The Astral Pulse

World Cultures, Traditions and Religions => Welcome to World Cultures, Traditions and Religions! => Topic started by: Mustardseed on February 01, 2006, 08:21:45

Title: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: Mustardseed on February 01, 2006, 08:21:45
I have from time to time noticed Muslims post on the AP board and would be curious to hear your comments on the uprising and conflict that is currently taking place on the west bank and through out the Muslim world because of the 12 infamous cartoon drawings of the prophet  

http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/

Regards Mustardseed
Title: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: jilola on February 01, 2006, 14:09:08
Without having been able to read the actual text of the article that featured the images I'm not sure how accurate my perception of the ppictures is. however...

It seems to me that one sees in the pictures what one wants to see. For example:

Line-up: I non-muslim guy is expected to pick someone (it doesn't seems to say whome) from a what may be a police line-up. He says: "I don't recognize him"
Is that not a comment on the west form not knowing what is obvious to the Current Big Threat?

Crescent of Muhammed: Could one not read the picture that Mohammeds influence reaches all corners of the creation, even the moon and the light of god shines from his eyes?

PR-stunt: So what Did mohammed look like, seeing as there is a prohibition of making the image?

Schoolboy Muhammed: He's saying the news paper is a provocateur!  Which the offended muslims apparently agree to be so. So what is the problem?

Desert Muhammed: And he never walked in the desert?

Under the Thumb: Now this I can see why someone might be miffed. Though still, it appears a statement of fact from where I view the world.

Glory of Muhammed: I fail to see the offence. Muhammed was not god's chosen then? Or was he?

Censorship: This is a clear amd simple statement of the state of the world. Perhaps the guy featured is called muhammed, perhaps were he called George there would've been no uproar?

Preaching Jihad: The lleader tells the guys to cool it cos gettig worked up over a non-believing cartoonist si just plain dumb waste of effort.


There's a blow by blow account of some of my impressions of the pictures. The text may change the perspective and make the images more offensive.
Summa summarum, it seems that the worked up muslims are proving the impression the west has of them.

2cents & L&L
Jouni
Title: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: Mustardseed on February 01, 2006, 20:57:01
I guess I was not so much asking about the pictures as the fact that the Mideast is spiraling into a crisis about it and threatening Fatwa as well a boycotting all danish goods. They are expecting the prime minister to put the cartoonist as well as the newspaper editor in jail
Title: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: dingo on February 02, 2006, 12:37:18
Quote from: MustardseedI guess I was not so much asking about the pictures as the fact that the Mideast is spiraling into a crisis about it and threatening Fatwa as well a boycotting all danish goods. They are expecting the prime minister to put the cartoonist as well as the newspaper editor in jail
WTF how can they expect that? It's not like they run Denmark. If I were a muslim I'm pretty sure I'd respect the fact that the cartoonist has freedom of expression. I would not be insulted. Of course, I haven't seen the cartoon though.
What about cartoons about Jesus, or God, or atheists? I'm sure there must be cartoons about them. Why does no one kick up a fuss about that?
Title: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: alex_21 on February 02, 2006, 14:58:27
I AGREE with dingo, they're just trying to innocent victims.  The Simpsons make jokes about Christianity and no one make a big deal.
Title: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: jilola on February 02, 2006, 18:26:31
QuoteMideast is spiraling into a crisis about it and threatening Fatwa as well a boycotting all danish goods. They are expecting the prime minister to put the cartoonist as well as the newspaper editor in jail

The mid East has been a crisis for as long as I can remember. Nothing new has happened there as a result of this cartoon debacle.

It should be fairly clear to anyone living in a western culture that the reaction and especially the threats oof violence are not acceptable in any way.
The trend that one culture can constantly use threats to maintains its self-image is on my opinion intolerable regardless of the geographical location or religious stance.

try this for a comparison: "If you think my child is ugly, I will kill your dog"
Sound similar to many of the heated debates, argument, wars and crusades going on in the world?

2cents & L&L
Jouni
Title: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: J.K. on February 04, 2006, 15:57:46
I see from the news that the general public is taking notice of this.  IMHO, this is good.

I think President Bush's remarks following 9-11 are still on everyone's mind.  Following those events he characterized Islam as a kind and loving religion.  Without question, Islam has some bright moments.  Without question, there are many loving Muslim people.  Without question, there are many similarities between Christian Fundamentalism and Islam.  However, for the person who follows Islam scripturally there is no other place to go but to war. - We should not be surprised to see violence breaking out in the streets...
Title: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: dingo on February 04, 2006, 18:43:08
Quote from: J.K.I see from the news that the general public is taking notice of this.  IMHO, this is good.
Taking notice of which bit in particular? The undermining of our rights or (the majority of) Islam's extreme sensitivity?
Title: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: Ryuji on February 07, 2006, 02:06:34
childish all i have to say. this things you expect from children teasing each other and dont know control.

u dont see ppl burning down windows, carry be-heading posters or cutting ties when life of brain came out.

and besides one should have a laugh now and then its good for the soul

Peace and love
Ryu
Title: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: ubiquitous on February 09, 2006, 15:51:45
If it is incitement to racial hatred then it should be taken through a court of law and judged, if it is in bad taste and there is punishment availabe for its crime then people will know what not to publish in the future.
To carry out the burning of buildings and the calling of death to the west is not the way u should do things , so its a clash between the lack of communication of the public in the middle east and the west.
Knowledgable discussion even through humour for me should cover the whole spectrum of life to develop and uncover and understand all that surrrounds us in the past, present and future, the problem is that in doing so in this case u give the ammunition to extremist's which preach that those that drew the cartoons are expressing the view of the whole of europe.
Title: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: Souljah333 on February 09, 2006, 19:33:42
it was all done as a stupid joke, but...he who laughs last, laughs loudest.
it should have never been allowed to go to print. it did, bcuz they knew exactly what they were doing. now there's repercussions...not to the degree that they expected, but repercussion none-the-less. the tables have turned, and no one is willing to be held accountable. it's BS IMO.

i wish everyone would stop calling them cartoons. it's belittles the whole situation. anyway...it's a sign of things to come. be cautious. be careful who you lip off to, or cut off, or laugh at, or step on...or at least be open to the possibilities that not everyone is going to take it the same way. it's one thing to roll your eyes and tell them to get a sense of humour, and it's another thing to wind up with a bullet between your eyes.

the act in itself is/was ridiculous.
it's the mentalities of everyone involved that's scary.
no one was in the right.

2cents
soul
Title: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: Mustardseed on February 10, 2006, 23:23:31
Quote from: runlolaI believe in freedom of speech
but not when it hurts people

Sorry just popped in to get me a quote I will keep it with me as a sort of insurance Lola  :cool:
Title: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: Beth on February 10, 2006, 23:35:38
Hello Everyone~~

My thoughts on this issue take me back to the Medieval Christian Church, where the governing bodies across Europe would look to 'The Church' in matters of 'Law'.  This essentially made 'Christianity' the 'Judge' and the 'Jury' for many criminal offenses across the entire western world.  

Of course, civilization progressed/evolved and Civil Governments began to form, e.g., the formation of The United States and its Constitution went hand in hand with the rapid fall of Monarchies that had been sanctioned by (i.e., in bed with) 'The Church'.  With this governmental changeover to civil government, Christianity lost a great deal of its previously held 'carte blanc power'.

However, the struggle between the powers of a 'Man-Made God' and the powers of a 'Collective Civil Humanity' takes time; even after over 200 years of Civil Government, the United States is still struggling with Christianity and its desire to usurp governmental power.  Fortunately, the civil laws of this country are just that--civil laws--not religious laws.  And within these civil laws come the much debated "Freedom of Expression" which is regularly defended in our higher courts of law.  This is the issue here across the western world: do these cartoons come under the protection of 'Freedom of Expression'?  In a western, civil government, the answer is probably 'Yes'.  

But, a mere several hundred years ago, when the Christian Church was still in control of the western government, it was a regular practice to 'cut off heads', 'to execute by burning', or just plain 'torture to death' ANYONE who spoke out against the religion in general, its doctrines, or in specific, its Popes, Bishops or other clerical members.  
 
So, the extreme Islamic reaction to these newpaper drawings, e.g., execute the artists, the editors and I suppose, a large chunk of the Danish population, is not that much different than the Christian Church would have done just a few centuries ago.

Islamic countries may have a somewhat civil governing base, but it still has what is called 'Shariah Law' which is a Koranic Governing Body that usually gets the final say in matters of serious offenses. As long as the Islamic Religion has that much of a voice within the MidEast governments, then reactions like this are to be expected in defense of the religion...

Bottom line...as Civil Governments within Islamic Countries continue to spread and develop, the result will be just like it was with Christianity: the barbaric extremism in the name of religion will eventually come to an end.

Of course, the trick here is to make sure that no nukes go off in the meantime...

Peace  :question:
Beth
Title: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: Mustardseed on February 11, 2006, 01:18:43
I do see your line of reasoning and agree to a degree :grin: .............however, the fact that we are not living in a past world of ignorance but a world where information is available to most folks,  seem to complicate this very reasonable argument. It appears that the clerics of the Muslim religion KNEW the truth, that the drawings that enraged the masses were not even published but a hoax, and also knew the difference between the two social structures. Yet they seems to want a cultural war to result. In the Dark ages people apparently never knew nor did they have access to information to see for themselves not clerics nor commoners. This seems more like a voluntary victim type of situation with lots of hidden political agenda.

Incidentally I just had a 3 hour meeting and discussion with the artist that drew the picture where The Prophet has a bomb in his turban, a very sweet and peace loving old gent, with no ulterior motive.

Regards Mustardseed
Title: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: jilola on February 11, 2006, 05:05:48
OT:
QuoteMy thoughts on this issue take me back to the Medieval Christian Church, where the governing bodies across Europe would look to 'The Church' in matters of 'Law'. This essentially made 'Christianity' the 'Judge' and the 'Jury' for many criminal offenses across the entire western world.
Do you think that influence is in any way over?
The effect of the sacral christian moral and ethical in the current secular legislation is glaringly obvious.
Perhaps a new thread is in order to fully discuss this?


2cents & L&L
jouni[/b]
Title: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: ubiquitous on February 11, 2006, 10:45:10
I think that Islam should have a leader that can control the extreme repulsive ideology's of Muslim groups around the world, as bin laden and his hence men ain't gunna listen to no one.
When are the masses of decent Muslim's going to stand up and express a coherent unified Islamic worldly view that people can smile upon,understand and embrace.
As far as i know in the Islamic guide it is not a crime to depict the prophet, there are so many Islamic groups,segments and factions Islamic laws that if u found one state where u all decided to live fighting would outbreak instantly Muslims blowing up Muslims in the name of one god???
what would be left would be something resembling a knight mare on earth!!

4Ur2b3
Title: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: Gandalf on February 11, 2006, 11:11:47
It is now becomming clear that it is fundamentalist clerics themselves who are responsible for creating this uproar.  
It recently emerged that the cartoons were previously published in Egypt (a Muslim country) way back in October, and nothing happened.

So clearly there has been an extremest hand in this, and sure enough it has now emerged that radical clerics in Denmark not only took the pictures, they ADDED a couple of more offensive HOAX pictures to the ones already published and then took the whole lot to the middle-east and used them to whip up an anti-Danish and by extension, anti-european frenzy.

When are moderate Muslims going to wake up and smell the coffee and deal with these radial extremests who form a minority of global Islam yet get the loudest voice? Moderate Muslims have been to afraid to stand up as yet, as they don't like to be seen as being critical of other Muslims, but they have to realise that these people are not true Muslims, they are very sick people and their actions should be condemned and condemned 100%

Moderate Muslims of the world: It is time to ACT!
Title: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: Beth on February 11, 2006, 20:50:53
Doug, you wrote--quite correctly:

QuoteModerate Muslims have been to afraid to stand up as yet, as they don't like to be seen as being critical of other Muslims, but they have to realise that these people are not true Muslims, they are very sick people and their actions should be condemned and condemned 100%

Which is exactly why I made the comparison to Medieval Christianity.  In a slightly altered version of your quote, the same thing could have been said about 500 years ago...

QuoteModerate Christians are afraid to stand up as yet, as they don't like to be seen as being critical of other Christians, but they have to realise that these people are not true Christians, they are very sick people and their actions should be condemned and condemned 100%

...And eventually the Protestant Reformation came about.  

Now, Jilola, about Christianity today, yes, it is once again in some serious hot water, so it is definately time to rethink Christianity yet again--for now the corruptive power of being able 'to speak for God' has enabled the Protestants to become out of control.  And yes, Mustardseed, the clerics did indeed know, but...just like the medieval priests, bishops and popes, as long as the believers are ignorant and are willing to follow blindly, then these religious authorities will continue to get away with just about anything.  My main point is that Islam today is in its 'medieval stage' just like Christianity once was...where religious tyranny meets face-to-face with a more rational, secularized world.

I am of the personal opinion that religion today has totally run amok...but religion in general is not likely to dissappear over night, with literally billions of followers of one religion or another.  It is, however, the 21st century and there are too many people who are adversely affected by religious belief systems that they themselves do not adhere to.  So, once again Doug's quote is appropriate to slightly alter for this as well:
QuotePolitical moderates and liberals have been to afraid to stand up as yet, as they don't like to be seen as being critical of religious believers, but they have to realise that these people are not true to any kind of loving deity, they are very sick people and their actions should be condemned and condemned 100%

~Beth

p.s. Doug, I hope you don't mind if I altered the context of your words...
Title: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: ubiquitous on February 11, 2006, 22:15:18
I did'nt know the cartoons were published first in egypt.
These cartoons detract from the problem that there is an underlying feeling of hatred from islamic groups they utilise the west to educate themselves get money and misguide there countrymen when they go home to the east.
For such simple publications to be blown like this shows how empty there lives are waiting on oppurtunities to preach there nonsense.
The only way it will ever get resolved is to set ultimatum's for all muslims in the west so they stand up or go home or get this gradual war out there system now and forever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Title: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: Mustardseed on February 12, 2006, 22:23:31
:sad:  oh bummer .......... Tossing Lolas statement in the bin marked "promises I reserve myself the right to break if I feel like it" .....OK then you can have your promise back.............I guess that's why you did not moderate the sweet little Nicky boy who called my faith "bovine excrement"....... it all depends on who's religion is being "slurred"    :lol:  take this with a smile Lola, its just funny that's all. I still think your tights and glasses are cool
Title: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: Ryuji on February 13, 2006, 02:55:46
My Dad is bigger and than your dad  :wink:

Peace and Love
Ryu
Title: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: Nay on February 13, 2006, 12:39:35
If people can't laugh at themselves then there is no hope for mankind...

If this dude is so holy that you can't poke some fun at him, then why are alot of ppl named after him..isn't that sacrilegous?

God and Jesus are made fun of all the time, but you don't see us starting riots and killing ppl.  Get a sense of humor, I say.
Title: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: Ryuji on February 14, 2006, 02:12:11
Nay     *poke*

heheeeh :twisted:

Peace and Love
Ryu

ps cool avatar ;)
Title: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: gdo on February 14, 2006, 21:19:11
This issue is a good example of 'tribalism/fundamentalism" mentality.  What might have worked many hundreds of years ago in a primitive tribal society does not work in a global enlightened society in which the concept of god had grown or evolved.  


There seems to be a cultural 'chip on my shoulder' mentality with many fundamental and tribal types of attitudes.  Some so called Christians still believe that only those that belong to their group will 'go to heaven'.

The really bad part of  this is the irrational and unreasonable attitude that
'unbelievers' are not respected in regards to life and limb.  Therefore, in reality, according to their own belief they may be called heretics and suffer the same or worse fates that they desire for the so called unbelievers.  

There is an old saying in the southern US.  You can take the boy out of the country but you cannot take the country out of the boy.  
Or like the song by the late CW singer.  'Take me home, country roads, to the place, where I BELONG"     I hope you see what I mean.

What is this 'belong', humans are given DOMINION over all EARTH, with GODLY intent, Noble, not slaves to any concepts that are DEAD, from a time 'tribal' mentality.
Title: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: Beth on February 23, 2006, 20:14:48
Yeah, well....since 2003, "French Fries" have been returned to their original status, and Americans are once again drinking the grape of the French vines, so....while the pen may well be mightier than the sword, I will add that the 'lust for food' is much mightier than even the pen....

I predict that this too shall pass...

Bon appetit !!.... :grin:
Title: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: Xernous on March 21, 2006, 14:27:50
When I was reading about the cartoons, why did all those other cartoons and parodies of Christianity come to mind? The main one that came to me was the "Buddy Christ" in the movie Dogma. I understand why followers of Islam can be upset about something like this, but they're seriously taking it the wrong way by killing people over something they didn't agree with. I don't see Christians killing people over the release of Dogma, so why can't the Muslims just let it go? It would be better for the world if we all just let our anger go and vent it in a more productive fashion.
Title: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: kamals on March 22, 2006, 09:49:39
There are ways of making our stances and positions known that respect the other as other without abbrasive combativeness for its own sake. When I was younger I was a punk, tagged buildings, called myself an anarchist, and thought being confrontational and sticking my middle finger at society was an act of currage.

Now I realize it was deeply purile, silly, and ego tripping. The spiritual quest should - as I see it should be about minimizing the ego's hold.

I do not expect people raised in environments that are areligious, or lukewarmly religious in a traditional sense to understand the deep impact that "blasphemy" has on a traditional mind, be it Hindu or Muslims, or Christian. The idea of ridiculing the sacrosanct strikes a deep chord in any mind raised in a traditional religious and spiritual consciousness. This may or may not be good or bad or value neutral but UNDERSTANDING this,

Understanding that eating a hamburger in front of a pious Hindu is DEEPLY offensive, and hitting a cow with your car in India can cause a riot, and not projecting out of RESPECT your post-modern sensibilities onto the situation - this is ettiquite.

Understanding that various freedoms and rights are held almost sacrosanct in post-modern America or France, and not being an arse and insulting these deeply held beliefs regarding the rights and brotherhood of humanity, and freedom of expression - this is ettiquite.

Not tinkling on a crucifix in a traditional Christian village in Egypt or Ethiopia - this is respect and ettiquitte.

You know, I am constantly amazed by the degree of ignorance both Muslims and non Muslims, East and West, display of each other. For example the statement that for those who take Islam's scriptures seriously there is no other recourse other than war. A statement made based on a superficial examination of said scriptures lacking access to any traditional interpritation.

Needless to say given that there are 1 billion plus Muslims (a thought that sadly causes many on this forum, I'd imagine, a shudder or two) if this were true one would see considerbly more violence in the world, dontcha think. 1 billion. That's a lot of people.

It is easy to take scattered statements and texts out of context and paint two equally inaccurate views.

One: "true Islam is a peaceful pacifistic religion, cuddly bunny rabbits really."

Totally inaccurate, Islam has a vein of militancy just as every religion, Buddhism included, that is integrial to its spiritual worldview and this is a good thing - there are things in life that only a jackass would fail to maintain a militant attitude towards. The question is ballance. And towards what is that vein of militancy expressed.

Two: "true Islam is an Imperialist combative and militant religion dedicated to the subjugation and elemination of so-called "infidels"".

Also totally inacurate and a distortion. Islam is the ONLY pre-modern religion that explicitly calls for pluralism and tolerance of other beliefs in its scriptures - and if any are interested I will bore you by quoting them. Islam exhorts its believers to not aggress in the Quran, and to forgive their enemies.

The point is a matter of distortion and inaccuracy by showing one side and one side only. Islam is neither a "warrior spirituality" nor is it an exercise in utter pacifism. Dualities resolve themselves in a Unity - this is what we Muslims call "tauhid". Yin/Yang, or as the sufis say in Arabic "Jamaliyat wa Jalaliyat". Male/Female, openness/closedness. A time for war, a time for peace. Balance.

Any "spiritual teaching" lacking such a balance is partial and a distortion. We live in the realm of multiplicity.

On the other hand the extreme ignorance of the west displayed by the Eastern Muslims rioting, and countless other examples. The vast ignorance in Islamdom of Western Christians and non Christians is matched by the vast ignorance of Westerners towards, well, anyone in the East or South, Animists, Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims alike.

The masses worldwide are by and large ignorant by degrees to what goes on outside their backyard. So long as we admit our ignorance this is fine, we are all ignorant of many things. It is when we start to make universalised statements and adopt bigotry that this ignorance becomes troublesome.

And of course those forces manipulating both sides enjoy a chuckle.
Title: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: Xernous on March 22, 2006, 10:35:14
I am sure we can all come to the consensus that most violent Muslims are not true followers of Islam, however the media may occasionally portray otherwise. Probably one of the reasons why I decided to stop watching TV. I guess many major religions have their fair share of misguided fundamentalists. But, instead of this rampant rioting, maybe it would be a better idea for those offended by the cartoons to simply call for the writers and publishers to simply apologize. Of course, maybe it would have been better if they didn't publish the cartoons in the first place, but since that Pandora's Box has been opened, I guess we need to make the best of it.
Title: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: kamals on March 23, 2006, 11:14:40
"o, why can't I live a life for me?
why should I take the abuse that's served?
why can't they see they're just like me
it's the same, it's the same in the whole wide world" – Ministry, from the song "(Everyday Is) Halloween"

"Sufism is experience of life through a method of dealing with life and human relations. This method is based on an understanding of man, which places at one's disposal the means to organize one's relationships and one's learning systems. So instead of saying that Sufism is a body of thought in which you believe certain things and don't believe other things, we say that the Sufi experience has to be provoked in a person. Once provoked, it becomes his own property, rather as a person masters an art." -Seyed Idries Shah, interviewed in Psychology Today, 1975.


As for the movie Dogma, I can assure you if that movie were played in certain Christian populations around the world, the natives would get very antsy and violent. Passions flare hotter in some culture than others, ours is a very lukewarm one. There are places a man would slit your belly open for asking how his mother was doing "what business is it of yours, what are you trying to imply?". Really. Some cultures are more emotive than ours and this has positive and negative repercussions.

It is good that you stopped watching TV :-) It conditions us strongly. Try experimenting with meditation and bouts of TV watching alternated with a TV fast.

Interesting results.

Without fail, some of (not all : - ) the most creative and interesting people I know do not watch TV, although one pretty young thing I know seems to have a "Sex and the City" and "6 Feet Under" addiction that she feeds by renting back DVD's of the series and watching on her computer... Anyway.

Again, let us consider media manipulation. Has it occurred to anyone that such rampant rioting is anything but natural? Why is it occurring, in Bangladesh, for limited publications in Denmark? The reality is when they were first published the Danish Muslim community tried to deal with it quietly, they contacted the publication and expressed their discontent in an orderly and civilized manner. The paper apologized. The issue died.

THEN someone, who is not known, systematically went around Muslim communities overseas MONTHS after the cartoons were published, and started reprinting them and showing them to people in the middle east and so on, then certain anonymous people started organizing demonstrations.

Then Western Newspapers and Media started REPRINTING them for wider distribution in other countries and the Muslim populations (an action totally forbidden in Islamic law, blasphemy is supposed to be ignored, not circulated or even commented on. Anyone who brought this topic up after the Danish Muslim community's leaders initially approached the newspaper in question performed actions totally forbidden in Islam) in those countries started getting offended and their passions were stroked by orators and letters for action, and calls to protest, and a feedback loop started.

In some parts of the Third World people tend to riot over the smallest things. Christian, Muslim, Hindu, whatever. Unsophisticated traditional populations and masses are easily manipulated by a glib tongue and impassioned speaker. Whoever started this campaign knew well what they were doing. It was, and is, a media circus and has succeeded in selling many newspapers.

You state that we can all come to the consensus that most violent Muslims are not true followers of Islam, ah, but I wouldn't necessarily come to that conclusion per se. For, you see, THEY see themselves as true followers of their religion, just as a non-violent Sufi sitting in meditation somewhere in the Himalayas sees himself as a true follower of his religion.

In reality there is a claim to truth that both has within a limited sphere. It's a matter of interpretations, right or wrong, and context.

You see. For the violent Jihadi, he or she sees the self as fighting a JUST war against an evil enemy. Many here see Osama as evil. A murderer and fanatic. Some have a more nuanced view but still it would be hard for many to see him as other than evil.

But THEREIN lies the rub. For it is that some people, like Osama, see themselves as fighting a just war against an evil and almost inhuman enemy. That unjust and inhuman enemy, in their eyes, is none other than you.

Or, in a more nuanced view, the unjust and evil enemy some see is the West in general, the US in particular, and civilians such as you... and I ... are in their eyes legitimate collateral damage. Stray cattle caught in the crossfire. Or, some may see us, at best, as sad and unfortunate but necessary deaths in fighting a greater evil. Or a nuanced mix of these views. This is what some people believe.

Why should it be otherwise? Our soldiers in Iraq operate under similar terms; US armed forces have certainly in this generation knowingly targeted civilian targets in order to inflict damage against what our soldiers saw as legitimate tactical targets. The civilians caught up in the middle are "collateral damage".

Consider this vision: In 1982 6-year-old Fatima playing in the mud outside her hamlet in a small village in South Lebanon was blown into one hundred small pieces by US marines who were trying to achieve certain tactical aims (covertly and probably illegally). Her brother who witnessed his innocent 6-year-old sister dismembered remembers this. Sharply, when he's awake, when he sleeps.

He doesn't care about international politics. He cares that foreigners of a different religion and culture are supporting his enemies and blowing up his little sisters.

So to him those perpetuating this act are indeed evil. Full stop. How can you blame him for thinking people who incinerate little girls are anything other than evil? So when he drives a car bomb into a Marine barracks, or blows himself up somewhere, or when he snipes at an unsuspecting High School valedictorian and quarterback from Indiana, a kid from Ft. Wayne who would rather be back home listening to Van Halen or Led Zeppelin and making out with his sweetheart, and who is on duty because he sincerely believes that he is only trying to do his patriotic duty in protecting America from evil (ah, the evil word again) violent Muslim extremists...

Now you know why. To some people YOU are either voting for their enemies - the men killing their little sisters and mothers and brothers, or you are supporting their enemies – which makes you their enemy too, or you pay taxes to support an evil system and empire – in THEIR eyes – and thus are part of the same machine that blew up their sisters.

Horrible as it may sound, it makes sense. It is quite logical. Just as many American non-Muslims may see all Muslims are supporting their enemies who killed so many on Sept. 11th 2001. Same sort of logic.

Today, the people who follow Osama, or who *think* that they are following Osama, see themselves as waging a legitimate war using the only dirty means available to them against a satanic and evil foe. There are others more cynical and informed who use, of course, these feelings to further their aims. But they are as cynical as those who wish to convince us that the war against Iraq is a war against terrorism.

You see, Westerners and Easterners are just as easily manipulated. You just need different language patterns, that's all.

Kinda sucks. Does it not?

"Militant Islam" isn't doing it's best to discredit its religion, it sees itself as trying to fulfill it.

NOT BEING a "Militant Fundamentalist" I see myself as trying to fulfill my religion. When I read Rumi, and meditate, and make dhikr, and try to practice my spiritual exercises the "Fundamentalist" sees me as a dangerous neo-Gnostic heretic, some sort of wacky goofy Sufi. I see myself as trying, in my humble way, to follow the true inner teachings of not only Islam but every authentic stream of traditional spiritual truth unveiled to humanity.

I see the fundamentalist as blind and reactive. But evil? No. I see many people as blind and reactive, myself including...

But I'm trying to break the chains of reactive conditioning. And many on this forum are as well, and this is a positive thing.
Title: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: ubiquitous on March 23, 2006, 17:51:16
Kamal so the question begs with authenticity
are you going to post a picture?????
Title: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: Beth on March 23, 2006, 18:37:11
Great post kamals!!

I don't watch TV either; haven't for quite a few years now.  I do own a TV, but I so rarely ever watch it that I totally forget that I have one!  I do, however, enjoy the occasional movie, and since I don't particularly care for 'going to the movies' that much, I can always watch them on my laptop if there is one that catches my interest!  

Thanks for fleshing out the so easily misunderstood conundrum of 'we' and 'they' as 'good' and 'evil'.  We definately live in a relative universe (or perceive it as such anyway!) where everything is always relative to something else!

~Beth

p.s. 'Pretty is as pretty does'... :wink:

[Part of this post was moved to "Contradictions in Religion"]
Title: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: Xernous on March 24, 2006, 00:19:09
My main point is that some people take things too seriously, sometimes with catastrophic results. If the media would have let it go, this whole mess probably wouldn't have happened. But I guess controversy drives ratings and keeps the advertisers happy....

Kamals, I appreciate you helping put things in perspective on this issue for me. You seem to have a much better understanding on this.
Title: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: Beth on March 24, 2006, 08:01:27
Quote from: XernousMy main point is that some people take things too seriously, sometimes with catastrophic results. If the media would have let it go, this whole mess probably wouldn't have happened. But I guess controversy drives ratings and keeps the advertisers happy....

Xernous,

Because we live in a 'relative universe' where everything is relative to something else, kamals point drives this fact home showing how we also live in a 'reactive universe' where 'point A' and 'point B' are meeting in a dangerous clash of wills.  

The media today is the forum through which these 'meetings' are made public.  

While I am not a fan of the media today, we cannot lay blame for the debacle in lap of the media.  While the media is certainly able to 'feed certain fires', the fires would burn one way or another--but we would probably never hear anything about it.  And that would not make us any happier either; it was only a few centuries ago that the 'world press' (such as it was) was constantly censored by the ruling parties of each country.  That is why our constitution includes 'freedom of the press'.  We get a lot of benefit from this freedom--knowledge being the primary one--but like life in general, we have to take the good with the bad, so we might not always like what we hear/read.

Even though the pictures in this case originated in a newspaper, they could have just as easily been found in a privately published book, or posted on a university campus, or found on a coffee shop bulletin board. The fight was waiting to happen, and this is the way that it manifested itself.

Also, to unaffected observers it appears that some people take things 'too seriously', and while each of the things that we read and hear about are no doubt affecting us globally, each one of them start out as very personal--in one way or another.

~Beth
Title: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: gdo on March 24, 2006, 21:03:43
There are some principles of truth in all religions.  The person delivering the message of the truth is not the message.  The 'image' of any avatar is not 'holy' of itself.  

Any followers who degrade the reality of the human condition are really blasheming their own principles.  

If Allah or God want to punish some one for an 'image' let Allah or God do it.    Anything else is foolishness and an example of 'earthly' concerns not spiritual concerns.
Title: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: kenshinhan604 on April 20, 2006, 08:36:42
as far as i know we should all respect each others religion kn matter what our own beleifs were, hindu muslim or even christians all should respect easch other and not tr y to harm each others religion by provoking them in any way.


ally Ekbal Bsc Marketing MBA operations management
Title: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: Layla on July 02, 2006, 12:09:13
Quote from: dingo
Quote from: MustardseedI guess I was not so much asking about the pictures as the fact that the Mideast is spiraling into a crisis about it and threatening Fatwa as well a boycotting all danish goods. They are expecting the prime minister to put the cartoonist as well as the newspaper editor in jail
WTF how can they expect that? It's not like they run Denmark. If I were a muslim I'm pretty sure I'd respect the fact that the cartoonist has freedom of expression. I would not be insulted. Of course, I haven't seen the cartoon though.
What about cartoons about Jesus, or God, or atheists? I'm sure there must be cartoons about them. Why does no one kick up a fuss about that?

Well, It is insulting. Because, of all the racism against Muslims. It would be. Not only that, but Prophet Mohammed was the last Prophet that god sent. And he spread Islam with out having any Powers like Prophet Moses, or Jesus or Any other prophet for that matter and he had a normal life like we do. Because the Prophet's used to live for 1000's of years. But God, Noticed that giving them Powers/Long lives made people worship them in exchange of god. AND every single Prophet of God is to be respected.

Because GOD can in a snap of a finger make everyone worship him, but God gave people free will and a mind to think for themselves.

When someone disgraces any Prophet or THE GOD in any manner. It is very insulting.

Cartoons about Jesus, God and Etc. Well STAND UP FOR THEM! Don't sit around and laugh or whatnot, STANDUP FOR THEM.
Title: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: Leyla on July 02, 2006, 21:50:59
"Standing up" is one thing; "killing" is another. There is big a differance between writing a hot letter to the editor defending your faith, and putting a price on someone head.

Editorial cartoons usually have some grain of truth to them. Perhaps first one should question "Do they have a point?" If the rest of the world thinks there is a problem, then perhaps there is one. And perhaps, that problem should be fixed.

For example, when Bush decided to go after Iraq, the rest of the world said there was a problem. Bush decided the only real problem was that the whole rest of the world wouldn't just shut up.

I am not saying you should blindly accept all criticism, but to examine them. And there problems that have been let to go too long? Do some things need to be changed? Are there things that bother you?

Certainly from the inside of your faith, you probably know exactly what these areas are and what should be done about them.

I have seen interviews with brave Islamic women pushing for change, and think they are heroic. I hope so much that they get the things they want, because they deserve them.
Title: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: James S on July 03, 2006, 07:59:04
"AND every single Prophet of God is to be respected. "

I Agree!!

Thing is, the way I see it, there was no LAST prophet of God. We can all be prophets of God if we'd just take a few moments to stop looking at ancient religious texts as if they were the very last words God said to anyone, look for the spiritual wisdom they all contain within them, and all started listening to God ourselves instead of just listening to what someone else says that God said.

Blessings,
James.
Title: Re: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: moemakki on August 26, 2006, 02:59:41
Quote from: J.K. on February 04, 2006, 15:57:46
However, for the person who follows Islam scripturally there is no other place to go but to war. - We should not be surprised to see violence breaking out in the streets...

This is a common misconception given the recent image the west has given Islam.  I for one follow Islam by the book and I can quote many verses that denounce violence unless you are attacked first or oppressed/living under occupation.

Peace
Title: Re: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: Mustardseed on August 31, 2006, 01:47:08
Quote from: moemakki on August 26, 2006, 02:59:41
This is a common misconception given the recent image the west has given Islam.  I for one follow Islam by the book and I can quote many verses that denounce violence unless you are attacked first or oppressed/living under occupation.

Peace

Thats the point, this is the line Osama uses, that you are oppressed, i.e. living under western oppression, and as a matter of fact you are. The west has got the arab world by the b...., and is draining it of its riches (oil). Once there is no more oil in the east, you can have your countries and start killing yourselves again (Shia vs Sunni).
Title: Re: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: CFTraveler on September 01, 2006, 15:22:52
And in a scary postscript to your post, I just saw on tv the Senator Katherine Harris stating in the media (and I suppose proposing the idea for judicial challenge) that the separation between Church and State is unconstitutional.
Scared yet?
Title: Re: The pictures of Muhammd
Post by: James S on September 04, 2006, 19:15:19
It logical that it would be unconstitutional.

The constitution and the laws are all based on moral and ethical codes that are all ultimately derived from the church's doctrines.

This is why we see some fundamental differences in the laws of, say, the U.S. and the laws of middle eastern countries. One's laws is based on Christian ethics and principals, the other is based on Muslim ethics and principals. Though they do both agree on many things, there are some really obvious differences, which shows through in the morals and ethics of the people in those countries.

Blessings,
James.