Saturday
(0)The demonstration in Trafalgar square, supported by dhimmi-in-chief for London Ken Livingston, was clearly orchestrated to show a homogenised face of 'moderate Islam' for the world to see. An interesting feature of the demo was that no 'home made placards' were tolerated by the organisers. A small group of Kurds turned up with their own signs and were fairly quickly handed the printed blue-white official signs. I was not quick enough to get a picture of the Kurdish ones before they vanished as I did not expect them to be taken down, but the ones in English were fairly anodyne.
Not even in Islamic green!
I would guess maybe 7,000 people showed up, perhaps 10,000 tops, at least by the time I lost interest around 3:00 and wandered off to a nearby computer faire. Many of the usual suspects were there, such as the inevitable socialist workers and CND set...
Quite what wicked old Blair and BushMcHitler have to do with protesting against cartoons of Mohammed in Denmark was not clear
Hands off secular fascist police states and theocratic police states!
You can be sure those naughty cartoons (or that tee-shirt) would not have been allowed in Cuba!
The large official signs were clearly expensive high quality creations and contained all manner of utterly irrelevant slogans designed to appeal to the 'hard of thinking'.
So if some Muslim desires sharia law for themselves, presumably this is what he also wishes for me... Oh I feel much better now!
Tolerance? Sure, it is yours by right. Respect? You must be joking, that you have to earn
Jyllands-Posten did not 'incite' to violence, they just defended free expression, unlike some others we know of. Respect however has nothing to do with it
And just to remind people what this is really about...
The Danish embassy in London under police guard
And one final picture which tickled my sense of irony... a pleasant looking young woman watching the demonstration in her stylish Christian Dior scarf.
Neat pix. Thanks, Perry. The Beeb is only claiming 4,000 turned up ...
This whole thing is so stupid. What were they hoping to accomplish? The craven British press didn't print the silly cartoons. So what were they demonstrating against? They were demonstrating for the right to censor what other people say about their "religion".
What's more, I resent posters that read, "We are all brothers and sisters". Watch it! You don't get into my family that easily! For the record, I am not your sister.
Posted by Verity at February 11, 2006 06:18 PM
I guess Cuba's just some kind of model of religious tolerance then? Amusing. Maybe Britain could pay for one-way tickets for all of its recently immigrated muslim population to settle there, where they'll no doubt be much happier and feel more accepted.
Posted by Joshua at February 11, 2006 06:54 PM
I guessed 7,000 in the square (including a bazzilion cops and media folks) when I was there... but I assumed people would keep arriving after I left. I guess that was not true then.
Posted by Perry de Havilland at February 11, 2006 07:04 PM
Interesting.
By the way, someone posting here confused me with Verity. I'm not Verity, not that there would be anything wrong with that.
I've also been mistaken for Julie Burchill and Lynne Truss. I'm just John the Baptist to their Jesus.
Enough about me.
Toodle pip!
Posted by Old Peculier at February 11, 2006 07:19 PM
"I would guess maybe 7,000 people showed up, perhaps 10,000 tops"
The Muslim demonstrators initially expected somewhere in the region of around 30,000 protesters to turn up on the day. Seems they were sadly dissapointed. Sky News said the police estimated no more that 5000 people turned up for the event at Trafalgar Square.
I like the placard proclaiming that "Mohammed is a symbol of Freedom". That's rich coming from a man who advocated slavery as part of his religious ideology and enforcing barbaric and repressive Sharia Law upon us all. And there isn't much "Freedom" in the Kalifate you know.
If Mohammed is such a great symbol Freedom, then why is it that the Islamic world is so devoid of it. How many of the 56 or so Islamic nations out there are TRUE democracies with free, tolerant, pluralistic and liberal societies with a free press and free speech? One... two? if at all any? And how many are repressive dictatorships and theocracies? If Mohammed is a great symbol of Freedom, he's a pretty lousy one. My old Granny is a better advocate that Mo.
To be honest, I much prefer the slogens on the placards displayed at last Friday's firebrand Islamic Fundamentalist demonstration. Those slogens were not doctured to Western tastes and thus were far more heartfelt and honest in their sentiments. "Europe, you'll come crawling when mujahideen come roaring" and "Behead those who insult Islam". Pure Sharia inspire hate-filled bile.
IF Mohamed is a symbol of "Freedom", then my name is Rumplestiltskin.
Posted by Samsung at February 11, 2006 07:27 PM
Dear Rumplestiltskin,
I read - on the Beeb, so it must be true - that there were going to be 100,000 non-violent Muslims marching. The estimates of non-violent participants vary from 3,000 to 4,000 so it looks like all the violent Muslims stayed home and watched videos of beheadings instead.
It's important to remember that this was a march for censorship. They want restrictions on what British people can say or print about their Mohammed - in the name, of course, of "respect". It's worrisome that they cannot understand why the cartoons were printed in the first place. But this is the Muslim way: learn by rote, act by rote, think by rote. They're really just excitable little automatons.
Meanwhile, as I don't respect their religion, I shall consider myself free to make any remarks that spring to mind.
Posted by Verity at February 11, 2006 07:42 PM
Perry: Was anyone from the 'other' demonstration in evidence? Did anyone turn up at all or were they just kept out of the way by the police?
Posted by Moriarty at February 11, 2006 07:52 PM
"For the record, I am not your sister."
Blessed relief...
Moriarty: there were more riot police in Shepherd's Bush this afternoon than I have ever seen anywhere in my life. QPR were at home to Millwall. If they were also needed to marshal the fascists then I guess they must have drawn on the resources of Dads' Army.
Posted by winkle at February 11, 2006 08:11 PM
Very useful photos, Mr. de Havilland - particularly in their exposure of renta-a-mob at work, ever-ready to ally itself with any disaffected cause, oblivious of its compatibility anything else the SWP affiliates with. What a bunch of maroons!
As for our would-be masters, I'm entirely with Verity: this was a march advocating censorship.
One only has to note the alacrity with which Fungus the Bogeyman and Bliar have been rubbing their nasty little hands together over their neo-fascist bill(s) during the past few days, to wonder whether there might be a little more than coincidence at work here, just as some have been suggesting.
Posted by GCooper at February 11, 2006 08:13 PM
In the first photo below, what does Muhammad (S) mean? Is S the symbol of his political party - like Derek Davis (C)?
Posted by Verity at February 11, 2006 08:24 PM
It's probably an abbreviation of "sallalahu aleyhi wasallam", which means "peace be upon him" in Arabic. After Muhammad's name is written or spoken, Muslims traditionally repeat this phrase to show their respect for him.
- Josh
Posted by Wild Pegasus at February 11, 2006 08:30 PM
I was just going to ask the same thing Verity, I've been wondering about that all day since seeing the news reports......
Posted by Noel Cooper at February 11, 2006 08:31 PM
No doubt alot of the points brought up here were raised in THIS(Link) thread. Cannot be bothered to go through them all... feel free to join in on that board. But note it is a civilised conversation
Many thanks
Wasalaam
PS wont be looking here again, not much point reply to me here...
Posted by Murtaza at February 11, 2006 08:32 PM
Thanks Josh, I shall look out for the BBC adopting it......
Posted by Noel Cooper at February 11, 2006 08:33 PM
sorry, i know the thread is young, but i copy-pasted the text. view the thread.. it answers alot of Qs.
wasup perry
wasalaam
Posted by Murtaza at February 11, 2006 08:35 PM
I believe the BBC has already adopted it, Noel. And I saw it in Al-Gharday'an yesterday.
Posted by Verity at February 11, 2006 08:38 PM
So what happens if we tolerate them until they're a majority and then they vote for sharia law? Which they will do/be, because:
1. They're outbreeding us at a ridiculous rate
2. They're cultish - they tend to vote as a bloc following the instructions of 'community leaders' and they indoctrinate their children with the same garbage they believe.
3. No-one in government is prepared to set down a written constitution that sets out unalienable rights.
This is why I think there can be no tolerance for intolerance, and they are definitely intolerant.
Posted by Lascaille at February 11, 2006 08:53 PM
Verity: "They want restrictions on what British people can say or print about their Mohammed.."
Exactly, but once mo. gets the special treatment, they will demand it be extended to Jesus, who is also convieniently, a prophet of the mohammedians, then moses. Soon, we will have an established religion.
Even the bloody actually established religion in this country doesn't get the treatement the mohammedans are demanding.
Monty Python & the holy grail, Life of Brian, Father Ted*, All gas & gaiters, Barchester towers. In the interests of inclusiveness, when is the BBC going to produce a play taking the piss about mohammadism, along the lines of any of the above??
*Admittedly, not part of the UK established church. But I am sure the BBC could do something similar.
Posted by APL at February 11, 2006 09:02 PM
1. They're outbreeding us at a ridiculous rate
Not to worry... even faster is the rate at which eastern europeans are arriving in britain and THEY have no hesitation about assimulating and even less compunction about pissing all over Islamic sensibilies. The more the merier I say.
Posted by Albion at February 11, 2006 09:02 PM
WOW! It is amazingly sad how much you few people love to do some Islam-Bashing, or whtever the "technical" term is....
hmmm
peace (aka wasalaam)
Posted by Murtaza at February 11, 2006 09:07 PM
Diss - If you're reading this, here's a company printing Mohammad T-shirts. Yours would outsell what they're currently offering ...(Link)
Posted by Verity at February 11, 2006 09:17 PM
Something else that is amazingly sad, and disturbing, is the idea of a 'demonstration' by people waving only officially-sanctioned placards - whatever their views are. Frankly I'd rather have the implausible death-threats (though not actual violence) from the loony element.
Posted by guy herbert at February 11, 2006 09:18 PM
And that's - count 'em! - THREE posts for someone who said he "wouldn't be looking here again."
As for muslim-bashing, it's pretty much my hobby now, yeah. I'm unequivocal in my rejection of philosophies that allow people to burn buildings as an expression of disatisfaction with cartoons they don't like.
Posted by Joshua at February 11, 2006 09:21 PM
I like the placard proclaiming that "Mohammed is a symbol of Freedom". That's rich coming from a man who advocated slavery as part of his religious ideology and enforcing barbaric and repressive Sharia Law upon us all.
come on, where did that come from. The fact is, when there was a war, prisoners were taken, but then were freed as soon as the war finished. Some were freed as is, some demanded money, and some would even look after the slaves, take them into their homes and feed them, clothe them etc. as for "barbaric" sharia law, which sharia is this? if you look into the linked blog, i have looked at the issues of slavery (as per references in the Quran) and myslef and a fellow poster looked at Sharia law as you seem to know it.
I have posed a few simple questions...
here is one, it is somewhat hypothetical..
Lets say x has the right to drive, x has a car, x has a license.
x drives. x drives very dangerously. he is at risk of harming:
a) himself - acident
b) others - on the road
and as a result he will be taken to task, and most proably lose his right to drive.
NOW, newspaper x has the right to free speech.
x uses its free speech. x "speaks" and publishes articles. x publishes images of a revered Prophet, and crosses a line as far ass ALL Muslims go. x is at risk of harming:
a) itself - bomb threats etc
b)others - the economy (if the boycotts hold), Muslims were harmed (emotionally), Denamrk's people may be harmed(more bomb threats)
so why then should newspaper x not be taken to task for abusing rights when person x is?
i know situations differ slightly, but dont split hairs on the analogy, look deeper, look at my Q...
PLEASE read the other thread...
thanks
wasalaam
Posted by Murtaza at February 11, 2006 09:22 PM
dude, i told you, i copy pasted that... but very clever, you counted...
I wont be here THAT much, but for now ill try n stick around.
and, come ooon. when did ISLAM say "Burn Buildings"???
wasalaam
Posted by Murtaza at February 11, 2006 09:27 PM
How comes that riots did not erupt when the cartoons were first published in Arab newspapers last September? - and I believe on several occasions prior to that.
The whole charade has been stage managed by Islamic interests, for some obscure, and no doubt slick trickery reason, perhaps to take the heat of off Iran's nuclear games?
Whatever the reason, the whole is an excercise in flagrant hypocrisy and bigoted cant.
Murtaza, Islam does not respect Christianity, or any other religion, even different shades of Islam are at each others throats e.g. Shi'ite versus Sunni. Just why should you demand respect for such a cruel regime, when you feel free to preach such a universal hatred against all others.
If you don't like it here, go back to an Islamic country and put that in order first, show us infidels just how 'peaceful' your religion is, then we may learn by your example. I doubt whether that would ever happen, though, you couldn't do it in two thousand years, and it ain't going to happen now. The days of Islamic bully boy tactics are over, grow up, move on and most of all - get a life...
Posted by ernest young at February 11, 2006 09:41 PM
Watch the news much? It didn't have to say it. That this culture condones this kind of behavior should now be obvious to everyone in the world.
Posted by Joshua at February 11, 2006 09:41 PM
"x publishes images of a revered Prophet, and crosses a line as far as ALL Muslims go. "
yeah, but free speech includes the right to offend, to satirise, to ridicule. such is the nature of free society. its taken us hundreds of years to get to where we are today , and i sure as hell am NOT having the Islamists dragging us back to the religious dark ages.
You think your "prophet" is revered. Why the hell should I "respect" your religion any more than the Scientologists, the Moonies , Christianity, the Invisible Pink Unicorn or any other religion? All are fair game for satire, ridicule and comedy.
And if you cant take it , either grow a thick skin, or else seriously reconsider whether you actually want to live in a free society.
There's always Saudi Arabia or Iran if thats what you are after.
Posted by archduke at February 11, 2006 09:43 PM
Driving is a privilege, not a right.
Thank you, you have illustrated your complete lack of comprehension of civil rights.
Posted by Ivan at February 11, 2006 09:57 PM
Fatuous analogy, Mutaza - one can cause harm DIRECTLY through his own carelessness, the other can cause harm INDIRECTLY by having over-sensitive Muslims riot. Why should the 2nd be responsible for people who just take themselves too damn seriously? Or are you telling us that Muslims are uncontrollable people who cause violence through no fault of their own when provoked?
Perhaps if the "far right" rioted every time a Muslim committed an act of terrorism, you would apply your logic to that situation and stop "provoking" them?
These over-sensitive types really need some of this new product:
Posted by stoatman at February 11, 2006 10:01 PM
Another point:
There were plenty of "not in my name" placards at various anti-war demos. Why are there not members of this illusive "moderate Muslim majority" waving "not in my name" placards in response to Islamic terrorism?
Or is the only difference between a "moderate" and an "extremist" that one is prepared to use violence and the other not, otherwise they broadly agree?
Posted by stoatman at February 11, 2006 10:08 PM
"when did ISLAM say "Burn Buildings"??? "
It's true. Islam didn't say "Burn Buildings". It said: "behead the infidels" !
Posted by Jacob at February 11, 2006 10:17 PM
Murtaza,Do you unequivocally condemn the slaughter and maiming caused by the bombing on the London Underground?
Where is the apology for the horrendous sentiments expressed on the placards at last weeks protest,bearing in mind that the pictures were never published in this country.
BTW What kind of Arabic is Dude?
Posted by Ron Brick at February 11, 2006 10:18 PM
NOW, newspaper x has the right to free speech. x uses its free speech. x "speaks" and publishes articles. x publishes images of a revered Prophet, and crosses a line as far ass ALL Muslims go. x is at risk of harming: a) itself - bomb threats etc b)others - the economy (if the boycotts hold), Muslims were harmed (emotionally), Denamrk's people may be harmed(more bomb threats)
1) Freedom of Speech means the right to be rude, offensive, insulting, and most importantly, CRITICAL. Freedom to do as you think others should do is NOT freedom. The basic logic to freedom of speech is that it is your mouth. Only you have the power to control your mouth, hence THE RIGHT. The only means for others to control your mouth is by violence or by coersion thereof, and it is this violence that free societies are opposed to.
2) You do NOT have the right to never being insulted or getting your feelings or sensibilities hurt. See #1, above. The basic logic is that your eyes and ears do not have editors which will automatically edit out what you don't want to see or hear. If you have a problem with something you see or hear you should either look elsewhere or go somewhere else.
Posted by Dwayne at February 11, 2006 10:20 PM
Murtaza (who only wants to post once but is doubtless keeping track of the proceedings): I know that the questions have been asked, albeit rhetorically, many times, but I would like to put them to you personally & would be grateful for a clear, unevasive (difficult, I know) answer.
1) If the West (incl.UK) is so awful what the bloody hell are you doing here?
2) Why aren't the many Islamist bigots not leaving in droves for their lands of origin? (N.B. I did not say their places of birth.)
3) Where are the queues of Westerners trying to get into Muslim countries...where everything is so right & wonderful?
4) Where on earth are your marbles?
Posted by permanent expat at February 11, 2006 10:22 PM
How comes that riots did not erupt when the cartoons were first published in Arab newspapers last September? - and I believe on several occasions prior to that.because the Muslim world was oblivious to it. It was overlooked. When I saw it for the first time, ie recently, i was offended and as a reaction angry... hard to understand?
The whole charade has been stage managed by Islamic interests, for some obscure, and no doubt slick trickery reason, perhaps to take the heat of off Iran's nuclear games?
riight, those intrests are..? As far as Iran goes, its sort of the Iraq has WMDs aimed at us ready to hit us in 45minutes deal. not really falling for it
Murtaza, Islam does not respect Christianity, or any other religion, even different shades of Islam are at each others throats e.g. Shi'ite versus Sunni. Just why should you demand respect for such a cruel regime, when you feel free to preach such a universal hatred against all others.
hmm, now that I am not so certain about. How so, where does Islam not respect other religions? Did YOU know that in the time of the Prophet, people were allowed to practice their own religions? and I know, "But saudi doesnt... etc", but that is the fault of Saudi, not Islam. dont PUT innocents in the crossfire...
Sunni and Shia go off at a tangent, but suffice it to say that there are disagreements, but not usally much terrorism there. Its usually the wahabi types (no inteded offence to anyone here), they are more killer than anyone. and i believe OBL is part of that camp...
The days of Islamic bully boy tactics are over, grow up, move on and most of all - get a life...ook, thanks. not ryna bully anyone, Im guessing you mean the "BEHEAD THE INFIDELS" etc. lol, that was funny but stupid. Mujahideen. Nutters.... you must have heard that it was hijacked... what Muslim do you know that conodnes that other than the OBL type?
Watch the news much? It didn't have to say it. That this culture condones this kind of behavior should now be obvious to everyone in the world.
intresting, the "culture" of Mohammed???
yeah, but free speech includes the right to offend, to satirise, to ridicule. such is the nature of free society. its taken us hundreds of years to get to where we are today , and i sure as hell am NOT having the Islamists dragging us back to the religious dark ages.aah, we had this, let me try and remmeber what it was we said. OK, an imperical part of society at large is respect for one another and knowing the Right and Wrong (morality) wich is hard coded into each other. when you see an old lady in you way you dont barge through her (hopefully), you say excuse me. you dont know her, she could be murdering people, BUT you dont know, so you give her respect for what she is, Human. In the same way, you dont know me, so you should "nothing" me. ie give me the respect of a human, no more, no less. so then why is it that Muslims in your book get less? offending someone who you dont know is morally incorrect, ie wrong, so on two grounds, what was done was not right. BUT you could try to stand on the arguement of "freedom of speech". BUT how was this "statement" or insult helping anyone? what was its goal? was it simply to offend Muslims, since it was their RIGHT to be able to? then why should they? If you can stand here and say, it took us so long to get from respecting each other to namecalling for no reason, then i cant see much point in the whole "freedom of speech" movement. Was it not more to get people to be able to say, "I think this" or "the governement did this" without being shot???
Dont you remeber this sorta thing in school?? It was somewhat childish, so haw can such actions, when performed by adults be good??
If you truly belioeve Islam is flawed, then PLEASE feel free to tell me why. something along the lines of
ISLAM does xyz. Drawing a picturse isnt anything like that, its simply an insult.
the llines this discussion is going to go to have been covered in the link i gave earlier...
Thanks
Waslaam
Posted by Murtaza at February 11, 2006 10:24 PM
The sparse turnout at Trafalgar Square
"Denamrk's people may be harmed(more bomb threats)"
This is what is known as intimidation,it might be a good time to examine the history of two World Wars before shaking a stick at Europe.It might not be the advisable route to take.
Posted by Ron Brick at February 11, 2006 10:31 PM
Murtaza writes:
In the same way, you dont know me, so you should "nothing" me. ie give me the respect of a human, no more, no less. so then why is it that Muslims in your book get less?
OH, ok, I see what your problem is. Fair enough. I think I can help. The reason Jylands-Posten published those cartoons is because of a culture of intimidation that existed in Denmark (and indeed, exists in most of Europe) because of the muslim community. See - someone wanted to publish children's book which contained illustrations of the the big Mo, but he couldn't find an illustrator because all the illustrators were afraid of the consequences.
In other words, it's a general thing, i.e. not just a couple of crazies here and there. And yes, making credible threats to kill people who illustrate children's books counts as a general lack of respect. The reason these threats are credible is because muslims have acted on such threats so many times before (see Rushdie, Fortuyn, van Gogh, et al). Jylands-Posten published the cartoons in a (long overdue, in my opinion) reaction to such threats.
To spell it out here for you: it isn't the West that's doing the provoking. Jylands-Posten reacted to threats by muslims.
Posted by Joshua at February 11, 2006 10:34 PM
After the slaughter of 7/7 this is particularly offensive.
"ook, thanks. not ryna bully anyone, Im guessing you mean the "BEHEAD THE INFIDELS" etc. lol, that was funny but stupid. Mujahideen. Nutters.... you must have heard that it was hijacked... what Muslim do you know that conodnes that other than the OBL type?"
Yes we do know the type, they murder people in your name,get a grip kid.
Posted by Ron Brick at February 11, 2006 10:37 PM
Don't waste your time trying to tell anything to this little Islamic troll because his mind has been nailed shut since age six. They are brainwashed all their lives and they are never taught to think. This little troll will not have had a single original thought in his life. He will not have a single original argument to further a discussion.
He will bang on and on and on about "insult" and "offended" - I suppose in case we didn't understand the previous 85m times we heard/read Islamic apologists over this issue, he is going to explain it again. And again. And again. In the same turgid language.
And he will miss any points any of you waste time trying to make in return because if it doesn't fit in to what he learned at school, at home, in the mosque, he can't take it in.
I told you. They learn by rote. They are taught not to think. Just follow the Koran. It has all the answers, so why bother trying to figure anything out?
Trollwise, counting Kodiak as a 10, this little Islamotroll is a .0025.
That Preparation M ad - Left hand application. What a hoot!
Posted by Verity at February 11, 2006 10:39 PM
"come on, where did that come from. The fact is, when there was a war, prisoners were taken, but then were freed as soon as the war finished. Some were freed as is, some demanded money, and some would even look after the slaves, take them into their homes and feed them, clothe them etc. as"
What a load of rubbish. Who do you think you're fooling exactly?
One example among the whole pile that made up Islam's bloody expansion: in 718 (That's hardly a century after Moh's death) following up on its bloody tracks since Saudi Arabia the Muslim army crossed the Pyrenées and occupied Narbonne (South of France).
They sold all women and children into slavery. The men were less lucky: the Muslims slaughtered all adult male inhabitants of the city.
Look Dude, just because you believe you can find everything in the One book and ditch the others doesn't mean that we forgot our - and your - history.
Posted by the dissident frogman at February 11, 2006 10:51 PM
I wrote my post while the Islamotroll's post was going up and he has proved my point. Respect. He doesn't understand that people respect one another naturally -or they don't. It cannot be legislated.
And this troll is building up to Kodiak-length contributions. It started with one sentence. Watch. The next one will be even longer and it will reiterate all the same points. They can't develop an argument.
Posted by Verity at February 11, 2006 10:58 PM
Verity-
Point taken - Murtaza is a troll, right. I second the (implied) suggestion to ignore him from here out.
Posted by Joshua at February 11, 2006 10:59 PM
Diss - did you see my post about the T-shirt manufacturer selling Ts of Mohammed? Yours would sell far better! I sent you the address.
Posted by Verity at February 11, 2006 11:00 PM
come on, where did that come from. The fact is, when there was a war, prisoners were taken, but then were freed as soon as the war finished. Some were freed as is, some demanded money, and some would even look after the slaves, take them into their homes and feed them, clothe them etc. as for "barbaric" sharia law, which sharia is this? - Murtaza
BULLSHIT! Do you think we are all f*cking idiots here. Do you really want me to go and get the Koranic texts that prove that Mohammed/Islam advocated slavery. MOHAMMED WAS A SLAVER. Mohammed made money out of the slave trade through his first wife, and when he got rich and powerful took slaves into his possession. The man OWNED human beings as his own personal property. Islam allows Muslims to make slaves out of anyone who is captured during war. Islam allows for the children of slaves to be raised as slaves. It is permissible under Islamic Sharia law to whip slaves and according to Sharia a Muslim could not be put to death for murdering a slave. And Muslim men were allowed to have sex anytime with females slaves. The Quran allows for, even urges slave-taking. Go and ask Abu Hamza.. I am sure he will fill you in on all the details. Don't you make me go and get the Koranic texts.
And yes, Sharia Law is intolerant, misogynistic, repressive and BARBARIC. Don't get me f*ckin' started on Sharia.
I once watched a REAL Mid Eastern film where two young women were tied up and buried in the ground to their wastes and under Sharia Law were stoned to death for the penalty of adultery by a group of enthusiastic Muslim men, who were chanting "Allah'u-Akbar" at the top of their voices as they pelted them with rocks. Sharia Law in motion. Absolutely VILE... Disgusting.
As far as I am concerned, you can go stick your Sharia Law up your ARSE. And don't you dare come back and tell us that we kuffars got Stone Age Sharia all wrong, and that it is in fact a beacon of enlightenment, and that we in the free and secular democratic West would be far better off enforcing it. I'd rather eat shit than live in a country that practices Sharia Law.
Posted by Samsung at February 11, 2006 11:06 PM
Please don't diss Scandinavians and their folklore by alluding to our Islamic 'friend' as a troll. Support Denmark & look for an appropriate Arabic expression. I know a couple in Hausa but they're a little over the top.
Posted by permanent expat at February 11, 2006 11:11 PM
Driving is a privilege, not a right.Thank you, you have illustrated your complete lack of comprehension of civil rights.
Thank you, this changes my point completely.. (Sarcasm)
Seriously, wow. look at the POINT, not the analogy
Why should the 2nd be responsible for people who just take themselves too damn seriously?
But if it is a known fact that Muslims WILL respond negatively on this scale, then why do it. and note that if you do not know the position of the Prophet, then you are somewhat ignorant, as it has been all over the news, and the title is quite a hint. and if you do know the importace of this person, then you should know that Muslims have every right to be offended. Simply because YOU are very casual about slagging each other off doesnt mean you have any right to expect "us" to be. NOT I DO AGREE THERE WAS ALOT OF OVER-REACTION. But lets not write of an entire religion based on that.
BTW dont appreciate the image. (notice the lack of death threats and explosions. you see, Muslims arent barbaric colonisers of the west... we can discuss too. not everyone who is Muslim fits into that box. infact most dont. the majority on the news do, so be weary of your sources..) :)
Or is the only difference between a "moderate" and an "extremist" that one is prepared to use violence and the other not, otherwise they broadly agree?
Isnt that part of the whole point. We both disagree (me and these Mujahideen nutters) but im not gona shoot anyone, etc. (but thats not terrorism as a whole, its this topic here..)
As far as the terrorists. There were many many condemnations as far as the Muslims went. e.g. every nation. We are, as it is called a silent majority. so if we were marching, we wouldnt be silent. But i think you are right, there needs to be more active Muslims to show that we are not warmongers...
Islam didn't say "Burn Buildings". It said: "behead the infidels" !do you know anything about that. the MUJAHIDEEN SAID THAT!!!! Im a Muslim, im NOT in the Mujahideen camp, mainly because. well their nutters.
i mentioned this in a previous thread. what is with association:
saudi is Islam, Iran is Islam, that guy with a beard is Islam, the terrorist are Islam.
STOP IT! ISLAM is Islam. Teroristss are Terrorists. draw the line.
Yes, they proclaim Islam, but they also said they would kill the west. Not happened...
Murtaza,Do you unequivocally condemn the slaughter and maiming caused by the bombing on the London Underground?
YES!
Where is the apology for the horrendous sentiments expressed on the placards at last weeks protest,bearing in mind that the pictures were never published in this country.They were not us. But I apologise you had to see that under the banner of Islam rather than a banner of Stupidity...
BTW What kind of Arabic is Dude?When did i say anything about me being arabic...? Dont judge my friend... hehe
1) Freedom of Speech means the right to be rude, offensive, insulting, and most importantly, CRITICAL. Freedom to do as you think others should do is NOT freedom. The basic logic to freedom of speech is that it is your mouth. Only you have the power to control your mouth, hence THE RIGHT. The only means for others to control your mouth is by violence or by coersion thereof, and it is this violence that free societies are opposed to.
hehe, but they are MY HANDS, I can control my hands. etc. weak arguement, not going down that road
My point is, yes you have the rights, and you have worked hard for them. But WHY? Why did you, so you can insult people for no reason??? And i love the part saying. "and most importantly CRITICAL". EXACLTY!!!!!!
look, what im saying is that you may have the right. And I would LOVE to see an artcle expressing views against Islam, it would help me think more freely, and that in Islam is very important. BUT the difference is in an article, you are being serious, ypu are showing a point of view, BUT in an image of this kind, its showing pure offence, what are we supposed to take away from this? Is isnt critical at all, it is simply an kick in the crotch so to speak.
2) You do NOT have the right to never being insulted or getting your feelings or sensibilities hurt. See #1, above. The basic logic is that your eyes and ears do not have editors which will automatically edit out what you don't want to see or hear. If you have a problem with something you see or hear you should either look elsewhere or go somewhere else.
one thing i see alot of is the sentiment of "Go Somewhere Else". I eman, what have I, persoanlly EVER done to you, that makes you want me to go away?? anyway, forget that (point is Im not Islam)
I agree, we dont have that right. BUT we have humanity. There is no need to simply throw mud on each otehr, If there is a problem with Muslims, lets hear it, and work at it. dont go and Insult The Propeht PBUH. WHat will that achieve. Point is (im saying that alot here.. :S ) that there is a way to get a point across, and here the point coming across is "We dont like Muslims". was that the intention. Because if it was simply to "exercise free spech" then Why:
a) limited to Mohammed PBUH
b) even going to Mohammed PBUH
and c) why was there no headline/article, and only offensive images?
(who only wants to post once but is doubtless keeping track of the proceedings):hehe, we covered taht
(difficult, I know)not really, but i wont judge you, its ok ;) hehe sorry
1) If the West (incl.UK) is so awful what the bloody hell are you doing here?Erm, I live here. I was born here and wouldnt be shocked to die here. this doesnt mean its perfect, and it doesnt mean its crap, but we strive to make living conditions better right? would you move house if a bulb went out? youd fix ot. so could you hand me that courty-size bulb (i know, lame, just trying to lighten it up a little)
2) Why aren't the many Islamist bigots not leaving in droves for their lands of origin? (N.B. I did not say their places of birth.)not evading, but to save me looking up bigots, what is one?
3) Where are the queues of Westerners trying to get into Muslim countries...where everything is so right & wonderful?aaah, association. Muslim country = Islam. not true, no-one said Muslim coutries RULE!, the west should be more like 'em. I havent heard it yet atleast...
4) Where on earth are your marbles?
mmm, go on...
Posted by Murtaza at February 11, 2006 11:11 PM
Joshua, I would not dismiss Murtaza as a mere troll, he is just using the meta-context available to him just as we are. He has been commenting his heart out (very much in good faith) in an earlier thread and what we have here is a very interesting example of what a gulf of understanding there is. He is trying (and keep in mind English is not his first language, so cut him some slack) to make us see what is self-evident to him just as we are trying (and failing) to do the same with him.
Murtaza has as much difficulty understanding why we see things the way we do as we do with his views, and that makes coming to a meeting of the mind damn near impossible.
In earlier comment sections I have seen (at least) some muslim commenters try in all good faith to bridge the gap and it just hasn't worked. That does not make them trolls or wicked, but it has given me at least a salutary example of how hard it is going to be to find common ground and communicate in ways which do not end up in "my smart bomb is bigger than your truck bomb" type dialogue.
Posted by Perry de Havilland at February 11, 2006 11:15 PM
What? Blind too? (oh, the sheer surprize.) Where are the bigots, you ask!
Verity is right; you talk a lot, wear blinkers & don't know the difference between diatribe & dialogue.
As somebody else posted.....Get a life!
Posted by permanent expat at February 11, 2006 11:23 PM
"But if it is a known fact that Muslims WILL respond negatively on this scale, then why do it"
To prove that we don't give in to bullies who try to destroy freedom.
"Why did you, so you can insult people for no reason??? "
Freedom of speech is very important. Powerful people hate freedom of speech and try to control it so they cannot be criticised. So if we start to lose freedom of speech, it will be easier for powerful people to take control. It is better to have freedom of speech, where sometimes people are offended, than to lose freedom of speech, and be in a situation where the powerful can oppress us and prevent themselves from being criticised. That is why freedom of speech is so precious.
Posted by K at February 11, 2006 11:26 PM
I told you, I told you, I told you - that this little Islamotroll would work up to Kodiak-length responses (but without the wit)! - and wait for the next one. It will be longer. Because he feels you haven't understood the childish arguments and if he just puts it in different words, he can convince you ...
Posted by Verity at February 11, 2006 11:34 PM
Murtaza - the intention was not to say "we don't like Muslims". Do you know how the cartoons came to exist? A man wanted to write a book for children about Mohammed, but no-one would draw pictures for the book, because they were afraid they would be killed by angry Muslims. They became sick of feeling afraid of the bullies, so they decided to stand up to the bullies and publish some cartoons in a newspaper, even though the bullies wouldn't like it. The intention was to say "we don't like bullies."
If it had been Jewish or Christian bullies threatening murder, then they would have made cartoons about Jewish or Christian bullies.
I don't know why you say there was no headline or article, I saw a picture of the cartoons online and there is a headline and an article. I don't speak the language though.
Posted by K at February 11, 2006 11:37 PM
Perry: You write that our Islamist 'friend' is disadvantaged in that English isn't his first language.
He has just written that he was born here!
Posted by permanent expat at February 11, 2006 11:39 PM
"Denamrk's people may be harmed(more bomb threats)"not a threat from me, nooo way. I would hate to see that, Its a concequence. Have there not been bomb threats to the country? maybe im wrong...
To spell it out here for you: it isn't the West that's doing the provoking. Jylands-Posten reacted to threats by muslims.
But whoa, there were not hreats to them before. They feared, there was not extreme threat involved. sidenote, why was it so necessary for this book to have a picture of Prophet Mohammed PBUH.?
My point is, was that the right way of going about it? Is it what an intelligent and advanced west offers as a solution?
what Muslim do you know that conodnes that other than the OBL type?"
OBL = Osma Bin Laden. we are on the same page.
Truly sorry for any offence. Did not mean to cause any, please accept my apologies.
Verity. Try me....
One example among the whole pile that made up Islam's bloody expansion: in 718 (That's hardly a century after Moh's death) following up on its bloody tracks since Saudi Arabia the Muslim army crossed the Pyrenées and occupied Narbonne (South of France).
OK if have to look that one up, but it seems like that was under the rulership of Umar Ibn al-Khattab.
Sunnis believe he was the rightful leader, I as a Shia dont. Anywho, cant really comment since i duno the facts. where did you get yours from? (so i can take a look)..
Verity and Joshua. Very mature. Is it fear that drives you away?
BULLSHIT! Do you think we are all f*cking idiots here. Do you really want me to go and get the Koranic texts that prove that Mohammed/Islam advocated slavery. ... Don't you make me go and get the Koranic texts.
Yup, if you could get Quranic refferences that would be good... because alot of this i dont agree with, and thats one way of solving this arguement...
And yes, Sharia Law is intolerant, misogynistic, repressive and BARBARIC. Don't get me f*ckin' started on Sharia.
I once watched a REAL Mid Eastern film where two young women were tied up and buried in the ground to their wastes and under Sharia Law .....Sharia Law in motion. Absolutely VILE... Disgusting.
...I'd rather eat shit than live in a country that practices Sharia Law.
That must be Saudi. mm, wahabis. Sharia there is, well, not the same. Im sure u know about Wahabis, i mean, the amount you talk about Muslims, it seems like you know all too well. Wahabis are basically watered down extremists...
Wasalaam
PS i think its really interesting how we moved away from a sort of civilised discussion...
Posted by Murtaza at February 11, 2006 11:39 PM
Mr de Havilland,
"He is trying (and keep in mind English is not his first language, "
"I live here. I was born here and wouldnt be shocked to die here."
Apparently,if here is here,yes it is.
Posted by Ron Brick at February 11, 2006 11:39 PM
Perry - perhaps 'troll' is too strong a word (although I do not think so). He said he wasn't coming back. Then he came back with a slightly longer post because he felt we hadn't got his point. We hadn't got the thinking that has been drilled into his brain since he was born. So he had to explain it all over again, in a longer post.
It must be very frustrating for them to feel they're floating in a vast ocean of misunderstanding - but wouldn't the intelligent thing to do would be look around them and see where all the progress has come from? All the freedoms have come from? But they don't see it. It's astounding. All they see is someone published some cartoons and that is forbidden in their own religion, which is absolutely no part of Danish law (but should be ... not that they want to take over Denmark, it's just that their shariah law should apply in some instances... surely that is a silkily reasonable approach?).
The sheer ignorant arrogance of thinking Western democracies and technological heavens would be improved with their Dark Ages desert laws is just so irritating.
I assure you, he will keep coming back to "insult" and "offensive" and "respect" with no understanding that these are all personal choices and unexceptional in free countries. If you insult someone in the West, you will probably get insulted in return. Get over it.
Posted by Verity at February 11, 2006 11:46 PM
K
I can respect that, you see. BUT, it was a bit of overkill dont you think, as a terrorist...
If they wanted to say, we WILL print Images of the Prophet PBUH, then why not make the book?
Posted by Murtaza at February 11, 2006 11:46 PM
To clarify "as a terroist" is "to Depict the Prophet PBUH as a terrorist"...
If you insult someone in the West, you will probably get insulted in returnOk, so on a personal level: i didnt insult anyone (which has anything to do wioth this). Why was i hit in the crossfire?
Perry, can u post that in the other forum for Az to look at, i'm not going to start it...
Anyhow, this is kinda hostile. a little too hostile. I duno if i'll be back (start your party).
Hope I didnt offend anyone, and if i did, then please accept my sincere apologies.
waslaam
Murtaza
Posted by Murtaza at February 11, 2006 11:53 PM
I can't help thinking that many people out there are being a bit unfair on Murtaza. At least he is on here arguing with you. One of the main points that Verity et al want to make is that there is a big problem with Islam and Islamists in that they refuse to allow their religion or culture to be questioned. Yet, here is Murtaza trying to engage in debate and being roundly insulted. I'm all for making points robustly, but I do think that some of the abuse here was unwarranted.
Just my opinion, mind.
Murtaza:
Having said that, I can't help thinking that you continue to miss one of the key points here. The Danish cartoons were not an example of gratuitous mud-slinging. They were raising a very important point. You should not see this as the West attacking Islam, but as the West attempting to stand up to a significant threat from various Islamist factions that seek to close down any debate that, they feel, might weaken them or slow down the march towards the creation of the so-called Caliphate.
There are many Muslims out there (think of Irshad Manji) who want to speak out, and have a debate, but cannot (or CAN, if they're brave enought to risk their lives). The Dutch cartoons have struck a blow for those very Muslims.
And to compare dangerous driving (which might kill someone) to publishing cartoons (which might hurt someone's feelings - aw diddums) is just plain bizarre.
Posted by Horace Dunn at February 11, 2006 11:55 PM
but I do think that some of the abuse here was unwarranted.Thanks
And to compare dangerous driving (which might kill someone) to publishing cartoons (which might hurt someone's feelings - aw diddums) is just plain bizarre.
Yeah i know, but it was a 2second thought, the comparison may be lame, but it was the point i was trying to get across that never really made it.. oh well...
There are many Muslims out there (think of Irshad Manji) who want to speak out, and have a debate, but cannot (or CAN, if they're brave enought to risk their lives). The Dutch cartoons have struck a blow for those very Muslims.
I accept that, BUT the thing is, its like i heard on tv once: Carpet bombing a country simply because terrorists are known to live there. and I kno may of you will rejoice at the idea of taht in the middle east, BUT that is in essence what has happend. To strike a blow to the "bad Muslims", you have hit ALL Muslims. I see that as wrong.
you?
Sidenote, on the question of my mother tongue. It is English. I think. if anything, confusion is coming from me being too casual with it... sorry
(I had actually come to make that point. May come back again :) but im sure if you guys/girls are against that it will be immensely clear)
Wasalaam
Posted by Murtaza at February 12, 2006 12:05 AM
But if it is a known fact that Muslims WILL respond negatively on this scale, then why do it[?]
Because we won't be cowed by threats. Because Muslims should have thicker skin and not get so easily annoyed at a perceived slight. Because the overreaction we see by Muslims every time someone criticises their faith is frankly pathetic.
Because after everything's said and done, it was only a dozen cartoons. Because that is no reason to riot and destroy.
Posted by Lizzie at February 12, 2006 12:09 AM
OK if have to look that one up, but it seems like that was under the rulership of Umar Ibn al-Khattab. Sunnis believe he was the rightful leader, I as a Shia dont. (...)
Nice try, but you're not going to dilute the generalities by arguing over anecdotes and technicalities. That's a trap in which this descendant of Hammer Charly (Glory be upon him) won't fall.
The point is not who was the ruler at any given point, who gave the orders in Narbonne, and what was the state of internal Muslim politics (and the color of the prophet's underwear). These are technicalities.
The point is that it took just a century for Islam to go from the Saudi desert to the plains of Tours (Poitiers), enslaving, murdering or converting everybody in-between, from Syria to Spain, and from the old kingdoms of the Berbers to Aquitane.
The point is that this expansion of a religion (namely Islam) by the sole mean of the sword took place immediatly during and after your prophet's death - that is to say when his "message" was still "fresh", pure and uncut.
So please, give me a break with the whole "hijacking of the religion by a minority of extremists" meme, thank you very much.
The point is that your problem now as a "modern" Muslim is how to denounce and turn your faith away from that bloody and oppressive heritage, knowing for sure that it was brought upon you by your very prophet.
That's a tricky one, I give you that. But you're not going to get away with it by whitewashing and idolizing the slaver warrior...
Posted by the dissident frogman at February 12, 2006 12:10 AM
lizzie
OK, I agree. That was wrong, no 2 ways.
But as i said in a post just before yours, why are they insulting me? And i know there are others like me, who have no problems with the West (that we make public/ known), who condemn terrorists. who hate to see loss of life. any loss of life.
So why strike out at me.
I know it wasnt the intention, but it was the effect. I know you werent aiming for me, but you hit me none the less...
you see, I understand (thanks for that, hadnt actually managed to find someone who explained the idea in its entirity before...) the theory. The West felt it was being pushed. so they pushed back. but i feel they pushed back, but not only to those who they felt were pushing them, but also those who were not doing anything....
thats my belief... am i wrong?
Waslaam (peace)
Posted by Murtaza at February 12, 2006 12:15 AM
Murtaza: Yeah i know, but it was a 2second thought, the comparison may be lame, but it was the point i was trying to get across that never really made it.. oh well...
Sometimes if you are having trouble getting a point across it's because the point itself is weak.
And all this stuff about carpet bombing to get the bad guys (and so harming the good guys too) ... truly, Murtaza, you cannot compare these things. One is carpet bombing (fire and blood and death and destruction), the other is a few cartoons that many seem to have found distasteful. Now, the extremists you mention got ALL IN A TIZZY. But these people are (in your words) nutters. Surely sane people like you can't REALLY associate publishing cartoons with carpet bombing. Those cartoons did nothing to harm you. At schools we used to chant "sticks and stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me". A childish rhyme, to be sure, but one that nevertheless contains an important truth.
As a Christian, I put up with a hell of a lot of sneering and fun-poking at my religion and its symbols. I think it's important to put up with it since it's a small price to pay for freedom of speech. And it doesn't really hurt me, or "damage" Christianity.
Would it really take so much to feel the same way?
Posted by Horace Dunn at February 12, 2006 12:17 AM
by the by, was there an actualy threat from the Muslim community? or was it a percieved threat?
frogman.
Au contraire. see thing is, not everyone liked the Propeht PBUHs way of doing things. so there were deviations.
About the whole
The point is that it took just a century for Islam to go from the Saudi desert to the plains of Tours (Poitiers), enslaving, murdering or converting everybody in-between, from Syria to Spain, and from the old kingdoms of the Berbers to Aquitane.
well i duno about that. In the QURAN (THE text of the Muslims. Not rewritten by the rulers etc, but if these statements hold true then not followed either), there was always a messenger sent first. It wasnt simple as go, kill, take, loot, pilage, and do it again. That was infact not allowed. bear in mind we are talkng about places where war was commonplace. it was quite simple: kill or be killed, so in a war, its not really murder. as far as converting, where is the problem with that? and enslaving, nope. I seem to recall vaguely something about every educated POW being set free if he taught 10 people how to read and write (sorry, no ref's). what were your sources?
Thanks
Waslaam
Posted by Murtaza at February 12, 2006 12:23 AM
Horace.
You see, I dont mind people making fun of me (as they have done), and I can ignore it. BUT when you make fun of my Prophet, there is a line. If you caan accept that, then there is no problem. We can't, we feel that it is too much.
Again. carpet bombing, dont look at the analogy itslef, look at the comparison.
carpet bombing: "hitting" EVRYTHING, rather than a particular target
these Images: "Hit" EVERY Muslim, rather than a group of them...
see what I mean?
If not, suffice it to say that they insulted people who had nothing to do with this. And to THEM this was unprovoked...
Posted by Murtaza at February 12, 2006 12:28 AM
I can't resist! I'm scrawling in lipstick across my monitor Help Me before I Respond to A Muslim Posting .... argh!
Look, you ignorant little British-born Muslim moron who can't spell and has no concept of grammar - probably because yhou have a mother who was imported from East Dikshit and couldn't interact with his teachers - here is the crux of your Islamic stupidity. I would say "read it and learn" but you cannot learn because everything you need to know is in your koran.
"If they wanted to say, we WILL print Images of the Prophet PBUH, then why not make the book?" WTF?
If they wanted to say ... "they" - the newspaper - didn't want to say anything, you little twizzly twerp. CAN UNDERSTAND THIS, IN WORDS OF ONE SYLLABLE:
. Danish person writes life of Mohammed for Danish children in Danish and in Denmark. Following so far? Who knows why he/she would wish to write a book about this individual, but it was his/her choice and presumably he/she thought it would sell.
. Writes book but cannot find an illustrator. Why? Because Danish illustrators think the Muslims might kidnap and behead them if they accept the assignment.
. This is called, self-censorship. Are you following?
. Danish editor in freedom-loving Denmark becomes concerned and BRAVELY decides to hold open house for any illustrator who wishes to submit illustrations.
It bothers me that you have failed to understand any of this.
. Danish paper ran submissions (not to be confused with Theo van Gogh's "Submission", which got him knifed and shot to death on the streets of Amsterdam by one of your foaming co-religionists) and not much happened. Some off-the-wall imams or whatever registered some protests. Yawn.
. A couple of weeks later, Al Fakr, a large Egyptian daily newspaper ran one or more of the cartoons and caused widespread yawning in Egypt. No one gave a shit.
I could go on, with the ambassadors demanding a meeting with the brave and wonderful Mr Rasmussen (that's the prime minister of Denmark) and him saying there's no point. We have a free press.
Whereupon some imams trawled around for truly offensive cartoons in, frankly, the oily Middle Eastern way, added three of the worst and presented them as part of the original portfolio to their compadres in Seethistan.
The excitement has been caused by the Islamics, not the West, which pursues its ancient agenda of free expression. We had free speech long before Mohammed was born and we will have free speech forever.
Posted by Verity at February 12, 2006 12:30 AM
"by the by, was there an actualy threat from the Muslim community? or was it a percieved threat?"
The placards were explicite enough,when we are threatened with a holocaust in Europe it tends to make us apprehensive,especially since the 700 dead and injured on the Tube.
Did you know the Jews were as sensitive about the Holocaust as you are about your Prophet?
Posted by Ron Brick at February 12, 2006 12:32 AM
In the quran, there was always a messenger sent first.
That's correct (although the "always" might be a bit too much) and is actually well documented (No matter the fact that we're talking about events that took place after the koran was written...).
The messenger's message was indeed "Convert, or else..."
The "or else" being the guys with the swords. Are you denying the Muslim invasions now?
Just as well, you're asking where is the problem with converting someone under the threat? Hold your breath, count to five and think about that question (the question, NOT the answer, mind you) very hard.
Now, do you really need me to answer?
Posted by the dissident frogman at February 12, 2006 12:34 AM
Thanks, Verity.
Im sorry that you feel I have offended you by trying to discuss whats going on.
Hopefully you can find it in yourself to forgive me.
Once again, I am from England, and If i have not got he best spelling/grammer/handwriting. it is probably because i am very casual with it as i dont see this as a PHd Paper, but a discussion where the main aim is for others to understand what you are saying...
Waslaam
Posted by Murtaza at February 12, 2006 12:36 AM
ah frogman,
not true.
There was a third option:
Keep your way of life, keep your religion, keep everything. Just pay a small tax. With this came protection, and free trade with the rest of the empire.
Id have gone with the third one.
yeah, well converting under threat isnt really converting.. I was always under the impression converting involved convincing (the non-violent way)...
Posted by Murtaza at February 12, 2006 12:40 AM
Ron, I was talking about the "self-censorship" that Verity reffered to...
Was anything threatened by the Muslims?
Posted by Murtaza at February 12, 2006 12:43 AM
by the by,
the book should have been made now, right.
I mean if there was no real fuss about the images, then the artists (atleast one) should have agreed...?
or am i wrong..?
Posted by Murtaza at February 12, 2006 12:45 AM
Murtaza - first of all, a big THANK YOU for actually making the effort to argue with other people and get our point of view. That actually means a lot (you'd be surprised!).
The media in this country have constantly mocked religion and religious people for as long as I can remember, and long before that. Nothing is sacred! My mother, for example, is very devoutly Christian (I am an atheist). Every time there is something on the TV like Jerry Springer: The Opera, which mocked Jesus and was insulting to Christians whichever way you looked at it, all my mum does is roll her eyes and say "I see they're at it again." She is insulted, but her faith is worthy and strong enough that she does not have to kick up a fuss to defend it.*
That is the way most of us have grown up, being insulted occasionally, but being strong enough to ignore it. I still get people who make nasty comments about me because I have red hair. It's insulting, but at the end of the day, it doesn't affect me because I like my hair. The person who insulted me obviously doesn't like my hair, but I don't tell them they must stop insulting me because it offends me. I don't care.
I know that's not a good example to use, but we are coming at this from such different points of view! I believe that everyone has the right to free speech, even if it is insulting to someone else.
You say
"You see, I dont mind people making fun of me (as they have done), and I can ignore it. BUT when you make fun of my Prophet, there is a line."
Why? Mohammed was only the messenger, after all. People make fun of God all the time, and according to the Quran, there's only one God, but Muslims never get outraged at people's mockery of God. So why get outraged at people's mockery of God's messenger, who is surely lesser than God himself?
Regarding the original reason for the cartoons - the reason they needed an illustrator for the biography of Mohammed is because the book was aimed at children. Children's books don't sell very well if they don't have pictures! That's why they needed pictures, it really is as simple and basic as that. When nobody was prepared to illustrate the book because they were scared of death threats from offended Muslims, then it became interesting to the newspaper, and then they commissioned the cartoons.
*I haven't actually got around to asking my uncle, who is a Muslim, what he thinks about this whole cartoon business, but I shall try to during the week! Anyway, am off to bed now, will check back tomorrow.
____________________
PS Verity, often you speak a lot of sense, but with that
Look, you ignorant little British-born Muslim moron who can't spell and has no concept of grammar - probably because yhou have a mother who was imported from East Dikshit and couldn't interact with his teachers
you're just being plain nasty. We're coming at this from a completely different angle to Murtaza, who genuinely believes that Mohammed received the word of God and was a good and holy man. It is bound to take a lot of patient explanation on both sides to understand each other.
Posted by Lizzie at February 12, 2006 12:49 AM
There was a third option: Keep your way of life, keep your religion, keep everything. Just pay a small tax. With this came protection, and free trade with the rest of the empire.
And how is that fair? Being taxed because you wish to keep your own beliefs? Would you like to be taxed for your beliefs?
Posted by Lizzie at February 12, 2006 12:50 AM
"ah frogman, not true. There was a third option: Keep your way of life, keep your religion, keep everything. Just pay a small tax. With this came protection, and free trade with the rest of the empire. Id have gone with the third one."
Tssk, tssk, tssk... Easy young Padawan, easy now. You're losing the grip on simple logic here. There is only two choices: if you've paid attention to what I wrote instead of letting go at the perspective of writing "you're wrong", you'd have noticed that I wrote "Convert or else..."
i.e. "Or else, face the consequences" - the said consequences, (including, that's right, degrading the non-believers to the sub-citizenship of dhimmitude) being indeed enforced by the blokes with the swords.
See? Now let's hear it loud and clear: "ah frogman. True"
Also, your last incoherent sentence tells me that you didn't take 5 to think about your initial "what's wrong with conversion" question.
By dodging the arguments constantly, you'll end up talking to yourself, son.
Posted by the dissident frogman at February 12, 2006 12:54 AM
Murtaza
A groups of Imams in Denmark made a dossier of cartoons. They took the twelve tame ones that had appeared in Jylands-Posten, and added three much nastier ones to them.
One of these especially nasty cartoons was, in fact, a photograph of a Frenchman wearing a plastic pig's snout and pulling a face (something to do with a pig squealing contest or some other past-time that the French use to get themselves through the long winter nights).
The Imams took the pig picture and attached Mohammed's name to it and then circulated it widely.
Do you think that these Imams are better people than the editorial staff at Jylands-Posten (given that the Imams distributed a far worse insult - attaching Mohammed's name to the image of a pig - than the newspaper did)?
And why do you suppose that you have to take this images-of-the-Prophet stuff so seriously since your own religious leaders are quite happy to create and disseminate insulting images of the Prophet themselves?
And why do you suppose they did this in the first place?
Posted by Horace Dunn at February 12, 2006 01:00 AM
Lizzie
Thanks for the support, you can tell i need it :)
OK, i AM with you here. I think this should, as Verity said happened at the start, have been brushed under the carpet. And the whole burning places, killin people. was jus crazy. we ALL agree..
thing is, from where I see it, there were 2 plans of action:
a) go mad, sorta like it is now.
b) ignore it.
I would have said b without a thought. but then theres that fear that it's a free ticket to take our beloved Prophet PBUH (By us, not you, i picked that up), and mock him, much in the way Jesus PBUH is mocked today. And personally, i dont know which i would do. BUT a third comes to mind.
Yes, its from an anecdote, that is a warning, so feel free to look away now. One of the Imams (progeny of the Prophet PBUH - a Shia belief, also a Shia belioef they should have been rightful successors, but you may not care..) was approached by a man from another land, he had been told that the Imanms were wicked and evil people. He went up to the Imam, and started cursing him and his parents/grandparents, etc. After a while he finished. The Imam had said nothing, but noticed he was a traveller, and was tired. He invited him home for a meal and so he could get some rest, then they could talk. The man was dumbfounded as to how someone who he had heard so much bad about could make an offer like that.
Moral of the story is preach by action. i.e. manners (akhlaq in arabic). We are taugh that this is the way the Prophet PBUH taught, and Jesus PBUH too... so that is what I would have done, but the question is, HOW...
BTW notice the similarities between the story of then, and todays world. People belioeve Islam is evil... etc... I think there is a valuable lesson for Muslims in there...
I am trying, but i am far from perfect...
As far as being taxed. I dont want to make up excuses. My thoughts are: 1) it was in a different time, and 2) if your only other options were those stated, then I think i would still go with those. Notice the tax didnt go to people, went to the state... which included them... sort of like taxes today. But I havent studied that law, so cant say i know for certain...
Wasalaam
Posted by Murtaza at February 12, 2006 01:06 AM
Oh, and by the way Verity: I didn't receive your email.
Posted by the dissident frogman at February 12, 2006 01:07 AM
No Mutie,
The Tube was bombed by Mormons and the demonstrators were all undercover nuns,
Do try harder.
Posted by Ron Brick at February 12, 2006 01:08 AM
We have a Shia threatening the unthinkable
BTW Murtaza,Your parable was the Good Samaritan.
Posted by Ron Brick at February 12, 2006 01:18 AM
i.e. "Or else, face the consequences" - the said consequences, (including, that's right, degrading the non-believers to the sub-citizenship of dhimmitude) being indeed enforced by the blokes with the swords.See? Now let's hear it loud and clear: "ah frogman. True"
I shall give you this pleasure, hehe
ah frogman. True.
but i get the feeling thats splitting hairs. do you think, considering the time and place, that the idea of paying taxes (which doesnt really make you a sub-citizen, since you would be with all the same people you were with originally) to fund your protection and ability to trade is such a bad idea?
Also, your last incoherent sentence tells me that you didn't take 5 to think about your initial "what's wrong with conversion" question.I know im marking my own gravestone here, but, huh. In the post about the book having being made, i was assuming (i know, bad...) that since the book was complete at the time, and as Verity said, there were a number of snores in between, the artists must have noticed the Muslims weret really that fussed, and so one may have said, "ok i'll draw a picture" per se. is this true? or was there still the self-censorship issue.