• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Muslims: GET OVER IT

Tolerance is a character trait that comes from being involved in the world -living in it and not apart from it. Tolerance is not specifically a virtue or vice, but takes on those labels depending upon the context.

The complaint about the cartoons itself seems way overblown, sheesh this was four months ago. The whole iconoclasm thing is so middle ages.

I'm just saying Muslims should go buy a clue. People characterize Mohammed for precisely the behavior the Saud's are showing. People do not portray Mohammed because of respect of Islam, but because of fear - what kind of sucky trend is that?

What's happened to the religion that brought the world great writers and thinkers like Rumi and Avicenna? Worried about people disrespecting them while innocent people have their heads cut off in your religion's name.

Take it as a wake up call, not an insult.
 
Well, the Muslims are certainly within their rights to boycott but, that's about as far as it should go.
 
I think being tolerant is about not tolerating the intolerance of intolerant people. However, tolerant people should tolerate intolerant people. Just not the intolerance. Though technically, someone who is tolerant can tolerate intolerance, though they shouldn't, because that would make the tolerant person intolerate. But the alternative is just intolerable.

We ought to have a go at solipsism sometime. :)

I spent 15 months in Morocco, and have a VERY hard time equating the friendly people I met with the wild-eyed fanatics we see in the media. Hmm.
 
The Muslim "competition" is not Christianity btw, it is here:
http://www.bahai.org

Not really. They are rather small seem to recurite from quite a number of relgious backgrounds. Of course they have their own issues about images although I have no idea about how they would reacto to a caritcurture.
 
Not really. They are rather small seem to recurite from quite a number of relgious backgrounds. Of course they have their own issues about images although I have no idea about how they would reacto to a caritcurture.

The Baha'i grew out of an Islamic movement in the 1800's that parallels the same Dispensationalism and 'end times' beliefs that Mormonism arose from in Christianity. (They are to Muslims what Mormonism is to Christianity.) I think they have 5 or 10 million members so that's not too small.

I am more familiar with them than I wish I was, I consider them slightly toxic although a much more benign form of Islam than is common.

The "do not view" taboo only extends to their prophet Bahaullah, and the only known photo is easily found by an image search on Google.
 
The "do not view" taboo only extends to their prophet Bahaullah, and the only known photo is easily found by an image search on Google.

I've run across reports of a second photo. The photo that is widley availible can only be found widely becuase it appears in William Miller's "The Baha'i Faith: Its history and teachings". I don't know how the Baha'i would react to a charicture of Bahá'u'lláh.
 
On a student forum we have a politics section and we deal with muslims very often... I must say I have swung to the side of being less accepting of this religion as even the moderates come off as extremely conservative religious nut-jobs...

Anyway we made a funny 'explosm' comic about this.
lolmohhamid0ei.jpg
 
There's someone calling on my glowing red telephone . . .

Consider the fact that most Muslims live in countries where the government controls much of the media. They then make the assumption that other countries operate in a similar manner. Thus, they assume these cartoons are generated by the Danish and Norweigen governments. And when the government actually comes out and says "sorry, but we don't regret publishing them", then these countries MUST be anti-Islamic.

Bottomline: Many Muslims don't understand or appreciate the concept of free speech because they have never experienced it for themselves. And sadly, many don't necessarily want to anyway.

That's a damned good point I hadn't considered.
 
SuperCoolGuy said:
There's someone calling on my glowing red telephone . . .

Consider the fact that most Muslims live in countries where the government controls much of the media. They then make the assumption that other countries operate in a similar manner. Thus, they assume these cartoons are generated by the Danish and Norweigen governments. And when the government actually comes out and says "sorry, but we don't regret publishing them", then these countries MUST be anti-Islamic.

Bottomline: Many Muslims don't understand or appreciate the concept of free speech because they have never experienced it for themselves. And sadly, many don't necessarily want to anyway.

I wish this were so but unfortunately I can link you to a forum full of muslims over on an Australian student forum whom support the offended muslims in this case.
 
As ever, the picture here is being tainted by the appalling actions of the few being overblown out of all proportion and focussed on by the media to the point where the uninformed take it as truth because they have nowhere else to go for information.

I've known many Muslims in my lifetime and almost every one of them has been kind, generous, tolerant and respectful of the beliefs of others.
I've also known many Christians, Hindus, Catholics, Baptists and atheists (etc.) some of whom have been spiteful, greedy, selfish and intolerant of every other belief.

All of this doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things. Most people are good "at heart", but inevitably some people are not. Grouping them together and labelling them all as "BAD" because of their religion (chosen, born into or otherwise) or even their place of birth is illogical and irrational.

I simply don't understand this pressure put on us by the US, UK and AUS governments (covertly) and the media (overtly) to be prejudiced against any religion or nation.
 
Last edited:
I wonder what the reaction of a Government headed by Pat Robertson would be to blasphemy

The muslim countires happen to have a few Pat Robertsons leading them at the moment. We can only hope that they grow up.
 
Last edited:
The way I see it, Islam forbids pictures of the Prophet, but muslims aren't printing the pictures, so they're not forbidden. It's like the Archbishop of Canterbury telling me to stop using God's name in vain, I mean for Christ's sake, I'm an atheist, what do I care? Your religion that says you can't do it, not me.
 
On a student forum we have a politics section and we deal with muslims very often... I must say I have swung to the side of being less accepting of this religion as even the moderates come off as extremely conservative religious nut-jobs...

Anyway we made a funny 'explosm' comic about this.
lolmohhamid0ei.jpg

Ugh. That one's going straight to 4chan.
 
The Muslim "competition" is not Christianity btw, it is here:
http://www.bahai.org

You're right.

Christianity was derived from Judaism and claims that its prophet (Jesus) was the promised one of Judaism. Jews disagree and are still waiting.

Islam was derived from Christianity and claims that its prophet (Muhammed) was the promised one of Christianity. Christians disagree and are still waiting.

The Babi Faith was derived from Islam and claims that its prophet (The Bab - "The Gate") is the first of the two promised ones of Islam. Muslims disagree and are still waiting. (mid 1800s)

The Baha'i Faith was derived from the Babi Faith and claims that its prophet (Baha'u'llah - "The Glory of God") is the second of the two promised ones of Islam. Muslims disagree and are still waiting. Babis generally became Baha'is or died off. (mid 1800s)

Hope you see a pattern here...

Religions really hate being superceded by young upstarts.
 

Back
Top Bottom