Why insulting prophet Muhammad?!

Yes, dear, I'd already seen the post you mention, but dissenting openly via written media and a video of two guys facing down thousands ... hmmm.

JW does rock.

Massively.

A friend emailed me a link to a video a few days ago showing 4,000 Islamic demonstrators in Paris and the two men who stood up to them (maybe they saw the chick flick O'Bill references? )

Lash wrote:

Would anyone say violence is sweeping Europe yet?

Not unless Indonesia has moved to Europe.

Lash wrote:

JW does rock.

Massively.

As does Nimh.

Imagine how informative A2K would be if everyone, on both sides, took the time to be informed and argued their positions with the grace of those two.

My name is Adiba and I was born a Muslim. I am unknown, and nobody need care waht I think, but I want the world to know that not all Muslims are united on the issue of the Danish cartoons. I am disappointed with the protests that Muslims around the world have made over the images, and disappointed that many Muslims do not stand outside their immediate convictions and look at the world they live in, so that they can adjust their approach to it. We live in a world where dialogue is the only way progress can be made, a world where different belief systems have to co exist. We cannot presume that everyone will share our views, or understand why certain things seem disrespectful, or even respect the reasons why they seem so. Things we do will continue to please some and annoy others. The HSBC adertisements showing the many different meanings of the thumbs up sign are a good example.

You protesters are crazy. I despise you for tainting the name of this religion, which belongs to no one, and no one has to defend, because Islam will live no matter how you represent it. By asking for beheadings of those who have a different view, you are proving the same as the people persecuted Muhammed (God Bless His Soul) when he tried to spread the word. You are just as intolerant, just as misguided, and you are persecutors of the innocent. Go get an education.

Dont expect people to know what offends your delicate sensibilities. Talk to them, earn their trust, lead by example...then they will respect you and try not to offend you. The countries that published these cartoons have given you homes, livelihoods, and freedom to practise your religion as you choose. They ahve no laws to prohibit what the newspapers did. To them, it was a joke. So if you want them to understand your point of view, show them that you are better than some screaming, shouting, mad person with bloodand revenge on his mind. You can ask for an apology, and if you show them tolerance and intelligence, they will apologise.

There are bigger fights to fight in your lives than being offended over cartoons that were never expected to provoke such outrage. The countries in which you live have freedom to fthe press and give everyone the right to speak their mind- the same laws that gave you the right to protest. Dont try to shut people's mouths or break their pens. Try to change what they are saying and what they are writing.

Abida Osmani

nimh - I'm still not sure why you felt compelled to comment on my post by pointing out the links you'd provided in your posts.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Lash wrote:

JW does rock.

Massively.

As does Nimh.

Not in the last page. She slew him with facts and logic.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Imagine how informative A2K would be if everyone, on both sides, took the time to be informed and argued their positions with the grace of those two.

Even those who can write interminably with a seeming lack of aggression and bias, are informed largely by their preferences moreso than unadulterated facts....no less so than the rabble. It's just not as readily apparent, which may be of value in some circles, where content comes in a distant second to delivery.

Lash wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Lash wrote:

JW does rock.

Massively.

As does Nimh.

Not in the last page. She slew him with facts and logic.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Imagine how informative A2K would be if everyone, on both sides, took the time to be informed and argued their positions with the grace of those two.

Even those who can write interminably with a seeming lack of aggression and bias, are informed largely by their preferences moreso than unadulterated facts....no less so than the rabble. It's just not as readily apparent, which may be of value in some circles, where content comes in a distant second to delivery.

Hehheh. The peanut gallery chimes in. This must be Lash in best form: an entire post consisting exclusively of a personal attack, without any substantive point of its own, that nevertheless ends with a flourish about the shame of those to whom "content comes a distant second". :wink:

Not to mention perceiving a friendly enough exchange of addendums between JW and me as an argumentative "slaughter" of sorts. To some mind states every exchange is akin to war I guess.

Lash herself fails to ever return to assertions she's proven wrong on (what about those "riots sweeping Europe" over the cartoons, for example?), but no, its the others who are informed by their preferences rather than "unadulterated facts". Right.

<insert rolling eye smiley..>

The [cartoon] images did not reflect any single positive aspect of Islam but rather played on the worst possible stereotypes of the religion and its prophet as woman-hating, violent and suicidal.

in Britain, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) [..] has issued statements calling on Muslims to keep their protest within the law and eschew completely any incitement to hatred [..]

The MCB's fears were prompted by the demonstrators outside the Danish embassy in London carrying placards with offensive slogans - "butcher those who mock Islam", " Britain, you will pay, 7/7 on its way".

For some Muslims such behaviour was playing into the hands of those who wished for Islam to be portrayed in the worst possible light. It remains a moment of crisis, because hot-heads and their clever manipulators could create a backlash so as to lead a community to oblivion.

Several Muslim representatives attending a meeting of the MCB in Birmingham on 4th February 2006 urged that the best approach for Muslims in the face of provocations and insults was to behave like the Prophet would have - with dignity magnanimity and compassion. Reference was made to the Prophet's experience at Taif and his response.

Salma Yaqub, a respected voice within the community, urged the imams present to think carefully of the impact of their words on congregations - "we don't need to prove who loves the Prophet most". Of course all Muslims are deeply offended, but the need of the hour was to channel the community's emotions towards positive action.

Likely initiatives within the community will be meetings and other attempts to explain the life of the Prophet.

Community initiatives - updated 12th Feb 2006

Saturday 11th February - rally in Trafalgar Square 'United against incitement, United against Islamophobia', 1pm to 5 pm - organised by a broad coalition - for a report see Salaam blogs A cold afternoon at Trafalgar Square

[..]

The origins of the infamous Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed do not lie in an attempt to offer contemporary comment, let alone satire, but the desire to illustrate a childrens' book. While such pictures would have been distasteful to many Muslims - hence why no illustrator could be found - the cartoons are in an entirely different league of offence. They are all unfriendly to Islam and Muslims and the most notorious implicate the prophet with terrorism. If the message was meant to be that non-Muslims have the right to draw Mohammed, it has come out very differently: that the prophet of Islam was a terrorist.

Moreover, the cartoons are not just about one individual but about Muslims per se - just as a cartoon portraying Moses as a crooked financier would not be about one man but a comment on Jews. And just as the latter would be racist, so are the cartoons in question.

That does not in itself mean such cartoons should be banned. One relies on the sensitivity and responsibility of individuals and institutions to refrain from what is legal but unacceptable. Where these qualities are missing one relies on public debate and censure to provide standards and restraints. Hence, where matters are not or cannot easily be regulated by law one relies on protest as well as empathy. This is how most racist speech and images and other free expressions (e.g., the use of golliwogs as commercial brands or British television's Black and White Minstrel Show) have been censured - rather than censored - away. [..]

[T]he cartoons themselves are a trigger rather than the main issue, for everyone - Muslims and non-Muslims - "views" them (whether literally or imaginatively) in a wider domestic and international context that is already deeply contested. From the Muslim side, the underlying causes of their current anger are a deep sense that they are not respected, that they and their most cherished feelings are "fair game". Inferior protective legislation, socio-economic marginality, cultural disdain, draconian security surveillance, the occupation of Palestine, the international "war on terror" all converge on this point. The cartoons cannot be compared to some of these situations, but they do distil the experience of inferiority and of being bossed around. A handful of humiliating images become a focal point for something much bigger than themselves.

This at least helps to explain if not condone some of the violent protests in several Muslim cities, and the language of some of the initial protestors in places like Copenhagen and London. Such behaviour is wholly unacceptable and does great damage to the cause of the protestors and to the standing of Muslims in general. Yet while violent protests do not win Muslims many friends, they are not the principal reason for a lack of sympathy for Muslims. Much more real estate has been burnt and more lives lost and endangered in protests in, say, Detroit or Los Angeles; in cases like that protest has been understood by many commentators and politicians as legitimate rage to be addressed by positive socio-economic policies.

Two factors are critical to the lack of sympathy for Muslims in Europe. First, there is a lack of recognition that the way that Muslims are treated is a form of racism [..]

The second reason is the idea - prevalent amongst anti-racists, the progressive intelligentsia and beyond - that religious people are not worthy of protection; more than that, they should be subject to not just intellectual criticism but mockery and ridicule.

The idea is that religion represents Europe's pre-enlightenment dark age of superstition and clerical authoritarianism and so has to be constantly kept at bay. [..]

This understanding of religion is deep in the culture of the centre-left intelligentsia and is what is being appealed to in the current sloganeering around "freedom of expression". That's why, when Muslims counter by citing what Europeans regard as acceptable limits to freedom of speech (e.g., the imprisonment of holocaust deniers), it cuts little ice; for no one actually disagrees with limits to freedom of expression as such, it is just that some will not limit it in the field of religion. [..]

Hmmm. What would you call this post of yours other than an entire post consisting exclusively of a personal attack?

I thought you agreed to stop responding to my posts...? Your obsession with yourself mucks up my rhythm.

And, if you don't think violence is erupting all over the world, and Muslims are to thank for it--I'm uninterested in "proving it" to you. You may continue happily in your bubble of denial.