NationStates Jolt Archive

What the media and certain posters around here don't want you to see:

http://www.sorrynorwaydenmark.com/

Deal with it.

What the media and certain posters around here don't want you to see:

http://www.sorrynorwaydenmark.com/

Deal with it.

Service Temporarily Unavailable
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later.

Edited post because it seemed like I was saying that I was responsible for the error.

Although it points to the fact that not all muslims are irrational crazies, which any decent person should know by now. One web site does not counter balance the thousands looting, burning, and killing over a stupid cartoon.

I blame religion.

Edited post because it seemed like I was saying that I was responsible for the error.

Well I've been spreading it around a lot. Maybe they're having bandwidth problems.

It's a very lengthy apology from young Muslims to the people of Denmark and Norway about the way things have escalated.

From the site:

"When confronted with such a situation, we deplore the use of violence in all its forms, as well as threats of violence and derogatory and racist remarks being thrown in the opposite direction. We condemn the shameful actions carried out by a few Arabs and Muslims around the world that have tarnished our image, and presented us as intolerant and close-minded bigots.

Anyone offended by the content of a publication has a vast choice of democratic and respectful methods of seeking redress. The most obvious are not buying the publication, writing letters to the editor or expressing their opinions in other venues. It is also possible to use one’s free choice in a democracy to conduct a boycott of the publication, and even a boycott of firms dealing with it. Yet an indiscriminate boycott of all the country’s firms is simply uncalled for and counter-productive. We would be allowing the extremists on both sides to prevail, while punishing the government and the whole population for the actions of an unrepresentative irresponsible few."

And so on.

There's also a very lengthy guestbook with even more responses, both Muslim and non-Muslim, and the discussion is open, frank, and kind.

All of the things that make for a bad press release and doesn't foster shock imagery, so you won't see our anti-Arab, anti-Iran, anti-anti posters linking to it.

Although it points to the fact that not all muslims are irrational crazies, which any decent person should know by now. One web site does not counter balance the thousands looting, burning, and killing over a stupid cartoon.

It's not just one. It's one example of thousands like it.

Incidently, how many people have been killed during all of this? I know some of the protestors were killed in Afghanistan, but that's all I've heard about. Any links to the number of people killed *by* protestors?

About time Denmark and Norway get an apology from the Muslium.

About time Denmark and Norway get an apology from the Muslium.

I doubt there will be one in return.

Deal with it.
Yes, a conspiracy, that's why there's another thread with 40 posts devoted to this. I'm 1489 in the guestbook.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=467510

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=467510

That was started at 2:33 AM my time and the last post made at 4:43 AM my time. I was way off in snoozy land at that time. So I didn't see that thread.

*shrug*

It's not just one. It's one example of thousands like it.

Incidently, how many people have been killed during all of this? I know some of the protestors were killed in Afghanistan, but that's all I've heard about. Any links to the number of people killed *by* protestors?

It still doesn't justify the actions of what those crazies are doing in the name of a tolerant religion. However, if it helps show people not all muslims are zealouts ready to pull a coord in a nursery then I'm all for it.

It's not just one. It's one example of thousands like it.

Incidently, how many people have been killed during all of this? I know some of the protestors were killed in Afghanistan, but that's all I've heard about. Any links to the number of people killed *by* protestors?

Yes, but you're forgetting the American Theory of Inequality of Life's Value.

3,000 American deaths = 30,000 Iraqi deaths.

It still doesn't justify the actions of what those crazies are doing in the name of a tolerant religion.

Is there any way to justify such actions? Why would you want anyone to try?

I doubt there will be one in return.

Why should they apologize? The only thing they did was pratice freedom of speech?

Why should they apologize? The only thing they did was pratice freedom of speech?

Aye ... and that speech offended people they probably did not intend to offend.

The courteous thing would be to apologize.

I doubt there will be one in return.
It'll be coming right after the muslim world collectively appologizes, specifically for everything they've burned in effigy, everyone they've killed, everything they've blown up. All of the horrific things muslim and arab media has produced over the years, etc. Oh wait, did you mean just individuals reaching out to each other? Read the guestbook.

Aye ... and that speech offended people they probably did not intend to offend.

The courteous thing would be to apologize.

More likely, that freedom of speech offended people they had every intention to offend.

Aye ... and that speech offended people they probably did not intend to offend.

You're kidding, right? I think it is pretty clear who they intended to offend.

I doubt there will be one in return.
The newspaper already did. If you're expecting one from the whole bleedin' nation of Denmark, you're being ridiculous. That's how apologies work; those who are responsible for the actions apologise, not those who had nothing to do with it.

As much as the sentiments expressed by those kids are appreciated, they don't mean an awful lot. It's not like the people going around burning European property are in any way apologetic. Sure, hopefully it'll make people realise that not all Muslims are vicious brutes, but that doesn't excuse the ones that are, and a lot of people won't be happy until those that are make their apology or are punished.

I doubt there will be one in return.
What are you talking about? Every government from Denmark to the US has fallen over themselves apologizing for the content of the cartoons. What has upset so many Muslims is not that they have refused to abridged freedom of the prees and that they haven't cut the heads off of the people who drew them and published them.

You're kidding, right? I think it is pretty clear who they intended to offend.

Well if they intended to offend all of us, they succeeded. Even the most peaceful and liberal among us were offended.

However, the site I provided shows people who have no involvement with the burnings or violent protests apologizing for those who do. The one thing the world's been holding its breath for: Muslims apologizing for something they didn't do.

Do you suppose anyone's going to apologize to the Muslims for the actions of the cartoonist?

What the media and certain posters around here don't want you to see:

http://www.sorrynorwaydenmark.com/

Deal with it.

I honestly do not believe that the media and certain posters around here do not want people to see this. I think they would like to see much much more of it. Unfortunately no matter what ideology, government, or special interest people align themselves too, they are seen in the eyes of the loudest and most militant sector of it.
The only way to combat this is the active participation in denouncing and combating such elements. Something such as this, while not issued by an authoritive body serves as a reminder that the radical element does not speak for all. Unfortunately however, efforts such as these are rare, and do not effectively alter the perception that the majority live in silent agreement with the militant actions.

Why would you want anyone to try?

I never said I wanted them to make amends for this whole situation. I just meant that a website/websites apologizing for the actions of a bunch of crazies doesn't make the crazies innocent.

The fact is a bunch of immature lunatics are going on a rampage over a foreign cartoon without any restraint from their government. You might start to believe that this kind of behavior is condoned rather than condemned.

That was started at 2:33 AM my time and the last post made at 4:43 AM my time. I was way off in snoozy land at that time. So I didn't see that thread.

*shrug*
I'm not saying I don't understand, but you're indignation and estimation of the other people who visit this forum is significantly off in either case. You just didn't have proof of your "misunderestimation" before the fact.

Also, sleeping is awesome. I like that feeling, before I'm truly awake, but I'm aware that my feet are warm, and/or another person's feet are warm.

I still disapprove of the endorcement of domestic violence and the rape of Aisha. No matter how many times you apologize for the whole cartoon thing, issues like those remain (and apply to all of Islam).

I doubt there will be one in return.


The paper allready excused, what more do you want? perhaps the hanging of the cartoonist on the towns marketplace

The gov. is not responsibel for the acts of the press and have therefore no buissness excusing for others.

BTW. I launched a thread with that very website earlier today, it is a nice website

Something such as this, while not issued by an authoritive body serves as a reminder that the radical element does not speak for all.

Well that's some of the problem. In Islam, there is no authoritative body who can speak for all Muslims. It simply doesn't exist.

There've been some bodies that can speak for a large chunk of Muslims who've called for nothing but peaceful, democratic redress, such as:

http://islamselect.com/naby/index.php?pg=en

But the autonomy of the individual in Islam supercedes any Imam.

I'm not saying I don't understand, but you're indignation and estimation of the other people who visit this forum is significantly off in either case.

If you'll check my first post, I say "certain" not "all".

Yes, but you're forgetting the American Theory of Inequality of Life's Value.

3,000 American deaths = 30,000 Iraqi deaths.
1. What does teh war in Iraq have to do with this? Or America for that matter?

2. Every country views the lives of its citizens as more important. I don't know what country your from but I'm sure they would rather see 30,000 dead from any other country if it would prevent deaths in yoru own. That's the way countries are. They tend to look out for teh well being of their own citizens first. If you knwo of a country that operates differently, let me know.

I still disapprove of the endorcement of domestic violence and the rape of Aisha. No matter how many times you apologize for the whole cartoon thing, issues like those remain (and apply to all of Islam).

Aisha consented to marry Muhammed. He could not have legally married her otherwise. Since she was not of age of sexual consent, the marriage was not consummated until she was 16.

16 is plenty old enough to be havin' sex ... especially with your husband.

No part of Islam endorses domestic violence. No part of it whatsoever.

Well I've been spreading it around a lot. Maybe they're having bandwidth problems.

It's a very lengthy apology from young Muslims to the people of Denmark and Norway about the way things have escalated.

From the site:

...

And so on.

There's also a very lengthy guestbook with even more responses, both Muslim and non-Muslim, and the discussion is open, frank, and kind.

All of the things that make for a bad press release and doesn't foster shock imagery, so you won't see our anti-Arab, anti-Iran, anti-anti posters linking to it.

Thank you for the summary. It appears that the site is written by someone level-headed and I am pleased by their support for democratic methods.

Aisha consented to marry Muhammed. He could not have legally married her otherwise. Since she was not of age of sexual consent, the marriage was not consummated until she was 16.
So wait, they got married when she was not at the age of consent, yet somehow she legally consented to marry? Or is Islam yet another culture that thinks a child is able to consent to a lifetime companionship before they are old enough to consent to sex?

It's good to know that there are still sane people out there.

So wait, they got married when she was not at the age of consent, yet somehow she legally consented to marry? Or is Islam yet another culture that thinks a child is able to consent to a lifetime companionship before they are old enough to consent to sex?

On the other hand, in those days, getting married at a young age was the norm - and hell, in many occasions the woman wasn't even required to consent. (bloodline marriages and the like) Out of curiousity, I wonder if any of the western cultures had an enforced age of consent in any form back then?

Aisha consented to marry Muhammed. He could not have legally married her otherwise. Since she was not of age of sexual consent, the marriage was not consummated until she was 16.

16 is plenty old enough to be havin' sex ... especially with your husband.

It seems you've been roped in with falsified claims. The marriage was consumated when she was 9. Yes, that's right, she was only 9 years old. That's not consent; that's rape, plain and simple.

No part of Islam endorses domestic violence. No part of it whatsoever.

"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them; but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all)." -- Koran 4:34

On the other hand, in those days, getting married at a young age was the norm - and hell, in many occasions the woman wasn't even required to consent. (bloodline marriages and the like) Out of curiousity, I wonder if any of the western cultures had an enforced age of consent in any form back then?

I've never seen anyone accept "Everyone else was/is doing it!" as a defence.

I've never seen anyone accept "Everyone else was/is doing it!" as a defence.

It's not a defence at all. Frankly, i'm glad we've progressed. I'm just putting it into perspective. :)

It seems you've been roped in with falsified claims. The marriage was consumated when she was 9. Yes, that's right, she was only 9 years old. That's not consent; that's rape, plain and simple.



"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them; but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all)." -- Koran 4:34
haha! In your face! Oh, man! Wooohooo! Moted! Scratch yoru neck! :p

I've never seen anyone accept "Everyone else was/is doing it!" as a defence.

If someone says that while believing/knowing the behaviour is/was wrong it is indeed a poor defense.
But if everyone is doing it because noone (or at least most people, including yourself) do not see anything wrong with it, it is in fact quite good.

It seems you've been roped in with falsified claims. The marriage was consumated when she was 9. Yes, that's right, she was only 9 years old. That's not consent; that's rape, plain and simple.

That's what I'd heard too. Also I'm pretty sure that that's the reason that Iran, shortly after the Islamic revolution, lowered the age for legal marriage to 9.

"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them; but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all)." -- Koran 4:34

The newspaper already did. If you're expecting one from the whole bleedin' nation of Denmark, you're being ridiculous. That's how apologies work; those who are responsible for the actions apologise, not those who had nothing to do with it.



If the whole nation of Denmark doesnt collectively appologize, they will continue to spend all day in the street, hooting, hollering and burning things, til someone starts throwing rocks,then it will escalate-they will burn cars, stores and other businesses. And trample some of their own kind in the process.

Do you suppose anyone's going to apologize to the Muslims for the actions of the cartoonist?

Apologize for what? Sharia law does not apply in Denmark last time I checked, while Freedom of the Press does. Free speech entails the ability to say something that may or may not offend someone else without fear of getting your house firebombed and crazied people calling for your blood. The only people who need to applogize are the ones who've been causing all of the destruction.

Apologize for what? Sharia law does not apply in Denmark last time I checked, while Freedom of the Press does. Free speech entails the ability to say something that may or may not offend someone else without fear of getting your house firebombed and crazied people calling for your blood. The only people who need to applogize are the ones who've been causing all of the destruction.

And we're not dhimmi, either, nor will we submit to it.

Apologize for what? Sharia law does not apply in Denmark last time I checked, while Freedom of the Press does. Free speech entails the ability to say something that may or may not offend someone else without fear of getting your house firebombed and crazied people calling for your blood. The only people who need to applogize are the ones who've been causing all of the destruction.
Freedom of speech =/= freedom from consequences.

When someone publish a cartoon with the purpose to offend, one has to expect harsh criticism and other nasty business. Crazied people calling for your blood have freedom of speech too, after all. The line is, as always, doing something illegal like arson.

Also, I think you have a very different view on what an apology is. When you publish something that offend, you apologize. When you cause destruction, you go to jail. If you apologize, you might be there for a shorter period.

Freedom of speech =/= freedom from consequences.
So it's fine that the crazies burned down the embassies?

When someone publish a cartoon with the purpose to offend, one has to expect harsh criticism and other nasty business. Crazied people calling for your blood have freedom of speech too, after all. The line is, as always, doing something illegal like arson.
Harsh criticism I have no problem with, but Death Threats are a different thing altogether

Also, I think you have a very different view on what an apology is. When you publish something that offend, you apologize. When you cause destruction, you go to jail. If you apologize, you might be there for a shorter period.
Where'd you get that idea?

When someone publish a cartoon with the purpose to offend, one has to expect harsh criticism and other nasty business.

Even if the other side has being doing the same for ages - and in a much more offensive manner ?

So wait, they got married when she was not at the age of consent, yet somehow she legally consented to marry? Or is Islam yet another culture that thinks a child is able to consent to a lifetime companionship before they are old enough to consent to sex?

Marriage is not a lifetime commitment in Islam. It's nice when it is, but divorce is an option for both parties. Aisha consented on the terms that when she came of age of sexual consent, she could divorce Muhammed if she did not favor him.

Muhammed married her to protect her from rape because her family was gone and she was an alone 9 year old girl in a still very Pagan Arabia.

Letila is misinformed.

It seems you've been roped in with falsified claims.

No, you have. You're buying into anti-Islamic propoganda and I can prove that by you simply showing me your source for your information.

I'd also like to see your interpretive source on the verse you quoted.

haha! In your face! Oh, man! Wooohooo! Moted! Scratch yoru neck! :p

Just buy anything anyone says without asking for a source, eh? Your education will not go well.

So it's fine that the crazies burned down the embassies?
Of course it isn't. And I made it clear that illegal action like arson are a big no-no. Death threats fall into the "don't" category. But one has to expect nasty business and it happened. I fail to see this as a "martyr of freedom of speech". You meant to offend, you offended, repercussions happened.



Where'd you get that idea?
From your very words:
Apologize for what? Sharia law does not apply in Denmark last time I checked, while Freedom of the Press does. Free speech entails the ability to say something that may or may not offend someone else without fear of getting your house firebombed and crazied people calling for your blood. The only people who need to applogize are the ones who've been causing all of the destruction

Marriage is not a lifetime commitment in Islam. It's nice when it is, but divorce is an option for both parties. Aisha consented on the terms that when she came of age of sexual consent, she could divorce Muhammed if she did not favor him.

Muhammed married her to protect her from rape because her family was gone and she was an alone 9 year old girl in a still very Pagan Arabia.

Letila is misinformed.
Wasn't it her parents who gave her in marriage to Muhammad? She was the daughter of Abu Bakr, no?

Apologize for what?

I already answered that question. Read the thread *before* replying.

Free speech entails the ability to say something that may or may not offend someone else without fear of getting your house firebombed and crazied people calling for your blood.

And, yet, if I were to tell you right now to go fuck your mother in the ass with a spork, I'd probably get a forumban.

Free speech does not contain within it the right to be free from retribution. Walk up to 10 random people and tell them to "Fuck off". Some of them will look at you funny and walk away, some will ignore you, some will respond in kind. But there's always that 1 or 2 who will punch you in the face.

Is it right? No.
Is it normal? Yes.

Even if the other side has being doing the same for ages - and in a much more offensive manner ?
Freedom of speech. It is a bitch.

You don't like what the other side is doing? Exercise your rights of speech and/or assembly.

What the media and certain posters around here don't want you to see:

http://www.sorrynorwaydenmark.com/

Deal with it.
Way to be defensive. Why would I not want anyone to see this? Very few posters on here were taking the "all Muslims are terrorists" line. It just shows that there are people like us who view the right-wing religious freaks in their country as bigots.

Free speech does not contain within it the right to be free from retribution. Walk up to 10 random people and tell them to "Fuck off". Some of them will look at you funny and walk away, some will ignore you, some will respond in kind. But there's always that 1 or 2 who will punch you in the face.
Actually, it does mean the right to freedom from physical retribution. No matter what you say to them, no-one has a legal right to punch you in the face.

Aye ... and that speech offended people they probably did not intend to offend.

The courteous thing would be to apologize.They have apologised. They did so shortly after the cartoons were printed & have done so repeatedly since then.

Hell, Denmark & Norway have apologised repeatedly for the actions of two privately owned newspapers utilising their right to express themselves.

Barring a few extremists, everyone in the two countries, newspapers included, have freely admitted that it was thoughtless & in very poor taste.

But apparently totalitarian religious regimes simply cannot accept that some nations allow free speech. What that has to do with the religion itself, I do not know. But I do know that the mindless twats are starting to seriously damage public opinion of Muslim minorities in Denmark & Norway. Of course, many of those Muslims fled there because they had no rights where they came from, so I suppose one could consider it a sort of revenge on exile Muslims.

This was never about apologies. It's about giving desperate oppressed peoples a safe outlet for their frustrations, and it's about power-mad clerics being unable to accept the fact that they can't punish people as they see fit.

I pitty you Muslims. Regardless of whether you're one of the ignorants raging in the streets, or you're one of the minorities who'll suffer for it. What a sad mess.

Freedom of speech. It is a bitch.

You don't like what the other side is doing? Exercise your rights of speech and/or assembly.

Oh, I have no problems with those muslems protesting the cartoons an sich -
I have a problem with them being hypocrites.

Of course, being a hypcrite is not against the law :(

Actually, it does mean the right to freedom from physical retribution. No matter what you say to them, no-one has a legal right to punch you in the face.

Conveniently cut off this part, didn't ya ...


Is it right? No.
Is it normal? Yes.

Oh, I have no problems with those muslems protesting the cartoons an sich -
I have a problem with them being hypocrites.

Of course, being a hypcrite is not against the law :(
sad but true :(

besides, if it was, who would be governing our country?

This was never about apologies.

It is for me.

If you could provide a source or a link to these apologies, then I would drop this whole issue like a hot potato.

"Fight in the cause of Allah against those who attack you. But be careful to maintain the limit, since Allah does not love transgressors." (2:190)

By "limit" is meant that the force used must be limited to that which is the minimum adequate to restrain the evildoers who attack. The force used must never exceed that limit in order to exact revenge or impose an imperialistic conquest.

"If anyone transgresses against you requite him with an exactly like action and restrain yourself for Allah; and know that Allah is with those who so restrain themselves." (2:194)

"Should a group of believers split into two opposing parties, make ye peace between them. If the violence of one against the other goes beyond bounds, bring force to bear on the group which is transgressing so badly, until it once again complies with Allah's commands." (5:9)

"Believers" in this case refers to Muslims, Christians, Sabians, and Jews.

However, and the point:
"Then if they desist, know well that Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Most Compassionate." (2:192)

An apology is all that I need.

"If anyone transgresses against you requite him with an exactly like action and restrain yourself for Allah; and know that Allah is with those who so restrain themselves." (2:194)

Isn't that exactly what the cartoons did ?

It is for me.

If you could provide a source or a link to these apologies, then I would drop this whole issue like a hot potato.

"Fight in the cause of Allah against those who attack you. But be careful to maintain the limit, since Allah does not love transgressors." (2:190)

By "limit" is meant that the force used must be limited to that which is the minimum adequate to restrain the evildoers who attack. The force used must never exceed that limit in order to exact revenge or impose an imperialistic conquest.

"If anyone transgresses against you requite him with an exactly like action and restrain yourself for Allah; and know that Allah is with those who so restrain themselves." (2:194)

"Should a group of believers split into two opposing parties, make ye peace between them. If the violence of one against the other goes beyond bounds, bring force to bear on the group which is transgressing so badly, until it once again complies with Allah's commands." (5:9)

"Believers" in this case refers to Muslims, Christians, Sabians, and Jews.

However, and the point:
"Then if they desist, know well that Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Most Compassionate." (2:192)

An apology is all that I need.


It was posted in another thread that Muslim religious leaders in Europe added their own pictures to the mix, and sent those pictures around the world to feed the rage.

Pictures such as Muhammed depicted with the head of a pig.

1. Should the Danish cartoonists apologize for pictures they never drew (in addition to the ones they drew)?

2. Should the Muslim religious leaders who distributed such pictures be forced to apologize?

It is for me.

If you could provide a source or a link to these apologies, then I would drop this whole issue like a hot potato.



An apology is all that I need.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060207/ts_nm/religion_cartoons_dc_40;_ylt=AjRAfajQXrf_fjnri5TExtTbEfQA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

"Denmark's Jyllands-Posten daily has apologized for the cartoons, first published last September. The Danish government has refused to do so, saying it is the paper's responsibility."

It's a wonderful irony in all of this. "They were intolerant to our religion. We cannot tolerate that!"

I'm trying to point out to the youngsters on my regional forum that not all muslims or arabs are so hotheaded. Oddly, our least tolerant poster is scandinavian.
Though I have a little trouble with people who get that upset with their beliefs not being respected. In the west we drop our subscription or boycott the advertisers. If I blew up a baptist church everytime they offended my beliefs, the bible belt would be minus quite a few churches.
You can't blame all muslims for the actions of a few any more than all christians can be blamed for the actions of Fred Phelps.

Well, he's apolgizing for the violence or the peaceful protesting?

I mean, the people do have a right to protest, so apologizing to that, if they did, is really not suitable (but it is his opinion ofcourse).

It is for me.I'm sorry, but I don't believe you. If this was about apologies for you, you would have read JP (http://www.jp.dk) to begin with, and you would have read their apologies by now. Over & over, most likely.

I'm not accusing you of lying. I doubt you are. Rather, I think it is about seeking justifiable confrontations for you. Sadly, I don't see how this qualifies.

"Fight in the cause of Allah against those who attack you. But be careful to maintain the limit, since Allah does not love transgressors." (2:190)

By "limit" is meant that the force used must be limited to that which is the minimum adequate to restrain the evildoers who attack. The force used must never exceed that limit in order to exact revenge or impose an imperialistic conquest.

"If anyone transgresses against you requite him with an exactly like action and restrain yourself for Allah; and know that Allah is with those who so restrain themselves." (2:194)

"Should a group of believers split into two opposing parties, make ye peace between them. If the violence of one against the other goes beyond bounds, bring force to bear on the group which is transgressing so badly, until it once again complies with Allah's commands." (5:9)

"Believers" in this case refers to Muslims, Christians, Sabians, and Jews.

However, and the point:
"Then if they desist, know well that Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Most Compassionate." (2:192)

An apology is all that I need.JP never attacked you. The article was about freedom of expression & freedom from religion.
The background is that Art Museums, Publishers, Painters, Artists, Comedians & pretty much anyone else you can think of, exercise self-cencorship concerning Islam in Denmark & elsewhere. Anything but Islam can be made fun of, but... When it's Islam, people suddenly get scared.

The article was about that. It was about testing what would happen if anyone did it. The point is, Islam itself has nothing to do with it. Radical Muslims who relish in violence has everything to do with it. Such people should not be allowed to dictate the rules in a free, secular society. No demographic should.
But this one does, and like it or not, the rediculous article drove that point home with a vengeance.

You must also accept that while you're free to express your displeasure, JP had every right to do what it did. Regardless of what your religion tells you to demand, JP is under no obligation to apologise for printing satire.
You can demand retribution all you want, but noone has to accomodate you. It is no different from your religion being deeply offensive to plenty of Danish people, organisations & publications. You still have every right to practice it & regardless of how desperate a few people are to hear you apologise for your religious practices, you need neither justify nor apologise for your beliefs.

While I respect your sensibilities, your post here only serve to illustrate why JP was on to something when they ran that article.

Again, I'm very sorry for you. If only I could make you understand how you're making thinks hard on yourselves...
I apologise in advance for all the racism & scorn you'll suffer for this.

And er.. Please realise that when you use Qu'ran quotes about bodily harm to justify outrage over satire, you really don't help yourself.

It is for me.

If you could provide a source or a link to these apologies, then I would drop this whole issue like a hot potato.

Jyllands-Postens letter in English (http://www.jp.dk/meninger/ncartikel:aid=3527646)

Of course it isn't. And I made it clear that illegal action like arson are a big no-no. Death threats fall into the "don't" category. But one has to expect nasty business and it happened. I fail to see this as a "martyr of freedom of speech". You meant to offend, you offended, repercussions happened.
If it was only harsh criticisms, then this never would've been a big deal, but the burned husk that were the Danish and Norwegian embassies make it otherwise.

From your very words:
Which you misconstrue to mean I don't want the crazied Muslims who burned down the buildings to face any punishment for their crimes as long as they apologize.

I already answered that question. Read the thread *before* replying
You realize what a rhetorical question is, don't you?

And, yet, if I were to tell you right now to go fuck your mother in the ass with a spork, I'd probably get a forumban.
Take it up with the forum mods then

Free speech does not contain within it the right to be free from retribution. Walk up to 10 random people and tell them to "Fuck off". Some of them will look at you funny and walk away, some will ignore you, some will respond in kind. But there's always that 1 or 2 who will punch you in the face.
Actually it does, at least from the physical retribution you are talking about. That's why it's called free speech, you can say what you want without having to worry about having harm done upon you.

Is it right? No.
Is it normal? Yes.
So we should just shrug our shoulders and say "Oh well, crazies burning down our buildings is just normal, can't do nothing about it" What a nice defeatist attitude.

Jyllands-Posten's editor has apologized for offending Muslims in comments welcomed by Rasmussen, who himself refused to apologize on behalf of the Danish people.

"These cartoons were not in violation of Danish law but have irrefutably offended many Muslims, and for that we apologize," Carsten Juste wrote in a letter to the Petra news agency in Jordan.

On Tuesday, the Norwegian magazine also expressed its regrets for causing offense but stopped short of issuing an apology.

Magazinet's editor-in-chief, Vebjoern Selbekk, said that the reprinting of the cartoons was "not aimed at provoking" Muslims and that it was justifiable under freedom of expression laws.

"To regret the use of freedom of expression in a democratic society would damage our democratic foundations," he said.

The Norwegian government on Tuesday reiterated that it regretted if Muslims were offended but stressed its belief in fundamental rights.

"We will not apologize because in a country like Norway, which guarantees the freedom of expression, we cannot apologize for what the newspapers" print, Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg told Norwegian daily NTB.

"But I am sorry that this may have hurt many Muslims."

Source (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1888018,00.html)

Marriage is not a lifetime commitment in Islam. It's nice when it is, but divorce is an option for both parties. Aisha consented on the terms that when she came of age of sexual consent, she could divorce Muhammed if she did not favor him.

Muhammed married her to protect her from rape because her family was gone and she was an alone 9 year old girl in a still very Pagan Arabia.

Letila is misinformed.

Talk about doublethink. I fail to see how raping a little girl protects her from rape. Face it: there is simply no case that a 6 year old can consent to marriage or that a 9 year old can consent to sex. Any psychologist will tell you that straight out; children that young are not ready for such decisions. Pretending otherwise is just scary at best.

Then this is now a non-issue for me. Kudos. The paper apologized, I expect nothing out of the Danish government as I am not a Dane.

Thank you for the links. I shall spread them about.

Talk about doublethink. I fail to see how raping a little girl protects her from rape. Face it: there is simply no case that a 6 year old can consent to marriage or that a 9 year old can consent to sex.

What part of 9 for marriage and 16 for sex did you not comprehend? What orifice are you pulling 6 for marriage and 9 for sex out of?

Perhaps the same orifice you equate a 16 year old's consent with rape?

Then this is now a non-issue for me. Kudos. The paper apologized, I expect nothing out of the Danish government as I am not a Dane.

So there is no-longer a media conspiracy, hiding the truth from ordinary people?

And er.. Please realise that when you use Qu'ran quotes about bodily harm to justify outrage over satire, you really don't help yourself.

Where the hell did you read that in what I quoted from Qu'ran?!

Do we all need to go back to English 101?

It's as bad as Letila turning a 9 into a 6 and a 16 into a 9. It simply doesn't make sense.

Bodily harm?! WHERE?

*oy vey* I'm outta here.

What part of 9 for marriage and 16 for sex did you not comprehend? What orifice are you pulling 6 for marriage and 9 for sex out of?

Perhaps the same orifice you equate a 16 year old's consent with rape?

Maybe he's talking about this.

Sahih Bukhari (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/062.sbt.html#007.062.088)

Obviously, regardless of your feelings on the matter, other people - including muslims - believe this to be true.

What part of 9 for marriage and 16 for sex did you not comprehend? What orifice are you pulling 6 for marriage and 9 for sex out of?

Perhaps the same orifice you equate a 16 year old's consent with rape?

I think you've misread the texts. Even the link in my sig to a Wikipedia article makes it pretty clear what the facts are.

Then this is now a non-issue for me. Kudos. The paper apologized, I expect nothing out of the Danish government as I am not a Dane.

Thank you for the links. I shall spread them about.

You're welcome. Hope all this trouble dies down soon, the current unrest isn't helping anybody.

Muhammed married her to protect her from rape because her family was gone and she was an alone 9 year old girl in a still very Pagan Arabia.


The clear implication here is that pagans are all child molesting murderers of course. :rolleyes:

I think pagans should threaten to behead some muslims, and burn down the iranian embassy if the government does not step in a punish someone for making this offensive statement.

Frankly, if I were a better artist, I'd make a cartoon of my own that criticizes Mohammed's pædophilia.

I think you've misread the texts. Even the link in my sig to a Wikipedia article makes it pretty clear what the facts are.
It does nothing of the sort. The wikipedia article and the USC translation are in agreement, sex with small children is part of the islamic historical tradition. It notes that there is extensive disagreement over the veracity of the accounts and notes that a large segment of the practioners adhear closely to the account that includes sex with small children. You've certainly convinced me.

I assumed that the 6 & 9 thing was (somehow) a mistranslation. (What kind of monster would have sex with a small child? And why would that idea be preserved in the lore of an iconic figure of peace and justice?) It appears to, probably, be a misrecording of an oral tradition which has been thoughtfully and intentionally preserved, despite the accepted notion that it's probably not completely accurate, and not in annotations about mistake that had been corrected.

Just ick.

Then this is now a non-issue for me. Kudos. The paper apologized, I expect nothing out of the Danish government as I am not a Dane.

Thank you for the links. I shall spread them about.


Greetings Keruvalia

Excellent, and for the record, the excuse were made on the 30/1 06, and thats sadly enough before the embassy burnings.

How come this still is an issue if its only about an excuse to be stopped?

And in your opinion, are we - the Danish people, not in lack off an excuse from the Muslim society? after all it is a very little minority that published the cartoons similar to the very little minority that burned our flag and embassys.

And btw, the danish flag is also related to our religion so a lot of Danes felt offended by that behavior

According to your own posts, one cannot judge a society for the behavior of the few! that must work both ways to be true

It'll be coming right after the muslim world collectively appologizes, specifically for everything they've burned in effigy, everyone they've killed, everything they've blown up. All of the horrific things muslim and arab media has produced over the years, etc. Oh wait, did you mean just individuals reaching out to each other? Read the guestbook.
Yes, and they waiting for everything the Western world and Israel has done to them over the past few years - everyone we've killed, everything we've blown up.
And of course we're waiting for them to apologise for all the nasty things they did to us before that but before they apologise for those things we need to apologise for the nasty things we did to them...

And so on and so on and so on, ad infinitum.

This is where intolerance comes from.

Yes, a conspiracy, that's why there's another thread with 40 posts devoted to this. I'm 1489 in the guestbook.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=467510
Did you read the hacked entries in that guestbook? Someone has a HUGE hate on for Islam. :(

http://www.sorrynorwaydenmark.com/advancedguestbook/index.php

Apologize for what? Sharia law does not apply in Denmark last time I checked, while Freedom of the Press does. Free speech entails the ability to say something that may or may not offend someone else without fear of getting your house firebombed and crazied people calling for your blood. The only people who need to applogize are the ones who've been causing all of the destruction.
As I said in another thread on this topic, freedom of speech is all well and good, but responsible media have a social and moral obligation to combat intolerance and to ensure open public debate about matters of public concern.

In this case, these cartoons were obviously not designed to raise serious and informed debate about the issues, only to offend. So they shouldn't have been published. And they definitely shouldn't have been republished anywhere else, under the pretext of freedom of speech, once the level of anger and upset had become apparent.

We do have limits on our freedom of speech. For example I can be arrested in Germany, France or Austria (3 of the countries that have published the cartoons) for saying the holocaust didn't happen.
Where is my freedom of speech there? Why shouldn't I be allowed to say a lie? Mainly because it might (read might) encourage anti-semetic feelings and attacks on jewish property and persons.
But apparently it's ok to lie and call Mohammed a terrorist.

And of course Abu Hamza al-Masri has just been convicted on, among other things, "stirring up racial hatred".*
http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/1/hi/uk/4691958.stm
Which has the creepiest photo I've seen in a long time: http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41305000/jpg/_41305252_hamza203getty.jpg

So we do have limits on our freedom of speech.

*Of course a cartoon that mocks and denigrates another race and their beliefs couldn't possibly be considered as inciting or encouraging "racial hatred".

Did you read the hacked entries in that guestbook? Someone has a HUGE hate on for Islam. :(

http://www.sorrynorwaydenmark.com/advancedguestbook/index.php
It's a guestbook. That's what people do in them. I read a number of the entries, many were varying degrees of supportive and concilliatory. You're going to find what you look for.

This is where intolerance comes from.
No, intolerance comes from going bat shit insane because somewhere there is a cartoon that doesn't affect your life in anyway. Among other things. Muslims want to be taken seriously? They should probably think about being X nationality first, muslim second, cooperating enthusiastically with local law enforcement of western democracies, and the whole going bat shit insane at the drop of a hat, that needs to stop everywhere. If they can't do that, they are what their image is. It is the exceptional truth of their character. And it's that way by choice.

It's hard to have compassion for those intent on suffering the inequity of their own choices.

Re the cartoons and their function:
Not being a subscriber, I can't really speak to what their function was, aside from provoking public debate in the period following at least one murder and assault by bat shit insane Islamists recieving sanctuary in a country better than the shithole they escaped from.

Obviously they've provoked some rather important debate, it's hard to deny their merit just based on the international degree to which it's spread. Though much of that is owed to the completely psychotic behavior of whole muslim communities.

The inability of muslims to integrate themselves into modern societies, and develop a thicker skin is clearly of some national security and economic consequence. So the debate touched off, by these cartoons and the predatory behavior of Muslim religious leaders, is clearly one of substance important to the policy of governments representing the better part of a billion people, and a far more disproportunate fraction of our species wealth.

We find the activity important and popular right now. More popular because of the cartoons, and their self-fulfilling prophecy of the islamic reaction. It's hard to see them as anything but effective, and ultimately even prescient. Aside from insignificant hurt feelings, the effect of the cartoons has been to bring the debate to the international forefront, reveal the hypocrisies and blasphemies of a few islamic religious leaders, and bring forth stronger calls of reform from within normally pretty bat shit insane communities. Not a whole lot of downside. At least before one gets to the bat shit insane reactions to 3rd hand accounts of lies offered by Muslims to other Muslims over drawings that don't even rise to the level of emotional inconvienence.

Imagine their reaction to the unwavering insistence that a pink unicorn/flying spaghetti monster/chuck noris is the one true supreme being, and their god is a lie or subservient. There might be villains in this story, but it's not the cartoonist, editor, or those ridiculing the resulting strife muslims choose to inflict upon themselves and their neighbors.

No, intolerance comes from going bat shit insane because somewhere there is a cartoon that doesn't affect your life in anyway.
-snip-

Just have to say I agree fully on all your points:)

Well if they intended to offend all of us, they succeeded. Even the most peaceful and liberal among us were offended.

However, the site I provided shows people who have no involvement with the burnings or violent protests apologizing for those who do. The one thing the world's been holding its breath for: Muslims apologizing for something they didn't do.

Do you suppose anyone's going to apologize to the Muslims for the actions of the cartoonist?
Are you smoking something? You want people to apologize to Muslims for "offending" them? How about if I said that the fact that you believe in your religion at all is highly offensive to me as a human? (all religion is)

What if I said that all the time that people spend on religion is sickening to my sense of logic?

Are you gonna apologize to me for that? I'm assuming you won't and I agree you shouldn't. everyone gets offended, deal with it. The only people who need to apologize are the ones who hold an imaginary religion more important than the lives and safety of fellow humans.

And here's another under-reported side to the whole sorry business.


http://www.neandernews.com/?p=54

Although it points to the fact that not all muslims are irrational crazies, which any decent person should know by now. One web site does not counter balance the thousands looting, burning, and killing over a stupid cartoon.

I blame religion.

Oh, yes, it's always religion's fault, never self-concernced fiends or moronic fools or greedy pigs.

Oh, yes, it's always religion's fault, never self-concernced fiends or moronic fools or greedy pigs.

Yes, but they are usually in charge of the religion. :p

Oh, yes, it's always religion's fault, never self-concernced fiends or moronic fools or greedy pigs.
I don't blame religion. I blame people who ,in their misguided quest for holiness, place their religion over their respect for their fellow humans and their sense of right and wrong.

Why should they apologize? The only thing they did was pratice freedom of speech?I do think the NewsCorps have the Rigth to Insult anything AND anyone..

I blame people who ,in their misguided quest for holiness, place their religion over their respect for their fellow humans and their sense of right and wrong.Yes indeed I blame Christianity, Islam, the Jews..

I Blame most religions that have been out long enough...