"Innocence of Muslims" movie causes outrage

[User29123]

A movie made by an Israeli Jew and backed by another 50 donates causes outrage in Libya and Egypt, one American was killed.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/israeli-filmmaker-in-hiding-after-anti-islam-movie-sparks-deadly-libya-egypt-protests-1.464459


Now I am not sure if the movie was just to cause huge anger to Muslims or

Cause a new terrorist attack in Israel or USA and blame in on Iran and say it was because of the movie and there you got your new war!! < I think that could be a reason..

[YusufNoor]

:sl:

the movie you see isn't even the movie that was made!!

read:

http://laist.com/2012/09/12/actors_s...ed_into_wo.php


people need to think before they (re)act. they are being used...


additional link:

http://gawker.com/5942748/it-makes-m...as-about-islam

:wa:

[Muslim Woman]

:sl:


they provoked and some Muslims fall in to the trap .

[جوري]

I actually don't mind since protest is also a form of freedom of speech- or is freedom of speech only in the form of vile inflammatory libel and slander or porn per western standards? A shaikh today spoke on TV and said no one can control the masses not govt. not anyone unless by use of force and even then it wouldn't matter. What happens when riots break out in the west? Rodney King anyone? They like to project the aura of civility and let's face, they're anything but the bottommost turds in a cesspool. Once People have been moved emotionally not rationally and that will always be a response and they expect that and they time that and they use that!
Al7mdullilah we love prophet Mohammed PBUH enough to find it jarring and to react to it. I'd have liked the reaction to be different but nonetheless I don't mind it at all!.. One day they'll push again but it won't be isolated few in Egypt or Isolated few in Libya but the entire corpus of Muslims as one fist and that is really gonna hurt alot worst than this.
They are perfectly contrived. They know when to release, how to put Mursi or the new Libyan Govt. to test or in an awkward seat, how to promote for free using people to spread propaganda, how to create factions and how to set them against one another how to link '911' to hooligan Muslims, they don't even have to hide their agenda, the agenda simply spells hate and projection in every form. I wasn't introduced to pederasts & pedophiles save in the west, their churches and synagogues are filled to the brim with every sickness and every occult action. At least we always come with our heart in our hand and not hide behind movies and silly blogs or spoofs. .. They have invented psychology and they're going to play and we well we're an ancient people, who like to play too. And one day the game they play is really gonna check mate them!

:w:

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

[Pygoscelis]

Criticizing and contrasting, even opposing and seeking to convert away an ideology is one thing. Deliberately provoking for the sake of provoking is another thing entirely. I think they were doing the latter here. I don't think they even believe what they are saying, and are just baiting some muslims to do violence, so they can point at them and show that "muslims are violent".

[جوري]

two excellent posts in a row I am honestly shocked ^o)^o)

[Riana17]

People should think before they react:exhausted, they are no different to real terrorist now, if ever they must kill someone that should be Sam Bacile and no one else.

[sister herb]

If someone would make film about holocaust in nazi Germany and in there blames that all it was just fault of jews themselves, would they say "ok that is just only freedom of speech"?

I don´t of course hope anyone would make such film at all.

[جوري]

I dislike and condemn immensely the killing of the American ambassador true they send unmanned drones on Muslims daily it's who they're but the prophet and the noble book specifically speak against taking lives of innocent people - this is bad territory all around and misdirected act of vengeance as angry as I am about the movie which doesn't represent 'freedom of speech' at all make no mistake of it and as disgusted as I am of their foreign policy and in fact complete disregard to what they think of us in the process that I am still saddened that some take the opportunity to target civilians!
[\SIZE]

[CosmicPathos]

this movie was made in june and no one knew about it, trust me. now after protests, the whole world knows about it and i also now know that such a crappy disgusting movie exists as well, thanks to Muslim brethren for enlightening us. sometimes I think Muslims have too much time on their hands.

[Hulk]

My thoughts exactly bro cosmic.

[Jim Fox]

As some muslims point out, ti was not 'the west' or the ambassador that made this crap movie so there is NO justification for lashing out blindly. This will only feed western hatred of Islam.

[sister herb]

This mysterious "West" should learn to be as understanding as it expect muslims in general to be and learn to understand those attackers are just some extremists - not all muslims/Islam.

What that sounds? Maybe too much to ask from "The West".

Actually of my mind we muslims have better to do than argue with every immature non-muslims whose lost they time as spreading they hate propaganda. They may try to weaken Islamic Ummah by they works but as it is said:

"And (the unbelievers) plotted and planned, and Allah too planned, and the best of planners is Allah." [Al-Qur'an, 3:54]

[YusufNoor]

:sl:

and who is Sam Bacile?

http://rt.com/usa/news/nakoula-confi...lim-movie-063/

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/ar...checkered-past

:wa:

and another link:

http://12160.info/profiles/blogs/biz...iddle-east-unr

[Jim Fox]

Are you accusing me of spreading 'hate propaganda'? If so, you need to read my post again and apologise.

Please note muslim spokespeople also refer to "the west" as a generalisation so don't pull that stunt! Nobody in 'the west' kills others for making a film, writing or publishing a book, drawing cartoons, accusing a mentally retarded little girl in Pakistan of burning the Koran or any such nonsense. We are not "offended" merely by the opinions of others to the point of killing for it. Western nutcases do commit terrible crimes (McVeigh, Breivik) but not normally for religious motives, extremist or not. It's because their minds are broken and they cannot think logically and reasonably. Or they are plainly insane.

Do you think it OK that the US ambassador & his staff were murdered when he had nothing to do with (and was likely unaware of) that film? This after the USA and NATO had been asked and helped get rid of the mass murderer Gaddafi?
What a way to say thanks!

[Jim Fox]

This is a reply to 'sister harb' but got in the wrong post

[Jim Fox]

Very true

[glo]

An interesting article by Omid Safi

It is up to us, to each of us, to decide which path to pursue:
each of us can choose to pursue the path of the extremists in the Jewish community that (allegedly) funded the film, the extremists in the Christian community that spread the “film”, or the path of the extremists of the Muslim community that reacted to the “film” with violence.

Or, we can respond to these catastrophes the way that President Obama reacted to the anniversary of 9/11 by reminding us that our fates are bound up together.
Obama said: “There's no them and us - it's just us”

http://www.religionnews.com/blogs/om...uhammad-and-th

Peace to you all.

[sister herb]

When I wrote about immature non-muslims whose spreading hate propaganda I meant those whose make kind of films etc. about Prophet Muhammad and about Islam.

Also again; it is ridiculous to claim that attack against US embassy would be any kind of "thanks" as they were some extremists whose were attacking there, not ordinary muslims in Libya. But of course that civilized "West" can´t make any difference between extremists and ordinary people. But of course that "West" wants that muslims don´t accuse all "West" for example when some soldier in Iraq rape and murder young girl after murdering hers all family in front of her.

I just wait "West" be as sensible than muslims in general actually are! Many times it has been unfortunately too much to ask.

[جوري]

Do you think it OK that the US ambassador & his staff were murdered when he had nothing to do with (and was likely unaware of) that film? This after the USA and NATO had been asked and helped get rid of the mass murderer Gaddafi?
What a way to say thanks!

It was actually 'pro Qaddafi' people who killed the ambassador as some reports suggest. Make no mistake however, whether NATO or the U.S were asked to help it was clearly in their best interest to take out a schizophrenic ticking time bomb who was cornered and ready to explode with whatever secrets he possessed. They loved him like they did Mubarak when they loved him and hate when they hate. They have no friends or allies in us just to get this clear! Be that as it may where is the U.S and NATO in Syria? Selective compassion or simply good strategic steps to ensure their interests in the region? Probably go in like Bosnia after mass genocide and call dibs on heroism.
Neither the U.S nor NATO go into a place unless they've much vested interest. Right now their interests lie in eradicating as many Sunni Muslims of Syria as possible!

best,

[Jedi_Mindset]

It was actually 'pro Qaddafi' people who killed the ambassador as some reports suggest. Make no mistake however, whether NATO or the U.S were asked to help it was clearly in their best interest to take out a schizophrenic ticking time bomb who was cornered and ready to explode with whatever secrets he possessed. They loved him like they did Mubarak when they loved him and hate when they hate. They have no friends or allies in us just to get this clear! Be that as it may where is the U.S and NATO in Syria? Selective compassion or simply good strategic steps to ensure their interests in the region? Probably go in like Bosnia after mass genocide and call dibs on heroism.
Neither the U.S nor NATO go into a place unless they've much vested interest. Right now their interests lie in eradicating as many Sunni Muslims of Syria as possible!

best,

Sis those were reports, however i still believe it was one of the militia who fought also against gadaffi, to turn their guns against the US.

And the last step is to destroy the whole country completely, divide it or put a very weak government in it who always will be enslaved by the west and always will be depending on the IMF.

The US just spit out puppets, as long the country is no danger for israel, libya isnt a danger, egypt; i doubt also.



The libyan government just allowed 50 US marines in their country to guard the US embassies (http://rt.com/news/us-warships-libya-violence-011/, i really doubt them to be entirely truthfull, but which government is? As long the libyans enjoy more freedom...''freedom''

I find Morsi more trustworthy.

But i dont care anyway, i refrain from supporting everyone of them, we muslims should take care of the worst enemy first - riba/usury, the banks located in the muslim countries.

[yahia12]

This is just plain stupidity. There are many different ways of protesting and fighting injustice. Such outrageous acts only give a bad image of Muslims and Islamic countries. :hmm:

[sister herb]

You see, this is one reason why they make kind of films; they know reaction of extremists and they WANT that "West" will hate by they actions all muslims - because westerners are quite blind to see difference between bad muslims and good muslims. After more hate westeners will accept more easy new wars against muslim countries.

"divide and conquer"

[YusufNoor]

You see, this is one reason why they make kind of films; they know reaction of extremists and they WANT that "West" will hate by they actions all muslims - because westerners are quite blind to see difference between bad muslims and good muslims. After more hate westeners will accept more easy new wars against muslim countries.

"divide and conquer"

:sl:

Neocon False Flag in North Africa – Part of Election Strategy

http://deadlinelive.info/2012/09/12/...tion-strategy/

:wa:

The Movie the Muslim World Is Furious About Might Not Even Be a Movie

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative...e-2466362.html

Were Libya attacks coordinated to mark 9/11?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...280821,00.html

[IslamicRevival]

Muslims yet again fall into the trap set by extremist Anti Islam bigots. When will we ever learn? Its exactly this kind of reaction they're after!

[glo]

Muslims yet again fall into the trap set by extremist Anti Islam bigots. When will we ever learn? Its exactly this kind of reaction they're after!

The problem is that it only takes A FEW people to rise to the provocation, and then it snowballs quite quickly.
I have been VERY encouraged by the counter-protests, declaring that these actions have NOTHING to do with Islam!

http://descrier.co.uk/world/2012/09/...hazi-or-islam/

[Perseveranze]

Asalaamu Alaikum,

[Logikon]

If the man wanted to discuss aspects of Muhammad’s life, it should be done in a respectful manner.

Doing it this way does not achieve anything.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) bore the most severe abuse to himself and his followers, and yet he exemplified the verse [25:63] And the true servants of the Most Merciful are those who walk the earth with humility and when the uncivilized address them, they respond with words of peace. When the people of Ta'if stoned him for simply inviting them to Islam, he raised his hands in prayer, not for their destruction, but for the guidance of their descendants. The best response from Muslims is to embody the legacy of the Prophet and show the world the reality of his beautiful teachings, and clarify their misconceptions. Hatred begets conflict. Hatred drives people apart, and destroys civilization.

[IslamicRevival]

The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) bore the most severe abuse to himself and his followers, and yet he exemplified the verse [25:63] And the true servants of the Most Merciful are those who walk the earth with humility and when the uncivilized address them, they respond with words of peace. When the people of Ta'if stoned him for simply inviting them to Islam, he raised his hands in prayer, not for their destruction, but for the guidance of their descendants. The best response from Muslims is to embody the legacy of the Prophet and show the world the reality of his beautiful teachings, and clarify their misconceptions. Hatred begets conflict. Hatred drives people apart, and destroys civilization.

Our Prophet (Infinite Peace and blessings be upon him) indeed is best in character. Were taught to control our emotions but why are there so many angry Muslims nowdays?

[DavidK565]

One needs to make a distinction between "protests" and "violence", apparently.

There is no question that the person who produced this film is a fool, who could very well have been trying to provoke people. Or maybe he thinks he speaks the truth. Either way, it should not matter. Everyone has the right to express themselves, provided you are not physically harming others. He has the freedom to make such a film, and similarly, people who are upset have a right to be upset. But unfortunately, it crosses over from protest to violence far too often. When buildings get burned, when people get hurt or killed, it has gone too far, and things like this need to stop. The violence only continues to push this notion that Muslims can not be moderate in their behavior.

The Qur'an, the Prophet, and Islam in general are all important to people who practice the faith. But for those who don't, it doesn't mean as much because its not their faith! One needs to take this into account. Perhaps drawing a picture of the Prophet is a grave sin for people in the faith, but people outside of the faith do not care. Violent protests in response to things like that don't do anything to help Islam. I consider the cow to be a sacred animal, which is why Hindus don't eat beef. But if someone who ISN'T Hindu eats a burger in front of me, am I supposed to attack him for it? Its not his faith; its mine.

[Hulk]

Actually to make a fair comparison you would have to imagine someone making a film mocking a personality in Hinduism.. for example Vishnu..

[glo]

There is no question that the person who produced this film is a fool, who could very well have been trying to provoke people. Or maybe he thinks he speaks the truth. Either way, it should not matter. Everyone has the right to express themselves, provided you are not physically harming others. He has the freedom to make such a film, and similarly, people who are upset have a right to be upset.

I disagree somewhat.
The person who made the film may have the legal right to make it, but morally his actions are indefensible - at least if he made the film with the intent to provoke a reaction.
I think intention matters here.

Making a film, hoping it will incite anger, hatred and violence across the globe and risk world peace?? How sick is that! :heated:

Of course, going out and causing damage to property and harming or even killing people is inexcusable too. But my feeling is that many of the people who commit those acts are either not very educated or are caught up in the irrational mob reactions.

My guess is that the maker of the film was neither uneducated nor irrational. His actions were very cleverly planned and calmly carried out. That makes him immoral.

[DavidK565]

Actually to make a fair comparison you would have to imagine someone making a film mocking a personality in Hinduism.. for example Vishnu..

Ok, if you would prefer Vishnu be the example, that's fine. But the same principle applies. Those who are not Hindu do not believe in Vishnu or any of the other Hindu gods. How can one expect them to show reverence for something that they do not believe? Why would they? Why would a Jew pray to Jesus, as Christians do? Why would someone who is an Atheist show reverence for any religious figure? They would not, and we can't expect them to.

The tenets of what makes your particular faith special are only important to you and the people who believe as you believe. Others can not be held to the same standard. This is why I get upset when Muslims (in this particular case) are getting violent over this movie. Muslims can not expect people who do not share their faith to treat it the same way that THEY would treat it. And people should not be punished for that. Everyone has the right to believe as they do, and express it, without hurting others.

[IslamicRevival]

Holy cow! Everyone has the right to express themselves but there are certain boundaries and parameters we mustn't cross. Take for example the 'N' word, i would never utter it as I know its a term which may offend a community of people so you see, there are limits even in Free Speech! Publishing material which is intended to provoke a nation of 1.5 Billion+ Muslims should be classed as Inciteful, its a hate crime not merely an act of expressing ones views. Those individuals acting like thugs in violent protests do not represent me as a Muslim, nor do they represent Islam.

[Aprender]

This is why I get upset when Muslims (in this particular case) are getting violent over this movie. Muslims can not expect people who do not share their faith to treat it the same way that THEY would treat it. And people should not be punished for that. Everyone has the right to believe as they do, and express it, without hurting others.

Careful with the generalization you're making here. Just because some Muslims chose to react violently doesn't mean we all support that behavior and no one should have been killed over this. Our religion doesn't approve of this behavior but sadly some Muslims aren't as educated about Islam as they should be or allow their anger to take over them which is also something we as Muslims should guard ourselves against.

I think there is more to this story than we know right now.

[جوري]

Everyone has the right to express themselves

This is the crux of everyone's argument, but it is actually not true, and it is especially not true in western society.
Try writing anti holocaust pamphlets, or getting satellite and watching the HizbAllah Chanel or downloading material from the web that's classified as either 'terrorist material' or watching certain types of pornography. If you're going to pass laws, silly laws, like banning clothes or banning material to watch and sending the FBI on a Muslim as a preemptive measure basically with no other intention than to harass, and/or imprison and torture without a trial then don't elect yourself as a paragon of virtue a leader of the pack of whom the rest should follow the example of. You keep saying and it is what we're hearing repeatedly it is free expression it is free speech it free this, then why isn't that extended to the other side? Why the hypocrisy?

[DavidK565]

I disagree somewhat.
The person who made the film may have the legal right to make it, but morally his actions are indefensible - at least if he made the film with the intent to provoke a reaction.
I think intention matters here.

Making a film, hoping it will incite anger, hatred and violence across the globe and risk world peace?? How sick is that! :heated:

Of course, going out and causing damage to property and harming or even killing people is inexcusable too. But my feeling is that many of the people who commit those acts are either not very educated or are caught up in the irrational mob reactions.

My guess is that the maker of the film was neither uneducated nor irrational. His actions were very cleverly planned and calmly carried out. That makes him immoral.

Perhaps the producer of this film is immoral. But we are not to judge him. He will get what is coming to him without human intervention, if one believes in such.

I take slight issue with the first line of your statement in that I do not believe this man's goal was to incite violence. Perhaps he wanted to anger people. Perhaps it would have led to protests. But violence is up to the people who commit it. They could have chosen NOT to be violent. They could have chosen NOT to murder people. It has gotten to be a serious problem when acts of murder, violence, and destruction are the NORMAL expectations for a response, and that rationality is the rarity. Violence should not be the first thing that comes to mind.

[Hulk]

Ok, if you would prefer Vishnu be the example, that's fine. But the same principle applies. Those who are not Hindu do not believe in Vishnu or any of the other Hindu gods. How can one expect them to show reverence for something that they do not believe? Why would they? Why would a Jew pray to Jesus, as Christians do? Why would someone who is an Atheist show reverence for any religious figure? They would not, and we can't expect them to.

The tenets of what makes your particular faith special are only important to you and the people who believe as you believe. Others can not be held to the same standard. This is why I get upset when Muslims (in this particular case) are getting violent over this movie. Muslims can not expect people who do not share their faith to treat it the same way that THEY would treat it. And people should not be punished for that. Everyone has the right to believe as they do, and express it, without hurting others.

Revering and outright mocking/disrespecting is different. This is simple human being courtesy.. You don't have to personally like someone's father but that doesn't mean you can outright disrespect the man. If someone came up to you and insulted your mother, wouldn't you be angry? It's that simple..

[DavidK565]

Careful with the generalization you're making here. Just because some Muslims chose to react violently doesn't mean we all support that behavior and no one should have been killed over this. Our religion doesn't approve of this behavior but sadly some Muslims aren't as educated about Islam as they should be or allow their anger to take over them which is also something we as Muslims should guard ourselves against.

I think there is more to this story than we know right now.

I did not mean to generalize. I was referring to those who commit the acts of violence, and those who support the acts of violence as a justifiable response. Certainly, this is a minority viewpoint.

[DavidK565]

Revering and outright mocking/disrespecting is different. This is simple human being courtesy.. You don't have to personally like someone's father but that doesn't mean you can outright disrespect the man. If someone came up to you and insulted your mother, wouldn't you be angry? It's that simple..

"Angry", of course. But what should I do? Hit the man? Kill him? Burn his house down? This is something about human beings when we talk about freedom. People SHOULD be courteous and respectful, but you have the RIGHT not to be. People do have the right to mock. Its not nice. And some people will get upset. But all you can hope to do is show them why their mocking is incorrect. And killing people in response is not going to get that message across.

[Aprender]

And killing people in response is not going to get that message across.

And no one here disagrees with that.

[Hulk]

"Angry", of course. But what should I do? Hit the man? Kill him? Burn his house down? This is something about human beings when we talk about freedom. People SHOULD be courteous and respectful, but you have the RIGHT not to be. People do have the right to mock. Its not nice. And some people will get upset. But all you can hope to do is show them why their mocking is incorrect. And killing people in response is not going to get that message across.

Exactly.. so when someone does something that could potentially offend 1.5billion people, wouldn't you expect there to be a few who's reactions are over the top? Of course by right a person's reaction shouldn't be with violence but we don't always have control over our reactions especially when we're angry. In context of what is going on, it should be obvious to anyone that the goal was to be offensive and incite a reaction.

[جوري]

"Angry", of course. But what should I do? Hit the man? Kill him? Burn his house down?

And killing people in response is not going to get that message across. And no one here disagrees with that.

Make no mistake that the killings were the acts of a few crazy vigilante - None of us condone the killing of innocent civilians even as a tit for tat when the U.S is droning folks everyday and calling them collateral damage. If these are their war mannerisms they're not ours and they're certainly not Islamic:

Al-Isra [17:33]

وَلاَ تَقْتُلُواْ النَّفْسَ الَّتِي حَرَّمَ اللّهُ إِلاَّ بِالحَقِّ وَمَن قُتِلَ مَظْلُومًا فَقَدْ جَعَلْنَا لِوَلِيِّهِ سُلْطَانًا فَلاَ يُسْرِف فِّي الْقَتْلِ إِنَّهُ كَانَ مَنْصُورًا

Wala taqtuloo alnnafsa allatee harrama Allahu illa bialhaqqi waman qutila mathlooman faqad jaAAalna liwaliyyihi sultanan fala yusrif fee alqatli innahu kana mansooran

17:33 Nor take life - which Allah has made sacred - except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority (to demand qisas or to forgive): but let him nor exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the Law).

This certainly shouldn't be made a topic on whether or not we should celeberate or condone the slaughter of an innocent man. However, people do have a right to protest, I personally think it is they have much more to protest than merely promote an idiotic movie made by imbeciles. But if we're going down to the nitty gritty of it the U.S had best shut its bazoo or reform its own people before pointing its fingers at the other guy!

[DavidK565]

Exactly.. so when someone does something that could potentially offend 1.5billion people, wouldn't you expect there to be a few who's reactions are over the top? Of course by right a person's reaction shouldn't be with violence but we don't always have control over our reactions especially when we're angry. In context of what is going on, it should be obvious to anyone that the goal was to be offensive and incite a reaction.

I don't know if we can say that the goal was to be offensive. Its equally possible that the person who made this film thought he was being historically accurate, based on incorrect information. Who knows for sure?

And of course, there will be a violent few who react inappropriately. But what is most upsetting is that the leadership of these countries where the U.S. embassies are being attacked (Libya and Egypt) were calling for a "national day of protest". This does not ease tension, and could incite more violence. What good will it do to have a national day of protest over a silly movie? It draws more attention to a situation that should have been of complete non-importance, and will lead to more injury and death. Is this the way leadership is supposed to operate?

[sister herb]

That is so typical again; when a jew/christian/etc. kills someone, others blame him but when muslim kills someone - others blame Islam.

I think I have heard this same before and many times.

[DavidK565]

That is so typical again; when a jew/christian/etc. kills someone, others blame him but when muslim kills someone - others blame Islam.

I think I have heard this same before and many times.

With all due respect, it is not the double-standard that you portray it to be. If Jews, Christians, etc. were killing people in the name of their religion or in the "defense" of their religion, then they would be treated in the same manner as you see the Muslims who committed these violent acts. These people are out there attacking embassies, killing people, and setting KFC restaurants on fire because they feel that Islam was attacked and they don't feel it should be allowed. If you had Jews attack and kill people every time someone said "Jews control the media" "Judaism is a terrible religion" "Moses is a pedophile" etc., then your point would be valid. But they tend not to do that. Neither do Christians (anymore), nor do Hindus, Bhuddists, Taoists, etc.

[Mustafa2012]

This whole fiasco was a disaster.

Those jaahil muslims in Libya reacted exactly like the Shaytaan who made that film wanted them to react. He's even been reported to have admitted that publicly according to Yahoo news but has gone into hiding.

Why didn't people find out who actually planned and made the film and take it up with him directly?

Burning embassies doesn't achieve anything except make the world see us as mindless barbarians which is what the shaytaan who made this film wanted.

[Hulk]

26:52


Tirmidhi (2019)
Sayyidina Sahl ibn Sa’d Sa’idi reported that Allah’s Messenger(pbuh) said,
“Deliberation is from Allah, but haste is from the devil."

[Muhammad]

But they tend not to do that. Neither do Christians (anymore), nor do Hindus, Bhuddists, Taoists, etc.

According to whom? The filtered media reports? When a group of Muslims kill one man it is worldwide news and headlines. When countless Muslims are being slaughtered and massacred (by Buddhists) in Burma, why doesn't it raise greater concern?

Moreover we need to realise that many countries in the middle-east are places of civil unrest and instability. There is a lot more going on and the interviews below help to provide some of that perspective...

[Muhammad]

US consulate attack: Libyans react to Benghazi violence

The US is investigating whether the
attack in Libya that killed the US ambassador and several other people was
planned in advance, officials say.

The assault had earlier been thought to have been a spontaneous reaction to
protests over an anti-Islamic film.

Here, people in Libya give their views on the attack, the security situation
and the future of their country.


Hajer Sharief, NGO worker, Tripoli


Hajer Sharief: The attack is a wake-up call

We Libyans are filled with grief. Chris Stevens was more than an ambassador -
he was a friend.

We condemn this barbaric act, which does not represent us as Libyans and
Muslims and we send our sincere condolences to his family and friends.

This attack is a wake-up call for us, a realisation of the danger and the
urgent need to defend freedom.

It showed the world how bad our security situation is. What it showed us
Libyans is just how powerful these groups are - and how weak the Libyan
authorites are.

We weren't pleased about the situation months ago: We protested; we wrote in
newspapers and magazines; we discussed it on TV channels.

We raised our voices to ask for a real initiative from the authorities to
build a national army and ban ordinary citizens from holding weapons. Nothing
happened.

This is our turning point: We should not give up on the great achievement of
our revolution and the great hope that our martyrs gave us.

Our grief has turned to anger and anger to courage. We are more determined
now to rebuild a new civilised democratic Libya. This is what Ambassador Stevens
would have wanted.


Mohamed Ben Jaballah, car dealer,
Tripoli


I was not surprised when I heard about the attack. It
was expected, because there is a lot of anti-US feeling in the country.

This attack is an expression of Libyan anger towards US foreign policy and I
am sure the worst is yet to come.

The people who supported [ousted leader Col Muammar] Gaddafi are angry with
Americans for removing him and those who didn't support him would have preferred
to remove him without US interference.

What is happening in the country worries me very much. There is no law and
order. Everyone has a weapon and they can do whatever they want.

My life has changed a lot after the revolution. I am a black Libyan and I
suffer constant intimidation from the rebels who think that I am a Gaddafi
supporter (because there were many African mercenaries).

It happens all the time when I leave the house - I get stopped, searched,
interrogated. I used to have a normal life; now everything has changed and I
don't see any hope.



Ali Farag, engineer, Benghazi

Protests have been held in
Benghazi condemning the attack

I live very close to the consulate. I heard some shooting and soon afterwards
I saw people running away from the embassy.

I am very sad about what happened. We liked the ambassador very much; he was
here to help us.

It's a very bad film and I understand if people want to protest, but there's no need to kill. We must also understand that the authorities in the US can't do anything to stop individuals creating such films.

Most people here are against these kind of attacks. There were protests going
on today - my son was there. They were not against the film, but against the
violent reaction to it.

I am very worried about these hard-line religious groups whose ideas are
quite different from the majority of the population.

We Libyans like foreigners very much and love welcoming foreign guests to our
houses. We don't like to be told how to practice our religion. We don't want
anything to be forced on us!


Salem, former rebel, Tripoli


When I heard about the attack on the US consulate, I got very angry.

This is against our religion and customs. The ambassador is our guest, he
should have been protected. There is no excuse for killing him.

We have a serious security problem in this country and that's because we have
a weak government. There are wrong people in position of power, who cannot deal
with the armed militant groups.

I am not scared of the Salafists: The worst they can do is destroy shrines
and make a lot of noise.

The real danger for the country comes from groups related to al-Qaeda. They
are ready to do anything - fight the government and kill people.

I was part of the rebels during the war. I still have my gun and everyone
from the group kept their weapons. There is more than one warehouse full of
weapons under our control.

We are waiting for the day when we have a real government - then we will hand
over everything to the military.

But until that day comes - we are keeping our weapons!

Interviews by Krassimira Twigg


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19593578

[سيف الله]

Salaam

I agree with the comments condemning the death of the ambassador and the violent protests. I think we should protest robustly but peacefully in reaction to this vile film.

As always theres lot more going on under the surface. For example it’s reasonable to speculate the video could have been timed to disrupt Obamas election prospects or at least put him in a bind. On the other hand political groupings in are taking advantage of the justifiable anger with various groups trying to jockeying for position.

For instance the killing of the American ambassador may have been pre planned and in response to a drone killing in Pakistan.

Revealed: inside story of US envoy's assassination

Exclusive: America 'was warned of embassy attack but did nothing'

The killings of the US ambassador to Libya and three of his staff were likely to have been the result of a serious and continuing security breach, The Independent can reveal.

American officials believe the attack was planned, but Chris Stevens had been back in the country only a short while and the details of his visit to Benghazi, where he and his staff died, were meant to be confidential.

The US administration is now facing a crisis in Libya. Sensitive documents have gone missing from the consulate in Benghazi and the supposedly secret location of the "safe house" in the city, where the staff had retreated, came under sustained mortar attack. Other such refuges across the country are no longer deemed "safe".

Some of the missing papers from the consulate are said to list names of Libyans who are working with Americans, putting them potentially at risk from extremist groups, while some of the other documents are said to relate to oil contracts.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/

This is an excellent debate on the issues raised. He articulates the issues raised very well.



I think these protests could symbolise the decline of American influence in the region, which is a good think given their record over the past 60 + years. Change is happening

On the idea of just turning the other cheek. I agree that we do have to get a thicker skin (remember during the prophets (pbuh) time he endured much abuse) however I don’t think taking a meek, mild passive attitude is a good approach, you appear weak and after all doesn't our faith matter?

On the whole freedom of speech there’s always ambiguity for example

Azhar Ahmed convicted of offensive Facebook message
Azhar Ahmed Ahmed had posted the message on Facebook just days after the soldiers death

A teenager has been found guilty of posting an offensive Facebook message following the deaths of six British soldiers in Afghanistan.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-19604735


UK ban on Press TV violates free speech

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/222368.html


and the idea that other faiths, ideologies etc don’t engage in violence is to be questioned

Parzania - a 2007 film about the riots in Gujarat in 2002. The film was purposely not released in Gujarat.Cinema owners and distributors in Gujarat refused to screen the film out of fear of retaliation by Hindu activists. Hindutva groups in Gujarat threatened to attack theaters that showed the film.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio...lence_in_India

[IslamicRevival]

Read this: http://news.sky.com/story/985183/man...troops-message Its this sort of hypocrisy that grinds my gears, and im sure many Muslims. Its labelled 'Freedom of speech' when books and films are published for the sole purpose of demonizing Islam but when someone utters ONE sentence against the British armed forces its somehow classed as 'grossly offensive communication' and a chargeable offense. Astounding and hypocrisy at its worst!

[GuestFellow]

^ Asslamu Aliakum,

I have no respect for the armed forces. I have more respect for the police (except those who abuse their positions or are racist) than the armed forces. These soldiers are part of the problem. No soldiers = no wars.

Muslims should be angry. They are fed up after all these wars, sanctions, deaths, interference from foreign countries and insults thrown at them. Not an excuse to hurt others, but they should be allowed to express their anger rather than bottling it all up.

[KAding]

Actually to make a fair comparison you would have to imagine someone making a film mocking a personality in Hinduism.. for example Vishnu..

Do you really think it would be difficult to find a site or movie somewhere made by a Muslim that would mock or ridicule polytheism or call for the destruction of their idols? There are a lot of fools on this planet and internet gives each and everyone of them a platform. It would require us to be outraged 24/7 if we would take it all too seriously.

[KAding]

Read this: http://news.sky.com/story/985183/man...troops-message Its this sort of hypocrisy that grinds my gears, and im sure many Muslims. Its labelled 'Freedom of speech' when books and films are published for the sole purpose of demonizing Islam but when someone utters ONE sentence against the British armed forces its somehow classed as 'grossly offensive communication' and a chargeable offense. Astounding and hypocrisy at its worst!

Yes, I completely agree. But do note that the British and US laws are different on this matter. In the US this kind of remark about the armed forces would NOT be punishable (heck just look at the protest held by the Westboro Baptist Church at the funerals of US soldiers). Freedom of expression is a lot more absolute in the US than it is in the UK. In fact, in the UK people can be convicted for making anti-Muslim remarks, as this constitutes 'hate speech'. The concept of 'hate speech' does not exist in US law.

[Hulk]

Do you really think it would be difficult to find a site or movie somewhere made by a Muslim that would mock or ridicule polytheism or call for the destruction of their idols? There are a lot of fools on this planet and internet gives each and everyone of them a platform. It would require us to be outraged 24/7 if we would take it all too seriously.

I was merely giving a fairer example as compared to the one he used where likening the situation to a non-hindu eating beef but what does it matter whether or not a muslim or a non-muslim is being disrespectful, isn't it the same?

[Scimitar]

Are you accusing me of spreading 'hate propaganda'? If so, you need to read my post again and apologise.

Please note muslim spokespeople also refer to "the west" as a generalisation so don't pull that stunt! Nobody in 'the west' kills others for making a film, writing or publishing a book, drawing cartoons, accusing a mentally retarded little girl in Pakistan of burning the Koran or any such nonsense. We are not "offended" merely by the opinions of others to the point of killing for it. Western nutcases do commit terrible crimes (McVeigh, Breivik) but not normally for religious motives, extremist or not. It's because their minds are broken and they cannot think logically and reasonably. Or they are plainly insane.

Do you think it OK that the US ambassador & his staff were murdered when he had nothing to do with (and was likely unaware of) that film? This after the USA and NATO had been asked and helped get rid of the mass murderer Gaddafi?
What a way to say thanks!

Heck, you make a good point.

I think the Muslims on this board are failing to recognise that demonstrations are a form of freedom of speech. But they do not give us the right to propagate hate speech, as is the case here:



To think, wearing balaclavas is seen as threatening. To hold boards saying things like "Our dead are in paradise, your dead are in hell" - what the heck has that got to do with the reason for the protest? THINK!!!! This is just serving to increase the animosity between groups. We are supposed to argue with the non believers in the best of ways. If that means a silent protest with banners reading "We disapprove of your movie and find it offensive because we do not allow any depiction of the Prophet (pbuh)" and other such boards such as this - then OK, that is fine. Was there need for the boards they used? No...

next: "Obama Obama, we love Osama" and "Shariah will rule the world" - is this the way to promote shariah law? Is this presenting us in the right light? As for the "Obama Obama we love Osama" comment. Way to go eh? NOT. Again, increasing the amount of animosity between Muslims and non Muslims. Did anyone even think that they could have instead, written a lengthy document explaining to the organisations that this is frowned upon in Islam? No.

Moving on...

Next we see a mob of policemen who are pinning down a Muslim protester and a dog is chewing his leg off... well, that is what you better expect if Muslims carry on parading the streets like idiots with too much testosterone and not enough sense.

Scimi

[Hulk]

We have idiots who want to be champions.

[Nabooly]

Heck, you make a good point.

I think the Muslims on this board are failing to recognise that demonstrations are a form of freedom of speech. But they do not give us the right to propagate hate speech, as is the case here:



To think, wearing balaclavas is seen as threatening. To hold boards saying things like "Our dead are in paradise, your dead are in hell" - what the heck has that got to do with the reason for the protest? THINK!!!! This is just serving to increase the animosity between groups. We are supposed to argue with the non believers in the best of ways. If that means a silent protest with banners reading "We disapprove of your movie and find it offensive because we do not allow any depiction of the Prophet (pbuh)" and other such boards such as this - then OK, that is fine. Was there need for the boards they used? No...

next: "Obama Obama, we love Osama" and "Shariah will rule the world" - is this the way to promote shariah law? Is this presenting us in the right light? As for the "Obama Obama we love Osama" comment. Way to go eh? NOT. Again, increasing the amount of animosity between Muslims and non Muslims. Did anyone even think that they could have instead, written a lengthy document explaining to the organisations that this is frowned upon in Islam? No.

Moving on...

Next we see a mob of policemen who are pinning down a Muslim protester and a dog is chewing his leg off... well, that is what you better expect if Muslims carry on parading the streets like idiots with too much testosterone and not enough sense.

Scimi

Wow now what the heck do they expect to accomplish if they cross the lines that are clearly made not to be crossed!!!! Why is everyone protesting!?? What are they trying to accomplish? The more they act like children the more the west will completely dismiss Islam as a beautiful religion. I do consider the video offensive bas what's the point of protesting this stupid 5 minute video? Whatever let the videomaker enjoy his "5 million dollar" movie that looks like a 12 year old made it. The important thing is WE as Muslims know about our Prophet Mohammad (SAWS) and how he is a model for all of us to follow!!

It's an absolute shame. Allah yihdena.

[glo]

Heck, you make a good point.

I think the Muslims on this board are failing to recognise that demonstrations are a form of freedom of speech. But they do not give us the right to propagate hate speech, as is the case here:



To think, wearing balaclavas is seen as threatening. To hold boards saying things like "Our dead are in paradise, your dead are in hell" - what the heck has that got to do with the reason for the protest? THINK!!!! This is just serving to increase the animosity between groups. We are supposed to argue with the non believers in the best of ways. If that means a silent protest with banners reading "We disapprove of your movie and find it offensive because we do not allow any depiction of the Prophet (pbuh)" and other such boards such as this - then OK, that is fine. Was there need for the boards they used? No...

next: "Obama Obama, we love Osama" and "Shariah will rule the world" - is this the way to promote shariah law? Is this presenting us in the right light? As for the "Obama Obama we love Osama" comment. Way to go eh? NOT. Again, increasing the amount of animosity between Muslims and non Muslims. Did anyone even think that they could have instead, written a lengthy document explaining to the organisations that this is frowned upon in Islam? No.

Moving on...

Next we see a mob of policemen who are pinning down a Muslim protester and a dog is chewing his leg off... well, that is what you better expect if Muslims carry on parading the streets like idiots with too much testosterone and not enough sense.

Scimi

I feel so sad about all this. It's going to be a long hard road to a peaceful world. Can we ever achieve it? imsad

[IbnAbdulHakim]

we might aswell be dead if not outraged.

[observer]

we might aswell be dead if not outraged.

It is absolutely fine to be outraged. Nobody in any free society anywhere would deny you your right to be outraged and to protest to show that outrage.

It is not fine to kill people - innocent people - because of that outrage.

It is not fine to burn and loot and destroy diplomatic missions because of that outrage.

Free speech allows people to say things that we don't like, but I totally believe that we are better off with free speech than without it. Free speech means that muslims were allowed
to burn American and Israeli flags outside the US embassy in London after the attack in Libya. That action was incredibly offensive, but those people have the right to that - peaceful - protest.

As one much more intelligent than I once said:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Voltaire

[sister herb]

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Voltaire

This reminds me a lawyer who years ago defended man who got charge because he in some European country (can´t remember in which one) claimed in public that holocaust of Jews never happened in nazi-Germany.

He as I remember said he doesn´t accept this opinion but defends his clients´ right of free speech.

[observer]

This reminds me a lawyer who years ago defended man who got charge because he in some European country (can´t remember in which one) claimed in public that holocaust of Jews never happened in nazi-Germany.

He as I remember said he doesn´t accept this opinion but defends his clients´ right of free speech.

Yeah, this is quite a pillar of freedom. I know many European countries have a holocaust denial law but many others (including the UK I believe) don't as it would be incredibly difficult to criminalise and retain the principle of free speech.

In the UK, denying the holocaust is seen as very offensive (well, to be fair, most deniers are simply dismissed as crazy) but once you stop people saying one thing, where do you stop?

[observer]

Also, I forgot to post in my original reply, I think that those Libyans who have come out after the attacks and protested against the attacks should be applauded - I think that it's
incredibly courageous what they've done.

Their counter protest has received quite a lot of attention in the UK which is encouraging - maybe some positives can come from all of this in the end? Fingers crossed!

[sister herb]

Hopely. I think media has forgot one fact when it has made big headlines last days about those more or less violent protests. Brother amirsaab posted before to other thread interesting link about it. Maybe I can copy it to here...

http://sphotos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphoto...49081376_n.jpg

^o)

[Galaxy]

I hate how it's getting the cnn treatment as much as the violent outburst itself, if only muslims were just as enthusiastic over other issues such as hmm i don't know



SYRIA???

[observer]

Hopely. I think media has forgot one fact when it has made big headlines last days about those more or less violent protests. Brother amirsaab posted before to other thread interesting link about it. Maybe I can copy it to here...

^o)

This is absolutely the problem - those who shout loudest get the attention, even if they are a tiny minority.

[observer]

I hate how it's getting the cnn treatment as much as the violent outburst itself, if only muslims were just as enthusiastic over other issues such as hmm i don't know



SYRIA???

I think that's a good example. In my school, many of the Muslim students have done things for Syria - fundraising, charity dinners etc. So they are active in that area, but it's never going to get on the news.

[~Zaria~]

Assalamu-alaikum,

We love our prophet (sallahu alaihi wasalam) dearly.
And we are deeply hurt by the contents of this movie.

But who amongst us, can identify with this new 'face of Islam'?

Who is causing more damage to the image of this deen?

The hateful, blasphemous movie? (and there are many non-violent ways of approaching this).

Or the followers of the one who claim to love the man (sallahu alaihi wasalam) falsely portrayed in the movie?

Can we imagine our beloved prophet (sallahu alaihi wasalam) being part of these protests?

Do the majority of these protestors resemble or remind you of our noble prophet (sallahu alaihi wasalam)?

Or do they ironically resemble the person that is portrayed in the movie?!

The producers of this movie (and Shaytaan) - must be well-pleased with themselves.......for their mission is accomplished:

- Thanks to the ones who protest in such barbaric fashions - the 13min movie clip on YT has thus far received over 3 MILLION views in 3 days(and growing).

- Thanks to the ones who claim to love the prophet (sallahu alaihi wasalam), yet fail to learn from his blessed manners - there is even more hatred felt towards islam and muslims.

- Thanks to ones who now bear responsibility for needless deaths, damage to the property of others and mindless anarchy - the rest of the ummah of Muhammed (sallahu alaihi wasalam) will now have to restart their mission of removing the 'misconceptions' created by 'the west' about Islam.

I am ashamed to be associated with this testosterone-driven mob-justice - that clearly shows no signs of logical planning and preparation (remember how our prophet (sallahu alaihi wasalam) planned before a battle?) - just unbriddled anger, directed aimlessly.

Were we once the most powerful nation on earth?

How are we doing at the moment? : (

May Allah (subhanawataála) forgive this ummah and grant us victory over the kuffaars (despite our many short-comings).
Ameen.

[Perseveranze]

Asalaamu Alaikum,

Although the violence and killings isn't right, the insulting of the Messenger(swa) of Allah(swt) is a far worst crime than any of that and is one of the worst forms of Blasphemy imaginable.

We should all speak out against it and put emphasis on how wrong that truly was.



“I have no problem if people don’t like flag burning, I have no problem if people condemn the killings of diplomats, which the Shariah prohibits anyways, what I have a problem with is the fact so many people, so many Muslim brothers and sisters, have prioritized their commentary on those issues, rather than the fundamental issue which started all of this - which was somebody insulting Allah(SWAs) Messenger-Muhammad Mustafa (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam)” - Abdul Wahid

[Perseveranze]

Asalaamu Alaikum,

From Hamza's facebook;

---

Here are some of my reflections concerning the recent insults against our beloved Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace). [We have prepared a formal response and it will be sent out soon.]

* Self-defeating: Freedom to Insult *

The 19th century British philosopher and thinker, John Stuart Mill argued that the main basic justification of freedom of speech is that truth is advanced in the competition of ideas, and that the competition of ideas can only occur within liberty. From this justification the following objectives of freedom of speech have been discussed by thinkers:

- acquisition of knowledge,
- acknowledgement truth,
- accounting governments and individuals,
- intellectual and scientific progress.

Conversely, neo-liberal thinkers seem to deny their own tradition, and exclaim that insults, bad language and degradation is necessary for the achievement of the objectives of freedom of speech. Under scrutiny, this perspective is self-defeating and is uncivilised.

Taking the recent disgraceful insults and degradation of the Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace) as an example, it can be argued that it defeats the very justification and objectives of the liberal notion of freedom of speech. Freedom to insult which includes the use of degrading language and visual obscenities actually contradicts the very foundation of freedom of speech. For example, in order to acquire truth and facilitate progress good argumentation is required, and this argumentation must be couched in human language. Insulting and using degrading language or imagery does not facilitate truth and progress. Imagine, the physicist Stephen Hawking explaining String Theory using pornographic imagery or President Obama swearing during his inaugural address.

Accounting governments and individuals also requires good argumentation. If I were to go up to Tony Blair or George Bush and use vile language would I successfully bring them to account? Of course I wouldn't. In order for me to do so I would need to articulate a positive case against their crimes and injustices. With these, and there are many other examples, insults and degradation defeats the very objectives of speech.

Therefore, if freedom to insult actually negates the objectives of freedom of speech, then shouldn't freedom to insult be restricted? [Obviously there must be conditions to this and it is in the context of achieving the objectives of speech. Also, there are many restrictions to speech in secular liberal nations, for example there are libel laws, product defamation laws, hate speech laws, noise pollution etc. So logically freedom of speech doesn't really exist! What exists is speech or expression in the context of law and society's values - this is a more coherent definition.)

The recent video of the Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace) has not achieved any of the objectives of freedom of speech. It has just gone against the very moral norms of both traditions, East and West. It is a pathetic display of immorality, an explicit unwillingness to engage in intellectual discussion and an expression of unjustified hatred.

* The Values of Islam *

The values of Islam emanating from the Qur'an and Prophetic traditions pave the pathway to progress, truth and accountability while maintaining good etiquette and upholding the best of all manners. The Islamic values evokes the search for truth,

"And do not mix up the truth with the falsehood, nor hide the truth while you know it." Qur'an 2:42

"…and enjoin on each other truth." Qur'an 103:3

"Do they not examine the realm of the heavens and the earth and whatever God has created?" Qur'an 7:185

"O Mankind, We created you from a male and female and made you into different tribes and nations in order to know one another…" Qur'an 49:13

"When it is said to them: Follow what God has revealed, they say: No we follow the ways of our fathers – What! Even though their fathers understood nothing…" Qur'an 2:170

Concerning accountability Islam promotes accounting the unjust ruler and preventing evil,

“The best of all jihad is a word of truth to a tyrant ruler” Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace)

"Let there be among you people that command the good, enjoining what is right and forbidding the wrong. They indeed are the successful." Qur'an 3:104

When the Islamic values were implemented in the Muslim lands progress was an inevitable product of the Islamic civilisation, for instance the historian Robert Briffault in "The Making of Humanity" explains how progress was not only evident in Islamic history, but European growth was facilitated by the Islamic civilisation,

“For Although there is not a single aspect of European growth in which the decisive influence of Islamic Culture is not traceable, nowhere is it so clear and momentous as in the genesis of that power which constitutes the permanent distinctive force of the modern world, and the supreme source of its victory, natural science and the scientific spirit.”

In the Islamic paradigm, all of these objectives of freedom of speech are achieved within a framework of morality and decency. The Qur'anic values speak for themselves,

"…and they shall enjoy honour and dignity" Qur'an 37:42
"O believers, let not people ridicule other people…nor insult one another…" Qur'an 49:11

"Spy not and defame not others…" Qur'an 49:12

"God does not love the public utterance of evil speech…" Qur'an 4:148

“Do you not see how God sets forth a parable? A good Word is like a good tree, whose root is firmly fixed, and its branches reach to the heavens - It brings forth its fruit at all times, by the leave of its Lord. So God sets forth parables for mankind, in order that they may receive admonition. And the parable of an evil Word is that of an evil tree: It is torn up by the root from the surface of the earth: it has no stability.” Qur'an 14: 24-26

* An invitation to intellectual debate and dialogue *

The Islamic tradition is no stranger to debate and dialogue. Islamic scholarship has produced volumes on theologically sensitive issues. The foundation for Islamic scholarship, the Qur'an promotes debate and dialogue,

"Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best." Qur'an 16: 125
Throughout the medieval period intellectual debates were the norm. For instance, the practical application of astrology was subject to deep philosophical debate by Muslim scholars and scientists. In the 8th century a group of people labelled as the Dahriyya emerged (the modern equivalent of what we now call Atheists), and the famous jurist and founder of the Hanifi school of thought, Abū Ḥanīfa is supposed to have refuted such Dahrīs in public discussions.

In this light an invitation to intellectually discuss the life of the Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace) is open to anyone who is sincere. However, judging by the recent degrading video, it already seems that the authors have lost the debate, as those who resort to immorality and degradation usually have no argument at all.

* A final note to the Muslims *

Any Muslim whose heart is filled with love, love of God and His Prophet (upon whom be peace), will naturally hate such manifestations of evil. We must speak out against any insults to our Prophet (upon whom be peace), this applies to all Prophets (and we must not harm or kill!). We must use this opportunity to tell the world who our beloved Prophet (upon whom be peace) was, and invite them to his message,

"Alif, Lam, Ra. This is a Book which We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], that you might bring mankind out of darkness into the light by permission of their Lord - to the path of the Exalted in Might, the Praiseworthy." Qur'an 14:1

"And We have not sent you, [O Muhammad], except as a mercy to the worlds." Qur'an: 21:106-107

Please read the paper by Adnan Rashid "Islam's War on Terror" that clearly shows how the teachings of our beloved Prophet (upon whom be peace) is one of the best things that happened to mankind. It highlights the effective security, justice and tolerance the world enjoyed for centuries. Here is the link http://www.iera.org.uk/research4_6.html.

---

[Chris C.]

Your truth is not the same as my truth which is not the same as Jewish truth which is not the same as the guys truth across the street who doesn't believe in any higher power. You can not force truth onto anyone no matter how hard you try if they don't believe in your truth.

I do not believe in the Prophet Mohammad, but I would never say anything to degrade or insult the man or those that follow his teachings. Although, it is the right of every person on the face of the earth to say whatever they want about him, GOD, you, myself or whatever. You can call me evil, a jerk, anything you want. You can say things about me that aren't true and it makes no difference to me, I know the truth and those around me know the truth. I do not care what anyone says about me or my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, I will have paradise, they will not. All I can do is live my life the best I can, follow the teachings of my Lord and Savior and love those who hate me.

Yes, it may hurt, what others may say about me but I have the truth to comfort and console me. I will not lash out at those who want to hurt me, I will forgive them and be on my way. All I can do is live by example. If this post offends anyone here, let me know, I will never return. If it does offend anyone, I apologize in advance.

[ابن آل مرة]

The words of Sheikh Ibn Taymiyyah (Rahimahullah):

It was a well known experience to the Muslim soldiers in Syria that when they besieged an enemy fortress, the siege would always be prolonged and very difficult until the enemy started cursing the Prophet (peace be upon him). When the Muslims got word of this, it was a glad tiding to them of a near victory. They knew that they would soon take the fortress and that Allah would have His vengeance on the enemy. The Muslims have experienced this many times. [Ibn Taymiyya, al-Jawâb Al-Sahîh Liman Badal Dîn Al-Masîh - vol. 6 p. 296].

"Truly, he who insults you will be truly cut off from future hope." [Sûrah al-Kawthar 108:3]

[Jedi_Mindset]

Good advice from Sheikh Nouman Ali khan:




The movie was funded by many zionist organizations and inteligence agencies. No doubt CIA/Mossad has their ties in it all along....when even the maker of that movie is doubtfull there must be something behind it.

There were also reports that some of the violent protesters got paid for doing so....but thats just a theory, if its true, i'm not suprised. they got us in a place where they want us to be...i call this self-destruction.

We can protest but not this way, i even saw boards like ''behead all those who insult the prophet(Saw)''

the persons who are holding these boards must be very ignorant of history...

op-ed (So dont take everything as truth in this article);

http://eyreinternational.wordpress.com/2012/09/15/was-the-innocence-of-muslims-a-combined-mossadciami5dvd-psyops-film/

[observer]

The movie was funded by many zionist organizations and inteligence agencies. No doubt CIA/Mossad has their ties in it all along....when even the maker of that movie is doubtfull there must be something behind it.

How do you know this? I don't see how speculation like this helps - it just creates more division.

[Jedi_Mindset]

How do you know this? I don't see how speculation like this helps - it just creates more division.

It isnt speculation when you know by who the film got funded and which organizations and the not knowing the names of the director of this film.

[جوري]

I don't see how speculation like this helps - it just creates more division.

I assure you whether the Zionists/CIA were responsible for this or not, we won't have a favorable idea of them!
Make no mistake they're the enemy!

[GuestFellow]

It isnt speculation when you know by who the film got funded and which organizations and the not knowing the names of the director of this film.

To others it may appear speculation. How about you cast their doubts away and present evidence...evidence that directly links the film to these organistions or individuals.

[observer]

It isnt speculation when you know by who the film got funded and which organizations and the not knowing the names of the director of this film.

How do you know? The only information we have here at the minute is that an Egyptian-American is suspected.

I assure you whether the Zionists/CIA were responsible for this or not, we won't have a favorable idea of them!
Make no mistake they're the enemy!

Every Jew is your enemy?

Sounds a lot like someone saying "All Muslims are terrorists", doesn't it?

[جوري]

Every Jew is your enemy?

Does Zionist equal Jew in your book?

Sounds a lot like someone saying "All Muslims are terrorists", doesn't it?

Should this statement have some sort of effect on me? in exchange of accepting that Zionists/CIA/IDF are the good guys I get to curb the 'all' in that statement? I am not personally interested in semantics!

[observer]

Does Zionist equal Jew in your book?

Fair point, I stand corrected.

To whom does "Zionist" refer?

Should this statement have some sort of effect on me? in exchange of accepting that Zionists/CIA/IDF are the good guys I get to curb the 'all' in that statement? I am not personally interested in semantics!

It's not a semantics issue at all, I was referring to the danger of a catch-all statement -but as I accept above, I believe I have misunderstood you, for which I apologize.

[GuestFellow]

I'm not against people protesting, but there is so much violence. O_O To a certain extent, I am fed up. The more they protest, the more publicity this film receives. I didn't even know the film exists until these protests. I wish I didn't know in the first place.

[جوري]

Fair point, I stand corrected.

To whom does "Zionist" refer?

It is very easy to look that up but here's the JEWISH definition if you're interested!
http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/differencejudzion.html

It's not a semantics issue at all, I was referring to the danger of a catch-all statement -but as I accept above, I believe I have misunderstood you, for which I apologize.

I am willing to live with that danger than sway from my principles and what I understand and know to be truth!

best,

[Jedi_Mindset]

To others it may appear speculation. How about you cast their doubts away and present evidence...evidence that directly links the film to these organistions or individuals.

Well, considering that PSYOPS like this happened in the past too, like salman rushdie, the danish cartoons and the terry jones case (terry jones is a mormon supported by the CIA, read more about him please)

Who the director is of this film is a mystery, they only know the producer name nakoula, who was convicted of fraud, drugs trafficking and worked hand in hand with FBI.

However this is still a fresh case and there isnt enough evidence for it but the movie got funded by anti-islam figures and organizations like terry jones and his group, joseph nasrallah and so on.

The ones who benefit from it most are most likely the perpetrators of it.

The director of the film is still a mystery and this will give many doubts wether the film was just amateur movie produced by some fools. this was cleverly planned and played out.

[KAding]

The ones who benefit from it most are most likely the perpetrators of it.

Just to clarify: who would benefit from making an amateurish movie like this?

[Muezzin]

Yeah, the movie is on YouTube and is pretty awful (it's got all the love and attention of 'Scary Movie 72: Does Anyone Actually Watch This Tripe')

I find this lackadasical approach to it almost as offensive as the filmmaker's intent - if you're going to be a complete moron, at least put some effort into it.

[جوري]

Just to clarify: who would benefit from making an amateurish movie like this?

The same folks who would benefit from spreading the rumor that the newly appointed Egyptian chief of staff 'wazir al'arkan' has been forced from his position. 'All is fair in war' I suppose and war comes in many different forms. Question is to be educated and 5 steps if not 20 steps ahead of the enemy not two steps behind. Asking dumb questions only benefits those dense in the mind and of course the enemy- we don't need to dot the i's and cross the t's for you.. probably if you were honest with yourself you'd have that answer already. Everything that comes out including the timing of it be it '911' or an 'election year' is part of the variables in the big equation!

best,

[Nabooly]

I'm seeing more and more people saying that we should make a big deal about this video. People PLEASE stop and think! The more of a big deal we make right now the more the world will disrespect and spread blasphemy about Sayidina Mohammad SAWS. It's like telling a little kid that just learned the F word NOT to say it! He's gunna run around for a whole week screaming it at the top of his lungs. This is not a time to be on the defensive...most people will never understand how close we are to our religion. I mean look how they depict Prophet Jesus (AS) in sarcastic comedies! They make toy Jesus's and sell them at Walmart! But that is normal for them, nothing out of the ordinary. Which is why they don't understand. We should be continually spreading the message of our Prophet, not only in times where Islam is in the news. We should spend times like this strengthening our Iman and learning more and more about our religion.

[glo]

Yeah, the movie is on YouTube and is pretty awful (it's got all the love and attention of 'Scary Movie 72: Does Anyone Actually Watch This Tripe')

I find this lackadasical approach to it almost as offensive as the filmmaker's intent - if you're going to be a complete moron, at least put some effort into it.

I had no intentions of going out of my way to finding this film, but my husband showed me a few minutes of it.

I agree with you that the film is utterly, UTTERLY ridiculous - to the point that it is so laughable that I cannot take it seriously at all.
If the media coverage was not overwhelmed by footage of the violent protests by now and the world could judge the film by it's own standards, rather than the violent responses it lead to, then the stupidity and ignorance of the film makers would very quickly be exposed.

Gee, I am not a Muslim, but even I could refute the ridiculous claims the film makes in 5 seconds flat!

[IslamicRevival]

'Dont defend our Nabi (Infinite peace and blessings be upon him) in a way that would offend him (Infinite peace and blessings be upon him)' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNZjLyPrJ8

[GuestFellow]

Just to clarify: who would benefit from making an amateurish movie like this?

The media? :/ They have something "controversial" to report.

[glo]

'Dont defend our Nabi (Infinite peace and blessings be upon him) in a way that would offend him (Infinite peace and blessings be upon him)' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNZjLyPrJ8

I followed your link and I get a message saying "This video does not exist", Vision.

[IslamicRevival]

I followed your link and I get a message saying "This video does not exist", Vision.

I get the same message. Try this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcNZjLyPrJ8, its the exact same URL as i posted earlier but this one works, very strange.

[glo]

That worked, Vision.
beautiful message. I am especially fond of Habib Ali al Jifri.

Are these direct responses by the three speakers to the present protests? Or is it a compilation of previous talks which fit the present situation?

I like the hadith at 4:30. What an example!

[Hulk]

Man if only the video had Br Nouman hehe. Oh and sis Glo it's footage from previous lectures I've seen the one with Sh Hamza Yusuf before.

[IslamicRevival]

That worked, Vision.
beautiful message. I am especially fond of Habib Ali al Jifri.

Are these direct responses by the three speakers to the present protests? Or is it a compilation of previous talks which fit the present situation?

I like the hadith at 4:30. What an example!

Excellent. Yes, Habib Ali Jifri is indeed an exceptional Scholar..he never fails in making me smile. The speakers are responding to past protests though relevant to recent events. Hadith was an eye opener and it just goes to show how ignorant these protesters really are of their own religion.

[Abdullaah]

i myself am against the socalled right to freedom of speech. This right has limits. However, islam as a religion has nothing to do with any form of injustice verbally, physically and its just. people on the other hand do whatever they want and so the idea of judging islam by the people is incorrect.



David, do you know what is islam? Do you want to know what islam is? Have you read the quran translation from a reliable source such as quran.com qtafsir.com if not, read the Quran. There you will find the answers to many if not all your questions if you desire answers from islam. dont go to the people first go to the source and find out then, if you still dont understand ask those of true knowledge. peace

[KAding]

The media? :/ They have something "controversial" to report.

Everything that comes out including the timing of it be it '911' or an 'election year' is part of the variables in the big equation!

It just does not sound very convincing. Someone ('the media', Mossad, the CIA) creating an amateurish film in English, puts it on youtube in the hope that sometime or another this will get translated by Arab media and end in "controversy". And keep in mind the whole 'plan' would depend on Muslims actually going out to riot in response.

It doesn't sound like the most cunning plan ever hatched if you ask me ;). After all, and I don't want to cause alarm, but there is so much Islamophobia all over the Internet I am surprised this bad attempt at it even got noticed. You don't need help from the Mossad/CIA, Republicans or even 'the media' to create anti-Islamic material. Trust me, there are plenty of private persons who hate Islam enough to do it all on their own accord!

[GuestFellow]

It just does not sound very convincing. Someone ('the media', Mossad, the CIA) creating an amateurish film in English, puts it on youtube in the hope that sometime or another this will get translated by Arab media and end in "controversy". And keep in mind the whole 'plan' would depend on Muslims actually going out to riot in response.

It doesn't sound like the most cunning plan ever hatched if you ask me ;). After all, and I don't want to cause alarm, but there is so much Islamophobia all over the Internet I am surprised this bad attempt at it even got noticed. You don't need help from the Mossad/CIA, Republicans or even 'the media' to create anti-Islamic material. Trust me, there are plenty of private persons who hate Islam enough to do it all on their own accord!

Just to make myself clear, I'm not saying the media created this video to make Muslims angry, thus have something to report. :/ I just saying the media can benefit from this video as they get more viewings.

As for the motives behind this video, I think it was to make Muslims angry.

[جوري]

It just does not sound very convincing. Someone ('the media', Mossad, the CIA) creating an amateurish film in English, puts it on youtube in the hope that sometime or another this will get translated by Arab media and end in "controversy". And keep in mind the whole 'plan' would depend on Muslims actually going out to riot in response.

It doesn't sound like the most cunning plan ever hatched if you ask me ;). After all, and I don't want to cause alarm, but there is so much Islamophobia all over the Internet I am surprised this bad attempt at it even got noticed. You don't need help from the Mossad/CIA, Republicans or even 'the media' to create anti-Islamic material. Trust me, there are plenty of private persons who hate Islam enough to do it all on their own accord!

1- Nothing is done with you Kading in mind
2- Things don't have to be meticulously strategic or serve one huge purpose. So long as it serves one or two purposes then it is enough. Generally wreaking havoc is always good!
3- It isn't about one BIG plan all you need is many small stupid plans, done by small stupid expendible folks to set folks against each other, cause division, set factions, promote different opposing ideologies, pump meaningless sloagans like 'freedom of (fill in the blanks) whatever keeps them divided won't make them united
4- collateral damage is always good, you ought to read the Georgia guide stone sometime
last but certainly not least, why should I trust you and why would I care? I don't recall mentioning 'hate Islam' as the main reason.. it might indeed foster that in the process but it isn't the main point although it is certainly good. All I need do is browse wiki say about Ali ibn Abu Talib to see how his biography is infiltrated with all kinds of bull **** never before mentioned or recorded in history.
You don't strike me as very bright (just exercising my free speech) so what would you know of the intricacies of war especially those that impliment it in a psychological form?
is that a wink or is something wrong with one of your eyes?

best,

[Logikon]

In the West, Muslims are pushing to outlaw any critisism of Islam or of Muhammad.
Most people are not aware of this.
As a result of this film, many peope are now aware.

The ones who benefit from it most are most likely the perpetrators of it.

I have heard a theory that Muslims arranged the film to publicise the issue globally.

[جوري]

In the West, Muslims are pushing to outlaw any critisism of Islam or of Muhammad.
Most people are not aware of this.
As a result of this film, many peope are now aware.

Maybe the next turd who thinks of doing it will take heed. The same way they take heed not to draw swastika or question the holocaust!
It certainly shows solidarity and our love for the message and the messenger. At any rate whether we protest it or not, they certainly would have found means to perpetuate their agenda so what's to lose? hmmmmmmmmmmmm? I am curious?

[Hulk]

I just came across this

http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/201...adists-184761/

"RT finally asks the question the western media won’t – If these are anti-American protests why are UK and Germany embassies being targeted.The answer is quite simple – It’s because their involvement with NATO, the backing of Saudi Arabia’s Salafist Jihadists and the bombing of Muslims around the world."

"Massive Censorship As Media Pushes False Narrative On Mid East Riots"

Haven't fully looked into it but will do so now

[aamirsaab]

In the West, Muslims are pushing to outlaw any critisism of Islam or of Muhammad.
Most people are not aware of this.
As a result of this film, many peope are now aware.

I have heard a theory that Muslims arranged the film to publicise the issue globally.

You are severly overestimating the power of muslims in the west. As of this moment in time, we do not have a single Islamic/muslim party in any western country. We barely have any muslim mps (at best they are tokens for the sake of votes rather than having any influential power). The mere fact that burqas/hijabs/sharia are ludicrously hot-topics that cannot be debated reasonably in ANY western country (in fact, it's quite the opposite as there's more talk of either one of those 3 being banned) should give you a pretty giant clue as to how much power/influence the Muslims have: None.

Educate yourself.

[ابن آل مرة]

In the West, Muslims are pushing to outlaw any critisism of Islam or of Muhammad.

You mad?

I have heard a conspiracy theory that Muslims arranged the film to publicise the issue globally.

There fixed it for you.

[dusk]

Maybe the next turd who thinks of doing it will take heed. The same way they take heed not to draw swastika or question the holocaust!

That seems utterly foolish to me. Some people set out to offend and draw attention. Terrorist don't attack a handful of people to kill as many infidels as possible, they do it as the name suggest to instill terror. They require the media coverage. Breivik wanted more than anything to be heard and preach his delusions.
That movie had one quite obvious purpose and it did more than just reach its goal. If anything this success will encourage more of the same. Just like there will always be some neo-nazis in some corner, there will always be some intolerant extremists that want their own preaching to make waves.

It certainly shows solidarity and our love for the message and the messenger. At any rate whether we protest it or not, they certainly would have found means to perpetuate their agenda so what's to lose? hmmmmmmmmmmmm? I am curious?

What's to loose when inciting riots in a populace of disillusioned youth that almost definitely turn violent? What's to loose when you promote the slander that you so despise with one of the biggest marketing events in history? If that movie in the depth of the web had been ignored nobody would be offended, the perpetuators would not have had success with such an incredibly poor attempt.

In this entire scenario I only see losers save for the ones who produced or financed that film.

[جوري]

That seems utterly foolish to me.

Your feelings on the matter are inconsequential

Some people set out to offend and draw attention.

Some attention is worth responding to for it comes with consequence whether addressed or ignored!

Terrorist don't attack a handful of people to kill as many infidels as possible, they do it as the name suggest to instill terror. They require the media coverage. Breivik wanted more than anything to be heard and preach his delusions.

And you're suggesting no media coverage for Breivik?

That movie had one quite obvious purpose and it did more than just reach its goal.

The movies goals were going to be met under any circumstance!

If anything this success will encourage more of the same. Just like there will always be some neo-nazis in some corner, there will always be some intolerant extremists that want their own preaching to make waves.

To every action there's a reaction, hopefully the reaction will make them think twice the next time!

What's to loose when inciting riots in a populace of disillusioned youth that almost definitely turn violent? What's to loose when you promote the slander that you so despise with one of the biggest marketing events in history? If that movie in the depth of the web had been ignored nobody would be offended, the perpetuators would not have had success with such an incredibly poor attempt.

see above reply!

In this entire scenario I only see losers save for the ones who produced or financed that film.

The producer is actually undergoing criminal proceedings as all criminals should!
people who watch the movie (and they're free to do so) will know they're of the same class as the producer, he's actually wanted on several charges and was under house arrest before the movie itself. I don't think anyone sees him as a hero unless like minded twits!

best,

[observer]

The producer is actually undergoing criminal proceedings as all criminals should!

Not at the minute he's not. He was taken in for questioning - maintaining presumption of innocence - however it is unclear that he has broken any law in the US.

[observer]

Can't post a link yet, low post count, but the BBC says that he may have broken his parole conditions which instructed him not to access the internet or use aliases.

[جوري]

Not at the minute he's not. He was taken in for questioning - maintaining presumption of innocence - however it is unclear that he has broken any law in the US.

Can't post a link yet, low post count, but the BBC says that he may have broken his parole conditions which instructed him not to access the internet or use aliases.

You just contradicted yourself- you can't violate your 'parole' conditions without first being a criminal!


best,

[IslamicRevival]

Not at the minute he's not. He was taken in for questioning - maintaining presumption of innocence - however it is unclear that he has broken any law in the US.

Its clear as day. The individual who produced this blasphemous film is a convicted criminal, a fraudster, a con man http://rt.com/usa/news/nakoula-confi...lim-movie-063/ He is so decieving he even conned and mislead the actors who partook in the film http://rt.com/news/israeli-filmmaker...-muhammad-932/ You can try defending this vile individual all you want but in the real world you cannot defend the indefensible

[GuestFellow]

In the West, Muslims are pushing to outlaw any critisism of Islam or of Muhammad.
Most people are not aware of this.
As a result of this film, many peope are now aware.

I have heard a theory that Muslims arranged the film to publicise the issue globally.

Do you have any evidence for this?

[observer]

You just contradicted yourself- you can't violate your 'parole' conditions without first being a criminal!

"May" have broken his parole. "May​". No contradiction there.

[observer]

You can try defending this vile individual all you want but in the real world you cannot defend the indefensible

Woah - defending him? I've done no such thing. All I've done is say that at the minute, he hasn't been charged with any crime.

[جوري]

"May" have broken his parole. "May​". No contradiction there.

lol.. why do people go on parole in your book? I have a feeling you don't understand what is written here. He's a criminal not necessarily because of the movie although we hope criminal charges will be brought against him for that, he's just a criminal by nature. If you don't understand what parole is let me put it plain for you from the dictionary!
a conditional release from imprisonment that entitles the person to serve the remainder of the sentence outside the prison as long as the terms of release are complied with.

best,

[Perseveranze]

Asalaamu Alaikum,

[observer]

lol.. why do people go on parole in your book? I have a feeling you don't understand what is written here. He's a criminal not necessarily because of the movie although we hope criminal charges will be brought against him for that, he's just a criminal by nature. If you don't understand what parole is let me put it plain for you from the dictionary!
a conditional release from imprisonment that entitles the person to serve the remainder of the sentence outside the prison as long as the terms of release are complied with.

best,

Yes, so his recent film has produced no criminal charges. Or were you talking about his previous criminality originally? Sorry, that wasn't clear in your original post.

[جوري]

Yes, so his recent film has produced no criminal charges. Or were you talking about his previous criminality originally? Sorry, that wasn't clear in your original post.

Bottom line is he's a criminal whether he made a movie or not!
perhaps he was hoping to brown nose someone since anti-Islamic rhetoric is en vogue thereby reducing his previous sentence or garner enough attention or money to pay for his lawyers fees. I don't know.. What I do know is, he has been of questionable character movie or not!

[Hulk]

(longer related khutbah http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjptuxTOgu8)

[Perseveranze]

Asalaamu Alaikum,



Heard MB were going to organize a million man march, but cancelled due to violence fears.

[جوري]

HizbuAllah is basically trying to assert its presence and its endorsement for the Syrian regime.. Everyone is playing some body else..
I feel very frustrated that these marches are misdirected .. but as the fellow speaker said. Insulting the prophet is not a small thing and we won't make light of it.

Al-An'am (The Cattle) [6:65]

[RECITE]

[top] [next match]

Qul huwa alqadiru AAala an yabAAatha AAalaykum AAathaban min fawqikum aw min tahti arjulikum aw yalbisakum shiyaAAan wayutheeqa baAAdakum basa baAAdin onthur kayfa nusarrifu alayati laAAallahum yafqahoona

6:65 Say: "He hath power to send calamities on you, from above and below, or to cover you with confusion in party strife, giving you a taste of mutual vengeance - each from the other." See how We explain the signs by various (symbols); that they may understand.

[Ramadan90]

(longer related khutbah http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjptuxTOgu8)

I agree with him so much. We should know better.

[dusk]

And you're suggesting no media coverage for Breivik?

No but one that treats him as he deserved. The media and authorities did a farily good job at it. They did not display him in the way he wanted to be seen nor did they give him the time to go on his public rants whenever he wanted. The coverage of his underlying delusional preachings was also very limit such as it was supposed to be.
Alternatively they could have in detail laid out his writings and diaries. Let him talk and broadcast it in the public hearings. Analyzed and explained his philosophy in detail. Instead he was displayed the deranged individual that he was not worth listening to and no point trying to understand his motives.

That movie had one quite obvious purpose and it did more than just reach its goal.
The movies goals were going to be met under any circumstance!

I don't see how. It was made some few months ago. I looked at the trailer on youtube and I seriously doubt anybody who stumbles on it could handle more than 20 seconds of this clip. Nobody in the West would have taken note of it and nobody in the arabic world if people hadn't put it on any blog and newsletter.
Even once it shows up on ones radar for the life of me I cannot understand why it is not just dismissed as an embarrassingly dumb attempt of insult. Everybody in his life comes across things, people and opinions that are so ridiculous they are worth a moments attention. It is one thing about some in your face activism like protesting in front of a building but on the other side of the world some guy can always be found that prints something hateful, the wise thing is to ignore it.
Don't feed the troll as the old usenet wisdom says.

If anything this success will encourage more of the same. Just like there will always be some neo-nazis in some corner, there will always be some intolerant extremists that want their own preaching to make waves.
To every action there's a reaction, hopefully the reaction will make them think twice the next time!

Not sure you are getting my point. The reaction is the one sought after. It is not a discouragement it is encouraging.

Assuming an inverse example. You have a novel idea for a fund raiser for poor children. It spreads virally and money comes in like crazy. When the next project comes along will you try a different strategy or keep with what has worked before.

The producer is actually undergoing criminal proceedings as all criminals should!
people who watch the movie (and they're free to do so) will know they're of the same class as the producer, he's actually wanted on several charges and was under house arrest before the movie itself. I don't think anyone sees him as a hero unless like minded twits!

He was only questions and admitted that he used the web which was against his parole regulations. That is not a huge crime and might not have any consequences at all or very limited ones. If he goes back to prison it would be for other things like maybe he defrauded some of the financiers of the movie. I don't believe it did cost 5 mio. I have only seen 30 sec though.
That some will see him as hero regardless is the problem though like minded will see him as a hero and any consequence on parol violation will only be seen as some act of martyrdom.
The rest of the so called west don't support nor care about that film, it is mostly just stunned disbelieve and resignation.

[جوري]

No but one that treats him as he deserved. The media and authorities did a farily good job at it. They did not display him in the way he wanted to be seen nor did they give him the time to go on his public rants whenever he wanted. The coverage of his underlying delusional preachings was also very limit such as it was supposed to be.
Alternatively they could have in detail laid out his writings and diaries. Let him talk and broadcast it in the public hearings. Analyzed and explained his philosophy in detail. Instead he was displayed the deranged individual that he was not worth listening to and no point trying to understand his motives.

The media played it very well actually as it is indeed a game to be played. He wasn't christian/fundie/crusader per their definition-No! he was a singular guy who was concerned about the rise of 'Islamism' at the end of the day he ended up with nicer accommodations than I had in grad. school. So again your point is? Media especially the western one likes dramas and active creation. It is never about passive transmission of events. It's made to make you react one or the other!

I don't see how. It was made some few months ago. I looked at the trailer on youtube and I seriously doubt anybody who stumbles on it could handle more than 20 seconds of this clip. Nobody in the West would have taken note of it and nobody in the arabic world if people hadn't put it on any blog and newsletter.
Even once it shows up on ones radar for the life of me I cannot understand why it is not just dismissed as an embarrassingly dumb attempt of insult. Everybody in his life comes across things, people and opinions that are so ridiculous they are worth a moments attention. It is one thing about some in your face activism like protesting in front of a building but on the other side of the world some guy can always be found that prints something hateful, the wise thing is to ignore it.
Don't feed the troll as the old usenet wisdom says.

The movie was made to be released on 911 with one purpose in mind and purpose is fulfilled. If you're delusional to believe that this was just one turd showing us how he forms his defecate, then you're sadly mistaken. It was calculated all around. If you don't see how then you don't see how. Nothing can be done about that!

Not sure you are getting my point. The reaction is the one sought after. It is not a discouragement it is encouraging.

Indeed.

He was only questions and admitted that he used the web which was against his parole regulations. That is not a huge crime and might not have any consequences at all or very limited ones. If he goes back to prison it would be for other things like maybe he defrauded some of the financiers of the movie. I don't believe it did cost 5 mio. I have only seen 30 sec though.

Your point with this being? to detract from his previous or current criminality? I don't understand!

best,

[IslamicRevival]

Sayyad Hassan Nasrallah delivers a speech condemning the film and deliberate attempt to insult our religion and our beloved Nabi (Infinite peace and blessings be upon him). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky8F7WCbPVA May Allah Subhana Wata Ala preserve Sayyad Hassan Nasrallah and strengthen the resolve of the Lebanese people, Ameen..Ameen.

[dusk]

longer related khutbah Nouman Ali Khan:

That sums it all up.

[Ramadhan]

What is clear to everyone now is that there is no such thing as freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is defined by those who are in control of governments and media.

Youtube (owned by Google) only blocked access to the vile film in majority muslim countries but refused to take out the film outright from their sites.
Can you imagine if there is a film that claim jewish holocaust was a hoax and posted on youtube? Google would have removed it in a heartbeat.

Google claimed they abide by their holy phylosophy "do no evil", but cannot even see how protecting a film like this is truly evil.

[Ramadhan]

If the man wanted to discuss aspects of Muhammad’s life, it should be done in a respectful manner.

Doing it this way does not achieve anything.

Are you even serious?

Muslims do not expect non-muslims to discuss the life of prophet Muhammad SAW in respectful manner (as it seems too much to hope for), but the least non-muslims can do is to not paint lies.

[جوري]

Youtube (owned by Google) only blocked access to the vile film in majority muslim countries but refused to take out the film outright from their sites.

There was an in fact an excellent Islamic historical movie made which they took off immediately for offending 'Jewish sensibilities' I forgot the name of it.. but this one they can't take down.. tfouh 3lyhim and etfouh on their 'freedom of speech' they're only free to defecate and expect that we look at it and applaud. thaklat'houm umahatihim wa'illa jouhnamma wa'bes almaseer in shaa Allah!

[GodIsAll]

The problem is that it only takes A FEW people to rise to the provocation, and then it snowballs quite quickly.
I have been VERY encouraged by the counter-protests, declaring that these actions have NOTHING to do with Islam!

http://descrier.co.uk/world/2012/09/...hazi-or-islam/

May Allah Bless these Muslims!

[GodIsAll]

This filmmaker is naught but a big time instigator.
Oh, how we need Muslims to both condemn both the film and the violent reactions.

One poster mentioned that although his "film" was legal in the US by the 1st ammendment, it was nevertheless immoral. I concur.

No one can have made this believing it historically accurate. It is a piece of cheap farce meant to incite aggravation. (I've seen parts of it).

[Scimitar]

Are you even serious?

Muslims do not expect non-muslims to discuss the life of prophet Muhammad SAW in respectful manner (as it seems too much to hope for), but the least non-muslims can do is to not paint lies.

Well actually, it's not a matter of whether we "expect it" or not. They are free to discuss and study Islam at their leisure, and we must allow them that. What they shouldn't do, is mock what they read, because it infringes on the Universal Decleration of Human Rights - according to their own standards.

By the way, the UDHR was based on the Prophet pbuh last sermon.

I have seen documentaries about Islam made by non Muslims which I've really liked, for example "Empire of Faith" - that is one of my faves akhi.

Scimi

[Nabooly]

I can't believe Nasrallah gave that speech. What a ridiculous man. He's a bigger instigator than the man that made the movie. He brainwashes the people little by little until they're convinced that America is the bad guy. Sorry buddy but you're greatly mistaken. He's singlehandedly tearing lebanon (as well as a bunch of other countries) apart and creating tension between shia and sunni. The scumbag is nothing but a warlord. I can't believe no one has taken him off his high horse yet.

[جوري]

America is the bad guy (I didn't hear his speech though) and don't care to. Any victory to Syria's free army and in shaa Allah it is coming- will spill the end of Iran's grip on the region and the HizbAllah dweebs along with it. They're far better prepared than sunnis though.. perhaps we shouldn't not simply pray for victory but also work for it.

[Scimitar]

Perhaps? PERHAPS? you think Allah is dishing out freebies to unworthy peeps? Ofcourse we have to work for it.

Scimi

[Hulk]

Can't believe I dozed off during the live telecast of a talk at Zaytuna just now..

[Ramadhan]

Nobody in 'the west' kills others for making a film, writing or publishing a book, drawing cartoons, accusing a mentally retarded little girl in Pakistan of burning the Koran or any such nonsense. We are not "offended" merely by the opinions of others to the point of killing for it. Western nutcases do commit terrible crimes (McVeigh, Breivik) but not normally for religious motives, extremist or not. It's because their minds are broken and they cannot think logically and reasonably. Or they are plainly insane.

Nobody? Not even the US government?

Do you think it OK that the US ambassador & his staff were murdered when he had nothing to do with (and was likely unaware of) that film? This after the USA and NATO had been asked and helped get rid of the mass murderer Gaddafi?
What a way to say thanks!

Do you think it is OK that US military/agents killed hundreds of thousands of civilians who had nothing to do with Saddam/Osama/Khomeini etc?

[sister herb]

Do you think that atheists are innocent when mass murder people? If so, remember Stalin who murdered over 20 million.

[Good brother]

'Muslims must control their anger': scholars oppose violent response to anti-Islam film

Renowned Islamic scholars reacted to a movie that insulted Holy Prophet Muhammad and the ensuing attacks on embassies by issuing a joint statement.

In a statement released on Friday, the An Nusra Al Alamiya organization led by Yusuf al-Qaradawi made a call for prudence. With its headquarters in Kuwait, An Nusra Al Alamiya pointed out that the movie targeting Holy Prophet Muhammad was provocative and all ensuing attacks on U.S. embassies should end.
"Reactions against the insult directed at Holy Prophet Muhammad were legal and were things desired. This is a necessity of our faith. Defending the Holy Prophet Muhammad is a desirable Islamic behaviour. However, a Muslim must act based on the Islamic law and directives issued by the Holy Prophet Muhammad. We should not be acting in opposition to our Prophet Muhammad while thinking that we are defending him," the statement underlined.
"The Muslims must control their anger. We need to focus on our aim. We need to stop the insult to our Prophet Muhammad immediately and punish those responsible for the insult. In connection with such an aim, we must stay away from acts that incite such insults, lead to the spread of such insults and protecting those making insults after they try to justify the insults based on freedom of expression," the statement noted.
"Insults on values have no aim other than causing unrest. Replying to such provocations with violence is doing what those troublemakers want," the statement underlined.

"The duty of the Muslims is not merely to respond to the insults directed against Prophet Muhammad. Holy Prophet Muhammad's life, his high moral values and permanent message must be carried to the whole world. All means must be utilized to introduce Muhammad in the most accurate manner. Organizing international symposiums on Muhammad may be beneficial," the statement stressed.
"The violent attacks on U.S. embassies are not within the boundaries of Islam. According to Islamic rules and moral values, we need to be loyal to agreements. Ambassadors, tradesmen or other contracted individuals entering a country can not be harmed. Holy Prophet Muhammad has forbidden the killing of ambassadors," the statement also said.

[observer]

By the way, the UDHR was based on the Prophet pbuh last sermon.

Really? I can't find any evidence for that.

In fact, Saudi Arabia and Iran refused to implement it as they said that it was "a secular understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition" and Iran said that its implementation would violate Islamic law.

[observer]

Do you think that atheists are innocent when mass murder people? If so, remember Stalin who murdered over 20 million.

Sadly, I think that history has shown that humanity is always capable of barbarism, regardless of religion or lack thereof.

[sister herb]

Sadly, I think that history has shown that humanity is always capable of barbarism, regardless of religion or lack thereof.

We hope so too; even after almost million killed muslim civilians in the Middle East by Nato forces/IDF during last 10 years.

And they call muslims as terrorists when killers have been mostly Jews and Christians?

^o)

[sister herb]

If they haven´t been Jews or Christians then what they have been?

(We can always say they have left they religion.)

Atheists? For what kind of behaviour atheism teach they followers? Nothing as it is not religion by any moral codes?

[TG123]

This movie is one of the most vile pieces of garbage on Youtube. I saw the trailer, and couldn't watch any more of it. As a Christian, I condemn this. I have my disagreements with Islam, but there is a difference between being a witness to the Christian faith and debating other religions; and making a mockery of what people believe and propagating lies.

[sister herb]

I don´t think there is very much difference in basic with Christiany and Islam at all.

I my country one writer asked us muslims make similar video about Jesus but muslims here explained to him we can´t. Jesus/Isa is prophet as well and it isn´t right to mock any prophet at all.

Neither insult other religion.

:hiding:

[observer]

If they haven´t been Jews or Christians then what they have been?

(We can always say they have left they religion.)

Atheists? For what kind of behaviour atheism teach they followers? Nothing as it is not religion by any moral codes?

Sigh, atheists have no morality? Really?

And I think it's safe to say that every religion has done, and is doing, its fair share of killing - Islam included.

[YusufNoor]

:sl:

let's see, the scripted Democrat/Republican conventions went over rather poorly. the facade of democracy in the US is nearly gone, it's football season and new judges for American Idol; Banksters rule the planet and are confiscating nearly all of the world's wealth. if people were paying attention, they would notice that the world wide fascist government is cementing it's grip on the world. all that is needed is world war 3, and that is right around the corner.

looks like it is "October Surprise" in the USA. and guess what? we are handing it to "them" on a golden platter. the Banksters care not one wit for Muslims, Christians, Jews or anyone else for that matter. there are too many of us, they desire to drastically reduce the population of the planet and enslave the remainder.

the non-existant movie, it's just a phony trailer has all the earmarkings of a Corporate Psy-Op. it has been reported that the Banksters are using "Al Qaeda" as insurgents in Syria, the purpose is to be able to use that country as a base for the attack on Iran as well as to eliminate Iran's closest Middle Eastern Ally. it has also been reported that "Al Qaeda" is inciting the riots in Muslim countries. the only thing we know for sure about "Al Qaeda" is that it is a creation of the CIA. everything else is debatable. it is probable that BOTH the "trailer" AND the reaction to it are brought to us by the same criminals. when we aid them, either way, we become their accomplices, after the fact. it is a type of witchcraft that we are falling for. "They" weave the spell, we suck it up for all it is worth. we are playing the game they want us to play. we are triggering WWIII.

Bismillahi r-rahmani r-raheem
1 Qul a`uzu bi-rabbi l-falaq
2 Min sharri ma khalaq
3 Wa min'sharri ghasiqin iza waqab
4 Wa min'sharri n-naffasati fi l-u'qad
5 Wa min'sharri hasidin iza hasad

Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of Daybreak [1] From the evil of that which He created; [2] From the evil of the darkness when it is intense, [3] And from the evil of malignant witchcraft, [4] And from the evil of the envier when he envieth

Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Raheem
1.Qul a'uudhu bi rabbin naas
2.Malikin naas
3.Ilaahin naas
4.Min sharril waswaasil khannas
5.Alladhee yuwaswisu fee suduurin naas

Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of mankind, [1] The King of mankind, [2] The God of mankind, [3] From the evil of the sneaking whisperer, [4] Who whispereth in the hearts of mankind, [5] Of the jinn and of mankind. [6]

don't believe what you see on the news, the Banksters own the news.

here is a website, also filled with some lunatics, david icke, alex jones, etc, but it does offer some news not reported by the Banksters:
http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/headlines/

think before you act.

:wa:

6.Minal Jinnati wa naas

[sister herb]

Sigh, atheists have no morality? Really?

When we say somone do acts what are not accepted in his/hers religion we say he/she has left his/hers religion.

Is it same than atheism, I have no idea.

[observer]

When we say somone do acts what are not accepted in his/hers religion we say he/she has left his/hers religion.

Is it same than atheism, I have no idea.

What is or is not accepted in atheism comes from that religion's holy book. For atheists, there is no holy book. There are many treatises based on discussions of where an atheistic morality should come from, but generally the accepted form seems to be some form of "The Golden Rule" as a start - do to others as you would have them do to you.

Think about it like this, if there were no Quran, would you suddenly think it ok to kill people? I don't think so.

But I think we are getting a little off topic here - a discussion for another thread perhaps!

[جوري]

What is or is not accepted in atheism comes from that religion's holy book. For atheists, there is no holy book. There are many treatises based on discussions of where an atheistic morality should come from, but generally the accepted form seems to be some form of "The Golden Rule" as a start - do to others as you would have them do to you.

Think about it like this, if there were no Quran, would you suddenly think it ok to kill people? I don't think so.

But I think we are getting a little off topic here - a discussion for another thread perhaps!

we were never left to our devices without divine guidance- Atheists seem to learn by example but not make a committment for when the going gets tough.. but you're right it is a topic for another day and another thread!

best,

[sister herb]

To observer;

I think I know atheism quite well as I was one of them before. Thanks to Allah not any more!

What separated me from atheism? Something touched my immortal soul.

:statisfie

[glo]

On the original topic, I came across this quote:

"If I don't want Christianity to be judged by this tiny radical, extremist group who produced the film [the film that people are rioting over], I should be careful that I don't judge the whole of Islam by the radical fundamentalists among them".
Rev. Maxie Dunnam

[IslamicRevival]

I can't believe Nasrallah gave that speech. What a ridiculous man. He's a bigger instigator than the man that made the movie. He brainwashes the people little by little until they're convinced that America is the bad guy. Sorry buddy but you're greatly mistaken. He's singlehandedly tearing lebanon (as well as a bunch of other countries) apart and creating tension between shia and sunni. The scumbag is nothing but a warlord. I can't believe no one has taken him off his high horse yet.

Claiming Hassan Nasrallah is a bigger instigator then the anti Islamic film producer is nuts, I do not mean to be disrespectful but you must be off your rocker to believe that. Ive never heard anything from Hassan Nasrallah thats designed to create animosity between Sunni and Shia, its quite the opposite as ive only heard him call for unity time and time again. And for your information if it wasnt for Hezbollah and its resistance against Israel, Lebanon would have been torn apart a long time ago. I do not know how you can have the audacity to claim Hassan Nasrallah is a war lord whilst in the same sentence covertly defend America (The government), who are the true war mongers.

[dusk]

When we say somone do acts what are not accepted in his/hers religion we say he/she has left his/hers religion.

Is it same than atheism, I have no idea.

Isn't it more like you have left your denomination in many cases. Hitler considered himself a Christian to the end. The priests that abuse children are also still considered Christians. Most Muslims do not accept terrorist attacks but the terrorists definitely do not think they leave their religion.
I don't really see such very often. Excommunication is a rather rare thing.

Atheism is no religion or organisation the only way you can let the designation behind is to join some theistic religion. So Buddhism doesn't necessarily count.
When we'd be talking about something more specific like secular humanists things are different. Humanist try to be good people for creating a society and social environment that they wish to live in. If you want to get help when your car breaks down on the side of the road, you need to help yourself at any chance. Every individual is a member and every leech is well a leech. Do everything to further the environment you want to live in and do everything to make sure there are as few leeches as possible. Is basically the simple humanist code. Therefore leeches wouldn't be considered humanists as they do work against both goals.

Atheism is not a club as such. It is not being part of a special kind of clubs that makes you an atheist. Ergo the only action that can make you not an atheist is to join any such "special" club.

[sister herb]

Hitler may consider himself as Christian but it is not important at all. Importartant is what Allah thinks at the Judgement Day about Hitler, you or me.

I told in other place that I was atheist before so I have quite good ability to understand it.

Thanks to Allah and His mercy I am not atheits any more.

[TG123]

I don´t think there is very much difference in basic with Christiany and Islam at all.

I my country one writer asked us muslims make similar video about Jesus but muslims here explained to him we can´t. Jesus/Isa is prophet as well and it isn´t right to mock any prophet at all.

Neither insult other religion.

:hiding:

I don't think I would agree with you that there isn't much difference between Christianity and Islam, I think we have many differences and some similarities. However, both Islam and Christianity teach that lying is a sin. Both Christianity and Islam teach that we are to treat others the way we would want to be treated.

The producer of this film is not following either faith.

[Perseveranze]

Asalaamu Alaikum,

His pic has been leaked.

FIRST PHOTO: Nakoula Basseley Nakoula revealed! Photo surfaces despite his efforts to shield face from media after interview with police - NY Daily News (uncovered woman, so that's why I put the edited pic here)

55-year-old was interviewed but not arrested or detained, according to authorities. Nakoula has previously been convicted of financial crimes

Federal investigators questioned — but later released — one of the filmmakers behind the incendiary anti-Islam video that sparked violent clashes across the Middle East.

Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was taken in for questioning near his Southern California home early Saturday, officials said.

But Nakoula, who is on probation, was not arrested and investigators said his appearance at the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s office was voluntary.

The Egyptian-born filmmaker has since gone into hiding, according to The Associated Press.

“He is gone,” Steven Whitmore, spokesman for the sheriff’s office, told the news wire services. “We don’t know where he went. He said he is not going back to his home.”

Nakoula, 55, is at the center of the probe into the amateurish movie “Innocence of Muslims,” which slanders the prophet Muhammed and triggered protests at several U.S. government buildings in the Middle East. During a demonstration in Libya, which may have been used as cover by terrorists, an American ambassador and three of his colleagues were killed.

Nakoula — who wore a coat, scarf and hat pulled down to hide his face when taken from his Los Angeles-area home just after midnight — was convicted of a check-kiting scheme in June 2010.

He was sentenced to 21 months in prison but only served one year. He’s on probation but could return to prison if he is found to have violated the conditions of his release. A judge barred Nakoula from using the Internet for five years.

Meanwhile, the director of the film was unmasked as Alan Roberts, a 65-year-old porn director. Roberts directed “The Happy Hooker Goes Hollywood,” according to Gawker.

“I am sure it was the same Alan Roberts, as I remember him speaking about this project,” filmmaker David Prior told the website in an email.

Roberts also directed “Young Lady Chatterly” and “The Sexpert.”

[جوري]

Meanwhile, the director of the film was unmasked as Alan Roberts, a 65-year-old porn director. Roberts directed “The Happy Hooker Goes Hollywood,” according to Gawker.

lol.. at any rate.. I don't understand what do the clouds care for the barking dogs below? All those Muslims out on the streets and around embassies should take that energy and enter into Syria and liberate it or does that not count? a porno flick which they say is about us matters so much but decapitated 4 year old girls in Syria don't.. strange world walhi sob7an Allah..

[YusufNoor]

:sl:


just the latest [and it's for atheists too! :p]

U.S. activist says he was deceived over anti-Muslim film


http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...88I01T20120919


:wa:

[sister herb]

I don't think I would agree with you that there isn't much difference between Christianity and Islam, I think we have many differences and some similarities. However, both Islam and Christianity teach that lying is a sin. Both Christianity and Islam teach that we are to treat others the way we would want to be treated.

The producer of this film is not following either faith.

Try these:

http://www.islam101.com/religions/Te...ts/tcQuran.htm

[~Zaria~]

What Islam is this???

This could have been the husband/ father/ brother/ family member of any one of us - killed senselessly.....in the name of Islam??!

The 'Innocence of Muslims' has served its purpose.....in exposing the rot amongst us!

For the sake of this deen, we need to come back to our senses!

Ya Allah.

*********************************

8 South Africans Killed in Afghanistan



JOHANNESBURG — Eight South Africans were among those killed Tuesday in a suicide blast in Afghanistan's capital. An Afghan insurgent group says the attack on a mini-bus carrying foreigners was in response to an anti-Islam on-line video that has sparked worldwide protests. But South African officials and a Muslim analyst say the attacks were probably not aimed at South Africans.

The bomb ripped through the van near Kabul’s airport on Tuesday morning, killing at least 12 people including the eight South Africans.

The Afghan insurgent group Hezb-e-Islami claimed responsibility for the attack, saying it sent a female bomber in response to the anti-Islam video that has set off protests all over the world, including in Afghanistan.

The protests are directed against the American-made film called “Innocence of Muslims” that mocks Islam’s Prophet Mohammed.

Nelson Kgwete, is a spokesman for South Africa’s Department of International Relations and Cooperation:

“We understand from our mission in Islamabad that the eight South Africans were employed by a private aviation company," said Kgwete. "At the moment the department has the complete list of all the names of the deceased. We are working on establishing contact with the next of kin and also ensuring that we ensure the necessary consular assistance to the families. As government we would like to express our deepest condolences to the families, friends and colleagues of the deceased. At the moment it’s difficult to say what the motive may have been or whether or not this was a targeted attack, we do not have that indication at the moment.”

South African Foreign Ministry spokesman Clayson Monyela said the attack was likely a result of “mistaken identity.” He did not say who the attackers may have meant to strike, but previous protests have targeted Americans.

Last week, protesters attacked the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and the U.S. Consulate in the Libyan city of Benghazi. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens was among four Americans killed in the attack in Benghazi.

Monyela said South Africa’s government did not anticipate unrest at home over the film. The country is no stranger to violent protests - the mineral-rich nation is in the midst of more than a month of illegal strikes in the mining sector that have resulted in dozens of deaths.

Naeem Jeenah, executive director of the Johannesburg-based Afro-Middle East Center, says South Africa’s 1.5 million Muslims are unlikely to take up the torch as Muslims have in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt.

“I don’t think that in some of these countries like in South Africa, that video has been tied in as closely to a broader anti-American sentiment as it is is in North Africa. I’m not saying that sentiment doesn’t exist, because there certainly is a strong anti-American sentiment in South Africa, not only among Muslims. But there’s more likelihood that you’d get an angry anti-American protest taking place after a drone attack than this video," said Jeenah.

Jeenah says Muslim clerics in South Africa have also urged restraint and calm -- though they have condemned the video. He also says the video has not been marketed as aggressively in nations with substantial Muslim populations like Kenya, South Africa, or Nigeria.

Jeenah says he has not made the effort to see the film, though it is available in South Africa and, he says, it is not forbidden for Muslims to watch films that criticize Islam.

Both Pakistan and Bangladesh have reportedly blocked access to YouTube because of the video.

“I haven’t watched it because I really am busy and don’t have the time to look at stupid things," said Jeenah.

http://www.voanews.com/content/suici...l/1510019.html

*********************

[~Zaria~]

[marwen]

Sh. Yusuf Estes about the movie.



(PS : I actually find the song of the Deen Show at the beginning very silly and unnecessary

)

[dusk]

The 'Innocence of Muslims' has served its purpose.....in exposing the rot amongst us!

For the sake of this deen, we need to come back to our senses!

May I ask where you live and whether you could give an opinion as to how the take on the movie and its reaction is divided in your community. How many think that the reaction was counter productive as opposed to those that think it had to be this "big"?
It would be more interesting than reading on and on news articles that all say mostly the same. Some officials say this and that but I didn't read anything on how the perception is in Muslim communities themselves.

[~Zaria~]

May I ask where you live and whether you could give an opinion as to how the take on the movie and its reaction is divided in your community. How many think that the reaction was counter productive as opposed to those that think it had to be this "big"?

I am from South Africa - the country spoken of in the article.

It would be more interesting than reading on and on news articles that all say mostly the same. Some officials say this and that but I didn't read anything on how the perception is in Muslim communities themselves.

These news articles may appear uninteresting to you.

But, to the over 30 individuals that have thus far lost their lives - I assure you, it is not 'mostly the same.'

Once we can become so emotionally detached when we read about the tragedies of others, we should ask ourselves what is wrong with us?

The perceptions of the unrest by the vast majority of South Africans are spoken of at the end of the article.

[Darth Ultor]

A movie made by an Israeli Jew and backed by another 50 donates causes outrage in Libya and Egypt, one American was killed.

*buzz* Incorrect. He was an Egyptian-American Coptic Christian who has no idea how to make a film.

[جوري]

*buzz* Incorrect. He was an Egyptian-American Coptic Christian who has no idea how to make a film.

That was the original story circulating before his identity was revealed officially!


best,

[syed_z]

Holy smoke: Will Islamic extremists ignite rioting across EU

European capitals have become stages for anti-Western protests, by those outraged by the US made film ‘Innocence of Muslims’. But are calls for a holy war a sincere protest or a recruiting strategy of radical groups?

*A wave of anti-American rallies, that started in Muslim countries a week ago, have spread rapidly to Europe, engulfing Paris, Berlin, London, Antwerp and other major cities.

The low-budget film ‘Innocence of Muslims’ depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a fraudster and child molester provoked a varying reactions amongst the Muslim community. While one called for their religion to be respected, others called for American embassies to be burned down. Now, as the outrage has engulfed Europe, protests there differ, too.

Thus, a demonstration in Belgium’s Gent gathered around a hundred or so young Muslims, chanting “We want respect”, with the small rally wrapping up without incident.

In Antwerp, though, police had to detain 120 people. Around two hundred of those demonstrating were carrying black flags associated with the Salafi radical Islam sect, chanting anti-US slogans such as “Obama go to hell” and refusing to disperse. In total, some 250 protesters were detained in Belgium over the weekend.

Reports suggest the radical Islamic group, Shariah4Belgium, have been behind calls to stage major protests in Belgium. Muslim leaders in the country, though clearly disapproving of the film, wasted no time in condemn the street violence.

In London roughly 1,000 people answered the calls issued by the hard-line Hizb ut-Tahrir organization, which seeks a unified Islamic government throughout the Arab world. Gathering near the American embassy on Sunday, the angry crowd burnt US flags and shouted “America – get out of Muslim lands.”


Though the European protests against the film are far smaller than those seen in the Arab world, foreign policy experts are worried the current wave of resentment might be manipulated by Islamic extremists, who want to recruit new members.

“You’ve got mainstream extremists, for want of a better word, looking to exploit this. They usually want young men to come and join – and get into a habit of protest, a habit of extreme demands and demonstration,” Carina O’Relly, security analyst at IHS Global Insight told RT.

Jamal Khashoggi, a writer for Al-Hayat newspaper, stresses that the core of the protests in Europe are made up of “conservative far-right Islamists which are as xenophobic [as the makers of the scandalous film]."

“Those who react to [the film] through inciting violence are not innocent as well, for they too have a political agenda,” says Khashoggi.


Others think that the protests are only an excuse to vent anger that has been storing up for years.

“Most of the people taking part in the protests are without a job, without any economical perspective, having seen humiliation, having lived under dictatorship supported by the US, UK and EU for decades. Basically, this is an expression of anger, frustration,” Lode Vanoost, an international consultant and former Belgian MP, told RT. “There are organizations – extremist movements – who use this for own goals.”


In Europe, the film poses a huge human rights dilemma. Germany has been weighing up a ban on the film, hoping to appease the country;s four million strong Muslim population.

But a far-right group has announced plans to screen the controversial film in Berlin. The Pro Deutschland Citizens’ Movement says this is a question of art and freedom of expression, not religion. No cinema has yet agreed to screen the film, but the group remains undeterred, even after remarks made Germany’s Interior Ministry, who accused them of “recklessly pouring oil on the fire.”

This is exactly the fire that some fear radical Muslims in Europe would be all too happy to fan.

“The Muslims are rising not only in the East but also in the West. We want Islam and we want the Sharia,” Muslim protester Anjem Choudary told RT. “People hate the Americans, and they hate their allies – and I think this is a very good turning point for the Muslims.”

http://rt.com/news/europe-muslim-protests-muhammad-399/





....I just wanted to share this because I believe that what the article says is true, there are groups and intolerant extremist groups among Muslims (like those who blew up USA embassy in Benghazi and killed Ambassador who had nothing to do with the movie) ....and among the people of the West (like those who created the movie and burn Quran like pastor Terry jones and Anders Breivek who killed many Norwegians) ..... it is these two typed of people who add fuel to the fire and create problems ....

For example "Shariah for belgium" .... who enforces Shariah where majority is of Non Muslims ?


Allah (swt) knows best but I am sharing this for my Muslim Brothers/sisters in the West so that they do not fall for these groups by joining them....

[SirZubair]

Asalam alaikum,

I decided to watch the movie this morning.

I didn't like it very much because the acting sucked. I did the wise thing.... i closed the browser, said "Astugfirullah" for wasting a couple of minutes of my time in watching such rubbish.

The way i see it, this movie, it was definitely nothing to do with my Beloved Muhammed (PBUH). I wasn't offended by it one bit, because it was the story of some other guy, a so called 'Muhammed'.

Not 1 bit of this this so called 'Muhammeds' character matched with the beautiful and flawless character of my beloved Muhammed (PBUH).

wa'salam