UAE scholars call upon Muslims to be forgiving

[JCMach1]

I HAVE NO DOUBT THIS STORY WILL SINK LIKE A ROCK, BUT HERE IT IS ANYWAY...

As the rage continues around the world over the publication of blasphemous cartoons in some European newspapers, scholars in the UAE called upon Muslims to be forgiving and others to respect Islam, in order to avoid further violence.

In a unified Friday sermon yesterday, Imams at mosques across the country — while expressing their strong objection to blasphemous cartoons — said it would be wiser if Muslims could forgive to avoid a conflict between cultures.

"While others should respect our religion and refrain from any such acts, we — as Muslims — should take the course of forgiveness," urged the scholars.

"Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in the way that is best," the Imams quoted from the Holy Quran... http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/theuae/2006/February/theuae_February319.xml§ion=theuae

[uppityperson]

1. Be nice if people took the high road, forgave others for being jerks

[951-Riverside]

5. Let me start by forgiving the protesters n/t

[Burning Water]

14. The best thing to do with

non-violent jerks is just to ignore them. I don't even bother to take offense, and if someone asks me why, I say, "I just consider the source". I've found that, mostly, when the jerks hear this it frosts their butts some considerably.

Violent jerks should be put down like mad dogs (that's figurative, by the way).

So, IMO, the cartoonists should be ignored; the rioters should be dispersed by their governments (like that's likely), and violence, or threats of violence, should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

[leesa]

54. Yes and the violent US government should be taken out and shot like dogs

Do I have that right? Aren't we the ones who started this violent mess for no reason at all except our bigotry towards Muslims...our apparent freedom to bomb their countries whenever we have the whim??

[Burning Water]

63. That seems to be the general opinion around

here.

However, you probably didn't read my post carefully, or you would have noticed that I distinctly said that the comment was figurative.

Further, as I understood the original post, this was about people using violence to protest free speech. Not everything is about the Iraq war, or the pending Iranian invasion, or even about Bush.

[barb162]

2. I was thinking of posting about 20 of these kinds of stories

tomorrow.

[Harper_is_Bush]

23. Please do. It's been disheartening to see so many

stories about the violence with so many posting implications that all Muslims share in the guilt for that violence.

There have been many peaceful demonstrations AND many Muslim leaders denouncing the violence.

[barb162]

3. kick

[clyrc]

4. Another kick

Just for you, JC!

[Karenina]

27. And for you, clyrc!

:hi:

[Colorado Blue]

59. Another kick:)

[rfkrfk]

6. there is no incentive, here

what would be the motive for either an individual
or leader?

[PsychoDad]

7. K and R

Not that this will matter to most who already share the offical and sanctioned M$M view of Muslims/Islam. But thank you very much from the rest of us.


My Salaams to you my friend

[Dunvegan]

8. It's time we start posting the long list of Muslim voices in opposition...

...to the madness.

It's not that those voices haven't been speaking since 2001...I keep reading about them in the Canadian, and other International press.

It's just like Democrats trying to get a moment of un-spun MSM time...doesn't happen.

But I often read out-of-country about the many statements from moderate Islamic leaders...and plain old citizens.

We need to "catapult the truth"...list the voices.

We should investigate and report the words of the peacemakers...create a record.

Because, according to the US MSM, moderate Muslims (like Democratic truth to Republican lies) doesn't exist.

[UncleSepp]

16. The voices are all over, it's so bizarre to hear "where are they?"

I remember after 9/11 the beautiful image of schoolgirls in hijab with candles, demonstrating a wish of peace for the United States and reaching out in sympathy. There were similar images from all around the world, many of Muslim people who were clearly identifiable as Muslim people. After the recent attacks in Jordan, there were huge demonstrations. Unfortunately, the stories don't get on the front page; nobody is promoting that reality.

You are so right.

[PsychoDad]

29. You can't find what you don't look for.

Many who accuse Muslims of condoning violence as a whole, and ask why is there no outcry or statement of condemnation often don't look to see if they can find any.

Peace

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. There's a big rally in London in a few hours

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4700482.stm

which hopefully will help calm things, while making it clear that Muslims do feel hurt by the cartoons.

[Wordie]

17. I saw CNN coverage on that a little earlier this AM.

There was a crowd of people holding signs, but no violence at all. A very good thing - I hope it will get lots of coverage.

Recommending this thread.

[Teaser]

10. Problem is

there is no agreed upon ecclesiastical hierarchy, even in the very hierarchical shiite sect. So a particular scholar is only considered an authority if the individual muslim decides that he is.

[JCMach1]

11. One of the good and problematic things about Islam

You can feel free to completely ignore your local imam if you like.

[Burning Water]

15. Sounds just like

the Baptists.

[Igel]

12. The church I was in during the "Piss Christ" business

didn't deal in forgiveness. Some figured it wasn't their call--they weren't wronged; others figured that a better concept was tolerance.

To forgive implies the other people were wrong, and you were injured; you have some authority over them as a consequence, and that either you will show magnanimity above what is generally required, or at least have grounds for the other person's humiliation and submission. In some situations it implies that there is a possible punishment, whether trivial and inflicted by the person wronged or by the state.

Personally, I there are numerous situations in which I don't care if people forgive me. That's their business. Any apology would be of the form, "I'm regret you were offended" with the corollary "I'm not sorry I did it", because "I'm sorry I did it" would be a lie. The former was the Danish 'apology', and it didn't suffice. What I frequently require is tolerance, not the condescension that forgiveness implies and the admission of a moral transgression that apology entails.

I would ask what the difference is between tolerance and forgiveness, if the forgiveness is mandatory and would obligatorily be repeated pretty much ad infinitum, and if there are any circumstances in which non-forgivness would have any unpleasant consequences. I've been in circumstances in which "forgiveness" was tendered, but tolerance was in no way intended or even an option. I fell for accepting one when the other was needed because it was a face-saving expedient. But it was a foolish one, and I like clarity and explicitness.

I believe it's important to take the terms at face value, with their most likely implications, and not to immediately breath a sigh of relief because we can interpret what people say in a way that avoids having to deal with the problem, or even acknowledge it. Otherwise we play kick the can, and it's possible the next time people will say, "We forgave the insult that time, but now it's a compounded offense so the consequences are worse."

[JCMach1]

13. Another quote from the text of the article...

...The scholars cited a number of occasions on which Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) had set an example for forgiveness, as a wise way of coming to terms with the other, which won him the respect of all, including his foes...

[Hoping4Change]

19. self-deleted. duplicate post.

[PsychoDad]

30. Forgiveness...

Is needed to begin the healing for the person who is doing the forgiving. The offensive cartoons caused me hurt because of insult to my religion. I forgive the artists for that personal hurt, whether or not the action was intentional. I can now leave behind those feelings of hurt, and move on, become more tolerant and hopefuly grow as a person.

So you see, forgiveness Isn't just for the forgiven, but also for forgiver.

I'm sorry the Church you were in at the time didn't deal in forgiveness. I do hope that the one you are in now does, as it is a basic tenet of Christ's teachings and is central to Christanity.

Peace to you my friend.

[Hoping4Change]

18. Am I to understand that Muslims will seek the forgiveness of non-Muslims

who are offended by calls for the cartoonists and editor to be beheaded?:eyes:

[liberalpragmatist]

20. Why should you tar the entire Muslim world because of the extremists?

How many Muslims do you know? The ones who are being forced to apologize had nothing to do with the calls for violence.

[High Plains]

21. Ah, the ax grinds on.

[Dunvegan]

22. Am I to understand that we US citizens will seek the forgiveness...

...of the survivors of the innocent Iraqis killed in George's war of empire?

Wouldn't that be a somewhat close corollary to your request Hoping4Change?

Isn't it blessed when you extent the olive branch first?

I am a US citizen, a humanist, and Bush neither speaks or acts for me.

Do we do as you ask of others? Set the example by Golden Rule?

Have we sought the forgiveness of the innocents of this war?

OK...you wish all Muslims to ask to be forgiven of the violent sub-group actions?

Shall we then first ask to be forgiven for the actions of the Neocon and Bush Administration, who are a sub-group of American?

If so, fine...I ask the Islamic world for forgiveness for the actions of George Bush and the Bush Administration.

Hmmm. It's kind of hard for me to be forgiven for Bush's sins...this is an awkward construct.

Let's try this:

I'd like to extend blessings, respect, and peace to the Muslim community, and tell my peaceful Muslim sisters and brothers that many Americans (like most of us here at DU) are doing everything we can to end a senseless war and all hostilities.

I pledge to support my peaceful Muslim sisters and brothers and work with them for world peace.

You know, I could apologize for a whole group (Americans) but I'm not a Neocon or part of the Bush Administration, so it's hollow for me to apologize for their sins. Plus, it leaves their sins intact, as my apology for them is specious.

My sin would lie in not taking every opportunity to make peace with other fellow peacemakers and ally myself with the good people of this world.

[Harper_is_Bush]

24. Hopefully you will put asside such sarcastic vindictiveness soon..

There's no reason for Muslims to do such a thing, and your question only further clouds the issue with intollerance.

NOBODY supports calls for beheadings here, and those that have made such calls cannot be considered to be Muslims. Narrow your target, please.

[Hoping4Change]

25. Hardly vindicitiveness. I am simply in accord with igil that what is

required is tolerance, "not the condescension that forgiveness implies and the admission of a moral transgression that apology entails".

[PsychoDad]

32. I as a Muslim seek their forgiveness.

In the Name of God, The Most merciful, The Most Gracious.

Please forgive the calls for violence against the artists who were responsible. Just as the pictures degraded a beautiful faith held sacred by over a billion adherents, so do the calls for blood by a minority of those adherents.

The Quran and the Prophet both taught tolerance and forgiveness, forethought and calm, not reactionary calls for violence to answer insults. Often during his lifetime, the Prophet was met with hate and insults, he always addressed them with unconditional forgiveness.

And, Indeed, as Muslims, it is his example that we are to follow.

If some in our religion have caused you hurt, I ask you to forgive our religion, for what they advocate is not Islam.

I also ask for your forgiveness, for I am a Muslim.

And may the Almighty have forgiveness upon us all.

Peace.

[Harper_is_Bush]

33. Why do YOU seek forgiveness for the violence

performed by others who you point out advocate something other than Islam?

[PsychoDad]

35. Because as you can see,

not everyone can see or make that distinction.

I am a Muslim, and thus to some I represent all their fears and hates that may have been caused by a few who claim to be Muslim.

If you or another feel that I or my faith have caused you hurt, then I ask for your forgiveness.

I also ask that they learn more about my faith.

Peace.

[Harper_is_Bush]

36. But people who are too ignorant to make that distinction..

need education, not appeasement.

I cannot respect an apology given to appease people who ignorantly blame all Muslims for the actions of a few.

[Burning Water]

64. Why should you seek

forgiveness? Did you call for violence? Did you engage in violence? No? Then you have nothing to apologize for. And you have neither the right nor the ability to apologize for what others did.

Instead, why don't you denounce the violent extremists?

Peace.

[Spinoza]

26. "Foregiveness"?

For some cartoons? How patronizing and condescending. I would prefer "understanding" toward the values of a different culture. A little more respect for "multi-culturalism" from some parts of the Islamic world toward some values of the Western world (e.g. free expression) would go a lot further than a "foregiveness" which implies moral superiority.

[Harper_is_Bush]

28. "for some cartoons"?

Why do you and so many others here continue to claim that these are "just cartoons".

They're not "just cartoons", they are deeply offensive to hundred of millions of Muslims worldwide.

And asking for Muslims to forgive the very real offense of these cartoons certainly does not imply moral superiority. What should Muslims do in your view, apologize for being offended?

[Hoping4Change]

31. The cartoons are satrical and satire and has a moral function and like

irony it is an intrinsic ingredient in western culture. One could say its bred in the bone.

"Satire is a literary technique of writing or art which exposes the follies of its subject (for example, individuals, organizations, or states) to ridicule, often as an intended means of provoking or preventing change. The humor of such a satire tends to be subtle, using irony and deadpan humor liberally. Most satire has specific, readily identifiable targets; however there is also a less focused, formless genre known as Menippean satire.

There are two fundamental types of satire: Horatian satire, which is gentle and urbane; and Juvenalian satire, which is biting, bitter invective. The burlesque form of satire can also be segregated into two distinct categories: High burlesque, or taking subject matter which is crude in nature and treating it in a lofty style, or low burlesque, taking subject matter traditionally dealt with in an epic or poetic fashion and degrading it.

The following commentary on satire is illuminating:

Further, satire is intimately connected with urbanity and cosmopolitanism, and assumes a civilized opponent who is sufficiently sensitive to feel the barbs of wit leveled at him. To hold something up to ridicule presupposes a certain respect for reason, on both sides, to which one can appeal. An Age of Reason, in which everyone accepts the notion that conduct must be reasonable, is, therefore, a general prerequisite for satire.

--Jacob Bronowski & Bruce Mazlish, The Western Intellectual Tradition From Leonardo to Hegel, p. 252 (1960; as repub. in 1993 Barnes & Noble ed.).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire

[Harper_is_Bush]

34. The point was that they are more than just "some cartoons".

They are a deep offense. That cannot be denied.

[Hoping4Change]

39. But they are are satirical and satire is premised on giving offense.

To satirize someone means to ridicule them. Satire ridicules ideas, people, beliefs, institutions.
The cartoons were meant to be a slap in the face because the purpose of satire is to be a slap in the face.

Satire has been part of western culture for two thousand years. Its been around longer than Christianity and Islam. Its intrinsic to western culture. The west has a long tradition of satirizing sacred cows so why should we surrender our 2,000 tradition of criticizand tearing down to size anything and anyone that seeks to set itself up as an authority.

In fact I could say that satire allowed for the development classical liberalism and free speech since it has always been premised on the notion that nothing and no one is beyond reproach.

If satire had only started with the arrival of Muslims and Muslims were its only targets, I can assure you I would be the first to lead a revolt. But that is not the case. Satire was on this earth way before Mohammed arrived on earth and way before Muslims immigrated to the west. Satire, like justice is blind, and though it stings it serves too important a role to be curtailed.

The truly unfortunate thing is that clearly the sensibility that deeply appreciates satire is not yet universal.

[Harper_is_Bush]

60. So "satire" is some sort of wonderful good for which all other

considerations should be sacraficed?

Nobody is saying the great and fantastic Western culture of satire cannot continue. Just have a little fucking respect, that's all.

Satire does not usually constitute blasphemy, btw. So your characterization is incomplete.

[Burning Water]

67. "Satire does not usually constitute blasphemy"

You must fricking be kidding!!!!

Where you been? Satire about Christianity permeates the culture.

And it is not "satire" to which other considerations should be sacrificed, but "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press".

[Harper_is_Bush]

68. I've never seen a picture of Jesus

fucking a little boy in a mainstream newspaper.

In what way is this blasphemous satire about Christianity permeating the Culture? Who's culture?

[Burning Water]

74. That would be

American culture.

Remember "Piss Christ"?

Remember the Madonna that was covered with elephant dung?

Try these on

http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?

file=/gate/archive/2005/12/09/notes120905.DTL&type=printable

http://www.skepticreport.com/funnies/jcpress.htm

Admittedly, these mock conservative Christians, but that's OK with me. I think there is blasphemy in there, though. And remember, although perhaps blasphemous, the cartoons were aimed toward violent, radical Muslims, not the moderate ones.

The point is, I have a perfect right of free expression. Even in a "hateful" manner, I have a legal right to mock your beliefs, religion, and sacred taboos, as you do mine. Whether you or I should, or not, is a totally separate question. But I will defend your right to do so, as well as my own, against government censorship and violence by individuals. Want to boycott? Want to demonstrate peacefully? Want to say I am a hating, racist, blasphemer who will go straight to Hell? OK, that falls under your freedom of speech. But no one is responsible for someone else's "feelings", unless they voluntarily accept that burden.

[Harper_is_Bush]

75. Oh really? Seeing that in mainstream media would be American culture?

Don't think so, sorry.

[Burning Water]

77. Piss Chirst

was pretty well covered in the MSM with pictures and criticism of Christians who protested. So was the elephant dung Madonna. I don't think you are being honest with yourself.

But that's neither here nor there. Freedom of speech includes the right to blaspheme. Christ, Mohammed, Allah himself, Thor and Zeus, for that matter, if they have any serious worshippers.

Not saying it's right. Not saying that I approve. But are Muslims so wimpy that they can't take it like the rest of us? What should citizens of countries in the MidEast or Indonesia care what people do in Denmark?

At any rate, IMO, the right to free exprression trumps Muslim's, or anybody else's, non-existent right not to be offended any day.

[pop goes the weasel]

37. An exchange

Right now, non-Muslims feel they are being asked to capitulate on something important, without Muslims giving up anything. What value do Muslims treasure that they are willing to give up or severely injure for the right to never again see Mohammed portrayed in a negative way? And is the portrayal of Mohammed in these cartoons really what is at issue? If not, what is really important?

[Hoping4Change]

38. Duplicate post . Self-delete.

[JCMach1]

40. Profoundly NOT satire... the cartoons in question would have to be funny

for that!

They are not funny at all and serve only to grind the axes of their right-wing creators...

[Hoping4Change]

42. Satire is not the same as a joke. Gullivers Travels is satire but its

not funny.

The right-wing otherwise known as conservatives do not appreciate satire, never have and never will because it upsets their woldview. The the essence of any conservative worldview is to conserve the status quo, to opppose change, to oppose reforms, to oppose those who wish to question their assigned roles. The essence of satire is to ridicule all of the above.

[JCMach1]

43. Gulliver's Travels IS funny

There was NO humor in the pieces in question....


0, nada


They would have to rise above the creativity level of race and religion baiting for that to happen.

They do not...

============================================================================================

Just a one example, Yahoos throwing poo at the narrator (Gulliver)... that was funny!

[pop goes the weasel]

44. I don't know that satire needs to be funny

Perhaps so. But funny is in the eye of the beholder. If I live a long life, I will never understand how "The Three Stooges" is supposed to be funny.

You are right that most of them aren't funny. Though, come on, the one that has the drawing of the kid named Mohammed saying the journal editors are reactionary provocateurs is a little funny, and it is true--the editors are indeed reactionary provocateurs. And there's one where the cartoonist is mostly trying to convey that any portrayal of Mohammed is likely to raise a fuss. Maybe that one is OK? They're not all equally provocative and they're not all mean. And a couple of them are so badly drawn that I'm not sure they even count as cartoons. Scribbling, maybe. I've seen several editorials by Muslims that agreed that not all the cartoons are equally problematic, so that right there is some promise of common ground.

Are all the cartoonists right-wing? I honestly don't know, so if you do, tell me. Obviously some of them are, judging from what they drew. Do they all have a history of only drawing for right-wing journals or on right-wing topics?

[JCMach1]

45. a portrayal of Mohd. might raise a fuss, but not what

you have in this instance. It is that, PLUS the conflation of the Koranic tenets of Islam with Terrorist acts.

[pop goes the weasel]

47. Conflation...

of violence and scripture is, sadly, something that some religious people seem to do a great deal of themselves. Where is that island we can put those people who are so sure that divine will insists they kill other people? There they could self-righteously swing at each other, and leave the rest of us alone. Sigh.

[JCMach1]

48. Violence is the problem on ALL sides

We should remember that as the U.S. continues its wars for oil in the Middle-East.

[pop goes the weasel]

50. I was thinking of Bush, actually

And his conviction that he acts on received Word. Or, at least, he states that he does. I personally think that people who drape their killing in holy or idealistic terms are really looking out for materialistic advantage. The Bushes and Bin Ladens use their supposed knowledge of God's will to convince the gullible to do things in God's name that they would never do if they knew the real reason.

[JCMach1]

56. Precisely...

Even more dangerous because he has the power to pursue his madness...

[Hoping4Change]

52. But terrorists and extremists quote the Koran and they claim to

act in the name of Islam.

The extremists are the ones who conflated the tenets of Islam with terrorist acts. The cartoons are simply a comment on that fact. However Muslims seem set on seeing the cartoons as a judgement on the entire Muslim population.

Let me ask you something. Lets say your Iman preached a sermon admonishing people who didn't attend Mosque every week. The Iman was fed up with these people so he really was angry and didn't mince his words. Am I right JCM to assume, that if were a regular attendee, his sermon would be water off a duck's back because you would know his remarks didn't apply to you even though the Iman delivered his sermon to everybody gathered there?

[Harper_is_Bush]

61. And Bush blows up Muslims in the name of God

So what? Big fucking deal, right?

[Hoping4Change]

49. When I wrote that satire is not necessarily funny I was to referring to

satire in general because the poster,I was replying to, said the cartoons were not funny so they couldn't be classed as satire. My point was that satire doesn't have to be funny even though it often is.

Anyway I agree that the one about editors being reactionary provocateurs is a little funny. If you haven't followed the story closely you may not realize that the Muslim Dane who brought the cartoons with him on a trip to Mecca to show them to Imans also brought with him 3 extra cartoons that were never published and had nothing to do with the above newspaper. I believe this aggrieved person collected these other caricatures from hate web-sites but they weren't created by the cartoonists and no paper ever published them. Now this Dane who started this all is contrite. He says he is surprised that the people who were shown them assumed all were printed.

The paper is right of centre but its not the its not the extreme right.

[Harper_is_Bush]

62. So they're satire. So what? They are also blasphemous.

Is your suggestion that the deep offense felt by hundreds of millions of Muslims MOST OF WHOM ARE NOT EXTREMISTS is not real or worth respect?

Is blasphemy OK as long as it's satire?

[pop goes the weasel]

69. um, yes

Blasphemy is OK, even if it isn't satire. I'm an atheist. If I state my beliefs, then I commit blasphemy by your lights. A law against blasphemy would have the effect of completely stripping me of any right to hold and express my views. Even among believers, the very existence of contrary viewpoints leads to charges of blasphemy, as has happened in Egypt with attacks upon the Coptic Church because they, rather obviously, deny that Mohammed was any sort of prophet. And I have had the "pleasure" of knowing many Christians who think that Muslims are blasphemers. My take is that anyone's freedom to believe necessarily includes blasphemy against someone else's beliefs. As a believer, you can't commit blasphemy against what you believe, but you have no right to control what others believe and express, unless you are as willing to give up rights to what you believe and can express or unless you exercise tyranny.

[Harper_is_Bush]

70. You're not a mainstream newspaper though, are you?

The issue is not making satire or blasphemy illegal, in my view. It's conemning it's use when the result is a deep offense to hundreds of millions.

Many seem to want to defend these cartoons with the holiness of satire and free speech. That's a cop-out...a black and white refuge. What about common decency, does it have no place in our society?

And please, no cracks about womens rights in Muslim nations. One wrong does not excuse another.

[pop goes the weasel]

72. No, I am one person

who holds beliefs that you would find blasphemous. If they were published in a newspaper, and millions of Muslims were to be upset, along with millions of Christians and Jews, for that matter, would the mere fact that I am one person and they are millions mean that I have no right to speak my mind?

You did not ask about mere politeness, you brought up blasphemy. How dare anyone blaspheme! Well, I dare--but only with people I feel safe with. I go out of my way to not insult the religious people around me, because I don't want to be treated as a pariah, but it is a real hardship for me. They can say anything they want, and I have to constantly watch what I say. So my sympathy for your position is...completely nonexistent. I sympathize when you are abused for your beliefs, but I do not sympathize with your call that no one should ever insult your faith. You want me to look at things from your point of view. Try looking at it from mine.

[Harper_is_Bush]

73. Quit changing the subject

Who is saying you don't have the right to speak your mind? You have the right to draw an insulting and blasphemous cartoon also and a mainstream newspaper has the right to publish it under the guise of "an exercise in expression" or any other guise.

You support the publishing of these depictions? You support using insulting blasphemy in the mainstream press?

BTW, once your blasphemous cartoon is published it is no longer the view of "one person". The editor of that newspaper has decided to allow it, so it is representative of the entire newspaper. It is a corporate decision.

[pop goes the weasel]

76. I'm not changing the subject

But you are very much insisting that the only possible viewpoint is your own. You asked if I support the publication of blasphemy. I said that I do, because one person's blasphemy is another person's truth. I don't think Islam should be especially targetted for blasphemy, but it shouldn't be excepted from it either. Should blasphemy be published? Of course. You know, everytime a Muslim publishes something that says that Jesus was just a prophet, and not God, they are blaspheming in the eyes of Christians. And when Christians say that Jesus is God, they blaspheme in eyes of Muslims. And as an atheist, I say it's all nonsense because there are no gods nor prophets of gods. It's a great big blasphemy party. Whose viewpoint should be banned from the press on the grounds of blasphemy, when everyone is blaspheming?

OK? Got it? I support blasphemy. Even in the media. Even in the mainstream media.

Now, what I don't support is the use of the press by anyone to inflame violence or perpetuate stereotypes against persecuted groups. You can get my support if you are concerned about that, but you lose it just as soon as you drag in blasphemy as your chief concern.

[Burning Water]

66. The fact

that they are "deeply offensive" is irrelevant to the issue. Yes, the Muslim community can "forgive", if they choose. But the important thing is that they realize that others are not bound by the strictures of Islam. Their taboos affect only them. Being offended is part of the modern world.

Further, if they want respect for their culture and their religion, then they must extend that same respect toward the cultures and religions of other peoples. I've seen these cartoons, and they are relatively mild compared to some of the ones published in the Arab press about Christians and Jews. If you want to dish it out, then you'd better be able to take it.

My understanding from reading various commentaries about the cartoon, was the they were published deliberately to show the dysfunction of large amounts of the Muslim world. If this was in fact the objective, they succeeded admirably, wouldn't you say?

[JCMach1]

41. Look, I posted this thread to show that there actually is an alternative

response to this issue EVEN here in the Gulf.

People can and should forgive...

[pop goes the weasel]

46. I think you've done a great job

People here are talking to each other, and mostly respectfully. You should be pleased with such success. It holds hope of greater success later.

[MrSlayer]

51. Good to see someone is taking a sensible view of this.

I'd like to see all the high ranking religious leaders in the Muslim world call for an end to the bullshit.

[JCMach1]

57. Many are... It just won't be reported in the MSM

[daleo]

53. Their sentiments make perfect sense

But there are provocateurs on all sides, who want to stir up trouble. Some in the west want to insult Muslims, under the cover of freedom of speech, to set up a "conflict of civilizations". Some in the Islamic world desire this provocation, under the assumption that a sense of persecution will bring moderates to their side.

[Hoping4Change]

55. An excellent post. I will definitely be quoting you.

I so agree about some in west are using free speech to insult Muslims however I had not considered that "some in the Islamic world desire this provocation, under the assumption that a sense of persecution will bring moderates to their side.":wow:

[JCMach1]

58. Warmongers come in all colors, shapes and sizes

and creeds...

It's time the free people of this planet got together to end their reign of tyranny.

Enough is enough...

[flashdebadge]

65. Finally some rational thought coming from an imam.

[Canuckistanian]

71. UAE scholars to the rescue! Here comes the cavalry!

Although they're about a week late, AFTER the damage has been done.