proud muslim said:
It is absolutely disgusting and abhoring to defend the malicious cartoons in the name of "freedom of expression" when they totally incited racial hatred and defamation to a profound historical character. What was the point of doing such cartoons? nothing but vilifying Islam through its founder.
The nature of the cartoons or caricatures are often satires, especially of famous figures or personalities - public figures.
Satires often mixed anger with humour, irony, parody, etc.
Look up satire and the history of satires, and you will find that famous or powerful people often deserved satire, because they are the ones who often abused their powers, or illustrate their flaws or shortcomings.
Satire, usually comes in several forms, the most common being -
- In literature, like the plays of Aristophanes, who often satirise fellow Athenian citizens, particularly politicians.
- In graphic illustrations, like cartoons and caricatures,
Sorry, Proud Muslim, that you are offended with me pointing out that satires have their uses, and I am afraid that even Muslims are not immune in creating satires for their own agenda. And some Muslims not only use satire against non-Muslims (which they do), but among themselves.
Satire is not a crime, whether it be plays or cartoons. I may laugh or cry, agree or disagree with, like or dislike, be upset or offended by the satire, but one thing I don't agree with censoring satires. It is certainly not worth killing the cartoonists.
As Kodanshi already pointed out to you, Muhammad did order assassinations about anything writing anything negative criticism about him or his newly found religion. One of them was like a Jewish poet, Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, from the Banu Nadir tribe.
Who is worse, a poet or the person who ordered assassination of that poet?
Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf wasn't violent, but apparently Muhammad is and have used violence to silence others.
Do you resort to sword because of someone use a pen (or quill, or whatever they used for writing back then) to criticise or satirise?
proud muslim said:
It is ironic how you were angry and mad when the Australian imam called exposed women "uncovered meat" ignoring the "freedom of expression" right but it is different somehow with the Danish cartoonists!!
There's a big difference.
For one, Muhammad is dead. He could not possibly feel insulted.
For another, the Danish cartoonists and the editor are not the violent people. Those Muslims who wished them dead, are the violent ones. Do you not understand that?
For another, your silly-******* of Islamic imam is saying it is okay for raping women, simply because of the way they are dressed. Violence shouldn't never be excused on any circumstance. He deserved the backlash of his stupid misorgynistic sermon about women. Even Australian Muslim women were offended by his sermon.
Do you not get that yet?
Haven't enough women being subjected to rapes or physically abuses for centuries?
And the worse thing, is that Islamic law and courts frequently punished the victims, instead of the rapists.
:sorry: but what you have said would offend most women that you would even defend the imam.
Australian government and legal systems are trying to quash all forms of violence against women, whether it be domestic or not, and regardless of race, culture or religion.
The Australian Muslim clerics, are by large, trying to follow such examples, but there other some who clearly don't want Australian law to protect women from rape or domestic violence.
You should be Australian government for making this efforts instead of criticising.
Domestic violence are happening in Muslim families or couples, just as much as non-Muslim families or couples.
I am not a woman, but I respect women, no matter what race, culture or religion, enough to want serious change on how men treat women.
You Qur'an don't do enough about domestic violence, because you have a verse, where it is okay for a husband to beat or scourge an disobedient wife. So please don't tell me Muslim families are perfect.
