Congratulations, Mullahs - #KillAllMuslims is now trending worldwide

[ayesha.a]

Don't you see the irony of your defence? First of all those movies were made by Christians themselves,

Umm...no. Other that exhorcist, all the other movies I mentioned were made by atheists. Comedians like Bill Maher or George Carlin, groups like Monty Python are all very anti christian.

BTW, would it be OK for you if muslims themselves made such movies about islam or the prophet? Would you shoot only non muslims for that offence, not muslims?

As I said earlier, who are you to decide and determine the choice of weapons that each side must choose? 1 side chose a pen and the other chose an AK-47.

Who am I to choose whether people should pick up rifles and shoot journalists? Hmm, let me think. I'm a member of the civil society, that's who I am. And most societies, if not all, have outlawed murder. If that hadn't been the case, you could be murdered tomorrow for sayin 'La ilaha illalaah', because that could be considered blasphemous by other religions. Do hindus have a right to shoot you dead for denying their gods?

, secondly Christianity has matured over the decades above and beyond many religions and it too has seen its share of blood, probably more so then any other religion.

That's the point. Christianity and other religions have matured. Islam hasn't - at least, many muslims haven't. Glad you agree that it is a sign of maturity that cartoons are respnded with cartoons and jokes with jokes, not with swords or rifles.

 

[Red Spinifex]

Hahah personal attacks now, Boy? My goodness you really are from a comic book. My English is perfectly fine, you posted an image to incite a reaction and that failed miserably, now attempting to call me boy and insult me by means of saying my English is not upto task will not suffice.

I can converse in six different languages, one of which happens to be your native tongue, so please spare me the glare down, I have seen it all before from people far more important than you, and needless to say I am not impressed.

Now coming back to the subject at hand, do you have anything else to add apart from insults and poorly worded retort?

Such arrogance, conceit, and self-importance are unimpressive. Clearly Islam is not a religion that encourages modesty.

 

[ayesha.a]

Besides, when you wield all the power, all the might, you may develop more patience and forgiveness. Today, Christians have all the might in the world and they have also developed religious restraint.

Actually Christianity wielded a lot more power in the dark ages, before separation of church and state.

P.S. There are literal examples of Christians running amok with weapons to 'defend' Christianity, history is full of it.

History is. But current affairs are not. Christianity underwent several reformations, and the christian world had an enightenment. Islam did not, at least not in the same sense. That is why Christians don't go around committing terrorism and mass murder for the sake of religion, but muslims do. That is why religious extremists are still causing civil war in places like Pakistan, but not in places like USA or Britain.

Agreed. However, why should we? Is not fun meant to make everyone laugh and enjoy? What is funny about something that is extremely offensive to 1.5 Billion humans? Why should it be allowed when the mere utterance of the word 'holocaust' with disrespect draws all kinds of attacks?

I have already stated on this thread that the anti holocaust-denial law should not exist. But bear in mind that making fun of Jews or the holocaust is not a crime - denying the historic event of the holocaust is. When the Danish newspaper published cartoons of Muhammad, the govt of Iran invited a contest to draw cartoons of the holocaust. Many such cartoons were drawn, making fun of the holocaust. But jews did not go burning embassies or raping nuns across the world. And if I remember correctly, even the same newspaper that originally published the Muhammed cartoons, also published the holocaust ones.

And BTW, sometimes jokes are funny precisely because they are offensive, or vice versa. Humour is a very important tool to make people question their beliefs, which is why many religions have strict laws against humour about sacred beliefs. No religion wants to see its hold over its followers weakened.

 

[RescueRanger]

Must admit getting bored of this now.

 

[Mav3rick]

Umm...no. Other that exhorcist, all the other movies I mentioned were made by atheists. Comedians like Bill Maher or George Carlin, groups like Monty Python are all very anti christian.

BTW, would it be OK for you if muslims themselves made such movies about islam or the prophet? Would you shoot only non muslims for that offence, not muslims?

Athiests, or not they, were all born to Christian parents, in Christian families.

Furthermore, I would not shoot anyone for the offence, neither would I support such reaction or label the act terrorism.......I had already told you that my personal attitude would be of indifference to all this matter.

I guess the reaction for Muslims would be just as severe because while these ******** were printing the cartoons out of spite, the Muslim would be well aware of the consequences and would be responsible just as the cartoonist were to their actions and the reaction that their action invited.

Who am I to choose whether people should pick up rifles and shoot journalists? Hmm, let me think. I'm a member of the civil society, that's who I am. And most societies, if not all, have outlawed murder. If that hadn't been the case, you could be murdered tomorrow for sayin 'La ilaha illalaah', because that could be considered blasphemous by other religions. Do hindus have a right to shoot you dead for denying their gods?

Then you failed as a part of the civil society when you decided not to voice opposition to attempts made by some pigs to ridicule Islam. I mean when you fail, collectively as a society, and individually, to protect the rights and liberties of 1.5 Billion humans on earth then you have failed to be the judge on their reaction or self defence, whatever means they may choose.

Most societies have outlawed murder, you say, but have not the same societies taken acute steps to ensure freedom of speech while at the same time condoning discussions or suspicions on some topics such as the holocaust is taboo? Why the different scales???

A Hindu would have a valid grievance against me if I deny him the right to free will or free action, but should I not have the same valid grievance when I am denied the same or humiliated?????

That's the point. Christianity and other religions have matured. Islam hasn't - at least, many muslims haven't. Glad you agree that it is a sign of maturity that cartoons are respnded with cartoons and jokes with jokes, not with swords or rifles.

That is 'a' point of view, it is not 'the' point of view. If by maturity you mean that the west has liberalised over the centuries on everything from common everyday dress to extended relations, politics and business, I agree with you. But when you consider how Christianity has 'evolved' to a somewhat different religion while Judaism has remained more or less the same, then you may wonder whether a Godly religion requires 'maturity' and human induced revisions.......the apparent answer is 'NO. Which then proves that the religion was mature the day it was completed. It's interpretations, explanations and understandings may vary and therein lies the points of contention. Maybe by my theory of maturity it means united and singular understanding and interpretation.

Actually Christianity wielded a lot more power in the dark ages, before separation of church and state.

It did, no doubt. However, my POV and point of debate is the authority and military might of 1 religion holders over others.

History is. But current affairs are not. Christianity underwent several reformations, and the christian world had an enightenment. Islam did not, at least not in the same sense. That is why Christians don't go around committing terrorism and mass murder for the sake of religion, but muslims do. That is why religious extremists are still causing civil war in places like Pakistan, but not in places like USA or Britain.

On the contrary, Christians go around mass murdering innocents, its just that their acts are a lot more scientific, hi-tech and beyond your immediate circle of news for their total control of press and information flow. The US alone is responsible for several million deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan alone, by her direct action, over the decade. While her direct and indirect acts and policies have further punished several hundred million people. My question to you is, how are you so sure that it is all not for religion? Is it just because apparently, the indicators are off religion? Ever thought that that may be precisely what they want you to think? Because look at it, all the wars are evidently being fought against 1 religion and in select regions and all of them are unjustified!

I have already stated on this thread that the anti holocaust-denial law should not exist. But bear in mind that making fun of Jews or the holocaust is not a crime - denying the historic event of the holocaust is. When the Danish newspaper published cartoons of Muhammad, the govt of Iran invited a contest to draw cartoons of the holocaust. Many such cartoons were drawn, making fun of the holocaust. But jews did not go burning embassies or raping nuns across the world. And if I remember correctly, even the same newspaper that originally published the Muhammed cartoons, also published the holocaust ones.

So now we are all kids, small little kids. That one kid drew a cartoon, the other must match it as that is the only tit-for-tat response that is acceptable to us. Why were the cartoon drawn in the first place, what purpose were they serving other then to hurt the sentiments of so many Muslims? What was the agenda behind it? Why were they not banned by the Dutch, does freedom of speech extend to hurting or humiliating the faith of 1.5 Billion Muslims???

And BTW, sometimes jokes are funny precisely because they are offensive, or vice versa. Humour is a very important tool to make people question their beliefs, which is why many religions have strict laws against humour about sacred beliefs. No religion wants to see its hold over its followers weakened.

Why not ban religion altogether then and we all just joke around and **** around? Why deny ourselves all the pleasures of this world. Can you justify that to the almost 6 Billion strong population of the world that follows religion? And my friend, there is a massive difference b/w a joke and ridicule.

P.S. I just read on wiki that there are over 1.8 Billion Muslims and not 1.5 Billion as I had been posting since yesterday.

 

[Pakistani E]

So there are no churches and no Mandirs in Pakistan? all is a lie?

So the mere presence of churches and Mandirs means that there is total freedom of religion? Is that your definition of freedom of religion?

 

[ayesha.a]

I guess the reaction for Muslims would be just as severe because while these ******** were printing the cartoons out of spite, the Muslim would be well aware of the consequences and would be responsible just as the cartoonist were to their actions and the reaction that their action invited.

In that case, your point about the comedians and filmmakers being christians or born to christian parents is irrelevant.

Then you failed as a part of the civil society when you decided not to voice opposition to attempts made by some pigs to ridicule Islam. I mean when you fail, collectively as a society, and individually, to protect the rights and liberties of 1.5 Billion humans on earth then you have failed to be the judge on their reaction or self defence, whatever means they may choose.

Are you sure what self defence means? These people's lives or body were not under threat. This was not an act of self defence - far from it. If one of those journalists was armed, and shot back, that would be self defence. These terrorists were attacking, not defending.

BTW, if you don't like the cartoons, you can decide not to buy the magazine. It's not like they came to your house and thrust it in your face - which would be a punishable offence. If they don't hold your beliefs as sacred, they have every right to ridicule them - in France, that's a fundamental right. In fact, in the 60s, there was much worse lampooning of christianity and the catholic church. This is the country that gave birth to the idea of liberty, and this is the generation that inherited the anti-authoritarianism of the 60s that nearly led to another revolution.

Most societies have outlawed murder, you say, but have not the same societies taken acute steps to ensure freedom of speech while at the same time condoning discussions or suspicions on some topics such as the holocaust is taboo? Why the different scales???

I have already answered this more than once. For one thing, holocaust denial is the crime, not making fun of the holocaust or judaism or its prophets. You can write and draw anything about Abraham or Moses in all these countries. I agree that the anti-holocaust denial law should not exist either, but the rationale for that law is not protecting religious sentiments - it is protecting real people alive today. Holocaust denial and Nazi theories might incite the same violence against living jews that used to happen just a few decades back. Slander of living people is also a crime in all these places, but slandering a prophet or god is not. They don't need legal or social protection - but living people do.

A Hindu would have a valid grievance against me if I deny him the right to free will or free action, but should I not have the same valid grievance when I am denied the same or humiliated?????

Think about it for a moment, and you will realize that you are agreeing with me. Anybody who denies you or any muslim their right to free will and expression should be punished by law. If anybody prevented you from praying to your god or practising your religion, the law will punish them and uphold your rights. But they too have a right to free expression, which is all that these journos did - they did not deny any muslim the right to worship. If you are personally humiliated in a way that causes tangible loss to you, you can sue them for libel/slander/defamation as the case may be. But religious figures and gods are not covered under that law in France or most of Europe or the west. State laws exist to protect citizens, not gods. A hindu can insult a Christian or jewish prophet or god, and vice versa. The French, as I mentioned before, have ridiculed christian beliefs and religious figures a lot more.

That is 'a' point of view, it is not 'the' point of view. If by maturity you mean that the west has liberalised over the centuries on everything from common everyday dress to extended relations, politics and business, I agree with you. But when you consider how Christianity has 'evolved' to a somewhat different religion while Judaism has remained more or less the same, then you may wonder whether a Godly religion requires 'maturity' and human induced revisions.......the apparent answer is 'NO.

Judaism may not have evolved as a religion, but it definitely has as a social factor. The Jewish laws of the old testament are not followed anywhere on earth. Nobody gets stoned to death for working on the Sabbtah or eating shellfish or having sex outside marriage or being homosexual. All these are capital offences in Jewish law, but it is not practiced by Jews. Heck, even saying "Oh god!" is punshable by the old testament laws. (Thou shalt not take god's name in vain.) Today, not only have they evolved way beyond these idiotic laws, they actually make fun of those old laws. (Google "Monty python stoning" and watch the video that comes up, as a classic example.)

Hindu society has also evolved a lot in the past two hundred years, and abandoned many socially evil customs they used to have, (Untouchability, sati etc.) So you are mistaken in asserting that Judaism or other religions have not evolved - they have, tremendously.

As to the last point - why should a god given religion change. Yes, that question is understandable, coming from somebody who believes that his or her religion is god given. But what if everybody else followed that logic? Everybody likes to believe that their own religion is the one true religion given by god. But that has not stopped them from abandoning the bad things in their religion as times went by. That is why the dark ages ended in Europe, but not in much of the islamic world. Besides, people like @TankMan say that these acts and punishing of blasphemy is not part of islam to begin with. I won't get into that debate, but you should be aware that not all muslims believe your belief that blasphemers should be punished or killed.

 

[ayesha.a]

On the contrary, Christians go around mass murdering innocents, its just that their acts are a lot more scientific, hi-tech and beyond your immediate circle of news for their total control of press and information flow. The US alone is responsible for several million deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan alone, by her direct action, over the decade. While her direct and indirect acts and policies have further punished several hundred million people. My question to you is, how are you so sure that it is all not for religion? Is it just because apparently, the indicators are off religion? Ever thought that that may be precisely what they want you to think? Because look at it, all the wars are evidently being fought against 1 religion and in select regions and all of them are unjustified!

I specifically underlined "for religion" in my post. How do I know that? You think USA has not attacked non muslim countries? You think the Vietnam war was religious? You think siding with Saudi Arabia against Iran and Syria was anti muslim? (Saudi Arabia is an Islamic theocracy, whereas Syria and Iraq were secular.) You think the Afghan war in 2001 was to spread chrisitanity? If so, how well did it succeed? You think their involvement in the Afghan war in the 70s was against islam? In fact, the very religious Ronald Reagan was enthusiastic in opposing the Soviets because they were atheists, while the Afghan mujahideen were religious. None of the wars in recent times that the US (or France or Britain) got involved in have been for religious reasons. You have to make a case for that, if you think so - not ask me why I'm sure it wasn't. (To which I already provided explanations just above.)

So now we are all kids, small little kids. That one kid drew a cartoon, the other must match it as that is the only tit-for-tat response that is acceptable to us. Why were the cartoon drawn in the first place, what purpose were they serving other then to hurt the sentiments of so many Muslims? What was the agenda behind it? Why were they not banned by the Dutch, does freedom of speech extend to hurting or humiliating the faith of 1.5 Billion Muslims???

Yes it does. Freedom of speech in the west includes the freedom to offend non violently. In fact, that is what freedom of speech is, that is why it is such an important principle of western societies - the freedom to say things people don't like to hear, not what they do like to hear. If it was the latter, it would not need to be a constitutionally and legally protected right. And it is not jsut against muslims, they have hurt the feelings of many other groups, religious or politial or otherwise, and to a much farther extent.

We are not kids, we are adults - and it is adults who are expected to know what is a proportionate response and what is not. A kid, if he sees a mocking cartoon, may go into a tantrum and pick a fight with the kid who painted it. But adults cannot do that. The phrase "grow up!" is meant to convey that. If you really are an adult, you should not be too bothered by a cartoon, and if you are, then your response should be as a cartoon or any other outpouring of speech or expression. Not bullets.

Why not ban religion altogether then and we all just joke around and **** around? Why deny ourselves all the pleasures of this world. Can you justify that to the almost 6 Billion strong population of the world that follows religion? And my friend, there is a massive difference b/w a joke and ridicule.

P.S. I just read on wiki that there are over 1.8 Billion Muslims and not 1.5 Billion as I had been posting since yesterday.

Why should religion be banned for that to be possible? In France or USA or Canada, people are compppletely free to enjoy every pleasure in the world, so long as they do not impinge on similar rights of other people. The practice of religion is not banned, but it is voluntary. If muslims or conservative chrisitians or hindus don't like a hedonistic lifestyle, they do not have to follow it! Everybody is free to practice or not practice their religion. No banning is necessary.

 

[Talwar e Pakistan]

Don't presume to speak for 1.5 billion muslims - you have no authority to do that. Speak for yourself. Many muslims on this thread and on this forum do consider the attackers as terrorists. The reason is simple - the use of violence to settle religious differences. Shooting unarmed, non combatant journalists to terrify them and others into submission is terrorism. It's that simple. The victims of this attack never terrorized anybody, never shot anybody, and therefore are not terrorists.

A "terrorist" is not defined simply as anybody you hate. Only those who commit violent acts of terrorism are terrorists.

@TankMan : One of the examples I was telling you about. The condoning of these acts by ordinary muslims like him, and their belief that it was right to kill these journos, is a big part of the problem plaguing muslim society.

The m

Still better than morons salivating at 9 year old girls and chopping heads like cucumbers!!

No where close.

 

[Falcon29]

Must admit getting bored of this now.

Indians haven't though.

 

[WAJsal]

illiteracy, enough said.

 

[haviZsultan]

That is not the only argument I can make, but to address yours: It's not just the terrorists who will view it like that. Every mullah would jump because of his fear that he'll suddenly become worthless - and let's face it, a lot of our uneducated population loves those Mullahs.

Not all of them regard us as a 'Kafir state'.

Look, I'm perfectly fine with a secularized constitution if that means religious 'scholars' won't have any business in legislating matters. But what I don't want is, ''suddenly alcohol is legal, insulting religion is legal, gay marriages are legal, suck it 90% of our population, your views are garbage and this is now a secular country''. That won't work. Not at all.

A middle ground approach will be a lot better. Remove the blasphemy law and replace it with a law similar to Indonesia's - where insulting ANY religion is illegal, and, based on the level of offense, punishment will range from a few thousand Rs fine to a maximum of five years in prison.

Ban hate speech completely, especially in mosques and madrassas, but don't ban madrassas, just regulate them. Encourage a tolerant religious education, and destroy the terrorist narrative through media and education.

Those steps would work a lot better than complete secularization. That article is very good and I agree with most, if not all, the points it makes. The blasphemy law, especially, is more insulting to the holy prophet than blasphemy itself.

One reservation I have though - don't change Pakistan's name. 'Islamic Republic of Pakistan' sounds a lot better than 'Secular Republic of Pakistan'. Besides, it'll keep the uneducated people happy - not like Pakistan is very Islamic the way it is now.

I respect your views and admit it is the majorities argument though I vehemently stick with secularism. It will take time for people to understand the benefits of this ideology. I believe Islam is perfectly compatible with secular ideology.

Also in an ideal society the majorities views come into the ideology that defines the nation. So there will be no ban on headscarfs or mosque minarets. This is not secularism because secularism benefits all citizens and is favourable towards none.

 

[The_Showstopper]

Muslims cannot be bullied. They know will fight till the last man. So they won't mess with us.

This is what I would call "Wishful thinking" If you have forgotten, let me remind you that it is the Western or rather I would say Kaafir(As per your liking) countries which are much more powerful and have continuously been messing around with muslim countries. So what were Mullahs able to do? Kill some unaware innocent souls and claim "Prophet avenged"....

 

[mujhaidind]

This is what I would call "Wishful thinking" If you have forgotten, let me remind you that it is the Western or rather I would say Kaafir(As per your liking) countries which are much more powerful and have continuously been messing around with muslim countries. So what were Mullahs able to do? Kill some unaware innocent souls and claim "Prophet avenged"....

I have already carried out this discussion with redhawk and doppelgange in this thread. If Muslims unite no can beat us. Period!
Why did France allow the tabloid to provoke Muslims?

 

[The_Showstopper]

I have already carried out this discussion with redhawk and doppelgange in this thread. If Muslims unite no can beat us. Period!
Why did France allow the tabloid to provoke Muslims?

If that is what you believe then so be it....