For Muslim Who Says Violence Destroys Islam, Violent Threats

NY TIMES ^ | 11 March 2006 | JOHN M. BRODER

[jecIIny]

March 11, 2006 The Saturday Profile For Muslim Who Says Violence Destroys Islam, Violent Threats By JOHN M. BRODER

LOS ANGELES, March 10 — Three weeks ago, Dr. Wafa Sultan was a largely unknown Syrian-American psychiatrist living outside Los Angeles, nursing a deep anger and despair about her fellow Muslims.

Today, thanks to an unusually blunt and provocative interview on Al Jazeera television on Feb. 21, she is an international sensation, hailed as a fresh voice of reason by some, and by others as a heretic and infidel who deserves to die.

In the interview, which has been viewed on the Internet more than a million times and has reached the e-mail of hundreds of thousands around the world, Dr. Sultan bitterly criticized the Muslim clerics, holy warriors and political leaders who she believes have distorted the teachings of Muhammad and the Koran for 14 centuries.

She said the world's Muslims, whom she compares unfavorably with the Jews, have descended into a vortex of self-pity and violence.

[Fruitbat]

This lady is the classic example of someone that I would ask, "then why are you a muslim?"

Dr. Sultan bitterly criticized the Muslim clerics, holy warriors and political leaders who she believes have distorted the teachings of Muhammad and the Koran for 14 centuries.

She said the world's Muslims, whom she compares unfavorably with the Jews, have descended into a vortex of self-pity and violence.

Welcome to Islam honey! Have you never heard of Mohammed?

Not sure about the "self-pity," but the violence is clear as day. Why people "are muslim" and then become "puzzled" at why "Islam is as Islam does" all based on its founder's teachings is beyond me and a real paradox.

"I believe our people are hostages to our own beliefs and teachings," she said in an interview this week in her home in a Los Angeles suburb.

YES! They are! So isn't it high time for all of them to quit the charade and actually begin questioning what your/their "religion" is really about, what Mohammed's teachings really were, who Mohammed really was, and start digging a little deeper than simply saying that you're a muslim?

What kind of "afterlife value" does Islam really have? Did Mohammed rise from the dead or conquer death for cryin' out loud! NO! He killed people and came up with a philosophy and ideology that you are at odds with, and for a damned good reason!

So get them to wake up and think for a change!

Then quit "being a muslim," become agnostic until you figure out the truth!

She went on, "We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people."

Let's take that a step further, shall we. Barring one-sies perhaps, no one but muslims behave like that! It is that simple.

"I have reached the point that doesn't allow any U-turn. I have no choice. I am questioning every single teaching of our holy book."

Shouldn't you have done this BEFORE you became a muslim? Why is it that people treat religions as if they're selecting a candy bar at a truck stop convenient store?!?!

She said she no longer practiced Islam. "I am a secular human being," she said.

Great! Outstanding! But then quit trying to alter Islam! It is exactly what it actually is, not what you, the President, the media, people without a clue, other muslims, or anyone else want it to be.

In your book I would strongly urge you to suggest that Islam is built on nothing substantial other than the wilings of a madman and terrorist. Encourage people to flee its grasp, begin thinking for themselves, and separate themselves from those that do in fact adhere to the Koran and Mohammed's other teachings.

If more people began thinking like this lady, then Islam wouldn't be a fraction of the threat that it is. But based on this article, it's almost as if people question Islam's roots after they "become muslim." Why?

A religion is supposed to be something a little bit more important and practical than a daily or weekly decision on some minor preference in life for the moment.

[Fruitbat]

I admire her brave. But very sad, she have to hid from them and even children! Hope she pray enough to strengthen her faith to prepare the worst thing! I hope I don't want to see her head roll in the News.... Keep alive and pray, pray, pray

There are a lot more muslims than we realize that think exactly like that but are utterly afraid for their lives should they turn from Islam. But it's a catch-22. They won't have freedom until more and more turn from it. They'll get help from the rest of the world on it, but they'll have to step out from under it's veil of death and threats by themselves first.

The only thing that comes to mind is the civil rights movement in this country. While perhaps not nearly as extensive in the threats from some racists towards pockets of blacks, particularly in the South at the time, MLK Jr. et al. had to overcome some fears and take some risks. He did, and the results are an open book on display.

The risks are greater for muslims going apostate, but you know, if millions did this, the odds would likely be no different from being killed than of winning a small lottery or of dying in a hurricane or tornado somewhere. Life is full of risks.

I highly encourage this lady and other muslims around the world to begin doing the same. Challenge their "religion," step out from underneath it's umbrella of oppression, and be free!

No, it's not gonna be easy or free. But few things are. It's easy having been born in this country with its freedoms to sit here and type this freely and w/o threat, but I also have to think that so too, some of these muslims "have a dream," a dream of a better life for their kids and their kids' kids. At some point one would think that these things would work up the courage in them.

And there's no question in my mind, that if everyone did this, that there'd be a lot more "muslims" in the camp of this lady than in the other camp, threatening to harm them. But the move is theirs and we can't make it for them. It's also probably a lot like Nazi Germany with eyes and ears in who knows who, friends, family, etc. that would "turn someone in" without a thought for "daring to defy Mohammed."

It's not easy, but it's gotta be done.

[Bubba M. Aurelius]

Amen.

[Savage Beast]

Wafa'd better get herself one of those false noses and a fake wig.

[najida]

I love this lady.

Seriously, from what I've observed, the strength and push for change seems to come from the women.

[US admirer]

TRANSCRIPT

The Middle East Media Research Institute
2/21/2006 Clip No. 1050
Arab-American Psychologist Wafa Sultan: There Is No Clash of Civilizations but a Clash between the Mentality of the Middle Ages and That of the 21st Century

Following are excerpts from an interview with Arab-American psychologist Wafa Sultan. The interview was aired on Al-Jazeera TV on February 21, 2006
.

Wafa Sultan: The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete.

[...]

Host: I understand from your words that what is happening today is a clash between the culture of the West, and the backwardness and ignorance of the Muslims?

Wafa Sultan: Yes, that is what I mean.

[...]

Host: Who came up with the concept of a clash of civilizations? Was it not Samuel Huntington? It was not Bin Laden. I would like to discuss this issue, if you don't mind...

Wafa Sultan: The Muslims are the ones who began using this expression. The Muslims are the ones who began the clash of civilizations. The Prophet of Islam said: "I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and His Messenger." When the Muslims divided the people into Muslims and non-Muslims, and called to fight the others until they believe in what they themselves believe, they started this clash, and began this war. In order to start this war, they must reexamine their Islamic books and curricula, which are full of calls for takfir and fighting the infidels.

My colleague has said that he never offends other people's beliefs. What civilization on the face of this earth allows him to call other people by names that they did not choose for themselves? Once, he calls them Ahl Al-Dhimma, another time he calls them the "People of the Book," and yet another time he compares them to apes and pigs, or he calls the Christians "those who incur Allah's wrath." Who told you that they are "People of the Book"? They are not the People of the Book, they are people of many books. All the useful scientific books that you have today are theirs, the fruit of their free and creative thinking. What gives you the right to call them "those who incur Allah's wrath," or "those who have gone astray," and then come here and say that your religion commands you to refrain from offending the beliefs of others?

I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. I am a secular human being. I do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect others' right to believe in it.

Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: Are you a heretic?

Wafa Sultan: You can say whatever you like. I am a secular human being who does not believe in the supernatural...

Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: If you are a heretic, there is no point in rebuking you, since you have blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran...

Wafa Sultan: These are personal matters that do not concern you.

[...]

Wafa Sultan: Brother, you can believe in stones, as long as you don't throw them at me. You are free to worship whoever you want, but other people's beliefs are not your concern, whether they believe that the Messiah is God, son of Mary, or that Satan is God, son of Mary. Let people have their beliefs.

[...]

Wafa Sultan: The Jews have come from the tragedy (of the Holocaust), and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror, with their work, not their crying and yelling. Humanity owes most of the discoveries and science of the 19th and 20th centuries to Jewish scientists. 15 million people, scattered throughout the world, united and won their rights through work and knowledge. We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people. The Muslims have turned three Buddha statues into rubble. We have not seen a single Buddhist burn down a Mosque, kill a Muslim, or burn down an embassy. Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people, and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them.

[US admirer]

The most inspirational thing to come out of the Muslim world since 9/11 (ever?).

[Cvengr]

"It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality."

The above quote is grossly mistaken, but needs to be well understood by those studying the GWOT. The above quote probably very well manifests the western, modern, worldly perspective of the conflict as perceived through soulish eyes.

The Islamic perspective is also soulish, but has been tainted by a spiritual element. The spiritual domain is very real. This is lost on many western secular observers. It is not lost upon those fomenting the GWOT who are Wahabiists or militant Muslim.

On the contrary, becoming more rational, more aloof, more adament in defending worldly perspectives from modern perspectives merely aggravates the conflict further.

The real solution is not ignoring the spiritual, but encouraging those who seek God to find Him through His method of coming to Him.

The militant Muslims are essentially a backsliden morally degenerate believer, except that many may have never had a saving faith in God through faith in Christ, and accordingly , worse than a backsliden Christian, are open souls for demonic possession.

The really scary part of all of this is that demons aren't always up front in their machinations. If faced with a militant Muslim who has become demon possessed, an incredible amount of deception with an ulterior motive to destroy anything holy, righteous or just, may be in action, never discernible but to those who remain spiritually discerning and holy.

This is why in this GWOT, we must pray for our military and our leaders that they remain vigilent. For the Christian, this means being spiritually vigilent as well as physically alert.

Probably the best support Americans can give the fighting man overseas is to witness to other Americans and clean up the spiritual quagmire we wallow in on the homefront. God can handle the rest.

[Valin]

The Rage Game, Putting On The brakes
Islamicity ^ | 3/4/2006 | Imam Abu Laith Luqman Ahmad


Posted on 03/06/2006 8:54:15 AM CST by Eurotwit
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1590854/posts

Anyone who hasn't capitalized on the recent malicious caricature portrayal of the Prophet to express their outrage, promote their organization, get their name in the paper, pontificate the loftiness of Islamic ideals, start a membership drive, do a little political posturing, or to open dialogue, or defend the Prophet has missed their opportunity. The issue has now officially become a non-issue. There was no fatwa or official sounding consensus of scholars declaring cessation of protest. On the contrary, the media puppeteers, knowing what motivates Muslims to action, simply turned off the cameras and directed them to another venue. Muslims are well trained to tailor their activity on the basis of subliminal media directives, and it looks like we were duped again. In other words ladies and gentlemen, we've been had. Or as al-Hajj Malik Shabaaz (Malcolm X) used to say, bamboozled, hoodwinked, flimflammed.

Of course there are those in denial and that's to be expected. After all, Islam is our universal adapter. All we need to do is preface an action with; "this is for the sake of Allah" or, "this is for Islam", or, "this is in defense of Islam" and it assumes immediate legitimacy irregardless of whether it's fair, Islamic, prudent, or in agreement with the shariah. Since as Muslims, everything we do is ostensibly in the name of Islam, for Islam, for the Muslims, for Allah, in defense of Islam etc., we are never wrong about anything, ever. Perhaps this is how we justify suicide bombings where the innocent (including women and children) are casualties. If the world was unaware how sensitive Muslims are about our Prophet , then our recent response not only erased any ambiguity, it showed how malleable the global Muslim community has become.

By even the most conservative accounts, we've shown that we are unpredictable, volatile, rage driven, and that a little name calling and scribbling on a piece of paper can stir us into frenzy. People have been attempting to demean and ridicule the Prophet ever since he became a Prophet. When does that warrant a full scale campaign? What are we going to do the next time someone demeans the prophet of Allah? Why was this incident singled out for response when there are numerous incidents of negative references to the Prophet Muhammad all over the place? A couple of years ago a well known television evangelist from California did a whole series of lectures in which he vilified the Prophet much more insidiously than this unknown cartoonist (who we now made famous and probably wealthy from his future book deals). Why wasn't there an outpour of condemnation and rage then?

Since this issue surfaced, the demeaning images of the Prophet have been reprinted in at least 143 newspapers in 56 countries. In defiance of Muslims umbrage, many media publications have stepped up their parody of not only the Prophet himself but the hypersensitive way that we have responded to the issue. There will always be persons an institutions who will do, say, or write something that we can consider an affront to the dignity of the Prophet especially since we are so adept at interpreting words and events as anti-Islamic. Should Muslims therefore assume a perpetual state of protest? On second thought, that might not be the most efficient use of labor. How about we just appoint a group of people whose job will be to hunt down and protest every insult to the Prophet . That way the rest of the Muslim world can concentrate on other matters.

Whether we care to admit it or not, we're slowly evolving into a people so consumed with self righteousness; rage, indiscipline, and intolerance, we cannot admit that we also make mistakes. Let's grow up folks. Even Adam admitted his mistake and performed a healthy self assessment. To say that we overreacted to the cartoons is not only an understatement, it also raises questions about who we are and what we stand for. Let me see if I got this right. A three month old negative caricature of the Prophet and we take to the streets by the thousands, protest, throw rocks, issue death threats, tear down buildings, blame whole nations and make our angriest and most menacing facial expressions for the cameras. In the process, scores of Muslims are killed, hundreds more injured, countless man hours are expended, and after the dust settles, there is no measurable tangible gain we can claim from the experience.

Ironically, when Muslims bomb Masaajid while people are worshipping in Iraq, or when 400 Muslims killed in the last week alone, there's hardly a whimper! We claim that we must protect and defend the honor of the Prophet . Meanwhile in America alone, Muslims contribute upwards of twenty million dollars per year towards cable and satellite TV industry which broadcasts every imaginable abomination opposed by the Prophet ; homosexuality, pornography, blasphemy, gambling, infidelity, deception, gluttony, you name it, cable's got it. I don't see any mass rush to cancel our cable subscriptions. Bridges TV a Muslim orientated cable station had to almost beg for the marginal support it receives from the Muslim community.

We clamor for tolerance yet we are notoriously intolerant. Discriminate against a Muslim and there is immediate outrage, yet we unabashedly champion nepotism and discrimination within our own organizations, boards, masaajid and Muslim controlled lands. We want inclusion in the world arena yet we cannot stop fighting each other long enough to be create our own alternative industries. We protest the killing of Muslims by the Americans, the British, the French, the Israelis, or any other so-called infidel. However, we are curiously silent about Muslims killing each other. It's like we are saying; hey, don't kill Muslims! Let us kill each other! Don't hate Muslims! We have enough hate not only to hate you, but plenty left over to hate ourselves. Don't disrespect the Prophet ! We can do that ourselves by ignoring the standards of civility, fairness justice to which he commanded us.

The Muslim motto is becoming; 'you disagree with me, therefore you are my enemy'. Some of us take the mantra it a bit further; 'you disagree with me, therefore I must kill you and your children'. The internet is full of one or another Muslim group, leader or imam condemning the other. Have we simply lost our minds? Somebody turn on the lights! Does it occur to anyone that the Muslims in the world are in a weakened state? There is no doubt that there are many forces confronting the Muslim peoples in this new millennium. Is there some law somewhere that says we have to contribute to our own malaise? Can we call a moratorium on inter-religious conflict between Muslims? Do you think that we can come up with better stratagem our usual blame and complain? We're turning into complainaholics (okay I made the word up). The world's crybabies.

Holding the western democracies accountable to standards of law, fairness, civil liberty, and inclusion, has merit. Self serving as it may be, there is some merit there. After all, printing the cartoons in the first place was a criminal offence under sections 140 and 266b of the Danish Criminal Code. However, what is the Muslim standard? Do we have one? Of course the unanimous response to this question is; Islam is our standard! This ladies and gentlemen, is my point. If Islamic law, ethics, protocol or to put is bluntly, Quran and Sunna is the standard by which Muslims must be held accountable, are we then obligated to address errant behavior of Muslims done in the name of Islam? I'm not referring to contentious issues about which there is legitimate scholarly disagreement, or even the triangulated fatwas cloaked in ambiguity. What I'm referring to are the incontrovertible standards of behavior, law, civility, honesty, good character which all Muslims or most of us agree are the foundations of our faith. Does corruption, nepotism, racism, bribery, fratricide, inter-religious sectarianism, spousal abuse, issues which as Muslims we are obligated to address? You darn right they are! Does our failure to collectively enforce the Prophetic standard of conduct in government, community, business, and politic, and lifestyles effect our overall condition and standing in the world? What do you think!

90% of Muslims in the West get their news from commercial broadcast networks. We only know what the media tells us, and it seems like our collective responses are so scripted and choreographed, we might as well get paid for it and become members of the screen actors guild. We have threatened boycotts of western products for years, yet our own division and intolerance of each other, prevents us from up with viable alternatives. Every six months or so, some Muslim scholar, organization or politician calls for a boycott of American, British, Israeli or another western countries products. . A recent fatwa from a well known Muslim scholar demanded that Muslims boycott all American Products. I guess that means Chinese products too since a lot of the product sold in American are made in china. While we're at it, lets add Dubai to the list since they will now have a hand in managing several US ports. And aren't we still supposed to be boycotting the French because of the Hijaab ban? I guess we might as well boycott Turkey too since they also ban hijaab. Boycotting Sweden may be tough. I mean, who can compete with IKEA's prices and ingenuity? By the way, who's keeping track of the boycott targets? Where is the list? Can they email Muslim enemy of the week list to my Treo handset? Like to keep track of such things you know.

If the sum of what we are saying is, 'do not portray Islam in a negative way'. Are we not then responsible for ensuring that we as Muslims do not portray Islam in a negative way? If the answer is no, then we've abdicated responsibility for our own behavior, which to do so is unislamic. If the answer is yes, then the negative portrayals of Islam which we ourselves exhibit, i.e. the killing of innocents and non combatants, collective blaming for individual acts, racism within the Muslim community, rampant corruption, Muslim on Muslim killings, the proliferation of Muslim owned liquor stores, the absence of Muslims in the social services arena, inter-religious intolerance, public mudslinging, and unbridled rage are all issues for which we bear responsibility. In other words, if Joe Abdullah straps a bomb to his shoulder, walks into a grocery store, calls out the name of Allah (Allahu Akbar) and indiscriminately blows himself up along with twenty innocent bystanders who were just out doing a little shopping, and the Muslim community says and does nothing about it, any outsider could reasonably conclude that Joe Abdullah's actions represent Islam. After all, he did it in the name of Islam, and the Muslims didn't do anything about it. In Islamic law, the acquiescence (iqraar) of the Prophet towards an action, essentially sanctions it. Doesn't this rule apply to the rest of us?

No matter how much we try to avoid taking responsibility for our collective actions and behavior, the issue moral responsibility will always come back to bite us, erode any moral capital we have left, and invoke divine consequences upon us, unless we face up to it. We do after all; have a higher authority (Allah) to answer to. Oh yeah, remember Him? Well He's got going anywhere, and guess what? He has standards, and rules that govern behavior. We can't have our cake and eat it too. If we are going to use Islam as our raison de'tre, we must then also accept Islamic standards as governing criteria for our actions.

When was the last time that Muslims came out and apologized for anything, or admitted that we might be wrong about some of our methods, or choice of priorities, or assumed any responsibility for our condition? I know, even hinting that Muslims could be wrong about anything is risky, and possibly hazardous to one's health. But hey, I'm feeling a little adventurous today. Besides, somebody's gotta say it. No one besides Allah's Prophets (ASA) is immune from occasional lapses in judgment, blunders, mistakes, sins or outright stupidity. If the practices of the Prophet Muhammad serve as any standard for Muslims, as Imam Zaid Shakir adeptly elucidated in a recent article, .hatred, anger, revenge, rage, and puritanical oppression, are not always the best catalysts for action. Anger has its place. However, it wasn't something the Prophet prioritized. On the contrary, he emphasized the contrary. A man came to the Prophet and asked for advice. The Prophet replied: "Do not get angry". The man returned repeatedly and each time the Prophet replied: "do not get angry".

Negative emotions tend to take on a life of their own. We have become so accustomed to employing anger as an organizing staple, that many Muslims leaders are now finding that the only platform upon which they can motivate masses of Muslims is by tapping into their reservoir of fury. Find a common enemy, or common target of anger, you've got yourself thousands in the streets. Make an appeal for Muslims unity or curbing sectarianism and you get lip service, and photo-ops. Perhaps we're suffering from post traumatic stress disorder at the loss of the caliphate, or maybe we're still a little lightheaded from fasting during the month of Ramadan or who knows, maybe we're bored. I' m certain that with a billion Muslims on the planet, we can come up with some issues on our own, or sustainable, practical agendas to better our condition with Allah's help. I guess until that happens, we'll just have to wait and see what the next issue of the week is going to be. As a parting note, I do have one humble request; next time, can we schedule our response closer to the actual time of the occurrence? I like my issues fresh. And hold the mustard please.

Imam Abu Laith Luqman Ahmad is an Imam and freelance writer on the East Coast USA. He can be reached at imamabulaith@yahoo.com

[VOA]

bump

[VOA]

Dr. Sultan bitterly criticized the Muslim clerics, holy warriors and political
leaders who she believes have distorted the teachings of Muhammad and
the Koran for 14 centuries.

Yep, she's a psychiatrist. Totally out of touch with the reality
of the history of Islam.
Today's "Muslim clerics, holy warriors and political leaders" aren't
distorting the writings of The Holy Koran or The Hadiths.
They are actually reading them and putting their "faith" into action.

The riots over "The Forbidden Cartoons" isn't a shock, it's just consistent
with Islam.
One of The Prophet's first victims was a poetess that dared to publically
mock the thug-turned-theologian.
Muhammed's assassins knifed the poetess as she cradled her child.

"Jihad In The West" by Paul Fregosi


Not an easy read, but makes it clear what is down the road for
those who don't fight back and win.

[Kenny Bunk]

ping-allah

[Brytani]

I am so sick of hearing the "moderate muslim" line, it's nothing but a HUGE lie.

I can understand muslims in islamic countries being afraid to speak out. There is no doubt that they would be swiftly targeted, tortured and killed along with their entire family.

HOWEVER, in the US that would not happen as a rule, instead there would be a few, isolated instances where our law enforcement agencies would go after those who used terror to get across their sick points. Yet, we sure don't see many "moderate muslims" speaking out in the US.

I've yet to see a single march against terror by so called moderates.

I've yet to see CAIR organize any protest against clerics in Islamic countries who sentence a woman to be ganged raped for a supposed crime a man in her family committed.

I've yet to see a large number of muslim clerics in the US attempt to rally their congregations to speak out against terror in the name of Allah.

Moderate muslims my rear end - they don't exist.

[BunnySlippers]

Different title. That's why it's duped.

[USF]

HEHEH.... thanks for the popcorn alert.

Let the fun begin. ;o)

[jocon307]

"I've yet to see a single march against terror by so called moderates."

In fairness there was a demo in DC a couple of years ago. It was sincere, but it got a teeny, tiny turnout. And you're right, no organization like CAIR or the Muslim Students Assoc. supported it. You could probably find some threads about it here, there was one that had pictures, iirc.

But of course, it only goes to prove the point, there may be some individual moderates, but as a group, a demographic, they don't exist.

[FreedomNeocon]

click to view video of interview (with captions)

[ezo4]

another thread

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1594497/posts


video link of the women speaking

http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=null

[The Old Hoosier]

If you hint that Islam is a violent religion, Muslims will probably murder you.

Christians are the same way, right? I mean, Islam isn't particularly violent, is it?

Is it?

[jecIIny]

I am pretty sure I copied the title of the article as it appeared on the NY Times website. I did do a FR site search to be sure I was not double posting this.