William Youmans of CAIR (San Francisco Bay Area chapter) writes in San Francisco's SFGate:
British officials deserve praise for their responsible remarks following the attacks in London last week. By embracing the views of Islam's moderate majority, they steered clear of the trap American commentators often fall into -- holding Islam and Muslims accountable for the acts of an extreme fringe. It is not only factually accurate to dissociate Islam from these horrendous crimes, but also an important strategic step in the war on terrorism.Asked whether the bus and subway bomb blasts were acts of Islamic terrorism, London Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair responded that the culprits were certainly not "Islamic terrorists." He stated that Islam and terrorism are incompatible. The commissioner echoed the sentiments of Prime Minister Tony Blair, who said, "The vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims both here and abroad are decent and law-abiding people who abhor this kind of terrorism every bit as much as we do."
During a private meeting with American Muslims, Sir David Manning, British ambassador to the United States, was emphatic in distancing the London terror bombings from Islam, which he described as a faith of "peace, reconciliation and tolerance." British officials recognize that promoting these views undermines the aims of extremist groups.
This important outlook is largely absent in political rhetoric on this side of the Atlantic Ocean, however. It is quite common to see terrorism committed by Muslims referred to as "Islamic terrorism." Similarly, pundits and military leaders often depict Islam as a religion with members more prone to violence than others. The California National Guard recently stirred a controversy over a flyer in its offices suggesting that dipping bullets in pig's blood and burying dead terrorists with pig entrails could be tactics in the war on terrorism. This rests on the notion that U.S. Armed Forces should demean Islam's sacred values...
Heaven forbid we offend anyone we are at war with.
As author Karen Armstrong recently noted in Britain's Guardian newspaper, when "incorrect statements about Islam" have such currency, it sends a negative message to its 1.3 billion practitioners worldwide. Armstrong pointed out that acts of terrorism by the Irish Republican Army were not referred to as "Catholic terrorism." This month marks the 10th anniversary of the massacre of 8,000 Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica, an act of barbarism that was never attributed to any religion, despite the overlap between partisan lines and religious divisions in the former Yugoslavia. Americans should likewise avoid treating Muslims who attack civilians as representatives of the entire religion...
That would be much easier to do, Mr. Youmans, if the perpetrators were not such ordinary Muslim boys.
Send that man a Qur'an, a copy of Al-Bukhari's Hadith, and the Sira. Possibly he will be able to connect the dots. We have.
"The commissioner echoed the sentiments of Prime Minister Tony Blair, who said, "The vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims both here and abroad are decent and law-abiding people who abhor this kind of terrorism every bit as much as we do."
-- from the article above
But even Blair has moved a bit in the last few days; that was his initial and silly remark. He didn't stick with it. He has moved on to the "evil ideology" stage of asymptotically approaching the truth. Perhaps he will even start to utter the word "Jihad" and take up the suggestion, made here, that "all those, but only those" who "believe in the Jihad to spread Islam" are the menace while all the "vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims" of course reject Jihad. Of course.
And then Youmans feeds us the pap of Karen Armstrong. He's in a time-warp, this fellow. That might pass, round about October 2001. Not anymore.
To the people here, what part of this article upsets you, please explain.
“Sir Ian Blair responded that the culprits were certainly not "Islamic terrorists." He stated that Islam and terrorism are incompatible. The commissioner echoed the sentiments of Prime Minister Tony Blair, who said, "The vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims both here and abroad are decent and law-abiding people who abhor this kind of terrorism every bit as much as we do."
I was happy when I heard these words from the chief. Why do you get so upset and angry??? What did you want him to say???
Islam and terrorism are compatible (Wrong, terrorism is not allowed in Islam, the people here are yet to prove the link, my challenge still stands. How can the London bombings be justified under Islam, they cannot.
"The vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims both here and abroad are evil and dangerous people who support this kind of terrorism"
Is that what you wanted Tony Blair to say. I honestly cannot understand the people here. I have been here for a while, I have seen the comments, I have connected the dots and I see a very different agenda.
Calls to deport Muslims, destroy Mosques, make Islam harder to follow, make life as hard as possible for Muslims, Nuke Makkah and Medina, supporting the desecration of the Quran, making it harder for Muslims to get jobs, calls to arm the people of Europe (Excluding European Muslims) I have connected the dots and see the true agenda of SOME of the people here.
King Tolerance was right, the fantasises and hopes of the people here are very dangerous, they can be compared to how the Nazis attacked the Jewish people.
ia786
"How can the London bombings be justified under Islam..."
Easy. Simply define England by its foreign policies as a threat to Islam, and then define all English citizens as indistinguishable from enemy soldiers.
"The vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims both here and abroad are evil and dangerous people who support this kind of terrorism" -- Is that what you wanted Tony Blair to say."
No: we want Blair to say this:
"Islam is obviously afflicted with a serious problem that manifests itself in helping to nourish bouts of terrorist acts across the globe. While we know that most Muslims are peaceful and law-abiding, unfortunately we find we cannot tell the difference between the peaceful Muslims and the deadly Muslims -- until after the explosions have happened. In this situation, we must, for our own self-defense, enact policies which will inconvenience and, yes, even insult, the entire community of English Muslims. That's the sad but necessary fact, and until the good English Muslims actively help us in ostracizing, identifying, hunting down and rooting out the bad apples among them, we will continue this broad policy that will impact all our Muslims, good and bad."
"Easy. Simply define England by its foreign policies as a threat to Islam, and then define all English citizens as indistinguishable from enemy soldiers."
No, No, No.
Terrorist attacks against England can never be justified, never. Terrorism is not allowed in Islam. (My challenge still stands)
What you have stated cannot happen in Islam. Even during war innocent people cannot be killed, no non-combatant can be killed.
England a threat to Islam??? That is a poor apologetic statement for the terrorists, What about Saudi Arabia, they are seen as wrong doers by extremists, they are at the heart of the Arab World, why not bomb them. Why not overthrow them before bombing Britain and killing innocents including Muslims, people that have committed no crime against any Muslims.
ia786:
"What you have stated cannot happen in Islam. Even during war innocent people cannot be killed, no non-combatant can be killed."
"The term 'civilians' does not exist in Islamic religious law. Dr. Karmi is sitting here, and I am sitting here, and I'm familiar with religious law. There is no such term as 'civilians' in the modern Western sense. People are either of Dar Al-Harb or not."
-- Dr. Al-Siba'i, Muslim director of London's Al-Maqreze Centre for Historical Studies.
"England a threat to Islam??? That is a poor apologetic statement for the terrorists, What about Saudi Arabia, they are seen as wrong doers by extremists, they are at the heart of the Arab World, why not bomb them."
Saudi Arabia has been the target of several terrorist attacks, and several potential terrorist attacks have been aborted by Saudi police. The Muslim terrorists will strike at any target they deem as a threat to Islam. And "civilians" either don't exist as a category to be protected, or they can be easily redefined as in fact members of the enemy Dar-al-Harb.
As long as Muslims believe in their tradition that tells them it's okay or even obligatory to defend Islam (instead of leaving the defense of Islam up to the secular law enforcement authorities), we will continue to have this problem of Muslims taking up arms to defend that trans-national entity called Islam.
ia786, please take your head out of your arse.
If innocent people can't be killed in Islam, then why are so many innocent people being killed by muslims?
Exactly what I would expect a CAIR mouthpiece to say!
Voltaire & ia786,
"innocent" is a matter of attribution dependant upon criteria. Thus, a Muslim Jihadist can simultaneously say
1) "Islam does not condone the killing of innocents in the pursuit of Jihad"
and
2) "Those who died in the London bombings and those who died in the 911 attack were not innocents because by virtue of being citizens of their countries they contributed to the mass slaughters of Muslim peoples and the evil Western imperialism that is threatening the Islamic way of life around the world".
According to #2, Islam is still immune from the charge that it condones the killing of innocents, since those who die are re-defined as not being "innocent".
The minor disagreements we see among moderate Muslims all revolve around the issue of which groups of people can be in fact classified as "innocents". However, there seems to be no disagreement among moderate Muslims pertaining to the underlying concept that "non-innocents" -- once so categorized -- are appropriate targets of violence in the name of defending Islam.
Thus, it all hinges on who is deemed "innocent" and who is not. And we cannot leave it up to the quibbling subtleties of theological debate among Muslims to determine which of us will be deemed "innocent" and which of us will be deemed fit to be slaughtered.
Badda Bing, metaxy.
The London passengers were deemed not innocent by someone.
And they died because of the actions of at least four Muslims.
No matter how you slice it, IA, they saw this issue differently than you do. Got it? They read the same book that you do, and interpreted it differently than you do. Whether people like that are right in their interpretation of Islamic tenets, or wrong, I don't care to be the next person to die to allow someone to achieve their religious fantasy.
P.S.,
I'm making slow progress on that brochure idea.
The bombers were Muslims. Muslim murderers. Muslims who pretended to be a part of normal society. Liars, sneaks, and lowlife scum. They were Muslims.
Islam is the cause of this terrorism, its right in their book of hate, the koran. The CAIR puppet has to say this. Its an attempt at damage control. People all over the world know that Islam is a poison pill. It is a false religion, in fact a cult.
So, no matter what Sir Ian Blair said, the 7/7 killers in London were Muslims, like Madrid, like the US, like Sudan, like everywhere else there's conflict. Muslims...Muslims....Muslims.
Islam = turmoil.
PRCS,
Do you know which thread I had previously set out my idea of a booklet in detail? I can't seem to find it anymore. Thanks.
Yes.
July 11. Under 'Bruno: Advice to President Bush'.
Can't remember if it's JW or DW.
Here's a Spanish language poster for that movie.
http://www.moviegoods.com/movie_product.asp?affiliateID=415&adID=200&master_movie_id=6049&sku=227631
Where DO you find that stuff?
Here's your post.
In addition to Hugh's suggestions, I would suggest that someone write a VERY SHORT booklet that has the bare bones of criticism of Islam.
It could be titled "Is There a Problem of Islam?"
This very short booklet should have the following information:
1) A one-page introduction that invites the reader to think outside the box and wrap his/her mind around the possibility that the problem of terrorism is rooted in a problem of Islam itself.
2) a one-page summary of the history and literary structure of the Koran.
3) a one-page summary of the importance of the Koran to Muslims -- psychologically, theologically, culturally, politically.
4) a one-page summary of modern history that illustrates how the modern West has dismantled its former theocracy based upon holy texts, while modern Islam has not dismantled its theocratic apparatus on many levels.
5) a one-page explanation of the Islamic Umma and how it functions as a trans-national super-brotherhood.
6) a one-page explanation of jihad (distinguishing between "inner" jihad and physically violent jihad, and how the former psychologically supports the latter).
7) a one-page discussion of the issue of "moderate" Muslims vs. "extremist" Muslims, and how
a) the former seem to be the ones insufficiently demonstrating their roots in traditional Islam while the latter consistently root their declarations and actions on texts and practice of traditional Islam
b) the former seem to be insufficiently and ineffectually condemning, ostracizing and neutralizing the latter.
8) a list of suras in the Koran that illustrate:
a) the theological imperative for physically violent jihad
b) the psychological connection between "inner jihad" and physically violent jihad
c) various assaults on modern Western human rights -- including treatment of women, misogynistic sentiments, treatment of non-Muslims, treatment of other religions, anti-Semitism, etc.
9) a one-page summary of the history and literary structure of the Hadiths and Sunna.
10) a list of passages from the Hadiths and Sunna that illustrate the same things as noted above in 8a, b and c.
11) a one-page summary of the Sharia, including its character as totalitarian puritanism, and its nature as the expression of a return to authentic Islamic fundamentals.
12) a two-page summary of Islamic history, including
a) the Sunni-Shia split,
b) the historical & cultural constant of imperialistic conquest, and
c) the crucial motivating factor of eschatology in everything Muslims do.
13) a listing of all Islamic terrorist acts perpetrated since 1950 (beginning with the bombings in France by Algerian Muslims in the 50s) up to the present day -- just including the bare minimum data: date, how many killed & injured, location, damage to property, group responsible, group's claim for motivation.
This booklet need be no longer than 20-30 pages long, including references and internet links at the end.
As i stated in another thread so i will keep this brief..
The muslims are doing exactly what the Koran states..
as a matter of fact look in the Koran and you will find multiple references to give the unbeliever a chance to convert..
If they do not tell them to submitt or DIE...
It is in there Americans read a little please understand the nature of the enemy before its too late..
PRCS - 10) a list of passages from the Hadiths and Sunna that illustrate the same things as noted above in 8a, b and c....
I am building a website. It will have an index of verses and sayings by keyword cross index of select passages (for some keywords like slay, infidel) for select keywords, there are just too many.
A lot of people say 'read the Quran!' Why bother reading that near incoherent, out of order, and redundant clap. Bring notes! The vast majority of people would prefer to read a synopsis of five to ten pages with hotlinks, a group of verses applicable to the concerns, and a keyword index to verses.
Pamphlets are OK, but I think pamphlets should be shorter and contain references to sites for additional details, with a global common site with an easy to remember URL name. That page would have subpages or links for all the subjects expanded and other links.
Make things easy for people who want to participate. Easy suggestions that only require $20 and 5 minutes of their time. Let's say I wanted to donate $100 for the 'free us from ignorance of islam' cause. Rather than all the overhead, think what that person can do with a $100 dedicated to fighting ignorance of Islam. You could buy 5 copies of Robert's new book, type up an intriguing cover gift letter and send it to your congressman, local TV investigative reporter, Lesley Stahl, it's endless. For your $100, you have put 5 copies of a book that may clear someone's mind very close to them. It should at least get to their 'handler' if they have 'big pants.' Now just think if you could actually have your congressman or your local TV reporter spend an evening reading that book. Even if you got just one important person to read a non-dhimmi author (ie. no Karen Armstron) out of the five, for your $100 you got hours of discussion with that one person in a relaxed setting in that individual's home. And that person may make a difference! Don't you think the taqiyya masters aren't doing that already. They are swarming in Washington and all the big cities, but as mentioned here many times, their taqiyya magic, it just doesn't have zing like it used to. Wonder why.
I have lots of ideas, and when I think of them I put them in my work document as I am just in the concept and 'what do I want to target in Islam' phase. Dhimmis will be an emphasis since I think everyone knows how I feel about dhimmis that oonspire willfully or stupidly with Islam.
Back to pamphlets. A site can have a PDF that any visitor can download and print that is an expansion of the pamphlet. The problem with pamphlets is that if you want to change the pamphlet, you have hundreds of out of date pamphlets out there. With a website, anytime a person wants to give someone that 'pamphlet', they don't get a copy of the old one, they get the most current online.
Pamphlets are fine, but the war of words will be played out on the net and in the MSM (god help us with the MSM.)
Thanks PRCS. I've thought of another title: "Islam for Dhimmis" (like Islam for Dummies)
reset --
1) I don't think the key Koran and Hadith verses would be too much to print in a 30-page booklet. The key Koran passages could fit on two or three pages, same for the key Hadith passages.
2) A Booklet is not a Pamphlet.
3) A Pamphlet is too short and negligible; a Book is too big and long. A BOOKLET of 30 pages is the right size for quick digestion of relevant substance.
4) If you just cite links to people, half of the readers will be too lazy to follow up. Besides, most links have too much extraneous clutter. You've got to have the key passages in chapter & verse right there -- organized by topic: Violent Jihad / Mistreatment of Women / Validation of Slavery / Intolerance toward Other Religions / etc.
5) Just because the Internet is a great place doesn't mean that Booklets can't be useful too.
"The London passengers were deemed not innocent by someone."
Of course. Did you know that Muslims were killed in the attacks, Edgware Road is an area with many Muslims.
"And they died because of the actions of at least four Muslims."
Yes, no one is denying that. Fanatics kill lots of people including Muslims, this was also the case on 9/11, many Muslims were killed in the Twin Towers.
Even in Jihad, innocents cannot be targeted.
"No matter how you slice it, IA, they saw this issue differently than you do. Got it? They read the same book that you do, and interpreted it differently than you do. Whether people like that are right in their interpretation of Islamic tenets, or wrong, I don't care to be the next person to die to allow someone to achieve their religious fantasy."
They obviously saw this situation differently from me, and Millions of Muslims across the World.
The people here are obsessed with how the 4 bombers became 'religious' before they committed those murders. That is such a foolish thought, its almost funny. How many religious Muslims are there in the World, none??? So only true Muslims commit terrorist attacks?? You don't realise how foolish that sounds.
Ia786,
Do you think that the slaughter of the Jews of the Kaybhar Oasis was justified? How about the rape of captives, the sudjugation of the conquered and a whole host of other barbarities this pyschopath you call a prophet codified into his religious texts, the qur'an, sira and hadith?
Don't you think his vile example had anything to do with fouteen centuries of unrelenting violence meeted out by followers on the innocents?
Why in a whole country of religious leaders (ie. Iran) was no one able to argue against Khomeini and put him straight? How about Khamenei and the tens of thousands of Basji who are oppressing the Persain peoples, executing Ba'hais, Christians and other infidels?
Maybe it's time you recognised that the religious texts themselves do not support you, and if they do then how?
Why is it in 1400 years this argument has not been won?
Don't you think that Mohammed's example isn't anything to do with this?
How about the immediate Caliphs (Abu Bakr - Uthman) - they knew Mohammed personally, were did they go wrong?
Please tell me and the whole world, we are dying for some answers, especially since we are seeking another way, please show us this 'other' way, tell us your secrets that seventy generations of muslims have been unable to come up with.
And by the way, we are not going to accept a hudna.
JV
ia786,
"The people here are obsessed with how the 4 bombers became 'religious' before they committed those murders."
If it were only these 4 bombers, it would be rather foolish to obsess about their religiousity. But when it's thousands of different Muslims from widely different locales around the globe over a span of at least 30 years mass-murdering various people in the name of Islam, then it's not so foolish to diagnose the problem as we do here.
When, furthermore, we look at the way Muslims behave in various locales around the globe and see too many of them stoning females who have sex out of wedlock, murdering females who wear short skirts or lipstick or who have committed the "crime" of being raped, officially executing homosexuals, whipping people in public for "crimes" of sexual "impurity", officially executing witches and polytheists, hunting down and killing Muslims who have left the faith, making statements about Jews and Christians and refusing to shake hands with Infidels and refusing to condemn passages in their Koran that say intolerant hateful things about non-Muslims, obsessing religiously about the most anal rules concerning every aspect of life from personal hygiene to diet to medicine to entertainment to sexuality to architecture to town planning to laws to reading to music to art to society to politics to theology, expressing an irrational and regressive literalism with regard to a holy text -- is it any wonder that we think there might be something wrong with Islamic culture and that we conclude it's no coincidence that the thousands of suicide bombers, beheaders and stabbers over the years turn out to be deeply religious and themselves claim to be authentically Muslim?
ia786, your religious Body has cancer, and you persist in telling Dr. Spencer that there's nothing wrong with your Body.
The Islamic ideology is a scaled up tribal warrior code that mandates expansion of its domain of subjugation by violence. Jihad conquest, oppression of non-Muslims (dhimmitude), slavery, misogyny, suppression of visual and performing arts, repudiation of the central tenet of democracy (soveriegnty of the People), and fundamental disagreement with many key articles in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, are all codified elements of the Islamic canon (Koran, hadiths and Sira).
It is this canonical foundation that motivates the violence perpetrated against the non-Muslim world. The idea that becoming a more devout Muslim tends to increase the propensity for violence is a self-evident verity: more Islam, more death. To deny this connection is to deny the experience of more than a thousand years of history. With Islam comes suffering, death, poverty of body, mind and spirit. The proof is in the experience of our ancestors for more than 13 centuries and we now relive it in our own generation.
The Islamic ideology has proven itself to be a deadly disease in the body of Humankind. We may not be able to eradicate it, but like our ancestors before us, we certainly can contain it. Somewhere along the path we are on the primal instinct for survival will kick in. The Muslim ummah has put a knife to the throat of the non-Muslim world for 1350 years. The only times in history when the threat was mitigated was when the non-Muslims confronted the Muslims with power, death and destruction. It has never changed. Muslims are pushing all the right buttons in the non-Muslim world again. And again the slumbering giants of the non-Muslim world will slowly begin to reawaken to face an old familiar foe.
The outcome is inevitable. The jinn of jihad will once again be crammed back into the bottle from which it escaped in the 20th century. The threat of jihad will once again be neutralized. The human toll of this great global conflagration, however will be terrible indeed. Woe to us all that we must be eye witness such a spectre.
Metaxy wrote... Just because the Internet is a great place doesn't mean that Booklets can't be useful too....
I agree. They are fine. I am all for trying many different things. Assess what works best, what has the most bang for the buck, change tactics. It's all about working smarter than Islam.
I agree totally about the web information. You need a website that unifies the discussions you want to expand upon from the pamphlet. From that front page, there would be links to subpages of that website. They would be built and controlled by the group so that they are a 'fluid' connection from the pamphler.
Let's say you had a website with the name "www.isloamtruth.com'/ This webpage would have webpages it develops and control that conform with the overall website design. I.e., header and side column format) and the text for a select subject (say taquiyya) are consisstent and flow from the brief discussion on the pamphlet. On the pamphlet you could include another link in the taquiyya section "www.islamtruth.com/taquiyya". But taquiyya would also be an easily found link on the homepage 'www.islamtruth.com.' You can even design the pamphlet and website to have the same design. Just like Robert gives his website by his top banner and vertical left column a unifying look, a similar treatment between the pamphlet and the website can be easily achieved.
Lazy? Are the dhimmis lazy? You bet, well a lot of them are. That is why we need to look at making 'the word' simple to access, simple to print.
Of course there would be links for these subjects that go outside islamtruth site.
Let me clarify. The pamphlet and the website are a cohesive unit. The pamphlet drives people to the website. The website provides a mechanism to print the latest copy of the pamphet and well as providing an extended discussion for all the pamphlet subjects. It's a symbiotic relationship.
reset,
I agree with most of what you say, and the cohesion of booklet and website is a necessary concept.
However, I'd like to make a distinction clear which still seems to be kind of vague: While the booklet and website are symbiotic, they should be symbiotic only on one level, and they should be different and unrelated on a second level.
Level 1: Difference: The Booklet should contain everything a person needs to know about why we think Islam is a problem. No more information or quotes should be necessary, because to be on the right side of this War of Ideas, every person does not have to be a scholar with a gigantic encyclopedic knowledge in their brains. Also, I think your idea of interlocking links will put too many people off. The initial presentation has to be: a) simple, and b) whole. A person should not have to journey down a seemingly endless maze of information and one link leading to another. I know -- I've done this many times on this subject. Islamic data teems and festers with so much richness and complexity, a person could follow a thread for 1,001 Arabian Nights and never get to the conclusion of it.
Level 2: Symbiosis: Now, if the person after reading the Booklet disagrees that there is enough there to indict Islam; OR if the reader agrees with us but simply wants to know more about Islam out of some hideous fascination with the Monster -- THEN, the Booklet will provide 2 or 3 pages of links at the end, which they can follow up at their leisure.
BOTTOM LINE: The Internet is filled with thousands of websites about Islam. We don't need more interlocking into that jungle of links. We need drastic simplicity. But a drastic simplicity with enough substance to be nutritious.
reset and PCRS, I'm hardly an authority on disseminating info about Islam but this much I do know: Most Americans are OBLIVIOUS to the Islamic threat because they don't frequent websites like this and the MSNM does not provide truthful, accurate information about Islam.
American journalists are constantly accused of demonizing muslims and Islam. If this is the case, I wish I could find one journalist who has the guts or the knowledge to expose Islam! I tune in to all of the cable news outlets and even Fox insists that Islam has been "hijacked" by a handful of radicals. That hackneyed quote should be obsolete by now.
We had dinner with some friends last night, a couple about twenty years younger than we are. We were listening to the radio in the car when something was said about terrorism. I asked them if they were aware of the nuclear threat to America (as outlined in the article that came out early last week). They did not have a clue and they both use the internet every day. After I told them about the possibility that nuclear suitcase bombs had already been planted in major US cities, they were dumbfounded and very, very concerned. Neither one of them know the first thing about Islam and they were so eager to learn, I gave them a list of websites, including this one, and they couldn't wait to get home and check them out. There are millions of Americans just like this young couple, and they should be our targets.
If I hadn't known anything about Islam before 9-11, I would have made it a point to learn but what if I had chosen Islamic-run websites that obfuscate and tell outright lies about Islam? I would still be just as ignorant. Many people did that and are now satisfied that Islam is a religion of peace. Some people simply don't grasp the seriousness of the situation and never will. They are beyond reach. We have to inspire intelligent, responsible people to learn about Islam from books, websites; anywhere but from muslims. I have talked myself blue in the face many times, exhorting the horrible tenets of Islam. The truth about Islam is so unthinkable to average people that their minds simply cannot fathom anything so utterly vile and shocking, so they dismiss it as exaggeration or misinterpretation, and they shrug off the messenger as a psycho xenophobe. There's a fine line that you can't cross or you lose your audience.
I have experimented with various methods of encouraging the public to get educated about Islam, from leaflets to bumperstickers. I've been at it for almost a year and spent thousands of dollars, and I consider every penny well spent. But I have learned that you don't have to design fancy, verbose, lengthy and expensive publications. All you have to do is devise a way to pique curiosity and arouse interest, then let well-established, reputable web-sites like this one do the rest. I obtained most of my knowledge about Islam in college but I'm not a scholar of Islam, therefore I am not academically qualified to edify the masses on this subject. Exposing Islam's history and cultural anomalies is very useful and doesn't require extensive knowledge of Islam's canonical texts.
Business cards, bumperstickers, and brief leaflets with web addresses are the cheapest, most effective methods of encouraging people to explore the glories of Islam. Too much information, too fast, is a turn-off. Facts about Islam are best digested very slowly, one horrifying revelation at a time.
IA,
Was everybody in the Twin Towers innocent, or just the Muslims? You seem to think that 3000 Americans aren't worth as much as 50 Brits. According to you, Americans are warmongering rednecks. So are their lives worth anything? Probably not.