Cartoon of Mohammad creates International Row.
-
I think we should ignore this post.Originally posted by ceecookie:no i mean all religion under allah is nonsense -
Where ever in the paragraph was said that states Mary is a ghost? Oh goodnessOriginally posted by SBS9828X:u want us to believe that jesus is also a man, and that mary is a ghost?
Its like asking angels to commit sin and devil to commit good deeds wen its impossible
-
another racial riot will probly solve this
-
The caricatures have sparked outrage in Muslim countries across the world, following their publication in a Danish newspaper in September.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4681294.stm
The cartoons have since been published by several other European media.
Some of the cartoons depict Muhammad as a terrorist. Any images of the Prophet are banned under Islamic tradition.
The cartoons have prompted diplomatic sanctions, boycotts and death threats in some Arab nations, while some newspapers have defended publication of the images in the name of press freedom.
In Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his government should consider abandoning commercial and trade deals with countries where the cartoons have appeared.
The Roman Catholic church has also criticised the cartoons.
The right to freedom of expression did not imply the right to offend religious beliefs, the Vatican said in a statement.
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has called for calm and urged Muslims to accept an apology from the Danish paper that first published the cartoons.
'God is great'
Syrians have been staging sit-ins outside the Danish embassy since the row intensified earlier this week, when Damascus recalled its ambassador.
On Saturday, hundreds hurled stones and stormed the site.
To chants of "God is Great," they set fire to the Danish flag and replaced it with another reading "No God but Allah, Muhammad is His Prophet", according to Reuters news agency.
The embassy was closed, but it was not immediately clear if it was empty when the protests started, Reuters said.
As I said, barbarians. Where are the protests from governments now?
By the way, I'll be having danish bacon for dinner tonight. -
By implication, if u are not a believer of a faith, you are doomed to suffer the consequences as spelt out in the faith's scriptures.
For example, if i am a Hindu, the Christian faith would label me an unbeliever doomed to suffer in hell. If i am Muslim, I would never escape from the cycle of birth and death as written in the Buddhist sutra.
Its pretty stupid to debate on this point.
What we should be focusing, are extremists who show great intolerance for other faiths, explicitly if you please, whether its calling them infidels or bombing them.
Last note, dont feed the trolls lah. -
I think both the Christians and Muslims should stop and think about what they have been doing. It seems that conflict nowadays seems to be between Christians and Muslims more than anything else. Of course, I'm not saying Christianity and Islam are bad but I think the Europeans and Middle Easterners should really stop demanding too much and learn to compromise. If the Muslims and Christians in Singapore can live together peacefully, I think it's time the rest of the world learn from us.
And just to clarify some things with the person who posted just before me, Bhuddists do not believe that you will be punished for not being a Bhuddist, unlike Jews, Christians and Muslims who believe that all those not of their religeon will go to hell. Bhuddists on the other hand believe that if you do good deeds, you will be rewarded in your next life regardless of whether you are a Bhuddist or not. -
intolerance is the word here. don't just blame others for being insensitive. every little thing tends to set off many global muslims these days and the over-reaction is almost always very violent.
i don't see christians getting overly heated up over dan brown's da vinci code and other works like the last temptation of christ and so forth....i asked a pastor friend and his reply was that the christian's defence is prayer and weapon is also prayer because their doctrine is esstially a message of love.
when the taliban destroyed the rock statue of buddha, where were the violence? the buddhist are basically pacifists and their primary focus is charity. isn't uplifting the spirit of the downtrodden more important than some cartoon drawings?
that said, personally i wouldn't go round trying to provoke anyone but i did find the one where some angel declared that there weren't enough virgins to go around very amusing.... -
They get so upset over this so called comic sketches, i wonder what will happen if they had watched south park...probably stand outside Matt & Trey's house with a rifle or smth.
-
I take the view that there should be limits on freedom of speech, particularly in multi-racial and multi-religious societies like Singapore. The government was right to ban Salman Rushdie's book "Satanic Verses' the the film 'the Last Temptation of Christ'. Race and religion have the capacity to arouse fierce passions and although it may dampen artistic innovations, I consider the risks outweigh any potential benefits.
If the cartoons had been directed against a living person, there would have been grounds for a defamatory suit. If you draw a cartoon of one of our leaders portraying him as a terrorist you would expect to be sued in double quick time. It is a no-brainer that this set of drawings will arouse the anger of many Muslims.
Western nations have been hypocritical in this as well. They have joined the Jews in condemning schoolboy pranks like Prince Harry dressing up as Hitler and a UK hospital employee was sacked just because he imitated Nazi salutes. Those who considered the Holocaust as a fallacy are regularly castigated (and rightly so) and sanctions have been called against the Iranian president, who expressed the view that Israel should not be allowed to exist as a nation (much as the US also feels that Taiwan should not exist as an independent nation). These are obnoxious views but surely they should be entitled to their views if freedom of speech is sacrosanct? Or does that only apply to certain races?
Singapore needs to formulate policies that suit our needs and I say that we must continue to ban such depictions of religion and races that threaten our religious and racial harmony. Libertarians will rule over an anrachic society and that is not what I want for a home. -
again i ask.. where were they when atrocities are done in the name of their religion?
Jesus (one of Islam's prophets) said "let he who is sinless cast the first stone" -
Osama bombed the twin towers and Afghanistan was bombed while Osama is on the loose. The Talibans were blamed for condoning Osama just as the Danish government is being blamed for allowing their press to print the cartoons.Originally posted by the Bear:question: if a newspaper did something, is the gabrament and the people to be blamed?
juxtapose that with the suicide bomber or terrorist.. should we blame the gabrament or citizens where the person came from?
seriously...
seems like the danish gabrament is to blame for the actions of a few.. but the maniacs' countries and lea-duhs get away scot-free... -
btw, here's a PILE of Mohammad being depicted anyway.. no maniac violence came of these??
Archive of depictions of Mohammad -
But where's the inconsistency here? Islam (and Judaism) forbids idolatrous images of any kind. The Taliban blew up the images in their own country when they were in power. Many Muslims feel it is their responsibility to remove all idols from an Islamic state (much as the Old Testament spoke of Jewish kings destroying idols and pagan temples in Palestine).Originally posted by the Bear:i wonder.. where were these same fellas storming the danish embassies when the Taliban were blowing up the ancient buddhist carvings in the mountain?
I think the Taliban action was unnecessary as the Buddhist carvings were not used as objects of worship but were really objects of art. But who are we to tell them how to interprete and practise their own religion? The Talibans should have invited other nations to cart off the carvings from their country if the international community wanted them so much. Destroying the carvings was an insensitive and intolerant act that could have been averted.
I think you mean that just as the Muslims had been intolerant and insulted the Buddhists, their religion deserves to be insulted as well. 'An eye for an eye', I guess...you may be right but going down that path will yield nothing apart from generating more animosity and a more hostile world for all of us. Muslims have a seige mentality now given recent world events and it is the duty of the strong to make the first move to step back. -
ever read "The Satanic Verse" bro ? ... you can buy it where you are now of course, I suggest you do, and perhaps decide for yourself if it's really offensive. (the irony is that i borrowed the book from a pakistani muslim girl)Originally posted by oxford mushroom:I take the view that there should be limits on freedom of speech, particularly in multi-racial and multi-religious societies like Singapore. The government was right to ban Salman Rushdie's book "Satanic Verses' the the film 'the Last Temptation of Christ'. Race and religion have the capacity to arouse fierce passions and although it may dampen artistic innovations, I consider the risks outweigh any potential benefits.
If the cartoons had been directed against a living person, there would have been grounds for a defamatory suit. If you draw a cartoon of one of our leaders portraying him as a terrorist you would expect to be sued in double quick time. It is a no-brainer that this set of drawings will arouse the anger of many Muslims.
Western nations have been hypocritical in this as well. They have joined the Jews in condemning schoolboy pranks like Prince Harry dressing up as Hitler and a UK hospital employee was sacked just because he imitated Nazi salutes. Those who considered the Holocaust as a fallacy are regularly castigated (and rightly so) and sanctions have been called against the Iranian president, who expressed the view that Israel should not be allowed to exist as a nation (much as the US also feels that Taiwan should not exist as an independent nation). These are obnoxious views but surely they should be entitled to their views if freedom of speech is sacrosanct? Or does that only apply to certain races?
Singapore needs to formulate policies that suit our needs and I say that we must continue to ban such depictions of religion and races that threaten our religious and racial harmony. Libertarians will rule over an anrachic society and that is not what I want for a home.
with regards to the example you pointed out, note that there weren't any widespread and popular demonstrations and violence, or even the threat of violence, over the prince's antices and others, I don't think there were protests on the streets of tel aviv ... or any Jews threatening to cut off the prince's head ... it was all just the pro forma neccessary noises made because, after all, he's a prince, and really should know better ... ditto the hospital worker who was sacked ... though some may construct that as political correctness gone amonk ...
regardless of whether the printing of these caricatures was right or wrong ... the reactions were totally unjustified and overboard to me ... -
I will probably NOT find it offensive at all. But that does not matter. What really matters is whether the thousands of Muslims in Singapore and to a lesser degree, those in our neighboring nations, would find it offensive. The judgment is not for us non-Muslims to make.Originally posted by Fatum:ever read "The Satanic Verse" bro ? ... you can buy it where you are now of course, I suggest you do, and perhaps decide for yourself if it's really offensive.
If our Islamic religious leaders tell me it is offensive, I will ban it. -
so, if they say the Bible, the Torah, the I-Ching... are all offensive, you'd ban them?
-
once again, organised religion and religious politics and manipulation of the ignorant masses proves itself the bane of Man.Originally posted by norey:Sadly our world is going back to medival days of darkness and spiritual ignorance..1000 ago!
when emotional rowdliness replaced the God of truth and reality! That was when the old church of churchianity killed millions and put the kings on pilgrimages to seek for pardons.. 
-
the irony is that it was written by a muslim author (rushdie).Originally posted by Fatum:ever read "The Satanic Verse" bro ? ... you can buy it where you are now of course, I suggest you do, and perhaps decide for yourself if it's really offensive. (the irony is that i borrowed the book from a pakistani muslim girl)
with regards to the example you pointed out, note that there weren't any widespread and popular demonstrations and violence, or even the threat of violence, over the prince's antices and others, I don't think there were protests on the streets of tel aviv ... or any Jews threatening to cut off the prince's head ... it was all just the pro forma neccessary noises made because, after all, he's a prince, and really should know better ... ditto the hospital worker who was sacked ... though some may construct that as political correctness gone amonk ...
regardless of whether the printing of these caricatures was right or wrong ... the reactions were totally unjustified and overboard to me ... -
Let's not get to extremes in our discussion.....it does not help.Originally posted by the Bear:so, if they say the Bible, the Torah, the I-Ching... are all offensive, you'd ban them?[/img]
Thankfully, Singapore is not Afghanistan and our Muslims are not extremists. Our job is easier...just prevent anything that can drive our moderate and intelligent Muslims to become the extremists we all fear. Islam teaches tolerance of other religions and our Muslims have no problem living in peace beside a church and behind a Chinese temple.
Publications that villify their religion are quite another matter... -
Just because your post reached over 30K damn posts and a regular forumer doesn't mean you have da right to label others as trollsOriginally posted by laurence82:By implication, if u are not a believer of a faith, you are doomed to suffer the consequences as spelt out in the faith's scriptures.
For example, if i am a Hindu, the Christian faith would label me an unbeliever doomed to suffer in hell. If i am Muslim, I would never escape from the cycle of birth and death as written in the Buddhist sutra.
Its pretty stupid to debate on this point.
What we should be focusing, are extremists who show great intolerance for other faiths, explicitly if you please, whether its calling them infidels or bombing them.
Last note, dont feed the trolls lah.
-
Sorry to burst your bubble....but he's not a Muslim at allOriginally posted by vito_corleone:the irony is that it was written by a muslim author (rushdie). juz a sorry-a.s.s
poor author -
the trolls he was referring to were those who tried to bring their own religious dogma into this discussion, and I think he's right in doing so ...Originally posted by blurberry:Just because your post reached over 30K damn posts and a regular forumer doesn't mean you have da right to label others as trolls
ignore the trolls ..... -
uh huh...Originally posted by blurberry:Sorry to burst your bubble....but he's not a Muslim at all juz a sorry-a.s.s
poor author -
I just think that there is a lack of a proper form of view on the part of the Middle Eastern Arabs.
Forgive, instead of burning flags and raising hell everytime there is a caricature.A truly religious man will pray for those who have transgressed against him, not simply grabbing the nearest weapon and smashing the living daylights out of him.
I agree that these cartoons are inflammatory to them, but there is something called give and take, and tolerance too.Who's to say who is morally right in this case?The Danes believe in their form of religious freedom, and the Muslims believe that it is a sin to make images of their God, so by default are we saying that the latter is right while the former is wrong?
We cannot say that too.That will be highly divisive too.Therefore, a reactionary response is what is NOT needed from Muslims, but rather they should seek a dialogue and come to a common understanding, a compromise.The world is not black and white, it is grey.What is deemed as religious blasphemy is deemed as freedom of expression by another race?
Surely religion teaches us to fight against base and instant responses, and instead focus on building our own innate character and guiding others, not being the dictator..
I hope they find a common ground, for there is too much sectarian conflict already.Both parties should take a step back.PM Rasmussen has already apologized, but state that he cannot stop the press.And instead of flagburning, why not take the newspaper to court instead?
Cultural and religious sensitivity should not have to be at the expense of common understanding and respect for diversity of views.This is sorely lacking in this increasingly dogmatic world with all sorts of extremists from many diferent faiths polluting this world with their falsehood. -
You dont event know who i am talking about, and you cant even read from my post?Originally posted by blurberry:Just because your post reached over 30K damn posts and a regular forumer doesn't mean you have da right to label others as trolls
For the record, its people who foolishly and misaccurately stated Islam as the cause of all this.
Not difficult to see who right?