If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4681294.stm
Most Syrians are Muslim.
I can’t recall the Syrian and Iranian embassies in Oslo ever being burnt…
I can’t recall Catholics holding public book burnings of the Da Vinci Code and Dan Brown needing constant police protection.
On the other hand Salmon Rushdie nearly 20 years on still faces constant death threats and requires heavy police protection because so many Muslims still want to kill him.
and to answer the question asked of me, it''s hypocracy and racims on behalf of our own system.
How the BNP memebers and be arrested and not those protestors is beyond me.
I can only deduce that they weren't arrest because they are muslim and the BNP are not.
Its the same with crime. If a white man beats up a black man, its racist but if a black man beats up a white man its just a crime.
Why cant people get that black, asiasn, muslims etc etc can be just as racist? Racism is not whites against other people, its being against someone for their skin colour, race and creed and that includes against white people.
the point was made well up there. One of the biggest selling nbook sin recent times is about how aspects of the life of jesus was a lie and the church covered it up. Do christains burn books and threaten to kill Dan Brown??? No!!
they really need to get a hold of themselves. And if they feel sooo peresucted in this terrible racist western country, then I would gladly pay taxes into deporting them, regardless of whether they were born here or not.
When a white man beats a black man up because he's black, it's a racist crime.
Same for when a black man beats a white man up because he's white.
This raises another question. Is the claim that Islam is about peace nothing more than a sham? After all, I do not believe members of a "peace-loving" religion would incite violence and hatred. Remember this. I have never seen the Archbishop of Canterbury calling for the director-general of the BBC to be killed following the screening of "Jerry Springer, The Opera". The church barely raised a whisper in protest. So, in a sense, at least Muslims are prepared to stand up for what they believe in. That is highly applaudable.
However, as I note, calling for people to be killed is unacceptable in a democracy and those who are inciting it should be arrested immediately. It is to the shame of our politically-correct authorities that they have not.
I suspect another reason for the over-reaction in London is that earlier this week, the Government had the good sense to refuse to pass the Racial & Religious Hatred Bill without first amending it. This legislation was nothing more than pandering to the Muslim Council of Britain, who believes Islam should be beyond criticism. No religion is beyond criticism. Let us remember - race is not something you can choose, but religion is. You do not have to be religious, for instance.
Tensions between the Islamic world and the Western world are high enough as they are. I think we all need to calm down.
Then Mr Ibraheem should be going on holiday to a beautiful and secluded part of Cuba. And not coming back.
Interesting to see that a senior Muslim has come out and said these people are as representative of Islam as Griffin is representative of British people. Not a truer word has been spoken. Unfortunately he goes and ruins it by saying "less representative than the BNP", which of course implies that the BNP are representative of white British people.
I shall be waiting with baited breath for Mr Ibraheem, et al, to be getting tried for racially inflammatory speeches.
On a similar note, some reactions from Denmark and some from the Arab world. Interesting reading.
However, what is acceptable is to say "Islam promotes/oppresses this" since there you are attacking a set of ideals, not an individual. It would be the same as saying "communism/capitalism/christianity promotes/oppresses this." If an individual chooses to take offense, then it is because you've attacked their beliefs, not them as a person, which I think is fully acceptable. It would then be up to them to exercise their right to free speech in order to argue their point of view.
In the case of these pictures, I guess it is down to interpretation as to whether they were attacking Islam or Muslims in general. But you only have to remember the murder of that Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh last year whose film was (I think, although I haven't seen it) images of women being beaten, with appropriate lines from the Koran projected onto their body's. Surely this is acceptable, since it's attacking Islam, specifically removing any individual muslims from the frame, suggesting that it oppresses women. The only problem is that some people (on both "sides") can't tell the difference between the individual and the ideology, and it can fuel racial hatred.
These pictures should never have been published. Another part of the anger was the extremely negative perception the image of Mohammed with a bomb on his head gives. Use of such an image was dangerous and hateful.
I have found new respect for the German government because they, publically refused to apologise for allowing the pictures to be published! Unlike Mr Cry baby, "fuel on the fire" mandy mandleson!
Were most Syrians burning the embassy?
Or a couple of hundred nutters?
Do you understand the difference?
If you get mugged by two black people in the space of a few months, will you also reach the conclusion that all black people are muggers?
The only difference between Muslim extremists and those from other religions is that is that the former appear to be more prone to violence, and more crucially that in most of those countries there is less law and order than there is in Europe. In other words, it is far easier for mobs to form and run riot, and for them to be armed.
That does not mean that the silent majority of Muslims approve of the violence.
I guess you thought most Iraqis were in favour of Saddam Hussein when he was in power, seeing as you only saw demonstrations in his favour and you never heard of anyone protesting against him... Look what happened when Saddam's regime crumbled.
So I'm still waiting for any evidence that shows a majority of Muslims hold extremist views or support violence.
Radical Islam is the greatest threat to the West since Soviet Communism - and far more difficult to fight.
At this rate Denmark's going to run out of embassies.
Well where’s the condemnation? I’m getting pretty tired of ‘moderate’ figures calling for ‘both sides’ to back down as if the European press that have bravely stood up for freedom of expression are equivalent to fascist-minded Muslims that are determined to force their backwards values on everybody else through violence. I’m surprised that even the supposedly moderate Muslims you keep telling me about have plenty of condemnation for these pictures in the European press but never bat an eyelid at the vile anti-Semitic cartoons ran in the Arab press daily.
And rubbish is it about law and order, there's no way Christians would act the same in the West if there were less law and order here. And funny but I don’t think we’ll see any counter-protests of Muslims expressing their disappointment with the other Muslims who through violence and threats are seeking to silence the European press.
As with the threats against Salmon Rushdie if not a narrow majority a very significant minority of Muslims within the West do. And in Arab states I think an even higher number of Muslims support this mindless violence. You can keep denying it for as long as you want but there’s a backwards creed of Islam that many Muslims follow which is completely incompatible with the civilised democratic beliefs that you, me and most people within the West hold.
If you ask me, all the Mulism have achieved with this is underline what the cartoons were about - using Islam as an excuse for violence.
I think that they Muslims are right to be offended by them, but there was no hatred of the religion, more of those who use it's cloak for their own ends. Having said that the ignorance about the offence which could be cause is something which those newspapers should think about.
Blaming the Dnaish Govt (or anyother nation where the cartoon were reprinted), Danish Businesses plus the threats against Danes generally only reinforces the stereotype of a violent religion. You cannot blame either for the actions of a newspaper.
Exactly what happens in Christianity.
So if you want to believe Islam is incompatible with the West, fair enough... so long as you believe Christianity is also incompatible.
Oh really? Considering that abortion clinics get routinely bombed and doctors are sometimes shot by Christian fundies in the ultra-policed, strict US, imagine what those people would do if America had the levels of law and order of Syria and Lebanon.
I don't see Christians, in Britain or elsewhere, protesting againist Christian fundies firebombing abortion clinics and murdering doctors.
Therefore, all Christians = violent extremists (according to Disillusioned's School of Thought).
For the millionth time, I've never denied its existance. I'm questioning absurd claims about a "majority" of Muslims subscribing to that rubbish.
You don't like Muslims very much as a rule, do you?
I mean someone prints some cartoons and then all these guys come out on the streets shouting death threats and then when you talk to them, they don't say just the dans or the newspaper editot, but the whole west, threating revolt.
Its no wonder people are scraed and suspect all muslims, even if all muslims don't think like this. I reckon some people might have been surprised to see some of those march members, they probably knew them and wouldn't have guessed they did something like that.
So the governemnt plans ahead and knows there ar epeople hiding out, with extremists views that are a threat, but then the liberal white westerners say thats an abuse of civil rights etc and the muslims say its racist and so nothing happens to these hidden elements and thats when attacks happen.
Already Muslims have comics like The Sun attacking them and opportunist right wing political parties who jumped on the tube bombing incident and milked it for all its worth. We have Muslim people being stop and searched on the tubes because they might be terrorists, it is a culture where we are scapegoating them and now... We're mocking the fact that there have been Muslim terrorists (and also the cartoon is insensitive to people who die as a result of these incidents)... We are oppressing them and humiliating them. It does not seem in many ways like much of the the West has respect for Muslims.
I don't actually understand this... is it supposed to be funny?
not really more just an example of what freedom of speech is, they spout crap about what i believe, so i can do so to them