Salam-

Whether the cartoons were funny or not, offensive or not, is entirely irrelevant. If you want to live in a free society, you have to be prepared to be offended every now and then. I'm sure there will be posts following mine that I will find highly offensive. But I am not going to burn things or stomp on flags because of it, because it's not a condition of free speech that speech be inoffensive. There are no conditions on free speech. That's why it's 'free'.

And incidentally, I thought the one about the virgins was pretty funny.

I find religious texts that advocate discrimination against non-believers much, much more offensive in every possible way.

Religious fundamentalism in any form is dangerous. Whether it is Christian fundamentalists trying to impose their old testament views on society, or Islamic fundamentalists telling us what we can or can't laugh at.

Cartoonists have always pushed the limit of taste and propriety. Michael Leunig has recently got into hot water over his cartoon of a comatose Ariel Sharon ordering the destruction of Palestinians. That is their legitimate role.

The issue is not with the cartoon itself, but with the intolerance of the reader, whether that reader is Islamic, Christian or Jewish. And of course people now want to see the cartoons - as soon as you make a huge fuss about you give it publicity. That's why the best response to things you find offensive is usually not to draw attention to them.

Salam

I believe that the cartoon are sending a very relevant message to the Muslim community, and while the form of the message delivered by the cartoon is a bit rude, the message needs to be delivered non-the-less.

How can anyone believe that a religion, or a prophet speaking on behalf of God, wants people to use bomb to kill each other, or that suicide bombers, who are out to harm people, will be rewarded in the afterlife.

These believe are completely EVIL, and does not conform with any teaching in any religions of the world, and if a joke is what is needed to inform a muslim "holy" person, the evilness of their way, it is a very valid message.

Considering the manner in which certain Muslim media outlets use cartoons and articles which are blatantly anti-Semitic or blantantly anti-western, this strikes me as the pot calling the kettle black.

Having viewed the cartoons online (thanks Tim Blair), I consider them to be fairly ordinary (a Wilcox or a Moir cartoon is far superior) and only two over-stepping any mark. That said, I think it is time that Muslims were encouraged to leave behind their medieval mind-set. With the benefit of the Enlightenment which gave us such freedoms as free speech, the west has much to offer Muslims.

We should not have to apologise for Muslim over-sensitiveness. Freedom of expression was hard-won; it is a core belief of those of us in the west; Salam Zreika and her ilk had better get used to it.

I get sick of hearing immans and other Muslim leaders trying to distract their followers from their own failings by talking about the west as "decadent, a den of iniquity, the source of all evil, racist, imperialist and to be despised." <http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,398853,00.html>

When it was western culture which gave us Copernicus, Gallileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein and Freud, or Dante, Shakespeare, Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Rembrandt, da Vinci, Michelangelo, Monet, Manet and Van Gogn, we should not have to apologise to a religion which gave us Bin Laden.

“I have no doubt that the editor who allowed these images to be published and other editors across Europe and New Zealand crossed a sensitive line of what we would call “freedom of the press”…..”

No, editors who sanctioned the cartoons have NOT crossed any line. While many people other than Muslims, including me, don’t see the point of these cartoons and don’t find them humorous at all, Salam still doesn’t get the principle of freedom of speech, which is so dear to the West. And, to liken freedom of speech and thought with “Hitler’s propaganda scheme” is dopey in the extreme. Mad Muslims committing arson and riots against freedom of speech is more in line with Hitler’s brown shirts.

Before Salam takes to advising the media to “ inform and advise society about the facts - not the fiction”, she might like to set an example and accept and advise the public of the facts about Muhammad – not the fiction which had been exposed by scholars, one of whom recently described the Prophet as worse than Osama Bin Laden in his personal life, and not at all the ‘forgiving’ and ‘merciful’ person Muslims believe him to have been.

And, again, Salam brings up the “sensitive issue of race” – entirely irrelevant in this context.

Salam is just another Lebanese Muslim who, in the past, has tried to make us believe that she feels Australian, who simply cannot wear any criticism of Islam and who simply cannot accept Australian/Western freedom of speech and thought.

As her fellow Muslim, Irfan Yusuf asked, hasn’t she anything better to do?

Salam,

>>The media and editors in particular have a far greater responsibility towards this global community than they think. That is to first and foremost educate, inform and advise society about the facts - not the fiction.<<

Exactly right you are - Cartoons have historically been used in the media for exactly that purpose. A picture is always better than a thousand words.

But that is not the issue here. As someone eluded before me; your Islamic papers are full of revolting cartoons and articles. We don’t see people rioting over it.

SO WHY IS ISLAM AND ARE MUSLIMS SO TOUCHY ABOUT THEIR RELIGION?

Answer; they believe that it is the supreme religion from Allah (a fictitious god), the last revelation from Allah dictated to mohammad (their self-proclaimed prophet), to abolish all other religions on earth and establish the “Ummah” or islamic state under their “Sharia law”. These are the dictates of the Qur’an (their holy book).

So anything that stands in the way of this progress is to be destroyed.

WHEN IS THE WEST GOING TO PUT A STOP TO THIS MAYHEM?

We don’t need a Salam or Irfan telling us what we should or shouldn’t do.

Many died through the centuries for this FREEDOM of expression.

To revoke it is to p**s on their graves

"What came as a real shock to me was one news poll in Australia had a far greater number of people wanting to view these cartoons in our Aussie papers compared to those who did not."

Maybe now you're starting to get it. Most Australians would not be shocked by that result. Your religion and sensitivities take a back seat to our core values. If you choose to make Australia your home the onus is on you to respect our values and beliefs, including freedom of expression. If you are not comfortable living here when the majority feel that publication of caricatures of a bearded guy should be lawful, even when those caricatures might offend certain people, then you really need to reconsider whether this is the right place for you to live.

as a christian who lives in Indonesia, i can testify about their tendency to behave violently is nothing like was pictured in the australian media. They are peaceful and kind folks who are ashamed of the terrorism done by their violent kind.

In all fairness, i believe the problem lie more in low education and relatively poor social economic status of most terrorists ( and muslim people in general )
Poverty and lack of education is a surefire way to lead people to depression and hopelessness.

Sadly, it is a fact that most muslim majority country is poor third world countries.

A religion, provides hope and dignity to these disadvantaged people. however, these people don't have the intellectual capacity to discern and argue about some twisted facts that is preached by the extreme elements within the religion.

Before anyone condemn islam further, try helping your disadvantaged muslim neighbours, and see if my argument hold any weight.

Salam,

Good article although I think we are up to another storm in a teacup on this one.

Freedom of speech is not in question here, I was equally annoyed by Jesus painted in urin.

What I don not understand is the reaction in the European newspaper to the Boycott!

If freedom of speech is used to mock other faith and thats legal that Okay, but why do they still expect Muslims to trade with their dollar? also, why do they expect all Muslims to react in the same manner?

If you lived in the US and used the F word in Texas, Oregon, San Francisco and Harlem. Wouldn' you get 4 different reactions (obviousley the gun in Harlem).

Free speech is free speech, but people react to their own accords, its naive to insult someone and then wonder why won't they buy from you. Danish exporters lost 1.2 Billion dollars overnight from Saudi consumers alone.

Salam, I think that you have missed the mark on this one. Ridicule of extremist behaviour is one of the tools which plays a key role in western societies in keeping extremists moderated. The cartoon's are a response to some horrific actions and viewpoints espoused by a minority of muslims. They are reportedly a test of the ongoing ability of western media to publish such material. The response to the publication is likely to convince many that a line needs to be drawn in the sand.

Likewise as other commentators have pointed out a willingness to insult those who see things differently to yourself is not unique to non-muslim commentators. A read of an article seemingly by Keysar Trad (http://www.islam.org.au/articles/16/RACISM.HTM the link is not working today) contained comments which appeares to describe white Australians as "the descendants of the scum of white civilisation" and other quite insulting and rude comments about our society. I don't like what Keysar said in the article, it is inflamitory, racist, elitist and shows a remarkable dislike for this country but it is part of the cost of free speech which I would happily bear than live with that freedom selectively curtailed.

R0bert

The writer says the real issue is not that muslims have no sense of humour but that the cartoonist and media deliberately published cartoons that would offend muslims and incite others to religious and ethnic hatred, using freedom of speech as their cover. This is a serious charge and one I would dispute.

Salam applauds those who condemn the publication,and presumably those who will not publish the cartoons while implying those in Australia who wish to view the cartoons are insensitive to muslim issues. Salam may well have missed the point of the news poll she mentions. Ironically, she says it is the duty of the media to educate and inform - and until recently no one had heard of these cartoons. Extremists have made these cartoons an issue. Without viewing these cartoons, noone can form an educated opinion. Are we supposed to accept on face value the comments of others like Salam?
I have seen the cartoons - and presumably so has Salam. They are not particularly humourous. As for being offended, Salam ... many christians are offended when someone uses 'Jesus Christ' as an expletive, and he is mocked in caricatures, but it does not justify burning down a building or threatening to murder.
Of far more concern is the action of these extremists and you devote thirteen words to condemning these people.
Not only did Hitler engage in propaganda , but he also eliminated freedom of the press : we still have a free press and that is why
we can so freely express our views..........and in doing so find someone to offend.

Well it's one thing to have freedom of the press, but it's another to publish just for the sake of making a point as is happening in other newspapers subsequently. I also wonder what would happen if cartoons of Jesus were published in a Muslim country. Not too much I suspect.

But on a lighter note, if Mohammad is close to Allah, can't his PR image be protected by a plague or three to punish those offending infidels in Denmark directly without calling on his self-appointed agents in Lebanon (and hopefully not in another Cronulla)? Is there doubt in the power of Allah or is this all a smokescreen for something else?

Salam. Your comments may have some credibilty if there was even a semblance of indignation from the Muslim collective about all the attrocities committed in Mo's name. Not much was said about the girls who had their heads chopped off whilst walking home from school, in Indonesia, or the school kids killed in Beslan ( many shot in the back), by extremists.
But publish a cartoon of someone who had a well documented career as a thug and pedophile then all hell breaks lose.

Isnt it about time the Muslim fraternity took a good look at themselves, and the fundamentals of their religion.

http://www.wsfi.net/Documents/WHAT%20IS%20THE%20KORAN%20BY%20TOBY%20LESTER.HTM

But for some sharp edged commentary as an inoffensive cartoon this is vg
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/155672.php

Like many others, as soon as I heard all the fuss I had to take a look at the items at the heart of the issue. Carrying my free speech banner proudly aloft, I clicked the link, expecting to be able to say "huh, such over-sensitive souls", and move quickly on.

But hey, aren't they really, really poor?

This isn't humour in the generally accepted sense of the word (with the exception of the one about the virgins, which raised a definite chuckle), but gratuitous insults masquerading as cartoons.

Which, I think, puts it in a slightly different category: being offensive purely for the sake of being offensive, then crying "free speech, free speech" when your target becomes upset. As you knew they would.

Fellow Human mentioned Andres Serrano's Piss Christ, the cause of a few ructions back in the eighties and nineties - it was physically attacked when it reached the National Gallery of Victoria in 1997, you will remember. It too was a gratuitous insult to a sect, and got the desired reaction (in that case, publicity).

The saintly George Pell (the man who had to tidy up the mess left by all those sex offenders that his church had for so long fostered) even tried to close the exhibition, claiming "blasphemy". He failed, though, but a couple of teenagers with a hammer succeeded.

But back to these cartoons

The objective was clearly vilification, and the reaction was the one that was expected. That's playing the man, not the ball, in my book.

Having said that, the line that Salam draws is almost as selective. If you can laugh at jokes against muslims when presented in the theatre alongside a heap of other digs and jibes on the "differentness" of folk, then you are already a little bit pregnant, as they say. The ability to move from there to being able to shrug off the bad stuff - which is basically what the christian community (eventually) did with Piss Christ, is a sign of maturity.

That one about the virgins is the only one i found somewhat funny. It was more of a crack at extremists/suicide bombers than Islam or the Prophet. However it could have been done without the image of Mohammed and kept the same punchline.

To me its a matter of being respectful. If i have a joke or something to say that i think would offend someone in the room personally, then i hold my tongue. This may not be practical for a newspaper, but at the same time it is well known that images of Mohammed are offensive to Muslims, so why be outright disrespectful? Exercising free speech? To me that's a lame excuse. Free speech needs a warning label that "use of this liberty may result in backlash". If you use free speech to criticise and attack, accept that it can be used to retalliate back at you.
Now obviously the backlash in this case is outrageous, way out of proportion and misdirected. But the insult was leveled at a large number of people, many of whom feel victimised and powerless already and feel they have no avenue of retort, so they snap back at small provocations in the only way they know how and the only way they see will have any effect, and unfortunately that is often violently.
Justified, rational? no, but it can at least be understood. It's like the kid who gets victimised by bullies at school who lashes out and attacks some other kid who makes a smartarse remark because he can't fight back the real bullies.

So what i say about free speech is yes, but exercise good judgement and show some damn respect. Know that what is published can cause an effect which can either harm society or help it. I would be utterly disgusted if someone publishes the cartoons in Australia knowing the harm it could do.

Ms Zreika wrote:

"Now tell me this, do you really think that this is really something most Muslims would find utterly hilarious? What reaction do you think Christians or Sikhs or Buddhists would have if an image published was a severe mocking of their central belief? Would they really be overwhelmed with laughter at the so called humour portrayed?

Well, this happens all the time. Is she so young that she doesn't remember the controversy that Serrano's "Piss Christ" caused in 1997 at the National Gallery. Many of us found the image offensive, but no one burned down the National Gallery because of it.

The movie "The Last Temptation of Christ" caused similar runctions, as did the Monty Python classic "The Life of Brian" which actually did not lampoon Christ himself but ridiculed the messianic movements of Roman ruled Palestine. (Blessed are the cheesemakers.., what did the Romans ever do for us??)

South Park contains many insulting cartoon images of Christ, but I don't see anyone wanting to bomb the TV station.

A common Christmas decoration in Japan is said to be Santa Claus hanging on a cross. We haven't boycotted Japanese goods yet.

In the same way that freedom of association guarantees freedom of non-association, freedom of religion guarantees freedom not only to not hold a religious faith but to be critical, indeed mocking, of another's faith. Freedom cuts both ways in Western society. If someone doesn't like that idea they have the freedom not to live in a liberal democracy, that is, the freedom to live elsewhere.

Lastly, on the central figure of Christianity: Christ himself taught Christians to 'turn the other cheek' and to allow God to take vengence. It is God who will exercise judgement on those who blaspheme. It is up to believers to counter any blaspheme with love and reasoned argument, not with violence.

Ms Salam,

If someone cannot laugh at himself(her)when he looks at his own cartoon, he must be morally very weak and insecure. The same applies to all believers of all religions. It is obvious, however, that it applies more so to the believers of Islam, as the cartoons in Denmark have shown.

Go to my blog: http://congeorgekotzabasis.blogspot.com

Salam,

Life is 10% what happens, 90% how you deal with it.

Your young people are the thorn in your side, they create all these problems for good people like you to have to mop up. You dont see those same people defending their actions, you see people like you having to 'go into bat for them', thus meaning you cop the brunt, thus segregating even the most peaceful, well meaning muslims.

Laugh at this:

Jesus walked into a pub, threw 3 nails on the bar and said, bartender, can you put me up for the night?

Who cares. Laugh and deal with it in a way that would make Allah proud. If that means being violent, that is a fault, but if it means being able to ignore it and rise above it, that is great.

Let them print what they want, the virgin thing is true, so laugh at it. I have seen countless gay priest jokes, and i will tell you plenty. Does that mean christians start burning and pillaging?

its about give and take living in a free tolerant society. In order to have our freedoms, sometimes certain segments of society may offend. But hey, they are not murdering anyone.

Lighten up, and handle your 90% of what happens in a diligent manner, that is the problem at present.

Salam,those cartoons were a test. Yet another test of how far the madness has gone and how totally corrupt the Islamic world is when muslims can't look at themselves critically while innocent people are being bombed, raped (ie. Pakistan-Vani) and exploited under the banner of Islamic leadership.

How can Islam expect to treated as sacred in light of such atrocities? All religions, all dogmas, policial viewpoints, and policians are open slather for criticism. Anything that assumes power over a people must be made available for criticism. Muhammad has not in fact brought peace and love to the world, and therefore cannot be exempt from ridicule. Allah did not stop the printing of those cartoon either.

I believe that this is only the beginning Salam.. Cartoons, films, Salmon Rushdie and others have been and gone and more will come again. Only a dictatorship can stop people from expressing their creative thoughts. I would have thought that your choice to live in Australia would have assumed your preference for freedom of speech. We all have to compromise ourselves to live in a multicultural, multi-religious society that values freedom of speech. In my view, wouldn't it be better to ignore a few cartoons than risk your right to build a mosque and practice your religion. As Irfan says, there are more important things to be concerned about, which those cartoon were alluding to.

This is a pathetic posting. We have Imams pleading with editors not to publish these cartoons in Australia because it will lead to violence. Doesn't that say more about Islamic values and culture than the cartoons?

I'll accept censorship of the Western press when I see Islamic countries stopping their tirades of racism and invective about cannibalistic rabbis and pig-dog Jews (among the least offensive of the usual rubbish published weekly in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and the Palestinian community).

When Muslims can control themselves and their people, whom most Muslim countries keep poor, ignorant and manipulated by refusing to spend their oil and other revenues on improving the life of their ordinary citizens, I'll be ready to listen to lectures about horrible, insensitive Westerners.

Kevin

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”

It is one of the statements which truly defines what free speech is the about.

Islam has no special exemption from it. Nor does the Pope or any other “religion”, race, creed, doctrine, belief or sundry group of people.

Among other things, which Salem did mention, is that newspapers do express “opinions” and not necessarily their own opinions but other peoples opinions, some popular and others contraversial. A Newspaper is not constrained by government or good taste to limit its content.

The point of restraint is, do those opinions represent an incitement for people to do harm.

It is merely some Muslims who have decided to do some burning and looting not incited by the cartoons but as a reaction to them. Those Muslims are displaying their thin skins and lack of tolerance as well as their inability to accept criticism (fair or unfair).
Those Muslims have displayed the same lack of understanding as the Christians who have paraded out side of cinemas to complain about movies of one sort or another. They are no different to the anti-abortionists who blow up medical clinics because they disagree with the right of individuals to seek abortions.

Nothing Salem has said justifies the violent reactions to these cartoons.

These cartoons and the right of free expression, even when it is grossly offensive to some, are not the problem.

Muslims have the right to boycott but not the right to burn.

Whilst some might suggest Western Values do not reflect Muslim ideals my only response is – I do not care.
I am not a vassal to Muslim Values. I am not required to accept the Pope telling what I can do or say and nor am I required to accept a Muslim religious leader telling me what I can do or say.

To all Muslims everywhere, grow up and got over it and show us all how you can be bigger than the cartoons or damn yourself to remain small.

We're here in Australia in the 21st c. Here we look first at what we are 'ordered' to protest. Don't look at these links if you dont want to see.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/698
http://timblair.net/

Consider islamist idiots beheading westerners on video. Imagine putting up with racist slogans saying "death to France, death to Danes (and the truly bizarre "To hell with freedom")? But, yes, we do put up with it here EVERY SINGLE DAY and much worse.

I've never seen those videos. I would never "choose" to watch a murder by islamist serial killers. One beheading is worse than a million cartoons, here.

Le Soir had a headline: "They're going mad, Voltaire, where are you?"

No religion is above criticism here, particularly not a new one with problems. Mohammed is also not THE prophet here, he is merely A figure to some people here.

But my respect doesn't make someone's beliefs true. Just because I am threatened doesn't mean I'm wrong. The major question is ... WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WHEN THIS HAPPENS AGAIN?

September 11 came out of the blue and showed us suddenly, horribly a group of barbaric weirdoes who claimed Islam in order to murder people. Those nutters actually thought they had the 'right' to do what they did.

Now after losing two countries and any shred of respect for this 'cause', even more followers try to nail the coffin down further. The posters of protestors confirm what we believed after new york was attacked without provocation, that weird and very dangerous people wish to kill you for your mere existence.

The so-called religion of peace is too violent. The daily failure to protest stonings, female inequality, arabisation of Aceh and the Sudan, hudood laws, dhimmitude etc. shouts its hypocrisy. Forget whether the west understands islam, the noisiest muslim voices have no clue about the west.

Unfortunately now, thanks to the bombers, the beheaders and now the bullsh*t artists below, islam's global credibility has finally been lost and willt ake a lot of work to get back.

http://www.cphpost.dk/get/93691.html
http://www.jp.dk/english_news/artikel:aid=3533280/

All should read this interview with Hirsi Ali, Dutch politician and friend and collaborator of Theo van Gogh. She knows what she's talking about.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/02/07/hirsi_ali/

Salam....

1/ WE DO NOT LIVE UNDER SHARIA LAW. we are free! even to mock. I get mocked here daily. So does Jesus.

2/ WERE THE CARTOONS TRUE ?
Was Mohammed in fact a 'terrorist' ? Did he do things which could be legitimately described as terrorisim ? Does the Quran 'advocate' putting 'terror' into the hearts of polytheists ?

To answer this question, one only needs to refer to the posts of Kactuz and myself over a period of time. Lets use just 3 examples.

BANU QURAYZA
If you were amember of the Banu Qurayza tribe of Jews, would the cartoon be 'true' for you ? Yes, of course it would, and you would have visions in your mind (as a surviving female who had been allocated to some Muslim soldier as a slave) of the flowing of blood of:
a) The leaders of the resistance to his attack (if u believe only the 'sanitized, sugar coated' modern Islamic version) or..
b) the 700-900 men who were beheaded systematically under his watchful eye, if you believe the Islamic histories and the hadith.

MURDER of a MOCKER
Then, there is the case of Ka'ab Bin Ashraf, Jewish poet who mocked mohammed in poetry. Now.. if Mohammed followed the LAW of the day, he would have requested the leaders of the group with whom the Muslims had a peace treaty (If they had one) to deal with Kaab themselves. But what did he do ? "Who will RID me of this Ka'ab bin Ashraf" ? Some people volunteered to murder him, which they did.

MURDER OF HASSAN, BROTHER OF PRINCE UKAYDIR of Dumah.
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MH_LM/campaign_of_tabuk_and_death_of_ibrahim.htm
Ibn al Walid's Campaign against Dumah

Walid murdered Hassan, then...
After seizing two thousand camels, eight hundred goats, four hundred loads of grain, and four hundred coats of arms, Khalid carried them, together with his captive, Prince Ukaydir, to Madinah. Muhammad offered Islam to Ukaydir, and the latter converted. He was then reinstated on his throne and became the Prophet's ally.(i.e. he obeyed the one most immediately likely to kill him)

I may have missed it, or everyone has by passed the most glaring and most obvious point to this event. Its the religious of the world that are doing this, to create a reason to escalate their war. They are trying to make it something that it isn't. A typical political ploy used by religions throughout history.

Those cartoons do not depict Mohammad, because no one knows what he looked like. Its that simply and islam refuses to depict him in any way, because they have no idea of his physical features. I can't find anywhere in the koran that gives a description of him. Same for jesus, a myth.

So all the uproar is just an excuse by both sides to escalate things. Either everyone is stupid or blind, but surely its about time it was realised that we are about to embark on a war to end all wars and there is nothing that can be done, nothing.

Why because it is out of everyones control, religions want total power and will kill their own to achieve it, just look at history to see the reality of whats coming

"What reaction do you think Christians or Sikhs or Buddhists would have if an image published was a severe mocking of their central belief?"

Um, duh, that happens everyday.

"Cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, commissioned twelve cartoonists to draw them and published the cartoons in response to the difficulty that Danish writer Kåre Bluitgen had finding artists to illustrate his children's book about Muhammad, because the artists feared violent attacks by extremist Muslims." (Wikipedia).

I don't like what was published but I support the reason it was published- to stand against the growing silent law in Europe that you must not offend Muslim sensibilities (sound familiar any Victorians?). I respect Muslims, I respect a lot of Muslim belief, I do not respect all of Muslim belief, and I think every society should have that right.

I also did not think the cartoons were that funny, but they highlighted something more important- tolerance goes ways.

Also, race DOES NOT equal religion. You can have an arab Christian and an anglo saxon Muslim. Please don't try to confuse the issue.

salam: In various islamic countries - Christian schoolchildren beheaded, schoolchildren held hostage without food,water,toilet facilities then brutally shot, Churches burned, Christians murdered.Then we have islamic mothers blessing their children by advocating their becoming cowardly suicide bombers. Anti-Jewish comic strips not just cartoons, islamic schoolchildren taught to hate Jews and Christians.
I, a Christian, would be banned from settling in most islamic nations.In 'some' I could quietly practise my religion but couldn't build a church, hold a Bible study or proselyte and I would be seen as a third grade citizen. Many of your pagan imams hurl abuse and threats at Christians in THIS nation. These same twerps say that democracy is un-islamic. Just what you death loving pagans have in store for this beautiful country should you gain the ascendancy is frightening. And you worry about a few cartoons!
In Iran a 17 year old GIRL with her female cousin fought of three islamic males intent on rape. During this struggle she inadvertedly killed one of attackers. Now she is on a charge of murder and will be hanged - Salam this is a schoolgirl a moslem schoolgirl .This lass before she is hanged will have to be raped as no virgin can go to hell a virgin. This is brutal, bloodthirsty islamic "law". If you ,perish the thought, were raped there would have to be three "upright?" moslem males who had watched this rape to witness for you. Your word as a woman is worth far less than the word of a male. Your so-called prophet has said and it is written 'that few women will be in paradise' Anyhow there would be nothing for you to do there but watch the males having constant sex.
islam is a threat to our free world, a threat to decency and a threat to democracy. numbat

One radical cleric in Europe called for a Muslim Day of Anger. To which one wag replied...'How could you tell?'

Yet another mindless, senseless uproar from the world's most "peaceful religion".
Will muslims ever grow up and see their actions as others see them? Or will they go on rioting, killing,burning ,slashing for ever and expect to go on living among peaceful western nations as guests?
If we in the West give up on freedom of speech, these religious fanatics will demand more and more .
We must never give an inch. It is time we demanded that THEY behave themselves because we have had enough!

Despicable and rude it may be...but I am afraid I am one who thinks that as outraged as muslims might be a violent response to these events is not an answer - is never an answer.

The wide spread republishing of the cartoons however is far more of an important question. That strikes me as being inflammatory and publishers are using the free speach argument as an excuse to be seen as defenders of such a principle when all they are doing is show boating.

Salam
I too must add that you are on a loser here. The comic merits of the cartoons are up to the individual show in a free country should be published. These cartoons are not encouraging violence or illegal acts which is the only things that should preclude their publications. In fact I would go as far as to say that these cartoon should be published in every media out let in the Islamic world. You would do the Islamic a much greater service if you helped create an environment were this sort of stuff was tolerated. Also the collective punishment of all Danes due to the publication of these cartoons in a private news paper is reminiscent of the collective labeling of all Muslims as terrorist. I notice though the Christians are jumping on this even though they have reacted in a similar way to explorations of Christian symbols. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
them

Some calm please, it wasn't like all Muslims are on the streets rioting. Few hundreds rioted, few peaceful protests, many will boycott products and majority with no reaction.

Although its a street level reaction, i am surprised why now and not 4 months ago when the cartoon was published. Also, why governments interfered?

Interesting is this just a beat up at an opportune time. The cartoons were published in September 2005.

Why the delay in the backlash. Well I have seen some things along these lines.

In December last year a group of Danish imams toured the Middle East to publicise the cartoons. With them, they reportedly took, not only the offending cartoons originally published but several other far more offensive ones that, apparently, they had themselves produced. In other words, the outrage over the cartoons has been deliberately engineered. Why, And why now?

International Atomic Energy Agency will decide In Vienna today (I think) about reporting Iran to the UN Security Council for continuing with its programme of nuclear research. If that decision should occur, the UN Security Council will get round to considering what form of sanctions to impose on Iran, Wondering who will be in the chairmanship of the Council. Denmark.

Maybe this is some bs but I am wary of coincidence. Intimidate Denmark by threat of boycott of its goods or the EU indirectly fearful of a wider boycott?

This just in

Shiek Mohammad has just call for Jihad on the infidels.

Suicide bombers have been dispatched to blow up the offending newspapers, all suicide bombers will be rewarded with 2 virgins upon them blowing themselves up with a stack of newspaper.

He has also called on the beheading of the newspaper comics, to warn future newspaper from displaying the comics.

apart from the urin and Jesus, the many panks of southpark. We have a best selling book that claim that Jesus married Mary Madeline and that Jesus' bloodline is still with us today, and the church killed people who want to release that secret to society. This is blasphemy, imagine if someone did the same to the Muslim faith, wait someone did.

Dan Brown Vs Salman Rushdie- this speak volumn about the 2 religion. One is tolerant of other religion, allows free speech, so that its followers can search for their own truth. The other religion want to control the throught of their follower, will strike at other people who don't believe in their own throught.

Perhaps in the end, it is all about control?

The Muslim world is tightly regulated and protocoled. Here in the West, we have freedom to live by our moral standards that are not institutionalised by the church. The Muslim world is starkly underperforming and feels threatened by the material success of the West.

Perhaps it is all about the will of freedom of speech against a theocracy that feels threatened.

5 people dead now over these bl--dy cartoons.

Cartoons and Hypocrisy
http://www.counterpunch.org/itani02022006.html

"Go read Rachard Itani’s analysis of the Danish Cartoon issue, before sinking back into the mire of your myopic, dualist, prejudiced, and ill-informed hatred of all things Islamic and Muslim. You are accountable for what you choose to believe." Excerpted from http://www.maryams.net/dervish/2006/02/04/to-the-right-wing-visitors/

"To the Militant Right-Wing Loons..."
Cartoons and Hypocrisy
http://www.counterpunch.org/itani02022006.html

"Go read Rachard Itani’s analysis of the Danish Cartoon issue, before sinking back into the mire of your myopic, dualist, prejudiced, and ill-informed hatred of all things Islamic and Muslim. You are accountable for what you choose to believe." Excerpted from http://www.maryams.net/dervish/2006/02/04/to-the-right-wing-visitors/

Dear Salam Zreika.

As a freelance journalist in the West, you should be aware that the Western world allows considerable freedom of expression.

The reason why western artists are given so much freedom to redicule and attack contemporary social issues, is because it allows western society to evolve, as time erodes the basic premises which underpin our laws and morality. If the Islamic world had ever developed such a medium for self criticism itself, which had allowed the Muslim world to progress, the Islamic world would not be such a basket case today.

Don't you think it is presumptuous for failed societies to tell successful societies that we are doing everything wrong?

It has ben noted that fanatics have no sense of humour. That would have to apply to the entire Islamic world. The Muslim world is hardly noted for doing anything successful for the last 800 years,so they have nothing to crow about when it comes to advances in medicine, technology, deep space research, science, manufacturing, economic advancement, social advancement or even sport. There is nothing for them to joyously celebrate there.

The only time you ever see Muslims happy and jumping for joy is when they have just blown somebody up.

I hope that the Victorians don't put me in jail for saying this. It was just a joke.

At last.. I've found it......

[Lorenzo Vidino at The Counterterrorism Blog follows up on his report about how a delegation of Danish imams led by Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban disseminated fake anti-Muslim cartoons and attributed them to the Jyllands-Posten to stir up Islamist rage:]

There is now increasing information about the activities of one Imam Ahmad Abu Laban, a Danish Muslim cleric who went with a delegation of Muslims from Denmark to the Middle east to promote outrage over the cartoons.

Bear in mind the cartoons were first published in SEPTEMBER 05
Why suddenly the outrage ?

See this link http://michellemalkin.com/

The Imam claims the fake 'cartoon' making mohammed look like a pig, was sent by some emailer.. but he used it anyway as 'one of the cartoons' to stir up trouble in Lebanon etc....

It is felt that this was an organized campaign to force Denmark to observe Sharia law by virtue of public outrage and boycotts.

This same Imam 'condemned' the boycotts in English in an interview and a short time later in Arabic expressed how EFFECTIVE they were.

Anyway.. read for yourselves :)

As with most media reports, its good to keep a healthy degree of skepticism about the veracity until all information is 'in'.

Cheers all.

Muslim protests are a warning to us all, our freedoms and respect for both male and female are being used against us.
Hate and lies against Christian and Jews can be seen in posters at every protest far worse than the cartoons.
Lies and miss information are spread, and it surely is clear world peace is comeing to an end?
The cartoons did not need to be published but the outcome questions any idea we can live together.

Looks like the talking heads have very successfully replaced the cold war nonsense that plagued our minds.

Well done muck rakers.

Keep the division and discontent at fever pitch.

This whole cartoon affair makes me think the entire western world has become weak, cowardly and dare I say, impotent.

To lose a bit of trade - so what. Put radical islam in its place (outside of our countries) and stop trying to appease these morons. To attempt to lay the blame for the violence squarely on the Newspapers, reminds me of a certain event in Sydney. The crime and violence of our Leb Muslim citizens is the fault of the nearest white guy with a tree branch!

"The media has always served, at least initially, as an extension of governmental foreign policies, especially, war policies. To inflame American passion against Spain prior to the Spanish-American War, the most powerful media mogul in the country, William Randolph Hearst sent his reporters to Cuba with the admonition: “You bring me the pictures, I’ll supply the war."

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/23690

Salam, I understand your disquiet over items that consciously defile the religious and/or political head of your way of life. However, the test of free speech is not that which is sympathetic to our views but that which is anathema to it.

If all the rhetoric of the Muslim support of free speech fractures at the first sign of a real test, what then do we make of the Islamic definition of the freedom of speech? Is free speech only that which passes the Islamic filters of tolerable existence?

There is much unfounded passion fuelling the responses to the cartoons around the world which has lead to capitulation in some quarters. This is unfortunate as to deny the right of freedom of expression only validates the maxim that ‘might is right’. That is not religious teaching nor is it a moral foundation; it is simply a corruption of belief.

The significance of freedom of expression, like all things, is most apparent in its absence. Think long before you put your right to insulated reverence before the people of the world’s right to think differently.

Peace be with you

Trade215 if you have fear in your heart don't fret just get out of the way.

Salam Zreika is pushing his IslamoFacist thought, again.

The cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten raise the most important question of our times: freedom of expression. Are we in the west going to cave into pressure from societies with a medieval mindset, or are we going to defend our most precious freedom — freedom of expression, a freedom for which thousands of people sacrificed their lives?

A democracy cannot survive long without freedom of expression, the freedom to argue, to dissent, even to insult and offend. It is a freedom sorely lacking in the Islamic world, and without it Islam will remain unassailed in its dogmatic, fanatical, medieval fortress; ossified, totalitarian and intolerant. Without this fundamental freedom, Islam will continue to stifle thought, human rights, individuality; originality and truth.

Unless, we show some solidarity, unashamed, noisy, public solidarity with the Danish cartoonists, then the forces that are trying to impose on the Free West a totalitarian ideology will have won; the Islamization of Europe will have begun in earnest. Do not apologize.

Salam, like a couple of others here at OLO I am surprised you call yourself a journalist. You say some editors crossed the Rubicon for purely nefarious reasons yet you supply no facts to back up that statement. Bad journalism. And I am sceptical about cartoons published in September being found to be offensive the following February.

It is interesting that ME muslim eleutheromaniacs who flee to the West find freedom offensive. However that freedom is to be embraced when it's working for you. Auburn muslim school girl Yasamin Alttahir wanted the freedom to shun the Auburn Girls High School uniform and wear the mantoo. Her campaign for 'freedom' ended in the state library where she found the necessary legal rules to validate her stand.

So you see Salam, we have a plethora of freedoms. Some are good and some are objectionable. But these freedoms form the bedrock of our democracy and rather than restrict them we should embrace them.

Stalin asked Kaganovich: "Why do you look so gloomy when we laugh at jokes about the Jews, whereas Mikoyan doubles up with mirth when he hears jokes about Armenians?" Kaganovich said that he replied: "You are well aware of national feelings, Comrade Stalin. The Jews have been thrashed so may times that they have become like a sensitive plant, they clench themselves when they are touched." Stalin said: "What a good comparison!" Today's Muslims are, perhaps, yesterday's Jews! (See my forthcoming book, "Dictatorial CEOs and their lieutenants: the cases of Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Ataturk and Mao.") And click onto: http://www.jeffschubert.com

greengrin,

In the middle east anti-semetic cartoons are published everyday.

Click on the link and compare the anti-semetic and anti-christian cartoons published in Middle Eastern newspapers EVERYDAY to the ones published in a ONE OFF in the Danish paper and see the CONTRAST.

http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htm

If Muslims want an end to cartoons published in newspapers which are offensive - then they should STOP THAT PRACTICE THEMSELVES BEFORE THEY HORDE AND TORCH EMBASSIES!!

The Tom Gross web site and its cartoons from Middle East papers shows just what unmitigated hypocrites we have to contend with. All this because of a cartoon about a serial murderer, thug and pedophile. And thats from their own records.

Salam is again reminding the wider community just why the muslim community is viewed so negatively.

She attacks a cartoon that portrays a belief that so many muslims themselves have portrayed. She should attack the Bin Ladens and co. for giving everyone the wrong idea about their prophet, who they say commands them to fight and kill the infidel.

As well as this, the muslim community leaders in all Western nations seem to support this, such as the main mufti in Australia, Sheik Hilaly, who told the throat slitters who held Douglas Wood in Iraq that he and all Australian muslims agree with their jihad, he told a Lebanese gathering in Lebanon that "911 was Gods work".

The terrorism summit held some months back with Islamic leaders and the government contained the most moderate people John Howard could find, and none of them would actually condemn Bin Laden.

Even the Victorian Islamic council promotes and sells books that denounce democracy as "evil" and call for sharia law.
She speaks of "facts", well these are the facts.

These cartoons depict an acurate image of Islams prophet, and only stupidity or racism can lead ones mind to another conclusion.

Salam, you are ill and a racist bigot.

Despicable,offensive and unaccepatable, is the plight of the majority of Mohammed's followers.

Salam

I previously sent you a post about your article. It has disappeared?

Anyway, the essence for me is: you do not seem concerned about Aussie (or any other) freedom of speech or expression; you are overly concerned about a few poorly designed cartoons (Jesus Christ and Mohammed are probably killing [joke] themselves laughing); and, worst of all, you appear to have no concern about Muslim perpetrators, their violent actions, and the murders they have committed in their so-called (and disgusting) defence of your religion.

BOAZ_David made a very important point in his first post. Most times that he (as a devout, and dare I say "demanding" Christian)posts, he usually receives heaps of insults. He does not become hystrionic. On the contrary, he just cops it on the chin. And he often seems to have a good laugh. He doesn't throw metaphoric bombs. He just says his stuff in an honest way (even though I rarely share his views).

Get a life Salam. You are in Australia.

I saw the cartoon of Mohammed. Cracked me up. In psychiatry, there is an unconscious defence mechanism called projection. Suggest that you take a look.

Cheers
Kay

Salam, I think you really need to do some navel gazing as to why it is that various people of various religions have settled in Australia, few have a problem, yet Islam is surrounded with problems and not far from violence. It seems to me that wherever Islam goes, there are problems and violence. Think about it.

In the last few days 1000 Muslims drowned, leaving Saudi Arabia.
There were not enough lifeboats, people were denied lifejackets.
Very little has been said, cartoons are more important it seems.
Are those your priorities? Does the thought of 1000 people drowning because nobody cared, not offend you? Do a few cartoons really matter in this context?

Remember one thing. In most countries, as the Muslim population grows, so does the political influence of that population. Any religion involved in politics will be absolutaly ripped to pieces, with everything about that relgion open to question and analysis.

Politics is open slather and if religion gets involved in politics, its open slather too. To be frank, if you find some cartoons offensive now, how are you going to handle every little detail about your religion questioned and open to scrutiny and analysis, without being deeply offended?

There was an interesting interview on SBS tonight, where a Middle Eastern scholar noted that many Muslims now live in the West, but are not yet of the West. Being offended, but also being able to say what you think, which will surely be offensive to somebody, somewhere, is just part of the course.

Personally I find the thought of 1000 people drowning through neglect, because nobody cared, far more offensive then some drawings.

Martin Ibn Warriq,

Words?

Fear?

Thats a larf.

Yabby

Thank you very much for your post. I found it very insightful. You actually made me feel a bit guilty.

Even though my husband and I have discussed the drownings and felt saddend, we had not realised that most people were of Muslim faith.

Yes, that does place a different thrust on Salam's argument re catoons. Where are her priorities?

Cheers
Kay

Yabby asks "Does the thought of 1000 people drowning because nobody cared, not offend you?"

This is ridiculous question to pose to Salam. Of course she would have been offended and I'm sure she would have been privy to much more intimate information about this tradgedy than many here in this forum.

Much of the anger amongst Muslims is predictable and in fact rather contrived.

When the cartoons was published a few months ago, no one seems to know or care. When someone stirred up a controversy, suddenly it was found this great sense of indignation and Muslims are falling over each other to make their feelings known.

They have no choice (freedom) in any case. ANY Muslim is bound to tell you the same 'feeling of indignation'. Imagine if there exists one maverick Muslim who dares to publicly pronounced that he/she does not care if Muhammed/Allah is caricatured, I can assure you of one definite outcome - that courageous Muslim will soon be DEAD MEAT, nicely chopped up by some Islamist morality squad!

Much like the Communists falling over each other to sing praises of Chairman Mao during China cultural revolution times, the Muslims are doing the same with their one-tract mind.

Subtlely this brings out the danger facing western democracy:-
1. We cannot and must not trust a Muslim, NOT A SINGLE ONE.
When crunch time comes, when push comes to shove, even the most moderate Muslims will be on the side of the radical. Although on the surface they are against extremists radicals, in reality they also form part of the culture, fermenting and indirectly facilitating the existence of radicalism. That's partly why we very rarely hear Muslims criticising their kind.

2. Unlike communism, which comes and goes, Islam will stay and given that Muslims claim authority from godhead, it means perpetual troubles and never ending threats.

A lot of gullible and naive people talks about mutual respect, understanding and so on... Let me say this LOUD and CLEAR - There is NO solution to the troubles from Muslims...NAY...NONE.

Except for this - The Islam religion must be exposed and discredited for what it is... a hoax... something Muhammed schemed up primarily to fight the Jews and Christians. Something Muhammed did not dreamt would bondage the mind of one-fifth of the world population.

And this is the only hope for humanity and civilisation !!

Salam

you may not find too much support here, but don't despair at least you've got our Kim, who has pontificated (with apologies to catholics) on the evils of the cartoons.

I found the virgins cartoon amusing, but I'm an atheist and I think all religions are legitimate targets for ridicule. Unfortunately Atheists do not lend themselves easily to cartoonists.

ButI think you miss the point of the cartoon.

The figure of Mohammed is not intended as a charicature of him; the cartoon must be seen as a whole, which is to ridicule (possibly extreme) islamic beliefs concerning heavenly incentives offered to suicide bombers.

If you look at it this way, does this change your view at all?

One other point, I suggest that originally there was no intention to direct the jokes at Muslims, since Muslim Numbers are very low in Denmark,and hence readership; perhaps also an expectation that any Danish Muslims reading it would be sufficiently broadminded to see the intended humour, or to ignore it.

Perhaps you will also advise this forum your position on Sharia Law; would you like it to become Australian Law? Just interested; I am trying to put a picture together. I want to understand how an intelligent person can become so upset by something so trivial.

In 1784 Immanuel Kant wrote a short essay: "WHAT IS ENLIGHTENMENT?"

(see http://www.english.upenn.edu/~mgamer/Etexts/kant.html)

His answer:

"Enlightenment is man's release from his self-incurred tutelage. Tutelage is man's inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another", it is akin to a state of "domestic cattle"

Enlightenment "is the freedom to make public use of one's reason at every point", a public use that "must always be free, and it alone can bring about enlightenment among men"

"To unite in a permanent religious institution which is not to be subject to doubt before the public even in the lifetime of one man [eg. present-day uncritical Islam], and thereby to make a period of time fruitless in the progress of mankind toward improvement, thus working to the disadvantage of posterity—-that is absolutely forbidden”

Indeed, anything that hampers the human capacity to progress "would be a crime against human nature"

From this "spirit of freedom" is deduced a “right of mankind” which extends beyond one's own community (ethnic, religious, etc.) or national borders, since every human is "a member of the whole community or of a society of world citizens"

Moreover, rather than any Allah deciding, "the touchstone of everything that can be concluded as a law for a people lies in the question whether the people could have imposed such a law on itself". This question also goes for "what they find necessary for their spiritual welfare"

And the primary duty of any sovereign is "to prevent one of them [citizens, sub-communities] from violently hindering another in determining and promoting this [spiritual] welfare to the best of his ability".

Thus, Hamas’ "democratic" victory is nonetheless a human rights violation (http://www.jcpa.org/text/Christian-Persecution-Weiner.pdf).

Democracy only has a chance amidst "open-minded criticism": "Our age is, in especial degree, the age of criticism, and to criticism everything must submit".

That is, one must "freely submit for public testing their judgments and views which here and there diverge from the established symbol"

In your last article you were unsure what our flag represented. Answer: an open-ended, transformative secular culture, and therefore one of true substance and bravery.

seiko-jin,

You make a very good point. All the more reason to condemn Muslims in the middle-classes as the REAL political antagonists sending their poor off to war.

Pericles,

If u knew violent Anglo rednecks or neo-Nazis would, as "your target", "become upset ... As you knew they would", would u not publish?

Donnie,

Would u also “understand” the daytime Cronulla rioters as

“a large [small] number of people, many of whom feel victimised and powerless already and feel they have no avenue of retort, so they snap back at small provocations in the only way they know how and the only way they see will have any effect, and unfortunately that is often violently”?

Would u answer: “Justified, rational? no, but it can at least be understood. It's like the kid who gets victimised by bullies at school who lashes out and attacks some other kid who makes a smartarse remark because he can't fight back the real bullies”?

green-grin, trade215,

Apart from answering the questions I posed to Pericles and Donnie, do u think those who threw bags of urine and faeces at One Nation supporters are a danger?

The alchemist,

Spot on!

YngNLuvinit,

I agree; given what the Europeans put up with from some members of the Muslim community, they should have more widely published the cartoons.

Col Rouge,

How many abortion clinics were blown up?

Rainier,

Again you betray and project onto others your tribalistic thinking.

What makes u think the posters here would, say, NOT condemn the likes of a Hearst too? (providing evidence of course).

You’d make an INEPT TRIAGE NURSE; the posters here are only dealing with the more intense wounds first. You want to heal a scratch (your imaginary “Evil Empire”) before a cancer (nihilistic Muslims)!

Yabby,

Excellent point. Nihilists never care for those not of their own tribe (be it race, religion, or even class).

GZ Tan,

Excellent! Definitely the middle-class Muslims, the so-called “educated” ones who manage to exercise physical restraint, are the real antagonists here. Responsibility fully lies with them, which includes Salam.

I wonder what the "journalist" thinks about the dozens of websites depicting the "prophet" in less than flattering poses.

This country will rue the day moslems were ever allowed to enter.

Salam your faith is vicious and wicked.

Well here I am adding to the tally of 64 posts to a thread about humour (or lack thereof), whereas an article about water desalination published on the same day received a total of four.

Yup, we Aussies in our wide brown and parched land sure have our priorities about right.

Apart from timing, one can say that confidence is everything. A positive and sincere belief within an individual or organisation is all that is needed to rise above insult. Irfan has done that with aplomb. Salam has not.

I cop blonde jokes all the time. I usually laugh along and supply a better one of my own.

The reaction to Piss Christ by many Christians ensured the artist received maximum publicity. Had the Christian community remained silent, the exhibit would’ve remained an obscure work – although it did have merit for water recycling ;-)

This latest storm in a tea-cup is an opportunity for the Muslim community to show the world just what is meant by grace. Now is the time to be confident and proud of Islam. I note that Fellow Human has shown alot of grace. Whereas certain other non-Muslim posters have not.

In the world of humour, timing is everything so I have to ponder, as other posters have noted, why now?

What is our attention being deflected from this time?

It probably isn’t water shortage in Australia.

Scout, water isn't a problem in this country, we have lots of clean water, they just found enough water under the ground to put the desalinition plant on hold. If water supply in this country becomes an issue we'll start reading and posting about water.

People are posting now about this because the furore has only recently erupted. It concerns freedom of expression which is an important tenant in our liberal democracy, so there's a lot of concern about it.

The best you can do is use it as an opportunity to attack "ordinary" Australians, and you want to tell us about priorities?

Col,
I must say I have found something else to agree with you on, incredible is it not. You state Newspapers are not confined to good taste, I would have to agree mate, they publish your letters, how much bad taste is that...

Harryc

1. Was not attacking ordinary Aussies - included myself in the mix (see above)

2. Where is your evidence that Australia doesn't have a water shortage problem? - still on water rations where I live.

3. Confess to being facetious about topic. Reason for this is our Australian freedom of speech has already been castrated via Howard's sedition Laws and Bracks religious vilification laws.

4. I still believe a clean sustainable environment is more important than cartoons. Although I do make an exception for Phantom comics - the Phantom is my hero.

5. Do you not see this as an opportunity for the Muslim community to rise above the crass and show the world they aren't so easily threatened - as Irfan has done and Salam has failed to do?

The attack by the Muslim world on the cartoons is like the pot calling the kettle black. See http://www.adl.org/main_Arab_World/asam_jul_dec_saudi_arabia_2005.htm where there are anti semitic cartoons.

A balanced article on the Danish cartoons is at http://www.beliefnet.com/story/185/story_18501_1.html

Scout, (or should we call you blondie now)

I have been ignoring your ridiculous comments and will probably continue to do so - but don't insult my Christ and expect us to smile at your ignorant remarks.

You seem to be swept away by islamic "grace" the likes of FH and Irf, no wonder you can't get your priorities right. And that's not a blonde joke in case you don't know the difference.

Love, Coach
____________________________________

On a serious note:

I Agree with GZ Tan – never to trust a muslim. They all have one objective and that is to eliminate anything non-islamic.

CARTOONS - WHY OFFENSIVE?

Any image of Deity is not Islamic and too sacred to be portrayed by human hands. That leads us to the question:

IS MOHAMMED DIVINE?

A while ago there was a recall and due apologies from two giants: Coke and Nike because some of their symbols when viewed upside down and read from right to left could resemble the word allah or something. Get the idea?

I think the muslims today are so strung-up that any excuse will do to riot, kill, burn, and pillage.

After all that is the example and the legacy left behind by their self-proclaimed prophet, founder of islam, and author of the Qur’an.

Beware of the wolves in sheep clothes.

In response to this article, I find the author's comments almost as backwards and ridiculous as her religion. I have spent 23 years in the US Army with 4 of those years in the godforsaken hell-hole called the Middle East. It is impossible for me to understand how A so-called religious society can undertake terrorist activities against other free nations in the name of "Islam" murdering, terrorizing, and attempting to force their pathetic beliefs on free societies. I did my share in "eliminating" this attack against free nations way of life, and now it is time for the West to show these heathens that nothing will change our way of life. Furthermore if Muslims can't adapt and live by the laws of the adopted countries that so many of them call home, then they should drift back to the
desert and live in their squalor.

Skippy “How many abortion clinics were blown up?”
The National Abortion Federation (NAF) has been keeping track of violence against abortion providers. Their findings include:
Abortion Provider Violence Statistics:
• 7 Murders
• 17 Attempted Murders
• 41 Bombings
• 168 Arsons
• 82 Attempted Bombings/Arsons
• 373 Invasions
• 1048 Incidences of Vandalism
• 591 Incidences of Trespassing
• 125 Incidences of Assault and Battery
• 357 Death Threats
• 3 Kidnappings
• 76 Incidences of Burglary
Abortion Provider Disruption Statistics:
• 9790 Incidences of Hate Mail/Calls
• 578 Bomb Threats
• 68886 Incidences of Picketing
Abortion Provider Clinic Blockades:
• 686 Blockades
• 33830 Arrests
That is just USA and source http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaaborviolstats.htm

Now what was your point?

Other than to confirm your agreement with me - That anti-abortionists have the same contempt for freedom as these rioting and hysterical Muslims and the dumb-ass morons who blockade cinemas because they do not want other people to make their own choice about what to watch.

SHONGA “they publish your letters, how much bad taste is that...”

Beware, you might get ‘hoisted on your own petard’ SHONGA but at least you would go out with a “bang” and not your usual “whimper”.

Someone above wrote about 'grace'.

Well, this is a current example of how normal people who have been greatly offended take a graceful modern stand and good on them.

http://www.sorrynorwaydenmark.com/

Keep communicating like this, dudes, and world peace might break out any moment.

Sucked in to the terrorist hate worshippers too, YOU ARE LOSING.

To all posters,

RE: interview with IBN WARRIQ on Radionational, author of ‘Why I am not a Muslim’

Either hear it now at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/relrpt/stories/s1564827.htm, or tune into AM 576 at 4pm today.

Salam,

That 99.99% of Muslims stand united on the hysterical notion of “Western Imperialism” and “Islamophobia” betrays firstly (1) a seeking of a prop, a justification, for an insecure, xenophobic “redneck” disposition, and (2) the Khomeni-style politicking of those who aim to unite a political mass, and thus corrupt and fuel such a disposition, and get help doing so from the utterly naïve far left in the West.

In Australia Salam falls into (1), Hizbut tahir, various sheikhs, the Greens, Chomskyites, Pilgerites, into (2).

(1) is no less dangerous than (2), for in its utter Other-blindness it never notices that there actually can be victims of hate, intolerance, and stereotyping, beyond the Islamic world and its diasporas in the West (eg. recent terrorism, race-hate gangs, several churches burnt since 9/11, vilification law cases, cartoons, etc.), which only further fans the flames of “Muslim victimhood” (i.e. tribalistic reinforcement), and in turn increases the West’s perception that many Muslims are rednecks.

Muslim victimhood in turn alleviates certain sectors of their community of any social responsibility. It also provides their furious youth a rationalisation for herding together (a fury exacerbated by an internal conflict of sexual repression of Islam and postmodernism of late capitalism), whom are nothing more than “Columbine Massacre”, i.e. alienated, insecure, Hollywood fame-seekers waiting to go off, and preyed upon by “McJihad”.

Salam, what other function does “infidel” serve other than to erect and sustain moral boundaries of some xenophobic manner? What good does sheik Yassen’s frequent meetings with such youths do? We all heard his highly aggressive tone when he told these alienated thugs they are not “kaffirs”. And what of the sheik who visited Bilal Skaff and co in prison, telling them that they are not to feel guilt for raping those girls?

Is it because such despicable events don’t appear to you to directly effect your tribe that you fail to care less about them?

Hi Skippy,

No, I would look at the Cronulla race riot as a separate issue and endeavour to understand it in its own context.

I think it's important to look for underlying reasons and try to understand the real causes beneath a problem because this in my mind is the only way that then leads to resolutions and preventions.
The violent reactions to the cartoons probably have several underlying factors at play but it is not enough of an analysis to just point the finger at all muslims and "blame the religion".

There is nothing more refreshing than 'expertise' on Muslims and Islam by the Christian Taliban movement on OLO.

But then, somehow 'God is love'!

Coachy boy and others,

I can at least say that Muslims don't spend time talking or bagging other religions. Get a life.

The Islam religion never fail to astonish with its falsehood and hypocrisy.

So I hear images of Muhammed is prohibited in Islam.

But don't we see 'Muhammed' from time to time, in fast cars, shopping centres, cinemas, beaches etc...?

So it is blasphemous to draw a picture of Muhammed, but quite alright for Muslims to name themselves Muhammed.

Just another contradiction and hypocrisy besetting this illogical religion.

Excellent post GZ. I would also like to add that the statement made by Fellow-Human about muslims not talking or bagging other religions is ludicrous. It is my understanding that no other religions are acceptable in the eyes of muslims, but are merely infidels who must convert or die. Am I mistaken?

GZ Tan, it's quite simple. Islam does not condone PICTORIAL representation. Verbal representation is quite OK. Those of us who have progressed beyond picture books understand the difference. Words are not the same as drawings, alright? I don't suggest this is rational, but it's certainly comprehensible.

GZ Tan, you might note (as an item of humour) that the media did not publish images of all those Muhammed's running around Cronulla and other places. Some parts of the christain church are not really given to images of christ or his dad either. Members of those churches propbably don't tend to name their kids Jesus.

USA ARMY COP, if you have a read through Fellow Humans posting history you might find that he does not tend to advocate slaghtering us infidels. I get the impression that if FH was to kill me it would be a slow process of generous hospitality and an excess of fine food.

Some muslims might be into the death to infidels thing just as there are some christians seem to salivate at the fate which awaits non christains (none on this site, they are all deeply concerned). Likewise some athiests or agnostics might take survival of the fittest to an extreme which I would be opposed to.

No group can be fairly judged by their extremists. Some here want their own beliefs to be judged on their best whilst judging others by their worst.

R0bert

Pay closer attention to detail, some are up the garden path Blaming, George Bush, Blair Howard, The Neocons as they call them.
The trouble maker was not the cartoon depictions, it was Akhmad Akkari and Almed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban with their extra three pictures, on tour of the Middle East last year, and on another note, did anyone else pick up on the banners held by Moslem protestors in London? Did anyone else make the observation they were all written in the same hand writing? Why it took four Months before protests indicates the whole thing was orchestrated.
Why do you not know this?

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/vidino200602060735.asp

GZ Tan,

Historically, orthodox traditional Islam rejected the idea of picturing prophets (ie all prophets mentioned in the Quran including Moses, Jesus and David).
Some modern scholars allowed it limited to animated movies like in “Joseph, king of dreams” and “Prince of Egypt”. More modern scholars allowed it in Egypt for “The passion fo the Christ” based on demand from Muslims to watch the movie. His rationale, which modern and moderate Muslims accept was the ban of pictures was for the fear of idolatry and since everything in Islam is based on intent, there is no harm for Muslims to see Jesus pictured in a movie.

US Army Cop,

Yes you are mistaken, Islam accept other religions like Christianity and Judaism. Arab Christians (and Jews) lived in Muslim countries for the last 14 centuries and prophet Mohamed (PBUH) was married to a Christian woman “maria” who was the mother to Ibrahim, his only son. History tells us prophet Mohamed gave a part of his house to Christian monks for prayer when they came to visit him.

The Quran never address Muslims but ‘believers’ of good qualities. The opposite of believers, ie non-believers, is usually replaced with the word ‘infidels’ in missionary’s translations of the Quran. The Quran instructs believers not to fight those who do not fight and/or have peace treaty with them. The only ‘infidel’ meaning is related to those who are hostile to you, kill you or drive you out of your homes (ie in a military sense). Even with those the rule in the Quran was always ‘fight those who fight you and shall not transgress’.
To claim that a faith is not peaceful because it is allowed to defend itself is both naïve and unnatural. Self defence and territory defence is a natural right to animals and plants. Are you claiming that if the US is invaded tomorrow you won’t defend it?

Fellow Human. The US is being invaded...by the Mexicans.

Well said R0bert.

People are so quick to point out the the Quaran says that all infidels should be killed; completely ignorant to the fact that the Bible says similar things.

Here are some comforting passages I read to myself every night before I go to bed...

- "That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman." (2 Chronicles 15:12)

- "But if this charge is true, and evidence of the girl's virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her father's house and there her townsmen shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst." (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)

- "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death." (Leviticus 20:10)

- "A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death." (Leviticus 21:9)

- "Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death." (Exodus 21:15)

- "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13)

Pleasant stuff eh? And the list goes on and on...

(No, I'm not a Muslim.)

Gee wiz Mr Man, I thought you would be smart enough to read the front cover of the Book, after all, it was written in the Middle East, Way before Islam came on the scene. Where do you think the Quran came from? If you had read chapter nine of that link on the other thread, you could answer that question mam.

All-,

I know the Quaran was derived from the bible. By bringing this up you've raised another aspect of what I was trying to say.

I was merely making a point to those who constantly condem the Quaran, that the bible is just as bad (and good I suppose) as the Quaran.

Mr Man you have pointed out the major difference between Judaism/Christianity and Islam i.e the nature of the Revelation.

Read The Asia Times Online Journalist 'Spengler' (nom de plum). He explains with the help of Pope Benedict XVI how historic contextualisation cannot occur within Islam as we have it now.

'When Even The Pope Has To Whisper'
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/others/spengler.html

A summary would be: Judaism/Christianity - God uses his imperfect creatures to reveal himself. There must be a person from which the veil is lifted for there to be any revelation. A person is a product of their environment so their faculties will limit the revelation.

In Islam the Qu'ran is alleged to have been dictated to Mohammed by the Angel Gabriel and a copy resides in Heaven. Nothing about love of God for his creatures - just submit - here are your orders OBEY. The revelation is perfect and timeless in Islam. And thats that folks!

Anyway Spengler explains it better.

ARISTOPHANES ONCE WROTE, "YOUTH AGES, IMMATURITY IS OUTGROWN, IGNORANCE CAN BE EDUCATED & DRUNKENNESS SOBER, BUT STUPID LAST FOREVER".

RESPECT SHOULDN'T BE GRANTED UNTIL IS EARNED

MUSLIM YOU DEMANDED RESPECT. SHOW US FIRST THAT YOU DESERVED.

Reading the posts here make me feel at ease.

That there are so many of you all out there that are logical, rational, and have intelligence, is helpful. I sometimes lay awake at night furious about all the crap going on, especially related to Islam, how our political leaders are cowards by not confronting Australian Islamic leaders, many of whom have made statements directly supporting Islamist terrorism.

Salam Zreika, like many Muslims, simply doesn't listen. Critical thought is something intrinsic to western culture, and sadly, Islam seriously lacks in this department.

This isn't about a cartoon, proof of this is how the rabid zombies have been burning flags of all western nations. What I'd like to ask Zreika is:

Do you, as a Muslim, support Sharia? I feel that before one engages in discussion with Muslims (even though the Muslims who write here don't seem capable of critical debate) one must know where they stand on Sharia.

When I know a Muslim supports Sharia, I see a Swastika around that persons arm. Most who post here know about the utter barbarity of Sharia, and for Muslims to see it as divine, to be brought to the world, is nothing short of cancerous fanaticism.

It's ironic that some Muslims say learn about Islam before you condemn it, given that a few years ago I was naive and thought it was like Christianity. When I found out about Mohammed's character I didn't believe it at first.

As an ex-Muslim guest on the John Safran show a few weeks back said, "when you remember that Mohammed was a murderer, paedophile, caravan robber, and took 19 wives as well as endless captive slaves from raids, what do you expect his followers to be like?"

Sadly, what else can one say to that?

Publishing so called offensive material is not the problem. The problem is the reaction by the moronic moslems worldwide. Sooner or later the West has to start doing something about the vermin that start trouble because it's obvious that the followers of islam don't want peace.

Europe used to be a magnificent destination for a holiday. Luckily Friedrich took a holiday there when it was relatively moslem free. I'm so glad I went to Germany when it was a clean and beautiful place. People have told me what the invaders have done to it. They have shall we say lowered the tone somewhat. But that's what they do to every country they go to.

I'm hoping that by some miracle Jean Marie le Pen(pronounced shon jkenno and not gene)gets power. He is very unlikely to put up with the trash France puts up with now.

It's time to bring in the army in Europe. The cowards are going to blow up women and children anyway. I would order the army to shoot the morons that burn buildings. Simple. The bodies could then be flown back to where ever they came from.

This habit of marrying your first cousin over hundreds of years has got to produce God knows what. All that perversion has got to catch up with you.

Islam.Vicious.Wicked.

P.S. Who marries a 6 year old? I do hope that is not a true story. fellow-human tell me it's not true.

If Muslims didn't consider themselves to be the the ultimate philosophy or belief system that should be inflicted on the the rest of the world,then perhaps the rest of us tolerate beings would stop making jokes about the rise of this new facism.

The unspoken innuendo is,"Don't upset the Muslims or they will become violent,or even worse stop trading with us."

Wouldn't the fundamentalists Christian Churches like to ride on the back of this Muslim oppression of free speech.They could ban books like The Davinci Code.

Our Govts would like it even better,since they would be no longer answerable to the electorate.

The Gay community satorise nuns in sexual deprivation,yet the Muslims who consider Jesus to be a Prophet are silent on many things that deride the Christian religion.It is also alright to blow up Buddist Statues in Afghanistan. No outrage

Observe the next Mardi Gra,there will be no Muslim Women in the Hijab with any sexual conotations because the Gay community are just too damn scared of the ramifications.The violence perpetrated by some in their community is condemned only by their weak kneeded silence.Well,silence in my book demonstrates approval.

Well what does that tell us of censorship and the Muslim oppression that is real in our midst,saping the life blood of our once treasured freedoms.

It is time for Salam Zreika and all Australians to stand up for the real meaning of rights and freedom of speech.The ability to laugh at yourself shows true humility and willingness to learn,since no one has the monopoly on wisdom in this dynamic,evolving universe.

If we let one religion or belief system to have special rights,then under our laws others will have the same rights and very soon it will be illegal to critise our own elected Govts.

Salam, I’ve read your article and given it every consideration. Don't you see the irony, you having the freedom to write an article telling us where our freedoms should be limited? Freedoms our people have suffered extraordinarily to obtain and maintain. We are not going to give it up that easily.
IMO, organized religion is a primitive and stupid way of looking at the world. However, if people want to believe, let them. Frankly, I don’t give a damn, if they can’t think for themselves, and need it as a comforter. This applies to all religions, as long as they are tolerant and don’t try to impose their views on the rest of us.
This is precisely where Islam is totally wrong.
Free speech is absolutely that, FREE. This means that no one can tell you what to think, or what to say, or what to write. The only limitation is death threats to someone else, because threatening to kill is illegal.
So what, if you get offended? Just respond in the same way.
I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve been insulted and offended in my lifetime. I don’t turn into a raving murderer over it.
“What reaction do you think Christians or Sikhs or Buddhists would have if an image published was a severe mocking of their central belief?”
Well, guess what, Salam? It happens all the time. Do you see them beheading children, blowing up trains, etc?
Fortunately, we in the West have progressed from these primitive ways of thinking.
Islam will continue to lose credibility with every beheading, every torching, every death threat, every murder, every blowing up of transport systems done in its name. Surely you can understand our scepticism about Islam, given the events of the past few years?
Islamists who can’t stand a little well-founded criticism should get out of the West. They should not live in a free, Western advanced society.

Continued
Salam, you have had the benefit of a western education. Yet you spit in our eye, by trying to deny us what we have fought for over the centuries. The very freedom you are enjoying has been paid for by our people’s blood.
OK, you have the right to say what you like, and that is the essence of it. Try to oppose the “religious police” in Saudi Arabia, or in the past under the Taliban in Afghanistan and see how far you would be tolerated.
Some leaders and newspapers of western countries have apologised to Muslims.
I don’t agree with them, kowtowing to Islam just for the sake of a bit of peace and quiet. Which hasn’t worked, by the way.
All this misses the point by miles.
You Muslims are far too sensitive about your beliefs. As are Christian or any other kind of fundamentalist.
The issue is, do we in the West have the right to criticise, make jokes and draw cartoons about Islam? Do we have the right to do the same to Judaism and Christianity and all the other religions? What about Communism? What about Neo-cons? Liberals, Labourites, Greenies, PC Lefties, you name it.
And I say, YES we do.
We have the right, and indeed the duty, to scrutinise every religion or other belief system, whether political or religious. Without that, they can get too self-important, we can so easily be subject to totalitarianism, and lose our ability to function as free people.
So even your mild rebuke is an attempt to strike at the very heart of freedom. Nevertheless, we tolerate you. We don’t issue you with a death threat. All we do is tell you where you are wrong, and we leave it up to the intelligence of the onlookers to decide who is right.

I mentioned a number of Muslim leaders from Denmark who went to the middle east to stir up trouble.

I also mentioned that there are reports of EXTRA unpublished cartoons which they showed to the Arabs.. which explains the lack of outrage since September till now.

The 2 cartoons I saw are as follows: (publicised by the Danish Muslims leaders themselves in the Middle East)

1/ Mohammed dressed as a PIG... pig ears.... pig nose...

2/ Mohammed in prayer being 'mounted' from behind by a dog !

http://www.michellemalkin.com/

scroll down till you see the small and rather blurred toons.. note that they were fabricated by Muslims themselves.

If this is true, then it explains the degree of outrage.
and..the timing of it.

At least, that is the story :)

So western freedom means having the power and ability to decide when the east is - or is not - practicing western freedom?

The ignorance and misundestanding of recent world history within comment here is astounding.

Someones gotta give it a name. Pulp friction?

Rainier wrote:

So western freedom means having the power and ability to decide when the east is - or is not - practicing western freedom?

The ignorance and misundestanding of recent world history within comment here is astounding.

---

Or to put in in the reverse, the east should be able to decide what freedoms the west should be able to practise?

If you don't like occidental freedoms, why do you chose to live here? Or is it that the prosperity of the west is attractive?

The prosperity of the west comes from its freedoms - which is why the west fought war against fascism, and later a 'cold war' against its political / economic / doctrinal mirror, communism, the same communism that supported the ME Arabic countries in their war against the 'western' Israel (not that I hold any brief for Israel, as I tend to believe that Israel is the west making the Palestinians pay for the western guilt of the shoah).

It should also be noted that in WW2 Islam sided with 'National Socialism': Islamic troops fought on the Nazi side in Yugoslavia and the Eastern Front, and the mufti of Jerusalem lived in Berlin for most of the war. Whilst the Germans were massacring Jews, they were using Moslems as mercenaries.

When in the 20th century have Islamic forces sided with freedom, liberation and democracy? I await an answer

So why do you chose to live in a liberal democratic country? The only answer is that you hope to subvert it from within, (or you have been drawn to its non-Islamic prosperity): which includes pretending to be an adherent to western values by expressing views that may appear to be concurrent with them, but are actually at odds with them.

Show your true - Islamic green - colours and stop wrapping yourself in a liberal democratic flag.

Froggie,

Well said!

Col Rouge, Fellow Human, Donnie,

Being a new-age “moderate”, why don’t you ask Salam to put all these hysterical posters to rest by condemning the Sharia scriptural penalties?

I guarantee that she, like Keysar Trad has done, would reply: “As a Muslim, I cannot denounce any of the Scriptural penalties and still be a Muslim”

However, like Trad she will probably add some “conditions”: “I can though say that these penalties can only apply when the deterrents are in place and the Caliphate system exists, for example, you cannot penalise adultery [death] unless marriage is easy and affordable for people to enter into. You cannot penalise thieves by cutting off their hands unless you have a welfare state”

Note that whilst homosexual desire might be tolerated (in diasporas within Western nations, that is), there are apparently no conditions for the homosexual “act” itself. “The punishment is death,” as sheik Yassin noted in his so-called “sound bite”. Note: ALL Muslims necessarily want to install the caliphate and Sharia; fact. The problem they have is in HOW, in this climate of liberalism.

That’s why sheik Benbrika said in regards to Australian anti-discrimination legislation: “This is big problem”. That’s also why Trad held a conference with sheik Shady in 2002 UWS (Bankstown), set up to deal with the tensions members of the Islamic community face between Sharia precepts and Australian law. It was entitled: “Islam & Homosexuality: an Islamic, scientific and logical approach”, and Trad there endorsed ignoring anti-discrimination legislation in relation to homosexuals in the workplace, and evoked their stoning to death under Sharia law; fact (see (http://www.zipworld.com.au/~josken/multim~1.htm).

Trad even later defends himself at http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/520/520p8.htm, where he conflates “self-harm” with homosexuality, saying that people should “counsel” their homosexual workplace colleagues “with advice that would help them to break away from that self harm” of homosexual acts/lifestyle. He says, “If this advice is against workplace policy [i.e. law], then you have to determine whether the interest of the person and your principles are greater or the workplace policy”.

Can't opt for secularism, or perhaps a self-critical Islam? (rhetorical question).

Donnie,

It is besides the point that the Cronulla race riot is “a separate issue” with “its own context”. My query regards only whether you’d apply the same methodology in each case: “to look for underlying reasons and try to understand the real causes beneath a problem”. You have not answered me.

Tell me, are we allowed to blame the religion of “Nazism” for the way Hitler’s Mein Kampf is practically interpreted?

Col Rouge,

My point was that you’d make a terrible triage nurse.

Like you, I abhor all religious violence and demand we fight it. But since the vast majority of earth’s nations reflect no issue with such Christian fundamentalists, unlike you I can gauge from the present context that those single-issue anti-abortionist fanatics are, it is shocking to say, hippies relative to Muslim fanatics who abhor democracy itself! It is shocking but true that your list of despicable acts is nonetheless utterly dwarfed by them.

And what makes this all the more serious is that you, Fellow Human, etc., are easy meat for radical Islamists, doing their job for them by (1) replacing “self-defence” and “fair criticism” with the Newspeak “Islamophobia”, and (2) thereby helping in their recruitment process.

In any case, that you even raise the Christian extremist issue at all in this context betrays your groundless assumption that the posters are criticising Islam simply because it’s apparently not connected to THEIR roots, rather than because they have a verifiable, justifiable grievance against the rednecks who practice it.

You mistake the effect (fair criticism) for the cause (Islamic rednecks)! Your whole conception of a “redneck” is upside down mate! I’d wager that you probably think that one’s simply being an “ethnic minority” renders them immune from being a redneck!

David BOAZ,

Your findings lend further support to the view that those on the far left are easy meat for radical Islamists, as I just noted RE Col Rouge and co as easy meat for Islamists, unwittingly doing their work for them.

It's their adolescent conception of freedom that makes them vulnerable.

Mr Man,

Please also tell us you're NOT a Christian. Quoting from the Old testament you did, I wonder if you know the first thing about Christianity. It is so typical of a middle-of-the-road fella passing up as fair-minded... but so misleading.

To paraphrase one quote to highlight my point:

--> Put adulterers to death <--
Christian practice:- Past-->NO, Today-->NO, Tomorrow-->Unlikely
Islam practice:- Past-->YES, Today-->YES, Tomorrow-->Most certainly

As for your false assertion...it amounts to: "The Bible says that all non-believers should be killed."

Hi Fellow_Human,

The rationale on the banning of pictures in Islam is to somehow explain away the violent behaviour by Muslims. It does not make Islam any less contradictory and illogical. For a start, intent is a state of mind whereas pictures are physical objects.

As for your claim Islam 'accepts' other religions... NO, that's a typical deception coming from a Muslim (or a sympathiser).

Non-Muslims living in Muslim countries does NOT equate to Islam being accepting, as much as Mohammed marrying a Christian does NOT logically mean Mohammed is accepting of Christianity.

For we have the big pictures about Islam today. Many little pictures would have been quite similar during Mohammed's time, if one cares to research the details.

And we know what hell it can be living in some Muslim countries, and what transpires when Muslims marry a non-Muslim. So spare us the deception by painting a pleasant image of Islamic humanity and tolerance, which never was... as you can tell the tree by its fruit.

Not to mention self-defense. Islam can never be a religion of peace as it is a religion of submission, not love.

Whew, one thing that this thread is proving, is that with all this vitriol about religion, the notion of a secular state, where religion is no more then a lifestyle choice, makes more and more sense!

I simply don't believe some of the comments on here like "not a single muslim can be trusted".

Get used to it people, most of us were brainwashed as kids, into believing what we do now. Well 90% of us anyhow, as statics show.
Little children with innocent and gullible minds, forced to recite the Koran, scared to death by nuns preaching the hellfires of hell if we don't behave etc. We were told by adults that this was the literal truth! Thats pretty much child abuse IMHO.

In my experience, people around the globe are actually quite similar.
A quite large % don't care too much about religion, there are more important things in life, ie. family, football, fishing, whatever.

But brainwashing kids is brainwashing kids, what we learned at that age does have an effect. Meantime its always the extremists who are the problem.

Secular Jews, secular Xtians, secular Muslims and us secular normal people, all actually get on pretty well and can let reason dominate.

Fanatical types will stay fanatical, be they muslims, christians, whatever.

Yup political Islam is a huge danger, Kohmeini made it clear that
his Islam was a violent religion. But that is just one interpretation of a multi sided religion.

Lets not forget that our own Christian Taliban have been hard at work in our own parliament, trying to deny people their rights
right now over RU 486.

Religious extremists are the real problem, be they catholic or muslim.

Well rainer,if our "ignorance is astounding" don't just make a sweeping statement,address the specifics and give us some examples.Edify us with your wonderous civil libertarian left wing logic.Our civil liberties of free speech are under threat by Muslim censorship.Your logic is very selective when your own fragile agenda is threatened.

Arjay, One would think that posting on this forum would require some intellectual forbearance in history, political theory and have the critical thinking skills required to apply these to different contexts.

Reading more broadly than the latest edition of One Nation's newsletter or listening to the bunk that shock jocks spruke would help don't you think? Or would this be an act of elitist, cafe latte political correctness in your book?

I could recommend books and sites but I cannot provide the will to learn.

Skippy “My point was that you’d make a terrible triage nurse.”

Most likely, I would make a terrible nurse of any sort.

However, your analysis of me, my motivations and
“conception of a “redneck”” (ah is that a proposal or is there hidden meaning in Skippy’s Freudian slip) would suggest in

the psychologist or psychiatrist / patient relationship, avoid sitting in the chair, you, obvioulsy, being qualified only to lay on the couch.

Arjay well said.

Rainier “but I cannot provide the will to learn” – that admission explains everything we need to know about you.

Listening to the Phillip Adams program last night I learnt that the picture purporting to be of Muhammad with a bomb as a turban has been misinterpreted. Its a local comment about an offensive Danish resident Mullah who is preaching mayhem and about to suffer the same fate as his counterpart in the UK. Its an appropriate reaction to his comments and its his likeness NOT that of Muhammad. But then most people that are complaining haven't seen or understood what was behind the cartoons.
Try as I may I cannot even imagine anything anyone could use to satirise me or mine that I would cause me to react the way the Muslim community has. Is this genetic? One of us definitely has too much or too little of the hormone that overdoes the anger. perhaps its natures way of controlling populations?
Storm in a teacup

Fellow Human,

“I can at least say that Muslims don't spend time talking or bagging other religions. Get a life”

What planet are you calling from? The very reason people are concerned here is because (1) what you say is unfortunately false, and (2) some like you deny this for no apparent reason other than that the protagonist is Islamic—that makes you irrationally tribal.

See http://www.jcpa.org/text/Christian-Persecution-Weiner.pdf, for one of the more recent examples in Palestine.

In light of the modern context of Christians being driven out of the middle-east, etc., the fact that you even try to refer to the remote past (the beginning of the Quran) for support of Muslim tolerance, and moreover that you imply it is in “Self defence and territory defence”, only betrays your unenlightened tribalism even more.

Are you a Muslim?

Rather than acknowledging the crimes committed against all humans, you only see those experienced by Muslims (and not those committed by fellow Muslims, e,g, Lebanese on Palestinian refugees). Europeans have managed to get beyond that crap. Is that why we’re hated?

Please demonstrate the difference between an argument and an assertion. You’re a health hazard mate.

Mr Man,

Why would you list these detestable biblical quotes when in the present climate they are utterly irrelevant?

The majority of today’s practising Christians are far more charitable than those quotes reflect. Such a blatant anachronism betrays your denial of the present-day reality that Islamic rednecks have a tangible, concrete impact on those around them.

Your pointing out that “the bible is just as bad (and good I suppose) as the Quaran” is based on the unsupported assumption that many posters here irrationally criticise practising Muslims for no other reason than that they are Muslim.

We do not think like that in this country mate; we have what are called “reasons”! Like Col Rouge, you mistake the effect (fair criticism) for the cause (Islamic rednecks).

Col Rouge,

Still no answer mate. Try a little harder.

Rainier,

Care to reply to my earlier query of you? Do you read these posts?

Salam,
I am dissapointed that you didn't take the time to research the origins and original intent of the cartoons.
In reference to your statement "---do you really think that this is really something most Muslims would find utterly hilarious---"
I was actually hoping that the reasonable rational part of the Muslim community would understand this was targeted at the radical extremist element within Muslim community. So the answer is "yes" I would expect most of the Muslim community to laugh at the extremists. Frankly I find it a bit scary to think that you seem, by your response, to count yourself as part of the community this is targeted at. Surely there is a difference?

Skippy,
I believe i did answer your original question, it was no i would not 'understand' the Cronulla events as having the same causes as the reaction to the Danish cartoons. Cronulla had other sets of circumstances that should be analysed on their own. (If you want to know what i think those causes were then i'd be happy to discuss my opinon but perhaps it would be better to do so in the relevant forum). Regarding the cartoones, after reading some of the other posts above i have learnt that there were several underlying factors to the reaction. The post by All- above was particularly informative regarding that nasty piece of work Abu Laban who has been quite busy behind the scenes. There's also a good opinion piece in the Age today: http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/the-real-truth-behind-the-cartoons-fury/2006/02/08/1139379569017.html
But now you are asking a different question of whether i would apply the methodology of "looking for underlying reasons and trying to understand the real causes beneath a problem" to the Cronulla events. My answer to that is most definately yes.

As for your question about Nazism, my answer is yes you are allowed to blame whoever or whatever you like for the way Hitler’s Mein Kampf is practically interpreted.
Personally, i blame Hitler for writing it, i blame those who read it for reading it, and i blame those who carry out atrocities in its name for carrying out atrocities in its name.

Matthew S,
Maybe you can ask Ms Zrieka yourself, and instead of answering for her and assuming what she'll say you could listen to her answer and then form your conclusions. You don't really need us "new-age moderates" to do that for you.

Col

Loved the stats you provided on the Abortion issue 66,000 odd perfectly legal and traditional protests compared to 3500 odd illegal acts. Now that ratio makes what sort of point:

Let's raise a few. Most people who are anti abortionist don't express their views in public. So overwhelmingly anti-abortionists don't break the law. The same applies to those that do express public views.
Not all anti-abortionists are Christian. You don't provide a breakdown of the religious beliefs of those perpetrating violent and illegal acts, yet you claim they are acts of christians? I have no doubt some are but you've just labelled all anti-abortionists Christian and supporters of violence...Hmmmm where have I seen that logic before?

In my opinion the overwhelming actions of anti-abortionists are peaceful and they tend condemn publicly all acts of violence. Now assuming there is more than one person attending each protest or blockade then your statistics clearly support my position.

Thanks Col

Keith, who are these 'anti-abortionists' you are talking about? In future, please use the more accurate term 'Pro-foetus activists'

Or 'anti-choice terrorists'
Or just plain old 'anti-women.'
'Foetus-lovers' is also acceptable.

here is a link which shows the cartoons printed in an Egypitan newspaper in October 2005! Not a squeak then!

http://egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com/2006/02/boycott-egypt.html

This whole thing was concocted by Abu Laban a Danish welfare sucker who campaigned for this period of hate. No need to mention the 3 added fake cartoons.

The whole world is laughing at these monkeys burn down consulates - they need to start with the Egyptian one and maybe behead the Egyptian newspaper owners

Saw a very very unny poster at one demo. A woman holding a sign which said

'Behead all who say Islam is violent'

Yep freedom of expression is so good that it isn't only encouraged, sometimes in the Mid East it's even orchestrated.

Hi GZ Tan, (& Skippy)

I guess the difference between us is that I lived in the Middle East in the middle east and Africa (and in Islamic countries) for 29 years of my life. Obviousley you just googled it.

Practical proof is that Islam accepts other religions are simple facts:

- Christian Arabs and Jews, lived in majority Muslims country for the last 14 centuries. Even when your peaceful religion was killing everyone else in Europe, Muslims protected Christian Arabs from the crusades.
- I won’t use Turkey as an example but a majority Muslims country (like Egypt) kept its 15% Christian’s population, its churches and synagogues. In fact, Egyptian Christmas is a public holiday (7th January) in this country with 60Million Muslims.
- In my youth I went to a Catholic school and education and most of my friends until today are those very same non-Muslims you keep referring to.

Wahhabi teachings you refer to are rather a political movement. Wahhabism is non-mainstream Islam and its misleading to paint it otherwise.

“What happens to a Muslim marrying a non-Muslim” I don’t know, what happens? I was married to one!.

What happens to a Christian Arab marrying a Muslim? You don’t want to know!
What happens to a Jewish girl dating a Muslim in Israel? Why do Christian Nigerians carry machine guns?

You are mixing tribalism with religion.

Fuhrer Fried Rich,

One word Adolph: “Liviticus”!
You are not any better than wahabbies or Taliban, the crescent is replaced with a cross but the content is the same: ugly..wicked.vicious, indeed!

Auf Vieder Zen,

Fellow_Human,

I sense your anger and your sword is drawn, it would seem. Your true nature is showing.

Good! Now why don't you reference comment in the posting immediate before yours- 'Behead all who say Islam is violent' and rationalise why this is acceptable in Islam. If not then what do you do to educate your fellow Muslims.

And do I need to boast of having lived a good part of my life in an Islamic state? What presumptous arrogance you've got.

Still you're missing the subtleness of my argument and lost on a big picture, saying things like "Christian...lived in majority Muslims country for the last 14 centuries", "...Muslims country (like Egypt) kept its 15% Christians population".

As if you are ignorant of the fact that once upon a time there were NO Muslim, none! So please enlighten us what nice things Muslims had done to grow to be the majority, and to be in a position to boast a moral highground of keeping a 15% non-Muslims population, as a shining example of Muslim tolerance.

Further you're so simplistic in your outlook as to imply that Egyptian Christmas is another proof of tolerance in Islam.

I know very well what happens between Muslims and non-Muslims.

I can already see through a person who will not get the big pictures.

Fellow_Human, the difference between us is that you are a narrow-minded hypocrite.

GZ Tan, are you making a special effort to demonstrate your ignorance? If so it is succeeding. Have a read back through some of Fellow Humans posts, take a scattering over the last six months and then see if you have the personal courage to apologise to him for your ignorant villification.

Fellow Human has spoken out against the excesses of extremists from his own religion. He gives praise where he believes it is deserved, he is notable for the courtesy he uses when expressing himself on this site. From what I have seen of posts from both of you FH is a far better human being than yourself, one who you could learn a lot from if you put aside your narrow minded hypocritical bias against his choice in religion and pay attention to what he has to say. And no I'm not muslim.

R0bert

GZ Tan,

“How did Muslims grew to be the majority?”
- If you read the research by Dr Milad Hanna (an Arab Christian) you will know that Muslims became the majority in Egypt after 500 years (ie around 1200AD).
- How is Islam growing among non-arabs for the last 200, 100, 50 & 20 years?
- How is Islam growing now in Europe, the US, Asia? Why is there few thousands Australians every year choosing Islam (Research Sydney Morning Herald) library, article titled “the lure of Allah”.

My point to you was simple: if your argument had any truth to it, why are there Christians and Jews still living among Muslims for the last 14 centuries. Why didn’t they do like medieval Chritsians did in Europe (including Spain), North and South America, (they converted or killed everyone else).

“Narrow minded hypocrite”…Indeed.

Islam is a fast growing religion, as I mentioned on this site before, because muslims insist on having 15 babies in a one bedroom flat. 15 times 15 times 15. You do the math. Sometimes to their cousin, which explains the irrational behaviour of some muslems.

The cartoon were not the best. But they exposed the real face of islam -autocracy.

Fellow-Human,

You are showing your true colours. People are converting to islam worldwide says the wise one. In the USA the ones converting are the afros who are in the slammer. With all due respect to that lot the average IQ would be about 75. Islam is great for the feeble minded.

So Fellow-Human is it true about you know who marrying a six year old?
Then when she is nine he does the deed. That has got to be rubbish.

Islam was started by Satan. The devil loves fire and so do the morons who burn down embassies.

Fellow-Human there are alot of people fed up with your wicked vicious faith. Hopefully the time has come for the reckoning. I'm quite prepared to pay the ultimate sacrifice.

Dear Fellow Human,

Christians TODAY are being persecuted, genocided, and driven out of every muslim/arab country. Places like Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Palestine had up to 30%-40% Christian population a hundred years ago and today this number is down to between 5%-10%. In Bethlehem itself, the place of Jesus birthplace, Yasser Arafat encouraged muslim immigration and displacement of the Christian population there which was 80% in 1990, and now is only 20%.

Suadi Arabia, Quatar, Yemen and other filthy rich oil Arab nations, have driven literally all of the native Christians and Jews away, and these places don't even have one church or synagogue between them. Suadi Arabia doesn't allow "Kaffir" who are "najis"(dirty) to enter Mecca, and the official government policy is to burn your bible if you arrive at Riyahd airport with one.

Just the other day in Lebanon, muslims rioting over the Danish cartoons burned down churches and christian shops. What did their Lebanese brethren do to them?

This is normal though, even here after 911, Bali, Londnon and even Cronulla, churchese have been burned, ten after 911, 6 after Bali and 3 or 4 after Cronulla.

The section of the muslim community who are treating Christians like trash actually try to have us believe that they are a tolerant, peace loving bunch.

To all

I listened to a very interesting interview conducted by John Laws today on radio 2UE, Sydney, Australia.

He interviewed a Muslim woman who is a lecturer in Islamic Studies at a US university. She is a devoted Muslim. What an articulate and classy lady! She has also written a book about the pitfalls of the Islamic faith. As a result, she receives death threats on a daily basis from Islamic extremists, she has bars on her windows and her home guarded to protect herself and her family.

I cannot pronounce her name, let alone spell it.

She was a breath of fresh air. Pity that Keysar Trad and his ilk do not take a leaf out of her book.

Cheers
Kay

What I have learnt from the this and other posts on this subject is that:
1. The cartoons were published in an Egyptian Newspaper last October.So they are not new,even in the ME press.
2. There are at least 100 images of Big Mo as works of art going back to the 12th century, many by muslim artists So images of him are not new.
3.What ever else he may have been, Big Mo was at one time or another a well documented murderous thug and pedophile,who consumated a marriage to a nine year old girl.
4. The Koran is not the immutable and unique word of god as handed to Big Mo by Gabriel but was eventually compiled together over period, with some bits even written in Aramaic.It has a history. Islamicists find this impossible to accept, but it is never the less true.It should therefore be subjected to scrutiny and enquiry as the other great religions have already done
5. Large segments of the Koran are unintellgible even to arabic language experts, and therefor it is untranslatable.
6. Of the 10 least free countries in the world, 7 are Islamic.
7. There are only 9 Arabs from Islamic countries who have won the Nobel prize in its whole life.This is but a smidgeon compared to the contribution from Israelis.
8. In terms of rankings for patents, no Islamic country gets in the top 50.
9. Labelling Islam as the religion of peace is ridiculous in face of the volume of contrary evidence,which is being created on a daily basis.
10. This is epitomised by the reaction to the cartoons which objected to Big Mo being portrayed as being violent.The way this was expressed was..... by being violent.

Draw your own conclusions

Fellow_Human,

You are losing your cool cuz.

I have to admit your courage and stubbornness to continue to argue when the overwhelming consensus here and everywhere is against islam.

You are either:

1. Too stupid to see and understand what a sham your so called religion is
2. Well paid by some sponsor to propagate and con more victims to your sect
3. Absolute moron with half a brain really believing you’re on a mission from Allah.
4. Have a very thick skin and get your kick out of being abused
5. Don’t have the courage to flee the cult
6. Believe islam is the supreme revelation and the answer to humanity
7. Barbaric and blood thirsty like your alleged prophet
8. Too coward to join the street gangs or face the real world

What will it take for you and others like you (who can read and write) to see the lies that are trapping you?

Can’t you honestly detect the fraud of it all? How stupid can one be?

If it’s true that you now live in Australia (?) this could be your only chance to break the chains and be free like the many thousands that are just doing that daily. But maybe your turn hasn’t come yet.
Salam.

RObert,
Enlighten me if FH's spoken out against extremism, to Muslims. (Which I doubt)
As if I need someone reminding me to cool it. That's okay, I'll try being less aggro.
That said, I've NEVER intended being nice on such topics. May you be impressed by nice fella. Can't help if people are deceived as soon as they're charmed...Happens ALL THE TIME. I apply logic and reasoning. Being honest truthful is EVERYTHING. Being nice is IRRELEVANT.

Fellow_Human,

By your reasoning, existence of a single Christian among Muslims is an even stronger proof Islam is tolerant. Wow, he even gets a Christmas holiday when everyone else has to work or show up in anti-US protests. What a tolerant country that lucky Christian lives in. Will they accept another Christian migrant please?

Ever occur to you people have the conviction of NOT to be a Muslim? Which explains why there's a sizable non-Muslim population where I came from. We'd not be converted. NOT that Islam is tolerant.

Why didn’t they kill us? How simplistic is your analysis? Truth is Muslims there wish all of us vanish in thin air if they could help it. Unfortunately they've to put up with us whilst we bear the bullying and narrow-mindedness, largely submissively in silence. Not converting or killing us does NOT equate to being tolerant.

A person with so many postings has yet to grasp the very essence of 'tolerance'. That says a lot about you.

You seem intend on presenting a rational, gentle front perhaps quite consciously, as a cover for Islam, in a non-Muslim forum, to neutralise Islam's negative image.

To me, such are deceptive pseudo-intellects, the kind that chances upon the psychologically vulnerable, intellectually feeble, to lead them into Islam.

Ever confronted Muslims who 'Behead all who say Islam is violent' in an Islamic forum? If not, WHY NOT?

Or is it more fulfilling to bring someone in this forum across to your side of persuasion, justify Islam as a 'true' religion because millions of converts every year 'cannot be wrong'?

The lure of Allah indeed... But you ain't fooling me.

NEW CARTOON
I saw an interesting cartoon this morning... related to the Haj where the pilgrims all throw rocks at the fake 'Satan'... (some wall or something)..well in the cartoon, they were all throwing stones at....
a giant PENCIL :)

F.H. I think you might need some healing ointment of kind words from me now.. Coach has kinda blasted you there.. I even feel sorry 4 u.

I think your post missed a few important points.

CONVERSION. Many convert in Islamic societies to
a) Avoid Jizya
b) Persecution from ratbags in the community.
c) Recognition as a '1st' class citizen rather than a 'dhimmi'.

In the West, even Australia, many convert for sincere reasons.. unfortunately, like Malcolm Thomas current ICV chairman, they didn't really know much about that faith b4 converting. They only saw the 'sugar coated' version which you are usually seeking to share with us.

By the time they have committed their minds to Islam, they will then 're-arrange/re-interpret/re-process' the negative side of his life in terms of their new mindset which cannot accept anything negative about him.

Thats the basic psychology of it. Hence, we are always pointing out the full picture here, so people enquiring about Islam do not consider only a partial picture of this man.

Annnnnnyway.... you have been experiencing quite a few verbal knocks here lately.. your robustness is either admirable, or paid for :)..nah..just kidding.

Yabby.. I need to 'deal' with you also :) you are mentioning quite a bit about 'all religions' and pointing out stuff which justifies your own entrenched and 'carnal' (by your own confession) desires. Don't be blind mate.. you cannot hide behind the foibles of 'The Church', Jesus is as real today as he was when he gave the blind man sight and raised Lazarus from the dead.. and we will all meet Him one day.
Hopefully as Saviour, rather than.....

I think its entirellly irelevant whether overwhelming opinion here is against Islam. The problem is not Islam, but the cartoons.

Salam Zreika is right that this was not good kind humour, this was ofensive.
Only one thing - this WAS freedom of press, and nobody can or want alter it according to some religious rules. In Europe is quite normal to ofense christianity and the editor can have " a far greater responsibility towards this global community than they think", but they have freedom not to thing in this political way. I cant comprehend that journalist can write " the banner of the freedom of speech".
After all, the Muslims have fredom to express their protest, exculiding the vandalism.
Nobody should be expected to consider whether some religious, political or other group would feel hurt by his expresion.

GZ Tan, I have not read it recently but Fellow Human does have a Blog which appears to be targetted at young muslims and which last time I looked at it was promoting a moderate line and speaking out against wrong doing (by muslims) and from what I could see attempting to provide some common ground for understanding. He has been willing to express is abhorence of extremist behaviour both on this site and as far as I can tell within the muslim community.

As I suggested earlier have a read through a sample of his posts over time, the message is consistant and remarkably gentle in the face of some very nasty attacks. I regard him as a man of good character who those of us non-muslims who are not seeking global conflict should encourage and support in his efforts. The muslim faith is a fact of life in Australia like it or not, nothing we do or say will make all the muslims go away. Once that is understood we have to decide what to do about it.

R0bert

How can we trust or believe any pagan moslem - read their book. Now ALL! islamics believe in that book and that book [a terrorist's hand book]talks constantly about the death and destruction of all unbelievers. Their preachers even here in Australia have said that democracy is unislamic. It has been further stated that the aim of moslems is brutal, bloody, heathen, merciless sharia law here in Oz.
Added to this, and I have read it and posted it in the past, is that islamics are allowed to even commanded to lie to unbelievers, this includes abrogating treaties - like the Oslo accord - until the moslem is strong enough to overpower them.
How in blue blazes with the best of intentions and love for individual moslems - though not the ugly heathen religion - can we believe them? Their nice peaceful words sound wonderful but are they 'having a lend of us'?
Everywhere there is islam there is death, destruction, extreme poverty, unbelievable squalor, murder, including the very ugly primitive "honour?" killings, as well as brutal dictatorships accompanied with extreme corruption.
BY THEIR FRUITS YOU SHALL KNOW THEM. Not by their wonderfully sweet and beguiling words. numbat

Hey, (particularly all you 'religion-bashers'),

Does anyone in here think that secular humanism is a religion of sorts? I'd be interested to find out.

No.

Religion is a belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. secular humanism denies supernaturalism.

YngNLuvnIt,

Nice work at getting the attention off the tiresome arguments against Islam even if it is a bit off topic.

I wouldn't say that secular humanism is a religion due to KRS-1's apt definition. However it is still a belief system, but it takes that stance of belief that something ISN'T true (ie God and the supernatural) BECAUSE of perceived lack of evidence rather than belief that something IS true DISPITE apparent lack of evidence.
Agnosticism is the neutral stance.

Read the fourth paragraph of the link to the 'Humanist Manifesto' from the American Humanist Association.

http://www.jcn.com/manifestos.html

"While this age does owe a vast debt to the traditional religions, it is none the less obvious that any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is a responsibility which rests upon this generation. We therefore affirm the following:"

"As we approach the twenty-first century, however, an affirmative and hopeful vision is needed. Faith, commensurate with advancing knowledge, is also necessary"

Scrutinise carefully the creed of atheistic humanism. It unashamedly draws from our religious tradition but gives nothing back.

It reminds me of a teenager calling her parents fuddy duddies with no real understanding of parenting, life or what she is really rejecting.

Its easy to create a straw man of Christianity and feel justified for rejecting it, but time and again I'm astounded at the outright ignorance of many of us about Christ.

We blithely (I did it too) dismiss Christianity, put an alternative religion in its place, and pretend we're not religious.

In hindsight I'm ashamed of myself.

I'd reject the God's many have in their heads too.

I wonder if any atheistic humanists can list all the presuppositions their mystery religion is based on.

1. The universe is self existent lol
2. Science is the only valid method for discovering truth (this can't be proved in any scientific way - just taken on faith)
3. Man is the measure of all things (what does that do to morality and truth?)
4. Evolutionism is true. (Not the scientific theory evolution, but evolutionism)
5. ? etc
How does a dead rock come to life? I'm used to a dead human coming to life - Jesus. But evolutionism believes a dead planet can come to life. Thats mysterious. Self existent universe? mysterious!

I have a science degree but don't pretend to act as a priest of the mystery cult evolutionism.

I could go on.

Martin-

i don't have a science degree, and I can't claim to speak for my fellow secular humanists, but I'll have a crack at answering your queries-

1. 'The universe is self existent'- How is the self-existence of God any more intellectually viable than the self-existence of the universe? Besides, science, as you will know, consists of theories. If or when a better theory is proposed to explain the universe, then science will move on.
2. 'Science is the only valid method for discovering truth'- Have you got a better way? Oh, right, faith. Faith which can accept no challenge to its own, self-evident, self-revealed truth. Should science be able to scientifically prove its own validity? That's a philosophical riddle for OLO minds greater than mine....
3. 'Man is the measure of all things (what does that do for morality and truth)'- Morality and truth spring from man. Given the sheer diversity of moralities and truths exhibited across the world and through time, one would think that was self-evident.
4. 'Evolutionism is true. (Not the scientific theory evolution, but evolutionism)'- ?
'How does a dead rock come to life? I'm used to a dead human coming to life - Jesus. But evolutionism believes a dead planet can come to life. Thats mysterious.'- You're prepared to unquestioningly swallow the resurrection of the Christ but a dead rock coming to life is too fanciful for you? You are prepared to put your trust in a loving god whose ways are so mysterious that he would allow natural disasters to wipe out tens of thousands of his faithful, yet you can't accept that under the right circumstances a chemical compound could develop into a single-celled organism?

I shall eagerly await my inevitable castigation.

Cuz Coach,

That’s the usual claims when the brainwashed naives run out of argument.
In all my postings I only comment when I see an obvious misrepresentation of my faith then I correct it. In a previous conv I told you I wouldn’t get into a religious debate so I won’t hurnt my Jesus. Remember that one?

Don’t you find it funny that all the self proclaimed Christians on this forum are only here to bash Islam rather than preach their own religion?

FriedRich,

Two urgent questions:
- How old are you?
- If the answer is more than 10. What is your IQ?
An old wisdom: For the barking dogs of war, be careful what you wish for.

Matthew S

If you refer to earlier postings with Boaz, and my blogspot, (www.musliminsight.blogspot.com), I acknowledge the danger of wahabism and its spreading across a number of surrounding nations. Where I think you got it wrong is to label all Muslims as wahhabis.

GZ Tan & Boaz,

I was talking about part of the social fabric being Christians (2 ministers, the treasurer, majority of doctors, private hospitals, pharmacies are owned by Egyptian Christians). Even the largest telco and construction companies there are owned by Christian families.

Boaz,

Don’t worry about Coach he is harmless (the usual: personal attacks, copy & paste from the bible and the usual “trinity is like the sun” theory).
I had to laugh at the “Avoid Jizya” statement. Which year is this? Westerners go to work in oil rich Arab and Muslim countries to pay zero tax. There are 6,000 aussies in Dubai alone earning close to a billion dollar a year (tax & Jizya free). Wake up and have a kebab.

Anyhow I was talking about people in non muslim countries who chose to become Muslims.

Robert,

Its kind people like you, Scout and Reason that keeps me going.

Have a great weekend.

Peace,

Martin, I'm not an atheist, and much as I dislike labels, they are a useful shorthand for description. I suppose I could be described as an agnostic, i.e. one who simply does not know whether God exists or not. I'm not saying "God doesn't exist", I'm just saying "I don't know".
Definition of science, which I personally find satisfying (from Wikipedia):
"According to empiricism, scientific theories are objective, empirically testable, and predictive — they predict empirical results that can be checked and possibly contradicted."

It is hard to find a good definition of religion, but this is also from Wikipedia:
“sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system—is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine; and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions and rituals associated with such belief. In the course of the development of religion, it has taken many forms in various cultures and individuals. Occasionally, the word "religion" is used to designate what should be more properly described as "organized religion" – that is, an organization of people supporting the exercise of some religion, often taking the form of a legal entity (see religion-supporting organization). There are many different religions in the world today. Religion implies a belief in supernatural beings or powers. This definition would put religions like Buddhism into the philosophy section.”

To be religious implies to me the suspension of one’s critical faculties for a certain “belief”, regardless of any objective evidence.
I think if anyone wants you to believe something, they should be able to prove it with objective evidence. Simply pointing to the “Holy Book” doesn’t do it for me.
However, and in answer to the previous poster about “religion bashing”, I personally don’t care what you believe. Believe what you like, as long as it doesn't impinge on the freedoms of others. Just don’t try imposing it me (or others for that matter) with threats of eternal damnation, or whatever else you try to use to coerce my compliance. And I don’t care either to make you an agnostic. That is entirely up to you.

Fellow Human

You didn't answer Matthew.S, you only gave a weak, vague reference to wahabism. Not all Muslims are wahabi's, although persecution in the middle-east of Christians is shocking, brutal, and commonplace.

I suggest you visit all the sites you Muslims are fond of quoting when it comes to percieved Israeli aggression against 'helpless' Palestinians, such as Amnesty International. To deny that the persecution is rife, on both a day to day level and via the government, you aren't taking this debate seriously.

You surely have heard of the Coptyic Egyptians, and you say you lived in the mid-east for 29yrs, you must have been very wealthy not to see reality.

Palestinian Christians? Sudanese Christians? Although you may not have heard of them as they are fast becoming an extinct species, due, once again, to Arab supremacists, this time called the Janjaweed.

Are you serious that you don't know about all this? Wow. You guys know how to block the truth out well, an art form.

ALL ELSE

Many arguments made here are great, it's good to see debate, although it seems to me that it doesn't matter how much you write the reality, it seems some Muslims simply refuse to listen. As I said, an art form.

numbat, "How can we trust or believe any pagan moslem - read their book. Now ALL! islamics believe in that book". For the same reason that I trust some christains dispite having read their book.

It is my belief that for the most part we all get out of our belief systems what we want to get out of them. Just as some christains are able to somehow love the God of the Old Testament and live peaceful lives so to are some muslims. I judge people not by their creed but by how they live, in the case of OLO that is via words but also the approach taken to issues, the preference or otherwise for personal attacks on others (especially those who have not attacked them).

So some of my fellow agnostics and athiests see the lack of a God as an excuse for cruelty and a lack of responsibility in their actions while others of us see it as raising the need for responsibility on our own part. Some christians get something very sick out of the christain gospel others have brought something good into the world with how they have lived their faith. Likewise with muslims etc.

Just as I don't judge my christain friends integrity on the basis of their book or the worst actions of christains throughtout history I refuse to judge Fellow Human, Irfan and others on the basis of their book or the worst actions of muslims. Quite easy really.

R0bert

RObert,
I read you suggestion clearly. Earlier I said I could see through FH.
You underestimated my judgement. My subsequent sampling of FH postings only confirm my early impression of him.
Which leads me to a concern about your mental state...If you are despondent about the nasties, then take leave, get a life, come back later.
FH is a strong Muslim and a heavy poster, a quietly evangelical one. Don't you worry I attack him the way I do. He's adept at defense. I do NOT support him even though he is a moderate because the real battle with Islam is NOT a physical one. External violence do not worry me too much because we can see the enemies. It is the nice, gentle evangelical (and almost always deceptive) Muslims in our midst that's the real danger. Sound dreadful huh. Too bad if people do not listen when I talk tough. You need to judge me on the merit of my analysis, not on the basis on being nice and pleasant. It is the truth that really counts. For truth will set us free.

Fellow_Human,

Once again you are being evasive and worst, twisting the facts as well. Don't do that please.

What you previously mentioned included a 15% non-Muslim population as evidence of Islam tolerance. I refuted that. You never did mentioned social fabric and what not. In any case it does not alter validity of my argument that existence of non-Muslims does not prove that Islam is tolerant. You have been hypocritical.

Now that you mentioned it, I hope you know why there are so many non-Muslims working and owning businesses in the Islamic states. (Which is no proof of Muslim tolerance either )

Personally I believe secular humanism IS a religion of sorts, and therefore it has as much right to interfere with politics as Christianity. Disagree with me if you wish.

“Religion is a belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. secular humanism denies supernaturalism.”

I don’t believe supernaturalism defines religion. It denies religious status to “Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.” (Claimed in Torasco v. Watkins, 367, U.S. 488 to be religions).

“It is still a belief system, but it takes that stance of belief that something ISN'T true.”

Not according to the Humanist Manifesto, which affirms many things as true. Actually quite a lot of secular humanist writers have defined secular humanism as a religion, a “new religion” that will (paraphrasing) ward of the tyranny of old-school Christianity. Also, in America, almost all secular humanist organisations have “religious exemption” for taxes.

KR: you defended religious belief with alternate religious/faith beliefs. “How is the self-existence of God any more intellectually viable than the self-existence of the universe?”

You also rebut other religious beliefs with philosophical questions “You are prepared to put your trust in a loving god whose ways are so mysterious that he would allow natural disasters to wipe out tens of thousands of his faithful.”

"According to empiricism, scientific theories are objective, empirically testable, and predictive — they predict empirical results that can be checked and possibly contradicted." Sorry to open a can of worms, but evolution, particularly macroevolution, is strictly a theory not a fact under this definition. However, many base their “moral codes, practices, values, institutions and rituals” on such a belief. Thus such people also operate under faith. If this theory is false, then technically, people may have allowed the “suspension of one’s critical faculties for a certain “belief”, regardless of any objective evidence”.

“I think if anyone wants you to believe something, they should be able to prove it with objective evidence.” I think faith is more closely defined by trust than wishing. Faith trusts God that He will bring justice to the earth, right the wrongs, yet show mercy to those who have asked Him for forgiveness, based often on a personal subjective revelation of God PLUS an objective analytical study of the veracity and claims of the Bible. And you are free to agree with that or disagree.

I think there is a degree of fundamentalism in secular humanism, that most people don’t practice, that when taken to its logical conclusions can be very dangerous. Thus why I don’t believe S.H. should be hallowed as one step above/something entirely different from every other religion.

N.B. I brought this up because people often get so tired of religious bickering, such as in this freedom of speech vs. freedom not to be offended thing, that they argue for an entirely secular state.

YngNLuvnIt, I presume you are speaking to me, as you are quoting from my posts. Yes, evolution is a scientific theory. I don’t think anyone is arguing otherwise. A scientific theory is not a theory in the general sense of the word. It is a theory that can be empirically tested.

http://home.comcast.net/~fsteiger/theory.htm

I’d like to know which people base their “moral codes, practices, values, institutions and rituals” on such a theory. These last few items have little to do with scientific theory.
I don’t, personally, and I don't think many people do. They base them on other ideas, such as selections from Greek philosophy, inter alia.
“I think if anyone wants you to believe something, they should be able to prove it with objective evidence.” Your response to this is completely illogical. I wasn’t talking about faith here. I would have said “faith”, if that is what I meant.
I don’t happen to have that "faith" that you speak of myself. It is not that I don’t believe in God, it is just that I don’t know whether God exists or not.
I am not a “secular humanist” either.
I don’t like my ideas being labelled by any sort of “ism”. I don’t “belong” to any particular human grouping espousing a “doctrine” of any sort.
If you can find a way to prove to me by objective evidence and undeniable facts that God exists, please have a try. I personally don't think it's possible, which is why I'm an agnostic.
And don’t resort to “Holy Books” written thousands of years ago by primitive minds, as these are not objective evidence.
Yours is a belief system that is not based on facts or logic. Please, go on believing, if it makes you happy.

Most posters are close to reality and I share the majority view , that to me seems to be the author is blinkered.
While far worse cartoons have been posted in govement owned middle east news papers targeting Jew and Christian.
Most who opose these cartoons from Demark did nothing about those.
Some conrol of what appears in print even here is wrong too but we in the west are like it or not unlikely to carry signs asking for murder to be commited or even riot over a cartoon.
Un ashamed and honestly I question multi culturism, some cultures appear to question my right to mine.
This growing conflict is not the normal state of the world.

Benjamin (& Matthew S)

I am aware of the Egyptian Christians dilemma and it is a complex issue.

First, there was no history or record of discrimination against Egyptian Christians before the 1970s (specifically 1977).

The rise of Islamist extremism supported by President Sadat (and later wahhabism) transformed Egyptian Christians into an internal political opponent.

The trigger was a conflict between Pope Shenouda & President Sadat on the peace treaty with Israel (The Coptic Orthodox Pope instructed Egyptian Christians not to visit Jerusalem, while Sadat did).

Sadat saw the Pope as a political risk and the conflict escalated until the Pope was under church arrest in 1979.

Few things to consider:

- There is discrimination in Egypt. Period. Political and religious activists are harassed and discriminated against not because of their religion but because of their pro-democracy or anti-corruption. Dr Saad Ibrahim the founder of Ibn Khaldoun is a Muslim.
- Most Egyptians don’t care and don’t discriminate against each other. The discrimination I noticed is from the religious/ practising one. The discrimination there is actually mutual (ie Muslims employ their own and Christians employ their own).
- Some sites that promote fairer go for Egyptian Christians are not all that honest but have a separatist agenda. To give you a tip, they will have one or both of the following on their sites:
o Their ‘demands’ will include an ethnicity based democracy or parliament representation.
o They would refer to themselves as the ‘Native copts of Egypt’ which is a myth. Copts are Muslims or Christians. In fact, some of my own family in the south of Egypt remained Christians.

Many Egyptians today, Muslims or Christians engage in better community building sites. I have an article on my blogspot re the attack on the Alexandria church. www.musliminsight.blogspot.com

God, it's FH again... But I shouldn't always have a go at him, should I?

Here's to Athiests in general, something that I picked up from your fellow athiest some time ago, paraphrased:

At least they allow me to wear my "Jesus sucks" T-shirt walking down the street. But the Muslims won't let me do that (ie. wearing a "Mohammed sucks" t-shirt).

Morale of the story?

May you enjoy attacking Christians.... But when the Army of Islam lunatics come marching down every street in the western world, you'd better know who your friends are. Good Luck !!

I think the issue here is that Islam is not really a religion, but a political system pretending to be a religion. As such, it seeks power. It sees freedom of expression as an obstacle to gaining power, because Islam wishes to be free of criticism (in the main - some cultures within islam allow criticism from within, but the results of this criticism can never be relied upon).
Insulting someone's religion should be a right - it's the only way societies change: by brave people standing out from the crowd and saying something different, and what they're saying is often contemptable. But low and behold, a few years later what they have said is often seen as ordinary, as the majority have reflected upon the originally bold statement and found some truth in it. And so, societies change.
Islam mostly wants to revert to some golden age, marked by ignorance and oppression. In this, its political agenda is clear - a return to a pre-fuedal society where the political elites murder eachother and the general population with impunity.
If the world says that we cannot insult anyone's religion (which is a take it or leave it affair, after all, except in Muslim countries where renouncing your religion can lead to your murder), then we're on the way to religious totalitarianism taking over.
The cartoons are only a joke, so get over it.

Personally I think that adherents of any religion, but especially those of Islam, should move out of the Dark Ages and into the 21st Century. Religion has been the cudgel used by the few to maintain power over the many, thereby causing the many to commit in the name of their religion, so many atrocities down the ages. I think that any rational person of today would see the error of the ways of religion and put it in its place - the past. Anyone who believes in a god of any description, must surely lack in themselves, the ability to take control of their own life and take the consequences for their own actions.