Originally posted by Castro: ^ Bashir Goth is onto something here. An earnest plea to reason indeed. NGONGE would love reading this. I can’t really fault the man’s logic. It’s a powerful (though slightly on the long side) piece. I personally thought he was reasonable and controlled. His usual pieces are, almost always, hard on Muslims. There is also, usually, an attempt at a ‘fatwa’ or two (his Ramadan piece is a great example). Here however, he dealt with real problems with complete sense, solid logic and exceptional clarity. There was no attempt to ‘allow’ or ‘forbid’ anything. He started by praising reason and, fortunately enough for him, did not let himself down when it came to his own wisdom. A most enjoyable read.

^^^ Still as vague as ever. Now, I don’t disagree with a word you said there. But, how do you propose to apply it to our current situation? What are you suggesting that the angry Muslims that saw (or heard about) those filthy cartoons do? Are you preaching patience? What exactly is your proposal for TODAY? Remember that people are acting regardless of what you say. Many already believe they have repented and returned to Allah’s ways. Many more believe they’re using the Quran and Sunna as their reference points. What do your vague (in this context) words mean? I’ve given you the example of all those Islamic groups for a reason. They all believe they’re following the correct teachings of the holy book and the prophet’s sunna (yes, even the Shiia). How do your words differ from theirs? I know it might need a whole thread to clarify your words and position, but since you’re doing it for good reasons and intentions, I’m sure you’ll find the time and words to be through with your advice. Give it ago and don’t hold back, saaxib. Edit: Your second post as even more ambiguous than the first. It’s as if I’m asking you how to cook a nice meal and you’re providing me with a shopping list without any instructions of how to cook the wretched meal. Put your apron on and start cooking, brother. Lets see if what you recommend will be as tasty as you imply.

The timing of the release of this video could not have been any better (for Western media). Here we have a lowly British newspaper seeing the current volatile situation and the strained relations between Islam and the West, yet still going ahead and releasing such a controversial video. The irony of this situation of course, is that if a Western government ever wanted to gag and suppress a newspaper’s freedom of speech, this situation would have been it! I’m glad that the News Of The World did this. Long may it (and other news sources) continue to exercise its right to broadcast whatever it wants without fear of censorship or government interference. Indeed, on the Iraq issue at least, the main opposition and the one exposing the wrongs committed in that country has been the Western media (and a few soldiers that were motivated by a sense of moral righteousness, or money). As for the case of these soldiers, Castro, I beg to differ. To have such news coming on the back of the cartoon controversy is what will ensure that they receive their just rewards. They will be punished (just like the Abu Ghareeb animals were). Alas, it will not be anything as humiliating or equal to a good and through beating. PS Give the demonstrations a day or two.

Very well. However, that you agree with the bulk of what I say merely reinforces my deliberations and (to an extent) shows (me) that to toil on with argument after argument does bear fruit in the end. To say that it pleases me though is far of the mark. If it were one of ubahanne’s little games and righteous V evil battles, I’d (at this point) say that I’m, indeed, very pleased. This, as I hope all those reading know (and would extend me the courtesy of the doubt), has never been the case.

I just finished watching the game again. It was as exciting the second time as the first. Egypt fully deserved to win it. I still can’t work out why their goal was disallowed! Besides, the efforts of their captain alone (Number 17 - Ahmed Hassan) deserved to win that cup. The man was running non-stop for a 120 minutes. He managed to get on the nerves of the opposing team simply by playing great football. He missed the penalty during the game but had the courage to be the first player to step up and take a penalty when the shoot out came (in a game in his home country, with 80 thousand fans and the PRESIDENT in the stadium).

Nope. Can’t comprehend that one, saaxib. Care to clarify? PS I was not expecting a reply from that brother. There is NO reply.

I’m dying to accept your post above as a subtle joke, saaxib. Anything more than that and I’ll start to think you’ve become a hasty knee-jerk reactionary in your old age. :confused:

^^^^ Here we go again with that vague cry of ‘return to Islam’ and repent. I could never understand how that applies to current problems. In fact, I could never understand in what way should it apply. Do you mean that people should forget about it all and lock themselves up in the mosque? Do you mean that by not living for today, we should ignore all that happens in this world (dunya)? Do you mean that we should go and blow ourselves up? What do your words mean, my brother? Ah! Maybe you mean that we should follow the correct path. Which one is that might I ask you (if that is your suggestion of course)? The Salafi path? The Tableeghi one? Shall I become a Shiia? Who should I follow, saaxib? Give me certainty. Give me hope. Guide me to the correct group and convince me of their correctness, saaxib. Don’t patronise use with empty and vague words about returning to the correct path. For if we all knew what the correct path was, we would not be having these arguments. It’s always one of two replies to problems facing Muslims. It’s either kill, shoot and destroy or it’s ‘return to the faith’! The killing part never achieves any goals or is successful and the ‘return to the faith’ part is never clear enough. This deviation from the topic remands me that before we should worry about dialogue with the West, we Muslims need to worry about kick-starting a dialogue amongst ourselves and agreeing on one policy, one reference point and one Islamic mufti. As things stand, it’s a free for all. In such a case, regrettably, silence is the best course of action. Salaaam.

Is it not time to clean up the place and get rid of such riffraff as the poster above? What good do they bring to the site other than nonsense like the rubbish he wrote above? I’m tempted to rant again but it’s to no avail I bet.

Mr Omar is indeed an Arabic speaker. After graduating from university in the UK, he went to study the Arabic language in Jordan. As for the new news channel, it’s going to be opened not too far from I work (there is a chance that I might share an elevator with a few of the presenters - can imagine them trying to avoid me after a few ‘meetings’). As far as I know, the UK headquarters of the channel are not yet in place (they merely hired the space). Still, it’s good news and will push up the ceiling of News reporting in the West. It’s a great leap for the Islamic world when there is a worldwide news channel that finally pushes the Muslim agenda and opens the door of competition. Al Jazeera did wonders for the government controlled Arab media and it will hopefully do the same for the privately owned Western media (after all, it’s a business and all business need to keep up with the competition regardless of principles or ideology).

Originally posted by Castro: So a little patronizing gets you out of your comfortable posture, good NGONGE. And the last time I checked, muggers of old ladies are caught, tried and thrown in jail. Never have I seen a shame-a-mugger parade in my life. And I'm not patronizing you now. I can't bloody guarantee what Muslims will do and you know that. I should neither be held hostage to that and accept every bloody insult in the off chance a Muslim will blow something up in the future. You're energizing me again. If Westeners move en masse to Islamic countries (as we have to the west) they will then have to figure a way out of the issues they may face there. For now, that's not the case and the mess that is the Middle East is not what this is about. That (yet to be introduced) laws would or would not work is a matter for speculation, saaxib. Laws are tested by practice and precedence not speculation and guesswork. Where these laws exist today, they work just fine. Edited: NGONGE, saaxib, is it not ironic that those who were actually bombed (the U.S., U.K. and Spain) chose not to print these cartoons and pip-squeaks Denmark and Norway flaunted them with cries of free speech? Be careful not decend down the slippery argument the U.S., U.K. and Spain are exercising restraint for political, face saving, reasons as they have (very recently) invaded Muslim lands. I see that your not being patronising this time and I really wish you were. If it was hard to understand let me tell you that it’s not the mugger that I allude to here but the actual crime. I’m quite astonished that we’re actually having this little squabble over such a simple point. It is almost impossible to ban such acts (the insulting of one’s faith). Surely you posses enough common sense to know that whatever law you call for (and eventually manage to introduce) will not be far reaching enough to stop every upstart that wishes to insult Islam. In the same way that neither the Jews nor black people managed to stop extreme right groups from carrying on with their insults under the guise of free speech. What you can do (and please try to be serious here) is change attitudes and perceptions. Laws alone don’t do that and in the current climate (where everyone is crying about the restriction of their freedom of speech) such laws will only exasperate the problem. At the moment, and judging by the reactions of the majority of the West, what we as Muslims find offensive and insulting and our reactions to it is viewed as ill-tempered, jumped-up and self-absorbed. Those that don’t view it as such are merely being indifferent. Even those that sprang up to the ‘aid’ of Muslims and declared their opposition to these cartoons did nothing more than pay simple lip service! The demand for and introduction of laws, for anyone that’s being rational as they view this, will only result in more stubbornness and the strengthening of these prejudices and attitudes. As for saying that you should not be held hostage to the actions of others, well, you’re not being realistic here and are letting your irritation rule your head. You know full well that this is not how things work and that the minute any ‘terrorist’ action takes place the finger is immediately pointed at Muslims first (remember Oklahoma Timmy?). This is how the game is being played and that’s how it always worked. A simple law is NEVER going to shield you from this. The waffle about large numbers of Westerners moving to the Middle East is total and utter balderdash and we, neither of us, need waste our time on it. The comparison does not even make sense nor apply to the situation we have here. Again, on the issue of the laws, and with all due respect, you’re talking total twaddle, saaxib. Of course such laws should be open to speculation and guesswork. How else do you think they pass through parliaments and are made into law if no speculation and guesswork is applied and arguments made as to their suitability or not. What is wrong with you today, saaxib? You’re not being rational at all in these arguments of yours! Your last edit is even more bewildering than all the perplexing words that preceded it. To argue that the UK, Spain and US have not printed the words and use that as proof of some nonexistent case is to completely miss the point. Have you taken leave of your senses or are you really trying to imply that these governments get to view and approve the work of the independent media before ‘news’ is broadcast? Incidentally, the BBC did show some of the cartoons when it reported the news. I can’t understand your logic at all, saaxib. On the one hand, you’re demanding that laws protecting Muslim sensibilities be introduced (which implies your understanding and acceptance of democratic rules). Yet, in the same breath and on the other hand, you doggedly warn me from mentioning things like restraint and face saving, as if I’m talking about Burkina Faso or Zimbabwe and not these (as your demands for your laws confirm) DEMOCRACIES. The Daily Telegraph, Mail and Times might have been ardent supporters of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; however, they’re INDPENDENT news mediums and DO NOT make or decide the foreign policy of the country. I cringe in embarrassment at the need to state such an obvious point. Still, talking of the Iraq war. When it was about to take place, our rage was not as destructively evident or petulant as it is with this case. All those that opposed it did so peacefully. The war, of course, went ahead anyway. However, hundreds of thousands of non-Muslims came out in (peaceful) demonstrations to all shout “not in my nameâ€. Why have they not come out in support of Muslims today I wonder! For the love of the prophet, saaxib. Try, try, try to reflect on this matter dispassionately and allow the storm of your rage to subside.

Don’t patronise me, saaxib. You don’t have to tell me what Muslims view as sacrilege and what they don’t. I am fully aware of what is considered blasphemous and what is not. But we are not talking about ME. We are talking about Non-Muslims. Do you NOT understand that non-Muslims don’t care what is blasphemous to you and what is not? Your sarcastic reply about shaming rapists and murders is totally unbecoming, saaxib. Do I always have to WRITE IT WITH BIG LETTERS? Some people beat up and mug old ladies, but society at large does not. It’s a shameful act. It’s wrong. When people hear about it, they condemn it straight away and never try to rationalise it in any way. This is the kind of reaction you need to get from Westerners. To get that, you need to shame them into it, not force them by using laws. You’ll still have some numbskulls doing their best to provoke Muslims but those don’t really matter and should be ignored. Please, spare me the lecture about the meaning of sacrilege. “Current conditions†was a phrase you used in your earlier reply, saaxib. I was merely borrowing it to show the other side of the coin (the one where some Muslims do the bad things like killing, blowing things up and hijacking). I am grateful for your permission to allow me to spend some time expanding my points on that area. Sadly, that’s what I thought I was talking about all along. Can Muslims guarantee that some of their fellow Muslims will not blow up Western cities? Your “current conditions†are to do with the Middle East and the Islamic world; my “current conditions†are to do with the West. The laws you demand, you demand from the West. From where I’m sitting, and because of clear evidence (remember Rushdie?) shouting sacrilege, sacrilege is not going to work.

Heh. What a peculiar question! Still, since I’m in the mood to rant and preach on (not to mention ridicule) let me explain why Somaliland had no demonstrations. You see, the people (and government) of Somaliland are a people deeply aware of their strengths and failings. They realise and know that like all other Somalis, the majority of them have not been very respectful of the prophet (csw). They know that it would have been highly hypocritical and duplicitous to go out in mad demonstrations condemning the Danish, when right there, at home in Somaliland (and all other parts of Somalia) they tolerate (daily) the offensive utterances of their ignorant family members and neighbours. Even many of the Somali Mullahs, when faced with a prophet-insulting fellow Somali, would sadly shake their heads and say ‘la xawla wala qowata ila bi allah’! Their reasoning will be that such and such is ignorant and that they should just not bother with him/her. So, it looks like, unlike the others, the people of Somaliland have a bit of shame and know when some actions become highly hypocritical.

Heh. You didn’t have to go into that “geopolitical tirade†of yours, saaxib. My words (the ones you quoted) were not meant in the way you understood them. Read the paragraph in its entirety. The geopolitical aspects are besides the point in what (I thought) we were discussing there. I’ve tried to come at you from all directions to pin you down and get you to understand my position in this debate but you keep skipping and hopping all over the place, saaxib. Wont you stand still? Half of the things you assert here are a given, the hatred of Muslims, the geopolitical mumbo-jumbo and the Zionist conspiracies. It’s what we (as Muslims) have been droning about for the past fifty years. When I engage in a discussion such as this one with you (or anyone else) I make the basic assumption that we’re both aware of these issues and need not keep mentioning them at every turn. Still, since you choose to mention them and have this tirade, allow me to have a little rant of my own. You say that these cartoons did not come out of thin air! In your opinion, they’re the work of some sinister world conspiracy that is hell bent on undermining Islam. It’s a fair guess I suppose. But, such a guess requires a leap of faith on my part (and that of any that would believe in such things). I’ve already made one leap of faith in believing that a creator exists. I’m happy and comfortable with that decision. For everything else, I require solid proof or at least a very strong argument. I’m not sure if you believe that all the ‘terrorist’ attacks in the West, Iraq and all other parts of the world are the work of Muslims or if you, like many of our brothers, believe them to be the work of these Zionist plotters. If it were the former, would it not follow that such people (‘terrorists’) contributed to the creation of this highly charged atmosphere that eventually led to the printing of such cartoons? If it is the latter, why then, when they already RULE the world, do these people need to play such games and waste their time in undermining and plotting against Islam? Why don’t they just colonise Muslim lands without the need for all this fanfare and excuses? Why not wipe them out of the face of the Earth? I don’t want to speak for you here, but I suspect that your answer to my questions will have something to do with democracy and public opinion. The subject above (and my accompanying rant), though important and worth discussing on its own, was on the margins of what we’re talking about here. What we’re talking about here is your insistence that a law that gags the media from insulting Islam should be introduced. I’m trying to make you see that such a law (under current conditions) is unworkable. It’s unworkable because, like I already said, Islam today is a very loud faith. Offensive placards, controversial statements and angry words aside, how feasible do you think such a law will be if a bomb keeps going in a European capital every once in a while? What you’re asking for is akin to two infants that stick their tongues out at each other behind the teacher’s back. One complains and says “Teacher, teacher, Jan Molby is sticking his tongue out at me†yet when the teacher catches you retaliating and tells you off, you get upset! Can we guarantee that the ‘Islamic’ bombers, agitators, inciters and hate-spreaders will behave themselves? If we can’t and at the same time demand a law that will stop others from mocking us and making offensive words/cartoons against us, how do you expect such people to act? People need some sort of a release, surely! Their argument (and its one that, though is wrong, can still go the distance) is that they merely drew cartoons not killed or bombed people. Their collective cry is ‘can’t we even do that in our own lands?’ I don’t believe laws will work. I believe that instead of angry demonstrations and burning of buildings and property, we should have shamed Europe (and the West at large) into recognising the folly of some of its people. To angrily demonstrate puts people’s backs up and is of no ultimate benefit to us.

Here is another article: A Call for Respect, Calm Reflection By Recep Tayyip Erdogan & Jose L. Rodriguez Zapatero Arab News, February 9, 2006 With growing concern, we are witnessing the escalation in disturbing tensions provoked by the publication, in European newspapers, of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) that Muslims consider deeply offensive. We shall all be the losers if we fail to immediately defuse this situation, which can only leave a trail of mistrust and misunderstanding between both sides in its wake. Therefore, it is necessary to make an appeal for respect and calm, and let the voice of reason be heard. Last year, when the heads of government of Turkey and Spain presided over the launching of work on the Alliance of Civilizations Project, we did so based en a firm belief: That we needed initiatives and instruments to stop the spiral of haired and obfuscation that, in itself, constitutes a threat to international peace and security. The unfortunate events that we are seeing now only reaffirm our diagnosis and our commitment to seek even more support for this cause. Historically, Spain and Turkey have been at crossroads between East and West. Therefore, we are very aware that the way in which close contact between different cultures is handled can be enormously enriching, but it can also set off destructive contentions. In a globalized world, in which the relationships and exchanges among different civilizations continue to multiply, and in which a local incident may have worldwide repercussions, it is vital that we cultivate the values of respect, tolerance and peaceful coexistence. Freedom of expression is one of the cornerstones of our democratic systems and we shall never relinquish it. But there are no rights without responsibility and respect for different sensibilities. The publication of these caricatures may be perfectly legal, but it is not indifferent and thus ought to be rejected from a moral and political standpoint. In the end, all of this lends itself to misunderstandings and misrepresentations of cultural differences that are perfectly in harmony with our commonly shared values. Ignoring this fact usually paves the way for mistrust, alienation and anger, all of which may result in undesirable consequences that we all have to work hard to avoid. The only way for us to build a more just international system is through maximum respect for the beliefs of both sides. We are fully committed to observing the norms of international law and to the defense of the international organizations that embody it. But neither laws nor institutions are enough to ensure peace in the world. We need to cultivate peaceful coexistence, which is only possible when there is interest in understanding the other side’s point of view, and respect for that which it holds most sacred. These are the basic premises and main goals of the Alliance of Civilizations promoted by Spain and Turkey. — Recep Tayyip Erdogan is prime minister of the Republic of Turkey and Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero is prime minister of Spain. Source

Calm down boys. I’ve been a little busy and was almost inactive myself. I’m back and have just approved a player name change application and a new team manager. However, two of the people in the league were appointed (way back at the start) as assistants and do have the ability to approve name changes and manager changes (I think). One of them is the Mr Winning Eleven. Heh. Anyway, I’m not sure which are the teams that need to be blocked or inactivated. I need names, boys. PS When I work hard I end up in mid table and when I miss a couple of games I still remain in mid table. I am, indeed, the Aston Villa of this league. PPS Northerner. ROBBIE FOWLER is back. I think Liverpool gave him this new contract on the strength of his efforts against United when he scored for city. He, of course, if you had not heard the news, after scoring his goal, ran across (ala Gary Neville) to the United fans and waved five fingers (five European trophies) at them. A week later, Liverpool parade him round as their latest signing.

That’s the point about the law, saaxib. All laws can be circumvented. Clear and Unambiguous laws don’t have loopholes. The law you’re asking for has one huge and gaping loophole before it’s even been introduced. Why else do you think I started by saying lets use the law and changed my mind as I gradually thought things over? You’re almost there. Don’t rest on your laurels just yet. Keep thinking about it. You insist that Islam is under siege. That there are people out there whose main aim is to undermine Islam. That those that drew the cartoons were not some random and accidental people. Yet, you want to call for laws that will limit their ability to do these things and will eventually, as I believe (and you just confirmed) be turned against you. Who stands to lose the most here? You or some non-believer that drew a cartoon to provoke? Limiting his ability to offend in that way will not stop him from finding another way to offend. But what about you when he hoist you by your own petard? Surely you can’t be certain of something that much yet still walk right into it! What sort of madness is that?

Originally posted by Castro: ^ The tables may turn on NGONGE and he may find himself seeing the light. Saaxib, Islam and Muslims are under siege. I'm not one for conspiracy theories but given the abundant evidence of military, political and economical pressure that exists on Muslims, I'd say the laws will be ignored, bent or broken by those who have a vested interest in making Islam and Muslims look violent, and therefore, deserve a violent military response. Freedom of speech is but a ruse nowadays. Depending on whether one agrees with that speech has much influence on how free that speech should be. Would you like to discuss what made Muslims look so medieval in their response to this 'global crisis'? Let's go to the Reform topic over yonder. This horse is in rigor mortis at the moment. You finally came round to my way of thinking. So, now you agree that the laws you demand will be useless? Ok, your reasons for agreeing are different but at least you finally accepted that such is the case. If so, what was all that drama in the last few days about, saaxib? Why put me through all this when you would eventually relent and state, quite resentfully, that Muslims are under siege and that any new laws will be bent or broken anyway? I'd say the laws will be ignored, bent or broken by those who have a vested interest in making Islam and Muslims look violent, and therefore, deserve a violent military response Have you thought these words of yours through? Do they make sense to you at all? How could you even ask me to discuss what made Muslims look medieval in this crisis after you‘ve penned those words , saaxib? :confused: I appreciate that some of the contributions of the lesser rational Nomads might disrupt one’s thought processes and even sway one’s emotions. I also realise the sheer pressure one faces when one goes against the grain; however, one should not be a feather that flies in every direction the wind blows. You need to give this discussion its due respect and choose some sort of position (or at least explain the reasons that made you switch from one extreme to the other). One minute you demand laws that protect religious folks from such insults and the next you talk about such insults deserving violent military responses! On the point of reform. I avoided that topic on purpose, saaxib. It’s new and offers nothing that I have not discussed on previous threads. Besides, it has the usual suspects in it. When they can’t deal with your clear as daylight arguments, they resort to pointless digs about sophistry and what not. For me, none of this is an opportunity to show how well I write or how great I argue, I do it because these are issues that irk me and I would like to gain a better understanding of them and view them from different perspectives. To then go into topics that I already know will get me nowhere is frankly, a waste of my time and theirs. There are angry kids here that will resort to violence and rage whenever they’re faced with a problem. These are the online equivalent of the real life kids that sport their underwear on top of their trousers and shout “I am supermanâ€. With both (online or real life) a gentle pat on the head is all they get from me, not a serious discussion. Incidentally, the original argument about the cartoons and the non-believer’s ability to insult Muslims and Islam still remains unchallenged, unanswered and uncontested. What next?

Castro, You’re mixing your oil and water here, saaxib. I’ll admit my ignorance of North American laws; however, I still doubt that those laws can stand in the face of what I’m saying here. I understand the difference between the two freedoms you mention but I’m arguing that those two freedoms can and do often overlap. This is why I went through the painstaking process of explaining how the other faiths work, separation of church and state, and the assertion that Islam is a political faith (as in way of life, etc). Now, you say that that there is a distinct difference between the two freedoms (i.e. freedom to practise one’s faith and the freedom of speech/expression). I don’t at all disagree with that. Alas, many of our fellow Muslims often hop and skip between the two. To hammer my point home, let me give you the example of Hezb-Et-Tahrir. Theirs is a political movement, yet it’s based on faith. Their main argument and goal is to turn the entire Western world into a Muslim world. Another example is Abu Hamza Al Masri (he was sentenced to seven years in prison yesterday). He too was spreading a political Islamic message (and it eventually put him in jail). Bin Laden and his followers are also political in their aims. There are other various groups with similar messages and goals. That I disagree with all the aggressive groups is not the point here. The point is that these groups, in the West, often politicise Islam and bring their message out of the mosque (note, I’m not calling it the message of Islam here). Once it’s out in the open terrain of politics it ceases from being a message of faith and becomes one of expression. When I mentioned the hadeeth about the Jews, it was put forward in that context and not in what is being preached in mosques. You’re saying these positions and aggressive postures are protected by laws that protect faith. I’m saying that once they’re out in the open and are used to support (all sorts of) Islamic actions it becomes an issue of expression and can be tackled by the state. You say: A Khutba in a mosque is protected by freedom of religion. It is a message to the faithful of that religion and is not a public statement to everyone in that city, country or the world. For you to confuse that with the cartoons is beyond me I’ve already replied to that in my earlier post when I said: Almost every Friday, the Imams of mosques all over the world will talk about the plight of the Muslims and how desperate our situation is. They’ll, almost inevitably, talk about the wicked Jews, dreadful Christians and ghastly non-believers. You have to understand here that I’m not mentioning this to criticise these Imams (that argument we leave for another discussion), what I’m trying to point out is that all these assertions are offensive to Jews, Christians and non-believers. Again, if this were confined to mosques, it would not have mattered to the points I’m trying to make. However, it’s not! These exact points are later on peddled by ordinary Muslims and declared loudly by all and sundry We live in highly charged times and the boundaries between faith and politics are not as clean cut as you’re trying to paint them. At the moment, the freedom to practise one’s faith is granted and enshrined in civil and human rights laws. However, with the constant clash between faith and state, I don‘t think it‘s a far fetched idea to suggest that, sooner or later, and depending on our actions, laws will be changed to curb these freedoms. Here I’m talking mainly about Islam, though the Christian church and its refusal to acknowledge homosexuality will also contribute to the change. I’ll flog that dead horse one final time and invite you to read the charges levelled against Abu Hamza and see if by sentencing him to seven months in prison, the law courts have breached his freedom to practise his faith (remember, he was not the only one ‘inciting racial hatred’). This is what the judge in the case said about him: Passing sentence at the Old Bailey, Mr Justice Hughes told Abu Hamza: "I do not make the mistake that you represent Islamic thinking generally. "You are entitled to your views and in this country you are entitled to express them, but only up to the point where you incite murder or use language calculated to incite racial hatred. That is what you did." Source - Better read it in full

Here, check the following article. He insists on his right to offend. So they have thin skins. That shouldn’t stop us poking fun at themMATTHEW PARRIS WRITING yesterday of the decision by this newspaper and others not to publish those now-infamous cartoons poking fun at Islam, my colleague Ben Macintyre suggested that “this is not a matter of kowtowing to pressureâ€. With respect, I think it is. Publishing the cartoons a few weeks ago, before the drawings had achieved notoriety, would have been defensible, he argues, but to do so now in the midst of all the fuss, would not. With respect, I disagree. In fact giving publicity to a few offensive but rather weak cartoons showed doubtful judgment while they were unknown; but publishing them now they are the centre of a huge storm is more defensible. Many readers will be curious to see the cause of the storm. How else can we judge? A little candour is called for here. Those protesting against publication are not really doing so because they themselves do not wish to see these pictures. They do not want you or me to see them either. They do not want anyone to see them. They do not want them to exist. Devising a means by which access to the images will be granted only to those who positively seek it is unlikely to satisfy the objectors, and nor should it: their religion has instructed them to keep God’s world unpolluted by such pictures and the sentiment and opinion that accompany them. This they believe to be their God’s demand. I’m afraid we really do have to decide whether the demand is reasonable. I do not think it is. I am not a Muslim. Nor am I a Christian or a Jew or a Hindu. Now it’s very easy to murmur “I am not a Muslim/Christian/Jew/Hindu†as though not being something was terribly inoffensive — a sin, at worst, of omission; a way of avoiding an argument — the suggestion, perhaps, that “your†religion may be “true for you†but, as for me, I’ll sit this one out. But let us not duck what that “I do not believe†really means. It means I do not believe that there is one God, Allah, or that Muhammad is His Prophet. It means I do not believe that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, or that no man cometh to the Father except by Him. I do not believe that the Jews are God’s Chosen People, or subject to any duties different from the rest of us. It means I do not believe any living creature will be reincarnated in another life. In my opinion these views are profoundly mistaken, and those who subscribe to them are under a serious misapprehension on a most important matter. Not only are their views not true for me: they are not true for them. They are not true for anyone. They are wrong. Cutting through the babble of well-meaning souls who like to speak of the “community†of belief among “people of faithâ€, this must also be what the Muslim is saying to the Christian, Jew or Hindu; or what the Christian must be saying to the Jew, Hindu or Muslim. These faiths make demands and assert truths that are not compatible with the demands and truths of other faiths. To assert one must be to deny the others. Nor is it possible to reply, as some nice Anglicans try to, that “my faith does not exclude yoursâ€. But if other faiths do exclude their Anglicanism, then those Anglicans must exclude those faiths because they must regard it as wrong of them exclude them. There is no faith-based equivalent to the “different strokes for different folks†maxim, unless other folks subscribe to it too. They do not. I have dealt with the logic of the position. People of faith and people of none cannot escape attaching themselves to claims that are inherently offensive — and at the deepest level — to other people. But offence implicitly offered, and offence actually taken, are two different matters. On the whole Christians, for example, take offence less readily than Muslims. The case for treating them, in consequence, differently is obvious, but we should be wary of it. It means groups are allowed to be as thin-skinned as they wish: to dictate for themselves how delicately we must tread with them — to create, as it were, their own definition of respect and require us to observe it. Those who do this may not always realise that that they create serious buried resentments among those of fellow-citizens who are more broad-shouldered about the trading of insult. Muslims are not alone in this. I really hate the way some Israelis and their apologists become angry and rude whenever the state of Israel is criticised; the interviewees who jump down their interviewer’s throat the moment they dislike a line of questioning about Palestine; the readers who write — themselves offensively — to allege anti-Semitism when none was felt or intended, or bark at you if you talk about their “wall†rather than “fenceâ€. There is no doubting the result of this habit: we journalists are forever deleting a line here or a thought there because of the barrage of complaint we know would otherwise come from the Israel lobby. But does that lobby realise how much unvoiced hostility towards their cause this fans? Many Turks react with similar aggression when the massacre of Armenians is mentioned. One takes care not to say “genocide†not because it wasn’t a genocide but because one cannot bear the prospect of all the furious letters from Turkish sympathisers. The Greek Cypriot lobby are equally explosive in their sensitivities. Having shot at, murdered and bombed the British when we were on the island, then oppressed the Turkish Cypriots, they begin the most almighty wail if anyone shows the least sympathy for the Turkish Cypriot cause, let alone says “Turkish coffee†instead of “Greek coffeeâ€. I nearly threw my moussaka at a restaurateur the other day as he lectured me on how Britain had “abandoned†his island. I was quietly recalling the 1950s, as my mother worried every day my late father walked into work in Nicosia, fearful he would be shot by Eoka terrorists. I am not happy that we should allow any group to define the terms on which we deal with their issues, however genuinely or deeply felt. They for their part should not suppose that the self-censorship they induce in the rest of Britain does them any favours in the end. It does not make us sympathetic, only wary of complaint. Nevertheless, a conclusion some draw is that for the sake of a quiet life we might as well refrain from voicing criticisms we may feel towards any supersensitive group or cause, because our private thoughts, our private arguments, and those of our readers, remain our own, and uncensored. Others draw the conclusion that we should at least avoid gratuitous insults — the “damn your God†as opposed to the “I doubt His existence †expressions — because they hurt real, decent people. I think this latter form of polite restraint is what Ben Macintyre was proposing. The approach is tempting. It avoids hurt. But it overlooks, in the evolution of belief, the key role played by mockery. Many faiths and ideologies achieve and maintain their predominance partly through fear. They, of course, would call it “respectâ€. But whatever you call it, it intimidates. The reverence, the awe — even the dread — that their gods, their KGB or their priesthoods demand and inspire among the laity are vital to the authority they wield. Against reverence and awe the best argument is sometimes not logic, but mockery. Structures of oppression that may not be susceptible to rational debate may in the end yield to derision. When people see that a priest, rabbi, imam or uniformed official may be giggled at without lightning striking the impertinent, arguments may be won on a deeper level than logic. We should never, therefore, relinquish, nor lightly value, our right not to argue in the face of other people’s gods — but to fart. Source

^^ Forgive? War I demand that you take your time. No one-liners please. :mad:

Castro Saaxib, as long as you’re questioning what seems to you like inconsistency, ambiguity or contradictions your comprehension problems (never said that any of us were perfect) are positive ones and one can’t criticise you for it. This, you see, is how rational discussions are conducted. I have no reason to take any of what you asked as an attack nor do I find it frustrating (as I usually do with the usual nonsense I get from people that don’t understand nor have the desire to understand). The example I gave of the Jews was used to illustrate how they would go about dealing with similar problems. It was not put forward as the exact way we should behave. The difference between Islam and other faiths (at present) is that Islam is a loud, public and very open faith. I shall take you on a little roundabout trip here but hope that you have the patience to follow me along and watch as the tiny little lights of truth (and reality) illuminate your way. Everyone in the world has heard about Judaism and knows that it is a divine faith. However, not many know or understand how that faith works. You don’t often see Jewish missionaries in your local mall or city centre. You don’t come across them on TV or radio shows. Even if you live in a predominantly Jewish neighbourhood, you’re unlikely to know much about them (unless, you seek them out and choose to learn and ask). I’m not attempting to imply that Judaism is a secretive faith (with all the accompanying connotations of conspiracy and what not). What I’m saying is that it is not a faith that actively seeks to convert new followers or put itself - politics aside - on display (as far as I’m aware, and I stand to be corrected of course). In fact, I can’t think of any people that complain about the daily rituals of the Jewish faith other than the Palestinians (and they of course do so because they’re exposed to it on a daily basis). The Jews of Europe, therefore, can easily work towards changing laws and attitudes (as they’ve done throughout the years) safe in the knowledge that it will not backfire on them through a fault or action of their own loud sermons (politics aside again). Next, let us move to the Christians! I’ll beg your pardon if I bulldoze through this part of my reply and group Christians into one cluster. Out of this cluster, I shall only concern myself with the evangelists and those on the Christian right (for the purpose of our discussion, you see, the Vatican is hardly ever controversial - abortion aside). Now, those on the Christian right are indeed loud and often controversial. However, the majority of them are on the fringes of Western society. I’ll of course concede here that there is a group of them that is at the heart of that society and, arguably, runs the show (i.e. Bush and co). Nonetheless, whichever group you choose to examine, you’ll find that, for the most part, they concern themselves with what can be termed as inner issues of their faith and do not (often) bother with other faiths. The game being played here is the separation of the state and church. Any action taken against other faiths is the responsibility, fault and problem of the state and not the church. Any controversial pronouncements are made (mostly) by the state. The church distances itself from controversy (regardless of its views) and assumes a peaceful posture. Because of this, Christians (apart from very extreme groups) do not require any laws protecting them, and if they do receive any laws, are unlikely to do anything that would rebound on them (i.e. utter any declarations that would breach those laws). Now, we reach the home straight and come to the reason for all that build up (I hope you’re still with me). Islam (today) works differently. There is no separation between church and state (though this is not the argument I’m forwarding of course). With us, faith is politics and politics is faith. We make all our decisions (on almost any issue) after consulting our divinely revealed constitution and not the American, French or British ones. However, the two often clash. See homosexuality laws; hate laws and a dozen other western laws that our Islamic laws conflict with! Luckily, the freedom of expression allows us to utter all we want and make whatever offensive (in the eyes of others) statements we want to present without the fear of prosecution or imprisonment. Almost every Friday, the Imams of mosques all over the world will talk about the plight of the Muslims and how desperate our situation is. They’ll, almost inevitably, talk about the wicked Jews, dreadful Christians and ghastly non-believers. You have to understand here that I’m not mentioning this to criticise these Imams (that argument we leave for another discussion), what I’m trying to point out is that all these assertions are offensive to Jews, Christians and non-believers. Again, if this were confined to mosques, it would not have mattered to the points I’m trying to make. However, it’s not! These exact points are later on peddled by ordinary Muslims and declared loudly by all and sundry. Islam today is a very loud and aggressive faith. Has it always been the case? Again, perhaps that’s an argument for another time. However, because it is so today, we can’t possibly ask for laws that protect us from offence and insult when we can’t guarantee that our own words will not be offensive and insulting to others. If I ask you to drop the Hijab or pray only twice a day, or even, not loudly voice the controversial (to western ears) parts of the Quran, you would vehemently refuse and say (rightfully so) that you, as a human, are in no position to revise the creator’s commands! You would, ironically enough, accuse me of trying to limit your freedom of expression (faith). You (using Western standards) will of course be correct in your accusation (others will accuse me of much more, but that’s because they probably can’t read and actually believe this is what I’m calling for here). The Christians (and others) on the other hand can and do (often) revise their faith! Because we’re in this quandary, we can’t conceivably ask for laws that limit the freedom of speech of others. Again, the point is: if you follow God’s laws and choose to put them above those of man, don’t try to force man to change his laws to fit in with yours, or, eventually, man will (and can) install laws that force you to abandons god’s laws! The French ban on Hijab is a perfect example of that. Remember what was our collective cry when that was introduced, saaxib? That’s right, it was “they’re trying to limit our freedom of expressionâ€! On your point regarding the Freedom of Speech, you assert that this is not how the world works. You are absolutely correct in that contention. However, you’re WRONG in the way you reached your conclusion there. First of all, you need to play the game of semantics and focus on the meaning of FREEDOM. What does it mean and how does it work? Are there clear boundaries to the freedom of speech? Under whose law? I don’t think there is any point in going over old ground here. I shall not rehash old arguments or give new examples. Instead, I’ll invite you to read my previous examples on the American civil rights and the Jews. Those examples prove and show that, in the western world (at least), the idea of the freedom of speech is one of absolute freedom unless (and until) the laws say otherwise. Yes, if there is no law (or admin) to punish me, I am free to call you all the names under the sun. This freedom is legitimate and unconditional but is only regulated by traditions, responsibility, common sense and wisdom. All of these (and in the absence of a clear law) are left to the discretions of the offender. There is also extra elements that rein in the freedom of speech. That’s the threat of force or the loss of benefit (both would go under the heading common sense I suppose). An example of that would be the boycotting of Danish products (if it were really a long term or at least medium term act that is). In other words, if the Danish paper promises NEVER to print such cartoons again then this limit on its freedom of speech has succeeded (however, as you know, the paper has not yet made such a promise). What I’m trying to tell you is that unless your fist meets my face, your lawsuit imprisons me or your retaliation is likely to hurt me, I am free to offend you in any way I like. In the case we have here, none of these options apply. Besides, if the violent option was chosen, your violent overreaction would be far worse than my mere offensive words. PS I have a feeling that you’re not convinced. I would really love to hear your view (and that of others) on the legitimate limits on the freedom of speech (expression).

Talking of new people, and at the risk of igniting a new storm, I’d like to attract the Admin’s attention to the imaginative name of our latest member. As I logged into the site to see and take part in the latest paltry arguments, I was assaulted by the powerful rays of our fellow alien’s creative nickname. It leaves me in no doubt as to the abilities of this latest addition to this little farm house of ours and I hereby send a plea to the administrators of the site to extend a helping hand (dhirbaaxo) to this ingenious creature. One can’t help but chuckle at the folly and vulgarity of youth. PS Just in case you’re unsure of whom I speak, I humbly invite you to check the front page of the site and view the great spectacle that is our newest nomad’s name. PPS It’s quite fortunate that a cool head such as mine is what spotted this disturbance in the force first. One can not imagine the ensuing carnage had one of our hot headed Nomads noticed it first.

The BBC is reporting that "In Somalia, a 14-year-old boy was shot dead and several others were injured after protesters attacked the police". Are they sure this has something to do with the same protests?

Full story in boring detail can be found here: READ IT ALL