Islamic reaction to radical Muslims

[ozymandias]

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]

... 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]

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]

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]

^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]

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]

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]

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]

^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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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