This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Muslim peace conference condemns terrorism

Muslim peace conference condemns terrorism - Comments

PERSON's Avatar Comment 61 by PERSON

Comment 33 by Steve Zara :

Comment 31 by Neodarwinian

You are right about us not being able to tell if this conference will have for reaching implications, but it has already been mentioned by Red Dog " that muslims are doing this thing all the time."

Then something has changed, because when there is any thread here about an atrocity carried out in the name of Islam, the claim is always made that moderate Muslims never speak out.

That claim is now false.

And I think that explains at least some of the resentment. A convenient knee-jerk assertion has been done away with, and some would like to bring it back (or formulate an alternative).

Sun, 25 Sep 2011 08:34:29 UTC | #874921

Greenforest's Avatar Comment 62 by Greenforest

A healthy skeptical approach is needed here. I've read these kinds of vague superficial denunciations of "terrorism" and "extremism" many times before, but they generally don't hold up under closer inspection. In this case, in the BBC article, there's not really much to inspect, just some flat-out denials that terrorism has anything to do with Islam, some Islamic public relations/ image management, posturing, and playing on semantic ambiguities.

Islamic apologists keep having conferences; while the terrorist threats and attacks keep coming, and keep taking lives, and injuring many more, and continue to draw huge amounts of time and resources in policing, intelligence, and security.

Who is Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri? He is a major scholar of Islamic sharia law from Pakistan, educated in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. His PhD is in Islamic law. He is an important figure who advised the Pakistani government in the 1980s on adopting more purely Islamic blasphemy laws. In addition, he successfully argued that rajm (stoning) was a correct and valid hadd punishment that should be reinstated (previously it was denied). From ul-Qadri's website [note: Qadri is referred to by the title "Shaykh ul-Islam"]:

"...In the 1980s, a number of historical judgments in the legal and constitutional history of Pakistan were passed by the Federal Sharia Court and the Appellate Sharia Bench, Supreme Court of Pakistan as a result of Shaykh-ul-Islam’s juristic arguments, documented in the Pakistan Legal Decisions (PLD) and Pakistan Legal Judgments (PLJ). In particular the Federal Sharia Court passed a judgment denying the legal position of rajm as a hadd of sharia, in which almost all well known ‘ulama and senior renowned classical scholars of the country had appeared before the court giving their arguments. In a review petition Shaykh-ul-Islam presented his arguments before the court against the judgment for three consecutive days. As a result, a landmark decision was passed by the full bench of the Federal Sharia Court of Pakistan overturning their prior judgment and the rajm was judicially re-accepted as a hadd of sharia. In another case the Blasphemy Law protecting the esteemed station and reverence of the Holy Prophet (blessings and peace be upon him) was also passed for the first time in the history of Pakistan after Shaykh-ul-Islam presented his arguments to the court, over a period of three days, culminating in an Act of Parliament. Another landmark and famous enactment of Parliament concerning ad-diya (blood-money) of a murdered woman resulted after Shaykh-ul-Islam presented arguments in the President House of Pakistan during a special legislative session chaired by President Zia’ al-Haqq..." Source: http://minhaj.com.pk/en/shaykh-ul-islam-dr-muhammad-tahir-ul-qadri

Note the specific website. The general english version of this same bio on Qadri speaks in vague generalities and skips the part about him supporting these harsh sharia laws.

Regarding Qadri's previous denunciations of terrorism in articles, again, these statements consist of unsatisfactory flat-out denials and irritating play on semantic ambiguities. Qadri has apparently written a 600-page fatwa in Urdu specifically condemning suicidal terrorist attacks. I've not yet had a chance to locate and read that source, and I'm not sure if there's an English translation, but I've read enough of his other articles to get an idea of the sorts of problems that arise when scrutinizing his statements. For example, in an article in which he sweepingly denied that Islam permitted violence of any kind, he also wrote that jihad warfare could be justified if it was "defensive." http://www.minhaj.org/english/tid/14725/Terrorism-has-no-place-in-any-society.html

The trouble is, Qadri is not being forthright and explicit as to what he considers to be legitimate warrants for such "defense." I will grant for the sake of argument that his statements condemning Al-Qaeda's attacks are genuine (even though I have no reason to actually believe them). However, it appears that Qadri supports putting people to death for blasphemy (see Pakistan's blasphemy laws, which he helped install) and adultery (for which, in classical Islam, the penalty of stoning to death is applied). To me, and most non-Muslims, those sorts of punishments are neither legitimate nor defensive. They constitute aggressive murderous attacks on people, whether by the state or otherwise.

Also disturbing is Qadri's attempt to extend Islamic blasphemy laws over non-Muslim western countries and, also to this end, to attempt to revive and extend old western blasphemy laws that are now seldom used, to be applied and enforced in the West on non-Muslim expressions about Islam. One way or another, Qadri wants Islamic blasphemy laws applied to control non-Muslim Westerners' expressions and opinions about Islam and Muslims.

Qadri, writing in the context of the Danish Muhammad cartoon controversy, stated that “…an act that causes offence to a whole community can never be justified under the banner of freedom of speech.” Qadri then recommended that blasphemy laws be set up and enforced in the West [my brackets]: "There needs to be some mechanism to put an end to these horrific occurrences [i.e., the Danish cartoons] which may prove a potential threat to world peace.[...] • 1. All newspapers that have published the caricatures must unreservedly apologise and withdraw their publications. • 2. Clear legislation needs to be passed by all Governments which balance the right to freedom of speech with the rights of individuals and communities that their sacred beliefs should not be insulted and ridiculed. • 3. All Governments should then ensure that any such legislation is enforced through the due process of the law and this type of incitement and ridicule never happens again."

http://world.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/27484

That is, he recommends censorship of the offending publications and prosecution and punishment severe enough to prevent this type of "incitement" and "ridicule" from ever happening again (i.e., certainly not a light punishment) in the West.

I'm not buying Qadri's statements about terrorism or moderation or extremism. It certainly appears to be fluffy propaganda designed to polish Islam's image and lull non-Muslims into a false sense of security. Until I see Qadri subjected to a tough no-nonsense interview from a journalist who actually cares about doing real journalism, or something along those lines, there's no way I'm going to take these absurdly over-the-top statements about the supposed wonders and peace of (his version of) Islam.

Sun, 25 Sep 2011 08:45:23 UTC | #874923

ajs261's Avatar Comment 63 by ajs261

Good news this may be, but 12,000 Muslims here cannot claim to represent the hundreds of millions residing in the Middle East. It simply proves that some religious people can embrace reason.

Furthermore, did they denounce homophobia? Did they denounce Sharia courts? Did they accept that anyone has the right to criticise their religion, through cartoons or otherwise? Did they accept that women have the right to wear what they choose?

If they did then fair play to them. If not then this conference serves only as a hollow attempt at PR.

Sun, 25 Sep 2011 08:55:09 UTC | #874926

mmurray's Avatar Comment 64 by mmurray

Comment 63 by ajs261 :

Good news this may be, but 12,000 Muslims here cannot claim to represent the hundreds of millions residing in the Middle East. It simply proves that some religious people can embrace reason.

He is also a Sufi. They are a minority and not even regarded as Muslims by many Muslims as far as I understand it. So he very definitely does not represent the millions of other Muslims. In fact no Muslim could given the division into Sunni and Shia amongst all the other divisions.

Furthermore, did they denounce homophobia? Did they denounce Sharia courts? Did they accept that anyone has the right to criticise their religion, through cartoons or otherwise? Did they accept that women have the right to wear what they choose?

If they did then fair play to them. If not then this conference serves only as a hollow attempt at PR.

Why hollow? If their work with kids stops them being converted into extremists that seems like a good thing to me.

Michael

Sun, 25 Sep 2011 09:23:58 UTC | #874930

JackR's Avatar Comment 65 by JackR

Sorry, I'm with the people who would have been a hell of a lot more impressed with this if it happened right after 9/11, and pretty regularly since then. The so-called "moderate" Muslims have been painfully noticeable by their relative silence on these issues for over ten years since that atrocity, and I for one am not about to forget that simply because a few of them finally got off their knees long enough to say "Hey, this was kinda poor show, chaps".

Yes, I am aware that there has not been a total lack of condemnation of Islamic terrorism from Muslims, but it has plainly been paltry and inadequate given the scale of the problem. Instead we have heard a lot of knee-jerk mewlings about Islam being the "religion of peace". This, and the horribly belated action described in the article, seem insultingly inadequate, not least when I consider the vast number of people who filled the streets of our cities across the globe in protest against the Iraq invasion. And fear of reprisals is no excuse. Cowardice is never an excuse. If enough of these "moderates" had cared enough about this issue they should and could have found strength in numbers. They didn't. So again, sorry: not impressed.

Call that negative if you like. Meanwhile I'll call the other view naive and rose-tinted.

Sun, 25 Sep 2011 09:31:19 UTC | #874931

Greenforest's Avatar Comment 66 by Greenforest

Follow-up to my previous comment, I wanted to add that Qadri does imply what he considers justified or legitimate warrants for "defense" of Islam in the "A call to prevent a clash of civilizations" (by Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, Sunday, February 26, 2006) article I quoted above. Qadri suggests that the punishment of Western non-Muslims who "insult" Islam and Muhammad is needed in order to prevent Muslims from engaging in violent responses. He wrote (again, in the context of the cartoon "crisis"):

"If internationally recognised principles of tolerance and co-existence are put aside and moral and religious values are dishonoured then the present situation will worsen and the prevailing tensions will intensify. Europe considers itself to be an educated and civilized society but its response to the gross infringement of the basic right to religion of one of its minority communities has become un-understandable. There needs to be some mechanism to put an end to these horrific occurrences which may prove a potential threat to world peace. Those who advocate that the right to freedom of speech is being eroded and any restraints upon it cannot be tolerated must look within their own ‘democratic societies’ and the extent to which their civil liberties have been eroded through the recent anti-terrorist legislation. These are the measures that have curtailed the rights and liberties of individuals and have much more serious implications which need to be addressed. Muslims are feeling alienated and targeted thus when newspapers begin to ridicule the most sacred elements of their faith, reactions will inevitably be high. If the publication of the caricatures is not taken seriously and steps are not taken to resolve the situation, then it can generate socio-political and economic crises which may lead to a conflict between civilizations and between nations. These are the reasons behind the anger against the publication of these condemnable caricatures and the anger at the disregard shown by the governments towards the rightful protests of the Muslim world against the offence. 1.2 billion Muslims all over the world have been deeply insulted and instead of creating moves to resolve the matter, the act is being continuously justified prolonging world-wide unrest."

Source: http://world.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/27484

In other words, he saying that non-Muslims had better impose tough Islamic blasphemy laws to prevent expressions deemed by Muslims to be "insulting," or else. As far as I am concerned, he is making both a threat and a justification for Islamic terrorism against blasphemers.

Sun, 25 Sep 2011 09:37:43 UTC | #874932

Vorlund's Avatar Comment 67 by Vorlund

@Comment 2 by sample @Comment 7 by Crazy Charlie

These about sum it up. If the 'moderates' want their moderate viewpoint to be taken seriously they have to adopt a position and practice of ostracising and turning in the nutters. Muslims clerics also need to revise the way the Quran is interpreted and condemn the Surah which preach antihuman behaviour. (Fat chance of that also). Instead they resort to lying about the Quran.

I'm not so sure this condemnation will be any more than the farts of weasels.

Sun, 25 Sep 2011 09:45:00 UTC | #874935

drumdaddy's Avatar Comment 68 by drumdaddy

Welcome home, brothers and sisters! Peace? You know where I stand.

Sun, 25 Sep 2011 09:55:22 UTC | #874936

Metamag's Avatar Comment 69 by Metamag

Comment 54 by coolegg :

But these muslims are not discussing how to start an enlightenment in islam. They are discussing how all of islam's image problems are the fault of outsiders (it must be the fault of outsiders because the quran is literally perfect - there is nothing wrong with islam, of course).

Exactly. People are really fooling themselves if they think this is a step forward for anything.

It means absolutely nothing.

Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:09:38 UTC | #874942

Stafford Gordon's Avatar Comment 70 by Stafford Gordon

Welcome? Yes! But we shall see.

In any case, do people need to be taught love, compassion, tolerance and mercy? Aren't they natural feelings?

Again, religion is hijacking innate human qualities.

Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:25:21 UTC | #874944

AtheistEgbert's Avatar Comment 71 by AtheistEgbert

If they are Sufis, then they do not represent the majority of Muslims, only 1%. You have been fooled.

Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:38:34 UTC | #874945

AtheistEgbert's Avatar Comment 72 by AtheistEgbert

I think it's best to understand Islam as a culture or set of cultures, that are incompatible with liberal values, until that culture becomes reformed away from religious fundamentalism. Each culture clash with each other, both claiming to be universal.

Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:49:31 UTC | #874949

NickD's Avatar Comment 73 by NickD

Whilst I welcome this small step in the right direction, we must remember it happened in London.

It would mean a lot more had it occurred in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, or indeed in any muslim country.

Sun, 25 Sep 2011 11:03:25 UTC | #874951

keith's Avatar Comment 74 by keith

I hope we are not going to start applauding too loudly this stating of the bleeding obvious. Some people come across like the social worker who grins with pride when one of his charges states, 'I actually think it's wrong to kick a complete stranger in the bollocks'. Well yes, that's great that you've finally come to this conclusion. And it is progress of sorts, but only in the same way that dragging yourself out of a hole to ground level counts as progress uphill. This is one giant leap for an imam, and one small step for Muslim-kind.

Sun, 25 Sep 2011 11:22:40 UTC | #874953

Alan Dente's Avatar Comment 75 by Alan Dente

I believe that public statements hold a great deal of power. If someone is prepared to go on the record, then that is notable in itself.

Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri is clearly a good man. He does not claim to speak on behalf of all Muslims, but quite clearly wants to be a force for good in a debate which may well decide whether the World has a peaceful or a bloody future.

In regards to the 'he's not doing enough' / 'why didn't he speak out in 2001' crew, please read the following quotes from this monster of a man(!):

  1. Qadri was quoted in the American Foreign Policy magazine as "I am trying to bring [the terrorists] back towards humanism. This is a jihad against brutality, to bring them back towards normality. This is an intellectual jihad

  2. Qadri describes terrorism as an "ideological infection" and believes that, through his anti-terrorism summer camps, "we are fighting on the ideological, philosophical, theological and academic fronts. We are trying to educate young people."

  3. Qadri was one of the religious leaders in Pakistan to condemn the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. He has denounced and severely condemned Osama bin Laden

  4. He appeared on Frost Over The World and interviewed by Sir David Frost in which Qadri stated that the "purpose of his life is to bring peace and harmony in the world". Furthermore, the US State Department declared the Fatwa to be a significant publication which takes back Islam from terrorists

On another note, Steve Zara- I'd recommend downloading a Genesis Emulator and 'Shining Force' if you wanna play PC games of a Sunday afternoon... timeless fun.:)

Sun, 25 Sep 2011 11:36:15 UTC | #874954

Peter Grant's Avatar Comment 76 by Peter Grant

Just another religious apologist lying for his faith.

Sun, 25 Sep 2011 11:56:05 UTC | #874957

Richard Dawkins's Avatar Comment 77 by Richard Dawkins

For years we've been calling attention to the deafening silence from moderate Muslims, their reluctance to condemn 9/11, suicide bombings and other atrocities. For years we have challenged moderate Muslims to disown the death penalty for apostasy, and officially sanctioned Islamic mistreatment of women. With a few honourabe exceptions like Yasmin Alibhai Brown, our appeals have met with lamentably little response. Now, finally, 12,000 Muslims have gathered in London to stand up for peace. We should welcome this move with good grace, and hope it will be the start of further and even better initiatives. Congratulations to the organisers of this conference.

Richard

Sun, 25 Sep 2011 12:56:17 UTC | #874964

Jay G's Avatar Comment 78 by Jay G

I Agree with Steve. Vera makes a good point. We (non-muslims) have been demanding something like this for years. Now when it happens, some of us say, it's too little too late. Outrageous!!

Speaking as somebody who has lived and continues to live in a orthodox religious community, I can tell you that it takes great courage to speak out against vocal, radical voices that control a community. I, for one, applaud what was done at the Muslim conference and hope more like it will follow.

Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:23:26 UTC | #874967

Peter Grant's Avatar Comment 79 by Peter Grant

Comment 77 by Richard Dawkins

We should welcome this move with good grace, and hope it will be the start of further and even better initiatives.

Why? As far as I can see it will only serve to help propagate religious delusion even further and I doubt it will convince any of the extremists to become more moderate, it will probably have just the opposite effect.

Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:38:18 UTC | #874970

mmurray's Avatar Comment 80 by mmurray

Comment 79 by Peter Grant :

Why? As far as I can see it will only serve to help propagate religious delusion even further and I doubt it will convince any of the extremists to become more moderate, it will probably have just the opposite effect.

Can you explain how you think this will happen ?

My main concern is that being Sufi's they will be ignored by most of the other Muslim's anyway. A bit like Ahmadiyya.

Michael

Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:49:13 UTC | #874972

coolegg's Avatar Comment 81 by coolegg

Regarding comment 55 by Steve Zara:

"...it should be no problem to accept that a Muslim can believe that every the word of the Koran is true and must be obeyed, and yet live a life that is quite moderate and still believe they are following the Koran!"

I appreciate what you are saying Steve, and I accept that my comment was an oversimplification and lacked acknowledgement of the ability of muslims to be hypocritical (a virtue for the muslim, given what the quran and hadith say). I wasn't feeling very generous to moderate islam at the time I wrote that comment, but I am not sure I am feeling any more generous this morning...

If hypocrisy and the ability of the human mind to hold massively contradictory beliefs is a virtue in the case of the moderate muslim then what does that say of islam? I am pleased that these muslims reject the more obviously savage dogma of the quran and hadith, but in my experience talking with self-labelled "moderate muslims" lying just below the surface are many less obvious harmful beliefs rooted in the quran and hadith which they have not yet tossed aside. Even "moderate muslims" seem to hold harmful core beliefs, such as the quran's absolute perfection and the requirement that all humans submit to it, which short circuits critical thinking and science-based thoughtful reasoning.

I return to my pessimistic observation, that these muslims are not really leading a call for any sort of an enlightenment in islam (a reconciliation of the quran and hadith with science), they are simply claiming the absolutely perfect quran is misunderstood by many - an islamic fundamentalism with more overlap with science-based thoughtful reasoning, but an islamic fundamentalism nonetheless. They call for the outside world to change its view of islam, not for islam to change its view of the world.

Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:51:40 UTC | #874974

Atheist Mike's Avatar Comment 82 by Atheist Mike

Comment 79 by Peter Grant :

Comment 77 by Richard Dawkins

We should welcome this move with good grace, and hope it will be the start of further and even better initiatives.

Why? As far as I can see it will only serve to help propagate religious delusion even further and I doubt it will convince any of the extremists to become more moderate, it will probably have just the opposite effect.

It does sound just like another "Islam is a religion of peace, don't you worry" albeit on a bigger scale. Meanwhile in indonesia a suicide bomber blows himself up in a church.

Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:55:14 UTC | #874975

Peter Grant's Avatar Comment 83 by Peter Grant

Comment 80 by mmurray

Can you explain how you think this will happen ?

Fundamentalists believe moderates are insidiously undermining their faith with secular values, which they are, hence all the death threats etc.

Moderation dilutes faith, but it also makes it easier to swallow.

Sun, 25 Sep 2011 14:00:59 UTC | #874977

rod-the-farmer's Avatar Comment 84 by rod-the-farmer

I agree that we should respond positively to this - 12,000 attendees is a serious number. But those who ask "Where were they 10 years ago" have a point. Yes, there were some back then who publicly expressed outrage, but their numbers were very small indeed, as I recall. I specifically remember TV scenes of mulims jumping up & down for joy. The mass reactions of horror and offers of support came primarily from secular democracies. Did we not read that one of the first things to happen after 9/11 was the flight of many Saudi nationals from the U.S ?

What I would have liked to see, in addition to the odd quote or two mentioned above, would be if this guy had said "Anyone who preaches or advocates violence by muslims against others, will be reported to the local police. If they hold a position of authority in a local mosque, we will work to have them dismissed and where appropriate, deported." Support for peace is one thing. Actions speak louder, to coin a phrase.

Sun, 25 Sep 2011 14:41:35 UTC | #874989

AtheistEgbert's Avatar Comment 85 by AtheistEgbert

Comment 77 by Richard Dawkins :

For years we've been calling attention to the deafening silence from moderate Muslims, their reluctance to condemn 9/11, suicide bombings and other atrocities. For years we have challenged moderate Muslims to disown the death penalty for apostasy, and officially sanctioned Islamic mistreatment of women. With a few honourabe exceptions like Yasmin Alibhai Brown, our appeals have met with lamentably little response. Now, finally, 12,000 Muslims have gathered in London to stand up for peace. We should welcome this move with good grace, and hope it will be the start of further and even better initiatives. Congratulations to the organisers of this conference.

Richard

Now I can imagine Andrew Brown's title for his next article "Dawkins supports Fatwa"

You're now beginning to sound like the accommodationists and even Tony Blair--that the problem with Islam is all to do with a minority of extremists, while the overall majority of Muslims are peaceful and can co-exist harmoniously with the western world. I thought we were not so naive as to fall for that myth.

Sun, 25 Sep 2011 14:47:59 UTC | #874991

Premiseless's Avatar Comment 86 by Premiseless

Comment 77 by Richard Dawkins :

Congratulations to the organisers of this conference.

Richard

It's certainly an engaging and positive way for these individuals to be spending their time. The order of the day certainly appears wholesome! If it were a classic car rally I imagine it would be just as peaceful? It's just that the manuals involved and the number of hours spent tinkering with the workings by each attendee, likely are far more subversive. I took a peek at their section on core engine components just to check what was under their 'hoods'.

Now if they were interested in a free thinking "Peace Rally" that had one of the stalls showing "The Magic of Reality" with Hay on Wye style debates about how Muhammad was more like an historical attempt at a modern Dawkins, expressing to the masses about how we should all best be inclined to be thinking about our modern world, I might begin to think better initiatives were on the table and a lasting rationality more viable. That's a kind of dream for peace I, in behalf of all their peoples, would modesty encourage as a probable, more powerful collective. If that kind of entropy can be absorbed by the thinking mind, the emotions to do harm would surely be less confronted and feel more laid to rest whereby inquiry becomes a far greater ambition to resolve all differences?

Sun, 25 Sep 2011 15:22:31 UTC | #875004

Richard Dawkins's Avatar Comment 87 by Richard Dawkins

You're now beginning to sound like the accommodationists and even Tony Blair--that the problem with Islam is all to do with a minority of extremists, while the overall majority of Muslims are peaceful and can co-exist harmoniously with the western world. I thought we were not so naive as to fall for that myth.

Quite the contrary. I think the problem is with the MAJORITY of Muslims, who either condone violence or fail to speak out against it. I am now praising the MINORITY who have finally decided to stand up for peace and nonviolence.

Richard

Sun, 25 Sep 2011 15:45:01 UTC | #875009

tembuki's Avatar Comment 88 by tembuki

Comment 87 by Richard Dawkins :

Quite the contrary. I think the problem is with the MAJORITY of Muslims, who either condone violence or fail to speak out against it. I am now praising the MINORITY who have finally decided to stand up for peace and nonviolence.

I agree with Richard here. This is good behavior on their (those that participated, at least) part and we should encourage it. If we just outright condemn it, then other Muslims may wonder what the point of doing this is.

Even if the majority of the people there had ulterior motives for their participation -- the few that honestly feel that way are worth encouraging. Those are the people that are more likely to accept being talked to and reasoned with.

Sun, 25 Sep 2011 16:08:13 UTC | #875020

kaiserkriss's Avatar Comment 89 by kaiserkriss

There is no appeasing some people here no matter what one does. The lack of introspect of their own positions- past and present is quite hypocritical. They are just as bad- claiming the high moral ground and taking the easy way out and condemn any attempts by a minority to change the status quo. These are the same people who could obviously run before they could crawl and walk, benefiting from access to education unavailable to many others. Without having walked in the shoes of these people, these condescending remarks against people who are trying to make a positive change can be perceived as flippant and not well thought out. Living with a bronze age mentality and being exposed to modern world after a lifetime of indoctrination and the opting for a change takes a lot of courage. As a few here such as the two Steves, Richard and Paula have indicated these more rational people should be encouraged and supported.. jcw

Sun, 25 Sep 2011 16:13:40 UTC | #875023

AtheistEgbert's Avatar Comment 90 by AtheistEgbert

Comment 87 by Richard Dawkins :

Quite the contrary. I think the problem is with the MAJORITY of Muslims, who either condone violence or fail to speak out against it. I am now praising the MINORITY who have finally decided to stand up for peace and nonviolence.

Richard

But that is not what the cleric says--"In spite of statements and memorandum and condemnation of the terror, the voices of the 99% true, peace-loving Muslims have not been heard, they have been drowned out by the clamour and the noise of extremists."

Sun, 25 Sep 2011 16:16:40 UTC | #875025