PDA

View Full Version : Please Complain to Comedy Central



Life_Is_Short
05-17-2010, 11:54 PM
:sl:

The cartoon representation of Muhammed (peace be upon him) is stupid. This has initiated this whole "Draw Mohammed Day" which is aimed solely at insulting the beliefs of Islam. Muhammed (peace be upon him) is a very sacred figure in Islamic belief, and to depict him in any physical way is hurtful to millions of people worldwide.

Please write a complaint to comedy central here: http://www.comedycentral.com/help/thanks.jhtml

Please also write a complaint letter to your local channel for broadcasting the 200th episode of South Park.

Jazak'Allah Khair.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
shuraimfan4lyf
05-18-2010, 12:06 AM
:wa:

Sister I think its better if we just ignore it, the more attention we will give them the more they will instigate new controversies. By contacting them, they will not stop their disgusting behavior. Also the person who started the "Draw Muhammad Day" has dropped the event after everyone got angry. Source(was posted by brother Woodrow)
Reply

Life_Is_Short
05-18-2010, 12:36 AM
Originally Posted by shuraimfan4lyf
:wa:

Sister I think its better if we just ignore it, the more attention we will give them the more they will instigate new controversies. By contacting them, they will not stop their disgusting behavior. Also the person who started the "Draw Muhammad Day" has dropped the event after everyone got angry. Source(was posted by brother Woodrow)
Dear Brother

This has generated a lot of hate against Muslims and this hate no one can undo. The least us muslims can do is to write a paragraph complaint to comedy central so anything like this does not happen in the future.
Reply

atheistbynature
05-18-2010, 04:34 PM
The day is not aimed at offending Muslims or hearting peoples feelings. It is about defending freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is more important in a democracy than protecting peoples feelings, and 'draw Mohammed day' is to show that violence towards individuals will not make that go away. Ignoring it or writing a civil letter of complaint is exactly the response people taking part want.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Mohamed_Sadiq
05-18-2010, 04:50 PM
Originally Posted by atheistbynature
The day is not aimed at offending Muslims or hearting peoples feelings. It is about defending freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is more important in a democracy than protecting peoples feelings, and 'draw Mohammed day' is to show that violence towards individuals will not make that go away. Ignoring it or writing a civil letter of complaint is exactly the response people taking part want.
Wat you wrote is absurd, You need to do some research regarding 'Freedom of speech', Draw Mohammed day is not freedom of speech but it is intimidation towards the Muslim population.
Reply

Gabriel Ibn Yus
05-18-2010, 04:54 PM
Originally Posted by atheistbynature
The day is not aimed at offending Muslims or hearting peoples feelings.
Yes it is - it is all it is about hurting other peoples feelings.

Originally Posted by atheistbynature
It is about defending freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is more important in a democracy than protecting peoples feelings
Then democracy sucks. Or more accurately - it is a non-human system of government. Thinking that you can base a healthy human society only on the values of democracy without religion is a very wrong bet. At best it would serve the limited interest of a limited group of people in your country - in the long run it would be un-beneficial even for them as they would become the slaves of their own defected economical system.

Originally Posted by atheistbynature
and 'draw Mohammed day' is to show that violence towards individuals will not make that go away.
Hurting other peoples feelings is violence. For instance - you have just been violent because you have justified hurting other peoples feelings. In fact - justifying violence is the worst kind of violence.

If you so want to make a stand for human rights and freedom of speech in America - go to your average black Ghetto and tell the gangsters over there that African Americans in America have the right to live in peace without having to be afraid to send their kids to school without them being shot. Or maybe here saying your moral stand is a bit more difficult - why don't you do that?

Can a black mother go and tell that to a 14 year old gangster without being shoot? Isn't that important? Or is her freedom of speech less important or completely unimportant for that matter?
Reply

atheistbynature
05-18-2010, 05:05 PM
Originally Posted by Mohamed_Sadiq
Wat you wrote is absurd, You need to do some research regarding 'Freedom of speech', Draw Mohammed day is not freedom of speech but it is intimidation towards the Muslim population.
It is to show that people have the right to draw what they want without receiving death threats (or worse).
Reply

Gabriel Ibn Yus
05-18-2010, 05:07 PM
Originally Posted by atheistbynature
It is to show that people have the right to draw what they want without receiving death threats (or worse).
The only one being violent here is you my friend.
Reply

Skavau
05-18-2010, 05:09 PM
Originally Posted by Gabriel Ibn Yus
Yes it is - it is all it is about hurting other peoples feelings.
It has the consequence of hurting people's feelings. And it is in part about declaring freedom of speech supercedes others feeling offended. However, more importantly it is about demonstrating that violence is not an acceptable response to insult.

You can yourself declare cartoons that mock, insult and ridicule religious figures as unacceptable, unecessary but you cannot insist that based on this that they should be prohibited by law. Your feelings ought not dictate the direction of law and give exemptions towards freedom of speech.

Then democracy sucks. Or more accurately - it is a non-human system of government.
I have no idea how you worked this out. Certainly in no literal way. Democracy is the direct opposite by definition.

Hurting other peoples feelings is violence. For instance - you have just been violent because you have justified hurting other peoples feelings. In fact - justifying violence is the worst kind of violence.
Hurting other people's feelings is not violence. Especially if they are not directed to other people, but concepts.

If you so want to make a stand for human rights and freedom of speech in America - go to your average black Ghetto and tell the gangsters over there that African Americans in America have the right to live in peace without having to be afraid to send their kids to school without them being shot. Or maybe here saying your moral stand is a bit more difficult - why don't you do that?
What does this have to do with freedom of speech?
Reply

Mohamed_Sadiq
05-18-2010, 05:11 PM
Originally Posted by atheistbynature
It is to show that people have the right to draw what they want without receiving death threats (or worse).
But why do they want to draw my prophet Muhammad peace be upon him? I mean he does not concern them which just proves that they are the ones looking for death threats we never suggested to attack them before this nonsense, I think they hungry for pain, wat of bunch of idiots seriously there is a thing called respecting other religion and what they are doing is not so they have to face the consequences right?
Reply

Gabriel Ibn Yus
05-18-2010, 05:14 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau
Hurting other people's feelings is not violence. Especially if they are not directed to other people, but concepts.
Hurting other peoples feelings is violence. If you want to criticize a concept you can do it if you wish in a respectable way that would not hurt other peoples feelings.

The fact that you did not understand my example shows that you do not care about freedom of speech but rather the freedom to instinctively follow your urges which are easily manipulated to present a very flat and one-dimensional mindset.

In fact - the fact that you did not understand the example of the black woman shows that you really do not care about the people but rather about concepts.

Frankly - why should I care anything about a concept - a concept is worth nothing. What religious people care for is human beings and their souls.
Reply

Skavau
05-18-2010, 05:16 PM
Originally Posted by Mohamed_Sadiq
But why do they want to draw my prophet Muhammad peace be upon him? I mean he does not concern them which just proves that they are the ones looking for death threats we never suggested to attack them before this nonsense, I think they hungry for pain, wat of bunch of idiots seriously there is a thing called respecting other religion and what they are doing is not so they have to face the consequences right?
People do not 'want' to draw Muhammad anymore than people want to draw other figures found in other religions. You realise (I hope) that mockery and insults towards Christianity in the Western World is just as large (if not larger) as perhaps it is towards Islam. There exist many forms of media, articles and drawings that directly mock Christianity (both on the internet and otherwise). This is a part of the free-speech culture that exists here. You do not have to view it yourself, you do not have to endorse it and you have every right to condemn it - but you do not have the right to insist that Islam is exempt from this.

Also, I would add that there is no requirement in this to respect religion.
Reply

Skavau
05-18-2010, 05:18 PM
Originally Posted by Gabriel Ibn Yus
Hurting other peoples feelings is violence. If you want to criticize a concept you can do it if you wish in a respectable way that would not hurt other peoples feelings.
You have not actually backed up your claim that hurting other people's feelings (willfully or otherwise) is violence, so to repeat the old statement: what can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

At any rate, why should people have to be bound by your requirements of criticism? Someone was directly offended once by me suggesting that torture in hell was not consistent with a benevolent deity. I cannot predict how people will react to ideals I espouse, or claims I make about what they hold to be true. I cannot account for how dear people hold their own personal metaphysics. Why should I observe this?
Reply

Gabriel Ibn Yus
05-18-2010, 05:20 PM
The Prophet does not belong to your culture - you do not accept him.

So by what right do you make use of him in your media?
Reply

Gabriel Ibn Yus
05-18-2010, 05:21 PM
[QUOTE=Gabriel Ibn Yus;1328478]The Prophet does not belong to your culture - you do not accept him.

So by what right do you make use of him in your media?
Reply

Mohamed_Sadiq
05-18-2010, 05:21 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau
People do not 'want' to draw Muhammad anymore than people want to draw other figures found in other religions. You realise (I hope) that mockery and insults towards Christianity in the Western World is just as large (if not larger) as perhaps it is towards Islam. There exist many forms of media, articles and drawings that directly mock Christianity (both on the internet and otherwise). This is a part of the free-speech culture that exists here. You do not have to view it yourself, you do not have to endorse it and you have every right to condemn it - but you do not have the right to insist that Islam is exempt from this.

Also, I would add that there is no requirement in this to respect religion.
ahahhahaha wat can I do if Christianity is not a respected religion loool well that shows that the Christians themselves are careless of their own religion, Islam is religion of peace, unity therefore Muslims condem mockery or interference of our religion cause we love our religion and want to protect it so don't go telling me that Christianity gets abused cause their followers don't have no backbone to defend their own religion.

Also respects towards other religion does include not to mock their religion and drawing the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him is abusing a religion, do you understand it now?
Reply

Gabriel Ibn Yus
05-18-2010, 05:24 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau
You have not actually backed up your claim that hurting other people's feelings (willfully or otherwise) is violence, so to repeat the old statement: what can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
There is no need for evidence. Violence is a direct action of a person which hurts another individual - by definition.

Thus hurting another persons feelings is violence.

It is not illegal by your law - yet it is still violence.
Reply

Life_Is_Short
05-18-2010, 05:58 PM
Originally Posted by atheistbynature
The day is not aimed at offending Muslims or hearting peoples feelings.
To depict Muhammad (peace be upon him) in any shape or form is extremely hurtful to millions of muslims.

Originally Posted by atheistbynature
It is about defending freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is more important in a democracy than protecting peoples feelings, and 'draw Mohammed day' is to show that violence towards individuals will not make that go away. Ignoring it or writing a civil letter of complaint is exactly the response people taking part want.
If the majority support something that a minority disagree with then surely it is impossible to talk of freeom or liberty for the minority in question. If non-muslims are free to do whatever they like under the name of "freedom of speech" then surely muslims are allowed to voice their displeasure by writing a complaint.

End of.
Reply

Skavau
05-18-2010, 06:12 PM
Originally Posted by Gabriel Ibn Yus
The Prophet does not belong to your culture - you do not accept him.

So by what right do you make use of him in your media?
Who's media? "Ours"?

The government does not control the media. The media is allowed to focus on what topics they like.

Originally Posted by Mohamed Sadiq
Also respects towards other religion does include not to mock their religion and drawing the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him is abusing a religion, do you understand it now?
I understand your personal behavioural constraints. I also understand that these behavioural constraints ought have no impact on the law regarding free speech. The fact you have respect towards other religions and choose not to mock them is your choice, and should not be imposed on others.

There is no need for evidence. Violence is a direct action of a person which hurts another individual - by definition.
What a fantastically liberal definition. It is a definition that most do not share (check Merriam Webster and Dictionary.com) and most secular nationstates do not recognise. My being an atheist has the direct capacity to upset and hurt other people. Are you claiming that if I was to declare my position in front another individual that I would be offended I would in fact be acting violent?
Reply

atheistbynature
05-18-2010, 08:23 PM
Without freedom of speech countries quickly become a dictatorship. If any group is allowed too much control of what the media says they can become too powerful e.g. Hitler. (not Godwin's law).

"Whilst i disagree strongly with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it." Evelyn Beatrice Hal
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
05-18-2010, 08:26 PM
Some people are unbelievable.

End of story.
Reply

shuraimfan4lyf
05-18-2010, 08:48 PM
Originally Posted by atheistbynature
It is to show that people have the right to draw what they want without receiving death threats (or worse).
I hope those death threats will get worse and come true insha'Allah.
Reply

DataPacRat
05-18-2010, 09:02 PM
Originally Posted by shuraimfan4lyf
I hope those death threats will get worse and come true insha'Allah.
I find myself surprised that I'm saddened at the evil of that statement - not only at the wish for someone to die, but that the poster does not even recognize that wishing someone dead is an evil wish. I'd thought I'd gotten cynical enough to just accept such malignity as a matter of course.
Reply

Mohamed_Sadiq
05-18-2010, 09:18 PM
Originally Posted by DataPacRat
I find myself surprised that I'm saddened at the evil of that statement - not only at the wish for someone to die, but that the poster does not even recognize that wishing someone dead is an evil wish. I'd thought I'd gotten cynical enough to just accept such malignity as a matter of course.
Do u want to know wat is evil? Evil is those that mock Islam and we won't tolerate it. We are not gonna lie back and see our religion being played with. Islam is not a joke and they need to know that before they do it again and again.
Reply

shuraimfan4lyf
05-18-2010, 09:23 PM
Originally Posted by DataPacRat
I find myself surprised that I'm saddened at the evil of that statement - not only at the wish for someone to die, but that the poster does not even recognize that wishing someone dead is an evil wish. I'd thought I'd gotten cynical enough to just accept such malignity as a matter of course.
I find myself not surprised when you are surprised at the statement that I made because you never experienced the true love of Islam and their Prophets. I am well aware for what I am wishing for. I am wishing for a punishment those cartooners supposed to get and whoever supports them are losers in this life and the hereafter.
Reply

Life_Is_Short
05-18-2010, 10:42 PM
Originally Posted by atheistbynature
Without freedom of speech countries quickly become a dictatorship. If any group is allowed too much control of what the media says they can become too powerful e.g. Hitler. (not Godwin's law).
Well, here is a new flash:

The west is already a dictatorship shaped by the media. Ever heard of ideological power-from ideological institutions such as the media. They have the ability to "agenda set" what should/should not be.

The idea "the liberal media" is a common belief and held to be true by the media. I could give you masses of evidence.

So please stop quoting nonesense. :exhausted
Reply

atheistbynature
05-18-2010, 11:10 PM
Originally Posted by shuraimfan4lyf
I find myself not surprised when you are surprised at the statement that I made because you never experienced the true love of Islam and their Prophets. I am well aware for what I am wishing for. I am wishing for a punishment those cartooners supposed to get and whoever supports them are losers in this life and the hereafter.
Are you seriously saying this about some people drawing cartoons as a protest against threats of violence? Does it really bother you that much that you think they deserve punishment for it? People should just not look at things that are going to offend them. If they are going to be punished in the next life for eternity then why punish them now?
Reply

جوري
05-19-2010, 01:06 AM
Originally Posted by atheistbynature
If they are going to be punished in the next life for eternity then why punish them now?
Regardless of the topic here..
Eternal punishment doesn't preclude from implementing worldly justice!
Do you think that because you take a shower every morning (we hope) that is should cover you if you soiled yourself sometime in the afternoon?
a guaranteed morning clean shouldn't preclude you from interval cleanups should the need arise!


all the best
Reply

shuraimfan4lyf
05-19-2010, 04:55 AM
Originally Posted by atheistbynature
Are you seriously saying this about some people drawing cartoons as a protest against threats of violence? Does it really bother you that much that you think they deserve punishment for it? People should just not look at things that are going to offend them. If they are going to be punished in the next life for eternity then why punish them now?
I am dead serious. They will be disgraced in this world and severely punished by the will of Allah in the Akhirah inshaAllah.
Reply

Skavau
05-19-2010, 05:47 AM
Originally Posted by shuraimfan4lyf
I hope those death threats will get worse and come true insha'Allah.
People like you only demonstrate the necessity of standing up for free-speech. People like you demonstrate that violence is not an acceptable response to insult.

Originally Posted by Mohamed Sadiq
Do u want to know wat is evil? Evil is those that mock Islam and we won't tolerate it. We are not gonna lie back and see our religion being played with. Islam is not a joke and they need to know that before they do it again and again.
No, they need not 'know' anything. They do not live in an Islamic state. They live in a nationstate that has a free media seperate from government influence and government control. They have no compulsion to observe Islamic tenets that they neither live under nor observe.
Reply

Mohamed_Sadiq
05-19-2010, 09:42 AM
Originally Posted by Skavau
People like you only demonstrate the necessity of standing up for free-speech. People like you demonstrate that violence is not an acceptable response to insult.


No, they need not 'know' anything. They do not live in an Islamic state. They live in a nationstate that has a free media seperate from government influence and government control. They have no compulsion to observe Islamic tenets that they neither live under nor observe.
Listen your an athiest right? So you don't know the feelings of having a religion, do you know people that follow a religion they defend it, and for us religion comes before nationalism we don't care what countries we are from we are all brothers and sisters of Islam so it doesn't matter if the country is not a Islamic country because they have to respect other religions full stop. *****Islam 4 life.*****
Reply

S_87
05-19-2010, 10:03 AM
you dont defend freedom of speech by OFFENDING people. there are many other ways to demonstrate freedom of speech this is NOT one of them
Reply

Gabriel Ibn Yus
05-19-2010, 10:06 AM
Originally Posted by Skavau
Who's media? "Ours"?
Yes. Exactly. Your media.

Your media belongs to your culture. Your culture is limited.

When you mention the Prophet, which belongs to another culture* - you
put your hand into the domain of another culture with disrespect - this is inappropriate.

Originally Posted by Skavau
The government does not control the media.
The media is allowed to focus on what topics they like.
Actually, I was not talking about the government which I do not care about
- I was talking about people who have no
respect to things outside of their culture. The government is just a system.

The reason maybe why you do not get it is that the concept of culture by itself is alien to western terminology. This is because there cannot be a culture in a secular community

Originally Posted by Skavau
What a fantastically liberal definition. It is a definition that most do not share (check Merriam Webster and Dictionary.com) and most secular nationstates do not recognise. My being an atheist has the direct capacity to upset and hurt other people. Are you claiming that if I was to declare my position in front another individual that I would be offended I would in fact be acting violent?
Yes. You should be able to explain your position in a way that does not offend anybody.

* The Prophet and the message of the Quran are universal, however one must embrace the basic principles in order to be entailed to the culture it defines.
Reply

Snowflake
05-19-2010, 10:27 AM
The things is, dogs will bark. You can't hold their mouths. Protests are like a bone to the dog. They want protests, reactions, watching muslim's suffer and not be able to stop it. And that's what they are getting.


The truth is that muslims have become so helpless they have to do rallies and petitions to fight the kufaar. If we obeyed Allah and His rasul, Allah would help us against the kuffar. So how about it? How about fulfilling His rights and the rights of your brothers and sisters in islam? Lies, deception, back biting, jealousy and lack of love for each other has destroyed us. The muslims of old times had Allah's help because they lived the deen! They were true to Allah, themselves and each other and Allah helped them against the kuffar without them asking. Does Allah not tell us that he will not change the condition of a people until they change themselves? Well do it then. Fulfil your obligations and ask Allah for help. He can smite them down in an instant. He can guide them or take away their senses so that they can't even think bad about the Prophet, let alone do cartoons of him. But for us to expect help from Allah we first have to be the kind of muslims Allah wants us to be. Don't disobey Allah and His Prophet (saw) and then claim to love Him and His Prophet (saw). You feel offended by a cartoon which neither harms Islam or the Prophet yet you offend Allah by your own disobedience to Him and His rasul. Clearly this was for those who think it's OK for them to make Allah angry, but they get angry when others do so. Doesn't make sense.
Reply

Supreme
05-19-2010, 10:36 AM
Originally Posted by Mohamed_Sadiq
Listen your an athiest right? So you don't know the feelings of having a religion, do you know people that follow a religion they defend it, and for us religion comes before nationalism we don't care what countries we are from we are all brothers and sisters of Islam so it doesn't matter if the country is not a Islamic country because they have to respect other religions full stop. *****Islam 4 life.*****
Indeed. The main reason this is perpetuated by atheists is that they cannot understand what it feels like to hold something holy to them in this way.

I'm split on the issue. When does free speech become taboo? Can it become taboo? As a Christian, when someone insults my religion, I am not offended- Jesus afterall taught us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us, and that we should be happy when we are persecuted for in the same way, the prophets before us were persecuted. I suppose that's why you'd never hear the same outroar amongst Christians if our religion was offended.
Reply

Skavau
05-19-2010, 12:03 PM
Originally Posted by Mohamed_Sadiq
Listen your an athiest right? So you don't know the feelings of having a religion, do you know people that follow a religion they defend it, and for us religion comes before nationalism we don't care what countries we are from we are all brothers and sisters of Islam so it doesn't matter if the country is not a Islamic country because they have to respect other religions full stop. *****Islam 4 life.*****
No they don't. These are your values, not other people's. You are allowed to be sanctimonious about respecting other religions. You are allowed to even protest, boycott and encourage others to criticise those who would diminish those ideals.

You do not, however have the right to force independent secular nationstates to censor their media to pay refuge to your feelings. Not only is it an unacceptable and unreasonable demand, it is also outside of the power of most of these countries (they do not control the media and cannot impose new legislation to censor them arbitrarily).

Originally Posted by amani
you dont defend freedom of speech by OFFENDING people. there are many other ways to demonstrate freedom of speech this is NOT one of them
This is, in the context of what is being contended - arguably the only way to defend freedom of expression. It is people refusing to back down over the demands that Islam become uniquely immune from mockery and insult.

Indeed, to claim that freedom of speech must supercede hurt feelings and then refuse to demonstrate a willingness to put that into action is cowardice.
Reply

Mohamed_Sadiq
05-19-2010, 12:05 PM
Originally Posted by Supreme
Indeed. The main reason this is perpetuated by atheists is that they cannot understand what it feels like to hold something holy to them in this way.

I'm split on the issue. When does free speech become taboo? Can it become taboo? As a Christian, when someone insults my religion, I am not offended- Jesus afterall taught us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us, and that we should be happy when we are persecuted for in the same way, the prophets before us were persecuted. I suppose that's why you'd never hear the same outroar amongst Christians if our religion was offended.
Yes, your right and there is less outroar when Christians get offended because many Christian countries are becoming secularised and less religous on the other hand Islam is becoming stronger and stronger each moment and Muslims are not secular and still have their religion and also Islam is the most growing religion in the world. I am sure you can see the correlation.

Freedom of speech is just expressing your freedom and when did Islam prevented their rights of freedom nobody is reinforcing them to become Muslims or forcing them or trapping them so why insult Islam? If they don't like my religion cant the just say it respectfully instead of a indirect ugly way?

Cant they just say:' Sorry but we don't like your religion'----> aint that much better than mocking Islam?
Reply

Skavau
05-19-2010, 12:06 PM
Originally Posted by Gabriel
Yes. Exactly. Your media.

Your media belongs to your culture. Your culture is limited.

When you mention the Prophet, which belongs to another culture* - you
put your hand into the domain of another culture with disrespect - this is inappropriate.
There is no specific culture (unless you use umbrella terms) in the vast majority of secular nations. The fact that you consider some commentary, analysis, mockery or criticism of Islam, or of Muhammad as "disrespectful" does not matter. There is no reason that freedom of speech, being disrespectful ought to be criminalised.

Yes. You should be able to explain your position in a way that does not offend anybody.
Sir, that is impossible. Again, I repeat - simply my being an atheist offends people. Are you suggesting that I should pretend to be otherwise in their company? Are you suggesting that I should silence myself because of their sensibilities?

* The Prophet and the message of the Quran are universal, however one must embrace the basic principles in order to be entailed to the culture it defines.
This is of course, what you believe. No reason for me to believe it has any relevance to free speech.
Reply

Gabriel Ibn Yus
05-19-2010, 12:10 PM
The fact that you are an atheist does not offend anybody. You can believe in what ever you want.

However, people feel uncomfortable when you spread this unhealthy belief for natural reasons.

p.s I would not be so proud of not having a culture. It is a bad sign to live in a society which has no culture. It means your society is ill.
Reply

Skavau
05-19-2010, 12:10 PM
Originally Posted by Mohamed Sadiq
Freedom of speech is just expressing your freedom and when did Islam prevented their rights of freedom nobody is reinforcing them to become Muslims or forcing them or trapping them so why insult Islam? If they don't like my religion cant the just say it respectfully instead of a indirect ugly way?
On the internet, there exists many outlets for mockery. I know of at least two parodies of wikipedia (one 'decent', the other more explicit). They mock everything. This includes Islam. Indeed both websites have large articles on Islam. Are you suggesting that those satirical encyclopedias have their articles on Islam (and other articles relating to it) censored? If so, would you by extension suggesting that anyone on the internet who mocks or insults Islam or Muslims have their ISPs contacted and have their service providers cut them off?

Why or why not?
Reply

Mohamed_Sadiq
05-19-2010, 12:11 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau
No they don't. These are your values, not other people's. You are allowed to be sanctimonious about respecting other religions. You are allowed to even protest, boycott and encourage others to criticise those who would diminish those ideals.

You do not, however have the right to force independent secular nationstates to censor their media to pay refuge to your feelings. Not only is it an unacceptable and unreasonable demand, it is also outside of the power of most of these countries (they do not control the media and cannot impose new legislation to censor them arbitrarily).


This is, in the context of what is being contended - arguably the only way to defend freedom of expression. It is people refusing to back down over the demands that Islam become uniquely immune from mockery and insult.

Indeed, to claim that freedom of speech must supercede hurt feelings and then refuse to demonstrate a willingness to put that into action is cowardice.
Do you know what cowardice is? Mocking and taking the mick out of a religion.

We never said that protest and boycotting is bad infact it is the best way to show ur freedom of speech. But taking the mick out of a religion is not freedom of speech its wat u call being dumb and stupid.
Reply

Skavau
05-19-2010, 12:12 PM
Originally Posted by Gabriel Ibn Yus
The fact that you are an atheist does not offend anybody. You can believe in what ever you want.
My being an atheist and believing that hell is an immoral concept has directly offended people I have been in discussion with. Are you to suggest I should be censored in such a situation?

However, people feel uncomfortable when you spread this unhealthy belief for natural reasons.
So if I decide to promote secularism, humanism, anti-theism or something similar - should I be censored if someone finds it offensive?
Reply

Skavau
05-19-2010, 12:13 PM
Originally Posted by Mohamed_Sadiq
Do you know what cowardice is? Mocking and taking the mick out of a religion.
In what context?

We never said that protest and boycotting is bad infact it is the best way to show ur freedom of speech. But taking the mick out of a religion is not freedom of speech its wat u call being dumb and stupid.
If using free expression to make satirical comments and to produce satirical cartoons is not freedom of expression - then what is? Are you against satire?
Reply

Gabriel Ibn Yus
05-19-2010, 12:17 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau
So if I decide to promote secularism, humanism, anti-theism or something similar - should I be censored if someone finds it offensive?
People find things offensive when they think they are wrong. Secularism is simply wrong and you should not advocate wrong things because it is unhealthy.

If you want to spread a belief you can communicate it to others - check very carefully if what you say is right -
and then distribute it.

Ahhm. Hell might seem to you immoral but ...yet exists. Look around you you can find a lot of manifestations
of hell on earth even! (you do not need to die to see it exists)

What is war in your opinion? Is it not hell? It is immoral - so why do you not go against war?
Secularism is a weird idea.
Reply

Mohamed_Sadiq
05-19-2010, 12:19 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau
On the internet, there exists many outlets for mockery. I know of at least two parodies of wikipedia (one 'decent', the other more explicit). They mock everything. This includes Islam. Indeed both websites have large articles on Islam. Are you suggesting that those satirical encyclopedias have their articles on Islam (and other articles relating to it) censored? If so, would you by extension suggesting that anyone on the internet who mocks or insults Islam or Muslims have their ISPs contacted and have their service providers cut them off?

Why or why not?
I don't know the website's your talking about and how they are mocking Islam. But if it is true then we can't do nothing about it as it is through the internet, people with the knowledge of how to remove it, then they can do wat they can to stop the hatred stuff through the internet.

do you support the mockery of religions really? if u do then ur mad and disrespectful
Reply

Mohamed_Sadiq
05-19-2010, 12:24 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau
In what context?


If using free expression to make satirical comments and to produce satirical cartoons is not freedom of expression - then what is? Are you against satire?
Lool if u hate Islam so much why not go war with us rather than drawing and taking the mick seriously, drawing something like that won't help u at all ur just igniting the fuel, but u won't understand why people with religion get angry wen their religion is being mocked cause u don't believe in god and u don't know the feeling Islam gives us.
Reply

shuraimfan4lyf
05-19-2010, 12:25 PM
On the internet, there exists many outlets for mockery. I know of at least two parodies of wikipedia (one 'decent', the other more explicit). They mock everything. This includes Islam. Indeed both websites have large articles on Islam. Are you suggesting that those satirical encyclopedias have their articles on Islam (and other articles relating to it) censored? If so, would you by extension suggesting that anyone on the internet who mocks or insults Islam or Muslims have their ISPs contacted and have their service providers cut them off?
I have seen you repeat your boring statements over and over again. I am out for sleep. Good luck Son..
Reply

Mohamed_Sadiq
05-19-2010, 12:26 PM
Originally Posted by shuraimfan4lyf
I have seen you repeat your boring statements over and over again. I am out for sleep. Good luck Son.
Seriously the guy is weird wat world is he living in?
Reply

Skavau
05-19-2010, 12:27 PM
Originally Posted by Gabriel
People find things offensive when they think they are wrong. Secularism is simply wrong and you should not advocate wrong things because it is unhealthy.
Actually, not quite true. I don't think Christianity is correct, but I am not offended when I view people promoting it. I can think of a lot of things I happen to disagree with that are promoted - which does not offend me. Indeed, I would think less of someone that actually got offended about the promotion of anything they disagreed with. Those are the seeds of fascism.

But you did not answer my question: If I decide to promote secularism, humanism, anti-theism or something similar - should I be censored if someone finds it offensive?

Ahhm. Hell might seem to you immoral but ...yet exists. Look around you you can find a lot of manifestations
of hell on earth even! (you do not need to die to see it exists)
The issue of hell was just an example. I don't wish to talk about my reasons concerning it here as it is not an issue of the thread. At any rate, people have been offended by me pointing out my moral opposition to the concept of a hellfire. Should I, by your reckoning be censored if someone finds my pointing out of it offensive?

What is war in your opinion? Is it not hell? It is immoral - so why do you not go against war?
Secularism is a weird idea.
War is not hell. When I talk about 'hell' I am referring to a literal metaphysical realm that most Muslims and many Christians contend exists.

And I am against war. I should hope everyone in general is against war.
Reply

shuraimfan4lyf
05-19-2010, 12:28 PM
Apparently in la-la land. InshaAllah when the will of Allah comes, we will bash these cowards. And they will hide like little girls. :salamext:
Reply

Skavau
05-19-2010, 12:29 PM
Originally Posted by Mohamed_Sadiq
I don't know the website's your talking about and how they are mocking Islam. But if it is true then we can't do nothing about it as it is through the internet, people with the knowledge of how to remove it, then they can do wat they can to stop the hatred stuff through the internet.
The websites function identically to wikipedia. People submit articles on topics to the library. The difference of course between them and wikipedia is that they are a parody of wikipedia, and so every article posted is a humour piece that deliberately mocks and insults what it is talking about. These articles do include Islam. Are you suggesting that those websites be taken offline? If so, would then go further and advance the ideal that anyone on the internet who mocks or insults Islam or Muslims have their ISPs contacted and have their service providers cut them off?

do you support the mockery of religions really? if u do then ur mad and disrespectful
I support people's right to mock religion.
Reply

Skavau
05-19-2010, 12:30 PM
Originally Posted by shuraimfan4lyf
I see that you repeat your boring statements over and over again. I am out for sleep. Good luck Son.
And no-one has yet bothered to answer them (other than marwen).
Reply

Gabriel Ibn Yus
05-19-2010, 12:32 PM
Correction: You do not disagree with Christianity - you are ambivalent to Christianity.

In order to disagree to something you have to truly care about it. Actually - I do not understand, if
you do not care about something why do you waste your valuable time in thinking about it at all?

Life is precious don't waste your time on things you do not care for.

Are you raising your voice against war? Of course we are all against war. But in order to fight war we should cooperate and not waste time on drawing irritating cartoons just in order to make your brothers uneasy.
Reply

DataPacRat
05-19-2010, 12:32 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau
And I am against war. I should hope everyone in general is against war.
But war, in a good cause, is not the greatest evil which a nation can suffer. War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice – a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice – is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.

* John Stuart Mill in "The Contest in America" Harper's New Monthly Magazine, Volume 24, Issue 143 (April 1862), page 683-684
Reply

Skavau
05-19-2010, 12:32 PM
Originally Posted by Mohamed_Sadiq
Lool if u hate Islam so much why not go war with us rather than drawing and taking the mick seriously
I don't "hate Islam" anymore than I "hate" other religious beliefs. At any rate, I certainly don't hate Muslims and I have no desire to go to war with anyone.

Moreover, I am not a cartoonist.

, drawing something like that won't help u at all ur just igniting the fuel, but u won't understand why people with religion get angry wen their religion is being mocked cause u don't believe in god and u don't know the feeling Islam gives us.
I understand that people can be offended. I have never disputed that. I have never had an issue with these same people pleading for media outlets to show restraint, or self-censorship either (as people have the right to do that). The only thing I am against is the demand that by law, Islam be immune from mockery, insult (and according to some) criticism if people happen to be offended.
Reply

Life_Is_Short
05-19-2010, 12:33 PM
It's funny how when a programme against Israel or something a slightly bit controversial is aired here in the U.K. There are floods of complaints and the next thing you'll see is an apology from the channel and the programme.
Reply

Gabriel Ibn Yus
05-19-2010, 12:33 PM
Why do you "hate" religions?
Reply

Skavau
05-19-2010, 12:33 PM
Originally Posted by Gabriel Ibn Yus
Correction: You do not disagree with Christianity - you are ambivalent to Christianity.

In order to disagree to something you have to truly care about it. Actually - I do not understand, if
you do not care about something why do you waste your valuable time in thinking about it at all?

Life is precious don't waste your time on things you do not care for.

Are you raising your voice against war? Of course we are all against war. But in order to fight war we should cooperate and not waste time on drawing irritating cartoons just in order to make your brothers uneasy.
Gabriel, this is off-topic. I await your answer to the following question:

If I decide to promote secularism, humanism, anti-theism or something similar - should I be censored if someone finds it offensive?
Reply

Gabriel Ibn Yus
05-19-2010, 12:34 PM
Originally Posted by DataPacRat
But war, in a good cause, is not the greatest evil which a nation can suffer. War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice – a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice – is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other.

* John Stuart Mill in "The Contest in America" Harper's New Monthly Magazine, Volume 24, Issue 143 (April 1862), page 683-684
Have you ever taken part in a war?
Reply

Gabriel Ibn Yus
05-19-2010, 12:35 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau
Gabriel, this is off-topic. I await your answer to the following question:

If I decide to promote secularism, humanism, anti-theism or something similar - should I be censored if someone finds it offensive?
Yes. Like anybody else who is offensive.
Reply

Mohamed_Sadiq
05-19-2010, 12:36 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau
I don't "hate Islam" anymore than I "hate" other religious beliefs. At any rate, I certainly don't hate Muslims and I have no desire to go to war with anyone.

Moreover, I am not a cartoonist.


I understand that people can be offended. I have never disputed that. I have never had an issue with these same people pleading for media outlets to show restraint, or self-censorship either (as people have the right to do that). The only thing I am against is the demand that by law, Islam be immune from mockery, insult (and according to some) criticism if people happen to be offended.
Do u get entertainment and thrills from people that mock religions, there are many people that insulted Islam and nothing was done to them, but mockery of religous beliefs will not be tolerated therefore banned.
Reply

shuraimfan4lyf
05-19-2010, 12:36 PM
Originally Posted by Gabriel Ibn Yus
Have you ever taken part in a war?
I lol'd at that.
Reply

Skavau
05-19-2010, 12:37 PM
Originally Posted by Gabriel Ibn Yus
Yes. Like anybody else who is offensive.
So you don't believe in freedom of speech then. Excellent, well I take it then if someone here happens to find a Muslim promoting Islam as offensive (and you know there are lots of takers for that) you will have no problem in them being censored?
Reply

Mohamed_Sadiq
05-19-2010, 12:37 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau
Gabriel, this is off-topic. I await your answer to the following question:

If I decide to promote secularism, humanism, anti-theism or something similar - should I be censored if someone finds it offensive?
Depends on how u promoted, elaborate ur question if u can
Reply

Skavau
05-19-2010, 12:38 PM
Originally Posted by Mohamed_Sadiq
Do u get entertainment and thrills from people that mock religions, there are many people that insulted Islam and nothing was done to them, but mockery of religous beliefs will not be tolerated therefore banned.
So in your ideal world, anyone who insulted, or mocked Islam or religious beliefs in general on the internet should have their ISP informed and threatened with the suspension of their service?

Depends on how u promoted, elaborate ur question if u can
The question was to Gabriel who made the specific claim that merely being offended is reason enough for something to be prohibited. He believes that there exists a right to not be offended. He is mistaken.
Reply

Gabriel Ibn Yus
05-19-2010, 12:40 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau
So you don't believe in freedom of speech then. Excellent, well I take it then if someone here happens to find a Muslim promoting Islam as offensive (and you know there are lots of takers for that) you will have no problem in them being censored?
On the contrary. I would actually demand that he would be censored because anybody that is offended by Islam would never be a Muslim and this defies the purpose of Islam.
Reply

Gabriel Ibn Yus
05-19-2010, 12:41 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau
So in your ideal world, anyone who insulted, or mocked Islam or religious beliefs in general on the internet should have their ISP informed and threatened with the suspension of their service?.
No. In my ideal world people would be mature enough to know how to speak without offending each others.
Reply

DataPacRat
05-19-2010, 12:42 PM
Originally Posted by Gabriel Ibn Yus
Have you ever taken part in a war?
I'm fortunate in that in my country, there have been no significant external threats to our liberty in my lifetime, and the processes we have for dealing with internal threats to liberty are currently functioning. I am participating in the defence of my country's liberty in every way I am currently able; I have offered myself as a political candidate for my local riding in the next election, if nobody else in my party demonstrates they have a better chance of being elected than me. (I'm well aware that my atheism makes my chances of being elected near infinitesimal, but politics is about more than winning elections.) I have made a conscious study of war, and know, at least in abstract, some of its horrors, and am doing my best to prevent my country's situation from deteriorating to the point where war is necessary. Should my liberty, my rights, and my freedom come under serious threat, or those of my family, or my neighbours, or my countrymen, I will defend them to the best of my ability.

What might /your/ personal involvement in war be?
Reply

Skavau
05-19-2010, 12:43 PM
Originally Posted by Gabriel Ibn Yus
On the contrary. I would actually demand that he would be censored because anybody that is offended by Islam would never be a Muslim and this defies the purpose of Islam.
Scientologists might find Xenu.tv offensive (and they do, actually). They will demand that the website be terminated because it upsets them. Christians might find the SkepticsAnnotatedBible offensive and they will demand that the website be removed. Muslims (Adnan Oktar certainly thinks so) might find Richard Dawkins website offensive and then they will demand that the website be removed. Perhaps some Evangelical Christians in the United States might find Heavy Metal offensive and insist that every single archive of metal music and every single active heavy metal band website be taken down due to their hurt feelings.

Do you not see the problem you're getting into here? Your ideals would annihilate the concept of free speech. All it would take is someone to declare some profound offense at a message and the message is censored.
Reply

Gabriel Ibn Yus
05-19-2010, 12:44 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau
Scientologists might find Xenu.tv offensive (and they do, actually). They will demand that the website be terminated because it upsets them. Christians might find the SkepticsAnnotatedBible offensive and they will demand that the website be removed. Muslims (Adnan Oktar certainly thinks so) might find Richard Dawkins website offensive and then they will demand that the website be removed. Perhaps some Evangelical Christians in the United States might find Heavy Metal offensive and insist that every single archive of metal music and every single active heavy metal band website be taken down due to their hurt feelings.

Do you not see the problem you're getting into here? Your ideals would annihilate the concept of free speech. All it would take is someone to declare some profound offense at a message and the message is censored.
I do see the problem here. Funny, not?
Reply

Skavau
05-19-2010, 12:44 PM
Originally Posted by Gabriel Ibn Yus
No. In my ideal world people would be mature enough to know how to speak without offending each others.
It is impossible. As I said, I have directly encountered people that have been offended by my metaphysical stance. By your own logic I would have to spend my entire life stepping on eggshells around everyone to avoid causing them grievances.
Reply

Skavau
05-19-2010, 12:45 PM
Originally Posted by Gabriel Ibn Yus
I do see the problem here. Funny, not?
It is a recipe for "nice" totalitarianism. Your friendly police state censoring all information someone deems as "inappropriate".
Reply

Mohamed_Sadiq
05-19-2010, 12:46 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau
So in your ideal world, anyone who insulted, or mocked Islam or religious beliefs in general on the internet should have their ISP informed and threatened with the suspension of their service?



The question was to Gabriel who made the specific claim that merely being offended is reason enough for something to be prohibited. He believes that there exists a right to not be offended. He is mistaken.
No i would not inform their ISP and cut their services, but make sure they delete the mockery if not then I will take them to court.
Yeh but the cartoon mockery is not only offending but also discriminating a religion and other things too it is also promoting fight and war.
Reply

Gabriel Ibn Yus
05-19-2010, 12:47 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau
It is impossible. As I said, I have directly encountered people that have been offended by my metaphysical stance. By your own logic I would have to spend my entire life stepping on eggshells around everyone to avoid causing them grievances.
Exactly. We should step eggshells around everyone. This is a very good discerption. You would see that this sort of communication would teach us to embrace the virtues of everybody on the one hand and to acknowledge our mistakes when we see that we make them.

This is the beauty of communication.
Reply

Skavau
05-19-2010, 12:48 PM
Originally Posted by Mohamed_Sadiq
No i would not inform their ISP and cut their services, but make sure they delete the mockery if not then I will take them to court.
So you believe in internet censorship. That's all I wanted to hear, thanks.

Yeh but the cartoon mockery is not only offending but also discriminating a religion and other things too.
All mockery, by definition that focuses on a subject is "discriminating" it.
Reply

Skavau
05-19-2010, 12:50 PM
Originally Posted by Gabriel Ibn Yus
Exactly. We should step eggshells around everyone. This is a very good discerption. You would see that this sort of communication would teach us to embrace the virtues of everybody on the one hand and to acknowledge our mistakes when we see that we make them.

This is the beauty of communication.
No we shouldn't. You have given no reason as to why we should step on eggshells around people. Your only claim is that feeling offended or suffering hurt feelings is a good enough reason to impose restrictions on commentary. You have given no reason for why this would be the case and clearly have no idea of the ludicrious totalitarian consequences that it would entail if imposed. A crude example is simple. I enjoy heavy metal music. Why should I have my experience curtailed because some evangelical christian deep in the bible belt happens to find it upsetting? By everything you have said, I would have to. Why?

And you still haven't answered this question:

If someone is offended by me being an atheist, should I be compelled pretend to be otherwise?
Reply

Gabriel Ibn Yus
05-19-2010, 12:51 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau
No we shouldn't. You have given no reason as to why we should step on eggshells around people. Your only claim is that feeling offended or suffering hurt feelings is a good enough reason to impose restrictions on commentary. You have given no reason for why this would be the case and clearly have no idea of the ludicrious totalitarian consequences that it would entail if imposed.

And you still haven't answered this question:

If someone is offended by me being an atheist, should I be compelled pretend to be otherwise?
No, you should peacefully communicate with him for eternity if that it what it takes - until one of you proves the other wrong.
Reply

Mohamed_Sadiq
05-19-2010, 12:52 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau
So you believe in internet censorship. That's all I wanted to hear, thanks.


All mockery, by definition that focuses on a subject is "discriminating" it.
So then discrimination is not allowed, its like calling a black ur a negro or some other things that would offend them, and doing that can put u in jail in Britain.
Reply

Skavau
05-19-2010, 12:53 PM
Originally Posted by Gabriel Ibn Yus
No, you should peacefully communicate with him for eternity if that it what it takes - until one of you proves the other wrong.
Oh, but they are 'offended'. Your criteria was someone being 'offended'. You cannot backtrack now. Is being offended a reason for legislation or is it not?

At any rate, I edited this last part into my post just prior to seeing your response: I enjoy heavy metal music. Why should I have my experience curtailed because some evangelical christian deep in the bible belt happens to find it upsetting? By everything you have said, I would have to. Why?
Reply

Skavau
05-19-2010, 12:53 PM
Originally Posted by Mohamed_Sadiq
So then discrimination is not allowed, its like calling a black ur a negro or some other things that would offend them, and doing that can put u in jail in Britain.
Have you read the articles on race on these parody encyclopedias?

At any rate, satirizing religion is not discriminatory. There's no such valid methodology as being 'discriminatory' to a religion that exists. The cartoonists are mocking and insulting concepts and beliefs. They are not inciting violence towards others and they are not proposing death towards others.
Reply

Danah
05-19-2010, 12:58 PM
Originally Posted by shuraimfan4lyf
........ because you never experienced the true love of Islam and their Prophets
Can you tell the blind the difference between white and black? So leave them on their blindness.


Actually they don't know that focusing on mocking Islam and directing their media to such hate is drawing more attention to Islam which lead people to look more in this great religion.
Many reverts to Islam said that what drew their attentions to Islam was this stupid hatred that Media show.

So its getting back on them. I always remember this verse when I read about such pathetic attempts:


يُرِيدُونَ لِيُطۡفِـُٔواْ نُورَ ٱللَّهِ بِأَفۡوَٲهِهِمۡ وَٱللَّهُ مُتِمُّ نُورِهِۦ وَلَوۡ ڪَرِهَ ٱلۡكَـٰفِرُونَ

Fain would they put out the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah will perfect His light however much the disbelievers are averse.
[61:8]
Reply

Mohamed_Sadiq
05-19-2010, 12:59 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau
Oh, but they are 'offended'. Your criteria was someone being 'offended'. You cannot backtrack now. Is being offended a reason for legislation or is it not?

At any rate, I edited this last part into my post just prior to seeing your response: I enjoy heavy metal music. Why should I have my experience curtailed because some evangelical christian deep in the bible belt happens to find it upsetting? By everything you have said, I would have to. Why?
now i get why ur so negative towards this topic... u basically find it unfair being mistreated differently towards people that follow a religion, is like not getting a candy wen ur were little wen ur christian friends was given one looool in this world athiest r seen us nothing cause they are nothing.
Reply

shuraimfan4lyf
05-19-2010, 01:01 PM
Originally Posted by Mohamed_Sadiq
now i get why ur so negative towards this topic... u basically find it unfair being mistreated differently towards people that follow a religion, is like not getting a candy wen ur were little wen ur christian friends was given one looool in this world athiest r seen us nothing cause they are nothing.
LOL...I wonder how that felt.
Reply

Skavau
05-19-2010, 01:03 PM
Originally Posted by Mohamed_Sadiq
now i get why ur so negative towards this topic... u basically find it unfair being mistreated differently towards people that follow a religion, is like not getting a candy wen ur were little wen ur christian friends was given one looool in this world athiest r seen us nothing cause they are nothing.
I have no idea what this even means. I am asking a specific question to Gabriel, who made the ridiculous claim that being offended is reason enough for censorship. I am trying to discover just how consistent he actually is. I am learning that he is not that consistent with it - so I asked specifically about music. What if someone finds heavy metal offensive? What if someone decides that it would be acceptable to remove all content relating to heavy metal from the internet because it happened to upset them. Why should I, or indeed anyone else have to stand for that? The person in the example does not have to listen to heavy metal, nor visit the websites. They can completely abstain. But by Gabriel's logic, they have every right to insist that they be completely shut down and the music suppressed.

It is a recipe for totalitarianism. Once you begin opening up the possibility of censorship based on subjective reasons then you cannot avoid what will in time, flow from it.

At any rate, declaring atheists as "nothing" somewhat betrays your earlier message of respect, don't you think?
Reply

Mohamed_Sadiq
05-19-2010, 01:04 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau
Have you read the articles on race on these parody encyclopedias?

At any rate, satirizing religion is not discriminatory. There's no such valid methodology as being 'discriminatory' to a religion that exists. The cartoonists are mocking and insulting concepts and beliefs. They are not inciting violence towards others and they are not proposing death towards others.
They are imposing death threads to themselves looool by mocking Islam, basically they are looking for death, probably got a death wish, aint that wat athiest believe in?
Reply

Gabriel Ibn Yus
05-19-2010, 01:05 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau
Oh, but they are 'offended'. Your criteria was someone being 'offended'. You cannot backtrack now. Is being offended a reason for legislation or is it not?

At any rate, I edited this last part into my post just prior to seeing your response: I enjoy heavy metal music. Why should I have my experience curtailed because some evangelical christian deep in the bible belt happens to find it upsetting? By everything you have said, I would have to. Why?
You shouldn't. According to my understanding of Christianity he is wrong for preventing you enjoying the music you like.
Reply

Mohamed_Sadiq
05-19-2010, 01:08 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau
I have no idea what this even means. I am asking a specific question to Gabriel, who made the ridiculous claim that being offended is reason enough for censorship. I am trying to discover just how consistent he actually is. I am learning that he is not that consistent with it - so I asked specifically about music. What if someone finds heavy metal offensive? What if someone decides that it would be acceptable to remove all content relating to heavy metal from the internet because it happened to upset them. Why should I, or indeed anyone else have to stand for that? The person in the example does not have to listen to heavy metal, nor visit the websites. They can completely abstain. But by Gabriel's logic, they have every right to insist that they be completely shut down and the music suppressed.

It is a recipe for totalitarianism. Once you begin opening up the possibility of censorship based on subjective reasons then you cannot avoid what will in time, flow from it.

At any rate, declaring atheists as "nothing" somewhat betrays your earlier message of respect, don't you think?
loool athiesm is not a religion so respect doesn't concern them as athiest don't even believe in god, also by saying for wat i said is my opinion and iam not drawing something u understand the difference now i am not mocking u loool

also we never said we want to ban music websites, whoever that wants to visit those website its their choice.
Reply

Skavau
05-19-2010, 01:08 PM
Originally Posted by Mohamed_Sadiq
They are imposing death threads to themselves looool by mocking Islam, basically they are looking for death, probably got a death wish, aint that wat athiest believe in?
If you want to make a comparison to the cartoonists, you could compare them to other figures that peacefully protest, or engage in passive sit-ins to further their objectives. This was the exact objective of the Civil Rights Movement in the United States. They illicited violent responses from peaceful encounters, and I doubt you'd be so obnoxious as to claim that they too, were asking for it. I am sorry you though, that you think so little of Muslims that you would propose that to directly insult or mock Islam is "asking for it".
Reply

Skavau
05-19-2010, 01:09 PM
Originally Posted by Gabriel Ibn Yus
You shouldn't. According to my understanding of Christianity he is wrong for preventing you enjoying the music you like.
But he's offended. That's all that matters right. You made the claim that simply being offended gives you the right to censor other people and prohibit things. Now you are backtracking.
Reply

Life_Is_Short
05-19-2010, 01:10 PM
Originally Posted by Danah
Can you tell the blind the difference between white and black? So leave them on their blindness.


Actually they don't know that focusing on mocking Islam and directing their media to such hate is drawing more attention to Islam which lead people to look more in this great religion.
Many reverts to Islam said that what drew their attentions to Islam was this stupid hatred that Media show.

So its getting back on them. I always remember this verse when I read about such pathetic attempts:


يُرِيدُونَ لِيُطۡفِـُٔواْ نُورَ ٱللَّهِ بِأَفۡوَٲهِهِمۡ وَٱللَّهُ مُتِمُّ نُورِهِۦ وَلَوۡ ڪَرِهَ ٱلۡكَـٰفِرُونَ

Fain would they put out the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah will perfect His light however much the disbelievers are averse. [61:8]
That's true, I was thinking about that but that doesn't mean we should allow them to disgrace our Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

I am sure this plan will back fire if us muslims juts get our act together and until 20th may at least give as much dawah through the internet or whatever we have, continue to post and produce as much as we can about Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

We can insh'Allah (by the help of Allah swt) turn "draw...day" into honour prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) day.

Please also continue to complain to comedy central. If they have at least 500 or so complaints, they will hopefully restrain from doing anything like this in the future. I am sure they don't want to mess with 500 angry muslims again.

here is the link: http://www.comedycentral.com/help/questionsCC.jhtml
Jazak'Allah Khair.
Reply

Mohamed_Sadiq
05-19-2010, 01:10 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau
But he's offended. That's all that matters right. You made the claim that simply being offended gives you the right to censor other people and prohibit things. Now you are backtracking.
he is not offended its being disturbed n annoyed therefore becomes frustrated
Reply

Skavau
05-19-2010, 01:11 PM
Originally Posted by Mohamed_Sadiq
loool athiesm is not a religion so respect doesn't concern them as athiest don't even believe in god, also by saying for wat i said is my opinion and iam not drawing something u understand the difference now i am not mocking u loool
How do you know that respect doesn't concern atheists? Are you claiming that you are capable of speaking on behalf of every single atheist?

also we never said we want to ban music websites, whoever that wants to visit those website its their choice.
So would you have just as much humility as to accept that if people wish to visit websites that mock religion, or write satirical articles on religion - that it is their choice?
Reply

Mohamed_Sadiq
05-19-2010, 01:13 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau
How do you know that respect doesn't concern atheists? Are you claiming that you are capable of speaking on behalf of every single atheist?


So would you have just as much humility as to accept that if people wish to visit websites that mock religion, or write satirical articles on religion - that it is their choice?
it's their choice to go to that website but those who created the website r in the wrong not the visitors.

i was just kidding every human being deserves respect,
Reply

Gabriel Ibn Yus
05-19-2010, 01:14 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau
But he's offended. That's all that matters right. You made the claim that simply being offended gives you the right to censor other people and prohibit things. Now you are backtracking.
No. He has the same obligation that you have to explain you why he is offended in an ordered way. This is why you should be versed in the religious texts like you are versed in your civil law because then you could actually explain to your neighbor why according to his religion he is wrong in this case (if he is).

This is of course assuming that your interest in heavy metal is purely musical and you are not into hurting other people - in which case he is right and you should not listen to it any more.

Also - heavy metal is a music that preaches for violence and hence its contents are a bit problematic. I think that it is very reasonable why people would feel uncomfortable with it - especially if they have children.
Reply

Skavau
05-19-2010, 01:21 PM
Originally Posted by Gabriel
No. He has the same obligation that you have to explain you why he is offended in an ordered way. This is why you should be versed in the religious texts like you are versed in your civil law because then you could actually explain to your neighbor why according to his religion he is wrong in this case.
This is backtracking. On a major scale. Earlier on I asked you specifically if me encouraging secularism, humanism or anti-theism ought to be censored if someone finds it offensive. You immediately retorted with an affirmative. That if someone happens to find something as offensive, then it should be censored to protect their hurt feelings (in other words you had a track record of valuing 'feelings' as much more important than civil liberties).

Now you insert qualifiers. You are declaring that we have to objectively judge whether or not someone's being offended is rational (in terms of the law). Not only is this completely incoherent as feeling 'offended' is arguably by definition a reaction to a taboo, or something considered profoundly insulting (and thus not capable of being judged objectively, or viewed in light of reason). Which is it, Gabriel?

This is of course assuming that your interest in heavy metal is purely musical and you are not into hurting other people - in which case he is right and you should not listen to it any more.
Well first of all, whether or not I am "into hurting people" has nothing to do with any musical preferences.

Second of all, the idea that you're suggesting here is that people ought to explain their own reasons for doing things. That there is only an acceptable reason for listening to a genre of music, or only an acceptable reason for viewing certain television programs. What totalitarianism is this?

At any rate, some of the music I listen to has anti-religious lyrics that people of a religious persuasion might not want to listen to. Should that music be banned?

Also - heavy metal is a music that preaches for violence and hence its contents are a bit problematic. I think that it is very reasonable why people would feel uncomfortable with it - especially if they have children.
Heavy Metal does not preach violence.
Reply

Skavau
05-19-2010, 01:22 PM
Originally Posted by Mohamed Sadiq
it's their choice to go to that website but those who created the website r in the wrong not the visitors.
In the wrong according to who? You? You don't have to view that website. You can abstain from it, set up an internet filter to prevent all references towards it and suggest others do not visit it.
Reply

Mohamed_Sadiq
05-19-2010, 01:23 PM
watch this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQs-q...eature=related
Reply

Gabriel Ibn Yus
05-19-2010, 01:26 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau
This is backtracking. On a major scale. Earlier on I asked you specifically if me encouraging secularism, humanism or anti-theism ought to be censored if someone finds it offensive. You immediately retorted with an affirmative. That if someone happens to find something as offensive, then it should be censored to protect their hurt feelings (in other words you had a track record of valuing 'feelings' as much more important than civil liberties).

Now you insert qualifiers. You are declaring that we have to objectively judge whether or not someone's being offended is rational (in terms of the law). Not only is this completely incoherent as feeling 'offended' is arguably by definition a reaction to a taboo, or something considered profoundly insulting (and thus not capable of being judged objectively, or viewed in light of reason). Which is it, Gabriel?


Well first of all, whether or not I am "into hurting people" has nothing to do with any musical preferences.

Second of all, the idea that you're suggesting here is that people ought to explain their own reasons for doing things. That there is only an acceptable reason for listening to a genre of music, or only an acceptable reason for viewing certain television programs. What totalitarianism is this?

At any rate, some of the music I listen to has anti-religious lyrics that people of a religious persuasion might not want to listen to. Should that music be banned?


Heavy Metal does not preach violence.
It is not I but rather my religion. But, yes, I suggest that people are connected to each other. When you do something you are affecting others (in a more diverse way then is encoded in our civil laws) and therefore in
your actions you should take care in everything you do.

If you would look at the world around you you would see that this mindset could actually be a useful suggestion.
Reply

Supreme
05-19-2010, 01:31 PM
Originally Posted by Mohamed_Sadiq
Yes, your right and there is less outroar when Christians get offended because many Christian countries are becoming secularised and less religous on the other hand Islam is becoming stronger and stronger each moment and Muslims are not secular and still have their religion and also Islam is the most growing religion in the world. I am sure you can see the correlation.
I'm afraid I can't see the correlation. There is no correlation, only a different approach to beliefs.
Reply

piXie
05-19-2010, 01:31 PM
I think it would be more worthwhile if we write in a letter of complaint instead of wasting our time arguing and debating with people who have forsaken all virtue, morals good values and principles under the guise of 'freedom of speech'.
Reply

Skavau
05-19-2010, 01:33 PM
Originally Posted by Gabriel Ibn Yus
It is not I but rather my religion. But, yes, I suggest that people are connected to each other. When you do something you are affecting others (in a more diverse way then is encoded in our civil laws) and therefore in
your actions you should take care in everything you do.
People are connected to each other, yes. And we have a system now in multicultural secular societies of clashing taboos from different cultures and different religions. Your suggestions of how to change civil law provides me with some memories of the movie Pleasantville. A faux and completely impractical way of attempting to produce a utopia where no-one is upset, no-one gets offended and everyone is content.

I am not saying that sincere and civil dialogue between cultures, religions and political groups should not exist. Indeed they should and I always encourage it. This should be argued and not imposed. This should not be done at the expense of others. The world is not a moderated debate room.
Reply

Mohamed_Sadiq
05-19-2010, 01:36 PM
Originally Posted by Supreme
I'm afraid I can't see the correlation. There is no correlation, only a different approach to beliefs.
I don't mean the beliefs, I mean Islam is a growing religion that is commited to their religion so they are more likely to be offended whereas christians are becoming less secular each day and don't outroar. My correlation is regarding secularisation and outroar.
Reply

Mohamed_Sadiq
05-19-2010, 01:37 PM
Originally Posted by piXie
I think it would be more worthwhile if we write in a letter of complaint instead of wasting our time arguing and debating with people who have forsaken all virtue, morals good values and principles under the guise of 'freedom of speech'.
Yes lets end this stupid debate now is getting really boring and insane.
Reply

Gabriel Ibn Yus
05-19-2010, 01:37 PM
Originally Posted by Skavau
People are connected to each other, yes. And we have a system now in multicultural secular societies of clashing taboos from different cultures and different religions. Your suggestions of how to change civil law provides me with some memories of the movie Pleasantville. A faux and completely impractical way of attempting to produce a utopia where no-one is upset, no-one gets offended and everyone is content.

I am not saying that sincere and civil dialogue between cultures, religions and political groups should not exist. Indeed they should and I always encourage it. This should be argued and not imposed. This should not be done at the expense of others. The world is not a moderated debate room.
I did not say that you need to change civil law.

I said that you should add to it the religious law (and above all mindset) because otherwise
you would live in a very depressing society enslaved to the laws of pure ratio - meaning
that you live for the purpose of dying. I find it highly depressing and you can advocate it
as much as you want and make it seem very romantic and enlightened but it is a highly inferior
idea.
Reply

Gabriel Ibn Yus
05-19-2010, 01:40 PM
Originally Posted by Mohamed_Sadiq
Yes lets end this stupid debate now is getting really boring and insane.
This debate is far from stupid. If you cannot convince this person (or do not want to take the effort to show him that you are right ) you would not be able to convince comedy central and for sure not the American government.

So what is this person different than any other?
Reply

Life_Is_Short
05-19-2010, 01:40 PM
Comedy central clearly don't believe strongly in the creative freedom of expression. They can't stand the heat of showing South Park in it's entirety. The west no longer has the freedom of speech they are so desperately trying to protect.

To help clarify, MTV NETWORKS decided not to air the episode ‘201’ on Friday 23rd April with great reluctance. It wasn’t a decision made lightly and we appreciate your concern.
We believe strongly in the creative freedom of expression; when unique and deeply insightful creative talents like those behind South Park are able to express themselves freely, we all benefit.
However, the safety of our employees is our unquestioned number one priority, and therefore we took these precautionary measures.
They're not going to show any of that crap in the U.k ever again. They've just killed freedom of speech.
Reply

Gabriel Ibn Yus
05-19-2010, 01:44 PM
Too bad freedom of thinking is not such a hot issue as freedom of speech.

LOL :)
Reply

Mohamed_Sadiq
05-19-2010, 01:45 PM
Originally Posted by Gabriel Ibn Yus
This debate is far from stupid. If you cannot convince this person (or do not want to take the effort to show him that you are right ) you would not be able to convince comedy central and for sure not the American government.

So what is this person different than any other?
No difference at all they are all the same: they can't stand Islam growing rapidly they feel insecure i think.
Reply

Supreme
05-19-2010, 03:53 PM
Originally Posted by Mohamed_Sadiq
I don't mean the beliefs, I mean Islam is a growing religion that is commited to their religion so they are more likely to be offended whereas christians are becoming less secular each day and don't outroar. My correlation is regarding secularisation and outroar.
That doesn't make sense though: most Muslims who are responding to this live in secular societies, as these are the only societies that allow South Park to be broadcast. But it's also about the beliefs- Christianity stresses the importance of not hurting or threatening those who attack or insult the religion, but rather, it is better to pray and be glad that the persecution is happening. Christians can show they are committed to their religion in this way, because that is what is our religion teaches.
Reply

Gabriel Ibn Yus
05-19-2010, 03:59 PM
Originally Posted by Supreme
That doesn't make sense though: most Muslims who are responding to this live in secular societies, as these are the only societies that allow South Park to be broadcast. But it's also about the beliefs- Christianity stresses the importance of not hurting or threatening those who attack or insult the religion, but rather, it is better to pray and be glad that the persecution is happening. Christians can show they are committed to their religion in this way, because that is what is our religion teaches.
Saying that Christianity and Islam are both religions is like saying that the heart and the lungs are both organs in the body. True, but the lungs and the heart are still different organs.

In fact, it is not exactly true because the lungs and the heart can coexist two religions can not (however, if one thinks of it - the teachings of Christ hardly contradict the Quran, on the contrary).
Reply

Supreme
05-19-2010, 07:28 PM
Originally Posted by Gabriel Ibn Yus
Saying that Christianity and Islam are both religions is like saying that the heart and the lungs are both organs in the body. True, but the lungs and the heart are still different organs.

In fact, it is not exactly true because the lungs and the heart can coexist two religions can not (however, if one thinks of it - the teachings of Christ hardly contradict the Quran, on the contrary).
Two religions can coexist. India is a good example of where not one, not two, not three but four large religions coexist peacefully. Of course, there are sometimes minor events between the adherents of those religions, but they coexist nonetheless.
Reply

Mohamed_Sadiq
05-19-2010, 09:31 PM
Originally Posted by Supreme
That doesn't make sense though: most Muslims who are responding to this live in secular societies, as these are the only societies that allow South Park to be broadcast. But it's also about the beliefs- Christianity stresses the importance of not hurting or threatening those who attack or insult the religion, but rather, it is better to pray and be glad that the persecution is happening. Christians can show they are committed to their religion in this way, because that is what is our religion teaches.
muslims that react to this act are from the secular society take Britain as a example, however secular society concerns christianity not islam as britain is a christian country not a islamic country so those muslims that react to the incident, r not secular themselves rather the country they r at is secular therefore we will defend our religion because we still have our religion.
Reply

Supreme
05-19-2010, 09:57 PM
Originally Posted by Mohamed_Sadiq
muslims that react to this act are from the secular society take Britain as a example, however secular society concerns christianity not islam as britain is a christian country not a islamic country so those muslims that react to the incident, r not secular themselves rather the country they r at is secular therefore we will defend our religion because we still have our religion.
Britain is not a Christian country. It is a secular country where the majority of its residents happen to practise Christianity, but it is not a Christian country.
Reply

shuraimfan4lyf
05-20-2010, 04:20 AM
Originally Posted by Danah
Can you tell the blind the difference between white and black? So leave them on their blindness.


Actually they don't know that focusing on mocking Islam and directing their media to such hate is drawing more attention to Islam which lead people to look more in this great religion.
Many reverts to Islam said that what drew their attentions to Islam was this stupid hatred that Media show.

So its getting back on them. I always remember this verse when I read about such pathetic attempts:


يُرِيدُونَ لِيُطۡفِـُٔواْ نُورَ ٱللَّهِ بِأَفۡوَٲهِهِمۡ وَٱللَّهُ مُتِمُّ نُورِهِۦ وَلَوۡ ڪَرِهَ ٱلۡكَـٰفِرُونَ

Fain would they put out the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah will perfect His light however much the disbelievers are averse.
[61:8]
They are worse than blind..the truth is crystal clear to them and they still deny!
Reply

glo
05-20-2010, 05:20 AM
Actually, there is a satirical comic, which depicts Jesus and Mohammad and has been running since 2005.
It is called 'Jesus and Mo'. I have never heard of any complaints against it ...
Reply

Woodrow
05-20-2010, 05:33 AM
Originally Posted by atheistbynature
It is to show that people have the right to draw what they want without receiving death threats (or worse).
A simple fact of life. No amount of legislation, laws, enforcement etc is going to stop any person from receiving death threats for their words. It is unenforceable. Would it be a different story if myself or any Muslim chose to insult Atheists in the hope that death threats are elicited, as a means to show it is our right to insult atheists and nobody has the right to issue death threats for doing so? What law could be passed and enforced to keep a loose cannon atheist from sending me death threats if I choose to make a career out of insulting atheists?

With this said the only purpose of these cartoons is to insult Muslims and possibly all theists. What laws can be or need be changed to satisfy the cartoonists.
Reply

Skavau
05-20-2010, 05:47 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
A simple fact of life. No amount of legislation, laws, enforcement etc is going to stop any person from receiving death threats for their words. It is unenforceable. Would it be a different story if myself or any Muslim chose to insult Atheists in the hope that death threats are elicited
No it wouldn't. I've seen media, mainstream if we're talking about the pseudo-journalism that is Fox News insult atheists. U.S. Politicians actually often show passive aggression to secularism and atheists at times when referring to them, indeed George Bush Snr. stated that he did not think atheists should be considered citizens of America. Also, I should like to take note that across this very forum there have been veiled and not-so veiled threats and warnings towards atheists on here that I have seen. Please do not be so naive as to assume that it does not happen towards atheists. It does, and often is a deliberately subtle, patronising and sanctimonious way.

, as a means to show it is our right to insult atheists and nobody has the right to issue death threats for doing so? What law could be passed and enforced to keep a loose cannon atheist from sending me death threats if I choose to make a career out of insulting atheists?
We already have laws for that. It is generally illegal to incite violence towards others. If an atheist sent you death threats for insulting atheism, humanism, secularism, or whatever - then they would be acting completely inappropriately.

With this said the only purpose of these cartoons is to insult Muslims and possibly all theists. What laws can be or need be changed to satisfy the cartoonists.
Nothing. As you said, you can't systematically change a culture or a religion. I don't believe it is possible to prevent people from being offended. I don't believe it is possible to stop people from threatening violence, or intimidating those who upset them. People are volatile, fickle and self-centered regarding this far too often. We have to recognise that populism should not dictate people's liberties. The cartoonists and those with them are trying to build up public support for freedom of speech. They do that by remaining vigilant and not bowing to demands of censorship, and they are trying ensure that the media and governments stay with them on this.
Reply

Mohamed_Sadiq
05-20-2010, 08:37 AM
Originally Posted by Supreme
Britain is not a Christian country. It is a secular country where the majority of its residents happen to practise Christianity, but it is not a Christian country.
Come'on Son, Even a two year old knows that Britain is a Christian country;D even though they are becoming secular probably they have lost faith on their religion or became modernised but i don't care cause its not my religion.
Reply

Gabriel Ibn Yus
05-20-2010, 09:18 AM
Originally Posted by Mohamed_Sadiq
Come'on Son, Even a two year old knows that Britain is a Christian country;D even though they are becoming secular probably they have lost faith on their religion or became modernised but i don't care cause its not my religion.
You should care - secularism is the worst thing ever.
Reply

Gabriel Ibn Yus
05-20-2010, 09:19 AM
Originally Posted by Supreme
Two religions can coexist. India is a good example of where not one, not two, not three but four large religions coexist peacefully. Of course, there are sometimes minor events between the adherents of those religions, but they coexist nonetheless.
Yes, but again you speak about different things as if they are the same. The Indian religions are simply not the same.
Reply

Supreme
05-20-2010, 10:23 AM
Originally Posted by Mohamed_Sadiq
Come'on Son, Even a two year old knows that Britain is a Christian country;D even though they are becoming secular probably they have lost faith on their religion or became modernised but i don't care cause its not my religion.
Well, no. Not quite. It used to be. But it's not a Christian country anymore. We do not have Christian laws, we do not have Christians put in a higher or better status. We do not have a fully Christian government. It's a secular country- it has secular laws with no special treatment of any faith group and a secular government consisting of people from numerous faiths and none.
Reply

Supreme
05-20-2010, 10:24 AM
Originally Posted by Gabriel Ibn Yus
Yes, but again you speak about different things as if they are the same. The Indian religions are simply not the same.
Are any two religions the same?
Reply

Supreme
05-20-2010, 10:25 AM
Originally Posted by Gabriel Ibn Yus
You should care - secularism is the worst thing ever.
I beg to differ. Secularism is the only system where you are not mistreated or persecuted by the state for believing or praying to a different deity.
Reply

Gabriel Ibn Yus
05-20-2010, 10:26 AM
Originally Posted by Supreme
Are any two religions the same?
This is a very good question.
Reply

Mohamed_Sadiq
05-20-2010, 10:58 AM
Originally Posted by Supreme
Well, no. Not quite. It used to be. But it's not a Christian country anymore. We do not have Christian laws, we do not have Christians put in a higher or better status. We do not have a fully Christian government. It's a secular country- it has secular laws with no special treatment of any faith group and a secular government consisting of people from numerous faiths and none.
So can I ask you why its not a christian country no more? is it cause they finded out the christianity is bogus. and can I ask you don't u feel upset for your country losing their religion, I mean you must think about it, wondering why they all turned away from christianity and turned to some other beliefs such Islam or atheism or secularisation? For me its not suprising for christianity to decrease.
Reply

Mohamed_Sadiq
05-20-2010, 11:01 AM
Originally Posted by Supreme
Are any two religions the same?
They can't be the same but can have simalarities. But in Islam there is only one religion which is Islam and for us these other religions such judaism, christianity, hindu are just ignorance and satanic influence or lost people.
Reply

Supreme
05-20-2010, 11:55 AM
Originally Posted by Mohamed_Sadiq
So can I ask you why its not a christian country no more? is it cause they finded out the christianity is bogus. and can I ask you don't u feel upset for your country losing their religion, I mean you must think about it, wondering why they all turned away from christianity and turned to some other beliefs such Islam or atheism or secularisation? For me its not suprising for christianity to decrease.
I think I've just explained why it isn't considered a Christian country any more. Of course I don't feel upset- why would I? Any system that treats a particular religion better than others is primitive, and belongs in the Medieval era. Britain is a modern country with modern values, and religious favouritism has no place in a modern, multicultural society. Britain can do a lot better than religious government, and indeed is doing a lot better.
Reply

Mohamed_Sadiq
05-20-2010, 12:07 PM
Originally Posted by Supreme
I think I've just explained why it isn't considered a Christian country any more. Of course I don't feel upset- why would I? Any system that treats a particular religion better than others is primitive, and belongs in the Medieval era. Britain is a modern country with modern values, and religious favouritism has no place in a modern, multicultural society. Britain can do a lot better than religious government, and indeed is doing a lot better.
All right I quite understand you now, but just keep in mind that Islamic countries are not like that because Islamic countries all their governments are through Sharia Law (islamic law) and also Islamic countries are doing quite well, no economic crisis or any other bad things don't occur. Also the Islamic countries only favour Muslim people but still have respect for other religions, things that they don't want is other religions having a influence in the country such as building churches or teachings other religion beliefs in school and they have rights to do that.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!