If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
and the egyptian newspaper did not take the initiative and 'publish' as in create them..they simply re published them...to let the people know what it is...
Your arguement would have some validity if attacks had only happened against Danish property.
Other countries interests were attacked for, as you say, re publishing, the cartoons.
So my question is this; How comes they were attacked and Egypt not? Is it ok for Muslim to publish such material but non muslims can't?
So my question is this; How comes they were attacked and Egypt not? Is it ok for Muslim to publish such material but non muslims can't?
well think about it...if i (who is not of african descent) called a black man who i donot know.. a nigger would it be the same....(please excuse if i offend that is not my intention at all) if a black man called another black man who he didnot know a nigger ....
dont take it literally think about the way it appllies...if im a jew and i crack a jewish joke or i ridicule a jewish belief or compromise a jewish valuei think its alright because i know what it is to be a jew....do you get where im going...
well think about it...if i (who is not of african descent) called a black man who i donot know.. a nigger would it be the same....(please excuse if i offend that is not my intention at all) if a black man called another black man who he didnot know a nigger ....
dont take it literally think about the way it appllies...if im a jew and i crack a jewish joke or i ridicule a jewish belief or compromise a jewish valuei think its alright because i know what it is to be a jew....do you get where im going...
You miss the fundamental point. If it is against Islam to show images of the Muhamed, why is it ok for an Egyptian paper to reprint the cartoons and not anyone else.
This isn't about a joke, this is meant to be a basic instruction in Islam. . . . not quite the same as what you have tried to show.
relax mr runningman....the only thing im afraid of is misconception and more divisions amongst us, and it seems to be perpetuated by spitefull opinions and comments many of which have no real grounds legitimized by more of the same...there doesnt seem to be any voice of reason..everything just 'is'....theres this thing called e-prime look it up i encourage everyone to...its a very effective and useful tool of language that could change your perspective and perception of a lot of things....im no moron im sorry that its all that you can gather from all the shit iv been saying...which only illustrates what i was afraid of...
You miss the fundamental point. If it is against Islam to show images of the Muhamed, why is it ok for an Egyptian paper to reprint the cartoons and not anyone else.
This isn't about a joke, this is meant to be a basic instruction in Islam. . . . not quite the same as what you have tried to show.
look you will find books on 'islam' which are circulated in the schools of kids and that books you and i are able to get...these books may have descriptions of Muhammed i have read a few, they vary, and there is no real legitimate consensual image of the holy prophet of islam...there isnt ..there are supposed to be paintings which show him in his supposed form....and the koran (holy book) came before muhammed died, so it isnot written in verse that it is not allowed to show him...it is because of many traditions and disagreement which arose later that it was decided that the holy prophet will not have a visual symbolic image, his name is everywhere in muslim societies but not once will you see an image of his...even the famous movie i think called 'the message' with anthony quinn was about him and his life and not once was his face portrayed or his voice heard, even though he was an active character in the movie....
the reason why the egyptian paper re published them could be to incite...could be to diffuse as well...maybe there was a hope that if everyone saw the pictures they would think twice before getting angry and i dont think they did...maybe im wrong but i dont recall any crazy violent protests in egypt and why no one else printed them...that would be obvious i suppose after the way some muslims reacted because i think it was soon after they were originally published that the paper reprinted)...non the less it stems back to the books and how they had descriptions of the prophet, these books were written by muslims it makes a difference no matter what you say about fundamental facts..people are biased thats thier nature..thats human nature....its not like it would have been ok if a muslim did it at all...he would cop a hunk of shit for it maybe even killed you know what happed to salman rushdi after he published 'satanic verses'...but the reaction wouldnt have been as extreme (must take into account{when talking about this extreme} the way muslims have been marginalised since 9/11 because i dont think it would have been this intense even even danish papers published it well before that day..)
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Comment