http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3097350/Radical-Islamic-clerics-warn-
of-further-attacks-after-publisher-is-firebombed.html

<quotes>

Islamic extremists have warned of a wave of reprisals over a controversial
book about the Prophet Mohammed after the home of its publisher was
firebombed.

Hardline clerics said that further attacks would be "inevitable" if
publication of the novel, The Jewel of Medina, goes ahead as planned next
month.

The attack came days after Mr Rynja's company, Gibson Square, bought the
rights to the book by the American writer Sherry Jones, which has already
been likened to Sir Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses.

The novel, which focuses on the relationship between Mohammed and his child
bride Aisha, was recently dropped from publication in the United States by
the publishers Random House amid fears that it would anger Muslims.

Buying the British and Commonwealth rights to the Sherry Jones novel last
week, Mr Rynja described it as a "moving love story".

But the radical cleric Anjem Choudhary said the book was an insult to the
Prophet Mohammed's honour, something he said would warrant a "death penalty"
under Sharia law.

The attack on Mr Rynja's home in Lonsdale Square, Islington, north London,
came in the early hours of Saturday morning.

It is believed officers had been expecting the attack and quickly moved in
to arrest two men at the scene while a third was stopped at a nearby London
Underground station.

The three men, aged 40, 30 and 22, were being questioned on suspicion of the
commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism last night.

But the radical cleric Anjem Choudhary, who lives in Ilford, east London,
said he was "not surprised at all" by the attack and warned of possible
further reprisals over the book

"It is clearly stipulated in Muslim law that any kind of attack on his
honour carries the death penalty," he said.

"People should be aware of the consequences they might face when producing
material like this. They should know the depth of feeling it might provoke."

"If the publication goes ahead then I think, inevitably, there will be more
attacks like this - this is the thin of the wedge," he said.

</quotes>

Of course not all Muslms are offended by the book, nor upset enough to react
with violence ...

http://www.readerville.com/index.php/journal/view/free-speech-and-islam/

<quotes>

According to The Wall Street Journal's Asra Nomani, one (non-Muslim)
professor of Islamic history, Denise Spellberg, read an advance copy of
Jones' novel and deemed it to be an "ugly" book that turned sacred history
into "soft-core pornography."

If this description of the book is true, then when it is eventually
published, I - as a Muslim - probably won't put it on my Amazon wish list.
But I won't object to its publication, either, because I believe in freedom
of expression and because nothing in Islam suffocates free speech. I have
the right not to read it. I have the right not to buy it. That is enough for
me and for most of the Muslims in the world.

How can I speak for most Muslims in the world? In the 2006 World Gallup
Poll, a substantial majority of Muslims, more than 90% in many Muslim
countries, said they would guarantee freedom of expression if they could.
This statistic - coupled with the fact that there are 1.5 billion Muslims in
the world and only a minuscule percentage of those resorted to violence in
the cases of Rushdie and the Danish cartoons - makes me think I can.

But what particularly saddens me about the Jones episode is this: it didn't
involve "radical Islam" at all, but it's being blamed on Muslims anyway.
There haven't been any violent protests. There haven't been protests at all.
It wasn't Muslims who demanded that Random House abort publication of the
book. Although Nomani's article about this incident implies a mass online
Muslim movement opposing the book's publication, the only real evidence she
presents is one non-Muslim professor's suggestion that the book was
offensive.

</quotes>

Well there's always some violent extremist to cause trouble ( as there is in
every section of society ) and undermine any claims of peacefulness but it's
an interesting question as to who is whipping up the hatred. It would be
ironic if the source of the book being offensive turns out to come right
down to a non-Muslim playing do-gooder.

Seems we need some Islamic scholar to actually read the book and decide if
it is or is not offensive to Islam. For some though it won't matter, they'll
believe whatever they are told if it fits their own pre-conceived notions
... won't they Jesse ?

The Happy Hippy wrote:
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3097350/Radical-Islamic-clerics-warn-
> of-further-attacks-after-publisher-is-firebombed.html
> 
> <quotes>
> 
> Islamic extremists have warned of a wave of reprisals over a controversial
> book about the Prophet Mohammed after the home of its publisher was
> firebombed.
> 
> Hardline clerics said that further attacks would be "inevitable" if
> publication of the novel, The Jewel of Medina, goes ahead as planned next
> month.
> 
> The attack came days after Mr Rynja's company, Gibson Square, bought the
> rights to the book by the American writer Sherry Jones, which has already
> been likened to Sir Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses.
> 
> The novel, which focuses on the relationship between Mohammed and his child
> bride Aisha, was recently dropped from publication in the United States by
> the publishers Random House amid fears that it would anger Muslims.
> 
> Buying the British and Commonwealth rights to the Sherry Jones novel last
> week, Mr Rynja described it as a "moving love story".
> 
> But the radical cleric Anjem Choudhary said the book was an insult to the
> Prophet Mohammed's honour, something he said would warrant a "death penalty"
> under Sharia law.
> 
> The attack on Mr Rynja's home in Lonsdale Square, Islington, north London,
> came in the early hours of Saturday morning.
> 
> It is believed officers had been expecting the attack and quickly moved in
> to arrest two men at the scene while a third was stopped at a nearby London
> Underground station.
> 
> The three men, aged 40, 30 and 22, were being questioned on suspicion of the
> commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism last night.
> 
> But the radical cleric Anjem Choudhary, who lives in Ilford, east London,
> said he was "not surprised at all" by the attack and warned of possible
> further reprisals over the book
> 
> "It is clearly stipulated in Muslim law that any kind of attack on his
> honour carries the death penalty," he said.
> 
> "People should be aware of the consequences they might face when producing
> material like this. They should know the depth of feeling it might provoke."
> 
> "If the publication goes ahead then I think, inevitably, there will be more
> attacks like this - this is the thin of the wedge," he said.
> 
> </quotes>
> 
> Of course not all Muslms are offended by the book, nor upset enough to react
> with violence ...
> 
> http://www.readerville.com/index.php/journal/view/free-speech-and-islam/
> 
> <quotes>
> 
> According to The Wall Street Journal's Asra Nomani, one (non-Muslim)
> professor of Islamic history, Denise Spellberg, read an advance copy of
> Jones' novel and deemed it to be an "ugly" book that turned sacred history
> into "soft-core pornography."
> 
> If this description of the book is true, then when it is eventually
> published, I - as a Muslim - probably won't put it on my Amazon wish list.
> But I won't object to its publication, either, because I believe in freedom
> of expression and because nothing in Islam suffocates free speech. I have
> the right not to read it. I have the right not to buy it. That is enough for
> me and for most of the Muslims in the world.
> 
> How can I speak for most Muslims in the world? In the 2006 World Gallup
> Poll, a substantial majority of Muslims, more than 90% in many Muslim
> countries, said they would guarantee freedom of expression if they could.
> This statistic - coupled with the fact that there are 1.5 billion Muslims in
> the world and only a minuscule percentage of those resorted to violence in
> the cases of Rushdie and the Danish cartoons - makes me think I can.
> 
> But what particularly saddens me about the Jones episode is this: it didn't
> involve "radical Islam" at all, but it's being blamed on Muslims anyway.
> There haven't been any violent protests. There haven't been protests at all.
> It wasn't Muslims who demanded that Random House abort publication of the
> book. Although Nomani's article about this incident implies a mass online
> Muslim movement opposing the book's publication, the only real evidence she
> presents is one non-Muslim professor's suggestion that the book was
> offensive.
> 
> </quotes>
> 
> Well there's always some violent extremist to cause trouble ( as there is in
> every section of society ) and undermine any claims of peacefulness but it's
> an interesting question as to who is whipping up the hatred. It would be
> ironic if the source of the book being offensive turns out to come right
> down to a non-Muslim playing do-gooder.
> 
> Seems we need some Islamic scholar to actually read the book and decide if
> it is or is not offensive to Islam. For some though it won't matter, they'll
> believe whatever they are told if it fits their own pre-conceived notions
> ... won't they Jesse ?

Don't ask me, of the two of us you are the one who should be speaking 
native muslim dialects.

Maybe you can ask the cleric Anjem Choudhary, hes in London and already 
is on record [as per your article] as saying: "the book was an insult to 
the Prophet Mohammed's honour, something he said would warrant a "death 
penalty" under Sharia law. & he was "not surprised at all" by the attack 
and warned of possible further reprisals over the book

"It is clearly stipulated in Muslim law that any kind of attack on his
honour carries the death penalty," he said.

"People should be aware of the consequences they might face when 
producing material like this. They should know the depth of feeling it 
might provoke."

"If the publication goes ahead then I think, inevitably, there will be 
more attacks like this - this is the thin of the wedge,"

Seems clear enough to me - Are you claiming that this Anjem Choudhary is 
a typical "non-Muslim, playing do-gooder" ?
If not, you have just pissed in your own shoe, enjoy wearing it.

"Jesse"  wrote ...

> Seems clear enough to me - Are you claiming that this Anjem Choudhary is
> a typical "non-Muslim, playing do-gooder" ?
> If not, you have just pissed in your own shoe, enjoy wearing it.

I'm talking of "Denise Spellberg" as is clear in the context of the second
article. Did you actually read it ? Did you understand it ? You simply
continue to parade your comprehension inabilities and you're pissing in your
own shoe.

You really should stop playing these attempted point scoring games of yours
because you really are shit at it.

The Happy Hippy wrote:
> "Jesse"  wrote ...
> 
>> Seems clear enough to me - Are you claiming that this Anjem Choudhary is
>> a typical "non-Muslim, playing do-gooder" ?
>> If not, you have just pissed in your own shoe, enjoy wearing it.
> 
> I'm talking 

Stop right there bitch, while you are still making sense - And stop 
copying my phrases, will ya ?