muslim scholar. The web site author did not create the list.

You won't find Muslim sources, at least from the Middle East, who publish critiques of Islam. Rushdie's book contained only a brief element that could be vaguely construed as such, and that caused Khomeini to issue a fatwah against him, with the punishment being death.

Yes. The anti-Muslim propaganda site quoted a source that suits their rhetorical aim. Shocking. No one here is claiming that there aren't abhorrent interpretations of Islam. What we are disputing is the idea that it is reasonable to deduce the authoritative essence of Islam from these quotations.

What we are disputing is the idea that it is reasonable to deduce the authoritative essence of Islam from these quotations.

Indeed. What is the real Islam anyway? We won't work out that answer here, at least not with any sense of agreement.

Do you read and understand Arabic?

Thomas Jefferson was the first person to translate the koran to english. At the beginning he put a warning of the content. I preffer to trust Thomas Jeffersons word over yours....unless you claim to be smarter the him......do you?

Do you read and understand Arabic?

no, but Osama Bin Laden did...

And Ayman al-Zawahiri certainly does.

Eric, a translation of the Koran is NOT the Koran. It has to be in traditional Arabic to be translated. And Jefferson did not translate the Koran to English. He read the George Sale translation of the Koran.

Of course thos two did, it was/is their native language.

a translation of the Koran is NOT the Koran. It has to be in traditional Arabic to be translated

Read and learn

The Word TAFSIR is an arabic word تفسير which is derived from the root 'fassara' . Someone who writes tafsir is a 'mufassir...". IBN KATHIR - Famous Mufassir (commentator of Quran) مفسر . Well known and respected for his keen memory and a highly regarded scholar of tafsir (commentary) - Born 1302 AD. Memorized entire Quran, word-for-word along and memorized huge number of sayings and teachings (hadeeth) of the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, along with sayings and commentary about Quran from Muhammad's companions, may Allah be pleased with them. The Tafsir of Ibn Kathir is of the most respected and accepted explanations for the Quran and is the most widely used explanations in Arabic used today. The difficulty of translating Quran to English is quite another problem and not one to be taken lightly nor is it for the average translators to decide what is meant by the words of Almighty God.

While we agree it is impossible to bring the exact meaning of everything from Quran to English, it is our intention to bring about a better understanding for non-Arab speakers at least a basic understanding of the meaning of the Quran for the English speaking readers.

This site presents the work of scholarly experts of Arabic, English, hadeeth and tafsir, together with the Guidance of Almighty God - the Explanation of God's Words in simple English.

http://www.qtafsir.com/

And explanation of the word, it does not say that this is the Koran.

"Thomas Jefferson was the first person to translate the koran to english. At the beginning he put a warning of the content. I preffer to trust Thomas Jeffersons word over yours....unless you claim to be smarter the him......do you?"

The depth of your ignorance is amazing. Thomas Jefferson was NOT the first person to translate the Koran into English. There are two major issues with this claim. First, there had been earlier translations, including a translation in 1649 (which was based on an earlier French translation) and in 1734 from the original Arabic by George Sale. The bigger problem is that JEFFERSON NEVER TRANSLATED THE KORAN. It would have been very difficult for him to have translated it given that there is no indication that he had any meaningful command of Arabic.

Is everything you say a blatant lie, or was this a rare error?

Raddave is correct.....no religious book should be interpreted. Raddave, I really like you. You have intellect. Thank you for defending my religion.

"Whitewashing" is a more accurate description of what raddave does.

No Adam, you just don't like the idea that a white Christian can be open about Islam.

Seeing as I had no idea that you are a "white" Christian, your claim is demonstrably false.

WOW!!! The level of ignorance coming from Eric1017922 is just short of amazing. Um, you really need to do your fact checking before you make assinine statements such as the 1 you just made.

raddave, do you believe a Muslim can go to heaven? Does he have to be a white Christian?

raddave, do you believe a Muslim can go to heaven?

wlee: "heaven" is a fairy tale, just like hell. The concept of reward/punishment is used to cajole or threaten small children and malleable adults into behaving in whatever fashion is required by controlling bodies.

Ped, the reason for my comment had to do with him saying he was a Christian, whether or not you believe is up to each individual, thanks for your opinion BTW could you let Obama know that

What if they were born right here in the U.S.? How would you feel if someone said, we need to put all right wingers into camps?

If azzhole gets another four years, I could see that happening.

yeah, because you are an ignorant bedwetter.

Yeah all this name calling is so enlightening

the fact is, threats like this and much worse happen to minority religions every day in the Muslim world. it'd be nice if the bleeding hearts would acknowledge that every once in a while.

We don't live in the Muslim world, now do we? We live in a supposed free country.

Your president said this was the largest muslim country on earth.....I'll bet you don't remember that, do you? He also said that America was not a christian nation....what an azz!

"I wonder what would happen if I wanted to practice my religion, wear my style of clothing, etc. in a country that is predominantly Muslim.

Not that this behavior is acceptable, we, as a supposedly evolved species, should be better than that."

Well that would depend on the country. I some predominantly Muslim countries, you'd be just fine. In others, you wouldn't.

We are not a Christian Nation Eric, we are a secular nation. and I dare you to come up with a link to that "quote" you claim the President said. And, it was not Obama that said that, It was John Adams that said that.

"Your president said this was the largest muslim country on earth.....I'll bet you don't remember that, do you?"

This is what Obama said: "“And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world."

That's not exactly the same as what you are suggesting.

Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, unanimously ratified by the US Senate, Article 11:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, unanimously ratified by the US Senate, Article 11:

Reason there had to be a peace treaty can be found here.

Particularly interesting is this, from early America's first contacts with the jihadists of the day, the Barbary pirates:

Thirty years earlier, in 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, then serving as American ambassadors to France and Britain, respectively, met in London with the Tripolitan Ambassador to Britain, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja.

These future American presidents were attempting to negotiate a peace treaty which would spare the United States the ravages of jihad piracy—murder, enslavement (with ransoming for redemption), and expropriation of valuable commercial assets—emanating from the Barbary states (modern Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya).

During their discussions, they questioned Ambassador Adja as to the source of the unprovoked animus

key words unprovoked animus

directed at the nascent United States republic.Jefferson and Adams, in their subsequent report to the Continental Congress, recorded the Tripolitan Ambassador’s justification:

… that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners,and that every Mussulman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2QzNWYxZThlOTQ4YTBmYzYyNmUzOTQ4MmUzM2M5NDc=

Now read the link from the USC library of Islamic text.

Narrated Jubair bin Haiya: 'Umar sent the Muslims to the great countries to fight the pagans. When Al-Hurmuzan embraced Islam, 'Umar said to him. "I would like to consult you regarding these countries which I intend to invade." Al-Hurmuzan said, "Yes, the example of these countries and their inhabitants who are the enemies. of the Muslims, is like a bird with a head, two wings and two legs; If one of its wings got broken, it would get up over its two legs, with one wing and the head; and if the other wing got broken, it would get up with two legs and a head, but if its head got destroyed, then the two legs, two wings and the head would become useless. The head stands for Khosrau, and one wing stands for Caesar and the other wing
stands for Faris. So, order the Muslims to go towards Khosrau." So, 'Umar sent us (to Khosrau) appointing An-Numan bin Muqrin as our commander. When we reached the land of the enemy, the representative of Khosrau came out with forty-thousand warriors, and an interpreter got up saying, "Let one of you talk to me!" Al-Mughira replied, "Ask whatever you wish." The other asked, "Who are you?" Al-Mughira replied, "We are some people from the Arabs; we led a hard,
miserable, disastrous life: we used to suck the hides and the date stones from hunger; we used to wear clothes made up of fur of camels and hair of goats, and to worship trees and stones. While we were in this state, the Lord of the Heavens and the Earths, Elevated is His Remembrance and Majestic is His Highness, sent to us from among ourselves a Prophet whose father and mother are known to us.

Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you
till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has
informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred),
shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and
whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master."

a long time jihadi favorite, it still plays well in this day and age

(Al-Mughira, then blamed An-Numan for delaying the attack and) An-Nu' man said to Al-Mughira, "If you had participated in a similar battle, in the company of Allah's Apostle he would not have blamed you for waiting, nor would he have disgraced you. But I accompanied Allah's Apostle in many battles and it was his custom that if he did not fight early by daytime, he would wait till the wind had started blowing and the time for the prayer was due (i.e. after
midday)."

Sahih Bukhari 4:53:386

this verse, is still used today to justify terrorist attacks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjE6W4jz600

it's a direct result of the words, actions and traditions of Mohammad. These are the codeifyed teaching found in the Quran, hadith, and Sunnah (biography of the prophet)

Here is the traditional meaning of the word jihad. That you will find if you look up jihad in the noble Quran, from a Saudi source.

it references chapter two, verse 190 see foot notes

190. And fight in the Way of Allâh^[1] those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allâh likes not the transgressors. [This Verse is the first one that was revealed in connection with Jihâd, but it was supplemented by another (9:36)].

[1] (V.2:190) Al-Jihâd (holy fighting) in Allâh’s Cause (with
full force of numbers and weaponry) is given the utmost importance in Islâm and is one of its pillar (on which it stands). By Jihâd Islâm is established, Allâh’s Word is made superior,

(His Word being Lâ ilaha illallâh which means none has the right to be worshipped but Allâh),

To you he may seem like a neonatologist, but as the geniuses around here will gladly tell you, he is actually an agent of a stealth jihad/shariah campaign. Hilarious.

"And even if it is some anti-muslim radical who makes good on his threats, who cares ?"

The innocent people who were killed or injured probably care. The people who love them probably care. I care.

Your post is utterly sickening.

23% of the world's population is Muslim. How many of them do you think have declared holy war on your people?

Which sect would that be?

Oh, you know... the "large" ones.

Correct Dale, and Lev, your answer is almost all of them! The basic tenant of islam is to not only cruelly subjugate women, deny education to girls, but to kill and destroy non-believers, as well as destroy any semblance of an honest, democratic government for the people.

No it isn't Jack, what you are citing is the tenant of extremists.

Jack-- I was being sarcastic, bigot. I will hardly trust the word of a person who confuses the words "tenant" and "tenet" regarding the fundamental essence of a religion practiced by over 1 billion people who hold an extremely diverse range of views.

To Dale Fincher: So Muslims are only out to get you and your people??? They have even declared WAR on just you and your people??? So just enlighten me as to who your people are so I can not be around when they come just for you and your people. Thanks.

And I was being sarcastic as well if you weren't able to actually grasp that as well.

Will for one the Jews of Israel, and please spare me the land they occupy, which has been concurred several times. Land ownership throughout the world has changed hands

YAR, not all white people are Christians, not all people who are anti Muslim are Christians generalize much

Wes also haves many peoples what lives in this Contry whose can hardly speaks the English.

why are you in a mosque every day listening to imams?

MSNBC and the rest of the media elites do the same thing on a daily basis.

Yes, and the next time a radical christian extremist blows up an abortion clinic or murders a doctor, ask them to explain too.

I googled "England riots signs." The first ten pages of images (240 images) only included only 3 images of protestors holding signs. They read:

1) Mu–BARI–ak (I'm not sure what this one means)

2) ONE CITY ONE VOICE ONE PEACE

3) BE NICE TO OTHER LONDONERS

None of them (much less "almost ALL" of them) said "Islam Will Dominate the World")

Then I googled "England riots signs Islam." I found 10 images in the first 10 pages of protestors holding signs.

The first page had 4 images of Muslim extremists (all who appeared to be in the same small group) who were holding signs with some absolutely disgusting things written on them ("Slay those who insult Islam," "Massacre those who insult Islam, etc.) None of them said "Islam Will Dominate the World. I also found the following images on this search:

1) "No more mosques"

2) "Europe is the cancer, Islam is the answer" (The same protestor is also pictured holding a sign reading "Europe you will pay, your 9/11 is on its way.") It appears that this may have been on the other side of the "cancer" sign.

3) "British Police go to hell"

4) Another "No more mosques."

5) One banner that read "Shariah for the UK"

6) "English Defense League: Stop the Desecration of our churches"

7) Extremists out: Britain Safe" (also EDL)

8) Anglian soldiers: Butchers of Basram

None of them said "Islam Will Dominate the World"

Only when I googled "England riots Islam Will Dominate the World" did I find any of the images that you were referring to. That's a far, far cry from "Know what's on almost ALL the signs? "Islam Will Dominate The World""

Liar. You wasted my time.

Here you are. Is snopes.com good enough?

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/muslimprotest.asp The pic is at the bottom of the page.

Lev, Google: Islam will dominate the world

and look for "Images" - you will find plenty of such posters in various versions. I just did. :(

I never said that no one was carrying these posters. I said quite clearly that an image search for "England riots Islam Will Dominate the World" does turn up images of these signs. What is quite clear, however, is that Gemini is absolutely, 100% wrong in claiming that, " Look at the pictures of the rioters. Lots of pictures. Lots of signs. Know what's on almost ALL the signs? "Islam Will Dominate The World.'"

Hey, guess what? I can find pictures of Christians and Jews holding up reprehensible signs! Everyone who considers themselves a Christian or a Jew must therefore share those views, right?

The argument of false equivalence comes up a lot in the context of these discussions. A good example might be to compare the response to the so-called "piss Christ" affair and the Muslim "cartoon riots". Both can be found in Wikipedia. Keep in mind that the "piss Christ" was done on a U.S. government grant for the arts. A simple comparison of the number of resulting deaths might provide some insight.

I should add that I'm an atheist/agnostic, so with respect to religion, it doesn't matter either way. I do, however, have certain preconceived notions of what is acceptable in a civilized society, and these are decidedly Western in nature.

Hey ENG. Not really trying to pick a bone, but a couple thoughts to consider.

Claiming a relatively very small segment of an entire population which comes out to show radicalism protesting at its finest in regard to a 'perceived' blasphemy(not much question that 'freedom of speech' does not equate in a 'need to publish' of such moronic images of Suicide Mohammed, or Piss Jesus, which it knows will cause anger, resentment and open the door to extremists protests) is not logical, but extrapolation without a basis to include the larger population. Interestingly enough, the number of beheadings of Infidels in England remains consistently low.

One Snopes picture of a guy alone 2 years previous to those first found on the Snopes link really has no relativity at all, except to say there was a single unrelated picture found, in order to substantiate the other's claim that there were thousands of them. It does not.

But I do appreciate the Snope's Link, as it bears out that there are some radical extremists of Muslim Faith within their billions.

Peace

On the one hand, I don't condone deliberate baiting of people's religious beliefs. On the other, since I'm not religious, I am not offended either way.

The difference between the "piss Christ" and Muhammad cartoons is that at least 100 people died in the resulting riots relating to the Muhammad cartoons, and nobody died in the "piss Christ" controversy. Is this a reflection of the difference in culture? You bet. It's the difference between civilized society and animals. If you want to join civilized society, then welcome! If you wish to justify animals, then the door is this way. ->

The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy began after 12 editorial cartoons, most of which depicted the Islamic prophet Muhammad, were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on 30 September 2005. The newspaper announced that this publication was an attempt to contribute to the debate regarding criticism of Islam and self-censorship.

Danish Muslim organizations that objected to the depictions responded by holding public protests attempting to raise awareness of Jyllands-Posten's publication. Further examples of the cartoons were soon reprinted in newspapers in more than 50 other countries, further deepening the controversy.

Four months later, Muslims protested across the Islamic world, some of which escalated into violence with instances of firing on crowds of protestors resulting in a total of more than 100 reported deaths,^[1] including the bombing of the Danish embassy in Pakistan and setting fire to the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, storming European buildings, and burning the Danish, Dutch, Norwegian, French and German flags in Gaza City.^[2][3] Various groups, primarily in the Western world, responded by endorsing the Danish policies, including "Buy Danish" campaigns and other displays of support. Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen described the controversy as Denmark's worst international crisis since World War II.^[4]

Critics of the cartoons described them as Islamophobic or racist,^[5] and argued that they are blasphemous to people of the Muslim faith, are intended to humiliate a Danish minority, or are a manifestation of ignorance about the history of Western imperialism.

Supporters have said that the cartoons illustrated an important issue in a period of Islamic terrorism and explained that their publication is a legitimate exercise of the right of free speech, explicitly tied to the issue of self-censorship. They explained that Muslims were not targeted in a discriminatory way, since unflattering cartoons about other religions (or their leaders) are frequently printed.^[6].

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoonscontroversy - Wikipedia, the ...

Since the 2005 cartoons were released/printed and the over 100 people were killed, over the World, is nowhere close to the Muslims murdered, Women and Children included, by a Great Western Country when it invaded Iraq. Those numbers add up to the Tens of Thousands.

I find no basis to point out that Western Culture holds the edge on Higher Morals or Values or Actions in the Big Picture. Though I will not attempt to make any excuses for those of ANY murderous group of Individuals or Armies guilty of performing heinous acts, Ours or Theirs.

Bad is Bad...Making it Muslim while ignoring the actions of Our Own Great Country's Miltary in the name of WMDs makes no sense, especially when we consider all the Lies told by that Administration in connection with the Invasion and resultant destruction of Infrastructure, Invasion of Individual Rights of Iraqis, and Indiscriminate Bombing, Shooting and Torture of those very Iraqis. Not saying that some real scum was not removed with Saddam and his Boys, it was NOT our position to make up @!$%# in order to secure Oil Fields in the name of Democracy and under False Pretenses.

From down further in the Wikipedia Discussion:

Prohibition against insulting Muhammad

In Muslim societies, insulting Muhammad is considered one of the gravest of all crimes. Some interpretations of the Shariah, in particular the relatively fringe Salafi(Wahabi) group, state that any insult to Muhammad warrants death.^[151]

However, the Organization of the Islamic Conference has denounced calls for the death of the Danish cartoonists. OIC's Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu stated in a press release:

The Secretary General appeals to the Muslims to stay calm and peaceful in the wake of sacrilegious depiction of Prophet Muhammad which has deeply hurt their feelings. He has stated that Islam being the religion of tolerance, mercy and peace teaches them to defend their faith through democratic and legal means.^[152]

Associating Islam with terrorism

Many Muslims have explained their anti-cartoon stance as against insulting pictures and not so much as against pictures in general. According to the BBC:

It is the satirical intent of the cartoonists and the association of the Prophet with terrorism, that is so offensive to the vast majority of Muslims.

Why is the insult so deeply felt by some Muslims? Of course, there is the prohibition on images of Muhammad. But one cartoon, showing the Prophet wearing a turban shaped as a bomb with a burning fuse, extends the caricature of Muslims as terrorists to Muhammad. In this image, Muslims see a depiction of Islam, its prophet and Muslims in general as terrorists. This will certainly play into a widespread perception among Muslims across the world that many in the West harbour a hostility towards – or fear of – Islam and Muslims.

Islamism and accusations of xenophobia

Main articles: Islam in Europe and Multiculturalism

Fundamentalist Islam has recently been characterized as a problem in Europe,^[155][156] while disillusionment with multiculturalism is on the rise in Denmark.^[157] This was further fuelled by Mullah Krekar stating that "the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes."^[158][159] The UNCHRSpecial Rapporteur, on the other hand, saw xenophobia and racism in Europe as the root of the controversy,^[160] particularly singling out Denmark.^{[161][162][163]}

Peace, and Good Night

Did the Shiite population in Iraq benefit from the overthrow of Saddam? Did the Muslim population benefit from our intrusion in Bosnia? Did muslims benefit from our invasion of Afghanistan? Did Indonesian Muslims benefit after the tsunami More Muslims have killed other Muslims look it up

Iraq was our buddy because they used the "wmds" we proffered them against Iran. Saddam also used them against Kurds and those very folks he terrorized from his Baghdad Mansions. We really could give a @!$%# about that in our Government Seats so long as he kept up his end of the deal. It only became an inconvenience once the entire World began to unravel the powers of the Great WWW.Internet and the information overload available thereafter.

And this is so true in many of the actions previously taken before the World shrunk to the size of a computer moniter. Viet Nam/Cambodia, Protests, African Genocides, Bosnian Serbian/Croatian Conflicts/Genocide, Pakistan/India, US involvement in Nation Building and Imperialism, Orders to eliminate World Leaders that would not bow to pressures to give us way, 9/11...and many or all were covered up and down or ignored for various periods of time or downplayed by the press and denied by Our Leaders and Politicians and Generals.

It happens all over the World. Always has. Always will.

33 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True

No one does it with the cold precision and degree of wrath of America when She sets her sites on something or someone. So deflecting from the fact that we are just as capable of horrors as anyone; Race, Creed, Religion, Greed all contributing when a scapegoat is needed or a neccesary participant will not play along, and there is something we want/need. Or they want/need, as it is not in any way just us, but we are the most powerful in Modern Times.

Usually Oil/Gas, but Food and Political Puppetry also play roles, and ever-diminishing minerals are also moving further up the ladder.

Do not let Indoctrination rule you forever. Just as the Chinese and North Koreans, for example, are lead to believe their ways/leaders are best through brainwashing, our own Societal Masterminds have long guilded our source inputs for well over a century.

Peace