yeh thats wat really shocked me. It just shows there not taking there anger out on the denmark newspaper incident alone, they blame freedom, the west and christianity. because theres no reason for them to attack a church.aaaman said:see what i mean, in their eyes its just muslims and non-muslims. they dont accept equality they accept violence, they are gonna be the cause for the worlds destruction
today you have opened your eyes to the truthcodereder said:yeh thats wat really shocked me. It just shows there not taking there anger out on the denmark newspaper incident alone, they blame freedom, the west and christianity. because theres no reason for them to attack a church.
http://washingtontimes.com/world/20051114-015138-3548r.htmSaudi jailed for discussing the Bible
November 14, 2005
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (Reuters) -- A court sentenced a teacher to 40 months in prison and 750 lashes for "mocking religion" after he discussed the Bible and praised Jews, a Saudi newspaper reported yesterday.
Al-Madina newspaper said secondary-school teacher Mohammad al-Harbi, who will be flogged in public, was taken to court by his colleagues and students.
He was charged with promoting a "dubious ideology, mocking religion, saying the Jews were right, discussing the Gospel and preventing students from leaving class to wash for prayer," the newspaper said.
Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam, strictly upholds the austere Wahhabi school of Islam and bases its constitution on the Koran and the sayings of the prophet Muhammad. Public practice of any other religion is banned.
A U.S. State Department report criticized Saudi Arabia last week, saying religious freedoms "are denied to all but those who adhere to the state-sanctioned version of Sunni Islam."
The newspaper said Mr. al-Harbi will appeal the verdict.
A similar case was cited in the State Department's International Religious Freedom Report for 2004.
"During the period covered by this report, a schoolteacher was tried for apostasy, and eventually convicted in March of blasphemy; the person was given a prison sentence of 3 years and 300 lashes. The trial received substantial press coverage," the report said.
A 2003 report by the U.S. Commission on Religious Freedom, the world's only government-sanctioned entity to investigate and report religious-freedom violations, named Saudi Arabia as the world's biggest violator of religious liberties.
The commission took the country to task for "offensive and discriminatory language" disparaging Jews, Christians and non-Wahhabi Muslims found in government-sponsored school textbooks, in Friday sermons preached in prominent mosques, and in state-controlled Saudi newspapers.
For example, in 2003, Crown Prince (now King) Abdullah reacted to the killing of six Westerners by terrorists in Yemen by saying he thought Zionism was behind them.
In Saudi Arabia, the public practice of any religion other than Islam is illegal; only Muslims can be Saudi citizens; one of the Saudi king's titles is "custodian of the two holy mosques"; proselytizing for any religion other than Sunni Islam is barred; and Mecca, Islam's holy city, is forbidden to all non-Muslims.
For years, Saudi Arabia also imposed restrictions, or persuaded the U.S. government to impose restrictions, on American troops defending the country during and after then-Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's 1990-91 occupation of Kuwait.
For example, U.S. postal and customs officials have barred mailing materials "contrary to the Islamic faith," including Bibles. The U.S. military also has required female service members to wear a long, black robe called an abaya when traveling off base in Saudi Arabia. Both regulations were rescinded or clarified after public outcry based on reporting in the U.S. media.
you are learning my childcodereder said:yeh thats wat really shocked me. It just shows there not taking there anger out on the denmark newspaper incident alone, they blame freedom, the west and christianity. because theres no reason for them to attack a church.
i dont know if this question can be answered with a simple yes or no, its a very complex issuezahid said:I just want to ask 1 simple question to withouaface and gang.....and I want a yes or no answer.
DO YOU GUYS REALLY HATE ISLAM?
i hate the idea of organised religion, because it makes people value our current life as second best, compared to the promised rewards heaven offers. Christianity does the same thing, how ever i have more against islam , because it allows many millions of muslims to interpret this as if, dying (martyering) in the name of religion is the most glorious way to please god. and that leads to many innocent deaths.zahid said:I just want to ask 1 simple question to withouaface and gang.....and I want a yes or no answer.
DO YOU GUYS REALLY HATE ISLAM?
There is no clear cut sides in this whole affair... if you're a Muslim, it doesn't automatically mean you support the stoning of churches, tne burning of embassies, the violent riots, etc. And if you're non-Muslim, it doesn't mean you agree with the nature of the cartoons.codereder said:http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Diplomacy/7730.htm
"The trouble threatened to rile sectarian tensions when protesters began stoning St. Maroun Church, one of the city's main Maronite Catholic churches, and property in Ashrafieh, a Christian area. Sectarian tension is a sensitive issue in Lebanon, where Muslims and Christian fought a 15-year civil war that ended in 1990. "
i was on the muslims side before, .....now i see they are fucking pyscho's.
Y would they need to stone a catholic church???
No, that's how it is IN YOUR EYES.aaaman said:see what i mean, in their eyes its just muslims and non-muslims. they dont accept equality they accept violence, they are gonna be the cause for the worlds destruction
tempco said:No, that's how it is IN YOUR EYES.
basicly, the paper running it would def. lose subscriptions and its circulation would suffer...there'd be some protests of the paper, and you'd have african-american leaders speaking out against it as racist and questioning the taste of the paper. never would be a charge that it shouldn't be legal, just saying that its in horibbly bad taste.tempco said:I wonder what type of reaction a racist cartoon towards African-Americans would cause?
its an issue of free speech because so many are protesting saying that the gov't should have stopped this. it wouldn't be a free speech issue if they protested the paper and just criticised the paper's judgement in running the cartoons. as soon as you start to say something should have been censored, or that the govt should've made sure it couldn't have been published thats SPECIFICALLY what free speech is about. Its the muslim responce that made this a free speech issue.simpson_freak said:I dont know why so many people are trying to twist this into a battle for free speech. its not free speech when you villify a billion people.
i agree with serius pretty well....zahid said:I just want to ask 1 simple question to withouaface and gang.....and I want a yes or no answer.
DO YOU GUYS REALLY HATE ISLAM?
If there wasn't a backlash from the muslims demanding censorship and threatening to kill people then this would not be a free speech issue, most people here would probably not be supportive of the cartoonists.I dont know why so many people are trying to twist this into a battle for free speech. its not free speech when you villify a billion people.
tats bullshit:Not-That-Bright said:In alot of ways it makes more sense to me... if you believe the religion, to follow it as it appears to be compelling you to.
If there wasn't a backlash from the muslims demanding censorship and threatening to kill people then this would not be a free speech issue, most people here would probably not be supportive of the cartoonists.
This was the situation.
> Newspaper publishes some slightly rude pictures of muhammed.
> Muslims demand the newspaper be punished, threaten to kill the cartoonists etc
> The country stands by its newspaper - saying that in a free society you cannot punish such things.
> Muslims boycott the country, threaten the country.
> Other newspapers all accross the world show some solidarity in printing the cartoons - the muslims are stepping on something very important to the west.
> Muslims now threaten a new 9/11 for europe... burn heaps of flags... threats fly out every-which way, including to some of their greatest allies in the west.
> We have a much lower view of Islam than we did before the incident.
This seems to be very true.The West is very selective in its freedom of the press. While we doggedly support publication of caricatures of the prophet Muhammad because it does not offend us, under no circumstances would we tolerate the newspapers publishing child pornography or even bad language ("Anger over caricatures at boiling point", February 4-5).
The Western world generally adopts the attitude that while other cultures must respect our beliefs, we need not do the same because ours are the correct ones. This is a warped view of democracy.
bah gud question?Democracy is about the right of all people to live in a way they believe is right and good but without hurting others. In democratic countries we restrict the rights of groups and individuals through censorship, noise control, pollution control, sedition laws and a host of others.
Would respecting Muslim beliefs and stopping the printing of images of Muhammad because we know they hurt others, really infringe our rights so much?
Too true, dont get me started on jews..Ah, so when a leader in a Muslim country says something that offends the Jews, that is totally unacceptable anti-Semitism. But when a Danish newspaper goes out of its way to cause offence to Muslims, they ought to accept we believe in free speech in the West and get over it.
In my book free speech is free speech for everyone, not just for people you agree with.
Bah thats stupid.If Muslim reaction to a few cartoons is an example, can you imagine if the Monty Python team did a sequel to The Life of Brian, say, The Life of Abdul. After all, if it is good enough for Jesus, surely it's good enough for Muhammad.