I'd been expecting something of slightly better quality, it just looks like one of those crackpot 9/11 was an inside job films...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7317506.stm

Okay, only 'cos the link is 18 minutes old.

Black Helos, as I've foolishly clicked on the link and am no doubt already in some CIA database.

Where's the tinfoil when I need it?

Any religion/cult/organisation that cannot stand a few insults or being laughed at without resorting to violence and killing people to make a point should be declared illegal in a civilised world.

The film would be much better if Paris were in it.

Seriously, how can he pass this shite off as a film? I understand that people are angry at people for what's been happening in the world, but surely causing more hate is not the right answer? Tell you what, let's get this dutch guy to go out into Basra and live his life as one of the struggling Iraqi citizens and then see if his mind changes.

So, people who say Islam is intolerant, generates violence and is often racist cause protests from Islamic followes who say it isn't, and then make horrible threats against the original accuser, and thus prove the accusations!

We can thus add hypocritical as a label for Islam.

Now, I suspect that only a very small number of muslims are extreme, but until the (supposedly existing) reasonable and rational muslims do something to get their house in order and deal with the problem, then they're all going to get tarred by the same brush. A corollary of an old statement. It only takes good muslims to stand by and do nothing to let evil muslims win?

Posting anonymously, sorry, for the obvious reasons of being at least a bit afraid of extreme bunch of psychotic nutter radicals!

Shame to hear that. I agree with the message though. I remember Richard Dawkins reminiscing about a muslim protestor in London (about the Danish cartoons) who wore a placard 'apparently without irony' saying BEHEAD THOSE WHO SAY ISLAM IS A VIOLENT RELIGION.

I don't like religious people with medieval world views using technology - it smacks of hypocrisy. Let them live in their mud huts and throw rocks at each other while the world progresses and leaves those barbaric, ignorant savages in the mess they created.

I live in the same country. I can drive and find him. And shove that bloody film so far up his colon he can watch it just by blinking rapidly.

Wow, that has to be one of the bravest films made. Thank goodness someone has had the balls to say what needs to be said.

If we view it from a freedom of expression, the dutchbag has a right far as I’m concerned to speak his crap. Goody on him, he can deride others on film with solicitous abandon. He can claim islamist are actually aliens from mars, here to pod people us all… doesn’t make him factually accurate, but he should however be welcome to his skewed opinion, can I get an AMEN!

Then of course, should we view it from the islamist extreme point of view, that its an insult to their faith, and an afront to Alah, thay have a right to protest, and call him a moron, and if they want make his life uncomfortable in the courts, they shouldn’t win an injunction to stop it showing, but maybe the money is acceptable. the problem is I can hear the hordes running for their swords, rather than reasonable public discourse.

But see, I think, they’re afraid of seeing their dogma challenged and that maybe they’re not right, maybe they’re more scared of social evolution than they truly are of say , not mutilating women, burning small boys faces off, or god forbid women driving or showing their hair in public.

Maybe, just maybe , if Islam Socially moved forward a bit on these kinds of things we’d all look at Mr. Dutch bag and go” shut the hell up!”

Until then, he’s got a safe bed for his thinking, and they can’t call black. This is only my humble and genteel opinion.

Coat… Hat, Nod to the left and right, out the door I go!

Fine film and all accurate. Muslims will no doubt feel uncomfortable as they see themselves as others do. With Friday prayers on the way too, I predict a great Seething will arise in the East...

If you were expecting a Hollywood blockbuster then you missed the whole point of the film, which is to provoke a reaction. It's always amusing to see the Islamists reacting violently and barbaricly when they get upset at being called violent and barbaric. The film has been publicised well in advance in the hope of much Muslim gnashing of teeth and whining, and it has had that effect - Muslim groups happilly stepping up to sue and insisting on the suppression of free speech, threatening and intimidating governments. To be honest, I was expecting the film to be fifteen minutes of Geert laughing his head off.

They mouth off about hate. Stupid. The only hate in the film comes from the mouths of supposedly moderate muslims. It's worth watching just to see the kind of people our governments are cosying up to.

There are muslims out there who just want to live their lives in peace but they don't get a voice. The murderers and hypocrites get the voice, because they're the ones who worm their way into positions of influence. They're the ones who wave swords and knives, blow stuff up and get all the attention. I mean, look at Ken Livingstone's muslim associates. Are they the sort of people muslims want representing them? I doubt they are, but they're the ones that he bends over backwards to accommodate. And so it goes throughout the western world. Wherever muslims become a significant minority, governments seem determined to seek out the most hateful representatives they can find and lavish them with attention. Meanwhile we plebs, and the muslims who just want to live in peace, get shafted.

"Any religion/cult/organisation that cannot stand a few insults or being laughed at without resorting to violence and killing people to make a point should be declared illegal in a civilised world."

Judging by priest-led lynch mobs in some rural Mexico towns, crazy anti-abortionist shooting practitioning doctors and other wacky stuff, I think Catholicism (and a lot of the Christian offspring religions) would be illegal as well.

Its not the religion itself thats violent, its the psycho zealots that are deranged enough to kill for their beliefs that cause all this stuff. Muslims have a bad reputation ever since the Fundamentalism movement sprung, but Christians have a lot of bad elements promoting violence: the KKK is one fine example of this.

...would seem to be the appropriate term when the BBC publishes a story entirely concerned with the release of a film on the internet, but *doesn't dare publish a link* to the film itself!

is nothing.

The real problem is a bunch of psychopaths who treat any criticism or disagreement as an excuse for terrorism and intimidation, and pretending they're doing God, by whatever name, a favour, expecting him to congratulate and reward them.

I've just watched this film, and frankly the guy could learn about propaganda techniques from the BNP. I could do a frame-for frame version of this, with quotes from the Bible, creating hatred of Islam / Jews / Gays / Target-of-the-moment - not particularly because any are bad, but because Christianity, like every other religion, has its share of nutjobs (Google Phelps family if you don't believe me!).

Yes, there is a quote in there from the president of Iran. I'll counter than with a selection of "God be with us" type quotes from the war on terror. From the President of the US of A, and I'm pretty sure Our Tonyness has a few low hanging fruits on the quote tree. Are Holland's politicians entirely religiously unaffiliated?

Yes, he has quotes from muslim clerics decrying gays and jews. I'm pretty sure with a bit of digging I can find old quotes supporting the subjugation of muslims in the crusades, and for those of a more modern bent, there was a chap not too long ago who waged a sort-of religious war, which specifically targeted both gays and jews. Godwin's Law sadly forbids naming him, but I suspect a few choice quotes could be found in the archives.

Come on, people, have we learned nothing in the last few millennia?

Incidentally, those of adherents of polytheism, shamanism, pantheism, animism, or Judaism, please feel free to smile as Christianity. Grinning is borderline. Standing on the sidelines laughing is Right Out. Beware the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch!

I think the film is anti-Quran and only anti-parts of the Quran. Those parts that incite violence and intolerance. Those parts that any open minded and free thinking individual would consider immoral or unethical. Not all moslems are extreme but I fear the religion is.

@AC:Maybe Islam should take a look at itself.

Well said that man.

@Chris Haynes

You could be right but how would she react to being stoned to death for fornicating outside of marriage?

Anonymous this time because, well obvious really isn't it!

Will this make the comments lets see, I have had less controversial comments rejected.

to slightly paraphrase the late Richard Jeni, religious war is about who has the better invisible friend.

a belief in a Sky Fairy, of any flavor, is no different, or more rational, than a belief in the Tooth Fairy. the measure of maturity and civilization, is the ability to think objectively, logically, and RATIONALLY. it is the only activity that differentiates a human from a baboon...well, that, face pigmentation, some hair, a brightly colored posterior, and maybe some other genetic markers.

the species will evolve no further, until it grows out of its need to believe in a fictional Alpha Creature; an unlikely being that created (and now rules) the entire universe, and gives humans that are clever enough to worship it, warm-fuzzy cuddles.

bleagh. i need a drink, and i don't even drink.

Whilst deploring all superstition (ok, religion, you say tomato i say...) there is a difference between the main delusions of choice. Somehow we all just know that Islam will protest being called a backward violent megalomaniac religion by threatening backward violence and asserting its right to megalomania.

whereas taking the p**s out of the other main abrahamic religions (see monty python et al) may get you blacklisted from dinner at the rectory, but does not earn you a fatwah, bounty on your head, or a need for free police protection for drawing a cartoon.

religion is like polonium 210. It is all toxic to humanity and there is no safe background level.

@phix8

Excellently put

@anon cow.

"let's get this dutch guy to go out into Basra and live his life as one of the struggling Iraqi citizens and then see if his mind changes."

You seem to be saying that beheading people, bombing, and all the other atrocious acts in the film are an acceptable way of behaving if you are an iraqi citizen?????

Are you an idiot?

What a wonderful country where advocating free speech, human rights and gay mariages get you labled "right wing".

And how much healthier than the current craven British "Dont mention the Fatwah" attitude.

Some Europeans/Americans believe "all Muslims are violent intolerant terrorists" and want to exterminate them, because of the inflammatory actions of a few extreme fanatics.

How is that different from some Muslims believing "all Westerners are violent intolerant invaders" based on the actions of the US armed forces and propaganda films like this one (I haven't seen the film).

The instigators (usually fanatics) always have something to gain from this type of propaganda and incitement. The Dutch MP is trying to gain votes. The Danish cartoonist is trying to build readership. Al Qaeda and Hamas are trying to recruit and build community support. Right wing Israelis want to keep building more settlements. Hutus wanted to kill Tutsis. Hitler wanted the Jews to be despised.

The vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists or violent, at the moment. The vast majority of Germans were not Nazis before 1933. But these things can change, given too much propaganda and fanatic leadership...

I'd like to see him prosecuted for incitement to riot or hate propaganda or similar - he is no better than a neo-nazi fascist, and his actions will cause worse problems than already exist.

dose not stop him being a stupid mental nut job

equaly just because in is religoiul dose not MAKE him a stupid mental nut job

stupidity is epedemic in humanity and we may all die of it it is not limited to one class cread or caulter

I saw this guy a few times on TV and I can only say, he has really nice hair

that most of the (horrible) material has been available on the net for months without much noise but the guy who uses it to show something is attacked, hit lawsuits, asked to shut up for the good of the euro.

btw AC said

" I've just watched this film, and frankly the guy could learn about propaganda techniques from the BNP. I could do a frame-for frame version of this, with quotes from the Bible, creating hatred of Islam / Jews / Gays / Target-of-the-moment - not particularly because any are bad, but because Christianity, like every other religion, has its share of nutjobs (Google Phelps family if you don't believe me!)."

well yes but how many christians actually take the bible as 100% true and act like that (with violence) these days.

Here is the difference, in islam the difference is not in interpretation but in action, check the statements, while you will find plenty of muslims saying that 9/11 madrid or the london attacks were terrible and bad, you won't find many that will disagree with the texts in the koran that gave the extremist the loincloth to do these deeds.

you can;t be a muslim and not accept the perfect and undeniable facts contained in the quran. The difference between moderate and extreem is in the action, not in the interpretation.

btw the phelps family is about what 50 people and eventhough they are worthless, cruel pieces of %%$$#%, they never killed anybody

ask the wife of the beheaded man is she understands the difference

Well, I find this film nothing more than a bad example of media emotional overdrive. Sure, none of us likes to be burned alive, blown to bits or being repressed to death by religious nutcases but thats something we allready know can happen all the time by just looking at history.

I suspect the maker of this film had another point and that is to highlight the obvious stranglehold Islamofacists have on Europe. By dumping this crappy film into the media ocean all of Europe's politicians seem to tremble and bend over right away to calm down the neurotic minds of religious fanatics that want to represent Islam. This is really starting to remind one of another era where organized bullies had their ways until little Neville waved a piece of paper promising no more wars.

I write this in my name cause Im old fashioned enough to support freedom of speech and tolerance, even if spineless EU politicians are all to keen on taking it away from me.

"I don't like religious people with medieval world views using technology - it smacks of hypocrisy."

The trouble with that is they have most of the juice that is needed to power technology.

@Chris Bradshaw

"Al Qaeda and Hamas are trying to recruit and build community support."

Flying planes into sky scrapers, suicide bombings and indiscriminate firing of rockets are real community builders.

Here in the Netherlands it has been talked about for ages, and now it's finally there, most people are almost disappointed about the "softness" of it. We expected something controversial, this is unlike Geert Wilders, who usually manages to offend the whole dutch islamic population within 2 sentences when he starts talking. The most talked about is the fact that he used the Danish "mohammed cartoons" without permission, and a picture of the killer of Theo van Gogh, mohammed B, which turned out to be the cover of some obscure rap CD, made by an even more obscure rapper, posing as mohammed B.

Even more stupid, he was asked by some islamic forums/groups to join them in a debate about the islam in general, and how they could all work against extremists, which he of course categorically rejected, only to invite them to do the same after his "film" came out, telling everybody it was not meant to hurt or insult, just to generate a discussion.. You should see the questions he and his fraction ask our council of ministers, they're hilarious!

when there are so many other people to hate!

Muslim, Christian, Pagan beliefs have been the driving force for ruling the world at one time or another in the past. It was Muslim leaders who ruled most of Europe and Africa before the Christians decided they wanted it back after the popularity amongst the constituents gained interest from a crumbling Roman empire.

I don't personally believe or live my life to any faith, I was most fuckd off on Sunday to find HMV wasn't open when I wanted to by my copy of the latest demon worshipping metal band dressed as the devil.

How can you have a so called multi cultural country that has a religious benefactor as the head of state, a judicial system, schools and public holidays that are all weighted against one faith?

I think the UK should embrace all religion that is preached across the land, we would only have to go work for about 4 weeks of the year! :-)

Do a google image search on the phrase "BEHEAD THOSE WHO SAY ISLAM IS A VIOLENT RELIGION.".

Here's what I see:

Lots of pictures. But on the top row

A photo of a person, presumably a moslem, holding a placard saying "BEHEAD THOSE WHO SAY ISLAM IS VIOLENT"

And next to that:

A photo of a person, presumably a moslem, holding a placard saying "BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM". The two pictures, and they are repeated, are identical apart from the text on the placard.

Say Hello to Mr Photoshopper.

Was there ever a picture of a placard saying "Behead those who say Islam is violent"?

And another: The Jyllands-Posten Cartoons. The European controversy had died down when 2 Danish Imams took the cartoons AND some random pictures from the Internet that THEY alleged were typical Danish Insults to Islam. THESE pictures, FALSELY labelled pictures, in fact, outright LIES were what provoked the initial riots.

My Conclusion: Islamic slander happens, Certain practitioners of Islam are quite happy to invent more attacks in order to justify retaliation. Certain non-muslims/moslems are quite happy to stick in a few quick attacks too.

Are both sides being goaded into a religious war?

Blaming religion for violence is the same as blaming computer games.

I liked the film and I agree with much of the sentiment, however there is one part that I think is a mis-representation and that is the 'God Bless Hitler' sign that we see a Muslim woman carrying. That sign was carried in a protest over the Danish cartoons, and it was deliberately designed to cause offence to make a point.

(Knowing the Arab stance regarding Jews however, who knows...)

Oh I remember the worldwide rioting and mosque burning that resulted after that! Oh wait - nobody cared.

Once again Moslem groups are rearing up to sue the chap who made a film that links world events with, erm, the religion that gave backing to some nutters to commit these acts. It's common knowledge. The nutters were Moslem and used the Qu'ran to justify their actions. This is fact. So WTF are people getting upset about it?

Hatred does seem a bit ingrained though. For example, I got talking to a 'moderate' Moslem lady who agreed that the teddy bear incident didn't merit a shooting of the 'offender', but she was very upset that no lashing took place!! And this is a 'moderate'!! In the same conversation she also tried to justify the violence over the cartoon protests because 'No one makes fun of Jesus do they'?! I kid you not!

Someone made reference to the Crusades in the comments above. It's a common myth that the West seems to have adopted that the Crusades were some sort of 'Holy' rampage by the West against the Moslems. Well, that is historical bollocks! In fact the Crusades were started because the Byzantine emporer asked the Pope for help following *450 years* of aggressive Moslem conquest [of Christian and Jewish lands].

Also the myth about Moslem tolerance is ballcocks too. In the past, as in modern Iraq now, non-Moslem parties are barred from building new churches and must pay the Moslems a tax (Dhimmitude I think it's called; please excuse the spelling - not enough coffee this morning).

I hate that fact that our politians suppress any true debate on issues concerning religion. It seems that a mention of 'race or religion' instantly closes-down rational and factual debate into a fist-fight.

One last thing. How many Moslem groups threatened to sue the websites that hosted the Iraq beheading vids? Erm.... 0?

One more interesting fact. Although the middle-eastern Moslems hate the US (and probably the UK ), during the Asian Tsunami the US/UK and Australia gave *over 10 times* the amount [to the fund] that the oil-rich middle-eastern countries gave. Infact I think it was in Saudi (could be wrong here) that it was declared 'Gods punishment' for the region being too Westernised?

And what about Moslem girls being married-off at 12/13 years of age? I know Mohammed consumated his marriage to a 6-year old when she was 9yrs old... but in todays society that is called kiddy-fiddling. And you feckers still do it.

So yes, if you want to complain then go ahead. But take a very close look at yourselves before threatening to sue (and worse) about accepted facts. Drag yourselves out of the stone age.

Paris because religion and conflict suck, much like she does...

when there were "protests" in London about the cartoons affair, the nutjobs saying "behead infidels that say Islam is violent" were about 20-30, but got huge coverage. THE FOLLOWING DAY hundreds of "moderates" came out to protest against the protests, and got sweet f all coverage. So excuse me if the people saying "the peace loving Muslims should speak out" piss me off, WE DO, just fing listen media!

I'm sure the same will happen with this film, irrespective of its qualities (or lack thereof, I haven't seen it yet).

There are complete nutcases everywhere, including many in the Muslim world, but to focus on the fact that these nutcases are Muslim just reinforces their belief that you attack/criticise them BECAUSE they are Muslim, not 'coz they are nuts, see In the Name of Identity by Amin Maalouf for a very good explanation of this phenomenon (he's Christian Lebanese btw). For lighter relief and a view of what "the West" did to Muslim people (a long time ago, I know), see Crusades by Terry Jones, it is excellent.

...is that it doesn't have a central authority figure speaking for it, just a lot of independent national leaders/councils all of whom have their own local agendas. This makes the image of the religion vulnerable to the actions of the violent and vocal minority. A Muslim "Pope" (for want of a better word) would be able to defend the religion from a global platform with an authoritative voice, thus reducing the need for individual groups to hold demonstrations to get their objections across. Currently it is easy for serious debate to be hijacked by the head-bangers and sensationalists on both sides.

It's a real pity, and you can't help but feel that the situation is not going to get any better until something changes.

This should certainly add to this discussion, it's too clever for my little mind, but he certainly helps put religion/anti-religious beliefs into perspective.

http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0,,2265446,00.html

I would add of course, there's nutters everywhere. Demonizing a particular religion is a very poor stance to take on that basis.

Extreme idiots are everywhere. Any suggestion that the majority of non-extreme Muslims should somehow be able to stop the extremists is akin to suggesting the white population of England should be able to eradicate the likes of the BNP and Combat18, both of whom have killed many innocent people in their time.

Accualy, I think you will find it is the oposit of that, the ability to not think rationaly, and think beyond what we can see that makes us diffrent to baboons. It is genraly accepted by antropologists that the creation of are and beginings of religion are what difines the start of modern humanity, and the organisation and progerssion of these is what marks the advancement of humanity and civilisation.

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with these things, just pointing out that militant atheists are just as bad as any other militant group (Ill see you Crusades and raise you Stalin and Chairman Mou)

"Do a google image search on the phrase "BEHEAD THOSE WHO SAY ISLAM IS A VIOLENT RELIGION.".

Here's what I see:

Lots of pictures. But on the top row

A photo of a person, presumably a moslem, holding a placard saying "BEHEAD THOSE WHO SAY ISLAM IS VIOLENT"

And next to that:

A photo of a person, presumably a moslem, holding a placard saying "BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM". The two pictures, and they are repeated, are identical apart from the text on the placard.

Say Hello to Mr Photoshopper."

there is now a third saying "behead thouse who don't laugh"

makes you laugh

'Was there ever a picture of a placard saying "Behead those who say Islam is violent"?'

Nope. The original said "Behead those who insult islam". the other versions are photoshoppery by people who need their irony delivered like a shovel to the face.

Hanlon's Razor applies here: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

Paris because she embodies Hanlon's razor quite neatly...

When I hear of the fanatical followers of the FPS circle strafing their enemies, then perhaps I might agree.

Its not often you get to see fiction or other enterainment media rousing up a violent mob of its supporters, only its opponents.

To put things into perspective, there are far more gay Muslims, far more feminist Muslims, far more Muslims opposed to Sharia Law in place of secular law, than there are extreme fundamentalist willing to engage in violence.

Christians often fail to stand up and clearly condemn extreme Christian fundies, such as those who try and outlaw the teaching of evolution in schools, or those who engage in violent action against abortion clinics, or those sects which use cultic tactics to control their followers.

Moderate Muslims often fail in the same way; they fail to clearly condemn their co-religionists who go beyond the pale.

As Islam is a couple of hundred years behind the 'Christian' west in its maturation process, to a certain extent this is not surprising.

If anyone is getting their knickers in too tight a wad, think about this;

If you gave your Victorian great, great great, grandfather a mobile phone and a pair of Nikes, would he agree that beating his wife was bad, that women should work, vote and be educated, and that blasphemy was not a crime?

Sociologically many Muslims come from a soceities where they have Victorian values. Technological fripparies do not change this.

Just as women gained power and rights due to encreasing economic empowerment in the West, so too will the process happen in the Muslim world.

Only increasing economic activity of women in society can drive those countries into fully developed status, and they all want to be developed countries. Under Islam, women have a right to keep their own money - far more so than in Victorian England.

Will educated women put up with the same societal oppression? Nope, just like Western women with an education didn't.

The roots for the death of fundamentalism are already well-watered. The best thing we could do is give away free scholarships to online universities to women in the Middle East; far more cost effective than war.

But taking such a pragmatic approach reduces the control our politicians have over us using the rhetoric of fear, so we are saturated with less reassuring perspectives.

"Wilders was also turned down by all Dutch broadcasters.". Nope. The Dutch muslim broadcasting organization volunteered to show it, in its entirety, uncut, the whole thing. They did want to see it in advance to verify the film did not contain anything that would land *them* in front of a court of law (Dutch freedom of speech legislation is a little bit more complicated then 'you can say anything'). Wilders didn't accept the offer. As was to be expected, it doesn't fit in his profile of creating ever more FUD.

Agree with (some of) his views or not - He has a right to express them.

No one has the right to not be offended.

The stronger (direct & physical) negative reactions his stand and film have brought speak directly to his point.

I don't blame the web host that was worried for it's staff. But governments should stand and support free speech, not object to it because the people who may be offended can turn into an angry mob.

The cartoons showed there is a disconnect in cultural understanding. Yet personally being on this side of the disconnect, i can fathom giving up freedom of expression in a tolerant society because of another culture's intolerance and restrictions on expression.

An interesting and scary read: http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Restoration_Act

precis: Conservative American senators proposed in 2005 that the bible be the final arbiter of civil law in the United States and any Supreme Court judge that disagrees will be impeached. It also rejects the applicability of common law or precendents from anywhere outside of the United States or from within the US prior to the constitution.

My first reaction was that a only few flakes were advocating this course but one submitted instance of the bill has 50 co-sponsors - aka senators of the Republican party - and thus is dangerously close to carrying the bill in at least one house of that confusing mishmish the US calls a government. Or they would be close if the next president was not going to be a Democrat who will likely use his veto power to kill it But then it can always be re-introduced.

If you want to see anti-Muslem rhetoric skyrocket to new heights, just wait until America unveils their nascent theocracy at the first opportunity. And then Christians will have our own share of vocal extremists (but with better weapons).

@ AC

when ideology or a cult of personality become a substitute for religion, the results are identical. the distinction is in what is being worshipped fanatically, without question. modern "neoconservatism" is a good example. if an idea is too sacred to question, the line has been crossed.

the saying goes "you can tell a zealot, but you can't tell him much". note that it doesn't specify a religious zealot, any sort will do.

that said, i stand by my statement. religious war has no rational basis whatsoever, and those who promote it, have given up an essential part of their humanity.

Phix8

Richard Dawkins is a twat, most other atheists I know agree with me.

AC who wrote:

"Now, I suspect that only a very small number of muslims are extreme, but until the (supposedly existing) reasonable and rational muslims do something to get their house in order and deal with the problem, then they're all going to get tarred by the same brush."

Idiot. That means we should be tarred as racists - BNP + KKK, warmongers - Tony Blair and George Bush, torturers - see previous, gangsters - various gangs, hard drug dealers, rapists. Can you honestly say you have done anything to get rid of any of the mentioned above idiots in our society? If not we have to be tarred with the same brush...

"Blaming religion for violence is the same as blaming computer games"

Don't have time to reply to this in as much detail as I would have liked but can I just say:

Idiot! Computer Games & Religion are totally different issues when it comes to the moral foundations of a community, games are not there to guide people on how to live their lives & to use this analogy displays a significant lack of intelligence.

I hope someone else follows this up in more detail because that comment really got my goat!

@ Shakje

you and your atheist friends know him personally, then, to make that kind of assertion?

i have his book (The God Delusion), and see no particular foundation for your statement. he condemns irrational behavior. sounds sensible to me.

i don't know the man, and am not inclined to judge his character, but his work has more rational merit than the Bible, the Torah, and/or the Qur'an. they're interesting as works of literature, but dangerously unsuitable as guides to a life in a civilized, technologically advanced society. i'm sure they worked better before the Industrial Revolution, but THOSE DAYS ARE OVER. we now have genetic engineering, the internet and nuclear energy, and these ancient teachings (especially the way they are dictated by the established religious institutions, such as the Catholic Church, the various Ayatollahs, and the Orthodox Hasidic Jews) are as obsolete as the buggy whip.

many people feel they have the right to believe in God. i feel i have the right to believe these people are delusional.

What's to get worked up about? His point (as I took it) is that people who blame games for violence are blaming the wrong source, and that people who blame religion for violence are blaming the wrong source - see the parallel? It doesn't matter that games "are not there to guide people..." - there are those that feel games have a profound impact on morals nonetheless. Even if you disagree with it, the point is logically valid...

"to use this analogy displays a significant lack of intelligence"

I blame all the problems man makes on the 'me clever, you stupid, but I can't explain why' argument.

I don't blame religion for violence, I blame people for violence (aka "Guns don't kill people ..."). Violence is human nature - frequently it is the result of tension, frustration and an inability to otherwise resolve perceived injustice. Religious belief is, however, often used as the justification for violence. For believers it can lower the threshold at which the taking of another's life, and likewise the loss of their own, becomes acceptable. This effect is not unique to Islam, it accompanies all religions that require followers to believe that after death they will 'live' in eternal bliss.

@Other Respondents to AC (The blame game)

AC does not specify in what way blaming religion for violence is the same as blaming computer games. This gives the reader the freedom to interpret it as he/she sees fit. Personally, I can see that the comparison is valid in as much as whether either are responsible for fostering violence is open to debate.

...better than your invisible sky daddy, so there.