View Full Version : Islamic reaction to radical Muslims


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

ozymandias
04-22-2010, 03:11 PM
Recently I have seen a lot of discussion around some radicals threatening assassination over the following image/video:
http://www.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/Entertainment/southparkshot_640_doomsday_604x341.jpg

I was just curious as to why people are willing to escalate from a simple picture and video to something as horrible as threats of murder.

I am also a bit curious as to why the publicized outrage is so one sided. Is it a case of the media not advertising the rational Muslims speaking out against the radicals, or is it a case of many Muslims actually supporting not just censorship but capital punishment for violation of said censorship?

Furthermore, while I know what many of my friends and the locals would say in response to this, I am interested in a more diverse pool:

Where do people stand on issues like the inherent human rights to free speech and religion? Do you not believe in these ideals? Do you believe there are limits?

Just trying to open up a line of discourse and hopefully we can all walk away a little more informed about the world we live in.

ozymandias
04-22-2010, 03:47 PM
Why cause offence? We Muslims feel as thoug respect our religion and we won't disturb you.


If someone walks a mile to cause offense,expect a harsh response from us.

That's just the thing. I look at that picture, and not only do I not see anything that could be construed as offensive, I see an image that you would have to walk a thousand miles to take offense from.

The only thing I find offensive over the whole issue is someone who infringes on other people's right to free speech.

If you even watched the episode that is from, you would have seen that they treated Islam with kid gloves, and openly flamed other religions. I would say that they actually treated Islam with quite a bit more respect than other religions -- and got death threats over it.

Do you, or do you not think that was an uncalled for over-reaction?

Badlun
04-22-2010, 04:09 PM
We need to strenghten the hands of those are against radical Muslims. All these Taliban and Salafis must be stopped from their barbaric ways not to to ridicule Islam and humanity in this modern world. We need to educate these radicals and teach them that they must be moderate and not extremists.

However others may also not injure sentiments of Muslims by publishing such material which may not be of any use but may let the radicals to have an excuse for terrorism and creating law and order situation where innocent people suffer.

ozymandias
04-22-2010, 04:48 PM
We need to strenghten the hands of those are against radical Muslims. All these Taliban and Salafis must be stopped from their barbaric ways not to to ridicule Islam and humanity in this modern world. We need to educate these radicals and teach them that they must be moderate and not extremists.



I agree with this whole-heartedly -- and not just for Muslims, but also for people of all faiths and creeds, including christians and atheists.



However others may also not injure sentiments of Muslims by publishing such material which may not be of any use but may let the radicals to have an excuse for terrorism and creating law and order situation where innocent people suffer.

This, I have a hard time with. I have a hard time understanding why someone should be prohibited, by law or fear, from exercising free speech. I feel strongly that avoiding the exercise of rights through fear is a terrible thing. It is the fault of the terrorists that they cause innocents to suffer -- not the person speaking freely -- and that fear is all the more reason to protect the free speech, not shy away from it. If people were not afraid to speak out against some of these terrorists, we would have an educated world population that would not tolerate terrorism, and the terrorists would slowly die out.

ozymandias
04-22-2010, 04:55 PM
HI, Ozymandias.
Welcome to PF.


Well, Yes I do agree that the image is not offensive. But the Muslim world is very sensitive after the cartoons of Mohammad.



I would argue that they were overly sensitive before the Jyllands-Posten incident -- that is why it became an incident, with riots and death threats over a few innocent cartoons. The appropriate reaction to a few political cartoons is not violence!




don't you think that was a bit ridiculous? I mean, Why do such a thing?

Not really, especially in contrast to the images of Jesus (watching internet porn) and Buddha (snorting coke). Of the three depictions, I can see 2 of them offensive -- and one of them as a very pointed political commentary, especially when all three are together.

The only thing ridiculous is threatening to kill over a cartoon of a bear -- that is even more absurd than the original Jyllands-Posten incident -- at least Jyllands-Posten showed cartoons of Mohammed -- and satirical ones at that.

Do you find it offensive that I place this image here? :lal2:

What if I tell you that that is an image of Mohammed? That's what South Park did. They took a secular image and simply labeled it as Mohammed -- and were threatened with death over it.

:lal:

Look! he does magic, too!

Looking forward to replies -- opening lines of communication is the first step to healing this world.

ozymandias
04-22-2010, 05:15 PM
Ozy,
we as followers take more offense.

cause it has a divine meaning to us as compared to Christians who do not care as much as us.



And that is exactly the point.



Have non Muslims ran out of ideas to irritate us? They want to pick on our holy significant figures? It's deemed to cause offence what positive does one gain?

The positive? Seriously? You have to ask why exercising free speech is a good thing? Why giving up your rights through fear is a bad thing?

I guess we have a larger gulf to bridge here. Free speech is one of the most important things, as it allows you the right to speak out against atrocities and to try and correct the issue. It is the one tool that is most important in defending all other rights. This cartoon was more about how absurd it is to get offended by something not-in-the-least offensive and a poke at free speech -- and these radicals took the bait.

What positive do these people gain by sending death threats? The responded to a soft-ball joke with deadly serious threats...

ozymandias
04-22-2010, 05:27 PM
Ozy,
the same way you can't say **** the twin towers death to Obama and depicting the USA in a negative manner without being sent to Cuba the same way we don't want to be demonized.


But I can. That's what free speech is. Well, assuming I am speaking figuratively and not making realistic, believable death threats.



Respect us, we will respect them.



A man in a bear suit offends you? More than death threats over trivial things would?

I respect people of all faiths, until they give me reasons not to respect them. Making death threats over trivial things -- or defending those that make threats is a pretty good reason to not respect someone.




It's not even retaliation, the pure intention was to cause offense.

I disagree. The pure intention was to point out how absurd the idea that that is offensive was the point. Look at what they did to all the other religious figures -- what they did was an attempt to point out how crazy the situation is. They took an absurd situation (being fearful of displaying images of a religious figure) and took it to absurd lengths to accent the absurdity -- and evidently they did not take it to absurd enough lengths as someone still threatened them with torture and death.


:lal10:

Here is is rocking out!

Master Khan
04-22-2010, 05:29 PM
Oh yeah thats South Park.
They got balls for doing that I must say. well they not showing our prophet but still I don't like them puting our prophet in a comedy cartoon.

ozymandias
04-22-2010, 05:44 PM
Ozymandias,

The point you seem to fail to graps on is that doing such a thing causes offense to a Muslim.



No, what I don't understand is why a little offense is worth a death threat -- and why more people are not outraged.

It offends me that someone is trying to limit free speech -- but I am not threatening torture and death over it.



I respect freedom of speech,



Not if you are defending death threats over a silly cartoon.



but to what extend do you describe freedom of speech?



Always and forever -- with the single exception that when you restrict other's rights, or cause measurable and deliberate harm. Shouting 'fire' in a theater? Not free speech. Threatening death? Not free speech. Political or religious commentary? Free speech.

[/quote]

In what context. It is more then obvious that disrespecting Islam and using the freedom of speech is clear that anyone is attempting to stirr up controversy.

[/quote]

.... so? Controversy is not even bad -- especially if it is used in a way that promotes freedom. It was controversial to end racist policies in America -- or allow women to vote. That doesn't make it bad. It might be controversial to show a cartoon bear, but if it points out the absurdity of radicals and extremists, and makes it harder for their ideas to spread its great.

[/quote]

It's a way to gain attention, that is how I see it.[/QUOTE]

Again, so? Just because it was just to gain attention doesn't mean they don't have the right to do it.

Palwasha
04-22-2010, 07:26 PM
I haven't watched the episode neither have I heard anything about this whole thing until now, but here’s my intake anyhow.

I don’t support the death threats, I think it should be handled in a more civilised manner. However, Muslims don’t have much media influence in the West, thus they don’t have as many means of expressing their responses or anger.

I understand that you fail to understand why Muslims respond in such a livid manner. Firstly, remember that those who threaten don’t necessarily represent all Muslims, they act on their own behalf. So don’t generalise that every Muslim wants the perpetrators dead.

Please forgive me for using such an example, my intention is not to offend, rather it’s just for the sake of argument; if someone was to illustrate your mother (or someone dear to you), as a prostitute and printed it in national newspaper, how would you react..? Muhammad (PBUH)’s followers love him and value him immensely, to insult him would be seen as worse than if one’s own relatives were being made a fool of. Therefore, naturally they would go far to defend his honour.

When you offend someone you’re essentially attacking them, so don’t be surprised if a few of those people are upset enough to respond or cause a commotion. If you hit someone, they’ll hit back.

I would argue that they were overly sensitive before the Jyllands-Posten incident -- that is why it became an incident, with riots and death threats over a few innocent cartoons. The appropriate reaction to a few political cartoons is not violence!
Innocent cartoons? Since when did depicting a dead man, a leader of faith, as a terrorist become innocent? What was the pure intention behind creating those.. maybe one or two will laugh, but two billion are also being offended, so it kinda makes you question the whole point of it all. Also, why is it free speech only when the Muslims are being offended; mentioning the holocaust is ‘anti-Semitic’, talking against gays is ‘homophobic ‘, but insulting Islam seems to be the trend and the only way to exemplify free speech.

Not really, especially in contrast to the images of Jesus (watching internet porn) and Buddha (snorting coke).
Followers of this religion are themselves disrespecting their own leaders of faith, when they sell pictures of them for money and recreate images which end up anywhere. Muslims have gone out of their way not to treat Muhammad (PBUH) in such a manner, we deliberately choose not to replicate any portraits of him out of respect. You don’t see the Islamic media ever publishing cartoons insulting other religions, why can’t we be shown the same courtesy?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not agreeing with the calls for murder, just understand it from another perspective as well.

By the way, welcome and why don’t you also introduce yourself a little, it’ll make it easier for us to know in which best way to reply to you. :)

Azmatullah
04-22-2010, 10:17 PM
It is the duty of every Muslim to defend the honour of our Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). He is dearer to us more than our families, our own selves and everything else.

Why publish/broadcast such images in the first place if you know they will cause offense to the majority of Muslims? Is this suppose to bring some benefit to you?

pir_Rokhan
04-23-2010, 05:56 AM
Ozy

Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom of character assasination. You may diasgree with certain actions or views of Muhammad or even refute all of them,you may also express your disagreement in an academic style but it is immoral to humiliate someone based on difference of opinion.

Having said that,the penalty of death for any such mistake is another extreme. However if you know the basics of human psychology, then it is easy to understand that human beings are fond of idealising as well as idolising things.They unconsciously assign all aspects and attributes of beauty and perfection to a certain character and start loving it.

Till the time they do not have the knowledge to critically scrutinise their hero worship,their love is all emotional and not rational. History has seen this in case of Jesus. The Crusades and dark ages of Europe are on record.

Muslims are still going through an unconscious blind love not based on rationality in case of their prophet. So expecting emotional reaction from muslims in blashphemy of Muhammad is but natural.

In case you have any rational objection over the religion presented by Muahammad or over some aspects of his personality or his views about life and universe ,we could critically analyse them.

Muhammad has intellectual fans both in orient and occident. Personalites like H.G.Wells,Micheal Hart,M.N.Roy,Gandhi etc all have paid tributes to him.

ozymandias
04-23-2010, 08:54 AM
Ozy,
wrora,

What is wrong with leaving us Muslims alone to let us worship what we want? Why do they have to jump in and create controversy?

Absolutely nothing. What's wrong with letting non-muslims in the free world exercise their rights without death threats?

ozymandias
04-23-2010, 08:58 AM
Hi Ozymandias!! Welcome here. Make yourself home.

Dear,
I think you are thinking of this in a way extreme mindset, It is a simple request that Muslim have, Do not disrespect our religion.


Live your life, drink your beer, smoke your weed but leave our religion out of it. We simply ask people to gain publicity in other ways.

So you are saying threatening *DEATH* and *TORTURE* is not an extremist action in your faith? I can understand asking for respect as non-extremist, but the reaction can only be described as extremist if it involves riots, terrorism, and legitimately feared claims of homicide.

"Please respect our XXX" Is not extremist. "Respect our XXX, or with will torture, kill, and riot" to me is a very extremist reaction. The fact that people on this forum cannot see the difference between the two reactions terrifies me.

ozymandias
04-23-2010, 08:59 AM
Ozymandias, you are dealing with misconceptions. we will help you.


What misconception do I have? It's been all over the news that these death threats have been made. About the only misconception I might have is that it is only the extremists that support death threats over this -- and it is starting to become clear that either there are more extremists here, or more than just extremists support such a terrible response.

ozymandias
04-23-2010, 09:25 AM
I haven't watched the episode neither have I heard anything about this whole thing until now, but here’s my intake anyhow.

I don’t support the death threats, I think it should be handled in a more civilised manner. However, Muslims don’t have much media influence in the West, thus they don’t have as many means of expressing their responses or anger.

I understand that you fail to understand why Muslims respond in such a livid manner. Firstly, remember that those who threaten don’t necessarily represent all Muslims, they act on their own behalf. So don’t generalise that every Muslim wants the perpetrators dead.



Please don't get me wrong. I do not, and did not, believe that. I was just interested in why what I thought of as extremists were not being more actively distanced from the main stream Muslims. For instance we often get fundamentalist christian groups demonstrating near where I work, and when ever they show up it does not take long for non-fundamentalists to show up and start publicly stating that these people do not represent a common christian opinion. To contrast it, out of several news stories that I have read, including ones interviewing Muslim public figures, not one of the stories made it clear that Muslims were outraged by these death threats.



Please forgive me for using such an example, my intention is not to offend, rather it’s just for the sake of argument; if someone was to illustrate your mother (or someone dear to you), as a prostitute and printed it in national newspaper, how would you react..?



I would be upset -- but I would *not* threaten death, or riot over the issue. That's my point.



Muhammad (PBUH)’s followers love him and value him immensely, to insult him would be seen as worse than if one’s own relatives were being made a fool of.



So you are trying to say that Mohammad is somehow that much more important to Muslims that you cannot even show a bear suit and say he is in it -- but christians and buddhists do not respect and love their religious figure head? I would say that christians are every bit as devoted to their god as you are to your profit -- they just know how to react responsibly.



Therefore, naturally they would go far to defend his honour.



Could you explain this leap of logic for me? I understand 'defending his honor' -- but how does that translate into 'making a mockery of his teachings and threatening death'? Or are you trying to say that all the Muslims that claim Islam is a religion of peace are wrong? Forgive me -- I don't understand your religion as well as some of the others I have been exposed to.



When you offend someone you’re essentially attacking them, so don’t be surprised if a few of those people are upset enough to respond or cause a commotion. If you hit someone, they’ll hit back.



You know what -- I understand that. But if I hit someone, it is not reasonable to expect them to bomb your house, or torture you, or hold international riots, or storm embassies -- and hitting someone is a much bigger deal than a few simple images.



Innocent cartoons? Since when did depicting a dead man, a leader of faith, as a terrorist become innocent?



Since when was it not? Speaking in a human-rights sense, at least? I am aware that in some backwards countries the human right to free speach is restricted, but since 1948 free speach is recognized under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is not a crime worthy of capital punishment in any legitimate government on the planet.



What was the pure intention behind creating those.. maybe one or two will laugh, but two billion are also being offended, so it kinda makes you question the whole point of it all.



Let's be honest, though -- the intention does not matter one bit. It was an act of free speach, and it is terrifying that people reacted with terrorist threats.

I came here to find out why more Muslims are not speaking out against what I thought was extremist acts of terrorism -- and it appears I have the answer. Many of you are actually defending these dispicable acts. Either it's not extremist, or I found my way to an extremist forum.



Also, why is it free speech only when the Muslims are being offended; mentioning the holocaust is ‘anti-Semitic’, talking against gays is ‘homophobic ‘



It can be all three. Being free speach does not proclude something from being anti-semetic *and* homophobic, so I don't understand your question. The KKK can demonstrate and support both the holocaust and restricting gay rights -- and the public will label them as bigotted kooks and move on.

In fact, you bring up a very good point -- it is not as important to exercise the right to free speach in those cases -- simply because other than social ostracism there is no threat against the people saying those things. If homosexuals and jewish men were sending believable death threats and starting world-wide riots over anything they didn't like, then it would be much more important to exercise the right of free speach and make it clear that we are unwilling to give up that right because of terrorism.

I see anti-semetic and homophobic cartoons all the time, yet have not once seen either group embrace or defend an extremist reaction to them.



, but insulting Islam seems to be the trend and the only way to exemplify free speech.



I'm sorry, perhaps this is a cultural issue. I live and spend most of my time in America, and this is clearly not the case here. Many many subjects are discussed under the umbrella of free speach here. It is a right ingrained into our society.



Followers of this religion are themselves disrespecting their own leaders of faith, when they sell pictures of them for money and recreate images which end up anywhere. Muslims have gone out of their way not to treat Muhammad (PBUH) in such a manner, we deliberately choose not to replicate any portraits of him out of respect. You don’t see the Islamic media ever publishing cartoons insulting other religions, why can’t we be shown the same courtesy?



You can be -- and in many cases are. it is your own horrific reaction that causes the cartoons to be a big deal and a publicity generator, for one thing -- and for another you are deliberately ignoring the thousands of newspapers world wide that do not show these images. Neither of the papers delivered to my house has shown any of the images that create controversy -- you are focusing on the negative.



Don't get me wrong, I'm not agreeing with the calls for murder, just understand it from another perspective as well.

By the way, welcome and why don’t you also introduce yourself a little, it’ll make it easier for us to know in which best way to reply to you. :)

ozymandias
04-23-2010, 09:32 AM
It is the duty of every Muslim to defend the honour of our Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). He is dearer to us more than our families, our own selves and everything else.



So defend his honor -- don't drag his teachings through the mud and make the religion he created look like a wellspring of terrorism. That's at least how I, and many people in this world see this issue.



Why publish/broadcast such images in the first place if you know they will cause offense to the majority of Muslims? Is this suppose to bring some benefit to you?

It *did* bring a benefit. This episode of South Park made national news, and had a huge spike in ratings. Controversy is free publicity.

Ignoring the monetary benefit, defending free speech is it's own benefit. Use it or lose it. Hopefully more people will come to understand and reject these extremist actions because they were so extreme.

Third, you should really watch the episode. I'm not a regular fan, but due to hearing about the controversy, I caught this episode, and they made it *very* clear that it was an issue of overreaction. They acted fearful of displaying even a simple image of Mohammed, but had no problem opening insulting figures of other faith -- they made it very clear that they were doing public satire and commentary of current social temperament and current modern fears. Many modern news outlets have no problem lambasting most religions -- but refrain from doing the same to Islam, not due to respect, but due to fear of terrorism.

شمله ور خراساني
04-23-2010, 09:32 AM
Allah has ordained for muslims to protect the honor of his messengers and prophets. So did the prophet sal allahu alayhi wasallam demand from muslims to protect his honor.

It is the duty of muslims to defend the honor of the prophets.

Whoever claims that muslims should sit and watch how our religion is being rediculed should double check if he or she really is a muslim.

However, this does not imply that all muslims should go about acing like one man armies and vigilantes and cause more harm and unrest

islam is a collective religion. We are taught to follow guidance and adhere to laws.

Only when a proper muslim authority like an amirul momineen or a khalif orders muslims to act against the enemies of islam in an organized manner, we can take actions against the enemies of our religion.

ozymandias
04-23-2010, 09:42 AM
Ozy

Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom of character assasination. You may diasgree with certain actions or views of Muhammad or even refute all of them,you may also express your disagreement in an academic style but it is immoral to humiliate someone based on difference of opinion.



Exactly how was that character assassination? The whole point of the episode was that while it is ok to negatively portray other religions there is a social stigma based on fear about discussing Islam.

The portrayal of other religious figures I could see as humiliating. Mohammed? Not at all. They went through a huge song and dance about not being able to show his image and compromised by showing a bear costume. Why did they refuse to show his image? Out of fear of riots and death threats -- and any claim that that is humiliating goes right out the window the second their very fears were justified.

How can it be humiliating to be described as a terrorist when the reaction to that description is terrorism? And then many people, including those around here *DEFEND* that reaction.



Having said that,the penalty of death for any such mistake is another extreme. However if you know the basics of human psychology, then it is easy to understand that human beings are fond of idealising as well as idolising things.They unconsciously assign all aspects and attributes of beauty and perfection to a certain character and start loving it.

Till the time they do not have the knowledge to critically scrutinise their hero worship,their love is all emotional and not rational. History has seen this in case of Jesus. The Crusades and dark ages of Europe are on record.



So far so good.



Muslims are still going through an unconscious blind love not based on rationality in case of their prophet. So expecting emotional reaction from muslims in blashphemy of Muhammad is but natural.



But then so is expecting them to grow out of this, as well.



In case you have any rational objection over the religion presented by Muahammad or over some aspects of his personality or his views about life and universe ,we could critically analyse them.



I am a rational, educated man, but this is not a thread to discuss the problems I see in your actual faith (and frankly, given the extremist reactions I have seen thus far, I am a little leery of having such a discussion) -- I would like to discuss your cultural quirks before engaging on that discussion.

As much as I love free speech, I am suffering from the very fear I am speaking out against. Yesterday, I would have joyfully jumped into a theological, rational, and logical discussion of your religion, but seeing so many people defend the actions of terrorist extremists, I am going to wait a bit before asking for trouble .



Muhammad has intellectual fans both in orient and occident. Personalites like H.G.Wells,Micheal Hart,M.N.Roy,Gandhi etc all have paid tributes to him.

And that's great. Good for him. I have no problem with him -- it's his followers that are the real problem.

ozymandias
04-23-2010, 09:48 AM
Allah has ordained for muslims to protect the honor of his messengers and prophets. So did the prophet sal allahu alayhi wasallam demand from muslims to protect his honor.



Do you, personally, think Mohammed would come back and embrace these terrorists, and thank them for the honor they have brought to him and his religion?

Or do you think that he would come back and be ashamed at how they have reacted in his name?

The first case terrifies me. The second I like.



It is the duty of muslims to defend the honor of the prophets.



Defending and terrorism are two separate things. You can defend his honor without resorting to despicable acts.



Whoever claims that muslims should sit and watch how our religion is being rediculed should double check if he or she really is a muslim.



Oh, phew -- I had to go check quick. Still not a muslim. You had me worried there for a second.



However, this does not imply that all muslims should go about acing like one man armies and vigilantes and cause more harm and unrest



Agreed.



islam is a collective religion. We are taught to follow guidance and adhere to laws.



Really? Then why are so many of you defending such illegal acts as terrorism and death threats? What you claim, and what I have seen in this thread do not match up, at all.



Only when a proper muslim authority like an amirul momineen or a khalif orders muslims to act against the enemies of islam in an organized manner, we can take actions against the enemies of our religion.

Then why not speak out against these terrorist and stop defending them? It sounds like you are trying to have your cake and eat it to. You allow the extremist terrorists to do your dirty work -- and defend them when they do, and do not speak out against it, and then out of the other side of your mouth, you say "but these people do not represent all of us"

شمله ور خراساني
04-23-2010, 10:02 AM
Seek mental help. You are desperately in need of it.


Do you, personally, think Mohammed would come back and embrace these terrorists, and thank them for the honor they have brought to him and his religion?

Or do you think that he would come back and be ashamed at how they have reacted in his name?

The first case terrifies me. The second I like.



Defending and terrorism are two separate things. You can defend his honor without resorting to despicable acts.



Oh, phew -- I had to go check quick. Still not a muslim. You had me worried there for a second.



Agreed.



Really? Then why are so many of you defending such illegal acts as terrorism and death threats? What you claim, and what I have seen in this thread do not match up, at all.



Then why not speak out against these terrorist and stop defending them? It sounds like you are trying to have your cake and eat it to. You allow the extremist terrorists to do your dirty work -- and defend them when they do, and do not speak out against it, and then out of the other side of your mouth, you say "but these people do not represent all of us"

pir_Rokhan
04-23-2010, 10:20 AM
Exactly how was that character assassination? The whole point of the episode was that while it is ok to negatively portray other religions there is a social stigma based on fear about discussing Islam.The portrayal of other religious figures I could see as humiliating. Mohammed? Not at all. They went through a huge song and dance about not being able to show his image and compromised by showing a bear costume. Why did they refuse to show his image? Out of fear of riots and death threats -- and any claim that that is humiliating goes right out the window the second their very fears were justified.


I thought you were talking about cartoonifying the picture of Muhammad.I think that would have been humiliation.[assuming that Cartoonifying generally has an element of satire and criticism specially if the intention is profiling/stereotyping]

Your other concern is valid but based on a misunderstanding.The popular version of Islam does not consider the portrayal of even a normal human to be correct let alone that of a prophet.Photography, Sketching, Painting [human pictures] etc are prohibited in the popular version of Islam "due to the fear of being worshipped". So Muslims would not approve of the picture of any prophet ,not only Muhammad.

How can it be humiliating to be described as a terrorist when the reaction to that description is terrorism? And then many people, including those around here *DEFEND* that reaction.

Reactions based on emotions and that too religeous ones normally turn out to be violent. This is normal in all parts and communities of the world. However this is not a civilised way to defend or protest but neither is publicising an academically controversial topic like being described as a terrorist. If one thinks that a person is a terrorist and the person is a revered personality of a major demography of the world ,then this assumption or accusation should not be decided in the form of a media trial but in a proper forum with the proper people instead of making it a means to earn name or fame.

But then so is expecting them to grow out of this, as well.

Agreed.But a protocol is necessary for this.Such is the dictation of social psychology.

I am a rational, educated man, but this is not a thread to discuss the problems I see in your actual faith (and frankly, given the extremist reactions I have seen thus far, I am a little leery of having such a discussion) -- I would like to discuss your cultural quirks before engaging on that discussion.

No Comments

As much as I love free speech, I am suffering from the very fear I am speaking out against. Yesterday, I would have joyfully jumped into a theological, rational, and logical discussion of your religion, but seeing so many people defend the actions of terrorist extremists, I am going to wait a bit before asking for trouble .

Hmmm..."Terrorist Extremists" is your verdict about some people. It might be right but first your judgement has to be challanged as we cannot take your judgement as a divine decree too due to loving freedom of speech like yourself.

And that's great. Good for him. I have no problem with him -- it's his followers that are the real problem.

Everywhere its the followers who are the real problem. Following itself is the root cause of the problem. One should have one's own opinion instead of following someone's. That is why instead of following you we have to debate what you want us to follow.

ozymandias
04-23-2010, 10:58 AM
Seek mental help. You are desperately in need of it.
http://people.virginia.edu/%7Eabb3w/Images/Fark/Fallacies/adhominemtd3.jpg (http://people.virginia.edu/%7Eabb3w/Images/Fark/Fallacies/adhominemtd3.jpg)

It would be nice to know why you decided to personally attack me, but I am not going to threaten death over it.

ozymandias
04-23-2010, 11:07 AM
I thought you were talking about cartoonifying the picture of Muahammad.I think that would have been humiliation.[assuming that Cartoonifying generally has an element of satire and criticism specially if the intention is profiling/stereotyping]



Had they done that, I might be willing to discuss that argument, but since they did not cartoonify anything other than other religious leaders and a bear suit, you can't make that argument. The whole point was the refusal to display him at all.



Your other concern is valid but based on a misunderstanding.The popular version of Islam does not consider the portrayal of even a normal human to be correct let alone that of a prophet.Photography, Sketching, Painting [human pictures] etc are prohibited in the popular version of Islam "due to the fear of being worshipped". So Muslims would not approve of the picture of any prophet ,not only Muhammad.



So? then don't make images. You have every right to control your own behavior -- but have no right to control other people's expression of free speech.



Reactions based on emotions and that too religeous ones normally turn out to be violent. This is normal in all parts and communities of the world. However this is not a civilised way to defend or protest but neither is publicising an academically controversial topic like being described as a terrorist.



Sorry -- you were right that terrorist responses are not civilized, but you lost me at the second part. These people are engaging in terrorist activities -- namely using terror and fear of torture and death to try and control the behavior of others. That is terrorism. Period.

On the other hand, exercising free speech and using free speech to defend free speech is about as civilized as you can get.



If one thinks that a person is a terrorist and the person is a revered personality of a major demography of the world ,then this assumption or accusation should not be decided in the form of a media trial but in a proper forum with the proper people instead of making it a means to earn name or fame.



I'm sorry, I think you are deliberately confusing the issue. No one claimed that Mohammed is personally a terrorist on South Park, and I believe the JP cartoons were a commentary that Mohammed founded a religion that was being subverted and used by terrorist -- and that the terrorists are claiming that Mohammad would support their actions -- making him a terrorist. This thread shows that this claim is still true to today.




Agreed.But a protocol is necessary for this.Such is the dictation of social psychology.



No Comments



Hmmm..."Terrorist Extremists" is your verdict about some people. It might be right but first your judgement has to be challanged as we cannot take your judgement as a divine decree too due to loving freedom of speech like yourself.



I would not have it any other way. Feel free to try and defend terrorism and explain how these are not the actions of extremists, but remember it will be you that is claiming that these people are main-stream Muslims and not me -- which would support the argument that Mohammed founded a religion of terrorists, now wouldn't it?



Everywhere its the followers who are the real problem.Following itself is the root cause of the problem.One should have one's own opinion instead of following someone's. That is why isntead of following you we have to debate what you want us to follow.

Interesting that you would say that. That sounds like something a rationalist would say, not a theist.

Palwasha
04-23-2010, 11:17 AM
I was just interested in why what I thought of as extremists were not being more actively distanced from the main stream Muslims. For instance we often get fundamentalist christian groups demonstrating near where I work, and when ever they show up it does not take long for non-fundamentalists to show up and start publicly stating that these people do not represent a common christian opinion. To contrast it, out of several news stories that I have read, including ones interviewing Muslim public figures, not one of the stories made it clear that Muslims were outraged by these death threats.
And you think Muslims have such influence in the media for both sides to be heard? Ha! Mate, you don’t think we’re not trying, you only need to talk to a Muslim and they will tell you they condemn ‘extremism’, we’re trying our best but our side isn’t always told.
I would be upset -- but I would *not* threaten death, or riot over the issue.
Not saying you should, but it strikes a nerve right.

So you are trying to say that Mohammad is somehow that much more important to Muslims that you cannot even show a bear suit and say he is in it -- but christians and buddhists do not respect and love their religious figure head? I would say that christians are every bit as devoted to their god as you are to your profit -- they just know how to react responsibly.
I don’t exactly mean that in the sense you’ve understood it, as Muslims our values are different, we clearly show respect in a differently. I’m not doubting their devotion either, we just demonstrate it another way.

Furthermore, sticking the body of a man (who they believe to be God ), on a cross, as he is dying, in agony, doesn’t define respect for me; to have your life ended by crucifixion was considered a humiliating death penalty in those days, why then would they choose to depict that image? Theoretically speaking, if someone close to you ever died, you wouldn’t hang up a picture of them in pain and suffering... it’s definitely not the picture you’d choose. But this is a *completely* different topic...


Could you explain this leap of logic for me? I understand 'defending his honor' -- but how does that translate into 'making a mockery of his teachings and threatening death'? Or are you trying to say that all the Muslims that claim Islam is a religion of peace are wrong?
I agree, but you’re defining defending his honour as death threats, that’s not what I’m saying. What I do mean to stress is that we will jump to protect it.

Forgive me -- I don't understand your religion as well as some of the others I have been exposed to.
You got any misunderstandings or confusions then let’s hear it, we’d love to clear them up for you.

You know what -- I understand that. But if I hit someone, it is not reasonable to expect them to bomb your house, or torture you, or hold international riots, or storm embassies -- and hitting someone is a much bigger deal than a few simple images.
Who bombed who’s house.. who tortured who..? I don’t concur with any of those methods either.
A few simple images to you is an open flesh wound to us. If the images don’t mean that much to you people, then why replicate them to those whom it does.

Since when was it not? Speaking in a human-rights sense, at least? I am aware that in some backwards countries the human right to free speach is restricted, but since 1948 free speach is recognized under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is not a crime worthy of capital punishment in any legitimate government on the planet.
Definition of innocent: lacking intent or capacity to injure – the cartoon definitely doesn’t fall under this category.

Let's be honest, though -- the intention does not matter one bit. It was an act of free speach, and it is terrifying that people reacted with terrorist threats.
Oh but the intention does matter, when Prince Harry attended a party dressed in a Nazi outfit the media went up in flames. He was going to a party, he wasn’t propagating Nazism or Hitler, but that wasn’t the point, the point was that he offended.

I came here to find out why more Muslims are not speaking out against what I thought was extremist acts of terrorism -- and it appears I have the answer. Many of you are actually defending these dispicable acts. Either it's not extremist, or I found my way to an extremist forum.
I fail to see how we’re being extreme, your concept of it must be different to mine. Nowhere have we agreed with the threats or any terrorism behaviour, we simply agree with the notion of standing up for the Prophet (PBUH).

I’m also curious as to why you chose this forum, why a Pashtun one, from all the major Muslim ethnicities.. and why not a Muslim forum? Please don’t misunderstand, I’m not saying you shouldn’t have come here, you’re very welcome.

You’re username also sounds familiar.

I see anti-semetic and homophobic cartoons all the time, yet have not once seen either group embrace or defend an extremist reaction to them.
Please, you can’t utter anything against the Jewish history without it ensuing into an issue. Homosexuals are also always campaigning up for their ‘gay rights’

'Coincidently', these are two of the most powerful populations in the US. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, perhaps this is a cultural issue. I live and spend most of my time in America, and this is clearly not the case here. Many many subjects are discussed under the umbrella of free speach here. It is a right ingrained into our society.
Free speech is a farce; one could argue that these ‘extremist’ can publically talk how they want or that people like Hitler should be able to state what they wish.. freedom of speech right.

You can be -- and in many cases are. it is your own horrific reaction that causes the cartoons to be a big deal and a publicity generator, for one thing
My reaction? I thought you didn’t generalise this representation of Muslims.

and for another you are deliberately ignoring the thousands of newspapers world wide that do not show these images. Neither of the papers delivered to my house has shown any of the images that create controversy -- you are focusing on the negative.
God, we’re definitely not shown any courtesy, they don’t respect us or our beliefs. They’re against the headscarve, veil, Sharia law.. women in Islam have no rights, our men have numerous wives, we all hate the west etc.

We mentioned freedom of speech, freedom of expression seems to go out of the window along with that.

Maybe those newspapers didn’t print the cartoons but a great number of them promote Islamaphobia.

You have to realise that we are continuously attacked by the West, how do think I feel when I see Islam being constantly mocked so easily and so openly? The values and beliefs which I hold so dear to me. Course it’s easy enough to ignore, but I’m not one to sit and watch while my beliefs are being belittled. I'm only a young student and I have to deal with these kind of prejudices and pressure that no other students of other faiths have to endure. I've been arguing for my religion since I was in primary/elementary school.

Also remember one thing, do not judge a religion by its people, judge it by its teachings and it's book.

Palwasha
04-23-2010, 11:34 AM
This episode of South Park made national news, and had a huge spike in ratings. Controversy is free publicity.
Exactly. Makes you wonder about how much of free speech they really care, it’s a term thrown in as defence.

How can it be humiliating to be described as a terrorist when the reaction to that description is terrorism? And then many people, including those around here *DEFEND* that reaction.
We're just asking you to understand the reaction, not support it - as in my case. See it from our prespective too.

Really? Then why are so many of you defending such illegal acts as terrorism and death threats? What you claim, and what I have seen in this thread do not match up, at all.Where did we say terrorism or death threats are okay? We support the idea of defending our Prophet.

pir_Rokhan
04-23-2010, 11:38 AM
The whole point was the refusal to display him at all.

You have every right to control your own behavior -- but have no right to control other people's expression of free speech.

Being displayed is considered an offence in the popular version of Islam.It is like a person or a group displays your nude picture and when you protest against it they tell you why are you restricting our right to freedom of speech.

Sorry -- you were right that terrorist responses are not civilized, but you lost me at the second part. These people are engaging in terrorist activities -- namely using terror and fear of torture and death to try and control the behavior of others. That is terrorism. Period.

The response to terror is terror.They should not terrorise you if you stop to terrorise them using your freedom of speech.

I'm sorry, I think you are deliberately confusing the issue. No one claimed that Mohammed is personally a terrorist on South Park, and I believe the JP cartoons were a commentary that Mohammed founded a religion that was being subverted and used by terrorist -- and that the terrorists are claiming that Mohammad would support their actions -- making him a terrorist. This thread shows that this claim is still true to today.

If the followers of Muhammad justify their actions by attributing them to Muhamad and the opponents of Muhammad accept their justification then it just proves a weak logical ability on part of the opponents.

I would not have it any other way. Feel free to try and defend terrorism and explain how these are not the actions of extremists, but remember it will be you that is claiming that these people are main-stream Muslims and not me -- which would support the argument that Mohammed founded a religion of terrorists, now wouldn't it?

I do not defend terrorism whether it is threatening someone's physical life or someone's emotional and spiritual life.

Interesting that you would say that. That sounds like something a rationalist would say, not a theist.

Theists are not necessarily irrational till they spell out what they consider theism.

ozymandias
04-23-2010, 12:45 PM
And you think Muslims have such influence in the media for both sides to be heard? Ha! Mate, you don’t think we’re not trying, you only need to talk to a Muslim and they will tell you they condemn ‘extremism’, we’re trying our best but our side isn’t always told.



And here I go and give you a voice, to at least tell me -- and you are confirming everything that the muslims interviewed and in the news said.

So far I don't see what you are complaining about. You have a voice -- use it.



Not saying you should, but it strikes a nerve right.



I must be missing your point. I am not saying they do not have the right to be upset. They have every right to be upset. They do *NOT* have the right to be terrorists about it -- and should be shunned for doing so.




I don’t exactly mean that in the sense you’ve understood it, as Muslims our values are different, we clearly show respect in a different way. I’m not doubting their devotion either, we just demonstrate it another way.



So you agree that different people can have different values -- and this is a legitimate concern? Then why are you getting upset when cartoonists have different values than you?



Furthermore, sticking the body of a man (who they believe to be God ), on a cross, as he is dying, in agony, doesn’t define respect for me; to have your life ended by crucifixion was considered a humiliating death penalty in those days, why then would they choose to depict that image? Theoretically speaking, if someone close to you ever died, you wouldn’t hang up a picture of them in pain and suffering... it’s definitely not the picture you’d choose. But this is a *completely* different topic...



Obviously you have never looked into christianity.



I agree, but you’re defining defending his honour as death threats, that’s not what I’m saying.



I'm not defining it anyway, you are. You are the one associating what they did (death threats) with a justification (defend the honor of someone).

I am calling into question how you can say that Mohammed founded a religion of peace out of one side of your mouth, and then try to claim terrorism can be used to defend his honor.



What I do mean to stress is that we will jump to protect it.



That is 100% fine -- and I will fight to my dying breath to defend your right to do so -- as long as it is done in an appropriate manner.



You got any misunderstandings or confusions then let’s hear it, we’d love to clear them up for you.


Who’s has bombed who’s house.. who’s tortured who..? I don’t concur with any of those methods either.



I'm not saying literal house bombing occured, but the appropriate response to a minor event like punching someone (or publishing a cartoon) is not to bomb their house (or torture and kill them). It is an analogy. The escalation from a cartoon to torture is similar to the escalation from a punch to a bombing. Since these terrorists responded to a cartoon with realistic threats of torture and murder, this example is very apt.



A few simple images to you is an open flesh wound to us. If the images don’t mean that much to you people, then why replicate them to those whom it does.



The real question is 'why look at them if the are as an open flesh wound to you". If the images offend you, don't watch South Park, don't buy the paper you are offended by. Hell, write a letter to them and explain that you are no longer going to give them your business -- not a letter telling them you are going to kill them.

Free speech is a basic human right. The right not to be offended simply does not exist.




Definition of innocent: lacking intent or capacity to injure – the cartoon definitely doesn’t fall under this category.



Different definition. Those cartoons are not a crime -- and not a crime worthy of the death penalty -- and if you are injured by a cartoon, you need to grow some thicker skin, or wear gloves to avoid papercuts.




Oh but the intention does matter, when Prince Harry attended a party dressed in a Nazi outfit the media went up in flames. He was going to a party, he wasn’t propagating Nazism or Hitler, but that wasn’t the point, the point was that he offended.



First of all, you just gave an example disproving your own claim. Second of all the intentions of a cartoon (South Park or JP) are not important. If they intended to offend, or intended to profit -- so what? In *THIS* case how does that change a single thing? Either way they are protected as free speech and had the right to do what they did. Period.




I fail to see how we’re being extreme, your concept of it must be different to mine. No where have we agreed with the threats or any terrorism behaviour, we simply agree with the notion of standing up for the Prophet (PBUH).



Read this thread. Post after post people, yourself included, have tried to justify terrorism and defend it. Either you are being extremist -- or the majority of muslims agree that terrorism is acceptable.



I’m also curious as to why you chose this forum, why a Pashtun one, from all the major Muslim ethnicities.. and why not a Muslim forum? Please don’t misunderstand, I’m not saying you shouldn’t have come here, you’re very welcome.

You’re username also sounds familiar.



One of the users of this forum contacted me on another forum and requested that I come over here and be myself -- which tends to be asking questions and trying to get everyone to understand everyone (including themselves) a little better.



Please, you can’t utter anything against the Jewish history without it ensuing into an issue. Homosexuals are also always campaigning up for their ‘gay rights’



So? And people exercise their free speech all the time to talk negatively about both those groups -- and not once have I heard about death threats from either of those groups. Death threats *TO*, yes. From, no.



'Coincidently', these are two of the most powerful populations in the US. :rolleyes:


Free speech is a farce; one could argue that these ‘extremisst’ can publically talk how they want or that people like Hitler should be able to state what they wish.. freedom of speech right.



Freedom of speech does not cover legitimate threats of criminal activity. It is the legitimate fear for the artist's life that makes it a problem. Free speech only covers political and ideological topics and not criminal.

http://people.virginia.edu/%7Eabb3w/Images/Fark/Fallacies/falsecontinuumgi5.jpg
http://people.virginia.edu/%7Eabb3w/Images/Fark/Fallacies/WeakAnalogy.jpg




My reaction? I thought you didn’t generalise this representation of Muslims.



Forgive me if I am wrong, but you defended these terrorists. You even went so far as to saying that what they did was 'natural'.

That is horrifying.



God, we’re definitely not shown any courtesy, they don’t respect us or our beliefs.



Should I be welcoming you to the modern world, or just the internet? No matter what you believe, someone, somewhere disagrees and wont respect you.



They’re against the headscarve, veil, Sharia law.. women in Islam have no rights, our men have numerous wives,



And many of them have very good reasons for these beliefs -- even if they are wrong. You know what? Free speech is the solution, not the problem. Educate us. Don't play into the stereotypes and try to kill us!



we all hate the west etc.



I came here with an open mind, but if you are so against something as basic and core to what the 'west' is like free speech, it's not hard to see why this is the case...



We mentioned freedom of speech, freedom of expression seems to go out of the window along with that.



Where are you getting that? No one is threatening to kill you over your religious ideals -- well, no one from the civilized world.

When was the last terrorist attack against a head scarf? Or the number of wives you do or do not have?



Maybe those newspapers didn’t print the cartoons but a great number of them promote Islamaphobia.


http://people.virginia.edu/%7Eabb3w/Images/Fark/Fallacies/movinggoalpostvz6.jpg



You have to realise that we are continuously attacked by the West, how do think I feel when I see Islam being constantly mocked so easily and so openly? The values and beliefs which I hold so dear to me. Course it’s easy enough to ignore, but I’m not one to sit and watch while my beliefs are being belittled. I'm only a young student and I have to deal with these kind of prejudices and pressure that no other students of other faiths have to endure.



Bull****. Come out from under whatever rock you are hiding under. You have already listed two groups that are attacked just as much. You leave out atheists, agnostics, rationalists, minorities, and just about every single social group and stereotype on the planet. They all face the same struggles, hardships and bigotry in their own way -- just few of them resort to terrorism!



I've been arguing for my religion since I was in primary/elementary school.

Also remember one thing, do not judge a religion by its people, judge it by its teachings and it's book.

What better way to assess teachings than by looking at what is taught? Besides, your book matters nothing at all -- what matters is how you apply it to your life.

The theological discussions can take place in another thread, as I am interested in an academic way what your book says, but it is much more interesting and immediate to discuss what you think it says and how you apply it.

ozymandias
04-23-2010, 12:50 PM
Exactly. Makes you wonder about how much of free speech they really care, it’s a term thrown in as defence.



I fail to see how it matters. It's still free speech. It's still protected. And in no way shape or form does it justify terrorism.



We're just asking you to understand the reaction, not support it - as in my case. See it from our prespective too.



I'm trying -- but while I can understand outrage, I fail to understand terrorism. I came here asking why you don't speak out against it, now I am asking how you can condone it.



Where did we say terrorism or death threats are okay? We support the idea of defending our Prophet.

And the defense you are supporting *IS TERRORISM*.

ozymandias
04-23-2010, 12:57 PM
Being displayed is considered an offence in the popular version of Islam.It is like a person or a group displays your nude picture and when you protest against it they tell you why are you restricting our right to freedom of speech.



What's your point? Terrorism is still not justified to get that picture removed.




The response to terror is terror.They should not terrorise you if you stop to terrorise them using your freedom of speech.



Who is using freedom of speech to terrorize? Oh yeah those kindly folks sending torture and death threats. So now you are saying it is ok to terrorize them to get them to stop -- fine.

They still should not have responded to the cartoons with terrorism.





If the followers of Muhammad justify their actions by attributing them to Muhamad and the opponents of Muhammad accept their justification then it just proves a weak logical ability on part of the opponents.



Not at all. It is not our obligation to understand your religion, nor is it our place to second guess your reasoning. No matter how faulty your reasoning, all it matters is that it convinced you.

If you killed someone because a cheese sandwich told you to, it doesn't matter how silly that seems to me -- it only matters that you thought it did.

Besides, you are building a false dichotomy. It is not for/against Mohammed, it is for/against terrorism.





I do not defend terrorism whether it is threatening someone's physical life or someone's emotional and spiritual life.



Scroll up. You are.



Theists are not necessarily irrational till they spell out what they consider theism.


That is an argument for a different day or thread, but I would *LOVE* to see the first example, in the history of the world of a rational theist.

ozymandias
04-23-2010, 12:59 PM
Whats wrong is Non-Muslims picking on our religions to gain publicity.



Sorry, free speech is a right. Terrorism is not.



What is exercising rights? Picking on our holy figures?

That falls under free speech, so yes, that is a right. If you don't like it, DON'T LOOK. But when did JP or South Park 'pick' on your holy figures? Let alone enough to even half justify terrorism?

ozymandias
04-23-2010, 01:52 PM
Respected Ozymandias,

Why cause offense? Are you not aware on how the Muslims feel demonized as it is? We are being exonerated frequently, Yet They want to make fun of our religion, icing on the cake?


Please explain to me in logical terms why muslims should be treated better than every other demographic on the planet, and I will support you.

pir_Rokhan
04-23-2010, 02:27 PM
What's your point? Terrorism is still not justified to get that picture removed.

My point is that everything is relative.Terrorism is not justified in either form.The muslims reaction is as condemnable as the media trial of Muslim's prophet.

Who is using freedom of speech to terrorize? Oh yeah those kindly folks sending torture and death threats. So now you are saying it is ok to terrorize them to get them to stop -- fine.

I meant that they get terrorised by your words as you get terrorised just by their letters.

They still should not have responded to the cartoons with terrorism.

The cartoonification of Muhammad was a media terrorism.Condemn it too.

Not at all. It is not our obligation to understand your religion, nor is it our place to second guess your reasoning. No matter how faulty your reasoning, all it matters is that it convinced you.

You dont have to.Just respect the feelings of reverence and if you dont . then challenge them in an academic or legal way not using a media trial.

Besides, you are building a false dichotomy. It is not for/against Mohammed, it is for/against terrorism.

I condem terrorism , it is you who fail to condem its other forms which are not common to the common folks

That is an argument for a different day or thread, but I would *LOVE* to see the first example, in the history of the world of a rational theist.

Yeah. I need to go now.Will catch up soon from where we left it.

Master Khan
04-23-2010, 03:02 PM
is this ozymandias a Muslim?:hmmm:

ozymandias
04-23-2010, 03:24 PM
I am not asking to treat us better,


Yes. You are. About once a week, I see a christian comic in the paper, and no death threats. In the specific example of South Park Jesus was shown watching internet porn, and Buddha was doing coke. They didn't even show a picture of Mohammed -- they showed a guy in a bear suit they called Mohammed. You *WERE* treated much better -- but still people made terrorist threats, and people on this very forum are defending them!



I am asking you my dear brother that people should respect our religion.



I am asking you to respect free speech and other peoples rights.



We are not causing harm religiously.



No more so than any other religion, anyway.



We are simply worshipping the truth and that is it. Its non Muslims who want to pick on us to gain publicity.

So? Don't watch if it offends you.

ozymandias
04-23-2010, 03:28 PM
A misconception over freedom for speech.

Freedom of speech is not intended to be used to cause offense. I cant curse at your Mom and dad and say well, its freedom of speech.


Its illogical Ozy.

Actually, you can. You do not have the right not to be offended -- that is illogical. The only real limits to free speech are when you cross the line into criminal offenses, like making *realistic* threats of harm. Not even threats of harm are outside free speech, as long as no true harm is believed. The other case when free speech is limited is when you are being dishonest, and doing so to the harm of another. False claims against someone or their business are slander and libel. I can insult your mother, as long as I make no slanderous or libelous claims -- and that's basically the same throughout the free world.

ozymandias
04-23-2010, 03:33 PM
What's your point? Terrorism is still not justified to get that picture removed.

My point is that everything is relative.Terrorism is not justified in either form.The muslims reaction is as condemnable as the media trial of Muslim's prophet.



Not at all. Terrorism is condemable, even if you are not doing so here. Free speech is not.



Who is using freedom of speech to terrorize? Oh yeah those kindly folks sending torture and death threats. So now you are saying it is ok to terrorize them to get them to stop -- fine.

I meant that they get terrorised by your words as you get terrorised just by their letters.



The image does not real harm. The threats of violence are believable. There are many many cases of just such violence for the same sort of images. It was not some kook stating that they might go harm someone -- it was serious enough that the FBI considered the recipient of the threat to be in grave bodily harm. Not even *CLOSE* to the same thing.



They still should not have responded to the cartoons with terrorism.

The cartoonification of Muhammad was a media terrorism.Condemn it too.



No, the cartoonification of a bear costume was free speech. I will never condemn free speech.



Not at all. It is not our obligation to understand your religion, nor is it our place to second guess your reasoning. No matter how faulty your reasoning, all it matters is that it convinced you.

You dont have to.Just respect the feelings of reverence and if you dont . then challenge them in an academic or legal way not using a media trial.



I'm sorry - *WE* are supposed to resort to academics and legal proceedings (which we do -- the cartoons were legal in all cases) but it is ok for you to do terrorism?

Please explain.



Besides, you are building a false dichotomy. It is not for/against Mohammed, it is for/against terrorism.

I condem terrorism , it is you who fail to condem its other forms which are not common to the common folks



Show me terrorism that I am not condemning. I would be interested in seeing this.




That is an argument for a different day or thread, but I would *LOVE* to see the first example, in the history of the world of a rational theist.

Yeah. I need to go now.Will catch up soon from where we left it.

ozymandias
04-23-2010, 03:37 PM
Well, don't generalize a forum of 1,000+ members based on 5-6 members,



I am trying not to - and when I speak of this forum in a general way like that I am referring to those I am conversing with, sorry.



That is the first thing you take note of. Second thing, the point is, Disrespecting our prophet and calling it "Freedom of speech" is totally silly



Not at all. It is freedom of speech. Period. That's a cold hard fact that would stand up in an court in the free world. There is nothing silly about that.



and the main intention behind is to create controversy. Are you not aware of what Muslims are going through already?

Are you not aware that much of what you are going through is your own fault for tolerating things like this, or allowing theocracies to lead many of you by the nose?

I came here to ask why more people did not denounce the terrorists publicly, and overwhelmingly the reply was *IN SUPPORT OF THE TERRORISTS* -- is it hard to see why civilized society has a problem with that?

شمله ور خراساني
04-23-2010, 04:29 PM
So isn't disrespecting us by misrepresenting our holy figure causing us harm?

In islam there is no such thing as a "holy figure". Holiness is from other religions such as Christianity and Hinduism.

ozymandias
04-23-2010, 05:12 PM
So isn't disrespecting us by misrepresenting our holy figure causing us harm?



Why cause offence intentionally ozy, why?


Don't like it? Don't watch. Problem solved. No bloodshed, not human rights violation, no terrorism needed.

ozymandias
04-23-2010, 05:16 PM
Besides -- the claim they made was that they could not show an image of Mohammed without getting death threats -- and they got death threats for displaying a bear costume instead. What exactly did they 'misrepresent' other than how low terrorists will sink to find offense?

pir_Rokhan
04-23-2010, 05:16 PM
Not at all. Terrorism is condemable, even if you are not doing so here. Free speech is not.

Free speech is not condemable but if you do terrorism and call it free speech then it is.

No, the cartoonification of a bear costume was free speech. I will never condemn free speech.

This is the example of free speech used synonamously to terrorism.You want others to accept your absolutist definition of free speech as well as terrorim.


I'm sorry - *WE* are supposed to resort to academics and legal proceedings (which we do -- the cartoons were legal in all cases) but it is ok for you to do terrorism? Please explain.

I have already condemned the form of terrorism to which you are referring. I disagree with that form which you are hiding under the garb of free speech.

Show me terrorism that I am not condemning. I would be interested in seeing this.

All your argument of calling the threats as terrorism and the public defamation and humiliation of a revered personality using media trial without giving an opportunity to the defendent to defend is another form of terrorism which you call free speech.


The example of your argument is that you slap a person in your proximity and when he protests against it you tell him I was exercising my right to move my hand freely and incidently your face came in it radius and prevented me to exercise my basic human right.Now when the person responds to you saying that if you dare to exercise your right to move your hand exactly in the same direction where the coordinates of my face are ,then I will also have to exercise my right to move my hand freely knowing that you are in my vicinity.To this response you label him as terrorist and call his reaction as threat and start arguing with him that what I did was exercise of my right while what you are doing is terrorising me.

Azmatullah
04-23-2010, 05:48 PM
Don't like it? Don't watch. Problem solved. No bloodshed, not human rights violation, no terrorism needed.

How about not producing your worthless shows to begin with.

Problem solved.

ozymandias
04-23-2010, 05:52 PM
Not at all. Terrorism is condemable, even if you are not doing so here. Free speech is not.

Free speech is not condemable but if you do terrorism and call it free speech then it is.



Sure. When that happens, then we can discuss it then.



No, the cartoonification of a bear costume was free speech. I will never condemn free speech.

This is the example of free speech used synonamously to terrorism.You want others to accept your absolutist definition of free speech as well as terrorim.



.. what?

I don't get this. How is a picture of a bear supposed to instill fear? is it a scary bear? A small child viewing the image?



I'm sorry - *WE* are supposed to resort to academics and legal proceedings (which we do -- the cartoons were legal in all cases) but it is ok for you to do terrorism? Please explain.

I have already condemned the form of terrorism to which you are referring. I disagree with that form which you are hiding under the garb of free speech.



What terrorism am I hiding? You keep trying to say I am hiding terrorism, but fail to point out a concrete example.



Show me terrorism that I am not condemning. I would be interested in seeing this.

All your argument of calling the threats as terrorism and the public defamation and humiliation of a revered personality using media trial without giving an opportunity to the defendent to defend is another form of terrorism which you call free speech.



Bull****. It might be disrespectful -- but the intent of portraying a bear costume instead of mohammed was *not* to cause others to do what the makers of South Park wanted due to fear. It was not an attempt to use terror to influence the actions of another group at all. Thus not terrorism.

If you are going to insist on calling anything you don't like 'terrorism' in order to justify atrocities, you have a serious problem.



The example of your argument is that you slap a person in your proximity and when he protests against it you tell him I was exercising my right to move my hand freely and incidently your face came in it radius and prevented me to exercise my basic human right.



http://people.virginia.edu/%7Eabb3w/Images/Fark/Fallacies/strawmanhn1.jpg

http://people.virginia.edu/%7Eabb3w/Images/Fark/Fallacies/WishfulThinking.jpg

http://people.virginia.edu/%7Eabb3w/Images/Fark/Fallacies/adnauseamfu9.jpg

http://people.virginia.edu/%7Eabb3w/Images/Fark/Fallacies/WeakAnalogy.jpg

Really digging into the fallacies here, aren't you?



Now when the person responds to you saying that if you dare to exercise your right to move your hand exactly in the same direction where the coordinates of my face are ,then I will also have to exercise my right to move my hand freely knowing that you are in my vicinity.To this response you label him as terrorist and call his reaction as threat and start arguing with him that what I did was exercise of my right while what you are doing is terrorising me.

What the hell are you blabbering on about?

Terrorism is the use of terror to achieve goals. What do you find terrifying about a cartoon that you don't even have to watch -- to the point that you thing death threats are the equivalent response?

You made up an false analogy here -- a picture is not the same as murder, no matter how disrespectful the picture is. You have to be one hell of a coward to een be that scared of a picture that it can control your actions through fear. I believe that you are deliberately ignoring the definitions of these terms and pretending to not have a clue what the word terrorism is, as you clearly are consistently misusing it.

You don't like a cartoon -- don't watch. There is no equivilent response to a threat of terrorism -- what do you think "Don't want to be murdered so don't... live?? don't... go outside?" Help me fill that one in a little bit, please.

ozymandias
04-23-2010, 05:55 PM
How about not producing your worthless shows to begin with.

Problem solved.

Evidently they are not worthless. They are on the twentieth season, I believe. They are one of the longest running cartoons in the history of television. Obviously it is quite profitable.

Sorry, your claim has been completely refuted.

Palwasha
04-23-2010, 06:47 PM
And here I go and give you a voice, to at least tell me -- and you are confirming everything that the muslims interviewed and in the news said.
I’m in the UK, I have no idea what’s being said in the interviews, so I can’t comment.

So far I don't see what you are complaining about. You have a voice -- use it.Oh I can exercise my voice here and around people I know, but as Muslims we don’t have much influence in the media, please don’t bother trying to deny that.

I must be missing your point. I am not saying they do not have the right to be upset. They have every right to be upset. They do *NOT* have the right to be terrorists about it -- and should be shunned for doing so.Yeah you are missing my point, I’m trying to help you understand *why* they feel so incredibly upset, I’m not justifying their actions. I don’t agree with violence or terror of any sort.

So you agree that different people can have different values -- and this is a legitimate concern? Then why are you getting upset when cartoonists have different values than you?Yes, obviously different people have different values, but if having a lack of respect is one of them, then I don’t agree that. Ever heard the saying, ‘If you have nothing nice to say then don’t say anything at all’..? Well this is echoed to children in primary and secondary school, something adults can’t seem to follow themselves.

It’s common courtesy not to upset or provoke others.

Obviously you have never looked into christianity.Haha, I grew up around Christians, I was the only Muslim in my year/grade in primary/elementary school, we were made to go to church and in highschool I only knew a handful of Muslims. One of my dearest friends is on her way to becoming a Christian missionary. I’ve looked into understanding the religion myself, it was never an option for me, but I have tried to grasp it’s concepts and to gain more knowledge on the subject. Christians themselves have said I know the bible more than they do, so don’t try and tell me I don’t know about Christianity.

I'm not defining it anyway, you are. You are the one associating what they did (death threats) with a justification (defend the honor of someone).No. I’m saying, or trying to at least, that I understand their response, their anger and why they’re upset. Although I don’t agree with how they are supposedly going about it all. I also oppose the cartoons, if they had chosen to be abit more considerate then we wouldn't have this porblem in the first place.


I am calling into question how you can say that Mohammed founded a religion of peace out of one side of your mouth, and then try to claim terrorism can be used to defend his honor.Gosh, you misunderstanding me. Seriously, please quote where I have said I approve of terrorism acts.

the appropriate response to a minor event like punching someone (or publishing a cartoon) is not to bomb their house (or torture and kill them). Of course, that goes without saying.

The real question is 'why look at them if the are as an open flesh wound to you". If the images offend you, don't watch South Park, don't buy the paper you are offended by. Hell, write a letter to them and explain that you are no longer going to give them your business -- not a letter telling them you are going to kill them Flesh wounds can’t be ignored, if you leave it, it gets worse.. you’re essentially saying if someone bullies you then ignore them, no you stand up for your beliefs, we at least have that right.

Oh and it was never me who threatened them in the first place.. most of your questions and confusion seems only answerable by the ones who sent the threats themselves. I mean I can’t reply to why they sent threats instead of letters, you need to ask them, it’s not my chosen method of confrontation.

Different definition. Those cartoons are not a crime -- and not a crime worthy of the death penalty -- and if you are injured by a cartoon, you need to grow some thicker skin, or wear gloves to avoid papercuts. Different definition, geez I wonder how you define innocence, God forbid you ever be put on a jury. Again, I agree murder shouldn’t be a consequence, but people are affected by different things, forgive me but you seem insensitive. You’re really not understanding much of what’s being said, I’m not here to argue with you, you asking questions and I’m trying to answer them, but you already have set answers in your mind.

Don’t blames us for the low morals of others, to them showing these images is supposed to be funny and cool, well not if it hurts others. We clearly don’t adhere to their adaptation of ‘humour’.

We indisputably love our Prophet, seeing him portrayed in such a light doesn’t bode well with us. Once more, I say this not to defend acts of violence but to condemn the cartoons.

Read this thread. Post after post people, yourself included, have tried to justify terrorism and defend it. Either you are being extremist -- or the majority of muslims agree that terrorism is acceptable.I know your idea of terrorism, and no I don’t agree with any of it whatsoever. I’m NOT defending terrorism, I’m saying the media need to stop provoking responses from Muslim and start respecting our beliefs. I’m just repeating myself now..

So? And people exercise their free speech all the time to talk negatively about both those groups -- and not once have I heard about death threats from either of those groups. Death threats *TO*, yes. From, no.
Those two groups are maybe sometimes imitated and made fun of, their beliefs aren’t insulted, they never talk about the torah or Abraham.

Freedom of speech does not cover legitimate threats of criminal activity.Right, so freedom of speech itself has limits, kinda defies the whole concept of ‘freedom’ – (the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints).

Do I have to define everything? =P

And mate what’s with the pictures.. if I had one for ‘Can’t reply himself, so refers to images to define responses with images’, then I’d use it.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but you defended these terrorists. You even went so far as to saying that what they did was 'natural'Erm no I didn’t, and I’ve covered this in my response already, hope you understand it by now.

Don't play into the stereotypes and try to kill us!Well then stop stereotyping and we won’t live up to it ;)

*A joke - before that's blown out of proportion.

When was the last terrorist attack against a head scarf? Or the number of wives you do or do not have?
We’re attacked a bit more constructively.. the hijaab ban in France, Turkey..?

Bull****. Come out from under whatever rock you are hiding under. You have already listed two groups that are attacked just as much. You leave out atheists, agnostics, rationalists, minorities, and just about every single social group and stereotype on the planet. They all face the same struggles, hardships and bigotry in their own way -- just few of them resort to terrorism!
Honestly mate, I think it’s you who’s in a cave. Please, we are demonised SO much, I see Islamaphobia everywhere, I don’t even like using that term as it’s become a bit typical, but don’t know what other word to use for it. Don’t get me wrong, our situation could be MUCH worse, and I sincerely love living here, but we are facing prejudices at the moment. I live here and communicate heavily with the young Muslim generation here, they’ll tell you the same thing, we feel like we’re constant targets.

Those groups are nowhere near attacked as much.. dear lord.. Go to the UK, interview students in Universities, colleges and ask them what we have to deal with. Khair, I shouldn’t complain too much, situations can always be worse.

Recently many young Muslim males have been locked up for protesting in London, against the Gaza conflict. They weren’t violent, they apologised, the judges acknowledged that, their sentences were given to act as a ‘deterrent’.

FOSIS/ISOC are being attacked for as one of the previous members was involved in the whole Detroit bombing incident. Consequently, they are giving details of Muslim students to the CIA, they’re not even a part of this bloody country, their a secret service in America! Now this article I do have, please take time to read it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/22/student-islamic-societies-radical

Oh and since your living in the US I wouldn’t expect you’ve heard about the attacks on uni students in London, but maybe you’ve heard of the BNP.

If you really want me to, I could hunt down links for all these articles, how I wished I’d saved them all..

What better way to assess teachings than by looking at what is taught? Besides, your book matters nothing at all -- what matters is how you apply it to your life.Not really, people wil interpret that teaching differently or maybe not fully comprehend the true meanings, thus they may get the ideology wrong. For such reasons, you go straight to the main source for the most precise representation. In our case the Quran is *supposed* to be what define Muslims and how they *should* act not how they do act.. Don't judge a book by it's cover.. don't judge Islam by it's Muslims, not every one of them is fully practising, so you can't be sure what the reasoning behind their actions are.

As I believe, Muslims aren’t perfect, but Islam is.

We can go on forever, quoting and replying to each other, I really hope I got my points across. I also agree with much of what Pir_Rokhan has said.

ozymandias
04-23-2010, 07:47 PM
Ozymandias,

How do you justify someone INTENTIONALY causing offence?

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand: Free speech is all the justification you need to say anything protected by free speech. Why would you need anything more?

If they want to offend people that is their right. They don't need to justify or defend that right -- it is the most important single human right from which all others flow.

ozymandias
04-23-2010, 08:32 PM
I’m in the UK, I have no idea what’s being said in the interviews, so I can’t comment.



A quick google, or look at news sites ought to fill you in. It's more of the same as what we are seeing here -- people making excuses and justifications for terrorism.



Oh I can exercise my voice here and around people I know, but as Muslims we don’t have much influence in the media, please don’t bother trying to deny that.



I'm not. I am saying I am giving you a voice to communicate with me, right here, no censorship on my part -- but just about every comment is agreeing with the voice of the muslims the news is picking up -- so you have no ground to complain that the news is getting it wrong.



Yeah you are missing my point, I’m trying to help you understand *why* they feel so incredibly upset, I’m not justifying their actions. I don’t agree with violence or terror of any sort.

Yes, obviously different people have different values, but if having a lack of respect is one of them, then I don’t agree that. Ever heard the saying, ‘If you have nothing nice to say then don’t say anything at all’..? Well this is echoed to children in primary and secondary school, something adults can’t seem to follow themselves.



But breaking that 'rule' is not grounds for death. Besides that is a gross oversimplification of things. There are *many* topics I have nothing nice to say about, and I would feel inhuman trying to be quiet about them. Sexism, racism, slavery, bigotry, terrorism -- I have *NOTHING* nice to say about them, and not only do I not have to be quiet due to a manners rule for children, I have a moral obligation not to be quiet.



It’s common courtesy not to upset or provoke others.



I agree whole heartedly. I think we are going to disagree on who is being rude and provoking here. I think the people trying to refrain others from using their right to free speech are being horribly rude and provoking others. Besides courtesy and manners are not nearly the same thing as a basic, universal human right.

How rude is it to threaten to *MURDER* someone over a minor issue, anyway?



Haha, I grew up around Christians, I was the only Muslim in my year/grade in primary/elementary school, we were made to go to church and in highschool I only knew a handful of Muslims. One of my dearest friends is on her way to becoming a Christian missionary. I’ve looked into understanding the religion myself, it was never an option for me, but I have tried to grasp it’s concepts and to gain more knowledge on the subject. Christians themselves have said I know the bible more than they do, so don’t try and tell me I don’t know about Christianity.



If you are going to completely misrepresent what the crucifix means to christians, either you are ignorant about what it truely means to them, or are a deliberate liar. You go right ahead and pick the label we will use for you.



No. I’m saying, or trying to at least, that I understand their response, their anger and why they’re upset. Although I don’t agree with how they are supposedly going about it all. I also oppose the cartoons, if they had chosen to be abit more considerate then we wouldn't have this porblem in the first place.



There you are supporting terrorism again. Anytime you say 'well they should not have provoked the terrorists, and they would have been fine' you are outright supporting the terrorists actions. Period. That's how this works. If you side with the terrorists, you are supporting them.




Gosh, you misunderstanding me. Seriously, please quote where I have said I approve of terrorism acts.



Scroll up -- I just did -- from this very post.



Of course, that goes without saying.

Flesh wounds can’t be ignored, if you leave it, it gets worse..



A) we are not talking a literal flesh wound.

B) how can you be wounded by an image you are not exposed to?

[/quote]

you’re essentially saying if someone bullies you then ignore them, no you stand up for your beliefs, we at least have that right.

[/quote]

Not at all. I am saying if a book has a story that offends you, don't read it. If a movie offends you, don't watch it. If a cartoon offends you, don't pay for it.

You do not have a right not to be offended. You *DO* have a right to be safe from illegal physical attacks.

You are comparing apples to oranges here.



Oh and it was never me who threatened them in the first place.. most of your questions and confusion seems only answerable by the ones who sent the threats themselves. I mean I can’t reply to why they sent threats instead of letters, you need to ask them, it’s not my chosen method of confrontation.



My original question was why do you not openly cast out these people and distance yourselves from them. It is now why do you support them. An interesting follow up is how can you support them and then cry like little babies and get offended when people point out you support them.



Different definition, geez I wonder how you define innocence, God forbid you ever be put on a jury.



Not being guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.



Again, I agree murder shouldn’t be a consequence, but people are affected by different things, forgive me but you seem insensitive.



I'm not the one claiming a cartoon I don't even have to watch is the same as a fleshwound and justifies TERRORISM in response.



You’re really not understanding much of what’s being said, I’m not here to argue with you, you asking questions and I’m trying to answer them, but you already have set answers in your mind.



No, I have logic and common sense in my mind -- and I am not going to cast those aside to listen to your illogical answers. I am asking for realistic answers, not silly justifications and abuse of logical fallacies.



Don’t blames us for the low morals of others,



I don't. I blame you for defending them, supporting them, and ultimately encouraging them by giving them support and a sense of belonging.



to them showing these images is supposed to be funny and cool, well not if it hurts others. We clearly don’t adhere to their adaptation of ‘humour’.



Wait -- I thought we were talking about terrorists. I doubt they find murder funny and cool -- who are you talking about that has low morals?





We indisputably love our Prophet, seeing him portrayed in such a light doesn’t bode well with us. Once more, I say this not to defend acts of violence but to condemn the cartoons.



Go ahead and be offended -- but you should also be thanking them for helping you identify the disgusting members of your group you should be publically distancing yourself from.



I know your idea of terrorism, and no I don’t agree with any of it whatsoever. I’m NOT defending terrorism, I’m saying the media need to stop provoking responses from Muslim and start respecting our beliefs. I’m just repeating myself now..



In one sentence you say say you are not defending terrorism, but then go on and do just that. Read what you said slowly and carefully. Saying the terrorists are right is supporting them. Saying that the victims of terrorism need to just knuckle under and let the terrorists have their way is DEFENDING TERRORISM.




Those two groups are maybe sometimes imitated and made fun of, their beliefs aren’t insulted, they never talk about the torah or Abraham.



Bull****. I cannot think of a single more attacked group in america than homosexuals right now.



Right, so freedom of speech itself has limits, kinda defies the whole concept of ‘freedom’ – (the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints).

Do I have to define everything? =P



No, just be realistic and logical. I am not promoting anarchy, I am promoting equal rights, and protecting the weak. The concept of free speech is a very well defined legal and moral term and the concept that criminal speech is not free has entire law libraries of precident.



And mate what’s with the pictures.. if I had one for ‘Can’t reply himself, so refers to images to define responses with images’, then I’d use it.



It amuses me to point out the silly use of logical fallacies. Why should I put any more effort refuting those logical fallacies than they did while parroting them out?

Besides, why take my word for it that it is a logical fallacy when it is very easy to identify them and see for yourselves?



Erm no I didn’t, and I’ve covered this in my response already, hope you understand it by now.



Sorry, it was pir_Rokhan (http://www.pashtunforums.com/member.php?u=78) that used the term 'naturally' -- but you continue to defend and support terrorism in the same sentence you pretend you don't.



Well then stop stereotyping and we won’t live up to it ;)

*A joke - before that's blown out of proportion.



It might be a joke -- but it hits awefully close to home -- you are living up to the stereotype...



We’re attacked a bit more constructively.. the hijaab ban in France, Turkey..?


Honestly mate, I think it’s you who’s in a cave. Please, we are demonised SO much,



How can you not see why -- when YOU DEFEND COWARDLY ACTS OF TERRORISM?



I see Islamaphobia everywhere, I don’t even like using that term as it’s become a bit typical, but don’t know what other word to use for it. Don’t get me wrong, our situation could be MUCH worse, and I sincerely love living here, but we are facing prejudices at the moment.



Welcome to modern society -- where *EVERY* group has someone predjudice against them. Once you start acting like adults, the problem will go away, though.



I live here and communicate heavily with the young Muslim generation here, they’ll tell you the same thing, we feel like we’re constant targets.



Good thing you are not gay then.



Those groups are nowhere near attacked as much..



I'm sorry -- are you allowed to marry? Visit your spouse in the hospital? Inherit things from them? Adopt? Practice your life style as you choose?

Until you lose those rights, you can't even compare to modern homosexual couples.

What about a Holocaust? Going to go up and say you have it worse than the Jews?

Slavery and Africans? Hell, AIDS and africans?



dear lord.. Go to the UK, interview students in Universities, colleges and ask them what we have to deal with. Khair, I shouldn’t complain too much, situations can always be worse.

Recently many young Muslim males have been locked up for protesting in London, against the Gaza conflict. They weren’t violent, they apologised, the judges acknowledged that, their sentences were given to act as a ‘deterrent’.



Gee, I wonder why the judges would be worried about violent riots from muslim youths? I wonder if there is any precident of them blowing up over minor issues -- say a cartoon or two, and escalating it beyond reason.

No one to blame but yourselves for associating with and defending these people.



FOSIS/ISOC are being attacked for as one of the previous members was involved in the whole Detroit bombing incident. Consequently, they are giving details of Muslim students to the CIA, they’re not even a part of this bloody country, their a secret service in America! Now this article I do have, please take time to read it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/22/student-islamic-societies-radical

Oh and since your living in the US I wouldn’t expect you’ve heard about the attacks on uni students in London, but maybe you’ve heard of the BNP.

If you really want me to, I could hunt down links for all these articles, how I wished I’d saved them all..

Not really, people wil interpret that teaching differently or maybe not fully comprehend the true meanings, thus they may get the ideology wrong.



So? To no-believers it doesn't matter if the terrorists have it right or wrong -- they are still religious extremists proforming terrorist acts -- and other religious crazies are supporting them for doing it.

Right or wrong religon-wise doesn't matter at all.



For such reasons, you go straight to the main source for the most precise representation. In our case the Quran is *supposed* to be what define Muslims and how they *should* act not how they do act.. Don't judge a book by it's cover.. don't judge Islam by it's Muslims, not every one of them is fully practising, so you can't be sure what the reasoning behind their actions are.

As I believe, Muslims aren’t perfect, but Islam is.



We can go into how wrong this is in another thread.




We can go on forever, quoting and replying to each other, I really hope I got my points across. I also agree with much of what Pir_Rokhan has said.

Your support of terrism is clear, do not worry.

ozymandias
04-23-2010, 08:33 PM
But you are using double standards.


How do you define 'Freedom of speech' and to what extent? Didn't the patriotics act make it clear that it has a limit and an extent?

I am discussing both the universal human right laid out in the declaration of human rights, and in a slightly more broad sense free speech as practiced by pretty much all free countries.

They all place limits to protect people from criminal acts.

Palwasha
04-23-2010, 09:09 PM
My original question was why do you not openly cast out these people and distance yourselves from them.
We try very hard to clear the whole misconception and we do openly cast them aside from us. They're a minority of people, most muslims do openly condemn them. I'm yet to visit a mosque or an Islamic gathering where terrorism is supported, encouraged or even welcomed. It's like a stain on us.

I’m not gonna bother replying to every individual quote anymore, I take the time to respond but your ears are closed. You’re misunderstanding everything I say, taking it all out of context and we’re not getting anywhere. (Feel free to define this with one of your pictures).

For the final time I’ll try and make it a wee bit clearer.. I do not support the response of death threats or anything of the sort, it was definitely over the top and uncalled for. However, I don’t believe Muslims should stay silent on the issue, they have the right to raise their voices in the matter, but in more civilised manner. At the same time, the cartoon drawings were stupid and childish - ‘‘ooh but it’s freedom of speech!’’ .. spare me please, it’s all double standards.

I don’t live in America! I don’t know the situation of gay people there, not something I tend to read into much either. We were talking about being attacked not suffering.. but please, let’s not start a competition on who’s felt the most pain, there’d be no point in going there.

I don’t support terrorism, but I do stand up for my beliefs. I know where I stand, so I don’t need to persuade you on that. Go ahead and label me as a sympathiser or as a terrorist supporter, (as you already have done), doesn't bother me much mate. 'Extremists' don't represent me, neither do I represent them.

You’ve already made up your mind, you don’t really need anyone to answer the question, you'll only try and refute it. Don’t really know why you bothered asking it in the first place to be honest.

Peace. :lal:

Azmatullah
04-23-2010, 09:22 PM
Hey oozy, I have a question.

What on earth are you doing on a Pashtoon forum? You are not a Pashtoon from what i have gathered. If you really want answers join some Islamic forum, where you will be debated with properly. But from what i have seen so far, you are just here to provoke people and not interested in our views and feelings on the matter at all.

Palwasha
04-23-2010, 10:53 PM
^ Ye but on a Islamic forum maybe he'd get the aswers he's looking for and I'm sure they could present a stronger arguement.

Result..


'South Park' parody of the Prophet Muhammed is censored following radical Islamists' warning

South Park's parody of the Prophet Muhammed has morphed into a parody of self-censorship.


The show's creators, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, came under fire after last week's 200th episode of the Comedy Central series featured the Islamic prophet dressed in a bear suit.



The duo received a "warning" on a radical Islamic website: "We have to warn Matt [Stone] and Trey [Parker] that what they are doing is stupid," a posting on revolutionmuslim.com read.



"They will probably end up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show," the site noted, referencing the Dutch filmmaker who was murdered in 2004 over a documentary he made that addressed violence against Muslim women.



On last night's episode, the prophet was referred to only with a "bleep" sound and his image was blocked out with the word "censored."



According to the "South Park" Web site, the studio added additional audio bleeps. Thursday afternoon, the duo released a statement in response to Comedy Central's decision to censor their show.



"In the 14 years we’ve been doing South Park we have never done a show that we couldn’t stand behind. We delivered our version of the show to Comedy Central and they made a determination to alter the episode. It wasn’t some meta-joke on our part. Comedy Central added the bleeps. In fact, Kyle’s customary final speech was about intimidation and fear. It didn’t mention Muhammad at all but it got bleeped too. We’ll be back next week with a whole new show about something completely different and we’ll see what happens to it."



Parker and Stone have parodied Muhammed before, first in 2001 and again in 2006, though Comedy Central censored the latter bit, which never aired.

din
04-23-2010, 11:05 PM
well people really believe that if you start disrespecting a little your eventually going to slowly start doing it more and more.Islam and muslims dont want that.
and I see your talking alot about radicals..
radical means a fundamentalist..
and Islam has its own fundamentals and all muslims follow those fundamentals so basically your saying all muslims are radicals?

In Islam you cant kill Innocent people.so basically we don't even know what kind of people those are that you refer to as radicaals..

pir_Rokhan
04-23-2010, 11:54 PM
Sure. When that happens, then we can discuss it then.

You have already terrorised the muslims by making fun of their revered personality.
You are using the terror [public humiliation of muslims in media ] by forcing them to accept your view of freedom of speech and terrorism [your target].This is terrorism.


.. what? I don't get this. How is a picture of a bear supposed to instill fear? is it a scary bear? A small child viewing the image?

Were those guys teaching public how to recognise a bear by showing them the picture of a bear or were they personifying the revered personality of Muslims?

What terrorism am I hiding? You keep trying to say I am hiding terrorism, but fail to point out a concrete example.

You want me to repeat.You use terror to instill fear in muslims that if they do not approve of your concept of free speech and do not consider humiliating act of presenting a revered person in the form of a bear as your right of free speech then the muslims would be alienated and humiliated publicly.This is terrorism.

Bull****. It might be disrespectful -- but the intent of portraying a bear costume instead of mohammed was *not* to cause others to do what the makers of South Park wanted due to fear. It was not an attempt to use terror to influence the actions of another group at all. Thus not terrorism.


Who gave you the right to judge on part of others.Something may be just disrespecting in your eyes but it might be a matter of life and death for others.Where have you learnt the science of quantifying emotional responses? Are you so naive not to understand that there could be multiple forms of terror? Social fear is more dangerous form of terror to influence a group. Sigmund Frued has base dhis whole argument on this fact when he says that conscious mind tries to intellectulise the desires of unconscious mind due to fear of society and hence give rational explanations or rationalises its desires to be acceptible to the society


If you are going to insist on calling anything you don't like 'terrorism' in order to justify atrocities, you have a serious problem.

-----Ditto as the last comment----

What the hell are you blabbering on about?

Terrorism is the use of terror to achieve goals. What do you find terrifying about a cartoon that you don't even have to watch -- to the point that you think death threats are the equivalent response?


I know and agree with this definition but what you are not able to understand is that you consider a cartoon of a revered person of a major demography across the globe same as the cartoon of Tom and Jerry.This is not the case.Be honest about your conscience.
I have already told you that as a response to such a terrifying act of humiliating a revered person , a death threat is not proper but what you should understand is that expecting no reaction from the followers of that person is also improper and an ignorance about mass psychology.


You made up an false analogy here -- a picture is not the same as murder, no matter how disrespectful the picture is. You have to be one hell of a coward that scared of a picture that it can control your actions through fear. I believe that you are deliberately ignoring the definitions of these terms and pretending to not have a clue what the word terrorism is, as you clearly are consistently misusing it.

You don't like a cartoon -- don't watch. There is no equivilent response to a threat of terrorism -- what do you think "Don't want to be murdered so don't... live?? don't... go outside?" Help me fill that one in a little bit, please

It is cultural relativism.Trust me Visit various cultures and you would know this fact.Fro example in most oriental cultures, they consider respect more valuable virtue than life.
In the old Indian civilisation ,they have a saying ,which means that:
The wealth has to be sacrificed for life and life has to be sacrificed for honor and respect.
In the Afghan culture,death is preferred over a disrespectful life.

So your argument that if you dont liek it dont see it absolutely rubbish.How can you disrespect me that too in public and that too not any of my personal habit or weakness but my concept of life and universe ,which I share with billions of other people and just tell me if you do not like to be humiliated then avoid watching my propaganda or avoid listening to my bull****.Get a god damned education.

pir_Rokhan
04-24-2010, 01:20 AM
James

I think you got it much easily than Ozy will. It is a simple argument.

Criticise whatever you want using your freedom of speech but not in a provocative manner. Do it in a proper academic way, on a proper plateform and with the proper people. Using media for exercising the right of freedom of speech against the revered person of a certain failth is humiliating, insulting, disrespectful and provocative..

This is common sense.Jargon is not really needed to explain it.

pir_Rokhan
04-24-2010, 01:32 AM
This is what I have been trying since last night. He mistakenly thinks I am a theist,while I am not though am not an athiest too.

Master Khan
04-24-2010, 10:22 AM
I don't care what people said but insulting is not freedom of speech.
You can't just insult someones religion and then say "oh Its freedom speech".
And we said "Don't show our prophets and don't insult us" then DON'T.
you have no rights to use our belives and religion as comedy..thats not freedom of speech but its humiliating, insulting and disrespectful our religion and prophets.

ozymandias
04-24-2010, 10:29 AM
We try very hard to clear the whole misconception and we do openly cast them aside from us.



Some might -- but not the majority of the people discussing this here.



They're a minority of people, most muslims do openly condemn them. I'm yet to visit a mosque or an Islamic gathering where terrorism is supported, encouraged or even welcomed. It's like a stain on us.



Whether it is open or not, you are clearly doing it. Quiet support, like that found here is still support.



I’m not gonna bother replying to every individual quote anymore, I take the time to respond but your ears are closed. You’re misunderstanding everything I say, taking it all out of context and we’re not getting anywhere.



I am not taking *ANYTHING* out of context. You say that people should just give the terrorists what they want, ergo you are supporting the terrorists. You may not wish to admit it, but you are doing just that.



(Feel free to define this with one of your pictures).

For the final time I’ll try and make it a wee bit clearer.. I do not support the response of death threats or anything of the sort, it was definitely over the top and uncalled for. However, I don’t believe Muslims should stay silent on the issue, they have the right to raise their voices in the matter, but in more civilised manner. At the same time, the cartoon drawings were stupid and childish - ‘‘ooh but it’s freedom of speech!’’ .. spare me please, it’s all double standards.



What's the double standard? I am saying everyone has exactly the same rights to free speech, and exactly the same rights to engage in, or be free from terrorism. No double standard.



I don’t live in America! I don’t know the situation of gay people there, not something I tend to read into much either. We were talking about being attacked not suffering.. but please, let’s not start a competition on who’s felt the most pain, there’d be no point in going there.



Right. Non-muslims are being attacked through terrorism, homosexuals are being attacked through laws and policies, and muslims are really getting off lightly. We agree, now lets move on.



I don’t support terrorism, but I do stand up for my beliefs. I know where I stand, so I don’t need to persuade you on that. Go ahead and label me as a sympathiser or as a terrorist supporter, (as you already have done), doesn't bother me much mate. 'Extremists' don't represent me, neither do I represent them.

You’ve already made up your mind, you don’t really need anyone to answer the question, you'll only try and refute it. Don’t really know why you bothered asking it in the first place to be honest.

Peace. :lal:


HEY! Look! You used the picture of Mohammed too!

I asked, expecting a real answer -- not terrorist support. I am going to hold out for real logic and real answers.

ozymandias
04-24-2010, 10:30 AM
Hey oozy, I have a question.

What on earth are you doing on a Pashtoon forum? You are not a Pashtoon from what i have gathered. If you really want answers join some Islamic forum, where you will be debated with properly. But from what i have seen so far, you are just here to provoke people and not interested in our views and feelings on the matter at all.

Already answered at least twice.

ozymandias
04-24-2010, 10:33 AM
Ya, but how can you not realize the fact that when you disrespect our prophet, you're intention is to make problems.



When did I ever say no one expected problems? That was pretty much the point -- exercise free speech and point out how absurd it is that this is even a problem.



Why cant we all live in peace and people leaving our religion alone? Is it that difficult? Really Ozy?

I'm sorry -- but the muslims making death threats are the ones that violated the peace with threats of terrorist actions. Until that point -- peace was maintained.

ozymandias
04-24-2010, 11:02 AM
well people really believe that if you start disrespecting a little your eventually going to slowly start doing it more and more.Islam and muslims dont want that.
and I see your talking alot about radicals..
radical means a fundamentalist..
and Islam has its own fundamentals and all muslims follow those fundamentals so basically your saying all muslims are radicals?

In Islam you cant kill Innocent people.so basically we don't even know what kind of people those are that you refer to as radicaals..

I am discussing the mulsim terrorists and extremists that resort to rioting and violence in defense of anything they think insults their religion, and all the muslims that support their actions. I am not just talking the people on this forum defending them, but the actual muslims in the streets:

http://www.fugly.com/media/IMAGES/Random/behead_those_who_oppose_islam.jpg
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/2009/01/10/londongaza.jpghttp://www.moonbattery.com/archives/Muslims-riot-France.jpghttp://www.moonbattery.com/france-muslim-riot.jpghttp://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/danish_cartoon_protest.jpghttp://www.seraphicpress.com/images/muslim%20savages.jpghttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/_IKmlNWItWss/SVqS8T6Ik2I/AAAAAAAAAE4/R1E6T5R_BxQ/s400/UK+GAZA+PROTEST.jpghttp://patdollard.com/wp-content/uploads/atheo.jpg

ozymandias
04-24-2010, 11:19 AM
Sure. When that happens, then we can discuss it then.

You have already terrorised the muslims by making fun of their revered personality.
You are using the terror [public humiliation of muslims in media ] by forcing them to accept your view of freedom of speech and terrorism [your target].This is terrorism.



I'm sorry, if you can't take this seriously we cannot even discuss this. A cartoon is not terrorism. Terrorism is something that instills fear, not an item of disrespect. Crashing a plane into a tower, bombing subways, mailing anthrax, threatening to kill are examples of terrorism. A cartoon that does not make any threats at all is not terrorism. At worst, it is disrespectful, or libelous -- not terrorism.




.. what? I don't get this. How is a picture of a bear supposed to instill fear? is it a scary bear? A small child viewing the image?

Were those guys teaching public how to recognise a bear by showing them the picture of a bear or were they personifying the revered personality of Muslims?



The difference does not matter -- it still was not terrorism.



What terrorism am I hiding? You keep trying to say I am hiding terrorism, but fail to point out a concrete example.

You want me to repeat.You use terror to instill fear in muslims that if they do not approve of your concept of free speech and do not consider humiliating act of presenting a revered person in the form of a bear as your right of free speech then the muslims would be alienated and humiliated publicly.This is terrorism.



No, that is what it takes to be in a free society. No one is threatening harm or torture if they don't agree with what free speech is -- they are just asking them to return the same respect they are given!



Bull****. It might be disrespectful -- but the intent of portraying a bear costume instead of mohammed was *not* to cause others to do what the makers of South Park wanted due to fear. It was not an attempt to use terror to influence the actions of another group at all. Thus not terrorism.


Who gave you the right to judge on part of others.



Common sense. There is nothing in the images or cartoons that is a threat of harm, nor is there any physical harm caused by the images, thus it is not terrorism.



Something may be just disrespecting in your eyes but it might be a matter of life and death for others.



Please tell me -- other than the artists, or those supporting the artists, or innocents caught up in the riots, one single person that died because of these images, and not their own reaction to the images. I dare you.



Where have you learnt the science of quantifying emotional responses? Are you so naive not to understand that there could be multiple forms of terror? Social fear is more dangerous form of terror to influence a group. Sigmund Frued has base dhis whole argument on this fact when he says that conscious mind tries to intellectulise the desires of unconscious mind due to fear of society and hence give rational explanations or rationalises its desires to be acceptible to the society



... what? Please explain to me how an image is terrifying to you.




If you are going to insist on calling anything you don't like 'terrorism' in order to justify atrocities, you have a serious problem.

-----Ditto as the last comment----

What the hell are you blabbering on about?

Terrorism is the use of terror to achieve goals. What do you find terrifying about a cartoon that you don't even have to watch -- to the point that you think death threats are the equivalent response?


I know and agree with this definition but what you are not able to understand is that you consider a cartoon of a revered person of a major demography across the globe same as the cartoon of Tom and Jerry.This is not the case.Be honest about your conscience.



I'll be honest. I see no difference between an image of Tom and Jerry, Mohammed, Jesus, or any other cartoonified figure.



I have already told you that as a response to such a terrifying act



WHAT TERRIFYING ACT?!?



of humiliating a revered person , a death threat is not proper but what you should understand is that expecting no reaction from the followers of that person is also improper and an ignorance about mass psychology.



They fully expected that response. That was the point of the cartoon. It is available online for free. I suggest you go watch it. They make a big fuss out of refusing to display his image out of fear of retaliation -- and they got that exact retaliation.




You made up an false analogy here -- a picture is not the same as murder, no matter how disrespectful the picture is. You have to be one hell of a coward that scared of a picture that it can control your actions through fear. I believe that you are deliberately ignoring the definitions of these terms and pretending to not have a clue what the word terrorism is, as you clearly are consistently misusing it.

You don't like a cartoon -- don't watch. There is no equivilent response to a threat of terrorism -- what do you think "Don't want to be murdered so don't... live?? don't... go outside?" Help me fill that one in a little bit, please

It is cultural relativism.Trust me Visit various cultures and you would know this fact.Fro example in most oriental cultures, they consider respect more valuable virtue than life.
In the old Indian civilisation ,they have a saying ,which means that:
The wealth has to be sacrificed for life and life has to be sacrificed for honor and respect.
In the Afghan culture,death is preferred over a disrespectful life.



And in the free world, nothing is more sacred than free speech. The same cultural relativism applies -- only we are asking you to let us live in peace free from terrorism, and you are asking us to follow your ways and rules -- or be threatened with terrorist acts.



So your argument that if you dont liek it dont see it absolutely rubbish.How can you disrespect me that too in public and that too not any of my personal habit or weakness but my concept of life and universe ,which I share with billions of other people and just tell me if you do not like to be humiliated then avoid watching my propaganda or avoid listening to my bull****.



Simple, that's the way modern society in a free world works.

Oh and:
http://people.virginia.edu/%7Eabb3w/Images/Fark/Fallacies/adpopulumgw9.jpg

Who cares how many are offended? If you are offended and don't watch, they stop doing it due to the loss of revenue, but other than that how many people they offend is not at all important.

I'll say it again: YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED.




Get a god damned education.

As a man with multiple MSes and working towards my first Ph.D, I am pretty sure I have one.

Then again, maybe I should take the word of a man defending terrorism and confused by the very word 'terrorism' and go get an education. Or not.

ozymandias
04-24-2010, 11:20 AM
Ozy,
I think I get what you mean but it has a significant meaning to Muslims and disrespecting hurts their feelings, so we non-Muslims should not disrespect.

It disrespects me *more* to see terrorism as the response to free speech.

See? We can both play that game. Sure, it's disrespectful -- but so what? Disrespect does not deserve terrorism in response.

ozymandias
04-24-2010, 11:22 AM
James

I think you got it much easily than Ozy will. It is a simple argument.

Criticise whatever you want using your freedom of speech but not in a provocative manner. Do it in a proper academic way, on a proper plateform and with the proper people. Using media for exercising the right of freedom of speech against the revered person of a certain failth is humiliating, insulting, disrespectful and provocative..

This is common sense.Jargon is not really needed to explain it.


Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

There is no such limit to free speech. What you say is a good example of good manners -- but good manners are not everything. Take a look at the Civil Rights movement -- that violates every single one of those guidelines you set.

ozymandias
04-24-2010, 11:24 AM
This is what I have been trying since last night. He mistakenly thinks I am a theist,while I am not though am not an athiest too.


That makes no sense. Either you believe in a god, and are a theist, or you do not, and you are an atheist. If you are unsure, you fall into the second camp, by definition.

ozymandias
04-24-2010, 11:27 AM
I don't care what people said but insulting is not freedom of speech.



That is one of the most stupid things I have ever heard. Whether or not something is insulting has zero impact on whether it is free speech or not.



You can't just insult someones religion and then say "oh Its freedom speech".



Yes, you can, because it is.



And we said "Don't show our prophets and don't insult us" then DON'T.



Naw. You are not in charge of Comedy Central, nor the show South Park, nor the Dannish newspapers -- so you do not get to dictate the policies they follow.



you have no rights to use our belives and religion as comedy..



Not only do I have the universal human right of free speech to do just that, but as an American citizen, I have additional human rights that also allow me to do just that.



thats not freedom of speech but its humiliating, insulting and disrespectful our religion and prophets.
It is freedom of speech, and so what if it is humiliating, or disrespectful?

ozymandias
04-24-2010, 11:33 AM
Ozy you are wrong about that.

No one can justify innocent killing,terrorism is wrong and NO Pashtun supports it.



This thread is only 10 pages long, and I can easily go back and find posters that time after time support the terrorists.



But one thing that should be made crystal lear is that the Muslim community feels demonized all over the world. How many cases can I show you where innocent people were killed just cause they were Muslim, In fact even pregnant women.



The same goes for every single other demographic group -- and you are demonized for one simple reason -- terrorism and supporting terrorism. I did not believe the negative publicity about muslims supporting terrorism until I started posting here -- and it looks more and more like those that speak out agains mulsim terrorism from inside the muslim world don't even understand what terrorism is, and are only denying because they don't know what they are talking about.



The Muslim world feels under attack since AT LEAST the soviet attack on Afghanistan(In Which the Afghans(Pashtuns)Gave the soviets a humiliating defeat and collpased their regime) since then Muslims have been exonerated.


now, as we move on you have Muslims feeling demonized and then you have people mocking and making fun our religion?



The point of the episode was that they could not show mohammed out of fear of terrorism -- and they got threats of terrorism. Do you see why you get demonized? You expect special privileges, and respond in barbaric, terrorist ways when you don't get your way. I'd compare it to the temper tantrum of a small child -- but this is far too deadly serious to belittle that way.




Why Ozy? Is it necessary? Why can't they leave our religion out of this.



Nope. It's not free speech if you limit the topics they can discuss -- and they have every right to poke fun at terrorism.



oh and if I have not welcomed you before I apologize but welcome here, and I hope you enjoy your stay and we can learn from one another.

Master Khan
04-24-2010, 11:42 AM
That is one of the most stupid things I have ever heard. Whether or not something is insulting has zero impact on whether it is free speech or not.



Yes, you can, because it is.



Naw. You are not in charge of Comedy Central, nor the show South Park, nor the Dannish newspapers -- so you do not get to dictate the policies they follow.



Not only do I have the universal human right of free speech to do just that, but as an American citizen, I have additional human rights that also allow me to do just that.


It is freedom of speech, and so what if it is humiliating, or disrespectful?
So ok then I can came up to you and punch you the face and spit on you and then I will say "oh its freedom of speech" so its ok.
I can insult your family e.g. your sisters, your mother, because its freedom of speech.

you are not even muslim the way you are acting.
There are over billion muslims in this world and insulting them is not right.
Respect is a thing aswell brother.

Master Khan
04-24-2010, 11:52 AM
Insulting is just not right.
If they are Jews, Christains, Muslim etc, we should not insult them because that is their religion and culture.
You can't just insult, disrespect someones religion, culture and then said "Its freedom of speech".
you won't like If I Insult you.

Palwasha
04-24-2010, 11:54 AM
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/danish_cartoon_protest.jpg

Good choice of picture, I watched something related to this.. look at the boards..all white with the same black writing, in the same handwriting, and each person carrying the voilent threats all have their face covered.. hmm.. makes one wonder..

(It can't be said they were all muslim for sure - no proof).

http://www.seraphicpress.com/images/muslim%20savages.jpg

And so according to you a few groups of people represent 2 billion people. Well..

Since you like pictures so much, here's a few for ya: Palestine, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Marwa Sherbini..I could go on forever..

http://oybay.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/oppression-in-palestine.jpghttp://4.bp.blogspot.com/_a-Su2SAnGYU/SY05CLLYXkI/AAAAAAAAI54/1x4uAfrb0S4/s400/1-k.jpg
http://danieltoljaga.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/bosnian-muslims-relatives-of-killed-children-victims-of-srebrenica-genocide-p1.jpg
http://images.townnews.com/delcotimes.com/content/articles/2009/10/15/news/doc4ad6e53cd2552461315947.jpg
http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/data/upimages/killed_by_us_nareng_afghanistan.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QfVWU-2pVL4/SltQhFFErNI/AAAAAAAAHMM/9nMT5bb_CC8/s1600/A%2Bmemorial%2Bservice%2Bfor%2BEgyptian%2Bwoman%2B Marwa%2Bal-Sherbini%2Bis%2Bheld%2Boutside%2Bthe%2Bcity%2Bhall %2Bin%2Bthe%2BGerman%2Bcity%2Bof%2BDresden.jpg

Where have the white boards with the threats in black writing gone? =O :ninja:
http://sydwalker.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/2nd_gaza_protest_jan_10_2009_london.jpg

Master Khan
04-24-2010, 12:47 PM
I am sick of these people who thinks insulting someones religion and belifes is alright and that we muslims are violent.
we muslims gets bombed, killed, our countries gets invaded and and then you insult our religion, ofcourse we will get angry and upset.

ozymandias
04-24-2010, 01:59 PM
So ok then I can came up to you and punch you the face and spit on you and then I will say "oh its freedom of speech" so its ok.



Are you.... 'special'? Since when, and in what country has physical assault been covered by free speech?

Please either start discussing this seriously like an adult, or leave this thread for those that would like to.



I can insult your family e.g. your sisters, your mother, because its freedom of speech.



Sure can.



you are not even muslim the way you are acting.



What was your first clue? A few pages back I stated I was not.



There are over billion muslims in this world and insulting them is not right.



It's rude, sure -- but it is not prohibited. It's wrong in a 'bad manners' way, but not wrong in a legal, moral, ethical, or human rights way. I am guessing that you know this and are just pretending to be stupid and confuse the different definitions of words to deliberately confuse the issue.


Respect is a thing aswell brother.

Sure is, but it is not a human right to be respected -- free speech is -- as well as safety from terrorism.

ozymandias
04-24-2010, 02:01 PM
Ozy,

no one here supports terrorism. You are taking things out of context, can you show me one person here who said killing innocent people is ok?


please don't propagate lies, lets keep this civil.

before I reply I'd like to straight that up.


Time after time people have stated what amounts to "just don't do anything to upset the terrorists, and let them have their way, and no one would be getting threats or attacked". That is supporting terrorists -- that is saying that the terrorists are right, and that the problem is with the people who angered the terrorists, and no the terrorists for improperly handling their anger.

ozymandias
04-24-2010, 02:04 PM
Insulting is just not right.
If they are Jews, Christains, Muslim etc, we should not insult them because that is their religion and culture.



You just don't get it, do you? You might not exercise free speech in that way -- but they have every right to do so.



You can't just insult, disrespect someones religion, culture and then said "Its freedom of speech".



Yes. Yes you can. That is free speech.



you won't like If I Insult you.

I might not like it, but I do not have a right to like every thing, or a right not to be offended, but you do have a right to free speech. It really is that simple!

ozymandias
04-24-2010, 02:08 PM
Good choice of picture, I watched something related to this.. look at the boards..all white with the same black writing, in the same handwriting, and each person carrying the voilent threats all have their face covered.. hmm.. makes one wonder..

(It can't be said they were all muslim for sure - no proof).



And so according to you a few groups of people represent 2 billion people. Well..



Thanks for taking my post out of context. I never said I had a problem with all muslims. In fact, I went out of my way to say I have a problem with those that use their religion as an excuse for terrorism, or a shield to justify terrorism, or *THOSE THAT SUPPORT THE TERRORISTS". If you go back to the very post you selected that out of, you can see that in the very first sentence I point this out. Of course, ignoring the context of my post was the only way you could twist my words and make a cowardly attack on what you wanted to imply I was saying -- since I debunked your claim even before you made it.

ozymandias
04-24-2010, 02:11 PM
I am sick of these people who thinks insulting someones religion and belifes is alright and that we muslims are violent.


THEN STOP CONDONING THE ACTIONS OF VIOLENT MUSLIMS!

Is that hard to understand?



we muslims gets bombed, killed, our countries gets invaded and and then you insult our religion, ofcourse we will get angry and upset.

That is a good thing. You are right to be upset -- and no one is saying otherwise. What I am pointing out is that the violent reactions, allowing the violent reactions, and supporting or defending the violent actions is wrong.

Get upset. Get angry. Exercise your free speech and try and get the issues resolved. Speak out against everything wrong that happens against your religion or in the name of your religion.

Just do not get violent!

Master Khan
04-24-2010, 02:12 PM
^
Dude we are not speaking about Terrorism.
you are not even muslim so you don't know how it feels like.
There is a limit of insulting people, But you don't go over limit because thats why their fights, war in this world, if we all have respected each other their would no wars.

darkwitch
04-24-2010, 02:16 PM
Thanks for taking my post out of context. I never said I had a problem with all muslims. In fact, I went out of my way to say I have a problem with those that use their religion as an excuse for terrorism, or a shield to justify terrorism, or *THOSE THAT SUPPORT THE TERRORISTS". If you go back to the very post you selected that out of, you can see that in the very first sentence I point this out. Of course, ignoring the context of my post was the only way you could twist my words and make a cowardly attack on what you wanted to imply I was saying -- since I debunked your claim even before you made it.

Terrorist have no religion...and i dont think its ok to affiliate them with
muslims..
i totally comply with dins comment..

Master Khan
04-24-2010, 02:17 PM
THEN STOP CONDONING THE ACTIONS OF VIOLENT MUSLIMS!

Is that hard to understand?



That is a good thing. You are right to be upset -- and no one is saying otherwise. What I am pointing out is that the violent reactions, allowing the violent reactions, and supporting or defending the violent actions is wrong.

Get upset. Get angry. Exercise your free speech and try and get the issues resolved. Speak out against everything wrong that happens against your religion or in the name of your religion.

Just do not get violent!
Then DON'T insult us, If people just leave us alone then we will leave you alone and everything will be fine, but if some idiot start making fun of religion and we get angry about it.
Is like talking to a monkey here.:lal5:

ozymandias
04-24-2010, 02:22 PM
Terrorist have no religion



They can be any religion they choose. Some just have to be twisted harder than others.



...and i dont think its ok to affiliate them with
muslims..



Then tell *THEM* that. They are the ones advertising they are muslims. The world did not decide what religion the terrorists are -- the terrorists do.



i totally comply with dins comment..

ozymandias
04-24-2010, 02:24 PM
^
Dude we are not speaking about Terrorism.
you are not even muslim so you don't know how it feels like.
There is a limit of insulting people, But you don't go over limit because thats why their fights,



No. Insults do not start physical violence -- people escalating words to deeds do.


war in this world, if we all have respected each other their would no wars.

Right, and I agree with some of that -- but again, respect is not a human right -- free speech is. Respect other people's rights, and we have no problems.

Master Khan
04-24-2010, 02:26 PM
ozymandias what religion are you?

ozymandias
04-24-2010, 02:27 PM
Then DON'T insult us, If people just leave us alone then we will leave you alone and everything will be fine, but if some idiot start making fun of religion and we get angry about it.



You are aware it is possible to be angry and *NOT* violent, right? The anger is not the problem -- the violence is. And here you go *AGAIN* saying 'just give in to the terrorists and we wont have problems'. That is supporting the terrorists. Period. The terrorists are wrong, not the people that exercised free speech.



Is like talking to a monkey here.:lal5:
I suppose I could call you a monkey -- but you act more like a brick wall.

What's with the image of Mohammed shaking that other guy?

ozymandias
04-24-2010, 02:28 PM
ozymandias what religion are you?

None.

Master Khan
04-24-2010, 02:34 PM
You are aware it is possible to be angry and *NOT* violent, right? The anger is not the problem -- the violence is. And here you go *AGAIN* saying 'just give in to the terrorists and we wont have problems'. That is supporting the terrorists. Period. The terrorists are wrong, not the people that exercised free speech.


I suppose I could call you a monkey -- but you act more like a brick wall.

What's with the image of Mohammed shaking that other guy?
Thats right a brick wall, too tough for you, Came and meet me and I will Show what can I do.
You can't do anything about it. we muslims can do whatever we want.

None.

Then go away.
We only like people that respects other peoples religion

Master Khan
04-24-2010, 02:38 PM
EVEN if I supported the terrorist in Afghanistan, what will you do.
As soon as we get angry..thats it "we are terrorist".

ozymandias
04-24-2010, 02:40 PM
Thats right a brick wall, too tough for you, Came and meet me and I will Show what can I do.



Yeah... about that... You are creepy enough that jsut talking to you on the internet has me a bit concerned. You don't seem to understand appropriate responses and escalation of events.



You can't do anything about it. we muslims can do whatever we want.



Yeah, that's a real adult response.





Then go away.
We only like people that respects other peoples religions

Why would you assume that just because I have no religion I do not show respect to those that do.

I'll tell you what -- if an admin or mod asks me to go away, I will -- but you do not have the permissions to tell me to do that -- or, if you do, you need to show me you have the right to make that request.

It is ignorant and offensive for you to assume that an atheist cannot show respect. I will quietly be offended, and not resort to terrorist acts.

Palwasha
04-24-2010, 02:40 PM
As soon as we get angry..thats it "we are terrorist".

It's funny you say that, I only just saw this..

eNw2zZ41Qlw

'Accused rioter,' God it really is the same in other countries too, haha.

Master Khan
04-24-2010, 02:43 PM
Yeah... about that... You are creepy enough that jsut talking to you on the internet has me a bit concerned. You don't seem to understand appropriate responses and escalation of events.



Yeah, that's a real adult response.



Why would you assume that just because I have no religion I do not show respect to those that do.

I'll tell you what -- if an admin or mod asks me to go away, I will -- but you do not have the permissions to tell me to do that -- or, if you do, you need to show me you have the right to make that request.

It is ignorant and offensive for you to assume that an atheist cannot show respect. I will quietly be offended, and not resort to terrorist acts.
:hmmm:. so its ok for you to insult islam, but its not ok for us to insult you.

ozymandias
04-24-2010, 02:44 PM
EVEN if I supported the terrorist in Afghanistan, what will you do.
As soon as we get angry..thats it "we are terrorist".

Oh come off it. I never even implied that. Please stop making things up to get angry about. I even stated quite clearly that it is acceptable to be angry. That is not a problem. Escalating to terrorist acts, to violence, to rioting over a little cartoon you found offensive (even though you were not exposed to it forcibly) is a problem.

I'll say it again: Go ahead. Be angry. Be offended. Just use that anger in an appropriate way. Anger does not need to equal violence, and you are deliberately ignoring this fact. You can be angry and *not* physically attack something.

I was angry at my neighbor's dog this morning. It barked and woke me up early -- but I did not go *KILL* it. I made a mental note to ask the neighbor to ask his kids to keep a closer eye on his dog when they let it out early in the morning, and to let it in when it starts barking. That's how civilized society works.

ozymandias
04-24-2010, 02:51 PM
:hmmm:. so its ok for you to insult islam, but its not ok for us to insult you.

I did not say that. I didn't even ask you to stop. I said I was offended to make a point. I have been saying all along that people do not have a right not to be offended. I was pointing out that it is possible to be offended with out being violent.

If I was truly, and terribly offended, I would simply stop posting, or ask a moderator to review what you have said and see if it is inline with the site's terms of use.

As I have repeatedly stated, free speech does not stop when you offend someone. You have every right to attempt to offend me, just as you have every right to be angry -- just be adult adult about the issue and do not resort to illegal activities, which include violence. That is where free speech ends.

Insult atheism. Insult me. Insult my family. All you will do is lower my opinion of you further -- and presumably the opinions of other readers that see you acting childish and having issues discussing things rationally.

Master Khan
04-24-2010, 02:56 PM
I did not say that. I didn't even ask you to stop. I said I was offended to make a point. I have been saying all along that people do not have a right not to be offended. I was pointing out that it is possible to be offended with out being violent.

If I was truly, and terribly offended, I would simply stop posting, or ask a moderator to review what you have said and see if it is inline with the site's terms of use.

As I have repeatedly stated, free speech does not stop when you offend someone. You have every right to attempt to offend me, just as you have every right to be angry -- just be adult adult about the issue and do not resort to illegal activities, which include violence. That is where free speech ends.

Insult atheism. Insult me. Insult my family. All you will do is lower my opinion of you further -- and presumably the opinions of other readers that see you acting childish and having issues discussing things rationally.

Sta da khabaro ado pio gam na.
So wait, So if someone Insult my religion, I should just stand there and ignore it?...nope

This will be their face:beat:

ozymandias
04-24-2010, 03:04 PM
Sta da khabaro ado pio gam na.
So wait, So if someone Insult my religion, I should just stand there and ignore it?...nope



You can ignore it. You can go away. In the cases of these cartoons, you can simply *not go out of your way to view the images*. You can use your words to discuss the issue. You can ask the people to stop. You have many things you can do that are moral, legal, and within your rights -- without violating their rights.

Violence and terrorism are not in that list.



This will be their face:beat:

And that is the problem, sadly.

This is exactly why the world tends to view muslims as violent. Look at what your self proclaimed first reaction to something that you do not like -- and then you, and the fellow people on this forum act surprised that people call you violent, and act offended that you are 'demonized' -- when you do exactly what you are describing that you claim is 'demonizing'.

I am very interested in continuing this conversation, but I would really like some mature conversationalists to step in. Attempting to hold a discussion with you is irritating as you do the very things you are pretending to be against -- and constantly lie and make false claims. You are not helping the case of the non-violent muslim very much, and I am not interested in talking to a living parody of a stereotype.

If anyone would like to show me that Master Khan, and terrorists in general do not represent your religion, I am looking forward to hearing from you. I have many questions about your faith, and would love to get honest answers from rational people.

Master Khan
04-24-2010, 03:09 PM
^
You call us a terrorist anyway so we don't care if we act violent.
We muslims already told people to Stop it but they still do it.
Telling them to "stop it" won't help, that danish cartoonist got what he deserve.
just leave us alone and this won't be their faces:beat:

ozymandias
04-24-2010, 03:10 PM
^
You call us a terrorist anyway so we don't care if we act violent.
We muslims already told people to Stop it but they still do it.
Telling them to "stop it" won't help, that danish cartoonist got what he deserve.
just leave us alone and this won't be their faces:beat:

Such a peaceful religion you are representing.

Master Khan
04-24-2010, 03:17 PM
Such a peaceful religion you are representing.
Thank you very much.:thumbup:
We peaceful when you are nice to us.
if you are making fun of us, Disrepecting us etc then why should we be peaceful to them.

ozymandias
04-24-2010, 03:27 PM
Thank you very much.:thumbup:
We peaceful when you are nice to us.



It's easy to be nice to those that are nice to you, isn't it? It would take a strong man to be nice to those that are rude, wouldn't it?



if you are making fun of us, Disrepecting us etc then why should we be peaceful to them.

I would presume that would be part of any religion calling itself peaceful.

I would also assume because your parents should have taught you better than that.

Perhaps because you wanted to be treated as an adult.

Or because you are actually tired of being 'demonized' and truly wanted to end the reputation your religion has for violence.

Perhaps because you don't want to play a role in the stereotyped 'violent muslim' role?

Perhaps so you did not come across as an ignorant fool?

Perhaps so that you can impress other people with how deep and rational your religion is, which would give you an opportunity to discuss it with them and potentially convert them.

Maybe, just maybe, you want to act like more than a mere animal. Just maybe.

Master Khan
04-24-2010, 03:36 PM
^
I don't care what you think of our Religion.
I got non-muslim friends and I respect them and they respect me for who I am.
And you are the one thats acting like a child by saying its alright to insult others, so Your parents should have taught you to respects others...Which I think they didn't.
So stop speaking from your arse.

ozymandias
04-24-2010, 03:45 PM
^
I don't care what you think of our Religion.



Then you cannot complain that non-muslims think negatively of your religion.



I got non-muslim friends and I respect them and they respect me for who I am.
And you are the one thats acting like a child by saying its alright to insult others, so Your parents should have taught you to respects others...Which I think they didn't.



I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and guess that English is not your first language, or that you are very young -- or both.

It's either that or assume you are being deliberately malicious and lying when you repeatedly make false claims about me.

Not once did I say it is right to insult others -- I said that it is their right, as a human, to exercise their free speech, even if it does insult you. You are getting two completely separate meanings of the word 'right' confused, as well as muddying what I have said.

Let me try again: As a human being, they have the freedom to say and publish political and religious comments without restriction, even if the things they say are wrong (false), wrong (morally), wrong (ethically), or wrong (bad manners).

[/quote]

So stop speaking from your arse.[/QUOTE]

Hey, I'm the one trying to have a rational conversation, and you are the one resorting to name calling and threats of violence.

Master Khan
04-24-2010, 04:02 PM
Then you cannot complain that non-muslims think negatively of your religion.



I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and guess that English is not your first language, or that you are very young -- or both.

It's either that or assume you are being deliberately malicious and lying when you repeatedly make false claims about me.

Not once did I say it is right to insult others -- I said that it is their right, as a human, to exercise their free speech, even if it does insult you. You are getting two completely separate meanings of the word 'right' confused, as well as muddying what I have said.

Let me try again: As a human being, they have the freedom to say and publish political and religious comments without restriction, even if the things they say are wrong (false), wrong (morally), wrong (ethically), or wrong (bad manners).




Hey, I'm the one trying to have a rational conversation, and you are the one resorting to name calling and threats of violence.

I don't care about English, My lauguage is more important for me.

you made make false claims about me saying that my Parents taught me nothing.

ozymandias
04-24-2010, 04:14 PM
I don't care about English, My lauguage is more important for me.



That's fine. It's just frustrating when you make mistakes that appear to be deliberate.



you made make false claims about me saying that my Parents taught me nothing.

Did I say nothing? All I know is that you are acting as if your parents didn't bother to teach you manners or common sense. They may have, you just don't act like it.

That's fine, it's the internet -- I had low expectations.

Pakhtunzai
04-24-2010, 04:51 PM
Ozymandias,
What exactly is your problem with Muslims asking for their religion to be respected and left alone?

ahh ignore him, hes just another jahil idiot who wants to cause trouble, if we dont react to him then how will he get the satisfaction kana??

ozymandias
04-24-2010, 05:06 PM
Ozymandias,
What exactly is your problem with Muslims asking for their religion to be respected and left alone?

Absolutely nothing.

My problem has to do with people (including people here) supporting terrorism when they don't get special treatment.

Use words, not violence to ask, no matter what you are asking for, and we do not have a problem.

ozymandias
04-24-2010, 05:06 PM
He is now part of the Pashtun community, He asked a question and I will try my best to answer him and not give up.


Thank you. We might be able to get somewhere.

ozymandias
04-24-2010, 05:42 PM
Before I even reply.

Who here supports terrorism? I read the whole thread and I did not see a single person commending terrorism.


No one here supports it. Death to anyone who kills innocent people for their own purposes.


Let's get something straight before I start going copy/paste on the whole thread:

Saying anything to the effect of "Just give the terrorists what they want, and they won't attack" is supporting terrorism. Anyone that says the Danish newspaper was wrong for printing the cartoons, and not the rioters, and terrorists making death threats, is supporting terrorism.

Any time you support giving the terrorists what they want, you are justifying their actions.

Any time you make excuses for them, you are supporting them.

Any time you refuse to admit what they did is terrible and unjustifiable, you are supporting them.

Hell, one page ago, "master" Khan said "that danish cartoonist got what he deserve". Considering that Kurt Westergaard, the artist that did those cartoons now has to live under 24/7 security by the Danish Secret Service, has to have a panic room in his house, is escorted to and from work under police protection, has suffered home invasion, and attempted murder, attacks on his relatives, including his 5 year old grand daughter, an attempt by 3 muslims to assassinate him that was foiled by the Danish PET, I would say that it is *very* clear that at least one user is supporting terrorism.

ozymandias
04-24-2010, 06:48 PM
Ozymandias, His emotions got the best of him.



That is no defense, nor does that take back his statement. He clearly advocated and supported terrorism -- something you denied existed in this thread.



I think we should make one thing clear, we are not terrorists nor do we support such people.



My original post was asking why these people are not vilified by your community -- but the subsequent posts showed that they were not vilified due to the fact that many of the posters in this thread actually *DO* support the terrorists. I do not judge anyone other than the actual posters -- you may not support terrorism, but some here clearly do.



The problem is people disrespecting our religion, we are not asking for much.



I agree.



Practice your freedom of speech, feel free but why bring our religion in it? What does it achieve?

First of all it defends the freedom of speech. If speech were to be restricted through laws or fears, it is not really free -- and in this case it was a very eloquent case of treating the religion of islam *very* well, in comparison to the other religions discussed in the very same episode. They refused to actually show an image of mohammed out of fear, and they even refused to use his name in the second part of the episode. They cited fear of reprisals -- but jesus watched internet porn, and buddha did coke.

It achieved exactly what they intended, both profits, and increased awareness of the special treatment demanded by muslims.

MazloomyarMaseed
04-24-2010, 08:26 PM
Lets forget aobut this so called Muslim world, I know for a fact your Muslim brothers wouldnt give two dammes for you, and the turkish ottomon khalifate is a good example, relgion can not rule over such a diverse cultures around world unless breaking their identity and forcing them to be your slave, We should concern ourselves more for our own pashtun interests than arabs, arabs are veyr wealthy, they have resources and influence, why shud we utter and involve ourselves in thier problems and affairs. Iam sure if you go to dubai or any other arab country and speak of unity, they will treat u no different than how a soviet soldier treated a Afghan supporter at the time of war, always remmeber that, also do not indluge into fantasies of the Soviet/Afghan war, Pashtuns didnt defeat anybody but themselves, they got screwed over and used by Pakistan and the west, The soviets were lured into what thye called the Bear Trap and Pashtuns as usual used as meat to die for them and their intersts, all of it could have been sorted out veyr easily through negociation and understanding.

Here is the big question for you

What happened after the soviet withdrawal in Afghanistan?

1) ISI got its foot hold
2)most of the well educated and intellectual community of afghanistan fled or were slaughtered by Militia
3)Mullahs took over and destroyed our basic tenets and freedoms
4) People such as hameed gul and col imam built holiday houses for their Punjabi brothers to use Afghanistan as their new province.
5)America gave more weapons and funding to Pakistan
6)Pakistan used the blood of Afghans to refurbished their Faisal Mosque
7)Jihadi groups such as Lashkar e tayba etc were invented in Afghanistan by ISI as Afghanistan was used for future jihadi terrorist militia groups/
8)Alot of afghans became refugees in Pakistan, for which they were again used to fight for them in Kargil against India.
9) and the long list goes on.................................

Roshina
04-24-2010, 08:49 PM
OMG! :D Another Pashtun with actual brain, a sense of rationality, condemnation of radical, fundamental extremism, including issuing death threats to folks just like that!!

God bless you, Ozy! Welcome to the forum :) You've NO idea how happy I just got after reading your post! Welcome a million times!

P.S. I read only the first page of the replies; can't read the rest yet - will be back in a few days after exams and major papers are done with, ka khairee. I just couldn't contain my relief any longer, you see :)
Please, PLEASE recruit more people like you! If you visit the Religions thread on this forum, you'll understand why we're in need of folks like you. (I'm assuming you're a rational being based only on one of your posts; I only hope that you are in all other arenas of thought as well!)

Peace!

Master Khan
04-24-2010, 09:17 PM
That is no defense, nor does that take back his statement. He clearly advocated and supported terrorism -- something you denied existed in this thread.



My original post was asking why these people are not vilified by your community -- but the subsequent posts showed that they were not vilified due to the fact that many of the posters in this thread actually *DO* support the terrorists. I do not judge anyone other than the actual posters -- you may not support terrorism, but some here clearly do.



I agree.



First of all it defends the freedom of speech. If speech were to be restricted through laws or fears, it is not really free -- and in this case it was a very eloquent case of treating the religion of islam *very* well, in comparison to the other religions discussed in the very same episode. They refused to actually show an image of mohammed out of fear, and they even refused to use his name in the second part of the episode. They cited fear of reprisals -- but jesus watched internet porn, and buddha did coke.

It achieved exactly what they intended, both profits, and increased awareness of the special treatment demanded by muslims.
Since when did I support Terrorism:hmmm:.
Dude You are taking to freedom of speech too far now.

ozymandias
04-25-2010, 01:00 PM
Your definition of terrorism is a bit broad as compared to Master Khan, I guaranty you and can ensure you that Master Khan, living in Britain does not support such yet condones such actions.



He does, and did. Period.



Ozy my friend our dear member,

You need to understand something and read this carefully, Why do you find it so difficult to understand that we simply want our religion to be respected. We are not asking to be praised.



You need to understand two things: 1) you do not deserve special treatment. Your religion should be respected just as much as any religion -- no more, no less, and 2) it is this very support of terrorism that makes your religion a target at times. If you handled disrespect like every other religion, in a civilized manner, it would not create controversy and generate ratings to disrespect your religion. Since there is a profit to be had by stirring up the muslim bees' nest, they do so. Act rationally, and civilized, and it would be no big deal -- there would be no reason to be getting upset, and no profit from trying to upset.



We believe in Islam being the truth.



Every religion believes they are the way. Why are you special?



We believe that Muhammad is the final prophet of God.



Every religion has parallel beliefs. Why are you special?



We are not enforcing this on you sir.



No one is forcing you to watch South Park, or by Danish newspapers, either.

What you *are* forcing on us, though, is that you want us to follow the rules of your religion, whether we are members or not. You have a religious prohibition from displaying mohammed. Fine. I, and much of the world have no such belief -- so why should we be restricted by it? It's not our religion, why should we have to follow it's laws?



Why would you go out on the blue and start making fun of us and mocking us?



When it happens out of the blue, I'll have a case to look at and provide an answer. Since I only have the actual factual historical examples, the Danish cartoons were displayed to provide a political comentary on a religion that supports and harbors terrorists -- not out of the blue, but in reaction to actual events. The same goes for Theo Van Gogh -- he made his films in response to actual events he saw around him. South Park -- they made an eloquent, and powerful commentary on a religion that uses terrorism to demand special treatment. None of that was out of the blue.



How do you explain this logically?

I have no trouble, and have pointed out the freedom of speech continually, but you choose to ignore it.

You on the other hand have a tough battle if you are going to logically explain why non-members of your faith should be bound by it's rules, and have to fear terrorism for violating it.

ozymandias
04-25-2010, 01:02 PM
OMG! :D Another Pashtun with actual brain, a sense of rationality, condemnation of radical, fundamental extremism, including issuing death threats to folks just like that!!

God bless you, Ozy! Welcome to the forum :) You've NO idea how happy I just got after reading your post! Welcome a million times!



I hate to break it to you, I'm atheist... Thanks for the welcome, though



P.S. I read only the first page of the replies; can't read the rest yet - will be back in a few days after exams and major papers are done with, ka khairee. I just couldn't contain my relief any longer, you see :)
Please, PLEASE recruit more people like you! If you visit the Religions thread on this forum, you'll understand why we're in need of folks like you. (I'm assuming you're a rational being based only on one of your posts; I only hope that you are in all other arenas of thought as well!)

Peace!

Once this thread settles down, I'll try out other threads...

ozymandias
04-25-2010, 01:07 PM
Since when did I support Terrorism:hmmm:.



You have stated more than once that it is the fault of those that angered the terrorists, and not the terrorists fault. You have even gone so far as to state that the Danish cartoonist 'got what he deserved' when he became the target of terrorism. How is that not supporting terrorism?



Dude You are taking to freedom of speech too far now.

No such thing -- that is a logical impossibility.

ozymandias
04-25-2010, 01:27 PM
I am not demanding special treatment. All we are asking is to leave our religion alone, its merely a request.



A request for special treatment -- which is backed by terrorism and support of terrorism if it is not granted. How is that different than a demand?



Its more like a, Don't pick on someone on the streets for no reason.



First of all, I have stated many reasons already.

Second of all, you have yet to answer why your religion deserves special treatment.



We do handle it in a civilized manner,



So of you might -- but some are barbarian terrorists, and even more defend the barbarians.



but when you go as far as saying our PROPHET IS A TERRORIST. Then some people will not let that suffice, they will retaliate cause its extremely offensive.



And that is fine -- as long as they retaliate in a civilized manner. You are making excuses and justifying the actions of terrorists -- you are even going so far as to implying that the victims were asking for it, and were at fault for angering the terrorists -- something dangerously close to supporting terrorists, which you claim to not do.



Because I have faith and see the truth in my religion.



Good for you. How is this any different than any other theist on the planet? Or atheists and their faith in the truth of no religion? This is exactly my point: to non-believers your faith is not special, and should be treated no better or worse than any other religion on the planet. Just because *YOU* and a bunch of terrorists believe it does not make it special.



And that is why I don't disturb nor bother it either,

The point is, the fact that they walked a mile to disrespect our religion is UNACCEPTABLE.



Jesus watched internet porn. Buddha snorted coke. They went much farther to disrespect those religions -- but I see no terrorist threats from those groups.

You might find it unacceptable -- fine. Do something civilized about it, don't resort to terrorism, the cause of all your problems.

[/quote]


Who is forcing things? All we are asking is to respect our religion, Is that too much?

[/quote]

The terrorists and supporters are forcing things. You are saying "follow our rules, and do things our way, or suffer terrorism". Do you somehow not see that as 'forcing'?

Asking us to respect your religion is not too much. Resorting to terrorism when you don't get your way *is*.



So you are saying Muslims support terrorists? How could generalize nearly 2billion people?



I said that your religion supports and harbors your religion -- and this forum is proof that muslims do support terrorism, and a quick look at the news will show you many cases of muslim terrorists. This is 100% true -- your religion has terrorist members. I am not saying every member of the religion is a terrorist, or supports them, and it is a low down dirty move to imply I did.

I'll take my words back when you prove that not a single terrorist, ever, was muslim, and that no muslim, ever, supported terrorism. You can start right here, with this thread.



I don't see it, I have pointed out several times how its unacceptable that they are intentionally disrespecting us, yet you are hiding from it.



I am not hiding from anything. You have failed to explain how a rational person resorts to terrorism in response to a little disrespect. So what? It's a little disrespect -- something that is their right as human beings to do. That in no way on earth justifies *TERRORISM*.



We are not asking for anyone to BOUND by our rules or follow Islam, we simply ask to RESPECT OUR RELIGION, LEAVE IT ALONE.

Don't forget the third option : "BE THE VICTIM OF TERRORISM". You are giving three options, none of which you have any right to enforce on other human beings.

Master Khan
04-25-2010, 01:30 PM
You have stated more than once that it is the fault of those that angered the terrorists, and not the terrorists fault. You have even gone so far as to state that the Danish cartoonist 'got what he deserved' when he became the target of terrorism. How is that not supporting terrorism?



No such thing -- that is a logical impossibility.
Well yeah, its his fault.
and those are not terrorist.
Terrorist are the people are are bombing and killing our people in Pakistan and Afghanistan, If they are killing my people and bombing my land then why should I support them.

ozymandias
04-25-2010, 01:45 PM
Well yeah, its his fault.
and those are not terrorist.



And again, he unashamedly supports terrorists.

Still going to claim no one in this thread is supporting terrorists?



Terrorist are the people are are bombing and killing our people in Pakistan and Afghanistan,



Yes, those are terrorist, assuming you are talking the groups of *actual* terrorists, and not the military response *to* the terrorists -- but they are not the only terrorists.



If they are killing my people and bombing my land then why should I support them.

I'm not sure why you do -- that is what I am asking.

ozymandias
04-25-2010, 02:03 PM
Ozymandias.

We do not demand anyhing.

We believe in Islam. We have a simple request, keep our religion out of countries affairs.

do not use our religion to create a political career.

Those *words* are not a demand, but they become one when you add the "or else we will use terrorism to get our way" to them, either explicitly, or implicitly.

ozymandias
04-25-2010, 02:17 PM
No.



No.. what?

No it is not a demand to use terrorism to get what you want? Is that what you are trying to say?




Brother Ozymandias


We Muslims believe in our religion and have faith in it and we don't want someone to disrespect us.



So? First of all don't do things worthy of disrespect, like use or support terrorism. Secondly, what makes your faith in your religion than anyone else's faith in their religion or atheism? Why should you get special treatment?



Our buttons are being pressed for a long time now.

... so? Still not justification for terrorism -- especially since terrorism is the cause for buttons being pushed...

Roshina
04-25-2010, 02:32 PM
I hate to break it to you, I'm atheist... Thanks for the welcome, though
"Break" it to me? lol. So what that you're an atheist? Over 60% of the Pashtun intellectuals I know are atheists, though most aren't willing to say it out loud. I'm not an atheist, but then I'm no intellectual either. (Note to anti-atheist folks: This is NOT to mean that all intellectuals are atheists, or that all atheists are intellectuals - not at ALL.)
The rest are Muslim, but not the typical Muslims who are against reason; they're the type you learn so much from in just one short conversation, the type you wanna be around alllllll the time because you know you can't stop learning from them.

You know, in all honesty, I'm convinced that the atheist Pashtuns (or others) are far more "Islamic" than those who claim to be Muslims and have not been taught to use their brain. Sorry if you find the label of "Islamic" a pejorative one; I can understand why you would. But I don't mean it that way. Just that, I more than strongly believe that the typical Muslims are led astray, and that's NOT the kind of "ummah" Prophet Muhammad wanted to leave behind.

Once this thread settles down, I'll try out other threads...
Oh, believe me - this thread will never settle down ;) You're different. You think differently. You're a self-declared atheist. So you'll always have folks in this thread attempting to challenge you (and they'll never succeed, because they can't prove you wrong at all, mostly because they don't know their own religion will enough to debate with you about theism vs atheism, you see). So I'd suggest you get more involved in other threads as well :D Please! We need more and more diversity, and, again, nothing's more pleasing than seeing diversity among Pashtuns! It CAN empower and strengthen us if we let it. And we won't let it affect us positively UNLESS and UNTIL we've got a large number of Pashtuns who believe differently (I'm talking specifically in terms of religious views, not cultural/traditional views).

So, welcome again and again, and looking forward to other posts of yours.

ozymandias
04-25-2010, 02:42 PM
"Break" it to me? lol. So what that you're an atheist? Over 60% of the Pashtun intellectuals I know are atheists, though most aren't willing to say it out loud. I'm not an atheist, but then I'm no intellectual either. (Note to anti-atheist folks: This is NOT to mean that all intellectuals are atheists, or that all atheists are intellectuals - not at ALL.)
The rest are Muslim, but not the typical Muslims who are against reason; they're the type you learn so much from in just one short conversation, the type you wanna be around alllllll the time because you know you can't stop learning from them.

You know, in all honesty, I'm convinced that the atheist Pashtuns (or others) are far more "Islamic" than those who claim to be Muslims and have not been taught to use their brain. Sorry if you find the label of "Islamic" a pejorative one; I can understand why you would. But I don't mean it that way. Just that, I more than strongly believe that the typical Muslims are led astray, and that's NOT the kind of "ummah" Prophet Muhammad wanted to leave behind.


Oh, believe me - this thread will never settle down ;) You're different. You think differently. You're a self-declared atheist. So you'll always have folks in this thread attempting to challenge you (and they'll never succeed, because they can't prove you wrong at all, mostly because they don't know their own religion will enough to debate with you about theism vs atheism, you see). So I'd suggest you get more involved in other threads as well :D Please! We need more and more diversity, and, again, nothing's more pleasing than seeing diversity among Pashtuns! It CAN empower and strengthen us if we let it. And we won't let it affect us positively UNLESS and UNTIL we've got a large number of Pashtuns who believe differently (I'm talking specifically in terms of religious views, not cultural/traditional views).

So, welcome again and again, and looking forward to other posts of yours.

I'll see about some of the other threads when and if I have time ;-)

ozymandias
04-25-2010, 02:44 PM
Can you provide a source that says 60percent of our Intellects are Athiests?


That is more like your opinion and fantasy.

I can't justify 60%, but study after study has shown that atheists consistently score higher on I.Q. tests -- here is a link to a summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence#Studies_comparing_rel igious_belief_and_I.Q.

ozymandias
04-25-2010, 02:47 PM
Ozymandias,

my people are being tortured and killed innocently on a daily basis.



And this current war started... why again? Oh yeah, terrorism. Funny how that works.



then the same west turns around and makes fun of our prophet.


How do you explain this?

That 'same west' makes fun of *every religion*. Deal with it like civilized people!

Master Khan
04-25-2010, 03:27 PM
And again, he unashamedly supports terrorists.

Still going to claim no one in this thread is supporting terrorists?



Yes, those are terrorist, assuming you are talking the groups of *actual* terrorists, and not the military response *to* the terrorists -- but they are not the only terrorists.



I'm not sure why you do -- that is what I am asking.

Its not terrorist that wants to kill him , but Angry muslims.
If the terrorist wanted to kill him then he would have been death by now.

You think if a muslim becomes angry then thats it "he is a terrorist", which is not the case here.

Roshina
04-25-2010, 04:30 PM
Can you provide a source that says 60percent of our Intellects are Athiests?

That is more like your opinion and fantasy.
Uhh, no, I don't have a source to guide you to, unfortunately, because I happen to know some of them personally and others online. And like I said, most of them don't publicize their choice to be atheist.

And note that I said 60% of the Pashtun intellectuals that *I* know; that's to mean that I don't know of all of them, of course. Perhaps the ones you know are different. But this is strictly based on *my* observations, which may -- and should -- be different from yours or anyone else's.

And believe me that it's not a fantasy, 'cause it doesn't matter to me if they believe in God or not; it matters to me only what they do for Pashtuns and/or the rest of the humanity and how educated they are.

Roshina
04-25-2010, 04:33 PM
Ozymandias,

my people are being tortured and killed innocently on a daily basis.

By non-Muslims only, I suppose you mean? ... because if you are keeping up with the relationships between Muslims with OTHER Muslims, you should know that Muslims basically hate each other just as much as they hate the west and all kaafirs, no matter how peaceful the kaafirs might be.

I see NO reaction towards the atrocities committed by Muslims against Muslims, but everyone's against ALL non-Muslims becuase of the small group of anti-Muslim non-Muslims who have no sense of humanity, fighting not just against Muslims but against all others as well.

ozymandias
04-25-2010, 04:48 PM
Afghans/Pashtuns had nothing to do with terrorism.



How can you make that claim when so many of the people posting in this thread have openly admitted their support of terrorism?



We are fighting against invaders, who have invaded our land.


So just because they make fun of other religions, we should allow them to make a drama out of our religions.

Yes and no. They have every right to do so, and you have every right to *request* that they stop. You do not have the right to demand, threaten, or terrorize them until they do. You do not have the right to special treatment.

ozymandias
04-25-2010, 04:51 PM
Its not terrorist that wants to kill him , but Angry muslims.
If the terrorist wanted to kill him then he would have been death by now.



So your definition of terrorist is 'someone that succeeds at terrorizing' but those that fail at terrorizing are 'merely' angry muslims?

You are making up definitions and splitting hairs my friend. By all definitions one who attempts terrorism is a terrorist.



You think if a muslim becomes angry then thats it "he is a terrorist", which is not the case here.

Please stop lying about my position or what I have said -- it is not helping your case or this thread. I have stated until I am blue in the face that not only do I support the right to get angry, I actually encourage it.

You do not have to be violent and attempt to instill fear just because you are angry. I think you have a lot of growing up and maturing before you have anything constructive to add to the conversation.

ozymandias
04-25-2010, 04:53 PM
By non-Muslims only, I suppose you mean? ... because if you are keeping up with the relationships between Muslims with OTHER Muslims, you should know that Muslims basically hate each other just as much as they hate the west and all kaafirs, no matter how peaceful the kaafirs might be.

I see NO reaction towards the atrocities committed by Muslims against Muslims, but everyone's against ALL non-Muslims becuase of the small group of anti-Muslim non-Muslims who have no sense of humanity, fighting not just against Muslims but against all others as well.

Well said.

Roshina
04-25-2010, 04:53 PM
You are going off topic.

stick to the topic.
Who's going off-topic, me? 'Cause I was only replying to your comment. So if my post was off-topic, then yours must have been so, no? :D
And it's still on topic since it had to do with terrorism, intolerance, injustice, hating non-Muslims, the killing of Muslims (which I said is done not just by non-Muslims but more so by Muslims).

Hm... :glare:

And the other one was also an answer to your question.

ozymandias
04-25-2010, 04:54 PM
You are going off topic.

stick to the topic.

That was very much on topic, considering the number of people advocating terrorism against the 'west' because of what the west has done. How can you ignore the others that do the same to you?

ozymandias
04-25-2010, 05:06 PM
ozymandias,

We are not brutal warriors that want to kill everything on sight.

All we ask for is to leave our religion alone. Simply that. Nothing more nothing less.

All 'the west' asks for is that you respect our right to free speech. Simply that. Nothing more nothing less.

tor_khan
04-25-2010, 05:33 PM
I'm a bit of a latecomer to this thread and am actually here by invite - thanks to Afghanlady for that.

I've read every posting here and there appears to be a clash between one of a self-declared athiest (what's one of those anyway?? - definition please) vs people on the whole who think that the Muslim world comes in for a unfair press.

I am not demanding special treatment. All we are asking is to leave our religion alone, its merely a request. Its more like a, Don't pick on someone on the streets for no reason.

I think that that is a fair request. Not everything is in the public domain and there are responsibilities that we must show each other in order to keep the freedoms that we cherish.

A request for special treatment -- which is backed by terrorism and support of terrorism if it is not granted. How is that different than a demand?

I'm curious to understand how the leap between a request to "be left alone" is made into a support for terrorism. I think that this statement is perhaps influenced by more than a response to the first quote.

I said that your religion supports and harbors your religion -- and this forum is proof that muslims do support terrorism, and a quick look at the news will show you many cases of muslim terrorists. This is 100% true -- your religion has terrorist members. I am not saying every member of the religion is a terrorist, or supports them, and it is a low down dirty move to imply I did.

I'll take my words back when you prove that not a single terrorist, ever, was muslim, and that no muslim, ever, supported terrorism.

You may have to take back your words, because if Master Khan can make emotive statements, here's a classic example of one made by someone who claims to see things objectively.

I detect a slightly desperate sense of the contributor wanting to distance themselves from Muslims with the overuse of the personal possessive pronoun "Your" e.g. Your Religion. In saying "your religion", the writer, is implying that the religion in question here - Islam - is not his - and therefore he has nothing to do with terrorists.

It's a very simplistic view.

Terrorism is complex, and most here including me, see it for the harmful, indiscriminate and destructive thing that it is. Nelson Mandela opposed apartheid and took up arms against the state. He was arrested and imprisoned for 27 years under South African terrorism laws. Until two years ago, in 2008, it was still technically illegal for Nelson Mandela to enter the US because US laws don't allow convicted terrorists to pass through immigration.

Martin McGuinness, First Deputy Minister of Northern Ireland and Gerry Adams (President of Sinn Fein) are two examples of high-standing Roman Catholic politicians with know IRA connections.

Not all known terrorists are Muslims - some like the Irishmen are Catholic. Others, like Nelson Mandela are declared athiests. Oh, and Adolf Hitler, is still not declared a terrorist.

Ozy

Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom of character assasination. You may diasgree with certain actions or views of Muhammad or even refute all of them,you may also express your disagreement in an academic style but it is immoral to humiliate someone based on difference of opinion.

...

Muhammad has intellectual fans both in orient and occident. Personalites like H.G.Wells,Micheal Hart,M.N.Roy,Gandhi etc all have paid tributes to him.

Right. Most of us are willing to defend the principle of freedom of speech, but in order for it to mean anything, it will come with boundaries. Can we say anything and do anything all in the public domain? How many of us are willing to defend every aspect of freedom? For example, take an image of someone you know and love - is it then ok for someone else to photoshop their faces, stick them on a naked body and post it up to the internet? It's freedom, but are we willing to defend it?

ozymandias
04-25-2010, 05:39 PM
^how do you explain freedom of speech?



I explain it as the universal human right, as acknowledged in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It is the right to free political or religious speech that all human beings have. They have the right to speech freely without fear of reprisal, as long as they are not using their free speech in the commission of a crime.

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." -- Article 19, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/ICCPR-members.PNG/400px-ICCPR-members.PNG

The countries in dark green have all agreed and ratified the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which defines the right of freedom of speech as : "the right to hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression".

It's a pretty darn simply concept -- no matter who you might offend -- you still have the right to say what you want.

Similar rights exist granting people the freedom to be free from terrorism and fear of physical harm.



Since when is causing offence freedom of speech,intentionally.

The concept of 'free speech' is first formally recognized in the Bill of Rights of England, written and ratified in 1689, and this very first formally recognized, legal description of free speech does not place restrictions on 'offense', and in fact, I can think of no case where the freedom of speech is limited by who you may offend.


Realistically speaking, since free speech is a universal human right, and has been so even before it was formally recognized by any government, the freedom of speech has included the right to offend before humans even existed on this planet, and will continue to do so long after we are gone.

ozymandias
04-25-2010, 05:52 PM
I'm a bit of a latecomer to this thread and am actually here by invite - thanks to Afghanlady for that.

I've read every posting here and there appears to be a clash between one of a self-declared athiest (what's one of those anyway?? - definition please) vs people on the whole who think that the Muslim world comes in for a unfair press.



I think that that is a fair request. Not everything is in the public domain and there are responsibilities that we must show each other in order to keep the freedoms that we cherish.



I agree whole heartedly. If it were a simple request, we would have no problem, however it is not a request -- it has been turned into a demand through the threat of terrorism -- which the majority of posters in this thread are supporting.




I'm curious to understand how the leap between a request to "be left alone" is made into a support for terrorism. I think that this statement is perhaps influenced by more than a response to the first quote.



It very much does include more than the first quote. Throughout this thread posters have made the statement that if people do not comply with the demand 'to be left alone', terrorists are justified in targeting people.



You may have to take back your words, because if Master Khan can make emotive statements, here's a classic example of one made by someone who claims to see things objectively.



I very much doubt that you can prove that no terrorist in the history of the world was ever a muslim.



I detect a slightly desperate sense of the contributor wanting to distance themselves from Muslims with the overuse of the personal possessive pronoun "Your" e.g. Your Religion. In saying "your religion", the writer, is implying that the religion in question here - Islam - is not his - and therefore he has nothing to do with terrorists.



Islam is not my religion. I have *no* religion, so the distancing myself from your religion is justified.

I am not saying that I have nothing to do with terrorists -- there is the possibility that I may share a race with a terrorist, or a terrorist may share my political, ethical, or religious stances. I, however, do not share the faith of Islam with them. Furthermore, I decry any and all terrorists, regardless of the justification given, the creed of the terrorist, the targets attacked, or the goals the terrorists wished to achieve. In any and all cases of terrorism, I state that the terrorists were wrong to do what they did.



It's a very simplistic view.

Terrorism is complex, and most here including me, see it for the harmful, indiscriminate and destructive thing that it is. Nelson Mandela opposed apartheid and took up arms against the state. He was arrested and imprisoned for 27 years under South African terrorism laws. Until two years ago, in 2008, it was still technically illegal for Nelson Mandela to enter the US because US laws don't allow convicted terrorists to pass through immigration.

Martin McGuinness, First Deputy Minister of Northern Ireland and Gerry Adams (President of Sinn Fein) are two examples of high-standing Roman Catholic politicians with know IRA connections.

Not all known terrorists are Muslims



No one is claiming that.



- some like the Irishmen are Catholic. Others, like Nelson Mandela are declared athiests. Oh, and Adolf Hitler, is still not declared a terrorist.



Right. Most of us are willing to defend the principle of freedom of speech, but in order for it to mean anything, it will come with boundaries. Can we say anything and do anything all in the public domain? How many of us are willing to defend every aspect of freedom? For example, take an image of someone you know and love - is it then ok for someone else to photoshop their faces, stick them on a naked body and post it up to the internet? It's freedom, but are we willing to defend it?

Yes.

ozymandias
04-25-2010, 05:56 PM
But Ozymandias,

does that justify insulting and hurting someones feelings intentionally?



How many times do I have to answer this question?
Yes. Here is a spare 'yes' for the next few times you ask this downright asinine question: Yes. Yes. Yes. YES.



Why are you downplaying this issue, you and I both know the Muslim world is under constant attack, innocent beings are being alled and the one thing that brings us Joy and happiness, the west goes as far as insulting that as well?

Who is downplaying that? *IT IS FINE TO BE ANGRY, OFFENDED, OR UPSET*.

I feel like I have to repeat myself a ton of times for this to sink in.

Being upset does not have to result in violence. Ever. The inability to realize this is starting to become downright frightening. Should I start to fear that just because we do not agree on the internet, you might wish to do me physical harm? This makes sense to you? If so, I feel bad for the sorry shape your life is that you have been raised to believe that barbaric responses are appropriate when you are upset.

tor_khan
04-25-2010, 06:00 PM
I very much doubt that you can prove that no terrorist in the history of the world was ever a muslim.

Is there is a misplaced negative in the sentence? The grammar is confusing.

Do you mean "no terrorist in the history of the world was .... a muslim"?

In which case, why the debate?

Palwasha
04-25-2010, 06:03 PM
I'm a bit of a latecomer to this thread and am actually here by invite - thanks to Afghanlady for that.

Ah, I was hoping you'd post a response Tor Khan wrora, if only I knew you respond to invites. =P

Nice move Afghanlady. :)

ozymandias
04-25-2010, 06:05 PM
Is there is a misplaced negative in the sentence? The grammar is confusing.

Do you mean "no terrorist in the history of the world was .... a muslim"?

In which case, why the debate?

No misplaced negative. I'll try and rephrase:

I doubt that you can prove that not a single terrorist, ever, was a muslim. There have been many high-profile terrorists that were muslim, and you would have to prove that they were not.

Azmatullah
04-25-2010, 06:32 PM
No misplaced negative. I'll try and rephrase:

I doubt that you can prove that not a single terrorist, ever, was a muslim. There have been many high-profile terrorists that were muslim, and you would have to prove that they were not.

You must have heard of the Crusades where Muslims were brutally massacred, mosques destroyed along with everything else, or are you deliberately ignoring that? Do you not consider them as ''terrorists''. To turn it into a Muslim issue is ridiculous. What about the millions of innocent lives that have been lost in this so called war on terrorism (or as some would say, the ''modern crusades''), in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Is that justified in your eyes? Are those who are responsible not terrorists in your eyes? Let's not forget this video which recently made news. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF9P5vIzYyE&feature=related Thanks.

ozymandias
04-25-2010, 06:41 PM
Ozymandias,

I understand what you mean by us 'forcing' which we never have, but we have a polite request.



That is not true. Terrorism is 'forcing', and many here have posted in support of that. I think it is safe to say that at least on this site there are muslims that wish to force all to follow islamic customs.



we as Muslims want our religion to be respected, my people are dying on a daily basis, the least we request is to respect our religion.

And a request is fine. Not only is it fine, you *are* granted respect: exactly as much respect as any other creed out there. To request more is to request special treatment, and is not justified.

ozymandias
04-25-2010, 06:56 PM
You must have heard of the Crusades where Muslims were brutally massacred, mosques destroyed along with everything else, or are you deliberately ignoring that?



What does this have to do with *ANYTHING*? I never said that there were no christian terrorists. You are now bringing up irelevant facts to try and disprove points I have not, nor would not make. What exactly are you hoping to do by this tactic?



Do you not consider them as ''terrorists''.



Not typically, considered that the Crusades as a whole were a series of military actions to prevent the expansion of the Turkish nation into a nearby nation, and the subsequent wars. Typically military action of one nation against another, especially where the targets are intended to be primarily valid military targets is not considered terrorism.

Terrorism tends to lie outside the realm of valid military strategy, and consists of attacking non-military targets, including civilians, in an inhumane way, or through a method intending to instill fear into the population at large. In fact, according to modern articles of war, the targets and methods favored by terrorists are expressly forbidden by international treaty.

In short, while some of the crusades may have consisted of terrorist-like behavior, in the larger scheme of things, these were merely collateral damage in valid military campaigns -- for the most part.

That is not to mention the fact that the crusades had atrocities and terrible, terrible actions on *both* sides of the conflicts. Neither side was innocent.



To turn it into a Muslim issue is ridiculous. What about the millions of innocent lives that have been lost in this so called war on terrorism (or as some would say, the ''modern crusades''), in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan.



There is a huge difference in collateral damage to civilian targets, and deliberately attacking civilians directly.



Is that justified in your eyes?



Collateral damage is an unfortunate side effect of war. I only support war as a method of last resort, and I deeply regret the fact that Bush was allowed to lie to our country and get us tied into a war that was not needed. I feel that we should, and are, rethinking our strategy, and are working to remedy the problems.



Are those who are responsible not terrorists in your eyes?



They are not attempting to use fear to control the actions of a group of people in violation of their basic human rights -- they are attempting to end a too long, and too bloody war. As a whole, the campaign is not a terrorist action by any stretch of the imagination. That is not to say that some of the combatants have not crossed a line and done inappropriate things.



Let's not forget this video which recently made news. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF9P5vIzYyE&feature=related Thanks.

I will not, and cannot excuse that behavior. That is the difference between myself and may posters here: I do not support illegal and immoral actions, be it terrorism, or failure to identify a target's identity or hostility prior to engaging it.

Azmatullah
04-25-2010, 07:19 PM
Thanks for clearing that up, i must have misunderstood your post when i assumed you were turning this into a Muslim problem.

ozymandias
04-25-2010, 08:20 PM
Thanks for clearing that up, i must have misunderstood your post when i assumed you were turning this into a Muslim problem.

No sir. This is a generic problem in which there are terrorists that we all have to deal with, and there are supporters of terrorism that we all have to deal with.

ozymandias
04-25-2010, 08:31 PM
ok Ozy.

so if you agree to that request then everything is fine.

The Muslim world has a simple request. Respect our religion, we wll respect your religion.


we are not asking you to say Islam is the best at 5PM everyday.

We, including myself, the South Park staff, and the Danish cartoonists respected your religion as much as they respected any other -- and still had terrorist attacks.

Not only that, but people who only did the 'crime' of living in neighborhoods that decided to riot may have actually respected your religion *MORE* than they did others -- but they still suffered at the hands of terrorists.

What about the victims of the Taliban? Were they *ALL* disrespecting Islam? Even the Muslims in the Twin Towers?

Master Khan
04-25-2010, 09:36 PM
We, including myself, the South Park staff, and the Danish cartoonists respected your religion as much as they respected any other -- and still had terrorist attacks.

Not only that, but people who only did the 'crime' of living in neighborhoods that decided to riot may have actually respected your religion *MORE* than they did others -- but they still suffered at the hands of terrorists.

What about the victims of the Taliban? Were they *ALL* disrespecting Islam? Even the Muslims in the Twin Towers?
They never respected our religion.
The danish cartoonists took it to far, South Park team was alright.

ozymandias
04-25-2010, 10:08 PM
They never respected our religion.
The danish cartoonists took it to far,



I prefer to talk to someone other than an avid terrorism supporter, but I do have a question for you: How can you say that every single person in the Twin Towers, including the Muslims, never respected Islam? Who are you to make that judgement?



South Park team was alright.

...?

ozymandias
04-25-2010, 10:09 PM
Ok.


So with your argument, the U.S.A are also terrorists.



Could you please try to read more of what I post, rather than picking and choosing what to respond to?



What about the Victims of Nato? The U.S.A? The bombardments of Afghanistan?

Again, I already addressed this.

Master Khan
04-25-2010, 10:13 PM
I prefer to talk to someone other than an avid terrorism supporter, but I do have a question for you: How can you say that every single person in the Twin Towers, including the Muslims, never respected Islam? Who are you to make that judgement?

What:hmmm:, I am not talking about 9/11, Supporting Terrorism, Twin towers.
But about that danish guy, all I said was that he took it too far.
South Park didn't really took it far....?

To be honse I am a fan of South Park, I have seen all the episodes.
And I watched the 200,201 episodes aswell.

ozymandias
04-25-2010, 10:30 PM
What:hmmm:, I am not talking about 9/11, Supporting Terrorism, Twin towers.



I asked "What about the victims of the Taliban? Were they *ALL* disrespecting Islam? Even the Muslims in the Twin Towers?" to which you replied: "They never respected our religion."



But about that danish guy, all I said was that he took it too far.



Yeah, yeah, yeah, we all know you are an avid supporter of terrorism.



South Park didn't really took it far....?



I agree. That surprises me.



To be honse I am a fan of South Park, I have seen all the episodes.
And I watched the 200,201 episodes aswell.

So you only support free speech if it is something you like?

abubaker
04-25-2010, 10:37 PM
iam sick of people who feel like they can say what ever the hell they want about some one elses relegion and expect them to be quite, sorry but wea are not chiristian who have abandoned their relegion secturies ago, just because one group doesnt take offence if thir relegion is made fun off doesnt mean the others will too

you have your own relegion, make fun of that as much as you like but leave us alone.
by the way nowa days any one who doesnt agree with the western idiology is labled a radical and wahabi

yaw shir da, thori au speeni tapi tha sara di, chana ausama au chana khalil zad golda wi[samiullah tarun]

ozymandias
04-25-2010, 10:50 PM
iam sick of people who feel like they can say what ever the hell they want about some one elses relegion and expect them to be quite,



No one is expecting you to be quiet. They are expecting you to act civilized, and not resort to terrorism. Big difference.



sorry but wea are not chiristian who have abandoned their relegion secturies ago,



What christians are *you* talking about? By definition, if they are christian, they have not abandoned their religion.



just because one group doesnt take offence if thir relegion is made fun off doesnt mean the others will too



Again, no one is expecting you not to be offended, they are expecting you to not resort to terrorism every time you get offended or angry.



you have your own relegion, make fun of that as much as you like but leave us alone.



1) Free speech means I can say what I want. It's a basic human right.
2) No special treatment for any religion.



by the way nowa days any one who doesnt agree with the western idiology is labled a radical



Not at all. You can not agree -- in a civilized way, and you are fine. It's only when you act like barbarians and radical religious nut cases are you labeled radical.



and wahabi



From what I understand the violent attacks on modern society and modern changes to islam *IS* wahhabism, at least in part. I could be wrong, but that was my interpretation of what wahhabi means -- but this is second hand from a muslim friend. Feel free to correct this part.



yaw shir da, thori au speeni tapi tha sara di, chana ausama au chana khalil zad golda wi[samiullah tarun]

Sorry, my Arabic is not that good yet.

ozymandias
04-25-2010, 11:02 PM
^That is not Arabic, we Pashtuns speak Pashto and he wrote in Pashto.

Well then, that explains that.

Thanks!

abubaker
04-25-2010, 11:39 PM
No one is expecting you to be quiet. They are expecting you to act civilized, and not resort to terrorism. Big difference.

read my post buddy i did not say to start terrorism.

1) Free speech means I can say what I want. It's a basic human right.
2) No special treatment for any religion.

() that doestn mean you have the right to offend any one you want, there should be a limit, now i dont know if your muslim or not but if, but if some one made of your relegion or your prophet would you just site on your ass and do nothing ''now am not talking about starting fires and busting your own loacal businesses'' but speaking out against such an act and condemnign it, but offcourse now people cant even do that because you they are labled as wahabis an alqaeda

() i treat all relegions with respect, but if they want to make fun of thier reletion they are free to do so, for as long as they keep away from mine


Not at all. You can not agree -- in a civilized way, and you are fine. It's only when you act like barbarians and radical religious nut cases are you labeled radical.

explain what a radical religious nut is in your eyes?


radical relegious nut? people are calling taliban radical muslim were i see them as nothing less then freedome fighters, sure they have done some horrible things during thier reign but at this moment i will take them over any thing the west has to offer.


From what I understand the violent attacks on modern society and modern changes to islam *IS* wahhabism, at least in part. I could be wrong, but that was my interpretation of what wahhabi means -- but this is second hand from a muslim friend. Feel free to correct this part.

its a lable the west likes to use against those who appose thier rule and domination of muslim countries, the correct trm here is SALAFI, its a group that follows the teachings of '' Muhammad ibn abdul Wahhaab'' within sunni islam, thier beleifs are based on the quran and sunnah and are against innovations in islam such as grave worshiping and so on, thats why people disagree with them.


yaw shir da, thori au speeni tapi tha sara di, chana ausama au chana khalil zad golda wi[samiullah tarun]

then what are you doing debating on an Afghan/Pashtun forume, could it be that you are one of those so called experts on islam, you cant even tell the diference between arabic and pashto

ozymandias
04-26-2010, 12:00 AM
No one is expecting you to be quiet. They are expecting you to act civilized, and not resort to terrorism. Big difference.

read my post buddy i did not say to start terrorism.




It's the topic of the thread. Sorry if I offended you when I got confused and thought that was what you were trying to say.



1) Free speech means I can say what I want. It's a basic human right.
2) No special treatment for any religion.

() that doestn mean you have the right to offend any one you want,



Actually, it does. Well, it means I have the right to *try* with my *words*.



there should be a limit,



That would not be free speech then. That would be bound or limited speech.



now i dont know if your muslim or not but if, but if some one made of your relegion or your prophet would you just site on your ass and do nothing



I would not get violent. I might get upset or angry and try to address my concerns in a civilized manner, though.



''now am not talking about starting fires and busting your own loacal businesses'' but speaking out against such an act and condemnign it, but offcourse now people cant even do that because you they are labled as wahabis an alqaeda



That's where you are wrong. I have not once seen a vocal but non-violent muslim associated with Al-Qaeda. it is only the radical violent muslims and their supporters that get that label -- and usually they are only called radical, violent muslims.



() i treat all relegions with respect, but if they want to make fun of thier reletion they are free to do so, for as long as they keep away from mine



I treat all religions with the same amount of respect -- even though I have no religion of my own. As a member of the human race, however, I have the basic human right to say what I want about any of them, regardless of whether or not you approve.



Not at all. You can not agree -- in a civilized way, and you are fine. It's only when you act like barbarians and radical religious nut cases are you labeled radical.

explain what a radical religious nut is in your eyes?



I pretty much reserve that term for fanatical members of a faith that are on the extreme fringes of their faith. In my eyes, once you assume that you have the right to make others obey your religious rules, you are a religious nut. This obviously includes all religious terrorists, of all faiths, as well as all people that try to pass laws based on their religious beliefs.

I usually only apply the term to people that make irrational choices and decisions, typically because they are founded in their religion -- and the choices tend to need to cause harm to someone. Refusing medicine for your child due to religious doctrine will get you labeled a nut, in my eyes.



radical relegious nut? people are calling taliban radical muslim were i see them as nothing less then freedome fighters, sure they have done some horrible things during thier reign but at this moment i will take them over any thing the west has to offer.



And we have another open, self admitted terrorist supporter.



From what I understand the violent attacks on modern society and modern changes to islam *IS* wahhabism, at least in part. I could be wrong, but that was my interpretation of what wahhabi means -- but this is second hand from a muslim friend. Feel free to correct this part.

its a lable the west likes to use against those who appose thier rule and domination of muslim countries, the correct trm here is SALAFI, its a group that follows the teachings of '' Muhammad ibn abdul Wahhaab'' within sunni islam, thier beleifs are based on the quran and sunnah and are against innovations in islam such as grave worshiping and so on, thats why people disagree with them.



Fair enough.



yaw shir da, thori au speeni tapi tha sara di, chana ausama au chana khalil zad golda wi[samiullah tarun]

then what are you doing debating on an Afghan/Pashtun forume, could it be that you are one of those so called experts on islam, you cant even tell the diference between arabic and pashto

Not only have I repeatedly answered this question, I have never claimed that to be an expert in anything. I have been trying to pick up some arabic terms in an effort to be able to discuss and understand the concepts and religion of some of my friends and coworkers. Most of what I know is single words or short phrases that I can use to guess the context of a sentence -- I am far from an expert, but I find that the language you speak and think in can and does shape your thoughts, and the only way to fully understand someone is to think in their language.

abubaker
04-26-2010, 12:20 AM
I pretty much reserve that term for fanatical members of a faith that are on the extreme fringes of their faith. In my eyes, once you assume that you have the right to make others obey your religious rules, you are a religious nut. This obviously includes all religious terrorists, of all faiths, as well as all people that try to pass laws based on their religious beliefs.

isnt that exactly what the american army is doing, they are imposing theire own way of life on an entire country and yet the call us fanatics, we did not invade the US and forced them to become muslims rather its the opposite they are the ones who are distributing pashto and dari bibles in afghanistan, but we are the fanatics and terrorists because we stand against them, mind you the very people your governments are calling radicals and fanatics were on theyre payroll and were hailled as heroes and freedome fighters but as soon as they found out they werent dance to theyre tune any more they decided to get ride of them and replace them.

ozymandias
04-26-2010, 12:37 AM
I pretty much reserve that term for fanatical members of a faith that are on the extreme fringes of their faith. In my eyes, once you assume that you have the right to make others obey your religious rules, you are a religious nut. This obviously includes all religious terrorists, of all faiths, as well as all people that try to pass laws based on their religious beliefs.

isnt that exactly what the american army is doing,


... no? Do you not see the difference between insuring safety for the American nation while at the same time insuring that all people are allowed to practice basic human rights -- and a group of religious terrorists trying to deprive people of basic human rights?



they are imposing theire own way of life on an entire country and yet the call us fanatics,



It only seems that way if you expect the right to deprive others of their rights. You are still allowed to practice your own way of life, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.



we did not invade the US and forced them to become muslims



What exactly do you think the terrorists are trying to do?



rather its the opposite they are the ones who are distributing pashto and dari bibles in afghanistan,



Uh... no. It's not the American Army -- that is illegal, and if the Army is caught doing such stuff, they get in big trouble.

Besides, that's just that freedom of speech thing you hate so much.



but we are the fanatics and terrorists because we stand against them,



No, the terrorists are terrorists because they engage in terrorism. Stand against whomever you want -- just do so in a civilized way. I feel like a broken record...



mind you the very people your governments are calling radicals and fanatics were on theyre payroll and were hailled as heroes and freedome fighters but as soon as they found out they werent dance to theyre tune any more they decided to get ride of them and replace them.

I guess you have never made a mistake then?

ozymandias
04-26-2010, 12:46 AM
That is the American Army Ozymandias.


Do you want to see proof of the U.S Army ?



It may be members of the American Army -- but it is illegal for the Army to do such things. Did you miss the fuss about the guns that had bible verses on the scopes?



"Defending the American nation"

I would love to see you debate that here in a civil manner.



Might need a new thread though.



At least we from Britain don't have such an attitude and actually 70percent of us now support a pull out for this very reason.



Did I say I did not support pulling out? The reason the war started was exactly what I stated.



The U.S.A has missionaries running around attempting to convert innocent people.



That does not make them members of the Army. Not to mention the muslims running around the USA trying to convert innocent people.



The U.S.A kills hundreds of thousands of my Pashtuns and then when you mock and disrespect our religion you say "Its freedom of speech".



I'm sorry, but what is your point? Regardless of history, it *IS* freedom of speech.



I might not post, but I sure did read all of your posts.

abubaker
04-26-2010, 12:56 AM
... no? Do you not see the difference between insuring safety for the American nation while at the same time insuring that all people are allowed to practice basic human rights -- and a group of religious terrorists trying to deprive people of basic human rights?
() from whome and what basic human rights, you kill innocent women and chuilderen at night are you defending your nation from these helpless women and children or from the taliban whome havnt even seen what america looks like, plus you have not yet proven that 9/11 was caused by thaliban so the above statement doesnt work here, you might be able to fool some poor villiager but not us, as far your concerned huan rights only exists for your kind and not us thats you kill innocent women and childeren and then dig bullets out of them so that no one woul notice and then you try to cover it up


It only seems that way if you expect the right to deprive others of their rights. You are still allowed to practice your own way of life, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.

you are infringing on my right by invading my country and killing my people.



What exactly do you think the terrorists are trying to do?



Uh... no. It's not the American Army -- that is illegal, and if the Army is caught doing such stuff, they get in big trouble.

are you stupid or what they have invaed our country but they are not illegal, we are because we have been living in that part of the world for centuries, man you are delusional, word of advice stop watching fox and cnn and digest proper information

Besides, that's just that freedom of speech thing you hate so much.

and now you have freedome to kille in the name of terror



No, the terrorists are terrorists because they engage in terrorism. Stand against whomever you want -- just do so in a civilized way. I feel like a broken record...

so what would you say the american are, bare in mind that most of the afghan population is against them being the country

I guess you have never made a mistake then?


course i have made mistakes every one does, but not as huge and stupid as you do

pir_Rokhan
04-26-2010, 01:12 AM
At worst, it is disrespectful, or libelous -- not terrorism.

Let me not use the word terrorism as you have copyrights of that word.You expect that one should not respond to disrespect,humiliation etc that too when they are muslims who consider the love of their prophet as a part of their faith while not worshipping him at the same time?.

The difference does not matter -- it still was not terrorism.

It was provocative and blasphemous and orthodox muslim [arab] scholars cosider death penalty for blasphemy.

No, that is what it takes to be in a free society. No one is threatening harm or torture if they don't agree with what free speech is -- they are just asking them to return the same respect they are given!

The so called free society guarantees freedom as long as people beleive in those notions which are considered correct by the power elite. The moment you say something against their notions the reality of their freedom is exposed.

Common sense. There is nothing in the images or cartoons that is a threat of harm, nor is there any physical harm caused by the images, thus it is not terrorism.

Terrorism, as I have repeatedly said, is not just physical harm [ which I condemn]. Terror, itself is a psychological phenomenon. Physical acts cause a certain percentage of terror in mind not all of it. The rest of it is caused by words, body language,social attitudes etc. This is what your free society does when they hurt the feelings of others by such provocative acts.


Please tell me -- other than the artists, or those supporting the artists, or innocents caught up in the riots, one single person that died because of these images, and not their own reaction to the images. I dare you.

How superficial can you guys get. Tell me, if someone shows you the nude pic of your wife, for example, to you , so this picture doesnot kill you ofcourse but it agravates the feelings of anger and hatred as a reaction and one might even kill the person. Multiply those feelings of anger and hatred by 100 and muslims feel [are indoctrinated to feel] that when they see any act or picture or show or video or audio which is demoralising and blasphemous. Ozy this is simple psychology, and it does not take the IQ of a genius to understand it.


... what? Please explain to me how an image is terrifying to you.

You are exhibiting the same lack of understanding again and again and again.

I'll be honest. I see no difference between an image of Tom and Jerry, Mohammed, Jesus, or any other cartoonified figure.

This is the clash of values and ideologies. Dont blame Huttington then. The clash of values and cultures and civilisation ,then is, impending. Thanx to the superficiality and lack of deep understanding of human nature by the "modern world".


WHAT TERRIFYING ACT?!?

Ozy, in your excitment, you even dint read the full sentence.Hold your horses and read the full sentence. I appreciate your enthisiasm for defending basic human rights but I dont appreciate your understandign of those basic rights.

They fully expected that response. That was the point of the cartoon. It is available online for free. I suggest you go watch it. They make a big fuss out of refusing to display his image out of fear of retaliation -- and they got that exact retaliation.

And in the free world, nothing is more sacred than free speech. The same cultural relativism applies -- only we are asking you to let us live in peace free from terrorism, and you are asking us to follow your ways and rules -- or be threatened with terrorist acts.

Well I support you on this. You may follow your ways of life and it should not clash with others' ways of life and if they do then find out a solution by discussing over the table. But the stubbornness of the modern world and the manipulative and exploitative nature of the elite class of the west or rest will not let you do that. Hence suffering is unavoidable. It is sad.

Simple, that's the way modern society in a free world works.

I am sure you know my response which I posted earlier.

Who cares how many are offended? If you are offended and don't watch, they stop doing it due to the loss of revenue, but other than that how many people they offend is not at all important.

Well they will use the same argument against your modern world. So you keep offending them and they keep offending you. Never let the grey matter be utilised in these affairs. They will be myrtors in the way of their God and your will be myrtors in the way of Freedom of speech.

I'll say it again: YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED.


I will predict it again to you. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO SUFFER [DEPENDIGN UPON THE QUALITY OF OFFENCE,IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER] AFTER OFFENDING OTHERS.


As a man with multiple MSes and working towards my first Ph.D, I am pretty sure I have one.Then again, maybe I should take the word of a man defending terrorism and confused by the very word 'terrorism' and go get an education. Or not.

I appreciate your multiple MS degrees but would have appreciated more if you had another thing which is not necessarily associated with multiple degrees. Anyway I was referring to the relevant education not just education though my words did not reveal that. Good luck in your PhD.

tor_khan
04-26-2010, 01:33 AM
No misplaced negative. I'll try and rephrase:

I doubt that you can prove that not a single terrorist, ever, was a muslim. There have been many high-profile terrorists that were muslim, and you would have to prove that they were not.

... And there have been many high-profile terrorists who were NOT Muslim ... As for "proof" - I quote myself somewhat reluctantly, as it would always be better to cite another source, but I simply want to re-emphasise a point that may have been missed:


It's a very simplistic view.

Terrorism is complex, and most here including me, see it for the harmful, indiscriminate and destructive thing that it is. Nelson Mandela opposed apartheid and took up arms against the state. He was arrested and imprisoned for 27 years under South African terrorism laws. Until two years ago, in 2008, it was still technically illegal for Nelson Mandela to enter the US because US laws don't allow convicted terrorists to pass through immigration.

Martin McGuinness, First Deputy Minister of Northern Ireland and Gerry Adams (President of Sinn Fein) are two examples of high-standing Roman Catholic politicians with know IRA connections.

Not all known terrorists are Muslims - some like the Irishmen are Catholic. Others, like Nelson Mandela are declared athiests. Oh, and Adolf Hitler, is still not declared a terrorist.

I'm still not sure about your wording, but I think you meant that your starting basis is that terrorists are Muslim until proven otherwise?

abubaker
04-26-2010, 01:45 AM
dont bother with the fool he is obiulsy stuffed to mouth with the cnn and fox bull****, the irish catholics who murdered so manyh innocent people in the name of catholcism are never refered to as christian/chatholic terrorists but yet they stress the word ''muslim terrorist''

imb706
04-26-2010, 03:25 AM
Well, talking of reactions to cartoons, I personally think you have some serious issues if you're willing to kill someone over a simple cartoon. It's just a drawing.

Master Khan
04-26-2010, 09:13 AM
this ozymandias is so ignorant.
We got the right for freedom of speech aswell, if someone insult us then we will insult them back.
The American Army kill innocent people but they are not terrorist, we get angry and thats it "we are terrorist", dude just sort yourself out, you are just a troll here.
Just go and make fun of your religion, culture and people and leave our alone.

Master Khan
04-26-2010, 09:18 AM
Well, talking of reactions to cartoons, I personally think you have some serious issues if you're willing to kill someone over a simple cartoon. It's just a drawing.
It was more then a drawing, the pictures he draw was really insulting and disrespecting

ozymandias
04-26-2010, 09:41 AM
Yes, but the U.S Army has made churches and foundations in Afghanistan attempting to convert Afghans.



US law prohibits this. Members of the military may have done so, or the military may have done so as part of a larger campaign to rebuild *all* infrastructure, but the military is prohibited from organized proselytizing, or supporting any one religion.



They even went as far as printing Bibles in Pashto and handing them out.



Again, not the military. I took a look, and googled this, and it appears that a church privately funded the printing of these bibles and then mailed them to church members in the service. This is *NOT* the military, or a military supported action. The news stories I found about this discussed the fact that the soldiers doing so were brought before their commander and had to discuss the fine line they were walking.



2)Ok. That will come later, It is interesting how you defend the honour of the U.S Army after many solders of the Army admitted to atrocities. We do need a new thread for that.


3)Okay. I do disagree, It started cause Pashtuns did not sign the gas deal with you Americans.



That old claim? Seriously? I guess we will just have to disagree on that one.



I hope you don't mind me just randomly logging in and quoting you but I just think I now have bones to pick.



As long as you don't pull a 'master' khan, and start ignoring the points I make, and selectively quoting me out of context, we are fine.



I am chuffed to bits however.

..?

ozymandias
04-26-2010, 09:44 AM
course i have made mistakes every one does, but not as huge and stupid as you do

Could you please refrain from the groundless personal attacks? They are disruptive to any sort of useful conversation.

Could you please cite these huge and stupid mistakes that I have *personally* made? I am not personally responsible for the American country, 'the west', or even the American military complex, nor do I support every action taken by any or all of those categories of people.

ozymandias
04-26-2010, 10:05 AM
At worst, it is disrespectful, or libelous -- not terrorism.

Let me not use the word terrorism as you have copyrights of that word.You expect that one should not respond to disrespect,humiliation etc that too when they are muslims who consider the love of their prophet as a part of their faith while not worshipping him at the same time?.



Could you at least try to read at least half of what I have posted in direct reply to you? I have made it *very* clear that I *SUPPORT* getting angry and responding to disrespect and 'humiliation'. I have said this repeatedly, time, and time again. Please re-read this paragraph. I support getting angry. I support getting upset. I support trying to change things. I *DO NOT SUPPORT TERRORIST RESPONSES*.

Get upset. Get angry. Try to get people to change -- but use *WORDS* not *BOMBS*. Got it?

Is the difficulty you are having understanding what I am saying based on the fact that you think it is impossible to be angry and not get violent? When you were a child, and your parents angered you, did you physically attack them? If your sibling did something you did not like, did you strike them? When your children are disobedient, do you kill them? No? You mean you are mentally capable of anger with out violence?



The difference does not matter -- it still was not terrorism.

It was provocative and blasphemous and orthodox muslim [arab] scholars cosider death penalty for blasphemy.



Guess what? The Danish cartoonists are not muslim. Nor are the authors of South Park. This is *EXACTLY* what I was talking about when I mentioned muslims trying to force the world to live according to their religious rules. You can consider that all you want. Hell, you can even give the death penalty to anyone that freely accepts your religious rules -- you just do not have the right to enforce your rules on non-believers.



No, that is what it takes to be in a free society. No one is threatening harm or torture if they don't agree with what free speech is -- they are just asking them to return the same respect they are given!

The so called free society guarantees freedom as long as people beleive in those notions which are considered correct by the power elite. The moment you say something against their notions the reality of their freedom is exposed.



False. You can *SPEAK OUT* all you want. You *CANNOT* get violent and force others to do your bidding through fear and violence. Free speech is a human right, and you are allowed to *SPEAK* against anything you want.



Common sense. There is nothing in the images or cartoons that is a threat of harm, nor is there any physical harm caused by the images, thus it is not terrorism.

Terrorism, as I have repeatedly said, is not just physical harm [ which I condemn]. Terror, itself is a psychological phenomenon. Physical acts cause a certain percentage of terror in mind not all of it. The rest of it is caused by words, body language,social attitudes etc. This is what your free society does when they hurt the feelings of others by such provocative acts.



I still do not see how you can be afraid of a cartoon you don't even have to watch. If you are scared of valid free speech, I guess that is your problem. As long as the free speech is rational, and the fear is not, you have no grounds to cry terrorism, otherwise we would have to avoid saying anything, as someone somewhere can claim to be scared of anything.



Please tell me -- other than the artists, or those supporting the artists, or innocents caught up in the riots, one single person that died because of these images, and not their own reaction to the images. I dare you.

How superficial can you guys get. Tell me, if someone shows you the nude pic of your wife, for example, to you , so this picture doesnot kill you ofcourse but it agravates the feelings of anger and hatred as a reaction and one might even kill the person.



Nope. I am not a violent person, and would not attempt to physically harm the person -- I am civilized.



Multiply those feelings of anger and hatred by 100 and muslims feel [are indoctrinated to feel] that when they see any act or picture or show or video or audio which is demoralising and blasphemous. Ozy this is simple psychology, and it does not take the IQ of a genius to understand it.



Evidently it does -- you are leaping from anger to violence and seem to think that they go hand in hand and justify each other. They do not. It is possible to be angery and not violent.



... what? Please explain to me how an image is terrifying to you.

You are exhibiting the same lack of understanding again and again and again.



I'll have to blame you and those trying to claim the image terrifies them for their failure to explain. I simply do not understand how an image can *TERRORIZE* you.



I'll be honest. I see no difference between an image of Tom and Jerry, Mohammed, Jesus, or any other cartoonified figure.

This is the clash of values and ideologies. Dont blame Huttington then. The clash of values and cultures and civilisation ,then is, impending. Thanx to the superficiality and lack of deep understanding of human nature by the "modern world".



Differing values and ideals are acceptable -- as long as you do not try and force others to abide by *your* values and ideals. You can convince them all you want, but you cannot force them.




WHAT TERRIFYING ACT?!?

Ozy, in your excitment, you even dint read the full sentence.Hold your horses and read the full sentence. I appreciate your enthisiasm for defending basic human rights but I dont appreciate your understandign of those basic rights.



It's darn inconvienient to you that I *HAVE* an understanding of basic human rights, isn't it. Makes it hard for you to pretend to have a valid argument when I can point out your argument is in violation of those human rights, isn't it?



They fully expected that response. That was the point of the cartoon. It is available online for free. I suggest you go watch it. They make a big fuss out of refusing to display his image out of fear of retaliation -- and they got that exact retaliation.

And in the free world, nothing is more sacred than free speech. The same cultural relativism applies -- only we are asking you to let us live in peace free from terrorism, and you are asking us to follow your ways and rules -- or be threatened with terrorist acts.

Well I support you on this. You may follow your ways of life and it should not clash with others' ways of life and if they do then find out a solution by discussing over the table. But the stubbornness of the modern world and the manipulative and exploitative nature of the elite class of the west or rest will not let you do that. Hence suffering is unavoidable. It is sad.



The suffering is unavoidable due to the fact that there are uncivilized terrorists that cannot get angery without resorting to violence. It is the terrorists that are wrong, and not the 'elite class of the west' who are merely exercising their basic human rights.



Simple, that's the way modern society in a free world works.

I am sure you know my response which I posted earlier.

Who cares how many are offended? If you are offended and don't watch, they stop doing it due to the loss of revenue, but other than that how many people they offend is not at all important.

Well they will use the same argument against your modern world. So you keep offending them and they keep offending you. Never let the grey matter be utilised in these affairs. They will be myrtors in the way of their God and your will be myrtors in the way of Freedom of speech.



That argument falls apart pretty quickly. The only way to avoid being the target of the terrorists is to avoid exercising your rights. It's not as simple as "don't watch" when a terrorist is out to get you. As the Danish cartoonist has shown, he is not the vicitm and target of terrorism. How does he go about 'changing the channel' and getting that to stop? He can't.



I'll say it again: YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED.


I will predict it again to you. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO SUFFER [DEPENDIGN UPON THE QUALITY OF OFFENCE,IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER] AFTER OFFENDING OTHERS.



That is partially true. I do have a right not to be attacked physically or the victim of terrorism for exercising my right to free speech. I do not have the right not to be verbially refuted or verbially attacked, or economically 'attacked'. I have a right to personal secuirity that prohibits the use of terrorism -- this is inherent into free speech.

I have the right to say what I want, you have the right to say what you want in reply. That's how free speech works.



As a man with multiple MSes and working towards my first Ph.D, I am pretty sure I have one.Then again, maybe I should take the word of a man defending terrorism and confused by the very word 'terrorism' and go get an education. Or not.

I appreciate your multiple MS degrees but would have appreciated more if you had another thing which is not necessarily associated with multiple degrees. Anyway I was referring to the relevant education not just education though my words did not reveal that. Good luck in your PhD.

Thank you.

ozymandias
04-26-2010, 10:10 AM
... And there have been many high-profile terrorists who were NOT Muslim



Since we agree that there have been muslim terrorists, you might as well drop this -- you just agreed to my point. I have never said that all terrorists are muslim.



... As for "proof" - I quote myself somewhat reluctantly, as it would always be better to cite another source, but I simply want to re-emphasise a point that may have been missed:



I'm still not sure about your wording, but I think you meant that your starting basis is that terrorists are Muslim until proven otherwise?

Please do not be deliberately dense. I have never stated, implied or otherwise implicated that. I have simply stated that some terrorists are muslim, while some are not. I was originally stopping by to ask why the muslim community does not follow the footsteps of every other community that has terrorists in it, and vilified the terrorists and distanced themselves from them.

I have stuck around to ask why people actually are supporting the terrorists. It interests me that you are doing the very thing that you (as a community) cry about. You (as a community, especially on this forum) claim that you are being demonized by the west -- and then people in the very same post do exactly what the 'demonizing' claims you do -- SUPPORT TERRORISTS.

ozymandias
04-26-2010, 10:12 AM
dont bother with the fool he is obiulsy stuffed to mouth with the cnn and fox bull****,



Never watch either. I am a bit more liberal than fox, and cannot stand the tripe they publish, and CNN is just out to make a buck, and thus has begun yellow, shoddy journalism.



the irish catholics who murdered so manyh innocent people in the name of catholcism are never refered to as christian/chatholic terrorists but yet they stress the word ''muslim terrorist''

Well, I'm not sure where you are from, but in the US, they most definitely are labeled 'terrorists'.

ozymandias
04-26-2010, 10:13 AM
Well, talking of reactions to cartoons, I personally think you have some serious issues if you're willing to kill someone over a simple cartoon. It's just a drawing.

Thank you for being reasonable and rational.

ozymandias
04-26-2010, 10:14 AM
^much larger meaning then that.

This is about our prophet

... so? It's still just a drawing that you do not have to look at. It's not worth killing over -- and that very attitude is the cause of pretty much all of your problems.

ozymandias
04-26-2010, 10:23 AM
this ozymandias is so ignorant.
We got the right for freedom of speech aswell, if someone insult us then we will insult them back.



I will defend your right to do so to my death.

I think you have serious issues, however, when you are confusing 'insult' with 'murder'. I will never support terrorism.



The American Army kill innocent people but they are not terrorist,

Already discussed this. There is a vast difference between a nation taking formal military action and causing accidental collateral damage to innocent civilians, and a group deliberaty targeting civilians in order to instill fear and terror.



we get angry and thats it "we are terrorist",



Could you please stop lying? No one has ever said you do not have the right to get angry, nor has anyone stated anger makes you a 'terrorist'.



dude just sort yourself out, you are just a troll here.



The problem is all yours. You are confusing 'anger' with 'violent reaction', and has made it hard for you to follow the thread. Once you understand that it is possible to be angry and not be violent, things will suddenly make more sense.

I have lost track of the number of times I have pointed that out to you.



Just go and make fun of your religion, culture and people and leave our alone.To be fair, to the best of my knowledge, I have never made fun of your religion, culture, or people. I am simply defending the right of free speech, which allows others to do so. You seem to be blaming me, personally, for anything 'the west' has ever done that has upset you -- which is quite concerning, as you time and time again have shown that you are immature and unable to separate emotion from physical reactions, not to mention your repeated and public support of terrorism against people that offend you.

ozymandias
04-26-2010, 10:24 AM
It was more then a drawing, the pictures he draw was really insulting and disrespecting


Sorry, I didn't draw it.

Even if it was insulting, and disrespectful *IT WAS STILL JUST A DRAWING*.

ozymandias
04-26-2010, 10:28 AM
I will report anyone who disrespect Ozymandias to Admin Khan.

He is our member and our guest. Treat him with hospitality.

Thank you. It is nice to see that not everyone is as reactionary as some people were starting to appear.

Let me know if I get this right: Shukran (or) Sta na shukria.

ozymandias
04-26-2010, 11:39 AM
^Amazing. A lot of us would understand that.


but we would say,

Manana to say Thank you.


so it would be

Sta na manana

or dera manana.



Sta na manana




Ozy,

I am a bit confused with your points.

What's your expectation from Muslims, can you explain.

I was asked to start posting in this forum, so I did -- I originally wanted to know what I was not hearing much about the Muslim faith speaking out about the terrorists. It seemed strange to me that such despicable acts could be attributed to Islam -- and other muslims were not upset by this. Some were, but it seemed far too few for what I am used to (I see 'Not in my name' protests fairly often).

Now I am interested in just continuing the conversation. The more we learn about each other, the better we all are, and the abundant support for terrorists fascinates me.

In addition, attitudes like "master" khan's, while juvenile, are informative. The world he lives in is clearly very different than that the one I am used to, and other people's attitudes to him (and those like him) and what he says shows me a huge rift in world views. In my world, that rift is something to examine.

Finally, I am endlessly curious as to what makes people tick, and enjoy learning about what they believe. While I myself am not religious, the world is filled with those that are, and we all need to learn to get along. The only way to truly do that is to open the lines of communication.

Primarily I am here to entertain, be entertained, to learn, and to teach.

ozymandias
04-26-2010, 12:12 PM
it's really nice to have you here. You are not only an equal member but you are also our guest.

I'd like to see you contribute in othr forums as well, primarily politics as I want to see your view on current affairs since it's obvious you are thinking differently and you seem deviated amongst a few here.

I'll try and make time ;-)

ozymandias
04-26-2010, 12:14 PM
@Ozymandias

haven't you ever thougt why the Muslim world is so sensitive and quick to respond to such things?

Frankly, it's becoming quickly obvious.

Now the question is why so many of you go straight to violence when emotional.

ozymandias
04-26-2010, 12:52 PM
Ozy

our community is under attack for a decade.


Americans are in our country killing innocent civilians, many of which is unreported.



This is a shame, and in many cases, it is a crime. Not always, but many times. When it is a crime, that is a terrible, terrible thing, and needs to be addressed. When it is an accident as part of a valid military action, then it is not a crime. It's still a needless death, but it is not a crime. If you were to avoid all civilian casualties when engaging in a war, you would never be able to make a single move -- and the enemy -- who in this case has made it very clear that they have no qualms with killing civilians (remember, it was one of the largest acts of terrorism *ever* that started this whole fiasco).



Then they go and say our prophet is terrorist, you don't see anything wrong with that.

No, I don't. It's free speech, and there is *never* anything wrong with free speech.

Not to mention the fact that that is a moot point. No matter what 'they' did, terrorism is not justified -- not even in response to terrorism, let alone a basic human right.

The appropriate response is to use free speech to correct the issue, not violence.

ozymandias
04-26-2010, 01:49 PM
Do you think making fun of our prophet us acceptable

I'm frankly getting *very* tired of answering this question.

Yes. I do. It is free speech. That is really all that needs to be said, but I will expand further:

Let me put this another way: I hold free speech in highest regard, but I find it acceptable to make fun of free speech. I think it is acceptible to make fun of *anything* no matter how rude or offensive you, or I may find it. If the speaker chooses to be rude, you can and do have the right to not like them, to speak out against them, to boycott them, or any number of *LEGAL* and *MORAL* retaliations.

I may not agree with what someone may say, but I will defend to the death their right to say it.

I do not agree that all human beings right should be infringed with the limitation that we must all respect the Muslim traditions and show proper respect to Mohammed, but I will defend your right to request that special privilege.

Badlun
04-26-2010, 02:58 PM
This is a very good discussion and lot can be learnt not only in substance but also to understand the attitudes. Here ewe have extremist voices as well as moderate voices like that of Afghanlady.

Extremism in any shape is bad and must be condemned. As it is said that excess in every thing is bad. Non Muslims when talking of Islam or any religion and the prophet of Islam or any other religion must show due respect and then may ask or criticize Islam with valid arguments.

Non Muslims may encourage moderate Muslims and Muslims in gneral by giving them exposures of the developed world and may not give such remarks that the extremists muslims exploit those remarks of the non Muslims and make moderate Muslims also terrorists. This is what going on and terrorism is a viscious circle as terrorist Muslim use the excuses of Palestine, Iraq, Bosnia, Chechnya and Afghanistan as reason for their terrorism.

Muslims instead of arms and terrorism may argue with non Muslims in a educated way and may try to falsify the wrong propaganda of Non Muslims against Islam. After all religion is for peace not for wars.

abubaker
04-26-2010, 03:08 PM
like i said before that freedome of speach only applied to you guys, you can say what ever you want but as soon as some one else says things that you dont like or disagree with they by default become anti-semetics and terrorists, look at what happens to people who deny the or have reservations abouth the holucost, they are put in prisons. so dont give me the freedome of speach sh..t when it only applies to your powerfull elite

and no you dont have the right to insult us

abubaker
04-26-2010, 03:10 PM
This is a very good discussion and lot can be learnt not only in substance but also to understand the attitudes. Here ewe have extremist voices as well as moderate voices like that of Afghanlady.

Extremism in any shape is bad and must be condemned. As it is said that excess in every thing is bad. Non Muslims when talking of Islam or any religion and the prophet of Islam or any other religion must show due respect and then may ask or criticize Islam with valid arguments.

Non Muslims may encourage moderate Muslims and Muslims in gneral by giving them exposures of the developed world and may not give such remarks that the extremists muslims exploit those remarks of the non Muslims and make moderate Muslims also terrorists. This is what going on and terrorism is a viscious circle as terrorist Muslim use the excuses of Palestine, Iraq, Bosnia, Chechnya and Afghanistan as reason for their terrorism.

Muslims instead of arms and terrorism may argue with non Muslims in a educated way and may try to falsify the wrong propaganda of Non Muslims against Islam. After all religion is for peace not for wars.


what is a moderate muslims, what do you have in mind when are talking of moderate muslims

ozymandias
04-26-2010, 03:17 PM
This is a very good discussion and lot can be learnt not only in substance but also to understand the attitudes. Here ewe have extremist voices as well as moderate voices like that of Afghanlady.

Extremism in any shape is bad and must be condemned. As it is said that excess in every thing is bad. Non Muslims when talking of Islam or any religion and the prophet of Islam or any other religion must show due respect and then may ask or criticize Islam with valid arguments.



Replace 'must' with 'should' and I agree.



Non Muslims may encourage moderate Muslims and Muslims in gneral by giving them exposures of the developed world and may not give such remarks that the extremists muslims exploit those remarks of the non Muslims and make moderate Muslims also terrorists. This is what going on and terrorism is a viscious circle as terrorist Muslim use the excuses of Palestine, Iraq, Bosnia, Chechnya and Afghanistan as reason for their terrorism.



The 'non-muslims' are not wrong. It is the terrorists that are wrong. Period.



Muslims instead of arms and terrorism may argue with non Muslims in a educated way and may try to falsify the wrong propaganda of Non Muslims against Islam. After all religion is for peace not for wars.

I like you.

ozymandias
04-26-2010, 03:31 PM
like i said before that freedome of speach only applied to you guys,



Universal Human Right. Applies to everyone.



you can say what ever you want but as soon as some one else says things that you dont like or disagree with they by default become anti-semetics



You act like that prevents you from exercising free speech. You can be homophobic, racist, sexist, anti-semetic, or any other bigotted belief you want -- and you still have the right to free speech. This time the shoe is on the other foot -- you have the right to free speech -- they do not have the right *not* to be offended. As long as they just use words to argue with you, you are both fine.



and terrorists,



Words do not make terrorists -- actions and convincing threats of actions do.



look at what happens to people who deny the or have reservations abouth the holucost, they are put in prisons.



In *WHAT* country? This is the first time I have heard of someone arrested as a Holocaust denier.



so dont give me the freedome of speach sh..t when it only applies to your powerfull elite



False.



and no you dont have the right to insult us

False as well. I am a human being, and thus have every right to free speech. I choose not to, as insulting you would not encourage adult discussion and would be counterproductive -- and it may be against the forum rules, which would end all this fun.

Badlun
04-26-2010, 06:06 PM
what is a moderate muslims, what do you have in mind when are talking of moderate muslims
Moserate muslims are the about 95% of muslims who are not Slafis, Ahle hadith, Wahabis, extremist Deobandis, Taliban or members of terrorist groups like Lashkari Jhangawi, Hizbe tehrir, Alqaida etc.

Badlun
04-26-2010, 06:08 PM
Replace 'must' with 'should' and I agree.



The 'non-muslims' are not wrong. It is the terrorists that are wrong. Period.



I like you.
sorry I became extremist in condemining extremists hahaaa, you may use should for must.

Terrorists are definitely wrong an dsoem of the non Muslims too who create such environments where terrorists flourish.

ozymandias
04-26-2010, 06:29 PM
sorry I became extremist in condemining extremists hahaaa, you may use should for must.

Terrorists are definitely wrong an dsoem of the non Muslims too who create such environments where terrorists flourish.

I'll give you that.

ozymandias
04-26-2010, 07:04 PM
Ozymandias.

Why are you an athiest? Why don't you embrace Islam? A religion of peace.

The same reason I don't embrace any other religion -- they all seem silly and illogical to me -- but that is likely to derail this thread. If you want to discuss this, we will need to start a new thread, and agree to a few ground rules -- and I might want to chat with a moderator or two first both to get permission, and support keeping the thread on track.

ozymandias
04-26-2010, 07:27 PM
^That is fine. I don't mind.


I think the president here is Admin Khan.

speak to him about whatever you have to.


Lets keep this open-minded.

I am sure a lot of members are going to participate.

As am I -- and that can get out of control pretty fast.

imb706
04-27-2010, 06:32 AM
Well, I'm an atheist as well, pretty much for the same reasons

imb706
04-27-2010, 06:35 AM
It was more then a drawing, the pictures he draw was really insulting and disrespecting They don't seem that insulting to me. If they meant to convey that some muslims are violent, I guess the muslim response proved it right. I mean, there were muslims wanting to blow up an entire country over a cartoon! It's a bit silly, you have to admit.

ozymandias
04-27-2010, 08:35 AM
They don't seem that insulting to me. If they meant to convey that some muslims are violent, I guess the muslim response proved it right. I mean, there were muslims wanting to blow up an entire country over a cartoon! It's a bit silly, you have to admit.

I think that hits the bulls-eye. The reaction only justifies the original cartoons and characterizations made. Had the reaction not been violent and repressive, even I would agree that the cartoons would have been needlessly offensive, and simply done to generate revenue. As it is, they were made, at least in part, to defend free speech.

imb706
04-27-2010, 08:38 AM
All the cartoons did was voice legitimate concerns. Free speech is all about that.

ozymandias
04-27-2010, 11:11 AM
Ozymandias,
look at the thread in the religion forum about the Australian camera harassing the Muslim guy and when the Muslim guy retaliated that is all that's shown.


That is exactly what is happening nowadays, the community is under attack. Muslims are very sensitive.


Let me ask this yet again: "So what?" Nothing done to muslims justifies terrorism. Get angry. Get upset. Work to solve the problem -- don't make the problem worse.

I know the video you are talking about, and if Muslims did not have a reputation (justifiably so -- just look at this thread!) of resorting to violence and terrorism, or supporting and defending resorting to violence and terrorism, people would not call them terrorists, or harass them like that. You are upset you are being labeled terrorists -- but many of you (not all) either are terrorists, or support them. Look at this thread -- only recently have many people begun to speak out against the terrorists. For almost 20 pages the vast majority of posters either outright supported the terrorists, or blamed the victims rather than the terrorists -- and then you act outraged that people associate you with the people you support.

I'm not saying all muslims are terrorists -- most of my muslim friends would be infuriated by this thread and the support the terrorists get here -- but enough of you do to make it not unreasonable that you have a reputation.

Frankly my view of your faith has changed drastically in this thread, and not for the better. I came here wondering why you have an international reputation of violence, and why you do not get a voice and speak out against that reputation -- now I am wondering what horrible gulf exists between many muslims and the modern world -- and how they can support terrorism and turn around and cry about being labeled as terrorist sympathisers.

I have met more than one person in this thread that I am eager to continue discussions with, and I feel I can have a lot to learn from them, and hopefully something to teach them. I have even met some that I think are closer to my way of view than they think -- they say that they disagree with everything I have to say -- but are happy I am posting here, and want me to continue to provide a different view point -- that's not far from my point of view. On the other hand, there is at least one poster that I would not want to meet in person - a dark alley or not -- simply because they honestly frighten me, and come across as an actual factual psychopath with no concept of scale, or right and wrong.

ozymandias
04-27-2010, 11:48 AM
Ozymandias,
I'd like to wecome you here, it's a pleasure to have you here and I look forward in learning from you.



Thank you.



I as a Muslim feel as though if the media insults us, we should in a professional way respond and simply ask why? Rather then putting up signs saying Death to Ozymandias and what not.



If you are in the US, and decide to do this, I will gladly come and hold a sign with you.

[/quote]

That just worsens our image as Muslims, we Muslims now have this reputation of killing simply because

A)We have caused it upon ourself, This is not entirely our fault but it does have a major play in it.


[/quote]

Exactly. Your faith as a whole has earned this reputation. Cast out and reject those that do inappropriate things in the name of your faith. Make it clear that your faith *IS* a peaceful faith an that the terrorists are imposters -- people using your faith as a cloak and an excuse.



Education plays a major role in it.



But now hypothetically speaking, when a country invadeds our motherland, start raping our women,start killing our innocent people, I then justify a retaliation.



I agree -- as long as you handle it correctly. The difference between terrorists and freedom fighters is targets. Terrorists attack indiscriminately -- or even target civilians, in an effort to force their will through fear. Freedom fighters are a legitimate military group targeting principally legitimate military targets (collateral damage is terrible, but sometimes is unavoidable) and using legitimate military tactics.

Crashing planes into civilian businesses, bombing subways and buses, poison gas, assassination of civilians, death threats, home invasions, rioting in civilian areas, torching civilian vehicles etc are not legitimate ways to attack.



I'd like apologize on most peoples behalf here, that does not represent our Pashtun Nation or the Muslim world.



I am coming to understand that there are some wonderful people hidden out there. I look forward to talking with you more.



Salamoona graana wrora
(Peace on you dear brother)

Salamoona graaa wrora, and sta na manëna for the translation -- I am *trying* to learn ;-)

Admin Khan
04-27-2010, 12:07 PM
Hmm, what do I think of this? Let's see.

I think I would blame our Muslim world before we blame anyone else. Our response to the cartoons was very,very poor. Having signs up like "Death to the U.S.A" really hurts our image exponentially. An innocent German who is home watching his T.V and puts on his local news channel and all he see's is people having signs up, chanting slogans and racial slurs really leads to a negative image and a negative effect on the viewers brain, especially if the viewer is young.(cognitive science agrees with this).

What could we have done? Muslims could have gathered together, a few of our well-educated leaders could have rented a nice place in a hotel(preferably a conference-room)contacted the cartoonist and held some talks, Talks based on mutual understanding,equality and human rights. We could have professionally explained how this hurt our feelings and I am sure they would have understood.

But now that our reaction was so negative, They have made this day called "Draw Muhammad day" in which, I believe on that current day everyone is asked to draw our beloved prophet. Now ask, who's fault is it. Am I trying to justify the cartoonist behaviour? Not at all. But you can see what the response of the Muslim world brought upon us.

Let me make myself and my stance very clear, I am by no way attempting to provide justification for what he did, I just think Muslims handled it very poorly. Was it offensive? Yes to believers it was.

You see, what our youth does not understand is, Lets say for the sake of the argument someone DID indeed kill the cartoonist, doesn't the cartoonist have a community? Doesn't he have children? Just like how Pashtuns are quick to take badal(revenge) so would the cartoonist's family and his community. They would even draw worse stuff to hurt the feelings of the Muslims even more.

We should not, at anytime let our anger get the best of us. So far it seems as though it has for the most part and we are now facing the consequences, people are establishing political careers off of the anger of the Muslim world.

Did I find it offensive? I am sure anyone would find such a thing as insulting, but a lot of people were awaiting upon our response and it did not turn out to be so good. We sort of digged a bigger hole for ourselves.

ozymandias
04-27-2010, 12:19 PM
Hmm, what do I think of this? Let's see.

I think I would blame our Muslim world before we blame anyone else. Our response to the cartoons was very,very poor. Having signs up like "Death to the U.S.A" really hurts our image exponentially. An innocent German who is home watching his T.V and puts on his local news channel and all he see's is people having signs up, chanting slogans and racial slurs really leads to a negative image and a negative effect on the viewers brain, especially if the viewer is young.(cognitive science agrees with this).



I agree whole heartedly.



What could we have done? Muslims could have gathered together, a few of our well-educated leaders could have rented a nice place in a hotel(preferably a conference-room)contacted the cartoonist and held some talks, Talks based on mutual understanding,equality and human rights. We could have professionally explained how this hurt our feelings and I am sure they would have understood.



Again, I agree.



But now that our reaction was so negative, They have made this day called "Draw Muhammad day" in which, I believe on that current day everyone is asked to draw our beloved prophet. Now ask, who's fault is it. Am I trying to justify the cartoonist behaviour? Not at all. But you can see what the response of the Muslim world brought them upon,themselves.



if you are ever in my neck of the woods, I would like to hang out with you. Traditionally, I offer to buy a round of beer -- but I feel that would be inappropriate here, so you pick ;-)



Let me make myself and my stance very clear, I am by no way attempting to provide justification for what he did, I just think Muslims handled it very poorly. Was it offensive? Yes to believers it was.

You see, what our youth does not understand is, Lets say for the sake of the argument someone DID indeed kill the cartoonist, doesn't the cartoonist have a community? Doesn't he have children? Just like how Pashtuns are quick to take badal(revenge) so would the cartoonist's family and his community. They would even draw worse stuff to hurt the feelings of the Muslims even more.

We should not, at anytime let our anger get the best of us. So far it seems as though it has for the most part and we are now facing the consequences, people are establishing political careers off of the anger of the Muslim world.



If all the people involved had acted as you do, this issue would have dried up and became a non-issue a long time ago.



Did I find it offensive? I am sure anyone would find such a thing as insulting, but a lot of people were awaiting upon our response and it did not turn out to be so good. We sort of digged a bigger hole for ourselves.

I must say, to see such a rational response from the Admin makes me feel a heck of a lot better. I'm no longer quite so worried about this thread getting too out of hand, and I am glad to find at least one post so far that I agree with from start to finish.

Master Khan
04-27-2010, 01:01 PM
@Ozymandias
So biscally you are saying that if someone in****s our Religion and culture then instend going violence about it, we should deal with it in court and sue them for it.

ozymandias
04-27-2010, 02:46 PM
@Ozymandias
So biscally you are saying that if someone in****s our Religion and culture then instend going violence about it, we should deal with it in court and sue them for it.
That is one valid response. You can even deal with it less formally -- letters of complaint, peaceful protests, boycotts, those sorts of things. Politely asking people to stop, and presenting your side would go a long way, as would economic impacts. At the very least, it would give them less fuel to use to call you violent with.

Admin Khan
04-27-2010, 02:52 PM
Respected Ozymandias,

I appreciate the sincere remarks, It's a pleasure to have you here in our community, consider this place as your home. It's nice to know that my response met your standards.


Sincerely,

-Admin Khan

Mutakhasis
04-27-2010, 11:32 PM
This is a backward understanding of things, insulting any of the Anbiya or mursaleen is a punishment of death. No matter who says it even if it was a joke, the Sahaabah [ra] immediately killed that person without being asked to repent. And this is well-known amongst the Muslims after them, it is only our recent generations that have no self-respect nor jealousy towards our deen and allow people to insult Rasulullah [saw] in the name of modernity.


And using words like radical only shows the persons shallow understanding, what is a radical? Do you even know what it means? and how is being a radical against Islam?

inqilab
04-28-2010, 01:27 AM
Totally agree. Like queen of hearts said: "Off with his head!"

imb706
04-28-2010, 02:28 AM
his is a backward understanding of things, insulting any of the Anbiya or mursaleen is a punishment of death. No matter who says it even if it was a joke, the Sahaabah [ra] immediately killed that person without being asked to repent. And this is well-known amongst the Muslims after them, it is only our recent generations that have no self-respect nor jealousy towards our deen and allow people to insult Rasulullah [saw] in the name of modernity. And some wonder why muslims are perceived as violent.

tor_khan
04-28-2010, 04:22 AM
And some wonder why muslims are perceived as violent.

It's all relative and varies from society to society. Here in (Muslim) UAE, you can walk between two tall buildings at 3am with your entire gold and diamond collection in a see-through polythene bag and nobody bats an eye.

You couldn't do that in London, New York or LA.

Poverty, greed and lack of opportunity drives this. Not simply being Muslim.

imb706
04-28-2010, 05:32 AM
You're right about relativity, but wrong in your conclusion. For example LA (which is five cities making up a mega city) is extremely relative and while South Central LA is known for crime (actually a bit exaggerated), other areas are nearly crime free. In reality, the most crime ridden cities are Detroit and Baltimore, while San Fransisco, Honolulu, and others are extremely safe. I certainly wouldn't aspire to be like the UAE, which is full of problems. Countries like that are full of crime and full of social ills far worse than ours, and citizens will admit it when they can (long before I even had concrete political and social opinions, I remember reading on the satirical writer Maddox's page about how his website was banned in the UAE, he got tons of support from UAE citizens who told him about censorship and about how crime isn't reported on there). In reality, places like that have extensive state media that filters out news far worse than Fox News and CNN. And the UAE's economy is based on a city state that essentially just sucks wealth out of neighboring countries, it's like Alaska, it's a welfarian. Anyway, about cartoons, if you riot and get violent over cartoons, you have serious maturity or even mental issues. Strangely enough, Muslims aren't rioting everyday about the statue of Muhammad in Washington D.C.

tor_khan
04-28-2010, 05:58 AM
You're right about relativity, but wrong in your conclusion.

I wrote: Poverty, greed and lack of opportunity*drives this.
* = people vulnerable to radicalism - this is less the case in the UAE, because bellies are not hungry

The UAE has a many things wrong with it, but many things right. Media is heavily controlled, but you see, in the middle east, there are alternative voices - blogging is widespread, news spreads and old and new forms of communication - open air story and poetry nights and SMS technology allows for the spread of information. People know a "truth" when they see it, they also know a "lie" when it is told to them. But we don't deal in black and white - the East in general is very culturally rich and this is not North Korea.

There is nothing "alternative" about Fox. It's Hollywood - soft lights and glowing faces. You misunderstand the integrity of your own media if you're standards are based on Fox News. The US does have better output, but you're not talking about that and trouble is that Fox is what is exported around the world. It is the face that they US sells globally.

Simply put, Fox News is pitched low and peddles crude stereotypes. It is really for Barney viewers who don't know the difference between Iran and Iraq except that they end in different letters.

imb706
04-28-2010, 06:25 AM
I wrote: Poverty, greed and lack of opportunity*drives this. Well, the Middle East is king of all three, maybe only beaten by Africa. But certainly poverty isn't responsible for ridiculous protest against cartoons. That's just stupidity and being a crybaby.

The Middle East would be an absolute craphole without fossil fuels. These are new nations carved up and artificially created by the British, and they haven't faced the same trials, issues or have made the same achivements as other nations because they simply exist for and because of oil.

The UAE has a many things wrong with it, but many things right. Media is heavily controlled, but you see, in the middle east, there are alternative voices - blogging is widespread,So it's heavily controlled but there's alternatives? That doesn't make sense.

Blogging is primarily people talking about their daily lives on a widespread forum. The vast majority of "political" blogging is done in Europe and the US. You blog about real controversial issues in the Middle East, it's off to prison or death.

news spreads and old and new forms of communication - open air story and poetry nights and SMS technologPoetry nights? Damn, that reminds me of San Fransisco...

eople know a "truth" when they see it, they also know a "lie" when it is told to them. Not really, humans are highly emotional and susceptible creatures, we usually don't see the truth at face value. Any fully controlled state media is automatically untrustworthy. It's one of the worst things to do, take the media, in theory (not always in practice) an indepedent outlet to voices concerns and inform people, and give it to people in power is terrible.


There is nothing "alternative" about Fox.Well, no argument there, but "alternative" news in the US is everywhere, it's just not given much exposure. Let's see, PBS, Democracy Now, Firedog Lake, NPR, etc. Independent alternative news is in abundance and I've been listening and reading it for years.

The US does have better output, but you're not talking about that and trouble is that Fox is what is exported around the world. It is the face that they US sells globally.Yes true but Fox isn't a mouthpiece of the government, it's a mouthpiece of an Australian conservative and his massive corporate backing. I'm no fan of Obama, but they oppose him simply because he's not GOP, even though he acts like it. But anyway, they still oppose him. They even had a host almost call him a n-----r once.


Simply put, Fox News is pitched low and peddles crude stereotypes. It is really for Barney viewers who don't know the difference between Iran and Iraq except that they end in different letters. I agree that Fox News heavily contributes in a negative way. We need fair media laws that prevent major networks from openly lying and distorting things. But we don't deal in black and white - the East in general is very culturally rich and this is not North Korea. What does culturally rich mean?

ozymandias
04-28-2010, 09:10 AM
This is a backward understanding of things, insulting any of the Anbiya or mursaleen is a punishment of death. No matter who says it even if it was a joke, the Sahaabah [ra] immediately killed that person without being asked to repent. And this is well-known amongst the Muslims after them, it is only our recent generations that have no self-respect nor jealousy towards our deen and allow people to insult Rasulullah [saw] in the name of modernity.


And using words like radical only shows the persons shallow understanding, what is a radical? Do you even know what it means? and how is being a radical against Islam?


And this is the problem. Feel free to practice *any* religious practices you want. You have that right. You do not have the right to force others to follow your traditions or laws -- they have the right to follow their own path.

You are a perfect example of the radical, terrorist supporting Muslim that the world sees. It is people like you that undermines the Muslim communities right to play the victim when demonized. You support the very things 'the West' berates you for. If the community does not reject what you say, they have no right to be offended or insulted when you are all associated together.

Congratulations on once again supporting terrorism and dragging the name of yuor religion and prophet through the mud. I would say what you just did is far more disrespectful and insulting to Mohammed than a mere cartoon drawn out of misunderstanding by a non-believer.

tor_khan
04-28-2010, 09:12 AM
Well, the Middle East is king of all three, maybe only beaten by Africa. But certainly poverty isn't responsible for ridiculous protest against cartoons. That's just stupidity and being a crybaby.

Crybaby? Let's not mince words - is that what you are calling me?
Frankly, I don't know whether I should respond to that - but - I'll try to respond to the first part.

My guess is that you know very little about the middle east and that your views are made up by the social setting in which you were raised. The middle east is a complicated place, just like the US is. We share that in common.

In my opinion stark contrasts in wealth and opportunity make places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan volatile whereas it makes places like Qatar, the UAE and Malaysia less so. All are examples of Muslim countries.

The Middle East would be an absolute craphole without fossil fuels. These are new nations carved up and artificially created by the British, and they haven't faced the same trials, issues or have made the same achivements as other nations because they simply exist for and because of oil.

People who call the middle east a craphole are the kinds of people who call Arabs Sand ******s and Afghans Towel Heads. I'm surprised you censored yourself when you wrote that Fox all but calls Obama racist names. But why do you have two standards? Go on, say it. Have a moment and get it off your chest. However, the fact that it's illegal in the US to make racist remarks, makes people creative in how they express it. Yours was just the example of it.

So it's heavily controlled but there's alternatives? That doesn't make sense.

Yes, at the state level it is. But in the modern age, things change.

I wasn't going to mention it - but you force me - Al Jazeera has emerged as a real alternative media voice. I have mixed feelings about the media group, but it is known that Al Jazeera have built up a voice of opposition and that they continually hold up a mirror and embarass Arab governments. They do talk about democracy, gender issues, religion and social change. The trouble is, in the West, the only Arabic media you know (like Al Jazeera) is of footage carried by the Fox of Arab news stations playing videos of Osama.

Blogging is primarily people talking about their daily lives on a widespread forum. The vast majority of "political" blogging is done in Europe and the US. You blog about real controversial issues in the Middle East, it's off to prison or death.

And you know, because you live here ... Wake up brother, you're sounding more a Southern redneck the more you go on.

Most bloggers per population of people, are in fact just across the waters from here, in Iran. The US, despite being the biggest internet users, cannot boast the same quota. Why?

Perhaps its because 60% of Iranians are graduates who DO write. Americans come nowhere near that figure of being informed.

Not really, humans are highly emotional and susceptible creatures, we usually don't see the truth at face value. Any fully controlled state media is automatically untrustworthy. It's one of the worst things to do, take the media, in theory (not always in practice) an indepedent outlet to voices concerns and inform people, and give it to people in power is terrible.

That is a particularly narrow US phenomena - it's almost like a media induced social coma. Europeans, the Middle East, etc. are way better at not trusting their governments.

Yes true but Fox isn't a mouthpiece of the government, it's a mouthpiece of an Australian conservative and his massive corporate backing. I'm no fan of Obama, but they oppose him simply because he's not GOP, even though he acts like it. But anyway, they still oppose him. They even had a host almost call him a n-----r once.

I agree that Fox News heavily contributes in a negative way.

Right, Rupert Murdoch has his own - protect-Israel-at-all-costs agenda. n-----r - You and I both know what fits in the space. It's classic censorship - even those who say they don't do. Ironic.

What does culturally rich mean?

Layers upon layers of history, language, movement of people, art, music and civilisation going back to early times. Take your pick.

Master Khan
04-28-2010, 09:41 AM
In Dubai their is no Crime at all, we use to walk around at 2 am with our bags etc.
Islamic laws is the best.

imb706
04-28-2010, 09:46 AM
In Dubai their is no Crime at all, we use to walk around at 2 am with our bags etc. Um...I walk at 2 am here in California. Is there no crime here? Someone saying it doesn't make it so. Crybaby? Let's not mince words - is that what you are calling me? Only if you were one of those rioters, of which I did not accuse you of. My guess is that you know very little about the middle east and that your views are made up by the social setting in which you were raised. The middle east is a complicated place, just like the US is. We share that in common. It's true I've never been to the Middle East, and I'm no expert on the region, but I have an okay grasp of what goes on there. In my opinion stark contrasts in wealth and opportunity make places like Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan volatile whereas it makes places like Qatar, the UAE and Malaysia less so. All are examples of Muslim countries. Well, Iraq is poor mostly by the US's making. Saddam may have been a brutal dictator, of which there can be no excuse for his actions, but he was making Iraq "the Japan of the Middle East" and he made it so iraqis could get free education and health care. Then the 90s come along and it all goes straight to hell. It has a long history of secularism. Yes, poverty creates differences and creates rifts, poverty should be battled, but it's not the reason people want to blow up a country over a cartoon. People who call the middle east a craphole are the kinds of people who call Arabs Sand ******s and Afghans Towel Heads. Not true, a craphole is a craphole, has nothing to do with the ethnicity. It's economics and social settings. The Middle East just happens to be a unproductive piece of backwater crap, it has nothing to do with the arabs or with any other racial group. I'm surprised you censored yourself when you wrote that Fox all but calls Obama racist names. I only censored because I don't know the rules of using the word. It's not a word I like obviously, but Fox News and Tea Partyers have called him that word in the past. It's sad. However, the fact that it's illegal in the US to make racist remarks, Lol, what? No it's not. There's no hate speech laws here and thank goodness. Sure, I'm no racist or sexist or have any hatred, but I support the right to hate. KKK, Nazis theyre all allowed here. They are terrible but it's their rights. Yes, at the state level it is. But in the modern age, things change. There you go again with that state media... Al Jazeera has emerged as a real alternative media voice. Being that it originates in Qatar, not the UAE, and that it's mostly pro arabic (not that I have anything against the network), it's a bad example. have built up a voice of opposition and that they continually hold up a mirror and embarass Arab governments Good for them, I support that. Though they base a lot of their stuff in the US and Iceland, so does that really count? news stations playing videos of Osama. I don't even watch arab media, why would I bother? And you know, because you live here ... Wake up brother, you're sounding more a Southern redneck the more you go on. If it wasn't for the Bible thumping idiocy and racism, I'd probably move to the South :P But I have to settle with Vermont to get the classic american experience, and the good health care. Anyway, that's not offensive to me. Most bloggers per population of people, are in fact just across the waters from here, in Iran. The US, despite being the biggest internet users, cannot boast the same quota. Why? [quote]Perhaps its because 60% of Iranians are graduates who DO write. Pretty low...(The US along with the rest of the West is 99 percent literate. don't get me wrong, I criticize US education very much, but that doesn't mean Iran is better) and what does that have to do with anything? Unless you mean 60 percent of iranians write, and uh...so? I'm sure they're very proud to be writing praises of their supreme leader and such. Whoopidee do. But don't go on Facebook and complain, because then you'll go to jail. Anyway, what evidence is that Iran blogs the most? And if so, who even cares? Europeans, the Middle East, etc. are way better at not trusting their governments. Europeans are sure, I'm sure Stephen Hill would sing praises of that. I sure do. Not middle easterners, I mean unless you count all that terrorism XD. Though the Tea Party, as bad as they are, shows theres not much trust in the US government. Rupert Murdoch has his own - protect-Israel-at-all-costs agenda. n-----r Yeah, israel, uh jews...er, nevermind. even those who say they don't do. Ironic. Yeah but I don't care what Fox News says. Just go to Media Matters to see all their bull**** debunked.

Master Khan
04-28-2010, 10:02 AM
But you don't have to beileve what media say all the time.
you can't just judge a place that you never been to.

imb706
04-28-2010, 10:14 AM
That's actually a false criteria. You don't need to go somewhere to actually make an informed opinion about the place. Reality relies on third party factual perspective, and certainly that's the case here. Also, the UAE is a tiny urbanized oil country, it doesn't face the same conditions as other countries, it'd be like saying Hong Kong is an economic model for Canada.

tor_khan
04-28-2010, 10:29 AM
It's true I've never been to the Middle East, and I'm no expert on the region

That pretty much comes out in your postings.

ozymandias
04-28-2010, 12:52 PM
In Dubai their is no Crime at all, we use to walk around at 2 am with our bags etc.
Islamic laws is the best.


I think you owe me a new keyboard over that one -- I spit my coffee out laughing.

ozymandias
04-28-2010, 01:03 PM
But you don't have to beileve what media say all the time.
you can't just judge a place that you never been to.


I've never been to either of the poles -- but I can judge them 'cold'. I have never been to many cases, and thanks to the news I *CAN* make an informed judgment about then. I know Somalia is a place I don't want to go for vacation. I know things about countries based on them making the news for current events -- or medival laws still being enforced -- or the rioting over some cartoons.

I can judge. I might be wrong, but I can judge -- and I can usually get fairly close based on the news.

If a place is on the news for out of control crime -- I can judge that. If a country is arresting people for kissing in public -- or a rape victim for 'having illegal sex' I know a lot about that country and how they treat due process and human rights.

For the record, where I live, I usually don't bother to even lock the door, and have not for over a decade, unless my wife and I are going to be out of town for a few days.

pekhawar
04-28-2010, 01:22 PM
I think you owe me a new keyboard over that one -- I spit my coffee out laughing.
:woot::woot:

Master Khan
04-28-2010, 02:26 PM
I think you owe me a new keyboard over that one -- I spit my coffee out laughing.
Alot of Americans, British people go there.
For me it was the safest country I been to, I didn't see one crime there.
I must admit that its sucks to be poor there.

ozymandias
04-28-2010, 03:18 PM
Alot of Americans, British people go there.
For me it was the safest country I been to, I didn't see one crime there.
I must admit that its sucks to be poor there.


Safety is not the only thing to look at when assessing laws -- you also have to consider human rights, justice, due process, and punishments to name a few.

You can have insanely safe and clear streets if littering or shoplifting resulted in the immediate death penalty. I would argue that those laws would not be 'best'.

I would argue that a law that allows a rape victim to be arrested for "illegal sex" ( http://http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/08/british-woman-arrested-in_n_416690.html (http://http//www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/08/british-woman-arrested-in_n_416690.html) ) or eating during daylight ( http://http://business.maktoob.com/20090000372590/Dubai_arrests_3_for_breaking_Ramadan_rules/Article.htm (http://http//business.maktoob.com/20090000372590/Dubai_arrests_3_for_breaking_Ramadan_rules/Article.htm)) or arrested for a couple kissing eachother on the cheek -- and getting *ONE MONTH* in prison ( http://http://celebrifi.com/gossip/Dubai-Kissing-Couple-Jail-Sentence-Upheld-For-UK-Couple-Arrested-For-Kissing-2133555.html (http://http//celebrifi.com/gossip/Dubai-Kissing-Couple-Jail-Sentence-Upheld-For-UK-Couple-Arrested-For-Kissing-2133555.html) ) is not 'best'. I would argue that those laws are downright terrible.

How do any of those laws improve 'safety'? I mean other than for rapists?

Now before people get upset -- I am not arguing that they cannot have those laws. I am simply arguing that it is hard to call those laws 'best'.

The argument over whether those laws should exists is another debate, but in short you can justify any law as long as it is supported by the population -- which is easiest to prove in a place that is democratic with an educated population where all adult members are allowed to vote, and allowed the free speech of political opinions.

ozymandias
04-28-2010, 05:47 PM
Why are you an athiest Ozymandias. What led you to become an athiest?

a nice bio would help.


I'll give a brief overview: I never became an atheist. I have always been one. I have never really bought into any of the reasons people accept for religion -- and believe me, I tried. I spent a significant amount of time and effort studying religion trying to understand it. At one point I even attended seminary, but the more I learned and the more I studied, the less logical and more faulty religion seemed.

I am more than fine living in a word with religious people, but I am interested in finding out why and how they can believe, and forcing them to investigate the what and why can only help them, myself, and the world as a whole.

abubaker
04-28-2010, 06:03 PM
Um...I walk at 2 am here in California. Is there no crime here? Someone saying it doesn't make it so. Only if you were one of those rioters, of which I did not accuse you of. It's true I've never been to the Middle East, and I'm no expert on the region, but I have an okay grasp of what goes on there. Well, Iraq is poor mostly by the US's making. Saddam may have been a brutal dictator, of which there can be no excuse for his actions, but he was making Iraq "the Japan of the Middle East" and he made it so iraqis could get free education and health care. Then the 90s come along and it all goes straight to hell. It has a long history of secularism. Yes, poverty creates differences and creates rifts, poverty should be battled, but it's not the reason people want to blow up a country over a cartoon. Not true, a craphole is a craphole, has nothing to do with the ethnicity. It's economics and social settings. The Middle East just happens to be a unproductive piece of backwater crap, it has nothing to do with the arabs or with any other racial group. I only censored because I don't know the rules of using the word. It's not a word I like obviously, but Fox News and Tea Partyers have called him that word in the past. It's sad. Lol, what? No it's not. There's no hate speech laws here and thank goodness. Sure, I'm no racist or sexist or have any hatred, but I support the right to hate. KKK, Nazis theyre all allowed here. They are terrible but it's their rights. There you go again with that state media... Being that it originates in Qatar, not the UAE, and that it's mostly pro arabic (not that I have anything against the network), it's a bad example. Good for them, I support that. Though they base a lot of their stuff in the US and Iceland, so does that really count? I don't even watch arab media, why would I bother? If it wasn't for the Bible thumping idiocy and racism, I'd probably move to the South :P But I have to settle with Vermont to get the classic american experience, and the good health care. Anyway, that's not offensive to me. [quote] Most bloggers per population of people, are in fact just across the waters from here, in Iran. The US, despite being the biggest internet users, cannot boast the same quota. Why? Pretty low...(The US along with the rest of the West is 99 percent literate. don't get me wrong, I criticize US education very much, but that doesn't mean Iran is better) and what does that have to do with anything? Unless you mean 60 percent of iranians write, and uh...so? I'm sure they're very proud to be writing praises of their supreme leader and such. Whoopidee do. But don't go on Facebook and complain, because then you'll go to jail. Anyway, what evidence is that Iran blogs the most? And if so, who even cares? Europeans are sure, I'm sure Stephen Hill would sing praises of that. I sure do. Not middle easterners, I mean unless you count all that terrorism XD. Though the Tea Party, as bad as they are, shows theres not much trust in the US government. Yeah, israel, uh jews...er, nevermind. Yeah but I don't care what Fox News says. Just go to Media Matters to see all their bull**** debunked.

see that the problem with you guys you might have an ''okay grasp'' of the midle east, yet you act like your experts, you are in no position to criticise a place you have not even been, the people you have not seen or spoken to or lived amongst or experienced thire culture

ozymandias
04-28-2010, 06:34 PM
see that the problem with you guys you might have an ''okay grasp'' of the midle east, yet you act like your experts, you are in no position to criticise a place you have not even been, the people you have not seen or spoken to or lived amongst or experienced thire culture

Some things are universal, like human rights.

ozymandias
04-28-2010, 07:27 PM
The boundary should be established. Disrespecting our holy prophet is a bit too much.

There is a boundary: does the speaker want to say it?

I'll say it *AGAIN* you have a right to free speech. You do *NOT* have a right not to be offended.

imb706
04-28-2010, 08:24 PM
Some things are universal, like human rights. Well, they should be anyway. yet you act like your experts, What? I would argue that a law that allows a rape victim to be arrested for "illegal sex" ( http://http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/08/british-woman-arrested-in_n_416690.html ) or eating during daylight ( http://http://business.maktoob.com/20090000372590/Dubai_arrests_3_for_breaking_Ramadan_rules/Article.htm ) or arrested for a couple kissing eachother on the cheek -- and getting *ONE MONTH* in prison ( http://http://celebrifi.com/gossip/Dubai-Kissing-Couple-Jail-Sentence-Upheld-For-UK-Couple-Arrested-For-Kissing-2133555.html ) is not 'best'. I would argue that those laws are downright terrible. Thanks for the information. Along with being a slave hub and criminal hub, it has stupid things like that! For me it was the safest country I been to, I didn't see one crime there. Well, unless international business crime and indentured servitude aren't crimes. I think one of the major things Ozymandias fails to realize is the amount of hate it creates in the Muslim hearts when they see such a thing. Just like how non-Muslims get offended, Believers consider making the fun of our prophet equal to alot of crimes you might find offensive. Give me a break, it's a cartoon. If you get so offended by it to the point of a violent rage, you have mental issues.

Master Khan
04-28-2010, 09:48 PM
Well there was this story about this priest in England, he thought muslims were bad people, islam is bad etc, he want to Egypt and came back a muslim because he said the people were so nice and kind.
violent and in****ing other gets you no where.
There are nice people in all of us, but all the media show is the bad muslims and not the good ones.
I don't consider these Terrorist as muslim, the "word" Taliban" means "studant of islam" of Islam and these people are not Taliban but they terrorist who use Islam.

imb706
04-28-2010, 10:08 PM
Anecdotes like that don't really mean much though. Anyone can tell stories, plus I couldn't care less what some british priest thinks on something XD

Zari
04-28-2010, 10:18 PM
lol...there was also this american women...who went around saying "every muslim leader should be killed and every muslim shuld be turned in to a christian"...

imb706
04-28-2010, 10:21 PM
You're probably talking about Ann Coulter. But the cartoons didn't say "Kill all Muslims" or kill anyone, or do anything. They were just caricatures.

ozymandias
04-29-2010, 02:58 AM
Well there was this story about this priest in England, he thought muslims were bad people, islam is bad etc, he want to Egypt and came back a muslim because he said the people were so nice and kind.



Well, if your cousin's brother's friends father heard it -- it *MUST* be true. Let's also ignore all the stories about Muslims turning atheist or Christian while we are at it, right?



violent and in****ing other gets you no where.



Then what's the problem? If their tactics 'get them nowhere' you have nothing to worry about. It's only when the tactics are effective that you should have to worry.



There are nice people in all of us, but all the media show is the bad muslims and not the good ones.



You, of all people, have no grounds to complain about that. I came here to hear from the 'good' Muslims, and what do you do? Support terrorists, advocate violence, and act *EXACTLY* as the media portrays 'bad' Muslims -- not even all Muslims, as many Muslims *do* refute and condemn you and your kind.



I don't consider these Terrorist as muslim,



Too bad your opinion of their faith does not matter. They are self proclaimed Muslims, and they are the *ONLY* ones that can state what they believe. Face it -- they are Muslim, whether you agree with their faith or not.



the "word" Taliban" means "studant of islam" of Islam and these people are not Taliban but they terrorist who use Islam.

Nope, they are Taliban -- they profess that they are following Islam, and they are. You might think they are bad at being students, but they are still students. Even the student that fails all their courses is a student -- and again, you do not get to dictate what others believe.

ozymandias
04-29-2010, 02:59 AM
@ Ozy.

Yes I agree it was maybe a bit violent.


But how exactly do you justify intentionally making fun our religion. How do you justify causing offence.


I look forward.

I'll say it again: free speech needs no further justification than the speaker wanted to say it.

imb706
04-29-2010, 03:06 AM
Sure, being respectful is a good thing, but it's not some law that a newspaper can't show cartoons because someone finds them disrespectful.

inqilab
04-29-2010, 03:32 AM
Threatening peoples lives is also freedom of speech. Only an imbecile would not know that making fun of a holy figure will put their lives in danger. Not everyone is immoral like those people who have no self-respect. So they want to treat others with no respect also. Well too bad. You do something then be man enough to suffer the consequences.

Anyways the bigotry is apparent. All these nations and people bragging about freedom are limiting it themselves. You should not have laws than if you want to have freedom. because freedom means to do as what one wants. And you cannot do that.

Bigots.

imb706
04-29-2010, 03:44 AM
Threatening peoples lives is also freedom of speech. No, it's not. It's taking an action. If you have the means and its clear you're about to kill someone, you're not just speaking, you're acting. The cartoons weren't death threats, the only death threats came from muslimaniacs. nly an imbecile would not know that making fun of a holy figure will put their lives in danger. Those durn imbeciles thinking that drawing a cartoon wouldn't illicit an idiotic violent response. Damn those Danes. . Not everyone is immoral like those people who have no self-respect. Rioting over a cartoon shows no self-respect. It shows the childlike mindset and idiocy of the people doing it. Islamic crybabies... All these nations and people bragging about freedom are limiting it themselves. You should not have laws than if you want to have freedom. Um, but laws guarantee freedom. For example, mandating states control roads guarantee free passage through the roads and the right to self expression on the roads, i.e. any bumper sticker you want. Yes, laws don't guarantee freedom in islamic countries, because they're oppressive. Bigots. Blow up Europe, behead them, kill them, etc. That's not bigotry. You do something then be man enough to suffer the consequences. Well yes, the muslims rioted and acted like idiots, and they should be treated as such. It seems Anonymous has attacked Revolution Muslim: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX7T9yfX5So&

inqilab
04-29-2010, 04:12 AM
Clarifying the South Park Response and Calling on Others to Join in the Defense of the Prophet Muhammad

In the name of Allah the Beneficent the Merciful, all praise is due to Allah the Lord of all that exists, and may blessings and peace be upon the Messenger of Allah Muhammad, and I bear witness that there is no deity worthy of worship except for Allah, and I bear witness that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger,

As for what follows,

In light of the volume of attention being given to our response to the recent South Park episode we feel compelled to issue a statement clarifying the issue to both Muslims and non-Muslims alike. We would like to point out that we are not against a rational dialogue with either group and would like to take this opportunity to ask all to read and respond with an objective mind. We live in an age of media concision, and a consequential reality which tends to afford very little opportunity for in depth discussion.

Our intention with this explanation is only, Allah willing, to create the possibility that a deeper and more productive dialogue may be initiated. We seek to create an opportunity for correction of wrongs and the alteration of behavior that many may suggest is insignificant, but nevertheless is a behavior which we hold to be not only sacrilegious, but which we feel typifies a cancer which bites at the root of global injustice. The cancer we are referring to is that of American imperialism and its coincident culture of pagan hedonistic barbarism, a culture which drives to dehumanize the intrinsic morality of the rest of the world. As it stands today the vast majority of the world has witnessed the cloud of American debauchery, and those whom it has not hovered over have at the very least been affected by its dust.

This past week South Park aired an episode which insulted three of our beloved prophets: Musa (Moses), 'Isa (Jesus), and Muhammad, peace be upon them all. Not only did they do this, but within the episode the makers of South Park made it very clear that they knew how the Muslims would feel and potentially respond to their show. In an effort to cover their actual intention to incite, the creators of South Park carefully contrived a plotline that they believed could only stump those Muslim extremists that may arise to defend the honor of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). They wished to degrade and mock a man who is held in highest regard by Muslims and many Non-Muslims alike, and indeed many have categorized Muhammad (peace be upon him) as the most influential human being that ever walked on Earth.

By placing the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in a bear suit, the creators of South Park sought to insult the sacred, and show their blatant and general disregard for religion. By insulting our beloved Prophet (peace be upon him) without the outright depicting of his image, the creators of South Park thought that they had found some loophole in the Muslim faith for them to mock.

If you were to ask any American how many people had been killed in the Iraq war, then he would give you some number around 4,000. The reality is that many estimates put the complete death toll of this war at figures above 1,000,000. America is a country which murdered 500,000 Iraqi children in the decade before September 11th, 2001 under the Iraq sanctions. This is a fact which the American Secretary of State at the time Madeleine Albright admitted to. The attacks on September 11th did not even equal a week of the murder inflicted on the Muslim people by the American imperialist agenda, yet the United States unanimously viewed these attacks as a justification to kill additional hundreds of thousands of Muslims. America props up brutal dictators on our soil simply because they are friendly and they control the oil. America’s military supports the Israeli regime which stole the land it controls from Muslims. The closest thing it has done to helping the Palestinian people is to periodically give fewer munitions to Israel for them to kill Palestinians with. How can anyone possibly champion the values of such a people? In the last century only the Soviet regime and the Maoist regime murdered more innocent people than America. Not even the tyrant of the twentieth century, Adolf Hitler, beats out America on this list. However, for some reason the makers of South Park in their self-righteous obscenity feel compelled to impose upon Muslims the values of this regime. Furthermore, they felt compelled to do it through the mocking of the man whom we hold in the highest esteem, whose honor we would die for, the Messenger of Allah Muhammad bin ‘Abdullah (peace be upon him).

Furthermore this is a regime which openly says it is in a “battle of the hearts and minds” to change Islam in its policy papers, but then its leaders stand on the pulpit and deny this. For one to understand this literal war on Islam, then I refer you to the document, “Civil Democratic Islam” by the RAND Institute. There are many more documents of this nature even emanating from organizations such as the Air Force. If America was openly engaged in a campaign to change Christianity or Judaism, do you not think there would be outrage and sensitivity from these communities? It sounds like a conspiracy theory, but anyone with half an hour of free time can easily find these comments in any number of policy documents. Furthermore they can find evidence of America supporting certain scholars of Islam and hiding others with American taxpayer dollars. It is only natural for a group which is under an ideological assault from the United States to be hostile toward anything coming from an American citizen which is mocking this group.

While the makers of South Park are probably unaware of these issues, and they are merely pawns in a dangerous game, they are playing right into the hands of those who wish to change our religion. The destruction of the Islamic identity is not something which Muslims can tolerate, and this is something being directly funded by the American regime. It is no secret that America’s military uses American goods to spread its culture and propaganda in order to create docile societies. Just look at Somalia where the World Food Program refused to buy domestic food in favor of American food. How do you think Obama would feel if the flag of Al-Qa’ida was stamped on his coffee mug and there was nothing he could do about it? The issue of the honor of our Prophet (peace be upon him) is an issue of honor for this entire nation. Perhaps honor is a dead value in the West, but it will never die in the hearts of this Ummah (nation).

Free speech is a vital tool in the staving of oppression, but this function has its limits. It is hard to understand how one can feel self-righteous while defending somebody as an "equal opportunity offender." Such an illogical state of mind could only emanate from a selfish culture in which the suffering of the many is justified by the enjoyment of the few. And it may be an American "value" that all speech should be free including that which is obscene and aimed at emotionally oppressing a specific group of people, but this is not a value that the Muslims share with America as a whole. In fact, one of the major reasons there is such little opposition to American domination today is the reality that the principle of free speech, as envisioned by the founding fathers of the United States and by wise men and women throughout the ages, is a universal principle that may protect citizens from political, economic, or religious persecution. Today it is understood much differently; today “free speech” is interpreted as the right to promote pornography, homosexuality, slander, and libel against even that which is considered sacred. Indeed, it is in the shifting away from this conceptualization that America first deviated from its position as republic and assumed the role of global empire.

Is there a purpose, other than evil, in insulting something someone holds sacred? While insulting Jesus, Moses, or any other prophet would remove someone from Islam, we Muslims are also forbidden to insult the deities that other religions hold in high esteem. Allah says in the Qur'an:

وَلاَ تَسُبُّواْ الَّذِينَ يَدْعُونَ مِن دُونِ اللّهِ فَيَسُبُّواْ اللّهَ عَدْوًا بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ
Revile not those unto whom they pray beside Allah lest they wrongfully revile Allah through ignorance

Therefore, as Muslims we do not define speech which has no place in a moral society as "free speech." Furthermore, we will never tolerate the mocking or insulting of any one of the prophets, peace be upon them, from any source even if it was the Caliph (leader) of the entire Muslim world. It is truly sad that we did not speak out when they first insulted 'Isa (Jesus), Musa (Moses), or even the first time they mocked the final prophet Muhammad, peace be upon them all. However, simply because they have done something in the past and there was no outcry does not justify our silence in the present.

As for the Islamic ruling on the situation, then this is clear. There is no difference of opinion from those with any degree of a reputation that the punishment is death. Ibn Taymiyyah a great scholar of Islam says, "Whoever curses the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) -a Muslim or a non Muslim- then he must be killed...and this is the opinion of the general body of Islamic scholars.”


Likewise Ibn Mundhir, another classical scholar, said, "It is the consensus (ijma’) of our scholars that the one who curses the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) should be executed!"

This is also the opinion of Imams Malik, al-Laith, Ahmed, Ishaq, Shafi'i, and Numan Abu Haneefah.
This shows that taking this stance is virtually obligatory, but it does not mean that our taking this stance is in some way an absolute call toward the requirement that the creators of South Park must be killed, nor a deliberate attempt at incitement, it is only to declare the truth regardless of consequence and to offer an awareness in the mind of Westerners when they consider doing the same thing.

Many are proclaiming that the South Park episode’s insult was minimal and some might inquire about a situation where the insult is not that great. The renowned scholar Imam Malik said, "If someone says that the button of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is dirty, then he should be executed!"

And then Qadi I'yad says, "And we don't know any different opinion, this is a consensus and we don't know any different opinion!"

Before continuing it must be made clear that anyone who knows anything about Usool ul-Fiqh (the fundamentals of jurisprudence) knows that ijma' (consensus) is a hujjah (proof) as the Prophet, salaa Allahu 'alayhi wa salam, said, "My Ummah cannot have consensus on something that is wrong." This means that the above opinions are the accepted opinions and these statements are proof that this is the case. While the details of this conversation may have lost our non-Muslim audience in evidences from the religion we implore you to read on and advise you that the system of law in Islam, known as shariah, is the most amazing thing the mind could ever encounter.

In the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) two key events stand out that provide evidence for the permissibility and indeed preference for retaliation against those that insult him. In the first, a blind Muslim man who had a Jewish wife (and some say servant) assassinated his wife when she continuously cursed and mocked Muhammad (peace be upon him). In the other, a Jewish poet by the name of Ka’b bin al-Ashraf was killed for his poetry insulting the Prophet even though he was living under peaceful covenant with the Muslims and was within his own territory. If anyone is in need of details and sources for these occurrences feel free to contact us and we will forward them to serious inquirers. At this point, it must be known that this is the position in Islam, that there is consensus in it and that for those that argue the harm coming as a consequence exceeds the benefit, then they should know that this is at best an argument that entails a difference of opinion although the evidence suggests that adopting the platform that we ourselves have taken is best.

The law, known as shariah, in Islam is sacred and it is for no man to change, alter, or disregard when reacting to events like the recent degrading of the Prophet Muhammad (saws) on South Park. Indeed there is an Islamic ruling on nearly every affair and Muslims must seek their response in the religion and not in the personal desire and false manipulation of subjective introspection via philosophy or, as in most cases, emotional attachment to socialized norms.

Allah says in the Quran, “And do not clothe the truth with the falsehood, nor hide the truth while you know (2:42).”

It is not for us to convey what we desire but to convey the religion in its entirety no matter the consequence.

Allah also says in the Quran, “Surely you can have no true faith until you refer to the Prophet Muhammad in all your affairs. (4:65).”

Thus the postings that have caused so much controversy on revolutionmuslim.com (http://revolutionmuslim.com/) with regard to this matter were actually not the publication of the opinion of some Muslims but a referral and deferment to Islamic Law, thus fulfilling our divine obligation to command the good and forbid the evil by teaching and preaching the religion of Islam no matter how strange that way of life may seem to some. This is a divine order, obligatory for at least some Muslims in any community to fulfill. Allah says,

وَلْتَكُن مِّنكُمْ أُمَّةٌ يَدْعُونَ إِلَى الْخَيْرِ وَيَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنكَرِ وَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ
Let there arise out of you a band of people inviting to all that is good, enjoining what is right, and forbidding what is wrong: They are the ones to attain felicity. (3:104)

Ibn Kathir, in his renown exogenesis of the Holy Quran says that this is not restricted to people with official authority, or in this case is not restricted to those that are seeking appeasements with the American Empire who are in actuality from amongst its staunchest allies, those who despite this claim to be Muslim and have been granted positions of leadership here in this country. Ibn Kathir states, “The objective of this Ayah is that there should be a segment of this Muslim Ummah fulfilling this task, even though it is also an obligation on every member of this Ummah, each according to his ability. Muslim recorded that Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah said,

مَنْ رَأَى مِنْكُمْ مُنْكَرًا فَلْيُغَيِّرْهُ بِيَدِهِ، فَإِنْ لَمْ يَسْتَطِعْ فَبِلِسَانِهِ، فَإِنْ لَمْ يَسْتَطِع فَبِقَلْبِهِ، وَذلِكَ أَضْعَفُ الْإِيمَان
“Whoever among you witnesses an evil, let him change it with his hand. If he is unable, then let him change it with his tongue. If he is unable, then let him change it with his heart, and this is the weakest faith.”

Speaking out against ending this kind of insult toward the Prophet Muhammad is completely in line with the tenets of the religion. Indeed we find it to be a tragedy that there has been virtually no reaction from the so-called leaders of the Muslim community whom CNN and other organizations tout as representing “mainstream Islam.” We are saddened by the fact that this story is about what we have said rather than the impact it has on the Muslims as a whole.

Thus our position remains that it is likely the creators of South Park will indeed end up like Theo Van Gogh. This is a reality. The story is already getting international attention and the journalism oversees is not as objective as it is here. In fact, we can tell you with certainty that at least one Dutch newspaper has completely made up quotations to make their story more sensational. We are not trying to directly incite violence, but we are trying to explain the gravity of the situation and prevent this from occurring ever again. As stated in the words of the Prophet (peace be upon him) above, if one cannot alter the situation with their hand then they must speak out against it and try to change it that way.

We would also like Mr. Parker and Mr. Stone to understand the tastelessness of their portrayal, apologize and reflect on the words that follow. An apology or at least recognition of bad taste might not remedy the situation, but it would go a long way toward turning this situation from a gaping wound into an ugly scar. Any Muslim that condones this type of behavior or minimizes it does not fulfill the obligation of hating it with his or her heart and thus, as is stated emphatically in the hadith, may fall outside the necessary status of holding onto even the weakest of faith. Many conquered peopled become completely oblivious to the function of their oppressor in enslaving their minds so we seek no harm against them, but do hope that they may be inspired to adopt a proactive stance and work alongside us in the struggle to liberate Islam and Muslims from foreign control.

Individual Muslims may react in quite the same manner as those non-Muslims, claiming that we are making Islam look backwards and ancient, overreacting and bringing about more harm than good. These same individuals decry every act of so-called terrorism while remaining completely silent in the face of U.S. terror; every time a leader of those courageously defending occupied Muslim lands from occupation is killed or captured they applaud. They constantly sit silent as tanks and troopers are deployed and have little to say as the empire expands. In fact, they hurry to the American Empire to let them know they are with them, at least in some of the matter. Today, as Obama perpetuates a War on Islam, they perpetuate the tale that the United States is at war with a fringe group of extremists. Allah explains this phenomenon in the Quran by saying,

فَتَرَى الَّذِينَ فِي قُلُوبِهِم مَّرَضٌ يُسَارِعُونَ فِيهِمْ يَقُولُونَ نَخْشَى أَن تُصِيبَنَا دَآئِرَةٌ فَعَسَى اللّهُ أَن يَأْتِيَ
بِالْفَتْحِ أَوْ أَمْرٍ مِّنْ عِندِهِ فَيُصْبِحُواْ عَلَى مَا أَسَرُّواْ فِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ نَادِمِينَ
Those in whose hearts is a disease - you see how eagerly they run about amongst them, saying: "We do fear that a change of fortune may bring us disaster." Ah! perhaps Allah will give you victory, or a decision according to His will. Then will they repent of the thoughts which they secretly harbored in their hearts

Today Muslims the world over run and say that Muslims like us do not represent Islam, as if in some way speaking out against imperialism is in fact causing it. In order to survive, empires must conscript support, and they usually impose loyal indigenous elite over the lands they conquer. Oftentimes these loyal elite find ways of influencing the home front as well. Empire is primarily concerned with preserving political, economic, and military dominance and therefore tends to portray itself as tolerant and pluralistic of the cultures and customs of they come to conquer. However, a closer objective analysis always reveals that this tolerance is a guise of strategy and is only apparent where the conquered are willing to retain personal customs and control in exchange for the sacrifice of indigenous sovereignty over wealth, natural resource, and political decision. Thus while empires rape and extract the material wealth of the people they dominate, they grant the seeming retention of indigenous language, custom, religion and the like.

In reality, this focus on power and control leads to the actual loss of spiritual, psychological, and emotional health and, as an oligarchy is imposed, the educated class is granted modest concessions and then political and economic rights of the general people are violated for the long term. This requires that what a conquered people consider sacred must be portrayed as backwards. While this process tends to occur subconsciously it leads to a sense of power and privilege on the home shores of the imperialist, and that serves as a justification for the atrocities committed and thereby minimized on the frontier. The term “sand-******” or “camel jockey” did not start with American soldiers on the ground in Iraq, but was a phrase coined during Britain’s imperialist adventure in the Middle East. The ‘other’s’ culture and custom must always be degraded in order to retain a justification for physical domination. Media always plays a role in perpetuating these ideas.

The process of imperialism thereafter splits a conquered people up into two camps: the good and the bad. The good are those who accept domination and vie for safety by adopting the position that the Empire is not an imperialist entity at all, but rather a liberator – the bad are those that refuse to sacrifice autonomy and continue to fight on… Americans should be all too familiar with the process; the very foundation of their nation is built upon the genocide of the indigenous Native Americans. So too then in its occurrence, ‘good’ Indians collaborated with American settlers against the ‘bad’ Indians; they demonized them for fighting and not accepting defeat and were subsequently displayed by the imperialist power as proof for the benign nature of America’s early expansion. The genocide of Indians would have been impossible without their collaboration. We face similar situations as Muslims today.

This phenomenon is true of Babylonian, Greek, Roman, Persian, Dutch, and British empires as well. Indeed all imperialist powers employ the same means of control. The creators of South Park so too emulate this process in their work and in their own right contribute greatly to the passive acceptance of a sick status quo. The contemporary American Empire is dependent on a hedonistic, consumerist mindset that effectively numbs the general world populace and keeps them ignorant and oblivious to the imperialist reality.

We saw this clearly when the attacks on September 11th, 2001 occurred. Americans were told that this was due to Muslims hating their freedom and democracy, and they were never told that the perpetrators of the attack cited the death of millions of Muslims at the hands of U.S. foreign policy. With the help of media, Americans are kept oblivious to the heinous crimes of the empire overseas and especially in Afghanistan and Iraq over the past eight years by a complacent news media and garbage consumerist television shows like South Park which serve as the new opiate of the masses. All one has to do to see the impact Matt Stone and Trey Parker have had in spreading Islamophobia already is to go on any rightwing extremist website like the Jawa Report and count the number of times the words “Derka Derka Muhammad Jihad” are written. Furthermore, when one logs on to these sites they will see the inconceivable volume of people who call for the eradication of all Muslims around the world.

While we are often labeled a hate site, we do not call people to this type of filth. In the past some members did do that and we wish to distance ourselves from that at this point. The genocide of the Jews was a terrible event that should never be allowed to repeat itself. However, their genocide is not a justification to replicate the Warsaw Ghetto in the city of Gaza. Similarly it is a justification for neither imposing an apartheid rule on a people nor even forcing them to change their preferred system of government.

One of the only ways we could ever end American Imperialism would be to take away the ideological justification it finds through its mainstream media outlets. It should be apparent that we perceive this incident not in isolation, but as part of a broader narrative that is part and parcel of a much more complex and deeply seeded crisis.

Thomas Friedman, a proponent of this empire, explains the contemporary order is sustained by, “the presence of American power and America’s willingness to use that power against those who would threaten the system of globalization… The hidden hand of the market will never work without the fist,” but it is also true that the hidden hand of the market would never work without a mind-numbing American media that can help to pacify those that would otherwise stand opposed to the economic domination and the military domination it is dependent upon. The stance that we have taken is a derivative of this much deeper war, and our intention is not only to fulfill the command of forbidding evil in Islam but to engage both Muslims and non-Muslims alike in a much deeper discussion. Certainly, the mainstream media will never allow that to happen, but there are massive alternative opportunities in this era known as the Age of Information. It should be understood that we will not lie down and accept America’s imperialist conquest of Muslim lands. We will speak against any and all activities that lead to the perpetuation of this empire. The South Park episode does that by portraying the most important individual for Muslims, presently the predominant one’s being conquered, as backwards and irrational. This gives cause and justification to the narrative the empire is not conquering at all and instead is attempting to liberate and this reality must be addressed and confronted head on.


Finally, Allah says in the Quran,

انْفِرُواْ خِفَافًا وَثِقَالاً وَجَاهِدُواْ بِأَمْوَالِكُمْ وَأَنفُسِكُمْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ ذَلِكُمْ خَيْرٌ لَّكُمْ إِن كُنتُمْ تَعْلَمُونَ
Go forth, whether light or heavy, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if you but knew.

In the end, we seek justice and preservation of Islamic religious beliefs and culture. We will not stand passive and silent in these tumultuous times. We implore conscious people everywhere to do the same and we are open to the advice, suggestions, and general conversation with all those that would like to engage in detailed discussion, we plan on hosting some open dialogue opportunities as soon as our website is back up and running. We call humanity to the solution that is the religion of Islam and to recognize the beauty of this fabulous religion given by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) to the entire world.

We hope that the creators of South Park may read this and respond, that before sending hate mail and condemning us that we may partake in dialogue, and that the Western media’s degradation of the most blessed of men ceases. Otherwise we warn all that many reactions will not involve speech, and that defending those that insult, belittle, or degrade the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is a requirement of the religion. As Osama bin Laden said with regard to the cartoons of Denmark, “If there is no check in the freedom of your words, then let your hearts be open to the freedom of our actions.”

imb706
04-29-2010, 04:21 AM
by the founding fathers of the United States and by wise men and women throughout the ages, is a universal principle that may protect citizens from political, economic, or religious persecution. Oh dear, Muslims trying to speak for the American revolutionaries! Lol, okay, let's see what they said (so drawing a cartoon of a religious figure doesn't fall under protection from religious persecution? ...): Thomas Paine: "I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy. But, lest it should be supposed that I believe in many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them. I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." Thomas Jefferson: Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. Benjamin Franklin: My parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the Dissenting [Protestant] way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough deist. - Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, 1793 They sure were critics of religion. Their opinions would warrant death in some muslim countries. So don't speak for the founding fathers if you can't be accurate, and since you don't even agree with them, why invoke them in the first place? today “free speech” is interpreted as the right to promote pornography, homosexuality, slander, and libel against even that which is considered sacred. Yeah, but the point of free speech is that nothing is sacred in matters of speech, everything is open to criticism and attack. Plus, what's wrong with homosexuality? You homophobic?
Not even the tyrant of the twentieth century, Adolf Hitler, beats out America on this list. However, for some reason the makers of South Park in their self-righteous obscenity feel compelled to impose upon Muslims the values of this regime.

Yeah, drawing a cartoon equates to the holocaust. Don't muslims deny the holocaust? At least some major muslim groups do.

Mutakhasis
04-29-2010, 05:00 AM
This matter is about the Western concept of liberalization of society, where freedom of expression/speech is elevated above all other values systems, including upholding and enjoining Right and Forbidding Wrong. What Westerners don't want to admit is that liberalization is NOT a means to measure right and wrong. Rather, its AMORAL. The one who propagates evil has just as much right than the one who propagates Right. Hitler came to power in a liberalized, secular democracy in Germany. The Indian riots and their perpetrators' immunity occurred in liberalized India. And then Westerners are surprised when evil prevails, like Bush's War on Terror, or the Financial crisis, or the spread of drug culture, the spread of promiscuity, and on and on.
And one of the primary causes for liberalization is for increased trade and commerce- profit. The fewer barriers and limitations on human relations, the more profit a few groups of people can benefit, but the more evil and corruption that is spread. Glen Beck and FOX news with their lies and slander are rich and powerful in a liberalized society. To no surprise, this same concept rises throughout human history, where the greed of a few powerful people leads to the corruption of all society.

The South Park people, Stone and PArker, are admittedly libertarians. They admit they don't recognize any value or moral standard and thus their work is full of bigotry, stereotypes, denigration, ecspecially towards racial and ethnic minorities.

Islam does not accept liberalization and denigration of humanity. Evil cannot be granted power. Nor is profit and greed justification for the license for evil and immorality. Moreover, the West is currently engaging in a world war against Islam. It uses military forces to invade, occupy, overthrow, assasinate, and rebuild Muslim lands for its own interests. Western powers manipulate and control Muslim trade and business, seeking to harness resources and commerce for their own interests. This is evident in the economies of most Muslim countries. They are dominated by Western economies and Muslim wealth is invested and kept in Western banks. Western law is elevated to determine relations and constitutions in the Muslim world and between the West and the Muslim world. Western culture is propagated through proxies that produce liberalized and secularized cultures to propagate to Muslims (Afghanistan, Lebanon, Egypt, Turkey, Tunisia, etc). This ongoing war is the reality in which the Muslim people try to hold onto Islam. This South Park cartoon is part of the propaganda of the is war, and its part of the struggle by the West to dominate Muslims.

Mutakhasis
04-29-2010, 05:04 AM
Also, there is no such thing as complete freedom. If people allow freedoms without limits, then despite the attempt at conciliation, boundaries will be crossed and others freedoms disrupted. And since this is the actual characteristic of freedom - that it does not satisfy nor does it fulfill what it sets out to do (ie: establish peace and justice) - its existence is contradictory and ultimately leads to adapting limits and laws restricting it for the sake of the highest possible sense of peace and justice within a community.

Mutakhasis
04-29-2010, 05:08 AM
And I highly advise Muslims not to allow yourself to be put onto the platforms of impure people. Everything should be looked through the spectacles of Islam. Whether the promiscuous people accept Allah's [swt] commandments, shouldn't be our concern. The judge, jury and executioner is the Islamic Shari'ah and not human made international law that itself testifies to its obscurity.

imb706
04-29-2010, 05:14 AM
What Westerners don't want to admit is that liberalization is NOT a means to measure right and wrong. Rather, its AMORAL. Yeah but no "liberal" thinks that. Liberalism is that there is no "right or wrong" as long as it doesn't hurt anybody. Mind you, others may think that too, but it's the classical liberal position. Liberalism means "hands off." Also, there is no such thing as complete freedom. Of course, it all depends on how you defend complete freedom, but basically, no, there's no such thing as "complete" freedom in the sense to hurt other people or impose your ways on others. But drawing a cartoon sure doesn't hurt anyone but some crybabies feelings. They need to grow up. I wonder what grown men are doing watching a cartoon anyway... The one who propagates evil has just as much right than the one who propagates Right. Hitler came to power in a liberalized, secular democracy in Germany. Not really, the Weimer Republic was a fractured, disorderly and crappy government. It faced constant revolts because of its undemocratic and unsuccessful measures, and Hitler and the Nazis came to power overthrowing what little democracy it had. Hitler wrote against democracy and free speech, duh, he considered them "evil liberal ideas." Islam does not accept liberalization and denigration of humanity. Good for it, but the US isn't governed by Islamic law so who cares? The South Park people, Stone and PArker, are admittedly libertarians. They admit they don't recognize any value or moral standard and thus their work is full of bigotry, stereotypes, denigration, ecspecially towards racial and ethnic minorities. I'm not much of a fan of South Park myself but I even know this is bull****. Seriously, their work is standard right wing satire, nothing more. Get off the whining machine, you crybabies. spread of drug culture, the spread of promiscuity, and on and on. What "liberal" rages against sexual promiscuity? Do you know what "liberalism" even is? Turkey Turkey may be officially secular, and certainly their citizens have fought hard to keep it that way, but even there muslims terrorize and censor people. Glen Beck and FOX news with their lies and slander are rich and powerful in a liberalized society. Strange, you're almost right there. FOX news is the result of a economically liberal society, sort of. This South Park cartoon is part of the propaganda of the is war, and its part of the struggle by the West to dominate Muslims. Hahahahahahaha! I need to draw my own muhammad cartoons one of these days.

Mutakhasis
04-29-2010, 05:32 AM
The South Park people knew knew very well beforehand what feedback they will receive as said in the interview by Xeni Jardin. It was a deliberate attempt to provoke and target a certain community.

Mutakhasis
04-29-2010, 05:35 AM
I will quote another brothers comment:

"...It is well known, even amongst western philosophical discourse that freedom of speech has no conceptual export into the real world - it doesn’t and cannot exist. Even the most liberal countries have pages and pages of legislation restricting speech. Some of these include hate speech laws, libel laws, product defamation laws, anti-terror laws and even public speaking laws. So in reality there is no free speech, it is more logically coherent to describe it as "expression within the context of the law and society's values".

The questions that follows is 'are western values the way forward?' With the rise in violent crime, anti social behaviour, domestic violence and sexual assault how can anyone be confident with western liberal values? Just to add here, when western nations look at so called Islamic societies and they see some perceived negative behaviours, they are very quick to blame the Islamic values as the cause. However when it comes to their immense problems in western societies they always add more legislation and turn a blind eye to the values underpinning their societies. It is as if they have been divinely revealed!

The propagated values in western society are freedom and individualism. How can the overemphasis of my freedoms and the notion of my individuality - which are being forced down our throats via the political and economic structures in western society - actually create a cohesive society? In reality these values are non-cohesive values, and according to psychologists and philosophers, if you propagate non-cohesive values you will get a non-cohesive society. Now compare this to the Islamic cohesive values of mercy, compassion and God consciousness wouldn’t they create a cohesive society? Now, I am not saying that people in the western world do no carry these values, they do. However the difference is that in the Islamic society, these values will be propagated via the political and economic structures - and they will not be in competition with non-cohesive values of individualism and freedom..."

imb706
04-29-2010, 05:36 AM
"...It is well known, even amongst western philosophical discourse that freedom of speech has no conceptual export into the real world - it doesn’t and cannot exist. Ahahahahahaha, if that's your feeling, then why do you care if someone makes a muhammad bear cartoon? I mean, you're not making sense. The South Park people knew knew very well beforehand what feedback they will receive as said in the interview by Xeni Jardin. It was a deliberate attempt to provoke and target a certain community. Good, I commend their bravery and commitment to free speech then. More muhammad bears for everyone then. Some of these include hate speech laws Of which the US has none. I agree, hate speech laws go against free speech. I can say "**** you ******" out in the street if I want, but I won't, since that's rude and racist. libel laws Libel cannot be invoked by public figures though. It only counts if someone is lying about you and it's hurting your well being or smearing you. With the rise in violent crime, anti social behaviour, domestic violence and sexual assault how can anyone be confident with western liberal values? ::rollseyes:: I guess the terrorism, rape, and spousal abuse in the muslim world doesn't count. actually create a cohesive society? Who would want a cohesive society? Nothing would get done then. Now compare this to the Islamic cohesive values of mercy, compassion and God consciousness Yeah, beheadings, torture, mutilation, real mercy there. Please, no one who's sane wants "islamic mercy." and they will not be in competition with non-cohesive values of individualism and freedom..." Pfft.

Mutakhasis
04-29-2010, 05:42 AM
And I remind everyone once again the ruling on those who disrespect any of the Prophets of Allah [swt].

Imam Ibn Hazm [rah] said

"A person who insults Allah (swt) or any of His Prophets is a disbeliever and must be executed without mercy or compensation.” [Ibn Hazm 'al-Muhalla' vol 10, 2308]

The dust will never settle

tor_khan
04-29-2010, 05:46 AM
the West is currently engaging in a world war against Islam. It uses military forces to invade, occupy, overthrow, assasinate, and rebuild Muslim lands for its own interests. Western powers manipulate and control Muslim trade and business, seeking to harness resources and commerce for their own interests. This is evident in the economies of most Muslim countries. They are dominated by Western economies and Muslim wealth is invested and kept in Western banks

...

This South Park cartoon is part of the propaganda of the is war, and its part of the struggle by the West to dominate Muslims.

I think this just about sums it up. Cartoons/No cartoons. That is just a tiny part of it. Ultimately it is about Western designs for global economic superiority - the current tactic is to create and then "repair" the havoc.

Christian Europe has been depiciting Islam and Muslims in their textbooks for years as bogeymen from the South and the East. People do right to question intentions and remain sceptical.

imb706
04-29-2010, 05:52 AM
"A person who insults Allah (swt) or any of His Prophets is a disbeliever and must be executed without mercy or compensation.” Ahahahahaha, I guess that "islamic mercy" flew out the window. Christian Europe has been depiciting Islam and Muslims in their textbooks for years as bogeymen from the South and the East. People do right to question intentions and remain sceptical. Europe is no more "Christian" than the US is "Christian." Both the US and EU (some individual member states are not though) are secular institutions.

ozymandias
04-29-2010, 08:53 AM
Threatening peoples lives is also freedom of speech.



No it is not. freedom of speech does *not* cover speech made that is the commission of a crime. Realistic, believable threats of harm, damage, or death are not covered by free speech, as that would violate someone's right to safety and physical security.



Only an imbecile would not know that making fun of a holy figure will put their lives in danger.



They knew *exactly* what was going to happen -- that was sort of the point. They described Islam as a community of terrorists, and their claim has justified by the fact that Islamic terrorists stepped forward and threatened them. Had terrorists not stepped forward, they would have looked like bigoted jerks attacking a peaceful religion.



Not everyone is immoral like those people who have no self-respect. So they want to treat others with no respect also. Well too bad. You do something then be man enough to suffer the consequences.



It goes both ways. If you are going to support terrorism, like you are doing, then deal with the consequences when people describe you, and people like you as terrorists and terrorist supporters.



Anyways the bigotry is apparent.



Yes.



All these nations and people bragging about freedom are limiting it themselves.



Not at all. Please back up your claim showing how the USA has *less* personal freedom than a country without freedom of speech, and I will show you a country violating basic human rights.



You should not have laws than if you want to have freedom. because freedom means to do as what one wants. And you cannot do that.



Wow. I thought that 'master' khan was going to take the cake for the most stupid comment -- but you beat him. Congratulations.

Anarchy only provides freedom for the wealthy and powerful -- not everyone. The point of universal human rights is that everyone has the right. The powerful and rich are not the only ones that should be free -- even minorities and the weak have the right, and should be protected so that they are allowed to practice them.

[/quote]

Bigots.[/QUOTE]

Who? The terrorists that deem all ideas other than their own worthy of *DEATH*? Or the people trying to protect everyone's rights?

ozymandias
04-29-2010, 09:02 AM
This matter is about the Western concept of liberalization of society, where freedom of expression/speech is elevated above all other values systems, including upholding and enjoining Right and Forbidding Wrong. What Westerners don't want to admit is that liberalization is NOT a means to measure right and wrong. Rather, its AMORAL. The one who propagates evil has just as much right than the one who propagates Right. Hitler came to power in a liberalized, secular democracy in Germany. The Indian riots and their perpetrators' immunity occurred in liberalized India. And then Westerners are surprised when evil prevails, like Bush's War on Terror, or the Financial crisis, or the spread of drug culture, the spread of promiscuity, and on and on.
And one of the primary causes for liberalization is for increased trade and commerce- profit.



False.



The fewer barriers and limitations on human relations, the more profit a few groups of people can benefit, but the more evil and corruption that is spread.



False.



Glen Beck and FOX news with their lies and slander are rich and powerful in a liberalized society. To no surprise, this same concept rises throughout human history, where the greed of a few powerful people leads to the corruption of all society.



Might want to look towards the Middle East -- I would say that the corruption is at least as bad in places where basic human rights are violated in the name of a religious theocracy.



The South Park people, Stone and PArker, are admittedly libertarians. They admit they don't recognize any value or moral standard and thus their work is full of bigotry, stereotypes, denigration, ecspecially towards racial and ethnic minorities.



Way to ignore all the positive messages the show spreads.



Islam does not accept liberalization and denigration of humanity. Evil cannot be granted power.



Then do not support terrorism. Terrorism is evil -- do not support, protect, or justify it. If you do, all claims that Islam does not accept denigration of humanity are null and void, and you lose all grounds to make that claim on, as you are proven wrong before you even start.



Nor is profit and greed justification for the license for evil and immorality. Moreover, the West is currently engaging in a world war against Islam. It uses military forces to invade, occupy, overthrow, assasinate, and rebuild Muslim lands for its own interests. Western powers manipulate and control Muslim trade and business, seeking to harness resources and commerce for their own interests. This is evident in the economies of most Muslim countries. They are dominated by Western economies and Muslim wealth is invested and kept in Western banks. Western law is elevated to determine relations and constitutions in the Muslim world and between the West and the Muslim world. Western culture is propagated through proxies that produce liberalized and secularized cultures to propagate to Muslims (Afghanistan, Lebanon, Egypt, Turkey, Tunisia, etc). This ongoing war is the reality in which the Muslim people try to hold onto Islam. This South Park cartoon is part of the propaganda of the is war, and its part of the struggle by the West to dominate Muslims.

Wow. Do you really believe all that, or are you just trolling?

imb706
04-29-2010, 09:03 AM
Damn Ozy, you nailed the idiots to the wall. I think one of the main issues is none of these people have ever been in the US, not long enough to understand its laws. They've just been in Europe and the Middle East, so they think "hate speech laws" and such are just a part of every society.

ozymandias
04-29-2010, 09:08 AM
Also, there is no such thing as complete freedom. If people allow freedoms without limits, then despite the attempt at conciliation, boundaries will be crossed and others freedoms disrupted.



No, but you can place realistic limits that prohibit one person from preventing the exercise of another person's rights, thus insuring the maximum access to exercise free rights world-wide. If you place minor limits, such as you do not have the right to infringe on other's rights, you give up a *little* freedom, but the rest of society gains *a lot* of freedom.



And since this is the actual characteristic of freedom - that it does not satisfy nor does it fulfill what it sets out to do (ie: establish peace and justice) - its existence is contradictory and ultimately leads to adapting limits and laws restricting it for the sake of the highest possible sense of peace and justice within a community.

Well, of course, if you claim that the goal of freedom is something completely different than what it really is, you can pretend it fails.

(sarcasm)
I mean, clearly the goal of freedom is to allow us to fly to moon with jetpacks.
(/sarcasm)

The goal of freedom is to be free. Period. Once people acknowledge that other people have rights, people will not have to fight to protect their rights, and freedom is a by-product. Justice is a result of a legal system, which is ultimately derived from the protection of rights. It is not a goal of freedom, but a toll used to protect it.

ozymandias
04-29-2010, 09:10 AM
And I highly advise Muslims not to allow yourself to be put onto the platforms of impure people. Everything should be looked through the spectacles of Islam. Whether the promiscuous people accept Allah's [swt] commandments, shouldn't be our concern. The judge, jury and executioner is the Islamic Shari'ah and not human made international law that itself testifies to its obscurity.


I agree with this. Stop trying to enforce your religious ways and rules on non-believers, and all the problems would fade away.

*Mahzala*
04-29-2010, 09:12 AM
I haven't read the entire thread and I don't have time to read close to 330 replies, however, I am responding because two members requested that I voice my opinion here. And so I will respond with a focus on the media's role in all of this.

So I begin with 'attempting' to define free speech. What is free speech? Does it have a straightfoward answer? I don't think so. Defining free speech is a difficult task mainly because the history of free speech is in part a struggle in itself. Freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of communication are some of the expressions used, sometimes synonymously, to describe freedom, although the natural and ordinary meaning of 'speech' is the act of speaking. For the purpose of discussions about free speech, 'speech' covers more than just speech. It may include symbols, sounds, shapes, gestures and pictures, lifting a flag in battle, raising a hand against advancing tanks, wearing symbols of dissent, participating in a public prayer or meditation et cetraaa. And you get my drift. Personally, I like to think that freedom of speech is an impossibility because the condition of speech being free in the first place is unrealisable. And I say this because there are things like ideological pressures that influence speech such as politics. Free speech is just the name we give to verbal behaviour that serves the agendas we wish to advance. There is no such thing as totally FREE speech.

Having said that, freedom of speech also has numerous rationales. You can use this to your advantage as a path to attain truth, the right to self-determination, exercising democracy and the stimulus to tolerance. But then, that's not to say there are no negatives of free speech. Free speech may result in physical harm, the dissemination of error, damage to reputation, invasion of privacy, incitement of hatred, causing offence and breaches of all kinds. And these rationales have been recognised by the Canadian, American, English and European courts. Moving on ...

That's not all I have to say about free speech though. Bear with me. So, there are two approaches to go about free speech - the absolutist and the balancing approach. The former demands that there should be NO constraints on free speech whatever, while the latter requires a weighing up of competing public interests. So, respectively, you're able to freely promote ideas for shoplifting, bomb-making, freedom to describe terrorists as good people. A balancing approach takes into account whether more good or harm would result from the expression of ideas for which free speech protection is sought, when considered against another legitimate interest for which protection is also sought. And I will be nice and frank with you on this, despite the fact that people may or may not know about this approach, the former is in practice, everywhere. I am not saying there isn't protection, there is - BUT, this approach is relatively more in practice - as is apparent from this cartoon.

Moving on ...

According to my knowledge of media law, this is clearly a case of broadcasting offensive material, which in turn incites hatred against or vilifies any person or group on the basis of race or religion (I am being specific with examples that relate only to this cartoon, there are obviously many more). Again, according to my understanding, this is an offence of blasphemy, which is bound to incite violence. And all of these are offences under law (free speech or not), which may be considered serious breaches of the broadcasting acts or laws. The media play a large part in shaping attitudes, beliefs and ideas, and reflecting on such issues in a culturally diverse society is vital for all. At the end of the day, I like to think it is all deliberate.

... I wonder if some people believe in prevention, rather than cure ...