PR or not PR?

Submitted by the Grand Infidel of Kaffiristan (Australia), May 10, 2009 at 00:49

Mr. Nozzi (pbuh) writes:

"Non-muslims have bad impression upon muslims due to the over-emphasis upon the dark side on muslim extremists. "

It's not 'over emphasis' ! Are you kidding? It is the factual reporting through video footage and in depth unbiased investigations by journalists from many countries of the totally barbaric , uncivilised actions of those Muslims. No one is told what to think - people see and make their own judgements. That's OK with you isn't it?

"For instance, if there is a riot, or vandalism, or violence, the newspaper tends to publicized in a big heading to capture the attention of every newspaper reader."

That's twice you've downlpayed it with just 'violence and a little bit of vandalsim - as though its just kids with spray cans doing a bit of grafitti. How hard does a newspaper or TV station for that matter have to try to hold people's attention with the grisly scenes we saw in just one example - 9/11? I guess it was a bit of a media beat-up. Why didn't they just show it the day it occurred and leave it at that like they do with every other story? Why did it go on and on for weeks and months? That would never happen in an Islamic country would it?

"However, if there is no riot, vandalism or violence in a country for numerous years, the newspaper would not publicize about it."
right - and that's why we never hear about non-riots and non-vandalism in Iceland or the Falkland Islands. What was your point?

"....Moderate muslims do not perform vandalism, or riots, or etc."

the etcetera includes genocide (darfur) , governments allowing the stoning to death of women who may (or indeed may not ) have had an affair;the hanging or beheading of Muslim apostates.

You say these govermnets are not 'moderate'? Then what are you doing about it? Have you or your moderate muslim friends started a camopaign of vocal criticism of these actions? Have you attempted to have repealed the laws which allow these things (which are based on interpretations of Koranic law). If not why not? I could be cynical and say, were that ever even attempted - it would be done precisely to curry favour with non-Muslims - rather than done out of genuine concern for the human beings who have had the msfortne to be born into a muslim culture. BUt even if it was done disingenouusly for spurious reasons - that's still a step in the right direction.

".....and yet we are not being captured by the newspaper journalists to bring to the attention to the public for moderate muslims do not create trouble to the public."

Moderate muslims allowed the problem to fester intheir midst. Their fault is their own inaction. And it doesn't help having a philosophy which CAN be interpreted as actually allowing these barbaric actions.

Sorry, the solution is a Koran re-write - so that it is clear and unambiguous and all the harmful tracts - such as its numerous anti-Semitic passages need to be repealed.

Please kindly refer to the following web-site for the proof that muslims do contribute to the public and yet journalists do not capture the public attention for contribution from muslims to the public:

www.muslimcharity.org.uk; www.muslimaid.org.au; american.peace.org/index.htm

Notice that the links you give are of Muslim organisations WITHIN Western contries . Where they have wonderful examples of a myriad of non-Muslm charities to emulate. If there were NO muslim charities - questions WOULD be asked- don't you think? And interestingly the first link you give - shows that the charity seems to be mainly (if not totally) focussed on Muslims. i.e. by muslims and for muslims.

And indeed, the Australian example you give does show one appeal for victims of the recent bushfires in southern Australia. But again, is this one small example really a PR stunt - has it been done to give muslims some credibility that they really do care about non-muslms within whose societies they live - societies that give them far greater benefits that they ever could hope to have in their native muslim cultures? And , excuse my cynicism, what was the donation $10,000 , maybe $30,000?That's $30,000 of good publicity - cheaper than an ad campaign. And if it was not donated for partially cynical reasons - why is it any more meritorious than the large contributions made by millions of people of other religions and those with none?

Why exalt the relatively meagre muslm contributions when what is basically happening is a natural desire of human beings to help other human beings who literally have lost everything . Our country gave $1 billion to the muslim people of Aceh to rebuild their lives - where was a matching contribution from say, oil-rich muslims in Saudi arabia?

"Indeed there are many more muslim charity and organisations that cater the need of the poor and this shows that not all muslims are bad."

again, invariably it's focussed almost exclusively on other muslims.

".....What is bad, like riots, vandalism and etc., it will show to the public with a big heading to capture the attention to the public so much so non-muslims do not realize the existence of moderate muslims."

Really haven't heard too much about the campaign by 'moderate muslims' to inhibit the behaviour of the 'non-moderate' muslims.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".