May 20 is ‘Everybody Draw Mohammed Day’

[kylew]

Like drawings of a man they haven't even seen before, right?

You read my other posts? I think it's just as pathetic.

I think an important point about this whole thing, which kinda shows that it's not really a "religious" issue as such, but just another thing for some crazy people who have far too much time on their hands, and are full of far too much hatred, to moan and complain about "the west".

They've complained about "Mohammed" being drawn, which is somewhat hypocritical considering (as has been mentioned) drawing Mohammed isn't what's "prohibited" but rather, making visual depictions of any of Islam's "prophets".

The point was to discourage people worshipping and or praying to images of things, which would be entirely inaccurate anyway. My point though is that if they're going to complain about Mohammed being drawn, why didn't they complain about all the millions of times Jesus, Moses and all the other prophets that the islamic religion believes in?

How many years have cartoons been depicting "Moses"? Just today I watched an old episode of the Simpsons where they'd depicted Moses. Moses is a valid and recognised prophet in islam, so why not make a fuss and "take offence" to that?

I think people drawing Mohammed for this cause is a bit pathetic, but I also think that people who follow any religion just need to get over it if someone decides to insult their religion. It doesn't make it any less of what it is to you if some one insults it. I think you could apply it to "geek culture" a bit I suppose.

How would you feel if some one claimed playing video games was pathetic and lame, and then proceeded to mock you for it? I know it wouldn't make me enjoy games any less just because there's some one that's expressed their opinion that games are pathetic and lame.

I feel it follows the same principle for religion. If your religion is important to you, then it shouldn't matter what others say about it. It just shows (as has been said again) that people are insecure. Those that aren't insecure are simply nutjobs, you get them in all areas of life, religion just happens to be an area you get them in too.

Religion itself isn't really the problem for "nutjobs" existing, humans will always find something to complain and fight about, if it's not beliefs, it's land, money, rights, or just an excuse to gain something. I could go and brick some one's house tomorrow and claim religion made me do it, it doesn't make it so.

Good job being arsey though, +10 points for you.

 

[bhavv]

Like drawings of a man they haven't even seen before, right?

Exactly. I dont even see how any normal person can take offense in such a harmless act.

Unless they are extremists. And according to the controversy and response that this event has caused, there's actually quite a lot of those.

And Khaaan! is the only one not bothered and finds the cartoons funny.

Which, by the way is sinful in Islam, and according to Islam he is now going to hell for .

Ever seen that channel ran by the KKK that only reports crimes committed by nonwhite people?

Getting the feeling that there are quite a few parallels there...

What does race have to do with anything? This is a site dedicated to reporting Islamic terrorist attacks in the Muslim world, from people within the Muslim world. Care to explain what that has to do with the KKK?

 

[kylew]

and what about the other couple of hundred other murder carried out in those countries that week?






I'm not surprised!

abducting the entire tablian was never going to end well!

People are just too preoccupied whinging about the horrible brown people coming to their country and existing in front of them.

The Taliban aren't exactly the role models for the islamic faith, look at just how much opium is produced by them, they're essentially drug lords, I have no doubt that they couldn't care less about their "religion" and just use it as a front, and as a means of control.

 

[bhavv]

People are just too preoccupied whinging about the horrible brown people coming to their country and existing in front of them.

Religionofpeace is written by 'brown' people about 'brown' people, in case you didnt realise that (If, as according to you, 'brown' = muslims ethnically from Islamic countries).

Again, what does race have anything to do with religion?

 

[James J]

Like drawings of a man they haven't even seen before, right?

Muslims view the prophet mohammed like a sort of father figure from what I've understood with my limited knowledge of the subject. Because their religion is basically their life due to quite easily being the biggest part of it (all decisions are based on religious convictions), it appears to be very easy to offend someone from the muslim faith.

Personally, my views on all religions aren't exactly pleasant but I also don't feel the "need" to share them due to upsetting others needlessly.

The problem is religion often gets left behind in the changing modern times, forcing it to adapt and interperate the old texts in new insightful ways to conform to the newer stances on things. Take christianity with senior church figures debating the virgin birth and female priests/vicars etc now, compared with say 500 years ago, where you'd be killed for heresy if you even proposed either of those ideas.

Islam will most likely adapt as well, but it will take time.

 

[bhavv]

People are just too preoccupied whinging about the horrible brown people coming to their country and existing in front of them.

Religionofpeace is written by brown people about brown people, in case you didnt realise that.

I suppose that you also think that living in a Sharia Country under Islamic law is all rainbows, lollipops and, sunshine and everything thats good and wonderful.

Again, what does race have anything to do with religion?

 

[kylew]

What does race have to do with anything? This is a site dedicated to reporting Islamic terrorist attacks in the Muslim world, from people within the Muslim world. Care to explain what that has to do with the KKK?

Do you honestly not understand my point?

If you report constantly, things done by a single group of people, of course they're going to look bad. Keep reporting on it, and you'll see just how much they're killing eachother as well.

The fact of the matter is that muslim countries are backwards, not because of the religion that the people follow, but because of the people and type of people that run said countries.

I'm all for freedom of religion and all that, but I believe religion should be kept out of government and rule of a country. You just seem to be full of hate, and are quoting what ever you can find (and making stuff up as has been demonstrated) to prove your "point".

And in all honesty, shame on you for being so pathetic that you feel the need to do that. You're whinging and moaning about how terrible all these people are, you seem to care more about how bad they are, than all the people in those countries who are being oppressed by crazy rulers who do what they want.

Look at Sadam Hussain, really, would you say he's actually a muslim? He cared nothing for his people, and was quite happy to kill and torture them for nothing. I think you'd do well to get over your hatred, learn the difference between culture and religion, and stop being so dramatic.

I could come out tomorrow and claim to be a muslim scholar and spout all sorts of crap about what ever I wanted (did you know most of them are self appointed, and seem to have an inferiority complex?). These muslic scholars aren't exactly the models of the religion they make hate speeches on behalf of.

Take hook-guy as an example, he's completely full of hatred, goes on about the unbelievers, preaches hate and terrorism. You know what this man does when he thinks no-one is looking? Takes his daughter to a cosmetic surgeon, and pays for his daughter's boob job in cash, so she can pursue her career in glamour modelling...

Such situations should make you realise that you can't listen to anything people like him say, it means nothing, his daughter's career surely goes against EVERYTHING he claims to stand for, no?

 

[kylew]

Religionofpeace is written by brown people about brown people, in case you didnt realise that.

I suppose that you also think that living in a Sharia Country under Islamic law is all rainbows, lollipops and, sunshine and everything thats good and wonderful.

Again, what does race have anything to do with religion?

No, I think countries that run on sharia law are a sham, and currently are in horrific states. I don't believe any country should be ruled under religious law. It will always infringe on the rights of those who want to do their own thing and believe in what they want to believe in, not what the country tells them they believe in.

But you need to also understand that countries under sharia law are often highly corrupt anyway. The way I see it, shaira law is just used as an excuse to control the people of a country. The leaders "enforcing" it hardly stick to the "rules" them selves, as I mentioned in my last post about Saddam Hussain.

You would do good not to invent sentences for people, as I didn't once imply sharia law ruled countries were "ll rainbows, lollipops and, sunshine and everything thats good and wonderful.". About the "brown people", that wasn't actually directed at you, but at the general group of people who just can't get over the fact that there are brown people here.

 

[bhavv]

1) If you report constantly, things done by a single group of people, of course they're going to look bad. Keep reporting on it, and you'll see just how much they're killing eachother as well.

2) I'm all for freedom of religion and all that, but I believe religion should be kept out of government and rule of a country. You just seem to be full of hate, and are quoting what ever you can find (and making stuff up as has been demonstrated) to prove your "point".

3) And in all honesty, shame on you for being so pathetic that you feel the need to do that. You're whinging and moaning about how terrible all these people are, you seem to care more about how bad they are, than all the people in those countries who are being oppressed by crazy rulers who do what they want.

1) I cant think of anything worse or on an equal scale to the attrocities currently carried out among the Muslim faith in the name of Islam and its teachings.

2) I'm all up for full secularization, modernization, freedom, and telling any religious nutters who complain about such a culture to bugger off.

Also, I didnt lie about anything, other than thinking that saudi arabias law banning female drivers was based off the Koran, which I already admitted to as a mistake.

3) I'm not whinging or moaning about how terrible people are, I am whinging and moaning about how much religion and fundamentalism corrupts people. For the record, I am far more opposed to the political movement of Islam, but of course any time someone like you reads any criticism of religion, you resort to the usually pathetic tactic of using the race card as an excuse to try to silence the opposition or make it look worse then what was actually meant.

You obviously have no idea how much I also moan about christianity as well, but they at least dont get so aggressive and go killing people over cartoons depicting their beloved Jesus, which is done all the time in western media, nor do they start playing the pathetic race card.

but at the general group of people who just can't get over the fact that there are brown people here.

Ive read everything in this thread and dont see any of those here, so again, why did you even feel the need to mention race?

 

[Tefal]

People are just too preoccupied whinging about the horrible brown people coming to their country and existing in front of them.

The Taliban aren't exactly the role models for the islamic faith, look at just how much opium is produced by them, they're essentially drug lords, I have no doubt that they couldn't care less about their "religion" and just use it as a front, and as a means of control.

The Taliban tried to get rid of the poppy farmers iirc they only started supporting/working with them when the war started as they needed money to fight.


Islam is pretty well set up in terms of "you can ignore this law etc" in times of war, which isn't really surprising considering when it was founded.



edit which of the k-w-e type name people are you?

There's two of you with pretty much the same name and both of you are on opposite sides of the extreme left right spectrum.

 

[kylew]

edit which of the k-w-e type name people are you?

There's two of you with pretty much the same name and both of you are on opposite sides of the extreme left right spectrum.

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

 

[Amnesia]

well i did a bit of reading and this is what i found... i guess i can just take future posts from bhavv as hate filled bs.

This is a rebuttal of chapter five of Robert Spencer’s book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), which is entitled “Islam oppresses women.” On pp.74-76, Spencer claims that the Sharia rejects a rape victim’s testimony.

Robert Spencer’s Claims

Says Spencer in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades):

Rape: Four witnesses needed

Most threatening of all to women may be the Muslim understanding of rape as it plays out in conjunction with Islamic restrictions on the validity of a woman’s testimony. In court, a woman’s testimony is worth half as much as that of a man. (Quran 2:282)

Islamic legal theorists have restricted the validity of a woman’s testimony even further by limiting it to, in the words of one Muslim legal manual, “cases involving property, or transactions dealing with property, such as sales.” Otherwise only men can testify. And in cases of sexual misbehavior, four male witnesses are required…

Consequently, it is almost impossible to prove rape in lands that follow the dictates of the Sharia. Men can commit rape with impunity: As long as they deny the charge and there are no witnesses, they will get off scot-free, because the victim’s testimony is inadmissible. Even worse, if a woman accuses a man of rape, she may end up incriminating herself. If the required male witnesses can’t be found, the victim’s charge of rape becomes an admission of adultery. [1]

Spencer also says the exact same thing on his website:

Consequently, it is even today virtually impossible to prove rape in lands that follow the dictates of the Sharia. Even worse, if a woman accuses a man of rape, she may end up incriminating herself. If the required male witnesses can’t be found, the victim’s charge of rape becomes an admission of adultery.

Let us analyze Spencer’s claims one point at a time:

Women as Witnesses under Sharia

Robert Spencer writes:

In court, a woman’s testimony is worth half as much as that of a man. (Quran 2:282)

Islamic legal theorists have restricted the validity of a woman’s testimony even further by limiting it to, in the words of one Muslim legal manual, “cases involving property, or transactions dealing with property, such as sales.” Otherwise only men can testify.

There are two claims made here: (1) a woman’s testimony is worth half of a man’s; (2) a woman’s testimony is accepted only in financial transactions (even then only by half), and rejected altogether in other cases, including rape.

Of course the reality is that Spencer has spoken a half-truth, which is what he normally does. Spencer’s modus operandi is simple: he presents the absolutely most conservative view as if it is not only the most authoritative one but also the only one. He then compares this ultraconservative Islamic opinion with the most liberal Judeo-Christian view, and then says aha!

The issue revolves around the following Quranic verse:

O you who believe! When you deal with each other in contracting a debt for a fixed time, then write it down; and let a scribe write it down between you with fairness…and call from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women from among those whom you choose to be witnesses, so that if one of the two errs, the second of the two may remind the other. (Quran, 2:282)

Some Islamic jurists opined that the Quranic verse only permitted a woman’s testimony in cases related to financial transactions. Therefore, they reasoned, it ought to be excluded in all other cases. This opinion was prominent in the writings of medieval jurists, and is clung onto by some ultraconservative Muslims.

However, Spencer neglected to inform his readers of less stringent views that abound today. Contemporary Muslims argue that the Quranic verse 2:282 has nothing to do with the courts or legal system in general:

…There is no verse anywhere in the Qur’an, which directs a court of law to consider a woman’s witness to be half reliable as that of a man. As for the verse 282 of Al-Baqarah, which is presented to substantiate the viewpoint in question, it has quite a different meaning and implication than what is construed from it…

Actually this verse addresses the common man. It does not relate to the law and thus gives no directive regarding judicial matters. In other words, it does not call upon the state, the legislative council or the legal authorities. This verse just invokes the common man’s attention for taking precautionary measures in case of a particular situation of conflict…

The verse states that when two or more individuals enter into an agreement for a loan for a fixed period of time, they should write it down thereby avoiding any misunderstanding or dispute. As a further safeguard to avoid such misunderstanding, they should make two men witnesses to the agreement. In case they are not able to find two men, then they may take two women instead of a man…Obviously, if this were a directive pertaining to judicial matters, it would have addressed the state or legal authorities. [2]

In other words, these Muslims argue that the Quranic verse cannot be generalized to all court cases; instead, it simply pertains to financial matters, and contracts of debt in specific. It is argued that the women of pre-Islamic Arabia were generally unaware of the intricacies of the business world. Tahir Haddad, an Islamic thinker of the early twentieth century, writes:

The fact that woman lagged behind man in all aspects of life [in the pre-Islamic times] made her less proficient in intellectual and mathematical tasks, especially since at that time she did not get her share of education and culture to prepare her for that…[which was taken into] account when it was decided that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man…[in] issue…such as debts. [3]

The lack of business acumen that women of that particular time generally possessed was the reason that a woman’s singular testimony about a contract of debt might be rejected by the common man, resulting in conflicts. The intent of the Quranic verse was after all to prevent infighting between Muslims, as was often the case between creditors and debtors. Therefore, argue these contemporary Muslims, witnesses had to be produced who would be accepted by the common man as being authoritative.

Some contemporary Muslims even argue that such a restriction (i.e. the requirement of two women as witnesses instead of one) would not be applicable if the cause for the restriction (i.e. the lack of business acumen on the part of the woman) was not present. The Islamic cleric Muzammil Siddiqi [4] issued the following fatwa (religious edict):

Question:

Does Islam regard the testimony of women as half of a man’s just in cases of transactions or in every case? Who are the scholars that maintain the first view? What is the evidence of those scholars saying that her testimony is not accepted in cases of murder and adultery?

Answer:

The word shahadah [testimony] in its various forms has occurred in the Qur’an about 156 times. There is only one case (Al-Baqarah 2:282) where there is a reference to gender. Apart from this one reference, there is no other place where the issue of gender is brought in the context of testimony. According to the Qur’an, it does not make any difference whether the person testifying is a male or female; the only objective is to ascertain accuracy and to establish justice and fairness. In one place in the Qur’an, there is an explicit reference that equates the testimonies of the male and female (See Surat An-Nur 24:6-9).

Only in the context of business transactions and loan contracts, it is mentioned that if two men are not available for testimony, then one man and two women are to be provided for that particular purpose (See Surat Al-Baqarah 2:282). The reason is not because of gender; it is given in the Qur’anic verse: If one errs, the other may remind her. Some scholars have suggested that this was due to the fact that most women in the past and even now were not involved in the intricate business dealings. So the Qur’an accepted their testimony, but to insure justice indicated that there should be two.

It is also important to note that the Shari`ah emphasizes that we follow the law exactly in the matters of worship; in economic dealings, however, the issue of justice is the main factor. If a judge sees that there is a woman who is very qualified and has good understanding of business transactions, the judge may consider her testimony equal to the testimony of a man. This will not be against the teachings of the Qur’an. [5]

Jamal Badawi, [6] another Islamic cleric (who Spencer himself quotes as an authority from time to time), comments:

The context of this passage (verse, or ayah) [verse 2:282] relates to testimony on financial transactions, which are often complex and laden with business jargon. The passage does not make blanket generalization [against the testimony of women]…In numerous societies, past and present, women generally may not be heavily involved with and experienced in business transactions. As such, they may not be completely cognizant of what is involved…

It must be added that unlike pure acts of worship, which must be observed exactly as taught by the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, testimony is a means to an end, ascertaining justice as a major objective of Islamic law. Therefore, it is the duty of a fair judge to be guided by this objective when assessing the worth and credibility of a given testimony, regardless of the gender of the witness. A witness of a female graduate of a business school is certainly far more worthy than the witness of an illiterate person with no business education or experience. [7]

Robert Spencer claims that the Sharia itself excludes a woman’s testimony in cases of rape; yet, this is not the interpretation of Sharia that many Muslims follow:

The simple point is that this verse peculiarly relates to bearing witness on documentary evidence i.e. sale deeds, leasing agreements, loan agreements, guarantee cards and trust deeds etc. In the above related cases, one is free to choose the witnesses. But, in cases of accidents, theft, murder, robbery, rape, and hijacking etc the witnesses are not a matter of choice. Whosoever is present at the scene should and can be taken as a witness. Thus we cannot say that the witness of a woman in cases other than documentary evidence, as explained above, will be affected by this verse. [8]

Jalal Abualrub [9], a “Wahhabi” [10] cleric, writes:

The Quran states that we need two women [as] witnesses in cases of financial transactions in place of one man. There is no proof whatsoever that this is also the case in any other dispute, including criminal cases such as rape. In fact, a woman’s testimony is accepted in the most important aspect of Islam: the religion itself. Did anyone ask Aishah to bring another witness or a man to support her narrations of the Prophet’s practices and sayings? [11]

What Spencer will do is simple: he will cite various Islamic clerics, mostly classical medieval ones, as a proof that the Sharia itself says such-and-such. Yet, the reality is that even though most Muslims believe that the Sharia is divinely one, they also acknowledge that there are multiple interpretations of it. If some Islamic scholars argued that a woman’s testimony ought to be excluded, others argued that it should be considered equal to that of a man’s. Spencer attempts to portray the ultraconservative interpretation of the Sharia as the only one–and to him it is the only authoritative one, with all other understandings deemed as either “taqiyya based” or simply unorthodox and therefore unrepresentative (as if Spencer is the pope of Islam!).

Yet, contemporary Muslims point out that the opinions of Islamic jurists (including the classical ones) are just that: opinions. Unlike papal decrees in Catholicism, the rulings of Islamic clerics are neither infallible or binding. Imam Abu Hanifa, the eminent jurist who founded the Hanafi school of thought, decreed:

What comes from the Messenger of God, we accept with our mind and heart, by my father and mother, we cannot oppose it. What comes from the Companions, we choose from. As for what comes from other sources, well, they are human beings as we are. [12]

So while the Muslims find the Quran and authentic hadiths/sunna to be infallible and binding, they do not view the interpretations of them to be such. Along this line, Jalal Abualrub wrote:

We should avoid thinking of the opinions of the scholars as infallible. What is infallible is the Quran and Sunnah alone. Scholars of all schools have their own opinions and fatawa that may either be correct or wrong. For instance, a Maliki scholar can claim whatever opinion his madhhab says, but we are not bound by and certainly the religion is not bound by it.

So when Allah states in Surat al-Baqarah that in regards to financial transactions the testimony of two women can be used with the testimony of one man, no one has the right to make this specific ruling apply in other cases. Let me remind you again: the female Companions [of the Prophet] have narrated and testified on countless occasions about aspects of creed, fiqh and other Islamic topics. Have you heard any of the [male] Companions ever say that their testimony cannot be accepted unless they bring another woman and man to agree? I mentioned this because money issues and criminal issues are certainly far less important than religious issues that establish a ruling for all times.

It must be remembered that the scholars are not infallible, and their efforts are only explanatory–they are not the final authority. We respect the scholars, but we agree that they are human and make mistakes. [13]

Abualrub brings up the point that the testimony of women was accepted on aspects of religion and creed, which are more important than crime and punishment. This is one proof that contemporary Muslims use, namely that the female Companions bore witness to the actions of the Prophet Muhammad; there is no rule in Islam that the testimony of a woman in this regard be considered half of a man’s.

Another proof that contemporary Muslims use–to prove that a woman’s testimony is equal to that of a man’s–is the Quranic passage 24:6-9 (just two verses down from the verses that Spencer has quoted). In these verses, the husband may testify against the wife that she has committed adultery, but if the wife gives her own testimony declaring this to be a lie, then the wife’s testimony trumps that of her husband’s. Muzammil Siddiqi writes:

In one place in the Qur’an, there is an explicit reference that equates the testimonies of the male and female (See Surat An-Nur 24:6-9). [14]

Jamal Badawi comments:

Most Qur’anic references to testimony (witness) do not make any reference to gender. Some references fully equate the testimony of males and females…

[Verse 2:282] cannot be used as an argument that there is a general rule in the Qur’an that the worth of a female’s witness is only half the male’s. This presumed “rule” is voided by the above reference (24:6-9), which explicitly equates the testimony of both genders on the issue at hand. [15]

Contemporary Muslims point out that many classical scholars permitted female judges; how could it be then that a woman would be permitted to serve as a judge but not as a witness, the former of which is in charge of the latter? The judge uses his wisdom to give judgment, whereas a witness simply retells what he/she witnessed. Therefore, if a woman is allowed to be a judge, she ought to be permitted to be a witness as well. Tahir Haddad wryly comments:

The assertion [that women ought to be barred from serving as witnesses]…is even stranger in view of the fact that according to the jurisprudence of the four orthodox Islamic law schools a woman is allowed to act as a judge to rule on differences between people in a role similar to that of a man. Abu-Hanifa al-Nu’man [Imam Abu Hanifa] who was a contemporary of some of the Prophet’s Companions, confirmed that it is acceptable in Islam [for her to be a judge]…So, do we deduce from this that Islam…[bars her as] a witness…and at the same time elevates her by conferring her the responsibilities of a judge? [16]

Jalal Abualrub notes that the words of some of the fallible scholars contradicts the infallible authentic hadiths; Abualrub quotes the following narration in the Islamic texts:

When a woman went out in the time of the Prophet for prayer, a man attacked her and raped her. She shouted and he went off, and when a man came by, she said: “That man did such and such to me.” And when a company of the emigrants came by, she said: “That man did such and such to me.” They went and seized the man whom they thought had had intercourse with her and brought him to her.

She said: “Yes, this is he.” Then they brought him to the Apostle of God. When [the Prophet] was about to pass sentence, the man who had [actually] assaulted her stood up and said: “Apostle of God, I am the man who did it to her.”

[The Prophet] said to her: “Go away, for God has forgiven you.” But he told the [innocent] man some good words, and to the [guilty] man who had had raped her, he said: “Stone him to death.” (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, #4366)

Abualrub points out that contrary to Robert Spencer’s claim that a woman’s testimony is not accepted in cases of rape, the Prophet Muhammad convicted a man based solely on one woman’s testimony. Abualrub comments:

As for the woman mentioned in the narration, it is clear that no one asked her for four witnesses nor did anyone suspect her character, and her testimony alone was used as proof, and the innocent man who was wrongly accused was set free, while she was not punished even though she identified the wrong man, so how can the critics of Islam today claim that the Shari’ah itself says a woman is to be lashed for failing to bring forth four witnesses, when this woman in the narration not only did not do that but also identified the wrong man!? [17]

 

[bhavv]

If anyone hasnt seen this documentory then they definately should:

Of course, most muslims arent extremists, up until they have gay child and then they go crazy.

No other religion is as intolerant towards homosexuals as Islam is, even mosques in Britain teach that gays should be stoned to death, whereas churches teach 'While the bible disaproves of gay people, we must still love them because they are our neighbors' (quoted from christian friends of mine while at uni after being told that in Church).

 

[Tefal]

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

there's two people on here (one being you) with nearly identical names.

If im right you're the really left wing one and the other guy is that mental righting bnp nut.

 

[bhavv]

I dont even know where to get started on Amnesia's post.

Plenty of women in Islam have been stoned to death or jailed after reporting being raped, and Courts in current Sharia countries treat women like ****, such as the one incident where a woman who had both of her eyes burnt off with acid by some guy, and they awarded her with the guy getting one of his burnt off or removed as 'women are only worth half that of a man'.

If you actually bother to read what was originally written by spencer, you would actually realise that it is all written about, and fully backed up by real cases that actually happen in the Islamic world, as is what articles on Jihad Watch are written about. It is not a write up on what the koran specifically says and teaches, but rather the actual hard facts behind how the current interperation of Sharia Law is carried out in so many countries.

You fail at reading and research. Read the actual stories and testimonies of the VICTIMS of Islamic injustice, not some bullcrap that says 'The koran says this and that, therefore all these accusations are false'.

Plenty of women are lashed, imprisoned, and even stoned for silly things like being raped, being seen in public with an unrelated man, not covering their faces (they get acid thrown on them usually, and there are lots and lots of victims of this), and for having sex outside of marriage. If you think that any of this is a lie, then you are completely clueless.

Whether backed by the Koran or not, the actual attrocities carried out under the Sharia Law in Islamic countries is completely unforgivable for me.

Oh, and while your at simply taking whatever the Koran says as absolute truth, go right ahead and look up what it says about leaving Islam and Homosexuality. And before you try to be clever by saying that Christianity also says the same things, do be fully aware that Christians dont kill apostates or gay people these days, nor do churches in Britain still support teaching this, like Mosques get away with doing.

 

[bhavv]

Now heres a good article which sums up a lot of info about this event:

http://frontpagemag.com/2010/05/25/muhammad-cartoons-everywhere/

With last Thursday’s “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day,” which began on Facebook but spread to anti-jihad sites all over the Internet, Muhammad cartoons are now everywhere — and Muslims are outraged. The government of Pakistan shut down Facebook and YouTube, but that didn’t pacify the thousands of Pakistanis who took to the streets to protest against drawings of Muhammad that they could not have seen even if they had wanted to.

One protester held a sign bearing a threat: “Facebook, do not try our patience/STOP your coward activity.” Others shared a large banner reading: “We are ready to sacrifice on [sic] our beloved holy prophet.”

So far there have been no new riots or killings to rival the immediate aftermath of the publication of the original cartoons of Muhammad in a Danish newspaper in September 2005. After the Organization of the Islamic Conference decided at its meeting in Mecca in December 2005 to use the cartoons as an object lesson in the perils of Western secularism, Islamic rage against the cartoons began to boil over all around the world. At least 139 people were killed and 823 were injured over the next few months in Muslim riots against the cartoons.

Another, perhaps even more ominous response to those cartoons was the beginning of the OIC’s anti-free speech campaign — an attempt to compel the West to criminalize criticism of Islam and accept Sharia restrictions on non-Muslims speaking about Islam. In 2008, the Secretary General of the OIC, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, issued a peremptory threat of his own: “We sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed” regarding free speech about Islam and jihad terrorism.

Yet while the government and media elites in America and Europe have generally rushed to show how willing, even eager, they are to show that they will not cross those red lines, their supine response to this assault on free speech has created a backlash among free people. It is worth bearing in mind the “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” would never have aroused much interest among anyone if cartoons of Muhammad didn’t arouse Muslims worldwide to homicidal rage and attempts to restrict the freedom of speech.

While it may in other circumstances simply be obnoxious, or legitimately (not to say to an extent justifying murder) offensive to lampoon someone else’s cherished religious leader, the Muslim reaction to Infidel cartoons of Muhammad is entirely itself responsible for the interest Infidels have in lampooning the Islamic prophet in the first place. If Christians had reacted to Andres Serrano’s **** Christ or Chris Ofili’s dung-encrusted portrait of the Virgin Mary with the same murderous outrage with which Muslims greeted the cartoons of Muhammad, the West would be experiencing a glut of pictures blaspheming Christ and Christianity.

It is, in the first place, an irresistible human impulse to tweak the humorless and self-important; it can in many cases also be a healthy safeguard against tyranny. The figure that cannot be mocked or ridiculed is the one that holds all the cards, all the power. Opposition, dissent, free exchange of ideas depend upon the ability to cause offense without taking one’s life in one’s hands. That’s why the Muhammad cartoons published last week all over the Internet were not an exercise in obnoxiousness or gratuitous offense. They are, rather, the foremost battleground in the defense of the freedom of speech today. Every newspaper in the country should be printing them today, to show they are not cowed and will defend free speech.

It is useful to recall some of the earliest reactions to Cartoon Rage: Carsten Juste, the editor-in-chief of Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that published the original Muhammad cartoons, refused to apologize for publishing them: “We live in a democracy. That’s why we can use all the journalistic methods we want to. Satire is accepted in this country, and you can make caricatures. Religion shouldn’t set any barriers on that sort of expression. This doesn’t mean that we wish to insult any Muslims.” Cultural editor Flemming Rose concurred: “Religious feelings,” he declared, “cannot demand special treatment in a secular society. In a democracy one must from time to time accept criticism or becoming a laughingstock.”

And so now with “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day,” the prophet of Islam has indeed become a laughingstock – albeit those who mocked him last week did so with what was ultimately a very serious purpose. The Muslims who fulminated against the cartoons have only themselves to thank – or curse.

 

[NeilF]

but what if the goal wasn't (necessarily) to insult and someone was just burning the flag for a laugh ?

That's a fair point... A lot of it depends on context of course...

Burn a flag in the privacy of your back garden, where no one will see, who cares...

Bun a flag outside an embassy, it gives it more meaning, and may offend some people.


So by all means, turn your computer on, log on, open up your browser, go into google, browse into a specific facebook page, click to go into some picture and be insulted as much as you like. Alternatively, don't do any of the above

Hardly a life choice is it...

 

[NeilF]

http://frontpagemag.com/2010/05/25/muhammad-cartoons-everywhere/

Those last three paragraphs are perfect!

It is, in the first place, an irresistible human impulse to tweak the humorless and self-important; it can in many cases also be a healthy safeguard against tyranny. The figure that cannot be mocked or ridiculed is the one that holds all the cards, all the power. Opposition, dissent, free exchange of ideas depend upon the ability to cause offense without taking one’s life in one’s hands. That’s why the Muhammad cartoons published last week all over the Internet were not an exercise in obnoxiousness or gratuitous offense. They are, rather, the foremost battleground in the defense of the freedom of speech today. Every newspaper in the country should be printing them today, to show they are not cowed and will defend free speech.

It is useful to recall some of the earliest reactions to Cartoon Rage: Carsten Juste, the editor-in-chief of Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that published the original Muhammad cartoons, refused to apologize for publishing them: “We live in a democracy. That’s why we can use all the journalistic methods we want to. Satire is accepted in this country, and you can make caricatures. Religion shouldn’t set any barriers on that sort of expression. This doesn’t mean that we wish to insult any Muslims.” Cultural editor Flemming Rose concurred: “Religious feelings,” he declared, “cannot demand special treatment in a secular society. In a democracy one must from time to time accept criticism or becoming a laughingstock.”

And so now with “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day,” the prophet of Islam has indeed become a laughing stock – albeit those who mocked him last week did so with what was ultimately a very serious purpose. The Muslims who fulminated against the cartoons have only themselves to thank – or course.

 

[bhavv]

Now this completely infuriates me!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJY4e24kqrE&feature=player_embedded#!

Some Imam in America wants to build a 13 story Mosque on Ground Zero. In the US he is saying he wants to do it to provide better relations between the Muslim and Western world, but in a book he publishedin Islamic Countries, he calls it a 'Dowa', which is to impose Sharia Law into a countries political system following a call to Jihad!

Good for America that they have much more opposition to and knowledge regarding Sharia courts, and hopefully they wont ever have this Mosque built, or even have a Sharia Court system put in place as the UK has ridiculously done (I couldnt care if its only for Mulsims, all Muslims living in Britain should be equally and fairly judged in a British court room, not in a Sharia court).

Excuse me if I fully support wanting to remove ALL Islamic influence on ANYTHING to do with law, education, and society in any western democratic country. We shouldnt even have any Mosques.

 

[NeilF]

Now Hindus and Mormons take action!

http://www.hayibo.com/2010/05/25/in...l-for-destruction-of-mcdonalds-and-starbucks/