|
The world we live in (pg. 11)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| all-nite-freak |
its funny how both religions do not get along so well considering the many similarities in faiths...If i'm not mistaken Jesus was also one of the lesser prophets in the islamic religion.And for us Jesus is the son of God and its almost hypocritical to have a huge cross in the church.
Considering that it is a sin to worship false idols (ie a carving or statue...whom christians often pray to.)So cliche, but people are people no matter what religion they practice...except the snake handlers who can kiss my ass:tongue3 |
|
|
| Lopitrance |
But why the boycotting? It wasn't Denmark's people that voted to put offensive cartoons in their newspapers...
If the Middle-East and muslims around the world sent 500 million angry letters to the newspaper I think the message would get across just as easily. |
|
|
| jesteraver |
| what happened to letter bombing the press? :crazy: that would sort of send a message. |
|
|
| zoogla |
| quote: | Originally posted by vano
this free media is like a child; it has to burn its fingers a couple of times before it understands that playing with fire is dangerous |
Dude, that's really well said. :)
I remember from a legal philosophy class I took that there is a section in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom (hmmm...the proportionality test if I recall correctly) that stipulates that even freedom of expression can be limited if it brings harm to society. I believe this is one of those cases.
| quote: | Originally posted by jesteraver
i could say more right now but biting my tongue, i dont want to upset anyone. |
Whoa dude, you have to stop being so nice. :rolleyes:
| quote: | Originally posted by fastmp3
there is something 90% of the people don't know : you can not give the Prophet Mohamed (Peace be upon Him) an image, a face, or whatever, even if you are going to talk positively about him. unlike christians with Jesus, we do not have an image of our Prophet. it has always been like this for 1400 years and it will always remain like this. so these cartoons not only pictured our Prophet, but they did it in a negative way. a double error. |
| quote: | Originally posted by fastmp3
muslims do not worship Mohamed (PBUH), muslims worship Allah (God in arabic). but we do love our Prophet, we love our Prophet more than anything, even more than ourselves.
the boycott was a smart way of protesting. the riots and embassy burning was dumb. |
Al-humdulilah. Wallah, akhee, I love you. :) |
|
|
| vano |
| quote: | Originally posted by malek
VANO, no disrespect, but you're mixing things up now.
The original cartoons were published in september, which DID in fact create some fuss in Denmark with their muslim community, they protested.
Now someone in the muslim world discovered them, protests protests protests, then they "republished" them. |
Malek, here is the history:
CARTOON ROW
30 Sept 2005: Danish paper publishes cartoons
20 Oct: Muslim ambassadors complain to Danish PM
10 Jan 2006: Norwegian publication reprints cartoons
26 Jan: Saudi Arabia recalls its ambassador
30 Jan: Gunmen raid EU's Gaza office demanding apology
31 Jan: Danish paper apologises
1 Feb: Papers in France, Germany, Italy and Spain reprint cartoons
4 Feb: Syrians attack Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus
5 Feb: Protesters sack Danish embassy in Beirut
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4690338.stm
Note that on 1 of Feb at least four other countries do the same and this is after the raid in Gaza ...
How slow are they to understand after that?
On a side note, I double check my info before posting it. |
|
|
| Hman |
| quote: | Originally posted by fastmp3
there is something 90% of the people don't know : you can not give the Prophet Mohamed (Peace be upon Him) an image, a face, or whatever, even if you are going to talk positively about him. unlike christians with Jesus, we do not have an image of our Prophet. it has always been like this for 1400 years and it will always remain like this. so these cartoons not only pictured our Prophet, but they did it in a negative way. a double error. |
+11111111111111111111111111 |
|
|
| vano |
| quote: | Originally posted by RnakR
calme toi vano tu perds la track, ya aucune modération dans tes propos...
|
mais pas du tout! je dis ce que je vois et ce que je lis chaque jour.
je ne te rapproche rien en passant;
peu importe qui et ce n'est pas seulement un journal, mais plusieurs et dans différents pays. ces journaux sont en train de défendre la liberté d'expression des peuples comme on dit et ce sont ces peuples qui souffrent avec leurs gouvernements ... c'est une bonne leçon d'un cote ...
tu parles d'un livre d'instruction et en voyant ce qui ce passe dans le monde je crois qu’un tel livre sera nécessaire
L’Iran comme n’importe quel état protége ses intérêts et a vrai dire ils n’ont pas la capacité de nous bombarder; un cour en politique internationale t’apprendra beaucoup. Iran est un pays important et celui qui saura le contrôler va diriger toute cette région. N’oublions pas les richesses naturelles que ce pays possède…
Bref, ce n’est pas en critiquant aveuglement qu’on va résoudre des problèmes mais en essayant de comprendre leurs causes; il faudra trouver des solutions par après.. |
|
|
| malek |
| quote: | Originally posted by fastmp3
there is something 90% of the people don't know : you can not give the Prophet Mohamed (Peace be upon Him) an image, a face, or whatever, even if you are going to talk positively about him. unlike christians with Jesus, we do not have an image of our Prophet. it has always been like this for 1400 years and it will always remain like this. so these cartoons not only pictured our Prophet, but they did it in a negative way. a double error. |
muslims believe that, its their right. Christians used to have the same beliefs. Things change(d) and others don't have to play by muslims rules. Thats how it is in the real world. Canadians don't play by Chinese rules, neither the Chinese with Indians'.
People on this forum are smart enough to understand that, but not the masses in the arabic countries, who are either too dumb or are just playing dumb as asked by their leaders.
Either way, this has nothing to do with respect, because western countries respect Mahomet even tho the Bible specifically state that any other person claiming being a prophet after Jesus is an imposter and a charlatan. They already said "sorry" and on many occasions for things their govts have nothing to do... thats alot of respect in my book.
On a final note, think about this, if everything you guys do, a group somewhere on this planet, and god forbid with the power of the intraweb, will take offense... well by all means, lets just all stop breathing and end this misery called life. |
|
|
| vano |
| quote: | Originally posted by fayraree
Dude, that's really well said. :)
I remember from a legal philosophy class I took that there is a section in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom (hmmm...the proportionality test if I recall correctly) that stipulates that even freedom of expression can be limited if it brings harm to society. I believe this is one of those cases.
|
It is so. Freedom is ok until it infringes upon the rights of other people.
No freedom is absolute.
Someone is agreeing with me, it’s a progress:) |
|
|
| malek |
| quote: | Originally posted by vano
Malek, here is the history:
CARTOON ROW
30 Sept 2005: Danish paper publishes cartoons
20 Oct: Muslim ambassadors complain to Danish PM
10 Jan 2006: Norwegian publication reprints cartoons
26 Jan: Saudi Arabia recalls its ambassador
30 Jan: Gunmen raid EU's Gaza office demanding apology
31 Jan: Danish paper apologises
1 Feb: Papers in France, Germany, Italy and Spain reprint cartoons
4 Feb: Syrians attack Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus
5 Feb: Protesters sack Danish embassy in Beirut
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4690338.stm
Note that on 1 of Feb at least four other countries do the same and this is after the raid in Gaza ...
How slow are they to understand after that?
On a side note, I double check my info before posting it. |
i see this being directed at me, well, what I posted is the same as what you just posted with less details. People hate reading, and I don't want to transform this into some mind numbing thread a la political forum. I don't need to know every little detail to have an opinion, I'm smart enough.
What you don't understand, is why does it take so long before the manifestations and publication? There's a disconnect, its flagrant, its a manipulation by muslim leaders. |
|
|
| vano |
| quote: | Originally posted by malek
i see this being directed at me, |
not at all Malek.
| quote: |
What you don't understand, is why does it take so long before the manifestations and publication? There's a disconnect, its flagrant, its a manipulation by muslim leaders. |
I do not pretend to know everything. Manipulation, possibly...why not. If you go this way, you have to accept that a manipulation is also possible on the other side. In politics there is no black/white.
If it were a manipulation they would've burn everything long ago; they had plenty of time.
This way will come up with a conspiracy theory :) |
|
|
| Epicurus |
Honestly guys, this is my last ditch attempt to put everything in perspective, in the most logical of ways.
The boycott was a completely unfair way of protesting. Boycotting something can only be construed as punishing something or someone. If we agree that in order to be punished, you must have offended, then what one would be saying is that these danish businesses that are being boycotted have offended. But clearly they haven't, since they had nothing to do with the publications. Thus, the boycott was unfair.
Furthermore, any form of protest, whether it be boycotting or otherwise, NOT directed at the offending newspaper(s), is unjust, since no other entity has offended nor had the power to stop the offense. That goes for the government of Denmark and others, since their constitutions explicitly condone free and independent press. Thus, punishing the governments or demanding apologies from the governments is unjust.
Clearly, the only offending party was/were the newspaper/s that published the cartoons, which granted, would be offensive to most Muslims since they depict the prophet (which is blasphemous in Islam), and furthermore in very unflattering ways (which is even worse). Thus, any form of protest or punishement should be directed at the newspaper/s.
Finally, if you disagree with my points above, then there are two possibilities that, logically, you may choose from:
1-) Either, you choose NOT to recognize that punishment of any form should be restricted to offending parties. Thus, entities can be punished regardless of their offending or not (in this case, entities are being punished simply because they share the same nationality as the offending entity). By taking this route, you would be clearly demonstating a very warped sense of justice, one I would hope no thoughtful human being would espouse.
2-) Or, you disagree with the principle of free press, which would allow you to claim that the Danish government should have interfered in the publications and not allowed them to be published. But by taking that route, you're implicitly supporting a form of tyranny (i.e. state control over media, which is omnipresent in all tyrannies), and one that I hope no forward looking person would choose.
And that's all she wrote. |
|
|
|
|
