Although from different continent, the following two examples show just how ignorant and stupid some people can be about their knowledge of Islam.

The first one comes right from one of the capitals of Islam, Cairo. This first story shows how stupid can some Muslims be:

(????? ???????) ???? ???? ???????? ?? ???

????????, 01-??????-2006
???? ???? - ???? "??????? ?????? " ??????? ???? ??? ???????? ?? ??? ????????? ??????? ?? ???????? ??? ??????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ????? ??????? ??????.

??? ????? ????? ????? "??????? ????????" ?? ???????? ???? ??????? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ??????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ??????? ????? ??????? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ??????? ?????? -?? ???? ??????- ?????? ??? ??????? ????????? ??????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? "?????" ??????? ???????? 31-10-2006.

???? ????? ??????? ???? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ??????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ????????? ??????? ??????.

?????? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ??????? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ??????? ?? ??????? ??????? ???? ???? ?????????? ????? ????? ??? ????? " ????? ?????????" ??? 5 ?????? ???? ??????? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ???????

Since when there is something called Islamic Bikini? And since when Muslim women can swim in a public place? And what does the Islamic Brotherhood has to do with the swimming pool? It just shows how empty and ruthless these people are with their ignorant followers.

Why do they care if a woman wishes to swim in public? If a woman swim in public, she is already sinful according to Islamic rules, so why does it matter if she is wearing a normal bikini, an "Islamic bikini", or not wearing anything? If they think it is haram looking at naked woman, then why do they care looking at all? How can it be better if the woman wears an "Islamic bikini"? And why should they go to swimming pools if they can't dare look at naked ladies in first place?

It is just an example of how some stupid people use religion to deliver wrong signals about Islam for their own benefits, which is elections here. Yeah... for elections, everything is haram, and they are the only right people. Ask them about Ramadan Iftar invitations and how many poor people were invited by these saviors to these rich tables.

The second story comes from one of the capitals of "modern world". [Source]

On September 26, 2006, Berlin's Deutsche Opera announced the cancellation of four performances of the opera planned for November 2006, citing concerns that the production's depictions of a severed head of the Islamic prophet Muhammad raised an "incalculable security risk." "To avoid endangering its audience and employees, the management has decided against repeating 'Idomeneo' in November 2006," the opera house said in a press release.

The Idomeneo production, directed by Hans Neuenfels, shows King Idomeneo staggering on stage carrying the decapitated heads of Neptune, Jesus, Buddha and Mohammed; a departure from the libretto and score. According to the BBC, the German press agency DPA said Berlin police have so far recorded no direct threat to the opera house. However, the New York Times reported that there was an anonymous threat in August against the theatre.

The cancellation sparked a great deal of debate in Europe on the issue of self censorship and the nature of free speech. On September 27, 2006, Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel stated: "I think the cancellation was a mistake. I think self-censorship does not help us against people who want to practice violence in the name of Islam ... It makes no sense to retreat." Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble after a government-sponsored conference with Muslim representatives held independently of the incident told reporters that "to send a signal, we could all go to the performance together," and the Muslim representatives agreed that the performance should not be cancelled. Muslim reaction in Berlin to the opera was more muted than fiery. Several Muslims said the scene involving Muhammad may offend Muslims, but that artistic freedom should be respected in a democracy.

It is worthwhile to note that the severed heads are a recent 'addition' by director Neuenfels to the original, 225-year-old opera, which was last performed by the company in March 2004.

Finally today, Berlin opera house has sets new dates for Mozart work. It said in a statement on Wednesday that performances had been scheduled for December 18 and 29.

Now, what logic is there in respecting those who do not respect us? What dignity is there in defending their culture or supposed culture when they show contempt for ours? I want to defend my culture, not theirs, and inform you that I like Omar Khayyam much more than Shakespeare and Goethe and Walt Whitman and Leopardi and Mozart.

This shows how "freedom of speech" can be turned into a tool against the "respect of religions and freedom of worship", which is another human right. Anything, and everything is used to trigger violence from some radical ignorant call themselves, Muslims. Why can't the west respect others? And why should I respect him if his choose to depict me under the label of "freedom of speech."

Although no Muslim complained, they stopped it, calling it "self-censorship", in hope that if it was not noticed before, "let's show that we hate Muslims in ARTISTIC way." Not that other religions are not insulted by this same act, but it is not our problem, as Muslims, to care if Christians and Buddhist don't like to defend their religion and Goddess!

I just felt that posting my personal opinion about the Pope infamous quotes is going to stir another big controversial discussion (religious one) like that of Prophet Mohammed cartoons. However, many emails asked me to write about it and give my opinion in this matter.

To cut long story short, I have two sources that says it all.

Following video was sent to me by my friend, Samar Jarrah (American Palestinian Journalist), who toke part in this Fox news discussion. Although it is titled as "American Muslims React to Pope's Comments on Islam", but I believe it represent more than American Muslims.

However, my stand, I could not have said it better than Uri Avnery. Might look more extreme, but this is good, in depth what-is-what, which unlike the Pope, I'm quoting and adopting.

So here is Avenry’s spin. Enjoy it:

September 26, 2006
The Pope's Evil Legend - Mohammed's Sword
By URI AVNERY

Since the days when Roman Emperors threw Christians to the lions, the relations between the emperors and the heads of the church have undergone many changes.

Constantine the Great, who became Emperor in the year 306--exactly 1700 years ago--encouraged the practice of Christianity in the empire, which included Palestine. Centuries later, the church split into an Eastern (Orthodox) and a Western (Catholic) part. In the West, the Bishop of Rome, who acquired the title of Pope, demanded that the Emperor accept his superiority.

The struggle between the Emperors and the Popes played a central role in European history and divided the peoples. It knew ups and downs. Some Emperors dismissed or expelled a Pope, some Popes dismissed or excommunicated an Emperor. One of the Emperors, Henry IV, "walked to Canossa", standing for three days barefoot in the snow in front of the Pope's castle, until the Pope deigned to annul his excommunication.

But there were times when Emperors and Popes lived in peace with each other. We are witnessing such a period today. Between the present Pope, Benedict XVI, and the present Emperor, George Bush II, there exists a wonderful harmony. Last week's speech by the Pope, which aroused a world-wide storm, went well with Bush's crusade against "Islamofascism", in the context of the "Clash of Civilizations".

* * *

IN HIS lecture at a German university, the 265th Pope described what he sees as a huge difference between Christianity and Islam: while Christianity is based on reason, Islam denies it. While Christians see the logic of God's actions, Muslims deny that there is any such logic in the actions of Allah.

As a Jewish atheist, I do not intend to enter the fray of this debate. It is much beyond my humble abilities to understand the logic of the Pope. But I cannot overlook one passage, which concerns me too, as an Israeli living near the fault-line of this "war of civilizations".

In order to prove the lack of reason in Islam, the Pope asserts that the prophet Muhammad ordered his followers to spread their religion by the sword. According to the Pope, that is unreasonable, because faith is born of the soul, not of the body. How can the sword influence the soul?

To support his case, the Pope quoted--of all people--a Byzantine Emperor, who belonged, of course, to the competing Eastern Church. At the end of the 14th century, the Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus told of a debate he had--or so he said (its occurrence is in doubt)--with an unnamed Persian Muslim scholar. In the heat of the argument, the Emperor (according to himself) flung the following words at his adversary:

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".

These words give rise to three questions:

(a) Why did the Emperor say them?

(b) Are they true?

(c) Why did the present Pope quote them?

* * *

WHEN MANUEL II wrote his treatise, he was the head of a dying empire. He assumed power in 1391, when only a few provinces of the once illustrious empire remained. These, too, were already under Turkish threat.

At that point in time, the Ottoman Turks had reached the banks of the Danube. They had conquered Bulgaria and the north of Greece, and had twice defeated relieving armies sent by Europe to save the Eastern Empire. In 1453, only a few years after Manuel's death, his capital, Constantinople (the present Istanbul) fell to the Turks, putting an end to the Empire that had lasted for more than a thousand years.

During his reign, Manuel made the rounds of the capitals of Europe in an attempt to drum up support. He promised to reunite the church. There is no doubt that he wrote his religious treatise in order to incite the Christian countries against the Turks and convince them to start a new crusade. The aim was practical, theology was serving politics.

In this sense, the quote serves exactly the requirements of the present Emperor, George Bush II. He, too, wants to unite the Christian world against the mainly Muslim "Axis of Evil". Moreover, the Turks are again knocking on the doors of Europe, this time peacefully. It is well known that the Pope supports the forces that object to the entry of Turkey into the European Union.

* * *

IS THERE any truth in Manuel's argument?

The pope himself threw in a word of caution. As a serious and renowned theologian, he could not afford to falsify written texts. Therefore, he admitted that the Qur'an specifically forbade the spreading of the faith by force. He quoted the second Sura, verse 256 (strangely fallible, for a pope, he meant verse 257) which says: "There must be no coercion in matters of faith".

How can one ignore such an unequivocal statement? The Pope simply argues that this commandment was laid down by the prophet when he was at the beginning of his career, still weak and powerless, but that later on he ordered the use of the sword in the service of the faith. Such an order does not exist in the Qur'an. True, Muhammad called for the use of the sword in his war against opposing tribes--Christian, Jewish and others--in Arabia, when he was building his state. But that was a political act, not a religious one; basically a fight for territory, not for the spreading of the faith.

Jesus said: "You will recognize them by their fruits." The treatment of other religions by Islam must be judged by a simple test: How did the Muslim rulers behave for more than a thousand years, when they had the power to "spread the faith by the sword"?

Well, they just did not.

For many centuries, the Muslims ruled Greece. Did the Greeks become Muslims? Did anyone even try to Islamize them? On the contrary, Christian Greeks held the highest positions in the Ottoman administration. The Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Hungarians and other European nations lived at one time or another under Ottoman rule and clung to their Christian faith. Nobody compelled them to become Muslims and all of them remained devoutly Christian.

True, the Albanians did convert to Islam, and so did the Bosniaks. But nobody argues that they did this under duress. They adopted Islam in order to become favorites of the government and enjoy the fruits.

In 1099, the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem and massacred its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants indiscriminately, in the name of the gentle Jesus. At that time, 400 years into the occupation of Palestine by the Muslims, Christians were still the majority in the country. Throughout this long period, no effort was made to impose Islam on them. Only after the expulsion of the Crusaders from the country, did the majority of the inhabitants start to adopt the Arabic language and the Muslim faith--and they were the forefathers of most of today's Palestinians.

* * *

THERE IS no evidence whatsoever of any attempt to impose Islam on the Jews. As is well known, under Muslim rule the Jews of Spain enjoyed a bloom the like of which the Jews did not enjoy anywhere else until almost our time. Poets like Yehuda Halevy wrote in Arabic, as did the great Maimonides. In Muslim Spain, Jews were ministers, poets, scientists. In Muslim Toledo, Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars worked together and translated the ancient Greek philosophical and scientific texts. That was, indeed, the Golden Age. How would this have been possible, had the Prophet decreed the "spreading of the faith by the sword"?

What happened afterwards is even more telling. When the Catholics re-conquered Spain from the Muslims, they instituted a reign of religious terror. The Jews and the Muslims were presented with a cruel choice: to become Christians, to be massacred or to leave. And where did the hundreds of thousand of Jews, who refused to abandon their faith, escape? Almost all of them were received with open arms in the Muslim countries. The Sephardi ("Spanish") Jews settled all over the Muslim world, from Morocco in the west to Iraq in the east, from Bulgaria (then part of the Ottoman Empire) in the north to Sudan in the south. Nowhere were they persecuted. They knew nothing like the tortures of the Inquisition, the flames of the auto-da-fe, the pogroms, the terrible mass-expulsions that took place in almost all Christian countries, up to the Holocaust.

WHY? Because Islam expressly prohibited any persecution of the "peoples of the book". In Islamic society, a special place was reserved for Jews and Christians. They did not enjoy completely equal rights, but almost. They had to pay a special poll-tax, but were exempted from military service--a trade-off that was quite welcome to many Jews. It has been said that Muslim rulers frowned upon any attempt to convert Jews to Islam even by gentle persuasion--because it entailed the loss of taxes.

Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam, which has protected the Jews for fifty generations, while the Christian world persecuted the Jews and tried many times "by the sword" to get them to abandon their faith.

* * *

THE STORY about "spreading the faith by the sword" is an evil legend, one of the myths that grew up in Europe during the great wars against the Muslims--the reconquista of Spain by the Christians, the Crusades and the repulsion of the Turks, who almost conquered Vienna. I suspect that the German Pope, too, honestly believes in these fables. That means that the leader of the Catholic world, who is a Christian theologian in his own right, did not make the effort to study the history of other religions.

Why did he utter these words in public? And why now?

There is no escape from viewing them against the background of the new Crusade of Bush and his evangelist supporters, with his slogans of "Islamofascism" and the "Global War on Terrorism"--when "terrorism" has become a synonym for Muslims. For Bush's handlers, this is a cynical attempt to justify the domination of the world's oil resources. Not for the first time in history, a religious robe is spread to cover the nakedness of economic interests; not for the first time, a robbers' expedition becomes a Crusade.

The speech of the Pope blends into this effort. Who can foretell the dire consequences? [source]