The article below shows how at time we unknowningly support the suppression of Freedom of Speech/Expression even in the US. Please read the article in full and any of your thoughts are most welcome. Please refrain from discussing about Islam as this is not the thread for it. If you want to discuss Islam you will find several threads in the serious IND/Malay-Chat sub-forums. Because this article is really about the importance of Freedom of Speech and the freedom from all sort of intimidation/bullying. Are we going to cower under Political Correctness, Fear and Intimidation at the expense of our Freedom of Speech? If we are then what kind of world are preparing for our children? The higlights are mind.
Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/04/07/quran-b...slim-murders/2/
Qur’an Burnings and Muslim Murders
Everyone is angry with Terry Jones, the Qur’an-burning Florida pastor. Barack Obama issued a written statement saying that “the desecration of any holy text, including the Qur’an, is an act of extreme intolerance and bigotry.” In Afghanistan, General David Petraeus and NATO representative Mark Sedwill said they “hope the Afghan people understand that the actions of a small number of individuals, who have been extremely disrespectful to the holy Qur’an, are not representative of any of the countries of the international community who are in Afghanistan to help the Afghan people.”
The United Nations got into the act, too. “The recent burning of a copy of the Quran in the United States and similar actions anywhere else contradict the efforts of the United Nations to promote tolerance, intercultural understanding and mutual respect between cultures and religions,” thundered UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.
Time Magazine’s Joe Klein even claimed that “Jones’s act was murderous as any suicide bomber’s,” since Muslims enraged by the burning of the Qur’an in Florida have murdered about 20 people in Afghanistan and five in Pakistan.
Is that Jones’s fault? Many, many in the West agree with Klein that it is. Guardian editor Matt Seaton explained that Jones was to blame because his Qur’an-burning was “done knowingly involving reckless endangerment, and quite possibly wishing for this kind of bad result.” Bill O’Reilly even claimed that Jones had “blood on his hands.”
To that, Jones’s response was succinct: “We reject Mr. O’Reilly’s statement. The responsibility should be laid upon the people who committed the acts.” O’Reilly and the rest were assuming that the Muslims who were rioting and killing over the burning of a book half a world away had no control over their reactions, and thus could not be held accountable for them: they were demonstrating their belief that it was the West’s responsibility to make sure the Islamic world behaves in a civilized manner. Muslims had no such responsibility.
Instead of all this morally myopic posturing, Obama, Petraeus, Ban Ki-moon and the mainstream media ought to be standing up for freedom of speech. Speech that is inoffensive needs no protection, and those in power can all too easily use “hate speech” codes to restrict speech they find politically inconvenient or challenging. Obama, O’Reilly and the rest should have said: ”While I disapprove of the burning of the Qur’an, in America we believe that freedom of expression is a fundamental bulwark against tyranny and the hallmark of a truly free society, and it requires us to put up with things we don’t like without responding with violence.”
Jones’s Qur’an-burning could have been a teaching moment for the West, showing why free societies are preferable to Sharia states. But instead, Obama and the media are effectively reinforcing the principle that violent intimidation works: they knew that somewhere in the world Muslims were going to become violent because of the burned Qur’an, and instead of telling them to act like civilized people, they are demanding that free people change the way they behave to try to prevent another Islamic murderous spree. That’s just what Afghan President Hamid Karzai is demanding: he wants the U.S. to restrict the freedom of speech to protect the Qur’an: “The American Congress and Senate must condemn this in clear words, show their stance, and prevent such incidents from happening again.”
The world’s leaders and opinion-shapers can and should be telling these rioting Afghans and Pakistanis, and those who are defending them, to realize that if someone burns a Qur’an in Florida, it doesn’t harm them, or the Qur’an, or Allah, or Muhammad. He could and should tell them that to respond with irrational violence against people who are not involved with the burning (or even against the people who are involved with it) is just savagery.
People like Obama and Seaton have forgotten, if they ever knew, that one’s response to someone else’s provocative action is entirely one’s own responsibility. If you do something that offends me, I am under no obligation to kill you, or to run to the United Nations to try to get laws passed that will silence you. I am free to ignore you, or laugh at you, or to respond with charity, or any number of reactions.
Everyone in the world is so busy condemning Terry Jones that they have forgotten about freedom of expression, and why it is so important to reinforce even when we find the expression detestable—indeed, especially in such cases.[/color] And so, if we continue down this path, one thing is certain: That which is not understood or valued will not be protected, and so it will be lost.
Those who censor themselves today to keep from offending Muslims who are offended all too easily may wish in the not-too-distant future that they had stood up more robustly for the freedom of speech when it was threatened. But by then, it could easily be too late.
Full Version: The Importance of Freedom of Speech
What really is Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Expression? To me it seems that it applies to some and not to others. To me it seems that the West has been intimidated to conform to some pressure groups and that is why we have this modern term,"political correctness." It seems that when some pressure groups carry placards to kill others, that is not suppressed to stopped, but if someone burns a book belonging to a certain group that is taboo. There seems to be a very uneven playing field. We use one standard for one group and a different sets of standards for another group. Why so? The reason is clear, "intimidation."
You are free to express yourself
However you are not free to endanger others with your speech
The old example is yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire.
Yet, you are allowed to proclaim the dangers of fire in a speech.
Freedom of speech is not a license to do as you wish without regard to others.
However you are not free to endanger others with your speech
The old example is yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire.
Yet, you are allowed to proclaim the dangers of fire in a speech.
Freedom of speech is not a license to do as you wish without regard to others.
QUOTE (avisitor @ May 6 2011, 06:15 PM) 
You are free to express yourself
However you are not free to endanger others with your speech
The old example is yelling fire is a crowded theater when there is no fire.
Yet, you are allowed to proclaim the dangers of fire in a speech.
Freedom of speech is not a license to do as you wish without regard to others.
However you are not free to endanger others with your speech
The old example is yelling fire is a crowded theater when there is no fire.
Yet, you are allowed to proclaim the dangers of fire in a speech.
Freedom of speech is not a license to do as you wish without regard to others.
Any sensible person would know that.
QUOTE (elleX0 @ May 6 2011, 03:13 PM)
Any sensible person would know that.
And common sense would be common to all ... but it is not
And, if freedom of speech were so simple and well known then
why is it that we still have such heated debates about it?
Truth be told, your simplicity of the world doesn't pass the test ... it won't hold water ...
QUOTE (chutzpah @ May 6 2011, 05:31 AM)
People like Obama and Seaton have forgotten, if they ever knew, that one’s response to someone else’s provocative action is entirely one’s own responsibility.
That may be true. But does the author know WHY Obama and Seaton is condeming it?
So Aunty Chutzy, do you support Pastor's Terry Jones' proposal to propose an "International Burn a Koran Day" campaign?
He has been banned by the Home Secretary in the UK from entering the UK on the grounds of for the public good.
If you are supporting his inflammatory views on Islam, aren't you supporting bigotry in the false name of Freedom of Speech? Isn't it more like u are advocating the Freedom to Incite Hatred?
He has been banned by the Home Secretary in the UK from entering the UK on the grounds of for the public good.
If you are supporting his inflammatory views on Islam, aren't you supporting bigotry in the false name of Freedom of Speech? Isn't it more like u are advocating the Freedom to Incite Hatred?
QUOTE (avisitor @ May 7 2011, 01:52 AM)
And common sense would be common to all ... but it is not
And, if freedom of speech were so simple and well known then
why is it that we still have such heated debates about it?
Truth be told, your simplicity of the world doesn't pass the test ... it won't hold water ...
And, if freedom of speech were so simple and well known then
why is it that we still have such heated debates about it?
Truth be told, your simplicity of the world doesn't pass the test ... it won't hold water ...
Do you always revert to 'ad hominem?'
QUOTE (elleX0 @ May 7 2011, 05:19 AM)
Do you always revert to 'ad hominem?'
I always try to use stuff that is common to most people
It is like the common sense approach to this non-sense ...
If you understand Islam and know what Sharia contains you will realise that Freedom of Speech is impossible in Islam because of this law in Sharia ( I substantiate my statements):
14a*- Non-Muslims cannot curse a Muslim, say anything derogatory about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam, or expose the weak points of Muslims/Islam. However, Muslim can curse, criticise or say anything derogatory they like to the religions of all others.
And that seems to be the attitude of many people in the East, if you don't express views like us we will persecute you. No one is allowed to introduce an alternative view unless it conforms to the Qur'an, yet they do not know what is in the Qur'an themselves. But if you tell them what is in the Qur'an that may be uncomfortable with, then you immediately become the enemy and must be driven off the site. Free speech in semi-literate countries has a long way to go? You must be joking if you think there is Freedom of Speech in illiterate countries.
14a*- Non-Muslims cannot curse a Muslim, say anything derogatory about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam, or expose the weak points of Muslims/Islam. However, Muslim can curse, criticise or say anything derogatory they like to the religions of all others.
And that seems to be the attitude of many people in the East, if you don't express views like us we will persecute you. No one is allowed to introduce an alternative view unless it conforms to the Qur'an, yet they do not know what is in the Qur'an themselves. But if you tell them what is in the Qur'an that may be uncomfortable with, then you immediately become the enemy and must be driven off the site. Free speech in semi-literate countries has a long way to go? You must be joking if you think there is Freedom of Speech in illiterate countries.
Apparently, there is no freedom of speech in Islam???
But, I still say that you can't use freedom of speech
as an excuse to say whatever you want without regard to others
Intimidation is what terrorist use to get their way.
Although, I do not wish to bend to their will
I also do not wish to provoke them
So we do a side shuffle on certain things
But, I still say that you can't use freedom of speech
as an excuse to say whatever you want without regard to others
Intimidation is what terrorist use to get their way.
Although, I do not wish to bend to their will
I also do not wish to provoke them
So we do a side shuffle on certain things
Well, burning a Koran is considered hate speech regardless of how you want to put it, and he was provocative. We regard the freedom of speech as important, as the more speech available the more information is generally released. However, this does cross a line if it provokes others. If you insult someone, degrade them, and drive them to violence, who is to blame? And if someone threatens you, would that be considered freedom of speech also? We wouldn't consider it so, because it infringes on someone else's freedom of security. I think provoking someone to violence kind of has the same effect.
If quoting verses from a religious Holy source is provoking, then there must be something wrong with the Holy Text. If the kitchen is too hot for you then leave the kitchen.
I have never found anyone who is a scholar or very knowledgeable of any religion lose his cool when discussing it. It is those people how only know a little of that religion who get offended and fly off the handle. A little knowledge is a very dangerous thing. I also cannot see how anyone can be offended when actual Holy verses are quoted or analysed?
I have never found anyone who is a scholar or very knowledgeable of any religion lose his cool when discussing it. It is those people how only know a little of that religion who get offended and fly off the handle. A little knowledge is a very dangerous thing. I also cannot see how anyone can be offended when actual Holy verses are quoted or analysed?
QUOTE (Suijen @ May 8 2011, 08:46 AM)
Well, burning a Koran is considered hate speech regardless of how you want to put it, and he was provocative. We regard the freedom of speech as important, as the more speech available the more information is generally released. However, this does cross a line if it provokes others. If you insult someone, degrade them, and drive them to violence, who is to blame? And if someone threatens you, would that be considered freedom of speech also? We wouldn't consider it so, because it infringes on someone else's freedom of security. I think provoking someone to violence kind of has the same effect.
Thank you. I said the same thing.
Quoting the holy book is not an excuse to use those words as a weapon or to threaten other's.
It isn't about little knowledge or lots of knowledge.
It is about living with your neighbors and living inside a community.
If you truly think about it then you will know that most people can not survive without the help of other people.
Take for instance city folk ... they don't know how to milk a cow or the reason one must do it.
Till the land?? Butcher a goat and cut up the meat?? When to plant the seeds??
Open the tap and magic ... one has water .. clean water.
What to do with a broken bone?? ... how to make medicines???
We all live in a community and society which supports our lives.
No man is an island.
Source: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=43147
Koran-Burning Pastor Jailed for Thoughtcrime
by Robert Spencer
04/26/2011
On Good Friday in Dearborn, Mich., the notorious Koran-burning pastor Terry Jones was jailed and fined for the crime of refusing to pay a so-called “peace bond” to cover the costs of extra police protection for Jones’ planned demonstration outside the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn. Judge Mark Somers also ordered Jones to stay away from the massive Dearborn mosque for three years.
This is a restriction on the freedom of speech and the freedom of expression that Islamic supremacists are certainly going to try to use in the future to press for even more.
Jones was only in jail briefly, and the fine was a symbolic one dollar, but clearly Dearborn authorities see him as a threat to public order. Why? Was Jones threatening to burn down the mosque, using copies of the Koran as kindling? Did he threaten the Dearborn Muslims—or Muslims anywhere else? Did he strap a suicide vest to himself and detonate it in a crowd of infidels? Did he plant explosives in his underwear and try to blow up an airliner in mid-flight? Did he load a car with explosives and try to explode it on a crowded night in Times Square? Did he murder 13 Americans while shooting “Allahu Akbar” at Fort Hood? Did he murder an American serviceman outside a military recruiting center in Little Rock for Allah and Islam?
Of course Terry Jones did none of those things. In reality, he poses no potential or actual threat to anyone. His sole claim to fame, and to hatred, and to notoriety, is that he burned a single copy of a book of which there are millions, if not billions, of extant copies. This act, of course, so enrages some Muslims that it has led them to murder innocent people half a world away, and to burn down stores in Afghanistan that invariably contained a copy of the Koran—thereby destroying more copies of the Islamic holy book than Jones ever has.
The brute fact of this violence has led directly to Judge Somers’ action. He is concerned, and with good reason, that a Jones protest in Dearborn would lead to violence. But not from Jones. The city of Dearborn and Somers clearly shut down Jones’ protest because they were afraid it would lead to violence from Muslims. But if Jones and his fellow protesters were not being violent themselves, wouldn't the responsibility for any disturbance be upon those who decided to react to whatever Jones was doing by causing the disturbance?
Commentator Pamela Geller points out Dearborn’s soft bigotry of low expectations: "The city of Dearborn's position is that Muslims are so violent and irrational that they won't be able to control themselves if Jones holds a protest? And he has to pay for damages? Why wouldn't the marauding Muslim hordes pay the damages if they are doing the damage? And if they get violent, why aren't they in jail?"
Indeed. the New York Times reported that “Robert Sedler, a constitutional law professor at Wayne State University, said the United States Supreme Court has ruled that it is the police’s job to protect speakers at such events, and said it is unconstitutional to require protesters to post a bond for police protection.”
Yet it has been done now, and the precedent set that a man has been arrested, jailed, and fined for the Orwellian crime of planning to hold a politically incorrect protest. Whatever one may think of Terry Jones and his book-burning (and I am not a fan of book-burning myself), every free citizen should be supporting his right to protest in Michigan. Muslims should not be immune from criticism and protest in America any more than anyone else is. To restrict Jones’ right to protest in front of a mosque is to send the signal that violent intimidation works, and that those who killed people in Afghanistan because of Jones’ Koran-burning have achieved their ultimate goal: to make Islam immune from criticism because every potential critic will be afraid to speak out.
That is the road to tyranny. And now we have embarked on it.
Note: Even though I understand and agree with several responses, the question remain is; should we allow ourself to be intimidated by violence and succumb to it? If so when will it end? Will it become ever more difficult to the point just talkking about it will result in severe retribution? For that is now happening in some Asian country.
Pakistan is a case in point, and Malaysia to a lesser extend. Do you know about Asia Bibi the woman awaiting to be beheaded by the Sharia court in Pakistan? Or the two ministers that were slaughtered for speaking up in her defence because it was a trumped up charges brought against her by a disgruntled neighbour?
Asia Bibi a Christian woman, she has been given a death sentence by beheading under Pakistan Sharia laws - the blasphemy laws, her fate is still not known, for now she is languishing in jail for blaspheming Mohammed the prophet, but so far there is no evidence against her but just accusation made by her neighbour. Many Christians have been sentenced to death under the blasphemy laws in Pakistan. Some were stoned to death, some were beheaded, because the public demanded such measures even though in all of the cases involving Christians, there were never any solid evidence found.
Koran-Burning Pastor Jailed for Thoughtcrime
by Robert Spencer
04/26/2011
On Good Friday in Dearborn, Mich., the notorious Koran-burning pastor Terry Jones was jailed and fined for the crime of refusing to pay a so-called “peace bond” to cover the costs of extra police protection for Jones’ planned demonstration outside the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn. Judge Mark Somers also ordered Jones to stay away from the massive Dearborn mosque for three years.
This is a restriction on the freedom of speech and the freedom of expression that Islamic supremacists are certainly going to try to use in the future to press for even more.
Jones was only in jail briefly, and the fine was a symbolic one dollar, but clearly Dearborn authorities see him as a threat to public order. Why? Was Jones threatening to burn down the mosque, using copies of the Koran as kindling? Did he threaten the Dearborn Muslims—or Muslims anywhere else? Did he strap a suicide vest to himself and detonate it in a crowd of infidels? Did he plant explosives in his underwear and try to blow up an airliner in mid-flight? Did he load a car with explosives and try to explode it on a crowded night in Times Square? Did he murder 13 Americans while shooting “Allahu Akbar” at Fort Hood? Did he murder an American serviceman outside a military recruiting center in Little Rock for Allah and Islam?
Of course Terry Jones did none of those things. In reality, he poses no potential or actual threat to anyone. His sole claim to fame, and to hatred, and to notoriety, is that he burned a single copy of a book of which there are millions, if not billions, of extant copies. This act, of course, so enrages some Muslims that it has led them to murder innocent people half a world away, and to burn down stores in Afghanistan that invariably contained a copy of the Koran—thereby destroying more copies of the Islamic holy book than Jones ever has.
The brute fact of this violence has led directly to Judge Somers’ action. He is concerned, and with good reason, that a Jones protest in Dearborn would lead to violence. But not from Jones. The city of Dearborn and Somers clearly shut down Jones’ protest because they were afraid it would lead to violence from Muslims. But if Jones and his fellow protesters were not being violent themselves, wouldn't the responsibility for any disturbance be upon those who decided to react to whatever Jones was doing by causing the disturbance?
Commentator Pamela Geller points out Dearborn’s soft bigotry of low expectations: "The city of Dearborn's position is that Muslims are so violent and irrational that they won't be able to control themselves if Jones holds a protest? And he has to pay for damages? Why wouldn't the marauding Muslim hordes pay the damages if they are doing the damage? And if they get violent, why aren't they in jail?"
Indeed. the New York Times reported that “Robert Sedler, a constitutional law professor at Wayne State University, said the United States Supreme Court has ruled that it is the police’s job to protect speakers at such events, and said it is unconstitutional to require protesters to post a bond for police protection.”
Yet it has been done now, and the precedent set that a man has been arrested, jailed, and fined for the Orwellian crime of planning to hold a politically incorrect protest. Whatever one may think of Terry Jones and his book-burning (and I am not a fan of book-burning myself), every free citizen should be supporting his right to protest in Michigan. Muslims should not be immune from criticism and protest in America any more than anyone else is. To restrict Jones’ right to protest in front of a mosque is to send the signal that violent intimidation works, and that those who killed people in Afghanistan because of Jones’ Koran-burning have achieved their ultimate goal: to make Islam immune from criticism because every potential critic will be afraid to speak out.
That is the road to tyranny. And now we have embarked on it.
Note: Even though I understand and agree with several responses, the question remain is; should we allow ourself to be intimidated by violence and succumb to it? If so when will it end? Will it become ever more difficult to the point just talkking about it will result in severe retribution? For that is now happening in some Asian country.
Pakistan is a case in point, and Malaysia to a lesser extend. Do you know about Asia Bibi the woman awaiting to be beheaded by the Sharia court in Pakistan? Or the two ministers that were slaughtered for speaking up in her defence because it was a trumped up charges brought against her by a disgruntled neighbour?
Asia Bibi a Christian woman, she has been given a death sentence by beheading under Pakistan Sharia laws - the blasphemy laws, her fate is still not known, for now she is languishing in jail for blaspheming Mohammed the prophet, but so far there is no evidence against her but just accusation made by her neighbour. Many Christians have been sentenced to death under the blasphemy laws in Pakistan. Some were stoned to death, some were beheaded, because the public demanded such measures even though in all of the cases involving Christians, there were never any solid evidence found.
Chutzpah
The right to freedom of speech is not an absolute moral right, and nor is its intrinsic value an absolute value. As avisitor had pointed out, a person does not have a moral right to shout ‘Fire!’ in a crowded hall, if that would lead to panic and thereby to serious injury or even loss of life (John Stuart Mill).
But because freedom of speech is seen as intrinsically good, a basic human right and the cornerstone of a society that is based on reason and liberal democracy, there is a strong presumption against restricting it, as you are trying to do in this thread. That presumption can be overridden, when complete freedom of speech is actually "Hate Speech" in disguise to enable a person or group to vilify another person or group.
Let us just look at Pastor Terry Jones first. I think any thinking person here will see that here is a person so motivated by a deep aversion to Middle Eastern peoples and their faith, with such a desire to contribute to the creation of a climate of suspicion and fear about the Muslim community in the United States, that he advocates hate speech in order to achieve that goal. His agenda is no different from the mullahs or ayatollahs who advocates hate speech against imperialism and western nations.
I know you are a reasonably educated person, and so is our octogenarian forummer ellexo. But I fear you two are like Pastor Jones, blurring the line between freedom of speech with hate speech. In many of your threads in Indonesian and Malaysian Chat, you are motivated by such an aversion to Middle Eastern/Near Eastern/Southeast Asian muslims, that you invariably end up insulting the forummer to create a climate of hate and intimidation. I saw this in Indochat, and felt it
There are posters like HangPC or galvatron who would post threads on muslim injustice around the world, but they do not get into the hate speech that you seem to indulge in almost inevitably with every muslim forummer. I have seen how you chatted with Yana and several others in the Msian chat, then you started on the Indochat forummers...
When I read how you denigrate Majapahitan's (indonesian forummer) muslim identity, calling him an apostate muslim because of his pride in his Indonesian buddhist/hindu heritage, and haranguing him as a mediocre teacher in a madrassah when he spoke about his lecture on graphic designs at his alma mater in Java, it was so deadly clear that you were out to create hate and false claims to seriously undermine his reputation on the indochat forum.
I don't think you realised that you were bordering on hate speech. I hope you now understand why there is so much objection to your posts in Indochat.
Ellexo's persistent posting of verses from the Quran is stilted towards hate speech too. The Quran is much like the Bible, which has the Old Testament that is written in a war-like, hell-fire, worship me and no other; and the New Testament which we all know is based on Jesus' new teachings on love, peace and harmony with the trinity and all. All these scriptures have verses for just about everything and the opposite of it. Yet, Ellexo solely dwells on the negative verses to falsely create the gold standard for a muslim that satisfies nobody except the Bin Ladens and Ayatollahs of this world. For me, Ellexo is no better than Bin Laden or the Ayatollah. It is lamentable that for as an 80 years old retiree, that he is brimming with such a latent hatred and makes it his mission to sow this hatred in an international forum such as Asia Finest. I wished he had the guts to go to Islamic websites and test his mettle there, but nope, he ends up in wishy washy websites that don't appreciate his stilted views on muslims and islam, and in fact, one of them, a Singaporean website has even moved to erase his postings on Islam.
If you truly want to bring about an Age of Reason for the muslims on this planet, why don't you engage in true and friendly dialogue with muslims that gets everyone on the same page on reason and humanism? An indonesian and malaysian muslim is just as capable as you to live in the Age of Reason if you would only recognise and accord them that right.
Why fall so easily into rage, false and hate speech? If you care for the plight of Asia Bibi, why not get into the organizations that campaign for human rights in Singapore with outreach to Pakistan?
It's surely alot more fruitful than wasting your time here on Asia Finest right?
Btw, I LOVE Louboutins, but no, I can't afford them.
The right to freedom of speech is not an absolute moral right, and nor is its intrinsic value an absolute value. As avisitor had pointed out, a person does not have a moral right to shout ‘Fire!’ in a crowded hall, if that would lead to panic and thereby to serious injury or even loss of life (John Stuart Mill).
But because freedom of speech is seen as intrinsically good, a basic human right and the cornerstone of a society that is based on reason and liberal democracy, there is a strong presumption against restricting it, as you are trying to do in this thread. That presumption can be overridden, when complete freedom of speech is actually "Hate Speech" in disguise to enable a person or group to vilify another person or group.
Let us just look at Pastor Terry Jones first. I think any thinking person here will see that here is a person so motivated by a deep aversion to Middle Eastern peoples and their faith, with such a desire to contribute to the creation of a climate of suspicion and fear about the Muslim community in the United States, that he advocates hate speech in order to achieve that goal. His agenda is no different from the mullahs or ayatollahs who advocates hate speech against imperialism and western nations.
I know you are a reasonably educated person, and so is our octogenarian forummer ellexo. But I fear you two are like Pastor Jones, blurring the line between freedom of speech with hate speech. In many of your threads in Indonesian and Malaysian Chat, you are motivated by such an aversion to Middle Eastern/Near Eastern/Southeast Asian muslims, that you invariably end up insulting the forummer to create a climate of hate and intimidation. I saw this in Indochat, and felt it
There are posters like HangPC or galvatron who would post threads on muslim injustice around the world, but they do not get into the hate speech that you seem to indulge in almost inevitably with every muslim forummer. I have seen how you chatted with Yana and several others in the Msian chat, then you started on the Indochat forummers...
When I read how you denigrate Majapahitan's (indonesian forummer) muslim identity, calling him an apostate muslim because of his pride in his Indonesian buddhist/hindu heritage, and haranguing him as a mediocre teacher in a madrassah when he spoke about his lecture on graphic designs at his alma mater in Java, it was so deadly clear that you were out to create hate and false claims to seriously undermine his reputation on the indochat forum.
I don't think you realised that you were bordering on hate speech. I hope you now understand why there is so much objection to your posts in Indochat.
Ellexo's persistent posting of verses from the Quran is stilted towards hate speech too. The Quran is much like the Bible, which has the Old Testament that is written in a war-like, hell-fire, worship me and no other; and the New Testament which we all know is based on Jesus' new teachings on love, peace and harmony with the trinity and all. All these scriptures have verses for just about everything and the opposite of it. Yet, Ellexo solely dwells on the negative verses to falsely create the gold standard for a muslim that satisfies nobody except the Bin Ladens and Ayatollahs of this world. For me, Ellexo is no better than Bin Laden or the Ayatollah. It is lamentable that for as an 80 years old retiree, that he is brimming with such a latent hatred and makes it his mission to sow this hatred in an international forum such as Asia Finest. I wished he had the guts to go to Islamic websites and test his mettle there, but nope, he ends up in wishy washy websites that don't appreciate his stilted views on muslims and islam, and in fact, one of them, a Singaporean website has even moved to erase his postings on Islam.
If you truly want to bring about an Age of Reason for the muslims on this planet, why don't you engage in true and friendly dialogue with muslims that gets everyone on the same page on reason and humanism? An indonesian and malaysian muslim is just as capable as you to live in the Age of Reason if you would only recognise and accord them that right.
Why fall so easily into rage, false and hate speech? If you care for the plight of Asia Bibi, why not get into the organizations that campaign for human rights in Singapore with outreach to Pakistan?
It's surely alot more fruitful than wasting your time here on Asia Finest right?
Btw, I LOVE Louboutins, but no, I can't afford them.
BIGOTRY I have decided to rebut the previous post but have not decided where to post it. I will post a link here later.
The reply to this malicious and false accusation can be found at:
http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?...t=#entry4771591
The reply to this malicious and false accusation can be found at:
http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?...t=#entry4771591
QUOTE (elleX0 @ May 8 2011, 03:29 PM)
If quoting verses from a religious Holy source is provoking, then there must be something wrong with the Holy Text. If the kitchen is too hot for you then leave the kitchen.
Not necessarily the text in question, but more often it is the context in which they are quoted, the editing of the quotes and/or the perceived intent of the speaker where wrong is found when holy texts are quoted.
QUOTE
I have never found anyone who is a scholar or very knowledgeable of any religion lose his cool when discussing it. It is those people how only know a little of that religion who get offended and fly off the handle. A little knowledge is a very dangerous thing. I also cannot see how anyone can be offended when actual Holy verses are quoted or analysed?
You must not have attempted to hold many discussions with extremely devout persons of most religions. Scholarship and knowledge does not guarantee the absence of emotional attachment to that learning and its sources. I have held such discussions with those of many faiths, but those who can dispassionately withstand questioning of their beliefs by outsiders are rare.
My reply in red below
QUOTE (tangawizi @ May 10 2011, 01:42 PM)
Chutzpah
The right to freedom of speech is not an absolute moral right, and nor is its intrinsic value an absolute value. As avisitor had pointed out, a person does not have a moral right to shout ‘Fire!’ in a crowded hall, if that would lead to panic and thereby to serious injury or even loss of life (John Stuart Mill).
But because freedom of speech is seen as intrinsically good, a basic human right and the cornerstone of a society that is based on reason and liberal democracy, there is a strong presumption against restricting it, as you are trying to do in this thread. That presumption can be overridden, when complete freedom of speech is actually "Hate Speech" in disguise to enable a person or group to vilify another person or group.
You are saying bullying in a huge scale [ie the world] is to be condoned. So where does it end? It can't be denied that the world is held ransom by violence from the Muslim world. Are we going to continue to avoid speaking out against or about this hatred and violence from this group in the name of keeping safe or God forbids peace? Are we in fact safe when we speak out? These are the questions which I think Spencer is aslo subtly asking.
Let us just look at Pastor Terry Jones first. I think any thinking person here will see that here is a person so motivated by a deep aversion to Middle Eastern peoples and their faith, with such a desire to contribute to the creation of a climate of suspicion and fear about the Muslim community in the United States, that he advocates hate speech in order to achieve that goal. His agenda is no different from the mullahs or ayatollahs who advocates hate speech against imperialism and western nations.
It is not what T Jones stance on Islam, it is about his 'constitutional rights' to freedom of speech which is enshrined under the Constitution and the Law of the US. Do you even know what prompted his action? If there is a climate of deep aversion to ME people and Islam, it is not the doing of the West or the non Muslims, it is the result of the constant violence perpertrated in the name of Allah and Islam by Muslims. The sad fact is, when these violence occur, there are hardly any condemnations coming from any Muslim leaders. They foster the climate of fear and suspicion or don't you know what is happening around the world? The most recent attack on the Egyptian Coptics and their church burnt is such example. In Malaysia currently the possibilty of violence against Christians is very real due to unsubstantiated allegation that Christians are trying to take over.
I know you are a reasonably educated person, and so is our octogenarian forummer ellexo. But I fear you two are like Pastor Jones, blurring the line between freedom of speech with hate speech. In many of your threads in Indonesian and Malaysian Chat, you are motivated by such an aversion to Middle Eastern/Near Eastern/Southeast Asian muslims, that you invariably end up insulting the forummer to create a climate of hate and intimidation. I saw this in Indochat, and felt it
Why, thanks for more insult. Then again you never fail in that department. Surely only you would know well when it comes to insult and intimidation or blurring the line as so many of your posts suggest. Just to refresh your memory here is the link:
http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=266752
There are posters like HangPC or galvatron who would post threads on muslim injustice around the world, but they do not get into the hate speech that you seem to indulge in almost inevitably with every muslim forummer. I have seen how you chatted with Yana and several others in the Msian chat, then you started on the Indochat forummers...
Ah yes, of course HangPC the bumi who never fails to insult non Muslims with his many posts, but why should you care? Selective amnesia seems to be what you or Yana or any of your supporters subscribe to religiously. I guess in your valuation, the likes of HangPC doesn't constitute hate speech or any replies from your cronies for that matter.
When I read how you denigrate Majapahitan's (indonesian forummer) muslim identity, calling him an apostate muslim because of his pride in his Indonesian buddhist/hindu heritage, and haranguing him as a mediocre teacher in a madrassah when he spoke about his lecture on graphic designs at his alma mater in Java, it was so deadly clear that you were out to create hate and false claims to seriously undermine his reputation on the indochat forum.
I don't think you realised that you were bordering on hate speech. I hope you now understand why there is so much objection to your posts in Indochat.
I supose you, Majapahitans and the other two many replies which include many name calling, labelling, the use of expletives and obscenities are not denigrating or hate speech right? Oh yes, you better read what ElleXO definitive description of a Muslim before you start pointing your crooked fingers. Majapahitans admitted that he is neither a pious nor a good Muslim. He also admitted that he loves Hindu practices that is steeped in his ethnicity. According to the Islamic guidelines as set out in the Quran, the Hadiths and the Surahs, he is an apostate. I don't go about labelling people without good reason as you seems to do. I use facts and knowledge. And what do you think of his many obscene and abusive posts about us including his use of expletives, would it seriously undermine his reputation or ours? Furthermore you have been asked repeatedly to substantiate your accusations, why don't you just do that so that we can move on?
Ellexo's persistent posting of verses from the Quran is stilted towards hate speech too. The Quran is much like the Bible, which has the Old Testament that is written in a war-like, hell-fire, worship me and no other; and the New Testament which we all know is based on Jesus' new teachings on love, peace and harmony with the trinity and all. All these scriptures have verses for just about everything and the opposite of it. Yet, Ellexo solely dwells on the negative verses to falsely create the gold standard for a muslim that satisfies nobody except the Bin Ladens and Ayatollahs of this world. For me, Ellexo is no better than Bin Laden or the Ayatollah. It is lamentable that for as an 80 years old retiree, that he is brimming with such a latent hatred and makes it his mission to sow this hatred in an international forum such as Asia Finest. I wished he had the guts to go to Islamic websites and test his mettle there, but nope, he ends up in wishy washy websites that don't appreciate his stilted views on muslims and islam, and in fact, one of them, a Singaporean website has even moved to erase his postings on Islam.
As you know so little or next to nothing about Islam, I suggest that you start reading up on it before accusing ElleXO. Do yourself a favour like what DEL is starting to do. I note how scantily you know about Christianity too, Jesus' new teaching indeed. If anyone that is brimming with latent hatreds and prejudices is you and your like minded cronies. Not all in INDChat nor in MYChat react they way you do.
If you truly want to bring about an Age of Reason for the muslims on this planet, why don't you engage in true and friendly dialogue with muslims that gets everyone on the same page on reason and humanism? An indonesian and malaysian muslim is just as capable as you to live in the Age of Reason if you would only recognise and accord them that right.
Why fall so easily into rage, false and hate speech? If you care for the plight of Asia Bibi, why not get into the organizations that campaign for human rights in Singapore with outreach to Pakistan?
It's surely alot more fruitful than wasting your time here on Asia Finest right?
Please Tanga, enough already, spare me your sanctomonious fake morality. The trouble with you is even though you try to be civil you always end up resorting to insult. Why you behave this way only you know. I feel sorry for you Tanga, compare to the other three you clearly are not that stupid, but you refuse to do what is right. For example you must read ElleXO a Muslim defined before you criticised that article. You commenced your attacks without having read it, it is stupid. That article is anything but anti Islam or denigrating Muslims. It is an excellent piece of scholarly research. Regardless how and what ElleXO's feeling is about Islam and Muslim, it doesn't negate the excellence of that article.
You should also refrain from accusing and finger pointing at others of things you do yourself. I was having a civil discussion with ElleXO on Islam and instead of joining in you start atacking us. Perhaps you should take your own advice above and behave accordingly.
Btw, I LOVE Louboutins, but no, I can't afford them.
The right to freedom of speech is not an absolute moral right, and nor is its intrinsic value an absolute value. As avisitor had pointed out, a person does not have a moral right to shout ‘Fire!’ in a crowded hall, if that would lead to panic and thereby to serious injury or even loss of life (John Stuart Mill).
But because freedom of speech is seen as intrinsically good, a basic human right and the cornerstone of a society that is based on reason and liberal democracy, there is a strong presumption against restricting it, as you are trying to do in this thread. That presumption can be overridden, when complete freedom of speech is actually "Hate Speech" in disguise to enable a person or group to vilify another person or group.
You are saying bullying in a huge scale [ie the world] is to be condoned. So where does it end? It can't be denied that the world is held ransom by violence from the Muslim world. Are we going to continue to avoid speaking out against or about this hatred and violence from this group in the name of keeping safe or God forbids peace? Are we in fact safe when we speak out? These are the questions which I think Spencer is aslo subtly asking.
Let us just look at Pastor Terry Jones first. I think any thinking person here will see that here is a person so motivated by a deep aversion to Middle Eastern peoples and their faith, with such a desire to contribute to the creation of a climate of suspicion and fear about the Muslim community in the United States, that he advocates hate speech in order to achieve that goal. His agenda is no different from the mullahs or ayatollahs who advocates hate speech against imperialism and western nations.
It is not what T Jones stance on Islam, it is about his 'constitutional rights' to freedom of speech which is enshrined under the Constitution and the Law of the US. Do you even know what prompted his action? If there is a climate of deep aversion to ME people and Islam, it is not the doing of the West or the non Muslims, it is the result of the constant violence perpertrated in the name of Allah and Islam by Muslims. The sad fact is, when these violence occur, there are hardly any condemnations coming from any Muslim leaders. They foster the climate of fear and suspicion or don't you know what is happening around the world? The most recent attack on the Egyptian Coptics and their church burnt is such example. In Malaysia currently the possibilty of violence against Christians is very real due to unsubstantiated allegation that Christians are trying to take over.
I know you are a reasonably educated person, and so is our octogenarian forummer ellexo. But I fear you two are like Pastor Jones, blurring the line between freedom of speech with hate speech. In many of your threads in Indonesian and Malaysian Chat, you are motivated by such an aversion to Middle Eastern/Near Eastern/Southeast Asian muslims, that you invariably end up insulting the forummer to create a climate of hate and intimidation. I saw this in Indochat, and felt it
Why, thanks for more insult. Then again you never fail in that department. Surely only you would know well when it comes to insult and intimidation or blurring the line as so many of your posts suggest. Just to refresh your memory here is the link:
http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=266752
There are posters like HangPC or galvatron who would post threads on muslim injustice around the world, but they do not get into the hate speech that you seem to indulge in almost inevitably with every muslim forummer. I have seen how you chatted with Yana and several others in the Msian chat, then you started on the Indochat forummers...
Ah yes, of course HangPC the bumi who never fails to insult non Muslims with his many posts, but why should you care? Selective amnesia seems to be what you or Yana or any of your supporters subscribe to religiously. I guess in your valuation, the likes of HangPC doesn't constitute hate speech or any replies from your cronies for that matter.
When I read how you denigrate Majapahitan's (indonesian forummer) muslim identity, calling him an apostate muslim because of his pride in his Indonesian buddhist/hindu heritage, and haranguing him as a mediocre teacher in a madrassah when he spoke about his lecture on graphic designs at his alma mater in Java, it was so deadly clear that you were out to create hate and false claims to seriously undermine his reputation on the indochat forum.
I don't think you realised that you were bordering on hate speech. I hope you now understand why there is so much objection to your posts in Indochat.
I supose you, Majapahitans and the other two many replies which include many name calling, labelling, the use of expletives and obscenities are not denigrating or hate speech right? Oh yes, you better read what ElleXO definitive description of a Muslim before you start pointing your crooked fingers. Majapahitans admitted that he is neither a pious nor a good Muslim. He also admitted that he loves Hindu practices that is steeped in his ethnicity. According to the Islamic guidelines as set out in the Quran, the Hadiths and the Surahs, he is an apostate. I don't go about labelling people without good reason as you seems to do. I use facts and knowledge. And what do you think of his many obscene and abusive posts about us including his use of expletives, would it seriously undermine his reputation or ours? Furthermore you have been asked repeatedly to substantiate your accusations, why don't you just do that so that we can move on?
Ellexo's persistent posting of verses from the Quran is stilted towards hate speech too. The Quran is much like the Bible, which has the Old Testament that is written in a war-like, hell-fire, worship me and no other; and the New Testament which we all know is based on Jesus' new teachings on love, peace and harmony with the trinity and all. All these scriptures have verses for just about everything and the opposite of it. Yet, Ellexo solely dwells on the negative verses to falsely create the gold standard for a muslim that satisfies nobody except the Bin Ladens and Ayatollahs of this world. For me, Ellexo is no better than Bin Laden or the Ayatollah. It is lamentable that for as an 80 years old retiree, that he is brimming with such a latent hatred and makes it his mission to sow this hatred in an international forum such as Asia Finest. I wished he had the guts to go to Islamic websites and test his mettle there, but nope, he ends up in wishy washy websites that don't appreciate his stilted views on muslims and islam, and in fact, one of them, a Singaporean website has even moved to erase his postings on Islam.
As you know so little or next to nothing about Islam, I suggest that you start reading up on it before accusing ElleXO. Do yourself a favour like what DEL is starting to do. I note how scantily you know about Christianity too, Jesus' new teaching indeed. If anyone that is brimming with latent hatreds and prejudices is you and your like minded cronies. Not all in INDChat nor in MYChat react they way you do.
If you truly want to bring about an Age of Reason for the muslims on this planet, why don't you engage in true and friendly dialogue with muslims that gets everyone on the same page on reason and humanism? An indonesian and malaysian muslim is just as capable as you to live in the Age of Reason if you would only recognise and accord them that right.
Why fall so easily into rage, false and hate speech? If you care for the plight of Asia Bibi, why not get into the organizations that campaign for human rights in Singapore with outreach to Pakistan?
It's surely alot more fruitful than wasting your time here on Asia Finest right?
Please Tanga, enough already, spare me your sanctomonious fake morality. The trouble with you is even though you try to be civil you always end up resorting to insult. Why you behave this way only you know. I feel sorry for you Tanga, compare to the other three you clearly are not that stupid, but you refuse to do what is right. For example you must read ElleXO a Muslim defined before you criticised that article. You commenced your attacks without having read it, it is stupid. That article is anything but anti Islam or denigrating Muslims. It is an excellent piece of scholarly research. Regardless how and what ElleXO's feeling is about Islam and Muslim, it doesn't negate the excellence of that article.
You should also refrain from accusing and finger pointing at others of things you do yourself. I was having a civil discussion with ElleXO on Islam and instead of joining in you start atacking us. Perhaps you should take your own advice above and behave accordingly.
Btw, I LOVE Louboutins, but no, I can't afford them.
Chutzpah,
You say that there were hardly any condemnations coming from Muslim leaderships...
Islam doesn't have a Papacy that could represent their Shias and Sunni ulemma collectively to roundly condemn the fundamentalists and the growing intolerance against christians in their countries. But the governments and kingships of muslim countries have always released statement condemning terrorist attacks such as the 9-11 and the Mumbai, Madrid and Bali bombings. If you don't wanna accept these as legitimate spokespeople for the muslim world at large, then do you wanna consider that they gotta have their Caliphate re-established again since it was abolished by the Turks? That way, the muslim world would have a collective religious leadership? Or does the very idea of a Caliphate strike fear in everybody's mind?
The Vatican may not look like it has much teeth in terms of armies, but non-christians would probably see the NATO allies as a sort of de-facto army of the Papacy. The last time the muslim world had one, the Caliphate was supported by the armies of the Ottoman empire.
The turmoil in the Middle East has roots not just in anti-imperialism/christian/judaism, but also the schism in Islam since the death of its founder. The shias and sunnis are still battling their hatred against one another. Being a muslim is not simply what Ellexo writes in his spare time on his google site. Being a muslim is infinitely far more complicated than that, because as much as we would like to believe that the essence of islam and being a muslim is all contained in the sublime Arabic verses of the Quran, it's got a lot to do with the political, social cultural heritage of the followers. A Persian muslim is very different from an Arab or Pakistani or Indonesian muslim. The Arabs are the first muslim peoples in the world where the founder established the faith. But the rest of the muslims are a converted people. They already had their original faiths when islam arrived on their shores, either by the sword or by the spices (spice trade)!
Being a muslim in this complex world is not as simplified as we think. It certainly cannot be summed up in a few arabic verses from the Quran. And Ellexo's translations and extracts on his google site does not in any way establish any golden benchmark for a muslim.
The muslims living in the converted lands like Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia etc are not the same as the muslims in the Magreb or the Arabian Peninsula. Majapahitans is such an example. We cannot be in the position to judge his faith and label him an apostate when he talks about his faith and his cultural heritage before the advent of Islam in the Indonesian archipelago.
It's easy to miss the forest for the trees when we focus so much on the specific problems of Islam that we can't seem to find a way out except through a tit-for-tat war of words or worse, military campaigns/crusades.
I have read Ellexo's regurgitation of the verses and it does NOT tell me anything about being a muslim in any context other than in a jihadist context. If you read the life of the founder of Islam, he went through a period of fighting for his own life and that of his followers, before triumphing over the rest of the Qureyshis his tribesmen. Many of the jihadist verses were spoken by him during that period of struggle. Hadiths which are written decades after the death of the founder. Some of them have veracity issues which haved vex muslim scholars over centuries depending on whether they are traditionalists or the rationalists.
It's often not very easy to have dialogue with some Muslims. They generally consider dialogue a sign of
weakness, to admit that they might have something to learn. They will confront you with the teaching of Islam, but they won't engage in what we would consider dialogue. Well, Ellexo strikes me as that kind of person, even though he is a non-muslim, when he persistently reverts to his chains to the quranic verses he has come to obviously live without and quote ad nauseum from his google site. The man is too proud of his little blog... and simply wants traffic.... It's like his little legacy before he kicks the bucket or somethin', he can't broaden his discussion one bit!
I have participated in discussions with fellow muslims on AF ... and I have never ended up in rantings and ravings before. If you like, u can revisit the thread of Asia Finest's Islamic Society under the Clans sub-forum..
http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?...8732&st=560
I don't wish to engage in heated exchanges with you either. And i only taunted u and ellexo after seeing your taunts against other AF Indos to see how u would feel if the table is turned. I apologised on that same thread for taunting you two as having a wankfest, but my apology wasn't appreciated as you both continued to be the couple from hell dissing the AF Indo members to the point that no one wanted to post on that subforum for weeks.
I am glad now that the fog has lifted and everyone's coming back on the AF Indo subforum. They are no longer staying away just cus of your anti-muslim bias, and your campaign to use the derogatory term "Indon" when you in the same breath protest the use of the derogatory term "Cina".
I hope you will accept this olive branch and keep your postings civil and realise that we can have freedom of speech without breaching the first amendment of our own constitution.
That is, your christian motto - do unto others what u would have others do to u.
Btw, do you support Terry Jones' call for an International Burn a Quran Day in the name of the first amendment? Does it breach any form of norm in your opinion? Do we have to respond tit-for-tat with the radicals who are burning coptic churches? Are we cowards just cuz we do not respond with similar Hatred but Reason?
You say that there were hardly any condemnations coming from Muslim leaderships...
Islam doesn't have a Papacy that could represent their Shias and Sunni ulemma collectively to roundly condemn the fundamentalists and the growing intolerance against christians in their countries. But the governments and kingships of muslim countries have always released statement condemning terrorist attacks such as the 9-11 and the Mumbai, Madrid and Bali bombings. If you don't wanna accept these as legitimate spokespeople for the muslim world at large, then do you wanna consider that they gotta have their Caliphate re-established again since it was abolished by the Turks? That way, the muslim world would have a collective religious leadership? Or does the very idea of a Caliphate strike fear in everybody's mind?
The Vatican may not look like it has much teeth in terms of armies, but non-christians would probably see the NATO allies as a sort of de-facto army of the Papacy. The last time the muslim world had one, the Caliphate was supported by the armies of the Ottoman empire.
The turmoil in the Middle East has roots not just in anti-imperialism/christian/judaism, but also the schism in Islam since the death of its founder. The shias and sunnis are still battling their hatred against one another. Being a muslim is not simply what Ellexo writes in his spare time on his google site. Being a muslim is infinitely far more complicated than that, because as much as we would like to believe that the essence of islam and being a muslim is all contained in the sublime Arabic verses of the Quran, it's got a lot to do with the political, social cultural heritage of the followers. A Persian muslim is very different from an Arab or Pakistani or Indonesian muslim. The Arabs are the first muslim peoples in the world where the founder established the faith. But the rest of the muslims are a converted people. They already had their original faiths when islam arrived on their shores, either by the sword or by the spices (spice trade)!
Being a muslim in this complex world is not as simplified as we think. It certainly cannot be summed up in a few arabic verses from the Quran. And Ellexo's translations and extracts on his google site does not in any way establish any golden benchmark for a muslim.
The muslims living in the converted lands like Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia etc are not the same as the muslims in the Magreb or the Arabian Peninsula. Majapahitans is such an example. We cannot be in the position to judge his faith and label him an apostate when he talks about his faith and his cultural heritage before the advent of Islam in the Indonesian archipelago.
It's easy to miss the forest for the trees when we focus so much on the specific problems of Islam that we can't seem to find a way out except through a tit-for-tat war of words or worse, military campaigns/crusades.
I have read Ellexo's regurgitation of the verses and it does NOT tell me anything about being a muslim in any context other than in a jihadist context. If you read the life of the founder of Islam, he went through a period of fighting for his own life and that of his followers, before triumphing over the rest of the Qureyshis his tribesmen. Many of the jihadist verses were spoken by him during that period of struggle. Hadiths which are written decades after the death of the founder. Some of them have veracity issues which haved vex muslim scholars over centuries depending on whether they are traditionalists or the rationalists.
It's often not very easy to have dialogue with some Muslims. They generally consider dialogue a sign of
weakness, to admit that they might have something to learn. They will confront you with the teaching of Islam, but they won't engage in what we would consider dialogue. Well, Ellexo strikes me as that kind of person, even though he is a non-muslim, when he persistently reverts to his chains to the quranic verses he has come to obviously live without and quote ad nauseum from his google site. The man is too proud of his little blog... and simply wants traffic....
It's like his little legacy before he kicks the bucket or somethin', he can't broaden his discussion one bit!I have participated in discussions with fellow muslims on AF ... and I have never ended up in rantings and ravings before. If you like, u can revisit the thread of Asia Finest's Islamic Society under the Clans sub-forum..
http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?...8732&st=560
I don't wish to engage in heated exchanges with you either. And i only taunted u and ellexo after seeing your taunts against other AF Indos to see how u would feel if the table is turned. I apologised on that same thread for taunting you two as having a wankfest, but my apology wasn't appreciated as you both continued to be the couple from hell dissing the AF Indo members to the point that no one wanted to post on that subforum for weeks.
I am glad now that the fog has lifted and everyone's coming back on the AF Indo subforum. They are no longer staying away just cus of your anti-muslim bias, and your campaign to use the derogatory term "Indon" when you in the same breath protest the use of the derogatory term "Cina".
I hope you will accept this olive branch and keep your postings civil and realise that we can have freedom of speech without breaching the first amendment of our own constitution.
That is, your christian motto - do unto others what u would have others do to u.
Btw, do you support Terry Jones' call for an International Burn a Quran Day in the name of the first amendment? Does it breach any form of norm in your opinion? Do we have to respond tit-for-tat with the radicals who are burning coptic churches? Are we cowards just cuz we do not respond with similar Hatred but Reason?
QUOTE (chutzpah @ May 12 2011, 08:06 AM)
Please Tanga, enough already, spare me your sanctomonious fake morality. The trouble with you is even though you try to be civil you always end up resorting to insult. Why you behave this way only you know. I feel sorry for you Tanga, compare to the other three you clearly are not that stupid, but you refuse to do what is right. For example you must read ElleXO a Muslim defined before you criticised that article. You commenced your attacks without having read it, it is stupid. That article is anything but anti Islam or denigrating Muslims. It is an excellent piece of scholarly research. Regardless how and what ElleXO's feeling is about Islam and Muslim, it doesn't negate the excellence of that article.
You should also refrain from accusing and finger pointing at others of things you do yourself. I was having a civil discussion with ElleXO on Islam and instead of joining in you start atacking us. Perhaps you should take your own advice above and behave accordingly.
You should also refrain from accusing and finger pointing at others of things you do yourself. I was having a civil discussion with ElleXO on Islam and instead of joining in you start atacking us. Perhaps you should take your own advice above and behave accordingly.
As i said before, when u taunted the AF Indo forummers by insisting on using the derogatory term "Indon" when they have been politely telling you it's as racist as the terms nigga or cheena, I made the deliberate homophobic taunt and true enough, you rose up to offence immediately to condemn homophobia and anti-chinese racism. But yet, when others point out to you about anti-Indonesian or anti-Malay or anti-muslim racism, you are so resistant to admit this. Why is that? If it weren't for your deep seated aversion to these folks in the first place?
I have tried to read Ellexo's piece on the 5 pillars of being a muslim because he never fails to post it everytime he talks to anyone about islam. And you know what is odious about his writing? It's how he on the one hand, applauds and lauds the extremists and terrorists as being muslims true to their faith, and yet on the other hand, he considers the 1.3bn muslims as a cult and a disease.
Just read the extracts here from his writing :
QUOTE
http://knol.google.com/k/mbp-lee/a-muslim-...dotn1a/119#view
There is No Such Thing as an Extremist or Radical of Fundamentalist Muslim
Some politically correct Westerners try not to offend Muslims by saying that all Muslims are Terrorists or Jihadists, so the next best thing they try to do is to isolate such people and label them Extremists or Fundamentalists. Yet, all Muslim Terrorists, or Fundamentalists, or Extremists are nothing but Muslims who have interpreted Islam as a devout Muslim. These Jihadists have obeyed every command of Allah as stipulated in the Quran and no where can I fault them for violating any of the commands of Allah or the Quran or the Hadiths or the Shariah Laws of Islam. These Muslims are Jihadists and some are martyrs but all in the legitimate cause of Islam for they have not violated any of Allah's commands or laws. They are actually the most prized of all Muslims as far as Allah is concerned because they have discharged their duties as true Muslims sacrificing their lives where necessary. So a Extremist or Radical Muslim is the highest and purest of all Muslims and some will, no doubt, have a place reserved for them in Paradise with Allah.[11]
Labelling a warrior/Jihadist for Islam as an "Extremist" shows the lack of appreciation of the ideology of Islam and the high regard Islam holds for those who serve Allah with their self sacrifice in defending or promoting Islam.
There is No Such Thing as an Extremist or Radical of Fundamentalist Muslim
Some politically correct Westerners try not to offend Muslims by saying that all Muslims are Terrorists or Jihadists, so the next best thing they try to do is to isolate such people and label them Extremists or Fundamentalists. Yet, all Muslim Terrorists, or Fundamentalists, or Extremists are nothing but Muslims who have interpreted Islam as a devout Muslim. These Jihadists have obeyed every command of Allah as stipulated in the Quran and no where can I fault them for violating any of the commands of Allah or the Quran or the Hadiths or the Shariah Laws of Islam. These Muslims are Jihadists and some are martyrs but all in the legitimate cause of Islam for they have not violated any of Allah's commands or laws. They are actually the most prized of all Muslims as far as Allah is concerned because they have discharged their duties as true Muslims sacrificing their lives where necessary. So a Extremist or Radical Muslim is the highest and purest of all Muslims and some will, no doubt, have a place reserved for them in Paradise with Allah.[11]
Labelling a warrior/Jihadist for Islam as an "Extremist" shows the lack of appreciation of the ideology of Islam and the high regard Islam holds for those who serve Allah with their self sacrifice in defending or promoting Islam.
And see his anti-muslim phobia here on freedomfaith.org posting :
Anyone, muslim or not, (I am not a muslim btw) can see he shares the same deep aversion to muslims as you do.
And here, Ellexo confesses that his knowledge of islam is gleaned from Google searches... how can we even think of his writings on muslims as a scholarly piece of work or even a definitive piece of theology? Has he defended any thesis to that effect? For instance, his writing on Jihad is gleaned from a website created by a Jewish blogger (Yoel Natan)... i mean what is this, if it isn't motivated by an islamophobic agenda?
You can read up Ellexo's own confession here on the Redbean forum if u think I am making this up:
Ellexo is 80 years of age. He is chinese like you and me. But it baffles me why he spends his time in a relentless pursuit to make himself a laughing stock on a public forum such as this, as he carries on with his crusade of anti-muslim bigotry.
Why do you wanna to join him unless you admit you are of the same ilk as he with your islamophobia?
QUOTE (tangawizi @ May 12 2011, 04:45 AM)
Ellexo is 80 years of age. He is chinese like you and me. But it baffles me why he spends his time in a relentless pursuit to make himself a laughing stock on a public forum such as this, as he carries on with his crusade of anti-muslim bigotry.
Why do you wanna to join him unless you admit you are of the same ilk as he with your islamophobia?
Why do you wanna to join him unless you admit you are of the same ilk as he with your islamophobia?
I guess I read it wrong. elleXO always seemed to be knocking the Quoran for creating hate and jihadists.
I said that any one can take any book (such as the Bible) and twists the statements around to mean whatever they want.
And, that people have been doing that for thousands of years.
I haven't read the Quoran .. but I would guess that there are passages dedicated to preaching love God
and another section to preaching love thy neighbor???
Anyway, why is religion thrown in on Freedom of Speech?
Is it because of the reactions of the extremists??
Do they hinder free speech??
Are their threats also free speech??
I don't know ... the more I read what is posted here, the more confused I get
QUOTE (avisitor @ May 13 2011, 02:58 AM)
I guess I read it wrong. elleXO always seemed to be knocking the Quoran for creating hate and jihadists.
I said that any one can take any book (such as the Bible) and twists the statements around to mean whatever they want.
And, that people have been doing that for thousands of years.
I haven't read the Quoran .. but I would guess that there are passages dedicated to preaching love God
and another section to preaching love thy neighbor???
Anyway, why is religion thrown in on Freedom of Speech?
Is it because of the reactions of the extremists??
Do they hinder free speech??
Are their threats also free speech??
I don't know ... the more I read what is posted here, the more confused I get
I said that any one can take any book (such as the Bible) and twists the statements around to mean whatever they want.
And, that people have been doing that for thousands of years.
I haven't read the Quoran .. but I would guess that there are passages dedicated to preaching love God
and another section to preaching love thy neighbor???
Anyway, why is religion thrown in on Freedom of Speech?
Is it because of the reactions of the extremists??
Do they hinder free speech??
Are their threats also free speech??
I don't know ... the more I read what is posted here, the more confused I get
That is why these forums exist. To learn and to share knowledge especially to correct bigoted views. It is a University for FREE!
^ Yes, gramps! 
@ avisitor, don't eat your head with these samsaric meanderings... just keep on with yr accumulative sartoris...
@ avisitor, don't eat your head with these samsaric meanderings... just keep on with yr accumulative sartoris...
Reply in blue
QUOTE (tangawizi @ May 12 2011, 04:45 AM)
As i said before, when u taunted the AF Indo forummers by insisting on using the derogatory term "Indon" when they have been politely telling you it's as racist as the terms nigga or cheena, I made the deliberate homophobic taunt and true enough, you rose up to offence immediately to condemn homophobia and anti-chinese racism. But yet, when others point out to you about anti-Indonesian or anti-Malay or anti-muslim racism, you are so resistant to admit this. Why is that? If it weren't for your deep seated aversion to these folks in the first place?
Read my reply here:
http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?...p;#entry4772617
I have tried to read Ellexo's piece on the 5 pillars of being a muslim because he never fails to post it everytime he talks to anyone about islam. And you know what is odious about his writing? It's how he on the one hand, applauds and lauds the extremists and terrorists as being muslims true to their faith, and yet on the other hand, he considers the 1.3bn muslims as a cult and a disease.
Just read the extracts here from his writing :
And see his anti-muslim phobia here on freedomfaith.org posting :
Anyone, muslim or not, (I am not a muslim btw) can see he shares the same deep aversion to muslims as you do.
And here, Ellexo confesses that his knowledge of islam is gleaned from Google searches... how can we even think of his writings on muslims as a scholarly piece of work or even a definitive piece of theology? Has he defended any thesis to that effect? For instance, his writing on Jihad is gleaned from a website created by a Jewish blogger (Yoel Natan)... i mean what is this, if it isn't motivated by an islamophobic agenda?
You can read up Ellexo's own confession here on the Redbean forum if u think I am making this up:
Tang, you really should study Islam, if you do you wouldn't be drawing such conclusion.
Ellexo is 80 years of age. He is chinese like you and me. But it baffles me why he spends his time in a relentless pursuit to make himself a laughing stock on a public forum such as this, as he carries on with his crusade of anti-muslim bigotry.
Why do you wanna to join him unless you admit you are of the same ilk as he with your islamophobia?
Dear Tanga, the only one that thinks he is a laughing stock is you. Just a word of advice if you persist with this, you will 'BE' the laughing stock if not already. So study Islam, go to both Islamic and non Islamic sources, they are free and use your own sound judgement when you read, it is essential that you go to both Islamic and anti Islamic sites, they provide rich information then draw your own conclusion base on facts and your values. Hopefully you will see what we see, it has nothing to do with islamophobia and try stop being an islamofacist without much understanding what is being discussed.
Read my reply here:
http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?...p;#entry4772617
I have tried to read Ellexo's piece on the 5 pillars of being a muslim because he never fails to post it everytime he talks to anyone about islam. And you know what is odious about his writing? It's how he on the one hand, applauds and lauds the extremists and terrorists as being muslims true to their faith, and yet on the other hand, he considers the 1.3bn muslims as a cult and a disease.
Just read the extracts here from his writing :
And see his anti-muslim phobia here on freedomfaith.org posting :
Anyone, muslim or not, (I am not a muslim btw) can see he shares the same deep aversion to muslims as you do.
And here, Ellexo confesses that his knowledge of islam is gleaned from Google searches... how can we even think of his writings on muslims as a scholarly piece of work or even a definitive piece of theology? Has he defended any thesis to that effect? For instance, his writing on Jihad is gleaned from a website created by a Jewish blogger (Yoel Natan)... i mean what is this, if it isn't motivated by an islamophobic agenda?
You can read up Ellexo's own confession here on the Redbean forum if u think I am making this up:
Tang, you really should study Islam, if you do you wouldn't be drawing such conclusion.
Ellexo is 80 years of age. He is chinese like you and me. But it baffles me why he spends his time in a relentless pursuit to make himself a laughing stock on a public forum such as this, as he carries on with his crusade of anti-muslim bigotry.
Why do you wanna to join him unless you admit you are of the same ilk as he with your islamophobia?
Dear Tanga, the only one that thinks he is a laughing stock is you. Just a word of advice if you persist with this, you will 'BE' the laughing stock if not already. So study Islam, go to both Islamic and non Islamic sources, they are free and use your own sound judgement when you read, it is essential that you go to both Islamic and anti Islamic sites, they provide rich information then draw your own conclusion base on facts and your values. Hopefully you will see what we see, it has nothing to do with islamophobia and try stop being an islamofacist without much understanding what is being discussed.
BRILLIANT: " try stop being an islamofacist without much understanding what is being discussed."
You have given good advice to a closed mind. I doubt she will listen because she is unable to discern.
You have given good advice to a closed mind. I doubt she will listen because she is unable to discern.
Chutzpah,
I really cannot take ElleXo's blog as definitive on Islam. There are other sites and blogs i follow which are infinitely more insightful than his ramblings. Try these two, you might like em ...
Institute for the Secularization of Islam
Shunya's Notes
There are problems with the islamic world. There are muslim countries now as we speak that are self-imploding as we yak on this forum. Their citizens are going through a convulsion. I hope Islam and its followers finds a way to become secular someday.
In the meantime, I honestly feel that public discourses with muslim friends and acquaintances need not offend or provoke or hide agendas to mock their faith. Islam is here to stay. In my lifetime and yours, hopefully Islam can evolve and be secularized just as its brother religions Christianity and Judaism have. Let's not look askance at Malaysia and Indonesia as they attempt to run their nation in a secular way with their huge muslim population. Other muslim nations like Turkey have been running in a secular way. So were Egypt and tunisia until recently. I think the majority of citizens there don't want the Muslim brotherhood to take over the reins of their nations. Let's not treat Islam as a monolithic religion. Let's not tart all muslims with the same brush as would-be terrorists.
Can you do that on the AF Indo and Msian chats?
I would not like to lose a good opportunity to help you do that ... unless of course, living and working in Singapore has made you become the small-minded non-empathic little Singaporean who indulges in the PAP-led culture of elitism, self-interest and racial paranoia. In many of your postings with forummers, u evince that quality. It's the characteristic that makes many Asean members think that Singaporeans are arrogant.
By the way, u still haven't replied whether you support Pastor's right to freedom of speech to include calling for an International Burn a Koran Day. I don't think you so, but unless you publicly repudiate that, it would be hard for you to convince anyone you are not an Islamophobic.
I certainly aint' no islamofascist... when i ask you to be tolerant in your views on islam and its followers.
I really cannot take ElleXo's blog as definitive on Islam. There are other sites and blogs i follow which are infinitely more insightful than his ramblings. Try these two, you might like em ...
Institute for the Secularization of Islam
Shunya's Notes
There are problems with the islamic world. There are muslim countries now as we speak that are self-imploding as we yak on this forum. Their citizens are going through a convulsion. I hope Islam and its followers finds a way to become secular someday.
In the meantime, I honestly feel that public discourses with muslim friends and acquaintances need not offend or provoke or hide agendas to mock their faith. Islam is here to stay. In my lifetime and yours, hopefully Islam can evolve and be secularized just as its brother religions Christianity and Judaism have. Let's not look askance at Malaysia and Indonesia as they attempt to run their nation in a secular way with their huge muslim population. Other muslim nations like Turkey have been running in a secular way. So were Egypt and tunisia until recently. I think the majority of citizens there don't want the Muslim brotherhood to take over the reins of their nations. Let's not treat Islam as a monolithic religion. Let's not tart all muslims with the same brush as would-be terrorists.
Can you do that on the AF Indo and Msian chats?
I would not like to lose a good opportunity to help you do that ... unless of course, living and working in Singapore has made you become the small-minded non-empathic little Singaporean who indulges in the PAP-led culture of elitism, self-interest and racial paranoia. In many of your postings with forummers, u evince that quality. It's the characteristic that makes many Asean members think that Singaporeans are arrogant.
By the way, u still haven't replied whether you support Pastor's right to freedom of speech to include calling for an International Burn a Koran Day. I don't think you so, but unless you publicly repudiate that, it would be hard for you to convince anyone you are not an Islamophobic.
I certainly aint' no islamofascist... when i ask you to be tolerant in your views on islam and its followers.
My reply in blue
I just crossed posting with you, will reply to it 2morrow because the Mod han2 is very strict about double posting on the same thread on the same day.
QUOTE (tangawizi @ May 12 2011, 01:34 AM)
Chutzpah,
You say that there were hardly any condemnations coming from Muslim leaderships...
Islam doesn't have a Papacy that could represent their Shias and Sunni ulemma collectively to roundly condemn the fundamentalists and the growing intolerance against christians in their countries. But the governments and kingships of muslim countries have always released statement condemning terrorist attacks such as the 9-11 and the Mumbai, Madrid and Bali bombings. If you don't wanna accept these as legitimate spokespeople for the muslim world at large, then do you wanna consider that they gotta have their Caliphate re-established again since it was abolished by the Turks? That way, the muslim world would have a collective religious leadership? Or does the very idea of a Caliphate strike fear in everybody's mind?
The Vatican may not look like it has much teeth in terms of armies, but non-christians would probably see the NATO allies as a sort of de-facto army of the Papacy. The last time the muslim world had one, the Caliphate was supported by the armies of the Ottoman empire.
The silence from the Muslim world has been deafening. Not just on the major attacks but on past and recent attacks. I never for once suggested a caliphate that's why I said Muslim LEADERS not leader, you did. But there is no denying that Islamists aim is to establish a Caliphate, OBL said that much.
The Papacy and the Vatican have nothing to do with this discussion. Your assertion that NATO allies is a sort of de-facto army for the Papacy smacks of ignorance and can be viewed as Catholic bashing. The shooting of Blessed JPII didn't invoke the type of violence and murder that the threat of burning a Quran did. Furthermore Blessed JPII even forgave his assasin and visited him in prison. This Turkish man later converted to Catholicism and was baptised by Pope Benedict XVI.
The turmoil in the Middle East has roots not just in anti-imperialism/christian/judaism, but also the schism in Islam since the death of its founder. The shias and sunnis are still battling their hatred against one another. Being a muslim is not simply what Ellexo writes in his spare time on his google site. Being a muslim is infinitely far more complicated than that, because as much as we would like to believe that the essence of islam and being a muslim is all contained in the sublime Arabic verses of the Quran, it's got a lot to do with the political, social cultural heritage of the followers. A Persian muslim is very different from an Arab or Pakistani or Indonesian muslim. The Arabs are the first muslim peoples in the world where the founder established the faith. But the rest of the muslims are a converted people. They already had their original faiths when islam arrived on their shores, either by the sword or by the spices (spice trade)!
Being a muslim in this complex world is not as simplified as we think. It certainly cannot be summed up in a few arabic verses from the Quran. And Ellexo's translations and extracts on his google site does not in any way establish any golden benchmark for a muslim.
The muslims living in the converted lands like Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia etc are not the same as the muslims in the Magreb or the Arabian Peninsula. Majapahitans is such an example. We cannot be in the position to judge his faith and label him an apostate when he talks about his faith and his cultural heritage before the advent of Islam in the Indonesian archipelago.
It's easy to miss the forest for the trees when we focus so much on the specific problems of Islam that we can't seem to find a way out except through a tit-for-tat war of words or worse, military campaigns/crusades.
How interesting that you should talk about imperialism/Christianity/Judaism in the same breath. Don't fall in the that silly trap of a notion that the West made up of Christian countries, they are infact secular conutries. No Christians or Jews fight in the name of their religion or their God the way Muslims do.
While I agree that not all Muslims are culturally the same, they all worship the same Allah and use the same Quran. They all observe the same five pillars of Islam without exception. And if you understand what a Muslim is and Islam you will also know that all Muslims are the same in the sight of Allah (elleXO and I have infact discussed this in another thread) and that they are all brothers. This is what 'BIND' all Muslims together as 'ONE' the Umna. Thus the reason for their collective jihad against the US and the West for invading Iraq, Afghanistan and supporting Israel etc etc. Surely you have read enough about this. This is also the reason why OBL was so successful amongst ALL Muslims regadless of their ethnicity. The same reason why Malays and Indons went to Afghanistan to fight the infidel invaders. Don't be so ignorant. BTW I won't quote you the relevant Quranic verses.
I have read Ellexo's regurgitation of the verses and it does NOT tell me anything about being a muslim in any context other than in a jihadist context. If you read the life of the founder of Islam, he went through a period of fighting for his own life and that of his followers, before triumphing over the rest of the Qureyshis his tribesmen. Many of the jihadist verses were spoken by him during that period of struggle. Hadiths which are written decades after the death of the founder. Some of them have veracity issues which haved vex muslim scholars over centuries depending on whether they are traditionalists or the rationalists.
I am not defending the indefendable. But you really must study Islam before you even try to criticise elleXO's writings. Please do youself a favour.
It's often not very easy to have dialogue with some Muslims. They generally consider dialogue a sign of
weakness, to admit that they might have something to learn. They will confront you with the teaching of Islam, but they won't engage in what we would consider dialogue. Well, Ellexo strikes me as that kind of person, even though he is a non-muslim, when he persistently reverts to his chains to the quranic verses he has come to obviously live without and quote ad nauseum from his google site. The man is too proud of his little blog... and simply wants traffic.... It's like his little legacy before he kicks the bucket or somethin', he can't broaden his discussion one bit!
I have participated in discussions with fellow muslims on AF ... and I have never ended up in rantings and ravings before. If you like, u can revisit the thread of Asia Finest's Islamic Society under the Clans sub-forum..
http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?...8732&st=560
Tang why the constant obsession with elleXO? You are also wrong that most Muslims are willing to discuss Islam with non Muslims. We have just proved that here, instead of joining in a civilised discussion, they come in brandising their swords, you should know, you were part of that weren't you? If only you and they willing to join in a civilised manner we would have had some fruitful exchanges and could even agree to disagree without resorting to abuse and expletives? Just because you disagree with our opinion doesn't mean you have to pick a fight with us.
I don't wish to engage in heated exchanges with you either. And i only taunted u and ellexo after seeing your taunts against other AF Indos to see how u would feel if the table is turned. I apologised on that same thread for taunting you two as having a wankfest, but my apology wasn't appreciated as you both continued to be the couple from hell dissing the AF Indo members to the point that no one wanted to post on that subforum for weeks.
I am glad now that the fog has lifted and everyone's coming back on the AF Indo subforum. They are no longer staying away just cus of your anti-muslim bias, and your campaign to use the derogatory term "Indon" when you in the same breath protest the use of the derogatory term "Cina".
I hope you will accept this olive branch and keep your postings civil and realise that we can have freedom of speech without breaching the first amendment of our own constitution.
That is, your christian motto - do unto others what u would have others do to u.
So you keep reminding us without ever borther to supply any evidence. You apologised and at the same time still gunning at us, what did you think our reaction would be, come on get real girl! Didn't you say we chased everyone away? Which one is it then, try to be consistent. Read my reply here:
http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?...p;#entry4772617
Btw, do you support Terry Jones' call for an International Burn a Quran Day in the name of the first amendment? Does it breach any form of norm in your opinion? Do we have to respond tit-for-tat with the radicals who are burning coptic churches? Are we cowards just cuz we do not respond with similar Hatred but Reason?
I never even implied that I support T Jones, you implied that I did. You applied the same false assumption that I denigrate Indons while purposely ignore my posting where I said IND is a nice place to visit and the Indons are warm and friendly people much more than the Malays, but hey, who is counting?
No, I do not support T Jones, but I support his 'rights' under the 1st amendment, I did make that clear and that's what Spencer the author is basically saying. As I have said before in my other post, I might not agree with what you say but I will defend your right for saying it.
You must defferentiate between speaking up for what is right and going on the same violent murdering rampaging in retaliation. If we do that we are no better than those murderous Muslim mobs. One does not counter hatred with hatred. But it doesn't mean we have to be intimidated into silence. The world today is held ransom by Muslim's violence. If we do not try to speak up now and work out some sort of a way to counter this 'CONSTANT' and very real threat than I truly fear for our children future. We start by speaking up. Obama failed to see this. He was wrong and a coward in this regard.
With regard to 'my' Christian motto, again elleXO and I have touched on this with regard to Islam in another thread. In it posted what Hirsi Ali said about Islam. However if you want to discuss Christianity then start another thread, I will surely join in to give my 2 cents worth.
You say that there were hardly any condemnations coming from Muslim leaderships...
Islam doesn't have a Papacy that could represent their Shias and Sunni ulemma collectively to roundly condemn the fundamentalists and the growing intolerance against christians in their countries. But the governments and kingships of muslim countries have always released statement condemning terrorist attacks such as the 9-11 and the Mumbai, Madrid and Bali bombings. If you don't wanna accept these as legitimate spokespeople for the muslim world at large, then do you wanna consider that they gotta have their Caliphate re-established again since it was abolished by the Turks? That way, the muslim world would have a collective religious leadership? Or does the very idea of a Caliphate strike fear in everybody's mind?
The Vatican may not look like it has much teeth in terms of armies, but non-christians would probably see the NATO allies as a sort of de-facto army of the Papacy. The last time the muslim world had one, the Caliphate was supported by the armies of the Ottoman empire.
The silence from the Muslim world has been deafening. Not just on the major attacks but on past and recent attacks. I never for once suggested a caliphate that's why I said Muslim LEADERS not leader, you did. But there is no denying that Islamists aim is to establish a Caliphate, OBL said that much.
The Papacy and the Vatican have nothing to do with this discussion. Your assertion that NATO allies is a sort of de-facto army for the Papacy smacks of ignorance and can be viewed as Catholic bashing. The shooting of Blessed JPII didn't invoke the type of violence and murder that the threat of burning a Quran did. Furthermore Blessed JPII even forgave his assasin and visited him in prison. This Turkish man later converted to Catholicism and was baptised by Pope Benedict XVI.
The turmoil in the Middle East has roots not just in anti-imperialism/christian/judaism, but also the schism in Islam since the death of its founder. The shias and sunnis are still battling their hatred against one another. Being a muslim is not simply what Ellexo writes in his spare time on his google site. Being a muslim is infinitely far more complicated than that, because as much as we would like to believe that the essence of islam and being a muslim is all contained in the sublime Arabic verses of the Quran, it's got a lot to do with the political, social cultural heritage of the followers. A Persian muslim is very different from an Arab or Pakistani or Indonesian muslim. The Arabs are the first muslim peoples in the world where the founder established the faith. But the rest of the muslims are a converted people. They already had their original faiths when islam arrived on their shores, either by the sword or by the spices (spice trade)!
Being a muslim in this complex world is not as simplified as we think. It certainly cannot be summed up in a few arabic verses from the Quran. And Ellexo's translations and extracts on his google site does not in any way establish any golden benchmark for a muslim.
The muslims living in the converted lands like Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia etc are not the same as the muslims in the Magreb or the Arabian Peninsula. Majapahitans is such an example. We cannot be in the position to judge his faith and label him an apostate when he talks about his faith and his cultural heritage before the advent of Islam in the Indonesian archipelago.
It's easy to miss the forest for the trees when we focus so much on the specific problems of Islam that we can't seem to find a way out except through a tit-for-tat war of words or worse, military campaigns/crusades.
How interesting that you should talk about imperialism/Christianity/Judaism in the same breath. Don't fall in the that silly trap of a notion that the West made up of Christian countries, they are infact secular conutries. No Christians or Jews fight in the name of their religion or their God the way Muslims do.
While I agree that not all Muslims are culturally the same, they all worship the same Allah and use the same Quran. They all observe the same five pillars of Islam without exception. And if you understand what a Muslim is and Islam you will also know that all Muslims are the same in the sight of Allah (elleXO and I have infact discussed this in another thread) and that they are all brothers. This is what 'BIND' all Muslims together as 'ONE' the Umna. Thus the reason for their collective jihad against the US and the West for invading Iraq, Afghanistan and supporting Israel etc etc. Surely you have read enough about this. This is also the reason why OBL was so successful amongst ALL Muslims regadless of their ethnicity. The same reason why Malays and Indons went to Afghanistan to fight the infidel invaders. Don't be so ignorant. BTW I won't quote you the relevant Quranic verses.
I have read Ellexo's regurgitation of the verses and it does NOT tell me anything about being a muslim in any context other than in a jihadist context. If you read the life of the founder of Islam, he went through a period of fighting for his own life and that of his followers, before triumphing over the rest of the Qureyshis his tribesmen. Many of the jihadist verses were spoken by him during that period of struggle. Hadiths which are written decades after the death of the founder. Some of them have veracity issues which haved vex muslim scholars over centuries depending on whether they are traditionalists or the rationalists.
I am not defending the indefendable. But you really must study Islam before you even try to criticise elleXO's writings. Please do youself a favour.
It's often not very easy to have dialogue with some Muslims. They generally consider dialogue a sign of
weakness, to admit that they might have something to learn. They will confront you with the teaching of Islam, but they won't engage in what we would consider dialogue. Well, Ellexo strikes me as that kind of person, even though he is a non-muslim, when he persistently reverts to his chains to the quranic verses he has come to obviously live without and quote ad nauseum from his google site. The man is too proud of his little blog... and simply wants traffic....
It's like his little legacy before he kicks the bucket or somethin', he can't broaden his discussion one bit!I have participated in discussions with fellow muslims on AF ... and I have never ended up in rantings and ravings before. If you like, u can revisit the thread of Asia Finest's Islamic Society under the Clans sub-forum..
http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?...8732&st=560
Tang why the constant obsession with elleXO? You are also wrong that most Muslims are willing to discuss Islam with non Muslims. We have just proved that here, instead of joining in a civilised discussion, they come in brandising their swords, you should know, you were part of that weren't you? If only you and they willing to join in a civilised manner we would have had some fruitful exchanges and could even agree to disagree without resorting to abuse and expletives? Just because you disagree with our opinion doesn't mean you have to pick a fight with us.
I don't wish to engage in heated exchanges with you either. And i only taunted u and ellexo after seeing your taunts against other AF Indos to see how u would feel if the table is turned. I apologised on that same thread for taunting you two as having a wankfest, but my apology wasn't appreciated as you both continued to be the couple from hell dissing the AF Indo members to the point that no one wanted to post on that subforum for weeks.
I am glad now that the fog has lifted and everyone's coming back on the AF Indo subforum. They are no longer staying away just cus of your anti-muslim bias, and your campaign to use the derogatory term "Indon" when you in the same breath protest the use of the derogatory term "Cina".
I hope you will accept this olive branch and keep your postings civil and realise that we can have freedom of speech without breaching the first amendment of our own constitution.
That is, your christian motto - do unto others what u would have others do to u.
So you keep reminding us without ever borther to supply any evidence. You apologised and at the same time still gunning at us, what did you think our reaction would be, come on get real girl! Didn't you say we chased everyone away? Which one is it then, try to be consistent. Read my reply here:
http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?...p;#entry4772617
Btw, do you support Terry Jones' call for an International Burn a Quran Day in the name of the first amendment? Does it breach any form of norm in your opinion? Do we have to respond tit-for-tat with the radicals who are burning coptic churches? Are we cowards just cuz we do not respond with similar Hatred but Reason?
I never even implied that I support T Jones, you implied that I did. You applied the same false assumption that I denigrate Indons while purposely ignore my posting where I said IND is a nice place to visit and the Indons are warm and friendly people much more than the Malays, but hey, who is counting?
No, I do not support T Jones, but I support his 'rights' under the 1st amendment, I did make that clear and that's what Spencer the author is basically saying. As I have said before in my other post, I might not agree with what you say but I will defend your right for saying it.
You must defferentiate between speaking up for what is right and going on the same violent murdering rampaging in retaliation. If we do that we are no better than those murderous Muslim mobs. One does not counter hatred with hatred. But it doesn't mean we have to be intimidated into silence. The world today is held ransom by Muslim's violence. If we do not try to speak up now and work out some sort of a way to counter this 'CONSTANT' and very real threat than I truly fear for our children future. We start by speaking up. Obama failed to see this. He was wrong and a coward in this regard.
With regard to 'my' Christian motto, again elleXO and I have touched on this with regard to Islam in another thread. In it posted what Hirsi Ali said about Islam. However if you want to discuss Christianity then start another thread, I will surely join in to give my 2 cents worth.
I just crossed posting with you, will reply to it 2morrow because the Mod han2 is very strict about double posting on the same thread on the same day.
SECULARISM AND ISLAM - SOME PEOPLE ARE SO NAIVE. I will prove my point
Recep Erdopgan, Turkey's Prime Minister and a devout Muslim has said,
You cannot be both secular and a Muslim! You will either be a Muslim, or secular! When both are together, they create reverse magnetism [i.e. they repel one another]. For them to exist together is not a possibility! Therefore, it is not possible for a person who says 'I am a Muslim' to go on and say 'I am secular too.' And why is that? Because Allah, the creator of the Muslim, has absolute power and rule!"
The whole article follows:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/05/turkish-...nd-secular.html
Anyone who cannot understand that must be deranged.
Recep Erdopgan, Turkey's Prime Minister and a devout Muslim has said,
You cannot be both secular and a Muslim! You will either be a Muslim, or secular! When both are together, they create reverse magnetism [i.e. they repel one another]. For them to exist together is not a possibility! Therefore, it is not possible for a person who says 'I am a Muslim' to go on and say 'I am secular too.' And why is that? Because Allah, the creator of the Muslim, has absolute power and rule!"
The whole article follows:
QUOTE
"Turkish PM Erdogan in Speech During Term As Istanbul Mayor Attacks Turkey’s Constitution, Describing it As ‘A Huge Lie’: 'Sovereignty Belongs Unconditionally and Always To Allah'; 'One Cannot Be a Muslim, and Secular,'" from MEMRI, with thanks to all who sent this in:
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan whose political origins are with the Milli Gorus -the radical and political Islamist movement founded by the former Islamist PM Erbakan - often attacked Turkey’s secular regime and its Constitution.
A video clip of one of PM Erdogan’s speeches delivered during his term as Istanbul’s Mayor, (1994-1998) can be watched at youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg3hkWCnA8c
The following is the translated transcript of the speech:
PM Erdogan on Secularism:
"If the people want it, of course secularism will go away. You cannot rule this people by force; you don't have the power to do that. This [i.e. secularism] cannot work in spite of the people.
"And anyway, for the love of Allah, what is this secularism? You ask them to define it. They can't. They say that it varies from place to place. So what sort of a strange thing is this [secularism]?
"Today, for every concept there is a definition in the dictionary. Every concept must have a definition […] The interior minister comes and says that the state can interfere with religion. What about the rest? Why don't you say the rest? No! He does not say that the religion can interfere with the state.
"Yesterday I was at the Bosphorus University; and some of the - probably impressionable - young people there asked me, 'Mr. Mayor, what do you think about secularism? There are concerns that secularism is disappearing. What will happen?'
"This is what I said to those young friends: 'In the West they say, Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God's. But this country's interior minister says that Caesar has rights but God does not!'
"But the fact is that 99% of the people of this country are Muslims. You cannot be both secular and a Muslim! You will either be a Muslim, or secular! When both are together, they create reverse magnetism [i.e. they repel one another]. For them to exist together is not a possibility! Therefore, it is not possible for a person who says 'I am a Muslim' to go on and say 'I am secular too.' And why is that? Because Allah, the creator of the Muslim, has absolute power and rule!"
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan whose political origins are with the Milli Gorus -the radical and political Islamist movement founded by the former Islamist PM Erbakan - often attacked Turkey’s secular regime and its Constitution.
A video clip of one of PM Erdogan’s speeches delivered during his term as Istanbul’s Mayor, (1994-1998) can be watched at youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg3hkWCnA8c
The following is the translated transcript of the speech:
PM Erdogan on Secularism:
"If the people want it, of course secularism will go away. You cannot rule this people by force; you don't have the power to do that. This [i.e. secularism] cannot work in spite of the people.
"And anyway, for the love of Allah, what is this secularism? You ask them to define it. They can't. They say that it varies from place to place. So what sort of a strange thing is this [secularism]?
"Today, for every concept there is a definition in the dictionary. Every concept must have a definition […] The interior minister comes and says that the state can interfere with religion. What about the rest? Why don't you say the rest? No! He does not say that the religion can interfere with the state.
"Yesterday I was at the Bosphorus University; and some of the - probably impressionable - young people there asked me, 'Mr. Mayor, what do you think about secularism? There are concerns that secularism is disappearing. What will happen?'
"This is what I said to those young friends: 'In the West they say, Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God's. But this country's interior minister says that Caesar has rights but God does not!'
"But the fact is that 99% of the people of this country are Muslims. You cannot be both secular and a Muslim! You will either be a Muslim, or secular! When both are together, they create reverse magnetism [i.e. they repel one another]. For them to exist together is not a possibility! Therefore, it is not possible for a person who says 'I am a Muslim' to go on and say 'I am secular too.' And why is that? Because Allah, the creator of the Muslim, has absolute power and rule!"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/05/turkish-...nd-secular.html
Anyone who cannot understand that must be deranged.
QUOTE (avisitor @ May 12 2011, 08:58 PM)
I said that any one can take any book (such as the Bible) and twists the statements around to mean whatever they want.
Wrong...Not 'any' books. But it is telling that out of one side of your mouth you said 'any' book but on the other side you brought up a religious book. Why a religious book? The fact that you brought up a religious book mean you contradict yourself. Not 'any' book whose contents can be interpreted (not re-interpreted) to suit the reader's needs, but ONLY religious books.
QUOTE (gambit @ May 13 2011, 06:01 PM)
Wrong...Not 'any' books. But it is telling that out of one side of your mouth you said 'any' book but on the other side you brought up a religious book. Why a religious book? The fact that you brought up a religious book mean you contradict yourself. Not 'any' book whose contents can be interpreted (not re-interpreted) to suit the reader's needs, but ONLY religious books.
I'm sorry that you wish to nit pic.
But, any alien coming to earth and reading the Bible can get the absolutely wrong idea about religion
And, yet there are some people who say that it is impossible to mis-interpret.
Sorry to say but when reading anything it depends on the person who doing the reading.
And, how it is being read.
A for instance, "you can't use too much" as pertains to a medicinal rub or cream
Now does it means that you can use as much as you like and it won't have a negative effect
Or, does it mean that if you use too much that it will have a negative effect
Sorry, again, I did mean to say if you take it out of its complete context
then any book can be mis-interpreted. And some, straight out of the book.
The Bible being the most mis-used and mis-interpreted book was used as an example
Now, that I cleared that up.
Do you still want to argue about whose Freedom of Speech is being infringed upon
when terrorist threaten if you express your opinions???
I don't think I want to waste so much energy trying to explain every little thing
so that someone out of the blue can question it. I'm tired. And, will retire from this thread.
Please don't mis-interpret that. I'm just leaving this topic.
Ellexo, it's great u are now willing to look at sources other than the Quran to explain the influence on Islam.
We can start a thread about the secularization of Islam and invite fellow forummers to speak their minds on this issue if you like. Would be great if muslim forummers from India, Indo, Msia, UK, USA, middle east etc.. can comment without having to defend themselves as muslims from offensive labelling.
Well, what i mean is just because a muslim forummer admits that they are lax in adhering to their quranic duties as a muslim, please don't you go starting a campaign to label them as hypocrites and demanding that they return to the true jihadist religion. That's what happened on AF Indo chat, you and chutzzie did this with Majapahitans and that really set people off, including me. Majapahitans admitted his love for buddhist/hindu heritage in his Javanese culture background and for such admissions, he got called out by Chutzpah as an Apostate, and then dissed as a second-rate madrassah teacher for having mentioned that he gave lectures on graphic design in his university's alma mater. That's just such a low-blow.
So just because someone doesn't agree with you about the secularization of Islam, please don't start off with calling deranged... ellexo.
Is it a Deal?
For me, the Secularization of Islam is the foremost issue in islamic world because of the revolutions going on in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, the Gulf States etc.... as we watch with abated breath which direction they are going. In the past, secularization was forced through islamic countries like Turkey and Iran as a political measure under the control of autocratic and statist governments. This time, it's a different climate, and their muslim citizens are now demanding democracy to go hand-in-hand with their governance.
Instead of wasting your breath promoting ad nauseum that islam is really only just a jihadist religion and nothing can be done to change its destiny, please open up your narrow fundamentalist mind, so that you can be taken seriously, as you deserve to be taken so now that you are in your 80's...
Chutzpah, I have a question for you... the Vatican after several decades of lobbying had to finally apologise for their deafening silence over Nazi atrocities in Europe. The Anglican and Orthodox heads didn't have to apologise as they were supporting the resistance against the Nazi. So in the islamic world, if its not the Caliphate which was abolished by the Turkish government in 1924, who would you expect as the voice of Islamic world that would satisfy? Cuz obviously the myraid voices of random muftis here and there won't satisfy right?
We can start a thread about the secularization of Islam and invite fellow forummers to speak their minds on this issue if you like. Would be great if muslim forummers from India, Indo, Msia, UK, USA, middle east etc.. can comment without having to defend themselves as muslims from offensive labelling.
Well, what i mean is just because a muslim forummer admits that they are lax in adhering to their quranic duties as a muslim, please don't you go starting a campaign to label them as hypocrites and demanding that they return to the true jihadist religion. That's what happened on AF Indo chat, you and chutzzie did this with Majapahitans and that really set people off, including me. Majapahitans admitted his love for buddhist/hindu heritage in his Javanese culture background and for such admissions, he got called out by Chutzpah as an Apostate, and then dissed as a second-rate madrassah teacher for having mentioned that he gave lectures on graphic design in his university's alma mater. That's just such a low-blow.
So just because someone doesn't agree with you about the secularization of Islam, please don't start off with calling deranged... ellexo.
Is it a Deal?
For me, the Secularization of Islam is the foremost issue in islamic world because of the revolutions going on in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, the Gulf States etc.... as we watch with abated breath which direction they are going. In the past, secularization was forced through islamic countries like Turkey and Iran as a political measure under the control of autocratic and statist governments. This time, it's a different climate, and their muslim citizens are now demanding democracy to go hand-in-hand with their governance.
Instead of wasting your breath promoting ad nauseum that islam is really only just a jihadist religion and nothing can be done to change its destiny, please open up your narrow fundamentalist mind, so that you can be taken seriously, as you deserve to be taken so now that you are in your 80's...
Chutzpah, I have a question for you... the Vatican after several decades of lobbying had to finally apologise for their deafening silence over Nazi atrocities in Europe. The Anglican and Orthodox heads didn't have to apologise as they were supporting the resistance against the Nazi. So in the islamic world, if its not the Caliphate which was abolished by the Turkish government in 1924, who would you expect as the voice of Islamic world that would satisfy? Cuz obviously the myraid voices of random muftis here and there won't satisfy right?
QUOTE
Qur’an Burnings and Muslim Murders
just reminding everyone that the extremism took place only in afghanistan (and maybe in pakistan), so not ALL muslims acted violently.
but i don't think anyone should be subjected to or be threatened to death because someone burns their national flag or their holy book. jews had those annual NT burning in israel but christians didn't react the way muslims did. recently in paris, piss Christ painting was vandalized but no one was killed for it, although had some death threats here and there.
in regarding muslims religion, yea depicting their allah or mohammad is offensive to their belief but they don't make rules for everyone. but terry jones knew this (as a coward he is, he didn't do it himself but asked his subordinate to do it, knowing what had happened to danish cartoon aritist) yet he proceeded. so he is partly guilty for those deaths but he ended up making his point that muslim extremists are violent, which is sad either way. similarly south park chickened out of depicting mohammad as a cartoon but they have done it in the past and no one got hurt for it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF8tv07M74A
if 2 billion muslims acted out, there would be no one standing alive. i consider this as a minor incident if anything. 24 dead doesn't mean freedom of speech is in endangered species list.
QUOTE (elleX0 @ May 13 2011, 12:15 PM)
SECULARISM AND ISLAM - SOME PEOPLE ARE SO NAIVE. I will prove my point
Very good link. There will be a blood bath if there is an attempt to secularised Islam. Even now Muslims are blowing each other up and the lastest with 75 dead in Pakistan as a revenge for OBL death. Yes very naive and ignorant indeed. Shame really, she could have applied some effort to read up on Islam, just an hour or so daily. But Tangawizi might be too arrogant to do so. Relying instead on general unsubstantiated stories and street corner opinions won't make her well informed or a doyen on Islam and Muslim.
@tangawizi, my rely in blue
QUOTE (tangawizi @ May 13 2011, 12:01 PM)
I hope Islam and its followers finds a way to become secular someday.
In the meantime, I honestly feel that public discourses with muslim friends and acquaintances need not offend or provoke or hide agendas to mock their faith. Islam is here to stay. In my lifetime and yours, hopefully Islam can evolve and be secularized just as its brother religions Christianity and Judaism have. Let's not look askance at Malaysia and Indonesia as they attempt to run their nation in a secular way with their huge muslim population. Other muslim nations like Turkey have been running in a secular way. So were Egypt and tunisia until recently. I think the majority of citizens there don't want the Muslim brotherhood to take over the reins of their nations. Let's not treat Islam as a monolithic religion. Let's not tart all muslims with the same brush as would-be terrorists.
In the meantime, I honestly feel that public discourses with muslim friends and acquaintances need not offend or provoke or hide agendas to mock their faith. Islam is here to stay. In my lifetime and yours, hopefully Islam can evolve and be secularized just as its brother religions Christianity and Judaism have. Let's not look askance at Malaysia and Indonesia as they attempt to run their nation in a secular way with their huge muslim population. Other muslim nations like Turkey have been running in a secular way. So were Egypt and tunisia until recently. I think the majority of citizens there don't want the Muslim brotherhood to take over the reins of their nations. Let's not treat Islam as a monolithic religion. Let's not tart all muslims with the same brush as would-be terrorists.
Tanga, you just show how little you know about Islam if you think Islam can be secularised. By saying Christianity is secularised you also show your ignorance about Christianity. The same applies to your idea that Malaysia is attempting at secularism.
Public discourse is good if those participate can conduct themselves with civilty and decorum and not resort to abusive attack full of name calling and expletives the way you and Majapahitans did. I wonder if you can manage that?
QUOTE (tangawizi @ May 14 2011, 01:36 AM)
Well, what i mean is just because a muslim forummer admits that they are lax in adhering to their quranic duties as a muslim, please don't you go starting a campaign to label them as hypocrites and demanding that they return to the true jihadist religion. That's what happened on AF Indo chat, you and chutzzie did this with Majapahitans and that really set people off, including me. Majapahitans admitted his love for buddhist/hindu heritage in his Javanese culture background and for such admissions, he got called out by Chutzpah as an Apostate, and then dissed as a second-rate madrassah teacher for having mentioned that he gave lectures on graphic design in his university's alma mater. That's just such a low-blow.
And I see that you have not managed at all. You are repeating the same lies almost in everypost and ignoring my explanation and worst of all ignoring the abusive language employed by Majapahitans. Do you want a civil discourse or your intention is to provoke and to insult as you have been doing so far?
So just because someone doesn't agree with you about the secularization of Islam, please don't start off with calling deranged... ellexo.
Well then, look in the mirror that line just about sums you up perfectly here.
And I see that you have not managed at all. You are repeating the same lies almost in everypost and ignoring my explanation and worst of all ignoring the abusive language employed by Majapahitans. Do you want a civil discourse or your intention is to provoke and to insult as you have been doing so far?
So just because someone doesn't agree with you about the secularization of Islam, please don't start off with calling deranged... ellexo.
Well then, look in the mirror that line just about sums you up perfectly here.
@Jarhier, even though the right to publish the Mohammed cartoon is also part of this freedom, I think it is wrong for anyone to make fun of any religion. I am glad South Park decided to cancel theirs. Though I love South Park, my sense of humour left me when I watched their Jesus episodes. I know how Muslims must feel, but then again I wouldn't be going out on a murderous rampage.
QUOTE (tangawizi @ May 14 2011, 06:36 AM)
Ellexo, it's great u are now willing to look at sources other than the Quran to explain the influence on Islam.
We can start a thread about the secularization of Islam and invite fellow forummers to speak their minds on this issue if you like. Would be great if muslim forummers from India, Indo, Msia, UK, USA, middle east etc.. can comment without having to defend themselves as muslims from offensive labelling.
Well, what i mean is just because a muslim forummer admits that they are lax in adhering to their quranic duties as a muslim, please don't you go starting a campaign to label them as hypocrites and demanding that they return to the true jihadist religion. That's what happened on AF Indo chat, you and chutzzie did this with Majapahitans and that really set people off, including me. Majapahitans admitted his love for buddhist/hindu heritage in his Javanese culture background and for such admissions, he got called out by Chutzpah as an Apostate, and then dissed as a second-rate madrassah teacher for having mentioned that he gave lectures on graphic design in his university's alma mater. That's just such a low-blow.
So just because someone doesn't agree with you about the secularization of Islam, please don't start off with calling deranged... ellexo.
Is it a Deal?
For me, the Secularization of Islam is the foremost issue in islamic world because of the revolutions going on in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, the Gulf States etc.... as we watch with abated breath which direction they are going. In the past, secularization was forced through islamic countries like Turkey and Iran as a political measure under the control of autocratic and statist governments. This time, it's a different climate, and their muslim citizens are now demanding democracy to go hand-in-hand with their governance.
Instead of wasting your breath promoting ad nauseum that islam is really only just a jihadist religion and nothing can be done to change its destiny, please open up your narrow fundamentalist mind, so that you can be taken seriously, as you deserve to be taken so now that you are in your 80's...
Chutzpah, I have a question for you... the Vatican after several decades of lobbying had to finally apologise for their deafening silence over Nazi atrocities in Europe. The Anglican and Orthodox heads didn't have to apologise as they were supporting the resistance against the Nazi. So in the islamic world, if its not the Caliphate which was abolished by the Turkish government in 1924, who would you expect as the voice of Islamic world that would satisfy? Cuz obviously the myraid voices of random muftis here and there won't satisfy right?
We can start a thread about the secularization of Islam and invite fellow forummers to speak their minds on this issue if you like. Would be great if muslim forummers from India, Indo, Msia, UK, USA, middle east etc.. can comment without having to defend themselves as muslims from offensive labelling.
Well, what i mean is just because a muslim forummer admits that they are lax in adhering to their quranic duties as a muslim, please don't you go starting a campaign to label them as hypocrites and demanding that they return to the true jihadist religion. That's what happened on AF Indo chat, you and chutzzie did this with Majapahitans and that really set people off, including me. Majapahitans admitted his love for buddhist/hindu heritage in his Javanese culture background and for such admissions, he got called out by Chutzpah as an Apostate, and then dissed as a second-rate madrassah teacher for having mentioned that he gave lectures on graphic design in his university's alma mater. That's just such a low-blow.
So just because someone doesn't agree with you about the secularization of Islam, please don't start off with calling deranged... ellexo.
Is it a Deal?
For me, the Secularization of Islam is the foremost issue in islamic world because of the revolutions going on in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, the Gulf States etc.... as we watch with abated breath which direction they are going. In the past, secularization was forced through islamic countries like Turkey and Iran as a political measure under the control of autocratic and statist governments. This time, it's a different climate, and their muslim citizens are now demanding democracy to go hand-in-hand with their governance.
Instead of wasting your breath promoting ad nauseum that islam is really only just a jihadist religion and nothing can be done to change its destiny, please open up your narrow fundamentalist mind, so that you can be taken seriously, as you deserve to be taken so now that you are in your 80's...
Chutzpah, I have a question for you... the Vatican after several decades of lobbying had to finally apologise for their deafening silence over Nazi atrocities in Europe. The Anglican and Orthodox heads didn't have to apologise as they were supporting the resistance against the Nazi. So in the islamic world, if its not the Caliphate which was abolished by the Turkish government in 1924, who would you expect as the voice of Islamic world that would satisfy? Cuz obviously the myraid voices of random muftis here and there won't satisfy right?
I am always willing to discuss most topics with most people, but I resent sarcastic nasty "personal" innuendos and "ad hominem.". I also do not accept conditions like Jihadism is or is not part and parcel of Islam or the definition of a true Muslim may offend or not offend some people. If you understood the basics of Islam you would not even have raised these points.
To start a discussion on "secularism in Islam" is not a good initiation for beginners because "secularism is a very nebulous topic in Islam, it being a monotheist religion." Because the answers are only by inference in the Qur'an and Hadiths because multicultural was the furthest in the minds of the early Abrahamic faiths, and thus strictly controversial and non-specific. But if you want to have civil discussion about Islam, I will always respond. Civil is the operating word. But cut out the personal slurs.
Sure, let's cut out slurs, insults and innuendoes...
Why not secularization of islam? It's the movement now in western muslim circles. A few months back before the Arab Spring rising, i would have agreed with you that secularization could never happen in the arab states. But now, with the overthrow of arab dictatorships and revolutions going on... I think it's definitely on the card.
Just as you can link to sites which denies the possibility of secularization in islam, there are sites which discuss the eventuality of it.
Even Al Jazeera has a report about it here..
Tariq Ramadan's parents and grandparents were founders of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in 1928. His great-uncle Gamal al-Banna was a liberal Muslim reformer. His father was a prominent figure in the Muslim Brotherhood and was exiled by Gamal Abdul Nasser from Egypt to Switzerland, where Tariq was born.
Just as we know that the Christian Renaissance took place in rich and vibrant Italian cities, why don't we also believe that Islamic Renaissance may first take seed in muslim communities living in rich and vibrant cities in the West?
The wiki has a source on Islam and Secularism ... take a look at it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_secularism
Why not secularization of islam? It's the movement now in western muslim circles. A few months back before the Arab Spring rising, i would have agreed with you that secularization could never happen in the arab states. But now, with the overthrow of arab dictatorships and revolutions going on... I think it's definitely on the card.
Just as you can link to sites which denies the possibility of secularization in islam, there are sites which discuss the eventuality of it.
Even Al Jazeera has a report about it here..
QUOTE
For Western Muslims, bin Laden died long ago
The past decade has seen widespread empowerment of Muslims questioning their
identity and role in the global community.
Wakkas Khan Last Modified: 13 May 2011 12:32
Many Muslims in the West have excluded the ideologies of Osama bin Laden in their practise, thus making him effectively dead for them years ago [GALLO/GETTY]
The response to the death of Osama bin Laden was celebratory, in some quarters even ecstatic. President Barack Obama's initial statement was much more measured, however, not wanting to appear to gloat. But his restraint was never going to be enough to prevent US citizens spilling out on to the streets to express their relief and utter joy at the death of a man who had become the icon for "global terrorism".
The events of 9/11, watching two jumbo jets slice through vertical steel structures tens of storeys high, will remain a horror in our collective memory. Even for people thousands of miles away with no blood relation to those who lost their lives, the scars run deep, many yet to heal. In this context, the response of some in the US to the death of their longstanding tormentor is contextually explainable. Nevertheless, their response belies the fact that bin Laden's influence on a global level has never been more than at the margin of the margins, and had been dealt the ultimate death blow by the "Arab Spring".
In the last past few weeks, reams have been written to give us a greater understanding of the geopolitical consequences of bin Laden's death. The voice that remains unheard and offers a missing perspective is that of the grassroots Muslim communities of Britain, for whom the realities of day-to-day life has been reformed in the past decade.
The connotation here is far from a negative one. Since the events of 9/11, Western Muslims I have met have been asked sobering questions about issues at the very heart of their faith - as well as around belonging, loyalties and identity. Whilst some have been defensive about such queries, exclaiming that Muslims have nothing to prove, the majority have recognised these questions as legitimate, and embraced the chance to respond, wanting to taking a greater responsibility in shaping the future of their communities. Perhaps unexpectedly, answering these questions has given Muslims the opportunity to think critically and challenge cultural and idealogical traditions. More importantly, it has forced incredibly deep introspection leading to the evolution of Muslim communities - which in turn has served to strengthen the hand of moderates.
We are now beginning to see the emergence of a confident, critically developing and articulate generation of Western Muslims. A generation that wants to break free from perpetual caricatures and one that has accelerated its own development. Individuals who are at home in the West and are comfortable in their own skin, able to communicate and interact, fully integrated in their homeland. These are people who equally reject the victim mentality and the myth of return - and are able to remain consistent in their condemnation of wrongs committed by their co-religionists or by their fellow citizens or by their elected governments. Most importantly, this generation of Muslims is making palpable contributions to civic society in numerous fields, at the very highest of levels.
While the religious context for bin Laden's extreme rhetoric never gained much traction, the resonating cacophony of condemnation has only amplified. Scholars of Islam, grounded in traditional learning, have come together as never before in a modern context to speak with one clear authoritative and credible voice against bin Laden's mantra. The source of these rebuttals has varied and has included religious institutions and boards of scholars. Last year saw the publication of the 600 page "Fatwa on Terrorism", which has been almost unanimously praised. Furthermore, through their continued use of the internet and social media, scholars such as Tariq Ramadan continue to see their popularity increase exponentially. Indeed, many of the Muslims making the greatest strides in mainstream society would consider themselves to be the students of Ramadan and his ilk.
On an organisational level, much change has also occurred. Ten years ago, there were few Muslim organisations, and those that did exist were given carte blanche in their activities. For most, that has now changed. Many organisations at the fore of Muslim communities have had their very existence questioned and those that were deemed not fit for purpose have fallen. Other organisations, whose ideologies and cultures were never relevant to their Western context or to their indigenous membership have had to evolve at break-neck speed. Whilst existing organisations have developed and chosen to redefine themselves, new organisations have been born.
Not only is this healthy competition, a welcome consequence has enabled Muslims not to be self-perceived as a homogeneous group identifying as a monolith, but rather as diverse citizens, united in faith; as communities, not a singular community. Indeed, today, external stakeholders no longer see Muslims as having one representative voice, but rather as being a group of individuals with their own thoughts, beliefs and emotions.
While, for many, such change has proven to be a bitter pill to swallow, it has nevertheless been a healthy course that Muslims have responded well to. All of this has occurred, despite the spectre of bin Laden in the background, and his attempts to shape every day since 9/11 to bring about his unique brand of the "clash of civilisations". Bin Laden became largely irrelevant a long time ago, and to think that his death would be the global event that it would have been ten years ago, is to mistakenly assume that the world has not changed greatly since then.
The past decade will be remembered more as a catalyst that transformed Muslim communities; the fruits of this transformation are not solely being felt today, but the same critically minded young people that I have seen in recent years will emerge in the next decade as leaders. For the grassroots, the wars have only strengthened our resolve to participate at all levels; the Arab spring has given a new confidence. Far from the dream that bin Laden ever envisioned, it is an exciting time to be a Western Muslim, and the progress that has been made is, though not complete, remarkable. Indeed, Muslims have shown through their progression that Osama bin Laden didn't die last week, but in our collective imagination, he died many years ago.
Wakkas Khan has been an advisor to a number of government departments including the Department for Communities and Local Government. He is a founding member of the Radical Middle Way Project.
The past decade has seen widespread empowerment of Muslims questioning their
identity and role in the global community.
Wakkas Khan Last Modified: 13 May 2011 12:32
Many Muslims in the West have excluded the ideologies of Osama bin Laden in their practise, thus making him effectively dead for them years ago [GALLO/GETTY]
The response to the death of Osama bin Laden was celebratory, in some quarters even ecstatic. President Barack Obama's initial statement was much more measured, however, not wanting to appear to gloat. But his restraint was never going to be enough to prevent US citizens spilling out on to the streets to express their relief and utter joy at the death of a man who had become the icon for "global terrorism".
The events of 9/11, watching two jumbo jets slice through vertical steel structures tens of storeys high, will remain a horror in our collective memory. Even for people thousands of miles away with no blood relation to those who lost their lives, the scars run deep, many yet to heal. In this context, the response of some in the US to the death of their longstanding tormentor is contextually explainable. Nevertheless, their response belies the fact that bin Laden's influence on a global level has never been more than at the margin of the margins, and had been dealt the ultimate death blow by the "Arab Spring".
In the last past few weeks, reams have been written to give us a greater understanding of the geopolitical consequences of bin Laden's death. The voice that remains unheard and offers a missing perspective is that of the grassroots Muslim communities of Britain, for whom the realities of day-to-day life has been reformed in the past decade.
The connotation here is far from a negative one. Since the events of 9/11, Western Muslims I have met have been asked sobering questions about issues at the very heart of their faith - as well as around belonging, loyalties and identity. Whilst some have been defensive about such queries, exclaiming that Muslims have nothing to prove, the majority have recognised these questions as legitimate, and embraced the chance to respond, wanting to taking a greater responsibility in shaping the future of their communities. Perhaps unexpectedly, answering these questions has given Muslims the opportunity to think critically and challenge cultural and idealogical traditions. More importantly, it has forced incredibly deep introspection leading to the evolution of Muslim communities - which in turn has served to strengthen the hand of moderates.
We are now beginning to see the emergence of a confident, critically developing and articulate generation of Western Muslims. A generation that wants to break free from perpetual caricatures and one that has accelerated its own development. Individuals who are at home in the West and are comfortable in their own skin, able to communicate and interact, fully integrated in their homeland. These are people who equally reject the victim mentality and the myth of return - and are able to remain consistent in their condemnation of wrongs committed by their co-religionists or by their fellow citizens or by their elected governments. Most importantly, this generation of Muslims is making palpable contributions to civic society in numerous fields, at the very highest of levels.
While the religious context for bin Laden's extreme rhetoric never gained much traction, the resonating cacophony of condemnation has only amplified. Scholars of Islam, grounded in traditional learning, have come together as never before in a modern context to speak with one clear authoritative and credible voice against bin Laden's mantra. The source of these rebuttals has varied and has included religious institutions and boards of scholars. Last year saw the publication of the 600 page "Fatwa on Terrorism", which has been almost unanimously praised. Furthermore, through their continued use of the internet and social media, scholars such as Tariq Ramadan continue to see their popularity increase exponentially. Indeed, many of the Muslims making the greatest strides in mainstream society would consider themselves to be the students of Ramadan and his ilk.
On an organisational level, much change has also occurred. Ten years ago, there were few Muslim organisations, and those that did exist were given carte blanche in their activities. For most, that has now changed. Many organisations at the fore of Muslim communities have had their very existence questioned and those that were deemed not fit for purpose have fallen. Other organisations, whose ideologies and cultures were never relevant to their Western context or to their indigenous membership have had to evolve at break-neck speed. Whilst existing organisations have developed and chosen to redefine themselves, new organisations have been born.
Not only is this healthy competition, a welcome consequence has enabled Muslims not to be self-perceived as a homogeneous group identifying as a monolith, but rather as diverse citizens, united in faith; as communities, not a singular community. Indeed, today, external stakeholders no longer see Muslims as having one representative voice, but rather as being a group of individuals with their own thoughts, beliefs and emotions.
While, for many, such change has proven to be a bitter pill to swallow, it has nevertheless been a healthy course that Muslims have responded well to. All of this has occurred, despite the spectre of bin Laden in the background, and his attempts to shape every day since 9/11 to bring about his unique brand of the "clash of civilisations". Bin Laden became largely irrelevant a long time ago, and to think that his death would be the global event that it would have been ten years ago, is to mistakenly assume that the world has not changed greatly since then.
The past decade will be remembered more as a catalyst that transformed Muslim communities; the fruits of this transformation are not solely being felt today, but the same critically minded young people that I have seen in recent years will emerge in the next decade as leaders. For the grassroots, the wars have only strengthened our resolve to participate at all levels; the Arab spring has given a new confidence. Far from the dream that bin Laden ever envisioned, it is an exciting time to be a Western Muslim, and the progress that has been made is, though not complete, remarkable. Indeed, Muslims have shown through their progression that Osama bin Laden didn't die last week, but in our collective imagination, he died many years ago.
Wakkas Khan has been an advisor to a number of government departments including the Department for Communities and Local Government. He is a founding member of the Radical Middle Way Project.
Tariq Ramadan's parents and grandparents were founders of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in 1928. His great-uncle Gamal al-Banna was a liberal Muslim reformer. His father was a prominent figure in the Muslim Brotherhood and was exiled by Gamal Abdul Nasser from Egypt to Switzerland, where Tariq was born.
Just as we know that the Christian Renaissance took place in rich and vibrant Italian cities, why don't we also believe that Islamic Renaissance may first take seed in muslim communities living in rich and vibrant cities in the West?
The wiki has a source on Islam and Secularism ... take a look at it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_secularism
QUOTE (chutzpah @ May 6 2011, 05:31 AM)
The article below shows how at time we unknowningly support the suppression of Freedom of Speech/Expression even in the US. Please read the article in full and any of your thoughts are most welcome. Please refrain from discussing about Islam as this is not the thread for it. If you want to discuss Islam you will find several threads in the serious IND/Malay-Chat sub-forums. Because this article is really about the importance of Freedom of Speech and the freedom from all sort of intimidation/bullying. Are we going to cower under Political Correctness, Fear and Intimidation at the expense of our Freedom of Speech? If we are then what kind of world are preparing for our children? The higlights are mind.
Thanks for pointing that out.
This is not the place to discuss Islam.
hey, i wasn't trying to discuss Islam, but rather the trend of thoughts amongst muslim peoples living in the west over the past 10 years under secular liberal climates which uphold the separation of power and the church/mosque...
QUOTE (tangawizi @ May 15 2011, 07:24 AM)
hey, i wasn't trying to discuss Islam, but rather the trend of thoughts amongst muslim peoples living in the west over the past 10 years under secular liberal climates which uphold the separation of power and the church/mosque...
Its a free internet. Free Speech exists on the internet. Why not start a new thread?
QUOTE (Jarhier @ May 14 2011, 06:28 AM)
just reminding everyone that the extremism took place only in afghanistan (and maybe in pakistan), so not ALL muslims acted violently.
but i don't think anyone should be subjected to or be threatened to death because someone burns their national flag or their holy book. jews had those annual NT burning in israel but christians didn't react the way muslims did. recently in paris, piss Christ painting was vandalized but no one was killed for it, although had some death threats here and there.
in regarding muslims religion, yea depicting their allah or mohammad is offensive to their belief but they don't make rules for everyone. but terry jones knew this (as a coward he is, he didn't do it himself but asked his subordinate to do it, knowing what had happened to danish cartoon aritist) yet he proceeded. so he is partly guilty for those deaths but he ended up making his point that muslim extremists are violent, which is sad either way. similarly south park chickened out of depicting mohammad as a cartoon but they have done it in the past and no one got hurt for it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF8tv07M74A
if 2 billion muslims acted out, there would be no one standing alive. i consider this as a minor incident if anything. 24 dead doesn't mean freedom of speech is in endangered species list.
but i don't think anyone should be subjected to or be threatened to death because someone burns their national flag or their holy book. jews had those annual NT burning in israel but christians didn't react the way muslims did. recently in paris, piss Christ painting was vandalized but no one was killed for it, although had some death threats here and there.
in regarding muslims religion, yea depicting their allah or mohammad is offensive to their belief but they don't make rules for everyone. but terry jones knew this (as a coward he is, he didn't do it himself but asked his subordinate to do it, knowing what had happened to danish cartoon aritist) yet he proceeded. so he is partly guilty for those deaths but he ended up making his point that muslim extremists are violent, which is sad either way. similarly south park chickened out of depicting mohammad as a cartoon but they have done it in the past and no one got hurt for it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF8tv07M74A
if 2 billion muslims acted out, there would be no one standing alive. i consider this as a minor incident if anything. 24 dead doesn't mean freedom of speech is in endangered species list.
Of course we all know that violent rampage which often results in death only happens in Afghanistan because of those extremists. Where as in countries such as Pakistan, part of Muslim majority in India, in Mid East or in other Islamic states, the demonstrations reported in the media at large are peaceful, no extremist there. It's incredible, but we take your word for it and we should practise selective amnesia just like you do, it's the way to go.
And yes, I also like your logic. T Jones IS guilty due to the action of those behave in a murderous way half a world away. There were in fact 24 deaths? Wow it is a small price to pay considering...
QUOTE (avisitor @ May 13 2011, 10:22 PM)
I'm sorry that you wish to nit pic.
If the subject involve religions and their influences on humankind, it pays to be precise and accurate.QUOTE (avisitor @ May 13 2011, 10:22 PM)
But, any alien coming to earth and reading the Bible can get the absolutely wrong idea about religion
Why would anyone assume that aliens themselves would be atheists? What if they come to Earth with the intention to conquer and colonize in the name of their religion? Too much Hollywood for you?QUOTE (avisitor @ May 13 2011, 10:22 PM)
The Bible being the most mis-used and mis-interpreted book was used as an example
If the Bible is the most incorrectly interpreted in the history of atrocities can we ask which religious book is the least incorrectly interpreted in the same history of atrocities? I would think that the least incorrectly interpreted would be the most troublesome since it offer the believers the path of least intellectual resistance and mental gymnastics required for them to do the things that while considered 'atrocious' would be religiously sanctioned.Science is an excellent example. When enter the realm of quantum physics where we are largely ignorant about the foundation of physical or even metaphysical existence we see disagreements and even hostility among scientists regarding how to interpret the discovered data about that foundation. But outside of that we do no argue on how to arrive at so-and-such conclusions to build a building or a bicycle. The mathematics and the physics are indisputable. We kill each other figuratively in the market, not literally in any wars.
How about instead of atrocities we take up charities? So then is the Bible the most incorrectly interpreted with regards to charities?
QUOTE (gambit @ May 15 2011, 02:51 PM)
If the subject involve religions and their influences on humankind, it pays to be precise and accurate.
Why would anyone assume that aliens themselves would be atheists? What if they come to Earth with the intention to conquer and colonize in the name of their religion? Too much Hollywood for you?
If the Bible is the most incorrectly interpreted in the history of atrocities can we ask which religious book is the least incorrectly interpreted in the same history of atrocities? I would think that the least incorrectly interpreted would be the most troublesome since it offer the believers the path of least intellectual resistance and mental gymnastics required for them to do the things that while considered 'atrocious' would be religiously sanctioned.
Science is an excellent example. When enter the realm of quantum physics where we are largely ignorant about the foundation of physical or even metaphysical existence we see disagreements and even hostility among scientists regarding how to interpret the discovered data about that foundation. But outside of that we do no argue on how to arrive at so-and-such conclusions to build a building or a bicycle. The mathematics and the physics are indisputable. We kill each other figuratively in the market, not literally in any wars.
How about instead of atrocities we take up charities? So then is the Bible the most incorrectly interpreted with regards to charities?
Why would anyone assume that aliens themselves would be atheists? What if they come to Earth with the intention to conquer and colonize in the name of their religion? Too much Hollywood for you?
If the Bible is the most incorrectly interpreted in the history of atrocities can we ask which religious book is the least incorrectly interpreted in the same history of atrocities? I would think that the least incorrectly interpreted would be the most troublesome since it offer the believers the path of least intellectual resistance and mental gymnastics required for them to do the things that while considered 'atrocious' would be religiously sanctioned.
Science is an excellent example. When enter the realm of quantum physics where we are largely ignorant about the foundation of physical or even metaphysical existence we see disagreements and even hostility among scientists regarding how to interpret the discovered data about that foundation. But outside of that we do no argue on how to arrive at so-and-such conclusions to build a building or a bicycle. The mathematics and the physics are indisputable. We kill each other figuratively in the market, not literally in any wars.
How about instead of atrocities we take up charities? So then is the Bible the most incorrectly interpreted with regards to charities?
And this leads us to the point when we ask ourselves whether we place our faith in Myths or in Cosmology because both cannot be right or occupy the same space.
QUOTE (gambit @ May 15 2011, 04:51 PM)
If the subject involve religions and their influences on humankind, it pays to be precise and accurate.
How feasible or practical is that?
People mostly pick up enough religion to hate but not enough to love.
The best and the worst - that's what you get from religions.
QUOTE (chutzpah @ May 15 2011, 07:28 AM)
Of course we all know that violent rampage which often results in death only happens in Afghanistan because of those extremists. Where as in countries such as Pakistan, part of Muslim majority in India, in Mid East or in other Islamic states, the demonstrations reported in the media at large are peaceful, no extremist there. It's incredible, but we take your word for it and we should practise selective amnesia just like you do, it's the way to go.
And yes, I also like your logic. T Jones IS guilty due to the action of those behave in a murderous way half a world away. There were in fact 24 deaths? Wow it is a small price to pay considering...
And yes, I also like your logic. T Jones IS guilty due to the action of those behave in a murderous way half a world away. There were in fact 24 deaths? Wow it is a small price to pay considering...
lol what selective amnesia? go ahead and list the countries that violently protested over terri jones' quran burning. according to the article you posted
, only small group of mobs in afghanistan and pakistan acted out in violence. they already have anti US sentiment for US indiscrimiately bombing their villages for decades. knowing this and it would push them over the edge, US officials warned terri jones, who got media attention during 9/11 mosque building controversy, not to do it that it'll put US soldiers and other foreign workers in danger (they were right). conveniently he was promoting his new book at the time too.and many yt users are burning quran and uploading it on yt. no deaths and violent protests over this. shocking isn't it? it only shows media has a control over sheeple like you to be scared all the time.
QUOTE (gambit @ May 15 2011, 09:51 AM)
If the subject involve religions and their influences on humankind, it pays to be precise and accurate.
it pays to be precise and accurate ... if you talk about money or body count or some such thing.But about interpretation of books?? You nit pic again.
QUOTE
Why would anyone assume that aliens themselves would be atheists? What if they come to Earth with the intention to conquer and colonize in the name of their religion? Too much Hollywood for you?
We were talking about mis-interpretation. Why now divert attention and talk about aliens being atheists or what not? Stay on task.
QUOTE
If the Bible is the most incorrectly interpreted in the history of atrocities can we ask which religious book is the least incorrectly interpreted in the same history of atrocities? I would think that the least incorrectly interpreted would be the most troublesome since it offer the believers the path of least intellectual resistance and mental gymnastics required for them to do the things that while considered 'atrocious' would be religiously sanctioned.
Whoa, not "incorrectly" interpreted ... more mis-interpreted. The difference being that one is an error and the other is done on deliberately to serve one's purpose or argument.
QUOTE
Science is an excellent example. When enter the realm of quantum physics where we are largely ignorant about the foundation of physical or even metaphysical existence we see disagreements and even hostility among scientists regarding how to interpret the discovered data about that foundation. But outside of that we do no argue on how to arrive at so-and-such conclusions to build a building or a bicycle. The mathematics and the physics are indisputable. We kill each other figuratively in the market, not literally in any wars.
You're not making any sense.QUOTE
How about instead of atrocities we take up charities? So then is the Bible the most incorrectly interpreted with regards to charities?
Again the term "incorrectly" denotes a mistake. People who mis-interpreted the Bible for their own purposes
do not make a mistake. Rather that they choose to use those words for their own benefit.
Hmm, why are we talking about atrocities??? Or, charities??
My reply before was an explanation of the mis-interpretation of any book.
That was done. Why continue to go down tangents and away from the topic at hand???
Please, you tired me out with this request for a meaningless reply.
Yes, meaningless cause you refuse to accept this point that any book can be mis-interpreted.
QUOTE (Jarhier @ May 15 2011, 06:01 PM)
lol what selective amnesia? go ahead and list the countries that violently protested over terri jones' quran burning. according to the article you posted , only small group of mobs in afghanistan and pakistan acted out in violence. they already have anti US sentiment for US indiscrimiately bombing their villages for decades. knowing this and it would push them over the edge, US officials warned terri jones, who got media attention during 9/11 mosque building controversy, not to do it that it'll put US soldiers and other foreign workers in danger (they were right). conveniently he was promoting his new book at the time too.
and many yt users are burning quran and uploading it on yt. no deaths and violent protests over this. shocking isn't it? it only shows media has a control over sheeple like you to be scared all the time.
, only small group of mobs in afghanistan and pakistan acted out in violence. they already have anti US sentiment for US indiscrimiately bombing their villages for decades. knowing this and it would push them over the edge, US officials warned terri jones, who got media attention during 9/11 mosque building controversy, not to do it that it'll put US soldiers and other foreign workers in danger (they were right). conveniently he was promoting his new book at the time too.and many yt users are burning quran and uploading it on yt. no deaths and violent protests over this. shocking isn't it? it only shows media has a control over sheeple like you to be scared all the time.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Qur'...ing_controversy
Small rallies were reported in Pakistan in Karachi and the central Pakistani city Multan with around 200 protesters.[68] There were also protests in Indonesia, Gaza, and India, a non-Muslim majority country.[75] On September 15, regarding reports that at least 20 deaths worldwide were connected to Quran desecration protests, Randall Terry responded that "Such logic is like saying that a woman who is abused by her boyfriend or husband is guilty of bringing violence on herself because she said or did something that irritated him."[76]
Protests in Kashmir escalated over several days, as Quran demonstrations quickly turned into separatist protests against the Indian government in the Muslim-majority province. On September 13, protesters defied a military-imposed curfew, setting fire to a Christian missionary school and government buildings. At least 13 people were shot dead by police, and one policeman was killed by a thrown rock; at least 113 policemen and 45 protesters were wounded.[77][78] On September 12, a church was burned and a curfew instituted in Punjab.[79] Violence also spread into Poonch in the Jammu division, with three protesters shot by police. Protesters burned several government offices and vehicles.[80] Police prevented the burning of a Christian school in Poonch, and another in Mendhar the next day, in clashes leaving four protesters killed, 19 wounded, but dozens of government offices, a police station, and eight vehicles were burned.[81] As of September 16, the Hindustan Times placed the death toll at 90, blaming much of the resentment on the indefinite military curfew, the first in ten years to affect the entire Kashmir Valley.[82][83]
In Somalia, the al-Qaida-inspired group Al-Shabaab organized a protest rally against the Quran-burning attended by thousands.[84]
The head of Iran's Islamic Culture and Relations Organization labeled the Quran burning proposal a "Zionist" insult.[85] A group of Iranian students also protested outside the Swiss embassy in Tehran to protest the desecration of the Qu'ran, and chanted slogans condemned the desecration on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
Other sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/04/u...i_n_705973.html
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/04/burning-t...hs-about-islam/
http://www.sananews.net/english/2011/03/26...9s-desecration/
http://www.topix.com/forum/us/T08CC4L33RA5V3IOM
QUOTE (chutzpah @ May 16 2011, 02:46 AM)
In Somalia, the al-Qaida-inspired group Al-Shabaab organized a protest rally against the Quran-burning attended by thousands.[84]
The head of Iran's Islamic Culture and Relations Organization labeled the Quran burning proposal a "Zionist" insult.[85] A group of Iranian students also protested outside the Swiss embassy in Tehran to protest the desecration of the Qu'ran, and chanted slogans condemned the desecration on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
Other sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/04/u...i_n_705973.html
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/04/burning-t...hs-about-islam/
http://www.sananews.net/english/2011/03/26...9s-desecration/
http://www.topix.com/forum/us/T08CC4L33RA5V3IOM
The head of Iran's Islamic Culture and Relations Organization labeled the Quran burning proposal a "Zionist" insult.[85] A group of Iranian students also protested outside the Swiss embassy in Tehran to protest the desecration of the Qu'ran, and chanted slogans condemned the desecration on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
Other sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/04/u...i_n_705973.html
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/04/burning-t...hs-about-islam/
http://www.sananews.net/english/2011/03/26...9s-desecration/
http://www.topix.com/forum/us/T08CC4L33RA5V3IOM
were they even worth mentioning?
some of those protests weren't even violent.
i'd assumed there will be millions upon millions of deaths over quran burning. i guess they are not barbaric as you try to depict them as.
QUOTE (Jarhier @ May 17 2011, 01:14 AM)
were they even worth mentioning?
some of those protests weren't even violent.
i'd assumed there will be millions upon millions of deaths over quran burning. i guess they are not barbaric as you try to depict them as.
some of those protests weren't even violent.
i'd assumed there will be millions upon millions of deaths over quran burning. i guess they are not barbaric as you try to depict them as.
Can anyone show me the verse in the Quran or the hadith that stipulates that it is wrong to Burn the Holy book, i/e., the Quran?
My thought here:
Freedom of speech is important.
People are free by nature to say whatever they want to say.
But a more important thing is "Freedom of not to say"
We have thousands of things to say in our head, it's not difficult to say it out loud.
Actually, we are forced by our Kiles to say things, whether it's appropriate or not; we are not so free to choose, we are driven by our Kiles to say things which can return some bad result later.
So, the harder thing is not to say what you want to say, but not to say something you shouldn't say.
A monk told me this: before you say something, think first whether that thing should be said or not. Will it be good or bad for you or for people around you who hear it or not.
You do it everytime and you will say lesser and lesser and you won't hurt anyone unitentionally.
That's when you have a "Freedom of not to say"
Then the law is irrelevant here.
Freedom of speech is important.
People are free by nature to say whatever they want to say.
But a more important thing is "Freedom of not to say"
We have thousands of things to say in our head, it's not difficult to say it out loud.
Actually, we are forced by our Kiles to say things, whether it's appropriate or not; we are not so free to choose, we are driven by our Kiles to say things which can return some bad result later.
So, the harder thing is not to say what you want to say, but not to say something you shouldn't say.
A monk told me this: before you say something, think first whether that thing should be said or not. Will it be good or bad for you or for people around you who hear it or not.
You do it everytime and you will say lesser and lesser and you won't hurt anyone unitentionally.
That's when you have a "Freedom of not to say"
Then the law is irrelevant here.
@ sawan, you mean the concept of silence is golden, I have no problem with that. But I think you missed the point of the article. It is about the right to speak up for what you believe in. This also extends to the right to speak against injustices and evil done to the defenceless. It also includes the right to speak up when you feel your cultural values and your faith are in danger of being swamped by an alien foreign one which has the total opposite value and belief system than your homeland. If you don't speak up against evil that is happening, than you are part of it too.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.