Prophet Muhammad Controversy

[cavallino 2]

Why the blink?

[narain fan 0]

Why the blink?

we dont need a "muslim" voice or "jewish" voice.

a sensible ,fair and rational voice is needed,hopefully you and me can provide that

[cavallino 2]

Many people who are not used to living with and knowing all kinds of Muslims have a somewhat warped perspective of them, someone who is eminently rational and follows Islam can clear up many of those misconceptions.

[narain fan 0]

Many people who are not used to living with and knowing all kinds of Muslims have a somewhat warped perspective of them, someone who is eminently rational and follows Islam can clear up many of those misconceptions.

Do you want me to invite "Mohsin"(my neighbour) here

[Jem of the Shire 0]

yes invite a muslim to the forum, we could do with some more diversity

[monza gorilla 1]

we dont need a "muslim" voice or "jewish" voice.

a sensible ,fair and rational voice is needed,hopefully you and me can provide that

Ok, need may be too strong a word, but I would welcome an alternative view.

[narain fan 0]

yes invite a muslim to the forum, we could do with some more diversity

actually his thoughts arenot that different to mine.

And ,cav ,he is a devout Gandhian ,so think again,do u want me to call him

Ok, need may be too strong a word, but I would welcome an alternative view.

in the second sentence "need" is not a strong word

""a sensible ,fair and rational voice is needed,hopefully you and me can provide that""

[monza gorilla 1]

Bloody hell, Ashwin! I actually agree with you!

[narain fan 0]

Bloody hell, Ashwin! I actually agree with you!

what is that supposed to mean

[monza gorilla 1]

It means that it's actually quite a rare thing.

[narain fan 0]

It means that it's actually quite a rare thing.

so, according to u Button is "touched by the hand of god"

[cavallino 2]

Gandhians stupid ideal world junkies

How can a Muslim be a Gandhian?

[narain fan 0]

Gandhians stupid ideal world junkies

How can a Muslim be a Gandhian?

Khan-Abdul-Gafar-Khan

[AutoRacer5 0]

Time that I chimed in.

I'm Catholic. I'm not for insulting other's religions, no matter how funny it is. (DAD! Tom Cruise won't come out of the closet!). I got a chuckle, but I wondered what those people were thinking.

However, I am for poking fun at my own religion, which I so frequently do. RCC? doesn't stand for Roman Catholic Church, it stands for Really Corrupt Church. You truly have a sense of humor when you can make fun of your own religion.

I support Free Speech. The Danish should not have apologised for the cartoons. After all, that's all that they are, cartoons. There are many anti-christian and anti-semitic (sp?) cartoons, but you dont see any Christians or Jews burning embassies.

The Muslim faith has grown apart from what the Quran intended it to be. In the 1500s, there were 4 social classes in muslim society: 1: Muslims at birth. 2: Converts to Islam. 3: Christians, Jews, other faiths. 4: slaves. Muslims were supposed to protect them and allow them to practice their own faiths as they wished. Oh how times have changed.

There is a book out:http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/031232699...glance&n=283155

I will be honest, I have not read it, but I wonder if someone could.

My last thing, ITS JUST A CARTOON! MOVE ON!

[cavallino 2]

Khan-Abdul-Gafar-Khan

Not a proper Gandhian then, Gandhi was a highly religious Hindu.

He hated technology too, should you erally be using a computer

He hated modern medicine too.

[narain fan 0]

Not a proper Gandhian then, Gandhi was a highly religious Hindu.

He hated technology too, should you erally be using a computer

He hated modern medicine too.

all false propoganda

Not a proper Gandhian then, Gandhi was a highly religious Hindu.

.

he was a 1 man army "opposed to partition",and so was the "Frontier Gandhi"(Khan)

[cavallino 2]

all false propoganda

What do his books say then? This is what they taught us in school when we learnt what a great man he was

So bloody hot, need f**king fans in February whats happening to the world

If I punch you in the face will you not retaliate?

[narain fan 0]

If I punch you in the face will you not retaliate?

there is no reason any one would want to punch me

[cavallino 2]

round here? Don't be so sure.

Gandhi's advice to Britain on the eve of the 'Battle of Britain'

"I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions.... If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them".

PS: Are we a little off topic?

[narain fan 0]

round here? Don't be so sure.

Gandhi's advice to Britain on the eve of the 'Battle of Britain'

"I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions.... If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them".

you actually dont understand what he "MEANS"(still relevant today)

[cavallino 2]

He doesn't mean what he says Is he Shakespeare or something?

[narain fan 0]

He doesn't mean what he says Is he Shakespeare or something?

[Senna 0]

If I punch you in the face will you not retaliate?

[Clears throat]

[narain fan 0]

[Clears throat]

“If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us shall we not revenge?”

[funkejay 0]

So an agnostic then? Another liberal sitting on the fence perhaps... The big man (and he is a man you know) will soon sort you out too....

Indeed! I think Jay might have to join you though now Monza. You can burn together for eternity.

I'll take my chances, but thanks for the warning Murray..... but perhaps you'll put in a good word for us with your sky god??? You seem to be on more of a first name basis than I am, and I don't know how to reach him in any event.......

Jem, that type of intolerance and ignorance tends to suggest you have more in common in with the zealots you criticize, not less....

Hmm. Even if Jem hadn't (wisely) appologised I think it'd be a close call that. Has he threatened to blow anyone up recently? (If so I humbly retract this comment and beg forgiveness from you Jem.)

Murray, my point was not that Jem has anything particluar in common with the extremists (i.e. advocating violence of any kind, etc.), but rather that his response was more extremist and reactionary than it was thoughtful and tolerant. In that regard, I merely suggested it tended to demonstrate more in common with their viewpoint (i.e. thoughtless reactionism), not less (insightful reflection).

Yes Ben, Geordie. I'm extremely surprised its legal to say such things. Does the proposed law against incitement to religious hatred include protection for atheists?

I assume that is a taunt..... and not intended as a genuine query? If not, and it was intended to stir sincere debate, I don't think the personal beliefs of the "inciter" could ever be proven, and as a result, should be irrelevant. But, whether such a law would (in general) be a good idea or not is another issue entirely....

Eh? I barely started on it.

er ahem (clears throat)

<pompous voice>

Let me first declared my allegiance to the principle of atheism.

Bravo!!!! Yet another of the enlightened among us!!!!!!

Let us first separate two kinds of reactions.

The first has been a violent reaction by selected muslims, mainly fanatical idiots leading disillusioned young men (sadly available for any crazy cause in just about every country in the world). Their actions deserve universal condemnation.

However there has also ben a strong reaction from Muslim intellectuals, from the muslim community in secular countries. That I feel deserves some consideration.

Let us take the incident first. Those cartoons are of no artistic value, they are not subtle or perceptive in any sense.

So you say..... but isn't that the nature of all art, its value vests entirely in the eye of the beholder???

Coupled with the known right wing nature of the newspaper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands_Posten) it is obvious that the cartoons were published as an affront to Islam. It was a none too subtle anti-Islam message and quite a poor example of journalism. They were provocative, and only that.

So what? All caricatures are provocative in nature. Must speech first pass some sort of litmus test before you are prepared to defend the right of the speaker to express it? If so, what are your criteria, and who are you (or any of us for that matter) to pass judgement on which ideas and expression might be allowed for the good of mankind?

It may be defended on the principle on free speech, however free speech in the holy grail sense does not exist in most places (if any). Take the example of embedded journalists in Iraq. In recent times, there have been many incidents that I know of of the Hindu community in the West getting messages 'offensive' to Hinduism removed from various places - the newest such cause it a Whisky with the image of some goddess being sold somewere in the world. Obviously I find that opposition quite ridiculous, however the fact that people listen to these objections (most such protests from Hindus have been successful) means that followers of Islam have the right to peaceful protest like any other religion.

Here Here!!!!! Although I dont necessarily agree with how you came to your conclusion, I nevertheless wholeheartedly agree with you on that point Cav!!!!!!!!!

That is a principle of secularism, and in necessary since religion can't just be wished away. What also cannot be ignored is the larger disillusionment in many Muslim countries with the foreign policy of the NATO countries throughout this century, and that is directly responsible for the perception of the west being anti Islam. Since the west is atleast partially responsible for that perception, it has no reason to display surprise at the present reaction, and such pointless insults should be stopped simply in the larger interest. Defend Salman Rushdie by all means, oppose the murder of Theo van Gogh, but these cartoons aren't very defensible.

While I agree with your analysis that the West bears responsibility for the current climate that exists in the Middle East, I do not agree that this means that free speech should be curtailed because of an intolerance or preconditioned view that may exist within certain factions of the Muslim world. Although it is blasphemous for a Christian to take the Lord's name in vain (which is essentially the Christian equivalent of what is offending the protestors in this case), no one is suggesting that as an atheist I must censor myself to accomodate or amerliorate them. As a tolerant person, I respect the religious beliefs of Muslims, and encourage them to advocate on behalf of their religion, but I am not an adherent to their dogma, and so am not bound by their beliefs.

Those who are offended by this cartoon must begin to understand that in this modern world, not everyone is going to respect thier religious beliefs, nor observe such prohibitions against depicting the prophet.

It is as simple as that. Gone are the days that resort to the sword will hold the day, and like it or not, the world is likely to become more tolerant of such things, not less.