h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Yes, from a certain perspective it is a clever move, if the intent on the part of the Imams is to stir up anti-Western / European / American / Christian resentment. However, the irony of this is that the intense reaction, with calls for blood in retaliation, is exactly what the cartoons were satirising.

And as the link provided earlier above shows, there's so much hypocrisy here - where not a sound was made when these cartoons were first published in an Egyptian newspaper last year; and when there are demonstrably numerous other images of Muhammad also available but not denounced.

The Danish newspaper involved has already said that it will print any cartoons that the Iranian press prints. I think they are using the holocaust as the new Iranian primeminister (more like dictator) seems to have an obsession with the holocause not really happening. All becasue of the palestian and Israel situation.

At them oment a few on line Muslim groups that I know of are actually doing the sensible thing of a petition against the danish paper from showing cartoons of the holocaust as well as a condheming Iran for even suggesting to make pictures on that topic.

For once a sensible reaction from the sites, I'm usualy having to point all this stuff out to them lol.

Most Muslims are not against freedom of speech but when it comes to sensitive stuff, like charactours of the Prophet or the holocaust etc then people should not do it, as it is showing a level of intolerence to other peoples beliefs or ideals. An of ocurse when their is a strong reaction it is always everyone elses fault not the persons who did it.

The problem is you can never have true freedum of speech as someone somewhere is always going to be insulted about it etc. An they have the rights not to be subjected to stuff like that.

Its as I was saying to a friend of mine a few months ago. He was saying that people should have the rights to do as they want. I pointed out that it is impossible to have full free rights as someone some where will have their rights taken away by someone elses frredom to do as they please. For examlple if a man rapes a woman he has excersised his right to have sex with whom ever he wnts when ever he wants, as he has freedom to do as he please. But the woman has lost her rights as she has the freedo to not have sex with anyone she does not want to and she has the right not to be forced into anything she does not want to do etc. So you have to a law in place to protect people rights, but at the same time those laws will infringe on another persons rights in some way.

The same applies to freedom of speech, their should be regulations in place to protect other peoples free liberties. remember the outrage over Iran saying the holocaust never happened well that was condhemed and that is the same action freedom of expression as the cartoons are. An its also the same frredom of speech as the protesters giving their frredom to express their anger over the cartoons.

If this is left unchecqued what is going to happen is your going to get to the point where it basically becomes a slagging match with could turn and escalate into lots of voilence. But who is in the wrong? Both of them where exercising their free right of speech?

So you have to have regulations in place to suit the task in hand. For example a countries news paper is their to tell the nation the news of whats happening in their own country and abroad. It should be also a tool for bringing and mixing the differetn groups of peoples and cultures in the country together. When a paper is doing the opposite and is creating division in the nation amoungst the different colours, groups etc in the nation then it is (in my opinion) going against the interests of the country and creating duvusionwhich can only leed to voilence of some kind or another. So their should be laws in place to protect the interests of the country. Afterall a newspaper has a high responcibility in what it does, by its very nature, and if it can not react in a way that is responcible then it is having a negative impact of society.

Frredom of speech should not be freedom to insult and insite hatred between other countrie and specially the own countrys peoples.

Thats my two pence.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

Or you will do what? Behead me? Rape me? Burn down the Hostel for Abused Women where I live?

Adib, there are a lot of people around here who know you to be person of intelligence and reason, and having read your post has only reinforced that opinion as far as I'm concerned. However, there are others who either cannot or will not listen to what you have to say and I urge you not to rise to their bait when they quite clearly can't argue or reason succinctly and will take one sentence completely out of context and then try to extrapolate a laughable and ridiculous argument from it. It's perfectly clear to anyone with an ounce of sense and without an axe to grind exactly what you were trying to say. Please don't let the others stamp out a very good discussion.

The trouble with the rape comparison for me, is that it involves actual harm. Free expression causes offence, but can only cause harm indirectly through the reactions of people to it.

I also think there has to be a clearer distinction between condemning what people say and condemning their right to say it.

Meanwhile, MadeMarian and DrRodge, those who both horrible and ignorant comments. I'll leave it to others to decide whether they should be yikesed or left as a momento of your stupidity.

Don't waste your breath on them/her Adib. Anyone actually reading your post will know what you meant. In an ideal world, the law would balance freedoms. Give everybody the freedom to do anything they wanted that didn't impinge on other peoples freedom/rights.
However I do not feel people have a right to not be offended. As you said yourself, people can get offended over all sorts of things. I think that the limits to freedom of speech should basically be inciting violence(not hatred) and an assault on a persons honour/reputation. The latter basically being libel and such. But not really anymore, except perhaps that fire in the theater thing.
There are in europe places where I do feel freedom of speech has been curbed too much I think.
Personally I feel the muslims are entitled to demonstrate, and to boycott our products. Valid ways of showing your disapproval. It is the violence and burning down of embassies I have a problem with.

Will you hang up the battered old h2g2 'Do not feed the troll' sign, or shall I?

Next to the 'Read, Don't Skim' one, would be nice.

I agree. Deomonstrating and petitioning etc is fine. But the voilence or threating to voilence is not ok, and as usual a few bad people have used it to encite others and get them on their side.

I think it was pretty obvious that fanatics would take advantage of these pictures and show it as "another proof the west hate muslims" and get the ignorant youth (not all but ome who do not know better) to sway on their side.

While expressing your opinion might be ok, the reaction has had physical consiquences that far extend the worth of printing those pictures.

Their needs to be more growing up on both sides I think.

Just spotted a reference on another BBC message board. Apparantly, the Muslim march today in London is intended to illustrate moderates' disapproval of last week's events. However, they are alaso calling for changes to the Race Relations Act, making it illegal to show any images of Mohammed in the UK.

Can someone confirm or disprove this for me?

Very worrying if true.

'Are you sure this whole thing isn't a Douglas Adams script ?'



I fully expect to see this appear in some format in a future Terry Pratchett Discworld book.

<> (Adib)

Adib, you have truly been the 'voice of reason' on this thread, and that bit I just quoted shows this very well, I think. And your input here has been very informative. Thanks!

Indeed, how can printing 'offensive cartoons' in non-Muslim countries end up with death threats and the like? How can Islamic Law extend to other countries that do not live under this law?

One *cannot* impose a law belonging to one particular country onto another.

For example, it is the law in the US that people cannot legally drink alcohol until they are either 18-21 (depending on the state). So if I came from a country that said drinking alcohol was fine at age 16, would I then be able to drink alcohol anywhere in the States, just because *where I come from* everyone can drink at age 16? I rather don't think so.

This is probably the most shocking and incomprehensible thing to me. That certain extreme Muslim factions think that other non-Muslim countries should abide by their religious rules, or else face a death penalty. Like - WTF?

az

I was wondering, I know Jews and Christians are protected communities as 'peoples of the book', but would the same extend to, for example, Hindus? Buddhists? Atheists?

These people are regarded as "enemies" of Islam. Sikhs seem to be particularly targeted.

Anybody who has noticed my posts will probably have also noticed that my views tend to the more extreme anti-Muslim end of the scale. As the debate has gone on over the last week or so, I have read a lot of points on both side of the fence and, although my views haven't basically changed, I am more aware of the other side of the story. I have also been encouraged to read more of the Koran and Muslim websites.

The general thrust of the liberal viewpoint is that the fanatics do not represent the views of the majority. Much has been made of Muslim Councils organising moderate marches and decrying the fanatics. This is no bad thing, but I would be more encouraged if the same Muslim Groups weren't calling for changes to our laws to fit their religion.

However, if we accept that only a small percentage of Muslims are to blame here, does that make it OK ? If Muslims immigrating here bring this baggage with them, is it an acceptable cost? There are troubles everywhere Muslims go, (or so it appears). For decades, we've had media stories of murders and extremism in Muslim countries. How long have we been reading of Islamic intolerance in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria etc etc. Is extremism a part of Islam?

If only one in a thousand Muslim Immigrants is a potential suicide bomber, is letting him into the country an acceptable cost of multiculturalism?

Not really. The worship of idols and other Gods (false for Muslim) is not allowed in Islam an is seen as wrong. But their is no ground to hurt or insult those who do, unless they hurt or attack you. An before you say anythink about Sikhs, I'm the one who keeps getting pestered by intolerent Muslims via e mail. So they have issues with closeminded bigots too. I try to argue reason with them but they do not want to know and just keep insulting my faith and me.

Muslims believe that Hindus orignally belived in only one God but over time it was changed and altered and the different aspects of God became worshipped on ther onw and developed over time in to several Gods. But the basic teneants are still there.

People of the book means those who follow the religious books that came befroe and worship one true God.
Have to look it up but their is three different ways the Qur'an address thee people.

As for rether a Muslim should protect a Hindu or Sikh, the case is irrelevant as injustice must be fought where ever it is found in Islam, not that many Muslims seem to bother with that these days.

Their is a hadith that says:

<<>>

So if a Hindu is being persecuter by someone then it is a Muslims duty to actually help that person.

So do muslims share the belief of the jews that everything was created less than 5000 years ago?

A troll by any other name . . . will still be recognised.


az