Jordanian court has begun blasphemy proceedings against Danish artist Kurt Westergaard

[darkendless]

1,2. where have i said that i want him punished simply because HE DREW A CARTOON and because i took offence.

3. well i've been told numerously by other non-muslims on this very thread that the victim doesn't loose his honour but the criminal does, your point #3 seems to contradict that.

4. are you really that narrow minded? you don't know what the cartoon represents? lets put it this way so you can undeerstand it, it is not so much the cartoon, it was his intent.

5. you mean me saying what i did about your aussies being terrorists?

You're trying to justify the trial because he drew a cartoon of mohammed.

In point 3 what i'm saying is if he was looking for a reaction he got one, a predictable one at that. Reminds me of the teacher in Nigeria whose life was only saved by Nigerian diplomats after locals took to the street to get her executed after she told a child to name his teddy bear mohammed.

4. Whats your point? You seem to think i should actually care who draws what. Muslims really need to calm down and get over this sort of thing, it must be humiliating for the moderates who agree with freedom of speech.

You speak as though its wrong to offend, yet things you and other muslims say on this board daily offend the west and we don't try and justify punishing you.

Lets just say if you're going to spew BS about the west you have to take a bit of backlash, eat some concrete and grow up.

5. Pretty much.

 

[beenie]

there are certain things that require backlash and certain things that don't.
his images, if you or anyone else hasn't heard already, depict our prophet as a terrorist with a bomb on his head. so he is making false accusations about islam and remember what you said, slander is a very bad thing.

why are muslims blamed for over reacting and why isn't he blamed for crossing the line? it is one thing to insult muslims for what they have done which was wrong (which he claims is the reason behind the drawings) and it is a dirrefent thing to call muslims terrorist with no evidence whatsoever and then wave the freedom of speech flag to cover up his main intent.

what punishment do you think he deserves?
what will this punishment accomplish?
will Denmark be able to then reciprocate and punish the Jordanian courts because THEY'RE offended?

where does this stop? why can't it stop at a strong written statement condemning the intent of his cartoon? why can't we, as Muslims, take a stand without punishment? what happened to peaceful resistance?

in other words, why can't we prove him wrong?

 

[darkendless]

no he wasn't sexist nor was he wrong in any way.
he stated facts, you didn't like them so you started threatining him.

It is sexist to make offensive comments based on gender.

So its a fact in your opinion that women are pieces of meat? What on earth is wrong with you? How do you function in Australia when you're disgusted by every women who isn't wearing modest clothing?

Thats their choice to wear what they want, it certainly doesn't make me want to rape them like mr Sheikh Alhalali or whatever.

 

[Gharib]

You're trying to justify the trial because he drew a cartoon of mohammed.

if he was offended by muslims and he made fun of our prophet then he had every right in doing so. the quran states not to offend other people so that they don't do the same, but then if they do respond to our insults then they can't be blamed. but is it one thing to reply to an isnult and have an oppinon and it is a different thing to make accusations that have no basis and that assert our prophet was a terrorist.

In point 3 what i'm saying is if he was looking for a reaction he got one, a predictable one at that. Reminds me of the teacher in Nigeria whose life was only saved by Nigerian diplomats after locals took to the street to get her executed after she told a child to name his teddy bear mohammed.

with the case in nigeria, i blame the muslims for hiring a non-muslim to teach their children and then they expect her to suddenly know more about islam than those ignorant fools.

4. Whats your point? You seem to think i should actually care who draws what. Muslims really need to calm down and get over this sort of thing, it must be humiliating for the moderates who agree with freedom of speech.

i never suggested what you are saying.

You speak as though its wrong to offend, yet things you and other muslims say on this board daily offend the west and we don't try and justify punishing you.

how have i offended you darkendless?

Lets just say if you're going to spew BS about the west you have to take a bit of backlash, eat some concrete and grow up.

you mean we shoudl let the west kill muslims, call us terrorist and then when we respond, we should eat concrete and expect backlash for our response to you killing us. what a brilliant and logical idea. please do go on.

5. Pretty much.

why does the truth offend you?

 

[Gharib]

what punishment do you think he deserves?

that depends if he is found guilty and death might not be the fitting punishment even if he is found guilty, there are crimes that desserve death and crimes that don't.

what will this punishment accomplish?

it will prevent low lives from spewing what they do which is not right and not based on proof. what right does he have to call our prophet a terrorist without facts?

will Denmark be able to then reciprocate and punish the Jordanian courts because THEY'RE offended?

so like i said before, his provocation might lead to war, so who should be punished?

where does this stop? why can't it stop at a strong written statement condemning the intent of his cartoon? why can't we, as Muslims, take a stand without punishment? what happened to peaceful resistance?

all this 'nonsense' would have ended way earlier if an apology was made to muslims and the images removed.

in other words, why can't we prove him wrong?

the court is working on that, thats the reason behind the trial, he can't be punished simply because we found his actions offencive.

 

[Gharib]

It is sexist to make offensive comments based on gender.

oh, what happened to freedom of speech all of a sudden? do you even know why he said what he did.

tell me why did he make that peice of meat example.

So its a fact in your opinion that women are pieces of meat? What on earth is wrong with you? How do you function in Australia when you're disgusted by every women who isn't wearing modest clothing?

he never said that women are peices of meat, you need to refresh your memory.

Thats their choice to wear what they want, it certainly doesn't make me want to rape them like mr Sheikh Alhalali or whatever.

he simply stated a fact in relation to what was heppening. i even know of another case that happend that supports not only his example, but islams example in general not to mix genders in the way that you westerners do.

 

[darkendless]

if he was offended by muslims and he made fun of our prophet then he had every right in doing so. the quran states not to offend other people so that they don't do the same, but then if they do respond to our insults then they can't be blamed. but is it one thing to reply to an isnult and have an oppinon and it is a different thing to make accusations that have no basis and that assert our prophet was a terrorist.

No basis? The western world is insulted all the time by the west and as soon as the west does it back they're the bad guys.

He is within his rights to insult who he wants, if muslims don't like it thats their problem to deal with.

with the case in nigeria, i blame the muslims for hiring a non-muslim to teach their children and then they expect her to suddenly know more about islam than those ignorant fools.

I can't believe there were calls from Nigerians to execute her. If it happened I would to hear a Nigerian muslims use the phrase "religion of peace."

i never suggested what you are saying.

What does that have to do with anything?

how have i offended you darkendless?

You havn't, I just think you think Islam is actually respected and that western people won't insult it because muslims will react. Well its not the case, they'll do what they want and if muslims are offended thats their problem.

you mean we shoudl let the west kill muslims, call us terrorist and then when we respond, we should eat concrete and expect backlash for our response to you killing us. what a brilliant and logical idea. please do go on.

No you shouldn't. Put pressure on Aus and the yanks to get our soliders out. Our soldiers shouldn't die to help a country that kills our soldiers. We have no business wasting our time.

why does the truth offend you?

The truth offends you. The truth is that people can and will insult your religion and your prophet if they feel like it. You need to get over it and realise that people have opinions. WHilst I have no respect for your opinions I respect your right to your opinion.

 

[darkendless]

oh, what happened to freedom of speech all of a sudden? do you even know why he said what he did.

tell me why did he make that peice of meat example.

Freedom of speech does not cover sexist remarks. It covers disagreements but not the right to be a pig.

He made the commnt because he is a disgusting human being with no respect for Australian women and their right to dress as they please.

he never said that women are peices of meat, you need to refresh your memory.

yes he did He blamed womem who are being raped for appearing in public as "pieces of meat."

he simply stated a fact in relation to what was heppening. i even know of another case that happend that supports not only his example, but islams example in general not to mix genders in the way that you westerners do.

He stated that women were bringing rape on themselves by not dressing modestly.

What do you mean by mixing genders?

 

[Gharib]

No basis? The western world is insulted all the time by the west and as soon as the west does it back they're the bad guys.

huh???? what?

He is within his rights to insult who he wants, if muslims don't like it thats their problem to deal with.

i have a verse from the Qur'an for you, please think about it though before you reply:

And when it is said to them, "Do not cause corruption on the earth," they say, "We are but reformers."

Unquestionably, it is they who are the corrupters, but they perceive [it] not.

[2:11-12]

I can't believe there were calls from Nigerians to execute her. If it happened I would to hear a Nigerian muslims use the phrase "religion of peace."

good for you

What does that have to do with anything?

you were saying that i said something which i never did.

You havn't, I just think you think Islam is actually respected and that western people won't insult it because muslims will react. Well its not the case, they'll do what they want and if muslims are offended thats their problem.

i've never said that islam is respected and i don't think that, it never crossed my mind. i do accept that fact that many non-muslims do not like muslims simply because of our faith.

No you shouldn't. Put pressure on Aus and the yanks to get our soliders out. Our soldiers shouldn't die to help a country that kills our soldiers. We have no business wasting our time.

isn't killing the invaders enough pressure?

The truth offends you. The truth is that people can and will insult your religion and your prophet if they feel like it. You need to get over it and realise that people have opinions.

And when it is said to them, "Do not cause corruption on the earth," they say, "We are but reformers."

Unquestionably, it is they who are the corrupters, but they perceive [it] not.

WHilst I have no respect for your opinions I respect your right to your opinion.

yeah so long as i don't offend you. which you said that i and other muslims have offended you and then you presented no proof, actually you said we haven't offended you.

 

[Gharib]

Freedom of speech does not cover sexist remarks. It covers disagreements but not the right to be a pig.

yes now all of a sudden freedom of speech has limits.

He made the commnt because he is a disgusting human being with no respect for Australian women and their right to dress as they please.

this doesn't answer my question.

yes he did He blamed womem who are being raped for appearing in public as "pieces of meat."

no, he never said that women are peices of meat.

He stated that women were bringing rape on themselves by not dressing modestly.

yes, he said that. do you disagree?

What do you mean by mixing genders?

women and/or men being inapropriately dressed before people that they have no blood or other kind of relation to that they are permitted to marry. women and/or men hanging out with people whom they have no blood or other kind of relation that they are permitted to marry.

 

[darkendless]

huh???? what?

What I mean is everyone gets insulted offended.

i have a verse from the Qur'an for you, please think about it though before you reply:

And when it is said to them, "Do not cause corruption on the earth," they say, "We are but reformers."

Unquestionably, it is they who are the corrupters, but they perceive [it] not.

[2:11-12]

I can't say that I can depict the intended meaning of this verse sorry.

i've never said that islam is respected and i don't think that, it never crossed my mind. i do accept that fact that many non-muslims do not like muslims simply because of our faith.

It should and could be. Occurences such as the calls to trial a man for a cartoon may hurt that though.

isn't killing the invaders enough pressure?

I wish it was, seems to make our idiotic politicians more resolute though.

yeah so long as i don't offend you. which you said that i and other muslims have offended you and then you presented no proof, actually you said we haven't offended you.

Me personally no, but a lot of people in the western world have been.

 

[Starsoul]

why should we forget about it just because you do? you have your laws we have ours, just because ours are different to yours that doesn't make your laws better than ours.


please go back and read the posts that say he did it for provocation. in islam provocation is worse the killing. and just because you think differently that doesn't mean you are right and we are wrong.


over 2 things,
1. offending and degrading our prophet
2. provocation.


what sounds idiotic is people saying it's wrong to seek justice.


muslims love Muhamed more than anything that exists only after God. so we put him first before ourselves. he didn't just offend our prophet he offended all of us individually.


how come there haven't been any more cases of this then?

:clap:clap very well said.

 

[Starsoul]

so why should muslims be bound by his freedom of speech laws? why should we "chill" simply because his laws say it's ok for him to offend us, but then it's wrong for us to punish him?

Exactly!

 

[Gharib]

What I mean is everyone gets insulted offended.

i think you made a mistake in your previous post please do read the top part again.

I can't say that I can depict the intended meaning of this verse sorry.

i know you are smarter than that. but no worries.

It should and could be. Occurences such as the calls to trial a man for a cartoon may hurt that though.

i wasn't making a refference to the case at hand, i meant in general muslims are hated by non-muslims for no reasont at all but simply for the fact that we are muslims.

Me personally no, but a lot of people in the western world have been.

what do you expect if you go killing innocent people?

 

[lunakilo]

no thats not the link i'm after, 9-10ths Penguin already posted that, i mean links that speak of those crimes listed as Westegaards reasons for making the cartoons.

I found a newspaper article about the assult of the lecturer at Copenhagen University in 2004:
article - in danish
article - google translated
The google translated version is not good. The translated hedline says the lecturer was killed, but the original says something like 'beaten up' or 'attacked. But I think the article itself is readable.

It is not an event which had a lot of attention from people outside of Denmark, so it is difficult to find english references to it.

 

[Gharib]

I found a newspaper article about the assult of the lecturer at Copenhagen University in 2004:
article - in danish
article - google translated
The google translated version is not good. The translated hedline says the lecturer was killed, but the original says something like 'beaten up' or 'attacked. But I think the article itself is readable.

It is not an event which had a lot of attention from people outside of Denmark, so it is difficult to find english references to it.

thanks for the link.

i found this though:

Teacher assaulted by Koranic recitation

A lecturer from the University have been killed because he was like 'infidel' had read the Koran. Islamic Society denounces attack. Police are considering going into the matter of its own motion.

so why did Westergaard offend all muslims when the atack was denounced by the islamic society of Denmark?

 

[Gharib]

that shows that the drawings he made had nothing to do with what had happened because the incident was denounced by the Islamic Society and therefore that in itself is an answer to Westergaards soposed 'freedom of speech test'. but he had to go and provoke us, how pathetic.

 

[lunakilo]

thanks for the link.

i found this though:

Teacher assaulted by Koranic recitation

A lecturer from the University have been killed because he was like 'infidel' had read the Koran. Islamic Society denounces attack. Police are considering going into the matter of its own motion.

so why did Westergaard offend all muslims when the atack was denounced by the islamic society of Denmark?

Im am quite sure he didn't offend ALL muslims, I am positive that there are a few around that wheren't offended.

And I am also quite sure he wasn't trying to offend all muslims. He himself says that he never drew the prophet Mohammed, he drew an islamic terrorist. He was angry at the muslims who attacked the lecturer, not at all muslims. He was angry at the muslims who take their religion and uses it as an excuse to attack other people, if all muslims are offended by that is that really his fault?

 

[lunakilo]

that shows that the drawings he made had nothing to do with what had happened because the incident was denounced by the Islamic Society and therefore that in itself is an answer to Westergaards soposed 'freedom of speech test'. but he had to go and provoke us, how pathetic.

Not true.
That the Islamic Society denouncedthe attack shows that many muslims do not agree with the attack, but it does not change the fact that the attack happened.
The drawings have everything to do with the attack (and other incidents of the same nature that happened at the time)

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Wanting to force people to change their behavior because you are offended is a glaring hypocrisy.