I did some research on MEMRI after following your link. It looks as though the organization is more slanted than it might at first appear. Here is some of the info I found on Wikipedia:

Brian Whitaker, the Middle East editor for the Guardian newspaper in the United Kingdom, has been one of the most outspoken critics of MEMRI, writing: “My problem with Memri is that it poses as a research institute when it’s basically a propaganda operation,”[5] and that “the stories selected by Memri for translation follow a familiar pattern: either they reflect badly on the character of Arabs or they in some way further the political agenda of Israel.”[4]

Laila Lalami has written that, “There are three general observations that can be made about MEMRI’s work. One is that it consistently picks the most violent, hateful rubbish it can find, translates it and distributes it in e-mail newsletters to media and members of Congress in Washington. The second is that MEMRI does not translate comparable articles published in Israel, although the country is not only a part of the Middle East but an active party to some of its most searing conflicts. For instance, when the right-wing Israeli politician Effi Eitam referred to Israel’s Palestinian citizens as a “cancer,” MEMRI did not pick up this story. The third is that this organization is now the main source of media articles on the region of Islam, a far greater and far more diverse whole than the individual countries it lists.”[21]

I’m betting you can count on one hand the number of references to any liberal Islamic writers on the UU blogs.

A nice start for UU’s would be a response to the Muslim Scholars call for dialogue.

We UU’s have something to offer.

It’s a shame we don’t join in the dialogue.

Thanks for commenting. It is possible to teach the history and sociology of religious fundamentalism without asserting that ALL people of a particular religion are extremists.

A course on Islam in the contemporary world could cover not only extremist movements in Islam, but also moderate and progressive movements. Or, a panel discussion on religious movements that use violence could include experts on several of the world’s religions, who can explain extremist movements without implying that all people in a given religion are violent.