NairaLand muslims please answer the question posed in this thread https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-804399.0.html

thehomer:

Your first post was to make an assertion you're unable to defend. The same habit I've tried to educate you out of but for some reason, you keep making the same mistake. Are you unable to learn from past errors?

You still haven't read it properly. I clearly pointed out an error you made. You choose not to learn. Here's a refresher:

Your opponent's comment

Writings or cartoons by members of dominant communities vilifying the religion of minority groups that are targets of racism are just a manifestation of oppression and incitation to racial hatred. There is a reason why many countries have laws against hate speech.

Your reply

thehomer:

Really? A cartoon is now a sign of oppression and incitement to racial hatred? Sorry but you don't seem to understand the concept behind the idea of free speech. Drawing a cartoon isn't incitement to violence unless the cartoon actually encourages violence. [/b]Now the teachers who saw the cartoons and decided that a good approach would be to murder cartoonists and encouraged people to do so, that is incitement to violence.
How is drawing a cartoon inviting people to kill or oppress other people

My comment on your reply

A straw man. [b]Your opponent clearly described a case where drawing cartoons is oppressive (i.e Writings or cartoons by members of dominant communities vilifying the religion of minority groups that are targets of racism) Read properly b4 you reply.

2buff:

NairaLand muslims please answer the question posed in this thread https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-804399.0.html

Why are muslims finding it terribly difficult to answer the question posed on that thread?

Uyi Iredia:

You still haven't read it properly. I clearly pointed out an error you made. You choose not to learn. Here's a refresher:

Your opponent's comment

Your reply


My comment on your reply

Maybe you should take the time out to show that comment to someone who understands the concepts of fallacies and let them explain it to you. How was my response a straw man?
tbaba1234 claimed that cartoons were a sign of oppression and violence. I pointed out that they weren't except if they actually incited violence. Maybe you too need a refresher on the idea of freedom of speech because criticizing religion isn't oppression.
Please take the time to read and understand ideas before repeating the same mistakes that have been corrected.

@thehomer & Uyi : Your argument is not neccessary.It is derailing the thread. Please end it.

2buff:

Why are muslims finding it terribly difficult to answer the question posed on that thread?

I have a family member(a muslim) with such an experience. These experiences are however subjective and do not represent reality.

Muslims can not be bothered because our belief is an objective belief based on reason. Our faith is based on undeniable proofs and evidences and not on subjective experiences.

My family member reinforced his faith based on his 'experience' but it is not something, we take too seriously.

tbaba1234:

@thehomer & Uyi : Your argument is not neccessary.It is derailing the thread. Please end it.

I have a family member(a muslim) with such an experience. These experiences are however subjective and do not represent reality.

Muslims can not be bothered because our belief is an objective belief based on reason. Our faith is based on undeniable proofs and evidences and not on subjective experiences.

My family member reinforced his faith based on his 'experience' but it is not something, we take too seriously.

Based on reason Is that some kind of joke or what

You keep saying reason, but it is illogical for intelligent beings to believe to the contrary of what is factual.

And what proofs ? That the sun sets in a muddy pool, or that Satan hates yawning, or that Mo went to Jerusalem on some kinda weird animal. What's all this nonsense you call fact.

More like fallacy and tall tales if you ask Me.

Muhammad has all of you hoodwinked. Go figure !!!!

Okay okay okay. to be honest I get sick to my stomach at the heights of these arguments (that unfortunately I have been drawn into as well from time to time).
Let's stop causing each other offense & grief and leave each one to their own. God will sort that out in his time.

Frosbel, If it's someone's time to come to Christ, trust, you won't even need to argue with them. They just do. . . because the holy Spirit has worked.
Let all argumentative energies be transmutated into prayers that the Holy Spirit works as that is the only way to change, not arguments.

2buff:

Okay okay okay. to be honest I get sick to my stomach at the heights of these arguments (that unfortunately I have been drawn into as well from time to time).
Let's stop causing each other offense & grief and leave each one to their own. God will sort that out in his time.

That is why i created this thread to create useful discussion and an understanding between faiths and clear up falsehoods and outright misunderstanding by other faith groups.

God Almighty says, "Hold to forgiveness; command what is right, but turn away from the ignorant," (Q7:199)

I am glad to see people like you, willing to have civil discussions.

Dhul-Qarnayn and where the sun sets.

Sun does not set in a murky pool

Some Christian missionaries claim that the Quran teaches Muslims that the sun sets in a murky pool. I wonder how people who don't even understand the arabic language and its rules come up with such conclusions, even the earliest muslims did not come up with such conclusions.

18:86. Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness."

A common Christian objection to the verse is by claiming it to be a “scientific contradiction”, they reason: If the presence of scientific facts can prove the Qur’an’s divine origins, the presence of scientific falsehood can disprove divine origins. For example, Sura’ 18:86 :

This is a false claim, the Quran does not teach such inaccuracy.

Critics of this verse should be aware that the Qur’an is not descriptive prose, and the words of the Qur’an is of high poetical eloquence, something which the Bible is not able to claim. Since the beauty of the Qur’an is in its poetical nature, therefore it is only natural that the Qur’an uses emphatic expressions to describe something like a “sunset”. Keep in mind that the Qur’an is in poetical prose and is meant to be a challenge to the pagan Arabs in Mecca who prided themselves as writers of good poetry. Those neophytes who like to use this verse as a stick to beat Islam with should try to study the Arabian Literature and History of that period before coming up with silly conclusions.

“Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: “O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness.”

This English translation was taken from A. Yusuf Ali. Let us analyse the verse part by part.

“Until, when he reached the setting of the sun…”: The translation of this part of the verse does not say that Zul-Qarnain reached the place where the sun sets LITERALLY, rather it means here that Zul-Qarnain was facing the direction in which the sun is setting. The “setting of the sun,” is an Arabic idiom meaning ‘the western-most point’ of his expedition. However, in general, idioms should not be literally translated.

“…he found it set in a spring of murky water”: The Qur’an is obviously describing what Dhul-Qarnain saw. What Dhul-Qarnain saw was the image of the sun setting in a dark body of water. Since the Qur’an is clearly describing this from Dhul-Qarnain’s direct point of view (the Qur’an is quite explicit here in doing that), there is in fact no problem with the description of what Dhul-Qarnain saw. Of course the Critic is right when he says that “the sun does not set in a spring of murky water”, but try standing at a beach during the time when the sun is about to set and the Critic would be able to see the sun “entering” the sea far in the horizon. This therefore gives us the conclusion that Dhul-Qarnain was somewhere west and by a large body of water, possibly the sea.

Therefore, it is clear the verse says that Dhul-Qarnain went west and saw the sun setting over the horizon so that it looked to him as though it was setting into the sea, which is murky-looking. Probably the critic have never stood by on the beach and observe the sun set.

For further clarification of our explanation, we reproduce two other translations of the same verse by M. M. Pickthall and Shakir.

Translation by M. M. Pickthall:

Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout. We said: O Dhu’l-Qarneyn! Either punish or show them kindness. (Qur’an 18:86)

Translation by Shakir:

Until when he reached the place where the sun set, he found it going down into a black sea, and found by it a people. We said: ‘O Zulqarnain! either give them a chastisement or do them a benefit.’ (Qur’an 18:86)

We can see that the general agreement of the translations of this verse is that Zul-Qarnain saw the sun setting into the horizon that it looks like it is setting into a body of water (sea) that looks murky-looking. That this verse was never taken literally was not alien in the understanding of the early commentators.

In his famous commentary known as Al-Game’ Le Ahkam-el-Qur’an, Imam Al-Qurtubi (died 671 AH/1273 CE) wrote about this verse:

It is not meant by reaching the rising or setting of the sun that he reached its body and touched it because it runs in the sky around the earth without touching it and it is too great to enter any spring on earth. It is so much larger than earth. But it is meant that he reached the end of populated land east and west, so he found it – according to his vision – setting in a spring of a murky water like we watch it in smooth land as if it enters inside the land. That is why He said, “he found it rising on a people for whom we had provided no covering protection against the sun.” (Holy Qur’an 18:90) and did not mean that it touches or adheres to them; but they are the first to rise on. Probably this spring is a part of the sea and the sun sets behind, with or at it, so the proposition takes the place of an adjective and God knows best.

Imam Fakhr-ud-Deen Ar-Razi wrote in his commentary on the same verse, that:

When Zul-Qarnain reached the furthest west and no populated land was left, he found the sun as if it sets in a dark spring, but it is not in reality. The same when sea traveler sees the sun as if it sets in the sea if he cannot see the shore while in reality it sets behind the sea. 1

Imam Ibn Kathir (701-774 AH/1302-1373 CE) wrote in his commentary about this verse, that:

“Until, when he reached the setting of the sun” means he followed a certain way till he reached the furthest land he could go from the west. As for reaching the setting of the sun in the sky, it is impossible. What narrators and story tellers say that he walked for a period of time in earth while the sun was setting behind him is unreal, and most of it is from myths of People of the Book and inventions of their liars. “he found it set in a spring of murky water” means he saw the sun according to his vision setting in the ocean and this is the same with everyone ending to the shore seeing as if the sun sets inside it (i.e. the ocean).2

And finally, to strengthen our observation that the part of the verse above is indeed poetical in nature and that the Qur’an had never meant the statement to be “scientific”, let us now see a picture of the sun setting in the horizon.

[img]https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS7Rz1lRIFsWlvofActmN9SUdzUMgxh4ES8K1-IsI-75uhJTlG0Aw[/img]

Thus, it is clear to us that the above-mentioned verse is only considered “unscientific” if we would also consider that similar emphatically-used phrases such as “Japan, the land of the rising sun” or “Sabah, the land beneath the wind” to be “unscientific” as well.

So who is the one that is actually “intellectually dishonest as well as a bit silly”?

thehomer:

Maybe you should take the time out to show that comment to someone who understands the concepts of fallacies and let them explain it to you. How was my response a straw man?
tbaba1234 claimed that cartoons were a sign of oppression and violence. I pointed out that they weren't except if they actually incited violence. Maybe you too need a refresher on the idea of freedom of speech because criticizing religion isn't oppression.
Please take the time to read and understand ideas before repeating the same mistakes that have been corrected.

Really ! Look at this

Writings or cartoons by members of dominant communities vilifying the religion of minority groups that are targets of racism are just a manifestation of oppression and incitation to racial hatred.

and your statement here

tbaba1234 claimed that cartoons were a sign of oppression and violence.

The discrepancy is obvious. Please read properly b4 you reply. I'll repeat it again. Read properly then reply.

Uyi Iredia:

Really ! Look at this

[Quote]
Writings or cartoons by members of dominant communities vilifying the religion of minority groups that are targets of racism are just a manifestation of oppression and incitation to racial hatred.

and your statement here

tbaba1234 claimed that cartoons were a sign of oppression and violence.

The discrepancy is obvious. Please read properly b4 you reply. I'll repeat it again. Read properly then reply.
[/quote]

It appears that English Language comprehension is a bit difficult for you.
tbaba1234 thinks that cartoons criticizing religion is a manifestation (sign) and incitement to violence. I am pointing out that it isn't. What is so difficult for you to understand? Please tell me the particular word or phrase that confuses you.

thehomer:

and your statement here

The discrepancy is obvious. Please read properly b4 you reply. I'll repeat it again. Read properly then reply.


It appears that English Language comprehension is a bit difficult for you.
tbaba1234 thinks that cartoons criticizing religion is a manifestation (sign) and incitement to violence. I am pointing out that it isn't. What is so difficult for you to understand? Please tell me the particular word or phrase that confuses you.

and you continue to show that you do not read properly. tbaba talked of cartoons vilifying (not criticizing) the religions of specific groups . Apparently you equivocate the word 'criticize' with 'vilify'. Your comprehension is poor in this regard.

Uyi Iredia:

and you continue to show that you do not read properly. tbaba talked of cartoons vilifying (not criticizing) the religions of specific groups . Apparently you equivocate the word 'criticize' with 'vilify'. Your comprehension is poor in this regard.

Oh so the word vilify is what has you confused.
This is embarrassing since you're online and you seem unable to look up words.

Here are a few definitions of the word:

Wiktionary:
    (transitive) To say defamatory things about someone or something.
    (transitive) To belittle through speech; to put down.

Synonyms

    (say defamatory things about): assail, criticize, decry, denounce, libel, slander
    (belittle, put down): berate

dictionary.com:

1. to speak ill of; defame; slander.
2. Obsolete . to make vile.

Synonyms
1.  depreciate, disparage, calumniate, malign, abuse, asperse, blacken.

oxforddictionaries.com:

speak or write about in an abusively disparaging manner:

What is so special about religion that makes you think it shouldn't be vilified? Or do you think religion is one of those sacred cows that shouldn't be touched?
You're still showing your ignorance of the concept of freedom of speech. Religion is one of those things that can and should be criticized or vilified. Whichever word you prefer.
Maybe you should try using a dictionary or take the time to actually read and understand what I wrote before making yourself appear so ignorant.

I do feel that such criticism should be confined within issues of religious doctrine and not the character of the believers. Criticizing the Prophet Muhammed is still within doctrine.

@tb123
you do consider scientific theories which conflict with religious doctrines false? Why and on what basis?

Kay 17:

I do feel that such criticism should be confined within issues of religious doctrine and not the character of the believers. Criticizing the Prophet Muhammed is still within doctrine.

@tb123
you do consider scientific theories which conflict with religious doctrines false? Why and on what basis?

If you presented with clear, undeniable evidence and presented with a scientific hypothesis based on deduction. Which will you choose?

There is no scientific fact that the Quran contradicts,  not one.

thehomer:

Oh so the word vilify is what has you confused.
This is embarrassing since you're online and you seem unable to look up words.

Here are a few definitions of the word:

What is so special about religion that makes you think it shouldn't be vilified? Or do you think religion is one of those sacred cows that shouldn't be touched?
You're still showing your ignorance of the concept of freedom of speech. Religion is one of those things that can and should be criticized or vilified. Whichever word you prefer.
Maybe you should try using a dictionary or take the time to actually read and understand what I wrote before making yourself appear so ignorant.

The word 'criticize' is different from the word 'vilified' (not minding the fact they can be used interchangeably). You overlooked this. Apparently, you did not use the dictionary properly. Also you overlooked my emphasis that specific religious groups were targeted. Once again, read properly, then reply.

Uyi Iredia:

The word 'criticize' is different from the word 'vilified' (not minding the fact they can be used interchangeably). You overlooked this. Apparently, you did not use the dictionary properly. Also you overlooked my emphasis that specific religious groups were targeted. Once again, read properly, then reply.

It seems you don't even understand what you're saying. The fact that they can be used interchangeably means they can be synonymous which is how I used it. You didn't realize that until I pointed it out to you in the dictionaries.
Your emphasis is pointless because there is nothing wrong with criticizing a religion. Please educate yourself on the ideas of freedom of speech.

thehomer:

It seems you don't even understand what you're saying. The fact that they can be used interchangeably means they can be synonymous which is how I used it. You didn't realize that until I pointed it out to you in the dictionaries.
Your emphasis is pointless because there is nothing wrong with criticizing a religion. Please educate yourself on the ideas of freedom of speech.

You still did not read properly. The words 'vilify' and 'criticize' are different. Of course, my emphasis was on tbaba's talk of specific religions (which are targets of racism). Also note that vilifying a religion is wrong (in some places illegal) criticizing of course is tolerable. Please read properly, then reply.

not trying to titillate anybody here, but what is the pc position of Islam and s.ex?

is it a taboo topic, and if so, how are sincere muslims expected to discuss or learn about such things before, during or after marriage.

emphasis on sincere, not the players who already know everything there is to know. Also, not referencing draconian traditions where the woman is expressly tortured on suspicion of such.

is reading of material allowed, eg M&Bs, etc.

given the fact that an arabic book is one of the most popular s.ex manuals available, how do you reconcile this with the celibacy expected of a true muslim, and thirdly, how many religious muslims (especially nigerian ones) have actually read or heard of this book.

please dont check it out if you're not the exposed obesere type.

just curious.

i know its a sensitive topic.

the elephant in the room, etc etc.

Uyi Iredia:

You still did not read properly. The words 'vilify' and 'criticize' are different. Of course, my emphasis was on tbaba's talk of specific religions (which are targets of racism). Also note that vilifying a religion is wrong (in some places illegal) criticizing of course is tolerable. Please read properly, then reply.

Now it appears that you're unable to read and comprehend simple English grammar. What you need to realize is that there is nothing wrong with criticizing, belittling, disparaging, denouncing, speaking ill of or maligning religion. Please use a dictionary while you're online.
The fact that criticizing Islam in Saudi Arabia is a crime doesn't mean Saudi Arabia is doing something praiseworthy in these times.

tpia@:

not trying to titillate anybody here, but what is the pc position of Islam and s.ex?

is it a taboo topic, and if so, how are sincere muslims expected to discuss or learn about such things before, during or after marriage.

emphasis on sincere, not the players who already know everything there is to know. Also, not referencing draconian traditions where the woman is expressly tortured on suspicion of such.

is reading of material allowed, eg M&Bs, etc.

given the fact that an arabic book is one of the most popular s.ex manuals available, how do you reconcile this with the celibacy expected of a true muslim, and thirdly, how many religious muslims (especially nigerian ones) have actually read or heard of this book.

please dont check it out if you're not the exposed obesere type.

The islamic position to sex is that it is only permissible amongst married couple.  It is our firm belief that facts about sex should be taught to children in a way commensurate with their age as they grow up both by the family and the school. We emphasize that this should be done within the total context of Islamic ideology and Islamic teaching, so that the youth-beside getting the correct physiologic knowledge become fully aware on the sanctity of the intimate relation in Islam and the grave sin of blemishing such sanctity whether under Islamic law, or far more important in the sight of God.

At the time of the prophet, muslims men and women were never too shy to ask the prophet about all affairs, including such private affairs as intimate life, so as to know the teachings and rulings of their religion concerning them. As Aisha, the wife of the prophet testified, "Blessed are the women of the Ansar (the citizens of Madina). Shyness did not stand in their way seeking knowledge about their religion." (All except Termizi).

No reading of magazines that show s.exual activities is allowed. There is no shyness in the religion and parents should not be shy about teaching their children about sex in a gradual manner as they mature. It is important to teach them about the responsibility that comes with s.exual activities.

Also, it is important to allow young mature people to get married early to help them overcome s.exual deviation and corruption in our highly sexualized societies. Parents can support them till they can take care of themselves, however the parents have no right to force a partner on them.

Allah's Apostle said, "O Young people! Whoever among you can marry , should marry , because it helps him lower his gaze and guard his modesty,  (i.e. his private parts from committing illegal intimate intercourse etc.)

If the resources are not available , it is important that they keep themselves chaste:

Allah swt says:

And let those who find not the financial means for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allâh enriches them of His Bounty, (An-Nur 24:33)

I hope this helps.

And Allah knows best,

Articles of Faith

God

Monotheism is central to Islam—a belief in only One God, Unitary, Supreme and Eternal, Omnipotent and Mighty, Merciful and Compassionate. Belief in a plurality of gods or in the extension of God's divinity to any person is emphatically rejected. Islam rejects the human attributes that the Jews and the Christians added to their doctrines such as God’s wrestling with his prophet or the incarnation of God. God created nature through a primordial act of mercy; otherwise there would be pure nothingness. God provided each element of his creation with its own proper nature, or laws governing its conduct, so that it follows a characteristic pattern. The result is a well ordered harmonious whole, a cosmos in which everything has its proper place and limitations.

Messengers of God

A Muslim has to believe in all the messengers of God without any distinction among them. Every known nation has at least one messenger from God. They were chosen by God to guide mankind and deliver His divine message that is submission to the Will and Laws of God. They were sent at different times and places. All prophets are human; they have no share in divinity, but they are the most perfect exemplars for humanity. The Quran mentions the names of twenty-five prophets, and Muslims accept them all. All prophets are considered national or local messengers, with the exception of Muhammad who is considered a prophet for all nations and all time. The message of all prophets was basically the same because it came from One God. Muhammad stands as the last messenger, and the crowning glory of the foundation of the prophethood. This is not an arbitrary attitude, nor is it just a convenient belief. Thus, the Quran describes Muhammad as the "Seal of all Prophets." From this arises the Islamic belief that prophethood was accomplished and finished with him and that the Quran is the final and authentic perfect revelation of God, consummating and superseding all earlier holy books. The Quran acknowledges the miracles of earlier prophets (Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and others). Muhammad’s eternal miracle is the Quran, the like of which no human can reproduce.

Although right and wrong are inscribed in the human heart, the inability or refusal of many people to interpret that inscription has made prophetic guidance necessary. This guidance is universal; no one on earth has been left without it. Adam was the first prophet; after his expulsion from the Garden of Eden, God forgave him (for this reason Islam does not accept the doctrine of original sin). The messages of all prophets emanate from the same divine source. Religions are, therefore, basically one. They all call for worshiping One God.

The Holy Books

As a result of believing in all the messengers of God, Muslims also have to believe in all the scriptures and revelations of God. In the Quran, a special reference is made to the books of Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus. But long before the revelation of the Quran to Muhammad, all the holy books had been lost or altered. The Quran stands untainted for the past 14 centuries.

The Angels of God

Muslims believe in the Angels of God. They are purely spiritual and splendid beings, whose nature requires no food, drink or sleep. They have no physical desires of any kind nor material needs. They spend their whole time in the service of God. There are many of them and each one of them is charged with a specific duty. If we cannot see the Angels with our naked eyes, it does not necessarily deny their actual existence. There are many things in the world that are invisible to the eye or inaccessible to our senses, and yet we believe in their existence e.g. electricity and sound. Belief in the Angels originates from the Islamic principle that knowledge and truth are not entirely confined to the sensory knowledge or the sensory perception alone.

The Day of Judgment

The divine activities of creation, sustenance, and guidance end with the final act of judgment. This world will come to an end some day, and the dead will rise to stand for their final and fair trial. On the Day of Judgment, all humanity will be gathered, and individuals will be judged solely according to their deeds. The "successful ones" will go to the Garden (heaven), and the "losers," or the evil will go to hell. Because God is merciful, He will forgive those who deserve forgiveness. Only God knows the real nature of heaven and hell, and their exact descriptions.

If some people think that they are shrewd enough and can get away with their wrong doings in this life, they are wrong, for they will not be able to do so on the Day of Judgment. Also, if some pious people do good deeds to please God and seem to have no appreciation or acknowledgment in this temporary world, they will eventually receive their full reward on that day. Absolute justice will prevail for all.

Belief in the Day of Judgment is the final relieving answer to many complicated problems of our world. There are people who commit sins, neglect God, and indulge in immoral activities, yet they seem to be "superficially" successful in business and prosperous in life. And there are virtuous and God-minded people. Yet they seem to be getting fewer rewards and more suffering in this life. This may seem puzzling and incompatible with the Justice of God. If the guilty can escape the human laws unharmed and, in addition, be more prosperous, what is, then, left for the virtuous people? There must be some way to reward goodness and arrest evil. If this is not done here on earth, and we know that it is not done regularly or immediately, it has to be done some day. That day is the Day of Judgment. This is not to ignore injustice or tolerate mischief in this world. This is not to sedate the deprived or comfort the exploiters. Rather, it is to warn the deviants from the right path and remind them that the Justice of God shall run its full course sooner or later.

Besides the Last Judgment, which will be on individuals, the Quran recognizes another form of divine judgment, which happens to nations, peoples, and communities. Nations, like individuals, may be corrupted by wealth, power, and arrogance, and, unless they reform, these nations are punished by being destroyed or subjugated by more virtuous nations. This has been evident all over the history of humanity.

The Ultimate Plan

Muslims believe in the timeless knowledge of God and in His Power to plan and execute His Plans. God is not indifferent to His world nor is He neutral to it. His knowledge and power are in action at all times to keep order in His vast domain and maintain full command over His creation. He is Wise and Loving, and whatever He does must have a good motive and a meaningful purpose. If this is established in our minds, we should accept in good faith all that He does, although we may fail to understand it fully, or even think it is bad. We should have strong faith in Him and accept whatever He does because our knowledge is limited and our thinking is based upon individual or personal considerations, whereas His Knowledge is limitless and He plans on a universal as well as individual basis.

This does not in any way make man helpless. It simply draws the line between what is God’s concern and what is man’s responsibility. Because we are by nature finite and limited, we have a finite and limited degree of power and freedom. We cannot do everything, and He graciously holds us responsible only for the things we do. The things that we cannot do, or things that He Himself does, are not in the realm of our responsibility. He is Just and has given us limited power to match our finite nature and limited responsibility. On the other hand, the timeless knowledge and power of God to execute His plans do not prevent us from making our own plans in our limited sphere of power. As a matter of fact, God encourages us to think, to plan and to make sound choices, but if things do not happen the way we wanted or planned, we should not loose faith or surrender ourselves to mental strains and shattering worries. We should try again and again, and if the results are not still what we wanted, then we know that we tried our best and rest assured that we are not held responsible for the results. The important point is to try, and then leave the results to God. The Muslims call this article of faith: the belief in "Qadaa" and "Qadar", which simply means, in other words, that the Timeless knowledge of God anticipates events, and that events take place according to the exact knowledge of God.

http://www.usislam.org/83articl.htm

thehomer:

Now it appears that you're unable to read and comprehend simple English grammar. What you need to realize is that there is nothing wrong with criticizing, belittling, disparaging, denouncing, speaking ill of or maligning religion. Please use a dictionary while you're online.
The fact that criticizing Islam in Saudi Arabia is a crime doesn't mean Saudi Arabia is doing something praiseworthy in these times.

Vilifying specific groups of religions that are targets of racism is obviously wrong. I hope this sinks in. Once again, read properly, then reply.

^^^
Man give well said, but you should know homer by now, knows he is wrong but won't admit that. @ homer you might want to consider why people in Germany are not allowed to vilify historical event or claim they never happen, it seems you own understanding of freedom only applies to insulting religion, that in itself is sheer dishonesty, don't you think?

The cartoons simply criticised muhammed and violence resulting from islamic inspiration. But muslims dont like muhammed to be criticised at all. Thats the barrier to freedom of speech

Uyi Iredia:

Vilifying specific groups of religions that are targets of racism is obviously wrong. I hope this sinks in. Once again, read properly, then reply.

You must still be confused.
Do you think vilifying Islam which is a target of racism in the U.S. is wrong? Maybe you need to realize that people are different from their religion. Think properly, then reply.

vedaxcool:

^^^
Man give well said, but you should know homer by now, knows he is wrong but won't admit that. @ homer you might want to consider why people in Germany are not allowed to vilify historical event or claim they never happen, it seems you own understanding of freedom only applies to insulting religion, that in itself is sheer dishonesty, don't you think?

If I'm wrong, I'll rather you showed it to me. Then I'll accept it if your claim is true.
If you're talking about the holocaust, please tell me how that is a religion.

Kay 17:

The cartoons simply criticised muhammed and violence resulting from islamic inspiration. But muslims dont like muhammed to be criticised at all. Thats the barrier to freedom of speech

There is no valid criticism of the prophet that can't be easily rebuked, Those cartoons went beyond just criticism , it made a mockery of a man revered by billions of people. There are some muslims that overreacted but most people will overreact if someone made fun of their mother for instance.

On the issue of freedom of speech, absolute freedom of speech is an aberration: That is why you can't write an op-ed on the new york times using racist slurs or swear words, And that is why in mainstream media, you can't make statements that go against the established story of the holocaust. These things are socially unacceptable. There are laws in some western nations against hate speech for a reason.

Not only do those cartoons insult the prophet and muslims as a whole. They project a stereotype on a minority in a society, a stereotype that makes them susceptible to hate crimes. People get fired from media companies for insulting jews for instance, rick sanchez of cnn was fired for antisemitic comments. Why? there were not socially acceptable. Helen thomas, a veteran white house reporter lost everything because she simply said that the jews in israel should go back to europe. Why? Because these comments were considered socially unacceptable in the societies where they lived: America.

However, when muslims are insulted and mocked, it is open season for freedom of speech advocates, There has to be a balance between what is considered freedom of speech and what is socially acceptable.

A structured criticism of the prophet can be easily debunked but when you go as far as vilifying an entire civilization. That is socially unacceptable.

Criticizing Islam isn't hate speech. Neither is criticizing Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, Abraham or God hate speech.

No muslims were not mocked, Islamic inspired violence was. Muhammed is a central figure in the doctrines of Islam, he is Islam, criticizing his lifestyle, acts and reasoning is the same as criticizing Islam.

Kay 17:

No muslims were not mocked, Islamic inspired violence was. Muhammed is a central figure in the doctrines of Islam, he is Islam, criticizing his lifestyle, acts and reasoning is the same as criticizing Islam.

Kindly read the first comment again,

How does "islamic inspired violence" represent the prophet? If you knew anything about him, you will know that murdering innocent people is something he stood against, muslims commiting acts of terror represent less than 0.1% of the total muslim population, would you depict Jesus(peace be upon him) as a member of the KKK or groups blowing up abortion clinics in the U.S.? , Muslim terror represents just about 6% of global terror acts(FBI 2005 fact), you wouldn't know that from all the media attention.

Like i said criticism of the prophet or islam is fine. Islam has the answers,

But that was not criticism. It was an insult/mocking of someone that is loved dearly by all muslims, how would you react if your mum was insulted? ,

There is a limit to the freedom of speech and those limits were exceeded by those cartoons. (kindly read the two comments before commenting),