^^^^ Please delete that picture (MODERATOR, ADmin,) thats disgusting and sacreligious. I know that Johnny Boy doesn't find anything sacred but a post like dat, should get you a WARNING from ADMIN. at the least, if not to be Banned. Unlike you Johnny boy, we have principles and they don't change due to Popular Sentiments and Cyncisms. I fail to absorb both the moral value of " Oh alah ,cursed are the Jews, destroy the non-beleivers " and the logic of " hate me upto here, but not further ". Its b/c you believe in MORAL RELATIVISM and you judge things based ON YOUR OWN RATIO which you can't understand is flawed for the precise reason that your RANK it (Ratio) to be the apex and source of INTELLIGENCE. Again, Our MANDATE is from HEAVEN, regerdless if every Freedom of XAWA follower disagrees. Our part as a Muslim is to uphold that mandate inshallah and to the Muslim, there should not be CONFUSION. We can EXPECT the insults but WE DON'T HAVE TO ACCEPT them and if you and Ngonge, who are KEYBOARD ORIENTALISTS can't see past your HOT AIR, then thats YOUR PROBLEM. They fact that 'YOU FAIL to UNDERSTAND' does not mean that something is 'FALSE' or 'WRONG'. Why? Because you are Limiting Understanding to RATIO and truncating EVERYTHING to YOURSELF. Contrary to your belief, what is TRUE, what is RIGHT, does not depend on anyone's UNDERSTANDING, COMPREHENSION ETC. Truth is universal, truth is beyond space and time, Truth is GOD (Al-Haqq). Johnny and Ngonge, Maybe the Mirror is a Better place for you lot, to gain UNDERSTANDING. You sure do sound like you spend alot of time infront of it.

Originally posted by LayZieGirl: quote:but unfortunately majority of the Muslims do not have much love for the Messenger it seems. Let me get this straight, just because the majority of the muslim community had more sense to go about their usual business then walk in the streets, waive signs and burn flags proves that they don't have love for the prophet himself, is that what you are saying? You think that those some 150 faithfuls of islam who you joined today are making a difference by burning a flag? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? Do you actually think you will change the minds of those same individuals who had drew those pictures? Do you think that you will stop hatred just becuz you standing in the cold? C'mon now, those other thousands of muslims had alot more sense to stay away from the nonsense you took part off today, and I am glad only 150 or so made a fool of themselves, imagine if there was atleast a 1000 instead of 150? It be a waste. A waste? A waste to: show supports for other muslims :confused: express their Freedom of Assembly & Association to show hatred and disgust for that which mocks Allah and His Rasul (sallahu caliyhe wasilm) Its a waste because you can do better demeaning and belittling their effort A waste because you are chilling in a heated place, with a full belly, catching CTS b/c of all that typing and they were out in the streets. Tell me why its a waste, Layzie Crtic!

Originally posted by Zero: Well, the Khateeb talked about some of the amazing accomplishments of some of the companions. He made a breif, cursory mention of the current controversy with the pictures. In the end, he cursed all the enemies of Islam in general and the Jews in particular. I said Amen to all the curses. It was nice. Sarcasm from a ZERO Real nice!

Salamz, Just wondering what can of msg the khateebs/those doing the friday khutba, have been preaching from the pulpit today. I was at this jumma and was trying to give the benefit of the doubt but the khateeb at the end of the message revealed the reasoning behind his speach-to let muslims not get overly angry about the current issue that has taken over this past week or two. The khateeb wasa there to Pacify/cool down the crowd and act Nonchalant about the issue. :rolleyes: In anycase, Just wondering about the various jumma khutbas that nomads might have attended today and what the msg was in them. Fi Amanillah

Originally posted by ibtisam: ^^^bashiie and Ahura i agree. khary i don't know what the marshallah is for, however i am not as paranoid as you, i do not fell sorry for my self nor hide behind the slogan "everyone hates me" because i am a Muslim. if only the world was so simple. rendv... quote: You still call yourself a somali anyways? what will your kids be? I am sure you got a different mother tongue..English I suppose.. so you are an English woman I suppose ? i don't remember calling my self anything let alone Somali or English :rolleyes: foxy sis i think your missing the point, it is not about curiosity or the pictures, rather the abuse to Muslim faith and culture, and the circumstance, coupled with the insulting images. There has to be a limit and in my view that limit has been broken. SB i can't figure out if you are joking or taking the piss, i hope you are joking SubhanAllah, I was commending you on your bravery walaal and you return back to INSULT ME. I saw a good deed and Alhamdulillah, it was touching and you turned back and returned it with ill words. xaadhal xuuma!

Salamz, Look here walaayal, Times have changed and each and everyone of us, if we have that conviction, will be tested; in some form of fashion. The question will be DO you have enough IMAN to do what is WISE and RIGHT and in line with the Islamic Tradition or will comprimse for raaho iyo caano for the kids. Stoic, I am not on here to CONVINCE anyone or change their ATTITUDES. Convictions are not for Debating for the sake of Debating. Inshallah, my role as a muslim is to stay true to my deen, stay true to my conviction and judge things. I am stating what are my CONVICTIONS and Alhamdulillah for that. Convictions based upon the Islamic Tradition. I'm not even talking about action here but CONVICTION in the Heart. As the ayat says (I think its sura al-shuara (the poets), correct me if I am wrong) that you can't have TWO QALBS/TWO HEARTS. Thats whats at stake here. The word of God is Supreme and if it isn't we believe that it SHOULD BE - Conviction in our hearts. No amount of sanctions, threatens, bombs etc. can change it,if your CONVICTION, your Allegiance to Allah and his Rasul (sallahu caliyhe wasilm) are TRUE, inshallah. Fi Amanillah

Originally posted by Foxy: what done is done, there is nothing much voting or txting can change, lets move on, besides if anyone was slightest curious to see what the news paper published could fully access over the internet cheers I disagree and we should not take a nonchalant (shiid happens) approach when it comes to our deen, to our deen oriented conventions, to to our rasul (salallahu caliyhe wasilm). If a family member of yours was Insulted PUBLICLY and purposely RIDICULED to OFFEND you and your FAMILY, I doubt that you would be so NONCHALANT and Illusive about it. More then likely, you would be Offended, disturbed,angered, insulted, humiliated by such actions. SO I aSK YOU, WHY then the Different attitude towards ill talk about the Rasul (salallahu caliyhe wasilm)? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by ibtisam: ^^^easy there, arguing here is not going to achieve much, Pluz does he not live in the US or something, so he can't do much for us. SB such a useless advice, "BE happy kulahah, what is there to be happy about" Ahura: i will today i am taking part in a protest, if you are in central london, you may see people with signs on their back "Insulting me, is not freedom of the press" and i have one on my back!! i tell ya, standing on the bus trying to read my metro was impossible, i made few friends amongst the none Muslims who agreed with me, first time i had a conversation with a bunch of strangers on a train!! MashaaaaAllah! The reality is kicking now that as Muslims, the rest of the world doesn't like you b/c muslims are the last community to advocate for revelation and anything God related. By (the Token of) Time (through the ages), Verily Man is in loss, Except such as have Faith, and do righteous deeds, and (join together) in the mutual teaching of Truth, and of Patience and Constancy. Surat AL-ASR

Originally posted by Khayr: quote:Originally posted by NGONGE: Khayer, Now let us get a bit more controversial and really put the cat amongst the pigeons. This website is a form of media, right? It’s being read by dozens of people and has the potential of being read by millions (it’s free and online). Likewise with many other Islamic websites or even newspapers, right? Now, suppose that we decided to have a discussion about Israel and in the midst of that discussion (as is usually expected) someone argues from a religious angle. There is a hadith that although I don’t doubt the authenticity of, nonetheless know to be offensive to Jews and non-Muslims. It’s the one (and I paraphrase here) about the hour of judgment not beginning until the Jews and Muslims fight, and the trees and rocks help the Muslims by revealing that a Jew is hiding behind them and urging the Muslim to come and kill him! Such a hadeeth is casually and regularly voiced out in mosques, newspapers, Islamic publications and discussion forums (like this one). If someone should come to us and point out that the Jews are offended by such a saying, I suspect that our collective response would be TOUGH. No reason or plea is likely to change our minds about the saying or compel us to drop it from our publications and Islamic discussions! A court of law, however, can force us to at least stop printing such ahadeeth! What would our argument be to keep using such a hadeeth? Our freedom of speech? Religious Freedom? Surely you can clearly see that the use of such a hadeeth offends a section of society (where we live now)! If we want our right to be at liberty to practise our faith free from government interference and laws, should we not also fight for the right of the infidel to be an infidel free from government interference and laws? To curtail his freedom would also, sadly, mean curtailing our freedoms. So, I’ll repeat that, in my opinion, only when the opinion or views of the non-Muslim call for and incite physical violence should we seek to limit his freedom to air that opinion or view. If it merely causes offence, we should take it on the chin like the grown ups that we are and move on. 'Liberterian Freedom' saxib are not the reason d'etre of our existence in this world-remember that ALWAYS and don't be confused, saxib. In anycase, as a muslims we don't have to Edit, omit anything from our texts because our mandate is From HEAVEN and not from liberal democracies. To be con'td....gotta run Curtailing freedoms is not the WORST PUNISHMENT that you can receive-to the muslim, because we are not created for the dunya, rather the akhira and that inshallah is our aim-we come from Allah and to Him we return! Curtailing freedoms is a Liberal minded, liberal world view of Grave Sin and/or the WORSE PUNISHMENT that you can receive in this life, according to the modern day POPULAR SENTINMENT (What the majority of people feel) If we want our right to be at liberty to practise our faith free from government interference and laws, should we not also fight for the right of the infidel to be an infidel free from government interference and laws? You are confusing yourself and others, saxib. Unlimited Pluarlism is not what the Muslim has to or should accept (at least in their mind and hear) b/c that would mean that the Haram can be Halal and the Halal to be Haram, all in the name of 'Protecting our piece of the pie'. As a Muslim and to remain true to my deen and convictions, I don't have to ACCEPT in my MIND and HEART Pluralistic/Liberal Ideals e.g. Freedoms. In anycase, the Muslim is to exercise CAUTION and WISDOM and inshallah do what is WISE and that which is in line with the Islamic tradition and not act hastily and/or call for Reformation of their deen to fit Popular Sentiments. O ye who believe! Persevere in patience and constancy;in such perseverance; strengthen each other; and fear Allah; that ye may prosper.

Originally posted by NGONGE: Khayer , Now let us get a bit more controversial and really put the cat amongst the pigeons. This website is a form of media, right? It’s being read by dozens of people and has the potential of being read by millions (it’s free and online). Likewise with many other Islamic websites or even newspapers, right? Now, suppose that we decided to have a discussion about Israel and in the midst of that discussion (as is usually expected) someone argues from a religious angle. There is a hadith that although I don’t doubt the authenticity of, nonetheless know to be offensive to Jews and non-Muslims. It’s the one (and I paraphrase here) about the hour of judgment not beginning until the Jews and Muslims fight, and the trees and rocks help the Muslims by revealing that a Jew is hiding behind them and urging the Muslim to come and kill him! Such a hadeeth is casually and regularly voiced out in mosques, newspapers, Islamic publications and discussion forums (like this one). If someone should come to us and point out that the Jews are offended by such a saying, I suspect that our collective response would be TOUGH. No reason or plea is likely to change our minds about the saying or compel us to drop it from our publications and Islamic discussions! A court of law, however, can force us to at least stop printing such ahadeeth! What would our argument be to keep using such a hadeeth? Our freedom of speech? Religious Freedom? Surely you can clearly see that the use of such a hadeeth offends a section of society (where we live now)! If we want our right to be at liberty to practise our faith free from government interference and laws, should we not also fight for the right of the infidel to be an infidel free from government interference and laws? To curtail his freedom would also, sadly, mean curtailing our freedoms. So, I’ll repeat that, in my opinion, only when the opinion or views of the non-Muslim call for and incite physical violence should we seek to limit his freedom to air that opinion or view. If it merely causes offence, we should take it on the chin like the grown ups that we are and move on. 'Liberterian Freedom' saxib are not the reason d'etre of our existence in this world-remember that ALWAYS and don't be confused, saxib. In anycase, as a muslims we don't have to Edit, omit anything from our texts because our mandate is From HEAVEN and not from liberal democracies. To be con'td....gotta run

Originally posted by Socod_badne: quote:Originally posted by Khayr: Castro, [iThat might be the 'desired outcome' but shaytan takes over and the outcome becomes Confusion and Cynicism of Islamic issues and Scholars. [/i] Which has happened numerous times on this site. Man, how do you know what shaytaan will take-over? You and Ahura have proven my point! :cool: If only cases were this easy in today's legal systems.

Originally posted by Castro: quote:Originally posted by Say(y)id Qutb: What would be the desired outcome or the "idea" behind such a thread? Arguments, more arguing and further divisions amongst the already divided muslim populations? The desired outcome is to avoid having a dubious fatwa shoved down people's throats. That's the desired outcome. Anyhow, do what you like. This is a public forum. Castro, [iThat might be the 'desired outcome' but shaytan takes over and the outcome becomes Confusion and Cynicism of Islamic issues and Scholars.[/i] Which has happened numerous times on this site.

Lets not get ahead of ourselves with this discussion. First of all (and Khayer might want to pay attention here), we have to set up some sort of point of reference that we measure (or base) our discussion against. Are we talking from an Islamic viewpoint (meaning: Islamic rules, laws and customs)? Or, are we talking from the Western rules and customs that deal with Freedom of Speech? Islamic rules/principles govern the Muslim line of thinking. Western rules and customs that deal with Freedom of Xawa as I call it, need to be examined under the light of my values-Islamic Tradition (quran, sunnah, shariah etc.). So, I am talking am the Islamic Tradition, thats what I use to praise or critique a noun,adjective and/or a verb etc. Discussions become confused (not to mention obtuse) when we mix and match the two. In my opinion, Islam has already put clear barriers on the Freedom of Speech. We already know what we can and can not say. The instructions are clear and on the odd occasions where they’re not, our scholars do their utmost to clarify them for us using the holy book and traditions of the prophet. I‘m being very simplistic and brief for the sake of clarity (for this last bit can be a topic of its own). The Western way on the other hand is a bit more convoluted and muddled up Convulted and muddled up-Yes Reason being that its hypocritical to say that ALL ARE EQUAL in Secular Liberalism when infact that entire premise behind the creation of Secular Liberal freedoms was to curb Religion so that people could persue their inhibitions. There was no Universal ceiling, which is what Religion has always imposed i.e. God sets the rules and not Man, which secular liberalism has inverted into Man sets the rule and God is out the door. In my comments and posts so far, I’ve been trying to address and deal with the Western rules. When talking about Muslims and Islam I concerned myself with those living in the West and not the habitually indignant teenagers of Rammallah (burning a different flag each week) or the old men of Pakistan. Our brothers in those parts of the world don’t care for or understand the meaning of Freedom of Speech. They’re not interested in philosophical discussions about the offence, they only demand retribution. They deal with these incidents one-at-a-time and make great use of their legendry amnesia. What gets matters more muddy though is when Muslims residing in the West join the debate. Here we find ourselves with one foot in each camp. Like our brethren in the East, we too want retribution but unlike our brethren in the East we also want rights! Is it conceivably possible to have both whilst staying out of the political system? As a muslim,you can UTILIZE the political system to your own gains to protect yourself and your religious beliefs because this is what Secular Liberalism promotes and why it promotes its agenda in places like Iraq. e.g. Iraqis are suddenly sunnis and shias to the world and they can't get along under a Muslim state but if only they take religion out, then they can ALL live in PEace AND Harmony (false goal of life). So I ask you Ngonge, why can't a muslim in the west want their Rights, if everyone else can demand for their Rights and complain about certain Liberal Rights too i.e. Freedom of press (libel and defammation), freedom of assembly etc. It is Hypocritical to criticize muslims when they want to use the system but praise blacks or women, for doing so. You're preaching SELF-HATE here saxib. Take pride, take pride, take pride that you are a Muslim (at least in lineage). The way I see it, and I’m going to be very simplistic again here, is that Freedom of Speech/Expression means that EVERYTHING GOES, until, someone brings up a valid complaint in a court of law. For example, despite the American constitution and declaration of independence asserting the equality of man, Rosa Park had to make a stand, get arrested and go all the way to the Supreme Court to receive the equal treatment that the American constitution said she deserved! The case of Wade v Roe did the same for the privacy rights of American citizens (abortion). In short, the democratic ideal protects and ensures Freedoms( Speech, Expression, etc) but also allows and makes room for these Freedoms to be tackled and challenged. Indeed, nothing is sacred unless the law says it is. And, the law, as one of Mr Dickens’ characters once remarked, is an Ãss! Nothing is sacred until a Supreme court rules on it, or a bill becomes law and all that is subkect to CHANGE. Just scream and kick enough and tomorrow it will change. It is all RELATIVE. Weren't black people Humans before Rose parks, so why the change in Popular Sentiment-today! Just because something becomes law or Popular Sentiment supports it, don't make it RIGHT today or tomorrow. That is the Islamic view point. Universal truths, rules that don't change with TIME or the whim of the people. For if that wasn't the case in Islam,the Quran could be re-edited to make common law acceptable, the huddud laws of the Shariah would be abolished, the Zakat would be made Haram (people are in too much debt anyways and its a burden etc.) Adultery will always be Haram in Islam, Polygamy will always be Halal in Islam no matter how many cry against it, Shariah will always be the form of governance that is to be practiced for Muslims regardless if people will view muslims as non-economic, non-sensical minded, male chauvenists. Now, let us get back to the Danish and their freedom of speech. Can we successfully prosecute that newspaper in a Danish court of law? Surely if there are limits to that paper’s freedom of speech we should be able to find them and use them to shut it (and all those that might dream of following its example) up! The argument that one would have to present will have to be waterproof and prove the transgressions of that newspaper. These transgressions should not include the Islamic command that no drawings should be made of the prophet or the creator. For, as you’re perfectly aware, Danish law does not recognise such a command. However, if we present a valid argument, Danish law might! If our argument is good enough in Denmark, it will (logically at least) be good enough in any other democracy. Under Liberal Rights law, it can be argued fo but it can be turned down at any court level, depending once again on Popular Sentiment. What was to be respected 10yrs has greatly changed today. However, that is not the route to take (personal opinion) because you show weakness but participating in a game to which THEY have set and laid down the rules and ....these rules are subject to change WITHOUT NOTICE or REASON. Still, such a move will only lead to similar retaliations that will, eventually, mean that many of our Islamic rights are curtailed. Like I already said, the boys in the Arab (Islamic) world can happily burn the flags (with the permission of their dictatorial governments) and then return to their normal lives and act as if nothing had happened! However, with us in the West, the game is different. We should try to stay a step ahead of all these events and try to know what our actions will cause. As things stand, suppressing a newspaper’s right to mock and ridicule and succeeding (with the help of the law) in doing so, will also mean that they can do the same to us (some will argue that they’re already doing it). Alhamdulillah, our brothers and sisters around the world don't need to engage in a debate to know what is Right and Wrong. They live in a world that still has some reminance of Islam, of Sacredness. Ngogne, stop criticizing them because they didn't jump behind a keyboard and spew verbal diarrhea! We find their words offensive, they find our faith offensive! We both should be free to hold these opinions. As things stand, only when either of these opinions threaten violence should their owners be suppressed. We find their words offensive, they find our faith offensive! We both should be free to hold these opinions. As things stand, only when either of these opinions threaten violence should their owners be suppressed. How come a G8 country can threaten muslims with sanctions and bombings when they don't like what a Muslim nation and its people are doing? Thats HYPOCRISY saxib, you agree? In anycase, this is getting tired some and is starting to sound like 'DEBATE FOR THE SAKE OF DEBATE' which only serves the our Xawa/Ego and attracts the shayateen. So, inshaAllah, i'll leave it at that.

Salamz, Sorry to burst the bubble here but is Nur planning to joing this yr's aroos season? Nur saxib, are you looking to end Bachlerhood?

Salamz, Originally posted by STOIC: There must an equal opportunity offender somewhere,isn't it? Nope-there ain't ever been such a thing saxib. It is was and is used to abate 'Totalitarian' thinking aka RELIGION and I think that it stems from rebellion towards the Catholic church and dogmatism. The Popular Sentiment is-You, as Muslim do not have a Right to INSULT anyone and infact ideally, you should be a Pacifist, Insult taking (in the name of liberterian 'freedoms', Model Subservient citizen. You can be spat on (past tense for spit on) but you are not to respond back to it, as a Muslim...but if you chose to spit back, you have to use a 'LEASED TOOL' meaning u can't SPIT BACK using your own Methodology, u have to SPIT BACK within THEIR acceptable FRAME WORK. Northerner saxib, A limit on freedom of speech comes into play wherein your are imposing your RIGHT on someone elses RIGHT. i.e. You can't make a FILM that discriminates and makes fun of women or disabled people etc. What is being shown BLATANTLY this week is that Freedom of Expression TRUMPS RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS and if their is a POPULAR SENTIMENT that supports this, then the LIBERAL Democratic LAWS can and should be changed to reflect these changes. P.S. Br. Nur, why don't you participate in these discussions walaal. Don't be afraid of Public flogging-it only hurts for a few minutes. Fi Amanillah

Originally posted by ibtisam: castro i thinking your negativity is affecting me i refuse to be as negative as you. i don't know, i refuse to just sit and wait, and accept whatever is thrown at me. You would always come against a brick wall, however even if we loose this time, the outcry will deter any future abuses. A show is being organised on Islam channel, a Muslim representative will be on BBC news, I think debates and more debates. either way if you don't do anything you can't balme anyone but you. but if you do at least your tried your best what do you think?? castro Votes don't stop the tide or prejudices. Economic boycotts do work and thats how you hit them hard. Give money back to your community and minimalize outside purchases. Laakin, am all for Enthuasism but some Realism is need. Why does a muslim have to adhere to rules that have been set by others that serve other people? i.e. voting

Relativism and Popular SENTIMENT is what is at play here and not what is the RIGHT THING to do for BBC? Afterall, they are in a BUSINESS! The Massive should not decided what is Right or Wrong b/c what is Right is Right irrespect of Time and how many people thing that it might be right or wrong. Likewise, what was wrong yesterday can't be Right today simply because a POPULAR VOTE is conducted! This is truely a Dajjalic age!

Originally posted by Castro: ^ Why is it then, good Johnny, that pornography (certainly a form of "expression") not publicly available everywhere, even in the west? Or are you saying it's the public that decides what is decent or indecent in expression. Well if that's the case, why does denying the Holocaust send one to jail in Austria as Ngonge kindly reminded us? There is a huge gray area saaxib. Public pressure, lobbying, the opinions of the majority, economics, history and politics all combine to define what is free in expression. With all these inputs, Mr. Logic, there is no way freedom of expression is unlimited. Well if that's the case, why does denying the Holocaust send one to jail in Austria as Ngonge kindly reminded us? Simply it is about POPULAR SENTIMENT i.e. what people FEEL to be RIGHT that is the DECIDING FACTOR, especially when it is congruent with ECONOMIC PROSPERITY. Public pressure, lobbying, the opinions of the majority, economics, history and politics all combine to define what is free in expression. It comes down to MIGHT is RIGHT i.e. those who wield the MOST MONEY (lobbyists)> Control the the media> Crate Popular Sentiment>Elect officials based on Popular sentiment>Change laws

Originally posted by Johnny: ^^ And he is right am afraid. What can be sacred? and in relation to what and who?. Maybe answering those questions might help us realize the relativeness of sacredness. What is a limitation? A self-inclined limit is diffrent from an imposed and legalized limit. thus i withhold the right to think that you´re a womanizer , becouse the thought i hold in my head is not in your favor or into your liking or doesen´t comform to the thought you have about yourself should in no way deny me my freedom of expressing myself. Yet i could of choice limit myself to not express myself. freedom of speach is a MUST HAVE right in a civilised society rich in thoughts, ideas, views, traits and favors,where a diffrence in views, oponions and ideology may seem to be a constant problem, but natural for human societies. does that single Islam out and deprive it the right or is Islam demanding beeing exceptional? Nothing is Sacred anymore and infact the tides have changed to being ANTI-SACRED and showing hostility and Cynicism towards ANYTHING SACRED. thus i withhold the right to think that you´re a womanizer , becouse the thought i hold in my head is not in your favor or into your liking or doesen´t comform to the thought you have about yourself should in no way deny me my freedom of expressing myself. Yet i could of choice limit myself to not express myself. Johnny, What you are saying indicating is that you belief in Moral Relativism. That is what matters at the end of the day. i.e. I think its right therefor, it is Right! You don't say something to someone because it is not Favorable to say it as opposed to not BEING RIGHT to say it. No particular Pernnial principle to uphold, just Relativism. freedom of speach is a MUST HAVE right in a civilised society I disagree because what it paves way to is unabated, unchecked, subject to change tomorrow,standards of speech, writing etc. It is dajjalic and demonic because FREEDOM of speech/expression says that the 'I' trumps ALL ELSE and that their is no UNIVERSAL LIMIT. Things are Relative and subject to change tomorrow as long as the collective HUBRIS aka the MOB gather around to REJECT IT. Hence, the LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC IDEAL and what Evolution preaches (NO START-NO END)

Originally posted by NGONGE: I’m not too bothered with the ideas of those that don’t share the same faith as me. Their attempts to offend or gain publicity by attacking my faith should not move me or (move) any other Muslim. It is, after all, our protests that made Rushdie a millionaire. And here too, if this newspaper was clever enough, it would have copyrighted the drawings and earned a handsome sum from selling it to the world media. It’s very likely that everyone (including indignant Muslims) will want to see the drawings that caused all of this! Who then, says ‘crime’ doesn’t pay? What’s really worth a discussion here is the actual reason for these drawings (or at least the ideas that this newspaper alleged were the reasons for the drawings). This takes us a full circle and brings us back to a topic we had here months ago. One’s right to offend! How far does it go and should it take priority over everything else? I say it should. Let the Danes insult our prophet. Be offended, get angry and curse them until you go blue in the face but do NOT demand that they be censored or insist on an apology. For as long as they are free to offend and insult, we too are free to offend and insult. As long as Danish journalists are able to write offensive articles about Islam (or any other faith), Muslim journalists, scholars and presidents (see the Iranian jewel) can also do the same. To complain about religious hatred and try to argue and dissect these points will only lead us to the dark alleyways of questioning our own faith, holy book and revelation. For if we don’t accept insults from the Jews and Christians, why are we reciting verses from our Holy Book that talk about how bad both groups are? Does not respect go both ways? You see, the question here would not be one about errors in the Koran because, as Muslims, we can’t question the validity and correctness of our Holy Book. The question then, is likely to be one to do with application. It’s either that we are applying those verses in the Koran wrongly when talking about Jews and Christians, or, we are applying them correctly. If we are applying them wrongly, we need to study this area and find out the correct way. If on the other hand, we were applying them correctly, then our sense of fairness and justice (and our logic) would dictate that we should expect, accept and take on board any insults and criticisms the Jews, infidels and Christians would direct our way. Any other reaction would be extremely, utterly and hypocritically obtuse. Just a point of contention here saxib, As muslims we should EXPECT, but NOT accept and NOT take on board any insults coming from ANYONE.

^^^ Modesty, The double standards apply on SOL too for RELIGION and the moderators are judge things 'subjectively' i.e. I feel, I think, Majority of nomads complained, Majority of nomads found that a Personal attack' etc.... Ngogne, As usual u are accusing a nomad of lacking 'comprhension' and 'lack of reading skills' ...that you, like many others here, can not READ. but if you would just control the verbal diarrhea saxib, maybe folks would understand what you are saying. In anycase, >>>>off to the next thread to continue the discussion inshallah!

All they need is some 'terrrorist scare and/or an incident' to take place in their backyard, and that Bill will get PASSED! Also, I think that TIMING might have had something to do with it. In anycase, LEGISLATING RELIGIOUS THOUGHT is where things are headed at. La qadra Allah, it could be that a friday khateeb can't read ayats or a hadith about adultery, fornication, qawuumo loot etc.

Castro, If someone writes 2pgs and in among those 2pgs, writes a line or two that you take offense two i.e. Castro talks too much but is a nice guy b/c once in a while he says something good. Would ^ that patch things up and make my comment towards you less of an insult, does it make it-ALRIGHT! Ngogne, a while ago I post an ayat about 'Xawa' that you took offense to. Well, now you have proven me that that ayat was befitting!!! Nomads, xaadhalda yaareya o fikriga badhiyaa. More reflection and thought and less spewing garabage to say the popular phrase of 'muslims are to blame muslims' and other self defeatest garbage. As for anyone drumming up the 'Freedom of speech' rhetoric-save your fingers! Their are [DOUBLE STANDARDS in Pluralistic Liberal societies and they are against RELIGION. But, creed/religion is still protected under most liberal democracies b/c they have to cater to their growing IMMIGRANT communities that are still largerly-CONSERVATIVE in thought and practice. So muslims, can use this to their own advantage. What these papers in EUROPE showed today, was to incite a CONFLICT of RIGHTS btwn LIBERAL IDEALS i.e. Freed of Expression v. Freedom of Religion and you know what inshallah this will back fire on them because it brings more NEGATIVE ATTENTION and EXPOSES the FACADE of SECULARISM PLUARLITY. The lines are drawing clearer and Alhamdulillah, no matter how many name changes a muslim undertakes,or how hard the beard is shaved or how far the hijab is throw, a MUSLIM is still a MUSLIM according to the rest of the world until u enter into interracial marriages and generations down the line, la qadra Allah, grandchildren don't look or have the remotes idea that their ancestory is MUSLIM. Johnny boy, You're still a Mohamed, a Abdul, a Farax etc. at the Airport line or when you get called for an interview. Remember dat alwayssss!

NGONGE said: I say it should. Let the Danes insult our prophet. Be offended, get angry and curse them until you go blue in the face but do NOT demand that they be censored or insist on an apology. No deletion of such comment. Double standards in the world for religion is also reflected on this site.

Why is this in the Camel debate section? Anyways, same old crap...young and single folks spewing liberal garbage....wait until u have a family then you will appreciate the traditional roles that each person plays. Ahura, Waan reeyonaasa! SB, if u ever get unemployed and are married and your wife brings in the bread and milk instead of you...then come and talk about finding a 'successful women attrative' after u get verbally abused and sent packing to your 'boy's' house...lol People with little life experience are always yapping liberal tunes....caajib! :rolleyes: Jawariya, If you want to SELF BOAST about MAKING IT as a cliche INDEPENDANT WOMEN, then u are in the wrong site.... Allah yah deekum!