Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dexa)
    Typical ignorant Western attitude, i'm not even Muslim.
    Typical Western attitude...... advising against killing in the name of religion :rolleyes:

    Oh such bad Westerners!

    ps if you don't like Western attitude get-off this Western-originated website
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dexa)
    How would that apply then? Why should we care about what the Quran says and how it subjects women and gay people. We shouldn't be bothered about how their religion treats them, they're perfectly within their rights to flee and leave that religion if that goes against their principles. We shouldn't be involving ourselves and messing about with their affairs like this magazine company have done. Unfortunately for them they have paid the ultimate price. I'm not saying we shouldn't stand up to extremism, but this was a very stupid thing to do especially at a time of religious unrest in the city.
    the attempt by Islamists to suppress our freedoms in our countries has been going on for decades

    I personally feel insulted by their attitude towards women, homosexuals, apostates, non-Muslims

    why are they provoking me? this, is a very stupid thing to do especially at a time of religious unrest in the city.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clh_hilary)
    If they kill, we should lock them up in the prison like we would with any other criminal.



    Why? Why can't you respect my beliefs that I can draw things?



    It is not fine.



    It is. It's going to make my life miserable for not being able to speak or draw my mind.



    Terrorism.



    No.

    You're saying that violence is the answer, and we should proclaim that to the world.
    you cannot take another persons life for no reason. How am I saying that violence is the answer? In all of my posts I have always said that they over reacted and shouldn't have don't it.
    Im saying that stuff like this will lead people to violence which we obviously don't want.


    really? Like you want to draw Prophet Muhammed SAW all the time!
    Why is such a big deal? If I didn't agree or respect your beliefs you would say that my religion is preventing me, and how Islam needs to confirm to today's society, why is it always us? But when comes to non-muslims doing something it's a problem?!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clh_hilary)
    So once again you have made it clear that we only give in when people threaten to kill us.

    Violence is the answer, this is what you're saying.



    So instead of stopping people from killing, you think the dead should've bowed to the killers all along instead.
    What?! You obviously aren't understanding what im trying to say!

    if you had a friend and she was sensitive about a certain topic, and would go crazy if someone mentioned it, wouldn't you stop mentioning it, so she doesn't go crazy? Or will carry on, creating more conflict, more tension, more arguments between you two?

    no, they shouldn't have killed AT ALL
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elhm1800)
    The question isnt whether he existed_facepalm_ its whether he was an actual prophet. Even non muslims realise there was a chap called muhammad who was around 1400 years ago.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    there is a minority of non-Muslim historians and Arabists who think that Muhammad is not a historical figure. This includes well-respected academic figures, such as John Wansbrough, Heinz Ohlig, Gerd Puin

    In fact, the first Professor of Islamic Theology in German Universities at some moment started to teach that Muhammad never existed http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122669909279629451 (this of course led him to sharp contrast with the same religious authorities who had initially proposed him for the post - but by that time he had tenure)

    So, although it is true that most of non-Muslim academia does consider Muhammad a historical figure, this is by no means an unanimous opinion
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clh_hilary)
    It is. It's going to make my life miserable for not being able to speak or draw my mind.
    So then by your belief a person who believes death to homosexuals should be allowed to draw and speak about it as much as they want because it might make their life miserable if they can't
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Naima_786)
    you cannot take another persons life for no reason. How am I saying that violence is the answer? In all of my posts I have always said that they over reacted and shouldn't have don't it.
    Im saying that stuff like this will lead people to violence which we obviously don't want.
    And that you said the dead should've done something to avoid the incident from happening.

    You are saying violence is the answer. If everyone thinks like you, I can just carry an AK47 around and demand that everybody do as I say.

    (Original post by Naima_786)
    really? Like you want to draw Prophet Muhammed SAW all the time!
    Do you know me?

    (Original post by Naima_786)
    Why is such a big deal?
    You're taking the liberty to express yourself constantly, and you're asking me why is it such a big deal to be able to express yourself?

    (Original post by Naima_786)
    If I didn't agree or respect your beliefs you would say that my religion is preventing me, and how Islam needs to confirm to today's society, why is it always us? But when comes to non-muslims doing something it's a problem?!
    You can be sexist, racist, homophobic, or whatever I disagree with but I won't kill you or demand respect from you. I do not believe in your god, did I ask that you don't mention that you do?

    You can express yourself in however way you want, as the cartoonists have done, regardless of my views. That is the difference. But you cannot stop me from doing so.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dexa)
    Well that's a ridiculous thing to say. That's like saying one should go round saying the n word, as they feel it is within their right, and then moan when a black person beats them up or worse.

    If people find something offensive, why give them an excuse to get at you? Treat others like how you'd want to be treated yourself.
    That example is not analogous. You're essentially comparing religious insult with racist insult. There is nothing to indicate that what the magazine published was inherently racist. Insensitive perhaps, but not racist.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Naima_786)
    if you had a friend and she was sensitive about a certain topic, and would go crazy if someone mentioned it, wouldn't you stop mentioning it, so she doesn't go crazy? Or will carry on, creating more conflict, more tension, more arguments between you two?
    Only if I want our relationship to be kept. She has every right to choose to associate or not associate with me.

    That's very different from if she threatens to kill or punch me. If she punches or attempts to kill me whenever I mention it, I'll call the police and get her arrested.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Naima_786)
    i doubt that. Look at the wars, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, the British are standing up, but the war is still going on, with no impact, so it will only get worse.
    What do those wars have to do with drawing cartoons?


    ok fine, but then you'll have to deal with the consequences whether you like them or not
    We already have, you have to deal with us being able to freely mock and criticise your beliefs.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Qari)
    So then by your belief a person who believes death to homosexuals should be allowed to draw and speak about it as much as they want because it might make their life miserable if they can't
    Yes. I don't support laws that ban 'hate speech'. I don't support banning Westboro Baptist Church or whatever.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    there is a minority of non-Muslim historians and Arabists who think that Muhammad is not a historical figure. This includes well-respected academic figures, such as John Wansbrough, Heinz Ohlig, Gerd Puin

    In fact, the first Professor of Islamic Theology in German Universities at some moment started to teach that Muhammad never existed http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122669909279629451 (this of course led him to sharp contrast with the same religious authorities who had initially proposed him for the post - but by that time he had tenure)

    So, although it is true that most of non-Muslim academia does consider Muhammad a historical figure, this is by no means an unanimous opinion
    All very well but this minority obviously havnt read historical records and accounts which portray a historical figure who had a huge gathering called muhammad 1400 years ago. Its indisputable fact he existed prophet or not.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clh_hilary)
    Yes. I don't support laws that ban 'hate speech'. I don't support banning Westboro Baptist Church or whatever.
    Serious or Sarcasm?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Guys. That poor policeman in the video was muslim.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Qari)
    Serious or Sarcasm?
    Serious.

    There is a difference between an individual expressing his/her view, whatever it is; and to give said view special treatment.

    There's also the advantage in this particular case: People realise how serious things are for gay people in some countries and have more sympathy towards gay people as a result.

    There's also something deeply problematic about laws banning certain views from being uttered. How do you decide on what to ban and what not to ban? Why ban hate speech against gays but not hate speech against vegans?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jemner01)
    As someone who isn't anywhere near the left, I can say with some certainty that bombing a country, overthrowing its regime and leaving a power vacuum- on top of lashing out at Communist nations and funding other terrorist groups/gangs- will not result in everlasting peace, democracy and free cotton candy.
    Definitely right.

    The Middle-east doesn't resent the West because it's free, it resentys the West for invading its land, killing its civillians and aiming to bleed it of precious resources.
    Not really. A lot of the terrorists at the time of the cold war, were rich young men, travelling to Afghanistan, etc. Look at the terrorists, they are often not the ones, who suffer. Those who really suffer are often to concerned for their family to spent all their energy in killing thereselves. You make it very easy to explain terrorism. Anyone seriously interested to e.g. make Iraq a flourishing country, preserving tradition and giving their people the economic power to create their own businesses and feeding their culture with university courses dedicated to research the old art, languages and cultural identity of the people and that area: "Why should they have an interest in continuously weaken the country by terrorist attacks?" I mean, either you are not able to understand logic or you are really believing that there is "Bad unintelligent US" vs "poor Arabs". (I mean, not they had oil, not that large parts of Africa suffered way more, not other countries invaded by the Nazis and then the Soviet Union (poor Poland, really) are not spending their time with terrorist attacks (which are only some anyway, so it is not WEST vs ISLAM, it is SOME LUNATICS against EVERYONE ELSE).

    Yes, you'd have to be really enrenched in the Government's propaganda not to see how invasions of foreign nations has been the main factor in starting attacks against the West.
    Hm, a lot of countries in this world, actually prefered to built up their own country after such an attack...
    (Poland, Vietnam,... I don't think those two countries had it easy...)
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elhm1800)
    All very well but this minority obviously havnt read historical records and accounts which portray a historical figure who had a huge gathering called muhammad 1400 years ago. Its indisputable fact he existed prophet or not.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    those academics have studied historical records all their lives

    it is not at all indisputable that Muhammad existed; very likely- yes. Indisputable - no. There are no surviving contemporary records or accounts about Muhammad, Only oral accounts and accounts written after his death.

    why don't you read, e.g. about John Wansbrough (from SOAS) ?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    those academics have studied historical records all their lives

    it is not at all indisputable that Muhammad existed; very likely- yes. Indisputable - no

    why don't you read, e.g. about John Wansbrough (from SOAS) ?
    Did u also know there are historians who claim alexander the great did not exist...one or two but hey, lets jump on the bandwagon and cite people who have been completely proved wrong by the huge majority of competent historians but still deny things that are indisputable.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jdowsea)
    That example is not analogous. You're essentially comparing religious insult with racist insult. There is nothing to indicate that what the magazine published was inherently racist. Insensitive perhaps, but not racist.
    Well no, instead of insulting and degrading a race they've done it to a religion. The intent to offend is there in both. Why is insulting someones race worse than insulting someones religion?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elhm1800)
    Did u also know there are historians who claim alexander the great did not exist...one or two but hey, lets jump on the bandwagon and cite people who have been completely proved wrong by the huge majority of competent historians but still deny things that are indisputable.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    do you know that the first written accounts about Muhammad are in fact from Byzantine chroniclers - and they start some years after Muhammad's death ? there are no contemporary written accounts about Muhammad's life

    on the contrary, Alexander's life is attested by a huge amount of accounts written during his lifetime

    in any case, the theory that Muhammad is a mythical figure is not defended by a couple of isolated nutcases, but by respected professors in Western academia

    which is all I wanted to say
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 22, 2015
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.