Right on Qasim, you're like Shirley Chisholm, Unbought and Unbossed! As you say one thing to have an opinion, completely another to spew your ignorance all over the place. Check this out for those who may want to LEARN MORE:
1st your treatment of that person was dignified. I appreciate your ethics & clarity of keeping this substance as a safe place for discussion.
2) The irony behind this is the ongoing dichotomy of our founding fathers intent with the Declaration & Constitution versus the Ideal it has become.
'All men' because their various bigotries meant all European, moneyed, Landowners were equal. That US citizens stumble toward the Ideal is a testament of the divine's intention that touched their wording.
"Freedom of Religion" also was not originally aimed at all religions but aimed at all the offshore of Roman Catholicism because their grandparents, parents. & maybe them were survivors of internal religious wars against "heretics" depending g on your POV
Again US citizens over 250+ years stumble toward the Ideal.
I fully concur with your principled rejection of this, without a doubt, objectionable subscriber. I offer support as a non-believer, and yet a student of religion.
Whether Mohammed, Jesus or The Buddha were actual persons, representations or conglomerates, remember Mohammed was not a Muslim, Jesus not a Christian, nor The Buddha a Buddhist.
I think his ignorant comment was based on certain (false) rumors that have spread, & many non-Muslims believe, about Prophet Muhammad. You may well have already addressed it in your platform Islam Today (or even on this column, "Let's Address This" -- I can't be sure I've read every issue of this), but it is probably worthwhile refuting (again?) one by one commonly held (mis)beliefs about Muhammad in a column here. One of many strengths which you have demonstrated many times is your skill at using facts & logic to refute false claims.
The premise of religious freedom in colonial Pennsylvania (1681) was partly responsible for the 30,000+ German immigrants who relocated to Philadelphia in (1727-1776), and later became part the US Constitution. Is there anything more fundamental to individual freedom than the opportunity to exercise beliefs as a matter of choice?
I appreciate the clause in the first amendment that prohibits Congress from establishing an official state religion and protects the free exercise of religion. The current administration is clearly pushing toward adopting White Christian Nationalism and political theocracy, which, in my opinion, will devastate the first amendment and much that relies upon it. WCN is not a choice I would make, nor would I approve of pushing it on anyone. I confess I find it so harsh and divisive that it is hard for me to even say I welcome those to practice theirs without the freedom from it.
Wow. Here we go. There's a lot of "I completely agree with you" type statements followed by "here's why you're wrong" in the comments lol. Or, "I respect all religions" followed by hate speech disguised as free speech. This reminds me of when White racists say to me "I love all races" followed by "there's bad people in every race and here's a list of horrible things Black people do based on stereotypes I think are true." It's the ol' "With all due respect" followed by complete disrespect attitude. Disagree all you want, but it's Muhammad, not Mohammed. It's Muslim, not Moslem. Just because you have a different religion, or no religion at all, doesn't excuse disrespectful behavior or speech. Simple. No one is asking for anyone else to believe in, or even like, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) that I can see. Just be respectful. How hard is that? Free speech is not a license to denigrate any more than it is a license to lie, abuse or harass or there wouldn't be laws against things like perjury and terroristic threats.
While I personally try to use the most widely accepted spelling of both Muhammad & Muslim, like many other words & names, they both, especially Muhammad, have various ways of spelling them, & individual people, will have variations on that spelling, depending on where & when they were born, or maybe even which Muslim sect their parents belonged to, so I'm not going to declare illegitimate someone who spells their name differently.
By the way, counting up the various ways of spelling Muhammad [which probably even exceed the number of ways to spell Kathryn/Catherine/Katherine/Catharine/Kathryne/Cathryn/Katharine/Katheryn (see what I mean?)], it is 1 of the most common given names in the world, possibly even #1. I had a friend whose last name is Wong, who said, even though as far as I know he wasn't Muslim, that he planned to name his son Mohammed (or whatever spelling it might've been, but that was the most common spelling in the US at that time) because supposedly his last name was the most common surname in the world, & he wanted to combine it with the most common given name in the world to give his son a name that combined was actually quite rare. Not sure if he ever did this because I lost contact with him.
Right, but you understand the general concept of being respectful and not comparing people to pedophiles when they're not pedophiles right? And there are multiple spellings for the name Jesus too like Yeshua, Jèsus, Iesus, but you can see how using incorrect nomenclature while comparing him to dog feces would be disrespectful right?
First off, I am terribly sorry you had to see a comment like that. Secondly, reading this post today, I was reminded of the importance of unbiased, non-discriminatory language in religious studies; otherwise, you end up spouting disinformation at best, and discrimination at worst like the comment that was made. I come from a Catholic background (but I'm currently identifying with the 'agnostic' label) and it took years to deconstruct a lot of the dangerous notions about religions like Islam, Hinduism, Judaism — and many more — that I was taught all in the name of "defending" Christianity. Now, this isn't an attack on Christianity, but the truth is many schools teach religious studies with a curriculum that is biased toward Christianity, and the school system as a whole needs to really investigate themselves to check and correct their biases, and it starts with the language we used when talking about these faiths.
The comment appears to associate Mohamd with application of dominance over its followers.
Compliance, using tools such as removing any independent thought from the equation, or else!
The fraudster, pedophile, etc., reference appears applicable to the Trump reference.
Now, has violence been applied based on religious scripture? Yes/No?
See other religious institutional abuse.
Let's say, the pedophile, sexual molestation by catholic priests, to include the institution's actions to hide, relocate the abusing priests.
And the institutional strategy to offer to pay the victims, not just for compensation of harm, but, more importantly, for silence, through NDAs. (Note: See recent push by legislators to ban NDAs seeking to silence victims of sexual abuse - with retroactive application too).
And, historically, religious beliefs were used (when we didn't have the internet 1,000 years ago, for control of the masses. (i.e., abide or else!)
Principle used was like creating fire and calling it an act of magic. Spellbinding those prospective indoctrinees.
In addition, and these issues based on religious beliefs, mentioned, have most likely been written about in more depth.
I am not one versed in these belief systems, but I am a keen observer.
There are numerous events retaliating against those perceived offenses to one's beliefs, not just traditional beliefs, maybe social etiquette issues.
There appears to be a hair-trigger finger by those perceiving an offense to one's sensitivities, or those adamant believers of anything, religious scripture, or other belief systems people may have.
Resukting in violence against the perceived offender, or a non-indoctrined being.
The 2nd Amendment has an arguable religious like following.
Racism, is a form of group beliefs pitting one race against the other. We've seen how that goes.
The Trump-Israel War initiated against Iran, arguably has groundings with religious structure, from all sides.
See complaints against US Military leaders administering doctrine based themes to the deploying troops discussing rapture based themes for engaging the proposed enemy.
Leading analysts point out, that the Iranian leader was near medical death (cancer, and age) where he chose to avail himself to targeting to create the martyrdom response by all followers - per scripture, against propagaters of the Iran conflict, and others.
Moreover, The simple depictions of Prophet Muhammad is, per scripture, forbidden and has resulted in death sentences.
A discussion of freedom of speech can be launched from here regarding belief systems imposing their doctrines upon others, or stifling speech, thought, behavior.
Hateful remark in the canceled subscriber's post? Maybe their education, sophistication, and misinformation may have contributed to his post.
But hateful in terms of . . . ( need to log onto twitter/x to really get examples.), granted, the evaluation of hateful is a matter of opinion, but on it's face?
In addition, the occupant/occupants in our government appear to be using division, through engineering public ignition points by offensive triggers to create chaos.
The deviance by these select few is very sinister, creating distrust, and gaslighting turmoil everywhere.
I have tried not to acknowledge this forum's host, nor anyone in particular for this discussion, keeping it object and an issue for discussion. Hope I was successful.
I would encourage bringing on James Talarico to contribute his views on these many issues raised.
Talarico appears to apply his religious foundings, as evidenced throughout his campaign, without judgment. I have confidence he may have an appropriate view regarding this discussion.
Lastly, general research on application of violence in response to the subject of the Prophet Muhammad follows.
=======
Several major attacks against journalists and media outlets have been carried out by extremist groups citing offense taken at depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, as well as by state or non-state actors in specific political contexts.
Based on reports regarding this subject, here are the key instances:
Charlie Hebdo Attack (2015): On January 7, 2015, gunmen attacked the Paris offices of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, killing 12 people. The attack was in retaliation for the magazine’s publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad. Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) claimed responsibility for the attack, stating it was ordered to avenge the Prophet.
Charlie Hebdo Firebombing (2011): Prior to the 2015 shooting, Charlie Hebdo was firebombed in 2011 after publishing an issue that featured Muhammad as a guest editor.
Murder of Mohammed Taha (2006): In Sudan, journalist Mohammed Taha Mohammed Ahmed was kidnapped and murdered after running an article that offended Islamists, which was perceived as questioning the ancestry of the Prophet Muhammad.
Fatwa Against Isioma Daniel (2002): Nigerian journalist Isioma Daniel was forced to flee Nigeria after a fatwa was issued urging Muslims to kill her for suggesting that the Prophet Muhammad would have approved of the Miss World contest.
Other Related Incidents:
Turkey (2025): Employees of the Turkish satirical magazine LeMan were arrested or targeted after they published a cartoon that was interpreted by some as an insult to the Prophet Muhammad, sparking backlash similar to the Charlie Hebdo case.
Bangladesh (2013): Journalists in Bangladesh were attacked by activists from groups like Hefazat-e-Islam, with some incidents involving calls for the death of bloggers and reporters accused of atheism or insulting Islam.
These attacks are generally recognized as attempts by extremist organizations or individuals to enforce a prohibition on visual depictions of the Prophet Muhammad through violence.
Once again I admire your integrity in cancelling and refunding subscriptions of those that not only don't share your integrity, but display hateful intolerance. I will always write intros to your informative articles and share them on social media.
Thank you. The hateful and vicious comments should be reserved for the men who take the words of the Prophets that build love and trust and are twisted for greed and control. God gives us the tools of the Universes and we spit on His Image.
Right on Qasim, you're like Shirley Chisholm, Unbought and Unbossed! As you say one thing to have an opinion, completely another to spew your ignorance all over the place. Check this out for those who may want to LEARN MORE:
https://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/
1st your treatment of that person was dignified. I appreciate your ethics & clarity of keeping this substance as a safe place for discussion.
2) The irony behind this is the ongoing dichotomy of our founding fathers intent with the Declaration & Constitution versus the Ideal it has become.
'All men' because their various bigotries meant all European, moneyed, Landowners were equal. That US citizens stumble toward the Ideal is a testament of the divine's intention that touched their wording.
"Freedom of Religion" also was not originally aimed at all religions but aimed at all the offshore of Roman Catholicism because their grandparents, parents. & maybe them were survivors of internal religious wars against "heretics" depending g on your POV
Again US citizens over 250+ years stumble toward the Ideal.
I fully concur with your principled rejection of this, without a doubt, objectionable subscriber. I offer support as a non-believer, and yet a student of religion.
Whether Mohammed, Jesus or The Buddha were actual persons, representations or conglomerates, remember Mohammed was not a Muslim, Jesus not a Christian, nor The Buddha a Buddhist.
Thank you for sharing this. You have my full support.
I think his ignorant comment was based on certain (false) rumors that have spread, & many non-Muslims believe, about Prophet Muhammad. You may well have already addressed it in your platform Islam Today (or even on this column, "Let's Address This" -- I can't be sure I've read every issue of this), but it is probably worthwhile refuting (again?) one by one commonly held (mis)beliefs about Muhammad in a column here. One of many strengths which you have demonstrated many times is your skill at using facts & logic to refute false claims.
I appreciate you and all the effort you put into your work.
The premise of religious freedom in colonial Pennsylvania (1681) was partly responsible for the 30,000+ German immigrants who relocated to Philadelphia in (1727-1776), and later became part the US Constitution. Is there anything more fundamental to individual freedom than the opportunity to exercise beliefs as a matter of choice?
I appreciate the clause in the first amendment that prohibits Congress from establishing an official state religion and protects the free exercise of religion. The current administration is clearly pushing toward adopting White Christian Nationalism and political theocracy, which, in my opinion, will devastate the first amendment and much that relies upon it. WCN is not a choice I would make, nor would I approve of pushing it on anyone. I confess I find it so harsh and divisive that it is hard for me to even say I welcome those to practice theirs without the freedom from it.
Wow. Here we go. There's a lot of "I completely agree with you" type statements followed by "here's why you're wrong" in the comments lol. Or, "I respect all religions" followed by hate speech disguised as free speech. This reminds me of when White racists say to me "I love all races" followed by "there's bad people in every race and here's a list of horrible things Black people do based on stereotypes I think are true." It's the ol' "With all due respect" followed by complete disrespect attitude. Disagree all you want, but it's Muhammad, not Mohammed. It's Muslim, not Moslem. Just because you have a different religion, or no religion at all, doesn't excuse disrespectful behavior or speech. Simple. No one is asking for anyone else to believe in, or even like, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) that I can see. Just be respectful. How hard is that? Free speech is not a license to denigrate any more than it is a license to lie, abuse or harass or there wouldn't be laws against things like perjury and terroristic threats.
While I personally try to use the most widely accepted spelling of both Muhammad & Muslim, like many other words & names, they both, especially Muhammad, have various ways of spelling them, & individual people, will have variations on that spelling, depending on where & when they were born, or maybe even which Muslim sect their parents belonged to, so I'm not going to declare illegitimate someone who spells their name differently.
By the way, counting up the various ways of spelling Muhammad [which probably even exceed the number of ways to spell Kathryn/Catherine/Katherine/Catharine/Kathryne/Cathryn/Katharine/Katheryn (see what I mean?)], it is 1 of the most common given names in the world, possibly even #1. I had a friend whose last name is Wong, who said, even though as far as I know he wasn't Muslim, that he planned to name his son Mohammed (or whatever spelling it might've been, but that was the most common spelling in the US at that time) because supposedly his last name was the most common surname in the world, & he wanted to combine it with the most common given name in the world to give his son a name that combined was actually quite rare. Not sure if he ever did this because I lost contact with him.
Right, but you understand the general concept of being respectful and not comparing people to pedophiles when they're not pedophiles right? And there are multiple spellings for the name Jesus too like Yeshua, Jèsus, Iesus, but you can see how using incorrect nomenclature while comparing him to dog feces would be disrespectful right?
Hi, Qasim,
First off, I am terribly sorry you had to see a comment like that. Secondly, reading this post today, I was reminded of the importance of unbiased, non-discriminatory language in religious studies; otherwise, you end up spouting disinformation at best, and discrimination at worst like the comment that was made. I come from a Catholic background (but I'm currently identifying with the 'agnostic' label) and it took years to deconstruct a lot of the dangerous notions about religions like Islam, Hinduism, Judaism — and many more — that I was taught all in the name of "defending" Christianity. Now, this isn't an attack on Christianity, but the truth is many schools teach religious studies with a curriculum that is biased toward Christianity, and the school system as a whole needs to really investigate themselves to check and correct their biases, and it starts with the language we used when talking about these faiths.
Peace.
🫶👍✌️
Okay.
The comment appears to associate Mohamd with application of dominance over its followers.
Compliance, using tools such as removing any independent thought from the equation, or else!
The fraudster, pedophile, etc., reference appears applicable to the Trump reference.
Now, has violence been applied based on religious scripture? Yes/No?
See other religious institutional abuse.
Let's say, the pedophile, sexual molestation by catholic priests, to include the institution's actions to hide, relocate the abusing priests.
And the institutional strategy to offer to pay the victims, not just for compensation of harm, but, more importantly, for silence, through NDAs. (Note: See recent push by legislators to ban NDAs seeking to silence victims of sexual abuse - with retroactive application too).
And, historically, religious beliefs were used (when we didn't have the internet 1,000 years ago, for control of the masses. (i.e., abide or else!)
Principle used was like creating fire and calling it an act of magic. Spellbinding those prospective indoctrinees.
In addition, and these issues based on religious beliefs, mentioned, have most likely been written about in more depth.
I am not one versed in these belief systems, but I am a keen observer.
There are numerous events retaliating against those perceived offenses to one's beliefs, not just traditional beliefs, maybe social etiquette issues.
There appears to be a hair-trigger finger by those perceiving an offense to one's sensitivities, or those adamant believers of anything, religious scripture, or other belief systems people may have.
Resukting in violence against the perceived offender, or a non-indoctrined being.
The 2nd Amendment has an arguable religious like following.
Racism, is a form of group beliefs pitting one race against the other. We've seen how that goes.
The Trump-Israel War initiated against Iran, arguably has groundings with religious structure, from all sides.
See complaints against US Military leaders administering doctrine based themes to the deploying troops discussing rapture based themes for engaging the proposed enemy.
Leading analysts point out, that the Iranian leader was near medical death (cancer, and age) where he chose to avail himself to targeting to create the martyrdom response by all followers - per scripture, against propagaters of the Iran conflict, and others.
Moreover, The simple depictions of Prophet Muhammad is, per scripture, forbidden and has resulted in death sentences.
A discussion of freedom of speech can be launched from here regarding belief systems imposing their doctrines upon others, or stifling speech, thought, behavior.
Hateful remark in the canceled subscriber's post? Maybe their education, sophistication, and misinformation may have contributed to his post.
But hateful in terms of . . . ( need to log onto twitter/x to really get examples.), granted, the evaluation of hateful is a matter of opinion, but on it's face?
In addition, the occupant/occupants in our government appear to be using division, through engineering public ignition points by offensive triggers to create chaos.
The deviance by these select few is very sinister, creating distrust, and gaslighting turmoil everywhere.
I have tried not to acknowledge this forum's host, nor anyone in particular for this discussion, keeping it object and an issue for discussion. Hope I was successful.
I would encourage bringing on James Talarico to contribute his views on these many issues raised.
Talarico appears to apply his religious foundings, as evidenced throughout his campaign, without judgment. I have confidence he may have an appropriate view regarding this discussion.
Lastly, general research on application of violence in response to the subject of the Prophet Muhammad follows.
=======
Several major attacks against journalists and media outlets have been carried out by extremist groups citing offense taken at depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, as well as by state or non-state actors in specific political contexts.
Based on reports regarding this subject, here are the key instances:
Charlie Hebdo Attack (2015): On January 7, 2015, gunmen attacked the Paris offices of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, killing 12 people. The attack was in retaliation for the magazine’s publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad. Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) claimed responsibility for the attack, stating it was ordered to avenge the Prophet.
Charlie Hebdo Firebombing (2011): Prior to the 2015 shooting, Charlie Hebdo was firebombed in 2011 after publishing an issue that featured Muhammad as a guest editor.
Murder of Mohammed Taha (2006): In Sudan, journalist Mohammed Taha Mohammed Ahmed was kidnapped and murdered after running an article that offended Islamists, which was perceived as questioning the ancestry of the Prophet Muhammad.
Fatwa Against Isioma Daniel (2002): Nigerian journalist Isioma Daniel was forced to flee Nigeria after a fatwa was issued urging Muslims to kill her for suggesting that the Prophet Muhammad would have approved of the Miss World contest.
Other Related Incidents:
Turkey (2025): Employees of the Turkish satirical magazine LeMan were arrested or targeted after they published a cartoon that was interpreted by some as an insult to the Prophet Muhammad, sparking backlash similar to the Charlie Hebdo case.
Bangladesh (2013): Journalists in Bangladesh were attacked by activists from groups like Hefazat-e-Islam, with some incidents involving calls for the death of bloggers and reporters accused of atheism or insulting Islam.
These attacks are generally recognized as attempts by extremist organizations or individuals to enforce a prohibition on visual depictions of the Prophet Muhammad through violence.
Once again I admire your integrity in cancelling and refunding subscriptions of those that not only don't share your integrity, but display hateful intolerance. I will always write intros to your informative articles and share them on social media.
Keep up your excellent reporting and commentary Qasim. We are here for what you do so well.
Oh, and those anti-Islam statements reflect the propaganda that has been forced by enemies of Peace.
Thank you. The hateful and vicious comments should be reserved for the men who take the words of the Prophets that build love and trust and are twisted for greed and control. God gives us the tools of the Universes and we spit on His Image.
Chef’s kiss, Sir