Martin VS Shoebombs

Feb 09, 2006 12:37

I wrote the following in reply to MAB's post on the Islamic cartoon situation. I figured I'd re-post it here since it's how I feel about the situation ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 7

the warlord Mohammed ottawakismet February 9 2006, 18:01:15 UTC
Well, peace, love and respect arent totally Muslim values and Mohammed did advocate violence. He was a war leader who led Muslims to fight and conquer the Arabian peninsula. He was personally involved in a few battles.

Turning the other cheek is a Christian value, and though Jesus is recognized by Muslims as a prophet, Christian values are not Muslim values. When Ali was martyred, his companions hoped for violent retribution. Islam advocates struggle against non-believers, and violence is an acceptable means to reach it. What Muslims are never supposed to do, is fight other Muslims. And they're kinda supposed to have respect for other 'people of the book' (Jews, Christians) by allowing them to practice their faith so long as they submitted to Islamic political control. Terrorists turned this logic on its head, by saying they were the only real Muslims and it was okay to kill other Muslims.

Reply

Re: the warlord Mohammed azrael18 February 9 2006, 19:02:44 UTC
Duly noted; I shouldn't have said he didn't advocate violence if I didn't know for sure.

That raises the question; if Muslims advocate violence and retribution, doesn't that on some level justify the anti-Muslim sentiment held by a growing number of people?

Reply

Re: the warlord Mohammed ottawakismet February 10 2006, 17:47:25 UTC
mmmm.... thats a difficult question... Do tenets of a religion 'justify' opposition to it? I suppose it depends when you think something deserves censure. Lots of feminist groups have decried Islam for the way it treats women -- Islam has very progressive liberal attitudes to women for the 7th century. Then again lots of Christians have held that the Bible justifies women being only in certain roles... So I dunno...

All religion is mysticism ultimately, and I'm no mystic.

Anyway, we kinda assume that prophet = non-violent. Buddha certainly didnt lead any armies. :p

Reply


uh... peteyboy67 February 9 2006, 18:22:36 UTC
Jihad means internal struggle... it is a small minority of people who are perversing one of the world's most beautiful religion by claiming various things.

Second. The reason that these riots are happening in the first place is because it is one of the cardinal sins of Islam to portray Mohammed. Period. End of story. Bomb or no bomb, if I drew a picture of Mohammed kissing a baby, I have committed an offense on Islam.

P.

Reply

Re: uh... azrael18 February 9 2006, 18:56:43 UTC
You're absolutely right; everything is specifically that open and shut. No grey area here!

Do me a favour; don't reply to my journal anymore if you're going to make pretentious blanket statements. -_-

Reply

Re: uh... peteyboy67 February 11 2006, 04:56:33 UTC
Martin... in this case, there is no grey area. Portraying the image of Mohammed IS an offense of Islam. A major offense. It wasn't a blanket statement whatsoever, it's a fact.

However, I'll refrain from now on commenting on your LJ if you're gonna go all OC Transpo Police on me.

Reply


squie February 11 2006, 01:18:39 UTC
I found an awsome article that sums up the main arguments here, and the thoughts behind the Saudi Arabian push to punnish the Danes: thought you'd like to read it.

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=30432

Reply


Leave a comment

Up