If we are to believe that the majority of Muslims condemn the violent

[Hoping4Change]

riots why haven't there been any demonstrations by these Muslims to condemn the actions of alleged fringe groups who have resorted to lunatic levels of violence?

I haven't seen any report that tens of thousands of moderate Muslims have demonstrated against their brethren who have by their actions besmirched Islam in so far as Islam purports itself to be a religion of peace. :shrug:

[catmother]

1. i totally agree. where are the imans and clerics who are

denouncing violence. where are the peaceful muslim protestors?:dilemma:

[ck4829]

2. Here's one

“We are holding a counter demonstration on Saturday in Trafalgar Square, which we hope will be supported by Muslim and Non-Muslims alike who believe that the printing of the cartoons and the subsequent violence are both wrong. Protests must be peaceful,” argued Harris Bukhari of the Muslim Association of Britain.

http://dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1011603

[catmother]

10. the part i don't like is that the printing of the cartoons was wrong.

what about free speech?:shrug:

[ck4829]

15. As in "We Disagree"

I also feel that the cartoons were "Wrong".

And even though there is some things that I see that are wrong, I won't use force or the threat of force to change it.

I agree with my fellow Muslims who want to use a peaceful solution to the cartoons.

[Hoping4Change]

21. Why aren't Muslims in a state about the violence? Why no outrage against

fellow Muslims? I think violent mobs insult Islam more gravely than do the cartoons.

[ck4829]

22. It does insult Islam

I have denounced this wave of violence on DU before, just a couple of days ago.

Maybe I need to do it again, just to remind everybody that not all Muslims are deranged lunatics.

[Spinoza]

138. You can't make a categorical statement of that type.

ALL muslims do not agree that the cartoons are insulting to Islam. Islam does not have a single body deciding orthodoxy (as the Catholics do.) There is genuine disagreement. Perhaps the large majority of muslims feel the cartoons are insulting. But that is different from your categorical statement.

[Hoping4Change]

16. So a cartoon is enough to set aside the prime tenet of Islam?

If a prime tenet of a religion is so easily cast aside, is it in fact a prime tenet?

[Lolivia]

17. Like "thou shalt not kill" abortion doctors

or Venzuelan presidents, or gays, or....

[Hoping4Change]

37. Again why bring in Christianity? What has Christian hypocrisy to do

with Islam?

[Lolivia]

49. I'm trying to figure out what your point is

If your hypothesis is that if a few individuals of a certain religion commit acts of violence then the entire religion is not about peace, but violence, then you are saying that every single religion is violent. Because every single religion has its fundamentalists that commit violence. Then we need to have a serious discussion about why we aren't trying to eradicate ALL religion on earth.

If your point is the hypothesis only applies to Islam - you need to explain how the exact same behavior in different religions leads to different results. Why is Islam about violence and not Christianity or Hinduism when there are people in those religions that commit violence in the name of god?

If you admit that all religions are violent because a few of its members are - you need to explain why it's helpful or relevant to talk about only one of those religions.

So, which is it? What's your point here?

[Hoping4Change]

55. A few individuals? Surely you jest.

Death toll mounts in worldwide protests against anti-Muslim cartoons

Thousands took part in demonstrations from the Indian subcontinent to North Africa: in New Delhi, India; Peshawar, Pakistan; Tehran, Iran; Amman, Jordan; Cairo, Egypt. In the Iranian capital, hundreds of police were mobilized at the Danish embassy and opened fire with tear gas, but a group of 400 youth broke through the cordon and set fire to the building.

In Afghanistan, two people were killed Sunday in separate protests in Kabul and the central town of Mihtarlam. The demonstrators in the capital linked the anti-Muslim cartoons to the US military occupation of their country and clashed with NATO troops. The protesters chanted: “Death to Denmark! Death to Norway! Death to America! Death to Bush!”

On Monday two more demonstrators were shot to death in front of the main US base at Bagram, just outside Kabul, and three more were killed Tuesday by Afghan and Norwegian troops at a NATO base in Maymana, on the country’s northern border.


Lies from RW media. Hardly.

http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/02/1800844.php

[Lolivia]

57. You still haven't explained your point

Which one of the scenerios is it?

YOu haven't quoted anything above that hasn't been done by Christians or other protestors.

What is your main point here?

[Solomon]

166. Damn Lolivia! Welcome to DU. You are brilliant.

(Bowing solemny) You really made your point. Succintly and clearly.

[Igel]

204. Her point hasn't been falsified.

The existence of Xian or Jewish or Hindu loonies doesn't mitigate the existence of Islamic loonies. I suspect that the OP's point was quantity, and a prediction that could be made given assertions made by self-appointed defenders of Islam.

S/he could have argued that most of the condemnations have been ambiguous, fuzzy, or wrong-headed, but didn't. I presume she didn't want to. And she also didn't engage in comparative theology. There's a claim, the old "Islam is a religion of peace" canard (as though Xianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc., would make that claim as well); the lack of counter-protests plausibly indicate that the claim is not strongly held, since defaming Islam by violence and threats and defaming Muhammed by the use of ambiguous drawings are presumably at least equivalent. If they are not equivalent, then the status of the initial claim is in question. The way to argue against her point is to ask whether they are indeed equivalent kinds of defamation, and if there is a basis for the lack of equivalence. Perhaps if Muslims had made the drawings their interpretation and imputed value wouldn't have been as bad, and it was the non-believer status of the authors that was an issue; perhaps if the context the drawings' authors percieved were widely known, as the context for violence and protests is understood, things would be different; perhaps it was the false drawings that had been distributed that accounts for the difference, or the drawings that weren't widely available were discounted as irrelevant. Perhaps if it were known that the worst of the drawings were published in Egypt last October with barely anybody caring, things would have been different. There are other options.

What others do is immaterial to the rightness or wrongness of the claim, it's not a beauty contest but a question of internal consistency and accuracy of message. Islam is no more or less a religion of peace and tolerance because Xians or Hindus (or atheists or pollywogs) protest and burn down embassies and kill clerics of the offending religion, nor is Islam a religion of violence and intolerance because Quakers peacefully hold tapers in a 20 minute silent vigil. The response within those religions to violence or pacifism is also completely irrelevant to the validity of the claim.

BTW, the OP's both right and wrong. There have been a few counter-protests. They've been small and ineffectual, and have gotten at least the amount of attention that they, in purely quantitative terms, deserve. Personally, I also find most of the the implications of their denunciations to be moderately offensive and, indeed, as disturbing as the violence itself, but that's arguably just me.

[Lolivia]

58. delete -dupe

[Lolivia]

59. Delete - computer glitch dupe

[Karenina]

61. WHY does Tim Russert

call upon Obama to "refute" Harry Belafonte?

WHY have I been called upon so many times in this life, to "refute" the behaviour of people simply because their skin colour is the same as mine?

Is Laura Bush called upon to "refute" the behaviour of poor whites addicted to meth???

[Hoping4Change]

68. Why do they do this sort of thing? Because they're caught with their

pants down. They rely on spin and rely on others giving them the right spin; left without a script they resort to this inanity. Need I say that when people respond in this fashion their credibility is seriously questioned.

[Karenina]

155. You did NOT address my point.

And your response is no more than convoluted BS. Bluntly stated, WHY are YOU calling upon Muslims to denounce others whose only connection is their faith?

[genie_weenie]

66. I think the point is that Muslims are doing this today

Christianity spread by some of the most despicable means throughout the last 20 centuries, ever heard of the Cathars? And Hinduism became violent in it's reaction to the spread of Buddhism in India 25 centuries ago, so much so that almost no Buddhists are in India today.

HOWEVER, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Wotanists, Zeusites, Zoroastrians, Atheists, Shintoists, Wickerman Pagans are not calling for death to every Western or burning embassies are demanding anti-blasphmey laws be forced upon the world today.

Islam like most religions spread though violence, rape, murder, genocide, etc. The debate is, are the moderate peaceful members of the religion of Islam able to curtail the violence.

And this whole rigamarole is a crafted situation by Islamic leaders to keep pressure off of their corrupt governments and focus their citizens discontent onto a ready boogeyman.

[Lolivia]

There are absolutely Christians calling for the death of all Muslims

I've met many.

Apparently, moderate Christians haven't been able to curtail the violence.

[genie_weenie]

71. Yes, I've meet many as well

including in the Corps, but was it over a cartoon?

And without the ability to ridicule, satirize, insult religious sacred cows, change can not happen:

I present Voltaire:
http://washingtontimes.com/upi/20051212-062513-7587r.htm

Edited: forgot to add link

[Lolivia]

73. Here's a story:

This happened in the early 90s, before internet, so I haven't been able to come up with links. I'll keep researching. But I vividly remember the Colorado Springs passion play hired a black actor to play JEsus. The actor and the organization putting on the play both received death threats. Death threats because they hired a non-white actor to play Jesus. Death threats. Thousands of other groups pulled out of going to see the play.

So again, why are we talking about one religion to the exclusion of all others? Why aren't we talking about the real issue - extremism wherever it's found? We can play tit for tat all night. Why aren't we framing the issue correctly? Why are we so eager to point to other religions or countries at the same time we are so unwilling to look at ourselves? Why aren't we talking about ALL violence and ALL extremism?

[genie_weenie]

77. Well black or white Jesus is not the issue

especially since the people of 2000 years ago didn't think that way. And Jesus was Semitic anyway.

But, my point was this thread is about Islam, I'd be glad to discuss the evils of the Inquisition on another thread or the hatred of Japanese Zen Buddhists for Christians in 1600s Japan or whatever.

So, I restrain my comments on those topics for another thread (maybe I'll start one) and just comment on the excesses and wrongs associated with Cartoons for this one.

I leave the last word to you...

[Hoping4Change]

89. We are talking about one religion in this thread because the OP

did not ask for comparison. The OP is very specific.

[Lolivia]

93. And I want to know WHY it is relevant or helpful to talk about 1 religion

to the exclusion of all others issues of extremism.

Several posters have answered your question: Moderate Muslims HAVE spoken out against the violence. And EVERY group has extremist they can't control - that doesn't mean the group as a whole is extreme.

So why talk about only one group?

[Hoping4Change]

101. I can pull up hundreds of posts here at DU reiterating that the basic

tenet of Islam is peace and that Islamic extremists are not representative of Muslims as a whole. Why is it then when Islam is being besmirched by people within its midst are Muslims not taking to the streets to denounce those Muslims who have gone so far as to demand beheadings?

[Lolivia]

102. Asked and answered

Muslims HAVE denounced it. ALL groups have people that are extremists.

[Hoping4Change]

107. Why haven't there been marches to denounce the extremists?

[Lolivia]

108. Red herring

you haven't answered my question.

Your original question has been asked and answered. You aren't answering mine. WHen and if you answer my question, we can move on to the next questions.

[CJCRANE]

140. How many news channels do you watch?

Do you know what's going in Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, Dubai, Tanzania, Morocco, Azerbaijain etc or even the UK for that matter?

[PsychoDad]

193. There happens to be one in London today..

IIRC.

[Clark2008]

200. Why aren't YOU paying attention.

Peaceful protests don't always equal marches in the street.

Geesch.

[CJCRANE]

135. No it wasn't over a cartoon, it was over WMD

that don't exist. 100,000 people died in that one.

And freepers still think Iraq was revenge for 9/11.

[genie_weenie]

150. I'm sorry

is this in reponse to my post?

[Hoping4Change]

Why do you avoid the question at hand?

[Lolivia]

86. Is that pointed at me?

The answer is that EVERY ideological/theological/political group has extremists that the moderate members decry but have been unable to contain. Why is that? I don't know.

So what is the point of restricting ourselves to the discussion of one group?

[Hoping4Change]

94. What is more important in Islam? Peace or the injunction that

an image of Mohammed not be made in vain?

[Lolivia]

96. Why will you not answer the question?

Why will you not explain your point? Telling me you are talking about only one group is not an explanation of WHY you are talking about only one group.

Are you going to continue to put out red herrings? Just tell me now so I can stop expecting you to answer the question.

Again, several poster have answered the questions you put in your OP. Are you going to answer other people's questions?

[Hoping4Change]

103. If I started a thread about Romeo and Juliet and wanted a discussion

about Romeo and Juliet would it be a red herring to want to stay on topic?

[Lolivia]

104. Asking why you want to talk about that topic

is a relevant question about that topic. It IS staying on topic to ask why you brought it up. It gets to the essence of the conversation.


Avoiding answering a question about the original topic by throwing out other issues that don't answer that question is putting out a red herring.

So you aren't going to answer why you want to talk about that topic? What your point is for bringing the topic up?

[Hoping4Change]

116. Peaceful Muslims have got together to protest cartoons peacefully

but they haven't held any demonstrations denouncing extremists. If I were a Muslim who took offense at the cartoons, I would have said once violence broke out that violence has obliberated any claim to insult. I would feel ashamed.

[Lolivia]

118. So you AREN"T going to answer the question....

People have already told you about the 2000 mosques that have denounced the violence and the demonstration against the violence being held in Trafalgar square. SO you either aren't reading the responses, or you're being deliberately obtuse.

I'll check back later (gotta go now) and see if you ever actually answer why it's relevant or helpful to talk ONLY the Muslim reponse to muslim violence and not other groups' response to their members' violence.

[Hoping4Change]

123. The demonstration at Trafalgar Square is a peaceful demonstation to

condemn the cartoons while condemning violence. As I have stated above, I think in this instance that once outrage turned violent, any claim to being outraged by a cartoon is invalidated.

[Lolivia]

175. Your powers of avoidance and obfuscation are truly impressive

You STILL haven't answered the question about why we shouldn't focus on the real issue of extremism wherever it occurs.

You just keep repeating the same things over and over again, no matter that they have already been refuted. I have to admire your steadfast adherence to a single point.

Even though you haven't answered my question, I have a new one: why is it only in "this instance" that the outrage is invalidated? If you are positing that the violence of some completely negates an entire position, does that mean that every single person who is outraged over Bush should be "ashamed" and their outrage negated because a few anarchists at the last inauguration stormed the police and set fire to Freedom Plaza? Not a single person took to the streets to protest the anarchists actions when they were beating up Bush supporters or storming the police or setting fires.

And don't tell me that's not on topic. Statements do not exist in a vacuum. "Logic" does not exist in a vacuum. If it is your contention that the actions of a few tar the many, then you have to concede that the actions of the anarchists means that all progressive protestors are violent extremists. If it is your contention that the entire Muslim world is culpable because they failed to demonstrate to YOUR personal liking (apparently the facts of Muslims protesting against and denouncing the violence do not meet YOUR approval as sufficient action. Who knew you were the arbitor for this?) then you have to concede that ALL groups who fail to take to the streets every single time a member of their group does something extreme are responsible for those actions. THat means every single Christian is responsible for every single abortion bombing or killing or whatever. That means every single American citizen is responsible for the torture at the hands of the military. I haven't seen a single demonstration denoucing abortion clinic bombings or the torture.

Again, if you make a statement of "logic" like that, you have to be willing to apply that "logic" across the board. If there is some reason your "logic" can't be applied to everyone - by all means, explain it. And if you chose to only apply that "logic" to Muslims - by all mean, explain why that's in any way useful. Tell me what the point is.

[muriel_volestrangler]

191. Once one person has turned violent, no-one else can be outraged by it?

Where's the logic in that? This isn't some hive mind - it's over a billion people around the world. Does the action of Fred Phelps mean no Christian can be pro-gay rights? Of course not.

[Raydawg1234]

174. This is correct, go on any freeper board and you will see this is true.

And these are supposed to be the "family values christians."

This is why I am a firm believer in Individual Religion/Spirituality, as opposed to the bullshit organized kind.

[Retired AF Dem]

201. Curtail what violence?

[Roho]

19. yea what about it?

Ever yelled fire in a crowded room?

Imagine a gay couple moves into a very red state small town and the next day a cartoon appears in the paper showing a gay man trying to seduce a cute little boy. Any chance some rednecks might take that as a sign it's ok to go teach the fags a lesson?

[catmother]

27. i don't think rednecks are peaceful people. they're small

minded and fucked up.

[Roho]

31. Don't shift the goal posts

I was replying to your "free speech" is sacred crap.

[Hoping4Change]

42. Why are you not responding to the OP? I ask again how can a

religion that is premised on peace, resort at the drop of a hat to violence and why hasn't this shameful behaviour caused a furor amongst believers?

[Roho]

47. I did repsond

Open your eyes and see the big world around you.

My post directed to you is near the bottom.

[Hoping4Change]

39. So a cartoon is enough is throw the Koran and its injunctions aside?

[Roho]

53. who are you responding to?

My reply to you is unanswered down below.

Grow a set and go respond there instead of looking for a brian for your scarecrow up here

[Hoping4Change]

56. Do I detect nastiness? I must have struck a chord.

[Roho]

65. yes you have

I think you're narrowly trying to define the discussion in a bubble you create to either get the answer you are looking for or stroke your own ignorance pretending nobody wanted to play by your rules.

Here is the link for you now go respond.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=383753&mesg_id=383930

[Lolivia]

67. You've hit it, Roho

YOu've absolutely exposed the OP's purpose.

[Karenina]

81. There are those among us

who prefer, for their own purposes, to reserve the "right" to define the terms to themselves. THAT WAY things like ethics, the common good, LYING, predatory behaviour, und so weiter und sofort, can be spun to THEIR advantage. Delay/Abramhoff, Brownie/DHS, *dauphin & crew and Enron/Halliburton are all good examples...

[Hoping4Change]

85. So if you wanted to talk to Bush about global warming, you would be

content if Bush wanted to talk about his ranch?

[Karenina]

99. Hä???

:shrug:

[Hoping4Change]

106. I have questions pertaining to Islam and you insist on evading the

question at hand. My OP is not about comparing extremism in todays world. My post concerns my observation that Mohammed seems more important to Muslims than his message.

[Karenina]

122. Hä???

JESUS H. CHRIST ON A TRAILER HITCH!!! Damn I can't find the photo! ANYBODY GOT IT??? Here, try this. Some blondified version of Jesus seems more important to some American Christians than his message. The difference?
The Ami-faux-version is ensconced in the AIR FORCE... You know those guys who rain down bombs on brown people for CHRIST!!!

Here's your OP again:

"If we are to believe that the majority of Muslims condemn the violent
riots why haven't there been any demonstrations by these Muslims to condemn the actions of alleged fringe groups who have resorted to lunatic levels of violence?"

(All I can glean from this first LOADED question is that no one should believe most Muslims find the violence reprehensible because they are, like you, trying to do their work, feed their families and get on with their lives, rather that taking to the streets en masse to demonstrate AGAINST people over whom they have NO CONTROL and in many cases NO CONNEXION.)

I haven't seen any report that tens of thousands of moderate Muslims have demonstrated against their brethren who have by their actions besmirched Islam in so far as Islam purports itself to be a religion of peace. :shrug:

Let's try this again.

I haven't seen ANY report that tens of thousands of AMERICAN have demonstrated against their GOVERNMENT, WHO LIED TO THEM in pursuing an ILLEGAL INVASION in IRAQ, that has resulted in WORLDWIDE HARM and BESMIRCHED the American people as STUPID, IGNORANT, ARROGANT, AGGRESSIVE, PREDATORY ASSHOLES insofar as THEY purport themselves to be "beacons of democracy." :shrug:

[Lolivia]

183. It is invalid for you to restrict your OP to such arbitrary parameters

You claim that people who bring in other groups besides Muslims are straying off topic. That would be true IF your original post made statements of fact about a concrete and discrete topic.

You haven't done that, you've put forth a hypothesis.

Your OP basically says "If X, then Y." If we are to believe Muslims are about peace, than why haven't they demonstrated against violence? This is the functional equivalent of: If Islam is about peace, then Muslims must demonstrate agaisnt the violence.

As many people pointed out, they HAVE, but you choose to ignore those facts. That's ok, we can operate within that. Let's assume then, arguendo, that there haven't been any denounciations of the violence (I am absolutely not stipulating that).

Purportedly, you have used logic and reasoning to decide that X cannot be true without Y. That is, (Insert ideological/political/theological group here) cannot be about peace unless its members demonstrate against other members' violence. In order for your hypothesis to be valid, NO X can be about peace unless Y. You cannot have a valid, logical hypothesis where the logic does not carry through TO ALL POSSIBLE Xs.

So, it is invalid to arbitrarily restrict X to ONLY THE GROUPS THAT YOU WANT TO and expect your logic to be sound. It is not straying off topic to insist that your hypothesis stand up to logic and reason.

If no member of Islam is about peace if its members don't demonstrate against extremism, then Christianity is not about peace unless all its members demonstrate.

THen no US citizen is agaisnt torture unless every US citizen demonstrates against torture.

Every Bush protestor is a law-breaking anarchist if every Bush protestor doesn't demonstrate agaisnt the law-breaking anarchists.

Do I need to go on?

[Roho]

189. no but would you ?!

You're very good.

[Lolivia]

190. self-delete

[Lolivia]

186. See post 183 that explains your faulty logic about this

[Hoping4Change]

72. You simply don't want your feet held to the fire. You want to avoid

the question by going all over the place. I'm interested in why Muslim outrage is confined to non-Muslims when extremists are, by all accounts, taking the tenets of Islam to hell in a handbasket. Does Mohammed trump the tenet of peace?

[Lolivia]

75. And you want to avoid explaining why it's relevant

or helpful to talk about only ONE form of extremism and completely ignore other forms. Why single out one religion when EVERY ideological/political/theological group has its violent extremists?

[Hoping4Change]

92. The basic tenet of Islam is peace not violence. Muslims seem more

concerned with insults to Mohammed than they are in observing the basic tenet of their faith which is peace. It seems to me peace is given lip sevice. How deep is the commitment to peace when it is cast aside by something so trivial as an offensive cartoon?

[democracyindanger]

184. Nice broad brush you've got there.

Sickening.

[Roho]

87. I haven't gone anywhere

You still haven't answered my post.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=383753&mesg_id=383930

This last question of yours is so devoid of facts you insult me and the readers by even asking it.

[PsychoDad]

195. Bingo!

Hit it on the nail. Give the gentleman/gentlewoman a prize! :)

Peace

[leesa]

129. It's about it being perfectly OK to arbitrarily invade and bomb and murder

Muslims in this world. When they get uppity about it, they must have a problem right? Like your little emoticon would indicate. It's bigotry in its purist form. We used to feel the same way about the blacks in this country.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

24. Only One?

I bet he feels lonely.

Frankly, killing and burning over a silly cartoon is unexcuseable.

There needs be more than one who agrees with this.

[ck4829]

25. Only 1 as in only 1 protest (as far as I know of)

And they have MY support too.

And yes, I do feel lonely sometimes, sometimes I think I'm the only person who is both a Socialist AND a Muslim.

[catmother]

29. i thought you stated last week that your father is a muslim but

you and your mom are not. did i get the wrong guy?

[ck4829]

32. You are mistaken

My family is Catholic.

I am the Convert to Islam.

[catmother]

40. sorry. i just checked. it was a similar name. in which case i

have a question. why would anyone who was not born a muslim convert? it's such a strict religion --praying 5 times a day -- sex restrictions, etc. i was actually going to start a thread on this topic but maybe you can answer it for me.

[ck4829]

43. Did it for love LOL

I don't pray 5 times, neither does she.

We're very relaxed, but there are some things that we follow very strictly.

No drinking

No using of drugs

No eating of pork

No pre-marital sex

But, other than that, besides having a lover by my side, I actually feel very good about myself having converted to Islam.

[catmother]

46. well as long as your happy. but isn't kind of a cafeteria style

of islam? you pick and choose the rules you want to follow. i know many christians do the same thing.

[ck4829]

48. Hyper-Strictness is not a good thing

I am opposed to things such as Sharia, and I don't believe in the Hadiths for a reason.

I do the things that identify me as a Muslim, I follow the 5 pillars (To the best of my ability), and that is what matters IMO.

[catmother]

54. well i guess i have my answer. i was raised catholic too, 10

years of catholic school and now i reject catholisism and any kind of christianity and i'm feeling good about myself too. we all have to follow the path that our gut tells us is the right thing for us. thank you for your honest answers. :pals:

[Hoping4Change]

51. Are you implying that there is someone in the world that hasn't picked

and choosen certain mores to live by? To quote the abominable John Stoessel gimme-me-a-break.

[catmother]

62. hey i don't care who picks what. but my feeling is if i'm going

to follow a religion i'm going to follow it all the way. i don't practice any type of religion. but that's me. i don't really care what anyone else chooses. that's their business.

[Hoping4Change]

80. So you would opt for being a fanatic because only fanatics embrace

the notion of following a religion all the way. That notion is such a dangerous illusion. It is the fanatics who get in knots about strict observance. And what is strict observance? If you were to become a practicing Catholic would you be a member of the Opus Dei and follow it all the way? Would you embrace Mathew Fox's take on Catholicism and follow that all the way. The very fact that you would need to choose the type of Catholicism to follow means that at the very getgo you'd be picking and choosing.

[catmother]

90. i don't think any religion embraces terror and killing. i don't

follow a religion -- but i can tell you that as a child i followed my catholic upbringing all the way. i even believed in hell.

why are you trying to argue with everyone tonight?

edited for clarification.

[Hoping4Change]

109. Did you mispost or are you referring to Bongo when you refer to

the "beautiful picture"?:smoke:

[catmother]

115. yes. it was the picture posted by jody. sorry i had a long day

and i'm tired.

[Hoping4Change]

117. You mean you don't think Bongo is beautiful?

:cry:

[catmother]

119. who the hell is "bongo". is that what the picture is called.

:hide:

[jody]

52. I have several friends who were Christians but have converted to Islam.

Some of them now live in other countries because they are discriminated against in the U.S. by Christians in general and fundamentalists in particular.

Don't the restrictions you list as a "strict religion" also apply to such groups as Roman Catholics, Southern Baptists, and Orthodox Judaism?

Why would someone become a member of the special Roman Catholic prelature Opus Dei?

There are several quasi Christian groups in the U.S. that have beliefs that are much more strict than Islam.

Jesus taught that man's job was to "Love God" but Muhammad took that one more step and said man's job was to "Serve God". :shrug:

IMO, religion can be used for good or evil.

[catmother]

64. well the same would be my question to them. why choose a

religion that's so strict? i was born and raised a catholic, but when i got older i chose not to follow it or any other religion. i try to practice the golden rule just as depicted in your very beautiful post. my sister -- on the other hand converted to judaism -- she felt that was right for her.

on edit: i'm sorry that your friends had to leave the country. i know i feel very uncomfortable around xmas time. i feel very alone and like a minority in this country. and everyone just assumes your a christian unless you're wearing a star of david or a turban or whatever. every place i go "people say are you ready for x-mas"? or similar remarks.

[genie_weenie]

70. Thank God as an Atheist I'm free of these tawdy rules!

No religion has followed this rule after their religion gained power and position. When they were weak sure they implored the people who had power over them to abide by do onto others...

I always thought the Judaism rule of Whosoever saves one man's life has saved the world, because it leads to the question of whether the reverse is true, Whosoever kill one man, kills the whole world...

[catmother]

74. that's a very interesting thought -- killing one man -- killing the

world. and i guess i'm an atheist too because i don't follow any religion.

[genie_weenie]

79. Atheists of the world, unite and implore *nobody* to give you strength!

The rallying cry!

[jody]

78. I understand but IMO society needs some foundation for a moral code.

I have a number of friends who say they are atheists and I've asked them if the "Golden Rule" would be an important moral guide for society?

They all said yes which leads me to conclude that the world would be much better if we all began by practicing "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and stop fighting over ridiculous things like filioque that has separated Orthodox and Roman Catholic since 1054 CE.

If we can't get Orthodox and Roman Catholics to agree, then will we ever succeed with Jews and Muslims?

[genie_weenie]

91. Sure, being an atheist DOES NOT mean one has no morals

I try to live my life by the idea, of "You do your thing, I'll do mine" as long as there is no force or violence everyone gets along.

And you are right, The Golden Rule rocks!

[Hoping4Change]

45. There have been peaceful protests against the cartoons and that I

don't dispute. My question is why haven't moderate Muslims raised a major hue and cry against those Muslims who have resorted to violence when a major tenet of Islam is peace.

[Hoping4Change]

36. I have not maintained that there haven't been peaceful demonstrations

about the cartoons. My question is why moderate Muslims have not demonstrated against their brethren who have besmirched Islam. Mohammed I'm told preached a message of peace, but the violent riots looks to me like a slap in face to Mohammed.

It appears to me that Mohammed has become an idol despite injunctions to not represent him in any way. I think Muslim scholars have erred in believing that preventing an image would suffice in preventing a revered figure from becoming an idol.

I recall reading, though its was some time ago so correct me if I am wrong, that Mohammed is likened to a finger pointing to the moon but not the moon itself. It seems the finger pointing to moon has taken precedence to the moon.

[tenshi816]

192. I'm very glad to hear this news. n/t

[jody]

3. OK but why haven't there been demonstrations by Christians to condemn

the actions of people like Judge Roy Moore and his Ten Commandants Rock?

Perhaps many/most people just don't want to get involved and through their apathy, corrupt groups gain control of governments.

[Maddy McCall]

5. And some are just plain afraid to stand up.

[jody]

6. Absolutely. n/t

[Hoping4Change]

8. Why be afraid to stand up to brethern who espouse Islam? Islam

we are repeatedly told is about peace.

[catmother]

exactly. there should be no fear if it's about peace. nt

[1620rock]

7. Jody is right...

...I haven't seen thousands of moderate Christan's (in fact I have not seen a single one)demonstrating against the lunatic fringe Christians for what their influence and actions are doing to this country, and to our image around the world. :shrug:

[Hoping4Change]

9. Put Christianty aside as we are addressing Islam. Islam purports to

be peaceful.

[Lolivia]

12. Why put Christianity aside?

Does Christianity admit to being violent?

[Hoping4Change]

63. Because the question in the OP is about Islam. The OP is not

asking for a comparison with Christianity, Budd ism, Sikhism or any other religion. My question is why haven't Muslims who decry violence not marched in protest against fellow Muslims who have stomped on a main tenet of the faith? Silence speaks volumes.

[Lolivia]

187. See post 183 to see why your logic is faulty here

[Hoping4Change]

159. The fight in the courts against Moore was waged by the ACLU and

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. "Americans United’s current executive director, the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, is a United Church of Christ minister as well as an attorney long active on behalf of civil liberties. Through the years, many members of the clergy have been involved in the work of Americans United. However, Americans United is officially a non-sectarian and non-partisan organization."

So in fact Christians have fought hard against Christians zealots. However as you state many people just don't want to get involved and through their apathy,corrupt groups gain control of governments.

This point is actually the root of my concern. I believe religious extremists need to be actively hounded down in their respected communites, by reasonable members in those communities, least extremists take hold of power.

[Maddy McCall]

4. It's kinda like being pro-choice in Mississippi.

You can BE pro-choice, but if you openly demonstrate your pro-choice sentiments, you can expect some form of retribution from the crazies, like keying your car or even losing your job if your boss is a fundie (and many are, in Mississippi).

[Hoping4Change]

11. Why bring up Christianity? Are you saying Christians set the standard?

[deadparrot]

13. Because peaceful/silent protest doesn't get near the amount of airtime

that violent fundamentalists do.

[Just Me]

34. Response deserves a BONG BONG BONG rather than a ding ding.

It's true here, it's true everywhere in terms of our US CM coverage: peaceful protests by tens of thousands, even millions of people DO NOT RECEIVE the relative attention that the violent fringe folks do.

Moreover, I did watch numerous Muslims state their opposition to violence, just yesterday, I believe on CNN. So, let us maintain perspective. Please.

[Hoping4Change]

110. There is no agruement from me that there have been peaceful

protests against the cartoons. By question is why haven't those Muslims who have peacefully protested the cartoons haven't had another protest to condemn fellow Muslims who have resorted to violence.

[Hoping4Change]

97. There have been peaceful protests against the cartoon.No argument

about that. But there hasn't been any protests by Muslims against their brethen who have resorted to violence.

[deadparrot]

154. What makes you think such protests would be covered by the MSM?

It doesn't matter if they're protesting the cartoons or the protesters; if they're peaceful, they're simply not going to get airtime that bloody, violent outbursts from extremists do. Simply put, "If it bleeds, it leads."

[Roho]

14. If you are to believe????

Of course you're not supposed to believe that, that's why you posted this shitty thread.

Here is some homework.

Go find out how many muslims over 1 billion there are on planet earth.

Go find a single link claiming more than a few hundred protesters became violent at any of the protests

Go add up the TOTAL participants reported to be protesting and post your results.

Go find a single major US media organization that interviewed leading moderate religious leaders.

Go find out how many muslims it takes to start a building fire.

Go find a single link quoting a prominent muslim leader calling for violent protest.

now some cheat sheets.

Over 2000 mosques have denounced the violence.
Less than a million muslims have protested.
Millions protested the Iraq war and the GOPMedia managed to ignore it yet a few thousand muslims protesting with a few hundred rioting gets wall to wall 24/7 coverage
Less than 0.05% of WTO protesters became violent yet the GOP Media managed to paint the whole group as fringe anarchists.

See a pattern?

[alarcojon]

20. Right on, Roho

This kind of misinformed blanket condemnation pisses me off.

Here's some more Muslim groups expressing their opposition to violence.

The Fiqh Council of North America wishes to reaffirm Islam's absolute condemnation of terrorism and religious extremism.

Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives.

There is no justification in Islam for extremism or terrorism.

etcetera, etcetera

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=359&topic_id=47

[Roho]

26. Thanks

If these people who insist on posting this type of thread just did a fucking google search they wouldn't need to post because they would see organization trying to be heard. But as usual they aren't sensational enough to make the news.

BTW... Isn't this type of thread the definition of flame bait?

[Just Me]

38. And yet ANOTHER excellent response!!!!

I'm so glad there are so many people who manage to maintain some perspective IN SPITE OF US CM bs.

:hi: YEAH!!!!

[Roho]

60. I'll tell you a secret

Here in Toronto I watch BBCWorld news at 6pm. CBC national news at 10pm. And, CNN/FOX in the background when online.

I feel very sorry for American basic cable subscribers, and I have great respect for those that can break though the noise.

[Just Me]

100. There's prolly a LOT more people who seek multiple perspectives,...

,...than the US CM believes. We are PULLING them more than they realize: not ENOUGH,...but, still pulling. Frankly, when I compare coverage 18 months ago compared to today,...the difference is quite significant.

It's just ashame that, well,...the compassionate, the truthful, those with integrity and honor and concern,...are not only valued so damn little but also dehumanized. Whereas, the aggressive and dominant and dirty are relished and rewarded as "winners".

We have lost our way. Of course, it was inevitable in the promotion of the material rather than the substance made up by human potential. I am confident we'll get back on track, eventually: not without pain, though.

[Roho]

127. I agree 100%

And I know this might sounds strange but over the last 6 months I've started to notice more attractive looking Democrats on the cable news channels. Yes even fox has a couple of new aesthetically pleasing liberals on to argue with the pugs.

Before it was allen colmes look alikes and the mousiest looking women possible.

Now that in no way means that I'm shallow enough for that to matter for me. Hell I was always happy when a lefty actually made it on tv.

But, after seeing the difference I'm left with no doubt both the before and after were conscious network decisions.

[strangemedicine]

18. Interesting. Try this little experiment.

Insert the word "Christian" in the place of the word "Muslim."

This whole event is just another demonstration of why ANYKIND of religious fundamentalism is dangerous, IMO. It represents the moral development of a child in which the only reality is duality -- good and bad, us and them.

[Hoping4Change]

120. I am not disputing your point. I totally agree but I want to know why

an insult to Mohammed is enough for Muslims to set aside the prime tenet of Islam which is peace. Many posters at DU express their outrage at the cartoons. Although they have denounced violence they always say the violence was provoked, that the insult was great enough to explain the violent reaction. I can only conclude that peace is paid lip service by Muslims.

[Lolivia]

177. All muslims?

"An insult...is enough for Muslims" and "peace is paid lip service by Muslims?" ALL muslims? Are you calling out the Muslims on this board? Are you saying ALL Muslims set aside the tenet of peace? What is your proof of that? You haven't qualified the "Muslims" by saying SOME or A FEW or anything.

You are really calling all Muslims violent?

If it's not ALL Muslims, then hmmmmm, it must be a few of the extremists that are violent, just like the extremists of any group. If that's the case, then your entire post boils down to the profound statement of "extremists are extreme." Wow.

[Roho]

182. lol well done.

How's this one from the op........

Hoping4Change Donating Member (1000+ posts)
Sat Feb-11-06 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #167
172. Where are the stereotypes in the OP? What's inflammatory?

I get the impression that everything is inflammatory in your mind.

[Lolivia]

202. Haha

Hmmmm, the stereotypes? You mean other than the entire OP labeling ALL Muslims as violent? You mean other than the fact that her entire premise is based on faulty logic that doesn't hold up to the most basic of test? You mean other than the attempt to make broad-brush statements and then try to backpedal on to whom they can be applied? You mean other than refusing to answer calls to defend her statements or the (non-existent) logic behind them?

Gee, I can't think of any....

[LSdemocrat]

23. Only total ideologues stage counter demonstrations

Most of us moderate Muslims watch the violence with sadness. Most of the demonstations have been peaceful by the way.

[Roho]

30. but3

If you believe in the religion of peace you would be out there fighting the extremists.

Insert stupid ass smilie here to excuse my utter ignorance.

[SmokingJacket]

28. What do you hope to gain here?

Do you want us all to agree that all Muslims are evil and love violence, and therefore it's okay to blow them off the map?

Is that what you want?

[Roho]

33. yup sounds like it

What I want to know is why this isn't considered flame bait?

I've alerted.

Yesterday I was called a cowardly terrorist appeaser and the post I told the user I had alerted him in was deleted but the other remained. So when I was called a hezbollah style extremist I didn't even bother alerting.

I guess it's not just some users that feel the way this op does.

[alarcojon]

41. Just for your information

it is against DU rules to tell someone you've alerted on them. It's okay to tell them you've put them on ignore.

[Roho]

50. What!!!!!!!

You're only allowed to snitch?

That is the worst rule I have ever heard of.

No wonder the same people demanding free speech for all are able to alert on posts without being revealed as hypocrites.

On Kos if you hand out a 1 or 2 it's considered poor form to hit and run without explaining you beef.

[alarcojon]

76. Just trying to shed some light

on why you probably got deleted.

For the record, I'm not fond of the rule either.

[Hoping4Change]

139. Asking a question about Islam is flame bait? That's rich.

Do I detect authoritarian proclivities? I think I do.

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Straight Story]

157. Why it is not flame bait: Folks here have asked same of christians

in threads from time to time 'well if phelps does not represent you, where is the condemnation? If he is so bad and you disagree so much, why aren't christians out protesting the people giving their faith a bad name'

What's good for christians here should be good for other faiths as well. Though it does not appear to be so...

[Roho]

167. no not the same

The op says if muslims are so peaceful why are they not confronting those in their faith that act violently.

He did not say "I'd like to ask moderate muslim DU'rs why they aren't standing up to the extremist in their faith"

See the difference?

The op isn't looking for meaningful dialog aimed at gaining insight from muslims about their faith. He wants to drop not so subtle broad brush stereotypes in order to inflame as many as possible.

Had he wanted understanding he would have accepted several of the answers given to him. Namely that his question answers itself

[Hoping4Change]

172. Where are the stereotypes in the OP? What's inflammatory?

I get the impression that everything is inflammatory in your mind.

[Hoping4Change]

132. What are you smoking? Where am I advocating anyone be blown off the map?

I want to know whether it is more important for Muslims to observe the prime tenet of Islam which is peace or to uphold the injunction of not representing Mohammed?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

35. Because they don't want to be attacked in turn?

Peaceful marches don't always work well when you've got unpeaceful people roaming the streets who you are condemning.

[DemonGoddess]

44. What about the world wide

boycott that is being promoted? I got an email on that from my sister (converted to Islam) the other day. By the way, that seems to be what many MORE are using as a protest, not violence.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[genie_weenie]

82. WHOA, that's empassioned!

nah, i'm too bored to take a hand in stopping the war...

[LynnTheDem]

83. No kidding.

US arrogance is non-partisan.

[bloom]

112. Exactly

It's so much easier to expect other groups to control the violence of their members - than to expect Americans to do so.

I swear - for some people - as long as the violence consists of using big enough tanks and bombs dropped from planes or drones - it seems like legitimate violence - even if it is white phosphorus or some such.


I saw this posted in the Guardian - seemed related.

This is not a cartoon war

Those who claim to uphold freedom of speech by defending the right to reproduce insulting depictions of the prophet are in effect saying to Muslims that what they hold dear and sacred is far more worthy of protecting than what Muslims hold dear and sacred. The cartoons had more to do with incitement of hatred, racism and Islamophobia than with freedom of expression.

Tomorrow, Britain's Muslim groups will be joined by non-Muslims in Trafalgar Square to show unity against Islamophobia and incitement of all kinds - without the vile, fanatical and totally un-Islamic chants, placards and flag-burning we saw in last week's tiny and unrepresentative march. The rally will serve as an opportunity to denounce acts of abuse committed under the guise of freedom as well as acts and statements that propagate violence, destruction and hatred. The protest will send a message that Britain is leading the way in the west to creating a modern, multicultural, multiethnic and multifaith society that lives in peace and prosperity.

We will be calling for calm and the resumption of a serious, frank and constructive dialogue: one based on mutual respect and the exchange of ideas rather than the trading of insults.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoonprotests/story/0,,1706813,00.html

[Hoping4Change]

136. Oh I'm sorry I didn't know I was addressing god. And your faith maintains

there's only one god. Another illusion broken. I mean you would have to be god to create out of nothing your accusation that I have an intense wish" that its about "THEM UNCIVILIZED BARBARIC SANDN****RS."

[Karenina]

148. Erraaa....

You have no idea what my "faith" is or even if I have one. :shrug:

I've simply noticed in my very secular way, that your posts are all about "THEM," ya know "the other."

[Hoping4Change]

161. I have straight-forwardly spoken about Muslims. What statements

of mine infer that I regard Muslims as "the other"?

[Spinoza]

141. Damn,

after reading your post I almost wish my family had never immigrated to this horrible country, even though the U.S was a sanctuary that (literally) saved my parents lives. All those millions of immigrants who come to the U.S. every year (in higher numbers than to any other country in the world) must sure be fucking morons.

[Roho]

160. sorry to bust your bubble

but....

"The number of persons granted lawful
permanent residence in the U.S. increased to
1,064,318 in fiscal year 2001 from 849,807 in
fiscal year 2000 (see Chart 1). This increase
of 215,000 was concentrated almost entirely
among adjustments of status and reflects
efforts to address the application backlog at
INS. At the end of fiscal year 2001, there
were 970,000 adjustment of status cases
pending a decision"
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/stats.htm

Maybe you can find stats since the latest imperial adventures began but I doubt they have doubled.

Also, I wonder if the people of Haiti are as lucky as your parents were? How about El salvador, Honduras, or Jamaica?

Viet Nam, Cambodia, or Laos?
...
...
...

[G_j]

194. yep

[Lydia Leftcoast]

84. Because peaceful protests don't get press coverage

and denunciations of violence written in Arabic don't get translated.

If you believe that what the MSM show us is the whole story, then you haven't been reading DU very long, or at least not absorbing what you've read.

[MisterP]

88. why is it incumbent on individual Muslims to actively disprove any

radicalness?
and why more so than any other religion?

[WildEyedLiberal]

95. I see far too much apologizing for violence here

And far too many strawmen. Guess what? Rioting is NOT OK. I don't care WHO does it.

[catmother]

98. agreed. and with that i'm leaving the real world for the world of

tv.:shrug:

[sandnsea]

133. Nobody is apologizing for violence

It would be equally nice if nobody apologized for instigating violence or degraded the religion of the rioters as if violence and Islam necessarily go hand in hand.

[ShortnFiery]

105. Probably the Moderate Muslims are like Moderate Christians ...

In essence, both can NOT identify with the fringe elements of their religion.

It's not their place because the nutcases live in a parallel universe.

I'm not meek but I wouldn't begin to confront someone with a dozen anti-abortion stickers on their vehicle. Why? They've jumped off the track and ain't ever coming back (to sanity).

[Hoping4Change]

163. True but as I noted above what would have happened had not

the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State not fought long and hard against fundie Xhristian wacko Judge Roy Moore?

Please note that "Americans United’s current executive director, the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, is a United Church of Christ minister as well as an attorney long active on behalf of civil liberties." (Through the years, many members of the clergy have been involved in the work of Americans United. However, Americans United is officially a non-sectarian and non-partisan organization.)

So in fact Christians have fought hard against Christians zealots.

I believe religious extremists need to be actively hounded down in their respected communites, by reasonable members in those communities, least extremists take hold of power.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bloom]

114. As if we're not now????

What the hell planet are you living on????

[MrSlayer]

113. I brought this up last night.

I wasn't really given a satisfactory answer either. Just a lot of horseshit and defense of mindless violence.

[Roho]

130. how about

you post a link to that horseshit and defense of mindless violence.

So we know what you are talking about.

[alarcojon]

131. Is the post at link # 20 satisfactory to you?

I for one am not defending mindless violence. I hate violence in all its forms. But notice the huge number of mainstream Muslim organizations denouncing violence and terrorism in no uncertain terms. Why do we have to seek out this information, when all we have to do is turn on the TV to see the extremists?

[MrSlayer]

156. Well, not really.

Not that it isn't great that these guys are condemning it all but they are in North America, it's not all that effective or meaningful. I'm talking about the people who live in the Muslim world. The so-called moderate majority, who must outnumber the small minority of extremists by tens of millions sit by and let this kind of crazy stuff happen all the time. By sheer numbers alone these terrorist groups and radical extremists could be wiped out in relatively short order. You would think those that are committing atrocities in the name of Islam would be considered the worst kind of blasphemers. Where are the fatwas against them? Where are the severe remonstrations from the top religious leaders? The Ayatollahs and clerics wield great power, surely they could call for an end to all this bullshit by giving the extremists an "or else" alternative backed by the might of tens of millions of moderate, sensible Muslims who are sick of the violence done in their name. And even if some of the people don't want to confront these maniacs directly they can certainly give up their hiding spots and ammo dumps to people who will.

Those are things you don't see. I'm sure if the top Muslim leaders got together and made a strong statement such as I have suggested it would have a great effect. But I doubt we ever will.

[Roho]

168. ...

Are you saying that only North American Muslim leaders are condeming the violence or that only North American Muslim leaders are being given the air time by the GOPMedia which furthers an agenda to incite hate toward ME Muslims?

[MrSlayer]

170. I'm saying I'm not seeing a strong unified message.

From all the Islamic religious leaders demanding an end to this nonsense, something I believe they can do. I'm not seeing this message being trumpeted far and wide in the Muslim World. I'm not seeing any of what I talked about in my previous post. That's what I'm saying. I thought I was quite clear.

[Roho]

173. Maybe you were

Maybe what wasn't clear was where you are looking.

And could you define unified? How many Muslim Randal Terry's does it take before "unity" of the message is lost?

[sproutster]

121. Grrr... Spread the hatred.

One of my favorite people are muslim, there is no need to smear a people.

[Hoping4Change]

146. What is the smear?

[Karenina]

162. The Smear is the communication intent of your OP

I've just read this thread through in its entirety again and as far as I can figure, you might also somehow feel it incumbent upon ME to denounce gang violence on Crenshaw Blvd. I don't know what "change" you're hoping for, all I can say at this point is EVERYTHING you have written in this thread seeks to point a finger and assign some blame, while taking NO responsibility. However, I DO understand the nature of privilege, supremacy and those who identify with such. Geh' mit Gott.

[Hoping4Change]

169. LOL. There is no suggestion of a smear in the OP but people see

what they want to see. Can't do anything about that. But you'll be thrilled to know my position is shared by such Muslim luminaries as Ziauddin Sardar who writes

"all good and concerned Muslims are implicated in the unchecked rise of fanaticism in Muslim societies. We have given free reign to fascism within our midst, and failed to denounce fanatics who distort the most sacred concepts of our faith."

snip

Muslims are in the best position to take the lead in the common cause against terrorism. The terrorists are among us, the Muslim communities of the world. They are part of our body politic. And it is our duty to stand up against them.

from
My fatwa on the fanatics

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4262753,00.html

[burythehatchet]

124. lack of a leader

[bloom]

125. Who has actually died in the protests? Do you know?

From what I can tell - it's just been protesters.

7 protesters have been killed by police or security forces. 1 protester died leaping from a building. At least 22 protesters were injured by security shooting at them.

1 priest was killed by a high school boy (not part of a protest - but he said it was "revenge" )

--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------

Four people were killed and at least 22 injured when security forces shot at protesters and used tear gas to try to disperse them. Mihtarlam, Afghanistan

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/07/news/islam.php

At least two more protesters were killed in Bagram, the main US air base in the country, as a crowd of 2,000 began throwing knives and stones at officers.

In Bossaso, a port city in northern Somalia, a teenage boy was trampled to death in a stampede after paramilitary police fired into the air to disperse stone-throwing demonstrators.

Authorities in Lebanon today confirmed that a demonstrator had been killed leaping from the third-floor of the blazing Danish Embassy in Beirut last night.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2027502,00.html


 Murder of priest 'religious revenge'

    February 08 2006 at 08:31AM

Ankara - Turkish security forces arrested a high school pupil on Tuesday for the killing of an Italian Roman Catholic priest, and Turkish television said the teenager had confessed to a crime which has shocked this Muslim nation.??The pupil had told the police he had been influenced by cartoons lampooning the Prophet Muhammad, NTV commercial television said. The report could not be immediately confirmed. ??The state Anatolian news agency said the pupil, 16, had been carrying a 9mm pistol when he had been captured in the Black Sea city of Trabzon, where Andrea Santoro, 61, was gunned down on Sunday while praying.
http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=24&art_id=vn20060208033427794C349514

[Karenina]

126. "IF WE" are to believe...

Does anyone else wading through this crap thread grok the ****** "assumption of superiority" in the subject line? :argh::argh::argh:

[Roho]

137. hell ya

and this is flame bait if i've ever seen it yet here it sits in all it's glory as if this site was actively helping promote the hate even though the rules specifically forbid it.

Oh well, free speech is only ok here as long as were dissing muslims, otherwise poof posts disappear if you speak out of turn.

[Malikshah]

144. Yup-- see my Kifaya post below

Enough already with this arrogant crap-- this is the sort of stuff that adds to the hatred.

[catmother]

128. these threads have been going on for a week. maybe we're

being too hard on our DU muslims. apparently they're peaceful people who do not believe in violence.

the violence and acts of terror on the parts of their extremists muslim brothers are making the whole religion look bad. and if it continues they are going to become more hated than they are now. i've heard people say that we should just bomb the mid east and take their oil. i, for one, do not agree with this but it's really getting frustrating. everyone remembers 9/11 and when people see the violence continuing they're going to react.

these extremists hate us -- and the fact is we give more money to some of the countries in the mid-east than any other. i know we gave the most to the palestinians. we get no credit for this. we went into kosovo to save muslims and also in the balkans, but instead of thanks we get our embassies bombed and planes flown into buildings.

[CJCRANE]

142. Look up "Sibel Edmonds"

and find out who PAID for the hijackers to fly the planes into the buildings.

You've been PLAYED.

[catmother]

153. if you think i'm going to fall for a 9/11 conspiracy you're wrong.

[rman]

198. the alternative is to fall for the government lie

[CJCRANE]

145. BTW

I think you'll find that the people in Kosovo and many countries love Bill Clinton and see him as a hero.

It's not as much about Anti-Americanism as you choose to think it is.

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

151. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Roho]

152. defending me?

please spare me and get yourself a clue.

[Name removed]

158. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Roho]

164. Oh keep it up

The only people I've been rude to are you and your cowardly lion buddy.

Their welfare system? Or mine?



What would make you think I'm milking our welfare system? And what "Kind" am I?

A black woman?
Welfare queen?

Are you afraid I'll have ten kids and move into your trailer park?

LoL

[catmother]

165. if the shoe fits -- wear it. i've had enough of your crap so i'm

going to put you on IGNORE. you have nothing else to contribute -- all you know is hostility.

[Roho]

171. sure you are

Yea I'm one of those uppity black women that don't know my place. You sure told me though thanks.

I'm going to pull myself up by the boot straps, stop abusing my countries welfare system, and try to become one of your "kind".

[Clara T]

134. Does anyone know how the 1953 "spontaneous" riots in Iran came about?

And why was the "secular" Gov't of Saudi Arabia fanning the flames for these riots?

And who is one-time Bush "advisor" Daniel Pipes? Why does that matter?
There are also fianancial fundamentalists who revel in using Machiavellian technique.

Where are we going?-Where have we been?

[Malikshah]

143. Kifayah! This is yet another divisive wrong-headed thought process in

action.

This sort of questioning was used after 9/11 with the Muslim world. Juan Cole, among others, have debunked *that* little myth.

By the logic used in the initial message-- where are the tens of millions of Americans to rise up against the fascist regime. Since we're not in the streets rising up 100% of the time we must be OK with the regime? Right?

Guess what-- the Muslim world owes you abso-frikkin-lutely nothing. Nada. Zilch.

They *do not* have to prove anything to those who would ask such asinine questions.

[countryjake]

176. Is more than half a million enough for you?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/02/09/cartoon.protests/index.html

Watch the news much? This massive, totally non-violent demonstration filled the streets of Beirut with tens of thousands of peace-loving Muslims, marching to protest the vitriol & hatred that has been directed at their religion during this past week.

[JCMach1]

178. GRRRR

HERE IS A LINK TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2100552

[countryjake]

179. Thanks for that article. The West is not covering these reports...

and if they do, they're putting their own spin on it, to add fuel to the original insults.

"What kind of freedom of expression is this?" he (Saudi Arabian, Shaikh Abdul Rahman Al Sudais) asked, while addressing the thousands of worshippers.

He said by doing so, the West itself is inciting violence and inviting terrorists to strike. He said the culprits in this case should be brought to justice in order to ensure respect for religion.

[fujiyama]

180. I'm going to take aa stab att it

My post will be long and convulted, I will admit...But I'll try to give my take. I welcome any comments from moderaate Muslims regadring thehe role of religion in their lives. I find hhat kind of exchange very important for believers and non believers alike.

Islam as it is praactticed in many countries is undoubtably very authoritarian, just as, if not morer so than fundamentalist Christtianity in the southern US.

But while Chriistianity here is kept in check (barely), Islamic nations have few if any of those checks. The religious forces have, in many cases, a lot of authhority over society.

Forr many in those nations, the law itself barely exists outside of Islam. While these nations may not technically be under Sharia law, Islam dominates daily life. Most Muslims don't considere Islam part of tthehir part of thehir life. It IS their life, or way of life.

This can be good for many. It brings many followers spiritual peace, guidance, and structure.

But these same forces also can be rrestrictive, and liberal reformers are silenced often being victims of violence themselves.

We see a similar phenomenon here at home. Over thte last several years, we have seen our rights eroded at an incredible paace. We have a government that is spying on us, killed several thousand in an unjust war, basically looked the other way when a city was destroyed, ignorerd clear evidence of an impending attack on major buildings, and gave away the treasury to an extremely small elite.

True, it's not a perfect anaalogy, because we have the right to speak. Granted, our main problem is those voices are never heard.

In the Muslim world, those voices are not heard because in thee way corporations controll thte voice here, religious authorityt plays a rrole in the press as well.

As I stated, Islam is not traditionally thhought of as a "flexible" religion. Likewise, the authoritarian tendancies tend to shut out dissenting tthought.

Now, nnot all of this caan be necessarily attributed to Islam of coursee. The roots in many cases are cultural as well.

Islam, like Christianity, has a bloody history aand spread by the sword in many cases. Ultimately they are about submission. Both religions urge thheir followers to "spread their word" and prosteletize. Peace is in reality a secondary concern. Grarnted, their followers interepret this in different ways though and most have moved toward an era of relative tolerance.

But a major difference between the two is Christianity, at this point in history, is a secondary concern for most people. The Westt, it can be argued, is really post Christianity at this point. Since the reformation and latter the enlightenment, religion does not dominate the lives of most wwesterners. Therefore religious authorities also have less significaance. That's why things like blasphemy are not taken to be very importtant. We place our legal code above any religious dogma. Granted, in many ways though, it can be argued, this post Chhristian west also gave way to excess materialism and nationalism as well.

It has to be kept in mind that Islam has no central aauthoritties, so a condemnation from one Imam means little to anotther. Also, Islam is the youngest of all major religions. While we expect it to adjust to a more Westtern styled modern world immediately, that may bee impossible to expect.

Ultimately, the reason we don't see moderates go out condemning this is not only becausee of violent backlash from religious authorities, but they really would ratther ignore the idiotsts in thteir societies and follow normal lives. Remember, most people of any raace, religion, or culture wwant the same things - to be able to raise their faamiily in peace and persue their day tto dday lives with as little change as possible. Most people prefer stability. That's human nature. That's why reformers have difficultties accomplishing anything in almost every society.

[liberalpragmatist]

185. Excellent post!

I think you've said a lot of good things.

[fujiyama]

188. Thank you

I found your post likewise and those blogs you posted very interersting.

[genie_weenie]

196. You pointed out some very important details

in this excellent post. One issue I've had with the posters over the cartoon imbroglio is people tend to project their viewpoints and value systems upon others, without taking into consideration the other persons situation.

Well done, as always!

[liberalpragmatist]

181. Because most people don't give a shit

They have lives to deal with; there are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world; there were some thousands of protesters. That's a lot, but it's a tiny fraction of the Muslim world. Do you stage a counterprotest everytime some nutcases spout something you don't agree with?

In any event, I'll show you some blog posts from popular Muslim blogs:

From: http://www.safiyyah.ca/wordpress/?p=228#more-228

January 31, 2006
Stupid Cartoons, Even Stupider Reaction

I’m quite troubled over the cartoon controversy in Denmark, not because of the cartoons themselves, which I agree are offensive, but rather, because of the absurd overreaction of Muslims worldwide. We haven’t learned from the Rushdie affair — this is yet another instance where we’ve gone out of our way to make ourselves look stupid.

For anyone living under a rock, here’s what happened. Four months ago, on September 30th, 2005, a Danish newspaper called Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten published 12 cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad in ways that many Muslims deemed sacrilegious. The newspaper claimed — quite foolishly, I think — that the cartoons were “part of an ongoing public debate on freedom of expression” in Denmark. There were a few protests by Muslims and meetings with the Prime Minister of Denmark, but things came to a head on January 10th, 2006, when two Norwegian papers published similar cartoons that were then circulated in the Middle East. Since then, the response has been stupendous...

<snip>

Why are we so exciteable anyway? Why even care what a newspaper thinks? The cartoons, horrendous though they may be, need not affect a Muslim’s impression of the Prophet, for our tradition clearly shows him to be a man imbued with dignity, morality and goodness. The Prophet was ridiculed from the moment he started receiving revelation in Mecca more than 1400 years ago. The mockery — even the threats on his life — are well documented in the Quran and hadith literature. A few cartoons will do little to harm him — or us.

Some might argue that Islam bars any depiction of the Prophet. Even so, we Muslims cannot force other people to appreciate the Prophet the way we do. We live, for the most part, in free societies, and there are countless opportunities to share with others our own vision of the Prophet and to convince others that he is a man to be honoured and dignified. We can do so by living like the Prophet did, by behaving and speaking in the noble manner of the Prophet himself, and by showing ourselves to be the rightful followers of this blessed man.

The over-the-top reaction just shows me how much excess energy and strength the ummah retains worldwide. Frankly I wonder if Muslims are not doing a greater disservice to the Prophet when we close our eyes to the suffering and oppression in the rest of the world. There are bigger problems to tackle than the publication of 12 silly cartoons. Now, if we could only put our efforts to better purposes…

And this one: http://www.aqoul.com/archives/2006/02/cartoon_outrage_1.php#more

First, the easy characterisation of “Muslim Anger” blended in with unbounded violence that one can get from much reporting (and even more frankly Islamophobic commentary, especially online blogging) is exaggerated. Overall, it strikes me that the idle reader (or slanted reader) can easily get an impression of massive protests everywhere and “millions” in the Muslim world out there are howling for blood. Rather, it is largely the usual extremist suspects howling for blood.

Are there too many? Yes, but getting the impression millions of Muslims are storming embassies and calling for death is an exaggeration that plays into the hands of the extremists who of course desperately want this to be true. Responses predicated on that play into their hands.

The issue is serious and the fact that something so trivial should actually seriously upset a good level of not-generally-extremist people – which it has – does indeed, as I said elsewhere, earlier here, speak poorly to the MENA region and the wider Islamic world’s …. public or political culture shall we say? At the same time, it is very easy to deeply exaggerate the situation and speak in sweeping terms of “millions” of Muslims backing head-chopping for the cartoonists and gliding over the fact that most of the truly deep idiocy has happened in certain areas for reasons very specific, as Raf Bey said, to those countries.

There are three key ingredients here:

(i) Weak governmental forces unable to restrain the violent Islamist fringes / or for tactical political reasons are playing with fire (see Syria);
(ii) Well-networked Salafist extremists ideologically opposed to any connexions with the non-Islamic world and looking to find hooks to boost their own support – they know how to push buttons to their own advantage, and by the reaction in the West it is clear those buttons are not only Muslim;
(iii) Lack of robust liberal tradition in the region (not that this is any way unique to the Islamic world, see the note regarding China), and a serious disconnect between (quite recent) secularisation in the West and traditional religious feeling in the region (and, one may note again, elsewhere).

Well, four. I would add global communication technology.

There is meaning to this analysis:

First, there is no reason for the despairing inevitable World War of Civilisations handwringing, although clearly certain parties very much wish for the same;

Second, the problems posed are in many ways tractable. Perhaps in the long term, but tractable. They are more tractable if the West – which is the stronger actor here, and the one that can and should take the initiative – takes the initiative while young addled twits and older manipulators in region go banging about like morons. Short-term restraint being one. Tackling discrimination while also working to smash the bloody minded extremists is another (and not tolerating either the bloody-minded agitators such as the little clique of agents provocateurs we’ve seen in London, for example).

Now, a final comment, a more generic one, regarding a certain category of calls for “Muslim liberals” or “Moderate Muslims” to “speak out” / “protest” / “marginalise” the extremists.

It is a bit pat, and rather an easy call to make. On one hand, I know that a goodly number of persons making such statements know fuck all about moderate Muslims and really haven’t a clue, a rather nastier category exclude the idea (of moderates, Islam is evil for them) even if posturing otherwise. On the other hand, this is often genuine.

The core issue really becomes trust, then. Leaving aside the already Westernized, who represent that liberal elite I frequently am somewhat disdainful of as a political group (even though they are in fact my best friends and family, so to speak) there is that vast devout middle that is at once horrified of the bloody-mindedness of the Zarqawis and the Emirs who turned Algeria into a killing field, but also distrusts the West. Distrusts the West for the feeling that somehow the West, in its entirety, is “against” them and their form of piety, and perceives the West as being intolerant of their practices (which may be a bit Victorian, but ex-Saudi Arabia are rarely as horrid as often thought from media coverage, from a Westerner’s perspective).

In short, the moderate pious ‘middle’ is stuck in the middle and hasn’t the reflexive confidence in those calling for them to stand-up, that would make such calls sensible. (Of course let us leave aside the issue that neither side generally has a fucking clue as to what is actually being said, except by the loud-mouthed obnoxious extremists all-around. The bad impression is one hard to unmake – a human trait, probably a useful one, but the bloody minded Salafist extremists burning diplomatic buildings, even in the minority, make a smaller impression than the millions of Muslims ignoring the whole bloody thing, not burning things and simply going to work – and the leaders being reasonable. Reasonable is often boring. Look what blogs get read.)

There is, of course, the further queer catch-22 that moderation is boring, bad copy, and generally doesn’t make an impression. Frankly, for the newspaper man, the Headline, “Millions of Maghrebines don’t particularly bother to do anything about Danish cartoons” is, well, boring. And you skim right over it. As a general matter as a fairly temperate person when it comes to protesting (I don’t do it myself), I find it a bother. I recall being stuck in Washington for the idiot anti-Globo Lefty Moron protests. I, as a highly moderate classic liberal, did not counter-protest. I went to work, made snide remarks about idiot Lefty Idiots, called up my World Bank amigos and mocked them, and, well went about business.

I agree that counterprotests would be beneficial to their public image, but why should the burden of proof be on them? We don't ask every black person to stage a counterprotest if a black-militant group calls for the death of whites; we don't ask all Christians to launch a counterprotest against the abortion clinic bombers. As someone posted in the comments in the latter blog post, 200 million Indonesians don't do anything but 200 ransack an office building and it gets big coverage. Why should the Muslim world as a whole have to prove to you that they're not terrorists?

On edit, I'll add a couple more pieces:

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F30C14F83D5A0C778CDDAB0894DE404482

Cartoons Force Danish Muslims to Examine Loyalties

By ALAN COWELL (NYT) 1076 words
Published: February 4, 2006

COPENHAGEN, Feb. 2 - As a Danish citizen of Pakistani descent, a onetime television anchor and now a prominent author married to a Dane, Rushy Rashid has led what could be depicted as a high-profile life.

<snip>

"For the first time I feel I have to stand up as a Muslim," she said in an interview on Thursday, referring to her concern that the voice of Denmark's 200,000 Muslim immigrants -- a small minority in a land of 5.4 million -- has been monopolized by what she depicted as a minority led by radical imams with ties in the Middle East.

"Up to now I have stood up as a woman, as a journalist, as a writer," she added. "But for the first time I have to stand up and say I don't like what's happening. I don't approve of the fact that one group of Muslims talk for the whole community."

<snip>

When Palestinians burned the Danish flag in Gaza this week to protest the cartoons, Ms. Rashid said, ''I was crying because it really hurt.''

She said: ''We live in this country. This is where our children will grow up. We have a responsibility for this country.''

At the same time, she felt pulled to the argument of those who published the cartoons, that this was an issue of Denmark's vaunted freedom of expression, which has been possibly the most entrenched in Europe. Her support, though, was qualified.

''I will fight in the name of free speech,'' she said, ''but not without respect for the consequences. Even if this freedom of speech is very broad, it is not unlimited. You have limits where your morals come in.''

When she saw the cartoons first published here in September and republished in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Spain on Wednesday, Ms. Rashid, 37, said she asked herself, ''Why is it necessary to provoke like this?''

''I have been brought up in the faith of Islam and you don't make pictures of the prophet,'' she said. ''But when you decide to do that, you should show more respect. You cannot make a fool of someone who means much to so many people around the world.''

Also, this Muslim website, http://www.altmuslim.com has some great essays on the subject:

Clash Of The Uncivilized
Why are we calling for a "Day of Outrage" when our Prophet has instructed us repeatedly not to become angry? Why not a "Day of Familiarization" with the Prophet?

By Imam Zaid Shakir, February 9, 2006

What would Muhammad do?

As the crisis that has emerged in the aftermath of the publication of the infamous cartoons that claim to depict the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings of God upon him, escalates, we would do well by stepping back and attempting to analyze the situation as dispassionately as possible. By doing so, as Muslims, we can hopefully formulate a more productive and meaningful response, and avoid being exploited by either side in the ongoing conflict. Saying this, I do not mean to imply that Muslims are not justifiably angry over the caricatures. However, I would agree with those who argue that responses that involve wild outbreaks of frenzied violence are inappropriate, and they only affirm what the cartoonist is trying to imply. Namely, that Islam is a religion that encourages obscurantist violence and terrorism.

<snip>

Sometimes, those actions may constitute superficial shows of piety emanating from the mob hysteria underlying them. In the mob we are empowered, and find it easy to confront our opponents, defy the rule of law, behave with wanton abandon, or engage in other acts which under the proper circumstances we may view as supporting Islam. In terms of more constructive mass actions, such as emerging into the streets by the tens of thousands to protest the brutal, authoritarian regimes that make a mockery of the prophetic ideals of justice, mutual consultation, and service to the oppressed and downtrodden of society; or by forming credible anti-defamation organizations to bring effective legal action against transgressing organizations and individuals, on a fulltime proactive basis, we come up terribly short. As individuals, we find it difficult to support the Prophet by adorning ourselves with His lofty character traits, or reviving His Sunnah in our daily lives.

On the other hand, as mentioned above, it is all too easy to get swept up into the mob hysteria generated by the crowd, and then engage in outrageous actions that only affirm the offensive claims of the transgressing cartoonist. It is as if we are saying, "We'll show the Kafirs our Prophet, peace upon him was no terrorist! We'll defame the symbols of their religion,<2> burn their embassies, murder their unsuspecting innocents, and behead the bloody cartoonist if we get our hands on him."<3>

This brings us to my third point, that of counterproductive, one-upmanship militancy. It is during these crises that all Muslims are supposed to drop everything and join the latest "Jihad" fad. Those of us who urge restraint are mocked as not being militant enough, or ridiculed as cowards who are afraid to "stand up to the real enemies of Islam." No differences in understanding, interpretation, or strategy are allowed, because there is only one correct approach, the one the militants have stumbled upon with the aid of modern, sensationalizing media.

(cont...)

I'll also ask this of you: how many Muslims do you know?

[Lolivia]

197. The "logic" behind your OP is completely flawed

There are many problems with what you posted, but I will concentrate just on the faulty logic behind making such a blanket statement. I posted this is post #183, but I'll repeat it to make sure it's seen:



You claim that people who bring in other groups besides Muslims are straying off topic. That would be true IF your original post made statements of fact about a concrete and discrete topic.

You haven't done that, you've put forth a hypothesis.

Your OP basically says "If X, then Y." If we are to believe Muslims are about peace, than why haven't they demonstrated against violence? This is the functional equivalent of: If Islam is about peace, then Muslims must demonstrate against the violence.

As many people pointed out, they HAVE, but you choose to ignore those facts. That's ok, we can operate within that. Let's assume then, arguendo, that there haven't been any denunciations of the violence (I am absolutely not stipulating that).

Purportedly, you have used logic and reasoning to decide that X cannot be true without Y. That is, (Insert ideological/political/theological group here) cannot be about peace unless its members demonstrate against other members' violence. In order for your hypothesis to be valid, NO X can be about peace unless Y. You cannot have a valid, logical hypothesis where the logic does not carry through TO ALL POSSIBLE Xs.

So, it is invalid to arbitrarily restrict X to ONLY THE GROUPS THAT YOU WANT TO and expect your logic to be sound. It is not straying off topic to insist that your hypothesis stand up to logic and reason.

If no member of Islam is about peace if its members don't demonstrate against extremism, then Christianity is not about peace unless all its members demonstrate.

THen no US citizen is against torture unless every US citizen demonstrates against torture.

Every Bush protester is a law-breaking anarchist if every Bush protester doesn't demonstrate against the law-breaking anarchists.

Do I need to go on?


- end post #183

See post #175 for another angle regarding why your OP is illogical and meaningless, as well as for further inquiry as to why you refuse to address the reasoning and utility behind posting such a useless statement.

What WOULD be helpful is opening up a meaningful dialog regarding fundamentalism and extremism WHEREVER IT OCCURS, including here in the US. What would be helpful is discussing the psychology behind making bigoted and illogical statements regarding the behavior of one entire group (rather than the real issue of just the extremists) while simultaneously ignoring or making weak excuses for the same behavior elsewhere.

[porphyrian]

199. They also condemn violence against Muslims.

Which is the greater violence at the moment?

[LWolf]

203. WHY DO WE HAVE TO "BELIEVE" ANYTHING ABOUT MUSLIMS,

OR ABOUT ANY FAITH? Why do we have to line up to "support" or "attack" any faith, or any practitioners of a faith?

Why can we not disagree with any act by any person of any faith, or agree with any act by any person of any faith, without it becoming a religious referendum?

[proud patriot]

205. I'm locking this thread

reason :

flamebait