(...)    The problem at hand is not the religion of Islam but the totalitarian ideology of Islamism. As a faith, Islam has meant very different things over 14 centuries and several continents. What we can call "traditional Islam," forged in the medieval period, has inspired Muslims to be bellicose and quiescent, noble and not: one can't generalize over such a large canvas. But one can note two common points: Islam is, more than any other major religion, deeply political, in the sense that it pushes its adherents to hold power; and once Muslims do gain power, they feel a strong impetus to apply the laws of Islam, the shari`a. So Islam does, in fact, contain elements that can justify conquest, theocracy, and intolerance.

(...)   In the course of the twentieth century, a new form of Islam arose, one that now has great appeal and power. Militant Islam (or Islamism--same thing) goes back to Egypt in the 1920s, when an organization called the Muslim Brethren first emerged, though there are other strains as well, including an Iranian one, largely formulated by Ayatollah Khomeini, and a Saudi one, to which the ruling Taliban in Afghanistan and Usama bin Ladin both belong. Islamism differs in many ways from traditional Islam. It is faith turned into ideology, and radical ideology at that. When asked, "Do you consider yourself a revolutionary?" Sudanese Islamist politician Hasan al-Turabi replied, "Completely." Whereas traditional Islam places the responsibility on each believer to live according to God's will, Islamism makes this duty something for which the state is responsible. Islam is a personal belief system that focuses on the individual; Islamism is a state ideology that looks to the society (emphasis mine). Islamists constitute a small but significant minority of Muslims in the U.S. and worldwide, perhaps 10 to 15 percent.

Hang in there with me just a little longer, we're getting there. We are gaining a little background here and we are about to arrive at a very important point. Moore's article was intended to address Muslim intolerance and their expectations of special treatment for them, their faith, and Islam. Although his article directly addressed the matter of a proposed bill that he believed would result in the restriction of free speech, we should look much deeper into the fact that a bill is being proposed in the first place. It has to do with concern over the Islamic agenda to edge ever-closer to the political side of their faith, one that would result in denying non-Muslims their right's of free speech, for a start, then continue to move ever closer toward the installation of shari`a - law, their goal, the goal of Islamists, not Muslims - and there is a difference! Continuing with Pipes' article we have the following:

(...)   Islamists of all stripes have a virulent attitude toward non-Muslims and have a decades-long history of fighting with British and French colonial rulers, as well as with such non-Muslim governments as those of India, Israel, and the Philippines. They also have had long and bloody battles against Muslim governments that reject the Islamist program

(...)   Islamist violence is a global phenomenon. During the first week of April, for example, I counted up the following incidents, relying only on news agency stories, which are hardly exhaustive: deaths due to violent Islamist action occurred in Algeria (42 victims), Kashmir (17), the southern Philippines (3), Bangladesh (2), and the West Bank (1); assorted violence broke out in many other countries, including Afghanistan, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Sudan; courts handed down judgments against radical Muslims in France, Germany, Italy, Jordan, Turkey, the United States, and Yemen.

(...)    The great debate among Islamists is, in fact, not over the desirability or plausibility of transforming the U.S. into a Muslim nation but whether to work toward this goal in a legal but slow way, through conversion, or by taking a riskier but swifter illegal path that would require violence. Shamim A. Siddiqi, a Pakistani immigrant, expects that vast numbers of Americans will peacefully convert to Islam in what he calls a "Rush-to-Islam." Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind sheikh behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, wants Muslims to "conquer the land of the infidels." These two approaches can and do overlap.

(...)    Integrationists tend to be thankful to live in the United States, with its rule of law, democracy, and personal freedoms. Islamists despise these achievements and long to bring the ways of Iran or Afghanistan to America. Integrationists seek to create an American Islam and can take part in American life. Islamists, who want an Islamic America, cannot.

That's it, we're there for now. We have sufficient background to know why we need to be concerned about the execise of free speech in the UK and also everywhere else, particularly in the West if we are to continue our way of life, our exercise of religious freedoms, and our diverse culture. Islamists are dangerous, a threat to our society. They will use any tool necessary to accomplish their goal - Shari'a, forced conversion to Islam, and dimmitude for "infidels." Muslims need to be just as concerned as non-Muslims. The very big problem is that it is extremely difficult to be able to know the difference between Muslims and Islamists, simply because Islamists will say or do anything to further their version of Islam. Deceit, role-playing, by whatever means necessary, the Islamists intend to convert America to Islam. They indeed are the biggest theat to civilization since the invention of the atomic bomb. Let's look at Danial Pipes' article one more time:

Zaid Shakir, a former Muslim chaplain at Yale University, argues that Muslims cannot accept the legitimacy of the existing American order, since it "is against the orders and ordainments of Allah." "[T]he orientation of the Quran," he adds, "pushes us in the exact opposite direction." However outlandish a political goal this might seem, it is widely discussed in Islamist circles, and the events of September 11 should make clear just how seriously U.S. authorities must take this ambition.

Fundamental Muslims, Islamists, not Muslims - and there is a difference, are here in America, Europe, and throughout the Western world, they intend to destroy our way of life, and they intend to say or do anything they think is necessary, even lie or committ violence, to make that happen. Does it matter whether or not Mohammed was a pedophile, or that Muslims believe Mohammed to be a diety? The answer to that question is a simple no. Let Muslims exercise the same rights of free speech and faith as the rest of us, let them believe what they wish to believe. Let them live in peace, free to exercise their beliefs as they wish. If the reaction in Britain to Moore's article is from Muslims, and I doubt it, then it might not be a problem for us. If the reaction in Britain to Moore's article is that of Islamists, then we do have a problem, and so does Britain and the rest of the West. It is yet one more signal that Islam is on the March, and they are coming to your neighborhood and mine - if we let them.

The Islamists must be stopped now at all cost. Period. Islamists must not be allowed further footholds in our society. Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, and those of all other faiths must work together in order that our freedoms continue for future generations. It's all up to us.

One last thing, if you are just plain curious about the pedophilia issue, go read Robert Spencer's Dimmi Watch, he has an article entitled,"Moore's paedophile 'slur' angers Muslims." In it he addresses the pedophile matter. It's interesting, if you really care whether or not Mohammed was a pedophile or not, but you probably need to consider the period of history in which he lived. As to whether or not he was a diety, I'll leave that up to the Mulims. I am a Christian, so I have my own opinion. I'm sure you have yours.

---People are perfectly entitled to say that Mohammed was a pedophile or a moon-walker, whatever they wish.----

Ok then I guess people are also entitled to say the child marriages in Indian subcontinent (which was not banned until the twentieth century) produced more pedophiles as ever. Why not call poet Rabinranath Tagore a pedophile because he married a pre-teen girl.

Its pathetic to judge yesterday's people in todays context. Child marriage might be a custom in Arab countries in the 6th century and yet people are bothered about it. On the other context sane people are vocal about Islamic fundamentalist's word-to-word interpretation of Quranic verses ignoric todays context and changes in civilization.

If we do not rationalize our thinking and respect the other traditions and culture we will not be able to make some sense to the blocked headed fundamentalists, which act on these stupid remarks creating anarchy in the world.