Cartoons and common sense

The rioting Muslims you see on the news are trying to influence the newspapers and demonstrate their own strength of faith. They must reply in a strong way.Free speech means you can say what you want, but where is the responsibility and wisdom for publishing images that are meant to ridicule people? You should not assume that saying anything you want does not come without consequence if you insult Islam.You have the right to go into Harlem and say what you want about black people. Or you can go into KKK and say some things about white people. However, you should not expect a letter to the editor in response by that community.Not all Muslims are responding in violence, but your Western countries are uniting the Islamic world against you, even if it is a silent support in hidden ways.I probably will get many responses. I can not answer many. I have not logged in for quite awhile. I logged in to see what people were writing on this forum. When I saw the first post of this topic, I had to respond.

You totally misunderstand Islam.
The Quran is the equivalent of what you call law.
A Muslim's purpose in life if obedience to the law.
The cartoons violate what is written.
What you call violence is what some Muslims call justice.
Maybe in your terms, fire is an expression of free speech.Yes, your picture offends me.
You are a child who shows no respect for others.
Is this your culture?

Mr. Holmes,
You have a better understanding of Muslims and more tolerant position than most people in the west. I read your post without frustration and emotion of anger.The educated Muslim, of which there are many in the USA and Europe, struggles over negatives of western freedom interfering with submitting self to Islam. The struggle at the root is the personal commitment priority of Islam over man's law in a land where man's law rules over religious law.I do not support the Iranian and Taliban type of government. Clerics are human and can be tempted by too much power.America has this concept of balance of government power in its branches. Islamic countries need similar concept. However, unlike in America where religion is not part of law, Islamic countries need a branch that represents Islamic law. Without Islamic participation in government, the country would spiral to immorality like happening in the west. I understand that many in west do not agree that immorality is occurring, but that is a Muslim view.I and many peace-minding Muslims do not support violence as protest. But the west must understand that provoking Muslims peels the onion to stronger levels of reaction. The simmering pot is beginning to boil. Peace-loving Muslims, if pushed to the limit, will react with violence or join terrorist organizations. Today, cartoons provoke some to violence and others to simmer, getting closer to boil point.

You are improperly comparing a religion to South Africa's power policy based on race. Those are two different concepts of purpose entirely.If you favor elections in Islamic countries, then let the people decide on whether an Islamic branch is part of it and part of constitution.

quote:

---

No, I am making a quite proper comparison. I am comparing how people in power in South Africa making laws that affect how the entire population will live their lives despite the fact that some did not want to live in that manner with people in power in an "Islamic" state would make laws that affect how the entire population will live their lives despite the fact that some would not want to live in that manner.

---

That would be true of any government, so your point is not clear. There are always some people who disagree with some laws established.Your comparison is improper:
- Apartheid has no basis from faith in a religion.
- Islamic law would be derived from the Quran, which the majority of people support.

I do not have the time to respond to long posts, such as yours.
And, rebuttals seem to never end on this forum. With my limited time I will just go on to other things.In Islam, religious duty is first priority, and that is why your brand of democracy and its undiciplined free speech will not work. Yet, we can have free elections and not create war with the west. Riots are expected with the religious vs secular differences.As Mr. Holmes has stated, there are different viewpoints. There can be peace without imposing one culture's view on another country.Many western leaders agree that America should not have invaded Iraq.
That means a mistake was made.
If America can make mistakes, then why should it have nuclear weapons? You might make another mistake and bring the world to war.And why, if different viewpoints are acceptable, should you prohibit middle eastern countries to have those weapons? Your countries are imposing your worst fears on others, or just being a bully.If nuclear standoff was OK with Soviets, then why wouldn't that also work with all countries?Developing a nuclear weapon is inevitable in Iran and other middle east countries. Why fight it? Why not learn how to form a diplomatic approach?My Texas residence is a business situation. You seem to assume citizen status. I help get oil to your continent from the middle east. That business brings wealth, so I am pleased with the situation. I travel in this arrangement for contract reasons. Since China and India are booming, the barrel must be split among market forces.I do not say too much, because I do not want to risk trouble with your government or my business ties. I know that my foreigh phone calls and email are probably monitored. But I have no subversive ties.

quote:

---

many would say that by demanding that the west conform to your religious dictates, i.e.
banning portrayal of the prophet IS imposing one culture's view on another country.

---

I think I speak for most Muslims in foreign lands on this issue.
It is not a demand or law or conform issue. It is a matter of people in responsible positions personally exercising kindness and respect for others. It is the choice by newspapers whether to knowingly inflame hostility of Muslims. I can understand ignorance of the issue on a first post, but this was a deliberate act repeated by other European papers, and probably American ones soon.

quote:

---

...it was a terrible situation, and that is why it cannot be allowed to happen again.

---

Eight or more countries have the nuclear bomb, have not used it against another country and there is peace.
The Iranian leader is building support with his own people, using free speech. I do not agree with his hostile rhetoric, but that is his right, is it not? That does not mean he would use a nuclear weapon and thus destroy his country in retalliation. He just wants to parade his power.Thank you for polite rational discussion.