insuling cartoons about Prophet of Islam! an irresponsible act of european newspapers

the "Letter to American People" on http://www.louisville.cc/news/words.html was very, let's call it, insightful.
IF this represents what Mulsims believe, then they

a) do not repect other religions or atheism,
b) see their religion to be the next logical step after any monotheistic religon
c) Do not believe in seperation of state and religion
d) Belive executive and juristication should be handled by the people (democracy), but ligislative should be handled by the religion alone (not democracy)

They want:
* to be independant of the West - OK
* to get back Pakistan from the Jews - understandible, might possibly be OK with a good seperation of state and religion and a good fair panreligional democracy, which would in turn speak against their beliefs
* to be united - definately ok.
* (this one is interpreted) in communism with no seperation of church and religion - fine by me but this probably sounds scary to many americans (communist-superpower-phoby)
* everyone to believe and live after the Islam - no chance. see below

ans4friends:
Have you ever been to Europe or the USA ? since you are from Pakistan, you are probably a Muslim and thus have a different view of religion than Westerners. In Europe, religion is unimportant; just some byproduct of society and human nature, A group of people sharing a common interest. You can live it, believe it, acnoledge it, ignore it, scorn on it. That's all. In the US the situation is undoubtedly similiar, I for my part am Atheist but acknowledge the principle of religion.
AFAIK, Muslims take their religion much more seriously than modern Christians do. The Bible is seen as a document from the time it was written and is interpreted as such, calculating changes in society over the centuries. The Qoran (ignore spelling mistakes) however is taken word for word and MAY NOT be interpreted. Society has changed in Europe over the past few centuries, often in spite of religion. If Europe had been islamic at the end of the middle ages, the USA might nor exist, the industrial revolution might not have taken place and we might not be living as comfortable as we are today. In Europe, Islam can be compared to the Jehova's whitnesses - they are ways for people who really want a religion and cannot be satisfied by the weak christian churches. But many more are becoming Atheists or semi-Atheists.

My aim for initiating this topic here was just to express my and other muslims views on this incident …… that for muslims this is an un-acceptable thing..isnt it the human rights violations to hurt the sentiments of 1.45 billion people?........well my friend “Aron” got furious when I used my ”freedom of expresson”… that shows this thing is not always pleasant..
Well u r taking discussion to another way…….i’ll try to answer ur questios…….
1st of all u can not base ur ideas about muslims and Islam on Usama bin ladens later……for that u have to study islam and muslims!
a) do not repect other religions or atheism,
=( Muslim learned to not abuse the symbols of other religion before 1400years from the messenger of mercy and. We keep it up since 1400years if Europe has got their freedom of __expression before 200years…..muslims only fight against those who fight against them, who deprived them of their homes, lives and love ones..like in Bosnia, Palestine, ahghanistan, iraq, chechnia, kashmir )
b) see their religion to be the next logical step after any monotheistic religion
=(yes they do. Yes its not only logical but Divine too. It’s a complete code of conduct in every sense. But they still don’t impose it on others,, and do not insult other belifs)
c) Do not believe in seperation of state and religion
=(yes its true.reason is ! Bible “was” a word of God but is now interpreted and changed by the people(for their interests). Now if u see , bible can not go along with science and 21st century.infact church wanted to rule..church got influence on the kings and governments.. and prohibited knowledge and development.. that’s why west separated church and state.. on the other hand islam and muslim religious leaders always stood with the common people and against the establishment. )
d) Belive executive and juristication should be handled by the people (democracy), but ligislative should be handled by the religion alone (not democracy).
= (yes. Because , Creator (GOD) better knows the needs of his creation(man) that’s why he gave a complete code of conduct. As law .. to be followed by the people… if u study islam . u will come to know that islam has given law and instructions for every thing)

They want:
* to be independant of the West – OK = (true… and whats wrong in it)
* to get back Pakistan from the Jews - understandible, might possibly be OK with a good seperation of state and religion and a good fair panreligional democracy, which would in turn speak against their beliefs
= (not Pakistan ….Palestine! .2ndly u r again imposing ur idea on them.. palestine is their own land .. they will adopt the laws and systems they like 3rdly as for as democracy is concerned .. for ur kind information .. recently HAMAS won the democratic elections in palestine...y USA and europe are opposing democratically elected people?)
* to be united - definately ok.
* (this one is interpreted) in communism with no seperation of church and religion - fine by me but this probably sounds scary to many americans (communist-superpower-phoby)
* everyone to believe and live after the Islam –
= there is no compulsion in islam have a look at the following verse from Quran
"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error"
[Al-Qur’an 2:256]
See below:

Free-zombie:
Have u ever been to muslim world .. u have different view of religion than muslims….is there anyone in europe who can die for Christ (peace be upon him)(as they say Christ died for ur sins)..let me tell u every muslim can die for Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) this is the respect , love and affection they have for Prophet….for u religion is a hurdle in ur way to progress.. but for muslims islam lead them to progress. U compare bible and Quran.. Bible cant go along with the scientfiic facts But Quran orders the people to seek knowledge and discover the hidden parts of the universe. All facts which science is discovering today were told in Quran 1400 years ago.(I can give u many examples if u like)…islam is not at all against progress, compfort, industrial revolution and knowledge…..western media is presenting Islam in a wrong way.. u research islam being unbiased and u will c the truth…… on the other hand being word of God .. Islam is for all ages….Quran is same as it was 1400 years before .. because there is an open challenge from God in Quran… that no one can change it ..no one can make even a single verse like its…..its an open challenge open for all…
Coming back to the point … there are many things in west .. for which freedom of expression is not used …e.g “Holocaust” and many others….so that proves there is no absolute “freedom of expression” possible.

Said By ans4friends

1st of all u can not base ur ideas about muslims and Islam on Usama bin ladens later……for that u have to study islam and muslims!

not Pakistan.Palestine!

of course not. (I said "IF this represents..." ) and sorry about the typo.

and, yes the views on religion are different. I have no problem with people taking religion extremely seriously, But not seing the Qu'ran as a document of the time it was written may be slightly non-perfect in some few cases. The view of women is a popular example: In Islam, men are responsible for public life and women for family life. If women go into public, they must disguise their true shape and in some cases even the face. This was meant to "protect" the women from the "greedy" men. This, in turn, means a bad view of men - like "if a man sees a woman he wants to have sex with her"... This is of course not the case. If you are a man you will most likely know this. In Europe, there was seperation of man and woman and superiority of man for a long time as well. In the first world war, however, man, who was at war, had to realize that woman was perfectly capable of managing for herself and thus was roughly equivalent with man. This insight fundamentally changed Western society, rightfully, but could not reach Muslim society. I mean, have Muslims recently asked if God has changed his opinion now he has seen more of the human race ?
I am not saying Islam is bad, I am just saying that taking any religion too seriously can be hazardous for you health.

Was the Qu'ran written by a human? I know the Torah and Bible were. If that is the case, the text is inherently flawed.

And I speak for all 'religious' texts.

Religion itself is mostly a shame. That being said, I am Jewish. How much money can you donate today?

AFAIK, the Qu'ran was composed by God and written down by his prophet Muhammed. So it was written by a human called Muhammed but noone who believes in it will admit that. Am I right ?

According to islam(as clearly mentioned In Quran) Torah and Bible were the word of God . revealed to Moses and Jesus Christ, respectively , later on people changed major part of the text of these books(that’s why its obviously flawed) Quran is completely the Word of God ..which was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) . there is absolutely no addition or subtraction made by Prophet or any other huaman. God guaranteed its purity till the end of this world.As for as flaws are concerned. There is no flaw… and the challenge is open for every human being to prove any flaw in it…
And as u said u r ashamed of ur religion….. this is because u don’t find any compatibility between u and ur reigion….but as for as muslilms and islam is concerned there is no compatibility problem(and this is also true for every human …provided u try to understand.).

There we have a flaw in the Qu'ran: the Bible was NOT word of god. The bible is a collection of litararic works by people around and after Jesus. Jesus actually playes a part in the bible. It is known and accepted, and has always been. AFAIK, the Evangelia describe Jesus from multiple perspectives, and I believe the don't make complete sence as one document.
Mind you, I am not Christian. I am an Atheist brought up is a society where christianity is common.

The Torah or old Testament of the bible is also a collection of documents telling of the early history of Israel and the Hebrew. correct me if I am wrong, Aron.

There is substantial difference between Muhammed, Moses and Jesus. The prophet Moses revieved the ten amendments from God. This story is told in the Torah and thus the Old Testament. I, personally, would not call Jesus a "classic" prophet. Jesus was a rebel against some facets of Jewish society. Some Jews and Romans followed him, many did not. Jesus was "guided" or sent by God, I however cannot recall him recieving and document. I have however not studied the Bible and have only read parts that I had to for school. Chrostiaity was only really born after Jesus' death.
Muhammed recieved the Qu'ran from God - this can be seen as a symbol that God was not happy with the outcome of his previous two "hintings" and he figured he had to lay out to man exactly what he believed was good.

The West, since breaking away from old systems like monarchies, have developed a new "semi-religion" based on free speech, sience, pursuit of happiness and similiar ideas, and the "classical" religions live on for people who need more. It is a very different, more complex social structure than how I imagine Islamic countries.

The Muslim world cannot expect the West to apologize for the cartoons, which were meant as an experiment on free speech.
The Western world cannot expect the Ummah to accept this inpolite gesture.
The Western world can however expect the Muslim world not to attack and kill them in return for their firm belief in free speech
The Muslim world can however expect the West not to attack or kill them because of some radical group that happens to belong to the Ummah is against the West.

When it comes to violence, we have multiple dilemmas. What I wrote in bold are fundamental forms of respect and politeness that everyone in the world should be able to understand - but, alas, there are always problems in systems not based to 100% on violence. Then the systems would be extremely problematic.

Said By ans4friends

And as u said u r ashamed of ur religion….. this is because u don’t find any compatibility between u and ur reigion….but as for as muslilms and islam is concerned there is no compatibility problem(and this is also true for every human …provided u try to understand.).

That's bullshit. I never said I was ashamed of my religion. I said it was a shame. I have no compatibility problems. I guide my life on what I believe is correct and that comes from places like the Torah, my environment, and the laws of my country... not in that order.

I like how you say that Islam is the end all be all for every human, which it is not. I wouldn't want to be in a fanatical religious movement that doesn't condem terror attacks and rioting totally. That doesn't fit my compatibility.

I have no problems with Muslims nor do I feel that the acts of a small minority (Al Queda and the like) should represent the majority. What I do have a problem with is a group of people pushing their beliefs upon another group of people, which in this case isn't exactly what happened, but it's very close. In this case, Muslims are expecting that the rest of the world needs to adhere to their belief that the Prophet Mohammed cannot be depicted in image form. While I do believe that the cartoons were both entirely inflamatory and incredibly insensitive, the editors of the paper have a right to choose what content to include or exclude from their publication according to the laws of their society. Muslims worldwide have taken offense to the cartoons, which I wholly agree that they should. What I disagree with is their reaction to the drawings in a violent manner. The Muslim community of the world is taking out the actions of a free-speaking independant Danish paper on the Danish government and their representative embassies. They are even going as far as to attack embassies of countries that weren't even involved in the original publication. Violence is in no way acceptable as a response to anything written. I personally don't believe in violence as a response to anything including previous violent acts against oneself, but I could see violent rebukes to a previous violent act as at least somewhat understandable. Murdering innocent Danes who serve their country in a Danish embassy on foreign soil is just flat out barbaric and unjustifyable, no matter what excuses you provide based on belief or anything of the like. I condemn the Danish paper for printing the derogatory images of the Prophet and I believe they SHOULD print a retraction for offending the beliefs of so many, but I equally reject the response from the Muslim community in reacting violently. Muslim beliefs on a whole are generally non-violent, but I believe in this case many Muslims are acting against what the common world view is on eye for an eye.