Muhammad Cartoons Censored

[Andrew]

I don't understand how Muslims (who don't eat bacon) boycotting bacon would actually affect demand for bacon.

Did you post the correct link Nema? I don't see anything about a boycott. Or stocks.

[nemafakei]

"I don't understand how Muslims (who don't eat bacon) boycotting bacon would actually affect demand for bacon"

Um, yes. That was the point. I was making fun of the economic effect of Sudan "boycotting Danish products" and that one of the most well-known Danish exports is bacon.

[Andrew]

Oh ok.

I thought you were referring to a new news release or something.

[Dunenewt]

I just think it would be good if everyone started buying some Danish products to counteract any boycott.

[Sneakgab]

Well I wouldn't want to douse and enthusiasm for justified political action, knowing how rarely such a enthusiasm comes to be, but perhaps such activity could be better place in support of more dire and pressing concerns?

[gunner154]

It's rather satirical actually when you start emphasising on relatively unimportant issues. Like bacon, for instance. Or maybe we're getting all tired with talking about Danish cartoons.

[Sneakgab]

It would be satirical in a cartoon in the way that it would insult the boycotters and their concerns. But actually carrying out the boycott would be silly and would be satire against the protesters and not the what they're protesting.

[gunner154]

Oh, I thought you were referring to Dunenewt's decision to buy more bacon.

[SAND]

I am a muslim but do I really mind them making a cartoon of the prophet no and the reason is because they are commiting a sin the prophet has nothing to loose and in the bible for those of you who dont know Mohhamed has been revealed he was a prophet just like jesus be believe in Jesus so do christians and as far as islam is concerned it is not the message of islam to spread voilence in the world it is the people who do it the humans are over reacting and they bring shame to us.... We should always be careful of what we say as this is one of the reasons why people engage in fight and as far as the web posting is concerned I saw what you had to say for Muhammed and you know what you are commiting a sin in your own relegion its not just us! No offence ....yours friendly Sand....

[SandChigger]

My, but you certainly are a breathless little thang, aren't you?

Mohammad (PBUH), yeah, if he were around today he'd probably get the meds he needed and, voila! No more little voices!

(Jesus would probably have to be locked up: too much risk of him trying to hurt himself walking on water and all. And you never know when he might take the Devil up on that bargain and try casting himself down from a high place. And then there is the morals issue: can't very well have someone showing up in a restaurant and telling people to eat him, now can you?)

[faster]

Muslims who live in the west are the ones who first showed the cartoons to people in the Mideast, and started the whole uproar - intentionally.  Those living in the West know our culture enough to understand what freedom of speech means.  They also knew that, if they'd merely made a stink about it with peaceful, non-THREATENING protests, the world would likely have rallied to them with sympathy.  But that wasn't what they wanted.

Instead, they chose to make it an issue to kill over.  Cultures DO have a right to be different, to have different values, etc.  That does NOT mean any culture has a right to make death threats, go berzerk blowing things - and people - up, over some inane cartoons.  There's such a thing as taking offense a bit too far.

Yes, it's true that religion isn't about logic.  Isaac Asimov once said, "You cannot reason with someone whose fundamental premise is that reason doesn't count."  But other religions don't plan to take over the world and kill anyone who doesn't convert.

If their cultures make it legal to kill someone over a teddy bear, and somehow we're supposed to accept it, because it's what THEIR culture and laws permit, who are they to tell us what we can and cannot publish within our OWN borders?  Must their values supercede our own, even within our own countries?  That's how it's coming down these days.  Where is it written that tolerance must be a one-way street, always in THEIR favor? 

Besides, isn't Islam supposed to be that "great global religion of peace and tolerance?"  Isn't that what we were all taught?  Where's the peace?  Where's the tolerance?  When they come to our lands, they get maximally cliquish, and live in enclaves of their own, islands of "Islamic States" within our own.  That doesn't exactly express a desire on their part to integrate into our cultures.  So why do they bother to COME to the West to live?  Everything about us is blasphemous, evil, revolting, to them.  Yet they come, voluntarily - and in droves.  Why?  Remember Glasgow, then you get three guesses.  They move into our countries, then reproduce like mad, with the single goal of becoming the majority, so they can change literally EVERYTHING.  Legally.  Failing in that, they're already in place for jihading activities, to take our countries over - from within.

The reason there's so much official harrassment of those who take umbrage from what Muslims are doing - especially in our own countries - is simple enough:  OIL.  As far as I'm concerned, we should say, "SCREW the oil!  Let's take a stand against bestiality first."

You may notice that the West has no difficulty accommodating itself to any other religion.  Only Islam is never satisfied, and only Islam demands more and more all the time, with violence a routine method of underscoring their demands.  What would happen to ME if I got up in a protest and held up banners saying, "Death to the President!"  I'd have the Secret Service ALL OVER ME.  Yet Muslims can hold banners wishing death on lots of people, the Queen, Rushdie, etc., and nobody stops them.  And they do more than protest; they kill.  Their protests make specific death threats to specific people, a thing nobody ELSE can do in the free world.  They're let alone, out of some silly notions of "religious tolerance" that we are all required to hold.  So they can do things you and I would go to jail for doing.  I don't see it.  By what standard should somebody's religious rights be more important than my human and civil rights?  They can publicly threaten us, but if WE held a protest against Islam, making the same kinds of threats, we'd be jailed.

No, the problem is simply that Islam crosses ALL lines, and has no intention of becoming civilized.  I'm not defining "civilized" by my own culture, but by the generic mores and values that make civilization possible at ALL.  And killing people who don't happen to be of your religion is NOT being civilized.  They offer no religious tolerance, yet they USE the religious liberties in our countries in order to one day deprive us of our OWN.  And we're supposed to tolerate them while they do this?

If you really want to understand what we're up against with Islam, try going directly to the "horse's mouth."  READ the Quran and Hadith - they're free to download.  Read them, cover to cover, and be patient with all the reptitious stuff and the name references that can easily confuse people from our culture.  Then go online to Islamic prosyletizing sites and READ what Muslims have to say about their own faith.  READ about Islam's history, too, to know how these two sects came about, and why they hate each other more than they hate US.

Is there a more fair way to learn what Islam really IS?  I'd also suggest you view "Fitna," a Dutch film which uses the verses of the Quran itself, the words and actions of Muslims themselves, to show us how dangerous Islam is to the entire world.  Nothing is more fair than letting Islam and Muslims speak for themselves.  Yet it's been censored.  It's out there, though, and you can find it.

Because until you do your OWN homework, you can't have an opinion of Islam; you can only have an attitude, gathered from second-hand sources.  I doubt you would emerge from these studies with the conviction that Islam is a "great global religion of peace and tolerance," though.  But it is what political correctness DEMANDS that we believe of Islam.  In spite of the mountains of evidence that Islam itself is malevolent.

It is those who have gone the extra mile, those who have studied Islam fully, in order to be maximally fair to Muslims, who are the people most in fear of what Islam IS.  The more you know, the "scared-er" you get.

It isn't the Muslims themselves who are always the bad guys; it's Islam.  That is the source of the evil, which then blows the minds of Muslims and makes them slavishly obedient.

You will also learn, directly from THEIR materials, that Islam is a religion OF males, FOR males and BY males.  Islam has two purposes:  to make males absolutely dominant over females, and to take over the entire world - and by ANY means whatsoever.  That global takeover is the Prime Directive of Islam, toward which ALL good Muslims must work hard, at all times.  Human life - even their own - is meaningless, next to serving Allah.

A religion which cheapens human life - even of its OWN believers - is obscene and evil.

Islam relies on the Quran - and on blowing minds - to gain an army of absolutely obedient zombies with which to conquer the world.  And it worked beautifully for Muhammad.  He invented the religion entirely to serve his OWN military goals.  I don't think he had any idea that it would live after him and grow as large as it has.  Nor, frankly, do I think he'd care much, except to the extent that it basted his male ego.

The Quran can be misleading.  It says at one point, "there shall be no compulsion in religion."  This is often proudly quoted to us by Muslims when people say they convert by the sword.  Yet they DO.  The Muslims quoting it already know they're being misleading.  How can they violate the Quran itself?  Because in the Hadith, Muhammad himself converted by the sword.  THAT made the quotation moot, and binding on no Muslim, from that day forward.  They don't tell us THAT when they quote that passage, though, do they? 

Conversions by the sword have gone on ever since - and still do.  Yet the Pope had to apologize (!) to them for speaking the truth.  All Muslims are required to emulate Muhammad.  That's what the Hadith is, a chronicle of his life and acts, for all good Muslims to use as their role model of a perfect Muslim.  Anything in the Quran which is contradicted by a later writing, or a later act of Muhammad, may still appear in the Quran, but has been overwritten entirely.  Muslims do not deny that this is so.  They'd rather it didn't become publicly known, though.

Yet it is WE who are the bad guys if we express our loathing of something like that.  We're not "being tolerant."  We're "Islamophobes," or "Xenophobic."  Is it a phobia to hate any religion that makes slaughter, beheadings and abusing women a virtue?  Is that how "bigotry" is defined?  Must we NULLIFY our own values in order to respect theirs?

And just where is any tolerance required OF Muslims, toward US?  Certainly NOT in any Islamic State.  Not even in our OWN lands.  Because of OIL, they must be coddled, while we must be vilified and called bigots if we don't like it.

I've STUDIED Islam since 1994.  The more I learn of it, the more it stands my hair on end.  So call me a bigot for being revolted by bestiality.  Mea culpa.  No other religion on the planet embraces bestiality.  Only Islam.

The attitudes of black hatred Muslims keep showing us makes it more than just a culture and religion that WE must adapt to somehow, through our own boundless tolerance.  It makes Islam a threat to all of humanity.  And they MEAN BUSINESS.

How can WE adapt to it, except by opening our veins, and capitulating to them utterly?  It's the only thing we can do that will make them stop being "offended."  Because they're "offended" by our very EXISTENCE.

If anyone should be doing the adapting, it would be them.  It is they whose values are bestial and crude, devoid of value for human life.  Why should we get down in the muck with people like that, tolerating, accommodating, even catering, to them?  Must humanity, then, sink to its very lowest common denominator in order to obtain "peace"?  Give me strength.

Fortunately, though, I think the general public is slowly getting the drift.  Thickheaded they may be, but even the average joe is beginning to wonder about these people.  If Muslims wish to be bestial, they should all be required to live in places where there are only Muslims.  They have no small inclination to tolerate anything at ALL about us.  So let them live AWAY from us entirely.  If they insist on living among us and spewing hate, committing "honor killings," circumcizing females and forcing marriages on them, fine - let them do it IN THEIR OWN LANDS.  Not in ours.  They should all be required to live in Islamic lands, where they can be happy campers.  And then slam the doors shut, allowing no interaction between them and us.  For good.

And screw the oil.  Humanity's existence is much more important.

Won't happen, though.  And so, Islam will win.

[SandChigger]

<i>Dhimmi...

Solamente dhimmi.

Como ovidar mis ... sentimientos de horror!

Tear drops...

Rolling down on my face.

Trying to forget my ... feelings for Life.

Feelings!

Wo wo wo,

Feelings!

Wo wo wo...</i> ::)

[nemafakei]

Woo, spleen, they want us all dead, etc, etc.

Ok, Mod-hat on: faster, you are making a number of pretty nasty generalisations and getting very close to breaking the no harrassing/discriminating rule. I'd advise you consider carefully precisely who you mean by "them" (and, for that matter, "us"), and direct your criticism towards the ideology of Islam rather than Muslims, and to the specific practices you object to. As a staff member, it's part of my job to deal with flaming and trolling, and it's very easy for criticisms of religion to veer into quite vicious sweeping personal attacks. You appear to be a new user, so I'd advise that you take a look at the rules. Please don't hesitate to ask if you need clarification. Modhat off...

"Isn't that what we were all taught?"

Dunno where you're from, but over in Britain, portrayal of muslims is very, very negative. We're constantly being told that christianity is the religion of peace, even as our prime minister is prayerfully ordering the slaughter of thousands of muslims.

"They can publicly threaten us, but if WE held a protest against Islam, making the same kinds of threats, we'd be jailed."

This is simply untrue - the National Front, and more recently, the British National Party have occasional rallies when they can muster the numbers. The police even make a special effort to accommodate and protect the neo-Nazis when all the anti-fascist counter-demonstrators turn up to chant "there are many, many more of us than you". It's mostly only when they're caught on camera discussing their plans to cause physical harm that they get imprisoned.

"I'm not defining "civilized" by my own culture, but by the generic mores and values that make civilization possible at ALL"

Which are? Wishing death on people who do things differently seems to have been a staple of civilisation since recorded history began.

"They don't tell us THAT when they quote that passage, though, do they?"

Well, aside from asking for chapter and verse, I'll say what I've said before: unlike the Quran the hadith is not viewed as the word of God and the veracity and textual tradition of the accounts are a matter of continuing academic debate among Muslim scholars. Presumably, you know this, so I'm left wondering why you don't point THAT out!

As to the (by no means welcome) feminist arguments... yes, you're quite right, Islam is used to justify some pretty horrible things. But in case you haven't noticed, Islam is not the sole source of women's oppression: women are still oppressed in the west, and in the far east. The more overt violence and obvious disenfranchisement has only been tackled in the past century, mainly because of historical processes that had little to do with religion. Patriarchy is built into almost every world religion as it exists, because religions are conservative things that preserve the practices of a prior era and because they are useful tools of oppression. Women's liberation in the Middle East isn't going to come from some 'enlightened westerners' waging a war on Islam, it's going to come from muslim women in the middle east. And it is happening: a lot has been bubbling over in Iran recently, though I'm not directly in contact with the activists on the ground.

"If Muslims wish to be bestial, they should all be required to live in places where there are only Muslims"

So the many should suffer for the crimes of the few, and we should enforce some kind of religious segregation. Sadly, I can't even tell if you're having a laugh.

Edit: Ooh, a question for you: Do you think gay muslims seeking asylum from Iran should be deported back to Iran?

[SandChigger]

I thought what's-his-name (starts with an 'A') said there were no gay Iranians. Do you mean you think he was lying?! :O

;)

[Khan]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

[SandChigger]

(I KNOW! ... Oh, dear, poor thing: you suffer from literalitis?! :( )

[gunner154]

Wait till you see that music video on Ahmadinejad and that comment he made. It's somewhere I think...