BRITISH MEDIA PORTRAYALS OF MUSLIMS
In the Wake of the September 11 Attacks
By William Conte, 09/28/2001

Since the attacks on the U.S., Islamic communities in Britain have been targeted by extremist groups. Muslims have been intimidated, their places of worship vandalised, 10 pigs' heads have been left outside a mosque in Exeter and an Afghan taxi driver has been beaten to paralysis.
These are minor incidents against the background of violence which engulfed America's east coast killing more than 7,000 people but nonetheless they are indicative of the tensions which exist between Islamic and other communities in the UK.
These tensions have not been helped by the British and foreign media which have used value-loaded and inaccurate language, portraying Osama Bin Laden as a "Muslim fanatic" and Islam as a dangerous religion rooted in violence and irrationality.
The tensions have been further exacerbated by the media's avoidance of context in relation to Arab anger in the Middle East.
Muslim Extremists, Fundamentalists, etc.
Use of emotive language linked to racial and religious identifiers has been prevalent in the media and contributed to racial/religious tensions as the following examples demonstrate.
1. Osama Bin Laden and his followers have been described at various times as "Muslim Fundamentalists", "Muslim Extremists", "Muslim Terrorists" and "Muslim Fanatics".
The media should drop the word Muslim in conjunction with any of these terms.
The Irish Republican Army are not called Catholic terrorists. The Ulster Freedom Fighters are not called Protestant terrorists. America's White Aryan Resistance are not Christian terrorists. South Africa's AWB were not Calvinist terrorists.
In keeping with this tradition atrocities committed by groups claiming an Islamic affiliation should not be described as attacks by Muslim terrorists.
The hijackers in the U.S. were never more than mere terrorists - anything else attempts to explain madness and props it up with the terrorist's own crutch of ideology.
The media should drop the word Muslim in conjunction with Osama Bin Laden or at least explain that Bin Laden's beliefs fall well outside the scope of Islam.
Bin Laden is nothing more than a cult leader who attempts to legitimise his violence through religion. Linking his actions to religion only buys into his legitimation.
The media called David Koresh the leader of a Branch Davidian cult - not the leader of a Christian group.
Shoko Asahara, whose AUM cult has been linked to sarin gas attacks on the Japanese subway, has always been described as a cult leader - not the leader of a Buddhist fringe group despite the fact that Asahara said he wanted to teach Japan the "true teachings of Buddha".
Uganda's Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments was described as a cult by the media after it massacred 780 of its followers though its name alone points at Christian/Jewish influences.
Koresh, Asahara and the leaders of the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments were fanatics and madmen who the media located outside of the bounds of their respective religions. Bin Laden however is located within his religion despite the fact that his interpretations of the Koran differ from the dominant orthodoxies.
2. The media should drop the word fundamentalist in conjunction with Muslim, Islamic, Bin Laden etc.
Describing Bin Laden and his followers as Muslim fundamentalists buys into idea that Islam at its most basic level is about jihad, violence, irrationality and madness.
Bin Laden's interpretation and teachings are not fundamentalist. In fact they ignore the fundamentals of Islam, which seeks to create a just and loving society under God - just like Christianity and Judaism.
Bin Laden and other leaders of his ilk are not "Muslims" and they are certainly not "Fundamentalists"; they are fantasists and fanatics.
We interpret Bin Laden's distorted imaginings as "true Islam" whereas other religious cults with charismatic leaders are regarded as beyond the scope of Judaism and Christianity. American TV evangelists are derided as fraudsters but Bin Laden is regarded as a true representative of Islam.
Islamic teachings and the Koran
The media has consistently explained the suicide bombers' actions and motivations in relation to Islamic texts, most notably the Koran with concomitant negative stereotyping of Islam and Muslims.
This use of the Koran ignores the fact that all religious texts are open to interpretation and indeed similar passages encouraging martyrdom and holy war can be found in Jewish texts and the Christian Bible.
Ironically George W.Bush warned of a crusade against terrorism. The crusaders and their leaders used the Bible to legitimise a holy war on Islam with the belief that if they died in battle they would be martyrs and go to heaven.
Thomas Aquinas formulated the idea of a "Just War" and God himself ordered massacres in Jericho and the cities of Canaan. However when Christians commit atrocities newspapers and the media do not look for possible explanations in the Bible.
Arab = Muslim = Arab
The media has collapsed the categories Arab and Muslim into each other.
Stories about the attacks have been consistently accompanied by pictures of, and comment from, Arab Muslims. The effect has been to collapse a racial group into a religious group.
All Arabs are not Muslim. Not all Muslims are Arab.
Portraying Muslims and Arabs as one and the same is inaccurate and dangerous because it provides a racial basis for hatred which extends past the boundaries of a religion. It allows extremists to identify "Muslims" purely by perceived racial characteristics.
Furthermore the fact that the world's largest Muslim population lives in Indonesia emphasizes the difference between the complex tragedies in the Middle East and simple religious differences.
By showing that most of the world's Muslims are not based in the Middle East you start to separate fact from fantasy. It becomes obvious that the struggle in the Middle East is not one based solely on creed or colour but rather a complex matrix of politics/territorial ambitions/history expressed through, and legitimised by, creed and colour.
An analogy can be drawn with the problems of apartheid South Africa which the outside world regarded as racial but were in fact the result of class and labour concerns which were expressed in racial terms.
It is all too easy to confuse cause, effect and explanation.
Only when the matrix of what causes the troubles in the Middle East is resolved can a solution be suggested. As long as the Middle East question is seen as a simple struggle between Judaism and Islam there can be no peace.
Palestinians celebrating news of the U.S. attacks:
Video of Palestinians celebrating in the wake of the U.S. attacks were broadcast on CNN and many other channels. However little context was provided to explain the Palestinians' reaction, which though reprehensible is rooted in the history of the Middle East.
Context cannot provide justification but it can provide explanation and breed compassion.
At best the media reported that Palestinians hated Israel and hence hated Israel's ally - the United States.
In a fast moving news story it is often difficult to supply content and background but consequently weeks after the event when more explanation is provided, people are already rooted in the simple, basic facts, which though accurate are misleading in their lack of detail.
Commentators have suggested that America's foreign policy in the Middle East fans the flames of extremism in the Arab world. The public should know what these policies are and what their effects are in the Arab world. The public can make up its own mind whether the policies are right or wrong.
America supports Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who was defence minister during Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982. The invasion culminated in massacres of thousands of refugees, many of them women or children, in the Sabra and Shatila camps on the outskirts of Beirut.
Surely this detail and is relevant to the debate.
Islamic Public Relations
It is evident that Islamic public relations have failed during the aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade Centre.
1. There have been significant statements from various "Islamic" organisations which have been extraordinary.
Terrorist groups, Yasser Arafat and Iran have all issued ground breaking statements condemning the U.S. attacks. Unfortunately due to the sheer mass of stories coming out of the attacks on the U.S. the statements have been relegated to the inner pages of newspapers and the end of news programmes.
2. At the same time spokesmen for Muslim communities and groups have unfortunately portrayed the "wrong" image on television and in other media.
The mistakes were exemplified by the service of remembrance in Washington D.C. The service was performed by a Christian cleric, a Jewish Rabbi and the head of the Supreme Muslim Council of America.
While both the Christian and the Jew appeared American to the marrow, the Muslim cleric, wearing robes and speaking broken English, appeared alien and un-American.
In the early days of the tragedy it was important for Muslims to identify themselves with the mass of American community by emphasizing similarities rather than differences especially through that most American of mediums - television.
There are more similarities than differences between people regardless of race, creed and colour. In the face of division it is these aspects of common humanity which should be cultivated but it is these very aspects which are difficult to transmit via television.
As a medium television does not lend itself to emphasising common humanity beyond simple appearance and speech - the two very factors which the Muslim cleric neglected.
Later on Muhammad Ali appeared on television proclaiming his pride as a Muslim. His appearance had a profound effect on people's opinions because he is an American symbol. Immediately all Muslims regardless of appearance become more tangible and American - they are no longer "the other" but part of the American community.
Television is about how you look, how you speak and very rarely about what you think and how you feel. It is a one-way communication, there is no chance of dialogue.
Muslims should consider their appearance on TV because TV is a shallow medium which distorts peoples' opinions due to its technical limitations.
It is an unfortunate fact that people are scared of what they don't understand or recognize. They need to be led to the realisation that a man wearing a turban and a robe is still just a man and someone they trust and recognize must lead them to that realisation.
Muslims should be themselves and proud of their culture and traditions but they must be aware that on television people judge you on first appearances, on looks and speech, not on your character.
While it is incumbent on the media to present Muslims in an unbiased light it is also important for Muslims to do the best they can for themselves by choosing the most appropriate people, both spiritually but also physically, to transmit their messages and differences through the television screen.
Conclusion
It is the press' duty and burden to ensure that it is impartial and accurate and acts sensibly.
The right to speak to thousands and even millions of people is linked to a responsibility to speak justly and without prejudice.
Prejudice, be it deliberate or unintentional, makes journalism into propaganda and transforms a journalist into a demagogue.
The language and images that the media have used in conjunction with ideas of Muslims and Islam have been value-loaded and lack context. While the world moves on and new ideas develop we still use the same words, in relation to Islam, that we used 10 and 20 years and even 30 years ago.
If we cannot change the words and the symbols how can we hope to change the future?

Here's a suggestion. Let's move away from this kind of tribal rhetoric, and identify what exactly we are taking about. I think much of this post is simple propaganda, that disguises and ignores the fundamental issues on which this controversy rests.

Forget the name "islam" just for a second, and let's consider the following:

How are we to regard a dead teacher who married several young girls, one of whom was 9 years old.

What do we think of male genital mutilation, inflicted on babies?

Do we think women are the equal of men, and how would we like to see this demonstrated?

Do we think faith schools are a good idea, after the Bradford riots? Do we want to pay for them with our taxes?

Should people be free to follow a religion or not, or is it acceptable to force people to read and learn the koran?

Is it a good idea to have segregated religious communities?

Is it a good idea to have non-English speaking religious teachers, who neither understand nor respect British culture?

Do we accept animal cruelty, in religious ritual slaughter?

Is debate and criticism healthy, or should some people be allowed to protest that they are "offended", ie that you are not 'allowed' to criticise?

The government estimates there are 10,000 Al Qaeda sympathisers in the UK. Why does this happen?

What are the qualities of constructive discussion - are they, for example, give and take on BOTH sides and a willingness for BOTH sides to accept criticism?

quote:

---

Originally posted by agent frank ernest:
BRITISH MEDIA PORTRAYALS OF MUSLIMS
In the Wake of the September 11 Attacks
By William Conte, 09/28/2001

Since the attacks on the U.S., Islamic communities in Britain have been targeted by extremist groups. Muslims have been intimidated, their places of worship vandalised, 10 pigs' heads have been left outside a mosque in Exeter and an Afghan taxi driver has been beaten to paralysis.

---

Yes 9-11 might have helped promote such attacks on Muslims but these groups are not concerned only with 9-11 or even with only Muslims. Extremist groups have been targetting all foreigners in the UK since the first waves of immigration arrived here and even before.

quote:

---

These are minor incidents against the background of violence which engulfed America's east coast killing more than 7,000 people but nonetheless they are indicative of the tensions which exist between Islamic and other communities in the UK.

---

It would be helpful to know where your stats are coming from. I do accept though that 9-11 has heightened tensions and differences in the UK as it has across the world. It has also begun to make the media focus more on the attrocities that Muslims in some countries have committed against the followers of other faiths or even against other Muslim sects.

quote:

---

These tensions have not been helped by the British and foreign media which have used value-loaded and inaccurate language, portraying Osama Bin Laden as a "Muslim fanatic" and Islam as a dangerous religion rooted in violence and irrationality.

---

Though I object myself to the use of the word fundamentalist here myself, the use of terms like 'Muslim extremist' is only to be expected as Osama himself says that he is carrying out his actions in the name of Islam. Though I do accept that, at least in the beginning of this renewed focus on Islam, there was very little time and interest given to moderate or average Muslim points of view to balance the picture of extremeists and terrorists.

quote:

---

The tensions have been further exacerbated by the media's avoidance of context in relation to Arab anger in the Middle East.
Muslim Extremists, Fundamentalists, etc.
Use of emotive language linked to racial and religious identifiers has been prevalent in the media and contributed to racial/religious tensions as the following examples demonstrate.

---

This is not helped by the way in which people in many Muslim countries think. There are still many countries in which the authorities assume that all people born there follow Islam. I don't know about every individual country but in general I don't think of these 'overgeneralisations' anywhere near as distorting as hearing Tony Blair talking about Europe as Christian. The percentages of Christians in most European countries is not much higher than it is in the UK where Christians struggle to make up 10% of the population with the vast majority rejecting all traditional religions.

quote:

---

1. Osama Bin Laden and his followers have been described at various times as "Muslim Fundamentalists", "Muslim Extremists", "Muslim Terrorists" and "Muslim Fanatics".
The media should drop the word Muslim in conjunction with any of these terms.
The Irish Republican Army are not called Catholic terrorists. The Ulster Freedom Fighters are not called Protestant terrorists.

---

This is just not accurate. Only quite recently has the media dropped talk of Catholic terrorists etc in relation to Northern Ireland. The opposing sides have long couched their arguments in supposedly sectarian terms and in relation to religious divisions between Roman Catholics and Protestants.

quote:

---

America's White Aryan Resistance are not Christian terrorists. South Africa's AWB were not Calvinist terrorists.
In keeping with this tradition atrocities committed by groups claiming an Islamic affiliation should not be described as attacks by Muslim terrorists.
The hijackers in the U.S. were never more than mere terrorists - anything else attempts to explain madness and props it up with the terrorist's own crutch of ideology.
The media should drop the word Muslim in conjunction with Osama Bin Laden or at least explain that Bin Laden's beliefs fall well outside the scope of Islam.
Bin Laden is nothing more than a cult leader who attempts to legitimise his violence through religion. Linking his actions to religion only buys into his legitimation.

---

But he is not the only one who links terrorist activities with Islam. There are plenty of others who say that their extremism is based on Islam and they can point to Mohammed's own guerrilla activities against the traders with Makkah as their role model.

quote:

---

The media called David Koresh the leader of a Branch Davidian cult - not the leader of a Christian group.
Shoko Asahara, whose AUM cult has been linked to sarin gas attacks on the Japanese subway, has always been described as a cult leader - not the leader of a Buddhist fringe group despite the fact that Asahara said he wanted to teach Japan the "true teachings of Buddha".
Uganda's Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments was described as a cult by the media after it massacred 780 of its followers though its name alone points at Christian/Jewish influences.
Koresh, Asahara and the leaders of the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments were fanatics and madmen who the media located outside of the bounds of their respective religions. Bin Laden however is located within his religion despite the fact that his interpretations of the Koran differ from the dominant orthodoxies.

---

The examples you give were quite isolated as compared with the works of the Arab or Wahabi or Islamist extremists like Al qaeda and the like.

It would be very good to have more detailed explanations of how Bin Laden's religious doctrines differ from the authodoxies you spoke of though. You are right in saying that this kind of contextualisation has been very much neglected by most of the Media.

quote:

---

2. The media should drop the word fundamentalist in conjunction with Muslim, Islamic, Bin Laden etc.
Describing Bin Laden and his followers as Muslim fundamentalists buys into idea that Islam at its most basic level is about jihad, violence, irrationality and madness.
Bin Laden's interpretation and teachings are not fundamentalist. In fact they ignore the fundamentals of Islam, which seeks to create a just and loving society under God - just like Christianity and Judaism.
Bin Laden and other leaders of his ilk are not "Muslims" and they are certainly not "Fundamentalists"; they are fantasists and fanatics.
We interpret Bin Laden's distorted imaginings as "true Islam" whereas other religious cults with charismatic leaders are regarded as beyond the scope of Judaism and Christianity. American TV evangelists are derided as fraudsters but Bin Laden is regarded as a true representative of Islam.

---

I agree that this is traducing those who follow the fundamentals of their religion and is basically a slur used in the media to undermine traditional religious beliefs and values.

quote:

---

Islamic teachings and the Koran
The media has consistently explained the suicide bombers' actions and motivations in relation to Islamic texts, most notably the Koran with concomitant negative stereotyping of Islam and Muslims.
This use of the Koran ignores the fact that all religious texts are open to interpretation and indeed similar passages encouraging martyrdom and holy war can be found in Jewish texts and the Christian Bible.

---

The texts in the New Testament do not support the idea of martyrdom in armed conflict in the same way as the Islamic cultists you refer to are able to use the texts in the Koran but again more detail would be good.

quote:

---

Ironically George W.Bush warned of a crusade against terrorism. The crusaders and their leaders used the Bible to legitimise a holy war on Islam with the belief that if they died in battle they would be martyrs and go to heaven.
Thomas Aquinas formulated the idea of a "Just War"

---

I don't actually know so much about Aquinas's idea to comment on it but with regard to the word crusade you have to look at the different understandings of the word and the events giving rise to them.

In the first place though the leaders of the Crusades might have claimed that the Bible gave legitimacy to their plans there is no support in the New Testament for their actions.

The worst attrocities of the Crusades were carried out in complete contradiction to what the Bible actually teaches.

The Roman Catholic church was incredibly corrupt and served its own interests rather than those of the true Christian faith. The Bible was only allowed in Latin those who could not read Latin had no idea what the text really said. The Roman Catholic hierarchy also persecuted those who opposed its teaching or authority or tried in meaningful ways to bring God's word to the common man.

On the other hand the excuse for Crusades did not come from the Roman Catholic church's misinterpretation of the Bible alone. The main excuse was given by the destruction of a church in the Holy Land and the expectancy that other churches and Holy sites were to be similarly erased.

The crusades were seen as attempts to defend what people believed to be right and true from destruction by those they saw as unbelievers.

So the idea of the Crusades to the modern Western mind were not dissimilar to the ideas of Jihad that Muslims had under Mohammed.

quote:

---

and God himself ordered massacres in Jericho and the cities of Canaan. However when Christians commit atrocities newspapers and the media do not look for possible explanations in the Bible.

---

Which Christians? I think you are falling into the trap you are yourself criticising here. The New Testament is much clearer in condemning violence than the Koran. Jesus refused to lead an armed revolt whereas Mohammed chose to fight against the leaders of Makkah when he could have gone or stayed elsewhere.

So those who commit attrocities are obviously not following the Christian faith.

quote:

---

Arab = Muslim = Arab
The media has collapsed the categories Arab and Muslim into each other.
Stories about the attacks have been consistently accompanied by pictures of, and comment from, Arab Muslims. The effect has been to collapse a racial group into a religious group.
All Arabs are not Muslim. Not all Muslims are Arab.
Portraying Muslims and Arabs as one and the same is inaccurate and dangerous because it provides a racial basis for hatred which extends past the boundaries of a religion. It allows extremists to identify "Muslims" purely by perceived racial characteristics.
Furthermore the fact that the world's largest Muslim population lives in Indonesia emphasizes the difference between the complex tragedies in the Middle East and simple religious differences.

---

Exactly - this is what you seem to be doing, and other Muslims definitely do do, with regard to Christianity and Europe. In most of Europe Christianity is in the minority and yet people in the Muslim world continually refer to Europe as Christian. Most of what we see in Britain today has more to do with the rejection of belief in any religion than it has to do with Christianity.

To say that the belief and behaviour patterns of modern British society is Christian is insulting to real Christians. Modern society, and especially the media, equates belief with superstition, weakmindedness, intolerance and many other negative characteristics. It is largely anti-Christian.

quote:

---

By showing that most of the world's Muslims are not based in the Middle East you start to separate fact from fantasy. It becomes obvious that the struggle in the Middle East is not one based solely on creed or colour but rather a complex matrix of politics/territorial ambitions/history expressed through, and legitimised by, creed and colour.

---

and religion. Even in Indonesia we had the attacks by those who were supposed to be Muslims on Chinese Christians after the fall of Suarto and more recently the Bali bombings and other links between people there and the Arabs like those of Al qaeda.

quote:

---

An analogy can be drawn with the problems of apartheid South Africa which the outside world regarded as racial but were in fact the result of class and labour concerns which were expressed in racial terms.

---

I don't know what you are basing these assertions on. Most people still understand that it was rather the reverse - racial discrimination based on class and economic excuses.

quote:

---

It is all too easy to confuse cause, effect and explanation.
Only when the matrix of what causes the troubles in the Middle East is resolved can a solution be suggested. As long as the Middle East question is seen as a simple struggle between Judaism and Islam there can be no peace.
Palestinians celebrating news of the U.S. attacks:
Video of Palestinians celebrating in the wake of the U.S. attacks were broadcast on CNN and many other channels. However little context was provided to explain the Palestinians' reaction, which though reprehensible is rooted in the history of the Middle East.
Context cannot provide justification but it can provide explanation and breed compassion.
At best the media reported that Palestinians hated Israel and hence hated Israel's ally - the United States.
In a fast moving news story it is often difficult to supply content and background but consequently weeks after the event when more explanation is provided, people are already rooted in the simple, basic facts, which though accurate are misleading in their lack of detail.
Commentators have suggested that America's foreign policy in the Middle East fans the flames of extremism in the Arab world. The public should know what these policies are and what their effects are in the Arab world. The public can make up its own mind whether the policies are right or wrong.
America supports Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who was defence minister during Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982. The invasion culminated in massacres of thousands of refugees, many of them women or children, in the Sabra and Shatila camps on the outskirts of Beirut.
Surely this detail and is relevant to the debate.
Islamic Public Relations
It is evident that Islamic public relations have failed during the aftermath of the attacks on the World Trade Centre.
1. There have been significant statements from various "Islamic" organisations which have been extraordinary.
Terrorist groups, Yasser Arafat and Iran have all issued ground breaking statements condemning the U.S. attacks. Unfortunately due to the sheer mass of stories coming out of the attacks on the U.S. the statements have been relegated to the inner pages of newspapers and the end of news programmes.

---

You think statements by terrorists condemning the US attacks are positive? When such comments are reported they only do more to legitimise the US attacks. People say, ' the terrorists are opposing the US attacks so the US must be right. they lend more weight to claims that Iraq had links with the terrorists in the first place.

In fact with the general workings of US foreign policy the real wonder is how they are not facing terrorist attacks from Africans and Latin Americans as well the Middle East.

At least now they do seem to be putting a little more pressure on Israel to move a little. Though what that means for the rest of us I hate to think. I only hope that US and European policies change before those who have suffered because of them think that terrorism might have proved effective for the Palestinians.

[/QUOTE]
2. At the same time spokesmen for Muslim communities and groups have unfortunately portrayed the "wrong" image on television and in other media.
The mistakes were exemplified by the service of remembrance in Washington D.C. The service was performed by a Christian cleric, a Jewish Rabbi and the head of the Supreme Muslim Council of America.
While both the Christian and the Jew appeared American to the marrow, the Muslim cleric, wearing robes and speaking broken English, appeared alien and un-American.
In the early days of the tragedy it was important for Muslims to identify themselves with the mass of American community by emphasizing similarities rather than differences especially through that most American of mediums - television.
There are more similarities than differences between people regardless of race, creed and colour. In the face of division it is these aspects of common humanity which should be cultivated but it is these very aspects which are difficult to transmit via television.
As a medium television does not lend itself to emphasising common humanity beyond simple appearance and speech - the two very factors which the Muslim cleric neglected.[/QUOTE]

I disagree to a large extent with this concern about the Muslim cleric. TV also conveys actions - the fact that the Muslim cleric was there, broken English or not, was more important. His robes might have been different from the attire of the others but they showed that he was a Muslim and that he and other Muslims felt for those affected by the tradgedies of war and the defence of freedom and democracy.

Beautiful statements of propaganda and doctrine can do little to change minds and can even cause mistrust if not carefully delivered. Both the terrorists and the moderates, as you have said, identified themselves with Islam. We, here in Britain were faced with news of attrocities abroad and coverage given to extremists like Baqri and Abu Hamza showing the violent side of Islamism. At the same time we the Muslim spokesmen only tried to tell us that Islam was a religion of peace but failed often to really denounce the actions of Bin Laden et al. This only leads to a feeling that this is all part of the stategy of Muslim expansion by hook or by crook. More and more attempts to tell the UK, where Islam is still in the minority, that Islam is peaceful alongside military or terrorist attacks where it is strong.

No the moderates only scored in my book when we saw action. When they traveled to Iraq to try and save Ken Bigley - that spoke more than half hearted comments.

Well done - I don't have the time, energy or inclination to challenge the details of this post. Basically, it is propaganda.

What I think is a far more urgent question is the reality of how Islam causes violence wherever you see it (Archibishop Carey said this), how many of its practices are backward and unenlightened (like its treatment of women and animals), and the fact that the government estimates there are 10,000 Al qaeda sympathisers in the UK - front page of the Sunday Times, a few months ago.

10,000!!!

It is not surprising Islam has a terrible public image. I do not accept that this is just media bias; I think a large part of it rests on genuine concerns.

Have anyone of you ever picked up the Koran to see for yourself if that is what islam says?

I urge all you to look into Islam and then maybe you will understand that that all u see of islam (lets not forget there 1.2 billion muslims) in the media is not correct!

Then if you find all that is said then fine but please do not belittle a faith on ill informed media bias!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Salma:
Have anyone of you ever picked up the Koran to see for yourself if that is what islam says?

If the Koran is so peaceful, why is there so much extremism in Islam?

Is Al Qaeda one big media concoction in your opinion? Bali? New York? Madrid? Were those acts practiced by Muslims who don't read the Koran?

Just because a muslim does something bad u r willing to blame 1.2 billion ppl!

If they r telling you that Koran says it says i can do x, y or z and u belive these ppl!
These ppl hijack religon for there own purposes!

Why should I be suprised at this attitude afterall Afghansiatn was bombed (what was left of it) to look for Osama and the Iraq for WMD's/Saddam Hussian depending which version of war you go for!

So carry on blaming Islam it is not Islam but the Hijacking of Islam that was used to Justify the attacks have any of you read how and when a jihad can be called etc etc!

Look into Islam before saying it is wrong or evil!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Salma:
have any of you read how and when a jihad can be called etc etc!

Actually, I'd like to know more about jihad. When can it be called?

hello Everyone....

First Of All no one has hijacked anything.

Islam is a Religion of Peace for those who WANT peace and islam is ALSO a religion of war for those who want war!

As We all know media lies when it comes to islam, only to suit its agneda.

What did blair say: "Iraq has weapon of mass descruction" he lied he lied he lied until his lies became the truth and the public believed him.

Islam says: Fight them like they fight you!

so if that is the case then we as muslim should fight them via the media as that is what they r doing even before they drop bombs etc on defenceless ppl!!

Pastel I will get the information about Jihad later on and post it her for u!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slickpak:

Islam says: Fight them like they fight you!

---

I take it you are one of those who sees Islam as a religion of war rather than peace. What strikes me as strange is that it is only Muslims who have this feeling that the rest of the world is fighting against them. Britain's war is against those who wish to see the demise of civilisation and replace it with dark-age terror, it isn't against islam per se.

Hello once again

As Sheikh Osama Bin laden said:

"the camp has devided into TWO, camp of iman [those who have islam] and the camp of kufar [camp of non muslims]"

This was again outlined by what Bush said,

" Either your with us[non muslims] or with them[Muslims aka terrorist]

I am happy to annouce that i am with them[muslims] [alhamdulillah]

The west play a smart game buy saying, where goin to war only to root out the bad people, maybe america shud start at home. Root out there own problems.

salma: media is an oulet from where unverified news come from. Most of the news is againt islam anyways. We should always look to what islam says, as soon as we deviate from islam thats when we are lost.

Allaah (swt) says: "O you who believe! If a Faasiq (sinner or kaafir i.e. BBC, CNN etc.) comes to you with news VERIFY it..." [EMQ 49:6]

As i sed islam says: fight them like they fight you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Salma:
Have anyone of you ever picked up the Koran to see for yourself if that is what islam says?

I urge all you to look into Islam and then maybe you will understand that that all u see of islam (lets not forget there 1.2 billion muslims) in the media is not correct!

Then if you find all that is said then fine but please do not belittle a faith on ill informed media bias!

---

Actually I have picked up the koran and tried to read it but since studying about facial coverings and finding that there are various contradictions in it - then being told that there are abrogations - i don't find it very easy to tell which parts are supposed to have been superceded by which other parts. Again different sects interpret passages on relations with other faiths in different ways and if you look at the general teachings of the Koran towards those of no faith it seems very intolerant indeed.

Actually the abrogations argument makes you wonder anyway. How can you be sure about anything if God changes His mind?

Another question is which blood God used to make man? Did He use animal blood? If not why should He have created a clot of blood before the whole man, it doesn't seem to make any sense!

The example of the prophet again causes various problems like those mentioned above with regard to Aisha and sex with children. There are still men of 40+ marrying girls of 9 because of his example.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Salma:
Just because a muslim does something bad u r willing to blame 1.2 billion ppl!

If they r telling you that Koran says it says i can do x, y or z and u belive these ppl!
These ppl hijack religon for there own purposes!

Why should I be suprised at this attitude afterall Afghansiatn was bombed (what was left of it) to look for Osama and the Iraq for WMD's/Saddam Hussian depending which version of war you go for!

So carry on blaming Islam it is not Islam but the Hijacking of Islam that was used to Justify the attacks have any of you read how and when a jihad can be called etc etc!

Look into Islam before saying it is wrong or evil!

---

As I just said I consider that fundamentally it is both but that does not mean that I blame 1.2 billion people. Despite what I believe to be wrong teachings in the Muslim faith and bad examples set by your prophet, I know that there are many very good Muslims who do there best to live peaceful, good, productive lives and do not interpret their faith in negative ways. I personally think that they are turning a blind eye to some fundamental problems with your faith but I certainly don't condemn them.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Slickpak:

The west play a smart game buy saying, where goin to war only to root out the bad people, maybe america shud start at home. Root out there own problems.

Perhaps the West, which is so villified by Muslims, should treat Muslims like non-Muslims are treated in islamic states such as Saudi Arabia - an all out ban on public religious expression, enforced by torture and violence. Or is that also just another media concoction in the world conspiracy against islam?

I'm a bit upset by the standard this debate has fallen to. It seems that all too often in these debates, there is a lot of finger-pointing and confrontational responses that do very little to shed any understanding on the issues of the day. Pity really...

Finger pointing! Clutural Snobbery, Idiots, Racists, oh and morons. Things are not all black and white, red and green. Being WHITE does not mean being bad, Being tannned does not mean being bad. IT ALL COMES DOWN TO MONEY,one way or another. DO you not know the meaning of TERRORISM.

Dear Pastel

You mentioned saudi arabia being an islamic state. For your info and anyone else reading this post, saudi arabia isnt an islamic state. There is NO islamic state today on this earth. The LAST islamic state was destroyed in 1924. Saudi arabia jus like others are rulled by puppets, which are controlled abt america. The saudi regime are non muslims, just like other so called muslims leaders in other countries!


"And from mankind there are some who say: 'We believe in Allah and the Last day' while in fact they do not believe. They think to deceive Allah and those who believe, while they only deceive themselves, but they perceive not." [EMQ Surah Baqarah, 2: 8-9]

"Whoever earns a bite of food by reporting or spying on Muslims, Allah will feed him the equivalent in the hellfire, and whoever wears clothes earning from spying against Muslims, Allah will clothe him with hellfire." [Bukhari - Kitab ul-Adab]

Right am confused- so if Saudi Arabia is actually secretly being run by Americans then why am I not allowed to practice christianity if I lived there? I'm not having a go at anyone for their religion but I would like to see the same freedom of expression extended to people in all countries! If a Moslem Woman is free to wear a hijab in Britain then why can I not be free to not wear one in say Iran?