You're speaking like a cock-eyed zealot now. Rushdie, so far as I know, never denied anything about your prophet. He simply printed some things about your prophet that you and people of your ilk don't like. And while we're on the subject, can you name one specific thing from the novel that is offensive to you? The reason I ask is I doubt you've ever read it, and like all the other outraged, don't have the slightest idea what you're outraged about, beyond what someone has told you to be outraged about... Who are you to say who is and isn't a Muslim? Again, Rushdie considers himself to be Muslim. Whether he really is or isn't is between him and his God, so far as I am concerned. To my knowlegde, he left the faith shortly after the fatwa was issued (understandable, in my opinion) and returned to the the faith several years, claiming to have been redeemed from a crisis of spirit. Oh, and appealing to what the masses think to make your argument, especially what in this case is a largely illiterate and uneducated group, is a logical fallacy.
It is and this is the problem. It shouldn't be illegal because there are very serious complaints on the side of cab workers frustrated this losing money from this. Perhaps there is a way to solve this, make dogs were diapers when the get in cabs, Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! , and make it law. By saying our dear prophet had hallucinations, or may have been wrong, etc, takes one out of the fold of Islam. Imam Khomenei (rahmat allah layn) is one of the foremost sources of Islamic law and respected among all Muslims. I personally consider him among the greatest men that ever lived, and if he dislikes a thing, I also dislike it. Political drama. This man, unless he apologizes to the world's Muslims, refrains from allowing his book to be published, and does not engage in anti-Islamic propaganda, we may find it in our hearts to bring him back into Islam. He has done none of these things, therefore he remains a disbeliever, and a hypocrite munafiq (which is much worst). The Islamic world is among the most intelligent and gifted region in the world, producing the greatest thinkers, philosophers, doctors, and engineers in the world. I don't blame you as you lack exposure so you wouldn't know any better.
He expressed himself and gave voice to his thoughts and opinions in the form of fiction. That doesn't necessarily mean he believes what he wrote. That's why it's called fiction. The real problem is you don't value the freedom of expression. Again, you sound like a zealot who accepts the utterings from a religous man as dogmatic truth (I can't think of person, living or dead, I would say that about). That's your right, of course, but it's not going to win your arguments any points on a web site devoted to debate. If you're biased, you're biased and people will treat you as such. For starters, how can a religion's adherent owe an apology to that religion? For seconds, just because you think something is "anti-Islamic propaganda" does not make it so. There are, for example, plenty of Christians who objected to The Last Temptation of Christ, but I saw nothing blasphemous or propaganda-like about it at all. And that's the glory of a liberal and open society. We all get to make choices about the information we consume. You can't seem to understand that. Surely, you're joking? Islamic countries are among the worst places in the world to live, and beyond the oil, the immigrants and the terrorists it exports to the world, I fail to see it's impact.
I have no problem with him being allowed to say it, I just don't think we Muslims need to make a hero out of a buffoon who is obviously an enemy of Muslims. Imam Khomenei (rahmat allah alayh) was one of the greatest philosophers and scholars of our time. You are uninformed about him, you need to study more. Try visiting the Middle East, you will get a much better understanding than sitting half way across the world and claiming you know how the Middle East is?
But you do have a problem with him saying it, otherwise you wouldn't rail against him so much and rationalize those who want to repress his novel and have him killed. Despite never having read his novel, he's obviously offended you. You've also suggested you don't think books offensive to your religion should ever be punished, so don't pretend like you respect the man's freedom of expression. You don't. I was not attacking the man, who I know nothing about, I was attacking your confessed reluctance to question any of his remarks or teachings. Again, I cannot think of one person who I agree with as often as you have said you agree with this man. As for studying more, I have no desire to learn about him or about Islam. Beyond the religion's historical importance and its current political applications, Islam doesn't interest me in the slightest. I view it as I view all other archaic faiths that are based on the illiterate ramblings of a bunch of desert peasants: A foolish waste of time and energy, which others are more than welcome to engage in, so long as they don't try to kill or convert me. Wait, isn't that exactly what you do? Make bold claims about a country you've probably never lived in? Disparage a novel you've obviously never read? I know enough about the Middle East and Islamic nations to know I'd never want to live or visit there (one doesn't have to have their hand cut off to know they won't like, either). But if you're really interested why, the fact such countries wouldn't allow me to look at a naked woman, have a beer or read some of the novels I'd like to read is enough of a reason for me. Empirically speaking, there are several large quality of life reasons: The lack of education, government services and strict laws being chief among.
countezero I think you mean strict Religious Law don't you? Me I have no problem with strict enforcement of temporal laws of socity.
I don't respect what the man says and I don't consider him a Muslim, much less a Muslim hero (as some posters want me to think). I have never stated that violence should be perpetuated, rather I have claimed that this is contrary to the way this issue should be dealt with. It's best to ignore this fool. If you believe I espouse violence in this situation, bring some proof then from my previous posts. I doubt you will be able to bring any statement which will support your view. Please don't use your stereotypes in trying to formulate an false perception of what I stand for. Which country are you referring to? I have been to the US, UK and Iran, if this what you are referring to. Pornagraphy, Drug addiction are what you consider freedom? This is one of the reasons why we cannot see eye to eye. As Muslims, we have honor and pride in ourselves, and we see no need to break the hearts of our families by engaging in such degrading acts. these things should also be forbidden in the West, alot of your problems (such as lose of morality, improper upbringing of children, sexual perversion, etc) would go away, I assure you.
It is about nothing else except religion - no one except some Muslims has any objection to picking up guide dogs. If your friends are claiming that guide dogs "cannot control themselves", your friends are full of shit. Not guide dogs, no. They have no such right. Instead, they have an obligation and a civic duty to welcome guide dogs into their cabs. We license cabs to ensure that people who cannot drive, such as the blind, can obtain transportation. Someone unwilling to provide transport to blind people and their guide dogs has no business pretending to be a cab driver, and is betraying their community by doing so. He was a cleric, not a scholar. Please learn the difference, before criticising Western civilization - it's one of the fundamentals you need to understand. Who's "we"? If some Muslims disagree with you, and welcome him without silly conditions like that, do they reperesent Islam ? All the rest of us need from you and your fellow CAIR members is some cooperation in protecting the man's physical safety. And we are not getting it. Instead, you heap abuse on him and slander him in ways which encourage violence among the unbalanced. Trust me, you and the people who talk as you do are far more damaging to the reputation of the Muslim faith than Salman Rushdie. As here: Such assurances mean little to us, after the examples of understanding you have displayed here, and after considering the nature of the civilizations you prefer. Our problems are minor, compared with the problems faced by a people whose supreme religious and political leaders have put out contracts on novelists.
CAIR is just another puppet for Muslim religious leadership worldwide. The high "priests" of Islam (Mullahs etc) will never proclaim the following to their populations:...... "Atta is NOT in paradise for killing some 3000 innocent people on 9-11....He is instead suffering in hell!!......The Muslims who murdered hundreds of Russian school children at Breslin are not enjoying 72 virgins...They are also in hell!!.....The Muslims who are now daily blowing themselves up to kill non-combatants around the globe are all enjoying the pain of hell....So stop these heinous crimes!!!!" No!!!! these religious proclamations from the leadership of "the religion of peace" are never going to transpire. World domination seems their goal and Cair is just one of their puppets to help facilitate it. Worst of all, our self absorbed political morons in Washington are focused on elections as we can all see every day. It isn't a pretty picture when considering the danger to all of us.
He was also a great supporter of that "classical" view of Aisha, where it was ok to have sex with her when she was nine years old. You are uninformed about him, you need to study more. And to talk with Sam about your convictions. I understand from her writings that the two of you have a great deal not in common.
Weren't you the same guy who would have given up his own son to the religious police if he renounced islam? Ah. So muslims never "lose of morality", or bring their children up improperly, or have any "sexual perversions". This is only a Western problem? Really? Only muslims have pride in themselves? What an interesting bigot you are, DH.
More than that. It's bigotry. Certain kinds are ok with DH, though. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Enforcement is not an issue with me, but the punishment has to fit the crime, and being stoned to death for committing adultery and having a hand cut off for stealing seem like excessive and barbaric practices. I would never want to live in a nation so Draconian, no matter how prompt the trains would be to the platform and how clean the sidewalks would be.
You're right. I made an error and must clarify it. You have never stated that you personally believed violence should be carried out against Rushdie. In stating the opposite, I was wrong. However, you have rationalized why others would want to commit violence against him, and while you haven't necessarily given those sort of people your OK, you haven't gone out of your way to condemn them, either. If I recall correctly, the last time Rushdie came up, it took several replies before you would admit that the zealots who wanted to kill him were wrong. I stand by the rest of my claims, which you've chosen not to refute. You do not care about this man's freedom or freedom of expression, and would remove or restrict both, simply because you have judged him to be a deficient Muslim, which is the same sort of facile judgment all religious zealots cannot keep from uttering... So you have visited the US? Good for you. I'm sure that qualifies you to speak expertly about it. I don't think I mentioned either, unless you took my comment about looking at a naked woman or drinking a beer to mean the above. And even if you did and even if that is what I meant, who are you to deny me (or anyone else) those things because of the way you pray? I don't care how you pray or who you pray to, and it gives you no authority over me, philosophically, morally, ethically or legally. Now you're speaking in terms of ethnic or religious superiority. Muslims have honor and pride and others do not? Also the fact you've subjectively judged something as "degrading" or "improper" or "perversion" does not make it so, and I would argue humans are humans and the vices you speak of tend to exist and afflict people regardless of how and where they get down on their knees. Or are you unaware of the Islamic countries who have brothels where men and women are "wed" for an hour and then "annulled?" Regardless, you think prohibition and lack of access equal the same thing as choice, when they don't. In other words, denying people access to pornography and alcohol and then claiming they are morally superior because they don't look at the former and imbibe the latter is patently ridiculous. How do you know they would remain so pure, if they could walk down the street and find those goods waiting for them? You don't. The difference between you and I is that I believe in freedom and believe a man should get to choose whether he is moral or immoral and you do not. You believe in limiting choices so that man is a slave to the morality of his preacher or cleric.
countezero - I wouldn't take DH's denial too seriously on this. He's previously come out in support of the execution of apostates; I seem to recall asking him if he'd turn in his own son or something, to which he stated the affirmative. If he's now claiming he wouldn't kill apostates...I'd take it with a grain of salt unless he comes right out and apologizes for his presumably previous view and refutes it wholesale. This is essentially DH's position - islamic supremacism.
Dear readers, please look for yourself at how far and to what heinous levels bigotry and injustice is allowed to perpetuate and flourish in Western society. Anyone who claims to be a Muslim is immediately labeled with such charges as to dehumanize him. I sometimes feel that this intense hatred and bigotry of the Western mind (mainly due to ignorance and bad leadership) is a remnant from history because this same level of loathing and utter disregard for a fellow's humanity preceded the decimation of the Native Americans, lynching of American blacks during freedom movement, murder of Jews in Germany and Russia, and herding Japanese into internment camps. I worry that only after the massacres of millions of Middle Eastern Islamic people, until the shudder of regret and sorrow overtakes hatred, will we finally be able to have justice. I ask, does this really have to be this way? Why cannot anyone in this discussion shed their prejudice and talk to us like human beings? What is the use of hate and bigotry? I only look forward to an honest and kind discussion with people on hospitable terms, yet most people seem incapable of us a thing. It is rather regretful that I have to debate people who have so much rhetoric and no knowledge.
DiamondHearts , you really see the world through rose colored glasses. Why you are so willing to point out inhumanity at one level and completely ignore the brutality when it hits too close to home. Dont you see that is the same mentality that dictators and and racists rely on. Note: i am not necessarily saying or implying that you are a racist or would knowingly support a dictator, i believe this is subconscious. The best thing to do is read unbiased news, and get different perspectives.
On that I would agree, and that was my contention when I posted, as those punishment are the ones prescribed in the Quran, under religious Sharia Law.
Everything that you ascribe to the west is part and parcel of the Islam of the Middle East, they talk to the people not of Islam as if they were dogs, life unworthy of life, the Moslems of the Middle East have conducted pogroms against the Jews of Palestine and Israel, calling them pigs, dogs, and worse, they have attacked the Copts in Egypt and burned their Holy Places, they have attacked Christians all over the Middle East and have killed and destroyed the Christian Churches, they have sent suicide bomber to every country in the middle east , killing their own fellow Moslems, they have no pride or they would stop blaming the west for their problems and work toward getting their own economies in order so their people would have jobs, they haven't shown charity to the Palestinian, the Palestinians are not allowed to become citizens of their Countries, even though they were born in those countries, what charity is it to deny a Palestinian a Job, a Home, the right to be a Citizen and own property in the lands he was born in, the Quran speaks of Charity? were is it for the Palestinians, the Jews send more Charity to the Palestinians than any of the Middle Eastern Countries.
