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.
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.
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.
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!
“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.
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.
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?
“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.
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.
In the first photo below, what does Muhammad (S) mean? Is S the symbol of his political party – like Derek Davis (C)?
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
I was just going to ask the same thing Verity, I’ve been wondering about that all day since seeing the news reports……
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…
Thanks Josh, I shall look out for the BBC adopting it……
sorry, i know the thread is young, but i copy-pasted the text. view the thread.. it answers alot of Qs.
wasup perry
wasalaam
I believe the BBC has already adopted it, Noel. And I saw it in Al-Gharday’an yesterday.
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.
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.
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.
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)
Diss – If you’re reading this, here’s a company printing Mohammad T-shirts. Yours would outsell what they’re currently offering …(Link)
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.
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.
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
Sorry, make that FOUR posts. 😉
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
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…
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.
“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.
Driving is a privilege, not a right.
Thank you, you have illustrated your complete lack of comprehension of civil rights.
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:
Now that’s good old Anglo-Saxon humour….lol
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?
“when did ISLAM say “Burn Buildings”??? ”
It’s true. Islam didn’t say “Burn Buildings”. It said: “behead the infidels” !
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?
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.
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?
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?
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
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…
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?
intresting, the “culture” of Mohammed???
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
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.
Murtaza writes:
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Verity-
Point taken – Murtaza is a troll, right. I second the (implied) suggestion to ignore him from here out.
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.
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.
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.
Thank you, this changes my point completely.. (Sarcasm)
Seriously, wow. look at the POINT, not the analogy
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..) 🙂
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…
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…
YES!
They were not us. But I apologise you had to see that under the banner of Islam rather than a banner of Stupidity…
When did i say anything about me being arabic…?
Dont judge my friend… hehe
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.
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?
hehe, we covered taht
not really, but i wont judge you, its ok 😉 hehe sorry
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)
not evading, but to save me looking up bigots, what is one?
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…
mmm, go on…
Go Samsung!
Great post!
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.
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!
“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.
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 …
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.
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!
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…
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?
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….
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?
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…
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…
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.
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.
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?
To clarify “as a terroist” is “to Depict the Prophet PBUH as a terrorist”…
Ok, 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
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.
Thanks
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…
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
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.
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…
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)
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?
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
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
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…
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.
“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?
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?
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
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)…
Ron, I was talking about the “self-censorship” that Verity reffered to…
Was anything threatened by the Muslims?
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..?
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
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
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.
And how is that fair? Being taxed because you wish to keep your own beliefs? Would you like to be taxed for your beliefs?
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.
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?
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
Oh, and by the way Verity: I didn’t receive your email.
No Mutie,
The Tube was bombed by Mormons and the demonstrators were all undercover nuns,
Do try harder.
We have a Shia threatening the unthinkable
BTW Murtaza,Your parable was the Good Samaritan.
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?
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.
Excuse my ignorance, just trying to learn…
Horace, your somewhat rhetorical Qs 🙂 :
if I were to answer, i would say no
Being an Imam does not make you special. Infact, it means behaviour should be more of a role model, and so this is a bold NO
Hmmm, well, you see, the fact they did it doesnt make it right… I am against them doing it. (BTW is this well known, i read a link off another forum topic, but this hasnt been flashing by in the news, and since they have not been killed/rioted against, im guessing people either dont know or dont believe it..?)
In a word: Politics.
Am i out of line?
No, Froggie, I posted the link on your post about the Mickey Mouse T-shirt. This American company is doing T-shirts of the Mo with the bomb in his turban, which is … like…. so yesterday … Here it is again: (Link)
Lizzie, who is either a co-religionist or a lefty enabler – please read the Dissident Frogman’s posts. Respond properly, not with so much emotion, but with facts – although you seem to be ignorant.
Same goes to the little Muslim who can’t speak or write English despite having been born in the land of the free and, I repeat, because he has a parent who was imported from Seethistan who has never learned to speak English.
English is indeed his second language, Perry, despite the fact that he is probably third generation.
Lizzie,
Here! Here! Insulting the guy’s mother is simply a hateful response.
Murtaza,
Thanks for showing up. Hope you stick around. I have no problem in appreciating the difference between a religion and murdering morons who say they act in its name.
I don’t want this to sound overly crude but I do think that a lot of Muslims need to “grow up” and appreciate a distinction between religious and public life. Religion is a private matter and should not be rammed down anybody else’s throat. I can also see how hearing a fellow Brit say this might seem hypocritical in a country with one particular Christian sect as a state religion.
My answer would be to disestablish the church of England and repeal laws that restrict free speech about race and religion. However, the immediate issue is about these cartoons and the correct response from the Muslim community in Britian would be to ignore them. Any form of government intervention in anything becomes self perpetuating, messy and counterproductive. If you don’t like it – don’t look.
P.S. You are welcome in the country of my birth.
:s
i dont get it…
sorry…
The whole Palestone Israel thing, man is another story, i dont even wana go there…
Its a different topic, Its the US and Iran, and all that…
mmm, wasnt the samaritain the one who helped out the guy who was looted, and then ignored by three of his fellows…?
They are similar, arent they. Religions arent all totally different…. they do preach the same principles in alot of cases (lets not go into the differences, and be hapy with the similarities for now 🙂 )
thanks
waslaam
Oh dear. Ever heard about the Mafia? No? So how about me and my chums come to your place now and then (with base-ball bats as modern swords maybe) and ask you to give us money for “protection” and ability to carry on with your trade? Bad idea?
Here’s wondering if Marlon Brando could have played Mohammed in a Muslim remake of the Godfather…
Also, I’m sorry but with this:
You’re trying to fool the wrong people again. We all know what dhimmitude implies over here, and it goes way beyond the “taxes”
As for this:
I don’t see how your answer relates to my question. Either you’re losing it, or you’re avoiding it.
The question was: what’s wrong with the question “Where is the problem with conversion (under the threat)”
Focus, young Padawan, focus.
“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?”
Hardly splitting hairs,How would you regard the imposition af taxes on Muslims for the same reason here? It certainly makes those who pay the tax second class citizens.
What you describe is known in the world of crime as a “Protection Racket”
Since you were born here Murtaza,I am alarmed at hoe little you have learned about those you live amongst.
once again, Verity, sorry to offend with my language. anything i can change which especially annoys you, let me know…
Thanks Robert. Appreciate the support…
I am all for ignoring them, Other than this site, I have been. But thing is, My fear, and please tell me if it is a valid one, is that if we let it slide, then the falling snowball gets bigger, if ou know what i mean. ie it will become more casual to insult the Prophet PBUH.
Truthfully, I dont want ot shove anything down anyones throat, although (and i know you are tired of hearing it), a little common courtesy, y’know..?
Many thanks for the support.
Wasalaam
Incidentally, I’m truly enjoying myself, but being closer to Mecca than you Brits (Muslims or not), it’s getting quite late in the night here. So I’ll call it quits for tonight, which doesn’t mean I got bored with astounding assertions such as:
“nothing wrong with forcing someone to another religion, is it?” (Sorry Murt, by I know you’re avoiding this one on purpose, and we both know why, now do we?)
and
“nothing wrong with extortion, now is it?”
Let the believers and kufar have fun,
Nighty-nighty
DF
aaaaah frogman, i seeeee. OK, no you are right (all hail etc etc) but we all know conversion under threat is wrong. I thought you meant conversion as in convincing people the non-violent way… as per the parable (although i dont know how many people did that kinda thing…)
ok, I did see the connection with the mafia, etc etc. but the picture in my mind is in their time, when exaonsion was necessary, leaving people in the way they were, hmmm, i think wouldn’t really have worked, because its basically walking across the world then..
I duno, as i said, i never really looked into it (most laws were questioned in the time of the Prophet, and some people dedicate their lives to finding these sorts of things out, so i amy be able to find that out, If i do, i will be sure to get it back to you…) but, whoaaa, i get the feeling we are off at a tangent… are we?
And now, as always, the great double act! The troll standing all alone in his stupidity because he simply – cannot- understand-the point and in leaps someone with a Western name who so-o-o-o sympathises! Lizzie, you’re an Islamic or a lefty fellow traveller. You were spotted a mile away. You types always try the old tricks. I think you’re a little leftie who wants to bring the West down. Happy landings in Seethistan, sweetheart!
To our little troll – No, the good Samaritan wasn’t looted. Please learn to speak English. He was robbed, you sad little thing. Powerless, angry, non-understanding, unable to answer educated arguments, forfeit to an alien diety … you need to be deprogrammed.
ah, frogman.
thanks for the debate. and I think i adressed those 2 just now, but thanks anyway 🙂
erm, Verity. the good Samaritain wasn’t anything’ed. he helped a person (of a certain creed or religion.. sorry a bit sketchy) who was, -i apologise- robbed.
Thats what I was taught…
By the way, why are you still aggressive towards me…?
You can demonstrate the strength and peacefulness of your religion by resolutely ignoring perceived insults. The Jesus parable of “turning the other cheek” might be a good example.
Overreacting to the cartoons is what is likely to make the whole thing snowball. Those who simply act out of spite towards your religion and good old-fashioned hatred of those different from themselves “invading” their country now know just how to annoy you and provoke an extreme reaction which only advances their cause.
If somebody started painting offensive graffiti on mosques, handing the cartoons to Muslims in the street or defacing Islamic websites you would be right to respond using the remedies the law gives you now and would still give you if the race hate laws were repealed. If somebody just prints something that offends you deeply then you should not buy it, cancel you subscription etc..
I am really intrigued by the response of the Iranian government (through its state controlled newspaper) of inviting cartoons about the holocaust. I do find that highly offensive and I think it neatly hits the nail on the head by highlighting the silly laws in some parts of Europe which ban holocaust denials. Rather than adding a law to specifically protect Mohammed we should just sweep away all such laws. That’s the LIBERTARIAN solution.
I saw earlier today, curtesy Google News, that there had been hell on in Indonesia over the cartoons (perhaps that country had lost the Simpsons contract to Korea 😉 ). Their chief mufti (or what not) had said that… aw Gawd, it’s so depressing… Check out the Sunday Times poll. It would appear a lot of Brits are pissed off with Islam trying to except itself.
I guess.
I just would hate to see the Prophet PBUH in something like a ‘Monty Pythons Life of Brian’.
Im sure you can understand my concern.
Iran. Iran. I support them, not in this cause, but because they are a Shia country, and Shias need to stiock together. But you are wholly right. There needs to be less of an over-reaction. But as I said, that is, atleast my, main concern, and why i hesitate to be quiet…
… and suddenly the troll expresses himself better in English!
I told you it was a troll! What a hoooot!
Remember Kodiak!
Nick.
noooo, we dont wana except ourselves. If a law is passed.. it should not be for Islam. It should be for evryone..
anywho. its is night time.
thanks for the debate, very educational. Thanks to Verity for the “full report”.. hope you cheer up.. 🙂
see you all,
Take care
salaams
PS, this probably wont be my last post today, but i wont reapeat what i just said….
I am in the later stages of a film treatment for “Life of Abdul” – I assure you it will be a rip-roaring laugh a minute and will not insult anyone. Honest.
BTW, Murtaza, Shia’s don’t need to “stick together” – we all need to stick together for freedom and that means we all need to be first, last and always individuals.
waaay too many comas earlier:
But as I said, that is (atleast my) main concern, and why i hesitate to be quiet…
Fair point Nick…
I guess theres different levels of “togetherness”, and top level has to be more “everyone”..?
quick Q. Any Christians find Life of Brian not offensive?
From the article Ron Brick linked:
“Death to Denmark,” for something that “Denmark,” properly speaking, didn’t even do (it was a Danish newspaper, as it happens, but hardly the whole nation).
And the action itself hardly deserves “death.”
These examples just keep coming…
Sorry Murtaza, I think I lost a post there – didn’t post right. I was gonna say that group rights (religions etc, whatever) have no rights – only individuals do. In answer to your question, I know lots of Christians who thought Life of Brian was very funny. It’s mainly about obeying authority rather than any particular religion anyway.
Joshua,
Yeah, they do. This time its from the Shias :'(
I shed a tear for every Misunderstood Shia on this day…
I think the crowd was way too hyped up and shouted whatever they were told…
again. we should have ignored it.
*bangs head on table*
Oh well, got to see what happens now….
night one and all..
“Iran. Iran. I support them, not in this cause, but because they are a Shia country, and Shias need to stiock together.”
You do understand don’t you Murtaza,that we could be on the brink of nuclear war and you my dear Murtaza live in a target country.
You might support the Shia,but you might find yourself floating round the stratosphere with us.
While I’, hanging around here, I’d like to take the opportunity to point out something amusing. If you google “wikipedia samizdata” you will find just above the entry for Samizdata (which is a stub) the general entry on “psychiatric hospitals”. I know not why.
I just would hate to see the Prophet PBUH in something like a ‘Monty Pythons Life of Brian’.
Lots of Christians didn’t like it either, but it comes under free speech. That includes the freedom to offend. Your “prophet” is not a consideration to most of the world. Get over it.
Im sure you can understand my concern. Not really. Other people’s rowdy and insensitive free speech often hurts our feelings. Do you think you are alone in sensitivity? It’s the price we pay for being able to say what we want to say when we feel like it. It’s a free exchange. That is life in the freedom-loving West.
While ‘secular Christians’ may have found it funny, most fundamentalists that were aware of it found it extremely, blasphemously offensive. Almost all who did, avoided the movie and all other products from the same producers.
Most of them never even knew, or more importantly, tried to know, about the movie.
And, mostly, they just went on with their lives.
Murtaza,
I was a Christian when Life of Brian came out, and I laughed my head off along with my Christian parents.
Being able not to take oneself or one’s beliefs too seriously is a very important thing. If you cannot laugh, you will go mad.
You draw the line at Mohammed. Someone else will draw the line at insulting Jesus, or Chelsea FC, or Bach, or the French.
I understand that Mohammed is vital to you, Murtaza. But to 58 million other people in the UK, he’s just some guy who’s been dead 1400 years.
If you want a law preventing people saying what they think of Mohammed, fine, we’ll pass it. And we’ll also make it illegal to say nasty things about other religions, about women, about gay people, about apostates.
Will that do you?
Nick,
That is actually a really interesting one. hmm.
But i mean, for example. The right not to be reffered to by usage of the N word, for black people (i think we are allowed to say that…). Is that a right tot he group “black people” or to every meber of that group individually? Is that not then the same? :s
spelling mistakes…
Nick,
That is actually a really interesting one. hmm.
But i mean, for example. The right not to be reffered to by usage of the N word, for black people (i think we are allowed to say that…). Is that a right to the group “black people” or to every member of that group individually? Is that not then the same? :s
Fundamentalists aren’t the Messiah, they’re very silly boys.
Murtaza,
It is only the individual that is offended. Similarly, calling to “kill all Belgians” for example intrinsically embodies a requirement for each individual Belgian to die. We live and die as individuals. Genocide is simply murder writ large and with a specific focus.
mm, so a yes and a no to the question.
I pose this because I personally would be offended, and would go down the route as described by Midwesterner.
as we discussed, this SHOULD have been the route for the Images, but then theres the whole “Oh, they dont mind, lets do it again” situation.
I don’t know the answer, but talking to you guys has sure helped.
MANY THANKS.
Muslims: take note!
I would like to thank those who were a bit more aggressive in the start for settling and debating with me. This has helped. I know this means very little to some, but it clicks with me in this situation:
“Surely after difficulty there is ease”
The Quran (sorry no ref.. i know, very bad)
Waslaam (peace)
Ill look you all up later..
Please keep the debate going at this pace, pleeaaase
Murtaza,
What do you think of the Socialist Workers Party involvement in all this,after all it is a highly secular, communist revolutionary organisation?
I just would hate to see the Prophet PBUH in something like a ‘Monty Pythons Life of Brian’.
The all too quick response to that is to say “Well if you don’t like it go back where you came from / to Cuba / to Iran etc.” I think that the reason that some will say that is not that they resent your presence in the country it’s that they worry that you are trying to change some of the basic political and societal arrangements. Think what would happen if a vegetarian moved into a shared student house and demanded that, out of respect, nobody should cook meat in the kitchen.
Most of the people here on this blog see the state as the enemy. We are highly critical of anybody who wants to co-opt the power of the state to inflict their morality on everybody. We want to operate with the absolute minimum of laws and want to encourage a citizenry with a permanent prejudice against solving any problem by adding new laws or restrictions.
We passed laws preventing people saying bad things about people of different races. That then caused Muslims who are “not a race” to request that they get the same protection. Then homosexuals also asked to be treated as a “protected class.” If we were to go further and pass a law banning “visual representation of the Prophet Muhammed” you can be sure that the prevalence of racial and religious hatred would remain the same and that the only visible effect would be for another group, perhaps Buddhists, to ask for statuatory protection of Buddha.
If you can acheive a society which is as free as possible of laws and restrictions then you will strengthen your religion because it will be strong in its own right – not dependent on a nanny state. You can still impose religious and social sanction on those within your religion who do not conform with religious requirements.
If Monty Python make a “Life of Mo” then you should simply ignore it. When “Life of Brian” was made a big reason it was so popular was the adverse reaction of Christians – if they had ignored it the film could have been completey forgotten by now.
If you want Muslims to have equal protection with Christians and Jews the easiest (and only completely fair way) is for all of them to have no protections.
Murtaza, I have some specific questions for you?
Do you think that holocaust denial should be made a crime in GB?
Do you think that there should be legally enforcible restrictions on how religious figures are portrayed in the media?
I answer “no” to both. I suspect you might answer “Yes’ which means to me that you are worshipping the power of the state and looking to the state for answers rather than to your religion.
No Murtaza, it ain’t a “yes and no” from me. The freedom of expression is an absolute. The freedom to take offence is down to the individual offended (if they so feel to be offended). Destruction of life, liberty and property is never a suitable way of expressing that you have been offended.
I’d write more, but I’m tired, got stuff to do and need to make a trip to the servive station for cigarettes.
This little troll came on board once and said he wouldn’t be back. Since then, he has serially bounced back in for a couple of thousand words. Do you really think, dear Samizdatas, it was your reasoned arguments that kept him coming back?
No. It was an agenda. He’s a little apologist for Islam. As is the ghastly “lizzie” the lefty.
Verity,
Quite a while back I checked th date,certainly not the 1st of April by our calendar,one might even have thought that a Samizdatist was livening up a dull Friday night.
Quite surreal,but what the hell it’s raining.
Lizzie writes:
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.
And gets condemned as a “leftie.”
Well I’ll be darned I must be a “leftie” too. I never knew!
The view of a Muslim Lady
Thank you, Ron Brick. A very fine lady indeed. I wish her well.
,a href=”http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2036538,00.html”> The rather contrary view of a Muslim gentleman
Very interesting thread. I don’t think Murtaza is a troll in the strictest sense, but he does remind me of a certain relentless poster here who is constantly talking past everyone who disagrees.
Regardless of how frustrating this, or any number of other, conversations may get between Muslims and non-Muslims, whether religious in a different faith or none at all, every moment when people are seriously talking to each other is worthwhile.
I would once again like to thank the people here at Samizdata for providing a forum in which conversation can take place. The alternative is just shouting insults at each other as a prelude to violence. I think we have enough of that already.
I try to remember that geology teaches us that entire mountain ranges have been worn away by raindrops.
Each word spoken in debate is one more drop to wear away the barriers between these different worlds.
As an old Sci-Fi fan, I firmly believe that we will encounter alien races someday. These conversations are good practice. I would imagine there will really be some different worldviews when that happens, esp. if they’re hydrogen breathers. (Extra credit for that very obscure reference.)
The rather contrary view of a Muslim gentleman
Sorry about the double post ,but this is important.
Times editorial with poll results
Reading this is fascinating.
Despite the initial incoherence of his argument the treatment of Murtaza here was dreadful. It was an example of the sort of abuse I associate with the more vitriolic left. Perry did us all a favour by pulling the discussion up short and reminding us that venomous insult does not a rational argument make.
This abusive approach is beneath this site. If we cannot tolerate a contrary view then what do we have to contribute to the Great Debate? Anything at all?
Murtaza, on your part? Don’t EVER come to this site expecting your views to go unchallenged. It won’t happen. Examine the progression of your approach. You started your postings with incoherent assertions and progressed to justified and reasoned argument under pressure from these guys. Good for you. If you want to get your views across this is the way to do it, otherwise you will be ignored as a troll and/or banned by the boss here.
I disagree with you, but having my views challenged does not threaten me. Please do it again sometime. Also, please accept my compliments for putting up with the venom thrown your way. You withstood it with dignity and courtesy.
Well said Chris Harper.
But I want to ask Murtaza a question, howcome many Islamic countries have laws against converting away from Islam? (punishable by death)
This hardly shows a confidence in the ultimate truth of their teachings does it?
Infact to me it seems to suggests fear and weakness.
I once asked my Grandma why she believed in Christianity, she said she believed what she was brought up to believe by her parents. I questioned if that was reason enough to believe in something we have no proof or evidence of, but I didn’t push the point since she was quite old. Ofcourse she couldn’t answer my questions, because god doesn’t exist, I would like to be proven wrong on that though 🙂 .
Have you ever read http://www.faithfreedom.org ?
Our friends at the Arab European League have decided to show us all exactly how much offense the Muslim world feels from the Danish cartoons by the very practical means of publishing their own cartoon depicting Hitler and Anne Frank in bed together, aparently post-coitally, with Adolf suggesting that Anne write their encounter up in her diary:
http://www.arabeuropean.org/newsdetail.php?ID=95
I sincerely thank the AEL for providing this aid to understanding their feelings on this matter, and to all Muslims who have taken grave offense from the Danish cartoons I say this:
Grow up and get over it.
I’m still of the opinion that Murtaza was a troll.
veryretired writes:
I don’t know specifically who you had in mind – but his argument style reminds me, personally, of Euan Grey. Always slightly shifting the terms of the debate, never quite responding to exactly what you said.
Well said Chris Harper. One thing I noticed is that nobody picked up Murtaza’s point about the use of the ‘N’ word. Was that one too difficult?
I just wonder if there are many Murtazas in Britain and if they realise what an appalling danger there is in the militant Mulim agenda.
Is there no sense among the immigrant muslim community that the reason they found life so intolerable in their home countries – bad enough to make them travel thousands of miles to escape – is the culture of Islam which has conditioned the totally failed societies from which they all wanted to escape.
GCooper talks about the demonstrators as the “rent-a-mob” crowd. That got me thinking: Is this the Islamic version of anti-globalization demonstrations?
Both have, as their bottom line, gross intolerance masqueraded as tolerance, not to mention fundamental hostility to the modern world. Freedom is Slavery. Censorship is Tolerance.
Absoultely what Chris Harper said at 6.36am. I was supposed to head outside and build a pizza oven this morning, but was riveted to my chair by this comment section – one of the best in the 5 years I’ve read and contributed to Samiz. My feeling on Murtaza is that he ain’t no troll, I remember Kodiak (Pebbledash Be Upon Him) and his approach there was waaaay different to our new debater. Has to be said that some of the nasty personal postings about Murtaza brought to mind the words of Sun Tzu,
If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.
– the Art of War
Can’t help feeling raw anger only reinforces Murtaza’s belief he’s somehow got a point. I for one, who spends far more time than is healthy in the company of and employing lawyers (the capitalist equivalent of a paid assassin I always reckon) know that once the opposition starts to lose their rag, me and my legal eagles are on the right track and very close to winning the war. There’s never excuse for anger with someone who sincerely believes their case, however flawed. Both Murtaza’s aggressive critics here and his own co-religionists might do well to remember the fable of the sun and the wind, who wagered on who would be able to remove a passer-by’s coat first. All the forceful blustering puffery of the wind did was to cause the man to wrap it tighter about his person. It was the gentle warmth of the sun that had the man remove it of his own volition.
Anyway, I’m off now to do some wholly unchristian Sunday morning toiling, as is my unalienable right in this Catholic country, and despite being in line of sight, I don’t expect to be firebombed from their church on top of the hill nearby. All the time that remains true I’ll continue to live here.
Murtaza – you wrote “Why was i hit in the crossfire?” I understand it is unfair that you got hit too, but we don’t always have a better way, and like I explained above, we will always stand up for freedom of speech. The ones to blame are the bullies, they are like weeds in the garden.
You wrote “by the by, was there an actualy threat from the Muslim community? or was it a percieved threat?”
I don’t think there was a threat specifically for the cartoons because I think that the bullies did not know about them until they were published, but there had been threats and murders for similar things before (which is why the cartoonists were afraid of the bullies), and then after the cartoons were published there were lots of threats to the cartoonists.
You wrote “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.”
I accept that there is a line for you, and so I would not cross it just to hurt you, but he is not my Prophet, so there is no line for me, and I am free to ask questions and make criticisms. I understand you don’t want to see a Muslim Life of Brian, there are many things that Christians in this country don’t like to see, but most of them believe that it is better to have freedom of speech and be offended sometimes, than to not have freedom of speech, for the reasons I said in my post at 11:26 PM.
Murtaza – I don’t think the information about the faked Mohammed photo that was really the Frenchman dressed as a pig is well known. It is known on the internet on blogs like this one, and I saw it mentioned at the bottom of one page on the BBC website, but I haven’t seen it in most TV or newspapers.
Murtaza – reference much of the Middle East’s version of sharia law, your interpretation of the Koran might not say that to you, but it certainly says it to them. They firmly believe that they are acting in the name of Islam and the teaching of Muhammad.
Thus, de facto, they are indeed acting in the name of Islam and the teaching of Muhammad. The fact that you disagree as to the exact interpretation of the aforementioned teachings does not change the fact that young girls are being hanged for being raped in Iran in the name of Islamic law.
A bit of moderate “outrage” against these practices being carried out in the name of your religion would do wonders for Islamic relations in the West. All we see, however, is virulent outrage against something which is really a non-issue in the West, and absolute silence about barbaric practices in Islam’s name.
If it had not been for Murtaza, who would there have been to have a debate with?
The attacks on Murtaza’s english was in my opinion totally unfounded. Hurtling insults on ones apponent might be your RIGHT but it does not make the arguments more convincing.
Anyone who has been in an Islamic country, had intensive contact with Muslims and interested themselves with History can only conclude:
Islam is NOT a religion of Peace!! However; many Muslims are peaceful.
THAT there are many Muslims like Murtaza who want to live in peace with their neighbours is obvious. That the many commentaries to the Koran were written by enlightened Muslims TRYING to smooth over the rough edges of their religion is understandable.
But trying to defend “A” Religion is for me beyond comprehension.
Just as the last Pope John Paul II apologised for the atrocities commited by Christians in the name of Jesus who is going to apologise for the atrocities commited in the name of Islam?
Murtaza, don’t take on this overwhelming and monumental task!!
The more I read of what you write Murtaza, the more I think you really are a nice and good person.
If there is only one God, do you think that the one God cares which form we choose to profess our Love in?
I believe you should change your religion. Give your life a break. Walk away from it, devote yourself to God in private.
This is not meant to insult you Murtaza. I, as a follower of Jesus do not want you to convert to Christianity, I don’t know of a church or sect to recommend. I want you to free yourself from oppressive clerics and dogma that does not serve the purpose of THE ONE GOD.
Religion unfortunately is holding back the development of the human race. The love of God without religion can inspire the transition. I ask you to take part in this transition….use the best from all and free yourself from the one.
The World needs a new spirituality. We need Spiritual Books where the message is clear and DOES NOT need commentary.
To all of you I recommend:
“The Autobiography of a Yogi” by Paramahansa Yogananda
“A Course in Miracles”
“The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ” by Levi
Enjoy!!
Murtaza is basically saying: “…these cartoons are deeply offensive to me and other Muslims. Please understand this and refrain from publishing them”.
This is what many other in the West say too – eg. Clinton, Carter, Kofi Anan, the CNN, the spokesman of the State Departement.
So, the big cultural gap isn’t so much between Murtaza and libertarians, but between libertarians and the Main Stream Left (MSL).
On the other hand there is a deep cultural gap between Murtaza and a big part of the Muslim community. They preach and practice violence and terrorism, while Murtaza doesn’t (as he says).
And, Verity, while preaching tolerance, your tone was very intolerant.
K
I too have seen little about the faked pictures in the mainstream media. This is very worrying. Why must the BBC, Guardian and the rest of the leftist media contactly try to pretty up the activities of these extremists? It’s disturbing to see the extent to which they have tried to present the activities of intolerant book-burners (and by this I include both the “behead the infidel” crowd that were protesting last week and the so-called moderates who marched in London yesterday with the support of Mr Livingstone).
Murtaza:
Thanks for the response to my point hours and hours ago. My questions were not entirely rhetorical, however. I asked them because I wanted to know what you thought. Verity will probably call me a leftie now.
You asked about Christian responses to the Life of Brian. It seems to me that most sensible Christians would welcome the film for two reasons: (1) it is very funny and (2) it raises questions about the nature of religion and faith. In the film, a cult (and potentially a world religion) is born as a result of a few farcical events being misinterpreted by a gullible mob desperate to believe in something that transcends their banal lives. Could this have been the way that Christianity began? Well, quite possibly. This gives complacent faith a bit of shake, but, then, what is the point in untested faith? Christians have understood this for centuries (though Christianity has its fair share of dogmatists also, of course). Think also of the Buddha who entreated his followers to test his assertions and not just accept them because he said so.
That’s a trap in which this descendant of Hammer Charly (Glory be upon him) won’t fall.
Um,
Lizzie, who is Hammer Charly (Charley?)?
Charlie Gordon maybe?
Ugh. Religion. Get over yourselves.
Thank God for atheism!
Jacob – I don’t preach anything. We legally have religious tolerance and we legally (until Blair manages to unpick it) have freedom of speech. I am not tolerant of Islam and I don’t “preach” tolerance. I think it is a very aggressive, violent, brutish and ignorant religion.
Murtaz speaks past everyone and finds new little nits to pick because he is practising taqqiya. He doesn’t respond to your points; he responds to the points he wants to you make so he can respond to them because he has his answers. He shifts the emphasis slightly and responds to that. This is taqqiya.
Facts: Muslims worldwide went on a criminal rampage of issuing death threats to the cartoonists and the countries of Denmark and Sweden. These morons are people who had never seen the cartoons. They issued death threats on the streets of London. One dressed as a suicide bomber as the most insulting, nastiest, mean-spirited thing he could think of. They boycotted goods from the Danish company Arla which had absolutely nothing to do with the cartoons or the press of Denmark. But the Islamics childishly cannot see this.
Muslims want freedom of speech censored because they, as always, want special consideration for their religion. They ignore the opposing arguments and simply repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat that their prophet had been insulted.
A young girl is to be hanged in Iran because she defended herself and her little niece against a rapist. She grabbed a knife (or scissors, I’m not clear) and stabbed him hoping to stop him. Sod’s law, she killed him. Girls and women rape victims are routinely hanged or stoned to death in Islamic countries for “adultery”. They hang or stone homosexuals. They perform clitorectomies on little girls. They make women walk around in creepy black bin liners. They commit “honour” killings and everyone in the neighbourhood keeps quiet. An poor Indian worker in Saudi Arabia has been sentenced to have an eye gouged out because, in the course of his work at a petrol station, a Saudi picked a fight with him (tried to leave without paying) and this Indian knocked him against something that caused blindness in one eye. It was an accident, but an eye for an eye, eh? They kidnap people and behead them and record their grisly behaviour and the screams of their victims for their later viewing pleasure.
And these are primitives who want the advanced West to be censored.
Oh, but they “pray” five times a day! So that’s OK, then.
This religion deserves no respect, no tolerance and certainly not any special treatment despite their constant whining that they were “offended”. I’ve been offended by some of the comments made here about me. So what?
Finally, I didn’t insult this kid’s mother – I think that was Robert Alderson who wrote that. I said it was clear that, like so many Pakistanis, he grew up in a family where the mother (a first cousin) had been imported from a tribal area and cannot speak English – and never learns. This fellow’s English is so poor that Perry mistook him for someone who wasn’t writing in his first language. That’s because he grew up, third generation, not speaking English in the home and his mother couldn’t go to the school for discussions with his teacher and couldn’t interact with other, British, mothers. (Don’t jump up and down self-righteously. If she was imported, she’s not British.)
Murtaz and his co-religionists with their endless violence, violent intimidation, threats and demands for special treatment are going the right way to get their “religion” reclassified as a cult.
And at the end of the day, after all the words, all the patient explaining, they still do not understand why they cannot have censorship to protect their religion. They come back with the same points, again and again and again.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/networks/radio4/aod.shtml?radio4/cartoon_storm
who is Hammer Charly (Charley?)?
Presumably a reference to Charles Martel, aka Charles the Hammer
Did no one pick thiS up Feb 12 12:23?
“frogman.
Au contraire. see thing is, not everyone liked the Propeht PBUHs way of doing things. so there were deviations.
About the whole ”
“Au contraire”, hardly a phrase expected of one who has difficulty with English,whence came the middle class affectation?
I live in a town with a large Muslim population,when they speak English it is with a local accent,none of them have ever used, “Au contraire”in my hearing.
“You can drop me here,save you going round”,….”Au contraire mate doubleyeller lines”
Someone has been extracting the urine.
Old Peculier
Why such infrequent trips to Samizdata?
Are you sure you’re not distantly related to Verity?
Also – why do the Right never organise decent marches/protests/demos? The usual “because we’ve all got jobs” retort wears a bit thin after a while.
Attacking people’s use of the language is pointless. Make a snide remark and then move on if you must… I do not think we are here to debate language skills
Verity is exactly right – respect is an adjective that you freely apply to something or someone because it has been earned. Radicalised islam therefore does not merit respect.
Verity,
Claiming that the words “yhou have a mother who was imported from East Dikshit” is not an insult to the guy’s mother takes sophistry and argument shifting to new heights. On a very narrow interpretation you might be right but it seems pretty clear to me that the intent was to insult and obvious to anybody with an ounce of empathy that it would be taken as an insult. Claiming this is not a personal insult is on a par with Bill Clinton claiming that “I did not have sex with that woman.”
Especially when those language skills have been most variable from fake pidgin english to languid liberalese.
We have a right o know with whom or what we are responding.Could be genuine,could be a leftist trying to drum up inflammatory statements,even the Commission for Racial Equality,or even someone having a nobble.
The more you protest Mr de Havilland the faster I count the spoons.You seem to have a very personal interest in this.
this may not be entirly relevant, but it is an interesting observation. Muslims all over the world are protetsting about the cartoons. These muslims claim to be tolerate, “moderate”,whatever that means right now, muslims. Fair enough i suppose. If they want to protest then let them, as long as it doesnt hurt anyone. However, these people claim to be all in favor or tolerance and respect for other cultures and beliefs.
How does this reconcile with the CELEBRATION in the streets after 9/11? If these people really believe in tolerance and repect they should have been protesting against the attacks.
Sorry to say this, it seems to be a bit hypocrytical?
If they believe so strongly, as they seem to and claim to, they should have been on the streets in their MILLIONS. Anyone offer any onther reason apart from them being a bunch of violent barbaric lunatics?
If Murtaza is having trouble understanding why so many people here don’t trust/respect/tolerate him, allow him to contemplate this quote:
He supports Iran because they are Shia. Even though they support Hizbollah, who target civilians. Even though Iran is theocratic states where women are sentenced to death for being raped, AND for defending themselves from rape.
Murtaza, if you give support to Iran, then I will look at you like I look at Iran. If you support Iran, then you should expect people to view you, and treat you as they would Iran. Therefore, to me, you are untrustworthy, and not worthy of respect. Yet, as long as you are not violent, I will tolerate you.
Not like you, not respect you, not be concerned with your feelings, I will simply not oppress you.
I will not force you to change religions upon threat of death or hardship. I will not declare that you are the religion of your father, regardless of your personal feelings. I will not forbid you to build houses of worship. I will not encourage violence to be done to you. I will not require to moderate your opinions to suit my sentiments. I will not do any of those things, as long as you are NON-violent.
As long as you are non-violent, you do not mean anything to me, the same as most of the other billions of people on Earth.
But Iran *is* violent. They support Hizbollah, who kill Jews, Christians, and Muslims without warning for personal gain. Iran claims to seek peaceful nuclear power, yet desires enough centrifuges to produce nuclear warheads for their missiles. Iran issues death threats for individuals living in the West, and provides safe haven to people who murder women and children. Iran has called for the destruction of nations they don’t like, including my own.
So how *can* I tolerate them? And how can I tolerate someone who supports them, just because they are Shia? I was raised Protestant, yet I do not support the actions of the Klu Klux Klan or Neon-Nazis. And if asked, I make clear my disapproval of them, and my willingness to work against them. My grandfather, and his two brothers were raised Lutheran, the same as much of Germany, yet not only did they NOT support Germany for *being* Lutheran, they risked their lives to fight Germany when it was under the Nazis.
As long as Muslims support other Muslims, who are guilty of terrible crimes, ‘because the are Muslims’, they should expect little respect from free thinking people.
Murtaza’s comments in response to the Dissident Frogman (riches be heaped upon him) reinforces my personal view of Islam: It may be a peaceful religion, but it is one that is very tolerant of violence from its adherents.
Dikshit is an Indian name, Robert Alderson, old thing. That is why I correctly spelled it Dik. Sorry to learn you’re so insular, but thanks for elevating me to the same level as a president of the United States, even if it is Bill Clinton. At least it wasn’t Jimmy Carter.
Perry, I was not insulting Murtaza – although I do find some posters’ dainty concern for his feelings in the normal ask-no-quarter/give-no-quarter debate on Samizdata a little patronising – but I was pointing to an critical element in the non-assimilation of many third generation Pakistanis. If they come from a home where the language spoken is not the language of the country, these children are going to be isolated from their classmates. Their mothers will not be able to go to the school to discuss problems with the teacher and won’t be able to interact with other mothers. This produces a child that grows up in Britain but is in some respects not only isolated from British life, but simply doesn’t understand it. As in demanding the right by law not to be offended.
I believe I was making a legitimate point.
Agree with Ron Brick.
Certainly attacking someone’s language skills is “pointless,” and there has definiely been a bit of that going on, but Ron Brick’s latest comment was not an attack. He was citing Murtaza’s constantly-shifting level of ability in English as evidence that something fishy was going on. I had the same impression partly for that same reason.
After 9/11 I don’t recall anybody in Britain organizing major protests against the attack. I’m sure if there had been such a demo then some Muslims would have joined because there were protests after the tube bombings which had Muslim participation.
I must confess I missed the au contraire in the dense thicket of Murtaza’s posts. Interesting.
Murtaza
Do you realy believe that the koran is the word of god? You never questioned ANY of it? I cant understand that.
I think most of the western-educated will question averything they are told naturally. This blind adherence to a book is, i thiknk part of the problem.
You said that you support Iran just because it shares your religion. Does that mean no muslim can do anything wrong?
Robert
I think that people over hear were either to shocked or too afraid to protest.
The main point is still the celebration. The very least they could have done if they did not support us would be not to actively do the opposite
Worse than that, fh, some Muslim scholars argue that Islam demands a Muslim support another Muslim in a dispute with a kufar, even if the Muslim is clearly in the wrong. Since the kufar is not Muslim, they are by default more wrong since they have not submitted to Allah.
This is also why in Shari’a law the word of a Muslim carries more weight than that of a non-Muslim.
Scary, no?
Well, the French are showing the way with style and cutting wit. Theodore Dalrymple in City Journal (via Dhimmiwatch.org) notes that they have shown more courage and verve than the Anglosphere. Here is a quote from Charlie Hebdo, for example. They have two of their own cartoons of Mohammed. The front page “has Muhammad, grimacing with his hands over his eyes, saying: “It’s hard being loved by all these idiots.” On the next page, Muhammad looks at the Danish cartoons and says, “It’s the first time the Danes have made me laugh.”…”
Carry on, Froggies!
I haven’t seen ANYTHING quoting the Koran’s alleged prohibition against depictions of Mohammed and/or giving chapter and verse for it. I heard it’s because IT ISN’T THERE, and I’m looking for confirmation. Anybody?
Eric
Yes that is much worse. How many countries adhere to Shari’a law? Also, how many countries are officially Muslim? It seems to me that the very fact that muslims believe in this makes them very dangerous. I cant understand someone who doesnt question something like that. I think that this alone means that our cultures are fundamentally incompatable.
Verity
That sounds like the best cartoon yet! Couldnt agree with you more
At least they have the counrage to stand up for what is right
On the french!
Well CNN for the ADD generation (aka Headline News) had an interview with an Imam from Georgetown University here in the states, and he said it was a “teaching” of Islam to show respect to prophets by not making images of them. He did not say the Koran said it was wrong, nor did he quote any passage from the book.
So, Rick, there is probably no prohibition in the Koran. Likely the person who said was either mistaken, or trying to improve their argument through an appeal to the Koran’s supposed authority.
fh and everyone. Looks like The Sunday Times has done some nifty investigative reporting. (Link)
It’s titled ‘British Imam Praises London Tube Bombers’. Here’s one quote – “Al-Faisal, who has branded non-Muslims as “cockroaches” ripe for extermination, is serving a seven-year prison sentence but is eligible for early release next week.” He has recommended the extermination of a race and he is due for “early release”? Hello?
Muslims have a holy book which is regarded as the unchallengable word of God but which is written in a language unintelligible to most Muslims and open to interpretation by anybody who sets himself (or occasionally herself) up as a scholar or Imam.
By shining a spotlight on the type of interpretations that FH and Eric highlight we are challenging Muslims to refute those stupid ideas. I am quite sure that if the Koran was readily available in day to day language then these ridicuolous interpretations would dwindle away as ordinary every day folks were able to challenge them. They would still have the option of going back to the original source in the case of very knotty disputes.
Maybe one day the USAF will parachute translated versions of the Koran into places where reactionary and murderous clerical thugs are holding the population hostage. Sure, these Korans would be condemned by the clerics but the message and the rival interpretations would inevitably get out and contribute to the slow erosion of the clerical mafia stranglehold – the same as Samizdat publications in the USSR and copies of the Bible in medieval Europe.
fh, someone earlier in this thread mentioned that there were 57 or so Muslim countries.
As to how many use Shari’a law, I honestly don’t know. As I understand it, Shari’a law influences the legal systems of most of the Arab states, but it importance in African or Southeast Asian Muslim nations is unknown to me.
Perhaps the CIA factbook site could help? They usually mention some details of a state’s legal system, or whatever they use instead of one.
Verity
My god its madness! How much leeway would a middleclass white man get if he called for the extermination of all muslims? He would be demonised by the government of our pathetic spiness pm
Whats the point of sentencing a man to 7 years but have the oppotunity to be out in a week?
cheers eric ill check that out
Robert, if the USAF dropped translated Korans into the Muslim world, most of those trained in Madrassas would riot anew. Many in Islam believe that the Koran in Arabic, and ONLY in Arabic, is the direct word of Allah. To translate it is to impose imperfect, human interpretation on the text, since Arabic cannot be translated into any other language perfect. Now how anyone is supposed to actually READ the Koran is beyond me. Most Mulsims don’t understand Arabic, and even those that can read it must still aplly imperfect, human interpretation to the text in their minds to derive meaning.
The solution many ‘scholars’ of Islam teaches is: trust your Imam’s interpretation. It’s not like he is human, or imperfect, right? Too bad there is no schooling necessary to call yourself an imam….
All of a sudden, the Judeo-Christian concept of Bible/Torah as word of G-d THROUGH man does not seem so bad, hunh? The text has already been interpreted, so more interpretation might help us get closer to the intended meaning.
Perhaps Allah should have waited for mankind to develop direct neural interfaces before revealing his message, then interpretation would not be necessary.
With neural interfaces, would memes literally become viral?
I think only Iran actually uses Sharia law as the sole basis of their laws. Two reasons for that:
1) There isn’t a single agreed version of Sharia law. It is the same category as the Hadith (teachings of the prophet) which are the second hand retellings of what Mohammed said and did and are regarded as influenced by God but, unlike the Koran, not the actual direct word of God. A lot of the Hadith mix in local cultural traditions. The Hadith is like the Bible in that it is accepted as “hearsay” but, unlike, the Bible there is dispute of which writings it encompasses. AFAIK the ban on depictions of Mohammed comes from the Hadith not the Koran which is why, at some times and places in Muslim lands (e.g. Persia) Mohammed has been drawn.
2) No politician in their right mind is going to give up their power to make laws. Having Sharia as the prime source of law means handing the country over to clerics. Countries commonly allow clerics to make Sharia decisions on matters of “family” law where Muslims are involved and this happens in quite a lot of countries, including, I think, India, even if they are not majority Muslim.
The Koran is translated into a number of languages to make it accessible. Problem is, when the Islamofascists go on a rampage the moderates accuse them of improperly translating the Arabic text of the Koran. You can probably guess what the Islamofascists accuse the moderates of.
Eric,
if the USAF dropped translated Korans into the Muslim world, most of those trained in Madrassas would riot anew.
Oh absolutely! But somewhere a poor but religiously minded young man who didn’t have the money to learn classical Arabic but could read his own language might sneak a copy home to read. A woman who knew that her grandmother hadn’t been obliged to wear a Burka would hide a copy under her Burka and quietly pass it around her opressed sisters.
Parachuting Korans might just work in some very narrowly defined circumstances but it is really a metaphor for breaking the code of silence which allws the Mullah Mafia to hold back their own people.
PS I love your idea about neural interfaces and viral memes.
You have a valid point, Mr. Alderson.
Of course, if I had my druthers, I would just as soon get that oppressed woman, and potenially moderate religious student out from underneath the mullahs or dictator running their country.
But America lacks the wealth, much less the will, to free every oppressed person on Earth, even if you limit oppression to things like life for dissidents in iran, or the plight of non-Muslims in the Sudan. Besides I suspect that Heinlein was right that you cannot free a man. If he was truly a slave, then taking the chains of his hands will not free his mind or soul.
Robert Alderson – You don’t think Saudi Arabia employs shariah? Wha’? And a lot of N Africa is a mixture of Italian and Islamic law or French and Islamic law. Jordan is Islamic law and French codes. Etc.
I think Malaysia is the only official Islamic republic that is based on English Common Law, and even then, one state in the north, I think it’s Trennengannu, opted to go shariah. Result, no one wants to do business there and they don’t get many tourists from the West.
Does anyone know whether Private Eye ran anything?
🙁
Too many posts…
my reply will take 2 hours to write and an hour to read….
ok, the ones which strike me are:
a) My mother father and all my sibling speak English. Shock, horror. yes i know.
b) Maruri Dikshit is an indian actress
c) My varying levels of english probably have something to do with my eratic typing style. and the fact i was deproved of sleep.
ahhh man, i duno if i should reply everyone.. it will seriously be MASSIVE.
Oh, and the Iran issue. Yeah, I see. mm, Ok, I retract that comment. You are right, i was wrong.. BUT lets be clear, the whole “a Muslims has to side with other Muslim in an arguement with a Non-Believer” deal? I don’t think so, atleast I haven’t.. D’you know where thats from(I wana look it up)?
erm, about having my points of view questioned. Thats why I’m here. Not trying to impose anything on anyone, just want a chance to debate, see your side…
and also, THANKS FOR THE SUPPORT 🙂
we can get along 🙂
thats all for now, im knackered and need a shower (i know, you didnt want to know that – sorry)
Shall return later and deal with the millions of questions facing me. BTW If i evade or sidestep or whatever a question, feel free to point it out to me…
thanks
Wasalaam
BTW the current topic, translations of the Quran:
ISBN 969-41-0001-1
Thats one of the ones I use (of 2).
As far as itn not the word of God anymore, I think anyone who said that on an absolute level (ie it will never be, ever ever ever) is wrong.. The arguement has been brought up, how will we know what it says. Although when it is a translation it is useful to have a commentry so that you know what it means in laymans terms and also the time in which it was revealed (ie context)..
And yes I have questioned it, and thats why the commentry comes in handy, it shows you what it is trying to say. I was taught that a True Muslim is a fre thinking Muslim. If you blindly follow practices etc then its not really right. Its not you practicing religion, it becomes more tradition (ie my dad did that)…
sorry, thought id add into the current focus..
cya later
Wasalaam
Maduri Dikshit *
Phew, quite a debate.
To Murtaza:
1. How do you reconcile the prohibition of idolatry with the veneration of The Prophet (PBUH) (this is what I’m talking about.)? Mohammed was and is NOT God, he was a man, and is no more deserving of veneration than you or I. Yet you are more insulted by an offence againt Mohammed than you are if I insult you personally. I would not presume to insult you personally as I don’t know you and have no basis upon which to make a judgement, but I can see what is done in your religion’s name and I find it abhorrent, why should I not say so? More importantly why do you not say so? (A few prepared statements from ‘Community Leaders’ don’t count.)
2. I put it to you that it was not the Danish cartoonist, or any other cartoonist for that matter, who insulted. Their offence was merely a lack of subtlety. The true culprits of the offence are those who claim to be acting in the name of Islam when they blow themselves and innocent people into little peices. They are the ones who allow the connection to be made between Mohammed, as well as his teachings in the qu’ran, and acts of brutal violence and destruction. They are the ones who have offended, not those who pointed the connection out. You are having the insidious disease that has infected your religion pointed out to you. Why shoot the messenger when you would be better served by dealing with the cause of the message?
Quote: True Muslim is a fre thinking Muslim
I’ll add that to my compendium of oxymorons…
Lizzie, who is either a co-religionist or a lefty enabler …
Lizzie, you’re an Islamic or a lefty fellow traveller. You were spotted a mile away. You types always try the old tricks. I think you’re a little leftie who wants to bring the West down. Happy landings in Seethistan, sweetheart!
So, you didn’t actually read anything I wrote, then? You prefer to just insult people who don’t wholeheartedly agree with you than to actually look at their words. I tried to explain that debating with a devout Muslim takes a lot of work because they actually believe that everything they have been taught is the absolute truth. You have to try different approaches than those we are used to. Patient explanation is surely worth a try?
As nonsensical as religion may seem to you or me, this is, for many Muslims, the first time they have been exposed to any real criticism of Mohammed. I can understand why there is bewilderment , but that does not mean I approve of it, or even understand the actual bewilderment itself.
I am not “an Islamic”, I am an atheist, and I have arrived at that position after much study of both science and religion.
I am also not “a lefty fellow traveller”, I would class myself as neither left nor right, and I would thank you not to attempt to pigeonhole me based on one comment. Incidentally, this is far from my first participation in comments here (and elsewhere in the – ugh, I hate this word – blogosphere), and if you had read any of my previous comments, you’d now how wrong you were in accusing me of being “a lefty”.
I actually agree with some of what you say about Islam, I too think it is harmful if practised to its extremes (ie, all the convert or die business), as is any religion practised to its extremes. I don’t think that insulting individual Muslims who are attempting to explain their beliefs to us is the best way to go about things, though. As annoyed as we may be with Murtaza for ignoring pertinent questions*, at least he is engaging with us. Mindless insults will just help radicalise the kind of person Murtaza is.
_________________________
*Murtaza, how would you feel if you were taxed because of your religion? Would you think it was fair?
Has anyone here ever seen god? heard from him in any way? Is there any proof a god exists? I cant think of any.
All we have from “god” is a few books written by a bunch of guys (priviliged guys, becasue they COULD write) many thousands of years ago. The unbelievable pain and suffering caused by this is staggereing.
As science progresses, things that were once under the influence of god such as tidal waves volcanoes lightning etc have been explained and are clearly natural. Nothing has ever been recorded that cannot be explained by science. Isnt it convenient that all the so-called appearences of god happened at a time when no-one could check them?
Also, if god exists, and in all knowing and all-powerful,
as is generally the case, then surely all things are as god wills, and what WE, as in the west, are doing is every bit a holy as what the middle east and muslims are doing?
Murtaza, I suggest you look into Shari’a for prohibitions on Muslims taking the word of non-Muslims over Muslims. ((http://answering-islam.org.uk/NonMuslims/rights.htm) The paper lists its sources for the information – “The witness of Zimmis” details the relative weight of the testimony of Muslims and non-Muslims in Islamic jurisprudence.
It strikes me, Murtaza, that you might not know very much about Islam, or its historical dogma and jurisprudence. It might also help you to understand the additional scrutiny Islam gets on this website to recall this: Of all the major religions, only Islam proposes that it control the temporal reins of nations. Since this site is focused on potenial sources of State led oppression of personal freedoms, Islam as government is a bigger threat of oppression than Christianity or Buddhism.
Mandrill, you should also remember that some supposed “holy men”, namely some Danish imams added 3 more offensive, and faked, images to the group of cartoons to attempt to garner more outrage. At least one of the pictures has been identified as a man from a Pig festival, from France I believe, dressed up as a pig. Someone made a poor photocopy of the photo with the name of Muhammed underneath it.
So it appears that some imams will fabricate outrageous images of the ‘Prophet’ that were made by ‘infidels’ to create situations of potenial violence. Why would they do this? And how can we trust any of their testimony on such matters, if they lie?
And if the other imams will not point out the fakirs and charlatans among their number, how do we trust any of them?
Hear, hear!
But in absence of “God,” people find other ways to inflict pain and suffering (see “Soviet Union”).
I think that the unescapable conclusion is that some people will do anything for power over others. Most organised religion is, in my humble oppinion, good for nothing and simply a simbol of oppression. People do what they are told to do by their priests and kill and die for them because they believe it is gods will. They never think that if god wanted them to he would tell them himself!! for god, being allpowerful as he is, it wouldnt be much trouble.
I dont deny that alot of good is done in the name of god as well. Many priests and churches help the poor and feed the hungry and they have my respect and gratitude for that. It is those who use belief as leverage to change peoples actions who are so dangerous.
Does anyone know whether Private Eye ran anything?
Next issue won’t be out until wednesday, so we’ll have to wait and see how far Hislop is prepared to go with this.
Lizzie, some Imams were so ‘bewildered’ at the Danish ‘criticism’ of Muhammed, that they fabricated images to make the Danish cartoonists seem worse. Nor is ‘criticism’ of religious groups new to Arab Muslims. Blood Libel cartoons against Jews are fairly common in Arab newspapers.
Lizzie how are we to explain things to Muslims, when prominent Muslim religious and legal scholars say that the testimony of non-Muslims cannot be used against Muslims? If a non-Muslim says X, and a Muslim says Y, Muslims are supposed to believe the Muslim. The link in previous post explains this.
Those lying imams were counting on other Muslims believing them, and not Kufar media outlets because it is the word of a Muslim against that of a non-Muslim. And much of the Muslim world did believe them.
Eric
good link! has any one else read this? its like reading a facist dictators rule book! cant do this cant do that you have to pay me money to exist!! Am I alone in thinking that the very application of these laws is a crime against humanity?
Maybe the ICC could try all muslims who participate in depriving the human rights of others. Itd be the longest list of defendants ever.
Sorry, I didn’t make myself clear, I didn’t mean the religious leaders, I meant ordinary Muslims were “bewildered”. Like I said, I can understand why there is bewilderment , but that does not mean I approve of it, or even understand the actual bewilderment itself (an important semantic point!). I wish the media would pick the ball up and run with regard to the fabricated cartoons; as it is, it’s only really people who have bothered to learn about this debacle who know about them.
I also did not say that “‘criticism’ of religious groups [was] new to Arab Muslims”, I said that “real criticism of Mohammed” was new to “many Muslims”. And that is undeniably true. They have been taught that Mohammed is the holiest man who ever lived, and for many Muslims, nobody has ever said otherwise. They need to get used to Western irreverence.
I am fully aware of the revolting anti-semitism in the Arab press, by the way, and over the last week or so have been emailing newspapers (and the BBC, though much good it’s done) to see if they were interested in featuring the many editorial cartoons from that part of the world that portray Jews as devils, pigs, etc.
Sorry, fh, here is where you and I part company. The organized religions of the world have proven as corruptable as any other groups of human beings in history, but they are not “good for nothing” in my view.
Outside of the religious commandments about idols and other gods, the Ten Commandments include several rules that property loving libertarians like. Many religions tell people that humanity is innate flawed – not evil – but not trustworthy, and several argue that you should treat others with respect. (Do unto others, etc.)
But the clincher for me was this: Of all the evils that religion brought into this world, there is one that it helped to drive from all but the most insular parts of the Muslim world – slavery. Religion was a major factor in the British government’s move in the 19th Century to end the practice of owning human beings all over the world. Most of the European and American abolitionist movements had ties to religious groups.
As Joshua points out, humanity without religion does not necessarily become less violent. Sorry, fh, my beef is with mankind in general, not with organized religion.
Lizzie – I’ve never read any comments from you before or if I have, they weren’t strong enough to mark you out. You come across as a lefty who prefers to be called a “liberal” in the new sense of the word. It’s loftier.
“Mindless insults will just help radicalise the kind of person Murtaza is.” If you think anything on this earth could “help radicalise” Murtaza, you are woefully uninformed. I will wager that although not radicalised himself, he cannot bring himself to disapprove of radicals because they are doing what they do in the name of allah – which sanctifies it. It is you, I am afraid, who simply doesn’t understand what I am writing and therefore categorise it as “mindless insults”. I don’t do mindless.
“I tried to explain that debating with a devout Muslim takes a lot of work” (and your qualifications to “explain” to others are what exactly?)“because they actually believe that everything they have been taught is the absolute truth”. A kind of “Hold the front page!” moment.
“You have to try different approaches than those we are used to”. Than those who is used to? You certainly make a lot of assumptions. “Patient explanation is surely worth a try?” Only if you want to waste your life on sure-fire failure. It’s been tried for hundreds of years by philosphers far more sophisticated and better informed than you. There are no Kumbayah moments in Islam.
Reading further into this link, i noticed a quote from the koran
‘Allah will not give access to the infidels (i.e. Christians) to have authority over believers (Muslims) {Qur’an 4:141}.
This is easily refuted, ie in Iraq. Surley, in a purely literal sence, this means that the koran is untrue? and if the koran is the word of god, then this means god was wrong. If god is wrong he is not all-konwing and all-powerful, and therefore is not god.
Surely if muslims are going to take such a literal interpretation of the koran they must have considered this? Can anyone see a way around this little quirke? I cant
Of course, those things are done by the most committed of athiests as well. The point is that belief in God has nothing whatever to do wtih morality. People cite God as an inspiration for doing good; God is also used as an excuse for doing evil.
Having never experienced God’s presence in the world myself, I can’t really say anything one way or the other about those who claim to have. That’s their personal matter. What I don’t understand is why anyone needs to institutionalize such a thing.
Eric
Good point about slavery. Guess i was wrong the percieved word of god has had its uses!
Sorry i cant agree with one thing. Mankind would be less violent without religion. Granted not that much less violent, but it would be one less thing for us to fight over.
Joshua
My point was that the church has been usesd as an instrament for doing good, and the church is an organised religion. But yes it is the individuals in question who really count
Well, clearly it’s pointless trying to explain to you where I’m coming from as you have already decided in your own mind.
___________________
Those who were comparing Old Peculier with Verity earlier were being very unfair. From reading OP’s comments at Harry’s Place, I can say that she prefers to attack the message rather than the messenger, and is also possessed of a pleasant sense of humour, with which she can defuse awkward situations.
This will be my last post on this particular subject here: I simply don’t see the point if I am just going to be accused of being “a lefty” every time I post something. Cheerio.
fh – Your quote is very interesting. ‘Allah will not give access to the infidels (i.e. Christians) to have authority over believers (Muslims) {Qur’an 4:141}.
Every Muslim who lives in a Western, civilised country is under the authority of the government of that country and we, Christians, Jews and non-religious alike, are infidels. So … so much for any authority deriving from Allah “giving access” to our governments to have authority over Muslims. Looks like the big guy’s not in control of anything except his own tribe.
We’re going to keep it that way.
fh, why do you think that man would be less violent without religion? Communist China does not support the argument, nor did the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany.
Man is a violent sort. Violence allowed us to reach the top of the food chain. It allowed Sumerian farmers to defend their crops, and Greek Hoplites their agora. It also allowed the Mongols to destroy more socially advance foes. The problem is in defining how and when violnce gets used. It is a tool, like any other in the human inventory. Man mugs old woman – bad. Young Lady shoots would be rapist – Good. Religion has not been particularly successful at limiting the use of violence to appropriate times, but can you tell what philosophy has?
Plenty of blood has been spilled with no regard to religion. Recall, if you will, that for many of the battles between France and England, or in Imperial China, the combatants shared the same religion.
If your complaint about religion is bloodshed, fh, look for the fault in man, not in the stars, or the gods.
and also, THANKS FOR THE SUPPORT 🙂
we can get along 🙂
Murtaza:
That’s what you said, and I hope so!
Quite honestly, it might take a long time before we can reach any kind of agreement, but, as Churchill said “Jaw jaw is better than war war”. Quite honestly, most of what you say gets my heckles up, but we are talking.
I admire you for sticking with it. But this raises one important point..,
Where are the other moderate Muslims? Why aren’t they joining in? Let’s hear from them.
I think we need that.
Lizzie – I did deconstruct your very naive message. I note that you simply do not have the knowledge to come back and argue your points.
To Eric Sivula and fh, the Danish imams were practising deceit, officially known and condoned, as taqqiya.
Eric, i agree man is a voilent species. Alot of violence is between men of the same faith. However for all you examples, they would have happened with or without religion. The crusades for example, were fought to reclaim the holy land from tehe unbelievers. Jerusalem was the centre of a multi-cultural bloodbath. That MIGHT not have happened without religion.
9/11 MIGHT not have happened without religion
Religion gives men power to send other men away to kill for no reason.
Horace Dunn,
Why shouldn’t we get on with Murtaza? Murtaza is British born and bred,should have picked up on the zeitgeist by now.
Murtaza,What football team do you support,or music are you interested in.
You are overdoing the “Stranger in a Strange Land” somewhat
Aw – stick it out! Debates can get brutal here, but you’re free to ignore anyone you think isn’t giving you a fair shot.
Has anyone else called you a “leftie?” I can’t remember that anyone has besides Verity. Seems a bad reason to cut and run.
More precisely, it gives men the power to send other men away to die for no reason.
I don’t personally see much of a difference between Hitler, the Soviet Union, and Jihadistan (where here I mean the fictional Caliphate that Al-Qaeda’s followers are sacrificing themselves to bring about). But if you wanted to make the argument that religion is just a shade worse than these other secular two, I guess it would be because religion can make a follower disbelieve in the reality of his own death. Hitler and Stalin could couch things in terms of the Greater Germany or the coming socialist paradise or what not, but at the end of the day dead was still dead to their followers. Not so, I suppose, with holy warriors. Dead to them some minor pain and then 72 sex slaves forever or whatever the current line is.
fh, if your belief that because those acts of violence MIGHT not have happened without religion makes religion bad, that is your choice. As it cannot be proved or disproved, it is a matter of faith for you. I will not discuss it further with you.
However, just understand that it is a matter of faith with me that violence is a result of man, not institutions.
Aye, Verity, I had heard of taqqiya, and believe you are correct in this instance. Although usually the taqqiya – deception – is used against kufar, infidels.
Hence I was also suggesting that the imams were expecting the Muslim pracitice of believing Muslims and not Kufar to help them in this instance. And it appears they were right, and that many Muslims will believe anything an imam tells them.
I’m not sure I agree with Winston Churchill that jaw jaw is better than war war. I believe that when talking is exhausted and reduced to both sides repeating their positions over and over again, there comes a time to stop talking and take overwhelming and decisive action.
Here is an absolutely excellent column in Jyllands-Posten translated into English over at the Anti-Idiotarian’s site. He describes how let-down Denmark has been by is allies – specifically the British prime minister and foreign secretary, and Condoleezza Rice. Read it. It’s very good: (Link)
Eric Sivula – I believe our points are not mutually exclusive and, in fact, we’re both right. I doubt whether the Danish imam deceived his fellow imans (“Look what I ran across on the internet! Why don’t we throw them in for good measure?” Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.) But even if he had actually deceived his fellow imams – if it was in the service of Allah, I suspect it would have been OK anyway. And getting the entire Muslim world seething and demonstrating in the cause of Islam was the goal. So getting the demonstrators out on the street for Allah through taqqiya would probably be OK. Or there’ll be some other sophistry
Enjoyed the link, Verity. Thanks.
Particularly relevant is this line:
This should be the opinion of every supporter of a free press by now. Whatever you initially thought about publishing the cartoons – whether you may have originally thought it was rude and unnecessary – it should be clear by now that more, not less, of this kind of thing is what we need.
And now the news from Canada:
From this report of a peaceful protest against the cartoons in Montreal.
I guess he will have been picked up on charges of “inciting to violence?” So once again we have an example of muslims not being held responsible for their reactions to provocations. Last I checked, free speech in Canada applied to both muslims and infidels alike. Guess I need to check more often.
But then again, the Charter has a “just kidding” clause that suspends invidual rights when affirmative action programs get in the way. Maybe that was their logic…
Oh yeah, and by the way, Al-Qaeda’s very existence is all America’s fault:
Joshua, I couldn’t open the link. Never mind, here’s one for you courtesy Emperor Mischa (Paypal be upon him).
(Link)
HA!
Maybe I didn’t close the quotes or something. Here it is again
Thanks, Joshua. It worked this time. Here’s what a demonstrator said after noting that “Someone has touched our holy things”: “That makes us very nervous. If they touch our prophet, one day we will touch your prophet.”
Never the twain shall meet.
It doesn’t matter how many times one explains, they nod and say “Yes, yes, I understand ….” you know it’s coming, don’t you? “but … we are offended blah blah blah”. And you explain freedom of the press again and you explain that it is not possible to legislate “respect” and they nod and say “Yes, yes, I understand …. but”.
Arguing with a Muslim is like the movie Groundhog Day.
Ron Brick:
What the hell are you talking about? I am trying to moderate the comments on my blog. You have a problem with that?
Well Mr Havilland, presuming you know the IPs and of your commenters,it seemed odd that you were keen to convince us that Murtaza did not have English as a first language,when in fact Murtaza was born and bred here.
Something we had to extract form him/her by the way.
You were also keen to convince us of a “reaching out”,when in fact it was one of our own countrymen,albeit of one of the multitude of religions here,who was addressing us.
Someone who ,at least at first, tried to give the impression of being an outsider,which is somewhat devious,Someone who can start in pidgin English and end up with good liberalese “Au Contraire” is taking the mickey
Further anyone born here who can advocate that religions, other than Islam should be made to pay a tax for protection hasn’t been out much.
The whole thing reads like a spoof,I naturally wondered why the same thought had not occured to you.
Murtaza,
Do you post regularly on an Islamic oriented blog? I’d quite like to take a look and maybe, if I’m brave enough, do what you did and plunge in and debate with a bunch of people who don’t share my fundamental beliefs.
Maybe some times he spends more time checking his posts that others and so he makes more mistakes. Your guess is as good as mine but I dislike the idea of concentrating on the guy’s English.
Have you seen the huge size and number of comments he made on the original ‘Satanic Cartoons’ article? Seems like rather too much effort for a spoof. And no, I have not checked the IP against various other commenters as we have been getting about 200-400 comments a day over the last couple weeks (many on articles on this subject several months old) and life is too short to go to that kind of effort.
Verity
Oh please, do post a warning against links which are likely to leave me helpless – I’ve just howled my little socks off at the muslim rave. Brilliant!
HIHI!!
Havent gone through wuite all of them yet, but the Quote from the Quran(Perry will tell you, as will Christopher thet this isnt the first time I have done this). OK, Quran = about context, any quote which isnt quoting the entire verse goes under the “Very Fishy” column. so, here is the ENTIRE Quote:
“those who wait, and watch about you; then, if victory comes to you from Allah, they say: “Were we not with you?” And if the infidels have a share (in the victory), they say “Did we not gain an advantage over you, and did we not defend you against believers?” But Allah shall judge between you on the day of ressurection; and Allah will not make a way for the infidels against the believers”
An-Nisa(The Women) 4:141
SO, we have learnt that:
1) Nowhere does it say “Christian”
2) It is nowhere any talk of authority
3) We are talking about a true believer having purity of mind and soul, against a hypocrite, who will not have this purity of mind and soul. Not about the Queen etc
So, the qoute was twisted, and so I wouldn’t take the guys article too seriously, as he is stirring up trouble, and seems to be doing a decent job of it.
Sidenote, i read the “wager” from Verity that i dont condemn the “Muslims” who blew up, well, anything. Sorry, but you owe whoever you placed a wager with. Lizzie i think it was. Sorry, but I think they were terrible, they sucked and the were NOT Muslims in MY book.
Also, I support Liverpool. I like RnB (comment as you will…) annnd I’m into sports alot…
The stranger in a strange land, well this is my first blog (answers the other Q about jumping into a sea of sharks 🙂 ), Im just acting as I am being treated.
um, any ideas on how I should get upto speed on the billion questions facing me? I have done the long message thing, but it pisses off Verity, and its a pain in the ass to write/read/scroll past
what do you think?
Wasalaam
PS feel free to check my IP etc. I duno why, but be my guest…
OK the tax issue.
It just occured to me:
Notice that Muslims HAVE to pay Khums and Zakaat, as COMPULSORY (yearly. Basically charity and a tax to the leader, for Shias the Imam of the time, i duno about Sunnis). I gues it may be to make up for this, so everyone is EQUAL…
Otherwise,as i said earlier, the best i can come up with is “it was a thing of the time”.
If either of those don’t apeal to you, then, i dont know.
As for my lanugage. well, it was late and this is a laptop keyboard, so im pressing alot of the wrong buttons.. didnt mean to confuse you.
Verity
LOL!! That link is a hoot! 😆
“Arguing with a Muslim is like the movie Groundhog Day.”
Excellent comparison!
mmm, Verity, the whole:
“… BUT it was offensive”
Thing….Did i do that? (Maybe the first couple of posts, but i was getting warmed up – not literally, before anyone tries to kill me over that…)
Whoops. I couldn’t get the laughing face to work. Oh, well.
Oh, and Taqiyah:
Is when someone has a gun to your head and says, are you a Muslim?
Taqiyah is when you can lie to safeguard your life. i.e. you can say no, i am not.
From what i read in that article, it was a peaceful frotest, both sides. and this nutter comes out and starts shouting abuse to Islam and Muslims. He is taken away (Bear in mind they are across the street from one another. that could have been a BIG fight if there were reactions to that)..
Where is it a Muslim fault again?
ok, im gona go. Sorry to all with questions waiting to be answered but there are simply toooo many…
still waiting for ideas on how to tackle those…
sidenote, i duno when i will be back since i have to work now(mon-fri)… and im losing sleep and a half-dead social life, and sleep over this…
COOL LINK(Link)
Read the first chapter, not the rest…
I have my email address on this one. Any burning questions that I have not addressed then feel free to drop me a mail.. ill CC a reply to Perry, and he can post it (If thats ok with you…?)
Wasalaam
PS, sleep was tehre twice INTENTIONALLY!!!
PS, sleep was there* twice INTENTIONALLY!!!
ok, reading my posts again. My spelling sucks. It is down to my keyboard and my impatience. I type too fast, either press the wrong buttons or in the wrong order…
Apologies for that.
Waslaam
(Last post today, promise)
My last post was not intended to highlight a muslim fault but rather a western fault – that of the police in Canada having applied the law unequally. Certainly I wholeheartedly support the right of muslims (and all people) to protest about whatever they like – and be as offensive as they like in the process.
However, I also said that I am not entirely sure what the law in Canada says about this exactly. I understand that there are some legal limits to free speech in Canada that do not exist in the US, which is why I included the link to that clause from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Can’t y’all see that Murtaza’s laying a trail?
Personally, I am done bashing my head against that particular wall.
I wonder if his arrival here and the appearance of ‘proud2bmuslim’ over at Tim Blair’s is related…..
Murtaza: 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.
You have been brainwashed into the idea that Mohammed was some saint and never did wrong, or that Islam spread through peaceful means. It was plain old Arabic Imperialism and a mostly violent expansion, too.
We get offended by cartoons we vent, froth, complain and grumble.
Muslim get offended by cartoons and people die.
Notice any difference there?
Maybe the anti-Western Islamic culture should ask of themselves the question “Why are we so hated” or “we must have done something to the West which makes them hate us”.
Murtaza: “Oh, and Taqiyah: Is when someone has a gun to your head and says, are you a Muslim?
Taqiyah is when you can lie to safeguard your life. i.e. you can say no, i am not.”
Well, Hoo hoo! does it work for a dull blade at your throat?
The fact that musselmen tend to hack off your head because you are NOT a musselman, I suppose you can try invoking Taqiyah, but it doesn’t seem to work very well.
Maybe something is lost in the translation.
Mental note. Next time some mad musselman has a knife at my throat enunciate clearly, Ta – qi – yah! Make sure not to slur any of the sylables just in case it ends up sounding like “Ok hack away!”
Taqqiya is much more than being allowed to claim you’re not Muslim. It means lying to non-Muslims to convince them of your dull-witted points. Even claiming that Taqqiya is being allowed to say you’re not a Muslim if your life is in danger is … kitman. You’re lying by omission.
As has been noted, Murtaza is born and raised in England, yet The Frogman’s English is far superior to his. Murzata’s English syntax is all over the place, but he can correctly use “au contraire”. Noticing also that he is capable of far more coherent English whenever he forgets himself, I conclude that there is a spindly 17 year old boy with his laptop in an English boarding school somewhere, about as Islamic as Prince William, killing time jerking every one around (presumably because he’s crap at sport and the other guys won’t hang out with him.)
Nancy-
Agreed. That was a troll if ever there was one.
re: the original post – I found the photo’s both frightening and insidious and laughable at the same time.
United against incitement is this a latent threat to anyone they think is inciting them ? or suggesting that everyone should stifle free speech by “uniting”
Muhamad Symbold of freedom and honour – eh? a statement not an argument or anything else – to my mind a mindbogglingly duplicitous one.
As for the tolerance ones dont get me started …
This is interesting, perhaps even encouraging.
Came to this late, but I hope Murtaza is still about. I find that my English (spelling, grammar and syntax) suffer when I feel strongly about something. If there is doubt I’m giving him the benefit.
Big respect (as a man, not as a Muslim) for entering the debate, please return. I emphasize that is respect as a man; I find it hard to respect anyone who is willing to put their life in the hands of a corrupt priesthood, or to invent a god to justify their existence (I don’t want the Christians, or any Jews reading this, to feel excluded) I would love to hear more from Muslims who want to engage and debate, much better than those who want to compel obediance on pain of violence or death; are you really the only one out there?
Hey,
Back for a sec.
Um, Mark, there was a fellow poster named Az. Duno where he went…
As far as putting my life on the line for corrupt priesthood. I duno if i can agree to that. See, anyone will say no to that, but its how can you tell there is a corrupt priesthood.
Example, there will be priests who will twist Islam, and misguide people, who will in turn misguide more. Example is the guy who condoned the 7/7 bombings. What I’m sayng is that those, any any other loss of innocent life is wrong. So whos right? Whos a Muslim.
On the internet you will (as earlier in the thread suggests) find many sites who talk about how bad Islam is, and quote twisted refferences from the Quran, and Hadith (Note how often people go to Sahih Bukhari, which is in essence word of mouth since it was compiled decades after the death of the Propet PBUH, and 90% was disregarded by the author himself – Hadith are taken to be authentic, when every person in the “chain” of narrators has been checked, even a slight weakness and the Hadith is disregarded or dircredited), but alot of people, and I’m assuming from here too, will read these and take them to be gospel truth. So, what do we do? Unless people are ready to look into it, and I don’t mean anti-Islam websites, I mean, actually look into it, points for and against – The Quran, WITH adquate contextual explanation, we are not going to go far. I cannot bedate with you if you don’t want to believe what I say.
I notice you often talk about how a Muslim in a debate repeats him/her self. I notice how much you have said “Its for free speech” in your arguements…
I similarly would say you have been brainwashed to think that Islam is bad, Muslims are bad, and there is no oter way around the situation and that THAT IS FACT. Thus a discussion would require some evidence..
APL, you got it in reverse…
I’m afraid my time for discussing my syntax, grammar, spelling, and what-not is drawing to a close.
I don’t think taking time out to hear the majority of you insult me hits me as a great idea. I would preffer if you didn’t insult me when I am gone, but as you like to exercise free speech to extremes for no aparent reason you may well.. Feel free to email me questions.
Regards,
Salaams,
Murtaza
PS thanks for the support from those who did, i appreicate it.
I don’t care if Murtaza is a troll or not, he’s interesting and returns rudeness with politeness.
We are all trolls here to some extent– the internet is for mouthing off facelessly– and if somebody produces a fresh insight he can act the fool all he likes. Maybe ultimately the troll fools himself more. Many a true word is spoken in jest, even inadvertently.
We need to hear more from Muslims of all shades and less from certain whiney 24/7 female commenters with potty mouths.