You say "we" as if that one little word can encompass all Muslims.  It can't, or at least it shouldn't.  Before you can take "constructive measures" against the spread of violence and extremism within Islam, you need to stop thinking in terms of a unified "we", so that "you" peaceful Muslims can distance yourselves from "them", the extremists and radicals.

Also, I found this one sentence disturbingly out of step with the rest of your message:

m.sumair wrote: Why we can't ask UN to pass Intrnational Law that no such disgusting act be done against any prophet and to any Reglious scripture.

You seem to want peace, but only on your terms.  That is not peace, but surrender.  If you truly want peace -- if you want the right to believe what you want and live as you choose -- then you must allow others to believe what they want and live as they choose.  That may mean that others will say and do things you find disgusting.  Too bad.  No one has the right not to be disgusted.

m.sumair wrote: But keeping a distance is not helping, they do what they want to do and we remain aside thinking/feeling bad about it...than what, they doit again !

Keeping a distance from extremism, both physically and rhetorically, does help.  The participation of thousands of "mainstream" Muslims in the protest outside the embassy provided crucial "cover" for the attack by a relatively small number of extremists.  If the moderates had simply stayed home, the result might have been different.  At least, it would have been clear that the extremists represented only a small minority of Muslims.

People who hate religion are doing whatever they please, Publicly.

As is their right.  Again, if you have the right to say what you want about Muhammad, then so do we.  Frankly, I find many things that Muhammad said and did to be offensive; but I would never seek a law preventing you from repeating them, Publicly.

1. http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1101295800375-886/HR+35+Letter+PDF+FINAL.pdf - An open letter to assemblymembers http://calsjp.org/?p=1297#fnref5 - ↩

m.sumair wrote: @Ron, Lol..I object or not object :) the point is You cannot do this against jews. The Restriction is on, and to be frankly i want the same Restriction on this side.. I hope that u undestand or.. Do u get more confused ??

Thanks for that clarification.  Okay, so earlier you wrote:

m.sumair wrote: Well talking about freedom and right of speech, I don't find it completely excriseble. You can talk about Islam either way.. fine, but than can you compose poetry or other literature against the atrocites of Jews in Palastian and than 'stay free' afterwards. Can you discuss Holocaust and go free. (a genocide ! I agree)

You're absolutely right that you can get into trouble for spreading false information about a minority group with the intent to promote discrimination, e.g. denying that the Holocaust happened.  So for instance:

They can ban you, restrict you, bcoz they can do it. They are in power, they rule banks and major economy..you can't speak against their feelings, and go free. But u can certainly do this against Islam, u suddenly remember all ur rights to be exercised.

You could quite possibly get in trouble for repeating the above nonsense in bold, if you did so publicly enough and in a context implying hatred or animosity.

On the other hand, you can certainly criticize or ridicule a minority, as long as you stick to the facts and as long as your purpose is not clearly to incite hatred and violence.  There was recently a great Broadway musical comedy called "The Book of Mormon", which mocks the religion of Mormonism, for instance.  Unfortunately I didn't get to see it myself, but I understand it was a big hit.  I have heard several of the songs from it and they are hilarious.  Would your proposed legislation ban this musical?

m.sumair wrote: @Ron, I never denied that holocaust ever happened (if thts wat u meant) and there was no intent to cause any discrimination, I wonder what were you thinking? My point is quite simple that when you are in Power, (weathr minority or majority) you tend to subjugate rights of others (weather minority or majority) either intentionally or unintentionally. So this whole talk of freedom of Expression is "good" as long as you talk against those not in power. When you dare to speak against those in power, against their injustice and chaos, than they will  banish you (the history is clear & so is present, from such acts).

You're right, and that is precisely why we need laws protecting freedom of expression.  As it has been said many times, if freedom of expression is to mean anything at all it must include freedom for speech that is unpopular or that we personally hate.  Speech that is popular and that we like obviously doesn't need protection.

So can I say, that you can get in trouble for spreading false information about a Prophet with the intent to promote hatred and discrimination, for instance We can ban you, restrict you from propagating such nonsense. (I personally don't think so because we are "others")

Absolutely.  If you claim that Muhammad had sex with a dog, you could probably get arrested, because it is a blatant lie with the clear intent of inciting hatred.  On the other hand, it is okay to say that he had sex with a nine year old girl (Aisha), because that is factually correct, or at least there is ample evidence to support it.  What you make of that fact is up to you.

Ron you said : RON WEBB wrote: You could quite possibly get in trouble for repeating the above nonsense in bold, if you did so publicly enough and in a context implying hatred or animosity. Now this is something that I am keen to comment. Me saying this nonsense in public will get me in trouble, while "they" saying nonsense against Prophet in public is a Freedom of expression. Don't you think its a double standards?

The phrase in bold was "They are in power, they rule banks and major economy."  This is factually incorrect.  It is a lie repeated over and over by anti-Semites to incite hatred and distrust of Jews.  You could say that Jews are disproportionately represented in the banking industry, which may be true for historical reasons, but their absolute numbers are simply too small to be "ruling" anything.

Assalamu Alaikum/Peace be upon you,

A comment about Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) has been made with regards to his relation with Aisha (RA). While there may be some disagreement with regards to the age of Aisha (RA) at the time of her marriage with the Prophet (peace be upon him), one thing is unanimously agreed by the scholars in Islam that the Prophet had an excellent relationship with his wives, and his marriage was in line with the prevalent traditions in those times. The excellent character of the Prophet has been greatly appreciated by many prominent non-Muslims as well.

I cannot go in details as it is not the topic of this thread.

Since the Muslims intensely love the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his companions, including Aisha (RA), a cordial and respectful discussion about these personalities can go a long way to develop mutual understanding and cooperation. 

peacemaker wrote: A comment about Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) has been made with regards to his relation with Aisha (RA).

I probably should have apologized in advance for that remark.  It was not my intent to offend, but rather to show how one could offend, while staying within the legal protection of freedom of expression.

You're right that Muhammad's marriage to Aisha would have been considered normal and acceptable within the context of his time and society.  I guess it is just another illustration of the fact that just because Muhammad did something or approved of something, that doesn't mean it is acceptable or advisable in all societies and for all time.

m.sumair wrote: I wonder what are you trying to get at..So u are saying(as per your illustration) that marriage is not acceptable and advisable to societies but sex and per-marital affairs are for the well-being of the society...that's absurd..(maybe not for you).

You're right, it's absurd; and you know perfectly well that's not what I meant, or you wouldn't have expected an apology for it.

It is not factually wrong or conspiracy theory, its a open secret. I wonder why a certain percentage of American people tax goes directly to Israel.

Probably for the same reason that an even greater percentage (in total) goes to various Muslim countries, notably including Pakistan.  Because war is big business, and big business (not the Jews) to a large extent controls the American government.

m.sumair wrote:

"How come investing in war(Defenses) brings Peace to world(or least this region)? It creates more tension, of what I understand."

"Do you mean FOREX. One currency getting strong or weak against other.
Well that depends on overall Economy, the foreign Investment in State, Employment Import n Export...thats what you meant.
So ur saying that US is providing Funds to Israel so that Israel strengthen the US Economy and hence International Exchange."

m.sumair wrote: I sure hope you know what you are saying, because if war is a BIG Business, than in order to remain in profit they must do what it takes to grow the business... and war brings destruction and chaos to the lives of many. ....Keep increasing the tension and the business will grow further and further.

That is exactly what I am saying.  It's the same on both sides of the divide: those in power maintain that power by fomenting fear and hatred of the Other.  On our side, power is mostly measured in money, while on yours, it is mostly religious; but otherwise the process is the same.