Dodge. Do you agree that in matters of religion, Muslims ARE more violent than practitioners of other religions? Yes or no?
I am not willing to contribute in your psychoanalysis of my persona in this thread.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Draw Muhammad day
- Thread starter predavlad
- Start date
Dodge. Do you agree that in matters of religion, Muslims ARE more violent than practitioners of other religions? Yes or no?
I am not willing to contribute in your psychoanalysis of my persona in this thread.
Please quit dodging and answer me -- what has that got to do with the propriety of drawing Muhammad? If you can show me how that has anything to do with whether or not someone should draw Muhammad, I will address it.
Plain and simple. If Muslims ARE more violent than other theists in matters of faith, [which I think they are, - PLEASE AGREE/DISAGREE WITH ME HERE and YOU quit dodging for a change], that has to be addressed.
Appeasement is NOT an option when Muslim majority lands have a pathetic record of treating non-Muslims equally.
Irrational belief systems should be mocked. Dangerous and irrational belief systems should be mercilessly mocked. Muslims should get used to their belief systems mocked - just as Christians, Hindus and Buddhists have. No need of any double standards and avoiding stepping on egg shells when it comes to Islam.
So until all Muslims everywhere start acting the way you think they should, you'll continue to insult all Muslims, everywhere.
robo said:
...and proudly, apparently.
Again, why does it have to be addressed? What rational grounds do you have to assert that it must be addressed here? Hint: Simply saying, "That has to be addressed" is not a rational grounds for addressing it.
You seem to see some kind of cosmic significance in drawing Muhammad. Do you honestly believe that drawing Muhammad is going to persuade many Muslims that their religion is dangerous and irrational? Even assuming it is dangerous and irrational, do you see no better way than drawing Muhammad to persuade Muslims that their religion is dangerous and irrational?
Quite a few of them right here, for one thing.
Being patient and tolerant in the face of a lot of ignorance and self-righteousness, for one thing.
Always a good strategy. Never fails to produce results.
I had said this:
I do not see anything wrong in working towards this.
I will quit this thread now so as not to earn any infraction points, etc, which is bound to happen if I continue along this line.
I will change my mind when non-Muslims get equal rights in Muslim lands and I see churches, synagogues, temples, universities teaching evolution and interest-rate based finance theories spring up in Saudi Arabia.
Until then, I think I have enough evidence to back my position.
Why should they have to allow all of this in an Islamic country? Don't like their rules? Don't live there. I don't like China's laws either, so I choose to not live there. Where did you get the idea non-Muslims have fewer rights in Muslim lands? I personally think all people should be treated equally, regardless of religion.
Hi, perhaps we haven't met yet. My name is ssainhu.
All Muslims,
the majority of Muslims,
the majority left-handed Muslims over 6'1",
the majority of left-handed Muslims over 6'1" who prefer callico socks, ... ?
A defining characteristic of bigotry is the near brain-dead act of painting frenetically with a pathetically broad brush. Remind you of anyone?
Yes, that was what I was responding to when I said this:
"So until all Muslims everywhere start acting the way you think they should, you'll continue to insult all Muslims, everywhere."
And you consider what you're doing "working towards" that?
Why? As long as you stay within the rules you don't have to worry about that.
Unless of course this is just the old "A member who happens to be a staff member just swept the legs out from under my argument, so I'll pretend I'm afraid of being unjustly moderated so I can leave the thread with some undeserved dignity".
If that's the case, I should quit this conversation too because I can't think of a name for that that wouldn't violate at least a couple of rules.
Here's my considered take on the Mohammed drawing debate.
If it is disrespectful and antaganizing to Muslims to draw a picture of Mohammed, I would personally just not do it. HOWEVER, in a free-world with a few billion people, there are going to be some who are anti-Muslim and antaganistic. Therefore, the Mohammed drawings and Quran burnings will occur.
Muslims as part of the modern world have to understand this will occur. There is nothing and nobody in the free-world that won't be subjected to immature attacks done in a way to provoke anger. Muslims will have to learn, like the rest of us, that when something we cherish is cruelly attacked that we maturely ignore it or respond in a non-violent way. As
Jesus said, 'forgive them father for they know not what they do'.
It's now too late for Muslims to not be interfaced to the free-world. In fact
modernity makes them more interfaced. I strongly condemn any violent islamic reactions to Mohammed drawings. Hopefully, the majority of Muslims agree with me but Islam does have its very vocal and violent elements that do not seem adaptive to the modern free world. People dying after a drawing??, come on....Where are the moderate Muslims and mullahs that should be cracking down on this violent element; they seemed to be more concerned with condemning the West for producing and allowing these drawings.
If it is disrespectful and antaganizing to Muslims to draw a picture of Mohammed, I would personally just not do it. HOWEVER, in a free-world with a few billion people, there are going to be some who are anti-Muslim and antaganistic. Therefore, the Mohammed drawings and Quran burnings will occur.
Muslims as part of the modern world have to understand this will occur. There is nothing and nobody in the free-world that won't be subjected to immature attacks done in a way to provoke anger. Muslims will have to learn, like the rest of us, that when something we cherish is cruelly attacked that we maturely ignore it or respond in a non-violent way. As
Jesus said, 'forgive them father for they know not what they do'.
It's now too late for Muslims to not be interfaced to the free-world. In fact
modernity makes them more interfaced. I strongly condemn any violent islamic reactions to Mohammed drawings. Hopefully, the majority of Muslims agree with me but Islam does have its very vocal and violent elements that do not seem adaptive to the modern free world. People dying after a drawing??, come on....Where are the moderate Muslims and mullahs that should be cracking down on this violent element; they seemed to be more concerned with condemning the West for producing and allowing these drawings.
Sadly, moderates -- whether Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or of other faiths -- tend to be less outspoken than extremists. It seems to be human nature for extremists to be outspoken and moderates to be...well, moderate.
How would you suggest they "crack down" on the violent elements?
F0uad
Well-Known Member
I think the killings were certainly a bad thing and not justified at all, in the time of the prophet Mohammed (saws) many people insulted him, called him names and mocked him yet he never ordered them to be killed only the people who fought him.
But people forget that the ''attacks'' happened in PAKISTAN where the Taliban lives?
But people forget that the ''attacks'' happened in PAKISTAN where the Taliban lives?
Last edited:
gnomon
Well-Known Member
I was under the impression that the majority of attacks were carried out by extremists after being whipped up by a few imams who allegedly threw in some cartoons of their own. Also, that the majority of those at the receiving end of the violence were Muslims.
It also seems that while the majority of Muslims follow some hadiths prohibiting images of the Prophet, especially the Sunni, that not all sects follow those hadiths. That there have been indeed drawings, paintings, etc. of the Prophet by Muslims. Granted, these would be respectful images but still........
The word all, as usual, applies to nothing.
It also seems that while the majority of Muslims follow some hadiths prohibiting images of the Prophet, especially the Sunni, that not all sects follow those hadiths. That there have been indeed drawings, paintings, etc. of the Prophet by Muslims. Granted, these would be respectful images but still........
The word all, as usual, applies to nothing.
I'd go a step further and say that moderates are not sought out by the sensational media like the extremists are. After all, what news is there to be had if moderates agree with the "evil" west?
The best analogy I can think of is America's war on organized crime in the 1930's. A determined government effort with the support of a citizenry that said 'fear and violence' will not be tolerated anymore. The war wasn't pretty or easy but it was
for the large part won.
The difference is that Muslims are all over the world. It's a little harder to organize such a movement.
Do you think Islam is a country?
Um, it isn't. They (the moderate Muslims and mullahs you mentioned in the post I responded to) aren't a government. Islam doesn't have a "citizenry". There's no international Islamic equivalent of the American FBI that has the means, the authority, or the responsibility to keep the rest of the Islamic world in line.
You're calling for a "determined government effort" from an imaginary government with the support of an imaginary citizenry with the imaginary authority to regulate the behavior of all Muslims everywhere.
It doesn't exist.
Really, that's the best analogy you could think of?