HOME       >>       Science and Technology

The World's Biggest Problems Identification and solution


Bikerman

Agreed. But even when the money is spent, the person with that money will now pay Zakat.That 40 grand maybe with different people at the year end. But the 2.5% will still be taken out, by different persons.

But in effect there will be no equalisation...anyway this is getting monotonous, let's drop it and move on. I object to ANY religious law in my secular country. I am an atheist, would you like me to move to pakistan and insist that all the mosques be closed because I think my lack of belief is better than your belief?

And how exactly do you find out who matters and who doesn't?To me all human beings matter, be they from the east or the west.

Missing my point...it isn't what I think, it is what the real=politik is. The country that matters is the one with the most power - either military or commercial or, preferrably, both.
For about 200 years it was the UK. Since WW2 it has been the US. Next it will be China. We call them 'superpowers' - though the USSR never actually should have had that nametag IMHO, since it was a lot weaker than the US led people to believe.

Just like restricting women's rights, many people blame Islam this way as well.You guys have to understand that Islam and every other religion does not allow killing innocent people, whether of the same or different religion.
And if these people are so religious, why do they destroy mosques? I've never heard of them destroying a church.
Why are they killing more Muslims in Pakistan? Shouldn't they blast bombs in USA or UK or any other non-Muslim country?

But again you are missing the point. They will have a reason and justification for everything. Bin Laden is no idiot and I think he genuinely regards himself as a good Muslim. Have you ever noticed that even his worst enemies in Islam are never accused of not being Muslims? The worst thing Bin Laden says about other muslims is 'they are bad muslims'. You could say the same about him, but you can't say he isn't a muslim. The same applied regarding the treatment of women. I KNOW how women are treated in much of the middle east - a cross between a possession and an ornament. Sharia Law is fundamentally sexist, sorry but it just is. Now you can say that Saudi and other countries are not real muslim countries but that is the same argument again and it won't do. Islam can allow or not allow whatever it likes, but the fact is that the people who brought down the twin towers, the people here who blew themselves up and took a lot of people with them, the people in spain who blew the train up - they are all Muslims. So to say that Islam does not allow killing innocent people really gets on people's nerves. It is like saying that Christians don't tell lies, because the bible says they shouldn't. The simple fact is that they do, just like everyone else.

As for pointing to verses that talk about being kind and generous, yes I can do that. And I can also tell you that killing a human, both Muslim and non-Muslim, does not earn you Heaven, it leads you straight to Hell, according to Islamic beliefs, no matter what the interpretation.People say that the terrorists are told that if they do a suicide bombing they will counted as a Martyr and have 72 virgins in the Afterlife. That is true. People do brainwash people like that. But Islam does not say this anywhere in the Quran or Hadith or any where else.

I know, as I said I have read most of it and I know that the 72 virgins is a corrpution of Surah At-Tur (52):20], Surah Al-Waqi'a (56):34-36 and Surah Ar-Rum(30):21...27. mixed up with Hadith 2562 in Sunan al-Tirmidhi "The least [reward] for the people of Heaven is 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome of pearls, aquamarine and ruby."

So they mix them together and get 72 virgin

Shahrukh

But in effect there will be no equalisation...anyway this is getting monotonous, let's drop it and move on. I object to ANY religious law in my secular country. I am an atheist, would you like me to move to pakistan and insist that all the mosques be closed because I think my lack of belief is better than your belief?

 


I wasn't talking about it as a religious thing. But you are right. We are both saying the same things over and over in different words.

 

Missing my point...it isn't what I think, it is what the real=politik is. The country that matters is the one with the most power - either military or commercial or, preferrably, both.

For about 200 years it was the UK. Since WW2 it has been the US. Next it will be China. We call them 'superpowers' - though the USSR never actually should have had that nametag IMHO, since it was a lot weaker than the US led people to believe.

 


Oh, you meant politically. Well, thats a different story then.

 

But again you are missing the point. They will have a reason and justification for everything. Bin Laden is no idiot and I think he genuinely regards himself as a good Muslim. Have you ever noticed that even his worst enemies in Islam are never accused of not being Muslims? The worst thing Bin Laden says about other muslims is 'they are bad muslims'. You could say the same about him, but you can't say he isn't a muslim.

 


To judge who is wrong and right, Muslims appoint their learned scholars as judges. And all of them say that he is wrong in killing innocent people.

One or even many unlearned people's opinion or interpretation cannot be called authentic or right. So, he clearly is wrong.

 

The same applied regarding the treatment of women. I KNOW how women are treated in much of the middle east - a cross between a possession and an ornament. Sharia Law is fundamentally sexist, sorry but it just is. Now you can say that Saudi and other countries are not real muslim countries but that is the same argument again and it won't do.

 


I differ in opinion here.

I think that Shariah has defined roles for both the genders according to what is most suited for them and not as discrimination.

Taking the matter of the veil, I personally would not marry a woman who goes about showing his 'beauty' to everyone else. And that's not due to my religious beliefs. Its due my emotional feelings. Therefore, I think that the order for women to cover themselves is a very good thing.

Men are made responsible for finances where as women look after the home. That makes sense too.

Women are better at handling children, also much neater and organised in most cases. So their staying in homes makes up a better environment for the children and the husband.

Plus their dedication with their husband makes him happier and less worried. And the woman feels safer and much secure.

 

Islam can allow or not allow whatever it likes, but the fact is that the people who brought down the twin towers, the people here who blew themselves up and took a lot of people with them, the people in spain who blew the train up - they are all Muslims. So to say that Islam does not allow killing innocent people really gets on people's nerves. It is like saying that Christians don't tell lies, because the bible says they shouldn't. The simple fact is that they do, just like everyone else.

 


There is a difference between don't and shouldn't. Muslims (and also others) shouldn't kill people. What they actually do does not represent Islam's teachings. Rather, it represents their beliefs. People can have wrong beliefs. And those who kill this way certainly do have wrong beliefs.

 

I know, as I said I have read most of it and I know that the 72 virgins is a corrpution of Surah At-Tur (52):20], Surah Al-Waqi'a (56):34-36 and Surah Ar-Rum(30):21...27. mixed up with Hadith 2562 in Sunan al-Tirmidhi "The least [reward] for the people of Heaven is 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome of pearls, aquamarine and ruby."

 

So they mix them together and get 72 virgin

 

Exactly. Its just for convincing people that there is a lot of benefits of doing what they are saying.

 

EDIT: And I was supposed to study 15 sections of the companies ordinance today...


Bikerman

To judge who is wrong and right, Muslims appoint their learned scholars as judges. And all of them say that he is wrong in killing innocent people.

One or even many unlearned people's opinion or interpretation cannot be called authentic or right. So, he clearly is wrong.

That depends whether they are Shi'te or Sunni (or Wahhabi).

We have several learned scholars who don't say he is wrong. Travel over to Egypt and you will find that many muslims not only support him but think he is a truly great man. In fact quite a lot of your fellow Pakistanis are very supportive of Bin laden..I'm sure you must know that...

Here's a 2008 survey before the election

http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/TFT%20Pakistan%20Poll%20Report.pdf

(PDF file)

I differ in opinion here.

I think that Shariah has defined roles for both the genders according to what is most suited for them and not as discrimination. Taking the matter of the veil, I personally would not marry a woman who goes about showing his 'beauty' to everyone else. And that's not due to my religious beliefs. Its due my emotional feelings. Therefore, I think that the order for women to cover themselves is a very good thing.

 

And I think it is a selfish male nonsense that is both sexist and extremely offensive. Why should your feelings be the thing that decides things? What about her feelings? It doesn't bode well if you are getting jealous thoughts before you even meet the woman...I'm afraid you are going to get quite a shock when women's lib finally penetrates the muslim world...and it will, trust me..

Men are made responsible for finances where as women look after the home. That makes sense too.

Women are better at handling children, also much neater and organised in most cases. So their staying in homes makes up a better environment for the children and the husband.

Plus their dedication with their husband makes him happier and less worried. And the woman feels safer and much secure.

Sexist stereotype. Better with children, yes, probably. The rest? Nonsense. What you mean is that you, as a man, are allowed to be less neat and less organised because the wife will do it for you. You are entitled to your beliefs as I am, but there is absolutely no way that I would tolerate any such laws or even proposals in my country and the huge majority would agree. Jeez, I tell you true mate, it is a really good job my missus isn't reading this...she may be small, but she is very feisty and she knows exactly where to punch and kick...

There is a difference between don't and shouldn't. Muslims (and also others) shouldn't kill people. What they actually do does not represent Islam's teachings. Rather, it represents their beliefs. People can have wrong beliefs. And those who kill this way certainly do have wrong beliefs.

This is directly contradicted by Sura 2:191 where specific intruction to kill the infidel is given...

Shahrukh

That depends whether they are Shi'te or Sunni (or Wahhabi).We have several learned scholars who don't say he is wrong. Travel over to Egypt and you will find that many muslims not only support him but think he is a truly great man. In fact quite a lot of your fellow Pakistanis are very supportive of Bin laden..I'm sure you must know that...
Here's a 2008 survey before the election
http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/TFT%20Pakistan%20Poll%20Report.pdf
(PDF file)

The survey says that people are supporting him less now. Only 1% would vote for him.
By learned scholars, I meant the Aalims and Muftis. And I doubt any Aalim or Mufti will allow bloodshed of innocent people in this way because murder and suicide both are major sins.

And I think it is a selfish male nonsense that is both sexist and extremely offensive. Why should your feelings be the thing that decides things? What about her feelings? It doesn't bode well if you are getting jealous thoughts before you even meet the woman...I'm afraid you are going to get quite a shock when women's lib finally penetrates the muslim world...and it will, trust me..Sexist stereotype. Better with children, yes, probably. The rest? Nonsense. What you mean is that you, as a man, are allowed to be less neat and less organised because the wife will do it for you. You are entitled to your beliefs as I am, but there is absolutely no way that I would tolerate any such laws or even proposals in my country and the huge majority would agree. Jeez, I tell you true mate, it is a really good job my missus isn't reading this...she may be small, but she is very feisty and she knows exactly where to punch and kick...

The girl I have proposed actually liked this thought of mine.
What I meant was not that man is allowed to be less neat or organised. But that a woman can handle a house's neatness and organisation better than a man would.
I agree with having our own beliefs and opinions.

This is directly contradicted by Sura 2:191 where specific intruction to kill the infidel is given...

Another common objection.
You should read this article.
And also this one.

Bikerman

The survey says that people are supporting him less now. Only 1% would vote for him.By learned scholars, I meant the Aalims and Muftis. And I doubt any Aalim or Mufti will allow bloodshed of innocent people in this way because murder and suicide both are major sins.

Really, so if I show you differently?
Try these
http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/10/new-jerusalem-mufti-endorses-suicide-bombers
http://teeth.com.pk/blog/2008/09/11/aalim-online-inciting-murder-against-ahmedis

Then, of course, you have to remember I'm British and I read a lot. That means I like Salman Rushdie. I heard just about every senior muslim call for him to be killed for writing the Satanic Verses, so when you say that murder is a major sin then it rings a bit hollow. Likewise with the recent protests in Danemark and the UK about a few cartoons in a magazine. Muslims were screeming hatred, death threats and bile at anyone who would listen. In fact 4 were arrested for incitement to murder.
Now please don't tell me that this was justified because they insulted your prophet. That will not do at all. We don't kill someone who writes something we find objectionable or draws a few cartoons. That is not civilised behaviour, that is the behaviour of the thug, the bully and the tyrant.

The girl I have proposed actually liked this thought of mine.What I meant was not that man is allowed to be less neat or organised. But that a woman can handle a house's neatness and organisation better than a man would.
I agree with having our own beliefs and opinions.

Fine, I hope you are very happy. It wouldn't work here - in fact it would probably cause real trouble if you tried to tell English women that this was a good way to behave. I promise you that they would not agree. This is another reason why Islamic law cannot be allowed into our secular society...

Another common objection.You should read this article.
And also this one.

No you still misunderstand. It isn't what I believe, this is what Bin Laden and radical islamists believe and what they quote. Their interpretation is quite different to yours and to the sources you cite, but that does not mean they are wrong even though you think they are, I think they are and the majority of UK muslims think they are....

Shahrukh

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

But Al-Amin did answer Al-Jozo's wrongful claims. Right till the end.
And when a single or even a few Muftis are supporting one thing where as the majority is supporting another, its the majority that is considered right.
Of course, people have their personal opinions. This Mufti is expressing those. He did not quote any reference, didn't even say the Islam says to kill these people. Where as Al-Amin clearly said that Allah will distinguish between civilians and enemies even if the bombers didn't.
So, basically, you are pointing to a single person who deviated from the general opinion. You can get that kind of behaviour everywhere. 1% Pakistanis supported Ladin in the previous survey as well. He is no different.

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/10/new-jerusalem-mufti-endorses-suicide-bombers


Can't seem to open this link.

http://teeth.com.pk/blog/2008/09/11/aalim-online-inciting-murder-against-ahmedis


This guy is not an Aalim. He is a TV host. His comment do not hold any value.
In Islam, a person is allowed to believe whatever they want. We do not judge anyone, Allah will deal with everyone when the time comes.
But if his believes are not what Islam says, he cannot be called a Muslim. Like the case of Ahmedis. The changed their faith and were declared non-Muslims a while back.
The order to kill is only against a traitor, no one else. And that also after giving him opportunity to come back.

Fine, I hope you are very happy. It wouldn't work here - in fact it would probably cause real trouble if you tried to tell English women that this was a good way to behave. I promise you that they would not agree. This is another reason why Islamic law cannot be allowed into our secular society...


I hope so too.
Right. Let them go their way and we'll go ours.

No you still misunderstand. It isn't what I believe, this is what Bin Laden and radical islamists believe and what they quote. Their interpretation is quite different to yours and to the sources you cite, but that does not mean they are wrong even though you think they are, I think they are and the majority of UK muslims think they are....


They might be right in their belief but the truth is still that the are wrong.
If I interpret the law of the country wrong, I will not be exempted because according to me I was right. Same goes for Islamic laws.
For example, if I proved somehow that murder was allowed in Pakistan's law by changing interpretations, I would still be hanged.
Similarly, if Bin Laden proves that murder is allowed in Islamic law by changing interpretation, he would still be beheaded.

Besides, his forces kill more Muslims than non-Muslims. No way he can justify that in his mind.
As many people say, I think there is something fishy with him. But I can't really prove anything there.

Bikerman

You keep shifting the goalposts. First you say that you doubt any aamin or mufti would condone killing an innocent person.I give you evidence that this is wrong, so you shift it to say - ahh, but the majority disagree...That is not how I do debate and not how it should be done. You make and defend a point and concede it where refuted.You also completely ignored the other examples - Rushdie and the Danish Cartoonists - in both cases a huge number of Muslims, including their leaders, called for the murder of all of them. That is insupportable and it is, incidentally, when I stopped being outspoken in defence of Muslims. In my youth I often used to jump in and say how wrong people were about Muslims being murderous evangelicals, determined to convert or kill.After 1990 I was not so sure of that any more. I still believe that most muslims are reasonable people just like anyone else, but there is a very nasty side to Islam (from my point of view) that censors what it doesn't want to see and declares those who break that censorship to be evil people who HAVE to be killed. That, to me, cannot be defended and MUST be resisted actively. That is why any move to islamicise our systems of government whether education, juduicial or whatever, will be strongly and actively resisted by people like me.PS - any guesses why you can't open that other link? It opens fine for me....could it be...censorship...perhaps? :-)(I'm assuming you know that your internet connection is actively censored and filtered by your Government?)


Shahrukh

You keep shifting the goalposts. First you say that you doubt any aamin or mufti would condone killing an innocent person.I give you evidence that this is wrong, so you shift it to say - ahh, but the majority disagree...
That is not how I do debate and not how it should be done. You make and defend a point and concede it where refuted.


People do make mistakes, man. And this one is definitely things wrongly.
As for my doubt that any Mufti will allow such killing, I really was surprised by his sayings. But that still doesn't mean that Islam allows it.
Although, his followers will now consider it allowed.

You also completely ignored the other examples ... by people like me.


Yeah, forgot to add the answer to that.
You can call us anything you can, dude, but neither me nor any other Muslim with a little self-esteem will tolerate insult to Hazrat Muhammad.
Not believing in his teachings is a different thing but going out of the way to insult him is not good.
I don't think any of the followers of Hazrat Isa (Jesus) will think any different if someone insulted him.

PS - any guesses why you can't open that other link? It opens fine for me....could it be...censorship...perhaps? :-)(I'm assuming you know that your internet connection is actively censored and filtered by your Government?)

Could be.
Yeah, I can't even open the page 'Muhammad' in wikipedia.

Bikerman

People do make mistakes, man. And this one is definitely things wrongly.As for my doubt that any Mufti will allow such killing, I really was surprised by his sayings. But that still doesn't mean that Islam allows it.
Although, his followers will now consider it allowed.

Exactly my point. I'm not trying to score cheap debating points - this stuff is important because unless people can see and admit that these people exist then there is little chance of things changing....

Yeah, forgot to add the answer to that.You can call us anything you can, dude, but neither me nor any other Muslim with a little self-esteem will tolerate insult to Hazrat Muhammad.
Not believing in his teachings is a different thing but going out of the way to insult him is not good.
I don't think any of the followers of Hazrat Isa (Jesus) will think any different if someone insulted him.

I have no interest in calling people names, but there is a difference between responding in a civilised manner to an insult and calling for the person to be murdered and I am surprised you do not see that. Nobody has a right to murder is what you keep telling me, yet if anyone dares to insult Mohammed then they are fair game. You see no contradiction in that?

Could be.Yeah, I can't even open the page 'Muhammad' in wikipedia.

Oh yes, it is certainly true. I worked in network/systems management for a while with a Pakistani - Aftab ****, good bloke. He helped put in some of the routing used by the Pakistani government to implement their censoring systems..

PS - I have edited my last paragraph and changed Aftab's name - giving his real name might have been silly of me in the circumstances - it could cause him problems and I have no wish to do that.

Shahrukh

Exactly my point. I'm not trying to score cheap debating points - this stuff is important because unless people can see and admit that these people exist then there is little chance of things changing....

I wish they change for the better.

I have no interest in calling people names, but there is a difference between responding in a civilised manner to an insult and calling for the person to be murdered and I am surprised you do not see that. Nobody has a right to murder is what you keep telling me, yet if anyone dares to insult Mohammed then they are fair game. You see no contradiction in that?

Murdering innocent people that is. Not one who attacks our prophet.
We love our prophet more than our lives. And we don't tolerate anything against him, not a physical attack (which is of course not possible now) and not an insult.
I see your point here. But insulting Hazrat Muhammad means open war for us. And the insulter has made the first attack.

Oh yes, it is certainly true. I worked in network/systems management for a while with a Pakistani - Aftab ****, good bloke. He helped put in some of the routing used by the Pakistani government to implement their censoring systems..
PS - I have edited my last paragraph and changed Aftab's name - giving his real name might have been silly of me in the circumstances - it could cause him problems and I have no wish to do that.

Right, right.

Bikerman

Murdering innocent people that is. Not one who attacks our prophet.We love our prophet more than our lives. And we don't tolerate anything against him, not a physical attack (which is of course not possible now) and not an insult.
I see your point here. But insulting Hazrat Muhammad means open war for us. And the insulter has made the first attack.

Murder is murder, and even if you did see it as some bizarre form of self-defence it would still be murder. If someone insults my mum do I go on TV and urge all my friends to murder that person? Only if I am a weirdo.
You haven't even read the Satanic Verses and still you defend someone being murdered for writing it. That just makes it worse - sheeple not people. I have read it. It is quite hard going in places - a lot of Rushdie's books are - but it rewards the effort and I saw nothing insulting in it. It is a work of magic realism, not a documentary.
As for the cartoons - have you actually seen them? They make a serious point - and the muslim reaction to them actually confirms the point being made. This notion that it is blasphemy to produce an image of Mohammed - it is INVENTED. There are thousands of images of him in muslim art.
Just a few hundred are shown on these pages
http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

I'm sorry but this is indefensible. To claim as you do that Islam is a peaceful religion in one sentence, and happily condone the murder of someone in another sentence, well that is not just inconsistent, it is something known as cognitive dissonance - deeply conflicted thinking. It is also very stupid. It gives your real enemies ammunition and adds support to their views. They love to describe your religion as murderous and muslims as the enemy. Who can argue with them when otherwise reasonable people are happy to commit murder or see murder committed and applaud - over a book or a cartoon drawing. It is barbarism, uncivilsed and worthy of nothing but contempt.

You should seriously think about this and thank your God that Christians don't generally behave like you do. Otherwise they would be out slaying every muslim they could find for insulting the Christian God (not just the prophet) by saying Jesus isn't God. That has to be far worse than drawing a picture of a prophet or writing an imaginary passage about him.

Still - at least I can now give you a good answer to the original posting about violence. 1 really quick and guaranteed method to cut violence - stop condoning it.

Shahrukh

Murder is murder, and even... stop condoning it.


That site is censored too.

If you insult my mother, I would just not talk to you.
Insulting Hazrat Muhammad is different. And I can see that you don't understand that.
As I said, you can call me barbaric or whatever you want. But I shall declare war with any person who insults Hazrat Muhammad, or any other prophet for that matter.
Peace-loving countries like USA and UK also murders criminals. Why is it wrong if I murder some criminal?
Its the innocent that are not to be murdered. And a person who insults Hazrat Muhammad is not really innocent.
Also, murder is not always the reaction. It depends on what the person said/did. There was a guy named Thanwee. He was only declared non-Muslim and not murdered.
Where as there was another guy whose name escapes me at the moment, he said that he is Hazrat Muhammad, reborn. He was hanged by the government. But not his followers since they didn't say anything of the sort themselves.

If the Christians of today are really followers of Hazrat Isa, they would not have supported killing him in the first place. Since they do, if someone else attacks him with insults, it shouldn't matter to them as much as it matters to a Muslim when their prophet is insulted.
However, his true followers, who were killed with him, would also murder anyone who attacked him. But you won't find any of them nowadays. That's why the religion of Islam came in the first place. Because people had deviated so much from Christianity that it wasn't really Christianity at all. You can't find that same Bible that existed at the time of Hazrat Isa. People changed it as they preferred.
The Bible mentions Hazrat Isa as a messenger and prophet of Allah, the Only God. Muslims didn't claim that by themselves. It also mentions the coming of Hazrat Muhammad as a prophet after Hazrat Isa.
All religions have always taught the same lesson, from Hazrat Adam, Hazrat Yousaf (Joseph), Hazrat Nooh (Noah), Hazrat Isa and Hazrat Muhammad. Same thing that Islam teaches: to believe in Allah as the only god and not invent partners in him.
But that leads to yet another different topic based mostly on beliefs.
You'll find history that supports both sides.

I used to think that majority Christians thought of Hazrat Isa as God's son and messenger.

Oh, and I never said anything against Rushdie, did I?
I haven't read his book, nor do I intend to.

So far, we have concluded that only killing traitors and insulters of the prophet is allowed. I don't think 99% of the world's violence is due to that two factors.

Bikerman

That site is censored too.
If you insult my mother, I would just not talk to you.
Insulting Hazrat Muhammad is different. And I can see that you don't understand that.
As I said, you can call me barbaric or whatever you want. But I shall declare war with any person who insults Hazrat Muhammad, or any other prophet for that matter.
Peace-loving countries like USA and UK also murders criminals. Why is it wrong if I murder some criminal?
Its the innocent that are not to be murdered. And a person who insults Hazrat Muhammad is not really innocent.

No they don't. The UK has no death penalty in any case so that is just plain wrong in every way. The US has a Judicial process which in some states carries a death penalty. Comparing this to that is completely bogus. Rushdie wasn't given a trial - he had committed no crime. Leaders were calling for all and any Muslim to kill him - that is on a compeletely different planet to a proper trial, evidence, defence and due process. If you really can't see that then I despair.

Also, murder is not always the reaction. It depends on what the person said/did. There was a guy named Thanwee. He was only declared non-Muslim and not murdered.Where as there was another guy whose name escapes me at the moment, he said that he is Hazrat Muhammad, reborn. He was hanged by the government. But not his followers since they didn't say anything of the sort themselves.

Oh how nice of them. Do you really think this helps your case?

If the Christians of today are really followers of Hazrat Isa, they would not have supported killing him in the first place. Since they do, if someone else attacks him with insults, it shouldn't matter to them as much as it matters to a Muslim when their prophet is insulted.

How could Christians support the killing of Christ? Clue - Christian = one who follows the life of Christ AFTER HE DIED. Jeez..

However, his true followers, who were killed with him, would also murder anyone who attacked him. But you won't find any of them nowadays. That's why the religion of Islam came in the first place. Because people had deviated so much from Christianity that it wasn't really Christianity at all. You can't find that same Bible that existed at the time of Hazrat Isa. People changed it as they preferred.

LOL and some guy several centuries later suddenly gets the right version? Not just unbelievable but patronising nonsense. We know what was in the original gospels pretty well. There have been some changes - we even know about them. The notion that the disciples would kill anyone who attacked Jesus is disproven by the fact that when he was arrested nobody died. The closest existing writings to Jesus are the epistles and letters of Paul - that is simply a fact - why would I say otherwise because I dislike ALL religions including Christianity. The notion that the Quran, written centuries later, is more accurate than the more contemporary accounts is just nonsense and wishful thinking - a matter of 'faith' not fact.
What you are attempting to do is so arrogant that words almost fail me. Not only do you defend the indefensible, but you then try to say that people of other faiths don't really know their own religion and that Christians aren't really christians. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Anyone who insults your prophet is fair game to kill. But you have no problem at all insulting Christian beliefs - in fact you go further and tell them they aren't even proper Christians....astonishing. Even more astonishing that you actually seem to believe this crap, rather than just trying a wind-up.

The Bible mentions Hazrat Isa as a messenger and prophet of Allah, the Only God. Muslims didn't claim that by themselves. It also mentions the coming of Hazrat Muhammad as a prophet after Hazrat Isa.All religions have always taught the same lesson, from Hazrat Adam, Hazrat Yousaf (Joseph), Hazrat Nooh (Noah), Hazrat Isa and Hazrat Muhammad. Same thing that Islam teaches: to believe in Allah as the only god and not invent partners in him.

Hasrat Isa appears nowhere in the bible. In the New Testament you have Jesus and it is made perfectly clear that he is the son of God many times. The Old Testament doesn't mention him at all for the simple reason that it was written centuries before he was born.

All religions HAVE NOT always taught the same lesson. There are 3 abrahamic religions and 2 of them teach something different to Islam. The Genesis account that Muslims share is a story, an allegory, not history. The only Christians who think it is history are creationists (or as I call them 'lunatics') - they believe literally in the Hebrew Bible account of creation. Most sensible christians accepted hundreds of years ago - even before Mohammad - that it is an alegory, a story to illustrate a point, not history.

YOUR version of scripture was, in any case, written hundreds of years later. So where there is overlap with the Jewish/Hebrew bible then the Jewish/Hebrew bible is right. Go and find a historian. Ask him which is likely to be most accurate:
book collection 1 : written about 50-110 years after the events described
book 2 : written more than 6 centuries after the events.
Want to guess what he will say?

And don't give me your 'Mohammad was inspired by God therefore the Quran is right' nonsense. The Christians say the same about their scriptures and I believe neither, but neither is more likely than the other in any case.

Oh, and I never said anything against Rushdie, did I?I haven't read his book, nor do I intend to.

You don't have to - you defend those who would kill him. That makes as guilty as those who condemn him, both in my eyes and the eyes of the law.

So far, we have concluded that only killing traitors and insulters of the prophet is allowed. I don't think 99% of the world's violence is due to that two factors.

We haven't concluded anything of the sort. I conclude that killing 'insulters of the prophet' is barbaric murder, and those who support it uncivilised criminals. I certainly do not think it is 'allowed'.
As for violence - even 1 less murder would be a start.

PS - I'm sorry if this comes across as insulting. It is not meant to be, but this is something I feel strongly about so I must express that - it is targetted at the beliefs, not the person.

PPS - I should, for honesty and fairness, also add that I am a member of a group which is dedicated to protecting freedom of speech in the UK and supporting anyone who is targetted for expressing themselves - whether targetted by the government or religious fundamentalists. We are currently compiling a newsletter which also has depictions of the prophet, and some are not flattering (though all have a point which is clearly explained - we are not into gratuitous insult). If that makes a difference then you might wish to either withdraw or indicate to me that you wish to discontinue this and I will withdraw.

zanzibarjones

So funny how people want unity when God does not. God separates the good from the bad. Always has and always will.The biggest problem in our society, plain and simple, is free will. The right do do right or the right to do wrong.Everyone wants equality... unfortunately you can't have it. People are not born equal. As nice as it sounds, we are not. We would like to think so, but we are not.Not by race, not by religion, but by straight forward physicality. Some of us are born smarter than others. Some of us are built stronger than others. Some of us are men, some of us are women. If God wanted us to all be equal, would he not have made us all the same. If he wanted us to be equal, would he have separated us by our dialects? Our race? Our physical attributes?Oh and that part about using up natural resources?I have a question for you: You are telling me, that after millions of years of plant and animal life, living and dying (the basis for oil) that was have consumed it all in a matter of 150-200 years?Tress? We are running out of tress? As far as I knew they produced seeds. We may be using more space, and then that is less space for trees to grow, but the earth is still vastly covered with trees. How much oxygen does one tree put out? Depends on it's size? Most trees are bigger than me, and just in my back yard alone there's at least 1000 of them. How much air am I taking up, realistically?I mean seriously people, think about it. Back when there were dinosaurs, the earth's temperature on average was 10-20 degrees higher. The humidity levels were also higher. So now all of a sudden, in the span of 150-200 years we've doomed the earth to it's death?CO2 levels, The hole in the Ozone.... blah blah blah. Were you here 1 million years ago? Do you know for sure that this just isn't a cycle that the earth goes through like earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions? Wake up and smell the ozone. If we were in that much trouble, I think it would have started showing long before the last 10 years.And speaking of change, maybe the reason the polar ice caps are melting is because are poles are shifting. Created ice caps elsewhere.


Shahrukh

No they don't. The UK has no death penalty in any case so that is just plain wrong in every way. The US has a Judicial process which in some states carries a death penalty.

 

Right. But they still punish the person; how depends on their laws, Islam has its own.

 

Rushdie wasn't given a trial - he had committed no crime. Leaders were calling for all and any Muslim to kill him - that is on a compeletely different planet to a proper trial, evidence, defence and due process. If you really can't see that then I despair.

 

I understand what you are trying to say. But you don't see my point.

What I am saying is that we declare war on him. The literal meaning of it.

There is no trial in war. Its not like a court case with lawyers and a judge.

 

Oh how nice of them. Do you really think this helps your case?

 

It does. Because that tells we will not just murder without any reason. The punishment accords with the deed according to our laws. Your point above of trial, etc. is also answered by this. Because although there is not court case filed, we won't just go blindly kill anyone who says anything against Islam. There are proper laws as to what is answered in what way.

Where as your laws state that a court trial, etc. is necessary, our's doesn't in this matter.

Of course, there will be people who are more vengeful, like that Mufti who thought killing innocent people was right if it killed enemies. But they are transgressing from the laws, then.

 

How could Christians support the killing of Christ? Clue - Christian = one who follows the life of Christ AFTER HE DIED. Jeez..

 

Right. Then who are those who followed his teachings when he was alive?

 

LOL and some guy several centuries later suddenly gets the right version? Not just unbelievable but patronising nonsense. We know what was in the original gospels pretty well. There have been some changes - we even know about them. The notion that the disciples would kill anyone who attacked Jesus is disproven by the fact that when he was arrested nobody died. The closest existing writings to Jesus are the epistles and letters of Paul - that is simply a fact - why would I say otherwise because I dislike ALL religions including Christianity. The notion that the Quran, written centuries later, is more accurate than the more contemporary accounts is just nonsense and wishful thinking - a matter of 'faith' not fact.

 

No one got the right version of the Bible. A new scripture was given: The Holy Quran.

According to my knowledge, the people who arrested Hazrat Isa killed all his followers that were guarding him, who were actually supposed to be on guard and warn the others but they were not.

 

Its true that its a matter of faith. And as you said you don't believe that the Quran or Bible was revealed by Allah to His messengers, I guess there is no point in discussing that.

Because according to my faith, Allah told Hazrat Muhammad the true accounts of those things that the people had wrong accounts of, so that he can correct them.

 

What you are attempting to do is so arrogant that words almost fail me. Not only do you defend the indefensible, but you then try to say that people of other faiths don't really know their own religion and that Christians aren't really christians. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Anyone who insults your prophet is fair game to kill. But you have no problem at all insulting Christian beliefs - in fact you go further and tell them they aren't even proper Christians....astonishing. Even more astonishing that you actually seem to believe this crap, rather than just trying a wind-up.

Hasrat Isa appears nowhere in the bible. In the New Testament you have Jesus and it is made perfectly clear that he is the son of God many times. The Old Testament doesn't mention him at all for the simple reason that it was written centuries before he was born.

 

Yes, I am saying exactly that. That is because they have changed the laws and beliefs they were given in the Bible.

Which mean they have deviated from their religion. Just like a Muslim who changes any of the beliefs mentioned in the Quran isn't considered a Muslim.

Insulting beliefs is a different thing than insulting a highly respected person. You said a few things that were against my beliefs, I never got angry from you, because everyone has his own beliefs and I have no problem with that. But when someone insults Hazrat Muhammad personally, then, I will get angry.

And by saying that Hazrat Isa was not God's son but His messenger, I am only questioning Christian beliefs, not insulting Hazrat Isa. He is highly respected by every Muslim.

There is no mention of Hazrat Isa in the Old Testament because, as you said it wasn't revealed on Hazrat Isa. That was for the Jews, not Christians.

As for the New Testament proving that Hazrat Isa as a son of God, that is the exactly what the Muslims claim the Christians have changed which makes them deviate from their original religion and not be real Christians.

 

All religions HAVE NOT always taught the same lesson. There are 3 abrahamic religions and 2 of them teach something different to Islam. The Genesis account that Muslims share is a story, an allegory, not history. The only Christians who think it is history are creationists (or as I call them 'lunatics') - they believe literally in the Hebrew Bible account of creation. Most sensible christians accepted hundreds of years ago - even before Mohammad - that it is an alegory, a story to illustrate a point, not history.

 

The Jews were also taught the same beliefs. That's there reason there are common things in the two scriptures in the first place.

Some laws changed with time though.

 

YOUR version of scripture was, in any case, written hundreds of years later. So where there is overlap with the Jewish/Hebrew bible then the Jewish/Hebrew bible is right. Go and find a historian. Ask him which is likely to be most accurate:

book collection 1 : written about 50-110 years after the events described

book 2 : written more than 6 centuries after the events.

Want to guess what he will say?

 

The accuracy of the Quran doesn't come from when it was written. But who wrote it.

Allah revealed it to Hazrat Muhammad and Allah can not be wrong or inaccurate.

Since this is again a matter of belief and you don't believe that, lets leave it at it.

 

We haven't concluded anything of the sort. I conclude that killing 'insulters of the prophet' is barbaric murder, and those who support it uncivilised criminals. I certainly do not think it is 'allowed'.

As for violence - even 1 less murder would be a start.

 

I meant allowed by Islamic law, as opposed to murdering anyone being allowed.

That 1 murder is not of an innocent, according to Islamic law.

 

PS - I'm sorry if this comes across as insulting. It is not meant to be, but this is something I feel strongly about so I must express that - it is targetted at the beliefs, not the person.

 

Na, don't worry about that. We are having a constructive discussion here. And yes, I know we are talking about beliefs. So, no personal offences taken, although that would rank as less aggressive than offences to the religion. But since you didn't outright offended anything, just stated your opinion and belief, its all good.

 

PPS - I should, for honesty and fairness, also add that I am a member of a group which is dedicated to protecting freedom of speech in the UK and supporting anyone who is targetted for expressing themselves - whether targetted by the government or religious fundamentalists. We are currently compiling a newsletter which also has depictions of the prophet, and some are not flattering (though all have a point which is clearly explained - we are not into gratuitous insult). If that makes a difference then you might wish to either withdraw or indicate to me that you wish to discontinue this and I will withdraw.

 

I won't want to withdraw from a good argument. And since you say you want to insult, its all a discussion, we should continue until we either reach a conclusion or leave it because everything come up to the matter of belief, which we cannot force onto the other.

Does it include a depiction of Hazrat Muhammad?


Bikerman

Right. But they still punish the person; how depends on their laws, Islam has its own.

But Rushdie is not subject to Islamic law - he is British. We do not insist that you obey our laws so what gives you the right to insist that we obey yours?

I understand what you are trying to say. But you don't see my point.

What I am saying is that we declare war on him. The literal meaning of it.

There is no trial in war. Its not like a court case with lawyers and a judge.

Which therefore makes Islam as dangerous as people say - it declares war on anyone who doesn't honour its rules. That is commonly known as tyranny.

It does. Because that tells we will not just murder without any reason. The punishment accords with the deed according to our laws. Your point above of trial, etc. is also answered by this. Because although there is not court case filed, we won't just go blindly kill anyone who says anything against Islam. There are proper laws as to what is answered in what way.

Where as your laws state that a court trial, etc. is necessary, our's doesn't in this matter.

Of course, there will be people who are more vengeful, like that Mufti who thought killing innocent people was right if it killed enemies. But they are transgressing from the laws, then.

But YOUR laws are for you. If you want to make laws for your own country then fill your boots - help yourself. You do NOT make laws for my country or that cover the citizens of my country. Because I respect, in fact I insists on, freedom of speech then I defend your right to your opinion. Unfortunately you (Islam in general) do not respect freedom of speech so it is asymmetrical - I defend your freedom of speech and you kill people for exercising it.

Right. Then who are those who followed his teachings when he was alive?

Jews, obviously - as was Jesus himself.

No one got the right version of the Bible. A new scripture was given: The Holy Quran.

According to my knowledge, the people who arrested Hazrat Isa killed all his followers that were guarding him, who were actually supposed to be on guard and warn the others but they were not.

No, you got a scripture which YOU BELIEVE is correct. Others disagree. The Quranic story of the arrest is not supported by any historical documents and it actually makes little sense, because such a massacre would certainly have featured in the writings of contemporary historians such as Philo.

Its true that its a matter of faith. And as you said you don't believe that the Quran or Bible was revealed by Allah to His messengers, I guess there is no point in discussing that.

Because according to my faith, Allah told Hazrat Muhammad the true accounts of those things that the people had wrong accounts of, so that he can correct them.

But I know the bible pretty well - I was raised catholic and taught by Jesuits and Salesian monks so I would put my knowledge of Christian theology up against anyone with confidence. I also have the Quran, but obviously less knowledge on that theology. More importantly I have also studied the works and writings of historians who were around at the time - Philo, Seneca, Josephus etc. This is what calls the whole story into question - both the Christian AND the muslim version of events are not supported by any historical evidence.

Yes, I am saying exactly that. That is because they have changed the laws and beliefs they were given in the Bible.

Which mean they have deviated from their religion. Just like a Muslim who changes any of the beliefs mentioned in the Quran isn't considered a Muslim.

That is just assertion with no evidence. You have no evidence what changes were made to the gospels - whereas I know pretty well what changes were made from having studied the subject for some while. So I know that Mark was added to and I know that many of the cannonical works are pretty much as written. If a Christian makes the same claim - that Muslims are simply following the works of a misguided person who thought he was a prophet - then muslims tend to go ape and accuse them of heresy.

Insulting beliefs is a different thing than insulting a highly respected person. You said a few things that were against my beliefs, I never got angry from you, because everyone has his own beliefs and I have no problem with that. But when someone insults Hazrat Muhammad personally, then, I will get angry.

And by saying that Hazrat Isa was not God's son but His messenger, I am only questioning Christian beliefs, not insulting Hazrat Isa. He is highly respected by every Muslim.

But you are indeed insulting Jesus, according to Christians. What if I say to you that Mohammed was NOT a prophet at all. He was just misguided and deluded - just some ordinary man? That is what you are saying - that when Jesus claimed to be the son of God, he was deluded or mistaken.

There is no mention of Hazrat Isa in the Old Testament because, as you said it wasn't revealed on Hazrat Isa. That was for the Jews, not Christians.

As for the New Testament proving that Hazrat Isa as a son of God, that is the exactly what the Muslims claim the Christians have changed which makes them deviate from their original religion and not be real Christians.

But you have no evidence for that. The only support you have is the quran which is just some words written centuries after events and is, when it comes down to it, not what we call evidence, just assertion.

The accuracy of the Quran doesn't come from when it was written. But who wrote it.

Allah revealed it to Hazrat Muhammad and Allah can not be wrong or inaccurate.

Since this is again a matter of belief and you don't believe that, lets leave it at it.

As I said - the argument is exactly the same as used by Christians - that the Gospels cannot be wrong because they are the inspired word of God. It is simply assertion and can never be proven or even evidenced.

I meant allowed by Islamic law, as opposed to murdering anyone being allowed.

That 1 murder is not of an innocent, according to Islamic law.

But I reject the notion that Muslims have any right to set laws for me. In fact HOW DARE YOU assume that I, or anyone else, is subject to your laws. Do I insist that you stick to UK law? Of course not - it would be presumptuous and wrong to do so. Yet you seem to think that Islamic law applies to non-muslims all over the world. Sorry, it just doesn't. Rushdie and the Danish cartoonists are not subject to your laws.

I won't want to withdraw from a good argument. And since you say you want to insult, its all a discussion, we should continue until we either reach a conclusion or leave it because everything come up to the matter of belief, which we cannot force onto the other.

Does it include a depiction of Hazrat Muhammad?

 

Yes, it includes a sequence (strip) consisting of 3 cartoons drawn by a member of our group. The first shows Mohammed looking approvingly at pictures of him which feature in Islamic art. The second shows him looking at a recent cartoon of him with steam coming out of his turban. The third shows the cartoonist asking 'is it the hands? I could never get the knack of hands....'. Personally I think it is pretty funny. But this, of course, means that many muslims will regard me as a bad person, and we are aware that once it goes out we may well face threats - in fact we expect it. The point is to show that we will not be intimidated by threats of violence. Either you support free speech - which means the freedom for those you disagree with, as well as those you agree with, or you don't. Muslims don't, I do.

Shahrukh

But Rushdie is not subject to Islamic law - he is British. We do not insist that you obey our laws so what gives you the right to insist that we obey yours?

 

But YOUR laws are for you. If you want to make laws for your own country then fill your boots - help yourself. You do NOT make laws for my country or that cover the citizens of my country. Because I respect, in fact I insists on, freedom of speech then I defend your right to your opinion. Unfortunately you (Islam in general) do not respect freedom of speech so it is asymmetrical - I defend your freedom of speech and you kill people for exercising it.

 

But I reject the notion that Muslims have any right to set laws for me. In fact HOW DARE YOU assume that I, or anyone else, is subject to your laws. Do I insist that you stick to UK law? Of course not - it would be presumptuous and wrong to do so. Yet you seem to think that Islamic law applies to non-muslims all over the world. Sorry, it just doesn't. Rushdie and the Danish cartoonists are not subject to your laws.

 

I totally understand what you are saying here. However, you are not considering one thing.

If I threw a stone at the UK's queen or President from Pakistan (lets suppose that was possible), I would be tried according to UK's laws by a UK lawyer (or however the UK law states). Isn't that right?

Similarly, when someone throws an insult to a Muslim prophet, he would be tried according to Islamic law by a Muslim.

Of course, our laws don't apply to non-Muslims. Like if you had 'relations' with a woman thats not your wife, no Muslim would hit you with lashes.

But when you insult our prophet, you are getting into Islamic territory. So, just like I would be judged by the UK folks according to UK law for my actions in the UK territory, you will be judged by Muslims according to Islamic law in Islamic territory.

 

Which therefore makes Islam as dangerous as people say - it declares war on anyone who doesn't honour its rules. That is commonly known as tyranny.

 

We do not ask you to honour our rules. Just don't insult our prophet.

As for Islam being dangerous, well that is not really the case. During the time of Hazrat Muhammad, many people insulted him by calling him deluded, a magician, etc. etc. He never ordered anyone killed.

Declaring war is actually a Muslim's reaction to an insult of our prophet. There is no written law in Islam to kill a guy who insults a prophet. But, of course, its allowed to kill in a war.

(This still doesn't make Bin Ladin's point valid since he kills innocent people (including Muslims and non-Muslims) who are not attacking anyone, they aren't supposed to be killed even in war according to Islam).

 

Jews, obviously - as was Jesus himself.

 

Wait, I am a bit confused now. Weren't Jews the followers of Hazrat Musa (Moses)?

 

No, you got a scripture which YOU BELIEVE is correct. Others disagree. The Quranic story of the arrest is not supported by any historical documents and it actually makes little sense, because such a massacre would certainly have featured in the writings of contemporary historians such as Philo.

 

But I know the bible pretty well - I was raised catholic and taught by Jesuits and Salesian monks so I would put my knowledge of Christian theology up against anyone with confidence. I also have the Quran, but obviously less knowledge on that theology. More importantly I have also studied the works and writings of historians who were around at the time - Philo, Seneca, Josephus etc. This is what calls the whole story into question - both the Christian AND the muslim version of events are not supported by any historical evidence.

 

That is just assertion with no evidence. You have no evidence what changes were made to the gospels - whereas I know pretty well what changes were made from having studied the subject for some while. So I know that Mark was added to and I know that many of the cannonical works are pretty much as written.

 

But you have no evidence for that. The only support you have is the quran which is just some words written centuries after events and is, when it comes down to it, not what we call evidence, just assertion.

As I said - the argument is exactly the same as used by Christians - that the Gospels cannot be wrong because they are the inspired word of God. It is simply assertion and can never be proven or even evidenced.

 

I must say I am pretty weak in Christian theology. Since we have our own accounts of things stated in the Quran and Hadith, I never felt the need to study the historians since I would not have held them authentic over the Quran anyway.

As for having no evidence, religion is mostly about belief and not evidence. I would like to quote some of the verses of Quran here: The Holy Quran: Surah 2, Ayats 2-7:

This Book, there is no doubt in it, is a guide to those who guard (against evil). (2)

Those who believe in the unseen and keep up prayer and spend out of what We have given them. (3)

And who believe in that which has been revealed to you and that which was revealed before you and they are sure of the Hereafter. (4)

These are on a right course from their Lord and these it is that shall be successful. (5)

Surely those who disbelieve, it being alike to them whether you warn them, or do not warn them, will not believe. (6)

Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing and there is a covering over their eyes, and there is a great punishment for them. (7)

 

Ayats 2 to 5 state that believers (= Muslims in this case) believe in:

the unseen - of which there can be no direct evidence

that which has been revealed to you - that means the Quran, 'you' here means Hazrat Muhammad

that which has been revealed before you - that means the Torah (Book of Hazrat Musa), Zabur (Book of Hazrat Daud (David)), Injil (Book of Hazrat Isa) and Suhuf Ibrahim (Orders to Hazrat Ibrahim (Abraham))

the Hereafter - which means the time when people will be put into Heaven or Hell

What I am trying to say is that our BELIEF is all we need to think of the Quran as true and authentic. If other disagree, I am not, in any way, forcing my beliefs on anyone.

Like you said there is no hard evidence, only our believes are what we have. If there was clear cut evidence, then there would not have been any dispute and the whole purpose of creation, which according to our belief is to test who does what, would have been refused.

 

If a Christian makes the same claim - that Muslims are simply following the works of a misguided person who thought he was a prophet - then muslims tend to go ape and accuse them of heresy.

But you are indeed insulting Jesus, according to Christians. What if I say to you that Mohammed was NOT a prophet at all. He was just misguided and deluded - just some ordinary man? That is what you are saying - that when Jesus claimed to be the son of God, he was deluded or mistaken.

 

No, we would not go mad if anyone said that. That is something you believe in, our believe is different. And everyone can settle with that. Its insulting him personally that makes us angry. By, for example, creating a cartoon.

If a religious Christian felt insulted, said I was wrong and proved that he is true in his belief without my having anything to counter the argument, I would gladly apologise until I could find some other evidence on which to debate on.

What I am saying is that Hazrat Isa never claimed to be a son of God. The people changed the scripture to make it seem that way.

As for having evidence for the change, well, as I said, I am not very good in that part. I'll try to contact an Islamic scholar to answer that and let you know what he says.

 

Yes, it includes a sequence (strip) consisting of 3 cartoons drawn by a member of our group. The first shows Mohammed looking approvingly at pictures of him which feature in Islamic art. The second shows him looking at a recent cartoon of him with steam coming out of his turban. The third shows the cartoonist asking 'is it the hands? I could never get the knack of hands....'. Personally I think it is pretty funny. But this, of course, means that many muslims will regard me as a bad person, and we are aware that once it goes out we may well face threats - in fact we expect it. The point is to show that we will not be intimidated by threats of violence. Either you support free speech - which means the freedom for those you disagree with, as well as those you agree with, or you don't. Muslims don't, I do.

 

Dude, that is not cool.

And I have a few objections:

You don't know what Hazrat Muhammad looked like. So when you draw a cartoon of him, you are lying about him. And its not a good thing to lie about prophets, or any divine thing, for that matter.

Why isn't he frowning at the Islamic art? Its a pretty big sin in Islam to make pictures of people, even ordinary.

Steam coming out of his turban: I know that's just a representation of anger but, since the matter is about a prophet, things would be taken literally by Muslims, so that becomes a lie too.

You/your group drew a cartoon of my prophet! I am very angry with you now. I wish you would not publish it.

Can I know what's the newsletter going to be called and when it will be published?

Bikerman

I totally understand what you are saying here. However, you are not considering one thing.If I threw a stone at the UK's queen or President from Pakistan (lets suppose that was possible), I would be tried according to UK's laws by a UK lawyer (or however the UK law states). Isn't that right?
Similarly, when someone throws an insult to a Muslim prophet, he would be tried according to Islamic law by a Muslim.

No that is incorrect. If the 'offence' occurred in the UK then you would be tried according to UK laws. If it occurred in Pakistan then Pakistan laws would apply. Rushdie is in England. He has committed no offence in England therefore there is no charge to answer.

Of course, our laws don't apply to non-Muslims. Like if you had 'relations' with a woman thats not your wife, no Muslim would hit you with lashes.But when you insult our prophet, you are getting into Islamic territory. So, just like I would be judged by the UK folks according to UK law for my actions in the UK territory, you will be judged by Muslims according to Islamic law in Islamic territory.

I am not in Muslim territory - your laws do not apply. Neither is Rushdie nor the Danish cartoonists. You cannot apply your laws in our country because we do not accept them, and you have no right to even try.

We do not ask you to honour our rules. Just don't insult our prophet.

That is the same as saying honour our rules - or else! Our laws allow us to insult anyone we wish - freedom of speech. Your rules are different but they are not MY rules.

As for Islam being dangerous, well that is not really the case. During the time of Hazrat Muhammad, many people insulted him by calling him deluded, a magician, etc. etc. He never ordered anyone killed.Declaring war is actually a Muslim's reaction to an insult of our prophet. There is no written law in Islam to kill a guy who insults a prophet. But, of course, its allowed to kill in a war.

If you are prepared to declare war on an individual who is not bound by your rules then of course you are dangerous. The same applies to Christians who are prepared to kill people who violate their rules.
I want nothing to do with your rules and the notion that you can impose them on me is profoundly wrong.

(This still doesn't make Bin Ladin's point valid since he kills innocent people (including Muslims and non-Muslims) who are not attacking anyone, they aren't supposed to be killed even in war according to Islam).

Rushdie attacked no-one but you would see him killed. Double-standards. Drawing a cartoon is not attacking - ever heard the phrase 'sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me'? If you find The Satanic Verses offensive then DON'T READ IT. That is your right.

Wait, I am a bit confused now. Weren't Jews the followers of Hazrat Musa (Moses)?

Sort of. Moses was a prophet who led the Jews to the promised land, and carried the 10 commandments down from the mountain. Jesus and the apostles were all Jews by birth and by choice. Jesus makes frequent reference to the scripture in his speeches, such as 'not one letter of the law shall be changed' (referring to Jewish canonical law in the Tanakh (OT).

I must say I am pretty weak in Christian theology. Since we have our own accounts of things stated in the Quran and Hadith, I never felt the need to study the historians since I would not have held them authentic over the Quran anyway.

Which makes it all the more nonsensical that you feel able to criticise that which you do not know. You have a belief based on one set of scriptures. Christians have the same and Jews have the same, although their beliefs are different. There is no evidence to say that any one view is more valid than any other - that is why it is a matter of faith, not fact. You simply choose to believe that Christians are wrong.

As for having no evidence, religion is mostly about belief and not evidence. I would like to quote some of the verses of Quran here: The Holy Quran: Surah 2, Ayats 2-7:

Exactly. There is no point quoting quarnic verses - I could quote bible verses until the cows come home - it proves nothing.

What I am trying to say is that our BELIEF is all we need to think of the Quran as true and authentic. If other disagree, I am not, in any way, forcing my beliefs on anyone. Like you said there is no hard evidence, only our believes are what we have. If there was clear cut evidence, then there would not have been any dispute and the whole purpose of creation, which according to our belief is to test who does what, would have been refused.

Of course you are forcing your beliefs. You openly say (or muslims do) that if we do certain things, like mocking your prophet, then you have the right to kill us. That is about as forceful as it gets. You have no such right, and that is a clear attempt to intimidate people into accepting that Mohammed was special and deserving special treatment. I do not believe that, and therefore do not accept the whole notion. To me Mohammed was just a man like any other and like all men he had flaws and weaknesses. Our laws give me the right to express that, and your laws have no jurisdiction here.

No, we would not go mad if anyone said that. That is something you believe in, our believe is different. And everyone can settle with that. Its insulting him personally that makes us angry. By, for example, creating a cartoon.If a religious Christian felt insulted, said I was wrong and proved that he is true in his belief without my having anything to counter the argument, I would gladly apologise until I could find some other evidence on which to debate on.

The difference is that the Christians would have no right to kill you and would not try in most cases. If they did, they would be locked-up for breaking the law.
Since you have already agreed that no proof is possible then you cannot prove that your belief is correct - in which case you (mulims) should leave others alone to say and believe what they wish instead of threatening to kill them.

What I am saying is that Hazrat Isa never claimed to be a son of God. The people changed the scripture to make it seem that way.

You are mistaken and saying the scriptures were altered is something for which you have neither evidence nor knowledge.Jesus claims to be the son of God many times in the gospels - and they are just as valid (or invalid) as the Quran.

Dude, that is not cool.And I have a few objections:
* You don't know what Hazrat Muhammad looked like. So when you draw a cartoon of him, you are lying about him. And its not a good thing to lie about prophets, or any divine thing, for that matter.
* Why isn't he frowning at the Islamic art? Its a pretty big sin in Islam to make pictures of people, even ordinary.


No it isn't - that is just invented from later interpretations of the Quran. For centuries Muslims made images of the prophet, with no fuss. In fact they adorned many Muslim building. The prohibition on depictions of Mohammed is a relatively recent thing - it starts in the late 16th century. Before that time Muslims frequently drew, painted and sculpted images of the prophet. The fact that your (Muslim) position has changed is not my problem since I don't accept your rules, but this notion that it has always been wrong to make images is just not true.
http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/art

Steam coming out of his turban: I know that's just a representation of anger but, since the matter is about a prophet, things would be taken literally by Muslims, so that becomes a lie too.You/your group drew a cartoon of my prophet! I am very angry with you now. I wish you would not publish it.

Yes, I thought you might be. Unfortunately it doesn't change anything.
a) a cartoon is not a lie. I don't know what Jesus looked like either, but it is not a lie to represent him in imagery - it is simply a representation. The same applies to Mohammed.
The point of the cartoon is to illustrate the double standards that Muslims employ, plus the complete illegality of their position, plus the dangers of allowing the religious to dictate the agenda using threats of violence.
c) I absolutely will NOT be dictated to by anyone. I will say what I wish when I wish and I will not be frightened-off by threats of violence. If people disagree with what I say then they have an equal right to say so. That is the civilised way to behave. Threatening violence (or war) is the barbaric way to behave and people who give in to such threats are allowing bullies to set the agenda. This is a very serious issue - I will NOT have Muslims threatening me in my own country for making a serious point about free speech, and if they do then I trust that they will be tried according to OUR laws, which say you do not make threats of violence against people just because you disagree with them, and hopefully they will be locked-up nice and tight in one of our secure jails, until they see the error of their nasty little bullying ways.
d) If you want to mock Jesus in my country then go ahead. You may get some fringe groups threatening violence - they are as despicable as Muslims who do the same, and I have the same contempt for them. In fact part of the newsletter deals with those 'Christians' who threatened the producers of films and plays like 'The Life of Brian' and 'Gerry Springer the Opera'. I do not employ double-standards and do not pick on Muslims alone. ANYONE who threatens free speech is the target of our group.

Can I know what's the newsletter going to be called and when it will be published?

The group is currently called 'Campaign in support of free speech' - CAMSUFS (but we are currently looking for a more snappy title). It consists of a few people who are determined to stand up to any bullying on the matter of free-speech. The newsletter will be published via various internet sources when it is finished and agreed by the editorial team - hopefully next month...
This is not something we are doing just on a whim. We all know that we face very real risks of violence or even death from fanatical Muslims. That is one reason why we have chosen carefully who is in the group. None of us have children who can be used as targets to scare us, and those who are married have the full support of our wives. We are not playing games - this is a very serious issue which we feel strongly enough to go to the wall for. My grandfather fought for the rights I enjoy, including freedom of speech and I can do no less. I'll be damned if I am going to sit back and let a bunch of religious zealots take those rights away by threats of violence.

What we have here is a debate - which is great. You are quite welcome to be angry with me if I do something that offends your beliefs, I have no issue with that. What you are not welcome to do (and I will also quickly say that what you have NOT DONE) is to threaten me, or my family, because of what I say. That is a line in the sand over which NOBODY has the right to tread. Dressing it up as 'war' doesn't change the morality of the issue - which is that people are and should be free to say what they wish, within the normal limits of such freedoms (ie you cannot incite violence against a group of people and still use the freedom of speech argument). Governments impose other limits - such as not being free to talk about issues of national security - but that is by mutual agreement (if you work in sensitive areas then you sign the official secrets act in which you agree not to talk about such issues). Commercial organisations have a similar restriction - you sign a contract which says you will not talk about the companies secrets to other companies. That is no problem because the individual must agree. I have not agreed not to talk about Mohammed and not to draw him, therefore nobody has the right to insist that I do not.

Shahrukh

If I asked you in a nice, decent, civilised manner, then will you not publish that strip in it?


Bikerman

If I asked you in a nice, decent, civilised manner, then will you not publish that strip in it?

I appreciate the gesture, but the whole point is to confront this issue, not sweep it aside. The fact is that the issue exists and is real, and I would prefer it to be discussed openly. The only reason for doing so is that Muslims need to change their view on this. It isn't one of those issues where a bit of compromise from both sides would solve it. There is no room for compromise on free-speech - either you support it or you don't. If Muslims were to realise that declaring war on someone for printing an image is wrong, and change, then I guarantee that I will never publish an image of Mohammed again, since I am not interested in gratuitously insulting anyone. Until that time then be insulted, be offended, call me names, scream abuse at me. All that is fine. Threaten me with death (or declare war on me) - no. That must change.

If I thought that obliging your request would genuinely help achieve this goal then I would do so, but I don't. I think it would just be one more example of a refusal to confront the issue head-on. I have deliberately chosen a cartoon which does not portray the prophet in a particularly bad light, since that is not the point of the exercise. The point is to show that an image of anyone or anything is just an image, nothing more. Those who call it blasphemy are within their rights, though I think they are over-reacting. Those who call for the killing of people because of it are extremist zealots. The only way I know to change the situation is to honestly challenge it head-on.

So I am genuinely sorry to offend you, but I must publish the cartoon. If you have a suggestion to make it less offensive to you then I will try to accommodate it, but it will be published, and the by-line will say that it was drawn by all of us - we have no intention of identifying one person.


Pages :-

Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5
Page 6


VIEW DESKTOP VERSION REGISTERGET FREE HOSTING

Xisto.com offers Free Web Hosting to its Members for their participation in this Community. We moderate all content posted here but we cannot warrant full correctness of all content. While using this site, you agree to have read and accepted our terms of use, cookie and privacy policy. Copyright 2001-2019 by Xisto Corporation. All Rights Reserved.