Standing on one leg with a bag over your head flapping your arms and screaming like a chicken will produce pretty much the same results.
Our attitude concerning mockery of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon
- Thread starter tresbien
- Start date
Standing on one leg with a bag over your head flapping your arms and screaming like a chicken will produce pretty much the same results.
I hear the Europeans are banning or have banned the veil, do not want sharia and are against mosques and Islamic values by Muslims. They want the freedom to make caricatures of teh Prophet while flushing the Quran or tearing it.
Yet, they consider the reverse of these actions in some Muslim countries to be repression of religious freedom.
So what is it? Is it repression or isn't it?
Yet, they consider the reverse of these actions in some Muslim countries to be repression of religious freedom.
So what is it? Is it repression or isn't it?
Maybe the Europeans simply don't want to relive the dark ages.
One can hardly fault Europeans for taking their lessons from islamic countries, Sam. There is really no comparison between discrimination against muslims in the West and non-muslims in the East. When the first person in Europe is executed or jailed for converting from Christianity, Judaism or secularism, let me know.
Last I hear, 60,000-70,000 Muslims were being held without detention and were being tortured by desecration of the Quran, among other not so nonviolent methods. Two countries had been destroyed and were under occupation and millions of dead were classified under "we don't do body counts"
You've discovered the root of your fallacious discourse. :thumbsup:
Your dodge isn't working. Try to focus on the thread topic, mockery of the Prophet.
The Brussels Journal said:
Time to answer the on topic questions now. Do you condone these murderous tactics in order to abridge the free speech rights of the newspaper and it's cartoonists? Yes or no? Do you specifically condone such terror or not? Yes or no? Tell us right here and now that you denounce such violence. We're waiting!
No more than I condone a country being bombed for seven years because they asked for evidence before handing over a refugee.
No more than I condone the Quran being flushed down toilets to torture tens of thousands of men (some of whom died under torture) who had been held for years in solitary confinement without charges or recourse to justice.
To me they are all the same kind of low savage.
Spoken like a true religious fanatic. Equate a single book of scriptures to the lives of humans. You've now justified any violence you wish to deploy at your whim. Congratulations. :bravo::yay:
When I compared Islam and Scientology in another thread - some Musims here had no problem openly stateing, as fact, that Scientology`s founder was not a Prophet but a petty science fiction writter simply out to make money off the gulible. Oh, this is fine and fare. It obvious. Right. Only an idiot would beleive in Xenu the Intergalactic OverLord.... These same people are in this thread telling us we can`t insult their Prophet.
Hypocrites
I`m 100% positive that if Scientologists really started migrating to Islamic countries and pushing for speacial rights (all while openingly teaching their children and Muslim-to-Scientology converts that Mohammad was a fraud) that if some cartoons were made or some movie made about Ron Hubbard and how he was the real freud - no way in hell would any Muslim here complain. Heck, they`d probably be all for it. Why do I say that - because Muslims here have said exactly as much.
The same song and dance.
See here, there is no more or no less evidence that Mohammad was a Prophet than Ron was a Prophet.
They are equal.
We all agree to this - there is no scientific evidence that either had a connection with a God or a Xenu, over that they had a mental problem then that they were both scammers. Any and all could be correct because no evidence exists one way or the other.
There is no more or less evidence that The Qur`an is perfect than Dynentics is perfect. It`s all in the dillusional mind of the people who believe one or the other. We`ve already all agreed neither offers anything new. Scientology`s Universality (YES Scientolgoy is a Universal beleif) is not much more of an improvement to the notion, than Islams more simple version was over that of the Polytheistic Arab`s beliefs. We all agree the concept of Universality had been taught for well over 1000 years before the birth of Mohammad.
So? Is this OK? If I make a movie saying as much do I have to fear for my life? Well, no if it:s about Ron Hubbard (see South Park) but YES I do if it`s about Mohammad (see Comics, Movie, Books, etc...).
Why?
Why are Muslims so more apt to act violently?
Why is Islam concidered a violent religion?
Can we discuss why? Is that OK? Is it OK if we talk about Mohammad when we discuss the why? Is that OK?
Is it alright to talk about Mohammad excesive polygamy? Potential slave ownership? historically accepted acts of murder? the general view that some concepts in the Qur`an are backwards, such as the notion that people can and should be discriminated by personal beleif? Can we discuss those things? Can we make fun of Mohammad? Is it OK to draw a picture showing a 50+ old man spying a young 9-13 year old aisha playing with dollys and the two of them going off to bed together? Is that a valid comment to make? Can we?
Or is that going to piss off someone? Just like suggesting Ron was a scam artist. Maybe Muslims who suggest as much diserve a violent responce from Scientologists???
Please,
Michael
Hypocrites
I`m 100% positive that if Scientologists really started migrating to Islamic countries and pushing for speacial rights (all while openingly teaching their children and Muslim-to-Scientology converts that Mohammad was a fraud) that if some cartoons were made or some movie made about Ron Hubbard and how he was the real freud - no way in hell would any Muslim here complain. Heck, they`d probably be all for it. Why do I say that - because Muslims here have said exactly as much.
The same song and dance.
See here, there is no more or no less evidence that Mohammad was a Prophet than Ron was a Prophet.
They are equal.
We all agree to this - there is no scientific evidence that either had a connection with a God or a Xenu, over that they had a mental problem then that they were both scammers. Any and all could be correct because no evidence exists one way or the other.
There is no more or less evidence that The Qur`an is perfect than Dynentics is perfect. It`s all in the dillusional mind of the people who believe one or the other. We`ve already all agreed neither offers anything new. Scientology`s Universality (YES Scientolgoy is a Universal beleif) is not much more of an improvement to the notion, than Islams more simple version was over that of the Polytheistic Arab`s beliefs. We all agree the concept of Universality had been taught for well over 1000 years before the birth of Mohammad.
So? Is this OK? If I make a movie saying as much do I have to fear for my life? Well, no if it:s about Ron Hubbard (see South Park) but YES I do if it`s about Mohammad (see Comics, Movie, Books, etc...).
Why?
Why are Muslims so more apt to act violently?
Why is Islam concidered a violent religion?
Can we discuss why? Is that OK? Is it OK if we talk about Mohammad when we discuss the why? Is that OK?
Is it alright to talk about Mohammad excesive polygamy? Potential slave ownership? historically accepted acts of murder? the general view that some concepts in the Qur`an are backwards, such as the notion that people can and should be discriminated by personal beleif? Can we discuss those things? Can we make fun of Mohammad? Is it OK to draw a picture showing a 50+ old man spying a young 9-13 year old aisha playing with dollys and the two of them going off to bed together? Is that a valid comment to make? Can we?
Or is that going to piss off someone? Just like suggesting Ron was a scam artist. Maybe Muslims who suggest as much diserve a violent responce from Scientologists???
Please,
Michael
Be more productive to discuss why Muslims are being detained without charge and tortured to death while being bombed for years as a more probable cause for their anger.
And the fact that the Quran is being desecrated and their Prophet mocked at the same time, that movies against the Quran being released as a possible reason why they view it as a war against Muslims.
Especially when the same people are involved in both cases, either in the torture or in the bombing.
Also, the Muslim who spoke out against Scientology, does he have any plans to publish caricatures of Ron Hubbard? Or support anyone who does?
And the fact that the Quran is being desecrated and their Prophet mocked at the same time, that movies against the Quran being released as a possible reason why they view it as a war against Muslims.
Especially when the same people are involved in both cases, either in the torture or in the bombing.
Also, the Muslim who spoke out against Scientology, does he have any plans to publish caricatures of Ron Hubbard? Or support anyone who does?
Last edited:
Follow the bouncing ball... :zzz:
I think I`ve been clear over the years, pre war up to now, I am against the war. I want the USA to pull out 100%. Today if possible.
Is it OK or not? During war I am not allowed to critize Bush? Sound`s like a Republican.
Are you excuse making???
He didn`t speak out. He called it a scam and said the Prophet was a science fiction scam artist making money off the gulible.
[actually what do you mean "speak out" are you an anti-Scientologist SAM?!?!? Don't you repect their belief??? You should be defending them in the ME.]
Scientoloy is a pretty small thing in the ME and the number of Muslim converts is pretty small comparitively so it`s not on the radar .. like other religions...
Cartoons say a lot. The fact is even a Mongolian can understand this cartoon.
I suppose you are unaware of the fact that detainees released from Gitmo have been appearing on television in Pakistan (and hence Afghanistan) detailing their abuse?
And that many "immigrants" in Europe are refugees from Afghanistan as well.
They are terrible gossips, like the Egyptians.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/21/international/asia/21gitmo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
We are talking about the Afghan war/occupation, of which I recall you to be an avid supporter and even endorser. Most people in Gitmo are Afghans, Iraqis are held in Abu Ghraib.
May I ask who those were? Did they state their opinion or did they want to enforce that opinion on the scientoglogists? Did they express their opinion on Mr. Hubbard not being a Prophet just like Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and Sikhs dont believe the Prophet to be a real Prophet?
Some time ago, a Christian friend of an Imam of one of our Mosques in Pakistan wanted to get some donatuons to research and write a book about how Islam was wrong and a fraud and the Prophet as well. The Imam not only donated but funded him. When asked why the Imam said: "I have faith. This man cannot disprove the truth." Now here you have a situation of an Imam funding a research by a Christian against Islam. Well, whoda thunk it eh?
No evidence exists or do you just not want to see it?
We have now? I have told you things that the Quran taught in a completely new perective.
No one said the concept of Universality was new. Rather the perspective on the context was new.
Dont forget South Park chickened out and only gave the names of "John Smith" and "Jane Smith" instead of the real names of the makers otherwise there would have been lawsuits galore.
Muslims are not a race. If they were then inciting hatred against a race is racism and this Dutch politician should face the consequences for that. Islam is a culture-independent religion.
Islam is considered a violent religion only in the minds of those misled by the Western Media. That is the cold hard truth of it. But, thankfully, those people are in the minority. I dont dare to think what would happen if they actually got in power. I dont want to invoke Godwins law so ill just stop here.
Ofcourse its ok. Who here said it wasnt? In act, is there anything else you do besides those things
Just because we disagree doesnt mean we arent saying discussing it isnt ok.Ofcourse, but wed disagree. and not just because of the lack of a lot of children.
This discussions dead now isnt it?
Historically? by whom? Once again, wed disagree but discussion is fine.
Discrimination? Ive explained to you why the Jizya tax was there. What problems do you still have with it?
Do we do anything else?
I;d prefer it if you wouldnt, but in the end its up to you. Just like the Prophet never allowed people who called him names to be harmed Muslims arent allowed to attack or kill just because someone says something. Discussion is most productive in a arena of common respect. And that is what this nazi Wilders doesnt understand. If he actually wanted a discussion about all these things, he would go on a show and have this discussion with Islamic scholars. But what does he prefer to do instead? A monologue in which he will undoubtedly use all the verses Sandy gave and which I have refuted in that other thread. And to top it all of, he wants to burn a book considerd sacred by over a billion people worldwide on national television and proclaim that eeryone belonging to a certain religion will spell the doom of his country and that Muslims are this and that. Well, ill stop before Godwins law is invoked again. That my friend, is not a discussion. It is a provocation, pure and simple. I suggest people around here read up on the laws regarding provocation. And instead of wasting our time talking about what an iranian said to a Dutch about a film thats not even out yet, let alone banned, lets work to get movies that are already banned, unbanned. After all, we wan our precious freedom of speech, right? Lets start by getting Visions of Ecstasy banned in the UK then, shall we. Good luck with that.
Aishas age is not certain and there are other arguments just as valid that she wasnt as young as the anti-Islamists say.
Violence doesnt solve anything. Another thing which Islam teaches us
And just for the ignorant among us:
Let me quote from Juan Cole at http://www.juancole.com/2005/07/friedman-wrong-about-muslims-again-and.html:
And he gives a link to: http://www.sullivan-county.com/identity/bin_laden.html
He continues:
And he gives links to: http://www.usembassyjakarta.org/lawmaker.html and http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...mam.pdf+Tantawi++Bin+Laden+James+Reston&hl=en respectively.
And he gives a link to: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/10/17/195606.shtml
And he gives a link to: http://www.islamfortoday.com/qaradawi02.htm
And he gives a link to: http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/4637/terr42a.html
He rounds up his article by saying:
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php
http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm
http://www.fatwa-online.com/worship/jihaad/jih004/index.htm
Let me quote from Juan Cole at http://www.juancole.com/2005/07/friedman-wrong-about-muslims-again-and.html:
And he gives a link to: http://www.sullivan-county.com/identity/bin_laden.html
He continues:
And he gives links to: http://www.usembassyjakarta.org/lawmaker.html and http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...mam.pdf+Tantawi++Bin+Laden+James+Reston&hl=en respectively.
And he gives a link to: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/10/17/195606.shtml
And he gives a link to: http://www.islamfortoday.com/qaradawi02.htm
And he gives a link to: http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/4637/terr42a.html
And he gives a link to: http://www.albawaba.com/en/countries/Jordan/185952
He rounds up his article by saying:
I also advise you to check out these links before condemning Muslims and Islam for allowing terrorist attacks and or not condemning them:
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php
http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm
http://www.fatwa-online.com/worship/jihaad/jih004/index.htm