Some scary stuff here: "Killing of non-Muslims is legitimate" A known British Mullah Mr. Anjum Chaudri describes the "Killing of Innocent" Non-Muslim civilians in suicide bombings as "Legitimate". <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/maHSOB2RFm4&hl=de_DE&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/maHSOB2RFm4&hl=de_DE&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> A Muslim group in London threatening death to Denmark and the UK for publishing cartoons of Mohammed (keep in mind the captions are obviously not from me) <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8E4rMJVHyeg&hl=de_DE&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8E4rMJVHyeg&hl=de_DE&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
"May they bomb Denmark, so we can invade their country!!! And take their wives as war booty!!!" This made me :grin: and lolol... Great post. It really makes Muslims look childish when a cartoon portraying Muslims as violent terrorists, incites even MORE violence. Freedom of Speech is a beautiful thing. You would think that thousands of years of useless war "In the Name of God!" would teach us to lighten up a little bit when it comes to religion. Spoiler <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ghr7K4TtKW4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ghr7K4TtKW4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>[/spoiler] [spoiler]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6wmw8UB4HCU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6wmw8UB4HCU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/spoiler]
Without question, Muslims are provoked more easily. Why that is the csae is probably a 50-page thread.
- I can easily say almost ALL Musllims were offended. Some more, some less. Different reactions. But I assure you, everyone was offended. - Cool, they will become citizens shortly. - The Danish taxpayers are in full control of the laws in their country and thank God for that. Why you are upset that they exercised free speech by saying that they were offended is odd to me. - It is not the same. If it is the case and they are being trouble-makers, then I support the Danish people asking them to leave. As far as I'm aware, inviting someone to your house is because you seek the pleasure of the company of the other side. Also, guests leave, asylum seekers are seeking asylum. Certainly, if a guest shower up with an application form to stay in your house forever, he would be more upfront about his tendencies, preferences, etc and then the two parties must discuss what is appropriate, possible, fair or not. I appreciate the concept of respecting someone's culture/customs when entering their home. If you are to become a permanent member of that home soon, you are imminently becoming a contributor to that culture. If free speech is a part of that culture, then expressing your disdain for someone or something (as long as legal) seems to be quite logical. Muslims are going to be a key part of Europe soon. A huge part. Europe has to take the lead as big brother and set an example for people like Saudi Arabia. It is essential that this is looked at as an opportunity to educate rather than be stubborn and resistant. Muslims will change, there's plenty of evidence of that. They will appreciate being given homes, rights, standards of living. But not if you are indebting them with it upon arrival. Muslims are human btw (in case you didnt know). People don't react well to "I'll do you the favor if you are indebted to me for the forseeable future". That's not a favor, that's an exchange. Good luck buddy. I don't see this going well for you in the future. <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6-3X5hIFXYU&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6-3X5hIFXYU&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
And then you are surprised that people in European countries have second thoughts about allowing more Muslim immigration? I'm surprised that not more people seem to realize the implied threats in your posts.
You continue to ignore the clearly labeled and repeatedly explanied methods to provide peaceful, civilized ramifications. I find this...disconcerting. His primary motivation was to demonstrate what is required of muslims to integrate into democratic free-speech-enabled communities. This is a giant pile of denial and bull****. And you know it. Grow up. The cartoonist pleads FREE SPEECH. Perhaps. My issue is that your values are contradictory. You have repeatedly voiced support for free speech and then provided subjective criteria for what "types" of speech are acceptable. This is a contradiction and one that I hope causes you to pause and reevaluate how you intend to operate in a free society. Unfortunately, what this demonstrated is that the "extremist" cannot be tempered by the rules of a free society. Even more lamentable, the cartoonist revealed that the demarcation between the extemist and non-extremist is fuzzy, and really easy to move. I'm sorry - but that causes me concern and leads me to doubt assertions that extremism in islam is isolated and rare. And this should give the moderate (or real fundamentalist) muslims pause. It certainly gives the non-muslim pause. Sure.
Erdogan urges German Turks not to integrate Published: 17 Mar 10 14:49 CET The Turkish government has reportedly angered Turkish-German politicians by inviting them to an Istanbul conference and then urging them to resist political and social integration in their adopted homeland. At the meeting last month, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan urged Turks living in foreign countries to take out citizenship of the new homelands – not to integrate, but rather to become more politically active, according to the website of news magazine Der Spiegel. Ali Ertan Toprak, deputy chairman of the Alevi community in Germany, told the magazine government representatives had said: “We have to inject European culture with Turkish.” Erdogan told the meeting countries that did not allow dual citizenship violated basic rights and also likened Islamophobia to anti-Semitism. Participants told Spiegel that Erdogan repeated elements of his widely criticised speech in Cologne in 2008 in which he said: “Assimilation is a crime against humanity.” The invitation to politicians and religious leaders of Turkish descent included lunch in a five-star hotel in Istanbul and offered to cover their travel costs. The title of the meeting was: “Wherever one of our countrymen is, we are there too.” About 1,500 Turks from several European countries attended, including a Belgian MP and representatives of companies and NGOs. The meeting was organised by Erdogan’s reigning Justice and Development Party (AKP), which has conservative-religious leanings and has been criticised for pulling the country away from its secular tradition. Faruk Celik, a minister in Erdogan's cabinet, described German politicians as “my honourable parliamentarians” and described Erdogan as “our Prime Minister.” German politicians and religious representatives of Turkish descent were shocked by the brazen political lobbying and were sharply critical of Ankara. “It was an absolutely clear lobbying event by the Turkish government,” said Ali Ertan Toprak. He said he was appalled by how often the Turkish government had said Turkish-Germans should represent the interests of Turkey. “If opponents of (Turkey’s) EU entry from the (European) Union had been there, they would have got a whole lot of material for their argument,” Toprak said. Canan Bayram, a Turkish-born Greens member of the Berlin city parliament, said she had travelled to the conference as the integration spokeswoman for her party but had insisted on paying for herself. “It was important for me to make clear that as a German MP I was not financed by the Turkish government,” she said. Former Social Democrats member of the European parliament and businessman Vural Öger said: “The Turkish government should worry about the interests of Turks in Turkey rather than trying to use Germans of Turkish descent as their messengers.” http://www.thelocal.de/society/20100317-25933.html Turkey's PM awarded by Arab world for "services to Islam" Erdogan was selected by the foundation for "his services to Islam". Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is announced the winner of "King Faisal International Prize" which is considered the "Nobel prize" of the Arab world. The award, which is given every year by Saudi Arabia's King Faisal Foundation, is presented to scientists and people who create positive differences in the world and make contributions to Islam. This year's winners were announced at a ceremony held in Riyadh. Erdogan was selected by the foundation for "his services to Islam". Commenting on Erdogan's success, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said that the foundation decided to award Erdogan as his remarkable contributions and extraordinary successes were highly appreciated. Pointing to Erdogan's virtuous leadership, Ihsanoglu said the Turkish prime minister contributed to the righteous causes of the Islam world and to the formation of "Alliance of Civilizations" initiative. King Faisal awards King Faisal Foundation was established in 1976 by the eight sons of the late King Faisal ibn Abd Al Aziz, a son of Saudi Arabia's founder and the Kingdom's third monarch. Of the many philanthropic activities of the foundation, the "King Faisal International Prize" is the most widely known. Each year, the selection committees designate subjects in Islamic Studies, Arabic Literature and Medicine. Nominations for the prizes are accepted from international institutions and organizations only, and not from individuals or political parties. Winners of the "Prize for Service to Islam" are chosen directly by the respective selection committee. Each of the prize categories consists of a certificate, hand written in Diwani calligraphy, summarizing the laureate's work; a commemorative 24 carat, 200 gram gold medal, uniquely cast for each Prize; and a cash endowment of SR 750,000 (USD 200,000). Co-winners in any category share the monetary grant. The prizes are awarded during a ceremony in Riyadh, under the auspices of the King of Saudi Arabia. http://www.worldbulletin.net/news_detail.php?id=52509 Prime Minister objects to ’moderate Islam’ label ANKARA - Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan rejected attempts to call Turkey the representative of moderate Islam. "It is unacceptable for us to agree with such a definition. Turkey has never been a country to represent such a concept. Moreover, Islam cannot be classified as moderate or not," Erdoğan said, speaking at Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies late Thursday. Erdoğan’s statements came only days before the visit of U.S President Barack Obama whose administration signaled a dramatic shift from George W. Bush in identifying Turkey as a moderate Islamic country. U.S Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had praised Turkey as "a democratic country with a secular constitution" during her visit to Ankara in March. In his speech, "Alliance of Civilizations and Turkey’s role," Erdoğan pointed to the lack of dialogue between different religions and cultures, which has led to distressing incidents in the world history. "The animosity, unfortunately, strengthens the scenarios that there is a so-called clash of civilizations in the world. Those, who defend such speculations, may go further to identify the terrorism with Islam which is based on peace," he maintained, adding that the situation helps those who try to globalize Islamophobia. Erdoğan also wanted Western societies to be more open to cooperation and dialogue with the East. "It should be known that adopting a malicious and offending approach toward the sensitive issues of Islamic world by hiding behind some democratic freedoms like freedom of speech and right of free publication is unacceptable," he said. Drawing attention to the importance of mutual understanding and respect, Erdoğan stated that he believes and respects Moses and Jesus, and accepts them as prophets. "I expect the same attitude from a Jew or a Christian toward my own prophet," Erdoğan noted. He underlined the importance of Turkey’s European Union membership in terms of establishing connections between the West and the East. "As a country whose population is mostly composed of Muslims, Turkey endeavors to get its place in the EU. Turkey’s effort is closely watched not only by European people but also by the citizens of Islam countries," he said. "The thesis that the West and the East, Islam and other religions cannot reconcile, has become invalid in Turkey’s membership process." Erdoğan defended his verbal confrontation with the Israeli president at the World Economic Forum in Davos and added that he spoke up against the killing of innocent civilians and fulfilled his "duty as a human being." At a special session in Davos, Erdoğan stormed out of the stage after accusing Israeli President Shimon Peres of knowing only too well how to kill people. "It was not possible to pass over the matter in silence ...We did not act as counsel for any organization," Erdoğan said, stressing that access to Gaza is still not allowed. http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/domestic/11360374.asp
- I must admit I mustve overlooked these methods of ramification. What are they? Are you talking about the Free Speech controls for racism, etc? - It is not his job to demonstrate that. He did a piss poor job of demonstrating it because his "test" is not a fair one. It's like if I came to America for citizenship and a random bystander decided that part of the test was that I had to watch you piss on my country of origin's flag. This is terrible logic. Nevermind the conflict of interest in place - he makes more money by inciting more outrage. If we're discussing governance structures, there's an important one to consider. - Sorry you disagree. - That's inadequate. I'm telling you, and you don't seem to grasp this, that this form of free speech should be an abuse of the right, and therefore should have ramifications. Don't dramatize the whole thing and exaggerate saying "we have to tailor everything to everyone so we're back to square one". There is, RIGHT NOW, a line which you can cross for free speech. The line is at different places in America and Europe (for example). This difference is viewed as a difference of opinion. I'm voicing my difference of opinion that some elemnts of free speech are being overlooked and that the 1% of free speech which is considered abuse should become 1.1%. Lord have mercy, I must be enslaving you. - See above. Values are not contradictory. You are assuming the difference in your view of free speech and mine is so vast that it contradicts the base theory. I am telling you that if you're at 99% tolerance, Europe is at 98% and I'm suggesting a 97%. It's not until you live in a no-free-speech dictatorship that you realize the gigantic gap. I take it you've never lived anywhere else. - An extremist can not be tempered except by bringing them under the law, under which everyone is equal. You jail them. You sentence them to therapy. Whatever. Why one earth would freedom fix something that is internally wrong with a person? It just gives more space to do damage instead of trying to fix it. The line is as clear as any other religion/equivalent's line between extremists, modertaes and fundamentalists. Again, I feel you are overdramatizing it. Also, to take the thought out before you say it, there is a problem for sure that the terrorism virus is with the Arab-Muslim ideology (not necessarily or exclusively the people of that race/faith) right now. It needs to be fixed. It needs to be corrected. The virus must be killed. I just don't see it as a permanent state as most do. I see it as a virus, and it needs to be eradicated.
On the free speech thing it seems like you are saying that this type is bad because it is offensive. Offensive free speech is almost the only kind that needs actual protection. Nobody is going to complain about speech that talks about the weather, and how lovely the children of the world are. It's only once it becomes offensive, and even picking on people that it really needs protecting.
Mathloom: It is impossible for me to "over-dramatize" the right to free speech. I don't want to have anything to do with your idea of free speech, because you obviously have no idea what the term really constitutes. So no, we don't agree: Fundamentally, you don't support free speech, and I do. Nothing more really needs to be said.
No. It is bad because: - It endangers the person saying it (and his family, friends, community) by virtue of the fact that it was designed to illicit an irrational action from extremists (irrational by definition). - It creates cracks in the social structure, which ultimately leads to a segregated structure where everyone is fending for themselves and actively attacking everyone outside their circle (see Obama's mail full of death threats). It is bad when it goes from expressing different opinions to, for example, doing unethical things to ruin the other side (and ultimately, the whole country). I am not against stating an offensive opinion of the Prophet PBUH. Say/do/draw/burn whatever you like. My problem BEGINGS TO EXIST when your intention is to create a crack in the social structure. You may believe that the cartoonist was testing whether there is a crack. I believe that is a load of dung. Had they "passed" this "test" there would be no "A+", there would be no mention, he would not learn anything, no one would gain anything, lots of people would still be offended. Also, to repeat again, he doesn't have the responsibility, authority, competence or independence to conduct such a test - anyone can easily deduce that from the facts. I don't test expats in Dubai by praying 1 cm outside their doorstep - because I don't have the responsibility, authority, competence or independence to conduct such a test. If 4 out of a a million expats throw bottles at me, I blame myself, and I should've included the expectation in the formulation of the test. Those 4 people, technically, should be punished somehow. But I would still be an ******* and the rest of the 1 million will still consider me an ******* and the 500,000 Emarati citizens being ridiculed in the press will wonder what the hell they did to deserve this and the 4 million strong expat community will begin formulating theories about what's wrong with me and the following week a drunk western european expat may try to smash an empty bottle on my head. What do I have here? I made a negative impact on 5 million people. What did I gain? Nothing. 4 people were reprimanded for being violent. The other millions of people have grown further apart, and do NOT like me one bit. For what? For this narcissistic little test which I had the audacity to assume I have the right to take. This social experiment. Also, I have the nerve to claim "I dont understand why they're mad, I'm in fear all the time. But screw them, I don't regret it, I don't even apologise to those who are not extremist, who 'passed' the test, who have been negatively impacted thanks to me. Screw them all. I did it cause I could." I am against the two bullet points I posted above. Everyone is making it out to be free speech is a uniform right, which is identical across all countries that employ it. It is either like the American brand, or it's not enough free speech and, in fact, it's not free speech at all. Maybe we're all hypocrites for not allowing the right to bear arms and shoot tresspassers as well? It can't be wrong. It can't just be BB guns. It can't be bazookas. It has to be EXACTLY the same, or it's not anything like it. The world is not this black and white. There are varying degrees of free speech. It's not Yes or No. It's a scale, 0 to 10 or 0 to 100. There is no negative number. This has NOTHING to do with Islam. This has EVERYTHING to do with social cohesion and stability. The Islamic factor that you are not allowed to depict the Prophet PBUH - I don't even completely BELIEVE in that. I don't BELIEVE in random Jihad. I don't BELIEVE in killing people because they annoy you. I don't BELIEVE in everyone on earth has to respect Islam. I don't BELIEVE in any of those things. What I am talking about HERE is the negatives of what this guy did, and they faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar outweigh the positives IMO. That kind of action is UNETHICAL in my book. When unethical actions are clearly intentional, that's a red flag in my book. NOT THE QURAN. Mathloom's book. These are my views. They are not views that an Agnostic could not have. They are not views that a democracy loving, freedom loving person could not have - see Danish Cartoonist's hoard of friends who severed ties with him after trying to advise him against it. Would they advise him against it if they believed he was only doing it to express his freedom? No, that is highly unlikely. They were most likely concerned about the social impact of engaging in this petty, meaningless, baseless, and irresponsible act, although he has every right to do it. But knowing the general tone of this thread, they will simply be painted with the "freedom hater" brush. But because I am Muslim, it must be a Muslim thing. Therefore Islam must be incompatible with secular, democratic, values of freedom of speech. I thought we'd agree to disagree. But it appears I will be disagreeing, and you will be claiming to have the eternal factual absolute truth on your side. The irony kills me. Gotcha. Thanks. (FranchiseBlade, only first two paragraphs are directed at your quote. The rest is a rant. I hope it's not viewed as unacceptable jihadist outrage which is bound to lead to violence.)
So you would have banned MLK's speeches because it cracked the social structure of America at the time? You can't just ban something you don't like; that isn't free speech. People have strong opinion on things like abortion, and suppose one side got power, so should they be allowed to ban the other side because it creates cracks in the social structure? How about if a small minority like gays saying they wanted to be allowed to marry; is it ok if they get death threats because they are disrupting the social cohesion?
That is a ridiculous analogy. You are comparing probably the most merited speech in history to one with none. No one said ban. I said ramifications for intentionally attempting to crack social structure or being negligent in that you are doing so - and the key here is that absolutely no positive did or could have come of it. As for the example about gays, their goal is not to disrupt social cohesion. They actually have a noble goal. If gays, however, decided to demonstrate this violently, that would be wrong. If they decided to demonstrate this by publishing doctored images of some hardcore republican political figure going on a killing spree of homosexuals and purported it be to be a valid and probably true representation, that would be bad. I'm not sure if that answers your questions. On a side note, I'm quite certain the politician would file a defamation suit, assuming he's alive while this is happening.
Tell that to the Muslim Rage Boys who burned down the Danish embassy, who called for a boycott of Danish products, who threatened to invade Denmark and take their wives as booty just because of a Danish cartoonist (who isn't even guilty of anything, by the way, in contrast to the Somali axe Muslim Rage Boy who is an attempted murderer), etc. etc. etc.
......what? If you can't stand the heat what must you do? Am I the only one who is waiting for the outcome of this cliff hanger? This is worse than the last season's finale to Lost!
