Islamic reaction to radical Muslims

[ozymandias]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Seek mental help. You are desperately in need of it.

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

[ozymandias]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.