Islamic Leaders condemn Boko Haram.... and it's actually reported in the media!

[jafar00]

Islamic leaders far and wide often condemn and make fatwas against these terrorist groups, but this is the first time I have seen any column inches in mainstream media!

There are others who have spoken out but they are reported on their own websites or non mainstream sources.

Unfortunately though, this report doesn't seem to have gained much internet traffic.


(Reuters) - Saudi Arabia's grand mufti, the top religious authority in the birthplace of Islam, has condemned Nigeria's Boko Haram as a group "set up to smear the image of Islam" and condemned its kidnapping of over 200 schoolgirls.
Sheikh Abdulaziz Al al-Sheikh said the radical movement, which says it wants to establish a "pure" Islamic state in Nigeria, was "misguided" and should be "shown their wrong path and be made to reject it."
His remarks came as religious leaders in the Muslim world, who often do not comment on militant violence, joined in denouncing Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau for saying Allah had told him to sell off the kidnapped girls as forced brides.
"This is a group that has been set up to smear the image of Islam and must be offered advice, shown their wrong path and be made to reject it," he told the Arabic-language newspaper al-Hayat in an interview published on Friday.
"These groups are not on the right path because Islam is against kidnapping, killing and aggression," he said. "Marrying kidnapped girls is not permitted."
Boko Haram militants kidnapped some 250 girls on April 14 from a secondary school in Chibok village, near the Cameroon border, while they took exams. Fifty have since escaped.
Shekau's video was released on Monday, sparking a wave of revulsion in Nigeria and abroad and prompting offers of help from countries such as the United States, Britain and France to search for them.
Boko Haram has led a five-year-old insurgency with the stated aim of reviving a medieval Islamic caliphate in modern Nigeria, whose 170 million people are split roughly evenly between Christians and Muslims.
Its violent attacks have become by far the biggest security threat to Africa's top oil producer and it has spread out to menace the neighboring countries of Cameroon, Niger and Chad.
On Thursday, Islamic scholars and human rights officials of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the world's largest Muslim body representing 57 countries, denounced the kidnapping as "a gross misinterpretation of Islam".
This week, Al-Azhar, the prestigious Cairo-based seat of Sunni learning, also said that the kidnapping "has nothing to do with the tolerant and noble teachings of Islam."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/10/us-nigeria-girls-saudi-idUSBREA480MU20140510

[Drummond]

But your text does more than just show a distancing between 'Islamic leaders' and Boko Haram and their barbaric actions, Jafar. What's also being alleged is that Boko Haram is actually SMEARING the religion of Islam.

Isn't this just a form of furtherance of what you've already alleged about Anjem Choudary .. that he says and does what he does as a form of 'stooge' to discredit Islam as a religion of peace ?

So try to convince us, Jafar, that all the various terrorist groups out there, from Boko Haram, to Al Qaeda, to the Taliban, to Hezbollah and Hamas, ALL exist to ruin the image of Islam. ALL OF THEM. Each and every one. That all the bombings, all the massacres, all the savageries, from blowing up kids as walking bombs to beheadings, IED's, shoebombings and the like ... are all one big, worldwide (.. yet coincidental ??) , plot against Islam. No matter what the group, no matter what its origins, they are ALL plotting to 'ruin' Islam's image !!!

Of course, it could be a lot simpler than that (.. and far more credible !!). They 'might' be EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAY THEY ARE, DOING WHAT THEY DO FROM INSPIRATION DRAWN FROM ISLAM, THEIR ACTIONS MEANT TO SERVE ISLAM'S WIDER AIMS.

[aboutime]

But your text does more than just show a distancing between 'Islamic leaders' and Boko Haram and their barbaric actions, Jafar. What's also being alleged is that Boko Haram is actually SMEARING the religion of Islam.

Isn't this just a form of furtherance of what you've already alleged about Anjem Choudary .. that he says and does what he does as a form of 'stooge' to discredit Islam as a religion of peace ?

So try to convince us, Jafar, that all the various terrorist groups out there, from Boko Haram, to Al Qaeda, to the Taliban, to Hezbollah and Hamas, ALL exist to ruin the image of Islam. ALL OF THEM. Each and every one. That all the bombings, all the massacres, all the savageries, from blowing up kids as walking bombs to beheadings, IED's, shoebombings and the like ... are all one big, worldwide (.. yet coincidental ??) , plot against Islam. No matter what the group, no matter what its origins, they are ALL plotting to 'ruin' Islam's image !!!

Of course, it could be a lot simpler than that (.. and far more credible !!). They 'might' be EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAY THEY ARE, DOING WHAT THEY DO FROM INSPIRATION DRAWN FROM ISLAM, THEIR ACTIONS MEANT TO SERVE ISLAM'S WIDER AIMS.


Sir Drummond. Truth is. Jafar, and those Muslim leaders HAVE TO BE angry with Boko Haram. The Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbolla, and the Terrorists from the Middle East DON'T LIKE COMPETITION. Taking all the attention away from their TERROR EFFORTS outside of AFRICA.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Islamic leaders far and wide often condemn and make fatwas against these terrorist groups, but this is the first time I have seen any column inches in mainstream media!

There are others who have spoken out but they are reported on their own websites or non mainstream sources.






http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/10/us-nigeria-girls-saudi-idUSBREA480MU20140510

Damn lies!!!!
Islam attacks whatever it TRULY condemns -examples --Israel, USA, Homosexuality, Women Rights , Christianity, Jews and the Bible.
When we see muslims blowing themselves up attacking the Boko's will know they truly condemn them!!!

Until then this is just PR tossed out quickly because Hollywood , liberals/leftists , American woman's movement and the Obama's have suddenly come out against the Boko's and their recent kidnapping of those girls!!

Islam ALWAYS viciously attacks that which it truly condemns, talk to me with this crap when Muslims start actually attacking and killing the Boko's.

The media also are now quickly trying to spin away from Moveon.org campaigning--with a petition to keep Boko Haram off the terrorist list !!! They succeeded too! Part of that leftist/Islamist alliance.. Now world news put light upon all this from previous years!--Tyr



Islamic leaders far and wide often condemn and make fatwas against these terrorist groups, but this is the first time I have seen any column inches in mainstream media!

^^^ Because talk is cheap!!! All talk and no action points to just how false are the words!--Tyr

[NightTrain]

Islamic leaders far and wide often condemn and make fatwas against these terrorist groups, but this is the first time I have seen any column inches in mainstream media!

There are others who have spoken out but they are reported on their own websites or non mainstream sources.

Unfortunately though, this report doesn't seem to have gained much internet traffic.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/10/us-nigeria-girls-saudi-idUSBREA480MU20140510


But the outrage from these muslim leaders is limited only to the kidnapped girls - not to downplay that reprehensible action, but that's all they're angry about.

What about the rest of this lunatic's actions? They are saying nothing about the last 5 years of his barbarism, only this very specific latest atrocity.

Everything else he's doing is okay? This is the problem with muslims, Jafar. Silence from your leaders about your radicals murdering literally millions, which equates to tacit approval and this is why we still have no end in sight.

The conflict between islam and the civilized world continues to spread with thugs like Boko Haram using it to set themselves up as dictators.

And all the while we are told how peaceful islam is.

[jafar00]

The point is, Islamic leaders and Muslims world wide have been condemning terrorism for years, not just the kidnapping of these girls, but the killing of innocent people. I'm just happy that mainstream media like Reuters finally posted a story about it. It's also the point I've been making. Terrorism is against Islamic principles so to describe their acts as Islamic or their groups "Islamist" is ridiculous.

[NightTrain]

I agree that it is a step in the right direction by having MSM report on this, perhaps it will start a trend.

[Drummond]

The point is, Islamic leaders and Muslims world wide have been condemning terrorism for years, not just the kidnapping of these girls, but the killing of innocent people. I'm just happy that mainstream media like Reuters finally posted a story about it. It's also the point I've been making. Terrorism is against Islamic principles so to describe their acts as Islamic or their groups "Islamist" is ridiculous.

Their perpetual silence when witnessing Abu Hamza's weekly hate preaching outside Finsbury Park mosque, Jafar, was 'deafening'. It lasted for YEARS. You well know this is true.

If what you now claim to be true, IS, then you cannot have an answer to the Hamza situation. In no way does the silence ranged against Hamza confirm what you now allege is true for 'Muslims world wide'.

[jafar00]

Their perpetual silence when witnessing Abu Hamza's weekly hate preaching outside Finsbury Park mosque, Jafar, was 'deafening'. It lasted for YEARS. You well know this is true.

If what you now claim to be true, IS, then you cannot have an answer to the Hamza situation. In no way does the silence ranged against Hamza confirm what you now allege is true for 'Muslims world wide'.

There was talk about Abu Hamza way back then. It just wasn't reported in MSM which is the point!

[Drummond]

There was talk about Abu Hamza way back then. It just wasn't reported in MSM which is the point!

What does 'There was talk about Abu Hamza' actually MEAN ? What does this refer to ?

I'm not aware of even a single complaint made against Hamza's rantings by any Muslim - not one ! Haven't you previously conceded that was true ?

If you're now saying otherwise, I invite you to offer us evidence.

[jafar00]

What does 'There was talk about Abu Hamza' actually MEAN ? What does this refer to ?

I'm not aware of even a single complaint made against Hamza's rantings by any Muslim - not one ! Haven't you previously conceded that was true ?

If you're now saying otherwise, I invite you to offer us evidence.

I know my own Mosque and others warned people away from him. You seem obsessed with what was reported in the media completely ignoring what went on unseen by the general public.

[CSM]

I know my own Mosque and others warned people away from him. You seem obsessed with what was reported in the media completely ignoring what went on unseen by the general public.

Jafar has a great point here folks. We all know full well that the media here in our own country has an agenda. I suspect that the media worldwide has an agenda as well. We also know that the media fails to report many, many things that do not fit their propaganda schemes. I have no doubt that the same is true when reporting opposition to Islamic extremists. I have read Jafar's posts from the very beginning and I do believe that he opposes terrorism regardless of who is doing it. I also believe that we, as individuals, can agree with a cause (Palestinian situation) without agreeing to the means being used to reach a conclusion ... the whole debate about water boarding for example) comes to mind.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Quote Originally Posted by jafar00 View Post

Islamic leaders far and wide often condemn and make fatwas against these terrorist groups, but this is the first time I have seen any column inches in mainstream media!

There are others who have spoken out but they are reported on their own websites or non mainstream sources.






http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...A480MU20140510
Damn lies!!!!
Islam attacks whatever it TRULY condemns -examples --Israel, USA, Homosexuality, Women Rights , Christianity, Jews and the Bible.
When we see muslims blowing themselves up attacking the Boko's will know they truly condemn them!!!

Until then this is just PR tossed out quickly because Hollywood , liberals/leftists , American woman's movement and the Obama's have suddenly come out against the Boko's and their recent kidnapping of those girls!!

Islam ALWAYS viciously attacks that which it truly condemns, talk to me with this crap when Muslims start actually attacking and killing the Boko's.

The media also are now quickly trying to spin away from Moveon.org campaigning--with a petition to keep Boko Haram off the terrorist list !!! They succeeded too! Part of that leftist/Islamist alliance.. Now world news put light upon all this from previous years!--Tyr





Islamic leaders far and wide often condemn and make fatwas against these terrorist groups, but this is the first time I have seen any column inches in mainstream media !

^^^ Because talk is cheap!!! All talk and no action points to just how false are the words!--Tyr

Completely ignored because that glaring TRUTH can in no way be refuted!!
Thank you Jafar for pretending it was not presented to you.


Because talk is cheap!!! All talk and no action points to just how false are the words!--
^^^^^^^ This summation you can in no way refute! So you just ignore it all.
I previously never thought you to be cowardly but appears retreat is now a huge part of your armor, eh? -Tyr

[Drummond]

Jafar has a great point here folks. We all know full well that the media here in our own country has an agenda. I suspect that the media worldwide has an agenda as well. We also know that the media fails to report many, many things that do not fit their propaganda schemes. I have no doubt that the same is true when reporting opposition to Islamic extremists. I have read Jafar's posts from the very beginning and I do believe that he opposes terrorism regardless of who is doing it. I also believe that we, as individuals, can agree with a cause (Palestinian situation) without agreeing to the means being used to reach a conclusion ... the whole debate about water boarding for example) comes to mind.

I disagree - I don't think Jafar has made a 'great point'.

But perhaps you can indulge me a little. You say that the US media has 'an agenda', and you say you think that's true for worldwide media has an agenda as well. OK ... would you care to be more forthcoming about just what that 'agenda' is ?

I get the impression that you think the world's media should be more 'friendly' to Muslims than they are ? Less concerned with 'negativity' to Islamists ? Is that right ?

I can't speak with authority about the way the US media does these things .. but I know that in the UK, there's actually a need to distance Islamic terrorism from the perceived 'mainstream' of Islam in reports ... always, the tag 'extremists' is required to describe what terrorists get up to. Try portraying terrorist activity as identifiable with Islam more generally, and it can be regarded as 'hatespeech', or seen as 'racist', and actionable in law.

If you want to start talking about 'agendas', CSM, try considering the agenda of those who've succeeded, certainly in the UK, in mandating such qualified reporting !!

By the way, I look forward to Jafar offering us a totally unqualified, and absolute, condemnation of Hamas and all that they do.

How about it, Jafar ? Do you agree - finally - that Hamas is a terrorist organisation, whose actions and reason for existence cannot earn any form of defence ?

[Drummond]

I know my own Mosque and others warned people away from him. You seem obsessed with what was reported in the media completely ignoring what went on unseen by the general public.

I note the shift here.

How did this thread start ? What's its title ?

BUT .. now, we see the shift. NOW, you're limited to just reporting that Abu Hamza was a figure that people were warned to stay away from. No evidence offered of Muslim OPPOSITION to Hamza, despite my suggestion that it be offered. Just that Hamza be avoided.

So there are some Muslim hate-preachers, wannabe radicalisers (or ACTUAL RADICALISERS) who Muslims will NOT tackle head-on. Is that correct ? Because in the case of Hamza, I've no reason at all to think it ever happened !!

I can't judge how well this is understood in America ... but the Abu Hamza I'm referring to is the same individual who's been extradited to the US on terrorist charges. So this is no lone, 'fringe nutter', but a dangerous and vicious individual who - if anyone did !! - richly deserved to receive censure from the Muslim community in the UK.

BUT WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS EVER FORTHCOMING ?

For information / context, see .. >>

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11701269


... In the early 1980s the young Abu Hamza started to show an interest in Islam and politics. He was heavily influenced by the Iranian revolution.

Some Muslim thinkers were calling for Islamic states in Islamic lands. They had a military face in the Mujahideen fighters who, backed by the US, emerged to oppose the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan.

In 1987, after meeting Abdullah Azzam, an influential supporter of the notion of Muslims being obliged to fight jihad, Abu Hamza moved to Afghanistan.

It was around this time that he lost an eye and both his hands. Accounts of exactly how and where the accident happened conflict.

It had been claimed his distinctive features were the result of an explosion while he was taking part in a demining project in Jalalabad, Afghanistan.

But at his US trial Abu Hamza said it happened while he was working with the Pakistani military in Lahore when an experiment with explosives went wrong.

He returned to the UK in 1993 for treatment. But within two years he had left Britain again to support Bosnian Muslims during the break-up of the former Yugoslavia.

Abu Hamza quickly became a leading figure in the British Islamist scene.He was spending more and more of his time preaching while churning out leaflets calling for jihad against corrupt Middle East regimes.

In 1997, he arrived at Finsbury Park Mosque.

There are suggestions that the police and intelligence services were already watching Abu Hamza along with other militants at this time. According to Abu Hamza himself, MI5 first contacted him in 1997 shortly after extremists massacred 68 tourists at Luxor, Egypt.

But it was in 1999 that he came to national prominence.

Scotland Yard questioned the cleric on suspicion of alleged bomb plots in Yemen. While Abu Hamza was released, his son, Mohammed Mustafa Kamel, was jailed in Yemen for three years for involvement in an alleged campaign of violence.

Despite this brush with the law, Abu Hamza was consolidating his hold at the mosque. It had become a hostile environment for anyone who was not a supporter, with his closest confidantes barring access to anyone they did not trust.

He was delivering almost all the sermons. On the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, he co-organised a conference at the mosque praising the hijackers.

Five years later the trial of the men later convicted of the failed 21/7 London bombings heard that several of them had gone along to hear Abu Hamza preach. Other convicted terrorists have been linked to Finsbury Park.

On 20 January 2003 police raided the building as part of a major investigation into an alleged plot to produce ricin poison. They sealed the mosque and returned it to the trustees.

Abu Hamza himself was not arrested in connection with that probe. But despite being denied a base, he preached outside its gates every Friday.

This bizarre stand-off between Abu Hamza and the authorities continued into 2004. Then, Washington named Abu Hamza as a "terrorist facilitator with a global reach" and he was arrested pending extradition.

Five months later, he was charged with 15 UK offences associated with his sermons and terror handbooks found at his home. He was convicted on 11 counts and was jailed for seven years.

The American authorities continued to pursue his extradition. Following an eight-year legal battle, he was finally extradited in 2012.

He is now on trial in New York, accused of offences including plotting to to set up a terror camp in rural Oregon, intending to provide support for terrorists in Afghanistan and in connection with the 1998 Yemen attack.

... So, Jafar !! 'A LEADING FIGURE IN THE BRITISH ISLAMIST SCENE' ... and you say Muslims were told to keep away from him ?? At one point - before the UK authorities acted, he was the chief speaker at Finsbury Park mosque. Even after being ousted, he preached, weekly, to an audience outside that mosque.

Does any of this sound like a figure lacking Muslim credibility, or authority, within Muslim circles ? Was this a 'fringe' figure that Muslims EVER tackled directly ?

Jafar seems to say 'NO' to that. Avoidance - supposed avoidance at that - is suggested. No actual confrontation, though.

How do you explain that, Jafar ?

[CSM]

I disagree - I don't think Jafar has made a 'great point'.

But perhaps you can indulge me a little. You say that the US media has 'an agenda', and you say you think that's true for worldwide media has an agenda as well. OK ... would you care to be more forthcoming about just what that 'agenda' is ?

I get the impression that you think the world's media should be more 'friendly' to Muslims than they are ? Less concerned with 'negativity' to Islamists ? Is that right ?

I can't speak with authority about the way the US media does these things .. but I know that in the UK, there's actually a need to distance Islamic terrorism from the perceived 'mainstream' of Islam in reports ... always, the tag 'extremists' is required to describe what terrorists get up to. Try portraying terrorist activity as identifiable with Islam more generally, and it can be regarded as 'hatespeech', or seen as 'racist', and actionable in law.

If you want to start talking about 'agendas', CSM, try considering the agenda of those who've succeeded, certainly in the UK, in mandating such qualified reporting !!

By the way, I look forward to Jafar offering us a totally unqualified, and absolute, condemnation of Hamas and all that they do.

How about it, Jafar ? Do you agree - finally - that Hamas is a terrorist organisation, whose actions and reason for existence cannot earn any form of defence ?

In the US media, socialism is the agenda as well as the diminishment of US influence in world affairs. I have some theories as to "why" but too long to go into here. As for the international media, it is my opinion that they are following along the same type of agenda with a view towards global socialism (if not outright communism) flavored by the same 'political correctness so prevalent here in the US. No, I do not think ANY media necessarily should be more friendly to Muslims; I think they should report the FACTS as news, that's all.

News regarding terrorists is sensationalist by it's very nature and given the large numbers of Muslims in the world the few (a small percentage comparatively), it is my opinion that the Islamic terrorists are indeed extreme. That being said, they are dangerous because that small percentage is a large number of folks willing to go to any lengths (whether in the name of Allah or not) to further their cause (whatever it happens to be at the moment). That being said, it is my opinion that the majority of Muslims do not care one way or the other. Islamic leaders are another story ... I wish they would speak out more loudly and often against those who commit such heinous acts as we see in the news every day.

[defectiverepresentative]

Couldn't have been said better. It would be plain stupid to think every single Muslim in the world condones acts of terrorism.

[jafar00]

By the way, I look forward to Jafar offering us a totally unqualified, and absolute, condemnation of Hamas and all that they do.

How about it, Jafar ? Do you agree - finally - that Hamas is a terrorist organisation, whose actions and reason for existence cannot earn any form of defence ?

I'm just sorry I couldn't find a broken record sound to link here. It's obvious you just ignore me every time I post a response to this question over and over and over and over again.


I note the shift here.

How did this thread start ? What's its title ?

BUT .. now, we see the shift. NOW, you're limited to just reporting that Abu Hamza was a figure that people were warned to stay away from. No evidence offered of Muslim OPPOSITION to Hamza, despite my suggestion that it be offered. Just that Hamza be avoided.

So there are some Muslim hate-preachers, wannabe radicalisers (or ACTUAL RADICALISERS) who Muslims will NOT tackle head-on. Is that correct ? Because in the case of Hamza, I've no reason at all to think it ever happened !!

Abu Hamza was a matter for the Police, no? Anything beyond telling worshippers that certain people are deviant from Islam and are to be avoided is going beyond what a place of worship is supposed to do. Are you suggesting that it would have been better for us to go rioting in the streets just so people like you could feel happy that someone was against him?


... So, Jafar !! 'A LEADING FIGURE IN THE BRITISH ISLAMIST SCENE' ... and you say Muslims were told to keep away from him ?? At one point - before the UK authorities acted, he was the chief speaker at Finsbury Park mosque. Even after being ousted, he preached, weekly, to an audience outside that mosque.


A leading figure so says the media. Kinda proves my point there doesn't it? We didn't even know what an "Islamist" was back then. We just called him and his followers "Wahhabis".

Why does the media concentrate it's efforts on the 0.000000001% who do bad things, and ignore the vast majority of Muslims who do good things in the world?

[aboutime]

I'm just sorry I couldn't find a broken record sound to link here. It's obvious you just ignore me every time I post a response to this question over and over and over and over again.



Abu Hamza was a matter for the Police, no? Anything beyond telling worshippers that certain people are deviant from Islam and are to be avoided is going beyond what a place of worship is supposed to do. Are you suggesting that it would have been better for us to go rioting in the streets just so people like you could feel happy that someone was against him?



A leading figure so says the media. Kinda proves my point there doesn't it? We didn't even know what an "Islamist" was back then. We just called him and his followers "Wahhabis".

Why does the media concentrate it's efforts on the 0.000000001% who do bad things, and ignore the vast majority of Muslims who do good things in the world?



jafar. You mean...the same way anyone who disagree's with Obama's policies is instantly called a Racist, and, in many cases. Like myself, as a Veteran of 30 years...the Obama admin. also called me a Home Grown Terrorist. Sounds like that media happily agree's with Obama too!

[Drummond]

I'm just sorry I couldn't find a broken record sound to link here. It's obvious you just ignore me every time I post a response to this question over and over and over and over again.

A cop-out answer ?

Jafar, I've yet to see any answer from you which was an uncompromising, unequivocal condemnation of Hamas ... that's why I issued that challenge. OK, you've posted pieces suggesting something less than total support for Hamas. NEVER, however, have your critical thoughts of Hamas been total rejections of them, or their 'reason for being', though, from what I've seen: there's always been something from you suggesting that some form of justification for them is possible.


Abu Hamza was a matter for the Police, no?

Didn't he HAVE to be ? It's not as though Muslims were lining up to comment against him !!

Funny, isn't it ? Someone draws a less than flattering cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed, and Muslims can barely (if at all) contain their enthusiasm for taking to the streets, in large numbers, and proclaiming that the cartoonist suffer the worst of fates imaginable. Get someone like Hamza, however, preaching messages of hatred against the West, this on a weekly basis for YEARS ... and Muslims can't stir themselves into visible, vocal opposition even once !!


Anything beyond telling worshippers that certain people are deviant from Islam and are to be avoided is going beyond what a place of worship is supposed to do. Are you suggesting that it would have been better for us to go rioting in the streets just so people like you could feel happy that someone was against him?

See the comment I just made. And bear in mind that the Finsbury Park mosque was once where Hamza did all his preaching !!


A leading figure so says the media. Kinda proves my point there doesn't it?

Why ? Can you prove that he WASN'T one ?


We didn't even know what an "Islamist" was back then. We just called him and his followers "Wahhabis".

... this done well away from any media reporters, presumably ?

I'd look forward to your confirmatory evidence of that. By all means, Jafar, provide it ...


Why does the media concentrate it's efforts on the 0.000000001% who do bad things, and ignore the vast majority of Muslims who do good things in the world?

Because when they do 'bad things', those 'things' are VERY bad ? As in, lethal on a large scale ? As in, they reach especially savage extremes ? As in, those bad things just KEEP ON HAPPENING ?

Tell me of the Christian equivalent of Al Qaeda which has flown jet planes into skyscrapers in a major city, Jafar.

Tell me of the Christian equivalent of Al Qaeda which has perpetrated coordinated acts of mass murder against any city's metro network, matching London's '7/7'.

Tell me of the Christian equivalent of Al Qaeda which has snatched victims and beheaded them. Or turned kids into walking bombs ....

Or, tell me of the Muslims who've taken to the streets in large numbers - as they did against Gillian Gibbons, she of 'call a teddy bear Mohammed' fame - baying for the death of the Al Qaeda leadership ....

But perhaps it's 'happened', and a 'media plot' has prevented reports from reaching us of such occurrences ? Can you perhaps confirm that for us, Jafar ?

You talk of Hamza's activities being a police matter to address. Well ... Gillian Gibbons ALSO received some police attention of her own, did she not ?

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1687755,00.html


Now Gillian Gibbons, 54, is spending her second night in a Sudanese prison, accused of insulting Islam's Prophet. She faces a public lashing or up to six months in prison if found guilty on charges of blasphemy. And Unity High School — one of a number of exclusive British-run schools in the Sudanese capital — has been closed as staff fear reprisals from Islamic extremists. Robert Boulos, the school's director, said the incident had been blown out of all proportion, but added that the school would remain closed until January to let ill feelings blow over.

"This was a completely innocent mistake," he said in an office decorated with sepia photographs dating back to the school's colonial heyday. "Miss Gibbons would have never wanted to insult Islam."

Police raided the school, where Gibbons also lives, on Sunday.

"We tried to reason with them but we felt they were coming under strong pressure from Islamic courts," said Boulos. "There were men with big beards asking where she was and saying they wanted to kill her."

A similar angry crowd had gathered by the time she arrived at the Khartoum police station where she is being held.