Danish drawings

Dear Shams Zalam, I very much appreciate your views.

When it comes to conspiracy theories, I am not interested. The world is too full of them and I do not intend to discuss any of them in any way. I stick to the facts as I can see them. For me, conspiration theories attempts to explain complex events in even more complex terms. They don't clarify anything, they just cloud things.

To me they come from lack of faith in press, media and authorities. In this world, with an open mind, you basically have to decide who you are going to believe. If that decision is not based on knowledge, trust and belief in yourself. You end up anywhere. In the end its your personal common sense that guides you.

"releasing the video fottage of British soldiers simultaneously as a coincidence."

Let me silently point out that it was Australian media who released these appaling pictures. A free press will release anything they consider news, anything to keep goverment actions under scrutiny. How you can imagine that publishing these criminal acts, is part of some conspiracy is beyond me.

I can't imagine what the aim of this conspiracy would be. They simply discrace portions the British army. Other footage discrase portions of the US army. I hope they get their fair sentences. End of story for me.

I presented the official story the Danish PM presents. It is perfectly ok to critise him. Several does. But at the same time I would like to question why Muslim ambassadors requests a meeting with him. With a main agenda they, if they are vaguely familiar with Danish customs and laws, should know very well is impossible for the Danish pm to agree to.

To me it seems he was trapped. Regardless of what he did, he would be blamed. No meeting refusal, meeting and then he refused to meet their demands. Game of words, in other words.

"How democracy is compatible with the religion or Islam!"

I am so ignorant about Islam. I understand there is the Islam law. The possible conflict I can see here is that I think (and democracy kind of dictates) that laws are made made by the majority of the population. That majority of the population might found their political views on Islam. But the people decides in the end. Not religion, not priests. I don't know if these are terms that contridict each other.

Freedom of speech is required for a democracy. We don't have freedom of speech. Or rather, I think we are talking about freedom of press. As I mentioned before, it is regulated by law, there are limititations. Law, press ethics and self-cencorship. The self-cencorship has resulted is no other Danish paper publishing the drawings.

In Denmark, Islam organizations, (can't remember the spelling or their name) have meetings with the clear message saying they want to turn Denmark into an Islam state. This is tolaterated, media politely broadcast their views. No police protection is required.

Can you imagine me in Palistine, Pakistan, Indonesia, Iran, ... waving a Danish flag saying now I am going to work hard to make this country a country governed by Christian priests?

"We have limitations explained by God cansidered as the devine boundries"

Yes, we should have respect for peoples believes. On this planet are many believes. What is devine boundaries for some, are not divine boundaries for others. A religon can attempt to enforce believs in followers, not in others. Respect works both ways here. By publishing the drawings the Danish newspaper did not show proper respect.

"Gay marrige, adultary, drinking, free sex etc are such examples."

Gay marrige, if religious people think they can insult and oppress people based on sexual preference, then I object. People of other sexual preference have a hard life in most societies. Adding to their burden is cruel and in-sensitive. Any religion that expresses dislike and oppression for this, I cannot describe as peaceful and loving. I will not be part of that.

Adultary, from practical life adultary is something we have to live with. It is regretful, but humans are humans. I have yet to discover a society, religion, .... that can claim itself to be without adultery. I have been married now since 1983, I intend to stay married to my wife for the rest of my life. Out of love and respect for her.

Drinking, ok, less drinking would not hurt any.

Free sex, is an unknown concept to me. If you mean to have no sexual education for teenagers, and pregnent teenagers I disagree.

"However we are free to select, elect, express our views, perform etc within the divine boundries. This is how westren democracy and freedom of speech differs over Islamic Democracy and freedom of speech."

I am happy to hear this, if you feel free to select, elect, express and perform then we are not so different. There can be no life without divinity, divinity has yet to be fully understod, at least by me.

  

 

 

 

 

ketchup wrote: These examples are common in western culture and for those that live there (by choice), will we eventually be made to give up these things because they are not compatible with Islam?

Islam never compels anyone to change but urges its human intellect to ponder upon. Though bro Shams have pointed out some of the negative examples from the west, but forgot to highlights so many good prevailing their which are distinctively missing in his (or our) own backyard. I think, it will not be a justice, if we don't mention here. Tolerance and freedom of expression, are few such excellent traits of the west, that one can't match with the rest of the world. I would not be wrong that the way we can express about our feelings here in this side of the world, I can't imagine doing so back in my own home country. So, for me, its more prudent to struggle to change the state of affairs of my native country than pointing out any where else.

I'm not going to get into an arguement over homeosexuality etc and drinking etc for now..

Ok! perhaps you may also abhor them. But the point in here is, what is the reference for your "pick and choose" of morality, without faith? Ah!, this may lead us back to the same discussion. And I don't want to get into it, over here.

ketchup wrote: ...... but I believe it would be wrong to change another countries culture how ever imperfect.

yap! that is a futile effort to change the culture, if anyone is trying to do that, but I think, improving the morals, is just something that we may all talk about, irrespective of our origins. Can we?

 

Kechup,

So, you have taken the coarse of creeping to the honest people on this site. 'Honesty is the best option' unless you are a British Nationalist provocateur. In which case you will use any cover to ingratiate yourself, in order to undermine the development of common theory.   

Bro Tim, I think, I am trying to decipher your messages, though I don't really care what you are upto in "one" form or the "other". Its the business of the "moderator" to filter out such things, not me at least. I am here to exchange ideas, with anyone who can argue logically than emotionally, whoever the names may be. For me "Tim" is same meaningfull/unmeaningfull as any other name or both the same with some other identity. I don't care. I look for the logic in the replies not the personality behind it. If the logic appeals, I admire its originator, other wise, I go my way, they go theirs. and that is it. No more, no less.