<p>The anti-Mohammad cartoon is a Dutch extremist point of view on things. Are not Christians allowed to have their portion of the crazies like the Muslims? Why do we hold non-Muslims to a higher standard? I'm not condoning the cartoon's taste or view, and if it incited a riot, let that be a lesson to the publisher. But extremists can do whatever they want and endure the consequences.</p>
<p>nbachris, go to memri.org and see the hate and lies spewed out daily in the Arab press. It will make your stomach turn and we would be rioting every day if we were like them. My point being that we are not. Not holding them to a higher standard, either.</p>
<p>You can't have a free society without a free press - no government or paper should give into fear of these savages.</p>
<p>Get a life you ignorant jerk.</p>
<p>Again, this thread is not for people who choose to be ignorant and choose to not read or understand.</p>
<p>If you fit this description, I suggest you sit back and think of how you ever got in college.</p>
<p>Um.. I'm sorry, parading around with "Europe: your 9/11 is next", "Behead those who insult Islam", burning Danish flags with a symbol of Christianity on them, and burning buildings because someone made fun of you is savage behavior.</p>
<p>I could not agree more!</p>
<p>I'm Muslim, and, well, my reaction (similar to my reaction to most things) is that a lot of people are stupid. There are as many stupid Christians and Jews as there are stupid Muslims everywhere. No one is immune to stupidity. It was stupid of this Danish newspaper to print this, and it's stupid for Muslim newspapers to print the anti-Jew/Christian things they do. Sure, a stimulus elicits a response (so in that respect, it would seem as though the Danish were at fault), but this whole religious feuding has been going on for hundreds of years. I can't say that I'm not offended, and I'm sure many others would be if it was there religion too. On the other hand, I don't think all of the fighting is really worth it. Can't we all just get along already? I mean, our (Christians+Muslims+Jews) faiths are all Abrahamic aren't they?</p>
<p>Rikataka: I see why Muslims would be offended. That's fine, and maybe you SHOULD be offended. My problem is with the death threats, declarations of war and suicide bombings, burning buildings, and stoning Christian property.</p>
<p>Neverborn: You make an excellent point. Printing outlandish articles and cartoons is one thing but death threats and violent attacks are deplorable. </p>
<p>Rikataka: Yes, Christians, Jews and Muslims all share a common ancestry in terms of faith and there are stupid extremists in any religion. However, Christians and Jews are much more civilized and tolerant of opposing viewpoints than are Muslims. The fact remains that while there are Christian and Jewish extremists that would call for terrorist attacks, the entire Muslim world always resorts to violence when it encounters opposition. Maybe, there is an inherent component of Islam that sanctions violence (let us remember that Jihad is condoned within Islam). Or Muslim extremists have complete control over other Muslims and are "brainwashing them" just like the Nazis suppressed pacifist and tolerant factions of German society during WWII. Either way, the entire Muslim world seems plagued with violence which only further expands the great cultural rift between the Muslim world and civilized nations.</p>
<p>Their protests are fine. I vehemently disagree with the protest signs such as "Exterminate those who slander Islam" and "Europe needs a REAL Holocaust" - but that's freedom of speech. Hizbollah announcing they are training suicide bombers in Denmark is NOT freedom of speech and is morally disgusting.</p>
<p>Exactly! And can you believe that British protesters wrote those digusting comments? I didn't know that Hizbollah is training terrorists in Denmark. Do you believe they are being sincere or is it simply a bluff?</p>
<p>I wouldn't doubt it. Other Islamic leaders have talked about Muslims in Denmark and Norway being trained to fight.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the entire Muslim world always resorts to violence when it encounters opposition.
[/quote]
Does this include all those in America, and Canada, or Malaysia, or Switzerland, or elsewhere?</p>
<p>
[quote]
let us remember that Jihad is condoned within Islam
[/quote]
Jihad is the very basis of Islam. A Muslim cannot be Muslim without Jihad.
I want to take this time and make something very clear: Jihad is NOT "holy war". That must be the biggest misconception about Islam, period. Jihad means "to struggle". There are many levels of it, and all Muslims perform Jihad. Jihad can be to struggle against a bad habit. It is Jihad to try and stop a smoking addiction, to struggle to spend more time worshipping God and praying than playing computer games, to struggle to make yourself a better person. It is Jihad when you see a bad thing going on and think to yourself that it is bad. It is Jihad when you see something bad happening and speak out against it. It is Jihad when you tell others about Islam. Fighting or using force is one of many levels of Jihad, and the whole "holy war" definition has absolutely NO basis whatsoever.</p>
<p>GoldShadow: "Muslim world" refers to nations that are predominantly Muslim especially those nations that are essentially controlled by theocratic regimes.</p>
<p>As with any philosophical or religious creed, interpretation is absolutely essential. I conceed that there maybe some Muslims who interpret Jihad as meaning purely spiritual struggles as opposed to physical or military struggles. However, centuries of Islamic scholars, numerous Muslim theocratic regimes, and the violent actions of Muhammed (He looted caravans and ransacked cities in order to force conversion upon nonbelievers) have essentially eroded all other interpretations of Jihad. Although Jihad literally means "struggle in the way of God", it might as well mean "the genocide of non-Muslims". </p>
<p>I greatly sympathize with those Muslims that are peace-loving and tolerant of other races, religions and nations. The extremists have hijacked your religion and it is now upon moderate Muslims to convince the Western world that their religion is founded upon peace and tolerance and does not condone careless acts of violence.</p>
<p>Historically, Christianity has been much more violent and intolerant than Islam, both internally and externally.</p>
<p>This Jew/Muslim feud is very, very recent. </p>
<p>Jews lived in the Islamic empire (albeit while paying higher taxes) while the West banished them. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_Jewish_culture_in_Spain%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_Jewish_culture_in_Spain</a></p>
<p>The problem I see is that instead of freeing the ME from the fundamentalist rulers now in power, the U.S. meddles in that region. This meddling also leads to greater widespread support for the fundamentalists rulers who have a very anti-Western stance. Way I see it, after all the oil in the ME is gone, U.S. wont have any reason to meddle in the region and maybe, just maybe, then we will see some peace in that region.</p>
<p>Full Disclosure: I am a 5ft 10in Muslim S/I (Indian)/M</p>
<p>may i PLEASE say that people from denmark are DANISH not dutch. dutch people are from the netherlands.</p>
<p>nbachris: Christianity and Islam have violent histories. However, Christianity has had its St. Thomas Aquinas who helped bring reason to Christianity - the Inquisition is a thing of the past - Islam must reform as well. Christianity has a violent past, Islam is having a violent present.</p>
<p>Mahras2: Exactly how is the U.S. supposed to free the Middle East from the fundamentalist rulers now in power without "meddling" in that region?
Although it's true that when the oil stops flowing in the Middle East the U.S. will have no reason to meddle in its affairs and there might be peace, the Arab world will become a fruitless wasteland void of prosperity (except for the tycoons that amassed gigantic fortunes from oil production). Let's face it, Arab nations have few natural resources, lack stable infrastructures, have uncontrollable birth rates and are mostly ignorant to scientific, technological and political innovations (except for the UAE and Qatar).</p>
<p>Simple: By meddling properly and diligently (aka by not going into wars with BS reasons). Instead of going against Iraq they could support groups seeking the end women oppression in the ME. Or by supporting groups that are for pro-democracy. Soros has been able to do this during Communist regimes in Eastern Europe to create "open societies", and he is just an individual. With all its resources and power, U.S. should definitely be able to at least make SOME impact on the region. Naturally, though, the U.S. has these ruler's supports and therefore, do not want to get on their bad side.
And yes I absolutely agree that the ME is more or less a wasteland. Economic problems lead the masses to go up against their rulers and government. As of now, these people do not have any real reason to go against their rulers. Hey they have money, low taxes, and food on their plates. All the while with the U.S. interfering in that region fuels supports for these fundamentalist rulers who preach against America (while also pocketing oil profits for U.S. companies).</p>
<p>BTW I wouldn't say that SA has poor infrastructure.</p>