Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Did anyone even notice that no American Muslims rioted or even protested this film?
There is something else at play here than the assumption that Muslims in general are just wantin' to riot!
I noticed that muslims didn't riot in the US. But then the US is already perceived as having an anti muslim bias isn't it? Mosques are already being torched in the US. That bias might have done more to stop muslim violence than the mythical moderate muslim.
That's completely illegal and those criminals have absolutely no right to burn places of worship in America.
I noticed that muslims didn't riot in the US. But then the US is already perceived as having an anti muslim bias isn't it? Mosques are already being torched in the US. That bias might have done more to stop muslim violence than the mythical moderate muslim.
That's completely illegal and those criminals have absolutely no right to burn places of worship in America.
Right on both counts. It's completely illegal. There is no right to burn places of worship. Mosques have still been burned to the ground.
It's not about what's legal or what's right. It is about a perception of anti muslim bias among Americans and muslims are only less than 2% of the whole nation. If they were significantly more numerous, like they are in France for instance, you would likely see muslim riots here too.
I think it is a shame that you broad-brushed Muslims with your thread title.
The vast majority of Muslims didn't protest the video or the cartoons.
But your thread title does one good thing, it makes me realize that the people acting like children by disrespecting someone's belief to this extent are also broad-brushing and when protests and riots occur they can say, "see I was right, Muslims are nothing but animals."
I think it is a shame that some people need to defend people that abuse them.
No one has abused me. And I haven't defended anyone abusing anyone.
You realize, don't you, that not so very long ago people talked about Catholics and the Pope in much the same way as you are speaking about Islam.Might want to consider that Muslims that are Pro Reform, even Moderate Muslims, can be just as much a target as us. The issue isn't about most Muslims, it's about those with Concentrated Power, who direct the trends, and act with impunity. Whether it's one in a thousand, or one in a hundred thousand, it is insignificant to the victim of the effect. The Enemy is Sharia, trying to bring the World into Compliance with It's Interpretation of what is Right and Just, by Any Means. It does not Recognize anything even Parallel, It does not see Truth outside of It's own brand, only temporary competition, obstruction. In Islam, the Sword is Mightier than the Pen.
No, my stance is that it is childish to act like a child, and the guy that made the video is childish. And a poor excuse for a human, since he claimed to be an Israeli Jew and apparently lied to his actors.I think it is a shame that some people need to defend people that abuse them.
No one has abused me. And I haven't defended anyone abusing anyone.
Your stance is that no one should upset the abuser, because doing so is going to get them to take their anger out on their victims. Therefore, you are defending them.
You realize, don't you, that not so very long ago people talked about Catholics and the Pope in much the same way as you are speaking about Islam.Might want to consider that Muslims that are Pro Reform, even Moderate Muslims, can be just as much a target as us. The issue isn't about most Muslims, it's about those with Concentrated Power, who direct the trends, and act with impunity. Whether it's one in a thousand, or one in a hundred thousand, it is insignificant to the victim of the effect. The Enemy is Sharia, trying to bring the World into Compliance with It's Interpretation of what is Right and Just, by Any Means. It does not Recognize anything even Parallel, It does not see Truth outside of It's own brand, only temporary competition, obstruction. In Islam, the Sword is Mightier than the Pen.
You realize, don't you, that they were entirely right to do so, and the fact that they were right was aptly demonstrated by the reaction of the church to their speech. Strangely enough, people kept talking that way, and the church changed.
Did anyone even notice that no American Muslims rioted or even protested this film?Might want to consider that Muslims that are Pro Reform, even Moderate Muslims, can be just as much a target as us. The issue isn't about most Muslims, it's about those with Concentrated Power, who direct the trends, and act with impunity. Whether it's one in a thousand, or one in a hundred thousand, it is insignificant to the victim of the effect. The Enemy is Sharia, trying to bring the World into Compliance with It's Interpretation of what is Right and Just, by Any Means. It does not Recognize anything even Parallel, It does not see Truth outside of It's own brand, only temporary competition, obstruction. In Islam, the Sword is Mightier than the Pen.
Most Muslims in America don't even know what sharia is. Thats just fear mongering. This whole sharia thing just recently started with anti Islamic websites and preaching and that's when people jumped on this bandwagon. Sorry but it's stupid
There is something else at play here than the assumption that Muslims in general are just wantin' to riot!
That's completely illegal and those criminals have absolutely no right to burn places of worship in America.
Right on both counts. It's completely illegal. There is no right to burn places of worship. Mosques have still been burned to the ground.
It's not about what's legal or what's right. It is about a perception of anti muslim bias among Americans and muslims are only less than 2% of the whole nation. If they were significantly more numerous, like they are in France for instance, you would likely see muslim riots here too.
No. Muslims in America are way less religous. And I haven't seen French Muslims riot because of the magazine. A few mosques have been burned in a criminal act. Anti Muslim bias is not an excuse for it. It's because they are vandalizers
You realize, don't you, that not so very long ago people talked about Catholics and the Pope in much the same way as you are speaking about Islam.
You realize, don't you, that they were entirely right to do so, and the fact that they were right was aptly demonstrated by the reaction of the church to their speech. Strangely enough, people kept talking that way, and the church changed.
No it didn't.
France doesn't let their immigrant population become citizens. We do (well, except for Mexicans). Most Muslims in America are American citizens.
It makes a big difference.
Right on both counts. It's completely illegal. There is no right to burn places of worship. Mosques have still been burned to the ground.
It's not about what's legal or what's right. It is about a perception of anti muslim bias among Americans and muslims are only less than 2% of the whole nation. If they were significantly more numerous, like they are in France for instance, you would likely see muslim riots here too.
No. Muslims in America are way less religous. And I haven't seen French Muslims riot because of the magazine. A few mosques have been burned in a criminal act. Anti Muslim bias is not an excuse for it. It's because they are vandalizers
The perception among many muslims is that they aren't liked by Americans. Therefore they are more careful than they are in those nations whose people have already been somewhat beaten into submission.
You must have missed my other post. Or choose to not reply to it.You realize, don't you, that they were entirely right to do so, and the fact that they were right was aptly demonstrated by the reaction of the church to their speech. Strangely enough, people kept talking that way, and the church changed.
No it didn't.
The church is still burning people at the stake? I must have missed those stories, do you have a link?
You must have missed my other post. Or choose to not reply to it.No it didn't.
The church is still burning people at the stake? I must have missed those stories, do you have a link?
You realize, don't you, that not so very long ago people talked about Catholics and the Pope in much the same way as you are speaking about Islam.Might want to consider that Muslims that are Pro Reform, even Moderate Muslims, can be just as much a target as us. The issue isn't about most Muslims, it's about those with Concentrated Power, who direct the trends, and act with impunity. Whether it's one in a thousand, or one in a hundred thousand, it is insignificant to the victim of the effect. The Enemy is Sharia, trying to bring the World into Compliance with It's Interpretation of what is Right and Just, by Any Means. It does not Recognize anything even Parallel, It does not see Truth outside of It's own brand, only temporary competition, obstruction. In Islam, the Sword is Mightier than the Pen.
You realize, don't you, that they were entirely right to do so, and the fact that they were right was aptly demonstrated by the reaction of the church to their speech. Strangely enough, people kept talking that way, and the church changed.
You realize, don't you, that not so very long ago people talked about Catholics and the Pope in much the same way as you are speaking about Islam.
You realize, don't you, that they were entirely right to do so, and the fact that they were right was aptly demonstrated by the reaction of the church to their speech. Strangely enough, people kept talking that way, and the church changed.
That is the thing. Centuries ago, the Church reacted to its honorable critics, most especially those within its own midst. And it changed. There are no more legitimate militant Roman Catholics anymore; certainly none that are recognized as Catholics by the Church. You don't find the Pope or any other Church leaders or heads of state needing to condem or apologize for the murderous actions of rioting Catholics and asserting that the terrorists do not reflect the views of Catholicism.
Sadly, Islam is almost as old as Roman Catholicism but too many of its followers have not followed suit in matters of peace and tolerance.
The latest in 'incidents" to anger militant Islam will probably be this French magazine in a country with a substantial and growing militant Muslim population.
A French satirical magazine published nude cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed Wednesday, a move that could further inflame tensions after violent protests in the Muslim world over an anti-Islam film.
The cover of Charlie Hebdo shows a Muslim in a wheelchair being pushed by an Orthodox Jew under the title Intouchables 2″, referring to an award-winning French film about a poor black man who helps an aristocratic quadriplegic.
Another cartoon on the back page of the weekly magazine show a naked turbaned Mohammed exposing his posterior to a film director, a scene inspired by a 1963 film starring French film star Brigitte Bardot.
France has stepped up security at its embassies in countries following the move, Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said Wednesday.
I have obviously issued instructions so that special security measures are taken in all the countries where this could pose a problem, Fabius said, admitting that he was concerned by the potential for a backlash.
The publication came a day after 12 died in an Afghan suicide bombing, the deadliest attack linked to an anti-Islamic film.
A female suicide bomber killed 12 people in Afghanistan on Tuesday in the deadliest single attack attributed to the controversial film which has sparked furious protests across the Muslim world.
The deaths raised to over 30 the toll from incidents linked to the trailer for Innocence of Muslims, a film produced by extremist Christians in the United States that depicts the Prophet Mohammed as a thuggish womaniser.
Charlie Hebdos website crashed on Wednesday after being bombarded with comments that ranged from hate mail to approbation.
The magazine is no stranger to controversy over issues relating to Islam.
Last year it published an edition guest-edited by the Prophet Mohammed that it called Sharia Hebdo. The magazines offices in Paris were subsequently fire-bombed.
French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said anyone offended by cartoons could take the matter to the courts after expressing his disapproval of all excesses.
But he emphasised Frances tradition of free speech. We are in a country where freedom of expression is guaranteed, including the freedom to caricature, he said on RTL radio.
If people really feel offended in their beliefs and think there has been an infringement of the law and we are in a state where laws must be totally respected they can go to court, Ayrault said.
He also said a request to hold a demonstration in Paris against the controversial US-made anti-Islam film Innocence of Muslims which has sparked furious protests across the Muslim world would be refused.
Charlie Hebdos latest move was greeted with immediate calls from political and religious leaders for the media to act responsibly and avoid inflaming the current situation.
The magazines editor, originally a cartoonist who uses the name Charb, denied he was being deliberately provocative at a delicate time. . . .
French magazine publishes naked Prophet Mohammed cartoons | The Raw Story
So the question in my mind is: knowing what militant Islam's response to this kind of thing is, should it be prohibited? There is a part of me that questions the ethics of intentionally inflaming militant Muslims knowing that people will likely die. And there is a part of me that so resents free speech being set aside in deference to any religious (or other) figure or personality, I wonder what would happen if everybody insulted Islam's prophet simultaneously making it virtually impossible for them to target any one person or country?
You realize, don't you, that they were entirely right to do so, and the fact that they were right was aptly demonstrated by the reaction of the church to their speech. Strangely enough, people kept talking that way, and the church changed.
That is the thing. Centuries ago, the Church reacted to its honorable critics, most especially those within its own midst. And it changed. There are no more legitimate militant Roman Catholics anymore; certainly none that are recognized as Catholics by the Church. You don't find the Pope or any other Church leaders or heads of state needing to condem or apologize for the murderous actions of rioting Catholics and asserting that the terrorists do not reflect the views of Catholicism.
Sadly, Islam is almost as old as Roman Catholicism but too many of its followers have not followed suit in matters of peace and tolerance.
The Cathloic church changed due to pressure from society and a movement within in ranks spured during the period of enlightenment. The structure of the church and the stability of its flock allowed it to adapt. Insulting Islam in an attempt to force change will never work because we are not muslim. Islam will never adapt as long as the middle east is so unstable, as long as violence and ignorance reign.
Okay I am agreeing with most of you. To allow others to dictate what we may say, think, express, opine about, insulting or not is to subjugate ourselves to others and give them power that it may be unhealthy to alllow them to have.
But playing devil's advocate here, do we bear no responsibility to not provoke the mentally unbalanced, the deranged, the brainwashed, or to simply look to our own interests?
You might see your boss as a total ass, but do you say so and thereby risk being demoted, not promoted, or fired? Or do you exercise prudence?
Do you obey the orders of the mad man or robber with a gun so as not to provoke him to shoot you or others he is with or the hostage he is holding? How much risk can you ethically take in a situation like that?
So how is it different to not provoke militant Muslims?
