Burn the book

[kamorrista]

He is implying your opinion is based on ignorance and half truths,

where is the source for your quotes?, they are not referenced properly and i doubt anyone can be bothered to trawl through the entire qu'ran to find them to see if you have editted them for your convinience

Im sorry i found out tedious to bring loads of fonts for it, that extract is directly from quran book, you can check it out, anyway, you may find it based on ignorance which i respect, however he didn't base his opinion on solid texts or fonts, this is not a court or tribunal tho, if u find i edited for my convenience you are free to be distrustful

/hug

 

[Ch3tan]

That's the point, he can't check them because you did not reference them correctly. Which kuran did you get the quotes from, which translation?

 

[kamorrista]

What Chron said, sorry Kam, but your opinions are based on half truths and an incorrect understanding. You do realise that the virgins in heaven thing is taken completely out of context and translation?

As for the rest of your quotes, what was the context in full, where did you get those translations from? Because that is a very very important issue when dealing with any religious text.

If you are going to judge a different culture or religion then make sure you understand it first, very very few people in the west do. I certainly don't, but it's quite clear in any thread about Islam on these forums that I understand far more than most.

I don't judge, anyways seems everything i say is not correct for you, so i find unuseful to continue debating this, as I said this is not a court or a tribunal where you have to show proofs and fonts.

You have your opinion which u claim is the only truth, I have my opinion which I think it is right, fullstop.

 

[Lamp]

lol everyone's an amateur Imam

 

[Chronictank]

Im sorry i found out tedious to bring loads of fonts for it, that extract is directly from quran book, you can check it out,

It's not unless you translated it yourself (which i doubt somewhat), it is from a website somewhere
So what is the real source?
I have told you why I and others cannot easily 'check it out'

anyway, you may find it based on ignorance which i respect, however he didn't base his opinion on solid texts or fonts, this is not a court or tribunal tho, if u find i edited for my convenience you are free to be distrustful

/hug

It's not a court tribunal you are right, its a discussion
The burden of evidence to support your view is on yourself rather than him since you were the one to put the point forward

 

[kamorrista]

Islam and the women

sorry but don't be so inquisitve please

 

[Chronictank]

so you translated a translation?

the site you have linked is in Spanish so couldn't have been the source unless you translated it yourself

Surely the point of having a healthy debate is for me to be as inquisitive as possible ?

 

[kamorrista]

I translated spanish, i tried at least lol

well can't translate arabic font but quran is translated like bible into many languages fortunately

 

[kamorrista]

I have to point that one is a very good web, shame you cannot read well cuz is spanish

 

[Chronictank]

Sorry mate i am meaning to reply but i want to do so properly

A bit busy at work so can't right now

 

[Ch3tan]

I don't judge, anyways seems everything i say is not correct for you, so i find unuseful to continue debating this, as I said this is not a court or a tribunal where you have to show proofs and fonts.

You have your opinion which u claim is the only truth, I have my opinion which I think it is right, fullstop.

It's a discussion, don't be so defensive? You don't seem interested in debating or discussing, so I'll leave it to Chron.

 

[Ch3tan]

Chron, I did a google translate on that page Kam linked. It's an attempt to find understanding behind the words of koran, you can twist it however you please. The page itself actually points out that the phrase from the koran does not condone violence against a wife it is meant as rules to deal with issues, with violence as a last resort.

 

[Job]

Personally I couldn't give rats ass what's written in the Qoran, no doubt it was written with some feeling by whoever, but has been adjusted ,cherry picked and translated with prejudice over and over again.
Anyone who lives their life around some ancient feel good story needs a freakin brain transplant.

 

[Ch3tan]

Yes I agree fully Job, however I also believe that you should let people live as they choose, and that you need to understand and accept other lifestyles whether they adhere to your views or not. I personally blame religion for everything wrong in the world, but as long as people don't try and influence me with their religion or it's beliefs then I couldn't give a rats arse.

 

[megadave]

i just downloaded the Qur-an, anyone want me to burn them a copy?

BADUM TICH!

 

[Raven]

Personally I couldn't give rats ass what's written in the Qoran, no doubt it was written with some feeling by whoever, but has been adjusted ,cherry picked and translated with prejudice over and over again.
Anyone who lives their life around some ancient feel good story needs a freakin brain transplant.

A rather large point that most religious people are happy to ignore. They (The bible and the Koran) have been edited to suit different peoples motives (usually control) since they were written. Basically they now reads as "give me all your money and do as I say and ignore the other ones as their gods smell funny"

They were probably pretty decent books when they first came out. I am thinking lord of the rings meets CSI meets Peter Pan.

 

[Chronictank]

A rather large point that most religious people are happy to ignore. They (The bible and the Koran) have been edited to suit different peoples motives (usually control) since they were written. Basically they now reads as "give me all your money and do as I say and ignore the other ones as their gods smell funny"

They were probably pretty decent books when they first came out. I am thinking lord of the rings meets CSI meets Peter Pan.

Actually the oldest found version of the qu'ran is pretty much the same as the modern one (there are a few mistakes in translation admittedly but nothing which changes its actual message)

 

[Olgaline]

Regardless of your opinion on the matter
They believed it was wrong, and felt strongly about it
They expressed their disapproval in a peaceful and legal way

So what is your problem?

The target of the boycut is my problem, and what it represents.
Had they gone out and protested against Jyllands posten, held big demonstrations...fine by me,
had they chosen to boycut anyone doing buisness or with direct relations, to Jyllands posten, fine by me.

But by boycutting Denamrk and Danish products in general, what you are then infact protesting against,
is not mearly The choice JP made by priting the drawings, but rather the Danish choice to have freedom of press,
aka "freedom of speech". and in that case YES! then I have a very big issue with it.

The road of State inforced and state controlled censorship, is not a prospect I would recommed or desire, in anyway shape or form.

 

[Chronictank]

The target of the boycut is my problem, and what it represents.
Had they gone out and protested against Jyllands posten, held big demonstrations...fine by me,
had they chosen to boycut anyone doing buisness or with direct relations, to Jyllands posten, fine by me.

But by boycutting Denamrk and Danish products in general, what you are then infact protesting against,
is not mearly The choice JP made by priting the drawings, but rather the Danish choice to have freedom of press,
aka "freedom of speech". and in that case YES! then I have a very big issue with it.

The road of State inforced and state controlled censorship, is not a prospect I would recommed or desire, in anyway shape or form.

Yet it was the Danish government who PUBLICLY SUPPORTED the paper, they should have stayed well clear
They made themselves a target and were subsequently punished because of it

 

[Ch3tan]

They supported the papers freedom of speech and expression, which was the right thing to do.

 

[Chronictank]

They supported the papers freedom of speech and expression, which was the right thing to do.

and also made them out to be free from responsibility, is that also the right thing to do?

 

[Ch3tan]

No it didn't, it was protecting the core values of a democratic country.

 

[Olgaline]

Chronic you really should get your facts strait,
The Danish goverment actually did attempt to stay clear,
but circumstanses "violent attacks on the Danish embassies"
and thus Denmark as a nation, forced them into adressing the issue.

They did so by explaining how the danish Constitution, and thus also freedom of press works, that in denmark,
the press is privatly run without interfearence from state autorities, and that the dansih goverment had not and would not, interfear with Jp's
constetutional right to print the drawings, and godbless them for that.

A demand was then issued, for the Danish goveremnt to appoligise for the actions of JP,
again an independant news papir, wich they naturally refused to do.

So seen from a danish goverments perspective JP were

A: Free from legal responcibiliy ? Yes
B: Free from Moral responcibility ? Up to the individual reader to decide. and not for a goverment to do so.

I for one agree entirely with that assesment.

 

[Olgaline]

Chronic you really should get your facts strait,
.

Heh, just read the first part of my own reply, and it hit me, how arrogant it came across,
wich it's really not ment to. Well, at least not in this case anyway

It's just that, it's simply not true...you would be correct in the fact that
the danish courts found no grounds for criminal prosecution of JP.
But that very much an enitrely different story to what you claim.

Also keep in mind that this was a danish artical, printed by a danish news papir,
intended for the danish readers in an ongoing debate about freedom of speach.

JP even issued an apology, stating that they apologised for any offense the drawings may have caused.

Wich again brings me full loop back to, what was the actual gaol of that boycut,
what was it that was actaully being opposed ? mearly a people showing their diaproval of the actions of a single newspapir ?
Or disaproval of a vital constintutional right to freedom of press and speach ?

 

[Raven]

and also made them out to be free from responsibility, is that also the right thing to do?

Who is free from responsibility? Just because something is allowed by law, it doesn't make the individual free from responsibility, the state can't and shouldn't be responsible for all our actions.

In this case the state publicly defended the artists right to publish the cartoon, not the cartoon itself.

If every time something that upset a group of people was banned nobody would be doing anything. The whole celebrity culture offends me for personal and moral reasons, should that be banned?

 

[kamorrista]

It's a discussion, don't be so defensive? You don't seem interested in debating or discussing, so I'll leave it to Chron.

it's a discussion but no need to be that offensive, I just thought that you & me aren't going anywhere in this debate, but u can continue ofc with other peeps, not really that I am not interested in it, whatever m8...

Yes I agree fully Job, however I also believe that you should let people live as they choose, and that you need to understand and accept other lifestyles whether they adhere to your views or not. I personally blame religion for everything wrong in the world, but as long as people don't try and influence me with their religion or it's beliefs then I couldn't give a rats arse.

leave people live as they choose while their behaviours don't affect you or rest of the people in a good or bad way, which means you and the rest are free to live as you want aswell, so I agree

 

[Ormorof]

Yet it was the Danish government who PUBLICLY SUPPORTED the paper, they should have stayed well clear
They made themselves a target and were subsequently punished because of it

they did not publicly support the paper they refused to apologise on behalf of the paper, and why should they? freedom of the press means it has nothing to do with the government, if the government HAD apologised i would frankly have been even more angry

if a newspaper publishes something you dont agree with, send a letter, take it to court, dont try to burn down embassies which have nothing to do with the newspapers

 

[kamorrista]

the thing is to point that freedom stops when u harm other people/causes, we need to control that, is ok to be free, just please don't f**k your neighbours, just imo.

 

[Raven]

they did not publicly support the paper they refused to apologise on behalf of the paper, and why should they? freedom of the press means it has nothing to do with the government, if the government HAD apologised i would frankly have been even more angry

if a newspaper publishes something you dont agree with, send a letter, take it to court, dont try to burn down embassies which have nothing to do with the newspapers

The problem is that in a lot of Muslim countries the government do censor the press and do have the authority to stop things such as a book burning. They see it going ahead as the government allowing it and therefore supporting it. In the case of the book burning the American government said they did not sanction it and actually requested (not demanded as they can't) that it didn't go ahead, this fact was unlikely to have been reported though.

 

[Thorwyn]

the thing is to point that freedom stops when u harm other people/causes

"harm" is the crucial word here. The drawing didn´t objectively harm anyone. It´s just not allowed to draw Muhammad in the muslim world (as far as I understand anyways... correct me if I´m wron, Chronic). That´s the important difference to people like Salman Rushdie or this dutch movie producer that got killed. Both intentionally and directly insulted the religion. The danish cartoonist just excercised his freedom of speech and violated a rule that doesn´t apply where he lives.