Originally posted by Castro: Johnny, so is it unlimited? Is nothing sacred anymore? It is limited NOW in western countries - there is no such thing as unlimited free speech. Or free speech that doesn't have legal remifications if PRESET limits are crossed. And there is no need for sacredness - just common sense, tolerance and respect for the differences of others.

Originally posted by NGONGE: The Point , Again, I humbly ask you to read my first post. It really is kids stuff and any teenager with an iota of comprehension (yes, that old excuse) can understand it. I’m making a very clear and direct point. I don’t enjoy repeating myself when I’ve painstakingly moderated my words and ensured that they’re rabble-friendly. If you can’t comprehend what I’m saying, then we’re not on the same page and are never likely to be. As you wish, Professor Ngonge but you can hardly expect me to attend any more of your incomprehensible lectures

Originally posted by Socod_badne: Before the law of course. Why should what media does matter at all? The media matters greatly - they shape the perceptions of the people who then go on to elect representatives that mirror those perceptions and then these lawmakers have the potential to make discriminatory laws. The media has a huge effect. No, I did not say one -- living in a democratic country -- should move if he/she feels chagrined. As I explained before NO religion is given special consideration. Not even Christianity, the largest in many parts of the West. Every revered religious figure has been subject to, under the protection of FREEDOM OF SPEECH (or screech :confused: ), satirical and parodical work. Islam is considered, in the West, like any other religon. With same rights and freedoms as exercised by christians. It is certainly true that it doesn't shock me that the such cartoons were printed because as you say almost all religions are insulted. But simply because all are insulted doesn't mean one has to take it. It's like arguing racism occurs everywhere in the world - just live with it. Then these Danish derisory cartoons unfold, which I strenuously denounce and am chafed as much as next muslim, but my fellow muslims are asking that our prophet (scw) should be consider unique and be put in a special category of his own by a people who believe and shed blood to defend equality of religions. Who hold NO religious leader above another. I do consider the Prophet unique but I don't expect these guys to hold him unique. What I expect is basic respect and tolerance. If Christians have ceded that right for Jesus - I don't know why Muslims should also. It is in this context, I suggested that if one has a problem with the West's insensitivity towards revered religious figures that they should leave. To a place where their views are the LAW! Not suggesting one shouldn't fight or protest when one feels wronged. Protest to your heart's content. Sometimes feeling righteously indignated is soul soothing. I'm told. Ok - a more logical argument but your conclusion is still premature. If one has a problem the LAST thing one should do is leave and to suggest it off the bat is inappropriate. That is why I was offended - I don't think you are a bigot - but those words are frequently used by bigots when they think others don't have the right to protest/change the prevailing circumstances. But there is no chance in hell that Western governments will write a new and specific law for muslims ONLY banishing any satirical and/or offensive depictions of their prophet (scw). Certainly not while every other revered religious leader is a fair game. That would be they hight of hypocracy and double standards. And if that were to happen, you can bet other religions will demand the same rights. 40 or 50 years there were no protections for gays, the Holocaust, ethnic groups - but this changed - and I believe this will change also. Nor am I asking you protections for Islam only. And whatever protections I would ask for would be broadbrush stereotypes and mischaracterizations like the bomb-in-the-turban wielding caricature. No one, including you, has yet made a defendable case for why the Danish paper that printed the cartoons should've been censored and reprimanded. Other then, the oft repeated , to ad nauseam , defense that Islam prohibits pictorial depictions and mocking of prophet Mohammed (scw). That is specious and doesn't fly. Censored and reprimanded in the general sense - of course. Needlessly offensive and inaccurate caricatures have offended even you so yes they should be censored and reprimanded in the general sense. If you mean in the legal sense, it appears that Danish law has not provided for legal censor and reprimand. But that is not actually what I am looking for - it certainly would be nice. What I was looking for was an abject denounciation, condemnation and repudiation by the Danish government. Something which has not happened. In that case, it means that the Danish gov't which represents Danes is racist. Not a surprising confirmation since they have a racist party in their coalation - but for appearances sake I expected better. The way I see it there is nothing we muslims possess to pressure Western governments to ban any depictions of our prophet short of asking for special consideration. Now, do we seriouly expect that demand to be granted? The people in the Middle East are proving you wrong Sir! Who knows - I am unsure what the demand even is - but it is a clear message that freedom of speech has consequences and one should take them into account before exercising it.

not quite as bad as I thought but insulting nonetheless. ------------------------------------------------- NAIROBI (Reuters) - Kenya dismissed as "culturally insulting" Tuesday an offer of powdered dog food to feed starving children reportedly made by the founder of a canine biscuit company in New Zealand. "Kenyan kids are not so desperate as to eat dog food," Kenya government spokesman Alfred Mutua told Reuters in response to a front-page story in the east African country's leading daily. Kenya's Daily Nation newspaper said Christine Drummond of the Mighty Mix company in New Zealand had offered to send dog food powder to hungry children in western Kenya. The information appeared to be coming from a New Zealand newspaper, which said Drummond had been moved to make a donation of 6,000 emergency packs of dog food mixture after the daughter of a friend visited the drought-hit country. When mixed with water, the powder would provide sustainable meals, said an article posted on the web site of The Press newspaper, helping to ease a growing problem of food shortages. "I made it out of ingredients they (children) are used to eating, so the main bulk product is corn," Drummond was quoted as saying. Another representative of Mighty Mix said the food would be distributed through a charity in Kenya, as a "nutritional supplement" rather then dog food, the article said. But government spokesman Mutua said it was unacceptable. "The offer was very naive and culturally insulting given the meaning of dogs in our culture," he said. "We understand where she was coming from, and we appreciate, but it is culturally unacceptable." Being called a dog is one of the worst insults in Africa where people generally do not keep dogs as pets. The government says four million people are facing hunger in Kenya due to severe drought. Aid agencies say dozens of people and thousands of livestock have died in recent months.

Originally posted by Northerner: Viking, you just reminded i had a tennis match at 9pm, it is now 9.30pm and i'm still at home,lol. We have had a two day holiday here which has messed up my scheduling. I thought it was Wednesday last night and found myself staying up until 12am for the Liverpool vs Birmingham game (the game is tonight) before realising it was actually Tuesday :rolleyes: Just spoke to my opponent and rescheduled the game keeps repeating tomorrow is thursday, tomorrow is thursday,,,,, Must you rub your ability to play tennis in February in our faces??? As I look outside here in Ottawa - 3 feet of snow and -8 degress celsuis is what confronts me.

Originally posted by NGONGE: When I posted it, I hoped that you would understand that I’m asking you to expand on your expressions of anger and explain why you’re this angry and what it all means to YOU. Expand, how? Not sure what you mean by this. Why am I angry? Angry may not be the best word - irritated and annoyed is more like it. Why am I irritated and annoyed - because they have insulted something dear to me - my religion and my Prophet. I don't think I can explain that in any more meaningful way. What I didn’t want were replies similar to Xiin’s above. Telling me that you’re with the boycotters is no help at all. Telling me that you’re angry is silly (I can already se that). Sometimes, even if the words are not too clear, you need to use your powers of deduction and try to work out what they mean. Now, would you do me the favour (along with Xiin) of reading my words again? This time, I hope you read them and try to digest them before hurrying to reply. I am afraid that I have and I still don't understand your point. Simply telling me to re-read your posts is not a help. This reminds of situations in university where you go to a prof and say -'Prof, I didn't understand your textbook, could you explain?' Prof:'Just re-read, it's self-explanatory'. Under breath: 'Moron, I wouldn't have asked you if it was'. From your postscript to Castro - if your point is that it is time to 'move on' then you may be correct. But this whole thread was about informing and then venting - and I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I’m assuming that I’m discoursing with adults that share the same goal with me here, and not a bunch of angry people. This is precisely the point. What is your goal? Where do you want this discussion to go? And if people are angry and wish to express it - why is that so bad or in need of admonishment? Simply don't participate if you don't like it.

Originally posted by Castro: The gluttonous west should just eat the starving Africans. They might as well. They're eating damn near everything else. :rolleyes: Hehe - perhaps after injecting them with genetically modified hormones etc. - otherwise it's just skin and bones - for them that's totally unacceptable in a meal.

Originally posted by Sharmarkee: ^^ Salaam, Somali Women:- A beautiful species they are! - A blessed creature - Precious, and cool, without their patience, kindness, and sacrifice the Somali race would have been perished long time ago – Anyone can deny that?? LOL - I am not so sure that this is all to the good!

Originally posted by Socod_badne: You have to accept the unavoidable fact of life that people, in fact the majority of the earth's population, don't see things the way you do. This is the reason why in the West religious equality is priced so highly. Every religion is treated EQUALLY. And I'm fine with that. If you have problem with it, MOVE to purely Islamic country where anything deemed offensive to Islam is prohibited. I am at a loss to understand where you get 'every religion is treated equally'. If you mean in the courts, generally yes, but in the media - of course not. If one has a problem, one has to move to another country? WHOA!!!!!!! That is the talk of bigots!!!!! Just as they would tell blacks in the States 'If you don't like it here, just go back to the jungle'. In a democracy, everyone has the right to express themselves and protest/boycott etc. Why are Muslims supposed to take it? The newspaper has the 'freedom' of expression but Muslims don't???? Living in the West for us muslims comes with multitude of costs. As we're finding out now, our prophet (scw) being subject of satirical cartoonist is one. Whatever the costs - one should take action if it is within your power to do so. This is a defeatist attitude.

Originally posted by NGONGE: Of course not, saaxib. Let us, for the time being at least, drop our habit of stating the obvious and take it as read that this insult/attack/offence had the implicit intention to offend and spread islamophobia. I could not put it in stronger terms than this, saaxib. However, in spite of that, I’d still say it’s not a big deal. I am not quite sure what you mean it's not a 'big deal'. Religiously - of course yes. On a personal basis - to me it is a (fairly) big deal. Will I go shoot up the Danish embassy - no. I probably wouldn't even march in a protest but I will express my views in a forum, petitions etc. Is it a big deal in that it will cause Muslims to abandon their religion, rethink the Prophet (PBUH) - no absolutely not. Their opinions on our religion and our Prophet will have little bearing on our practice but gratutious insults should be challenged. I’ve already dealt with the Islamic position and why such protests are nothing but pointless tantrums. Are you being facetious here? I hope so. Everybody is entitled to their protests and referring to one or the other's protests as 'pointless tantrums' simply is an indicator of where you stand, not the correctness of your argument. This law would have made it a crime to express opinions that would cause religions ( and followers of these religions) problems or harm. As you might agree, this is a noble idea, however, it would have also made criminals of almost all our Friday sermon reading Imams. The ironic thing of course is that these laws were thought of to protect Muslims from unfair attacks and ‘racism’. I am not so sure it would have made criminals of 'all our...Imams'. Of those that engage in diatribe sermons - they tend to criticize Jews/Israel rather than Judiasm. And the second most popular diatribe subject is 'gays and pigs etc.' I apologise if I’m bombarding you with all these ideas and arguments. But since nobody here has bothered to narrow the discussion down to anything other than tantrums and crossed lines, I thought I’d best throw all I have into this post and let you (the readers) pick out your arguments and what all the rants you’ve posted above mean. The discussion is not that broad to me. The major Danish daily has gratutiously and pointedly insulted the Prophet and Muslims in the guise of 'freedom of expression'. The issue was what would the elected Danish government say or do - it turned out to be next to nothing. Muslim governments recalled their diplomats, Muslims protested in the streets and started to boycott Danish products. Just as the newspaper was entitled to its freedom, these governments and peoples are entitled to theirs. On a similar note - I just don't understand this concept that 'freedom of expression' has no consequences. You may certainly have the freedom of expression to insult my mother - but don't expect that you won't get a knuckle sandwich. Now, can we please clarify where you stand on this and what all this anger means (I expect that anyone reading the last line would have the good sense to understand it without taking it out of context)? I am afraid you have to further clarify - preferrably in one paragraph and staccato sentences. Because after reading your posts - I am still unsure where it is you stand or whether your criticisms are of the major or the minor kind.

Originally posted by Socod_badne: quote:Originally posted by Say(y)id Qutb: If Islaam isn't a religion of the "sword and bloodshed", how come that Islaam has spread so far? Ok, I'm assuming you believe Islam wasn't spread by the sword, right? Then you write this: Let's return to the sword inshallah. I am not advocating for killing innocent people but I know that without the "sword" we will not be able to spread the risaalah (message) of al-Islaam. Like to explain this apparent self-contradiction. Yes - I have to agree - I did not understand this too.

Originally posted by Modesty: The Point, I don't think Africans placed themselves in this position, it is from years of colonism and imperialism. In a capitalist society their has to be unequal balance of wealth, that is why today their are people dying of obesity and on the other end of the spectrum those dying of starvation. It's unbelievable how their is so much food being generated in the world today, and so much technology yet the world is facing starvation never recorded in history before.Few companies control the food the world consumes, and it's in their interest to have people starving, they even destroy million pounds of food so that profit doesn't decrease. The saying Life isn't fair isn't just a saying. Perhaps the phrase 'Africans have placed themselves in this position' is not the most accurate. African leaders have placed their people in this position. And African leaders do not appear in a vacuum - in some way these leaders are reflections of their society. So, yes, in an oblique way African have placed themselves in this position. Modesty, the anti-capitalist, imperialist stuff is too much. We are living in a capitalist system - do we have large numbers of people visibly starving to death? No. And correct me if I am wrong but many others who have suffered colonialism are able to ensure their people have food. Please don't make excuses for the failures of Africans.

Originally posted by Castro: We should lambast, equally, the corruption of the Kenyan administration but their greed is no less damaging than her prejudice. Actually their greed is much, much, helluva lot worse than her prejudice, real or otherwise. They are the ones starving their own people - causing countless deaths through their actions. The woman in question has actually offered to help - her offer is definitely insulting, it may also be bigoted but she has tried to take some action. And her ability to establish a successful company that actually helps living things(dogs) makes her a much better human being than the average African leader. :mad:

Originally posted by Castro: quote:Originally posted by Callypso: Castro, there is a distinct whiff of intolerance nowadays, but honestly, this just does not qualify. The woman clearly had a dumb blonde moment, but just as clearly she meant no harm. The reaction she's garnered is hardly rational. Are you telling me the owner (founder, CEO, or whatever) of a major manufacturing firm would be so gullible (dumb blond moment?) to offer dog food to starving humans ? I reject that suggestion, good Callypso. The woman is a bigot and she's being appropriately lambasted. We should lambast, equally, the corruption of the Kenyan administration but their greed is no less damaging than her prejudice. She may not necessarily be a bigot - she could be lacking common sense or sensitivity. After all if she eats it herself.......... But as others have notes - Africans have put themselves in this position.

Originally posted by Kashanre: quote:Originally posted by ThePoint: quote: Originally posted by Kashanre: I do not think an Iran with nuclear weapons is such a good or positive thing for this world. God knows the Iranian hardline Shias would as much attack Mecca as Washington. True to the first point. Nor do I know that Iran with nuclear bomb is an unmitigated evil that needs to be invaded. I don't know where you got attack Mecca - they are Muslims after all. Iran has already once funded an unmitigated "take-over" of Mecca in the 70's. I don't know if you remember but Shia extremists stormed the Kaaba and held it for until Saudi special forces overpowered them. Iran does not hide its believe that Shias should have control over Mecca as opposed to Sunnis. The future would be bleak were Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. Yes it was in 1979 but I didn't think that gov't had anything to do with it. I thought it was because certain extremists got a little full of themselves and their 'Islamic' revolution - they wanted to give it to others. In their tight situation, with the whole west against them - they can hardly affor to piss of Muslims too!

Originally posted by Kashanre: I do not think an Iran with nuclear weapons is such a good or positive thing for this world. God knows the Iranian hardline Shias would as much attack Mecca as Washington. True to the first point. Nor do I know that Iran with nuclear bomb is an unmitigated evil that needs to be invaded. I don't know where you got attack Mecca - they are Muslims after all.

LOL - I love their reactions. What a bunch of hyperventilating old windbags. They can barely handle Iraq but they are agitating for invading a country with 3 times the population and size of Iraq. If that happens, maybe the end is nigh, folks.

Originally posted by ibtisam: quote: I am so glad I don't live in that place - imagine if the New York Times printed that sort of garbage - Jews, Christians, Buddhists would be protesting alongside Muslims. really!! i hope so. in london we have the daily mail, which has not gonne so far but is heading that way :mad: I can reliably say that in North America - we have a much better established system of multi-culturalism and respect for others than say continental Europe. It's interesting what you say about the Daily Mail though British tabloid papers have a reputation for notoriety and filth. Hope they won't stoop that low. Then all those relatives of mine that left Holland/Sweden/Denmark etc for the UK because they couldn't stand the close-mindedness of the people will get a rude awakening.

Originally posted by ibtisam: The fact that the Danish government has refused to issue a full apology in it self does not show their support for freedom of the press but rather illustrates the lack of respect for the large number of Muslims that live in their country and how little they value them. Not only that but it also shows that the Danish government does not expect the Muslims to take a firm stand nor mobilise against this mockery. You TOTALLY hit the nail on the head. It is less about the newspaper than about the government's response. In any society there will be a**holes and racists who will take similar action. But this is where a responsible and unbiased government steps in and issues the strongest possible condemnation and repudiation. Note however, that the newspaper in question is one with the largest daily circulation in Denmark. Now WHAT does that say about that country? Onward, Aryan soldiers! I am so glad I don't live in that place - imagine if the New York Times printed that sort of garbage - Jews, Christians, Buddhists would be protesting alongside Muslims.

Originally posted by Socod_badne: What you have to understand is moking prophet Mohammed (Scw) doens't make one anti-Islam/muslims just like mocking Jesus (as has already been done by Hollywood and Monty Python), doesn't make one anti-christianity/christians. Ditto for Buddha, Moses, Dali Lama etc. Of course mocking the Prophet makes you anti-Islamic. As does mocking Jesus make you anti-Chrisitian. You can bet the Christian Evangelicals in the States weren't applauding Monty Python when it came out - they were likely offended. I didn't see the cartoons but I read they mockingly depicted our prophet. No where did I read the pics were anti-muslims/Islamic without tendentious view. Or inciting hate against the muslims. When you depict the Prophet as a terrorist with a bomb hidden in his turban - I am not sure how any rational, practising Muslim can say that is pro-Islam or that it doesn't engage in stereotypes and hatred towards Muslims| Mocking and/or pictorial depiction of ANY prophet, according to Islamic scholars from their reading of the Quran, is prohibited. Isn't it? Don't we as muslims believe Jesus or Issa as one of Allah's prophets? What was the muslim world's response to the films Jesus of Montreal or Monty Python's Life of Brian? That red line was crossed long ago by so called Christians themselves - it's an old issue. If you ask Muslims they will say those depictions are blasphemous and condemnable. However, when they try to cross a new red line by depicting the Prophet, let along adding mockery to it, - Muslims must and will stand up. There is long and established tradition in West, dating back to at least early 20th century where revered religious figures were harshly and unjustly ridiculed and mocked. It's part and parcel of post enlightenment Western culture. No religion has escaped from it. The right to mock political/religious leaders is considered sacrosanct, so much so it is enshrined into protected laws. That's lovely but no religion is like Islam - it is unto its own. So just because others were mocked means diddly...

Originally posted by Modesty: Even with their apology, they haven't said that the cartoons itself were offensive,they just apologized for the reaction. LOL - yes. In fact, they said the cartoons were 'sober in our opinion'! Maybe the editors should first be sober to make the appropriate judgement that what they publish is sober.

A rather hedged and evasive apology when you have a phrase like this: "In our opinion, the 12 drawings were sober. They were not intended to be offensive, nor were they at variance with Danish law, but they have indisputably offended many Muslims for which we apologize." So how could 'sober' drawings have offended so many? From my angle, it is less important for the newspaper to apologize than for the Danish gov't to condemn, repudiate and apologize on behalf of the Danish people. But their Prime Minister has simply left the issue as 'we have freedome of expression in Denamark...' But then not surprising when he has the racist 'People's Party' in his coalition. I think it is very, very important for Muslims to atriculate what would lead to an end of the boycott. Boycotts should be very directed and pinpointed and should end when corrective action has been taken to be most effective. So far, I haven't heard anything on this front.

No one it seems! Unless he has a Monica Selss like 'incident' - she was riding high and totally unbeatable till she got stabbed. I was rooting for Baghdatis all the way - Federer has enough trophies.

Originally posted by Faarax-Brown: I don’t think you are being fair to the black community when you solely put blame on their struggles. It is one thing to criticize positivly on the progress and pace at which we would have hoped to achieve in the past years,it is however 'cadaan mentality' when you squarly blame and accuse the entire black nation for failures they didn’t bring on themselves. Yes indeed,the struggles of the 60s didn’t produce the best of results that many wished and hoped for, we are still struggling against the odds. In my opinion,the day the young generation have kids,and own homes is the day we will probably see the fruits of desegregation and the civil rights movement. [/QB] Sorry - overwhelmed with work. FB - didn't blame them for everything. I do blame them for regressing on a number of social indicators. Like criminality, unwed mothers/single mothers, kids growing up without father, black males proportion of post-secondary going lower and lower. Is this particular regression the fault of the white man? I think not. Is not taking advantage of educational scholarships and affirmative action not partly their fault? At the end of the day, the question is - if you are asked to speak to a group of poor black kids in school, what are you going to tell them? !- Guys, work hard, take advantage of every opporutunity, don't let your background and historical baggage stop you OR 2- Guys, you were enslaved for centuries, abused by whites after slavery, denied your rights, now you living in shite - now go try to work The second message creates a built-in excuse to fail - that seems to me the message you and Chocolate and others are giving when you stress the historical abuses.

Originally posted by J B: I´m sorry,i seem to have ruined your imaginary " oh,look at them, they´re sick, wack n what not, we´re better,smarter...giggle, please agree with my babble, titter, ohu hoo .. and have a pretentious delight" party for you. I don't understand where you are getting this from. People expressed their distaste and outrage at this practice(religious and non-religious). On a cultural basis, I don't think anyone has proclaimed any superiority but on a religious basis Muslims believe Islam is superior. Unfortunately, Muslims have been unable to devise a decent political system to enable the religion, Islam, to shine(with possible exception for Malaysia). As to 'narrow and dark path' and other religions - Islam respects the two predecessor religions and though we believe they have been superseded - much of their moral teachings are compatible with Islam. Muslims don't believe Jews and Christians are on a 'dark and narrow path' - we believe they are mistaken and their belief system superseded by Islam.