muslim1 wrote:[The martyrdom of Hussein (May Allah be pleased with him) happened to be exactly on the 10th of Muharram on the Islamic year 61 (680 AD).
But the basic celebration of Ashoora (10th of Muharram every year) is for the day in which the believers (Israelites) crossed the Red Sea and pharaoh's army was drowned in the water.
Not to repeat myself but...
Can you speak for yourself or are you confined to the metaphor of that which you have read? Can you say anything that you have thought through critically or is it simply a programmed response?
Please, show us a sign of life.
Or is it a sin to think for yourself in your religion?
Don't look now, but they're even doing it to their OWN people.
What is wrong with these nutters?
WORSHIPPERS DIE IN PAKISTAN BLAST
At least 27 people have been killed in a suspected suicide bomb attack and in subsequent violence at a religious procession in north-west Pakistan.
The explosion tore through a crowd of Shia Muslims marking the Ashura festival in the town of Hangu, sparking rioting among pilgrims.
Pakistan has a history of tension between Shia and Sunni Muslims.
Five people also died in Sunni-Shia fighting in Herat, western Afghanistan, on Thursday, doctors said............."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4695776.stm
Lord Ellpus wrote:Don't look now, but they're even doing it to their OWN people.
What is wrong with these nutters?
Well, that's known since a long time .... and the answer is in your source
Quote:Pakistan has a history of tension between Shia and Sunni Muslims.
(Ever heard of the Thirty Years War, Ulster/Northern Ireland ... ?)
Walter, I don't think that this is the same thing at all.
The republicans happened to be Catholics, who were fighting the British, who happened to be mainly protestant. Take the religion out of the equation, and they would still have fought the British. It was all about British rule over Irish land.
Lord Ellpus wrote:Walter, I don't think that this is the same thing at all.
The Troubles in Northern Ireland are frequently seen as a conflict between Catholic and Protestant, even if the more fundamental cause is the attachment of Northern Ireland to either the Republic of Ireland or the United Kingdom.
I only wanted to point at the fact that religious conflicts with deaths are not only a Muslim or new thing.
There's a long history of muslims fighting, and killing, each other in Iraq too.
Walter Hinteler wrote:Lord Ellpus wrote:Walter, I don't think that this is the same thing at all.
The Troubles in Northern Ireland are frequently seen as a conflict between Catholic and Protestant, even if the more fundamental cause is the attachment of Northern Ireland to either the Republic of Ireland or the United Kingdom.
I only wanted to point at the fact that religious conflicts with deaths are not only a Muslim or new thing.
If the British were ALL Catholic, Walter, the republicans would still have fought with them.
Think of it as a religious thing if you want, but it was the fact that the Brits were lording it on Irish soil that caused the fighting.
My point was, that on what is one of their most holy days of the year, a muslim woke up, strapped some bombs on and thought "I know, I'll go to a big religious festival and blow up some of my fellow Muslim men, women and children".
Like I said....what is wrong with these nutters?
Lord Ellpus wrote:My point was, that on what is one of their most holy days of the year, a muslim woke up, strapped some bombs on and thought "I know, I'll go to a big religious festival and blow up some of my fellow Muslim men, women and children".
Exactly what Protestant did and Catholics vice versa during the 30 Years War - that's what we were taught at school, more than 40 years ago (in religion classes, not in history).
Catholic teacher, no doubt.
Lord Ellpus wrote:My point was, that on what is one of their most holy days of the year, a muslim woke up, strapped some bombs on and thought "I know, I'll go to a big religious festival and blow up some of my fellow Muslim men, women and children".
Like I said....what is wrong with these nutters?
It's OK though m'lord. If the victims are true to Allah then they will be rewarded in heaven and if they are not they will be punished and everything works out as it should.
(Unless of course they are wrong about Allah and heaven, in which case they are just destroying beautiful, valuable men women and children forever for no reason at all...but luckily, they have a book to tell them they are right)
Lord Ellpus wrote:...Like I said....what is wrong with these nutters?
Excessive religious zeal.
Eorl wrote:It's OK though m'lord. If the victims are true to Allah then they will be rewarded in heaven and if they are not they will be punished and everything works out as it should.
Yes. I suppose this it what bothers me most about the justification of suicide bombers. Seems people with that mindset will believe anything they are told about religion. I think their religious leaders know how suggestive they are; the imams load the gun, cock the trigger and then point the weapon wherever they choose.
How presumptuous to think the suicide bombers know that much about the afterlife when they are so completely in the dark about
this life.
chris2a wrote:Seems people with that mindset will believe anything they are told about religion. I think their religious leaders know how suggestive they are; the imams load the gun, cock the trigger and then point the weapon wherever they choose
Yes and from their point of view beautifully effective. An undetectable intelligent weapon delivery system and dirt cheap too. It can be programmed to deliver all types of conventional and non conventional munitions (including nuclear), and its perfectly moral and efficient too, as the dead are selected by Allah for reward or punishment.
The bomb might be dangerous, but the religious ideas in the bombers head are far more terrible.
Back to the topic of the thread.
There exist two important concepts, and the whole problem of the cartoons is a result of the conflict between those two concepts. The first is a Western concept that we respect: freedom of speech. On the other hand, there is the great Islamic concept of dignifying Allah's Messenger (Peace and blessings be upon him). The problem arises due to the lack of understanding between the Islamic Civilization and the West (non-muslims in general) regarding these two concepts.
O non-muslims, you have a problem. You cannot comprehend how much the Muslims love Prophet Muhammad (Peace and blessings be upon him). You are still unable to understand this point. If you had really encompassed its significance, you would never have accepted what happened. The non-muslims, in general, governments and people, do not apprehend that Allah's Messenger (Peace and blessings be upon him) is dearer to us than our parents, dearer to me than my father and dearer than my mother. Just ask a Muslim man/woman, what does Prophet Muhammad (Peace and blessings be upon him) mean to you? It is not even necessary to do that because it is so obvious, but you may conduct surveys for yourselves, and you will realize how true is this. Ask any youth, be he heedless or pious; ask any Muslim anywhere on the world. Ask any Muslim in any city or village regardless of how religious he is, be he an obedient Muslim or not, a drug user or not, successful in his life or not, old or young, ask them, what does Allah's Messenger (Peace and blessings be upon him) mean to you?
O non-muslims, I affirm that Allah's Messenger (Peace and blessings be upon him) is dearer to all Muslims than their own parents.
O non-muslims, Allah's Messenger (Peace and blessings be upon him) is dearer to us, Muslims, than our children and grandchildren.
O non-muslims, Allah's Messenger (Peace and blessings be upon him) is dearer to us than our money, dearer to us than our own selves. He is dearer to us than our own countries.
O non-muslims, comprehend that meaning, Allah's Messenger (Peace and blessings be upon him) is dearer to Muslims than their children and their own selves.
O non-muslims, we will never give up what we believe in.
O non-muslims, there is one and a unique solution to the problem: that you respect what we believe in.
Nonsense--those who are not Muslims are not obliged to cater to the unrealistic attitudes of Muslims, nor to admire the scumbag Mohammed. You peddle superstitious nonsense, and demand that it be respected. Given the lunacy and violence of far too many Muslims, the likelihood of anyone outside Islam developing any respect for your fairy tales diminishes with each passing day.
muslim1,
Respect is for people NOT their beliefs. Do you respect MY belief that all religions are psychological crutches ? Of course not !. Yet had I merely said that I held the particular belief that "Jesus was not the son of God" you no doubt would have applauded. THINK ABOUT IT !
muslim1 wrote:Back to the topic of the thread.
There exist two important concepts, and the whole problem of the cartoons is a result of the conflict between those two concepts. The first is a Western concept that we respect: freedom of speech. On the other hand, there is the great Islamic concept of dignifying Allah's Messenger (Peace and blessings be upon him). The problem arises due to the lack of understanding between the Islamic Civilization and the West (non-muslims in general) regarding these two concepts.
O non-muslims, you have a problem. You cannot comprehend how much the Muslims love Prophet Muhammad (Peace and blessings be upon him). You are still unable to understand this point. If you had really encompassed its significance, you would never have accepted what happened. The non-muslims, in general, governments and people, do not apprehend that Allah's Messenger (Peace and blessings be upon him) is dearer to us than our parents, dearer to me than my father and dearer than my mother. Just ask a Muslim man/woman, what does Prophet Muhammad (Peace and blessings be upon him) mean to you? It is not even necessary to do that because it is so obvious, but you may conduct surveys for yourselves, and you will realize how true is this. Ask any youth, be he heedless or pious; ask any Muslim anywhere on the world. Ask any Muslim in any city or village regardless of how religious he is, be he an obedient Muslim or not, a drug user or not, successful in his life or not, old or young, ask them, what does Allah's Messenger (Peace and blessings be upon him) mean to you?
O non-muslims, I affirm that Allah's Messenger (Peace and blessings be upon him) is dearer to all Muslims than their own parents.
O non-muslims, Allah's Messenger (Peace and blessings be upon him) is dearer to us, Muslims, than our children and grandchildren.
O non-muslims, Allah's Messenger (Peace and blessings be upon him) is dearer to us than our money, dearer to us than our own selves. He is dearer to us than our own countries.
O non-muslims, comprehend that meaning, Allah's Messenger (Peace and blessings be upon him) is dearer to Muslims than their children and their own selves.
O non-muslims, we will never give up what we believe in.
O non-muslims, there is one and a unique solution to the problem: that you respect what we believe in.
Well thats quite a heart-felt plea Muslim1 and I for one am listening and trying to understand what you say. I'm not sure if I can understand it though. You seem to be saying you love of Mohammed transcends everything. That sounds as if you worship him...yet you say he was a man not a god. I suppose it makes sense you do not bow down before graven images of God, but that hasnt stopped many artists drawing Mohammed in the past. Why the ban now? As for saying Mohammed (who correct me if I'm wrong, died about 1400 years ago and as a man did not return in the spirit as the Christians believe)...is more important than your parents your child or yourself...then I get the impression that there is something unhealthy going on here. Its sounds increasingly like a psychopathic fixation. Moreover if your love for Mohammed is so great (and I dont deny it is) surely a little thing such as a drawing of him can be dismissed as completely trivial.
Steve,
Good point...perhaps "sociopathic" rather than "psychopathic" which allows for the "folie a plusieurs" aspect*....also "pathology" is apt since it implies "impairment" which is a judgement we might make about the inability to adapt to a changing world.
(*after "folie a deux" ...madness which two might engage in by mutual reinforcement which would not have occurred in a single individual...."plusieurs" = "several")
