world

Seattle cartoonist goes into hiding on FBI advice

199 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

199 Comments
Login to comment

Fatwa or Freedom?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Couldn't this idiot have used his free speech rights for something useful? Well, being an idiot, I suppose not. This exercise was about as useful as walking about town in a KKK outfit just to prove you could. Enjoy your death threats moron.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As stupid as she may have been, it's still hypocritical of Muslims. You can't draw a picture but it's ok to murder someone. Muslims need to get their priorities in order.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wonder at some people.

The 1st Admentmend gives you the right to say what you want, but it don't give you protection when doing so upsets people.

Sometimes common sense should prevail and control actions.

When you go out to take a pull at the Tigers tail don't come whining when it bites you in return.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SKB41.

Quran forbids ANY decpiction of Mohammed in either pictorial, audio, etc format.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All people have to stand up to these theocratic standover tactics! Killing anybody for burning a book or the drawings of some ficticious character is unacceptable. Throwing acid in girls faces and the stoning and torture of men and women are the norm in the backward, uncivilized muslim world, but not here in Europe, Australia, and the Buddhist countries of asia. BEWARE the islamic CANCER! It SPREADS quietly, BUT DEADLY!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Quran forbids ANY decpiction of Mohammed in either pictorial, audio, etc format.

Not true. Shiites allow depictions of Mohammed. It's everyone else who doesn't.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Muslims need to get their priorities in order.

The threat isn't from Muslims, it's from a really insane faction only. The vast majority of Muslims don't support killing of people like this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SKB41, most Muslims do not kill people. It is just as hypocritical for Christians to kill people. Christians must get their priorities right, too. Think about what Christians have done recently in Northern Ireland, Croatia and Serbia, and do not forget the revenge of a born-again Christian after 9-11. How many Muslims have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq by a country with a Christian Commander-in-Chief that trusts in God? Every religion has its hypocrites.

Whiteyrocks, I agree throwing acid and stoning is backward and uncivilised. I would like to ask you if dropping bombs, sorry, that should be delivering ordinance, and killing innocent people, apologies, causing collateral damage, is the action of a civilised and developed country.

I am not a Muslim myself. I just do not approve of Christians hypocrites who criticise other religions when they are no better themselves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I guess she got a real big "Reality check" with this one. Having spent a little time in the Seattle area, the paper is sort of on the left leaning side, and I am sure that in the past she probably was one of those who would probably draw inflammatory pictures towards Chirstanity or other religions, and stating how they are what'w wrong with the world. I can handle that viewpoint, since if I didn't like it, I wouldn't read it.

But I guess her luck ran out when she decided to go against Islam. I just wonder, did the fact that she had to go into hiding change her mind on all religions?

It really is sad that a person has to hide (in their own country too) from some radicals in another country because of a piece of their work.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@ Pestronika...but the majority of muslims don't condemn this action either.

This should not be happening in the US. History shows that mohamad was a pedophile, which means he was just a person. History also shows that he was a murderous rebel. I support drawing pictures of mohamad, and anybody else that anyone in the world wants to draw pictures of.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

but the majority of muslims don't condemn this action either." Then that majority need to step up and remove this fatwa. I've seen US flag burnings, numerous depictions of Jesus in disgusting ways (a tv cartoon too where he was boxing), I've heard callings for another holocaust and have never seen any reaction as I have seen lately by Muslims over a CARTOON.

They really need to chill out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, I hope she got her little chuckle, for she is most certainly now seeing the gravity of her actions. I do not at all condone any threats against her, and most certainly not death threats, but MistWizard nailed it on the head -- just because you CAN do something does not mean you should be stupid enough to actually do it.

SKB41: "As stupid as she may have been, it's still hypocritical of Muslims. You can't draw a picture but it's ok to murder someone."

While it probably irks most if not all Muslims when people draw a picture of the Prophet, YOU should refrain from thinking that ALL Muslims therefore want to murder the artist.

" Muslims need to get their priorities in order."

Some do, without a doubt, as do people who make such gross and discriminatory generalizations.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Seeing some brought Christians into this it is only fair to point out that the controversy of making depictions of good or Jesus was the reason for many schisms in Christianity but in those days they also believed that the old lady next door with the crooked eye was a witch and if she looked at you and you got sick then she must have hexed you so they would burn her.

This person is an idiot but the Muslim world need to mature and joint at least the 20th century then they can work on the 21th.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

She just wants to be one of those who cower behind the "freedom of speech" tag.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I would have had more respect for the cartoonist if she would have stood her ground. I have nothing good to say about Islam but people like Norris who deliberatley provoke Muslims for the obvious reasons of publicity should think things through.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sad but funny thing is the cartoonist in question is a "progressive." The paper featuring her material is published online and is probably as "liberal" as any on the Left coast.

Note how casually Ms. Norris' fellow travelers on the Left - "feminists" included - basically condone the threats of violence against her and leave her twisting in the wind. Yes, America, the Left has your back. They'll be there to give the knife an extra twist after it's been stuck in ya.

“She is, in effect, being put in a witness-protection program—except, as she notes, without the government picking up the tab,” Fefer wrote. He told The Associated Press on Thursday that he had nothing further to say because it’s a sensitive situation.

Wonderful. Multiply that by hundreds or thousands.

Samuel Huntington was right.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, I hope she got her little chuckle, for she is most certainly now seeing the gravity of her actions. I do not at all condone any threats against her,

Yes, you do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

gaijintraveller, I totally agree Christians and Jewish people must also get priorities straight and recognise violence is unnecessary.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And people said John Lennon was crazy. Well his "give peace a chance", and "Imagine" songs were classics, and much needed in those times as now and forever.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You see, you see what religion does to people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You see, you see what religion does to people.

Any religion that advocates, as Islam does, the penalty of death for those who insult its founder or leave the cult, must be treated as an ideology, and one that is clearly and fundamentally opposed to everything the free democracies of the West stand for.

Fatwas and threats of Muslim terror have the Left in a real bind. The Left in Europe and North America have been given as clear a chance imaginable to combat the extremism they always denounce, but doing so puts them on the same side as ordinary patriotic working folks, whom they largely despise.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sad but funny thing is the cartoonist in question is a "progressive." The paper featuring her material is published online and is probably as "liberal" as any on the Left coast.

Note how casually Ms. Norris' fellow travelers on the Left - "feminists" included - basically condone the threats of violence against her and leave her twisting in the wind. Yes, America, the Left has your back. They'll be there to give the knife an extra twist after it's been stuck in ya.

TimRussert, you hit it on the head. Funny how those same groups don't come out and condone the fatwa, yet they will yell that the Ground Zero mosque is just a made up story by Fox News.

I hate to say it, but at least the "fellow travelers" in the old USSR know how to handle these situations, kill someone in this manner and you will probably see a massive reprisal. What is sad is that the US is not going to protect one of its citizens.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Religion... The opiate of the masses..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Awlaki said in the June issue of English-language Muslim youth magazine “Inspire” that Norris is a “prime target” who should reside in “Hellfire.”

Awlaki should reside in "Hellfire" with shoes on his face.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

While it probably irks most if not all Muslims when people draw a picture of the Prophet,

smith - is he your Prophet (with a capital P) too?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm with scoday!! Where's the war on that drug?? LOL

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What a coward, just like that church pastor who wanted to burn the Koran. If she and the pastor truly believed in their convictions, they should have continued with their actions and taken the consequences. Now they've made fools of themselves and the extremists are in a stronger position.

Either do it or don't, not halfway like these fools.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Islam: The religion of tolerance and peace.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I guess I have been away from my country too long. It is apparently full of cowards now prepared (and in the case of most Lefties) eager to be cowed, bullied and even abused by a cult from out of the desert and the 8th century.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yep, there we go again. Yet, at the same time we are asked to insist that islam has nothing to do with the violent misunderstanders it produces.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I could touch this, but its like beating a dead horse. The overly liberal, politically correct, over the top "percieved rights to some that over-ride the true rights of all" mentalility minded folks will always keep their blinders on from reality. The only thing to do is wait and see what happens. 20 or 30 or maybe even 50 years from now if they're still alive and if thing have gone in Islamic fundamentalists favor it will finally dawn in their minds that they were fighting the wrong war for the "right" reasons.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan: While it probably irks most if not all Muslims when people draw a picture of the Prophet, YOU should refrain from thinking that ALL Muslims therefore want to murder the artist.

I doubt that will be much comfort for her. You can keep saying that it's just a small percentage, but in reality out of all Muslims it just takes one to kill, and more often than not in situations like this you are going to find one. The fact is that this "tiny percentage" keeps people like her from speaking, keeps South Park from showing their work uncensored, keeps Danish newspapers from publishing cartoons, keeps some European politicians under 24-hour police protection, etc. When you keep repeating that it's just a tiny percentage it doesn't change the fact that the threat is real enough where people have to fear for their lives or go into hiding. It doesn't change the fact that it would make you pause and think again about doing certain things in your own life.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MistWizard: Couldn't this idiot have used his free speech rights for something useful?

You mean like countering intolerance that aims to eliminate free speech? It really sounds like you're saying she should have been a good little girl and just followed the law as dictated by the radical Islamists. Since she didn't, she's just stupid and apparently you don't have anything more to add than that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TimRussert. What is it with you and "lefty this, lefty that?" Do you even know what a liberal political person is? I seriously doubt it.

This writer and most of the people advising her to be careful sound like mainstream Americans to me. And it sounds like good advice if she wants to be ok as it is equally clear that no one is offering her protection. Do you expect her to die for her article?

What does "left" have to do with this?

I am very much a Left Leaning political person. I dislike religion for its often erratic behavior and capacity to cause harm. But I equally support the right of others to practice their faith. With regard to Islam I see the fundamentalists as I see any faith's fundamentalists, as very dangerous. But I also see them as not representative of the whole of their faith.

As for the writer, I think caution is intelligent advice. But I equally feel that the media and country should stand up to threats against freedom of speech. Which the government and community are clearly failing to do.

So give the "lefty" nonsense a rest mate. Has nothing to do with anything.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It clearly seems that Islam is a religion for the bullies to uphold at any cost.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Islam the religion of Peace... disagree and you'll be blown to pieces!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why on earth would we give up our right to freedom of speech and expression because of the possibility that ignorant, illiterate opium farmers in Pakistan might get pissed off?? and yes, if you are lucky enough to live in a part of the world that protects the right to freedom of speech and expression, you SHOULD exercise those rights. I'm a Christian and I often read and view things that insult my beliefs, but I deal with it because I respect the rights of others. Why should Muslims get a pass- why is it imperative that we do nothing to offend their delicate sensibilities?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If I had been the cartoonist, I would have issued this statement: "In accordance with Muslim superstitions, a fatwa has been ordered against me. In accordance with my belief in the Right to Free Speech, I will stand by what I have created. Also, in accordance with my rights as a US citizen I have purchased a gun with large bullets. Any radical showing up at my residence or in my presence will receive an enlighting example of the limits in faith."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

She would have gotten as many death-threats if she asked for cartoons against gays, etc.

And of course Christianity is the religion of love for people that never read the history.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I went to the web site Mohammed.com and all I got was a blank screen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Zenny11

Christianity, with the commandment to "Love thy neighbor as thyself", formed the foundation of democracy. Can you say the same for Islam? What shining civilization would you point to as an example of Islamic superiority? Saudi Arabia? Afghanistan? Iran? Take a look at their treatment of gays -not to mention women- for an idea of their concept of brotherly love.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

mtngal.

Didn't "Democracy" originate in Greece prior to Christ being born. Doesn't the bible also hate gays, masturbation(Onanie), etc.

Right now here is only ONE country that comes close to a true democracy and that is Switzerland.All other republics/federal republics that elect their leaders in a democratic fashion = no true democracy.

There were TWO ancient countries that accepted same-sex relations Greece and Rome.

So I think you are way off-base, as many of our laws, etc are based on Greek and Roman laws and philosphies.

Moderator: Back on topic please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anybody today that would make a comic cartoon or anti islamic piece of art or written material is an A-hole because of all the hot headed Islamic wack jobs out there. What was Molly Norris thinking or is she suicidal?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Zenny, I respect a lot of your opinions but your tendency to pick at the flaws of Christianity whenever Islam is criticized is below the level of solid discourse you often share.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I got no problem if she or anyone else decides to publish a cartoon/burn a Quran as an Individual statement.

Where it goes out of whack is when they ask people worldwide to partake, contribute, etc. That is inciting hate for me(punishable in many countries).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Right now here is only ONE country that comes close to a true democracy and that is Switzerland.All other republics/federal republics that elect their leaders in a democratic fashion = no true democracy.

I am close to agreement on this one. At least one party in Switzerland proposed a set of laws for immigrants back in 07 which included threat of deportation for any immigrant guilty of a crime. His / her family would also face deportation in some cases.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Samwatters.

I feel similar about many Islam bashers here that have NO understanding of it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, Switzerland is fairly serious about protecting itself against Islamic radicalism. As evidenced by a 2009 referendum where 57% of them voted to ban construction of new minarets anywhere in the country...

Moderator: All readers, back on topic please. Posts that do not focus on what is in the story will be removed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How many people here actually know anything about Islam other than what you have heard on TV or read in western media? Did you know that it is as fragmented as Christianity in terms of subgroups? Did you know that the two main groups Sunni and Shia have had the same kind of conflict that Catholics and Protestants have had?

Did you know that Judaism, Christianity and Islam share the same stories of the Old Testiment?

Islam is not the problem. The vast, VAST majority of adherents are peace loving ordinary people. A very small percentage are responsible for these fatwa and for the violence. So why blame all of Islam for the actions of a few.

Should I, a nonreligious person blame all of Christianity for the actions of right wing Christians? If I apply the logic on this board I should. But that would not make sense would it?

Do you know that sectarian violence in Christian faiths has continued around the world for hundreds of years? And is still a common point of conflict? Why do you judge Christianity any differently? I can find just as many violence inspiring quotes in the bible as I can in the Koran.

Be fair people and stop listening only to the media. Learn about what you are against.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tkoind2.

Well said.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I can find just as many violence inspiring quotes in the bible [sic] as I can in the Koran."

As is often pointed out to people like you, with superficial knowledge of both religions you are discussing, the violence in the Bible is descriptive, the violence in the Koran is prescriptive.

The distinction is vital.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TimRussert.

Not going into details. How did moses deal with the worshippers of the calf, etc. Hint: Molten gold and forced to drink.

Many more.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Seattle Weekly is available online. Have a look for yourselves. If you think this particular periodical is "right-wing" you need your head examined.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

it is truly amazing that all this fuss can be had from fictitious stories..go to the reasonproject.com and read lots of interesting takes on parts of the bible/koran and others..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So, where are all those concerned liberals about freedom of expression who shrieked at the top of their lungs over people upset at a Ground Zero Victory Mosque? Also, why isn't Obama standing up for a fellow American's legal right to free speech and lecturing all muslims around the world to be tolerant?

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Islam is not a religion of peace and tolerance. It's a cult of death and destruction.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heh, compassionate liberals turning on one of their own; saying in essence, "Look how she was dressed. She deserved what she got."

Too funny

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TimRussert. "As is often pointed out to people like you, with superficial knowledge of both religions..." Misinformed again are we?

I went to Catholic school and was raised in the Episcopal church including teaching Sunday school for several years. My change away from relgion came much later. I will go toe to toe with you on Bible content anywhere, anytime mate.

As for Islam, I am a student of both Sufi philosophy and their vision of spirituality. While I do not subscribe to Islam, I am very well versed in it. I play traditional Islamic music instruments and am well aware of the history and belief systems of general adherents to Islam.

So... you were saying?

The values advocated in both texts vindicate the use of violence against non-believers. The bible stories, rewritten as morality tales, do advocated violence as a solution. The main heroes of the Bible are extremely violent against non-believers. As is this "god person" who goes endlessly on about "smiting this guy or that people." Need I remind you of the endless tales of destroyed cities etc...???

Still want to debate?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

RomeoramenII. Joining TimRusserts Reactionary clan today? I will ask you the same. What do you really know about Islam? What do you know about any religion?

Many people claim to be religious, but very, very few know much about their religion. This applies to the radicals in Islam who also fail to learn the real lessons of their faith and thus act out violently. Yet there is also argument that all the western religions (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) all have bloody histories of abject violence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Samwatters. "I feel similar about many Islam bashers here that have NO understanding of it."

Zenny, I can't speak for anyone but myself but I have understanding of the Quran through two native-Arabic readers/speakers. There may be moderate Muslims but there is no moderate Islam.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How many people here actually know anything about Islam other than what you have heard on TV or read in western media? Did you know that it is as fragmented as Christianity in terms of subgroups? Did you know that the two main groups Sunni and Shia have had the same kind of conflict that Catholics and Protestants have had?

Did you know that Judaism, Christianity and Islam share the same stories of the Old Testiment?

Islam is not the problem. The vast, VAST majority of adherents are peace loving ordinary people. A very small percentage are responsible for these fatwa and for the violence. So why blame all of Islam for the actions of a few.

Should I, a nonreligious person blame all of Christianity for the actions of right wing Christians? If I apply the logic on this board I should. But that would not make sense would it?

Do you know that sectarian violence in Christian faiths has continued around the world for hundreds of years? And is still a common point of conflict? Why do you judge Christianity any differently? I can find just as many violence inspiring quotes in the bible as I can in the Koran.

Be fair people and stop listening only to the media. Learn about what you are against.

tkoind2, I fully understand the origins of the 3 religions you mentioned, but I think you would probably be best at telling that to the guy who issued the fatwa. Not only is Islam against much of the west, but jst try to take a walk in the Hindu-Kush area one day without identifiying which sid you are on, or southern Thailand for that matter.

Not all Muslims believe in Jihad, I can agree, but it would seem to me that the more moderate ones should be drinving the discussion. I don't doncone religious acts of violence by Christians, and I speak out against it if I see it occuring, but you don't hear that too much from the Muslim moderates. They are the ones that should take lead in this.

The real issue is, a person in the US, who has rights afforded to her under the US constitution is having to go into hiding becuase someone from Yemen is upset with her drawings. Funny, who when a few captured muslims faced a bit of torture that everyone says we are violating their constitutional rights (even though they are not US citizens), but that same group won't let an American express those same rights (even if they are stupid on her part).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2 --

What do you really know about Islam?

I learned all I need to know about the Islam cult on Sept. 11, 2001.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Zenny11,

I often noticed you put much care and thought into your comments and I understand that when it comes to criticism of Islam you must feel hurt or even anger that sometimes may lead to a defensive and even an offensive position.

I was raised a Catholic ( I do not adhere to any Religion any more) and have live in Muslim countries and for certain reasons where I am from we have a very large west African and Lebanese immigrant population and therefore I have studied Islam I have notice one major factor in that the Islam traditionally practiced in West Africa was very open and tolerant but recently things have been changing as what is called "Arabization" has set in, This is also becoming a problem for the Druze who are probably the most progressive in the rights of their women (one wife with 50/50 ownership ).

Unfortunately "Arabization" is spreading along with it's more radical views on women and non-Muslims right, during the Ottoman Empire Jews and Christians were freely allowed to worship (though not proselytize and subject to special taxes and regulations ) but that was when a more tolerant Islam ruled, it is looking more and more like the hard line version is now getting the upper hand.

As for your remarks about the Bible and Christianity if you understood anything about Christianity ( forget the right wing nuts ) much of the old testament is considered no longer valid, things like holy war, eye for an eye, stoning Adulterers and so on were replaced by no killing for any reason, Turn the other cheek and he who has never sinned through the first stone, granted Christians do not always follow these rules BUT those are the rules.

Unfortunately Holy war, stoning, are written in to Islam's Holy books and that give hardliners and nut cases fuel and justification in the same manor right wing Christians will try to use the old testament to justify war, revenge and the death penalty.

Islam needs to figure a way of modernizing as the Jews did they to have similar rules about gods name, Adultery, punishments, even holy war but they have found ways to leave them mostly in the past.

I agree that this woman is an idiot and I also agree if she wished to make a personal statement that is her right but I also agree that by inciting other to do the same was just plain vicious and blatantly provocative though it is her right to do so we should condemn such provocation, I would go so far as to say had she done this about Jews it would have immediately been deemed anti-Semitic hate mongering, and she would have probably lost her job.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Tkoind - - Have you heard the Syrian refugee Wafa Sultan? Do you know the works of the Pakistani, Ibn Warraq? What about the courageous Somalian, Ayan Hirsi Ali? Do you know of the Palestinian convert to Christianity, Walid Shoebat, son of one of the PLO's founders ? These people are all former Mohammedans, and each lives with the threat of death over their heads for the crime of simply leaving a faith they were born into, but believed made them less human than they knew themselves to be.

It is you who has some reading to do...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib said: You mean like countering intolerance that aims to eliminate free speech?

Oh jeez! Must you be such a drama queen? I am more upset that I can't hear the F word on prime time TV, nor can I see full frontal nudity. Pictures of Mohammad? Don't care to see any. That said, I WILL draw pictures of Mohammad if I WANT to, but I don't want to. And most who do only want to to make someone angry...and then they cry foul when they succeed.

I am FIERCLY free speech. But I have no sympathy for people who just use it to cause trouble. Of course Muslims have a silly prohibition in this, but if you step on their toes just to step on their toes, don't ask me to protect you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Couldn't this idiot have used his free speech rights for something useful?

Hey MystWizard, the cartoonist in question is a woman. Now she faces a fate like that of Asma' Bint Marwan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I would agree that it's a terrible thing for Norris to have to go into hiding for what she did here. I also think it's a terrible thing for a drug-deal witness to be blown away by some punk who does it as an initiation rite. There are obvious differences in the two in our society. Neither--making a cartoon of the prophet or being a witness to a crime--is in itself a criminal act, but we take it that the former is innocuous and the latter, because of the criminality of the drug deal, is fraught. In other societies witnessing a drug deal is not a crime but caricaturing the prophet is.

Obviously, those other societies should not be calling for assassins. However, to the best of my ability to understand this situation, they are not. The fatwa was issued by a single cleric and one who rather clearly has an axe to grind against America. I hate to get all John Kerry on y'all, but this should be treated as a criminal matter, not as a manifestation of Islam.

I think this might also be a good time to consider whether the US, by holding itself aloof from the international justice system, makes it more difficult to gain international agreement on acts of criminality. This tends to limit US options to sanctions and wars which have such manifestly brutal effects on Muslim populations that it is a little fanciful to expect moderate Islam to lead the parade against extremists from the Islamic faith.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MisterCreosote said: Hey MystWizard, the cartoonist in question is a woman. Now she faces a fate like that of Asma' Bint Marwan.

Her gender is not very important. Her playing with fire for no good reason is the point. I have no pity for how she gets burnt, but if anyone harms her I hope they get the max sentence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Allright, well let's be serious. Does she really believe in free speech? How far is she willing to go to defend it? Is it just lip-service? If she really has to endure danger to defend it or is that too much?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Quote:

"Everybody Draw Mohammed Day was a 2010 protest in support of free speech, specifically in opposition to those who threaten violence against artists who draw representations of Muhammad."

From my personal experience... when I was in Saudi Arabia, a van full of explosives was discovered before it went off, when I was in America I saw 9/11, and when I was in India muslims blew up the 1st class train cars of the trains.

From my reading... countless terrorist attacks around the world I've read about committed by Qur'an fundamentalists(or those having the muslim religion) for several years now. No group can even come close to the damage committed by this general group on world wide basis in the last ten years.

Artists need to leave this topic alone, as people that blow up women to kill their enemies aren't the type practice free speech with.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

southpaw: No group can even come close to the damage committed by this general group on world wide basis in the last ten years.

Not true unless you are considering only non-state actors.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

RR: "I learned all I need to know about the Islam cult on Sept. 11, 2001."

Exactly! You learned that ignorance is truly bliss. You also evidently forgot that saying you want all extremists dead puts you on your own death list (ie. extreme hypocrisy). Not only do your comments indicate you learned NOTHING from 9/11, you seem to indicate that you cannot possibly learn from political and/or events like these at all. You looked up at the towers and simply put on blinders. Islam did not commit the terrorist acts of 9/11; twisted and horrible monsters did, and such monsters have existed in pretty much every religion throughout history. Blaming everyone for the acts of a few doesn't make you much different in terms of thinking, particularly when you are suggesting they all be killed off or what have you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

People generally gets pleasure to make angry a mental person as they enjoy the hilarious reaction of a psychic. In the same way, people usually tend to annoy a hot tempered person who easily get angry on any sensitive issue.

The fact is that even a non practicing Muslim reacts at least verbally when something attacking his belief is happened. There is no hard and fast rule in Christianity in practice currently, nothing prohibited thing is left to make them angry. And the Muslims can't insult the founders of Christianity and Judaism it as Jesus and Moses are highly respected to them as well. If a muslim in India shouts announcing beef eating festival, imagine the next episode of the incident. All the religious bashing have been practiced so far are targeting Islam because, it's followers are the most reactive and doing this easily puts anybody in the limelight or maybe the greatest number of people are converting into this religion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib: "I doubt that will be much comfort for her. You can keep saying that it's just a small percentage, but in reality out of all Muslims it just takes one to kill, and more often than not in situations like this you are going to find one."

Again, it's just BAFFLING that you guys can't see the hypocrisy in a lot of your statements. Why is this limited to Muslims? Clearly the events of the last week alone shows it takes only one idiot pastor to ruin the name of Christianity WORLD-WIDE, let alone the reputation of the US as a tolerant nation. The sooner we DO recognize the lone fools for being just that, the sooner we need not go to such extreme measures to protect this woman for being so dumb in the first place. That goes for all sides, and again, that fact was proven with the pastor.

Tkoind2 has said it best in his posts -- no religion is free of people who have abused it in the extreme.

Again, I hope this woman had her little chuckle, as she's seriously paying for it now. If they can find anyone who personally makes threats against her, or such sites, I hope they get caught and the sites shut down. As it stands, though, this woman for her few minutes of 'fun' is going to be looking over her shoulder for the rest of her life. As was said, just because you CAN say or do something, doesn't mean you should.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Again, I hope this woman had her little chuckle, as she's seriously paying for it now.

That will teach her for daring to offend Muslims, that 'tolerant religion'.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The perpetually pissed off religion strikes again............

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why is this limited to Muslims?

Er, you're joking right? I mean come on, try to find another group that goes around massacring people over their religion.

That will teach her for daring to offend Muslims, that 'tolerant religion'.

Heh, so much for the religion of peace eh?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ONLY A FEW?? I guess it's ok if it's a few muslims putting death sentences on writers or cartoonists as it's only natural because they are always the worlds victims.

But a few whackos in the US who don't advocate violence only ridicule are targeted along with all others of their nationality, well that's to be expected because those few insulted the whole of islam. Sorry but I find this to be very wrong.

The more I hear about these death threats from a few muslims the more I want to insult the frickin idiots by depicting Mohammed f***ing a sheep saying don't show that photo or I'll kill you. Now I wonder what random folks that could make angry. Mohammedeans or maybe a few leftist liberals?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind let me know when you've listened to what muslim apostates have to say... many of them know about the various sects of Islam too and the more tolerant ones and the sects more prone to radicalisation. And yet for all that they still advocate for the complete abolishment of Islam. Why is that? If you want to argue how people should just not bash a religion especially Islam, take it to the ones that have been former muslims.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tkoind2: Should I, a nonreligious person blame all of Christianity for the actions of right wing Christians? If I apply the logic on this board I should. But that would not make sense would it?

Radical Islam has a structure, it has funding, it has training camps, it has schools. At one point it even had an entire nation to play with. And it all points to killing. Do you see anything remotely like that coming from any other religion? We accept random acts of violence in the name of Christianity as just that.....random acts of violence. It happens to infrequently that you can actually give me the names of the people. You can probably reference a specific abortion bombing. But one thing you can't do is link any of them together with an organization who helped and in some cases taught them how to kill.

That's the night and day difference that you're pretending doesn't exist. You don't have to blame Islam. You don't have to blame Muslims. But this silly little Christianity comparison needs to be retired from the conversation. There is a difference and you know there is a difference and you shouldn't be afraid to say it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib - that was an excellent post. So good I doubt that Tkoind has a reply.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's interesting that Islamics can create "death lists" against Americans exercising their Constitutional right to freely express themselves without being immediately sought out for arrest by this administration. But if some kid at a U.S. high school creates a his/her own death list, they'll be arrested immediately for conspiracy to create a terrorist act.

Once again the idea of a peaceful and tolerant "religion" goes down the tubes. Seems like vitreolic behavior of muslims comes out whenever they feel "put upon" by any act. When they want to finally live in peace with everyone else, then I will consider Islam a valid religion. As of now, I consider Islam a cult whose members are a bunch of malcontents bent on the destruction of the Western World.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MistWizard: That said, I WILL draw pictures of Mohammad if I WANT to, but I don't want to.

Well good for you. It must be comforting to know that you're willing and able to live in the confines of limited expression simply because you don't want to say the things you're not allowed to say. And nice job turning the concept of freedom of expression into a simple case of want and coincidence.

But I can't say I believe you. If you WANTED to draw picture of Mohammad you wouldn't do it in a way that would be noticed because you know there's a chance you'd get killed.

And most who do only want to to make someone angry...and then they cry foul when they succeed.

Surely you can form an opinion as to the legitimacy of the anger. Either that or you just threw your weight behind every wife beater in America.

Of course Muslims have a silly prohibition in this

Yeah, it's just a silly little thing. But seriously, don't ever do it or you might get killed. And you'll go to your grave knowing you got no sympathy from Misty because you were just asking for trouble for breaking their silly little rules.

I am FIERCLY free speech.

Well, obviously not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's a sad state of affairs when you can't draw a cartoon without worrying about death treats, more people should draw them until there is too many to treaten.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho: The fatwa was issued by a single cleric and one who rather clearly has an axe to grind against America.

One single cleric with an axe to grind can issue a statement and have people he's never met try to kill a stranger halfway around the world for him. But let's not sit here and pretend that it's anything more than a simple criminal matter between two individuals.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

RR: I learned all I need to know about the Islam cult on Sept. 11, 2001.

There is a difference between radical Islam and Islam. You can tell the difference when you hear about a terrorist bombing that kills Muslims, as most terrorist bombs do. That's radical Islam killing Muslims. 9/11 was radical Islam killing Americans and others. Radical Islam doesn't care if you're American or Iraqi or Thai, whether you're Christian or Jew or Muslim. You're either with them or you're a target. We are all the same to them.

Stop trying to tell the world that the guy who goes to a Mosque in California on Saturday follows the same religion as the guy roaming the streets in Somalia killing those who don't convert. They're aren't the same. You can quote books, give me information about Islam, tell me about clerics, and my response will be that a vast majority of Muslims reject those practices even if you can prove that they exist in others.

You go too far with your blanket blame of Islam just as the others go too far with trying to remove Islam from the conversation. It's not the cause but it certainly isn't something that can just be ignored. Just because Islam plays a part in radical Islam it doesn't mean radical Islam plays a part in the average Muslim. They are the ones most often being killed by radical Islam. You need to learn to separate the two because a war between the West and regular Muslims is something we don't need.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is a difference between radical Islam and Islam.

Yes. Islam is the entire religion. Radical Islam is the growing "small few" part of it that will kill anyone especially relishing in killing westerners when they get the chance.

I just hate how most every liberal refuses to see that Radical Islam is gaining a foothold around the world. No one wants that in their neighborhood.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@mikehuntez,

How fast is this "small few" portion of Islam growing? Very fast...?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molly Norris joins Salman Rushdie, Danish artist Kurt Westergaard, and the spirit of the late Theo Van Gogh to bring the Muslim religion into the 21st century.

This is not a new controversy. Back in the mid-1970s a movie was made titled, Mohammed: the Messenger of God, and Muslims rebelled against it because it had an actor playing the prophet. I was stationed in Japan at the time, but the nation refused to show the movie after receiving threat of violence against any theater that might show it.

Every religion has a spectrum of belief that runs from the fundamental to the mystic. Within Islam, the mystical aspects are represented by groups like the Sufis and Dervishes (who are also Sufis). The more that an individual leans towards the mystical side, the less likely they are to take any offense on representations that drive the hard-core fundamentalists crazy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib: One single cleric with an axe to grind can issue a statement and have people he's never met try to kill a stranger halfway around the world for him. But let's not sit here and pretend that it's anything more than a simple criminal matter between two individuals.

OK. Let's not. What's your point? We should invade Yemen?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is a difference between radical Islam and Islam.

On this point we'll have to agree to disagree.

In some countries it is illegal to practice anything but Islam. Some of these nations' leaders are also their "religious" leaders. They base their national laws on the absolutes of their "religion".

In Islam, homosexuals being whipped or killed for being homosexual, the stoning to death and honor murders of women, steal and your hands get chopped off, paralyze someone during a fight and your spine is surgically severed are all officially recognized as just punishments.

What's more, just being a Jewish American journalist gets your head chopped off. I have not read about any action (not words; not speeches) taken by "moderate, peace loving" muslims, anywhere in the world in reaction to these barbaric acts. Have you? For me, their silence equals support of acts advanced by tenants of Islam. A peace loving, compassionate Islam does not exist. Only a radical one.

You are free to express your opinion that "there is a difference between radical Islam and Islam." I choose not to agree with your point of view.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Where were the protests when Jesus turned up on South Park?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How fast is this "small few" portion of Islam growing? Very fast...?

I was going to tell you to just scan the news from the last century but as yabits confirms it has always been there. It just seems it's been getting more active these days. Us terrible westerners are of course the main cause of all this. Maybe we should all just give up and convert and devolve back to the 8th century.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho: OK. Let's not. What's your point? We should invade Yemen?

Sorry, but this isn't one of your better attempts to hijack a thread. Your first reference to US invasions came too soon, people were emotional and wanted to say what was on their minds so your detour was ignored. Your second one was a little too thin for most people to really catch. You weren't able to create any traction. Here's your 3rd post and your 3rd "oh so casual" linking of US and invasions, and now you kind of seem like the drunk girl at the bar at 2 am who can't seem to find any takers.

Please don't try a 4th time....it would be embarrassing to read. You're going up against a very, very heated debate between the pro and anti-Muslim crowds. I just don't think people are interested in what you're selling right now. Regroup and try again another day.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

RomeoRamenII: In some countries it is illegal to practice anything but Islam. Some of these nations' leaders are also their "religious" leaders. They base their national laws on the absolutes of their "religion".

But we are talking about where the responsibility for terrorism ultimately lies, and I don't think any of the things you listed above is a reason. They're ass backwards, but keep in mind that in those countries people are being killed by radical Muslims. The radicals see the difference, I don't see why you refuse to see it as well.

In Islam, homosexuals being whipped or killed for being homosexual, the stoning to death and honor murders of women, steal and your hands get chopped off, paralyze someone during a fight and your spine is surgically severed are all officially recognized as just punishments.

I could easily debate the acceptance of those practices amongst the masses, but in reality we're back to the original point which is terrorism. I'm not here to defend all of Islam. I'm here to make the distinction between the radicals who kill and the regulars who don't.

What's more, just being a Jewish American journalist gets your head chopped off. I have not read about any action (not words; not speeches) taken by "moderate, peace loving" muslims, anywhere in the world in reaction to these barbaric acts. Have you? For me, their silence equals support of acts advanced by tenants of Islam. A peace loving, compassionate Islam does not exist. Only a radical one.

Do you really have your ear to the ground in the Muslim community? You really think you're able to gauge the level of outrage or acceptance from Muslims in general? When Al Queda kills Iraqis in a marketplace, you think that Muslims rejoice? When a girl gets her head cut off for going to school you think Muslims think that's a pretty good idea because you didn't hear about protests? Muslims are in more danger than we are on any given day. I'm sure there are more than a few who pass on sympathy cards when the West are victims, but overall I'm guessing that even those people would like to see terrorism eliminated if given the choice.

You are free to express your opinion that "there is a difference between radical Islam and Islam." I choose not to agree with your point of view.

So be it. But I just don't see what kind of progress can be made if you have that point of view. It's self-defeating.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Islam was founded on violence, spread through violence and maintains its power solely through the use of intimidation and violence. In the koran it is written that when a Muslim comes across a non-believer they should do one of three things: Tax him, convert him OR kill him.

So much for "the religion of peace" myth.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib said: It must be comforting to know that you're willing and able to live in the confines of limited expression simply because you don't want to say the things you're not allowed to say.

Where did you get "not allowed to say"? I am allowed. I would be quite angry if I weren't. And I sometimes am over other things because my freedom of speech IS being curbed, but not about Mohammad at all. Its too bad you got blinders on about this because we have real free speech trouble and pictures of Mohammad is not one of them. Its a mere sideshow.

And nice job turning the concept of freedom of expression into a simple case of want and coincidence.

Nice job trying to twist this. I have things I want to say that I am not allowed, even right here. I got an inbox full of removed posts and not one of them is about drawing Mohammad.

But I can't say I believe you. If you WANTED to draw picture of Mohammad you wouldn't do it in a way that would be noticed because you know there's a chance you'd get killed.

Probably. But it hardly precludes the fact that I don't give a crap for pictures of Mohammad. There are many other things more dear to me that I don't express because they could get me worse than killed. And like I say, other things are getting curbed anyway.

Surely you can form an opinion as to the legitimacy of the anger. Either that or you just threw your weight behind every wife beater in America.

Slowly and carefully, explain how you arrived at that riduculous notion.

Yeah, it's just a silly little thing.

Yeah, it is. It serves no practical purpose to anyone in any way.

But seriously, don't ever do it or you might get killed. And you'll go to your grave knowing you got no sympathy from Misty because you were just asking for trouble for breaking their silly little rules.

No. Don't you read? They get no sympathy for setting out to make people angry and nothing more. If pictures of Mohammad will so much as keep the cockroaches out of people's houses, I will risk death from the minority who would threaten me. I am not chicken Super. I push boundaries all the time.

Me: I am FIERCLY free speech. Super: Well, obviously not.

Why don't you take that one up with the editor? He will most likely tell you that I am militant.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib: You're going up against a very, very heated debate between the pro and anti-Muslim crowds.

You misread the debate. It is not between the anti-Muslim crowd and the pro-Muslim crowd. It is between the anti-Muslim crowd and the pro-tolerance crowd.

You consistently miscast what I say. What's up with that? For example, I never said that the fatwa against Norris was a simple criminal act as you suggested. I said it was a criminal act. I did not say it was simple.

Far from saying that it was a simple act, I think I rather clearly suggested it was a complex one. I think it is an act of such complexity that in order to take action against it the US needs to be a participant in an international justice system by whose rules it is willing to abide. I cannot imagine which government on earth wishes to support violence or threats of violence against its citizens. There is a clear common interest. However, in order to take advantage of that interest all nations must be willing to submit to the same judgments.

Now I'm sure that the term "submit" is going to send the anti-Muslim crowd into fits of shrieking inanity. However, that is one thing that civilization is--submission. If it hurts your sensitivities that I suggest that American failure to cooperate reduces our options and that the options we select inevitably lead to more hostility against us, I suggest you develop a more calloused approach to discussion.

As for people not buying what I'm selling, so what? There's always you. Your mode of dealing with me is one of complaint. It's very clear that you do not like what I am saying, yet you neither refute it nor substantiate how it is irrelevant. For example you say that my first post with its reference to US invasions came "too soon". What possible criteria do you have for making that assertion? Is it just that people wanted to express their feelings? Do you think everyone should be allowed to express their feelings--or just everyone except me?

I totally agree with Reverend Wright when he says that the chickens are coming home to roost. What America is doing is not good for America. America is in decline and it is taking it out on Islam. Never mind that America has shown great resilience in the past. For example, the great Communist scare came and went (and singlehandedly Stalin was responsible for more deaths in a year than radical Islam has been in the past decade or two or three). How is it that we can accommodate the Communist party, legendarily sworn to overthrow the capitalist system, but cannot accommodate Islam?

About 15% of Americans live below the poverty line, jobs have disappeared and are not coming back in kind, Americans have no confidence in the financial system, the primary and secondary education systems are broken, Senators and Representative of both parties are unwilling to move beyond doctrinaire positions and give us patches where we need reform, Mad Hatters preside over Tea Parties and we are worried about Islam? Talk about folks with their heads in the sand!

So, to return to the question you dodged: I have said that the fatwa against Norris is a criminal act. In my opinion we need to work with the government of Yemen to encourage al-Alwaki to cancel his fatwa. However, we haven't exactly left ourselves many options in dealing with Yemen. So, whether you think this is a criminal act or not what's your solution? invade Yemen? have Americans express their feelings about Muslims? complain about people who dare to suggest that non-Muslims also bear responsibility in the matter?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In my opinion we need to work with the government of Yemen to encourage al-Alwaki to cancel his fatwa.

al-Alwaki is an American citizen . In fact, Nobel Peace Prize recipient President Obama has authorized a 'targetred killing' of the man. Not even Bush went there. He is in Yemen precisely because the gov't there will let him do as he pleases, and it will all reflect badly on the US.

America is in decline and it is taking it out on Islam.

Sorry, but this is nonsense. It amounts to a kind of caricature of the States, a pic of the country that was silly 50 years ago, when leftist critics imagined eastern establishment WASPs were a cultural vanguard that had to be taken down.

The backlash in Europe is much worse. Is France's recent ban on the burkah proof of that country's decline?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MistWizard:

" Probably. But it hardly precludes the fact that I don't give a crap for pictures of Mohammad. "

That is a very safe position to take for you. Because if you were interested in cartooning Mohammed, you´d have to deal with the issue of death fatwahs and living the rest of your life in hiding.

How convenient it is to bury the head in the sand, isn´t it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

From my reading... countless terrorist attacks around the world I've read about committed by Qur'an fundamentalists(or those having the muslim religion) for several years now. No group can even come close to the damage committed by this general group on world wide basis in the last ten years. Artists need to leave this topic alone, as people that blow up women to kill their enemies aren't the type practice free speech with.

They would probably do the bombing anyway. All religions have to push the envelope. Today, it is not drawing the pictures, tomorrow, it is a new requirement. Denmark has a similar problem in which they realized the Muslims were breeding themselves into a majority who would then take away their cherished secular freedoms. So, that last election was a lot about that. I have no problem with people practicing their spiritual OPINIONS, which is what beliefs are anyhow, but when those OPINIONS are used as threats about my ARTISTIC freedoms, I have to draw the line. It is one thing about burning a book, but another thing about drawing a flipping picture. How about using photoshop to do a picasso like image of the "prophet." Not allowed? How about a very abstract OUTLINE of the prophet? Again not allowed? How about a shadow image of the prophet? It gets a bit silly where I have to dance in someone else's chains of sorry and pathetic beliefs. Just saying.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I Think one of the biggest differences and/or problem with hard line Islam compared to other religions and what makes Islam stand out is the violence and threats that are associated or attributed to it, is that there are numerous countries of which the governments actually indorse, promote and apply these more hard line views of Islam.

What I basically mean is that in today's world you would be hard pressed to find any country that enforces religious zealotry other than an Islamic state.

These so-called radical Imams can make their Fatwas because in the countries they reside it is not illegal but the contrary it is often even encouraged.

Fine if you wish to say that Islam is not to blame for these threats then at least admit that Islamic based governments are at the minimum partially responsible in that in their counties, Stoning some one to death is viewed as acceptable, Death for leaving the religion is applied by the authorities, and Fatwas are sanctioned under the law.

Yemen, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.. cannot and will not stop the issuance of Fatwas because they are not illegal in their view or by their laws.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho: I totally agree with Reverend Wright when he says that the chickens are coming home to roost. What America is doing is not good for America. America is in decline and it is taking it out on Islam.

Sez on full meltdown. Mission Accomplished.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sez: "America is in decline"

Yeah, but only for another two and a half years.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This cartoonist knew what she was doing when she did her "Everyone Draw Mohammed Day" piece, and now she is facing the consequences.

Freedom of speech does not exist in a vacuum. Freedom of speech comes with consequences. The same is true for all of the freedoms US citizens enjoy under the US Constitution.

If she had donned a t-shirt with racist epithets or ethnic slurs and spent a few days in the worst parts of town she would have learned a similar lesson about freedom of speech and its consequences.

When she is shot, stabbed, mugged, beaten, or killed, do you think anyone would be talking about her free speech rights? No, you can bet people would be saying things like "Gee, that was pretty stupid for her to wear that t-shirt and go to that part of town" or "Wow, she was really asking for it."

Does that mean everyone in that neighborhood is a criminal? Of course not. Most of the people are not the problem. It only takes one gang of thugs to mete out the punishment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MisterCreosote: al-Alwaki is an American citizen.

What's your point? He is also a Yemeni citizen, and that, too, seems irrelevant to me. Yemen will obviously not allow him to do as he pleases. If it pleases him to issue fatwas against the Yemeni government, I don't think they will appreciate it. Additionally whether Obama has issued a targeted killing against al-Alwaki scarcely matters. The fatwa will not end with al-Alwaki's death. It will end with its retraction and even that will not end the threat to Norris's life. That threat was real even without the fatwa.

Sorry, but [America being in decline] is nonsense.

Wishing doesn't make it so, nor does whistling in the dark keep the wolves away. America still has many strengths, but its hold on those strengths is tenuous. It is frittering away its capital, both economic and moral, in the pursuit of two needless wars that are winnable only through mass killing, if then. We are fighting "them" "over there" so we don't have to fight them "here". "Here" we are fighting each other. We do not have solutions to our domestic problems. The war on terror distracts from all that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB said: How convenient it is to bury the head in the sand, isn´t it.

One would have to be incredibly loopy to think I have a secret desire to draw Mohammad.

We also have the freedom to run around town yelling FU to everyone passer-by. If you want to prove your free speech rights (and you dont, you just want to annoy people), why not do that instead, and see what it nets you. It would surely be braver than annoying people mostly half a world away.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib, it's difficult to be polite to one so determined to deal in rudeness. I realize that may be a point you would like to make about Islam. However, I don't think the situation will improve by rudeness on both sides.

Please get back to me when you have something to say that is relevant to the conversation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

limboinjapan said: I Think one of the biggest differences and/or problem with hard line Islam compared to other religions and what makes Islam stand out is the violence and threats that are associated or attributed to it, is that there are numerous countries of which the governments actually indorse, promote and apply these more hard line views of Islam.

For once we agree. But this is, of course, almost but not quite balanced by the threats and violence of the so called "secular" governments of mostly Christian countries. Bombs from the air are not only outnumber terrorist bombings in tonnage and civilian deaths, but they even more cowardly. People of western nations, especially those of the U.S., smash more mirrors than a vampire.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MistWizard: But it hardly precludes the fact that I don't give a crap for pictures of Mohammad.

So then you probably wouldn't care if the US government banned pictures of Mohammad.

Slowly and carefully, explain how you arrived at that riduculous notion.

Well when you completely remove the illegitimacy of the anger from the table then I suppose anyone "has it coming" for doing anything that gets anyone else angry, no matter what it is. Your defense sounds like what wife beaters say....she had it coming. Pretty silly justification, isn't it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho: Please get back to me when you have something to say that is relevant to the conversation.

I made a mistake when I said it was anti-Islam vs. pro-Islam. It's anti-Islam vs. anti-American.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Your defense sounds like what wife beaters say....she had it coming. Pretty silly justification, isn't it?

Classic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib: I made a mistake when I said it was anti-Islam vs. pro-Islam. It's anti-Islam vs. anti-American.

I don't think it is anti-American to be pro-tolerance or to be critical of US policy. But at last, I think, we have reached the heart of the matter.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sez, the US is to you what Islam is to WilliB. And no, I'm not saying that he's pro-tolerant and simply critical of Islam.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib said: So then you probably wouldn't care if the US government banned pictures of Mohammad.

That is whole different ball game. I am pretty upset with a whole host of government bannings despite the fact that most have nothing to do with me.

>Well when you completely remove the illegitimacy of the anger from the table then I suppose anyone "has it coming" for doing anything that gets anyone else angry, no matter what it is. Your defense sounds like what wife beaters say....she had it coming. Pretty silly justification, isn't it?

Well, let us suppose a husband hates natto and has declared it a thousand times. He comes home from work and the wife has cooked natto for dinner...again. If he beats his wife I think he should go to jail. But if she asks to stay at my place to avoid another beating, I will probably decline. Reason: It looks like she is making trouble to enjoy trouble, and that kind of drama, I don't need in my house.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho2 said: But at last, I think, we have reached the heart of the matter.

I don't know. Such an outrageous accusation would seem to indicate a simple desire to feel effectual by causing trouble. Does he really think we are anti-American? Does he really think he is so pro-American? I don't think he is really that dumb. So I think he is just being the conservative that can't enjoy a meal unless he knows someone else is going hungry and doing the "my group, your group" labeling thing and doing his best to just feel superior and to heck with anything that looks like a principle.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why is it people in JT conversations often attempt to make up things they think are analogous to the stories right in front of their faces? The simple question is should this cartoonist have the right to offend others without worrying about being killed or not?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"So I think he is just being the conservative that can't enjoy a meal unless he knows someone else is going hungry and doing the "my group, your group" labeling thing and doing his best to just feel superior and to heck with anything that looks like a principle."

Seriously, I have to ask, as someone who has voted Democrat more than Republican, where in America did you grow up?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hide She may, Muslims kill you must, Christians kill you will.

If we Can't laugh at ourselves,and see humour in insult?, if it does offend then, why believe?

Surly GOD is bigger than any insult to compare on this earth,

Then why do we diminish the creator of this universe we still cannot understand, which religion has that right?

It is Not our Place until we can understand the creator.

Fighting amongst our selves is not creation but Armageddon!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MisterCreosote said: Seriously, I have to ask, as someone who has voted Democrat more than Republican, where in America did you grow up?

All you need to know is that is I grew up surrounded by war loving intolerant conservative rednecks.

But my comment has as much to do with comments here as anything.

thetruthhurts said: The simple question is should this cartoonist have the right to offend others without worrying about being killed or not?

Its not a simple question. That is why we use analogies. Having the right to do something does not necessarily mean society has to do something special to protect them doing it. All this woman started was a round of hate speach, some as the idiot pastor Jones, same as a KKK rally. If those people want to take their chances doing it, its one thing, but to expect society to grant them special protections above those already in place? No way. The FBI should not be protecting this idiot. She should hire her own bodyguards. Yeah, I know she is the one paying, but its government employee time being WASTED on her.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib: Sez, the US is to you what Islam is to WilliB.

Again, you have struck into the heart of the matter. And the heart of the matter is this: instead of answering my criticisms, you claim that I am anti-American and excuse yourself from answering the criticisms on that account.

You have no idea what the US is to me except through what I say. And if you will not trouble yourself to confront what I say, but instead content yourself to dismiss what I say based on your inference of anti-Americanism from selected passages, you are likely not ever to understand what the US is to me. No skin off my nose.

The difference between my relationship with WilliB and yours with me is that I argue the opposite with WilliB without accusation. You have taken to accuse without argumentation. Rather craven, I think, for one of your obvious ability.

In a perfect world Norris should not have to live under threat of this fatwa. You've noticed, though, that we do not live in a perfect world. It is pointless to argue that our imperfections are not as bad as their imperfections. The thing to note is that we should be willing to remove the beam from our own eye before complaining about the mote in another's.

What I see in America of late, particularly in regard to Islam, is the tendency to turn the meaning of the aphorism on its head. We construe Islam to have a beam and ourselves a mote, if anything at all. And then, regardless of the virtual impossibility of ever having a beam in one's eye and the consequent meaning of the aphorism, we credit ourselves with clarity of vision.

Yes, a fatwa of death is a vile thing. But "they envy us our freedoms" is a poor answer.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

thetruthhurts: The simple question is should this cartoonist have the right to offend others without worrying about being killed or not?

I think the simple answer to that question is that she should have this right. But where do you go from there?

Personally, I think I should have the right to go to my office without worrying that some nutcase who is packing heat gets derailed by something someone else says or does and starts opening fire. I think I should have the right to drive the speed limit on the Interstate without having to worry that an enraged driver decides that I am impinging upon his personal space and starts blasting away at me with his 9mm. I think I should have the right to go to a hockey game and have a difference of opinion with someone else without having to worry about being beaten up and left a paraplegic. I think I should have the right to have dinner in my own home without having to worry whether or not my daughter is going to be struck by a stray round from a drive-by.

Life is fraught with dangers. Freedoms have never conferred safety. I have little doubt that if the Internet were so constructed that you could press a button and permanently--and I mean permanently--quiet someone whose opinions we did not like, it would either become a more civil place or the world's population problem would begin to be solved.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MistWizard: That is whole different ball game.

So I'm assuming you would be against any US law that bans pictures of Mohammad? And would Americans who made drawings in protest be considered trouble makers in your eyes?

MistWizard: Well, let us suppose a husband hates natto and has declared it a thousand times. He comes home from work and the wife has cooked natto for dinner...again. If he beats his wife I think he should go to jail. But if she asks to stay at my place to avoid another beating, I will probably decline. Reason: It looks like she is making trouble to enjoy trouble, and that kind of drama, I don't need in my house.

So by getting a beating do you think she got what she deserved?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho: Again, you have struck into the heart of the matter. And the heart of the matter is this: instead of answering my criticisms, you claim that I am anti-American and excuse yourself from answering the criticisms on that account.

That would be like WilliB asking why no one wants to handle his criticisms of Muslims on a thread where a US soldier acts out of line and kills an innocent Muslim. That's someone who obviously wants to throw away the original story and turn it into yet another Muslim hatefest because he has the opportunity to do so. And to me, you guys are the same, but you're just more subtle with your intolerance whereas he prefers the more direct approach. Instead of speaking out against the crime he wants to tie people up by debating Islam. In articles like this you want to stop people from speaking out against the Muslim crime and tie them up with debates about the US.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, a fatwa of death is a vile thing. But "they envy us our freedoms" is a poor answer.

I think superlib is right. Sezwho uses this issue to simply take as many pot shots at the US as possible.

I think I should have the right to have dinner in my own home without having to worry whether or not my daughter is going to be struck by a stray round from a drive-by.

The extreme rarity of drive-by shootings outside of certain neighborhoods (which the same inane "political correctness" distorting debate on Islam prevents us from discussing) aside, what if Molly Norris were your daughter?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib:

" and to me, you guys are the same, but you're just more subtle with your intolerance whereas he prefers the more direct approach. Instead of speaking out against the crime he wants to tie people up by debating Islam "

And how do you want to separate this story from islam??

Make fun of islam, and your death fatwah will arrive predictably swift, and seriously.

Make fun of any other religion, and what happens? Nothing happens, of course. There are no people living under death threats and having to change their identities for having cartooned Jesus, Buddha, or whoever.

How in the world can you blank out islam from islamic aggression?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib: In articles like this you want to stop people from speaking out against the Muslim crime and tie them up with debates about the US.

You are complaining again.

People can speak out against "Muslim crime" all they want and you will not hear any complaint from me that they do so. I rarely comment on anyone who speaks from the heart unless there is something that is uninformed or blatantly prejudicial in their remarks. What you will mostly hear from me is counterargument to what I consider to be people's unthoughtful rants against "Muslim crime".

So what if my counterarguments point to US involvement or responsibility? So what if they suggest that the US needs to reexamine its own actions in the matter? Let's assume, just for ten seconds and for the sake of argument, that my counterarguments and suggestions are perfectly valid. Should I keep quiet? If you can agree that I should not, it seems to me that the proper way to handle my comments is to show that they are irrelevant or false. You do neither.

If you want to be a moderator, please apply for the job. It seems to me that what you want to do is to determine what is and what is not relevant without having to be bothered with giving a reason for your determination.

As much as I dislike quoting myself I will repeat the last 4 lines of my 13-line original post to which you took umbrage and in which the first 9 lines were devoted to the crime:

I think this might also be a good time to consider whether the US, by holding itself aloof from the international justice system, makes it more difficult to gain international agreement on acts of criminality. This tends to limit US options to sanctions and wars which have such manifestly brutal effects on Muslim populations that it is a little fanciful to expect moderate Islam to lead the parade against extremists from the Islamic faith.

Yes, this is a criticism of the US. However, it is also an observation that we lack a strong international justice system precisely at the time that international justice systems would or could be a help in addressing crimes of this sort. You chose to see in this only a criticism of the US. What's up with that?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So much for religious understanding....

Most Americans are just becoming aware of the totalitarian nature of Islam. A cartoon will get you killed in this brave new world!

Hopefully it is not as bad in Japan, yet...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MisterCreosote: Sezwho uses this issue to simply take as many pot shots at the US as possible.

I think you're confusing George W. Bush with the US there. That would be the George W. Bush who led us into two needless and unwinnable wars against countries where the predominant faith is Islam. The Bush that dealt in half-truths to pursue a political agenda and persuade the American people that we must kill hundreds of thousands of Muslims and displace millions more on account of Muslim extremists.

I think we should at least consider the possibility that this has spread extremism like water on a grease fire and think about where we want to go from here: more water or a different approach?

[W]hat if Molly Norris were your daughter?

I don't really get the point of this question. If she were my daughter, I would be quite afraid for her. But I would have been afraid for her without the fatwa much as I would have been afraid for her were she an abortion clinic doctor.

If she were my daughter I would be very sad that I might never see her again were she to enter a protection program and I would be very angry at the intolerance of certain Muslims. I think I would probably want to throttle al-Alwaki if not castrate and then gut him.

I would probably not want the US to invade Yemen on this account but I would most likely not reflect on how the world got to be the way it is and what we should do about it.

Your point is...?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That would be the George W. Bush who led us into two needless and unwinnable wars against countries where the predominant faith is Islam. The Bush that dealt in half-truths to pursue a political agenda and persuade the American people that we must kill hundreds of thousands of Muslims and displace millions more on account of Muslim extremists.

I think we should at least consider the possibility that this has spread extremism like water on a grease fire and think about where we want to go from here: more water or a different approach?

Interesting, I didn't know Bush was President in 1989 when the Fatwah was issued for Salmam Rushdie death for writing 'The Satanic Verses'.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is fascinating how a totalitarian ideology (Islam) apparently now occupies a place in the scheme of things, in the moral calculus of the Left in North America and Europe, which we will see means it is to be defended more vigorously than anything else the world's "progressives" and American "liberals" purport to stand for - - equality between the sexes, gay rights, non-violence, freedom of choice, tolerance, free expression (especially when counter to "middle class" sensibilities). Even though, of course, the official position of Islam on basically all of the aforementioned issues is in direct, illiberal and all too often violent opposition. Feminists are silent on the plight of the poor, confused cartoonist Molly Norris. No, no it is Sarah Palin who must be stopped, not radical clerics in foreign nations putting out contracts on American citizens whose effing cartoons ffs, happen to outrage their bigoted, fanatical, misogynist, supremacist 8th century values.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

persuade the American people that we must kill hundreds of thousands of Muslims and displace millions more on account of Muslim extremists.

Hundreds of thousands? No. The US probably killed about 20,000 - Iraqi soldiers, insurgents, mobsters, and not a few foreign mercenaries. The rest of the massive loss of life in Iraq, lamentable though it is, is the result of the age-old hatreds: the Sunni - Shia schism that rends the Religion of Peace, and the mix of tribalism and the cult of Islam.

It is telling how folks like Sezwho never bring up the number of lives saved by US intervention. The ouster of the Taliban (even the WHO admits) brought infant mortality rates down, a measurable 40,000 / year decline in such deaths.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind: Interesting, I didn't know Bush was President in 1989 when the Fatwah was issued for Salmam Rushdie death for writing 'The Satanic Verses'.

He wasn't. But you are observing without taking responsibility for making a clear point. If your point is that there were fatwas before now, yes there were. As were there causes for grievance--particularly with respect to the fraught religious situation in India and particularly in consideration of Rushdie's Muslim roots.

If your point is that it would have been impossible to exacerbate the situation that existed in 1989, that would be just flat-out wrong, I think. And I would cite George W. Bush's adventures as corroborating evidence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As were there causes for grievance.

There are causes for grievance in almost any situation you can think of. Be it from when your were a child and your sibling got a 'bigger slice' of Mom's cake then you did and you bellowed 'it isn't fair that Johnny got a bigger slice!'

Well life isn't fair never has been or is going to be fair no matter how many 'fatwa's' are issued.

Also it is interesting that you think the U.S should fall under an international court system to ensure fairness. Molly Norris just got a death sentence, where was the fair and just trial where evidence was presented in her defense?

Double standards indeed in your thinking on this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ack, this nonsense is getting out of hand!!! Gees! But do Americans actually know (or understand) WHY they (the islamists) HATE them?? Well, it certainly ISN'T because you elect your leaders in a 2-party (non competitive) nation. Condi and George Bush Jr. sure made u look foolish when this was primary reason for said hatred. No, it's because you keep propping up oil dictators in the Middle East who don't represent the best interest of their people. As long as the addicting oil clouds your judgement, this issue will NEVER be resolved.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MisterCreosote: ...folks like Sezwho...

If you can't get the name right as you are creating your pejorative categories, I'm not really sure how we can trust you to get anything else right either.

The Nuremberg standard for war criminality held that the aggressor was responsible for all subsequent acts. If you were to look up "casualties of the Iraqi war" in Wikipedia, you will find numbers for Iraqi deaths that range from 100,000 to 1,000,000. These numbers do not include Afghani deaths and they certainly do not include the 500,000 Iraqi children that Unicef estimated as having died as a result of US-sponsored sanctions prior to the war, a number of child deaths which Madeleine Albright famously described as being one worth paying.

Add the refugees in both countries and add the destruction of infrastructure and the inadequate replacement of it. What we have caused in those two countries and in waging wars of choice simply beggars belief--especially when one looks at the lack of success we have had in stopping terrorism of any stripe, especially terrorism from politically aggrieved Islamic extremists.

You seem to be greatly in denial about the amount of damage that these wars have caused in those two countries. Moreover, you seem to be unable to address what has always been my main point--that the issuance of fatwas by clerics in Yemen and elsewhere is a crime and it is a crime that would be best solved by international cooperation, including the cooperation of Arab and Muslim states. And that, furthermore, needless war against Arab countries and holding ourselves aloof from international justice does not create an environment where international law can flourish.

Al-Alwaki is quite wrong in putting Norris on his fatwa list. But the American government has given Muslims precious few reasons to believe that Americans are not the enemy, particularly those who take liberties with the prophet. We cannot sanitize the globe through war.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind: Double standards indeed in your thinking on this.

Not so. I don't approve the fatwa. What double standard are you talking about? We have a double standard now. I am arguing for a single one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We have a double standard now. I am arguing for a single one.

Agreed all Fatwa's should only be issued in an International Court of Law. Once you get those Muslims down with that then we can discuss this further.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Having the right to do something does not necessarily mean society has to do something special to protect them doing it.

You seem to not understand the meaning of having a right to do something. By its very definition, it means your right to do that something is protected.

Its not a simple question. That is why we use analogies.

It is a simple question. Analogies confuse the question. Either you think she has the right to speak her mind (no matter how stupid others might think that something is) or she does not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The right to do to something is protected, but the right to do something does NOT offer protection from repercussion to due exercising that right.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think the simple answer to that question is that she should have this right. But where do you go from there?

There is no need to go anywhere. You think she should have this right. I tend to agree. You and I both believe she should have this right without fear of paying for her speech with threats of violence. All of the things you wrote in your post should be and are within your rights and the societies of all countries should be doing their utmosts to guarantee those rights.

Your last sentence was particularly thought provoking. I think that is why posting on the internet is so popular.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The right to do to something is protected, but the right to do something does NOT offer protection from repercussion to due exercising that right.

It certainly does or should offer protection if said 'repercussion' is illegal. If not, it is not much of a right, is it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind: Once you get those Muslims down with that then we can discuss this further.

We can discuss it any time you are actually willing to address a point without resorting to sarcasm or without opening up a line of argumentation which you then run from when it is countered. Until then I'll continue to do my best to represent my point of view and you'll have to carry on with whatever it is you're doing.

No one should be issuing death decrees. But it is not Muslims we need to be down with that. It is governments throughout the world. Yet governments throughout the world are unlikely to cooperate with us as long as we make it clear that we hold ourselves above everyone else's justice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@thetruthhurts.

In an ideal and perfect world it SHOULD work like that, there I agree.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Until then I'll continue to do my best to represent my point of view and you'll have to carry on with whatever it is you're doing.

Agreed, I'll keep not hating my country or think it deserves fatwas issued by backward 8th century thinking neanderthals to kill my fellow citizens because of our 'rotten imperialist foreign policy' over the years.

You can keep your point of view that we somehow 'deserve it' and our chickens have come home to roost. Don't think there is much left to talk about since I really happen to like being an American and all she represents, sorry I just can't be ashamed of a country that immigrants continue to flock to even to this day, Muslims included.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MisterCreosote: My point though is that you have revealed yourself on this issue to be the sort who will blame the US no matter what; a fatwa, a death sentence issued by a "cleric" in Yemen upon a young woman in America - - a cartoonist - - becomes just another exercise in moral inversion and tactical relativism so you can bash the US.

Criticizing the US is not the same as bashing the US. However, you choose to conflate the two and you have chosen to make the argument about me rather than about what I have said about Norris. So we careen from pillar to post talking about points that are further and further removed from my point.

You deny American culpability for civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. You deny culpability for sanctions. And I suppose you would as well deny culpability for constant American interference in the affairs of Middle-Eastern and Islamic countries. You seem to be a Patriot if not a PATRIOT. I myself am only a patriot, but that doesn't seem to be enough for you.

Here is a list of my points about Norris:

I hate that she has to go into hiding because of her exercise of free speech. I hate that anyone has to go into hiding or deny their perspectives because others object to their testimony. (Increasingly I find great relevance to that very point in our discussions.) Without respect to the countries in which people live, people should not be calling for the deaths of other people. No prayers for silver bullets. Doing so is a crime, not an indication of some supposed evil of Islam. It is a crime whether or not recognized by the governments in which those countries live. It is in the US interest to promote the universal recognition that it is a crime and to promote the willingness to prosecute it as such. The US will probably have to give up something in order to get something and in this case I think it will have to give up its ability to make war at will.

Now, which of these do you disagree with and why have you been spending all your time with number 7?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind, if only you could resist the impulse to caricature other people's arguments!

If you want to find who the imperialist is, you have only to look at whose troops are stationed furthest from home, whose language is being spoken and whose currency is being used. It doesn't matter if you call it protection of democracy instead of imperialism. As long as democracy is the system of the imperialist, it is still imperialism. And as long as it is imperialism, it will create opposition and anger.

I really get that you do not want to think of America in those terms. However, I think that your refusal to do so hurts, rather than helps, the country you love. I think that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq hurt us. They hurt us at home, draining capital that we do not have and setting citizen against citizen with respect to their necessity. They hurt us abroad as being extra-legal at best and needlessly destructive at worst. They hurt us within the Islamic community by feeding extremism and by making it more difficult for moderates to hold sway.

But, with respect to that, we have only a difference of opinion. I can live with that. What I find a lot harder to live with is the lack of charity ("...but the greatest of these is charity...") that you and others bear towards people who dare to criticize your--and their--government.

I think it's great that you'll keep on loving your country. Not so great, however, is that you think that these fatwas are from 8th century neanderthals. Less great still is the idea that this particular fatwa was issued because of our imperialistic foreign policy. It was issued because of Norris's stance toward the prophet. Least great of all would be a suggestion on your part that I think any private US citizen deserves a death fatwa because of such a policy. If you think that is what I have written you are reading what you want me to have written and not what I wrote.

Do I think that the US "somehow deserves" Muslim animosity? You bet I do. However, when I say it, my emphasis is on "somehow". It is on the non-deniability of responsibility, on the necessary acknowledgment that we are not without fault in this matter. It sounds to me that when you say it, the emphasis is on "deserves" and that you suggest that I greet American pain with a sense of schadenfreude. You seem to suggest that you are somehow a better American than I am. And that you may be--but by nothing that you have demonstrated here.

Moderator: Readers, please stay on topic. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not relevant to this discussion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

thetruthhurts: "All of the things you wrote in your post should be and are within your rights and the societies of all countries should be doing their utmosts to guarantee those rights."

100% in agreement. The thing is, she didn't think clearly about what she did, and has even apologized and admit as much. She says she did it in regards to the South Park censorship, but it's not really the reason that matters as much as the fact that she did something she KNEW to be wrong, and did something wrong knowing it was likely to offend. Bottom line is she did something very stupid. Does she deserve the reaction? not one bit, but doesn't change how stupid she is.

sailwind: "Don't think there is much left to talk about since I really happen to like being an American and all she represents, sorry I just can't be ashamed of a country that immigrants continue to flock to even to this day, Muslims included."

It's great that you are proud of your country, but it seems that if you had the choice you would bar said Muslim immigrants from entering. I believe that the US is a great nation, but there is nothing for you to be proud of if the nation only represents intolerance. People who blame all Muslims for the world's evils are really no better than the few radical extremists that they blame all Muslims for.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho2,

Good post, many good points and I appreciate your view. However I do not agree with with framework or premise of your viewpoint on how opposition and anger in the islamic world towards America and the west is the result of imperialism. That in my opinion is the false red herring that Islamic countries internal power structures have used time and time again to keep themselves in control.

In my opinion and through my experiences of actually being in the middle east and interacting with Muslims in their own native land, most Muslims are friendly gracious people who only want to live in peace and be free of conflict within their own established traditional cultural mores.

However those traditional cultural mores are being threatened constantly by western influences or in other words 'the modern world'. Some Muslims have embraced the 'modern world' and have found a way to co-exist with it while maintaining a distinct Islamic identity. Others have viewed western culture as an extreme threat and have gone so far as to declare actual war on us infidels.

None of this is new to you or worth going into a deeper discussion because you and I know this is true and not really open to any spin to gain a political point.

Where the difference is between us is as to why the animosty from the more conservative and traditional Islamic adherents to the point of terrorism and death fatwas from the so called 'purists' of their religion.

Your view and I respect it is that it stems from our heavy handed Foreign policy in the Middle east and to an extent you are correct but in my opinion that is a very minor part of the reason.

This again is just my opinion but I consider it well thought out and true based on my own personal experiences. The reason for the extreme backlash is this......We represent sin, to a devout Islamic person we are hedonistic, gamblers, drinkers, lustfilled sinners. We are temptation to their youth to stray from cultural mores that have been developed for centuries. We are a threat to the very fabric of their society, we are to put it another way that may resonate with you and others....We are the Playboy magazine hidden underneath the mattress in the Islamic world. The traditional Islamic purists know if they ever loosen their morals to permit a more liberal society then it is they that will become irrelevant, it is they that will lose power and influence over their people and that is why they are so threatened by us.

It is not about perceived sleights by America it is about in their minds our diseased society and our decadent ideas actually gaining a foothold and competing with theirs, they know ultimately the choice would be to discard the old pure ways and embrace the modern if that were to actually happen and that scares the heck out of them.

That is my opinion and my reasoning, if you don't agree with it, no problem, but I ask that you consider it and maybe understand where I'm actually comming from on the issue of Islam and its internal struggle to find a compatable place in the modern world that will no longer include 'death fatwa's' against cartoonists anymore.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zenny11 said: In an ideal and perfect world it SHOULD work like that, there I agree.

Totally. But last I checked it still was not a perfect world. Somebody notify me if that changes.

Also, in a perfect world, 999 out of 1000 Muslims whose toes you stepped on would accept that you are just exercising your rights when you drew Mohammad. So when the 1 out of 1000 who gets serious about killing you make a death threat, they would chase him to the ends of the Earth. But this not being a perfect world, when you step on the toes of so many people, they find it rather easy to look the other way as a man who is scum even in their eyes threatens you life.

This is quite similar to the often expressed hope that one pays the consequences of dropping the soap in prison. One might justly hope for extra punishment for one prisoner, but why should another get rewarded? That aspect is over-looked and condoned for the sake of wrath. They do it. We do it.

But if you want the majority of Muslims firmly on our side fighting extremists, not drawing Mohammad is surely a tiny price to pay. Drawing Mohammad and sabotaging that chance is retarded any way you slice it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind, thank you for your post. I actually agree with most of what you say. I just have two observations.

I don't contend that Islamic extremists do violence against us because of what I refer to as our imperialistic foreign policy. I think that our policy aggravates the extremist's willingness to use violence and that wars in largely Islamic countries worsen it further. I don't think wars are the answer and I think we will come to regret the two we are now engaged in.

I agree with your statement that we are the Playboy under the mattress to the traditional Islamic purist. I think that Playboy is probably too gentile to serve as an emblem to what we are to them. I would differentiate between a purist and an extremist but, be that as it may, I would observe that the traditional clerics of any religion--at least any that I know of--are afraid of losing control. Furthermore, all religions that I know of except possibly the Shakers, have suffered a loss of control, most of them without any permanent damage. So, while the purists may fear that, I'm not sure the moderates do. I think our job is to assist the moderates. You and I seem to disagree on how best to do that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Where are the "peace loving" Muslims that should be demanding an end to these "contracts" for the murder of foreigners in the foreigners own countries. Islam isn't the law of the land in Sweden or the U.S. Isn't the average muslim condoning the killings by not comdeming them. The peace loving Irish finally managed to stop killing each other over religious differences so we know it's possible.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zenny11: The right to do to something is protected, but the right to do something does NOT offer protection from repercussion to due exercising that right.

So am I allowed to threaten you if you express your views?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MistWizard - But if you want the majority of Muslims firmly on our side fighting extremists, not drawing Mohammad is surely a tiny price to pay. Drawing Mohammad and sabotaging that chance is retarded any way you slice it.

How many concessions are you willing to make not to annoy the murderous factions? Will you convert to Islam? Will you allow honor killings?

The bottom line is that you don't kill people for drawing cartoons and you don't bow to ultimatiums that demand you except such action.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib - So am I allowed to threaten you if you express your views?

They say that "talk is cheap". You can verbally threaten anyone. They may or may not return the favor. There ARE consequences to actions.

Physically threatening someone can lead to criminal charges or a beating. The consequences may not be within your control.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho: Again, you have struck into the heart of the matter. And the heart of the matter is this: instead of answering my criticisms, you claim that I am anti-American and excuse yourself from answering the criticisms on that account.

Because responding to your "criticisms" would be the same as responding to Sabi's "criticisms" about Israel. No matter what I say, the topic is, was, and always will be the evil of Israel. With you, no matter what I say the topic is, was, and always be the evil of America. With WilliB the topic is, was, and always will be the evil of Islam. You need people to address your "criticisms" for the simple fact that you need responses to create a platform to spew your hate speech. I won't give you that platform and my guess is that that what bothers you the most. Limit your comments to your opposition of the fatwa (your words) and I'll be happy to talk about your points.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul: The bottom line is that you don't kill people for drawing cartoons and you don't bow to ultimatiums that demand you except such action.

That pretty much sums it up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MistWizard: But if you want the majority of Muslims firmly on our side fighting extremists, not drawing Mohammad is surely a tiny price to pay. Drawing Mohammad and sabotaging that chance is retarded any way you slice it.

So the more we give in to silly (as you put it) demands from Muslims the more chance we will have of winning the peace. Brilliant strategy. That will certainly force the intolerant to become more tolerant.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib.

Guess I have to spell it out for you and others.

You go the rights to say what you want but NEED to be prepared for the repercussions which can come in a multitude of forms.

If the repercussion comes in the form of an illegal/criminal act than that is a New case connected but seen/treated as different/unrelated to the execution of the right.

You guys are mixing things up. Reread your Constitution and Amendments than ask a lawyer/legal advisor.

Your rights don't just exist in a vacuum, with every right there also come duties, etc that are connected with it.

Example: Extreme one. Can I walk through Harlem, etc wearing KKK clothing and telling the locals to get out of the USA. How much can I expect the Goverment to protect my life and well-being by doing so? How much can I expect the goverment to use resources(police time, tax-payers money, etc) for said protection.

Norris could do her act because there is some protection for the expression of Free Speech but there is no Carte Blanche protection.

HTH.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

These comments are way, way too long! Nutty fanatic Muslims want to kill an American cartoonist, so the FBI gets her a new identity? What happened to freedom of speech? The FBI, CIA, etc...should go after this Yemini-American dork who put the fatwa on her and also start killing off all these other radicals who do not understand our democracy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib said: So the more we give in to silly (as you put it) demands from Muslims the more chance we will have of winning the peace.

Ummmmm....no. I indicated one thing. You extrapolating that one thing in such a fashion is a symbol of how riduculous you have been lately.

Look, if moderate Muslims burn the American flag, do you think that will American willingness to help them will remain unchanged? Please. In fact, you and I both know that if EXTREMISTS burn the American flag, MODERATES will take the fall. Such is the idiocy of the human race, and if you fail to account for it, all you get is trouble.

Avoiding pissing off your neighbor is being characterized as walking on egg shells. Man, I am glad I do not live next to such people anymore. I had to cross the Pacific, but man, it was worth it.

Brilliant strategy. That will certainly force the intolerant to become more tolerant.

I was not aware that you were beating your head against a wall that hard. Rest assured, I am not. All I am talking about is not stepping on the toes of the majority of peaceful Muslims. If you want to step on the toes of intolerants, so long as you don't step on the toes of moderates at the same time, go right ahead. I know that dart board and urinal inserts of Osama bin Laden's face did not have quite the effect you wanted. Too friggen bad.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MistWizard:

" All I am talking about is not stepping on the toes of the majority of peaceful Muslims. "

Alas, the "peaceful muslims" do nothing to stop the un-peaceful in their midst. To the contrary, while the un-peaceful clerics issue their death fatwahs and the un-peaceful followers carry them out, the peaceful ones are asking us to look the other way and pretend that islam has nothing to do with it.

It is a tag team: while the un-peaceful ones terrorize us, their peaceful friends are hold our arms behind our backs.

What a great idea to rely on that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB said: Alas, the "peaceful muslims" do nothing to stop the un-peaceful in their midst.

Round and round we go. What have you ever done to stop your country from dropping bombs on innocent people? What have you ever done to stop any violence anywhere by anyone?

And you are one here who paints all Muslims with the same brush, then complain when Muslims paint all Americans with the same brush.

while the un-peaceful clerics issue their death fatwahs

Name the clericS who issued death fatwahs on this woman. You have any clue how many there are in the world?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib: With you, no matter what I say the topic is, was, and always be the evil of America.

And with you, it seems that no matter what I say, your topic will always be that I am engaging in hate speech against the US. You say that you refuse to engage with me because that only gives me another opportunity to do what you say I invariably do. Yet here you are giving me another opportunity.

So, I will say to you what I said to another chap who is overly sensitive to criticisms of the US and I will repeat the points that I made concerning Norris in my original post.

I hate that she has to go into hiding because of her exercise of free speech.

I hate that anyone has to go into hiding or deny their perspectives because others object to their testimony. (Increasingly I find great relevance to that very point in our discussions.)

Without respect to the countries in which people live, people should not be calling for the deaths of other people. No prayers for silver bullets.

Doing so is a crime, not an indication of some supposed evil of Islam.

It is a crime whether or not recognized by the governments in which those countries live.

It is in the US interest to promote the universal recognition that it is a crime and to promote the willingness to prosecute it as such.

The US will probably have to give up something in order to get something and in this case I think it will have to give up its ability to make war at will.

Which ones of those do you disagree with and why do you seize upon #7?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan,

100% in agreement. The thing is, she didn't think clearly about what she did, and has even apologized and admit as much. She says she did it in regards to the South Park censorship, but it's

Yes, however, her apology would have ultmately been better for all sides if it was not as a result of death threats and the like.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

thetruthhurts said: Yes, however, her apology would have ultmately been better for all sides if it was not as a result of death threats and the like.

Hold on. Who is making the death threats? She needs to make an apology to ALL Muslims, and its only a few making the threats. Most are not, and did nothing to earn what they view as an insult from her. In fact, she can apologize to moderates especially and tell the extremists to go to hell since she just loves to exercise her free speech rights so much.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tell the extremists to go to hell since she just loves to exercise her free speech rights so much.

I am thinking that was what got her in hot water in the first place. Moderates are ignoring her as they should. They are smarter than you give them credit for.

An apology should be from the heart, not from fear.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How many of you who live in Japan could express any opinion about the emperor (out loud). If you did, and some crazies said they were going to kill you, would you apologize to get them to stop trying to kill you?

What if you said "the emperor is not a god, not divine, he is just a mortal" - that is what the mayor of Nagasaki said several decades ago, and it got him stabbed by a right wing self-proclaimed "aikokusha".

How many people in Japan are really free to express themselves?

As for the muslim world hating Americans: What if you were black and a slave in the United States 150 years ago? It really would not matter what you did, the whites would still hate you.

I suspect American policies do play a role in some of the muslim/non-muslim friction, but I think western society is so different, and prosperous, that it makes muslims even more resentful. Even if the U.S. stopped supporting Israel, pulled all troops out of the middle east, and stopped influencing their politics, the majority of muslims would still hate the west / America / Christians / Israel, etc. We are just too different, and value totally different things - like freedom and individual rights.

*Most muslims are the extreme kind. Moderates are the minority.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

thetruthhurts said: I am thinking that was what got her in hot water in the first place. Moderates are ignoring her as they should.

But moderates are ignoring extremists as well. Had she not stepped on their toes too, there might be a chance to get them to speak up.

Next time I suggest drawing pictures of bin Laden in hell getting gang raped by demons while a number of virgins laugh and cheer.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But moderates are ignoring extremists as well. Had she not stepped on their toes too, there might be a chance to get them to speak up.

I don't think moderates are ignoring extremists. Some speak out. Some don't. I don't think comments from this woman affect moderates either way in that regard. As I said, moderates are much smarter than many would give them credit for.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Moderates are the minority.

Moderates are the majority the world over. If they were not, the world would be much worse off than it is. Bet on it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Spider - If we did that, people would die because of Islamic intolerance.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ah, that tolerant Islam. The great religion of peace. Nothing to see here. Nothing to worry about or question. Just extremists after all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

She just wants to be one of those who cower behind the "freedom of speech" tag.

'cowering' behind freedom of speech?

When you go out to take a pull at the Tigers tail don't come whining when it bites you in return.

I guess she got a real big "Reality check" with this one.But I guess her luck ran out when she decided to go against Islam.

Well, I hope she got her little chuckle, for she is most certainly now seeing the gravity of her actions

Anybody today that would make a comic cartoon or anti islamic piece of art or written material is an A-hole because of all the hot headed Islamic wack jobs out there.

she just loves to exercise her free speech rights so much.

I'm amazed at all these 'You should be careful not to piss off the Muslims' comments.....tell me, who's cowering? By saying that she should have known better, is getting her 'consequences' etc you are saying that Muslims are dangerous despite the numerous uses of the word 'peaceful on this thread.

You piss off a Christian, are they going to put out a contract on you to defend their religion? If so, the makers of many movies, the artist who made the "Piss Christ" (an 'artwork' consisting of a crucifix in a vat of urine) and others would be on the hit list. Are they?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

AND of course, all of the peaceful Christians have banded together to stop the non-peaceful Christians...ditto Jews, ditto Humanists, etc.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

AND of course, all of the peaceful Christians have banded together to stop the non-peaceful Christians...ditto Jews, ditto Humanists, etc.

Yes, and they collectively called it "civilization". It's a work in progress.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KevinHawaii:

" What if you said "the emperor is not a god, not divine, he is just a mortal" - that is what the mayor of Nagasaki said several decades ago, and it got him stabbed by a right wing self-proclaimed "aikokusha". How many people in Japan are really free to express themselves? "

That is a good point. So how would feel if the right-wingers extended their intimidation world-wide and asked Japanese everywhere in the world to murder emperor critics, including in your neighbourhood?

That is the situation we are talking about. Remember, Molly Norris is a resident of the US, and not of e.g. Iran.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If Mr. Mohamad is suppose to be so sacred, then why do the Imans allow parents to name their kid that? Half the Muslims I know of have Mohamad as their first name.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB: So how would feel if the right-wingers extended their intimidation world-wide and asked Japanese everywhere in the world to murder emperor critics, including in your neighbourhood?

Do you think it would solve the problem if we whipped up anti-Japanese sentiment and then, concentrated many of the Japanese in our own country and for good measure, invaded Japan? It seems to me we did that already and the right-wingers are still here. They might not reach you in Ames, Iowa, but in Los Angeles you'd be just another push-pin on a crime map. And, of course, you'd better leave Kawasaki before the last train has gone.

It seems to me that one of the problems here is that very few people are talking about approaches to the solution of the problem. Instead we folks seem to be blaming Islam for being inherently evil or blaming Islamic moderates for not standing up to extremists. I don't think that the problem is either.

The problem is that al-Alwaki serves himself more than Allah in the issuance of this fatwa, that he has too wide an audience among those who see themselves as politically oppressed and who find an excuse for action in the more violent passages of the Qur'an and that the Yemeni government sees no percentage in working with the US primarily and other Western nations secondarily.

We should be working toward international agreements regarding what terrorism is, when interference with national sovereignty is warranted and how justice should be meted out to those who violate the agreements. People will argue that this is not practical and I would say that given the world as it exists today, such agreements will not be immediately effective. Which is why I use the phrase "working toward".

It seems to me, though, that blaming Islam gets us nowhere.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sezwho:

" Do you think it would solve the problem if we whipped up anti-Japanese sentiment and then, concentrated many of the Japanese in our own country and for good measure, invaded Japan? "

Nobody said that. But given this scenario, would it "solve the problem" if the whole world caved under the uyokus´ threats and curbed itss free speech in order not to offend the uyokus? That is the analogy we are looking at.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Do you think it would solve the problem if we whipped up anti-Japanese sentiment and then, concentrated many of the Japanese in our own country and for good measure, invaded Japan? It seems to me we did that already and the right-wingers are still here.

Absolutely hilarious. That is your take on WW2 ?

Moderator: Back on topic please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB, I know what analogy you are looking at. My point was that this analogy offered nothing in terms of solving the problem.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MisterCreosote: That is your take on WW2?

This is your take on my response to WilliB?

Was his context WW2? I didn't get that it was. My point was that to identify a problem is not the same thing as solving it. Problems that cannot be solved must be ameliorated or endured.

We could do what we did with success in Iraq and none in Afghanistan, storm into Yemen and hunt down the offender. Do you think that would solve the problem? What do you think will? Standing around and ragging on Islam or Muslims will not.

Moderator: Back on topic please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

goddog said: If Mr. Mohamad is suppose to be so sacred, then why do the Imans allow parents to name their kid that? Half the Muslims I know of have Mohamad as their first name.

Religious people are not rational in their beliefs. They have decided one thing shows respect to Mohammad and another does not. That is just the way it is. I only care enough about their stupity to avoid annoying them as long as its convenient. The minute it becomes inconvenient, to heck with them. So far, in my life, it is convenient not to draw Mohammad. Maybe, not being a teenager anymore, I just don't feel like annoying people for kicks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is another silly example of just how silly ALL religions really are.

Each one has their own silly beliefs and all think the others are all wrong.

When in fact they are all the same.....

Silliness is just silliness.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

When in fact they are all the same..... Silliness is just silliness.

No Islam is special with it's growth of these kind of idiots that issue fatwahs. That is why there is becoming a growing movement of distaste for that religion that gets expressed on this forum. It's not hate for all muslims. It's hate for the haters that this religion creates. If there were no Islam there would be no problem like this. No other religion destroys other religion's symbols and vows to kill those that depict it's holy person like Islam does. It's truly a religion that breeds retards.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The silence from Ms Norris' progressive pals in the lefty media is deafening. And where is our professorial president? He weighs in on the inconsequential arrest of a pampered establishment academic like Henry Gates Jr, his AG chastises the entire nation and calls us "cowards" on the issue of race, but here is the Rushdie Affair come to America and suddenly the old windbag has no opinion?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MisterCreosote: He weighs in on the inconsequential arrest of a pampered establishment academic like Henry Gates Jr, his AG chastises the entire nation and calls us "cowards" on the issue of race, but here is the Rushdie Affair come to America and suddenly the old windbag has no opinion?

In the matter of Molly Norris, what would you have Obama chastize the American people for or what do you think he direct his AG to call us? Do you think he should say, "About six months ago I authorized the targeted killing of al-Alwaki. Let me be perfectly clear that it is completely unconscionable that this individual would call for the death of an American citizen."

What do you think he should say to the American people on this account?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

JoeBigs:

" This is another silly example of just how silly ALL religions really are. Each one has their own silly beliefs and all think the others are all wrong. "

Being silly is harmless. But this issue is not about being silly but about issuing serious death threats. And no, not "all religions" do that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB, it is not the religion that is issuing the death threat. It is a person interpreting that religion. I don't know if all religions have such persons, but Islam is not the only one that does.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

it is not the religion that is issuing the death threat. It is a person interpreting that religion. I don't know if all religions have such persons, but Islam is not the only one that does.

Of the 3 religions supposedly of the Abrahamic line only one featured a prophet/saint/founder who, like the enraged cleric in this article, had a female a women killed for insulting him.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MisterCreosote: Of the 3 religions supposedly of the Abrahamic line only one featured a prophet/saint/founder who, like the enraged cleric in this article, had a female a women killed for insulting him.

So what? That is still a man--not a religion--ordering someone's death. The prophet did not call for Norris's death, al-Alwaki did. Al-Alwaki no more speaks for Islam than Reverend Wright speaks for Christianity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho2:

" The prophet did not call for Norris's death, al-Alwaki did. Al-Alwaki no more speaks for Islam than Reverend Wright speaks for Christianity. "

Oh really? Then where are all the big name clerics who publicly denounce this death fatwah and clearly acknowledge the right to free speech that we enjoy in the West?

Big silence....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB, it seems to me that you are assuming that a public denunciation by big name clerics is exactly what moderate Islam needs to do in order to prevent maverick clerics from issuing a fatwa such as this one on Norris.

There have been denunciations aplenty from the West and a fat lot of good that has done. While you may not have heard clerical criticism of this, I doubt that you have heard a chorus of clerical approbation of it either.

So you demand denunciation. How would strident Glenn-Beck-like denunciation solve the problem? For all we know, it would exacerbate the problem--unless of course you are privy to the Muslim heart and mind.

In the meantime, here is a short list of distinguished Muslims who have spoken out against the fatwa to the extent that they have publically opposed it:

http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/a_defense_of_free_speech_by_american_and_canadian_muslims/0018241

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SezWho:

" There have been denunciations aplenty from the West and a fat lot of good that has done. While you may not have heard clerical criticism of this, I doubt that you have heard a chorus of clerical approbation of it either. "

Oh really? It seems you missed the world-wide cartoon riots and the serious death threats that dozens of cartoonists live under. It is not like Norris is an isolated incident. Again, if you think that Al-Alwaki is so far removed from the mainstream, you should quote the leading clerics who clearly state that they respect freedom of speech in the West.

You can´t, because they don´t exist. Outside your wishful thinking, that is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WilliB: It seems you missed the world-wide cartoon riots and the serious death threats that dozens of cartoonists live under.

It would only seem like that to someone who was willing to ignore evidence and who substituted his own impressions for actual facts. Perhaps you could quote the leading clerics who endorse al-Awlaki's fatwa.

When you call for loud repudiations of al-Awlaki's fatwa, you put yourself in the position of making up the rules. Your rule: denounce or else! While I think it is fair to ask that moderate Muslims indicate that they do not support this fatwa or the cleric who issued it, I think it rather unfair to ignore those who do so indicate without providing any evidence of prominent Muslims who support it.

I have given you a list of prominent Muslims who have gone on record as saying al-Awlaki's fatwa is not consistent with Islam. This list includes three Imams, none of them Imam Suleiman, whose current opinion regarding this matter you might also wish to seek out. For that matter, you could even ask Imam Rauf.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Norris’ cartoon inspired a Facebook page that caught the attention of authorities in Pakistan, who banned the social networking site in response.

I remember this, and was absolutely impress with the reasonable comments of JT readers. Back then of course, voluminous comments were specific to freedom speech.

What shining civilization would you point to as an example of Islamic superiority? Saudi Arabia? Afghanistan? Iran? Take a look at their treatment of gays -not to mention women- for an idea of their concept of brotherly love.

@mtngal What an odd thing to say-- the Pope certainly made some homophobic comments in the past, and Christian Russia sure have extreme cases of homophobic violence-- gays being beaten up for their sexuality, etc.

BUT SINCE I seriously doubt you're speaking as a Christian, it's fair to say that people should consider moderation before castigating other religions/ races on the basis of odd incidences.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The problem is that al-Alwaki serves himself more than Allah in the issuance of this fatwa, that he has too wide an audience among those who see themselves as politically oppressed and who find an excuse for action in the more violent passages of the Qur'an and that the Yemeni government sees no percentage in working with the US primarily and other Western nations secondarily.

We should be working toward international agreements regarding what terrorism is, when interference with national sovereignty is warranted and how justice should be meted out to those who violate the agreements. People will argue that this is not practical and I would say that given the world as it exists today, such agreements will not be immediately effective. Which is why I use the phrase "working toward".

It seems to me, though, that blaming Islam gets us nowhere.

Well put.

Indonesian progress-- the world's largest Islamic nation-- for the past five years have been tremendously solid. Forty percent of Southeast Asian GDP were generated by that country alone now worth 510.73 billion; and I think many Islamic (and non-Muslim) nations should look at Indonesian gains and emulate the successes made by its own modernization.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites