verte76
Blue Crack Addict
Folks, in case you don't know, all_i_want is a Muslim from Turkey. Keep that in mind when you read his posts.
verte76 said:It's one thing to say "Islam is based on irrational premises" and another thing to draw a picture of Mohammed with a bomb on his head. One is based on philosophical beliefs, and the other is solely to insult Muslims.
verte76 said:Folks, in case you don't know, all_i_want is a Muslim from Turkey. Keep that in mind when you read his posts.
verte76 said:Folks, in case you don't know, all_i_want is a Muslim from Turkey. Keep that in mind when you read his posts.
verte76 said:Folks, in case you don't know, all_i_want is a Muslim from Turkey. Keep that in mind when you read his posts.
DrTeeth said:
Hah, and who said martyrdom is an Islamic thing?
financeguy said:
A bit patronising, to be honest.
all_i_want said:
it might be puzzling, my heresy and everything. i would tell you a whole lot more about the disconnect between the religious and secular Turks, but i dont want to derail the thread.
In Iraq, Islamic leaders urged worshippers to stage demonstrations from Baghdad to the southern city of Basra following weekly prayer services Friday.
Afghanistan and Indonesia condemned the drawings, and
Iran summoned the Austrian ambassador, whose country holds the EU presidency
Martyrdom is when a person is killed for their beliefs, the shahid that goes out to murder and take their own life in the process hardly deserves that title. I am just showing where I stand, just as I did during the orange revolution, just as I did during the cedar revolution.DrTeeth said:
Hah, and who said martyrdom is an Islamic thing?
linkKill those who insult the Prophet Muhammad (saw)
The kuffar in their sustained crusade against Islam and Muslims have yet again displayed their hatred towards us this time by attacking the honour of our beloved Messenger Muhammad (saw). In September 2005 the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published 10 cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad (saw) which were later republished by a Norwegian paper Magazinet. Until now both governments have refused to denounce the drawings and to condemn the publication of them.
Denmark has a history of blasphemy against Islam, only in August did radio presenter Kaj Wilhelmsen say that all fanatical Muslims should be exterminated and the rest should be kicked out of Europe. Last year the queen of Denmark aired her disapproval of Islam and for those ‘whom religion is their entire life’. Prior to this the Danish government issued the right to dismiss a Muslim woman from working in a supermarket for wearing the hijab. Furthermore Denmark is an ally of the war in Iraq with 500 troops stationed in the South and 10 from Norway showing their approval and participation of the war.
Both governments claim that one of their underlying principles is the freedom of speech and that everyone is free to speak their mind and to voice their opinions openly. They claim that the publication of these cartoons is a mere expression of ones opinions falling within the framework of the law. This is the same freedom of expression that quite readily prevents the propagation of Islam and support of the mujahideen using it as and when it suits them.
This should come as no surprise to the Muslims because this is the exact and true nature of the kuffar that Allah (swt) has informed us of in the Quran. The kuffar will never have respect for our deen, they will never honour it and will always seek to ridicule and disparage it. At every opportunity they will try to attack and belittle it whilst concealing the greater hatred they have for it in their hearts. This is also evident throughout the history of Islam where the kuffar carried out similar acts to try and defame Islam. Allah (swt) tells us that; verily, the Kaafireen [disbelievers] are ever unto you your open enemies. [4:101]
At the time of the Messenger Muhammad (saw) there were individuals like these who dishonoured and insulted him upon whom the Islamic judgement was executed. Such people were not tolerated in the past and throughout the history of Islam were dealt with according to the Shariah. Ka’ab ibn Ashraf was assassinated by Muhammad ibn Maslamah for harming the Messenger Muhammad (saw) by his words, Abu Raafi’ was killed by Abu Ateeq as the Messenger ordered in the most evil of ways for swearing at the prophet, Khalid bin Sufyaan was killed by Abdullah bin Anees who cut off his head and brought it to the prophet for harming the Messenger Muhammad (saw) by his insults, Al-Asmaa bintu Marwaan was killed by Umayr bin Adi’ al-Khatmi, a blind man, for writing poetry against the prophet and insulting him in it, Al-Aswad al-Ansi was killed by Fairuz al-Daylami and his family for insulting the Messenger Muhammad (saw) and claiming to be a prophet himself. This is the judgement of Islam upon those who violate, dishonour and insult the Messenger Muhammad (saw).
Shortly after these incidents the people began to realise that insulting the Messenger of Allah (saw) was not something to be taken lightly and that by doing so would mean that you would be killed for it, a concept that many have seem to forgotten today.
The insulting of the Messenger Muhammad (saw) is something that the Muslims cannot and will not tolerate and the punishment in Islam for the one who does so is death. This is the sunnah of the prophet and the verdict of Islam upon such people, one that any Muslim is able execute. The response of the Muslims all over the world shows us the inability to deal with such people, the kuffar are attacking our Messenger and are allowed to get away with it whilst the Muslims have no power to do anything about it. The leaders of the Muslim world have no care for the deen of Islam as they are busy cementing their seats content with their power and wealth. Where are the Muhammad ibn Maslamah’s of our ummah who will defend the honour of our beloved Messenger and rise the banner of Tawheed high?
But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion with disapproval and criticism then fight (you) the leaders of disbelief - for surely their oaths are nothing to them - so that they may stop (evil actions). [9:12
A_Wanderer said:You still haven't answered the question directly, what course of action do you advocate deep?
A_Wanderer said:You still haven't answered the question directly, what course of action do you advocate deep?
A_Wanderer said:Does that extend to censorship of said cartoons?
originally posted by A_Wanderer
I reiterate that making a cartoon of Jesus ejaculating over Mary while being done over by Joseph would be a depiction of supremely bad taste - but I think that I could safely draw and distribute something like that without having to worry about personal safety.
It may well have been an act of spineless self-censorship for the owner of the French paper to fire the editor who run the pictures but it was his right to do so.yolland said:In the US billboards (along streets, highways, sides of buildings, etc.) are often privately owned, and it is generally perfectly permissible to feature religious messages, inflammatory political invective, etc. on them.
What if a certain party wished to rent a few billboards to feature the Jyllands-Posten cartoons (Free Speech--Pass It On!) for the patriotic edification of passers-by? Should such a public platform for these images be allowed by the government? If not, how is it different from a nationally widely read, e-accessible, privately owned daily (which is probably seen by more people than any one batch of billboards) running them? Would it be a spineless, simpering act of self-censorship in the face of Muslim wrath for a billboard owner to refuse the offer?
Very nicely put.A_Wanderer said:Free speech is not a right to get a piece published by default, it is a right for a piece to be created and to not have government censorship barriers in place.
I feel that mainstream media organisations are businesses and they will generally tow a line favourable to economic interests, it may also be fair to argue that there is a culture within certain journalistic circles (put by Autralian journo David Marr, journalists have to have a soft-left bias) that may lead to bias - bias can be beaten with strong editorial policy and scrutiny (The ABC News here is much better than our SBS or the BBC).Do you think there is any intrinsic tension between this lack of right to be published by default, and the pressure on media institutions to prove themselves beyond reproach when it comes to their courage in supporting "the struggle for free speech" (and fierceness of opposition to the oft-offended)?
Could you elaborate a bit on what this bias looks like and how a strong editorial policy goes about "beating" it...so that I'm clear how this ties into the overall picture of what we're discussing?A_Wanderer said:bias can be beaten with strong editorial policy and scrutiny (The ABC News here is much better than our SBS or the BBC).
Muslims attack Danish embassy building in Jakarta
JAKARTA, Feb 3 (Reuters) -- About 300 militant Indonesian Muslims went on a rampage inside the lobby of a Jakarta building housing the Danish embassy on Friday in protest over cartoons that Muslims say insult Islam and the Prophet Mohammad.
Shouting "Allahu Akbar" (God is Greatest), the white-clad protesters from the hardline Islamic Defender's Front (FPI) smashed lamps with bamboo sticks and threw chairs around in anger at cartoons originally published by a Danish daily.
They also threw rotten eggs and tomatoes at the Danish embassy symbol inside the lobby. The embassy is on the 25th floor of the building and protesters were unable to get past security in the lobby, a Reuters photographer said.
About 100 Indonesian policemen watched the FPI protesters as they made fiery speeches calling on the government of the world's most populous Muslim nation to sever diplomatic ties with Denmark and evict its ambassador.
They then tore the embassy's flag down from outside the building and lit it on fire on the pavement.
The protesters dispersed after an hour. There were no arrests.
Newspapers in France, Germany, Spain, Switzerland and Hungary have reprinted the caricatures this week, saying press freedom was more important than the protests and boycotts they have provoked. Many Arab commentators said the European defence rings hollow because, they said, European media protected Judaism and Israel from criticism.
On a similar note, Iraq's top Shiite cleric al-Sistani condemned the publication of the cartoons, but also condemned "misguided and oppressive" segments of the Muslim community and said their actions "projected a distorted and dark image of the faith of justice, love and brotherhood."Knowing full well the nature of these cartoons, that they were offensive, deeply offensive to millions of Muslims, these newspaper editors should have exercised better judgment.
Editors know that the Prophet is regarded with love and respect - to caricature him as a terrorist and describe him as daft and dumb, they know the deep sense of anger it will cause.
Instead, they have created a storm. This situation is ripe for exploitation by extremists. The extremists will say to vulnerable Muslims that Europe hates you, hates Islam and hates the Prophet.
There is already a lot of tension between the Muslim world and Europe due to the war in Iraq and the current threat against Iran. It all comes at a very difficult time.
We do not support violent protest nor flag burning. The best way to protest is by voicing your feelings to the embassies - the French and Danish - here.
Jyllands-Posten chief editor: "They have won"
By SA
Feb 3, 2006
COPENHAGEN - A storm of protests and consumer boycotts in the Middle East against Denmark suggest that opponents of freedom of expression "have won", said the editor of a newspaper that published controversial caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed, in a report published on Wednesday.
Jyllands-Posten chief editor Carsten Juste said: "They have won. That is the sad fact. I guess that during the next generation no one in Denmark will draw the Prophet Mohammed."
Asked if he regretted last September's publication that had angered many Muslims, Juste said: "If we had known it would have led to boycotts and that Danish lives would be threatened, as we have seen, then the answer is no. That would not have been responsible. The costs were simply too high."
So much for fraternite.Carrefour, the French retailer, said it had removed Danish products from shelves in its Middle East operations.
No. A world without history, identity, diversity, and culture would be a much better place.1stepcloser said:This is getting ridiculous. A world without religeon would be a much better place.