What I was trying to point out is that there must be a balance in everything. Because even if you have a very very high spiritual life once the oil is over they will have a very very big problem with getting money (=food). So very rich countries have realized that and are now turning their eyes to turism (it's not much you can in a desert like landscape except turism). The best example are Saudi Arabia and The United Arab Emirates. For them oil is going to be over very soon and turism is the way of the future. But how would go in Iraq to get kidnapped or shot. Once the americans withdraw and once the oil will be over they will have a very big problem on their hands and if they want to survive they will have to open up to the West or starve. In nature a species that doesn't adapt to a change in its enviroment is going extinct...

About these traditions I have a very good example from my country. Here in Romania we have a problem with the gipsy minority. Not only that they have a stupid habit of proclaming themselfs 'kings' over the rest of the minority (yeah... someone sais 'I should be king over the gipsys' and over the night he gets a 3kg gold crown and a 100 kg gold throne... and yeah it is in the habit to have the biggest cars - with no usefulness, biggest house - with the most ugly design, biggest jewls - all just because they want to show that they are better then the rest... in 3 words they would be the definiton of unefficiency). That wouldn't be such a big problem, but in their tradition when a girl gets merried she has to be sold (just like a piece of furniture).... give me 30.000$ and I'll give you my daughter. That is not too bad, but the big problem develops now. Since it has been bought by the bridegroom's parents, the bridegroom has to test his wife's skill in bed and since she is anywhere between 10-11 years old (and beeing mother at 12 years old is nothing spectacular for gipsys) and 18 years. Not only we have a moral problem with their tradition but we also have a legal one.
So you see ... you can't cover everything in the name of religion and traditions. And that is exactly what the terrorists are doing!

I'm still not understanding what you're talking about. Religion has nothing to do with oil, and that has nothing to do with getting food. Yet, I still don't see how tourism plays into this...we originally started talking about why you disliked the Muslim religion, and I'm not quite sure where we're at now. Please explain...

Well, it is pretty easy... Oil, and I'm sure you will agree with me, will not last forever. And once the oil is over many countries will have a problem with getting funds (for example: Iraq, Saudi Arabia and The United Arab Emirates). So you see, when the oil will run out they will have 2 options: find something new to do or starve, because in the desert there is not much you can do... And I told you that my examples Saudi Arabia and The United Arab Emirates have found something to do: turism. They took the american example and make money out of nothing (in our case from sand.... btw do you know they have a sand based theme park ). But you can't do much turism in a country where people would kill themselves in the name of religion. And the conclusion is that they will have to adapt.



I haven't said I disliked muslims because they are muslims, I dislike the fact that religion blinds them. I even have a few muslim friends, but they are all not traditional muslims. They don't eat pig not because they religion doesn't permit them, but because they simply don't like it. And they also drink beer and wine. That is what I like... some free spirits who think for themselves what is good and what is wrong, not what someone tells them.
I have seen last month the way 1000 people died at Mecca in the name of religion. That is what I dislike, faith without reason. Once again I do not dislike muslims for the fact that they are muslims I dislike the fact that they are not open to new, that they are fundamentalists.

It might surprise most people to know that "fundamentalist" islam is actually an islam that's been highly influenced by culture. Unfortunately, since a majority of muslims come from middle-eastern countries, this version of islam is the one that is widely viewed and percieved.

A few posts ago, you mentioned a holiday where some muslims beat themselves with a stick. In actual truth, the original islam forbids any such self-mutilation. The only thing close to self-mutilation is the compulsory circumcision for males and the optional circumcision for females. However, it's widely known that it's extremely hygienic to do this (and i you can do a google on this or juz ask a doctor). Even many non-muslims do it. So this shouldn't be termed self-mutilation.

The fact is that when a "cult" of islam happens, the mainstream muslims don't view that as islam anyore. So what you saw was probably a side-cult that claims itself as islam which the majority (im talkin 97% here) dont practice. The majority of muslims from the new generation of muslims are moderate muslims that dont agree with suicide bombing and condemn the September 11th attacks. They love peace and would only agree for violence in self-defence.

These moderate, mainstream, majority muslims are the ones trying to rid the extremist influences of culture on their religion. Example, it's actually a cultural thing that disallows men from talking to women in public in pakistan. This cultural influence doesnt exist in Malaysia and Indonesia. However, in Malaysia and Indonesia, there are still leftover hindu cultural influences of people believing in spirit doctors, black magic and genie's that do your bidding. This is a culture that doesnt exist in pakistan.

The majority of muslims also believe that capitalism is a must in their religion. Though not capitalism to the extent that you give bad products in exchange for profit. You'd lose business this way anyway. Islam is actually a religion that tells their converts to seek money. Quite a bit surprising actually. All other religions i see ask people to shun material things for spritual things. This is the only one that says satisfying your wife's sexual needs and material needs (they call it fulfilling her rights as a wife) gives more rewards than charity (without fulfilling her rights).

Point im trying to make is that Islam doesnt really need to be reformed. If you're talking about women's rights, they were allowed to vote from the first muslim caliph (ruler) after prophet Muhammad. They were allowed to work from then too. Women participated since the first muslim battles to protect their homeland all the way till when they were building their empire.

So i'd say that they're pretty much ok reform-wise. But still, muslims do need to reform. Note: I said muslims not Islam. It's the minority of muslims with really loud voices (i.e. the terrorists) that need to be re-educated on what their religion asks of them.

Juz for the record, after research, i've decided that the Palestinians are freedom fighters, not terrorists. The Israelis only invaded their land after 1960 something and started calling it Israel. Yeah, it's their holy land in their holy book. But not everyone agrees with the same holy book as they do.

My 2 cents...

Thank you! You've managed to get my point across in one post whereas it's taken me 5+ and I still haven't made it...It's hard to get your point across in your second or third language.

Well I'm pretty sure what I saw... They were hitting themselves with a stick which had at the end some metal things which did quite some damage. I have seen that twice on TV so I'm really sure what I saw. That seems to me as self-mutilation. I have to admit I don't know very much about their culture other then what everyone knows. To be honest I didn't know muslims do circumcisions (i thought only jews do that). Not to mention I'm still in shock after finding out that there is circumcision for females (my friends laughed quite a lot when I told them and they didn't even belive me).



I wasn't necessary taking about women rights to vote. I was talking about their religion in general. Because everything in nature and in life is in constant change. Something that does not change can't possibly get better. A religion that does not get change can't get better. Maybe at the begining the Isam was perfect for that dark times, but in essence it has not changed since it was created. Yet the world has changed... The western world had to pass some serious changes to become what it is today. Consider only that the chuch had to admit many things it did not want... earth not beeing the center of the univers, evolution theory and many others. I don't claim to be perfect and it has problems like the lack of spiritual life, but it made us what we are today. They go to Mecca every year and thousands die. I know Mecca is the birthplace of Prophet Muhammad and it is very important for them, but is it something worth to die for??? What I understand when I say reformed religion is a religion that teaches men to think for themseves before doing something, not doing it because everyone else does it.



I know what the jews have done after the second world war and I do not approve. But that does not excuse terrorism and sure isn't a good example. First of all because this so called "fight for freedom" makes a perfect excuse for the jews to hold that lands. Not to mention the fact that if the jews don't want to release that lands they will never do so, no metter what. They have a strong connection with the USA and other nations of the world (should I remaind you that the USA gives billions of dollars to Israel every year, also should remaind you how many rich jews life all over the world in some very important places).

To end my part in this debate I have one last thing to say. I spoke as a men of science and not of faith. Someone who is religios will, i'm sure, see things differently. I belive human life is worth much more then the promise of a future, better life beyond death. What I wanted you to understand after reading my posts is that religion (in any form) should be a guide and not a law that MUST be followed under any circumstance.

This post has been edited by adriantc: Feb 13 2006, 02:07 PM

Without addressing some of the horribly offensive and indefensible viewpoints in this thread that I think I've read in regards to Muslims, I think I ought to at least share with you guys, that this cartoon riot episode has more to it than just the Danish cartoon.

Did you know that these cartoons in question were published not this year, not last year, but in 2003?

Then, why are they rioting now? is probably the best question to ask. It has to do with Saudi Arabia and the pilgrimage to Mecca, that every healthy Muslim is expected to do at least once in their life. One of these events where this pilgrimage is done by a large gathering of people, in a huge religious festival is called the Hajj, the last of which happened this January (06). It is a huge festival, even though the West doesn't report much on it.

The past few years there have been tragic "stampedes" killing around 250-300 or so people in Saudi Arabia, which puts Saudia Arabia in huge trouble. Their response was to deflect attention and stir up an all out assault on these old cartoons to avoid blame (which sure as hell seems to have worked).

But you should go to DailyKos to read more on it. It's kind of amazing that no real explanation like this has permeated the public, and that it is just about the cartoons. So I hope you guys can take this with you, and hopefully, when others mention the cartoons, tell them there is more to it that it seems. For me, it's really about the corruption of Saudia Arabia.

coming back to the original question of when is a Cartoon too Offensive, I think is the wrong question asked. Everything can be offensive to someone somewhere. I am for example deeply offended by the Teletubbies. But would I throw stones at the British Embassy because of it? No, because it is just a children's programme.

What this means is, you can always offend people, the real question is not is an cartoon to offensive, but how do you deal with it. A good cartoon should tell you something.

When I am offended by someone, or something, I don;t immediately hit back, rather I hold still for a moment and think, why am I offended here? What does it say about me, that I am offended. Why does this story, this cartoon offend me. What can I learn from this? I know that I live in an environment that is hostile to my faith, but does my reaction emphasises or undermines the cartoon?

Offences only work if they hit something. Just don;t let your self be hit by it. That does not mean you have to give in. But you can also just ignore it.

Thank you adriantc. I appreciate the way you answer in a calm and rational way. As i said before, what you saw is probably a "cult" of islam that's dropping the original teachings of islam. As far as i know, Islam has never condoned a lot of things that some cults do. Example: Brotherhood of Islam (in the US). Afro-americans who claim that Islam is only for them and that Islam supports ridding the world of Whites. That's ridiculous. I've seen plenty of white muslims in my time. My ex-neighbour was a white muslim (he moved away a few years ago). Islam is a religion that welcomes all walks of life and is in fact a huge deterrence of discrimination. I've seen 2 muslims who meet for the first time (i.e. in Germany) and even though one is from Sudan and the other from China, one invites the other back to his house for tea! It's incredible. I've never seen that happen for any other belief.

Unfortunately, it is these cults that gain the main attention of the media. Why? Well, everyone wants to see the extreme things. They're just more exciting. So the media obliges and shows them. No one wants to see people living a normal life in a big city with an office job. That's why the only thing you see about the African continent is people dying everywhere with not enough food. It tends to make you forget that cities actually exist there....

And even when we see some of what does happen in certain countries (i.e. arranged marriages in the middle east), we see that this is the effect of CULTURE and not religion. Arranged marriages are not compulsory in Islam. Arranged marriages are the culture of the middle-east, india, pakistan, etc. Many families in India that are NOT muslim have arranged marriages.

So what is actually essential to islam? and you say that religion should be changed to fit the times. I dont agree fully. Religion means values. These values should never be changed. But the way you implement them CAN be. You talk of the church being wrong in terms of science. These were not essential to the religion. The church (in those times) said it was but we know now that they were simply corrupted and wanted to keep control of the public. The values of believing in morality, that sin (towards a fellow human) should not be done, that prayers should be committed to in a disciplined way, that you shouldn't hurt someone else, etc.

In the same way, I believe tha Islam has only a few essentials.
1. Believing in god. (Never hurt anyone before. I'll explain later)
2. To never fight except in self-defense.
3. Prayers, charity, fasting, pilgrimage. (all of which dont harm a third party)
4. A certain dress code. (logic of not seducing the opposite sex?)
5. Not doing certain things that are considered sin. (alcohol, pork, adultery)


The first one never hurt anyone. The 2nd one has sometimes. WHy? Because some people seem to misunderstand what self-defense means. They believe (in this cenario) that the cartoons are a personal attack against them and the only way to defend their religion is by burning danish embassies down. But as we can see now, the majority of muslims (you only see about 3000 out of 2 billion muslims burning things down) are instead retaliating by boycotting danish products. That's the self-defense and the fighting that the majority of the muslims understand. If they all took burning things down as the appropriate move, we'd have half the world in flames. 2 billion muslims, mind you...

All the others are personal choices. If they wish to stay in islam, they should work these things into their lives (slowly is fine too). They're not asking people to immediately know every bloody thing that's asked of them in the religion on the first day of conversion. That's inhumany possible in and of itself.

I dont want to give false ideas of islam. I just want people to know the facts of the religion. It pisses me of that people just say things about it sometimes without proper research or discussion. Not you guys here though. You're all atleast smart enough to have a discussion here about your views before you go telling everyone about how Islam forces everyone to carry AK-47's (machine guns) with them everywhere they go.

If I offended anyone, please point it out and i'll hapily give an apology.

alfredglenstein, it's really interesting what you're saying here. I'll have to do some research before i agree with you, but it does sound logical and valid. However, that does not mean that what that publication did was right.

I suppose that muslims do not know bout these issues, otherwise, they would probably be pissed over those as well. Really? A picture of Mohammed at the supreme court? I never noticed..

To OCAC as well, you have to look at the context where this is taking place. we're talking about the western (european) world where democracy and freedom of speech is important but DOES have limitaions. Blasphemy laws, anti-semitic laws, these all ask (force) the media to limit their freedom of speech.

Try this place out for some of the limitations that are already imposed for other races/religions. http://counterpunch.org/fisk02062006.html

So in the end, we see that european countries have laws that do not allow ANYONE to say anything remotely bad about the jews or the holocaust unless they want to go to jail for a few years like this guy who wrote a book about some fallacies in the holocaust. Irving, his name.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm

So the spirit of the law does recognize that it is criminal to purposely offend someone when you KNOW that it will offend that party. And since the cartoonists were ASKED to draw "cartoons that would offend Muslims", it should therefore be criminal shouldnt it? The reason these cartoons were drawn in the first place is because the editor suspected that the media was self-censoring themselves against insulting Muslims (and rightly so, i believe). He wanted to stop that self-censoring just because it isnt expressly written in the law that it is illegal.

But when you consider anti-semitic sentiments to be illegal. This should be too.

Again, if i offended anyone, please point it out. My 2 cents.