Message
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Because as we all know, one cartoon depicting Elie Weasel or Anne Frank or Golda Meir in any 'off flavor' way, much less via outright obscenities, would mean termination, toute suite! Right? Like Mr. Sinet, the one Hebdo man who was terminated for merely suggesting Sarko's son was marrying Jewish to 'move on up.' Not a genital in sight. Nor a 'bad word.' Just a hint..So much for the phony baloney "nothing is sacred"
Because as we all know, (or should by now), all barnyard animals, people and religions are equal, but some are a whole lot more equal than others. wink wink
Muslima, let's get back to the subject. a satirical magazine in France published satirical cartoons on anybody and anything (if you read years of CH issues you can clearly see that but people like you do not care about the facts, they stick to their opinions that CH was just a anti-Islam racist magazine), including Islam, and they were slaughtered like animals by people who intended to punish them for "offending the Prophet". just for sport they also massacred some Jews on the side (just being Jew is apparently enough of an offense, you don't even need to draw a cartoon of Mohamed). of all the people/groups/religions that were mocked throughout the years by CH, only cartoons on Islam provoqued a massacre, and calls for censorship because the cartoons were perceived as blasphemous, so yes, some believe that they are a lot more equal than others and can impose their morals and religious beliefs on others. wink wink
Omg people, please take the time to read. I have many posts on this thread and other threads. I have repeated many times that No one deserves to die or be physically attacked because of something that they said or drew, so the only person you're having this debate with is yourself. You don't need to be convince me that murder is wrong. Having said that, if you think that the attacks were just about the drawing, and Jews, that's your prerogative but I will tell you that you are wrong, and that is my free opinion. There is over a billion of us who did not give 2 cents about what was published, 3 people did and suddenly we need to educate the Muslim savages about free speech. Free speech is not absolute, you censor yourself every single day. Next time a cop stops you, flip him off on your way out and see what happens, next time you're in a courtroom tell the judge he's a fat P.OS and next time you see your boss, tell him how much of a moron you think he is and see them if your speech is constitutionally protected. Oh at the next little league game, how about you show up drunk and tell all the other parents how crappy you think they are and see what happens. Go to Texas while you're at it, in a Hispanics neighborhood and tell them to all go back to Mexico and stop a random African American on the street and call him the N word.Whether you like it or not, we all censor free speech in the name of decency and ethics every single day, because after all, we are not barnyard animals and we have to live together.....
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think it's "tout de suite." Speak American, nobody cares how refined you want to seem.
Je parle comme je veux, quand je veux. Passes ton chemin si tu n'as rien d'autre a apporter a la discussion !
LOL!
I like you Muslima!!
Anonymous wrote:I think it's "tout de suite." Speak American, nobody cares how refined you want to seem.
Je parle comme je veux, quand je veux. Passes ton chemin si tu n'as rien d'autre a apporter a la discussion !
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Because as we all know, one cartoon depicting Elie Weasel or Anne Frank or Golda Meir in any 'off flavor' way, much less via outright obscenities, would mean termination, toute suite! Right? Like Mr. Sinet, the one Hebdo man who was terminated for merely suggesting Sarko's son was marrying Jewish to 'move on up.' Not a genital in sight. Nor a 'bad word.' Just a hint..So much for the phony baloney "nothing is sacred"
Because as we all know, (or should by now), all barnyard animals, people and religions are equal, but some are a whole lot more equal than others. wink wink
It seems to be hard for you to understand that, post-Holocaust, Jews are a protected class in Europe. Luckily, you're here in America, where you can mock whoever you wish. Have at it.
Given Europe's role and enslavement of Africans, torture and murders of millions of Africans for decades in the name of the slave trade, maybe then, they should have made Africans or Black people a protected class and made the denial of slavery a crime punishable by law? After all, slavery has been recognized as a crime against humanity
Because as we all know, one cartoon depicting Elie Weasel or Anne Frank or Golda Meir in any 'off flavor' way, much less via outright obscenities, would mean termination, toute suite! Right? Like Mr. Sinet, the one Hebdo man who was terminated for merely suggesting Sarko's son was marrying Jewish to 'move on up.' Not a genital in sight. Nor a 'bad word.' Just a hint..So much for the phony baloney "nothing is sacred"
Because as we all know, (or should by now), all barnyard animals, people and religions are equal, but some are a whole lot more equal than others. wink wink
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote: I do not approve of the vile racist cartoons drawn by Charlie Hedbo or any magazine .
Then don't read it. Nobody asked for your approval.
I never have and never will. Really, I don't go to bed thinking about C.H.
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Free speech is not absolute!
Says who? You?
Freedom of speech is not absolute. The mere fact that there are slander and libel laws is a testament to this. The press is not free to publish the plans for a nuclear bomb. Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, Wikileaks ring a bell? The US government has been allowed to limit speech for many, many reasons, because the Supreme Court has recognised that in some cases the harm speech causes can outweigh its value for freedom of speech purposes.
Is there a national security or commercial interest inherent in curbing offensive speech? Who decides what is offensive? If we rule by law that no one be allowed to say anything that offends anyone else, then no one will be allowed to say anything. That is the ABSOLUTE antithesis of freedom. Is that what you want? It is not what Americans want. I loathe Westboro Baptist Church with the heat of a thousand suns, but I will defend their right to say what they want. The same laws that protect them protect those who mobilize to speak against them and physically block out their hate at the funerals they picket. It's called a war of ideas for a reason. You don't fight words with guns, and the solution is not to muzzle the population en masse. I assume you are enjoying your freedom to speak your mind on this forum. Why would you deny that to someone else? Are your beliefs so fragile that they can be harmed by words? Mine are not.
Where did I say that I was against freedom of Speech? I stated that regardless of what has been said since the Paris attack, freedom of speech is not absolute, there are many times when states choose security over freedom. On the Charlie Hebdo controversy, I will refer you to what Omar Suleiman said. I am not Charlie Hebdo, nor am I a terrorist.On one hand, I have never insulted anyones religion, prophet, or holy book nor do I approve of others doing so. I do not believe free speech should be used as a cover to insult the most beloved human being to me that's ever lived or any prophet or holy figure. I do not approve of the vile racist cartoons drawn by Charlie Hedbo or any magazine . And if that means I'm not a "moderate Muslim" according to the bigot Bill Maher, then so be it. On the other hand, I believe in principle and value life. I do not sanction vigilantes murdering people indiscriminately. I believe in responding to these evil insults against my Prophet (peace be upon him) with education and mercy. I have seen Arnoud Van Doorn change his life and say "I am sorry oh Prophet of God" and that is far more beloved to me than if someone would've murdered him 2 years ago. I am not Charlie, nor am I a terrorist. I am a follower of the man who was sent as a mercy to the worlds.
You JUST basically said you do not believe freedom of speech should cover those things that you find offensive. That is a slippery slope toward complete censorship and a total lack of freedom. Do the logic. Think about it. Freedom of speech means that you, nor anyone else, has the right to NOT be offended. Believe or feel what you want about it; it is what I is. I didn't throw a shit fit as a Catholic when "Piss Christ" came out. My beliefs and my god are bigger than that, and it rolls off my back. Political and personal speech is not and should not be regulated, period.
No, you said that! I said that even though I do not agree or condone insults and mockery of faith, I do not support Vigilante murders. Why is this British reporter being asked to resign? Where is his freedom of speech? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2906539/Calls-BBC-reporter-resign-told-daughter-Holocaust-survivors-Paris-Palestinians-suffer-hugely-Jewish-hands-well.html This whole situation in Paris is so filled with contradictions and intellectual hypocrisy. When the West goes around killing Muslims day and night in the name of democracy, and hundreds of millions living as refugees and suffering day and night, that is fine and acceptable. No uproar here.And when the West arrests and imprisons Muslims that they perceive as a threat, without any evidence and send them to Guantanamo, that is fine and acceptable. No uproar here. And when the West funds and protects the worst tyrants in the world, tyrants who starve, imprison, and torture their people, and the West praises them as allies and funds them with billions of dollars, that is fine and acceptable. No uproar here. But hey, let a few Muslims go berserk and commit a terrorist act, and here we are in the millions marching for our freedom! Ahh, like the other was saying, It's so difficult to have conversations with people who can't realize that while you're forced to mourn their tragedies, they've never had to mourn yours!
Listen to the call above. James Franco couldn't have said it best
http://www.lbc.co.uk/james-obriens-masterclass-on-how-to-deal-with-people-who-blame-muslims-for-paris-attack-102995
http://www.lbc.co.uk/james-obriens-masterclass-on-how-to-deal-with-people-who-blame-muslims-for-paris-attack-102995
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Free speech is not absolute!
Says who? You?
Freedom of speech is not absolute. The mere fact that there are slander and libel laws is a testament to this. The press is not free to publish the plans for a nuclear bomb. Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, Wikileaks ring a bell? The US government has been allowed to limit speech for many, many reasons, because the Supreme Court has recognised that in some cases the harm speech causes can outweigh its value for freedom of speech purposes.
Is there a national security or commercial interest inherent in curbing offensive speech? Who decides what is offensive? If we rule by law that no one be allowed to say anything that offends anyone else, then no one will be allowed to say anything. That is the ABSOLUTE antithesis of freedom. Is that what you want? It is not what Americans want. I loathe Westboro Baptist Church with the heat of a thousand suns, but I will defend their right to say what they want. The same laws that protect them protect those who mobilize to speak against them and physically block out their hate at the funerals they picket. It's called a war of ideas for a reason. You don't fight words with guns, and the solution is not to muzzle the population en masse. I assume you are enjoying your freedom to speak your mind on this forum. Why would you deny that to someone else? Are your beliefs so fragile that they can be harmed by words? Mine are not.
Where did I say that I was against freedom of Speech? I stated that regardless of what has been said since the Paris attack, freedom of speech is not absolute, there are many times when states choose security over freedom. On the Charlie Hebdo controversy, I will refer you to what Omar Suleiman said. I am not Charlie Hebdo, nor am I a terrorist.On one hand, I have never insulted anyones religion, prophet, or holy book nor do I approve of others doing so. I do not believe free speech should be used as a cover to insult the most beloved human being to me that's ever lived or any prophet or holy figure. I do not approve of the vile racist cartoons drawn by Charlie Hedbo or any magazine . And if that means I'm not a "moderate Muslim" according to the bigot Bill Maher, then so be it. On the other hand, I believe in principle and value life. I do not sanction vigilantes murdering people indiscriminately. I believe in responding to these evil insults against my Prophet (peace be upon him) with education and mercy. I have seen Arnoud Van Doorn change his life and say "I am sorry oh Prophet of God" and that is far more beloved to me than if someone would've murdered him 2 years ago. I am not Charlie, nor am I a terrorist. I am a follower of the man who was sent as a mercy to the worlds.
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
How often does Christ get slandered?
Seriously? Plenty, as do Christians.
yeah - so what?
Anyone person secure in his/her belief system, will turn the other cheek, no?
Religion is for morons anyway.
I'm sorry but I cannot recall any Muslims mocking Jesus Christ. Can someone please send me a list of examples? All I can think of is atheists like George Carlin.
I'm not sure if there are cartoonists in the Muslim world, but they consider Christians Infidels and want them run out of the world so that Muslims can control the world. In Saudi Arabia, other religions aren't even allowed. Many of these countries don't allow free speech which is why there are no cartoonists.
Lol, there are Christians , Buddhists, Atheist and the horror, Jews who live in Saudi Arabia. There are Many Cartoonists in the Muslim World, but it is forbidden in Islam to make fun or mock other religions.
It's my understanding that the practice of other religions in Saudi Arabia is illegal. Is that incorrect?
https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/saudi-arabia/local-laws-and-customs
The poster stated that other religions are not allowed in Saudi Arabia and I replied that there are Christians, Jews ect in the Kingdom, so they do practice their religion in KSA. But you are correct that Islam is the only publicly acceptable religion as no churches or synagogues are allowed in the Kingdom
On the link you shared:
However, the Saudi authorities accept the private practice of religions other than Islam, and you can bring a Bible into the country as long as it is for your personal use. Importing larger quantities than this can carry severe penalties.
except that Jews can't really practice their religion in private given the requirements of a minyan.
I don't know what a minyan is and don't know how the jews who live there reconcile that....
A minyan is a group of ten bar mitzvah'd men which is required in order to hold religious services. Without a minyan you can't conduct services properly.
As long as they do it within the western compounds, I would think it is Okay. I know that Christians have church services in embassies and in the western compounds in the kingdom. The religious police doesn't have the right to enter those compounds, so expats can dress the way they want, mix the way they want and have their services in the compounds. But if I were a jew, you bet i wouldn't move to Saudi Arabia ~
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Free speech is not absolute!
Says who? You?
Freedom of speech is not absolute. The mere fact that there are slander and libel laws is a testament to this. The press is not free to publish the plans for a nuclear bomb. Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, Wikileaks ring a bell? The US government has been allowed to limit speech for many, many reasons, because the Supreme Court has recognised that in some cases the harm speech causes can outweigh its value for freedom of speech purposes.
Free speech is not absolute!
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Ughh, we are not Supposed to pray them together. Prayers are supposed to be prayed on time. This is not always logistically possible, so sometimes people accumulate prayers, but they are not MEANT to be prayed together. That's the Rule!
I'm
This is your perspective. It's fine - it's an orthodox Sunni one, but it does not reflect the attitudes, habits, or "supposed to" ideologies of all Muslims.
It's the most common way for sure. I'm curious why this seems to upset you.
He is the poster always bringing up the Shias and Saudis into every conversation. He/She is obsessed lol
Huh? Truthfully, I have no idea who that person even is. Feel free to follow up with Jeff. I just came across this conversation in "Recent Topics," and just get irked when one Muslim from one perspective claims to speak for all. Share your upbringing, perspective, and opinion - that's great. But as I'm sure you know, there are some very wide and very varying positions of Muslims the world over.
This is not one of them!
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Ughh, we are not Supposed to pray them together. Prayers are supposed to be prayed on time. This is not always logistically possible, so sometimes people accumulate prayers, but they are not MEANT to be prayed together. That's the Rule!
This is your perspective. It's fine - it's an orthodox Sunni one, but it does not reflect the attitudes, habits, or "supposed to" ideologies of all Muslims.
That is not my perspective, that is the Rule accepted by 90% of the Muslims who happen to be Sunni! Do all Muslims pray? No, Do all Muslims pray on time? No, that doesn't change the Rule that is accepted and agreed on
Agreed on by a number of human scholars, with varying perspectives taking into account Quran vs. Sunnah. Yes, yours is the mainstream orthodox position, but even a quick Wiki read will tell you there are more than enough differing perspectives among scholars and schools of thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salat
Wikipedia, my Islamic Source . Was that Satire? Won't even click or read. I have studied Islam and am continuously studding it, I don't need Wiikipedia.....
As have I. You're welcome to your opinion and perspective, but please don't speak for all Muslims.
Whether you like it or not, it is the Islamic Rule accepted by the majority of the Muslims of the world and practiced by the majority of Muslims every single day. If you don't know that and if you are quoting Wikipedia, you need to go back and study. Simple!