NationStates Jolt Archive

Whilst Islam supposedly bans the depiction of the prophet Muhammad, and for that matter any human being or even animal, Muslims nonetheless do it all the time and have done throughout history(http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/ ). Therefore we must assume it is the violent nature of muhammad that is the real offence here. As many Muslims have said in the press and on television.

But have these Muslims not read the Koran? Do they not know the full story of the original spread of Islam?

In his struggles with the Quraish, Muhammad regulary led men into battle, starting as early as the battle of Badr in 624 AD and culminating in the conquest of Mecca in 630 AD. Even after his death, his follwers continued 'spreading the word' by invading every region surrounding Arabia.
Thus one of the cartoons with Muhammad brandishing a sword is historically accurate.

Though an image of Muhammad with a bomb is not historically accurate, if the technology for bomb making had existed in the 7th century......who knows?

To any Muslims on the forum, could you explain to me why so many Msulims are in denial of the foundation of their faith and their prophet?

Whilst Islam supposedly bans the depiction of the prophet Muhammad, and for that matter any human being or even animal, Muslims nonetheless do it all the time and have done throughout history(http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/ ). Therefore we must assume it is the violent nature of muhammad that is the real offence here. As many Muslims have said in the press and on television.

But have these Muslims not read the Koran? Do they not know the full story of the original spread of Islam?

In his struggles with the Quraish, Muhammad regulary led men into battle, starting as early as the battle of Badr in 624 AD and culminating in the conquest of Mecca in 630 AD. Even after his death, his follwers continued 'spreading the word' by invading every region surrounding Arabia.
Thus one of the cartoons with Muhammad brandishing a sword is historically accurate.

Though an image of Muhammad with a bomb is not historically accurate, if the technology for bomb making had existed in the 7th century......who knows?

To any Muslims on the forum, could you explain to me why so many Msulims are in denial of the foundation of their faith and their prophet?

It's because its "Blasphamous" to draw pictures of God's creations and Mohammed, obviously, is ranked fairly high. That and and lots of Muslims strike me as being prudish about such things.

La Cienega: Although I'm not Muslim, I think it's only common sense why the Muslim world is reacting so vehemently. It's one thing for a non-muslim to portray an image of Muhammed, and another entirely to draw a picture of the Prophet with a turban shaped like a bomb.

Seriously. I'm a huge proponent of freedom of the press, but I'm sure the same publishers of the papers who printed these images in Germany wouldn't have posted anti-semitic drawings. For the European nations who are so recently undergoing ethnic and racial tensions, why make matters worse?

From my understanding, Islamic groups tried numerous peaceful means to protest these drawings, including economic embargos, but certain editors want to rub their faces in it. I'm sure Muslims are perfectly aware of the medieval spread of Islam, all they are asking for is a little respect.

As it was explained to me, the Prophet declared that his image will never be adorned anywhere as you are supposed to worship Allah and not him.

They don't even know what he looked like.....

They don't even know what he looked like.....

Exactly.

--

Also, Muslim Conquests didn't invade actual civilizations, but the Arabian Peninsula was filled with tribes, or clans, in the 7th century, thus, not actually launching an invasion against a well-developed society.

Now, after Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) death, was when you cannot blame Islam directly for. For example, the rulers after Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) weren't as 'pure' as Muhammad (PBUH) himself, thus making them, in Islamic Belief terms, vulnerable to Satan, making them do things against Islam (just using a different perspective to describe this =/).

Also, spreading Islam in terms of violence and war is NOT permitted in Islam. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) used war because people would harm him because they believed he spread false words (one instance was while Muhammad [PBUH] was praying, people gathered and threw rocks and stones at him). Muhammad (PBUH) would spread Islam peacefully, but when the people would reject it AND harm him, then would war be declared (Jihad).

--Jihad is only valid in Islam if the person you attack harms you for being a Muslim. As I cannot stress that enough.

Drawing pictures of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) leads to idolatry. Drawing pictures of Allah is also forbidden for He is supposed to be represented without form because We (in Islamic Belief -- Muslims) only see Him before the 'Right Muslims' enter Paradise because it is a type of a grand gift to see Allah if you've been loyal to Him (in Islamic terms).

Drawing pictures of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) leads to idolatry. Drawing pictures of Allah is also forbidden for He is supposed to be represented without form because We (in Islamic Belief -- Muslims) only see Him before the 'Right Muslims' enter Paradise because it is a type of a grand gift to see Allah if you've been loyal to Him (in Islamic terms).
While I do understand why some Muslims would take offense what I can't understand is why they would react so violently to it. The cartoons are not physically attacking Islam, they're not even ridiculing Muhammed or Islam. If Islamic societies understood Western humour they would realize that the cartoon is criticizing those Muslims who say they follow Islam but are actually making a mockery of Muhammed.

As it is, I find the reaction of the Muslim world ridiculous and bigotted. And most unholy, too.

In the West, for example, we can have a whole movie (Dogma) that ridicules not only Christianity, but Catholicism in particular, and can feature a "Buddy Jesus" statue and make blasphemous statements...

and people run out and buy the DVD...

No "International Day of Anger" over the movie. No killings over the movie. No arsons over the movie. No street protests attended by millions around the world.

Here's Buddy...

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/buddyjesus.jpg

While I do understand why some Muslims would take offense what I can't understand is why they would react so violently to it. The cartoons are not physically attacking Islam, they're not even ridiculing Muhammed or Islam. If Islamic societies understood Western humour they would realize that the cartoon is criticizing those Muslims who say they follow Islam but are actually making a mockery of Muhammed.

As it is, I find the reaction of the Muslim world ridiculous and bigotted. And most unholy, too.

Ignorance and violence go hand in hand. The Muslims that tend to be educated react more by being offended then wanting to harm you.

Just because you are well versed in your religion doesn't make you wise.

As Confucius once said:

Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance."

or as I said:

Enlightenment comes from knowing you are an idiot.

;)

In the West, for example, we can have a whole movie (Dogma) that ridicules not only Christianity, but Catholicism in particular, and can feature a "Buddy Jesus" statue and make blasphemous statements...

Heck! Jesus has a talk show on South Park and no one makes a big fuss about that. Just about South Park in general, but as far as I know no one has died for it.

So, I would say to all Muslims: lighten up. You're not showing up your faith by torching an Embassy. If your god and your faith are strong enough they will stand in the face of criticism. If they're not, then they weren't worth having to begin with.

Also, Muslim Conquests didn't invade actual civilizations, but the Arabian Peninsula was filled with tribes, or clans, in the 7th century, thus, not actually launching an invasion against a well-developed society.

Now, after Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) death, was when you cannot blame Islam directly for. For example, the rulers after Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) weren't as 'pure' as Muhammad (PBUH) himself, thus making them, in Islamic Belief terms, vulnerable to Satan, making them do things against Islam (just using a different perspective to describe this =/).

NO.

You are giving a shia perspective.

The first three caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman) were sunni and only the fourth (Ali, son-in-law of Muhammed) was shia.

All four of them are considered to be "rightly-guided" caliphs by the sunnis, who make up around 80% of muslims. Of course they are not equal to Muhammed, but sunnis do consider them to be rightly-guided.

In the West, for example, we can have a whole movie (Dogma) that ridicules not only Christianity, but Catholicism in particular, and can feature a "Buddy Jesus" statue and make blasphemous statements...

I find it so sad that people think that Dogma ridicules Christianity. It just goes to show how many people completely miss the point...

Heck! Jesus has a talk show on South Park and no one makes a big fuss about that. Just about South Park in general, but as far as I know no one has died for it.

So, I would say to all Muslims: lighten up. You're not showing up your faith by torching an Embassy. If your god and your faith are strong enough they will stand in the face of criticism. If they're not, then they weren't worth having to begin with.

I'm a born again Christian, and I think that South Park's caricature of Jesus running a cable access show that no one watches, having him wrestle the Devil and people bet on Him, and having Him rescue Santa in Baghdad was just great.

Of course, maybe it's because I have a sense of humor...

In the West, for example, we can have a whole movie (Dogma) that ridicules not only Christianity, but Catholicism in particular, and can feature a "Buddy Jesus" statue and make blasphemous statements...

and people run out and buy the DVD...

No "International Day of Anger" over the movie. No killings over the movie. No arsons over the movie. No street protests attended by millions around the world.

Here's Buddy...

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/buddyjesus.jpg

Oh thats it..Now I will smite thee! Behold the wrath of teh angry Christian!!!11!

I say all non-islamic n ations should print the mohhamed cartoon things. Its not that I like them (because I do not), but becuase it will show those muslims that anyone who is not a muslim does not need to follow islamic law.

I find it so sad that people think that Dogma ridicules Christianity. It just goes to show how many people completely miss the point...

What was the point then?

NO.

You are giving a shia perspective.

The first three caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman) were sunni and only the fourth (Ali, son-in-law of Muhammed) was shia.

All four of them are considered to be "rightly-guided" caliphs by the sunnis, who make up around 80% of muslims. Of course they are not equal to Muhammed, but sunnis do consider them to be rightly-guided.

I know. Abu Bakr (PBUH) was, with the others, rightly-guided, but I was pointing more at later years.

I say all non-islamic n ations should print the mohhamed cartoon things. Its not that I like them (because I do not), but becuase it will show those muslims that anyone who is not a muslim does not need to follow islamic law.

Agreed, but why stop there? As an American, I'm going to go start carving out the side of the moon to look like an arab, (since we dont know what he actually looked like) then, I'm gonna sit back on my lunar mount arab, and watch as an area in between Asia and Africa simply bursts into flames, for whatever reason you want to attribute to it. :D

I would at this point like to draw attention to something I read in The Week. Ahem.

America Online is under fire from conservative Christians who complain that its new slogan, "I AM...) is the actual name of god. AOL member Ian Millar is spearheading a protest movement against the Internet provider, saying that AOL ads boasting that "I AM INSTANT MESSAGING" and "I AM VOICE CHAT" mock god's name in the Old Testament "Yahweh" meaning "I am." Millar says that AOL would never use the names "Allah" or "Buddha" in ads, and warns that God's "patience with the mockery of mankind" is running out.

Now I realize that this isn't nearly as extreme as some muslims are taking things, but it is also something considerably more trivial.

It also saves lazy ole me from creating a topic about it.

Agreed, but why stop there? As an American, I'm going to go start carving out the side of the moon to look like an arab, (since we dont know what he actually looked like) then, I'm gonna sit back on my lunar mount arab, and watch as an area in between Asia and Africa simply bursts into flames, for whatever reason you want to attribute to it. :D
wanna carve the moon, thats not a good idea. Thats because first, it will take a long time to carve it. second, the entire carving will only bee seen during a full moon.. third, an asteriod impact will ruin the carving.

wanna carve the moon, thats not a good idea. Thats because first, it will take a long time to carve it. second, the entire carving will only bee seen during a full moon.. third, an asteriod impact will ruin the carving.

Fourth, you'd probably mess up the tides.

What was the point then?

For the most part, to encourage people to fully examine their faith and not be afraid to consider the questions that have been written off in the past - or to point out that they don't matter. And, of course, to do so in a humorous (but not ridiculing) manner.

Was Christ black or white (or neither)? Seriously, does it matter?

Did Mary and Joseph ever have other children? Seriously, does it matter? Do we really believe that they stayed married and never got it on?

Does God really honor everything the church comes up with, no matter how ridiculous? Could walking through the doors of a church really clear you of all sin, just because the pope/bishop/etc. said so?

Do we really need to hold so strongly to beliefs that don't matter to the core of it all, so strongly that we would kill each other over it?

And so on....

Fourth, you'd probably mess up the tides.
Thanx for adding on.

In the West, for example, we can have a whole movie (Dogma) that ridicules not only Christianity, but Catholicism in particular, and can feature a "Buddy Jesus" statue and make blasphemous statements...

and people run out and buy the DVD...

No "International Day of Anger" over the movie. No killings over the movie. No arsons over the movie. No street protests attended by millions around the world.

Here's Buddy...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/618235.stm
http://guides.yourct.com/magazine/5/0/538/
http://www.tfp.org/anf/anti_blasphemy/
[quote
Nearly two thousand Catholics gathered in front of New York City’s Lincoln Center to express their outrage at the controversial film’s October 4 debut at the New York Film Festival.[/quote]

Not millions in one place but a thousand here a few hundred there not to mention more protests of other movies

They may have taken it a bit harsher but their religion seems to be more strict on that sort of thing

Also, Muslim Conquests didn't invade actual civilizations, but the Arabian Peninsula was filled with tribes, or clans, in the 7th century, thus, not actually launching an invasion against a well-developed society.


Weren't Mecca and Medina quite substantial towns along the east-west trade routes?

Now, after Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) death, was when you cannot blame Islam directly for. For example, the rulers after Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) weren't as 'pure' as Muhammad (PBUH) himself, thus making them, in Islamic Belief terms, vulnerable to Satan, making them do things against Islam (just using a different perspective to describe this =/).

Right, but I was mainly referring to the actual battles during Muhammad's lifetime.

Also, spreading Islam in terms of violence and war is NOT permitted in Islam. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) used war because people would harm him because they believed he spread false words (one instance was while Muhammad [PBUH] was praying, people gathered and threw rocks and stones at him). Muhammad (PBUH) would spread Islam peacefully, but when the people would reject it AND harm him, then would war be declared (Jihad).

OK, but even if it was retaliation, he would have needed weapons, he would not have retaliated to even stone throwers with his bare hands?


Drawing pictures of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) leads to idolatry.

OK, but Muslims themselves have done this throughout history, you can even buy posters of Muhammad on the street in Iran, but there is no rioting over this.

A lot of you find it strange that Muslims would react in extreme anger to the cartoons, but I think you're missing a few things:
1. A lot of the protests and violence may have been formulated by extremist groups, certain governments (Syria and Iran are very likely involved in a lot of the protests)
2. A few stupid Muslims do not represent all Muslims. For the few hundred violent Muslim protesters, there were thousands more peacefully protesting.
3. Muslims may have characterised this as yet another attack on their culture from the West, which fits into a belief held by many that the West (America in particular) are trying to destroy Muslim beliefs.
4. Every religion has it's nut jobs who go on ridiculous rampages or protests. Catholics bombing abortion clinics? Where the fuck does that make any sense. It's more than comparable to the burning of the Danish embassy in Syria, so really, they're not doing anything more violent than many other religions.

A lot of you find it strange that Muslims would react in extreme anger to the cartoons, but I think you're missing a few things:
1. A lot of the protests and violence may have been formulated by extremist groups, certain governments (Syria and Iran are very likely involved in a lot of the protests)
2. A few stupid Muslims do not represent all Muslims. For the few hundred violent Muslim protesters, there were thousands more peacefully protesting.
3. Muslims may have characterised this as yet another attack on their culture from the West, which fits into a belief held by many that the West (America in particular) are trying to destroy Muslim beliefs.
4. Every religion has it's nut jobs who go on ridiculous rampages or protests. Catholics bombing abortion clinics? Where the fuck does that make any sense. It's more than comparable to the burning of the Danish embassy in Syria, so really, they're not doing anything more violent than many other religions.

OK, but where are the moderate Muslim voices? Whay aren't the streets of Cairo and Lahore full of tens of thousands of Muslims protesting against Extremists burning down embassies, surely this is a much greater denigration of Islam than some cartoons. Are they just too cowardly too stand up for what they believe in? Or, maybe they do side with the extremists? To stand by and let the extyremists hijack your culture is just as bad as being an extremist yourself, in fact its worse!

Everything is offensive to muslims except the koran. They are humourless bigots. So there isn't any point trying to figure the whys and wherefores of this particular case.

Oh, they are pathological liars too. None of their stated aims match the reality of their behaviour. Hence the "peaceful" protests where they burn things down and threaten to "murder all those who defile islam", because "all they really want is to be left alone to practice their religion" :rolleyes: . If you listen to them, you'd think mosques were being burned down and muslims were being sent to camps. But ironically, the only systematic persecution of muslims comes from other muslims but they never protest that for some reason and for some reason they go to great lengths to justify that. At base, muslims hate the west, and western culture, and will do or say anything to bring about its downfall.

That said, they still sicken me less than the spineless quislings in our own culture that provide apologetics for them.

OK, but where are the moderate Muslim voices? Whay aren't the streets of Cairo and Lahore full of tens of thousands of Muslims protesting against Extremists burning down embassies, surely this is a much greater denigration of Islam than some cartoons. Are they just too cowardly too stand up for what they believe in? Or, maybe they do side with the extremists? To stand by and let the extyremists hijack your culture is just as bad as being an extremist yourself, in fact its worse!

I think the answer is easy to deduce:
1. The media isn't giving attention to the peaceful protests, it's focusing on the crazy bombers.
2. I don't ever hear of Catholics going out to Rome, protesting the bombings of clinics, or protesting the Churches role in sex education in Africa.

Also, you have to realize that Lebanon, Syria, Iran and Iraq are dangerous places, and protesting against the extremists (i.e. those who run your country) isn't exactly the brightest idea I'd imagine.

My views on Islam can be summed up by this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha

Anything else on the issue is redundant if you ask me.

Everything is offensive to muslims except the koran. They are humourless bigots. So there isn't any point trying to figure the whys and wherefores of this particular case.

Oh, they are pathological liars too. None of their stated aims match the reality of their behaviour. Hence the "peaceful" protests where they burn things down and threaten to "murder all those who defile islam", because "all they really want is to be left alone to practice their religion" :rolleyes: . If you listen to them, you'd think mosques were being burned down and muslims were being sent to camps. But ironically, the only systematic persecution of muslims comes from other muslims but they never protest that for some reason and for some reason they go to great lengths to justify that. At base, muslims hate the west, and western culture, and will do or say anything to bring about its downfall.

That said, they still sicken me less than the spineless quislings in our own culture that provide apologetics for them.

I... Wow. How incredibly bigoted, and totally ridiculous. You just characteristed a whole religion of people, over 1 billion people, as pathological liars, bigots, etc. Who's the real bigot?

Remember, the West doesn't exactly love the Islamic culture either. Look at our history and you can see that easily (the Crusades, the Eastern Question, Post-WWI/Post-WWII country creations, etc).

A lot of the protests and violence may have been formulated by extremist groups, certain governments (Syria and Iran are very likely involved in a lot of the protests)
Bingo! (Why is it always the Canadians? I reckon I wanna move to Canada.)

A large part of the protests in the Arab world at least can be traced back to entirely different reasons. The people in those countries are unhappy, often oppressed, usually poor and have no outlet to voice their frustration at their governments.
I think that governments like Syria or Yemen use this incident to channel people's frustration into this, in order to deflect some of the anger away from themselves.

And on TV, I just saw something awesome: an Iranian crowd burning German flags (seriously, that must be the first time anyone's done that) and a poster with a caricature of Merkel on it saying "Stupid Zionist!". :D

Bingo! (Why is it always the Canadians? I reckon I wanna move to Canada.)

A large part of the protests in the Arab world at least can be traced back to entirely different reasons. The people in those countries are unhappy, often oppressed, usually poor and have no outlet to voice their frustration at their governments.
I think that governments like Syria or Yemen use this incident to channel people's frustration into this, in order to deflect some of the anger away from themselves.

And on TV, I just saw something awesome: an Iranian crowd burning German flags (seriously, that must be the first time anyone's done that) and a poster with a caricature of Merkel on it saying "Stupid Zionist!". :D

Exactly right! I was going to get to that Leonstein!
A lot of the people living in the middle east and other muslim-intense areas are poor, opressed and very unhappy as Leonstein said. So when you get a large group of already pissed off people, combined with the perceived threat of Western cultural imperialism, plus mob mentalitly and lastly sometimes we just wanna be assholes, you get that crazy shit.

I... Wow. How incredibly bigoted, and totally ridiculous. You just characteristed a whole religion of people, over 1 billion people, as pathological liars, bigots, etc. Who's the real bigot?

Remember, the West doesn't exactly love the Islamic culture either. Look at our history and you can see that easily (the Crusades, the Eastern Question, Post-WWI/Post-WWII country creations, etc).

Maybe. It was bigoted to say they are all liars. But, they do seem fond of violence when things stop going their way. They love to immigrate to countries, demand the freedom of expression to swaddle their women in oppressive outfits, and then get outraged at someone else's freedom of expression to mock them. Now, the government is not above the people's opinion, neither are any of the world's other major religions. Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism- all of these have taken their lumps. What makes the Muslims so unique? That they're "obviously just more religious?" No. They have taken to thinking they are special. They also deny one of the most horrific and brutal events in the history of mankind- the Holocaust. They deny it happened, swear that, even if it did, it wasn't their problem, and go about plotting the demise of Israel, the U.S., and the democratic European countries, in that order.

Any who would argue with me, explain why it is okay to demand to be able to show solidarity with known terrorists in a public school, but wrong to mock said peoples in a newspaper.

I... Wow. How incredibly bigoted, and totally ridiculous. You just characteristed a whole religion of people, over 1 billion people, as pathological liars, bigots, etc. Who's the real bigot?

Remember, the West doesn't exactly love the Islamic culture either. Look at our history and you can see that easily (the Crusades, the Eastern Question, Post-WWI/Post-WWII country creations, etc).

If it makes you feel any better I don't like christianity. Religious people can't help but lie. Virtually every christian believes that all none christians are going to hell. Almost all of them deny it however. (Those who don't are called "extremists"). Devout muslims face similar problems, and deal with it the same way by lying. The fact remains that - like devout christians - their behaviour belies their words. I have lapsed muslim friends who agree with me about this.

I am also sick of the constant streams of non sequiturs that are produced whenever one discusses islam. Why is it there is an almost desperate need to discuss the crusades? It is completely irrelevant, as is the mischaracterization of the history of the ottoman empire.

Do they not teach elementary logic and history in schools anymore?

What people don't seem to get is that Islamic thinking doesn't align with Western thinking.

Being a Muslim in the U.S., I get the joy of being on both sides of this argument.

On one side you have the freedom of the press, yippie.

On the other, you have a man ranked as high (Me says higher than) as Jesus Christ, with people donning him the very low rank of an Islamic terrorist looking like a member of Al-Qaeda (Ask your average Muslim, we hate Al-Qaeda).

If it makes you feel any better I don't like christianity. Religious people can't help but lie. Virtually every christian believes that all none christians are going to hell. Almost all of them deny it however. (Those who don't are called "extremists"). Devout muslims face similar problems, and deal with it the same way by lying. The fact remains that - like devout christians - their behaviour belies their words. I have lapsed muslim friends who agree with me about this.

I am also sick of the constant streams of non sequiturs that are produced whenever one discusses islam. Why is it there is an almost desperate need to discuss the crusades? It is completely irrelevant, as is the mischaracterization of the history of the ottoman empire.

Do they not teach elementary logic and history in schools anymore?

The problem with generalizations is that they rarely, if ever, fit.

And I used the Crusades as an example because it's the perfect example of the West, attacking Islam. I was just showing that through out the ages, we haven't exactly extended a happy hand to our Muslim friends and that we're not exempt from being assholes too.

Lastly, don't insult me. I'm not here to chuck insults at people for not agreeing with me. I'm here to debate.

I think every muslim should have to do a mandatory essay on why church and state should have a separation.

The problem with generalizations is that they rarely, if ever, fit.

Generalizations are perfectly reasonable when discussing an entire group. Especially if they reflect how the group generally acts or behaves.

And I used the Crusades as an example because it's the perfect example of the West, attacking Islam. I was just showing that through out the ages, we haven't exactly extended a happy hand to our Muslim friends and that we're not exempt from being assholes too.

What on earth can the crusades have to do with the current situation? They ended over seven hundred years ago, and have nothing to do with the west in its current form. It's a terrible example.

Alternatively, if you do indeed believe that it forms some justification for recent 'behaviour' then you will also have to accept that invading their countries is more than justified as revenge for the seventeeth century invasion of austria by islam.

Maybe. It was bigoted to say they are all liars. But, they do seem fond of violence when things stop going their way. They love to immigrate to countries, demand the freedom of expression to swaddle their women in oppressive outfits, and then get outraged at someone else's freedom of expression to mock them. Now, the government is not above the people's opinion, neither are any of the world's other major religions. Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism- all of these have taken their lumps. What makes the Muslims so unique? That they're "obviously just more religious?" No. They have taken to thinking they are special. They also deny one of the most horrific and brutal events in the history of mankind- the Holocaust. They deny it happened, swear that, even if it did, it wasn't their problem, and go about plotting the demise of Israel, the U.S., and the democratic European countries, in that order.

Any who would argue with me, explain why it is okay to demand to be able to show solidarity with known terrorists in a public school, but wrong to mock said peoples in a newspaper.

1. All religions seem fond of violence when things don't go they're way, it seems to be a common thread of religions - when people don't listen to your preaching, blow them up.

2. I think that they're is a difference between Muslims who have immigrated to the West, and those who still reside in the Middle East. Westernized Muslims typically display a more Westernized attitude towards these things (notice there haven't been any huge protests in Canada, the U.S. or any other Western countries, except Britain and Denmark).

3. All religions think they're special. Jewish people are the chosen people no?

4. The Holocaust thing I have to agree with. It seems to me that the anger towards Jewish people for "taking" the Palestinian land is what has caused this to occur, and interestingly Anti-Semitic cartoons are common in the Middle East.

5. It's just as easy for Muslims to say that America is planning the destruction of the Middle East.

I don't really understand you're last statement though. Where are people allowed to show their solidarity with the terrorists (what country)?

Generalizations are perfectly reasonable when discussing an entire group. Especially if they reflect how the group generally acts or behaves.



What on earth can the crusades have to do with the current situation? They ended over seven hundred years ago, and have nothing to do with the west in its current form. It's a terrible example.

Alternatively, if you do indeed believe that it forms some justification for recent 'behaviour' then you will also have to accept that invading their countries is more than justified as revenge for the seventeeth century invasion of austria by islam.

I'd have to disagree with that though, and unless one of us finds a study or something, I don't think we'll be able to continue this part of the argument.

About the crusades thing; I was just showing how the West hasn't shown the best attitude towards Muslims. I don't believe it serves as justification for any violence what so ever.

Exactly right! I was going to get to that Leonstein!
A lot of the people living in the middle east and other muslim-intense areas are poor, opressed and very unhappy as Leonstein said. So when you get a large group of already pissed off people, combined with the perceived threat of Western cultural imperialism, plus mob mentalitly and lastly sometimes we just wanna be assholes, you get that crazy shit.

I agree with you and New Leonstein. This is about more than just the cartoons. They might be seriously offensive to many muslims, but they are but a spark, the final drop in the bucket. I also suspect that it is somehow "safe" to be angry at Danmark and Norway and make those countries feel the anger - they are after all known to be "harmless" countries.

OK, but where are the moderate Muslim voices? Whay aren't the streets of Cairo and Lahore full of tens of thousands of Muslims protesting against Extremists burning down embassies, surely this is a much greater denigration of Islam than some cartoons. Are they just too cowardly too stand up for what they believe in? Or, maybe they do side with the extremists? To stand by and let the extyremists hijack your culture is just as bad as being an extremist yourself, in fact its worse!

Here's an example of the moderate voices, in Norway, the first country to republish the cartoons:
"We want to live in peace here in the country. We are Norwegian ourselves and we are Muslims, and we want our children to grow up in a peaceful environment.

"That's why we wanted to help Norway in this situation. We know how to reach people in the Muslim world."
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1213831.ece

Whilst Islam supposedly bans the depiction of the prophet Muhammad, and for that matter any human being or even animal, Muslims nonetheless do it all the time and have done throughout history(http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/ ). Therefore we must assume it is the violent nature of muhammad that is the real offence here. As many Muslims have said in the press and on television.

But have these Muslims not read the Koran? Do they not know the full story of the original spread of Islam?

In his struggles with the Quraish, Muhammad regulary led men into battle, starting as early as the battle of Badr in 624 AD and culminating in the conquest of Mecca in 630 AD. Even after his death, his follwers continued 'spreading the word' by invading every region surrounding Arabia.
Thus one of the cartoons with Muhammad brandishing a sword is historically accurate.

Though an image of Muhammad with a bomb is not historically accurate, if the technology for bomb making had existed in the 7th century......who knows?

To any Muslims on the forum, could you explain to me why so many Msulims are in denial of the foundation of their faith and their prophet?

I see you claim to understand Islam better than thousands, if not millions, of Muslims. I salute your arrogance.

About the crusades thing; I was just showing how the West hasn't shown the best attitude towards Muslims. I don't believe it serves as justification for any violence what so ever.

Europe and the middle east are neighbors. They have been invading each other since the begining of recorded history. The crusades are about as relevent to any discussion of twenty-first century discussion of muslim/western relations, and the hundred years war is to a discussion of modern anglo/french relations. I just wish people would stop bringing it up.

I think every muslim should have to do a mandatory essay on why church and state should have a separation.

I think EVERYONE should have to do a mandatory essay on the church and state should be separate.

But, I'm willing to allow dissent. So I think YOU need to do a mandatory essay on freedom of conscience and freedom of expression. Or the free marketplace of ideas.

No "International Day of Anger" over the movie. No killings over the movie. No arsons over the movie. No street protests attended by millions around the world.


No ...

But ...

This:

http://www.glengreen.com/images/wv_news/2004/feb/superbowl-janet-jackson.jpg

Caused a huge outcry, demand for reform, excessive and meaningless fines by the FCC which caused a lot of people to be out of work, a new "time delay" system which cost money paid for by the consumer, and created a national outrage which lead to boycotts of anyone who advertised during NFL broadcasts, certain record labels and production companies, and caused the next year's Superbowl to be the most boring and least watched Superbowl in its broadcast history - which, in turn, cost jobs and money.

A nipple.

A lousy nipple.

Oh yeah ... Christians are so above being offended by an image.

They may not burn houses, but they'll bury some poor camera man so deep in regulations that he's laid off and can't feed his kids. We burn buildings, you starve children.

What's the difference?

Oh yeah ... Christians are so above being offended by an image.



You do understand that there is no right not to be offended?

They may not burn houses, but they'll bury some poor camera man so deep in regulations that he's laid off and can't feed his kids. We burn buildings, you starve children.

What's the difference?

Rubbish. Just rubbish. And you are seriously stretching to make a non-existant point.

I suppose you'll find someway to conclude that stoning a fourteen year old being raped was for 'her own good' next.

You do understand that there is no right not to be offended?

Really? Then explain everything I mentioned in my post as a backlash to the nipple incident. Explain all the new legislation and regulations. Clearly, Christians have the right to not be offended in the United States.

I suppose you'll find someway to conclude that stoning a fourteen year old being raped was for 'her own good' next.

Yeah ... you know me sooooooooo well. :rolleyes:

You do understand that there is no right not to be offended?
And yet there is still such a thing as common courtesy, mutual respect and just generally good manners.

The German President said that Free Speech and Free Press comes with a responsibility, and I am inclined to agree.

I know. Abu Bakr (PBUH) was, with the others, rightly-guided, but I was pointing more at later years.

Here's what you said earlier
Also, Muslim Conquests didn't invade actual civilizations
..
Now, after Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) death, was when you cannot blame Islam directly for. For example, the rulers after Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) weren't as 'pure' as Muhammad (PBUH) himself, thus making them, in Islamic Belief terms, vulnerable to Satan, making them do things against Islam (just using a different perspective to describe this =/).

If I understand you correctly, you are making a case that wars by Muhammed were not for invading "actual civilizations" and that Muhammed is not at fault for the wars in which he participated (Hudaibiya treaty anyone?).

Then you say that the conquests done by muslim caliphs (on Persia, India, Byzantine, North African berbers etc) cannot be blamed on islam because the caliphs were not "pure".

However, sunnis consider the first four caliphs as rightly-guided. It was under Abu-Bakr, the caliphate launched wars on the areas now known as Syria and Palestine. One can stretch it as wars of Arab consolidation.

But under Umar, the islamic caliphate attacked Persia (Sassanid empire). It was also under Umar's time that the caliphate took Egypt, Palestine, Syria, North Africa and Armenia from the Byzantines.

So tell me now, was Umar impure and acting against Islam, under the influence of Satan?

Then how come he is a "rightly-guided" caliph to around 80% muslims?

Really? Then explain everything I mentioned in my post as a backlash to the nipple incident. Explain all the new legislation and regulations. Clearly, Christians have the right to not be offended in the United States.


What new legislation and regulations? Did porn become illegal and no-one was made aware of it? Did they outlaw satanism?

Arguably there is greater latitude on what may be shown on TV now than twenty years ago. You my friend are full of shit. And a poor apologist to boot. And clearly, christians don't have this right you describe, because andre serano and maplethorpe are still exhibited throughout the united states.

Further, unlike you, I've actually spent time in Islamic countries. You should check out their idea of TV. But I digress.



Yeah ... you know me sooooooooo well. :rolleyes:

Anyone who would try and justify the attempt by muslims in europe to end the freedom of the press through threats of violence, violence, and wanton property damage by a specious argument involving cameramen, the fcc, and starving children is probably capable of any rationalization.

Especially as in the United States, there is AFDC, and food stamps, unlike Iran, where children do starve to death. Ah.... Islam, thy name is compassion.

While we are on the subject, how many children are being starved to death right now, because islam won't let their families operate liquor stores. Millions?

Its a lot bigger than the cameraman problem.

And yet there is still such a thing as common courtesy, mutual respect and just generally good manners.

The German President said that Free Speech and Free Press comes with a responsibility, and I am inclined to agree.

Oh, and guilty people shouldn't plead innocence, because that is just an abuse of the judical system?

If you are only going to print things that aren't offensive to anyone, then there is no point in a free press anyway. Free excercise means just that.

What new legislation and regulations? Did porn become illegal and no-one was made aware of it? Did they outlaw satanism?


Ummmm ... did you miss the whole FCC creating new fines and various Congressional regulations bit that was part of the backlash? Does that popping soung ever bother you?

You my friend are full of shit.

And you just rendered anything else you have to say pointless and unreadable. Self-defeatism is a horrible thing, you know. Learn to discuss and debate first, *then* come to a discussion and debate forum.

So ... rest of post snipped. If anyone else wants to reply, they may.

If you are only going to print things that aren't offensive to anyone, then there is no point in a free press anyway. Free excercise means just that.
Notice how I never said I wanted the government to get involved.

But ultimately, these cartoons are the same thing as an editorial calling homosexuals "fags". It's a deliberately offensive strategy undertaken by a paper with a history of xenophobic and anti-immigration publications.

I don't think that hiding behind Free Speech gives one the right to abuse other people, on a purely ethical level.

Oh, and guilty people shouldn't plead innocence, because that is just an abuse of the judical system?

If you are only going to print things that aren't offensive to anyone, then there is no point in a free press anyway. Free excercise means just that.

So there are not only no limits, but also no responsibility?

We can go around shouting "fire" in crowded theatres?

Ummmm ... did you miss the whole FCC creating new fines and various Congressional regulations bit that was part of the backlash? Does that popping soung ever bother you?


So you are saying that the airwaves are more heavily censored now than the 1950s? That's facialy rubbish, and you know it.


And you just rendered anything else you have to say pointless and unreadable. Self-defeatism is a horrible thing, you know. Learn to discuss and debate first, *then* come to a discussion and debate forum.

So ... rest of post snipped. If anyone else wants to reply, they may.

Your entire style of argument is based upon non-sequitur and misinformation. See my earlier point about islam.

So there are not only no limits, but also no responsibility?

We can go around shouting "fire" in crowded theatres?

Are you saying these cartoons created a "clear and present danger"?

Notice how I never said I wanted the government to get involved.

But ultimately, these cartoons are the same thing as an editorial calling homosexuals "fags". It's a deliberately offensive strategy undertaken by a paper with a history of xenophobic and anti-immigration publications.

I don't think that hiding behind Free Speech gives one the right to abuse other people, on a purely ethical level.

If you have free speech, people are going to say offensive things. It's part of the price.

But fair's fair, I'll except content restrictions when they ban the koran and the bible. I find both of those books highly offensive.

If you have free speech, people are going to say offensive things. It's part of the price.
And if you have Free Speech, I'm free to tell the newspaper that they were being stupid printing those cartoons.

But fair's fair, I'll except content restrictions when they ban the koran and the bible. I find both of those books highly offensive.
Are you still talking about government involvement? Why do you insist on misrepresenting my argument?

So ... rest of post snipped. If anyone else wants to reply, they may.

Thank you, I've got a question...

While we are on the subject, how many children are being starved to death right now, because islam won't let their families operate liquor stores. Millions?

Its a lot bigger than the cameraman problem.

What are you talking about? Millions starving because of the restrictive view on alcohol in Islam? :confused:

I see you claim to understand Islam better than thousands, if not millions, of Muslims. I salute your arrogance.

Lol, what are you talking about?

We call for much bloodshed and many beheadings for anyone who would portray Muhammed [PB&J] as being violent or teaching violence! This cartoon has harmed us, therefore I declare jihad on all cartoons!!!

:eek: :mp5:

We call for much bloodshed and many beheadings for anyone who would portray Muhammed [PB&J] as being violent or teaching violence! This cartoon has harmed us, therefore I declare jihad on all cartoons!!!

:eek: :mp5:

even spongebob squarepants?

even spongebob squarepants?
Especially Spongebob! (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6850119/)

http://www.spongebob-squarepants.tv/images/site/pic_spongebobpresents.gif :mp5:

We call for much bloodshed and many beheadings for anyone who would portray Muhammed [PB&J] as being violent or teaching violence! This cartoon has harmed us, therefore I declare jihad on all cartoons!!!

Oh my yes ... finally a Muslim Jesussaves!

DCD ... is that you? :D

While we are on the subject, how many children are being starved to death right now, because islam won't let their families operate liquor stores. Millions?


That is seriously the funniest thing I've ever read. Millions of Starving Children!!! Ah.. if only I could sell alcohol to make ends meet... or maybe tobacco.. or firearms. Oh wait.. maybe those are legal... how bout porn... damn religion...