Originally posted by NGONGE: we should have shamed Europe (and the West at large) into recognising the folly of some of its people. We should also shame them into learning about Islam, since their faith has been diluted and corrupted over the millennia. In fact, shaming works so well that we should shame murderers and rapists into "recognising the folly" of their crimes. Do you not understand Muslims view the cartoons as sacrilege? I won't bother cataloging your misunderstanding and mischaracterizing of my statements but I will ask you this, what are these "current conditions" that you're so adamant would make any laws useless and "unworkable"? You could spend time on that, and only that, if you will.

^ Not to mention Abstract is in direct violation of SOL rules. I'm surprised his post is still here. Where's a mod when you need one? On the topic, who said this cemetry has the "companions" of the prophet (pbuh) buried in it? Also, what makes a cemetery sacred in Islam? Finally, this reminds me of that time when Sharon blatantly walked into the Temple Mount and sparked the second Intifada. Now that Hamas is in power, what will this new development mean?

^ You read the last line only, didn't you? :rolleyes:

Limiting his ability to offend in that way will not stop him from finding another way to offend. But what about you when he hoist you by your own petard? You've said this a few times and I need to remind you that some things we should take "on the chin" when they're said to offend us but others we cannot. You also hate this comparison but I will say it to you again, the Jews will not allow the biggest massacre of their people to be denied and Muslims cannot allow the messenger of their religion to be insulted. These laws that you threaten will limit my ability to be Muslim cannot be the same ones we should use to prevent the abuse of the sacred religious matters. You are scaring us with a boogey man that does not, cannot and should not exist. You insist that Islam is under siege. That there are people out there whose main aim is to undermine Islam. With this, you're giving me no choice but to go into a geopolitical tirade, saaxib. Muslims are sitting on much of the world's proven oil reserves. They're also within a stone's throw from much of the natural gas reserves of the world in central Asia. Now, it's no secret there's a second gold rush into that part of the world since peak oil production in the world is occuring or has occured already. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and who knows how many are to come) are a clear indication of what I'm asserting above. In terms of the number of followers, the rate at which that number is increasing, the strong identity it gives its followers, Islam is the strongest religion in the world today. That strength represents a clear and present danger to those who have rushed to this gold. Undermining Islam, and therefore Muslims, makes getting to the gold a less costly (and less bloody) endeavour. Where do the cartoons fit in all of this? Well, these things don't occur in vacuum, saaxib. You correctly pointed out my belief that the cartoonists were neither random nor accidental people. That they are somehow tied in with the "conspirators" above requires some reasoning so bear with me. Directly, it is unlikely the cartoonists have been instructed by any weapons maker, oil company or right wing western government to draw the cartoons. Indirectly, however, the current environment of hostility, xenophobia, military aggression and vilification of Muslims perpetrated by these right wing governments and their supporters (monarchs, media and multinationals), has indeed made the conditions ripe for such insensitive and bigoted cartoonists to draw these abominations. The acts of the those rushing to the gold have, in essence, given these already prejudiced individuals the guts to dare insult Islam. After constantly watching Muslims on their knees facing the barrel of a gun, in Abu Ghraib, naked, fighting dogs, or in a Camp X-ray, for years, without charges, coupled then with their own ignorance, these cowards have finally acquired the cajonas to do what they did. Having said all this, I still think this is neither new nor unique in the history of the world. Many a nations, races and religions have been under siege in the past and they either persevered or perished. Looking at those who persevered (at least recently), you will notice that using the law was their most effective strategy. From repealing slavery and segregation laws to creating civil rights, liberties and hate speech laws. The results of their courage, perseverence and hard work we all enjoy (and take for granted) today. As I said earlier, laws alone won't be enough but without them it's mayhem. In other words, laws are necessary for keeping insults from those who purposely incite hatred. Unfortunately, being necessary does not mean being sufficient. Laws are inadequate in forcing people to understand other cultures or become sensitive to what they hold sacred. They also have loop holes, they may be rendered obselete with time or even be overhauled due to wars or the imposition of martial laws. Despite these inadequacies, they are more than adequate in stopping aggressors who willfully choose to be insensitive and spew hatred. Saaxib I literally have no more to say on this issue so I will, again, give you the last word.

^ Indeed he is and not without an impressive resume to add to his capabalities. I wish him the best and I'm sure it will be one more reason to watch the channel. My only fear is Al-Jazeera changing its hard hitting journalism to "accomodate" English speaking audiences. Clearly, this new channel is not targetting Arabs and may be watered down a bit. Let's hope that's not the case.

^ The comment about laws bent and broken was based on what I see happening in Guantanamo (and here in the US) where clear and unambiguous laws guaranteeing civil liberties are circumvented by executive decisions, obscure legal loopholes and other blatant violations. I've not changed my stand. The law is the way to go. But even it will only carry you so far. I'll be back later.

^ The hanky panky is a sign of good (mixed) genes. We intrinsically like it as humans because it shows us (from evolution) that it is less likely to be prone to disease and other hereditary issues. Mixing is good. I'm retracting my earlier "keep the gene pool pure" statement.

^ Somalis are bloody black. And only JB is swedish.

Originally posted by Callypso: Somali isn't a race, it's a nationality, and Somalis are Black. If they weren't, they wouldn't be trying to look white by lightening their skin with hydroquinone and treating their hair with lye. This is as scientific as it gets, good Callypso. And I wondered all these years how I'd go about proving Somalis were black.

^ Dude, burning down embassies is asinine. Plain and simple. And condemning that action doesn't make one a weak or "spineless" Muslim. You and Kashafa wanna fight and burn so bad, the whole of Iraq is open for major combat activities. So is Afghanistan. Stop questioning people's faith. It's not your job.

Originally posted by Kooleey: ^I know what the M refers to but what does f.a.q.a.s.h mean? I've come across it a couple of times. Whatever it is, it's horrible sounding and couldn't possibly be a term of endearment. Someone would lose teeth if they call me that.

^ That was a tongue-in-cheek comment. Call off the dogs. I hope you got the message of the post tho.

^ I heard the show before. It's like any other "family" oriented show. The trouble is, I'm trying to get my family away from this suburban American life. The problems these people run into is not really something I can relate to. And we definitely don't eat what these people eat. Atheer, I have something really good for you but you must show me a degree (with official faculty stamp and dean signature) plus an official transcript. I'm sorry but bailing in the middle of a degree is not something I advocate nor will I endorse such activity. No matter how desperate you may be.

^ The leader of the free world? Kooleey, you're looking to get married or are you becoming a chef?

Niggas. :rolleyes:

So if they don't drown on the way to Yemen, this is what awaits them? Ya Allah. There's only so much a human can take.

Easy there Pi/Zero. There's no point in degenerating the discussion with ad hominem attacks.

^ 10-4.

Originally posted by Zafir: How much more accurate can the above statement be. Not an iota more. It's the legal aspects of free speech that I've been hollering about. NGONGE says no laws, I say yes laws. If they don't exist, create them and enforce them.

Undue circumstances? Like what? Torture? In Hennepin county? Here's the Miranda rights a suspect (or defendent) is read: 1) You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. Do you understand? 2) Anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law. Do you understand? 3) You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. Do you understand? 4) If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. Do you understand? 5) If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. Do you understand? 6) Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present? Once the defendent answers all six questions in the affirmative, the questioning begins and not a moment before. If there's a no answer to any of them, a confession may not be extracted or be admissible in court. A defendent cannot claim misunderstanding due to language difficulties. That's the first question an officer of the law would ask. "Do you speak English?". If no, an (approved) interpreter must be found. Having met all the conditions above, a judge has no choice but to admit such confession as evidence.

^ Wear a helmet. Quick!

Originally posted by ThePoint: Really? Your co-workers think freedom of speech has no limits? I suspect, though I can't prove it, their reaction is a function of the terrible events occuring in the Middle East and Afghanistan and their ignorance of Islam (the issue of portraying the prophet pbuh).

^ It's high time for this. Plagiarism is no joke.

^ Plagiarism didn't ruin Somalia, clannism did. Any plagiarist caught red-handed, as is the case here, should either explain or suffer a self-imposed ban. Banning him/her makes them a martyr of sorts.

Originally posted by Zero: I aint gonna give Castro the excuse of: oh-they-rushed-me-from-all-sides. I'm used to that saaxib. Remember, the point of this is not to win but to reach the most probable truth. We're all on the same team.