Muslims

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Where's your tolerance? I thought you espoused tolerance!

I do espouse tolerance. Which is why religious fanatics suck.

*reads where IRex says, "Religious fanatics suck" and wonders why he is telling others to not join the WE HATE YOU crowd when it seems like he's already in it *

Just because you may suck doesnt necessarily mean I may hate you. Hatred is in no way connected to sucking. I suck at singing. Does that mean you should hate me?

so we should let radical Muslims dictate to us?

We should not be so stupid as to purposefully antagonize an already dangerous situation. We should not further reinforce the potential for hatred and mistrust and anger in the muslim world by doing something we know will cause it when it isnt at all necessary. And we CERTAINLY shouldnt give fantastic ammunition to the very terrorists and extremists we are struggling against. I mean How preposterous a notion is that. Just because we dont poke the hornets nest with a stick doesnt mean we are letting the hornets "dictate to us". Did you think there was nothing wrong with flushing the Koran down the toilet either?

I wonder if that would have done any good ... it sounds like a good idea ...

It sure couldnt have hurt. And I mean put yourself in their place. If someone just completely offended a core belief of yours and many others on a national level and you got mad and asked to meet with these people to at least discuss an apology and to make them more aware of just how offensive that was to you and how bad an idea it was to do (cause some of your friends are really quite unstable and easily angered and prone to violence...) and they said ha screw you or completely ignored you and then REPRINTED the same offensive material ALL OVER A CONTINENT I would imagine you would be pretty miffed. No?

So should you NOT "feel disgust and anger" over the burnings?

You should feel whatever you feel. I was simply saying that was how I felt when I saw them. I still do. And THATS what so dangerous about this situation. That it is SO EASY to use it as a tool of division. Because the reactions on BOTH sides alienates the other side with equal furor it seems. So be careful of your knee jerk reaction to this. Dont think its illegitimate but be very careful... Look at the broad picture and use common sense.

[Lotesse]

Really well said, I Rex. You're right, methinks.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by IRex

I do espouse tolerance. Which is why religious fanatics suck.

But should you be tolerant of them? Hmmm?

Just because you may suck doesnt necessarily mean I may hate you.

OK, thanks for clarifying

We should not be so stupid as to purposefully antagonize an already dangerous situation. We should not further reinforce the potential for hatred and mistrust and anger in the muslim world by doing something we know will cause it when it isnt at all necessary. And we CERTAINLY shouldnt give fantastic ammunition to the very terrorists and extremists we are struggling against. I mean How preposterous a notion is that. Just because we dont poke the hornets nest with a stick doesnt mean we are letting the hornets "dictate to us". Did you think there was nothing wrong with flushing the Koran down the toilet either?

So every time they decide they don't like something and threaten violence if we do it, we should cave in? I don't think so. I'm not even saying if I think it was right or not to publish the cartoons; I'm just saying that I think it's a dangerous precedent to start acting on ("we better not do this, even thought it is not against any law in our country, or we'll anger some fanatic people from another country!") Should we have not fought for our independence from England because it irritated them and it might cause some deaths? I think "give me liberty or give me death" might be a good thing to ponder right now ...

I don't see hornets as rational beings, so I don't think the comparison is a good one.

I thought the toilet thing was proven to have not happened? And I would like to point out that in OUR prisons, Muslims are provided with Korans and other things to help them observe their religion; yes, there have been abuses, but they are not the norm. In Muslim prisons, it is the NORM for Christians to be tortured, killed, etc., and CERTAINLY NOT provided with a Bible or any type of help towards observing their beliefs. Do you see a difference here, that perhaps has something to do with the prevalent religious beliefs of the two types of countries? I"m not hate-mongering; I'm observing facts.

[HOBBIT]

This whole situation is messed up. About 10 people have died over these cartoons? Ridiculous.

They are upset at how they Muslims and Prophet Muhammod are characterized - upset that they are shown as terrorists, etc.
How do they respond to that? By acting like terrorists....... yeah thats smart.
"We aren't terrorists..... now lets go burn and destroy a bunch of embassies.. that will show them"
----
I guess ideas such as freedom of the press and peaceful protest are alien to them.
---
And if they post a bunch of disgusting cartoons depicting Jews in the Holocaust - the world will just think less of them - we won't go around burning and destroying their embassies. They currently run cartoons like that now anyway. Iran is so immature and very out of touch with the World -as are all these crazies involved.

[Rían]

oh, and about the government refusing meeting with them - I thought initially that it might be a good idea, but last night I saw a representative of the government saying that they refused to meet with them because they had nothing to do with publishing the cartoons, and they don't control the press. Good point, IMO, because what in effect would be happening was that Muslims would be asking a foreign government to slap controls on their free press.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

we had massive demonstrations in this country - one of the most common slogans was: 'Behead those who insult Islam'

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

But should you be tolerant of them? Hmmm?

If by tolerant you mean not banning them from marrying then yes.

If by being a religious fanatic YOU become overtly intolerant of others thereby harming or impinging on the rights of others then yes you suck.

So every time they decide they don't like something and threaten violence if we do it, we should cave in? I don't think so.

So we should just do things just because we can? When they serve no purpose whatsoever and they result in assured chaos and hatred that divide two cultures that your government is attempting to bring together? Are you saying you wish to undermine the hard work of making peace and fostering harmony between peoples?

By the way no one ever threatened violence. They were angered and asked for an apology. The violence came when the protests got out of hand at the hands of the extremists. The extremists have been violent long before this event and are just using this as an excuse. I guess you arent seeing that though. Because your focus seems to be on "them" as in "all muslims" threatened violence. Thats nonsense. In fact many many many more muslims have come out SINCE the violent protests and said this is wrong. Do not resort to violence over this.

I'm just saying that I think it's a dangerous precedent to start acting on ("we better not do this, even thought it is not against any law in our country, or we'll anger some fanatic people from another country!")

Being smart and having common sense is a dangerous precedent? Its dangerous NOT to purposefully antagonize entire populations that already have great resentment with us for invading their land, killing their people, torturing their prisoners of war, etc. etc. Wow youll really have to show me how that one works a little bit more I think. Right or wrong many in the muslim world feel like western countries are out to get them and maybe are actually trying to destroy Islam itself. So WHY enter this kind of climate by being purposefully hostile and provocative for NO REASON WHATSOEVER knowing full well that it will result in a bad reaction by those who believe that and set you back years? Why do that? Because of precedent??

Should we have not fought for our independence from England because it irritated them and it might cause some deaths? I think "give me liberty or give me death" might be a good thing to ponder right now

Wait... are you actually comparing the printing of insulting comics in a Danish paper with the americans fight for independence against an oppressive monarchy?

I don't see hornets as rational beings, so I don't think the comparison is a good one.

Its a metaphor. Not a comparison. And yes it WAS a good one and pretty appropriate. Anger is anger. And purposeful antagonizing is purposeful antagonizing. You can make the argument that the first printing was just a dumb mistake. But learn from your mistakes. Don’t do it again on purpose.

I thought the toilet thing was proven to have not happened?

It was at first denied by higher ups at the pentagon as preposterous. But later it was confirmed to have happened both in Afghanistan and other locations. So not even just once…

In Muslim prisons, it is the NORM for Christians to be tortured, killed, etc., and CERTAINLY NOT provided with a Bible or any type of help towards observing their beliefs.

And this is your rational for antagonizing them purposefully? This is where you slip into Hate…

Do you see a difference here, that perhaps has something to do with the prevalent religious beliefs of the two types of countries?

I think it says more about the governments of the countries in question and the differences of our culture from theirs. Not anything about what a vile religion Islam is. Where do you make that logic leap exactly?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

oh, and about the government refusing meeting with them - I thought initially that it might be a good idea, but last night I saw a representative of the government saying that they refused to meet with them because they had nothing to do with publishing the cartoons, and they don't control the press. Good point, IMO, because what in effect would be happening was that Muslims would be asking a foreign government to slap controls on their free press.

You dont refuse to meet with them because of that! You meet with them and point that out like I said in my post! Or else what message are you sending: We dont care enough to even acknowledge your distress over this. Go away. You are annoying and uncivilized and beneath us.

Ha ha that reminds me of Holy Grail:

"Now go away or we will taunt you another time-ah." *publishes cartoons again*

Appropriate French accent and all

[Rev. Justin Timberlake]

Perhaps the following info will be of interest. I asked a few Muslim acquaintances for info but after waiting long enough I dug this up myself:

Originally Posted by Kitaab At-Tawheed, Chapter: 58

What Has Been Said About Those Who Make
Pictures (of Living Things)
On the authority of Abu Hurairah (ra) it is reported that the Messenger of Allah said:
"Allah , Most High said: "And who is more unjust than those who try to create the likeness of My creation? Let them create an atom, or let them create a wheat grain, or let them create a barley grain." (Narrated by Bukhari and Muslim)
Allah , Most High, informs us in this Hadith Qudsi, through the mouth of His Prophet, Muhammad , that there is none more unjust than those people who make pictures of living things, wishing to resemble Allah in His act of Creation. Then He , Almighty, All- powerful, challenges such people to create even the smallest and most insignificant of His visible, living creations, which is an atom, or to create the simplest of plant materials, such as a grain of wheat or a grain of barley; this He , Most High, does, in order to expose their weakness and inability.
Benefits Derived From This Hadith
1. The forbiddance of making drawings, paintings or carvings of any living things.
2. The lack of proper regard and respect for Allah of those who depict living things.
3. The Power of Allah and His Ability to create what He Wills.
4. The weakness and incapacity of those other than Him to create even the simplest of things from nothing.
Relevance of This Hadith to the Subject of the Chapter
That it proves that depicting living things is forbidden.
Relevance of This Hadith to the Subject of Tawheed
That the Hadith forbids making pictures of living things because this is an attempt to imitate Allah in His act of Creation, which is Shirk in Rabbship.
..ooOOoo..
On the authority of `A`ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) it is reported that the Messenger of Allah said:
"The most severely punished of people on the Day of Resurrection will be those who try to make the like of Allah's creation." (Narrated by Bukhari and Muslim)
The Prophet informs us in this Hadith that those who depict living creatures in their drawings, paintings and carvings, attempting to imitate Allah in His act of Creation, will face the most severe chastisement on the Day of Judgement for they are the worst of people in respect to Allah and the most wicked in committing evil - this is why they are most deserving of Allah's Wrath and His punishment.
Benefits Derived From This Hadith
1. The strictness of the forbiddance of making pictures of living creatures.
2. Evidence of the reason for the prohibition of depicting living things.
3. That punishment on the Day of Resurrection is in proportion to one's sins.
Relevance of This Hadith to the Subject of the Chapter
That the Hadith proves the forbiddance of making pictures of living things.
Relevance of This Hadith to the Subject of Tawheed
That it forbids the depiction of living creatures because this is an attempt to imitate Allah in His act of Creation and this is Shirk in Rabbship.
Important Note
He who makes pictures of living creatures will receive the severest punishment on the Day of Judgement if he did so in order to have that image worshipped because in so doing, he is guilty of kufr, while if he intends by it to imitate Allah , he is also guilty of disbelief.
..ooOOoo..
On the authority of Ibn `Abbas (ra) it is reported that he heard the Messenger of Allah say:
"Every picture maker is in the Fire. A soul will be placed in every picture made by him and it will punish him in the Hell-fire." (Narrated by Bukhari and Muslim)
Because the picture makers are the wickedest of people in respect to Allah , and the worst of them in performing deeds which Allah forbidden, the Prophet informed us in this Hadith that whoever made a picture of a living creature in this life, Allah will breathe life into it on the Day of Resurrection after which that image will punish him in the Fire and this is the recompense for his evil deeds. Therefore, it behoves every picture maker to fear Allah , the Almighty, the All-powerful and to abandon his evil employment; and if he does that, Allah will reward him, for whoever abandoned something for Allah's sake will be rewarded with something better by Him, Most High.
Benefits Derived From This Hadith
1. The forbiddance of making pictures of living creatures.
2. The permissibility of making pictures of things which do not possess a soul.
3. That reward is in accordance with one's deeds.
4. That the remuneration which the picture maker receives for his work is forbidden because when an action is prohibited, so too is profiting from it.
Relevance of This Hadith to the Subject of the Chapter
That the Hadith proves that it is forbidden to make pictures of living creatures.
Relevance of This Hadith to the Subject of Tawheed
That it prohibits making pictures of living things, because doing so constitutes an attempt to imitate Allah in His action of Creation and this is Shirk in Rabbship.
..ooOOoo..
It is reported in a marfoo' form, on the authority of Ibn `Abbas (ra): "Whoever made pictures in this life, will be charged with breathing life into it and he will not be able to do so." (Narrated by Bukhari and Muslim)
The Prophet informs us in this Hadith that whoever made pictures of creatures possessing a soul in this life, will be charged on the Day of Judgement with breathing life into them; and Allah knows that he will not be able to do so, but He will charge him thus in order to make clear to him his own powerlessness and weakness and to reproach him for his sin.
1. The forbiddance of depicting living creatures.
2. The permissibility of making pictures of things without a soul.
3. That reward is in accordance with one's deeds.
Relevance of This Hadith to the Subject of the Chapter
That it proves that it is forbidden to make pictures of living creatures.
Relevance of This Hadith to the Subject of Tawheed
That it prohibits making pictures of living things because doing so is an attempt to imitate Allah in His action of Creation and this is Shirk in Rabbship.
..ooOOoo..
On the authority of Abul Hayaaj Al- Asadi, it is reported that `Ali (ra) said to him: "Shall I not send you on a mission on which I was sent by Allah's Messenger ?
"Do not leave any image without erasing it, nor any elevated grave without leveling it to the ground." (Narrated by Muslim)
Because Islam is careful to block all roads to Shirk, whether apparent or hidden, `Ali Ibn Abi Talib (ra) informs us that the Messenger of Allah charged him with the task of effacing all of the pictures of living things which he might find and with leveling all of those graves which had edifices or grave stones over them. This he did in order to protect the Muslims' beliefs from the evils of worship of graven images and adoration of graves, because making pictures of living creatures and building over graves leads to their glorification and reverence and attributing to them that, which they do not deserve - that which is for Allah , Alone; and anyone who has travelled throughout the Muslim world will have found such things in profusion - things which make one with correct beliefs shudder and sadden his heart: Circumambulation of graves in the manner in which the pilgrims circumambulate the Ka'abah, in Makkah; animals sacrificed to the graves' inhabitants instead of their being slaughtered in Allah's Name, supplication of the graves' inhabitants and many other acts of Shirk and innovation unknown to the Messenger of Allah , his Companions or the pious generations who came after them.
Benefits Derived From This Narration
1. The obligation to reject that which is detestable.
2. That making images of living creatures is forbidden.
3. That building over graves is forbidden.
Relevance of This Narration to the Subject of the Chapter
That it proves that making pictures of living things is prohibited.

Cont...

[Rev. Justin Timberlake]

...cont:

Relevance of This Narration to the Subject of the Chapter
That it proves that making pictures of living things is prohibited.
Relevance of This Narration to the Subject of Tawheed
That it prohibits the making of images of living creatures because doing so amounts to attempting to imitate Allah in His action of Creation and this is Shirk in Rabbship.
Important Note
This forbiddance of making pictures includes all living creatures which possess a soul. It is pure fancy to imagine that by putting a line across the neck of the image, or obliterating its features, it becomes permissible.

[Spock]

Everything is fine as long as we Kow-Tao to them.

[Rían]

A brief humor break ....

May 26, 2005
Pentagon Recalls Koran-Flushing Toilet
by Scott Ott

(2005-05-26) -- In response to appeals from consumer advocate Ralph Nader, the Pentagon today recalled thousands of military toilets because they may be powerful enough to flush a copy of the Koran.

"If that toilet generates enough force to take down a book of several hundred pages," said Mr. Nader, "then it poses a clear and present danger to prisoners at Guantanamo and to our troops worldwide."

Mr. Nader, who became famous in the late 1960s by declaring the Chevrolet Corvair 'unsafe at any speed', said, "I would rather drive a Corvair at top speed on figure-8 track than take my chances on this turbo-flush toilet. It's unsafe for any deed, and may constitute a violation of the Geneva Conventions."

In fact, U.S. troops around the world have privately complained of the dangers posed by the plumbing fixture they call an 'I.I.D.' -- Improvised Implosive Device.

"It's a swirling vortex of death," said one unnamed soldier. "The other day, I lost a grenade, my helmet and hardcover copy of 'War and Peace' in one fell swoop."

The Pentagon statement praised U.S. troops for "their willingness to perform their duty in the face of such risk."

[Spock]

....imitating Gomer Pyle...."oh you're going straight to hell for that one"........

[HOBBIT]

11 people have been killed so far in these protests. It is crazy. This just shows the rest of the world that the Islamic world is crazy.

[Insidious Rex]

oh yes of course...

Just as it shows the Islamic world that all Europeans are inconsiderate blasphemous idolaters looking to start another crusade...

My how easy it is to paint with a broad brush from a warped perspective isnt it. From EITHER side...

[HOBBIT]

What I want to know is how they are getting all these Danish flags that they are burning? Obviously they are being supplied with them by their governments (Iran and Syria) and are being egged on. These cartoons are not recent - just these protests are.

[Insidious Rex]

Yes they are being egged on by extremists. Wouldnt you take advantage of such a great opportunity if you were a terrorist or a religious extremist trying to promote your anti-western agenda? Or a government under scrutiny for other reasons (Syria, Iran) looking to lighten the global pressure against them by screaming bloody murder about the westerners attacking the prophet? Seems logical to me... So the question is why give them that card to play at all?

[hectorberlioz]

Here's what I think (and it's probably a repeat of someone else's more ingenius post):

Firstly, those papers and all the rest have the right to publish whatever cartoons they so choose. But I still think the danish paper was brash for doing it. "Thought provoking" and "Challenging our beliefs" is what the original intent of the cartoons were. It ended up bieng "violence provoking", and "challenging other countries",and in general the worst idea commited to paper this year.
But the Muslim response was absolutely juvenile.
For years and years Christians have been subject to bieng portrayed negatively in political cartoons. And in "Serious" art, to no end: a crucifix in urine, the Madonna smeared with feces has been defended as "thought provoking" and "original". Those two examples are ones where christians cried out in protest, but there are probably a thousand more examples these days...especially in political cartoons. We didn't burn our opponents houses or cars.
So, I say: Muslims, get used to it.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

But the Muslim response was absolutely juvenile.
For years and years Christians have been subject to bieng portrayed negatively in political cartoons. And in "Serious" art, to no end: a crucifix in urine, the Madonna smeared with feces has been defended as "thought provoking" and "original". Those two examples are ones where christians cried out in protest, but there are probably a thousand more examples these days...especially in political cartoons. We didn't burn our opponents houses or cars.

Good thoughts but remember these examples you site were all done by OTHER WESTERNERS and not Muslims. In fact it is interesting to note that muslims not only consider any depiction of Mohammad as blasphemous but also any depiction of Jesus as blasphemous because muslims consider Jesus a prophet of god. So thats why you never see warped renditions of the christian god in any right wing islamic writings or art. Something we should all think about in the context of this... Its just a flash point between cultures that neither side really can understand.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Good thoughts but remember these examples you site were all done by OTHER WESTERNERS and not Muslims. In fact it is interesting to note that muslims not only consider any depiction of Mohammad as blasphemous but also any depiction of Jesus as blasphemous because muslims consider Jesus a prophet of god. So thats why you never see warped renditions of the christian god in any right wing islamic writings or art. Something we should all think about in the context of this... Its just a flash point between cultures that neither side really can understand.

No, the art I cited wasn't by muslims, but that wasn't my point. My point was that they shouldn't be so outrageous with their outrage, when other religions go through bieng caricatured as well.
Now, I do understand that Muhammed is not allowed to be drawn. And that's where I think it's fair to critisize the danish artists for drawing them. Not because I don't believe in their right to do so, but because they purposefully drew the cartoons to show muslims that they were doing it. Did they expect that the muslim response was going to be anything less than violent?