It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Try and argue this. I dare ya!

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 06:20 AM
link   
As I have said earlier, please refrain from going off topic.

Keep your questions and arguments limited to my original post because I am having a difficult time replying to many people at the same time.

I seem to be getting bombarded with questions and criticism. It is a good thing but please read all the posts first before you post a question.

Lot of times people bring up the same argument that has already been discussed.

Thanks.




posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 06:21 AM
link   


Pehaps you forget that applies only to US citizens in America. Other countries have their own rules. And if you follow the rules to the point so much then why Don't you folow the other countrie's rule that says you cannot disrepect the prohet.


When a person is in a foreign country then, yes, that person is obligated to follow that country's laws. It's completely asinine and wholly unreasonable to expect a person in their own country to kowtow to the laws of another when they are on their own soil.

Do I dislike it when forigeners disrespect my country in their homeland? Sure, but I'm not stupid enough to think, "What they are doing is illegal in the U.S., therefore they should be held to our laws."



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
And is it permissible to say the same thing to you if you disagree with our rules that it is OK to mock the prophet? If you don't like our free speech, just leave?

To truly grasp freedom of expression you must first undertand what tolerance is.


I am not in the US so you dont have to ask me to leave. You can fight within your own streets for freedom of speech. But when its a global issue causing reactions worldwide then you have to come to some agreement and compromises.

If you want people to accept your freedom of speech (or rather freedom to mock anyone you please) then please also be ready to accept when the muslims ask you not to do it.

If you mock the prophet in front of someone who does not get offended then its OK, but if its clearly offending the person then why wud you expect him to respect your freedom of speech when you cannot respect the most prominent figure in the history of his religion. Give and take.

I never insulted Jesus or even made any offensive comment on him, so then why shud I have to sit and tolerate someone insulting the prophet. Its outrageous.

I did not kill anyone over insulting prophet and Islam. But you dont see the reporters on my door.

As I said earlier, news shows a handful of people from the religion out of the millions that are not violent.

And if you constantly keep mocking Islam, attacking muslim countries, occupying muslim countries, constantly portraying muslims as terrorist and then accuse prophet mohammad of being a terrorist and then you expect millions of poeple to just sit quitely and take it as a joke then you are mistaken.

Please look at the bigger picture. Its not as simple as saying, 'Muslims cause riot of cartoons'. Please look at what US has ben doing. Why doesnt the US leave middle east if it has so much problems with it. Why wage so many wars, why occupy countries then when clearly the citizens want you to leave.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Both sides are guilty, they both demand respect when they have done nothing to show respect for each other.

Only problem is that Muslims are the ones held under scrutiny and people causing these problems are not.

Please spare me the rioting and killing explanation because I can say the same thing about US attacking 2 countries recently and killing thousands.

Doesnt really solve the problem.

If these few violent muslims are so sensitive then why wud you go out and insult their very fundamental beliefs unless you were actually looking for a fight.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by half_minded


This is basically what is happening. Firstly, the muslim countries are pissed about the US military bases in their countries. And on top of that US portrays all muslims as terrorists and then attacks the major OIL rich countries and gains control over them.

Now if these countries fight back, they are all labelled terrorists. And just to provoke them more, they insult the prophet who is the most respected figure in their entire history. Why should this be acceptable?


Not going to argue with you about the West's dependence on oil, or policies in the middle east.

But I don't think you can say an independent newspaper in Denmark, or the Pope are part of Western policy towards the middle east -I wasn't aware the Vatican was too reliant on oil wells in the mid-East.

And, again, my point would be that they simply wrote (or said) things that you found offensive - nothing was illegal, and imo, probably less offensive than certain middle eastern newspapers denying the holocaust. Just because a group find things offensive doesn't give them the right to curtail fundamental freedoms of expression.

I think that muslims have a right to express displeasure, but the reaction amongst certain extremists (up to and including murder) weakened the protests of the mainstream.



If I think you daughter is fat, does not give me the right to print cartoons of her in the newspaper showing her with a belly size of an elephant. Why? Because she might get offended.

Printing cartoons of the prophet with bomb on his head is just pure disrespect. Something that freedom of speech does not allow. And the cartoonist obviously knew that this would cause an uproar in the muslim community still he decided to go ahead with it just for kicks.


It was a satirical cartoon linking certain extreme elements of islam to violence. The whole point of satire is to show disrepect whilst making valid points. It may have been crass, but I don't think it should have been banned.



How do you know muslims only resort to violent actions???


I never said they did.



People try to justify it by saying that we wud not be offended if you insulted Jesus. They howerver fail to understand that, unlike them, muslims respect prophet mohammad more than anything. Christians dont respect Jesus as much. Most of them dont even follow christianity so obviously they are not offended if someone insults Jesus.


I think that true Christians would have complete respect for the son of God. Don't use the term 'Christian' and then say that people don't follow christianity. I think however you make a valid point about Westerners being post-religious in general and I agree with it.

But similarly, *it you live in a society where the majority of people are post-religious, and have cultural norms like freedom of expression, what right do you have to curtail those freedoms of expression, such as satire and free speech on the grounds of offence to your religion*? I think it's unfair to expect that.



Still, 'moderate' muslims do not resort to protests out in the streets, they do however support the ones that do.


I don't think anyone has a problem with peaceful protests on the street. I may well disagree with the reasons for it, as I disagree with CND marches, or neo-nazi rallies, but people have a right to express themselves. As do Danish cartoonists.



You talk about north american muslims. What makes you think that muslims across the globe are any different? They also integrate into society and are good citizens. There are always exceptions. The exceptions are not limited to muslims.



I'm simply basing it on my experience living in both regions - from what I have seen there are very few second or third generation muslims in North America who don't speak English as first language, or don't wear Western clothes - quite a few even anglicize their names (which is probably going too far). I didn't see that level of integration in the UK, and the opinion poll (you didn't agree with it, although I feel it is probably valid) seemed to reflect conflicted opinions in the population.

No, *but* it comes back to the 7/7 bombers, for me. They were British. They were born and raised in Britain - but they didn't feel British enough to refrain from killing civilians on a tube train in the name of religion.

This doesn't mean that all muslims are terrorists, but I feel that had they been better integrated into society and made to feel part of it, at a younger age (and I am not talking about loss of religion) it would have been prevented.

I think you have replied to some more of my posts further on, so I'll get back to you on those.

TD



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by half_minded
I already gave the analogy. Dont poke the sleeping dog and then complain later if he bites you.


Any religion has to stand up to the scrutiny and jeers of non-believers. Just because you think the Prophet Mohammed is righteous is no guarantee that the rest of the world will agree. As a person who was raised Catholic, I have seen my share of scrutiny and bias, and not once did I ever declare the Christian version of jihad on any of the people who spoke poorly of my religion, actually Christianity doesn't even have any equal to a jihad or fatwa, we are supposed to "turn the other cheek."

I understand if you want to defend your religion, of course you do, but don't expect everyone to go along with you. I am sure you expected Catholics to speak out agaibst the priests who molested young kids, as a Muslim I expect you to speak out against the senseless killing that is taking place in the name of your religion. As a matter of fact you should be enraged at the hijacking of your religion by extremists, they are the ones who are giving Islam a bad name, not the people who react to their actions.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 06:52 AM
link   
The reporter is using sttire to make 'valid' points?

Who decides that these points are valid???

One side thinks its valid and the other thinks its not.

So who decides?

What makes it valid? What knowledge do you have that millions of muslims dont have that they fail to see that showing the prophet wih bomb is valid?



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 06:54 AM
link   
I believe that would be Danish Law...

The Author was perfectly within his rights under Danish Law to express himself.

Just like this is perfectly with the Authors rights..




Semper

[edit on 10/16/2006 by semperfortis]



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by half_minded

Originally posted by jsobecky
Perhaps you missed the part where I stated that the First Amendment gives people the right to say whatever they please, with very few exceptions. Death threats are not, and should not be, permitted.



Pehaps you forget that applies only to US citizens in America. Other countries have their own rules. And if you follow the rules to the point so much then why Don't you folow the other countrie's rule that says you cannot disrepect the prohet.

It is impossible to follow the laws of all nations simultaneously. If I were in a muslim country, I would follow their laws while there. When I am in the USA, I follow our laws.


You are actively abusing freedom of speech because you country has given you the right, but you completely ignore the rule of the other country which requires to not disrespect the prophte.

First of all, do not say that *I* am abusing freedom of speech, unless you can back that up. I am defending the right of someone to disrespect the prophet. That is totally separate from me disrespecting him myself, which I have not done.


Entire world does not run on US laws. People have freedom of speech but there are limitations. In muslim countries you cannot go around insulting the prophet because it will definitely cause negative reactions. So why cant you respect those laws?
Why is only the US amendment important and not the rules and beiefs of muslim nations?

It's very simple. In the US, we have laws which must be followed while here. In muslim countries, the same applies.

Should I expect you to respect American laws while you are in Pakistan or Afghanistan?


Originally posted by jsobecky
Once again, death threats are not protected free speech. And you are minimizing the situation with the muslims. Of course they can question the person that insults the prophet. But not at knifepoint, or with the threat of bombs.



Again you are ranting about US laws while you completely ignore other nation's laws. How can you expect someone to respect your freedom of speech when you cannot respect the very belief of a million people across the globe.

I'm not ranting. I'm patiently trying to explain to you my point of view.

To answer your questions:
"How can you expect someone to respect your freedom of speech when you cannot respect the very belief of a million people across the globe."
Whose belief is more important? The belief of one person or a half-billion muslims? Our laws and our land were founded on certain principles; the key one being that all men are created equal. A muslim deserves no more respect, or protection under our laws, than does an atheist.


No one is against freedom of speech. They are against people disrepecting the prophet. I ask the same question again.

Then I would suggest that they stay in their own country where they are insulated against such vile notions as freedom.


If you belive so wholeheartedly that muslims are violent people then why wud you insult the prophet like that knowing full well what the reaction is gonna be like. Instead of trying to reform the violent people, you only give them more fuel and reasons to commit those violent acts.

First of all, I hope you meant the figurative you and not the literal. I never once stated that I believe that muslims are violent people.

Why do people insult the prophet? Why do they have to have a reason? In this country, it is permissible to insult the prophet merely because someone wants to.


Originally posted by jsobecky
What BS are you referring to? Offending and disrespecting the prophet? This is America; people are free to disrespect him all they want. All religious figures are disrespected by one group or another.

Freedom. That is a word that is very precious to us.



Danish newspaper is not in America. The reporter was not from America. He was not a US citizen. So how does everyone keep justifying his acts using US first amendment????

I don't know; you'll have to ask them. I do know that Americans believe that all men should have freedom of expression. Nobody that I know wants to repress that freedom, whether it is in Des Moines, Delhi, or Denmark.

You must ask yourself why muslim countries do not allow certain faiths into mecca, or do not allow criticism of the prophet. What are they afraid of? If your faith is so strong, then it should be able to withstand criticism.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 07:01 AM
link   
All this muslim aggression started because of western countries. Western countries are illegally trying to occupy the muslim countries to gain control over resources.

Muslim people are trying to fight back that oppression with watever they got. People however, consider them as terrorists compleltely disregarding the bigger picture.

As it is muslims are enraged because their religion is being insulted daily, they are being criticized daily, they are put under suspicious eyes daily. There is already tension and wars going on which is basically a 'war on islam' and not 'war on terror'. Western countries are using propoganda to wage wars on countries while they do not attack the real threat like NK.

On top of all this, the danish reporter thought it would be cool to put cartoons of prophet mohammad in the newspaper depicting him as a terrorist.

You tried to test the tolerance of muslims. You keep trying to test someones patience then you are bound to find the limit someday.

If I stood outside your house calling your wife a whore everyday, then intitially you would ignore me but one day eventually you will come after me with a baseball bat or you will call the police.

Muslims do not have the choice of calling the police on a global issue so they obviously are left with only one choice.

How long do you expect them to sit quitely while their countries are being invaded, occupied and their citizens killed? Obviously, something like a simple cartoon only adds fuel to a very big fire already going on.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by half_minded


True, but still, these days I would not trust anything about the government blindly. Unless I personally know the person who conducted the survey, I wud not take it into consideration as 'proof' of anything.


It was an independent polling organisation. You Gov. You'll never know anyone personally who takes these polls because they are conducted by hundreds of people on carefully selected populations to avoid bias.

I never said 'proof', but I think that opinion polls carry a certain validity to opinions.


Originally posted by TaupeDragon
I'm also not talking about unease about U.S. foreign policy in the middle east. Or attacks on Lebanese civilians by the Israelis in the recent war. Or US treatment of the Iraqi population.



Why wudnt u consider those as terrorist acts??


My point was that you said somethng like 'terrorist', or 'what is a terrorist' (I think). I said that a muslim who blows himself up on a tube train, or plane, and kills civilians, is by any decent standard a terrorist.

I said that 'I'm not talking about' US or Israeli policy (aspects of which I abhor, and some of which you could equate to war crimes or terrorism, or the insurgency in Iraq) because I wanted to make a specific point on what I felt was a 'terrorist', and I wanted your agreement on that point.

So to reiterate, would you agree that the people that killed civilians during 7/7 and 9/11 were terrorists?


I wud not agree to any innocent person being killed. If someone kills in name of Allah then he is not a muslim. I wud want that person to be punished as severely as possible.


I think you just did condemn it, so well done!




First you agree thats its a nationalism issue and not a religious issue then how can you say that 9/11 and 7/7 was done on religious grounds.

Well, when the bombers record religious testaments to justify their actions, you have to conclude that religion played a part in it.

The 7/7 bombers were British. They didn't have any connection to Iraq. I don't see how their actions could have been anything other than religiously motivated.

The 9/11 bombers were probably acting out of a combination of religious and nationalistic motives.



Infact, this question is pointless to me because I believe US government was responsible for 9/11 so they cud have an excuse to go to war for oil.



So let's disregard 9/11. 7/7 I think is clear cut, and certainly easier to argue. How can you attribute their motives to anything other than religion?



What religion allows its followers to commit terrorist acts??? I know Islam does not.



I don't have time for any religion really - they all can be perverted and stop people thinking for themselves. However, as I said before, it's your right to pray to who you want as long as it doesn't affect me or my freedoms


Anyone who kills is a murderer and nothing else. You cannot classify someone as muslim killer or non-muslim killer. Punish the murderer and stop harassing the innocent people.



Well, 7/7 had a religious motivation and suicide tapes prerecorded, and it's obtuse to say otherwise. It doesn't make all muslims murderers or terrorists, but it certainly was a factor in that atrocity.

Again, very long post! I had to cut it to reply...will try and get back to the rest of it now.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Again you are ranting about US laws while you completely ignore other nation's laws.


As a Christian citizen of the United States, who resides in the US I follow two sets of laws, first the laws of my country, second the laws of my faith, the ten commandments. Both are fairly explicit when it comes to the "no killing" thing! Let's say I travel to a Muslim country, I will follow the laws of such a country only to the point that they do not interfere with my Christian beliefs. Here's where we get into trouble.

Christianity does not specify killing on it's behalf, or killing in reaction to a slight against it, or killing non-believers. If the Muslim religion does then it goes against every other faith and law on the planet. The majority of the people will not recognize the validity of such a religion. A conversion made at the point of a knife or after being threatened is not a true conversion and weakens the fabric of Islam. Extremist Muslims are trying to convert the rest of the world in this way and moderate Muslims should be at the very least outraged by the damage done to their religion.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 07:14 AM
link   
I already answered the question about why non-muslims are not allowed in mecca.

As I said earlier, please read the posts before you ask me the same questions that have already been answered.

You dont expect people to follow rules of US who do not live in US. Yet you expect them to respect your freedom of speech when you cannot respect their belief towards the prophet. Double Standards.

Point of the thread is to show that a few certain violent muslims who dont know the firs thing about Islam are commiting stupid acts and its the world's millions of muslims who have to face the consequences and criticism just because they are of the same faith.

People comepletely disregard that religion is not the only thing that can define characteristics of a person.

Some group of muslims did this, so all muslims must be violent. Some muslims got offended and did this, so all muslims do the same or atleast want to do the same.

This is what I am trying to get out of your heads. You cannot judge millions of muslims on the basis of few.

Also you cannot expect them to stop the extremists. The extremists are only in a select few countries. They all are from there. These countries lack proper education and people are largely exploited by religous leaders. The citizens who do not agree with them live under fear. It has nothing to do with religion. Its all political and religion is being used to exploit people for power.

So stop telling accusing all muslims of being terrorists or violent people.

Stop justifying everything that the western world does because they are not all that righteous. No one calls Bush a terrorist even though he has killed thousands of people by waging wars based on lies.

But if the Iraqis fight back for freedom, they are automatically labelled as terrorists. And since Iraqis are muslims, all muslims must be terrorists. Acroos the globe, anytime a muslim does something, every muslim is held accountable for it. That is the logic being used.



[edit on 16-10-2006 by half_minded]



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by half_minded

Originally posted by TaupeDragon
Thanks for the explanation! I have no problems with the religious except when they start to infringe on my rights to live my life according to Western norms. Do you feel that post-religious people have the right to refuse the message of Islam? Can islam live alongside other religions and the non-religious?


When was the last time a muslim man came to your house and tried to control your life? Islam does require its followers to live in a certain way and do things in a certain way. Also requires them to give up things, like alcohol for example. It is also required for Islam followers to spread the message of Islam to everyone. However, Islam does not permit the spreading to be done with force.


Never personally. *But*, in supporting censorshp of the press in any way that 'offends the prophet', in a society where the majority of people are not religious (nor muslim) I find anti-democratic. It sounds like a cracked record, but I respect your right to disagree with me, but not your right to suppress opinions that disagree with your point of view or religion.



Islam is based on ones personal beliefs. The Quran says that you have to believe in Allah yourself otherwise anything you do in name of Islam is pointless. Anything you do (prayer, fasting, pilgrimage) has to be done to please Allah and not to show-off, i.e., the intention of the person is important. So, if you force someone into the religion, they really are not truly muslim because they do not belive in Allah. So why wud a true muslim try to ever force his beliefs on anyone when he knows its pointless.


Forcing conversion is not the same as forcing belief. I have no problem with your relgious practices. But it comes to my first paragraph. You don't have the right to stop people expressing opinions you find offensive.

Salman Rushdie would be a case in point. Satanic Verses didn't deserve a fatwah calling for his death, even if it was found offensive!
.


Originally posted by TaupeDragon
OK. But. A muslim in London has religious freedom. A Christian (or Buddhist) in Saudi or Egypt doesn't. I was under the impression 'Umma' meant 'muslim brotherhood', rather than 'human'.



Why go there then? Why live there then? Its a country ruled by muslim leaders and they have their rules. If you dont want to follow them then you should not live there. People always expect immigrants to follow the rules of their country, no matter what. So why question the rules of another country.


OK. Unfair.

The Coptic Christian were in Egypt first.
The Zoarastrians (however you spell it) where in Persia first.

Not immmigrants. Unfair to expect them to follow those norms.

HOWEVER - if you say 'immmigrants have to follow the rules', then ERGO.......Danish cartoonists and Salman Rushdie (and the Pope) are off the hook!


I think there may be one more reply to this from you. Will go to see if I can find it before work happens.

Regards

TD



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by half_minded
All this muslim aggression started because of western countries. Western countries are illegally trying to occupy the muslim countries to gain control over resources.



See, in other places people who buy natural resources are called customers. Okay, here's the deal, we won't buy your oil anymore, we'll come up with another way to power our country and other non-Muslim countries. Where would you be then? What else can your countries sell in order to feed your people and provide infrastructure? And don't be thinking "China" because they'll just steal our technology and walk away from you-no loyalty there! Eventually all those oil gaziliionaires will run out of money. And they won't run out of it in the ME, they'll take off for Europe or the US once TSHTF. Then what? You cannot eat sand and drink oil. Really though, I cannot wait for someone to come up with a fuel I can put in my car which will not come from an ME country. That will truly be the end of all this because the ME will just be another sandbox the US is expected to feed.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by TaupeDragon
It was an independent polling organisation. You Gov. You'll never know anyone personally who takes these polls because they are conducted by hundreds of people on carefully selected populations to avoid bias.

I never said 'proof', but I think that opinion polls carry a certain validity to opinions.


These days I wud not trust the credibility of surveys because no one came and asked me anything. Why shud somoen else speak for me.



Originally posted by TaupeDragon
So let's disregard 9/11. 7/7 I think is clear cut, and certainly easier to argue. How can you attribute their motives to anything other than religion?



I was referring to 9/11 and not 7/7. 7/7 was based on religious issues but then again which religiong is not guilty of having extremists that would actually go out and kill people in the name of religion?

How do we know that these bombers actually know the real Islam while the million muslims who follow islam are comepletly wrong. If these guys misinterpret Quran and commit violent acts, it does not put the Quran, Islam and muslim population in general, at fault.


Originally posted by TaupeDragon
I don't have time for any religion really - they all can be perverted and stop people thinking for themselves. However, as I said before, it's your right to pray to who you want as long as it doesn't affect me or my freedoms


I dont have time for religiong either. But the problem is that the whole world is putting Islam and muslims under scrutiny and therefore I must protect myself since I am a muslim. I am not gonna stand around and liseen to someone claiming im a terrorist. I wont let them call me violent.

All I am gonna do is post here and discuss with people and try to get the message across.



Originally posted by TaupeDragon
Well, 7/7 had a religious motivation and suicide tapes prerecorded, and it's obtuse to say otherwise. It doesn't make all muslims murderers or terrorists, but it certainly was a factor in that atrocity.


Religion can be a factor but problem is, how do we know these guys even understand the religion?

How do we determine that these few show the attitude of the entire world population?



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by stanstheman

Again you are ranting about US laws while you completely ignore other nation's laws.


As a Christian citizen of the United States, who resides in the US I follow two sets of laws, first the laws of my country, second the laws of my faith, the ten commandments. Both are fairly explicit when it comes to the "no killing" thing! Let's say I travel to a Muslim country, I will follow the laws of such a country only to the point that they do not interfere with my Christian beliefs. Here's where we get into trouble.

Christianity does not specify killing on it's behalf, or killing in reaction to a slight against it, or killing non-believers. If the Muslim religion does then it goes against every other faith and law on the planet. The majority of the people will not recognize the validity of such a religion. A conversion made at the point of a knife or after being threatened is not a true conversion and weakens the fabric of Islam. Extremist Muslims are trying to convert the rest of the world in this way and moderate Muslims should be at the very least outraged by the damage done to their religion.


I already answered your questions in my original post. Please read before posting.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by TaupeDragon
Never personally. *But*, in supporting censorshp of the press in any way that 'offends the prophet', in a society where the majority of people are not religious (nor muslim) I find anti-democratic. It sounds like a cracked record, but I respect your right to disagree with me, but not your right to suppress opinions that disagree with your point of view or religion.


Why would you limit your boundaries to the society that is not religious while ignoring the worldwide population and also ignoring the fact that tensions are already high.


Originally posted by TaupeDragon
Forcing conversion is not the same as forcing belief. I have no problem with your relgious practices. But it comes to my first paragraph. You don't have the right to stop people expressing opinions you find offensive.

Salman Rushdie would be a case in point. Satanic Verses didn't deserve a fatwah calling for his death, even if it was found offensive!


so there was a fatwa released. How many muslims actually did try to go out and kill salman? No one knows truly, so how can you assume that muslims in geral follow every fatwa given by some nut sitting somwhere in his tent.

Islam does not agree with forced conversion. I already answered that oo in detail. Please go back and read.


Originally posted by TaupeDragon
HOWEVER - if you say 'immmigrants have to follow the rules', then ERGO.......Danish cartoonists and Salman Rushdie (and the Pope) are off the hook!


Dont take my statement out of context. It was clear I was trying to show that citizens of a certain country expect immigrants to follow and respect their rules while, they themselves dont respect the others belief



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 07:36 AM
link   

originally posted by half-minded
I am not in the US so you dont have to ask me to leave.


This does not jive with your previous posts:

I study in US and I have a lot of friends from India of different religion.

So, which is it?


Originally posted by half_minded
I already answered the question about why non-muslims are not allowed in mecca.

As I said earlier, please read the posts before you ask me the same questions that have already been answered.

Because the city is overcrowded? That's the reason non-muslims are not allowed in mecca? Somehow, I doubt it.


You dont expect people to follow rules of US who do not live in US. Yet you expect them to respect your freedom of speech when you cannot respect their belief towards the prophet. Double Standards.

No, not a double standard at all. One is a law, the other is a religious belief. The law protects your ability to practice your belief; it does not force someone else to respect your belief.


Point of the thread is to show that a few certain violent muslims who dont know the firs thing about Islam are commiting stupid acts and its the world's millions of muslims who have to face the consequences and criticism just because they are of the same faith.

I thought the point of the thread was why don't the millions stand up and denounce the few that are giving them a bad name.

It is because of fear. You yourself stated:

I post because this is my means of 'standing up' against evil doers like Bush and Osama. I cannot go out and kill Osama, I cannot go out and tell the radicals to stop being radicals, they might end up killing me.

A few extremists have an entire religion paralyzed with fear. The extremists depend upon that fear to keep muslims under control.

It will never stop until you refuse to live under fear.



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 07:39 AM
link   

I already answered your questions in my original post. Please read before posting.


I didn't ask a question, I made a statement, and apparently it has to be made over and over again because you just don't get it. You can say what you will but if the Prophet Mohammed is not a religious figure in someone's life then that person is not obligated to you or Islam in ANY way to revere that person in ANY way. I agree that some sensitivity to Islamic beliefs would be great (in a perfect world) but outside of that scenario it just won't happen, especially not now. As a Muslim you should be steadfast in your belief and not be so affected by the thoughts and words of others. I know what I believe and the opinions of those who do not agree with me do not in any way sully my faith or lessen it. There could be a million silly cartoons of the Holy Father and it wouldn't effect me one bit. My faith can stand up to ridicule, can yours?




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join