Texas police shoot dead two gunmen at Prophet (PBUH) caricature exhibit

[Falcon29]

You understand nothing . Once you get pass your teenage yeard you might be mature enough to discuss something .

@Horus

He's acting up again.

 

[Cherokee]

@Horus

He's acting up again.

Call your daddy . He might hug you and help you get over it .

 

[Falcon29]

Call your daddy . He might hug you and help you get over it .

Enjoy the vacation!

 

[Cherokee]

Enjoy the vacation!

Do you really want me to punish you ? I am not in mood kid .

 

[Falcon29]

Do you really want me to punish you ? I am not in mood kid .

 

[MarkusS]

These are no ordinary 'comics', nor is it intended for comical purposes once every while. Ignore the shooting incident and let's examine this carefully. Drawing cartoons like these of a specific figure, is not what the 'comic' hobby is about. Comics are largely related to hollywood superheros. People collect comics and it's a business. This event has nothing to do with that hobby. This event is intended to provoke, but to also show minorities that they hold a great hatred against them. That they want to demonize and mock them. And hope it will eventually be at a point where Muslim minority is either persecuted or deported. Otherwise what's the point of these? To equate it to 'comic' events is facetious.

These demonization campaign is drawing similiarites of Nazi Germany demonization campaign of Jews(Which Westerners tell us was miserable but only if its done to white people, by the way now the Jews are leading this modern Nazi campaign). It's not important to you at this moment, does that we should allow it to gain momentum , and if so up until when?

you have no clue about european civilisation. We draw funny comics about religion, politics ect since ancient times.

I´m not a muslim. Your prophet means nothing for me and i will make fun about it since it is my human right to do so. Your middle eastern nations may live in medival times, but we fought hard to get free of religious opression.

P.s.: still must laugh about your hollywood super heroes. It shows that you know nothing about western culture, history and heritage at all.

 

[fallstuff]

Aniconism is a proscription in Islam which means out of respect images of prophets from all of the Abrahamic religions are not made.

Its a really simple non offensive trait of the religion.

This exhibition is a deliberate attempt to humiliate someones faith. How sad must their lives be to dedicate their time and go out of their way to humiliate.

I respect all cultures and religions and yes I do have freedom of speech but I also have respect for others.

These people are just as bad as terrorists.

It is a mere attempt only, a believers faith does not veer just because someone is calling the prophet a bad name. What these two did is killing and creating terror, there is no excuse for it. They had a number of lawful avenues two address their disapproval and frustrations, instead they decided to kill and terrorize.

Pamella Gellar and Geert Wilder are two vile individuals who feed on controversy, however they never killed anyone.

 

[kadamba-warrior]

The freedom expression is sacred until your sacred beliefs are ridiculed.

Oh that has been done against Hindu beliefs already! Not so long ago, a famous Muslim painter in India used to paint Hindu goddesses, NAKED! He wasn't murdered for what he did, but was challenged legally with multiple cases. Luckily the old prick died of his age.

The biggest hypocrisy of M.F.Hussein was that he used only Hindu deities to express his art while not depicting Mohammad the same way! I guess even art is not above hypocrisy.

 

[Koovie]

@nForce

If you find it offensive, you can argue against it... or go to court (Although it wont help you because depicting historical figures or mocking them can never be illegal, especially not because of some religious interpretations)

And whether it solves the problem or not does not matter here. Its about the right to express your views freely. Whether you present a solution or not is your own choice.

The fact remains: No laws must be based on religion, especially not those which restrict fundamental inalienable rights. Everything else leads us back to the dark ages.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Neither can belief that a God was born in certain spot and cow is holy !

Whatever is respected is considered holy and people do get born. But you are free to offend us. Which you do. Hell, we do. Point is - take religion less seriously.

Two ejjits are dead, condemn them for trying to commit acts of violence, also condemn the cartoonists, but violence is never the answer.

You could have taken them to court and Pamella aunty would not have seen the Sun for 3 years. But after this, she has the moral bragging rights.

Because Pamella Geller is a professional propagandist. She does this activity to rile up pro-Israel sentiment. Her objective is to attack Islam/Muslims and assert that whatever she presents to her fanbase is what Israel goes through. That is the primary goal, other is she makes over 6 figure income from this kind of work. So educated, muslims that are second generation should do counter media campaign to delegitimize her.

All that is true. But 'you' don't help by shooting up the place.
And @halupridol - where will you draw the line? People get offended for a host of things. I am offended at people having beef. Will I go kill them or follow the Dinanath Batra route and sue them?

 

[halupridol]

And @halupridol - where will you draw the line? People get offended for a host of things. I am offended at people having beef. Will I go kill them or follow the Dinanath Batra route and sue them?

thn police will shoot u too,,,,,what i am trying to say is,,,why give another reason to extremists to justify there violence.....what were they trying to achieve by such drawing contest.how does it help

 

[SarthakGanguly]

But you do belonged to a country where writers have to run for their life just because they offended some small sect of the majority religion unlike these cartoonists who deliberately attack the beliefs of a billion plus people.


Another Tamil writer under attack for novel - The Times of India

Another Tamil author faces attack over book after Perumal Murugan | Latest News & Updates at Daily News & Analysis

Do you understand what is the difference between taking matters to court and physically killing them?

thn police will shoot u too,,,,,what i am trying to say is,,,why give another reason to extremists to justify there violence.....what were they trying to achieve by such drawing contest.how does it help

If you think Jihadis need reasons to justify their violence, you are mistaken.
Many of them are offended at your existence. As a kafir.
If the shooting had not happened, this drawing Muhammad would have flopped and been almost entirely ignored. But no, Islam khatre mein hain.

 

[nForce]

@nForce

If you find it offensive, you can argue against it... or go to court (Although it wont help you because depicting historical figures or mocking them can never be illegal, especially not because of some religious interpretations)

And whether it solves the problem or not does not matter here. Its about the right to express your views freely. Whether you present a solution or not is your own choice.

The fact remains: No laws must be based on religion, especially not those which restrict fundamental inalienable rights. Everything else leads us back to the dark ages.

Either you are an ignorant fool and arguing about something you know very little, or trying to play the devil's advocate..

There are laws against such activities in civilized societies, provided one chooses to exercise those provisions. Freedom of speech does not come without clauses to maintain civility, for without that it will be complete anarchy.Quoting a few :

In India :

• Grounds of Restrictions

It is necessary to maintain and preserve freedom of speech and expression in a democracy, so also it is necessary to place some restrictions on this freedom for the maintenance of social order, because no freedom can be absolute or completely unrestricted. Accordingly, under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India, the State may make a law imposing “reasonable restrictions” on the exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression “in the interest of” the public on the following grounds: Clause (2) of Article 19 of Indian constitution contains the grounds on which restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression can be imposed:-

3) Public Order: Next restriction prescribed by constitution is to maintain public order. This ground was added by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act. 'Public order' is an expression of wide connotation and signifies "that state of tranquility which prevails among the members of political society as a result of internal regulations enforced by the Government which they have established."

Here it is pertinent to look into meaning of the word “Public order. Public order is something more than ordinary maintenance of law and order. 'Public order' is synonymous with public peace, safety and tranquility. Anything that disturbs public tranquility or public peace disturbs public order. Thus communal disturbances and strikes promoted with the sole object of accusing unrest among workmen are offences against public order. Public order thus implies absence of violence and an orderly state of affairs in which citizens can peacefully pursue their normal avocation of life. Public order also includes public safety. Thus creating internal disorder or rebellion would affect public order and public safety. But mere criticism of government does not necessarily disturb public order.

The words 'in the interest of public order' includes not only such utterances as are directly intended to lead to disorder but also those that have the tendency to lead to disorder. Thus a law punishing utterances made with the deliberate intention to hurt the religious feelings of any class of persons is valid because it imposes a restriction on the right of free speech in the interest of public order since such speech or writing has the tendency to create public disorder even if in some case those activities may not actually lead to a breach of peace. But there must be reasonable and proper nexus or relationship between the restrictions and the achievements of public order.

4) Decency or morality: The way to express something or to say something should be decent one. It should not affect the morality of the society adversely. Our constitution has taken care of this view and inserted decency and morality as a ground. The words 'morality or decency' are words of wide meaning. Sections 292 to 294 of the Indian Penal Code provide instances of restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression in the interest of decency or morality. These sections prohibit the sale or distribution or exhibition of obscene words, etc. in public places. No fix standard is laid down till now as to what is moral and indecent. The standard of morality varies from time to time and from place to place.

6) Defamation: Ones’ freedom, be it of any type, must not affect the reputation or status another person. A person is known by his reputation more than his wealth or any thing else. Constitution considers it as ground to put restriction on freedom of speech. Basically, a statement, which injures a man's reputation, amounts to defamation. Defamation consists in exposing a man to hatred, ridicule, or contempt. The civil law in relating to defamation is still uncodified in India and subject to certain exceptions.

7) Incitement to an offence: This ground was also added by the constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951. Obviously, freedom of speech and expression cannot confer a right to incite people to commit offence. The word 'offence' is defined as any act or omission made punishable by law for the time being in force.


In US :



• Defamation and freedom of speech

American law also recognizes the liability for defamatory speech or publication i.e. slander and libel. The nature of American defamation law was vitally changed by the Supreme Court in 1964, in deciding New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, The New York Times had published an advertisement indicating that officials in Montgomery, Alabama had acted violently in suppressing the protests of African-Americans during the Civil rights movement. The Montgomery Police Commissioner, L. B. Sullivan, sued the Times for libel on the grounds that the advertisement damaged his reputation. The Sullivan case provides the principal doctrinal justification for the development, although the results had long since been fully applied by the Court. In Sullivan, Justice Brennan discerned in the controversies over the Sedition Act a crystallization of ''a national awareness of the central meaning of the First Amendment, '' which is that the ''right of free public discussion of the stewardship of public officials . . [is] a fundamental principle of the American form of government.

This ''central meaning'' proscribes either civil or criminal punishment for any but the most maliciously, knowingly false criticism of government. ''Although the Sedition Act was never tested in this Court, the attack upon its validity has carried the day in the court of history. . . . [The historical record] reflects a broad consensus that the Act, because of the restraint it imposed upon criticism of government and public officials, was inconsistent with the First Amendment.'' Supreme Court unanimously overruled the $500,000 judgment against the Times. Justice William J. Brennan suggested that public officials may sue for libel only if the publisher published the statements in question with "malice.” The actual malice standard applies to both public officials and public figures, including celebrities. Though the details vary from state to state, private individuals normally need only to prove negligence on the part of the defendant.

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, extended the "actual malice" standard to intentional infliction of emotional distress in a ruling which protected a parody. In the ruling, "actual malice" was described as "knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard whether or not it was true.” It is clear from the above discussion that in American people enjoyed real freedom of speech but at the same time, American judiciary has evolved very fair ground to put restriction on freedom of speech. These restriction can be summarized as- Seditious Speech and Seditious Libel, Fighting Words and Other Threats to the Peace, Defamation, Group Libel, Hate Speech. Thus Despite the constitutional guarantee of free speech in the United States, legal systems have not treated freedom of speech as absolute and have put some obvious restrictions on the freedom to speech and expression.

 

[halupridol]

If you think Jihadis need reasons to justify their violence, you are mistaken.
Many of them are offended at your existence. As a kafir.
If the shooting had not happened, this drawing Muhammad would have flopped and been almost entirely ignored. But no, Islam khatre mein hain.

i get what u r sayin,,,,but muslims being overtly religious, take offence of such events.with the current situation worldwide,why adding fuel to fire?the organizers clearly wanted to provoke the muslims,,,,n they did it successfully

 

[SarthakGanguly]

i get what u r sayin,,,,but muslims being overtly religious, take offence of such events.with the current situation worldwide,why adding fuel to fire?the organizers clearly wanted to provoke the muslims,,,,n succeeded.

That is the point. One side should adjust. Relax a bit, maybe. Question is who will. 1.5 Billion Muslims or 5.5 non Muslims.