Draw Muhammad contest Taxas!!! WHY?? - Page 6

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

825558

Inactive

Posted: 8 years ago

They will never understand how much we love our Beloved Muhammad(PBUH)
Yes,I'm a Proud Muslim but I'm against the Idea of Killing people rather than having a Serious talk about.

But that doesn't make what people are doing now right in any way...they will never Understand the Amount of Respect Muhammad [PBUH]Deserves From Us 😭

To punish the People Who has zero amount of tolerence and is filled with Insane thoughts...you are punishing the Man who condemned it all along

Two wrongs never make one Right.

Quote

AnuMP

@AnuMP

IF-Rockerz

Posted: 8 years ago

This was in the US. There are no laws here banning insults to any person, organization, religion or religious figures. There are no laws against even racist or sexist speech. The GOVERNMENT cannot do anything about it. Private organizations may choose to fire you for it and you may be socially ostracized but you cannot be brought before a court of law. Prejudiced action on the other hand, as an employee of the government (and if your prejudiced speech is in your capacity as a representative of the government), IS punishable, but is not a criminal offense.

I am only saying you simply cannot legislate good taste. I wouldn't intentionally offend people. But that doesn't mean that if anyone SAYS offensive things, he has to be criminalized. It is about freedom of speech.

Edited by AnuMP - 8 years ago

Quote

990853

Posted: 8 years ago

Originally posted by: Arwen.
If something is held sacred by more than a billion people,is it too much to ask for a modicum of consideration...

There are so many things thats sacred for one religion but others don't even give a damn about it, just for example isn't cow sacred for Hindu, and am I sure its population is over billion, does it mean whole world stop eating beef ? People do or talk what they like and they are free to do atleast here in US.

Anyways, how does it make any difference what person draw and then write below it Muhammad when nobody have actually seen him or there is any picture of him with which one can compare and say its looks like him. I understand its wrong to insult or make fun of holy books or Islamic symbols. Does Muhammad only mean prophet Muhammad ? Most cartoons don't even labeled them as Muhammad cartoon

What is more insulting cartoon of Muhammad or the face of the terrorist who's name start with Muhammad ? Why don't people condemn or threaten them when they carry terrorist activity ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI_Most_Wanted_Terrorists

Edited by 9tanki - 8 years ago

Quote

Rehanism

@Rehanism

IF-Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 8 years ago

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

Laws are what keep the people in check. It doesn't matter how liberal I am or how progressive I am, if I live in Saudi, I still have to abide by their rules or risk getting stoned. So, to reiterate my point, laws need to change for a country to become a progressive nation. And that can only happen if people of that country take it upon themselves to effect that change (either by a rebellion and/or with the help of powerful allies)

Coming back to the debate, can you prove that these cartoon drawing contests have any tangible value? Simple question. Unless you are a world renowned psychologist, please don't answer in terms of what wonders these contests do to the psyche of a population.

Not really. Mindset is crucial. The reason why Muslim countries continue to have rigid religion driven laws is because Muslims in general, by and large, are quite a bit serious about the immutability of their religious codes in a way Christians or Jews or Hindus are not. Millions of Hindus are poor, illiterate, orthodox and superstitious - but how many of them are extremely serious about bringing back shastric laws? Not many. Perhaps that's why even the right wing hindu fundamentalists had to drop their lobby for shastric laws and settle for demanding uniform civil code in the 50s itself. Same is true for Christians. There's hardly a debate in any other community whether there's a need to revert to scripture for laws. So its obvious that unless there's a change in mindset among Muslims on that front nothing else would work.

And in any case, I think my point was pretty simple - when heterodoxy becomes a regular sight, the sense of outrage gradually simmers down and you learn to live with it or ignore it instead of getting violent. I don't have to be a world renowned anything to understand that. Its a matter of common sense.

Secondly the hypocrisy blame is absurd. You people are comparing apples and oranges. Holocaust was a crime against humanity. More than sentiments were hurt. It was a targeted genocide to wipe out an entire creed. Making fun of deaths of such magnitude is certainly abhorrent. Likewise it would be despicable to slight the seriousness of pogroms against Muslims in 2002 or Sikhs in 1984. Similarly racism and apartheid are hate crimes against people - not ideas and symbols. Is there any restriction on lampooning Jesus or Moses? If not where's the hypocrisy? Compare blasphemy with blasphemy not genocide or racism.

Quote

Qirat.

@Qirat.

Senior Member

Posted: 8 years ago

What she was doing wasn't "free speech", it was "hate speech. This event was about hate & to incite violence. I'm happy to see all the backlash she is receiving now. She deserves it. The people of Garland were saying that next time if Pamela & her followers wants to exercise their free speech by desecrating someone else's religion, please do it at their house & advertise the address. 😆

Charlie Hebdo team response..

"The difference between us and these people is that these people are organizing contests, anti-Islamist contests," he continued. "It's an obsession ... We are not obsessed. We are just obsessed by the news, and by how the world is going on. The difference with Pamela Geller, she is obsessed by Islam. She waits every morning and thinks, What can I do today to defy these people?"

There is absolutely no comparison," said Jean-Baptiste Thoret, the magazine's film critic who avoided the January attack.

"You have a, as you said, a sort of anti-Islamic movement [in Texas] ... the problem of Charlie Hebdo is absolutely not the same," Thoret told American public broadcaster PBS.

"We don't organize contests. We just do our work. We comment on the news. When Mohammed jumps out of the news, we draw Mohammed," added Charlie Hebdo's chief editor Gerard Biard.

"But if he didn't, we didn't. We don't... We fight racism. And we have nothing to do with these people." 😃

A guy from Charlie Hebdo drew anti-semitic stuff & got arrested & even taken to court, but when they draw Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, it becomes comedy & free speech. Comedian Dieudonne have been arrested few times for anti-semitic. If people insist of being disrespectful c*nts in the name of free speech, then insult everyone rather than being scared of drawing Jews or don't insult anybody at all.

Funny that there many people out there who are actually sticking up for Charlie Hebdo/Pamela for their right to disrespect anybody they wish (except Jews) & then glorifying them for standing up for free speech (which they didn't even do). Worst, they even disrespected my Muslim brother (Ahmed) who gave up his life to protect clowns out there who want to mock other people's (including his own) beliefs.

Honestly, I don't understand what is the obsession with Muhammad? How about drawing North Korea leader pissing himself or make cartoon of Putin f**king a goat.. Or you can draw Boko Haram, even they need some entertainment & something to laugh at..

Next you know these people will say even bullying & teasing needs to tolerated & unpunished, in light of freedom of speech.

Quote

AnuMP

@AnuMP

IF-Rockerz

Posted: 8 years ago

Once again, in the USA which is where the contest happened, you can mock any person and any belief and that includes the Jews. It is in extremely bad taste, but it is freedom of speech.

Hate speech is also speech. She did not ask people to cause physical harm to people or property and therefore the contest is not considered an exhortation to commit violence. If people opposing her contest commit violence, it is not considered a crime on HER part.

As long as it remains SPEECH, she is free to do it, according to the laws of the land.

I do not condone tasteless behavior but she is free to be as crass as she wants to be

Edited by AnuMP - 8 years ago

Quote

Qirat.

@Qirat.

Senior Member

Posted: 8 years ago

You are not allowed to mock Jew even in USA 😛 Read about Professor Steven Salaita.

New York Times do post anti-Semitic stuff but only to highlight how we need to condemn bigotry. People like Bill Meher, Sam Harris, & other anti-Islamic obsessive, mocking Jew, Judaism or Israel is something they will rarely (if ever) do.

"When we originally discussed publishing this article to make these points, our intention was to commission two or three cartoonists to create cartoons that mock Judaism and malign sacred figures to Jews the way Charlie Hebdo did to Muslims. But that idea was thwarted by the fact that no mainstream western cartoonist would dare put their name on an anti-Jewish cartoon, even if done for satire purposes, because doing so would instantly and permanently destroy their career, at least" -

Constitution gives citizen the right to speak about government but there is nothing in the Constitution that gives anyone the right to say whatever they want about anything they want to anyone they want.

Edited by Qirat. - 8 years ago

Quote

AnuMP

@AnuMP

IF-Rockerz

Posted: 8 years ago

Oh yes, you are allowed to mock Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, whoever you want to. It is not against the law.

The NY Times is a newspaper an can have it own policies apart from the government

And the US constitution does guarantee that right. But the recipient of the insult may challenge you in a court of law. The government will have no right to go after you. Even for a private individual to go after you, he will need to prove 5 things -

Actionable words, such as those imputing the injured party: is guilty of some offense, suffers from a contagious disease or psychological disorder, is unfit for public office because of moral failings or an inability to discharge his or her duties, or lacks integrity in profession, trade or business;
That the charge must be false;
That the charge must be articulated to a third person, verbally or in writing;
That the words are not subject to legal protection, such as those uttered in Congress; and
That the charge must be motivated by malice.

Edited by AnuMP - 8 years ago

Quote

Druids

@Druids

Senior Member

Posted: 8 years ago

Wahabbi sponsored Salafi terrorists give all Muslims a bad name. ISIS was created by them and now they have mounted an open attack on Yemen.

Quote

mahalaxmi-sita

@mahalaxmi-sita

Senior Member

Posted: 8 years ago

I categorise muslims of various nations into the following based on my experience:

irani/ turkish muslims : liberal

indian/Bangladeshi/ african muslims: moderate

arabs(especially saudi) /pakistan : orthodox/fanatic.

all the wahabism or the fanaticism or the terrorist activities among muslims is funded by the saudis and carried on by the pakistanis mainly.

i don't know how many of you watch pak media debate on kashmir, instead of talking about how india controls kashmir, they end up stating how HINDU INDIA, hindu brahmins are torturing MUSLIM kashmiris, they try to give it a religious angle and paint entire india a country oppressing muslims and how muslims need to get rid of it by bleeding hindu india with thousand cuts.

Quote

1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 16

topics	author	replies	views	reply
Why they r spreading lies naaznin 1 263	naaznin	1	263	13 days ago benisfroms >
Why Men are better than Women PardesiBabu 88 8542	PardesiBabu	88	8542	5 months ago firewings_diya >

Draw Muhammad contest Taxas!!! WHY?? - Page 6

Related Topics