I apologize if you felt my criticism was too harshly personal.
I realize it is hard for any of us to be called prejudiced, especially when we feel we consciously try not to be.
Some of the phrasing of your original post especially the 'passing strange' comment, was difficult for me to understand. I've never heard that term used before and so I apologize if I misintrepreted it or took it wrong.
I specified clearly that my charge was not prejudice against all Muslims, but prejudice against those whom you identify as "Islamists."
I honestly don't know how someone, being charitable or not, would conclude that Sayyid Qutb believed either the later Khulafaa (after the Rashidoon) were perfect or think that somehow he did not recognize the capacity of humans, including Muslims for evil.
In fact, throughout his writings he spoke of the ways in which Muslims went off the correct path as a general community over the centuries since the time of the Prophet (saw). Also, as I've tried to mention before, Qutb himself was imprisoned and tortured by those who claimed to be Muslims, so the charge that somehow he had an unreasonably optimistic view about the ability of people in general or Muslims in particular to be perfect.
You are of course free to believe to argue that Qutb's prescriptions are wrong. I am interested in that discussion, which is why I visit your site so often and try to add another perspective to the discussion.
Unfortunately what I have found, especially with your analysis of Qutb, is an unrelentingly negative and condescending analysis which seems to read Qutb's thought as the most evil force still drawing followers in today's world. It would be silly of me to argue against the easily observable fact that this assessment of a person I believe to have struggled greatly in life and in writing to bring justice and good to all people (though of course still a human being capable of error) is deeply offensive and hurtful to me and so sometimes I may strike back with a little bit of perhaps unwarranted spice in my responses.
I don't see reference to mutilation of the Israeli occupation soldiers in many of the articles I have read about this incident.
Are you referring to the display of body parts?
Are you assuming that the bodies were chopped up or in some way mutilated, rather than that they were just blown into many pieces as a result of the original explosion?
I am just seeking clarification.
I think your focusing on the lack of condemnation for this mutilation by IslamOnline is a bit unfair since it does not seem to be the main aspect of the story in any of the reports I have read.
More generally, though, if your point is that IslamOnline editorially has an anti-occupation viewpoint and would very rarely criticize Palestinian resistance against the occupation than this is true. I find most of the media is biased in favor of the Israelis and gives much much more attention to Israeli deaths than Palestinian deaths. Does IslamOnline have to specifically condemn everything it finds objectionable in the news reports it carries?
There was a story I saw that described the "displaying of body parts" rather graphically as men grabbing handfuls of guts and holding them aloft. Desecration might have been a better term than mutilation.