Mohammed Descendents Sue

[The Illuminator]

It pretty much boggles down to what kind of society you want to live in: one that forbids opinion, art and music that can be considered as disrespecting, or one that permits all of it.

 

The muslims can protest as much as they want, but no laws should be made in favour for anyone, or any group, in which they think that can be protected from opinion that doesn't suit them. Many countries fail at this, but that is the path humanity must take. Everything else leads to thought control in the end.

I will not make any comments about your lunatic imaginations and theories about the society you imagine I desire to be in. You have no clue about me it seems, except the dogmas and prejudgements about Muslims injected into your mind.

 

I have found no point in the rest of your post except a desire to depress Muslims with one sided fascist political tricks. No Muslim can stand such a pressure and every logical one can see that the end of this way is a completely polarized world like it was in the middle ages, where Muslims and Christs are living seperately and hating each other. So you are wrong. The path you talk about is not a path for humanity. It is a narrow path for few narrow minded Muslim hater racist countries in which no Muslim lives or desires to live in.

[Gorth]

I think you have missed the point I have mentioned in my post. I said while Salman Rushdi example fresh in the memories, the publishers of the newspaper were aware of what was going on after the cartoon. Their aim was forming a polarized atmosphere between Muslims and Christians via attracting Muslim hatred via such attempts.

No, I think you may be missing the point. It does require you to know the entire story though. The (original) cartoons were a protest by the Danish artists against the Imans who had tried to form a polarized atmosphere between Muslims and Christians by threatening the authors of a series of childrens books, which explained about Islam. They couldn't get anybody to illustrate the books out of fear for their safety. Since the freedom of speech is part of the constitution, it is illegal to threaten people to "shut up".

 

I'm not saying those Imams in Denmark are innocent, but the publishers are more guilty and according to Islamic rules Imams are right to react to this insult.

Wrong. The Imams are living in a foreign country as guests. If they don't like their hosts and don't want to respect their laws, nothing prevents them from leaving, unmolested and unharmed. That is what being a free country is all about.

 

Also I want to remind you that the Priests in the Churches of Greece, Bulgaria and Armenia are brainwashing the religious citizens of those countries with hatred and rage against Turks, so religious authorities of such countries are not so innocent as well.

I wouldn't know. I am Danish, not Greek, Bulgarian or Armenian. I do know that all of them have strained relations with Turkey after centuries of occupation and oppression by its predecessor state, the Ottoman Empire. Changing a state doesn't make old grudges go away overnight.

[Walsingham]

I'm not saying those Imams in Denmark are innocent, but the publishers are more guilty and according to Islamic rules Imams are right to react to this insult.

 

I'm afraid I have a higher opinion of your religious authorities than you do, it seems. I would regard it is incumbent upon a wise man to react sensibly to provocation, not to fabricate additional provocation. This is not the action of a wounded man, but an active aggressor. Also it is you who seem to constantly act on this notion that every element of Western society si out to entrap and attack 'Islam'. To do so is to pay no attention whatsoever to how we treat our own authority figures. Our own archbishops of the Church of England have stated that in the evnt of someone mocking Jesus it is the part of a true Christian to remember that God is not likely to cry himself to sleep over it. He is a big boy, after all.

 

 

I suggest that the prophet (PBUH) cares a great deal more about bombing the innocent than pictures of himself, which was the whole point of the cartoon in the first place.

[The Illuminator]

I'm afraid I have a higher opinion of your religious authorities than you do, it seems. I would regard it is incumbent upon a wise man to react sensibly to provocation, not to fabricate additional provocation. This is not the action of a wounded man, but an active aggressor. Also it is you who seem to constantly act on this notion that every element of Western society si out to entrap and attack 'Islam'. To do so is to pay no attention whatsoever to how we treat our own authority figures. Our own archbishops of the Church of England have stated that in the evnt of someone mocking Jesus it is the part of a true Christian to remember that God is not likely to cry himself to sleep over it. He is a big boy, after all.

Even if Pope says that ''It is okay to draw insulty cartoons of Jesus'' it cannot be an example or order to Muslims, as Pope is not a Muslim Prophet. Islam has its own rules and Pope or any other authority(this includes Bin Laden) is a determiner. All of the rules have been determined by Allah Himself and drawing such cartoons is a big insult to this religion independent from any reasoning. If somebody is not respecting those rules, then cannot demand respect to his actions from the Muslims as well.

 

Also today there are lots of focuses claiming to be the 'religious authority of the Muslims', so I don't know to whom you point via saying 'your religious authority'.

 

I suggest that the prophet (PBUH) cares a great deal more about bombing the innocent than pictures of himself, which was the whole point of the cartoon in the first place.

You must search the Prophet much deeper as you seem knowing nothing about if you really wish to. I doubt it though as you simply cannot figure out that there were no 'bombs' at His age..

 

No, I think you may be missing the point. It does require you to know the entire story though. The (original) cartoons were a protest by the Danish artists against the Imans who had tried to form a polarized atmosphere between Muslims and Christians by threatening the authors of a series of childrens books, which explained about Islam. They couldn't get anybody to illustrate the books out of fear for their safety. Since the freedom of speech is part of the constitution, it is illegal to threaten people to "shut up".

This sums up the root trick of this polarization attempt. I guess those childrens' books were full of anti-Islamic propoganda and were brainwashing the children with prejudgements and dogmas about Islam, so the aim for publishing such books were again, predictibally was provoking those Imams to threaten the publishers and it worked. I think Imams has chosen the wrong and illegal way and were hunted with this simple trap, again seems to be organized to exile Muslims from Denmark step by step.

 

However, if they hhave had chosen to complain this to the Danish Courts, which one could be the possible answer?

 

A-''Those anti-Islamic propoganda books are legal because there is freedom of speech in Denamark and brainwashing people with false knowledge is freedom of speech''

B-''We shall forbid those books full of false information about Islam and we are sorry for this''

 

I guess if the answer was B, those Imams could not act illegally, however, I can honestly say that I would not resist to live in any country giving the answer A to me in such an occasion.

 

Wrong. The Imams are living in a foreign country as guests. If they don't like their hosts and don't want to respect their laws, nothing prevents them from leaving, unmolested and unharmed. That is what being a free country is all about.

What? Guests? Does Danish law classify Muslim citizens as guests or do you claim that those Imams were in Denmark with tourist visas? Or are you trying to say that Muslim citizens of Denmark are perceeived as guests by Christ citizens of Denmark? In such a case I can only say that this is a pure tragedy for Denmark as no such a perceivement is valid I believe in most of the countries of the world. At least in Turkey I can say none of the non-Muslim citizens are classified as 'guests' as this definition is against human rights.

 

I wouldn't know. I am Danish, not Greek, Bulgarian or Armenian. I do know that all of them have strained relations with Turkey after centuries of occupation and oppression by its predecessor state, the Ottoman Empire. Changing a state doesn't make old grudges go away overnight.

According to your statement, the Priests of every country which was a part of a bigger country in the past, have the right to brainwash the citizens of that country with false and racist religious propogandas about the grandsons of the former governor country. So you will support if Turkish Imams brainwash Turkish citizens about the ethnical slaughters Greek, Bulgarian or Armenian ancestors have performed. In fact there is no lack of materal for such an action against the countries with fresh examples like Todor Jivkov who fascistly has tried to change the names of Turkish-Bulgarian citizens by force to assimilate them very recently.

 

I can honestly say that I am against such polarization, however if one side performs it, the other side must do the same at least to form the courage to face the hatemonger being formed on the opposite site.

[GreasyDogMeat]

I will not make any comments about your lunatic imaginations and theories about the society you imagine I desire to be in. You have no clue about me it seems, except the dogmas and prejudgements about Muslims injected into your mind.

 

I have found no point in the rest of your post except a desire to depress Muslims with one sided fascist political tricks. No Muslim can stand such a pressure and every logical one can see that the end of this way is a completely polarized world like it was in the middle ages, where Muslims and Christs are living seperately and hating each other. So you are wrong. The path you talk about is not a path for humanity. It is a narrow path for few narrow minded Muslim hater racist countries in which no Muslim lives or desires to live in.

Who needs dogmas and prejudgements about muslims from the media when we can just look at your ridiculous posts and draw conclusions. I have a feeling you are as prejudiced and racist as you claim the 'western world'. 'Those facists didn't land on the moon! Its a lie!' 'That lady giving Ahmadinejad the finger is FOUL, but his country murdering homosexuals is fine! He is no different from any American President!'

 

I hope you are a extreme representation of your country, and not the norm as I can see why relations are so poor.

[Gorth]

This sums up the root trick of this polarization attempt. I guess those childrens' books were full of anti-Islamic propoganda and were brainwashing the children with prejudgements and dogmas about Islam, so the aim for publishing such books were again, predictibally was provoking those Imams to threaten the publishers and it worked.

 

"I Guess..." is part of the problem. Too much guessing and too much bias going into the guessing. Not everybody is "out to get you all the time". Danish Muslims are generally a good bunch of people, counting some of them as my friends. Learn more and guess less.

[The Illuminator]

Who needs dogmas and prejudgements about muslims from the media when we can just look at your ridiculous posts and draw conclusions. I have a feeling you are as prejudiced and racist as you claim the 'western world'. 'Those facists didn't land on the moon! Its a lie!' 'That lady giving Ahmadinejad the finger is FOUL, but his country murdering homosexuals is fine! He is no different from any American President!'

I am making 'no' posts without supporting proofs and links, but you willingly or unwillingly representing my posts as if I make them without any scientific and logical supports. If you manage to prove me wrong with solid proofs like mines, then I would believe your statement.

 

Ahmedinejad I believe has not killed any homosexuals himself, but individuals may have. You cannot assume that he is responsible from that. Otherwise you must keep Obama responsible from the murders KKK performs.

 

I hope you are a extreme representation of your country, and not the norm as I can see why relations are so poor.

I feel the same for you.

[Tigranes]

Personal attacks no, arguments yes, people.

 

Personally, I think this is an event that got way too messed up. If it is a deep offence for Muslims to see their Prophet drawn in a cartoon in such a way, then that cartoon should not have been drawn, or retracted & apologised for immediately. It's that simple. Just because the European norm sees such a convention as silly doesn't change a thing. That's ridiculous - 'we respect your culture/religion, as long as it doesn't sound too wacko to us.' That's not respecting culture/religion is it? People talk about some Muslims being way too stuck up about this - actually, it's some Westerners who've been way too stuck up. I mean, it offends their religion. So don't do it. Why's it so important for some Danish moolah to draw the prophet? Loosen up, let it go.

 

But no, we had to get those imams and police and courts and all this hoopla about it. Doesn't help anybody involved or the relations between Muslims and the West.

[I want teh kotor 3]

Sorry, freedom of speech > religion.

[Gorth]

But no, we had to get those imams and police and courts and all this hoopla about it. Doesn't help anybody involved or the relations between Muslims and the West.

It may be a cultural thing. Religion may be important in some parts of the world. It isn't in other parts of the world. If respecting other cultures means giving up your own (i.e. would you give up your democracy/secular state because somebody threatened you with bodily harm), would you do it or would you object to it?

[213374U]

Personally, I think this is an event that got way too messed up. If it is a deep offence for Muslims to see their Prophet drawn in a cartoon in such a way, then that cartoon should not have been drawn, or retracted & apologised for immediately. It's that simple. Just because the European norm sees such a convention as silly doesn't change a thing. That's ridiculous - 'we respect your culture/religion, as long as it doesn't sound too wacko to us.' That's not respecting culture/religion is it? People talk about some Muslims being way too stuck up about this - actually, it's some Westerners who've been way too stuck up. I mean, it offends their religion. So don't do it. Why's it so important for some Danish moolah to draw the prophet? Loosen up, let it go.

 

But no, we had to get those imams and police and courts and all this hoopla about it. Doesn't help anybody involved or the relations between Muslims and the West.

Sorry sir, but that's bull.

 

Free speech doesn't end where the sensibilities of group X begin. That is NOT free speech, you see -- self-censorship is still censorship. You make an interesting point: we do respect your culture/religion, as long as it doesn't conflict with the foundations of OUR culture. Because, unlike in other cultures, those foundations aren't untouchable since they were given to us by God Almighty directly (through a convenient intermediary). Systematically oppressing women and homosexuals should be acceptable because "there are no barbarians, just other cultures"? Where did this idea that irreconcilable differences don't exist come from? I'm not calling for open warfare here, but exemption from criticism? PC overdrive much?

Edited March 24, 2010 by 213374U

[Tigranes]

Free speech doesn't end where the sensibilities of group X begin. That is NOT free speech, you see -- self-censorship is still censorship.

 

You are right, it's not 100% Pure Free Speech. But then, I don't think that's a good thing anyway.

 

Are we saying the right of free speech should override deep religious offence, deep cultural offence? I mean, if you really think so, alright, but that's not my idea of a great society. I'm not saying there should be exemption from criticism. In fact, I think free speech as an ideal is soemtimes even more exempt from criticism than religion. "You effing bastard!" "no, no, it's free speech, YOU CANT STOP ME OR CRITICISE ME". Seriously? Free speech is important. But it's important for a reason and in particular ways, not in overwhelming extremities to the detriment of all other values. To me,

 

Sorry, freedom of speech > religion.

 

is just as bigoted and short-sighted as a Muslim that might get incontinently angry about the issue and yell "burn the cartoonist" - effectively you've got people in the Western world who are so blindly devoted to the idol of freedom of speech, so that rather than truly understanding its (very positive) role in society, they just worship it. How is this different from....

[213374U]

You are right, it's not 100% Pure Free Speech. But then, I don't think that's a good thing anyway.

 

Are we saying the right of free speech should override deep religious offence, deep cultural offence? I mean, if you really think so, alright, but that's not my idea of a great society. I'm not saying there should be exemption from criticism. In fact, I think free speech as an ideal is soemtimes even more exempt from criticism than religion. "You effing bastard!" "no, no, it's free speech, YOU CANT STOP ME OR CRITICISE ME". Seriously? Free speech is important. But it's important for a reason and in particular ways, not in overwhelming extremities to the detriment of all other values. To me,

 

Sorry, freedom of speech > religion.

 

is just as bigoted and short-sighted as a Muslim that might get incontinently angry about the issue and yell "burn the cartoonist" - effectively you've got people in the Western world who are so blindly devoted to the idol of freedom of speech, so that rather than truly understanding its (very positive) role in society, they just worship it. How is this different from....

Uh, so because people don't understand what free speech is about (your insult example is a perfect example of this), free speech is suddenly at the same level as divine revelation? Really?

 

The problem is that you cannot codify people's sensibilities and make that into a law that will be fair for everyone, because "offense" is not only unfalsifiable, but also completely subjective. Therefore, restricting free speech (a fundamental human right) just to whatever doesn't cause offense is bound to fail.

 

While I think your stance in questioning everything, free speech included, is appropriate, I don't think you are being very thorough about it, as you seem to be confusing (or at least placing at the same level) dogma and empirical reasoning. Things like free speech and the secularisation of the state have been discussed for centuries now... and people were eventually convinced (by means of reason) that it was best. Revisiting these discussions is undoubtedly healthy, so as to avoid the blind worship problem you speak about, but let's try not to lose perspective.

 

I'd genuinely like to hear your arguments against free speech, as I worship nothing myself, but I did notice you didn't actually make any.

Edited March 24, 2010 by 213374U

[Tigranes]

Uh, so because people don't understand what free speech is about (your insult example is a perfect example of this), free speech is suddenly at the same level as divine revelation? Really?

 

Re: insult example, sorry, the insult was someone getting angry, not an actual example of free speech. Otherwise, this is a gross mis-summarisation of my argument so I have no response there.

 

As for the rest, I'll come back to you, I'm sort of coming in and posting these in 10 seconds at the moment.

[I want teh kotor 3]

Sorry Tig, but I don't buy it... I have no reason to be bound by the wishes/regulations of a group to which I don't belong? They have a right to be offended, and I have an equal right to not care?

[GreasyDogMeat]

I am making 'no' posts without supporting proofs and links, but you willingly or unwillingly representing my posts as if I make them without any scientific and logical supports. If you manage to prove me wrong with solid proofs like mines, then I would believe your statement.

 

Ahmedinejad I believe has not killed any homosexuals himself, but individuals may have. You cannot assume that he is responsible from that. Otherwise you must keep Obama responsible from the murders KKK performs.

You do... you get them from biased lop-sided sources and take them for fact.

 

Ahmedinejad famously said there are 'no homosexuals in Iran'. There are two conclusions. 1: Ahmedinejad is ignorant of what goes on in his country. 2: He knows that they have all been killed off and lies to our country to make us look 'corrupt and degenerate'. He deserves more than the 'finger'.

 

Also, what does Obama have to do with murders by the KKK you nut? Has Obama said ANYTHING about the KKK, denying their existence?

[Niten_Ryu]

I have no doubt the real Muslims will see how idiotic these guys are.

 

Ah yes. Good 'ol "no true scotsman" argument, but from divine source. No real muslim would get upset about these pictures! No real muslim would tolerate these pictures! All real muslims would try to do their best to harm anyone who had anything to do with these pictures!

 

Who is right? Here's the best part. No human can know who is muslim, at least not untill the judgement day. Extremest might not be extreme enough or moderates not tolerant enough. Listening to Sunni argue with Shia is scary stuff. Then you start to think how could they integrate into western society and you'll notice that it's impossible by default. Two people might be from the same family, follow same traditions and code but once there's something they seriously disagree, one might say - you're not a true muslim.

 

I don't know much about the early days of the first caliphate, but I'd guess "no true scotsman" was developed as counter to the rule where no muslim shall attack against another muslim. If one can argue that other is not a true muslim, then all bets are off. Or maybe it just naturally happend but it's major headache for us western nations as we don't have any solutions.

[Walsingham]

I suggest that the prophet (PBUH) cares a great deal more about bombing the innocent than pictures of himself, which was the whole point of the cartoon in the first place.

You must search the Prophet much deeper as you seem knowing nothing about if you really wish to. I doubt it though as you simply cannot figure out that there were no 'bombs' at His age..

 

 

You are correct that there were no bombs. There were, however, plenty of other ways for innocents to die. If you suggest that innnocents should die for a perceived affront to your prophet then I still maintain your religion is fascinating and worthy, but that you are a contemptible form of pond scum.

[Meshugger]

It pretty much boggles down to what kind of society you want to live in: one that forbids opinion, art and music that can be considered as disrespecting, or one that permits all of it.

 

The muslims can protest as much as they want, but no laws should be made in favour for anyone, or any group, in which they think that can be protected from opinion that doesn't suit them. Many countries fail at this, but that is the path humanity must take. Everything else leads to thought control in the end.

I will not make any comments about your lunatic imaginations and theories about the society you imagine I desire to be in. You have no clue about me it seems, except the dogmas and prejudgements about Muslims injected into your mind.

 

I have found no point in the rest of your post except a desire to depress Muslims with one sided fascist political tricks. No Muslim can stand such a pressure and every logical one can see that the end of this way is a completely polarized world like it was in the middle ages, where Muslims and Christs are living seperately and hating each other. So you are wrong. The path you talk about is not a path for humanity. It is a narrow path for few narrow minded Muslim hater racist countries in which no Muslim lives or desires to live in.

 

The whole point of free speech is not to supress any dissident voice, no matter what you think of it. The moment you try hush a voice or burn a paper, you are committing an act of tyranny. A great example of freedom of expression is the renaissance-peroid. It did wonders to art, music, poetry, philosophy and science. Are you of the opinion that the renaissance was bad for humankind?

 

What's your opinion about Voltaire, the guy who said that "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."? Or those influenced by him? Jefferson, Franklin and others of the enlightment?

[213374U]

No Muslim can stand such a pressure and every logical one can see that the end of this way is a completely polarized world like it was in the middle ages, where Muslims and Christs are living seperately and hating each other.

In fact, during the Middle Ages, Muslims and non-Muslims (Christians included), lived in peace and harmony in what have been arguably some of the most tolerant and progressive regimes of the time: the Caliphates. Characterized by a respect of individual rights (including, but not limited to, freedom of religion and freedom of expression), and an adherence to an early form of the rule of law, different peoples coexisted and worked together to bring about the "Golden Age" of Islam -- one of the most bright periods of Islamic history and comparable to the European Renaissance period in scope.

 

So, no. It was merely the Pope and those who relied on him for validation of their authority that "hated Muslims", and only because back then the Muslim world was the dominant power.

 

Free speech cannot lead to the polarisation you warn against -- that's the role of ignorance, to which suppression of free speech is conducive.

[Walsingham]

I don't accept this nonsense about freedom being binary. I don't have the freedom to murder people, but that doesn't take away my freedom to kill in self defence. I suggest that freedom of speech - despite Numbers' very good point about subjectivity - is consistent with banning extreme hate speech.

[Killian Kalthorne]

"Beloved slaves of Allah"

 

"beloved slaves"

 

 

I didn't think Allah (God) was into BDSM.

 

 

And since God is often seen as a male figurehead...

 

 

 

 

[213374U]

I don't accept this nonsense about freedom being binary. I don't have the freedom to murder people, but that doesn't take away my freedom to kill in self defence. I suggest that freedom of speech - despite Numbers' very good point about subjectivity - is consistent with banning extreme hate speech.

In an ideal world where every listener is at least as educated as every speaker, hate speech would be pointless, and therefore there would be no need for it to be banned.

 

This is far from being an ideal world, though, and we all recognize the dangers of demagoguery and populism. I'm not arguing for absolute, 100% pure unadulterated free speech. The problem lies, as always, in the proverbial line on the sand.

[Sand]

Why does everyone wants to draw lines on me?!?!

 

FELT TIP! FELT TIP!

 

AAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGH!

[Walsingham]

I don't accept this nonsense about freedom being binary. I don't have the freedom to murder people, but that doesn't take away my freedom to kill in self defence. I suggest that freedom of speech - despite Numbers' very good point about subjectivity - is consistent with banning extreme hate speech.

In an ideal world where every listener is at least as educated as every speaker, hate speech would be pointless, and therefore there would be no need for it to be banned.

 

This is far from being an ideal world, though, and we all recognize the dangers of demagoguery and populism. I'm not arguing for absolute, 100% pure unadulterated free speech. The problem lies, as always, in the proverbial line on the sand.

 

Excellent. My round, i believe. Oh wait, dammit I'm not in the pub.