Comments on: Media has no bounds when it comes to Muslim Bashing

By: rwerwer

rwerwer — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 22:43:37 +0000

Enough of the media muslim bashing, time to pick up your clubs and do it in person!

By: Religion News, Blogs and More » - “Islamic Religion”

Religion News, Blogs and More » - “Islamic Religion” — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 12:38:48 +0000

[...] Media has no bounds when it comes to Muslim Bashing MidEastYouth.com – USA The book is about the Prophet Muhammed who led and founded the Islamic religion that ?only? a 5th of the people of the world observe. … See all stories on this topic [...]

By: patb

patb — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 00:39:30 +0000

Jingle Bells
“Sherry does not have the liberty to write any trashy stuff under the pretext of fiction and harp the trumpet of ‘Freedom of speech’. Why was america so against ‘The last temptation of the Jesus’, why was it so against ‘Da Vinci Code’. Why were these books not viewed as freedom of speech.”

Actually freedom of speech means just that…you may write trashy stuff. Your point is totally out there, all of the books you mention were/are in print. The book in question is NOT in print because of conjecture and that is censorship.

You are not even close to understanding the issue or you do not understand the freedoms we have and why we would defend even a trashy book as it relates to freedom of speech.

“On the release of the movie “Passion of Christ” – a lot of movie theatres were burned down by christians, the audiences were threated to be burnt alive with the theater if they come to watch the movie. The movie screens were torn and burnt…..and close to 100 people lost their lives in all the chaos.”…

Where, when and by whom? This is simply BS. Give one solid example that can be resourced. This did not anywhere.

By: Madmax

Madmax — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:29:12 +0000

On the release of the movie “Passion of Christ” – a lot of movie theatres were burned down by christians, the audiences were threated to be burnt alive with the theater if they come to watch the movie. The movie screens were torn and burnt…..and close to 100 people lost their lives in all the chaos.

Where is your source for this? Never heard of that happening. Most Americans enjoyed the Passion. Many said it renewed their faith.

Sherry has accepted herself the her book is imperfect and she has added information which is not true to these personalities

All this teels me is that she acknowledges that it is fiction. She does not try to portray it as fact. Isn’t that good?

Why was america so against ‘The last temptation of the Jesus’, why was it so against ‘Da Vinci Code’. Why were these books not viewed as freedom of speech.

They were. Thats why they were still published. In fact, the Da vinci code was really popular and sold very well – earning Dan Brown tens of millions of dollars.

What happ to freedom of speech when it comes to Infancy gospel of Jesus or Book of Barnabas.

There was a good history channel documentary on these and other banned bible books. Shame you missed it.

Your claims that America censors anti-Christian material is completely bogus. Thats why there is controversy surrounding Jones’ book. People see that anti-Christian material is still printed, and when publishers drop an an anti-Muslim book for religious reasons, they feel that Muslims are getting preferential treatment. I do not believe that is true given that there is anti-muslim literature still out there as well. If some other publisher wants to publish the book, thats their choice. There is no provision in the constitution that grants freedom from being offended. Also, your “examples” of America not tolerating free speech are all references to the actions of private citizens. As far your statements are concerned, the government still alows it. The only speech that is censored by the government is threatening speech. However, Hate speech does not always call for blood and thus some of it will leak through the cracks.

By: Jingle Bell

Jingle Bell — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 06:19:26 +0000

Its intresting to notice that all the above posts have missed out on a critical point. Sherry Jones claims her work to be historic fiction; unde rthe pretext of fiction she has added irrelevant data to the book. He has falsified information and She has included, behaviours and actions which never happened over and above are demafing some of the Most important personalities of Islam.

Sherry does not have the liberty to write any trashy stuff under the pretext of fiction and harp the trumpet of ‘Freedom of speech’. Why was america so against ‘The last temptation of the Jesus’, why was it so against ‘Da Vinci Code’. Why were these books not viewed as freedom of speech.

What happ to freedom of speech when it comes to Infancy gospel of Jesus or Book of Barnabas.

Freedom of speech is a myth which america seems to harp the trumpet as truth.

Sherry has accepted herself the her book is imperfect and she has added information which is not true to these personalities – which give all the more reason for the people to condemn such books which attributes falsified information and is directed towards distortion of History.

The Myth of freedom of speech seems convenient in america – however the same is a horrifying truth in countries like Inida, pakistan, Bangladesh etc.

On the release of the movie “Passion of Christ” – a lot of movie theatres were burned down by christians, the audiences were threated to be burnt alive with the theater if they come to watch the movie. The movie screens were torn and burnt…..and close to 100 people lost their lives in all the chaos.

So is the book by Sherry – it will create a lot of chaos in these countries and God knows how a many lives will be lost…. but the point is ‘WHO CARES?’ – i want my book to be published and I wanna make millions of dollars out of it. Particularly by writing contraversial things….

i see americans flying choppers from Ohio to california to save a cat – but who cares about humans they are too many on this planet….

Its a shameful mentality

I guess thats what freedom of speech is all about in western world.

By: Madmax

Madmax — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 06:05:11 +0000

I get the impression that the medai is more liberal also, but that is a general trend. Specific individuals and news entities can have their own agendas. As for publishing the book, thats the Random House’s personal choice. Many other hate books like “The Turner Diaries” (a Neo-Nazi propaganda book) are still published and sold, though not necesarily by major houses. If your worried that people are too afraid to critcize Islam while criticism of other religions continues as usual, some guy named Ali Sina (definitely a nom de plume) published a book that seems pretty critical. I don’t think there is or will be a shortage of hate books on any religion.

The author can also publish it somewhere else or self-publish. Since we do not tell news entities what opinions to express or what to report, we can’t tell Random House what to publish. Because it is controversial, its bound to sell…whether it is truth or not. On that note, people suck and they pick and choose what they want to believe anyway. Arguments only work for those on the fence who have no vested interest in the outcome of a debate. If they want to find their own evidence and support their opinion, or express themselves, they will always have the internet as well.

By: patb

patb — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 03:28:13 +0000

Ray, I believe is a Christian of Arab decent but I do not agree that the media
in the US (written or otherwise) is rightwing/conservative.
The majority of the MSM is liberal/left and has been for some time. That is one of the primary reasons Fox News/conservative radio talk does so well, it’s the only place to go for an alternate viewpoint.

By: Media has no bounds when it comes to Muslim Bashing « 5-Pillar Column

Media has no bounds when it comes to Muslim Bashing « 5-Pillar Column — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 01:21:07 +0000

[...] Media has no bounds when it comes to Muslim Bashing …No. The print media is faltering because the writing in many newspapers over the past decade have turned to the far, ugly right. Conservative neo-fascism disguised as free speech used to bully and intimidate anyone who has a viewpoint that they dislike. And it hasn’t been just one newspaper. It has been most of the major newspapers. The writing has been filled with hate-mongering, and vicious slander of a religion and a people. >>>>> [...]

By: DS

DS — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 23:37:37 +0000

American media has turned “right”??? No critical observer could EVER come to that conclusion. This guys in on another planet. Either that or he’s just regurgitating Muslim talking point from his Imam du Jour. What a putz!

By: patb

patb — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 19:29:25 +0000

Esra’a,
Ok, if you deduce that from implication.
My focus on this article/issue though is free speech. Even if I find something unsavory (many books, articles etc.) I’d still rather have them in print otherwise we get into this ‘who gets to define hate speech’, ‘can’t print this as it may offend’ thing that can easliy lead to control of the media, indivisual opinions and ultimately free speech.
I find what is going on in Canada and their “thought police-hate speech” committees chilling.

By: Esra'a (Bahrain)

Esra'a (Bahrain) — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:59:49 +0000

Patb, maybe you can’t see the hate in it because you’re not used to being attacked on every mainstream media outlet at least since 9/11, but we know what hate is, and Ray is right, it’s implied in every sense in this article, which strikes me as quite retarded because one can easily write another article based on the same cheap logic:

Fear-mongering and outrageous Islamophobia chills free speech.

If Steve is an “editor,” then the level of journalism out there must be really bad.

By: patb

patb — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:15:57 +0000

Ray,
I read the linked article and do not find it ‘hate filled’ but rather a journalist amazed/fightened at censorship because it ‘may’ incite protests of a religious group because it talks about a historical figure and one of his wives.
The author may have, in the past, written something in that vein but this isn’t it.
What is ‘hate filled’ here, maybe I missed something?

By: patb

patb — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 18:06:58 +0000

The main issue here is the book was not published due to pressure (threats, ot the percieved threat of violence) from an opposing viewpoint.
That is censorship.
I have no idea what the book says or of its veracity/lack thereof.
This is simply a freedom of speech issue gone bad.

By: eric/canada

eric/canada — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 13:52:16 +0000

Well, first, I certainly agree with you that there is a particularly ugly undertone of bias against Islam in a large chunk of the American press. The hullabaloo about subway ads in New York City is an excellent example of this. I’ve seen plenty of offensive ads on public transit (in Ottawa, a local casino has apparently bought out half the bus ad space…) but inviting folks to learn more about a religion doesn’t rate on my personal scale. But newspapers are always biased around the outlook of their owners or founders. In Canada, the various national newspapers were started as political release papers for right and left wing parties, and largely keep that outlook today.
On the topic of censorship, however, I do think that the US has a pretty good track record. Sticking to the principle of free speech can be difficult, especially when the topic is one that a person personally abhors, but that principle must be upheld. The reason for this is that it works for everyone. In a case like the publishing of this book, for instance, let the market decide how offensive it is. Trying to ban it, burn it, or threatening those who do publish and write it only makes it a more attractive commodity. You know how much that stupid video by Geet Wilders has been viewed? Ali Hirysi’s little autobiography is still in the bestseller section in my bookstore.
Everyone has the right to speak their mind, and publish what they will. Everyone also has the right to speak out against such activities and works, and, where warranted, to charge or sue said authors and publishers should their labours violate the laws regarding such. Trying to intimidate or threaten those same pundits with vague, mafia-style threats or vigilante action will only promote them in the public eye.