Abuamam:


You are looking at a one-off event. Also, taking his pix and throwing it in the mud is not the same as abusing your father, explicitly, verbally and publicly, on a REGULAR basis, worldwide. They are drawing provocative pictures. How would you like to see pictures purporting to be those of your naked father in perverted positions in a newspaper/ magazine? You are simplifying the event.

Let me ask you...

What purpose do these insulting cartoons have?

Abuamam:


Who is talking about better or worse here? We are talking about human behaviour. I am merely putting it to you that this behaviour is not restricted to Muslims, although Muslims are more often newsworthy when violence is mentioned. Christians have bombed abortion clinics. Recently, Angola has had to shut down dozens of pentecostal cults after the latest shootout with some of them. An atheist killed 3 Muslims in the US. A christian pilot crashed his plane with all passengers on board. These are all recent, and tgere are thousands more that never make headlines unless the perpetrator is called Abdullah or Mohammed. Nor do all Muslims feel that shooting innocent unbelievers is rewardeable, otherwise this world would have been rapidly depopulated. All I am asking is that you use the same standards to judge adherents of all religions, and to not judge selectively. No religion has a monopoly on violence and violent adherents.

Perhaps this will give you a more objective perspective of the ongoing extremist Muslim vs extremist Xtian picture ongoing in that location...


http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/garland-texas-scene-last-nights-shootings-hotbed-anti-muslim-bigotry

DProDG:


You do realize the emboldened is what we and pretty much everyone else is doing, right? It's not our fault that Muslim violence and terrorism has no competition.

Unless you watch Fox News, there's pretty much no bias(sometimes they are the only ones brave enough to call a spade a spade). Abortion clinic bombings? Really? Bringing up isolated events does in anyway change the fact that Islamic groups are topping(and with a huge margin) the terror lists. "Not all Muslims" is a joke of a defense because no one said that in the first place.

The only reason there are events like Draw Mohammed Day is because Muslims try to suppress freedom of speech. Ever heard of a Draw Jesus Day? Then again it's no one's business how much you love him or anyone else; violence is violence.

Abuamam:

That I have the freedom to insult your father in public, does not mean I should. Pamela Geller and her likes are not trying to uphold free speech. They are actively creating enmity between Muslims and non-Muslims. No one is disputing her right to draw abusive cartoons, but does that mean she should? I think free speech that is harmful to society and disrespectful, even to one individual; not to talk of billions; should not be supported. There are things like 'manners', 'values' and 'mutual respect' between different groups. Where you feel that you have the right to disrespect an individual, to the point that you incite his hatred, then he may also feel that he has the right to kill you. And what have you gained from the incitement?

Again I ask you. What is the objective of insulting the prophet (saw) incessantly?

Do you think that Muslims will be forced to learn to accept those cartoons, and submit to their prophet being ridiculed?

Do you think that by drawing obscene pictures of the prophet (saw) that Muslims will suddenly mass convert to xtianity?

Or do you think that the situation will continue, with one incitement here, one shooting or bombing there, rapidly escalating until one or the other adherents of a religion, incite some major attack against the other, and millions die?

I think the last is the most likely outcome, if the likes of Pamela Geller are applauded as 'free speech' champions. I remember reading about certain radio stations in Rwanda that were also championing 'free speech' in the run-ups to the April 1994 genocide.

Look at just one example of what her campaign is teaching KIDS...

http://www.onislam.net/english/news/americas/485541-children-vandalize-tulsa-islamic-school.html

So much as non-Muslims love to be liberal with the tar brush when painting Muslims, and whitewash their own misdeeds, in reality, there are ugly, violent groups in all religions. The only difference is that the Muslim ones get plenty of free advertising.

DProDG:


I am not a supporter of Geller and I do not consider purposeless provocation progressive either. This does not change the fact this was an attempt(counter-productive maybe) to uphold freedom of speech, a fundamental human right. If one's knee-jerk reaction to provocation is violence and murder, he/she doesn't deserve any respect whatsoever.

Muslims earned the poor reputation themselves. We can all agree on their really bad track record. Christians for example do not face ridicule because their general response to such. However, most Muslims on the other hand would rather condemn satire, free-speech and everything else that goes with it before(if) they condemn the murder. You never hear of shootings during neo-nazi protests although they are equally provocative to a large number of people. Of all the magazines published by Charlie Hebdo, only Muslims got 'offended'. Demanding others to respect a figure in your personal belief is imposing your religion on others.

When people like Anjem Choudary are role-models and speakers for a lot of Muslims, how do you expect the respect of the general public? There are lots of Muslim riots and protests, some violent and provocative, yet you hardly see anti-Muslim attacks; when you do, they are condemned en masse. Same cannot be said on the contrary.

Does 'the media' downplay negative reports from specific demographics? Yes, to some extent I agree. Does it over blow acts of terror by Muslims? Not by a long shot.

tayebest:
whoever disobeys Allah
and His Messenger the and really indicate that there is more differenciation among them... I advice you to read the Quran more sir!

Abuamam:


Come on. You want to build your entire premise on your ambiguous misinterpretation of this one verse, ignoring literally thousands of evidences that state clearly the position of Allah, and the position of the prophet (saw) in Islam?

Anyway, obedience to the messenger is obviously obedience to He Who sent him. It does not in any way imply that the messenger is the Sender. Hardly rocket science.

Abuamam:


That I have the freedom to insult your father in public, does not mean I should. Pamela Geller and her likes are not trying to uphold free speech. They are actively creating enmity between Muslims and non-Muslims. No one is disputing her right to draw abusive cartoons, but does that mean she should? I think free speech that is harmful to society and disrespectful, even to one individual; not to talk of billions; should not be supported. There are things like 'manners', 'values' and 'mutual respect' between different groups. Where you feel that you have the right to disrespect an individual, to the point that you incite his hatred, then he may also feel that he has the right to kill you. And what have you gained from the incitement?

Again I ask you. What is the objective of insulting the prophet (saw) incessantly?

Do you think that Muslims will be forced to learn to accept those cartoons, and submit to their prophet being ridiculed?

Do you think that by drawing obscene pictures of the prophet (saw) that Muslims will suddenly mass convert to xtianity?

Or do you think that the situation will continue, with one incitement here, one shooting or bombing there, rapidly escalating until one or the other adherents of a religion, incite some major attack against the other, and millions die?

I think the last is the most likely outcome, if the likes of Pamela Geller are applauded as 'free speech' champions. I remember reading about certain radio stations in Rwanda that were also championing 'free speech' in the run-ups to the April 1994 genocide.

Look at just one example of what her campaign is teaching KIDS...

http://www.onislam.net/english/news/americas/485541-children-vandalize-tulsa-islamic-school.html

So much as non-Muslims love to be liberal with the tar brush when painting Muslims, and whitewash their own misdeeds, in reality, there are ugly, violent groups in all religions. The only difference is that the Muslim ones get plenty of free advertising.

DProDG:


I am not a supporter of Geller and I do not consider purposeless provocation progressive either. This does not change the fact this was an attempt(counter-productive maybe) to uphold freedom of speech, a fundamental human right. If one's knee-jerk reaction to provocation is violence and murder, he/she doesn't deserve any respect whatsoever.

Muslims earned the poor reputation themselves. We can all agree on their really bad track record. Christians for example do not face ridicule because their general response to such. However, most Muslims on the other hand would rather condemn satire, free-speech and everything else that goes with it before(if) they condemn the murder. You never hear of shootings during neo-nazi protests although they are equally provocative to a large number of people. Of all the magazines published by Charlie Hebdo, only Muslims got 'offended'. Demanding others to respect a figure in your personal belief is imposing your religion on others.

When people like Anjem Choudary are role-models and speakers for a lot of Muslims, how do you expect the respect of the general public? There are lots of Muslim riots and protests, some violent and provocative, yet you hardly see anti-Muslim attacks; when you do, they are condemned en masse. Same cannot be said on the contrary.

Does 'the media' downplay negative reports from specific demographics? Yes, to some extent I agree. Does it over blow acts of terror by Muslims? Not by a long shot.

onetrack:


I've read the entire Quran, many parts of it more than once. There is differentiation only in form but not substance. What Muhammad said has the same force and validity as "Allah".

tayebest:
proof or get goofed, that Allah and Muhammed are same is 'substance'

onetrack:


Look at the way Muslims react when Muhammad is criticised or mocked. That speaks volumes about what they think of him.

tayebest:
Give me proof or walk out of thread!

Abuamam:


That I have the freedom to insult your father in public, does not mean I should. Pamela Geller and her likes are not trying to uphold free speech. They are actively creating enmity between Muslims and non-Muslims. No one is disputing her right to draw abusive cartoons, but does that mean she should? I think free speech that is harmful to society and disrespectful, even to one individual; not to talk of billions; should not be supported. There are things like 'manners', 'values' and 'mutual respect' between different groups. Where you feel that you have the right to disrespect an individual, to the point that you incite his hatred, then he may also feel that he has the right to kill you. And what have you gained from the incitement?

Again I ask you. What is the objective of insulting the prophet (saw) incessantly?

Do you think that Muslims will be forced to learn to accept those cartoons, and submit to their prophet being ridiculed?

Do you think that by drawing obscene pictures of the prophet (saw) that Muslims will suddenly mass convert to xtianity?

Or do you think that the situation will continue, with one incitement here, one shooting or bombing there, rapidly escalating until one or the other adherents of a religion, incite some major attack against the other, and millions die?

I think the last is the most likely outcome, if the likes of Pamela Geller are applauded as 'free speech' champions. I remember reading about certain radio stations in Rwanda that were also championing 'free speech' in the run-ups to the April 1994 genocide.

Look at just one example of what her campaign is teaching KIDS...

http://www.onislam.net/english/news/americas/485541-children-vandalize-tulsa-islamic-school.html

So much as non-Muslims love to be liberal with the tar brush when painting Muslims, and whitewash their own misdeeds, in reality, there are ugly, violent groups in all religions. The only difference is that the Muslim ones get plenty of free advertising.

Do you think that by drawing obscene pictures of the prophet (saw) that Muslims will suddenly mass convert to xtianity?

remember reading about certain radio stations in Rwanda that were also championing 'free speech' in the run-ups to the April 1994 genocide.

Ifeann:


I am not in support of events like "draw mohammed day". From reading ur comment


It seems u think Christians spear head such activities to ridicule Islam and win converts. U are wrong, Most Christians are unaware of the Islamic threat and the hate Islam teaches. They ignorantly buy the silly story of extremists misunderstanding Islam, unfortunately a lot Catholics are top in this regard, ignorantly organising interfaith events.


When the American pastor called for burn the Koran day the vast majority Christians disagreed with the pastor.
When I tell my Christian friends what I see in the quran, they are usually shocked.

So don't blame Christians. Pam geller is a bold woman. I admire her courage. U should admire her too. She boldy says what Muslims don't want Christians to know are in ur quran.
Do I agree with everything she does , NO. So don't generalize her views on every Christian or American.

The "Charlie hebdo cartoons and the like are usually initiatives of atheists who attack all religions but Christians, and religions like Hindus, Buddhists etc won't take it personal, they are just as offended as any other muslim but its only Muslims that will pick up a "kaffir" made gun to kill peope.

I want to say something about ur comment


Don't u see how flawed ur statement is. Those radio stations in Rwanda were calling for the death of the rival tribe, and Even called the tribe cockroaches to be smashed. Has Pam geller, Robert spenser etc done that

Answer me you hypocrite.

While ur devout moderate Muslims
Empiree, tartar9 kgarko and rilwanye001 keep calling for the death of Jews and death to America.
Your quran calling Jews apes and monkeys and that they should be fought.
This is a call for genocide by Muslims.

I don't support people being ridiculed, but mohammed didn't give himself a chance to be taken seriously.

Mohammed taught several ridiculous things in the quran about shiatan.
Mohammed gave several scientific blunders
Mohammed slept with a child
Mohammed butchered a whole tribe
mohammed was hopping from one slaves bed to another. Mohammed said after sex with animals you should wash ur privates
Mohammed said angels don't enter a house with dogs in it mohammed approves of sex with frist cousins which he did himself, this causes genetic disorders)

WhoBeThisMan:


Did he really say these things? I need a response from a Muslim and with proof pls

[img]http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTOaO2AGl1KQeEoWOiSyG9whHBYTK5sytTLzDiY8JNdL74RBI1DZsrEno95dw[/img]

Abuamam:


Look at the way you think. She made assertions. Instead of asking her for proof, you ask Muslims to disprove her assertions; with 'evidence'. It shows how objective you really are and that your initial statement that you 'really want to know' is just a decoy to bamboozle Muslims into responding to your post.

Well, it is not the first time that we have been decieved by xtian taqiyyah, due to our overly trusting nature, and probably not the last.

Ifeann:


Abuaman al taqiyya is an islamic concept. Only muslims use lies and deciet to propagate their reiigion. And by the way there is no such thing as xtians. We are called CHRISTIANS and we are not permitted to lie to even defend ourselves.

Ifeann:

WhoBeThisMan please read my past topics, several have been deleted by muslim moderatorz. They contain hundreds of verses from the quran and other respected islamic books proving all the points I made about mohammed.

Ifeann:

Notice the muslim didn't object to what I said.

Empiree:
@Abuamam, salam alaikum.

I dont think WhoBeThisMan is new on NL. He was probably under different moniker in the past. He just registered this one. From the way he talks, he's not naive. As you can see from his posts, he knows exactly what he's doing. He's not reasonable.

Empiree:
@Abuamam, salam alaikum.
I dont think WhoBeThisMan is new on NL. He was probably under different moniker in the past. He just registered this one. From the way he talks, he's not naive. As you can see from his posts, he knows exactly what he's doing. He's not reasonable.

Rilwayne001:


I suspect the dude too....No doubt, it's another truthman account.

Rilwayne001:


I suspect the dude too....No doubt, it's another truthman account.

Ifeann:


Abuaman al taqiyya is an islamic concept. Only muslims use lies and deciet to propagate their reiigion. And by the way there is no such thing as xtians. We are called CHRISTIANS and we are not permitted to lie to even defend ourselves.

WhoBeThisMan please read my past topics, several have been deleted by muslim moderatorz. They contain hundreds of verses from the quran and other respected islamic books proving all the points I made about mohammed.
Notice the muslim didn't object to what I said.

Abuamam:


You may have your own view of what is on ground. I have mine. Only when you are a Muslim, can you understand the level of provocation and bullying that Muslims go through... the way that whites in the US cannot understand the true extent of racism against blacks. So we are basically looking at the world through two completely different tints of glasses.

Muslim riots are always reactions to provocation. Good christians burn the Quran, bomb Muslim civilians, destroy countries and support Israel in their Gazan turkey shoot in a barrel, and it's all okey-dokey, until a few hundred Muslims riot and burn down a church, or two lone teenage shooters get fed up and get themselves killed, and then it's 'terrorism'. Anjem Choudry and his likes will get very little following if not for Geller and her likes. Who heard of Choudry before the current crusades against Muslim countries ( 'war on terror')?

Condemnation of anti-Muslim attacks are a myth. They clearly killed kids in gaza while the media were thinking of nominating Netanyahu for a Nobel Peace Prize for his 'restraint' for killing 800 kids instead of 8000. CAR christians are killing Muslims, I have never heard anyone condemn it. Serbia was a secret war. When Fulanis killed Berom in Jos, it was 'terrorism', when Beroms turned an eid praying ground into a killing (and eating) field, it was downplayed as 'reprisal attacks'. Drones kill civilians every day; but they are Muslims so it does not matter. The problem with all who have fallen under the influence of the popular narrative is that Muslim lives do not matter, since they 'caused' IT in the first place. There is this satisfaction when Muslims die, kept hidden (badly) under a hypocritical veneer of political correctness.

Enough. You hold your views, I hold mine. If there is a fight between two people and I am called to judge, I ask what caused it. I don't immedeately accuse one party because he is an adherent of a religion I deem 'violent' while the other has a verse that no one listens to, telling him to 'turn the other cheek'.

Abuamam:


Look at the way you think. She made assertions. Instead of asking her for proof, you ask Muslims to disprove her assertions; with 'evidence'. It shows how objective you really are and that your initial statement that you 'really want to know' is just a decoy to bamboozle Muslims into responding to your post.

Well, it is not the first time that we have been decieved by xtian taqiyyah, due to our overly trusting nature, and probably not the last.

Empiree:
^

Empiree:
^

Empiree:
^

udatso:

Loud and clear sir