[marden]

Muslim anger grows over pope’s remarks

Pakistan parliament condemns what it calls ‘derogatory’ words about Islam

Alessandra Tarantino / AP

Pope Benedict XVI blesses the faithful as he arrives at the Regensburg Cathedral in southern Germany on Tuesday.

Updated: 3:56 a.m. CT Sept 15, 2006
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - Pakistan’s parliament unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI on Friday for making what it called “derogatory” comments about Islam and demanded he apologize.

The Vatican has said Pope Benedict did not mean to offend Muslims with remarks he made in Germany this week about Muhammad and holy war.

In a speech, Benedict quoted a 14th-century Byzantine emperor as saying, “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

Muslim anger grows over pope's remarks - Europe - MSNBC.com

I hope it won't result in violence but I'm afraid it will.

Earlier this evening I mentioned our having arrived at an unspoken agreement to not insult the Prophet and now look. Well, we have just moved an inch closer to the holy war we all know is coming.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by marden

Muslim anger grows over pope’s remarks

Pakistan parliament condemns what it calls ‘derogatory’ words about Islam

Alessandra Tarantino / AP

Pope Benedict XVI blesses the faithful as he arrives at the Regensburg Cathedral in southern Germany on Tuesday.

Updated: 3:56 a.m. CT Sept 15, 2006
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - Pakistan’s parliament unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI on Friday for making what it called “derogatory” comments about Islam and demanded he apologize.

The Vatican has said Pope Benedict did not mean to offend Muslims with remarks he made in Germany this week about Muhammad and holy war.

In a speech, Benedict quoted a 14th-century Byzantine emperor as saying, “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

Muslim anger grows over pope's remarks - Europe - MSNBC.com

I hope it won't result in violence but I'm afraid it will.

Earlier this evening I mentioned our having arrived at an unspoken agreement to not insult the Prophet and now look. Well, we have just moved an inch closer to the holy war we all know is coming.

In this case, other than in the case of the cartoons, the anger is not only understabdable but justifiable. None other than the pope visits Germany, and claiming to want to reignite the dialogue between the christians and muslims there, quotes a middle-age hate-text against prophet Muhammad, which says that he brought nothing but inhuman and bad/evil things on top of the previous messages.

Not only is it completely wrong and merely demonstrates the complete lack of knowledge of the middle-age-writer about prophet Muhammad, not to speak of his obvious bias, the critic is also hilariously rediculous considering the fact that middle-age-christianity was much more corrupt and violent than the islamic world back then.

But then it is understandable that a middle-age christian author with his mission in mind to defeat the islamic world, would do everything to redicule and distort the quranic message and its messenger, and use all the polemics he can mobilise to do so, and on good days I could even categorize it as black humor, but a pope in this century with all the knowledge available falling back into the middle-age quoting such polemics exposes his deeply distorted understanding of prophet Muhammad, the Quran and the historic context in polytheistic Arabia.

The pope wanted to make a point, that faith and violence aren't compatible, but let's take it to the test. Let's imagine God had ordered prophet Muhammad and his followers in polytheistic Arabia not to react to the war started against them by polytheistic Mecca, ie. to be strictly pacifistic and not to defend themselves. What would have happened? The polytheistic Meccans would have killed prophet Muhammad and his followers, and Arabia would have remained polytheistic with generations of people dying and coming into hell.

Where's the love in that pacifism?

What worked in the roman empire, a civilised state, would have never worked in polytheistic Arabia, a tribe-based society.
It was necessary for prophet Muhammad and his followers to stand up and defend God's message against the polytheistic warriors of Mecca and their allies, so that future arabic generations could have the opportunity to hear God's voice and message and become monotheistic.

In that case, violence indeed helped considerably, it defeated the forces of evil and allowed God's message to be heard in arabic, so that people could become believers in God and abolish idolatry.

With violence you can't force a single soul/heart to become a true believer, several passages throughout the Quran make that clear, but with defensive violence it's possible to defeat the oppression of the evil, so that an environment can be created where people can hear the message and have the opportunity to decide to become a true believer or not.

In short, in order to create a civilisation of freedom, law and order... it is necessary to use defensive violence in order to defeat the evil powers of oppression and crime. In the case of Jesus and the roman empire, that wasn't necessary as a civilisation was already there, in the case of polytheistic Arabia it was very necessary, just like it was for Moses and the numerous other ancient israeli prophets after him.

How some later secular islamic empires reinterpreted that defensive fight of prophet Muhammad and his followers, in order to justify their empire-lust and need for expansion like any other empires of that time, is sad, but even sadder is a pope of today that takes that empire-reinterpretation and accepting it as the true will of prophet Muhammad.

With that anachronistic point of view, the pope exposes his past as the inquisitor Ratzinger, not understanding that the position of the pope asks for a much more profound connection to the truth than the heretic-hunting inquisitor-position where polemics and halftruths might be acceptable tools.

Taliesin

[undotwa]

Mediaeval hate text? Manuel II was condemning any form of union between violence and religion. That is, IMHO, a very enlightened opinion - especially for the times.

Taliesin - you cannot justify violence by the end it produces. Violence is only legitimate when it is defensive i.e. utilised out of sheer necessity due to defend against violence done to you. It is clear that the early wars of Islamic expansion were NOT defensive. How is launching wars in Egypt defensive?

In a way, I am very disappointed by the reaction this speech has received. I expected better of the Islamic community.

[Sayf-Allah]

: points to signature :

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by undotwa

Mediaeval hate text? Manuel II was condemning any form of union between violence and religion. That is, IMHO, a very enlightened opinion - especially for the times.

Did you read what he said?

Here, I'll highlight it for you:

By the despot of Byzantine:
“Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

In a way, I am very disappointed by the reaction this speech has received. I expected better of the Islamic community.

Keep your blind faith in Joseph Alois Ratzinger and the hate he preaches. But don't for one second think that we as Muslims will accept this constant hatespeech coming from so-called "respected" members of society. Because that isn't going to happen.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by undotwa

Mediaeval hate text? Manuel II was condemning any form of union between violence and religion. That is, IMHO, a very enlightened opinion - especially for the times.

Taliesin - you cannot justify violence by the end it produces. Violence is only legitimate when it is defensive i.e. utilised out of sheer necessity due to defend against violence done to you. It is clear that the early wars of Islamic expansion were NOT defensive. How is launching wars in Egypt defensive?

In a way, I am very disappointed by the reaction this speech has received. I expected better of the Islamic community.

In a way I am very diasppointed by your reaction to my posting, I expected that you would read it better and more thorough, cause if you had done that you would have realized that just like you I only tolerate violence out of necessity and in defense against violence, and that was the case with prophet Muhammad and his followers in polytheistic tribebased Arabia.

What later islamic empires did was sometimes sad and other times good, it is really a case-to -case-scenario. For example the conquering of Egypt from the roman empire was an act of love and help for a coptic community that was harshly prosecuted by the pagan and later by the christian roman empire, and that asked for help and liberation from the prosecution.

I think that are the only two justifications for violence: a) selfdefense against warriors that would stop at nothing and b) liberation of oppressed and persecuted communities, if they explicitly asked for help.

It would have to be done a through historical analysis to decide which islamic wars were in that sense justified and which were done for simple longing for world-riches, and therefore not justified.

But back to Manuel II and his enlightened opinion with which he condemned the union of violence and religion. In order to make his point, he abused the person of prophet Muhammad without any knowledge of him or the message he was inspired with by God, except what he could learn from his experience and interchanges with the ottoman empire-sultans:

Bayazit was beside himself with rage when faced with the new emperor's pretensions. He pointed out to him that he had no power outside the "city" and began systematically to cut the empire off from the Balkans. Manuel had to consent to a treaty in which it was specified that a quarter for Turkish merchants should be set up in Constantinople with its own Kadi (a Moslem learned man and magistrate.) At first Manuel succeeded in taking advantage of the sultan's involvements to reestablish control over Thessaloniki and parts of Macedonia. The sultan knew that help could come only from Hungary and in 1393 conquered Thessaly and Bulgaria; the next year he began the siege of Constantinople, the longest in the city's history, which was to last from 1394 to 1402. In the city hunger and despair prevailed. In 1395 the sultan built the fortress of Anadolu Hisar on the Asiatic side of the Bosporus. Bulgaria became the first Ottoman Turkish province in Europe. The sultan wished to show his dominance, and in the winter of 1393/94 summoned Manuel, his nephew John VII, and Theodore, Despot of the Morea, as well as Prince Stefan Lazarevic of Serbia to Serres, where he at first wanted to kill them all. Some Byzantine officers were blinded. Finally they were able to return home; only Theodore was to take part in the conquest of Europe. He succeeded in escaping, however, and hastened to Mistras, in order to organize the defense of the Morea. The events in Serres confirmed Manuel's opinion that the Turks were not amenable to any kind of reasoning. Later demands by the sultan to appear before him were declined by the emperor.

Source: Roman Emperors - DIR Manuel II

While the ottomans were turks that came from East-Asia and became muslims, it is also important to note that they usurped power in the islamic world and systematically conquered and occupied it, and only interested in religion as far as it helped their empire-interests, and espescially its leaders, sultans, bad examples to get an understanding for the quranic message and prophet Muhammad.

Considering the problems of the Byzantine-empire (in better times it equally expanded) with the expanding ottoman empire and espescially the treatment of parts of his family (ie the blinding) it is understandable that he used such hateful polemics against the muslims and their prophet, but like already said it is not understandable that the pope of today uses them, even if only in quotes, to make his point.

It would have been way better, had he recalled all the violence done in the name of the church and shown how that was wrong and appealed to the muslims to not do the same mistakes and to restrain the radicals and their poison, but he didn't do that, instead he abused prophet Muhammad and by this offended all muslims at once, making the important discussion about violence and religion much more difficult.

Taliesin

[marden]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

In this case, other than in the case of the cartoons, the anger is not only understabdable but justifiable. None other than the pope visits Germany, and claiming to want to reignite the dialogue between the christians and muslims there, quotes a middle-age hate-text against prophet Muhammad, which says that he brought nothing but inhuman and bad/evil things on top of the previous messages.

Not only is it completely wrong and merely demonstrates the complete lack of knowledge of the middle-age-writer about prophet Muhammad, not to speak of his obvious bias, the critic is also hilariously rediculous considering the fact that middle-age-christianity was much more corrupt and violent than the islamic world back then.

But then it is understandable that a middle-age christian author with his mission in mind to defeat the islamic world, would do everything to redicule and distort the quranic message and its messenger, and use all the polemics he can mobilise to do so, and on good days I could even categorize it as black humor, but a pope in this century with all the knowledge available falling back into the middle-age quoting such polemics exposes his deeply distorted understanding of prophet Muhammad, the Quran and the historic context in polytheistic Arabia.

The pope wanted to make a point, that faith and violence aren't compatible, but let's take it to the test. Let's imagine God had ordered prophet Muhammad and his followers in polytheistic Arabia not to react to the war started against them by polytheistic Mecca, ie. to be strictly pacifistic and not to defend themselves. What would have happened? The polytheistic Meccans would have killed prophet Muhammad and his followers, and Arabia would have remained polytheistic with generations of people dying and coming into hell.

Where's the love in that pacifism?

What worked in the roman empire, a civilised state, would have never worked in polytheistic Arabia, a tribe-based society.
It was necessary for prophet Muhammad and his followers to stand up and defend God's message against the polytheistic warriors of Mecca and their allies, so that future arabic generations could have the opportunity to hear God's voice and message and become monotheistic.

In that case, violence indeed helped considerably, it defeated the forces of evil and allowed God's message to be heard in arabic, so that people could become believers in God and abolish idolatry.

With violence you can't force a single soul/heart to become a true believer, several passages throughout the Quran make that clear, but with defensive violence it's possible to defeat the oppression of the evil, so that an environment can be created where people can hear the message and have the opportunity to decide to become a true believer or not.

In short, in order to create a civilisation of freedom, law and order... it is necessary to use defensive violence in order to defeat the evil powers of oppression and crime. In the case of Jesus and the roman empire, that wasn't necessary as a civilisation was already there, in the case of polytheistic Arabia it was very necessary, just like it was for Moses and the numerous other ancient israeli prophets after him.

How some later secular islamic empires reinterpreted that defensive fight of prophet Muhammad and his followers, in order to justify their empire-lust and need for expansion like any other empires of that time, is sad, but even sadder is a pope of today that takes that empire-reinterpretation and accepting it as the true will of prophet Muhammad.

With that anachronistic point of view, the pope exposes his past as the inquisitor Ratzinger, not understanding that the position of the pope asks for a much more profound connection to the truth than the heretic-hunting inquisitor-position where polemics and halftruths might be acceptable tools.

Taliesin

Only some of Muhammad's violence was defensive. And even less Islamic violence is so today. A person who is coerced or intimidated by violence into conversion may not be a true convert. But if he stops being a Muslim he becomes an apostate and faces a death penalty. So the effect is that the number of new Muslims increases. There is little backward movement in Islam, it seems. Once Muslim land, always Muslim land. Once a Muslim always a Muslim.

The outrage may be partly due to Muslims feeling insulted and their belief they must respond in defense of the Prophet or the religion, but I wonder how embarrassing it is for the Muslim world to hear someone as respected as he come out and say what seemingly most others are afraid to.

I think this will go a long way in helping remove more of the confusion many people still have about the potential threat of Islam. The worldwide dialog will be renewed and we'll be left with a better understanding. Before, during and after the Second World War there were peace loving Germans who did not agree with the Nazis. But those who did agree with them were also at least tacitly supportive of their anti-Jewish policies. If the Prophet Muhammad preached contempt toward Jews and today's Muslims practice discrimination and bigotry toward Jews and terrorists and their leaders and President Ahmadinejad and Hezbollah leader Nasrallah and Osama bin Laden are anti-Semites and they are all said to be very devoutly religious Muslims I think the world needs to recognize the truth. And these comments from the Pope will open up the discussion again concerning what is the true nature of Islam.

Every voice will speak and hopefully the truth will rise above the noise.

Eventually I hope the Islamic world and the non-Islamic world will be able to speak honestly. This may help that to happen. If everyone knows the real objective of the jihadists and the non-Muslim world says "we know your intentions and all of the people in the world understand the truth of the matter and are not going to allow you to take these nations," what would the Islamic world do?

The essential element of the Pope's message is to those who still wish to believe a falsehood, that Islam is a religion of peace.

I believe most Muslims want the same things most anyone else wants. Life, liberty (as they define it) and happiness. But I believe there is also a small minority who believe so much in the fundamental teachings of the Koran and the Hadiths that they are convinced they will be guaranteed a place in Heaven if they die a martyr defending Islam or slaying the disbelievers or while fighting to get back Islamic land. The number of people who believe this and are willing to fight and die and slay in the way of Allah are sufficient in numbers to take over the world.

Once everyone in the non-Muslim world understands what is generally the basis for Islamic expansion and jihad then we will be closer to recognizing and honoring the peaceful nature of most Muslims while recognizing the true threat of others. Then we may no longer hear idiotic comments from people like Rosie O'Donnell who says things like radical Christianity is just as dangerous as radical Islam. She may be wanting to honor the peaceful Muslims but she is unduly whitewashing a real threatening segment of the Islamic population.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

But don't for one second think that we as Muslims will accept this constant hatespeech coming from so-called "respected" members of society. Because that isn't going to happen.

Why match a stereotype of violence with threats of violence? All that does is strengthen the stereotype in the minds of the people you're trying to convince that it's wrong.

[Sayf-Allah]

Godwin would be proud of you marden.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Why match a stereotype of violence with threats of violence? All that does is strengthen the stereotype in the minds of the people you're trying to convince that it's wrong.

Where did I mention using violence?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

Godwin would be proud of you marden.

Would that be my Godwin or your Godwin?

[amsalpemkcus]

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by marden

Would that be my Godwin or your Godwin?

Godwin's Law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Let's imagine God had ordered prophet Muhammad and his followers in polytheistic Arabia not to react to the war started against them by polytheistic Mecca, ie. to be strictly pacifistic and not to defend themselves. What would have happened? The polytheistic Meccans would have killed prophet Muhammad and his followers, and Arabia would have remained polytheistic with generations of people dying and coming into hell.

How do you know they would have come into hell? Maybe polytheists have a quite pleasant afterlife.

[yakkiebah]

Islam, famous for blowing things up and blowing things out of proportion.

Where was the fury from the buddhist leaders when the Taliban blew up those buddhist statues? Let me take a guess, the buddhists propably just shrugged it off, smiled and went on with their lives.

I sure hope the pope shows some back and won't apologize.

Now here's something hilarious, one of these islamic leaders, Qaradawi, is demanding an apology. Wich is pretty amazing comming from an asshole like him: Jew-hating, gay-bashing jihadist cleric warns Pope: Islam means peace

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

Where did I mention using violence?

Are you trying to say that what you said wasn't a threat?

[Wiskedjak]

Is marden the new PacHead?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

Keep your blind faith in Joseph Alois Ratzinger and the hate he preaches. But don't for one second think that we as Muslims will accept this constant hatespeech coming from so-called "respected" members of society. Because that isn't going to happen.

As opposed to the ACTUAL hatespeech coming from idiots like the president of Iran?

Clean up your own backyard before bitching about someone else's.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

: points to signature :

Which violates the laws of Islam. Eh, Infidel?

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

Keep your blind faith in Joseph Alois Ratzinger and the hate he preaches.

The hate he preaches? Like you and your sig?

Hypocrite.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Are you trying to say that what you said wasn't a threat?

Two things.

1) Threat = Violence?
2) What/whom did I threaten?

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

As opposed to the ACTUAL hatespeech coming from idiots like the president of Iran?

Clean up your own backyard before bitching about someone else's.

I'm trying but the problem is that comments like these and other like it make it almost impossible for me to do anything about it.

And while you continue to ignore that (and support it) my attempts are useless.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Which violates the laws of Islam. Eh, Infidel?

Not saying you are wrong but what "law of Islam" would that be?

And are you talking about "Infidel" in the Islamic sense of the word or in the Western (Christian/Jewish) sense of the word?

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

The hate he preaches? Like you and your sig?

Hypocrite.

Your first post and you throw in a personal attack. Surely you can do better?

[Cody Dawg]

Good for the Pope!

Long live the Pope!



Mohammed was a killer plain and simple and Islam rules by violence...still.

Let's compare Jesus and Mohammed:

CLICK HERE IF YOU DARE TO COMPARE

Clearly, Mohammed was just a an average person who claimed to have God on his side in order to influence people and gain power.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

Two things.

1) Threat = Violence?

Quit playing the lawyer. You have given us no reason to believe that your threat is not sincere, and plenty of very good reasons to believe that it is. Whether or not you intend to carry it out personally, you leave us no choice but to believe that you support those who would.

2) What/whom did I threaten?

Well, here's what you said...

Keep your blind faith in Joseph Alois Ratzinger and the hate he preaches. But don't for one second think that we as Muslims will accept this constant hatespeech coming from so-called "respected" members of society. Because that isn't going to happen.

By "you" I can only assume you mean any who you think have "blind faith" in the current Pope. From your current track record, it seems logical that you extend this to all Christians, even Protestants and heretics such as myself who claim no faith or allegiance in the man.

Your anger at the Pope's remarks is understandable. Your response, however, is exactly in accordance with the stereotype that Ratzinger is espousing. That attitude promotes the stereotype far more effectively than Ratzinger could ever hope to.

[kobi]

originally posted by Cody Dawg
Clearly, Mohammed was just a an average person who claimed to have God on his side in order to influence people and gain power

That sounds a lot like Jesus to me. How are they different again?

BTW that comparison web-page is a waste of bandwidth. It's a joke.

Enjoy.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Quit playing the lawyer. You have given us no reason to believe that your threat is not sincere, and plenty of very good reasons to believe that it is. Whether or not you intend to carry it out personally, you leave us no choice but to believe that you support those who would.

Well, here's what you said...

By "you" I can only assume you mean any who you think have "blind faith" in the current Pope. From your current track record, it seems logical that you extend this to all Christians, even Protestants and heretics such as myself who claim no faith or allegiance in the man.

Again. Where's the threat and violence in what I said? C'mon, show me where it is.

And what track record? Please elaborate.

Your anger at the Pope's remarks is understandable. Your response, however, is exactly in accordance with the stereotype that Ratzinger is espousing. That attitude promotes the stereotype far more effectively than Ratzinger could ever hope to.

No, you are showing exactly why speech as his is dangerous. You believe that just because a Muslim says something like what I did, it means that I'm going to use violence. Not once did that thought come to mind. But because he continues to portray the same picture of Muslims/Arabs that the Orientalists do you have become resigned to the fact that a Muslim speaking up against something means he will soon resort to violence. And that is exactly why I speak out against such hate speech.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

I'm trying but the problem is that comments like these and other like it make it almost impossible for me to do anything about it.

And while you continue to ignore that (and support it) my attempts are useless.

So, people need to not be critical of Islam for Islam to change. Same as Israel needs to endure the suicide bombings from the Palestinians, for Islam to change.

You know, you guys are going to have to meet somewhere in the middle, and so far you've hardly done a damned thing. Well, other than blow things up and hold anti-Jew pep rallies.

It's past time for the word "compromise" to be introduced into the Arabic language.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

So, people need to not be critical of Islam for Islam to change. Same as Israel needs to endure the suicide bombings from the Palestinians, for Islam to change.

No and no.

You know, you guys are going to have to meet somewhere in the middle, and so far you've hardly done a damned thing. Well, other than blow things up and hold anti-Jew pep rallies.

We've been trying but you don't listen. I'm not gonna repeat once more what needs to be done.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

No and no.

We've been trying but you don't listen. I'm not gonna repeat once more what needs to be done.

Yes and yes.

Fine example of no compromise. I think you summed that up perfectly.

[BRussell]

My God is bigger than your God.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Yes and yes.

Fine example of no compromise. I think you summed that up perfectly.

Compromise about what exactly?

And what has this to do with the topic at hand?

[Sky Captain]

Now a group of enraged muslims have burned the Pope in effigy.
How predictable.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

Your first post and you throw in a personal attack. Surely you can do better?

Would you care to address the criticism? Your sig is far more hateful than the pope's criticism of religious warfare.

[Big Mac]

Sayf, if you're looking for a starting point in a compromise (at least on MacNN) you could alter your signature. What if a Christian wrote "**** your crescent"? You spew hatred and then wonder why people react negatively to you.

[pooka]

Man, I say this with all respect, but both Muslims and Christians can be super retarded sometimes. Pussies too.

"Someone said something bad about your faith? Awww. Poor thing! That's terrible? What? They said your mother was like a bowling ball? Stick 3 fingers in her then throw her in the gutter? My goodness! What's that? That bad Persian man wants to wipe your country off the map? The nerve..."

Man, let your nuts drop and stop letting WORDS pain you so much.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Would you care to address the criticism? Your sig is far more hateful than the pope's criticism of religious warfare.

What criticism?

[Nicko]

Ah the Pope, promoting another millennium of religious violence.

[Sky Captain]

Muslims, promoting another milennia of violence through violence.
Predictable.

Gratituous photo of raging muslims.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Sayf, if you're looking for a starting point in a compromise (at least on MacNN) you could alter your signature. What if a Christian wrote "**** your crescent"? You spew hatred and then wonder why people react negatively to you.

I'd actually listen to you if you had said that to the people saying the Quran should be used as toilet paper etc. But since you supported them IIRC your opinion doesn't mean much to me.

And if they said "**** your crescent"?

Feel free to add that to your signature if you want to!

[Big Mac]

Uh, as a rule I don't support desecrating any venerated religious object.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Uh, as a rule I don't support desecrating any venerated religious object.

Could you show me where you objected to that?

I'm guessing not.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Uh, as a rule I don't support desecrating any venerated religious object.

Same here.

I finally just had to add him to my ignore list, I got tired of looking at it. Actually, he's the only person on my list.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

Could you show me where you objected to that?

I'm guessing not.

I have never seen anyone on here say they support such a thing.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

What criticism?

Ah I've figured it out, welcome back VW.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Ah I've figured it out, welcome back VW.

Took you that long?

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

Took you that long?

I haven't kept abreast of poli lounge developments, there was too much iPod speculation going on for me to worry about the world. But now, with the disappointing nano release, it's time for me to come vent my rage here.

[Mark Larr]

More proof that islam is outdated with progressive, tolerant and peaceful thinking.

[placebo1969]

So let me get this straight. The Pope says something that is perceived negative about Islam and Muslims react with violence? Like Millennium said, it does nothing but feed into the negative stereotypes of Muslims. It just doesn't make sense.