Islamic reaction to radical Muslims

[ozymandias]

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]

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]

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]

is this ozymandias a Muslim?

[ozymandias]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.