Shooting at Draw Muhammad event in Texas

[Babadook]

Muslims are not able to receive criticism.

I'm a muslim. I do implore you to criticize muslims or islam, and test my reaction. But while you're at it, keep in mind the meaning of criticism:

1. the act or an instance of making an unfavourable or severe judgment, comment, etc
.
.
.
6. (Literary & Literary Critical Terms) a work that sets out to evaluate or analyse
7. (Literary & Literary Critical Terms) Also called: textual criticism the investigation of a particular text, with related material, in order to establish an authentic text

You must be registered for see links

So, please bring forth texts/sources and analyses of the texts/sources upon which you base your criticism, and let's think together about the meaning of the texts. But don't judge things you haven't studied.

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

Also note what the Prophet Muhammad said about such debates:

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

That's how muslims are supposed to take criticism.

But defaming the Prophet is a different issue. It is said that muslims should love the Prophet and Allah more than their families. So, if your mom was depicted in South Park in a sexually compromising situation, being called a prostitute, I doubt you'd shrug off that as 'criticism'. Now you'll just say: 'Oh I may take legal measures, but I wouldn't start a shooting over it.' Which is fine. Noone said that starting a shooting over drawings is right. At least not me, or any other muslims in this thread. In fact, it's certain non-muslims here who say that shooting is how muslims should behave. Keep that in mind as well. There is no individual jurisdiction in islam. Individuals can't self-righteously take justice in their hands and execute people. Only a legitimately formed sharia court can apply punishments, based on evidence, witnesses, etc.

That's why, in the 21st century, only Muslims will become aggressive when their religion is criticized.

See the above. Defaming the Prophet is not some light criticism. Anyway, in the 21st century, you can't defame the royal family in a bunch of counries, either. *shrug*

If you present legit arguments to me, I won't get aggressive over criticism. In fact, muslims are not supposed to get aggressive in genral.

Abû Hurayrah relates that a man said to the Prophet (peace be upon him): “Counsel me.” The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Do not get angry.” The man repeated his request many times, but the Prophet (peace be upon him) kept saying: “Do not get angry.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî ]


"We need to mention that not all anger is sinful. Anger that inspires a person to avenge his own personal feelings is indeed blameworthy. However, anger can also be felt for the sake of Allah and for His religion. This is the anger that a Muslim should feel when his religion is attacked, his beliefs blasphemed, and the honor and lives of the people are transgressed against. However, this anger, if it is truly and sincerely for Allah's sake, will only inspire us to noble deeds and to personal sacrifice, and never to base, unjust, or ignoble actions. "

You must be registered for see links

I think it speaks for itself.

Therefore it is above all important not to lose freedom of speech.

I'd like you to try denying the holocaust, though, in the name of freedom of speech.

But as soon as the Islam or his prophet become the target of criticism or satire, it ends with dead people.

That's pretty much generalizing. You also forget that it's always only 1-2 crazy individuals who go berserk, while thousands or millions of muslims don't. For all these recent shootings, ISIS took responsibility. So it's always the same den from which these snakes come.

There is also some misconception on "peaceful" Muslims; they aren't necessarily peaceful because their Religion teaches them to be but because they were able to adopt other identities and western merits.

The argument can be reversed. Extremists are not necessarily extreme because their religion teaches them to be so, but because of ideologies like fascism, communism, nationalism, etc. Not to mention that the Middle-East and most parts of Africa have been messed up for centuries. There are many desperate people born in a war-torn area, many people who lost their homes, their family members were killed,etc. It's always easier to radicalize such people. I see you're from Germany. Remember how many Germans were radicalized after WWI, wanting to revise the status quo. And the majority remained silent. It's somewhat similar with muslims. Many join terrorist groups, and I guess some of them honestly believe they are fighting for freedom and peace, regardless of the means it takes to achieve that. Now, such groups also attract all kinds of crazy people as well. While the majority is silent about it, after all, what could they do about it?

Just look at the countries where the Islam is state Religion. Gay people are lashed, adulteresses stoned to death and critics killed.

State religion and state policy are not the same, though. There is much latitude within islamic jurisprudence to restrict the application of such punishments. But, so that you wouldn't accuse me of being in denial/being apologetic, let me clarify that I'm not looking for excuses- I don't need to. Gays, adulterers and critics are perfectly aware of the consequences of certain deeds. Also, each case has to be considered individually. If you make claims , bring examples and sources.

"...only in Iran, Pakistan and Somalia have stonings actually occurred, and all instances in Pakistan have occurred outside the legal system....Although Islam and Muslim codes of law are often used to justify the use of stoning as a punishment for adultery, there is actually no reference to stoning in the Koran. Furthermore, there are many prominent clerics and religious scholars who openly oppose the practice of stoning and have called it "Islamically unjustifiable." For example, Grand Ayatollah Yousef Sanei, a very prominent Shi’a cleric in Iran, issued a fatwa (a religious edict) against the practice of stoning."

You must be registered for see links

And that's not even an islamic source, so you can't say it's biased. We can engage in a long debate on this, but all in all, jurisprudence is changeable.

This is the face of Islam.

This is one face of islam. But for some reason, this is the only face of islam you're willing to recognize.

Stop denying it.

Denying what? That stonings happen? Noone denies it.

 

[shelke]

Good grief, it's you again, peddling your misinterpreted nonsense to get strokes and pats on the back for this nonsensical trite? Apparently, you still have little clue how the scripture is supposed to be read. As if that is not the same old story with you.

 

[Multiply]

Yes. It is entirely different than anything that could be considered standard of American behavior.



Americans are funny animals.

They are one of the only nations with a population that so gladly basks in guilt over any sense of national pride.

Americans, at that, are actually exceptionally humble by comparison to how most nations view themselves.

I do applaud you, though, for recognizing that Muslims are not American.

They are Islamic. The only nation they are permitted to be a member of.

You took so much of this out of context Lol.

 

[paratise]

There is also some misconception on "peaceful" Muslims; they aren't necessarily peaceful because their Religion teaches them to be but because they were able to adopt other identities and western merits.

...Lel Western merits. The ones which took grand roles in both world scale wars Earth have seen, the ones which had inqusition for hundreds of years, the ones which colonized more than half of the world, the ones which made mass scale genocide on another group of religion; wow you could get loads of peaceful teachings from there...

East is not a savage brood stock, neither West is nicely built and civilized. But it seems like a common belief among self stroking Westerns.

OT: Those guys were baiting Muslims. Just like how op does.

 

[P3ĮÑ]

Lml surely, we should put Aim64C into a time machine and send him back to the french revolution, due tp his consistent and frequent burgeoning, him parrying the swords with blue coats in his rebel sunglasses would make a nice change of pace as he continues along his great quest as a radical conservative.

 

[Filo]

hmph these *******s were asking for it, why make fun of another religion?

yeah kill people who makes fun of religion is so mature

 

[Exaar]

See the above. Defaming the Prophet is not some light criticism. Anyway, in the 21st century, you can't defame the royal family in Britain, either. *shrug*

Yes you can.

All over British TV you find comedy shows and other shows taking the piss out of our royal family. Even Murica does and we do it to their leaders. Not that big of a deal.

 

[Babadook]

Yes you can.

All over British TV you find comedy shows and other shows taking the piss out of our royal family. Even Murica does and we do it to their leaders. Not that big of a deal.

My bad. I mixed Britain together with other countries...I thought I remembered well that you can't insult the queen or something like that...

But here is a list of European countries where you can't defame the royal family, so the point stands.

In Denmark, the monarch is protected by the usual libel paragraph (§ 267 of the penal code which allows for up to four months of imprisonment), but §115[6] allows for doubling of the usual punishment when the regent is target of the libel. When a queen consort, queen dowager or the crown prince is the target, the punishment may be increased by 50%. There are no historical records of §115 having ever been used, but in March 2011, Greenpeace activists who unfurled a banner at a dinner at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference were charged under this section. They received minor sentences for other crimes, but were acquitted of the charge relating to the monarch.

For insulting the king, the heiress apparent, and their relatives, an offender may receive up to five years imprisonment. In October 2007, a 47-year-old man was sentenced to one week imprisonment and fined €400 for, amongst other things, lèse-majesté in the Netherlands when he called Queen Beatrix a "*****" and told a police officer that he would have **** *** with her because "she would like it".

The Penal Code of 1902, article 101, provides a fine or up to five years of prison for lèse majesté.In accordance with article 103, prosecution demands either the command or the acceptance of the King.
Article 101 states: ‘If any defamation is exercised against the King or the Regent, the guilty is punished with a fine or up to five years of prison.’

The Spanish satirical magazine El Jueves was fined for violation of Spain's lese-majesty laws after publishing an issue with a caricature of the Prince of Asturias and his wife engaging in sexual intercourse on the cover in 2007.

You must be registered for see links

 

[shelke]

@OP I still don't see any primary division between your verses? The first step to decipher the text:

You must be registered for see links

Surat Al-Imran, ayah 7 means: [Allah is the One Who has sent down to the Prophet the Book that contains muhkamat ayat, which are the foundation of the Book, and other ayat which are mutashabihat.]

Further explanation:

You must be registered for see links

Then Tafseer to further know about the division of Makki and Madni surahs.

Then the political history behind them.

Google translation for the win.

Muslims are not able to receive criticism. That's why, in the 21st century, only Muslims will become aggressive when their religion is criticized. Therefore it is above all important not to lose freedom of speech. There's no problem in drawing caricatures about Jesus or let him appear in South Park. But as soon as the Islam or his prophet become the target of criticism or satire, it ends with dead people.

There is also some misconception on "peaceful" Muslims; they aren't necessarily peaceful because their Religion teaches them to be but because they were able to adopt other identities and western merits. Just look at the countries where the Islam is state Religion. Gay people are lashed, adulteresses stoned to death and critics killed. This is the face of Islam. Stop denying it.

I love morons like this guy I have quoted, who love to separate one ideology from another, when millions upon millions of people have been indiscriminately slaughtered by the western civilization in this century alone over political ideologies ... and they continue to do so in the Middle Eastern, African, and Asian countries.

May god bless the tiny minds of western Men, who cannot fathom that their political ideology is no more different than any religious ideology - both systems of beliefs, borne from fanaticism and ideological corruption. How shameful that the majority of you have no clue as to what facets ideology even encompasses. No wonder this guy is getting likes. Pot calling the kettle black.

 

[PT1990]

Muslims are not able to receive criticism. That's why, in the 21st century, only Muslims will become aggressive when their religion is criticized. Therefore it is above all important not to lose freedom of speech. There's no problem in drawing caricatures about Jesus or let him appear in South Park. But as soon as the Islam or his prophet become the target of criticism or satire, it ends with dead people.

There is also some misconception on "peaceful" Muslims; they aren't necessarily peaceful because their Religion teaches them to be but because they were able to adopt other identities and western merits. Just look at the countries where the Islam is state Religion. Gay people are lashed, adulteresses stoned to death and critics killed. This is the face of Islam. Stop denying it.

Quoted for truth. I agree. But western piliticians are not that smart. They called Assads Syria a regime, even though Saudi Arabia is much more opressive country. Well, everything for the oil I guess, but we probably wouldnt have problem with ISIS in the first place if Obama was not such an idiot.

 

[Bronze]

Snip.

You know what? I'll just cut this argument from now. Talking to you will get us nowhere.

@shelk, it's because I caught that he was gay and FloriGlori few days ago. That's why he's making these statements.

 

[6ari8]

Here's a little info about the guys that organized this event just so you know how hypocritical they are in their "free speech cause".

Reading about the Sunday attack outside of a community center in Garland, Texas, where two men opened fired and were killed by police, you might come away with the impression that the community center was hosting an event primarily dedicated to upholding the ideals of free speech.

The event's organizers, after all, implied that the point of the event was to support the American vision of freedom of speech, including the right to say or publish things that others find offensive. They called the event the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest; they solicited drawings of the Prophet Mohammed, which most Muslims consider taboo and offensive.

But this was not principally a free speech event; it was an anti-Muslim hate event. Pamela Geller is not principally a free speech advocate; her activism has rather focused on curbing the rights, including the speech rights, of Muslims in the United States. The Garland event's most famous attendee and keynote speaker, the Dutch far-right political leader Geert Wilders, has taken similar positions, for example calling for banning the Koran.

There is of course zero — zero — justification for the two attackers, who shot a security guard in the ankle (read more on the attackers here) before they were killed. No amount of hate speech justifies a violent retaliation, nor does it explain why these two men turned to violence.

But before we elevate Geller and the event's attendees to free speech heroes akin to the cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo, we should understand what the event was really intended to support: hatred and marginalization of Muslims.

There's a difference between an event that is protected by free speech and one that actually supports free speech. It is true that America's broad free speech protections extend to anti-Muslim hate events; that does not make them "free speech events." Elevating Geller and her cause to something they are not doesn't just obfuscate this distinction; it legitimizes and spreads her group's ideas, which are hateful, destructive, and dangerous.

Pamela Geller is a far-right anti-Muslim activist who leads a group called Stop Islamization of America, which the Southern Poverty Law Center has described as a hate group. PayPal at one point blocked donations to her organization on the grounds that it was a hate group.

Geller has argued, for example, that President Obama is a foreign-born Muslim and a "love child" of Malcolm X. She has accused the State Department of being run by "Islamist supremacists" and famously campaigned, in 2010, to block the development of an Islamic cultural center in lower Manhattan. According to a New York Times report at that time, her group's lawyer, "David Yerushalmi, has sought to criminalize the practice of Islam, when defined as adherence to Shariah, Islamic religious law."

The Anti-Defamation League, which also classifies Geller's organization as a hate group, has described its goals as "promot[ing] a conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda under the guise of fighting radical Islam" and "seek[ing] to rouse public fears by consistently vilifying the Islamic faith and asserting the existence of an Islamic conspiracy to destroy 'American' values."

In Geller's paranoid worldview, not only are all Muslims allied in a vast and secret campaign to destroy freedom, but they also have allies everywhere who are bent on helping them. As Geller wrote in explaining the necessity of her event in Garland, "There should have been Cartoon Exhibits all over the free world, to show the jihadists and their stealth allies in groups that are doing all they can to intimidate the West into abandoning the freedom of speech that we will not kowtow to violent intimidation."

Wilders has called for banning the Koran, comparing it to Mein Kampf, and was briefly barred from visiting the United Kingdom for his views. He has called Islam the "ideology of a retarded culture" and called for taxing women who wear headscarves. He has demanded that Muslims should "tear out half of the Koran if they wished to stay in the Netherlands."

Wilders has used his narrative of a civilizational war with Islam not just to argue for reducing the rights of Muslims, but for pushing them out of the Netherlands en masse — an act, essentially, of ethnic cleansing.

You can read the full article

You must be registered for see links

Yes you can.

All over British TV you find comedy shows and other shows taking the piss out of our royal family. Even Murica does and we do it to their leaders. Not that big of a deal.

Please take a look at this:

You must be registered for see links

and count the number of countries that criminalize the desecration of the flag.

Currently, flag burning is not illegal in the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States in its decision from 1969 has ruled that the burning of the flag is protected by the First Amendment. However, the person who burnt the flag can be found guilty of a misdemeanor for starting a fire without a permit.
Interesting that the burning of the flag has been against the law until 1969. The first U.S. Supreme Court ruling on flag desecration was passed in 1907 in Halter vs. Nebraska case. Most early flag desecration statutes prohibited burning a flag or any other ways of disrespecting the flag. Later, in 1968, Congress responded to the burning of the American flag in the Central Park as the protest against the Vietnam War by passing the Federal Flag Desecration Law. This law prohibited any display of “contempt” directed against the flag. Thus, burning of the American flag had been illegal until 1969 when the Supreme Court ruled the decision to award the First Amendment protection to the burning of the flag.
Furthermore, in a few court cases it has been declared that it is only illegal to burn the US flag if the flag would be stolen. In fact, burning the flag is one of approved ways to destroy a too worn or torn flag.
For the past 20 years, the Congress has made seven attempts to overrule the Supreme Court decision regarding the burning of the American flag by passing a constitutional amendment that had an exception to the First Amendment and allowed the government to ban flag desecration. The Amendment was first proposed in 1990 but failed to receive the required two-thirds majority votes of the House. After 1994, when the Republicans took over the Congress, the Amendment has consistently passed in the House but failed in the Senate.

You must be registered for see links

Can you tell me why they are trying to make it illegal again in the US?

 

[adeshina365]

The kuffar are always asking for trouble.