Please Complain to Comedy Central

[Danah]

........ because you never experienced the true love of Islam and their Prophets

Can you tell the blind the difference between white and black? So leave them on their blindness.


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

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


يُرِيدُونَ لِيُطۡفِـُٔواْ نُورَ ٱللَّهِ بِأَفۡوَٲهِهِمۡ وَٱللَّهُ مُتِمُّ نُورِهِۦ وَلَوۡ ڪَرِهَ ٱلۡكَـٰفِرُونَ

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

 

[Mohamed_Sadiq]

Oh, but they are 'offended'. Your criteria was someone being 'offended'. You cannot backtrack now. Is being offended a reason for legislation or is it not?

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

now i get why ur so negative towards this topic... u basically find it unfair being mistreated differently towards people that follow a religion, is like not getting a candy wen ur were little wen ur christian friends was given one looool in this world athiest r seen us nothing cause they are nothing.

 

[shuraimfan4lyf]

now i get why ur so negative towards this topic... u basically find it unfair being mistreated differently towards people that follow a religion, is like not getting a candy wen ur were little wen ur christian friends was given one looool in this world athiest r seen us nothing cause they are nothing.

LOL...I wonder how that felt.

 

[Skavau]

now i get why ur so negative towards this topic... u basically find it unfair being mistreated differently towards people that follow a religion, is like not getting a candy wen ur were little wen ur christian friends was given one looool in this world athiest r seen us nothing cause they are nothing.

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

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

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

 

[Mohamed_Sadiq]

Have you read the articles on race on these parody encyclopedias?

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

They are imposing death threads to themselves looool by mocking Islam, basically they are looking for death, probably got a death wish, aint that wat athiest believe in?

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Oh, but they are 'offended'. Your criteria was someone being 'offended'. You cannot backtrack now. Is being offended a reason for legislation or is it not?

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

You shouldn't. According to my understanding of Christianity he is wrong for preventing you enjoying the music you like.

 

[Mohamed_Sadiq]

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

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

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

loool athiesm is not a religion so respect doesn't concern them as athiest don't even believe in god, also by saying for wat i said is my opinion and iam not drawing something u understand the difference now i am not mocking u loool

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

 

[Skavau]

They are imposing death threads to themselves looool by mocking Islam, basically they are looking for death, probably got a death wish, aint that wat athiest believe in?

If you want to make a comparison to the cartoonists, you could compare them to other figures that peacefully protest, or engage in passive sit-ins to further their objectives. This was the exact objective of the Civil Rights Movement in the United States. They illicited violent responses from peaceful encounters, and I doubt you'd be so obnoxious as to claim that they too, were asking for it. I am sorry you though, that you think so little of Muslims that you would propose that to directly insult or mock Islam is "asking for it".

 

[Skavau]

You shouldn't. According to my understanding of Christianity he is wrong for preventing you enjoying the music you like.

But he's offended. That's all that matters right. You made the claim that simply being offended gives you the right to censor other people and prohibit things. Now you are backtracking.

 

[Life_Is_Short]

Can you tell the blind the difference between white and black? So leave them on their blindness.


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

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


يُرِيدُونَ لِيُطۡفِـُٔواْ نُورَ ٱللَّهِ بِأَفۡوَٲهِهِمۡ وَٱللَّهُ مُتِمُّ نُورِهِۦ وَلَوۡ ڪَرِهَ ٱلۡكَـٰفِرُونَ

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

That's true, I was thinking about that but that doesn't mean we should allow them to disgrace our Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

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

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

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

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

 

[Mohamed_Sadiq]

But he's offended. That's all that matters right. You made the claim that simply being offended gives you the right to censor other people and prohibit things. Now you are backtracking.

he is not offended its being disturbed n annoyed therefore becomes frustrated

 

[Skavau]

loool athiesm is not a religion so respect doesn't concern them as athiest don't even believe in god, also by saying for wat i said is my opinion and iam not drawing something u understand the difference now i am not mocking u loool

How do you know that respect doesn't concern atheists? Are you claiming that you are capable of speaking on behalf of every single atheist?

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

So would you have just as much humility as to accept that if people wish to visit websites that mock religion, or write satirical articles on religion - that it is their choice?

 

[Mohamed_Sadiq]

How do you know that respect doesn't concern atheists? Are you claiming that you are capable of speaking on behalf of every single atheist?


So would you have just as much humility as to accept that if people wish to visit websites that mock religion, or write satirical articles on religion - that it is their choice?

it's their choice to go to that website but those who created the website r in the wrong not the visitors.

i was just kidding every human being deserves respect,

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

But he's offended. That's all that matters right. You made the claim that simply being offended gives you the right to censor other people and prohibit things. Now you are backtracking.

No. He has the same obligation that you have to explain you why he is offended in an ordered way. This is why you should be versed in the religious texts like you are versed in your civil law because then you could actually explain to your neighbor why according to his religion he is wrong in this case (if he is).

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

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

 

[Skavau]

No. He has the same obligation that you have to explain you why he is offended in an ordered way. This is why you should be versed in the religious texts like you are versed in your civil law because then you could actually explain to your neighbor why according to his religion he is wrong in this case.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heavy Metal does not preach violence.

 

[Skavau]

it's their choice to go to that website but those who created the website r in the wrong not the visitors.

In the wrong according to who? You? You don't have to view that website. You can abstain from it, set up an internet filter to prevent all references towards it and suggest others do not visit it.

 

[Mohamed_Sadiq]

watch this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQs-qPeONEg&feature=related

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

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

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


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

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

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


Heavy Metal does not preach violence.

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

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

 

[Supreme]

Yes, your right and there is less outroar when Christians get offended because many Christian countries are becoming secularised and less religous on the other hand Islam is becoming stronger and stronger each moment and Muslims are not secular and still have their religion and also Islam is the most growing religion in the world. I am sure you can see the correlation.

I'm afraid I can't see the correlation. There is no correlation, only a different approach to beliefs.

 

[piXie]

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