Prophet picture row in Bengal

[Amalek]

The question isn't about strong faith...its about tolerance and having a sense of humour.

I don't see how the faith of muslims is under attack if some hindu publishes a picture of muhammed. Is the Hindu supposed to adhere to muslim laws?



I've seen several Persian and Arabic paintings of Muhammad. I wonder why no muslims protested then.

Its just an excuse to polarize the muslims and win votes to "defend the faith". Faith isn't defended by rioting in the streets, its defended by personally adhering to the rules. Not by forcing everyone around you to follow your rules.



There is nothing sad about it. The idols aren't considered sacred after the ritual is over. simple.



Who is questioning their faith?
Did anyone force the muslims to look at the picture of muhammad?
Did anyone ask muslims to read that book?

If hindus want to look at photos of muhammed, I don't see why the muslims should have a problem with it as long as they aren't being forced to do the same.

If a hindu wants to worship lord Krishna, the other Shiva worshiping hindu has no problems with it. I don't see why Muslims can't adopt this philosophy of "mind your own business".

The point is, THERE ARE NO PICTURES OF THE PROPHET!

It is very insulting to all the Muslims in the world. I am from India, so are you. And here, we are very sensitive to religious insults.

Let me be clear again...

THERE ARE NO PAINTINGS OR PICTURES OF THE PROPHET.

I have no problem when my hindu neighbours worship any God, or they are atheist. I have no issues.

But if the community feels hurt by some incident, then it is certainly a big issue. Our religion is dearer than life. We Muslims have a very close emotional attachment to our religion. It is the reason to live.

I hope you understand that offending sensitivities of anyone is not "good".

 

[Flintlock]

The point is, THERE ARE NO PICTURES OF THE PROPHET!

Trust me, there are!! Just look up wikipedia if you don't believe me!! But of course, you can't look at the image...so I really can't ask you to do that...

It is very insulting to all the Muslims in the world. I am from India, so are you. And here, we are very sensitive to religious insults.

I know...and that kinda sucks...perhaps the muslims of Indonesia would set a better example than the ones in Saudi Arabia.

I have no problem when my hindu neighbours worship any God, or they are atheist. I have no issues.

I'm glad.

But if the community feels hurt by some incident, then it is certainly a big issue. Our religion is dearer than life. We Muslims have a very close emotional attachment to our religion. It is the reason to live.

True. Sadly, this is the very reason why politicians can get the people all riled up so easily...

I hope you understand that offending sensitivities of anyone is not "good".

I think that freedom of speech includes the freedom to insult. If you remove the right to insult, everyone will start getting "insulted" by everything and there will never be any progress.

 

[Muradk]

a lot of people have prophets photos in Iran and in Iraq, they dont make a big deal about it . They just look at it as a photo.

 

[Amalek]

Trust me, there are!! Just look up wikipedia if you don't believe me!! But of course, you can't look at the image...so I really can't ask you to do that...

No, I checked Wikipedia. There are no images of the prophet there. Can you point that page to me...

I think that freedom of speech includes the freedom to insult. If you remove the right to insult, everyone will start getting "insulted" by everything and there will never be any progress.

Why would that be? Don't you think insulting someone or hurting someone's feelings will not make you his friend, but on the contrary, you will also get insults in return. It would antagonise people against each other.

I do not accept your version of free speech. I guess you've been listening to a lot of Americans, who don't care, because they don't have values. But we in the sub-continent have a value system.

And certainly, insulting someone is not one of them.

 

[Flintlock]

No, I checked Wikipedia. There are no images of the prophet there. Can you point that page to me...

Are you sure? The link is below. Mods, please don't ban me for this...

Depictions of Muhammad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why would that be? Don't you think insulting someone or hurting someone's feelings will not make you his friend, but on the contrary, you will also get insults in return. It would antagonise people against each other.

There is a difference between intentionally insulting someone, and someone being insulted as a result of an innocent action by a person.

For example, if I call you some bad name now, I will be deliberately insulting you.
However, if I am not a hindu and I decide to eat beef in India, Hindus can claim that by eating beef I'm insulting them, and stop me from eating beef.

Similarly, during the Renaissance, when Galileo pointed out that the earth is a sphere, he was convicted for 'insulting" christianity and jesus.

Also, a politician can use the same tactics to fool people. Like this guy, who is using the image of muhammed to deliberately get insulted.

I do not accept your version of free speech. I guess you've been listening to a lot of Americans, who don't care, because they don't have values. But we in the sub-continent have a value system.

Not Americans, but the French. The French revolution is the basis for the type of free speech I am talking aobut.

 

[Amalek]

Are you sure? The link is below. Mods, please don't ban me for this...

Depictions of Muhammad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



There is a difference between intentionally insulting someone, and someone being insulted as a result of an innocent action by a person.

For example, if I call you some bad name now, I will be deliberately insulting you.
However, if I am not a hindu and I decide to eat beef in India, Hindus can claim that by eating beef I'm insulting them, and stop me from eating beef.

Similarly, during the Renaissance, when Galileo pointed out that the earth is a sphere, he was convicted for 'insulting" christianity and jesus.

Also, a politician can use the same tactics to fool people. Like this guy, who is using the image of muhammed to deliberately get insulted.



Not Americans, but the French. The French revolution is the basis for the type of free speech I am talking aobut.

Thanks for the link. I have removed that section from Wikipedia, for Good...


You are intelligent. You should not fall for this crap of insulting each other religions. Remember, Mutual Respect is the most important thing.

We are humans. We should respect each other.

I don't give a damn about the french. I am an Indian Muslim.

 

[Flintlock]

Thanks for the link. I have removed that section from Wikipedia, for Good...

How did you remove it?

You are intelligent. You should not fall for this crap of insulting each other religions. Remember, Mutual Respect is the most important thing.

We are humans. We should respect each other.

I don't give a damn about the french. I am an Indian Muslim.

Oh well, I give up...

 

[Spring Onion]

Stealth stop your propoganda and Mods to take note of such things.
There are No photos of Prophet (PBUH) and stealth do not quote that Wikipedia which is sheer dirt added and posted by anyone who had the account there.
The site is so much a garbage that even it cant be trusted for everyday information what to say about a religion.


@Sir Muradk:
Iran do not have images of prophet (PBUH) they do have shabehs(only imaginary sketches of Khalifa Hazrat Ali (RA) and grandsons and wives and daughter of Porphet(PBUH) that too as i said imaginary even shias in Pakistan do carry these i had seen but they do not have that of Prophet(PBUH).

And ferrari thank you for commenting with open mind unlike some others.

Stealth if you want to not to believe in God or making fun of your religion terming it as your basic right than do give this right to others too to have faith in their believes and the way they want to object to anti-Islam propoganda.

Do protect your views but dont force these on Muslims.

If you can not protect the sentiments and religiouse believes of Muslims in India than dont take pride in more number of Muslims there.
If secularism permits everyone to express and practice whatever they want and believe than why doubl-standard for Muslims.
Isnt it the responsibility of Indian state to give them due right and protect them against such attacks?

Will the secular state only protect ONE publisher that too for his misadventurism and hate and punish a huge number of people in shape of Muslims ???????

 

[Spring Onion]

Thanks for the link. I have removed that section from Wikipedia, for Good...

I don't give a damn about the french. I am an Indian Muslim.

well love you for that.

I was wondering how someone from India was not speaking against Islam so you are a Muslim understood.
good work dear keep your spirit of doing away with misleading things on wiki.

 

[Flintlock]

well love you for that.

I was wondering how someone from India was not speaking against Islam so you are a Muslim understood.
good work dear keep your spirit of doing away with misleading things on wiki.

Jana I think you don't understand how wikipedia works. Even if ferrari here deletes the article from wikipedia, some senior user will immediately restore it to its original form.

So, as I saw just now, it has been restored.

Wikipedia works by consensus. The different people involved in writing the article debate and reach a conclusion on what to include in the article. You can't really change anything written in wikipedia unless the other users associated with that particular article agree with you.

 

[Spring Onion]

Jana I think you don't understand how wikipedia works. Even if ferrari here deletes the article from wikipedia, some senior user will immediately restore it to its original form.

So, as I saw just now, it has been restored.

Wikipedia works by consensus. The different people involved in writing the article debate and reach a conclusion on what to include in the article. You can't really change anything written in wikipedia unless the other users associated with that particular article agree with you.

Yes i know and as you said yourself someone (may be you] had restored it again on wikipedia so you can imagine the level of this site.
wikipedia is sheer propoganda site spreading false news and infromation flawed many times.

anyone believe in content of wikipedia as authentic needs to check his of her level of maturity and brain.
this site had many times tranished the image of many institution and believes.
i remember i had read a news where abuses were posted againt an indian college and its administeration by some members from india.
and do you think people of same agenda cant be united and formed consensus on wikipedia???????/

 

[Flintlock]

Yes i know and as you said yourself someone (may be you] had restored it again on wikipedia so you can imagine the level of this site.
wikipedia is sheer propoganda site spreading false news and infromation flawed many times.

On the contrary, I think wikipedia gives a fair and balanced view on most issues.

Of course, nothing is perfect, so you should take the information there with a pinch of salt, and be sure to check the sources.

I am not involved in writing wikipedia articles, but mostly I've noticed that experts get the most respect there.
A lot of articles are written by Professors or experts in those fields.

anyone believe in content of wikipedia as authentic needs to check his of her level of maturity and brain.

Alrite...I'll be sure to check mine

this site had many times tranished the image of many institution and believes.
i remember i had read a news where abuses were posted againt an indian college and its administeration by some members from india.
and do you think people of same agenda cant be united and formed consensus on wikipedia???????/

Aha, as I said, don't read blindly and follow up the sources thats all.

Other than that, wikipedia does quite well according to me.

 

[Spring Onion]

Alrite...I'll be sure to check mine

and if you come up with wind blowing between the two ears i wont mind whatever you say

 

[aryan2007]

Why don't these book publishers let us live in peace...
Hell - more violence anticipated, over a stupid little mistake by a **** publisher.

Meanwhile, the book's publisher Vijay Goel, told TOI over phone: "We got the manuscript of the book from an agency, Book Matrix. However, if there's anything in the book that's against the sentiments of any group of people, we will not publish it, and are even ready to destroy the existing copies. But no government — the Centre or West Bengal — has approached us on this till date."


Dude this Publisher is much better than the British who knight Salman Rushdie..

 

[Flintlock]

Meanwhile, the book's publisher Vijay Goel, told TOI over phone: "We got the manuscript of the book from an agency, Book Matrix. However, if there's anything in the book that's against the sentiments of any group of people, we will not publish it, and are even ready to destroy the existing copies. But no government — the Centre or West Bengal — has approached us on this till date."


Dude this Publisher is much better than the British who knight Salman Rushdie..

...Much ado about nothing....

But still, according to me, the book should be published irrespective of what any muslim or hindu or scientologist thinks.