Muslim People in Australia (1 Viewer)

[Simpson Freak]

I remember hearing that on tv you cant say "fag" unless you are gay, similarly its very bad to say "the N word" unless you are African America, and even then its supposed to be end in an "a"

Similarly, it should be just as outrageous to label 1 billion people as terrorists. how posters on this thread that were saying that muslims should be violent support a cartoon that labels every muslim as terrorists.

Muhammad is the founder of islam, if you call him a terrorist (even if light heartedly), you are basically implying that all who follow his teachings are terrorists. Who wouldnt be outraged with such a label.

Heck the Pentagon was calling a Iraq war cartoon satirising donald rumsfeld "beyond tasteless". They even threw out people for wearing t-shirts saying "**** killed in iraq bring them home" or "support our troops". Is that not also denying them their freedom.

Free speech has bounds in our democratic society, it is not ment to insult or offend people, however why shouldnt such ideals apply to this issue.

muslim people respect mohammad to the point that they would not even draw a positive picture of him, and yet the Dannish newspaper has the audacity to put someone in a negative light unjustly.

If people really do have rights, they have the right to not be labelled a terrorist because of some cartoon.

"Are Muslims trying to inforce their beliefs onto non-muslims, example being them tying to limit free speech?"

i was watching NBC TODAY, which dealt with that issue pretty nicely. Well think about it this way. Out of the Arab nations, Lebannon is the one that is considered free and most democratic, why? well this can be linked to OIL. All other arab nations have high reserves of OIL. All that a dictator (religous or military) has to do is capture an oil well, and then sell it to the WEST to remain in power. They dont care about providing their people with education, healthcare and proper security and a way of life. They just pump their oil and live in mansions.

Obviously they get the sweet life, if anyone wants to go against the government, which would ask that the people should get some of that country's wealth, well that just means less "oil money" for the dictator and more wasted on these people that demand rights. So whats the simplest thing to do when you are the most powerful person in that country, you just get rid of them, you dont let their points of view reach the public and deny them a right to live. They can usually justify their case with their religion, and when you are not giving a population a proper education, they are usually too stupid to realise they are being dooped and its either listen to GOD (err meaning the dictator of the country) or be against GoD (against the dictator).....like i said on many occassions this whole issue resembles "1984" in some way.

Sometimes the dictator is ousted, such as in IRAN, where the king that controlled the oil, thus the money was overthrown and in come these "holy religious leaders" who just hav to control the oil, and suddenly their power is as endless as the previous dictator.....these people can usually paint a religious face to their actions, so people will think they are right and all.

I have never considered such a view point, and i am just saying what the political analyst on NBC TODAY said....but i realise its apt and incredibly accurate, and i agree.

I mean the "free countries" of the WEST, are usually expected to give back the nations earnings to the people, they invest in the people, so these people can go to university and become important members of society. The arab dictators would usually just invest in OIL, and not care for people since that natural resource can provide for them well throughout their reign.

Well some countries seem to be shaping up and doing whats right, like Yemen or UAE, but others like Iraq used to be with Saddam just sold the oil, lived in marble and gold palaces while their people starved.

 

[tempco]

to the point of justifying any and all actions?

Nothing justifies "any and all actions".

Anyway, i think when those cartoons got published, muslims dont really care asmuch about the cartoons themselves, but rather find it a good opportunity to score some valuable points, by defending muhammeed.

I think a good question for this thread at this point in time is:

Are Muslims trying to inforce their beliefs onto non-muslims, example being them tying to limit free speech?

Man, what rubbish.

 

[banco55]

I remember hearing that on tv you cant say "fag" unless you are gay, similarly its very bad to say "the N word" unless you are African America, and even then its supposed to be end in an "a"

Similarly, it should be just as outrageous to label 1 billion people as terrorists. how posters on this thread that were saying that muslims should be violent support a cartoon that labels every muslim as terrorists.

Muhammad is the founder of islam, if you call him a terrorist (even if light heartedly), you are basically implying that all who follow his teachings are terrorists. Who wouldnt be outraged with such a label.

Heck the Pentagon was calling a Iraq war cartoon satirising donald rumsfeld "beyond tasteless". They even threw out people for wearing t-shirts saying "**** killed in iraq bring them home" or "support our troops". Is that not also denying them their freedom.

Free speech has bounds in our democratic society, it is not ment to insult or offend people, however why shouldnt such ideals apply to this issue.

muslim people respect mohammad to the point that they would not even draw a positive picture of him, and yet the Dannish newspaper has the audacity to put someone in a negative light unjustly.

If people really do have rights, they have the right to not be labelled a terrorist because of some cartoon.

"Are Muslims trying to inforce their beliefs onto non-muslims, example being them tying to limit free speech?"

i was watching NBC TODAY, which dealt with that issue pretty nicely. Well think about it this way. Out of the Arab nations, Lebannon is the one that is considered free and most democratic, why? well this can be linked to OIL. All other arab nations have high reserves of OIL. All that a dictator (religous or military) has to do is capture an oil well, and then sell it to the WEST to remain in power. They dont care about providing their people with education, healthcare and proper security and a way of life. They just pump their oil and live in mansions.

Obviously they get the sweet life, if anyone wants to go against the government, which would ask that the people should get some of that country's wealth, well that just means less "oil money" for the dictator and more wasted on these people that demand rights. So whats the simplest thing to do when you are the most powerful person in that country, you just get rid of them, you dont let their points of view reach the public and deny them a right to live. They can usually justify their case with their religion, and when you are not giving a population a proper education, they are usually too stupid to realise they are being dooped and its either listen to GOD (err meaning the dictator of the country) or be against GoD (against the dictator).....like i said on many occassions this whole issue resembles "1984" in some way.

Sometimes the dictator is ousted, such as in IRAN, where the king that controlled the oil, thus the money was overthrown and in come these "holy religious leaders" who just hav to control the oil, and suddenly their power is as endless as the previous dictator.....these people can usually paint a religious face to their actions, so people will think they are right and all.

I have never considered such a view point, and i am just saying what the political analyst on NBC TODAY said....but i realise its apt and incredibly accurate, and i agree.

I mean the "free countries" of the WEST, are usually expected to give back the nations earnings to the people, they invest in the people, so these people can go to university and become important members of society. The arab dictators would usually just invest in OIL, and not care for people since that natural resource can provide for them well throughout their reign.

Well some countries seem to be shaping up and doing whats right, like Yemen or UAE, but others like Iraq used to be with Saddam just sold the oil, lived in marble and gold palaces while their people starved.

Egypt, Jordan and Syria don't have any oil reserves and none of them are democracies by any means. The main reason arab countries are nearly all ruled by dictators is Arab culture.

 

[Simpson Freak]

Egypt, Jordan and Syria don't have any oil reserves and none of them are democracies by any means. The main reason arab countries are nearly all ruled by dictators is Arab culture.

Well syria does have a lot of oil and does export it.

Egypt has made ammendments in its constitution and votes for a new president every 6 years, the next election is to be held in 2011.

Jordan has consistently followed a pro-Western foreign policy and traditionally has had close relations with the United States and the United Kingdom. These relations were damaged by Jordan's neutrality and maintaining relations with Iraq during the first Gulf War. They do have elections, for such things as the house of representatives.

i dont think jordan and egypt are examples of totalitarian regimes anyway. well maybe jordan to some extent, the country is in a mess and the king has cleaned up a lot of it ever since he came to power, so he has the support of his people.

Iraq however, saddam hussein had power even though the majority were oppressed.

 

[volition]

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

In Shi'a Islamic tradition, Taqiyya (التقية) is the dissimulation of one’s religious beliefs when one fears for one's life, the lives of one's family members, or for the preservation of the faith.

Does this mean that if someone was what we would call a radical cleric living here, he would just lie to appear moderate for "preservation of the faith" ? Or have I misunderstood something?

 

[Simpson Freak]

well the shia themselves have had a lot of weird freaky laws anyway, so i wouldnt really care about what that sect says about acting in particular circumstances.....i even heard that shia believe in a thing called temporary marriages...rather gross if u ask me, but i aint sure about the accuracy of what i said

 

[Generator]

Most pupils see Muslims as terrorists

Though the results appear to be troubling, I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's a 'wake up call' - the sample is far too narrow for one to claim that it's representative of the whole, but in saying this I do know that rags such as the The Age quite often play upon the negatives and ignore the qualifiers that the academic makes explicit within the document in question.

 

[aaaman]

no the students are smart as the survery says

 

[Xayma]

Most pupils see Muslims as terrorists

Though the results appear to be troubling, I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's a 'wake up call' - the sample is far too narrow for one to claim that it's representative of the whole, but in saying this I do know that rags such as the The Age quite often play upon the negatives and ignore the qualifiers that the academic makes explicit within the document in question.

I find it more worrying about the minimum standards of what they consider smart.

62% find Christians smart? It is a bit of a broad generalisation, most Christians I wouldn't consider smart, but I also have higher standards then most.

 

[HotShot]

Most pupils see Muslims as terrorists

Though the results appear to be troubling, I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's a 'wake up call' - the sample is far too narrow for one to claim that it's representative of the whole, but in saying this I do know that rags such as the The Age quite often play upon the negatives and ignore the qualifiers that the academic makes explicit within the document in question.

the important to ask, is how many of those students know a muslim know them well as a friend?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

the important to ask, is how many of those students know a muslim know them well as a friend?

Oh good idea, lets start an 'adopt a muslim' program where we send money over to muslim pen-pals in the middle east for them to blow themselves up and kill people.

 

[HotShot]

Oh good idea, lets start an 'adopt a muslim' program where we send money over to muslim pen-pals in the middle east for them to blow themselves up and kill people.

when there are muslims in australia, why bother going overseas? I know a lot of muslims, christians a good variety if religions. As such i have been accustomeed by diverse religions, and then their impact on their cultures.

But many this post , just shows your attitude towards a muslim. just like those who were against jews. without full knowledge of topic/subject etc you cannot judge it and here you are judging as if you knew the religion back to front.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

when there are muslims in australia, why bother going overseas? I know a lot of muslims, christians a good variety if religions. As such i have been accustomeed by diverse religions, and then their impact on their cultures.

I know quite a bit about all the different types of christians... I have muslim friends, I have hindu friends, I even have one jewish friend. I know a decent ammount about their beliefs/customs etc... how they affect them... religion is a bit of a pet topic for me.

Anyway, while you're going on about the fact that we're just being discriminatory or whatever... hows bout all them muslims on tv wanting to kill us? what about all those muslims in those nations that hate my way of life? I mean you're claiming discrimination but I don't see any evidence of it in this case - I just see a religious issue that's blown over and a huge big angry reaction from both sides... I just don't understand why you'd bring discrimination into it.


P.S. I still don't see how the study showed that people view muslims as subhuman or whatever... It's just that people generally don't think muslims are as smart as christians (a funny statistic, but still it's a huge stretch to claim muslims are seen as 'subhuman' lol).

 

[davin]

yeah, thats not exactly a scientific term in this case

 

[HotShot]

I know quite a bit about all the different types of christians... I have muslim friends, I have hindu friends, I even have one jewish friend. I know a decent ammount about their beliefs/customs etc... how they affect them... religion is a bit of a pet topic for me.

Anyway, while you're going on about the fact that we're just being discriminatory or whatever... hows bout all them muslims on tv wanting to kill us? what about all those muslims in those nations that hate my way of life?

P.S. I still don't see how the study showed that people view muslims as subhuman or whatever... It's just that people generally don't think muslims are as smart as christians (a funny statistic, but still it's a huge stretch to claim muslims are seen as 'subhuman' lol).

I am only saying that the media is being discriminatory (and u for your comments), not the general public (even though i might made a few comments headed towards them).

They are called "terrorists" and by labelling them as muslims, you are being discriminatory, they may have arabic writng, the quran on their hands etc. But they are terrorists and are no longer muslims. The quicker the community and the rest of the world realises the problems will be solved.

Fuck the terrorist, dont u label them as muslims, its an insult to the religion. Anyone who supports terrorits are also not considered muslims. TO be muslim you must live among other religions, and respect other cultures, and to be understand ing of others -that is the being a muslim.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

They are called "terrorists" and by labelling them as muslims, you are being discriminatory, they may have arabic writng, the quran on their hands etc. But they are terrorists and are no longer muslims. The quicker the community and the rest of the world realises the problems will be solved.

If there is a consensus operational definition of a muslim I imagine it would have to be so vague that these people would definately be included in the group.

Fuck the terrorist, dont u label them as muslims, its an insult to the religion. Anyone who supports terrorits are also not considered muslims. TO be muslim you must live among other religions, and respect other cultures, and to be understand ing of others -that is the being a muslim.

What? We should just take your word for what being a 'true' muslim is? It's like different christian sects claiming other groups aren't 'real christians' - I DONT CARE! It doesn't matter what you think is a 'real' christian or whatever, for my purposes I'm going to call these 'terrorists' muslims because they fit my operational definition of what a muslim is (someone whom accepts the prophet muhammed, believes in the muslim god, follows his interpretation of the koran/hadith).

 

[davin]

TO be muslim you must live among other religions, and respect other cultures, and to be understand ing of others -that is the being a muslim.

does this mean everyone protesting against the danish gov't for allowing a paper freedom of speech aren't muslims?

 

[zeek]

Why are you arguing about this shit?
If those people want to bomb danish buildings/figures then let them. Who gives a fuck? seriously.
Do you SERIOUSLY think that a mob of people are really going to change the laws of a government?

 

[Salima]

Why are you arguing about this shit?
If those people want to bomb danish buildings/figures then let them. Who gives a fuck? seriously.
Do you SERIOUSLY think that a mob of people are really going to change the laws of a government?

Have you ever heard of the French Revolution?

 

[Salima]

does this mean everyone protesting against the danish gov't for allowing a paper freedom of speech aren't muslims?

No, but more along the lines of you'd like the same done to you as you do unto others. It's about respect adn common human decency!