Muslim Response To Muhammad Cartoons
UPDATE Feb 13, 2006: HAMSHAHRI HOLOCAUST CARTOONS HERE
The response to the twelve Muhammad cartoons from Muslims worldwide has been massive, relentless, and utterly shameful. Countless incidents of vandalism and arson shed light on the barbaric course that the religion of Islam has taken. Many Muslims have voiced their outrage at my site. My question to you is simple, "why don’t you express outrage at the ever increasing number of fanatics in your religion?" The militant Muslims in Palestine, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere are far more insulting and dangerous to Islam than any cartoon about Mohammad.
Here are some pictures displaying the Muslim response to the cartoons over the last week…
British Muslims demonstrate outside the Danish embassy over the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, in London February 4, 2006. The cartoons, which first appeared in a Danish newspaper, have sparked outrage across the Islamic world, although Britain’s normally provocative newspapers have so far refused to publish them. REUTERS/Luke MacGregor
Palestinians burn a Danish flag outside the European Union headquarters in Gaza City February 4, 2006. Dozens of Palestinian youths tried to storm the office of the European Union in Gaza on Saturday in protest over European newspapers that printed cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, witnesses and police said. REUTERS/Mohammed Salem
Palestinian protesters burn a French flag during a demonstration against the publication of cartoons in European newspapers depicting the Prophet Mohammad, in the West Bank city of Ramallah February 3, 2006. (Loay Abu Haykel/Reuters)
Pakistani Islamists from Jamiat Ulma-e-Pakistan group burn Danish, Norwegian and French flags during a rally in Lahore February 3, 2006. REUTERS/Mohsin Raza
A protestor demonstrates in front of the French Embassy, over the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, in London February 3, 2006. (Luke MacGregor/Reuters)
A veiled Muslim protester, holding a placard, marches towards the Danish embassy during a demonstration in London, Friday Feb. 3, 2006. Hundreds of people protested against the publication of cartoons in nespapers around Europe depicting the Prophet Muhammad. (AP Photo/Lefteris Pitarakis)
UPDATE Feb 13, 2006: HAMSHAHRI HOLOCAUST CARTOONS HERE
March 24th, 2008 at 2:29 am
Hi Boris!
Thanks for posting the youtube excerpt from the 23rd. March.
I didn’t realize that this interview existed. Furthermore, I didn’t realize that Ahmadinejad lives in a completely different world. Dismissing homosexuality as if it was something that was only present in our decadent, non-believing, western society, borders on a dangerous paranoia that defies all logical reasoning.
What does the quran say about homosexuality?
To think that ahmadinejad is in charge of millions of people makes me wonder if normal humans really exist, or is it just a bad dream?
March 23rd, 2008 at 6:55 pm
oh, and as far as pork goes that’s nonsense. any meat will spread disease when not handles properly. today we have refrigeration and we know much about the disease that can be spread through food. pork is as safe as any other meat. might have made sense a thousand years ago, but it’s not a relevant rule anymore.
March 23rd, 2008 at 6:44 pm
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4_3RUwAJ_MI
March 23rd, 2008 at 4:36 pm
boris,
i hate to admit it but theer are point u mentioned there that i actually ageree with…
islam as a religion is not bad, but there are ‘muslims’ (as they claim to be) who give the religion a bad name and do not practice what they preach.
“oh, and let’s see what the rich do for the poor in islamic countries. with all the money certain islamic countries make from oil, the standard of living should be much higher than in western countries. does the saudi ruling family share any of their money with the comon folk? yeah, didn’t think so.”
you are so right about that…
the thing is mate, the islamic principle itself is good, but there are ppl who fail to follow it and put it into practice…
lets face it, if we were all (every single human being) to give zakat and khums poverty would not exist. note: this is not how communism works because khums and zakat is relative to your wealth and giving a percentage of your welath and therefore not equal amounts, you would have the richer and the poorer but not to the extent in present day society. there are lots of scummy and selfuish ppl out there who are not grateful to their lord for what he has blessed them with.
you lot probably think im one of those ppl whos just so brainwashed as to not consider any other option and scared to keep an open mind. im not.
i enjoy understanding different perspectives and comparin different beliefs
thats why i respect this site for allowin us all to express our selves.
did ahmedinejad really say that? i doubt it boris, but if he did please do give me the source , cheers :D
its true that if one supresses their desires (i.e sexual social watever) they become paranoid.
personally, i believe the sharia is fair and justical, but that every individual should have a certain degree of freewill (ie choosing to go out with whoever they want etc) but it is neccessery to obay and abide by the law of the country whiich so many people let alone muslims are doing in the west.
the thing with religion or islam even is, the ‘right’ or ‘good’ things (or things that are beneficial for mankind) are listed and encouraged and the ‘bad’ and ‘wrong’ things are highlighted. if you truely believe your god is all knowing (i.e aware of the past, present and future) then surely we must consider his word and trust what he commands.
therefore by encouraging respect to parents is a good thing….
i had a teacher who praised islam for forbidden pork because he suffered a disease due to consuming it. there are many things that are not apparent to us due to our limit in intellect.
as for the quran, it is a glorious book which does not guide one astray ,
“Call unto the way of your Lord with wisdom and good exhortation, and reason with them in the best way. Lo! your Lord best knows those who go astray from his path, and He knows best those who are rightly guided.” (16:125)
please inform me of any points i may have missed,i’m pretty good at missing questions lol
peace, may allah’s blessings be upon you all, and may he treat us with his mercy and not his justice on the day of reckoning
March 23rd, 2008 at 3:20 pm
@muslimboy
there is oppression of all kinds in islam. that covers sex, food/drink (alcohol and pork), womens and gay rights etc. in such oppressive environments, people continue to do such things, but covertly. alcohol is not inherently bad, neither is pork. there was a good posting on here about sex related google searches coming from the middle eastern countries. i wonder why that is? irans president claiming there are no gays in iran. does that sound likely? not in the least.
my problem with islam is the same one i have with ANY religion conceived in a savage time. there is no inherent wisdom there… there are no divine revelations… all i see in the bible and the quran is a bunch of bronze age savages doing what savage people do.
keep asking yourself muslimboy… why do you live in a western country? would you rather be in a country dominated by islam? would you like it if the country you reside in now was ruled by sharia law? theocracies are not a good place to be.
when i think of islam, and its implementations all over the world, all i see is violence, oppression and lies. one doesn’t respect their parents because of a religion. one does that only if one is a decent human being.
oh, and let’s see what the rich do for the poor in islamic countries. with all the money certain islamic countries make from oil, the standard of living should be much higher than in western countries. does the saudi ruling family share any of their money with the comon folk? yeah, didn’t think so.
March 23rd, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Muslimboy:
“or are you not happy witht the relativly rich helping tose in need. or respect to parents, you think its a good thing we dont respect our parents or is islam right to ask us to respect them?,”
You seem more and more desperate muslimboy
Nobody said as far as I know that all of Islam is bad - it’s just not a good religion generally speaking.
March 23rd, 2008 at 9:07 am
Muslim boy –
Boris is referring to Aisha, who was betrothed to Mohammed at age six; the marriage was consummated at age nine.
March 22nd, 2008 at 4:42 pm
excuse me boris, a bit more specific please, underage girl?infact lady khadija was older than our holy prophet.
how about you tell me what principles you don’t like and ill tell you what aspects of it i respect and give me valid reasons what youve got against it, for example what have you got against us giving zakat (money to the poor) something wrong, or are you not happy witht the relativly rich helping tose in need. or respect to parents, you think its a good thing we dont respect our parents or is islam right to ask us to respect them?,
March 22nd, 2008 at 3:40 pm
@muslimboy
can you elaborate on the principles of true islam that you like so much? do you think there was anything wrong with muhammed having sexual relations with a very much underage girl?
March 22nd, 2008 at 2:34 pm
in the name of allah, the all-glorious the merciful
“if there is a god, it isn’t a she or a he . . . it has to be an “it,” because assigning it a gender based on one planet’s sexual dimorphism is stretching the metaphor a bit much.”
couldnt agree more with that statement, its a bad habit to call god a ‘he’.
“If Hussain had become Caliph, and the Caliphate had continued (although all religions splinter at some point, no matter what), would this Caliph (whomever he would be — and I only say he because women can’t be Imams as far as I know) be the ultimate authority in Islam?”
i’m not sure how to answer that…
hussain was the grandson of the prophet and had the correct qualities to intrepret the quran. on his farewell pilgrimige, (as recorded in the sunni books as well as the shai), the prophet read the hadith of the ‘two weighty things’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_of_the_two_weighty_things
the prophet made it clear, that his ahlulbayt were vital (refer to the hadith). hussain would have continued controlling and guiding the ummaha s muhammed did. (muhammed was the final messenger and islam was completed when he died, but logically you need a guide or the religion would be altered and lost). yazid claimed to be a muslim, but look at his history. he drank, gambled and killed the grandson of muhammed. yet you still have muslims who praise him and consider him as a pious individual despite the crimes he carrried out.
in fact if you study wht happened after karbala, how the women, the surviving children and the ill ali son of hussain (who was unable to participate in the battle due to his illness) were dragged in the scorching heat of the sun to kufa and then damascus in the court of yazid( many died due to lack of water). if people think this was simply a battle for the caliopha they are mistaken. yazid could not stand the ahlulbayt preaching the true islam, despite their torture yazid could not silence hussain. an army of 72 men against thousands they fought from dawn til midday. when it was time for prayer, hussin asked omar ibn sa3d (may allahs cursings be upon him, the guy who led the army and told every one to witness it was he who fired the first arrow) to stop the war so the muslim army could pray. omar refused so the muslims performed salat al khowf (i think its called) where by half the army pray (led by hussain son of ali ) and other half form a circle around them and shield them. look at what hussain is defending. he came to fight for islam and showed it while yazids men probably had no idea what on earth was goin on (i.e whos the good guy or wateva), in the quarn it is mentioned “surely prayer is a timed ordinance for the believers” (4:103). and what about ali al asghar hussains 6 month old baby? what was his sin? when hussins group were dieing of thirst, hussin held his baby and went to the army of yazid and he asked omar ibn sa3d:
“This child has done you no harm. He is dying of thirst and I am asking only for a few drops of water for him.”
look how merciliss omar ibn sa3d is.
There was stillness in Yazid’s army. Then the Imam said to his son, “Asghar! My son, show them how thirsty you are.” Asghar turned his head towards the soldiers, smiled and opened his mouth. He brought out his dry tongue and moved it over his dry lips. The soldiers, many who had left their own families behind, were affected so much by this that they could be heard sobbing.
Umar ibn Sa’ad began to worry with this softened mood in his ranks. It seemed that Imam Husayn’s 6-month old son was emerging victorious against the might of Yazid. Umar Sa’ad looked at Hurmala ibn Kahel Azdi (a famous archer) and ordered him, “Silence Husayn!”
Hurmala, said to have quivering arms, lifted his bow and made Ali Asghar the target of his arrow which was used to kill horses. He took aim and immediately shot Ali Asghar with an arrow that pierced the infant’s neck
what kind of human being would order an archer to fire an arrow into the neck of a 6 month old baby who has done no harm? how can people love yazid despite his inhumane actions and his battle against the prophet’s houshold?
kurt, i believ in god for many reasons. there are many things in this life we do not understand and we never will. god is one of those things. i cannot describe to you what god is because ‘it’ is not human. it is simply a force which can not be comprehended.
“But im sure youll just ignore this major flaw and just keep posing that same question.”
irish.t, you have every right to not believe in god. but surely i have the right to believe in him. i cannot explain properly why i do believe in god. apart from a natural feeling of his presence, i love the principles true islam establishes. i follow my beloved prophet as a role model. he was known as al-sadeeq and al-ameen highlighting the fact he was always truthful. he was a good person and i love him for that. the quaran is an amazing book. each time you read it you learn new things. it is truely a book of wisdom.
may god bless u all :)
March 20th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
“I do believe, we come to the very edge of our understanding (there has to be a limit somewhere)”
There really isn’t a limit at all, everyday every scientific and logically-reasoning individual work tirelessly to understand more of what this universe is all about. Fuck you for trying to trivialize it.
March 20th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Muslim boy!
There’s the point. what created the big bang? or even more spectacular: What was there before the big bang? There, I do believe, we come to the very edge of our understanding (there has to be a limit somewhere) Our self named intelligence cannot cope with this fact. Thus we ’stepover’ into the realms of fantasy. (Humans our very good at doing that) This, in my view, includes the thinking out of some sort of super being which brings us right back to religion. I’m not frightened of religion but I’m certainly scared of the things I don’t know!
March 19th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Muslim boy — thanks for adding some detail to the history I know, I always like to hear a good story. Now, I do need to address some things:
1) Buddhism has as its central tenent the concept of “Nirvana” (not the grunge band). Nirvana is - briefly - a “center” to the wheel of life where those who have found peace and balance go, instead of being reincarnated again (the purpose of which is for the ’soul’ to experience life and gain another chance to achieve peace and balance). Not really Allah-esque, in many many ways.
“what man out of his mind would do such a thing if his god was non existent?” — I think that answers its own question. Many folks have sacrificed themselves for many gods again and again. A willingness to self-sacrifice has nothing to do with the reality of any deity, but the sanity of saints has been very often questioned.
“how can these opressers go unpunished? a hereafer is necessery for justice to be served.” — Well, death could be a start. If there is no afterlife then death gets the “just” and the “unjust” alike (which wouldn’t be fair, but I’ve yet to see any philosophy which demands that life be fair). Taking the atheist position (even though I am agnostic), the verdict of history is justice: Hitler, Stalin, etc., get a bad rap and are shown as examples of “what not to be;” Washington, Churchill, etc., get praise and are held up as ideals of behavior (and remember, it’s not just losers who get the bad rap; Stalin won his war). I could go into some other factors of “justice,” but sometime the answers just aren’t satisfactory; we live in an imperfect Universe.
“and what about morality?” — this statement, and your follow-ups, are where I really differ from you. I don’t buy that religion is necessary for morality: some of my most moral friends are my atheist friends, and the reason is that they have studied and developed a personal code of ethics. Humanists tend to be more active than those who believe in an afterlife, for the simple reason that justice — for them — *must* be attended to in the here and now to have any meaning whatsoever. So where do these ethics come from? Empathy, the basis of all morals (we have a word for those who have no empathy: sociopaths).
Now, don’t get me wrong: I am not slamming all religious codes of conduct (love thy neighbor, for example, is a fine idea), nor am I denying the existence of a god of some kind. I am simply saying that I require proof to alter my lifestyle, philosophies, and habits. I’ll stay agnostic, live a life conforming to my principles (reason guiding, emotions following), and continue my “live and let live” attitude. And I’m glad you are into the discussions here . . . usually stimulating, very often fun, and occasionally enlightening. And, yeah, unfortunately, sometimes aggravating, insulting, or downright infuriating (and I have to admit my fair share of blame there, I guess . . . ).
Although, I’ve got to say . . . if there is a god, it isn’t a she or a he . . . it has to be an “it,” because assigning it a gender based on one planet’s sexual dimorphism is stretching the metaphor a bit much.
Oh, and one final question: If Hussain had become Caliph, and the Caliphate had continued (although all religions splinter at some point, no matter what), would this Caliph (whomever he would be — and I only say he because women can’t be Imams as far as I know) be the ultimate authority in Islam?
And, Irish — well, the teacup thing depends. Did the Enterprise D just pass through the area? Was Picard having a cup of Earl Gray before he boarded a shuttlepod to go to Reisa for some well-deserved R&R? ;)
Boris — even if you raise the average intelligence, it is still average (although I too would be happier with a higher level of intelligence in this world; heck, I wouldn’t mind being the dumbest guy in the world so long as I would be as smart as I am now . . . and the world would be filled with smarter people). As it is . . . yeah, a lot of ‘em do have all the reasoning ability of a mud puddle, and all the self-examination of a worker ant.
March 19th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
believers WANT to believe. that’s why when you talk to a christian, they keep saying “you have to WANT a relationship with christ, then all things will make sense”. once you take yourself to that mental state, your belief becomes an axiom. combine that with the fact that the vast majority of people are of average or below average intelligence and you’re facing a brick wall. craziest arguments become solid evidence.
muslimboy here has a lifetime of conditioning. to him the existance of god as he imagines it is a natural state. the burden of proof is on us unbelievers. that is why talking to muslimboy (just like muhamed before him) feels like chasing ones own tail. he will ask this same question again and again. and, of course, no one will be able to disprove god thus making his position right.
March 19th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
“you could prove god doesnt exist?”
Ive heard this argument over and over, let me simplify the whole reason why that question is bullshit:
I say that there is a teacup floating in space 50 lightyears away. Stupid to say right? But using your logic it is actually your responsibility to prove that there is no floating teacup. Eventhough it is an outlandish claim with no evidence to support it.
But im sure youll just ignore this major flaw and just keep posing that same question.
March 19th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
in the name of allah, the all-mercfiful the compasionate
@ kurt,
sorry for the long reply i had so much schoolwork to get done,
anyway, i am no scientists but i have done some research and analysedboth sides of the argument for the existence of god.
“Question one: if this (or any other) scientific (read: verifiable and repeatable) experiment could conclusively demonstrate that there was no god, would you alter your belief system? ”
if you could prove god doesnt exist? ofcorse, but then one would have to question what created that thing which was responsible for the big bang. we therefroe go back to square one and have to identify an ultimate cause or an un-caused cause or a cause whichin itself is indeed not an effect of another cause. catch my drift?
“If there was a scientific experiment which conclusively showed that there was a god, but that is was, say, the buddhistic one (just to draw one from a hat), would you alter your belief system?”
as long as that god is all powerful (does not need partners i.e hindu gods), all-merciful (created us through its mercy and not through its vain)and ofcorse was the same god that sent the quran then yes i would believe in it. i am not familiar with buddhist beliefs.
“Finally (and perhaps most importantly): is it more important to operate on facts (things which can be demonstrated) or feelings (intuitions which cannot be demonstrated)?”
i personally think you need a bit of both. because if we were to live our lives purely on one of these factors it is impossible.
my point about karbala:
the tragedy of karbala has a history of being a reason for people converting to shia islam if not sunni islam respectively.
hussain indeed the beloved grandson of the prophet, and you are indeed knowledgable in understaning the usurpation of the calipha by yazid.
now i love islamic history and tend to study it in my spare time.
if one studies the family tree of muhammed (saw) u will find the quraish tribe is indeed seperated into to clans the bani hashim from the noble man hashim and his brother abbas had his clan which i believe was the abni abbas but am not sure of the name.
if you notice the ummayids and the abbasids both originate from this clan and not of the bani hashim clan. i do not understand why there are so many people who do not realise this:
muhammed (from the bani hashim) fought against ubu sufyan (from the polytheists of mecca). ubu sufyan was an evil man who killed many muslims. when the war was won by the muslims, ubu sufyan claimed to convert in orer not to have to pay tax to the muslimen or to be sent into excile.
now i dont know if you are aware of the event of ghadir khum where ali was chosen by muhammed to lead the ummah after himself. the words were ‘ man kuntu mawlah fa hatha aliyun mawlay )- whose ever’s master i waas, then now indeed ali is to them a master. this is recorder in the sunni books as well as the shias. alis right was stolen by ubu bakr, umar and uthman who to be honest did not rule the ummah well. if you look at history you will find that even then theyasked for alis asstence to handle affairs. they would put family members and relatives in the highest of positions an deprive the ummah of fair money from the treasurty thereby going againstmuhammeds ways.
ali fought against muawia who was not entitled to be the calipha. muawia was the son of ubu sufyan and ali was from the bani hashim tribe (as muhammed was) and muawia was from his fathers opposing tribe of bani abbas (i think thats wat it was called).
the pattern continues. hassan the son of ali, was forced to stand p against muawia following his fathers death. muawia broke the peace treaty and made his son yazid calipha instead of allowing hussayn as hed promised hassan.
now hussain was being pressured into giving baya3 to yazid (allegence). to do so hussain would be accepting the false islam. now hussain sacrificed all he had in the name of god and to preserve islam.
what man out of his mind would do such a thing if his god was non existent? look at all these peolle commiting crimes, how yazid opressed the houshold of the prophet and thought hed won wen indeed he faiked because hussains message survived til this day. how can these opressers go unpunished? a hereafer is necessery for justice to be served. and what about morality? why do we classify things as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ ???
according to what? religion is the thing which guides us to what is right and informs us of wat is wrong. there is no obligation in religion. you have freewill. religion gives you the facts and you choose to abide by them to be successful or to not and be punished. themost import step of this is to have firm belief in your lord otherwise the rest is practically impossibel…
ive tried my best to answer your questions mate…
i am no scientist… but i do know some stuff. i hope ive made it a bit clearer why i do believe in god despite a lack of physical evidence. we see the effects of god and not him directly.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Muslim boy — you have my sympathies regards the internet; I had a similar problem last night (the post I put up this morning is a highly abbreviated version of what I originally wrote). I do tend to avoid Wikipedia as a primary “go-to” source, but I have other sites which I use. I am somewhat familiar with the Sunni/Shia split (due to conversations with my friend Kasem and general world history studies); as far as meaning beyond a succession fight and such, the only “meaning” I really get is that the usurpation of Muawiya, along with his son’s succession (Yazid, right?), and including the death of Husain son of Ali, means Islam has no final authority (no “Pope,” if you will) to appeal to as a final arbiter. Is that what you want me to be aware of, or is there something there I’m missing?
March 17th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
aaargh!!
stupid internet
i tried so hard on a comment then my internet disconnecrted!!!!!!!!!
im sorry kurt i swear wen i gather effort ill reply to you
for now do me a favour and go on wikipedia and type ‘battle of karbala’
read about it and its purpose and ill answer your questiobn later today cheers mate
March 17th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Muslim boy —
Anthropomorphizing is the process whereby nonhuman creatures and/or items are given human characteristics. Very often this is inaccurate. You will note, that even when I speculate on things, I try to shy away from anthropomorphizing. Just because you see a pattern of some kind does not mean that there is one there. For example, humans have evolved to recognize faces: we see them in clouds, rocks, the moon, etc. That doesn’t mean that the faces are there, just that we have minds which have evolved the necessary “software” to recognize the “hardware” of other human faces. This “software” tends to over-generalize (see patterns where there are none).
As I stated in my post, we have no “God-o-meter.” But let me share something with you. Michio Kaku (one of the primary developers of string theory which will be tested by the superconducting supercollider in Switzerland) has speculated that the three-part device which will measure and analyze the cosmic background radiation from the Big Bang might very well give information on what existed *before* the Big Bang (biggest mystery of the Universe, hands down). Now, there was no math given with this statement, so I don’t know how far into speculation Dr. Kaku was going. But it raises some interesting possibilities and sets up my questions. Question one: if this (or any other) scientific (read: verifiable and repeatable) experiment could conclusively demonstrate that there was no god, would you alter your belief system? If there was a scientific experiment which conclusively showed that there was a god, but that is was, say, the buddhistic one (just to draw one from a hat), would you alter your belief system? Finally (and perhaps most importantly): is it more important to operate on facts (things which can be demonstrated) or feelings (intuitions which cannot be demonstrated)? I eagerly await your answers.
Corso, Boris, and Alcari — Esteemed posters, I think you have succinctly put forth some great short arguments concerning infinite regession, anthropomorphism, and the nature of scientific proof, respectively. I bet I can guess the answers you’d give to my three questions . . .
March 17th, 2008 at 5:02 am
Muslimboy,
That has to be single dumbest remark in the history of science. You cannot, ever, prove a negative. To illustrate this, can you prove to me there is no Invisible Pink Unicorn in my room? Of course you can’t, but you don’t believe it because there is no proof there is one.
Same with God, I don’t believe in God because of the absurdity of a god and the complete lack of evidence. I do not make claims of an invisible sky farie, you do. The burden of proof lies with you, yet you are incapable of showing the smallest shred of proof of your claims.
And without proof, your fiction of god is just that, an idea, a fictional persona.