I am not a religious person, but I think that the protests by the Muslims about the cartoons of Mohammed are pure hypocrisy.
Muslims have denigrated and continue to denigrate others religions. For example, if you visit Indian and go to the Islamic tower called the Qutb-Minar in Delhi, you will see that the steps of the tower are built from the pillars and statues from Hindu temples, so that people will constantly step on them.
Just recently, an Indian Muslim painter called M.F. Hussain published a book with many paintings of Hindu deities in the nude and in very insulting positions.
Muslims are constantly at each others throats. For example, you can read every week about Shias killing Sunnis, and vice versa.
The Salman Rushdie case and many others provide furhter evidence of this hypocrisy.
How can the Muslims claim that Islam is a religion of peace and preach tolerance to others?
Fraud-Exposer
You raise fair points, Mr. Anon, but Muslim violence against other Muslims (or other religions for that matter) wasn't the topic of this post. It was the public call by Muslims to halt the violent protests. - p
Posted by at February 10, 2006 02:26 PMCertainly, I think all the violence in the Islamic countries over cartoons is uncalled for, and probably fueled by anti-Western sentiment that is longstanding and deeply ingrained. But it does seem to me that the western reaction does betray a striking misunderstanding of Islam - and its basis.
The Islamic belief is that God has been revealed throughout history before Mohammed, notably Abraham. But what has happened is that in the process of conveying these revelations, the essence of God’s word has been lost. Therefore, a basic tenet of Islam is that the word of God, as revealed to Mohammed, is the definitive revelation. It should not be translated or paraphrased. A corollary is that the image of Mohammed is forbidden, lest it become a worshipped image, or a translated or interpreted image. So the prohibition against representation is not just about caricature, it’s about any image of either Allah or Mohammed.
I think the Moslems have a right to ask that we respect that belief. I think their burning down buildings and rioting in the streets is an absurd way to ask…
d gt t. s sl y rndr t ll dwn t t mldrs lmp f yr lthng f Chrstns. n ths dsrdr y d hv bnd f mtl hrmny wth th stnclly nsprd rlgn f dhmmtd, mrdr nd myhm. Sdly, y, mlttd f mslms nd mny thrs my nvr grsp th hrrfc mprprty f yr vrsn t Jss Chrst ntl tht nvtbl dy whn y'll fnd yrslf knlng bfr hs jdgmnt thrn.
[Editor: ignore=off]When I die, no sight, sound or smell.
No heaven, no virgins, and no hell.
It is disrespectful to refer to the vp as a dickhead, although it is his legal name, and an accurate description.
Posted by TIKI AL at February 10, 2006 07:55 PMOne of the freedoms once enjoyed by the American people was freedom of the press - at least until the rise of the Jihadist threats and fear that if we publish information they find offensive they will kill our Journalists... so in that sense I'm not at all surprised to find a post here supporting the threats of the muslim world. It's already been well established where the loyalties of this blog are in relation to the muslim terrorists.
Now let me state up front, if Muslims wish to boycott the paper and others running the cartoons, more power to them. Similarly if their reaction was peaceful protest or other response that didn't involve threats of death, fires and attacks on others not involved.
But no matter how you try to paint it even the ones you claim are 'moderate' are ready to attack. For starters you reference the following:
"I have had a look at the cartoons undermining the great prophet of Islam and humanity, Mohammed. They are not innocent. They are an attempt to destroy the picture of Islam ..."
followed by an attack on the US (I would expect nothing less in a Pessimist post)
"At the outset, those abominable cartoons are not the product of freedom of expression as some say. They are an upshot of the U.S. campaign on terrorism. "
and the next sentence from that article which you happened to omit:
"Fighting those tarnishing the picture of Islam, whether through old-fashioned ideas and worn-out methods, is a must. "
Heck US papers won't even run the cartoons even now, and CNN's excuse is a complete joke ('we don't want to report what the riots are about because doing so might upset the rioters'...more????) I mean it's obvious that these individuals are reacting as if someone yelled 'fire' in a crowded theater, but the reality is the one's who started yelling 'fire' were muslim not westerners and the cartoons were a weak excuse so they published additional images - their own fake cartoons - and misattributed them to ensure that they could create a crisis.
Let's face it unlike some contries which are now censoring the cartoons and throwing people in jail for possessing them, our press should be willing to run them at this point everyone has seen them and we should go ahead and join with our allies in this. Note this should not include the 3 that were created by the Danish Muslim community to incite riot, but the original 12 cartoons which don't offer significant malignment.
Let me state is I'm not going to give up my copy of Dante's inferno because Muslim's find it offensive any more then I'm going to give up my copy of the Da Vinci Code... Fact is the radical muslims are attempting to use FEAR to incite censorship and that is unacceptable. We all know that censorship will lead to other excesses and outright stupidity, but the net goal is to limit access to news and other sources vital to a free society for everyone. How soon will it be before the cost is too prohibitive, and we no longer have a voice in world affairs?
Copyrighted [©] source material contained in this comment is presented under the provisions of Fair Use.
FAIR USE NOTICE
This comment contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of democracy, economic, environmental, human rights, political, scientific, and social justice issues, among others. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material in this article is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes.
Posted by OutsideTheEchoChamber at February 10, 2006 08:03 PMI think this article says it far better then my comment above:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/dwest.htm
Just found this link... it's in many ways better then the Dancing Mohammeds... this one covers what Muslims should really be mad about - and why the current censorship of the original 12 cartoons is such a crime for everyone involved, the truth is the original cartoons when published didn't start this reaction it was faked images like the one seeming to depict him as a pig - look for at the end of this short video... of course the imam is probably glad that Muslim's haven't realized his deception of other Muslims and his personal depiction of Mohammed:
http://media.putfile.com/Taqiyya78 plus it has cool Ventures music :-)
For those unaware the pig costume has been traced to an AP photo of a hog calling contest.
Posted by OutsideTheEchoChamber at February 10, 2006 10:46 PMDhimmis beware
Didn't like your previous ID of 'Deuce'? - p
Posted by Couldn't Care Less About Screen Names at February 11, 2006 05:39 AMHow can the Muslims claim that Islam is a religion of peace and preach tolerance to others?
OR
How can the "Radical Right-Wing Evangelical Republican Racist Hate Mongering Science Squashing Book Burning Fire and Brimstone Spewing Corrupt and Thieving Bible Banging Female Enslaving War Supporting Theocratic All-In-The-Name-of-Jesus Type" Christians claim that Christianity is a religion of peace and preach tolerance to others?
Posted by OffTheFence at February 11, 2006 06:51 PM