tinman, Stop derailing the thread with your funny nonsense And yes, there were some great cartoons back when I lived in that region, but they were all Japanese, who make the best cartoons, of course.
I have to agree with you on that. In fact, all the minority groups are worrying about that. Now, let's go back to GARM, and kick some purple asses
I don't think the protesters hate Bin Laden. I also don't think the anger is about the cartoons. THe reaction is too irrational and extensive. It's just hate for the west pent up for so long and those cartoons was just the spark. Perhaps in the long run this is a good thing. Maybe people should address the divide between these two civilizations now rather then later. Well, can it really be addressed? Realistically not. But maybe this is a wake-up call. Radical Islam is here to stay - it can't be defeated because it's tied-in so tightly that even moderate Muslims can't do anything about it. And their ruthlessness and willingness for violence gives them great power. They can foster conflict with the West which in turn raises their standing and increases their power at home. Even if the west were to totally disengage, these radicals would blame the West for isolating their world and denying them a better life. No matter what, the story will be twisted. It's a mess, a big mess. We need to take the power away from radicals by having more Muslim countries like Turkey. How can we create more Turkies and move away from the Afganistans and Syrias?
a tangent but i think its fascinating that turkey was created because it was able to defeat/convince the allies. and it was also indigenously created because ataturk knew that was the only way to avoid colonization. turkey was one of the few successful anti-colonial independences.
did they censor ROBOTECH?? I remember watching that as a kid, MinMay and Rick were about to get it on!
Turks! not Turkies!! How do we stop radical ISLAM?? with RADICAL CHRISTIANS!!! Drop some MICHAEL W SMITH blasts on the crowd! Drop some WWJD shirts! Make the mormons knock on their door!
First, you have to stop inciting them by calling them Turkies (LMAO, I don't know if you intended to say that, but thanks for the laugh anyways) The only solution -- albeit a long-term one that will require a lot of patience -- is to encourage indigenous movements like that. Turkey was unique in that they were powerful and autonomous enough (and probably lucky enough) to avoid succumbing to colonial rule, and were lucky enough to have a visionary nationalist leader. Iran was heading to a similar direction, sadly however, the CIA and the MI6 intervened and interrupted their natural growth. All other Middle Eastern states, following the collapse of the powerful Ottoman Empire, came under colonial influence in one way or another. I don't think those states have yet recovered from that, it's still a transition period for most of them.
I bought a hefty chunk of Danish Havarti cheese today. I suggest everyone do the same. It goes quite well with Turkey. I spent some quality time, sitting on my Ottoman, watching The Empire Strikes Back. Keep D&D Civil.
In some sense, shouldn't we be? Upset vs. roitous. Even Jesus was upset, and some may say he was riotous in the temple. As a matter of principle, He taught passiveness... yet on the issue of money changers he took to physical means of removal of an offense to God. Some would argue the same has happened here. Even though I see it quite differently. The smilie indicates you're saying that with a bit of tongue-in-cheek, but "Who shall inherit the earth?" I really believe these particular Muslims rioting have yet to learn how to behave, much as a toddler in their mentality. Some Christians on this board often make posts that seem to read from that mindset as well. I'm not knocking anyone here... just jumping into another thought from a quote... I find it strange how "passive" we Christians have allowed ourselves to become at times... but it is the enigma of what we are to be, in the long run. Over time, verbal outcry, and even physical demonstration is something of a spiritual youth... I believe as we mature spiritually we realize that we really don't wrestle against "flesh and blood," and prayer becomes the weapon of faith that it was meant to be. Not every Christian has come to terms with this, I'm certain. And I'd venture a guess and say that applies to any belief system. Sometimes the "pushover" is avoiding the push on a higher plain, awaiting the life after.
The time is coming where the world is finally going to stand up to radical Islam. I get tired of American muslims saying "we don't align with these yahoos" yet there is NO MAJOR OUTCRY from ANY large number of muslims, you simply disagree with them in private rather then say "HEY JACKASSES, STOP ****ING UP OUR FAITH!" No, you don't want to offend them so you tip-toe around the issue and that is frustrating as hell to non-muslims. When idiots like Pat Robertson or Jerry Fallwell stick their feet in their mouths there is an outcry calling them complete idiots, no tip-toeing on the issue... and THAT is where people get frustrated with muslims. For instance, there was a "sign" left close to mosque in Houston with some "Bad" stuff on it, and they are crying that it is a hate crime... IT WAS A FREAKING SIGN! Meanwhile there are churches all over the south being burned, but you barely hear about it but the greater Houston area muslim spokesman was crying like a two year old on Radio and TV yesterday because of a FREAKING SIGN! There is a HUGE double-standard when it comes to the Muslim faith, their leaders or people in power can say and do what they want regarding other faiths (such as hatred of Israel) and the American and other "free" muslims do NOT band together and speak out against them... I know muslims, I work with muslims and I am fairly well read on the muslim faith, but that doesn't change the fact that continued ignorant violence around the world on a daily basis starts and stops with muslims. From riots in Paris to outcries against Israel and silly freaking cartoons... it is ridiculous and nothing that is said about the situation will change that.
I agree with the first part of your post. People are way too sensitive. We should be free to express ourselves. If that offends a few Muslims, Jews, Christians, or Blacks along the way, then so be it. By the way, in America, it isn't the Muslims or the Jews burning Christian churches in America. Rather, it's Christians. Burning churches in America has long been a problem in our history. Black churches were regularly burned by whites. Why were they burned? Because they were Black churches. Racism and segregation were long justified using Christianity. And don't tell me that it was the select few. Since people do not buy that argument for Muslims, I will not buy it for Christians. There were no silly deaths or riots? Being burned while praying in a Black church is a silly death. If there wasn't a riot, there sure as hell should have been one. The last part of your post proves that you are a bigot and a racist. You make an unsubstantiated claim that the vast majority of people can't stand Muslims. It's easy to pick on the entire Muslim population these days I guess. Imagine what the response would be if you stuck another race in that very same statement. "And you honestly wonder why the vast majority of people can't stand the Jewish faith" or "And you honestly wonder why the vast majority of people can't stand the Black race" The response would be quite different, and that response would be the correct one. It's too bad us American Muslims aren't afforded that courtesy.
Related to this Issue NBC has cancelled the show "The Book of Daniel" befor it has aired due to complaints from a Christian group. http://www.cnsnews.com/Culture/Archive/200601/CUL20060125a.html I'm bringing this up to illustrate a few things. First its not only Muslims who feel slighted by the media and Christians aren't passively getting trampled on by a secularists media. Second that the media here even in the US will engage in self-censorship when they are worried about offending a religious group that may affect their bottom line. Third is that the AFA handled this in a manner totally consistent with a free society with a capitalist system by exercising their right to peaceful protest and economic boycott. To sum up the dedication to freedom of speech by a for profit is media is an ideal that is often constrained by the pursuit of profit and it is somewhat hypocritical to pretend that censorship in the face of intimidation, in this case economic, is unknown in the enlightened West. Christians get offended too and should understand why Muslims get offended. Finally Muslims should understand that while they are offended violence isn't the most practical answer because it alienates potential supporters and hardens the opposition. In an age of global capitalism economic boycott is potentially far more affective.
Sishir- an upcoming episode of Will & Grace was edited because of some poking fun at Christianity, as well. the backlash in advance of the show was so strong, that it caused them to edit the stuff out, as i understand it.
Holy Moly! If true - this paints an even worse picture... (ripped shamelessly from another messageboard, edited by me) There's even more news to be read. If you want another perspective on just what's going on, here's a more detailed timeline courtesy of a handful of conspiracy nuts with a website : September, 2005: A series of cartoons is published in the Danish newspaper Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten, depicting the Prophet in a number of unflattering ways. Nobody notices. October, 2005: Nobody notices again. November and December, 2005: Still no response. It's almost like nobody cares. Early January, 2006: During the Hajj, an annual pilgrimage in which millions of people travel to Mecca, negligence on behalf of the organizers led to the well publicized stampede . Earlier that month a hotel near Mecca had collapsed, killing at least seventy people. Both tragedies were seen as being caused by the carelessness of the Saudi government, and the metaphorical poo-poo started to fly. Nobody heard about it in North America because they were too concerned with more important things like Nick and Jessica's break-up and whether Angelina and Brad were likely to get back together. Later That Same Week: The Saudi press, which is completely controlled by the government, discovers to its shock that a mere four months ago a foreign newspaper with a limited circularion had printed a few poorly drawn cartoons which nobody seemed to care about. Sensing a far more important story at hand the Saudi government drops all plans to criticize themselves for their fatal blunders at the Hajj and instead starts running up to four stories a day about the horrors of infidel cartoonists. The locals eat it up. The European and American media sense a big boost to their circulation and ratings, eat it up with just as much fervor, and start reprinting the cartoons. This is a bit like throwing water on a grease fire, and it leads us to where we are today. ------------ The same cartoons were also printed in an egyptian paper back in October 2005! No outrage of this magnitude...
From yesterdays WSJ: Link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113936983467268070.html Bonfire of the Pieties By AMIR TAHERI February 8, 2006; Page A16 "The Muslim Fury," one newspaper headline screamed. "The rage of Islam sweeps Europe," said another. "The clash of civilizations is coming," warned one commentator. All this refers to the row provoked by the publication of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper four months ago. Since then a number of demonstrations have been held, mostly -- though not exclusively -- in the West, and Scandinavian embassies and consulates have been besieged. But how representative of Islam are all those demonstrators? The "rage machine" was set in motion when the Muslim Brotherhood -- a political, not a religious, organization -- called on sympathizers in the Middle East and Europe to take the field. A fatwa was issued by Yussuf al-Qaradawi, a Brotherhood sheikh with his own program on al-Jazeera. Not to be left behind, the Brotherhood's rivals, Hizb al-Tahrir al-Islami (Islamic Liberation Party) and the Movement of the Exiles (Ghuraba), joined the fray. Believing that there might be something in it for themselves, the Syrian Baathist leaders abandoned their party's 60-year-old secular pretensions and organized attacks on the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus and Beirut. The Muslim Brotherhood's position, put by one of its younger militants, Tariq Ramadan -- who is, strangely enough, also an adviser to the British home secretary -- can be summed up as follows: It is against Islamic principles to represent by imagery not only Muhammad but all the prophets of Islam; and the Muslim world is not used to laughing at religion. Both claims, however, are false. There is no Quranic injunction against images, whether of Muhammad or anyone else. When it spread into the Levant, Islam came into contact with a version of Christianity that was militantly iconoclastic. As a result some Muslim theologians, at a time when Islam still had an organic theology, issued "fatwas" against any depiction of the Godhead. That position was further buttressed by the fact that Islam acknowledges the Jewish Ten Commandments -- which include a ban on depicting God -- as part of its heritage. The issue has never been decided one way or another, and the claim that a ban on images is "an absolute principle of Islam" is purely political. Islam has only one absolute principle: the Oneness of God. Trying to invent other absolutes is, from the point of view of Islamic theology, nothing but sherk, i.e., the bestowal on the Many of the attributes of the One. The claim that the ban on depicting Muhammad and other prophets is an absolute principle of Islam is also refuted by history. Many portraits of Muhammad have been drawn by Muslim artists, often commissioned by Muslim rulers. There is no space here to provide an exhaustive list, but these are some of the most famous: A miniature by Sultan Muhammad-Nur Bokharai, showing Muhammad riding Buraq, a horse with the face of a beautiful woman, on his way to Jerusalem for his M'eraj or nocturnal journey to Heavens (16th century); a painting showing Archangel Gabriel guiding Muhammad into Medina, the prophet's capital after he fled from Mecca (16th c.); a portrait of Muhammad, his face covered with a mask, on a pulpit in Medina (16th c.); an Isfahan miniature depicting the prophet with his favorite kitten, Hurairah (17th c.); Kamaleddin Behzad's miniature showing Muhammad contemplating a rose produced by a drop of sweat that fell from his face (19th c.); a painting, "Massacre of the Family of the Prophet," showing Muhammad watching as his grandson Hussain is put to death by the Umayyads in Karbala (19th c.); a painting showing Muhammad and seven of his first followers (18th c.); and Kamal ul-Mulk's portrait of Muhammad showing the prophet holding the Quran in one hand while with the index finger of the other hand he points to the Oneness of God (19th c.). Some of these can be seen in museums within the Muslim world, including the Topkapi in Istanbul, and in Bokhara, Samarkand and Haroun-Walat (a suburb of Isfahan). Visitors to other museums, including some in Europe, would find miniatures and book illuminations depicting Muhammad, at times wearing his Meccan burqa (cover) or his Medinan niqab (mask). There have been few statues of Muhammad, although several Iranian and Arab contemporary sculptors have produced busts of the prophet. One statue of Muhammad can be seen at the building of the U.S. Supreme Court, where the prophet is honored as one of the great "lawgivers" of mankind. There has been other imagery: the Janissaries -- the elite of the Ottoman army -- carried a medallion stamped with the prophet's head (sabz qaba). Their Persian Qizilbash rivals had their own icon, depicting the head of Ali, the prophet's son-in-law and the first Imam of Shiism. As for images of other prophets, they run into millions. Perhaps the most popular is Joseph, who is presented by the Quran as the most beautiful human being created by God. Now to the second claim, that the Muslim world is not used to laughing at religion. That is true if we restrict the Muslim world to the Brotherhood and its siblings in the Salafist movement, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al Qaeda. But these are all political organizations masquerading as religious ones. They are not the sole representatives of Islam just as the Nazi party was not the sole representative of German culture. Their attempt at portraying Islam as a sullen culture that lacks a sense of humor is part of the same discourse that claims "suicide-martyrdom" as the highest goal for all true believers. The truth is that Islam has always had a sense of humor and has never called for chopping heads as the answer to satirists. Muhammad himself pardoned a famous Meccan poet who had lampooned him for more than a decade. Both Arabic and Persian literature, the two great literatures of Islam, are full of examples of "laughing at religion," at times to the point of irreverence. Again, offering an exhaustive list is not possible. But those familiar with Islam's literature know of Ubaid Zakani's "Mush va Gorbeh" (Mouse and Cat), a match for Rabelais when it comes to mocking religion. Sa'adi's eloquent soliloquy on behalf of Satan mocks the "dry pious ones." And Attar portrays a hypocritical sheikh who, having fallen into the Tigris, is choked by his enormous beard. Islamic satire reaches its heights in Rumi, where a shepherd conspires with God to pull a stunt on Moses; all three end up having a good laugh. Islamic ethics is based on "limits and proportions," which means that the answer to an offensive cartoon is a cartoon, not the burning of embassies or the kidnapping of people designated as the enemy. Islam rejects guilt by association. Just as Muslims should not blame all Westerners for the poor taste of a cartoonist who wanted to be offensive, those horrified by the spectacle of rent-a-mob sackings of embassies in the name of Islam should not blame all Muslims for what is an outburst of fascist energy. Mr. Taheri is the author of "L'Irak: Le Dessous Des Cartes" (Editions Complexe, 2002).
Very interesting read, I was aware of the fact that earlier portrayals of the prophet did in fact exist in the early years in Islam, and I am also aware that there is no Koranic injunction against it. I think generally speaking, there is definitely a strong fear of idoltry among Muslims, and that's why Islam is often described as "radical monotheism". It also probably has something to do with the history of pre-Islamic Arabia, which was dominated by idoltry and statues and the such, which Muslims were banned from doing. Interesting read, I am going to have to explore this topic a bit more from a theological perspective...
have you noticed that all the dirt poor countries are the ones where the people act like loonies?!! they are already pissed off!
