I apologize to you on behalf of 'Muslims'

[Thorn]

I suppose we should ignore 9/11 then too.... or the next 9/11...... Keep it out of the news, then they'll stop for sure... riiiiiiiiiight.

[Dinner]

I think it is great that some muslims have attempted to distance themselves from the fanatics and act as voices of reason with in their community. The Jordanian editor who published the satire cartoons should be given a medal especally after he pointed out that the fundimentalist who blew up a wedding party in Aman did far more damage to Islam then these scraps of paper ever will do.

[Whoha]

well instead of being given a medal he was arrested by our moderate muslim friends in Jordan.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060204/wl_mideast_afp/europeislammediajordanarrest_060204143615

Let me pose a question to those of you who are pinning all of your hopes on the moderate muslims: what overall actions do you expect to see from this group?

[Elok]

Not a whole lot. But more than military action would get us, and there's some slim chance of talk succeeding. As opposed to, you know, not a prayer of winning by force.

[moustafa]

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I think Muslims are required to refer to Allah with some adjective, forgot which. Somewhat like some people don't write God but G-d. Same with Mohammad, you have to follow it up with "holy prophet" or something. It's not an option. So I think that original poster is not in fact Muslim. It's not that relevant though (and I may be wrong).

We say 'Sallalahu Alaihi Wa Sallam' (Peace be Upon Him) whenever the name Muhammad is uttered (as I am doing right now). I normally write it in Islamic forums, but I have bad experiences posting it is 'secular' forums previously, that is why I no longer post it rather silently utter it.

The name of Allah should only be taken for reasons of prayers, not vainly. However, that is a subjective interpretation and research shows Muslims take that name about 40 times a day on avarage with phrases like Inshallah (Hope to Do so), Alhamdulliah (Kind of like 'bless you', after you ...well I forgot the English word, blow your nose...), Allah Hafez (Goodbye... Allah knows best and will protect you) etc.

I am a Muslim, brother.

[moustafa]

Elok,

you really are quite eloquent, to say the least. Though not 100%, you sum up my concepts a great deal. It is for people like you that I respect Western civilization.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by moustafa
I am a Muslim, brother.

And a very good one. Thank-you for your kind words and attempts to increase our understanding about Muslims. If only more were like you.

[Berzerker]

Pat Robertson has called for the assassination of Chavez, I'd call that extreme. He just wants to use the gov't instead of risking his own neck.

Do crazies normally represent the 'religion' to you? Do you think Jerry Falwell when you think of Christianity?

The crazies are running the religion. When someone writes something critical they put out a bounty on their head - and I dont hear a peep out of other Muslims. And when I think of Christinaity I think of the various inquisitions, witch trials, etc... Just another religion that can't deal with criticism albeit liberalism has helped moderate their use of violence...

[Berzerker]

We say 'Sallalahu Alaihi Wa Sallam' (Peace be Upon Him) whenever the name Muhammad is uttered (as I am doing right now). I normally write it in Islamic forums, but I have bad experiences posting it is 'secular' forums previously, that is why I no longer post it rather silently utter it.

You need to lighten up with all the ritual crap, God/Allah doesn't care how many times you utter or pray. That is not a logical God, its a petty, jealous God. Would that get me a fatwa on my head?

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Elok
Not a whole lot. But more than military action would get us, and there's some slim chance of talk succeeding. As opposed to, you know, not a prayer of winning by force.

Assume that they will be successful, what actions do you expect?

[Az]

Az, just by way of example, I do not agree with Falwell one bit. I despise him. But he has some popular support; some people who agree with him completely, some people who just side with him because they think it's him or atheism, and some people who don't appreciate the kinds of problem he causes. It takes a lot to get the whole country united in expunging a menace.

Falwell is a creep, and a bastard, but how on earth can you compare him to terrorism? He didn't break any laws, after all, and this is precisely the problematic we're facing.

I imagine, based on what I've read, that the situation in the Muslim world is roughly as follows: The vast majority of them do not approve of terrorism. However, the vast majority of them also do not approve of the West in general. They wouldn't bomb us themselves, but their general impression of us is of a bunch of fat, lazy creeps who profit from their weakness. So they see no reason to make any special effort to stop the bombings and madness. We screwed them over by (pick one or more: the crusades, siding with Israel, selling weapons to Iran, any other longstanding grudge), and now we're reaping what we've sown, and so on.

There are a couple of problems with your analysis:
a) By trying to ameliorate coming with a conciliatory tone, and not seeing any significant change from the other side we've basically accepted their narrative of the story.
b) It still comes from a point of "talking is the only way". I say there are two ways for any conflict. I'd prefer the talk, way, because it would be better for anyone. However I am not willing to be basically bullied into anything.

They don't side with the nuts, but cracking down on the nuts seems like siding with the West, which is an extremely distasteful idea--plus it puts them at risk of retaliation from said nuts, which they aren't willing to hazard for the sake of some stupid greedy westerners.

And any provocation from us pushes the inactive, disgruntled fringe of that majority into temporary flareups of violence, followed by a return to sullen indifference. Until such time as we've convinced them that we're worth sticking up for, they're hardly going to stick up for us. "We" have screwed them before. It's not that different from your own attitude, really. They're waiting for a show of good faith from the other side, but each side wants more than the other is willing to give as a sign. So nothing happens

So you're basically saying that at the worst possible case, we just as bad as them. In any case, I am not willing to give away anything. What should exactly we give in? freedom of speech to be banned?

I got the problem with you, Elok . You value our ways of life equally - the west and the muslims. This is where your fault lies, because it's just not the same.

[Fake Boris]

'Depictions' don't have any strong value by themselves, as they are representations and not acts. If people attach values to depictions, it's because of accepted moral and metaphysical prejudices in a given society. I'm sure drawing a children being raped would be seen as offensive (and perhaps illegal in certain countries), even though there is no relationship at all between the drawing and the actual act having been performed.
Whether images are appropriate or not is really a question of social prejudice.

[polarnomad]

Originally posted by Berzerker


You need to lighten up with all the ritual crap, God/Allah doesn't care how many times you utter or pray. That is not a logical God, its a petty, jealous God. Would that get me a fatwa on my head?

I doubt it, but it certainly makes you somewhat arrogant and disrespectful.

[Az]

Wait, what if he was a muslim, and then started to doubt his own faith in the same way? Is that suddenly ok?

Or is doubting his faith is also forbidden?

[Winston]

Funny how people are chastised as being arrogant and disrespectful when jabbing at Islam, but when they rave and ridicule against Christianity, as we've seen it a hundred times more often on this board, they're mostly congratulated for being so goddamn cool, and stuff.