It has to be in A Islamic ruled country, based on the sharia, and it applies only to the Muslims. Also, if a nonmuslim were to do this in a islamic country, then he could be punished, but not as severely as a muslim would be.
If only us muslims took a page from the Jews on how to deal with hatred and racism, lets just say muslims would be in a better place right now.
actually, most of the violence and hatred and the ones that cant "hang" with the philosophy of free speech are in countries ruled by muslims, and are not in any western civilizations.
Im like the flu....always around ready to popin when you least expect it. and adeel....I comprende that fact..addressed it in last post.
Ofcourse, something that offends you personally should never ever be an excuse to violence. In Islamic school, I was told a story about controlling our personal agenda vs what is morally right.
You might not have used those exact terms but considering the vast majority of your threads and posts are critical towards Islam I would say you paint with a fairly broad brush. Further I would say you have something of an obsession regarding Islam. (Although you did respond to one of my post and accuse me of "dimnitude" so maybe your out to bash me more )
Do those protesters hate Osama or Denmark more? I don't recall the same level of outrage after OBL admitted to masterminding the murder of over 3,000 Americans. Was there even any outrage in the ME? One caused many deaths while the other hurt some feelings. The troublesome aspect is that a terrorist appears to be feted, while upstanding countries are vilified. Crazy world.
Deus vult! adeelsiddiqui I think I take away something from your story other than what you are trying to put across. For me the questions are. why did Ali think he was able to say that God would have wanted his gift? And why did he think he was righteous and holy enough to be the agent of God's will? I don't mean to be insulting, but these are questions that I would ask myself before I decided to kill someone for God. What about the Sunni insurgents who apparently genuinely believe that they should kill Shia for God? Better yet, what about dubbyah. At one point he said that he "looked into his heart and God told him to invade Iraq". Assuming that he really believes this do you see how there is an incredible degree of inherent distortion from the nature of the perciever? Feeling like the right hand of God is notorious for its seductive qualities. It feels good to think that you are doing the work of God, which makes it easy to do just that when you are doing the exact opposite. Bush is doing God's work. Benjamin Netanyahu was doing God's work. Hammas is doing God's work. Ossama bin Laden is doing God's work. Even in the amazingly unlikely case that one of them is right; the other three are totally deluded and I'm willing to bet against even that 1. There is also something about that story that has a sort of Samurai-like romantic arbitrariness. Granted these type of things are appealing (hence their widespread popularity) but I can only think of Japanese soldiers doing suicidal charges with their shin-gunto even though they hurt the Japanese military because they feel that honor demands it. Protocol demands a vainglorious show of bravery and honor. People would die a brave and glorious death for God, but would they shame themselves and have their families if that would further the cause of God?
Nope, that's not what I know. Even during the Cultural Revolution when CCP tramped much of the religious freedom, we as young students were taught to respect minorities and their customs, Muslims included. For example, one of the things I still remember is never bring any pork product to Muslim restaurants.
every man interprets stuff their own way. It wasnt a gift to allah, first, because Muslims believe that allah doenst need any gifts or anything that we have to offer. After all, that is what makes him god omnipresent. Not dependent on anything or anyone. If you want an explanation of why Ali(r.a) was fighting in the battle, as far as ive interpret it, just like all muslims ali r.a. took allahs command to go into battle against the oppressors and get back what was originally theirs. and so they went into battle. Why did Ali think he was holy enough to be an agent of god's will you ask? well, i guess him being one of the first muslims, and also being given the order to go into battle by the prophet himself was kind of a hint that he was holy enough? still not sure what yo mean by that question well, i accept your view on this. sure you have to ask yourself questions, maybe someone like Ali, already did go through that phase in life and had all his questions answered. I dunno.
Anyone else think that it says a lot about Muslims that they protest a mere cartoon in such a hostile (and ridiculous) manner, yet largely ignored the beheading of Nick Berg?
It seems presumptious for him to take upon himself God's will. All men, even the prophet can be mistaken (i.e. Satan and idol worship). It seems unduly vain. If God wills it it will be done. In my opinion Ali taking it upon himself to kill for God is like dubbyah taking it upon himself to invade Iraq for God. If you kill someone do it for tangible reasons, not "for the sake of Allah" which I still don't understand as being different from "a gift for Allah". If possible could you articulate what the difference is? That's really kind of my point. If God wanted Christians to go and take back the Holy Land they would have suddently found themselves in a position where that would be the most sensable action. As you said, God is Omnipotent. He doesn't need us attempting to devine some greater plan. Whenever people start worrying about crap outside the realm of their own sphere, bad things start to happen. What I'm saying is no man is perfect, no man can uderstand God, so why do things like invade Palestine for God. Such ideas are grandiose presumption. If God wants you to kill infadels, he will have them try to invade your country (a la Iraq), etc. You don't need to start a fight with them, god will set it up. As far as I understand it, my two talking points are very compatable with Islam (1. The only perfect thing is God & 2. God doesn't need you doing things for him, like hunting down infidels because you believe you know what he wants.) Not to change the subject, here's another thing that I don't quite understand; if the only thing that is perfect is the word of God transmited to you through the prophet, why do you keep around the sharia? Is that not the imperfect work of man?
Can chinese muslims eat sweet and sour pork? Should I ask it in a picture form? Or will my home town be burned? Isn't every religion the brunt of a joke every now and then? I know mine is... in print or in artwork. So? It doesn't change my convictions, however insulting it may be. I think the bigger cry from the rest of the world should be.. "Grow up! You're all acting like a bunch of 5 year olds that were picked on in kindergarten. Stop throwing a fit!" Okay? Good grief.
I can personally vouch for the chaos at zabars- i mean, sunday morning the line at the "appetizing" counter was out of control! -- THE JEWISH STREET EXPLODES April 1, 2006. New York -- In response to a series of offensive cartoons published in an Iranian newspaper and subsequently printed in every newspaper around the globe, including many which had refused to publish the now-forgotten "anti-Muslim" cartoons last winter, the "Jewish street" erupted. At Brandeis University, a course on Lesbian motifs in Yiddish literature was briefly interrupted as students asked their professor what he thought about the controversy. In Washington D.C. a flurry of letters to the editor and press releases poured out of Jewish organizations. In New York, Commentary magazine -- a leading organ of the "neoconservative" Jewish Right -- announced it would run three articles on Iran in its next issue as well as an extensive letters section. "This is outrageous but expected," thundered a furious Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League on a longer-than-normal appearance on MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews." Elsewhere Jewish tempers weren't running so hot. At Artie's Delicatessen on the Upper West Side of New York, Josh Greenberg ate a pastrami sandwich with a friend, Abe Kolman, hoping to avoid all the furor in the Jewish street. "Zabar's is a mad house today," Greenberg observed. When asked about the Iranian newspaper controversy, Greenberg said "What are you going to do?" Kolman, an orthodontist, added "I'd stop eating Iranian pistachios, I guess." The White House continued to plead with Jews across America to stay calm. http://corner.nationalreview.com/06_02_05_corner-archive.asp#089531
here's my theory: these rioters have nothing better to do. they live in societies that restrict or they themselves restrict certain entertainment venues or activities. they live in economically challenged countries. they live in oppressive countries. they have all thise boiled up agression and any hint of insult they'd goin on an arson rampage. think about it. someone makes a cartoon about america or jesus or whatver. (in america)the majority of the people have other stuff to do, see R rated movies, go shopping for nice clothes, watch some NBA ball, play some xbox360, go out to the clubs with their friends.. or they are busy thinking about work, their finances their kids, buying a new car etc there's no argument that people act crazier in the poorier countries than they do the richer. protesters in london didn't try to burn down the bridge or the big clock. but people in gaza went johnny blaze. economics has plenty to do with this besides the usual defamation of a religion. if you are poor, you arent the happiest person, insult your prophet on top of that, that will make you drop $5 that you spend the whole week earning to buy a bootleg Danish flag and some matches.
In the light of the revelation that Danes (and most Euro whites for that matter) are sensitive to cartoons depicting Jesus Christ but could care rat's ass about Muslims' feeling towards Muhammad cartoons, there is definitely a prevailing air of racial/cultural/religious insensitivity, if not outright racial supriority, in that part of the world. Sort of like Fuzzy Zoeller's sneering remarks, fried chicken and collard green, ya know. Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1703501,00.html?gusrc=rss Gwladys Fouché Monday February 6, 2006 Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have caused a storm of protest throughout the Islamic world, refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ, it has emerged today. The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny. In April 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten. Zieler received an email back from the paper's Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them." The illustrator said: "I see the cartoons as an innocent joke, of the type that my Christian grandfather would enjoy." "I showed them to a few pastors and they thought they were funny." But the Jyllands-Posten editor in question, Mr Kaiser, said that the case was "ridiculous to bring forward now. It has nothing to do with the Muhammad cartoons. "In the Muhammad drawings case, we asked the illustrators to do it. I did not ask for these cartoons. That's the difference," he said. "The illustrator thought his cartoons were funny. I did not think so. It would offend some readers, not much but some." The decision smacks of "double-standards", said Ahmed Akkari, spokesman for the Danish-based European Committee for Prophet Honouring, the umbrella group that represents 27 Muslim organisations that are campaigning for a full apology from Jyllands-Posten. "How can Jyllands-Posten distinguish the two cases? Surely they must understand," Mr Akkari added. Meanwhile, the editor of a Malaysian newspaper resigned over the weekend after printing one of the Muhammad cartoons that have unleashed a storm of protest across the Islamic world. Malaysia's Sunday Tribune, based in the remote state of Sarawak, on Borneo island, ran one of the Danish cartoons on Saturday. It is unclear which one of the 12 drawings was reprinted. Printed on page 12 of the paper, the cartoon illustrated an article about the lack of impact of the controversy in Malaysia, a country with a majority Muslim population. The newspaper apologised and expressed "profound regret over the unauthorised publication", in a front page statement on Sunday. "Our internal inquiry revealed that the editor on duty, who was responsible for the same publication, had done it all alone by himself without authority in compliance with the prescribed procedures as required for such news," the statement said. The editor, who has not been named, regretted his mistake, apologised and tendered his resignation, according to the statement.
Isn't it obvious that people are more sensitive to their own religion? There are a lot of offensive material being printed in the Muslim world towards Jewish people. The question here is how people respond to those offensive materials.
Fair question. OTOH, wouldn't it be more appropriate for the "culturally superior" to exercise good judgment when it comes to printing materials so as not to cause offense in the first place?
