Cartoon Protest in London...

[Castro]

^ The tables may turn on NGONGE and he may find himself seeing the light.

 

NGONGE, this statement in the link may have bolstered your case better than the one you chose to quote:

 

The court heard him describe Jews as the "enemy of Islam", tell followers to "bleed" the enemies of Islam and they should not rest until they created a "Muslim state".

Abu Hamza's case is not straight forward. He's wanted by the US for, alleged, terror charges among other things. I'm afraid his case is a terrible example of freedom speech as it involves, alleged, terror training camps and some such fabricated nonsense by the US state department. It's no accident that the British inay iska daba bisbaaseeyaan.

 

If the jury convicted the Sheikh (whom I know nothing about) based alone on the tapes of sermons he gave, that conviction will be thrown out upon appeal in the US. His beliefs (of Jews and others) is not a matter of debate. That he would preach that to his congregation is protected under the law. Any rookie attorney could have that conviction thrown out. These sermons were the faithful congregating. If the Sheikh was drawing up plans to kill Jews today, then that's not a sermon to the faithful but a murder plot. Saaxib sowta arintii kaa khalkhashay.

 

Saaxib, Islam and Muslims are under siege. I'm not one for conspiracy theories but given the abundant evidence of military, political and economical pressure that exists on Muslims, I'd say the laws will be ignored, bent or broken by those who have a vested interest in making Islam and Muslims look violent, and therefore, deserve a violent military response. Freedom of speech is but a ruse nowadays. Depending on whether one agrees with that speech has much influence on how free that speech should be.

 

Would you like to discuss what made Muslims look so medieval in their response to this 'global crisis'? Let's go to the Reform topic over yonder. This horse is in rigor mortis at the moment.

[Pi]

For some reason I still agree with NGONGE and I have more clarifications and elaborations of what I said before, but I'll sit this one out. Let it be one-to-one. I aint gonna give Castro the excuse of: oh-they-rushed-me-from-all-sides.

[Castro]

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.

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by Castro:

^ I'm having to explain to my co-workers what's happening with these cartoons. Predictably (

), almost all of them share NGONGE's opinion. So I'm, literally, having to fight NGONGE day and night.

 

NGONGE may be more interested in changing how Muslims behave than changing western laws to curb free speech. Though he won't come out and say it. I'll read that stuff he listed up there and see what I can come up with. Someone has to stand up to the guy.

Really? Your co-workers think freedom of speech has no limits? From what I have seen and read in Canada - most people are able to grasp that. For them - the puzzlement is in the 'ferocity' of the reaction. But then when you are secular, nominal Christians - religious sensitivties are hard to understand.

[Pi]

Originally posted by ThePoint:

From what I have seen and read in Canada - most people are able to grasp that. For them - the puzzlement is in the 'ferocity' of the reaction. But then when you are secular, nominal Christians - religious sensitivties are hard to understand.

No dude! When you are a human being its kinda hard to understand that level of barbarism caused by offended "religous sensitivities". Christians (nominal or not) are not the only ones surprised at the barbarism (ferocity just doesnt do justice to describe the embassy-burning, apocolaptic protesting etc) displayed by our brothers and sisters in faith. Civilized muslims are surprised just as everybody else.

[Castro]

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).

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by Pi:

quote:Originally posted by ThePoint:

From what I have seen and read in Canada - most people are able to grasp that. For them - the puzzlement is in the 'ferocity' of the reaction. But then when you are secular, nominal Christians - religious sensitivties are hard to understand.

No dude! When you are a human being its kinda hard to understand that level of

barbarism.

Christians (nominal or not) are not the only ones surprised at the barbarism (ferocity just doesnt do justice to describe the embassy-burning, apocolaptic protesting etc) displayed by our brothers and sisters in faith. Civilized muslims are surprised just as everybody else.

Barbarism - a little harsh, no? I am not surprised by the violence or the threats of violence - some government and religious leaders were using the issue to whip up their populations. So, while it's not surprising - I am dismayed by it. The 'ferocity' I was talking about was the initial reaction of protests, boycotts and diplomatic recall. Many non-Muslim Canadians were surprised at even that - that is where my comment came in.

 

PS - it's generally not good policy to bandy about words like 'barbarism' and 'civilized' - it implies a superiority that is not present. All peoples are subject to their baser emotions.

[Kashafa]

Civilized muslims are surprised just as everybody else.

'Civilised muslims' are the 21st century's answer to the Uncle Tom integration-seeking Negros of the civil rights era. Their entire world came crashing down on them because the hungry masses were stirring 'trouble' clamouring for their 'god-given rights'. Now, they're faced with the prospects of being kicked out of the suburbs and back to the 'hood. Deja vu, anyone ?

 

As Jamilah said earlier, I can't help but think the reason why many Muslims in the West are so quick to distance themselves from the 'barbaric ferocious rampaging mob', is not because they disapprove of their actions, on the contrary, they wish they had the spine to stand up for their beliefs, but because all those funny looks at the office are getting to them. So they'll up and announce themselves as 'moderate'(whatever the heck that means), and paint the rioters and protestors as either extremists out for a clash of civilisations, or as ignorant reactionary poor people. In effect saying: "I've made the American dream and I'll be damned if those Thirld Worlders are gonna mess it up for me. Hey john, I'm with you guys on this one. Those crazies out there jumping up and down in the streets, tottally nuts dude. It's not even a big issue. Cartoons, for pete's sake. Why don't they protest about poverty, and racism, and homophobia, and fundamentalism ?"

 

I'm not condoning the way the protests were carried out. But they were inevitable. Basic Human Nature 101. You don't poke a lion in the eye and when he starts going after every animal in sight, say: "Gee, now why'd he do that ? That was uncalled for." Don't poke him in the eye in the first place, and if you just can't resist it, well man up and deal with the consequences. As Colin Powell said about the Iraq war: You break it, you own it.

 

And finally, about this whole freedom of expression ish, I'mma keep it simple: If your right to freedom of expression turns into freedom to insult, than my fist has the freedom to deny your nose's right to exist.

[Zafir]

Posted By Castro

Aby Hamza's case is not straight forward. He's wanted by the US for, alleged, terror charges among other things. I'm afraid his case is a terrible example of freedom speech as it involves, alleged, terror training camps and some such fabricated nonsense by the US state department. It's no accident that the British inay iska daba bisbaaseeyaan.

 

If the jury convicted the Sheikh (whom I know nothing about) based alone on the tapes of sermons he gave, that conviction will be thrown out upon appeal in the US. His beliefs (of Jews and others) is not a matter of debate. That he would preach that to his congregation is protected under the law. Any rookie attorney could have that conviction thrown out. These sermons were the faithful congregating. If the Sheikh was drawing up plans to kill Jews today, then that's not a sermon to the faithful but a murder plot. Saaxib sowta arintii kaa khalkhashay.

Precisely Ngonge's point when he wrote this

if you follow God’s laws and choose to put them above those of man, don’t try to force man to change his laws to fit in with yours, or, eventually, man will (and can) install laws that force you to abandons god’s laws! The French ban on Hijab is a perfect example of that. Remember what was our collective cry when that was introduced, saaxib? That’s right, it was “they’re trying to limit our freedom of expressionâ€!

Cas, there is difference in what we are portrayed as and what we have shown to be. Violence is the only means left on our parts; we don’t have the mind frame or the reassures to do anything else. I have fallen right into the trap, because the characters in cartoon implied Muslims are violent people. Guess what? Now Muslims around the world represent Violence. I truthfully think this is what Ngonge was lecturing all along in his essays.

 

Cas, I agree that the imams in the mosque are protected by freedom of religion, but what are those listeners that come out running their mouths protected under? (I am in no way shape or form suggesting those cartoonists were right) but it goes to show that this issue (of freedom to offend, am not sure but I think, ngonge had a topic as such) is complicated. Although is morally justified by logic (somewhat), but then there’s those words that adds fuel to this so burning fire “intent to igniteâ€.

 

 

Lastly, Ngonge wrote

What I’m trying to tell you is that unless your fist meets my face, your lawsuit imprisons me or your retaliation is likely to hurt me, I am free to offend you in any way I like. In the case we have here, none of these options apply. Besides, if the violent option was chosen, your violent overreaction would be far worse than my mere offensive words.

How much more accurate can the above statement be.

[Cara.]

Hello Kashafa,

 

I'm not condoning the way the protests were carried out. But they were inevitable. Basic Human Nature 101. You don't poke a lion in the eye and when he starts going after every animal in sight, say: "Gee, now why'd he do that ? That was uncalled for." Don't poke him in the eye in the first place, and if you just can't resist it, well man up and deal with the consequences. As Colin Powell said about the Iraq war: You break it, you own it.

You say that the reaction to the cartoons is basic human nature, but then use an animal as a metaphor. People generally understand that there's a division between animals and humans, such that a human can curtail their reactions in response to aggravation. Not suggesting turn the other cheek or something, but how does burning embassies and killing or maiming innocents prove that Muhammed was not a terrorist? If the reaction was not intended to achieve that goal, then I can indeed see why you used an animal as a metaphor to explain Muslim sensibilities.

[Castro]

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.

[Pi]

^^^ I dont think Kashafa was thinking (does he ever?) when he posted that. He was too busy huffing and gruffing and puffing. He thinks that the destructive and barbaric protest of piety is "inevitable". Keep roaring away, O Lion! We civilized (and human) muslims will reason to get our point across. You "Lions" can roar away and devour everything in your paths.

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by Callypso:

Hello Kashafa,

 

quote:

---

I'm not condoning the way the protests were carried out. But they were inevitable. Basic Human Nature 101. You don't poke a lion in the eye and when he starts going after every animal in sight, say: "Gee, now why'd he do that ? That was uncalled for." Don't poke him in the eye in the first place, and if you just can't resist it, well man up and deal with the consequences. As Colin Powell said about the Iraq war: You break it, you own it.

You say that the reaction to the cartoons is basic

human

nature, but then use an

animal

as a metaphor. People generally understand that there's a division between animals and humans, such that a human can curtail their reactions in response to aggravation. Not suggesting turn the other cheek or something, but how does burning embassies and killing or maiming innocents prove that Muhammed was not a terrorist? If the reaction was not intended to achieve that goal, then I can indeed see why you used an animal as a metaphor to explain Muslim sensibilities.

I think the point being made Kashafa is that it shouldn't be surprising that violence happened. It's wrong but not suprising given the inflamed passions and those pouring fuel on those flames.

[Castro]

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

[Pi]

Point:- D'uh! Of course that's what he meant. You have a penchant for stating the obvious. What Callypso is criticizing and analysing is how the enraged enthusiast, Kashafa, is using the interaction of animals (hence, the animal metaphor) to justify human responses. If you cant see that the two belong in two different spheres, I have to say this again, with utmost respect, the dunce cap's gotta go!