"Leaving Islam" Campaign - What's missing from this picture?
American Atheists have provided an epic article about the "Leaving Islam" campaign and why atheists shouldn't be too happy about it. The article is posted on the Richard Dawkins website. Unfortunately it's way too long and the comments on the Richard Dawkins website suggest that most people reading it haven't understood how dodgy the FDI really are. Lucky for you, I've done a bit of research. (On top of taking a quick look at Pamela Geller's blog and recoiling in horror from the crazy.)
"LEAVING ISLAM" CAMPAIGN CONCEALING
CHRISTIAN SUPREMACIST AGENDA?
At first glance, it appears to be a publicity campaign that Atheists, Freethinkers, Humanists and other like-minded people can support --ads on buses asking "Thinking of Leaving Islam?" and promises of help for those fleeing one of the world's most oppressive religions.
The ads have appeared on over two-dozen New York City buses; but a similar effort in Detroit, Michigan failed when the transit company refused to display a message which, it says, promotes ethnic hatred..
The same company, SMART, earlier accepted ads from the Detroit Area Coalition of Reason which carried a slightly different message --"Don't Believe in God? You Are Not Alone."
Well the first thing that's missing is any kind of discription of what is actually on the "Leaving Islam" poster. So here it is for you:
In case you cannot see the image above, the poster features two statements at the top as follows:
"Fatwa on your head?"
"Is your family or community threatening you?"
Both are clearly daft questions since the first port of call in either of those scenarios would be to contact the police.
In the centre of the advert in large letters are the words "Leaving Islam" and at the bottom is a website address RefugeFromIslam.com. If you choose to check that website out, it will automatically direct you to the following address http://freedomdefense.typepad.com/leave-islam/ (which is no mistake, since it still says "Refuge From Islam" at the top). More on that website in a moment...
Interestingly the poster also includes the words "Got Questions? Get Answers" down the side of the advert, which exactly mirrors another bus advert aimed at introducing people to the faith:
So what does the article say next?
Now, SMART is being sued by the Freedom Defense Infinitive, which according to its web site has as its goal "to go on the offensive when legal, academic, legislative, cultural, sociological and political actions are taken to dismantle our basic freedoms and values." This same group which thus far has unsuccessfully sponsored the Detroit bus advertisements also led the recent effort to stop construction of an Islamic mosque just three blocks from Ground Zero (former site of the World Trade Center) in New York City.
All of this raises questions about state-church --make that state-mosque -- separation in America; and how best to combat what conservatives often describe as "Islamo-fascism" or a creeping Islamization of America which, some say, is well underway under the guise of religious freedom. Are separation, Enlightenment and good pubic policy the goals of "Leaving Islam?" and the FDI? The answer is not clear.
Actually the answer is very clear indeed. It's a big fat NO!
Freedom Defence Infinitive appears to be a bit of an embarassing typo, but it seems likely that they meant to write Freedom Defence Initiative. Either way, Freedom Defence is in the address of the website I mentioned above because they are the ones pushing this advert, not simply a separate group who've decided to make a stand.
FDI Provide "Help" For Ex-Muslims
The Refuge From Islam site suggests that Muslims looking for more information go to the following websites:
Apostates of Islam - A website which does pretty much nothing other than pick out nasty verses in the Koran and insist that Islam and terrorism are inseparable. The section of actual testimonials of Muslims starts with a list of prominent ex-Muslims, but links to their websites rather than quoting them (presumably because ex-Muslims like Bangladeshi feminist Taslima Nasrin don't actually support the website). There's a video section with a vid labelled: "Stoning to death in Islam (must see!)"
Faith Freedom.org - With articles like "Are the Turks Preparing for War Against Israel?", "The ‘Lolita of Islam’ -Mohammad’s little darling" and "If Our National Security Operation Doesn’t Shock Us Awake, Will Anything?". That last article's claim is that the US have decided not to bother with anti-terrorism operations anymore. Their basis for this is a government document recognising that "war on terror" doesn't mean anything because the word "terror" doesn't pinpoint any particular opponent. So yeah, a nice ludicrously biased website.
Answering Muslims - A blog run by Christian apologists. From their FAQ: "In sum, we love Muslims, and we hate all things that detract from the glory of the One, True God. So we shower our love on Muslims while fighting tooth and nail against all the lies and falsehood that keep them away from loving God."
Muslims Against Sharia - This one actually accepts some difference between moderate and extremist Muslims yet has this apologia for the crusades at the end of the homepage: "While the Inquisition was a repulsive practice by Christian Fundamentalists, the Crusades were not unprovoked acts of aggression, but rather attempts to recapture formerly Christian lands controlled by Muslims." (Um, you mean the "holy land" where Christians and Muslims were actually peacefully living together prior to the invasion by malnourished troops who'd been promised instant rewards in heaven in exchange for murdering Muslims?)
FDI's Big Meeting: The Guest List
The group's recent event welcomes a number of figures.
First of all Steve Coughlin, who right wingers seem convinced was shunted out of his job by an "Islamic infiltrator" in the Pentagon. Coughlin was accused of being a Christian bigot who insisted that any group which takes its cues from the Koran must instantly be linked to terrorism. We can see a clear case of this when he accuses a chief of staff for two senators, Jim Guirard, of being an extremist because of his work on the Truespeak Institute. Coughlin accuses Guirard in the conclusion to his report as follows:
"Exceptionally important in the analysis is the role of the "Truespeak" organization and Jim Guirard who has been arguing in DoD circles and academic institutions that the term jihad should be suspended from the GWOT lexicon to be replaced by hirabah. This analysis demonstrates that "Truespeak" contributors are part of the Muslim Brotherhood threat network, with the implication that this entire communication and lexicon effort is part of a strategic disinformation and denial and deception campaign."
Please note that "hirabah" was an Islamic term for an unjust war, as opposed to the term "jihad" which applies to holy war (or in some cases used for struggles against injustice). The intention behind such a suggestion is obvious (though the original article is here in case you're not convinced). Accepting the use of the term Jihad is practically to admit that Al Quaeda are involved in a legitimate holy war, whereas using an opposing yet still Islamic term makes very clear to all that those waging their war on terror do not accept that their opponents are legitimised by their religion. Naturally Guirard was puzzled to find such a stance being used as evidence that he was in league with Islamic extremists.
Guirard's response was this:
The truth of the matter is that while I am trying to undermine bin Ladenism's self-canonizing language of "Jihad by mujahideen and martyrs destined for Paradise as a glorious reward for killing all of us infidels and for destroying The Great Satan," it is Mr. Coughlin and others of his persuasion in the Government, the media, the universities and elsewhere who are busy parroting and promoting this perverse AQ and Muslim Brotherhood narrative as the true face of Islam -- rather than as a satanic deviancy and an apostasy toward that religion.
Contrary to current DoD, State and White House Doctrine, they seem to be arguing that the Real Enemy are not the Terrorists but Islam itself -- which is exactly the "war of religions" and the "America's War Against Islam" message that bin Laden is trying to sell in the Muslim World, as well. In the all-important “War of Ideas” and “War for Hearts, Minds and Souls,” that does not sound to me like a very bright idea at all.
Goodness me, why would the pentagon decide to fire someone like Coughlin, eh? Must be an Islamic infiltrator. Only explanation. :p
Other names include:
Anders Gravers Pedersen from the Danish group "Stop Islamisation Of Europe". The wikipedia summary of their ideology is telling. It says that the organisation calls for the total boycott of Muslim countries and even countries with Muslim minorities such as Cameroon. They call for their followers to avoid Fisher Price, Asda, KFC since those companies apparently pander to Muslims. Finally the BNP have apparently explicitly denied all links with the group.
Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff who was apparently charged with hate crimes in Austria, but there seems to be no mention of her outside of right wing websites. She suggests that pluralistic society (i.e. society with Muslims in it) doesn't work:
The vision of a pluralistic society does not withstand a reality check. Show me one example where this has been a success. Wherever Muslims have been given the opportunity for self-organization they have established parallel societies.
She then gives Britain as an example of where pluralist society has done this (based on the whole sharia civil courts thing *yawn*).
Robert Spencer, the creator of the JihadWatch website. 'Nuff said.
Wafa Sultan - She actually started out as a very interesting and insightful critic of political Islam, but this article explains how she has since become more polarised in her stance. In more recent interviews she has insisted that there is no difference between moderate or radical Islam and that the religion as a whole is the real enemy.
Simon Deng - Actually quite an interesting figure and I wonder if he knows what he's let himself in for. He was a victim of slavery in Sudan where owners would try to encourage slaves to become Muslim as part and parcel of generally becoming more like their Arab owners.
Allen West - Supporter of the recent Tea Party movement and general Biblical literalist nutcase.
And finally there's complete nutcase Pamela Geller who I last wrote about when she was insisting that Rifqa Bary's uterine cancer was her Islamic parents' fault.
Thomas More Center
An investigation by AANEWS has revealed that the Freedom Defense Initiative is linked to key conservative and even religious-right groups which promote a stern, Christian fundamentalist social agenda [No shit Sherlock!]. Some are traditionalist Roman Catholics; FDI is suing the SMART bus company with the help of the Thomas More Legal Center, a Catholic advocacy group founded by former pizza baron Tom Monaghan, and Richard Thompson, a former prosecutor known for his involvement in the trial of Dr. Jack Kevorkian. The Center has as its motto "The word and shield for people of faith," and has established a national reputation for litigating on behalf of "religious freedom." Among the favorite causes are abortion and birth control, promoting "intelligent design" in public school classrooms, opposing gay rights and defending the display of the Ten Commandments and religious rituals in the public square.
Regarding the issue of Islam, Thomas More Center sued a California school district on behalf of a student who claimed his rights were violated when his seventh-grade class used a workbook titled "A Simulation of Islamic History and Culture."
So the Thomas More Center is a bit dodgy too then? Well on the face of it, it wasn't an entirely frivolous lawsuit (in that I've seen worse), but it doesn't take much research to recognise that the California state education standards require public schools to teach seventh graders about the role of Islam in civilizations of the Middle Ages and that the teachers using the workbook were not Muslims themselves. The main issue seemed to be the use of role play in the lessons, but since the activities didn't include Islamic prayer, that shouldn't have been an issue either. Much more dodgy is the center's work in relation to anti-choice activism, anti-gay marriage and "intelligent design".
The Article Continues. Mentions Geert Wilders A Lot. Really Not Important.
The article later mentions a screening of Geert Wilders' "Islam Rising". I don't really feel like I need to spend any time explaining why Geert Wilders is dodgy (though perhaps it's worth mentioning his suggestion that Moroccan football hooligans should be kneecapped. A policy he seems disinclined to extend to white football hooligans).
The section of the article about Geert Wilders "Islam Rising" video and the vast array of right-wing groups making use of it is far too long and is likely to leave most people reading the article deeply confused.
The Ending
They end their article as follows:
Finally, there is the perplexing question of how Atheists and kindred nonbelievers should approach the entire issue of Jihadist ideology. Do we encourage "moderate" Muslims to speak out more against terrorism? Research shows that the overwhelming majority of Muslims in America and abroad reject the militant call to religious war broadcast by groups like al Qaeda. Muslim cultures vary, from the Middle East to South Asia. They have different legal and religious strictures concerning women, education, alcohol and practices generally taken for granted in the West. They are in constant flux as they approach and deal with the powerful forces of modernity and Western classical liberalism. Some say that gender equality and empowerment for women is the great ticking time bomb that will revolutionize, or at least substantially change, Islam. Is there an Islamic Reformation in the works?
Questions still remain, and so does the influence of religious ideology. Atheists and other nonbelievers especially must ask if bus ads, drawing Muhammad and cheering on the critics of Islam constitute a viable strategy for both the near and far future.
This is actually quite a promising finish to the article, but as you can see above, some of the most important issues with the FDI are oddly untouched in the article while unecessary details are added in related areas. Perhaps they'd have been better off splitting their article into several more manageable bits.
Setting A Good Example...
After that large selection of critics of Islam being misused by right wing pundits, I thought I'd point you to a rather more inspiring figure. Maryam Namazie:
Her reaction to Geert Wilders Fitna video was to release a 'remake' which notes that political Islam holds most sway in North Africa and the Middle East. It also notes that Geert Wilders' original video only served to stir up anger against Muslim immigrants, many of whom came to Europe specifically to escape from Islamic extremism.
People must be able to say what they want about religion in general and Islam in particular. Today, it's a right and responsibility especially when it comes to Islam because it is a religion in power and because of the suffering it is causing the world over -- particularly in the Middle East, Asia and North Africa.
Fitna, the Movie, however, doesn't really criticise Islam and more importantly the political Islamic movement. Rather, it attacks immigrants, labels millions as 'Muslims', and implies their support for a movement that millions have opposed, resisted and fled from.
I had to do a remake to show the real story from one of these millions.
Update: Hmmm, it seems that my mention of Anders Gravers Pedersen has got me noticed by someone going by the name Stephen Gash. Those wondering who this guy is might find this link rather helpful.
"LEAVING ISLAM" CAMPAIGN CONCEALING
CHRISTIAN SUPREMACIST AGENDA?
At first glance, it appears to be a publicity campaign that Atheists, Freethinkers, Humanists and other like-minded people can support --ads on buses asking "Thinking of Leaving Islam?" and promises of help for those fleeing one of the world's most oppressive religions.
The ads have appeared on over two-dozen New York City buses; but a similar effort in Detroit, Michigan failed when the transit company refused to display a message which, it says, promotes ethnic hatred..
The same company, SMART, earlier accepted ads from the Detroit Area Coalition of Reason which carried a slightly different message --"Don't Believe in God? You Are Not Alone."
Well the first thing that's missing is any kind of discription of what is actually on the "Leaving Islam" poster. So here it is for you:
In case you cannot see the image above, the poster features two statements at the top as follows:
"Fatwa on your head?"
"Is your family or community threatening you?"
Both are clearly daft questions since the first port of call in either of those scenarios would be to contact the police.
In the centre of the advert in large letters are the words "Leaving Islam" and at the bottom is a website address RefugeFromIslam.com. If you choose to check that website out, it will automatically direct you to the following address http://freedomdefense.typepad.com/leave-islam/ (which is no mistake, since it still says "Refuge From Islam" at the top). More on that website in a moment...
Interestingly the poster also includes the words "Got Questions? Get Answers" down the side of the advert, which exactly mirrors another bus advert aimed at introducing people to the faith:
So what does the article say next?
Now, SMART is being sued by the Freedom Defense Infinitive, which according to its web site has as its goal "to go on the offensive when legal, academic, legislative, cultural, sociological and political actions are taken to dismantle our basic freedoms and values." This same group which thus far has unsuccessfully sponsored the Detroit bus advertisements also led the recent effort to stop construction of an Islamic mosque just three blocks from Ground Zero (former site of the World Trade Center) in New York City.
All of this raises questions about state-church --make that state-mosque -- separation in America; and how best to combat what conservatives often describe as "Islamo-fascism" or a creeping Islamization of America which, some say, is well underway under the guise of religious freedom. Are separation, Enlightenment and good pubic policy the goals of "Leaving Islam?" and the FDI? The answer is not clear.
Actually the answer is very clear indeed. It's a big fat NO!
Freedom Defence Infinitive appears to be a bit of an embarassing typo, but it seems likely that they meant to write Freedom Defence Initiative. Either way, Freedom Defence is in the address of the website I mentioned above because they are the ones pushing this advert, not simply a separate group who've decided to make a stand.
FDI Provide "Help" For Ex-Muslims
The Refuge From Islam site suggests that Muslims looking for more information go to the following websites:
Apostates of Islam - A website which does pretty much nothing other than pick out nasty verses in the Koran and insist that Islam and terrorism are inseparable. The section of actual testimonials of Muslims starts with a list of prominent ex-Muslims, but links to their websites rather than quoting them (presumably because ex-Muslims like Bangladeshi feminist Taslima Nasrin don't actually support the website). There's a video section with a vid labelled: "Stoning to death in Islam (must see!)"
Faith Freedom.org - With articles like "Are the Turks Preparing for War Against Israel?", "The ‘Lolita of Islam’ -Mohammad’s little darling" and "If Our National Security Operation Doesn’t Shock Us Awake, Will Anything?". That last article's claim is that the US have decided not to bother with anti-terrorism operations anymore. Their basis for this is a government document recognising that "war on terror" doesn't mean anything because the word "terror" doesn't pinpoint any particular opponent. So yeah, a nice ludicrously biased website.
Answering Muslims - A blog run by Christian apologists. From their FAQ: "In sum, we love Muslims, and we hate all things that detract from the glory of the One, True God. So we shower our love on Muslims while fighting tooth and nail against all the lies and falsehood that keep them away from loving God."
Muslims Against Sharia - This one actually accepts some difference between moderate and extremist Muslims yet has this apologia for the crusades at the end of the homepage: "While the Inquisition was a repulsive practice by Christian Fundamentalists, the Crusades were not unprovoked acts of aggression, but rather attempts to recapture formerly Christian lands controlled by Muslims." (Um, you mean the "holy land" where Christians and Muslims were actually peacefully living together prior to the invasion by malnourished troops who'd been promised instant rewards in heaven in exchange for murdering Muslims?)
FDI's Big Meeting: The Guest List
The group's recent event welcomes a number of figures.
First of all Steve Coughlin, who right wingers seem convinced was shunted out of his job by an "Islamic infiltrator" in the Pentagon. Coughlin was accused of being a Christian bigot who insisted that any group which takes its cues from the Koran must instantly be linked to terrorism. We can see a clear case of this when he accuses a chief of staff for two senators, Jim Guirard, of being an extremist because of his work on the Truespeak Institute. Coughlin accuses Guirard in the conclusion to his report as follows:
"Exceptionally important in the analysis is the role of the "Truespeak" organization and Jim Guirard who has been arguing in DoD circles and academic institutions that the term jihad should be suspended from the GWOT lexicon to be replaced by hirabah. This analysis demonstrates that "Truespeak" contributors are part of the Muslim Brotherhood threat network, with the implication that this entire communication and lexicon effort is part of a strategic disinformation and denial and deception campaign."
Please note that "hirabah" was an Islamic term for an unjust war, as opposed to the term "jihad" which applies to holy war (or in some cases used for struggles against injustice). The intention behind such a suggestion is obvious (though the original article is here in case you're not convinced). Accepting the use of the term Jihad is practically to admit that Al Quaeda are involved in a legitimate holy war, whereas using an opposing yet still Islamic term makes very clear to all that those waging their war on terror do not accept that their opponents are legitimised by their religion. Naturally Guirard was puzzled to find such a stance being used as evidence that he was in league with Islamic extremists.
Guirard's response was this:
The truth of the matter is that while I am trying to undermine bin Ladenism's self-canonizing language of "Jihad by mujahideen and martyrs destined for Paradise as a glorious reward for killing all of us infidels and for destroying The Great Satan," it is Mr. Coughlin and others of his persuasion in the Government, the media, the universities and elsewhere who are busy parroting and promoting this perverse AQ and Muslim Brotherhood narrative as the true face of Islam -- rather than as a satanic deviancy and an apostasy toward that religion.
Contrary to current DoD, State and White House Doctrine, they seem to be arguing that the Real Enemy are not the Terrorists but Islam itself -- which is exactly the "war of religions" and the "America's War Against Islam" message that bin Laden is trying to sell in the Muslim World, as well. In the all-important “War of Ideas” and “War for Hearts, Minds and Souls,” that does not sound to me like a very bright idea at all.
Goodness me, why would the pentagon decide to fire someone like Coughlin, eh? Must be an Islamic infiltrator. Only explanation. :p
Other names include:
Anders Gravers Pedersen from the Danish group "Stop Islamisation Of Europe". The wikipedia summary of their ideology is telling. It says that the organisation calls for the total boycott of Muslim countries and even countries with Muslim minorities such as Cameroon. They call for their followers to avoid Fisher Price, Asda, KFC since those companies apparently pander to Muslims. Finally the BNP have apparently explicitly denied all links with the group.
Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff who was apparently charged with hate crimes in Austria, but there seems to be no mention of her outside of right wing websites. She suggests that pluralistic society (i.e. society with Muslims in it) doesn't work:
The vision of a pluralistic society does not withstand a reality check. Show me one example where this has been a success. Wherever Muslims have been given the opportunity for self-organization they have established parallel societies.
She then gives Britain as an example of where pluralist society has done this (based on the whole sharia civil courts thing *yawn*).
Robert Spencer, the creator of the JihadWatch website. 'Nuff said.
Wafa Sultan - She actually started out as a very interesting and insightful critic of political Islam, but this article explains how she has since become more polarised in her stance. In more recent interviews she has insisted that there is no difference between moderate or radical Islam and that the religion as a whole is the real enemy.
Simon Deng - Actually quite an interesting figure and I wonder if he knows what he's let himself in for. He was a victim of slavery in Sudan where owners would try to encourage slaves to become Muslim as part and parcel of generally becoming more like their Arab owners.
Allen West - Supporter of the recent Tea Party movement and general Biblical literalist nutcase.
And finally there's complete nutcase Pamela Geller who I last wrote about when she was insisting that Rifqa Bary's uterine cancer was her Islamic parents' fault.
Thomas More Center
An investigation by AANEWS has revealed that the Freedom Defense Initiative is linked to key conservative and even religious-right groups which promote a stern, Christian fundamentalist social agenda [No shit Sherlock!]. Some are traditionalist Roman Catholics; FDI is suing the SMART bus company with the help of the Thomas More Legal Center, a Catholic advocacy group founded by former pizza baron Tom Monaghan, and Richard Thompson, a former prosecutor known for his involvement in the trial of Dr. Jack Kevorkian. The Center has as its motto "The word and shield for people of faith," and has established a national reputation for litigating on behalf of "religious freedom." Among the favorite causes are abortion and birth control, promoting "intelligent design" in public school classrooms, opposing gay rights and defending the display of the Ten Commandments and religious rituals in the public square.
Regarding the issue of Islam, Thomas More Center sued a California school district on behalf of a student who claimed his rights were violated when his seventh-grade class used a workbook titled "A Simulation of Islamic History and Culture."
So the Thomas More Center is a bit dodgy too then? Well on the face of it, it wasn't an entirely frivolous lawsuit (in that I've seen worse), but it doesn't take much research to recognise that the California state education standards require public schools to teach seventh graders about the role of Islam in civilizations of the Middle Ages and that the teachers using the workbook were not Muslims themselves. The main issue seemed to be the use of role play in the lessons, but since the activities didn't include Islamic prayer, that shouldn't have been an issue either. Much more dodgy is the center's work in relation to anti-choice activism, anti-gay marriage and "intelligent design".
The Article Continues. Mentions Geert Wilders A Lot. Really Not Important.
The article later mentions a screening of Geert Wilders' "Islam Rising". I don't really feel like I need to spend any time explaining why Geert Wilders is dodgy (though perhaps it's worth mentioning his suggestion that Moroccan football hooligans should be kneecapped. A policy he seems disinclined to extend to white football hooligans).
The section of the article about Geert Wilders "Islam Rising" video and the vast array of right-wing groups making use of it is far too long and is likely to leave most people reading the article deeply confused.
The Ending
They end their article as follows:
Finally, there is the perplexing question of how Atheists and kindred nonbelievers should approach the entire issue of Jihadist ideology. Do we encourage "moderate" Muslims to speak out more against terrorism? Research shows that the overwhelming majority of Muslims in America and abroad reject the militant call to religious war broadcast by groups like al Qaeda. Muslim cultures vary, from the Middle East to South Asia. They have different legal and religious strictures concerning women, education, alcohol and practices generally taken for granted in the West. They are in constant flux as they approach and deal with the powerful forces of modernity and Western classical liberalism. Some say that gender equality and empowerment for women is the great ticking time bomb that will revolutionize, or at least substantially change, Islam. Is there an Islamic Reformation in the works?
Questions still remain, and so does the influence of religious ideology. Atheists and other nonbelievers especially must ask if bus ads, drawing Muhammad and cheering on the critics of Islam constitute a viable strategy for both the near and far future.
This is actually quite a promising finish to the article, but as you can see above, some of the most important issues with the FDI are oddly untouched in the article while unecessary details are added in related areas. Perhaps they'd have been better off splitting their article into several more manageable bits.
Setting A Good Example...
After that large selection of critics of Islam being misused by right wing pundits, I thought I'd point you to a rather more inspiring figure. Maryam Namazie:
Her reaction to Geert Wilders Fitna video was to release a 'remake' which notes that political Islam holds most sway in North Africa and the Middle East. It also notes that Geert Wilders' original video only served to stir up anger against Muslim immigrants, many of whom came to Europe specifically to escape from Islamic extremism.
People must be able to say what they want about religion in general and Islam in particular. Today, it's a right and responsibility especially when it comes to Islam because it is a religion in power and because of the suffering it is causing the world over -- particularly in the Middle East, Asia and North Africa.
Fitna, the Movie, however, doesn't really criticise Islam and more importantly the political Islamic movement. Rather, it attacks immigrants, labels millions as 'Muslims', and implies their support for a movement that millions have opposed, resisted and fled from.
I had to do a remake to show the real story from one of these millions.
Click to viewUpdate: Hmmm, it seems that my mention of Anders Gravers Pedersen has got me noticed by someone going by the name Stephen Gash. Those wondering who this guy is might find this link rather helpful.