The Cartoon protests megathread

[TeaFan]

Sensible comment on the whole cartoon thing herehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1703365,00.html

[kay_cee]

Zafar, neither have you commented on the ones where the people were executed for just insulting Mohammed. (Or the Islamic ruling, which provides ample evidence from Islamic history that such a punishment is 'just')

 

I purposely include the others because I feel it paints a wider picture of the nature of Islam.

 

And no, I am not a Neo-Con.

[Zafar]

Zafar, neither have you commented on the ones where the people were executed for just insulting Mohammed. (Or the Islamic ruling, which provides ample evidence from Islamic history that such a punishment is 'just')

 

I purposely include the others because I feel it paints a wider picture of the nature of Islam.

 

And no, I am not a Neo-Con.

 

Kay_cee,

 

Your original point was whether the Prophet Mohammed condoned the killing of those who insulted him or his family.

 

You gave some examples to your 'own' point, and I responded to some of those examples.

 

You have now moved onto Islamic rulings. Yes its true that in certain 'Islamic' countries it is a crime to insult the Prophet Mohammed or his family. There are other laws you probably disagree with. However, whatever the pro's and con's they ARE the laws of the land(s).

 

There are laws in certain European countries that makes denying the holocoast a crime, which without understanding the deeper context would at face value fly against the notion of 'Freedom of Speach'

 

Now insofar as your assertians that these laws therefore somehow equate to the Prophet Mohammed condoning punishment on those who insulted him is at best a stretch of reason and rational thought and in all honesty lacks sincerity to the truth.

 

'Islamic' countries are in most instances no more representative of the Laws prescribed by the Quraan as Israel is as being representative of Jewish Laws as prescribed by Moses.

 

I could quite easily give you verses from the Old Testament which would make your allegations against the Prophet Mohammed (which aren't actually true in the first place) seem like Kindergarten material, however I'm not sure what your next point is going to be.

 

Take Care

[oasismark]

You are still logged in then. Any chance of you answering my last questions to you?

 

 

What questions?

 

about documenting pc news stories?

 

there's a already a link to a pig story.

 

or about the flag?

 

As with all these stupid pc things its always said "so not to offend any minority groups", buts that pc in itself because if it said "so not to offend muslims", then muslims would get offended.

 

[TeaFan]

What questions?

 

about documenting pc news stories?

 

there's a already a link to a pig story.

 

or about the flag?

 

As with all these stupid pc things its always said "so not to offend any minority groups", buts that pc in itself because if it said "so not to offend muslims", then muslims would get offended.

 

 

 

So you've managed to twist "so as not to offend minority groups" into "so as not to offend Muslims" on the basis that people are bound to mean Muslims, but won't say it because it's non-PC. Remarkable.

[oasismark]

So you've managed to twist "so as not to offend minority groups" into "so as not to offend Muslims" on the basis that people are bound to mean Muslims, but won't say it because it's non-PC. Remarkable.

 

 

Thank you i am remarkable

 

but i havn't twisted anything.

 

Why has society become so politicly correct?

 

Why is it ok to offend the majority, but not ok to offend the minority?

[wendygs]

Kay_cee,

 

Your original point was whether the Prophet Mohammed condoned the killing of those who insulted him or his family.

 

You gave some examples to your 'own' point, and I responded to some of those examples.

 

You have now moved onto Islamic rulings. Yes its true that in certain 'Islamic' countries it is a crime to insult the Prophet Mohammed or his family. There are other laws you probably disagree with. However, whatever the pro's and con's they ARE the laws of the land(s).

 

There are laws in certain European countries that makes denying the holocoast a crime, which without understanding the deeper context would at face value fly against the notion of 'Freedom of Speach'

 

Now insofar as your assertians that these laws therefore somehow equate to the Prophet Mohammed condoning punishment on those who insulted him is at best a stretch of reason and rational thought and in all honesty lacks sincerity to the truth.

 

'Islamic' countries are in most instances no more representative of the Laws prescribed by the Quraan as Israel is as being representative of Jewish Laws as prescribed by Moses.

 

I could quite easily give you verses from the Old Testament which would make your allegations against the Prophet Mohammed (which aren't actually true in the first place) seem like Kindergarten material, however I'm not sure what your next point is going to be.

 

Take Care

 

As you've already confessed to being not terribly learned in your own religion dont you think it would be wise to stick with what you know? From what you've said so far I think that should keep you busy enough without going out of your depth on the 5 Books of Moses, Prophets and Psalms not to mention all the commentaries which far m more learned men than you or I spend their entire lifetime trying to understand.

[TeaFan]

I'm not disputing that there are PC excesses, I was just querying why you brought the example of the St. Geroge flag into a thread about the cartoon protests, when that particular example didn't seem to relate to Muslims at all. By all means give relevant examples, but keep the irrelevant ones out. There was a long thread about general PC issues recently, where your gripe would have fitted perfectly well - I just don't see any justification for it here.

[oasismark]

I'm not disputing that there are PC excesses, I was just querying why you brought the example of the St. Geroge flag into a thread about the cartoon protests, when that particular example didn't seem to relate to Muslims at all. By all means give relevant examples, but keep the irrelevant ones out. There was a long thread about general PC issues recently, where your gripe would have fitted perfectly well - I just don't see any justification for it here.

 

 

Perhaps i did stray abit from the subject in my rant.

 

The subject of "offending someone" i think was what i was writing about.

 

The world seams to have changed in recent years to a society who is so scared to offend anyone from a minority group that freedom of speech is under attack.

 

There's freedom of speech, then there's threats of physical violence.

 

I struggle to see how a simple drawing of a cartoon, can offend someone so much that they reply with threats of violent murder and destruction of buildings!!

 

I am not religeous in any way, therefore i couldn't get offended in such a way.

 

It is a minority that protest in such extreme ways, but that minority has such power as we have seen on the news this weekend, and the attacks on the world trade center and the london bombings are all carried out my a minority.

 

I guess i am worried where this lead.

[crookesey]

Had none Muslim people shown their anger after the London bombings by marching through the streets with plackards inciting the murder of terrorists they would no doubt have been arrested. The police did nothing against the Muslim marchers and even ignored a guy dressed as a suicide bomber, why not try the same ploy the next time you are in an airport? And lets be clear they were protesting about a few cartoons published in another country, not about people being blown to pieces in this one.

 

Have the extremists finally gone too far by testing our patience and good intentions beyond what is acceptable? I am not a Nick Griffin suporter but bring your attention to some Forum members remarks about his anti Muslim comments, is it one rule for him and one rule for Muslims?